Air Cadets grounded?

[Arclite01]

POB

The progress card system was well established on all the VGS that I ever taught at.

Usually there were boxes for 'attempts' by the student, once judged 'proficient' at the Ex it was signed off. It was revisited as part of the ongoing training and ultimately as part of the solo check. It certainly gave instructors a continuity check for students.

There was also a space for 'comments' as a I recall, which gave some feeling for the students ability...................... :}

All part of the built in safety mechanism.

Arc

Edit: I think actually it was box scores 1 through 5 with 1 being 'low' and 5 'satisfactory'

[cats_five]

BGA clubs use cards as well.

[cats_five]

As this had to be contained within a 2-3 min flight

A circuit in a Viking from even a moderate runway should be longer than 2-3 minutes - an advantage of glass & modern winches.

[Opsbeatch]

Arc

The 'comments' section used to contain some great one liners I remember...

OB

[Arclite01]

Ops

My favourite being 'this student never makes the same mistake twice - he makes a new one every time..............'

or 'Life is too short to fly with this guy..........'

or ' He's co-ordinated in an unco-ordinated way.................'

or 'He could be good if he wasn't so bad...........'

or 'all the co-ordination of a cluster of colour blind hedgehogs in a bag.................'

or 'Speed control acceptable within a 50Kt range............'

Arc

[Arclite01]

Cats

Pobjoy was talking about the Cadet Mk3 - not the Viking. Viking circuits always at least 5 minutes sometimes 10 or 12................. (average 8 mins)

I have some Cadet Mk3 circuits of 2 minutes (not launch failures !)

Arc

[Frelon]

Cats, we are talking of a 600ft launch on a good day on a small airfield, half of which was not available to use because it was reserved for RAF sports with associated rugby/football goalposts. Neither did we have Skylaunch winches. Most circuits were sub 3 minutes!!

It was a case of take a launch, release turn left, turn left wait a bit, turn left and land!!

This system was not designed to make soaring pilots but those who did this training remember it with fondness. Hence all the postings on this and other nostalgia threads on Air Cadet gliding.

Thanks Fitter (post #3259) it was rare that we actually carried out "square" circuits. Indeed on one run the final turn was more like a 110 degree turn!!

[Fitter2]

It was a case of take a launch, release turn left, turn left wait a bit, turn left and land!!
I hope there was enough height to turn left twice after 'wait a bit'. A significant number did turn into soaring pilots.

[POBJOY]

As Frelon confirms, at Kenley we had a 'leg of mutton' shaped field that was also restricted due sports facilities.This not only gave us a poor length option but was quite challenging on cable breaks.However the upside is that Kenley has enjoyed a very long secure tenure and is not an MOD asset that can be sold off.
All our operations were at the lower heights and final turns very much a 200 ft job due to the lack of space,and lack of spoilers. My point was/is that for us this was the 'norm', so Cadets had to be able to make accurate safe turns despite not having an ideal amount of time to practice.In hindsight we probably should have introduced use of spoilers (that came on an advanced course) at the ab initio stage due to our situation. The simple fact is we were so privileged to be operating at this famous Battle of Britain airfield we just made it work and of course the Mk3 fitted the purpose very well.To increase the 'safety aspect' for first solo's our CO instigated a low use cable reserved for these launches, another case of common sense working well, and keeping the operation safe despite operating restrictions.

[Pegpilot]

Did anyone else allow themselves a wry smile reading the puff in the papers today around the Duchess visiting the ATC at Wittering yesterday ? She saw the ATC "flying" on a simulator, then "shooting" on a range simulator, then was shown a Grob Tutor that can't fly at weekends when the cadets are off school because the tower's shut. Ah well, never mind, my BGA club soloed an air cadet late last year, but guess what, no recognition on his unit's website or facebook page, and I understand he still doesn't know whether he can wear his wings on his ATC uniform. Solrry, just getting grumpy in my old age !

[cats_five]

Cats

Pobjoy was talking about the Cadet Mk3 - not the Viking. Viking circuits always at least 5 minutes sometimes 10 or 12................. (average 8 mins)

I have some Cadet Mk3 circuits of 2 minutes (not launch failures !)

Arc

Hence my comments about glass etc. However the constant talk about the past as a reply to a question about now makes it hard to understand what would be done now, if the gliders were airworthy.

[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
Arc,

So what effect do you think the Norwich CTA and their operating procedures would have if a VGS/Vikings were to move to Swanton Morley? No flying at all on some days (depending on RW in use at Norwich)? Low ceiling for operations on other days (I think the airfield elevation at Swanton Morley is about 150 feet?)? Safe?

[Arclite01]

ATFQ

Not convinced that in it's current state the surface and airfield is really suitable for VGS Winch Launch operations.

CTA is not a safety issue as such. The CTA issue could be overcome by activating the Swanton Box anytime the VGS was operating however the maximum flexibility of operations is not best served by this approach IMHO. A local agreement with Norwich might be workable, after all, Wethersfield operate with Stansted close by............ and they have a REAL number of aircraft movements :}

The CTA is currently 1500' (so 1350') - this would easily be exceeded on a good winch launch. But is plenty high enough for Winch Launch and circuit training. Frustrating on a soaring day though.............

It would just be nice to have a VGS back again............. issues around hangarage etc can be overcome...............

Arc

[boswell bear]

Pegpilot

I read that, always tickles me how the AEF flying gods need ATC to operate 3 or 4 GA aircraft.

[Shaft109]

Standing back from this - something is wrong here.

How many obstacles / excuses do we put in the way before they get back up and running?

Of course safety is paramount but the ACO is absolutely drowning in Red Tape and people are drifting away in droves as the effort required exceeds the rewards.

Other countries' ACOs seem to make it happen in a common sense, safe environment and the BGA simply keep on trucking.

We try and replace A/C with Part Task trainers that while useful in specific circumstances esp for instructor currency simply are not the real thing.

Frustrating as ever the Cadets bear the brunt.

[Chugalug2]

The something that is wrong is that the UK ACO Gliders are not airworthy. The reason for that is because the UK Military Air Regulator is dysfunctional. The reason for that is the attack on UK Military Air Safety by VSOs in Haddon-Cave's "Golden Period" dealt it a fatal blow (try running a system that requires continuous review and audit given 28% cuts per annum for in excess of three years and VSO orders to suborn the regs. It doesn't work!).

The only ray of light in this gloomy scenario is that the fleet was grounded before someone died. Other fleets haven't been so lucky, there have been 70 deaths in airworthiness related UK military fatal air accidents itemised in this forum. The latest being Sean Cunningham's death at Scampton in 2014.

[Thud105]

" I read that, always tickles me how the AEF flying gods need ATC to operate 3 or 4 GA aircraft."

Is that right? Surely adequate SA could be maintained by the pilots simply broadcasting their position & intention in the blind. Are these pilots low-houred, inexperienced at flying without ATC or just not very good?

[cats_five]

Is that right? Surely adequate SA could be maintained by the pilots simply broadcasting their position & intention in the blind. Are these pilots low-houred, inexperienced at flying without ATC or just not very good?

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/6-2010-g-byut-and-g-byvn-11-february-2009

[Thud105]

Hmmmm. Funny how the rest of the world manages. I visited Lasham when I was visiting the UK a while back. I must've witnessed about 100 movements that afternoon;- winch launches, aerotow combinations and motorgliders taking off, gliders, motorgliders and tugs landing. No ATC (and, for the gliders - no go-around). They seemed to cope.

[POBJOY]

Whilst i agree there is certainly an AW issue in all this, the real culprit has to be overall incompetence/negligence in the ATC organisation/RAF/MOD.
The AW issues have been well covered,but it is only compounded by the ongoing scenario.
Implementation of the useless PTT farce
Complete lack of direction re equipment replacement
Total lack of management skills re VGS closures/new operations
Complete lack of leadership from HQ AC and 2 FTS
No obvious cogent plan as to how the remaining VGS will get going or be staffed,and by whom.
Lots of people are still in well paid full time jobs whilst all this chaos 'cascades' around them.
No one up top has grasped the fact that no one K w t h is going on or what to do.
No one is in charge of this driverless runaway train which can not hit the buffers because there are none;so it rolls along with various clueless staff retiring, or being promoted out of the line so no one can be brought to task.
A COMPLETE AND UTTER DISGRACE TO THOSE WHO RAN THIS CAPABLE OPERATION FOR SO LONG AND PUT SO MUCH BACK IN TO THE SYSTEM.
THE CADETS HAVE BEEN DENIED LIFE BUILDING CHANCES,AND HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY THROWN AWAY TO NO AVAIL.

REMEMBER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GLIDERS FOR GOODNESS SAKE; MONtY PYTHON WOULD BE PROUD.

[jmtw2]

ATFQ

Not convinced that in it's current state the surface and airfield is really suitable for VGS Winch Launch operations.

CTA is not a safety issue as such. The CTA issue could be overcome by activating the Swanton Box anytime the VGS was operating however the maximum flexibility of operations is not best served by this approach IMHO. A local agreement with Norwich might be workable, after all, Wethersfield operate with Stansted close by............ and they have a REAL number of aircraft movements :}

The CTA is currently 1500' (so 1350') - this would easily be exceeded on a good winch launch. But is plenty high enough for Winch Launch and circuit training. Frustrating on a soaring day though.............

It would just be nice to have a VGS back again............. issues around hangarage etc can be overcome...............

Arc

Arc,

Swanton Morley looks a shade too close to the Norwich RW centreline?

It would be nice to have a VGS back again I agree, but it needs to be in the right place too, near to where most of the cadets are who would like to be flown! :hmm:

[Arclite01]

JMTW2

Swanton is well clear of the RW Centerline for Norwich. Also there is the 'get out of jail free card' of the Swanton Box.

And it was never an issue when the VGS was based there before...........the VGS moved out because the Army moved in and needed the airfield for their Polo pitches !! (yes - I kid you not)

WRT the Cadets - the previous VGS was responsible for Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge and Lincs based Cadets so there is plenty of trade hereabouts..........

Arc

[Onceapilot]

POBJOY

On the basis of the evidence, I agree with your thoughts.:( I had considered "giving something back" with the ATC but, I would not go near them now. The ATC is being murdered IMO.:mad:

OAP

[Pegasus107]

WRT the Cadets - the previous VGS was responsible for Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge and Lincs based Cadets so there is plenty of trade hereabouts..........


No quite correct. Lincs based sqns go (well should go) across to Syerston. Cambs based sqns go across to Henlow, Wethersfield with only a couple going to Watton/Honington.

[tucumseh]

Well said indeed Pobjoy. The fleets are grounded for airworthiness reasons, but you rightly list many of the failings that led to this. Predictable, predicted, notified and ignored.

I remain of the opinion the Air Cadet fleets are being singled out in an attempt to show MoD/MAA is being tough, to divert attention from the serious systemic failings affecting front line fleets and their support. The aircraft can be made fit for purpose. I doubt if the MoD/MAA can.

[Shaft109]

Sorry I meant to elaborate more on my question of why? it was more rhetorical as Tuc and Engines have explained exactly why they are grounded from the airworthiness side.

The thrust was why can these problems with aircraft and systems not be trampled to death within weeks?

To use the phrase "either sh1t or get off the pot" before everyone walks away.
I understand that this is beginning to happen.

[Chugalug2]

S109, point taken. Another thing in the favour of the ACO fleet is that it can be, and apparently is being, restored to airworthiness (in part at least, and obviously far too slowly for the Air Cadets purposes). More complex and sophisticated systems and aircraft are less easily dealt with. The really big elephant in all this is the Regulator itself. It has to be reformed and made independent of the MoD, together with the Air Accident Investigator. Unless and until the MAA and the MilAAIB are outwith the MoD and independent of each other, then UK Military Air Safety will remain compromised, and we can expect more "pauses" and/or airworthiness related air accidents. That reform will inevitably point up the serious and deliberate maladministration, illegal orders and actions that have been the subject of continuous and continuing high level cover-up. In short what does the RAF High Command prefer, airworthy fleets or untarnished VSO reputations? It can't have both.

[tucumseh]

The thrust was why can these problems with aircraft and systems not be trampled to death within weeks?

MoD got rid of the people and the system which would never let it happen in the first place. When it did happen, under a regime that actively encouraged it, there were many who saw it coming (e.g. RAF's own Director of Flight Safety) but the culture created by senior officers meant few risked their careers by raising concerns.

It is very difficult to explain after all these years how we felt when instructed to undertake a 5 hour drive, just to be carpeted by a 1 Star for having the temerity to meet legal obligations. And then being threatened with dismissal by his 2 Star boss for refusing to disobey illegal orders (to make false declarations about airworthiness and probity). My elderly boss, because he apparently couldn't get a grip of his staff, was given a new working pattern. Monday 0730 - 1800 in London, drive to Harrogate; Tuesday 0730 - 1800 in Harrogate, drive to London, and so on. Month after month, relentlessly driving him into the ground for simply supporting his staff who were stuck between a rock and a hard place - meet legal obligations and face the sack, or commit fraud and endanger aircrew. Some did the right thing, others didn't. This explains why some aircraft and equipments are robust, while others are (in the immortal words) "positively dangerous". It also explains why some problems became apparent immediately, while others crept up over many years.

None of this is new. No apologies for repeating it, but it was all in the evidence to, for example, the Nimrod Review.

[ATFQ]

JMTW2

Swanton is well clear of the RW Centerline for Norwich. Also there is the 'get out of jail free card' of the Swanton Box.

And it was never an issue when the VGS was based there before...........the VGS moved out because the Army moved in and needed the airfield for their Polo pitches !! (yes - I kid you not)

WRT the Cadets - the previous VGS was responsible for Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge and Lincs based Cadets so there is plenty of trade hereabouts..........

Arc

I wonder what London and South East Region thinks? Where would all of their cadets who used to glide at Wethersfield go to, realistically, within a reasonable travelling distance? 615 VGS at Kenley does extremely well but can't serve the whole catchment area. And Swanton Morley is not even in the catchment area.

[Arclite01]

ATFQ

I believe that the future strategy is to have accom on site so that gliding will become a full weekend activity rather than a 1 day 'there and back' activity. So distance will supposedly be less of an issue.

This introduces problems all of it's own but lets not go there..............

Arc

[Martin the Martian]

Last time I checked there was a total lack of accommodation available at Predannack, though they could bed down in the control tower I suppose. Or, as Shelter Box has a training facility onsite maybe they could make use of some of the charity's surplus boxes? The whole saga could be classed as a disaster, after all.

[Arclite01]

Accommodation being 'provided' apparently..... whatever that means

Arc

[POBJOY]

Whilst the Predannack (surviving) looks good in practice what you get is a facility miles away from centres of population and with poor transport links.
It ticks the conventional gliding box well due to its size and multiple directions availability, but needs accommodation and closer tech back up.
It would make sense if it could also be used as a base for week courses with staff from other areas running it (like the old Halesland operation) if of course the staff actually exist by then.This would at least make better utilisation of the facility and give a better return on any money spent.

[jmtw2]

JMTW2

Swanton is well clear of the RW Centerline for Norwich. Also there is the 'get out of jail free card' of the Swanton Box.

Arc

I think that Norwich ATC will have an issue (probably with respect to IFR approach and arrival procedures) when they are operating RW09. No doubt this will be a point of discussion that will need to be concluded prior to any decision to move a VGS into Swanton Morley.

[ATFQ]

A new 'mega prison' could be built on Wethersfield MOD site in Braintree and Tendring (From Braintree and Witham Times) (http://www.braintreeandwithamtimes.co.uk/news/15106237.A_new__mega_prison__could_be_built_in_Braintree/)

If the option for a prison was to go ahead and it was to be built in the right place then that might pave the way for all or part of the airfield to be retained for the VGS. Even a sizeable prison would need only a relatively small portion of the MDP Wethersfield estate. A prison might even be contained in the area away from the airfield. An idea anyway, and a compromise solution.

[Pegasus107]

If the option for a prison was to go ahead and it was to be built in the right place then that might pave the way for all or part of the airfield to be retained for the VGS.

Don't hold your breathe. Same as Watton and look what happened there; Wayland Prison..... And they still sold off the remaining land.

They need to look further into the future and build for the future. Personally, hubs with overnight accom and concurrent activities are the way forward.

[Arclite01]

Peg

The prision at Wayland was build donkeys years before the airfield site was closed. RAF Watton was open even when the Prison was open and the Prison does not encroach on the airfield site.

RAF Watton closed because the Radar facility was no longer required (superceded) and the Watton Airfield site was sold because DIO wanted to sell it (simple as that). Actually the main users of the site (apart from the VGS) was USAF C-130 traffic (rough field and unprepared strip training for which they provided their own fire engine !!) from Mildenhall. Some para jumping and some rotary wing traffic (minimal). USAF said they had no real further use for it and bingo............... airfield sold (with undue haste and for well under what it was worth).

