Air Cadets grounded?

[Engines]

Sorry if I repeat myself here - but there's an important point that all pilots should understand.

You all have an absolute right to assume that the aircraft you sign for is airworthy. In a nutshell, that means that the assumption that it's safe to fly is based on a solid body of data and evidence that refers to the precise configuration of the aircraft you're flying. It also means that the aircraft has been properly maintained, modified and repaired throughout its life.

I repeat - you should not have to question this. But after seeing this shambles, if it's an Air Cadet glider, you should.

Ask to see the record of airframe repairs. Ask to see the register of Technical Instructions applied to the aircraft. Take a look at the Release to Service and have the engineers prove to you that the aircraft you are flying is exactly the same as the one specified in the RTS. If you're feeling fresh, ask who the ADA is. Or ask to see the latest Airworthiness Review.

You shouldn't have to do any of this. Your engineers might get grumpy. If they do, tell them "I'm doing this because you haven't been doing your job".

Oh, and don't accept any bromides such as: 'We were short of manpower because we had a problem with another aircraft', or 'The ATC was a bit of a backwater' or 'It was contracted out' or 'it was a corporate failure due to multiple reorganisations'. Get personal. Your engineer officers, every one of them, are officers in the Armed Forces who sign up to a code of ethics and assume professional responsibility in exchange for good pay - just like you. They are charged to do ANY job properly - just like you. They appear to have failed miserably at a basic core task.

Again, apologies for the tone here - I've thought this post through for a while, but I can't get past the extent of the RAF's failure to protect its aircrew, not to mention the civilian kids they were flying around. Like many who post on PPrune, I've done my share of funerals of young men. It's only the greatest good fortune that has prevented deaths in this case.

Best regards as ever to all those engineers looking after their pilots,

Engines

[bobward]

All I can comment about is the situation on my squadron.

1 Night exercises; none in the last five years;
2 Gliding: (no comment);
3 Powered flying; our last session (the first this year) was binned the day before we were due to go. No reason given.........

Whether this is peculiar to our wing, or more widespread, I can't comment.

[cats_five]

Hi Arc
Also the way things 'played out' meant that there was no chance of any campaign/consultation to save any of the VGS's.
It is scandalous that nobody stepped in to oversee changes necessary to keep the gliders airworthy,but they just left it until it broke.It was a fashionable saying some years ago - sometimes you have to leave things until they are broken until you fix them ( I never bought into that myself).
The review that started in 2012 stated (something like) - any changes should have minimum impact on ACO flying - well that worked well.
I also believe they put the 'right' man in for the job (but that is my personal opinion).
Trouble is - in the usual MOD way - any attempt to save money usually ends up costing us lots !
As usual obviously there was no plan in place to replace the fleet,this could have been done in small batches over many years - but one should really have a fleet replacement plan - especially with gliders where the manufacturers capabilities are modest.

Have the gliders reached their maximum hours? I doubt it very much. The airworthiness problem is entirely of the RAF's making, and it seems to me is nothing at all to do with the age of the gliders beyond the people that f*cked up would have had less time to do so with new or newer gliders.

Edit: I said the RAF's fault, but actually I should have said everyone involved with airworthiness. I have no idea if they are all RAF, or ATC, etc.

[cats_five]

Not sure that seeing the record of repairs will help since part of the problem is unrecorded repairs. If I send my glider for repairs / work I make darn sure the paperwork is in order when I get if back.

[dervish]

Cats5 But if someone starts asking the awkward questions....

[longer ron]

Have the gliders reached their maximum hours? I doubt it very much. The airworthiness problem is entirely of the RAF's making, and it seems to me is nothing at all to do with the age of the gliders beyond the people that f*cked up would have had less time to do so with new or newer gliders.


One should really have a plan though for how long a certain type of glider will be in service for (especially if not a 'standard' glider),one advantage of having newer 'standard' gliders would have been that they could have been civvy registered as per the 'Grubs'.
Also the 'airworthiness' aspect is only one part of this whole sorry tale,there is I am sure much more to it than that ! including the desire to close airfields/units as a 'cost saving' - as I posted previously this has been carried out in a devious way during the 'pause'.

By 'standard' gliders I mean unmodified by MOD/RAF

[tucumseh]

Longer ron

Correct. Every item in the inventory has a notional Out of Service Date from the day it is conceived. Every time you seek to spend money (but especially capital expenditure) you must be prepared to state this date, because financial rules prevent capital expenditure within 5 years of OSD, unless safety related. And even then, this safety caveat was removed in 1992/3 by AMSO, although ignored where possible by MoD(PE). This is directly linked to current problems.

[Engines]

Longer,

To add to Tuc's excellent point - there are often many good reasons for modifying a commercial design. Quite often, they are required to operate the design under military rules on the Military Aircraft Register.

Of course, that raises the point of why put ATC gliders on the Military Register at all. It was certainly a help when a previous CAS wanted to 'big up' RAF strength by including them as 'deployable aircraft'.

However, there should have been no problem whatsoever in bringing these aircraft on to the RAF's books. Any competent civil design authority would have already had a solid safety statement, plus the required certification evidence to allow the PT buying the kit to asses the extent of compliance with Def Stan 00-970 and to request the required modifications. Once these had been cleared by the DA, they would have formed part of the 'as contracted' configuration.

Once the aircraft were brought 'Under Ministry Control', the PT would have, as matter of normal course, been required to demonstrate compliance with the required regulations to the relevant MoD Committees and Boards. Part of this would have been the required PDS contracts and the mandated airworthiness reviews. The 'as contracted' configuration and its associated updated safety statement would have been the baseline for the RTS.

I stress again - all this would have been an utterly standard, well understood and quite easy process to do properly. Unfortunately, as Tuc and others have so well shown, RAF senior officers spent a good bit of the 1990s dismantling the experience base as well as the checks and balances that kept the show on the rails.

I agree that there have definitely been some fairly scummy politics around closure of many VGS sites. but the central issue (for me at least) is the RAF's failure to properly manage the airworthiness of their fleet of gliders. Why? Because there is absolutely nothing to stop this sort of c**p happening to other aircraft. In fact, I know that it is happening to other RAF aircraft right now.

That's a problem. A big one.

Best Regards as ever to all those good engineers out there trying to make the system work,

Engines

[cats_five]

As far as I know there is nothing to stop the Vikings going on the G-reg, except the problems that currently are preventing most of them from flying.

You mention replacements. The Vikings are fundamentally Grob G103A Twin II Acro gliders. Unfortunately I can't find what their lifespan, but for the K21 it is 12,000 hours which can now be extended to 18,000 hours. Where I fly they fly about 500 hours a year each, and we operate and instruct every day it's flyable except Xmas day. 12,000 hours has taken about 25 years to accumulate. I can't imagine the ATC gliders were flying anything like as many hours, I doubt their initial life was much different to the K21, so whilst the Vikings were built before 1989 I suspect they should have many hours left before needing life extension or cutting up, depending on if there is a suitable scheme of work for extension. Yes, thought is needed about replacing them, but there is no way they should need replacing for some years to come.

Does anyone know how many hours the Vikings usually have, and how many a year they might do?

[tucumseh]

Once the aircraft were brought 'Under Ministry Control', the PT would have, as matter of normal course, been required to demonstrate compliance with the required regulations to the relevant MoD Committees and Boards.

When I saw Engines’ post I thought I’d have a look at the MAA’s regulation set, given it (MAA) almost certainly doesn’t have anyone who has ever managed a UMC transfer. (Again raising the issue of what is a “SQEP”).


I knew the mandated Defence Standard had been scrapped, but now read that DME500 (Design and Modification Engineering) does not mandate most of the actions necessary to maintain the build standard, which is a pre-requisite to a valid safety case. I now see why the Def Stan was cancelled. The 1993 AMSO policy to regard airworthinesss as optional, is now (unintentionally I hope) enshrined in some regulations. Time after time I thought – different people have contributed to this document, cutting and pasting various pieces, but there has been no proof reading or oversight that understands the linkages between the pieces.



While it and, for example, MAA02 (Glossary) mentions UMC, it doesn’t include the mandated procedures or even the checklist for achieving it. If you listed the problems with the gliders, alongside this checklist (which is two pages in the old Def Stan), you’d see the solution laid out in front of you. It isn’t long – 14 items. #8 requires the contractual arrangement for a valid safety case to be in place. It isn’t? No Release to Service. Item 11a requires the name, position and contact details of the individual responsible to be inserted in the contract (that comes into effect when the transfer meeting closes). The new regs don’t even require him to be present, so one wonders if anyone today is even trained to do the job. Item #7 is “Declaration of Hazards”. The first on my list would be the fact MoD is thinking of UMC, lacking a correct definition in the Glossary. (What it says is not actually wrong, but is akin to saying one maintains a car by checking the tyre pressure of your front off-side once a year).


“Achieved” is a key word, because UMC is a major achievement, warranting one of the biggest contractual milestone payments. Unsurprisingly, Westland’s entry in the Design Approved Organisation (Organization) Scheme document is the only one to mention UMC, confirming they are approved for “Modifications to aircraft that have achieved the status of UMC”. I’d actually be wary of employing anyone, company or individual, who didn’t understand this and didn’t trumpet such a high level approval. It is like saying you passed your 25 yard swimming certificate when 6 years old, but omitting that you’re now an Olympic gold medallist. It would surprise you how many well-known defence companies have never attained such an approval. However, I’m pleased the DAOS has survived, despite many years of political interference, with Defence Ministers insisting on major contracts being awarded to one man and his dog operations in their constituencies. Westland were major beneficiary, as we invariably went to them to dig out the favoured few.


I know, many are reading this thinking what a load of balls. But as Engines says, this is simple, basic stuff. So basic that few at an air station, and certainly no aircrew, ever see it happening. But it is money in the bank.

[Chugalug2]

tuc:-
this is simple, basic stuff. So basic that few at an air station, and certainly no aircrew, ever see it happening. But it is money in the bank.

As an ex driver airframe I can appreciate that there is a sense amongst we two wing wonder gods that what Engines and tucumseh tell us is no doubt all true but is also rather esoteric arcane stuff, and life is too short to worry about it. I would strongly recommend reconsideration lest life become all too short, whether you drive gliders, helicopters, trainers, transports, or fast jets, etc!

I was blissfully unaware of how lucky I was that such a dedicated, experienced and knowledgeable team were watching my 6 o'clock when I served. I was indeed very lucky because that team isn't there anymore, they've been replaced by those who are inexperienced and lack knowledge, armed with a revised rule book that has replaced airworthiness maintenance with a tick box system that simply... ticks boxes.

So far the RAF has lost its ACO gliders, its Nimrods and its Sentries. You might note that none of them are core fleets for RAF operations, serving instead civilian youth, Royal Navy, and NATO commitments. The wagons are being drawn into ever tighter circles and pretty soon those core capabilities will be hit. Time is running out and the RAF needs to grasp this nettle, face up to the part that it has played in this scandal, and allow the return to full airworthiness of the UK military fleets by making Regulator and Investigator independent of it, the MOD, and each other.

Self Regulation doesn't work and in Aviation it Kills!

[Phil_and_Sand]

"As far as I know there is nothing to stop the Vikings going on the G-reg, except the problems that currently are preventing most of them from flying.

You mention replacements. The Vikings are fundamentally Grob G103A Twin II Acro gliders. Unfortunately I can't find what their lifespan, but for the K21 it is 12,000 hours which can now be extended to 18,000 hours. Where I fly they fly about 500 hours a year each, and we operate and instruct every day it's flyable except Xmas day. 12,000 hours has taken about 25 years to accumulate. I can't imagine the ATC gliders were flying anything like as many hours, I doubt their initial life was much different to the K21, so whilst the Vikings were built before 1989 I suspect they should have many hours left before needing life extension or cutting up, depending on if there is a suitable scheme of work for extension. Yes, thought is needed about replacing them, but there is no way they should need replacing for some years to come.

Does anyone know how many hours the Vikings usually have, and how many a year they might do?"

Vikings have been operated at over their civil max weight for some time (based on what justification?), and so would probably be difficult to transfer to the civil register. I believe a civil G103 has a life of 12,000 hours, with major inspections every 3,000. However a Viking has a life of only 27,000 launches (again based on what justification?) - perhaps only 2,500 hours. I'm guessing most Vikings are around the 2,000 hour mark? The question to ask is why have the differences to the civil certification been approved?

Phil

[boswell bear]

Where can I find figures for the cost of the VGS return to flight programme?

[cats_five]

Vikings have been operated at over their civil max weight for some time (based on what justification?), and so would probably be difficult to transfer to the civil register. I believe a civil G103 has a life of 12,000 hours, with major inspections every 3,000. However a Viking has a life of only 27,000 launches (again based on what justification?) - perhaps only 2,500 hours. I'm guessing most Vikings are around the 2,000 hour mark? The question to ask is why have the differences to the civil certification been approved?

Before the G-Register there was a BGA weight concession of +3% for non aerobatic flying. Did they fly over that concession weight? BGA gliders carried the concession onto the G-Reg but (for example) German K13s don't which means a porky instructor and porky student are probably over the placarded weight.

Are you absolutely sure it's the actual Vikings that have the launch limitation, or was it the hook? Got any documentation backing that up? It's a totally bizarre requirement if it's true.

Tost release hooks need an overhaul every 10,000 actuations which is less than ever 10,000 flights depending on how the actuations are counted. 5 per flight is common - 3 checks (back release, free drop, release under tension) plus 1 for launch and the release at the end of the launch.

http://wingsandwheels.com/media/wysiwyg/PDF/E85_englisch_2001.pdf

A life of 27,000 launches when the primary use is circuits off a winch is not very long at all. The average flight time for one of our K21s, at a hill soaring site, is 15.62 minutes. At a non-hill soaring site I would expect it to be less.

[Arclite01]

Cats

There was a specific programme of stress testing carried out on a Viking airframe at Swanton Morley as part of the entry into service - 1 airframe was sacrificed on a test jig/rig.

What the outcome was I am unsure but this cyclic testing led to the introduction of 27000 launches life. Since I would suggest that an average Viking probably does no more than 500 launches a year - we're probably only approx. halfway to that figure..................

Note that comparing a K21 and Grob 103 is not 'apples with apples' as the design and construction methods are very different. Therefore the fatigue life will be different.

Finally I am unaware that the Viking is operating overweight. I've not seen that documented anywhere. Since they are military aircraft the BGA dispensation is irrelevant anyway (even though the aircraft do have BGA numbers !). Actually some of the aircraft differ radically in weight (empty) as they have had various repairs and various schemes applied. It should be noted that the ones based at coastal airfields weigh more than those based more inland by a fair few kilos so apply a blanket comment about overweight is a bit broad brush !!

Note that it's 33 months now since the pause..........................and counting

Arc

[Engines]

Arc,

I'd be genuinely interested to know how a 'programme of stress testing' was carried out at (presumably) RAF Swanton Morley.

Apart from the technical aspects of how any 'stress testing' was devised on a composite airframe, and how it was applied, whether ultimate stress tests were carried out, the standard of the airframe selected, etc., the big question for me would be why this work wasn't carried out by the aircraft DA?

Oh, and what technical authority (and certification) did RAF Swanton Morley have to carry out such testing? And what was the DA's involvement in the testing? Who approved the 'cyclic' test profiles? And why was it necessary? Were the RAF planning to operate the aircraft outside its existing certified usage spectrum and/or configuration that underpinned the existing safety statement? Who approved the resultant 27,000 launch life? What fatigue monitoring and airframe inspection programme was put in place to follow on from this 'in house' 'stress testing'?

Updated - a subsequent post (thanks Why oh why) appears to confirm that the RAF are operating the aircraft at an increased MAUW (625 Kg versus 580 or 597 with a 'BGA uplift'). So is there documentation (and DA approval) for that? What's urgently needed is sone transparency here. This isn't a 'national security' matter - the ATC is a 'youth organisation' paid for by the RAF (i.e. us) and they have already admitted that they have had airworthiness 'challenges'. Time to find out what these were.

Best regards as ever to all those clever fatigue testing people,

Engines

[Why oh why]

The Twin 2 Acro is operating on the BGA registry at a MAUW of either 580kg or 597kg with the BGA 3% uplift.

