Air Cadets grounded?

[POBJOY]

One of our members at Redhill also flew out of lasham and was in an Eagle group there.
He made no bones about it saying the rigging operation alone was akin to joining a gym and building up muscle.

[treadigraph]

I helped rig an Eagle at Southdown GC thirty years ago and can confirm how heavy it was!

[Fitter2]

The Eagle was a lightweight to rig compared to Sigma; Nick Goodhart designed a naval sheerleg hoist arrangement which fitted onto the trailer, I think they would have needed 2 retrieve vehicles for the crew.

Dr Wortmann, who supplied the wing section, visited UK to look at it. Invited for an opinion, he replied "If I wanted a Swiss watch, I would not employ a blacksmith to make it".

It was constructed by Slingsby's, who were also building the T53 at Kirbymoorside.

[Olympia 463]

@Fitter2
Ah yes, the Sigma - whatever happened to that? The BRM of gliding I think. I spent my whole career in engineering design, and gadgets designed by a committee never ended well.

[Prangster]

Third solo Mk111 that well known brick. It had been a les than brilliant February day with broken snow on the ground and wintery sleet flurries passing through. The school was eager to see the back of our course as they were well behind the 'solos expected' curve on the graph in some bods office. The CO kept me in the cockpit freezing my gonads off whilst yet another snowshower whipped through. True the sky looked a little lighter, true the wind dropped, and the bellow of wings level cable on left me in no doubt I was about to aviate. Fg Off Dean tapped my shoulder. 'Whatever you do son stay out of cloud'If it looks likely dump the cable and s turn as taught ok' Quick nod in reply.

Take off was fine. 800'was fine. The turn downwind was fine. Until I ran into cloud.

Character building. Certainly. Dangerous yes. No fancy intruments to rely on just 'common sence airmanship as taught. Don't move the stick, just pop the spoilers and see what happens. Dropping out of the cloudbase I'd still got 500' but my troubles were far from over for snow was now falling and broken snow camouflages an airfield like nothing else. The runway caravan all red and white squares had vanished. (I'd actually driffted more than 90 downwind and was expecting to see it on my port side- but coming out of cloud I'd put in on my starboard side was was unaware of the fact) At this point it's fair to say worried nearly became frightened and frightened wasn't far away from panic. Scan, lad scan and as if by magic I caught a glipse of hangers ahead of me and instantly regained positional awareness. A right hand circuit followed with a landing close to the caravan

The following conversation then ensued. C.O. 'Just for a minute there laddie I thought you vanished into cloud' Fg Off Dean standing behind him is vigourously shaking his head and mouthing NO.
'I may have just scaped the base sir. C.O. beams, that's the spirit'. Fg Off Dean claps me on the shoulder. 'Christ you don't know what paperwork you've just saved us'

So to all of you who doubt the value of Air Cadet Gliding, read and digest. Not exactly turning boys into men but teaching boys how to handle sticky situations if not with aplomb but with a degree of competence they never thought they'd gained. All down to superb staff, a brilliant flying syllabus and aircraft that though basic were up to the job And all this after just 25 launches. Sad to see it all fizzle away.

[Olympia 463]

I can top that one. It was a miserable misty November morning at our gliding club. I was on my second or third turn as duty assistant instructor. There was a batch of ab-initios hanging about hoping to fly.

Word came that the duty instructor was ill and could I take command till someone else could take over. I looked the sky and decided that flying might be possible but being a cautious type I felt that a weather check might be a good idea, so we got the winch positioned, a two seater D.I.'d, and cable laid. I called for a volunteer and a pupil joined me in the cockpit of our Capstan. At the time I thought what we had was just some mist, and that the cloud was higher. At 800ft (just like you) we shot into the cloud. By the time I realised that this wasn't mist, we were passing 1000ft. Too high to land ahead and maybe even S-turn, as ours was a very small field surrounded by suburbia on three sides. I decided to go to the top of the launch to give me more time to sort out this mess. At 1200ft we dropped the wire, right in the mirk by now. The only thing I could think of was to try to fly racetracks till we broke clear. The pupil had a good watch, so I briefed him to call out at every minute as the second hand passed zero and we flew S/L for one minute, Rate 1 turn on the T/S one minute, S/L again, turn, and so on till we completed two rounds of this, me battling to keep the speed as accurately as I could. We popped out at 700ft, and my guardian angel was with me, as we were just downwind of the field facing into wind. Full brake and a bit of sideslip, and we were back on the ground. I let the pupil do the landing as he needed the practice. We put the kit away and adjourned to our local as there was no further flying that day. No one ever mentioned this affair afterwards either. I learned about flying from that.

I ought to mention that I had done quite a bit of cloud flying in my Olympia which had an artificial horizon installed , so it was by no means a new experience, but I was lucky and I knew it. Very character building.

[Wander00]

Prangster - and that, IMHO, is what has very sadly been lost

[DaveUnwin]

Seconded Wander. And its also about fostering 'air mindedness'. Forget all the careers (including mine) - we'll never know how many people might have complained about a low-flying RAF aircraft, but didn't, because they empathised. Because, in their minds eye, they still remembered climbing out of a T-21 or T-31 many years ago, when they too, flew an aircraft with RAF markings. Finally, when I wrote about the advantages of taking kids gliding for Pilot magazine I pointed out that "Every week we hear about problems with disaffected teenagers, with some social observers pointing out that a great deal of their disaffection simply stems from the fact that they have nothing to do. Far too many greedy councils sold off playing fields to be turned into supermarkets, while swimming pools, sports centres and youth clubs are shut to save money. It’s no wonder the kids are bored! If I was rich, I’d certainly set up some sort of charitable Foundation to help disadvantaged teenagers enjoy a day out at a gliding club, as I’ve always felt that air sports can be very valuable in promoting the social, intellectual and physical development of teenagers. With gliding we have an activity which offers both physical and mental exercise, instils pride in solo achievement, and yet is only made possible with teamwork. Soaring flight requires the practical application of lessons learned in maths, physics and geography, while even relatively mundane airfield tasks such as keeping the log can teach young people another very important lesson- learning to take responsibility.
To become a good pilot requires discipline and self-discipline, while a good day’s gliding combines all the elements of a great day out - fun, excitement, exercise and adventure in the fresh air. Just what you want when you’re a teenager. I read recently that a new medical problem (currently more prevalent in the US than here – but it’s only a matter of time) is the increasing number of children being treated with the drug methylphenidate. It is used for conditions such as attention deficit disorder, but unfortunately (although perhaps unsurprisingly) some eventually become dependent on the drug. Of course, you may well feel that encouraging children to ingest powerful psychostimulants isn’t a great idea in the first place, particularly when a 2010 study on methylphenidate indicated that the drug doesn't promote a good academic outcome. Interestingly, there is evidence that participation in air sports can actually be therapeutic for some of these individuals, resulting in an improvement in their attitude to life – and I can well believe it."

As the Prangster recalls, he got a rush that day he still remembers - and the adrenaline it released was a lot better for him than any amount of methylphenidate.

[ATFQ]

The Air Cadet Aerospace Offer:Written statement - HLWS344 - UK Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Lords/2017-12-14/HLWS344/)

[India Four Two]

Ah yes, the Sigma - whatever happened to that? The BRM of gliding I think.


It came to Alberta and was rebuilt with slotted flaps by Dave Marsden. I don't know where it is now. I'll make some enquiries.

The hydraulically actuated flaps increased the wing area to 177 square feet (an increase of 35%), lowering the wing loading and stalling speed (37 knots), allowing the desired tight circling when thermalling.[3] The hydraulic pressure needed to move the flaps was provided by the pilot pumping on the rudder pedals, this proving to be tiring, not to mention that moving the flaps in flight was found to be almost impossible due to bending in the wings. Performance testing revealed a disappointing[4] best L/D of 41:1 and the project was wound up in 1977.[1]

The group offered the Sigma up to further development by other parties, selecting a proposal by David Marsden a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Alberta (on sabbatical at Cranfield Institute of Technology and a glider pilot holding records with his own glider designs such as the Marsden Gemini).[5]

The aircraft was moved to Canada in 1979 by Marsden, modified with a new flap system, conventional ailerons in lieu of outboard flap sections and the tail parachute was removed from the rudder. Despite the glide ratio only increasing to 47:1, its good climb rate made it competitive with contemporary Open Class gliders of the time, breaking the US 300 km triangle record in 1997 at 151 km/h (82 kn).[1]

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

[Mechta]

The Air Cadet Aerospace Offer:Written statement - HLWS344 - UK Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Lords/2017-12-14/HLWS344/)

The review identified that a smaller fleet can be effectively used to potentially improve availability and extend the service life of the gliders.

How does that work? Night flying?

Sounds like Sir Humphrey to me...

[cats_five]

How does that work? Night flying?

Sounds like Sir Humphrey to me...

No, they can look after them and their paperwork better than previously. I hope there has been a lot of learning as well about what you do and don't do with gliders - with aircraft in general.

[Onceapilot]

How does that work? Night flying?

Sounds like Sir Humphrey to me...

Quite so Mechta!
I read the statement. Strikes me that it is a concoction of low expectations. The blah, blah statistics are meaningless. What matters is the striking rate of flying experience for a statistical cadet. Beyond that, a comparison of cadet gliding achievement say, 1970/2000/2017 would be interesting. :oh:
As for references to synthetic flying "experience"...try this
"cadets were involved in training in remote-control helicopter flying, radio, synthetic simulator training and air traffic control".:confused: Was this "training" conducted to a defined level to achieve a recognised qualification? I doubt it very much. Perhaps the Minister should review whether this "training" is in fact, merely playing or, at best, some recreational experience?
Perhaps the Minister should consider if his words are misleading to the house and that his statement should be clarified?

OAP

[POBJOY]

Of course if you have never experienced the ATC Gliding (As Was) then you will not know what you are missing. That is why the cretons in charge get away with it. I understand that (as most things in life) it never gets better, but I resent the rubbish that is hyped up to pretend that the 'quality' of the ATC experience is anywhere up to the previous standard.

[chevvron]

I don't see how by increasing the distance a cadet has to travel to the nearest gliding school, (by reducing the number of gliding schools) they hope to make it more efficient.
Do they not realise that an immense amount of training is sorry was carried out at weekends rather than on one week courses?
By the way Pobjoy, as one ex gliding school staff member to another, I thought the word was 'cretins' (spelt i-m-b-e-c-i-l-e-s) not 'cretons'.

[POBJOY]

Thanks for that Chev it is not a word I need to use normally, but at least it is not that offensive; and sums up the total lack of competence from those in charge of the shop. I only have complete respect for those that actually worked at the 'coal face' and made the operation the success it 'WAS'. In retrospect the whole organisation ran incredibly well with so little control from HQ Air Cadets. Because in many case's we were based on an active station, or had a parent base this had the added benefit of keeping standards high, and so the baton was passed on to future staff. This was the unique 'AIR' element of the Air Cadet Organisation.It was world class and probably never really appreciated by the main stream RAF for what it achieved. It was not only the actual flying, but the complete 'hands on' handling of all the equipment and airframes, and accepting the responsibility of making the operation work so well.

[Whizz Bang]

Glider recovery rates are now steady and predictable, allowing a total of nearly 3,000 glider sorties to be conducted since recovery of the fleet began.

When exactly was the start, in 2014/15 or 16? I'd wager on good days, in summer, that would have been the national output for a weekend...

[cats_five]

<snip>
It was not only the actual flying, but the complete 'hands on' handling of all the equipment and airframes, and accepting the responsibility of making the operation work so well.

It's a pity the people at all levels handling the paperwork made such a mess of it. As we are always told by inspectors, if a glider's paperwork isn't up to date and in order it's not airworthy.

[Wander00]

Cretons - from another planet.....

[EnigmAviation]

The Air Cadet Aerospace Offer:Written statement - HLWS344 - UK Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Lords/2017-12-14/HLWS344)


I'm distinctly underwhelmed by this latest piece of prose !


Analysing the stats, take the Grob Tutor, 17,600 Cadets had powered flying experiences in FY 2016/17. Is that 17,600 Cadets, or is it 17,600 Air Ex Sorties which may mean 8,800 Cadets had two Air Ex sorties, or ???. Thus out of a 2016 total of 32,860 Air Cadets, only 53% got their backsides off the ground in a Tutor, assuming all of the 17,600 were all different cadets, but maybe a lot lower % if some Cadets had two sorties !


If we take 17,600 total AEF Grob Tutor sorties at the normal 30 mins max sortie length, then this equates to 8,800 hrs flown. With about 45 aircraft UK wide, then this equates to 195hrs per airframe, or, per aircraft 3.91 flying hrs per airframe per week based on a 50 week year. Wow - they aren't half thrashing them - NOT ! Is that "sweating your assets "?? Could have a competition "Spot the Tutor in the air " !


Now on to real waste of taxpayer cash and real history of Negligence......... We the taxpayer, originally purchased a brand new fleet of 53 x Vigilant T Mk1 ,( Grob 109B Motor Gliders ) and at some later stage we also purchased a few second hand of the same G 109B from civilian sources - thus let's say a total of 56.


From the latest statement cited above, we now learn that "up to 15" (26.7%) of these airframes MAY be recovered, and thus far ( after a small "pause" of roughly 3 yrs. 9 mths, there have been 6 (10.71%) "recovered" thus far, of which 2 are at RAF Topcliffe, and the others at ACCGS Syerston.


So , my question to the Hon Member , Secretary of State for Defence, Gavin Williamson MP , is.........WTF is happening to the other airframes - possibly somewhere between 51 max and 41 minimum ? Can the Rt Hon member please state unequivocally, and clearly a) where are they currently ( I can help a little - some are still where they used to be flown !) b) what is their current state of preservation, and c) what will be the nature of their disposal, i.e., where, and who to, and at what sale price, and what will be the total loss to the Taxpayer.

As a supplementary question, please state the processes undertaken thus far to ascertain the technical and administrative reasons why this fleet was grounded ( or should we say "paused") which was allegedly caused by concerns related to airworthiness, and which was the direct responsibility of the RAF and at a much later date their appointed sub contractor(s). Please also state the findings of any investigations into any negligent incompetence, and what measures are to be taken in terms of accountability, i.e., Military negligence and / or contractor legal redress.

Moving on swiftly, as they say, there is also the small matter of the Viking T Mk 1 conventional gliders - I believe originally a total of 90 purchased by us the taxpayer. Of these, we now read that up to now 22 (24.4%) have been recovered, and that up to a total of 60 (66.66%) will ultimately be recovered ( by when ????).

Needless to say, the same questions with regard to Vigilant Aircraft and the net difference ( i.e., the missing 30) require an answer in respect of what happens to them, where they go, at what price and the net loss to taxpayers.


These are purely the hardware questions............we are told that since recovery began > than 3000 glider sorties have been undertaken ! - wow , that's about 150 launches per airframe ! . To put that in context it's about < half an average instructor's annual launch total ! and, bear in mind it's only in about 6 locations !!

No wonder the Commandant Air Cadets got the CBE and tells us all that " whilst aviation is important , it does not define all that we do" !!! ( and of course remembering that we haven't flown any Cadets at VGS' for over 3 years, and we have no VGS resource whatsoever in NI and Wales and about a 60 % reduction of geographic VGS sites UK wide. I admit it wasn't her negligence that it happened, but she sure as hell would make a good PR spin doctor !


Yes, ok there are about 8 main types of Cadet activity but of course your main strapline is given away in the title "Air Cadets " , not Sports Cadets, Shooting Cadets, or Adventure Training Cadets. Perhaps the last three years and this sad saga accounts for the drop in numbers of approximately 8.1% ( from MoD statistical return MoD Sponsored Cadets Statistics 1/4/2016) . If you can't produce the goods in the adverts, then they leave !


I'm now going to ask to meet my MP and request that he submits some questions based on some of the stats above . Why? because I am a Taxpayer and this is just a ludicrous waste of our resources and a truly shocking saga that requires full investigation and exposure. And of course, its not just the Taxpayer, it's the young people who have lost out, not to mention the loyal and extremely competent staff of the twenty odd VGS units who have been largely decimated and demoralised - not just by this saga, but the mishandling of the new Commissions. ( referred to in the Commandant's Xmas statement as follows :-



"If we had known how difficult this process would be, I am sure we would have approached it differently but, in the absence of precedent, we all did the best we could to navigate complex legal and procurement issues to achieve our goal. It took far longer than we’d hoped and it was far more difficult than anyone envisaged and I know it has knocked the confidence of many in our ability to manage change effectively. I apologise again for the stress and confusion caused by the various delays and mixed messaging "


Good job the same team isn't managing the Trident Missile renewal and the Carrier + F35's ! - or maybe it is ?? Happy Christmas to all our readers and keep safe for 2018.



More Tea and medals later...............:rolleyes:

[Onceapilot]

EnigmAviation
I support your opinion of the situation. Certainly, Commandant Air Cadets has been in that post since Aug 2012. In 2017 she has somehow been awarded CBE for her efforts and, incredibly, been retained in post until 2020. Surely, heads somewhere should roll or, is no-one responsible?

OAP

[EnigmAviation]

EnigmAviation
I support your opinion of the situation. Certainly, Commandant Air Cadets has been in that post since Aug 2012. In 2017 she has somehow been awarded CBE for her efforts and, incredibly, been retained in post until 2020. Surely, heads somewhere should roll or, is no-one responsible?

OAPi don't think she has been responsible directly, only assisting in the burying of the bodies metaphorically speaking in terms of issuing glowing reports of how well the non- flying was going, and how marvellous the enhanced video games were going called Part Task Trainers. There must be accountability on the part of the RAF as they were THE service responsible in EVERY sense for the airworthiness, maintenance and repair if the entire Grob fleet, and continued to be so, in overall management terms, even after a Third Party contractors came into the tasking after 2006. This whole scandal , when the pause was initiated in early 2014 clearly went up through the chain of command from OC FTS, to OC 22 Group, and ultimately to Chief of the Air Staff.

From what has been muttered in many circles, some "horse trading" has been done, but without ANY Defence Select Committee involvement or questions, and without ANY VSO having been called to account to the Taxpayer, or any MP.

Here we are, in a so called democracy, where we are denied,( thus far ! But hopefully not much longer if I can help it ) the chance to find out who failed in their duty, and what sanctions are to be implemented, and to make any recoveries possible in financial loss terms, and finally to ratify, or indeed cancel any contracts, implied or otherwise, that may exist for the disposal of the large number of airframes remaining outstanding post "recovery" .

