Air Cadets grounded?

[VX275]

The problem is that the 'proposed' fence is anything but frangible


612 VGS operated at Abingdon for 18 years with an 8 foot high Army security fence (and very solid steel gate) across the runway which reduced 08/26 by a quarter and it was never hit by a glider (and that includes 1st solos). Mind you that can't be said about the sheep fencing on the airfield or squaddies cars, although technically the squaddie hit the glider not the other way around.

[Arclite01]

Campbeex

I always thought that the Condor airfield was a better glider training field (width, length, hangarage, airspace etc) than Kirknewton (apart from Kirknewton is closer to EDI) for travel. Almost certainly the entire site will close not just the airfield - especially since there are questions about the requirement for RM to protect the northern flank in Norway now (crazy but true)

POBJOY

Like I said - the best place for the fence at Kenley would be aligned with the old AM boundary stones.................

Arc

[POBJOY]

ARC perhaps you could mention that to Croydon planners/Historic England I am with you on that.

[ATFQ]

614 Volunteer Gliding Squadron was told on Friday this week that it will be relocating from MOD Wethersfield in Essex to Swanton Morley in Norfolk

[Arclite01]

ATFQ

Good news and bad news then !!

All they need to do now is re-number it 611VGS, move ACCGS from Syerston and the wheel will have gone full circle !!

Swanton is in the middle of no-where and difficult to get to from any location (roads and rail very badly served. I assume this means that a new hangar will be required at Swanton now - since the old ones have long been knocked down. There is plenty of space there though for a build and the airfield itself is very suited, although I can't help but wonder if the problem will re-occur in a few years time as Robertson barracks is scheduled for closure in 2023.

However in spite of all of that I for one will be glad to see them back.

I await my re-call invitation with great anticipation.

Arc

[pr00ne]

ATFQ,


But Swanton Morley is also due to close and be disposed off.

[Whizz Bang]

614 Volunteer Gliding Squadron was told on Friday this week that it will be relocating from MOD Wethersfield in Essex to Swanton Morley in Norfolk

With all those trees...? Hope there's a defib at 2FTS...

[POBJOY]

OK; you loose the 'London' catchment (and gain Norwich) but even with the trees Swanton is still a good site,(especially if you compare it with a lot of civvy clubs). When it was No 1 GC only half of the field was used for gliding as it shared the site with the Norfolk and Norwich aero club with no problems. In those days it was regularly sending off 16-20 cadets per week doing 3 solo's each for the badge and A&B cert, plus 611 doing the w-end bit. When you consider how few solo launches are now the 'the norm' and how much dual a cadet does before 1 solo the risk factor is much lower and a few trees on site not really an issue. With a 360 degree launch option the height available and general 'uncluttered' local area makes it superb, and cables do not have to pass over tarmac. Politics aside I would welcome the return of Swanton as its land value for development is low and even if most of the original camp was eventually sold off there would still be plenty of space and buildings for the long term use of the ATC. Should be designated a 2FTSfree zone, and the call sign could be 'Soapy Control !!!' ARC you must be smiling at all this. Famous Mossie base with a very 'rural' pub just off the peri-trac,a great location. Oh by the way for the glass boys; Swanton would be sending solo's off (3) at between 19-24 launches with an average tot training flight time of about 1h 15 min,and many of these had no previous flight training and certainly no useless PTT, not to mention the lack of two way comms.

[chevvron]

Also where Wg Cdr Ken Wallis test flew the replica 'Wallbro' powered aircraft (designed by his father or uncle), in between producing his gyrocopters.

[Arclite01]

I agree it's a good location for flying. The Venture was operated there and the Viking too before the move to Watton via Marham.

I am looking forward to the return. As I say, the only issue is remote location which difficult to get to if you don't drive (for cadets and parents).

If someone in MoD had half a forward looking braincell they would be thinking about turning the site into a tri-service cadet training centre when the regular units leave in 2023/2024. It has onsite accom, catering, a range, buildings for lectures, garaging, an airfield, hangars etc, etc.........

.............which means that it'll be sold off in 2024 for peanuts and the VGS relocated yet again I expect. Next stop Sculthorpe anyone ??

:}

Arc

[bobward]

I flew past Swanton on Saturday and am pretty sure that the two large blister type hangers were still there.....

Ref the airspace; it sits under the zone allocated to Norwich 'International' Airport. The height band being 1500 to 4000 feet. Could this mean the gliders are height restricted?

Just a thought......

[pr00ne]

bobward,

The two large hangars were demolished and replaced by dedicated accomodation for the Army light armour stationed there. A building/architecture firm won an award for the design and construction.

I also thoight that the large grass airfield had been largely turned into an exercise area, obviously not.

[Arclite01]

Bobward

No Hangars now - just Tank 'Hangars'

There is an area of airspace that can be activated for military purposes (The Swanton Box) by NOTAM. I expect this will be permanently activated at weekends.

Proone

Mainly used as Polo pitch for polo ponies I hear. However some dry training carried out on the airfield. Largely intact from what I see/hear.

I expect that the Army will still be 'Primary User' (first claim on use) with the VGS being 'Secondary users' despite the fact that it is an airfield and the VGS is a 'Flying Unit'. That is what happens when the RAF gives up it's real estate to the Army I'm afraid................

:}

Arc

[bobward]

Arc,
I have to confess that from several miles away, looking into the haze they looked like to old blister type hangers to these ancient eyes!
Thanks for the correction.:ok:

[air pig]

Forward with the Brownies, they plan to get their flying any flying.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/pilot-badge-lets-brownies-spread-wings-j6x05mp9c

[POBJOY]

Easter for me was all about the first 'Course' of the year and also really the start of our main season. Usually we had a cadre of CCF from Surrey but we also tried to get the w-enders up to finish them off (having been weathered off earlier in the year). Some of these guys had never been in a glider before; yet by Tues the first would be 'popping off' on their 3 solo's (and A&B) with around one hours actual flight time. I would think that over the country probably nearly 200 cadets would have solo'd in this time, which was a great way to kick off the main season and also bring all the staff up to a suitable level for the ongoing w-end work. That this was done without e-mail, mobile phones, FB,twatter, or even GPO landlines, says something for the way people got organised then, and makes me appreciate what a fantastic (world class TRAINING organisation) we had without much fuss and bother.My very best Easter wishes to those involved and be proud that you were able to show what 'volunteers' could do when suitably LED

[Auster Fan]

One of my more memorable memories of Swanton occurred when for some reason, on either an Easter or Whitsun course (in the late 80s I think), there were two of us as Course Admin Officer. Flying had ceased temporarily due to a thunderstorm passing by, when there was an almighty crash and bang, followed closely by the reappearance of the other Admin Officer (Des O’Brien) looking very shaken; he had been inside the control tower when it was struck by lightning... according to him the air turned blue (probably in all respects!).

I think it was on the same course where he very carefully started to tow the caravan to the other end of the airfield due to a run change, but it wasn’t until he had disappeared over the crest of the airfield that he realised that he had left it behind. It had become unhitched shortly after he pulled away and no one felt they wanted to stop him! I remember watching one of the Viking instructors, Paul Baldwin helpless with laughter in the rear seat of his aircraft as he watched it all unfold...

[Brookmans Park]

Nice to hear it is reopening
I had a great time there in the 60s as a Staff Cadet and CI and that led to a 20000 hour jet career

[Wander00]

Unusually did my gliding course at SM as an ATC cadet after my Flying Scholarship as a CCF cadet. Memorable week - the Cuban missile crisis

[pr00ne]

Wonder where they will go when it closes in a few years time?

[ATFQ]

https://ukga.com/news/view?contentId=42630

[ATFQ]

Wonder where they will go when it closes in a few years time?

Somewhere closer to a greater density of ATC squadron/CCF unit locations, so they can best serve the Air Cadet population (and avoid long travelling distances)

[Shackman]

Machrihanish it is then!

[POBJOY]

Machrihanish not needed as Predannack already being prepared (Fact). The most southerly and western VGS in the UK. I am not saying it is exposed; except that one year the water tower was blown down,but nobody noticed because it was so foggy.

[clivewatson]

Pobjoy, guess the year!

[POBJOY]

Kenley about 65-66 ish. There are 7 staff cadets with one wearing his beret correctly (me). That makes 19 cadets on course who probably all did 3 solo's during the week. (poss Epsom College CCF)

Not sure if Kenley (615) is operational again yet but the hard facts are there to be seen; 19 A&B and proficiency certs 57 solo flights in a week, all volunteer capable staff, and a bunch of happy Cadets. Of course it helped that our 'guidance' came from No 1 GC SM which in itself was a source of experience and common sense. Brings it home what has been thrown away by the current incumbents who are supposed to be 'running' the Air Cadets.
I think you get a badge now after a session in a plastic bath tub looking at a screen.

[Propjet88]

In the days of the “classics” (T31 “Mk3” and T21B “” Sedbergh”), what was the record for the lowest number of launches that anyone went solo? I think the absolute min was supposed to be 20 launches to complete the syllabus.
Fly Safe
PJ88

[Bigpants]

"Predannack" Really? My wife and I were in the area for a short break a few weeks ago and it is a bleak windswept place for light aircraft and miles from anywhere, why not operate from Culdrose? Watched the Culdrose circuit and even on weekdays it seemed fairly quiet albeit it mixed traffic. Weekend flying from Culdrose would require an air traffic controller and a landrover with a fire extinguisher in it?

[longer ron]

In the days of the “classics” (T31 “Mk3” and T21B “” Sedbergh”), what was the record for the lowest number of launches that anyone went solo? I think the absolute min was supposed to be 20 launches to complete the syllabus.
Fly Safe
PJ88

PJ - ISTR it was 21 launches as min before first solo .

[Wander00]

not if one had a PPL. I flew about 5 dual and the necessary 3 solo for A & B in one day.

[Arclite01]

18 Launches for me.

Arc

[longer ron]

The 21 launches would be for a cadet with no previous reckonable flying experience.

[1.3VStall]

My 22nd launch was my first solo - in a Kirby Cadet MkIII at RAF Spitalgate: May 1966.

[longer ron]

My 22nd launch was my first solo - in a Kirby Cadet MkIII at RAF Spitalgate: May 1966.

Same for me 1.3V - almost exactly 3 years later :)

[Arclite01]

I had some previous Venture T2 time so most of the syllabus was about winch launch/launch failures and landings for me.

Arc

[longer ron]

Actually - I have just checked in The Gliding Book and Alex Watson wrote a chapter on ATC gliding - he says - Cadets are not permitted to fly solo in under 20 launches unless they have previous power - flying experience.

So PJ88 was absolutely correct :)

He also says that in 1963 the Air Cadet gliding movement was responsible for training 2,043 Cadets to A+B badge and for that year the total number of launches was 136,345.

[Arclite01]

That book is great. Alex was a nice guy - I flew with him in the Mk3 at Kenley and later on at West Malling in the Vanguard (ASK21). I seem to remember he worked for the Sevenoaks Chronicle in some capacity................ I may be wrong on that though.

Alex's son is on here sometimes - Clive Watson ( a celebrated ATC Gliding Instructor in his own right. :-)

Arc

[JW411]

Mine was pretty much all done on one weekend. 10 launches on the Saturday. 18 launches on the Sunday (including 3 solos). Then the other 2 (to make up the 30) a couple of days later. By the Sunday night I didn't know if I was bored or countersunk!

[POBJOY]

The 'official' no of launches for those without a PPL was min of 19 launches plus 2 pre solo checks by another instructor.
That made 21 + 3 for the Proficiency badge and the BGA A&B cert. In fact there were no gliding badges then so Cadets were allowed to wear the BGA enamel 'two gulls' pin which was quite smart. If later one the managed some extended solo flights for the C then the '3 gull pin' could be worn.
What used to happen was the ab initio bit was sometimes added up incorrectly by the Cadet keeping the log and a quick couple of launches was required (after you had solo'd) to make it legal. This happened to me at SM. One had to be careful on the 'records' side if you had two 'Jones' or 'Smiths' on the same course.

[longer ron]

I would imagine there are a few slight variations on the solo theme Pobjoy.
I have just had a wee look in my old log book and I have 17 dual,3 pre solo check rides and the 3 solos - so 20 + 3 for me.
It's funny I had misremembered it as 21 :)
When I restarted gliding in zimbabwe 1984 it took me 21 lchs to go solo - I would personally have been happy with about 5 ccts + 2 cable breaks :cool:

[clivewatson]

Back then did anyone really count? I don't recall checking before I sent any off.

Whether they did it in 20 or even 25 it's still a pretty amazing feat when one considers that their total flight time, at 3 mins per launch, would be little more than an hour.

[VX275]

I managed to get my G1 on Sedburghs (I didn't fit into the rear of a MkIII) and take a total of 10 cadets on AEG flights before converting on to Ventures.
I remember the first cadet (Cdt Willard) had never flown in anything before and was shaking so much you could feel it through the airframe. Part of my brief to him was "No need to be frightened, that's my job". We must have found a little lift as at 10 minute duration it was also the longest AEG flight I did in a Sedurgh as Captain.
My total time on 'conventionals' was 24 hours 29 minutes in 254 launches. Was that really nearly 38 years ago?

[longer ron]

When I started gliding again in zimbabwe in 1984 there was much mirth in the gliding club bar when they saw my 300 odd launches with a TT of 25.00 hrs.
They were also confused by the P2 rating (why do you need a qualification to be a P2 ? a very reasonable question LOL) ,my P2 chit was still stuck into my logbook,my G1 chit had already fallen out.
Once I had learned how to thermal upwards my TT rapidly increased :)

[POBJOY]

The 'centres' had a fairly 'fixed' system based on the one week course, plus instructor continuity. In the case of SM they also had a near perfect location and lots of 'space' for c-breaks.
As I remember the cadets had 4-6 launches at a stretch and two slots a day, therefore it was the perfect 'learning' environment to bash the circuit.
At a w-end school the weather and 'attendance' plus instructor availability rather extended the situation and many launches were used to 'recover' what had been taught before.
Continuity is the real winner which is why the Easter and summer courses were so productive in solo numbers.
Looking back; Halesland could be quite challenging for a low time Cadet, and it says something about the quality of the whole organisation that this site was used, and provided genuine 'advanced' training so well.

[chevvron]

I managed to get my G1 on Sedburghs (I didn't fit into the rear of a MkIII) and take a total of 10 cadets on AEG flights before converting on to Ventures.
I remember the first cadet (Cdt Willard) had never flown in anything before and was shaking so much you could feel it through the airframe. Part of my brief to him was "No need to be frightened, that's my job". We must have found a little lift as at 10 minute duration it was also the longest AEG flight I did in a Sedurgh as Captain.
My total time on 'conventionals' was 24 hours 29 minutes in 254 launches. Was that really nearly 38 years ago?

I got my BGA 'C' Certificate/ Air Cadet Soaring certificate at Bovingdon in 1965 (one of our 613 GS detachments before 617 moved in from Hendon ) with a solo flight in Sedburgh XN150 lasting 18 min. I flew VX275 as P2 (G1) for a total of about 4 hours which was something like 80 or 90 launches!

[Fitter2]

When I did my A&B at Kirton Lyndsey in 1960, over2 weekends, when my record was checked after 3 solos I was put into the front seat again for two hangar flights to get the books straight.

[Flight_Idle]

At the age of sixteen, I went solo with the ATC at south Cerney. It took me thirty launches because I had a problem with 'Cable breaks'.


I then joined a civilian gliding club before joining the RAF & most took the piss out of my 'Two gulled' badge. In a way, they were both right & wrong at the same time. They were wrong because the air cadet organisation put many thousands of cadets to a very basic 'Solo standard' for free.


They were right in saying in saying that it was a 'Very basic gliding thing'.


I did a lot more gliding in the RAFGSA, but always hated cable breaks, once up & away, all is just fine.

[POBJOY]

The main point about the ATC 'proficiency' training was to encourage youth from 'any background' towards aviation, plus give them a great opportunity for self development combined with a sensible level of discipline. The fact that so many went on to help run the 'schools' and give back something to the system says it all. I can not think of any other organisation that encouraged youth to become a major part of a disciplined training system with the responsibilities of using technical equipment and also mentoring other cadets. This was a amazing situation that worked well and sent tens of thousands off into adult life with a real START. The civvy clubs were not geared up for anything like this and indeed their focus was on competitions and badges which many Cadets would never had been able to afford. I do not see that an organisation that could regularly train a youth to fly an aeroplane to solo standard in just over an hours flight time including the equivalent of EFTO (CB to us) has to answer to anyone about what it stood for and how well it did it. VENTURE ADVENTURE stood the test of time, and the Country was better off for it.

