Air Cadets grounded? [Archive]

cokecan

29th Apr 2014, 17:10

Beagle,

the 'air' bit of the ACO is both expensive and hugely rationed - when they aren't doing 'air' they have to be given something else to do, otherwise they walk.

the ATC Sqn i was previously involved with - a big, successful Sqn with lots of 'air minded youth' - was getting squatt-diddly flying or even station visits: no AEG, very little AEF, no opportunity flights.

as a cadet 20+ years ago most of the kids in my sqn over 16 had gliding wings of some type, AEF would have been every 3-4 months, AEG every 6 weeks or so, opportunity flights happened every 4 weeks or so and we did camps at places like Lossie, Marham, Odiham etc.. now? 2, perhaps 3 out of 50+ might have a gliding qual, you might get an AEF at camp, and that camp would probably not be at a flying station.

green stuff, shooting, AT etc... is cheap, and it can be organised without wondering whether someone else will cancel it without notice - little wonder its what gets done.

Surplus

29th Apr 2014, 22:22

How do you get a drink out of an air defender .........???

Serves you right for associating with one.

romeo bravo

1st May 2014, 09:54

Cokecan

Your comment - "green stuff, shooting, AT etc... is cheap, and it can be organised without wondering whether someone else will cancel it without notice - little wonder its what gets done."

Not quite right, sqns still have to complete the required RAs, gain authority to undertake activity, etc. And as for running without wondering whether someone else will cancel, well, we have just had camping/bivvi'ing in the green environment banned until further notice. Down from HQAC yesterday. Could extend further to include AT and DofE expeditions. We don't know yet..........

So flying just got back to normal, gliding and bivvi'ing suspended, what else can we get cadets to do....... drill

Wander00

1st May 2014, 10:01

What is going on - seems designed to pi@@ off the offices and instructors and demotivate the cadets. Such a brilliant organisation too. I owe it, CCF and ATC, heaps. More power to their elbow.

chevvron

1st May 2014, 10:24

Back in the 90s there were some of us, both RAFRO (OC Airfield and Wing Admin Officer - a retired Wg Cdr) and RAFVRT who considered there was too little 'Air' in Air Training Corps' so we started a 'microlight AEF' at Halton which flew many cadets in civil registered microlights (initially Cyclone AX3 then Chevvron 2-32C) with an HQAC approved 'blood chit' and eventually developed to offer HQAC approved Microlight Flying Scholarships.
Regretfully after achieving some 19 microlight 'Restricted' PPLs, it all folded when HQAC 'pulled' the funding and the microlight school was forced into liquidation.
The cadets were awarded a specially produced 'Microlight Flying Scholarship' badge which they wore on the breast of the woolly pully, not on the shoulder patch like other cadet flying badges.

brokenlink

1st May 2014, 12:40

RB - My thoughts exactly. Or we could go and do Air Recce cos looking at planes is all we will be allowed to do if this goes on much longer!

BL

Aggamemnon

1st May 2014, 15:02

Update just psoted from HQAC:

As the Engineers at RAF Syerston continue to work to provide me with appropriate assurance to allow me to remove the pause in Gliding I thought it would be timely to provide you with an update.

The team at RAF Syerston is working to provide me with a glider return to flight regime, in a timely manner. Gliding is a crucial element of the ACO and will be for many years to come. As you are aware Defence has identified funds to support ACO gliding up to 2025 as a minimum. The activity we are currently undertaking at RAF Syerston will compliment this Defence commitment and provide a firm base to enhance further our gliding operation.

As a consequence of this engineering activity, and to assist in you future planning, please assume it is unlikely that any cadet gliding will take place before 1 Jun 14. This situation is under daily review and if it should change I will be advising all addresses as a matter of urgency. I do however expect some gliding operations to be undertaken soon, most probably at RAF Syerston with the main thrust of this activity focussed on retaining and regaining currency for VGS Staffs.

In sum it is regrettable that our pause will remain for a longer period than expected. That said, I can assure you that return to cadet flight is my top priority. Once we have achieved this I am absolutely confident that our gliding regime will continue to blossom further under the management of 2FTS and supporting engineering authorities.

Wander00

1st May 2014, 15:35

1. What is the issue that requires such a pause in core Air Cadet activity, and the reason most join?

2. I suspect "complement" would be better than "compliment" (Para 2, line 2). My boss at any stage in my career would have given me a mega boll@cking for that error.

Haraka

1st May 2014, 16:28

Wander00,
The whole passage is an ISS tutor's delight!
But let's remember, this person is at least trying to keep the kids flying. Superb English isn't going to get them off the ground, which is the aim of the exercise under pretty challenging financial and technical constraints.

1.3VStall

1st May 2014, 16:29

1. Wander00 the "pause" (grounding in non wanquespeak) is due to the engineering documentation not accurately reflecting what work has been carried out on the aircraft.

2. Precisely, and I thought an English GCSE was a prerequisite to becoming an officer.....?

Wander00

1st May 2014, 19:57

Well I do hope it is quickly sorted out and the kids are soon getting the training and experience which is such a benefit to them

ACW418

1st May 2014, 20:00

After I left the RAF I was employed in a production management capacity in Falkirk. I well remember our Managing Director telling me any idiot can solve a problem by stopping production. The really good manager solves the problem at the same time as keeping things going.

Bearing in mind I was one of the early VGS instructors to convert to the Viking in 1984/5 and the Air Cadets have been flying them very satisfactorily since then with few "pauses" I am utterly stunned that we now have to ground the fleet because of paperwork issues!

ACW

Lima Juliet

1st May 2014, 20:26

I tell you what ACW, if you know that the paperwork assurance has flaws and then you fly minors - then there's a fatal accident - you probably won't have a flying organisation anymore, full stop.

Comparing "Production Management" to aviation involving under 18s reinforces the reasons for having someone like JM in to sort it out - it won't be popular but he and his CAMO are just what the VGS need before someone gets hurt. The VGS have to realise that 'a new sheriff is in town', there are new rules that the rest of military aviation have been dragged 'kicking and screaming' into and there is no hiding.

From some of the horror stories I'm hearing from my sources the 2FTS CAMO are doing exactly the right thing.

LJ :ok:

teeteringhead

2nd May 2014, 08:58

Leon

You are exactly right. There were many folk in the VGS community who were sh!t-scared that JM might get the job. I wonder why.....

He is the right bloke - along with the Regional Gp Capts (who now have Admin & Discip C2 over the VGS personnel) - to drag the "Air" in Air Cadets safely into the 21st century......

....... even if he is an Air Defender ........... ;)

beardy

2nd May 2014, 09:06

Air defender? QWI F4 ground attack and air defence, QWI Tornado ground attack and air defence and for a time Vulcan co-pilot, entitled to both pilot and navigator brevets.

The RAF never could decide what to do with him. So he told them, ask him, he'll tell you too.

ACW418

2nd May 2014, 09:12

Leon,

I do not normally wish to get dragged into these kind of discussions.

However, perhaps you can explain to me how it is more likely that we will have an accident now after thirty years of safe operation just because a new broom has decided that the engineering paperwork needs to be improved. Your belief that this affair is all that different from real life shows how little you understand about life in industry.

ACW

FrustratedFormerFlie

2nd May 2014, 09:34

Well, at least if OC 2FTS wants to find out who the VGS instructor knocking his plans/priorities on PPRUNE is, he wont have to look further than the list of personal callsigns. Doh!:ugh:

TheChitterneFlyer

2nd May 2014, 10:04

ACW418, you're obviously not fully aware of the implications of the Haddon-Cave report and how, in recent years, military airworthiness has moved on. Leon Jabachjabicz hit the nail right on the head inasmuch that if there were to be an incident/accident the BOI would have picked glaring holes within the engineering support of the VGS. Hence, when minors are involved, the organisation risk a whole lot more than losing a few weeks flying... funding could be removed for good! This issue is NOT about the fact that the VGS has been operating satisfactorily for the previous thirty years; it's about compliance with the regulatory authority... the MAA.

Like it or not, the Viking and the Vigilant are military aeroplanes and they come under the same regulatory umbrella as any other front-line aeroplane. The parents of these youngsters expect professionalism within the VGS... and that's precisely what they're getting.

TCF

ACW418

2nd May 2014, 10:50

Frustrated Fly.

If you check my details you will see that I retired several years ago. OC 2 FTS has little he can do about me.

Awaiting the black Omega.

ACW

Wander00

2nd May 2014, 11:05

So what has been done so "badly" in the past? (HE cannot get me either!)

nowt ont clock

2nd May 2014, 11:38

Whilst I totally accept and agree with the issue of the need for compliance , I do take objection to some of the more subtle undertones hidden within some posts on this thread.
As has already been said, the parents of the young people who come to fly with us rightly expect that their child is fully protected by the policies, practices and professionalism of the ACO and its members.
The VGS safety record speaks for itself and is a clear indicator of the serious and professional manner in which we go about our business, so PLEASE, enough of the ACO/VGS character assasination.

NOC

dead_pan

2nd May 2014, 11:42

Many people will be amazed that cadets actually go flying at all. I cannot remember the last time I actually noticed or saw an RAF Air Cadet. I mean it must be fantastic for a kid to be taught to fly etc - they need to raise their profile a bit.

Really?! They're everywhere around here - packing your bags in Tescos, organising car parking at shows, helping out at marathons etc.

I think they're doing just fine - in rude health.

teeteringhead

2nd May 2014, 11:57

So he told them, ask him, he'll tell you too. In fact - you don't need to ask - he'll tell you anyway!! ;)

dead_pan

How's this for raising the profile??http://www.regenthouse.org.uk/uploads/431d6373-67f6-48ed-bc5b-ed63c0fac2bc/News%20Pics%202013-14/RecogPhoto.jpg

For the hard of thinking - it's Honorary Group Captain Sir Chris Hoy. (that's the chap with the scrambled egg)

SOSL

2nd May 2014, 12:15

Aviation paperwork is not just some admin nonsense. If the paperwork is wrong you can't fly the aircraft. Why not?

Well, the aim of the game is air safety and one of the pillars of air safety is airworthiness. Before you walk for an aircraft, especially with a young passenger, you must be certain that it is airworthy.

So you need to know everything that you need to know about the configuration of the aircraft and any limitations on its use; you need to know that its maintenance is correct and up to date and you need to know that any work on the aircraft has been carried out by correctly authorised personnel in accordance with the correct statements of work.

The only way you can make these judgements about the aircraft is by reference to the paperwork. If the paperwork is dodgy in any way you know nothing and if you fly it you're an idiot.

It's not a good idea to use the past to justify the present. If the present is demonstrably wrong it's still wrong whatever has happened in the past.

Rgds SOS

just another jocky

2nd May 2014, 12:27

Wander00

2nd May 2014, 12:57

So is the implication that for the last umpty ump years the Air Cadet Gliding Organisation has run on the basis of inadequate or dodgy maintenance s, or dodgy or inadequate maintenance records, and that their good safety record is merely a matter of good luck? If so, I am astounded.

just another jocky

2nd May 2014, 13:00

Did you just answer your own question with the answer you wanted to hear?

ACW418

2nd May 2014, 13:38

SOSL,

I think you may need to do some research.

All Air Cadet gliders have been using RAF F700 systems for many years. In addition each VGS is Quality audited on its use of that system once a year by the RAF. Further there are two inspection visits each year, one by CFS and one by ACCGS, who check on flying and instructor standards and include aircraft paperwork as well.

As an ex RAF pilot I do not need a lecture on the importance of aircraft documentation nor suggestion of lack of professionalism in both flying and leadership standards.

ACW

RUCAWO

2nd May 2014, 14:03

Good photo of my aircraft recce team with Sir Chris, the Sgt is now on his G2 training and has been accepted for his flying scholarship with Tayside :ok:

TheChitterneFlyer

2nd May 2014, 15:02

ACW418, I don't think anyone is lecturing you. The DDH holder called a halt to flying operations and that you must respect that decision. The suggestion/rumour is that maintenance records/practices are at issue and, at least for the time being until everything is known, one shouldn't speculate as to what the causal reasons might actually be. He obviously made that decision for good reason.

The underlying swipes about the management team that are being posted into this thread are totally unwarranted. Furthermore, those particular folk are displaying a total lack of professionalism by sitting within their Ivory Tower's whilst wearing a mask of perceived immunity.

Quit the swiping and become constructive with your comments.

TCF

Haraka

2nd May 2014, 15:12

Due respect to Sir Chris.
Should he be wearing VR (or VR(T) ) tags? - or has this now been discontinued?

Lima Juliet

2nd May 2014, 17:36

Ok, I'll spill the beans on some goings on within VGS over the past couple of years that I've seen (and, no, I won't name the VGS, but they may recognise who they are):

- Flying when the wind is gusting out of limits. (Using hand held anemometer to measure wind without applying the correction)
- Landing an aircraft in an area of rough ground following a rough running engine. Doing a non-engineering qualified inspection on the aircraft to release it for flight following the rough landing and a couple of engine ground runs before flying the aircraft again. (Apparently within the allowable regulation for suspected carb icing)
- Flying in flying suits that have not been accepted by a SE fitter.
- Stitching their own badges on their flying suits with non-approved thread and no inspection by an SE fitter.
- Flying after SS+15 (which is night time in air cadet orders, which is prohibited). (An error in time keeping)
- Breaching the flying order book on opening hours.
- Having out of servicing headsets.
- Anomalies in the parachute paperwork.
- An out of date extinguisher on the fire trailer. (Issue technically belongs to the fire section)
- An out of date fire extinguisher in their caravan. (Likewise above)
- Anomalies in the F700 paperwork.
- Caught speeding in the yellow landrovers on several occasions.

As I said before, the VGS organisation need to get sorted out before someone gets hurt. Maybe they've been lucky over the past 30 years?

