Air Cadets grounded?

[EnigmAviation]

[QUOTE=ACW342;9337348]If the cause of the so called pause was because of poor workmanship, improper maintenance & repairs and loss of the appropriate documentation by the employees of the contractor and sub contractor(s) with the effect that the aircraft were deemed to be (and in some cases were) not airworthy and required a lengthy and costly investigation into such, and which is requiring an equally lengthy and costly recovery operation, should then the fees paid for such improper work done be not recovered from the contractor (s) and be paid back into the ACO budget?

Furthermore, as the lengthy and costly recovery operation is as a direct result of the said poor workmanship, improper maintenance & repairs and loss of the appropriate documentation by the employees of the contractor and sub contractor(s), should not then the contractors be responsible for the cost of the recovery operation rather than be paid for out of the ACO budget? :confused:[/QUOTE


I'm pleased to see ACW342 and POBJOY and others mentioning the unmentionable !. I have just written to my MP enclosing a list of FOI questions with regard to the extremely lax proceedings where negligence may have taken place under a contractual matter. Not only that, there is the little matter of who were the RAF supervisors of the ACO/RAF Fleet of Grob Viking and Vigilant A/C both before and after the problematic civilian contract ?


Usually I get a 24 hr response from my MP, but thus far it's Radio silence !!


Legally, if Her Majesty's Government is/was aware that they may have a legal case, then the "clock" starts to run from the "Date of Knowledge", ( i.e., when the injured party first becomes aware of a legal issue or breach of contract) for the statutory period ( 6 years) before the case becomes statute barred, and after which, unless extension time is sought and approved by the Courts, no further action can be taken.


As for the Officers allegedly supervising the said contract(s), then that too should be a matter for service discipline rather than silently stealing away or obtaining further promotion. Civilian contracts STILL require supervision and quality management, despite some of our current Government thinking that sub-contractors solve all problems ! Perhaps it works like politics where you merely move on quietly, get a gong and retire very comfortably.


It may well suit certain parties that the "limitation clock" is allowed to tick away un-noticed, but it is for all of us, the Taxpayers, to ensure that it is not ignored.


Come on Mr Cameron , take a moment or two off Panama and EU Brexit issues, and spend a moment or two asking your Defence Ministry what on earth has been going on !

[Cat Funt]

Ref ACO SNCO/WO pilots and instructors- they're still civilians, not subject to military law. The only way staff would benefit would be that they could claim pay when they're on courses.

Also, I can't imagine there would be enough demand for the ACO's Adult Training Facility to design and host bespoke courses for them. I would then presume that they'd be sent on the SSIC, which would be almost entirely useless to them.

[Tinribs]

Article in Sunday Telegraph says delay caused by inability to find suitable contractor to do the work. Carefully avoids why the work is needed

[POBJOY]

Tinribs Suggest you use this article as a good reason to e-mail the writer and inform him/her of the 'reasons'. I have done this twice now to other papers.
The 'Pen'/ E-mail is still a powerful tool.

[ACW342]

Tin Ribs, can you give me the name of the journalist, I think i might forward my email to the three First Ministers of the devolved governments (Yes, for those who wish to point it out, I am aware that defence is not a devolved matter)

Thanks

A342

[Chugalug2]

EnigmaAviation:-

Come on Mr Cameron , take a moment or two off Panama and EU Brexit issues, and spend a moment or two asking your Defence Ministry what on earth has been going on !

This is what has been going on:-

https://sites.google.com/site/militaryairworthiness/

I'm afraid that ACO gliders are the least of the ramifications of the sabotage by VSOs that has been the subject of a cover up ever since it was perpetrated. The entire UK military air fleet is riddled with unairworthiness as a consequence, and the organisation responsible for sorting that out cannot face up to it as it is subject to the same cover up enforced at the highest levels. So let's lynch a Group Captain or two instead to placate the mob. That should at least make us all feel better even if it achieves nothing else...

[Frelon]

Is it me, or are there any parallels to be drawn between the Air Cadet Gliding debacle and this (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/calls-safety-review-scottish-pfi-7730631#SYp42cI768HzTfmZ.97)?

"However, we must also question how such significant defaults could escape normal building control scrutiny and we believe it is now necessary for an urgent review of all PPP/PFI contracts, including the terms of the private maintenance contracts which are often both expensive and extremely restrictive."

Edinburgh Schools Partnership (ESP), which operates the schools apologised and said the partnership would accept "full financial responsibility".

[Chugalug2]

Frelon:-

are there any parallels to be drawn between the Air Cadet Gliding debacle and this?

Not directly Frelon, no. In your example it is alleged at least that the contractors reneged on their responsibility to abide by the regulations and build accordingly. In the case of UK Military Airworthiness the authority itself (aka the MOD) reneged on its responsibility to abide by the regulations, ordering them instead to be suborned and eventually to be largely done away with. Until that is acknowledged by the MAA then it remains part of the problem. What the contractors did faced with such subversion is a secondary consideration I would suggest.

[RUCAWO]

Tomorrow Wednesday Westminster Hall Debates - UK Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/commons/speakers-office/wadjourns/)

[Arclite01]

30 minutes to save the world..................

Talk is cheap, money buys the beer................. not expecting any money........

Arc

[tucumseh]

I can't comment on the accuracy of the alleged failings by contractors, but I do know that many similar cases in the past have resulted in MoD taking no action and swallowing the cost, even after fatal accidents. The contractor has a ready-made defence if it can demonstrate any laxity in MoD's application of their own regulations. The obvious first question is - is there a stable and maintained build standard against which the work is to be conducted? As Chug has alluded to, the chances of this are somewhere south of zero. Ergo, there will be no valid safety case. This is all very familiar.

[ACW342]

Westminster Hall - Anyone had any reports on the debate?

[Duo802]

Try this:

Parliamentlive.tv - Westminster Hall (http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e3469e6a-cf30-4b4a-b0a4-808b82ec9f6e)

[Airbus38]

To save anybody from needing to waste time viewing, I think referring to this as a debate might be something of an overstatement. I think it would be much fairer to say that the minister simply re-iterated the statement released a few weeks ago.

Sadly, but I suppose predictably, he didn't specifically address any issues or questions raised since the announcement.

He also repeatedly referred to 'simulators', and from his no doubt vast experience, attested on more than one occasion to how realistic they were and that they would form a core part of Cadets' training.

I don't think this 'debate' was ever really intended to be much more than an opportunity to say that the issue had been discussed; 30 minutes with non 'subject matter experts' is clearly not going to do anything to reverse any decisions made.

[Duo802]

Yes. Mostly waffle and no actual debate as far as I could see!

[CoffmanStarter]

Airbus38 ...

Totally agree. There was an opportunity at 14 mins, when a 'sharp minded' MP could have asked 'HOW' did the Air Cadet Glider Fleet become UNSERVICEABLE in the first place ... But NO !

The Minister's comments on the 'simulators' (NOT) just proved that he had fallen for the 'pretty lights' show when he recently visited 2FTS :ugh:

[ACW342]

An absolute travesty - debate? it was anything but. Where were the questions from our representatives on how this came about? Who were the culprits? Why has no one been prosecuted? A whitewash.

[EnigmAviation]

An absolute travesty - debate? it was anything but. Where were the questions from our representatives on how this came about? Who were the culprits? Why has no one been prosecuted? A whitewash.
Still we don't get told what was alleged to be wrong with the Vigilants particularly and also the Vikings. And in the age that we build major airframe assemblies for Airbus, " we cannot source a contractor to fix the Vigilants " . Can we please have some hard copy of what were the engineering major issues please ?.

The whole thing is massive cover up and b--------.

This Westminster bull****ter was a disgrace.

[RUCAWO]

ACW342, the Ministers meeting with Jim Shannon could be more interesting , your old boss John McA may be going with him ;)

[Arclite01]

My experience with Ministers and MP's (and I have had a quite a bit) is that they believe what they are told. They are not SME's, and quite often they have no knowledge of the Ministry in which they are placed (since George Osborne is neither an Accountant or has ever actually had a proper job - I kid you not).

They have no option but to believe what they are told, and they act accordingly. In a lot of ways the CEO of many large companies are the same. They expect the people under them to be the expert (like they are paid for), be honest and professional in their dealings. In public service supposedly, even more so.

In this case that has sadly not been the case. It's quite clear that no-one with knowledge of ACO Gliding or Engineering has really been near the decision making process for this one. Underpinned by weak contract management practice (the MoD was always like that anyway) this was doomed from the start. Personal interests, Personal Agendas and Personalities have all been at work here.

I think I can hear the lid being nailed down on this one now to stop the skeletons getting out.

Just so sad, and unnecessary.

I will of course be putting in a bid for one of the incredibly well maintained Vigilants when they come up for sale if the Personal interests, Personal Agendas and Personalities don't do a TSR2 on them to prevent the evidence from surfacing..................but in world where the Government can sell off the UK Gold reserves below market price or publicly owned bank shares below the value with no questions asked, who would be surprised if a few motorgliders quitely arrived on the fire dump or Shoebury Ranges...............
Arc

[Frelon]

Yes. Mostly waffle and no actual debate as far as I could see!

An absolute disgrace :ugh: I wonder how much this "debate" cost? Probably could have covered the cost of fixing at least two Vikings:ok:

[CoffmanStarter]

Following the so called 'Debate' at Westminster Hall yesterday ... I have sent this to my MP today ...


Dear Mr Merriman …

I watched carefully the debate held yesterday at Westminster Hall entitled ‘Future of Gliding and the Air Cadet Organisation’

Parliamentlive.tv - Westminster Hall (http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e3469e6a-cf30-4b4a-b0a4-808b82ec9f6e)

I would have liked to write direct to the Minister, Julian Brazier, but it is clear from his Constituency Web Site that he only replies to correspondence emanating from a Kent Constituency Postal Address. I am therefore writing to you to seek an answer to a very specific question about this issue as my MP.

There has, as yet, been no satisfactory explanation as to ‘How and Why’ the entire Air Cadet Glider Fleet (of some 146 aircraft) suddenly became un-airworthy/un-serviceable which necessitated the ‘Grounding’ of the entire fleet for some two years. I’m afraid I don’t have the detail on the original Total CapEx Spend back in the early 90’s for the 81 Grob Viking Gliders and 65 Grob Vigilant Motor Gliders, but I’m informed that the Vikings alone cost c. £7m when acquired some 25 years ago … so in total, for the entire fleet of 146 aircraft, a not insignificant original investment by the MOD/RAF.

So as a UK Tax Payer I believe I’m entitled to ask for an explanation as to ‘How and Why’ the entire Air Cadet Gliding Fleet became un-airworthy/un-serviceable.

I’m aware from Hansard that Serco was awarded a ‘Glider Maintenance Contract’ of £9.4m for a seven year period from Feb 2008 to Mar 2015. Without prejudice I ask … Did the contractor fail to provide the service they were contracted to supply, either through poor engineering practice or record keeping ? Did the MOD/RAF fail to effectively ‘Supervise’ and/or ‘Oversee’ the contractors work ? Or was it a combination of both these possibilities or were there other reasons ?

To be clear, I’m well acquainted with the detail of the proposed current ‘Recovery Programme’ put forward by the MOD/RAF, and whilst these plans are most lamentable, they can detract attention away from the specific question I have asked above.

Yours sincerely

[EnigmAviation]

Well done CoffmanStarter, my MP has not even responded ! But this is the single most important question that MUST be answered for the benefit of us taxpayers and the totally banjaxed VGS staff.
:ok::ok::ok:

[Thorr]

It seems to me that the only way those in control are going to genuinely listen is if all instructors refuse to volunteer their services. Including those on schools which will remain open. No staff - what are they going to do?

[squawking 7700]

I liked the suggestion, on CAC's FB page, to grow trees to commemorate the 75th anniversary - could I suggest ash, spruce and balsa - that way at least in 20 years time there'd be enough wood to build a fleet of new gliders.


7700

[VX275]

In the meantime the saplings can be sheltered by a screen of glass fibre replicas of trees.

[Arclite01]

or tree simulators............................


Arc

[CoffmanStarter]

The formal record of the 'debate' on Wednesday of this week at Westminster Hall ...

Hansard : Air Cadet Organisation and Gliding (https://hansard.digiminster.com/commons/2016-04-13/debates/16041334000002/AirCadetOrganisationAndGliding)

[GroundedGrob]

Such an in depth debate......

"look at the shiny, shiny"

Frankie Boyle quote from Mock the Week seems very apt as they've been seduced by a swish looking PTT.

Seems you can learn Ab Initio on a Simulat....sorry PTT.

[POBJOY]

ARC has it summed up.
With all the top brass in total denial (and ignorance) who is going to make that 'searching' investigation as to the root cause of the debacle.
Ministers know absolutely nothing about the subject and even the VSO's are limited in their knowledge about how the system 'COULD' work.
Had we had a 'can do-er' at 2FTS guiding the situation then it may have been possible to have steered a better solution,but as his agenda did not fit in with how the VGS operates then there was no hope that there was ever going to be a rapid return to ops. In fact Cmt2FTS does have a heavy responsibility in all this as he was the point of contact with the VSO's and no doubt has guided them towards the eventual so-called recovery.
With such a dismal and incompetent leadership the situation was never going to get better as the very people that held the key to recovery (the VGS) were kept out of the loop because they were not going to fit in with Cmt 2 FTS plans for the future.
This sorry individual has seen off a system that was World Class in its ability to actually gets Cadets off solo and allow those that were keen to develop enough to keep the system going.
Without LEADERSHIP you have nothing the VGS had it a Squadron level but it failed big time at the next level.

The system was simple; it was run by capable Staff Cadets, however it needed someone equally capable up top to oversee it and this is where it has failed big time.

[Arclite01]

POBJOY

VSO Turkeys don't vote for VSO Christmas to they ?, they don't want their chances of a shiny, shiny OBE or KBE going down the pan.................

Arc

[POBJOY]

ARC The sad fact is that most of the people that could have helped have little or no indepth knowledge of the subject.
This means they rely entirely on briefings from those that can manipulate the information to their own ends.
That is why the position of Cmt 2 FTS was so important,and why the selection made was so disastrous.
The ACO has been led down what will prove to be a one way street to Decline City. The 'jewel' of the 'hands on' flying available to anyone has been sacrificed on the alter of incompetence and personal agenda's,and the system is in such 'mega denial mode' they can not see what has happened and why.
It will be interesting to see if the Scouting movement can take up the slack from this debacle, and whether some of the decades of Cadet Gliding can help them do this.
With no changes on the horizon at Syerston the future is just a 'downward spiral'.

[ACW342]

Julian Brazier MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and Minister for Reserves,
House Of Commons
Houses Of Parliament
LONDON
SW1A 0AA

[CoffmanStarter]

Given, again, the continued public reference to the use of 'Simulators' by the Minister for 'Glider Training' ... The comments made by Airbus38 and BEagle at Posts 1923, 1976 and 1986 remain entirely apposite.

I was recently PM'd with the following information ...

The 2 FTS ‘PTT – Operations and Training Manual’ confirms that (direct quotes):

“This device does not meet the MAA specifications to be designated as a simulator”

And ...

“Due to the lack of feedback on the controls, not all elements of the syllabus can be demonstrated and practiced”

My Bold

So out of curiosity, more than anything, I looked up the MAA Regulations (available on-line and in the Public Domain) fully expecting to see how the MAA 'Define and Specify' Flight Simulators for use by the UK Military ... Here is what I found ...

MAA : RA 2375 Approval and Use of Flight Simulator Training Devices (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/350180/RA2375.pdf)

I have also included two screen grabs to preserve the present information.

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/Screen%20Shot%202016-04-15%20at%2015.26.24_zpsii0juvue.jpg

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/Screen%20Shot%202016-04-15%20at%2015.26.421_zpsc01pgqdz.png

Image Credit : MAA Public Document RA 2375

Contrast this with the EASA 'Certification Specifications for Aeroplane Flight Simulation Training Devices' and the MAA Regulatory Article begins to look a little 'thin'. Whilst I'm not readily conversant with modern day terminology such as ADH or AM(MF), it still seems a bit perplexing for the MAA to 'Devolve' a responsibility to 'Approve FSTD's' without first fully Defining and Specifying what a FSTD is or isn't ... after all the MAA published mandate on RA's is ...

