Air Cadets grounded? [Archive] - Page 15

Big Pistons Forever

14th May 2017, 18:21

The old ATC gliding "wings" badge gained by 3 solos in a converted shed is seen by the general gliding community as about as valid as an Egyptian driving license.

I think your quote shows a profound misunderstanding of what the cadet organization is meant to accomplish.

It is first and foremost an organization to empower youth. It inculcates the core values that form the heart of a civilized society; honesty, courage, team work, personal responsibility, respect for others, and a desire to strive to be a better person.

As it happens I think flying is a uniquely powerful incubator for those attributes. I solo'd Cessna 150 at 16 and like for most young people it was a life altering experience.

A cadet gliding is that experience along with the fact that it takes a team to make it happen. Everyone on that team has responsibilities that have no shyte real safety consequences. Being part of that is a priceless and increasingly rare experience for today's youth.

The hubris in saying that flying a low performance glider is not a worthy activity and that by extension real pilots fly glass superships is one reason why soaring is not attracting many new young members.

The Canadian Air Cadet program gives over 300 young people the basic GPL license every year flying SW 2-33's. It is glider training not soaring training but more than meets the bigger aims of the organizations and introduces many young people to a sport that they might want to continue.

chevvron

14th May 2017, 19:02

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' .
Quite true. Like you I became a staff cadet (613 Halton)
When I presented myself at OASC Biggin Hill for aircrew selection and was told 'no', I elected to try for NATCS.
This resulted in my becoming an Air Traffic Controller with 34 of my 39 years spent at Farnborough which would never have happened had it not been for my cadet experience. At the same time I repaid the ATC for the flying experience at 613 by staying on as adult staff at my ATC Squadron before eventually being transferred to another squadron as CO. When I handed over command to another, I was appointed WGLO until I was unceremoniously 'dumped' by the Wingco after 36 years service because I was only doing WGLO duties every other weekend and not attending the squadron (due to my shiftwork - 6 days on/3 off including weekend duties).

airwave45

14th May 2017, 19:03

The hubris in saying that flying a low performance glider is not a worthy activity and that by extension real pilots fly glass superships is one reason why soaring is not attracting many new young members.

Soaring, is attracting many new, young members.
(according to bga numbers)

Looking after historic relics, is not attracting new, young members.

Today, a DG1000 is a basic trainer.

Kids do not want to learn in wooden sheds with ww2 salvage instruments.
(or tin sheds in Canada)

Gliders have been manufactured in glass since the latter part of last century.

Wooden gliders have a place both in museums and the hands of enthusiasts.
But not in any forward looking training organisation.

chevvron

14th May 2017, 19:12

airwave45 - as BPF said, you show a profound misunderstanding of what the cadet organisation is meant to accomplish.

Cows getting bigger

14th May 2017, 19:43

BPF, spot on. Air Cadet gliding is a mechanism for youth development. In many ways, it is no different to numerous other youth organisations and activities (D of E etc).

Clearly we are all aviators here and we have a special affinity towards flying. However, to me, the strength is the journey and not the destination.

Lima Juliet

14th May 2017, 21:03

The SGS 2-33 is the next step up from a 'sledburg' - at least it has a canopy!
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/0e/b3/50/0eb35037b6d0bcbb302af02844c9936e.jpg

If we can't afford DG-1000s or we can't get ASK-21s in significant numbers in time then lower tech makes sense if someone will make them. Otherwise, go down the LSA, Microlight or TMG route.

There has to be an AIR in Air Cadets if we are to deliver air minded young people into the UK's work force. We ignore it at our peril...

However, VGS and AEF are massively expensive now we are 'slaves of Haddon-Cave' in the military. So the best way of fixing this at the lowest possible cost is to sit under the National Governing Bodies as Air Cadet air sports clubs. Quite simply Air Cadet flying is too low a priority within the RAF's wider problems of failing infrastructure, manning shortfalls and expensive equipment plans. The sooner we get on with a plan for the rest of the 21st Century, the better for the Cadets - and no that does not mean £25k a pop computer games! There are already air sports clubs around and the Air Cadets could attach suitably qualified air cadet volunteers to those clubs to provide the Cadet flying function - there are 14 RAF Flying Clubs, 7 RAF Gliding Clubs and 1 RAF Microlight Club for starters, but why not attach to any civvy flying/gliding club? Something has to be done as from my viewpoint the VGS return-to-flight has taken over 3 years so far for a very small amount, and I fear still has a way to go, and the AEF appears to be failing to create the flying rate envisaged over a year ago to take up the VGS slack.

LJ

Big Pistons Forever

14th May 2017, 22:16

Kids do not want to learn in wooden sheds with ww2 salvage instruments.
(or tin sheds in Canada)

My experience is that kids just want to fly and don't really care if their glider can't be used for diamond badge cross countries or Lennie pin attempts.

There have been various discussions over the years about replacing the Canadian Air Cadet fleet with glass ships, but the fact that the SW 2-33 is very safe and simple to fly, can be left tied down outside, and is very easy to maintain has always won out.

Wasn't the whole pause thing caused by the inability to maintain modern glass gliders ? My guess is even the RAF could maintain a simple metal and fabric glider like a 2-33......

cats_five

15th May 2017, 07:23

Wasn't the whole pause thing caused by the inability to maintain modern glass gliders ? My guess is even the RAF could maintain a simple metal and fabric glider like a 2-33......

Nothing is airworthy without the correct paperwork, so it doesn't matter what the ATC flew, they would still be in the current pickle.

It is first and foremost an organization to empower youth. It inculcates the core values that form the heart of a civilized society; honesty, courage, team work, personal responsibility, respect for others, and a desire to strive to be a better person.

That might be the intent, but reading the air cadet's online forum gives the impression a lot of them are far from empowered, instead they are concerned about who to salute and when, exactly how to wear badges, and power squabbles.

Learning to play an instrument and joining an ensemble can do everything you reckon the ATC (and presumably other similar organisations) aim to achieve, indeed you need more people working together to form a wind band, not just the half dozen or fewer required to run an airfield. However since the ATC stop gliding for most at the equivalent of being able to play a basic scale it would be a grossly dispiriting exercise.

Auster Fan

15th May 2017, 07:58

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.

It was at 5AEF in the Husky... my first AEF trip was in said machine

Engines

15th May 2017, 09:14

Perhaps I could offer a couple of points here:

Firstly, the issue of what type of aircraft the ATC should operate is a secondary one as long as the RAF and the MoD continue to struggle to operate within their own rules. Wood, fabric, glass or metal, as long as they can't fly civilian schoolchildren within the regulations and standards set by the MAA they are going to go out of business.

Remember that the development of the MAA and the preparation of MAA regs have been closely controlled by RAF senior officers. The MAA regs, and this has been a constant refrain, don't impose new requirements as far as basic airworthiness management goes. Any competent procurement or maintenance organisation can meet them, albeit with a heavier management overhead. The RAF aren't 'slaves' to the MAA or the regs. The key issue is whether the RAF and the MoD are actually 'competent' to manage airworthiness.

If they're not (and I'd suggest that the evidence is stacking up that in at least some areas they aren't) that's a bit of an issue. Not only for the schoolchildren being taken up into the sky, but for anyone operating RAF aircraft.

As a former Air Cadet, who was and remains eternally grateful for the opportunities and training the ATC gave me, I would add that (in my view at least) the ATC is primarily a recruiting tool for the RAF - that's why the RAF spends scarce taxpayers' monies on it. Yes, there are all sorts of excellent benefits for the cadets, not least in developing valuable life skills, but the core reason for the ATC's existence is to encourage young people to think about a career in the RAF. That's not a bad thing - I think young people should consider careers in the RAF. I just wonder whether the monies being chucked by the RAF at the ATC to dig it out of the hole it got into represents a good return on investment.

Not to mention the reputational risk of flying kids around in non-airworthy aircraft.

Best regards as ever to all those doing the valuable work with the kids,

Engines

tucumseh

15th May 2017, 10:42

Well said Engines. :ok:

Arclite01

15th May 2017, 11:20

Engines

As always, your posts are full of useful and insightful information and you are spot on.

I think it's fair to say that in the past the RAF saw the ATC as a very useful recruiting tool and that about 60% of it's ground staff came via that route and about 75% of aircrew. However nowadays the RAF has not really got a need for the numbers of recruits that the ATC produces (produced). On that basis it's not such an important place to start.

The ATC is however the public face of the RAF with many people more likely to see an ATC Cadet than a full blown serviceman so as a PR tool it's great and good value.

During my last stint with the ATC there was a lot of talk about the Cadet Forces being classed as 'Fabric of Society' rather than 'Military' and on that basis, the MoD/RAF was trying to get funding supplied by the Home Office rather than from the Defence Budget. I believe that ultimately this 'angle' fizzled out before any money changed hands.

On the other point people are raising, the old wood/fabric gliders were maintained in a different maintenance regime that that currently operated. The aircraft were maintained by RAF Tradesmen, using proven documentation, audit trail and management practices. That is why it was successful for a long time. When the GRP gliders arrived the RAF was the first to hold up it's hands and admit it had no specialist skills in that area. Rather than train tradesmen, they chose (with some political pressure no doubt) to outsource the work and skills. They thought that by doing this they would achieve 3 things:

1. Not have to introduce what they saw (wrongly IMHO) a niche airframe skill (GRP Composites) or Trade Group
2. Reduce the cost by not having to maintain a repair organization themselves
3. Abstract themselves away from any risk associated with maintaining the GRP airframes by passing it to a third party (classic strategy)

Where they failed was in not making themselves an 'educated customer' and in not having a robust audit programme that was overseen by the 'educated customer'. The impact of that is what we see today.

Big Pistons Forever.......

I also agree with what you are saying in the thread above, Cadets don't care about what they fly in. The old T31 and T21 were ideal for what was being taught. The Cadet enjoys the learning process, they have time with like minded people in a managed and disciplined way and they make new friends. At the end they come away with a new skill and feeling of a achievement................... what not to like ??

Lastly, I will always be grateful for the start that the ATC gave me to my life - and I think it continues with me in my day-to-day activities and attitudes I am sure............

Best regards as ever to all those with resin and flock on their hands:}

Arc

POBJOY

15th May 2017, 11:34

Engines The simple truth is that the RAF are no longer competent to organise themselves for tech matters.
They do not have an 'in house' ability at the top level and are paying the price for the rush to 'outsource' everything (including the control)

I think the ATC has become a useful 'home' for career types that have lost the normal path and as usual the 'volunteers' at Squadron level have a difficult job trying to 'enthuse' the 'AIR' side of the organisation which has faded away.

The money that is poured into the organisation does not represent a good value on return if compared with providing the 'AIR' element.

That is not take away the other youth elements that are on offer, but I suspect we are loosing those that could get involved with aviation based on enthusiasm rather than affordability.

It matters not what material a basic aircraft is made from, as the 'experience' of flight at an early age is the factor that remains with the person rather than its technology. I would even suggest that a rocket like winch launch sitting in an airborne (very) open cockpit takes some beating for a youngster.

Engines

15th May 2017, 11:34

Arc,

Thanks for coming back - I'd like to respond if I might.

The RAF were very well able to maintain GRP airframes in the 90s. I was working in the field of NDT in the 80s, and remember the large sums being spent by the RAF on developing their ability to assess and repair composite structures, ranging from GRP to carbon and other materials. I went on RAF courses, with Group Captains and Wing Commanders telling us how they were leading the UK military's programmes for developing composite repair skills. I also remember seeing very expensively bought specialist GRP repair equipment.

I absolutely agree that there was no need to create a new trade to repair GRP. You simply provide the specialist training to the existing tradesmen. And they don't have to be airframe trade. I encountered a number of RAF weapons trade personnel who'd been trained up to repair GRP components in the late 90s.

The problems encountered by the ATC seem to be less about GRP hands on repair skills and a lot more about basic failures in the procurement and airworthiness management of the ATC glider fleet. That's where the focus needs to stay (in my view) .

Pobjoy, the RAF's VSOs have no choice on airworthiness. They are accountable, in law, for the safe operation of their aircraft. If they haven't organised themselves and their service to do that, they need to act now and quickly. Sadly, so far, they have managed to keep their failures under wraps. Hopefully, forums like this can help expose them. Let me be clear once again - I worked with the RAF for many years, and was always impressed by the dedication and expertise of their engineers, especially at SO1 level and below, and also of their technicians, many of whom were simply outstanding. The RAF's problems, (just my view) are the result of failings in culture and organisation at the higher levels.

Regards ever to all those having to fix this lot,

Engines

tucumseh

15th May 2017, 12:29

If I might just offer a word of support for Engines, as memories fade with time; mine more than his. I know and see regularly the long-retired RAF officer who "trained the trainers" before introduction of these aircraft. He did the same job on Chinook HC Mk2 in 1992, being the officer who first reported that Boeing hadn't a clue about FADEC. In retirement he spent much of his time with the ATC and remains distraught at this debacle.

Engines, their failures are no longer entirely under wraps! Names have been published.

Gethro

15th May 2017, 14:59

As a "new boy" here I am a little nervous about expressing my opinions in such august company, but perhaps I may be allowed a word or two.
Like many others I was deeply involved in Air Cadet gliding for decades, as well as flying BGA gliders, civilian microlights and light aircraft. In recent years I joined a local syndicate and have since spent many happy hours flying C42, Eurostar, A22 Foxbat and TL2000 S3 Sting aircraft. Of all these I would suggest that the Sting S4, with a dual-throttle mod. and ballistic parachute would be near ideal for cadet flying with the A22LS Foxbat (again with ballistic 'chute) running it a close second.
However after seeing at first hand the omni-shambles known as the "pause" I will not be holding my breath waiting for any good news on this particular front!

Innominate

15th May 2017, 16:47

Engines

I hope you were impressed by the dedication of the engineers, rather than their decimation!

Engines

15th May 2017, 17:02

Inno,

Thanks for the correction. Apologies to all for my p**s poor typing and over reliance on spell check! Most of all, apologies to my many ex-RAF friends for failing to properly express my admiration for their professionalism.

Off to boil my head

Engines

boswell bear

15th May 2017, 19:14

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

How did you find teaching in the Chevvron with it's central control column and drag flap lever left seat only?

chevvron

15th May 2017, 21:05

How did you find teaching in the Chevvron with it's central control column and drag flap lever left seat only?
Sorry mate, can't say as I was not an instructor, I just flew Air Experience.
I think the instructor flew right seat and talked the student through the operation of the 'flap cum airbrake' lever. One of the aircraft (we had 4) was found to have the 'B' wing with flaps which went down rather than up when it was delivered but this was soon changed to a 'C' wing. As for the central column, the technique so I was told was for the cadet to hold it by the handgrip and the instructor would then place his hand loosely round the base of the control column so he could take over by moving his hand upwards thereby displacing the cadet's hand.

chevvron

15th May 2017, 21:19

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.

But don't forget it was free. If cadets were really keen after they soloed, they could apply to become a Staff Cadet at the gliding school and then would continue training and eventually become an instructor which once again was free.
To join a BGA or RAGFGSA club would mean paying out and many cadets being still at school they either had to rely on their parents doing this or forgo it entirely, which as most parents couldn't afford it is what most cadets did, but don't forget, they had flown solo in an RAF aircraft.

longer ron

15th May 2017, 22:31

Trying to remember how many years ago I posted it would be easier cheaper and quicker to buy new gliders to solve the problem ;)
Hey but what do I know ??:rolleyes:

A and C

16th May 2017, 07:22

The problem with buying new gliders is the production rate, the industry is simply not able to generate the airframes.

If you ordered a fleet of 50 gliders I would expect it would take two years to get ten airframes delivered so the only realistic option to get cadets back in the air is to recover the best Viking airframes while looking at a phased fleet replacement.

I think a lot of people fail to understand how small the gliding industry is and that it is not posable to increase production rate ( be it recovery or new aircraft ) because of the lack of skilled staff.

Aggamemnon

16th May 2017, 07:28

If you ordered a fleet of 50 gliders I would expect it would take two years to get ten airframes delivered so the only realistic option to get cadets back in the air is to recover the best Viking airframes while looking at a phased fleet replacement.

The ACO has been waiting for more than 3 years for fewer aircraft.

boswell bear

16th May 2017, 08:35

The ACO has been waiting for more than 3 years for fewer aircraft.

...and paid a ridiculous amount of money for the for those few which are still regularly unserviceable not to mention the amount spent on infrastructure the organisation doesn't need.

Arclite01

16th May 2017, 09:33

I still feel that the wrong decision has been made with regard to equipment.

The Winch Launch gliders which are better for teamwork and so on (fully recognized benefits) are harder to place in terms of real estate than the motorgliders. Regular units are happier to take Motorglider VGS as lodger units as they fit better with the working patterns of these units. And the FOD risks are much reduced.

The right decision would have been to re-engine the Motorglider airframes through an OEM programme run by Grob. Shuffle the airframes to keep a capability (reduced) in the UK until all Vigilants are re-engined. Then possibly have a reduced number of larger regional Motorglider VGS's afterwards. This also consolidates the approach which has been taken in the past where Vigilants have been temporarily detached to be 'nearer the customers' (such as 618 to Manston where there is no local permanent VGS). You just cant achieve that flexibility with a winch launch VGS.