I expect that Wethersfield will 'do a Coltishall' and build a prison, some houses and bit of light industrial on the site. The requirement for a VGS site means nothing to DIO or the Treasury................

Arc

[Thorr]

Regional hubs may be the answer, but where are they going to build the overnight accommodation? Who are they going to get to staff the accommodation? Who is going to prepare the meals these cadets are going to eat?

If it is anticipated this burden will fall to the VGS staff, then I would suggest there would be fewer and fewer staff. Has this idea been fully thought through or are the powers that be just working on the assumption that volunteers will be only too willing to help out with a greater workload...

To my mind, the only via option for the VGS organisation to work with a reduced footprint is to move to permanent, paid staff in key roles, and supplemented with volunteers.

[Arclite01]

Thorr

Like the ACF do now you mean :} ??

Arc

(P.S. Seems to work)

[brokenlink]

Regional Centres may well be coming, however the concern I have is that, in order to maximise the weekend it is likely that travel on the Friday evening will be required. This raises the issue of squadron staff, having worked a full day at their day job, being required to transport cadets to a VGS that could be a couple of hours drive away (for some). There are implication for Drivers Hours with this approach that I am unsure have been considered.

[ATFQ]

Regional Centres may well be coming, however the concern I have is that, in order to maximise the weekend it is likely that travel on the Friday evening will be required. This raises the issue of squadron staff, having worked a full day at their day job, being required to transport cadets to a VGS that could be a couple of hours drive away (for some). There are implication for Drivers Hours with this approach that I am unsure have been considered.

Travelling distances to Swanton Morley for 614 VGS staff would be a real issue if this relocation option were to be taken (they are all volunteers not regulars, and while very committed there is a limit to what you can reasonably expect). Most of them live too far away (half more than a two hour drive away) to make regular attendance at Swanton Morley a realistic prospect.

614 VGS (good luck to them) needs to somehow retain these volunteer staff if it is to deliver anything approaching the required capability/output as a 'regional centre'. It is important that someone seriously considers staff retention in the selection of a new operating site.

[Pegasus107]

....however the concern I have is that, in order to maximise the weekend it is likely that travel on the Friday evening will be required.

Why leave on a Friday night to drive a couple of hours to a Regional Hub? How do you think some sqns travel at present to an AEF, Kent Wing to 5 AEF for example; more than 2 hours already......

[brokenlink]

Pegasus hi, see you point, it's little different from the local squadron having a 2hour drive to Cranwell for AEF. However to maximise the VGS time I suspect some sqns may go the night before. If Swanton Morley gets reactivated then fine, if not then its likely that a trip to Syreston for East Anglian (and wider) based units, will be required hence my earlier suggestion. Happy to be proved wrong though;)

[ATFQ]

Pegasus hi, see you point, it's little different from the local squadron having a 2hour drive to Cranwell for AEF. However to maximise the VGS time I suspect some sqns may go the night before. If Swanton Morley gets reactivated then fine, if not then its likely that a trip to Syreston for East Anglian (and wider) based units, will be required hence my earlier suggestion. Happy to be proved wrong though;)

brokenlink,

I think you would find that if the Swanton Morley option were to be taken then it would be numbers of 614 VGS staff who were realistically able to attend on a regular basis (or attend at all) that would have by far the biggest impact on output.

Perhaps there is a better option than Swanton Morley - to cut down travelling distances for cadets and staff alike.

[Pegasus107]

ATFQ - if that was to happen, it would have been easier to change numberplate from 614 VGS to 611 VGS ;-)

[ATFQ]

ATFQ - if that was to happen, it would have been easier to change numberplate from 614 VGS to 611 VGS ;-)

An even better answer of course would be to have a 611 VGS and a 614 VGS, at two different sites.

But any arrangement needs to maximise staff availability/attendance if the Air Cadet gliding organisation is to be able to get the most out of the gliders it will have at some point in the future.

[Shaft109]

It was fun while it lasted - hello BGA

[SX983]

I see that Rissy is NOTAM'd as a winch launch site with effect from 4th March so I guess gliding will start fairly soon.

[boswell bear]

https://www.facebook.com/637VGS/posts/1846115728964707

[boswell bear]

645 VGS flew their first cadets since "the pause" today.

[planesandthings]

Some good news at last. But it appears it takes about 5 months then, from return to flight with 2FTS supervision to flying cadets. A few other VGSs have come live again such as 622, but many are still deathly quiet, even ones that don't require conversion such as 615 at Kenley and 626 down in Cornwall. Sounds like the start of a very long 'unpause'. Nearly a year on since the re-structuring and disbandment news.

[Arclite01]

Good to see some positive news out of this whole fiasco..................

[boswell bear]

Forget the politics this is what it's all about:

https://www.facebook.com/645VolunteerGlidingSquadron/posts/948683078568503:0

[Whizz Bang]

645 VGS flew their first cadets since "the pause" today.
I think by now it has to be termed, "The Great Pause" (of 2014).

[Arclite01]

Whizz

You mean 'the really great pause' surely.............:}

(I get your joke/reference/programme)

Arc

[Whizz Bang]

Whizz

You mean 'the really great pause' surely.............:}

(I get your joke/reference/programme)

Arc

The 2014 eruption of Incompetence...?

[Shaft109]

The 2014 eruption of Incompetence...?

No more like the uncovering of years of previous incompetence and putting a stop to it before anything happened

[Whizz Bang]

The 2014 eruption of Incompetence...?

No more like the uncovering of years of previous incompetence and putting a stop to it before anything happened
Putting a stop to everything yes, and not having the competence to resolve it. 3 years is an outstanding testament to that.

[VX275]

Having had the opportunity to read both the Vigilant and Viking Aging Aircraft Audit reports the pause should have started in 2009 when they were published.

[boswell bear]

Are the Vigilant and Viking Aging Aircraft Audit reports available online?

[ATFQ]

Fact: there has been a pause and, yes, it has been painfully long.

The milk has been spilt. The only focus now should be on getting back to a better place. That this will take time does not mean that it should not be the focus.

[Engines]

ATFQ,

Perhaps I might offer a comment here.

You say that 'the only focus now should be on getting back to a better place'. I fully understand why anyone involved in executing the recovery should think that. At the tactical level, that's absolutely right, just get on and clear the problems, get the cadets back in the air. Great.

Except for a couple of rather important points. Where exactly ARE the RAF getting back to? (And how do they 'get back' to a 'better place'? Is that the same 'place' as the 'worse place' they were previously in?). Sorry if that sounded sarcastic, it's not my intention. My point is that an organisation can only get itself sorted out if it understands what went wrong, identifies who was responsible, and then acts to stop it happening again. Honestly, I'm not convinced that the RAF can do that. Why do I come to that conclusion? First, what might be called 'cultural' failings. The RAF's leadership has, time and again, been shown where it has failed to achieve or maintain airworthiness in its aircraft fleets. Almost every time, it has ignored or, even worse, covered up, its failings. Sorry, but I don't see any signs that this aspect is changing.

My second reason for concern is more particular to the ATC fleet issue. Looking at OC 2FTS's response to the MAA's CAMO audit, the reason for the failings was identified as 'lack of resources'. His proposal is to 'obtain more resources' and to set up offices of people dedicated to producing the 'airworthiness assurance' documentation required by the MAA regs. Sorry, I don't buy that. Lack of resources wasn't the reason for failure to document repairs. It was a failure by RAF engineering officers to carry out their mandated duties. Loss of configuration control was due to a failure by MoD PT personnel to implement mandated regulations that have existed for many years. Same with toleration of poor documentation and lack of quality control. Failure to implement simple regulations. Common sense regulations. All the 'assurance' in the world won't make an organisation do the right thing if it's not organised and led properly.

Going forward, what I'd like to see is some equivalent of the system elsewhere in the public sector where an organisation is identified as 'failing' or 'unsatisfactory', and then put under 'special measures', where an external team comes in and does what is required to get it back up to an acceptable standard. To my mind, that would properly fulfil the MAA's remit to ensure that schoolchildren are, in the future, being flown in airworthy aircraft. Of course, labelling 2FTS a 'failing' organisation would be anathema to the RAF. As would labelling a DE&S PT as 'failing'. And that's kind of my point. Until this IS admitted, real progress will likely be nil.

Best Regards as ever to all those working honestly and hard to pick up the pieces,

Engines

[POBJOY]

Engines On the basis that the 'issues' relating to the 'pause' happened when part of 3 FTS it seems that the ATC were 'sold a pup' by the TFR of responsibility to a new organisation.
Did OC the new 2FTS have any other option than the action he took even if his 'handling' of the situation was less than open to the staff he inherited.
It rather looks as if the RAF have sought to pass the buck to a volunteer organisation that had no part in the original failings.
The 'back handed' comments re 'volunteers' and the civilian element almost seem to be an attempt to rewrite history to the point that the RAF could run the organisation fine, but well, look what happened when we handed it over.
Of course those of us with a memory of past events know different, but the public perception may well be what the RAF/MOD are more interested in, and those in charge at the top have hardly a great reputation for seeing the truth coming out.

[iRaven]

We discussed nearly 3 years ago (post #97) the apparent Walting by a very small, but not insignificant, number of people involved in Air Cadet work. I can't help thinking that this may also have shaped 2FTS' thinking on personnel, the new commission and who was invited to continue. I have highlighted in bold some pretty significant issues that surround what appears to be the Grand Master Walt, but surely those around him in ACO knew that things weren't right; so why did it take so long to find him out? Was it because some of his early behaviour was a part of the VR(T) culture and was seen as a 'norm'? Taken from: https://thewaltercumpershunterclub.wordpress.com/2017/03/11/wesley-tierney/

Meet walting biggles Wesley Tireney. Gliding instructor who faked a pilot’s licence and illegally flew planes for six years – risking the lives of children

First the Facts that are true:
Wesley was a qualified gliding instructor with a VGS (Volunteer Gliding Squadron) where he was qualified to fly the Grob 109B or as the Air Force call it, The Vigilant motor glider.

No civilian qualifications were needed for this; it was a military instructional qualification specific to the aircraft type. In becoming a VGS instructor, one of the routes you can take is by going through the gliding scholarship process (as an Air Cadet) and then apply to be a staff cadet.

This is the route that Wesley took. From there, a bit more advanced training is undertaken and over a few years you eventually work your way up to going on an instructors course, after flying more solo hours and taking cadets up on experience flights after various training and flying assessments.

VGS’s fly Air Cadets on experience flights and also conduct Gliding Scholarship training, teaching a cadet up to a solo standard where they fly the aircraft on their own for one circuit.

The VGS’s also do more advanced training beyond that for staff. Wesley was only ever a B1 instructor. A B1 instructor on a VGS is someone who has passed their probationary period as a junior instructor.

He was at 616VGS (Henlow) then moved to 644VGS (Syerston) where he converted to the Viking conventional glider. It is understood that before he moved on from 616VGS his exaggerated stories sparked a unit enquiry to take place.

Wesley also did have a commission in the RAF Volunteer Reserve (Training) branch. This is a commission given to adult volunteers of the Air Cadet forces, to give it some military structure and empower them with various authorisation to help run their detached ATC units.

The same is true for VR(T) commissions on the VGS. It goes without saying a lot of trust is put into them, as the VR(T) commission is afforded the same courtesy as a regular commission. As an interesting aside, Wesley brought his own Commissioning sword – which is almost embarrassing for VR(T) commissions. An early sign of Walt-like behaviour.

As for the rest on his CV: the majority of it is total fabrication.

Every civilian flying qualification he lists on his CV is a complete lie – he hasn’t even made any attempt to progress towards a civilian flying qualification by taking any flying lessons e.g. training for a Private Pilot’s Licence.

The claim of the 1700 hours is a total lie. He was flying aeroplanes as pilot in command on which he had never received any training. It was only luck that he didn’t manage to kill someone as these types of aeroplanes are far more complex especially when it goes wrong.

He had no training on what to do if it did. He took family, friends and young children flying, with absolutely no licence or proper training. There are over 200 accounts of him doing so illegally, for which he has recently been prosecuted.

Gliding instructor faked a pilot?s licence and illegally flew planes for six years - risking the lives of children - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gliding-instructor-faked-pilots-licence-9960550)

Even more staggering and a perfect example of his increasingly delusional behaviour is the fact that he was signing private pilots off for their bi-annual proficiency check; this can only be done by a Flying Examiner.

Examiners have thousands of flying hours and many years of experience under their belt. The purpose of the bi-annual check is for the pilot to prove to the examiner that they can operate the aircraft safely and in accordance with rules, so the examiner can be certain they have met a minimum standard.

As private pilots only have to have this check every 2 years, this is a chance for the examiner to plug gaps in their knowledge and re-train as appropriate.

The chance of one of these private pilots (who Wesley signed off) having a serious or fatal accident was therefore increased a lot more than if an experience examiner were assessing them. Some attached photos show him flying with a private owner – Where you can see him wearing his own custom designed Alpha flying helmet and sporting military flying gloves, whilst in a light single engine General Aviation aircraft.

Again, this shows the lengths he goes to in order to portray the image of being ‘better’ or more skilled/experienced than he ever was.

Certain post nominals on his CV are made up, especially the ‘cfs’ part. A cfs post nominal is ‘Central Flying School’ – you gain this post nominal on being awarded a flying qualification by RAF Central Flying School – a qualification such as an A2 or A1 category instructor – These are ‘above average’ or ‘exceptional’ instructors respectively.

The amount of experience, knowledge and flying skill/discipline you need to have as an A category instructor goes without saying.

They are very experienced instructors who have shown they can reach a very high standard in all areas.

Wesley never achieved this, nor was he even close to, which is a huge insult to all those that have.
As for the rest of the Professional Qualifications on his CV, again a large majority of this is total fabrication.

Anything flying related is a lie – the only flying qualification he ever had was a B1 with a VGS and the rest is made up. We are very doubtful of the all the Flight safety/Ground Ops qualifications, as there would be no need for him to have done half of these in his role – they are certainly exaggerated if he received any form of training and almost certainly not full MOD/military qualifications.
With regards to his other VGS ‘achievements’, he may have filled various ground roles, but was certainly not the Deputy Chief Flying instructor, which is an important and highly responsible Flying Supervisors post.

It should also be noted here that Wesley has never been qualified to fly the Tutor aircraft, but on his CV he claims to be a Staff pilot on 5 AEF and 7 AEF.

An AEF (Air Experience Flights) offer 20 min flights to Air Cadets in the Grob Tutor where they can do things such as aerobatics, usually flown by retired military pilots. 5 and 7 AEF have been informed and have never had dealings with him in any ‘staff’ capacity.

Wesley involved himself in various voluntary organisations to add to his ‘Walt’ status, the biggest example being the BBMF.

It is known that the BBMF volunteers have a very important role to play. They are all given black coveralls with the BBMF crest/ badges to be easily identified by the public at events when they are performing various roles; Ground crew, fund raising, PR, etc.

Wesley volunteered with the BBMF and took his image a step further. He had his black flying suit embroided with his gliding brevet in an almost identical fashion to a Display Pilot, so with the other badges the BBMF wear, a member of the public would be none the wiser.

Especially when posing around the aircraft at air shows, desperately trying to look like something he wasn’t. It has been heard second hand through acquaintances that he was known to claim he had flown into the air shows in some of the aircraft that were displaying there.

He was known to frequently turn up to other public events in flying clothing, which did not require it, whilst wearing other items he’d purchased at his own expense (e.g. NATO leather flying jacket) to fuel the image that he was a full time military pilot, or something certainly more elevated than he was.
With regards to Wesley’s ‘job’ in the RAF – he started out at RAF Syerston as an Operations Assistant, which was a civilian role.

He was never full time military or RAFR. Despite what he claims, his role was only ever ground base helping out with the operations and manning the air ground radio. However, on social media profiles and to others outside the industry he claimed that he was a Military Air Traffic Controller – those in the Air Traffic trade will know how laughable this is.

It should be noted that in his CV where he claims to have covered the role of Duty Operations Controller at RAF Brize Norton (responsible on behalf of the Station Commander) – this is also entirely fabricated and again showcases his delusional thoughts.

After various run-ins and occurrences with other staff, he ended up moving on amd in suspicious circumstances most likely due to getting individuals in trouble with various lies which ended up with someone having their posting cut short. It can be said he did not leave on good terms.
Moving on from RAF Syerston, Wesley was focusing his sights more in the civilian aviation community. Not through choice; Wesley left in VRT in disgrace –

The Air Force Board stripped him of his commission and discharged him as it was found out he was involved in various fraudulent activities involving transport and travel claims. However, this did not stop him wearing his uniform and rank to gain access to military stations and using his MOD90 to still act as an Officer. Even living in the officers mess at Cranwell for quite a while until he was detected.

Despite this, he claimed to be attached to an RAF auxiliary unit (Additional Commitments) at Waddington, still with a commission as a Flying Officer. Whether this is true or not is unknown – this is a story that he told to various acquaintances and is being researched.
With regards to his recent employment at North Weald airfield as a Flight Information Services Officer, this qualification was also forged.