The purpose of Regulatory Articles (RA) is to provide the framework of policy, rules, directives, standards, processes and the associated direction, advice and guidance, which governs military aviation activity and against which air safety is assessed.

Now see EASA Example ...

Certification Specifications for Aeroplane Flight Simulation Training Devices (https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/CS-FSTD(A)%20Initial%20Issue.pdf)

Page 5 of the above document helpfully describes the various sub-categories of Civilian FSTD's.

Some might think I'm being pedantic ... But without a clear Definition and Specification by the MAA on FSTD's there is a clear anomaly between MAA RA 2375 and the 2FTS PTT OTM ... and without a MAA FSTD Definition who decides on 'what' elements can be taught ?

In closing ... have a look at this video of the Vigilant PTT at Topcliffe. To be clear ... I'm not making any criticism of the Instructing Staff ... My specific point relates the the availability of the completely unnatural 'Slew View' Function to view the deployed spoilers ... As a minimum this function IMHO should be inhibited as in real life you turn your head. Keeping your head 'Looking Out' is the Airmanship point ... relying on the slewing of views could well induce bad and dangerous habits. I assume the Viking PTT has the same 'Slew View' Function.

Vigilant PTT : Slew View : Potentially Bad Habit Forming (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cALb7NTfDkg)

Happy to stand corrected/respond to further comments.

[Wander00]

Well I tried - the reply I have received to my "RAF 100" suggestion , that they sorted Air Cadet gliding


Thank you for contacting RAF100 with your thoughts on Air Cadet Gliding. Unfortunately this does not fall within my remit to resolve, however, I am aware that AVM Knighton is working closely with AVM Turner to try to improve issues such as gliding.


Kind regards
Zerrin)


Your ideas formThis form was sent at: 02-Apr-2016 12:16
YOURIDEA: Get Air cadet gliding sorted
WHEREWOULDITTAKEPLACE: CountrywideWHOWOULDITBEFOR: Air Cadets - the FUTUREORGANISEYOURSELFORWIDERSUGGESTION: RAFHAVEYOUORGANISEDSOMETHINGSIMILARBEFORE:
NoMYIDEAWOULDSUPPORTRAF100BY: Inspire

[tucumseh]

CS

The RA provides the "framework". The problem is, there is nobody willing to mandate and ensure that it is implemented. That was the basic issue reiterated by the Nimrod XV230 senior Reviewing Officer, and then reiterated again by Haddon-Cave. And, given the above RA dilutes hitherto mandated regulations to "should" instead of "shall", it can be seen the current MAA regime is a regression.

You are not being pedantic. You are absolutely right.

[CoffmanStarter]

Cheers Tuc :ok:

[Shaft109]

To be fair the PTT is good from an instructor POV as a proceedure trainer and keeping existing skills sharp but yes the all important lookout is neglected as the screens force you to stare forwards.

Not sure it's quite sharp enough as an initial trainer

[CoffmanStarter]

Thanks S109 :ok:

But at c. £25K a pop (£625K for 25) it seems a bit excessive for just a 'Procedures Trainer' ... Most of us just sat in a cockpit, in the hanger, with the FRC's and drilled until hands and brain eventually synchronised :uhoh:

Initial Trainer/PTT all a bit meaningless without a formal MAA FSTD Definition/Specification ...

[ACW342]

Coff, I started at 664 at age 46 and sat in the hangar with a FSC aged 17 and went through the FRC's as you do. I'm now retired and he's flying left hand seat in executive jets.

Just think of how many cadets won't become FSCs and who are not going to get the opportunities to light the fires of aviation ambition (and not be trained by the crusty old CGI's who formed the backbone of the VGS's)

[POBJOY]

On the basis that a 'Glider' has few systems, nav equipment,electrics, comms,fire control,or indeed anything needing a static 'procedure' simulator where exactly does a PTT fit in with the Viking fleet (If we are to believe the recovery program).
The main 'emergency' situation for Gliders is the low cable break,and the training for this is best done 'for real', this is the only sensible way to get a student used to the combined attitude change and decision making which is a total waste of time in a static PTT. The PTT may have had a place in the Vig's with a modicum of things to 'practice' but as they are history that requirement goes with them.
By all means let the Cadet Squadrons have them as something to give a semblance of 'aviation' but do not pretend they are a substitute for 'hands on' gliding.

[HP90]

As an avid home simulation fan myself, I have something to add to this discussion:

The idea of using fixed screens for flight simulator displays is fast becoming old fashioned, the future is in Virtual Reality goggles.

Without wanting to geek anyone out - essentially they feature a screen that you mount to your head, which fills your entire peripheral vision with the simulated scene. The headset tracks the movement of your head in 360 degrees and moves the view in the simulator accordingly - so real head movement will mirror the simulator head movement, giving you the ability to practice good lookout.

The goggles present two different views to each eye, with one offset slightly from the other, in order to give true 3D vision, which gives the critical aspect of depth perception, important for judging height on round-out, etc.

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/OculusRift-640x353.jpg


Everyone I know who has tried it say that the feeling of immersion is fantastic, and that you feel like you’re really sitting in the cockpit.

Compatible with all major consumer sims, including FSX (and its modern successor, Prepar3D by Lockheed Martin) a VR goggle flight-sim system can be purchased for around £2,500 all in.

In future, low-cost motion platforms will also be available, which, when coupled with the fact that VR goggles fill your entire peripheral vision, will trick the brain into believing that the motion is real.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSWGAmBLOys


While the PTTs will be useful for practicing procedural drills, VR goggle-based sims would be useful for practicing visual circuits, developing good lookout, etc.

I had more than one instructor ask me upon landing whether I had any home simulation experience, and when I replied in the affirmative, they said it showed in my flying.

One instructor summed it up well – simulation teaches you to recognise what a “good picture” should look like, thus allowing you to, for example, judge whether your approach is too high or too shallow, and adjust accordingly.

A simulation company called Iris Simulations (owned by an ex-cadet) has already developed a fantastic Tutor, and are working on a Viking.

https://www.irissimulations.com.au/wp-content/gallery/iris-pro-training-series-grob-g115etutor-t-1/vc2.png


http://i1.wp.com/www.simflight.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IRIS-GrobTwin.jpg

The technology that is out there right now really is going to blur the lines between low-cost desktop simulation, and high-end full motion dome simulators.

[POBJOY]

HP90 Whilst not denying the quality of the new technology the ATC do not have this or should be having it at the expense of the real experience.
The top brass are using the 'excuse' of PTT to suggest it is now a real part of the training package (which it is not).
We are in danger of talking ourselves out of the whole point of ATC gliding which was to provide a REAL flying experience to any Cadet up to solo standard using simple technology.
Just because the cretons in charge (up top) could not manage to keep the system in shape does not mean the original purpose was not excellent or the VGS were not doing a good job under difficult circumstances.
With a lower entry age limit and a potential long wait to attain 'The Solo' the ACO have lost the plot on the reality that few Cadets will have stayed long enough to go solo.
Giving them different badges on the extended 'dual' journey is a complete farce as it does not even lead them to a BGA cert when they solo.
Just because the F...W...s in charge are on different planet and believe their own spin on FB and Twatter does not mean they have any idea what they had was World Class, or how 'they' have destroyed a fine system.

[Heathrow Harry]

I have this dream that someone like Dave reads this thread and drags those responsible to No.10 (on a Sunday) and locks them in a room until they come out with a simple, workeable fix...............................

[CoffmanStarter]

HP90 ...

Thank you for your contribution.

However ... We need to be perfectly clear here. Initial Flying Training (for Gliding even more so) involves the 'teaching' by an instructor 121 and the 'learning' of a highly practical skill by the student that requires full immersion in the 'real' world thus allowing the ab initio Pilot to develop/master the necessary eye, hand, feet and brain coordination to succeed. The student then builds on these foundations as they progress through their training ... FACT There is NO substitute for this as mentioned by Pobjoy

In fact there are many Mil & Civ QFI's who will say that anyone wishing to learn to fly should stay well away from any form of 'simulation' (especially Desktop PC 'Game' simulation) until they have gained 'safe habits' and sufficient experience with 'real' world flying first ... Even then to be cautious about such usage.

Don't get me wrong, there is a place for proper 'synthetic' training ... But not at the ab initio stage. A 'procedures' trainer is perfectly acceptable (aka a Cardboard Bomber) to learn NORMAL and EMERGENCY FRC Drills ... But it's just as easy to sit in a cockpit in the hanger and 'chant' away until your checks and drills become second nature. That way, when your QFI pulls the throttle on take-off and asks you to perform an EFATO, you have a sporting chance of getting most of the exercise right :ok:

Turning to your comments on VRG's, yes it partially solves the 'view' issue, but they introduce more inconsistencies with the 'real world' flying environment. Just using your Tutor T1 example screen shot ... If I were to reach out (goggles on) with my right hand to adjust the OBS Knob, I wouldn't see MY right hand doing the necessary. In any case (unless you intend to go for the open cockpit 'Biggles' experience ... the goggles you show are again an 'unnatural' experience)

These Air Cadet PTT's are based on the X-Plane 'Game' software (£49.99 from TransAir) with many other 'add-ons' both soft and hard (scenery, cockpits and simulated gauges etc). If they are to be NO more than a 'procedures trainer' then there is no need for the visuals IMHO. So any reasonably informed observer would have a valid case to question the CapEx spend of £650K if they are to be no more than a 'procedures trainer'.

[Subsunk]

I think the PTTs are going to end up being a useful 'fill-in' for an organisation that has not only failed to extract its digit, but has followed it up its own orifice.

With the PTTs, they can now build up a whole virtual flying world, and an additional, spurious hoop to jump through for both adult volunteers and cadets. The only way to save PTTs, which became obsolete as soon as the decision was made to retire the entire VIGI fleet, will be to cobble together some simulator-based pipeline around them.

So, the choice seems to be clear - you can either fly or be in the ATC. The 2 ends are mutually exclusive during the 75th anniversary of the Air Training Corps.

Stand by for a smug little press release involving a PTT, a celeb, a cadet and a growbag-suited instructor letting us all know how much better things are now that we don't actually fly any more.

PS: no disrespect at all aimed at ATC volunteers and cadets. Any disrespect is aimed squarely at the 'professionals' and Senior Officers who broke the faith and brought a fine institution to its knees. Have any operational aircraft types been subjected to a catastrophic long-term grounding like this, or is it just the Tutor, Vigi & Viking?

[POBJOY]

In the 60's we did not have simulators we had real live STIMULATORS.
One of these was the 1 Ton Austin 4x4 open body truck that was the main 'prime mover' for the winches,and also hauled cables.
However at lunch time this beast 'driven by staff Cadets not old enough to have a civvy licence' would do a quick round up of the course Cadets (in wellies) who would then leap up into the back and be transported with much laughter and sometimes singing off to the NAFFI or Airmens mess.The effect of course Cadets being assisted by S-Cadets was an essential part of the organisation,and it made the system quite unique in a 'service based operation'.The level of 'self development',and motivation whilst using service equipment has never been surpassed, and the sight of 'other Cadets' seemingly running the ground ops had an electric effect on the Students. This is what ATC Gliding was about;Cadets helping Cadets to go flying and eventually go solo.We had the best system in the world which cost very little in real terms,and nobody had the right to throw it away because it did not suit their blinkered views on how it should be done.
ATC Gliding was/should be a 'HANDS ON' experience ; this is what made it special,and STIMULATING.

[HP90]

Just to address some points raised here:

I’ll start by saying that I’ve thought for a while that small-scale flying and gliding clubs could make much better use of modern low-end simulation technology, in order to reduce the time it takes to get to solo, and thus reduce the cost of doing so (although with regard cadet gliding, the emphasis should be on saving time, not money).

I completely agree that simulation should not replace any “live” flying – all elements of the syllabus should be flown for real, not exclusively a simulator. However, that’s not to say that simulators can’t augment real flying.

I also agree that elementary training should be about getting a basic feel for flying – and feel is the one thing you really can’t get in a simulator. A common criticism of simulators is that aircraft fly like they’re on rails, and I would have to agree with this. You can’t simulate that random patch of sink or lift, or that random gust on approach, etc.

One thing that really surprised me when I first started learning to glide (having used simulators for a number of years beforehand) is how much the nose wanted to wonder around – in the simulator, it always stayed pointed where I wanted it. Another thing the simulator doesn’t replicate very well is adverse yaw, which makes getting a sense of the required co-ordination a lot harder.

And of course, simulators can’t give you force feedback, nor the sensations of G, and most critically, cannot give you the “pucker factor” of knowing that an error may well cost you your life.

Thus, in elementary training, I see simulators being used in the context of “familiarisation”, rather than actual “teaching” – meaning, being used to give a general overview of the concept in question, rather than how to actually physically fly it.

An example: When learning to fly circuits, my instructors would typically demonstrate how a circuit should be flown, while talking through the basic principles (once overhead X, make a 90-degree turn and position the wingtip in line with Y, etc.). Once running through that, they would ask me to follow through on the controls the next time around, before finally letting me have a go myself on the third flight.

But, what if that initial familiarisation flight could be done in a simulator, so that upon taking to the air, you already know the basic concept of how the circuit should be flown, allowing you to proceed straight to the follow-through stage? The end result would still be that you’ve flown a circuit, but you’ve reduced the number of flights it takes to do it.

There are numerous other examples too, such as stalling, spinning, how to center in a thermal, etc.

It might not be much of a reduction, but if you can shave off one flight here and there, then it all mounts up. I know I’m going to get pilloried for suggesting this, with people saying that the goal should be to get cadets more air time, not less, but whilst I agree with that, if the use of simulation can make the difference between having enough time to get to solo, and not, then which is better?

A point that’s been raised here before is that, at AEFs, cadets typically sit around just waiting to fly – well, imagine a networked simulator, with one instructor running through the basic concept of flying a circuit, or a stall, with 10 or so cadets all viewing that same simulation via their own VR goggles, listening to the instructor via audio. Wouldn’t that be a much better use of time than watching Top Gun?

Some other points I want to make:

I don’t quite know how those PTTs allegedly cost £25,000 each – guys build full replica 737 flight decks for less than that.

With regard not being able to see your hands in a simulator – there is in fact a solution for that – see this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp4-mLuV6lA

And here’s another good video demonstrating the principle of VR goggles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30pSJ0wOB6U

Whilst it’s true that X-Plane and FSX are marketed as “games”, not many people know that Lockheed Martin actually bought the rights to FSX from Microsoft, and now market a much enhanced version of it as a professional simulator under the name “Prepar3D”. This was apparently because LM saw a gap in the market for low-end simulators amongst their military customers, and Prepar3D is in fact now used in many military simulators around the world.

The Canadian air cadets recently set up their own simulation centre using Prepar3D, you can read about it here:
Canadian Air Cadets Get Prepar3D® ? Lockheed Martin - Prepar3D (http://www.prepar3d.com/case-studies/canadian-air-cadets-get-prepar3d/)

Ultimately, what I’m trying to say is that I think simulators can indeed have a place in basic flying training, but more as a familiarisation/overview device, rather than as a traditional training device.

[BEagle]

c4aero hasn't graced these pages for a while. However, perhaps he would be willing to post the text of his recent letter to the Air League? The last paragraph of which basically implies "Stop moaning, shut up and get on with it......" (not a direct quote, merely my interpretation).

:(

[Frelon]

Well, if retired VSOs (even if they say they are only Flying Officers) disseminate this type of demotivating message with regard to the Jewel in the Crown of the Air Cadet operation, there could well be more of this crass stuff coming from the current batch of VSOs.

I am not too sure I would volunteer my services to this lot of has beens!!

Stand by for incoming:rolleyes:

[POBJOY]

The problem with the recent comments from the VSO's is it shows how little they actually know about the way ATC Gliding had evolved and how it was staffed by keen volunteers who did not need to be 'given orders' from above.
The system ran and disciplined itself in a very simple way, in that staff became capable and passed on that capability to those coming into the schools.The staff of the schools had to be multi-tasked due to the nature of their 'dispersed' locations that were not always in close support range of a RAF unit.
The Co's kept a tight reign on the operation and were used to getting the best out of 'volunteers' without needing formal military discipline.
In other words it WORKED,and the results are well recorded.
It must be a shock (not admitted) to those up top to see that the organisations failings have emanated from the full time paid staff (service and civil service) and not from that Volunteer part that actually flew the aircraft and trained the Cadets.The present situation shows us the classic failure of an organisation that lacks quality leadership and an understanding of what is required or how it should be done.F-Book,Twatter,and cascading have replaced sound leadership and a 'hands on' ability to get the job done to support those who have never failed the Cadets.

