Originally Posted by
Chugalug2
I too have followed this thread from the start and it has mainly managed to miss the point ever since. I strongly recommend those that care about the ACO, as I've no doubt we all do, to read tuc's post above as well as his preceding ones. The solution isn't choosing a suitable airframe, if it was then that would be easy-peasy. The solution is ensuring that it is, and remains, airworthy. That is why the ACO fleet was grounded in the first place. The bog standard process of keeping such simple aircraft airworthy is water off a duck's back to the likes of tuc. Unfortunately the likes of tuc are conspicuous by their absence these days, as are the Regulations that he and his fellow engineers complied with. Both were binned in the plundering of the ring fenced UK Military Air Safety budget by RAF VSOs. Even if such skills and such Regulations could be reinstated, airworthiness could not be simply restored as it is a process of record keeping and audit, a paper trail if you like. No such paper trail survived the purge, hence the grounding (or 'pause'!). Aren't other military air fleets also affected then? Of course they are, but the ACO ones involved minors, others don't. Even so the MR operational fleets were deemed expendable, hence the loss of Nimrod.
So what about the few ACO gliders that are flying? A very good question. The MAA that oversees their safe operation is founded on a lie, that of the Haddon-Cave 'Golden Period' when the subversion of UK Military Air Safety occurred. Unless and until UK Military Air Regulation and Air Accident Investigation is made independent of the MOD, and of each other, there can be no confidence in either. That won't happen until the cover up of the scandal of UK Military Airworthiness stops and the MOD, RAF, and MAA acknowledge their culpability.
CHUG We well know how the MGSP kept us going, but they were staffed by properly trained tradesmen under the 'control' of the then centres, who in turn were backed up by tech qualified staff at HQ, who in turn had regular contact with Slingsby. Hardly a complicated system, which actually worked well and was able to adapt very quickly to replacing a machine quickly if needed. As far as the Air Cadets are concerned when we lost a UK manufacturer and the in house facility we lost control of everything. The GSA were already operating under BGA criteria so why did the largest glider fleet in the country allow itself to become 'contractor bound' to the point that know one knew what was (or was not) happening. At least the past few years has blown the myth so hopefully we will not go down this route again. Lots of money has been made by contractors not doing the business, and this must never happen again.
I honestly think that in the future the Cadets should get back to the 'going solo' syndrome in a machine that suits that purpose. Their is no downside to learning some basic flying on a simple machine. History shows us that starting this way repays itself many times over, imparting essential skills, and early DECISION MAKING. If and when the Cadets get a new fleet it should be on the basis that this facility can be shared with other cadet/youth organisations thereby increasing utilisation and possibly attracting extra help. Glidng shoud be kept simple and the ability to operate them equally so. The MAA is not really in being to accommodate our needs therefore we should align ourselves with a suitable system that offers an adequate alternative.