CRB and the CAA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRB and the CAA
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hoylake
Age: 50
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by FlyingOfficerKite; 25th Jun 2010 at 21:40.
2.4 Frequent contact is defied as working with children once a week or more
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.
Last edited by Whopity; 26th Jun 2010 at 11:07.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More form the elf & safety culture
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
As far as I can see the only people to benifit from this tranningcom are the paper recyclers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
the point is flying instructing is a 'regulated activity'. It doesn't matter whether you instruct children or not.
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?
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?
Excellent!!
But who are 'Disclosure Jockistan', or whatever their stupid title is?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?!
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?!
Last edited by FlyingOfficerKite; 26th Jun 2010 at 18:38.
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!
Maybe some idiotic nuLabor database has you down as a suspected child molester?
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?!
Last edited by BEagle; 27th Jun 2010 at 10:45.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South East England
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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