CRB and the CAA

[FlyingOfficerKite]

I've just received 'the letter'.

It seems bizarre that the CRB have only just appreciated that flying instructors and examiners might come in contact with vulnerable people and children and therefore be subject to the CRB regulations?!

More expense and greater invasion of privacy!

Now your employer will be advised of all your personal details and past history (my wife used to manage a transport business and all the drivers' details were there for her inspection).

Airline pilots and cabin crew are required to acquire a Basic Disclosure from Disclosure Scotland (for example), but not the enhanced disclosure required by the CRB.

It might seem reasonable for airline staff to be checked by their employer, but in a flying school environment maybe not quite so confidential?

Seems strange that it is only now that a requirement has been appreciated after all the years of Air Cadet Flying Scholarships and the like (I know that ATC personnel have to undergo the check, but never in the past the instructors and staff at the flying training organisation).

Such is life?

KR

FOK

[Nearly There]

I joined a VGS last year as a civi instructor and had to have an enhanced CRB, it took several months to come through, busy time of year apparently for them with new teachers applying prior to the school term etc....it meant I couldnt fly until it had been recieved, if the same applies to FTO's then has loss of earnings been considered?

[Spitoon]

I'm puzzled by your thread title - what does this absurdity have to do with the CAA?

[FlyingOfficerKite]

Spitoon

A good point.

According to the letter (which is written in a manner that suggests, but does not state, the CAA are not too interested in the prospect), to quote: 'This TRAININGCOM has been issued to raise awareness only. The CAA has no involvement in the administration of, or verification of compliance with, the Safeguarding Vulnerable Persons Act 2006 (sic). Any enquiries relating to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Persons Act 2006 (sic) should be addressed to the Criminal Records Bureau, not the CAA'.

The issue is that: 'The CRB advised the CAA that the Act applies to anyone who works (whether on a paid or voluntary basis) in a regulated activity with children or vulnerable adults on a frequent or intensive basis in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, and to anyone who employs people to do so. A separate but aligned scheme will be implemented in Scotland.'

and

'For the purposes of this Act, teaching and instruction are regulated activities.'

and

'The CRB has advised the CAA that the normal activities of flight instructors and examiners are within the definition of 'regulated activities' and are so within the scope of the Act.'

So it would appear that any flying training organisation within England, Wales or Northern Ireland who employs a flying instructor or examiner who does not have a current CRB check is in contravention of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and, presumably, could be prosecuted under the Act as could any other employee who falls within its remit (such as taxi drivers, bus drivers and those working with children such as ATC instructors, for example)?

This seems like an oversight of some magnitude and I'm surprised it's only raised it's head some four years after the Act became law.

The implications are onerous because the time it takes to obtain a CRB check can be several months, ORIGINAL driving licences and passports have to be submitted (so no passport would be available during this period for international travel - by airline pilots for example).

I have the letter in front of me and I think the CAA appreciate the problems hence the (unstated) reluctance to issue the TRAININGCOM 1/2010 INSTRUCTORS & EXAMINERS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE SAFEGUARDING VULNERABLE GROUPS ACT 2006.

The TRAININGCOM states that it has been issued to all flight instructors recipients of GASIL and all managing directors/heads of training (who are probably picking themselves up off the floor and considering what action to take next!).

I hope I have read it wrong - but I don't think so?!

Assuming this is the case, now that notice has been given, the law applies to us all.

The saving grace is that this does not come into force until 1 November 2010, however the documents have still to be submitted at some stage, so pilots will be without passports at some point during the period from today to 1 November 2010.

The problem is how will the system be administered? I think the CAA are dreading someone asking them to enable pilots to fly whilst the application is being processed (in the same way taxi drivers can be issued with a badge by their local council so long as the application has been made and is being processed by the CRB).

KR

FOK

[Whopity]

2.4 Frequent contact is defied as working with children once a week or moreTo be frequent it must be more than once, therefore this must be based on an average of once a week. This allows you 45 flights in a year provided they are at least 8 days apart, before you have to bother.

Since when has PPL training been a regulated activity? it is "Registered without formality" hardly regulation. SLMG and Microlight instruction is totally unregulated!

In reality, it is only those conducting scholarship type flying with cadets who need to be concerned.

Simplest approach is just to stop taking students under 18; tell them its illegal.

[A and C]

This was just a "six" covering exercise from the CAA, in practical terms if you are instructing a "minor" then you best have mun or dad sitting in on the briefings as to the flying it is unlikely that any inapropriate things could take place in a the cockpit of a two seat light aircraft.

As far as I can see the only people to benifit from this tranningcom are the paper recyclers

[FlyingOfficerKite]

You have to have the cover irrespective of who you take flying as the activity of flying instruction is now classed as a 'regulated activity'.

Driving instructors have to have CRB checks - in fact you can't start Part 2 of the training course until you have a CRB check.

In future I'm sure you will have to have a CRB check before you will be able to commence a FIC course.

This is where the CAA will have to act.

Foreign pilots will also have to be checked.

This is something that other industries don't have to consider to the same extent.

