Air Cadets grounded?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The future - what future
From A & C we hear that some of the fleet may have hidden problems, and I accept that as a former Aviation Industry Engineer who at one time used to produce repair schemes for aircraft that the RN had tried to destroy ! Yes GRP can conceal some hidden problems, but then so can metal at times.
However, having flown and instructed on all of the ACO GRP types, and with the networking that went on, ( i.e., where one had been pranged!), I knew of only one Viking that had been seriously compromised ( i.e., tailplane in total removed) and the said tail end replaced by a seriously large GRP repair at the aft end of the fuselage. There were of course others that were Cat 5 like the surviving one from the Viking mid air at Sealand. As for Vigilants, there were two involved in a mid air, (but landed by some miracle with no loss of life), thus the overall numbers of potentially seriously, or potentially non-airworthy airframes will likely as not be a very small proportion of the fleet.
Having said all of this, the exercise consists mainly of paperwork research, and whilst time consuming, it cannot take years ( can it ?). Has anyone thought of checking the location(s) of each airframe over their life, and checking with VGS staff whether they recall any incidents requiring major repair or accident damage ??
Despite the 2 FTS Twitter messages and the emollient messages from Commandant ACO, I know that they don't want to utter their future plan until the DIO Basing report is issued - I heard this last October !
Thus my prediction is unchanged - nothing much before 2017, and then god only know how little there will be due to Staff training / currency issues, not to mention the massive loss of very experienced staff over the three year pause. Then of course from an Air Safety viewpoint, there will be an enhanced risk due to the three year gap in operations aided by having a lot of new staff on board lacking in substantive experience, plus pressure to deliver after a three year interval.
Aviation forecast : Summary : GRIM - with periods of great uncertainty and risk; there will also be scattered new tomes of rules and regulations produced by ACCGS, resembling Encyclopaedia Brittanica, designed to keep all but the most determined aviators on the ground. Staffing issues and shortages will be considerable.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but doubt it !
However, having flown and instructed on all of the ACO GRP types, and with the networking that went on, ( i.e., where one had been pranged!), I knew of only one Viking that had been seriously compromised ( i.e., tailplane in total removed) and the said tail end replaced by a seriously large GRP repair at the aft end of the fuselage. There were of course others that were Cat 5 like the surviving one from the Viking mid air at Sealand. As for Vigilants, there were two involved in a mid air, (but landed by some miracle with no loss of life), thus the overall numbers of potentially seriously, or potentially non-airworthy airframes will likely as not be a very small proportion of the fleet.
Having said all of this, the exercise consists mainly of paperwork research, and whilst time consuming, it cannot take years ( can it ?). Has anyone thought of checking the location(s) of each airframe over their life, and checking with VGS staff whether they recall any incidents requiring major repair or accident damage ??
Despite the 2 FTS Twitter messages and the emollient messages from Commandant ACO, I know that they don't want to utter their future plan until the DIO Basing report is issued - I heard this last October !
Thus my prediction is unchanged - nothing much before 2017, and then god only know how little there will be due to Staff training / currency issues, not to mention the massive loss of very experienced staff over the three year pause. Then of course from an Air Safety viewpoint, there will be an enhanced risk due to the three year gap in operations aided by having a lot of new staff on board lacking in substantive experience, plus pressure to deliver after a three year interval.
Aviation forecast : Summary : GRIM - with periods of great uncertainty and risk; there will also be scattered new tomes of rules and regulations produced by ACCGS, resembling Encyclopaedia Brittanica, designed to keep all but the most determined aviators on the ground. Staffing issues and shortages will be considerable.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but doubt it !
The Future
Never underestimate the power of the 'system' to promote the organisation.
We have just had 'the uniforms' 'promoting' at St Clement Danes (CV and Cmmt ATC) extolling the virtues of all sorts of activities (apart from Flying)
Funny they also did not mention 'Supermarket bag filling'.
Had JM bothered to consult with the schools they could have had a list of machines that had 'repairs' in a couple of weeks and the others (prob 85%) could have had an inspection.
No the system knows best (The system knows J...S...) about the real world of fixing and records.
The only real problem would have been an unauthorised structural repair that was kept quiet. I think the probability of that is Zero due to the integrity of the schools organisation.
Unless there is CHANGE in the management of the Cadet organisation there will be NO IMPROVEMENT in the clumsy 'crat led' system that has absolutely no idea what they are doing or how to deal with it.
They have taken incompetency to a new 'high' and nothing will improve unless the rot is removed.
We have just had 'the uniforms' 'promoting' at St Clement Danes (CV and Cmmt ATC) extolling the virtues of all sorts of activities (apart from Flying)
Funny they also did not mention 'Supermarket bag filling'.
Had JM bothered to consult with the schools they could have had a list of machines that had 'repairs' in a couple of weeks and the others (prob 85%) could have had an inspection.
No the system knows best (The system knows J...S...) about the real world of fixing and records.
