Air Cadets grounded? [Archive] - Page 19

cats_five

30th Jun 2018, 15:06

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.

Had the gliders been given to a civilian club with the paperwork as delivered to SS they would have been grounded - without correct up-to-date paperwork they would not have been deemed airworthy.

Clearly the military has a few (many?) extra layers of paperwork.

DaveUnwin

30th Jun 2018, 15:45

chevvron

30th Jun 2018, 18:49

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?
Qinetiq is the company based at Farnborough which began as RAE, became DRA then DERA and was then privatised.
I know from experience at Farnborough it is full of 'boffins' and technical experts who have absolutely no experience in the things they comment on.
The RAE boffins for instance, used to try to tell us (Farnborough Air Traffic Control) we weren't doing our job properly because the way we did it didn't conform to the way they assumed it should be done.

chevvron

30th Jun 2018, 18:56

HI LJ, I think that if it suits the Govt then yes why not tell the truth - but if it doesn't then see Tuc's post. Re leaks and tips - if, for example one person tells me that XX???? was heavy landed on the ?/?20?? and it was brushed under the carpet and returned to service I'd treat the report with suspicion. If 4-5 people tell me the same thing and the dates etc tally maybe I'll dig a bit deeper. And contrary to your prediction, several people have already fed me info, which I will now filter. They know I never reveal my sources.
I did admin officer on a course at a VGS in 1991, the first course that VGS had run using Vigilants.
Late on the friday evening, a cadet was sent off for his solo flight. While he was airborne, the wind changed through 180 deg and on landing, a swing developed with much screeching of tyres into a ground loop.
Now after that, I would have expected that aircraft to be put u/s pending inspection of the undercarriage, but no, it was flown next day by the weekend staff (not the same staff who had been running the course) after just a normal DI. Whether there was anything recorded in the Tech Log I don't know; I was only supposed to be looking after the cadets not the aircraft and had no right or mandate to look into the unit paperwork.

Lima Juliet

1st Jul 2018, 07:56

If there was a heavy landing and it was reported then there would be Flight Safety report of some kind. However, due to the isolation of VGS at weekends away from the supervision of the full-time staff then it would appear that all sorts of shenanigans may have gone on at times that went un-noticed. It’s very hard to report that in a FOI request if it hasn’t been reported!

But Cadet solos are recorded and would be a simple FOI request. Then you have official records to report on. Also, the number of staff employed again is a simple request. The capitation cost of staff is relatively simple as the wages are available online as well - add 52% for the SCAPE rate for their pensions and the employer’s NIC. The total budget will likely be commercial in confidence because of the contracted companies doing the maintenance. However, you may find a figure in the archives for the contract when it went for tender.

That, I would suggest, would be far more accurate than scuttlebutt on PPRuNe? There is far too much emotion to get an objective figure and hard facts are needed on this one I would suggest? I’m not trying to tell you how to do your job, but trying to point you in the right direction. I enjoy your articles in Pilot magazine, so you have my full respect.

The Old Fat One

1st Jul 2018, 09:52

As nothing more than an interested bystander (although I suppose I might encourage my grandson to join in about 15 years time :)) with 27 years RAF and 2 years deeply involved with Air Cadet Flying post RAF career, may I politely ask, what is the current state of Air Cadet flying in total (Gliding, AEF, ACPS, or whatever)?

DaveUnwin

1st Jul 2018, 10:16

Thanks LJ - and apologies for my rather churlish initial reply. It was unnecessary. And you are quite right, it is an emotive subject, and I do need facts, not feelings! I must admit, I'm increasingly drawn to the conclusion that it'd better all around if the ATC admitted that its lost its way and just gave all their kit to the BGA and RAFGSA. In return the BGA and RAFGSA could agree to fly X amount of cadets each year. I've heard the "in the ATC we fly like the RAF, which is good for the cadets" argument but I believe it to be specious. It doesn't matter if your instructor is wearing the same boots and badge-bedecked flying suit as a frontline fighter pilot, with the best will in the world, they're flying gliders.

JW411

1st Jul 2018, 10:57

When I did my Flying Scholarship many moons ago, the aircraft were civilian-owned, registered and operated. There was not an RAF uniform in sight. It didn't stop me subsequently serving as a pilot in the RAF for 18 years.

DaveUnwin

1st Jul 2018, 11:27

Exactly JW411. I believe that most if not all of the Flying Scholarships were contracted out to civilian flying clubs as they were much more cost-effective. And as you point out, you still signed up and served in the RAF as a pilot for 18 years. It wasn't necessary to have all the (expensive) military bulldust at the basic flying training stage.

Lima Juliet

1st Jul 2018, 12:39

Hi Dave

No offence taken - very thick skinned :)

You are right that using all of the Service Flying and Gliding Clubs could really help. Recently, whilst not an Air Cadet event, some 122 school kids were flown by Halton Aero Club and the Chilterns Glding Centre the following week held a ‘longest day’ event with 134 launches over the day for any Service personnel or their families to try conventional gliding. So in 2 days that is 256 movements that could have had Air Cadets in them.

Here is the article and video for the Halton Aero Club event: https://www.forces.net/news/young-flyers-take-air-raf-halton

So you are right, there are possibilities there, but we need to remember that Service Flying and Gliding Club members don’t normally mind doing such an event 2-3 times a year whereas the VGS did the same, for a 12-24 kids, every weekend.

As for the state of Air Cadet flying? There are I believe 12x AEFs with a further planned soon for Northern Ireland, there are 3x Viking VGS now running at Kirknewton, Syerston, Little Rissington with a further 5 planned (I stand to be corrected on that?). Then there is the Air Cadet Flying Scholarship with Tayside Aviation.

LJ

Tingger

1st Jul 2018, 12:51

5 Viking VGS running:
Syerston, Upavon, Little Rissington independently

Ternhill & kirknewton under CGS supervision.

Topcliffe converting

Kenley, Swanton Morley, Predannack waiting for aircraft.

Woodvale converting to an AGS

pulse1

1st Jul 2018, 14:17

Unless things have changed a lot since my day (T21/Mk3) I would have thought that it was difficult to integrate civillian and ATC gliding training, although perhaps not impossible. My civil training was designed to bring me to a level where I could self authorise to fly solo albeit under limited conditions. This was one's status after a successful first solo flight(x3) At least at London Gliding Club, it typically took more than twice the number of launches allowed the average ATC cadet to go solo. The only instructional flights were then required when conditions changed or to carry out regular checks to make sure I wasn't developing bad habits. As an ATC instructor, the sole aim was to get the cadet competent to fly solo in the conditions at that time., and to do it in the minimum number of launches. Integration would surely require one operation to make significant changes to the way they operate.