Not only that, we, the former very competent , able Instructors and the parents of our former students, need to be informed, whether we were unknowingly acting in captaincy terms, completely blind to the risk that our aircraft were, as implied by the 3.5 yr "pause" , unserviceable and unfit for purpose. They can't have it both ways, either they were truly unfit to be flown, thus legitimising the grounding, or they were not, and the 3.5 year grounding, recovery and huge reduction in VGS capacity, reduction in staffing and potential disposal of serviceable airframes is a complete sham. We need to be officially told which is the true version.

It is extremely worthy of mention that not one VRT Officer bore any responsibility in this sad saga, the amateurs were the professionals, and vice versa.

[Onceapilot]

Thanks for the reply EA. I do think that Cmdt Air Cadets does carry the can for all of this, unless and until the truth of the situation is proven otherwise. Good luck with your attempts to shine some light on events. I must admit, my initial reaction to the grounding of the aircraft was that it seemed to be a sensible response to an acute problem. However, the subsequent train of events are a worthy plot for a best-seller! Each turn and twist has piled-on obfuscation and intrigue. I find it hard to believe that very senior (rank) full-time RAF personel can be in control of this debacle yet still retain the confidence of the Air Force Board? :confused:

OAP

[tucumseh]

-re the current Commandant. To be fair, she inherited decades of abuse, including a 2012 report warning of very serious recent failings. Clearly, that was not her fault. But equally clearly, she has been party to covering up the scale the the failings. Almost any fleet could have been grounded for the same reasons, but the RAF chose the path of least pain. That is why there can be no sanctions against her. Successive ACAS's would have to join her. And given the close link a recent one has had to the ATC, that's not going to happen. Doubly so, as he was later DG MAA.

What one should be looking at is the management structure. Who, for example, was the Type Airworthiness Authority? Then look at what other aircraft he was responsible for. Then look at other threads here, involving actual loss of life, and MoD admissions that the same failings exist. Poor engineering standards, no safety case, no valid RTs, etc. This is not just about gliders.

[Olympia 463]

Who actually bought and paid for these gliders? Was it the MoD Procurement Executive?

The PE's problem vis-a-vis the RAF, or any other branch of the Defence (Offense?) community, is 'time span of responsibility'. RAF officers get a two year secondment to the PE so decisions they make seldom come home to roost while they are still in post.

I have experience of this as I worked for two blue chip companies in the defence procurement area and I could relate some tales here of mismanagement on a far larger scale than this gliders mess up. Pinning responsibility here may take some doing as well. Remember the civil servants in the PE are there to do the bidding of the service officers. This is how we sent soldiers to the Falklands with so much faulty gear that the beaches were covered with things they did not think worth carrying when they heard they were jomping to Port Stanley. I had a de-brief about that from people who were there.

The real problem we need to solve here is to get professional people (and only professionals) in charge of military procurement. Just because you have fired a gun does not make you an expert in ballistics or weapon sights!! Do the words 'Spitfire and 'Hurricane' come to your mind here?

The army did not know that they needed a new up to date image intensified night sight for the SA80 rifle. We knew they did, and designed one as a private venture, which went into mass production once they had seen the tests we carried out at the ITDU. And so on.

Does anyone have the answers to my question?

[tucumseh]

Olympia 463

Remember the civil servants in the PE are there to do the bidding of the service officers.

Misconception here. Civil Servants are there to implement government policy. Very few have serving officers in their immediate line management chain. However, since Requirement Managers' posts were 'militarised', they are seen to procure what serving officers put their name to. If you study most successful programmes, you'll find the CS has quietly tossed the endorsed requirement in the bin and written something sensible and which doesn't defy the laws of physics. That is not to denigrate serving officers. As you say, they get a 2 year post, whereas a CS Requirement Manager (of old) had already spent at least 10 years being trained to do the job.

If a Requirements Manager isn't an engineer, straight away he can't do much of his job and MoD has to employ others to supplement his post. It seldom does. The problems discussed here are essentially engineering related, plus a failure of management oversight. Look at them carefully, and prevention/solution is something CS needed to demonstrate competence at before being promoted into MoD(PE). Today, most CS don't understand the concept of there being at least 5 technical grades below the PE/DE&S minima. At four of them, every single incumbent should know the prevention and cure. In fact, I've known 4th year apprentices who I'd happily delegate this to. It really is THAT basic.

[Engines]

Olympia,

Perhaps I can help out a bit here.

Tuc beat me to it with his excellent post - yes, the civil servants there in the PE were expected to carry out their duties within the mandated regulations, not to do the bidding of service officers. Most procurement disasters start with a c**p set of requirements, and there's a BIG problem with the role and competence of the MoD's Requirements Managers, and the RAF's long standing insistence that they be uniformed aircrew. Sadly, the skill set of the average RAF pilot (which is very good indeed - for flying aircraft) is a poor match for doing Requirements Management, which is really an engineering discipline. If the uniformed RM and the CS project engineer work together, this issue can, in some cases, be overcome. Sometimes it can't.

Where the issue gets worse is where senior officers in the RAF decide that they have identified the solution to their (often unstated) requirements, and tell the PE to 'go out and buy that'. That's part of the gliders issue. The RAF decided that they wanted Grobs, and directed the PE to go for an essentially 'off the shelf' purchase. Even worse, a large part of the buy was done using an 'in year underspend', where the PE staffs will have got even LESS time to do the parts of procurement that aren't as sexy as buying spanking new aircraft, but are just as important.

Things like making sure that a comprehensive repair manual has been issued. making sure that the customer has been provided with DA approved repair kits. Things like making sure that the aircraft supplier had passed the relevant certification and approvals stages. Things like making sure that a proper PDS contract was in place. Oh, and ensuring that there was an achievable fleet management scheme. I'm taking a small bet that these were the things that didn't get done well for the gliders.

The sad fact is that the MoD has spent most of the 15 to 20 years following a policy of removing professional engineers from the procurement organisation. For many years, project management has been the preferred skill set. Now, there's nothing wrong with having professional PMs. Sadly, the MoD decided that doing a Prince2 course turned non-engineers into professional project managers. No, it didn't.

So you now have non-technical PMs trying to manage projects with restricted access to professional project engineers. In recent years, that skill set has often been provided using contractors - the Treasury has now all but closed off that supply route.

It's not all doom and gloom, and the MoD has plenty of good people to manage procurement. But, in my view, not enough of them.

Best regards as ever to those doing the job at the coal face

Engines

[tucumseh]

MoD has spent most of the 15 to 20 years following a policy of removing professional engineers from the procurement organisationJuly 1996 when the then Chief of Defence Procurement, Sir Robert Walmsley, issued an edict that he didn't want or require engineers working on engineering projects. On 19 November and 13 December 2001, he issued written rulings that aircraft need not be functionally safe, but one could sign-off to say they were. (Direct result - Tornado ZG710 23.3.03, 2 killed). MoD continues to cite these rulings today. Thankfully some ignored him, but not all. Haddon-Cave sussed him, with his comment in the Nimrod Review about not employing submariners to manage aircraft.

[cats_five]

The RAF decided that they wanted Grobs, and directed the PE to go for an essentially 'off the shelf' purchase.

Firstly it wouldn't have matter what gliders were brought, Grobs or K21s, they would be in the same pickle because of the paperwork shortcomings.

Secondly for exactly the same reason that they can't go out and buy 60+ new K21s, they couldn't then. Grob were willing to build them lots of gliders quickly (and all gliders are built - hand-built - to order) whereas Schleicher not. Schleicher are still in business, Grob are not at least no in the aviation world.

[Olympia 463]

Well I seem to have winkled out some of the reasons for this disaster. And I am happy to be corrected by those who were nearer the problems than I ever was. I was merely recounting my experience with the PE.

The day after the ITDU trial of 'Kite' (our code for the SA80 sight) we were descended upon by some chaps from the MoD who wanted us to hand over the two prototypes. These were 'knife and fork' hand built jobs, and as the project was PV, we naturally demurred. We did give them the specification data, and a few weeks later an urgent OR came authorising us to proceed with the development of an infantry weapon sight for the SA80! OK this was 'their Gunships', not 'their Airships', but the effect would have been the same.

I had plenty of dealings with the RAF on LRMTS on the Tornado and I found the technical ability of many of their officers a bit lacking. No fault of the officers concerned, the troubles were much higher up. As someone says above, a pilot is not automatically an engineer, though this engineer is a pilot (glider).

[tucumseh]

Olympia 463

Interesting you mention SA80. Many years later, one of the reasons for its poor reputation emerged - the IPT had lost design control through failure to implement the same regulations. (There is little difference in the basic regs across Air, Land and Sea domains - the process changes a little at the end when it comes to certification. They, too, regarded this as a 'waste of money'). Also interesting you mention ITDU. The Land equivalent, if you like, of A&AEE Boscombe Down, who were serially ignored when they gave formal notification of the systemic airworthiness failings that we're talking of here. The reaction from on high was the same - we're not putting up with that, your posts are being cut. I recall, at ITDU in 2002, four crucial Army posts were resurrected and actually funded by the project office at Abbey Wood, not the Army.

[Mechta]

I don't see how by increasing the distance a cadet has to travel to the nearest gliding school, (by reducing the number of gliding schools) they hope to make it more efficient.
Do they not realise that an immense amount of training is sorry was carried out at weekends rather than on one week courses?
By the way Pobjoy, as one ex gliding school staff member to another, I thought the word was 'cretins' (spelt i-m-b-e-c-i-l-e-s) not 'cretons'.

Any improvement in flight safety is likely to be negated by the increased risk of Air Cadets being involved in a road traffic accident due to their civilian instructors falling asleep at the wheel of the squadron minibus, when carting the cadets home on multi-hour journeys after their three six minute flights.

[VX275]

Any improvement in flight safety is likely to be negated by the increased risk of Air Cadets being involved in a road traffic accident due to their civilian instructors falling asleep at the wheel of the squadron minibus, when carting the cadets home on multi-hour journeys after their three six minute flights.

My thoughts when I heard that cadets from South Wales would be gliding at Little Rissington

[EnigmAviation]

My thoughts when I heard that cadets from South Wales would be gliding at Little Rissington

Not to mention the fact that if the Wx if poor ( likely at Little Rissington) , they travel huge distance to get zilch, or if Wx better, they get a much reduced day and flying. And of course, if it's not an RAF sourced minibus, then the travel costs are considerable, and Squadron staff are much tired by travelling such long distances from home. But according to the Commandant, it's all very positive !! Spin Doctoress ;)

[POBJOY]

When I get asked re flying with the ATC, I say join the Scouts and go along to your nearest airfield and offer to help !!! Its amazing how welcome you will be made.

[cats_five]

When I get asked re flying with the ATC, I say join the Scouts and go along to your nearest airfield and offer to help !!! Its amazing how welcome you will be made.

Why join the Scouts? Just go along!

[POBJOY]

The Scouts are a fine organisation without the C..p leadership and buckets loads of B....S....
The ATC 'were' a great organisation, but have lost their way big time and have got bogged down with hype, spin, and the yellow coat brigade. The leadership has become so PC they cant see the wood for the trees. In fact the promotion material put out is quite misleading.
Shame; as at Squadron level they try so hard to make it work, but the effort now seems to be running coach services everywhere for so little actual hands on activity, and they completely screwed up the best youth 'Air Training' scheme anywhere in the world, which will never come back with such useless leadership at the head of "2 FTS'.

[cats_five]

The Scouts are a fine organisation without the C..p leadership and buckets loads of B....S....
The ATC 'were' a great organisation, but have lost their way big time and have got bogged down with hype, spin, and the yellow coat brigade. The leadership has become so PC they cant see the wood for the trees. In fact the promotion material put out is quite misleading.
Shame; as at Squadron level they try so hard to make it work, but the effort now seems to be running coach services everywhere for so little actual hands on activity, and they completely screwed up the best youth 'Air Training' scheme anywhere in the world, which will never come back with such useless leadership at the head of "2 FTS'.

But why join them to go to the local gliding club? Why not just join the club, if one wants to learn to fly?

[Olympia 463]

Flying even in gliders was never, and is never going to be cheap. The ATC existed only because the RAF was able to make a case to the Government of the day to fund an organisation intended to make some youngsters interested in flying. The benefit the RAF hoped to get (and indeed did get) was a source of potential recruits, Not just potential aircrew, but people who were air minded and wished to take part in activity which might include flying. However this must have cost a lot of money to set up and while the majority of the actual work was done by volunteers there was a cost in providing a structure of RAF personnel to organise it. Clearly this case is harder to make now that the technology has moved on and only fairly skilled and well educated staff are now required. This fact may have escaped some of you. The 'boy scout type' activities are no longer likely to attract the modern youngster who has so many other potential ways of spending their spare time.

I know lots of ATC instructors (I was taught to fly by them!) and I know what dedication and skill they brought to their involvement in the ATC. Times have moved on however and the objectives set for the ATC these days seem a bit foggy to me.

I was a founder member of the Staffordshire Gliding club in 1963 which took over the (now disappeared under housing) airfield at Meir near Stoke on Trent. Initially we tried to interest our company (English Electric) in funding a gliding club as part of the sports activity, When they heard how much money we needed they turned us down flat. We then got together a group of employees who wanted to learn to fly (note 'learn to fly" with no other aims like the ATC) and raised enough money to buy a T31, a tatty ex army Landrover, and a second hand winch from The Derby and Lancs club. The ATC instructors, who had been running the ATC squadron at Meir now disbanded, were delighted to join our new club and we started flying in early 1964.

We were fortunate that one of the ex ATC instructors was able to get clearance from the BGA to become CFI (on condition that he completed his silver C )and he also generously funded the purchase of more aircraft - a Tutor, an Olympia 2B and later on a Capstan and a Swallow. Without his financial backing we would have got off to a very slow start. I was appointed Technical Officer (I am a Chartered Mechanical Engineer trained by Rolls-Royce) and we had other specialisms available to us right at the start, so we were a well organised bunch. I was the first member of the nascent club to get off solo and I was swiftly followed by several others. None of this could have happened without a considerable input of money. MONEY is probably at the bottom of what is happening here. The RAF probably want the ATc to go away now that it no longer needs you.

[cokecan]

if you look at the other disasters that have marred the cadet experience in the last decade - 85% reduction in annual camp places, the effective loss of shooting on many Sqn's due to changes in the regulations, massive hurdles placed in the Adventure Training arena, powered flying taking the same dive as gliding in many regions, the RAF divorcing the VR(T) branch - and doing so with a great deal of dishonesty and incompetance - you might well think that the RAF was conducting a policy of deliberate decline of the ATC....

[BEagle]

Is Pippa-the-navigator still El Commandante of 2FTS?

:\

[Random Bloke]

Cokecan,

Surely the reduction in annual camp places is concomitant with the overall reduction in the size of the defence estate, which is Government policy outside the control of the RAF.

Likewise, the demise of the VR(T) commission appears, on paper, to be the result of a tri-Service study, led by the Army.

[Pontius Navigator]

RB, I think the Army are confused by the number of 'RAF' organizations - RAF, RAFR, RAFVR, RAFVR(T), RAuxAF, all with the same rank and relative seniority set out in QRs.

We confused them with their Maj (R) who was an RO with out a commission and us as RAFR ROs with a commission.

[Olympia 463]

Cokecan

You make my case. The writing has been on the wall for some time by the sound of it. This whole affair looks like part of a cunning plan to get rid of the ATC. Get used to it. Organisations and industries come and go - nothing new in that. The RAF of 2017 is a vastly different thing to the RAF when the ATC was formed. It's not that long ago that one of our great and good politicians believed that the day of manned aircraft was coming to an end. Seeing what drones can do these days is maybe an indication that this trend has now started.

[teeteringhead]

Is Pippa-the-navigator still El Commandante of 2FTS? And still wears "The Flying Badge" aka Wings.........

[YellowTom]

No sympathy from me either. Emailed the ATC sqn near my parents once saying I’d be in the area for a couple of weeks once and that I was one of their ex-cadets - now RAF SNCO air crew, know a bit about electronics/comms, flying, leadership, basic training, march, shoot, how to fold your pants and clean your boots etc. “Would I mind mailing the training officer to understand where he could fit me in their already busy winter training schedule?” Now I don’t expect the red carpet, and I can’t expect a salute even from a 13 year old, but I was surprised by their village hut approach to life. Consequently, this glider business doesn’t surprise me. I’m sure some have their hearts in the right place.

[POBJOY]

Hi Cats 5
Why not !!!, they offer multiple youth activities without the rubbish coming out of HQ ATC; plus they have sound leadership.
It always helps when going along to a flying or gliding club to be a member of an organisation that has a good reputation.

[Just This Once...]

And still wears "The Flying Badge" aka Wings.........

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

:\

[ACW599]

And still wears "The Flying Badge" aka Wings.........

It seems to be widely rumoured that his contract is not being renewed.

[cats_five]

Hi Cats 5
Why not !!!, they offer multiple youth activities without the rubbish coming out of HQ ATC; plus they have sound leadership.
It always helps when going along to a flying or gliding club to be a member of an organisation that has a good reputation.

Yes if one wants to do the other stuff but if flying a glider is the point go straight to a bga club

[cats_five]

No sympathy from me either. Emailed the ATC sqn near my parents once saying I’d be in the area for a couple of weeks once and that I was one of their ex-cadets - now RAF SNCO air crew, know a bit about electronics/comms, flying, leadership, basic training, march, shoot, how to fold your pants and clean your boots etc. “Would I mind mailing the training officer to understand where he could fit me in their already busy winter training schedule?” Now I don’t expect the red carpet, and I can’t expect a salute even from a 13 year old, but I was surprised by their village hut approach to life. Consequently, this glider business doesn’t surprise me. I’m sure some have their hearts in the right place.

That's the correct response, if he thinks his training officer is up to the job. Would you like to be bumped for someone in the area for a couple of weeks?

[chevvron]

That's the correct response, if he thinks his training officer is up to the job. Would you like to be bumped for someone in the area for a couple of weeks?

You have to go through CRB checks before you can do lectures to cadets. If you're lucky, they might rush it through in about 6 months.

[teeteringhead]

You have to go through CRB checks before you can do lectures to cadets. If you're lucky, they might rush it through in about 6 months. A touch unfair Chevvers. It's more like 6-8 weeks in my neck of the woods, 10 if you're very unlucky.

And the DBS (as we are reminded below it is now called!) is only required for "regular unsupervised access" so a temporary visitor could be "chaperoned" - and of course now that 18+ cadets must be DBS'd, those cadets could be the chaperone (or chaperon).

[Fitter2]

Keep up chaps, it's been DBS checks for a while now.

I can't really blame the shrinking of station visits on the ATC organisation, there's a limit to how many visits one RAF Station can handle. Of the 5 Annual Camps I went to in the 1950's, only Kinloss is still an active base.