The Viking is operating at a MAUW of 625kg.

On my VGS the typical use of the airframes was approx 20-22k launches each. This is pretty much fleet average

[Thud105]

"Tost release hooks need an overhaul every 10,000 actuations which is less than ever 10,000 flights depending on how the actuations are counted. 5 per flight is common - 3 checks (back release, free drop, release under tension) plus 1 for launch and the release at the end of the launch."

Really? You check the hook every launch?

[Cows getting bigger]

When CGB was a starry-eyed cadet we certainly checked the hook every launch.

[Arclite01]

Hi

Engines

Can't answer many of the questions I'm afraid - I only flew the end product :}

The Airframe was brand new, and the jig was set up to repeat multiple cycles of the stress loadings from winch launch cycles as I recall. There was a test rig and Hydraulic jacks which did the flexing and unflexing of components. I saw it only once on a visit to Swanton.

The cycle life was issued by Swanton at the end of the testing. I can only assume that the DT and NDT teams agreed the 27000 launch limit - based on what I am not sure.............. I don't believe that a follow on fatigue programme was in place although obviously usage figures were monitored across the fleet and some balancing undertaken.

and yes - surely the DA should have undertaken this..........

WOW

That figure of around 20,000 launches seems pretty much in line with what my VGS had on their aircraft. As there were more spare Vikings towards the end the balancing of hours across the fleet was a lot easier.

Also the Viking is not a Twin 2 Acro. The Acro has a different wing section. The nearest to the Viking 'off the shelf' would be a Grob 103b.

Thud

We test the hook every day - not every launch, then use it every launch

Hope this helps

Arc

[Thud105]

Thanks Arc. Testing the hook as part of a Daily Inspection is what we do over here - but testing every which way every launch seems a bit OTT (and must really slow up the launch rate).

[cats_five]

All the civilian clubs I fly at test once at the start of the day. My example was for a private glider which depending on the syndicate often flies once per day.

However you could say that if no extra unnecessary checking takes place then the total number of actuations = (days flown*3) + (flights*2).

[Arclite01]

Cats - you are correct. (x2)

Arc

[cats_five]

Just how does flying a cadet require such a huge MAUW? The BGA data sheet for a G103 gives the maximum load for each seat as 110kg including parachute, which is over 17 stone. And if flown at that MAUW doesn't it interfere with the CoG position? Or is it that the seat limits are unaltered and this allows for lots of heavy repairs? But if a glider is repaired to that extent, again I would worry about what has happened to it's CoG. Too far forward and it's nasty to fly, too far back and it's not only nasty to fly but dangerous.

Can most certainly believe the repaired gliders are heavier, one way of triaging before checking them would be weighing. Do the lightest ones first, reweigh the ones from the coast after a while in a dry storage area.

[Why oh why]

Arclite. I think you're incorrect with your assumption on the variance between the Viking and the G103. Sure you're not confusing the twin 3 with it's different profile.

[Why oh why]

Cats five. The BGA data sheet does indeed give a maximum seat loading of 110kg front and rear. However the total loading of the empty airframe and cockpit load must not exceed the BGA max AUW

Many BGA 2 sweaters have hugely reduced rear cockpit loading limitations if the front seat is fully loaded. I flew in one with a 70kg max rear seat load when front occupant was 100kg

[Arclite01]

WOW

I think the Viking is the Twin II (Grob103a) but not the Acro with the upgraded spar caps..............

Happy to be corrected :) (not that it's really in the mainstream of this discussion thread though)

Arc

[Cows getting bigger]

RAF - Viking T1 (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/Vikingt1.cfm)

[Why oh why]

Arc.
The serial numbers of all the Viking are followed by a "K".

Therefore K means Kunstflug. Therefore they are Acro

[cats_five]

The BGA data sheet does indeed give a maximum seat loading of 110kg front and rear. However the total loading of the empty airframe and cockpit load must not exceed the BGA max AUW

Many BGA 2 sweaters have hugely reduced rear cockpit loading limitations if the front seat is fully loaded. I flew in one with a 70kg max rear seat load when front occupant was 100kg

Hence read the placard before launching. Our 2-seaters have a little chart that gives details for normal & aerobatic flight, however there are few people too heavy to fly (and they will take 110kg in both seats), just a few how need to put a weight in.

[Arclite01]

WOW

Thanks for the clarification - I stand corrected. I believe at one point when the spigot fatigue issue was raised and temporarily grounded the fleet previously they investigated the possibility of manufacturing and fitting Acro III wingsets to the existing Viking. In the end, not required/proceeded with.

Hence my confusion !!

Arc

[Mechta]

However you could say that if no extra unnecessary checking takes place then the total number of actuations = (days flown*3) + (flights*2).

Its worth bearing in mind that its the actuations of the hook that count, regardless whether it had load applied on it or not.

A lot of civilian clubs use golf buggies or ATVs (e.g. John Deere Gator) to tow a glider from where it lands back to the launch point; attaching the tow rope to one or other of the hooks. You can probably add 50% to the number of hook actuations* for these clubs. What the Air Cadets were doing for recoveries beyond hand push range before the 'pause' , I have no idea.

* If using the C of G or winch hook, it is possible to attach and release the hook by moving the back release ring rather than the release knob in the cockpit, however our regional examiner considers this to still be a hook actuation as far as its life is concerned.

[cats_five]

Good point about the retrieve, change flights*2 to flights*4. And I agree with your RE. It's the spring & hook mechanism which are the issue, not the cable to it.

[snapper1]

Civvy glider pilot here. Been following this thread since it began.

I think the information in the attached link is a recent development re Air Cadet Gliding. If its already common knowledge, please don't be too harsh. I'm genuinely interested in seeing Air Cadets back in the air!

http://tinyurl.com/zqg662t

[EnigmAviation]

Interesting exchange on FB responding to Commandant's 75th Anniversary message ......................


"Business as usual ? Well I suppose that if it's based on the time since April 2014 when all the VGS units were suspended from flying , then yes, it is business as usual ! With currently about 2 Viking T Mk1, and 3 Vigilant T Mk 1 ( now grounded due to engine problems) and virtually NO instructors current, many VGS units closed down permanently, "spare " Grob Tutor aircraft sold off to the Finnish Air Force, and their staff occupying RAF training that VRT officers redundant from closed VGS units are finding hard to get, then over two and a half years downstream, it's anybody's guess when we'll ever see the AIR in Air Cadets in the next couple of years. Worst thing is, this awful situation was brought about by the professionals, and NOT the loyal VRT Officers and CGI's who spent every spare waking hour in the service of VGS units. Not an anniversary to be proud of really ma'am in my humble opinion"


Response ex Commandant :-


"You are entitled to your opinion. Forgive me if I don't share your share your views."

Response to Commandant from FB post(er) individual :-


"Well ok, opinions aside, which of the numerous facts quoted are incorrect ? E.g., airworthy serviceable aircraft available with clear F700 for VGS ops nationwide as of today, current and re-categorised instructors and pilots, ready for duty this week ?"

Final word ex Commandant:-


"sorry, not prepared to get into a confrontational debate in an open forum - not what my FB account is for. If you have questions or complaints that cannot be answered by the 2FTS chain of command or others, write to me at the HQ and I will do my best to answer your concerns"


I suppose publication of facts will be the subject of security restrictions as this could be of use to Mr Putin. Debate now open - the only grossly optimistic sign is that ACCGS are advertising a vacancy for an instructor - but for Viking only !.


I see one other post responded


"Ostrich head sand buried. Make what you will of it." !!!


Any views ?? ;)

[iRaven]

Truly shocking. I had heard that the Vigilant was grounded again due to engine issues. Not the Grob 109B, mind, just the Vigilant because we fiddled with the engine rather than leave it 'bog standard'. Why do we insist on fiddling with commercial off the shelf purchases...:ugh:

[ATFQ]

2016 AEF Christmas Message:

[ATFQ]

Comdt 2 FTS Christmas Message for 2016

[iRaven]

So the "AEFs will pick up the slack for the loss of VGS" has not delivered then as promised earlier this year when the VGSs were culled? From the note at the above link there were 400 less AEF sorties since last year. The excuse about the lack of fire engines is laughable - the Grob Tutor is a light aircraft, so why the hell do they insist on Crash Cat 2? I can fly the very same aircraft, a Grob 115 with a G-Reg, with no crash-cat whatsoever at a farm strip or even if I'm doing flying training then Crash Cat "Special" is more than sufficient (this was what the Vigilant used to use). Also, if I owmed 4x Grob 115s then I would expect there to be 4x Grob 115s on the line each morning, however, when it becomes a Grob Tutor then why is it OK to have at best a couple on the line? It would be a different matter if the Grob 115s had a mahoosive accident rate, but they don't, they are broadly the same as the Tutor.

We are all collectively to blame for letting our Cadets down due to ridiculous 'gold plating' of our regulations and airworthiness requirements for these simple light aircraft. Just when the CAA/EASA are stripping out 'red tape' then the MoD/MAA are tying the military up in it...:ugh:

We need to embrace cheap and safe air experience flying for our Cadets quickly, or we run the risk of losing a complete generation of youths. A really quick fix would be to release public funding for Service Flying/Gliding Clubs to give 'introductory filghts' (as per CAA/EASA rules). The Halton Aero Club flew over 100 children in one afternoon using their own money - YOUNG EAGLES TAKE TO THE SKIES (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafhalton/news/index.cfm?storyid=8223A4DA-5056-A318-A81921C20CD17FD4) . Providing flights at cost with volunteer pilots under ACTO35 could see thousands of extra Cadets flying each year at a fraction of the cost of the uber-expensive Tutor. A flight in a Tutor (including the ridiculous Air Traffic Control and Fire Cover requirements) amounts to ~£400/hr, whereas a civvy reg aircraft can operate at less than a quarter of that cost.

We have got this so badly wrong. Shameless...

[Why oh why]

My understanding is the engine issue would of shown itself up on G109a/G109b or Viking, it's just that the Viking engineering system is a bit more robust than the BGA and it was spotted earlier

Truly shocking. I had heard that the Vigilant was grounded again due to engine issues. Not the Grob 109B, mind, just the Vigilant because we fiddled with the engine rather than leave it 'bog standard'. Why do we insist on fiddling with commercial off the shelf purchases...:ugh:

[iRaven]

It's my understanding that the tech inspection doesn't apply to the Grob 109b...

[pr00ne]

Anyone got any idea of what this "imminent 5th MFTS base decision" is all about?

[Lima Juliet]

The jungle drums tell me that Linton may stay open after all. Not heard anything more than rumour though. So that should be Valley, Shawbury, Cranwell, Wittering and now Linton?

[pr00ne]

Leon,

That sounds reasonable, I assume that Barkston Heath is counted as a part of Cranwell and not as an additional site?

[Sky Sports]

I love how the Comdt 2FTS hopes the VGS community 'finds time to have some down time before we face the challenges 2017 may bring'.

I think 2 years and 8 months - and still rising - is enough 'down time' already!

[EnigmAviation]

A lot of the former VGS staff have already seen the light and found other things to fill their time ! Added to which a lot just cannot be bothered to re-cat including ALL ground exams, and Vigilant min of 17 hrs - god knows how many launches for Viking, thus the "pause" of 2 yrs 8 mths has caused a huge loss already. Add to that things like restrictions on hours per Vigilant A/C per month which cannot be exceeded and where if below max, no credit allowed over the minimum in following month unless authorised...........................and of course the eventual total demise of the Vigilant when time expired, as the original concept of engine refit and glass cockpit has been binned due to the costs of the present farce.

[Arclite01]

It would be interesting to know what the VGS Headcount was before the pause and what it is currently (including by Grade/Category). That would give an idea of how viable it will be to grow the organization back.


Of course there is no way that this information will be forthcoming..............

Arc

[EnigmAviation]

Sky sports - yes absolutely, maybe the real down time is the drifting away ( numbers down) of experienced VGS staff who will not be easily replaced !

[The Spirit of Goole]

Coming soon......an alternative to Air Cadets that is more Air than Cadets

[Frelon]

is the drifting away ( numbers down) of experienced VGS staff who will not be easily replaced

They may have drifted away initially but I understand that many will have marched away when they have observed how their non volunteer, highly paid "leaders" have handled this farce.

[Arclite01]

Frelon

I think you'll find they 'doubled away'

Arc

[Sky Sports]

Quote:

I am told Gliders are now ready to fly from a technical point of view and the final paperwork issues are now being delt with before release for test flight.

Unquote:

Can we start a sweepstake on how long the 'final paperwork issues' will take to sort out, and at what cost.

I'll start with 1 year and £1M!

I posted this 17 months ago. I'm claiming the sweepstake prize!

[EnigmAviation]

Coming soon......an alternative to Air Cadets that is more Air than Cadets
You didn't specify whether the AIR was hot ?

[Arclite01]

SkySports

You can see the meeting now.................'You didn't actually say you wanted to fly them again.......'

Arc

[EnigmAviation]

Happy New Year to all our readers except any AIR Cadets, who, for another good while yet, may need to be GROUND Cadets.


Not long to go now to the 3rd anniversary of the famous " pause" - the longest pause in history, and where are we now ?


We did have some Vigilant A/C airborne in one location but now they're grounded with an engine issue, and we have one day a weekend Viking ops at Syerston. If they get a wriggle on, they may even get the Vigilant A/C sorted just in time to do the flypast to mark their withdrawal in 2019/20 !!


Staff continue to drift away, and many huge issues to resolve, not to mention re-training, working out how to fill the jobs that FSC's may not be allowed to do etc, but hey, they can play on a PTT !!


And of course with the contract for the sale of 28 Tutor's and slow progress on staff convex there, (plus of course the fact that the Tutor's history is not outstanding !), there's little chance that getting bottoms off the ground in huge numbers is a hope rather than a planned fact, not to mention the proposal to establish more AEF Units.


As a management audit, it doesn't look like the master plan is going to be a winner - in fact with £/$ exchange and pressure on Defence spending, I wonder when the Minister will call "time" ? Although being positive we could maybe use some of the new accommodation blocks for Cadet camps, - that is if their location doesn't close down before they can be used.


Only thing missing really was a few Gongs in the Honours list !;)

[pb643]

Just out of interest, what have the full time instructors at Syerston been doing over the last 2 years plus?

[tucumseh]

Only thing missing really was a few Gongs in the Honours list !

I think if you look closely.......

[EnigmAviation]

I think if you look closely.......
Really ? I must have missed it ! Any clues ?

[EnigmAviation]

Just out of interest, what have the full time instructors at Syerston been doing over the last 2 years plus?
Planning re-cat training - like massive no of hours required plus re doing all exams, thinking of new procedures and restrictions, doing some keep current flying on borrowed aircraft, - beyond that, don't know unless anyone has any firm ideas..............not exactly a career with longevity in mind or a gold watch at the end.

[tucumseh]

EnigmAviation

PM sent. An Air Vice Marshal. I won't name him here, as I'm sure he's been raising merry hell...

[bobward]

In the meantime just what am I expected to tell my cadets when they ask what the chance is of going flying?

We've now had a whole generation of cadets who've not flown in anything.....

When is someone at Headquarters Air Cadets, or higher, going to apologise and do the honourable thing and resign as a penace for this dreadful shambles?

[cornish-stormrider]

I am utterly appalled and ashamed about this
I and many others joined the air cadets to FLY.....

We ( a group of seven or so) were doing so much our Sqn co stopped us going unless there were slots that no one else wanted

Gliding, chippys, Hawks, nimrods, sea kings, hercs, chippys, gliding

You name it, if it flew we wanted a go and we had many goes
Eight chippy trips ( to the airfield) and some were double trip days in a single year

How has it got so ****** up?

[EnigmAviation]

I am utterly appalled and ashamed about this
I and many others joined the air cadets to FLY.....

We ( a group of seven or so) were doing so much our Sqn co stopped us going unless there were slots that no one else wanted

Gliding, chippys, Hawks, nimrods, sea kings, hercs, chippys, gliding

You name it, if it flew we wanted a go and we had many goes
Eight chippy trips ( to the airfield) and some were double trip days in a single year

How has it got so ****** up?