-[added as afterthought] I think the issue is that many VGS operate at remote sites or on stations with very few full-time staff at the weekends. They are normally not full time aviators and so do not 'live and breath' the military flying orders/regulations. Hence, I suspect, they have not yet been indoctrinated like the rest of us into the new safety regime that the rest of us have endured over the past 6 years. That is what is changing - the engineering oversight has changed and there are/have been far more assurance visits in recent years. Apart from the speeding, the rest were likely errors (some more serious than others) or maybe a regulation that is too liberal in my opinion. [I hope that adds a bit more balance to the examples above? However, I deny they are defamatory as I've had 1st hand knowledge of them over several years]

Finally, please don't take the above as a dig at the organisation - I think its great, but it must do its great work safely and beyond reproach.

LJ :ok:

PS. Edited to put context in brackets

BBK

2nd May 2014, 18:31

LJ

Members of the VGS community have been specifically told not to post on pprune. As such a right of reply is difficult to your defamatory remarks.

However, I will report your comments via the appropriate channels.

BBK

Edited to add: the order regarding pprune is specifically regarding the current grounding not a general prohibition which is just as well as the Air Cadet organisation does a fantastic job IMHO.

Lima Juliet

2nd May 2014, 19:57

BBK

Why, what's the problem? Some people asked for evidence and I've quoted what I've seen over my many years. No different to problems I've seen on front-line units, training units and UAS/VGS. I don't have any problem with the VGS and I believe that JM and his new FTS are doing a fantastically proactive job.

I agree that some things shouldn't be posted (commercial/personal sensitivity) but the 'VGS-is-holier-than-thou over the past 30 years' mantra described by some here deserves to be taken to task. The VGS suffers from the same problem as any flying unit - too many humans and their factors! As others have posted on here, and I'm not alone, it's time for the VGS to catch up with the rest of us - this is exactly why 2FTS was formed having lived in the Air Cadet Organisation for many years. None of the things I've quoted are out-and-out killers but indicate an organisation that needs to play catch up with the rest of us after Haddon-Cave. All of these examples were caught before they became a problem and shouldn't happen again.

Report all you like old fruit, but I would far rather see an open and pro-active discussion on stuff like this than trying to bury it. Who knows how many people knew that all was not right on AEFs and we know how that ended before something was done? Let's be wise before an event this time.

LJ

tmmorris

2nd May 2014, 20:09

Tutors now grounded as well, no reason yet given.

As I'm easily identified I'm not going to add to LJ's list...

Lima Juliet

2nd May 2014, 20:11

BBK

Here is what I was answering, in case you got the wrong end of the stick...

However, perhaps you can explain to me how it is more likely that we will have an accident now after thirty years of safe operation just because a new broom has decided that the engineering paperwork needs to be improved. Your belief that this affair is all that different from real life shows how little you understand about life in industry.

ACW418

2nd May 2014, 20:25

Leon,

I am truly appalled at your list. I do not identify my own VGS with that sort of thing. I do think you have gone over the top with the flying suit issue. My own VGS was on an Army Garrison and at least an hours drive from our parent station and the squippers were not available at the weekends.

Having said all that I can see where you are coming from. However, I think a derogation (or concession) could have been sought from the MAA to keep the aircraft flying in the short term.

I am not a "holier than thou" VGS member but I hope a professional aviator reflecting the wider Air Force.

ACW

Lima Juliet

2nd May 2014, 20:50

ACW

Fair enough mate. As I've been trying to say, I'm not anti VGS and my experience of military aviation over a quarter of a century has seen us all become far more accountable for what we do; I shudder to think of what I used to get up to 20-odd years ago!

Yes, SE and AEA are a challenge for units away from a main operating base, but the rules are set out and you can't just ignore them; well you can, but it's not advisable!

I think that the VGS and the ACO are a national treasure and so we should all support them 100% to get them compliant like the rest of us. The past 6 years of post Haddon-Cave have been an immense struggle for most of us, so let's get the VGS in the 'new club' of risk-based safety management systems and embrace the enhanced level of safety they can bring.

Finally, I stress that these other things I bring up have nothing to do with the current pause in flying, but only act as examples to show that the VGS need to raise their games with the rest of us.

LJ :ok:

Tingger

2nd May 2014, 22:23

It does seem from reading this thread that there is a perception that the VGS were just going along doing there own in until 2FTS was formed. They have very much been "in the flight safety club" since going into 1EFTS then 3FTS and weren't too bad even under the old ACO the current ASAR officer is doing a great job, even a couple of the MAA groupies fly on VGS

The whole there is a new Sheriff in town line is a bit much its not a new Sheriff just a different one! good, bad or in different, better or worse than the last sheriff remains to be seen.

Jimmyjerez

3rd May 2014, 07:27

Hope the guys and gals get sorted soon gorgeous weather here in east Mids today so sure they will all be chomping at bit to get winch back out soon! Perhaps they need to get some full time bods in as it's all too much for just VGS volunteers now? In my time the boss and CFI would always be on the airfield wielding stick at everyone not doing admin!

Ps what's wrong with sewing your badges on? We always did it (well my mum!)

BBK

3rd May 2014, 08:26

LJ

Sorry for the brief reply. Busy day ahead. Few questions for you.

Are you qualified on the type this VGS operate?
Are you an experienced instructor ie QFI/QGI?
Did you, in the first instance, raise your concerns with the OC of the unit?
Are you qualified to inspect the VGS ie are you a CGS instructor or CFS examiner?

I ask as the CFS reports for said unit in 2011 and 2012 were "excellent" and one grade below in 2013 - I think that was a "very good" report and apparently was only just below "excellent" that year too.

Therefore the flying staff (CFS/CGS) whose job it is to assess this unit give it a glowing report for 3 years in a row but they appear to have got it wrong in your considered opinion. Believe me, these chaps don't miss a thing!

In your list of alleged offences I think ppruners will see the trivial ones for what they are but I will address the serious ones.

Flying out of limits. The DI was monitoring the wind using the official calibrated anemometer.

The rough running incident. The Duty Eng was consulted fully and his procedures followed in full. Are you an engineer as well??

Flying out of hours. I presume you are talking about the lunchtime circuit ban which is purely for political reasons and not a flight safety issue. Yes it has happened, in error, and normally the has DI reminded the offending pilot to make a full stop or vacate the circuit.

This VGS has had a very good safety record and I can assure you that all four of the VGS OCs I have served under have taken flight safety extremely seriously. Not that any of us are complacent and we all need to strive to maintain the required standard. If the VGSs have an unacceptable safety record then I would advocate a shake up bit it doesn't so what it does need is to fully comply with the new regulations and, quite frankly, enjoy better support in some areas.

Sadly the Air Cadets lost three cadets and three pilots in recent years as a result of mid air collisions. All three pilots were, I believe, serving or retired RAF pilots. Should I jump to conclusions about the AEFs in general. Actually I won't but the point is that some types of accident can occur even to the most experienced aviator.

Lastly, I would happily let my own children fly with anyone on this unit as I know they are "professional" in their approach to flying. As someone who is a professional I feel I'm entitled to make that judgement.

Lima Juliet

3rd May 2014, 09:58

BBK

I would offer that you don't need to be qualified on type to see issues. In fact, often the 'new boys', cross-overs and foreign exchange officers see something that, in hindsight, was glaringly onvipus in my experience - making those that have flown a type for so many years (especially from the same station) think why they hadn't spotted it before. Furthermore, in recent times, Service Inquiries and Boards of Inquiry have been made up of people not 100% ensconced in the accident aircraft type - they see things that others much closer can't see. There are many, including myself, that think its 'unhealthy' to spend more than 10-15 years on the same type. Plenty of the new blood in 2FTS don't have long backgrounds in VGS activity, but they bring a wealth of different experience. I also hope that we have left the days of "you've got no experience of this, so you have no voice" scenarios.

I don't want to go too far into specifics as I don't want to identify the exact nature of the examples - I'm trying to keep this anonymous! However, if I may come back on one?

Did you know that hand-held anenometers are very inaccurate and the position that you stand in, the height that you hold it above the ground and the proximity of obstructions will have a drastic effect on the measured wind-speed? I didn't until I spoke to the Met Officer. Wind observations are made at 10 metres above the ground and out of the lee of any obstacles. So if you use a handheld anenometer by holding it 2 metres above the ground, then you have to add 30% to the anenometer's reading to get the observed wind? There are also rules for obstacles, such as standing below the adjacent horizon and near to trees/caravans. I didn't until I looked into things after that event. In fact, there is whole book on Met Observation that I was unaware of - I am now much wiser having read it!

Here is the book - Observer's Handbook (M.O.1028) - Met Office (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/archive/observers-handbook)

Please, don't think I am trying to preach or score points - I'm not. As I have said before, the VGS do a wonderful job, giving up their weekends and introducing youths to flying for the first time. All I want is for the VGS, as part of the RAF, to learn from the lessons of others and not sit entrenched in a view of "we've been doing this for years and haven't killed anyone yet, so it must be alright'. All of the examples above could be the slices of swiss cheese about to line up that are the causal factors of serious injury. Anyone may not be significant enough to be the sole cause, but linked together they make the opportunity for a mishap.

I also know that many in the VGS feel frustrated about this temporary pause; especially given the poor winter we have had accross the country. However, seeking a derogation from the MAA when anomolies are found because 'the chaps want to go flying' isn't really going to cut it (yes, there is an amount of flippancy in that comment).

Finally, on reports/audits. These are spot-light views over 1-2 days over a year or two - there can be serious lapses inbetween these audits and no-one would ever know. Expiry dates and paperwork can be in order on the day of audit/inspection but by next weekend they can be out of date. That is the nature of not having constant supervision. The examples I've highlighted come about from having people watching day to day, that is how you pick up errors and make the system better. The same can be said of STANEVAL checks - you can have a really bad day or a really good day, but is it indicative of your day to day performance?

Here's hoping that you guys get back flying soon, we can move forward and continue to run with the gradual improvement program that appears to be coming from 2FTS.

LJ :ok:

PS. Please accept my apology if you believed that I was being defamatory - that was not my intent. I simply wanted to highlight that VGS make mistakes/errors like any other human factors related activity.

teeteringhead

3rd May 2014, 10:12

Due respect to Sir Chris.
Should he be wearing VR (or VR(T) ) tags? - or has this now been discontinued? :O ... er - yes he should have been and now is! (VR(T)).

This was an early appearance in uniform and ..... er ...... nobody told him. :O:O
Now rectified, and some publicity photos (clearly not that one!) have been retrospectively Photoshopped into compliance! :ok:

Lima Juliet

3rd May 2014, 10:14

Tingger

I know that VGS has been tacked onto various FTS in the past. However, due to the FTS's existing portfolio of aircraft types (eg. 3FTS has King Air and Grob, so they've had their own problems of late!). I'm reasonably confident that the new 2FTS was formed to further improve having recognised that a seperate DDH was needed to drive the required level of assurance/ensurance that a youth flying-training activity is deemed to require. This won't have come cheap, introducing new staff to assure the AOC that everything that needs to be done is being done.

I remember when the Safety, Training and Regulation (STAR) teams arrived with significant numbers of personnel to sort out 1 and 2 Group. Very unpopular at the time with their new assurance/ensurance methods. However, now in hindsight a very necessary process to keep us safe by understanding the risks of what we do properly - rather than where we were prior to the tragic loss of the Nimrod. Believe me, I was a sceptic and now I'm a convert despite the exponential increase in my own paperwork and workload.

LJ :ok:

Lima Juliet

3rd May 2014, 10:21

JimmyJerez

I hope that the sewing of badges was tongue in cheek? :ok:

Anyway, the reasons why SE Fitts are to be used for sewing badges on flying suits are as follows:

1. Makes sure they don't come off and fall into control runs and snag emergency egresses or other safety equipment. IE. They are fit for purpose.
2. Flame resistant stitching used to aid identification following an accident.
3. Ensures that the badges are put in the approved location as laid down by the Air Publications.

LJ

teeteringhead

3rd May 2014, 10:23

I'm reasonably confident that the new 2FTS was formed to further improve having recognised that a seperate DDH was needed to drive the required level of assurance/ensurance that a youth flying-training activity is deemed to require. Exactly so. Moreover, it brought Gliding back under the full C2 of the ACO - OC 2FTS's 1st RO is Comdt Air Cadets.

And as neither she nor her predecessor were SQE to be a DDH (sorry for TLAs!) - and had lots more to think about - an "in house" stand alone OC 2FTS fitted the bill exactly!

And JM's doing so well (IMHO) that I'll even forgive him being an air defender ....... well - nearly ........! ;)

Lima Juliet

3rd May 2014, 11:25

TH

Concur, from an Air Defender who had a mixed opinion of him from his time at Leeming (mostly hearsay from mates, I hasten to add). He is the right person for this job (thank God, that makes a change!) - just like Timmo was the right man to kick off the MAA.

LJ :ok:

TheChitterneFlyer

3rd May 2014, 14:03

Might I ask what the definition of an 'Air Defender' might be? I honestly don't have a clue!

Snapyou

3rd May 2014, 14:22

Leon’s observations of a VGS probably didn't help the debate and no doubt would be contested. I hope he is genuine in his desire to see continued improvement of flight safety for all users at that airfield. The significant number of errors, mistakes and violations committed by some of the other users at the same airfield make the alleged incidents by the VGS look very trivial.

The VGS have an enviable safety record that has received much praise from both within the RAF aviation community and civil world. Do they always get it right - no. Is there room for continuous improvement - better be, or many who volunteer their time will stop flying.

The VGS, like the rest of the RAF have significantly improved since Haddon Cave, but both are appreciably behind commercial aviation in terms of safety culture and understanding of human performance.

The issue of flying suits, headsets, equipment and maintenance are problems where all VGS's have just had to accept that RAF parenting is inadequate. Sqn’s have adapted and improvised to continue to operate. This has to stop and whilst some progress was made under 1EFTS and 3FTS, there is pleasing evidence that 2FTS is making substantial inroads to address problems. The fact that it may stop flying is frustrating, but the benefits in flight safety and solving some of the historical lack of funding is the right way to progress.

CoffmanStarter

3rd May 2014, 14:40

TheChitterneFlyer ...

Mil Aircrew that undertake Air Defence operations ... for example QRA. So think EE Lightning, Phantom F4, Tornado F3, Typhoon F2 crews ... :ok:

Duplo

3rd May 2014, 16:58

any info since the grounding yesterday?