The other issue is that this seems to be particular to the UK. What happens under EU law in other EU states.

Perhaps pilots who work for FTOs in Spain, for example, could inform us of the situation there and whether they will have to comply in future?

KR

FOK

[FlyingOfficerKite]

It makes you wonder what incident has happened to bring the attention of the CRB to bear on general aviation in this manner?

It seems strange that only now are they applying the Act to flying instructors and examiners.

The regulations will require annual checks to be obtained at the expense of the instructor or training organisation. In addition your past criminal record (speeding offences included) will be there for your employer to see.

Having witnessed the process in the transport industry, it seems that this Act has been thrust upon general aviation with little thought for the consequences and practicalities of the issue.

KR

FOK

[Whopity]

Perhaps pilots who work for FTOs in Spain, for example, could inform us of the situation there and whether they will have to comply in future?Integrated courses don't take children under 18 so why would they have the slightest interest in this?

[FlyingOfficerKite]

Because the point is flying instructing is a 'regulated activity'. It doesn't matter whether you instruct children or not. Flying instruction itself is 'regulated'.

For example, a driving instructor may never teach children, but because driving instructing itself is a 'regulated activity' it matters not whether children are taught by you or not. Neither does it matter whether a taxi driver, bus driver or coach driver carries children or vulnerable people, the CRB has determined those activities as 'regulated' and therefore both the employee and employer are liable for ensuring compliance with the legislation.

Simply saying you will never teach children under the age of 18 has no effect either. The fact you are a flying instructor is the issue.

This is going to be not only an additional cost but a real bind.

Unless the CAA act on behalf of pilots and, maybe, BALPA on behalf of airline pilots, to gain some procedure to enable compliance whilst your documents are being processed on an annual basis, then it seems it could be a tremendous imposition.

Whilst I have a knowledge of law I'm not a lawyer so it would be interesting to learn whether my concerns are justified?

It is not a problem in teaching, social work or transport, for example, as arrangements are in place to enable people to operate whilst the CRB is being processed. No comfort seems to be gained from the TRAININGCOM letter. In fact the CAA, as I considered above, appear to be reluctant to get involved - or maybe it's taken them by surprise too and they are taking time to deliberate before proposing a way forward?

This is a big issue.

KR

FOK

[Whopity]

the point is flying instructing is a 'regulated activity'. It doesn't matter whether you instruct children or not.Rubbish. It is mandatory for persons who work with children. If you don't its totally irrelevant.

It is not the CAAs job to work on behalf of pilots, they are an aviation Regulator not a Nannie!
it would be interesting to learn whether my concerns are justified?
No they have totally missed the point.

[BEagle]

Great - an ideal opportunity to tell people that kids under 18 may not enter club premises!

Excellent!!

But who are 'Disclosure Jockistan', or whatever their stupid title is?

[FlyingOfficerKite]

Whopity

You might be a great flying instructor but it seems you know little of the law.

It's not rubbish and maybe you should take care to learn the law before you profess to know as much about that as, it seems, you do about flying!

With the greatest respect!

BEagle

Once again stick to what you know. If you haven't heard of Disclosure Scotland then you have no conception of what the security requirements are for professional pilots nor what the impact of the CRB will be.

Generally

Am I the only person to have received this letter and appreciated its wider implications?! It seems no one has a clue so far?!

KR

FOK

PS: Whopity and BEagle - please tell me you're winding me up and are not totally ignorant of the law and its affect?!

[BEagle]

Whatever nonsense this 'Disclosure Jockistan' idiocy is all about, I suspect that it's a last-ditch attempt by some nuLabor Quango to justify its existence before the new Government boots it far into touch - which is where it well deserves to be!

No kids = no problems. Now tell me, Fg Off **ite (are you now, or have you ever been, a real RAF officer?) why Whopity or I, both of whom have at one time or another been subject to far deeper positive vetting requirements than would ever be necessary to teach the odd kid to fly, should be concerned by such utter huggy-fluffy bolleaux!
Am I the only person to have received this letter and appreciated its wider implications?! Maybe some idiotic nuLabor database has you down as a suspected child molester?

[BillieBob]

The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 applies to anyone who works in a regulated activity with children or vulnerable adults on a frequent or intensive basis (my emphasis). Whilst it is true that flight instruction is a regulated activity, it is only subject to the Act if frequent or intensive contact with children or vulnerable adults is involved.

For a flying instructor or his/her employer to be prosecuted under the Act, it will be necessary to show that he or she has individually worked with a child or vulnerable adult on a frequent or intensive basis without complying with the requirement for a CRB check.

As the TrainingCom makes clear, the CAA has no involvement in the administration of or verification of compliance with the provisions of the Act, nor is there any reason for it to do so.

This will doubtless affect some instructors (e.g. those involved in Air Cadet activities, flying scholarships, etc.) but there is no reason for a general panic. As BEagle suggests, the simple answer is to ensure that all of your students are adults.