When at school in Leeds, during the summer holidays I would hitch hike two or three times a week to Church Fenton, Dishforth, Leeming, Topcliffe, or Lindholme, ask for the ATC liaison officer and could usually get airborne in something. (They didn't often say 'Oh no, not you again'.) Times have changed.

[chevvron]

A touch unfair Chevvers. It's more like 6-8 weeks in my neck of the woods, 10 if you're very unlucky.

And the DBS (as we are reminded below it is now called!) is only required for "regular unsupervised access" so a temporary visitor could be "chaperoned" - and of course now that 18+ cadets must be DBS'd, those cadets could be the chaperone (or chaperon).

Well I am talking about 20 years ago before my Wg Cdr decided not to renew my 'tour' when I was only 51.
The system worked though. We had an ex RAF guy apply to join my squadron as a CI so sent off the forms. It was about 6 months before we got a short note from the Wg Ad O saying we were not to recruit him. We asked why, but Wg Ad O wouldn't tell us either by letter or on the phone.
Turns out this applicant had a 'record' whilst in the RAF of paedophile activites; we don't know if he was convicted or even charged, but it was enough for him to be excluded.

[1208]

Sorry to tell fitter 2 but Kinloss is now army

[POBJOY]

Merry Xmas all.

Am just sourcing a very large sock for Santa and writing him a nice letter.

Dear Santa the ATC needs your help. Please supply the following for 2018.
60 Kirby Cadet MK3
20 MB Wilde Winches (twin drum)
40 Series one Land Rovers
15 Austin 1 Ton 4x4
60 drums cable

This will get us 'operational' again and we will train up the required staff cadets to get involved. To keep things simple we will go back to the Bl.... Bats (table tennis surplus white) and involve even more hands on input.
Once up and running the system will be 'self starting' and we will prob have a waiting list of people wishing to get involved. Many thanks and don't bother to contact HQ Air Cadets as they will no idea what its all about. Pobjoy

[Olympia 463]

You forgot the Aldis lamps (20) and 15 Robin Hangars and a big bucket of ferrules to mend the cable breaks. A caravan with WAGs making bacon butties and big mugs of sugary tea, would also come in handy. You'll never make quartermaster!

[Old-Duffer]

But you forgot the Sedburghs!!!!!!!!!!!

[POBJOY]

Greetings O/Duff and 463.
Aldis lamps not needed with 'reliable bats', and we can house machines in simple poly structures, plus 'ferrules' only showing that you are far too young. We will use a simple axe, reef knot, and tape 'insulating' KISS. Caravan nice but not a 'control van' budget about £150 for one suitable for messing requirements, and temp overnight staff cadet accommodation for those early cable checks. We don't need quartermasters that's far too 'organised', and smacks of paperwork.
I am afraid the T21 will have to be sacrificed in the name of efficiency and no of days lost when the wind is too high. Once the Cadets are 'solo'ed' they can fly single seaters which are far more fun,(phase 2).
Anyway I see that you already 'warming' to the idea, so well done, its amazing what can be done with improvisation. Aerotowing will be introduced at an early stage to bring in some income to subsidise the operation. One thing though, we will NOT expect cadets to use wellies.

[cats_five]

<snip>
smacks of paperwork.
<snip>

Whilst I believe you posted a satire, paperwork is where the ATC came unstuck with the Vikings, and where they would have come unstuck with any glider type including K21, T21 & T31. There is paperwork associated with winches as well.

[POBJOY]

Ah C5 Yes there was some paperwork associated with the earlier equipment, but it was also backed up by qualified staff.
The MT section could look after all the motorised stuff, and NO 1 GC could repair the gliders.
We had a system that 'WORKED'.
However the real gem was the quality, capability, and self sustainability of the 'schools' who did not need to be shown how to suck eggs.
Anyway just a reminder and 'warning' of what can happen when someone thinks 'forms' can replace capability.
Merry Xmas all and 'ALL OUT' for 2018

[A and C]

While I applaud your sentiments you have overlooked one fact of modern life, the parasites that will decsend on you if the smallest something goes wrong.

These parasites call themselves lawyers.

[cats_five]

<snip>
Anyway just a reminder and 'warning' of what can happen when someone thinks 'forms' can replace capability.
Merry Xmas all and 'ALL OUT' for 2018

Even if you got your fleet of T31s, regardless of the past, they would still now not be considered airworthy without the sort of paperwork that the ATC was unable to manage to keep up-to-date.

[ACW599]

Even if you got your fleet of T31s, regardless of the past, they would still now not be considered airworthy without the sort of paperwork that the ATC was unable to manage to keep up-to-date.

Probably incompatible with a world in which both you and a flying supervisor had to initial the auth sheet and solemnly write "Taxy only" before you could move a Vigilant from the hangar to the pan.

[POBJOY]

That's exactly why ACW we would not be part of the ATC/RAF/MOD just an affiliation to the BGA. Come on now;how could it be worse than the present screw up. Having destroyed a fine operation does not give the current set up the God given right to continue to pretend they have a clue about anything. They really are a disgrace and have no right to be in charge of even a Whelk stall. No disrespect to Whelk Stalls. The money spent on the top brass and all the advertising could cover a back to basics service. Dib Dib Dib !!!

[chevvron]

Er didn't Greg Wallace run a whelk stall at Borough Market before becoming a TV presenter?

[Olympia 463]

Pobjoy is right.

The BGA regulate with a very light touch. Our insurance made us get our C's of A done in good time by approved repairers. For the rest, as TO it was my job to keep the winches and land rovers in good running order. No mean feat with 'common user' vehicles and people who were not awfully good at driving. I spent many a weekday evening repairing the clutch operating rod on land rovers. When we eventually owned a Tiger, this animal also fell into my purview - this is what you get for once being an aircraft engine designer. In the average gliding club you will find skill sets which can cope with almost any problem. In the ATC I guess everything had to be organised by HQ - wasting time and effort.

We gave up 'bats' quite early on as the visibility on misty mornings made for mistakes. I also banned reef knots in the wire as it tended to bu**er up our winch paying in gear. With a good tool, ferrules were quicker and did less damage.

[chevvron]

Merry Xmas all.

Am just sourcing a very large sock for Santa and writing him a nice letter.

Dear Santa the ATC needs your help. Please supply the following for 2018.
60 Kirby Cadet MK3
20 MB Wilde Winches (twin drum)
40 Series one Land Rovers
15 Austin 1 Ton 4x4
60 drums cable

This will get us 'operational' again and we will train up the required staff cadets to get involved. To keep things simple we will go back to the Bl.... Bats (table tennis surplus white) and involve even more hands on input.
Once up and running the system will be 'self starting' and we will prob have a waiting list of people wishing to get involved. Many thanks and don't bother to contact HQ Air Cadets as they will no idea what its all about. Pobjoy
I agree with Pobjoy.
I've stated several times in this thread, Air Cadets do not 'need' something as high performance as the Viking and a return to low performance in order to get the cadets to solo standard easier should be called for.

[cats_five]

I agree with Pobjoy.
I've stated several times in this thread, Air Cadets do not 'need' something as high performance as the Viking and a return to low performance in order to get the cadets to solo standard easier should be called for.

What do you suggest? In terms of modern gliders a Viking is NOT high performance. It's solid, robust, easy to fly, and has good crash protection - far better than the gliders of yore.

The BGA regulate with a very light touch.

From what I have heard the Vikings would be grounded even under the BGA's regime. If a glider doesn't have the correct paperwork, up-to-date, it's not airworthy. If it has repairs that are not documented it's not airworthy. If repairs have been done & documented but not to an approved scheme it's not airworthy. And so on.

[Olympia 463]

Cats,

The BGA regime in my time, and I have little reason to suspect it has changed, was that a valid CofA issued by a BGA approved inspector was all the proof they needed to accept that a glider was fit to fly. I was never asked to produce the CofA for any of our club gliders in all my time as TO. I expect they would have asked to see it if there had been an accident in which the integrity of the airframe was a potential cause. If the CofA was out of date then I expect BIG trouble for the club concerned would have ensued. Again, in all my time there were few accidents which were caused by structural failure of the glider concerned. There was one at Portmoak where a glider was not rigged correctly (main spar pins not engaged fully) and the wings folded up during a winch launch having withstood several dozen aerotows in the configuration in which it failed. Apart from that one I cannot recall any other episodes, others may know better.

My own glider was of course insured, and a condition was that a valid CofA was in force. Again I was never asked to produce the evidence but if I had been asked following a prang, and it was not forthcoming, my insurance would have been declared invalid.

Now the ATC AFAIK is not insured in the usual way or maybe not at all, it being a department of the government. This automatically removes the vital requirement mentioned above.

Are ATC gliders subject to Cof A or the RAF equivalent?

Maybe this is the hole through which all these gliders now on the ground have fallen. Comments?

[Big Pistons Forever]

The fundamental problem is that a training glider is not a military aircraft, it is a civilian aircraft and so trying to use a Military Airworthiness system to attain and maintain glider airworthiness is just using a huge hammer to try to smash the round peg into the square hole.

The Canadian AIr Cadet gliders and tow planes are all civilian registered and the Cadets get a Transport Canada civilian glider pilot license at the end of the course. A typical year will see about new 300 GPL’s issued,

The main RCAF involvement is providing the resources of the Air Force flight safety program and personnel to enhance safety

I would suggest that as long as the RAF keeps trying to run the UK Air Cadet program there will never be any significant Air Cadet gliding available for the Air Cadets of today or tomorrow.

[Just This Once...]

Pistons, I think you misunderstand the current UK system. There is no requirement to operate to military airworthiness rather than civil.

Airworthiness is airworthiness and the UK military system recognises the civil system in its entirety. As a result we have military fleets run in accordance with civilian standards and overseen by the civilian regulators. This includes any supporting elements including civilian training and licences for military maintenance personnel.

Adopting civilian airworthiness systems is seen by the UK MoD as cheaper and lower risk. Pure military airworthiness systems are only used when no relevant or appropriate civilian system exists.

[92125]

The BGA regime in my time, and I have little reason to suspect it has changed, was that a valid CofA issued by a BGA approved inspector was all the proof they needed to accept that a glider was fit to fly.

You keep referencing ‘your time’ and it leads me to believe it was a long time ago indeed. You may have missed the fact that in 2008 all non-Annex II Sailplanes transitioned onto the G-Register, with all the associated EASA paperwork. If you’ve ever issued an ARC you will know that it requires the signatory to declare that the aircraft has been maintained to the letter or the law, with all maintenance, repairs or modifications fully documented and approved.

[A and C]

While I would agree with you in theory in practice the military gold plate the EASA airworthiness system, then employ another part of the military to gold plate the bits it has already gold plated until it can’t see the original objective for all the gold plate. The whole system is process driven with the objective of defining issues in books and manuals that can’t be for practical purposes be defined.

Those working in the pure civil sector are product driven and much less obsessed by the process and aim their attention to the quality of the product and the practical flight safety.

To put it more simply counting the paint brushes in the stores does not make an aircraft safe, making sure that one of these paint brushes is not in a control run when the aircraft leave the hangar does........... the civil side of aviation focuses on the later while the military focus on the former.

[cats_five]

Cats,

The BGA regime in my time, and I have little reason to suspect it has changed, was that a valid CofA issued by a BGA approved inspector was all the proof they needed to accept that a glider was fit to fly.
<snip>

When was 'your time'?

Even before the non-annex 2 gliders transitioned to the G register (mostly in 2007/2008) the paperwork had to be in order, and that was more than just a CoA.

ADs had to be complied with and recorded in the log book, all repairs had to be recorded, changing tyres had to be recorded, in short anything other than the DI, cleaning, pumping up tyres, rigging etc. had to be in the log book and the those had to be in the DI book.

Part of transitioning was checking all the ADs were complied with and any that weren't in the log book had to be done. We also now record SBs.

AFAIK a Viking is another name for a Grob 103, there is a big list of ADs for those - the other 103 list and the 102 list are almost as big, the 104 list is a bit shorter:

G 103 AD & SB - Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner - Wir machen Ihr Flugzeug fit für Saison und Wettbewerb (http://www.ltb-lindner.com/g-103-ad-sb.html)

You refer to a fatal accident at PMK. Are you sure it wasn't a PMK glider at another club? If you are thinking of the one I am the details are wrong as well.

A glider with the same horrific main pin arrangement (it's not possible to visually check it's correctly installed) in the US lost it's wings, on aerotow, after several earlier aerotows.

The glider I'm thinking of had it's wings fold during the second WINCH launch of the day.

Both accidents were fatal, and the pilot of the second accident was a friend of mine. :(

[tucumseh]

Merry Xmas all.

The last few posts have reminded me that in April 2001, at an interview in Abbey Wood, I was asked by the Directorate of Personnel, Resources and Development lady chairing the panel what I would do if someone consciously made false record in aircraft documentation. Standard answer....in a disciplinary sense, it's potentially a dismissable offence. Also, one must check back through the offender's previous work, and so on. I was shut down very quickly. I was wrong. That would upset the 'offender', making me the offender. No action should be taken. One is always told never to argue at interview, but I told her she was barking.

My prospective boss, a Brigadier (who was allowed to be present, but not to speak), stood up, took me outside and offered me the job. His parting shot to her was 'he's talking about aircraft that I fly in'. But her boss (DPRD) later ruled she was perfectly correct. THAT, I'm afraid, is where MoD has gone wrong. (I still got the job).

[Olympia 463]

Cats5,
If you read my post 3790 you will realise that I am a very old (never bold) glider pilot. My last flying in gliders was in 2007 (at Portmoak oddly enough) so I missed all this stuff about gliders going on the register. I was merely trying to point out how simple things were in days of yore before the pen-pushers got their hands on gliding. The accident rate has not improved over recent times so what has been the point of introducing more paperwork?

[92125]

Cats%,
If you read my post 3790 you will realise that I am a very old (never bold) glider pilot. My last flying in gliders was in 2007 (at Portmoak oddly enough) so I missed all this stuff about gliders going on the register. I was merely trying to point out how simple things were in days of yore before the pen-pushers got their hands on gliding. The accident rate has not improved over recent times so what has been the point of introducing more paperwork?

The accident rate very definitely has improved. Whether this is to do with flying standards, aircraft safety or increased regulation I wouldn’t want to say. But gliding is now safer than it was.

Rightly or wrongly gliding is now more regulated than it once was, but the paperwork burden is hardly onerous. In fact the latest Pilot-Owner Maintenance and CS-STAN creations by EASA give a surprisingly large field to play on in terms of working on one’s own aircraft and making minor modifications.

Of course the Viking fleet is not subject to any of this, but the fact of the matter still stands that the lack of proper paperwork would have seen them grounded under any airworthiness system. You simply can’t fix aeroplanes and not write it down.

[cats_five]

<snip>
The accident rate very definitely has improved. Whether this is to do with flying standards, aircraft safety or increased regulation I wouldn’t want to say. But gliding is now safer than it was.

<snip>

Of course the Viking fleet is not subject to any of this, but the fact of the matter still stands that the lack of proper paperwork would have seen them grounded under any airworthiness system. You simply can’t fix aeroplanes and not write it down.

WRT to the accident rate, the BGA is constantly trying to reduce them by a variety of means.

https://members.gliding.co.uk/bga-safety-management/

It struck me at the time that some of the things some forumites were saying they had done were done by young men (I suspect) who thought they were immortal.


As to the paperwork, exactly. I'm sure the same would have happened whatever the ATC were flying.

[POBJOY]

As I recall; when a Cadet completed the three solo's not only was this a real ATC qualification but also the ability to apply for the BGA A&B Cert. So it seems that the BGA and ATC actually go back some time. In fact one could wear the little enamel badge on the uniform, and upgrade to the 3 Gull version after the 'soaring' trips on an advanced course.
My goodness they really did chuck so much away, and do not deserve to be part of the future. Time for break chaps; don't let the donkeys get their way (no disrespect to donkeys)

[cats_five]

As I recall; when a Cadet completed the three solo's not only was this a real ATC qualification but also the ability to apply for the BGA A&B Cert.
<snip>


The A & B badges seem to have demised. The lowest level now listed on the BGA website is a 'Gliding Certificate with Solo Endorsement'.

Some clubs seem to have retained it as a local thing - or their websites are out of date!

[Olympia 463]

92125 (PS are you a railway enthusiast?)

The accident rate affected by 'certification' is that relating to structural or control system failures. I maintain that this rate has not reduced (it was never high) since my time.

The biggies were always winching accidents and cross country flying. The winching accidents have been reduced somewhat due to the very active intervention of the BGA. How did the ATC handle these accidents?

In thirty odd years of gliding I never saw an accident which could be attributed to structural failure. Plenty messed up winch launches though.

I have still got my 'B' badge. The first awarded in the Staffordshire Gliding Club.

[cats_five]

Changing standards over the years have made rigging failure accidents on modern less likely. Modern single seat gliders are self-connecting, and the sort of main pin arrangement involved in my friend's fatal accident has long since been replaced by arrangements where if it looks like it's properly rigged, it is.

They have also improved crash-worthiness, though I was impressed with the integrity of the cockpit on a Bocian that 'arrived' across a stone wall. This aspect alone is enough IMHO to warrant the ATC changing from T21/T31 gliders to the Vikings.

The BGA continues to be vigilant about winch launch accidents, but also about aerotow upsets where the tug pilot is far more likely to be hurt than the glider pilot, and rigging issues.

Additionally it notifies those glider owners who have provided an email address about ADs, which is getting to the sort of area where the ATC and their maintenance organisation failed.

Out of interest I looked at the Slingsby ADs, and they exist for the T31 and the T21.

https://members.gliding.co.uk/library/airworthiness/slingsby/

Don't you want to be sure that each and every glider flown (regardless of they type and who the owner is) has been inspected and where necessary repaired to comply with each and every relevant AD, and any necessary repairs have been done correctly? How is that compliance going to be demonstrated other than through complete and up-to-date paperwork?

Why all the resistance to correct paperwork from a number of forumites? If as much effort had gone into willingly understanding what was required as has gone into resisting it I suspect the problem either wouldn't exist, or would be considerably smaller.

And of course you still have your B badge, they don't expire even if they are no longer awarded. I will have my Silver C until I draw my last breath.

[chevvron]

What do you suggest? In terms of modern gliders a Viking is NOT high performance.



I didn't say they were, but they certainly are to people like myself and Pobjoy and they are definitely higher performance than the Sedburghs and Mk 3 s they replaced.

[cats_five]

I didn't say they were, but they certainly are to people like myself and Pobjoy and they are definitely higher performance than the Sedburghs and Mk 3 s they replaced.