Sell the Vikings 'as is', get rid of the new winches. Put the money in the pot.

Cost savings from consolidation of sites, standardization of equipment and standardization of training make the business case an absolute 'no-brainer' - but it doesn't fit with the model which appears to be that they don't like the VGS being powered operations.............

But what is done is done and sadly we are where we are................

Arc

boswell bear

16th May 2017, 14:20

Get your applications in!

https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/index.cgi?SID=b3duZXI9NTA3MDAwMCZvd25lcnR5cGU9ZmFpciZwYWdlYW N0aW9uPXZpZXd2YWNieWpvYmxpc3QmY3NvdXJjZT1jc2ZzZWFyY2gmdXNlcn NlYXJjaGNvbnRleHQ9Mzc4ODA0Mzkmc2VhcmNoX3NsaWNlX2N1cnJlbnQ9MS Zqb2JsaXN0X3ZpZXdfdmFjPTE1NDA0NzMmcGFnZWNsYXNzPUpvYnMmcmVxc2 lnPTE0OTQ4NDI3ODctYTc5NDBhODRlZTM0YTIyOTYwY2ZlYjcwNjRmN2NiMj cxZWExZmZhMQ

cats_five

16th May 2017, 18:16

Trying to remember how many years ago I posted it would be easier cheaper and quicker to buy new gliders to solve the problem ;)
Hey but what do I know ??:rolleyes:

The problem is the paperwork, which might or might not hide problems with none / some / all of the gliders. It doesn't matter what gliders they do or don't have, if the paperwork is in a guddle the glider is unairworthy.

Arclite01

17th May 2017, 07:29

Cats

LongerRon is very aware of the issues - take it from me................

Arc

Engines

17th May 2017, 08:17

If I might...

The problem is not 'the paperwork'. The problems are the failures of organisation, culture and competence that led to the paperwork being in an unholy mess.

Looking after the paperwork for a fleet of utterly basic GRP aircraft should have been a walk in the park. The RAF and the MoD should have been able to meet all the applicable regulations. The people involved should have been able to carry out the repairs properly. The FTRS should have been able to pass their first CAMO assessments back in 2013 with ease.

But as one of my old chiefs used to say ''should' don't mean sod all, Sir'.

The basic question remains unanswered - how on earth did the RAF, of all services, end up putting schoolchildren into the air in non-airworthy aircraft?

Chug and Tuc would point to the actions of RAF VSOs in the 80s, when the dismantling of the MoD's airworthiness management systems started. They have a good point - but that doesn't fully explain why people in the MoD and the RAF apparently failed to carry out the basics for another 20 years from the 90s.

Honestly, I think it's time for an enquiry. Any thoughts?

Best Regards as ever to all those caught up in this and trying to do the right thing,

Engines

Arclite01

17th May 2017, 09:07

I can't see the appetite for a review frankly. Not because it's not required, but because certain VSO's feel 'it's not required' - if you get my drift :}

Arc

tucumseh

17th May 2017, 09:07

Honestly, I think it's time for an enquiry. Any thoughts?The first thing I'd say is, we've had an inquiry. The Nimrod Review, which was given the full historical details of why the system was run down, and by whom. That was simply factual information, although actively concealed by MoD - and Haddon-Cave. So yes, another is needed.

The question why this continued for (at the time) nearly 20 years was also addressed, but of course that can only be from the perspective of individual witnesses; although some had considerable experience and had witnessed first hand the RAF's reaction to the failings in December 1992 - threats of dismissal for refusing to obey orders to perpetuate the rundown. Under such a regime, many hitherto diligent and exceptional engineers will succumb to a culture of bullying, and ignore their training and regulations. In fact, MoD actually admits this, stating in a 2003 briefing to PUS that only one member of staff had complained, and that he was therefore wrong. (A notification provided under FoI, and submitted to Haddon-Cave). A lie in my opinion, but it is difficult to find anyone who will admit to voicing concerns; which is now both an offence and a legal obligation. But, also, many engineering decisions have been taken by non-engineers, who have self-delegated authority. This has never been resolved, although to be fair I think the MAA have snipped away at the outer edges. But 7 years of snipping should have exposed all!

Chugalug2

17th May 2017, 09:11

Engines, you rightly point to the actions of RAF VSOs in the 80s, but I would point in turn to further RAF VSO actions in the 90s and beyond. Most of those actions were directed at covering up the initial subversion of the UK Military Airworthiness system and of diverting blame to others of 1* downwards to JOs for its fatal consequences. In order to do that control of airworthiness was removed from qualified and experienced engineers to unqualified non-engineers who would do the bidding of their RAF VSO seniors. Gradually the corporate knowledge of the regulations vanished, together with the regulations themselves which were systematically scrapped. When this was all brought to light by those outside the MOD and a review ordered into the loss of Nimrod XV230, once again the MOD went into damage limitation mode. Aided by the extraordinary labelling in the Review of the period of subversion as a "Golden Period" of airworthiness practice, it gave us the "Independent" MAA manned mainly by those who had been complicit (knowingly or otherwise) in the lingering death of UK Military Airworthiness.

The MAA cannot change its spots. It is not independent, it is part of the MOD, the very institution that has perpetrated this scandal. It is not capable of reform, because it does not understand what it is that has been destroyed before and after its formation. Even if it did it cannot go about that reform, because it would first of all have to admit why the system was destroyed and who destroyed it. The cover up is still in place because RAF VSO reputations are deemed a higher priority than the airworthiness of UK Military Aviation. This reform can only happen outwith the MOD. Similarly, UK Military Air Accident Investigation must just as importantly be removed from the MOD and be made independent of the MOD and a reborn MAA.

That is my response to your :-

doesn't fully explain why people in the MoD and the RAF apparently failed to carry out the basics for another 20 years from the 90s.

cats_five

17th May 2017, 11:16

The problem is not 'the paperwork'. The problems are the failures of organisation, culture and competence that led to the paperwork being in an unholy mess.

Yes, that's being more explicit than I was. However I think we agree it wouldn't matter what they were flying - T21, K21, Viking, Capstan etc. they would be grounded because of the problems the paperwork is symptomatic of.

squawking 7700

17th May 2017, 11:38

Until those in positions of responsibility with regard to this mess are publicly named and shamed for exposing children to risk, nothing will be done about it.

You could say the RAF have taken an ambivalent disregard to safety in exposing children to undue risk and I'm thinking not just of the reason for this thread but certain lack of operational practices that lead to the deaths of innocents - not equipping aircraft with Mode C transponders and not making use of local radar services.

7700

ACW342

17th May 2017, 15:30

B Bear - I had a look at the job application. When I read the bit at Para 2 Line 3 I'm afraid my blood boiled somewhat, leading me to send the following email to the address for requesting information for clarification on the claims made in said paragraph.

Dear Sir or Madam
I read the job description, as above, with interest. I note that in paragraph 2 it is stated that "The gliders comprising a mix of self-launching and conventional types are MoD owned and maintained in accordance with current Royal Air Force maintenance procedures.

I would be obliged if you would let me know as to when this practice came into being as, when I was flying teen-age members of the Air Training Corps and others, the aircraft were, so it has been revealed, un-airworthy and Not maintained in accordance with current Royal Air Force maintenance procedures, thus making them legally un-airworthy and, ipso facto, unsafe and, thereby putting my life and the lives of my young students at risk.

I see, also, that the applicants will have to go through various checks (immigration and fraud, to name but two) and abide by certain compliances and codes (i.e.The Civil Service Code). This being so, what reciprocal agreements can the successful candidate expect in return that, for instance, the aircraft in which he is going to fly in has not only been declared airworthy and, therefore, safe but that process and procedures will be in place to ensure that that remains so, unlike the procedures and processes that were not adhered to, both by the Royal Air Force and the contractors concerned, which put my life and, more importantly, the lives of those students and passengers (including my wife of 45 years) at risk at that time.

I look forward to your reply.

Fitter2

17th May 2017, 16:00

Trying to remember how many years ago I posted it would be easier cheaper and quicker to buy new gliders to solve the problem
Hey but what do I know ??

In a rational world that might be so, but in the current one maybe not.

How long would it take to:

a) Review a 20 year old requirement to confirm it is still valid (or probably go through a desirable change spec)

b) Agree a budget for the purchase

c) go out to tender

d) review the submissions (if any were received)

e) Have MAOS audit and approve the proposed supplier. (which could take more than 12 months on its own. EASA Part 145 doesn't read across.)

e) go through the commercial contract issue process

f) carry out acceptance trials

g) write the complete APS for the aircraft, and have it MAOS approved.

My guess is 7-10 years before a single new glider was seen under the current system, and the cost including MOD overheads doubling the equivalent ex-works price to the civilian world.

tucumseh

17th May 2017, 16:21

ACW342

I hope you get a reply! Well done.

Regarding the Civil Service Code, during the MoK Review the Civil Service Commissioners confirmed there was no way the public could make a complaint that it was breached. Only a serving civil servant can do this, and I can assure you that doing so would be career ending. This could be construed as a breach of the Armed Forces Covenant.

cats_five

17th May 2017, 17:28

<snip>

My guess is 7-10 years before a single new glider was seen under the current system, and the cost including MOD overheads doubling the equivalent ex-works price to the civilian world.

That might give them time to sort out the organisational issues that have lead to the current situation. it would then take many more years to replace the fleet, as I suspect the K21 would be the only serious contender (not the Perkoz or PW6) and Shleicher can already sell as many as they can build so the ATC might get 2 per year.

chevvron

17th May 2017, 18:24

That might give them time to sort out the organisational issues that have lead to the current situation. it would then take many more years to replace the fleet, as I suspect the K21 would be the only serious contender (not the Perkoz or PW6) and Shleicher can already sell as many as they can build so the ATC might get 2 per year.

Pity the Schwiezer 2-33 is out of production.(I presume) Would be much easier to maintain to the required standard with minor items being done on the unit.

longer ron

17th May 2017, 18:34

And as I said before - if the lead time is that long -- they should already have been ordered,the waiting list would now be 3 years down the line - whenever a replacement is ordered then it is a long lead item,this is what planned replacement means (ie one must think ahead).
If you get new gliders delivered (assuming you have somebody qualified to complete acceptance checks etc) there would not be any paperwork problems with the a/c.
Problems with how they are 'organising' the ACO gliding 'organisation' is of course another matter :rolleyes:

I had a couple of laughs at the job advert - obviously the 2 'A' levels would make one a wonderful gliding instructor LOL......but they missed out the part which should have said ''bring your own glider'' :).

cats_five

18th May 2017, 05:30

cats_five

18th May 2017, 05:32

Pity the Schwiezer 2-33 is out of production.(I presume) Would be much easier to maintain to the required standard with minor items being done on the unit.

No, there would simply be unairworthy metal gliders instead of glass. The fabric of the gliders isn't the issue, the way the organisation has been run is. They would be in the same pickle if the gliders were T21s

TelsBoy

19th May 2017, 12:54

planesandthings

19th May 2017, 21:30

Three years down the line, lots of cash spent, number of serviceable airframes still in the low single figures, ongoing issues with the 109, with no improvement in sight at all. RAFGSA providing GS in minimal numbers, however I know of at least one club that won't allow Cdts solo unless they are of an "exceptional" standard as they're frightened a kid will prang the two seater.

I am still waiting for the increased AEF opportunities that were promised to appear, I won't hold my breath. At least one of my Cdts got his GS recently, albeit as I say without going solo, which for me defies the whole point of GS.

A shame to hear that cadet solos are being restricted. I've seen plenty of examples of most GSA clubs having sent under 16s solo under BGA regs so I suspect it's an issue with the ACO directly, and I imagine GS is offered at minimal numbers because as you'd expect, the club's members and interests come first.

Once again, the answer is, if cadets want to glide they should be strongly advised to apply for the many civilian gliding scholarships across the country which provide far better pathways than the ACO will ever do again.

Not sure about the specifics in your case, but GS was never built on any guarantee of solo, it's the same with ACPS, a number of people do not meet the satisfactory standard in the time and funding given, fact of life with the ACO. Encourage him to look at continuing in the BGA however.

Frelon

20th May 2017, 11:14

planesandthings and cats_five (and possibly others) whilst your comments are well meaning you should remember that the UK Air Cadet gliding operation, when at it's peak, sent hundreds of enthusiastic cadets solo each year. Few of these cadets had transport to get to their local club nor the funds to pay for their gliding (even at junior rates). Remember this was not about turning these 16 year olds into super soaring pilots but to train them to fly one of Her Majesty's gliders safely round the circuit. This process involved team work and many other skills associated with learning to fly and gave them new found confidence in themselves. At the end of this process they had the choice of trying to find the funds to continue to fly with a local gliding club, or if selected becoming a staff cadet. Few that I knew of continued with a club,

Despite this most cadets remember their gliding courses with a great degree of fondness. It is interesting to see how many ex cadets come to my gliding club to take up gliding (again) as an adult indicating that they could not afford to do it before!

ACW342

20th May 2017, 12:50

Frelon, How very true. I joined my local Sqn. a month or two before the required age of, I think, 13 years 8 months (might have been 4 months). By the time I was 16 I had been in full time employment for 1 year and 2 months (yes, work it out, full time employment at 14 years and 10 months!) and when I was 16 my enlightened employer of the time thought that yes, they could get a return on their money by releasing me to go on a gliding course with the ATC. This involved the Saturday night Heysham steamer (no cabins or bunks, just a good old fashioned great coat to keep out the November cold, whilst crossing the Irish Sea)

After the crossing, a Sunday train service to Euston Station in London, a long wait for a connection to Norwich from Liverpool Street and await a minibus to take us to Swanton Morley (I was a Cadet Sergeant, in charge of two others). It's too long a story to regale you with the goings on, including a couple of "chaps" from a CCF at a boarding school who had never heard of but thoroughly enjoyed a working class delicacy known as a "Chip Buttie" Sadly I was the only one of the three from "N'Orn I'rn) who soloed. Sadly the other two got weathered out alongside several other students.

That was it, I wanted to fly BUT I was earning only £6 a week, £4:10s:0d of which went to my Mother (my Father was earning a princely £18 or so, so my input, along with my Brother's was needed to keep the family finances in the black) Membership of the Ulster GC, then at the old RAF station Long Kesh, was WAAY beyond my means until I joined the RAF and on my first posting, to Wattisham, hotfooted round the peri track to stump up my cash to join the RAFGSA at the Anglia GC.

So yes, the ATC gliding system lit a fire in me which was fuelled by both the RAFGSA and RAFGGA, a fire which burned from the mid 60s of the 20th century through to the first decade of the 21st, but dimmed sadly by ill health. I still study the clouds, look up at the sky and watch the guys and girls from Bellarena soar Binevenagh Mountain and the cliffs overlooking Benone strand (where I once landed due to a treacherous N'Wly dying away to nothing whilst at the furthest end of the ridge.)

What a sad end to an organisation that helped so many youngsters of all classes, creed and ethnicity. I fear it will never return to those glory days, and all because some RAF officers didn't do their job in monitoring the contractors at all stages.

BEagle

20th May 2017, 13:28

ACW324, an excellent post which PTFN should be forced to read!

DaveUnwin

20th May 2017, 13:41

Wander00

20th May 2017, 13:47

DU - So true, so true. Keep banging away at them

Onceapilot

20th May 2017, 16:30

With a view to re-visiting this debacle for my monthly column for Pilot magazine I started asking some of the aviators I respect how they'd first flown. It didn't matter if they were a 22,000hr 747 Captain, an Air Marshal, a senior test pilot with a major aircraft manufacturer, a Shuttleworth Collection pilot or a Regional Examiner for the BGA - the results were always the same. Either a T-21 or T-31, followed by a big grin at the recollection. Those responsible for the destruction of ATC gliding should truly hang their heads in shame.

Well said. But here's a thought, link those high achievers with the boys (and girls) on the street who chose to make an effort for several nights a week, and at weekends, for the chance of being around aircraft and sometimes, flying. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the ATC lifted many young people up, and on their way forward in life! :D

OAP

POBJOY

20th May 2017, 16:32

Frelon you are so correct in your missive. The organisation (as was) gave us an opportunity to make what we could of the ability to get airborne and even go solo in HM machine. The fact this was absolutely classless and not really cost restrictive was the added bonus. The system rewarded 'EFFORT' and also encouraged high standards plus self development. The level of leadership shown by those running the actual schools (as were) was evidenced by the amount of delegation shown to all levels of both pupils and staff alike, and how it stayed with them in adult life. To be a staff cadet on a school was an amazing experience, and it occurred at an age that set the datum for later life. I well remember when the CCF cadets came on a continuous course how surprised they were to find most of the actual jobs being done by other cadets, and we all got on so well together with mass collections of the cadets (at food times) by the 1 ton Austin being driven usually by another cadet. It sparked a light that could never be extinguished, and is still as bright in my case 54 years later.

chevvron

21st May 2017, 06:50

To echo POBJOY. The Scouts had a mass rally and camp at Halton one weekend and when we arrived on saturday to open the hangar to get the gliders out, several scouts wandered over to watch.
One or two were from my school but a couple of years below me and were amazed to see me handling the aircraft, then hopping into a Land Rover to tow them to the launch point.

zetec2

21st May 2017, 10:33

Maybe I have missed something but who other than the RAF ! maintains and supports the G109 and glider fleet ? is it Syerston based or at the Flights ?.
.