[Stampe]

Having read the training comm I,m not in the least concerned.In recent years on the very few occasions annualy I have instructed younger teenagers I usually insist on a parent coming along for my own protection.The answer really is to stick to instructing adults will hardly affect my own company flying clubs utilisation at all.Of course participation in "Young Eagle events " where both aircraft and instructor were donated to the organisation free of charge was stopped a few years ago as the "New Labour culture and climate of rule by fear and opression" were developed.The only losers in all this the nations young people.All very sad.:ugh:

['India-Mike]

Disclosure Scotland is I understand part of the Scottish Criminal Records Office, so I don't think it's a quango or part of one. It's therefore unlikely to go away. The cost of each disclosure is £23.

Reading my employer's (in higher education) HR website tends to suggest that it's optional. However if I get promoted the disclosure check will be carried out. Promotion just means doing exactly the same job for a bit more money, so quite why I don't need to be checked now but will need to be checked on Monday when I'm promoted to Chief Brain is beyond me.

When I started instructing nearly two years ago I was aware of the Disclosure Scotland thing and raised it with the two clubs I fly from. One said 'not required' and the other shrugged its shoulders.

Either the clubs take the financial hit, or pass it on to the punters but I tend to agree with the sentiments here - the easiest thing is to instruct only adults, but I think that'd be a real shame. I currently instruct a 15 year old, a 17 year old (since he was 15) and a recently-turned 18 year old (since he was 16). The flying really has helped to shape their development as young adults - and I think it's been a unique and beneficial contribution to their character-building.

[Whopity]

but it seems you know little of the law.Touché mon brave.
But I know enough to identify what is legally requied and what isn't.

[alphaadrian]

Surely it would make perfect sense for the government to stump up the money for the CRB check? After all, it is them who have decided that we "need" to have one.
In my previous profession(care work)...CRB checks have been mandatory for quite a few years and let me tell you...they are a pain in the ass!! I have seen me waiting weeks to start a new job whilst waiting on the bloody thing to be processed!! If you then start another job a couple of weeks later..you gotta get another CRB!! The "old" one doesnt count!! More time and £££!

Im sure the company who administers these CRB checks must be raking it in too!! Maybe im in the wrong job!

Alpha

[FlyingOfficerKite]

Shame you can't spell! LOL

KR

FOK

[BillieBob]

Tell me, FOK, do you have to work hard at being obnoxious or does it come naturally?

[athonite]

Does anyone know if this law applies to RAF AEF and UAS instructors or are the military instructors exempt?

[S-Works]

I put the training com in the bin where it belongs with the stupid CRB checks.

Mind you I dislike kids anyway and thus won't teach them so its a moot point for me!!!

[FlyingOfficerKite]

I fear the tossers are those who tossed the TRAININGCOM in the bin!

I have attempted to point out the implications of the CRB requirements, but if appears my comments have fallen on the deaf ears of those ignorant of the requirements of the CRB.

As one old dinosaur said to the other: 'What meteorite?!'

KR

FOK

[FlyingOfficerKite]

athonite

It applies to all civilian youth organisation personnel who have contact with children (including civilian instructors who may only come in contact with children once a week at a Parade).

Not sure about the Services, although English law usually applies across the board, but I don't know if the Military are exempt in this instance?

The TRAININGCOM does not mention any exemptions or particular circumstances relating to the giving of flying instruction - only that the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 applies generally and that flying instruction and examination is a 'regulated activity' under the terms of the Act.

There are no exceptions for driving instructors, for example, as far as I am aware so I see no particular reason why flying instructors and examiners should receive special treatment?

KR

FOK

[S-Works]

I fear the tossers are those who tossed the TRAININGCOM in the bin!

At what point do you think you gained the right to insult me? If you want to make it personal then so be it, just don't expect any mercy. Oh and as I outrank you, get back in your box boy........;)

I don't work with kids or vulnerable adults and have no intention of doing so. I dislike children intensely and as such a grumpy old fart reserve the right to have nothing to do with them. The safetycom has no relevance to me and is in the bin where it belongs.

As for the CRB stuff, it does nothing but create jobs for the unemployable and useless and serves nothing to protect anyone.

[Whopity]

as far as I am aware so I see no particular reason why flying instructors and examiners should receive special treatment?
Nobody said they should, but as someone who used to teach Law 35 years ago, I suggest you read what it says before you make sweeping incorrect assumptions.

There is a saying, don't perform with animals and children! Follow it and this Law does not apply to you.

Training Comm was introduced to inform instructors of instructional matters not to promulgate administrative material. I wonder why they didn't issue one to tell us all about the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030020_en_1) which applies to us all.

[FlyingOfficerKite]

Apologies to those who feel insulted - my comments were mean't as banter, not personal insults.

The reason 'they' have taken the trouble to inform us this piece of legislation is because it is both an imposition and additional cost to those involved in flying instruction and examining - and I consider the CAA appreciate that fact.

To reiterate, there must have been some incident that has made the CRB aware that flying instruction has not previously been subject to the regulations.