The only real problem would have been an unauthorised structural repair that was kept quiet. I think the probability of that is Zero due to the integrity of the schools organisation.
Unless there is CHANGE in the management of the Cadet organisation there will be NO IMPROVEMENT in the clumsy 'crat led' system that has absolutely no idea what they are doing or how to deal with it.
They have taken incompetency to a new 'high' and nothing will improve unless the rot is removed.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never underestimate the power of the 'system' to promote the organisation.
We have just had 'the uniforms' 'promoting' at St Clement Danes (CV and Cmmt ATC) extolling the virtues of all sorts of activities (apart from Flying)
Funny they also did not mention 'Supermarket bag filling'.
Had JM bothered to consult with the schools they could have had a list of machines that had 'repairs' in a couple of weeks and the others (prob 85%) could have had an inspection.
No the system knows best (The system knows J...S...) about the real world of fixing and records.
The only real problem would have been an unauthorised structural repair that was kept quiet. I think the probability of that is Zero due to the integrity of the schools organisation.
Unless there is CHANGE in the management of the Cadet organisation there will be NO IMPROVEMENT in the clumsy 'crat led' system that has absolutely no idea what they are doing or how to deal with it.
They have taken incompetency to a new 'high' and nothing will improve unless the rot is removed.
We have just had 'the uniforms' 'promoting' at St Clement Danes (CV and Cmmt ATC) extolling the virtues of all sorts of activities (apart from Flying)
Funny they also did not mention 'Supermarket bag filling'.
Had JM bothered to consult with the schools they could have had a list of machines that had 'repairs' in a couple of weeks and the others (prob 85%) could have had an inspection.
No the system knows best (The system knows J...S...) about the real world of fixing and records.
The only real problem would have been an unauthorised structural repair that was kept quiet. I think the probability of that is Zero due to the integrity of the schools organisation.
Unless there is CHANGE in the management of the Cadet organisation there will be NO IMPROVEMENT in the clumsy 'crat led' system that has absolutely no idea what they are doing or how to deal with it.
They have taken incompetency to a new 'high' and nothing will improve unless the rot is removed.
Not sure that would look great in court.
TING
Who is talking about 32 years.
I assume the 'OLD BOYS' you refer to are the CO's of the Squadrons.
The CO's/Tech Staff of the Squadrons will be the best persons to collate information with regard to repair issues with their own machines;and i would suggest that they have a better recall than the 'system'.
The minimal no of aircraft with structural repairs are far outweighed by machines that only ever needed normal servicing.
Your Tech regard for the VGS staff seems to be on a par with JM.
Anyone with any sort of Aviation experience can see that the ATC glider fleet has had a very protected existence.
The ATC had them from new and has had total control over use and storage.
The actual condition and lack of issues confirms the system at the VGS level was fit for purpose,and as they were the ones that flew the machines who would know them better.
I would suggest that the competency at VGS level far outstripped that found elswhere in the system.
With a Cmmt 2FTS who has no experience or qualification on types or an in depth knowledge of how w-end ops work it would have been quite sensible to confer with the operators so a REASONABLE RESPONSE could be made.
The lack of consultation and his disdain for the Volunteers merely confirms we have the wrong person heading up ATC Gliding.Two years of grounding confirms a momental C........F..... that has no eqaul; heads need to roll but not at VGS level.
What is all this utter rubbish about Twitter Facebook and 'Cascading' for goodness sake anyone with a grain of a brain cell knows we need people who know the difference between Snap on and it Snapping off.
Who is talking about 32 years.
I assume the 'OLD BOYS' you refer to are the CO's of the Squadrons.
The CO's/Tech Staff of the Squadrons will be the best persons to collate information with regard to repair issues with their own machines;and i would suggest that they have a better recall than the 'system'.
The minimal no of aircraft with structural repairs are far outweighed by machines that only ever needed normal servicing.
Your Tech regard for the VGS staff seems to be on a par with JM.
Anyone with any sort of Aviation experience can see that the ATC glider fleet has had a very protected existence.
The ATC had them from new and has had total control over use and storage.
The actual condition and lack of issues confirms the system at the VGS level was fit for purpose,and as they were the ones that flew the machines who would know them better.
I would suggest that the competency at VGS level far outstripped that found elswhere in the system.
With a Cmmt 2FTS who has no experience or qualification on types or an in depth knowledge of how w-end ops work it would have been quite sensible to confer with the operators so a REASONABLE RESPONSE could be made.
The lack of consultation and his disdain for the Volunteers merely confirms we have the wrong person heading up ATC Gliding.Two years of grounding confirms a momental C........F..... that has no eqaul; heads need to roll but not at VGS level.
What is all this utter rubbish about Twitter Facebook and 'Cascading' for goodness sake anyone with a grain of a brain cell knows we need people who know the difference between Snap on and it Snapping off.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents.
The trouble is you are all too pessimistic and should look on the bright side such as this "situation" should keep Middleton in a well-paid second pensionable job for many years.