The B Word

21st May 2017, 20:29

Zetec

Announcement Date : July 1, 2008
SERCO take over responsibility for the maintenance of the Viking T.1 and Vigilant T.1 fleets from the Royal Air Force Central Gliding School’s Engineering Flight. RAF technicians remain at RAF Syerston to work alongside SERCO for the next six months, providing training and advice.

SERCO is tasked to ensure a 100% fleet availability using 31 technicians/engineers. Maintenance is managed from RAF Syerston, with four remote engineering centres established at RAF Kinloss, RAF Odiham, RAF Cosford and MOD St. Athan.

That's who...:rolleyes:

It is rumoured that Serco, Marshall Aerospace and Southern Sailplanes are doing the recovery work to return the aircraft back to airworthy condition. It is further rumoured that the average recovery cost per aircraft would be an insurance write-off on any normal day in civvy street...:ugh:

POBJOY

21st May 2017, 20:33

Zetec 2 The problem is the RAF have not been seen to actually 'control/oversee' the status of the fleet to satisfy basic airworthiness conditions. The outsourced engineering and audit control has been found wanting and as yet no one at RAF/MOD level has been able to find a sensible way ahead. There are reputations at stake here therefore delay and (lots of meetings) means the trail gets colder every week. I suspect many of those involved have retired or moved elsewhere therefore making it an even more difficult job of sorting it out. Mind you we do have an unenviable safety record for ATC gliding as from 2014 due in the main to the lack of any activity. At the end of the day the fleet was used by the Air Training Corps Volunteers under RAF/MOD scrutiny, and the Corps has been let down by the full time paid staff who were responsible for its overall airworthiness.

zetec2

22nd May 2017, 08:43

Thanks for the above replies re Syerston etc and support, appreciated,

Mechta

26th May 2017, 21:35

If a shortage of engines is preventing more Vigilants from being kept in the air, how is it that Soaring Oxford are selling zeroed engines overhauled by Grob?

https://afors.com/aircraftView/40293

Whizz Bang

26th May 2017, 22:10

If a shortage of engines is preventing more Vigilants from being kept in the air, how is it that Soaring Oxford are selling zeroed engines overhauled by Grob?

https://afors.com/aircraftView/40293

I would imagine because they are the exact ones they're short of... :}

Auster Fan

31st May 2017, 16:32

Well at least some Cadets from Norfolk and Suffolk Wing managed to get airborne this week, courtesy of Norfolk Gliding Club at Tibenham and the RFCA who apparently funded it. Almost certainly the first gliding in Norfolk by Cadets since 611VGS ceased flying at Watton in 2012...

boswell bear

1st Jun 2017, 07:38

Cardiff Cadets flew in Vigilants

https://twitter.com/1344sqnatc/status/868741887833890816

No mention of 645 VGS just weeks after starting to fly cadets again losing their aircraft to provide this political sideshow!

Shaft109

1st Jun 2017, 22:22

Well small ray of light - the aircraft in the picture is ZH186- my first ever solo machine back in 1996.

So happy to see it's avoided the chop hopefully will be able to sit in it again sometime.

POBJOY

2nd Jun 2017, 17:45

Does anyone know how many Vikings are back in 'Squadron' service, and indeed what the staffing level is at any Squadron operating !!!

Whizz Bang

2nd Jun 2017, 22:42

You won't run out of fingers and toes... FOI request?

POBJOY

3rd Jun 2017, 19:21

Judging by the lack of response from Squadron staff excited by actually flying 'REAL' aircraft I will not hold my breath.

POBJOY

4th Jun 2017, 18:05

It appears that Southern Sailplanes are well on the case of the 'hands on' recovery task, but the 'recovered airframes' are then subject to further scrutiny by the very company that caused the problem in the first place.
A bit like 'yes minister' without the humour.
In fact John Cleese is looking at a new series 'Yes Air Commodore' which does not even have to be scripted due to them being able to use actual records and documents direct from MOD.
Some of the best scenes will depict a 'boffin' sitting in his plastic bath; like Archimedes with a lap top. He then cries out to his wife CISTRS (My dear I have just designed the perfect glider replacement) We can buy the tubs from B&Q and make a fortune, and no need for silly winches or indeed anything!

1.3VStall

5th Jun 2017, 13:45

I hear that the latest plan is to recover just 55 Vikings.

Taking out the aircraft that will be permanently allocated to CGS at Syerston, plus those on maintenance, that doesn't leave a lot of airframes to spread across the remaining gliding schools.

What an utter disgrace!

Arclite01

5th Jun 2017, 14:23

1.3

Approx 6 per school then (max)

Arc

ACW342

9th Jun 2017, 14:31

I think now is the time for me to approach my 10+1 MPs in relation to the perfidious closure of 664 VGS and the illegal acts perpetrated by all and sundry in this sordid little act of total negligence.

EnigmAviation

12th Jun 2017, 09:06

Just run it past me one more time, what were the original Viking and Vigilant numbers in total, and what are the numbers of airframes being recovered ? Sounds like almost as big a disaster as Theresa May ! Maybe her special advisers Rasputin & his female assistant who have just been sacked trained at the same place as those who masterminded this VGS meltdown !

Chugalug2

12th Jun 2017, 15:16

EA:-
Maybe her special advisers Rasputin & his female assistant who have just been sacked trained at the same place as those who masterminded this VGS meltdown !
The ones who masterminded this were in RAF uniform, albeit VSO ones. The unairworthiness that now permeates the UK military air fleets is a direct result of their illegal actions and orders. The ACO aircraft could be "paused" whereas other operational fleets could not. None of them can be assumed to be airworthy, least of all by the MAA.

ACW418

12th Jun 2017, 15:27

Viking

The ACO originally purchased 100 Vikings. Over the years this dwindled to around 70 airwothy aircraft as incidents damaged them and rather than repair them ACCGS put them in store or sold them. To explain this there was a problem with getting host stations to accept winch launched operations and so the Vigilant fleet was grown to about the same numbers. Whilst there may have been very temporary shortages it never stopped us flying the remaining serviceable ones.

ACW

POBJOY

12th Jun 2017, 19:19

Several Vikings have been written off/damaged in hangar 'snow' collapse's over the years, the price of keeping your modern fleet in WW1 hangars !!!!
In fact they seem to have 'migrated' to the GSA who managed to repair some of them.
Syerston had a purpose built 'glass shop' that does not seem to have ever rebuilt a machine; so I would have thought this would have rung a few warning bells somewhere. Something seriously wrong with a system that has a fleet of new support trucks, winches, and a new HQ, but no gliders !!!

campbeex

13th Jun 2017, 07:03

What VGS had aircraft written-off or damaged in hangar collapses? I only ask because I don't recall any in my time.

Engines

13th Jun 2017, 09:07

I'd like to ask the good people of PPrune for some help. I'm (slowly) putting together the full story of this debacle, with a view to getting the RAeS to take a formal interest, and then get the House of Commons Defence Committee to ask some questions. I have made a few FoI requests, asking for the Ageing Aircraft Audit reports for Viking and Vigilant, as well as more of the MAA CAMO audit reports. Unsurprisingly, the MoD is having trouble finding its own (mandatory) paperwork. I have also built a timeline of this thread, which makes for some surprising reading, especially the huge gaps between statements from OC 2FTS and the reality of the situation. Also the wholly misleading 'supporting' statements made by Ministers and RAF VSOs along the way.

I happily admit that I have big gaps in my understanding, and would appreciate any responses, or PMs, on the following:

1. Can anyone identify the original (and subsequent) Design Authorities for the Viking and the Vigilant? To be clear, who issued (and kept up to date) the Certificates of Design (used to be called the Form 100)?
2. Could anyone identify when the maintenance of the aircraft originally went out to contract, and what were the arrangements before that date?

I apologise for the very basic nature of these questions, i'm sure that with enough of a trawl through the data I could get a decent answer - but I've always found that Pprune is full of helpful and knowledgable people.

Best regards as ever to all those who know where the skeletons really are,

Engines

VX275

13th Jun 2017, 10:05

What VGS had aircraft written-off or damaged in hangar collapses? I only ask because I don't recall any in my time.

IIRC There was the radio controlled Land Rover that went out of control and shot through the side of the VGS hangar at Aberporth wrecking a few Vikings.

Lordflasheart

13th Jun 2017, 10:31

.... the radio controlled Land Rover that went out of control and shot through the side of the VGS hangar at Aberporth .... (The Landy) ... thought it had been re-chipped as a Jindivik, did it ?? :E

And on a more serious note -

Engines .............

A big BZ for what you are doing. Even if we can't all help with your research, I'm sure (I hope) that most of the folks here are (should be) applauding your efforts.

LFH (one time ATC cadet - two times gliding - both press-ganged)

ACW418

13th Jun 2017, 14:57

Aberprth

No it was a radio controlled Land Rover. Another number of Vikings were destroyed at Predannick (sp) when snow collected on the temporary hangar and caused it to collapse. Might have been a Besonnau - can't remember.

ACW

Arclite01

13th Jun 2017, 15:38

POBJOY

I seem to remember a Viking that had had a severe tail accident (501 ?) it had been repaired in house but the tail dolly did not fit as the fuselage width was too wide for the dolly to close ! - that one was always kept at Syerston and not issued to schools as it would not be able to be used....... we were told it was structurally sound................:}

Arc

POBJOY

13th Jun 2017, 17:12

cats_five

13th Jun 2017, 18:49

ARC As tail accidents are very common with glass ships no doubt competent repairers are able to, and indeed required to conduct a repair (to the manufacturers specifications) I wonder who signed this off !!!

I saw a K21 at Zulu Glasstek having the tail boom repaired. It was in a jig to endure the fin was correctly positioned. I'm sure the tail boom diameter was the same after the repair as it was before the accident.

Sounds like a very botched repair, I wouldn't want to fly it.

Freda Checks

14th Jun 2017, 08:59

Another number of Vikings were destroyed at Predannick (sp) when snow collected on the temporary hangar and caused it to collapse. http://<a href=http://s183.photobucket.com/user/Biggles615/media/Predannack_zpswupwmjhs.png.html target=_blank>[IMG]http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x165/Biggles615/Predannack_zpswupwmjhs.pnghttp://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x165/Biggles615/Predannack_zpswupwmjhs.png (http://s183.photobucket.com/user/Biggles615/media/Predannack_zpswupwmjhs.png.html)

pr00ne

14th Jun 2017, 10:02

If they were "destroyed" how come all 3 were sold to gliding organisations and registered as airworthy aircraft?

Engines

14th Jun 2017, 11:46

An interesting couple of posts on Viking losses at Predannack.

When a military aircraft is damaged, that damage is assessed and categorised. This event sounds like a 'Cat 3' (could be repaired at the the unit by specialist teams) or 'Cat 4' (could be repaired by the manufacturer). (Cat 5 is 'beyond any repair'). Normally, aircraft assessed as Cat 3 or 4 are only disposed of if they are judged to be 'BER' - Beyond Economic Repair'.

I'd like to see what the damage assessment was, who decided that they were 'BER', and who approved the sale of the aircraft to the RAF's own gliding association.

I'll also take a bet that the MoD had failed to place any contracts for the manufacturer to assess and repair damaged aircraft. There have also been rumours that the Aircraft Repair Manuals were inadequate.

Any info on this subject from any PPruners out there?

Best regards as ever to anyone fixing the aircraft

Engines

Arclite01

14th Jun 2017, 13:23

Early on I believe that many of the Cat 5 airframes were stripped for spares. I saw at least 3 airframes which had been stripped back to absolutely nothing (shells). These were then sold off by MoD tender.

I was told that the logic was that no spares forecasts had been completed for the airframe and no spares ordered (not an untypical situation with an end of year splurge 'use it or lose it' accounting system which was where the original funding tranche came from), which meant that any items that needed to be replaced (other than wheels, tyres and brakes) had to be special orders from Grob. During the first third of the airframe life Grob announced that they were not going to make gliders any more and focused on Powered aircraft. Items from Cat 5 aircraft such as control columns and airbrake assemblies, seats, straps etc were certainly reused in other aircraft.

This meant that the spares source effectively ceased, although Grob would make spares on a 'one off' basis at an exorbitant price per item.

Later some Cat 5 airframes were BER'd and only partially stripped - others sold in an 'as is' condition (such as the trailer accident). These were probably repairable but not cost effective to do so. As we know - anything is repairable if you throw enough £ and/or skill at it. Since there was a glut of Vikings at this stage (due to basing strategies meaning that many Viking sites were closing) I assume it was decided to reduce the overall numbers anyway by releasing the damaged airframes.

In parallel MoD was hunting down civilian Grob 109's that had been built at the same time as their own and purchasing them at above market rate and then having Modifications embodied to bring them to the same level as their existing fleet. These were then issued to VGS's to replace Vikings at sites where the Viking was no longer 'acceptable' to the unit basing strategy.Hence the increase in Vigilant Numbers overall and reduction in Viking.

WRT to sales of Vikings - These sales were all by the usual MoD Tender system as far as I am aware. Maybe the RAFGSA just got lucky (or unlucky !!).

Arc

Opsbeatch

19th Jun 2017, 07:41

So, she gets a CBE for this...imagine what she'd have got if they'd completely destroyed it...!

https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/qbhl2017.cfm

OB

EnigmAviation

19th Jun 2017, 08:11

So, she gets a CBE for this...imagine what she'd have got if they'd completely destroyed it...!

https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/qbhl2017.cfm

OB

I think I accurately predicted an outbreak of tea and medals ! All that's missing now is one for the Boss at 3 FTS ! And of course a press release to say what a remarkable achievement it is to have just about crawled back into limited operations, with much fewer aircraft, virtually no Vigilants, given away some to Grob, less staff, less VGS establishments, and productivity at an all time low. :*

Cows getting bigger

19th Jun 2017, 08:16

So, she gets a CBE for this...imagine what she'd have got if they'd completely destroyed it...!

https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/qbhl2017.cfm

OB

I think you will find that the whole debacle was/is way outside Commandant Air Cadet's sphere of control.

Freda Checks

19th Jun 2017, 08:30

No doubt she is doing a great job, whilst getting paid for it, and is publicising herself doing it on FaceTwit!

BUT, it is the cadets who should be given an award as they have been deprived of the jewel in the Air Cadet crown for 3 years.

Not forgetting the many volunteer Air Cadet gliding instructors and staff cadets who have been trampled over whilst this debacle unfolded.

Well done all of you, it is you who deserves the recognition.

Opsbeatch

19th Jun 2017, 09:10

I think you will find that the whole debacle was/is way outside Commandant Air Cadet's sphere of control.

I have no doubt that this is correct, but as the face of the ATC she has to take the flack for letting this happen on her watch. As I sent to her, I would be more impressed if she returned the CBE and said 'not until I have fixed this'.

OB

EnigmAviation

19th Jun 2017, 09:29

I think you will find that the whole debacle was/is way outside Commandant Air Cadet's sphere of control.

Yes, absolutely correct BUT she has been busy broadcasting the propaganda on Facebook about how wonderful things are, rather than a more considered line saying perhaps that she was somewhat disappointed by the 3 year break in Cadets learning to fly and glide at 24 VGS' and apologising on behalf of the RAF. Scribbly Admin branch people who are not pilots and instructors don't have the same zeal or understanding of the need for flying for Cadets, failing to realise that the initial word of her organisation is "AIR" !!! not Ground

POBJOY

19th Jun 2017, 09:46

Just the usual (under the carpet with the truth) and highlight the (what a great job the 'higher up's have done). No one takes any of this seriously because its just part of the medal rationing system we have festooned ourselves with.
The simple fact is the RAF have allowed themselves to become part of the whole 'outsourcing system' with companies that themselves have ex senior VSO's in house.
The Cadets have been lied to, and a generation of then denied a facility that has already been paid for.
The 'political nature' of the services must frustrate those that have spent a career trying to get the real job done. The ACO will not be seen as an important facet compared with governments trying to cope with saving money and keeping the 'in house jobs' going for the suits in the ministry. With so little RAF hardware and base's nowadays the ATC has become a convenient 'billet' to keep employment going, rather than a centre of excellence to provide a flying input to the Cadets. The ex volunteers will be appalled at the way the organisation has been treated by those PAID to back it up. ALL AN UTTER DISGRACE.

multum in parvo

19th Jun 2017, 17:13

While I fully understand the anger and frustration that appears throughout this thread I have great difficulty in seeing what, if anything, the current Commandant could have done to rectify the gliding situation.
As I understand it, the contract to provide engineering support for the glider fleet was let before her time in office. The responsibility for air cadet gliding was subsequently transferred out of HQAC to 3 FTS to ensure there was sufficient flying SQEP involved in the process, aithough the engineering contract monitoring remained within HQAC. The issues concerning engineering standards and compliance were only discovered when 2FTS stood up. Whatever individuals feel about the current incumbant his suspension of flying was greatly to his credit. Since then issues of finance, contract and industry capacity will have severely constrained the options.
Given that the current Comdt has been handed the distinctly unpleasant end of the stick I believe she has done as well as anyone could (and better than most) to not only hold the organisation together but to ensure that this generation of cadets get the best experience that they can given the circumstances. We may not be twitter and facebook fans but the cadets are and they enjoy her posts Those that meet her comment on her enthusiasm, energy and commitment which for teenagers is vital and so sadly lacking in many areas of society.
Have the VGS volunteers been treated in the worst possible way by the leadership at 2FTS? It would appear that the answer (if this thread reflects the truth) can only be yes. Have cadets missed out on the gliding experience that was the common currency of previous generations, yes that have. But, if future cadets are going to have an RAF supported aviation organisation to join, can I think of anyone who could have worked harder to ensure it will be there for them, no I can't.
For the record I am former serving and still work with cadets. I could be described as an admin shiney but I hope one of many that understand the absolute and central requirement for the air in air cadets.

teeteringhead

20th Jun 2017, 08:10

Scribbly Admin branch people who are not pilots and instructors don't have the same zeal or understanding of the need for flying for Cadets And no longer any aviators among the Region Commanders I think ........