Whilst a FISO is not an Air Traffic Controller, they are still more responsible than someone manning an Air Ground radio.

They are expected to perform various responsible duties regarding the movements of aircraft. Here is where colleagues grew suspicious of Wesley’s ‘qualifications’ which sparked the investigation, which has just come to a close.

Alongside these forged qualifications, his stint at North Weald (during which he involved himself with other airfield organisations) highlighted other unscrupulous activities – he was a thief.

Over the years, Wesley ‘acquired’ many items and artefacts. Paintings and pictures (the ones usually found hanging on the walls in a Mess), a plethora of aircraft parts (notably vintage ones) which were taken from owners and maintenance organisations, valuable flying manuals and aircraft documents from the WW1 & WW2 era, vintage flying clothing, a surplus ‘personal stock’ of current NATO kit (watches, flying clothing etc) and even a vintage motorcycle.

It was only by chance that someone stumbled across all these items, hidden away in a locked room in an old hanger on an airfield. Usually this wouldn’t cause suspicion – it was only because the person who found them knew the owner of several of these items, which were reported to the police as missing.

In the attached photos, you can see a photo of a propeller (taken by the owner) whilst it was in storage.

This mysteriously disappeared from the hanger and after lengthy searching and asking around, was reported to the police.

In the other photo, you can see a propeller remarkably similar (Very pointed tips, Red tips, Distinctive and contrasting laminations – two light and three dark, Broad silver-coloured leading edge protector) in Wesley’s house…after it was reported stolen.

This photo was taken by a visitor to Wesley’s house who knew of various items going missing and had a suspicion of where they might be.

The actual owner of the propeller who also inspects LAA aircraft has never seen another like it in all his years of doing so. The propeller is believed to have been given away by Wesley.

As of now, the police have been involved and suffice to say that he has already been charged and summoned for theft and is awaiting prosecution in court.
None of these actions can be blamed on anyone else.

He knew exactly what he was doing and was not misguided in anyway. It has only come to an end because he was caught, not because he owned up to it. He is a completely untrustworthy, calculated, narcissistic individual with delusions of grandeur.
This individual has never been in the regular RAF, nor is he a military pilot and certainly never served in any operational capacity.


Further what does it mean for our screening/supervisory system if we allow people like this to work around our minors for such a long time?

I hope I am wrong on this cultural observation. I have observed some lesser-spotted VR(T) Walts in my time trying to carry on as if they were a part of the Battle of Britain - it would be funny if they hadn't been taking themselves so seriously!

For those that do a fine job and just crack on with teaching the Cadets, then please forgive me as I don't mean you. But for anyone who reads this and even if the slightest bit touches a nerve then please have a word yourself in private and realise that you do no-one any favours. Hopefully, this Wesley business is a wake up call for all in light blue of what tolerance of a Walt can lead to.

iRaven

[EnigmAviation]

With the greatest of respect, please post this to the relevant thread - there is one concerning this guy. What THIS thread is all about is the failure of the RAF to maintain airworthy Aircraft for the VGS side of 2 FTS.

We should ALL not be in any doubt whatsoever, that whilst this chap was a complete con-artist,( and criminal ) he had nothing whatsoever to do with the failure of RAF hierarchy and the fleet of allegedly non-airworthy aircraft. I accept that much more caution should have been shown at times, but suffice it to say he was detected at VGS level and a Unit inquiry was held.

He sadly remained un-detected for some time in other places, namely BBMF, and some civilian flying organisations.Sadly all this awful case has done, is to perhaps assist the RAF case for the ending of RAFVR(T) commissions with an inferior substitution of a Queens Commission in the Cadet Corps. It only takes one..............to ruin a lifetime of good work by hundreds of others.

All that this does is to deflect attention from where it should be directed, and that is to the various management levels within the RAF who were tasked with maintaining a brand new fleet of Grob aircraft in the required manner over the years since they were purchased by MoD.

What we should also stress is that not ONE person or Officer within the RAF VR(T), was in any way responsible for the last three years of shambles and the huge waste of taxpayer money, with the attendant loss of Air Cadet VGS activity for just short of three years.

Each and every VGS unit conducted their Engineering and flying training activity to the highest of standards required, with very few exceptions which were always detected and appropriate sanctions made where required.

How do I know? I served on three VGS units, (one on a front line active RAF station) and during that time received an RAF Flight safety award for my own Engineering vigilance which potentially prevented the loss of an aircraft. I also held roles involving screening of staff, where we had a very highly tuned nose for "Walter's", " Risk takers", and complete "Barclays bankers" . I attended Station Flight Safety meetings, and at NO time were we the subject of any criticism or follow up actions. More than one of our staff instructors were serving GD Pilot Officers, one of whom was of Air rank, and thus we were highly regarded by a series of Stn Cdrs, one of whom became CAS. Our Eng Officer was a former and recent Wg Cdr Eng thus you may safely assume that not a lot got past him !

The only major failure that must be addressed with regard to VGS ops was by the professionals within the RAF, at middle and senior ranks in letting a brand new fleet of aircraft deteriorate to the point where airworthiness was severely in doubt !

Remember, just because you are a professional, you are not immune from error and misjudgement, human failings occur across the spectrum.

Thought for the day...........Noah was an amateur, but the Captain of the Titanic was a professional !


;):ok:

[ACW VGL]

The case above is highly relevant to this thread, as the individual above was applauded and promoted for being a 'whistleblower' at 616. He reported his CO, CFI and duty instructor to the centre, where he was employed, following what can only be described as a fit of pique.


The deeply flawed inquiry that itgenerated may have been central to, or at least reinforced the view of, theneed for fewer VGS with a higher level of on-site supervision.

[Arclite01]

ACW VGL

I knew the CFI and CO at 616.

As a total outsider at that VGS - and without going into too much detail I think it was a storm in a teacup. Actually more likely was the fact that they had his card marked and it was only a matter of time before they had him 'bang to rights'.

Their only fault was that they waited too long to nail him to the mast and that gave him the opportunity to get to CGS first and give his viewpoint. The disappointing thing was that his view was 'believed' over and above those of the VGS Exec team............

Anyway it appears that he is now being finally sorted out. Maybe too little too late.............. but hey-ho

Arc

P.S. Nothing to do with airworthiness IMHO............

[boswell bear]

Wes the Walt has nothing to do with VGS aircraft airworthiness.

[EnigmAviation]

Boswell Bear ,


Exactly - totally agree, and BTW well said "Engines" and "Pobjoy" let's keep to the subject matter and not be blown off course by misplaced references to a prize criminal "Walter"

[Engines]

Enigma,

Thanks for the support. Perhaps I can help take this thread along a bit more. In an earlier post I offered the idea of getting an organisation labelled as 'failing' or 'unsatisfactory' - in this case such a process would be aimed at two organisations: the DE&S Project Team and 2FTS. Let's take a look at why.

DE&S are first in the frame. They are responsible for loss of maintenance records, (a very probable) lack of configuration control an (almost certain) shortfall in maintenance publications and an (almost certain) failure to properly supervise the various maintenance contracts that were used in place of RAF in house maintenance. I'd lay a decent side bet that they've also failed to maintain a proper Aircraft Design Organisation (ADO) technical support contract. I'd like to know if they've got a (proper) safety case in place. They would no doubt plead shortage of resources, difficulty in dealing with an offshore aircraft supplier, plagues of locusts, etc.

Incidentally, if anyone has access to the ageing aircraft audits for the Viking and Vigilant, I'd really appreciate a link, or a PM.

22 Gp and 2FTS: These are on the hook for allowing aircraft under their charge to become non-airworthy. These aircraft are on the military register, and are fully 'owned' by the RAF, who made quite a song and dance about taking them under full control in 2010. But that wasn't the end of the changes. Here's my summary (please correct me if wrong)

2010: Control of VGS moved from HQ ATC to 1 EFTS
2011: No.1 EFTS absorbed into No.3 Flying Training School
2014: Gliders handed over from 3FTS to newly formed 2FTS

I wonder whether anyone in the ivory towers raised any risk flags about three changes of responsibility for airworthiness in as many years...

There were plenty of people responsible for airworthiness in the chains throughout that period. You can start at the Technical Officers in the VGSs, through 2FTS, through Group, through HQ Air, all the way up to ACAS, who was responsible for the RTS. I'm not saying they all failed. But sure as hell some of them have, or this lot wouldn't have happened. Yes, 2FTS were left 'holding the tar baby' when the full picture merged under the glare of the CAMO audits in 2013. But here's an important point - the 'new' MAA regs don't ask a 'CAMO' to do anything that a properly run organisation wouldn't have already been doing.

So when 2FTS proudly took over the reins from 3FTS (or when OC 3FTS took over from 1FTS, or when 1FTS took over) exactly how did he know he was taking on an airworthy fleet? Any inspections? Any audits? Any checks on selected airframes? Any checks on selected MF700s and log packs? Any special QA checks on the organisation? Any review of previous QA inspections and results? Anything at all that would have been absolutely standard, normal, commonplace (choose your adjective) a decade or so earlier? Silence. Tumbleweed.

So, those are my suggestions for where the fault lies - any comments? If anyone has any information they'd like to share via PM, please let me know.

A final thought to all aircrew out there. This is not the result of 'new MAA regs'. It's not the result of 'engineers getting all risk averse'. This is a really, really, bad event - the MoD and the RAF have lost control of the airworthiness of a fleet of simple aircraft, and put schoolchildren at risk. It should not have happened. It could be happening to an aircraft near you right now. Get upset, and start asking some hard questions.

Best Regards as ever to all those putting the pieces back together,

Engines

[POBJOY]

ENGINES What qualifications did/should the new 2FTS have had to even be given the responsibility for the entire ATC training fleet.
Apart from anything else the O/C 2 FTS was not even qualified 'on types' nor had an engineering background to cover even the basic running of the operation.
How did the RAF/MOD allow this sort of nonsense to occur other than its haste to distance itself from a known situation that 'someone' had responsibility for.
He also has responsibility for two ATC airfields with no obvious experience in that field either.
The more I look at the situation the more serious it becomes as it seems all normal 'safe practice' and reasonable precautions were totally ignored in the desperate bid to devolve the known problem to 'someone else'; the someone else being the Cadet Movement itself who had no structure, staff, or tech expertise to handle it. The volunteer element of the Cadet organisation that actually operated the aircraft and gave flight training have not been found wanting in any of this, thereby only compounding the appalling way OC 2 FTS dealt with them, and failed completely in his leadership role.

[tucumseh]

Engines - Excellent, as ever.

Pobjoy - I hope someone can answer your questions, but in general terms it is now over two decades since MoD started permitting non-technical staff to self-delegate airworthiness authority. This has directly led to a number of deaths, mainly through them cancelling safety related work to satisfy the "savings at the expense of safety" policy of the Chief of Defence Procurement. Haddon-Cave reiterated this and also made a cutting comment about submariners managing aircraft - clearly a swipe at CDP. As Engines says, this is nothing new. The MAA has merely perpetuated these policies through its refusal or inability to do anything. I suspect refusal, given its denigration at every turn of those who have reported the failings, but acknowledge that position may just be that of a few at the top. For all I know, there's 250 totally hacked off MAA officers complaining every day about being hamstrung. Best of luck.

[EnigmAviation]

As Victor Meldrew said.............." I do not believe it "


I hear on my jungle drums that the TOTAL number of VGS aircraft ( Vigilant and Viking) that will be recovered for VGS use will only be somewhere between 31 and 41 !!!!


Remember chaps, we had in 1989 53 brand new Vigilants alone, then of course the Viking fleet on top. We have had all units grounded for just short of 3 years, got rid of huge numbers of very well qualified and experienced staff, and have dismantled about 14 Air Cadet VGS units.


Currently we have 1 Vigilant serviceable and flying at RAF Topcliffe, and one unserviceable in the hangar. Elsewhere, we have some emerging Viking operations in two or three places, but in ALL cases activity levels and achievements are but a fraction of what was achieved by ONE of the better performing units. Even at best, with aircraft availability and Winch capacity at 2/3rds of what we used to have on one VGS ( i.e., 6 drum winches as opposed to 2 x 2 drum winches) it is severely limited. We are also told that due to aircraft shortages, staff have now to be numbers limited - another kick in the teeth for the hard working long suffering loyal staff.


Cadet VGS training is back in business the spin doctors tell us, but look a bit closer and you find that is badges for bums off the ground, rather than what was previously delivered - i.e., structured training , and large numbers of GS Solo wings. As long as Cadets have some sort of badge with wings, that appears to be success, almost akin to Cubs, Scouts and Girl Guides, rather overlooking the quality of training behind the badge.


Now throw in the apparently hugely embarrassing story that the Navy are to acquire some of the "un-airworthy" Vigilants, as , the Navy may need some pilots themselves when they have some carriers in service. They are apparently to "repair them" (don't look too closely) and put them on the civilian register. Some of the others are going back to Grob as a free issue for them to convert to Mk II standard and then be SOLD by Grob to the Swedish Air Force !!!! Mr Grob must think Father Christmas has arrived early, thanks to our rotten fleet management and total lack of vision.


OMG what have we done ?

[The B Word]

https://s7.postimg.org/tqiund1sr/IMG_0890.jpg

Meanwhile, I see that the 'big cheese' for Air Cadet flying is having fun in Tutors on an AEF (photo taken last week).

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6-WltWWYAAdWf1.jpg

[Engines]

Enigma,

I think things may be even worse than you thought - from the sources available to me, I think the MoD bought 100 Vikings for the RAF. From memory, I think about 50 odd Vigilants were procured.

That's around 150 aircraft in all.

Can anyone out there in PPrune land supply some definitive numbers please?

Engines

[Lima Juliet]

In "Horizons - The History Of The Air Cadets" it says that 10x ASK21s (known as Vanguards), 5x ASW-19s (known as Valiants) and 2x Schemp-Hirth Janus C (known as Kestrels) were ordered initially as the first 'glass' gliders for delivery in 1983. Then an order for 100x Grob G103 Twin Acro was placed. It also states thathe order for Grob 109b (Vigilant) was placed. 53x Vigilants were initially ordered and were 'topped up' through the purchase of some extra civilian Grob 109b that were converted to Vigilant standard (it doesn't say how many).

The K-21s were foolishly sold and still fly today. Some with the RAFGSA. The ASW-19s were also sold - as they were single seaters they offered Cadets the chance to fly at the next level. All are flying except one that came a cropper at Bicester. All of the Janus C are believed to be flying.

Of course, the loss of all 53+ Vigiliants and over 50% of the Vikings is a scandal, but as ever no one or organisation will be held accountable. If they are selling them off and they end up on the civil register then someone should be held accountable; or the senior leadership should confess that they no longer have the appetite for the risk of flying tens of thousands of Cadets every year. Whichever it is, the truth has to be pressed.

LJ

[ATFQ]

I hear on my jungle drums that the TOTAL number of VGS aircraft ( Vigilant and Viking) that will be recovered for VGS use will only be somewhere between 31 and 41 !!!!?

EnigmAviation

The Written Ministerial Statement of last year (10 March 2016) states "It has been decided ... to recover at least 73 Vikings".

From the Westminster Hall debate on 13 April 2016, the Minister is also quoted in Hansard as stating "It has been decided that at least 73 Viking gliders will be recovered".

So, there is no need to scare the horses.

[cats_five]

The K-21s were foolishly sold and still fly today

But not because they are K-21s, because they were sold to organisations better able to keep them airworthy. If the ATC still owned them I am absolutely sure they also would be grounded.

[Random Bloke]

IIRC, at the start of the 'great pause' there were 65 Vigilants and 81 Vikings on the register.

[POBJOY]

Whatever way you look at this the simple truth is that the world class Volunteer 'training' (as opposed to 'rides') organisation that WAS ATC Gliding has been killed off by the very people paid to look after it.
IN truth this goes back to 3FTS days (possibly before) but either way the Volunteer element are the only ones that actually managed to do their job properly, and the 75th Anniversary year was the crowning disgrace of how not to motivate and recognise the thousands of capable Volunteer staff that gave the ATC the well deserved position it used to have, plus the loss of an unique motivating element that thousands of Cadets have missed forever.
UTTER UTTER UTTER Disgrace and all they can do is play around with websites and facebook to try to hide the TRUTH. The leaders of this organisation should leave and be replaced with some of the capable VGS staff that have been chucked away.

[VX275]

The leaders of this organisation should leave and be replaced with some of the capable VGS staff that have been chucked away.


You seem to forget that the VGS staff already have 'day jobs' and the VGS was a spare time occupation. This fact alone make the RAF's part in this fiasco look even more incompetent.

[XN187]

This photo was taken around 23/5/1983 at Syerston according to my logbook. It shows the publicity photos being taken for the new aircraft. I flew in it with Flt Lt. Lloyd Poulton, I think its Jack Ward plus random cadet in the photo. They used the photo for a poster to promote Air Cadet's and Gliding.
I remember them as the start of some golden days of gliding for a lucky staff cadet. :)

Anyway 14000 hours later and I owe it all to the Air Cadet gliding movement.