[chevvron]

The main point about the ATC 'proficiency' training was to encourage youth from 'any background' towards aviation, plus give them a great opportunity for self development combined with a sensible level of discipline. The fact that so many went on to help run the 'schools' and give back something to the system says it all. I can not think of any other organisation that encouraged youth to become a major part of a disciplined training system with the responsibilities of using technical equipment and also mentoring other cadets. This was a amazing situation that worked well and sent tens of thousands off into adult life with a real START. The civvy clubs were not geared up for anything like this and indeed their focus was on competitions and badges which many Cadets would never had been able to afford. I do not see that an organisation that could regularly train a youth to fly an aeroplane to solo standard in just over an hours flight time including the equivalent of EFTO (CB to us) has to answer to anyone about what it stood for and how well it did it. VENTURE ADVENTURE stood the test of time, and the Country was better off for it.
Hear Hear.

[VX275]

There were occasions when the cadets found themselves looking down their noses at the RAF. I remember the occasion when the CO of 612 was trying to get the Benson Staish solo on the Venture. As the aircraft dropped out of the sky yet again to bounce its way down the runway a watching cadet was heard to say "How the hell did he ever lead the Red Arrows?".
That Staish never went solo on the VGS but a later one did and became a member of staff on 612.

[Wander00]

Chevron/Pobjoy - hear hear too

[GLIDER 90]

I flew in chipmunks & gliders when I was in the ATC.

[chevvron]

I flew in chipmunks & gliders when I was in the ATC.

There are probably several hundred thousand others who can say the same (me included) but we wouldn't have done so without the air Training Corps.

[Wander00]

And don't forget the CCF. I managed to blag my way on RN courses, so flew in the Dragonfly helicopter, the Dominie (two planks, 2 turning not 2 burning) and saw the SRN-1 in the Solent, sailed in Portsmouth Harbour in a whaler and due to an incompetent schoolmaster dressed as RN officer helm collided with HMS Vanguard. I also went on a number of Army courses, including 2 drill courses in the Tower of London, as a 16 year old commanded a squad in front of the Sunday tourists and twice watched the Ceremony of the Keys on a foggy November evening. Now there is "atmosphere" for you. Long, long time ago now.

[622]

And don't forget the CCF. .....


I for one will never forget the CCF...the long hair, white socks.....:E


(Just a bit of Banter :cool:)

[Arclite01]

I also taught the CCF on various VGS's.

Fair to say that almost without exception they were the scruffiest and relatively undisciplined bunch I've ever met. But I also found them to be some of the nicest people too......... many of them had a strangely independent life with boarding school and holidays with 'aunts' while their parents worked away with either companies or government departments. Several of mine had not seen their parents in over 18 months as I recall.

and 1 of my studes was the son of a Prince (of some weird far off place) - he was in the school CCF waiting to go to Cranwell as I remember, although the sad thing was he was seemingly 'going through the motions' with no love of aviation from what I could see...............

Long time ago now (1993).

“The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”

― L.P. Hartley, The Go-Between

Arc

[pulse1]

As a gliding instructor I found that teaching CCF cadets, usually during Easter or Summer courses, was very different from the usual run of the mill weekend students. In my experience, CCF cadets were either very nice, good students, or bl**dy awful. You could almost guarantee that at least one CCF student per course was hopeless and would blame the instructors for their shortcomings.

On one course we had the son of the then Chief of the Air Staff and he was an extremely pleasant young man. During his course, as usual, we were suffering impossible weekday restrictions from nearby Boscombe Down and the other students were trying to get this lad to get his father to intervene on our behalf.

[boswell bear]

Back in the present for a minute gentlemen....ladies...what we are left with is what we are left with, the past is the past and much as I agree an enquiry is in order to seek why tax payers money has been wasted and a generation of cadets has missed out I believe we should move on and plan for the future of the organisation.
I for one am giving it my best shot to inspire the current generation of cadets. I regained my B1 a couple of weeks ago and flew two cadets on their blue wing flights which they both thoroughly enjoyed and both are now more determined to fly for a living.
Last weekend I instructed a staff cadet on their GS course and again that bond with aviation is sealed for life.
The coming 12 months is probably the swansong for Vigilant and I'm proud to be part of it and proud to serve on a squadron that has worked hard to recover from the "pause".

Fingers crossed "the management" have a plan for the future!

[POBJOY]

Good luck to you BW and I am glad the ********* at Syerston have not driven you away.
This thread has been full of genuine passion because we have seen the destruction of a fine system 'that was not broken' where the real work was actually done.
One of the facets of the organisation was it gave an incredible opportunity to ALL COMERS to achieve something that was not available anywhere else.

I still remember the CCF Cadets arriving for their courses and being amazed that all the actual ground part of the operation was being run by other Cadets, which included driving them off to lunch (amid great banter).
We could get all the course and staff cadets in the Austin 1 tonner, usually with someone standing up in the 'turret' thinking he was in the LRDG.

Money can buy you most things in life but in the ATC all you needed was enthusiasm and skill in avoiding polishing those lino floors.

Keep that spirit up BW

[Flight_Idle]

I joined the ATC around about 1967 & was given a shockingly ill fitting 'Hairy blue' uniform, nothing like the smart uniforms of today.


However, we were ALL given the opportunity to go solo in a glider at no cost to ourselves. As school kids, we liked firing rifles, sometimes with the proper bolt action full bore 303 at times, but the 'Cherry on the cake' for the vast majority was going solo in a glider.


I just think that 'Computer simulated' rifle firing & very basic flying just cannot match the 'Real thing'.


The only answer is to get many thousands of cadets flying their own gliders again, with no one in the back seat, nothing else will do.

[boswell bear]

645 VGS still doing the job :)

https://www.facebook.com/645VolunteerGlidingSquadron/posts/1277573422346132

[chevvron]

As a gliding instructor I found that teaching CCF cadets, usually during Easter or Summer courses, was very different from the usual run of the mill weekend students. In my experience, CCF cadets were either very nice, good students, or bl**dy awful. You could almost guarantee that at least one CCF student per course was hopeless and would blame the instructors for their shortcomings.

Dougie King sometimes came down to 613 to help out with CCF summer courses. I remember him getting out of the back seat of a Mk3 saying 'f***ing lad's a bl**dy homicidal maniac.'

[spannermonkey]

Back in the present for a minute gentlemen....ladies...what we are left with is what we are left with, the past is the past and much as I agree an enquiry is in order to seek why tax payers money has been wasted and a generation of cadets has missed out I believe we should move on and plan for the future of the organisation.
I for one am giving it my best shot to inspire the current generation of cadets. I regained my B1 a couple of weeks ago and flew two cadets on their blue wing flights which they both thoroughly enjoyed and both are now more determined to fly for a living.
Last weekend I instructed a staff cadet on their GS course and again that bond with aviation is sealed for life.
The coming 12 months is probably the swansong for Vigilant and I'm proud to be part of it and proud to serve on a squadron that has worked hard to recover from the "pause".

Fingers crossed "the management" have a plan for the future!

I'm of the same opinion, the issues that led to the current situation are unacceptable. Poor management of the fleet, a lack of accountability and disregard for airworthiness are things that in the fullness of time will either be addressed or simply swept away and forgotten. Unfortunately I suspect it will be the latter.

Regardless, I personally benefited immensely from the ATC as a cadet in my yoof and still remember the 'jump jump John' training video for the Chippy. Then I was fortunate to have been able to be parts of 624 VGS during my last tour in the RAF up to 2008. They were every bit as dedicated to what they were doing as any Sqn in the RAF, not a bad effort considering much was actually done by the cadets themselves. A great team, many of who I am still in contact with and one particular individual who always managed to arrange the most incredible Top Table guest speakers and events. These included Geoffrey Wellum and Eric "Winkle" Brown among others and I feel privileged to have met and spoken to both. He also somehow managed to wangle our very own personal display by the Rolls Royce Mk PR XIX Spitfire. An amazing display and some fantastic pictures were had that day. To top it all off, some great flying to boot for both the cadets and staff many of which have gone on to successful careers in the military or civil aviation.

Its the benefits the Cadets offer to those who are involved, that is what needs to be protected and to fail to do that is a sad reflection on those with the power and control.

[David Thompson]

I see that The Boss has a new aeroplane , a recently registered Sting S4 G-NIAC and gives his company address at Syerston and interestingly the ownership status is given as 'chartered' . Does this imply possible use by the cadets or within the fleet ?
All the info is on G-INFO and details of the Sting are here ; TL-2000 Sting S4 - TL-ULTRALIGHT Aircraft (http://www.tl-ultralight.cz/en/ultralight-aircraft/tl-2000-sting-s4) . Thoughts ?

[Bigpants]

https://goo.gl/images/5t5occ

Since air cadet flying is such a disappointment how about a back to basics approach? Buy or create kits of the Sandlin primary glider and get Wings to assemble them under LAA/BGA guidance.

Launch the kids for short hops from the nearest green field..... And cue health and safety types!

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

645 VGS still doing the job :)

https://www.facebook.com/645VolunteerGlidingSquadron/posts/1277573422346132


Yes, 645 is doing an excellent job. The worrying thing though is for how much longer. There has been too much mismanagement within the ATC regarding flying and gliding and I of the firm opinion that the powers that be are clueless as to how to resolve it. Some of these excellent facilities will bear the brunt of that incompetence and the Cadets will suffer further.

[beardy]

https://goo.gl/images/5t5occ

Since air cadet flying is such a disappointment how about a back to basics approach? Buy or create kits of the Sandlin primary glider and get Wings to assemble them under LAA/BGA guidance.

Launch the kids for short hops from the nearest green field..... And cue health and safety types!
You may be so disappointed, the cadets I fly on the AEF are not. Moreover they are demonstrably safe.

[air pig]

Yes, 645 is doing an excellent job. The worrying thing though is for how much longer. There has been too much mismanagement within the ATC regarding flying and gliding and I of the firm opinion that the powers that be are clueless as to how to resolve it. Some of these excellent facilities will bear the brunt of that incompetence and the Cadets will suffer further.

Recently and presently managed by blunties.

[Bigpants]

You may be so disappointed, the cadets I fly on the AEF are not. Moreover they are demonstrably safe.

Funny, but I also fly on an AEF and the idea that air cadet flying over the past ten years was demonstrably safe is just plain wrong. One of the themes of this whole thread is that the loss of life and aircraft disaster was predicted years and years ago when the MOD started to civilianise flying. The poor maintenance practices on the gliding side are simply another symptom of a poor system.

I soloed in a T31 at Swanton Morely in 1974, it was run professionally using old wooden gliders and well seasoned staff. When I later flew cadets in the RAF, OC Ops at Valley took a personal interest in the Chipmunk flying as did his counterpart at RAF Binbrook and much later Pete Stonham at Manston.

Cadet flying was safe and efficient back then because at every level the RAF staff involved and VR made sure teenagers were not put in harms way.

Cadets would get some STEM benefits from self build and self flying projects and I am aware of at least one ongoing in Northern Ireland. The Luftwaffe learned to fly in primary gliders like the Sandlin in the 1930s and the USAAF Academy still runs a gliding programme. Sullenberger was part of the USAAF gliding scene many years ago. Basic flying skills are far more important than the MOD think and this area has been neglected for too long.

[Cat Funt]

Recently and presently managed by blunties.

FTRS=Failed To Resettle Successfully.

[POBJOY]

It appears that where there have been 'issues' with flying operations (including AEF) the resultant 'fix' has been to instigate more equipment fitment, and compulsory ATC requirement.
Again this has ignored the basic VFR rules that one must adopt a good look out rather than rely on equipment that means even more instruments to scan (inside the cockpit). The whole ATC radio thing also gives a false sense of security in the VFR regime of operations and ignores the basic VFR concept.

[beardy]

Funny, but I also fly on an AEF and the idea that air cadet flying over the past ten years was demonstrably safe is just plain wrong. One of the themes of this whole thread is that the loss of life and aircraft disaster was predicted years and years ago when the MOD started to civilianise flying. The poor maintenance practices on the gliding side are simply another symptom of a poor system.

You seem to have missed the point of DEMONSTRABLY safe. The gliding schools, run by skilled and enthusiastic volunteers kept inadequate records, for reasons which were systemic. As you are aware, but willingly overlook, the tragic loss of life in AEF flying had nothing to do with contract supply of aircraft.

[beardy]

It appears that where there have been 'issues' with flying operations (including AEF) the resultant 'fix' has been to instigate more equipment fitment, and compulsory ATC requirement.
Again this has ignored the basic VFR rules that one must adopt a good look out rather than rely on equipment that means even more instruments to scan (inside the cockpit). The whole ATC radio thing also gives a false sense of security in the VFR regime of operations and ignores the basic VFR concept.
Basic VFR rules have not been ignored, basic VFR rules do not rule out other means than lookout. Situational awareness has been augmented, why on earth would you reject a better mental picture?

[A and C]

You seem to have missed the point of DEMONSTRABLY safe. The gliding schools, run by skilled and enthusiastic volunteers kept inadequate records, for reasons which were systemic. As you are aware, but willingly overlook, the tragic loss of life in AEF flying had nothing to do with contract supply of aircraft.

I think you will find it is the maintenance records that have not been kept NOT the flying records. Who failed to properly keep the records has been the subject of considerable debate on this forum. So it was not the enthusiastic volunteers who are guilty of keeping inadequate records.

[cats_five]

I think you will find it is the maintenance records that have not been kept NOT the flying records. Who failed to properly keep the records has been the subject of considerable debate on this forum. So it was not the enthusiastic volunteers who are guilty of keeping inadequate records.

I can only hope the flying records were better kept than the maintenance ones. However without the correct maintenance records it's not possible to demonstrate that the gliders are airworthy. I sincerely hope that the records are correctly kept in the future for the gliders being returned to service, otherwise the money currently being spent is a complete & utter waste of money.

[beardy]

I think you will find it is the maintenance records that have not been kept NOT the flying records. Who failed to properly keep the records has been the subject of considerable debate on this forum. So it was not the enthusiastic volunteers who are guilty of keeping inadequate records.

Absolutely correct, a systemic failure and one that should have been identified earlier by an operational safety audit and eventually was.

[Opsbeatch]

Another own goal by 2FTS by not utilising the still enthusiastic long serving guys. Looks like this guy loves doing the opposite to what he should be doing. Didn’t get enough love as a child maybe, or perhaps a middle child... 😁

OB

[Frelon]

Another own goal by 2FTS by not utilising the still enthusiastic long serving guys

Ah, but he does have an exemplary safety record for the past four years with all of the Air Cadet fleet grounded.........

[beardy]

Ah, but he does have an exemplary safety record for the past four years with all of the Air Cadet fleet grounded.........
Very droll: why spoil such a witty, if often used, one liner with facts.

[Engines]

Perhaps I could offer a couple of observations here.

In my view ( based on a fair amount of research) the problems with the ATC glider fleet started in the 80s with a rushed procurement of a large fleet of GRP gliders and powered aircraft. The MoD (and the RAF) failed to set up the required systems for supporting this fleet, and appear to have operated for many years without an effective Design Authority.

This initial failure was then compounded by a long running and systemic failure to maintain the aircraft properly in service. Some on this thread like to blame 'civilianisation'. Sadly, the fault (in my view) lay with the failure of the responsible RAF engineers to do their jobs and MoD staffs who failed to properly manage and supervise the support contracts they had set up. I believe that the well publicised efforts to strip the MoD of engineering specialists (led by RAF VSOs) in the 1980s and 90s probably contributed to the MoD's problems. The upshot is that by 2013, the ATC fleet was non-airworthy, mainly due to gaping holes in the mandated airworthiness documentation chain. Various reports have confirmed serious gaps in the RAF's QA arrangements, and failures to implement airworthiness critical recommendations. There were also major failures in recording of repairs and retention of documentation. Basically, poor engineering practice.

The whole scandal was finally exposed not by an operational safety audit, but by 2FTS' failure to pass a CAMO audit by the MAA. Even worse, it then took 2FTS another 15 months to grasp the scale of the problem. In the end, it took a direct threat from the MAA to get them to sort out their engineering organisation. The recovery, as is well known, has been painfully slow and required the loss of 40% of the fleet.

It's a major scandal. School children were being flown in non-airworthy RAF aircraft. The costs to the taxpayer haven't been revealed but must be substantial. Sadly, to date, no-one has been held accountable.

Best Regards as ever to all those working hard to make ATC flying safe again.

Engines

[UV]

It appears that where there have been 'issues' with flying operations (including AEF) the resultant 'fix' has been to instigate more equipment fitment, and compulsory ATC requirement.
Again this has ignored the basic VFR rules that one must adopt a good look out rather than rely on equipment that means even more instruments to scan (inside the cockpit). The whole ATC radio thing also gives a false sense of security in the VFR regime of operations and ignores the basic VFR concept.

Current wisdom is that See and be Seen is not infallible. Professionals now recommend utilizing all available aids.

[beardy]

Current wisdom is that See and be Seen is not infallible. Professionals now recommend utilizing all available aids.
No 'system' is infallible. There is absolutely no excuse for not using all available aids.