Lima Juliet

3rd May 2014, 21:35

Snapyou

Hatton Cave? It's a bit like Haddon Cave (with or without hyphen!) :p

As I have said again and again, there is no agenda and I like many others want to help the VGS improve on the areas they fall short on - we all work for the same team!

Also, from others I have spoken to, what I have seen is no different to other VGS. It seems to be a common set of issues. That's why it's a systemic issue and why I keep bleating on about 2FTS looking at being the solution. I would like to offer that I'm not alone in this view.

Yes, there are mavericks at every airfield (not ones that fly F14s) and they are also made aware of the errors of their ways through audits, reports and the constant supervision from afar. I've seen this in a healthy, self-critical environment, however its when individuals are too defensive and unwilling to accept criticism and change that the alarm bells start to ring. Humbleness tends to allow aviators draw their pensions!

Anyway, here's wishing the VGS some safe flying soon and an improved existence under 2FTS. :ok:

LJ

Lima Juliet

3rd May 2014, 21:37

Duplo

First I'd heard of it - have you not got any info?

LJ

Lima Juliet

3rd May 2014, 21:40

Tingger

the current ASAR officer is doing a great job

I couldn't agree more!!!:D:D:D

LJ

iRaven

3rd May 2014, 22:18

Well, I've just read this thread from start to finish and all I see is sensible advice. There are those from the VR(T) and CGI fraternity that would seem to have dug holes for themselves by not understanding the very basics of a met observation or the spelling of Haddon-Cave's surname that indicates the shallowness of their perceived knowledge, and then there are the others that say that change is needed (with which I also agree).

Anyone ever seen the Failing Aviator video? Some of the responses on here are a model of that.

iRaven

iRaven

3rd May 2014, 22:31

Crikey, I've just re-read this:

The VGS, like the rest of the RAF have significantly improved since Hatton Cave, but both are appreciably behind commercial aviation in terms of safety culture and understanding of human performance.

So commercial aviation that bases some of its decisions on the fact that it has to make money! :ugh: There is no operational imperative or financial pressure on flying cadets, so surely the safety system for VGS is as simple as possible? Stick to the rules and if there is any doubt, there is no doubt.

The issue of flying suits, headsets, equipment and maintenance are problems where all VGS's have just had to accept that RAF parenting is inadequate. Sqn’s have adapted and improvised to continue to operate.

So, if I read this right, the orders in TGO(G)s are inadequate, so you take it upon yourself to make them up by "adapting" and "improvising"? :eek:!!!

It looks like Leon is 100% on the money!!!

iRaven

P.S. There appears to be another admission on safety equipment issues from another individual on this thread:

I do think you have gone over the top with the flying suit issue. My own VGS was on an Army Garrison and at least an hours drive from our parent station and the squippers were not available at the weekends.

The B Word

4th May 2014, 08:14

Duplo

Is it a "grounding" or a "temporary pause in flying"? Apparently, they're different! :p

The B Word

Duplo

4th May 2014, 08:49

LJ

Grounded, paused, suspended… zero gen...

Lima Juliet

4th May 2014, 09:02

Duplo

Yikes, that will be another delay in the training pipeline then!

LJ

Tingger

4th May 2014, 09:11

Gen heard from the AEF that it's a small change to FRC so the don't pebble dash the props when doing power checks. Should be easy to resolve

Corporal Clott

4th May 2014, 09:12

BEFORE YOU READ THIS REALISE THAT I SCR3W3D UP AND IT'S OLD INFORMATION! :ugh:

I found this on the 8AEF Facebook page:

They are grounded due to a problem with one of them at RAF Collage Cranwell. For safety reasons the fleet of tutors have been grounded until there is sufficient evidence that the problem will not effect any others.

Safety is the number one priority. This will then give them time to find the problem, if there is one, and resolve it without the chance of another incident.

No reason to doubt the source.

CPL Clott

beardy

4th May 2014, 09:39

I think you will find the date on the Facebook entry you found is not recent. It was 15 Jan 2013.

Corporal Clott

4th May 2014, 11:15

Beardy - good spot! I am indeed a Clott!!!

Duncan D'Sorderlee

4th May 2014, 18:31

I wouldn't expect any information till at least Tuesday - BH weekend and all that.

Duncs:ok:

squawking 7700

4th May 2014, 20:52

Was that extract from 8AEF's website for real? - RAF Collage Cranwell? and the problem will not effect any others?

I'd be more concerned about the standard of English (and attention to detail) than the thread used to sew on a badge.

7700

ShotOne

5th May 2014, 14:48

I hope not, 7700! But as for "prime Walts in RAF uniform...."(iRaven) that's the most unnecessary and petty comment I've read here for some time. I for one am eternally grateful to such "walts" who gave up their free time to give tens of thousands of teenagers a glimpse of RAF life.

Wander00

5th May 2014, 14:56

iRaven

5th May 2014, 16:56

As a cadet (CCF and for a short time ATC), officer with a regular commission (twice) and VR(T) commission, and as an ACLO I have seen few "Walts". I have seen a lot of men and women committed to the Air Cadet cause, who give many hours and days to help produce excellent young citizens. Walts get bored and go and collect engine numbers or something else.

You're having a laugh, mate! Its riddled with them - from really minor Walts to the big ones that make the press. Here is an Air Cadet example:

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Cambridgeshire | MBE conman ordered to repay cash (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/6434519.stm)

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Cambridgeshire | Ex-police worker and ATC Officer applied for MBE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/5296190.stm)

Wasn't that bored was he? Stuck around long enough to make an elaborate tale to get an MBE!

Just so the Army don't feel left out, here is an ACF Walt:

Walter mitty CSM in the cadets | Army Rumour Service (http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/walter-mitty-csm-in-the-cadets.82813/)

As for the minor Walts. Just try googling 'walter mitty cadet' in a search engine and you can read some of the stories of fake service records and para wings galore.

I'm not saying that every Air Cadet staff is a Walt, far from it. But they most definately have a full spectrum of Walters amongst their creed.

Rant over and out

iRaven

centrinoflyer

5th May 2014, 17:38

LJ
Looking back I read with interest your observations about a VGS. If you had genuine concerns, then why did you not present them to the appropriate authority at the time?
I am certain that the professional members of the VGS you are referring to did not breach any rules unknowingly.

Lima Juliet

5th May 2014, 17:59

Centrinoflyer

We did. We spoke with the seniors on the VGS, the DDH and the HQ at Syerston.

As I said before, the list I mentioned was over a number of years and some more serious than others. It was not intended to single out a single VGS unit, but to illustrate that things go wrong on VGS like any other flying unit - often different things that you wouldn't find on a front-line unit as the front-line unit enjoys more support from full-time regular staff.

I would expect these issues have been seen on other VGS. Also, if seen on a unit all at once, I would expect there to be a 'pause in flying'!!!

LJ :ok:

PS. Just read this post again and I want to point out:

1. It is not intended to embarrass any particular VGS.
2. These issues were dealt with individually - they did not happen at all at once.
3. VGS are as safe as many other MoD sponsored flying, they just need to catch up with the rest of us with respect to the recently introduced MAA safety assurance/ensurance practices (which they are doing).
4. I do not have a personal vendetta against the VGS or the Air Cadet Organisation (unlike some on here!).

ShotOne

5th May 2014, 17:59

I'm don't see how your links about former ATC volunteers in any way supports your case, Raven. I could reel off a string of cases of ex-servicemen who have committed much more unpleasant crimes

iRaven

5th May 2014, 19:01

Shotone

I agree there have been some serious Walts in the regulars as well. However, it is my opinion that there are more in the cadet organisations..

I'm sure that these folks are in the minority within the wider organisation, but they definately exist or I need to stop wearing my tin foil hat! :}.

Edit: removed comments about yoofs!

Cat Funt

5th May 2014, 19:13

I fear iRaven is sending us off on a tangent with an all-too-familiar chorus that all CFAVs have heard before and just reinforces the idea that those in the RAF just have no real clue about what CFAVs do any more than CFAVs know what the RAF does. (To be honest, you probably know a lot less about us than we know about you.) It's facile, it's tiresome and it makes me want to push peoples' teeth so far down their throat that they'd need to floss with bog roll. Moreover, it's an irrelevance as far as this situation is concerned.

The VGS experience for staff is unique to the ACO. Most VR(T) officers get dressed up in a blue suit for 4hrs and probably work a handful of hours more each week. AEFs have an FTRS Flt Lt OC and enjoy all the support given by the full-time staff of the UAS with which they co-locate.

If you're on a VGS, even as a relatively junior member of staff, you can reasonably expect to have 25-30hrs of your week taken up by VGS ops, admin and general niff-naff and trivia. If you're the boss or an adj (now a non-flying post because of the weight of paperwork coming down the chute), that number is going to be far higher. You will have ZERO full-time staff on your unit to support you, so you can expect to be making and fielding phone calls at your place of employment, to which you have to keep going because the ACO doesn't pay you for the hours you put in. As instructors, we can't palm off any admin/eng/mt/supply/h&s problem to a "bluntie" because there are none. It's up to you to fix a problem or it stays broken. Having spent some time with our cousins at the local AEF, I can guarantee you won't find AEF pilots still at their desks going through paperwork at 2100-2200hrs on a Saturday or Sunday night. Why would they? They have what we'd love to have: a true fly and f***-off approach. Accordingly, they have a lack of drive and initiative to try and find alternative solutions to address their own problems which has, quite frankly, stunned me.

I took nearly 15 years out from the VGS system before coming back a couple of years ago. Although I rejoined the same sqn, the ethos was completely different and everyone there is doing their level best to comply with the new regulations. (Incidentally, it must be remembered that this current "pause" has nothing to do with any mistakes the volunteers have been making- this is the train set belonging to the "professionals".) Those who are struggling to adapt to the new culture are those who have been around the block a few times and have grown up with the can-do/make-do attitude brought about by inadequate RAF support, which has forced them to search for local solutions to problems. They are becoming fewer in number and the day of the well-meaning duffer has thankfully gone.

Let's take Leon's vignette about flying coveralls for one example of poor support. In the mid 90s, I was the inventory holder for a VGS, stuck with about 4 ma-husive boxes of growbags I wanted to get off my inventory. I couldn't return them because they hadn't been conditioned by a squipper- because we had no squipper on our parenting statement. Cut to nearly 20 years later and TGOs have finally decreed that VGS aircrew should carry an aircrew cutter. We're still not carrying them because- we STILL don't have squippers on our parenting statement. That's a fairly mundane example, but you can look at nearly any aspect of running a squadron and find jams caused not by us on the squadron staff, but by the supposed professionals who are tasked with supporting us. This applies to engineering (this current cock-up, not to mention the laughable backlog of aircraft at the Syerston GRP bay); MT; admin; supply and the list goes on. Don't even get me started on the spinning bow-tie extravaganza that is RAF Medical Services and the bizarre set of rules we have been given by them for cadet flying.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making us a more professional outfit that works in a manner much more like the RAF, but our time, our talents and our resources are limited. Unless we get adequate support from the RAF, we will fail to achieve the targets and objectives set for us. If the RAF is not going to support us, then go ahead and shut us down because, with this extended pause in flying, a lot of us (not to mention our families) are starting to remember how much fun it is to have free time.

centrinoflyer

5th May 2014, 19:57

LJ
I appreciate you did not want to single out a single VGS, however your defamatory remarks regarding incidents over the years seem to serve no useful purpose. To post these observations here was unacceptable, especially, if as you say, the alleged incidents had already been addressed by yourself.

Lima Juliet

5th May 2014, 21:20

Centrino

Surely to be defamatory then the statements would need to be untrue? I'm reasonably content that the basis of them is true. That's the norm. Also, there would need to be intent to vilify an individual or organisation? I've not named an individual or organisation for good reason - that's not the flight safety way.

Flight safety requires us to be open and honest about mistakes in the past to be better for the future. Others have said they know of other goings on (not at the same unit, I add) and are unwilling to mention them due to the obvious nature of their moniker. I do not seek to embarrass anyone, in fact the examples I use have all seen progress being made with the improvements that 2FTS bring.

There are dozens of lessons from things that have happened in the past that are discussed on Prune, what makes the VGS a subject that is forbidden? These lessons are free to read in publications like the excellent Air Clues. Other types of open sharing of these types of mistakes go in Airprox publications (now Clued Up) and human factors publications like CHIRP. None of the lessons I mention are confidential and could be talked about in any one of many aviation safety and aircraft operations meetings that I attend - there is no closed shop on matters such as these when mentioned in a wider context (ie. without mentioning individuals, dates, times, places or specific organisations).

I would offer that if personnel from the VGS are so sensitive to airing mistakes/errors that I mention then maybe they should consider why the rest of the RAF and wider UK mil aviation see fit to share each other's mistakes without so much concern?

I refute that my comments are defamatory. I've even spent some of my own time (and fuel) to try and address some of the issues I've mentioned. If I was out to score points then why would I bother? All I want to do is to fix things.

Finally, I have apologised if my comments caused offence, they were not aimed at any individual in particular - they were meant to answer a specific point that was made implying that the VGS is as safe as it can be because it hasn't had an accident in 30 years. I believe this view is flawed. Past performance is no guarantee of future success. We know where holes have existed in the support for VGS, it is now time to plug these gaps - I include myself in part of this process.

Once the other issues that have caused this 'pause' are dealt with then the ongoing series of improvements that the MAA, and more recently 2FTS, have brought about will continue to be rolled out.

Doing nothing, like the 'good old days', is not an option. :ok:

LJ

youngskywalker

5th May 2014, 22:06

It's not quite true to say that the VGS have suffered no accidents in 30 years, I recall one very serious accident at RAF Sealand in 1995 where two Vikings collided resulting in two fatalities and one serious injury. I believe this is what prompted the high-vis orange stripes on the wings.

I'm ex VGS from the mid 90's and I do recognise some of what is being reported here, although a very different culture existed back then. I don't recall seeing any 'walts' at my unit, most of the instructors were professional pilots for a day job and had no need to pretend to be anything else. Now I come to think of it I can think of only one 'walt' and he joined the RAF where he continues to be a very active 'walt' and pprune member to this day.

