Air Cadets grounded?

[Olympia 463]

Well, look on the bright side. What seems to have been an attempt to close the ATC down has only been partially successful. The remaining Vikings if course must have an out of service date. A plan needs to be in place well in advance of that to replace them. Anyone have a handle on how that might be going? And I think the 4000 postings have kept this scandal in the public eye, without them the ATC might well have just folded up.

[Chugalug2]

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

Because the MOD is simultaneously; the accused, the judge, and the jury of its own case, and because many professional aviators (ie many members who post on this very forum) don't understand the difference between serviceability and airworthiness, and can't be bothered to discover it.

In that respect I again highly recommend David Hill's excellent book, Their Greatest Disgrace. In telling the tale of the deaths of the 29 occupants of Chinook ZD576 on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994, he explains that it was grossly unairworthy, why it was grossly unairworthy, why that unairworthiness was not limited to that aircraft or fleet but spread like a canker throughout UK military aviation which it infects to this day, who caused it, and how they have been protected by a cover up by the RAF Star Chamber ever since. The answer to your question is in the book, EA.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Their-Greatest-Disgrace-campaign-Chinook-ebook/dp/B01J1YVRH0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1515928802&sr=1-1&keywords=their+greatest+disgrace

[cats_five]

Well, look on the bright side. What seems to have been an attempt to close the ATC down has only been partially successful. The remaining Vikings if course must have an out of service date. A plan needs to be in place well in advance of that to replace them. Anyone have a handle on how that might be going? And I think the 4000 postings have kept this scandal in the public eye, without them the ATC might well have just folded up.

Unless there is something unusual about the Vikings or their airworthiness regime they have many years of life before relifing. K21s come with a 12,000 hour life which can be extended at least once by 6,000 hours, and I've not heard that grob 103s are substantially different.

[Engines]

Cats,

I'd like to respond to your last post if I may. There IS something unusual about the Vikings and their airworthiness regime.

First, they have been operated at increased weights, with a series of modifications that the original designers have very probably not underwritten.
Second, they have not been properly serviced or repaired, and documentation essential to any statement of airworthiness has been inadvertently destroyed.
Third, the organisation responsible for their continuing airworthiness was found to be incapable of carrying out its statutory duties.

They have been badly taken care of, to the point where they posed an intolerable Risk to Life to schoolchildren. I'd say that's a bit unusual. The really, really, big concern has to be this - IS it unusual for the RAF?

Answers on an airworthiness audit survey form, please.

Best Regards as ever to all those putting things right so that the kids can fly safely.

Engines

[cats_five]

Cats,

I'd like to respond to your last post if I may. There IS something unusual about the Vikings and their airworthiness regime.

First, they have been operated at increased weights, with a series of modifications that the original designers have very probably not underwritten.
Second, they have not been properly serviced or repaired, and documentation to any statement of airworthiness has been inadvertently destroyed.
Third, the organisation responsible for their continuing airworthiness was found to be incapable of carrying out its statutory duties.

They have been badly taken care of, to the point where they posed an intolerable Risk to Life to schoolchildren. I'd say that's a bit unusual. The really, really, big concern has to be this - IS it unusual for the RAF?

Answers on an airworthiness audit survey form, please.

Best Regards as ever to all those putting things right so that the kids can fly safely.

Engines

Many BGA gliders are operated at increased weights - the BGA weight concession - I've no idea by how much it was increased for the Vikings, but if it was as per the BGA concession I can't see that of itself it's a problem. The manual says the maximum weight in either seat is 110kg with a maximum flying weight of 580kg, of which the load is no more than 36%. The BGA non-aerobatic weight concession is 597kg - +3%.

I understand they have not been properly looked after etc., but after Southern Sailplanes have inspected each glider I would hope they have ironed out both any physical problems (removed unapproved mods, re-repaired undocumented repairs etc.), ensured all SBs and ADs are complied with and of course sorted the paperwork.

My big concern is future airworthiness. In the state they leave SS they should be good for the original number of hours. And as you point out, if the RAF cannot maintain a very simple airframe, what is happening with the more complicated stuff? Or is the maintenance of these gliders a purely ATC issue?

[92125]

Unless there is something unusual about the Vikings or their airworthiness regime they have many years of life before relifing. K21s come with a 12,000 hour life which can be extended at least once by 6,000 hours, and I've not heard that grob 103s are substantially different.

The Vikings are lifed at 27,000 launches, not hours. Don't ask the logic.

[cats_five]

The Vikings are lifed at 27,000 launches, not hours. Don't ask the logic.

No relifing? It's a normal process for most modern (as in not wood) glider types and is basically a very detailed inspection of parts which aren't normally inspected.

[EnigmAviation]

and documentation essential to any statement of airworthiness has been inadvertently destroyed




Or could we substitute another word for inadvertently .............like deliberately ???? If evidence tends to prove negligence, then far easier to say it's been destroyed inadvertently ! I think a lot more people know a lot more about the paper trail.............. people at all levels who were involved in repair and maintenance in both the RAF and the latterly appointed contractors, should be required to be interviewed formally and under caution.


( There now follows an excerpt from "Yes Minister" - Q - "what shall we say about the missing maintenance records etc ????" - A - "Just say they were destroyed inadvertently - old Joe our cleaner, is very short sighted, and a bit deaf, and when he was cleaning out our filing room, he overheard one of the fitters saying "he'd got piles" , and thought he'd been told to get rid of the Files ! " - reply by Questioner "that sounds a good enough , the Minister will run along with that and we can just say inadvertently" )


In similar "modus operandi" , most of the former locally held VGS data on VGS performance have similarly been destroyed - or to be accurate......have been sent to waste dump or recycling in a skip on the orders of Pippa. Why ? well some would say it is no great shakes, but if we are to substantiate pre-2014 "pause" performance of VGS activity, with the now somewhat stumbling and terribly poor performance we witness in 2018, we no longer have official data on hand, unless some people have failed to put everything in a skip !!


I've just been looking back and in 2001 we had 77 Viking T Mk1, and 55 Vigilant T Mk 1. The RAF under the direction of Pippa, will attempt to "recover" 15 Vigilant, of which 6 are allegedly recovered thus far, ( 2 @ RAF Topcliffe and 4 @ ACCGS RAF Syerston) with the added rider that only 1 is currently flying, and that itself is restricted to Circuits only. Thus a reduction of 72 % operational capacity on Vigilant alone, using the 15 allegedly recovered; if we recover and use a lot less than 15, then it's even more dramatic loss of capacity.


As a taxpayer, I'd like the Defence Ministry to tell us all:-

The costs of recovery per airframe of the Vigilant T Mk 1
The sum spent thus far on the recovered aircraft
Where are the remaining (up to 40) airframes
What is currently being done to at least protect them from deterioration
What is being done with the remainder - sale by tender, sale by contract agreement - price per airframe realised or target price
What would be the market value of each non-recovered Vigilant airframe if sold in the open market.
This is information that we, as taxpayers should be told. My understanding is that there is a "deal" whereby the original manufacturer takes the remainder back at zero cost in return for "recovery" work done on the "up to fifteen" A/C. They will then refit, to a Mk2 standard incl new engine and avionics/panel etc and sell to another EU Air Force for a not small sum.


Should we also know the economics of this ? Public information Disclosure Act ?? I think so.


I'm not familiar with the ACTUAL recovered number or planned recovered numbers for Viking T Mk 1, but suffice to say, there are substantially less numbers operating at this moment, and probably for some considerable time to come with the channel of "recovery" being limited to 1 contractor.


I think that it's hardly surprising that Official Cadet membership figures show a marked drop, as the Part task trainers,( PTT's) and the very odd "jolly" for 25mins in an AEF Tutor or at a one off jolly in another RAF Aerospace camp are absolutely nothing compared to the huge numbers of Cadets who received partial training or training to solo standard under the pre-2014 regime.


I understand that Pippa is set to depart this year in August - and may be heading to or linked with ..............the following.........announcement.........


"A £15m state-of-the-art Aviation Academy is set to open at RAF Syerston in Nottinghamshire in 2019 in a joint venture between the RAF Air Cadets and Aviation Skills Partnership"


It may well be that "managed failure" of Air Cadet VGS activity is a part of the plan for the future, masterminded by ....................well I couldn't possibly say! Even Ministers are prevented from immediately taking posts in the companies that they have held to account in their HMG role, not so in Defence Circles.

[Aggamemnon]

Apologies if this has been posted already in this thread and I've missed it, but some figures are available from an answer to a written question from an MP. Air Force: Cadets:Written question - 7851 - UK Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2017-09-04/7851/)

In summary, since 2013 ~90% of instructors have lost qualifications (560 prior to the 'pause' and 61 now), and the number of cadets awarded wings in 2017 is ~6% of the number awarded in 2013 (741 vs 11,748).

[Tingger]

When did "pippa" order the destruction of any historic performance data? If so he's forgotten to tell many of the VGSs this and to remove or remove the central stats on their own sharepoint site 🤔

[Cows getting bigger]

Just out of interest, is he called Pippa because of his beautifully formed rear end? :)

[tucumseh]

Out of fairness to said officer, the practice of destroying embarrassing evidence long pre-dates his tenure. The RAF tried it on Mull of Kintyre once the campaign really kicked off in about 2000 (the FoI Act being a major factor) but forgot that MoD(PE) had control of most of airworthiness audit trail prior to April 1999; and those with delegation were told to keep copies of everything they signed, even into retirement. (This doesn't sit well with the Official Secrets Act, but show me a prosecution. MoD won't go there. And Des Browne granted immunity). So, when the Air Staffs and their bagmen denied the very existence of these documents, both to Lord Philip and the media, the former was delighted to receive copies from former PE staff. And quickly took to asking them first, not MoD. Even then, MoD continued to deny their existence, lying to bereaved families. That is not one lowly Gp Capt. That is a directive from God, and (e.g.) DE&S's Secretariat is charged with protecting those who lie - knowing he is protected.

Rest assured, there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. First and foremost, CAS's admission that there was no safety case, so by definition a series of ACASs made false record. This is nothing new - Chinook, Hercules, Nimrod, Sea King, Hawk - the list is only constrained by the aircraft types we have. It is therefore unfair to blame one person; but that is MoD's wont, witness the character assassination of Gp Capt Baber in the Nimrod Review. In fact, he deserved some praise for letting a safety case task, as he'd inherited the product of a policy not to waste money on such things.

One view I take in all this is that ACAS became the first DG/MAA in 2010. He would have immediately released (if not told already by Haddon-Cave) that most of the RTSs (the Master Airworthiness Reference) he signed were invalid. Including gliders. Why did it take four more years, and require his successor to step in? There may be a very good reason, but demonstrably the failures persisted in that period, and more people died. I'm afraid we see this too often. Bury the bad news until the perpetrator is retired, then spin the problem as something else entirely and blame a junior officer or civilian. Yes, the Gp Capt took part, but he's a very minor player.

[Chugalug2]

Good post tuc, thank you. This scandal extends to the highest reaches of the RAF's food chain, and to pin it on relative juniors would simply serve the purposes of the Star Chamber's cover up.

The RAF has to grasp this nettle and stop the cover up so that proper airworthiness reform can begin, in order to avoid further airworthiness associated accidents and needless deaths. It is a fundamental requirement of any Air Force that its aircraft are airworthy. If that costs the reputations and trinkets of a few old men, then so be it.

[Onceapilot]

Apologies if this has been posted already in this thread and I've missed it, but some figures are available from an answer to a written question from an MP.

In summary, since 2013 ~90% of instructors have lost qualifications (560 prior to the 'pause' and 61 now), and the number of cadets awarded wings in 2017 is ~6% of the number awarded in 2013 (741 vs 11,748).

Thank you for that post Agg. It makes sad reading. Coupled with the line from Enigm...
"A £15m state-of-the-art Aviation Academy is set to open at RAF Syerston in Nottinghamshire in 2019 in a joint venture between the RAF Air Cadets and Aviation Skills Partnership".
Well, it all sounds as though a considerable amount of public money has been wasted. Where is the accountability? All in all, I cannot believe this amazing Air Cadets saga and, it appears that the whole debacle might have been contrived! :yuk:

OAP

[Arclite01]

Post #4010

The written reply is a classic example of hiding the numbers behind the statistics. The wrong question was asked and therefore the wrong answer is given.

The question should have been:


How many Cadets were part trained (before/after the 'pause') ?
How many were trained to full solo standard (before/after the 'pause') ?
How many were trained to Advanced status (before after the 'pause') ?
How many were trained at ACCGS before/after the 'pause') ?
How many were trained at VGS before/after the 'pause') ?
How many VGS instructors have regained their quals since the 'pause' ?
How many VGS instructors held quals before the 'pause' ?
How many VGS instructors held Vigilant Quals before the 'pause' ?
How many VGS instructors hold Vigilant Quals now ?
How many VGS instructors held Viking Quals before the 'pause' ?
How many VGS instructors hold Viking Quals now ?


I suspect the figures given in the written reply are wanton distortions of the numbers.

For sure the number of part trained to full solo trained is probably now 98/2 rather than a previous split of more like 55/45

For sure the number of VGS instructors to ACCGS instructors is way down again probably now 15/85 rather than 95/5

In other words the ACCGS figures are skewing the whole picture. The written reply suggests everything is fine. The reality totally different.

The people asking the questions don't know what questions to ask.......... ergo we are not comparing apples with apples.........

Arc

[cats_five]

<snip>


It may well be that "managed failure" of Air Cadet VGS activity is a part of the plan for the future, masterminded by ....................well I couldn't possibly say! Even Ministers are prevented from immediately taking posts in the companies that they have held to account in their HMG role, not so in Defence Circles.

In general I prefer the cock-up theory.

PS
I don't think you also can't get valid after the pause figures until the pause has been over for a year or more, and until all the airframes that are going to be put back in service are in service, the pause isn't finished.

[tucumseh]

In general I prefer the cock-up theory.Haddon-Cave spent 170-odd pages ripping MoD a new one over an invalid safety case. Then Flt Lt Cunningham was killed, and the SI couldn't find a safety case. Five years after H-C, 11 years after ASaC, 20 years after MoK, the gliders don't have one either and are grounded. That's not a ****-up. There is a conscious decision in there, a controlling influence. And it's not Gp Capt P. Ask him if he thinks there should be a safety case. I put my house on him saying yes. You must look at those who are happy to say NO, in writing, and who brief Ministers against those who prefer to meet legal obligations. As someone mentioned, there's a book naming names, and it specifically states that only 2 Stars or above are named, and only then if it can demonstrated they were advised of the failings. There's a reason MoD cleared it for publication. The truth.

[Engines]

Perhaps I can try to summarise the extent of the scandal in as few words as possible.

What Happened:

A substantial fleet of RAF aircraft (the world's largest fleet of military gliders) was flown while non-airworthy. This led to schoolchildren being placed at an unacceptably high Risk to Life (RtL). Most of the fleet has now had to be scrapped while a large amount of money has had to be spent getting the remainder of the fleet back in the air

Why It Happened:

A series of SYSTEMIC (sorry for the caps there, but deserved) failures across the RAF's airworthiness management systems. These are not new - they are repeats of failures that the RAF was warned about, failed to prevent, and which led directly to a number of fatal accidents. Now they have happened again.

Failures happened in the area of 'type airworthiness'. The aircraft were not correctly procured (a fleet replacement should never have been permitted out of an in-year underspend) and the required certification and support arrangements were apparently not put in place. A safety case was not maintained. CAS himself admitted that the gliders 'could not continue without a safety case'.

Failures happened in the area of what is now called 'continuing airworthiness'. Servicing contracts were not properly supervised. Quality control systems were ineffective. Poor practice was allowed to occur. Document control was deficient, leading to loss of vital evidence of airworthiness. Configuration control was lost, both aircraft and documents. The RAF 's repeated reorganisations of the gliding chain of command after 2010 introduced precisely the hazardous 'organisational churn' that Haddon-Cave exposed in 2009.

Although the fleet was grounded in early 2014, it is clear that nobody in the RAF had any grasp of the scale of the problem. Their initial attempts to recover the fleet were a shambles for over 15 months. The MAA had to issue a letter to OC2FTS in September 2015 telling him to get his CAMO act together, while pointing out potential increases in RtL. Even this didn't prevent him failing his next CAMO audit at the end of that year. Even after this, milestones have come and gone.