[planesandthings]

Just when you thought the recovery was well underway JM and 2FTS drop another bombshell. Farewell Vigilant fleet 2 years early, see below

'The 2016 relaunch of Air Cadet Gliding stated we would operate up to 15 Vigilant powered gliders with an Out of Service Date (OSD) of October 2019, 6 having been recovered already. The recovery of remaining 9 Vigilant aircraft relied on an innovative recovery proposal from Grob Aircraft SE. This is no longer an option. The removal of this option, challenging technical support for 2 fleets, and low Vigilant availability mean that continued operation of Vigilant is no longer considered viable. Consequently, we will withdraw the Vigilant glider fleet from service immediately, bringing forward its planned OSD. The Topcliffe VGS will convert to the Viking aircraft earlier than originally planned. This approach will free up engineers and allow the glider engineering enterprise to focus solely on the safe recovery and operation of the Viking fleet.'At 4pm today the 'fleet' were withdrawn for good.
I hope the volunteers were informed before the rest of the ACO/BADER was. Lots of hard work out the window. Hope there's enough volunteer motivaton at places like Topcliffe to have a strong and successful transition to Vikings.

Who knows where the Vigilants will end up..

[VX275]

I heard from an ex VGS CFI that the Vigilants are all for the axe, no being sold back to Grob, just chopped. That said I do hope one gets gifted to the RAFM.

[POBJOY]

They should close 2 FTS and admit they do not have a clue about organising anything that actually gets airborne. Its not funny anymore just a continuing waste of money that may as well go to the GSA/Clubs to provide ACO flying. No leadership, no capability, no idea about anything that gets Cadets airborne. Sad but true; why keep the 'jam tomorrow' scenario going, its only providing well paid jobs for those who are providing NOTHING for the Cadets.

[planesandthings]

I heard from an ex VGS CFI that the Vigilants are all for the axe, no being sold back to Grob, just chopped. That said I do hope one gets gifted to the RAFM.

If true what an absolute diabolical waste of taxpayers money. Should at least be auctioned for parts.

[1.3VStall]

Utterly scandalous! But, as this is the public sector, no-one will be held accountable and the lunatics that are now running the asylum will carry on as before.

[air pig]

Utterly scandalous! But, as this is the public sector, no-one will be held accountable and the lunatics that are now running the asylum will carry on as before.


As I said earlier, blunties running it, last two have had no experience running a station.

Yes it's from wiki but,

"Headquarters No. 2 FTS was heavily criticised for not communicating the plans to withdraw the Vigilant T1 from service and the restructuring resulting in closure of many volunteer gliding squadrons.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._2_Flying_Training_School_RAF#cite_note-FOI2-9) Criticism was also voiced with respect to its retention policy of volunteer personnel, management of its contracted maintenance organization, failure to achieve continued airworthiness management organisation approval during two years of non-flying[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._2_Flying_Training_School_RAF#cite_note-FOItwo-10), limited recovery of aircraft, and the approach for acquiring Part Task Trainers with grants from the RAF Charitable Trust."

[David Thompson]

From the 645 VGS Facebook page this afternoon , 7 May ;

The Grob Vigilant T1 formally retires after 27 Years of service with the Royal Air Force.

At 1600 hours on Sunday 6th May 2018 the RAF retired from service a beloved aircraft which has been close to the hearts of many Air Cadets, Staff and instructors alike.

The Grob Vigilant T1 Motor Glider entered service in 1991 and has served the Air Cadets proudly over her 27 years in service. Allowing cadets aged 16 and over to fly a powered aircraft solo on either their BGT (Basic Glider Training) or Sliver Wings Gliding Scholarship as it is now or AGT (Advanced Glider Training). Cadets of all ages have also been able to fly the Vigilant through aviation packages.

Many an Air Cadet and instructor have used the Vigilant as a stepping stone into careers in aviation, and the training they received was second to none. We have had 2 of our ex-instructors; Flt Lt James Sainty and Flt Lt Paul Kitczma join the RAF and both are Flying the mighty Eurofighter Typhoon. Another instructor James Nealings has just started on the path to become an RAF pilot.

We also have ex and current instructors flying for Easyjet, Jet2, Ryan Air, Cathay Pacific and Emirates who all started flying on the mighty Vigilant.

One senior instructor with 645 VGS, Sqn Ldr Paul Watts had accumulated over 5000 hours on the Vigilant and flew the aircraft from when it entered service.

The Vigilant offered instructors a fantastic training platform compared to the Viking where instructor and trainee were sat side by side and could stay airborne for as long as the sortie needed, ensuring consistent and effective bespoke training for each student.

The basic and very simple cockpit layout and controls made it very easy to master the Vigilant and all that flew her would agree she was a pleasure and a dream to fly. There will be many a tear shed following her retirement and it’s an aircraft you had a passion and love for.

It has been an honour and a privilege to have been given the opportunity for 645 VGS to be the only unit to have continued flying the Vigilant for the 20 months we have following the pause. We have also had the pleasure of 631 VGS (Woodvale) flying with us at RAF Topcliffe making up a joint unit flying the Vigilant.

We always knew the Vigilant was nearing the end of her service but we expected this would not be as soon as it has been.

645 VGS at RAF Topcliffe was the last unit to fly the Vigilant and they gave her a fantastic send off even awarding Flight Staff Cadet FS Dan Griffin his Grade 1 pilots (G1) wings. Also FSC Nathan Jennions was awarded his silver wings after being the last cadet to fly the Vigilant solo and FSC Harley Preston completed his Gold Wings Glider Training. Well done to them all.

The final flight was flown in ZH207 which was the same aircraft that saw 645 VGS return to the skies on Saturday 17th September 2016. The final sortie flown by OC 645 Sqn Ldr Stephen Hughes took to the air in the final flight of the Vigilant at 15:37hrs. His student was Cadet Edward Goulding from 610 (City of Chester) who was completing his Blue wings aviation package.

They touched down on runway 13 at 15:57 as the aircraft taxied back it was given a guard of honour from the squadron staff as well as an amazing and heart warming airborne salute from the Yorkshire Air Ambulance Eurocopter EC145.

This sad but proud moment marked the final flight and retirement of the mighty Grob Vigilant T1. She had been the flagship for the Air Cadets for 27 years and will be greatly missed.

OC 645 Sqn Ldr Stephen Hughes said “it has been an honour and a privilege to fly the last ever cadet flight in the Vigilant Motor Glider. We all understand the reasons, but can’t help but feel it’s a shame it is being removed from service early. She has served as an excellent platform to train and give the experience of solo flight to thousands of Air Cadets all over the country”.

He continued “As the squadron moves forward I look forward to moving the squadron back to the Viking, which 645 VGS operated from its entry into service in November 1984 until March 2003 when we moved to RAF Topcliffe. There will be many challenges to face in the conversion process as well as a completely different way of operating, however I hope we will be flying cadets again soon”

He also said “I am delighted to announce that in the interim we will continue to offer the cadet aviation ground school packages and PTT training at RAF Topcliffe”.

Cadet Edward Goulding of 610 (City of Chester) squadron was the last ever cadet to fly in the Vigilant. It was also his first flight. He commented “This memorable flight was my first ever in a Glider. I really enjoyed it and look forward to flying in the Viking”.

As OC 645 VGS confirmed, Instructors from 645 VGS will in the coming months convert to the Viking conventional Glider and we hope it won’t be to long before we will operate out of Topcliffe with the Viking. Until then we will still offer cadets Ground Based aviation packages.

We would like to thank all the squadrons, cadets and VGS staff over the years that have flown in or operated the Vigilant and join us in remembering all the fantastic experience and opportunities this great little aircraft has offered.

Flt Lt Aaron O’Roarty
645 VGS
Media Communications Officer

[VX275]

Media Communications Officer[/color]]

Like all good journalists, 'never letting the facts get in the way of a good story'.
Some of us remember converting and getting our C to I on the Vigilant in 1990.

[Cat Funt]

I hope the volunteers were informed before the rest of the ACO/BADER was. Lots of hard work out the window. Hope there's enough volunteer motivaton at places like Topcliffe to have a strong and successful transition to Vikings.

Who knows where the Vigilants will end up..


Rumour Control has it that 645 were told at 1200hrs on Sat. The rest of the organisation was filled in after endex on Sunday.

I can only assume that c*** Middleton learned nothing from his experience of axeing the other squadrons about the proper way of treating people who are giving up their time and effort for you for free. What a tragic further waste. I imagine there will be a rump who could be willing to stay on, but they will clearly be the more masochistic of the bunch. Fool me once, shame on you, etc...

[ACW599]

>The recovery of remaining 9 Vigilant aircraft relied on an innovative recovery proposal from Grob Aircraft SE. This is no longer an option.<

Can anyone clarify why "This is no longer an option"? And what precisely stops the Vigilant fleet from being sold into the ordinary civilian market and refurbished or re-engined as required, as the Ventures were?

[Whizz Bang]

And what precisely stops the Vigilant fleet from being sold into the ordinary civilian market and refurbished or re-engined as required, as the Ventures were?

The epic loss of face to the 'leadership' that would be experienced when the airframes were flying again 6 months later...

Is my guess! Without intervention, I anticipate they will all be cut up and incur additional disposal costs...

[POBJOY]

I suspect that Grob do not actually have a procedure for this and the cost of preparing one and 'covering' themselves, with a fleet that already has a questionable paperwork history probably got their financial,and legal team quite excited. Had it been one of their 'off the shelf' models then things may have been different.
Yes we know that if these machines went into the civvy world common sense would prevail and they would all be flying again; however that would make the whole ATC/RAF/MOD/2FTS operation look very amateur and may even prompt even more questions as to various 'capabilities' amongst those running the show, and getting well paid to not provide anything.
Sad to say that the Air Cadet Organisation has been badly let down by those paid to provide a service, but not let down by those providing the actual flying training at the 'schools'. The whole 2 FTS 'thing' is an expensive joke, and just a cost that does not justify itself. But the real E I T Room is this whole debacle shows what a COMPLETE LACK OF LEADERSHIP AND ABILITY HAS BEFALLEN THE CADET ORGANISATION AS A WHOLE, and unless that gets changed nothing else will, and they will just produce more spin, hype, twatter,and fancy adverts, promoting their sad attempts to keep their jobs going. All these people had to do was to keep the standards up, and 'maintain' the situation, as the 'system' at source was NOT BROKEN and indeed never was from a delivery of flying training point.

[Onceapilot]

Can I suggest that anyone sympathetic to the Air Cadet gliding debacle attending a mutual back-slapping in this RAF 100 year could try and raise awareness of the situation that has occurred? The intention being, to precipitate a drive for future Air Cadet gliding cast in the mould of it's previous success!

OAP

[Bigpants]

Retirement is one thing, euthanasia through neglect and incompetence quite another. A sad end for the Vigilant and another bad day for the ACO.

[air pig]

Retirement is one thing, euthanasia through neglect and incompetence quite another. A sad end for the Vigilant and another bad day for the ACO.

The ACOs bad days are coming thick and fast and managerial incompetnce from the 'Towers' is responsible.


Just recently walked away from working with the ACO as they have been breaking all their own rules and the lies and deceit from the management is sickening.

[Bill Macgillivray]

What a total and utter shambles! The cadets will suffer and I know that the volunteer staff at all levels are more than unimpressed! I have very recently retired from the ACO due to a mixture of old age and complete disgust at the way it is being run by the full-time (paid!) so called "professionals"!! The staff on the Squadrons, Wing etc. must be really fed up (not guessing!!).

Bill

[DC10RealMan]

Middleton will still get a Knighthood for his services to the ACO.

[tucumseh]

There's little point having a go at the Middleton person. You need to view this as another Nimrod MRA4. Read the Nimrod Review, but substitute Gliders for Nimrod. Or do the same with ANY of the Airworthiness Review Team reports of the 90s. Or the Director Internal Audit report of 1996. Or the EAC audit report of 1988. The blame lies higher up, and goes back many years.

[Cat Funt]

There's little point having a go at the Middleton person. You need to view this as another Nimrod MRA4. Read the Nimrod Review, but substitute Gliders for Nimrod. Or do the same with ANY of the Airworthiness Review Team reports of the 90s. Or the Director Internal Audit report of 1996. Or the EAC audit report of 1988. The blame lies higher up, and goes back many years.

There is a point in having a go. Not so much for the engineering failure, which is clearly not of his making, but for his abject failure to treat with any kind of decency, courtesy or respect the men and women who have decided- often against their better judgement- to continue to work for him for free because otherwise the kids will lose out. Please trust me when I say this, nobody who has met the man has a decent word to say about him and, given a choice, they will take active steps to avoid him. He is a complete morale hoover for both his own staff and any crewroom he waddles into. I save the use of the C-bomb for very special cases and he exceeds every metric I use. I'm glad I'm free of the whole mess.

[tucumseh]

Cat Funt (great!), I cannot disagree with you, but you describe many in MoD other than Middleton; both serving and civilian. Management sets the tone. As his management (ultimately the Air Staff) also acts like this, Middleton is encouraged in his manner.
While the problems on gliders have come to a head this decade, the underlying systemic failures were notified to these very senior staff in, at latest, January 1988. Gliders are simply the latest in a long line of failures, many of which resulted in avoidable deaths. What I'd like to know is why it has taken so long. Nimrod MRA4 was (belatedly) cancelled 8 years ago because it could never be made airworthy. Gliders suffered the same way. You need to join the dots. In 2011, when Flt Lt Cunningham was killed, MoD had to admit there was no valid Hawk safety case. Same with gliders. Same Type Airworthiness Authority. If you want to start somewhere with an individual, there's a clue. But work upwards, not downwards.

[Sky Sports]

The Vigilant 'fleet' is being replaced with?

A) a nice new fleet of shiny motor-gliders.
B) f**k all.

Management will get?

A) the sack.
B) medals.

[Cows getting bigger]

Tuc, of course you are right with the practical explanation and perhaps the very fact that aircraft have been grounded/withdrawn/destroyed is indicative of senior officers actually waking-up to the issues and doing the 'right thing' (insofar as they recognise the problem and from a personal level are unwilling to continue the charade). However, that leaves two major issues - One, how do you get out of the mess without available cash? Two, how do you retain a vital volunteer 'force' if you are ever going to stop the rot or have devised a cunning plan to answer question one?

I spent a mere quarter of a century in the RAF and can say, hand on heart, that the current AOC 22 Gp (Bunny) and previous (Andy T) are good men and they are strong managers; the same cannot be said of Comdt 2 FTS. Of course, AOCs don't have much influence here, it's far more convoluted. :)

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

A while back I was talking to some Boy Scouts at a town parade, I was with the local ATC squadron. A couple of the scouts said they wanted to join the RAF so I asked why they stayed in the scouts and did not join the ATC.
Their collective response was "Why would we do that? We can do far more in the scouts" - They, in their youth, hit the nail on the head.

[boswell bear]

Just when you thought the recovery was well underway JM and 2FTS drop another bombshell. Farewell Vigilant fleet 2 years early, see below

'The 2016 relaunch of Air Cadet Gliding stated we would operate up to 15 Vigilant powered gliders with an Out of Service Date (OSD) of October 2019, 6 having been recovered already. The recovery of remaining 9 Vigilant aircraft relied on an innovative recovery proposal from Grob Aircraft SE. This is no longer an option. The removal of this option, challenging technical support for 2 fleets, and low Vigilant availability mean that continued operation of Vigilant is no longer considered viable. Consequently, we will withdraw the Vigilant glider fleet from service immediately, bringing forward its planned OSD. The Topcliffe VGS will convert to the Viking aircraft earlier than originally planned. This approach will free up engineers and allow the glider engineering enterprise to focus solely on the safe recovery and operation of the Viking fleet.'At 4pm today the 'fleet' were withdrawn for good.
I hope the volunteers were informed before the rest of the ACO/BADER was. Lots of hard work out the window. Hope there's enough volunteer motivaton at places like Topcliffe to have a strong and successful transition to Vikings.

Who knows where the Vigilants will end up..


We found out about a few hours before the BADER release!

[air pig]

We found out about an hour before the BADER release!


Really good management, NOT !!!

[tucumseh]

Cows

I cannot speak for the volunteer force, except to sympathise with their plight. These people gave their time freely only to be royally shat upon.

But I can offer personal experience on how do you get out of the mess without available cash? .
What may at first be a limitation, can easily become a constraint if allowed to fester. This case is a good example.
From what little I know, when this glider problem was identified it was a limitation. Clearing it should be self-tasked by the most junior civil servant engineer in the Service HQ. You don't need telling. It's a line item in your TORs. When in that position many moons ago (on avionics), it was a routine expectation that I find that money, from underspends or offsets. (I think £22M was the most I had to find at the drop of a hat). Effectively, it was an in-year project, but without the nause of submissions and approvals. Far less hassle than a UOR. There is a Def Stan that is the bible. Write down the problems, and find where they're mentioned. (And the WILL be). Read, and implement.
Admittedly, I didn't have to deal with a Middleton. Usually it was Commander (Air) at a Typed Air Station. But the principles are the same. You're there to help, and I've never come across anyone who wasn't on-side. From a civvy's perspective, that is a good system. If you do come across a Middleton, you find yourself with an address book full of contacts, many senior to him. It may seem odd to a serviceman within a strict rank structure, but "You're standing into danger" and a half page briefing is usually enough. In short order, he's called his (real) #2, the Charge Chief. Almost certainly he already knows of the problem and solution, but the Service culture has made it difficult to raise at a high enough level to authorise resources and red tape cutting. But now, #1 is telling him to crack on. He gladly does the work, as he's now got top cover and resources. I guarantee those on gliders will be nodding sagely.
Now, tell me why today's PTs and the MAA can't do this. Starter for ten. None of them have ever experienced a word of what I've said.