Quite easily and effortlessly really - in the first instance when the fleet was new, from inception it was not managed correctly from an Aircraft Engineering angle, compounded by the lack of knowledge of GRP aircraft, and the total lack of understanding of airworthiness management, and design authority referrals in certain cases. Over the years therefore a lot of things done should not have been, and a lot of things that were not done, should have been.


Then of course in latter years, we handed it over to a civilian contractor and thought (as in many HMG circles that a sub contract is the complete answer and is cheap compared to direct labour). Sub contractors need to be closely supervised, not left to their own devices - a little known fact unless you've done it !! When the cat's away, the mice will play, and corners are cut. The problem then was that as they never knew in the first instance how to manage the fleet, they could hardly supervise a sub contractor who equally seemed to be in a similar state of knowledge !!


The rot continued........and then came the pause..............and then came another band of professionals who were completely thrown by the whole saga - put simply, in a spin, having been "ambushed and coshed over the head" by the MAA, and regaining consciousness to wonder where it had all gone wrong, not knowing what on earth to do, and.................as an added complicating factor, aided and abetted by hidden agenda's from nameless person(s) who knew precious little about how the VGS functioned and what it produced, and, some that thought we should not be using powered SLMG's, shouldn't allow FSC's to actively work on a VGS, shouldn't have CGI's and many other prejudicial ideas.


From that moment onwards, the tailspin continued and so it does to this very day. Problem now is that some decisions have been made that will be almost impossible to reverse, - e.g. staff redundant, redeployed and some just gone, with some of the decisions are proving to be mission impossible, lots of £££££ spent, no accountability, and precious little flying for the most important people of all - the Cadets - and dare I say, the RAF Future pilots.


Very shortly now, the RAF will find out that their former "screening" mechanism via VGS training is missing, when they find that future GD pilot entries start to be become a bunch of entrants who have a greater "chop rate", as they have NO former training in a VGS to FSC level, some even attaining a Grade 1 pilot status, not to mention working in the disciplined RAF based VGS environment run very professionally by the dedicated bunch of VF(T) staff and CGI's. Believe me, there are many who serve today who learnt their basics in a VGS, some as high as Air Rank.


The only positive thing that I can say is that NONE of the present crisis has been in any way caused or created by that wonderful bunch of RAFVR(T) Officers who have worked incalculable hours along with their civilian staff and FSC's to run a very successful and productive training machine in a totally professional manner. Sadly, on the debit side, the amateurs were totally professional whilst the professionals were..................well you guessed it correctly !


And so, dear Taxpayers, parents, Cadets, former staff, you will probably never see the real truth and full disclosure, there is no fairy tale ending for this saga....................:{

[The B Word]

As someone who has flown a dozen cadets or so under ACTO35 rules this year I feel that we should think again about the way we fly cadets and expand them to Service Flying/Gliding Clubs. Firstly, we need to stop the nonsense about not being able to use public money to fly Air Cadets under ACTO35 - my 30 minute flights cost about 25% of a similar Vigilant flight; now that's a saving. The risk to life sits outside of the military airworthiness chain and then the RAF only own the reputational risk of losing a Cadet in a military sponsored flight. They already do this for Air Cadet flying scholarships. Furthermore, the Service Flying/Gliding Clubs can plug the ridiculous gaps left in coverage by the current AEF/VGS laydown - kids don't want to sit 1-4 hours in a bus to go flying! That means supporting the RAF Air Sports and ensuring that we keep small airstrips open for their operation (rather than sell it all off like is planned at Henlow, Wyton (which has recently started a small grass airstrip in lieu of the large concrete runway that has been sold off) and Halton). There are 13x RAF Flying Clubs, 6x RAF Gliding Clubs and 1x RAF Microlight Club. If all of these flew 300 Cadets per year (to put this into context the Halton Aero Club flew 100 children in an afternoon last summer) then that would see 6,000 Cadets flown. This could easily be extended to 10,000 per year with little effort.

I'm not proposing that this Air Sport activity replaces the 2FTS effort (which wouldn't be hard at present!) but should augment their efforts and that of the AEFs. When I flew this dozen or so youngsters only 1 of them had flown before and they had all been in the Air Cadets for over 2 years (page 44 of their little logbook of achievements). So augmentation to ensure that these Cadets fly has got to happen otherwise it is not just the RAF that will lose out, but British industry and our civil aviation service providers - as the leaders of British Air Power it is our duty to do so for the good of the Service and the Country.

We do nothing and wait for the current proposed solution at our peril.

The B Word

[cats_five]

There are about 100 bga clubs, and initially our 'local' ATC talked to us but firstly they didn't seem able to try to make an arrangement for the summer at this time of the year when we are planning our flying and secondly they said only a full cat could fly the cadets, so no chance of any cadets getting flown

[Cows getting bigger]

To me, the BGA is the answer. Think of the synergy.

(sorry, I'll take a really big spanking for use of a buzz word) :)

[Frelon]

At my club this past year we have flown scouts and many other local organisations wanting to experience gliding flight, but no Air Cadets, who would be the obvious choice for wanting to fly. The Squadrons tell us that they have many willing cadets wanting to take part (with their parents paying) but HQAC have put a block on it!!

Needless to say we have very enthusiastic youngsters appearing at the club who have to deny that they have anything to do with Air Cadets.........What has the world come to, to deny that you are an Air Cadet just so that you can chase your dream of gliding/flying?

Do these VSOs really know (or care) what they have done to Air Cadet gliding these past three years?

Take the gongs away from them and put them out to grass as it is obvious they are unable to manage the current situation!

[ACW342]

Frelon,
No, they don't. They're so high up they can no longer see people & things below them.

[VX275]

my 30 minute flights cost about 25% of a similar Vigilant flight; now that's a saving.


What is (was) the cost of a Vigilant flight? I have 2500 hours on the things and I've never been told a cost per hour. I'd love to know what my tax rebate (VGS flying) was worth.

[POBJOY]

Apart from the utter disgrace of all this it has exposed the basic fact that no one at HQ Air Cadets or indeed 2FTS has the slightest idea how to go about getting the situation 'back on line'. The expertise in the VGS system was at Squadron level and they were the only ones who could see how badly supported they had become.
It needed a 'task force' of experienced VGS Squadron commanders to go direct to HQ ATC and tell them 'how it was'.
The service GSA operation has the tech expertise and actual knowledge to assist in this,but the RAF as the 'operator' does not have the people or the will to deal with this situation. With no leadership from the top nothing will change; and unless someone is put in place to get to grips with the operation then it may just as well close. Of course the 'direction' for this should have come from 2 FTS, but as we all know with the wrong person in charge and a total lack of understanding from this operation then there was no hope.
If the current people stay in place then you will have no change, and with a massive retraining and upgrading now required it really does need some firm control and competence from the TOP. I think the old VGS system could be reborn under guidance from the GSA/BGA and then we might get somewhere. Syerston could become a major GSA centre with a proven 'Leader/Instructor' in charge and then we could get back to the well proven system of teaching Cadets, and then letting the keen and capable ones continue to develop into running the organisation as it should. The system worked well and could so again given the chance.

[tmmorris]

At the moment my RAFFCA club doesn't think it can take under 18s but I've never really found out why. I was originally told 'child protection' so I volunteered to be the child protection officer. But I wonder if it's to do with RAF sport rules? Can under 18s e.g. airmen play in RAF sports?

[Cows getting bigger]

Halton RAFFCA has flown numerous cadets over the last 6 months.

[EnigmAviation]

Well said POBJOY, as to why they have no idea how to get the VGS' running again. Sadly too, a lot of the very experienced people have gone.


At the risk of being called a killjoy, I think that the RAF/GSA/BGA route would be even more of a huge management issue and take light years longer than solving the original problem.


Essentially it would sub-contract out the job of teaching Gliding and flying whether it be conventional and/or motor glider.


Because HQAC are led by people who mainly have NO flying experience they are essentially extremely risk averse. Because of this they would, quite frankly be so scared of any repercussions, that every conceivable risk would induce a nervous breakdown, atrial fibrillation or a cardiac arrest or the like, with the result that even if any limited scheme did surface, it would be so restrictive and so limited that it would be worthless.


At the moment the saga continues without any Ministerial interest, precious little accountability at Defence Select Committee and everyone in HQAC and 2 FTS feeling a bit like an old man in a dark suit who has wetted himself, and who feels warm and comfortable and nobody notices him !


:sad:

[cats_five]

Essentially it would sub-contract out the job of teaching Gliding and flying whether it be conventional and/or motor glider.

However in the UK I think it's fair to say the BGA are the experts in teaching gliding, plus there are many more BGA sites which will reduce the amount of traveling for most cadets. If you want them to learn to glide the BGA route seems the best by far to me, however if you want them to learn to square bash etc. it would be absolutely hopeless!

So let's hear it - what is the real point of ATC gliding? Teaching cadets to fly a glider, or something else hung on a bit of gliding?

[tmmorris]

As things stand, we can fly children, but we can't train them as they can't be members. My own children fly with me - and occasional friends. So it's OK for occasional experience but doesn't replace glider training.

[ACW599]

>What is (was) the cost of a Vigilant flight? I have 2500 hours on the things and I've never been told a cost per hour. I'd love to know what my tax rebate (VGS flying) was worth.<

Back in about 2009 one of the then Trappers told us (after several beers) that it was £525 per hour. At that time a civilian G109 was £70/hr.

[Fitter2]

As things stand, we can fly children, but we can't train them as they can't be members. My own children fly with me - and occasional friends. So it's OK for occasional experience but doesn't replace glider training.

Not sure who 'we' above refers to. At BGA clubs (or at least at mine) we have junior members training before their 14th birthday so they can go solo at age 14; that would cover ATC Cadet age range. Agreed, with their parent/guardian's permission, but mine had to sign an OK to do anything the ATC thought I should be allowed to, so I was airborne in an Anson aged 13, and flew a Cadet Mk 3 solo aged 16. If an individual club's rules don't allow it, change the rules.

[veep]

However in the UK I think it's fair to say the BGA are the experts in teaching gliding, plus there are many more BGA sites which will reduce the amount of traveling for most cadets. If you want them to learn to glide the BGA route seems the best by far to me, however if you want them to learn to square bash etc. it would be absolutely hopeless!

So let's hear it - what is the real point of ATC gliding? Teaching cadets to fly a glider, or something else hung on a bit of gliding?
I guess the difference is that air cadet gliding is set up to get as many people as possible experience in the air, whereas BGA gliding is more sports orientated. It's not affordable to teach every cadet to glide anyway so the emphasis is on experience.

Another concern I have (I admit I may be completely wrong here) is that if BGA gliding becomes an official ATC activity then some cadets may be able to "pay to play", you'd be introducing a lot of cadets to a sport that many wouldn't be able to afford.

[hobbit1983]

>What is (was) the cost of a Vigilant flight? I have 2500 hours on the things and I've never been told a cost per hour. I'd love to know what my tax rebate (VGS flying) was worth.<

Back in about 2009 one of the then Trappers told us (after several beers) that it was £525 per hour. At that time a civilian G109 was £70/hr.

HOW much? And...how??

[cats_five]

I guess the difference is that air cadet gliding is set up to get as many people as possible experience in the air, whereas BGA gliding is more sports orientated. It's not affordable to teach every cadet to glide anyway so the emphasis is on experience.

Another concern I have (I admit I may be completely wrong here) is that if BGA gliding becomes an official ATC activity then some cadets may be able to "pay to play", you'd be introducing a lot of cadets to a sport that many wouldn't be able to afford.

At my club a cadet pays £8.50 for a launch and up to 30 minutes in a club glider. Travel can easily cost more than flying.

[Arclite01]

Hobbit

The £525 per hour is misleading as it includes the cost of the entire organization amortised per asset. So multiple sites, staff, aeroplanes, winches, engineering backup (Hmm) etc. So actually £525 is probably not as bad as it appears (although still very expensive) whereas the £70 per hour for a local Grob 109 is based on much smaller outlay and dare I say it a lower engineering requirement etc................. (I'm not saying that the £525 is cheap or good value BTW.......... I'm just saying it is what it is - ' a number')

Cats5

The real issue is the numbers required. No Civilian Club can do the number of launches per day that a VGS does and still meet the requirements of the members (who pay a fair rate for the privilege). I can soon see a bit of a riot when members are told that there is a requirement to fly cadets (which would be underpinned by a MoD contract I am sure) or equally Cadets not getting flown and the contract soon being binned and the cadets back where they are now (no flying). Also a VGS has up to 6 or 7 two seaters on the line fulfilling the flying task of doing cadet training. I can't see any club having anything like that number of 2 seaters available for the task of training cadets - let alone members, as well as the lack of instructors available every weekend for full days, where I live the local BGA clubs are struggling to provide instructors for their members on a regular basis and they are also struggling with the usual problems regarding the membership age profile. (Edit: Not to mention 6 or 7 gliders and retrieve vehicles clogging up the landing area all day long !!) Lastly we come to the other problem and that is that Cadets are doing mainly low level training - BGA clubs teach training but always with a view to the student progressing up the badge ladder - really the two are not super-compatible.

I've broken my New Year resolution already and replied to this thread !!!:}

Arc

[cats_five]

"No Civilian Club can do the number of launches per day that a VGS does and still meet the requirements of the members (who pay a fair rate for the privilege)."

Really? Have you looked into how many launches per day a well-oiled setup with 1 more instructor than glider and plenty of helpers who know what they are doing can achieve, even if it's a 2-wire winch?

Granted you would need to look at the larger clubs, but there are a number of clubs that can provide a very impressive service. Even if it's not what the VGC did provide it's infinitely better than what they can currently provide... Also, most BGA clubs do air experience flying, generally about 20 minutes flying, and are generally happy to do something out of the norm if asked to do so.

[Arclite01]

Cats

The VGS would require an additional 100 launches a day on top of whatever is being done already to meet the requirements of the members.

It's the logistics and training model required by HQAC and ACO that kills the idea...............

I'd love to see it work - I think a bit of occasional AEF is one thing, a structured week in/week out operation similar to what the VGS provided is quite another..........

Just my 2 pennyworth.

Arc

[Frelon]

Cats5

You really have no understanding of what the objectives of Air Cadet gliding was/is.

As a 16 year old living in central London I wanted to fly. The only way to achieve this dream was to join the ATC as my parents were unable to afford for me to travel on a regular basis to either Lasham or Dunstable, and to pay for my gliding.

I went on a continuous (5 day) course at Hawkinge in Kent, had a travel warrant to get there, overnight accommodation provided by the RAF, and went solo in two days! No, I did not know how to thermal and would not have recognised a thermal if I saw one! What I did was to fly one of Her Majesty's aircraft (albeit a lowly Cadet MkIII) safely around the circuit three times. That boost in confidence has been remembered all my life, I was not able to drive a car but I was flying a glider. All for free!

Having gone solo I became frustrated and investigated how I would be able to continue gliding and wrote to the CO at Hawkinge and asked how I could follow my dream of becoming a gliding instructor! He replied that I could join a BGA club and gain experience that way but it would cost a lot of money! Or I could join an Air Cadet Gliding School (which operated at weekends) as a Staff Cadet. This involved doing the labour intensive jobs on a gliding site, opening the hangar doors at 08:00h, getting the kit out, DI the ground equipment, refuel as necessary, driving the retrieve Land Rovers during the day, driving the winches, putting kit away at the end of each day etc. All this in return for one or two flights (maybe) at the end of the weekend,

I contacted my local gliding school and was taken on as a Staff Cadet and I was able to travel to the gliding site using a "Forces Leave" ticket courtesy of British Rail from Clapham Junction because I was in uniform!

I spent my weekends doing this menial stuff (along with other like minded 16/17 year olds) but in return I was trained to fly gliders and supervised by the best instructors.

Yes, we did graduate to thermalling and even did a few cross-country flights in the Swallow, but the objective with the air cadets was still the same - to get them flying three safe circuits around the airfield. If they wanted to progress beyond that they would have to join a local gliding club.

We were well aware that to graduate to a civilian club would need more intensive training, more and better lookout, more spinning, more stalling etc, etc.

But as other posters have intimated no club (even Lasham) would have the capacity to add another 100 plus launches per day in order to achieve the MOD requirements of getting today's Air Cadets off the ground, without upsetting the existing club members.