Lima Juliet

1st Jul 2018, 16:21

Tingger

1st Jul 2018, 16:38

Thanks Tingger - what is an AGS?

aerospace ground squadron many of the VGS converted over kinloss, newtownards, st athan, cosford and a new one at northolt.

contains the Part Task Trainer element

MPN11

1st Jul 2018, 18:18

Link Trainers resurrected for Cadet ‘flying’?

Cat Funt

1st Jul 2018, 18:26

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.

Interesting hypothesis, invalidated by the recent news that the projected number of recoverable Vikings is now down in the forties.

Cat Funt

1st Jul 2018, 18:31

aerospace ground squadron many of the VGS converted over kinloss, newtownards, st athan, cosford and a new one at northolt.

contains the Part Task Trainer element

Aerospace Ground School/ Aerospace Ground Squadron/Aviation Ground School/Aviation Ground Squadron. What AGS stands for differs from document to document.

I’m not kidding. Two years down the line and the people on the units cannot get confirmation of what they’re actually called: a simple decision that could be made in half a second if SOMEONE had their sh1t in one sock.

Tingger

1st Jul 2018, 21:00

Aerospace Ground School/ Aerospace Ground Squadron/Aviation Ground School/Aviation Ground Squadron. What AGS stands for differs from document to document.

I’m not kidding. Two years down the line and the people on the units cannot get confirmation of what they’re actually called: a simple decision that could be made in half a second if SOMEONE had their sh1t in one sock.

The change over to aerospace was the latest one heard due to the aspiration to include space, drones and ATC "stuff", detail on the "stuff" was a bit vague though.

the squadron/school debate I suppose hangs on if 7 guys/girls constitutes a squadron or not.

The common theme appears firmly to be the "Ground" element of the name.

chevvron

1st Jul 2018, 21:14

Shaft109

2nd Jul 2018, 09:45

What about all those Vigilant PTTs now languishing in various rooms cross the country?

Tingger

2nd Jul 2018, 16:14

What about all those Vigilant PTTs now languishing in various rooms cross the country?
They are the AGSs

Engines

2nd Jul 2018, 18:11

Perhaps I could offer a couple of thoughts as this sorry saga nears its end. It's just over two years ago that the hapless Minister was made to stand up in Parliament and announce that:

Substantial operational, technical and commercial negotiations with a range of aerospace leaders in this field have failed to find a value for money approach to successfully repair and recover all 146 gliders. Consequently a comprehensive Air Cadet Organisation review has proposed restructuring this activity. It has been decided that the best value for money solution is to recover at least 73 Vikings, a reduced Vigilant fleet of up to 15 aircraft, combined with an uplift to Grob Tutor fixed wing Air Experience Flights (AEFs).

Don't forget that this particular bundle of nonsense was the result of two and a half years of effort by the RAF and the MoD to work out what to do with a broken fleet. Now, they find out that the Vigilants have had to be grounded, and scrapped. I, for one, do not believe for one second that a sudden instruction (at less than 48 hours notice) to stop flying the Vigilants had anything to do with funding. This was almost certainly another airworthiness issue. Another undetected, unknown, airworthiness issue. Anyone care to share with us what it is?

Also, would anyone care to let this forum know how the RAF and the MoD are doing with getting 'at least' 73 Vikings airworthy? (By the way, I use the term 'RAF and MoD' because this has been an epic failure in both the procurement and support area (the MoD) and in the 'continuing airworthiness' area (the RAF)). It would be interesting to know. What was the Viking recovery plan? You know, that piece of paper with months along the bottom and numbers of recovered aircraft up the side? Or a table? It HAS to exist. And it can't be classified - can it?

As an ex Air Cadet it pains me to say it, but the state of the UK defence budget means that the very rationale for the Air Cadet Gliding organisation needs to be examined. Don't forget that this is the world's largest military funded, owned and operated fleet of gliders, justified as a recruiting tool. Sorry, I just don't buy it. None of this is to disparage or criticise the magnificent efforts of the many volunteers who through the years willingly gave their time and sweat to get young people into the air. But honestly, I tend to think that there are better places to spend the money., within or outwith the RAF. Moreover, the RAF and the MoD have, once more, proved that they simply don't have the skill set or organisational 'nous' to safely put schoolchildren into the air. The idea of buying a replacement fleet surely can't survive any serious scrutiny.

Best Regards as ever to those having to pick up the pieces every time they're dropped

Engines

muppetofthenorth

2nd Jul 2018, 19:49

The idea of buying a replacement fleet surely can't survive any serious scrutiny.

As somebody who was in the RAF, and is now a volunteer with the ATC, I can't ever see a replacement fleet being nightb. Nothing but wishful thinking, that.

When these are gone, they're gone, and there'll be a begrudging connection with local gliding schools - no doubt using some of the aircraft we let go.

Lima Juliet

2nd Jul 2018, 20:44

They are advertising for a new OC 2FTS at Syerston - Gp Capt or Wg Cdr pilots may apply https://www.raf.mod.uk/ftrs-ptvr-adc-verr/vacancies/ddh-gliding-headquarters-2-flying-training-school-raf-syerston/

BEagle

2nd Jul 2018, 21:50

I'll bet people will be falling over themselves to apply for the post.....

NOT.

POBJOY

3rd Jul 2018, 10:48

Job description says it all.
580 staff, 4 Airfields; but fails to mention lack of Cadet flying or aircraft and virtually no current instructor force.
At least two of the airfields are non operational from several aspects and lack aircraft and current staff.
Lord knows how much all this is costing, but not many Cadets are getting much flying out of it and the toy box just gets bigger and more expensive.
Vikings getting through the 'recovery' at SS but not making much progress after that.
The true ongoing cost of all this must be staggering, but the actual Cadet training flying (as was) minimal.
They will be giving 'badges' out soon for just seeing a picture of a glider !!!

Tingger

3rd Jul 2018, 12:07

POBJOY

3rd Jul 2018, 17:57

There does not appear to be any activity at Kenley or Predannack and although Kenley has an excellent catchment area no evidence of any haste to 'start again'. In fact if they get their way with a peri-track fence a small airfield will be even smaller. Predannack is a huge airfield and ideal for ops; however it is at the 'end of the line' so to speak and is Cadet catchment poor, plus little public transport. At Kenley the complete lack of recent ops has led to the local walkers and ramblers pressing for more airfield access which will prove to be an ongoing limitation, with calls for the peri-trac to virtually become a cycle way.