Why It's Not Made the Mainstream Press:

Mainly, the public's lack of interest in defence matters, which means the media don't attach much importance to such stories. However, this has been exploited by the RAF, who have carried out a textbook example of a 'cover up', namely:

1. Get a Minister out in front to take the flak, referring to the 'MoD' and not the 'RAF'
2. Get a retired RAF senior officer to put up a smokescreen by complaining about 'inaccurate reporting' when that hadn't happened
3. Give the Minister downright false statements to sign and send to MPs and members of the Lords who were asking questions
4. Limit their statements about airworthiness to mention of 'challenges', 'concerns', and 'loss of confidence'.

I'm going to go 'off line' now for a while - i think i've bored the good PPrune audience enough.

Best regards as ever to those good RAF engineers who, hopefully, are now being listened to

Engines

[Mechta]

The Vikings are lifed at 27,000 launches, not hours. Don't ask the logic.

A typical Viking flight is about six minutes. Significant loads on the airframe come from the top of the winch launch, and landing and retrieve on rough ground. Soaring flight on the occasions that it occurs is unlikely to impose large loads, so basing the life on the number of launches is more meaningful.

[92125]

I beg to differ. Every other glider operates on an hours limit.

There are K21s in the UK - living identical 'up-around-down' existences as the Air Cadet Vikings - which are running north of 12,000 hours. There are Twin II Acros with north of 6,000 hours.

With a life limit of 27,000 launches, the Vikings will be completely life-expired at around 2,700 hours. Identical civilian examples won't even be ready for their first life extension at that point. Indeed the relevant TN from Grob explicitly includes the Viking serial numbers in its life extension to 12,000 hours. Yet somehow they have had a completely nonsensical maximum number of launches imposed on them.

The life extension work is not especially onerous, but is a fairly involved process of cutting holes in things, replacing things inside the hole, then making the hole disappear. Work that could probably be very well undertaken during a recovery at a glider repair facility. Alas the RAF evidently do not trust the manufacturer of their aircraft and, with no life extension programme forthcoming from the Viking TC holder, they are probably returning to service with surprisingly little life left. (RAF-imposed life, that is. The gliders will be good for decades to come in the real world).


A typical Viking flight is about six minutes. Significant loads on the airframe come from the top of the winch launch, and landing and retrieve on rough ground. Soaring flight on the occasions that it occurs is unlikely to impose large loads, so basing the life on the number of launches is more meaningful.

[cats_five]

A typical Viking flight is about six minutes. Significant loads on the airframe come from the top of the winch launch, and landing and retrieve on rough ground. Soaring flight on the occasions that it occurs is unlikely to impose large loads, so basing the life on the number of launches is more meaningful.

Stress at the top of the launch is only significant if either a weak link is not used, or the wrong one is used e.g. black instead of brown.

Gliders are built to be operated from grass airfields which by their nature are not that smooth. A retrieve on exceedingly rough ground won't cause undue stress, neither will landing unless repeatedly on a surface that shakes the fillings out of P1 in the back seat, over the wheel.

As above, this model of glider in civilian clubs would have decades of useful life ahead given the relifing schedules available.

This leaves me even more convinced that part of the Southern Sailplanes operation should have been to transition them to the G-register and back onto the normal Grob maintenance schedules. Gliders flying with heavier weight limits retain them on transition, at least BGA ones do.

[POBJOY]

I note that 'SERCO' have only recovered I Viking. However it appears that this machine is now overweight by some 20+KG and no one is quite sure how this fits in with it being fit for purpose.
Why am I not surprised by this !!! and that the machines 'recovered' by SS (who know what they are doing) are ok.
If I was 'involved' with deciding how to organise the future ATC glider fleet I know what company I would be seeking advice from.
I always remember the images of the Syerston 'workshop' at the start of all this; and made the comment it was not a workshop at all more like a showroom.
That should have rung some warning bells somewhere if there was anyone at the top that had ANY IDEA what was 'SUPPOSED' to be going on. There is no point in having 'Ranks' involved in running an organisation if they do not understand the basics of what is required from both an operational and technical stance.

[cats_five]

I note that 'SERCO' have only recovered I Viking. However it appears that this machine is now overweight by some 20+KG and no one is quite sure how this fits in with it being fit for purpose.
Why am I not surprised by this !!! and that the machines 'recovered' by SS (who know what they are doing) are ok.
If I was 'involved' with deciding how to organise the future ATC glider fleet I know what company I would be seeking advice from.
I always remember the images of the Syerston 'workshop' at the start of all this; and made the comment it was not a workshop at all more like a showroom.
That should have rung some warning bells somewhere if there was anyone at the top that had ANY IDEA what was 'SUPPOSED' to be going on. There is no point in having 'Ranks' involved in running an organisation if they do not understand the basics of what is required from both an operational and technical stance.



I guess SS can fix what is wrong with the overweight Viking, suspect by removing and redoing a number of repairs.


Did the ranks have any idea they didn't know what they should be doing? Including any involved in civilian gliding as well?

[Arclite01]

Is the overweight Viking recovered by SERCO Tail No 501 does anyone know ??

Arc

[Mechta]

Is the overweight Viking recovered by SERCO Tail No 501 does anyone know ??

Arc

Most unlikely as it appears to be one that was previously damaged, subsequently repaired and put on the civilian register (probably by Tim Dews, given the reg, and his involvement with Grobs):

Demobbed - Out of Service British Military Aircraft (http://www.demobbed.org.uk/aircraft.php?type=1168)

[Arclite01]

Thanks Mechta

I know for a fact that that aircraft was 'odd' (one of my earlier posts refers)

Arc

[POBJOY]

I also recall a Viking that had been repaired but had 'grown' during the process to the point that the tail dolly would not fit.
I am not suggesting that a weight/growth situation would make the machine a Cadet killer, but it rather suggests a lack of capability/competence in the servicing system. There was no excuse for all this in the case of the ATC going from the fretwork fighters to all glass. By the time the fleet came into service there were thousands of glass ships flying all over the world, and an excellent level of expertise within both industry and users. The level of technical and performance enhancing design means only reputable servicing/repair companies survive in a market where customers expect their machines to be 'as new' after an incident. The level of skill required in glass repairs means manufacturers only approve companies/people that show absolute 'fit for purpose' ability. It seems incredible that a major user of a GRP fleet did not have the ability to oversee its ongoing serviceability.

[cats_five]

I also recall a Viking that had been repaired but had 'grown' during the process to the point that the tail dolly would not fit.
I am not suggesting that a weight/growth situation would make the machine a Cadet killer, but it rather suggests a lack of capability/competence in the servicing system.

There was no excuse for all this in the case of the ATC going from the fretwork fighters to all glass. By the time the fleet came into service there were thousands of glass ships flying all over the world, and an excellent level of expertise within both industry and users.

The level of technical and performance enhancing design means only reputable servicing/repair companies survive in a market where customers expect their machines to be 'as new' after an incident. The level of skill required in glass repairs means manufacturers only approve companies/people that show absolute 'fit for purpose' ability.

It seems incredible that a major user of a GRP fleet did not have the ability to oversee its ongoing serviceability.

If all that extra weight came behind the wheel the CoG would have moved backwards. If it went past the aft limit that is decidedly dangerous as the glider spins more easily and is harder to recover. That can be both a Cadet killer and a P1 killer.

There is often no problem for a suitably skilled shop to repair a broken tail boom retaining the original external dimensions whist staying within maximum weight and keeping the CoG where it should be. If it can't be done the glider should be written off. The guys who work in the 'suitably skilled shops' have a pile of tickets which say what sort of repairs they are allowed to do, and in the UK the BGA oversees training & licencing of inspectors.

BTW the one time I was at Tim Dews workshop there was a K21 having the tailboom repaired after breaking it.

[EnigmAviation]

I also recall a Viking that had been repaired but had 'grown' during the process to the point that the tail dolly would not fit.
Yes, I've flown that one a few times , it was a "tail plane removal specialist" aka plonkers ( yes, there were the odd ones !) that must have crashed it, and yes it did have a large outside diameter rear fuselage requiring a "one off" special tail dolly. Another of my nine lives used up then flying something repaired with a Holts Fibreglass repair kit from Halfords !:)

[Olympia 463]

All of the above points to the folly of buying these glass ships which if not 'fragile' are hard to restore to original condition when broken. To have to write off a glider costing tens of thousands because the tail boom cannot be fixed is ridiculous.

Hands up any one who has seen this kind of nonsense with a K13 or equivalent (if so name your two seater). I've never even seen a K13 with a broken off tail.

Seems I have come full circle on this thread.

[squawking 7700]

I've seen a K8 with a banana fuz, so it can be done.

Try finding people these days who can weld to aircraft spec, scarf joint and re-cover in some old linen - there's far more people in the world of commercial glider repairs that are familiar with glass, resin and carbon than there are with old sticks and fabric.

[cats_five]

All of the above points to the folly of buying these glass ships which if not 'fragile' are hard to restore to original condition when broken. To have to write off a glider costing tens of thousands because the tail boom cannot be fixed is ridiculous.

Hands up any one who has seen this kind of nonsense with a K13 or equivalent (if so name your two seater). I've never even seen a K13 with a broken off tail.

Seems I have come full circle on this thread.



Glass ships are not especially fragile, and there is normally no problem restoring to original condition as long as you know what you are doing and follow a suitable repair schedule. Exactly the same applies to a K13 (or any other glider) - if you have damage the repair has to be done correctly. Of course the insurer might decide that the cost of the repair is too great compared to the hull value.


The K21 I saw that needed the tailboom rejoining was the victim of a two instructor flight that went wrong (who has control?) resulting in a very bad field landing.


With a K13 it can be bent, and I cannot imagine there are not limits for how bent is acceptable. Possibly they can be straightened, but possibly not.


However I suspect that K13 production had ceased by the time the Viking procurement was underway, and it's just as well as they might well now be being consigned to the scrap heap with potential glue problems in the wings.

[92125]

Come full circle or are going round in circles?

There is nothing...nothing difficult about repairing a glassfibre aircraft. It is cloth and resin. Repairing it so the repair is invisible...no more technically difficult but requires craftsmanship, just like with any hands-on job.

Have you ever worked on a GRP glider?

I mentioned before that I’ve watched a few guys repair a rather large hole in an ASW19 wing (it hit a fence post on landing) overnight, on the grid for the next day’s race at 7am the next morning. They knew what they were doing. Why would you let anyone else other than someone who knows what they are doing repair an aircraft anyway? There is NO shortage of excellent GRP repair facilities in the UK.

Alas Syerston is not one of them.




All of the above points to the folly of buying these glass ships which if not 'fragile' are hard to restore to original condition when broken. To have to write off a glider costing tens of thousands because the tail boom cannot be fixed is ridiculous.

Hands up any one who has seen this kind of nonsense with a K13 or equivalent (if so name your two seater). I've never even seen a K13 with a broken off tail.

Seems I have come full circle on this thread.

[cats_five]

Come full circle or are going round in circles?

There is nothing...nothing difficult about repairing a glassfibre aircraft. It is cloth and resin. Repairing it so the repair is invisible...no more technically difficult but requires craftsmanship, just like with any hands-on job.

Have you ever worked on a GRP glider?

I mentioned before that I’ve watched a few guys repair a rather large hole in an ASW19 wing (it hit a fence post on landing) overnight, on the grid for the next day’s race at 7am the next morning. They knew what they were doing. Why would you let anyone else other than someone who knows what they are doing repair an aircraft anyway? There is NO shortage of excellent GRP repair facilities in the UK.

Alas Syerston is not one of them.



I agree with all of this. The only problem is that market forces being what they are there isn't much slack to suddenly look after an additional 60 (or whatever the number is) gliders, and that would be the case whatever type they are.

<Edit>
PS
I also think they would be in the same pickle if they had had K13s or any other glider type including T21 & T31.

[tucumseh]

92125

There is nothing...nothing difficult about repairing a glassfibre aircraft. It is cloth and resin. Repairing it so the repair is invisible...no more technically difficult but requires craftsmanship, just like with any hands-on job.

Well said. It is decades ago, and applied to radomes rather than today's techniques on gliders, but semi-skilled labourers did this work in our Fabric Shop. And very well too. In this context 'semi' meant being fully-trained on a quite narrow range of jobs. But, MoD has sold off most of these workshops - certainly all of the ones I worked at - and has lost the expertise. This matters little at shop floor level, as it can be contracted out. Where MoD completely misses the point is that these workshops were the recruiting grounds for Engineering Authorities, Requirements Managers, Risk Managers, etc., and ultimately Project Managers. Today, there are very few in DE&S who have this background, and without that you cannot recognise the risks. How many in the Project Team (or MAA) have the necessary training? MoD dug this hole long ago.

[Olympia 463]

OK, so there is no problem fixing busted glass ships. I reserve my judgement on that point though.

Why is it necessary to have a glider costing megabucks which is required only to do circuits? Albeit 6 minute circuits, as opposed to the T31 which usually did about 4 mins. That's a lot of money for two minutes extra in the air. How do you justify that to the taxpayer? Will pupils go solo in two thirds of the time in a Viking? I doubt it.


The ATC is not a gliding club where the solo pilots expect to be taught thermal and ridge soaring and field landings so that they can go on cross countries. Once a Cadet has had his three solos that's it for 90% of them I guess. They never fly solo again. Why not just go back to the good old T31 which was cheap as chips to make and repair? We all know that the really tricky bit of flying is landing. You would agree I think that landing a K13 is a probably lot easier than a Viking, and therefore can be taught more quickly.

I maintain that the whole idea of how flying should operate in the ATC needs a root and branch review. What exactly are you trying to do?

[cats_five]

The T31 is tiny - I've been in one and I only just fitted in. I'm under 5'6". If a Cadet flight can be two strapping people weighing almost 100kg each with parachute then a T31 isn't the ship to use.

I've flown a K13 and a Grob similar to a Viking, as I learnt on glass I found the Viking easier to land.

If you are worrying about broken ships you should be worrying about crashworthiness and all the glass ships knock spots of the older ones in that respect.



And if you can bear to read back through the thread someone, sometime posted that a T31 (& presumably T21) wouldn't be a cheap ship to make these days.

[92125]

I appreciate that much of your Gliding was in the wood and fabric days, and no, there is nothing wrong with such aircraft. However time has simply moved on. Nobody is going to build a T31 these days, to suggest otherwise is madness. I’m not disputing that they were perfectly competent at doing the job that they were required to do, but times have changed and technology has moved on. Should we have just stopped at the making hops on the Primary?

Grob Twin IIs are not expensive aircraft. A reasonable one on the second-hand market would set you back maybe £30-40k. Adjust that figure as necessary if you want to make them into a military aircraft.

Neither are they difficult to fly. Yes, in a K13 everything might happen 5-10kts slower, but they are very competent basic trainers with no vices. In fact it is far more forgiving of sloppy handling than the K13.



Why is it necessary to have a glider costing megabucks which is required only to do circuits? Albeit 6 minute circuits, as opposed to the T31 which usually did about 4 mins. That's a lot of money for two minutes extra in the air. How do you justify that to the taxpayer? Will pupils go solo in two thirds of the time in a Viking? I doubt it.


The ATC is not a gliding club where the solo pilots expect to be taught thermal and ridge soaring and field landings so that they can go on cross countries. Once a Cadet has had his three solos that's it for 90% of them I guess. They never fly solo again. Why not just go back to the good old T31 which was cheap as chips to make and repair? We all know that the really tricky bit of flying is landing. You would agree I think that landing a K13 is a probably lot easier than a Viking, and therefore can be taught more quickly.

[cats_five]

<snip>

Grob Twin IIs are not expensive aircraft. A reasonable one on the second-hand market would set you back maybe £30-40k. Adjust that figure as necessary if you want to make them into a military aircraft.
<snip>

Why on earth would a basic simple glider need mods for the military? Machine guns? Ejection seats? Or is it simply a gold roundel stuck to the side of the glider?

[92125]

Ask their airships, they made it happen. I’m none the wiser.