Shaft109

24th Jun 2017, 13:09

So where are we up to in the process of recover these days?

POBJOY

24th Jun 2017, 18:07

Shaft 109 On a scale of 1 to 10 10 being 100% about -1 I am not aware of any Squadrons flying Vikings yet, not to mention the staff availability for the massive retraining required for those not 'aged' out. I suspect there will be some 'recruitment' from civvy clubs required as there will be no staff cadet element left to draw from. In fact just to drive a winch or one of the support tow vehicles will prob now require some sort of course,so nothing will happen overnight.

Tingger

24th Jun 2017, 18:58

Apart from the 3 squadrons that are flying Vikings and the 4th about to stand up within the month, with most of them having staff cadets to boot?

campbeex

25th Jun 2017, 12:50

In fact just to drive a winch....will prob now require some sort of course

I'd have thought "some sort of course" to operate one of the potentially most dangerous items of machinery on the airfield would be no bad thing.

VX275

25th Jun 2017, 14:58

I'd have thought "some sort of course" to operate one of the potentially most dangerous items of machinery on the airfield would be no bad thing.

Back in 79 I watched a C Cat as he launched two gliders with the two cables on the Bedford winch, he then talked me through the next pair, after that I was on my own. I don't think 'my course' lasted much longer than half an hour. These days it will be a week at Syerston.

POBJOY

25th Jun 2017, 17:56

VX Back along most of the staff cadets were not all car drivers when they started, nor old enough to actually drive on the road. They always started on the winch doing cable checks (axe and tape) and then those that still had hands and fingers were allowed to drive the winch during the checks. Because AE flying had come in it was then easy to progress the SC to launching 'instructor flown details'. After a suitable time and monitoring the SC could launch all details other than first solo's. It was then only a short time before he would be cleared for all launching. This was a fine intro to machinery and also would include fitting a new cable and ensuring the paying on gear was properly in line. When old enough for a RAF driving licence the SC would have had 'dual' on operating the truck and also basic uses including cable retrieve, glider retrieve, and correct use of high/low/fwd. The parent station would then arrange a standard type test and issue a licence on type for camp/airfield use. When required the same system applied to the Austin 1 ton and would include winch towing.

ATFQ

25th Jun 2017, 19:40

dervish

25th Jun 2017, 20:49

ATFQ

What you say is right, but I don't think CAS is referring to 13 year old civilian cadets who were exposed to MoD's gambling, which is not the same as controlled exposure to risk.

POBJOY

25th Jun 2017, 21:34

ATFQ We were so lucky in the days of the 'schools' to have this system.
to be sure there was control; but also plenty of latitude to 'self develop' and become part of the on going system. Part of the control was the knowledge that if you let the system down then your required attendance was in doubt, and that was much better than trying to provide heaps of paperwork and box ticking. In fact the Air Force itself were hardly aware of how we operated, and those of us privileged to be on a historic parent station had no intention of the school being seen as anything other than a normal lodger unit with high standards of operation. However the organisation was well led and very Air Minded at the top.
When Kenly had a parade our cadets were well drilled and smart therefore the SWO had no axe to grind that we let his station down.
The simple truth was we were so pleased to be part of the organisation that the thought of NOT BEING THERE was control enough. And just to appease the H&S bods, I can state that in all my time when we operated the chop and change cable knots, we never had an incident that required attention by the medics.

Chugalug2

26th Jun 2017, 07:30

dervish sums up the sorry mess in one sentence. UK military aviation has been infected with the most deadly virus possible by MOD recklessness, ie infected with unairworthiness. Far from seeking to reduce any risk to zero, it has been MOD policy to cover up that recklessness for the past thirty years, rather than ensuring that effective regulation and investigation prevent airworthiness related accidents in the first place or failing that prevent their repetition.

Instead of ensuring a systemic cure to a systemic problem, the MOD has chosen instead to stove pipe each airworthiness related accident or fleet. Thus the UK, a maritime nation, has lost its maritime air capability UFN. Thus the RAF has lost its seed corn attraction, the Air Cadets gliders UFN. What it cannot do of course is ground its core operational fleets, despite them being just as exposed to the systemic damage caused some thirty years ago and covered up since.

The MAA is part of that cover up and hence part of the problem. Unless and until it is separate and independent of the MOD it remains part of the cover up. Ditto the MilAAIB (or whatever the sign writers call it today).

Self Regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation It Kills!

dakkg651

26th Jun 2017, 12:19

dervish and Chugalug I couldn't agree more.

As for learning to drive a winch as a staff cadet, it was akin to an apprenticeship in my day. Learning about launching gliders safely in various wind conditions cannot be done in a course lasting a few days.

I fear the day when they weld the hangar doors shut is fast approaching.

chevvron

26th Jun 2017, 15:33

Back in 79 I watched a C Cat as he launched two gliders with the two cables on the Bedford winch, he then talked me through the next pair, after that I was on my own. I don't think 'my course' lasted much longer than half an hour. These days it will be a week at Syerston.

Much the same experience here VX.
My '65 summer holiday job didn't materialise; there was a summer course on at Halton, so monday morning I hitchhiked there, having arrived home from camp on the saturday. They were pleased to see me as no other staff cadets had been able to make it, meaning the instructors would have to do winching, cable retrieve, Mk3 retrieve trolley etc.
My mate Chris, then still a cadet but a 'C' Cat instructor who later went professional becoming a BGA National Coach, took me to the winches. We had 2 x twin drum Wilds with Bedford engines parked side by side so one driver could operate 4 cables and they could be retrieved all together. Chris did a couple of launches, then watched as I did a couple, then he hooked the cables onto the back of the one tonner to tow them to the launch point and left me on my own!
Several hours later, Jacko, the CO arrived at the winch, saw me driving solo, said '(harumph) I see you're progressing Clark', watched me handle the remaining cables then took the next retrieve truck to the launch point. I guess that was my 'official' checkout.
My daily reward of course was a couple of Mk3 flights per day preceded by a check flight, plus on the wednesday, Jacko checked me out - in VX275! - and I did 4 solo trips in the Sedburgh! On the thursday, as I arrived at the launch point, Phil Plows, the CFI and OiC course, said 'take that Mk 3 Clark, we won't bother with a check flight, as far as I'm concerned you're P1 as from now.'

ACW599

26th Jun 2017, 21:46

Does anyone know how many VGS mates made the transition to the AEF Tutor? I know of two (one ex-633 and one ex-637) but are there more?

Lima Juliet

27th Jun 2017, 05:43

Does anyone know how many VGS mates made the transition to the AEF Tutor? I know of two (one ex-633 and one ex-637) but are there more?

I know of one ex-612 and also one ex-613 who became a RAF pilot.

Opsbeatch

27th Jun 2017, 07:28

I remember the trappers coming for a visit once and during a weather break a new shiny (ex-Vigilant VGS) trapper decided it was time to give our staff cadets a winching exam. He was the type that knew it all on paper, however, the staff cadets were great and kept asking about the wind direction and if the aircraft was being flown solo or dual, by the cadet or instructor. He left the exam more confused than when he went in!

OB

EnigmAviation

27th Jun 2017, 10:02

Does anyone know how many VGS mates made the transition to the AEF Tutor? I know of two (one ex-633 and one ex-637) but are there more?

Certainly as someone says, 1 ex Abingdon (612) but not cleared for Cadet pax yet , one ex Henlow , another ex Odiham (618) , and one ex OC Linton (642) the latter of which is also a Flight Commander at an AEF and soon will be an instructor rated as a VR(T) due to his extensive experience which has been authorised by the RAF at the highest level.

Acw348

27th Jun 2017, 18:36

I know of two others ex OC 663 and OC 664vgs both flying on AEF, and I believe two other 663 are in the conversion process.

ACW599

27th Jun 2017, 21:33

Certainly as someone says, 1 ex Abingdon (612) but not cleared for Cadet pax yet , one ex Henlow , another ex Odiham (618) , and one ex OC Linton (642) the latter of which is also a Flight Commander at an AEF and soon will be an instructor rated as a VR(T) due to his extensive experience which has been authorised by the RAF at the highest level.

So that suggests a grand total of six. Many thanks.

boswell bear

28th Jun 2017, 09:21

Does anyone know how many VGS mates made the transition to the AEF Tutor? I know of two (one ex-633 and one ex-637) but are there more?

The majority are unable to "assist cadets on the controls" in a Grob 115 because they a too highly qualified having PPL's and many years/hours experience teaching GS students, oh and many are civvie not VRT.

ACW342

28th Jun 2017, 11:07

dakkg651

28th Jun 2017, 11:36

ACW342. That is so sad, not only for the staff but for the cadets too. Where is it proposed they do there flying now?

I am so glad I got out before the rot set in. It would have broken my heart.

Auster Fan

28th Jun 2017, 12:50

Apparently and subject to approval, there is a proposal to resume gliding at Swanton Morley by moving 614 in there at some point...

tucumseh

28th Jun 2017, 13:00

Sadly at what was 664 at Newtownards ,our hangar (heated), hardstanding and Sqn. Buildings have all been given, Lock Stock and Smoking barrel, free, gratis and for nothing to the Ulster Flying Club.

Shameful. With hindsight, I wonder if the President of the Ulster ATC might have had a word with the MAA DG..........

Arclite01

28th Jun 2017, 13:08

Has that been confirmed for Swanton Morley then ??

No hangars there now though....... :-(

If that is true it is good news.........

Arc

Cows getting bigger

28th Jun 2017, 13:40

dakkg651. Sadly at what was 664 at Newtownards ,our hangar (heated), hardstanding and Sqn. Buildings have all been given, Lock Stock and Smoking barrel, free, gratis and for nothing to the Ulster Flying Club.

A342
It wouldn't surprise me if those were the terms of the lease, especially if the buildings had been in place for 21 years or more. Welcome to land tenancy rules.

ACW342

28th Jun 2017, 14:30

CGB - New build, paid for by Belfast City airport, IIRC, in return for getting 24M quids worth of leasehold that was the QUAS complex, where 664 was originally based,in order to enlarge BCA.

TheChitterneFlyer

29th Jun 2017, 09:00

We should guard against becoming consumed by process, and trying to come up with a process for everything - in some misguided attempt to reduce risk to zero. In the end we would end up with people who stop thinking for themselves, and as a consequence risk actually increases. There is a balance point. We need to leave enough latitude for people to show initiative in striving to improve within a relatively broad framework. Even AP8000 (the RAF manual of Air Safety) says (in the Chief of the Air Staff's foreword) that 'risk aversion is not acceptable'. If we want our young people to become 'agile, adaptable and capable' then we need to give them sufficient space to 'grow'. That entails an environment of controlled risk and not some quest for zero risk (and thus zero gain).

I like the British Army's definition of adventurous training: "Challenging outdoor training for Service personnel in specified adventurous activities, involving controlled exposure to risk, in order to develop leadership, teamwork, physical fitness, moral and physical courage, among other personal attributes and skills vital to Operational capability." Some of the things that POBJOY has been talking about.

ATFQ hits the nail on the head. "Due Process" and "Risk Aversion" are becoming the daily hoops to have to jump through in order to achieve even the most simplest of tasks. The net result of the Haddon-Cave report, good as it was, has now produced a whole raft of people who are frightened of their own shadows. Worse still, whole government departments have reacted in a similar manner whereby everything is subject to due process and additional layers of administration. Does the job get done any better than it once did previously? In general terms the answer has to be a resounding NO.

207592

29th Jun 2017, 14:28

It is a long time since I was a VR(T) officer, and still longer since I was an Air Cadet, so acronyms like MAA and VSO allude me! In my time, the Corps was organized in Wings, with the OC Air Cadets, an Air Commodore – invariably a pilot - in his last appointment. Gp Cpt Willie Tait DSO***, DFC* was SASO. Evidently oddly by today’s standards, except for a minimum of regulars at HQ AC, the Corps was run by volunteers, save for the engineers who maintained the AEF Chipmunks and the Sedburgh and Mk 3 gliders.
I have long since lost my RAF Form 3822, but I remember flying in Chipmunks, Ansons, Hastings, Vikings, Varsities, and even, night-flying in a Hercules doing circuits and bumps at Thorney Island. This is most memorable, for the reason that I was kept busy handing out sick-bags! Memory fades, but my recollection is that AEF and Gliding Courses were sufficient to differentiate the Air Training Corps from the ACF and the Naval Cadets, and were huge motivators. Yes, gliding training mostly lead only to the award of the BGA A&B Certificate, but the pride of a 16 year old to receive his “Wings” for having soloed, was a joy to all and a great motivator.
So much for reminiscing! I presume the MAA is the military equivalent of the CAA and somehow has subsumed the tried and tested ways of acceptance of aircraft in RAF service. If so, why does it not concentrate on purely military aircraft, and why does not the RAF and the ATC adhere to civilian rules and regulations for aircraft which may be included on the Civil Register. For Air Cadets, that means they could be trained on gliders maintained to BGA standards and solo at 14, and fly (perhaps even in a civilian aircraft piloted by a licensed civilian pilot) in aircraft maintained to EASA/LAA standards, and if lucky enough to gain a Flying Scholarship, solo at 16.
Contributors to this thread are rightly focussed on gliding in the ATC, but I think I am correct in saying that Air Cadets of today do not have the chance of a week’s Summer Camp at an RAF Station. Maybe Duncan Sandys was right but ahead of his time: the RAF of tomorrow do not need aircrew, only drone pilots?
PS What are VSOs? Are they as useful as VASIs?

POBJOY

29th Jun 2017, 14:53

In the case of the ACO, VASI's actually work as advertised; the VSO's have had a severe case of loosing the best youth aviation scheme ever; on their watch. You are quite correct 207592 the organisation ran better with fewer (air minded) staff.

BEagle

29th Jun 2017, 14:56

VSO = Very Senior Officer. Or in the case of PTFN, one who thinks he is.

VASIs did indeed work well, but PAPIs were even better.

chevvron

29th Jun 2017, 15:06

VSO = Very Senior Officer. Or in the case of PTFN, one who thinks he is.

VASIs did indeed work well, but PAPIs were even better.
You beat me to it Beags; VASIs were replaced by PAPIs, even at RAF airfields, about 30 years ago.
207592; was that your number? I was 210093, just a bit after you.
You missed out a tier of the ATC structure, Regional HQs headed by a Gp Capt and 'parenting' about 6 ATC Wings.
I can't remember the name of our Regional Commandant at Henlow, but he was a hell of a nice guy, ex GD pilot, as was our Wing Admin Officer, a Sqdn Ldr RAFRO ex Wg Cdr Rock Ape!! Although this last guy wasn't aircrew, he fully supported putting as much 'Air' in Air Training Corps as possible by helping with the admin side of 'officially' flying cadets in microlights from Halton, where our Wing HQ was situated.

ExAscoteer

29th Jun 2017, 16:51

Contributors to this thread are rightly focussed on gliding in the ATC, but I think I am correct in saying that Air Cadets of today do not have the chance of a week’s Summer Camp at an RAF Station

Not true.

I am off to Valley in August with about 20 cadets for Annual Camp.

207592

29th Jun 2017, 18:57

Thank goodness for that ExAscteer. My Grandson's Squadron seems to offer plenty of Outward Bound type opportunities, and flying from Boscombe Down, but not Annual camp at an RAF Station.

I cannot remember Regions in my day. Acting Wing Commander was the highest rank attainable as VR(T) officer. Is the ACO a recognized promotion route for GD officers in this slimmed down Air Force?

Ah, I've met VSO's in civilian life! Nice acronym: very silly of me not to sus it!

tmmorris

29th Jun 2017, 20:52

It is true, sadly, that increasing numbers of cadets versus decreasing numbers of stations mean cadets are less likely to go on camp. There are various other camps taking place however to mitigate this (including rather good aerospace ones) at places like Beckingham.