Caconym

3rd Jul 2018, 18:10

That job advertisment mentions 10 VGS, wasn't there 11? Has Jack Middleton disbanded yet another squadron?

Tingger

3rd Jul 2018, 19:00

Whizz Bang

4th Jul 2018, 17:05

The position is a non-flying role.

It is certainly that :}

POBJOY

4th Jul 2018, 20:47

TINg The point is with 580 staff and 4 of their own airfields what is going on !!!!; as plainly the actual flying activity is not really a demonstrable feature anymore.
There are Vikings available in the system now, but they do not seem to be getting back to the 'coal face', or are there 'staffing' issues.
With (as they say) 580 staff what are they doing or is this just another jam tomorrow 'cascade' from fantasy island.
It is one thing to destroy an organisation, but that they should still be around to pretend at having a plan is beyond comprehension.

Tingger

4th Jul 2018, 23:39

Thud105

27th Jul 2018, 13:11

Does anyone know if they will sell or 'part out' all those 109s? A buddy of mine in Nevada would be very interested if the price was right.

Shaft109

28th Jul 2018, 19:35

Unfortunately Thud those Vigilants will be reduced to dust in short order to prevent anything of them turning up elsewhere.

Thud105

29th Jul 2018, 08:21

Wow. Are they really that bad? Is it the issue of vicarious liability? Or is it just that they couldn't handle the embarrassment of machines that the RAF couldn't fix in four years suddenly being made serviceable by civilians in a matter of weeks?

Chugalug2

29th Jul 2018, 09:08

T105:-
is it just that they couldn't handle the embarrassment of machines that the RAF couldn't fix in four years suddenly being made serviceable by civilians in a matter of weeks?

Can we finally get this right? The issue isn't serviceability, it is airworthiness, or rather the gross lack of it. The situation passed beyond embarrassment decades ago. It certainly extends way beyond ATC gliding. It is so widespread, so challenging, and so beyond the ken of the MAA, the MOD, and the RAF that frankly they don't have a clue as to where to go next or what to do to begin solving it. Airworthiness, or rather the gross lack of it, is now the number one issue concerning UK Military Aviation. There is no quick fix, indeed solving it will take many more decades. How we get there is very debateable, but where we start shouldn't be. The MAA, the MOD, and the RAF have to bite the bullet and admit the truth. UK Military Airworthiness was deliberately subverted by RAF VSOs from the late 80s onwards, and the cover up has to stop now. Unless and until that happens this scandal will simply go on gnawing away at the very vitals of UK Air Power.

Lima Juliet

29th Jul 2018, 09:54

Thud

Without wanting to go down a huge rabbit hole...

Wow. Are they really that bad?

Yes, they probably are. A well respected glider maintenance comoany has had real issues trying to unravel this mess to generate the aircraft that have been recovered. It all stems from the Air Cadet gliding organisation being allowed to go a bit ‘feral’ over a number of years which resulted in poor maintenance practices and incident reporting - documentation, repair processes and general husbandry. During the recovery of some of these aircraft the company found repaired damage to aircraft that had no record of the incident that caused it or the repair scheme that had been undertaken to fix it - repairs like this had to be cut right out and started again, with extra non-destructive testing or replacement of components to ensure that the full extent of any damage was contained in the repair. This means that to try and patch together the provenance of the aircraft’s airworthiness has been very tricky and costly. It should never had happened and luckily no one got hurt because of it. I believe that the decision to ‘pause’ gliding was ABSOLUTELY the right decsion, but the return to flight programme was not so well handled in my humble opinion.

Would I buy one of the G109 Vigilants as a government surplus aircraft for civvy flying? Not a chance. It would be far better to buy a G109 and then paint it to look like a Vigilant!

Thud105

29th Jul 2018, 17:06

Double Wow Lima Juliet! I honestly had no idea the RAF/ACO/VGS etc was so incompetent. And every single one of the 109s (70-ish?) is suspect? Triple Wow. My buddy has zero interest in keeping one in ATC markings, think he was just hoping to hoover up some cheap 109 spares if they are parted out.

A and C

29th Jul 2018, 17:23

The MoD won’t sell the aircraft for anything except scrap due to leagal liability issues, the exception to this is if a company with the approvals to inspect and certify the aircraft was to buy them.

With the refurbishment and engine retrofit issues likely to cost £120k per aircraft unless a military or corporate customer is found who wants 20+ airframes I can’t see these aircraft ending up as anything other than scrap.

Rigga

29th Jul 2018, 18:31

T105:
The issue isn't serviceability, it is airworthiness, or rather the gross lack of it. The situation passed beyond embarrassment decades ago. It certainly extends way beyond ATC gliding. It is so widespread, so challenging, and so beyond the ken of the MAA, the MOD, and the RAF that frankly they don't have a clue as to where to go next or what to do to begin solving it. Airworthiness, or rather the gross lack of it, is now the number one issue concerning UK Military Aviation. There is no quick fix, indeed solving it will take many more decades. How we get there is very debateable, but where we start shouldn't be. The MAA, the MOD, and the RAF have to bite the bullet and admit the truth. UK Military Airworthiness was deliberately subverted by RAF VSOs from the late 80s onwards, and the cover up has to stop now. Unless and until that happens this scandal will simply go on gnawing away at the very vitals of UK Air Power.

To give some measurable detail to the size of this problem May I offer the following personal opinion on the current state of “airworthiness” in the RAF fleets.

1. Using the assumption that LITS got to all of the FJ Fleet in the early 2000’s, then all of those fleets would not be airworthy.
2. Using the assumption that all IPTs worked to similar criteria and opinion toward regulatory requirements in the early 2000’s, then all of those fleets would not be airworthy now.

I know that the (two) Fleet was subject to gross data investigation as soon as the (one) Fleet data was found to be so poor and that it was thought to be too late, even then, for the (three) Fleet...one well-known contractor quickly purchased an independent maintenance management system to counter the effects of RAF systems and data.

I have high hopes that the C17, A330, A400, Shadow and Sentinel Fleets will probably have good data...because, I believe, that data and component management is not managed by the RAF.

Chugalug2

30th Jul 2018, 17:08

Thanks for your input, Rigga. Much appreciated. As has been stated before, thank goodness that this airworthiness related thread isn't a fatal accident one, as has been the case of so many others. That of course is the issue here. It is imperative that real remedial action to reform UK Military Airworthiness is undertaken without delay. The pertinent word there is 'real', rather than yet more spin via the MOD's sign-writer. Time is of the essence. Before the next inevitable tragic and sad airworthiness related UK Military fatal air accident thread appears here, it is vital that real reform has begun. While the 'independent' MAA and MAAIB (yes, I know!) are shackled to the MOD and each other that cannot happen.