ShotOne

5th May 2014, 23:00

Let's get this straight, raven, and I apologise for diverging from the important safety issue; you've spent a couple of posts deriding VR's for exaggerated self-importance -yet admit to spending your own free time wandering about ticking off cadets who you're not in any way responsible for.??

iRaven

5th May 2014, 23:32

If I see it whilst on duty and ignore it then I'm disobeying QRs

An officer is responsible at all times for the maintenance of good order and discipline.

diginagain

5th May 2014, 23:38

An officer is responsible at all times for the maintenance of good order and discipline. It's a youth-club.

Cat Funt

6th May 2014, 00:02

Trying to keep things on-thread as much as possible, we should not forget that this current pause is precipitated by a failure not of the volunteers but of the structures and processes put in place by the professionals who are supposed to be supporting them.

For what it's worth, I'm with Leon on the need to reform- just about everyone I know is. I'm on the staff of a VGS and, broadly speaking, we welcome the changes that are being made. I also hope that with the new regime and change in culture that the VGSs will finally be given the support they need to implement these changes so that they can operate iaw with the diktats from upon high.

If precedent is anything to go by, I'm not optimistic, though. I have a sense that more regulation and admin will get dumped upon unpaid volunteers whose resources of time, talent, enthusiasm and goodwill are finite and, as always, we will be told to crack on. We will, as always, do the best we can to address what's being thrown at us, but without more people and better parenting, there's a good chance we will not succeed. It's already commonplace for even relatively junior staff to be giving up 25-30 hours a week in addition to their full time jobs, and it's now being suggested that the adjutant post is a non-flying post. It takes a special brand of masochist to sit in an office for free, doing what is essentially a second full-time job, so other people can go flying.

We've done a fairly good job of weeding out the numpties and the cowboys in recent years, but without adequate support the best, most committed people will sack it and those left behind will be the Walts and the strutting throbbers who are in it for the growbag and the rank slides and who don't give a cowpat with a cherry on top about what the TGOs have to say.

Cat Funt

6th May 2014, 00:04

It's a youth-club.

Well said, that man!

iRaven

6th May 2014, 01:40

Alright, alright, I've toned down my opinion and they're all wonderful.

diginagain

6th May 2014, 02:24

Alright, alright, I've toned down my opinion and they're all wonderful. Their organisation is also considerably larger than yours, too.

centrinoflyer

6th May 2014, 07:14

IRaven
Of course they are all wonderful!! These ladies and gents are totally unselfish when it comes to devoting their own time for a very good purpose.
For somebody that is happy to enforce QRs, it should also be your duty to support and encourage this superb organisation.
'Walts' as you refer, appear in all walks of life. Your organisation is no exception!:ok:

centrinoflyer

6th May 2014, 08:36

LJ

I am pleased that you wish to have things fixed.
Having an honest and open flight safety culture is a good thing, provided it takes place in the right environment and with all parties having the opportunity to participate in an equal capacity.
As an ambassador for flight safety do you consider it sensible to "spill the beans" before consulting the party involved in the alleged incidents. Confidential publications generally involve the third party before going to print. In this instance, despite your genuine concerns to help improve the unit's flight safety culture, I feel the observations you make do not provide a full and detailed account and are very much of your opinion. Other observations are merely trivial and pointless.
Having a 'Big Brother' approach to flight safety on an airfield where every movement is being scrutinised can lead to flight safety issues in itself. Pilots become wary of their every movement and this can detract from the task in hand. I don't wear a flying suit, but should I find myself in one and I find myself at your airfield then I'll confess now that it will have badges in the wrong place and as I can't sew they'll have been stitched on by my Mum with thread from her sewing basket!:)

bobward

6th May 2014, 11:38

Having read all the messages here, and seen the thread drift onto bashing of VR / CI's I feel the need to post a comment or two.Allow me to explain why I'm more than a little hacked off by the attitude of some of you.

I joined the ATC as a cadet in 1965. Apart from a two year break to get married, I've been with them ever since. I've held every rank, and done every job (apart from Padre!) from cadet second class to squadron commander in the last 49 years. Based on that experience I offer the following thoughts:

1 There are poseurs in all walks of life, including the RAF and the ATC. Just reading back through PPrune archives will support this. Having spent all my working life in the offshore industry I have met one or two (dozen)

2 Yes, we are a "uniformed youth club", however, we try to instill service ethos and values at all levels.

3 In my experience there are more than a few in our parent service who treat us with disdain. I can recall being on my officer training course at Air Cadet Training Centre, where we were intriduced to one of the Corps 'wheels'. When he opened is talk by telling us he'd not actually seen an ATC cadet for 20 years, he rather lost the audience.... We also met the then AOC (Peter N**) who was less than impressed with that attitude.

4 As a squadron commander my greatest fear was that I'd take cadets on an activity and something would go wrong. Thus we all take their health and safety very much to heart. I'm told that the latest restriction on cadet over night activities is due to Army Cadets not following the rules (I'll willingly stand correction from thse who know more).

5 What many of you seem to overlook is that we work on the squadrons in our free time. Many of us work a full week,then pull on the blue suit and get on with the job.

6 We are very frustrated that we can't fly the kids in either the Tutors, or at the gliding schools. It's costing us cadets, as we have had minimal flying for a year or more. Whilst we know and understand the reasons why, try explaining that to a 13 year old who just wants to fly.

Having had my rant, let me end on a more positive note. Back in February, I took some cadets up to RAF Wyton to get their first flights. Juat after we got back I saw something one of the kids had written about their experience. Their closing comment was "...it was the best day of my life". Comments like that make aged instructors proud, and not a little humbled, and mean that the scorn some of you have shown will just bounce off.

...and to those at RAF Wyton, thanks!:ok:

teeteringhead

6th May 2014, 12:49

I'm told that the latest restriction on cadet over night activities is due to Army Cadets not following the rules (I'll willingly stand correction from thse who know more). Then you are told wrong bobward. We cannot blame the Army this time - I'll say no more.

Lima Juliet

6th May 2014, 21:32

I think some of us have the same viewpoint that I so clumsily tried to inform. The new ways of doing business have increased the work load and the regular full-time staff need to find some time to help wherever possible. I agree that a lot of the stuff that I mentioned before can, at least in part, be put down to poor support, expecting part-time personnel to know how to sort things out and probably expecting too much overall. (As full-time staff on the same station it took me too long to realise this and I guess I'm not alone).

In answer to some previous posts..

we STILL don't have squippers on our parenting statement.

And...

Cut to nearly 20 years later and TGOs have finally decreed that VGS aircrew should carry an aircrew cutter.

A while back I searched for and found the telephone number on Dii (which most cadet guys don't have access to - which is a problem in itself) of a very helpful Flt Sgt in 22(Trg) Gp that looks after all VGS AEA/SE and had a good chat. I found out that all non-flying MOB VGSs should have an AEA/SE parenting unit and he put me in touch with the VGS's local SES bay at another station. Once the comms were established it was just a matter of rounding up some flying suits at the end of a weekend and running them over during a week day. There were quite a few to do - so much so that the station ran out of cutter stowages sorting them out! But at least they now have a good set of flying suits to meet the TGO requirement. Collecting them a week later on the way into work involved a 15 mile detour which isn't exactly a disaster (about £3 of fuel and time). I managed this because I had the contacts to do so, rang a few mates and then made it happen (with my SFSO hat on, I was also keen to ensure that their AEA had been serviced/accepted - but that is my responsibility to make happen once I had discovered the problem). I don't blame the VGS for not having compliant AEA and I understand how they ended up as they were. I decided they needed my intervention to help solve the problem. I guess you could call it 'taking ownership'?

As has been mentioned, I hadn't realised that there can be so few, if any, personnel on a VGS with any experience of regular full-time service - all of which normally comes with a network of mates that they can call up to try and get help to get things done. I think a FTRS or ADC (ie. 180-200 days a year) Flt Lt for all VGS might be considered to serve as an Adj/XO to the OC VGS. AEF is one good example already mentioned where FTRS works, and also I believe that most Air Cadet regional HQs have an XO that is a full time employee and a Wg Cdr OC that is the VR(T) officer that seems to work well. I guess it all comes down to a bit more funding - hopefully showing improvement gains in ensurance/assurance and the knock-on effect of improved safety? If it happens I'll claim it as a GEMS!

Whatever the solution that 2FTS come up with, I can't see the old status quo being maintained (nor would I want to). The full-timers are going to need to try and help wherever they can and keep an eye on the VGS to try and offer advice before events occur; such as the ones that I used as examples at the very start. Full-time staff on stations need to be a pro-active part of the solution. Of course, the solutions they come up with need to be sustainable and also simple enough to allow part-time staff to maintain them with minimal effort - now that is the challenge!

Despite some of the carping from some on here, I'm pretty sure that most full-time service personnel want to see the continuing success of the Air Cadets and VGS. So if you have a problem then ask them for help - you may be surprised with the answer you get!

LJ :ok:

teeteringhead

7th May 2014, 05:44

I believe that most Air Cadet regional HQs have an XO that is a full time employee and a Wg Cdr OC that is the VR(T) officer that seems to work well. What you say is true of Wing HQs Leon (of which there are 35/36). The Wg XO is a Sqn Ldr.

Regional HQs have a full time Gp Capt - FTRS or MSF - (JM was one such before 2 FTS) and a full time Sqn Ldr. All the HQs have also 1 or 2 CS Admin support.

The vast majority of Wg XOs are ex-regular - I know of at least one ex gp capt and one ex wg cdr - both GD. Each VGS is allocated to a Wg HQ for admin purposes.

One of the problems in the past was that 27 VGSs sometimes did things in 27 different ways. That is just one of the things that 2FTS has changed for the better.

A and C

7th May 2014, 08:46

I am hearing talk of cracks in the new Props fitted to the Tutors....... Any comments from the floor ?

TheChitterneFlyer

7th May 2014, 15:34

Tutors have been flying from Boscombe Down for the whole of today.

TCF

Jimmyjerez

8th May 2014, 21:01

Just met up with a couple of the old crowd for a few beers and feel for them. I was thinking about going back as a CI but sounds like these days people are flying all day from about 8am until sunset then stuck doing paperwork and ground training for hours after and midweek evenings as well, and you have to do at least one day a weekend doing that. Can't see how it can go on with volunteers to be honest. The lads say people are walking in droves as sick of being treated like full timers and they are having to give stars to B cats now as no A2s around. Best of luck to everyone in getting over this hump and getting cadets back up the winch again!

Lima Juliet

9th May 2014, 05:16

JJ

That's sad to hear. Surely the workload is a function of:

1. The number of serviceable airframes.
2. The number of instructors and flight staff cadets.
3. The number of flyable days/hours.
4. The amount of paperwork required.

That will determine how many cadets you can fly, which should be tuned to meet the expected workload of the volunteer staff?

I know there will be pressure from Wing HQs to keep sending cadets, but its up to the OC/CFI/Adj to say 'no' when the workload gets too much. For example if you have an expectation of 500 cadets a year, but in reality you can only manage 350 due to issues 1-4 above - well guess what, 350 it is?

I would suggest that burning the candle at both ends, as you describe, is a recipe for disaster!

One last question, if I may? Without being too specific, is the VGS at a remote site or on a station/camp? If the workload is too high and you're on a camp, then why doesn't the OC ask the stn cdr or camp col for some help? They may be able to find help with paperwork and assurance work by seeking out volunteers from the stn/camp's permanent staff as a secondary duty. Personally, I would far rather help on a VGS than be a Mess Sec or OIC Barrack Block!

Just my two-penneth that might, or might not, improve things.

LJ

A and C

9th May 2014, 11:43

Thank you for that good news, it would seem as I suspected my "informant" was incorrect.

Having maintained and flown aircraft fitted MT propellers I have never seen such defects even on unlimited aerobatic aircraft such at the Extra 300 and in my opinion fitting MT props was the right decision.

1.3VStall

12th May 2014, 10:27

So, are the Air Cadets gliding/motor gliding again?

Tingger

12th May 2014, 10:41

No gliding/motor gliding until 1st June is latest update, subject to change of course.

Tingger

12th May 2014, 21:28

LJ

If only that was the way the tasking was set. when in reality it is just done on numbers of aircraft each squadron "should" have. Not taking into account how many aircraft there actually are, how many staff, number of days you're booted off your airfield, how versatile the airfield is or any other factors.

The workload JJ refers to no doubt is the Sqn Execs running around all week trying to get MT fixed and transported back to site, finding accommodation for their staff, finding aircraft, filling out a million and one forms, rebuilding their offices, safety meetings, first aid training, courses, conferences, returns then doing exactly the same again for each of their staff.

The B Word

13th May 2014, 21:44

If only that was the way the tasking was set. when in reality it is just done on numbers of aircraft each squadron "should" have. Not taking into account how many aircraft there actually are, how many staff, number of days you're booted off your airfield, how versatile the airfield is or any other factors.

Tingger - it is that simple. If you can't do it safely - eg. within resource - then don't do it!

http://www.bainessimmons.com/media/image/NEWS%20PICTURES/AHQ-09-040-Out-Unc-006-7.jpg

There are plenty of Squadron Commanders that have told their HQs that they can't do the task due to a lack of capacity or support - including a rather famous one with 2 tin legs! One thing, though, you have to have your facts straight if you make the call.

The B Word

Tingger

13th May 2014, 22:03

No one ever does do it, doesn't stop the head shed asking for it year after year.

The B Word

21st May 2014, 14:55

Latest rumour is that the pause will last through most of the summer until the autumn. Must have been some serious holes in the paperwork! Or have they found other stuff? :confused:

The B Word

Wander00

21st May 2014, 14:57

How have we reached this sorry state? Air Cadets without the "Air" seems a bit of a road to nowhere................

Jimmyjerez

21st May 2014, 21:21

B Word - that's awful news what a terrible thing to happen to all the cadets and volunteer staff. Really worry that a lot of people won't go back after all this time away it will be like starting the schools from fresh.