TorqueOfTheDevil

30th Jun 2017, 08:04

I think I am correct in saying that Air Cadets of today do not have the chance of a week’s Summer Camp at an RAF Station

Where on earth did you get that idea?

increasing numbers of cadets

Please keep that one quiet, the naysayers won't be happy.

There are various other camps taking place however to mitigate this (including rather good aerospace ones) at places like Beckingham.

And Warcop etc etc. Not quite the same as a week on a station, but surely better than nothing.

TelsBoy

30th Jun 2017, 10:59

There are still plenty of opportunities to go on camps to RAF stations.

A couple of our older lads have recently done flying scholarships and GSs - very encouraging. These lads are keen and want to take up flying either as a hobby or a career. However in my 8 months of involvement at the Sqn there have been no AEF opportunities and there hasn't been a peep from our "Local" VGS (170 miles distant, ironic as our closest unit was 10 miles away) or from Wing regarding opportunites to do Blue Wings on the PTT. As a result, most of our cadets, as per the thread title, remain firmly grounded.

GliFly

30th Jun 2017, 21:33

What is happening is that some cadets are joining civilian gliding clubs close to where they live.
At my club we have 5 young members who are each in one of two local squadrons.
Of these five, two are already solo and one has already transitioned to our SZD-51-1 Junior and is well on his way to Bronze. He is 16 years old. Four of the five are from the local school with which we have a scholarship programme for 6 students per annum, so they get to solo free of charge.
It has been suggested that I visit one of the squadrons to talk about civilian gliding and explain to the cadets and their parents what it would cost to go that route.
If parents are responsible for getting the cadets to and from VGS Centres, it might be cheaper for them to pay the local civvie club membership and launch costs. Many clubs run assisted schemes for young pilots.
It is all very sad that it should come to this after the fantastic history of Air Cadet Gliding. Many of my fellow older club-members and I are former Air Cadet Instructors mainly 616 Henlow). Our own gliding was with the Air Cadets so we have a strong bond with the current cadets who come to us.

Cows getting bigger

30th Jun 2017, 22:11

I'm taking 38 cadets to Valley in August. A week before our Sqn is going to Snowdonia for 5 days adventure training. There are also two cadets on my Sqn who have civilian gliding wings, courtesy of the local gliding club. Yes, cadet gliding is a shambles and AEF isn't much better but let's try and keep the kids engaged.

cats_five

1st Jul 2017, 05:16

RUCAWO

1st Jul 2017, 06:59

To get some NI cadets in the air I am taking 24 cadets to Leuchars for two days next week, at least they will have a chance of flying there unlike our usual shopping trips to Liverpool, sorry AEF trips to Woodvale . Over the next month around 100 will be going .So two days there then next weekend I am heading to Fairford with our advance party for RIAT followed later by our main party of around 20 cadets. Spending lots of time on ferry and coach.

The B Word

1st Jul 2017, 10:48

I saw the outgoing note from EX-AOC 22 to all 22Gp stations who indicated that his biggest regret and failure was Air Cadet gliding. Good to see this admission and maybe it's time for the new AOC to take a fresh look at Air Cadet flying? 3 years and 2 months down the line with only small amounts of gliding and normal amounts of AEF then surely with 2018 around the corner it is ripe for a re-vamp and re-think?

teeteringhead

1st Jul 2017, 14:15

I saw the outgoing note from EX-AOC 22 to all 22Gp stations who indicated that his biggest regret and failure was Air Cadet gliding. What an honest gentleman! A breath of fresh air among VSOs. Can't ever recall another saying "failure".:ugh:

Not 100% sure, but I think that not only is new AOC 22 an ex-cadet, but ISTR his Mrs was a CI at one time!:ok:

brokenlink

1st Jul 2017, 17:42

TTh, quite correct he is an ex cadet

Chugalug2

2nd Jul 2017, 22:13

tucumseh (post #3619) :-
Shameful. With hindsight, I wonder if the President of the Ulster ATC might have had a word with the MAA DG..........

and given himself a good telling off? I very much doubt it. Having already been the Eminence Grise to the whitewash Haddon-Cave review, the words fireproof and Teflon come to mind...

Cows getting bigger

3rd Jul 2017, 07:28

I didn't know there was a "President of Ulster ATC". Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I can't imagine residents of Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan wearing RAF uniforms. :)

tucumseh

4th Jul 2017, 07:51

Cows. Since the Free State was formed, it depends which foot you kick with! My in-laws would have kicked me for saying it, my parents for not saying it. As mum (Commanding Officer) is the only one left, I bow to her 92 years.

Point being, I suspect said gentleman didn't have a word with himself.

ACW342

4th Jul 2017, 10:25

Tuc, Cows, I believe that the people of Donegal were enraged when Carson took Armagh into Northern Ireland instead of them. Shame really, it would have looked neater on the map and at least the people in NI wouldn't have to travel north to be in "The South" to get to their pretty week-end cottages on the Atlantic coast.

Now, as to what this has to do with aviation, I would remind our readers that Churchill had to threaten DeValera with the seizure of the Irish Atlantic ports (as agreed by treaty) in order to get them to agree to "The Donegal Corridor" for aircraft transiting westerly out of "The North" and into "The South" and onward into the Atlantic to hunt down the submarines which almost brought the UK to its knees. (That should start something methinks) No, I can't afford a hat, nor a coat, but I'll go

Cows getting bigger

4th Jul 2017, 13:50

Tuc/ACW, I think we have similar view of the NI 'flux'. Mrs Cows, a left-footer from Co. Down, spent some significant time in full-time service wearing RAF blue. But of course ask most people if that sort if thing happened, especially during the troubles, and they wouldn't believe you. She is of the view (rightly so, I'm told ;) ) that it won't be too many lifetimes before the whole lot is handed back to the South; the South protesting greatly about have to take back the eejits from the North, complete with their rapidly breeding Polish Catholic voting contingent.

Anyway, back to the ACO, it is such a disgrace that there is no ACO provided flying in NI and I'm not personally holding my breath for the mythical AEF.

ETOPS

7th Aug 2017, 12:05

Whilst looking for something else on FR24 I noticed ZE628, a Grob 103 Viking. It appeared to be airborne - a good sign of a return?

622

7th Aug 2017, 12:11

I guess any aircraft you see on a RADAR site is a good sign of a return!

..I will get my coat!

ETOPS

7th Aug 2017, 12:50

622

As I help you on with your coat :hmm:

There has been a 3 year "pause" in Cadet gliding with the whole Viking fleet grounded. Seeing one airborne might suggest the young people in the ATC might get the chance to go flying once more.

TEEEJ

8th Aug 2017, 10:36

Whilst looking for something else on FR24 I noticed ZE628, a Grob 103 Viking. It appeared to be airborne - a good sign of a return?

I noticed two active on Flightradar 24 on 2nd August over Syerston. Viking ZE682 and Viking ZE630

Freda Checks

8th Aug 2017, 17:38

......and a couple over Upavon at the weekend.

boswell bear

29th Aug 2017, 08:46

Vigilants have been operating all weekend and will continue throughout this week at RAF Topcliffe

EnigmAviation

29th Aug 2017, 14:31

Vigilants have been operating all weekend and will continue throughout this week at RAF Topcliffe

How many ? and more importantly how many will be rolled out eventually out of the original fleet ? - and how many Silver Wings awarded to Cadets thus far since the pause??

And what is the Out of Service date ?

boswell bear

30th Aug 2017, 08:38

1. Two.
2. Dunno.
3. Not sure but there's also been some Blue and Gold un's awarded.
4. Dunno

At least there is some flying going on and the cadets are enjoying it.

RUCAWO

30th Aug 2017, 09:29

Blue Wings, PTT and one flight, whoopy-doo , one of my ones has just been awarded her second set, one for gliding (one launch at Kirknewton ) one for Tutor and can wear both, devalued all the previous awards. I was getting six cadets flown in Vigi every six weeks or less when 664 was on the go.
Actually had eight cadets flown this summer, three at Leuchars (another six were over but the weather didn't play), three at Aldergrove when the UAS had aircraft over and two in Puma at Topcliffe.

Freda Checks

30th Aug 2017, 15:46

.....and in another universe!!

Over three days in August, Army Gliding Club (Wyvern) had the opportunity to provide experience gliding sessions to 67 members of the Somerset Army Cadet Force – one of the many activities they undertook in the Salisbury Plain area as part of their annual Summer Camp. Ranging in ages from 14 to 18, all Cadets were introduced to gliding and flying a glider under the control of a qualified Instructor from the club. All had two flights, with a number gaining soaring flights. 107 winch launches delivered over 16 hours of flying, and to judge from expressions on returning to the ground, all thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Wyvern is a military sports club and the opportunity to make gliding available and build ties with the potential soldiers of the future was invaluable to both the club and the Cadets.

Seems that the gliding enthusiasts at Wyvern have managed something the Air Cadet Organisation has failed to do for some three years now - getting the youngsters in the air.

Well done Army Gliding Club (Wyvern) you deserve a round of applause.

bobward

30th Aug 2017, 16:15

A couple of months ago some of our more senior cadets went gliding with one of the local gliding clubs. We thought it might be the start of something good, until, a few days later, a tablet of stone from on high stopped all cadet gliding with non-service schools. I don't know why (no reason given to we minions) although the rumour mill as started. Possible problem with a school way up north has lead to everyone getting stopped.

Can anyone shed light on this continuing sorry affair?

As an aside, earlier in the year we had our AEF (Tutor) flying transferred to 7 AEF at Cranwell. The difference between them and the previous outfit was amazing. I can't speak highly enough of No 7, the y were great! Long may we continue to fly with them. The cadets were highly impressed with the opportunity to stop in four different McDonalds on the way home.....

Tingger

30th Aug 2017, 16:43

.....and in another universe!!

Seems that the gliding enthusiasts at Wyvern have managed something the Air Cadet Organisation has failed to do for some three years now - getting the youngsters in the air.

Well done Army Gliding Club (Wyvern) you deserve a round of applause.

Not for their maths though!

brokenlink

30th Aug 2017, 21:35

Bob ward, suggest that your enterprising cadets may have fallen foul of ACTO35. Think a certain individual who may be located at a certain Notts base may know more than I however.

EnigmAviation

31st Aug 2017, 10:52

Not for their maths though!

:):):) Agreed - but despite what they did, I can understand why the RAF forbids any formalised training or organised activity within any civilian club.

Notwithstanding all of the above, and the fact that there is a trace of some activity going on in the extremely limited VGS operation, I think that it is an abysmal and shocking fact that they ( HQ Air Cadets and RAF) are kidding themselves that all is well. Reality is that it's an absolute trace element of what was previously the normal VGS productivity.

Wings for one sortie - PTT training - its an absolute sham.

chevvron

31st Aug 2017, 13:19

:):):) Agreed - but despite what they did, I can understand why the RAF forbids any formalised training or organised activity within any civilian club.

Notwithstanding all of the above, and the fact that there is a trace of some activity going on in the extremely limited VGS operation, I think that it is an abysmal and shocking fact that they ( HQ Air Cadets and RAF) are kidding themselves that all is well. Reality is that it's an absolute trace element of what was previously the normal VGS productivity.

Wings for one sortie - PTT training - its an absolute sham.

Back in the '90s, the enterprising OC of 2409 (RAF Halton) Sqdn ATC got HQAC to approve a special 'blood chit' to be signed by cadets' parents to allow AEF by approved pilots in civil registered microlights. I was one of the approved pilots (there were I think 4 VRT Officers and and 2 civilians approved) and Rob (the OC) had to send monthly returns to HQAC telling them how many hours we had flown with and without cadets.
This was using Cyclone AX3 microlights. Later we re-equipped with Chevvron 2-32c's as HQAC didn't like Rotax 2 -stroke engines, and the club was then paid to provide Microlight Flying Scholarships. I think about 19 of these were completed when the funding was abruptly 'pulled'; I was never told why this happened.
Had Rob's enterprising 'vision' been continued, maybe cadet flying wouldn't now be in the state that it is now.

Arclite01

31st Aug 2017, 16:32

There is no room for 'Informal' or 'Private Enterprise' in the ACO Chevvron............. anything which is cheap, efficient and good fun (i.e. that puts the official offering 'in the shade' or makes it look 'expensive' or 'inefficient') is doomed to die an early death..................

Arc

EnigmAviation

31st Aug 2017, 17:05

Back in the '90s, the enterprising OC of 2409 (RAF Halton) Sqdn ATC got HQAC to approve a special 'blood chit' to be signed by cadets' parents to allow AEF by approved pilots in civil registered microlights. I was one of the approved pilots (there were I think 4 VRT Officers and and 2 civilians approved) and Rob (the OC) had to send monthly returns to HQAC telling them how many hours we had flown with and without cadets.
This was using Cyclone AX3 microlights. Later we re-equipped with Chevvron 2-32c's as HQAC didn't like Rotax 2 -stroke engines, and the club was then paid to provide Microlight Flying Scholarships. I think about 19 of these were completed when the funding was abruptly 'pulled'; I was never told why this happened.
Had Rob's enterprising 'vision' been continued, maybe cadet flying wouldn't now be in the state that it is now.

A noble effort Chevvron, and initiative etc overflowing, and no doubt some young Cadets did benefit, BUT...............as we all know, there must be standards set, monitoring, and above all adequate insurance cover in place. It only requires one incident or fatality to take down such schemes and that's probably where a risk averse HQAC brought matters to a close. Superficially, it appears killjoy, but in overall terms, and whilst it had no fatals, it was probably a good call for overall flight safety reasons. I'd much prefer to see the return of full scale RAF operated VGS operations with the range of full and adequate training in terms of both numbers and quality and extent of training, rather than the extremely limited "dishing out of a coloured badge for one launch" - a bit like stickers handed out in A & E to kids having a stitch put in or an injection.

cats_five

31st Aug 2017, 17:45

as we all know, there must be standards set, monitoring, and above all adequate insurance cover in place. It only requires one incident or fatality to take down such schemes

BGA clubs have standards, monitoring and insurance cover. Why ATC cadets cannot fly with them unless as members of the club is beyond me.

I also note the ATC is still flying (when the aircraft are airworthy) despite 2009.

Engines

31st Aug 2017, 17:57

......as we all know, there must be standards set, monitoring, ..... It only requires one incident or fatality to take down such schemes and that's probably where a risk averse HQAC brought matters to a close.

I'll contribute here, but I guess I'm saying what many reading this thread are thinking. If HQAC were so risk averse, what were they doing with their own fleet of aircraft as they deteriorated into a non-airworthy condition? If they were so risk averse, why were they flying civilian schoolchildren in non-airworthy aircraft?

And if the answer to those two questions is 'they didn't know that their aircraft were non-airworthy', that just makes matters worse. Where were HQAC's 'standards'? Who was setting them? Who was doing the monitoring? To repeat - this is another major airworthiness scandal for the RAF, and it's high time it was properly (and publicly) investigated. All that's happened so far is a nice cosy internal admin process to jump over a few MAA hoops and a long drawn out (and no doubt costly) rectification programme.

Best Regards as ever to all those now having to fix the issues

Engines

unmanned_droid

31st Aug 2017, 18:58

Our squadron all flew in weight shift microlights back in the late 90s as the parents of one of the cadets was a member in the local club. Shame it only happened once. Quite a different experience to Vigilants and Bulldogs.

chevvron

1st Sep 2017, 02:45

A noble effort Chevvron, and initiative etc overflowing, and no doubt some young Cadets did benefit, BUT...............as we all know, there must be standards set, monitoring, and above all adequate insurance cover in place. It only requires one incident or fatality to take down such schemes and that's probably where a risk averse HQAC brought matters to a close. Superficially, it appears killjoy, but in overall terms, and whilst it had no fatals, it was probably a good call for overall flight safety reasons. I'd much prefer to see the return of full scale RAF operated VGS operations with the range of full and adequate training in terms of both numbers and quality and extent of training, rather than the extremely limited "dishing out of a coloured badge for one launch" - a bit like stickers handed out in A & E to kids having a stitch put in or an injection.

Forgot to add that the instructors for the Flying Scholarships, which all resulted in a 'Restricted' PPL(M) (25 hours) and a presentation of a specially produced 'Wings' badge by the AOC were both 'assessed' by CFS and one of the assessors actually flew in in his own Shadow microlight!

boswell bear

1st Sep 2017, 07:29

Yes this has been a diabolical affair.
Yes we do need to investigate how this "pause" occurred and possibly who's to blame.
Yes we need to plan for what happens after Vigilant/Viking.

But for the moment lets just enjoy the fact cadets are once again enjoying flying on a summer course at 645 VGS, well done to all involved.

www.facebook.com/645VolunteerGlidingSquadron/posts/1098218123614997

EnigmAviation

1st Sep 2017, 15:22

I'll contribute here, but I guess I'm saying what many reading this thread are thinking. If HQAC were so risk averse, what were they doing with their own fleet of aircraft as they deteriorated into a non-airworthy condition? If they were so risk averse, why were they flying civilian schoolchildren in non-airworthy aircraft?