He will be able to expand his empire to the greater glory of John Middleton and the icing on the cake is he may get a Knighthood as well for all the good work he has done.
By the way, what has a "manager" who has no experience, qualifications, or knowledge of the job got to do with anything?
Know your place, keep paying your taxes and dont dare question your commissioned betters particularly if they flew Tornados!
The trouble is you are all too pessimistic and should look on the bright side such as this "situation" should keep Middleton in a well-paid second pensionable job for many years.
He will be able to expand his empire to the greater glory of John Middleton and the icing on the cake is he may get a Knighthood as well for all the good work he has done.
By the way, what has a "manager" who has no experience, qualifications, or knowledge of the job got to do with anything?
Know your place, keep paying your taxes and dont dare question your commissioned betters particularly if they flew Tornados!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Common sense
POBJOY,I have to agree that perfectly serviceable airframes with no "form" could have been largely singled out by a combination of paper trail, VGS enquiries, etc.
Notwithstanding limited rotation of aircraft due to routine maintenance and repair, most OC's and Eng O's would have known which aircraft they have had and this simply could be verified by ref to Log books. Not only this, they would know what accidental damage had occurred, and again this could have been verified by reference to local records, and in major incident cases by reference to accident reports in VGS files and at ACCGS.
As for standards locally at VGS units, whilst the "suits" may have thought that we were all rank amateurs, two of my former Eng.O colleagues were very amply qualified, one a licensed A/c engineer working every day in Army Aviation, whilst another was an ex Wg Cdr Eng on front line A/C. IMHO they operated to a totally professional standard, neither associated with anything other than the highest of standards.
As for "dodgy repairs " , I don't think that I have ever heard of anything carried out by VGS staff, the only repairs and servicing were ALWAYS carried by ACCGS Eng out working parties or at ACCGS base. During my time, this work was carried by RAF technicians under SNCO and RAF commissioned Eng.O control. Only in more recent years was the work subcontracted out.
Therefore in terms of accountability, we cannot allocate any blame upon VGS units, it is solely either RAF or Sub contractor, and in both cases, the activity was supervised by RAF Engineers in the higher management roles wherever they were located. Sadly in many areas of Her Majesty's government, there is a belief that sub contracting means risk transfer , ie, hand over and forget. However sub contracting may be the accountant's dream, but in reality, if it is to be an effective and professional drop in substitute, it STILL needs day by day hands on supervision.
What we now see before us, is the result of the RAF thinking that subcontracting works without getting involved. Un-announced QA visits including working practice and paper trails are a very useful tool to keep "subbies" on their toes !
I doubt that we will ever know the full unexpurgated truth, as there is no public disclosure on the grounds of commercial confidentiality . However when and if flying ever gets going again some freedom of information requests should be made. For instance, how many serious airworthiness issues were found, by category and aircraft type. How many were deemed to be caused by non standard / unauthorised repair method or components. Who was the RAF Eng authority having jurisdiction at the material times. This and many more. It can't be of any use to Mr Putin, thus cannot be bounced by Security !
Notwithstanding limited rotation of aircraft due to routine maintenance and repair, most OC's and Eng O's would have known which aircraft they have had and this simply could be verified by ref to Log books. Not only this, they would know what accidental damage had occurred, and again this could have been verified by reference to local records, and in major incident cases by reference to accident reports in VGS files and at ACCGS.
As for standards locally at VGS units, whilst the "suits" may have thought that we were all rank amateurs, two of my former Eng.O colleagues were very amply qualified, one a licensed A/c engineer working every day in Army Aviation, whilst another was an ex Wg Cdr Eng on front line A/C. IMHO they operated to a totally professional standard, neither associated with anything other than the highest of standards.
As for "dodgy repairs " , I don't think that I have ever heard of anything carried out by VGS staff, the only repairs and servicing were ALWAYS carried by ACCGS Eng out working parties or at ACCGS base. During my time, this work was carried by RAF technicians under SNCO and RAF commissioned Eng.O control. Only in more recent years was the work subcontracted out.
Therefore in terms of accountability, we cannot allocate any blame upon VGS units, it is solely either RAF or Sub contractor, and in both cases, the activity was supervised by RAF Engineers in the higher management roles wherever they were located. Sadly in many areas of Her Majesty's government, there is a belief that sub contracting means risk transfer , ie, hand over and forget. However sub contracting may be the accountant's dream, but in reality, if it is to be an effective and professional drop in substitute, it STILL needs day by day hands on supervision.
What we now see before us, is the result of the RAF thinking that subcontracting works without getting involved. Un-announced QA visits including working practice and paper trails are a very useful tool to keep "subbies" on their toes !
I doubt that we will ever know the full unexpurgated truth, as there is no public disclosure on the grounds of commercial confidentiality . However when and if flying ever gets going again some freedom of information requests should be made. For instance, how many serious airworthiness issues were found, by category and aircraft type. How many were deemed to be caused by non standard / unauthorised repair method or components. Who was the RAF Eng authority having jurisdiction at the material times. This and many more. It can't be of any use to Mr Putin, thus cannot be bounced by Security !
