I must confess that, off the top of my head, I can’t think of a single reason not to just use the standard MOD 5010.
I’m intrigued to see what “cadetification” it has received.
Definitely a good move though. Giving people some guidelines within which to actually assess the risk - rather than just asking them to type “YES” - has been needed for a long time.
Some sensible guidance on the first step of properly identifying the hazards probably wouldn’t go amiss either. Since, despite what is or isn’t included in RA courses, it’s a crucial step that I keep seeing people perform poorly or skip entirely.
I’d have thought that properly trained and practiced staff should be able to switch to the new form pretty easily just by reading a brief on the changes.
Although, I suppose (especially given my comment above) that those staff who already think that they know what they’re doing - but demonstrably don’t - probably would benefit from retraining.
I can see that being as popular as a bee sandwich.
I’ve not looked at the form properly yet, but the formatting is clearly quite different. Would be good to have some guidance to save headaches in the long run.
True, but as it has been a year since i have run any activity, the RA will need updating anyway, so unless I do it before the new forms come in (and i wont - we aren’t even allowed back in our building yet) I may as well update all the generic/Sqn specific ones to the new format once it is on stream, then my colleagues will only need to tweak things for any actual activity they are running. Makes their life easier
The Law doesn’t mandate what form or version of form to use when carrying out a risk assessment. It’s HQAC who’ve chosen to follow the MODs lead on which form to use and made it policy.
That’s not what he meant. What he meant was that in an organisation riddled with poor administration and scant regard by many permanent staff for the fact we’re all volunteers, we all fully expect that your very sensible indication, given here, that we will all have 12 months to update all of our forms to the new type will be changed as its disseminated by Wing HQs to be a mandate that we all have to change all of our RAs within a few weeks.
It’s appreciated, you will have seen above our own sarcastic comments expecting the exact opposite of what you have said will be the policy.
It just assists us, if the policy clearly reflects what you have said it should!
I think the issue here is that this is another update to the RA forms. We have been told that we must use the most update versions of the forms, so this has meant a lot of *essential/pointless admin for the volunteer. In this case it is a step change to the good but in past it has just been a slight redesign of the form which as equalled a lot of work transferring data.
Though, if we are moving to an MOD form, then hopefully all future updates might also follow changes to the MOD form…
Unlike the HQAC “we’ve fixed yet another typo so now you must all redo everything to use version 14 of the form” approach, we all know the glacial pace that the MOD employ to change things like this.
This should be a benefit in that regard.
I prefer to give people an early heads up so they know what’s coming. If they choose to use a draft form before it’s formally issued then that’s their call (and their extra admin to change if the formally issued version changes) - really by now CFAVs should know to use appropriately configuration controlled documentation in any actual planning docs.
Also, that assessment of risk thing? Likelihood of the form changing significantly between now and then given it’s based on an already established template? Low.
We’re not suggesting you do. But in your position you have far greater influence than we do.
What we’re asking is that any promulgation of the new forms and advice very clearly states what the expectation on volunteers is when it comes to using the new forms, that way when we are faced with unreasonable asks (and it’s most definitely a when, not if), we can point them towards policy they’re contradicting.