As to the fleets you instance I only wish I could share your optimism. Thanks to the genesis each experienced they do indeed give certain cause for some confidence I admit, but once on the UK Military Register they are as vulnerable as any of the others in my view. Deliberate subversion of the system from above may now seem unthinkable. So it did in the 80's, yet the unthinkable happened thanks to Self Regulation. So it can again, and all that ignores the continuing systemic shortcomings that evolved from that very first illegal order to suborn the Regulations.

To suffer one subversion may seem unfortunate, to suffer another would seem more than careless...

DaveUnwin

3rd Aug 2018, 15:20

If anyone still cares, pasted below is my current column from Pilot magazine

It’s a beautiful summer’s afternoon and my little Jodel’s engine is humming happily as we hop over to Saltby, where I’m helping at a local Scout troop’s flying evening. I’ve barely climbed out of the diminutive cockpit before a young girl wanders over to introduce herself, her eyes bright with enthusiasm. “We’re here for the scout flying” she announces peremptorily “and I’m here early cos I want to go first.” Eleven-year old Lily is as bright as a button, as sharp as a tack and the charming, confident side of precocious. She eyes Buzz with keen interest, and when I ask if she’d like to sample the cockpit she doesn’t need asking twice. Having explained the controls and instruments I lift the tail up into the flying attitude and she grins delightedly. Having helped her out I make my excuses and go to check in with the duty instructor. Half an hour later and the troop of Melton Mowbray scouts are assembled and briefed at the launch point. I’m about to ask, “who’s first” then realise it’s completely unnecessary. Lily is already wearing her parachute and standing next to the K-21 with a very possessive air. There is no doubt who’s first. Lily squeals with delight during the winch launch, and having wafted up to 2,000 feet in an evening thermal I encourage her to take control and she loves it, particularly when I hold my hands above my head to prove that only she is controlling the sailplane. She wants aerobatics but all I’m prepared to do is a steep spiral, and as we’ve already been airborne longer than we should have, put the K 21 in a tight corkscrew. For the first time that flight the rear cockpit goes quiet, so I ease off on the ‘g’ and level out. “Everything okay Lily?” I ask with a hint of trepidation. There’s a pause then “I’m grinning so hard my jaw hurts” she giggles. “That was amazing!” As we turn final I realise that as we’re landing on 07 and its already well into the evening our shadow is racing us to the runway. I point it out to Lily, who is enchanted.

Several hours later and Buzzand I are wending our weary way home through the pellucid sky with a certain sense of smug satisfaction. The flying evening has been a huge success. All the children (and some of the parents) flew at least once and there were several soaring flights. The children were fun, the parents and troop leaders appreciative and – most importantly - everyone had enjoyed themselves immensely, and safely. Lily’s comment about her jaw hurting still has me chuckling as the patchwork fields basking in the late evening sun slip slowly under Buzz’s broad wings. The air is like warm velvet and the light glorious –what a great evening.

The next day I hear the latest on the Air Cadets management (or perhaps more appositely, mismanagement) of its two fleets. I’ve written about the VGS debacle before (see PTTs passim) – and the word on the peritrack now is that all the Vigilants (known to everyone else as the Grob 109) are to be summarily scrapped. What a fiasco! Unhappily and reluctantly, I am forced to the conclusion that the ATC has lost its way – particularly regarding the VGS - and has made a completely mess of a once-great organisation. I couldn’t help but contrast how much flying a medium-sized provincial gliding club had achieved the previous evening, with how little the ATC do. Buckminster GC doesn’t get a single penny from the government, and no help from the air force (OK, we might have had an old Phantom pilot driving the cable retrieve vehicle, and a retired Air Chief Marshall had got the day started as Duty Instructor, but that’s not the point!) Somehow a group comprised of mostly either pensioners or students (and respect is due to the Loughborough Students’ Union Gliding Club for helping that evening) and an itinerant Flight Test Editor had given air experience flights to a group of children safely and efficiently.

I think that part of the problem is that the VGS tends to ‘gold plate’ its operation. A VGS instructor wears the same boots and flying suit as a Typhoon pilot - all paid for by the tax payer. They sign a Form 700 for each Viking (also known as a Grob 103), and it’s the same Form 700 as the Typhoon driver signs. Finally, and just like a Typhoon pilot - they are checked every three months - yet they’re flying simple gliders from a vast field that I could almost land in with my eyes shut. I don’t know how much each winch launch at the VGS headquarters at RAF Syerston costs, but with the empire built there I reckon it’s a lot more than at a civilian club. And remember, a lot of those launches aren’t even for the cadets, but for checks on the instructors.

It saddens me to say it, but perhaps the VGS should just give all their kit to the BGA and RAFGSA, and stick to simulators, where everyone is ‘safe’. The money saved should be spent on commissioning RAFGSA and BGA gliding clubs to fly Air Cadets. This would be in line with Governmentpolicy, which favours contracting certain services out into the private sector where it is more efficient. In fact, the old Flying Scholarships were always administered in this manner. Payment to the gliding clubs could be partially in kind by the donation of equipment. Doing this would save the tax payer an absolute fortune and – more importantly – would start getting significant numbers of children flying again.

POBJOY

3rd Aug 2018, 17:37

Alas Dave You merely confirm the main difference between two organisations: Scouts and the ATC.
The Scouts have quality leadership and 'can doers' at the top, and the ATC has Facebook Fanatics and Pension toppers in the system.
Both organisations have large numbers of Volunteers at the coal face, however the ATC has been heavily crushed to death by the Volunteers being badly let down by those mandated to support it. The simple fact is that the more the full time RAF became involved with the organisation (a useful facility in a shrinking RAF) the less capable it became. The effect of more paperwork and an ever increasing culture of returns, box ticking, and risk assessments for everything has just chocked the organisation to death, with the resulting drop in numbers. And what did all this paperwork lead to :- NOTHING as they could not even keep a fleet of Gliders airworthy.
If the people at the top had any actual ability or leadership then this would never had happened, but they are too busy with papering over the obvious with Celeb endorsements and their facebook fancies. The organisation has being going downhill for many years and those at the top must bear the responsibility for that.