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1984 to 2016 yep 32 years I wouldn't want to try and remember that ding old what's his name had back in the eighties or who fixed it and how.
And assuming the Tech officer and OC haven't changed several times in that 30 odd years and 30 airframes haven't rotated through the VGS it's a bit of a long shot for the DDH to make that call.
And assuming the Tech officer and OC haven't changed several times in that 30 odd years and 30 airframes haven't rotated through the VGS it's a bit of a long shot for the DDH to make that call.
BB
I'm also expecting very few Vigilants to come back as they must be beyond economical repair with new engines now needed that aren't manufactured anymore. Running a few with remaining spares might be an option, but the cost of putting different engines in the rest (with all the testing/modification/paperwork required) is likely going to be too expensive with everything else that needs to be done on top of the engine work. I wonder if they will buy something else in the longer term? What will be mildly amusing (embarassing!) is when all these ex-mil Grob 109s start appearing on the civil register in airworthy condition on an ex-mil permit to fly with a VW derived engine. I wonder if they will be broken up and not put up for disposal as complete assets to save any embarassment?
I did see your original post making some sad reading. I suspect that you won't be far from the truth in your numbers - if it was good news then it would have come out by now! Saving what is left and coming up with a plan that delivers maximum opportunity to Cadets has to be the main mission now. I hope that we are 'out of the woods' with the Viking, even though only a handful have so far returned to flight after 9+ months of effort. I fear that any delay to that recovery programme will see the end of all Air Cadet provided gliding as we know it. That would be a total tragedy for everyone involved.
For the Cadets, the last 4 years have been a disaster. I hear rumour that since the Grob Tutor propeller issues began, and then gliding 'pausing' shortly after the Tutors returned to flight, that Cadet numbers have fallen by 10% or so. If that figure is broadly correct then we need to try and generate flying opportunities for the remaining 90% and fast. RAF Gliding, Flying and Microlight Clubs make an obvious choice as they operate from Govt Aerodromes and there are over 20 of them accross the UK. They can be scrutinised by the RAF and now fall under the responsibility of AOC 22Gp - he now holds the risk for all RAF sports. As the Govt are planning to increase the size of the Cadet Forces in general for 2020 then with an expanded UAS/AEF fleet (thanks to MFTS), a reduced VGS fleet and the use of service flying clubs then we might just keep to the 'deal' of offering Air Cadets flying a couple of times a year.
I don't get the 'DIO basing review' piece. You can announce a VGS closure without giving away the basing review - unless it is used solely for VGS activity like Kenley or Kirknewton (there are others). But then if it is them then so what? Just start getting on with it before we lose another 10%!
In my humble opinion, of course
LJ
It's all terribly sad when I look back over my thousands of launches and days happily gliding, but my airfield has gone now and I think there is nothing to do but look forward. I feel for the Vigilant crews as now looks like they have lost their mount and the sites closing, but we have got to consolidate and make the sites that are to remain open work. We owe that much to the next generation of cadets.
I did see your original post making some sad reading. I suspect that you won't be far from the truth in your numbers - if it was good news then it would have come out by now! Saving what is left and coming up with a plan that delivers maximum opportunity to Cadets has to be the main mission now. I hope that we are 'out of the woods' with the Viking, even though only a handful have so far returned to flight after 9+ months of effort. I fear that any delay to that recovery programme will see the end of all Air Cadet provided gliding as we know it. That would be a total tragedy for everyone involved.
For the Cadets, the last 4 years have been a disaster. I hear rumour that since the Grob Tutor propeller issues began, and then gliding 'pausing' shortly after the Tutors returned to flight, that Cadet numbers have fallen by 10% or so. If that figure is broadly correct then we need to try and generate flying opportunities for the remaining 90% and fast. RAF Gliding, Flying and Microlight Clubs make an obvious choice as they operate from Govt Aerodromes and there are over 20 of them accross the UK. They can be scrutinised by the RAF and now fall under the responsibility of AOC 22Gp - he now holds the risk for all RAF sports. As the Govt are planning to increase the size of the Cadet Forces in general for 2020 then with an expanded UAS/AEF fleet (thanks to MFTS), a reduced VGS fleet and the use of service flying clubs then we might just keep to the 'deal' of offering Air Cadets flying a couple of times a year.
I don't get the 'DIO basing review' piece. You can announce a VGS closure without giving away the basing review - unless it is used solely for VGS activity like Kenley or Kirknewton (there are others). But then if it is them then so what? Just start getting on with it before we lose another 10%!
In my humble opinion, of course
LJ
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: LONDON
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Declining Cadet Numbers
LJ,
I understood that the number of ATC cadets fell by about 7% between Autumn 2014 and Autumn 2015, so I would not be surprised if we are now looking at a figure of closer to 10%. It is also worth highlighting that the true extent of the outflow has been masked by the lowering of the joining age to 12 (from around Sep 14 - the start of the school year - if I remember rightly).
