Mine is also St John’s but states
The course named above was delivered in accordance with St John’s Ambulance regulations but does not meet HSE requirements
To be fair I didn’t know that until I got the certificate.
1 Like
See my reply below to ccw!
Just noticed this in small print on the bottom of mine too.
Ok so I’m not going mad!
I agree 100%.
I’d be interested to know precisely how it doesn’t meet HSE requirements. Any first aid bods know?
It doesn’t meet the HSE requirements of a FAAW. But is perfectly adequate for non-FAAW requirements - NGBs for example!!!
IIRC there’s not much legal contexts, completing accident books and all the boring stuff included in the AFA. Instead it has some actual first aid content… Whether it’s entirely relevant for some NGB awards, however, is debatable!!! I’d rather have the option for an environment specific FA qual which is reflective of my activity than either FAAW or AFA neither of which really cover the likely issues faced in either the environment or activity being carried out.
I wonder how many decent people we refuse to appoint, who would otherwise have made amazing uniformed staff, simply because of a poor board performance?
1 Like
Ah, so that’s what was meant by ‘can’t use it outside’ - i.e. an employer couldn’t use it to fulfil their legal obligations for numbers of first aiders etc.
Yes I meant outside Cadet activities. The AFA does not cover me for my other volunteer role because of that text.
Having done EFAW and AFA (and FAAW a good while ago) there really isn’t much difference in content. St John’s runs all those anyway for businesses.
It might be to do with licences and fees I guess.
Interestingly the NSRA has an EFAW course with an extra module on wounds likely on a range.
whereas it does cover me for my other volunteering activities because it’s the minimum requirement for NGBs (as others have said)
I find this interesting. Why? Is your other voluntary asking for a qual that meets the FAW requirements then?
Indeed, it is incorrect to say that it “cannot be used outside of cadets”… It is an accredited first aid qualification - not a ‘cadet only’ internal qual. Where else it can be used depends entirely on the requirements of each specific case.
1 Like
I know a couple who failed first attempt at OASC, both young, ex (very good) CWOs. One did leave (as a direct result of the feedback), the other needed convincing to stay, went back to OASC a couple of years later and passed, and is (as expected) very good
I am firmly in the ‘train people to be better’ camp. On the other hand however, how many totally unsuitable people might slip through if we do away with boards and just appoint anyone who asks, based upon a paper sift?
The board can also be the first indication as to what training might be required to improve that person.
I don’t think that we need to scrap the boards; just tweak our expectations.
They run their own FA courses but if you want to use your own qual, it needs to be EFAW or FAAW.
If you do their course you now get their certificate and EFAW as well.
I guess that depends on what you call unsuitable, and whether a board would pick up those traits? Even if they do get through, new uniformed staff still need to pass OIC/SSIC within 12 months, as well as exist on a squadron with other staff, who can raise any concerns.
If they are willing, have a, BPSS, have a clean DBS, and fulfil nationality and age requirements, then appoint them as acting Sgt/Plt Off as soon as all of the forms hit WHQ (pending ratification by region/HQAC and SC clearance) and get them in uniform ASAP. We can then train people to the required standard to pass the HQAC courses, and be appointed as substantive ranks.
1 Like
It sounds like we might need some other form of volunteer before we push people into uniform, and we can assess their suitability and advise them on a suitable route. Like when they’re an instructor when they’re still a civilian… I’m not sure I can quite pinpoint exactly how that would work though
:troll: :troll:
1 Like
I see what you did there… 
In all seriousness though I think it preferable to identify those who we don’t want (for whatever reason, and that comes down a lot to human judgement) at the outset and not have them in the organisation in any capacity.
A clean DBS is all well and good but it doesn’t mean that a person is suitable.
I think I’m not so much arguing for the full-on Wing board, as I am arguing against removal of the human element in favour of nothing more than a paper sift as was suggested earlier on.