[beardy]

The system ran and disciplined itself in a very simple way, in that staff became capable and passed on that capability to those coming into the schools

That doesn't sound very healthy to me, it makes normalisation of the deviation much more difficult to spot and prevent. Perhaps that is a contributory factor to the engineering problems.

[Arclite01]

Beardy

There were 2 independent audits of the system a year (all aspects) by teams from ACCGS and CFS Examining Wing. Later in my time on the VGS we also quite often got secondments to us from ACCGS or CFS to instruct on the courses.

I'd suggest that 3+ independent audits a year of 'standards' is certainly more than adequate. Each audit/inspection followed up with a comprehensive report listing faults found, remedial action required and timescales to do it in.

The auditors also had the authority to stop flying operations or suspend the VGS IMMEDIATELY if serious or critical deficiencies were found.

That's probably more inspections, reports and checks of operations than most units go through in a year.................

It is probably also worth noting that the failure of the system appears to have been solely confined to activities either at the centre of operations and policy or in the activities run from the centre of policy...............no issues have been found on the VGS themselves during this 'witch hunt' - yet it is they who are being wound up/down or 'punished/rewarded' (depending which way you look at it)

Arc

[beardy]

That certainly sounds very different from the set-up POBJOY described and does seem, in principle, sound.

[teeteringhead]

And - I think not unreasonably - the Air Cadet Organisation no longer wants a bunch of cadets in the back of a truck driven (illegaly?) by underage, unlicensed cadets .......


........... however good the songs are!

[Airbus38]

For the sake of balance, I think it's probably fair to say that the historical VGS operation was fantastic, but large elements have had to change through necessity to bring it in line with what can be expected of a first-class flying organisation in the 21st century. The enthusiastic volunteer spirit still exists but long gone are the days of unlicensed drivers, marginal weather, in-house 'work-arounds' to serviceability issues, and I'm afraid to say (in line with much of the RAF) an old-fashioned attitude to reporting unfit the "following morning". Anybody suggesting these things weren't to some extent a feature of the historical model would be kidding themselves.

Fortunately, the state-of-play nowadays has struck a much healthier balance of flight safety, SOP adherence and reporting culture and the organisation has become much stronger for it. Most of the dinosaurs have long since bees weeded out. I'm fully expecting some flak for suggesting the system wasn't always without flaws but it probably ought to be said. Not all of the change has been unwelcome!

[Arclite01]

Airbus & Teeters

I must be a dinosaur as I operated under the old system with the MK3 and T21 and also the new plastic system, actually probably one of the few left around to have flown the Swallow, MK3, T21, Valiant (ASW19), Vanguard (ASK21), Viking, Vigilant and Venture under ATC markings !! :D

I saw changes, most of them were not terrible in themselves but caused the organisation to die 'a death of a thousand cuts' until operations were not easy. By this I mean things like getting drivers licenced, the Stats return, Cadets fed, the Stats return, travel, the Stats return, flying clothing servicing, fuelling the vehicles, admin of all types (lots), the stats return, liaison with the wing and Sqns and servicing the aircraft (did I mention the Stats return ?) - all the 'administrivia' which on a regular unit on a regular station you have people to do whereas on a 'weekends only' unit at a detached location you just don't..................... these are 'the straws that break the camels back'. You can fly or you can have a complete set of paperwork and shiny vehicles - it seems the system wants the latter if it can't have both with resources available..................

Overall I think the Operation was OK and still working (not as much local authority as under the POBJOY system and not as much output/throughput) until this recent debacle around servicing (lack of, and associated records) which has killed it stone dead. And the people higher up have taken advantage of this fiasco to implement their own personal agendas for the VGS under the cloak of 'reorganisation' required to bring in the required changes to servicing.

I think in 5 years we will barely recognise the organisation we used to operate - and not in a good way.................

and Teeters - I agree about the comments regarding the truck.

Arc

[tucumseh]

I'd suggest that 3+ independent audits a year of 'standards' is certainly more than adequate. Each audit/inspection followed up with a comprehensive report listing faults found, remedial action required and timescales to do it in.

All things being equal, I concur. But the Nimrod and MoK Reviews were all about adverse audit reports being buried (by the same people) without taking remedial action. Both took evidence that staff at the "bottom" knew what to do and tried to implement, but there was no top down support. In both cases, the process fell apart at the same level/rank/grade and it turned out that staff had been instructed NOT to take remedial action and actively prevented from doing so. I read here of the exact same failings. Might I suggest that despite the efforts and professionalism of those directly involved in cadet training, there are higher level failings here that are way beyond the ken or pay grade of anyone in the ATC. Those involved are permitted to judge their own case.

[Airbus38]

Arclite - you're right you must be one of very very few! By 'dinosaurs' I should perhaps clarify; I mean in terms of attitude and certainly not in terms of age or era. No offence at all intended.

[Arclite01]

Airbus - none taken :O

I quite enjoy the label. Over 5000 launches conventional and 250 hours in the M/G fleet.

Arc

@Tucumseh - I agree with your comments about the 'high ups'

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Have any operational aircraft types been subjected to a catastrophic long-term grounding like this, or is it just the Tutor, Vigi & Viking?


Plenty of operational types (and more complex trainers) have been grounded at some point. The duration of the grounding has inevitably been shorter, as the impact of a prolonged grounding is rather more serious.

[tucumseh]

Very good question, and TOTD is quite correct. At a certain level, the ATC simply won't register as the grounding isn't immediately significant. I think a more interesting question is what remedial action was necessary to prevent the even more frequent imminent groundings, and what the attitude at senior level was.


The obvious ones I can recall are the entire Sea King ASW and SAR fleets in about 1988 and RN Lynx in 1991. It would be more accurate to say the SKs would have still been able to fly, but without mission systems would have been extremely limited; pilot training only was mooted, for about 18 months. (Which some might say is pretty serious). Lynx was a safety critical fire hazard, with aircrew in hospital. Grounding was scheduled for the Monday and we were given the week-end to crack it. I can tell you exactly what the reply from above was - "Let the RN ground their fleet(s) and come begging for money next year". The first was fixed by the marketing director of a well known Design Authority tracking down critical spares in Lagos. (The problem had been identified, but Thompson-CSF had pulled the plug literally at the last minute. They should never have been given another MoD contract). The second by cancelling an RAF contract and using the money to make Lynx safe. (It wasn't expensive, just logistically difficult with about 30 deployed at sea). As I said before, the solution was well known and very simple, but there wasn't any support.

[Frelon]

the Air Cadet Organisation no longer wants a bunch of cadets in the back of a truck driven (illegaly?) by underage, unlicensed cadets

I know that most, if not all, Commanding Officers of Gliding Schools would not have permitted Staff Cadets to drive the MT without first having been tested and approved for an RAF driving licence by the local MT unit. My licence allowed me to drive the 1 Ton Austin and the Land Rovers on the airfield only (and that included the NAAFI and Airmans' Mess) despite not being old enough for a grown up civvie licence!!

The interesting fact was that the MT supplied to our gliding school was not deemed suitable for driving off the camp as they were only maintained to "Airfield Use Only" standards!!!

It was only later when our airfield finally closed down and the RAF left that the system allowed us to have vehicles which were road worthy to enable us to collect the cadets from the local army base. By this time naturally all drivers of Air Cadet vehicles had both an RAF Driving Permit and a civilian driving licence.

I see nothing about this system that was illegal, except now they would expect us all to be belted in (cadets included)!

[Arclite01]

FRELON

I believe the Yellow 600 covered you for 'Camp Area' as well as Airfield, and a civilian licence was not required as long as you stayed on MoD property.

Teeters has a point though - even then I would have been careful carrying Cadets in the back of the Landrovers (not saying you weren't) - ours were all soft-tops after all............. the Austin had long gone by then................ we had a range of Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3 Landrovers (with underseat PETROL fuel tanks), all in pretty ropey condition, later we had LHD ones from Germany after war stocks were released.................. they were much better, eventually these disappeared and the first DEFENDER types arrived (DERV burners)

Arc

[EnigmAviation]

Airbus & Teeters

I must be a dinosaur as I operated under the old system with the MK3 and T21 and also the new plastic system, actually probably one of the few left around to have flown the Swallow, MK3, T21, Valiant (ASW19), Vanguard (ASK21), Viking, Vigilant and Venture under ATC markings !! :D

I saw changes, most of them were not terrible in themselves but caused the organisation to die 'a death of a thousand cuts' until operations were not easy. By this I mean things like getting drivers licenced, the Stats return, Cadets fed, the Stats return, travel, the Stats return, flying clothing servicing, fuelling the vehicles, admin of all types (lots), the stats return, liaison with the wing and Sqns and servicing the aircraft (did I mention the Stats return ?) - all the 'administrivia' which on a regular unit on a regular station you have people to do whereas on a 'weekends only' unit at a detached location you just don't..................... these are 'the straws that break the camels back'. You can fly or you can have a complete set of paperwork and shiny vehicles - it seems the system wants the latter if it can't have both with resources available..................

Overall I think the Operation was OK and still working (not as much local authority as under the POBJOY system and not as much output/throughput) until this recent debacle around servicing (lack of, and associated records) which has killed it stone dead. And the people higher up have taken advantage of this fiasco to implement their own personal agendas for the VGS under the cloak of 'reorganisation' required to bring in the required changes to servicing.

I think in 5 years we will barely recognise the organisation we used to operate - and not in a good way.................

and Teeters - I agree about the comments regarding the truck.

Arc

Hi fellow Dinosaur - I myself have flown the Mk3, T 21, Venture, Viking, Valiant and Vigilant on four RAF Stations over a period of 30 years or so, and two of the four RAF Stations were "front line" where standards during the weekend and during courses had, by necessity to be of the highest order in terms of professionalism in every sense, not least of which was latterly operating full air Traffic requirements in a mixed traffic environment.

On two of those VGS Units, I was ( in addition to the flying duties) the Adjutant responsible for the ever mounting requirements of Health and Safety, CRB, Medical liaison, Personnel record keeping, Home to Duty Claims, and general Station liaison, Deputy Flight Safety Officer including attendance at mid week meetings, and whatever other Admin duties were required.

Many times in my latter years I was actually in on the Station, sometimes many weekdays when there was a new requirement. Suffice it to say, that our professionalism led to being held in high regard by successive Station Commanders who supported the VGS to the last word and letter.

The aircraft were maintained by ACCGS Eng, and every Sunday evening at close of play the Eng issues requiring attention were transmitted promptly to them, whilst our local Eng requirements were supervised by our own expert Engineer an ex regular Wg Cdr Eng.

Flying standards were of the highest order, as we regularly had serving and very experienced RAF Pilots as part of our normal staffing, in addition to the usual customary CFS/ACCGS checks. Accidents? - well the only Vigilant accident was the result of a visiting Supervising Officer - not one of the VRT staff of the unit.

The Cadets and Staff alike have been very badly let down by the professionals at higher level, whichever way you stack the cards. If it is/was an Eng issue that caused "airworthiness concerns", then please be forthcoming and tell the whole world what was found, when and by whom, and at the same time please tell the long suffering taxpayers what endeavours have been made to legally remediate and recover our losses, and what disciplinary measures have been taken to hold those responsible for supervision of the maintenance of the fleet - after all the reported £9.4M cost of the maintenance contract IS OUR BUSINESS - WE TAXPAYERS FUNDED IT !!! Equally it is not subject to national security constraints, thus please come clean - I think we all realise we are being conned somewhere, but we don't quite know where !!

Equally, please come clean about the disposal of the Vigilant fleet - are they going to be trashed by a JCB, or, as I suspect, re-appearing at an airfield near you as possibly RAF GSA or Army GS or civilian club ?

Another question, if the "airworthiness concerns" were uniformly distributed across Viking and Vigilant, why can almost 100% of Vikings be recovered, but only 15 Vigilants and then only for a short period of time ?

As for the future - PTT's plus perhaps a half hour Tutor jolly once a year, with a day's travel to a Viking Super centre plagued by low stratus - is that what is going to make the Air Cadets join up ? I think not, and certainly isn't going to make large numbers of Adults pledge their weekends into infinity. Time alone will tell, but I suspect it's not looking like a good future.

Still the party line is being broadcast, the latest being the farcical Westminster "debate" where the Under Secretary more or less repeated verbatim his earlier speech in the House of Commons.


!:{

[POBJOY]

T-Head/ARC
Staff Cadets driving Winches,Landrovers, Trucks 1 ton 4x4 All had a RAF driving licence issued (after test) by a parent station. I am surprised you have no knowledge of this.In fact the licence was type specific so you needed two tests for the Austin and LR. The fact that you could do this one year before driving on the road was because the licence was for airfield use only.
Beardy.
Staff Cadets were not involved with Glider servicing or repairs nor were the schools other than very minor repairs.The MGSP covered all that as well discussed before and it certainly was both sound and worked well. One could attend No1 Gliding Centre and do a Glider Inspection Course which would let the person do the daily DI and minor repairs/replacements, rig derig etc.
Staff Cadets could do this course and several did.Your comments on the 'engineering' only shows a lack of actual knowledge on how the system was organised and worked very well,with standards second to none.The 'Key' to the wooden fleet was the fact that the RAF ran it themselves to normal service standards,and it is only when they 'outsourced' that the problems started. By the time a Staff Cadet became an instructor he would know everything about the operation from the ground up and in those days most new instructors came up that way. The Schools were under the direct control of the Gliding Centre not their local Wing and that was the strength of the operation.

[beardy]

Very interesting, although I am not sure what the difference is between 'knowledge' and 'actual' knowledge. Whichever, I feel enlightened now

With the current economic climate of responsibility and attributable culpability would the system you have described be achievable now on a plastic fleet?

[DaveUnwin]

"Fortunately, the state-of-play nowadays has struck a much healthier balance of flight safety, SOP adherence and reporting culture and the organisation has become much stronger for it.

Interesting observation Airbus - I wonder if you'd mind qualifying it for me? Recruitment is down, the volunteer staff (the backbone of the ACO) are thoroughly fed up and - it would seem - are voting with their feet, both fleets have been essentially grounded for over two years and cadets are obviously getting very little (and no solo) flying. How, exactly, is the ACO stronger? Its clearly safer, I would imagine that both fleets have enjoyed a 100% safety record over the last two years - that's the inevitable byproduct of not er actually flying them! But stronger?
Please elaborate.

[Arclite01]

POBJOY

I think I have agreed with all you have said.........................

Arc

[POBJOY]

Beardy (With respect), We are talking about a Gliding System that had evolved from students learning in 'Single seaters' (instructor gave brief and then drove winch) to give 'ground slides' then low and high hops. The MK3 gave the organisation a proper basic two seater and the start of formal instruction as we know it today.This was long before CFS and such like, and No 1 Gliding Centre headed up the training system.
My point was/is that it was VERY SIMPLE and not overburdened by masses of paperwork,but the MT had its own records even though the equipment was usually 'hand me downs' from RAF stocks.
Everything ran under the normal RAF regulations except that in many cases the parent unit may not have been on the Gliding site.At the start of a days ops all the equipment was given a 'DI' (staff cadets) and signed for.Aircraft were signed off by those with a suitable 'ticket'. The GS Adjutant would keep the paperwork in order and make required 'returns'.
The system have to revolve around the fact that the actual flying time per launch was very limited 3mins so the pre-flight brief had to work; as comms in the air had to be limited to 'corrections' rather than a conversation.
My point about 'actual knowledge' really means 'hands on experience' on the job as opposed to reading notes and taking a test. 'Everyone' in the system started at the winch end and had to chop cables; and so when they eventually became instructors themselves they knew the advantage of a good cable DI to prevent cable breaks. This system spawned a very comprehensive knowledge of what was important (and safe) hence it was able to send thousands of Cadets solo* (3* in those days) which also got them an A&B BGA Cert. I have yet to be convinced that the following years 'improvements' saw improved benefits to the Cadets and just seems to have upped the amount of dual flying. We certainly did not need to go on an external 'motivational' course to be appraised about 'spinning' !! As to how the system has evolved with glass; well at the VGS level it has evolved very well, but has been let down by the those further up the food chain who were supposed to be backing it up. As said before; the Schools never failed the Cadets the failure point is higher up in the system.