They are, as are the other similar gliders, but as I asked, what else do you suggest? In performance terms there is no alternative as in no lower performance training glider.

We don't worry that a typical modern car used by driving schools is better performing than those of 30 years ago, why the fuss (or is it concern?) that a Viking performs better than a T31?

[Olympia 463]

Talking about aerotow upsets, the worst I ever saw, which took place before neither plane had really left the ground, was at the World Championships at South Cerney in June 1965. All the towing was by Chippys provided by the RAF as the airfield being used belonged to them. There was this American pilot (of some fame as far as cross countries went) who right after the 'all out' on his tow must have thought he was having a winch launch as he hauled back on the stick (we could see his elevator full up) and lifted the towplane's tail right off the deck while he was still accelerating. The tuggy did his best to combat this, but our intrepid Yank continued hauling back, and eventually broke the back of the Chipmunk! Never heard who paid for that.

I did 733 aerotows, all but 7 as P1 and I never had any trouble myself, nor did anyone else in three clubs I flew in. Aerotowing was the gentleman's way to get airborne.

I too still have my Silver 'C' badge and wear it with pride whenever it is appropriate and, like you, would never part with it - Number 4769 it is, though I had the 5hr leg done very early in my career and had I got on with it, would have been in the late 2000's. Too much instructing.

[pulse1]

Aerotowing was the gentleman's way to get airborne.

Nah. Bungy launching is the true gentleman's way to get airborne.

[chevvron]

Talking about aerotow upsets, the worst I ever saw, which took place before neither plane had really left the ground, was at the World Championships at South Cerney in June 1965. All the towing was by Chippys provided by the RAF as the airfield being used belonged to them. There was this American pilot (of some fame as far as cross countries went) who right after the 'all out' on his tow must have thought he was having a winch launch as he hauled back on the stick (we could see his elevator full up) and lifted to towplane's tail right off the deck while he was still accelerating. The tuggy did his best to combat this, but our intrepid Yank continued hauling back, and eventually broke the back of the Chipmunk! Never heard who paid for that.


I was told that RAF Chipmunks used for aerotowing were a couple of inches longer than the rest of the fleet.

[Fitter2]

Who said 'never let the facts get in the way of a good story'.

Talking about aerotow upsets, the worst I ever saw, which took place before neither plane had really left the ground, was at the World Championships at South Cerney in June 1965. All the towing was by Chippys provided by the RAF as the airfield being used belonged to them. There was this American pilot (of some fame as far as cross countries went) who right after the 'all out' on his tow must have thought he was having a winch launch as he hauled back on the stick (we could see his elevator full up) and lifted to towplane's tail right off the deck while he was still accelerating. The tuggy did his best to combat this, but our intrepid Yank continued hauling back, and eventually broke the back of the Chipmunk! Never heard who paid for that.

The glider pilot was Swiss Marcus Ritzi. He brought his own Elfe S3, and one highly modified by the designer, which he flew in the practice week, and it had a 'compromise'release under the instrument panel. Marcus reverted to his own for he competition, as he felt more at home and the other seemed no better. His glider had a nose aerotow release, and a C of G winch one. In the hurry to launch, his crew attached the wrong one, and full down elevator (which most of us at the launch point saw) didn't overcome the pitch up moment. Both pilots released, but the Chipmunk was too low, and too nose down to avoid a 'heavy landing'. BeBe Sharman, the tug pilot, presented Marcus with a souvenir photo.

http://i63.tinypic.com/8ydmpi.jpg

There were many other good stories from South Cerney; the Operational Orders which the typist wrote as ' The glider and tug pilot must have not fewer than ten toes between them' which gave rise to speculation on what other physical or mental handicaps they might have; the Indian pilot who arrived with a lady assumed to be his wife until the real one turned up....

Probably suitable for a different thread elsewhere.

[Olympia 463]

Fitter2

You have a better memory than me (or a better diary). I was only a spectator at this South Cerney comp, but I think at the time we were told that it was an American 'ace'. And I'm pretty sure his elevator was 'Up'. I can't understand the problem with the tow rope. We always used the same hooking on point for winch and aero. None of the gliders I ever flew had a nose hook. Even if this guy was used to a nose hook surely he could have coped OK with the rope in the winch release position? It doesn't seem to tie up. It was a very nasty thing to watch, and luckily the only thing damaged was the Chipmunk and the glider pilot's ego. After wrecking the Chippy he just flew on over the top of the wreckage and landed ahead!

I do remember the heavy landing and the noise it made.

Things must have been a bit easygoing in those early days. Later when I was part of the team organising and running the Nationals in 1971 at Husbands Bosworth we had an inspector from Speedwells come to check over all the gliders before we would launch them. I'm pretty sure any mod. like the one the Swiss guy had, that was not properly authorised would have got the aircraft disqualified.

I also landed the job of taking all the competitors who had not flown at HB before up for a check ride as HB was quite a small grass field. Two very 'senior ' competitors flew their check so badly that I didn't pass them, and they got a second trip with the CFI to sort out their airmanship.

[cats_five]

I can't understand the problem with the tow rope. We always used the same hooking on point for winch and aero.

Some old gliders have a compromise hook, others have two hooks, some have just a CoG hook and an aerotow has to be done very carefully if at all. IF you are expecting to be towed on a nose hook and the wrong one is connected I'm not surprised it went wrong, though I am surprised the pilot didn't notice the wrong hook being connected.

[Phil_and_Sand]

I was told that RAF Chipmunks used for aerotowing were a couple of inches longer than the rest of the fleet.

Another case of never mind the truth for a good story! A Chipmunk is a Chipmunk ... only mods for towing were bolting on a tow hook (on an A frame from the tailwheel/tailplane mount, run the release handle to the cockpit and fit a mirror.

[chevvron]

Another case of never mind the truth for a good story! A Chipmunk is a Chipmunk ... only mods for towing were bolting on a tow hook (on an A frame from the tailwheel/tailplane mount, run the release handle to the cockpit and fit a mirror.
I meant because of the towing they had stretched.

[Freda Checks]

I meant because of the towing they had stretched.

......and probably meant as a joke🤔

[POBJOY]

463 Do you recall if the service Chipmunks used for towing still had the carb heat wired hot !!!

[Olympia 463]

Pobjoy

No idea. I was towed by Chipmunks from time to time, usually in the summer. We never ever flew our club Tiger in icing conditions so carb heat was never an issue.

[Wander00]

I think the Towers GC ones were. Was in one of two T21s towed CW-Weston Super Mare at Easter - never been so cold

[Fitter2]

I can confirm all the RAF Chipmunks had carb heat wired hot. We had 37 of them at South Cerney (36 after the BeBe Sharman/Ritzi event), but only 30 were used during the launching as the first was queuing up for it's second launch before the last had gone, and more just got in the way. After launching all 54 Standard Class gliders in 13 minutes early in the Competition, the launch team were asked to slow down to 20 second intervals as the dropping zone was too congested.

Re site checks at HusBos nationals, my first launch there was on the first Comp day on the Nationals, and although I had to produce my logbook as currency evidence, nobody invited me to be site checked. Maybe a glance at the logbook indicated I was too dangerous to fly with?

[longer ron]

463 Do you recall if the service Chipmunks used for towing still had the carb heat wired hot !!!

When I worked on Chippies (1980 - 83) the carb air was only 'locked' with copper wire,so a little judicious 'untwisting' could give cold air - not that I am suggesting for a minute that any of our VRT pilots would ever have done that :)

[clarkieboy]

When I worked on Chippies (1980 - 83) the carb air was only 'locked' with copper wire,so a little judicious 'untwisting' could give cold air - not that I am suggesting for a minute that any of our VRT pilots would ever have done that :)

When I worked on them around the same time we used to make the loop in the wire just big enough to slip on and off to save the said "untwisting". Should the need arise......

[longer ron]

Yes - that is what I meant Clarkie :) - I shoulda said 'loosened' LOL

[Fitter2]

Dearie me. And you signed the 700 to say all was correct according to the edicts from on high. (I suppose the staute of limitations applies to all of us now).;-)

[Mechta]

I meant because of the towing they had stretched.

A bit of thread drift... That was the reason Wellingtons weren't used for towing Horsas, Hadrians and the like. The geodetic construction caused the Wellingtons to stretch and shrink like lazy tongs rivetters.

[POBJOY]

463 Your Tiger had an 'automatic' carb heat system, directly controlled by the throttle lever. The carb already had a warm jacket from the exhaust system and when the throttle was closed it operated a flap that was fed by exhaust heated air. Could be flown in all conditions of temp/humidity, and very reliable.

[Olympia 463]

Fitter2

I think it may have depended or whether you were available to be checked and maybe also on your experience. I only checked a few guys selected by the CFI. You mean no one asked to see your competition licence? You will recall then that it was not a particularly good comp weather wise. I was task setting with the Met man, who had come from Bracknell with his caravan, every morning before the briefing. IFIRC we scrubbed quite a few tasks and shortened others. I also had to check the turn point photos,and when we did fly I was up all night waiting for retrieves to arrive back to get the results out for the following morning. There was a lot of landing out that week. Happy days. I do remember Philip Wills turning up to give out the prizes as well. I think we are seriously off topic now.

Pobjoy

My involvement with the Tiger was confined to checking the oil and filling it up with petrol. Our tuggies were all ex RAF and well up in the intricacies of the Gipsy Major engine which was definitely not my style. I was trained on Merlins and Griffons.

[campbeex]

Is this an Aviation History and Nostalgia thread?

[Pegasus107]

Is this an Aviation History and Nostalgia thread?

And there lies the problem in this thread; too many people remembering how things used to be in the flying arena within the ACO (sorry RAFAC). Things have moved on, yes not for the best, but have moved on; so get over it.

You could start a whole new thread complaining about the number of RAF stations or squadrons now compared with during WW2, but whats the point.

[tucumseh]

Pegasus & campbeex

Precisely. The question is why ATC gliding (and arguably the organisation itself) has been decimated. Asked and answered, and names named. Let us hope the links are exposed in court next month.

[BEagle]

Pegasus107 wrote: You could start a whole new thread complaining about the number of RAF stations or squadrons now compared with during WW2, but whats the point.

Comparison with wartime strength is somewhat pointless, but comparison with the RAF at the time even of GW1 might be germane?

When I finished my UAS tour in 1993, at my dining-out I mentioned that, as a student, when the UAS moved from White Waltham to Abingdon, one of the QFIs said "At least they'll never close this place". Well, sadly they did - or rather it was squaddified. So we moved to Benson - when I said that this was just one of the 40 or so places where the RAF used to fly in the UK when I joined, but no longer did, the Group Captain spluttered "Good God...40?".

Back in the days when the RAF could afford its own training aircraft and QFIs, we had UAS Summer Camps at operational RAF stations 'to see the real RAF'. My first was at Thorney Island in 1970 - as well as the based aircraft, there were quite a few visitors including the last Meteor TT20 and Vampire T11 still being used for fleet requirements. A privilege to see the very last of the first generation jets still in everyday use.

But they can't afford the luxury of such training these days. Air Cadet gliding was the USP for the organisation; a few minutes in a plastic pig miles from the ATC squadron, or playing with a 'part-task trainer' learning bad habits simply cannot compare. Playing pongos and buggering about on 'adventurous training' can be done better by others - the 'Air' must be put back into 'Air Cadets'!

Mind you, at a time when EFT graduates only have a couple of hours of PIC time on a course of over 60 hours, what hope is there for that?

[Haraka]

A privilege to see the very last of the first generation jets still in everyday use.
On the same camp my instructor and I found ourselves sharing the circuit with one of Boscombe's Harvards.
At that time I was surprised that he couldn't identify "That yellow thing" and that he also went on chewing me out for exhibiting "schoolboy enthusiasm" about it.

[POBJOY]

Well Beagle I think the mainstream RAF never realised that a 'training organisation' completely run by (in the main) civilian volunteers was happily training 'ab initio' youths to a solo standard with so little 'classroom' and organised briefing facilities.
The secret was that the Cadets spent ALL of the time in a hands on situation; from getting machines out to the launch point until the final flights back to the hangar.
Although the actual 'flying time' could be as little as 1 hour to solo (continuous course) the Cadets were observing all of the normal activity all of the time for the entire day and actually doing most of the jobs required to keep the system moving.
They would see the machines from launch to landing plus the cable breaks and this would have been a very useful 'aid' to understanding what was required.
Therefore the experience of 90% of the day on the actual airfield more than made up from comprehensive briefings and classroom work.
I always felt that a small pre course booklet would have been useful but of course as this was predominately a w-end operation no one was geared up for producing that, and you did not miss what you had never had.
Had the 'system' realised that hundreds of youths were going off on their own in machines with so little 'time' no doubt it would have been queried from the top.
That this was done with such a low accident record speaks volumes for the validity of it all and why it was such a WORLD CLASS operation for its time.
WE should also remember that Cadets were not 'streamed' for this, and merely needed their parents consent, thereby proving the KISS principle.
We will never get back to this level of simplicity nowadays, but we can learn from the past and a future 'system' could be kindled from it.
The basic lessons gleaned from the open cockpit machines were the best introduction that you can have for future aviation, and were far better than 'simulators' which do really work in the gliding world.

[Olympia 463]

I suggest that the main thing a cadet got out of the flying he did in the ATC was a massive boost to his confidence. Flying solo is a character forming experience no matter what your educational standard might have been. I was very confidant young engineer - I had an honours degree in engineering, and had been trained by Rolls-Royce, but the experience of that first solo (and the 2200 others that followed it) did more for my self confidence than anything that had gone before. The potential outcome of not getting that first solo right was uppermost in my mind. That was why I wrote in an earlier post that I thought anyone who had taken part in an activity which might result in death becomes a different sort of person.

What you actually fly seems to me to be quite irrelevant. The 'kick' you would get from a solo in an ASK21 is no different to the one you and I got from a T31. Also no matter how good you might become at flying a modern glider, the RAF will assume quite rightly that you may well have the capability to fly an aeroplane, but you will still need to go through the same training programme as a chap who has had no hands on flying experience.

Which brings me full circle to saying that I think the ATC would have done far better by buying K13's or something similar - KISS. Just my view. A modern plastic glider flies much the same as a T31, or a Tutor, or even a K13, it just does it a bit longer and a lot more expensively.

[cats_five]

<snip>

Which brings me full circle to saying that I think the ATC would have done far better by buying K13's or something similar - KISS. Just my view. A modern plastic glider flies much the same as a T31, or a Tutor, or even a K13, it just does it a bit longer and a lot more expensively.

Just as well they didn't, if K13s were still being produced (production stopped in 1980) when they brought the Vikings. The K13s have glue issues, but more to the point all this longing for a different glider to a Viking is as naught.

The failures from top to bottom (only the cadets are guilt-free) that have grounded the Vikings would just have surely grounded the fleet whatever glider type they were. Like all gliders, K13s are only airworthy if all the paperwork is in order.

Additionally Schleicher might not have wanted to produce what would amount to 1/7 of the total K13 fleet for one buyer in a very short period of time. Doing that doesn't seem to have done Grob any good. Schleicher have full order books and no need to kow-tow to a customer who wants it all yesterday, with modifications.

[cats_five]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229037/1025.pdf

"A FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP, CULTURE AND PRIORITIES"

Fortunately a glider is a very simple airframe, unlike a Nimrod, but I think the headline of the Haddon-Cave report applies equally well to the mess the ATC got into.

What I wonder is if the systemic failures have been fixed, or will the paperwork for the recovered gliders simply descend into the same guddle that has grounded the existing fleet - assuming it's not lost?

[Onceapilot]

Pobjoy and Olympia
Your last posts are both good descriptions of some of the best points about cadet gliding in the open cockpit era! The important element was that it was an immersive process. The cadet doing the course was totally involved...RAF bus at 7am, until RAF bus home at the end of the day. TBH, I get the impression that a cadet today could do the whole thing on their computer...OH! Apparently they do! :eek:

OAP

[cats_five]

Pobjoy and Olympia
Your last posts are both good descriptions of some of the best points about cadet gliding in the open cockpit era! The important element was that it was an immersive process. The cadet doing the course was totally involved...RAF bus at 7am, until RAF bus home at the end of the day. TBH, I get the impression that a cadet today could do the whole thing on their computer...OH! Apparently they do! :eek:

OAP

It's an immersive experience at a BGA club, though without the open cockpit and the bus, and I can't see any reason why it was different with Vikings than T21/T31 gliders.

Gliders have to be got out and taken to the launch point, the log has to be kept, gliders that have landed have to be retrieved, the winch has to be driven (but only after suitable training), cables pulled out and a great deal can be learnt by observation including seeing DIs - the introduction to airworthiness paperwork.

[chevvron]

Pobjoy and Olympia
Your last posts are both good descriptions of some of the best points about cadet gliding in the open cockpit era! The important element was that it was an immersive process. The cadet doing the course was totally involved..
OAP

I second that.

[chevvron]

It's an immersive experience at a BGA club, though without the open cockpit and the bus,



But there is one very major difference.
Apart from travel to/from the gliding school, the instruction to solo standard cost the cadet or their parents NOTHING, ZILCH, ZERO!(In fact when I started I'm sure you could claim travel expenses). My father worked 6 days a week so saturdays I would hitch hike(wasn't dangerous in those days)but sundays my father would take me.
No BGA club would be able to offer this on such a massive scale; I started learning at 613 just after my 16th birthday when I was still at school before I even took my 'O' levels and there's no way my parents could have afforded to pay for it.
The same would hold true today whether a cadet's parents are rolling in it or on benefits, the 'experience' would be available to ALL cadets on equal terms.

[Heathrow Harry]

I apologise for the questions but does anyone know know how many of the Air Cadets join up these days (not historically)..................

Is it a cost effective method of recruitment for the modern generation?

[A and C]

Recruiting is not the primary aim of all the cadet forces, citizenship is buzz word but character development and keeping kids out of trouble makes the cadet forces very good value for money.

[cats_five]

But there is one very major difference.
Apart from travel to/from the gliding school, the instruction to solo standard cost the cadet or their parents NOTHING, ZILCH, ZERO!(In fact when I started I'm sure you could claim travel expenses). My father worked 6 days a week so saturdays I would hitch hike(wasn't dangerous in those days)but sundays my father would take me.
No BGA club would be able to offer this on such a massive scale; I started learning at 613 just after my 16th birthday when I was still at school before I even took my 'O' levels and there's no way my parents could have afforded to pay for it.
The same would hold true today whether a cadet's parents are rolling in it or on benefits, the 'experience' would be available to ALL cadets on equal terms.

But it does cost to belong to the ATC. Is the Uniform free? If not, how much does it cost? How often will it need replacing given the rate teenagers grow at?