Tingger

23rd May 2014, 23:40

That's the best case scenario to be able to do some training in September and it definitely won't be full capability, depends very much on how easy each airframe is to rectify.

ACW999

24th May 2014, 00:23

I have been gliding for over 50 years. I started as a staff cadet back in 1962 and went through every rank on a VGS.

A Viking glider is not a special glider it is a bog standard Grob 103 Acro. One of the problems is that the TCH no longer exists but it is still a glider and like all gliders all over the world is simple to maintain.
My experience of the engineering, that is the work done on the aircraft by the enginers at Syerston is first rate and exceeds the standard set by the TCH.
As far as many of the other comments made, I still fly gliders dressed in whatever I happen to be wearing at the time. I do a daily inspection and sign for it (once). I fly cross country and regularly take all sorts of gliders apart and put them back together.

I would be the first to agree that grounding an aircraft that has not been properly maintained is sensible. Grounding the whole fleet because a new organisation does not like the way the paperwork has been done is complete nonsense. How long would it take to visit each squadron, check each glider for serviceability and sign it up take? Days probably not, weeks certainly but months, I don't think so.

They are GRP gliders, not complicated aircraft at all. Enough of a rant, off to bed, hoping to get some gliding in tommorrow.

Wander00

24th May 2014, 07:15

Just being the "Air Cadets -then and now " thread. Simples - then they flew, now thy don't! Sad really

longer ron

24th May 2014, 07:29

That's the best case scenario to be able to do some training in September and it definitely won't be full capability, depends very much on how easy each airframe is to rectify.

Probably will not be too many staff left to train by then...but maybe that is the desired outcome... :*

Wander00

24th May 2014, 07:36

Anyone know what the problem really is - cannot be a State secret - I mean, would knowing what is "wrong" with Air Cadet gliding bring the black Omegas round. Just seems a great shame that the whole summer looks like it is going to waste for the cadets and volunteer staff

Tingger

24th May 2014, 07:43

I don't know they can be quite resilient, one VGS had no hangar for 4 years, one has been off their airfield for over a year due to it not being maintained and flooding all the time, anotherwas shut for 10 months while they changed aircraft and moved location, another is displaced from its catchment area by hundreds of miles and one had no winch for months before this "pause" they put up with quite alot and still keep going

Corporal Clott

24th May 2014, 07:46

ACW

Grounding the whole fleet because a new organisation does not like the way the paperwork has been done is complete nonsense.

I believe that this is not what has happened. As I understand it there have been other problems with some of the spares/repairs and their processes.

The other thing that you seem to be unsympathetic to is that VGSs are set up to fly children (which is wholly different to your comparison of the average BGA Club that has a majority of beardy 40+ somethings that drink real ale). If your reason d'etre is to fly children, under a military registered aircraft airworthiness system that is underwritten by the Secretary of State (who is risk averse to bad news for their political party) and you are part of an organisation that has taken recent criticism from Coroners/media on the safety of their aircraft - what would you do? The actions ongoing are exactly the right thing to do. I would far rather see a 6 month pause in flying than be the representing officer at an Air Cadet's funeral.

Whenever I've been involved in events flying youths/children, such as the LAA's Young Eagles/Aviators events, the extra checks and balances required were significant. For example, some insisted that a 50hr check be done before the event and oversigned by an Inspector. You cannot compare normal gliding club operations with an operation that is purely for flying kids - the appetite for risk is completely different!

Finally, have a thought for the staff involved in this (MAA, CAMO/CAE, 22 Gp, 2FTS and the contractor). From what I understand they have been working flat out (some nights and weekends as well) to get this sorted out. Regular updates have been sent up to the very top of the RAF on the latest situation. This is being taken very seriously; and in my opinion, rightly so, and from the rumours that surround it, it was long overdue.

CPL Clott

longer ron

24th May 2014, 08:01

The trouble is - if the real reason(s) for the 'pause' are kept secret - then people will speculate -
Also I would like to add that the Gliding movement in general has good airworthiness standards - inc for 2 seaters where any age of pax/pupil is catered for.
Perhaps ATC gliding is now too 'military',some enlightened ATC squadrons already have agreements with the 'beardy' civvy clubs - perhaps that is the way forward !
I have flown both 'military' and 'civvy' gliders and I cannot recall any airfield for either that had a particularly dangerous atmosphere !

rgds LR

Corporal Clott

24th May 2014, 08:21

LR

I agree with you mostly. I also know that many BGA clubs fly kids and even let them fly solo before they're old enough to drive (and I add that there is nothing wrong with this in my opinion). However, there are a number of fatalities each year at BGA clubs and if you were 100% training children/youths then this number of child fatalities would be unacceptable. I'm not saying BGA flying is unsafe, reckless or shoddy - it isn't. But if it were a 100% youth organisation then I suggest that there would be increases in supervision and mitigation to ensure that the safety record reflects that of the VGS (1 fatal accident in 19 years).

CPL Clott

Tingger

24th May 2014, 08:23

Longer Ron

The reasons are known and touched on throughout this thread, the Engineering procedures and records aren't robust enough to demonstrate (should the worst happen) that the airframe was air worthy in the first place.

The BGA clubs are complying with many new rules too but its a lot less obvious when you have 2 aircraft to make compliant rather than 150.

Corporal Clott

24th May 2014, 08:34

By the way the BGA's 2013 safety review is here: http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/documents/accidentreview2013web.pdf
One example caught my eye - "Glider took off with the elevator disconnected; the glider was rigged by a group of visitors without any single person taking responsibility; no positive control checks and no DI."

Also from the BGA website dated Mar 14:

In the last four years 10 flights have been made in gliders with disconnected controls (three elevator, four aileron, one flap, one airbrake, one trim). Two flights have been made with an insecure tailplane and one flight with an insecure main pin. Other flights with improperly rigged gliders include two with missing drag pins, a disconnected hotelier, missing shims, a drag pin inserted with the handle instead of the barrel, and a missing wing tip. These events led to one fatality. There could easily have been more. One glider was taken to the launch point with the wing main pin on the pilot's seat. One insecure tailplane was detected just prior to launch. 29 canopies detached in flight. There were 19 other instances of inadequate preparation for flight, mainly unlocked airbrakes, and loose articles

Can you imagine the outcry if this happened on a VGS? The Coroner and media would have a lot to say. Please, I am not trying to point-score between VGS and BGA, but this indicates why your proposed use of BGA clubs would not work without radical change.

Wander00

24th May 2014, 08:40

CC- but this would have been a "private" not a "club" aircraft. Both BGA clubs I have been involved with recently are meticulous in their maintenance, DIs and control of flying.

longer ron

24th May 2014, 08:41

Tingger
I still work in military aviation maintenance/operations !
So I can have a reasonable guess at some of the issues,I just worry that (and it really depends on how the VGS staff 'perceive' what the real issues are) because this grounding is not caused by a 'force majeur' but (presumably) by HQ staff + the MAA - how many staff will remain if the grounding really is until september !

rgds LR

longer ron

24th May 2014, 08:44

Cpl Clott

Can you imagine the outcry if this happened on a VGS? The Coroner and media would have a lot to say. Please, I am not trying to point-score between VGS and BGA, but this indicates why your proposed use of BGA clubs would not work without radical change.

I am aware of the BGA accident statistics but the statistics you quote will be for privately owned gliders and not for Gliding Club 2 seaters !

rgds LR

Corporal Clott

24th May 2014, 08:52

Wander00/LR

but this would have been a "private" not a "club" aircraft.

But even "private" gliders operate under a Club environment under the supervision of a full-cat at most clubs I've flown from.

Please, I'm not trying to sl@g off the BGA, they're a great and well respected organisation. It's just that if we wanted to take Longer Ron's suggestion of replacing the VGS activity by using BGA clubs, then I suggest we would have to change practices and cultures to do 100% youth flying at such clubs.

My opinion and definately no agenda.

CPL Clott

Tingger

24th May 2014, 08:55

Cpl Clott

they already are trialing the use of BGA clubs to fill the gaps in the vgs footprint lee-on-solent has already taken cadets from southwest regon.

LR the "pause" really is until September at the earliest this is for delivering training to cadets though and 22group is being engaged to provide what it can to give cadets flying over this period. The staff flying issue and currency is a little different the instructor development courses are still running ironically because they use many BGA aircraft and similar initiatives are being looked at by SO1 gliding in his recovery plan

althalus401

24th May 2014, 08:59

One example caught my eye - "Glider took off with the elevator disconnected; the glider was rigged by a group of visitors without any single person taking responsibility; no positive control checks and no DI."

I got airborne in an AC Viking and during flight the trim mechanism became disconnected. The control worked correctly at the BF and for the FRC checks. It turned out that the safety clip had not be secured and the link fell apart on the launch. People make mistakes and sometimes they will have unfortunate results. We strive to stop these events happening but humans are human.

Spares will always be a problem for the Grob 103 as Grob Aerospace are no longer in existence.

I am very well aware of the responsibility of flying other peoples children and it is right and proper that great care is taken. I can make my own judgement about the level of engineering competence on gliders that I own/fly, parents of AC do not have that option, they have to take it on trust. Having said that when proving that a job has been done properly becomes a greater priority than doing the job properly there are bound to be problems. The Grob Acro is still a glider, and a good one, even if the brake master cylinder is a master cylinder for a BMW motor cycle with most of the lever sawn off.

longer ron

24th May 2014, 09:00

But even "private" gliders operate under a Club environment under the supervision of a full-cat at most clubs I've flown from.

Agreed but that supervision is usually on the flying side rather than rigging/DI's etc.

they already are trialing the use of BGA clubs to fill the gaps in the vgs footprint lee-on-solent has already taken cadets from southwest regon.

And there is the irony of the situation gentlemen !

Jimmyjerez

24th May 2014, 09:02

Don't think stuff will be sorted by September at all. For years AEFs have had full time raf guys, full time engineering and ATC etc only pilot volunteers while VGS volunteers have slaved away and had to do everything themselves, spend hours doing paperwork and engineering each day and run airfield etc. they've had enough after years of being shafted and neglected, if you want VGS like RAF squadrons and AEF they will have to put staff in.

longer ron

24th May 2014, 09:03

The Grob Acro is still a glider, and a good one, even if the brake master cylinder is a master cylinder for a BMW motor cycle with most of the lever sawn off.

ISTR that the brake master cylinder on the SA Bulldog was the same part number as my Hillman Hunter GLS clutch master cyl :ok:

longer ron

24th May 2014, 09:09

It's just that if we wanted to take Longer Ron's suggestion of replacing the VGS activity by using BGA clubs, then I suggest we would have to change practices and cultures to do 100% youth flying at such clubs.

Not really my suggestion CC but I can see it as a possible outcome if this drags on past June !

Tingger

24th May 2014, 09:29

JJ

The problem doesn't sit with the volunteers and what they have been doing i.e. what theyve been told to do. It is with the full time engineer practices and procedures and from what i hear they drafting in more engineers to help solve the problem

Wander00

24th May 2014, 09:38

LR - But I bet they paid squillions more for the one that went into the Bulldog than the one in the car

VX275

24th May 2014, 13:17

I really hope they get the problem sorted sooner rather than later. This grounding is costing me money. My weekends at the VGS normally keep me away from the shops and for the past 30 years my annual holidays have been VGS courses, it looks like I might have to spend money this year. :{

teeteringhead

25th May 2014, 11:47

BGA trial - which is happening - could only ever be a temporary and partial fix.

Quite simply, BGA do not have the capacity to provide the GICs and GSs that the (when fully functioning!!) VGS system can do and is under remit to do.

In theory - IIRC - that's one opportunity per cadet per year. You do the math(s)!

Tingger

25th May 2014, 23:27

At least the gliding simulator program will be accelerated to compensate for the loss of flying shame hardly any of the units have accommodation to house such an expensive piece of kit.

romeo bravo

26th May 2014, 21:20

Latest from OC2FTS -

"My intent, subject to meeting the currency fleet requirement, is to have a limited return to cadet gliding by Sep 14 at the earliest."

Full transcript will be found on Bader Sharepoint when uploaded.....

brokenlink

27th May 2014, 21:31

Some talk of extra Tutor Flights for cadets to compensate, don't know how there are not enough to go around as it is.

tmmorris

28th May 2014, 06:11

Extra flights in general where possible I believe. I hope someone high enough up is going to provide the resources to e.g. get all cadets on camp at suitable stations airborne in something. Especially as I'll be on camp at ODI...

teeteringhead

28th May 2014, 08:44

AOC 22 has asked his fellow AOCs to provide where possible.

ODI is good tm (I would say that!); at a recent cadet event - a Wing Field Day I think it was - literally hunderds of cadets got airborne in the mighty Wokka. :ok:

BZ Odiham.

ACW999

16th Jul 2014, 22:39

Ah Cpl Clott, read the posting name and go figure.

TheChitterneFlyer

17th Jul 2014, 12:56

I would be the first to agree that grounding an aircraft that has not been properly maintained is sensible. Grounding the whole fleet because a new organisation does not like the way the paperwork has been done is complete nonsense. How long would it take to visit each squadron, check each glider for serviceability and sign it up take? Days probably not, weeks certainly but months, I don't think so.

Paperwork isn't the specific issue! When repairs have been made that don't have a recognised work package to deal with that repair i.e. the maintenance manual, then one has to ask the question of what other work packages have been completed that have largely gone unrecorded? The on-going process of checking a sample of aircraft maintenance records is is a huge and onerous task. When those unauthorised work packages have been scrutinised and then deemed to be (hopefully) acceptable, the aircraft maintenance manuals will be updated to include an authorised work package. Should there be other aircraft where similar/identical unauthorised repairs have been carried out, there will then be a suitable audit trail to enable the sign-off of those previous repairs.

Believe me, everyone is working flat out to try and resolve the return to flight programme within the all encompassing Safety Regulation framework.