[POBJOY]

It would seem that with Southern Sailplanes now in the game at least the air-frames will get cleared to a satisfactory standard and we will get a substantial fleet back which will have a good shelf life.
Serco will not come out of this in good light nor will the dept that should have been overseeing their contract.
It looks like 2017 will be a realistic date now for a 'normal' flying program to be available from the equipment side.
However all is not clear from the VGS side of things and unless they get a proper mandate as to what is expected of them and how they are to organise staff levels and suitable staff training.
One would hope that the main thrust will be to get the existing (remaining) VGS up and running as a priority with an realistic aim to run easter courses for 2017 with staff help from closed schools if possible.
Any attempt to organise 'regional centres' should only happen after the VGS are back up and running.The Grob Viking has plenty of life left with proper care and attention,and there are enough airframes to supply the existing requirements.
If it is decided to start up 'centres' then this should be done with new equipment under the EASA schedule, and if possible with assistance from the GSA who are experienced in these matters.
Of course all of this will require management input with a sound background; but it is entirely possible once it is realised that the current top leadership has to be replaced,together with a rethink of the CGI situation. On the 'Airworthiness' issues SS hold all the required licences and hands on actual experience to complete the recovery of airframes plus they also work on the Tutor fleet to the satisfaction of the MOD. They will be able to undertake work on both EASA and MIL Gliders and are therefore able to offer the ATC the service it needs to keep the Cadets flying. No more contracts should be awarded to SERCO or any other organisation that is unable to satisfy a proven ability to deliver the full 'in service package'.

[Whizz Bang]

A fixed number of instructors per airframe, no CGIs, no staff cadets, all uniformed staff, prescriptive fatigue limits, increased travel distances, attendance requirements.

This all won't work.

There are indeed some areas which need addressing but pragmatically. 2 FTS and the main personality involved won't be able to retain enough staff to operate at half the capacity with their current thinking. Throwing money at recruitment won't work either, if all a potential candidate sees is free flying they're in for a shock. Very few of the full-time staff have any idea how much real commitment is needed from the volunteers, if they had they wouldn't treat them so abysmally.

As for the carrot of 'paid training days' or whatever guff they want to call it - someone who is in the game for £50 a day isn't really the sort who will cut it either.

As for the stick of all the bods being uniformed and ordered about, whoever thinks that will work is also delusional - they can still tell you to do one by resigning.

Even if this plan gets off the ground in the short term it is untenable in the long run. Making cadets choose between the wider ACO and all it has to offer or gliding at 18 can only be harmful to both parties. Unless, of course, the grand plan is to stop cadet service at 18...
Where will the future instructors come from, learning the operation from the ground up?

The VGS will never be able to be run like the full-time Royal Air Force which is why the majority of the current leadership are incapable of taking the organisation forward (rather than backward...).

[Why oh why]

Southen sailplanes do not have the recovery package. Babcocks however do. They are farming the work out to Southern Sailplanes who are reliant on Marshalls as the DO. And let's not forget which those constraints they have still only produced 3 airframes in a year.



It would seem that with Southern Sailplanes now in the game at least the air-frames will get cleared to a satisfactory standard and we will get a substantial fleet back which will have a good shelf life.
Serco will not come out of this in good light nor will the dept that should have been overseeing their contract.
It looks like 2017 will be a realistic date now for a 'normal' flying program to be available from the equipment side.
However all is not clear from the VGS side of things and unless they get a proper mandate as to what is expected of them and how they are to organise staff levels and suitable staff training.
One would hope that the main thrust will be to get the existing (remaining) VGS up and running as a priority with an realistic aim to run easter courses for 2017 with staff help from closed schools if possible.
Any attempt to organise 'regional centres' should only happen after the VGS are back up and running.The Grob Viking has plenty of life left with proper care and attention,and there are enough airframes to supply the existing requirements.
If it is decided to start up 'centres' then this should be done with new equipment under the EASA schedule, and if possible with assistance from the GSA who are experienced in these matters.
Of course all of this will require management input with a sound background; but it is entirely possible once it is realised that the current top leadership has to be replaced,together with a rethink of the CGI situation. On the 'Airworthiness' issues SS hold all the required licences and hands on actual experience to complete the recovery of airframes plus they also work on the Tutor fleet to the satisfaction of the MOD. They will be able to undertake work on both EASA and MIL Gliders and are therefore able to offer the ATC the service it needs to keep the Cadets flying. No more contracts should be awarded to SERCO or any other organisation that is unable to satisfy a proven ability to deliver the full 'in service package'.

[Frelon]

.....and unless anybody knows anything different the planning application on behalf of Southern Sailplanes to build three new hangars at Membury to service this contract was recently refused by West Berkshire Council. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[CoffmanStarter]

Surely not ! The RAF 'outsource' the recovery contract to one organisation who then appear to be allowed to outsource to yet another :ugh:

Now the RAF has TWO organisations to effectively 'Risk' and 'Performance' Manage ... Hasn't anyone got any commercial world experience of Outsourced Contract Management ?

[POBJOY]

W o W / Frelon

I think that at last someone in the system has realised that only SS can actually
produce the finished goods to a satisfactory standard, and that this is what will happen;but there will have to be the usual 'details' to be gone through to tidy up the 'arrangements'.
The hangar application will not materially affect this so a 'flow' of airframes should get processed which will build as the set up gets formalised.
There is a definate 'will' to get the air-frames out what must be sorted is how the ACO use them to best advantage.

[EnigmAviation]

Surely not ! The RAF 'outsource' the recovery contract to one organisation who then appear to be allowed to outsource to yet another :ugh:

Now the RAF has TWO organisations to effectively 'Risk' and 'Performance' Manage ... Hasn't anyone got any commercial world experience of Outsourced Contract Management ?

HMG / Civil Service and RAF VSO's - they never learn do they ? Sub contracting is a hard business to supervise diligently at best, and they have already shown gross ineptitude in managing the £9.4M sub contract to maintain the Viking and Vigilant T Mk1 fleet.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[POBJOY]

It appears that the 'Airframes' issues are going to be the least of the ongoing
Cadet gliding saga.
It is quite obvious that a 'virtual' agenda is in play that will see the end of Cadet Gliding 'as was' to be replaced by the sop of an intergrated PTT training scheme and a 'culled' VGS operation.
The 'Volunteer' element in all this does not fit in with someone's 'big plan' and that is even before they realise the loss of the skills base (ongoing).yet another Cranwell meeting seems to have produced no meaningful information to those at the coal face who continue to 'hang on' in hope.The very idea that the the CGI is not seen as a future post just proves that the leadership and policy makers have no idea how and why the staff cadet/CGI route was the key to a great facility.
The ACO have lost the plot (and any competent leadership) with these decisions and all we will get now is more spin about safety and an 'intergrated training package' with little real flying activity.
Perhaps someone should look at the numbers of 'paid' staff now engaged with the ACO and then compare it with Cadet numbers and actual flying.
I suspect the Volunteer input will be shown to have given excellent value in all area's. Ministers have been 'miss-briefed' to the point of 'being economical with truth' and no one is able to put the brakes on this runaway train.
What we do know is the money has been spent (still being spent) but the goods not delivered and yet no one was to blame or shown to be deficient in duty.It would never surprise me if they start to issue 'badges' for meetings with a 'clasp' when 20 have been attended.They have not reinvented anything and are not even capable of oiling the cogs.

[Arclite01]

POBJOY

I also expect the names to change and the word 'Volunteer' to be dropped leaving just 'Gliding Squadrons' maybe they will even be called 'RAF Gliding Squadrons' or 'RAF Reserve Gliding Squadrons' - in these days of much reduced numbers of Squadrons and Aircraft they would announce it as the creation of 10 'new' Squadrons and 70 refurbished training aircraft (such is the spin).

I also expect a renumbering exercise as the last part of wiping the blackboard down..........

Arc

(I believe in some organisations it's called 'Returning to Year Zero')

[POBJOY]

ARC What i fail to understand is why the VGS have not confronted their peers and allowed this situation to unfold like a slow motion car crash.

The 'combined' effect of a common thrust to try and inject some sense in to the operation may have at least have caused a rethink in A Planning, and B The lack of quality leadership from 2FTS.

It seems incredible that so many Squadron Commanders could not have had some positive input and possibly 'steered' the situation in a better way.

They had nothing to loose as they have now 'lost' the organisation they had.

Were they the victims of 'spin' (Keep the faith) from Cranwell or just lied to from up top.

[Arclite01]

I would think just plain lied to...................... they were probably hoping for some form of re-equipment programme WRT to aircraft............ never in their wildest dreams would they have been expecting to be shafted up the keyster to this extent.

Also I think that 2FTS and the ACO have deliberately not communicated the strategy until it was too late to change it.................

I am beginning to align with Longeron who believes this was decided a long long time ago and actually has a bit of a conspiracy theory with regard to the appointment of JM into the post at 2FTS to deliver the agenda/decision....... after all, the issue with engineering problems and the future of the schools and basing strategy are in no way related - even in the wild and wacky world of Government..............

Oooh - black Omega outside on my drive........................

Arc

[POBJOY]

I hope it does not catch fire and burn the tarmac.
There again if it is Serco contract supplied it may not even have a mot,so they can arrest themselves !!!!
Thats the beauty of a 'bunker' it is not even on Google street view.
For those at Sleaford/Syerston 'out of control' You may think you are a sharp bunch of cookies 'reorganising' as you are. In fact in the real world you should be taken out and shot (slowly) as a warning to others that may seek to destroy that that was so good. Three gliding seasons lost,Money spent,'no gliding' and Cadets deprived of a potential life changing experience.You are a disgrace.

[BEagle]

POBJOY wrote: It seems incredible that so many Squadron Commanders could not have had some positive input and possibly 'steered' the situation in a better way.

They had nothing to loose as they have now 'lost' the organisation they had.

Were they the victims of 'spin' (Keep the faith) from Cranwell or just lied to from up top.

From what I gather, most won't speak out because they've been told to toe the party line, or else.

Quite a few parliamentary questions have been lodged, so it's not over yet.

"Shut up, do as you're told, I know best....."

:rolleyes:

[GroundedGrob]

VGS Gliding is finished as it used to be known - my personal belief is it will continue to contract once some airframes are back online and become:

1 - Central - Syerston
2 - North - Probably Topcliffe
3 - South - Any of the few remaining sites

The total number of Tutor conversions from Vigilant or CPL qualified Viking pilots will number into the single digits.

As to why this came about, is it a conspiracy? is it poor management? No one will ever truly know but can say I used to be proud to be associated with the RAF.

Now I'm simply embarrassed at its incompetence. No commercial organisation of any size would tolerate this mess.

Glad to be out but as ever we won't miss it until it's too late.

[POBJOY]

Beagle I think 20+ schools would have had to be listened to,after all they were the operational side and had a fine record going back decades.

As to Questions in Parliament; the RAF/MOD spin team will just major on 'safety' and the real debate will not happen. As you well know the VSO'S have already initiated a history rewrite (and promote of PTT) and started to peddle it around the media;plus using GAPAN* when it suits. Who is going to put the alternative view/facts;Prune posters.At least the media have been fed the truth from other sources.

* As was.

[BEagle]

Hmm...

I suspect that the grasping beancounters spotted the opportunity to do some asset-stripping after the 'pause', so that various aerodromes and gliding sites could be flogged off for housing. "Our whizzy new PTTs, most of which we'll get f.o.c., will reduce the need for proper flying. So come up with a new training plan and show we don't need the aerodromes any longer!"

"But where's the TNA to back up the plan?", I hear you cry.

"Shut up and do it - or I'll remove you and find a suitable yes-man to replace you!", was likely the reply.

But how many ATC squadrons are going to put their 12-13 year olds in a bus for 4 hours to somewhere for 30 min in the PTT, then 4 hours home again?

Is there a robust support contract in place for when these toys stop working? 8 hours on the road to be confronted by 3 x BSoD won't be much fun....

[RUCAWO]

4 hrs? Try this one .

http://www.theaa.com/route-planner/index.jsp#fromNode=0%7COmagh%7C%7C-7.309960%7C54.597715%7CtoNode=0%7CKirknewton%7C%7C-3.425237%7C55.886883

[Subsunk]

I got a reply from my MP on this after emailing him prior to the debate, which he failed to attend.

Basically, it was the text of the same statement that has been parroted over and over again by all the key players, but on nice notepaper.

To be fair to him, unless it involves fishing, being paid by the EU to not grow stuff on his farm, or blowing pheasants apart with a large gun, he's really out of his depth and not able to see through a fairly effective smokescreen of lies. MoD are in full spin mode on this, and they are far more effective at dodging accountability and making sure that their outsourcing mates carry on receiving taxpayers' money than anything else.

[Arclite01]

I had another thought.................

I wonder if JM was ever actually in the ATC or the CCF(RAF) ??

If not, it's no wonder he doesn't get it.................

Arc

P.S. I am beginning to agree with Grounded Grob, possibly +1 site for Scotland and 1 for the SW of England

[CoffmanStarter]

Arc ...

Acording to this video interview ...

1832 (North Manchester) Squadron ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjn8lRO3tsM

[Freda Checks]

That man is an embarrassment to the RAF and full marks to the interviewer for asking some pointed questions.

If he was being interviewed by me and he looked as disinterested and laid back as shown in the film, he would not get my vote for a job, any job. It was plainly obvious that he disliked being interviewed by a lowly cadet.

........and his answers were (even after considerable thinking time and errs) part of the same old, same old!!

He should have been asked if he knew what a Staff Cadet is/was and how important they were to the future of Volunteer Gliding Squadrons. His answer would be "No, what do they do?" - "Oh, those menial tasks like opening up the hangar doors before the instructors get there, DI the MT, DI the gliders, DI the cables, prepare everything for a long day's gliding, driving the winches, driving the ground vehicles - from start of day to dusk, and then put it all away at the end of the day, often in the dark."

His response would be, "Oh we have people who are paid to do that at Syerston! .....and they have to finish at 17:00hrs otherwise we would have to pay overtime and we do not have money to burn, do we young man? This is the Royal Air Force, don't you know!"

If he was put into post by VSOs to create this misery (conspiracy theory again) for the Air Cadet Organisation and sees the destruction that this has caused, he should carefully rethink his future involvement with this slow motion car crash.

We need Staff Cadets, they are the future of Air Cadet gliding. More importantly we need senior officers who the cadets and junior instructors look up to and respect.

[POBJOY]

Regardless of the actual 'instigator' in all this no one is coming out it showing any sort of acceptance that there has/is a problem.
We know JM is a complete W O S and it is a mystery that the CO's/Former CO's of the schools did not rebel en-mass when confronted by this individual who it is plain to see has not the slightest idea what a fine system he has destroyed.
The fact the no VSO seems to have any qualms with regard to the outcome leads one to believe they are also completely out of touch with what they had ALLOWED under the name of the MOD/RAF.
TO be honest if i was still involved with this organisation that was being 'crushed to death' i would feel the best option was to LEAVE with my staff and make the point BIG TIME.
That is the only way this scandal of disorganisation will really get exposed and with no flying going on there is NOTHING TO LOOSE.
The media will then do the rest as the message to the Government will be clear.
If the Air Scouts wish to pick up the pieces (and experienced staff) then so be it as the ACO are obviously not capable of individual thought in all this.

As for AEF well this has never produced 'Cadet' flying in any great amount with the resources available and there is no indication that this will change either.

[Wander00]

I have seldom seen an interviewee so apparently disrespectful of the interviewer

[clunckdriver]

Dear Lord, what a total ass---le! If this is the type of twit that can rise to senior rank in the RAF then you Brits are doomed to at the very best to sink to the level of a third world Air Force. He showed a total lack of respect for the cadet and needs to sit up and not sprawl like a total slob! {Now let me tell you how I REALLY feel!}

[Haraka]

Embarrassing: and did he have to wear his medals? ( I'm just surprised he didn't also have his hat on the desk in front of him,so we could all see the scrambled egg :) )

[EnigmAviation]

Embarrassing: and did he have to wear his medals? ( I'm just surprised he didn't also have his hat on the desk in front of him,so we could all see the scrambled egg :) )

Did anyone note that when he was asked how he saw the future, he said something along the lines of " less but higher quality, more aerospace training......"