[Shaft109]

Out of interest where are all the Vigilants currently located - bar the Topcliffe 3? They've vanished and are holed up somewhere - all 50 odd of them.

I wonder how long the Topcliffe guys will be grounded for again as they sort the conversion onto Viking, winches, retrieve vehicles.
Actually are they able to operate from the airfield with it's runway lighting and recent resurfacing?

Finding out at 10am on a busy bank holiday with a full program is such incompetence it's insulting.

[air pig]

Finding out at 10am on a busy bank holiday with a full program is such incompetence it's insulting.

Like they wouldn't have known on Friday?

[Chugalug2]

CGB:_
perhaps the very fact that aircraft have been grounded/withdrawn/destroyed is indicative of senior officers actually waking-up to the issues and doing the 'right thing' (insofar as they recognise the problem and from a personal level are unwilling to continue the charade).
The only waking up is to the fact that they've been rumbled. Having cleared MOD's corridors of anyone who understood the system pre year zero, the subsequent cover up of VSO actions in wrecking UK Military Air Safety for short term financial savings in the late 80s/early 90s was supposedly secure. However, that didn't take into account FoI legislation and the tenacious determination of some of those expelled engineers (take a bow tuc!) to expose the scandal and start the long and painful task of restoring UK Military Airworthiness. You can't do that by grounding/withdrawing/destroying all the affected fleets, there would simply be no UK military aircraft left to fly!

The extent of the problem is summed up concisely by tuc (good post BTW) :-
tell me why today's PTs and the MAA can't do this. Starter for ten. None of them have ever experienced a word of what I've said.

That's no glib throw-away one liner, it's the awful extent of this self induced tragedy. The easy options have been tried and we now offer would be RAF entrants little or no chance of gliding, and we now offer the Royal Navy no RAF Maritime Support. What next? The RAF has no option but to keep the other operational fleets flying, despite a Regulatory System that has been rendered dysfunctional by...the RAF, and an Air Accident Investigator that has form in being compromised by...the RAF. If the Senior Officers that you speak of were to do the "right thing" it would be to demand that the UK Military Air Regulator and the Accident Investigator be made independent of the MOD and of each other. Their best bet would be to sister themselves alongside their civilian counterparts, the CAA and AAIB, though whether that would be welcomed by those organisations is another matter.

Every airworthiness related fatal accident thread on this forum has resulted from death. Give thanks that, no matter how galling it is to have had all the dedication and duty freely given come to this, this thread is an exception to that grisly rule. Time is of the essence now and time wasted is time (and potentially lives) lost. Never mind the past, fear for the future!

[El Bunto]

I see that The Boss has a new aeroplane , a recently registered Sting S4 G-NIAC and gives his company address at Syerston and interestingly the ownership status is given as 'chartered' .

Built by cadets of the NI Wing at the Long Kesh hangars. Project funded in part by Bombardier and Boeing UK.

https://www.facebook.com/UlsterAviationSociety/?hc_ref=ART7jZBus6kL3Ho25UJ2Vvtb3ND39Gbh9NzfITHQjrtxaPD98Bdb UEjNexGG5-ZteT8&fref=nf

Whether or not it is to be used for cadet AEF I don't know.

[Caconym]

Out of interest where are all the Vigilants currently located - bar the Topcliffe 3? They've vanished and are holed up somewhere - all 50 odd of them.

I wonder how long the Topcliffe guys will be grounded for again as they sort the conversion onto Viking, winches, retrieve vehicles.
Actually are they able to operate from the airfield with it's runway lighting and recent resurfacing?

Finding out at 10am on a busy bank holiday with a full program is such incompetence it's insulting.

If they're not at Syerston my money would be on one of the other sites under direct 2FTS control.

[POBJOY]

Am I reading this correctly that a 'funded' Cadet project from NI is now at 2FTS (well know centre of non aviation) for what purpose!!
As an LAA project it is extremely unlikely that Cadets would be allowed to fly in it (as Cadets) due to its 'certification'. So what is going on.
Syerston is building itself up as a SUPER CENTRE of non flying whilst all around the system collapse's.
How long can this whole sorry mess be allowed to continue with spokeless hubs, no qualified staff, and a 'plan' that seems to rely on both potential staff, and Cadets having to be transported hundreds of miles to remote outlets for a complete w-end at a time, and that's before another system is arranged to provide qualified cover for the transport, accommodation, meals, from an organisation that is so under numbers on uniformed staff everywhere it beggars belief.
The game plan seems to be a recruiting drive for CI's (who we all know have been treated so well by the system) and no thought to the time it takes to get them 'authorised'. Well you may be able fool the 'Brass at the top' but if reading Air Cadet Central is anything to go by no one is fooling the troops on the ground who are well past the 'restless' stage. Does ANYONE in the Cadet organisation have any ideas about what is going (or not going on) and how to get it CHANGED.

[Lordflasheart]

It's all in the Times today, May 11th., so plenty of opportunity to shed a little light and add learned comment

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/raf-grounds-its-vigilant-t1-training-gliders-over-safety-fears-pc607tbdl
By David Brown, Chief News Correspondent May 11 2018, 12:00am, The Times - Full article below except for incorrectly captioned photo of ZH268 - Stock photo, so probably stock caption too ? - Quote "The Vigilants, which are used to train future military and civilian pilots, will remain in service until October next year"

The RAF has ordered the immediate grounding of a fleet of gliders that has been used to train thousands of pilots.Training units were given a day’s notice that all flights in Vigilant T1 motor gliders must halt at 4pm on Sunday. The aircraft are expected to be scrapped amid reports of safety concerns.The Vigilants have been flown by the air force for almost 30 years and have been used to train future military and civilian pilots. The Duchess of Cambridge piloted a Vigilant training simulator during a visit to an RAF airfield in February last year.The ageing Vigilant, manufactured by the German company Grob Aircraft, was being gradually replaced but had been due to remain in service until October next year.All air cadet gliders had been grounded in April 2014 following concerns about the airworthiness of the fleet.Flights resumed in 2016 but 14 of 26 volunteer glider squadrons were disbanded, with surviving units expanded. The Vigilant was still being used by cadets at RAF Woodvale in Merseyside and RAF Topcliffe in North Yorkshire with instructors trained at RAF Syerston in Nottinghamshire.Flight Lieutenant Aaron O’Roarty, of the 645 Volunteer Gliding Service based at RAF Topcliffe, announced the sudden decision to ground the fleet.He wrote on Facebook: “We always knew the Vigilant was nearing the end of her service but we expected this would not be as soon as it has been. There will be many a tear shed following her retirement and it’s an aircraft you had a passion and love for.”The final flight took to the air at 3.37pm with Squadron Leader Stephen Hughes accompanying Cadet Edward Goulding from 610 (City of Chester) unit. Squadron Leader Hughes said: “We all understand the reasons, but can’t help but feel it’s a shame it is being removed from service early.”RAF Topcliffe will return to flying Viking T1 gliders currently used by nine other training squadrons.

LFH

......................

[El Bunto]

It is envisaged RAF Air Cadets will use the completed Sting S4 for flying training, once it has been certified to fly by the Light Aircraft Association (LAA) and No. 2 Flying Training School (FTS).

aircadetsni.org.uk :: Royal Air Force Cadets, Northern Ireland » RAF Air Cadets build a Sting S4 (http://aircadetsni.org.uk/cause/build-your-own/)

'Envisaged' seems rather non-commital but we'll see what happens. The S4 is quite a performant little machine, slippier and faster than a Bulldog but with a much lower stalling speed ( 34 kts says the Interweb ).

[Engines]

The last post from LFH appears (note - appears) to confirm a suspicion that I've had for some days since the announcement of the Vigilant withdrawal from service. Why the immediate cessation of flying?

If the decision was driven by the inability to recover the originally planned 15 aircraft, and the costs of keeping a smaller Vigilant fleet going, than the withdrawal could have happened in an orderly manner as contracts wound down and budgets were cancelled. But this wasn't the case - this looks like a straight 'grounding' - camouflaged as an 'immediate withdrawal from service'.

Given the way this whole saga has run to date, I'd suspect that the Times is right, and there was a safety issue. Perhaps an MAA instruction to stop flying? Perhaps another audit went wrong? In any case, another example of 22Gp and 2FTS' inability to run a whelk stall. It's just over two years since the MoD and the RAF got a politician to stand up and announce that the plan was to recover up to 15 Vigilant and run them on until 2019. Now this, which has to put a bomb under their carefully laid plans for ATC flying over the next 12 months.

I sincerely hope that the Times does some digging on this one.

Best regards as ever to all those struggling to get cadets in the air,

Engines

[Mechta]

Does the acquisition of the Sting S4 mean the Air Cadets are finally getting an aircraft with an airframe parachute?

[POBJOY]

El Bunt The Sting is a very nice 'kit plane' but is not able to be certified as suitable for 'public transport'. It is extremely unlikely that in the current situation of the lack of a quality RAF tech system to even inspect this aircraft that anyone would be seen to officially even fly 'Air Cadets' in the machine let alone train.
The excellent LAA (formerly PFA) system is superb, and well endowed with competence, however it is very much based on the premise that the homebuilt aircraft in use are not burdened with the cost of certification to a level not required for 'private use'.
The Air Cadet Organisation have made it abundantly clear that Cadets are only flown in fully certified aircraft by qualified pilots, and there is no way that the LAA can change their operation of inspection and control to upgrade to the likes of British Aerospace or Grob.
The RAF itself are hardly the experts in all this type of 'self build' so are in no position to certify a machine even if it suited them.
Judging by the most recent Vigilant ops being stopped it hardly bodes well for the 'capability' or competence of those in charge of ATC flying who are quite unable to organise anything remotely sensible or actually indicating they had a clue about anything. Huge amounts of public money are still being spent NOT PROVIDING A FLYING SERVICE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO, and jobs/ranks continue to expand at 2FTS just soaking up the budget. This is what happens when there is a total lack of ability in the system, NO LEADERSHIP, and the system becomes a home for pension top ups and non producers.
I do not know why 'THE TIMES' thought we still had 9 Squadrons flying the Vikings !!! someone should inform them what is really going (not going) on.

[chevvron]

El Bunt The Sting is a very nice 'kit plane' but is not able to be certified as suitable for 'public transport'. It is extremely unlikely that in the current situation of the lack of a quality RAF tech system to even inspect this aircraft that anyone would be seen to officially even fly 'Air Cadets' in the machine let alone train.
The excellent LAA (formerly PFA) system is superb, and well endowed with competence, however it is very much based on the premise that the homebuilt aircraft in use are not burdened with the cost of certification to a level not required for 'private use'.
The Air Cadet Organisation have made it abundantly clear that Cadets are only flown in fully certified aircraft by qualified pilots, and there is no way that the LAA can change their operation of inspection and control to upgrade to the likes of British Aerospace or Grob.
The RAF itself are hardly the experts in all this type of 'self build' so are in no position to certify a machine even if it suited them.
Judging by the most recent Vigilant ops being stopped it hardly bodes well for the 'capability' or competence of those in charge of ATC flying who are quite unable to organise anything remotely sensible or actually indicating they had a clue about anything. Huge amounts of public money are still being spent NOT PROVIDING A FLYING SERVICE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO, and jobs/ranks continue to expand at 2FTS just soaking up the budget. This is what happens when there is a total lack of ability in the system, NO LEADERSHIP, and the system becomes a home for pension top ups and non producers.
HQ Air Cadets sponsored 'Microlight Flying Scholarships' at Halton in 1996/97 using Chevvron 2-32c aircraft. These were operated by the Ridge Runners Flying Centre but HQAC 'pulled' the funding after 19 cadets had got their wings presented by the AOC and gained either a PPL(M) or Restricted PPL(M).
Later in about 1998 or '99, further courses were run at Halton using a Cyclone AX2000, but I had been 'sacked' by my Wg Cdr by then and had no further association with Halton so I don't know any details of these.
In both cases the aircraft were civil registered using instructors with a 'full' rating, one of whom had definitely been 'assessed' by CFS.

[POBJOY]

Chev I remember that scheme which was far to much common sense for it to continue, and there were still 'trades' in the service then that could get involved.
Since then we have had so much caution entering the ACO that it is easier to do nothing than provide a service that actually allows Cadets to train to a solo standard. The fact that the RAF started off with a BRAND NEW fleet of machines (SLMG & Gliders) and were unable to keep them serviceable says it all.
The LAA are a great (and competent) organisation and like the ATC (gliding as was) is a product of volunteer input but with a capable management system keeping overall control. The fact that they now oversee quite complex home builts many of which have an aerobatic capability and high capacity engines only confirms their ability to run an organisation. The Air Cadets should look towards an association of this kind to provide a flying input as the current situation is neither fit for purpose or staffed by anyone who knows how to do anything. Huge sums of public money is just being wasted providing nothing and it is time that this was stopped and a new organisation started up to get back on track, even if it meant amalgamating with the Scouts who do have leadership and track record in delivery. 2FTS and Syerston is just a money eating machine that does not provide anything, but destroyed a perfectly satisfactory training organisation with a track record second to none. Time to bin all this nonsense and get some sense going. Nothing to loose as its just turned into a cosy job for the few and lack of provision to the many. The latest Vig debacle only confirms the total lack of credibility in the current system under the present management.

[DC10RealMan]

Ex-RAF officers looking after their superannuated brother officers to the detriment of the taxpayer?
Austerity for the many, not for the few friends of 2 FTS.

[chevvron]

Prior to the Chevvron courses, we ran AEF for cadets using Cyclone AX3s. HQAC were fully aware what we were doing and we got a 'parents consent' form using a template from AP1919.
Monthly returns were submitted to HQAC giving the number of RAFVR(T) pilots (who had to hold a PPL[A] minimum and have 10 hours pilot i/c before taking cadets ie the same as for Vigilant G1) and total cadet flying.
HQAC indicated they wouldn't approve the Rotax 503 engine being used for cadet training however, hence the switch to the Chevvron 2-32 with its Konig engine for the actual courses.
Of course all this happened long before 'control' of cadet flying was passed to 2FTS.

[Whizz Bang]

If they're not at Syerston my money would be on one of the other sites under direct 2FTS control.

A riddle:

What sits unloved in a hangar, awaiting the final nail (or saw) to arrive from a man whose incompetence is only surpassed by his own arrogance, at the highest airfield in his fiefdom...?

[chevvron]

In August 1991 during the first Vigilant course run by 637 at Little Rissington, (then the highest airfield in the RAF) there were 3 Ventures pushed over to the side of the hangar forgotten, unloved and gathering dust.

[POBJOY]

The Venture played its part in proving that the ACO could operate a SLMG with the same competence displayed with conventional winch launched operations.
Its performance was such that some airfields were limiting, but the 'training' it gave did show the way ahead as an alternative to the winch. They may have been unloved at the end but it did not stop them finding new homes.
The worst aspect of the LATEST SUPER PERMANENT PAUSE is that no lessons seem to have been learnt re the decision making at COCK UP TOWERS or any sign that the management at Syerston will improve. JM gets a 'Sting' an appropriate name for the organisation he runs. Never mind no doubt someone will suggest they 'procure' another batch of PTT to practice shopping bag filling .Is there no end to this madness.

[NRU74]

[QUOTE=chevvron;10144227 Little Rissington, (then the highest airfield in the RAF)[/QUOTE]

Didn’t know that - but I’m from the RAF Eastleigh etc days.
What’s the highest now ?

[A and C]

In this sorry situation I can’t see what else the RAF could do, faced with a fleet of motor gliders, most unserviceable fitted with an engine that has no manufacture support and a dwindling stock of parts.

Whatever went on in the past right at this moment what else could they do when the aircraft manufacturer and type certificate holder pulled out of the re-engining deal ?

( before someone tells me the G109 already has Rotax engine approval I should point out that the approval it does not cover this variant).

The money saved by withdrawal of the G109’s from service will allow more Viking’s to return to service, in my opinion this is the mediocre best of a very bad job.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Didn’t know that - but I’m from the RAF Eastleigh etc days.
What’s the highest now ?