Why on earth would a basic simple glider need mods for the military? Machine guns? Ejection seats? Or is it simply a gold roundel stuck to the side of the glider?

[Olympia 463]

The T31 is tiny - I've been in one and I only just fitted in. I'm under 5'6". If a Cadet flight can be two strapping people weighing almost 100kg each with parachute then a T31 isn't the ship to use.


That's rubbish - hundreds if not thousands of young men have happily fitted into the T31. I don't think anyone weighing 100kg would qualify as an average adolescent, No one ever carried a chute in a T31 in my time - did you? I'm 6ft 2in 70 Kg and I fitted into a T31 perfectly.

If you are worrying about broken ships you should be worrying about crashworthiness and all the glass ships knock spots of the older ones in that respect.


Oh God! No one builds aeroplanes to be crashworthy. If you start from a premise like that you will end up with a very strange plane indeed.

I can see I am wasting my time on this forum. I asked a few pertinent questions in my last input and have got no answers at all, from which I conclude you are all politicians.

Why not get real and stop whingeing after the cushy rides you got in Vikings at the taxpayers expense? I know that building new T31's is now unlikely, but unless a similar cheap aircraft can be sourced or designed, the ATC will no longer be able to do what it was best at - giving youngsters a new confidence in themselves.

[A and C]

I think what the advocates of returning to wooden gliders are missing is there are very few people with the skill set to work with wooden structures.

Back in the days of the T21 wood structures had not long disappeared from RAF Service the DH vampire being an example the result of this was a knowlage base that could deal with the wooden gliders.

There was no of the RAF main stream operation of the glider type structures until the Grob 115 Tutor turned up ( and these are maintained under EASA145 by private contractors)

A return to wooden Aircraft would be a disaster due to the lack of understanding of the type of structures and how to repair and maintain them, is not the way forward............ I say this with some regret as my first flying training was on the Kirby cadet.

[longer ron]

The T31 is tiny - I've been in one and I only just fitted in. I'm under 5'6".


Blimey Cats - how much head room do you want in a glider ?? :)
Open cockpit gliders had 93 million miles of headroom :ok:

With apologies to the car manufacturer who originally used that advert LOL

I am certainly not advocating a return to wooden gliders but I was 6 foot and flew the T31 easily from either cockpit !

[Bill Macgillivray]

It does appear that there has been some lack of understanding on glass fibre structures!!!
T21, T31, Prefect etc. were great but, as you say - "Not the way forward". Surely in this day and age we can come up with an appropriate aircraft!!

Bill

[Freda Checks]

It does appear that there has been some lack of understanding on glass fibre structures!!!
T21, T31, Prefect etc. were great but, as you say - "Not the way forward". Surely in this day and age we can come up with an appropriate aircraft!!

Bill

We did, but their Airships screwed it up by not looking after the contract to maintain it in an airworthy condition😱

[Blackfriar]

All this talk of how to fix fibreglass and wood. What's wrong with aluminium? I did quite a few flights in the Blanik and it was lovely - aerobatic too. I'm no expert but there seem to have been plenty of these around for years.

[POBJOY]

The MGSP knew what they were doing, but in actual fact the number of 'broken' machines in the system was very few when one considered the large number of real training flights (leading to solo) completed. The jolly old 'wheel box' area was the usual suspect and not just from a heavy arrival as the grass could conceal unhelpful objects that could cause damage. Most of these 'repairs' were done at the schools when the team in their 3 tonners visited. The aerolite was cured by simple 'bulb heaters' made out of plywood.
The MGSP guys would have easily adapted to 'glass' because they already completed scarf joins in ply and 'extending' the scarf ratio would have been an extension of their normal skills.
When I attended SM for a course there were no actual broken airframes to practice repairs on (such was the low rate of attrition) and so the guys would repair ply cabinets from the billets.
WE forget that before the schools were actually 'tasked' for AE work most ATC glider flights were dual training for the A&B, therefore it only enhances both the suitability of the equipment, standard of training, sturdiness of the fretwork fighter, and the overall fantastic volunteer organisation not hindered by crats. I am not sure when the T21 started to get its nose weight mod, however there were a few around that were original and had certain 'light pilots' limitations. Not for long at Kenley; a local mod saw a lead seat pan made and kept in the caravan ready for use.

[POBJOY]

Well we missed the boat on that (should have license built it) and saved 20 years of trying to modernise. In fact we could have customised it for a total winch launch operation with a simple strut mod, and enjoyed more flying when the wind got up.

[Mechta]

Why on earth would a basic simple glider need mods for the military?

To meet the MAA requirements for accessibility and inspection of control linkages perhaps? The elevator bellcrank on a lot of gliders is completely out of sight if there is no inspection window.

[India Four Two]

POBJOY,

As a long-time backseat Blanik driver, I’m interested in your comment. What was the mod you referred to?

[chevvron]

OK, so there is no problem fixing busted glass ships. I reserve my judgement on that point though.

Why is it necessary to have a glider costing megabucks which is required only to do circuits? Albeit 6 minute circuits, as opposed to the T31 which usually did about 4 mins. That's a lot of money for two minutes extra in the air. How do you justify that to the taxpayer? Will pupils go solo in two thirds of the time in a Viking? I doubt it.


The ATC is not a gliding club where the solo pilots expect to be taught thermal and ridge soaring and field landings so that they can go on cross countries. Once a Cadet has had his three solos that's it for 90% of them I guess. They never fly solo again. Why not just go back to the good old T31 which was cheap as chips to make and repair? We all know that the really tricky bit of flying is landing. You would agree I think that landing a K13 is a probably lot easier than a Viking, and therefore can be taught more quickly.

I maintain that the whole idea of how flying should operate in the ATC needs a root and branch review. What exactly are you trying to do?
Totally agree; I've been saying the same thing all along but then nobody ever takes any notice of me maybe because I advocated the use of (horror of horrors) microlights to supplement (just supplement not replace) Air Cadet flying and in fact was a 'recognised' (by HQAC) microlight AEF pilot in the '90s as well as being a P2 when I was a staff cadet many years before.
(By the way, even winch launched cadets only do one solo nowadays to qualify)

[chevvron]

Well we missed the boat on that (should have license built it) and saved 20 years of trying to modernise. In fact we could have customised it for a total winch launch operation with a simple strut mod, and enjoyed more flying when the wind got up.

When the Blanik was first suggested, it was totally ruled out because it was built in what was then an Iron Curtain country (can't have 'communist' machines in RAF markings can we) so Slingsbys came up with the UK equivalent in the T53 and we all know what a disaster that was.

[chevvron]

It does appear that there has been some lack of understanding on glass fibre structures!!!
T21, T31, Prefect etc. were great but, as you say - "Not the way forward". Surely in this day and age we can come up with an appropriate aircraft!!

Bill

Todays microlights sometimes use fabric such as 'Ultralam' on structures made of lightweight alloy tubing and which are very strong and rigid.
I used to love the smell of dope, but would it not be possible to copy the structure of a T21 or T31 using these materials?

[cats_five]

When the Blanik was first suggested, it was totally ruled out because it was built in what was then an Iron Curtain country (can't have 'communist' machines in RAF markings can we) so Slingsbys came up with the UK equivalent in the T53 and we all know what a disaster that was.

There has since been a spar failure in flight (2010) which lead to fatalities, and Blaniks were grounded while it was investigated. I believe eventually a scheme to remedy the problem was devised, but it cost more to implement than the gliders were worth so very few now fly.

[cats_five]

Blimey Cats - how much head room do you want in a glider ?? :)
Open cockpit gliders had 93 million miles of headroom :ok:

With apologies to the car manufacturer who originally used that advert LOL

I am certainly not advocating a return to wooden gliders but I was 6 foot and flew the T31 easily from either cockpit !

I was in the back seat and it was a struggle getting in & out, not helped by the feeling it would have been awful easy to put a food through the floor!

[cats_five]

<snip>
Oh God! No one builds aeroplanes to be crashworthy. If you start from a premise like that you will end up with a very strange plane indeed.
<snip>


I guess you've not heard of JAR 22. Of course aeroplanes of all types are designed & built to be crashworthy, that is to say they protect the occupants as best they can. Of course it's not the only requirement, but it certainly is one.

Using the right sort of foam cushion (Confor, Dynafoam) is also very important in gliders as it reduces the risk of back injury in a heavy landing.

As with cars standards change (improve) over time. The standards now for new designs are better than they were when the Vikings were designed, and I would be astonished if they were not better than the T21/T31.

[cats_five]

To meet the MAA requirements for accessibility and inspection of control linkages perhaps? The elevator bellcrank on a lot of gliders is completely out of sight if there is no inspection window.

I've seen a few gliders with inspection windows in the underside of the wings but never the tail end of the fus.

Yet another reason to put them on the G-register rather than cut additional holes in the structure which in itself will generate a pile of paperwork.

[squawking 7700]

Yes, and the RAF love their paperwork......except that which proves airworthiness......and even if they had it.......they destroy it.

[cats_five]

Yes, and the RAF love their paperwork......except that which proves airworthiness......and even if they had it.......they destroy it.



Don't get me wrong. Maintaining and repairing gliders on the G-reg does generate paper, but less than the MAA apparently does, and there is no requirement to cut extra holes outside any mandated by the maker for various checks, and so on. The gliders would also have a sensible life, not 2,700 launches which someone mentioned above.


However I found myself wondering this morning if the paperwork to prove how many launches / hours each glider has exists.

[squawking 7700]

Yes, it does make you wonder - with the documented admission from 2FTS that documentation (see what I did there) had been destroyed, just what details have been retained?

Could, or did, VGS CO's, especially Syerston based, ever, even out of idle curiosity, have a look at maintenance and repair records?
I can't believe that no one anywhere in the VGS network ever suspected anything, if they didn't, it perhaps highlights the naivety of blindly accepting an aircraft in to your care.

I've always taken particular interest in the maintenance and repair of anything I've flown, both the physical maintenance or repair itself and that the paperwork's in order - if you're flying it you want to make sure everything's in order as much as practicably possible.

[Arclite01]

I am sure the 700 with the airframe times/launches and landings for each airframe must still exist. In addition Engineering Control (ha !) at Syerston will also hold the information even if it were just in summary.

I think the documentation that 2FTS say has been destroyed is the log sheets and probably the Cadet Training Records which would have been held at VGS level.

That Engineering Control may have destroyed/deleted/discarded the job cards and information around older repairs carried out would not suprise me though.............. most of these records would probably have been held by the contractors who would then provide them for audit if required. This is what has not happened - I believe that the records were not archived and then when a problem occurred the audit showed up that the job records had not been kept................... ergo - fiasco !

Arc

[Fitter2]

(Rhetorical question :E)

Were the defects that involved unsatisfactory repairs not discovered on Major inspections (by the same contractor who might have carried them out)?

Regarding the nostalgic wishes to return to some mythical golden age, it clearly could never happen. There were wrecks, write offs and the occasional serious injury in the past, though few considering the amount of activity. We live in different, risk-averse, litigious times.

Commissioning a new fleet? However it was done the cost would make the present recovery program look like a tiny footnote in the accounts. The VGS will end up with 60 Vikings in ex-factory condition (maybe better, being GROB gliders), and having very red faces the MOD will make very sure it doesn't happen again, although the gold-plated paperwork system will not reduce the budget overhead.

[squawking 7700]

Before Southern Sailplanes commenced the overhaul, the assets' open market value was nil.

Those through the overhaul programme might be worth £30-40K each, having spent, reputedly, £100K per airframe.

Those left, are virtually worthless.

You'd have thought with the numbers at CGS/2FTS involved with engineering oversight (2 x Wing Commanders, Tech Sevices, Contract Management and Quality Audit) and that's in addition to the Serco/Oxford people, that between them they could've managed the paperwork a little better.
Imagine if this was any other aircraft maintenace operation, GA or airline, they'd have all been sacked - how many are still in post?

[Arclite01]

Fitter2

Unfortunately this is what you get when you let people 'mark their own homework'.

Everyone passes and the grades are high............... usually when an independent examiner comes in the grades are reduced or revised downwards, and this is what has happened in this case.

Arc

[cats_five]

Fitter2

Unfortunately this is what you get when you let people 'mark their own homework'.

Everyone passes and the grades are high............... usually when an independent examiner comes in the grades are reduced or revised downwards, and this is what has happened in this case.

Arc

Another reason to move them to the G-reg and let BGA inspectors oversee the maintenance. In fact they are doing that now at Southern Sailplanes.

Edit - they are doing the overseeing, not moving them to the G-reg

[Frelon]

Another reason to move them to the G-reg and let BGA inspectors oversee the maintenance. In fact they are doing that now at Southern Sailplanes.

Cats, you are pushing for something that has been mentioned in this thread, many times! We all know it makes sense, the aircraft will have a value when the MOD have finished with them, whereas in the current system they have little or no value on the open market.

But, knowing it makes sense is probably the reason that their Airships chose to do the other thing!! It would be so simple to do it now that SS have their hands on them.

[Arclite01]

Sorry Cats

There's no more supervision inside the BGA than there is in the Air Cadet Organisation in terms of maintenance.

I know - I'm a BGA Inspector.

and the G Reg thing is a red herring. The gliders are not moving to that system.

Thanks

Arc

[Rigga]

The RAF do indeed love aircraft paperwork. But one of their faults is that they don't actually like holding it as an archive or using the data it holds for some good reasons like developing/modifying systems and such like.

It appears to me that there is some naivety in some of the above posts.

If, as I believe, the contracting company was working under the MOD maintenance rules for documentation before the MAA regulations were malformed/created, that organisation was then perfectly entitled to destroy any maintenance documentation over, perhaps as little as, one year old or that had susequently been repeated. This means that the gliders would, if administered as per the regulations at the time, have only some mod record cards, a few recently closed job cards and the F700...

The fact that companies were allowed to do this is purely an MOD issue. not a contractual issue. I am not sure if this rule has been revised....

[Arclite01]

Rigga

You are correct.

I was involved in a project with MoD many years ago to scan image all the docs for archive and sadly it was rejected on grounds of cost and 'why would we need to keep that anyway' (not glider related - other items)

Arc

[tucumseh]

Rigga/Arclite

Spot on. MoD is responsible for the audit trail, no-one else. But it doesn't hold it itself, it pays industry. Primarily, Design Authorities/Design Custodians; and, many years ago, what were called Agency Contracts. No contract, then industry is under no obligation. They'll just ask which car park you want your records/equipment dumped in. The most comprehensive record in MoD's hands was in the Directorate of Military Aircraft Projects Registry. This was closed in early 1993 as the finale to AMSO's rundown of airworthiness management. We were given no notice. Just wandered down one day to do some ex-Committee approvals before the next HQMC round, and the place was empty, with all files and staff gone.

[chevvron]

The RAF do indeed love aircraft paperwork. But one of their faults is that they don't actually like holding it as an archive or using the data it holds for some good reasons like developing/modifying systems and such like.
.

They also like 'over maintaining' their aircraft compared to a civilian equivalent.
When they bought 3 Navajos to replace the 4 Devons of Transport Flight at Farnborough, there were usually only 2 available every day with the third always in pieces in the hangar; if a civilian operator had been using them they would have kicked up a hell of a fuss only having 2 aircraft serviceable.

[cats_five]

Sorry Cats

There's no more supervision inside the BGA than there is in the Air Cadet Organisation in terms of maintenance.

I know - I'm a BGA Inspector.

and the G Reg thing is a red herring. The gliders are not moving to that system.

Thanks

Arc

So they are stuffed either way.

[Olympia 463]

I maintain that the whole idea of how flying should operate in the ATC needs a root and branch review. What exactly are you trying to do?

Is there no one on here who is willing to have a shot at answering that question?

Till you do all that is going on here is arguing about painting the the cycle sheds while the roof is coming off the factory.

[Cows getting bigger]

..... and now it would appear that many AEFs are on hold. Something to do with air traffic control.

[tucumseh]

Till you do all that is going on here is arguing about painting the the cycle sheds while the roof is coming off the factory.