I couldn't agree more that decisions that are known could (and should) be briefed to all VGS COs and their staff - without delay - before they are leaked. It is not difficult, and people could then at least see where the focus of Air Cadet gliding is as it moves forwards. As someone said in an earlier post some pages back: 'serve to lead'.
I understood that the number of ATC cadets fell by about 7% between Autumn 2014 and Autumn 2015, so I would not be surprised if we are now looking at a figure of closer to 10%. It is also worth highlighting that the true extent of the outflow has been masked by the lowering of the joining age to 12 (from around Sep 14 - the start of the school year - if I remember rightly).
I couldn't agree more that decisions that are known could (and should) be briefed to all VGS COs and their staff - without delay - before they are leaked. It is not difficult, and people could then at least see where the focus of Air Cadet gliding is as it moves forwards. As someone said in an earlier post some pages back: 'serve to lead'.
This whole sorry saga needs to hit the national press....
Back in 1967, the RAF managed to scramble 100 V-bombers airborne within 4 minutes - yet now it's taken YEARS to sort out a few cadet gliders....???
Sorry, make that NOT to sort out a few cadet gliders
Makes you sick.....
Back in 1967, the RAF managed to scramble 100 V-bombers airborne within 4 minutes - yet now it's taken YEARS to sort out a few cadet gliders....???
Sorry, make that NOT to sort out a few cadet gliders
Makes you sick.....
BEAGS
I suspect that there are many "journalists" watching this c...... f... very closely with pages of quotes taken from this thread.
They, like us, are waiting for some meaningful (not Twitter or Facebook stuff) information to be released before they let rip.
The Daily Mail's inexperienced hacks are just waiting to jump on this, especially after today's 75th anniversary celebrations of the formation of the Air Cadets.
I suspect that there are many "journalists" watching this c...... f... very closely with pages of quotes taken from this thread.
They, like us, are waiting for some meaningful (not Twitter or Facebook stuff) information to be released before they let rip.
The Daily Mail's inexperienced hacks are just waiting to jump on this, especially after today's 75th anniversary celebrations of the formation of the Air Cadets.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Records ....... What records ?
It needs to be made crystal clear a lot of the technical records have GONE MISSING.
This leaves those recovering the aircraft in the position that a very detailed inspection of the airframe and technical records is required, this inspection takes just short of four weeks work for one man.
Then you have to get into fixing things.
My own thinking is that the technical education on GRP repair within the metalcentrc aircraft industry is very poor, my own education in GRP repair was based largely on what Boeing were putting out and AC43 ( published by the FAA ) and this had to be un-learned when I started getting involved with modern GRP repair. A quick look at the latest issue of AC43 shows no improvement of technical advice !
My guess is that the repair education of those working on the VGS fleet was a basic RAF composite repair course that was based on AC43 & Boeing practice for secondary structure, this would have left the workforce very poorly placed when faced with a repair scheme designed by Grob as they would have never seen anything like it on the basic GRP course.
With this background it is not surprising that damaged aircraft that were capable of being repaired were written off and poor repairs had been carried out. I did see a military technical investigation that misidentified the use of thickened resin as a fault...... Not a standard construction technique !
Even now the technical education requirement asked for by one of the contracting companies is to have attended the military GRP course, this is unlikely to cover any of the techniques for the type of repair needed on these gliders.
Despite what some above say about these aircraft being simple this is not the case when it comes to repair work, this is a highly skilled job and takes years to become highly proficient.
I can't help wondering if the technical records disappeared when a few people started to realise just how bad some of their work had been ( because of lack of education rather than incompetence ) or was it down to some manager parachuted in from another industry who wanted a bit of shelf space and failed to realise the importance of technical record keeping ?................ My money is as always on the cock up rather than the conspiracy as I don't think these people have the management skills to organise a conspiracy !
This leaves those recovering the aircraft in the position that a very detailed inspection of the airframe and technical records is required, this inspection takes just short of four weeks work for one man.
Then you have to get into fixing things.
My own thinking is that the technical education on GRP repair within the metalcentrc aircraft industry is very poor, my own education in GRP repair was based largely on what Boeing were putting out and AC43 ( published by the FAA ) and this had to be un-learned when I started getting involved with modern GRP repair. A quick look at the latest issue of AC43 shows no improvement of technical advice !
My guess is that the repair education of those working on the VGS fleet was a basic RAF composite repair course that was based on AC43 & Boeing practice for secondary structure, this would have left the workforce very poorly placed when faced with a repair scheme designed by Grob as they would have never seen anything like it on the basic GRP course.
With this background it is not surprising that damaged aircraft that were capable of being repaired were written off and poor repairs had been carried out. I did see a military technical investigation that misidentified the use of thickened resin as a fault...... Not a standard construction technique !
