CRB and the CAA
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Let's stop paying for everything as Professional Pilot's.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Don't you think the CAA and CRB wil have discussed this prior to the issue of the TRAININGOM?
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.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
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
'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
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
say again slowly
'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
Ted
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....
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$$ed off to the limit with stupid government 'guilty before innocent' attitudes towards those unfortunate enough to have to work with snotty-nosed kids. I went back to my old public school recently and was astonished at the restrictions the staff have to work under, thanks to the blanket cudgel of 'risk assessment'. When I was there in the 1960s, every so often we were given a 'Free Day' and had to be at least 5 miles from the school by 1000, back again at 1900. No supervision, 'yellow jacket' mentality or anything else and yet somehow we all survived with just a packed lunch to defend us from the lurking paedos....
Such things are totally impossible nowadays.
I wholeheartedly applaud Whopity for his robust attitude towards this stupid arse-covering letter and hope that there are others with equal strength of character to chuck it in the bin where it deservedly belongs!
By the way, not all of this post is serious. Those with an ounce (or 28.3495231 gram) of intelligence can probably work out which parts should be taken with a pinch of salt.
As for kids. Keep the little sods out and there's no problem. Better still, send them up a chimney or down a coal mine - then they might really have something to complain about.
Kids who lie about actions of teachers, for example, are treated like little adults instead of having their sorry arses kicked into the nearest Borstal - and a diet of porridge and stew for a month or so. And no iPods or cellphones either.
I for one am pi$$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....
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.
Last edited by BEagle; 30th Jun 2010 at 20:05.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: manchester
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say again s l ow l y
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
life!!!
Alpha
If so,heres some advice...........
Get a
life!!!Alpha
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say again s l ow l y
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.
PS SLowly, Apologies, I now see you were not the originator of the 'Jockistan'. Agreed to keep on topic.
Last edited by teddybear44; 1st Jul 2010 at 12:19. Reason: wrong ID