You could say the same by just addressing the ATC. Almost any fleet could have been grounded for the same reasons. Gliders was the path of least pain, while hoping to give the impression of doing something. Most here could easily cite ten accident reports, plus the Nimrod Review, where 90%+ of the recommendations amount to 'implement mandated regulations'. Once is bad enough, but to repeat that time and again? Perhaps you could offer a suggestion, but mine is - implement mandated regulations. Preferably those pre-dating the MAA.

[Cat Funt]

Just out of interest, is he called Pippa because of his beautifully formed rear end? :)

A perfect ar$e, to be exact.

[Chugalug2]

Olympia 463:-

I maintain that the whole idea of how flying should operate in the ATC needs a root and branch review. What exactly are you trying to do?
Is there no one on here who is willing to have a shot at answering that question?

Olympia, as tuc has so clearly answered your question, presumably you are now satisfied? Or do you disagree? The whole point of this thread is that the "pause", ie grounding, had little to do with the ATC, even its exquisite rear ends, but everything to do with the predictable and predicted consequences of certain RAF VSOs' actions in the late80s/early90s, and the high level cover up ever since. Those consequences have already resulted in the loss of all RAF Maritime Air capability. The ATC gliders were a no brainer for grounding. The rest of the UK military airfleet though cannot be dealt with so easily. Until the cover up ends, until Regulation and Investigation is wrested from the operator (ie from the MOD and its subsidiary Services), we may expect more airworthiness related air accidents and more needless deaths.

[Sky Sports]

All AEF flying has, this weekend, been paused for the foreseeable future.

The Commandant Air Cadets has gone on her Facebook page to say, confusingly, she cannot discuss the reason on a public forum.........but, at the same time, doesn't have a clue what the reason is!?!? :ugh::ugh:

[Chugalug2]

Thank you Sky Sports. Interesting that today the Red's case resumes in court. Do you think that the two could possibly be connected....?

[chevvron]

All AEF flying has, this weekend, been paused for the foreseeable future.

The Commandant Air Cadets has gone on her Facebook page to say, confusingly, she cannot discuss the reason on a public forum.........but, at the same time, doesn't have a clue what the reason is!?!? :ugh::ugh:
Wouldn't have happened if we'd been able to continue with Microlight AEF at Halton; the aircraft were all civil registered and maintained to well above the required minimum standard eg engines replaced every 300 hours and the one which was removed was stripped down for inspection before being used again.

[Wander00]

WTF are they up to this time. Zero to zero in a century. How embarrassing is this.

[unmanned_droid]

A bad situation getting increasingly worse...

As an aside, I have a cadet training book for the Vigilant 'borrowed' from 633 around 1998 if anyone wants a bit of nostalgia....

[POBJOY]

I think AEF is suffering the same fate as ATC Gliding; in that the rules have escalated to the point that actual flying gets more difficult to achieve just because they have increased the 'operational' limits to operate.
We all know how the Gliding got 'paused' and how difficult it is to 'un pause it' due regulations, plus lack of suitably trained and current staff.
The AEF operation has been made even more 'complicated' by insisting on a cockpit warning system, plus has to operate under an Air Traffic service.
Neither of these is a substitute for the real basic airmanship operation of LOOKING OUT. Once you try to substitute a basic VFR rule with anything requiring 'equipment', and an Air Traffic service you merely add yet another level of conformity that has its own level of serviceability and operational limitations.
The AEF issue no doubt was influenced by the fatal accident some time back.
However this rather overlooked the fact that there was a human failing element that predominated over a system failure and rather like the Shoreham Airshow situation it is difficult to impose yet more rules that do not really rectify something that should be covered in NORMAL airmanship.
If you fly VFR YOU LOOK OUT and if you fail to do this then you are negligent. Relying on radio and 'warnings' is no substitute ever.

[cats_five]

The AEF operation has been made even more 'complicated' by insisting on a cockpit warning system

If this is FLARM any complications will be created by the AEF operation. These days there are hundreds of gliders with working FLARM many of which are flown by technical numpties who never the less manage to install a working FLARM which doesn't affect any of the other bits of gadgetry.

Requiring it and the ATS might have something to do with these:

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/6-2010-g-byut-and-g-byvn-11-february-2009
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/5-2010-g-byxr-and-g-ckht-14-june-2009

[Sky Sports]

The AEF operation has been made even more 'complicated' by insisting on a cockpit warning system

It can't be this, or anything else which has been known about / mulled over for sometime, because the grounding happened very quickly on Friday. It was 'announced' to all and sundry late in the afternoon by the fastest possible means.......Facebook!!! Meaning, there were cadets who went to bed all excited about flying the next day, only to be disappointed in the morning.

If it was the need for a cockpit warning system, you would think there would have been a release to staff first, followed by a grounding in the coming weeks. Then again.............you can't beat knee-jerk to disappoint kids!

[VX275]

Is it the AEF that has been paused or the Tutor grounded? As I'd swear I saw a Tutor take off today.

[tmmorris]

It’s mostly only weekend ops that are paused.

[Cat Funt]

All AEF flying has, this weekend, been paused for the foreseeable future.

The Commandant Air Cadets has gone on her Facebook page to say, confusingly, she cannot discuss the reason on a public forum.........but, at the same time, doesn't have a clue what the reason is!?!? :ugh::ugh:

To be fair, it soon becomes clear to anyone who talks to her that what she doesn’t know about aviation can just about be fitted into the Grand Canyon. Probably couldn’t give a cogent explanation if she wanted to.

[taildragger123]

A quick glance at flight Radar 24 in the last few minutes reveals G-BYUM and G-CGKK and G-BYXM all Grob 115E's registered to Babcocks being flown in the Wittering area. So not much wrong with the aircraft it would seem.
Funding Perhaps ???

[chevvron]

A quick glance at flight Radar 24 in the last few minutes reveals G-BYUM and G-CGKK and BYXM all Grob 115E's registered being flown in the Wittering area. So not much wrong with the aircraft it would seem.
Funding Perhaps ???
Yeah well the radar controllers only work mon - fri don't they (unless I've got out of date info) it's just weekends with no radar so they can't fly.
I think I read somewhere that radar services are 'contracted out' and the twit who assigned the contract didn't think they'd be needed at weekends 'cos it cost too much.

[3wheels]

If you fly VFR YOU LOOK OUT and if you fail to do this then you are negligent. Relying on radio and 'warnings' is no substitute ever.

It has been proven numerous times that see and be seen has its limitations. It’s not as failsafe as you might think.

[pr00ne]

chevvron,

I think that you'll find that it's the other way round. Radar is performed by the RAF and the Tower is contracted out Babcock staff.

A lot of Tutors are nothing to do with the AEF's. University Air Squadrons, CFS, RAF Elementary, that is a lot of Tutors.

[Bigpants]

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/548919-tutor-9-ship.html

Some are free to practice 9 ships. Would prefer they flew students and cadets but no doubt some career hungry officer wanted to show off to the Magisterium in London.

Bitter? Mines a pint please!

[POBJOY]

Everything has 'limitations' but keeping a very good look out is a very good way of avoiding Air Traffic and 'systems' limitations, and is the only way when they both get overloaded.

[chevvron]

chevvron,

I think that you'll find that it's the other way round. Radar is performed by the RAF and the Tower is contracted out Babcock staff.

A lot of Tutors are nothing to do with the AEF's. University Air Squadrons, CFS, RAF Elementary, that is a lot of Tutors.

You're probably right. I know it was some sort of cock up with the contracts though. Incidentally I think you'll find 'Babcock staff' = retired RAF personnel.
As for Tutors, I thought they were 'pooled' nowadays with AEFs and UASs being co-located thus each unit drawing from the same pool of aircraft.
Doesn't the EFTS still use Slingsby T67s or am I out of date with that too?

[Cows getting bigger]

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/548919-tutor-9-ship.html

Some are free to practice 9 ships. Would prefer they flew students and cadets but no doubt some career hungry officer wanted to show off to the Magisterium in London.

Bitter? Mines a pint please!

I guess those are the aircraft with long range tanks as that particular 9-ship took-off a little over three years ago. :)

[pr00ne]

Chevvron,

Actually, from the pr article I saw (I forget where) the Tower air traffikers all looked too young to be retired from anywhere. Most of them, certainly the female boss, transferred with the contract when the units moved to Wittering from Wyton.
I expect that all Tutor maintenance is centralised, which under current curcumstances will give more availability to instructor and elementary flying.
No Slingsby T67’s left anywhere in the RAF, they all went Tutor years ago. In fact the RAF Elementary squadrons are about to convert to the Prefect T1.

[Wander00]

So, waffling apart, do we know why AEF flying has stopped, however temporarily

[teeteringhead]

what she doesn’t know about aviation can just about be fitted into the Grand Canyon Not a lot of aviators amongst the hierarchy now either I gather.

Is it so that no Region Commanders have wings these days?? o tempora o mores .....

[unmanned_droid]

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/548919-tutor-9-ship.html

Some are free to practice 9 ships. Would prefer they flew students and cadets but no doubt some career hungry officer wanted to show off to the Magisterium in London.

Bitter? Mines a pint please!

I know the poster said it was taking them a while to cross, but they can't still be at it four years later, shirley?! ;)

Dammit, Ninja'd by cows...

[unmanned_droid]

So, waffling apart, do we know why AEF flying has stopped, however temporarily

If no one's saying anything my vote is on someone screwing up paperwork/legals/contracts.

[Why oh why]

Before Southern Sailplanes commenced the overhaul, the assets' open market value was nil.

Those through the overhaul programme might be worth £30-40K each, having spent, reputedly, £100K per airframe.

Those left, are virtually worthless.

You'd have thought with the numbers at CGS/2FTS involved with engineering oversight (2 x Wing Commanders, Tech Sevices, Contract Management and Quality Audit) and that's in addition to the Serco/Oxford people, that between them they could've managed the paperwork a little better.
Imagine if this was any other aircraft maintenace operation, GA or airline, they'd have all been sacked - how many are still in post?

All i can say is i'm glad you're not my financial adviser.
All the non recovered airframes would of had some capital value no matter how many flooded the market at one time, there are plenty of eastern European gliding clubs would snap them up following the Blanik demise and shortage of affordable 2 seaters.
Say a mean price of G103 Acro is 24k for a well used one, flood the market with a disposal of assets and you'd get 16-17k all day long for each one..remember they've all got 9000+ hrs left in the world away from the VGS, thats 75% of usable life left
Spend the reputed 100-120k plus on each Membury recovered airframe and you'd only get 5-6k extra return on the gliders.

[squawking 7700]

WOW, yes, you could probably sell them for those figures to that particular market but would any club in the UK or elsewhere in the world buy one knowing their history? - or lack of history as records have been disposed of - too much time and money to be invested (not £100K admittedly but still too much for the average club).

But, until they're actually sold off neither you or I won't know what the interest will be or what price they'll achieve because let's face it, the G103 isn't the most inspiring basic 2 seater to fly, central and eastern Europe prefer the Puchacz.

If you're thinking commercially of how much the taxpayer will get back in to the public purse in selling off the surplus, those to be sold off won't even cover the Gp. Capt.'s salary for the duration of the 'pause' or other expenses accrued by all concerned in pursuing an outcome.

As for financial advice, I've always provided my own thanks and it's served me pretty well - mortgage free by 40, retired at 50, (OK, I run a small business as a hobby, part of which is supplying essential equipment.........to keep the RAF flying), sh!tload of cash in the bank, let's say enough to put a cheeky bid in for the whole fleet of G103's if they became available.

[chevvron]

.

As for financial advice, I've always provided my own thanks and it's served me pretty well - mortgage free by 40, retired at 50, (OK, I run a small business as a hobby, part of which is supplying essential equipment.........to keep the RAF flying), sh!tload of cash in the bank, let's say enough to put a cheeky bid in for the whole fleet of G103's if they became available.
North Denes airfield just north of Great Yarmouth is for sale if you need somewhere to put your spare money. Right next to the racecourse so a potential source of income there and there must be a market for a flying school or sightseeing trips in the area.

[squawking 7700]

Chevvron - you know what they say - how do you end up a millionaire in aviation.......start with ten million.

I know North Denes, and I've thought of asking when it was operational whether I could take an aircraft in but as I recall there wasn't a chance.
As to opening it up again for fixed wing (it's about 500m of grass) I don't think you'd get agreement from the council especially as the 27 threshold is not far from a busy main road (and a few houses).

I'll have a look next time I'm in Great Yarmouth.....but not with a view to buying it.

[taildragger123]

Yeah well the radar controllers only work mon - fri don't they (unless I've got out of date info) it's just weekends with no radar so they can't fly.
I think I read somewhere that radar services are 'contracted out' and the twit who assigned the contract didn't think they'd be needed at weekends 'cos it cost too much.

Hi Chevron I am sure you are right, training units provided with radar services by contract do not usually produce radar services at weekends. However I am not convinced that UAS/AEF flying is mandated to be under any sort of radar service, though following the Tutor/Tutor and Tutor/Cirrus glider mid air collisions of Feb and June 2009 one of the recommendations was that a traffic service when available should be used. I am based in the Cranwell/Waddington area and is not unusual to see Grob 115's flying from Cranwell when Waddington and it's LARS are nomam'd as closed and Cranwell Radar not manned. Twas spookily quiet last weekend.

[Olympia 463]

Am I missing something? What kind of radar surveillance is needed for a bunch of up round and down operations? Which ATC gliders wandered far enough away from mummy to be of any interest to anyone else? My airmaps clearly show gliding sites (a big double cross) and 'areas of intense gliding activity'. Why would anyone in the GA or RAF wander into these zones except in an emergency. Is there going to be any AEF activity at gliding sites now that all the aircraft are U/S?

Only twice in my career in gliding did we have any intrusions - at Meir a helicopter pilot who was lost and making a precautionary landing in fog - and the day at North Weald when a heavy mistook our field for Stansted (I think our runway might have been longer than theirs) and was down to 400 ft before he realised his mistake. What good was radar doing that day?

[Bigpants]

Sorry, missed the posting date. Pint of Mild and a slice of humble pie please!

[pulse1]

I thought it was the AEF for which ATC (radar?) was deemed necessary. If so, I cannot say that I am surprised. When Old Sarum was an RAF Station with a large grass airfield with no marked out runways, we used to operate ATC gliding and light aircraft together quite happily. In fact, several of us did our PPL training when ATC gliding was taking place with no problems and no air traffic control.

Then, during an Easter course, in moves the AEF with their Chipmunks and and their own air traffic controller. Gliding had to stop whenever there was a Chipmunk movement within 5 miles. The gliding instructors and cadets were getting very frustrated as the launch rate was so poor that any serious training that week was looking impossible. The poor controller tried to be flexible and let one Chipmunk take off with a T31 well established on the winch launch. If the AEF pilot had done what most of us were trained to do, keeping straight until 400', I am sure that there would have been no problem. However, for some reason, the Chipmunk pilot carried out a hard left turn much lower than this and flew straight into the launch cable. Fortunately, the cadet in the back seat was completely unhurt. The glider was unaffected.

Depending on the airfield, all it needs is some local rules to which all parties sign.

[EnigmAviation]

It's possibly to do with the former VR(T) Officers that fly them now being renewed as Queens' Commission for Air Cadets - the new "plastic" commission. The problem is that G Reg aircraft flow by VR(T)'s who maybe did not hold a CAA Licence but were covered by a waiver allowing RAF Officers to fly them within RAF Rules/Pilot ratings etc.,. But new Commission is not regarded as an RAF Officer commission thus illegal for RAFAC Commission to fly the G Reg Babcock Tutors . There may be another reason, but this one the Commandant DOES know about as they've had a lot of issues created by this stupid plastic imitation commission including lots of resignations !Even she says, they wouldn't have started it if they had realised the problems it created . So who knows, maybe another own goal ???But she has got a CBE for her role in cocking up the flying side of AIR Cadets,- perhaps think of a new name for them instead so as to satisfy the Advertising Standards legal description etc ??

[ExAscoteer]

AEF pilots retain their VR(T) Commisions and did not transfer onto the new Cadet Forces Commission for the very reasons of accountability under the Armed Forces Act 2006.

[Cows getting bigger]

Let's go back a few years when the RAF managed to kill some children in mid-air collisions. Any sensible person would look to manage that risk, regardless of whether little Jonny's mum signed a bit of paper that morning. Of course many of us are speculating about the latest grounding but it's not entirely unreasonable for someone to play the red card if they aren't convinced about the risk they are being asked to sign-off.