Well he's lived up his vision, 14 X VGS gone and massive staff loss, but I await the proof of "higher quality", that is, if they can even make these 10 X RGC's ( Regional Gliding Centres) even function at anything like the former VGS efficiency levels with no CGI's and no FSC's !

As the old adage states, " the proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof" , mind you they haven't got the recipe yet, and the cooker is bust, and there's a power cut for another year or so ! Don't hold you breath.

[Arclite01]

Goodness me Haraka - have you been living under a stone man ?? - Of Course you have to wear the medals, it emphasises just how superior the wearer is to the spectator...............

OBE - Other Bu$$ers Efforts..............


Arc

[HP90]

So has anyone got a straight answer yet as to what the future requirements are going to be regarding non-QSP AEF pilots? Are they still going to insist on a CPL, or will PPLs with a minimum number of specified hours suffice?

[Airbus38]

I think somebody may already have alluded to this, but just out of curiosity...

A handful of years ago, approx 2012 if I had to guess, the gentleman featured in the video on the previous page (you know, the one with the abysmal 'I'm better than you' body language) wrote a report whilst he was Comdt North Region about the future of Air Cadet Gliding. I seem to recall it was sent out to all VGS OCs but am not sure if it went into general circulation. Shortly thereafter, he was installed into position as OC of the newly formed 2FTS. We all cynically japed at the time that he'd written his own retirement job description. I fear this may have come back to bite us horribly.

Sadly, I only have a cloudy recollection of what exactly he wrote in his report (which, from what I gather, was written largely from his own opinions and put together without him actually taking the time to go around the bazaars and take on board the views of the experienced personnel). However, the 'new look' 2FTS does seem to bear a striking resemblance to many of the basic elements of his report.

I'm just wondering out of curiosity, does anybody happen to have kept a copy of Mr. Middleton's vision for Air Cadet Gliding? I'm sure we'd all enjoy a compare and contrast of what has actually happened!

[VX275]

I'm told that a large number of VGS staff have not returned the form expressing their intentions to continue in the roles they have been offered in the new set up. And just to stoke the fires of conspiracy a number of forms that have been returned have been 'lost in the post'.

[POBJOY]

CLUNK You are right on the nail.
Any organisation needs competent leadership,and one that has a high level of volunteers needs the HIGHEST LEVEL OF LEADERSHIP coupled with the ability to show the highest level of EXAMPLE.
The Cmt 2FTS (what does that mean anyway) fails on both counts, and also has shown complete disdain to the very people that made the organisation what it was/is.
Just on those counts he should be history,and for the mishandling of the situation packed off to to run the stamp room at Sleaford.

I can say with all honesty this sorry individual would never had made it through our Gliding School Staff Cadet Selection.

The Scouts have got it Right on the Nail with their 'example'

[dervish]

Are the aircraft unserviceable, or are they unairworthy? Or both? It looks like the latter has been ignored for years and people have carried on regardless, and then been bitten. Same as Nimrod.

That Group Captain looked very peculiar wearing his medals. Did he know about You Tube?

[ricardian]

I was pleased to see this on the "Orkney Community News" page of Facebook yesterday:

Calling all young people of Orkney.
Are you interested in outdoors pursuits, shooting, flying & becoming a better, more confident person?
1769 Squadron Air Training Corps has just opened a detatched flight in Orkney.
More information can be found at facebook Orkney DF or by email from Squadron HQ at [email protected]

This reply was heartening:

I just have to comment here and say that as the mother of a son that spent his teenage years as an Air Cadet in Yeovil Somerset, I am thrilled that young people in Orkney can now have potentially, a similar opportunity/experience. My son joined at 13 as a cadet and worked his way up to Flight Sergeant by the time he was 16. Many of the activities were free, which allowed me, as a single Mum then, to access superb opportunities for my son. He learnt discipline, respect, self care, compassion, independence, leadership and endurance with the support of an amazing group of dedicated volunteers. He got to travel to Spain for his Gold D of E and got his glider pilots licence. Although he has not chosen to pursue a career in the armed forces, the skills he learnt with the Air Cadets has contributed to his ability to manage in the world. My son chose to travel and after a 6 month stint with TEFL in China he is still there after nearly 2 years, teaching English to young children. Good luck Air Cadets Orkney.

I would like to help but I live on Stronsay which is a 2 hour ferry journey away from mainland Orkney (and my age - 72 - would probably count against me!)

[GroundedGrob]

"I'm told that a large number of VGS staff have not returned the form expressing their intentions to continue in the roles they have been offered in the new set up" VX275

Well that's the first I've heard of these forms..........

[Dusty_B]

I'm told that a large number of VGS staff have not returned the form expressing their intentions to continue in the roles they have been offered in the new set up. And just to stoke the fires of conspiracy a number of forms that have been returned have been 'lost in the post'.

That might have something to do with an email doing the rounds yesterday, correcting the return-to email address that was given on the forms! Anyone who emailed their forms back should probably check-in for correct address.

[Wander00]

Are we sure this is not the pilot for a new BBC comedy programme.....

[Freda Checks]

dervish wrote
Are the aircraft unserviceable, or are they unairworthy?Methinks it will not make much difference if this farce carries on, the airframes will be time expired!

.....and please can I have the contract for the parachute repacking? That could be a nice little earner knowing that they are not being used!

....and what about the white fleet? I hope they are being maintained in accordance with the maintenance schedules! Oh, on second thoughts perhaps some thinking soul has cancelled the contract knowing that no gliding will be carried out for a long period of time. Or, nobody thought about that one........yet!

[dervish]

Freda Checks

Point taken on the time this is taking to be resolved. But I gather this has been known to be coming for at least 8 years so maybe the Group Captain inherited a bag of nails. The MAA has been there for 6 of those years so WTF have they been doing to help him?

[POBJOY]

The Airframes are neither but they have suffered BOREDOM trauma and will now need counselling/cascading sessions, and go on to the couch to be told they are still loved and its not their fault.
They will then be given a walk around the peri track to get them accustomed to daylight and a nice wash and polish.
After a short 'holiday' at Membury they will be as good as new even if the organisation they belong to is a pile of C...p,and dis-organised by Twatter Control.

[Mandator]

Here's something to wind up those negative waves:

Lights - Camera - Action! (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafconingsby/newsweather/index.cfm?storyid=C76F554F-5056-A318-A81C3ECC909CE6E1)

[sixfootfive]

For a Gp Capt, isn't he a little light on the medal front?

[Arclite01]

Mandator

I smell spin doctors at work.......................

and hopefully see them each reach the ultimate Air Cadet goal of taking the controls of The Grob 115E Tutor T Mk1 plane during their first flight.

Ultimately the most boring experience - absolute scandal...............in the current circumstances.

Arc

[CoffmanStarter]

Just a quick update on the eMail (Full Text : see Post 2272 http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/538497-air-cadets-grounded-114.html) I sent to my MP asking a very specific question on this topic.

My MP's reply ...

I have therefore directed your questions to the Minister, Julian Brazier for his comments

I will update further when I have a reply ...

[John Purdey]

Can someone please tell us JM's background? JP

[Freda Checks]

A simple Google search found.....

Group Captain John Middleton said:
I feel honoured to have the opportunity to take air cadet gliding forward into a new era, and thank all at No 3 Flying Training School for taking excellent care of air cadet gliding in recent years.
Well, a new era it certainly is:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[CoffmanStarter]

A few 25(F) Squadron stories here ... From Post 10 onwards ...

2 FTS Reforms (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/533085-no-2-flying-training-school-no-2-fts-reforms.html)

[Chugalug2]

JP:-
Can someone please tell us JM's background? JP

Coffman Starter's link above gives a clue as to what has been done here, which is to offer him a poisoned chalice that he has eagerly accepted. It takes a certain type to do that, and as often as not they have already reached the level of their own incompetence and been selected for that very reason. It is those who have made that selection and their reasons for doing so that deserve inspection.

As others have pointed out, the ACO is an excellent organisation, doing essential work for the Royal Air Force in particular, by providing the seed corn of its future aircrew and engineers. It is only able to do this thanks to the expertise, knowledge, and experience of volunteers that is given freely and willingly. I can only applaud such selflessness and feel guilty that I have not done likewise.

That this excellent organisation has been so badly served by the main recipient of its output is a comment on the RAF leadership, the very leadership that still conspires to cover up the incompetence and negligence of VSOs that infected the UK military airfleet with unairworthiness, including the gliders and motor gliders of the ACO. That same cover up extended to the Haddon-Cave report, to the extent of calling the era of that subversion a "Golden Period"! Irony it seems blooms in the corridors of power.

The Royal Air Force appears to be set upon self destruction as it approaches its centenary. "Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad"...mad or bad?

[chevvron]

Mandator

I smell spin doctors at work.......................



Ultimately the most boring experience - absolute scandal...............in the current circumstances.

Arc
My first flight was in an Argosy so I stood little chance of taking the controls then. My second was about a month later in a piston Provost when I did take the controls and I found the experience was definitely NOT boring.
Much later, flying air experience first in Air Cadet gliders (Sedburgh/Mk3) then later in Cyclone AX3 microlights, I always made a point of demonstrating primary and further effects to my passenger if it was their first flight, then allowing them to take the controls.

[Wokkafans]

My children's school is sadly suffering an implosion in the numbers of what was once a very well attended and vibrant CCF (200+). Apparently only three turned up this week in the RAF section while historic numbers would be in the high forties+ :sad:

Unfortunately the lack of opportunities across all three sections is having a very bad effect but it is the RAF section that is taking the worst hits. These children joined to fly and experience aspects of the RAF - they feel very short changed with one flight every six months (if they are very lucky) and filling in the balance of their time on drill, swimming, and other activities doesn't really compensate that much.

I've tried helping out by arranging some AEF flights at Odiham in an attempt to re-ignite their interest but I think they are in serious trouble. If anyone has contacts at other bases who might be able to organise a station visit could they please PM me?

Such a shame and waste of potential and eager talent :=

[POBJOY]

WOKKA; AEF was never really a 'hands on' experience even in Chipmunk days as one struggled out to the rear of the machine and only saw the back of a bone dome inner up front. The Grob at least saw you sat alongside the pilot,but a Cessna 172 would have seen 3 Cadets aloft together sharing the experience all on 150hp.
When they started AE gliding the 'experience' meant complete involvement with the operation and had far more team input.It also sowed the seeds of eventually being able to go on a course and go solo in the same aircraft.
Your CCF is suffering from the fact that the 'Organisation' up top has lost its way in realising that the Cadets join an 'Air Corps' because they have shown an interest in the 'Air' bit. With little of that on offer (and reducing) why would they stay when the 'goods' do not materialise. Gliding WAS a very simple way of getting Cadets involved and hands on with AIRCRAFT; it encompassed the entire operation from moving the machines from a hangar,helping to get them airborne,getting airborne themselves,and seeing them back indoors later.This was the unique nature of what was on offer,and frequently they would also see other Cadets being trained to go solo. That was an experience no other organisation could offer and the decades of results speak for themselves. Sorry about your local problem but the change has to come from the 'leaderless top' who do not have a clue what is needed,as they have 'seen off' a first rate operation that did what it said on the tin (and at very good value for money)

[Lima Juliet]

I see the trawl for AEF pilots has gone out:

20160418-IBN 33 16 Additional Volunteer Air Experience Pilots.doc
Request For Additional Volunteer Air Experience Pilots – 6 FTS

• Pilots must hold either a Service Flying Badge or CPL.
• By exception, pilots with 500 hrs light aircraft will be considered subject to a positive recommendation and Flying Ability Test.
• Volunteers must either hold a Regular or Reserve Commission or meet the minimum requirements for a Volunteer Reserve (Training) Commission.
• Full conversion training will be provided on Tutor 115E aircraft.
• Volunteers should be able to contribute a minimum of 40 hours flying per year.

I don't see anything specific about VGS pilots. Would the Vigilant count as a 'light aircraft'? It is normally either a TMG or SLMG depending on your PPL type. However, hours on them do count towards revalidation of a SE(P) rating if you hold a valid SLMG or TMG rating on the same licence.

Anyone know what the criteria for VGS pilots is for transferring to AEF? Is it the same as above or something different. :confused:

LJ

[POBJOY]

LJ Where are we with 'Civilians' in the organisation now.
The ATC website still talks about training to be a CGI and also mentions AEF flying as to include:- Taking control,aerobatics,Low level flying. Your 'AEF' Pilot Details' makes no mention of any instruction qualification or will the system put pilots through a CFS course.In practice a 500 hr Vig instructor should have no issues flying the 115 although they may find the whole ATC/Radar bit slightly less fun than back on the school.
I thought the 'low level' flying bit was interesting;do the website people actually know what really is on offer on AEF, and reading it no one would know there has been zero gliding for 3 seasons.
To be honest in trying to suggest that AEF in any way replaces or is an 'improvement' on the ATC Gliding just shows how out of touch the organisation has got,and is quite frankly misleading in its information.

[HP90]

• Volunteers must either hold a Regular or Reserve Commission or meet the minimum requirements for a Volunteer Reserve (Training) Commission.


So does that exclude the non-commissioned ranks then, who are obviously not able to attain a VR(T) appointment since they are already in the service?

Many now ex-VGS pilots came from the junior ranks, and many of the junior ranks hold PPLs and could contribute the vital service ethos to the AEFs (especially WSOp's, quite a few of whom have both PPLs and service flying experience), and it would be a shame if they were overlooked for the sake of preserving the "only officers can fly" elitism.

[BEagle]

Leon Jabachjabicz wrote: Anyone know what the criteria for VGS pilots is for transferring to AEF? Is it the same as above or something different.

I hear that Vigilant instructors are to be offered a mere 5 hours conversion onto the Tutor. Presumably conducted by a QFI, not some 'QUI' who hasn't completed the normal CFS course and been formally cat'd.

These new AEF pilots, without any formal aeroplane instructional qualification except for 'sailplane' instruction on TMGs, are apparently then going to be able to let cadets handle the flight controls above 1000'......

How is this being permitted in the MAA risk-averse culture of today?

No doubt That Charming Man Pippa will be able to explain why this is safe, given his thousands of hours experience as a pilot instructor....:rolleyes:

[CoffmanStarter]

I suspect he might say 'That's 6 FTS's problem' ... 'I'm 2 FTS' :ugh:

Assuming that any of the ex Vigliant instructors are actually assessed as being 'acceptable' that is ...

[POBJOY]

I think i will offer my services on the 'Low Level' bit citing my previous experience on the Pawnee (complete with wire cutter) and flying Turbulents under (in my day) 10ft high bunting at airshows. I will be happy to demonstrate this to the Grob Trapper although we may increase the bunting height to 15ft!
The min 1,000ft exercises no good for me as i will get 'giddy' up there and suffer from hypoxia.
They have obviously given all this considerable thought including the 'bale out' provision on the low level bit when the Grob hits an equally low level Canada Goose which are now well established in the UK
In fact the low level 'bird strike' can be well demonstrated in the PTT with the added 'realism' of a whack from a 'ex' free range chicken and liberal use of ketchup from Lidl.
Beagle has that nice chap (hon pres 2FTS) answered your reasonable question yet !!!!

[CoffmanStarter]

BEagle ...

It would seem that the MAA 'Regulator' devolves authority/responsibility under RA 2340 ... See Section RA 2340(1) 2c and 2d ... noting the word 'SHOULD' is used. I thought a Regulator 'Defined' then 'Manadated' and 'Enforced' compliance :confused:

RA 2340 Flying of Passengers on UK Mil Aircraft (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464650/RA2340_Issue_4.pdf)

[BEagle]

CoffmanStarter, MAA regulations appear to ape EASA terminology, in the adoption of 'Acceptable Means of Compliance' soft law. EASA AMCs are non-binding and hence 'should' is correct - AMCs do not use 'shall' or 'must' as Alternative Means of Compliance (AltMoCs) can be raised by a MS as they wish.