And finally, the grounding of all of the fleet aircraft has had nothing to do with how badges have been sewn onto flying kit or the discovery of fire extinguishers being out of date. As a point of order, that 'new organisation' (the MAA and 2FTS) has proven to be precisely what the VGS needed. Rerun to flight WILL happen and you'll all come out of this 'pause in flying' in much better shape than previous.

iRaven

18th Jul 2014, 08:44

Chitterne

True, but it took me a quarter of century in aviation for my engineering mates to convince me that airworthiness is not just all about aircraft construction and engineering. So whilst flying suits and fire extinguishers did not lead to the pause in flight, it would seem to be further evidence that the VGS airworthiness system was poor and needed correcting. The quoted examples are but a small number of those found by the new CAMO. You are 'spot on' with your praise of 2FTS and their CAMO in my opinion. Their work has been tireless since they first stood up and without it then I fear that Air Cadet gliding would have been stopped for good. Which would be a real shame as VGS flying is funded until at least 2025.

The MAA definition of Airworthiness is:
Airworthiness is the ability of an aircraft or other airborne equipment or system to be operated in flight and on the ground without significant hazard to aircrew, ground crew, passengers or to third parties

iRaven

TheChitterneFlyer

18th Jul 2014, 09:55

iRaven; well said.

You're most certainly correct in saying that were it not for the VGS being brought into line with other military platforms and how 'Airworthiness' is managed, the chances of Air Cadet Gliding continuing into the future were just about zero. I'm not in any way pointing fingers at anyone from within the previous regime; neither would it be appropriate to do so. During recent years, the business process of safely operating/managing aeroplanes has come along in great leaps and bounds and, painful as it might be for those who don't/didn't have a firm understanding of what the MAA are mandated to do, the VGS guys and gals will no doubt be sharing the pain that other military units have had to endure.

Some of the 'old school' may well be somewhat disgruntled by their outdated perceptions of 'Why change something which has proven to have worked well for the previous thirty years'... there's good reason for 'change' and not just for 'change sake'. As a direct result of the Afghanistan Nimrod incident, the Haddon Cave Report was instrumental in changing the way in which airworthiness was to be managed in the future. I wholly recommend that everyone within military aviation circles should take the time to read the report. It's a huge document and it's within the public domain, hence, I'll include the link here https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229037/1025.pdf

Some pills are difficult to swallow, however, the prescribed medication should be taken in good faith.

NutLoose

18th Jul 2014, 11:37

The trouble is with the lighter side of things there is often not a repair scheme or manual for it available, a lot of American built aircraft simply refer you to AC43-13 for structural repairs, ( indeed the likes of the Seneca, the Airframe structural repair section is about a page in size) you then work out your repair from that.

You can read and download those here if your interested, full of good stuff.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC43.13-1b.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2043.13-2B.pdf

I remember when the RAF first bought the gliders, If I remember correctly, they used one to look at the wings internally and as it had no access panels they cut several under the wings, there was no repair scheme so after their inspections they sold it as scrap, the person buying it ( CAA Licenced Engineer with years of carrying out structural repairs on gliders) carried out approved repairs to the wings and put it on the Civilian register, it was a long long time ago, so i may have the odd bit wrong but i'm pretty sure that is what happened to it.

Changes over have been traumatic, both in the Civil world and now it appears the Military, the trouble I forsee is the MAA are probably treating the whole issue as if it was a Voyager A330.

The CAA have of late set up a Light Aircraft section to address these issues, but with a Manning of 6 (though that number has reduced I believe to about 3 with people leaving) to cover the auditing for every aircraft and company operating in the UK below 5700KG.... have fun with that one.

Additionally there has been a move away from over legislating on the Civilian front to passing the buck on to operators and owners, so much so it frightens me, you are now in my eyes going to get maintenance driven by budget and not safety.
Aa an example, the Structural Inspection Programmes brought out by Cesssna to cover areas that need inspecting on the 100 series ageing fleets and now incorporated into the maintenance manuals, the CAA are taking the attitude that it is down to the owners/ operators whether or not they carry out these inspections....

TheChitterneFlyer

18th Jul 2014, 12:55

NutLoose,

I don't doubt your frustration at there being, perhaps, the perception that Viking/Vigilant are being treated the same way as Voyager. The truth of the matter is that, from an airworthiness point of view, Viking/Vigilant are no different than that of Voyager. The same airworthiness principle's are applied to each and every platform.

When there isn't a published repair scheme within the maintenance documentation then you'll, no doubt, now have to jump through many MAA hoops involving the unequivocal report from an Engineering Officer in outlining a suitable repair scheme.

I do recall, many years ago, witnessing many repairs to the primary structure of RAFGSA aeroplanes that were, in every respect, a work of art. The woodworking skills of some of those guys were second to none. I don't doubt that you have many similarly talented folk. However, that's not the issue. The issue is having a clear and concise directive of what can and what cannot be repaired, and, that it's within the accordance of the maintenance manual.

From the military perspective, it matters not what might be in place for the repair of civil light aeroplanes, because there are clear directives in place driven by the Military Regulatory Authority relating to Repair & Maintenance.

I tend to disagree with your view that maintenance will now be driven by budget and not safety. The VGS has now been funded to 2025 and, most certainly, any suggestion that a budget will override the safety case should ring alarm bells far and wide.

The downside of this particular mess has, of course, impacted upon all of those young folk who were expectant of doing some gliding this summer. Last summer was extremely wet and miserable, but this year has seen some fantastic gliding weather... which further exasperates those who want to get on with the business of flying.

All the best of luck in the return to flight programme.

Tingger

23rd Jul 2014, 14:02

First 5 aircraft now slated for an October release to flight and "full" capacity not until well into 2015, its been quite a nice summer so far too, oh well

CISTRS

24th Jul 2014, 17:19

Back in the mid-70s, I was a sprog civilian instructor at West Malling. The very first time I tried to get out of a Sedburgh, I stood up in the cockpit,and put my head forcibly into the bottom of the leading edge of the wing. There was a dent in the ply skin, and my head was similarly affected.
The aircraft was immediately quarantined for an inspection / repair by the regular repair delivery / visiting inspection from St Athan.

Get your act together in today's terms, and fly safe. So many of us owe so much to the ATC.

NutLoose

25th Jul 2014, 11:08

When there isn't a published repair scheme within the maintenance documentation then you'll, no doubt, now have to jump through many MAA hoops involving the unequivocal report from an Engineering Officer in outlining a suitable repair scheme.

You misconstrued what I was getting at, in the Civilian world there is not often a repair scheme for everything and the manuals are often very scant in this respect, so it is often up to the Licenced Engineer to produce his own repair scheme based on his knowledge and what is available, they give you a basic guide to repairing various parts or point you at the book i listed and you then adapt the schemes available to your item and repair it accordingly.
Some aircraft I can think of, the Cessna 152 as an example is actually very good in several aspects, Cessna recognised the fail points in wings when they impact the ground or have heavy landings, and they produce spar end section repairs and the drawings, so you can chop out sections of spar (Tip and Rear Inboard Spar) and let in replacement sections with the enclosed doublers.. otherwise I would simply re-spar the wings, not difficult if you know what you are doing and keep checking the washout to make sure you maintain it as you nail it all back together.
That is the probem the services will now come up against with off the shelf designs, as opposed to ordering bespoke one offs designed for the military as they used to in the past.

Mechta

26th Jul 2014, 22:59

How much of the problem is due to the fact that the gliders being of composite sandwich construction it is only possible to establish how well a repair has been done is by X-raying it? Even then you can't tell if the correct resin was used, and if it was in date at the time of use. A one off repair may be ok, but given the amount of use and perhaps abuse that these airframes have seen, a series of adjacent repairs may be an accident waiting to happen?

Rather than try and get to grips with 25+ years of inadequately recorded repairs, perhaps it is time to pension off the Grobs and go for new AS-K21s?

My understanding is the Air Cadets tried the K21 but they went for the Grob 103 as Schleicher were so busy building K21s for civil clubs that they could not accommodate the Air Cadet order and/or were unwilling to make requested modifications to their proven product.

1.3VStall

27th Jul 2014, 08:30

Mechta,

requested modifications to their proven product

Therein lies the problem with all UK military procurement!:ugh:

Mechta

27th Jul 2014, 10:34

1.3VStall, So should the MAA airworthiness book be thrown out the window?

From talking to someone who was in the MOD(PE) at the time and worked on the Vigilant purchase, they were faced with a rushed job to buy the aircraft on a 'use it or lose it' budget, whilst also faced with purchasing a new aircraft type which contravened the MOD's own airworthiness rulebook at the time. A prime example was the inability to inspect the elevator bellcrank at the bottom of the fin as part of a daily inspection. In this case, (the Grob 109/Vigilant) the aircraft is used in a manner quite different (circuits and bumps) to its civil counterpart which is a touring motor glider, so the forces seen could soon put it ahead of the civil fleet in terms of takeoff/landing cycles.

The rush to buy within the lifespan of the particular budget precluded taking the route used with the Venture (Motor Falke) and getting it licence built by a company familiar with MOD requirements, and capable of producing all the supporting documentation and repair schemes.

One could easily take out 'Viking' or 'Vigilant' and replace it with 'Rivet Joint' as the same story is being repeated three decades later.

Lima Juliet

27th Jul 2014, 11:34

I always thought that because we scr3w3d around with the Grob 109 to make it a Vigilant (by raising the all-up-weight to carry parachutes and reconfiguring the fuel system plus other stuff) meant that we created our own set of problems - if we had bought totally 'off the shelf' (like we have with RIVET JOINT), then some of the issues experienced with the type would not have happened.

When buying an aircraft for 'circuits and bumps' then why did we insist on putting parachutes in, when the circuit height of 800ft QFE was below the likely successful abandonment height anyway? :ugh:

Also, talking to some that fly the civvy Grob 109, they don't have as many problems with the Limbach engine running funny and the only difference that I'm aware of is the reconfigured fuel system?

It seems that as ever the military has itself to blame by not buying of the shelf and insisting that the manufacturer change their preferred specification - we did that with the Grob 115E by insisting on a new prop type for the Tutor and we know how well that went!

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the temporary pause [off thread alert!]

LJ

VX275

27th Jul 2014, 16:26

As someone who has flown the Vigilant from its introduction I can tell you that the reconfigured fuel system CURED the problems we had with the engine - if they'd ripped out the carburettors and fitted fuel injection whilst they were about it the vast number of DASORS for carb icing would have never happened as well.
I doubt any civvy 109 could divide its total flying hours by the total number of landings and get anywhere near the average of 12 minutes which was the result I got last time I did the maths on ZH118.
The Vigilant spends its life bashing the circuit and as its training 16 year olds the emphasis is on the word bash.

Arclite01

28th Jul 2014, 16:26

............and IMHO not the right aeroplane for the job. I actually think there was not a good option available at the time...............so the Grob 109 was what we went with - at least there was continuity of manufacturer so we could go back to them for spares and repair schemes in the future and that gave us safety - right ??

:ooh:

ACW599

28th Jul 2014, 16:40

>Also, talking to some that fly the civvy Grob 109, they don't have as many problems with the Limbach engine running funny and the only difference that I'm aware of is the reconfigured fuel system?<

Just for the record, the G109A has the Limbach engine. The G109B on which the Vigilant is based has a Grob 2500E1 engine. I don't know whether the difference is material.

Lima Juliet

28th Jul 2014, 18:28

Grob 2500E1 engine

Thanks for that, I hadn't realised they weren't Limbachs (they look like them! :ugh:). Anyway, I've just checked the registrations of the gliding club that operates the ones I was talking about and they are 109Bs with Grob 2500E1 engines - they fly on average 40-50 hours a month on them and they don't have half the rough running incidences that the Vigilants seem to have. May be a coincidence, but they have had 3 109Bs with no problems. I also asked the engineer that looks after them and he said that he's never heard of issues with these civvy registered 109Bs.

So guess what? i've drawn a conclusion that a similar number of Vigis that seem to have quite a few rough running engines that something appears wrong - either the different fuel system or maybe training in the use of carb heat, would be my best guess?!!! Or maybe they run more than 50hrs a month on the Vigis and their engines are kn@ckered?

Don't know, I'm not an engineer, but it does strike me as a bit odd...

LJ :cool:

BBK

28th Jul 2014, 19:38

LJ

At your local VGS the use of carb heat and risks associated with carb icing are covered on EVERY briefing. It's a standard slide and the ambient conditions are plotted to determine the risk. In Northern Europe that's always!

As VX275 said the fuel system was modified from the delivery spec and that largely cured the problem. That mod was, as I recall, due to the tireless efforts of the Sqn Ldr ENG at Syerston who fought to resolve the issue otherwise we would still be sending ghost solos as were in the early 90s.

BBK

1.3VStall

28th Jul 2014, 19:40

Mechta,

My post had absolutely no relevance to the MAA (which didn't exist when these systems were procured) - it was merely a reference to the fact that in the UK we seem incapable of buying a proven system off the shelf without "requesting modifications". 'Cos we know better, of course!

Lima Juliet

28th Jul 2014, 20:21

BBK

Fair enough, mate. So why would you say the small sample size of 3x G-reg 109Bs have no rough running engine incidents when compared to a similar number of the mil-reg Vigis that appear to have a significant amount of incidents?

I know this is nothing to do with the 'pause', but I've often wondered why?

LJ

Mechta

28th Jul 2014, 23:00

1.3VStall, Given the number of different aircraft types that the RAF has operated, and that A&AEE have evaluated over the last 94 years, is it not reasonable to try and avoid repeating past mistakes? If lessons can be learned, surely it is reasonable to prevent them being incorporated into new types to the service?

Leon, are the G-Reg Grobs doing circuits and bumps and are they using 100LL, 91/96UL or mogas? Maybe the way in which the Air Cadet aircraft are operated (the 12 minute circuits VX275 mentions) and 100LL makes them more susceptible to plug fouling?

squawking 7700

29th Jul 2014, 09:28

AIUI the Vigilant is operated with the carb heat to hot for all but take off and landing due to the supposed aforementioned risk of carb ice.
That in itself will cause issues associated with running rich - rough running, wash oil off the bores and contaminate the engine oil, it has nothing to do with '12 minute circuits' (and just how big is a 12 minute circuit?).

Regular carb heat checks are taught elsewhere as a precaution against carb ice and if taught properly and with a certain methodology will not see carb ice being an issue (think O-200 carb ice problems, the CAA say it's the worst ice maker - if you adhere to regular checks it's not an issue).