Regardless, this is an RAF issue and not their customer, HQ Air Cadets.

[Why oh why]

Quote......WOW, yes, you could probably sell them for those figures to that particular market but would any club in the UK or elsewhere in the world buy one knowing their history? - or lack of history as records have been disposed of - too much time and money to be invested (not £100K admittedly but still too much for the average club).

I can look at the F700 for any Viking I've flown and know to the minute the hours flown and the exact number of launches.

Quote.....But, until they're actually sold off neither you or I won't know what the interest will be or what price they'll achieve because let's face it, the G103 isn't the most inspiring basic 2 seater to fly, central and eastern Europe prefer the Puchacz

The only reason there's lots of Puchacz flying is cost constraints. Give them the option of a Acro over a Puchacz and it would be Acro every time

[squawking 7700]

WOW - I'm not disputing that total hours/launches may be known but the fact remains, and it is a fact acknowledged by 2FTS/MoD, that these aircraft have an incomplete maintenance history.
There are currently two threads running on PPRUNE concerning RAF aircraft where maintenance practices, diversifying from the manufacturers procedures, have resulted in significant instances - one a 3+ year 'pause' in air cadet gliding, the other an ejection seat malfunction.

And with that, up to the point that they're inspected, repaired where required due to undocumented, unapproved repairs and modifications, their value remains questionable.

Regarding G103 (in all its incarnations) v Puchacz - in the context of Air Cadet training, the Puchacz is unsuitable, it's not as robust as the Grob, it doesn't have the winch speed latitude and it has its stall/spin characteristic.
But, in my opinion, the Puchacz handles far better, is much nicer to fly, has better airbrakes and is a much better stall/spin trainer, the G103 feels leaden by comparison, especially trying to aerobat it.

K21 would have been the best choice for Air Cadet gliding but as has already been said, it was never going to be.

[taildragger123]

[QUOTE=Olympia 463;10030370]Am I missing something? What kind of radar surveillance is needed for a bunch of up round and down operations? Which ATC gliders wandered far enough away from mummy to be of any interest to anyone else? ....... Yep looks like you did, the thread has moved on to speculation regarding the sudden stopping of AEF flying in Grob 115 Tutors announced late last Friday 19 Jan 2018 They do not require a radar service either though the receipt of one is recommended. I have occasionally encountered and joined ATC gliders in thermal and wave many tens of miles from the nearest ATC launch site. Mummy was nowhere to be seen.

[chevvron]

Chevvron - you know what they say - how do you end up a millionaire in aviation.......start with ten million.

I know North Denes, and I've thought of asking when it was operational whether I could take an aircraft in but as I recall there wasn't a chance.
As to opening it up again for fixed wing (it's about 500m of grass) I don't think you'd get agreement from the council especially as the 27 threshold is not far from a busy main road (and a few houses).

I'll have a look next time I'm in Great Yarmouth.....but not with a view to buying it.

Back in 1969 I spent a couple of days in the area and North Denes was very busy with fixed wing traffic. I was at the stock car stadium and the 'short' north-south runway running right alongside it was in use with C150s.
I think the reason it's been rotary only for the last coupe of resurrections is because the airfield was operated unlicensed by the helicopter operators but with licensed ATC and still had iaps for the helicopters.
I know of a chap with a PC12 who asked about 8 years ago if he could go in there in spite of the short main runway; naturally he was refused.
You could still operate aero tows, SLMG/TMG and microlights there even with the short main runway though.
Wikipedia gives the runway lengths as 09/27 480m and 18/36 360m. For comparison, Netherthorpe is licensed 06/24 553m and 18/36 382m so not a lot of difference.

[squawking 7700]

chevvron,
I'm fairly familiar with Netherthorpe and at least North Denes is flat (Netherthorpe's 'arrestor' system, aka the hedge, has been put to good use several times).

I guess anyone on here would hope that North Denes will remain an airfield but that'll be for the new owner and the council to decide.
I think it's up for about £2M so it would take a shrewd investor to make it pay, some good facilities there though for aviation or other businesses (but then there's lots of unoccupied (and new) industrial space on Great Yarmouth's industrial estates).

Would there be enough custom for a flying school?

Back to Air Cadet gliding and at the current rate of recovery it'll be at least another two years before all 60 Vikings are available, there's time for a couple of defence reviews along the way.

[cats_five]

<snip>
I can look at the F700 for any Viking I've flown and know to the minute the hours flown and the exact number of launches.
<snip>


But without the rest of the paperwork being correct & up-to-date the number of hours & launches is pretty useless. And given the problems with the rest of the paperwork, I find myself wondering how reliable the F700 is?

[squawking 7700]

cats - Indeed, these aircraft's recent maintenance programme and history has been akin to that of a back street garage.......but without the history, because that's acknowledged (by 2FTS) as destroyed - who let the contractor destroy essential paperwork? going back to market value, without that provenance the asset value is markedly reduced.

[tucumseh]

Good stuff about aircraft paperwork, but we must always remember that to be able to conduct and verify maintenance and servicing the aircraft must first be declared airworthy, as that is what facilitates serviceability.

It was not a case of simply sending the gliders to whatever repair shop. First, the airworthiness baseline had to be stabilised. To MoD/MAA, that is a major task, especially when there is no Safety Case and at the same time trying to hide the fact the failings apply pan-MoD - a political consideration post-Haddon-Cave. That would have slowed process. I cannot speak for the quality or performance at the various contractors, but their task is relatively insignificant.

[Why oh why]

cats - Indeed, these aircraft's recent maintenance programme and history has been akin to that of a back street garage.......but without the history, because that's acknowledged (by 2FTS) as destroyed - who let the contractor destroy essential paperwork? going back to market value, without that provenance the asset value is markedly reduced.

I seem to recall that i addressed that fact in my post and the market value was adjusted to compensate for that.
My wife is Slovakian and rest assured the paperwork as it is would not prevent a Viking/Acro being registered (after appropriate sensible inspection) there, indeed a ASW20 that hadnt been flown for a good decade has been imported, examined and is now flying with virtually no paperwork history. That would be echoed in any eastern European state.

Quote. Regarding G103 (in all its incarnations) v Puchacz - in the context of Air Cadet training, the Puchacz is unsuitable, it's not as robust as the Grob, it doesn't have the winch speed latitude and it has its stall/spin characteristic.

At no point did i mention the use of the Puchacz in Air Cadet training, i said that virtually every eastern European club given the choice of a Puchacz or a Acro, would have the Acro

[Wander00]

Given the time of year, I am surprised no one has set this saga to music and put it on the stage as a pantomime, but I guess tickets would not sell, just too unbelievable even for a pantomime

[VX275]

Am I missing something? What kind of radar surveillance is needed for a bunch of up round and down operations? Which ATC gliders wandered far enough away from mummy to be of any interest to anyone else? My airmaps clearly show gliding sites (a big double cross) and 'areas of intense gliding activity'. Why would anyone in the GA or RAF wander into these zones except in an emergency.


You are forgetting the Vigilant fleet. Being motor gliders they did travel outside of gliding range of their own bases to land to operate at others. (I can supply photos of Abingdon based Vigilant ops at Cranwell, Wattisham, Valley and Coningsby if needed)
Also the VGS at Abingdon was under no illusion that the NOTAM declaring the airfield to be an 'area of intense gliding activity' would prevent other aircraft from wandering across (and on to) the airfield. Abingdon is located in the 'Benson, Brize gap' and close to the VFR navigational anchor that is Didcot power station which just helped to funnel GA aircraft through the gap, as well as being a regular turning point for gliding comps.
The towers at Kidlington, Brize and Benson were on the Duty Instructor's speed dial to help in finding out just who was controlling (if at all) or identifying the aircraft that had just flown through the Abingdon circuit. More than once the tower at Kidlington was contacted and asked if they could speak to (and question his ability as a pilot) the pilot of the expensive piece of GA hardware that had just approached, or landed and rolled at Abingdon before continuing north to Kidlington. The best of these incidents being a certain F1 racing driver piloting his executive jet, who landed, backtracked and asked the driver of the VGS Landrover where he was before taking off again for the short hop to Kidlington leaving a cadet asking if that was the reason he was a racing driver "because its difficult to get lost on a circuit."

[chevvron]

Not forgetting the Be36 who landed gear up at Abingdon in about 2004. He'd had total electrical failure, was uncertain of position and phoned us (Farnborough) on his mobile.
Told me he was over an airfield with 2 runways; I asked 'do they cross roughly at right angles or at about 30 deg'. He said right angles so I phoned Benson to ask if they could see an aircraft over Abingdon; they said yes. Course this wasn't positive ident but I told the pilot where I suspected he was and he elected to land (cloudbase was already below 1,000ft).
Phoned me back about 10 min later and said he was down but hadn't been able to lower his gear as it was electrically operated. I gave him the phone number of the guardroom from our Helicopter Landing Site directory so he could try to sort things out.
Course the Army guys there hadn't noticed a thing!
Never heard what happened after that, apart from getting a phone call from a rather puzzled AAIB man who said there was an emergency lowering system fitted to the Be36 in case of electrical failure!

[cats_five]

cats - Indeed, these aircraft's recent maintenance programme and history has been akin to that of a back street garage.......but without the history, because that's acknowledged (by 2FTS) as destroyed - who let the contractor destroy essential paperwork? going back to market value, without that provenance the asset value is markedly reduced.

For each glider that Southern Sailplanes release to flight I personally would be happy with the paperwork & glider at the moment it was loaded into the trailer. At present I have no confidence that it will stay in that state as in one that accurately reflects the maintenance history of the glider post-Southern Sailplanes.

As an aside, pre-EASA the BGA used to keep all the glider paperwork we sent in each year. When they wanted a clear-out it was offered free to the current owners, with the result I have a bulging file of 25+ years of paperwork for my glider and AFAIK most other owners do as well.

[Rigga]

Slating the maintenance companies is both stupid and ignorant.
The core issue is the poor RAF/MOD contracts which approve (and possibly instruct) those maintenance companies to destroy vital historic documentation within that contracts regulatory bounds. UK fighter aircraft are operated in a similar way but, in my experience, those contractors are smarter than the MOD/RAF idiots 'in charge' who would still want the document destroyed. Those contractors know that to throw away ANY documentation is to discard evidence should the MOD turn on them...as they regularly do.
Aircraft engineers and technicians are not stupid and not idiots. Their integrity keep you flying. They can read contracts and always abide by the regulations required (MAA/EASA, etc.) - its their livelihood. And they mostly make profits because they can write contracts too.

[chevvron]

Slating the maintenance companies is both stupid and ignorant.
The core issue is the poor RAF/MOD contracts which approve (and possibly instruct) those maintenance companies to destroy vital historic documentation within that contracts regulatory bounds. UK fighter aircraft are operated in a similar way but, in my experience, those contractors are smarter than the MOD/RAF idiots 'in charge' who would still want the document destroyed. Those contractors know that to throw away ANY documentation is to discard evidence should the MOD turn on them...as they regularly do.
Aircraft engineers and technicians are not stupid and not idiots. Their integrity keep you flying. They can read contracts and always abide by the regulations required (MAA/EASA, etc.) - its their livelihood. And they mostly make profits because they can write contracts too.

Wasn't there a 'problem' with a few Tornados about 15 years ago? Contractor (I believe but may be wrong) was Airwork.

[gijoe]

Not forgetting the Be36 who landed gear up at Abingdon in about 2004. He'd had total electrical failure, was uncertain of position and phoned us (Farnborough) on his mobile.
Told me he was over an airfield with 2 runways; I asked 'do they cross roughly at right angles or at about 30 deg'. He said right angles so I phoned Benson to ask if they could see an aircraft over Abingdon; they said yes. Course this wasn't positive ident but I told the pilot where I suspected he was and he elected to land (cloudbase was already below 1,000ft).
Phoned me back about 10 min later and said he was down but hadn't been able to lower his gear as it was electrically operated. I gave him the phone number of the guardroom from our Helicopter Landing Site directory so he could try to sort things out.
Course the Army guys there hadn't noticed a thing!
Never heard what happened after that, apart from getting a phone call from a rather puzzled AAIB man who said there was an emergency lowering system fitted to the Be36 in case of electrical failure!

Of course the Army guys didn’t notice...probably because they were too busy supporting ops or training for, instead of being a ginger-middle child telling everyone who can be arrse’d to listen, or who isn’t bored, or hasn’t worked it about all Crabs, how great they are!

Or just maybe the driver was an idiot....like the 2 that joined the circuit at 800ft at Old Sarum with no radio calls when I had just let 10 blokes with self-deployed silk from 12k out of the door, before racing them down at 140kts.

Morons.

[tucumseh]

Chevvron

You are indeed correct, but might have been more than 15 years. I wasn't involved but do recall a few questions being raised over MoD's Approved Contractor's scheme, and whether it had been implemented. There was a lot of 'appoint a prime who doesn't actually do anything, except sub the work to Joe Bloggs down the road' going on. I know that in 1994 I was the subject of a political overrule, with a major programme (£hundredsM) being handed to a company, who weren't approved, and who hadn't (been allowed to) bid. Westland and Boscombe ended up doing the difficult work. Just so happened Minister for Defence Procurement had a 'Joe Bloggs' in his constituency, but I'm sure this wasn't a factor.

[A and C]

Can anyone tell my why the Be36 driver did not use the hand crank to lower the landing gear, it is fitted for use in the event of electrical failure.

[Freda Checks]

Too many thread drifts. They detract from the importance of this topic. Pay attention chaps, keep up with the subject in hand, the lack of air cadet gliding!

[snapper1]

Might this help?

Glider Pilot Network > Classified Adverts (http://adverts.gliderpilot.net/?op=s3&id=14463)

[BossEyed]

Might this help?

Glider Pilot Network > Classified Adverts (http://adverts.gliderpilot.net/?op=s3&id=14463)

Not really, as it requires a login.

[chevvron]

Can anyone tell my why the Be36 driver did not use the hand crank to lower the landing gear, it is fitted for use in the event of electrical failure.

As I said on the last line, the AAIB man was puzzled about that too. Having no experience of this type I don't know.

[cats_five]

Not really, as it requires a login.

Here you go

After many years of faithful service I have decided to sell my T31 “XE802” “BGA 5283” and she needs a new home.
This is rare flying example of this type of glider in full RAF ATC colours and still carries the original RAF registration.
XE802 has been carefully dry stored in a trailer in a barn and brought out for many VGC rallies and has given a lot of pleasure to those who have flown it.
XE802 is a star of TV / Film and Newspaper articles so is well known both here in the UK and in Europe.
I’m reluctantly selling because I have too many other projects and no longer have the time to fly her.

The glider was reweighed in 2015 by Dave (The Glider Doctor) Bullock and has the Rear hook modification also by Dave Bullock (Nov 2014 - this is the original Slingsby winch hook location so she goes up the line very nicely).
The glider has the original intercom fitted, the head sets are a little tatty.
XE802 will come with a 12 month C of A and all the paper work.

Hrs:1,026
Launches:- 30,032

Unfortunately the trailer is not for sale but I can deliver with prior arrangement
XE802 can be viewed at Dartmoor or Lasham with prior arrangement.
Loads of pics on Google search just type in “XE802” and click ”images”

Asking price £1,550 ono

[BEagle]

An average of 2.05 minutes per launch?

Is that typical? I know that the Tandem Tutor didn't have a sparkling performance, but even so.....:hmm:

[chevvron]

An average of 2.05 minutes per launch?

Is that typical? I know that the Tandem Tutor didn't have a sparkling performance, but even so.....:hmm:

Depending on cable run ie wind direction at Halton, it was not unknown to only get about 800ft off the launch, just about enough height for 2 min, but I think most Mk 3 circuits I logged (about 200) were 3 min.

[Fitter2]

When I did my A&B in 1959, the 18 pre-solo launches included 3 simulated cable breaks at various heights, logged at 1 minute each. That tends to push the average down.

The 3 solos added up to 14 minutes, a solo launch gets rather more launch height.

(Average solo flight time in 2017 was 4 hrs 15 or thereabouts, but all in somewhat better performance machines).