What is the demographic profile of ATC cadets in terms of how well off their parents are?

Are you over-estimating the cost of gliding for under 18s at the average BGA club? Where I fly membership is £90pa and a winch launch plus up to 30 minutes is £8.

How much pocket money do children get these days? I don't think it's unreasonable for a child to pay at least some of the cost of their flying from their pocket money.

Finally have you seen how many schemes are available to help with the cost of flying for under 18s?

[Heathrow Harry]

I guess the RAF might ask why it was their job to "keep kids out of trouble"................

[walbut]

Olympia 463,

I thought the sentiments expressed in your post were a very good description of the benefits I gained from gliding in the 1980s, albeit at a BGA club rather than in the RAF GSA.

Your nom de plume also brought back some happy memories of the first glider I owned a share in, EoN Olympia 463, BGA number 1171. I flew it for about 5 years before we upgraded to the ultimate wooden glider, an SHK 1. The Olympia was sold on to some friends of ours and eventually grounded after the spar failure accident in the late 1990s.

The pictures below were taken at its home base in Pocklington and in a stubble field at Fulford near York where I landed after a flight from Sutton Bank in the Northern Regional Championship in 1984.

3891

3892

Happy days
Walbut

[tmmorris]

A and C

Have you read the Northampton report? (https://www.northampton.ac.uk/news/cadet-forces-increase-social-mobility-and-help-disadvantaged-kids-reach-potential/)

cats_five

The uniform is free... but subscriptions aren't and vary from unit to unit. Not involved directly with the ATC myself but I'd be amazed if there weren't hardship schemes for cadets who really can't afford the subs.

[Bill Macgillivray]

tmm

You are correct. There is a scheme (certainly on the Squadron I am with) regarding subs. and sometimes many other activities, which help out cadets whose parent(s) have problems with finances.

I think back to the early '50's when I was a cadet- but that was a different era!! However, it sent me gliding and on a Flying Scholarship (to PPL!) and very much else which stood me in good stead in the RAF and two other Air Forces!

I will always be grateful!

Bill.

[ACW599]

Is Pippa-the-navigator still El Commandante of 2FTS?

:\

It appears that the Honours Committee has for some reason omitted to consider the aforesaid in its deliberations. This seems rather surprising given the magnitude of his achievements for the VGS movement.

[cats_five]

I suspect that studies of children involved an all sorts of activities - playing in an orchestra for example - would show improved life outcomes.

Doesn't alter the fact that there must have been a systemic failure at all levels over a period of time to ground all the gliders, and it's nothing to do with the type of glider. It would have happened if they were flying k13s, or even primaries.

[Heathrow Harry]

Probably no SO came up that route so it's never been any priority - in fact probably seen as a waste of time, space, money and people. Publically saying so would be embarrassing but just ignoring things has much the same effect...............

[cats_five]

I suspect that studies of children involved an all sorts of activities - playing in an orchestra for example - would show improved life outcomes.
<snip>

I don't think the report addresses what it is about being in a Cadet force that produces the results. Is it being in the Cadets? Would being in the Scouts or Guides have similar results? Or is it that children from homes that allow or encourage extra-curricular activities rather than loafing around that's the differentiator? How much does it matter what the activity is?

I mentioned being in an orchestra, thinking of the Big Noise programs run by Sistema Scotland.

Sistema Scotland is a charity on a mission (http://www.makeabignoise.org.uk/sistema-scotland/)

[Blackfriar]

Let's remember while everyone talks about it that two years without gliding in the ATC means that an entire generation passing though has missed out on the opportunity. At 16 you can fly, at 18 you have probably left for work or University. Two years is a short time for grown ups and a major part of a lifetime for teenagers.
I agree with many of the posters here, having gone solo at 17 in a Mk3 at Syerston. It was an amazing feeling and the whole week on the course was one of the most immersive experiences - from getting a rail warrant, ferry, overnight train and bus to RAF Newton, daily bus to Syerston, learning, soloing and returning to school feelng on top of the world.

[teeteringhead]

It appears that the Honours Committee has for some reason omitted to consider the aforesaid in its deliberations. This seems rather surprising given the magnitude of his achievements for the VGS movement. IIRC "Pippa" got an OBE about 10 years ago for inventing/developing BADER. He was an RO then - he's now FTRS - so technically he was a civil servant, and was NOT in the military list. He should, therefore wear the civilian ribbon (same as Gp Capt Vorders!) without the middle silver stripe.

I'm sure he does.......

Civil OBE

http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mJvvT9lb0Wwlt_ndJPu497w.jpg

Military OBE

https://cdn3.volusion.com/yrcrx.thzkt/v/vspfiles/photos/DMSM12-2.jpg?1475288618

[Old-Duffer]

TTH,

Post 3799 looks like a civilian OBE

O-D

PS When did Pippa stop being a 'Directional Consultant' and qualify as 'Drivers Airframe'? On Phantom Course 10GA he is the former as a plt off but on Phantom Course 26AD, he is the latter as a flt lt and wearing a 'tash'.

[Random Bloke]

O-D,

He must have reverted to being a navigator at some point because he was a navigator when he was OC 25 Sqn as a Wg Cdr and then as a Gp Capt in the MoD.

Surely he would have had to have been CR as a pilot to retain the right to wear the flying badge?

[beardy]

He started training as a pilot and then changed to navigator. Having been a QWI on both ground attack and air defence F4 he restarted his pilot training eventually becoming combat ready on the Vulcan for more than the required 6 months to retain his pilot's brevet (not badge.) His subsequent fast jet cross over ended up in restreaming (medical I understand, but I could be wrong) as a navigator where he took up QWI duties again, this time on the Tornado, both ground attack and air defence.

[Random Bloke]

Beady,

RAF pilots wings are properly called 'The Flying Badge'; or they were when I was awarded mine.

[beardy]

Fair enough. Although the RAF Museum interchanges the terms as does AP 1358, CHAP 7

It's beaRdy

[chevvron]

But it does cost to belong to the ATC. Is the Uniform free? If not, how much does it cost? How often will it need replacing given the rate teenagers grow at?

What is the demographic profile of ATC cadets in terms of how well off their parents are?

Are you over-estimating the cost of gliding for under 18s at the average BGA club? Where I fly membership is £90pa and a winch launch plus up to 30 minutes is £8.

How much pocket money do children get these days? I don't think it's unreasonable for a child to pay at least some of the cost of their flying from their pocket money.

Finally have you seen how many schemes are available to help with the cost of flying for under 18s?

I was 'retired' 10 years ago (well below the age limit) as I was only attending gliding schools in my role as co-opted Wing Staff Gliding Liaison Officer and the Wing Co used this as an excuse to get rid of me; I was unable to attend the Squadron very often due to my shiftwork but the situation then was:
Uniform was free; issued from the Supply Section at our 'parent' RAF Station (Naphill; we were at Marlow). This applies to re-issues due to growth.
Cadet's parents were from all walks of life; we had one whose father was an airline pilot, another whose mother was a widow.
Nearest club would be at Booker which is entirely aerotow thus would have been expensive.

[ExAscoteer]

Fair enough. Although the RAF Museum interchanges the terms as does AP 1358, CHAP 7


The authority to wear the 'Flying Badge' is enshrined within QR (RAF) J727 where the term 'Flying Badge' and not brevet is clearly registered (I still have my copy pasted into my Logbook).

Specifically:

J727. Eligibility for Flying Badges. Sponsor: Gp Capt Flying Training (GCFT)

(1) The term "flying badge" is used to include all badges worn by personnel who have successfully completed a prescribed course of flying training. The initial award of a flying badge is on a provisional basis. It is not deemed to be fully earned until the holder has successfully completed an operational conversion or equivalent course and has joined an operational or non-operational unit in the capacity for which the provisional badge has been awarded. Joining is defined for each Service as follows:

(a) RN: on issue of the Certificate of Competence.

(b) Army and RM: on award of the badge.

(c) RAF: On initial award of either Combat Ready status or B1 flying instructional grade.


(2) When the badge has been earned, the holder may continue to wear it after they have ceased to carry out flying duties. Once earned, the badge may be withdrawn only on the directions of the Admiralty Board, the Army Board or the Air Force Board.


(3) The flying badge may be withdrawn at the discretion of the appropriate Service Board if the holder fails to complete the training specified in clause (1) above. The badge may also be withdrawn if at any time the holder is removed permanently from flying duties for disciplinary or other reasons.


(4) A member of aircrew who is qualified for more than one badge is not to wear a badge other than that appropriate to the particular flying duty in which they are currently categorised or mustered, except where MOD authority is granted. An individual who is entitled to wear a badge and is undergoing training for another aircrew category may continue to wear the badge of the former category until award of the flying badge of the new category.


(5) The authority for the entitlement to a flying badge is:
RN - MOD(DNW)
Army - MOD(DAAvn)
RAF HQ PTC (Gp Capt Flying Training (GCFT))

Any questions on entitlement are to be forwarded through normal channels to the appropriate authority mentioned above.


(6) Flying badges are to be worn as laid down in the dress regulations for each Service (RAF regulations are published in AP 1358 Dress Regulations for the RAF). Any questions on the wearing of flying badges are to be forwarded through normal channels to HQ PTC (P1(Cer)(RAF)).


(7) (RAF only). The type of badge to be worn is described in Para 206.


I think you'll find that a QR trumps an AP.

(Admittedly that excerpt is taken from an older set of QRs (1999) but I would suggest that the only real change would be to replace HQ PTC with 22 Gp.)

[Random Bloke]

Apologies Beardy; I fell victim to the curse of auto-correct, although I should have checked before hitting submit.

Best wishes for 2018 to you and all on the forum.

[beardy]

It seems I have fallen foul of slang. Badge it is.
Happy New Year

And may the cadets soar above us all.

[cats_five]

I was 'retired' 10 years ago (well below the age limit) as I was only attending gliding schools in my role as co-opted Wing Staff Gliding Liaison Officer and the Wing Co used this as an excuse to get rid of me; I was unable to attend the Squadron very often due to my shiftwork but the situation then was:
Uniform was free; issued from the Supply Section at our 'parent' RAF Station (Naphill; we were at Marlow). This applies to re-issues due to growth.
Cadet's parents were from all walks of life; we had one whose father was an airline pilot, another whose mother was a widow.
Nearest club would be at Booker which is entirely aerotow thus would have been expensive.

Booker has had a reputation for being expensive for a long time, and not because of no winch - the membership etc. is expensive, currently more than Lasham without the facilities Lasham has. Lasham OTOH has a really good deal for young pilots:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0118/6842/files/2018_Youth_Flying_Costs.pdf?12646612889632883819

I really hope that the issues that must have existed to ground a fleet of gliders have been fixed, otherwise the ones that are being returned to service are likely to end up grounded again.

[POBJOY]

It amazes me how we managed to fly thousands of Cadets and send hundreds off solo WITHOUT 'WIGLO'S', e-mails, mobile phones, tablets, websites, BADGES, Twatter, instagrams, and not everyone on a land line t-phone.
Now we have higher ranks all round, massive comms, but no B..... Aircraft;has'nt the penny dropped somewhere. Happy new year to those left trying to pick up the shattered remains of a fine system. WE need an infusion of 'soapy hats' and leadership that FLY.

[POBJOY]

Had a lovely e-mail from Santa re my Christmas list.
He apologised for not being able to comply with my request but said the paperwork to renew his 'night rating' 'multi deer licence' Sleigh exemption', 'freight w&b' not to mention the flight clearances made his normal job quite difficult, and he is considering changing to the N reg for next year.
He sends his regards to the chaps still at the 'coal face' and wondered why none of them appeared in the honours list.

[The Nip]

I apologise for the questions but does anyone know know how many of the Air Cadets join up these days (not historically)..................

Is it a cost effective method of recruitment for the modern generation?

HH,

As it happens there are figures available. All 3 services indulge in 'Engagement'.
This takes various forms, from school visits to week long courses at various locations. The RAF have been at the forefront of this. It is not to be confused with recruitment though. No attempt is made to recruit students as the age of some visits/ courses are too young. One of the main priorities of these is STEM.

Another side to this is the 'engagement' with larger youth organisations, Scouts, etc. Part of this year's celebration is an 'air minded' Scout badge.
Needless to say these teams spend and cost money. The military have decided it is money well spent. The large sums of money given to the ATC appear to show that maybe it is not value for money.

[Tingger]

Had a lovely e-mail from Santa re my Christmas list.
He apologised for not being able to comply with my request but said the paperwork to renew his 'night rating' 'multi deer licence' Sleigh exemption', 'freight w&b' not to mention the flight clearances made his normal job quite difficult, and he is considering changing to the N reg for next year.
He sends his regards to the chaps still at the 'coal face' and wondered why none of them appeared in the honours list.

There are two RAvOs and 5 VGS personnel on the full RAF list for new years honours, awards and commendations.

[PDR1]

Let's remember while everyone talks about it that two years without gliding in the ATC means that an entire generation passing though has missed out on the opportunity. At 16 you can fly, at 18 you have probably left for work or University. Two years is a short time for grown ups and a major part of a lifetime for teenagers.

Is this a "new" rule? When I was an air cadet in the 70s you could put down for flying (power or gliding) from the date you officially joined (at a minimum age of 13yrs, 9months IIRC). I've just checked my Form3822 and saw that my first gliding flight was in a T31 at Tangmere two weeks shy of my 14th birthday, and my first powered flight was in a Chipmunk at Abingdon about six weeks after that. I did my PPL via a flying scholarship at Biggen Hill three months after my 18th birthday, in the summer holiday between A-levels and Uni.

When did the 16yr age limit for flying come in?

PDR

[Olympia 463]

PDR1

I think you are confusing the age at which flying lessons could begin with the age you had to be to go solo.

I did all my gliding in civilian clubs. I took my children flying from quite an early age -10 years onwards. They got used to gliding very quickly, and as soon as they could reach the rudder pedals I began to let them learn to fly. I don't recall any limitations on the age at which you could do this, The ATC probably picked 'nearly fourteen' as a good time to start introducing youngsters to flying. Did anyone ever go solo before sixteen?

[cats_five]

PDR1

I think you are confusing the age at which flying lessons could begin with the age you had to be to go solo.

I did all my gliding in civilian clubs. I took my children flying from quite an early age -10 years onwards. They got used to gliding very quickly, and as soon as they could reach the rudder pedals I began to let them learn to fly. I don't recall any limitations on the age at which you could do this, The ATC probably picked 'nearly fourteen' as a good time to start introducing youngsters to flying. Did anyone ever go solo before sixteen?

When the civilian solo at was 16 my club used to discourage children starting learning to fly until they were over 15, otherwise they would reach the standard and then have a long wait.

Now they can go solo at 14 (obviously only if they reach the standard) they start younger and we more often have to put weights in the glider. Of course they have to be tall enough to reach the pedals whilst also being able to sit where they can get the stick all the way back.

[chevvron]

Is this a "new" rule? When I was an air cadet in the 70s you could put down for flying (power or gliding) from the date you officially joined (at a minimum age of 13yrs, 9months IIRC). I've just checked my Form3822 and saw that my first gliding flight was in a T31 at Tangmere two weeks shy of my 14th birthday, and my first powered flight was in a Chipmunk at Abingdon about six weeks after that. I did my PPL via a flying scholarship at Biggen Hill three months after my 18th birthday, in the summer holiday between A-levels and Uni.

When did the 16yr age limit for flying come in?

PDR
In the '70s, it was the minimum age for commencing a Gliding Proficiency course. When this was re-named 'Basic Gliding Training' in the '80s, another course called 'Initial Gliding Training' for 15 year olds was introduced, the main difference being you couldn't fly solo until you were 16.
It's all changed again since then after I was 'retired'.

[Olympia 463]

Funnily enough none of my kids wanted to fly solo and they never asked to join the club. I think they just liked to be able to brag to their mates that they could fly an aeroplane.

My youngest actually flew once when he was four. We couldn't locate the ballast weight for the Capstan (some idiot had left it in the cable towing truck). He went up as the ballast with one of my mates. He loved it. Highly irregular, but that's one of the beauties of civvy gliding. Between that, and his twelve year old sister who liked driving round the peri track in my car with her siblings on board. She taught herself to drive in that car. Mind you it was an automatic, because I doubt she could have managed a geared car.

[cats_five]

<snip>
My youngest actually flew once when he was four. We couldn't locate the ballast weight for the Capstan (some idiot had left it in the cable towing truck). He went up as the ballast with one of my mates. Highly irregular, but that's one of the beauties of civvy gliding.
<snip>


Not at any club I've flown at.

[Fitter2]

If strapped in securely, and parent happy, why not? I have also flown two small children (with parent's permission) in one seat of a T21 (and one is now an International Comps winner, so it can't have done any harm).

However, we are back in thread drift. There are two main issues, one: how did the aircraft end in an unairworthy state, and two, where does ATC gliding go in the future.

Regarding airworthiness, it is extremelyunlikely that any of the fleet would have put anyone in any danger if given a good DI, pulled out to the launch point and flown. However, the paperwork was incapable of proving that, and a range of people at all levels, but primarily those with the responsibility for oversight are at fault. The ATC fleet was not alone in this regard, and MILCam are trying to ensure it doesn't happen in the future. IMHO, the danger is some unnecessary concentration on trivia at the expense of real engineering knowledge.

Regarding the future, there is, I fear, some nostalgia for a bygone age. Ed Meddings, who was on the team at Detling which evaluated the Cadet Mk3 prototype and pronounced it ideal told me he felt guilty for years afterwards at the torture he had inflicted on a generation or two of instructors. Times and youth have changed in attitudes and other optional activities. The fact the ATC gliding is continuing in any form is a miracle - I wish it the best of luck.

[Olympia 463]

Fitter2
Good on you Fitter. Modern clubs must be pretty droll places. The 'ballast' went on to an honours degree in physics at Imperial College and a telephone number salary - he still remembers that flight though because I wasn't the pilot!

And I think we are well OT. I have read all of this thread right back from where it started and I have to say it makes very interesting and infuriating reading. The initial mistake was made by the PE in allowing their Airships to go ahead and spend all that money. Everything else is history as they say.

I used to get rung up by the PE about this time of year and asked if I had a project on hand that needed a couple of million, and 'could I hurry it up' to get it in the current financial year otherwise some unspent money would be snatched back!!

[cats_five]

Can you strap a 4yo in securely, given its all designed for adults?

And the only way you can be sure the gliders are safe is if the paperwork is present and correct. Would love to be s fly on the wall at southern sailplanes.

[Olympia 463]

Security wasn't the problem. He wanted to see out. Two parachutes and a fat cushion tightened up his straps lovely. He was quite a well grown 4 year old. My mate said he was quiet to the top of the launch and then wouldn't stop talking. He was still talking about it all the way home in the car.