AMCs are not a concept used in the UK Air Navigation Order, in which only 'hard law' mandatory regulations are included.

In more sensible times, a military document would use 'are to' for any mandatory regulation - adoption of EASA 'soft law' terminology must be rather confusing for many who are more used to military orders.

[beardy]

I hear that Vigilant instructors are to be offered a mere 5 hours conversion onto the Tutor. Presumably conducted by a QFI, not some 'QUI' who hasn't completed the normal CFS course and been formally cat'd.

These new AEF pilots, without any formal aeroplane instructional qualification except for 'sailplane' instruction on TMGs, are apparently then going to be able to let cadets handle the flight controls above 1000'......

5Hrs conversion is the AEF standard minimum, even for ex-rotary pilots. All AEF pilots are allowed to let cadets handle the controls above 1000ft without having had ANY formal instructional qualification, ever.

[CoffmanStarter]

BEagle ...

Many thanks and all understood ... I totally agree about the apparent 'confusion' given terminology ... Having, many years ago, had the responsibility of doing the amendments for JSP318 and the Flying Order Book, I'm more accustomed to 'Hard Law' mandatory regulations and Military Orders.

... And if I'm honest, don't see the logic of moving away (for the Military) from a Military Orders model. Presumably it was expedient for the MAA to lift an existing regulatory 'framework' and then 'adapt' in the wake of Haddon Cave.

Simply out of curiosity ... Does anyone know what (regular) 'mechanics' exist for the MAA to ensure compliance ? Do they, say for example, audit all of 22 Groups FO's ?

[POBJOY]

Am i correct in thinking that the Grob Tutor are on G reg.
If so do they by definition run under at least part EASA regulations both for maintenance and use. If 'instructing' a Cadet in the Grob Tutor i would have thought the Pilot would need the appropriate 'instructor ticket' from CFS or EASA.
I can not imagine those who decide such things at MOD will think they have 'covered' themselves by not attending to such details.
Is there a difference between 'instructing' a minor as opposed to giving them control.
If a member of the public attends a civvy school for a trial lesson he has to be flown by an suitable instuctor duly licenced for the flight.
If the same person wants a 'pleasure flight' with his family he has to find an operation that has an AOC and a suitable commercial' pilot duly type checked and current. The 'Duty of Care' is the same for both counts it is just the level of regulation that is different.Either way the minimum requirement for 'club' activity would need an instructor ticket on top of his CPL. In some cases the CPL will be on grandfather rights (instructing only).

[Whizz Bang]

I see the trawl for AEF pilots has gone out:

20160418-IBN 33 16 Additional Volunteer Air Experience Pilots.doc
Request For Additional Volunteer Air Experience Pilots – 6 FTS

• Pilots must hold either a Service Flying Badge or CPL.
• By exception, pilots with 500 hrs light aircraft will be considered subject to a positive recommendation and Flying Ability Test.
• Volunteers must either hold a Regular or Reserve Commission or meet the minimum requirements for a Volunteer Reserve (Training) Commission.
• Full conversion training will be provided on Tutor 115E aircraft.
• Volunteers should be able to contribute a minimum of 40 hours flying per year.

I don't see anything specific about VGS pilots. Would the Vigilant count as a 'light aircraft'? It is normally either a TMG or SLMG depending on your PPL type. However, hours on them do count towards revalidation of a SE(P) rating if you hold a valid SLMG or TMG rating on the same licence.

Anyone know what the criteria for VGS pilots is for transferring to AEF? Is it the same as above or something different. :confused:

LJ
LJ, the requirements stated from 2FTS when the 'request' for a return in the 'VGS Future Involvement Letter' was:

Minimum Requirements for Consideration for Conversion from Vigilant to Tutor

a. 2FTS Endorsement
b. A VRT Commission
c. 500 hrs Captain
d. B1 Gliding Instructor
e. Laudatory Report from OC VGS
f. 6FTS Endorsement
g. Successful completion of Vigilant to Tutor Conversion Course.

Additionally, to amortise training costs, a minimum period of 18 month service (post Tutor qualification) is also required (Note: maximum age for Tutor flying is 65 years).

Even this simple task of information gathering has been tragically carried out. Some returns have been lost in the ether and I hate to think how much time has been wasted by someone collating this data. And to think JM's baby (BADER) is based on SharePoint - the prefect tool for gathering such replies!

Considering many instructors have not flown anything for 2 years I can see the failure rate of conversion being very high unless a realistically achievable training package is provided.

[beardy]

Is there a difference between 'instructing' a minor as opposed to giving them control.

I think you know the answer to that: yes there is a difference. AEF pilots do not instruct Air Cadets. The AEF is not being paid, as would a 'civvy' school be. The rules you seem to on about are not about duty of care, they are about money changing hands.

[Subsunk]

Sounds like the next phase in the plan - set requirements so high that it precludes the bulk of serving volunteers.

[CoffmanStarter]

See previous comments (Post #1999) regarding 'Constructive Sanction'.

[POBJOY]

Beardy On a trial lesson the 'client' is going to receive instruction and be given control of the aircraft;which sounds very similar to what the AEF is offering.
Because this system operates under what was private club rules (soon to be all under at FTO) no AOC is required nor is the Pilot type rated; but he has to have the required EASA Instructor rating.

In a AOC pleasure flight; control of the aircraft is NOT handed over to the 'client' who has not 'contracted'for this. However the (min CPL) pilot has to be type rated on type and have passed a recent flight test.The flight will have to be from a Lic airfield and not include a land away.

We are now talking about a 'new entry' of non service pilots to perform AEF flying which the Air Cadet Website states include; Taking control of the aircraft,Aerobatics,and low level flying. Their words not mine.In a G reg machine two of those functions would require a 'rating' and the low level bit would be difficult under EASA rules. Will non service AEF pilots be given suitable ratings. If they are only suggesting a 5hr conversion has this been thought out,or is the whole exercise just a 'well we gave them the chance to apply' scenario.

[POBJOY]

Coff Got That, sounds about what is happening.

[beardy]

The clue lies in
non service AEF pilots

they will be reservists of one form or another. Post RAF-service I instructed at EFT as a civilian and had to have a commercial licence and an instructor's rating. As an AEF pilot and now reservist I do not need any of these. (Although I do have them)

Cadets are not given formal instruction, none that may be counted toward the training required for a licence, but may be allowed to handle the controls.

As for all the other cases you cite, money is changing hands in a civil environment, that is the crucial difference for licencing.

There are most probably be some excellent pilots from the gliding world who will adapt to AEF flying easily.

[Chris Gains]

There is an article on page 64 of the May edition of Pilot magazine about the whole debarcal........

[ATFQ]

Someone has kindly emailed me this link. It's a Research Paper from almost 10 years ago, but much of what it says is as valid today as it was back then. Worth a read - at least the conclusion for those who are too busy to read the whole document.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.589.3077&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[Whizz Bang]

Broken link?

[ATFQ]

Just checked - it works

[clunckdriver]

Well, as an ex Cadet I have read this thread with dismay, today my wife and I went to Smith Falls Airport {CYSH} to finish getting our very old "toy" {DH 87B Hornet Moth} ready for this years Air Show and Fly In events. The first thing we saw as we drove into the airport was a yellow Bird Dog towing a yellow 233 glider into the air, yes over here the Air Cadets have not yet been destroyed by idiots as in the UK, so send the kids over here, we could use some young blood in our ageing population!

[POBJOY]

Hey Clunk erase off; its bad enough over here without being reminded of it.
We have no gliders 'yet', we would not be allowed to use the Bird dog,and as for air shows well a large number are now binned due after effects of Shoreham.
Good news is Kenley will survive as a ATC Gliding operation which of course will please us both.
Rather send some of the 'idiots' over to loose somewhere well away from decision making.

[clunckdriver]

Sorry Pobjoy, didn't mean to rub it in, but looking at the demographics of our population we could use a whole swag of younger folks, and those with a cadet background are the type of younger set we need. As for sending over the twits who have created this mess for you, yup we have lots of places with names beginning with "Fort" and "Post" we could ship them to, but I doubt the locals would make them very welcome! Of topic a bit, but any progress on the fire damaged officers mess at Kenley,? We have a WW2 vet who was based there with the RCAF, he is rather annoyed by the news of the fire damage.

[POBJOY]

Clunk The 'idiots' shipped over(one way ticket) can be made to 'chip out' on hard rock 1000 times 'I am so sorry to have destroyed the UK Air Cadet Gliding force' Do not give them any food and gloves and let them deal with the Bears.

Kenley will live on and is potentially one of the most secure ATC bases as the MOD do not own it and the airfield can not be developed.The Mess is another matter and although listed (That system has no sharp teeth). Most of 11 groups Battle of Britain pilots will have passed through the place at some time,and of course the Canadian Wing was there. L19 Bird dog makes a great tow plane and are those 'Gliders' still available from the States.

The 'Idiots' are also trying to suggest that the PTT system will be an improvement on the traditional 'Hands on' basic Gliding training.You are correct they are Idiots and should be ashamed of themselves;do not give them any boots either.

[mmitch]

Checking the Air Cadets website today I see that not only do they get to fly in a Grob Tutor as well as gliding but they may get a chance to fly in a VC10 or a Tristar!

[POBJOY]

MMITCH I suspect the website breaches the code of the advertising standards agency it is so misleading and devoid of facts.

Here is a snap of some of the content.

Join the ATC as a civilian gliding instructor; you will receive full training and if you attend your VGS regularly you could win your instructors wings in 12-18 months !!! (Wow thats a really experienced instructor)

Just about sums up the way that one half of the organisation does not have a clue about how the other half is running (or not running) after all there has been NO GLIDING for 3 seasons. In fact the whole system is so 'spin happy' the truth has been lost on the way and no one seems to have noticed.

[HP90]

While perusing Skylaunch’s website last night, it occurred to me that 2FTS could really do with ordering some of their cable retrieve winches.

Skylaunch Cable Retrieve Winch (http://www.skylaunchuk.com/retrieve.php)

While the old MVP winches had 6 cables each, the new Skylaunch EVO winches only have 2 cables each, meaning more retrievals will be needed. This will be compounded by the fact that the future VGSs will be larger, meaning more launches, and thus even more retrievals.

In addition, assuming that the 25 new Skylaunch winches will be divided up between the 11 future VGSs, resulting in 2 winches per VGS (with 3 still spare), that will result in double the number of already much increased retrievals.

If however 2FTS were to purchase some Skylaunch cable retrieve winches, then the retrieval time could be vastly reduced, and thus the “sortie generation rate” much increased (in theory allowing for up to 60 launches per hour).

I would think that, at a minimum, 22 retrieve winches would be needed (one for each main winch). I also imagine the retrieve winches would need to be converted to Diesel. And as always, cost would be the limiting factor. But interesting to ponder nonetheless…

[POBJOY]

Whilst in no way wishing to damping the enthusiasm to do away with staff cadet duties i would point out that the limiting factor in launch rate was frequently having gliders 'available' to launch at the caravan end.On a continuous course with machines not landing at the launch point (unlike AE launches) i seem to recall it was not uncommon for cables to be returned well before the aircraft were there to use them. It mattered not; as the Staff Cadets could then get on with sun bathing in their LLoyd Loom (ex Battle of Britain) chairs and or plinking with their air rifles;having despatched someone to the NAFFI for a supply of fruit pies. It was not unknown for messages to be sent to the other end asking if we are 'still flying' !!!. Of course all this is rather academic now as one actually needs a supply of gliders 'on the airfield'; to be launched in the first place.

[622]

Ref P90 above...


I still fail to see how they are going to make Viking VGS 'larger'.


..You can give them as many gadgets as you like to increase the launch rate but the circuit can only take so many conventional gliders at one time.


They cannot simply go away and hold if the circuit gets a bit busy.


Generally, as soon as an aircraft is on base leg then launches stop until the A/C has landed.


Granted, on exceptional days when soaring conditions permit you can launch the fleet and sit around for an hour...but on the other 360 days, circuit bashing is the norm!

[Arclite01]

HP90

Retrieve winches would not suit ACO Operations.

Go to the Long Mynd and watch one at work. They are terrific for that sort of Operation but for the ACO setup - no way, due to the amount of aircraft on the ground at any one time (and associated staff standing by them debriefing etc.........), and no way you would operate 2 on the same field............1 retrieve cable screw up and you would have the mother of all birds nests to sort out............

I think H&S would stop retrieve winches on an ACO operation before it even started. For the safety of the students I for one would prefer it that way.

Arc

[POBJOY]

622 & ARC All valid points and very 'limiting' for a problem that does not exist.

In fact it is as limiting as the capacity for the organisation to organise anything that is seen as 'sensible'. Although some new winches will eventually be useful the lack of aircraft to fly is the largest limiting factor in everything;coupled with
the continued presence of a nest of half wits who masquerade as the management. What does it take for SOMEONE remotely in the system somewhere to realise WHY numbers fall and why they can not be encouraged to stay. More AEF is not the answer as that NEVER produced the same attraction of actually learning to fly a glider whilst you were young. As the BGA now sends solo's at 14 the ATC should have a serious rethink on what will encourage Cadets to join AND STAY. It seems ridiculous that we have to even have a conversation about it. My God; we had an ORGANISATION that worked well until it was Screwed up by the PAID staff in charge,and it is not too late to rescue the situation before ALL the experience has departed.However it needs change and competent leadership;something the ATC better get their head around before there is no organisation left, and no staff capable to run it.

[NutLoose]

Some sad news from France, I hope they can get her repaired

http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=245523&d=1461613077

Picture credit and more information / pictures

Slingsby T.21 Blown Away (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?138607-Slingsby-T-21-Blown-Away&)

[Mechta]

It was not unknown for messages to be sent to the other end asking if we are 'still flying' !!!

If club launchpoint/winch communications are anything to go by, there are probably still a few VGS winch drivers sitting in their winches and wondering what the delay is. :}

Operations with a retrieve winch need only one winch and one cable. As Pobjoy says, the bottleneck in the launch rate will be determined other factors. I wouldn't argue against each VGS having a second main and retrieve winch in case one goes unservicable though.

I hope the people who get the French T21 down plan it so no further damage results. Fingers crossed it will be back in the air (manned this time) in the near future.

[Whizz Bang]

I would wager that Barge will be flying again before another 2FTS machine...

[HP90]

Thanks all for the feedback re. cable retrieve winches.

I was just thinking about ways to reduce the increased amount of retrievals required with the new 2-drum winches versus the old 6-drum winches (which will take more time, and require more personnel).

If 73 Vikings are recovered and split between the 11 VGSs, then each VGS will have 6-7 airframes each. With this in mind, in hindsight it may have been better for 2FTS to order 11 Skylaunch SkyDrive 6-drum winches, as opposed to 25 2-drum winches. It makes little sense to upscale the size of the VGSs, but downscale the winch frequency rate, but we are where we are now - I guess we'll just have to accept more retrievals in future.

Skydrive 4 or 6 Drum Winch (http://www.skylaunchuk.com/skydrive.php)

[POBJOY]

Looking at the sky it looks like a mini squall lifted her up.
However as she was 'caught' in a convenient large bush and not 'thumped' over onto her back the home of the Jodels will see her back very soon.
As with most accident recovery it is the care of recovery that makes a huge difference.The French will sort that and she could make the Air Cadet 75 before our own fleet. Shame about the colour scheme; the original siver and yellow from training command looked much better.
HP 90 How eye watering expensive are those new 6 drum options !!

[HP90]

HP 90 How eye watering expensive are those new 6 drum options !! Using the price configurator on the Skylaunch site, and assuming Diesel engines are used in both the 2-drum and 6-drum winches (and excluding any optional extras, since we don't know what 2FTS require, although it would likely be the same on both so it would balance out), my rough estimates are as follows:

2-drum winch = £84,492 each (inc. VAT @ 20%)
x25 = £2,112,300

6-drum winch = £182,265.60 each (inc. VAT @ 20%)
x11 = £2,004,921.60

Actually would be £107,378.40 cheaper!!!

-----
Edit:

Given those figures, I really don't understand why 2FTS chose the 2-drum option in the first place.

At the time the order was placed, there were 8 conventional glider VGSs, so I presume the plan must have been to give x3 2-drum winches to each VGS (making for 24 in total), thus giving a 6-cable capacity to each VGS.

