I believe that it will be stated in the IBN, but if not, I’ll mention it in the next planning Safety Centre conference (in 20 minutes).
10 Likes
Thanks
2 Likes
As may be, but those complaints won’t be entertained. Becuase, as you say, it’s a draft in advance of the official release.
1 Like
I believe this was an ACF thing so they changed the wording. Some stations are also refusing to accept the C version from the ACF already and expecting standard 5010s so there is some weight to your argument that we shouldn’t bother with the cadet version.
I’ve never attended a HQAC\RAFAC RA course but I do teach a Level 3 RQF qualification in Risk Assessment. Will I be expected to attend a future RAFAC RA course just to learn how to use a particular form?
Policy is based on law, and will never contradict law.
The new form will remove the previous issues whereby MOD Estates might not accept our format of RA form.
We are obligated to abide by MOD Policy which is derived from Legislation.
It isn’t optional for anyone.
I have been able to clarify what I suspected;
Within the IBN that will be released, it will very clearly state the timeline expected for the change.
Wings will have no authority to counter the directive issued from a higher formation.
7 Likes
Policy and law are not the same thing. Policy shouldn’t deviate from legislation (I’ve been a government lawyer too long to agree with you that it will never contradict law - the courts regularly find that government policy does), but can flesh it out. For instance no legislation sets out the format of a risk assessment, the MOD policy sets out that using this form is how they will demonstrate compliance with the relevant legislation but failure to use this form doesn’t automatically render another risk assessment unlawful, although it will initially at least make it harder to defend yourself if the brown sticky stuff impacts the ceiling mounted cooling device.
I agree that this form is better, but when people moan about extra admin, telling them that this particular form is a legal requirement isn’t correct and only breeds distrust between CFAVs at the coalface and those in HQ/Regional roles.
15 Likes
Said distrust only being aggravated by the fact that they forget that a lot of us know a lot more about specific topics than a) they do, and b) they give us credit for, and don’t appreciate [being lied to/being misled/being treated like an idiot/being fed nonsense]
13 Likes
Good to know, thanks.
Let’s see if they decide to abide by it, though!
4 Likes
works for me
God I wish this were the case.
They might not have the authority, but they will make our lives miserable if we dont comply with their extra requirements.
They may not have the authority to but It has never stopped them in the past.
4 Likes
That may be true, but at least they are trying to rein them in!
2 Likes
New RA goes live 27 Apr.
self help training guide for new RA published 4 May,
Why can’t they both be the same day?
5 Likes
I am in support of the change in principal… But, dear god, who designed that form!?
Aside from the glaring issue that there are no print margins (though, hopefully there should be no requirement to print the damned things anymore anyway) all I see is visual noise. It’s too busy.
1 Like
I’m a bit confused on why there are two Activity Commander sign-off boxes.
Surely if the Risk Rating is too high then you enter discussions with OC/Other staff etc etc to work out what the “Reasonable Additional Controls” will be to bring the risk rating down, then sign-off.
1 Like
I agree that is a bit odd.
1 Like
Personally I prefer it compact like that, the blank RA form my work uses is 10 pages when empty!