The level of disclosure is far more instrusive than that required for Disclosure Scotland for those who require a 'basic disclosure' through their employment as flight deck or cabin crew. This is an 'enhanced' disclosure and all prior names, addresses, criminal records are assessed by the Authorities to determine whether a person is fit to work with children and vulnerable persons. Usually this is mandatory in the healthcare industry, public transport (taxi drivers, bus drivers, driving instructors) and the social care professions. It matters not whether you are ever involved with children or vulnerable adults, it is the job which requires the check to be carried out on an annual basis.

Having had experience of people who are required to undergo this annual ritual, I appreciate what an imposition it is. My concern is what facilities will be made available to the flying instructing industry to cope with the delay and inconvenient whilst documents are being processed.

A taxi driver, for example, is allowed to operate a taxi provided his/her application has been sent off and is being processed. The local Council (who provide the licence) have procedures in place to achieve this.

My concern is that no such procedure is in place for us as flying instructors. The tone of the TRAININGCOM suggests the CAA don't want to become involved with what will be a labour intensive and costly process to administer if they are to provide the same facilities that are available to bus drivers and taxi drivers for instance.

I appreciate that not many people normally come in contact with the requirements of the Act (why should they?) but it is a requirement for those involved in all 'regulated activities' whether they like it or not - or whether they intend working with the groups of people covered by the Act. As I say, it's the activity not the individual who comes under the auspices of the legislation.

My wife ran a transport company for many years employing both taxi drivers and bus drivers so I know what the implications are since the Act was introduced.

To understand the legislation it is necessary to appreciate that when an activity becomes a 'regulated activity' under the Act it will apply to us all. It will not be a defence that you don't work with children or vulnerable adults whilst flying instructing.

If that was a valid argument then taxi drivers and driving instructors could use a similar argument. It is the occupation ('regulated activity') that comes within the Act, not the individual.

I hope I'm wrong and, in our case, the TRAININGCOM can be relegated to the bin. However I don't see how?

KR (always)

FOK

[hotinfo]

My personal view:

I love teaching teenagers (technically children) and get far more satisfaction than taking a middle age (50+) man or woman. Teenagers are receptive to formal instruction, learn quickly and have good reactions; I can quickly see the results of my instruction.

I took a twelve year old girl in a C152 yesterday for a trial flight. The parents had never met me before and were trusting their daughter to my care, in an isolated environment for the best part of an hour.

I think that a CRB check is not too much to ask of us. The £58 charge does not really break the bank.

[BigEndBob]

Of course the next step will be the £200 two day seminar telling how to be sensible human beings when dealing with youngsters.

[Whopity]

For those who wish to specialise in training teenagers it is probably not unreasonable however there is nothing in the Act that concerns the average FI who is happy not to do it more than the regulation allows i.e once every 8 days. Regulated Activity must be read in context with "Activity related to Children"

REGULATED ACTIVITY RELATING TO CHILDREN
Regulated activity: general
1 (1) An activity is a regulated activity relating to children if—

(a) it is mentioned in paragraph 2(1), and
(b) it is carried out frequently by the same person or the period
condition is satisfied.

2 (1) The activities referred to in paragraph 1(1) are—

(a) any form of teaching, training or instruction of children, unless the teaching, training or instruction is merely incidental to teaching,training or instruction of persons who are not children;
In most cases teaching children is incidental to the purpose of a flying club.

[FlyingOfficerKite]

Whopity

If you are correct, then why have the CAA bothered to issue the TRAININGCOM and stated that the Act will apply to flying instructors and examiners after 1 November 2010?

Don't you think the CAA and CRB wil have discussed this prior to the issue of the TRAININGOM?

Where does the TRAININGCOM quote Regulated Activity Relating to Children and tell us we will be exempt from this Section of the Act?

I quote from The Fat Old One Posting on another Thread 'Legalities of working as a flight instructor':

CRB checks (in the UK)

You cannot even apply to become a driving instructor unless you have a CRB check (or enhanced Disclosure Scotland in jockland).

if there is a loophole that allows flight instructors/flight schools to have this as optional it is only a matter of time until it is closed. (my emphasis)But then you know that because you also contributed to that Thread on 11 January 2010!

I rest my case.

KR

FOK

PS: Just for your delectation refer to www.manifestoclub.com/files/MC_Volunteering_Report_Screen.pdf (http://www.manifestoclub.com/files/MC_Volunteering_Report_Screen.pdf)
and Independent Safeguarding Authority a new system to protect vulnerable people Bond Pearce Solicitors (http://www.bondpearce.com/Publications/662)

[hotcloud]

CRB checks coming soon for flying instructors, later on, how about CRB checks for friends and family members that are in regular contact with children, why not, surely it fits the same logic?

Now then, I really do hope there is a reversal of this nonsense, because the real issue is about further control by the state and making us feel very vulnerable in the process. I get sick to the back teeth when I hear people say “oh if it saves just one person from abuse it is worth it.” With that mindset we would do absolutely nothing and life would be dull and stressful. What the Government should be concentrating on is severely punishing paedophiles without bringing everything down to the lowest common denominator (i.e. CRB checks for all flying instructors who take up minors). I can really understand that this is an emotive issue, and it is for me, as I truly want to hold on to my freedoms, but if we simply accept this, I can assure you that further freedoms will be eroded down the line.