The B Word

3rd Aug 2018, 18:38

Great article Dave

One point of correction:

the VGS tends to ‘gold plate’ its operation. A VGS instructor wears the same boots and flying suit as a Typhoon pilot

The Typhoon Force have boots with inflatable bladders in them to help with the G and they have diffrent flying coveralls than the FACS that everyone else wears. Other than that, as ever, a nicley pointed article.

The B Word

DC10RealMan

3rd Aug 2018, 19:57

Has Middleton gone yet?

Tingger

3rd Aug 2018, 20:13

Second point of correction, instructors aren't checked every three months, probationary instructors under supervision are but not all.

DaveUnwin

3rd Aug 2018, 21:20

POBJOY

3rd Aug 2018, 22:06

Dave The ATC had ALWAYS been a training organisation for basic gliding instruction for Cadets to obtain their A&B certificates (BGA) and the (ATC) Gliding Proficiency Cert.
The organisation was geared up for that and used the most basic of equipment which (importantly) included the ground equipment frequently being operated by Cadets who stayed on after their initial course to assist the running of the 'School' (as was). There was no facility for 'out landings' or trailers to do a distance retrieve so the focus was on getting a young Cadet to solo standard thereby setting him off on a voyage of self discovery that no other organisation could offer. This was the Corps USP, and it achieved this amazing feat by utilising a cadre of actual Cadets to assist in the running of the schools. As a C cat Cadet on the school I was instructing other Cadets; having been winched up by another Cadet, and towed back to the launch point by yet another one. 14,000+ hours later I still marvel at how well it all worked and how we managed to get a Cadet solo in so few short launches. When you only have 3mins to impart useful information on a 'one way' (we talk they listen) system then it really concentrates the mind on what is important and ensuring the briefing is not over complicated. Yes we did some soaring (and strayed out of the circuit if you could get away with it) (if time allowed) but it was not what the ATC was about, and the instructing that was needed had to fit in with very short flights in very basic machines. The standard of instruction was very good for what was needed, and a Silver C would not have added any real benefit to do that job although some keen types did go for it. Oh I forgot all this was done with a minimum of paperwork, but a high % of capability from the w-end warriors who were back at work on Monday mornings (waiting for the next w-end). Cadets teaching other Cadets and all working together to keep the system running (my God what have they thrown away)

chevvron

4th Aug 2018, 04:23

Tingger

4th Aug 2018, 05:23

Thanks Pobjoy and The B word. How often are instructors checked then Tingger? I was told every 90 days, irrespective of whether they were current or not. I was also told that some VGS instructors don't even have a Silver C- is that also not true?

instructors (B1, A2, A1) are "checked" annually for their instructor competence check. Junior instructors B2 (in their first few hundred instructor launches) are checked every 90 days by a local flying supervisor.

although I'm sure there are many who have silver C and many more who have elements of the silver most likely unrecorded. It's fairly irrelevant to the area in which the VGS operate of circuits, landings and local area soaring.

DaveUnwin

4th Aug 2018, 07:02

Thanks Tingger, my information was not complete and Pobjoy, of course you are right. And in the old days of flying -21s and -31s Silvers were not necessary. I was flying a -31 earlier this week, and you wouldn't want to encourage people to go too far from the field in one! But - when the ATC went from T-31s to G103s (and knowing its propensity to Gold Plate' stuff), having acquired sailplanes that had reasonable performance I'm surprised the 'powers-that-be' didn't tighten up the licensing requirements at the same time. I'm not saying they needed to, more surprised that they didn't.

DaveUnwin

4th Aug 2018, 07:13

Oh, and very well said Pobjoy, hear hear! Funnily enough, just the other day I flew a mate in a T-31, 60 years to the day that he went solo in one. He'd been on a course, gone solo in less than the prescribed number of launches and had used his last launch for two loops with the CFI. As he put it, it had 'lit the blue touch paper', and after tours on the Javelin, Phantom and Tornado, and a career flying A320s, that 'blue touch paper' is still lit. He still flies, glides and tugs, but wasn't current on the T-31, hence my participation.
I don't see a simulator doing that, and I don't think you do either. What a waste!

beardy

4th Aug 2018, 08:24

Smug. What a telling word to use in your article.
Javelin and Tornado in one career, wow!

Lima Juliet

5th Aug 2018, 08:24

It is just possible to have flown Javelin and Tornado. The last Javelin in op service was 1968 so that is unlikely. But there was a Javelin in the test pilot world until 1975. So if this pilot became a TP having flown F4 then they could have flown Javelin until 1975 and then Tornado prototypes shortly after. A slim chance but just about possible if they had an airline career as well.

olddog

5th Aug 2018, 08:39

From Dave Unwin. Just the other day I flew a mate in a T-31, 60 years to the day that he went solo in one. He'd been on a course, gone solo in less than the prescribed number of launches and had used his last launch for two loops with the CFI. As he put it, it had 'lit the blue touch paper', and after tours on the Javelin, Phantom and Tornado, and a career flying A320s, that 'blue touch paper' is still lit. He still flies, glides and tugs, but wasn't current on the T-31, hence my participation.
I don't see a simulator doing that, and I don't think you do either. What a waste![/QUOTE]

I trust they didn't loop a T31!

DaveUnwin

5th Aug 2018, 15:09

Olddog Why not? I wouldn't loop ours today, but this was 60 years ago.
Lima Juliet, I'll get the specifics when I see him next, but I know he was 16 in 1958, if he moved from the Javelin to the Phantom in 1968 he was 26. I think he was an IP on the Tornado so if we say 1980 that makes him 38 then. That doesn't seem 'just possible' to me but I will ask him.

Frelon

5th Aug 2018, 17:32

I trust they didn't loop a T31! Probably not, initial training and solo in the Kirby Cadet TMkIII (T31 to our civi followers), then the fun stuff in the Slingsby Sedbergh T21b.

Those were the days!!

POBJOY

5th Aug 2018, 19:39

I have to say I never saw one looped, but I did 'experience' a slightly unusual trip with Douggie King at the end of my A&B at Swanton in the 60's .
On the Friday afternoon it transpired I had not actually flown the required no of launches for the A&B even though I had completed the 3 solo's.
The remedy was to put me back in the front seat of a MK3 and be flown by Douggie to satisfy the paperwork.
We shot up the launch and then proceeded to imitate a tank busting (Typhoon attack) on the main hangar starting with a near half roll and pull through, and then after a suitable dive yet another pull up wingover and final run before running out of steam.
This was repeated on the other launch and of course being such a memorable ride to a 16yr old was the excuse for much 'practice' of this in the future. My 3822 logged it as 'beat ups' so I was ever grateful to Douggie for this 'Check Out' !!!!, and still keep in current practice.