What this "Pause" debacle has done is to eliminate that group of willing volunteer youngsters - gliding school/squadron Staff Cadets, a pool of switched on boys and girls from which the future gliding instructors would come.

Well done Staff Cadets, old and new, I salute you.:D:D

[dervish]

Nice post Frelon.

[Cows getting bigger]

It's pretty obvious the current BGA club set-up doesn't have shed loads of irreducible spare capacity. But there's a (potential) customer out there who has money, a (reduced) cadre of instructors who could be cross trained to civil requirements, a (reduced) number of gliding sites that could be managed by civilians and a captive audience of about 40 000 kids. It needs to be remembered that the vast majority of excellent VGS work in the past was done by civilians with the only RAF input being a set of regulations, some real-estate and the odd blue-suit.

Think outside the box and think 5+ years ahead. Shoe-horning into Lasham/Booker/Hus-Bos isn't the answer. But transferring oversight to the BGA is surely an option that needs to be seriously discussed? The civil flying precedent has been around for decades in the guise of the Air Cadet Flying Scholarship Scheme; Tayside Aviation have developed a very successful business around flying scholarships.

[Arclite01]

Cows

We have the kit and most of the sites ( a few gaps - Issue 1).

We need the aircraft back on the line (Issue 2) and the staff renewed (Issue 3) or replaced - then we can get the ball rolling again. The Motorglider life (Issue 4) and replacement is a bit of a red herring - we operated for years without them and we can go back to that.

The real major issue (Issue 5) is we need decisions, policies and momentum from the top to get going. The longer the delays or lack of decisions and the harder it is for the ACO to get cadets gliding again.

IMHO there will be an arrangement with some BGA or GSA clubs for some AEF and maybe even some scholarships but I don't ever believe it will scale up to anything like the VGS Operation. The cash side of things is small beer on the defence budget - a Million pounds is lost in the shouting but would get this whole fiasco back on the road............that's why no-one has really mentioned the dosh.

Whatever happens, the halcyon days of Mk3, T21, Venture and Vigilant, grass airfields, sole user sites and summer camps are long gone - we'll not see their likes again I fear..................

Arc

[veep]

At my club a cadet pays £8.50 for a launch and up to 30 minutes in a club glider. Travel can easily cost more than flying.
That is exactly my point really, prices are I think the same as at the site I fly from.

To progress you really need to fly about once a week. But first you need to get there which depending where in the country you are could cost your prospective cadet another £10-20 or more a week. £8.50 a launch and 30 mins isn't bad but some days you're not going to stay up for half an hour, either due to weather or training requirements, so you'll be looking at a few launches. Then there's food, club membership which itself can cost more than £100 at some sites. You're looking at a weekly cost that isn't affordable for many young people. - Yes, there are scholarships, but unless you're lucky they won't get you very far.

Added to that, in terms of sheer numbers getting every ATC cadet and RAF section CCF a winch launch a year would be an increase in BGA winch launches of about 20%. That's neither sustainable for the BGA nor good enough for the cadets.

[BEagle]

How are Pippa's so-called 'part-task trainers' going down with those who've been using them?

Are they proving sufficient to put the 'air' back into air cadets...:rolleyes:??

[boswell bear]

BEagle
In a word...... nope!

[Frelon]

Meanwhile in September 2015 - the last of 25 Skylaunch Evo twin drum (6.6 litre turbo diesel engine) was delivered to RAF Syerston (Air Cadets Central Gliding School). This completed the order placed by the British Air Cadets to replace their ageing Van Gelder winch fleet.

I wonder what the cost of maintaining this fleet of winches is? How are they doing?

Kerching!!!!!

[cats_five]

You are right I have no idea what the ATC do as I was never part of the organisation. I'm looking in from outside. Is that 100 launches per day - across the country or per site? How many sites?

The Skylaunch we have has proved to be very reliable after a couple of early hiccups.

[Arclite01]

Cats

That would be 100 Launches per Winch Launch VGS site per day (6 or 7 aircraft doing 15 launches per day each) x 13 sites across the country = 1300 launches per day.

There was no Aerotow facility at any VGS site although there was a Tug (Leased) at Syerston for Instructor Training and Spin Training sorties.

As an instructor on average I would do between 15 and 20 instructional trips off the winch per day - average 5 - 10 mins each (depending on soaring conditions and student training requirements). Launches capped at 30 per day for Instructors (I did that several times that I can remember).

This did not include the 13 Motorglider VGS which usually had 3 or 4 Motorgliders each and probably did 4 or 5 hours per Aircraft per day. Instructors there probably doing 2 - 2.5 hours a day average.

Limited interaction between Winch Launch and Motorglider VGS since few were collocated or near each other. Hence my knowledge of their Ops is 'Broad Brush'. Unusual to find someone experienced in both outside of Syerston where people qualified to operate both types.

Fairly substantial totals.

Arc

[Mechta]

Frelon, :ok: A superb post! (#3084)

The best people to advise the Air Cadets how to run Air Cadet gliding are all those people who have been doing it, as volunteers, for the last 75 years. Input from the BGA and the RAF is likely to be of benefit where appropriate, but there is precious little evidence that Air Cadet gliding instruction was not fit for purpose.

One big problem in perception is that the British Gliding Association is not what it says. Its members glide only when they cannot soar. An airliner can glide, but it takes a sailplane* and a sailplane pilot to soar in normal conditions. The BGA teaches gliding as a stepping stone to soaring and cross country flying. The Air Cadet Organisation teaches gliding as a means to learn take offs, circuit planning and landings, as well as learning teamwork and the discipline to safely operate potentially hazardous equipment.

Whist there is a lot of benefit to Air Cadets experiencing BGA and RAFGSA club environments, it is being the big fish in a small pool that gave Air Cadet gliding the edge it had. Training with senior cadets who are of an age that the trainee cadet can relate to, is very different to having an instructor with more diamonds than De Beers and who helped Percy Pilcher build his first glider.

It should also be borne in mind that BGA and RAFGSA clubs are largely volunteer-run for the benefit of providing soaring, and the training to get soaring, to their members. Those members did not join to be Air Cadet helpers, nor did they elect to sign up to a whole raft of regulations that the Air Cadet Organisation may consider necessary. BGA members are also going to want to know how their organisation and their own gliding is going to benefit by the BGA diverting from its current aims to provide Air Cadet-type gliding to Air Cadets.

*Not forgetting that hang gliders and paragliders are also soaring aircraft.

[cats_five]

And how many launches does each cade get? Per day? Overall? What is the point of flying them - an air experience flight, or an instructional flight?

[cats_five]

"Its members glide only when they cannot soar."

If we can't soar we can only glide! Pre-solo is frequently just gliding. Soaring and teaching soaring doesn't happen much pre-solo. Of course a club with a handy ridge is well-placed for teaching through the winter as more of the flying time is spent in the air compared with a circuits-only day, and I'm not sure the fact some (not many) instructors have a diamond or two is a problem, or indeed that they are not a similar age to the cadets.

[Arclite01]

Cats

It varies. Depends what sort of training they are getting.

1. Early flying used to be just Air Experience, later on it changed and all flying was instructional. Target was for Cadets on Basic training (GIC) that they got at least 3 launches a day - sometimes 5. Primary Effects of Controls type stuff.

2. If they were doing the later stages of Training then 5 - 7 launches a day, if they were on a continuous weeks course they could do up to 10 launches a day on the Viking - covered the full syllabus including further effects, selection of attitudes, speed and effects on controls, co-ordination exercises, airbrakes, stalling, soaring if conditions allowed, circuit planning and practice, Launch, Approach and Landing, launch failures and solo check plus solo circuit.

3. These were all taught in the standard way of Demonstration, Teach, Task, Check of Understanding and Student practice until a satisfactory standard is achieved. When judged satisfactory a progress check is undertaken by another instructor and training progresses until solo standard is reached. This is then assessed by an 'A' Category instructor and includes checking all the above exercises including Launch Failures. If OK student is sent solo. At all stages assessment is made.

4. Not all students go solo - if they do not reach the required standard they have their training reduced and a lower standard of proficiency award is given. I would think probably 75% of students make it to solo. The remainder are not sent solo - something of the military way of things and there are limited launches per student. Our target is (was) to get them all solo where possible and 100% solo records on continuous courses was not unusual.

5. We would run 4 - 6 1 week residential courses per year and on average sent 30 - 40 students solo on my VGS on these courses, in addition we would train probably another 12 - 20 students to solo standard over several contiguous weekends on top of that number. In parallel we were teaching ground school (basic aerodynamics, airmanship, syllabus specific stuff etc) on the white board. It's hard telling a keen Cadet that he doesn't have the ability to go solo - especially when they really want to go................. but it's something of a life lesson for them there.......

If you multiply the above by 13 (it was the same at all Winch Launch VGS) and then add the same number of solos in the Motorglider at the Motorglider VGS and you can see the throughput/output of the organization.

6. In the old days some Cadets would do 10 -12 launches a day on the Cadet Mk3 and potentially be solo in the circuit within 2 - 3 days. On the Viking it usually took us 4 days to get them to solo standard (included training on Launch Failures and a solo check). On average Cadets went solo on the Viking in about 28 - 30 Launches (unless they had a Soaring trip or two where multiple training exercises would be covered and reduce the Launch total). IMHO the standard of instruction and student experience improved greatly when we went to GRP gliders, although also (IMHO) the general experience of aviation reduced because the Airmanship for the older gliders was higher (people will know what I mean).

7. Advanced training in Thermal, Wave and Ridge Soaring is available to a few students who show aptitude but places are limited as it is not the primary task of the VGS.

8. All of this is undertaken by largely unpaid VGS staff who give up time and money to participate in an organization and operation they feel is worthwhile and changes lives - I know it changed my life and outlook on so many things.

I think that is all for now - but gives you an idea of the capacity and capability of the organization we have destroyed. And also an idea of how hard it would be for a BGA club to replicate (not to 'dis' the BGA at all - I've flown with a foot in both camps so I understand the whole shebang).

Hope this helps you to understand why the thread generates so much passions (anger) over how this has been handled by those above us. Betrayal is the best word.................

Arc

[Sky Sports]

Vigilant........£525 per hour!

My son has just gone BGA solo for a total cost of £520.50

What did he get for an outlay roughly similar to one hour of Vigilant operating cost?

Two years membership
90 launches
13 hours flying time

..........just saying.

[tmmorris]

Anyone got any experience of the RCAC gliding scheme? Doesn't that run under standard gliding club rules, albeit at military sites?

The Australians manage fine using a civilian gliding scheme:

Gliding - Australian Air Force Cadets (http://www.aafc.org.au/what-we-do/gliding/)

[Lima Juliet]

https://i0.wp.com/www.aafc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Gliding.jpg

I like the dark colours to increase the conspicuity on the Aussie gliders - it must make them so much easier to spot. Although, I'm not sure I would make the cockpit area blue/black as that must get incredibly hot in the Aussie sunshine?

[Arclite01]

Leon

I believe that glider is a PZL Krosno. Only about 30 were built. I always think it looks a bit 'awkward' almost like something that was built by someone who was told what a glider looked like but had never seen one...........

Strangely - it's built of metal and fabric (a la Blanik) at a time when the rest of the world was moving to GRP for sailplanes. And that wheel skid combo at the front - what were they thinking.................:yuk:

Arc

[boswell bear]

cats_five

What did cadets get from a Vigilant VGS?

The 13 - 16 year olds received Gliding Induction Courses (GIC 1,2 &3) learning Pitch, Roll and Yaw, many of these sorties were delivered by Staff Cadets in addition to the civilian and VRT staff.

16 year olds completed Gliding Scholarships (GS) which entailed being instructed to solo circuit standard within around 10 hours, 80% or so achieving their solo and gaining silver wings.

The next step Advanced Gliding Training (AGT) added advanced turns, crosswind landings and 5 solo circuits on completion gold wings are awarded.

AGT students were then able to apply to become a staff cadet at a VGS to receive further training to G2 (Pilot) Level enabling them to fly solo out of circuit.

The next stage G1 allowed a staff cadet to instruct GIC students in pitch, roll and yaw.

After a course at Central Gliding School Syerston a Staff Cadet could qualify as a B2/C Cat instructor and therefore be able to instruct GS students upto first solo.

A further course and that Staff Cadet could become a B1 instructor allowing them to teach upto AGT level and send second solos. In addition the cadet could supervise operations as duty instructor.

Most would age out by this point and either left for Uni, RAF, ATPL etc or stayed on as Civilian instructors or VRT uniform. Many going on to become A Cats and lifelong VGS instructors.

Viking units operated in a similar vein to the above.

So the organisation was/is all about continued development of the cadet not just a matter of getting kids airborne and this is why it cost £500 per hour and would be difficult for any BGA or GSA club to pick the pieces of this broken organisation.

[cats_five]

You realise that without knowing what 'Gold Wings', 'B1', 'A Cats' etc. means I don't really understand much of your post.

However for an inclusive budget of £500/hour I reckon many BGA clubs would be able to come up with something pretty good - for one thing by being able to pay instructors very well.

[planesandthings]

Having just worked alongside the Australian Air Cadets this week at the Gliding Club I've started working at in Australia, it is clear to see that it is a fine model for how the VGSs should run.

The RAAF rightly decided to run their gliding operations under the national body, the Gliding Federation of Australia, with modern DG1000s/Motorised K21s as trainers and an aerotow only operation, the old metal gliders are gone. Oh and they're on the civilian register, much easier!

There are experience flights just like GIC but the selection does appear tougher for scholarships, but that does produce pilots who more than likely will go a long way. There are major military facilities for gliding such as the Bathurst site but the cadets also operate out of civillian gliding clubs across the country midweek with absolutely no problem or struggle for capacity, they bring their own tug and gliders!

Cadets follow the exact GFA syllabus and progress through the various levels and get instructor ratings. Cadet progression stops after Silver C as the RAAF don't like their gliders being flown hugely cross country, but hey, that's far more than the VGSs provided even when they were fully operational. And even if you don't make the cut after solo you can at least continue your gliding with no issue at your local GFA club, unlike the differences between BGA and VGS which require retraining. Standardisation is key! It also allows Civillian Instructors suitably cleared to ensure there is never a lack of instructors.

The cadets have huge pride in their operation with dozens of qualified instructors (not just people doing experience flights) under 26. Many instructors having great success as a result in their applications to get into the RAAF. 2FTS take note, Australia is beating you, all of this has grown in the last 5 years!

[veep]

There still are a few issues with air cadets flying under BGA rules.

Solo and instructor standards differ greatly between the BGA and Air Cadets. Presumably if flying under BGA restrictions cadets would have to be trained to a considerably higher level to solo. The same applies for instructors, air cadet instructors aren't qualified to BGA standards and would require retraining. You could use BGA instructors but I don't think there would be enough of them.

Plus, operating air cadet gliding with BGA instructors will strain the resources of most sites. I'm not sure paying club members would be happy having their site taken over by the air cadet organisation on a regular basis. The strain on resources would seriously disrupt operations.

[The B Word]

I agree with some of your post but I don't believe there is any love lost between the movers and shakers in the BGA and the VGSs. To help with the instructor problem the BGA could come up with a bridging scheme between a A1/A2 Cat VGS instructor to become a 1/2 or Ass Cat BGA instructor, that should be relatively easy and just involve effectively 'differences training' and an assessment. I agree that for Full Cat BGA then the whole training process as for any BGA Ass Cat should be followed.

If there was a will there would be a way. For the BGA this would be an incredible injection of youth into the organisation (that tends to be a bunch of blokes at most BGA clubs I've been to) and for the Air Cadet gliding it would dig them out of a huge hole and free them from the ridiculous over-engineering and regulatory shackles of MAA land.

On that last point, if I had a fleet of 5 Grob 115E aircraft at a civvy flying club I would expect to see 5 aircraft available on the line (maybe 4 when annuals are due), however, put a roundel on it and apply MAA CAMO to it and then you are lucky to see 2 aircraft. We've got it so badly wrong. If the civvy clubs operating similar aircraft had a much higher fatal accident rate due to tech issues then I would agree to this over-engineering - but they don't! MAA regs were written for high performance war fighting jets and helos - you couldn't get any further away with a Grob 115E, a Grob 109 or a Grob Acro...