And if the answer to those two questions is 'they didn't know that their aircraft were non-airworthy', that just makes matters worse. Where were HQAC's 'standards'? Who was setting them? Who was doing the monitoring? To repeat - this is another major airworthiness scandal for the RAF, and it's high time it was properly (and publicly) investigated. All that's happened so far is a nice cosy internal admin process to jump over a few MAA hoops and a long drawn out (and no doubt costly) rectification programme.

Best Regards as ever to all those now having to fix the issues

Engines

Engines, I totally agree with every bit of what you have said.

The GRP Grob fleet was purchased in the days of HQAC having full control over the fleet and essentially the post holder of Wg Cdr Logs appeared to be responsible for the Eng side of the fleet as far as I recall. Any Eng Audit visits to VGS units was undertaken by an NCO under his command. From my recollections, if the paper audit on F 700's and any other Eng problems wasn't completed by lunchtime latest, then it would have been unusual ! Cursory would have been a good description.

It was only in much later and more recent times that the Fleet and all VGS units came under the command of what is now 2 FTS as a part of 22 Group, and the appointment of a Full time J Reserve post Group Captain. Whilst they didn't turn the ship round, with any "superior" knowledge ( because they didn't have any !) they just happened to be the hapless crew holding the already screwed up Duty Holder ticket at the material time when MAA found them in the toilet with their trousers down.

Therefore, from a simplistic viewpoint, as the deplorable state of affairs started in the days of HQAC having command and control of VGS Units including the Aircraft assets, then simply the people who should be in the dock are the various Wg Cdrs and Commandants HQAC covering all periods from the inception of the Grob Fleet.

In fairness to them, the procurement brought into the RAF a type of aircraft hitherto unknown, i.e., GRP, and there were NO technician trades and/or people with ANY knowledge of structural repair and routine maintenance. Add to that, the paucity of Engines trade personnel experienced in light piston engine maintenance, plus low level supervision of the central maintenance workshops at RAF ACCGS Syerston by a JENGO of limited background, and you start to see how they got into the complete utter mess that they did.

I suppose one could argue that when introducing a "new" type of aircraft - i.e., a new GRP fleet, the more senior ranks should have reasonably foreseen that the expertise was simply just not there within the HQAC structure, nor anywhere else for that matter.

Where does that leave us ? No Inquiry into the negligence whatsoever. all cracks papered over, lots of taxpayer money spent, and the result will be a fraction of what was in existence before. Additionally of course, on paper, myself and many others like me, have probably been risking our own lives and those of our young innocent civilian children simply because the parent service failed miserably in their duty of care in every possible sense of the word.

ACW418

1st Sep 2017, 16:14

brokenlink

1st Sep 2017, 16:57

To potentially rub further salt in the wound wrt getting cadets where they should be, airborne it is rumoured that the use of ACTO35 (the paperwork by which cadets can get permission to be flown in civilian a/c) has been "paused" (where has that been heard before I wonder). No reason given unfortunately, anyone any notion of why?

Phil_and_Sand

1st Sep 2017, 21:57

It is a complete scandal why and how the current situation came to pass - but all the good words here will not make things any better.

What is required is commenting on the recent MAA revision to their 4800 series Regulatory Articles - NPA 17/20 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/639124/NPA_17_20_Combined.pdf). These revisions have inserted 'Air System' in place of 'aircraft' or similar words. That may be entirely appropriate for F-35, Typhoon, Atlas and Voyager, but it is totally inappropriate for Viking, Vigilant, Prefects and possibly Tutors (if transferred to mil reg). One size does not fit all for any airworthiness regulation set. With EASA about to release Part M Light the MAA should follow suit to allow those charged with managing the above fleets to take advantage of much more appropriate maintenance regulations.

This is a 138 page Notice of Proposed Amendment which will take some wading through - but if Air Cadet gliding is not to be priced out out existence by increasingly inappropriate maintenance regulations all who are interested should be encouraged to comment. I suspect those who drafted these changes are entirely well meaning, but they just do not realise the impact of their proposals to the lighter end of military aviation.

Phil

chevvron

2nd Sep 2017, 10:38

A noble effort Chevvron, and initiative etc overflowing, and no doubt some young Cadets did benefit, BUT...............as we all know, there must be standards set, monitoring, and above all adequate insurance cover in place. It only requires one incident or fatality to take down such schemes and that's probably where a risk averse HQAC brought matters to a close. Superficially, it appears killjoy, but in overall terms, and whilst it had no fatals, it was probably a good call for overall flight safety reasons. I'd much prefer to see the return of full scale RAF operated VGS operations with the range of full and adequate training in terms of both numbers and quality and extent of training, rather than the extremely limited "dishing out of a coloured badge for one launch" - a bit like stickers handed out in A & E to kids having a stitch put in or an injection.

Rob arranged full insurance cover for all Air Cadet personnel.
For AEF we followed the 'official' Chipmunk syllabus but minus the aerobatics of course!

Engines

2nd Sep 2017, 11:13

Enigma and ACW,

Many thanks for the information. They shed further light on Ministerial statements that there were shortcomings of quality management. Sending an NCO to carry out a quality audit is, in my view, a total abdication of responsibility by the engineer officers concerned. Don't get me wrong - any QA effort I ran included plenty of NCOs to ensure that we covered all the detail, using their skill and experience. But finishing an audit by lunchtime smacks of a casual and wholly unacceptable attitude. Sadly, this is not the first time I've heard of it happening in RAF managed units. 'Low level of supervision by an inexperienced Jengo' - so where was the OC Eng? Who cleared the Jengo to do the job? Was he properly trained?

Th idea that when these fleets were procured (in the 80s and 90s) the RAF didn't know how to handle GRP repairs is, I'm afraid, incorrect. I did courses at Swanton Morley in the early 80s where we covered inspection and repair of composite structures in great detail. The RAF had lavishly equipped and manned specialist teams to develop repair schemes for composite aircraft, and the training courses for these repairs were certainly in place by then. I can see where there might have been a lack of in-service experience in maintaining light aircraft piston engines, but who approved the (mandatory at that time) support plan as part of the aircraft procurement? Where were the training courses? Why no support from the contractor? Why try to do it in-house when the basic training wasn't there? Seriously, this is not rocket science, and it never was. You don't need one year long Training Needs Analysis efforts (a favourite activity of RAF engineering organisations I worked with) to construct a safe and effective support system for simple aircraft and engines like these. For heaven's sake, this is the RAF we're talking about here. Are we seriously saying that looking after a fleet of gliders was too difficult for them?

"One could argue that....the more senior ranks should have reasonably foreseen that the expertise was simply just not there'. No, you should have damn well demanded that your highly paid (and extremely numerous) aircraft engineers (especially SO2 and upwards) did their job properly. What on earth were they thinking when they bought these aircraft and started flying kids in them?

And here's the nitty gritty. Something seriously bad was happening in the RAF's procurement and engineering organisations at this time. It was a 'systemic' failure. It continued happening throughout the 90s and the 'noughties'. This has been well documented. It didn't stop then, either. I personally saw undocumented repairs flying around on front line RAF aircraft after 2010.

So, what level of assurance does anyone have that the same systemic problems aren't happening now? And by the way, don't think that a new set of regs have done the trick.

Best Regards as ever to all those working at the coal face to get the job done,

Engines

dervish

2nd Sep 2017, 18:34

It was a 'systemic' failure. It continued happening throughout the 90s and the 'noughties'. This has been well documented.

Here........ https://www.amazon.co.uk/Their-Greatest-Disgrace-campaign-Chinook/dp/1526204460/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1469118596&sr=1-1&keywords=their+greatest+disgrace

IIRC a certain Mr Hadden-Cave said something like 'the 1990s were the golden period of airworthiness'.

ATFQ

2nd Dec 2017, 08:47

From Beds & Cambs Wing this morning

https://twitter.com/BedsCambsWing?lang=en

Wander00

2nd Dec 2017, 09:14

Well good for student, instructor and Beds & Cambs Wing, in which many years ago I was a VR(T) officer

The B Word

2nd Dec 2017, 12:37

I heard the other day that they were now up to 16 gliders and 5 motorgliders :eek:

A and C

2nd Dec 2017, 12:40

ATFQ

2nd Dec 2017, 14:46

Rigga

2nd Dec 2017, 18:04

Can I agree with Enigma regarding the HQAC audits. As the OC of a Viking VGS with considerable Quality Management experience after leaving the RAF I complained about the lack of rigour of the audits and the issuing of non-compliances that were completely not acceptable. The response was to send three HQAC Wing Commanders down to the VGS to shut me up. WgCdr Logs who had no experience of Quality Management had absolutely no idea about what I was on about. It was on his watch it went wrong!

ACW
I remember the first MAA audit I witnessed. A full few days at a Eastern Fighter/Bomber base with a team of a dozen or so "SME's" who produced two findings:
1. The colour of flying suits used by civilian pilots was 'untested' by MOD (Civilian suits).
2. The Flame resistance of one Fire-door in the corner of a hangar was 'assumed' to be less than 45 minutes.

This report was a waste of the whole stations efforts and well beyond the remit of an 'airworthiness' authority...in my humble opinion. The MAA, then, were better suited to commenting on building regulations rather than anything to do with aeroplanes.

Chugalug2

2nd Dec 2017, 18:41

Rigga:-
The MAA, then, were better suited to commenting on building regulations rather than anything to do with aeroplanes.

No change there then. The MAA quotes Haddon-Cave as being its foundation. Haddon-Cave characterised the early 90s as "a Golden Period of Airworthiness", as Dervish reminds us above. The MAA is thus founded on a lie and cannot countenance a reform of UK Military Airworthiness, as that would reveal the lie and the complicity of RAF VSOs in the attack on airworthiness during the "Golden Period". That inevitably led to pre-lunch audits and the tragic airworthiness related fatal air accidents involving 74 deaths in threads on this forum alone. In consequence grounding the ATC Glider fleet was a necessary act.

VX275

2nd Dec 2017, 19:11

I heard the other day that they were now up to 16 gliders and 5 motorgliders :eek:

But they are not all servicable

Engines

3rd Dec 2017, 20:53

Back in the 80’s & 90’s I did some composite repair courses, these courses had been based on data from heavy aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing and are totaly unsuitable for primary structure repair in gliders. I have to ask if these composite repair courses you talk of were gilder specific or generic ?

A&C - Firstly, my sincere apologies for taking so long to reply - I've been on a short break and haven't been checking PPrune thoroughly for a while now.

The composite repair courses I attended were associated with the Swanton Morley based NDT course I was doing back then. The (excellent) techs at the NDT school were working on how to check composite structures and any repairs to them - this was aimed (at the time) mainly at the GR5 wing, but as good people, they were making sure that they understood the wide range of potential composite structures and repairs that the NDT techs might encounter. So, no, the courses weren't glider specific.

I do know that other special composite repair courses were being delivered to the RAF, both generic and type specific. I sat through any number of presentations from senior RAF engineers setting the courses out and telling the RN how far ahead the RAF was in being able to repair and test composite structures.

As far as the RN was concerned, their artificers were being trained on both generic and specific repairs for composites, starting around 1982 with the arrival of the first composite Main Rotor Blades on Sea King and other composite items planned for incoming aircraft.

As an Air Engineer Officer, I was extensively trained on composite technology and applications, as well as repair principles, so that I could properly direct and manage my skilled workforce.

Of course, all these courses were designed to allow us to carry out the approved schemes set out in the Repair Manuals, using the composite repair kits that arrived with the composite structures. If, in emergency, we had to carry out a non-standard composite repair, we would have been expected to scheme it, seek approval from our Engineering Authority (who would have got approval from the DA) and then carry it out, making sure that it was fully recorded on the Airframe Log Card as well as the Work Orders.

The point I've laboured here for some time, and I make no apologies for repeating it, is that it appears probable that the RAF introduced a large fleet of composite aircraft with inadequate support arrangements. Moreover, there appears to have been institutional failings in the management of the maintenance of the ATC fleet. This is now being (successfully) covered up.

It's a scandal, and should not stand.

Best regards as ever to those sorting this out at the coal face - they don't deserve this.

Engines

EnigmAviation

4th Dec 2017, 08:23

As ever "Engines" - a clearly expressed statement. I'm worried that now they have started to dribble a few Viking Gliders back into the air, and we have about three Vigilants at Topcliffe, that the major scandal has been largely and successfully covered up, despite the fact that a lot of the Vigilant fleet is STILL today languishing in redundant VGS Hangar space, waiting for some mysterious contractor to come and de-rig, to transport them back to Grob in Germany completely free of charge to Grob, where they will be re-worked to MkII standard including new engines and glass cockpit, prepared for sale to another Air Force !!!

A lot has been said about responsibility of contractors in the lack of skilled oversight of this whole GRP fleet from the date of change from RAF Eng maintenance. However, as the problems of oversight, repair and design authority for repair schemes was there from inception circa 1990, we have heard NOTHING from anyone about how this is to be investigated and begin a process of holding accountable those responsible for the mess that was created by total ignorance and incompetence.

We now need to motivate some of our MP's to develop a non-BREXIT hobby, to begin placing some very pointed and very knowledgeable questions in the appropriate committee's of the house, starting with the Chair of the Defence Committee, and perhaps one of the expenditure committees, to shake out and force out a more taxpayer accountable version of the total failure to look after what was a brand new fleet of aircraft in 1990.

Is it not possible for knowledgeable people within our forum to draft some equally competent parliamentary questions and evidence that will cause a bit of fluidity in the bowels of ex RAF Snr Officers who operated within the safety of RAF Cranwell HQAC and other places ????

DaveUnwin

4th Dec 2017, 15:13

Hear hear! I couldn't help pointing out in my recent air test of the T-61F Venture T2 that although most of the Vigilants (which replaced the Venture) are grounded, most of the Ventures are airworthy!!

Heathrow Harry

5th Dec 2017, 09:18

I really can't see anyone in Parliament having any appetite for opening up an investigation into something 27 years old that affects none of their constituents.........

EnigmAviation

5th Dec 2017, 09:29

I really can't see anyone in Parliament having any appetite for opening up an investigation into something 27 years old that affects none of their constituents.........

That's the nub of a lot of problems in this country, taxpayer apathy until some issue directly hits them !

Arclite01

5th Dec 2017, 10:48

ATFQ re: post #3673

After I had trawled through rafts of drivel on that Twitter thread I found the video clip.

It is indeed good news to see someone going first solo, the sad elements to this are that what was such a relatively routine item gets such massive publicity, and also that when I was on the VGS's this was a routine event, usually first solo's at least once every weekend on every VGS and on courses quite often at least one every day..........

congratulations to that individual in the video though...........

Arc

chevvron

5th Dec 2017, 12:35

EnigmAviation

5th Dec 2017, 13:32

Arclite, Well said.............I'd love to see the stats after they have been running a year and do a comparison with 5 or 10 yrs ago !

Caconym

5th Dec 2017, 15:30

A and C,

Should we now not be focusing on returning cadets to flying in the completely refurbished aircraft that we are now operating, albeit in relatively small but growing numbers. That first solos are again becoming the norm should at least be welcomed.

That might be pushing the definition of 'completely refurbished' - from what I've heard it's £100k plus per airframe including Southern Sailplanes cutting out and redoing undocumented repairs and an exercise to identify and document (but not fully repair) skin cracks. Now extrapolate that for the portion of the fleet that they aim to put through the process. Three years and counting, millions of pounds of public money spent and there's just a handful of aircraft with patchy servicability and precious few cadets airborne to show for it.

longer ron

5th Dec 2017, 18:47

A and C

5th Dec 2017, 19:31

You have pasted a quote that seems to be from me. It is not something I have said so please could you remove and reference to me in that quote.

Thank you.

A and C

5th Dec 2017, 19:50

The glider industry is a small one and the manufacturers are not able to deliver large quantities of aircraft, I would guess 5-7 a year is the delivery rate on new gliders is the best the RAF could expect.

The problem is the surge in demand can’t be met without increasing staff, training those staff, blocking orders from other customers and paying large EU redundancy packages to those workers you lay off at the end of the production surge.

So as a business proposal it’s not a very good one, not surprising that the manufacturers are staying away in droves!

longer ron

5th Dec 2017, 19:59

Agreed - but the problem does not go away !
Other countries have 'managed' their fleets !
So 5 years at least down the line for delivery and still not counting (if you see what I am getting at )

Engines

5th Dec 2017, 20:07

As with many of my posts on this thread, I have to start by saying that I was in the ATC and got a little gliding in at Manston in the late 60s and early 70s.

Before we start looking at how to replace the fleet, I do wonder why the RAF has to own what appears to be the world's largest fleet of publicly funded gliders. (Happy to be proved wrong here, by the way). I honestly can't see the justification, especially in these financially challenged times for defence. It's been justified as a recruiting tool and also a way of promoting 'air mindedness', as well as the RAF itself, but honestly I think its time is done.

I'd be as sad as many others to see it go,and I know that, in the past, the ATC has done great things for many young people. But, in my view, the RAF has shown that it's not especially good at providing airworthy aircraft for young civilians to fly in. Those serving can accept the risk - I wonder whether the RAF's dismal track record with this fleet poses an unacceptable level of risk for any new fleet.

And please, spare me the 'we've learned lots of lessons and we have made many changes designed to make sure that this doesn't happen again'. Or even worse, 'now we have the MAA this can't happen again'.