What a world of difference from the hope we had for the future of Air Cadet gliding on that spring day. What a sad state of affairs we find today, all those people who dedicated time and energy over the decades to inspire cadets like me must feel so let down. It's about time those in positions of responsibility and power over the organisation today stop kidding themselves. If the MOD/RAF can't keep a fleet of simple aircraft safe and serviceable what hope have we for defense of the nation!

[Random Bloke]

POBJOY, I don't want to get in to a urinary Olympic competition but as an ex VGS instructor, both as a volunteer and while a regular, I know about some of the issues and 'goings on' at VGS. Before you focus your vitriol solely at the "regular professionals" you might read "The Gospel According to John, chapter 8, verse 7". That by the way, is not meant to detract from the vast majority of VGS folk who did an outstanding job.

The rot set in well before 1 EFTS: that organisation was given one of the biggest hospital passes in history, by HQ Air Cadets. The purchase of the Vikings and, more so, the Vigilants looks a good candidate for the tipping point.

[EnigmAviation]

Enigma,

I think things may be even worse than you thought - from the sources available to me, I think the MoD bought 100 Vikings for the RAF. From memory, I think about 50 odd Vigilants were procured.

That's around 150 aircraft in all.

Can anyone out there in PPrune land supply some definitive numbers please?

Engines
The Vigilant order was 53 I think, and we also purchased some second hand later on.

[EnigmAviation]

https://s7.postimg.org/tqiund1sr/IMG_0890.jpg

Meanwhile, I see that the 'big cheese' for Air Cadet flying is having fun in Tutors on an AEF (photo taken last week).

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6-WltWWYAAdWf1.jpg

Given that Tutor flying is but a massive RAF sponsored flying club for RO's and others, and that any Cadet flying in them is only Air Experience, there's not much going on in that area. ( And of course UAS members don't now get what they used to get years ago either - by a good long way in terms of hours ) RAF Woodvale ( 5 Tutors) not flying Cadets due to runway issues, and ex VGS staff Converting to Tutor not able to complete convex as aircraft are not currently cleared for spinning thus pilots cannot complete Final Handling test ( and all they do is solo SCT flight). So if they are lucky they may get a 25 minute sortie somewhere, and if exceptionally lucky, they may get another within a year !! That's a REAL incentive to stay as an Air Cadet and is not training !

[Engines]

Pop, Random and others,

Perhaps the combined knowledge out there among the PPruners can shed some light on this issue, and hopefully avoid generating heat.

My take (and I'm happy that others might not agree) is that the Air Cadets 'pause' scandal is, at its source, a failure to properly manage and execute the technical and engineering activities required to maintain airworthiness. Those activities span a wide range, and it's almost certain that a number of agencies will have been involved.

1. The MoD procurement agencies (would have been the PE 'back in the day') should have ensured that the aircraft they bought had an airworthy and controlled configuration, and also that when the aircraft were 'taken on charge' (now THAT'S a useful phrase seldom held these days) they were properly supported by the appropriate arrangements with 3rd and 4th line (service depots and the manufacturers) plus the manuals and any special equipment required at 1st and 2nd line.

2. So, first questions -

a. who were the MoD departments acting as the 'Type Authority' for the ATC gliders? Anyone got that information for Mod(PE), then DLO, Then DE&S?
b. Who was supervising the repair work at the depots?
c. Did they have appropriate PDS contracts with a properly authorised Design Authority?
d. The big one - did they have a current Safety Case? On what did they base the CA release?

3. Following on, we get to the RTSA, in this case I'd guess ACAS.

a. What steps did his staff take to ensure that the RTS was supported by all the evidence required, and how often did they review it to ensure that it was still safe?

4. In service, the 1st and 2nd line maintenance of aircraft is controlled and supervised by the engineering staff at the appropriate HQ department. As I posted before, there were any number of changes, but as far as I can determine, this was at various times RAF Training Command, then 22 Group. Lower down were HQATC, 1FTS, 3FTS, then 2FTS. So, next questions -

a. which RAF (or ATC) HQ engineering staffs were responsible for the maintenance of the ATC gliders?
b. How did they meet those responsibilities?
c. What checks did they carry out?
d. What reports did they prepare?

5. The final link is the actual maintenance at 1st and 2nd line. I'm assuming (possibly incorrect try - please correct me) that volunteer staff involvement would have been limited to no more than 'daily checks' (AFs and BFs in modern parlance) with any actual fault rectification and inspection being undertaken by technically authorised personnel. I understand (from Wiki) that VGS units had a VRT Flt Lt as a 'Technical Officer'. So, next (easy) questions -

a. who did what?
b. Did volunteers make MF700 entries?
c. Were they allowed to clear MF700 entries?
d. What did the VGS 'Technical Officers' do?
e. What did regular RAF technicians do?
f. When did the aircraft go back to 2nd line?
g. Who supervised the (contractorised) 2nd line work? HQ? MoD?

Can anyone provide some answers to these questions? Information is power, people. The better the RAF understands what has happened, the faster it can make sure that its not happening somewhere else.

Best regard as ever to all those making ATC flying safe,

Engines

[Arclite01]

Hi Engines

Can you number your points in your posts - it'll make them easier to answer !!. I'll get onto the ones I know now..............

Ta

Arc

[beardy]

ex VGS staff Converting to Tutor not able to complete convex as aircraft are not currently cleared for spinning thus pilots cannot complete Final Handling test

Odd that. I went spinning in one yesterday.

[POBJOY]

I believe that there are restrictions in place on certain Tutors depending on the finding of cracks in the rear fuselage. There are a number of airframes on repair due this situation. Apparently this is quite normal to allow non aerobatic or non spin flights rather than a general grounding.

[Random Bloke]

Engines, you said:


"2010: Control of VGS moved from HQ ATC to 1 EFTS
2011: No.1 EFTS absorbed into No.3 Flying Training School
2014: Gliders handed over from 3FTS to newly formed 2FTS"

That however was for the operations aspects: flying, instructing, airfield operations etc. Control of the engineering and logistics remained firmly with HQ Air Cadets under the control of SO1 Eng & Logs who is a civil servant (although he was always referred to as a Wg Cdr). HQ Air Cadets continued to own the engineering and logistics contracts; SO1 Eng & Logs was the Designated Officer for the contracts and it was he who owned the Quality Assurance and contract monitoring roles. He was therefore responsible for all engineering standards. The Project Team (Viking, Vigilant & Tucano) were responsible for airworthiness.

In the beginning though, the T21s etc and then, initially the Vikings were registered with the BGA and maintained to BGA (and CAA) standards. This changed sometime in the 90s to the present system.

[Engines]

Random,

Many thanks for coming back - that's extremely useful.

So 'engineering and logistics' aspects were run from HQ Air Cadets, which I assume was part of Training Command? Very unusual for a civil servant to be referred to as a Wg Cdr, though.

Follow up questions (sorry) - so did HQATC run the competitions for the eng and log contracts? And does anyone know when (or if) responsibility for these passed to someone else?

Extremely interesting to hear that the Vikings were initially registered with the BGA - I wonder when the aircraft were taken on to the military register, and when they got a CA release and RTS?

Once again, many thanks for the info.

Best Regards as ever to all those sorting through the bits,

Engines

[Arclite01]

Hi Engines

They were dual hatted airframes. They were always on the military register but had 'shadow' BGA Identities (never used).

There is a typo in the earlier post by Random Bloke who I think put T21 but actually meant K21.

Arc

**Ref your Tech Officer role question in your earlier post, in Mk3 and Sedbergh days the Tech Officer would do minor repairs (trained and authorized so to do) but in Glass Fibre days the Tech Officer role was largely limited to paperwork and Tech Liaison with CGMF at Syerston although I did see one change (swap U/S for S) a nosewheel tyre/wheel assembly once !

[Random Bloke]

Engines, sorry but I've no idea who ran the competition for the glider engineering contract that Serco eventually won. The timing though is important because that will determine which command, or group, had responsibility. HQ 22 Gp is only a recent organisation (of which the Air Cadets are part). Its predecessor was Personnel and Training Command, and before that, Supoort Command. However, at one time, the Air Cadets was a separate entity and the Commandant was actually an Air Officer Commanding in his own right. Similarly, Project Teams are a fairly recent (in the grand scheme of things) invention. What came before PTs?

[Random Bloke]

Arc, no mate. I meant T21 - ie the Sedberg, the Kirby Cadet MkIII was a T31. Then there was the ill-fated T53 that was supposed to replace the T21s and T31s...

[Arclite01]

showing your age Random !!! (same as me)

Arc

[Cows getting bigger]

Engines, from my vague recollection, the ASK21s (Vanguard?) were on the military register from the outset. Certainly they arrived at RAF Syerston/Catterick with ZD64* stuck on the tail. That would have been in 1983.

Filling-in bits of your other questions:

Q4 - Training Command disappeared in the mid 70s so for the introduction of the 'glass fleet' in the 80s the initial responsibility would have sat with Support Command. There were no defined Group formations within this command. Support Command was then split in the mid 90s (1994?) with elements being split between Personnel & Training Command and Logistics Command.

Q5. Again, a vague recollection, but the RAF would send maintenance teams (Cpl-Chief Tech) routinely about once a year to do annuals etc. If we bent something, we would park it in the back of the hangar and await the RAF chaps. For example, we had the authority to do things like tyre pressures but not tyre/wheel changes.

Sorry it's only a snippet.

[boswell bear]

VGS instructors carried out the following on Viking/Vigilant

AF, BF and OoPS

Replacing tail wheels, Landing light bulb, fitting/removal of oil cooler blanking plate, topping up oil, refuelling, tyre pressures

[XN187]

Well I've been digging through the photo album again and found this one. (Not working in any chronological order).

From my logbook it was taken at Catterick on a wave camp, sometime around 09/12/1985. ACCGS got hold of a G109b G-BLMY from the RAFGSA? or Oxford Soaring? or some ware. They wanted to test it out with cadets. I did three flights in it that week with WG CDR Jack Allcock including a PAR approach into Leeming. I remember one the Janus having a little prang, resulting in the tail not being attached to the rest of the fuselage! may have been repaired by southern sailplanes but not 100% sure. Flying up to 10000 feet in wave was what I really remember best of all.

TTFN

[Tingger]

VGS instructors carried out the following on Viking/Vigilant

AF, BF and OoPS

Replacing tail wheels, Landing light bulb, fitting/removal of oil cooler blanking plate, topping up oil, refuelling, tyre pressures

De-rig
Rig
Independent check
Canopy lanyard replacement
Seat remove/refit
Loose article check

[VX275]

I remember sitting in the classroom at Syerston being taught how to fill in the various sheets of the F700 by an RAF Techie who used this phrase "In the RAF we have a week to go through this, you will have an afternoon."


One of the jobs of a VGS Engineering Officer would be to train and authorise VGS staff to carry out those servicing actions permitted by their grade. Of course the Eng officer needed to be trained to do this themselves and tended to happen at Syerston on the 'VGS Conference weekend' ie Saturday afternoon or Sunday Morning.

[teeteringhead]

Engines Very unusual for a civil servant to be referred to as a Wg Cdr, though. These "civil servants" were in what used to be called RO (Retired Officer) posts, which subsequently became MSF (Military Support Function).

They often - although not always - were retired officers, although not necessarily in the rank they now "wore". They would have been granted a Reserve Commission of some sort, but were paid as Civil Servants. Complicated, no?

[Arclite01]

XN187

I did my first Venture trip in XZ555 at Syerston. My 3822 tells me it was with Sqn Ldr Foster on 24/10/81 followed by another trip with Sqn Ldr Atkinson on 25/10/81 before 7 other trips in ZA666 with Flt Lt Tapson the following 3 days and then first solo.

Nice to have a picture :cool:

Arc

[POBJOY]

As a Staff Cadet I attended SM and completed a weeks course on basic glider inspection/minor repairs.
This included derig/rig, changing components (skids wheels struts and airframe parts) plus basic gluing and fabric repair.AS there were no Gliders to repair we practiced on wooden furniture for the repairs and the chisels were 'very sharp' to ensure tight fitting joints (no gaps allowed).
Wed afternoon (sports day) was a break from this when Camp staff came around for some flying which meant loads of launches for a suitably rated SC as opposed to the 'hand outs' back at base.
At the end of the week there was a basic test ( oral/and rig test) then you were awarded a certificate stating your ability to undertake duties as written down.
In practice this allowed you to DI the school fleet in the mornings before the main body of staff arrived, the main feature being to check for unreported heavy landings or fabric damage. I still have the spanner left behind by a MGSP midweek visit !!! All this was overseen by the |Chief Tec who gave the final test. This was all actual hands on practical work with no 'form filling' or classroom time. Of course the system was fine as back at the school we had no approved workshops or facilities so had to work with what we made of things. It was interesting that after say a skid change the later visit by the MGSP would usually mean a fuselage would be 'inverted' for a 'close inspection' and attention in the wheel box area if required.

[Engines]

My sincere thanks to all those PPruners who have taken the time and trouble to reply to my request for information. It's really very much appreciated.

Best Regards to you all

Engines

[EnigmAviation]

Pop, Random and others,

Perhaps the combined knowledge out there among the PPruners can shed some light on this issue, and hopefully avoid generating heat.

My take (and I'm happy that others might not agree) is that the Air Cadets 'pause' scandal is, at its source, a failure to properly manage and execute the technical and engineering activities required to maintain airworthiness. Those activities span a wide range, and it's almost certain that a number of agencies will have been involved.

1. The MoD procurement agencies (would have been the PE 'back in the day') should have ensured that the aircraft they bought had an airworthy and controlled configuration, and also that when the aircraft were 'taken on charge' (now THAT'S a useful phrase seldom held these days) they were properly supported by the appropriate arrangements with 3rd and 4th line (service depots and the manufacturers) plus the manuals and any special equipment required at 1st and 2nd line.

2. So, first questions -

a. who were the MoD departments acting as the 'Type Authority' for the ATC gliders? Anyone got that information for Mod(PE), then DLO, Then DE&S?
b. Who was supervising the repair work at the depots?
c. Did they have appropriate PDS contracts with a properly authorised Design Authority?
d. The big one - did they have a current Safety Case? On what did they base the CA release?

3. Following on, we get to the RTSA, in this case I'd guess ACAS.

a. What steps did his staff take to ensure that the RTS was supported by all the evidence required, and how often did they review it to ensure that it was still safe?

4. In service, the 1st and 2nd line maintenance of aircraft is controlled and supervised by the engineering staff at the appropriate HQ department. As I posted before, there were any number of changes, but as far as I can determine, this was at various times RAF Training Command, then 22 Group. Lower down were HQATC, 1FTS, 3FTS, then 2FTS. So, next questions -

a. which RAF (or ATC) HQ engineering staffs were responsible for the maintenance of the ATC gliders?
b. How did they meet those responsibilities?
c. What checks did they carry out?
d. What reports did they prepare?

5. The final link is the actual maintenance at 1st and 2nd line. I'm assuming (possibly incorrect try - please correct me) that volunteer staff involvement would have been limited to no more than 'daily checks' (AFs and BFs in modern parlance) with any actual fault rectification and inspection being undertaken by technically authorised personnel. I understand (from Wiki) that VGS units had a VRT Flt Lt as a 'Technical Officer'. So, next (easy) questions -

a. who did what?
b. Did volunteers make MF700 entries?
c. Were they allowed to clear MF700 entries?
d. What did the VGS 'Technical Officers' do?
e. What did regular RAF technicians do?
f. When did the aircraft go back to 2nd line?
g. Who supervised the (contractorised) 2nd line work? HQ? MoD?

Can anyone provide some answers to these questions? Information is power, people. The better the RAF understands what has happened, the faster it can make sure that its not happening somewhere else.

Best regard as ever to all those making ATC flying safe,

Engines


Keep searching "Engines" - good forensic investigation should uncover who the people responsible were. You obviously know the system, - I just hope that people give you the required information. It's just been an absolute disgrace and to some extent it's still not finished yet.

[622]

De-rig
Rig
Independent check
Canopy lanyard replacement
Seat remove/refit
Loose article check



...And of course Air tests.

[Bigpants]

More propellor problems for the Tutor Fleet. Apparently a delamination of the leading edge strip in past day or so has resulted in some aircraft being grounded for inspection.

This whole debacle of Air Cadet Flying needs to be drawn to a close and something better put in its place. What? Well I am tempted to say a budget and permission for the ACO to use civil powered and gliding clubs.

[Shaft109]

Maybe it's time for a coup de grace- just have a CGS operation and rebuild the rest using a civilian reg / BGA style thing.

This has gone from a problem to an absolute quagmire- as someone who owes lots to the VGS it's time to put it out of the misery.

[Chugalug2]

Shaft 109:-
Phoenix

Maybe it's time for a coup de grace- just have a CGS operation and rebuild the rest using a civilian reg / BGA style thing.