Back on topic. How did all this horrible story come to light? Did something fall off/not work on a Viking, causing an incident/accident? Did the top man get off his chair one day and stroll down to a school and do a personal audit.

[VX275]

The Viking and Vigilants both had ageing aircraft audits carried out on them. Having read both reports I'm sad to say that calling for the pause was the ONLY action in this whole debacle Pippa got right.

What is the point of giving parachutes designed for adults to children? You can get cheaper cushions.
The BMk 71 and 72 used by the VGS had a minimum mass of 37kg, Irvins couldn't believe you could get cadets that small (Oh yes you can). At 37kg the parachute had an opening shock load in excess of 12g, Boscombe never knew the real reading as its test equipment only went up to 12g and that's what the trace was clipped at

[Olympia 463]

VX275,

What exactly is an 'ageing aircraft audit'? How old did you have to be to get one if you were a glider. The Civil side of gliding never had anything like that when I was flying. Following Cof A our machines were deemed to be good as new. Was this 'audit' a kind of super CofA? What sort of defects were found that justified grounding or was it just the paperwork irregularities.

PS who is this 'Pippa'? If he/she was indeed derelict in his/her duty here, why has there been no penalty.

[PDR1]

"Ageing Aircraft Audit" is a routine part of the MAA (carried over from previous regs) airworthiness system. IIRC (I've not been in that world for 7 years) the first AAA comes at 5yrs after ISD, and then every 5 years thereafter. They are intended to see if thgere's a forest hidden by the trees which the front-line staff are maintaining.

PDR

[Arclite01]

PDR

The only output I've ever seen from AAA is the removal of a capability rather than an engineering solution. Really AAA should have 2 outputs for me:

1. A status report with a suggested OOS date
2. A strategy for the maintenance of the capability or replacement of.....

Arc

[cats_five]

The Viking and Vigilants both had ageing aircraft audits carried out on them. Having read both reports I'm sad to say that calling for the pause was the ONLY action in this whole debacle Pippa got right.

What is the point of giving parachutes designed for adults to children? You can get cheaper cushions.
The BMk 71 and 72 used by the VGS had a minimum mass of 37kg, Irvins couldn't believe you could get cadets that small (Oh yes you can). At 37kg the parachute had an opening shock load in excess of 12g, Boscombe never knew the real reading as its test equipment only went up to 12g and that's what the trace was clipped at

I'm guessing these audits aren't publically available :(

As to parachutes as cushions etc., I know someone who has a phrase of 'if it will look stupid in the accident report don't do it' and personally I think using parachutes and a cushion to fit a 4yo in a glider falls in that category. BTW I hope the cushion was Dynafoam or similar energy absorbing foam, not squishy furnishing foam which can worsen injury after a crash.

https://members.gliding.co.uk/library/safety-briefings/safety-foam/

Trampoline accidents are similar to a high-g crash on normal foam - all is well as you sink into it, then it rebounds and it all gets painful. I speak from experience on the trampoline front.

On the flying front I did a horrid landing in front of the CFI at another club, and the person who came to help retrieve the glider was concerned about my back, which I knew was fine. The seat cushion is about 2cm of Dynafoam.

My glider was sent for a free heavy landing check by the CFI which thankfully showed it was fine.

[cats_five]

"Ageing Aircraft Audit" is a routine part of the MAA (carried over from previous regs) airworthiness system. IIRC (I've not been in that world for 7 years) the first AAA comes at 5yrs after ISD, and then every 5 years thereafter. They are intended to see if thgere's a forest hidden by the trees which the front-line staff are maintaining.

PDR

Unless the MAA is vastly more complicated than EASA there isn't a forest, more a small copse for gliders especially simple ones like Vikings. Fixed undercarriage, no engine, no flaps, basic instruments, possibly no electrics at all fells many woods.

However I do suspect that putting the Vikings on the civil register as they are recovered would be worthwhile and I hope to hell that the units receiving them are given suitable instruction in keeping them airworthy after all the expense with tax-payers money that has gone into recovering them.

If the units haven't and things carry on as before the pause the outcome can only be another 'pause' only (probably) a permanent one.

[Caconym]

The website 'whatdotheyknow' might be helpful, some ageing aircraft audits were supplied, amongst other things, in response to FOI requests. Obviously varying the search terms might yield different results. I would post a link but PPRuNe won't let me just yet.

[Engines]

Perhaps I can help here. I have both of the Ageing Aircraft Audits, obtained via FOI requests. The Viking’s was done in 2002, the Vigilant’s in 2009.

I’d be grateful for advice on how to attach documents to a reply- am on the road, so will sort it in a few days.

Hope this helps

Engines

[POBJOY]

Not much to 'age' on a Viking, and especially if proper pre flights are carried out to include heavy landing checks. The machines have proved fine for the job intended and quite suitable for Ist solo excursions. In VGS use they have quite a cosseted existence as most of the time they are in a proper hangar and in the main flown by a limited no of people. I do hope the units that are to be 'spared' get back online with suitable staff ASAP, and that the crass 'anti civ volunteer' direction from 2FTS gets dispelled, and the H&S brigade do not throw the baby out with the bathwater with regard to operating the ground equipment.
In fact a change at the top at Syerston would be a welcome improvement for morale and leadership capability.

[PDR1]

OK, that all-seeing know-all Mr Google tells me that either my memory was at fault or the regs have changed. I clsuspect the latter, but as my memory hasn't been subjected to an Ageing Anatomy Audit I must have an open mind toward the former.

BS aside, Mr goole tell me the current regulation is RA5723 (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-article-ra-5723-ageing-aircraft-audit) and the initial audit becomes due at 15 years from ISD* rather than five, with repeats at 10 year intervals. This is for aircraft which are new at the time of ISD - for pre-cherished aeroplanes an earlier review date is to be agreed before ISD. Where pre-cherished aeroplanes are already arguably "ageing" there is a mandatory requirement for an AAA prior to main-gate procurement approval (ie as part of the purchase process, before commitment of funding or agreement of price).

You can read the details in the above link, but there are a few higlights:

A expectation/aspiration that an AAA should be completed with recommendations issued within 2 years.

A provision for waiver if the requirement for a short-duration fleet where it can be shown that no member of the fleet will achieve more than 50% of a cleared life (of any component) before the planned OSD


A provision for using data from a comparable airworthiness programme for the type to avoid duplication of effort to meet some of the requirements of the AAA where felt appropriate and agreed (in advance).


The AAA is comprised of seperate audits of structural, systems and propulsion ageing.


The actual document does cite JSP886 amongst its references, which as far as I know is now a withdrawn document (but I doubt that affects much)


On my reading it looks like a pretty sensible process - YMMV.

PDR

* or the mid-point between ISD and OSD, whichever is the sooner

[PDR1]

Again, that know-all Mr google has pointed me to the AAA reports in question.

That for the Viking may be found here (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/394927/response/1004180/attach/3/20170711%20Vigilant%20Rev%20Final.doc.pdf), while that for the Vigilant may be found here (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/394927/response/978816/attach/3/FOI%20Scan%20redacted.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1) (well the structural audit bit of it, in an abstracted form at least. The propulsiuon and systems audits are not included for some obscure reason).

PDR

[Olympia 463]

Mr Google took me straight to the audit report on the Vigilant, but there seems not to be a Viking one. The report is 88 pages long, terribly verbose, and at the end of it I could see no recommendations that suggested grounding. Shurely shome mishtake as 007 would have it. If this report is not the basis of the grounding then what is? This whole business is beginning to smell. Looks awful like civil servants covering their arses in paper.

[sedburgh]

... If this report is not the basis of the grounding then what is?

The basis of the grounding (described at the time as a 'pause' ) is documented in Duty Holder Advice Notice (DHAN) 20140417 - DHA/86, this has previously been made available under FOI and can be found here. (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/491324/20150121-FOI08296Attachment.pdf)

[cats_five]

You can't do a heavy landing check as part of the Di as the seat pans have to be removed. It should also be noted as such in the logbook and in easa land I believe signed by am inspector. You also have to check the tailboom very carefully and possibly spars as a very sudden stop can cause damage as the wings try to continue.

What I remember of the heavy landing check on my glider involved taking out the seat pan, close inspection of the undercarriage and using a powerful torch to check the tailboom.

[cats_five]

The basis of the grounding (described at the time as a 'pause' ) is documented in Duty Holder Advice Notice (DHAN) 20140417 - DHA/86, this has previously been made available under FOI and can be found here. (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/491324/20150121-FOI08296Attachment.pdf)

Unfortunately the details are wrapped up in phrases similar to 'other serious issues'

[Mechta]

Not much to 'age' on a Viking, and especially if proper pre flights are carried out to include heavy landing checks. The machines have proved fine for the job intended and quite suitable for Ist solo excursions. In VGS use they have quite a cosseted existence as most of the time they are in a proper hangar and in the main flown by a limited no of people. I do hope the units that are to be 'spared' get back online with suitable staff ASAP, and that the crass 'anti civ volunteer' direction from 2FTS gets dispelled, and the H&S brigade do not throw the baby out with the bathwater with regard to operating the ground equipment.
In fact a change at the top at Syerston would be a welcome improvement for morale and leadership capability.

Accident or hangar damage aside, gelcoat cracks are one of the main issues to be addressed on gliders of this age. Gelcoat was designed for furniture, not aircraft, and, being more brittle than the epoxy/glass, it will eventually crack. After 18000 or so winch launches that the Vikings are likely to have done, landings on bumpy grass airfields and the subsequent flexing on bumpy retrieve to the launch point, cracks do appear. Most are only in the gelcoat, but once they get significant, they need to be investigated just in case they extend into the epoxy resin and glass.
At present, the only way to check this is to remove the gelcoat and look. This removal and refinishing is very time consuming.

Pages 64 to 67 of the attached document give Alexander Schleicher's description of crack inspection.
http://www.aeroclubrieti.it/w/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ASK21-Maintenance-Manual-Revision-2006-I-IVWO.pdf

Some more good info here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.aviation.soaring/_aMFi3fva9o

[cats_five]

Some k21s are reaching 12,000 hours and reflifing, neither of the two I know have needed cracks checking as per the above. The two common locations for wear & tear are at the tail end of the tailboom and the corners of the airbrake boxes.

[cats_five]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://members.gliding.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/04/1430312110_4-3.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiyqLvtl77YAhWFbFAKHWhJCGIQFgg9MAQ&usg=AOvVaw0-EJXF__ICHZpsxW4VX5Y9

Heavy landing checks, clearly not part of a normal daily inspection

[Olympia 463]

In all the clubs I have been in (5) a heavy landing inspection took place immediately after the event, and NOT at the next DI. If you chose to check for a heavy landing at DI it might take all day! Your's must be a funny club.

[cats_five]

In all the clubs I have been in (5) a heavy landing inspection took place immediately after the event, and NOT at the next DI. If you chose to check for a heavy landing at DI it might take all day! Your's must be a funny club.

Which is exactly as it should be. Another poster suggested that "if proper pre flights are carried out to include heavy landing checks".

[POBJOY]

The whole point of a DI is to ascertain the 'airworthiness' of a machine at that time.
The ATC Gliding School operations were in the main a w-end activity and staff not always present every w-end, therefore there could be a certain lack of continuity in knowledge of events.
When I attended a Glider Inspection course at Swanton Morley it was always made clear to me that 'damage' was frequently difficult to spot unless close attention was given to the areas prone to landing issues, and it should be remembered that this could also include running over airfield ruts left by wheel tracks in the winter. In the main the suspect items were skids and the wheel box, and we usually DI'd in the hangar as it was easier to inspect that area on a flat clear surface (with lead light or torch if required).
Not ALL incidents get reported and there are no instrument recordings to refer to on most gliders therefore a proper DI should include the assumption that the machine MAY have been 'stressed' over the norm.

[cats_five]

Yes a DI needs to be through, but it's nothing like a genuine heavy landing inspection. For one thing you didn't routinely derig... I also wonder if 'modern' glass gliders are more robust. What causes the damage to ours is not running over frozen rutted fields - if they are that bad we don't fly - but in the case of single seaters poorly handled arrivals. Despite some excellent hangers we have also had hanger rash mostly where some pilots are far too eager to push a glider in and push too fast. We have also had ground handling accidents that have damage gliders. So yes, we are taught where to look for a DI but it falls well short of a real heavy landing inspection.

[onlyme]

Is it just me or has this thread long since drifted away from its title? Interesting stuff but not much to do with Air Cadets being grounded.

Shall we move on?

[cats_five]

Is it just me or has this thread long since drifted away from its title? Interesting stuff but not much to do with Air Cadets being grounded.

Shall we move on?


There is very little to be said about the grounding. For a fleet of in the region of 100 gliders spread around the country to all be grounded must have taken a systemic failure from the top to the bottom of the organisation - only the Cadets are blameless.

It would have happened whatever the gliders were. Some of them are being 'recovered' e.g. minutely inspected and work done as required, paperwork correct and up-today and are starting to emerge and fly again.

The big question I don't think I've seen addressed is what has been done to ensure yet another systemic top to bottom failure doesn't happen now the gliders are fit to fly again.

If it hasn't been addressed the tax payer will simply end up paying again. :mad:

Additionally the ATC seem to have made it as hard as possible for cadets to get an air experience at a BGA club - my club has no problems with an air experience day or evening for a local school but the ATC gold-plated their requirements, plus seemed incapable of doing the arranging doing the winter so we could fit it in with our other summer flying.

As far as I know none of the individual units had more gliders than the largest clubs so keeping on top of maintenance & paperwork should not have been beyond them.

[Big Pistons Forever]

There is very little to be said about the grounding. For a fleet of in the region of 100 gliders spread around the country to all be grounded must have taken a systemic failure from the top to the bottom of the organisation - only the Cadets are blameless.
.

I wonder if the organization has passed the point of no return with respect to having a flying program for air cadets. As a outsider looking in there does not appear to be any interest in the senior leadership promoting anything beyond the scenario where all existing and future air cadets are going to get is a few air experience flights.

Sadly it seems that the incompetence that created the original requirement to ground all air cadet aircraft has now combined with an extremely risk averse leadership cadre that have leveraged "Health and Safety" concerns into a defacto ban on air cadet flying training.

I contrast what is happening in the UK with the situation in Canada where a vibrant Air Cadet gliding program produces over 300 new Air Cadet fully licensed glider pilots ever year.

The one thing I have noticed is that in Canada the Air Cadet program enjoys very high support from many influential serving and retired General Officers, all of whom got there first flying lessons in an Air Cadet glider. In fact about 5 years there was a move to reduce the Air Force support to the Air Cadets which would have greatly reduced Air Cadet gliding.

The overwhelming instant opposition to this move by many important figures caused an immediate about face by the Department of National Defence.

[cats_five]

Got the impression the ATC gliding here has never aimed to get most cadets to fully licensed glider pilots.

Any chance the newly airworthy gliders will stay in that state?

[dervish]

There is very little to be said about the grounding. For a fleet of in the region of 100 gliders spread around the country to all be grounded must have taken a systemic failure from the top to the bottom of the organisation - only the Cadets are blameless.


Reasons set out earlier in this and other threads. They've even been published in a book.

The big question I don't think I've seen addressed is what has been done to ensure yet another systemic top to bottom failure doesn't happen now the gliders are fit to fly again.

The failings resulted in the Hadden-Cave review and MoD set up the MAA. So you need to ask why the gliders were grounded four years after it was formed.

[Chugalug2]

Good Post, dervish. Thank you! I take it that the book you refer to is Their Greatest Disgrace by David Hill. It describes the systemic failures that were deliberately created by RAF VSOs in the 80s/90s and that infect the UK Military Airfleet to this day (including ACO gliders!).

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Their-Greatest-Disgrace-campaign-Chinook-ebook/dp/B01J1YVRH0/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1515329242&sr=1-1&keywords=Their+greatest+disgrace


It also describes the systemic cover up of those VSO actions which prevents proper reform of UK Military Air Accident Investigation and Regulation to this day. This accident was the most costly airworthiness related UK Military Air Accident but by no means the only one. 74 deaths have featured in military airworthiness related air accidents in this forum alone.

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

[Avtur]

If there was a "Like" button, it would be pressed for Chug & Dervish's post.

[chevvron]

Got the impression the ATC gliding here has never aimed to get most cadets to fully licensed glider pilots.

Most cadets were taught to a level sufficient to be awarded the BGA A & B certificate and that was it. Very few failed to reach this stage as the instructors would persevere until they did.
Chosen ones like Pobjoy, Jem 60 and myself were deemed worthy of further training and became Staff Cadets on our gliding schools and given further training enabling us to take passengers on AEG and maybe become instructors ourselves.
Sorry if that sounds a bit pompous but that's the way it was.

[cats_five]

Most cadets were taught to a level sufficient to be awarded the BGA A & B certificate and that was it. Very few failed to reach this stage as the instructors would persevere until they did.
Chosen ones like Pobjoy, Jem 60 and myself were deemed worthy of further training and became Staff Cadets on our gliding schools and given further training enabling us to take passengers on AEG and maybe become instructors ourselves.
Sorry if that sounds a bit pompous but that's the way it was.

Whereas just about all the cadets where I fly reach GPL standard, which I believe is approximately Bronze (BGA qualification) plus XC endorsement. That clearly is a lot more than flying a solo circuit, and probably more than the Staff Cadets did.

What however is truly bizarre is allowing staff cadets to take passengers, but BGA BIs who have achieved a somewhat higher level of qualification!

[cats_five]

Good Post, dervish. Thank you! I take it that the book you refer to is Their Greatest Disgrace by David Hill. It describes the systemic failures that were deliberately created by RAF VSOs in the 80s/90s and that infect the UK Military Airfleet to this day (including ACO gliders!).

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Their-Greatest-Disgrace-campaign-Chinook-ebook/dp/B01J1YVRH0/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1515329242&sr=1-1&keywords=Their+greatest+disgrace


It also describes the systemic cover up of those VSO actions which prevents proper reform of UK Military Air Accident Investigation and Regulation to this day. This accident was the most costly airworthiness related UK Military Air Accident but by no means the only one. 74 deaths have featured in military airworthiness related air accidents in this forum alone.

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

So the irony seems to be that had the Vikings been on the G Register under oversight of the BGA, they might never have been grounded.

[Olympia 463]

Considering the vast improvement in performance of modern gliders, plus things like GPS I would not regard the GPL as proving very much. Even in my time many moons ago, we always said the the only worthwhile qualification for a glider pilot was Silver C. I ran out the statistics at three clubs I was in, and only one in ten of the people who joined the club as ab-initios made it to Bronze, never mind Silver. I doubt more than 5% made it to Silver in those days.