But x8 6-drum winches could've been purchased for £634,175 less than x25 2-drum winches. Perhaps this is an example of some bean counter looking at unit costs, seeing that the 2-drum winches were almost £100,000 cheaper than the 6-drum winches, and assuming there would be big cost savings as a result? Baffling.

[622]

I would imagine the MOD got some sort of bulk purchase price for the winches.


It's also probably a logistics thing...easier to move a 2 drum winch about (back of a Landrover?) especially for servicing / re siting etc than a 6 drum thing.


Possible thinking is also that multiple 2 drum winches is better than 1 x 6 drum winch if you have an engine problem on one winch...it doesn't ground you!

[squawking 7700]

It'll also be easier to dispose of 2 drum winches in a year or so when they're considered surplus to requirements.

And talking of surplus to requirements, could we run a lottery for how long it'll be before a number of Viking airframes are offered for disposal? They'll have been fully refurbished and with all paperwork up to date and they'll be available for a snip (i.e. much less than it's cost to bring them up to scratch).

On that subject, anyone care to hazard a guess at the true cost of bringing a Viking back in to service? I'm sure I read somewhere that it's around one man month per glider for inspection and paperwork labour but what about the true cost of all the other overheads (if it was a commercial business) from the head of 2FTS down?


7700

[NutLoose]

I would imagine the MOD got some sort of bulk purchase price for the winches.

Yup, they probably negotiated base price listed plus 60% per unit ;)

[GroundedGrob]

Nutloose beat me to it -

They SHOULD and COULD get a discount but that seems to be beyond procurement.

[622]

...And lets not forget the Airfield caravans that have been sitting around for the last couple of years....http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

[squawking 7700]

And the new white fleet (actually yellow) vehicles.


7700

[Arclite01]

HP 90

We used to do OK with twin drum winches before. Most schools had 2 (1 line schools), some larger schools had 3 (2 line schools). Or kept as a spare. Often the parent unit had a 'ready use' spare which could be brought down at a couple of days notice or swapped out if a major service was required away from the school. The winches were towed on the road by a standard Bedford 4 tonner. Later big MVG winches required a low loader to move on the road and there were no local spares at parent units - so a degree of flexibility was lost.

We used 1 tow out vehicle per winch/pair of cables and this prevented them getting 'crossed' (tangled). Later we used a single vehicle and a spreader bar.

In some respects its better to have a pair of winches - as people have said you don't stop operating if you have an engine problem. Also towing single pairs of cables is easier on the MT and stops the ground getting badly churned up in front of the winch and at the launch point.

Twin drum winches are much lighter - they don't bog down on grass sites where there are no hardstands or peri-tracks - and if they do, you can often do a local recovery - the MVG usually needed a full recovery unit from the parent unit or the white fleet supplier as they weighed so much..........

Some days you could operate a quick and easy operation if you just towed out a single winch and pair of cables..............

You points on costs are however, very valid

Arc

[tucumseh]

It is all very jolly having a pop at "procurement", which is sometimes deserved but not as often as you think, but one should ask whose job it is to specify and quantify what and how many of a given item is required. And who makes materiel and financial provision for the upkeep of airworthiness data and, ultimately, the Safety Case. And whose terms of reference, uniquely, grant authority to overrule on all these issues using "engineering judgement". For any given item in the inventory this is the same identifiable individual. In this case, an RAF post, and he/she doesn't work in "procurement" (because this is something you do before being promoted into procurement). And I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't an engineer, which is the root of many problems in this domain (noting that the current problem on gliding is precisely the same as forced the scrapping of MRA4).

[squawking 7700]

"noting that the current problem on gliding is precisely the same as forced the scrapping of MRA4"

Hence my comments regarding disposal in the not too distant future rather than return to service.


7700

[CoffmanStarter]

Interesting ...

https://mobile.twitter.com/OC6AEF/status/725286075028127744

Wg Cdr Matt Lane from 637 VGS signing in after 1st Tutor solo at RAF Benson ...

Vigilant to Tutor VGS Conversion training underway ?

[The B Word]

Coff

He's the CFI of Brize Flying Club and a FI(E). So hardly your average VGS pilot! He sits on the AOPA Instructor Committee (Instructor Committee (http://www.aopa.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=231&Itemid=694))

B Word :ok:

[CoffmanStarter]

Cheers TBW ... All understood ... I assume he is a 'Regular' (non Mil Pilot) OF-4 then ?

[EnigmAviation]

Hardly a typical Vigilant Jock ! - I thought 6 AEF had a waiting list ? Probably count the number of VGS trainees on fingers of your hand ! - most places already spoken for.

[The B Word]

Coff

He's a really top bloke and so my post is not a dig at him personally. I don't want to say anything other than you can find on the open internet, however, I'm not surprised he found the conversion quite straight forward!!!

Matt Lane is a CPL/FI/FE and currently Head of Training at RAF Brize Norton Flying Club; he also trains and examines for a number of schools around the Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire area and is on the AOPA Instructor Committee.

Taken from: engine failure after take off (http://www.gasco.org.uk/safety-information/flight_safety_extra_dec_15/engine_failure_after_take_off.aspx)

The B Word

[CoffmanStarter]

TBW ... Perfectly understood old chap ... He's clearly at the 'Top End' of the new Tutor AEF Pilot criteria ... The VGS Wings/Rank confused :ok:

[Arclite01]

Is he a regular Wg Cdr then ??

Arc

[longer ron]

I think he may have been an ENGO Arc but not 100% sure and happy to be corrected.

rgds LR

[BEagle]

It is not the normal PPRuNe protocol to discuss serving officers in the manner that some posters have on this thread.

:(

[ACW342]

What about discussing serving Airmen? Plenty of those scattered throughout the ATC. In my school we had other ranks from both the Army and RAF trained up from non flying to "C" cat and beyond. In fact, one Army ground trade Cpl. (not AAC) is now flying (AFAIR) Apache helicopters. (At first he was a bit taken aback, when one of our staff, a serving SO, uttered those famous words "call me Dave")

[Pegasus107]

Well said Beagle. Wish some people would take note.......

[GroundedGrob]

Sorry Tuc - poor choice of phrase from me when I said that I meant the overall process rather than a person or department.

It just seems we always make the same mistakes rather than be commercially aware and apply the purchasing power the MOD / RAF has.

[CoffmanStarter]

Given the sad story of Air Cadet Gliding recorded on these pages ... It was somewhat nostalgic for me this week (Wed) when Mrs Coff and I stopped off at the East Sussex Gliding Club to watch a spot of 'traditional' cable launch and recovery gliding ... took me right back to my teenage years ;)

Just thought I'd share the pics of the airfield at Ringmer ... a beautiful setting.

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_0080_zpsz3jbeqti.jpg

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_0077_zpst5pdsdlg.jpg

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_0076_zpski7l4pgh.jpg

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_0078_zpsngpzdkhx.jpg

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_0079_zpsc1w7aerv.jpg

Hope you enjoy :ok:

[skua]

I can almost hear the whistling of the winch wire!

[Freda Checks]

Coff

But did you get your feet off the ground?

For some time when I put Air Cadet gliding behind me I was like you, peering over the fence at various gliding sites and thinking about those halcyon days of MkIIIs and Sedburghs!

Then last year I did something positive and joined the Southdown Gliding Club at Parham (sister club to Ringmer). Now I do it and don't dream about it any more :D

Come along and have a flight along the beautiful South Downs sometime. You will be made most welcome.

Like other forumites I get very angry that this fabulous sport has been denied to hundreds of willing Air Cadets, volunteer officers and civilian instructors since this debacle started - and continues........

[wub]

Never seen a Ka-13 with a nose wheel before.

I gave up instructing with the ATC just before the glass ships came in, blimey, that was a long time ago. Like everyone on this thread I'm disgusted with the way things have gone but as a former squadron commander, I could see the AIR going out of the cadet organisation from a long way back.

[CoffmanStarter]

Freda ...

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. The last time I logged P1 was Sep 1997 flying a Tiger Moth ... soon after that I lost my medical cat (including gliding) ... so I have to be content watching these days :(

However, I did look up the glider I did my first solo on way back in Sep 1973, at RAF Manston with 617 VGS ... that being XN246.

Now I feel old knowing XN246 is a museum exhibit !!!

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u249/corsairoz/SN200597.jpg

Best ...

Coff.

[RUCAWO]

Just had a letter from my MP with a copy of his reply from the minister, same waffle repeated again ,pushing "simulators" as flying !

[POBJOY]

COFF Methinks XN 246 could be brought back on-line rather sooner that the Vikings and actually start to get Cadets off solo again in a sensible no of launches. 3 Solo's of course just as it should be,and a proper BGA A&B Cert/badge to go with it, plus that nice letter from some revered aviation bod suggesting that the holder of the cert would appreciate help from anyone in a position to give it.I think mine was signed by Lord Brab. (well stamped anyway).

[CoffmanStarter]

Pobjoy ...

You are probably right in getting XN246 airworthy in short order :ok:

Ruc ...

Hold the faith old chap ... I'm stil waiting for the Minister to reply to my MP regarding my very specific question. I'm also prepared for Round 2 if his reply contains BS. My MP is an former Barrister and quite sharp ...

Best ...

Coff.

[POBJOY]

Coff I do not really recall any major issues with the MK111 other than after CFS came on the scene and decided that they needed an 'intercom' with expensive headsets for proper communication.
On the basis that the average airborne time was 2-4 minutes depending on the exercise i am at a loss to know what sort of 'conversation' was to be undertaken. I think the 'Mod' cost more than the original airframe and needless to say was a complete waste of time,but at least looked better than those silly plastic goggles that came later,and of course were never designed for aviation use only for grinding. The final straw of course was when the NAFFI closed.

[clunckdriver]

Pobjoy,intercom in a Mark 111? your kidding! A bit like Children's Aid idiots at a local airfield, they tried to prosecute one of our pilots for teaching his son aerobatics without wearing a "Bone Dome", we pointed out to them that if a Pitts S2 went straight in that a Bone Dome would only ensure that the grey stuff would be easier to scoop up, then they wanted to lay charges for "endangering the life of a minor", under health and safety the whole world will, given time, grind to a halt. Never do I recall not being able to hear the back seat in any glider, mind you this could be that my instructors had to yell at me more than most students needed!

[POBJOY]

Clunk Coff My first ever interface with a Mk3 com system was playing on Kenley Common as a 11 year old and hearing the Cadets being 'pattered' around the base leg/final turn.
It took a while to realise where the voices were coming from, but they were very clear. Of course the 'com' was only one way.
Wonderful system that never failed.

[CoffmanStarter]

Ha Ha ... Yes the one way (Instructor to Pupil) Gosport Tube ... Waste of time ... Shout and Shout again :ok:

[Haraka]

Funny old thing Pobjoy: my uncle in the late 50's built a bungalow in a valley next to Kenley.
In his garden you could hear the instructors chatting in the T 21's quite clearly coming over the top of the ridge. Thanks for the memory!

[dash6]

The acoustics of the Mk3 worked from back to front,as is only right. The only time I saw a gosport tube used was after a student froze on the controls after a cable break,resulting in a severely broken glider,and a furious instructor beating him round the head with the mouthpiece.

[Shaft109]

Slightly off topic but the phenomenon of travelling voices is something I experienced in a bar in Edinburgh years ago.

I was way down the bar getting in a round and maybe 30' from the other lads round the table. There was background chatter so not totally still but in that EXACT position maybe a foot or 2 each way I could hear everything they said crystal clear - the volume was low but almost 'cleaned-up' somehow.

It was uncanny - needless to say I gently warned them not to discuss the merits of certain nearby ladies - just in case :ok:

[POBJOY]

I seem to recall the system was full of common sense and practical flying sense.400 ft 40 knots final turn 200 ft (this was absolutely normal) and had to be adhered to on our field as it was not that long by modern (jet airfields) standards.
Tapping of the wood panel by altimeter to ensure it was not over-reading,and always constant check of attitude (nose below horizon).
And yet it worked, and when you add up the flight times a Cadet 'could' have completed the exercises including cable breaks and be off on his own within a hours dual**. Just the 200 ft final turn bit seems quite marginal by modern standards and yet it was the norm and no one was surprised.

I am of the opinion that a bit of basic glider training would be a great advantage in any modern management course, as it requires decision making with the added constraint of a time limitation,as per the intermediate cable break. Perhaps because it was the 'norm' in those days we did not realise what a good grounding we were getting for later years.

**continuous course

[chevvron]

I seem to recall the system was full of common sense and practical flying sense.400 ft 40 knots final turn 200 ft (this was absolutely normal) and had to be adhered to on our field as it was not that long by modern (jet airfields) standards.

Just the 200 ft final turn bit seems quite marginal by modern standards and yet it was the norm and no one was surprised.

**continuous course
You became used to it though didn't you? Years after Sedburghs and Mk 3s were 'disposed' of, I flew Cyclone AX3 microlights at Halton, where I had been a staff cadet. I found it quite natural to fly identical approaches in the AX3 as I had flown in the gliders, the approach speed being very similar.

[Chris Gains]

Sorry to drag the discussion back into the present but we are now at the end of April and, despite assurances at the town hall meetings that 'everybody will know what they are doing by the end of April at the latest', nothing has been heard.
Yet another date missed! 🙄
What was the quote....'I love deadlines. I love the whistling sound they make as they go flying past!'

[Subsunk]

Sorry to drag the discussion back into the present but we are now at the end of April and, despite assurances at the town hall meetings that 'everybody will know what they are doing by the end of April at the latest', nothing has been heard.
Yet another date missed! 🙄
What was the quote....'I love deadlines. I love the whistling sound they make as they go flying past!'

No, nothing heard. The only reason this organisation seems to be getting away with such a massive disaster is because the UK isn't air-minded at all, and there are bigger issues to distract people's minds.
2 FTS and HQ Air Cadets seem to put more brainpower into their PR and Twitter strategies than the flying element, which is dying on the operating table in front of us.
The ATC isn't about fostering an air-minded youth any more. It's more about growing the next generation of of pompous, priggish toxic administrators and managers who abuse the concept of flight safety in order to build their little empires. They're all about safety cases and risk, but couldn't explain the difference between air speed and ground speed.

[POBJOY]

Well CHRIS not much 'dragging' of gliders anywhere so lets remind the cretons what they have lost and give them some ideas about how it should be run 'WHEN' they eventually get their heads out of their A.....s !! (If they ever do)
A couple of old wood machines and a simple winch sounds better than no flying for 3 years on the row !!!! In fact we do not even need a winch as we could A/tow with our 'in house' kit.

[teeteringhead]

More Nostalgia

And in the Mk3 you could get "advice" from the ground on solo launches too - if the instructor's voice was loud enough - which it usually was! :ok:

But I suppose shouting at someone 400ft away isn't too difficult........

[chevvron]

More Nostalgia

And in the Mk3 you could get "advice" from the ground on solo launches too - if the instructor's voice was loud enough - which it usually was! :ok:

But I suppose shouting at someone 400ft away isn't too difficult........
There's an immaculate Mk3 which flies with the RAFGSA at Halton.....

[POBJOY]

CHEV If we 'borrrow' the Halton one, Steal the Southampton one (swop with dead Viking/Vig, mount a night op on the eaglescott hangar (two there) Bingo enough to start a 'School'. I suspect we could get them signed off and going again quicker than the 'recovery program'. In fact i think we could build new ones quicker than the recovery disaster.

[pulse1]

What's happened to the Vintage Flight at Hullavington. They've got a full set of SG38, MkIII and T21, all flying last time I looked.

[WE992]

Currently still going strong flying almost every Saturday. They also have a Prefect and Swallow and a private Venture. Plenty of photos on the Facebook page!

[campbeex]

Didn't take long for the relevant question from Chris Gains to be put to one side so the "back in my day" discussion could continue. :rolleyes:

[Dusty_B]

Given that the original target to return FGDP forms was end of March, end of April might have been a half-reasonable target to get a feel of who wanted to go where. However, as they only noticed that the return-to address was wrong on 21st of April and new closing date was last week, I think it is reasonable to assume another 'slip to the right' while they count the ballots.