This has gone from a problem to an absolute quagmire- as someone who owes lots to the VGS it's time to put it out of the misery.


It's not only Air Cadet Aviation that needs to rise from the ashes but the whole of UK Military Aviation in general. The canker that infected the ACO fleets has infected all the UK military airfleets, and simply contemplating a work around using the civvie register for the former does not begin to address the urgent need for the reform of UK Military Air Safety in general.

Let's suppose for one minute that your solution is accepted and made to work, where is the morality in making Air Cadets air minded enough to become military aviators under the auspices of a controlled and dysfunctional regulator and a partial accident investigator that cannot truthfully declare any military fleet airworthy, let alone ensure that they become so?

The MOD's default policy is to go on stovepiping airworthiness related accidents and groundings, whereas they are all associated and connected by the same systemic failings. Too many lives have been lost to them, too much money wasted, and too much damaged done to the UK's security. It has to end, and can only be made to do so by owning up to the past, disowning Haddon-Cave's "Golden Period", and making the MAA and the MilAAIB independent of the MOD and of each other.

This is a professional aviators forum. Aviation punishes those who are not, in the only way that it knows how.

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

[POBJOY]

The Grobs are quite a sound machine,but many of the problems have been caused by 'over enthusiastic' aero's which certainly led to the tail cracks and early propeller incidents.
Grob state quite clearly what the aircraft is cleared for but it appears that 'flick' manoeuvres have added to the airframe/prop issues which are not the fault of the basic machine. Tail strikes of the ventral fin have also caused an added issue.
Compared with the cost of ATC Gliding I always thought the AEF scheme was expensive for what it produced, and by using two seat aircraft never really gave much air time for the squadrons. The aerobatic 'thing' was always over sold, when in fact what was needed was 'air time' for Cadets to experience both handling plus using charts that a four seater would give for the same engine power. An 'Aerobatic' badge could be included for older Cadets as an 'add on' to the basic operation.

[Bigpants]

The Tutor was not put through a full Boscombe Down Evaluation. Had they done so it would have become apparent that the aeroplane was unlikely to survive the daily thrashing AEF and UAS aircraft receive.

The Chipmunk airframe and Dripsy Major Engine did the same job amazingly well for decades but then the whole operation was far better supervised.

[Lima Juliet]

It is no coincidence that the past 7 years the Air Cadets have been headed by scribblies. Prior to that the previous Commandants were aircrew over a similar period. Further I don't believe any of the ATC Regional Commandants have flying backgrounds either. I believe that these people form the Executive Board of the Air Cadets and so flying will probably not sit high on their priority list. The Gp Capts that run 2FTS and 6FTS will likely sit on the Board but thy are not Air Cadet main business (certainly not anymore) and so only get limited air time in meetings. Plus, don't forget that Comdt 2FTS works for HQAC and so is overseen by the scribbly 1-star; so the majority of the Board not understanding the intricacies of aviation they probably think everything is going according to plan!

So unless there is a change at the top, and the only known one is AOC 22 changing this summer, then I suspect we are unlikely to see any massive change of direction. I even heard that the head of 2FTS has been extended in post to see the job done.

[POBJOY]

Might as well close the doors and switch the lights off now and save the money

[chevvron]

Hopefully it means 'you're not getting your pension until you've sorted out this bollock up'.

[BEagle]

I even heard that the head of 2FTS has been extended in post to see the job done.

Is that still Pippa the navigator?

[Lima Juliet]

Beags - yup.

The rumour is that it is a 1 or 2 year extension to the current commitment. I am surprised at this as I truly believe that some fresh minds are needed on this; ideally someone with a civvy gliding background. I still believe that his original recommendation to AOC 22 to 'pause' was right, but the recovery lost its way and the treatment of the volunteer staff appeared to be poor. So a fresh mind is needed in my humble opinion.

[POBJOY]

Total Disaster; Zero Leadership, and had not a clue what was being destroyed.
There were plenty of options that could have kept the organisation going (even at a reduced scale for a while) using leased aircraft whilst some 'capable' people put a proper plan for the future together. They wasted thousands on PTT and winches, and worst of all chucked decades of instructor expertise away in the process, plus killing off the Staff Cadet route that worked so well. Pension my foot, head on a pole on London Bridge quite reasonable.

[cats_five]

There are very few if any airworthy 2-seat gliders sitting around waiting to be leased...

[POBJOY]

I think the whole of Europe could have come up with a few that satisfied BGA cert standards.
We are talking about a 'plan' that kept a hub of flying going and the staff current. This of course needed the ability to think outside the box and get into the real world. Would have been better than the destruction of an organisation, and I suspect the GSA could have been brought in to help if asked.
The 'Military' input seems to be incapable of original thought or the ability to organise a rescue plan. In fact they seem to be expert at wasting money and not producing the goods. In any normal organisation the 'management' would have been sacked by now and NEW PEOPLE brought in to sort it. Extending the 'employment' of the current failures only confirms that there is nobody in the current 'management' that has a clue about basic aviation or leading a worthy group of trained volunteers. As alluded to at the start of all this only a real change at the top was going to produce any results. For the mainstream RAF/MOD to allow this only reduces their credibility, and the top brass of the Cadet organisation have to accept that their leadership of the organisation has been found wanting. The clue is in the title AIR CADETS
We now have THREE SCANDALS
The first was having to ground the fleet.
The second was allowing the original contractors (who are in default) to be part of the recovery.
The third is THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FINEST VOLUNTEER TRAINING ORGANISATION IN THE WORLD and the UK had it.

[Bigpants]

I know the modern RAF and its MOD sir humphrey's would have said no but when the pause had been ordered what would have been the response from ex cadets, the BGA and aircraft owners if someone had asked for a Dunkirk style response to keep the cadets flying? Anyone with an airworthy two seater glider or powered aifcraft asked to bring them to the VGS bases to maintain some kind of flying programme?

Bring licence, C of A or permit and insurance docs. Quick dual ride with a VGS instructor and on that basis a yes or no to flying cadets? There is no Dunkirk Spirit left in Little Britain and its a shame.

[Cat Funt]

Beags - yup.

The rumour is that it is a 1 or 2 year extension to the current commitment. I am surprised at this as I truly believe that some fresh minds are needed on this; ideally someone with a civvy gliding background. I still believe that his original recommendation to AOC 22 to 'pause' was right, but the recovery lost its way and the treatment of the volunteer staff appeared to be poor. So a fresh mind is needed in my humble opinion.


You've got to be kidding me. I realise that FTRS service with the Air Cadets is seen increasingly by the volunteer cadre as an old folks home for retired incompetents who wouldn't survive 6 months in the real world, but the delusions of adequacy this muppet harbours is truly next-level stuff.


My guess is that most of those volunteers who were willing to stay on through this spinning bow-tie extravaganza did so on the assumption that he was being quietly shuffled off to the glue factory in the next 12 months.

[Arclite01]

I'm sure he volunteered to stay....................knowing John, it's the sort of selfless act he would make.....................:}

Arc

[POBJOY]

B-pants your assessment of the situation is confirmed by the response to the situation on this thread.
It was quite obvious to those who had experienced the organisation when it actually was 'organised' to see quite clearly how far apart from reality it had drifted, and how there was a complete loss of competent leadership.
The equipment we are talking about were basic SLMG (powered by a converted car engine) and a fleet of simple conventional gliders. All this equipment is also used by clubs and private owners all over the World and in many case's the owners actually take part in the maintenance program. There were hundreds of competent staff on the schools who already had 'powered' experience and I suspect would have had no problem being approved to provide 'duplicate checks' and basic servicing. Syerston as the flying HQ should have picked up on the fact that aircraft were not being repaired and indeed one wonders what quality control was in place to oversee the basic day to day requirements.
GRP repairs are not quite as simple as the previous fleet but the knowledge is out there to keep control on what is acceptable or not. For the Air Cadet organisation not to have an overall engineering oversight for this is negligent, and there is no excuse as the GSA operated a satisfactory system for their machines so a template was there. For aviation to operate there has to be a sound 'engineering' base looking after equipment. The PFA and latterly the LAA have shown that this is possible using a volunteer element that are qualified to undertake inspections and actual building of complete aircraft.
The volunteer element of the ATC has not been found wanting but has been let down by the complete absence of capability and competence by the very people paid to organise it.

[Prangster]

All I can say gentlemen is that the whole sad saga leaves me both bereft and bemused. I know that in my MK3 T21 days it was all a bit 'kick the tyres and fly' and I fully understand the airworthiness issues at play. I can also see that some of the decison making is driven by a need to avoid the negative publicity of yet another dead ATC cadet. I seem to recall two accidents where sadly life was lost and we all need to keep that thought uppermost. My grandson keeps a close eye on this thread muttering that he hopes all issues will be resolved before he puts on his first blue suit. (You've got 18months to sort it guys). Good luck and best wishes. Ex cloudscraper.

[cats_five]

"I think the whole of Europe could have come up with a few that satisfied BGA cert standards."

When we found ourselves a K21 short the UK couldn't come up with one.

*Edit not a single glass 2-seat basic trainer so not a K21, not a Grob of any type, etc.

"My grandson keeps a close eye on this thread muttering that he hopes all issues will be resolved before he puts on his first blue suit"

If your grandson seriously wants to fly gliders his nearest BGA club will provide flying right now, and he can go solo at 14 as long as his flying is up to it. Most BGA clubs have very good deals for Juniors.

[snapper1]

DLGC Club News 28 March 2017

''Group of ATC Cadets Joins. A group of 13 ATC cadets from Knutsford have joined the club as under 18 members in an arrangement in which up to any three at a time may come to learn to fly with us''.

[Rivet gun]

The PFA and latterly the LAA have shown that this is possible using a volunteer element that are qualified to undertake inspections and actual building of complete aircraft.


But cadets are expressly forbidden from flying in LAA aircraft (ACTO 35).

So in the opinion of 2 FTS, the LAA's airworthiness oversight regime is not fit for purpose (at least not for the purpose of flying cadets).

[BEagle]

Well, one interesting snippet. I hear that some youngster scored a DH on Pippa-the-fat-navigator's forehead with a chuck glider at a recent gliding association's dinner...

One can almost hear the lad saying "That's what a ******g glider looks like, you d------d!!"

[POBJOY]

Rivet Gun
My point was/is that the PFA/LAA and indeed the BGA are all Volunteer organisations that have their own airworthiness and certification sections. In the case of the BGA they have had to adapt to the advent of quite high tec machines and also numerous motor adaptations. Their ability to cope with this has never been in question.
In the case of what is now the LAA they are responsible for homebuilt construction of quite complicated and powerful aircraft and the ongoing maintenance. Both organisations are largely Volunteer run with high quality tech leadership and design capability. As we have seen with the ACO the volunteer element has proven to be 100% capable of delivering quality safe TRAINING. Had it also operated the engineering backup using the same element of capability as the above organisations including the GSA then we would not be in the current pickle. It is the SHOCK that the parent organisation for delivering the engineering part of Air Cadet gliding has been seen to be wanting to extreme, and also the paid full time 'staff' so lacking in both capability and actual leadership let alone an ability to deal with a (NOT QUITE ROCKET SCIENCE ISSUE) .If the parent engineering base was so incapable (why would anybody with a brain let it organise a recovery)

[AnglianAV8R]

Well, one interesting snippet. I hear that some youngster scored a DH on Pippa-the-fat-navigator's forehead with a chuck glider at a recent gliding association's dinner...

One can almost hear the lad saying "That's what a ******g glider looks like, you d------d!!"

It really is time we had a 'like' button in here.

[A and C]

I have to take issue with those who look at the DHC-1 through rose tinted glasses, it is indeed a great aircraft to fly and has many indeering qualities but maintanabilty is not one of them.

The maintenance bill for the DHC-1 is eye watering it is an aircraft full of special parts used in places that standard parts could be used and sometimes these parts are very Labour intensive to fit ( such as having to drill split pin holes in bolts ), and that is before we get to the 1920's engine that can't keep the oil inside.

The GrobTutor has had issues , the propellor selected for the aircraft was not the one recommended by Grob so the forced change to the Grob recommended prop was a bit of an own goal, the current tail cracking issues are well understood and not to difficult to repair by skilled staff, contrast this to the pages of TNS's for the DHC-1 that range from time limited parts to X-ray inspections ( try arranging one of those in a hurry !).

The message is clear, the DHC-1 is an aircraft that by now should be a rich mans toy and confined to sunny summer afternoon flying , it is no longer a viable military training aircraft in both financial and practical terms however the Grob is and the updated Sister aircraft the G120tp will be training RAF pilots for years into the future.

[The B Word]

The Portuguese still run DHC-1s in their Air Force Academy very succesfully. They have Lycoming O-360s in them. The Prtuguese turn theirs upside down but those on the UK register cannot as they have never been trialled. I also fly one of these on the civvy register and I get quite a lot of change from £80 per hour.

https://img.planespotters.net/photo/294000/original/1335-portuguese-air-force-ogma-dhc-1-chipmunk-t20_PlanespottersNet_294792.jpg

Oh, and I believe that 2 FTS under ACTO35 will allow factory built permit to fly LAA aircraft if the documents are presented to them and scrutinised.

The B Word

[biscuit74]

Quoting RivetGun : "So in the opinion of 2 FTS, the LAA's airworthiness oversight regime is not fit for purpose (at least not for the purpose of flying cadets)."

Hmm, thanks for that. I'd suggest many in the LAA think that 2FTS, or at least its 'leaders', don't appear to be fit for any known purpose themselves - judging by results, or the near total lack of them !

As for the DHC-1, it needn't be impossibly expensive to run, a B Word says. Provide you have plentiful supplies of oil and clothes to wipe her down with... What a shame the Lycomning conversions were never aerobatics approved in UK.

[Wander00]

Aren't Chipmunks now under the aegis of the LAA - can they approve aeros for the Lycoming engine ones

[Auster Fan]

Maybe some can follow this example and rather than use Lycomings, use a LOM engine:

http://http://rnzaf.proboards.com/thread/24958/re-engined-chipmunk

[Big Pistons Forever]

Most of my Chippy time is in an aircraft re-engined with a Lycoming. What a huge improvement over the boat anchor POS "Dripsy" Major :ugh:
By the way, last year the Canadian Air Cadet glider program produced over 350 licensed glider pilots, all at or under the age of 17. If the "leaders" of the RAF cadet program want to see a successful youth cadet flying program I highly suggest they come pay a visit to the colonies and see how to do it right :ok:

[cats_five]

Most of my Chippy time is in an aircraft re-engined with a Lycoming. What a huge improvement over the boat anchor POS "Dripsy" Major :ugh:
By the way, last year the Canadian Air Cadet glider program produced over 350 licensed glider pilots, all at or under the age of 17. If the "leaders" of the RAF cadet program want to see a successful youth cadet flying program I highly suggest they come pay a visit to the colonies and see how to do it right :ok:

They don't need to go to that expense, most bga clubs have active junior sections.

[BEagle]

Forget the BGA - just get Pippa to Google 'Canadian Air Cadet Gliding Program'....

In fact to save him the effort, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Cadet_Gliding_Program !

[cats_five]

Forget the BGA - just get Pippa to Google 'Canadian Air Cadet Gliding Program'....

In fact to save him the effort, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Cadet_Gliding_Program !

Lots of what but no how on Wikipedia, and I think it's the How that's lacking.

[POBJOY]

Would I be correct in thinking the RAF Chipmunks had the carb heat wired ON !!
If so hardly a boost to performance or engine life !!

[Flugplatz]

The Army Chippies did in the early/mid nineties. Not sure why they weren't more concerned about fouled plugs and anemic performance than about whether the pilot would forget the carb-heat. I suppose they might have had a few incidents and felt they had to choose the lesser of two evils?

Flug

[Wander00]

"Carb air wired hot" on Towers Chipmunks in the 60s

[ACW599]

>"Carb air wired hot" on Towers Chipmunks in the 60s<

And on UWAS Chipmunks in the early 1970s.

[sycamore]

Auster,can`t get that link to work...?

[kevindb63]

Some facebook links the Canadian Gliding Program
https://www.facebook.com/RGSPacific/
https://www.facebook.com/GimliCFTC
https://www.facebook.com/CstcCentralRegionGlidingSchoolcrgs/
https://www.facebook.com/CEVCE.CFTCE/
https://www.facebook.com/FlyAtlCadets/

[Fitter2]

Sycamore:

Try

https://tinyurl.com/krgagly

and more at

https://tinyurl.com/kwxrbj2

[teeteringhead]

The "carb air wired hot" sketch was useful for stretching PFLs!

Because of fouling concerns, in a PFL one had to "open the throttle to clear plugs" every 1000' in the descent IIRC.