Thank goodness the guy that took BA to court about being unable to sit next to a minor won his case, that’s what I call a result for common sense.

[blagger]

Total fuss about nothing if you ask me. It's quite simple (people getting into bizarre legal semantics aside) - if you fly with vulnerable people / under 18s on a frequent basis, go and get CRB checked. It's nothing new - Air Cadet organisation instructors have been doing it for years. It's the way of the world now, resistance to it is futile and a waste of energy quite frankly. If you don't fly with vulnerable people / under 18s on a frequent, carry on as normal. To suggest that all FIs, just because they are an FI, need CRB checking is plain wrong.

[hotcloud]

Blagger, I disagree with you, it is not a fuss about nothing from my viewpoint, and I do not believe resistance is futile, providing there is a sensible case put forward as to why these oppressive controls should be reversed, at least David Cameron is trying to reverse PC and some health and safety nonsense, surely that means he has been listening to the people.

[HercFeend]

Well if it makes anyone feel any better - in New Zealand you cannot hold any type of licence (PPL up) until you have submitted an NZCAA 'Fit & Proper Person' check, essentially a Police check, which includes Police checks from any country you have lived in for the last 5 years..... Personally I don't have an issue with this - it could be argued that I know that there's a pretty good chance I'm sharing airspace with Fit & Proper persons!! i.e. a conviction for drink driving would likely preclude you from obtaining a pilots licence here - a good thing IMO.

[Babel Fish]

(a) any form of teaching, training or instruction of children, unless the teaching, training or instruction is merely incidental to teaching,training or instruction of persons who are not children;
In most cases teaching children is incidental to the purpose of a flying club.
Personally I wouldn't fancy arguing that in a court of law. Teaching children may be incidental to the purpose of a flying club, but if one of my students is a child I think I would struggle to classify that one-to-one instruction as "incidental" because I happen to provide one-to-one instruction to 10 other students who aren’t children.

I haven't read all of the legislation, but the CRB site clearly states that applications must be made via your employer and you cannot apply for a CRB check if you are self-employed (http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/using_the_website/applicant.aspx#howdoiapply). There must be lots of instructors and (particularly) examiners who operate as self-employed, or own a company for which they are the only employee, so how are these people supposed to obtain a CRB check should they want to?

[DFC]

Could everyone please read the legislation. Particuluarly Schedule 4.

Whopity has posted one of the most important elements.

The legislation also clearly covers issues such as "friends", "family" and "family friends".

The CAA is right to remind instructors of this issue because many instructors provide instruction which is designed for children and therefore when doing so will be carrying out a regulated activity.

For the other 90% of instructors, they will not be doing such courses andf any involvement with children will only be incidental to the main activity of teaching adults.

In terms of Vunerable Adults, I think it is safe to say that they will not be receiving flight instruction because in many cases they will not be able to gain a medical. So it is unlikely that this category will have any contact with the flight training industry.

FOK - you need to read the legislation (and so does your wife). Better still get a good solicitor to advise your wife!!.

Driving instructors spend most of their time teaching teenagers to obtain a licence that they can hold before they become adults - hence not having the required clearance would make it very hard to earn a living as such.

Finally, the CRB is only one method of being cleared under the system. Please read the legislation to see.

[Whopity]

There must be lots of instructors and (particularly) examiners who operate as self-employed, or own a company for which they are the only employee, so how are these people supposed to obtain a CRB check should they want to?From the Act Para 6: (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060047_en.pdf)
6 Regulated activity providers
5 (P) is not a regulated activity provider if he is an individual and the
arrangements he makes are private arrangements.Thus examiners make private arrangements with individuals and as this is NOT a regulated activity so the Act does not apply to them!

[hotinfo]

Casting aside for a moment the debate on whether it is required or not, I have contacted a number (3) of umbrella organisations to see where we go from here at our club.

All organisations broadly said the same, that we also need child protection policies which include not to be alone with a child (?) and how to spot abuse and how to deal with disclosures made by children.

We can have help designing the policies and a certificate to display in the reception, but this advice service (extra to individual checks) will cost money. Lots.

I did think it was a good idea to have CRB check, but now I am not so sure.

And now I am even more confused than before.

[timzsta]

How about charging them? IE family comes in to flying club - "I want you to teach my 14 year old son to fly". "That's fine Mr Smith. In accordance with CAA guidance and the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Persons Act 2006 you will have to pay for the Instructor/Examiner to undergo a CRB check. If your not willing to pay come back when he is 18".

Let's stop paying for everything as Professional Pilot's.

[Say again s l o w l y]

FOK is absolutely spot on I'm afraid. This is something that I picked up on about 5 years ago, mainly because the company my wife works for does the disclosure checks up in her Scotland. (She doesn't do them herself.) And BEags it isn't a nuLabour quango...

Not only should schools have their FI's checked, but they should also have a policy for how to deal with vulnerable adults or children.