Probably Dunkeswell 839ft (civvy), Upavon 574ft(Army), Boscombe Down 407ft (MOD DPA) or, Odiham 405ft (RAF).
I haven't forgotten the RN - all are at sea level allegedly to stop the crews getting vertigo. ;-)
The odd one is Predannack at almost 50 fathoms.

[chevvron]

Didn’t know that - but I’m from the RAF Eastleigh etc days.
What’s the highest now ?

As far as I'm aware, the UK Air Cadets never had a gliding school in Kenya (unless you mean the airport just outside Southampton which I believe was an RNAS.)https://www.pprune.org/images/icons/46.gif

[Engines]

A&C's post is very understandable, but it might help to offer a couple of points:

It's only two years since, with much fanfare and a notable absence of RAF officers taking any responsibility, a politician was jobbed to stand up and announce the 'recovery plan' for ATC gliders. That followed three years of fumbling, denial and outright lies while 22Gp, 2FTS and the MoD struggled to work out how to recover the airworthiness of a fleet of the simplest, easiest to maintain aircraft that (taxpayers) money could buy. As part of that, the RAF would effectively hand over its 65 Vigilants to Grob, who would recover 15 aircraft to a give an OSD of 2019. Grob would keep the other 50 for resale.

At the time, I wondered who on earth had approved this idea, just how bad things had got that the MoD thought that effectively giving 50 aircraft away for nothing to the firm we bought them from in the first place was a good idea. I also wondered how they justified this huge loss of taxpayer assets for an OSD just three years away when they made the announcement (March 2016).

So now, after two years of not much information, 2FTS suddenly announces that this is 'no longer an option'. Why? One thing for absolute certain - the last two years of non-progress will have cost the ATC, and the taxpayers, even more for absolutely no result. Sadly, any hope that this latest 'screw up' will release any more funds for Viking recovery is very probably unfounded. Getting things badly wrong for two years doesn't come cheap.

22Gp and 2FTS (and the MoD) spent over two years trying and failing to get a semblance of control over this scandal, and only started getting some sort of grip when given direct instructions by CAS and the MAA. The announcement in March 16 that effectively dismembered the ATC's operations was deliberately framed to obscure the central scandal. Now, another two years have passed and a central part of the 'new plan' has fallen apart. Which means that 22Gp, 2FTS and the MoD still don't have a grip. After five years. Five years.

The cadets who have been deprived of the central activity that they were promised, the ATC staff who have worked so hard to try to manage through this debate, and the taxpayers who have ponied up for this absolute crock, all deserve an explanation. The MoD and the RAF need to properly investigate what the hell happened, and take swift action to plug the gaps that clearly exist.

I'd hope that someone pushes for a formal Commons Committee inquiry. It's justified.

Best regards as ever to all those having to tell the cadets the bad news,

Engines

[tucumseh]

Well said Engines. The only comment I'd make is that MoD/MAA, and especially the RAF, will never conduct a full and honest investigation. The point has to be made, repeatedly, that this is just one in a sequence of aircraft fleets affected by conscious decisions not to manage airworthiness properly. Apart from the level of waste, there is absolutely no difference between Gliders and Nimrod MRA4. Including, notification of the problem years in advance. If the Commons Committee are again (!) invited to look at this, perhaps it could ask if MoD met its legal obligation to advise the HSE of 'defined dangerous occurrences'.

[Engines]

Tuc,

I fully agree that the MoD/MAA are not equipped, nor are they inclined, to conduct the sort of investigation required - that's why I suggested a Commons Committee inquiry. Yes, this is just another point on a long and inglorious line of events, and I would hope that any inquiry would connect the points. I'd be happy to help them do that, if asked.

But, as ever, I'd offer the observation that there were plenty of people, in many positions, within the MoD and the RAF, who could have, and should have done their jobs far better than they did. Maintaining airworthiness files? Not hard. Keeping records of repairs? Routine stuff. Maintaining proper support contracts? A doddle. Just not done.

Best regards as ever to all those who have beaten this drum for so long with such integrity,

Engines

[Chugalug2]

tuc:-

If the Commons Committee are again (!) invited to look at this

You make a good point tuc, as last time it was quite prepared to have the wool pulled over its eyes by dissembling VSOs, thus joining all the other official long stops in just not wanting to know (QC's, Asst. Chief Constables, MPs, Ministers, Provost Marshals, etc). In the end this will only get sorted and UK Military Aircraft restored to Airworthiness by men of integrity. It seems plain to me that they can only do that if they are independent of those responsible for the farrago that is present day UK Military Air Safety, ie the RAF High Command and the Ministry of Defence. This scandal goes way beyond ATC gliders and Maritime Air Reconnaissance, scandal enough though that both are to all intents now gone. Someone, somewhere, somehow, with the integrity and power to effect the changes needed, has to be found and made aware of the depth and extent of this canker that threatens the very vitals of our Air Power and consequently our survival if we are ever threatened by an opposing Air Power.

Anyone there?

[Frelon]

Oh, and what are they going to do with those new 26 Skylaunch winches? They were specially built to MoD specification to use diesel instead of the preferred fuel, gas!!
Best wishes to those volunteers who have stayed with it. They deserve a pat on the back!

[Lima Juliet]

I have to ask why they were ever put on the military register? The ridiculous red-tape and espoused hand-wringing nonsense coming from the so-called “Airworthiness Authorities” both pre and post Haddon Cave is an absolute joke for a glider and a motor glider - it is this nonsensical drive for a military airworthiness standard that has led to the disaster we have today. It would have been so much easier to operate these under the umbrella of the BGA and the CAA/EASA. We could have skipped the endless MAA regulations and ‘gold plating’ of what is a very simple aircraft to operate. Having all the volunteer pilots on SPLs and PPLs using Class 2 medicals conducting Introductory Flights would have been fine.

inquiries, witch-hunting the senior leadership and carping on about the good old days will do no good. We need leadership and (forgive me) blue-sky thinking to resolve this. My proposal would be to set up 2FTS as Declared Training Organisation, train up the staff to a minimum of EASA PPL/SPL and then buy some aircraft on the civvy register and put some roundels on them. Use a Part-M organisation to do outsourced servicing, then go flying! I reckon this could be achieved inside 6 months. In fact, these organisations already exist with 13x RAFFCA, 7x RAFGSA and 1x RAFMFA clubs - just tag onto the side of those through the RAF Directorate of Sport (which is also 22 Gp owned).

It beggars belief...

[POBJOY]

The Cadet organisation is only going 'downhill' under the auspices of RAF control.
The time has come to break away from this increasingly unnecessary overcomplicated situation that seems to be unable to make decisions or keep to a plan.
The whole organisation is chocked to death with just running itself, and has lost sight of the reason it exists.
A Cadet organisation would be better off being run as an independent charity, and those who wish to assist could do so without the requirement of Cranwell or 2FTS, neither of which have added to the CADET EXPERIENCE, and in fact have only caused its slow death by 1000 cuts.
You need look no further than the shrinking Cadet numbers despite the lower age limit, and inability to attract adult staff.
The organisation has been used as an employment plan for many yet the actual CADET EXPERIENCE has been reduced despite large amounts of money getting soaked up by THE SYSTEM. Compare the joke that is 2FTS with the former Gliding Centres. Nothing will change unless the people change, and I do not think that this is likely as they do not accept that anything is wrong. Any organisation needs quality leadership at all levels. The Squadrons and 'Schools' had it from a volunteer force operating at the coal face; the system is seriously flawed from above that level and in particular at the higher levels.
Just read the comments on the Air Cadet forum, it is full of input from those who care but are not being listened to at the top. The appalling way the long term staff at the VGS were treated should have been enough to show anybody how things were going, and these were the people who had been actually training Cadets to a required standard for decades with a great safety record. The current staff running the higher levels of the ACO have not shown an ability to deliver an experience deserving the title Venture Adventure with the addition of AIR in the equation. This is not going to change under the present 'occupation' therefore a Cadet body would be better served under a different regime and stewardship.

[Trumpet_trousers]

POBJOY,
as someone who many moons ago soloed in a T21 at Sealand, perhaps an FOI request (or two...) is the way to bring to the wider public the extent of this taxpayer funded fiasco? Just a thought...

[Engines]

LJ (and others),

I sincerely apologise if my posts have come across as 'witch hunting', and as an ex-Air Cadet who flew in T21s and Sedberghs at Manston many years ago I fully appreciate your frustration at the current situation.

You ask why were the aircraft ever put on the military aircraft register? The short answer would be because they were bought using money that was allocated by the Government for military aircraft. They were bought by the MoD to be operated by an arm of the RAF. If the RAF operates aircraft, they have to be on the military register.

My view, and happy for anyone to disagree - The RAF should stop using scarce taxpayer's money to try to run the world's largest fleet of publicly owned gliders. The original justifications (recruiting, promoting 'air-mindedness') can't possibly stand scrutiny in the current financial climate. Again, my view. I think your suggestion for a way forward goes half way, and Pobjoy's is probably the only realistic way forward. The RAF should stop trying to own and operate these aircraft, and hand them off to a civilian organisation that is funded through charitable donations. No need for 2FTS, or the MoD posts that have tried (and failed) to operate and support these aircraft to a satisfactory standard. There's only one thing I'd disagree on - the suggestion that the RAF should 'buy some aircraft on the civvy register and put some roundels on them'. That money's gone. Been spent. Been wasted. Been flushed. If the RAF really wants to go that route, it would (in my view) have to find the funds from within its current budgets.

Just to explain why I think there should be an enquiry. The issue, to me, is not so much that the ATC gliding setup has been screwed up, although that's bad enough. It's that the RAF, which has worked so hard to build an enviable reputation for its standards and professionalism, has put that reputation at risk by failing in nearly all aspects of supporting and maintaining a fleet of simple aircraft. Even worse, it's put children (and it's own people) at risk in the process. As others have pointed out, this is not an isolated occurrence. So, here's the question I'd put to CAS - 'How do you know this isn't happening somewhere else in the RAF?'. To use the current jargon, 'is there a systemic problem'? There needs to be an answer to that one, and that's why I think an enquiry is required.

Best regards as ever to all the aircrew and support staff working damn hard to keep the RAF operational and effective,

Engines

[Phil_and_Sand]

>The recovery of remaining 9 Vigilant aircraft relied on an innovative recovery proposal from Grob Aircraft SE. This is no longer an option.<

Can anyone clarify why "This is no longer an option"? And what precisely stops the Vigilant fleet from being sold into the ordinary civilian market and refurbished or re-engined as required, as the Ventures were?

Not financially viable?

[hoodie]

Not financially viable?

That would be determined by prospective purchasers, not the seller, I'd have thought.

[POBJOY]

If the remaining Grob Vigilant were released on to the private market (under the LAA system) they would be flying again very soon.
This is a simple machine with a converted car engine something the LAA (PFA) have grown up with and are quite capable of organising.
Yes they may require an inspection but there is plenty of expertise out there to deal with that. Because they would only be for 'private use' the certification situation is simplified. However how could the RAF explain that these machines had to be grounded !!!!. By having them 'destroyed' it conveniently removes the awkward questions that they would have difficulty in answering. Most of the current decisions relating to the former Air Cadet gliding fleet are based on covering up the disgraceful situation that allowed a fantastic training organisation to be destroyed by incompetence and lack of tech management. The money has (still is) been spent and wasted, so why waste even more and allow this broken excuse of a system to continue to pretend it has any idea or ability to run it. Cadets will be Cadets because they want to do something and they do not need the 'burden' of incompetence to do it. Shake off the shackles of the past and start anew, i for one would happily go back and drive a winch if it helped them get going again under a different stewardship, and I suspect many others would do the same as we know what a great 'experience' and self starting 'hands on' involvement can give to youth ,who in turn can pass it on.

[A and C]

The RAF have been told by the leagal types that they can’t sell any unserviceable aircraft excepting under specific conditions so these aircraft can’t be made available to private individuals.

Should an EASA part 145 company or equivalent make an offer for the aircraft then sale could be considered otherwise the aircraft have to be rendered unusable and sold as scrap.

According to the lawyers if a private individual got hold of one of these aircraft and then had an accident the RAF would be liable for damages....................like the rest of this debacle it makes no sense to me so don’t shoot the messenger.

[POBJOY]

If the Grobs were fully serviceable two weeks ago and performing as required then what has caused them to be grounded.
Is there some genuine technical reason that has arisen !!! or is it due to another 'paperwork issue' in that a 'deal' can not be brokered with the parties as was expected.
If it is merely a 'deal break down' then the aircraft are no less fit now than they were before the most recent grounding.
If Grob have not issued an airworthiness directive (or the military equivalent) then what has changed.
If it 'suits' the RAF to ground and destroy; then they must show that the machine is deficient in some way, but as it has been in normal operation without a problem then it is either fit or they have been flying them knowing then to be unserviceable.
If someone has pulled the approval they must show why, and the RAF must be aware as to why they were operating under such an unclear situation.
It only confirms that the system is so unfit for service it should not be trusted to operate a Cadet Training Service ever again.

[multum in parvo]

'The 2016 relaunch of Air Cadet Gliding stated we would operate up to 15 Vigilant powered gliders with an Out of Service Date (OSD) of October 2019, 6 having been recovered already. The recovery of remaining 9 Vigilant aircraft relied on an innovative recovery proposal from Grob Aircraft SE. This is no longer an option. The removal of this option, challenging technical support for 2 fleets, and low Vigilant availability mean that continued operation of Vigilant is no longer considered viable. Consequently, we will withdraw the Vigilant glider fleet from service immediately, bringing forward its planned OSD. The Topcliffe VGS will convert to the Viking aircraft earlier than originally planned. This approach will free up engineers and allow the glider engineering enterprise to focus solely on the safe recovery and operation of the Viking fleet.

Comdt 2FTS’

My reading of the announcement from Comdt 2 FTS is that 6 of the planned 15 aircraft had been recovered but that there was no longer a recovery option for a further 9 and therefore the Vigilant fleet was to be taken out of service to concentrate resources on the Viking fleet. If that is the case the RAF appear to have 6 perfectly serviceable Vigilant aircraft for disposal. What the announcement does not explicitly say is whether Grob withdrew their "innovative proposal" or whether it was rejected by the RAF for reasons of safety or cost. Wouldn't it be nice to know which!!

[Lima Juliet]

Engines - it was a generic comment on ‘witch hunting’ and not aimed at anyone in particular :-)

However, I’m afraid you are quite wrong here with this

You ask why were the aircraft ever put on the military aircraft register? The short answer would be because they were bought using money that was allocated by the Government for military aircraft. They were bought by the MoD to be operated by an arm of the RAF. If the RAF operates aircraft, they have to be on the military register.

Our current Grob Tutors are on the civilian register and we have operated some Front Line types on the civvy register in the past as well. Further I believe that Shadow and Voyager are operated to Part-145? The ANO allows for civil registered aircraft to be flown by military aircrew when on military duties. However, to make it simple, for Air Cadet purposes, I would propose that any civvy reg gliders/TMGs be flown by staff with appropriate civvy licences - again our Military Regulatory Publications (MRPs) make provision for this if required.

So it could be done VERY easily IF there was an appetite to do so. But for some unknown reason it isn’t! Part of me suspects it is because corporate knowledge of civvy flying is so very low in military circles...

[Phil_and_Sand]

That would be determined by prospective purchasers, not the seller, I'd have thought.

Not viable for Grob to return some to service (9 + 6?) with a Rotax in the front, and recoup that money by doing less work to the rest and selling them. Don't forget they would have to certify the Rotax mod and provide mod kits, and work to the unusual MoD engineering policy. How much is a G109B worth, that has been operated over the TC max weight, on the open market? How easy would it be to sell 50ish aeroplanes? Its a risk and reward equation, too much risk, not enough potential reward = financially not viable. Only speculation from piecing together the various rumours.
Phil.

[POBJOY]

Dear All
We are now at the stage that the Corps have lost 5 seasons of training and courses, with no end in sight plus the continued spend of the budget with nothing to show.
The system has no aircraft or trained staff to talk of; just even more missives from 2 FTS which can only be treated as joke (if was not so serious). We have nothing, and are getting nothing really worth having other than some nicely paid jobs staffed by non deliverers.
Stop the rot now; close 2 FTS and let a Cadet system start afresh as it should, but not under the burden of the RAF or its pension plodders.
We have nothing, so the quicker this happens then the sooner a fresh start can begin (using those trained people but not in uniform).
Why anyone would think that these people should be allowed to continue in post amazes me; they are a disgrace and the Corps would be well rid of them.

[Arclite01]

It smacks of the TSR2 and the Avro Arrow.

Destroy all the evidence - physical and documentary - that way our incompetence will never be discovered or auditable..............

Hmmm

Arc

[DC10RealMan]

I can guarantee that Middleton will reappear in another guise to fleece the poor taxpayer of even more money.