ZeBedie

5th Aug 2018, 19:51

Are the G103 Twin Astirs suposed to be grounded? FLARM shows one has been fling from Ternhill today, but I didn't think they had a winch at Ternhill?

olddog

5th Aug 2018, 19:58

I enjoyed my 1500 or so launches in T31 and T21s at Hendon and Bovingdon as a Cdt, Staff Cdt and CI prior to an RAF career spanning 39 years as a pilot. A bit of research ( https://members.gliding.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/04/1430312150_t31.pdf ) shows that, officially at least the T31 is non aerobatic and prohibited from cloud flying. I did witness some sporting wing overs and steep turns but never saw a T31 looped. The Barge However
was a different story!

was a different story!https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/600x480/2302_1080831226480_3044_n_9dc06b3d9f42a1d3aaf4437512bad8cd84 2c9d91.jpg

chevvron

6th Aug 2018, 12:04

I once watched a certain staff cadet who became a BGA National Coach (CR) do 14 consecutive loops in a Sedbergh.
We were told definitely no rolls in the barge - too much chance of negative 'g' and the struts appearing on top of the wing - but a chandelle was permissible.

Fitter2

6th Aug 2018, 14:59

Looping a T31?

Dave Unwin asked
Olddog Why not? I wouldn't loop ours today, but this was 60 years ago.

Vne 70kts - with the drag of the Cadet Mk3 - I'm afraid not. There was some spirited flying by the instructors on hangar flights for cadets who after A&B were found not to have done the 20 launches 'required', and to keep the books straight, formative experiences, but then again we didn't have enough experience to know what was sensible.

longer ron

6th Aug 2018, 20:06

I agree with Fitter2 and others in that T31's should not have been looped,they are 'Normal Category' gliders.The T21 was classified as semi aerobatic and as previously mentioned - it was the fun glider.

I know this is from a slightly more recent BGA publication but it is exactly as I remember the cockpit placard.

BGA glider data sheet - T.31 (Tandem Tutor, Kirby Cadet Mk III)

https://i.imgur.com/LfuNxaF.jpg

DaveUnwin

6th Aug 2018, 21:39

I certainly agree that a 31 shouldn't be looped, and a -21 is much more useful. Could one have been? Possibly, it would've been untidy but I think do-able. TBH my mate's recollections are from 60 years ago, and its quite possible it was a sporting wing-over, chandelle or stall turn (yes I know these shouldn't have been done either, but it was a different time - see Pobjoy's story!)

Anyway, we digress. The point of my mate's story was how a week's gliding set a hook in him so deep, its still there. And I really think the RAF/ATC/VGS or someone has let a lot of kids down. IMHO of course

chevvron

7th Aug 2018, 12:12

For anyone interested, there is a discussion running in 'Private Flying' regarding the use of microlights for cadet AEF which I have mentioned in this forum.

Whizz Bang

7th Aug 2018, 16:17

For anyone interested, there is a discussion running in 'Private Flying' regarding the use of microlights for cadet AEF which I have mentioned in this forum.

I'm sure 2 FTS will be able to put a stop to any such wild and dangerous outbreak of aviation...!

POBJOY

7th Aug 2018, 22:35

Dave The No I GC (Swanton) instructors were mainly ex war time in the early 60's and between them had been operational on most of the single engine fighters.
How they managed to suffer the weekly 'up round & down' in the fretwork fighters amazes me but they did so with great effect and really looked after any Staff Cadet that managed to get up there to help.
One thing for sure; they knew how to get the Cadets enthused in that week, and it was the norm that all the course members made the required A&B solo's. Cold weather jackets were the normal rig with the odd 'soapy hat' and wellies.
If you were up at Swanton helping and all the Cadets had finished you could be 'given' a machine and told to get as many launches in as you can before the end of the day, and if you had a P2 you were expected to fly the AE trips on Wed 'sports days'. Such was the 'leadership' and example from those at the 'coal face'.

Wander00

8th Aug 2018, 13:17

I did my gliding course at SM, over the period of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Arrived with shiny PPL from flying scholarship, told I would have A&B on first day, which I did, from then I was a helper not a flyer, except for sitting in on hangar flights. Great week. 50 years later when I finished gliding course in UK, BGA found my documents and issued a replacement for a fiver, not a new A&B cert for thirty odd quid or whatever it is now.

boswell bear

9th Aug 2018, 07:41

I think that part of the problem is that the VGS tends to ‘gold plate’ its operation. A VGS instructor wears the same boots and flying suit as a Typhoon pilot - all paid for by the tax payer.

Actually they struggled to provide me with any boots over the last 5 years! When they did they then informed me I couldn't fly in them as they lead to inadvertent application of the toe brakes.

POBJOY

9th Aug 2018, 16:38

In the Tiger Club (Redhill Days) all new members HAD to check out to solo standard in a Tiger Moth as the initial entrance to the 'sweet shop'.
Came the day when they decided that having a putter around in a Turbulent looked like being fun, and they would 'clump' over in the classic WW2 boots and Irvin Jacket.
I would get them to lift the Turb by the tail thereby demonstrating how light it was, and easy to nose over if not careful. This then rather made the case for removing the boots and flying in socks having of course also removed the Irvin Jacket so they could actually fit in.
Finger and thumb only on the stick and only 'feel' it to control then it was off to discover another 'realm' of aviation unknown to most.

Auster Fan

13th Sep 2018, 06:28

A Group Captain John Middleton has been recognised by the Honourable Company of Air Pilots. The same one?

https://www.airpilots.org/file/2841/ta-winners-list---for-publication.pdf

ACW599

13th Sep 2018, 07:52

The Honourable Company gave a Master's Award to the arch-charlatan Tracy Curtis-Taylor if I recall correctly.

Whizz Bang

13th Sep 2018, 17:10

The Master's Commendation for Flight Operations. Operations? Movements can barely be in the hundreds yet :suspect:

Thud105

14th Sep 2018, 14:17

A Master's Commendation? That's truly amazing. Perhaps this 'company' isn't as honourable as they claim to be?

beardy

14th Sep 2018, 20:56

Is there much of a difference in court, between libel and slander?
Just because you are angry doesn't mean you are right

Thud105

14th Sep 2018, 21:06

I'm intrigued now. So Beardy, are you saying that this 'Master's Commendation' is warranted? Well-deserved even?