When I put this to my team of FI's years ago, the same bad tempered nonsense came out as has done on here. Some people chose to not fly with children afterwards, but it is unfortunately not as simple as that.

I agree that it's nonsense, but unfortunately we are all in a position where we could find ourselves in the schtuk if someone made a complaint against us.

A disclosure check or enhanced CRB check doesn't pick up anyone who hasn't been accused or convicted of naughtiness, so it's a fairly useless system in reality, but since when has reality had anything to do with law?

Oh and just to make mention of the fact that even though you might have a disclosure check from another place of work, it isn't good enough. You have to get another check done too...

[Whopity]

Don't you think the CAA and CRB wil have discussed this prior to the issue of the TRAININGOM? No I don't! As it has quote "nothing to do with the CAA" I doubt there has been any communication whatsoever. This is a typical Arse covering exercise that has had minimal thought and been promulgated in an inappropriate place.

If a person has been found guilty of, or even charged with an offense that would place them on the barred list, the CAA would already have suspended the FI rating as being a person unsuitable to hold such a rating. This has happened on a number of occasions in the past.

I suggest that people read the Act, then if they have any questions, they go and ask a lawyer for a professional opinion rather than making erroneous quotations.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Whatever your opinion of TrainingComs (mine is pretty low) the point is that as FI's, much of the time we have no ability to control whom we are flying with. People book in for Trial lessons and you have no idea of whether they are under 18 or are counted as vulnerable adults.

So you need a robust system in place not to protect the children, but ourselves.

Whopity has put up a spirited defence and whilst I agree with the sentiments, this is the sort of thing that sends shivers up the spine of people running businesses of any kind.

I for one am not interested enough in this sort of stuff to argue too highly, so it's easier and safer to simply comply with it. People might suggest that this is capitulation, but when you have a business and people's livelihoods at risk, you don't screw about over a principle. You get it done.

Most flying schools are run on a basis that would make the average middle ages blacksmith shake his head in disbelief at the archaic practices that go on. So getting CRB checks and complying with regulation is probably a step too far in most cases.

The current flying school business models are in the most part obsolete and don't offer sufficient oversight of staff to even check that people are doing their jobs correctly, let alone being able to prove that FI's aren't kiddie fiddling when airborne.

The world has changed, businesses now have social responsibilities under the law and bleating about it being unfair or "not how it was done in the olden days" won't help.

Even though you might think this sort of thing bonkers (it is) the point is that you do it to protect the business, not the children. Bonkers, but that's how it is today.

[Evilbob]

I have worked as a volunteer within the Scout Association over the past ten years and have filled in more CRB forms that I care to remember. I remember the opposition to it when it was first introduced in our district - not to dissimilar to the comments here.

The fact is that if you work with people who may be described as vulnerable you have to have a disclosure. I don't think there has been any incident to cause this TRAININGCOM to be issued as FOK suggests, it's just a natural progression. It started with youth groups such as Scouts and Cadets, it was then implemented amongst sports clubs such as junior football teams, and more recently someone has realised that young people learn to fly too. So there you go, a flying instructor should have a CRB.

I say "should" because as has been pointed out in other posts, if you are not working with the afformentioned demographic, it don't see how it can apply.

My main problem with CRB is that:

a). in my experience it has limited use. I know of one person who had been convicted of assualt who was still cleared through CRB without any further investigation (to be fair to him, he was actually a nice guy and never a threat to children), and another who will not show up through CRB because he has never committed a criminal offence, but is clearly not suitable to be working with children. From the scouting perspective, an old fashoned interview, with the group scout leader is usually good enough to weed out those who are clearly not suitable.

b). in terms of 'child protection' (read adult protection), at a very basic level you should never be left in charge of a child without the presence of a second adult. The theory being that an innocent adult is open to unfounded allegations if he/she is in sole charge of a vulnerable person. Two seat trainers? Go figure. And it's okay saying that it would be impossible for an individual to commit an offence in flight, but that may not necessarily stop an allegation from being made. In the days of trial by media, allegations alone are extremely damaging to an individual, convicted or not.

In such an instance would the presence of a CRB be useful in defending yourself? No, because all the CRB does is state that a person has not yet been convicted of committing an offence.

The CRB serves the employer. If an allegation is made against an instructor, they can say 'Well, he/she seemed like such an upstanding pillar of his/her community and we did do a CRB check and all was fine, we couldn't possibley have known this was going to happen'. The instructor meanwhile, is still facing the allegations.

So realistically it comes down to this, if you are willing to take the risk and teach students under the age of 18 (and it would be a shame to bar keen individuals from learning to fly), then get a CRB. However, I will (if the system still requires me to fill out another) be asking my employer to cough up the funds, because it really only benefits the company .

Also, Hotinfo: 12 years olds is another thing altogether. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the minimum age for commencing flight instruction is 14, and therefore children under that age can't do trial flights.

[Say again s l o w l y]

A child of any age can do a trial lesson, they just can't log it. I've never seen anything that says it's illegal to train anyone under the age of 14.