[Olympia 463]

Pobjoy is right. Not only right, but if he is brave enough he can make it happen

In about 1962-3 the ATC squadron at Meir (I don't remember its number) in Staffordshire was disbanded. The then now ex ATC CFI and several of the instructors (most of whom worked in the company where I was Chief Mechanical Designer) put it about that we might start a gliding club to operate on the now disused airfield. I and several colleagues attended a meeting in a pub at Stoke on Trent and decided to raise the cash needed to get a basic set of kit together - a T31, a second hand winch, an Aldis lamp, and a government surplus Land Rover. When I left Meir in 1969 the Staffordshire Gliding Club had trained over thirty ab-initios to solo standard, had added two more gliders a Capstan and a Swallow, to the club fleet and had three syndicates (I started one) operating Olympia 2Bs and one 463. Numerous Silver legs had been gained (I had two) and two of the original ab initios were now instructors (me again). Our technical team by this time had built a new diesel winch of my design which I adapted from two old lorries..

It can be done if the will is there. Get out there and do it. And enjoy the egg on the faces at 2FTS.

[Engines]

LJ:

Thanks for coming back. I apologise for not being more clear when I posted my thoughts on military aircraft registration. What I was (badly) trying to put over was that if the RAF spent public monies to actually purchase a fleet of aircraft (to be clear, so that they owned the assets) and then operate these aircraft within the regulatory structures then in place (most notably to write and own the Release to Service) then, as far as I'm aware, the aircraft had to be on the military register. I know that's a slightly circular argument.

You quote the example of 'your' Grob Tutors, which are on the civilian register. Actually, they're not 'yours', they're owned and operated by Babcock under a PFI deal. The MoD gets a fleet that supports all three services, and, as you quite rightly point out, doesn't have to go through the hoops of complying with all the MAA regs. The Voyagers are operated to Part 145, but I think you'll find most of them are on the military register, and have a Release to Service to cover military operation. Likewise, the Shadows are military registered, and, again I believe, have a Release to Service.

However, on the really important bit, I thoroughly agree with you. If there was an appetite to provide the RAF with the world's largest fleet of gliders as a recruiting tool, then I'm sure ways could be found to do it. Where we part company is on whether that should be done. I don't think any public money should be spent on this any more.

Best Regards as ever to all those giving their time and effort to the ATC,

Engines

[Chugalug2]

Great post Olympia 463! You remind us what can be done by good people who have both determination and expertise. The dross that this thread instances and which reflects much that is wrong nowadays doesn't have to be. Like the creative arts and the frontiers of science, societies have their ups and downs. We've certainly had our fair share of down and perhaps it is now time for an up.

If that is so then ATC gliding reborn would be merely one facet of the effect which would be seen everywhere, even in UK Military Air Regulation and Accident Investigation. What a prize that would be for the Royal Air Force having got in its first hundred and now looking for the second!

[Lima Juliet]

Hi Engines

Thanks for the info. The only slight correction I would add would be that Shadow was indeed on the Civil Register in the early days before 14 Sqn was formed. No, thatis not a delivery flight ;-)

https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/full_size_0113/1171120-large.jpg

[BossEyed]

It's evident from that image that they were always intended to be on the military register though: You can see where the allocated military serial has been covered in tape.

I suspect that image is taken before handover to MOD, even if photographed after it first appeared at a MOD site.

[TelsBoy]

Having been away for a while, have only just picked up on this one. I'd say I'm dumbfounded, however if I'm honest I'm not in the least surprised. Most of us could see this eventually happening back in 2015 when it became clear that things were in just too big a mess to fix, the Vigi was clearly doomed and those in power were just too incompetent to do anything correctly.

Announcing an immediate withdrawal from service a day before however is yet another 2FTS morale destroyer.

Another day, another PR disaster for the RAFAC. All very sad.

[Arclite01]

Something in my head said that someone, somewhere felt that the Air Cadets were becoming just a bit too much of a private air force. Let's clip their wings

1. Reduce the number of VGS
2. Get rid of the RAF VR(T) - give them a Scout Masters position (less the woggle)
3. Stop them operating a powered aircraft (Vigi)
4. Get control of the AEF aspects - make them do it 'our way' - or not at all
5. Wrap it all up as 're-organisation and cost saving exercise' to make us look good...........

Job done...................

:}

Arc

[chevvron]

Something in my head said that someone, somewhere felt that the Air Cadets were becoming just a bit too much of a private air force. Let's clip their wings

1. Reduce the number of VGS
2. Get rid of the RAF VR(T) - give them a Scout Masters position (less the woggle)
3. Stop them operating a powered aircraft (Vigi)
4. Get control of the AEF aspects - make them do it 'our way' - or not at all
5. Wrap it all up as 're-organisation and cost saving exercise' to make us look good...........

Job done...................

:}

Arc
Wot 'e said.https://www.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon14.gif

[POBJOY]

I Say hooray for the woggle and bin the idiots now (not in charge)
Nothing to loose; as they have already destroyed the organisation therefore why wait for them to give themselves even more time, and money wasting powers to build their non effective ivory tower empire (in the middle of nowhere doing anything useful for real Cadets) Dib Dib Dib

[Lordflasheart]

Question please ?

Is it generally agreed that those six Vigilants were still perfectly airworthy at 4pm on Sunday 6th May ?

Or had some further safety problem arisen (that has yet to be revealed) that required an urgent cessation of Vigilant operations ?

Was the termination in the middle of a busy bank holiday flypro yet another carefully polished policy decision ?

Or was it another demonstration of crass mismanagement and a stupid time to bury bad news ?

LFH

..............

[POBJOY]

YES
NO
YES
NO (not a Demo an actual real example of more CRASS MISMANAGEMENT)
Situation normal at 2FTS
Engine is a VW with 'bolt on bits'. Nothing that could not be fettled in a homebuilders garage. UC has been beefed up for circuit work. No rocket science at work here.
Biggest problem is the brain transplant required for the paid staff organising the COCK UP. Harley Street said too much work required; easier to bin them and start again with new stock.
PTT planned for 'Shopping Bag Filling'; new badge with 'winged box' in design stage. Leaked info suggests box will have grinning image of JM with two thumbs up saying:- BAG IT WITH THE AIR CADETS. 2FTS planning training courses with dummy tills in the old Glass repair shop, and staff from Cranditz playing as confused customers (no training required) None of these useless individuals would have ever made staff Cadet (as was)

[CISTRS]

None of these useless individuals would have ever made staff Cadet (as was)

Well said that man

[Just This Once...]

Hi Engines

Thanks for the info. The only slight correction I would add would be that Shadow was indeed on the Civil Register in the early days before 14 Sqn was formed. No, thatis not a delivery flight ;-)

https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/full_size_0113/1171120-large.jpg

The Shadow fleet remained on the civilian register, maintained to normal civilian standards and subject to CAA / EASA oversight including routine civilian TP check flights. The RtS for the platform is for the ever-changing role equipment.

From memory the photo above is from the early days of MoD ownership but is being flown by a mixed crew that included a civilian TP.

[cessnapete]

The same flawed RAF air safety thinking that bans a part time AEF pilot when over 60, but he’s allowed to legally and safely fly as Capt of an A380 with 450+ pax!!

[beardy]

The same flawed RAF air safety thinking that bans a part time AEF pilot when over 60, but he’s allowed to legally and safely fly as Capt of an A380 with 450+ pax!!
Update, AEF restriction 65yrs. Restrictions on civilian command past 60 are many including other pilot must be under 60.

[Cows getting bigger]

The same flawed RAF air safety thinking that bans a part time AEF pilot when over 60, but he’s allowed to legally and safely fly as Capt of an A380 with 450+ pax!!

Yes, but in the A380 he's not on his own, there's an exceedingly well qualified chimp sat next to him.

[teeteringhead]

The same flawed RAF air safety thinking that bans a part time AEF pilot when over 60, but he’s allowed to legally and safely fly as Capt of an A380 with 450+ pax!! One once knew a VR(T) who was not allowed to drive a minibus 'cos he was under 25.....

....... his day job? 737 pilot!

[Pegasus107]

One once knew a VR(T) who was not allowed to drive a minibus 'cos he was under 25.....

....... his day job? 737 pilot!

Not as rare as you think. A 24 yr old Sgt, not allowed to drive D1. Day job - lorry driver, 38 tonnes artics around Europe!!

[Shaft109]

Vigilant -

I'd like to ask - Have the Vigilants (and Vikings) ever been considered airworthy in the technical and legal sense.

How would you find out?

I imagine right now a disposal firm experienced in destroying GRP and Carbon frames are setting up near Little Rissington to simply reduce them to dust - once most have forgotten and the news is chip paper.

[cats_five]

Vigilant -

I'd like to ask - Have the Vigilants (and Vikings) ever been considered airworthy in the technical and legal sense.

How would you find out?

I imagine right now a disposal firm experienced in destroying GRP and Carbon frames are setting up near Little Rissington to simply reduce them to dust - once most have forgotten and the news is chip paper.

The Vikings probably were when they were brand new, and I sincerely hope the ones emerging from Southern Sailplanes are, though I have concerns they will back-slide again.

[chevvron]

Update, AEF restriction 65yrs. Restrictions on civilian command past 60 are many including other pilot must be under 60.
Used to be 'as old as you like provided you pass the medical and standards checks'.

[boswell bear]

Question please ?

Is it generally agreed that those six Vigilants were still perfectly airworthy at 4pm on Sunday 6th May ?

Or had some further safety problem arisen (that has yet to be revealed) that required an urgent cessation of Vigilant operations ?

Was the termination in the middle of a busy bank holiday flypro yet another carefully polished policy decision ?

Or was it another demonstration of crass mismanagement and a stupid time to bury bad news ?

LFH

..............
The only serviceable aircraft at Topcliffe on the 6th May was indeed serviceable at 16:00 as it was fueled in readiness for flying to Syerston.

No one has come forward with any suggestion of a further safety problem arising.

The termination looks desperate rather than polished with staff being informed at 10:00 Saturday of Sundays 16:00 termination.

The news hasn't been buried more left out in the open for the few Buzzards interested to pick over the Gizzards of a once great and inspirational organisation.
By leaving the affair out in the open with very little official recognition the "news" will become dust to be scattered by a brisk crosswind that only those involved or who have been involved will care or know about.

Joe public will be blissfully unaware of how an organisation like the mighty RAF can allow a simple aircraft like Vigilant or even simpler Viking to become unairworthy and then spend a small fortune recovering those aircraft only to shortly scrap them.

[boswell bear]

Does anyone have a link to the spending figures on Air Cadet Gliding since the pause?

[POBJOY]

Happened to meet a (holding on) VGS member recently and asked how many 'staff' were waiting in the wings ready to scramble when the Gliders came back.
Answer (1)
The 'idea' is that the closed units will provide staff to operate the remaining winch units but missing the point that many of the Vig guys have never done the winch thing.
As the organisation used to pride itself on having 'experienced' instructors training Cadets how is this situation supposed to work.

[Arclite01]

The Viking to Vigilant and Vigilant to Viking conversion has been done before and there is a fairly well practised route for doing this, and involves support from ACCGS staff. The real issue is the headcount required to operate a Viking VGS compared to a Vigilant VGS. On paper the Vigi can operate with only 3 people whereas the Viking needs 5 or 6 and preferably 7 as a minimum. And the more Vikings that you have on the field the more people you need and more vehicles for retrieve etc. I'd almost say the curve is super-exponential. The Vigilant can continue to operate with the same number of support staff with only additional headcount going up by 1 per additional Vigilant.

The real issue is not just that of manpower and skillset, but the suitability of the site itself. Vigilants can operate from a conventional airfield setup (long and thin as many of our airfields are nowadays) and slot in with the traffic on the ground and in the air. The Viking can't. In the past many RAF sites have refused the presence of a Viking VGS because the are can't fit with the traffic of the station, or because the station doesn't want multiple runs of 2000' of cable laid out across the flying field, or is not willing to accept the risk of cables falling across parked aircraft or ground installations, or the fact that winch cable creates a FOD hazard for jet engines and rotors, and in addition they don't want the risk of relatively young and relatively self-supervised cadets out on the field.

Add to that the inconvenience of a largely weekend/silent hours operation and you struggle with sites that want to take the pain of a Viking VGS on. In the past stations have seen VGS as a bit of a pain and adding limited benefit to the life of a busy operational base, Since now the VGS is effectively a detachment of 2FTS that attitude may change but we will have to wait and see. Looking at the sites that are currently either a VGS or supposedly slotted to be one it looks like this IMHO;

Kenley - OK (not long and thin so offers options to adjust the circuit direction and launch run in crosswind conditions)
Upavon - OK (Long and thin and shared)
Wethersfield - OK (not long and thin so offers options to adjust the circuit direction and launch run in crosswind conditions)
Merrifield - Unknown quantity
Syerston - OK (not long and thin so offers options to adjust the circuit direction and launch run in crosswind conditions)
Little Rissington - OK (not long and thin so offers options to adjust the circuit direction and launch run in crosswind conditions)
Topcliffe - Potentially OK (not long and thin so offers options to adjust the circuit direction and launch run in crosswind conditions)
Predannack - OK (not long and thin so offers options to adjust the circuit direction and launch run in crosswind conditions)
Ternhill - OK (not long and thin so offers options to adjust the circuit direction and launch run in crosswind conditions)
Kirknewton OK (not long and thin so offers options to adjust the circuit direction and launch run in crosswind conditions)

Closed sites

RAF Manston - was ideal (now sold)
Hullavington - was ideal (now sold)
RM Condor - was ideal (now being sold)
RAF Honington - could provide suitable site but has busy airspace with USAF nearby
Abingdon Dalton Barracks - was ideal (now being sold)
RAF Halton - was ideal (now being sold)
RAF Henlow - some conflict with other users but being sold anyway
RAF Odiham - possible with some modifications
RMB Chivenor - possible with some modifications
RAF Cosford - possible with some modifications
MOD St. Athan - not really suitable due to developments on the airfield
Swansea Airport - not ideal due to other users
RAF Linton-on-Ouse - possible with some modifications, may get quieter in the future or be sold anyway
Watton Airifield - was ideal (now sold)
RAF Kinloss - possible with some modifications but future uncertain due to P8
Newtownards - not ideal due to size, shape and other users

Other MoD controlled available sites maybe

RAF Marham - busy with JSF
RAF Lossiemouth - busy with P8
Boscombe Down - Why not ?
RAF Brize Norton - Busy
RNAS Yeovilton - Could be a possible but some conflicting traffic
RNAS Culdrose - Could be a possible but some conflicting traffic
RNAS Wittering - Could be a possible but some conflicting traffic (Tutors)
RAF Mildenhall - Busy USAF
RAF Lakenheath - Busy USAF but not weekends
RAF Fairford - USAF but Why Not ?
RAF Shawbury - Close to Ternhill
AAC Middle Wallop - Why Not ?
AAC Wattisham - Already an RAFGSA site but Why not ?
AAC Dishforth - Closing
RAF Leeming - May become site for additional Typhoon Sqn
West Freugh - middle of nowhere......
RAF Cranwell - Why not ?
RAF Barkston Heath - Why not ?

All these assume funds (unlikely) and also ground equipment, aircraft and staff available)

So there you have it.....................................

Arclite

[muppetofthenorth]

Looking at the sites that are currently either a VGS or supposedly slotted to be one it looks like this IMHO;

Woodvale? Previously a VGS site with Vigilants

[chevvron]

Kirton in Lindsey - previously site of No 2 Gliding Centre.
Halton - not too late to save it.
Llanbedr
Mildenhall - closing
Woodbridge
Sculthorpe
Cottesmore
Manston was never really suitable as gliding ops were confined to the 'Northern Grass' north of the public road

[Cows getting bigger]

Chetwynd, Shropshire

[Arclite01]

All valid points

Woodvale not suited to Winch Launch VGS as I believe there would be a conflict with Tutor Ops. I believe that was why 631 VGS was re-equipped with Vigilant as it has previously been a Winch launch VGS at Sealand.................
Kirton being sold
Llanbedr not MoD owned any more as far as I know.....
Mildenhall now has stay of execution to 'at least 2024....'
Woodbridge - Airfield not now owned by MoD as far as I know.........
Sculthorpe has often been mooted but has a contamination issue so has never been approved
Cottesmore - good point but I think is long and thin
Chetwynd not really suited I think - probably a bit on the small side. Is it still in use as an RLG ??

Manston was OK for Ops although later on traffic became an issue. Northern grass was only small but suited basic ops (like Cranwell North). Now there is nothing there.....................

[Wander00]

Cranwell has a Gliding Club - co-locate with them?

[Trumpet_trousers]

RNAS Wittering...Did I miss something??

[Arclite01]

Typo

Definitely RAF Wittering.........................:)

FFS.................... (Fat Finger Syndrome)

Arc

[ExAscoteer]

Cranwell has a Gliding Club - co-locate with them?

When Halton shuts and they move Phase 1 Airman trg to Cranditz, the N Airfield will cease to exist.