Having flown a 109B on a day that was more conducive to carb ice than most I wouldn't say it has a tendency to ice up any more than, say, a C150.

And as an illustration of the lack of general aircraft knowledge and operation, I know of some of some Air Cadet instructors who insisted upon operating a privately owned aircraft with the carb heat hot all the time.

7700

BBK

29th Jul 2014, 11:17

LJ

I don't know the answer. I have some ideas but not the time to go into detail here.

Squawking 7700

"And as an illustration of the lack of general aircraft knowledge and operation, I know of some of some Air Cadet instructors who insisted upon operating a privately owned aircraft with the carb heat hot all the time."

Might that have been a Chippy where, I believe, the carb heat was wired hot in RAF use.

I've seen operations at 4 flying clubs and one VGS and and whlle all of them had the odd dodgy character for general bad practices the clubs were far worse than the VGS. I'm not saying it was the norm in the clubs but the VGS world take safety far more seriously, on average, than the clubs I saw.

No offence intended to the many good, disciplined club pilots out there. Read the accident reports if you don't believe me.

BBK

Wander00

29th Jul 2014, 11:26

I remember the check on the Chippies at the Towers: "Carb air wired "hot""

clarkieboy

29th Jul 2014, 11:58

I remember making the loop on the wire just big enough to slip on and off as required.........

centrinoflyer

29th Jul 2014, 12:00

There appears to be an element of incriminating VGS instructors when it comes to the use of carb heat and associating this with engine problems. I'm not sure what evidence these conclusions are based on?
Squawking7700, I have met and worked with many VGS instructors, who over the years have displayed exceptional knowledge in all areas when operating the Vigilant. Operation of the aircraft was always carried out in accordance with regulations in force at the time as I'm sure is the case today.
I would be interested to know what aircraft type you refer to regarding the instructor's use of carb heat at all times.:)

Lima Juliet

29th Jul 2014, 22:04

Leon, are the G-Reg Grobs doing circuits and bumps and are they using 100LL, 91/96UL or mogas? Maybe the way in which the Air Cadet aircraft are operated (the 12 minute circuits VX275 mentions) and 100LL makes them more susceptible to plug fouling?

Mechta

Same fuel from the same pump (100LL), same airfield but different airframes (ie. Vigi vs G109B). Thus I can't understand why the Vigi seems to have more incidences of a rough running engine than the civvy G109B? It is a small sample size, as I said before, of 3x G109Bs and 4x Vigis, but I can't remember any time over 3 years that the civvy 109Bs had a rough running engine at all - they've had a nose-over and a hard landing, but that's a different matter! The civvy 109B sorties are slightly different in that they tend to fly for 30 mins in the local area before coming back for a few glider circuits (normally teaching students how to deal with overshooting or undershooting glide approaches before going around for a further approach under climb out power). So I guess it could be the fact that VGS mainly fly circuits only, but I would have thought the problem would manifest itself on the civvy 109Bs at the same airfield over a 3 year period at some point? They do fly at least 12 hours a week and sometimes as much as 20 hours a week - in a year I would estimate around 4-500 hours across this civvy fleet. The only explanation I can think of is that the modification to the fuel system has something to do with it or that the FRCs/SOPs for the Vigi are different to the POH procedures for the 109B?

Of course, it could be that this particular VGS has had a run of bad luck with their engines or have the 'dogs' of the Vigi fleet?!! Or that the civvy 109B operator has been increadibly lucky?!!

As I said, I just dunno! It's just an observation and my own only plausible explanation as to why, that's all...

LJ :ok:

squawking 7700

30th Jul 2014, 07:34

centrinoflyer & LJ - check your PM's

7700

incubus

30th Jul 2014, 09:06

A few years ago I spent a winter week at a Vigilant VGS supervising cadets on a course. While I can't remember the specifics I am sure that the SOP was to climb out 5kts lower than the book speed for "noise abatement" purposes.

This recollection doesn't seem to match with information plucked from a 109B resource on the Internet but it is quite a clear memory and I'd appreciate it if current crew could advise.

If this is true, could this be contributing to an increase in carb icing in the Vigilant fleet?

30th Jul 2014, 16:16

So why would you say the small sample size of 3x G-reg 109Bs have no rough running engine incidents when compared to a similar number of the mil-reg Vigis that appear to have a significant amount of incidents?

Probably because the civil ones are more likely to be wheeled into the hangar, sorted, and put back into use without a formal report going to the CAA.

Lima Juliet

30th Jul 2014, 19:09

Probably because the civil ones are more likely to be wheeled into the hangar, sorted, and put back into use without a formal report going to the CAA.

I would believe that if I wasn't at the airfield where they fly 5 days a week and would have noticed if that was the case! Nice theory, though.

LJ:ok:

FrustratedFormerFlie

7th Aug 2014, 14:09

I suspect its not 'a' 12 minute circuit. More like 5 circuits in an hour from walk out to walk in, probably 2 to roll, 1 to land (taxi round to unscramble Bloggs' brains and give him another shottie at the Take Off Checks), then 1 to roll, 1 to land, and mine's with milk and two sugars.

Terrible shame if the entire AEF and VGS network is to be grounded for a while. But if its in the name of improving safety, who can argue.

RUCAWO

7th Aug 2014, 15:40

One of my ones wasn't grounded at camp.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/sniperUK/sniperUK016/IMG_1265.jpg

Thank you IV Sqn :D

Martin the Martian

8th Aug 2014, 09:38

From the noises heard over Truro over the last few days I would hazard a guess that the Tutors are up and about again?

incubus

8th Aug 2014, 09:46

Tutors have been back in action for a few months now but the gliding fleet is a long way from being back to normal.

Duplo

9th Aug 2014, 06:24

Tutors have been flying for over a year now. Over 3000 cadet sorties delivered this year alone at a single AEF near me..!!

Lima Juliet

14th Aug 2014, 00:08

I had a look at Vigi FRCs and the advice on carb heat seems a bit 'wooly' to me - or maybe I'm just a grumpy old man? There seems to be some 'Carb Heat As Required', and also the following line, that is less than clear:

CARBURETTOR ICING If carburettor icing is suspected, use full carburettor hot air for 30 seconds. For optimum de-icing use a high power setting with the cabin heating at cold, An initial further decrease in RPM and an increase in rough running is usual during any ice melting process. It is recommended that carburettor air is selected to hot prior to any prolonged period of flight with low power setting, including within the circuit. Carburettor air should not be selected to cold before commencing the final turn but should at some point, be selected to cold before applying full power for a roller landing and, time permitting, before selecting power for an overshoot.

So maybe the increase in rough running on Vigis compared to G109Bs is due to the somewhat less than clear advice on the use of carb heat?

LJ :confused:

kaitakbowler

14th Aug 2014, 08:25

From deep in the memory, IIRC didn't the VGS use CIVGAS? which ISTR was 91RON, so quite a low octane and goodness knows what the water content was (is).

I thought that Ricardo got the job of sorting the power plant shortly after introduction to service?

PM

Jimmyjerez

14th Aug 2014, 09:32

LJ

You're looking at FRC in isolation to teaching manuals and SOPs. SOP is apply carb heat before level off, stays on unless full power climb is selected, then applied again before level off. Next time would be selected off is on final for potential go around. It is also used during taxi when conditions dictate. Can't use it more than that!

VGS don't use MOGAS is normal AVGAS

WildRover

14th Aug 2014, 09:34

Guys - not following this thread properly.

Can someone say when the VGS Grobs will be back in the air - thinking of the Little Rissington flight?

VX275

14th Aug 2014, 10:27

The official line is flying will resume September / October, but before any VGS gets going the CGS at Syerston will have to regain their currency. Therefore the cynics at the VGS reckon flying will restart next year possibly never.

Lima Juliet

14th Aug 2014, 17:26

JJ

Thanks for that. It does beg 2 questions:

1. If being refered to in flight, then why not put this SOP into the Flight Reference. Cards?

2. I seem to be back to square one. If being flown in a similar manner, on the same fuel and from the same airfield, why are the Vigis having more rough running incidents than the G109Bs when the only difference is the configuration of the fuel system? (that I'm aware of)

:confused:

LJ

Jimmyjerez

14th Aug 2014, 17:45

LJ

1 - I would argue because FRCs are for checks, handling guidance is all in the aircrew manual. In my new job, my club 152 check list doesn't tell me when to apply carb heat for the descent for example, it's procedure that is taught.

2 - are they? Is the engine arising rate per hour any different Viggies clock up loads of hours

tmmorris

14th Aug 2014, 18:39

I was told by OC 2FTS - in May, admittedly - that Little Rissington would be among a handful of 'super' VGS to be the first to be back to full capacity once 2FTS chief instructors were. I'm afraid I can't remember the others (I remembered LR as it's relatively local but sadly not the most local.)

VX275

14th Aug 2014, 18:52

Don't get too hung up on carb icing incidents on the Vigi. Yes they still occur but no more (possibly less) often than in the GA world and as a rule they are handled more safely than the GA incidents.
The majority of the Vigi's engine troubles were not carb icing, rather they were ignition related with the mag doing odd things and the plugs growing wiskers, both issues now many years in the past.
BTW the later problem was solved by the Syerston techies trying different oils until the solution was reached by using oil with a picture of a Tractor on the label :eek:

Sky Sports

28th Aug 2014, 09:00

Please could someone summarize the current and predicted flying opportunities for Air Cadets, i.e. whats serviceable and whats not.

My lad is soon to start, but won't be enrolled, (and therefore can't fly) until December(ish).

The squadron are still sticking to the party line of "loads and loads of flying", but I wonder what the reality will be?

RUCAWO

28th Aug 2014, 09:47

Depends where the Sqn is, some units are lucky in being close to the AEFs and get plenty of oppertunities unlike us in NI when we get one trip a year to Woodvale and if the weather is bad it ends up as a shopping trip to Liverpool and that is it until the following year. Gliding, last I got from the Wing Gliding Officer was January so he may just be in luck.

romeo bravo

28th Aug 2014, 11:51

AEF is moving along nicely; VGS is a dead loss and will be until early 2015 (at the earliest).

Some sqns are looking outside the box, looking at civilian opportunities for both. And occassionally sqns do get the opportunities of RAF multi-engine flights.

teeteringhead

28th Aug 2014, 12:16

And of course there remains the opportunity to fly in Service aircraft.

This week a friendly RAF Merlin flew nearly 300 cadets at a nearby "green" camp. :ok:

Cat Funt

28th Aug 2014, 14:30

Looking at around Oct 15 for a return to ops normal. Jan/Feb is when the VGS staff hope to start getting back into the swing of things. Plenty of SCT and standardisation to be done before then.

The B Word

28th Aug 2014, 19:11

Cat

Define "ops normal"...

As I understand it, this is a small cadre of aircraft ready for Oct 14 at RAF Syerston to get a 'chosen few' current. Then the 'chosen few' will set up 5 regional airfields to train some more - this is probably going to take the rest of this year.

Then, once all the staff have had a bit of SCT, then each VGS will be stood up in turn by 2FTS staff. Now seeing that there are 2-dozen odd VGS then I don't share your confidence for Jan/Feb 15 for your "ops normal" even at this point. I would have thought that would be nearer Easter or maybe even later for the last on the list?

Not trying to be negative, but there's forward leaning and then there is a point where you fall over! :ok:

B Word

Cat Funt

28th Aug 2014, 23:02

I'm afraid I may not have been as clear as I'd hoped. I didn't say Ops normal Jan/Feb. Jan/Feb is when most of us think we are going to be ready to start thinking about getting instructors and pilots back into the air and, if we get the same dog-toffee winter we had this year, we won't be getting much done even then.

I actually said Oct 15. Even OC 2FTS's own assessment puts us into the latter half of 2015 before all 25 Sqns are carrying out the full range of activities (GIC/GS/AGT etc.) again. I'm just adding a couple of months on as a bit of a fudge factor, bearing in mind that most of the dates we've been given seemed to have slipped to the right over the past few months, so I don't think its a completely unreasonable assumption, I hope you'll agree.

Bear in mind that they've only just finished inspecting the 5 Vigilant and 5 Viking airframes to finish establishing the scale of the problems involved in returning the fleets to an airworthy state. So Syerston will just now be getting some sort of picture of how long it will take to get things back in order. Bear in mind, as they troll through the fleet, there's a fairly good chance that other unforeseen problems will spring up, and let's not forget the giant engineering backlogs at Syerston that existed even before all this blew up. (Even before this saga, there was a giant queue to get airframes into the rather temperamental GRP bay, which appears to be to engineering what Abu Hamza is to proctology.)

From the latest update I've seen (which, as ever, was annoyingly devoid of real detail, given that at some point OC 2FTS is presumably going to ask us unpaid volunteers to get back in these things and train people's kids) they're still optimistic that they can get flying underway at Syerston by October, but the big problem is bringing squadrons back up to speed. Even if the engineering goes to plan, the unofficial numbers I've heard thrown about crewrooms involves 1hr of SCT for every month off to regain proficiency- and we only usually operate two days a week. Then you have to throw in all the standardisation checks, category renewals and, in all probability, training everyone on a completely new set of engineering processes, procedures and standards. It's going to take a while. I just hope not too many more people are going to vote with their feet.

Mechta

28th Aug 2014, 23:47

There seems to be a tranche of money which has been made available for Air Cadets to fly with RAFGSA clubs (maybe BGA clubs too?). The Kestrel Gliding Club at Odiham has certainly flow a fair number of cadets over the summer, which has resulted in up to a 50% increase in the number of launches per day.

A parent/guardian signature is required on the club's paperwork for under 18 year olds, so cadets will be disappointed if they just turn up on the day without making contact in advance.

The B Word

29th Aug 2014, 06:13

Cat, my apologies, I was confused by Oct 15! D'oh! :ugh:

RUCAWO

29th Aug 2014, 06:48

Now new medical paperwork for AEF and gliding has appeared, admin nightmare :ugh:

Jimmyjerez

24th Oct 2014, 19:50

Hi all, haven't been on here as busy working the summer weathers been great for us poor pay civvy FIs! How are the glider boys and girls getting on now? Hopefully ok back to speed it's such a shame they lost a good summer!

