Originally Posted by
Thud105
Something else that has struck me as odd is the choice of this aircraft for a charity that specialises in flying the disabled. The G109 is not actually that easy to get in and out of, particularly when compared to a high-wing aircraft with a tricycle undercarriage and car-type doors, like a Cessna or Tecnam. Anyone else got an opinion?
It was quite obvious at the start of this 'disability' approach that the machine was not ideal for that purpose (other than they were going to get them for virtually nothing and sell most of them off). What the deal achieved was a 'washing of the hands' by the Ministry and amazingly no blame to anyone. What the RAF wanted to avoid was the machine 'popping up' in a civilian mode with little change to the spec, and flying again for the benefit of youngsters at little cost. Having completely screwed up their own operation, seeing them around the Country doing what they were supposed to do could not be tolerated, all as a major 'face saving operation'. As to 'HOW this was achieved, well you have to look at the 'People' involved from the organisations, and then decide if the Ministry dept, and the RAF made a cogent decision based on tech merit, and a sound operational case for disposal. I am not aware that a sound case for the outcome was ever made. Remember the LAA were willing to be the accountable tech input for possible future use, and as such the potential operation was secure. ARC sums it up well in his last post, and the Cadets have been the long term loser's. The lack of leadership from the top , plus poor input from 2FTS was not helpful, but has anyone actually learnt from this 'I think not'.