[POBJOY]

Some might suggest that the quality of the organisation was far better then; with LEADERSHIP to match.
The Air Cadet Gliding organisation 'was' focused on TRAINING for SOLO which 'was' its USP and big attraction.
The system was geared up to get Cadets their BGA A&B Cert (3 SOLO'S) with a minimum of dual.
We now have a system that gives masses of dual and then 1 solo and no BGA cert. I do not see that as progress or a recruiting incentive.
Sad but true.

[CoffmanStarter]

For those Members who were promised or expected a 'communication' about 'what everyone will be doing' by the end of April ... Why not 'Ping' OC 2FTS direct ?

I suspect you won't get a reply ... But enough irritating 'Pings' on his mobile might prompt him to act :cool:

https://mobile.twitter.com/oc2fts

Clearly up to the individual to consider PERSEC issues or not ;)

[Wander00]

Could that not be seen as "harassment".............actually, seems like a plan..............

[Avtur]

Could that not be seen as "harassment".............

Well now the plan of intent is visible on a public forum then yes!

[CoffmanStarter]

Wander old chap ...

Nothing wrong with a person, who has a direct interest, asking a polite but direct question ... Neither is it wrong for many people to ask a similar polite/direct question.

If you're not 'interested' in receiving direct feedback ... Don't put yourself on Twitter ... Simples !

[Wander00]

Tongue, cheek.................

[POBJOY]

Well he is paid by the public purse therefore should be 'available' to answer questions relating to his 'WORK'.
He is hardly in charge of National security and his 'boss's rely on his 'opinion' so fair game for some direct prodding. An MP asking would be excellent.

[Lima Juliet]

Pobjoy et al

I believe that the RAF Halton Trenchard Museum has a Cadet Mk3 and a Slingsby Primary glider. The airfield has 2x Sedburghs (1x Silver and 1x Rasperry Ripple) plus a Tost Winch on a Bedford 3 Tonner. No need for a clandestine operation - the equipment is already there!!! :ok:

Don't forget that Halton is the current 'Home for Sport' for RAF gliding and that the first UK Soaring glider pilot in 1930 was an instructor at Halton (ex RFC aircrew in WWI). They even have a RAFGSA owned Grob 109b (an unmolested Vigilant!) that flies most weekends to the civilian airworthiness standard. :cool:

Best

LJ

[VX275]

It was interesting to take a close look at both a Tutor and a Vigilant as they sat side by side on the static display at the Abingdon airshow yesterday. As an engineer I was horrified at the masses of pin holes in the gel coat on the wing leading edges. Thoughts of the water penetration possibilities and subsequent reduction in the strength of the wings came to mind, no wonder these aircraft have been declared unairworthy. Oh hang on, it was the Tutor I was looking at, no pin holes on the Vigilant.

[POBJOY]

LJ Nearly there to start a 'centre', but careful as 'rolling eyes' is watching us.

[Subsunk]

For those Members who were promised or expected a 'communication' about 'what everyone will be doing' by the end of April ... Why not 'Ping' OC 2FTS direct ?

I suspect you won't get a reply ... But enough irritating 'Pings' on his mobile might prompt him to act :cool:

https://mobile.twitter.com/oc2fts

Clearly up to the individual to consider PERSEC issues or not ;)

That was my first time on Twitter. The man's avatar says 'Keep calm and stay in the Air Cadets.'

Clearly new cadets and staff are queuing round the block to be part of the new ATC world of pretend flying and packing bags in supermarkets.

[POBJOY]

Just about sums up the current situation.
I was in a supermarket recently and the local Squadron was there in force 'assisting' customers.
A high % of the Cadets were NCO's but none of them had any Gliding badges.
Enough said.

[Auster Fan]

Just about sums up the current situation.
I was in a supermarket recently and the local Squadron was there in force 'assisting' customers.
A high % of the Cadets were NCO's but none of them had any Gliding badges.
Enough said.
I was talking to an AWO from a nearby Squadron and he told me that he had cadets aged 16, having been on the Squadron for three years had never seen a glider, let alone fly in one (611 VGS stopped flying when they were kicked out of Watton three years ago and with the exception of a couple of months (I think), haven't flown since....

[A and C]

What you are looking at on the leading edge of the Tutor wing is not the Gel coat, it is the paint finish. Small imperfections in the surface paint finish have no structural issues.

[bobward]

To add to Auster Fan's comments. The only cadets on my squadron who've done any flying in the last year are those who won flying scholarships.
Thinking ahead a bit, how long before you'll need a qualification to teach cadets to use Flight Sim? Elfan Safety rules you know......:eek::eek:

[VX275]

I wouldn't class what I saw as small imperfections in a paint surface. I've seen pub dart boards with fewer pin holes than those leading edges had. I certainly wouldn't want them on any composite airframe I owned or flew.

[CoffmanStarter]

I see the ACO has been awarded The Air League Gold Medal in 'Recognition of 75 Years of Excellence' as part of their 75th anniversary celebrations ...

Presented by HRH The DoE ...

75 - 2 as far as gliding is concerned :(

Commandant ACO Twitter (https://mobile.twitter.com/ComdtAC/status/727572193413103616)

[Wander00]

That is a signal mark of achievement which I endorse - however, there are those who may have contributed less than others - hope presentation was received by a representative cadet, not some further up the tree.

[CoffmanStarter]

Wander ...

I agree with you. But in respect of your last comment ... Seemingly not.

Commandant ACO Twitter : Gold Medal (https://mobile.twitter.com/ComdtAC/status/727751858161364992)

[Subsunk]

Wander ...

I agree with you. But in respect of your last comment ... Seemingly not.

Commandant ACO Twitter : Gold Medal (https://mobile.twitter.com/ComdtAC/status/727751858161364992)

Can Grangemouth Squadron staff and cadets sign the medal out on special occasions then?

[A and C]

If you can't tell the difference between a gel coat and an acrylic paint finish I don't think you should be commenting on the condition of composite structures.

You demonstrate an attitude of a lot of people in this still very metalcentric industry. I was once in the same place having completed the composite repair course with BA.

The BA course may have been good enough for minor repairs to the fairings and floorboards of mostly metal aircraft but the techniques and practices of that era simply are not good enough for modern all composite structures.

The fact of the matter is if you want to find the very best use of and repair techniques for cutting edge composite structures you have to look first to the people who are in the gliding industry................. This is a fact that the heavy side of the business has difficulty accepting.

The best example of the misconception prevalent in the industry as a whole can be seen on the PPrune thread about the B787 that was damaged by fire at LHR a year or two back, with suggested repairs that clearly based on knowlage of metal aircraft and no idea of compostite load transfer.

[VX275]

Whether its Gel coat or acrylic paint is immaterial, what I was shown was numerous pin holes through the outer surface that would allow water to penetrate through to the composite beneath. Now allow that trapped water to freeze and just watch what happens to the airframe. I doubt that the Tutor is limited to operations in positive OAT only.
I'm far from being metalcentric, in fact I truly believe that an aircraft isn't an aircraft if you can't poke your finger through the fabric.

[Wander00]

VX275 - last sentence - absolutely

[POBJOY]

I would say the aircraft was NOT AIRWORTHY if you could 'poke' the aforementioned finger* through its fabric.as the fabric would have lost its integrity. An 'instant' check is a knuckle applied to the surface in a steady manner which when removed has not left a 'dent' in its surface.
Of course if the finger is endowed with a long nail then thats the same as applying a knife,and not a test.
No we do not need a thread creep discussing the merits of Irish Linen v American Cotton v Dacron/Poly thank you.

Actually good quality Irish Linen with proper uv protection was superb.

[A and C]

No doubt with your experience and EASA part 66 engineering licence covering composite airframes you will be able to do a bit of subcontracting and help with the skills shortage within the industry.

[EnigmAviation]

Has all opposition been eliminated? Can't believe four days have gone by with no comment and the thread moved down to page 2 .

Concerned that 2FTS agents have been running around with poison tipped umbrellas and radioactive cups of tea !

[Subsunk]

Still here, but personally I'm not giving another second of
my life to the ACO, apart from this thread. Seeing how the senior and experienced volunteers have been treated after a lifetime of service has put me off.

The ACO is not the only way to get kids air-minded. I'm not going to be responsible for turning potential future Pilots off aviation because the ACO has developed a fear of flying.

[tucumseh]

There is a danger of missing the central point. The ATC, as an organisation, including the hierarchy all the way up to the regular/permanent staff in MoD who run it, have little or nothing to do with the root cause. For that, all you need do is read the Nimrod XV230 thread,or the latter end of the Chinook ZD576 thread. Or, for a simpler summary, the Red Arrows XX177 thread. There are those in MoD who will be openly smirking that they have no need to indulge in too much disinformation in this case, because the ATC is getting a good kicking here. The real culprits are well known, but also, unfortunately, well protected. This is not the first time such a thing has happened. One should ask why it was not nipped in the bud, but allowed to develop (over many years) into a 2-year+ grounding. This case is just another Appendix to the Nimrod and MoK Reviews. Therein lies MoD's great weakness.

[Chugalug2]

Good post, tucumseh. I too urge those who are directly affected by this grounding and its aftermath to not take too great a parochial reaction to it. As he says, the real culprits in the MOD have used the "stove piping" of individual tragedies over the years to obscure the fact that all were airworthiness related, and have perpetrated a cover up to prevent those VSOs responsible to be held to account for offences under Military Law.

Now that the Police cover up of their conduct at Hillsborough and Orgreave has not only been faced up to but action against certain Senior Police Officers begun at last, we need to ensure that the Royal Air Force faces up to similar problems within its own High Command. This is not a call for retribution, or even of bringing closure for grieving families, but a call for reform of the provision and maintenance of UK Military Airworthiness. That requires both separate and independent Regulatory and Air Accident Investigation Authorities. That in turn requires an objective assessment of why we are in the present impasse.

The MAA (now subsumed into the Defence Safety Authority) was based on a lie perpetrated by the Haddon-Cave Report, that the late 80s/early 90s were a Golden Period of Airworthiness Regulation. Instead of that the system had been largely rendered inoperative by illegal orders to subvert the regulations, by persecuting and hounding out experienced and dedicated engineers who sought to enforce them, and by replacing them with unqualified yes-men who were thus biddable. Very soon the system collapsed and unairworthiness spread like a canker throughout the military airfleets, until even the ACO gliders were so afflicted.

No BoI has ever exposed this scandal, and no military investigator will ever do so while held in the MOD's clutches. The MilAAIB has now even ceased to exist, and all investigation and all regulatory control of not only Military Aviation, but of Ground, Sea, Nuclear, Explosives, Munitions, etc, come under one man, the DSA DG, who is responsible to the SoS for Defence.

Independent? Objective? How does that work then?

ACO volunteers rightly feel undervalued and put upon, but with respect they are not the real losers of this scandal. Bereaved families, broken careers and health have all been the outcomes of this UK "Dreyfus Affair". Can I please urge you all to see the big picture and support the campaign to reform and restore UK Military Airworthiness by calling for both an independent Air Regulator and an independent Air Accident Investigator, from the MOD and from each other?

Self Regulation Does Not Work, and in Aviation it Kills!

[Subsunk]

Good point made. The ACO fleet was grounded because it was expedient to do so for several reasons. Easily done when it is a non-operational fleet whose absence from the ORBAT will not affect any promotions, decorations and the like.

[Subsunk]

OC 2 FTS made the call as is his prerogative, but the overkill we have seen since then indicates how many other factors were at work.

[Chugalug2]

Subsunk:-
The ACO fleet was grounded because it was expedient to do so for several reasons.

Perhaps, but the only reason that matters is that it was unairworthy. You may well be right that other fleets too are so afflicted but are not grounded for operational reasons, but that doesn't alter the facts re the ACO fleet.
OC 2 FTS made the call as is his prerogative

Not sure what call that is. If it was to ground the ACO fleet then he was merely passing on that command. I assume that it came from the MAA, or doesn't the title Authority mean what it says?

[Lima Juliet]

Just to be quite correct here, as I understand it:

OC 2 FTS made the call as is his prerogative, but the overkill we have seen since then indicates how many other factors were at work.

Comdt (then OC) 2FTS made the recommendation that flying should be paused. AOC 22(Trg) Gp, then AVM Mike Lloyd, made the 'call' - it was his prerogative! :ok:

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

PS. I still believe that it was the right 'call' but what happened afterwards descended into a right dog's breakfast!! :ok:

[POBJOY]

The Air Cadet Organisation are now guilty of a very misleading advertising campaign which would completely fail to satisfy the ASA in its representaion of the facts.
The main website is so devoid of portraying what the ATC can really offer (and deliver) it is a disgrace and those in charge should consider their positions with regard to the honesty of the information that is supposed to encourage youngsters to join.

[Chugalug2]

LJ:-
AOC 22(Trg) Gp, then AVM Mike Lloyd, made the 'call' - it was his prerogative!

Interesting information, Leon. Was the 'call' the 'pause', or a formal grounding? If not the latter then who made that call and when, or was it perhaps never made? Has the MAA made any 'calls' with regard to the ACO fleet? Thanks.

[Whizz Bang]

Happy to be corrected but, as I understand it, the ODH identified the risk and initiated the pause as he was unable to accept it. Passed to the DDH who was empowered but unwilling to accept the risk and confirmed the pause.

[tmmorris]

Probably, you have ODH and DDH the wrong way round though, OC 2FTS will be the Delivery Duty Holder.

[tucumseh]

tmmorris

You are correct. I'd be interested in what background, training and qualifications either has to warrant being "personally legally responsible and accountable for the airworthiness, maintenance and safe use" of the aircraft.

If either ended up in court during an attempt to enforce this, I imagine it would take 30 seconds flat to establish they were not afforded the correct training or resources, so could not, reasonably, be held liable. In my mind, that renders the entire concept a nonsense.

If I am wrong, why are we still in this position? The regulations require both the ODH and DDH to have the experience and skill to (a) prevent this in the first place, and (b) fix it if inherited. Responsible for airworthiness? I suspect neither has a clue where to start and the MAA RAs they must work to don't offer any help. This is the great elephant in the room. Would anything the MAA is doing have prevented the airworthiness related accidents such as Nimrod, Chinook, C130, Hawk, etc? No.


When does a "pause" become "grounding"?

[Whizz Bang]

Thank you chaps, has been long enough for the details to seep from my memory...!

Essentially, my point was that once he knew, OC 2FTS wasn't in a position to do anything other than pause, so it wasn't really his 'call'.

[Chugalug2]

tucumseh:-
When does a "pause" become "grounding"?

Well seemingly not yet, unless we be told otherwise. So the AOC as ODH exercised his prerogative and 'paused' ACO gliding over two years ago. What statement, supporting or otherwise, has the Military Aviation Authority made since? Is it anything to do with the MAA, or are ACO Gliders solely the business of the AOC 22 Group? Can he just as unilaterally end that pause, again without word from the MAA? Has he?

As tucumseh comments, this places an onerous burden upon one man, particularly one untrained in the arcane arts of airworthiness maintenance. In this brave new world of individuals taking on Departments of State policies and winning their case (witness the father cleared of not paying a fine for taking his family to Disneyland in term time), is there not a danger of some disaffected ATC cadet seeking redress for being denied gliding by a VSO decision unsupported by the MAA? I only ask because it seems strange that the 'pause' has not been followed by a formal grounding by the Airworthiness Regulator, aka the MAA, aka the DSA, aka the MOD? Or has it?

[Whizz Bang]

As I understand it, yes, AOC 22 Gp can end the pause, all he has to do is accept the risk in doing so.

He won't, obviously.

[Chugalug2]

Thanks for that succinct summary of the situation Whizz Bang. So here we have an ODH who has effectively grounded the fleet for which he is responsible, having assessed the risk of not doing so as unacceptable. Good for him!

Of course, that fleet is non-operational and its grounding has no immediate operational effects on the Royal Air Force (though the long term effects are almost certainly profound). All that rather begs the question of what about the ODHs of front line fleets? If they took similar action what effect would that have on the RAF? What effect would it have on their own careers?

As tucumseh asks, when does a pause become a grounding? When will the MAA publicly support this ODH's action? Where is a 'pause' defined by the MAA anyway?

In short, is this the slight flaw in H-C's cunning plan, whereby we have an Authority that seemingly has no real authority at all?