Here's the question - would you let your child fly in an RAF maintained glider?. I wouldn't. I wouldn't fly in one myself. Sorry to those working with the aircraft now, but I just think this whole thing has gone too far over the edge.

Best regards as ever to those charged with trying to sort out things,

Engines

A and C

5th Dec 2017, 20:14

There is a way forward and I think it will go something like this........

The air cadet flying will get rolled into one contract, once there is a fleet of gliders to maintain (40+ and rising ) a competition for a contract to maintain & run the current fleet of gliders & powered aircraft, a phased replacement of the gliders would be part of this contract.

cats_five

6th Dec 2017, 04:19

And 3.5 years since the first post on this thread - I presume that they have still not ordered any new gliders :rolleyes:.
Nothing like having any sort of fleet replacement plan is it ?
They would have been 3.5 years into the 5 year waiting list and it would probably have been cheaper to buy new a/c !
I know what some posters will say but at the end of the day they will have to replace the fleet eventually or just stop cadet flying permanently.

When the pound was very strong back in 2015 a new k21 was about £100k once all addons were included - flying instruments for example. The £ has fallen since then. As far as I know the gliders are low hours, but it seems to have taken an inordinate length of time to decide what to do and who will do it. Also just as building gliders is effectively a cottage industry so is inspecting and repairing them.

longer ron

6th Dec 2017, 07:26

A and C

6th Dec 2017, 10:50

Operation on the civilian register is not avalable to Aircraft that are used exclusively by the military.

The UK CAA is unhappy with the Grob Tutor operation and this is likely to leave the civil register soon.

This will require a move from EASA 145 oversight to MAA oversight along with the costs involved.

cats_five

6th Dec 2017, 10:50

Always going to be a 'drip fed' delivery with (say) K21's,but somebody with a brain might start ordering and then put the new ones into storage for a while until sufficient numbers are available to use by a couple of units.
Conversion to (say) K21's would not be difficult as they are easy to fly.

rgds LR

PS forgot to add - they could be bog standard airframes on civvy reg as well.

The airframes for the current gliders should have been bog standard.

But why put new gliders into storage? The problem is it will be a very slow drip - 1 or 2 per year.

Arclite01

6th Dec 2017, 10:50

@Chevvron

I meant 1 a day 'average' on the courses, agreed that most went from Wednesday onwards as exercises were completed...............

Usually we had between 8 and 12 students on a weekly course. I think 90% of those flew solo in the week, the remainder either didn't make the required standard to go solo or returned to us to complete (if they lived locally) or were passed to their nearest VGS to complete if they did not live local and were beaten by weather for instance.........

Overall I would say 97% of the starters were finishers............. that's a pretty good conversion rate.

@Longer Ron

I agree with all you are saying 100%. My opinion of the suitability of the K21 is well documented here elsewhere on the thread.......although I still feel that the K13 would be even better :}

Best wishes for christmas in Bonnie Scotland...............

Arc

Arclite01

6th Dec 2017, 11:23

@ Cats5

Military flying operations usually re-equip with a type at a time so that standardisation/conversion training can be carried out in a structured way.

I think Longer Ron was inferring that store enough to re-equip a unit at a time..........

Actually, since the precedent has been set with MOD buying Vigilants from the civil register to top up the declining or insufficient numbers of new purchased aircraft there would be nothing to stop them buying a mix of civil registered K21 and new builds to make up the numbers more quickly.........., a refurb of second hand aeroplanes would be cheaper - especially if it was done by people who knew what they were doing..............

If there was a real interest in doing it that way I think that there could be 3 or 4 VGS units re-equipped within 24 months............

My personal view now is that the longer term plan from those at the top (I use the term loosely) is to cease VGS Ops altogether - maybe replace it with a bit of 'lightweight' Civilian gliding on an 'ad -hoc' basis maybe through the RAFGSA (although they too, are a pale shadow of their former selves).

Arc

Olympia 463

6th Dec 2017, 15:21

Well as a retired civilian gliding instructor, who was trained on a T31, and ended up teaching on the K13, I am not so sure that for ATC purposes you need an expensive kite like the ASK21. I have flown the 21 (in 2007 - to see if gliding was like roller skating, something you never forget) and I admit it is a magnificent trainer but it is GLASS with all the attendant problems you get with repairs. The good old K13 was a much simpler machine and easy to repair - tube fuselage, wooden wings etc. Why not get Schleicher to knock off a hundred or so K13s , at what would be clearly be a lower price and quicker to make than the 21 ? Cadets in my time did well enough with the T21 and T31, Remember we are not training glider pilots here just getting kids into the air. In the good old days we used to repair our T31s with minor damage during the week ready for next weekend. I was Technical Officer in my club and I know about these things.

cats_five

6th Dec 2017, 17:23

Well as a retired civilian gliding instructor, who was trained on a T31, and ended up teaching on the K13, I am not so sure that for ATC purposes you need an expensive kite like the ASK21. I have flown the 21 (in 2007 - to see if gliding was like roller skating, something you never forget) and I admit it is a magnificent trainer but it is GLASS with all the attendant problems you get with repairs. The good old K13 was a much simpler machine and easy to repair - tube fuselage, wooden wings etc. Why not get Schliecher to knock off a hundred or so K13s , at what would be clearly be a lower price and quicker to make than the 21 ? Cadets in my time did well enough with the T21 and T31, Remember we are not training glider pilots here just getting kids into the air. In the good old days we used to repair our T31s with minor damage during the week ready for next weekend. I was Technical Officer in my club and I know about these things.

It's hard to find a good K13 these days - most of them that are sold are bent - and importing doesn't help as these gliders don't get the BGA weight concession which may well matter with the strapping teenagers of today. There is also this little matter: https://members.gliding.co.uk/library/airworthiness/bga-inspection-042-07/

taildragger123

6th Dec 2017, 17:55

I think you need to move into the 21st centuary Oly463 K13's have not been built by Schleicher since 1980 and even Jubi of Oerlinghausen ceased licensed production in 1992. They had a fantastic workshop which I visited when landing at Oerlinghausen in a T21 which we aerotow'd across from RAF Gutersloh in 1988. We watched some of the craftsmanship going into the wooden wings of a new build k13. Unfortunately the craftsmen have become very scare in the modern era and construction was slow and expensive. The club at Gutersloh had two new Jubi K13's in the fleet. One of them is now at Cranwell and reaching the end of it's life because of the 3 yearly mandatory inspection and the glue issue. It is getting increasingly difficult for the club to find engineers/inspectors with the correct skills in wood and welded steel tube to maintain it. in the not too distant future the club like many others will have an all plastic fleet.

Olympia 463

6th Dec 2017, 19:15

Hold your horses! I wasn't suggesting that second hand K13s be sought, I'm not daft. Any new ones built now would have more modern glues used. I remember having to have the tailplane of my Oly 2b rebuilt from scratch, as the glue used twenty years before had started to let go. A very expensive CofA resulted.

The Olympias which I flew were all built from the kits which had been in store since 1937. The glue used was that used for military gliders built by Elliots and presumably long life was not expected for those machines. Its use certainly caught up with the 100 Olys built post WWII by Elliotts, and that was unfortunate. But nothing like this would happen if new wooden ships were to be built now. Adhesive technology has moved on. As for skill in building I doubt it is all that hard to find people who could do this work and train others. It isn't rocket science. Elliots had built wardrobes pre-war but built hundreds of gliders far more complex than a K13.

Even De Havilland got it wrong with the early Mosquitoes when they started to fall apart (in the air!!) in tropical climates. They soon fixed that though.

I maintain that a programme to build NEW K13s in quantity would be the most economical method of getting the ATC back into the air. Modern production methods and the economy of scale would both save money and TIME. and TIME is of the essence here I think. Glass ships are expensive and slow to make. Going that route spells extinction for flying in the ATC,and if they can't offer flying who will join? The ASK21 is fine in a gliding club where as soon as you go solo you move on to a single seater. In my time this was the Slingsby Tutor, a truly terrible aeroplane, but if you could fly it, you could fly anything they threw at you afterwards. I flew 22 different types of glider all told, and none were quite as awful as the Tutor.

If the intent is to give post solo cadets further flying they should be encouraged to join a club maybe supported by some kind of scholarship or subsidy to the club.

On a point of information: does anyone know how many ex ATC trainees actually joined the RAF, or is the ATC just a big youth club with a bit of flying (maybe) thrown in?

We need a bit of lateral thinking here. There was gliding before glass.

chevvron

6th Dec 2017, 19:36

I agree; I've said several times on this thread that Air Cadets do not need glass ships but rather something in the low performance mould.
I trained on Sedburghs and Cadet Mk3s, then later when I had a bit of experience, the single seat Prefect.
Any of these would be more suitable for cadet flying than an ASK21 or similar.

brokenlink

6th Dec 2017, 20:10

Olympia, not sure what the exact figures are but I think it's between 20 and 40 percent of entrants to the RAF are ex cadets. A few years ago due to the number of ex cadets joining the RAF and the fact that they were already trained in teamwork, drill, uniform maintenance etc enough was saved in Basic Training costs to effectively make the ATC cost neutral that year.

92125

6th Dec 2017, 21:48

I admit it is a magnificent trainer but it is GLASS with all the attendant problems you get with repairs.

What are these attendant problems? The civilian glider world has been successfully repairing composite airframes far more complex than Vikings or K21s for over fifty years now.

Why not get Schleicher to knock off a hundred or so K13s , at what would be clearly be a lower price and quicker to make than the 21 ?

And while we're at it let's get Jaguar Land Rover to quickly knock together a hundred or so Series IIa at Solihull? I'm sure it wouldn't take much to tool up a new production line...

In the good old days we used to repair our T31s with minor damage during the week ready for next weekend. I was Technical Officer in my club and I know about these things.

There is absolutely no reason, other than a lack of expertise or drive to "get the job done", that this can't be the case for GRP gliders. At international gliding competitions it is by no means rare for a glider to be damaged one day, have a couple of guys work through the night to carry out a repair, and for it be ready for the pilot to fly the very next morning.

I maintain that a programme to build NEW K13s in quantity would be the most economical method of getting the ATC back into the air. Modern production methods and the economy of scale would both save money and TIME. and TIME is of the essence here I think. Glass ships are expensive and slow to make.

Who would build these K13s? Schleicher? They haven't build a wood and fabric glider for 40 years and Rudolph Kaiser has been dead for a quarter of a century. They have the capacity to build about five gliders a month and have a years-long waiting list for their world-leading ASG29/32 and ASH30/31 gliders, alongside a steady stream of K21s.

Big Pistons Forever

7th Dec 2017, 03:07

92125

7th Dec 2017, 04:52

The Canadian Air Cadets use the SW 2-33. A rag and tube fuselage with a simple all aluminum wing. Simple to make and maintain with enough performance to teach the basics of gliding. That is what an Air Cadet program needs, not some expensive fragile glass high performance soaring machine.

There is nothing fragile (or frankly high performance) about the Viking. They are very sturdy aircraft. It is only a mismanagement of ongoing maintenance which has resulted in this perception of composite aircraft being ‘complex’ or ‘fragile’. There is - and has been for decades - a wealth of knowledge in the UK in repairing and maintaining composite sailplanes, which as far as the Air Cadets are concerned, has been all but completely ignored in favour of ill-suited and ill-informed DA oversight.

cats_five

7th Dec 2017, 05:27

Building new K13s truly is cloud cuckoo land, even if Schleicher will allow it. This is in spades if the MOD is commissioning them. Read the description above about Jubi.

cats_five

7th Dec 2017, 05:29

Olympia 463

7th Dec 2017, 08:30

I still think that if the MoD put out a contract to build 100 K13s there would be a taker. The skill levels to build wooden aircraft are well below those needed for glass ships. If I was younger I would seriously look at a business plan to do this.

So you do nothing but moan, and meanwhile the ATC ceases to do any flying. That's not what I thought this thread was about. We were more enterprising when I was flying. Our club needed a new winch, so I got together a team and built one. What has happened to the great spirit of entrepreneurship we Brits used to have?

I repeat - The ATC do not need a glider as sophisticated as the ASK 21. They are not a gliding club. try and get hold of that idea please. I'm not suggesting that we go back to the days of the SG38 or even the T31. The K13 is the ideal machine for the job. I know, because I have sent dozens solo who were trained in it. The Capstan was a disaster, the Bocian was lovely but very expensive, the Blanik was noisy - I could go on and on about training gliders, I have flown most of them - K13 is the BEST.

92125

7th Dec 2017, 09:29

I still think that if the MoD put out a contract to build 100 K13s there would be a taker. The skill levels to build wooden aircraft are well below those needed for glass ships. If I was younger I would seriously look at a business plan to do this.

I repeat - The ATC do not need a glider as sophisticated as the ASK 21.

There would be no taker.

Yes the K13 is a perfectly competent training glider, but the K21 is a big step ahead in terms of performance, handling, comfort, and above all safety. I know which one I’d rather have a crash in. The same goes for the Viking.

And most importantly, it is not a ‘sophisticated’ glider. In modern (for modern read ‘the last 30 years’) terms it is a simple airframe. GRP repairs are routine and a non-event for anyone competent enough to repair wood and fabric. Only the RAF and Old Bolds on here think otherwise.

larssnowpharter

7th Dec 2017, 10:18

I wouldn't disagree that the K13 was possibly the best training glider of its era but doubt very much that it could be produced today at a sensible cost.

Back in the days of Pegasus Gliding Club at Gutersloh, a K13 became an insurance write off due to a ground incident. Damage was severe and included a broken main spar. Two club members bought the wreck, borrowed plans from Scleicher and, over months, rebuilt it. I recall they calculated that, after they had sold it, they had been working for something like 30p/hr.
The only job they didn't do themselves was the new mainspar which was built by an ex Scleicher employee who still had the jigs.

A and C

7th Dec 2017, 14:03

While I see the attraction of a simple wood, metal tube & fabric glider to the enthusiast I can’t help thinking that the skill set needed to maintain these aircraft is even further removed from the modern RAF than the skills needed to maintain composite structure.............. and wood & fabric is less durable.

Fitter2

7th Dec 2017, 15:39

The ASK13 was only economic for Schleicher to manufacture because many bits were farmed out to local handymen to make (wing ribs etc) and there were quality control problem that showed up later. Under EASA they would cost more than a ASK21, there are significantly more man-hours and little difference in materials.

A competent maintenance organisation will prevent recurrence of the previous VGS problems, and civilian registered DG Acro's aren't falling out of the sky through maintenance problems (or age related structural ones).

I can't imagine that operating a mixed fleet of Grob and ASK would be a problem, there was a mixed fleet or Cadet 3 and Sedburgh for many years, but the short solution from here has to be getting 'as-new' Vikings back in the sky for the next 10+ years.

I doubt that those responsible for the scandal and the pedestrian sorting-out process will ever be held to account, but that's another story.

tucumseh

7th Dec 2017, 16:02

I doubt that those responsible for the scandal and the pedestrian sorting-out process will ever be held to account, but that's another story.

Given the forthcoming court case, involving the same people, I think this is THE story!

Mechta

7th Dec 2017, 22:44

If a glider were to be designed for the Air Cadet requirement and nothing else, it would need to be designed for easy and quick maintenance, and provide all the protection that modern gliders do. Composites have the advantage of being resistant to weather, fatigue and minor damage in a way that wood, fabric and sheet metal structures do not. The expense with composite repairs comes with the man hours required to restore the surface finish to 'as it left the mould' standard.

What is needed is a glider which provides performance equal to, or better than, the T21 and T31, with the durability and crashworthiness of a glass glider, whilst avoiding the need for multi-thousand pound repairs for relatively minor incidents. A broken canopy on one of our club's fibreglass gliders was £4000 to replace. The blow moulding was about £1K; however by the time the old canopy had been cut off the frame and the new one bonded on, filled, painted and the direct vision panel fitted, another £3K had gone.

A construction method which may offer the solution is to use folded honeycomb composite (Fibrelam) as on the Edgley Ea-9 Optimist. Expensive moulds are avoided, crash deformation can be predicted and if two dimensional canopy or simple screens used, the costs of most common repairs are kept sensible.

http://www.retroplane.net/forum/files/optimist_195.pdf

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1995/1995%20-%202845.PDF

If Edgley hadn't gone out of business, it appears Fibrelam training glider may have actually been built: https://www.faulkes.com/edgley-sailplanes-ltd

Big Pistons Forever

8th Dec 2017, 03:50

Composites have the advantage of being resistant to weather, fatigue and minor damage in a way that wood, fabric and sheet metal structures do not.
]

Sorry but not even remotely close to reality. Almost none of the 2-33’s are hangared, they are set leveled on a saw horse and tied down outside all year. Good luck doing the same with any of the glass ships. Rag and tube repair has 80 years of successful maintenance in bush, ag, and other very demanding uses. The metal wing of the 2-33 is simple and easy to fix and most importantly is damage tolerant and easy to assess, unlike composite structures

The point of Air Cadet gliding is basic flying experience for young people. What the program needs is a simple to maintain, simple to fly, hard to bust, basic glider !