Lima Juliet

24th Oct 2014, 20:59

Jimmy

Bad news, I'm afraid. Cadets unlikely to start flying for some time yet. I understand, on the grapevine, that the planned introduction of a few examples to kick-start a return to flight program has been delayed. I don't know the full story, or have an idea of what the delay is, though. :confused:

Got to feel sad for the VGS staff. :(

The good news for some Cadets is that Tutor AEFs have made up partially for the VGS shortfall following their Grobs being off-line for a while last year and that some lucky Cadets have been given gliding scholarships with gliding clubs.

LJ :ok:

tmmorris

25th Oct 2014, 18:29

Best case scenario still doesn't have full operation inc gliding scholarships until summer 2015.

Flying_Anorak

27th Oct 2014, 01:04

I'm the Chairman of one of the oldest civilian gliding clubs on an active RAF airfield (not far from Oxfordshire's most secret airfield) and we've come to an arrangement with one of the local ATC squadrons where we are offering some of their cadets the chance to fly with us. Hopefully other civvie gliding clubs will follow suit.

tmmorris

27th Oct 2014, 21:14

I think you mean you've come to a private arrangement with the parents of some of the ATC cadets... Sqns are specifically forbidden from organising anything.

Auster Fan

28th Oct 2014, 14:02

I think you mean you've come to a private arrangement with the parents of some of the ATC cadets... Sqns are specifically forbidden from organising anything.
Indeed so. As a fomer Wing Staff Officer and WGLO, from memory (and I assume it hasn't changed much since I left last year), there are very clear parameters that have to be met for Opportunity Flights (as they were called then), particularly around the experience of the aircraft commander (minimum 500 hrs P1 seems to spring to mind), if it were to be classed as a legitimate ATC activity and hence covered by insurance. One of my Squadrons tried to set up an arrangement with a local flying organisation and I had to meet and give them chapter and verse on what the minimum standards and processes to follow were from the appropriate guidance and at that point, nothing moved on. Whether it ever did, I don't know as I left the ACO not long afterwards, but its a route that has to be trod very carefully and could be a real bear pit if, God forbid anything went wrong. .

FleurDeLys

28th Oct 2014, 14:12

Crying shame to see the Air Cadet gliding movement grounded but, although no-one has suggested it was 'dangerous', if it comes back safer after its enforced break, who can argue?

I look forward to seeing them airborne again just as soon as can possibly be managed

Lima Juliet

28th Oct 2014, 21:00

Why on earth 500hrs P1 when some of the VGS instructors have a panic attack if you ask them to fly outside the ATZ! (Ok, that's slightly tongue in cheek, but you don't need anywhere near 500hrs P1 to fly a Cadet in a Vigilant or Viking). :eek:

From what I understand, they are offering scholarships to a select few Cadets chosen by 2FTS to fly with RAFGSA gliding clubs. Sounds like a good scheme for those on or around their 17th birthday that might miss out over the 12 month 'pause'.

LJ

ACW599

29th Oct 2014, 07:35

Why on earth 500hrs P1 when some of the VGS instructors have a panic attack if you ask them to fly outside the ATZ! (Ok, that's slightly tongue in cheek, but you don't need anywhere near 500hrs P1 to fly a Cadet in a Vigilant or Viking).

Now, now. There are a lot of airline pilots in the VGS world, not to mention several senior retired RAF aircrew. We rather like going outside the ATZ on occasion when it's CAVOK. You must be confusing us with the AEF guys. :rolleyes:

FleurDeLys

29th Oct 2014, 08:20

'Scared to fly outside the ATZ'?

Hell, we used to do that routinely in the Barge (T21)!

Pedaller

7th Jan 2015, 11:59

Has there any news if anything, Vigilant/Viking, has taken to the air yet? Or is the grounding still ongoing?

Lima Juliet

7th Jan 2015, 18:31

The 'pause' is still on pause...:hmm:

bobward

7th Jan 2015, 19:47

Leon et al,
The 500 hour requirement was still in ATC rules and regs late last year, when I checked it. There are also other criteria which I don't recall at the moment.

There is also a get-out type clause which mentioned that those criteria might be waived, subject to the pilot in question being interviewed by someone high up the chain of command.Please excuse me if I've paraphrased the rules more than a bit.

As an ATC CI, and holding PPL with 300 or so hours, I did look at offering rides to cadets to get some of them airborne whilst this hiatus is still going on, hence my checking the rules. As I didn't have the 500+, that strangled the idea at birth.

As an alternative, surely there are several flying schools around the country that could fly cadets, if the paperwork system could be sorted out?

According to recent EASA rules, flying training organisations have to be registered and vetted by the CAA, to allow them to train people to PPL standard. Were the Air Cadet authorities to start with these groups, surely something could be done?

It breaks my heart to talk to the kids every week and not be able to get them airborne, which is the reason why so many join the ACO. It's what attracted me to it over 50 years ago.

paul m

7th Jan 2015, 19:48

rumour is its for the long term. They are hoping to possibly get 1 Vigilant airborne this month.
They have not started looking at the Vikings yet.

Pegpilot

7th Jan 2015, 20:25

Good grief, what a mess ! With my civvie gliding club head on I fielded a membership enquiry this evening from a young air cadet desperate to fly who couldn't understand why the ATC no longer offer it. I'm reminded of a wonderful episode of Yes Mininster featuring a hospital bustling with administrative activity but no patients - Sir Humphrey naturally saw nothing wrong with this arrangement !

xray one

7th Jan 2015, 20:25

From what I understand, they are offering scholarships to a select few Cadets chosen by 2FTS to fly with RAFGSA gliding clubs. Sounds like a good scheme for those on or around their 17th birthday that might miss out over the 12 month 'pause'.

LJ

The age for solo in the UK is now 14 in gliders, not sure if there is an age limit added on by the ATC?

Flying_Anorak

7th Jan 2015, 20:45

I have heard from usually good sources that Sept 15 is the earliest you may see ATC gliders and motor-gliders back in the air. We are continuing to do all that we can to satisfy the Cadet's desire to fly under our own private arrangements with the Cadets and their families.

pitotheat

7th Jan 2015, 22:03

Unfortunately whatever return to flying programme is put in place can not estimate the number of staff that may wish to recommit to sacrificing their weekends after such a long break. Their families and spouses have got used to having their grounded glider pilots around and this might cause some reluctance to recommit.

chevvron

8th Jan 2015, 03:01

When we tried to form a microlight AEF at RAF Halton, supported by our enthusiastic Wg Ad O, (a retired rock Wg Cdr) we got a special 'blood chit' approved by HQAC which had to be signed by a parent to acknowledge the cadets were not on ATC duty whilst they were being flown. This got us round the 'min 500hrs P1' rule and we successfully flew many cadets from local squadrons; I personally did many 'first flights' for cadets.
Subsequently in 1996/7, the same flying club (called the Ridge Runners') was approved by HQAC and CFS to carry out Microlight Flying Scholarships with qualified civilian instructors who had been checked out by CFS. I think about 16 cadets got a 'Restricted' PPL(M).

Then the money ran out......

bobward

8th Jan 2015, 20:01

I hear that the Tutor units are strating to move from Wyton to Wittering in the spring. Does anyone know if (a) this is true and (b) what the schedule might be, please?

One assumes that this will also cause some sort of delay in the pipeline as well, although I'd be happy if anyone in the know could correct this.

Thanks
B:O

tmmorris

8th Jan 2015, 20:51

Unfortunately the provision for civilian flights to be approved has in effect been withdrawn - certainly CCF TEST officers have been told not to approve any requests. And the problem with civilian gliding is that the RAF feels that they need to inspect each and every provider, rather than just taking the BGA's word for it that the club is safe.

TorqueOfTheDevil

9th Jan 2015, 13:16

desperate to fly who couldn't understand why the ATC no longer offer it

Not strictly accurate is it? Of the three types of flying available to air cadets (ie dedicated powered flying, gliding and opportunity flights in Service aircraft), one of the above is temporarily suspended (albeit for a lengthy period). Yes the AEFs aren't all running at full capacity yet following the Tutor groundings, but I understand that the picture on this front is generally improving; and while there aren't as many opportunities to fly in Service aircraft as there used to be, you could have said that every successive year since the 1940s!

It could actually be a lot worse. Maybe it's going to get worse...but right now plenty of cadets are getting airborne one way or another. For example, last summer every Sqn in West Mercian Wing ATC had at least one cadet flown in a Squirrel during the Wing Training Weekend, and about the same time all 40-odd cadets taking part in a No 2 Welsh Wing exercise at Nesscliffe were flown into the exercise area in Griffins. A drop in the ocean? Maybe, but better than nothing at all.

Banana Boy

9th Jan 2015, 19:34

Bobward,

The best guess is that Tutor flying will transfer from Wyton to Wittering sometime next month. However, there may be a delay in being able to fly cadets as the cadet rooms are unlikely to be ready for use.

BB

VX275

6th Feb 2015, 17:26

Its been reported that the first 'Airworthy' Vigilant has flown since the 'Pause' was called.
Just how long it'll take to get the rest flying again and all the VGS staff (what's left of them) current again is anyone's guess.

Lima Juliet

6th Feb 2015, 20:40

Sky Sports

10th Feb 2015, 10:19

...but right now plenty of cadets are getting airborne one way or another.
My lad has been in the air cadets 14 months now and is yet to fly anything or visit an RAF base! He is getting very disillusioned and talking about quitting. I feel guilty as I talked it up, telling him how great it was before he joined.
Since he so desperately wants to be an RAF pilot, I am now wondering what would serve him better. a) stick with the cadets for lots of drill and no flying, or, b) leave cadets, join a civvie gliding club and get the hours in?
Your views please.

TorqueOfTheDevil

10th Feb 2015, 10:22

My lad has been in the RAF 14 months now and is yet to fly anything or visit an RAF base! He is getting very disillusioned and talking about quitting. I feel guilty as I talked it up, telling him how great it was before he joined.
Since he so desperately wants to be an RAF pilot, I am now wondering what would serve him better. a) stick with the RAF for lots of drill and no flying, or, b) leave RAF, join a civvie gliding club and get the hours in?
Your views please.

1.3VStall

10th Feb 2015, 10:25

Sky Sports,

It depends where you are located with regards to civvie gliding clubs. Many of them now offer cadet/junior schemes and also fixed price to first solo courses.

Wish your lad good luck - it was air cadet gliding that started me on my life's involvement in aviation. It must be really frustrating for the lads with no firm news on when air cadet gliding will resume.

Sook

10th Feb 2015, 14:29

Heard the same. :ok:

Also heard that the paperwork issues are also cleared up. :ok:

Positive news for once. Here's hoping that the organisation bounces back much stronger than before. It will still be a while before the rest are done but there is definately a light in the tunnel!

LJ

However, if you check Serco's MAOS approval it's only until July so you have to hope that everything is good on the next audit or we'll be back to square one!

ShyTorque

10th Feb 2015, 14:41

My daughter has been an ATC cadet for almost four years and is now a SNCO.

She has only had the opportunity to fly once in that time (she has flown a few times with me, in the civilian aircraft I fly for a living). Not only that, she has only visited RAF stations when we have arranged it for her, to further her earlier keen interest in an RAF career, or when i have driven her to attend sports competitions, at which she excels (she's now reached Corps level at hockey), because there seems to be little encouragement from her unit. Unfortunately, she has become quite disillusioned with the whole thing and it's unlikely she will join up.

RUCAWO

10th Feb 2015, 17:22

Something seriously seriously wrong there, even being semi detached, I have a dozen going to Woodvale in two weeks, we manage more than that, AEF should be programmed in as should camps, someone, either at Sqn or Wing level is not doing their job.
One of mine is Corps hockey as well ask your daughter if she know Chloe from NI, she got selected for IACE this week, heading to the US.

brokenlink

10th Feb 2015, 20:35

Banana Boy/Bobward, The last Tutors left RAF Wyton last week, only the Flying & Microlight clubs left now. Another good airfield gone...

First result of this was that AEF Flying has been canned at Wittering until early March!

Completely in tune with those cadets who are getting fed up with the lack of "Air" in Air Cadets just now, if its any consolation the staff are none too happy niether.

Random Bloke

11th Feb 2015, 05:43

Sky Sports,

Encourage your son to stay in the cadets and learn about all the subjects associated with being in the Service, do well and get promoted into positions of responsibility. It will stand him in good stead when applying to OASC or for a place on a UAS; these organisations are more interested in evidence of fortitude and leadership potential than air experience.

Tiger_mate

11th Feb 2015, 07:31

There is little point in converting ones own experiences as a Cadet into expectations of Cadet life nowadays. Not only has the organisation changed but the Cadet mentailty has changed significantly.

Education changes have impacted the career curve of cadets. It was once so that the next stage of life depended upon revision and a single set of exams. Coursework these days have created a Cadets/Education conflict of interest at the very point when in days gone by the seeds of Leadership and Responsibility in the form of rank were being sown. The brightest individuals will prioritise education and reduce their commitment to cadets.

Children in days gone by played outside regardless of whether team player or loner. They climbed trees, broke limbs and got up to mischief. Most important of all, they could communicate by talking. These days everything is heads down and tapping on an iPad or X-box in written variations of text.

I have witnessed on many occasions flying (AEF) opportunities offered to Cadets who do not want it. The prospect of a day spent at the AEF for a 20 min fligt has no appeal to them. Exactly the opposite of when I was a Cadet myself in the early seventies.

That said, in my day the 'Sqn' went on Annual Camp every year, which was the highlight of the ATC calendar. These days camp contingents are made up of less than half dozen cadets per sqn amalgamated into a temporary 'sqn' for the purpose of at least getting some to camp.

A smaller RAF and operational commitments are the prime reason given, but IMHO, the RAF have little appetite these days for support to the ACO which I am sure is Treasury driven. Where it not for AEF/UAS being a senior officer (retired) free flying club, I suspect that both would have by now been disbanded.