The B Word

[tmmorris]

Remember boswell_bear the 23% of ACO cadets in the CCF got nothing beyond GS in 99+% of cases. Most of this benefited only the remaining 77% in the ATC.

[Frelon]

It seems that someone at HQAC is actually listening as four cadets from 110 City of York Squadron have been some of the first to benefit from the new initiative giving Air Cadets the opportunity to glide at local civilian gliding clubs. This initiative is authorised and funded through Headquarters Air Cadets.

Have a look here (http://www.rfca-yorkshire.org.uk/12339-2/).

Perhaps this new initiative could be better publicised amongst the squadrons and with the cadets.

[Frelon]

Remember boswell_bear the 23% of ACO cadets in the CCF got nothing beyond GS in 99+% of cases. Most of this benefited only the remaining 77% in the ATC.

This has probably something to do with CCF units being attached to schools where the cadets had weekend studies and were not allowed to have regular weekends off to attend further training at a VGS.

[RUCAWO]

More the fact they leave the CCF when they finish school at 18 though saying that two of the staff at my local VGS ,including the CFI, were both CCF who stayed on as CGIs at 18.

[Innominate]

Frelon

I'm not sure that was necessarily the case: why would HQAC institue a policy ruling out weekend gliding for the CCF, when the schools concerned could simply refuse to let their cadets take up the offer? I've a feeling that CCF units tended to be offered week-long courses, rather than a series of weekends.

My gliding course was in the May half-term at Swanton Morley, but the nearest unit to my school was at Linton, some 40 miles from home and impossible to commute, even if I'd been offered a staff cadet post.

Like many others who have commented on this long-running thread, Air Cadet gliding made it possible for me to do something that I could never have afforded to do. It's a great shame that such an inspiring activity has ground to a halt.

[Frelon]

Innominate
I'm not sure that was necessarily the case: why would HQAC institue a policy ruling out weekend gliding for the CCF, when the schools concerned could simply refuse to let their cadets take up the offer? I've a feeling that CCF units tended to be offered week-long courses, rather than a series of weekends.

I don't think it has ever been a HQAC ruling, more a case of the CCF schools putting a block on it because of students' other weekend commitments combined with distance to travel obstacles.

At my VGS we carried out 3 continuous 10 day courses (Easter, Whitsun and Summer) every year with 20 CCF cadets (from CCF units all over the country) on each course. Great days.......

[A and C]

The Grob 115's are all maintained on the civil register under EASA 145, I could not posably comment about what would or would not happen under MAA CAMO.

[POBJOY]

Whilst i applaud the fact that Cadets are getting 'airborne' it just highlights how badly organised the system has become on the MOD/HQ ATC side.

In effect they are paying out 'twice' for the service, and the very idea of a 'self sustaining' operation (which it was) has gone.

ATC Gliding was more than just going flying; it was about having the opportunity to develop with the system and provide a cadre of (well qualified) staff to make the system cost effective, giving ordinary youth the chance to 'self develop' which at the end of the day was a benefit to the Country at very little cost.

The real breakdown has been with the leadership from HQ ATC not having a clue as what they have lost,and the wrong people holding important posts on the operational side of things.

With ever more base closures it was never going to be as we knew it,but with the correct people in post it could be a huge improvement over what it has become.

Time for a clear out of the 'clueless' and get some decent competent leadership back at the top.

[The B Word]

The B word
The Grob 115's are all maintained on the civil register under EASA 145, I could not posably comment about what would or would not happen under MAA CAMO.

A&C it's the worst of both worlds - EASA145 with added MAA 'dabbling'!!! No wonder the serviceability rate is so poor!

The B Word

[veep]

I agree with some of your post but I don't believe there is any love lost between the movers and shakers in the BGA and the VGSs. To help with the instructor problem the BGA could come up with a bridging scheme between a A1/A2 Cat VGS instructor to become a 1/2 or Ass Cat BGA instructor, that should be relatively easy and just involve effectively 'differences training' and an assessment. I agree that for Full Cat BGA then the whole training process as for any BGA Ass Cat should be followed.

If there was a will there would be a way. For the BGA this would be an incredible injection of youth into the organisation (that tends to be a bunch of blokes at most BGA clubs I've been to) and for the Air Cadet gliding it would dig them out of a huge hole and free them from the ridiculous over-engineering and regulatory shackles of MAA land.


If moving air cadet gliding over to BGA jurisdiction could be done then I think it would benefit all sides. As you say, BGA club memberships generally average not too far below retirement age, and almost entirely male (the percentage of female members at my club is something like 4%, and a few of them are wives of members who don't fly themselves). An injection of a younger and more "diverse" crowd would finally bring gliding into the 21st century.

It would also potentially open up several air cadet gliding sites to civil gliding (and vice versa).

Having said that, I think it'd probably take a minor diplomatic miracle to negotiate any sort of deal, as much as I'd like to see it.

[planesandthings]

People discussing that the VGS and BGA systems don't work together, the Australian Air Cadets do just fine operating under their Civilian National Body and as I mentioned, run a scheme that blows the ATC out of the water. The key is standardisation, the VGSs should've been kept standardised as much as possible to the BGA regulations, I know there are obviously some differences that can't be overridden but for example there is no need to teach a different type of circuit to how the BGA do!

As for the injection of youth, sure the Air Cadets getting involved would help, but the injection is already there, Junior Membership in the BGA is well about 1000 and quickly climbing, it is the biggest membership success of the current era. The Junior National competition is totally full of 50 top under 26 pilots, a British Junior Gliding Team who won gold at the latest junior world championships, instructor courses have juniors on them fully funded by various organisations, some who have gone instructing professionally across the world kick starting their professional aviation careers, we have flying examiners aged 19, dozens of solo pilots aged 14, maintenance inspectors under 20, junior club committee members. Just to name a few!

This might not be visible to every club but the structure and success is already there, and any addition by the air cadets would be building to that, not starting it.
I'm very much sure the BGA is willing to help as much as it can, but the ball is in HQACs court with all the regulation, clubs are not struggling to find capacity, they're struggling to find ways to deal with the bureaucracy some have been faced with.

[RUCAWO]

As for the injection of youth, sure the Air Cadets getting involved would help, but the injection is already there, Junior Membership in the BGA is well about 1000 and quickly climbing, it is the biggest membership success of the current era. The Junior National competition is totally full of 50 top under 26 pilots, a British Junior Gliding Team who won gold at the latest junior world championships, instructor courses have juniors on them fully funded by various organisations, some who have gone instructing professionally across the world kick starting their professional aviation careers, we have flying examiners aged 19, dozens of solo pilots aged 14, maintenance inspectors under 20, junior club committee members. Just to name a few

Could the BGA cope with an additional 41,000 cadets ? I am fairly certain the UGC couldn't cope with 400 and there are no other suitable gliding sites here.

[veep]

Could the BGA cope with an additional 41,000 cadets ? I am fairly certain the UGC couldn't cope with 400 and there are no other suitable gliding sites here.
You could run the current sites under BGA rules, and bring the gliders over to the civil register. That's the only way I can think of to create enough capacity.

[cats_five]

I agree with some of your post but I don't believe there is any love lost between the movers and shakers in the BGA and the VGSs. To help with the instructor problem the BGA could come up with a bridging scheme between a A1/A2 Cat VGS instructor to become a 1/2 or Ass Cat BGA instructor, that should be relatively easy and just involve effectively 'differences training' and an assessment. I agree that for Full Cat BGA then the whole training process as for any BGA Ass Cat should be followed.

If there was a will there would be a way. For the BGA this would be an incredible injection of youth into the organisation (that tends to be a bunch of blokes at most BGA clubs I've been to) and for the Air Cadet gliding it would dig them out of a huge hole and free them from the ridiculous over-engineering and regulatory shackles of MAA land.

What sort of bridging scheme could you envision? They would have to attain the same standard as a BGA instructor, why have two schemes to get the same thing? The biggest issue might be that to become a BGA instructor has required an FAI Silver 'C' for quite a few years.

It might also be necessary to get away from a 'gliding course'. However the experience at my club was the biggest impediment to ATC cadets having air experience flying at my club was the ATC. We were approached, we had an initial meeting, told them we couldn't do anything that summer as the calendar was full, said for them to talk to us the following winter when the flying calendar was being arranged, so they came back in the Spring which was too late. Then they asked that for air-ex all instructors be full-cats, where BGA air-ex flying is mostly done by BIs.

I'm still not clear if the current (or maybe I should say future) purpose of ATC gliding is air-ex, which could be as little as a single 20-minute flight, or some meaningful instruction.

Could the BGA cope with an additional 41,000 cadets ?

Probably not, but right now what flying is the ATC providing them with? How many hours a year (on average) did the ATC gliders fly?

[RUCAWO]

How many hours a year (on average) did the ATC gliders fly?

Locally with two Vigilants 600 GICs (20 min flt) and 50 Gliding Scholorships (minimum 8 hrs ) annually, also tasked for providing around 30-50 GICs per week for 3-4 weeks annual camp at Aldergrove, this was done on weekday evenings.

[planesandthings]

I have never suggested that the BGA would be able to replace the entire VGS structure with no changes or extra resources. I have simply suggested that the way Air Cadets in Australia glide alongside both clubs and airforce venues works, at the civilian clubs they bring the cadet aircraft as well as borrow some civvie club aircraft for the week, they sometimes even bring their own tug to provide extra capacity. The results have been fantastic with many young people becoming instructors supporting their local gliding club as well as their air cadet gliding unit.

This model won't fit perfectly everywhere, but it has been tried, Portmoak used to hold VGS weeks where the VGSs brought their own gliders and winch to operate, I didn't hear of any major implications to the club.

As for capacity, the volunteer gliding squadrons currently and for many for the foreseeable future (in this third year) have no capacity because no one is flying other than a few bods at Syerston and elsewhere trying to get seriously under-current staff back to some sort of level to fly, letalone teach.

So whatever capacity the BGA can provide should be welcomed with open arms, not bureaucracy where the few senior instructors of each club are the only trusted to fly with cadets, it's the cadets that suffer at the end of the day from the bureaucracy, not the clubs.

[Engines]

B Word,

I'd like to offer a response to your post of yesterday, where you mentioned the:

"ridiculous over-engineering and regulatory shackles of MAA land"

and said that:

"MAA regs were written for high performance war fighting jets and helos - you couldn't get any further away with a Grob 115E, a Grob 109 or a Grob Acro..."

I'd be the last person to defend the MAA - I firmly believe that their approach to the business of regulating military aircraft has been frankly poor, and has led to a loss of emphasis on the key elements of airworthiness. I really do understand your frustration.

But the problem that has afflicted the ATC glider fleet is not the MAA regulations. The grounding of this fleet of aircraft (and that's what is it - not some 'pause' nonsense) is down to basic failures to implement existing pre-MAA regulations between the mid 90s and 2014, when the whole cart came off the rails. The MoD and the RAF have failed to get anywhere near the standard of professionalism and basic competence required to bring simple aircraft into service on the military aircraft register.

Let's be clear - the RAF has been flying civilian school children in aircraft that were not safe. They were not safe because the MoD and the RAF chose not to carry out the very basic, straightforward, simple, well known (I've run out of adjectives here, but you get the point) procedures required to purchase aircraft and operate them in a safe manner. As the whole issue is being (conveniently) held under a cloud, let me offer, once more, a list of my guesses (and that's all they are) as to what they have failed to do:

1. Define the build standard of the aircraft being purchased
2. Contract with a fully authorised Aircraft Design Organisation (ADO)
3. Provide the repair manuals required to support the aircraft
4. Issue a legal RTS
5. Control the sub-contracted maintenance of the fleet
6. Carry out adequate QA checks of the aircraft
7. Carry out adequate QA checks of the documentation
8. Properly control modifications

Please note, all of this predates the establishment of the MAA.

Who's responsible? Start with the people who signed off the RTS, and make sure you give your senior air engineers a good kicking on the way past. And let's start getting this whole sorry mess pulled out into the open. If whistleblowing is what it takes, then let's get leaking.

Very Best Regards as ever to those who are now picking up the pieces,

Engines

[tmmorris]

CCF cadets did GS on continuous courses - mostly, our local VGS let us take up any slack in weekend courses where possible. The issue was that any CCF cadet selected for AGT would time out before they were qualified to instruct. In 14 years I've only had one selected, and as a boarder he had to turn it down as he didn't live close enough to get there in the holidays (and had school on Saturdays).

With CEP more CCF cadets will be in state day schools and if they live close enough then this might be a realistic option, but they'd have to join the ATC when they left school so they might as well join now...

[boswell bear]

Let's be clear - the RAF has been flying civilian school children in aircraft that were not safe.

They never looked or felt unsafe to fly and seem to have had a fairly good safety record.....was that down to luck?

[Cows getting bigger]

I think a better phrase would be 'the RAF couldn't demonstrate they were safe'.

[Engines]

Cows, Boswell,

I'd like to come back here - I think there's an important point to be understood.

When I say 'not safe', I mean that the aircraft weren't airworthy. There are lots of other components of what's now called 'air safety', including safe operation, correct handling, good SOPs, etc. I know that the RAF are one of the best organisations in the world at developing and ensuring safe operation of their aircraft. But if the aircraft's not airworthy, then one of your pillars of safety is gone.

And if the RAF can't demonstrate that these gliders are airworthy, then they're not airworthy. Why? Because one of the foundations of airworthiness is the maintenance of an auditable set of documentation that shows that the aircraft you brought into service was safe by design, that you've kept it at a safe standard, including maintenance and repairs. You're keeping the safety case valid.

Maintaining auditable airworthiness is important not because 'you might get done in court' but because the very process of maintaining those records, recording maintenance and repairs and keeping that safety case valid will give you warning of impending problems. Very often, the aircraft won't. And aircraft often give all the appearances of being 'safe' until they fall out of the sky.

So, when you have non-recorded repairs, failures of supervision of maintenance, and what looks like a failure to maintain a proper ADO in place, you are, by definition, damaging the airworthiness of your fleet.

So, perhaps I could more clearly put it this way - the RAF have been flying children in aircraft that weren't procured, supported and maintained as required by their own regulations. As a result, the RAF are unable to declare these aircraft 'airworthy'. They are therefore non-airworthy. And that, people, means that they aren't 'safe'.

Best Regards as ever to those rebuilding the airworthiness trail,

Engines

[Cows getting bigger]

Engines, I agree with absolutely everything you say apart from your "And that, people, means that they aren't 'safe'" bit.

Airworthiness confirms a level of safety. The lack of airworthiness, in itself, doesn't automatically mean that a system is unsafe. For sure, there is a much increased likelihood and undoubtedly an un-airworthy aircraft is less safe than an airworthy one but it may well still be (acceptably) safe; we just wouldn't have the ability to make such an assertion.

[Engines]

Cows,

I sincerely apologise for not making myself sufficiently clear here. We're in some danger of getting into a conversation about 'airworthiness' and 'safety' thats been had many time in many other threads on PPrune, and that's my fault entirely. Please let me try to put it more clearly.

'Airworthiness' doesn't just 'confirm a level of safety'. It's one of the key pillars of what the MAA chose to call 'air safety'. If an aircraft's not 'airworthy', then by definition, it's not 'safe'.

Moreover, 'airworthiness' isn't the processes and activities us engineers carry out - it's the end result. That end result includes:

An aircraft at a known and understood configuration
An approved statement of operating intent and usage
A safety case, underpinned by evidence and declarations from the ADO and independent test and verification that shows that the risk of accident or failure during operation is acceptable
An RTS built on these documented outputs that clears the aircraft for service
Maintenance procedures and processes that keep the aircraft airworthy in service
A system that keeps these documents up to date as the aircraft configuration changes

I'm sorry, but an 'un-airworthy aircraft' (one that doesn't have the above outputs) simply can't ever be 'acceptably safe'. Put another way, if you can't prove that an aircraft is 'airworthy', you simply cannot state it's safe for service. This is the issue at the heart of many accidents - RTS's have been signed off without the evidence to support them.

