CRB and the CAA
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by DFC; 1st Jul 2010 at 11:12.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Downwind
Age: 40
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Its as simple as that, pure nonsense!
A disgruntled Paddy!