[Pegasus107]

Too many thread drifts. They detract from the importance of this topic. Pay attention chaps, keep up with the subject in hand, the lack of air cadet gliding!

Why not just say "the lack of air cadet flying, full stop"; still no answer to no Tutor flying over weekends!!!!

[Freda Checks]

Why not just say "the lack of air cadet flying, full stop"; still no answer to no Tutor flying over weekends!!!!

Meanwhile OC2FTS has opened a Facebook page informing the Kenley dog walkers and runners what his plans are for fencing the airfield in order to protect them from the non flying Air Cadet gliders!

[Wander00]

Is Facebook a legally recognise conduit for safety critical information? Just asking

[chevvron]

When I did my A&B in 1959, the 18 pre-solo launches included 3 simulated cable breaks at various heights, logged at 1 minute each. That tends to push the average down.

The 3 solos added up to 14 minutes, a solo launch gets rather more launch height.

(Average solo flight time in 2017 was 4 hrs 15 or thereabouts, but all in somewhat better performance machines).

Back in '64, I logged just over an hour total time before solo which was about average for a weekend course; if you did a one week continuous course it would be slightly less as you were flying (weather permitting) every day rather than having gaps of a week.

[chevvron]

Meanwhile OC2FTS has opened a Facebook page informing the Kenley dog walkers and runners what his plans are for fencing the airfield in order to protect them from the non flying Air Cadet gliders!

I thought Kenley was classed as 'common' land so you weren't allowed to fence it. POBJOY where are you?
In any case the Surrey GC still operate there 7 days a week.

[Frelon]

RAFKenley says, Although it is referred to as Kenley Common it isn't actually common land. There is the outer perimeter taxiway and land within, which is the active airfield and owned by the MOD. The area outside of this is owned by City of London; however, the public are permitted to walk on this area as public open space.

Surrey Hills GC only operate Monday - Friday, originally so as not to conflict with 615 operations. However when the "pause" started I understand that they had the options of flying at weekends, but not enough members wanted to fly at weekends!

The local dog walkers then considered the airfield "theirs" at weekends and let their dogs roam freely on the active airfield. The gliding club provided doggy poo bags but the dog walkers thought that as it was public land they were not deemed necessary!

Things will have to change when the fence goes up, but obviously there will be the minority snowflakes who will object.

Let's get Kenley active again with Air Cadet flying. Well done Surrey Hills for keeping a flying presence there.

[DC10RealMan]

I suspect that OC 2FTS is raising his public profile on Facebook in the hope of a knighthood for his services to the Air Training Corps and an extension of his contract until the age of 100.

[chevvron]

Let's get Kenley active again with Air Cadet flying. Well done Surrey Hills for keeping a flying presence there.
If all else fails, back to my microlights again although they have developed vastly in performance since the '90s when I flew them at Halton, partly helped by Rotax developing more powerful 4 -stroke engines.

[beardy]

There is no planned stoppage of fleet wide weekend flying for AEF Tutors.

The use of so many exclamation marks won't change that.

[POBJOY]

Hi Chev
Kenley Airfield was built on land that was a City of London Common.
This is one a series of 'commons' that were intended to provide an open space for those that lived and worked in built up area's.
Kenley came into use for the 'realm' as an Aircraft acceptance park during the great war and the RAF Kept it on afterwards with a lease.

During the pre WW2
'expansion' the airfield was extended towards the west and the original Hayes Lane rerouted.(runways e-pens and peri-trac built).It was understood that Kenley could stay in RAF use for as long as required and even when fixed wing power flying ceased (about 1959) the camp and airfield continued albeit with the ATC (615GS) being the only flying unit.
Fast fwd to recent times when the City of London decided to remove the original boundary fence and encourage 'walkers' around the boundary which became halfway across the peri-trac. Various useless and expensive fencing options were mooted but all proved unworkable. Surrey Hills maintained a presence midweek; however the 'great pause' removed the 'busy' w-end element and therefore the public no doubt considered it fair game to 'roam'.
Kenley is now under the auspices of 2FTS so it is up to them to restore some sort of order by dealing with the City of London to achieve a sensible situation that allows access but stops 'wandering' across the operational area. Suggest Staff Cadet 'snipers' could be a new option. The other disgrace is that Kenley 'was' the most complete Battle of Britain airfield in original condition, and should have been preserved. The City of London destroyed many historical aspects and then 'listed' the ruins !!!!. From a ATC winch launch gliding aspect the airfield dimensions limited an average Mk3 launch to about 800 feet (3 mins) and cable breaks could be 'challenging'; however flying from such a famous location within sight of the capital it protected and with Croydon and Biggin Hill as neighbours there is no finer place for a Cadet to start his aviation 'Venture Adventure'.

[tmmorris]

This website:

Explore georeferenced maps - Map images - National Library of Scotland (http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=15.013694231794897&lat=51.3077&lon=-0.0994&layers=6&b=1)

Allows you to fade between current satellite view and old maps which clearly show Kenley Common.

[taildragger123]

I thought Kenley was classed as 'common' land so you weren't allowed to fence it. POBJOY where are you?
In any case the Surrey GC still operate there 7 days a week.

I landed out on Kenley common in 1976 ie the wrong side of the fence which ran around the entire length of the peritrack at Kenley when flying as P2 during proficiency training with 615 in a T31
By 1977 I had joined the staff, during that years Easter course a first solo flown by a young cadet managed to over shoot and then ground loop through the fence, which was a simple construction of concrete posts every couple of meters with 3 strands of wire running betwixt posts, six inches from bottom and top of posts with one in the middle. This middle strand was set at neck height for anyone sat in a T21 or T31!! Luckily our out of control first soloist managed to put the nose between the only two posts where the wire was broken. substantial damage to struts and wings but the cadets who name eludes me was unscathed.

[Wander00]

Beardy - planned or not, are they flying or not?

[beardy]

Beardy - planned or not, are they flying or not?

At my AEF, yes.

[Wander00]

Well that is heartening. Hope lots of cadets get their intro to the wonderful world of aviation. Good luck

[POBJOY]

Nice one TM.
One wonders why they chose to build quite such a substantial unit on that site, rather than expand Croydon. Add some 16 hangars plus associated accommodation and it was quite an operation. Flintfield house and Grove survived to be used in WW2 but the location was never able to take further expansion into the 'jet age'. Quite a 'survivor' is our Kenley, and safe from the incapable hands of the RAF as they do not own it. 'Listing' did nothing to protect the classic Officers mess, however the landing area will be preserved so we have to be thankful for that. I wonder if there is a long term plan for the actual hard runways and will check to see if they are 'listed'. The location is an actual modern day battlefield, and as such considering the historic meaning of the 1940 Battle of Britain there should be more consideration to its future upkeep, and it worries me to think that the numpties at 2FTS have any part of it. If C5 sells me the Mk3 I will ensure it gets to Kenley for the RAF 100th year.

[chevvron]

The local dog walkers then considered the airfield "theirs" at weekends and let their dogs roam freely on the active airfield. The gliding club provided doggy poo bags but the dog walkers thought that as it was public land they were not deemed necessary!


There's a public right of way in the undershoot for runway 24 at Fairoaks which crosses airfield property so it's not fenced off. It's naturally a favourite with dog walkers 7 days a week but we rarely get problems from dogs running on the movement area and the owners rarely keep them on leads as they cross the runway undershoot.

[tmmorris]

POBJOY you can (I have) waste hours on that website. Maps from 1890s to 1960s overlaid onto a satellite - fascinating stuff.

[Pegasus107]

There is no planned stoppage of fleet wide weekend flying for AEF Tutors.

The use of so many exclamation marks won't change that.

That’s not what our aregion are telling us 😗 I accept that wheels are in motion to resolve, but two weekends of cancelled flying on top of no gliding

[Cows getting bigger]

8 AEF were flying this weekend.

[beardy]

If true then I think that the lack of weekend flying that some may be experiencing may be a local issue and not part of some convoluted conspiracy.

[EnigmAviation]

It's to do with crash and smash availability...........but as they're so skilled they won't need it anyway !

[Sky Sports]

If true then I think that the lack of weekend flying that some may be experiencing may be a local issue and not part of some convoluted conspiracy.

I've heard from my man on the inside that it is due to a lack of money, and that there won't be a resumption 'for the foreseeable future'.

[beardy]

I've heard from my man on the inside that it is due to a lack of money, and that there won't be a resumption 'for the foreseeable future'.
Where are you talking about? There is an airfield that requires maintenance that will be funded this year. To imply that AEF flying has run out of money is scurrilous nonsense. I really do think that this nonsense should be put to bed.

'I know a man who knows a man who was told by his boss's cleaner' come on, really? Go to the source and find out for yourself what is real, or do you prefer spreading nasty rumours?

[Sky Sports]

beardy

The Tutor fleet is a pooled asset, shared between Elementary Flight Training, (top priority), University Air Squadrons, (second priority) and the Air Cadets, (bottom of the pile).

When the hours on the aircraft are getting low, or the Tutor fleet pot of money is running out, who do you think is chopped first?

To imply that AEF flying has run out of money is scurrilous nonsense.
You say it is scurrilous nonsense because you know the real reason Air Cadet powered flying has stopped? Please tell us.

Go to the source and find out for yourself what is real
Like speaking to someone quite senior in the organisation?.........oh yeah, I've done that.

[beardy]

Air cadet powered flying has not stopped. I am still doing it, weekend as well.
And since you asked 8AEF.

Now which AEF is curtailing cadet flying, apart from Woodvale which has airfield problems?

[Pegasus107]

Now which AEF is curtailing cadet flying, apart from Woodvale which has airfield problems?

5 and 7 AEF as of last weekend

[pr00ne]

Sky Sports,


The Grob Prefect is replacing the Tutor as an elementary trainer, so by your reckoning they have just moved up one notch in terms of priority.

[beardy]

The airframes are a shared asset, but each role has a contracted number of hours and rate. I doubt that, over the contract period, the hours allocated to the AEF have not, nor will, change.

I can understand how what looks like a temporary, local problem appears worse than it is especially after watching the gliding debacle from afar. It must be frustrating on a daily basis. But from where I sit there is no change to AEF cadet flying policy nor hours.

[pr00ne]

RAF Woodvale airfield has been a contracted operation for years, what has changed?

[beardy]

I understand that essential maintenance is required to the operating surfaces.

[pr00ne]

OK, I see, thanks beardy.

[Rigga]

Is Facebook a legally recognise conduit for safety critical information? Just asking

That's quite a good question - and the answer is that it depends on your needs and whatever it is that you describe as legal.

In my opinion there is no legal requirements for any safety-related information page. Using a FB Page is as legal as any police notepad, closed website or service codebook. The use of a suitable forum may only need to be a procedural requirement (if written into procedures)

I was once part of an international group of companies that required me to join FB to discuss flight safety issues and processes for 400+ aircraft and 5000 personnel across 13 quite diverse states. I had never been on FB before, but became a user quite quickly as it helps keep in touch with distant extremes of our families. I still use it.

The XXX Flight Safety Forum worked well for a while but ceased when taken over by another company that did the same thing in another, more expensive, way. Possibly more secure, but certainly a lot more expensive!

A secure FB page is simple to set up, easy to secure and monitor, easy (for permitted people) to access from the widest variety of portable devices and easy to quickly share information and also to discuss issues with a fair amount of privacy.

[just another jocky]

Sky Sports,


The Grob Prefect is replacing the Tutor as an elementary trainer, so by your reckoning they have just moved up one notch in terms of priority.


Your statement assumes that EFT will cease to be taught on the Tutor. :=

[Sky Sports]

According to the chat over on the Air Cadet Central forum, the 'pause' has been lifted at all AEF's, bar 2.

[beardy]

According to the chat over on the Air Cadet Central forum, the 'pause' has been lifted at all AEF's, bar 2.

There was no 'pause' at all AEFs.

[taildragger123]

I wonder what the issue was, EMUAS and 7 AEF who were absent from the Cranwell skies the last two weekends, are planning to fly this weekend.

[Frelon]

I have just been over to Air Cadet Central :sad::sad:

The users of ACO gliding and flying (Air Cadets and Adult Volunteers) seem very unhappy with what has been going on in the Air Cadets since the "pause".

It appears to have started when OC 2FTS grounded the glider fleet without a plan, either short term or now, long term. The glider fleet has been destroyed, with some Volunteer Gliding Squadrons killed off. The adult volunteers are complaining about the mushroom treatment from on high and are voting with their feet! They get promises of AEF gliding and flying which appear not to come to fruition. Seems they have run out of excuses to give to the cadets' parents as to why in the two/four years that little Johnnie has been in the Air Cadets he has not had the opportunity to fly!

Many of us have spent the last few years plugging the gap caused by the total lack of flying and gliding and what's the recovery plan? Travel long distances and give up whole weekends for a couple of launches and some time on a PTT, well whoop de do! The attitude seems to be "well we can do more with less", the reality is that our cadets will get less with Squadron staff giving up more!

....and to cap it all they have removed the RAFVR(T) Commissions and replaced them with what the users are referring to as plastic commissions (rather like plastic policemen).....

Oh dear, oh dear. Nobody at the top (the very top) comes out of this smelling of roses. But after nearly four years of this (pause) debacle you can understand why!

[Freda Checks]

I wonder how many airframes Southern Sailpanes have recovered since they were awarded the contract (https://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/all-districts/17335/new-aircraft-hangars-vital-for-national-defence.html)?

“Such a contract is of utmost importance to national security and the training of RAF pilot recruits to defend this nation needs to be given priority over relatively minor AONB concerns.”I did not realise how important the recovery of our ACO gliders was to national security and for the training of RAF pilot recruits. How stupid of me!

[Shaft109]

When the moaning stops be afraid.....

That's when the walking starts.

[POBJOY]

It is 'rumoured' that SS have actually sorted around 20 airframes, but most of these have not 'filtered' back to a VGS (Gliding) unit.
I suspect that there is a shortage of both current and experienced staff to actually run several Viking operations other than at Syerston itself.
Many of the original staff will have 'aged out' and of course there has been little or no chance for serious training for any 'new influx'.
Much has been made of the use of the PTT, but of course no one is fooled to think that this is a serious replacement for actual flying.
Syerston seems to be growing into a mega centre with plenty of higher ranks and fancy titles, but the simple fact is THE PLOT HAS BEEN LOST,THE HORSE HAS BOLTED, and no one has a clue as to what to do to remedy this appalling situation. Without any credible leadership at the top and indeed any direction from anyone who has any idea of what they have thrown away the future must be slightly worrying for those left trying to hold the Cadet Squadrons together. The whole ATC 'Flying' theme is going to be a distant memory as the 'electronic' experience will become the future and replace the 'hands on' operation as we knew it.

[Olympia 463]

As I think I have said several times on here, the whole point of the ATC was to give some young men that tremendous lift to their personal confidence the day they flew alone in an aeroplane. There is NOTHING that can replace that. AEF is all very well, but hands on flying beats it every time.

I think it is high time that 'rumours' of whatever kind are replaced with honest statements about whether there is actually going to be any glider flying.

[zetec2]

Shouldn't this post now read: Air Cadets STILL Grounded ?.

[POBJOY]

24+ airframes out of SS to date. Although SS are the only 'approved' company doing the actual work they have to 'work' under the auspices of the 'larger' fish in the system which does not speed things up.
So the airframes are out there, but not much in evidence yet.
Lots of 'containers' appearing at 626.

[chevvron]

As I think I have said several times on here, the whole point of the ATC was to give some young men that tremendous lift to their personal confidence the day they flew alone in an aeroplane. There is NOTHING that can replace that. AEF is all very well, but hands on flying beats it every time.


Totally agree.(But don't forget the girls too)

[A and C]

As I think I have said several times on here, the whole point of the ATC was to give some young men that tremendous lift to their personal confidence the day they flew alone in an aeroplane. There is NOTHING that can replace that. AEF is all very well, but hands on flying beats it every time.

I think it is high time that 'rumours' of whatever kind are replaced with honest statements about whether there is actually going to be any glider flying.

Olympia it would seem to me that you are showing your age a bit with your “ young men “ comments, the ATC has been open to female cadets for as long as I can remember.