Can I please offer a thought here - achieving 'airworthiness' isn't some arcane, complex and bureaucratic process that only engineers get worked up over and never really ends. It's a relatively straightforward and clear process, which gets done all the time by many nations and services. For a fleet of gliders, it should have been a walk in the park. The fact that the MoD and the RAF between them haven't been able to achieve this is, in my view (and I know others will disagree) the big issue here.

Best Regards as ever to those working to make airworthy aircraft for our aircrew and passengers, wherever they are...

Engines

[cats_five]

How many hours a year (on average) did the ATC gliders fly?

Locally with two Vigilants 600 GICs (20 min flt) and 50 Gliding Scholorships (minimum 8 hrs ) annually, also tasked for providing around 30-50 GICs per week for 3-4 weeks annual camp at Aldergrove, this was done on weekday evenings.

So how many hours per year per glider is that, on average? I could list what our club 2-seat gliders fly, but 500 hours per year each is the number. Our 2-seaters fly every flyable day of the year, and in the evening as well during summer.

[cats_five]

Engines, thanks, and at present the gliders wouldn't be considered airworthy for the g register either.

[RUCAWO]

Say 200 Hrs standard GIC, plus 400 hrs average with the GS then add staff training probably 350 hrs annually each aircraft, operating weekends (into evenings as far as light and crew availability allow)and maybe 3-4 full week GS courses ,one at Xmas, one Easter two summer.

[Flying_Anorak]

Cows & Engines.... the syndicate I'm a member of have been operating a civvie G109B for a number of years to BGA standards. I'm happy to fly that and this hasn't AFAIK, been operated to any sort of MAA regulations as there is no need to.

Being selfish I guess I should be glad that the civvie market won't be flooded by a mass of ex-ATC Vigilants but on the other hand, it does make any chance of a 'cheap' Rotax engine upgrade unlikely!

[chevvron]

I was a Staff Cadet and P2 Grade pilot in the days of Sedburghs and Mk 3s. In those days (late 60s) MGSP or Mobile Glider Servicing Party, a group of RAF airmen technicians, would tour round the gliding schools on weekdays carrying out minor repairs, plus minor mods etc, even Minor or Minor* services and all went well.
This all changed of course when 'glass' ships replaced the 'wood and fabric' designs which just seemed to plod on and on.
The 'glass' ships which replaced the older designs were 'off the shelf' but ask yourselves, were they really suited to Air Cadet gliding, which required the VGS' and the Gliding Centres (there were 2 before they amalgamated to form CGS) to get as many cadets as possible to solo standard in an efficient manner ie as short as time as was safely possible.
I have no experience of a Viking equipped VGS but I would bet this took longer than it did at a Sedburgh/Mk3 VGS.
So was it really a good idea to replace 'basic' gliders with machines of much higher performance? On top of this, take away the ability of the RAF to service, maintain and keep comprehensive records of these new aircraft?
As I've said before in this thread (and I'm rather surprised no-one has taken me to task over it) it needs someone to produce a low performance glider suited to Air Cadet gliding needs rather than an 'off the shelf' product meant for soaring and long distance competitions.

[Arclite01]

Chev

The correct aeroplane was there all along - the ASK13 - it had mid range performance, a closed canopy, would have fitted the maintenance model, was the right price and would still have been in service today with no issues................ it was even in licence production with Jubi as well as Scheicher themselves. Note that a ready spares pipeline would be available as Scheicher are still trading (strongly) today (unlike Grob).

No idea why we never brought it.

Arc

[Shaft109]

Chev

The correct aeroplane was there all along - the ASK13 - it had mid range performance, a closed canopy, would have fitted the maintenance model, was the right price and would still have been in service today with no issues................ it was even in licence production with Jubi as well as Scheicher themselves. Note that a ready spares pipeline would be available as Scheicher are still trading (strongly) today (unlike Grob).

No idea why we never brought it.

Arc

The A/C type is irrelevant - if we'd bought them they'd be grounded too for the same reasons

[Innominate]

Arc

I take your point, but as the RAF had decided to phase out the fabric and wood trades - to the point where the RAF Museum technicians had to train BBMF technicians in fabric work - would the Ka13 have ended up being maintained by contractors?

[cats_five]

The A/C type is irrelevant - if we'd bought them [K13s] they'd be grounded too for the same reasons

Probably, and it could be even worse - quite a few are being grounded permanently with glue problems. Also they may not be suitable for a big porky P2 and a big porky P1 and they might have made the same sort of demands that meant they didn't get K21s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher_ASK_13

Empty weight: 295 kg (650 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 480 kg (1,058 lb)

[Arclite01]

Shaft 109 - I just answered the question from Chev. Maybe they would still be grounded maybe not.............

Innominate - the Maintenance model may or may not have changed I'm not sure. The trades were phased out because once the wood gliders had gone there was no real ongoing requirement to continue training people in those trades. Had the choice been made to continue with the wood/fabric/steel tube/fibre glass K13 then probably the trades would have continued (albeit in a reduced way) because the demand would have still been there. Government Policy was to outsource services where possible and maybe this would have fallen into that category anyway........................ so regardless of what the end airframe product had been I doubt that the old (efficient and proven quality) repair and maintenance model would have survived.

I do remember being at Syerston when MGSP existed and then when it became CGMF and ultimately contractorised. No one that I spoke to felt it was a good move particularly as I recall............... but it happened anyway. And now we reap the fallout. £1000's saved and £100'000's wasted...........and a fleet of (currently) useless aircraft.

IMHO Contractorisation is rarely about quality, but usually about saving £ or in most cases about passing responsibility for the end product to someone else so that if it goes 'belly up' they can say 'not my responsibility'. Standard risk Management has mitigations:

1. Avoid
2. Reduce
3. Transfer
4. Accept

We have focused on 1 and 3, not bothered with 2 and absolutely run away from 4.

Arc

[cats_five]

Shaft 109 - I just answered the question from Chev. Maybe they would still be grounded maybe not.............

Regardless of the trades, the paperwork is in a guddle (which is where the lack of airworthiness comes from) and I doubt that would have been any better had they brought K13s.

[Engines]

Arc and others,

I'd like to come back once again, just to address one or two points that seem to be emerging.

There seems to be a feeling that the cause of the problem is the new MAA regulations. Shaft109 seems to infer that any a/c type would be grounded. (I sincerely apologise if I've drawn the wrong conclusion here).

There has also been a reappearance of the view that the problems were, at least in part, due to contractorisation of the maintenance of the aircraft.

In my view, as I've said before, the problem is not the MAA regs. While they are not well structured and are hard to navigate, getting a fleet of utterly basic aircraft past them should have been a walk in the park. It's important to note the fact that the problems found in early 2014 must have built up well before the MAA regs were issued in 2010. The problem is that the MoD and the RAF have been unable to execute basic airworthiness management functions (e.g. recording of repairs) in accordance with their own (pre-MAA) regs.

As to contractorisation, if the RAF had gone for a wood and canvas aircraft, then going out to contract would have been a sensible move as the mainstream RAF wound down its own trade skills base. (Declaration - my late father was one of the RN's last people qualified to carry out repairs to wooden airframes - and that was in the mid 60s). As I've posted before, the problem doesn't lay with contractorisation, but rather with an apparent inability to properly manage and supervise the contracted activity. Honestly, it's really not rocket science. The fault here lies with the commercial and engineering personnel in MoD and the RAF whose job it was to make sure that they were getting what they'd paid for to the quality standards required.

Let me reinforce this, using my own direct experience. If a contractor were carrying out repairs to aircraft in my fleet, I would be getting my QA section to check that the people doing it were properly qualified, that they were using the right materials and processes, and that the job was being properly recorded. I'd also have got the first repairs thoroughly inspected, and had further checks carried out on a regular basis. This is not theory, or being wise after the event. This is what engineers did in real life where I served.

Blaming 'the MAA regs' or 'contractors' is understandable, but in my view, wrong. It lets those truly accountable off the hook. They need to stay on the hook, in plain view, and wriggle. Uncomfortably.

Best Regards as ever to those sorting out the wreckage,

Engines

[Shaft109]

Sorry I might not have been clear in my point -

Even if we'd have bought K13's instead of the Viking back in the 1990's the same paperwork situation would predate the MAA and the aircraft would be in the same state now.

i.e grounded

[Engines]

Shaft,

Thank you for clarifying and my apologies for making 2 plus 2 equal 5.

Your analysis is, in my view, spot on.

Engines

[Shaft109]

Normally I'd be in smug mode at getting something right but given this saga the only words I come up with are-

Sad

Disappointed.

Engines PM sent

[cats_five]

Sorry I might not have been clear in my point -

Even if we'd have bought K13's instead of the Viking back in the 1990's the same paperwork situation would predate the MAA and the aircraft would be in the same state now.

And they would be trying to manage this issue:

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/Airworthiness/042.pdf

AFAIK the fleet at Lasham are OK as they were built to order using a different glue.

[Arclite01]

Actually I think the glue issue would have been identified very quickly in the 'old' MGSP supervised environment. The regular 1st and 2nd Line servicing and regular deep servicing cycles would have spotted it. Since most aircraft never went more than 5 years between a full recover of all components. In addition the Tradesmen knew what they were looking for and also how to fix it (and document it). Unless you had seen the MGSP operation you would not believe just how capable and versatile (AKA Professional) they were...............

Arc

[EnigmAviation]

Absolutely spot on correct Engines, the problem here was , as you said, ab initio and continued until the pause, irrespective of whether it was RAF Direct labour, or contractors.


Sadly we don't appear to have any MP's who can penetrate the smokescreen and we also have HQAC Commandant spouting off about what a record year 2016 has been.


The problem isn't fixed yet, by a long way and I fear the story is going to continue, and there may even be some further shockers to come.............watch this space !;)

[dervish]

Best Regards as ever to those sorting out the wreckage

I echo this sentiment but really do wonder if MoD has anyone left who knows how to sort a minor problem like this out! Almost 3 years and barely a step forward.

[pr00ne]

With reference to the MAA and other aircraft types; the two Martin Baker operated but MoD/Qinetiq owned Meteor T7's were grounded for over four years over airworthiness issues.
They are now fully Qinetiq owned and are on the civilian G- register for MB use.

[Lynxman]

With reference to the MAA and other aircraft types; the two Martin Baker operated but MoD/Qinetiq owned Meteor T7's were grounded for over four years over airworthiness issues.
They are now fully Qinetiq owned and are on the civilian G- register for MB use.

The 2 Meteors were QinetiQ owned from the formation of QinetiQ. They were sold to MB last year by QinetiQ and transferred to the civil register.

[pr00ne]

Lynxman,
Typo, I meant to write MB in last line.

The original point remains though, the MAA "paused" them for four years during which no trials were possible as they were grounded.

[cats_five]

Actually I think the glue issue would have been identified very quickly in the 'old' MGSP supervised environment

Maybe, maybe not. Could it have developed in the 5 years between recovers? The BGA inspection regime needs holes cut in various places which I doubt they would have done, and back in 2004 when the accident occurred there were many more inspectors familiar with wood gliders and their foibles.

I found the accident report:

https://members.gliding.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/08/K7-2004-BGA.pdf

[chevvron]

Actually I think the glue issue would have been identified very quickly in the 'old' MGSP supervised environment. The regular 1st and 2nd Line servicing and regular deep servicing cycles would have spotted it. Since most aircraft never went more than 5 years between a full recover of all components. In addition the Tradesmen knew what they were looking for and also how to fix it (and document it). Unless you had seen the MGSP operation you would not believe just how capable and versatile (AKA Professional) they were...............

Arc
I agree. In my experience at 613, MGSP were an excellent bunch of guys who would never take an aircraft off line for longer than necessary and would always add an extra check in when visiting even if it wasn't really due.

[Shaft109]

Why sooooooo long to get the show back on the road?

No club or private owner would dither like this - people would be sacked if this were a commercial operation.

Vigilant and Viking are as simple as it's possible to get - their composite design is now 30 years old so the expertise exists to check and fix them - so I can't buy the argument they are more complex than they look.

Why?

[chevvron]

Why sooooooo long to get the show back on the road?

No club or private owner would dither like this - people would be sacked if this were a commercial operation.

Vigilant and Viking are as simple as it's possible to get - their composite design is now 30 years old so the expertise exists to check and fix them - so I can't buy the argument they are more complex than they look.

Why?
But they are high performance types which Air Cadets don't need; they just need an aircraft to teach cadets to safely do a solo circuit in the shortest time. Don't forget, with Vigilants, the trainees weren't even taught how to taxy them, the instuctor would line it up on the runway then jump out and the cadet would just take off, fly a circuit and land.

[3wheels]

Really? How did they get off the runway afterwards?

[VX275]

Chevron, you may not have taught cadets to taxy the Vigilant but at the VGS I was at they did, and quite early in the process too. Afterall the hardest thing to do in a Vigilant was to taxy it in a straight line and as a take-off and landing start or finish that way the ability to taxy was an important skill to master.

[EnigmAviation]

Don't forget, with Vigilants, the trainees weren't even taught how to taxy them, the instuctor would line it up on the runway then jump out and the cadet would just take off, fly a circuit and land.
WRONG ! Where on earth did you get that from? Long before a first solo, the Cadet WAS taught how to taxi.


:=

[Cat Funt]

But they are high performance types which Air Cadets don't need; they just need an aircraft to teach cadets to safely do a solo circuit in the shortest time. Don't forget, with Vigilants, the trainees weren't even taught how to taxy them, the instructor would line it up on the runway then jump out and the cadet would just take off, fly a circuit and land.

Utter c0ck. Exercise 5- Effects of Controls 2, Engine Start and Taxiing. And at my old sqn, the cadet had to deal with radio calls and a busy GA circuit in a very pretty part of the world with an awful lot of fair-weather flyers and visitors, so SA had to be good too.
Still used to get about a 50% solo rate in under 10hrs, though.

[cats_five]

But they are high performance types which Air Cadets don't need

The Vikings are certainly NOT high-performance. Nor is the paperwork.

[Engines]

Gents,

Might I request some help from the excellent PPrune community?

I'm trying to put together a timeline and some reasons for how the ACO glider fleet came to get where it has ended up, and there are (not surprisingly) some fairly big gaps in my knowledge. So, could anyone help me with the following:

1, When the 145 strong fleet of Vikings and Vigilants was purchased? Previous post indicated that it was a 'rush job' to use an in-year underspend - can anyone tell me what year that was?

2. Can anyone confirm who issued the Certificates of Design for the aircraft - Grob or Marshalls?

3. Can anyone tell me who issued the first editions of the RTS for these aircraft?

4. Was a repair manual (Topic 6) actually issued for the aircraft?

I'd be really grateful for any answers, PMs are fine if preferred.

Best Regards as ever to all out there on PPrune who care,

Engines

[WE992]

Viking deliveries commenced in Oct 85.

[VX275]

The Grob 109B and Scheibe SF36a were subject to a pre-view assessment at A&AEE in 1989 against a Specification issued in December 1988. The Grob was considered to be by far the better aircraft. (not helped by Slingsby presenting the Scheibe in a less than presentable state. Following that Vigilants were delivered in 1990 with Initial CA Release being issued in March 1990.

[ATFQ]

Please could someone help me out. Is the following future laydown of the 10 Volunteer Gliding Squadrons (Viking) that will remain - post retirement of the Vigilant in 2019 - still correct? 621 was at Hullavington but I don't know where its new home will be.

614 - Wethersfield (until 2020)
615 - Kenley
621 - ?
622 - Upavon
626 - Predannack
632 - Ternhill
637 - Little Rissington
644 - Syerston
645 - Topcliffe
661 - Kirknewton

[Arclite01]

621 Merryfield

[jmtw2]

621 Merryfield

and no announcement as yet on the choice of airfield for 614 from 2020 onwards.

[AutoBit]

Things may have varied within the various VGSs, but when I did my first solo circa 95/96 the instructor back taxied us down the strip after my final dual cct, jumped out and then told me not to taxi back. After landing he appeared at the side of the a/c and jumped in and taxied us back. That's not to say I never taxied, just not on the first solo.

[Arclite01]

In 1981 on the Venture we did the whole thing - taxied from the last 'full stop' - did the circuit and taxied back with the briefing being 'if you see me walking back - pick me up !!' (Thanks Flt Lt Tapson BTW.......... !!)