India Four Two

8th Dec 2017, 05:33

The Capstan was a disaster, the Bocian was lovely but very expensive, the Blanik was noisy - I could go on and on about training gliders, I have flown most of them - K13 is the BEST.

Olympia 463,

I’ve flown three of the four gliders you mentioned, but ỉonically, never the K13. I have lots of instructional time in Blaniks, but only a few flights in a Capstan and a Bocian, early in my gliding career, before I had even gone solo.

I’m intrigued by your comment about the Capstan. What was so bad about it?

cats_five

8th Dec 2017, 06:05

If a glider were to be designed for the Air Cadet requirement and nothing else,
<snip>

I suspect would take years for the design process to complete and the glider to be certified, and would cost a lot more than a K21.

PS what do you plan to do about the canopy? Open cockpit?

92125

8th Dec 2017, 06:57

The metal wing of the 2-33 is simple and easy to fix and most importantly is damage tolerant and easy to assess, unlike composite structures

The point of Air Cadet gliding is basic flying experience for young people. What the program needs is a simple to maintain, simple to fly, hard to bust, basic glider !

Why do people believe that composite structures AREN’T easy to fix, damage tolerant, and easy to assess?

And the Viking IS a simple to maintain, simple to fly, hard to bust, basic glider that has been let down by poor understanding of the aircraft occurring under excessive regulations creating a vacuum of ‘that’ll do’ maintenance.

There is no reason why that has to continue.

snapper1

8th Dec 2017, 07:53

I’m intrigued by your comment about the Capstan. What was so bad about it?

Well, it's only marginally more aerodynamic than a brick but in the right conditions it can be great fun. And if those who control Cadet finances want a cheap method of launching.......https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyxs51ddWSY&t=4s:)

Wander00

8th Dec 2017, 08:38

I know, bring back the Primary. Cheap to build and you can see the structure if it Is damaged......hat, coat.....

chevvron

8th Dec 2017, 09:32

Olympia 463,

I’ve flown three of the four gliders you mentioned, but ỉonically, never the K13. I have lots of instructional time in Blaniks, but only a few flights in a Capstan and a Bocian, early in my gliding career, before I had even gone solo.

I’m intrigued by your comment about the Capstan. What was so bad about it?

Air Cadets wanted to buy Blaniks back in the '60s but were blocked because they were made in an Iron Curtain country.
Ray Stafford-Allen kindly brought his T49 Capstan to Halton one weekend for us all to sample at his own expense. It was like a 2 seat Swallow and would have fitted the bill perfectly, but that's just my personal opinion.

chevvron

8th Dec 2017, 09:38

I’m intrigued by your comment about the Capstan. What was so bad about it?

I suspect he's getting it mixed up with the T53 Kestrel which was designed for Air Cadet use when Blaniks were denied.
The Kestrel WAS a disaster.

Olympia 463

8th Dec 2017, 10:19

I knew that the armchair glider pilots would join in to this thread and it would go go off track.

What is the ATC for these days? The RAF require very few pilots these days, so as a feeder for the RAF you are kidding the kids. To get to be a fast jet pilot you MUST have a degree in engineering or its equivalent. I expect (but do not know for sure) that the same applies to helicopters.

If the point of the ATC is to enthuse youngsters with the idea of flying as a career you are selling them something that 99% of them will never aspire to. The largest amount of flying done these days is in commercial jet aircraft to which you progress maybe from propellor types. Some airlines have direct entry to cadetships for people with much lower educational credentials. However this route needs the bank of Mum and Dad to be achievable.

So the ATC needs to review its objectives before it decides how achieve them. Are they doing this for 21st century youth?

Once those objectives have been determined the need for aircraft can be examined, and the type of aircraft will be established.

My comments about K13 vs ASK21 were meant to establish the type of equipment they might need if they in fact intend to go on offering training to solo standard.

I am long out of the loop here, and my observations were hopefully going to concentrate minds. Instead of which we seem bogged down in a discussion about maintenance.

squawking 7700

8th Dec 2017, 10:39

The type i.e. primary or DG1000, or anything inbetween, is immaterial but the physical maintenance and documented maintenance is of utmost importance as it is that, or more precisely lack of, that has lead to the current situation.

You can have the most basic of airframes but if undocumented and unapproved maintenance is being carried out, would you want to fly it?

7700

Olympia 463

8th Dec 2017, 10:40

@India42

The Capstan was so heavy that we had to build a new winch to launch it. Side by side tuition seems like a good idea till you have to convert pupils to single seaters. We bought a Swallow which seemed a good idea but the differences were quite a problem when briefing new solo pilots to fly it. At Dunstable (a later club in my career) we trained in K13 and soloed on the K18 (a K8 with K6E wings). No problems about conversion. What the pupil saw in front of him was exactly what he saw in the K13.

Even aerotowing the Capstan (we had a Tiger) was quite challenging from our small field at Stoke on Trent, and we used to joke that a bus timetable was useful to be sure of a safe exit over the hedge.

However it was great for checking out potential instructors and the National Coach had one, and I took my ticket in it at Sutton Bank.

Olympia 463

8th Dec 2017, 13:20

@chevron

Converting from Capstan to Swallow was not all that easy. The weight difference alone made the handling and performance quite different. T31 to Tutor was a doddle.

The old T31 also had the advantage that on the day when the chap in the back got out and didn't get back in again, the briefing was confined to mentioning that a higher launch was now going to happen, and a 360 or two might be a good idea before joining the downwind leg. One to the right, and one to the left on your second solo, and you had vour 'B' followed later by an expensive round in the 'Tiger Moth' (our local pub). I was the first ab-initio to go solo (in a T31) at our newly formed club in 1964. It was a memorable occasion.

TommyOv

8th Dec 2017, 13:24

To get to be a fast jet pilot you MUST have a degree in engineering or its equivalent. I expect (but do not know for sure) that the same applies to helicopters.
...
If the point of the ATC is to enthuse youngsters with the idea of flying as a career you are selling them something that 99% of them will never aspire to. The largest amount of flying done these days is in commercial jet aircraft to which you progress maybe from propellor types.

I haven't read the whole thread (got bored a while ago) and rarely post, but thought I'd just pull you up on the above quote. I know at least one Typhoon driver who hasn't got a degree of any sort; he also happens to be an ex air cadet.

But I don't think the ATC has ever been just about producing pilots. Even in days gone by the ratio of cadets to future jet jocks must have been roughly proportionate to what it is now. What the ATC has always been about is producing 'air minded' youth... surely the requirement for this has not gone away, even though we now need fewer pilots than 30 years ago.

I have nothing of value to add regarding aircraft types, apart from a lasting disbelief that this has not yet been sorted out so the ATC can get back to doing what it's been doing quite successfully for a long time now: getting young people off the ground in large numbers... because surely that's the objective?

Cheers all:ok:

Olympia 463

8th Dec 2017, 14:00

@TommyOv

I did say 'or equivalent'. Your friend may well have had something they were prepared to accept. The amount of engineering you will have to learn, to fly a modern jet is more easily assimilated by degree level entrants. The cost of training a fast jet pilot in the RAF these days makes it essential that people start with a good chance of surviving the training.

I don't think the ATC was ever set up as a feeder to RAF flying training. It is good that some ex ATC make it to the cockpit, but the essential feature of potentially giving air time to all cadets still exists. Otherwise what's the point?

EnigmAviation

8th Dec 2017, 14:19

Absolutely pointless talking about what we might buy in to the future - it's academic as we have little enough cash to pay for front line stuff for the moment.

We should never have had the problem in the first place; The tax payers funded two brand new fleets of service registered aircraft ( Grob Viking and Grob Vigilant) circa 1990. Had the RAF been competent, then the 3.5 year pause, closures of VGS units, discharge of loyal staff, and loss of opportunity to Air Cadets and on going reductions in VGS activity for Air Cadets would not have happened.

The Defence Select Committee and all MP's need to be reminded that taxpayers provide the cash and that there is a responsibility and accountability for cases where the tax payer has been dramatically short changed whether that be due to fraud, incompetence or any other reasons.

What is still long overdue, is a competent investigation into the failures within the RAF that led to this appalling situation. No more smoke and mirrors ! - Write to your MP now!! Give them a real job to do -

EnigmAviation

8th Dec 2017, 14:43

.

To get to be a fast jet pilot you MUST have a degree in engineering or its equivalent. I expect (but do not know for sure) that the same applies to helicopters.

.

Not to the best of my knowledge and belief. Most of the former staff Cadets of VGS units where I was based have no such qualifications. These include a fast jet pilot, just returned from F18 exchange, and at the slower end of the scale, an ex Hercules SF pilot, to name but a couple. Degree holders were the exception rather than the rule, thankfully !

As for restricted numbers required - well purely and simply, in the VGS's the RAF had, and have a very good screening mechanism, which doesn't just check real skills, personality typing, work ethic, determination and other personality traits which are the bedrock of success in service life.

Olympia 463

8th Dec 2017, 15:55

Let us by all means focus on the real issue:

This is what I have been trying to do. The ATC needs to decide what its role in the 21st century is, and until it does that everything else is academic. If I was the man at the MoD I would be expecting some clarity here by now.

I don't propose to bandy words about how you get into flying jets in the RAF these days. I asked this question of their recruitment folk and that was the answer I got. Your friends may have joined up before this minimum was in use. Or they may have presented with a good enough equivalent. Can we leave this topic now?

I doubt that re-equipping the ATC with new gliders (or fixing the current fleet) would cost much in comparison to the cost of a batch of F35's for the QE. The ATC need however, to establish the goals they are seeking before another penny is spent. As you rightly point out it is OUR money.

If it is 'air experience', then there are other ways of giving that without running a large military gliding club. But I think it would be hard to find any youngster who has not been up in some kind of aeroplane these days. If it is the experience of taking to the air on your own (which can be life changing in many ways) then the ATC will indeed need a lot of gliders - which is where I came in.

A and C

8th Dec 2017, 16:03

The primary reason for the Cadet forces is to character build the citizens of the future.

Gliding is a very good way to build self confidence and responsibility in young people , it is just a happy coincidence if you recruit service pilots from the cadet forces.

The bottom line is the youth of the country have been badly let down and we will all be poorer for it.

Engines

8th Dec 2017, 16:29

There's some interesting stuff appearing here - which is good - discussion always helps clarify things.

Reasons given recently for having the ATC doing gliding have ranged from 'providing pilots of the future' to 'giving air time to all cadets' to 'building self confidence and responsibility in young people'.

All very noble, but my point remains - I'm not at all sure that this any of these activities should be funded by the RAF out of the defence vote. The strains on the defence budget are well known, and I'm just not convinced that spending any money on building a new (very large) fleet of military owned gliders can be justified right now.

We've also had the argument that re-equipping the ATC with new gliders (or fixing the current fleet) would not cost much in comparison to the cost of a batch of F35's for the QE. With due respect, that's a bit of a stretch. Compared with the cost of buying the F-35s, almost anything would 'not cost much'. Perhaps a better question might be 'how many Royal Marines would we like to make redundant so that the ATC can fly its cadets in Government owned aircraft?'

Oh, and the F-35s are going to be 'for' the RAF. They are required to operate from the carriers, but I'm sure that the RAF will seek to minimise the time spent at sea.

Best regards as ever to those in town having to make damnably hard choices,

Engines

muppetofthenorth

8th Dec 2017, 16:49

The bottom line is the youth of the country have been badly let down and we will all be poorer for it.

But they've been let down for a few years now and have gotten on with it. There are other activities. Those that really want to fly will find a way; the vast majority who will never get near flying an aircraft professionally won't care.

I may only be a former bluntie, but the fact that both the ATC and the UAS were presented very forcefully as "WE FLY!!!!!" organisations very nearly put me off...

Cadets don't *need* to fly. It's nice, sure. But need?

The aims of the ATC are to "To promote and encourage among young men and women a practical interest in aviation and the RAF" is flying really the only way of doing that?

POBJOY

8th Dec 2017, 18:13

Mupp O T North I think you should have a look at the 'current' ATC 'Brochure' / Web Site.
Aviation activities are still the 'MAIN' promotion items complete with images of both power and gliding operations. To suggest that this is NOT the 'main' area of interest is not realistic and is what makes (or used to make) the Air Cadets different from other youth organisations. The ability to solo in a 'service' aircraft was indeed an unique facility and was operated by competent volunteers for decades 'WITHOUT' a huge input from the mainstream RAF.
To suggest that both the Cadets and the staff that operated such a world class system have not been let down shows little regard to the memory of how the full time cretons who 'SHOULD' have been backing up the volunteer system totally 'FAILED' in their duties FOR WHICH THEY WERE GETTING WELL PAiD. LEADERSHIP LEADERSHIP LEADERSHIP if its not there all the hype facebook. and twatter is worthless.

Olympia 463

8th Dec 2017, 18:45

The character building aspect of the ATC is similar to that of the Boys Brigade (I was a member) and the Scouts with one IMPORTANT difference:

I have observed in my fellow men a distinction between those of us who have indulged in some sport or activity the performance of which could result in death. I'm sure that I became a different sort of person after going solo in a glider. This is an important point of difference between most sports and flying, be it in powered aircraft, hang gliders, or balloons, but especially in gliders. Concentrates the mind wonderfully, flying solo in a glider. For that reason, and perhaps no other, the ATC should continue to fly gliders.

Maybe this has been overlooked as a reason for supporting the ATC.

A and C

8th Dec 2017, 22:32

You are quite right about the fact that the funding should not come out of the defence budget, I seem to remember Mrs Thatcher giving the MoD money for the cadet forces from central funds.

May be the present Govenment is now counting this money as defence spending to camouflage the fact that we are very hard pressed to make the 2%of GDP spending NATO require.

Mechta

8th Dec 2017, 22:32

But I think it would be hard to find any youngster who has not been up in some kind of aeroplane these days. If it is the experience of taking to the air on your own (which can be life changing in many ways) then the ATC will indeed need a lot of gliders - which is where I came in.

Not hard to find at all. There are plenty of parents struggling to make ends meet, for whom an overseas holiday or a joyride in this country are way beyond the family budget. We had two female Air Cadets visit our RAFGSA club last month who had never been in any sort of aircraft. The weather was rubbish, but a brief clear patch got them an aerotow each, which they loved.

muppetofthenorth

8th Dec 2017, 22:42

To suggest that both the Cadets and the staff that operated such a world class system have not been let down shows little regard to the memory of how the full time cretons who 'SHOULD' have been backing up the volunteer system totally 'FAILED' in their duties

I'm not saying they haven't been let down - rather that they have been let down for so long now that there's no further left to fall, and that they've gotten on with it nonetheless.

There's no denying that it should be offered; flying is enjoyed by a lot.

But the question isn't should it be offered, the question is can it?

cynicalint

9th Dec 2017, 00:29

Mechta

9th Dec 2017, 12:49

The comment by Olympia 463 that participation in an activity that may cause death, I find strange. When I did my glider course, I felt fully confident in the maintenance of the airframes and the quality of instruction, that death was an exceptionally remote possibility. Indeed, I felt more threatened by hill walking and rugby playing, which presented a more probable source of injury than gliding.

What Olympia 463 means is that when flying you have to do a series of actions correctly to ensure you get back to earth alive. In a car, pulling over to the side of the road is sufficient, whereas in the air, there are far more opportunities for getting it wrong before you are safe. That is why training and discipline is so important, and that is why it is such good character building for Air Cadets (as are many of the other activities they do).

As for rugby, well that is something else. Willingly getting yourself in a position where a bunch of psychopathic thugs can maim you, makes no sense at all to me. :confused:

Olympia 463

9th Dec 2017, 14:58

@Mechta

I'm glad somebody understood what I was saying.

When you have read about the accidents we can have in gliders you become more aware of the potential outcome of leaving the ground in a flying machine. There are old pilots, and bold pilots (cynicalint might be one), but no old bold pilots.

Meester proach

9th Dec 2017, 20:57

If you can’t go flying in the air cadets you may as well go join the scouts.

My trips in a chipmunk from abingdon, and a venture solo from rissington crystallised my thoughts of a flying career and I’m forever grateful for the opportunity .

Unfortunately OASC said no aircrew medical for me, so I went civvy, but I’m sure the cadets are a great recruiting tool still as long as they get some Air

BEagle

10th Dec 2017, 12:48

Mechta wrote: As for rugby, well that is something else. Willingly getting yourself in a position where a bunch of psychopathic thugs can maim you, makes no sense at all to me.

Nonsense! All part of traditional English prep school life in the early 1960s! Along with cold showers, cross-country runs, lusting after matron, double Latin on Tuesdays and avoiding the wandering hands of the geography master....

On the subject of the T49 Capstan, I had a few dual trips in one back then. The straight flight attitude was unique, so wouldn't have been a good lead-in to the Swallow. But the main concern was that the canopy would probably never have stood up to everyday use in an intensive training environment. But heavy? A lightweight compared to the T42 Eagle mahogany bomber!

As for the Slingsby Tutor, it was the first single seat aircraft I ever flew - 3 min from cable release at 800 ft to landing! The next single seater I flew was the Hunter 'GT6' some 10 years later - a truly wonderful aircraft!