Adjusting the duration of the plug clearance procedure was worth a couple of fields!:ok::E

[Frelon]

I was at RAF Hawkinge doing my week's ATC gliding course in 1959, and having been sent solo on the Tuesday, was asked if I could help take a Sedburgh (T21b to some of you youngsters) with the maintenance guys to Lydd to load into a Canadian Air Force DC3. We managed to get the fuselage in and one wing! Rethink, remove everything and try again! Both wings went in and tailplane, no room for fuselage! It was obvious they were not going to get the whole glider in! So out it all came again. One wing in first this time, then the fuselage, oops no room for the other wing!

The DC3 finally left Lydd with an almost complete T21, to return at a later date to collect the other wing and tailplane👍

The Canadians had been most impressed with our Air Cadet Gliding programme and wanted to try it for themselves with a borrowed T21b.

Wow, they really made a great success of it from such a simple start.

How did our VSOs manage to so royally screw up our Air Cadet gliding for the future generations of British Air Cadets🤔 after leading the world in Air Cadet gliding all those years ago?

[dervish]

How did our VSOs manage to so royally screw up

The answer is in a very good book, which also provides links to evidence to the Nimrod Review. Recommended reading.


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Their-Greatest-Disgrace-campaign-Chinook-ebook/dp/B01J1YVRH0/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1469507387&sr=1-2&keywords=their+greatest+disgrace

[Chugalug2]

dervish:-
The answer is in a very good book, which also provides links to evidence to the Nimrod Review. Recommended reading.

Agreed. David Hill's book should be required reading for all serving Military Aviators, be they air or ground, and highly recommended for those of the ex-variety. A highly arcane subject matter perhaps, but straightforwardly told and a glaring example of that age old axiom that evil happens when good men do nothing. There were far too few good men. David Hill is one though, albeit a civilian. Those who are uniformed should brush off those old Military Law lectures that they dozed through and remind themselves that illegal orders are not to be obeyed, even at the cost of one's own career, health, and wealth. Those that forgot that have cost many lives, much money, and the air capability of this nation. They should suffer many many sleepless nights!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Their-Greatest-Disgrace-campaign-Chinook-ebook/dp/B01J1YVRH0/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1469507387&sr=1-2&keywords=their+greatest+disgrace

[ExAscoteer]

Having flown 2 types that are referenced as having severe airworthiness issues that is scarey reading.

[POBJOY]

This will now be the 4th Easter course lost to the ATC and brings home to me just how much we really have lost.
The Easter course was a great 'kick start' to the busy part of the gliding operation and by bringing together so many of the staff for at least a complete week also provided a wonderful 'bonding' of the smooth running of the school.
The intense activity was excellent to 'bring on' junior staff and the bonus of getting up to 20 (depending on school size) A&B's off gave everyone a good dose of motivation.
The fact that this was done with a minimum of fuss and paperwork was a testament to the capability of those involved at all levels and of course was why it was a World Class system.
I still wonder at how all this happened without phones (landline and mobile) or e-mails; but work it did, and is a fantastic credit to the organisation at that time and those who were privileged to be part of it.

[cats_five]

The fact that this was done with a minimum of fuss and paperwork was a testament to the capability of those involved at all levels and of course was why it was a World Class system.

Requirements change over time, the people responsible for the airworthiness paperwork seem to have failed to change with it.

[Chugalug2]

POBJOY:-
The fact that this was done with a minimum of fuss and paperwork was a testament to the capability of those involved at all levels and of course was why it was a World Class system.

Agreed. As a beneficiary of that system I was blissfully unaware of it, both as a schoolboy CCF cadet and later as an RAF Pilot. When the campaign to reinstate UK Military Airworthiness provision and maintenance began, I suspect that was the same for many of those who succeeded me. Not any more though. If there is anyone in UK Military Aviation who isn't aware of the scandal of how that behind the scenes system of ensuring that the aircraft you fly is airworthy was sabotaged, subverted, and suborned by RAF VSOs, then they must be on an extended tour of Mars!

The people responsible for that most certainly did change it, cats five. They reduced it to impotence, and there it remains and will remain until Military Air Regulation and Accident Investigation is made independent of the MOD and of the RAF VSOs who maintain the cover up still of their predecessors illegal acts.

[chevvron]

Another issue perhaps worth thinking about is the blanket ban on those over 65. Surely what matters is actual medical condition rather than biological age?

There are many who are well into their 70s and fly far more demanding aircraft than those operated by the ACO. I converted a lady of 83 on to a Tecnam a few months ago with not the slightest difficulty and one of my current students is 77 and as sharp as a tack. Our club CFI is 74, is well known in aerobatic circles and displays an Extra and a Firefly.

I don't know quite how you can be an A2* VGS exec one day and judged decrepit the next, especially if you have and can retain a Class 2 medical. The CAA seems to be considerably more enlightened in this respect than the RAF.
Glad I'm not the only one with this viewpoint.

[POBJOY]

CHUG The question has to be WHY and for what reason would any sane person seek to diminish the quality of airworthiness at any level of aviation, and especially that involving complex machines (RAF) and the training of minors (ATC).
I always held the RAF in the highest regard when sharing their airfields as part of the gliding world. However when I moved over to power and had to use their facilities as a customer, it became quite obvious that the actual 'Flying' was not the foremost feature of the service organisation (as it had always been) and an attitude of 'jobsworths' seemed to infiltrate what had been a trade led tech based operation. No doubt this decline affected all levels of the service, and led to a situation where there was a real lack of actual tech knowledge in the highest echelons. No doubt the demise of the solid trade training (such as Halton) must have eventually affected all levels, but why this was not picked up on earlier was a serious omission that they only have themselves to blame. In the case of the Nimrod (in theatre) scenario it amazes me that crew escape was not even considered; especially in a war zone and operating at the height that made it quite feasible.

[Chugalug2]

POBJOY, if you want to know what happened and when it happened then I suggest you read David Hill's book above. As to why it happened, why RAF VSOs chose to order that mandated regulations be suborned, ie disregarded but signed off as if complied with, and why those airworthiness engineers who did not obey such illegal orders but strove to carry out their mandated duties were acted against, dismissed, and replaced with untrained and unskilled administrators, you would have to ask those same VSOs.

That is the point, no one has interviewed them, charged them, or taken any action whatsoever in their regard, despite evidence being presented to the civil police, the military police, and the Nimrod and Chinook enquiries. David Hill suggests possible reasons, but that is as close as we get to answering your:-


The question has to be WHY and for what reason would any sane person seek to diminish the quality of airworthiness at any level of aviation, and especially that involving complex machines (RAF) and the training of minors (ATC).

[ACW599]

Somewhat off-topic but does anyone know how many ex-VGS people have made the transition to the AEF Tutor? I only know of two.

[Lima Juliet]

Not as many as they hoped is all I have heard :rolleyes:

[Cat Funt]

Somewhat off-topic but does anyone know how many ex-VGS people have made the transition to the AEF Tutor? I only know of two.

I heard that around 50-60 expressed an interest. Some didn't make the cut and others were brushed-off sight unseen by some AEFs that are well-staffed already. I know of one currently cleared to fly cadets and another who has been in training for the last 12 months.

Would love to know how they're planning to increase AEF provision with insufficient aircraft and insufficient pilots on local and national scales. The number of QSPs is ever decreasing and it would appear that few retire to places like NI, Wales, Merseyside, West Midlands etc. Once training on the Prefect kicks in, it's unlikely that holding pilots will be able to fly cadets if their only previous Tutor experience is their UAS flying.

The incorporation of former VGS instructors, even if it was to be successful, was only going to be a one-time windfall of warm bodies. If AEF is to continue, what you will likely see is an influx of civilian pilots, which is rather ironic given Pippa's (and some VSOs) alleged aversion towards civilians flying things with engines for the Air Cadets.

To my mind, the "jam tomorrow" promise of more AEF was always nonsense. The only real question is whether the promise was made due to stupidity or mendacity.

[teeteringhead]

The number of QSPs is ever decreasing and it would appear that few retire to places like NI, Wales, Merseyside, West Midlands etc. And as a retired QSP in one of those areas who would love to fly cadets, I discover I'm too old!! [Decision made by Navigator C-in-C!]

PPL should still work when I get it "refreshed", but now I'll have to pay to fly .........:(

[POBJOY]

AEF was ALWAYS a poor convertor of cash into flying for Cadets.
I well remember the Squadron going to White Waltham on a coach for a supposed AEF detail only to return later as the 'weather' was deemed too windy. It so happened that I was not on that detail 'too junior' and had been left with others to clean the HQ (Sunday parade). God showed his hand on that day as the local 615 Gliding school at Kenley (our base) ran out of course Cadets and came over to ask for 'volunteers' to go gliding for the day.
It therefore came to pass that those left behind went flying and the 'seniors' did none.
All H.... let loose on the next midweek parade when those in charge found out, but there was little they could do about it as we had not actually disobeyed any orders (although the HQ was never polished that week).It soon became apparent that Chipmunk flying was rather a 'black art' that needed very good weather as every other one was 'weathered out'. For me the situation opened up a new horizon of 'helping' at the Gliding school until I was old enough to do the A&B course, and I never even applied for AEF after that, as flying gliders and driving landrovers and I ton trucks on a former Battle of Britain airfield seemed a better option. When I started power flying a few years later I realised how little flying the AEF for Cadets actually achieved for the equipment and facilities it had at its disposal.

[ACW599]

>When I started power flying a few years later I realised how little flying the AEF for Cadets actually achieved for the equipment and facilities it had at its disposal.<

Out of interest, what is the length and content of an AEF sortie nowadays?

[The B Word]

A 30 minute flight, take off, some straight and level with the Cadet flying it, some turns and the better ones get a go, then a couple of simple aerobatics (loop, roll or stall turn) then recovery to land. Sadly not the same as sending a young Cadet solo...:{

[VX275]

During the last Foot and Mouth outbreak 612VGS deployed to Benson and operated alongside 6 AEF. I remember one day the cloud was low but within limits for the VGS so we got the Vigilants flying (before anyone from the AEF turned up). Slowly cloud base went up, but not by much and a few Tutors launched only for the boss to call them back. Between flights I went to the AEF coffee bar where I saw all the VSO AEF Pilots sitting and looking like naughty schoolboys as their boss wagged the finger at them. "Just because the gliders are flying does not mean you can."

[POBJOY]

B Word.
That's the point; on AEF you went for ride. On a gliding course you actually were 'TAUGHT' to fly a glider to solo standard (not to mention the ground handling) and then got to do 3 of them with a BGA cert at the end. After that you could solo again on an advanced course and if keen join the staff. The experience of flying on your own and then being able to drive a service vehicle on an airfield (before you could even have prov civ licence) was an incredible situation that was even more incredible by the lack of 'issues' it caused. We integrated with the parent station and learnt values that were both life changing and prepared us for future life, even if we did not realise it at the time. Being given such responsibility at an early stage was accepted with the knowledge that you did not risk letting others down by abusing the system (or at least getting caught).My first inkling that the system was loosing the plot was the introduction of 'headsets', followed by safety goggles (as used in metalwork classes) and the last straw when the NAFFI closed.

[EnigmAviation]

I see on the Facebook pages, post Bank Holiday, that Topcliffe VGS report sending ONE Cadet solo on the Vigilant , (WOW - a whole ONE !!!) and 644 VGS after THREE days of Bank Holiday have sent ONE staff member solo, and have completed 150 launches of Vikings over three days - wow, an average of 30 a day - that's world class ! ( one rained off) - WOW !!! We are going to make rapid inroads into getting Air Cadets backsides off the ground like this !!!! (NOT )


Add to that the miserable rate of Convex of VGS Instructors to AEF pilots - and extreme tardiness in converting and qualifying to take Air Cadet PAX, it looks like they almost could get "done" under Advertising Standards legislation for having the word "AIR" in the name of the organisation !


And of course not forgetting that the Vigilant will be gone by 2019 latest ( if it survives that long ), and the combined numbers of "recovered" airframes of both Viking and Vigilant will be only 31 to 41 in TOTAL ( and notably a huge number less than what our Parliament was told !) , then the future would seem remarkably bleak.


Can we have a new statement made to Parliament to reflect the actuality rather than the aspirational one made some time ago ?:rolleyes:

[whistla]

I see on the Facebook pages, post Bank Holiday, that Topcliffe VGS report sending ONE Cadet solo on the Vigilant , (WOW - a whole ONE !!!) and 644 VGS after THREE days of Bank Holiday have sent ONE staff member solo, and have completed 150 launches of Vikings over three days - wow, an average of 30 a day - that's world class ! ( one rained off) - WOW !!! We are going to make rapid inroads into getting Air Cadets backsides off the ground like this !!!! (NOT )

Although the VGS' are not producing the same output as prior to the pause, the VGS staff have been working extremely hard to deliver even this within the confines of what they have available. If misinterpreted, comments like the above can be disheartening in an already fragile situation for the volunteer staff who have endured the pause and remained committed :D

[dervish]

Pause

Grounding. (Pprune tells me too short.) Grounding.

[622]

Grounding and decimation!

[ATFQ]

For clarity, for anyone who does not have access to it, the Written Ministerial Statement of 10 March 2016 stated:

'It has been decided that the best value for money solution is to recover at least 73 Vikings, a reduced Vigilant fleet of up to 15 aircraft, combined with an uplift to Grob Tutor fixed wing Air Experience Flights (AEFs).'

'The reduced glider fleet will be operated by significantly fewer, but larger, VGS, which will have a regional focus'.

[622]

'The reduced glider fleet will be operated by significantly fewer, but larger, VGS, which will have a regional focus'.



I still struggle to see how making a VGS larger will help!


You can park as many Vikings as you like at some airfields but at most times of the year you are limited to how many you can operate safely in the circuit.


...Still, I suppose it will give all the extra Staff something to clean while they await their turns to fly! http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif

[biggles111]

Enigma you said:
"I see on the Facebook pages, post Bank Holiday, that Topcliffe VGS report sending ONE Cadet solo on the Vigilant , (WOW - a whole ONE !!!) and 644 VGS after THREE days of Bank Holiday have sent ONE staff member solo, and have completed 150 launches of Vikings over three days - wow, an average of 30 a day - that's world class ! ( one rained off) - WOW !!! We are going to make rapid inroads into getting Air Cadets backsides off the ground like this !!!! (NOT )"

Before slagging the VGS off, look at the weather in Yorkshire this weekend! With only 2 aircraft to go with and several course cadets to fly, to get one solo by Monday is good going! I have done Easter courses where no one has flown at all because of crap weather, so rather than decrying the hard work of those VGS staff that are left you should be congratulating them, on managing a solo under very difficult circumstances.

[EnigmAviation]

For clarity, for anyone who does not have access to it, the Written Ministerial Statement of 10 March 2016 stated:

'It has been decided that the best value for money solution is to recover at least 73 Vikings, a reduced Vigilant fleet of up to 15 aircraft, combined with an uplift to Grob Tutor fixed wing Air Experience Flights (AEFs).'

'The reduced glider fleet will be operated by significantly fewer, but larger, VGS, which will have a regional focus'.



Yes, agreed, that was the written Ministerial statement, BUT perhaps we can have the updated figures from the same official source, as my information suggests a rather different outcome.

[EnigmAviation]

Before slagging the VGS off, look at the weather in Yorkshire this weekend! With only 2 aircraft to go with and several course cadets to fly, to get one solo by Monday is good going! I have done Easter courses where no one has flown at all because of crap weather, so rather than decrying the hard work of those VGS staff that are left you should be congratulating them, on managing a solo under very difficult circumstances
All due respects, and I apologise if people read this as "having a go" at VGS staff, but dedicated column readers and many ex VGS staff like myself surely realise that the target is those who have decimated the VGS fleet and staff alike, with some extremely negligent husbandry of the fleet, the direction and future direction and policy for VGS operations and the lack of acknowledgment of the massive contribution made by VGS staff over many decades. The only efficient thing at this time, seems to be ACO spin doctoring to try and convince everyone that in a short while it will be as before.


I salute those who have stayed on and who are travelling massive distances to try to implement a very poor policy overall, with very limited resource. I rather fear that their labours will not be very adequately rewarded.

[aw ditor]

Whats happening at Kenley?

[boswell bear]

I believe 645 sent 2 cadets solo

[Frelon]

The Officers' Mess burnt down!:ugh:

[Arclite01]

I am expecting 615 to operate as normal (whatever that is) once some aircraft are returned to service.

Kenley has to be the primary gliding location for London and Southeast cadets going forward I would have thought (just based on geography). Not sure that they could operate more than 6 airframes at a time though based on the size of the airfield (if the training profile remains the same) unless there was more focus on AEG rather than BGT type stuff.