Even now the technical education requirement asked for by one of the contracting companies is to have attended the military GRP course, this is unlikely to cover any of the techniques for the type of repair needed on these gliders.
Despite what some above say about these aircraft being simple this is not the case when it comes to repair work, this is a highly skilled job and takes years to become highly proficient.
I can't help wondering if the technical records disappeared when a few people started to realise just how bad some of their work had been ( because of lack of education rather than incompetence ) or was it down to some manager parachuted in from another industry who wanted a bit of shelf space and failed to realise the importance of technical record keeping ?................ My money is as always on the cock up rather than the conspiracy as I don't think these people have the management skills to organise a conspiracy !
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our companies were some of the first in Canada to go to Carbon/Glass built aircraft, both myself and others took some pretty extensive courses on repair and maintenance of these structures before we took delivery of the aircraft,having said this we sent any major work to a company which was in this field repairing gliders since these materials first came into service, however, other operators failed to develop relevant skills and Transport Canada were, {and maybe still are}way behind, most inspectors knowing little or nothing about the subject, this caused us much grief when dealing with TC. We, in retirement have gone the other direction now, being involved in vintage wood/fabric aircraft and are finding that the skills needed to keep them safe is also in short supply today.Step one to solve the Cadet mess must involve setting high standards and training for those involved in maintaining/fixing these aircraft, without this being done nothing will change!
Last edited by clunckdriver; 9th Feb 2016 at 13:16.
A and C
You seem to know an awful lot about this, vested interest perhaps?
This leaves those recovering the aircraft in the position that a very detailed inspection of the airframe and technical records is required, this inspection takes just short of four weeks work for one man.
Unless something sorts this out fairly quickly, with fewer cadets getting the chance to fly, we may end up with 75 Air Cadets in total.........
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FREDA
I am unfortunately not in a position to make any money out of these contract as my qualifications are not for gliders but for powerd composite aircraft that have exactly the same GRP construction. My position in the industry has me working closely with some of those involved in the recovery project but on other projects.
My primary interest is to see air cadets flying, the cadet movement set me up for a successful career in aviation and I want to see today's youth get the same opportunities that I had, there are not a lot of organisations that provide the sort of character building activitys combined with so much fun and it pains me to see the flying removed from a whole generation of cadets because of the failure of the companies contracted to support the VGS fleet.
I got wind of trouble with the VGS support maybe six years back when the unserviceable gliders started building up due to union problems with the new GRP repair bay I never in my wildest nightmares imagined that it would come to this.
I am sure that when the dust settles on this unhappy situation there will be a doctorate in business management for anyone who writes a thesis about this disaster. I feel that only then will those who's shortcoming and greed that have presiptated this situation might realise their guilt, at the moment they are not bright enough to realise this and continue to think that they are doing a good job.
My primary interest is to see air cadets flying, the cadet movement set me up for a successful career in aviation and I want to see today's youth get the same opportunities that I had, there are not a lot of organisations that provide the sort of character building activitys combined with so much fun and it pains me to see the flying removed from a whole generation of cadets because of the failure of the companies contracted to support the VGS fleet.
I got wind of trouble with the VGS support maybe six years back when the unserviceable gliders started building up due to union problems with the new GRP repair bay I never in my wildest nightmares imagined that it would come to this.
I am sure that when the dust settles on this unhappy situation there will be a doctorate in business management for anyone who writes a thesis about this disaster. I feel that only then will those who's shortcoming and greed that have presiptated this situation might realise their guilt, at the moment they are not bright enough to realise this and continue to think that they are doing a good job.
Last edited by A and C; 9th Feb 2016 at 08:04.
Frelon, I dedicated my entire monthly column in Pilot magazine to this embarrasing debacle many months ago. This is what I wrote;-
" Way back in the seventies,
Britain not only had a large
air force but it also had a
sizeable Air Training Corps,
That I (and, I suspect, many
Pilot readers) joined. I had a pretty good
time as an Air Cadet, flying T-21 Sedburgh
and T-31 Kirby Cadet gliders, DH Chipmunks
and once even rode in an RAF Comet 4C
from RAE Farnborough. I also liked
shooting — anybody else remember those
ancient .450 calibre falling-block Martini-
Henry rifles from the 1880s, which had
been converted to .22? — and even quite
liked drilling on the parade ground.
However, it was the getting airborne that
really interested me, and when flying
opportunities mysteriously dried up after a
couple of years I didn’t hang around to find
out why.
Nevertheless, most of my memories of
the ATC are positive, and if my sons,
William and George expressed an interest
in joining I always thought I’d encourage
them. Of course, the RAF is but a shadow
of what it was 1975, and the Hunters,
Harriers, Lightnings, Jaguars, Phantoms,
Buccaneers, Canberras, Victors and
Vulcans are long gone. The fighters and
bombers are now the Typhoon, Tornado
and er… that’s it. As the air force has
shrunk, I imagine that opportunities for
cadets to fly have also diminished — but
even so, I thought that in 2015 cadets still
had a reasonable chance of getting
airborne in something.