[cats_five]

I disagree that each Viking operating off an airfield needs an extra however many people. Where I fly there is only one person driving the winch, there's a limit to how many retrieve vehicles you want driving around, only one person signalling to the winch, only one person keeping the log and the signaller is usually keeping the log. And the people waiting to fly drive retrieve vehicles etc. Our duty teams are 2-3 instructors and 4 other people, no matter how many or few gliders will be flying that day.

[Wander00]

ExAscoteer - that will be a historic bit of real estate disappear

[Arclite01]

Cats

You've already admitted previously on this thread that you don't have any experience of ACO Gliding Operations.

I'd just leave it there.

Arc

[Tingger]

He may well not, but once you go past 9 personnel to operate 3 Vikings Vs 5 to operate 3 vigilant you're only adding an extra aircraft captain for each additional aircraft in both cases. There are only so many rangers to drive and while more people make life easier it's not a requirement to get things done.

having the right number of people qualified in the correct competencies at the right place at the right time in the current situation is a completely different ball game though.

[POBJOY]

Is there anyone out there that believes 'anything' coming from 2FTS.
Is there any confidence that the Vikings will actually come back in sufficient numbers to provide cover at the proposed 'schools'.
Who is actually going to provide the expertise to staff the said 'centres'.
I for one do not believe one word that comes out from Syerston. They have not shown any degree of competence for anything other than BUILDING UP THIER OWN EMPIRE.
Unfortunately they do not seem to understand that there is NO EMPIRE LEFT or troops to direct.
A huge amount of money has been wasted providing nothing, and the Cadet experience reduced to badge collecting so someone at HQ AC can say look at all these 'wings'.
Shopping bag filling PTT next on list !!!!!

[chevvron]

ExAscoteer - that will be a historic bit of real estate disappear
Agreed. At ATC camp there in '91, I was I/C Chipmunk flying from North Airfield and it was great fun, the pilots enjoying themselves by just taking off/landing into wind irrespective of the amount of grass in front of them.https://www.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon14.gif

[cats_five]

Cats

You've already admitted previously on this thread that you don't have any experience of ACO Gliding Operations.

I'd just leave it there.

Arc

It was written:
the Viking needs 5 or 6 and preferably 7 as a minimum. And the more Vikings that you have on the field the more people you need and more vehicles for retrieve etc

I fail to see why each glider would need an extra full complement of ground staff. Does each glider have it's own launch point caravan & winch? Maybe you would care to explain what those 7 ground staff per glider are doing? I have seen the ACO in action, they certainly didn't have that sort of number per glider to run their bit of the airfield, more like that number in total.

[chevvron]

In my day (Sedburghs and Mk 3s) everybody mucked in and helped, with cadets visiting for AEG being briefed before getting near an aircraft and being monitored for a short time by a staff cadet.
Visiting cadets/staff did not drive retrieve vehicles either, that was done by staff cadets or VGS adult staff; you couldn't just jump into a Landrover and tow a glider, it needed speciallised instruction and an RAF driving licence.

[Cows getting bigger]

Indeed. But as a bunch of AEG cdts you were kept busy, all day.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Indeed. But as a bunch of AEG cdts you were kept busy, all day.

I would suggest that is the whole point. Young people learning to work together and giving everyone responsibility and accountability commensurate with their age. A 12 year old can run a wingtip, something that is trivial to an adult but a bigger deal to a youngster when they appreciate they are a vital part of the launch​​​​​.

Launches per per hour is a meaningless metric for Cadet flying, if everyone is engaged and participating then you have succeeded.

But there has to be something to aspire to. That 12 year old running the wing for a Cadet solo will be thinking, “someday that will be me”. Hard to see how you can have that positive dynamic when all you can offer for a “flying” experience is a hokey computer game part task trainer........

[POBJOY]

BP I agree; the AEF thing was never big on my hit list as apart from anything else we spent more time in coaches and 'not flying due something or other' so the experience was not that great.
Compare that to my first visit to a Gliding School (as was) as a 12 year old. Within minutes actually handling a machine and assisting with all those simple yet important tasks that made the operation run. Apart from getting a couple of 'never to be forgotten' rocket like launches in a converted wooden box (MK3) there was dashing off in Landrovers to retrieve and (in those days) the walk back over the airfield. Add to that getting a ride or two in the Austin to the winches to find other Cadets actually driving them. This was the USP of the ATC organisation and also a bit of a secret to the outside world. Before Gliding AE started only Cadets doing their A&B course had experienced this part of our organisation so it was far from well known. It did not need complicated equipment and in fact all of the transport was retired trucks from the RAF, and only the winches had been brand new. This then was 'jewel' in the system and in my case the best part of what the ATC offered. Cadets being mentored by other Cadets and everyone having something to do and contribute to getting the machines flying. We did not need flying suits and helmets, parachutes and headsets, just enthusiasm;with the opportunity to be 'HANDS ON' in going flying. THE BEST SELF DEVELOPING EXPERIENCE EVER INVENTED.

[chevvron]

POBJOY :ok:

[chevvron]

Chetwynd not really suited I think - probably a bit on the small side. Is it still in use as an RLG ??

Manston was OK for Ops although later on traffic became an issue. Northern grass was only small but suited basic ops (like Cranwell North). Now there is nothing there.....................
If the Northern Grass at Manston was OK, then Chetwynd should be OK too.
We've forgotten the biggest military grass airfield in the country which is little used at weekends - Middle Wallop!

[Arclite01]

The northern grass was Ok for basic Mk3 work but not so sure about the Viking though - and actually the Northern grass was where Eugene Esmonde and his Swordfish took off from to try and intercept the Channel Dash in 1942.

Middle Wallop was on my list............................ (see above)

Arc

[chevvron]

The northern grass was Ok for basic Mk3 work but not so sure about the Viking though - and actually the Northern grass was where Eugene Esmonde and his Swordfish took off from to try and intercept the Channel Dash in 1942.

Middle Wallop was on my list............................ (see above)

Arc
Sorry missed that.:ouch:
How 'bout Honington then? Still under RAF control, in fact one or two disuseds still under MOD control (Bodney and East Wretham) in the nearby Stanford Training Area both seeing occasional Herc Ops.

[Arclite01]

Honington also on my list.

East Wretham has no proper airfield since 1948. There is a helipad there though.
Bodney is in a similar state - heli Ops only there now. No proper airfield since the late 40's

Swanton Morley is the site currently being bandied about for a VGS in these parts................. and could be a valid choice.

Arc

[multum in parvo]

At The Gliding Bible Facebook site some interesting photos in the posts section. Apologies, as I have under 10 posts I am not allowed to copy and paste URLs.

[Tingger]

Honington also on my list.

East Wretham has no proper airfield since 1948. There is a helipad there though.
Bodney is in a similar state - heli Ops only there now. No proper airfield since the late 40's

Swanton Morley is the site currently being bandied about for a VGS in these parts................. and could be a valid choice.

Arc

not just being bandied about 614 have had their designation changed to swanton

[POBJOY]

With the Vigilant now out of the equation, and SS sending finished machines to Syerston why are these aircraft not winging their way to the potential users. SERCO are still being paid to provide a service, but aircraft do not seem to be forthcoming from their part of the process. In fact there does not appear to be a future 'service plan' for these machines or the personnel to look after them. Grob did not want to get involved in the Vig debacle hence the 'pull', so who is going to accept responsibility for the 'repaired' (not re-lifed) Vikings, and how much life is there in them. Remember the only Viking SERCO 'recovered' is overweight and (oversize) so hardly a model of excellence.

[Opsbeatch]

not just being bandied about 614 have had their designation changed to swanton

Perfect for the densely populated flatlands...

OB

[Arclite01]

with it's amazing infrastructure and roads/railways/airports setup...................:O

TBH I think with the massively contracting Defence estate HQAC and 2FTS are clutching at straws for relocation of units................

Surprised they didn't try and get in at Honington frankly where facilities are better and also it reduces cadet travel by at least an hour if you are coming from the south, east or west................ but don't let real hard facts bias your judgement, although maybe Swanton was all that the Defence Estates offered them.

Arc

[POBJOY]

The more this sorry saga goes on the more suspicious I get re the motives emanating from 2 FTS.
The whole ' jam tomorrow ' scenario looks to be an excuse for easing away from an essentially volunteer run organisation and building up a new set up (big hubs, accommodation blocks, transport requirement,.catering requirement, etc) just like a mini Syerston, and no doubt run like the AEF.
And who will run these operations (devoid of Staff Cadets and CI's). Well HQAC itself have become a convenient 'home' for Pension toppers so why change the model.
In any other organisation the leaderless top would have long gone, and a new regime imposed by the shareholders, but in the AC organisation the VOLUNTEERS and Cadets are those paying the price for the gross failures of others. The VGS were just lied to, and their efforts dismissed by those that were incapable of doing their own job to a satisfactory level. The TRUTH has been watered down by 'cascading' rubbish from HQAC and 2 FTS to the point that they must know what they are saying is not based on facts yet they bring on more Ce-lebs, and carry on. Utterly disgraceful and a good enough reason to say :- It 'WAS' a great organisation that ANYONE could join and explore their potential. They have completely failed the 'AIR' word, and have just become burdened by job sitters and non deliverers. To the Volunteers I say You are/were better than them and really showed what VENTURE ADVENTURE was all about., sorry you were shafted by such a sorry bunch.

[chevvron]

And who will run these operations (devoid of Staff Cadets and CI's).
Gp Capt Carol Vorderman RAFVR(T) of course.
She's got a PPL so is ideally suited.https://www.pprune.org/images/icons/umph.gif

[air pig]

The more this sorry saga goes on the more suspicious I get re the motives emanating from 2 FTS.
The whole ' jam tomorrow ' scenario looks to be an excuse for easing away from an essentially volunteer run organisation and building up a new set up (big hubs, accommodation blocks, transport requirement,.catering requirement, etc) just like a mini Syerston, and no doubt run like the AEF.
And who will run these operations (devoid of Staff Cadets and CI's). Well HQAC itself have become a convenient 'home' for Pension toppers so why change the model.
In any other organisation the leaderless top would have long gone, and a new regime imposed by the shareholders, but in the AC organisation the VOLUNTEERS and Cadets are those paying the price for the gross failures of others. The VGS were just lied to, and their efforts dismissed by those that were incapable of doing their own job to a satisfactory level. The TRUTH has been watered down by 'cascading' rubbish from HQAC and 2 FTS to the point that they must know what they are saying is not based on facts yet they bring on more Ce-lebs, and carry on. Utterly disgraceful and a good enough reason to say :- It 'WAS' a great organisation that ANYONE could join and explore their potential. They have completely failed the 'AIR' word, and have just become burdened by job sitters and non deliverers. To the Volunteers I say You are/were better than them and really showed what VENTURE ADVENTURE was all about., sorry you were shafted by such a sorry bunch.

Big hubs etc, so cadets and staff have to travel the night before, spend one or two days on site then go home. At the age range involved the older ones will have things like exams coming up etc, parents are going to kick back. One day maybe aceptable but a whole weekend, and what if flying is cancelled. This sounds like an FTRS make work for the boys and girls and nothing more.

[ExAscoteer]

Gp Capt Carol Vorderman RAFVR(T) of course.


RAFVR(T) is no more and hasn't been since Dec last year.

[Onceapilot]

The more this sorry saga goes on the more suspicious I get re the motives emanating from 2 FTS.
The whole ' jam tomorrow ' scenario looks to be an excuse for easing away from an essentially volunteer run organisation and building up a new set up (big hubs, accommodation blocks, transport requirement,.catering requirement, etc) just like a mini Syerston, and no doubt run like the AEF.
And who will run these operations (devoid of Staff Cadets and CI's). Well HQAC itself have become a convenient 'home' for Pension toppers so why change the model.
In any other organisation the leaderless top would have long gone, and a new regime imposed by the shareholders, but in the AC organisation the VOLUNTEERS and Cadets are those paying the price for the gross failures of others. The VGS were just lied to, and their efforts dismissed by those that were incapable of doing their own job to a satisfactory level. The TRUTH has been watered down by 'cascading' rubbish from HQAC and 2 FTS to the point that they must know what they are saying is not based on facts yet they bring on more Ce-lebs, and carry on. Utterly disgraceful and a good enough reason to say :- It 'WAS' a great organisation that ANYONE could join and explore their potential. They have completely failed the 'AIR' word, and have just become burdened by job sitters and non deliverers. To the Volunteers I say You are/were better than them and really showed what VENTURE ADVENTURE was all about., sorry you were shafted by such a sorry bunch.

Seems much the same to me. Well said Pob! :D

OAP

[POBJOY]

Kenley is still the named base for 615 and although they are as we know 'dormant' due a well known screw up in the system they have been a very long term unit there and indeed the only flying unit there since 1959. In fact Kenley owes its ongoing survival due to 615,and all those that have flown from there will know what an amazing place it is with an incredible historical significance. However there is a new threat in the making, so I have put a 'missive' on the Aviation History thread if you care to read it.
Thanks PP

[chevvron]

RAFVR(T) is no more and hasn't been since Dec last year.
When my Wg Cdr decided I wasn't 'pulling my weight' (I was only doing WGLO duties 6 hours every other weekend and attending the Sqdn for less than the required 8 hr/month; the Sqdn Cdr had made it clear to me there was no 'role' for me on the Sqdn anyway) and terminated my commission I was sent a letter saying I could if I wished use the title 'Flt Lt....... RAFVR(T) Retd' if I wished and if I ever feel the need I shall continue to do that.
I was irked when I discovered I wasn't required to attend the Sqdn anyway as WGLO had been made an established Wing Staff post, a fact my Wg Cdr had neglected to tell me.
Unfortunately the Wg Ad O, a retired 'rock' Wg Cdr who I got on well with and who was an excellent communicator, was sidelined due to a bad motorbike acident otherwise I'm sure I would have been told.

[Tingger]

RAFVR(T) is no more and hasn't been since Dec last year.

The RAFVR(T) hasn't disappeared completely 6FTS retains them flying the tutor and 2FTS has a number of VR(T) in the HQ and CGS.

[ExAscoteer]

Indeed, I was referring to the 'mainstream' VR(T).

The AEF staff will remain as VR(T) owing to accountability, but letter I received from Cmdt RAFAC states that they are actively looking at changing their reserve status.

[Arclite01]

If AEF staff are remaining VR(T) on basis of 'Accountability' then VGS staff should also be in that category - for the same reasons

IMHO.

Arc

[air pig]

Indeed, I was referring to the 'mainstream' VR(T).

The AEF staff will remain as VR(T) owing to accountability, but letter I received from Cmdt RAFAC states that they are actively looking at changing their reserve status.

She may have difficulty getting that past AOC 22 group as the new CFC has no accountability in it.

[ExAscoteer]

Hence they will still be part of the Reserves and outside the CFC.

[POBJOY]

In the REAL world the aircraft were quite happy being flown by 'qualified' staff many of whom had no RAF rank.
This is the main problem now; the organisation has lost its way about WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING TO PROVIDE A SERVIVE TO THE CADETS , and we are left with 'cascading', and spin, but NO B...…….. Machines. Those at the helm would have been quite at home on the Titanic,or burning Rome.

[hoodie]

Vigilants to be scrapped. (https://www.flyer.co.uk/rafs-vigilant-motor-gliders-to-be-scrapped/)

[beardy]

From the quoted link:

A report by British engineering company Qinitiq suggested that many of the training flights were logged as one flight when in fact there were multiple flights, meaning the aircraft’s fatigue life was unknown in some cases.

That doesn't sound like common sense procedure to me.

[ACW599]

From the quoted link:

That doesn't sound like common sense procedure to me.

Not something we did at either of the two VGSs on which I served. I also don't recall the Vigilant being lifed on landings.

[Freda Checks]

OC2FTS making something up again!

Put one of these with a gliding club and they will have it airworthy in no time!

Are we aware that there are more Cadet MkIIIs and Sedberghs flying today in comparison with those (Vikings) that replaced them! It is all down to the people who look after them. They should be taken away from 2FTS before he scraps them too!

[beardy]

The report comes from QinetiQ, do you know who they are and if they have any relationship, apart from a contractual one, with 2FTS? Or is that unimportant?

[Freda Checks]

it seems that it was a suggestion from QinetiQ!

Are we scrapping aircraft based on suggestions now?

[Shaft109]

Why any volunteers waste their time any more with this mess is beyond me, turn up Saturday grounded Sunday. It'll happen with he Vikings too.

No one cares anymore.

At least no one was killed.

[1.3VStall]

The question taxpayers should be asking is this - "If the RAF is incapable of assuring the airworthiness of simple gliders and motor gliders, of which hundreds of examples of the same types continue to be operated safely worldwide, how can we be sure much more advanced platforms, such as Typhoon and Lightning II, are airworthy?"

(A supplementary question might be - "Who is being held accountable for this gross waste of taxpayers' money?").

[622]

From the quoted link:



That doesn't sound like common sense procedure to me.