Just my 2 pennyworth............... I am sure Keith C, POBJOY and FRELON will be along with a comment soon :}

Arc

[POBJOY]

Kenley is a real survivor and as mentioned before can not be sold off by the MOD.
Frelon mentions the 'listed' Officers Mess' burning down,but it was not part of the current facility and has been derelict for some years.
The only 'downside 'for Kenley is its actual size and more airframes would not really compensate for that.
However its location is the real plus point as it sits very close to a huge number of active Squadrons and also has rail and bus routes close by.
The answer would be some 'out of box thinking' that got some mid week flying going to make best use of the facility. I suspect that this could be staffed by those from a defunct school and would only add to the 'best use' scenario.
Also it would be possible to run extra summer continuous courses using the same 'staffing' option.
Either way my 'favourite airfield' will continue to provide the ATC with a SECURE BASE as long as required.
The Luftwaffe failed to destroy Kenley on 18th Aug 1940 so the cretons at HQ Air Cadets and the numpties at 2FTS have no chance.

[Corporal Clott]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/04/19/30E052B500000578-3432337-image-a-15_1454614636827.jpg

Sad to hear about the old Mess, by the looks of the photos it is irrecoverable. So the "most complete BofB Station" is really just a couple of runways and some run down earthwork E-pens. I think Duxford, Northolt, Manston, Middle Wallop, Boscombe Down, Colerne, Biggin Hill, Debden (Carver Barracks), North Weald, Lee on Solent, Stapleford, Wittering, Church Fenton, Fowlmere, Tern Hill, etc...etc... would beg to differ!!!

With Biggin Hill getting more and more business traffic and GNSS approaches in the pipeline then I would suggest that Kenley's long term future is far from secure? As common land means it is almost worthless for the MoD to flog, but the local council may exert pressure to open up its use for more than a select few that it currently has. So whilst I admire your optimism, I am not so sure that Kenley will remain in years to come. I really hope my pessimism is wrong.

As for other stations when are the rumours on Swanton Morley and South Cerney going to be firmed up? What I find extraordinary is that we are supposed to be 'regionalising' our Air Cadet gliding when Little Rissington and South Cerney are a spitting distance apart - great if you live in Swindon, Oxford or Cheltenham but no good if you live in Wales, Northern Ireland or the Scottish Highlands. Seems that the mismanagement continues to grip this sad state of affairs...:(

[POBJOY]

C Clott The point about Kenley (11 Group) is the actual airfield is still in its original state from 1940 although the e-pens were 'landscaped' for some reason.
As to its 'secure future' (please try to keep up) Kenley is owned by the City of London as a Common and the actual airfield has to stay as it is (or revert to a common). Therefore you have an airfield as it was in 1940 with no modern development around it.The MOD and the local Council have no say in its future other than the MOD holding the lease. The City of London now consider the location to be worthy of 'protection' and it is only the camp area that has been disposed of for development. In fact only part of this has happened and even though the Mess was listed little was done to protect it. The local RAFA 'cling on' to an original airfield building (Portcullis Club) which you will be pleased to know was as I remember as Cadet the Corporals Club; so you would be most welcome there. Of course to those of us who remember the place as it was the actual camp is a sad relic of a historic place that was a major 11 group Sector station in the front line. However 615 is probably secure for as long as the ATC exist's. The joke is that 2FTS are now responsible for the place. Not wishing to negate your worthy list of other airfields Kenley has been internationally recognised as 'the most complete Battle of Britain Airfield' as was so to speak. Kenley is a very 'sensitive' subject to former Kenleyites, and detractors have been know to disappear in strange circumstances.

[cats_five]

The answer would be some 'out of box thinking' that got some mid week flying going


This will only help fly cadets during school holidays, unless it's evening flying in the summer.

[Arclite01]

Cats

CCF Training is done during the week, during the day so would be an easy fit. We used to arrange specialist 'Field Days' for CCF units during the week.

ATC Training mainly at the weekends.

Regards

Arc

*POBJOY - your summary of Kenley ownership and operation (and status) is accurate :D

[622]

Oh yes, the old 'Must remain an airfield or return to original use clause'


...I used to work at one of those...latest news, apparently they now have planning permission for X thousand houses!:ugh:

[Frelon]

....and of course, Surrey Hills Gliding Club (http://www.surreyhillsgliding.co.uk/) have been operating on Kenley airfield, albeit weekdays only (so as not to conflict with the weekend operations of the non operating Air Cadets), throughout The Pause.

Well done Surrey Hills in keeping the gliders flying over Kenley:ok::ok:

[Arclite01]

622

This is not the same as the 'Must remain an airfield' clause you are quoting. Kenley is a special case where the land is common land and owned by the City of London Corporation.

If MoD leaves, the site reverts to the City Corporation and also reverts to Common Land.

Not for development purposes.

Many years ago the Corporation actually proposed a museum on the site (including rebuild of the Hangars and it was stopped by the MoD. Possibly this could be resurrected if the site reverted back.

After all, the City Corporation has more money than you can shake a stick at............

Arc

[622]

622

This is not the same as the 'Must remain an airfield' clause you are quoting. Kenley is a special case where the land is common land and owned by the City of London Corporation.

If MoD leaves, the site reverts to the City Corporation and also reverts to Common Land.

Not for development purposes.

Many years ago the Corporation actually proposed a museum on the site (including rebuild of the Hangars and it was stopped by the MoD. Possibly this could be resurrected if the site reverted back.

After all, the City Corporation has more money than you can shake a stick at............

Arc



You may well be right....but don't ever assume it's cast in stone when money is to be had / a local election needs to won and 'affordable housing' is required!! :oh:

[POBJOY]

622 Sorry but you are not in the picture here.
Kenley airfield is a London Common that the MOD only hold a lease on (originally under the defence of the realm act).
The City of London can do nothing with the area once the MOD lease ceases to operate (other than revert it to common use)
In fact they already accept the historic importance of the location and have gone to great lengths to keep the location development free.
The location has no value to the MOD, and only amenity value to the City of London (who are not poor anyway).
The location would have made a superb 'working museum' on a famous BoB airfield that had not been significantly changed since1940.
I suspect the MOD's lack of interest was due to the Imperial War Museum taking on Duxford, and that they also had a museum at Hendon.
A very limited decision; but as seen with the other decisions made re ATC gliding 'what do you expect'.615 are as secure as the ATC organisation is.

[aw ditor]

Watched the smoke rise from Kenley as a small local boy post the attack on the 18th of August 1940, hence my interest, and have contributed what little I can via interview to the current City of London' project. So glad to hear that at least some gliding is returning'.

[treadigraph]

Just walked over Kenley Aerodrome for the first time since before Christmas (bloody knee cartilage!) and new MoD warning signs have been erected at intervals along the peri-track, which I take to be a good sign that 615 will soon be rejoining Surrey Hills GC in keeping the airfield active.

[boswell bear]

Maybe the new future of young people in aviation?

www.facebook.com/TheSpiritOfGoole/videos/1312100068845077/

In the time it's taken the ACO to "Unpause" TSOG has raised the funds, bought the Sherwood Ranger kit, built it and flown it.

[POBJOY]

Well done to those involved. Down here in the West Country a similar project involved pupils at Truro who built a VP2 (some time ago).
It is amazing how 'Youth' get enthused with aviation especially when it gets 'Hands On'.
It just highlights how bad those I/c at the top of the Air Cadet system were to allow our own World Class operation to be destroyed, and how the RAF have 'LOST' the ability to operate simple aircraft.

[Arclite01]

I am actually wondering if the engineering issues run all the way back to when they were introduced into service with an inadequate support model right from day 1 ??

Arc

[dervish]

I am actually wondering if the engineering issues run all the way back to when they were introduced into service with an inadequate support model right from day 1 ??

It's a long thread, but if you wade through it you'll find your suspicions were confirmed a long time ago.

[POBJOY]

Well ARC
Just how complicated was it to 'organise' a system for a BASIC glass Glider and a well proven Motor Glider with an equally proven car engine.
I suggest the word Rocket Science would not be in the requirement, and the BGA/GSA seem to have handled it very well with a few paid staff and lots of 'volunteers' amazing.
The fact is the ATC was badly let down by the RAF and those that stalk the higher echelons of the Corps. The 'Volunteers' on the other hand have been beyond reproach and treated with disdain.

[DaveUnwin]

As usual, Pobjoy has hit the nail squarely on the head. Here's an interesting fact, many years ago the ATC sold off its T-61s and replaced them with G109s. Most of those T-61s are still airworthy (I was flying one only last week) yet the ATC's 109s aren't. Perhaps the RAF should let the BGA and LAA look after its maintenance requirements, as all the evidence would indicate that the BGA and LAA do a better job (although to be honest the RAF have set that particular bar pretty low).

[boswell bear]

How much money has been spent on the ACO 2FTS, CGS, VGS, PTT to bring about the "unpausing" in the last 3 years?

The Spirit of Goole spends about £25k a year and delivers this:

www.facebook.com/TheSpiritOfGoole/videos/1312100068845077/

Just think what it could achieve with the ACO's level of funding!

[1.3VStall]

I have it on reliable authority that the first Viking to be returned to service from Southern Sailplanes was billed to the taxpayer at a figure in excess of £100,000 New ASK21s are around €80,000 to buy. One really couldn't script it!:ugh:

[boswell bear]

and a rumoured £250,000 ish per Vigilant!

[ACW342]

Is it not time to either find someone with deep pockets, or those who know how to get a crowd funding thing together and start legal proceeding against the MoD, HQAC, and the RAF along the lines of malfeasance, lack of duty of care, both to staff and young people (Cadets), fiscal malfeasance in that the RAF failed in its duty to monitor those contracts that were, obviously, not carried out but which were paid for, etc, etc. That should pucker a few sphincters. Just a thought?

[cats_five]

Perhaps the RAF should let the BGA and LAA look after its maintenance requirements, as all the evidence would indicate that the BGA and LAA do a better job (although to be honest the RAF have set that particular bar pretty low).

However if the maintenance folks mess up and/or lose and/or fail to update the paperwork they would still be in the same mess.

I have it on reliable authority that the first Viking to be returned to service from Southern Sailplanes was billed to the taxpayer at a figure in excess of £100,000 New ASK21s are around €80,000 to buy.

However the ATC won't get more than a handful at most new K21s delivered per year, and delivered they cost quite a bit more especially if VAT has to be paid. For example a tailwheel is an optional extra! You have to add on for instruments as well.

Also the K21 isn't immune from paperwork failings...

Schleicher can sell more K21s than they can build, they are happy with it like that, and they won't devote several years production to dig the ATC out of a hole.

[tucumseh]

I have it on reliable authority that the first Viking to be returned to service from Southern Sailplanes was billed to the taxpayer at a figure in excess of £100,000 New ASK21s are around €80,000 to buy. One really couldn't script it!There used to be a DEFCON (in the 112 series) that, if called up and implemented, would prevent this. There was an associated DGDQA spec setting out how to implement it, and PUS issued mandates on the financial aspect. If you didn't know them by heart, you were pouring money down the drain. They fell into disuse some years ago when non-technical staff were permitted to self-delegate engineering/airworthiness/financial authority, but didn't have the knowledge to know to use them. Commercial contributed to this, as they didn't like the fact it made a nonsense of their claim that only they can legally commit MoD to contract. As ever, same solution. Implement the regs. It's what they're for.

[DaveUnwin]

"However if the maintenance folks mess up and/or lose and/or fail to update the paperwork they would still be in the same mess."

I've been the Tug Master at two gliding clubs, and the manager of one. I've never experienced anything near as utterly pathetic as this debacle, and would suggest that you need highly trained, very well paid senior officers to mis-manage at this level of incompetence. Or am I missing something?

[POBJOY]

Dave You certainly are not missing anything. The Centre of excellence in ATC Gliding was at the VGS coal face. Whilst still an instructor (old school wood types) I was fortunate to get involved with (the then) PFA type of aviation and indeed operated both a VW engined machine and a 1932 Comper Swift.
Of course all this meant getting involved with the maintenance and certification of these types and also led to doing flight tests on homebuilt aerobatic and racing machines.
It occurred to me that there was a huge amount of tech expertise 'out there' that designed, built, flew, and modified a whole range of aircraft.
Many of these people were also involved with ATC Gliding and yet were never involved with anything to do with 'new equipment'.
Our CO at Kenley was a tech Civil Servant at a Government armament facility and has us building all manner of 'equipment' including duralumin retrieve trolleys for the Mk 111. What is my point; well it showed me that we had a huge cache of 'capability' at the schools which it appears was not matched at HQ. The CO's conferences (as was) were actually a real 'pooling ' of hands on experience that of course made the Gliding Schools a World Class safe operation that set high standards. Sometimes this was frustrating to a young staff cadet as one of the 'local' rules instigated by our school was a 100 solo's before you could fly AE Cadets as a P2 (mainly because our site was smaller than average).Of course this was entirely 'safety based' and kept us young loons under control.(nearly) !!!

[chevvron]

Dave You certainly are not missing anything. The Centre of excellence in ATC Gliding was at the VGS coal face. Whilst still an instructor (old school wood types) I was fortunate to get involved with (the then) PFA type of aviation and indeed operated both a VW engined machine and a 1932 Comper Swift.
Of course all this meant getting involved with the maintenance and certification of these types and also led to doing flight tests on homebuilt aerobatic and racing machines.
It occurred to me that there was a huge amount of tech expertise 'out there' that designed, built, flew, and modified a whole range of aircraft.
Many of these people were also involved with ATC Gliding and yet were never involved with anything to do with 'new equipment'.
Our CO at Kenley was a tech Civil Servant at a Government armament facility and has us building all manner of 'equipment' including duralumin retrieve trolleys for the Mk 111. What is my point; well it showed me that we had a huge cache of 'capability' at the schools which it appears was not matched at HQ. The CO's conferences (as was) were actually a real 'pooling ' of hands on experience that of course made the Gliding Schools a World Class safe operation that set high standards. Sometimes this was frustrating to a young staff cadet as one of the 'local' rules instigated by our school was a 100 solo's before you could fly AE Cadets as a P2 (mainly because our site was smaller than average).Of course this was entirely 'safety based' and kept us young loons under control.(nearly) !!!
At 613 there was a saying'you can fix anything with locking wire or insulating tape'.
Not quite true of course as us staff cadets were sometimes detailed to 'glue' a fabric patch on with dope!

[POBJOY]

All the cars I ever owned as a Staff Cadet contained a 'shock absorber' and a couple of rolls of that gooy tape.
They served several purposes.
A They were always 'on hand' for instant on field repairs
B The shock absorber made a great spare tow rope.
C It was not unknown for my Beetle to do the odd retrieve when the pressure was on
D When several 'Lasham' gliders 'landed out' at Redhill during a national comp
guess who was able to tow them to the hangar and also 'remind the wing man' to keep it straight.
E The shock absorber's greatest test was when it towed a 'dead Beetle' down the A1 through London and back to Kenley for urgent attention. It had to be retired after that. It had only failed twice (due ground contact) but was repaired with a reef knot and a good layer of TAPE INSULATING !!!!
The CO was not quite so happy to find a beetle in the Hangar on Sunday being attended to by all the staff cadets plus course members (luckily it was too windy for flying)

[teeteringhead]

At 613 there was a saying'you can fix anything with locking wire or insulating tape'.
Not quite true of course as us staff cadets were sometimes detailed to 'glue' a fabric patch on with dope!

Airworthiness????? :eek:

To play Devil's Advocate, are not such practices just what led to the "pause".

Answers on a postcard to HQ 2 FTS ........;)

[chevvron]

Airworthiness????? :eek:

To play Devil's Advocate, are not such practices just what led to the "pause".

Answers on a postcard to HQ 2 FTS ........;)
Glass ships are a totally different world when compared to the wood and fabric machines (Mk3 and Sedburgh) which I'm talking about. Certain minor repairs could be carried out 'in house' in those days.

[Mechta]

I have it on reliable authority that the first Viking to be returned to service from Southern Sailplanes was billed to the taxpayer at a figure in excess of £100,000 New ASK21s are around €80,000 to buy. One really couldn't script it!

Given that the task is to fix (hopefully) upwards of fifty Vikings, how much of that quoted £100,000+ is for tooling and processes to do the overall task more efficiently than a one-off repair at 'One man and a dog in a shed' would be?

The RAF are also no doubt asking for the civilian repair organisation to operate to RAF procedures, which could well be long-winded and require people to be spending time on project plans, progress updates and all the other time consuming but non-productive activities which go into a typical MOD programme. If people have had to be brought in who are already familiar with those activities, they won't be free.

[POBJOY]

Mechta I hear that the actual company that caused the problem is being 'less than helpful' with the recovery.
The company tasked with the 'real work' have an excellent reputation for quality repairs and are also responsible for the ongoing Tutor work.
IT appears the RAF have NO EXPERTISE in the field therefore had no idea of what they had allowed to happen on their watch.
In fact there is expertise in the RAF with the GSA, but of course they had no part in the ATC operation or its tech back up, therefore no input to question the poor decisions being made in the highest echelons of the MOD.

[Bigpants]

Maybe the time has come for people to walk away and let Air Cadet Aviation fail? I am 60 this year, still fly the Tutor and have written to my MP several times over the mismanagement of Air Cadet Flying to no avail.