Arc

[biggles111]

645 - is a Vigilant unit not Viking

[ATFQ]

645 - is a Vigilant unit not Viking

But due to become a Viking unit when Vigilant retires from service in 2019?

[Arclite01]

I would assume that all the remaining Vigilant Squadrons will be re-equipped with the Viking when the Motorgliders are finally retired. Unless there is another major rethink of motorglider policy within the ACO (don't rule it out).

Bearing in mind that currently 3 years is a long time in politics (and a lifetime in terms of Unit basing policy), The real question is about the suitability of the various sites that currently house the Motorglider Squadrons for Winch Launch use, and the future of the sites..........

614 - Wethersfield (until 2020) after that who knows. I wouldn't rule out Honington, I would have said Marham but the arrival of JSF precludes that, and Wattisham (which rumours suggest is closing). Possibly closed altogether - although Debden may be a possible as an interim (it doesn't close until 2031)
615 - Kenley (No Change)
621 - Merryfield moved in from Hullavington (No Change in Glider type)
622 - Upavon (No Change unless the Army leave which means it will be part of a sell off IMHO)
626 - Predannack (No Change)
632 - Ternhill linked to whatever happens at Shawbury, not sure that choppers like the remains of winch launch wire distributed around the field. Used to be a winch launch site EONS ago so maybe........ if not why not Cosford ?
637 - Little Rissington - Could be suitable as a Winch launch site but prime asset for sell-off IMHO
644 - Syerston (No Change)
645 - Topcliffe - linked to whatever happens at Linton with Flying Training and MFTS. If that closes then the future of Topcliffe will almost certainly se the airfield sold off (a la Hullavington) but the Barracks retained (again IMHO). Certainly big enough to be a Winch Launch site.
661 - Kirknewton (No Change)

Just my two pennyworth

Arc

[dervish]

The discussion here has moved on from why was the fleet grounded, to acceptance and disposal of assets. Those responsible for this debacle will be smiling.

[Shaft109]

How about -

CGS - Syerston

North - Topcliffe

South - L Rissington

End

[Arclite01]

More likely in that scenario:

Regional Gliding Centres
CGS/644 - Syerston (Midlands)
615 Kenley (South East)
621 Merryfield (South West)
645 Topcliffe (North)
661 Kirknewton (Scotland)

Nothing for Wales and NI (typical) - all their Gliding done as continuous courses at ACCGS.

Arc

[Opsbeatch]

Arclite01 - Ref Debden, think that's a non starter due to the current tenants having placed a bomb dump in the middle of the main drag...

OB

[chevvron]

Arclite01 - Ref Debden, think that's a non starter due to the current tenants having placed a bomb dump in the middle of the main drag...

OB
Yet another way the army manages to ruin perfectly good airfields.

[biggles111]

But due to become a Viking unit when Vigilant retires from service in 2019?
Only if Linton closes and Topcliffe ceases to be a RLG. If not Topcliffe will not be a winch launched unit due to the FOD issues and the amount of airfield furniture apparently

[Arclite01]

I'm always surprised that there isn't a caveat that says that 'Airfield infrastructure must remain useable' when they transfer bases to the Army. Almost without fail the Army come in and destroy the airfield site. Almost so as it can never be taken back into RAF use. To my knowledge they have done this sort of damage of one type or another at:

Swanton Morley
Watton
Driffield
Hullavington
Brawdy
Lyneham
Leconfield
Kirton
Thorney Island
Bassingbourne
Catterick
Kinloss
and now Debden..............

Scandalous destruction of taxpayers assets, not that they care of course............

Arc

[Pegasus107]

Arclite01 - not factually accurate as Kinloss is available for AT a/c, Watton was used up to recently for VGS work, Bassingbourn has just degraded due to cost of keeping to flying status not necessarily due to Army involvement.

The big problem is the cost to keep runways up to a certain standard. Who pays? DIO, who look after the real estate, don't have the money as they can't keep what they do have up to a decent standard, let alone a strip of tarmac that the RAF might use.

For example, a strip of tarmac not a million miles from a big lake in Rutlandshire, hasn't been used in 6 years but its still in good state, good enough for anything that the RAF could throw at it. Just needs a sweep and spray the weeds.

But who pays........ Army? No, they don't have the need of a runway. RAF? No, its not part of their empire anymore. DIO? No, they can't afford it. But if the work was done, it would be the taxpayer who picks up the tab at the end of the day.

[Arclite01]

Peg

Years ago these would have been placed on 'Care & Maintenance' - I'm not even sure that exists any more....... 'Scrap it and Sell it' seems to be the new policy.

I agree with your post BTW............

Arc

[cokecan]

Little Ris is a housing development worth £lots - easy access to Cheltenham, Oxford, M40, M5 and the M4 corridor - Cala could ram it full of four and five beds at £800k a-piece and sell every one before it had been built...

[jmtw2]

Arclite01 - not factually accurate as Kinloss is available for AT a/c, Watton was used up to recently for VGS work, Bassingbourn has just degraded due to cost of keeping to flying status not necessarily due to Army involvement.

The big problem is the cost to keep runways up to a certain standard. Who pays? DIO, who look after the real estate, don't have the money as they can't keep what they do have up to a decent standard, let alone a strip of tarmac that the RAF might use.

For example, a strip of tarmac not a million miles from a big lake in Rutlandshire, hasn't been used in 6 years but its still in good state, good enough for anything that the RAF could throw at it. Just needs a sweep and spray the weeds.

But who pays........ Army? No, they don't have the need of a runway. RAF? No, its not part of their empire anymore. DIO? No, they can't afford it. But if the work was done, it would be the taxpayer who picks up the tab at the end of the day.

Pegasus 107, or anyone else.

Do you know why the VGS (611?) moved out of Watton? Is the airfield now derelict/beyond use?

[ATFQ]

jmtw2,

The Air Cadets website published a news article dated 2nd December 2013 about 611 VGS that stated 'Following the disposal of Watton, Viking operations ceased in Easter 2012'. It isn't clear what state the airfield operating surfaces (including single tarmac runway) are in after 5 years of no use or use for farming/other purposes.

[Arclite01]

Watton used to be my VGS. Flew over it last week.

Unused since 2012 and sold off to local farmer (who is gradually selling off bits to the local housing estate that now encroaches on the former airfield. Grass areas all ploughed up for crop. Perimeter track being broken up for hardcore in support of housing estate.

Runway being used to store bales in plastic although about 300 meters of the original 2000 meters at 1 end appears clear but I think is used as hardstand for farm machinery at various times.

Air Cadet Hangar still there but unsure what is stored in there. Local farmer got a bargain Ag store there !!

Original C Type hangars long destroyed (over 10 years ago). The VGS asked for one of the 4 remaining C type hangars for use as a base when they moved in but was told by DIO that it would cost £30K to refurb for use. Too expensive................ so they built a new hangar (about 1/4 the size) for £60K instead. That is building the farmer now has as an Ag store, full power and water etc, concrete base and sliding door facility (65 feet aperture) and internal portacabins (not included in original price).............

Vandalised MoD sign on main road still forlornly says '611 VGS'

So sad. It'll not see airfield use again IMHO.

Arc

Edit: I believe the sale price was £1.5M - ridiculous for over 600 acres of land plus hardstand and runway. In East Anglia now, Ag land is approaching £10,000 an acre. Another brilliant commercial decision by the MoD...........

[Auster Fan]

Yes, I was the WGLO when 611 were told to cease flying at Watton....

As an aside, it seems that the end of the RAFVR(T) commission is nigh:

http://http://www.raf.mod.uk/aircadets/newsandevents/index.cfm?topic=1C52325B-F6AD-6C90-D1AD0277EBE01144&storyid=513F3338-5056-A318-A82D6D97895E4672

[brokenlink]

Auster Fan, quite correct about the demise of the VR(T). Another nail in the coffin of what used to be a very good organisation, staff are already suffering from low morale, this will just make matters worse as people vote with their feet. Not even sure this change is legal, I thought you could only have your commission taken away (irrespective of whether a lesser one is on offer) if you had fallen foul of Military Law. Be interested if anyone has a qualified view on this. Mods, please feel free to move if this is too much thread drift.

[jmtw2]

Arc,

This is sad but probably to be expected I suppose. You don't happen to have any photos do you?

Pity the grass has all been ploughed up. Was the grass used for Viking launches and/or landings by 611 or just the runway? And how many take-off/landing runs were there - just runway direction (11/29) or were there others for when there was a significant cross-wind?

Interested to know the facts, as are a few other people, if you can help.

jmtw2

[Onceapilot]

Must admit, I thought the initial grounding of ATC gliding was a short-term correction of some maintenance errors. :oh: Unfortunately, I now suspect that we can see the murder of the ATC in progress!:mad:

OAP

[Shaft109]

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/322701/response/810456/attach/4/20160511%20MAA%2015%20CAMO%200051%201%20Gliders%20CAMO%20Ini tial%20Approval%20Audit%20Report.pdf

In case Engines is still looking

[Wander00]

AusterFan (as I am having learned to fly in J1/N s) -the link seems to have been taken down

[tucumseh]

Shaft109

I've read the report you provided a link to. To pick just one aspect; the repeated use of the phrase "self-declared area of non-compliance". This is clearly a euphemism for "There's no way we can be compliant, because there is an interdependency whereby MoD/MAA must provide complementary core services, which it doesn't". Given these core (centralised) services were largely chopped, and the subject of numerous highly critical reports throughout the 1990s warning of the effect, it begs the question how other project teams cope.

If I may refer to another thread running on pprune. Nowhere does this gilder report mention, for example, a safety case or the status of the Master Airworthiness Reference. Yet, MoD acknowledges that the Hawk didn't have the former, and so the latter was fatally compromised. I'm afraid this smacks of the glider fleet being picked on as an easy target, perhaps to demonstrate that the new MAA regime is robust. Yes, there are organisational faults, but close analysis reveals many have arisen as a result of being denied resources, not because they don't know how to use or apply resources. One example is not having access to electronic data storage and management systems which others in MoD have had for 25 years and more.

I recommend other projects teams read this and ask themselves - would we pass? I know the answer, and I'd wager the "failings" are the same. I'd also like to see the MAA's recommendations, which should be the same as every ART report from 92-98 - implement mandated regulations. Only then, could you conduct a fair audit on the project team.

To paraphrase Engines - best of luck to those having to cope with this.

[Arclite01]

jmtw2

No pictures I'm afraid.

There was the main run which was on the alignment of the runway. We used the hard runway and the grass for both take offs and landings.

There was a cross runway run also available for when wind direction and speed dictated it. I have a feeling that is was about half the length of the main run and was all grass. It was rarely used as I recall as usually we stuck to the main run whenever possible.

Arc

[ATFQ]

Arc,

This is sad but probably to be expected I suppose. You don't happen to have any photos do you?

Pity the grass has all been ploughed up. Was the grass used for Viking launches and/or landings by 611 or just the runway? And how many take-off/landing runs were there - just runway direction (11/29) or were there others for when there was a significant cross-wind?

Interested to know the facts, as are a few other people, if you can help.

jmtw2

jmtw2,

Google Earth shows what Watton airfield used to look like before it was handed over for farming. You can see clearly that there was a grass cross-runway, which was important (as you suggest) for coping with the Viking cross-wind limits. These limits were (and still are as far as I know) 5 knots for a cadet solo and 11 knots for Grade 1 pilots and Qualified Gliding Instructors.

Someone out there may have some more recent photos for you to take a look at so you can see what state the airfield's in now.

[Arclite01]

.................and as for that business about removal of RAF VR(T) commissions

welcome to the cub scouts and brownies organization. Will they be issuing woggles ??

Arc

[Chugalug2]

tuc:-
implement mandated regulations.

For all the many threads that have run in this Forum re Airworthiness Related Fatal UK Military Air Accidents, or mercifully this one which doesn't, all can be reduced to these mere three words. They are not directed in the main at those who do the flying or do the servicing, they are directed at those who work in the dusty MOD corridors and whose preoccupation for too long has been damage limitation and the cover up of past scandal.

Principal among those of course is the military air regulator, aka the MAA itself. If ever there were an up to date illustration of the New Testament Parable told in Mathew 7, v 24-27, it is the MAA:-

Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it didn't fall, for it was founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn't do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.

I would commend some Bible reading in those MOD corridors. No acronyms of course, and the references to rain and flood are apocryphal before stats relating to them trigger a paper extolling the initiatives taken to counter water borne hazard. We once had an Air Safety System that worked. Then it was attacked by RAF VSOs for short term gains at the expense of safety and it has never recovered. In retrospect it was built on sand. Before it can be rebuilt it must be built on rock, ie independent and safe from future such attack and interference.

It took HM Coroners to tell the RAF that there is something wrong with their bloody aircraft. It takes ancient scripture to recommend a long term fix.

[Wander00]

Aah Watton, back in the days of Canberras and varsities and other odd things

[Engines]

Shaft,

Thank you - and yes, I'm still looking. Your very helpful post triggered me to do something I should have done a long time ago, and go to the 'what do they know' site - I'm working through that now. Once again, my sincere thanks.

First response - the link you posted was the MAA's report on their CAMO Initial Audit Approval Report carried out in Dec 15. There's a lot there, and I'll post later once I've assembled my thoughts, but here are a few initial thoughts.

The MAA report helpfully tells us that this wasn't the first 'Initial Audit' - the first was carried out in December 2013, which was a 'fail'. Now this is interesting, as the DHAN 86 issued by OC2FTS in April 14 referred to a 'trial of the newly created CAME' at which 'evidence emerged' that 'called into question' the 'type and continuing airworthiness of the...fleets'. That now appears to be an example of being 'economical with the truth'.

Actually, it's a lie. In December 2013, 2FTS badly failed their initial CAMO approval audit. No 'trial'. OC 2FTS even had the gall to say in the DHAN that it was 'pleasing to note that the MODCAM process had proven its design utility'. A b*****d child of a phrase, a piece of mangled English that looked suspicious at the time. Now we know why.

This 2013 audit opened up a can of worms. Such a huge can of worms that it took two years to get ready for another audit. Which they failed again. The final 'Initial' (!) MAA approval finally happened in June 16.

I've also found the Feb 16 2FTS response to the failed audit in Dec 15, listing in detail their proposed analysis of why the problems were there, and their corrective and preventative actions. If anyone wants an example of what's going on with the UK's military airworthiness management, this could be a textbook example. In every one of the 25 issues raised, the response is a cut and paste version of the same story:

1. Analysis- The reason we had the problem was a lack of resources
2. Corrective action - We will get more resources to establish a CAMO team and prepare a compliant CAME plus processes.
3. Preventative action - We have got more resources, and we are establishing a CAMO team and reviewing our processes.

So, nobody failed to do their work (or as Tuc would say, 'follow mandated regulations'), the solution is more people, and it will all be OK because we'll pass the audit.

Hoop. I'd have rejected it and set it back for some proper staffing. There's more, but I'll just bore everyone. More digging required, though.

Best Regards as ever to all those having to tick the boxes while doing the actual airworthiness engineering stuff,

Engines

[Auster Fan]

Arc,

This is sad but probably to be expected I suppose. You don't happen to have any photos do you?

Pity the grass has all been ploughed up. Was the grass used for Viking launches and/or landings by 611 or just the runway? And how many take-off/landing runs were there - just runway direction (11/29) or were there others for when there was a significant cross-wind?

Interested to know the facts, as are a few other people, if you can help.

jmtw2
I fly out of Old Buckenham, so next time I'm up I'll take a couple of pics. It's a sad waste of an airfield, as indeed is Swanton Morley...

[Shaft109]

I ironically spotted the link on the Wikipedia VGS page- placed in plain sight.

[zetec2]

Wander00, Ah Watton, don't forget the Lincolns !.

[L-H]

Or the Blenheims! Also the USAAF PR Mosquito's and Spitfires.

[Wander00]

Lincolns before my time, but my boss at City of Ely ATC 1094 Sqn, Bob Browne, had been an observer on Blenheims at Watton - but did not say much, guess he was one of few survivors

[Lima Juliet]

I've just watched this and it made me feel happy and sad. Massively happy for young Master Tait for achieving solo standard on his 14th birthday but incredibly sad for the Air Cadets that will miss out on this incredible achievement. It will be 34 months since the 'pause' in Air Cadet Gliding in a few days' time and how many of these have missed out...