[alphaadrian]

Timzsta

Well said! I agree with you 100%!! My main contention with these silly bloody checks is not whether they are required or not but who pays for them!! If someone else was footing the bill, I wouldnt really have an issue (except maybe for the fact that they can take ages to be processed!)

Another example of a poorly thought out/money-spinning/arse-covering/beaurocratic scheme by a bunch of idiots who couldnt run a nursery,never mind a country!

Rant over
Alpha

[teddybear44]

You may well have been AT ONE TIME, subject to positive vetting (by the way it has not been called that for some considerable time) but that does not take account of whatever misdemeanours an individual (even you) might have been apprehended for in the period since you were last vetted (nineteen canteen perhaps). You come across as slightly pompous in my book! If you have not been a naughty boy, there is no need to worry old boy.

'Jockistan'.....sheeesh are you serious. Care to explain whatever prompted that comment ! The desire to appear to be clever one presumes regardless of whether there is in fact any comedic basis for it (and I can't see any myself).

Ted

[Say again s l o w l y]

I am a citizen of the Socialist Democratic Republic of Jockistan and I've never found the comment to be derogatory. I use the phrase regularly and I've never been shouted at, slapped or stabbed by anyone...

[teddybear44]

'Jockistan' is not a country or territory of origin, therefore you cannot be a citizen of it (except in your own imagination) or hold a passport identifying you as a citizen. You most likely are a citizen of somewhere else...perhaps 'The Planet Biff'.

Ted

[Say again s l o w l y]

Oh dear. I think you might be missing the point by more than a couple of country miles.

Or to put it another way...

http://www.bbea.ws/WHOOSH2.gif

[BEagle]

Neither the 'Jockistanis' nor the 'Viet-Taff' take offense at such banter - it's only jumped up civvies with their huggy-fluffy attitudes who can't tell banter from harassment. Once upon a time people realised that such nicknames were actually a sign of endearment....:rolleyes:

As for kids. Keep the little sods out and there's no problem. Better still, send them up a chimney or down a coal mine - then they might really have something to complain about.

Kids who lie about actions of teachers, for example, are treated like little adults instead of having their sorry arses kicked into the nearest Borstal - and a diet of porridge and stew for a month or so. And no iPods or cellphones either.

I for one am pi$$ed off to the limit with stupid government 'guilty before innocent' attitudes towards those unfortunate enough to have to work with snotty-nosed kids. I went back to my old public school recently and was astonished at the restrictions the staff have to work under, thanks to the blanket cudgel of 'risk assessment'. When I was there in the 1960s, every so often we were given a 'Free Day' and had to be at least 5 miles from the school by 1000, back again at 1900. No supervision, 'yellow jacket' mentality or anything else and yet somehow we all survived with just a packed lunch to defend us from the lurking paedos....:uhoh: Such things are totally impossible nowadays.

I wholeheartedly applaud Whopity for his robust attitude towards this stupid arse-covering letter and hope that there are others with equal strength of character to chuck it in the bin where it deservedly belongs!

By the way, not all of this post is serious. Those with an ounce (or 28.3495231 gram) of intelligence can probably work out which parts should be taken with a pinch of salt.

[hotcloud]

BEagle – An excellent response, thank goodness there are people like you with common sense and understand the creeping restrictions placed upon us. It’s not about having anything to hide should you not wish to be subjected to a CRB check, it’s about citizens slowly being micromanaged and controlled. Cricky, adults should not be made to be afraid of children, and let’s be honest there are a growing number of teenagers with an arrogant attitude (known as generation y), however you cannot fully blame them for having this attitude as society has allowed it through its PC policies and the nanny state environment. I too went to a boarding school and believe me it was tough, but it was character building, unfortunately many youngsters today would not survive such an environment due to them being seen as precious. Anyway, I have faith in this Government, in that they will reverse some of this nonsense. :)

[Whopity]

Has anyone asked the CAA how many of its Examiners are CRB checked? I think you will find the answer is a resounding 0.

[S-Works]

Whopity Has anyone asked the CAA how many of its Examiners are CRB checked? I think you will find the answer is a resounding 0.

Staff or industry? Zero in both cases I suspect.

[ifitaintboeing]

I think that provision in the Ops Manual for instructors to comply with CRB regulation where required will suffice for most flying schools.

Simply, if you're not dealing with Vulnerable Groups on a regular basis, then there is no need for a CRB check. If you're self employed [as most flight instructors are in the UK], you have the choice of whether you wish to get involved or not.

ifitaint..

[teddybear44]

OK I will say again s-l-o-w-l-y... so even you might understand. I did indeed miss the point...... Because there wasn't one ! Unless you want to explain to me what additional contribution was made by the use of 'Disclosure Jockistan' instead of 'Disclosure Scotland'. Gratuitous rubbish of the first order ! Seemed to me that you were implying something but if you weren't then you should just keep it matter of fact. Nice picture BTW. Recommend you stick to the colouring in as you seem to be good at that!