Take my advice and refer to the cadets as young people that way you can stay on the right side of the PC brigade and not offend males ,females and those who are not sure.

[DC10RealMan]

"Higher ranks with fancy titles"
Retired RAF officers with military pensions and who are friends of the group captain?
Its only taxpayers money after all.

[Olympia 463]

Sorry if I excluded the girls senior moment. I trained many girls to fly in civilian gliding clubs and was the 'go to' instructor for girls in one club.

[chevvron]

Olympia it would seem to me that you are showing your age a bit with your “ young men “ comments, the ATC has been open to female cadets for as long as I can remember.

Take my advice and refer to the cadets as young people that way you can stay on the right side of the PC brigade and not offend males ,females and those who are not sure.
I was authorised to recruit female cadets wef 1 Jan 85 (1811 Marlow Sqdn); other squadrons were a few years earlier. The criteria was the squadron HQ must have at least 2 toilets, one of which must be females only.
This meant those squadrons with 'new build' standard huts were the first to take on girls as they already had 2 toilets whereas my building being an old TA Centre had only the one toilet, so they converted a small storeroom next to it to a second toilet complete with an incinerator!

[Tingger]

It is 'rumoured' that SS have actually sorted around 20 airframes, but most of these have not 'filtered' back to a VGS (Gliding) unit.
I suspect that there is a shortage of both current and experienced staff to actually run several Viking operations other than at Syerston itself.
Many of the original staff will have 'aged out' and of course there has been little or no chance for serious training for any 'new influx'.
Much has been made of the use of the PTT, but of course no one is fooled to think that this is a serious replacement for actual flying.
Syerston seems to be growing into a mega centre with plenty of higher ranks and fancy titles, but the simple fact is THE PLOT HAS BEEN LOST,THE HORSE HAS BOLTED, and no one has a clue as to what to do to remedy this appalling situation. Without any credible leadership at the top and indeed any direction from anyone who has any idea of what they have thrown away the future must be slightly worrying for those left trying to hold the Cadet Squadrons together. The whole ATC 'Flying' theme is going to be a distant memory as the 'electronic' experience will become the future and replace the 'hands on' operation as we knew it.

Over half are out in the "field" with more bunching to go to the next stand up site and a handful in acceptance checks. They aren't all sat at syerston doing nothing.

As for aging out not all the VGS were in the crusty zone at the start of the pause and even at the end have an average age in the late 20's not mid 60's

[Arclite01]

Tinger

You seem to have your finger on the pulse. Which site(s) are stood up at the moment ?, which sites are next, how many aircraft and winches at each site, how many staff and can you give a picture of how things are going 'on the ground' ?

I'm genuinely interested.


Thanks

Arc

[Tingger]

Tinger

You seem to have your finger on the pulse. Which site(s) are stood up at the moment ?, which sites are next, how many aircraft and winches at each site, how many staff and can you give a picture of how things are going 'on the ground' ?

I'm genuinely interested.


Thanks

Arc

622 @ Upavon
637 @ Little Riss (621 embedded
644 @ Syerston
645 @ Topcliffe (631 embedded)

Are all cleared to fly cadets

632 are flying at Ternhill with CGS doing RTF, all of which is freely publicised on their Facebook pages. 3 ac assigned to the sites, varies with maintenance obviously.

No idea how many instructors at each site but enough to be operating autonomously

[Arclite01]

Tinnger (spelt correctly this time)

That is encouraging news.

Thanks for the update.

Regards

Arc

[ACW418]

Arclite

Try two G's and one N

ACW

[Arclite01]

Doh !!

I was trying to be nice - honest Guv !!

Arc

[EnigmAviation]

Only another 7858 hits and this thread reaches 1 million !

[treadigraph]

Well, I'll add to the total by saying it would be very nice to see 615 active again at Kenley before the swifts arrive this year. Please...

[Freda Checks]

615? Not before JM builds his fence to keep the dog walkers out!

[POBJOY]

Rather a conflict of interest's here as the City of London 'commons' own the land and want the public to have greater scope to explore this historic site.

No doubt even now someone will be 'reading' the lease to see who has the right to do what.
Because the public can now access the location from many different places the fencing would have to be 'comprehensive' and quite costly.
In fact they have already spent thousands on a previous fence which proved to be unsuitable.
In practice once ATC gliding starts again the public will get used to the situation and it should not be a reason to curtail activities.
The 'listed' blast bays are well away from the operational area and the old camp area under private ownership. Me thinks it is the responsibility of the City of London to 'secure' their area of interest without reducing the operational part of the airfield. Be interesting to see how 2FTS play this one as they are now the 'authority' for the MOD interest's at the location.
There are few safety case's for a fence as it could be said they are a hazard to aviation when close to an operational area, and the aviation interest should be paramount whilst the MOD keep the lease active.

[Arclite01]

They should fence it in accordance with the old AM blocks which are still to be found in the undergrowth in my view :-)

Seriously though, there does need to be some sort of barrier because sooner or later someone will be hurt either because of operations or because of their own stupidity.................. either way it will put the tin hat on operations at Kenley and will have wider ramifications.

So lets get the fence built - I expect JM is currently saying 'We will build a fence - and the City of London will pay for it.....................' (one for all you Trumpsters out there)

Arc

[POBJOY]

Kenley is already limited in size and any fencing should be more of a frangible statement of no go area's rather than a stock proof construction. This famous survivor of 100 years of RAF service deserves some special consideration so it remains 'in use' for Cadet flying.
Whilst still in use it has 'life' and what more fitting place to enthuse Cadets; it having served our country so well in two major conflicts.
I feel a watershed has arrived that should 'protect' its place for future generations of both young aviators and the 'walkers' that both can respect its place in our history.
If the City of London play it correctly it will only enhance the location for the future, as an unique time warp of modern history at a time when the whole of our country was in real peril. It was a typical 'British' solution to an immediate need, and was born into conflict despite it being a Surrey common.
Its main test came in 1940 and it played its part in keeping this country free at a time when all seemed lost. The Luftwaffe failed to kill it off in Aug 1940 so I dammed sure we will not let current 'crats' try it again. The 'fretwork fighters' kept an aviation presence for decades lets hope the 'Vikings' rise again to carry on the fight.

[brokenlink]

Pobjoy, I am with you on that, had a number of great days at Kenley accompanying cadet from 1924(Shirley) some years back.

[treadigraph]

The newly erected signs all the way around the peri track make it clear that public access inside the peri track is not permitted - I wonder if Surrey Hills GC have had any problems with wandering public.

[Freda Checks]

It seems that a minority of the locals do not like the "amateur plane enthusiasts" AKA Surrey Hills.

There needs to be balance in any proposal on the airfield. An unbalanced proposal serving the needs of a couple of amateur plane enthusiasts during the week is not serving the greater needs of the public. Happy to see the RAF taking a lead in this at the weekend - but an amateur club must take second place. This is taken from RAFKenley [OC2FTS] Facebook Page!

[treadigraph]

Hmmmm, given the huge areas of public open space around the area (Kenley Common, Coulsdon Common, Farthing Down and Riddlesdown - which are all close to being contiguous - plus several other areas of woodland) I think the greater needs of the public are more than adequately catered for! Mostly thanks to the City of London Corporation who own much of the public access land hereabouts.

I've walked around the peri-track a number of times on weekday afternoons and evenings when SHGC have been active and I don't believe I've ever seen more than two or three dozen dog walkers, cyclists, runners and walkers...

Bloody NIMBYs!

[Arclite01]

and not to mention that Surrey Hills have a lease and pay the MoD for the use of the site............

Arc

[Bigpants]

Lovely morning at RAF Cosford, cadets to fly, serviceable aircraft, pilots current and ready to go, weather good and temperature within limits but.....

No Air Traffic Controller so no cadet flying.

[cargosales]

This whole thing about public access, signs warning people not to walk across the airfield when glider operations are in progress and frangible fencing to ensure the idiots can't do that has been going on at KY for donkey's years.. at least since the mid 80s / early 90s when I was on 615.

It's a nonsense, simply because some people can't be bothered to read or who think they are fireproof and that their bodies are immune to a steel cable travelling at x00 mph..

ISTR that a note saying "Give a winch an inch and it'll take a foot" was pinned in the cab of one at a site somewhere.

Because that's exactly what happened and the surgeon who reattached this person's foot wanted to come and see 'what the hell it was that had taken off someone's foot more cleanly that my scalpel can'.

Potentially dangerous, yes. But not if people heed the warnings and stay away from them..

Hmmm, obviously this is advanced rocket science

[Arclite01]

Cargo

It's impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious I was once told........................ :-)

Arc

[chevvron]

Lovely morning at RAF Cosford, cadets to fly, serviceable aircraft, pilots current and ready to go, weather good and temperature within limits but.....

No Air Traffic Controller so no cadet flying.

Happened to me at Shawbury years ago. Pilot and cadet got in; aircraft started and just sat there. Phoned the tower; only AATCs no controller; but phoned SDO and hey presto he was a controller so he and I rushed over to the tower and opened up. The AEF 'boss' was on the point of sending me over to do it but as I tried to explain, I only had a civilian ATCO licence and no unit endorsement (I was an RAFVR[T] Officer y'see)

[cargosales]

Cargo

It's impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious I was once told........................ :-)

Arc

You're so right Arc,

I once had an idiot walking his kid across the active line of cables who objected to the vehicle that then came 'screaming towards them' (so we could remind him about the dangers and ensure their safety. And get them the hell off the field !!!!

His rationale? "Well my son's in his buggy so he's perfectly safe" :ugh:

Perhaps it's time for cigarette pack style piccies on the warning signs round the airfield boundary?? A leg removed? A Landie which has been sliced up by a cable? Blood and nasties? Oh, no, that wouldn't be terribly pc would it and might terrify innocent people... Aarghhhhh...

Hmmm, you have to remember that you can't teach stupid..

[Buster11]

In the summer of 1940 RAF Kenley used to regularly receive complaints from some of the locals about the noise of Merlins being run up around dawn. Not sure if these NIMBYs quietened down a bit after the first Ju. 88s arrived.

Staying (loosely..) on the gliding topic, there was the case years ago of a noise complaint against what turned out to be a glider doing aerobatics; complainant turned out to be a stone-deaf retired colonel.
Has Britain become an anti-aviation nation, certainly compared to some of our near neighbours? It seems to me that this started to be the case in the early 1960s. Any thoughts on this?

[chevvron]

You're so right Arc,

I once had an idiot walking his kid across the active line of cables who objected to the vehicle that then came 'screaming towards them' (so we could remind him about the dangers and ensure their safety. And get them the hell off the field !!!!

His rationale? "Well my son's in his buggy so he's perfectly safe" :ugh:

Perhaps it's time for cigarette pack style piccies on the warning signs round the airfield boundary?? A leg removed? A Landie which has been sliced up by a cable? Blood and nasties? Oh, no, that wouldn't be terribly pc would it and might terrify innocent people... Aarghhhhh...

Hmmm, you have to remember that you can't teach stupid..
At Halton one year, we had a Scout Camp on the airfield. It was apparent nobody had bothered to brief the scouts on use of the airfield because all day long on saturday (they had arrived friday pm) we were sending a landrover out to intercept motrobikes being ridden across the airfield and over the cables; once again they had no concept of the damage a steel cable can do.

[cargosales]

At Halton one year, we had a Scout Camp on the airfield. It was apparent nobody had bothered to brief the scouts on use of the airfield because all day long on saturday (they had arrived friday pm) we were sending a landrover out to intercept motrobikes being ridden across the airfield and over the cables; once again they had no concept of the damage a steel cable can do.


Ha ha, Slight thread drift Chevron but that reminds me of when our UAS went on summer camp to St Athan and nobody briefed us about using the airfield at night..

After a few beers at the dispersal building, we initially took the direct route, corner to corner, rather than walk all the way round the peri track, to get back to the mess.

This worked splendidly until one of our number came in, visibly shaken, saying "I've just walked across the airfield and met a huge horrible police dog. And it had a policeman attached to it!"

[POBJOY]

I suspect the only solution that will satisfy all the players will be a fence on the 'outside' of the peri-track. As a historic site and one that should be both used, and available for public viewing a heritage lottery grant should pay for it.
We are not talking about a 'security' fence designed to be impregnable as that would not satisfy the 'safety of flying' issue; but as alluded before a structure that clearly defines the limit of public access with suitable notices as to why.
It may be that some sort of overseeing will be required when operations start again, but as flying days get more numerous the situation will settle down and walkers could even be encouraged to visit the 'control' side which would be good for PR and recruitment. As mentioned before this could be a watershed for both Kenley and the ATC use, and if properly handled should be a benefit to all, especially as the ' youth experience' part can only be seen as an ongoing benefit to society. My only concern is the current level of expertise at 2FTS may be below that required to conduct negotiations of such a sensitive nature. and that a 'current' Air Rank with a flying background be designated to oversee the situation. Kenley deserves the best possible solution available and the Air Cadets (and indeed other youth bodies) would benefit greatly from its future use.

[Frelon]

I suspect the only solution that will satisfy all the players will be a fence on the 'outside' of the peri-track. As a historic site and one that should be both used, and available for public viewing a heritage lottery grant should pay for it.

I agree with you POBJOY, the fence should be on the outside of the peri track. The public could then see the peri track in it's entirety, and imagine how it was used.

As we know, WWII airfield runways were connected by taxiways called a perimeter track (peri-track), of a standard width of 50 feet (15 m). However, certain stations that were designated to be fighter bases sometimes had a narrower perimeter track, such as RAF Coltishall, whose peri-tracks measured 40 feet (12 m) across. Perimeter track gradients could not exceed 1 in 40 in any direction, and no building could be placed closer than 150 feet (46 m)from the edge of the track.

The peri track at Kenley is an important piece of history and should not be carved up to keep the minority NIMBYS quiet! Put the fence on the outside JM, keep the whole of the peri track safe for airfield movements, and have the local tax payers contribute towards a walking/running/dog walking track on the outside, if they want it that badly!

....and whilst you are reading this get the fence built quickly so that the Air Cadets can enjoy that which was taken away from them 4 years ago!

[Tingger]

The plans proposals and local engagement for Kenley are all on the dedicated facebook page.

Just search 'RAF Kenley'

[POBJOY]

Looks like the proposal is for a per-track 'split'.
Dreadful solution for an active airfield and also will reduce the historic nature of the per-track which is normally an open space that allows aircraft wings to overlap the tarmac area.
This is the original track that was built when the runways were installed and therefore part of the 'Airfield'.
This will completely alter the visual effect of the wartime area and also reduces the space for emergencies.
Not sure whether this is just the 'proposal' or the final solution so some probing required to see who agreed it all; although 2FTS seems to feature in the information.

[Arclite01]

I think any fence anywhere inside the airfield area (by that I mean within 50 yards of the peritrack) is actually a flight safety hazard at Kenley. Anyone who knows the site realises that it is actually fairly small and the DLA is actually close to the peritack itself in some launch/landing directions and also that the trees and undergrowth and buildings actually mean that there is no real undershoot option in a lot of cases. This means you have to land on the airfield - or nowhere at all. Putting up a fence effectively introduces a hazard to the operations. That is why the fence (and it is required IMHO) needs to be set away from the peritrack - hence my earlier comment (slightly tongue in cheek) about the AM boundary blocks being a suitable demarcation line............

A 'viewing area' could be created at one of the ends of the site (say Kenley Common end) and this could allow people to watch the gliding (without risking their or the Pilot's necks) and stay safe.

From a safety perspective the operations are no less hazardous than any other airfield, we wouldn't let people walk over Coningsby or Marham so why Kenley ?

Just my 2 pennyworth............