POBJOY

14th Sep 2018, 21:57

Its a joke; who cares!, and I doubt promoted by the VGS volunteers who were given such poor leadership or support.
Hardly a testimony to a thorough understanding of a contribution to aviation.

beardy

15th Sep 2018, 06:21

I'm intrigued now. So Beardy, are you saying that this 'Master's Commendation' is warranted? Well-deserved even?
Read my post again, it's still there. I didn't say that.

Caconym

15th Sep 2018, 13:17

This might be for the new nest he's feathered with the Aviation Skills Partnership rather than the current bed he's messed?

POBJOY

15th Sep 2018, 13:35

Clearly the award states FLIGHT OPERATIONS, so just confirms total lack of knowledge on the HAC part (or suspect input from HQAC)
Either way just shows how easy it is to rewrite history with a bit of bling.
No one is fooled by this, and the posts on the Air Cadet forum show how those still involved have very little regard for the current leadership capability.

air pig

16th Sep 2018, 21:39

Well the ACO is about to undergo upheavel again, at the end of the year there is the publication of a 'strategic review' by the Dawninator and her team and with the new T&Cs being implimented may really set a storm going. The new T&Cs are really a sign it or out for all CFAVs and Civ Coms. No wonder oc 2FTS is going, pity help whoever takes the post.

Someone has got creative with a 'Downfall' parody of a meeting about the 'strategic review' and the potential for staff losses of people who won't sign the new T&Cs, squadron closures and mergers by th end of the year.

https://www.captiongenerator.com/1100812/Reviev-2018

Thud105

20th Sep 2018, 13:12

ExAscoteer

20th Sep 2018, 13:41

beardy

20th Sep 2018, 14:22

Sorry Beardy, what exactly was it that you were trying to say? Apologies for any misunderstanding, I would welcome further clarification of your post.
It certainly is somewhat ironic that somewhere along this huge thread didn't someone predict that - far from being censured over this debacle (for that is clearly what it is) those responsible would actually end up being rewarded? Quite remarkable.

"Is there much of a difference in court, between libel and slander?" (Insults are no way for civilised people to conduct themselves, we have laws against this, I just don't know which apply here)

"Just because you are angry doesn't mean you are right" (self explanatory really, you could be wrong)

Thud105

20th Sep 2018, 15:01

Still baffled;- in my post I asked a question, I didn't make a statement.

There's a difference. I'm no lawyer, but very much doubt that asking a question constitutes either libel or slander.

beardy

20th Sep 2018, 15:08

Still baffled;- in my post I asked a question, I didn't make a statement.

There's a difference. I'm no lawyer, but very much doubt that asking a question constitutes either libel or slander.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but although the original posts were sequential, I wasn't referring to you, or your post.

air pig

20th Sep 2018, 16:20

That happened last December with the publication of the RAFAC Adult Volunteer Agreement and the creation of the Cadet Forces Commission.

But the strategic Squadron review si being published next month.

unmanned_droid

20th Sep 2018, 16:28

Sorry - wrong thread, please delete!

Corporal Clott

27th Oct 2018, 07:03

The full citatation for Comdt 2FTS’s award here: https://www.airpilots.org/file/2865/citation-booklet-2018.pdf

It doesn’t mention his time as a Vulcan co-pilot and his subsequent return to the Tornado as a Navigator?

ACW599

27th Oct 2018, 08:32

>In sum, John Middleton has made an indelible mark on the RAF and its Cadet Force<

That's certainly one way of putting it.

Wander00

27th Oct 2018, 09:20

First time I have seen of someone going from a front of house seat to the back

50+Ray

27th Oct 2018, 09:42

His applause was distinctly muted. This is the second time I have been embarrassed by the selection made by the committee, and it causes me to consider my continued membership of HCAP

Chugalug2

27th Oct 2018, 10:15

50+Ray:-
it causes me to consider my continued membership of HCAP

It seems to be a trend. The RAeS threw its hat into the MOD/MAA ring when it was announced that airworthiness was not its business! Sic Gloria Transit...

BEagle

27th Oct 2018, 10:55

I understand your feeling, 50+Ray and I am beginning to think the same. Which is one reason why I didn't attend the T&A...

air pig

27th Oct 2018, 12:07

That happened last December with the publication of the RAFAC Adult Volunteer Agreement and the creation of the Cadet Forces Commission.

Now we are at the point of sign up or ship out.

air pig

27th Oct 2018, 12:13

First time I have seen of someone going from a front of house seat to the back

The other is Squadron Leader Phil Leckonby, Vulcan pilot, major car smash on a instructional tour at Cranwell, fought for an age to retain flying status due to an eye injury, later became a nav on Buccanners. (12 squadron film fame).

POBJOY

27th Oct 2018, 12:25

The last para of the 'citation' covered it quite well (but not the way they meant it)
JM 'inherited' a large fantastic volunteer based FLYING TRAINING UNIT.
It was quite obvious that he never really 'bonded' with this idea that volunteers could be doing all this so well with very little back up from its parent, and really never understood where the CAPABILITY lay.
It is unfair to lay blame on him for the previous regime that allowed the airworthiness issues to escalate as it did, but I do consider his handling of the situation with the staff, and the complete lack of leadership dealing with the 'recovery process' made the situation far worse than it needed to be.
The right person in post at that time could have led a recovery situation with far better management skills, and also kept the organisation together at a time when it needed it. He obviously had another agenda re the staff (volunteers) and failed to see the big picture of what they were losing as an organisation. This thread title is his legacy. AIR CADETS GROUNDED It could have been handled in a much more practical way with the leadership it deserved, especially as it was a well paid resourced post that headed a fine operation that had decades of 'handed down' capability.
They had the expertise within the GSA to assist and advise (if asked) but were too busy facebooking, twattering and a... covering to deal with the real job.
of keeping a limited no of machines going whilst dealing with the situation.

Tingger

2nd Nov 2018, 16:36

OC 2FTS has left the building, all roles handed over to 3FTS until a new OC is appointed.

Onceapilot

2nd Nov 2018, 19:29

So, will anyone who knows please say if the ACO has improved in respect of flying training/experience achievement since the start of the "Pause" in 2014?
I initially wrote in 2014 that a "pause" seemed a sensible and safe response to the situation. I now, through reading other information, am of the opinion that a terrible destruction has occurred and, it seems that the ex-OC 2FTS must have been involved. :mad:
Is anyone willing to support the changes to the ACO and the debacle reported on these pages since 2014? Cheers

OAP

airpolice

2nd Nov 2018, 21:19

Just in case any of you missed the whole Tracey Curtis-Taylor saga, here is a brief synopsis:

Man eating old trout with high profile connections, manages to get sponsorship to pretend to fly solo from Capetwown to Goodwood in a Stearman bi-plane. then as the trip enters the actual doing it phase, everyone and their dog in the project can understand that she's useless, and can't be allowed up in the air on her own. She even managed to taxy into a helicopter and destroy it. OK, it was a just a Robinson, but even so...