Apparently the latest Tutor cock up concerns the failure of the MOD to sign a new agreement with Babcock over the plan to do more with the plastic fantastic fragile Tutor. No doubt some fudge will shortly occur by which Babcock will profit, the taxpayer will get fleeced and the Air Cadets short changed on flying hours.

I cannot see any "light at the end of the tunnel" and judging by many of the posts above I am not alone. To continue to "go the extra mile" to make a patently crap plan work simply lends some thread of respectability to the over-promoted idiots responsible for this mess.

[Shaft109]

Pobjoy- the only company responsible for this mess is the operator itself - with those fallings going back across both fleets practically from introduction.

The 'contractors' have only done as contracted. They aren't responsible for final oversight of airworthiness.

See the DHAN 86, or foi requests earlier in the thread.

I really feel for the peeps left trying to salvage this having to operate in a bastardised system that's neither sensible BGA /CAA nor appropriately tailored Military.

[boswell bear]

No serviceable Vigilant for 645 this weekend!

[chevvron]

Maybe the time has come for people to walk away and let Air Cadet Aviation fail? I am 60 this year, still fly the Tutor and have written to my MP several times over the mismanagement of Air Cadet Flying to no avail.

Apparently the latest Tutor cock up concerns the failure of the MOD to sign a new agreement with Babcock over the plan to do more with the plastic fantastic fragile Tutor. No doubt some fudge will shortly occur by which Babcock will profit, the taxpayer will get fleeced and the Air Cadets short changed on flying hours.



Should have bought the Slingsby T67 Firefly like I told 'em to about 25 years ago.

[POBJOY]

Chev methinks the SAH1 with a simple 0320 and fixed pitched prop would have been the way ahead.
An 0 360 option could also have been considered.

The Bulldog was always an expensive (heavy) answer to a simple problem, and the T67 (German design) had issues to the point that the Americans cut up their fleet after service rather than release it to civilian use.

Whilst all this is going on the dear old C172 (decades old) is still training pilots all over the world.

The SAH1 was a 'Pup' without the complexities and expensive doors . It was designed from the outset for simple mass production but retaining the good handling qualities. The Bulldog was just an ongoing (heavy) Pup with no real improvements, other than a canopy.

[Haraka]

Sydney A. Holloway apparently designed the SAH 1 after building a flying model Pup in metal. Alan Greenhalgh (One time Beagle designer and very much involved in the Pup) always called the SAH 1 "a reworked Pup." The T67 was originally ex. Fournier ( French) and the USAF experience with the type has been covered on other threads by those with qualified opinions.

[DaveUnwin]

The Pup 100 is one of the sweetest handling aircraft I've ever flown (if a bit gutless). I would LOVE to test the SAH-1. Everything I've ever read says it really is superb. Bulldogs are nice, but heavy - and slow for 200hp and a C/S prop. Blatant plug - my test of the only Bulldog 200 ever made hits the High St. soon!

[Lima Juliet]

If it looks right...It flies right...
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Visschedijk/7007.jpg
...oh, b^gger!

The SAH-1 is uber ugly!!! :yuk:

[POBJOY]

AH LJ thanks for the image; I had omitted to mention the excellent visibility from the superb canopy.
Sid Holloway had worked for Beagle at Shoreham before their demise.
His intention was to produce a machine that was both strong and easy to mass produce, whilst keeping the 'pup like' handling.
The fuselage was simple, smaller and lighter than the pup and led to a rather 'basic shape compared with its 'parent'.
However what emerged was a strong simple machine that handled well and had excellent visibility. The test/development pilot was an ex Boscombe Down
senior TP and i do not recall any adverse reports about the product other than the CAA thought the elevator being 'light'.
Scottish aviation had offered the Bulldog and politics did for the SAH1.

[chevvron]

The Pup 100 is one of the sweetest handling aircraft I've ever flown (if a bit gutless). I would LOVE to test the SAH-1. Everything I've ever read says it really is superb. Bulldogs are nice, but heavy - and slow for 200hp and a C/S prop. Blatant plug - my test of the only Bulldog 200 ever made hits the High St. soon!
I agree about the Pup except for the 'gutless' bit. It was about the same power and weight as a C150 but with higher wing loading which meant it took longer to unstick, but made it easy to land and at least you felt you were flying it properly as its control response was far better than the Cessna. Unfortunately, I only checked out on it at Blackbushe a few months before increased airfield charges meant the club had to reduce the number of aircraft it operated and as only myself and a young lady were regular users, it had to go.
Never flew the SAH-1 but I believe it's still around under another name, the 'FLS Sprint.' It used to operate around the Fairoaks/Dunsfold area but last I heard it was I think at Old Sarum.
That canopy is of similar size and shape to the Eurostar. This has an 80hp Rotax 912 engine giving about 90kt cruise and a stall speed with flaps in the order of 40kt. It can be had as a microlight or Group A aircraft, so maybe for air experience that would be sufficient.

[BEagle]

The FLS Sprint 160 would have been an excellent Bulldog replacement - far better than the wretched Firefly with its glider wing and dismal roll rate, or that plastic pig, Das Teutor.

[beardy]

I have no experience of the FLS Sprint.

I have flown the Firefly and yes it had a slow roll rate, other than that it was (and is) a fine little aircraft well suited to EFTS (where I instructed on it.) The Tutor has had problems with it's prop, principly because of the poor engineering of the initially (poorly) selected model, the current prop is fine. CFS have insisted on some odd procedures for the Tutor which doesn't help, but the airframe is fine. The avionics of both types are over complicated for the AEF ( where I operate it.)

I wonder how many here who proffer opinions have direct operating knowledge of and instruction time on these types, rather than grumbling hearsay from the corner of the bar?

[BEagle]

Some interesting points of view here (from some very experienced QFIs too): http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/276110-bulldog-vs-tutor.html

Not much love for the Plastic Pig, it would seem.

[beardy]

And those of us who have flown both have our own opinions, not all identical. I suppose only 12 years basic QFIing including the waterfront don't really count in such august company, but then again I'm not really prejudiced either way.

[POBJOY]

Beagle looked up the site and was interested to see that the PP drivers also thought the 'roll rate' was poor (on both) but could be improved by doing a 'flick roll'. I am not entirely sure that Grob cleared the Tutor for that and of course this would have led to extra loading around the tail unit and a consequent spate of cracking. However what was considered the datum machine for 'aileron only roll' !!, as I thought the Stampe took some beating in that regime; but was quite a 'mature' machine by then. Certainly the 'flickable' biplanes had extra bracing around the tail and entry speeds were always relatively slow. On a completely different scale our Beta and Cassut racers at Redhill rolled like a demon with just two fingers. Anyway that's pushed the thread creep up but not assisting the Cadets to get back into some proper glider training unfortunately.

[beardy]

Quite right POBJOY. Enough of innuendo and recycled opinions, lets get the kids airborne!! I am no glider pilot, but I really enjoy the enthusiasm of the cadets that fly with me.

[chevvron]

During the '90s when we were running an Air Experience operation at Halton for cadets using Cyclone AX3 microlights (with the full knowledge of HQAC) I took several cadets for their 'first ever' flights and I'm sure they enjoyed this as much as they would have a Bulldog. OK so it was slow (cruise about 50kt) and not aerobattable but at least they were getting airborne and were able to fly the aircraft themselves and they weren't confronted with a huge instrument panel, just one like a Sedburgh but with engine instruments(CHT/rpm) added.

[POBJOY]

Well Beardy At least we have not forgotten what this is really all about.
Whilst this thread continues we will 'remind' those at the top what is possible using volunteers and enthusiasm with real aircraft rather than clip boards facebook and Part Task Trainers.
Before I leave the Bulldog / Grob topic I am reminded that some years back we had a Victa Airtourer (150) at Lands End.
Now I admit it was short on wing area but it could do upward charlies all day and coped with our rather 'windy' location very well.
Does anyone know if the MOD/RAF ever evaluated it !!!
It was slightly different from the 'norm in that it had a centre control stick (with spade grip) and a hand brake, plus nosewheel steering on the rudder.
Built by a lawnmower company (orig in AUS) (later in NZ) there are many still operating over there. The handling was very 'crisp' and I seem to recall the min approach speed 65. Not very forgiving if you let the speed wander off during the final turn, but probably a good lead in to more advanced types as per RAF usage.

[Lima Juliet]

During the '90s when we were running an Air Experience operation at Halton for cadets using Cyclone AX3 microlights (with the full knowledge of HQAC) I took several cadets for their 'first ever' flights and I'm sure they enjoyed this as much as they would have a Bulldog. OK so it was slow (cruise about 50kt) and not aerobattable but at least they were getting airborne and were able to fly the aircraft themselves and they weren't confronted with a huge instrument panel, just one like a Sedburgh but with engine instruments(CHT/rpm) added.

Halton Aero Club is flying Air Cadets at RAF Halton with HQAC permission and 2FTS authorisation. The last time I looked they had flown ~180 Cadets since Summer last year. The money is non-taxpayers through fundraising and donations.

https://www.raf.mod.uk/rafhalton/news/index.cfm?storyid=FA616128-5056-A318-A81326D50D6B9D94

https://www.raf.mod.uk/rafhalton/rafcms/mediafiles/FA43A53E_5056_A318_A8B633369BFE6CC4.jpg

Every little helps!

[Lima Juliet]

Nope the FLS Sprint is FUGLY as well...
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/4/2/8/1523824.jpg?v=v40

[POBJOY]

LJ Well at least the SAHI did not need a 'bolt on' extra to satisfy requirements.
It came complete with its strake and has plenty of ground clearance (unlike some) !!!! Another nice image though shows up the simple rugged UC very well.

[Lima Juliet]

POBJOY, I think its the canopy that looks the most wrong, although the gangly u/c legs don't help. Trago Mills, the sponsor of the SAH, is much akin to Matalan down in the South West of England. So it really doesn't surprise me it looks kind of rubbish!

I've just been reading about Dave Unwin in the Bulldog 200 in his magazine and I was quite surprised it had such a low Vne. I've flown the Pup and the Bulldog; I must admit I'm not a fan of either. I've flown the Tutor and a Grob 115A - again, not a great fan. If I had to choose oit of all of the modern choices it would be the 260hp Firefly. However, if I had my choice of any RAF SEP trainer it would be the Chippy, as it flies beautifully and teaches you what the rudder pedals are for! As for modern SEPs then my favourite at the moment is the Blackshaoe Prime...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/a5/18/68/a51868062f5523563f235b972b9995c0.jpg

...now that IS a thing of beauty...

:ok:

[beardy]

The view from the back seat looks 'interesting.' Whilst I have taught on the Fouga with it's periscope there is no excuse nowadays, no matter how sleek the look.

[chevvron]

I would suggest side by side seating for cadet flying; I was spoilt as my first 'dual' flight was in a piston Provost and after that I never liked the Chipmunk as you couldn't see out the front.

[typerated]

For AEF flying I'd have thought something like this would have been much more fun and less $'s :ok:

http://www.skyadventures.co.nz/gallery/example/DSC_1737_fs.jpg

[Lima Juliet]

Here is the view from the back with a wide angle lens

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nOmQluB0HkU/hqdefault.jpg

I'm not suggesting this as a serious contender for a successor Air Cadet aircraft, it's just what I would personally spend my £120k on if I had the money for a brand new SEP. For them, I would look at something like the Eurostar as used for Recruit Air Experience Flying - the aircraft even comes with its own parachute thus getting rid of the dreaded parachute video!

http://www.airtattoo.com/files/news/microlight-grant-news.jpg

The unit price is a shade of over £70k each.

LJ

[typerated]

Why do you need performance for AEF?

[POBJOY]

LJ I think the SAHI could be described as a low wing version of a C150.
Quite an accolade really considering the zillions of drivers that machine has started off.


I always though AEF should have been in a four seater so more cadets got even more flying plus the chance to get started on map reading from the air.


Have to say that your 'Blackshape' looks the part, i would enjoy commuting in that.


Hang on its 'Italian' so not really your rugged all terrain trainer. (still like I said nice commuter)

[chevvron]

Why do you need performance for AEF?
And why do you need high performance glass ships for Air Cadet gliding? Sedburghs and Mk3s had adequate performance but had to be replaced due to their age; if someone produced a glider of similar performance nowadays it would be perfect for the task.

[DaveUnwin]

Hi LJ, I flew the Blackshape a few years ago - and really liked it. The backseat is OK, but the front is superb! I flew the 100HP Rotax-powered version, but they now offer it with a 160HP O-320. I want one! Incidentally, the one I tested the Italian navy had flown off of their carrier!

Chevron is bang-on re glider type. If you're never going outside the airfield boundary (and the ATC don't) you don't need a good glide ratio, but a decently slow sink rate. That's why (although I've flown quite a few gliders) on some days I'll take the club K-8 over the Astir, as it will stay up on some days the Astir won't.

Had a nice bimble in the club T-61 last week. Kind of ironic that the ATC pensioned off their -61s years ago, and yet curiously although a great many remain airworthy, very few Vigilantes are. That says something about the BGA and LAA, but a lot more about the ATC and RAF.

[chevvron]

For AEF flying I'd have thought something like this would have been much more fun and less $'s :ok:

http://www.skyadventures.co.nz/gallery/example/DSC_1737_fs.jpg

We did this at Halton, first in Cyclone AX3s then Chevvron 2-32Cs. The cadets loved it.
Even did about 20 microlight flying scholarships for 'Restricted' PPL(M)s (as they used to be called) using the Chevvrons

[chevvron]

I'm not suggesting this as a serious contender for a successor Air Cadet aircraft, it's just what I would personally spend my £120k on if I had the money for a brand new SEP. For them, I would look at something like the Eurostar as used for Recruit Air Experience Flying - the aircraft even comes with its own parachute thus getting rid of the dreaded parachute video!

http://www.airtattoo.com/files/news/microlight-grant-news.jpg

The unit price is a shade of over £70k each.

LJ

I already suggested the Eurostar at #3472
Price £66293 actually but the RAF would probably insist on loads of 'mods' eg 'proper' instruments instead of a glass display.

[cats_five]

And why do you need high performance glass ships for Air Cadet gliding? Sedburghs and Mk3s had adequate performance but had to be replaced due to their age; if someone produced a glider of similar performance nowadays it would be perfect for the task.

Compared to most single-seat glass gliders the Vikings are not high performance with a best L/D of about 30:1 compared to about 40:1 for lots of 15m unflapped gliders. Additionally the single-seaters mostly perform slightly better at higher speeds which helps when trying to fly upwind, and are more slippery e.g. pick up speed more readily if the nose is lowered.

[chevvron]

But you don't need that for 'ordinary' Air Cadet gliding. Cross country flying is/was reserved for those cadets showing the greatest aptitude as were single seat gliders.
Gliding 'proficiency' or 'Basic Gliding Training' as it was later called meant getting as many cadets as possible solo and hence enabling them to wear their gliding wings for which the L/D of about 20:1 and 40 - 45 kt speed range was perfectly adequate.
For most cadets, that 'first solo' (3 solo circuits in my day) was the end of their gliding training.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Re the FLS Sprint

Reminds me of the old adage

If it's weird looking it must be French

If It's ugly it must be Russian

If it's ugly and weird it must be British

On a more serious note I feel for a whole generation of Air Cadets who will have joined and served until aging out without ever having the opportunity to fly, not fly in I mean actually fly, an aircraft.

Is there ever going to be any "Air" in the Air Cadets ?

[chevvron]

Re the FLS Sprint

Reminds me of the old adage

If it's weird looking it must be French

If It's ugly it must be Russian

If it's ugly and weird it must be British

On a more serious note I feel for a whole generation of Air Cadets who will have joined and served until aging out without ever having the opportunity to fly, not fly in I mean actually fly, an aircraft.

Is there ever going to be any "Air" in the Air Cadets ?
The SAH-1/FLS Sprint was designed as a possible Chipmunk replacement for the RAF. The big bulging canopy was to accomodate the wearing of bonedomes.

[Lima Juliet]

Crikey you could wear a Guardsman's Bearskin under that canopy!!

[POBJOY]

Chev That may be true; but for THOUSANDS it was the start of a life in aviation that repaid its costs many fold; plus a great start in 'self development'
I somehow do not see sitting in a plastic bath looking at a laptop will push a lot of buttons.

[cats_five]

But you don't need that for 'ordinary' Air Cadet gliding. Cross country flying is/was reserved for those cadets showing the greatest aptitude as were single seat gliders.
Gliding 'proficiency' or 'Basic Gliding Training' as it was later called meant getting as many cadets as possible solo and hence enabling them to wear their gliding wings for which the L/D of about 20:1 and 40 - 45 kt speed range was perfectly adequate.
For most cadets, that 'first solo' (3 solo circuits in my day) was the end of their gliding training.

If you learn in something as different to a fairly bog standard early solo glass glider, the transition to one (should you be lucky enough to do it) is bigger. I find it sad that those 3 solo circuits were the end of glider training for most cadets - it barely scratches the surface of gliding in so many ways.