Jumped up civvies with their fluffy attitudes (or whatever it was). Not me mate. Done my bit. Not a fan of all regs without exception but obey them just the same, whenever and wherever they apply to me. Recommend you do the same. Makes for an easier life than thinking you should be a special case and tiltling at windmills...Good luck.....been there, done it. CRB is now routine for many in the workplace. If it is deemed appropriate for you then it seems to me that there must be a valid reason for it.

BTW BEagle when you say neither the Jockistans and the Viet-taffs take offence, they may not, depending on context used but since you seem to have nominated yourself national spokesperson on behalf of both I'm guessing you might be neither.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Oh dear. For a start I never made the comment about "Disclosure Jockistan" and secondly even if I had, then so what?

Are you offended by the phrase Jockistan? Or the phrase Viet-Taff? I'm also half Welsh and that phrase doesn't phase me or any of my Welsh relatives, neither does Taffia, Gogs (for North Walians) or even Sheep Shagger.

Now, would you like to send your "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" comments onto the Daily Wail, because no-one here gives a monkeys.

For once can we try and keep on topic, simply because this is something that might have an impact on the industry and all the discussions are valid.

[alphaadrian]

I,m an Irishman living in Scotland. You can call me Pat, Paddy, Mick, Irish w**ker ,Jock or whatever the hell you want. Does it offend me? NO...NOT IN THE LEAST!! I probably wouldnt even notice!! Are people today really that hung up on such trivialities?

If so,heres some advice...........

Get a :mad:life!!!

Alpha

[teddybear44]

Never said you did...but you did say in the next post that I had missed the point. I'm a Scot and I don't mind being called a Jock. What I cold not understand was the context and what seemed to me an attempt at ridicule lending no value to the conversation.

PS SLowly, Apologies, I now see you were not the originator of the 'Jockistan'. Agreed to keep on topic.

[DFC]

I fear that many talking bout the issue still have not taken the time to read the legal text. If one takes the time to do so one will see that many of the views being expressed here are in error.

First, it is safe to say that as a group - vulnerable adults will not be involved in this debate as pertaining to flight instruction because they will not be taking flying lessons (including exercise 3) because they by definition are unlikely to be able to obtain the required medical while still belonging to that category.

So that only leaves children and the legislation is very clear about when people who are on the barred list can not work with children and when checks have to be done.

Everyone seems to have totally missed the point of being checked. The check is to ensure that the person is not on the barred list and if they are not that they are not being investigated with a view to putting them on such a list. A person can have several convictions for all sorts of offences and never be put on the list. They may even be put on the list and successfully appeal that decision. Therefore, regardless of criminal history, unless they are on the list or about to be put there, an individual can not be prevented from going about their normal work.

That is why only certain registered entities can ask for a check on an individual and why for example if the school decides that a check is going to be carried out because it is required under the Act, the only information that they need (or are entitled to) is that the instructor is not barred and not about to be or that the information shows a contrary situation.

The fact that an instructor has 20 convicions for petty theft would have no relevance to the case and one could argue is not information that should be disclosed to the school without the instructor's permission.

So I say that it is a very good idea to have the check required by the legislation done when it is required by the legislation. In all other cases it is a total waste of time and money.

Unless the school has a legal basic for doing the check, they are leaving themselves open to action from the instructor while doing nothing to change it's status under this legislation i.e. they did not need a check and just becuase they did one it does not grant them any extra protection should a case be brought.

If anything, it could be later argued that the school should have been aware that no check was required. Therefore in that knowledge they must have had some suspicion about instructor X when they required the check but they never notified the relevant authorities of that suspicion and as everyone knows a clean enhanced CRB check means nothing if there is unreported suspicion. So whan child X makes a complaint - the school has set itself up nicely - not as an organisation which does everything to protect the children but as one that hides the suspicion regarding it's staff!!!!

Get proper legal interpretation from a solicitor. Do not go to an agency that is making a profit on the back of this legislation because they are there to make money and they won't make half as much if they tell most of the people who come to them that they (quite correctly) don't need to do anything.

Finally, I again remind everyone that the CRB is only one method of checking and it is not the only one provided for in the legislation.

[teddybear44]

Apologies for being responsible, in part, for recent thread drift and engaging in debating trivialities. Perhaps got out of wrong side of bed.:oh:

Ted

[Ryan5252]

DFC, a good a detailed post. I have taken the time to read the legal bollox but I feel this country is quickly becoming entirely insane!! I do not hold an FI rating (or CPL for that matter) at present but I am working towards both. If the government feels that a list of 'bad' people or suspected 'bad' people will cure all related problems; fair enough, but I ain't paying for the pleasure of it! If I end up working for a school and they ask for a CRB check my response will be "Where do I sign?", if however, same school asks for a fee I will not be so forthcoming! This mentality of paying to be paid sickens me. Government legislation? Let them pay! If I happen to become self employed and instruct with a 152 and a desk my policy will be no under 18's or, as an exception, a trial flight once a blue moon (to satisfy the 'regular contact' clause).

Its as simple as that, pure nonsense!

A disgruntled Paddy!