Consequently I could scarcely believe my
ears when an acquaintance who is in the
ATC revealed that not only were all their
Viking T1 sailplanes grounded on April 17th,
but even in late June very few were
airworthy. “What” I queried, somewhat
incredulously “you’re telling me that it’s
taken more than eight weeks to inspect
probably the best-maintained gliders in the
country?” “No,” he replied “they were all
grounded on April 17, 2014 — it’s already
taken more than fourteen months, and
most of the fleet is still U/S! And,” he
continued “it looks like they won’t all be
ready until 2017.”
If this were a laughing matter, I’d say
that my grob was smacked (see what I did there). I don’t know what the RAF found
that made it ground the entire fleet, but
what I do know is that the Viking is a
relatively simple, composite sailplane. The
undercarriage is fixed, and it doesn’t have
flaps or an engine. What can possibly be
taking two years? (It should be borne in
mind that the rest of the world refers to
the Viking T1 as the Grob G103A Twin Acro
II – and as far as I can tell, the Grob 103A
fleet is not grounded!
A little digging soon revealed that the
problem appears to lie not with the ATC, or
even the RAF, but with the Military Aviation
Authority, or MAA. For decades the
ultimate responsibility for the maintenance
of RAF aircraft lay with the Chief Engineer,
which was a ‘three-star post’ (Air Vice-
Marshal or above) in the Air Council. After
the post was abolished (as a cost-saving
exercise) the overall quality of maintenance
was bound to suffer, because there was no
longer one individual in overall charge.
Instead, the MAA was created, and
replaced the chain of professional
responsibility which had previously existed
with a hierarchy of regulations and
procedures largely drawn from commercial
aviation and airline practice. Interestingly,
there are parallels here to be drawn with
the banking system, for you may recall that
the banks also replaced their chain of
professional responsibility (previously
exercised by local
managers) with
computer based
algorithms,
administered from
central office. Well,
the banks failed —
and the RAF
suffered the quite
unnecessary loss of
a Nimrod MR2 over Afghanistan.
Sir Charles Haddon-Cave QC headed an
inquiry into the loss of Nimrod XV230,
and his conclusions were scathing. In
particular, he observed that ‘engineering
qualifications were less of a prerequisite
for many posts [than] hitherto might have
been the case because increasing amounts
of in-service support for aircraft came
from industry and ‘generalist’ business management and financial skills and MBAs
were required more as the Armed Forces
‘modernised’ post-SDR. ‘In my view,’ he
continued ‘this was a mistaken and
blinkered approach which failed to have
regard to the highly technical and
specialist nature of aviation and aeroengineering.
Heavier-than-air machines are
different. Keeping them flying safely is
technically very complicated. A safe system
requires skilled and qualified engineers at
all levels.’
Unfortunately, it now seems that
whenever the MAA is faced by any sort of
airworthiness issue, its stock response is to
ground the type in question, and then keep
it grounded as long as possible. While this
undeniably does enhance flight safety (if
you want a good flight safety record, the
best way is clearly to not do any flying) I
suspect it’s done considerable and possibly
irrevocable damage to the ATC.
It’s all a far cry from the RAF of yore.
During the World Gliding Championship at
RAF South Cerney in 1965, the Russians
arrived with new metal sailplanes —
KAI-14s, one of which crashed during a
field landing. The pilot, Oleg Suslov was
understandably dejected, but the two RAF
officers attached to the competition, Air
Cdr Cleaver and Sqd Ldr Robertson
arranged for the wrecked aircraft to be
taken to the RAF’s No71 Maintenance Unit
at Bicester, where a
team of volunteers
from the MU and
the RAFGSA set to
with a will. Can you
imagine Oleg’s
reaction when, less
than 48 hours later,
he was presented
with a completely
rebuilt KAI-14, allowing him to re-join the
competition. When asked why he was so
generous to Cold War enemies the MU’s CO
replied “when they get back home they will
give a most impressive account of our
capability to repair and return to service a
damaged aircraft — it was worth every
penny.” Would this be possible these days?
And why can’t the MAA return simple sailplanes to service?"
" Way back in the seventies,
Britain not only had a large
air force but it also had a
sizeable Air Training Corps,
That I (and, I suspect, many
Pilot readers) joined. I had a pretty good
time as an Air Cadet, flying T-21 Sedburgh
and T-31 Kirby Cadet gliders, DH Chipmunks
and once even rode in an RAF Comet 4C
from RAE Farnborough. I also liked
shooting — anybody else remember those
ancient .450 calibre falling-block Martini-
Henry rifles from the 1880s, which had
been converted to .22? — and even quite
liked drilling on the parade ground.
However, it was the getting airborne that
really interested me, and when flying
opportunities mysteriously dried up after a
couple of years I didn’t hang around to find
out why.