I think that the Silver C tasks need revising in any case. I would drop the five hours altogether which proved nothing except the strength of your bladder. I did it in thermals, because I thought that was the spirit of the task, but most folk snuck off to a ridge site. The distance ought to be at least !00km maybe even 150km, and the height gain at least 2000m. Achieving that standard ought to be possible these days. I'm thinking of having a wooden surround made for my Silver Badge to make the point.

[cats_five]

The whole point of a DI is to ascertain the 'airworthiness' of a machine at that time.
The ATC Gliding School operations were in the main a w-end activity and staff not always present every w-end, therefore there could be a certain lack of continuity in knowledge of events.
<snip>

Hence the importance of the DI book, of reading it and of filling it in correctly.

Considering the vast improvement in performance of modern gliders, plus things like GPS I would not regard the GPL as proving very much.

No? Pilots with a GPL will have some 50 launches & landings under their belt, in a variety of conditions. They are ready to do their silver badge - indeed them might have done the first two legs.

If you are going to insist on 2,000m for a Silver height gain that is almost impossible in thermal conditions in the UK given that cloud flying is a no-no these days.

If you increase the silver distance you are not actually making it harder, except for any retrieve crew. The pilot is still out of glide range for the first time, having to find lift in an area they are not familiar with (and land features can influence thermals to quite a degree), and often faced with a first landing somewhere they have never seen before which can be challenging even if it's another airfield.

GPS can help, and given the complexity of airspace today compared to 20 years ago that's a very good thing.

However this is all irrelevant when it comes to ATC gliding.

[Arclite01]

Cats

Staff Cadets could not 'automatically' take passengers.

They had to make it to a certain Grade to take passengers much like the BI Grade in the BGA world. A G1 (Passenger Carrying) in the ATC world would probably equate to the old 'Air Experience Instructor' Rating or 'Passenger Pilot' in the BGA of many years ago............

G1 used to have to have at least 50 solo flights before they could be considered for the test..... in practice this meant at least 75 solo flights ( so probably 500 launches) before they could be considered. Then they had to take a test with a 'Flying Supervisor' before the Grade was issued. The Grade was subject to Quarterly check and Annual renewal - so pretty rigorous actually (more than most BGA clubs that I've been a member of.......)

Arc

[Shaft109]

It almost shames me to say it but apart from the great friends and acquaintances I made over 2 stints in VGS operations I've washed my hands of the whole show.

It's lost it's way is an understatement - I really admire those who have selflessly continued to give time and effort but I just can't see how it can continue until it drowns in red tape and the goodwill dries up.:suspect:

[longer ron]

Cats

Staff Cadets could not 'automatically' take passengers.
G1 used to have to have at least 50 solo flights before they could be considered for the test..... in practice this meant at least 75 solo flights ( so probably 500 launches) before they could be considered. Then they had to take a test with a 'Flying Supervisor' before the Grade was issued. The Grade was subject to Quarterly check and Annual renewal - so pretty rigorous actually (more than most BGA clubs that I've been a member of.......)

Arc

Although I was never a GS staff cadet,I joined the staff of 613 whilst I was an apprentice at Halton - I have just looked in my old log book and I see that I got my P2 rating (P2 later became Grade1 so exact equiv) @ 267 launches.Unless a GS pilot was outstanding or perhaps if there was a shortage of P2/G1's there was never any hurry to get people qualified and we were allowed plenty of time to accrue experience.

Hope you had a great xmas Arc :)

[cats_five]

Cats

Staff Cadets could not 'automatically' take passengers.

They had to make it to a certain Grade to take passengers much like the BI Grade in the BGA world. A G1 (Passenger Carrying) in the ATC world would probably equate to the old 'Air Experience Instructor' Rating or 'Passenger Pilot' in the BGA of many years ago............

G1 used to have to have at least 50 solo flights before they could be considered for the test..... in practice this meant at least 75 solo flights ( so probably 500 launches) before they could be considered. Then they had to take a test with a 'Flying Supervisor' before the Grade was issued. The Grade was subject to Quarterly check and Annual renewal - so pretty rigorous actually (more than most BGA clubs that I've been a member of.......)

Arc

I realise that, but equally are I'm sure they are nothing like the equivalent of a BGA Full Cat Instructor which is what the ATC were saying had to fly any Cadets that went to a BGA club as part of the ATC.

I'm also surprised at as many as 500 launches e.g. 500 flights. Cadets are teenagers, they learn very quickly.

People where I fly who want a Family & Friends rating (allows them to take family & friends, they are P1 and fly in the front) a Bronze is required, plus permission from the CFI, plus a flying test, plus must be current on glider type & launch method, plus each & every flight has to be authorised by the Duty Instructor.

[Arclite01]

Cats

Sounds like both organisations have an adequate level of qualifications and oversight at a flying level for the required task.

It appears to be in other areas there are deficiencies :-)

Regards

Arc

[cats_five]

Cats

Sounds like both organisations have an adequate level of qualifications and oversight at a flying level for the required task.

It appears to be in other areas there are deficiencies :-)

Regards

Arc

Indeed, but have the ATC sorted their airworthiness deficiencies or are the recovered gliders going to be grounded again in a few months or years?

[planesandthings]

I realise that, but equally are I'm sure they are nothing like the equivalent of a BGA Full Cat Instructor which is what the ATC were saying had to fly any Cadets that went to a BGA club as part of the ATC.


Though the rules were relaxed slightly, it's still very strange that a lot of the time 2FTS insisted on Assistant/Full Category instructors to fly cadets at BGA sites when their own G1s are significantly less experienced than this (let-alone barely current after the pause).
Even as a experienced assistant category instructor I couldn't fly cadets as being 20, I did not meet the required "21-65" age bracket to fly cadets, a very strange rule seeing as the VGSs have triumphed with young instructors for decades . :ugh:

It was no wonder that some clubs gave up trying to fly cadets and focused on developing their own fantastic junior flying schemes (that have caused a few defections!). Hopefully ACTO35 as it was then has been tamed down. It's only the cadets that lose out... not the BGA clubs or 2FTS.

[cats_five]

Though the rules were relaxed slightly, it's still very strange that a lot of the time 2FTS insisted on Assistant/Full Category instructors to fly cadets at BGA sites when their own G1s are significantly less experienced than this (let-alone barely current after the pause).
Even as a experienced assistant category instructor I couldn't fly cadets as being 20, I did not meet the required "21-65" age bracket to fly cadets, a very strange rule seeing as the VGSs have triumphed with young instructors for decades . :ugh:

It was no wonder that some clubs gave up trying to fly cadets and focused on developing their own fantastic junior flying schemes (that have caused a few defections!). Hopefully ACTO35 as it was then has been tamed down. It's only the cadets that lose out... not the BGA clubs or 2FTS.

Indeed, we have had more than one BI who was under 21. But most BGA clubs were developing their own Junior flying schemes long before this debacle surfaced.

[Frelon]

Indeed, we have had more than one BI who was under 21. But most BGA clubs were developing their own Junior flying schemes long before this debacle surfaced.

This is not a p!ssing contest between the BGA clubs and Air Cadet Gliding, your postings are now getting boring!

Very early on you admitted that "I have no idea what the ATC do as I was never part of the organisation. I'm looking in from outside." and posted "So let's hear it - what is the real point of ATC gliding? Teaching cadets to fly a glider, or something else hung on a bit of gliding?"

Many forumites have tried to educate you about how Air Cadet gliding is/was not about making cross country soaring pilots! But you appear not able to read, or are ignoring the many postings with the answers!

Interestingly you posted "There is very little to be said about the grounding. For a fleet of in the region of 100 gliders spread around the country to all be grounded must have taken a systemic failure from the top to the bottom of the organisation - only the Cadets are blameless. "

This is where you are wrong. Of course the cadets are blameless but so are the unpaid volunteer staff (instructors and staff cadets at the various VGS around the country). The problems lay with those highly paid VSOs who were responsible for allowing this debacle to get to the state that it was in over a number of years.

Engines pointed out, "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."

You rightly said, "It would have happened whatever the gliders were. Some of them are being 'recovered' e.g. minutely inspected and work done as required, paperwork correct and up-today and are starting to emerge and fly again. The big question I don't think I've seen addressed is what has been done to ensure yet another systemic top to bottom failure doesn't happen now the gliders are fit to fly again."

Believe you me Cat, those at the top will never allow this to happen again. There is going to be so much paperwork you will not believe it. Everybody involved will have to sign their lives away.

So Cat forget about how the BGA is better than Air Cadet flying. We have read your posts, some of which are constructive, but most are showing your complete lack of understanding of Air Cadet gliding.

I respect your civilian gliding experience, but there are some posters here who have instructed with the Air Cadets and are now instructing with the BGA (indeed some do both quite well).

The question we should all be asking is when are we going to see the end of this debacle and get the Air Cadets back where they belong, in the air, in gliders?

Good luck to those trying to make it happen.

[cats_five]

Believe you me Cat, those at the top will never allow this to happen again. There is going to be so much paperwork you will not believe it. Everybody involved will have to sign their lives away.

What is needed is understanding at all levels including volunteers of what airworthiness involves and why it matters, not more paperwork - at least not more paperwork than if they were on the G register.

Anyone involved in anything to do with airworthiness (paid or not) including a DI, needs at least a basic understanding of what they should do and equally important, what they should NOT do.

As to the ATC - there are many commendable organisations for children and teenagers to belong to including not only the ATC, but the other cadet forces, Scouts, Guides, Cubs, Brownies, orchestras, sports clubs, dance studios, and even BGA gliding clubs. Is the ATC seriously the very best of them? I do feel there is an awful lot of 'rosy glasses' going on about how the ATC used to be.

[Olympia 463]

Cats 5

I agree with Frelon. You seem to have no idea what the ATC is/was about. I was trained in a BGA club exclusively by ex-ATC instructors. The most patient and helpful men you could hope to come across. I eventually became an instructor, and flew with three BGA clubs. I wish I could say that all my fellow instructors were like the ATC chaps. In one club they were so macho that the CFI asked me to take over training all the lady ab-initios because several of them had been shouted at by their instructors. Apparently I had a gentler approach. Also the competitive element in the BGA flying was always causing friction in the instructing branch. I hated going to instructors meetings in one club because of the attitude of some of my fellow instructors. Most sports (and the BGA is a sporting organisation, make no mistake) tend to develop people with big heads. I'm quite sure the ATC would have dealt with that in very short order.

As Frelon says there is no way you can compare what the ATC was trying to do with what the BGA does.

[cats_five]

OK, the BGA trains pilots to whatever standard (up to GPL) they desire, and most clubs also do a lot of air experience flying. What ATC does seems to have changed over time, but it seems most ATC cadets if they are lucky get as far as one solo flight, and a select few can continue.

Most pilots regard gliding as a relaxation and a hobby, not a sport. Sailing clubs are quite different - if you sail on a small inland puddle the only way to make it endlessly entertaining is to race. But the sailing clubs I belonged to didn't develop people with big heads, though it was very hard to shrink them on people who turned up like that. Ditto photography clubs.

You seem to have had some unfortunate experiences with the BGA clubs you belonged to, and any instructor who shouts (other than 'I have' or 'stop') needs retraining. No-one learns (or learns well) when shouted at and adult learners are more than capable of sticking up two fingers and walking. In my view the macho club needed the CFI in partnership with the Board to change the culture. However nearly everyone at most BGA clubs is unpaid, so it can be hard to make significant changes.

Not sure though how the competitive element caused friction amongst the instructors but there again I didn't belong to that club at that time.

But would the ATC have 'dealt with it in short time'? It might depend on which ATC unit you are talking about. Just as each BGA club has it's own subculture (some of them highly undesirable), and each sailing club & photography club does (ditto & ditto), I would be amazed if each ATC unit was an exact clone of all the others.

[chevvron]

I was a P2 Grade pilot (G1 nowadays) at the age of 17 and able to fly cadets for AEG. A year later I was well on the way to being a 'C' Cat instructor (flying with the CO, then he would allocate me a proficiency cadet to whom I was to give instruction in primary and further effects while he - the CO - monitored me) but chickened out.

[chevvron]

Although I was never a GS staff cadet,I joined the staff of 613 whilst I was an apprentice at Halton - I have just looked in my old log book and I see that I got my P2 rating (P2 later became Grade1 so exact equiv) @ 267 launches.Unless a GS pilot was outstanding or perhaps if there was a shortage of P2/G1's there was never any hurry to get people qualified and we were allowed plenty of time to accrue experience.

Hope you had a great xmas Arc :)
Ken Baylis checked me out for my P2 at 613 and my first AEG cadet was at 290 launches just a month before my 18th birthday.

[pulse1]

I spent nearly every weekend for 10 years gliding, initially at BGA clubs, and then as an ATC instructor. I honestly cannot remember ever hearing any instructor shouting at any student. Taking as read the different aims of the two organisations, the outstanding difference I remember very clearly is in consistency of instruction.

When I initially learned at the London Gliding Club, we students were getting frustrated by being taught different circuit procedures by the various instructors. Although the Club recognised this problem they seemed incapable of sorting it out, at least while I was there. This problem was further demonstrated when I moved to Cranfield and we received a visit from the BGA National Coach in his Capstan. After he had flown several dangerous approaches the CFI was pleased to see the back of him.

With the oversight of the Central Gliding School this was never a problem for the ATC. Yes, the character of each school depended very much on the personalities of of the officers in charge, but in my experience, the quality of instruction is remarkably consistent.

[cats_five]

I spent nearly every weekend for 10 years gliding, initially at BGA clubs, and then as an ATC instructor. I honestly cannot remember ever hearing any instructor shouting at any student. Taking as read the different aims of the two organisations, the outstanding difference I remember very clearly is in consistency of instruction.

<snip>.

Not sure when this was, I'm guessing some time ago since the National Coach flew a Capstan. However the BGA now puts a lot of effort into standardising instruction, though obviously circuits & circuit planning have to vary from club to club.

[Olympia 463]

My first flight carrying a passenger was number 468 in my log book. By flight 480, after being checked out in three flights by the National Coach in his Capstan, I was an assistant instructor. Two weeks later I was deputising for the Duty Instructor who was ill.

I was in no hurry to passenger fly or instruct, but we had an unexpected shortage of instructors in our club in mid !967, and the CFI pressed me to go on the course with the National Coach, and I was lumbered. I really wanted to go on just flying by myself, but I felt I had to put something back to help out the ex-ATC guys who had trained me. I think I did about 1700 trips instructing. Instructing severely limited my opportunities for solo flying and it took me 11 years to complete my Silver! Five hours done in '66, height in '67, and C/C in '77.

[chevvron]

I spent nearly every weekend for 10 years gliding, initially at BGA clubs, and then as an ATC instructor. I honestly cannot remember ever hearing any instructor shouting at any student. Taking as read the different aims of the two organisations, the outstanding difference I remember very clearly is in consistency of instruction.

When I initially learned at the London Gliding Club, we students were getting frustrated by being taught different circuit procedures by the various instructors. Although the Club recognised this problem they seemed incapable of sorting it out, at least while I was there. This problem was further demonstrated when I moved to Cranfield and we received a visit from the BGA National Coach in his Capstan. After he had flown several dangerous approaches the CFI was pleased to see the back of him.

With the oversight of the Central Gliding School this was never a problem for the ATC. Yes, the character of each school depended very much on the personalities of of the officers in charge, but in my experience, the quality of instruction is remarkably consistent.

We had a LGC instructor at Halton (initials BK) who used to shout at cadets, mind you this was usually when he was in the back seat of a Mk3 and the cadet in front was supposed to wear Gosports and maybe forgot to put them on.
Ray Stafford Allen was a BGA National Coach and had a Capstan (BGA 1133) which he brought to Halton in Sep '66 for a weekend. He didn't let us do the launch or landing, we just flew the circuits.

[EnigmAviation]

Sure thing there !. Forget about BGA, on this thread, a) it's never going to be changed to Air Cadet /BGA United for all manner of reasons b) the aims and objectives are completely different c) it's not bringing anything to the party in terms of the shocking mismanagement by VSO's and d) it's not adding anything about the still minute level of activity given that the entire VGS fleet was brand new in about 1990


And.....whilst on topic, yes the Air Cadets are something pretty great, it has nurtured many, many, outstanding pilots through the medium of the VGS training and the ability to spot young talent. Not only that, for those who didn't necessarily shine in the air, it has also formed the bedrock of future technicians and other ranks through the medium of the teaching and discipline at Squadron level.


Yes, I do thoroughly deprecate the way in which the recent changes have "trashed" the volunteer force, the latest slap down, being the cheap and cheerful "plastic" Queens Commission for Air Cadets as opposed to the RAF VR(T) commission. Even the Commandant herself - a former scribbly, has confessed that "if they'd known what they were embarking upon, they wouldn't have started from here" . What a state of affairs, the blind leading the blind.


On to the future, we have the Chief Spin Doctor, aka Commandant, spurting out Facebook "Good news" stories, but the reality on the ground is rather less good. For example , out of an original 53 Vigilant T Mk1 plus some few others purchased second hand, we now have a huge 6 recovered, with only ONE ( yes one !) flying in any way for Air Cadet training !!, and..........as if that were not enough........it can't be used for Cadet Solo training as it isn't allowed out of the circuit due to lack of FLARM. Then of course, it gets worse, FLARM overheats, can't fix it, and so guess where this is heading when the Duty holder can't sanction anything to get a result !!And they are due out of service in the not too distant !


On the Viking T Mk1, we hear that one or two locations are working up again, but with a much reduced fleet, and only just beginning to produce any Cadet output, which are almost all Blue badge Air Exp sorties.


The PR machine has now introduced different badges for almost anything now, perhaps even one for sitting in a glider, such as the much hyped "simulator" , and "Aerospace camps" where as many aircraft are flown in and Cadets get their backside off the ground.


Add to that, the news that Air Cadet numbers have declined ( yes, their official figures not mine !) by quite a few per cent ( hardly surprising since VGS activity has taken such a hit ), and we can perhaps see where things are going, given the shocking shortage of money in the Defence budget.


Sadly, and very regrettably, the people responsible for this appalling waste of money, ( and potentially exposing Cadets and Instructors to risk if the airworthiness case is correct !) are completely untouched by any disciplinary process, and potentially they may even receive an honour, something which has been short supply for the many totally dedicated and totally professional staff who have been treated so badly.


Time for an Aspirin now !:ugh:

[Freda Checks]

Perhaps needs more than Aspirin as we approach the anniversary of the "pause". Well said Enigma.

I see that Shirley ATC Squadron spent some time getting to Upavon over the weekend for some air ex.....would have spent more time in the bus than in the air!