5-CzouIegaM

Also, this was flown at Easterton where the RAFGSA Fulmar Gliding Club operates.

Also, i see that Great Britain are World Champions in gliding again. Come on HQ22 and HQACO - pull your finger out!

https://www.gliding.co.uk/2017/01/21/world-championship-glory-team-gb

LJ :sad:

[airsound]

Leon - thank you so much for posting that wonderful film. Watching 14-year-old Ruari filled me with pride in his ability and good fortune. Indeed, it caused a beery tear to course its way down this seamed old cheek.

Also what excellent news from Oz about GB winning Team Gold.

On the other hand... as you say34 months since the 'pause' in Air Cadet Gliding in a few days' time and how many of these have missed out...
But thank you again for showing me something upliftingly positive.

airsound

[ATFQ]

LJ,

A magnificent achievement at such a young age. Just goes to show what young people are capable of.

[cats_five]

I know his father who is an excellent glider pilot.

[The B Word]

A little bird tells me that a 14 year old went solo at RAF Halton today with the RAFGSA. Further his instructor is an Air Cadet officer. All that was missing was the ACO and 2FTS - maybe that's why they are shutting the airfield as it's getting a little embarassing that this small grass airfield has flown more Air Cadets and local children in the past year than the mighty home for Air Cadet gliding has in the past 3! :}:}

[boswell bear]

Vigilants grounded (sorry paused) again this weekend!

[Wander00]

Congratulations to Ruari and his instructors - and to Team GB

[X643]

Instructors at 643VGS, RAF Syerston recently resumed their weekend gliding in preparation for receiving cadets for training in April/May 2017

[praesta2]

I thought that 643 VGS disbanded in 2012 becoming part of 644 VGS

[planesandthings]

Again, 2FTS should take a leaf out of the BGAs book, especially as it's taken 34 months to just get a memorandum of understanding...

To list a few things

We now have dozens of 14 year old solo pilots.
Dozens of under 16s with Bronze Badges (Licence)
People as young as 16 taking part in FAI Rated Competitions and going through courses to be able to inspect and maintain aircraft.
Instructors as young as 16 and professional instructors as young as 18.
A British Junior Team who won gold at the last Junior World Gliding Championships. (Congratulations again to the Adult Team who won multiple medals at the recent world championships)

There are around a 1000 Junior Pilots in the UK from all different backgrounds and financial circumstances within the BGA across the UK, it is one of the few membership demographics that isn't in decline. Civillian Gliding has a far brighter future than 10 years ago, the reverse is true for the air cadet gliding programme.

As Leon said, many have missed out and have been lost to gliding probably completely, no doubt we would've had even more talented pilots than we have now in the BGA as well as running and ensuring the future of VGSs for decades to come.

We can only continue to wait in hope...

[The B Word]

The 'little bird' speaks the truth:

Young glider pilot breaks RAF record on solo flight - Bucks Herald (http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/young-glider-pilot-breaks-raf-record-on-solo-flight-1-7790491)

Well done Cadet Corporal Sam Smith and his solo achievement at 14 yrs and 4 months (not via Air Cadet gliding, I hasten to add!!!). :D:D

The B Word

[Frelon]

Well done that lad! But will the Air Cadets let him wear silver wings on his uniform, unless the rules have changed, I suspect not??

I bet they have drawers full of wings gathering dust since this "pause" debacle started.

Go on, let him wear them, he has done well despite the obstacles!!

[Sky Sports]

I've just read over on the Air Cadet Central forum, that, under the new 'progressive training syllabus', there will be a set of wings available for cadets who have gone down the civvy route. Basically a pair of wings with a big 'C' (presumably for civilian flying) in the middle.

[POBJOY]

If the Cadet carries out the required solo's to the BGA B cert he is entitled to wear the enamel BGA B 'pin'.
Thats what we did back in the 60's so no reason not to now i assume.

Actually it rather smart on the uniform and suitably discreet.

Mind you 'the system' was actually organised properly in those days and HQ staff backed up the schools to the full.

The 'cert' came as a little blue book signed by Lord Brab and very kindly requested the holder to be offered 'assistance' if required (what great times)
54 years since Geoff and Doug sent me off at Swanton, and i still remember it; my goodness it makes you realise how well the cretons have screwed it all up since.

[Wander00]

Pobjoy, I was there Oct 62 - whilst Cuban Missile Crisis was running. Got A&B on Day 1 (I had PPL from Flying Scholarship) so spent rest of the week pulling and pushing gliders, and the hangar flight dual most evenings. Next time at SM was in 1987, doing the Command Accounts Inspection! When I soloed again at North Hill 50 odd years later , BGA found my records and issued me a duplicate A&B, with the original photo, for £5 instead of whatever it is they now charge for a new certificate!

[POBJOY]

WOO Just shows what an A&B leads to although; i bet it did not exceed the thrill of your first non power solo.
They made a mistake on the min no of launches one did for the course so i had to do an extra couple to make it right for the book.
Enter Douggie for two simulated ground attack details and suitable beat ups.
Any later involvement for me with this exercise i can blame on him.
He was actually smiling after his demo.

[POBJOY]

It always make me smile when reading the 'request for assistance' in the little blue book. It would make a great 'Mr Bean' moment if one was in some 'pickle' due to weather or a non radio vintage aircraft arrival at some USAF nuke base.
Imagine the scenario; having arrived unannounced and prob undetected (due to low flying) at a B52 base in C.... weather. hundreds of armed helmeted bods surround the machine as oily driver removes goggles and looks for a friendly face. Command jeep arrives with much decorated O I/C and descends upon hapless individual. Good morning General (hoping that is a suitable increase on his rank) sorry about this but my good friend Lord Brab has a note for you !!!!
The mind boggles !!!

[Fitter2]

Blue book? One of must be colour blind.

It did take me a long time to fill in all the other available entries on later pages, and the old licence only goes up to three diamonds. I never got to wave Lord Brab's request at a Russian with a gun.

http://i65.tinypic.com/2zf4je8.jpg

[POBJOY]

Quite correct Fitter although i do not have the original on hand to view,and was confusing the colour with the similar era 3822.

[zetec2]

I've got one of those, same green colour, A,B & C June 1960

[wub]

Mine is green too, 1967

[4mastacker]

My 1964 book is green as well. Certificate # 40166.

[Andy H]

Mine is green too. But having looked at the 55 year old photo on the last page I'm wondering if it was really me. No beard you see.....;)

[Fitter2]

My 1964 book is green as well. Certificate # 40166.

So about 11,500 A&B certs from March 1960 to some time in 1964, the vast majority of whom would be through the ATC VGS system

How many in the last 4 years ?

A high proportion of the RAFGSA and BGA glider pilots of my generation started with the ATC; many of the RAF personnel I served with in the '60s came by that route. What have we (the UK) lost?

[cats_five]

How many in the last 4 years ?

Almost none from the ATC.

[POBJOY]

I am not aware when the decision was made to only have one solo at the end of
the standard gliding course;but what was lost was the ability to apply for an internationally recognised certificate that was the start of a potential journey through gliding.
Many Cadets progressed to a single seater and gained 'c' and even bronze (whilst still in the ATC) which was the pointer towards a silver later.The clubs were all familiar with that route and therefore an established link was there which suited all.
The organisation 'missed the boat' on starting an upgrade when they rejected the T53 and then failed to see the benefit of improving the equipment when at least there was some interest in doing so. The T53 may not have been the answer but a licenced built Blanik certainly would have been a benefit both for the organisation and the ability of Slingsby to stay in the business and develop 'metal' skills. With so many Cadets having been encouraged to 'self develop' they would have been a good source to inject 'youth' into the clubs.The whole point of conventional gliding was the Cadets had lots of activities to get involved with and lots of aircraft handling on a real airfield.
This was the unique facility that the ATC offered, and what the organisation delivered so well,and what has been thrown away by those charged with looking after the operation. All they had to do was to keep it as good as it was; being clueless they could not even manage that.

[Wander00]

Pob - you are not wrong. One of the jewels of the range of youth movements has sadly been lost - our offspring will not thank us for it

[Corporal Clott]

Latest rumours are "RAF" Swanton Morley and "RAF" South Cerney may be returning for gliding purposes...

If true then it would be:

Kirknewton
Syerston
Kenley
Little Rissington
Predannack
South Cerney
Swanton Morley
Upavon
Ternhill
Topcliffe (until the end of Vigilant)

As far as I can work out. Anyone any closer to this to know the final bed down?

CPL Clott

[Arclite01]

Is that Swanton Morley as a replacement for Wethersfield and South Cerney as a replacement for Merryfield ??

I don't get that. South Cerney is so close to Little Ris as makes no odds, except that the site may have a longer life in MoD hands. Swanton has trees all over it and the Army have already said the site is closing in 2023................and Swanton is inside the Norwich CTA ............

unless these 2 are additional short term 'flexibility' sites..................

Arc

[brokenlink]

Swanton Morley is slated for closure surely when the Army pulls out in a few years time.

[terry holloway]

Swanton Morley is slated for closure surely when the Army pulls out in a few years time.
That's what it says in the local papers. Anyway, I would have thought the airfield surfaces would be poor?

[pr00ne]

Swanton Morley is scheduled to close in 2031.

Plenty of time to operate a VGS and/or a regional Gliding centre, just like they used to.

[cats_five]

Is it time to bin this lot and fund the BGA with lotto money to run the 'Air Scouts' then the Air Cadets can be affiliated to fly. Give them all the old air frames and let them work it out.

It's the BGA clubs which do the flying, not the BGA itself, and I doubt many of the clubs would welcome an unworthy airframe being dumped on their doorstep. It's quite enough to keep their own gliders (and paperwork) airworthy.

[cats_five]

PS most of us don't wear uniforms or badges at BGA clubs, or salute, or any of the other military things the ATC get up to, plus there seems to be confusion about what the ATC want to achieve at present - an airex flight, or an attempt to teach a cadet to fly. The two are very different, if you don't know what you want to achieve you won't achieve it...

[ATFQ]

Is that Swanton Morley as a replacement for Wethersfield and South Cerney as a replacement for Merryfield ??

I don't get that. South Cerney is so close to Little Ris as makes no odds, except that the site may have a longer life in MoD hands. Swanton has trees all over it and the Army have already said the site is closing in 2023................and Swanton is inside the Norwich CTA ............

unless these 2 are additional short term 'flexibility' sites..................

Arc
And half of the staff of 614 VGS (Wethersfield) live more than a 2-hour drive from Swanton Morley. Given that we are dealing with volunteers, this is an important factor in considering the viability of Swanton Morley as an operating site if future output is important.

[jmtw2]

And half of the staff of 614 VGS (Wethersfield) live more than a 2-hour drive from Swanton Morley. Given that we are dealing with volunteers, this is an important factor in considering the viability of Swanton Morley as an operating site if future output is important.
There's also another issue tied in with the long 'commuting' times, which compounds the problem.

The maximum staff working day ('Crew Duty Time') of 12 hours includes travelling time to and from an individual's private residence.

[EnigmAviation]

PS most of us don't wear uniforms or badges at BGA clubs, or salute, or any of the other military things the ATC get up to, plus there seems to be confusion about what the ATC want to achieve at present - an airex flight, or an attempt to teach a cadet to fly. The two are very different, if you don't know what you want to achieve you won't achieve it...

Cats Five,

I have news for you ! In the VGS there has been no such thing as Air Ex, that only occurs in the AEF's on Tutors ! For many years there have been three threads to VGS Cadet training, GIC = Gliding induction Course in three distinct stages teaching effects of controls. Gliding Scholarship = the full training to solo standard, and AGT = Advanced training for Cadets U/T who are Flight Staff Cadets. And finally - no saluting as headgear is banned as a FOD hazard ! Thus we all knew exactly what the standards were, and operated very efficiently to those different criteria. :ok:

[Fitter2]

In the 1950s there were arrangements for an ATC Squadron to visit a VGS and give each cadet a single Sedburgh circuit, with the rest of the day spent cleaning and ground handling gliders plus anything else we could do (under excellent supervision). A minimal amount of RAF discipline, and smartness enhanced ones place in the queue. I don't know if Rufforth was any different from the rest of the VGS world.

[Mechta]

A minimal amount of RAF discipline, and smartness enhanced ones place in the queue.

So if you were the one hooking on the winch cables, and had the seasonally dependent green or brown knees and elbows, you could be pretty certain of getting the hangar flight? :sad:

[Arclite01]

Fitter

Any VGS I have served with would have been disappointed to give AEG Cadets any less than 3 launches in a day.

The target was 3 - 4 launches and sometimes 5. There was not a limit on the number of launches that could be done in a day at that time. In later Viking days there was a more rigid fatigue monitoring programme and launches for GIC seemed limited at around 3 per cadet/day (AFAIR).............

Sounds like you were short changed to me.....:}

Arc

[tmmorris]

As recently as 2013, if my memory is correct, 612 were capable of flying my entire RAF section of 50+ cadets, one flight each in a Vigilant, in a single day. We shuttled them between gliding, range (we ran ourselves) and an assault course (thanks to the army). Feels like a bygone age.

[Fitter2]

So if you were the one hooking on the winch cables, and had the seasonally dependent green or brown knees and elbows, you could be pretty certain of getting the hangar flight
No, it showed keenness - front of the queue

Sounds like you were short changed to me....
There were 2 Leeds squadrons (168, the best in the West Riding of course, and 208) of about 50 cadets each. I was 14 at the time and happy to get off the ground at all. We all got to fly. Did my 20 launches and A&B a bit later, and haven't stopped since

[cats_five]

For many years there have been three threads to VGS Cadet training, GIC = Gliding induction Course in three distinct stages teaching effects of controls. Gliding Scholarship = the full training to solo standard, and AGT = Advanced training for Cadets U/T who are Flight Staff Cadets.

Surely it only takes a couple of flights at most to teach effects of the controls? And what determines if the cadet can continue to solo?

[VX275]

612 VGS were an efficient bunch. On a detachment to RAF Valley for Cadet 150 they were given a target by the Station Commander (and ex 612 Staff Cadet) of 150 cadets to be given a GIC1 flight. Despite losing 3 hours to rain the number of cadets flown over the two days was over 160. The Cadets were a mix of Air, Sea and Army and a common question from the Army and Sea cadets as they walked away from the aircraft was "How do I transfer to the Air Cadets?"

[Arclite01]

Cats

my post #3097 (written specifically for you) covers all your questions

Arc

[cats_five]

Target was for Cadets on Basic training (GIC) that they got at least 3 launches a day - sometimes 5. Primary Effects of Controls type stuff.

I realise these are probably just circuits but 5 flights seems a lot to understand effect of controls, especially for an age group who learn faster than many can teach. If you want nicely co-ordinated turns that does take a little longer.

[Arclite01]

Based on 3 flights (not always 5)

1 flight to do a basic familiarization with the launch and the local area, airfield layout etc
1 flight for elevator and ailerons
1 flight for rudder and use of co-ordinated controls

Additional flights are bonus trips for consolidation.

Arc

[POBJOY]

I recall a 'card' system coming into use after i was 'elevated' from P2 to actual proficiency training.
It was to cover the lack of instructor continuity so a record of training was available to follow the individual Cadet.
I always considered that 'turning' should have had more emphasis before one moved on to circuits and emergency training.
If a cadet could do accurate turns then the ongoing training was far more effective then trying to fit this in with the added decisions required for circuits.
As this had to be contained within a 2-3 min flight i think we expected too much some times. Added to the rather low heights that some maneuvers had to be performed at on a small airfield, the ability to perform accurate turns allowed the individual to concentrate on the exercise in hand rather than trying to catch up with probably the most important requirement in gliding.
We also suffered from the ongoing 'continuity' situation with both weather and Cadet/Instructor availability. Considering all the above it is a great credit to all those involved that so many A&B's were gained with so little in the way of the normal 'facilities' associated with ab initio training that the main stream RAF system enjoyed. Shame that those that that inherited the running of our organisation were incapable of holding it together.