Nevertheless, most of my memories of
the ATC are positive, and if my sons,
William and George expressed an interest
in joining I always thought I’d encourage
them. Of course, the RAF is but a shadow
of what it was 1975, and the Hunters,
Harriers, Lightnings, Jaguars, Phantoms,
Buccaneers, Canberras, Victors and
Vulcans are long gone. The fighters and
bombers are now the Typhoon, Tornado
and er… that’s it. As the air force has
shrunk, I imagine that opportunities for
cadets to fly have also diminished — but
even so, I thought that in 2015 cadets still
had a reasonable chance of getting
airborne in something.
Consequently I could scarcely believe my
ears when an acquaintance who is in the
ATC revealed that not only were all their
Viking T1 sailplanes grounded on April 17th,
but even in late June very few were
airworthy. “What” I queried, somewhat
incredulously “you’re telling me that it’s
taken more than eight weeks to inspect
probably the best-maintained gliders in the
country?” “No,” he replied “they were all
grounded on April 17, 2014 — it’s already
taken more than fourteen months, and
most of the fleet is still U/S! And,” he
continued “it looks like they won’t all be
ready until 2017.”
If this were a laughing matter, I’d say
that my grob was smacked (see what I did there). I don’t know what the RAF found
that made it ground the entire fleet, but
what I do know is that the Viking is a
relatively simple, composite sailplane. The
undercarriage is fixed, and it doesn’t have
flaps or an engine. What can possibly be
taking two years? (It should be borne in
mind that the rest of the world refers to
the Viking T1 as the Grob G103A Twin Acro
II – and as far as I can tell, the Grob 103A
fleet is not grounded!
A little digging soon revealed that the
problem appears to lie not with the ATC, or
even the RAF, but with the Military Aviation
Authority, or MAA. For decades the
ultimate responsibility for the maintenance
of RAF aircraft lay with the Chief Engineer,
which was a ‘three-star post’ (Air Vice-
Marshal or above) in the Air Council. After
the post was abolished (as a cost-saving
exercise) the overall quality of maintenance
was bound to suffer, because there was no
longer one individual in overall charge.
Instead, the MAA was created, and
replaced the chain of professional
responsibility which had previously existed
with a hierarchy of regulations and
procedures largely drawn from commercial
aviation and airline practice. Interestingly,
there are parallels here to be drawn with
the banking system, for you may recall that
the banks also replaced their chain of
professional responsibility (previously
exercised by local
managers) with
computer based
algorithms,
administered from
central office. Well,
the banks failed —
and the RAF
suffered the quite
unnecessary loss of
a Nimrod MR2 over Afghanistan.
Sir Charles Haddon-Cave QC headed an
inquiry into the loss of Nimrod XV230,
and his conclusions were scathing. In
particular, he observed that ‘engineering
qualifications were less of a prerequisite
for many posts [than] hitherto might have
been the case because increasing amounts
of in-service support for aircraft came
from industry and ‘generalist’ business management and financial skills and MBAs
were required more as the Armed Forces
‘modernised’ post-SDR. ‘In my view,’ he
continued ‘this was a mistaken and
blinkered approach which failed to have
regard to the highly technical and
specialist nature of aviation and aeroengineering.
Heavier-than-air machines are
different. Keeping them flying safely is
technically very complicated. A safe system
requires skilled and qualified engineers at
all levels.’
Unfortunately, it now seems that
whenever the MAA is faced by any sort of
airworthiness issue, its stock response is to
ground the type in question, and then keep
it grounded as long as possible. While this
undeniably does enhance flight safety (if
you want a good flight safety record, the
best way is clearly to not do any flying) I
suspect it’s done considerable and possibly
irrevocable damage to the ATC.
It’s all a far cry from the RAF of yore.
During the World Gliding Championship at
RAF South Cerney in 1965, the Russians
arrived with new metal sailplanes —
KAI-14s, one of which crashed during a
field landing. The pilot, Oleg Suslov was
understandably dejected, but the two RAF
officers attached to the competition, Air
Cdr Cleaver and Sqd Ldr Robertson
arranged for the wrecked aircraft to be
taken to the RAF’s No71 Maintenance Unit
at Bicester, where a
team of volunteers
from the MU and
the RAFGSA set to
with a will. Can you
imagine Oleg’s
reaction when, less
than 48 hours later,
he was presented
with a completely
rebuilt KAI-14, allowing him to re-join the
competition. When asked why he was so
generous to Cold War enemies the MU’s CO
replied “when they get back home they will
give a most impressive account of our
capability to repair and return to service a
damaged aircraft — it was worth every
penny.” Would this be possible these days?
And why can’t the MAA return simple sailplanes to service?"
Composite repair
Without wishing to comment on the VGS situation specifically I'm curious about composite repair -
Surely the manufacturers of any Composite airframe publish a guide referencing how to go about it as the structure must contain many different layers and weaves etc.
Surely the manufacturers of any Composite airframe publish a guide referencing how to go about it as the structure must contain many different layers and weaves etc.