Arc

[POBJOY]

Hi Arc As stated Kenley can be challenging for c-breaks and indeed has a peculiar shape (leg of mutton) that adds to its 'charm'. Someone has to decide if it is an airfield or not, and then start from that point. A fence adds nothing to the historical element and indeed merely destroys another part of the 'structure' that is supposed to be protected. Anyone with a grain of aviation knowledge knows that 'space' is one of the greatest benefits in an emergency and in gliding where every approach and landing has to be a 'full stop' any hazards on the operational area are UNSAFE.
It is nonsense to try to make the flying fit in with people, and especially when you are running a TRAINING ORGANISATION.
I have no confidence that 2FTS has any real handle on all this as it seems the die is cast.
If people visit a 'common' then you expect to walk on a natural surface not tarmac so why the big deal to let anyone near the peri-trac.
I know the area very well and there are plenty of options that give good access to the 'remains' of the listed blast-bays without having to use the peri-track.
Of course not having much activity for 4 years does not help the case, and therefore we are starting from a low point. However there may be a glimmer of hope if the 'fence' needs planning permission as it is not replacing an existing structure and is altering the use of the area. Trying to appease everyone usually pleases nobody so why not make a stand and get the correct solution. If it came to an enquiry the location would be classed as an airfield not a common so that would be a valuable negotiation point to get a better solution.

[cargosales]

Hi Arc As stated Kenley can be challenging for c-breaks and indeed has a peculiar shape (leg of mutton) that adds to its 'charm'. Someone has to decide if it is an airfield or not, and then start from that point. A fence adds nothing to the historical element and indeed merely destroys another part of the 'structure' that is supposed to be protected. Anyone with a grain of aviation knowledge knows that 'space' is one of the greatest benefits in an emergency and in gliding where every approach and landing has to be a 'full stop' any hazards on the operational area are UNSAFE.
It is nonsense to try to make the flying fit in with people, and especially when you are running a TRAINING ORGANISATION.
I have no confidence that 2FTS has any real handle on all this as it seems the die is cast.
If people visit a 'common' then you expect to walk on a natural surface not tarmac so why the big deal to let anyone near the peri-trac.
I know the area very well and there are plenty of options that give good access to the 'remains' of the listed blast-bays without having to use the peri-track.
Of course not having much activity for 4 years does not help the case, and therefore we are starting from a low point. However there may be a glimmer of hope if the 'fence' needs planning permission as it is not replacing an existing structure and is altering the use of the area. Trying to appease everyone usually pleases nobody so why not make a stand and get the correct solution. If it came to an enquiry the location would be classed as an airfield not a common so that would be a valuable negotiation point to get a better solution.

Good point about 'a fence' and planning permission for a 'new structure' Pobjoy

At the end of the day it's an airfield.. The land being owned by the City of London but requisitioned from them by MoD back in the early 1900s. But with IIRC? a clause built in that if MoD ever wished to return it to CofL it had to first be returned to the state it was in before MoD took it on.. which would make it horribly expensive to give it up.. Oh dear, what a shame!

[Frelon]

Heaven forbid that there was an accident at Kenley with a glider going through this new fence placed in the middle of the peri track, you can just imagine the questions being asked at the subsequent Court of Enquiry!
Q: Why was this fence there?
A: Oh, it was to protect the NIMBY dog walkers and runners who have been so vociferous on the RAF Kenley Facebook site!
Q: Who recommended it and who approved it?
A: Well, we did Sir!
Q: Why is it in the middle of the peri track and not on common land?
A: Oh, er, we wanted to give the public somewhere safe to walk on and for them to watch the gliding close up!
Q: Surely, they have thousands and thousands of acres of public land outside of the MOD controlled airfield?
A: Ah, but they did so want to walk on this historic airfield
Q: And does that include spending thousands of pounds building a fence in the middle of the peri track of this historically important airfield. What about flight safety?
A: Oh, the walkers and runners were so angry we thought we would appease them by giving them more of the airfield to enjoy! We will be looking at moving the fence position closer to the grass to give the general public more use of the paved surface and not to follow the yellow line. Users do not also have to stick to the paved surfaces and can walk on the grass, as the grassed area outside of the paved surface (not inside) is also still available for use. Er, flight safety, we have not had time to think of that at Kenley during the four year "pause"!
Q: Was this fence and the damage to the existing peri track ever discussed with English Heritage, who in 2000, identified Kenley as “The most complete fighter airfield associated with the Battle of Britain to have survived”. In 2006, the respective Councils of Croydon and Tandridge designated the airfield site as a Conservation Area.
A: Well, er, er!

You couldn't make it up! Oh, I just did.

[campbeex]

Maybe Kenley's fence needs its own thread?

[POBJOY]

No Cambee Kenley does not need a fence on its 'historic' peri-track.
This thread is about ATC Gliding (and its future). Kenley has played a huge part in that for decades, and we wish it to continue for the future.

Unfortunately the decisions are coming from the same (pit of despair) that caused the 'pause'. Kenley is above such incompetence and deserves a far better chance to properly serve the Air Cadets for years to come.

Simple really; Kenley is either an airfield or not. If so (which it is) then the decisions should be based on preserving it as a flying field utilising the space to every advantage.
Even the historic element is not served by an out of character structure on its peri-trac (all part of its scheduled area).

Completely mad decisions made by those out of touch with both its historic element, and good practice for a flying operation.

[campbeex]

Pobjoy, I was merely trying to get across that this thread has gone distinctly off-topic and now seems focussed on discussing a single local matter.

[cats_five]

Can you imagine the questions at a Court of Enquiry if there is no fence and someone wandering onto the airfield gets killed?

BBC News | UK | Pilot unaware of rambler death (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/189027.stm)

[POBJOY]

Cats The question is the positioning of the fence. No one is saying that the public should be allowed to wander without some sort of 'reference point'.
The point in question is the fence should be away (on the non airfield side) of the peri-track giving more 'space' for operations and emergencies.
As it is intended to allow the public access at non flying times I do not see any point in reducing the flying area even more when flying is in progress, as the public can wander around the peri-track and see it in its original state.

The other important issue is the structure would alter the original character of the scheduled area that bears no relationship to its original use and purpose.

Kenley is important from both an Air Cadets and a historic point, and a structure on the peri-track in no advantage to either.

Half the problem is those involved in making the decisions do not operate from the location, and are used to large airfields without 'issues'. letter on its way to Croydon Council reminding them of the historic importance of this scheduled area and pointing out that the proposal is not beneficial to both aviation safety or a historically valuable site.

[cargosales]

Half the problem is those involved in making the decisions do not operate from the location, and are used to large airfields without 'issues'. letter on its way to Croydon Council reminding them of the historic importance of this scheduled area and pointing out that the proposal it not beneficial to both aviation safety or a historically valuable site.

And the other half of the problem is they often have no conception of how VGSs work (worked?) either ..

IIRC, when the knackered old wood and canvas hangar at KY finally gave up the ghost due to an exceptionally heavy snowfall it was perfectly obvious to anyone with half a brain why it had happened.

And yet the CO still got a phone call from someone 'on high' asking why it had happened and what he had done about it on the day..

"I wasn't here Sir and only learned about the collapse after the event"

Well why weren't you there?

Because I was at work Sir..

Yes, so you were in your office at KY

No Sir, I was at work.....

Etc etc :ugh:

[POBJOY]

I Think JM and his ilk are actually quite jealous of the hard facts that before all of this 'over control' of everything took hold the 'Schools' were sending hundreds of Cadets solo without any real issues. The fact is the expertise was at the coal face and the results stand the test of time and scrutiny. Frelon knows Kenley as well as I do, and also knows how the spirit of the location was an important part of the experience for the Cadets, and the benefit the Air Cadet organisation has/had from its existence. With the ongoing lack of locations and knowing the system will never be as it was, it is even more important for the surviving airfields like Kenley to be 'guarded' for future generations, AND THE BEST POSSIBLE AVIATION FACILITY PROVIDED FOR SAFE OPERATIONS. Flying must come first and everything else revolve around it. There is plenty of time & room at Kenley for the public to experience this unique time warp that still provides an aviation facility. There is no point in having a scheduled historic area if you do not think carefully about how you protect it without destroying more of its original surviving infrastructure.
A fence ON a peri-track is ridiculous and achieves nothing, it needs to be on the common where it belongs,and always was.

[Avtur]

Sorry guys, I am bored with this thread: Are the Air cadets still grounded as of 10 Feb 2018? I was lucky enough to go solo as a 17 year old Cadet at RAF Locking in 1983, so am not trying to being rude. Just asking...

[Tingger]

Sorry guys, I am bored with this thread: Are the Air cadets still grounded as of 10 Feb 2018? I was lucky enough to go solo as a 17 year old Cadet at RAF Locking in 1983, so am not trying to being rude. Just asking...

No........

[Olympia 463]

I agree. this Kenley business should have its own thread. Not a tear was shed when the historic airfield at Meir which assembled Liberators during WW2 (also the home of an ATC squadron) was taken over by developers and covered in houses. I learnt to fly there.

[tucumseh]

You could go one step further and merge it with, say, the Red Arrows thread. After all, same root cause and same individuals.

[Freda Checks]

The last Tweet (none since!) by JM on 11 Mar 2016 said..Glider Recovery published 2fts priorities 1. Man manage personnel on VGSs standing down 2. Recover safe resilient cadet gliding ASAP Com2ftsSo you can see how hard they have been working to get those gliders back with Air Cadets in them! :ugh::ugh:

The good news is that Initiative to increase successful PTT output this year.

[chevvron]

And the other half of the problem is they often have no conception of how VGSs work (worked?) either ..



Similar with ATC Squadron HQs. I had a fire inspection by the RAF one day. One of their recommendations was to have illuminated 'Fire Exit' sign at each exit 'but you must make sure the mains power is not turned off as the batteries will run down.
I explained that Wing Routine Orders required mains power off when the building was unoccupied.
'How often is that?' came the question. 'Every wednesday evening until friday evening, then after friday parade it's normally off until the following wednesday'.
They had no idea we only used the building (normally) twice a week.
Never got the illuminated signs either.

[ACW418]

I have the sad duty of reporting the death of enigmaviation this morning. A first class friend and tireless worker for the air cadet movement. He will be missed. RIP Ian.

ACW

[longer ron]

So sad to hear that ACW :(
Condolences to Family and Friends.

[Random Bloke]

I heard this sad news this morning from the FOGIES. He gave many years to the Air Cadets. Condolences to his family and many friends.

[cats_five]

I have the sad duty of reporting the death of enigmaviation this morning. A first class friend and tireless worker for the air cadet movement. He will be missed. RIP Ian.

ACW

Doesn't he deserve a thread of his own?

[Engines]

May I add my sincere condolences. I swapped PM's with Enigma on a number of occasions, and he was always informative, helpful and friendly. As well as highly knowledgable. He clearly loved his work with air cadets.

Sorely missed.

Engines

[cargosales]

Doesn't he deserve a thread of his own?

Please reconsider your comment.

I never met the chap nor even exchanged messages with him on here but when it's a 'member of the (extended) family who by all accounts was a top bloke and gave countless hours to the Air Cadets then it has every right to be on this thread.....

Nuff said

CS

[Freda Checks]

Doesn't he deserve a thread of his own?
Cats, that is stooping so low, even lower than your previous negative postings about Air Cadet gliding. As you have said before, you know nothing about Air Cadet gliding and what it's instructors have given to the youth of today!

Thanks Enigma for your many years support. RIP.

[622]

Cats, that is stooping so low, even lower than your previous negative postings about Air Cadet gliding. As you have said before, you know nothing about Air Cadet gliding and what it's instructors have given to the youth of today!
.





I could be mistaken....but I believe reading the post that Cats is merely saying that rather than tack this on to the 'Grounding' thread...he might have one of his own?

[cats_five]

I could be mistaken....but I believe reading the post that Cats is merely saying that rather than tack this on to the 'Grounding' thread...he might have one of his own?



Exactly. There are plenty of other RIP threads including some in addition to another one.

[ACW418]

The funeral of enigmaviation aka Ian Hammond will be held on Monday 5th March at 1200 in Southport. Please PM me if you want more details.

ACW

[TJH1954]

Pobjoy, I am with you on that, had a number of great days at Kenley accompanying cadet from 1924(Shirley) some years back.
Hi Brokenlink. Just browsing on here looking for anything to do with 615 gliding school and noticed you were/are linked to 1924 sqn Air Cadets also. I was with them in the late sixties and early 70's for about 4 years and did my gliding course at Kenley. Are you still involved with 1924?

[POBJOY]

As a 'secure' airfield with a fantastic catchment area for Cadets and excellent transport links for 'thousands' of Cadets that can easily access on a day visit one wonders why this was not a 'priority' restart up for HQAC.
Add on to that the RAF 100 and Kenley's part in the B o B and you have an excellent PR opportunity to 'kick start' the new operation.
I know there are plans for a new building on site but that is not required to get the flying going again. The number of Squadrons that can access this location on a day visit is probably the best in the country and would certainly improve on the current Cadet experience level.
Because of the 'pause' the airfield has been allowed to 'encourage' trespass on to the operational area, and indeed 2FTS are actively seeking to support the erecting of a substantial fence on the peri-track as opposed to where it should be many metres away. As public access to the operational area is probably going to be allowed at non flying times what is the point of reducing the available landing options(undershoot/over-run), reducing the size of available area, and destroying the historic element of a scheduled area.
Looking at the design of the proposed fencing it is not 'airframe or occupant friendly' in the case of impact and therefore fails the safety case for a training location.
JM and his band are not used to such 'tight' locations and therefore not the best people to be in charge of such proposals.

[chevvron]

As a 'secure' airfield with a fantastic catchment area for Cadets and excellent transport links for 'thousands' of Cadets that can easily access on a day visit one wonders why this was not a 'priority' restart up for HQAC.
Add on to that the RAF 100 and Kenley's part in the B o B and you have an excellent PR opportunity to 'kick start' the new operation.
I know there are plans for a new building on site but that is not required to get the flying going again. The number of Squadrons that can access this location on a day visit is probably the best in the country and would certainly improve on the current Cadet experience level.
Because of the 'pause' the airfield has been allowed to 'encourage' trespass on to the operational area, and indeed 2FTS are actively seeking to support the erecting of a substantial fence on the peri-track as opposed to where it should be many metres away. As public access to the operational area is probably going to be allowed at non flying times what is the point of reducing the available landing options(undershoot/over-run), reducing the size of available area, and destroying the historic element of a scheduled area.
Looking at the design of the proposed fencing it is not 'airframe or occupant friendly' in the case of impact and therefore fails the safety case for a training location.
JM and his band are not used to such 'tight' locations and therefore not the best people to be in charge of such proposals.

Have 2FTS never heard of 'frangible' fencing being used in line with runways?
It's an 'Army' thing erecting fencing on the edge of a taxiway; they did it immediately they moved into Abingdon - wait for it - on the INSIDE edge of the taxiway!!

[brokenlink]

TJH1954 - was with 1924 Sqn from 1988 until 1995, just handed over command of 1094 (Ely) after 14 years as OC pending returning as a CI with the same unit.

[Arclite01]

Chevvron

..............and at Hullavington as well where they effectively closed off the perimeter track continuity.

However at Kenley I do think it (Frangible fencing) would be a good idea to protect the public from themselves. In a world where people are ringing 999 because KFC have run out of chicken who knows what might happen if they were allowed anywhere near an aircraft movement area or a fast moving 100 yards of cable unsupervised...................:}

Arc

[POBJOY]

ARC The problem is that the 'proposed' fence is anything but frangible, and certainly NOT glider (or occupants) friendly in the case of impact.
The other point is the fence could go yards 'away' from the peri-track thereby increasing the usable run off, undershoot, overshoot situation, and also having the added benefit of not despoiling (bore holes, fence, multiple signs, gates, wire netting) on what is already a designated heritage area that is in its original condition as of 1940. As I stated to Historic England this proposal is akin to having a fence at Stonehenge that utilised the stones as part of it !!!!,and would change the open historic character of the location (reduce the operational area) plus entail more damage than the Aug 18th (1940) low level Dornier raid. Apart from a very long term association with the Air Cadets (poss the oldest Gliding School on its original site) we also have it situated on an actual battlefield that held the line in 1940. We may have 'lost the plot' re how to organise Cadet Glider training, but we should not throw away the very history that this location still preserves.
Historic England acknowledge that Kenley is the most complete and original Battle of Britain airfield existing (their words not mine) one would have thought the RAF could at least do their best to preserve that situation.

[campbeex]

Not strictly about the grounding, but an article about the future(?) of one of the former Scottish VGS sites:

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/angus-mearns/604647/exclusive-leaked-report-casts-doubt-future-rm-condor/