..I don't know...I had quite a few students who tried to turn one flight into many....and that was in a Viking! ;)

[RRNemesis]

I have not commented on this topic before and must first say that the efforts made by the vast majority of the Staff at the VGSs are commendable. However, (there is always a however) as an ex RAF engineer, ex VGS CI, BGA inspector and actively involved in the continuing airworthiness of military aircraft (I may have identified myself to some) I FULLY concur with the QinetiQ report. When I joined the VGS and reviewed the F700 verses the training through put stats I suspected the integrity of aircraft flight time recording may be a bit wayward. How on one Sunday they managed to carry out 12 GIC (4:00), finish 4 GS students (8:00) and do four SCT trips (4:00) with 3 Vigilant with less than two hours remaining on each before their servicing extensions ended; the F700 recorded two hours and 6 landings on each Vigilant. The CO and Tech Officer said ‘it’s OK everyone does this’. Additionally, an aircraft departed the runway; traveling across rough ground, was ‘brushed off, no incident report was raised and flown later that week-end. A quiet word to the ‘senior staff’ and it was made abundantly clear this would stop; it never again happen on days I was there but I did suspect some creative accounting continued to occur. Equally, aircraft almost inevitable flew on extensions indicating that the maintenance support provided from Syerston was undermanned or underfunded (probably both). The lifing of the aircraft is predicated on the operations carried out in accordance with the Statement of Operational Intent and Usage (SOI&U), should aircraft flight time and landing recording be creatively managed the basis for the Airworthiness Safety Case is undermined. As the SOI&U parameter cannot be confirmed thus the aircraft cannot be declared airworthy I am not saying they are unsafe I am saying that their safety cannot be guaranteed.I sit back and await the backlash and cries of that never happened on my squadron.

[tucumseh]

1.3VStall

The question taxpayers should be asking is this - "If the RAF is incapable of assuring the airworthiness of simple gliders and motor gliders, of which hundreds of examples of the same types continue to be operated safely worldwide, how can we be sure much more advanced platforms, such as Typhoon and Lightning II, are airworthy?"

(A supplementary question might be - "Who is being held accountable for this gross waste of taxpayers' money?").

In this case, one must also look at what other aircraft the Type Airworthiness Authority is responsible for. I've said before, you could merge this thread with the Red Arrows XX177 one, because the same people are involved. Neither aircraft had a valid safety case.

RRNemesis

As the SOI&U parameter cannot be confirmed thus the aircraft cannot be declared airworthy I am not saying they are unsafe I am saying that their safety cannot be guaranteed.I sit back and await the backlash and cries of that never happened on my squadron.

Precisely. Remember, in 1992 the Director of Flight Safety reported that Chinook didn't have a SOIU, never mind one with parameters that could be verified. Why has nothing changed in 26 years? Or are we to be grateful that there's actually an SOIU, albeit one that is ignored. Please also remember, that all aircrew are required to be familiar with the SOIU, so that they may report violations. I'm not sure how that works with Air Cadets.

Which brings us back to 1.3's question;


"Who is being held accountable?"

[ACW599]

>I sit back and await the backlash and cries of that never happened on my squadron.<

It most certainly did not happen in my 23 years on 632 and 633 VGS.

[cats_five]

I'm waiting to see how long it takes for the Viking to become un-airworthy again :(

[Onceapilot]

Or are we to be grateful that there's actually an SOIU, albeit one that is ignored. Please also remember, that all aircrew are required to be familiar with the SOIU, so that they may report violations.

Tuc,
In my fastjet and bigjet RAF flying experience, there were a fair number of aircrew with little knowledge of the statement of operating intent. However, the knowledge was held by some of us and, the document was formally reviewed on a regular basis to keep abreast of changes in useage. The more pertinent documents for operational aircrew would be the aircraft flying manual, limitations, orders and SOP's, these later documents being more widely referenced by (most) aircrew. Those of us in the know would keep a careful eye on changes in usage. :)

OAP

[Lima Juliet]

Originally Posted by tucumseh images/buttons/viewpost.gif (showthread.php?p=10183007#post10183007)
Please also remember, that all aircrew are required to be familiar with the SOIU, so that they may report violations.

Never heard of it, but then I have only been flying Her Majesty’s finest for over a quarter of a century! As OAP says, Aircrew Manual, FRCs, etc... yes

[tucumseh]

OAP & LJ

However, the knowledge was held by some of us and, the document was formally reviewed on a regular basis to keep abreast of changes in useage.

Correct. And changes in use (and intent) had to be fed into the safety case, build standard (if necessary) and RTS (the Master Airworthiness Reference). Which would result in amendments to the other parts of the Aircraft Document Set you mention.
Always assuming you had the necessary contracts in place, the funding and the properly trained staff to do all this. And you need someone with oversight to ensure this airworthiness chain remains unbroken (especially after the entire process was fragmented instead of being a core, centralised function). None of this has been MoD policy for many years. So much so, the new MAA regulatory set gets the definition of the underpinning process wrong, and wanders off at a tangent never to return.

And to be fair to the much-maligned Commandant 2FTS, he has very little to do with this, except to notify violations and take action if his superiors do nothing. Which is what he did (but for not entirely the correct reasons). I can think of many deaths arising from people in his position not taking action. This is exactly the same as Nimrod. The IPTL, Gp Capt Baber, was criticised by Haddon-Cave for having a poor safety case. But there was no mention of the fact Baber had the gumption to let a task to resurrect the safety case, when he should have inherited a continuous task/contract and valid safety case. In both cases, (relatively) junior officers have taken the hit for failings at a more senior level. (On Nimrod, there was no mention of the various Stars who signed to say there was a valid safety case - and it's the same for gliders). We saw the same on C-130 XV179. Sea Kings ASaC. Chinook ZD576. Once you appreciate the linkages, you can focus on the solution.

[tucumseh]

If I may, I'd like to offer this Fire Brigade Union press statement from yesterday which sets out the issues eloquently. It applies to any accident, and especially to subsequent inquiries.



Commenting on the testimony given to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry by Watch Manager Mike Dowden, Fire Brigades Union (FBU) general secretary Matt Wrack said:“Watch Manager Mike Dowden has shown himself to be a very honest man. He has answered all questions to the best of his ability. He is a professional, brave and honourable person. We are proud to have him as a member of the Fire Brigades Union. There clearly are important and difficult questions to ask but they should not be directed at those who do not have the power or authority to have altered policies, operational procedures or training. The line of questioning toward Mike Dowden has been, at times, absurd.

Mike Dowden is not in any way a ‘Fire Chief’ as has been reported in the media in recent days. In fire service structures, he is a junior officer. He is not a middle manager and he is not a strategic or principal manager. On the night of the fire he was originally in charge of two fire engines at one fire station.“Let’s remember that Mike Dowden did not apply flammable cladding to Grenfell Tower. Nor did he make the other alterations which destroyed the fire safety within the building. Nor did he start the fire. He was simply on duty when the worst fire since World War Two broke out. Like all firefighters that night, he was placed in an impossible situation. He did what they all did; he tried his utmost to save lives.

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry is approaching issues back to front. It is self-evident that the disaster at Grenfell Tower was a result of the building having been altered. While there have been expert reports provided on these issues, the inquiry is looking at the events of the night rather than the decisions which led to it. Those who made the decisions have yet to been called to give evidence. If the ‘Stay put’ approach failed, it failed as soon as flammable cladding was installed on the building. The alterations to Grenfell Tower happened before the fire and before any firefighting took place. The order of the inquiry is chronologically and causally wrong.”

[Onceapilot]

OAP & LJ

Correct. And changes in use (and intent) had to be fed into the safety case, build standard (if necessary) and RTS (the Master Airworthiness Reference). Which would result in amendments to the other parts of the Aircraft Document Set you mention.
Always assuming you had the necessary contracts in place, the funding and the properly trained staff to do all this. And you need someone with oversight to ensure this airworthiness chain remains unbroken (especially after the entire process was fragmented instead of being a core, centralised function). None of this has been MoD policy for many years. So much so, the new MAA regulatory set gets the definition of the underpinning process wrong, and wanders off at a tangent never to return.


Yes, I do agree with the sentiment. Very strange how even TV licensing seems to have greater legal enforcement!?:ooh:

OAP

[Chugalug2]

Lima Juliet:-
Never heard of it, but then I have only been flying Her Majesty’s finest for over a quarter of a century! As OAP says, Aircrew Manual, FRCs, etc... yes
Ditto (albeit many many years ago). I think we are getting to the nub here. The system worked in my day because everybody did their job properly. I drove the airworthy aircraft provided iaw FRCs Flying Orders Manuals etc, others like tuc ensured that the aircraft were airworthy iaw the Regulations. Then some RAF VSOs in the late 80s/early 90s decided to subvert all that by ordering those like tuc to suborn the regs for short term financial savings, thus instantly ensuring unairworthiness. When those like tuc defied the illegal orders they were disciplined, hounded, and got rid of, thus instantly ensuring that any wish to regain lost airworthiness became impossible due to the lack of knowledge and skills. The great unwashed (like LJ and me) didn't miss what they never knew, that is until the internet and this very forum connected all the resulting tragedies that inevitably followed. Anyone who followed those various airworthiness related fatal accident threads now has a good grasp of the importance of airworthiness and the cost in blood and treasure of its lack.

As tuc says, the villains in this scandal have far more rings on their sleeves than Commandant 2FTS. He may have spoiled your fun, but he probably saved your life or someone else's at least! It is the various RAF VSOs that plunged UK Military Aviation into this morass, and even more so those who protected them by maintaining a cover up ever since, who should be castigated and brought to book rather than the various JOs and SOs offered up by the Star Chamber as scapegoats.

[DC10RealMan]

Another good reason to give all Air Cadet flying to civil flying and gliding schools and save the taxpayer money.

[multum in parvo]

OAP & LJ

And to be fair to the much-maligned Commandant 2FTS, he has very little to do with this, except to notify violations and take action if his superiors do nothing. Which is what he did (but for not entirely the correct reasons). I can think of many deaths arising from people in his position not taking action..

I totally agree with tucumseh in terms of the original decision to ground both fleets; if the safety audit trail is suspect then there is no option but to act. However, without knowing the contractual background, the decision to spend a considerable amount of money in an attempt to refurbish aircraft rather than dispose of both fleets and go for new airframes seems at first glance to be the wrong one. It will be interesting to see if the full facts of this saga ever see the light of day.

[cats_five]

I totally agree with tucumseh in terms of the original decision to ground both fleets; if the safety audit trail is suspect then there is no option but to act. However, without knowing the contractual background, the decision to spend a considerable amount of money in an attempt to refurbish aircraft rather than dispose of both fleets and go for new airframes seems at first glance to be the wrong one. It will be interesting to see if the full facts of this saga ever see the light of day.

I can only speak about the Viking gliders. Grob no longer make gliders and there are very few 2-seat training gliders available. The favourite is probably the AS K21, who build only a few every year. It would take 20 years or so to replaces all the Vikings with K21s, or whatever the RAF decided to call them. Lead time for an order is 9 months or more and they only build 20 or so per year. *if* the aircadets managed to buy 3 per year then in 20 years they would have a fleet of 60, less of course any they have terminally bent in the interim.

[tucumseh]

The serviceability or model of the existing gliders is not the issue here. It's MoD's inability to manage the airworthiness of any of its aircraft. If that isn't fixed, it doesn't matter what glider it used.
The root causes are well known, as are those responsible. It's nothing to do with Grob or Serco or any other part of industry. It's to do with MoD flatly refusing to implement its own mandated regulations and, latterly, the MAA continuing to permit that fraud. Please understand that the MoD/MAA constantly briefs against those who want to see this put right. It does not want the truth to be explored further. It positively purrs over comments on pprune that compartmentalise this to gliders.

[cats_five]

The serviceability or model of the existing gliders is not the issue here. It's MoD's inability to manage the airworthiness of any of its aircraft. If that isn't fixed, it doesn't matter what glider it used.
The root causes are well known, as are those responsible. It's nothing to do with Grob or Serco or any other part of industry. It's to do with MoD flatly refusing to implement its own mandated regulations and, latterly, the MAA continuing to permit that fraud. Please understand that the MoD/MAA constantly briefs against those who want to see this put right. It does not want the truth to be explored further. It positively purrs over comments on pprune that compartmentalise this to gliders.

Do you have any confidence the gliders being returned to service will stay airworthy? I don't.

[tucumseh]

C5

stay airworthy

First of all, I'd like to know if they are airworthy in the first place. That's what facilitates serviceability. Some company may have done some work on them and think they may be serviceable. But we all know, from the Red Arrows XX177 case, that the same part of MoD remains content that the Services continue to use rogue servicing instructions and make false declarations in aircraft documentation.

[cats_five]

C5
First of all, I'd like to know if they are airworthy in the first place. That's what facilitates serviceability. Some company may have done some work on them and think they may be serviceable. But we all know, from the Red Arrows XX177 case, that the same part of MoD remains content that the Services continue to use rogue servicing instructions and make false declarations in aircraft documentation.

The Vikings have been / are being inspected etc. by Southern Sailplanes who I personally believe will have done their job properly. They are well-known & respected in the gliding world, and have a great deal to lose (everything) if either they botched the job, or they allowed themselves to be interfered with.

Found this, I await the answer with interest:https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/hours_expended_on_the_1st_viking

[multum in parvo]

I can only speak about the Viking gliders. Grob no longer make gliders and there are very few 2-seat training gliders available. The favourite is probably the AS K21, who build only a few every year. It would take 20 years or so to replaces all the Vikings with K21s, or whatever the RAF decided to call them. Lead time for an order is 9 months or more and they only build 20 or so per year. *if* the aircadets managed to buy 3 per year then in 20 years they would have a fleet of 60, less of course any they have terminally bent in the interim.
cats_ five. We could debate production rates of ASK21s but without company comment we would all be speculating. Your point however is well made , there are very few 2 seat training gliders available. I would suggest that:
(1) The current Viking fleet is trickling back into service but will probably not last more than a max of another 20 years (my speculation).
(2) Unless there is a long term replacement strategy (delivery commencing early 2020's at 3 per year complete 2040 for a 60 aircraft fleet,minus terminally bent) then air cadet gliding will inevitably cease.
What the RAFAC need is confirmation from its parent service that funding for replacements will be available. Without that confirmation, the business case for the development of properly equipped residential regional gliding centres must, in my view, be fatality flawed.

[chevvron]

What is needed is a training glider of similar or slightly better performance than T21b/T31 types which can be produced quickly and at reasonable cost using todays materials and technology.
The microlight manufacturers produce lightweight airframes (metal framework with a fabric, Dacron, ultralam or plastic type covering) which are robust enough to be used for training so why not see if they would be willing to produce a non-powered aircraft?
Problem is knowing how long the MOD take in the bidding/procurement/contracts side of things it woudn't be in service before about 2030.

[tucumseh]

I've no doubt Southern Sailplanes are excellent at what they do. But they do not sign off the Master Airworthiness Reference, thus making a legally binding declaration that there is a valid safety case and a maintained build standard. The aircraft were grounded because THAT declaration was confirmed as wrong, not because the aircraft were unserviceable. That many required remedial work was fall-out and a minor issue. As I said, no difference whatsoever from Nimrod.

It suits MoD/MAA for people to think it is a serviceability issue. In DE&S, such things are managed by the lowest technical grade it employs (and it would be even lower, but MoD doesn't recruit at those grades any more), who are easy targets when the real culprits are at 2 Star and above. There is someone in DE&S managing this 'get well' programme who is completely hacked off that he's being asked to do work well below his paygrade. He's wondering Why Me? It's holding him back, as his next annual report can at best say that he's proven himself capable of doing a job at least one grade lower. Big deal. Passed over.

I'd be much happier if I knew MoD/MAA had sacked the clown who briefed Sir Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service, that it remains an offence to refuse to obey an illegal order to make a false declaration in aircraft documentation (28 October 2014). While I appreciate Sir Jeremy is very ill at the moment, that should not detract from the fact both he and his predecessor (Lord Robert Kerslake) were content to make this ruling in writing, both to Ministers and members of the public.

[DaveUnwin]

Does anyone know how many Cadets went solo last year, and how much the VGS budget is?

[Lima Juliet]

Does anyone know how many Cadets went solo last year, and how much the VGS budget is?

Dave, to get the most up to date information go for a FOI request https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/new/raf

As a journo you should probably go for accuracy rather than the rantings on PPRuNe!

[DaveUnwin]

Thanks for telling me how to do my job Lima Juliet. Do you really think that when you submit an FOI request that you automatically get the truth? Really? Yes they are some ranters on PPRuNe, but there are also some people who are very much 'in the know'. They often are well-placed, and can 'leak' info. I then filter all the information I've gathered, and draw my own conclusions.

[tucumseh]

Do you really think that when you submit an FOI request that you automatically get the truth?

You are wise to be cautious. The Information Commissioner has ruled that information provided need not be accurate, and the provider is under no obligation to correct it when presented with the truth, and may repeat it.