Quote from their Facebook page....
"1924 (Shirley) Squadron Air Cadets enjoyed a day's gliding with 622VGS at Upavon.

This was the first experience gliding session for Surrey Cadets since the gliding pause and the first for 2018. The cadets enjoying multiple flights in the Grob Viking glider.

The cadets were also presented with their Blue gliding badges, part of the new progressive training system introduced last year."

Well done Shirley and 622, but they must have passed 615 VGS Kenley (which is on their doorstep) on the way!

[cats_five]

Perhaps needs more than Aspirin as we approach the anniversary of the "pause". Well said Enigma.

I see that Shirley ATC Squadron spent some time getting to Upavon over the weekend for some air ex.....would have spent more time in the bus than in the air!

Quote from their Facebook page....
"1924 (Shirley) Squadron Air Cadets enjoyed a day's gliding with 622VGS at Upavon.

This was the first experience gliding session for Surrey Cadets since the gliding pause and the first for 2018. The cadets enjoying multiple flights in the Grob Viking glider.

The cadets were also presented with their Blue gliding badges, part of the new progressive training system introduced last year."

Well done Shirley and 622, but they must have passed 615 VGS Kenley (which is on their doorstep) on the way!


"the Grob Viking glider" Hope there will be more than one in the future

"must have passed 615 VGS Kenley (which is on their doorstep) on the way" has it got any gliders?

[Fitter2]

This thread is indeed not for discussion of the relative merits of BGA Club Junior activities, and ATC flying at the VGSs. There may be room elsewhere for that. However, in the interests of historical accuracy
Ray Stafford Allen was a BGA National Coach and had a Capstan (BGA 1133) which he brought to Halton in Sep '66 for a weekend. He didn't let us do the launch or landing, we just flew the circuits.
Ray was never the (or a) National Coach. He was the BGA Chief Technical Officer before the late, great Dick Stratton, and he was a Senior Instructor.

[Olympia 463]

Quite! As I was TO in my club I had quite a bit to do with Ray Stafford Allen. He wrote a nice little manual on glider maintenance - I still have my copy.

[1.3VStall]

Meanwhile,

Down at Membury, home of Southern Sailplanes, expansion continues. New tractors and gang mowing machines have been procured, the strip has been levelled and extended and there is now talk of a new-build hangar.

Who is funding this burgeoning business empire? We are, of course: the taxpayers. With over 20 gliders now returned to the Air Cadets, at over £100k per airframe, and more that 20 more to go through, Southern Sailplanes are laughing all the way to the bank!

You couldn't script it!

[chevvron]

Perhaps needs more than Aspirin as we approach the anniversary of the "pause". Well said Enigma.

I see that Shirley ATC Squadron spent some time getting to Upavon over the weekend for some air ex.....would have spent more time in the bus than in the air!




Shirley, Shirley is in Lancashire?

[Big Pistons Forever]

The cadets were also presented with their Blue gliding badges, part of the new progressive training system introduced last year."

So what does an Air Cadet actually do to earn the “blue badge”

[chevvron]

This thread is indeed not for discussion of the relative merits of BGA Club Junior activities, and ATC flying at the VGSs. There may be room elsewhere for that. However, in the interests of historical accuracy

Ray was never the (or a) National Coach. He was the BGA Chief Technical Officer before the late, great Dick Stratton, and he was a Senior Instructor.
Sorry; it was 50 odd years ago!

[incubus]

So what does an Air Cadet actually do to earn the “blue badge”
Some classroom lessons, 30 minutes in a "part-task trainer" and a flight in either a glider or Tutor covering basic controls.

[planesandthings]

"the Grob Viking glider" Hope there will be more than one in the future

"must have passed 615 VGS Kenley (which is on their doorstep) on the way" has it got any gliders?

No. I am reliably informed Kenley has issues that are preventing 615 from standing up as H&S has become a major factor with inadequate fencing to keep people off.

Even the BGA Club has had issues with locals treating the entire airfield as a public right of way during the day.

Hopefully it gets sorted.

[POBJOY]

I do not think SS have 'suddenly' risen to great heights because of the Viking debacle.
They already have a good reputation for glass repairs and have approvals from the major manufacturers to conduct serious tech repairs.
The RAF Grob fleet is also an ongoing contract for them and they have been busy sorting out 'tail issues' with that fleet.
In fact they are one of the few companies that are actually 'hands on' with the required work in all this as opposed to the big boys who shuffle paperwork (if they can find it) and are busy clouding this issue with lots more of it that has no impact in getting the fleet serviceable.
SS are only getting paid for work they are doing unlike the other companies in this sad saga who were paid a considerable sum for providing a service that has failed.

[planesandthings]

Meanwhile,

Down at Membury, home of Southern Sailplanes, expansion continues. New tractors and gang mowing machines have been procured, the strip has been levelled and extended and there is now talk of a new-build hangar.

Who is funding this burgeoning business empire? We are, of course: the taxpayers. With over 20 gliders now returned to the Air Cadets, at over £100k per airframe, and more that 20 more to go through, Southern Sailplanes are laughing all the way to the bank!

You couldn't script it!

Who'd blame them? SS have done many ARCs, Repairs, Annuals etc for people I know at reasonable cost.
But the amount of bureaucracy and work that the RAF are making the contractors work through to get these simple aircraft airworthy is staggering and unlike anything seen in civilian gliding for the same aircraft type, just look at how slow Syerston's engineering team was to get aircraft out! Without SS or a similar contractor, Air Cadet Gliding would be dead in the water.

[POBJOY]

There is a civil club operating at Kenley which seem to be operating ok!!!

[planesandthings]

There is a civil club operating at Kenley which seem to be operating ok!!!

Yes but having friends who fly there, they are continuing to have issues with people on the airfield that shouldn't be! Anyone that's been to Kenley knows how unsecure the site is. And as we know, the RAF would not dare risk that until the threat is quite rightly mitigated with better fencing.

[Frelon]

Yes but having friends who fly there, they are continuing to have issues with people on the airfield that shouldn't be! Anyone that's been to Kenley knows how unsecure the site is. And as we know, the RAF would not dare risk that until the threat is quite rightly mitigated with better fencing.

There have always been challenges with flying at Kenley! There is a public footpath that runs across the middle of the airfield.

When I was a lowly staff cadet in the 60's launching was delayed by a person walking across the airfield (the footpath went conveniently from near the Officers' Mess to the Wattenden Arms on the other side of the airfield). I was dispatched with my yellow RAF Land Rover to warn him of his error! When I told him that he had just walked across the cables on an active airfield, he responded, with a certain arrogance, "Do you know who I am?" - (Oh dear first signs of dementia in VSOs!) I responded that irrespective of who he was he should still respect the warning signs at an active airfield. Turned out that he was JJ, the CO of the Kenley Wing during the war.

When RAF Kenley was operational and in the care of the MoD very little was done to repair the fence around the airfield, although the general public respected the airfield as MoD property and little public trespassing occurred. When the RAF left and 615 Gliding School was continuing to operate at weekends, the public felt it was their right to walk freely on the airfield! We suggested that if the MoD was not going to repair the fencing they should plant some Pyracantha Hedging around the boundary! Pyracantha is known for thorns which can easily puncture human skin, and when successful, the piercing causes a slight inflammation and severe pain. Their dense thorny structure makes them particularly valued in situations where an impenetrable barrier is required.

This would have solved the problem, but I suspect that now snowflake H&S would have ripped them out!

Good luck to those trying to get the cadets back into the air.

[treadigraph]

Yes but having friends who fly there, they are continuing to have issues with people on the airfield that shouldn't be! Anyone that's been to Kenley knows how unsecure the site is. And as we know, the RAF would not dare risk that until the threat is quite rightly mitigated with better fencing.

Red sign boards have recently been installed at intervals around the peri-track warning the public of the dangers.

I haven't walked around the airfield while its been active for quite some time so haven't seen any stupidity for a number of years - the last time was a small boy heading off to the centre of the airfield and ignoring his grandad's pleas to come back; 615 were fitting in a last couple of launches before a scheduled fly-by from the BBMF - I hope the little sod got the thrashing of his life!

On a positive note, a local ATC Sqn were doing a charity bag pack at Tesco before Christmas - briefly spoke to a young lady who told me with a huge smile that she'd been awarded a gliding scholarship and was very excited!

[Big Pistons Forever]

The blue badge

Some classroom lessons, 30 minutes in a "part-task trainer" and a flight in either a glider or Tutor covering basic controls.

Nice to see a high bar set for the new Air Cadet flying program:rolleyes:

[Tingger]

All the blue level badges across all subjects have a very low bar for attainment. Apparently they did some studies into what the cadets wanted and more badges for everything was the outcome.

[brokenlink]

Chevron hi, just to confirm that the Shirley squadron in the post is in Surrey on the outskirts of Croydon. I know it well, it's the unit I started my career in the VR(T) in during 1993.

[David Thompson]

The Facebook page for 645 VGS at Topcliffe has details of four cadets who went solo from there before Christmas as part of the Silver Wings Gliding Scholarship ; https://www.facebook.com/645VolunteerGlidingSquadron/ . Well done to those four cadets and perhaps the numbers of cadets getting airborne is increasing but just not being publicised ?

[A and C]

Meanwhile,

Down at Membury, home of Southern Sailplanes, expansion continues. New tractors and gang mowing machines have been procured, the strip has been levelled and extended and there is now talk of a new-build hangar.

Who is funding this burgeoning business empire? We are, of course: the taxpayers. With over 20 gliders now returned to the Air Cadets, at over £100k per airframe, and more that 20 more to go through, Southern Sailplanes are laughing all the way to the bank!

You couldn't script it!

1.3vs has a talent for exaggerating that would clearly find him a new job writing for one of the tabloid newspapers, a thirty year old tractor and mower is replaced by one ( almost ) new machine, the grass Runway is re-aligned due to the solar farm being built on the site, the strip being levelled by a roller towed behind the ( almost )new tractor.

“You couldn’t script it “ says 1.3vs, not people would not even bother to script normal day to day business but it now doubt makes good conversation in the gliding club cafe when low cloud brings in those who gather around a single cup of tea with six straws.

[EnigmAviation]

Post 3980 -David Thompson refers


Well yes 4 Cadets have gone solo before Christmas, but i'll let you into a secret, the Cadets won't be going solo after Christmas ! As the 1 Vigilant there cannot leave the circuit, they can't do Ex 10 Stalling, thus they cannot go solo QED !!! I'm sure that the hierarchy will not be promulgating that good news !

[Wander00]

Enigma - care to expand on that gem.....

[cats_five]

Post 3980 -David Thompson refers


Well yes 4 Cadets have gone solo before Christmas, but i'll let you into a secret, the Cadets won't be going solo after Christmas ! As the 1 Vigilant there cannot leave the circuit, they can't do Ex 10 Stalling, thus they cannot go solo QED !!! I'm sure that the hierarchy will not be promulgating that good news !

I was hoping these were Viking solo pilots. :(

[cats_five]

Yes but having friends who fly there, they are continuing to have issues with people on the airfield that shouldn't be! Anyone that's been to Kenley knows how unsecure the site is. And as we know, the RAF would not dare risk that until the threat is quite rightly mitigated with better fencing.

And there has been a fatal accident in the past where someone walking on an airfield was killed when struck by the wing of a landing glider. :(

[cats_five]

<snip>
FLARM overheats, can't fix it
<snip>
( and potentially exposing Cadets and Instructors to risk if the airworthiness case is correct !)
<snip>


Good grief where is the FLARM mounted that it overheats? The Grob 109 where I fly has no such problem with it's FLARM, neither do all the gliders that have them on above the panel directly under the glasshouse of the canopy. I'm wondering what else might be overheating as well.

If the paperwork was incorrect then the airframe can't be proved airworthy so by definition isn't - for example have all the ADs been complied with? I'm guessing that since the Vikings are not on the G Register they have far, far too much paperwork.

Would have thought that if an Airbus A380 can be on the G register (BA has 12 on it, G-XLEA to G-XLEL) it should adequate for a simple glider, even if it is owned by the ATC.

[POBJOY]

Another storm in a tea cup.
The RAF do not control Kenley (it is part of a City of London Common).
The usable common used to stop at the airfield boundary (outside of the peri track). As Frelon knows the boundary was a simple (intact) low post and wire fence. Someone at the City of London Commons dept decided to move the boundary to allow pedestrians around the outer half of the peri track and thereby creating an ongoing potential 'situation'. In practice casual walkers are easily spotted and can also be intercepted by one of the several trucks that are in general use (as was before the great pause).Also the 'main' usable part of the airfield is away from the edges therefore a walker has to 'stray' some way before becoming a problem. Had we still got the original pillboxes on site the ATC could have utilised a Cadet with his RAF Marksman badge to neutralise any intruder and also add another level of skill to that badge. This situation should never have been allowed to happen as the RAF have an ongoing lease. The C o L could have marked out a path well away from the p-track and thereby not created a situation that is now going to be difficult to control especially as there has been a lack of operations due to the pause. Some other nerd decided to 'landscape' the original e-pens including the famous one near Hayes Lane showing the Spitfire being straffed on the 18th Aug raid. Having ruined a complete and original wartime location they then later 'listed' what was left (you could not write the script).

[NorthSouth]

Does anyone know when the numerous VGSs that are closing are actually due to disband?

[chevvron]

Does anyone know when the numerous VGSs that are closing are actually due to disband?

I thought they all disbanded last year rather than being 'due to disband', otherwise why was I invited to the disbandment dinner for 613 VGS Halton?

[1.3VStall]

A and C,

My "you couldn't script it" merely refers to the fact that we, the taxpayers, are shelling out over £100k per glider to get them back into service. They didn't cost anywhere near that when purchased new!

If that is not a complete nonsense, then I don't know what is.

However, as is always the case in the public sector, no-one is ever held accountable and it is the innocent that suffer: in this case the cadets.

[92125]

A and C,

My "you couldn't script it" merely refers to the fact that we, the taxpayers, are shelling out over £100k per glider to get them back into service. They didn't cost anywhere near that when purchased new!

If that is not a complete nonsense, then I don't know what is.


Nonsense it may be, but a replacement fleet would cost double that per unit. Rock and a hard place.

The 'soft place' of putting them on the G-register would no doubt have seen all the fleet back in the air by now, but naturally it needs to be ensured that the TEMPEST clearance of the gliders is still valid, so we are where we are...

Like it or loathe it, in the same timeframe on the recovery, the scores stand at:

Serco - 1
Marshall's - DNF
Babcock/Southern Sailplanes - 25

[Bigpants]

Is it time the thread title was changed to

Air Cadets Mostly Grounded?

Somewhat disappointed by the news above but not surprised by the incompetence and waste surrounding this issue.

[Engines]

Perhaps I could offer a bit of perspective here, that might help us get our heads around just how bad this scandal has been.

When the fleet was grounded in 2014, it comprised 146 aircraft. Now, after the 'new plan', and spending lots of tax payers money, the target is to get 73 Vikings and 'up to' 15 Vigilants back in use. That's 88 aircraft, so 40% of the fleet has gone. And once the 15 Vigilants go in a couple of years, we're left with exactly half of the original fleet (73 out of 146).

I've been firing in a series of FoI requests to get a better handle on just how we got here, but the basics remain:

The RAF has been flying school children in non-airworthy aircraft, possibly for many years.
They only found out in 2013 when the MAA audit prompted their engineers to do no more than they should have been doing for 20 years. Maintaining aircraft in an airworthy condition. (And don't make the mistake of trying to blame the contractors - if you contract out a service, you don't contract out your responsibility for making sure they're doing he job properly. The RAF didn't do that. They've already admitted that one).
OC 2FTS then spent the first 18 months pursuing a completely unachievable series of plans, each of which fell over as soon they were published. He clearly had absolutely NO idea how bad the state of his aircraft was. Which means his engineers didn't.
Eventually, CAS had to step in in late 2015 and tell him what was going to happen, which didn't include fixing all the aircraft.
Half of the fleet has effectively had to be scrapped or given away free

So, full replacement of the fleet was never really on the cards. This has effectively been a case of 'the glider fleet is completely f****d, what can be salvaged from the wreckage?'. Now we know. Just half the aircraft, at a cost of (warning - big guess here) - at least an extra £7m.

How bad do things have to get before people are held to account?

Best Regards as ever to those trying to fly cadets under what have to be extremely trying circumstances,

Engines

[EnigmAviation]

:ugh:Well said that man. Why is it that the cover up has been so well executed ?

[Cazalet33]

Why is it that the cover up has been so well executed ?

Practice, dear boy. Plenty of practice

[Fitter2]

My "you couldn't script it" merely refers to the fact that we, the taxpayers, are shelling out over £100k per glider to get them back into service. They didn't cost anywhere near that when purchased new!

I'm interested - where does the figure of £100,000 per aircraft come from (and where is the money going ?).

Regarding the misinformation a little way back by 1.3VS, a photo was posted on Facebook by a glider pilot this week of Membury Airfield,
http://i63.tinypic.com/2cro715.jpg
and my guess is that the grey areas each side of runway 13/31 (the solar farm) provide a more accurate answer as to how the investment in the airfield is funded.

[dervish]

Why is it that the cover up has been so well executed ?

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous post!

[cats_five]

Nonsense it may be, but a replacement fleet would cost double that per unit. Rock and a hard place.

The 'soft place' of putting them on the G-register would no doubt have seen all the fleet back in the air by now, but naturally it needs to be ensured that the TEMPEST clearance of the gliders is still valid, so we are where we are...

Like it or loathe it, in the same timeframe on the recovery, the scores stand at:

Serco - 1
Marshall's - DNF
Babcock/Southern Sailplanes - 25

The figure I've seen is £100k per glider, which is comparable to a new K21 once instruments etc. are added. However if you want 60 K21s (or just about any other type of glide) it will take time - lots of it. And if you want mods forget it, Schleicher almost certainly won't do that.

Putting them on the G-reg probably wouldn't have made much difference, as I understand it paperwork is either missing or in a total guddle and it would have to be right for the G-reg as well, though quite possibly there would be less of it. However each glider would have to be minutely inspected, all ADs correct & present and all undocumented repairs re-repaired.

TEMPEST?

[Caconym]

Now only 60 Vikings to be recovered as part of the new 'Air Cadet Aerospace Offer'.

[Shaft109]

So after almost 4 years, 200 pages, literally 4000 posts we have a grand total of what 12 aircraft back?

From the world's oldest Airforce comes the longest grounding.

Not something to be proud of.

[chevvron]

From the world's oldest Airforce comes the longest grounding......


...of the least complex aircraft in their inventory.