CRB and the CAA
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
Mind you I dislike kids anyway and thus won't teach them so its a moot point for me!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear the tossers are those who tossed the TRAININGCOM in the bin!
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.
as far as I am aware so I see no particular reason why flying instructors and examiners should receive special treatment?
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 which applies to us all.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRB checks are no problem
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 Ł58 charge does not really break the bank.
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 Ł58 charge does not really break the bank.
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"
In most cases teaching children is incidental to the purpose of a flying club.
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;
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;
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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':
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
and Independent Safeguarding Authority a new system to protect vulnerable people Bond Pearce Solicitors
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)
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)
I rest my case.
KR
FOK
PS: Just for your delectation refer to www.manifestoclub.com/files/MC_Volunteering_Report_Screen.pdf
and Independent Safeguarding Authority a new system to protect vulnerable people Bond Pearce Solicitors
Last edited by FlyingOfficerKite; 28th Jun 2010 at 20:09.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: manchester
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: manchester
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(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;
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. 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?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
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?
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.
5 (P) is not a regulated activity provider if he is an individual and the
arrangements he makes are private arrangements.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.