When it comes to flying, even the Brownies are ahead of the ACO


So the first time a squadron mini-bus is inolved in a multi-vehicle RTC and people are killed, or during AT will that stop all squadrons having mini-buses and undertaking AT?

Risk is relative and the risk of getting to flying outweighs the risk of flying in a regulated environment, military or civil.


Depends how it’s sold to them? When they join, surely squadron staff are realistic with them about what’s on offer? Are you saying the ACF get more flying than Air Cadets?


Read the accident stats for aviation for last year, more deaths in one RTC in a mini-bus which has just gone through a court case. Which is the more risky form of transport?

Just one case on one day !!!


As for the ACF that has been stated previously.

All the publicity material shows one thing FLYING.


The DDH doesn’t own the risk for your minibus journey, but does as soon as a cadet goes airside or Flying/gliding.


But the squadron in effect own the risk during transport to flying.


Not sure I’ve seen the previous regarding ACF Flying? Do they get more or not? I can guess what the answer is?


Correct. Your vehicle has to be roadworthy, legal etc…The Sqn OCs responsibility. If it’s involved in an RTC the driver/OC could be responsible.
When your cadet goes flying, the care of that cadet lies with the organisation (RAF etc) and of course the pilot. To compare the two is a little simplistic I think?


And with vicarious liability in mind, the ACO itself is likely to take a degree of responsibility, so the risk is shared, not owned solely by the Sqn OC.


The statistical risk is far higher with a minibus than an aircraft.

According to the regulations following Haddon Cave the DDH has to reduce the level of risk to ‘tolerable’ whatthe regulations does not define is what is tolerable, therefore this gives the ACO carte blanche to stop flying and actually not address the issue and take it up with 22 Gp. Same as in the other thing in law is the term reasonable, but there is not definition of what is reasonable.

In both cases the definition lays with the person making the assesment, presuming the person is trained and competant. Are the wing regional and ACO aviation officers even aviators?


Interesting that you mention loss of life, since all of the Cadet flying deaths that I’m aware of have happened on the RAF’s watch. During my time in the Corps we have lost more cadets to RTC’s than we have to flying.

When all is said and done Adventure Training and Driving to Activities are statistically far more dangerous than flying & gliding, we can outsource them as long as the suppliers have the relevant national licences and risk assessments. We should be able to do the same with ALL approved activities including flying & giding.

Frankly if the DDH’s haven’t got the balls to take sensible decisions knowing there is a risk involved maybe they shouldn’t be in a position where they are responsible for risk management.


DDHs came out into the open because of the Nimrod crash over Afghanistan. they won’t sacrifice their careers for making a decision they maybe accountable for in the future when the easy option is to say no, and very few will challenge that decision.


If other organisations are willing to allow members to fly with non military providers it doesn’t reflect well on us. I am pretty certain they will have looked at all the risks involved and seen little or no difference in terms of risk to the military option where that is open to them.

I tend to think that the RAF fear allowing us to source flying outside the military in case we found it more convenient, less aggro and the cadets get a better experience. Which we can’t have can we … cadets enjoying themselves.

As time goes on we seem to have become increasingly risk averse for no real reason than being risk averse. We’re even supposed to get permission to do things just outside the compound for no real reason whatsoever. Our CO has tried to sell / defend the Corps’ positon to parents and as they don’t really believe what they are trying to sell it there is no conviction in what they say.


If they are getting paid for this DDH role and they remove their responsibility by saying an activity won’t happen, they should lose the proportion of their pay that is associated with the activity, as if the activity isn’t happening, they haven’t got anything to manage.
Recent flying deaths have been due to the RAF not following it’s own procedures and what very much looked like pilot error.

AT is slowly being killed by TSAs as they dabble in things that they know nothing about.


Easy risk management is not to take the risk. A DDH has to assess risk and a level of risk has to be ajudged as ‘tolerable’. Surely the minibus journey in view of all the factors involved is termed tolerable, what is the difference with flying.


How do you get to be a DDH for Air Cadet activities as it is money (tax payer’s money at that) for old rope?


Perhaps we’re lucky - but ours isn’t handbraking AT, but is providing some pretty good feedback which is supporting improving safety standards. He also recognises he’s not the expert in this field and doesnt hold the NGB - but it doesnt mean his feedback is invalid (provided you can justify decisions to do X, Y and Z are are operating within remit of your qualifications and experience).


I’ve never had anything but good interaction with our regions TSA although I am told the one in my old region is making the Shooting world difficult as he doesn’t get that we run it upside down. (RCO goes to SPO and says I want to run this which is signed off rather than the other way round).


BGA out promoting gliding ready for the better weather.


ACO missing a thing again.


Looks as if they are lookig for a new boss at 2FTS.


Now who is going to apply for this poisoned chalice


I love where it says
Terms: FTRS (limited commitment)

That sums up most of the FTRS staff in this organisation