Anyway, to Africa, where she has a QFI hiding in the front seat for something like 40 of 44 legs of the trip, and she tells people she was solo. Then the awards start coming her way and then the **** starts to fly and then she has to change her story and say she was the sole pilot, not solo pilot.

Anyway, drifting back to the thread, the Honourable Company of Air Pilots gave her an award for a feat of navigation, and stuck to their guns when she had to admit there was a GPS in both cockpits, and a proper pilot in the one that she was using, as well as a Cessna alongside to keep her on track.

Since then she's upset loads of people with her lies and refusal to answer her critics.

The HCAP still have not followed the example of the LAA who rescinded the award she got, once the lies were uncovered. A great example of this is the "Herne Bay Video" where she talks about her solo trip from Africa, but when tackled, she claims that she never claimed it was a solo trip.

Anyway, the point is, an award by the HCAP is much devalued by looking at (some) past recipients, which is a tragedy.

No matter what awards might be bestowed up people for doing their job, however they do it, the truth is out there, and Integrity, not gongs, is what matters.

POBJOY

2nd Nov 2018, 22:04

OAP Its all been said (many times) and yes the real hands on flying for Cadets has been destroyed, and the fine organisation (and staff) cast to the wind.
With the current capability of the leadership there will be no improvement, and the poison chalice that is 2FTS has rebadged itself as some sort of educational experience that bears no resemblance to its original requirement.
Apart from the amazing experience in actually being part of a flying training system run by Cadets and ex Cadets there was the USP of GOING SOLO in machine within the same serial block of a V Bomber or Fighter. (we were of course the fretwork fighters).
Once the ATC got into the hands of non flyers it was doomed to become just another youth organisation that followed DOE,and Marches but with the added burden of a complicated service type set up that had become 'Non aviation Led'.
Look at the leadership and it tells you all you need to know; look at the Scouts and learn.
I have always said it was a privilege to be part of the organisation, and no where else could someone from an ordinary background get the chance to be so hands on with machinery and real aircraft. The complete joke that is the PTT says it all; youth needs to be 'out there' in the real world doing it, to show them that the 'hands on' experience is so much better (and team building) than sitting indoors in a plastic bath tub in a flying suit; going nowhere. Build some new Mk3's and get them popping off on their own after an hours flying (that's the standard to beat).UNBEATABLE.

Cat Funt

2nd Nov 2018, 22:47

Those with access to ASIMS will be able to see his “not a parting shot” at the Air Cadet hierarchy. To be fair, it comes as close as he ever has in the last five years to uttering something resembling common sense, but probably not for the reasons he thinks.

ACW599

3rd Nov 2018, 00:20

_Dear All _

_This is the last e mail I will send in my capacity as Commandant 2 FTS. In my 52nd year of RAF service I have now crossed the finish line on a fantastic RAF career. You may wish to note transitional arrangements are well in hand for my DDH duties to be handled by Commandant 3FTS Gp Capt Moriarty and the day to day running of 2 FTS by Wg Cdr Tim Wilson. On all matters please contact Wg Cdr Willson in the first instance. _

_To reflect for a few moments on my time in Command I have experienced every possible emotion- the good, bad and ugly. I have had exciting times balanced with frustrating and disappointing times. On balance when I look at the score card, I leave with good memories and many instances of fun and meeting dedicated volunteers and impressive cadets. Those who know me well, are aware I wear my heart on my sleeve and it would be wrong not to say I also leave with a hint of disappointment. _

_My personal view I leave 2 FTS in a good position to move the wider cadet aviation experience forward. We have a robust glider recovery plan costed and with budgetary commitment. A fully integrated fleet management and op delivery plan. This is equally supported by a costed and endorsed infra plan. The future is exciting with a wider cadet aviation offer, the potential for a new platform to deliver cadet aviation and additional activity to streamline contracts particularly in the support arena. To close I would like to thank you all, permenant staff, CFAVS and cadets for whatever contribution you have made to make my life in post as easy as possible. _

_I wish you all well in your future endeavours and leave you with one parting comment. It will only be the delivery of the wider cadet aviation offer, in all its disciplines eg space, cyber, AR, Synthetics (Air and Ground), Drones etc, that will perpetuate the light blue of the air cadets and it full association with its sister Service the Royal Air Force - without aerospace we are merely a cadet force and will lose our air identity. _

_As to my future watch this space!!! _

_Regards to all _
John Middleton

POBJOY

3rd Nov 2018, 08:21

JM really does not get it does he. The Air Cadets is/was about 'hands on' flying and the ability to enthuse youth about being part of an organisation that gave you an entry into a world not available to others.
He glibly talks about 'Aerospace' as if it was some new feature of aviation (not just a part of it).Drones and so called 'synthetics' are available in the local supermarket for pocket money, and you do not have to be in a uniformed organisation to own and use one. As for spaceflight; well that does not replace the basic facet of Piloting, and surprise surprise even with automatics a knowledge of basic flying skills is still relevant unless you are a passenger.
I will not have history being rewritten that fails to acknowledge the amazing experience of youth being able to pilot a machine solo with all the added long term benefits of decision making,and team work that are needed even more in todays world of indecision and box ticking. I am all for looking ahead and accepting there will always be change, but you do not ignore the facts of history and discard something that is proven to provide an amazing experience that will stay with you for ever and provided something that the todays youth needs more than ever.

BEagle

3rd Nov 2018, 12:25

'Pippa' was originally a navigator, then after a crossover course, became a Vulcan co-pilot. When the Vulcan left service, he was unsuccessful at TWU and was offered a choice of another ME pilot slot, or a FJ navigator slot - he chose the latter.

Quite why he seems to be so reluctant to mention his Vulcan co-pilot time, I don't know. But with the general cut backs at the time, I wonder quite how much retraining he was given before TWU? In my case, I'd already had the benefit of FJ training before failing my Bucc OCU and going to Vulcans in 1977, after which I was given another FJ crossover opportunity in 1980 - this consisted of a 40 hr JP refresher at Leeming, then a 50 hr Hawk pre-TWU course at Valley before my pre-Phantom Chivenor TWU. Was the same generous amount of pre-TWU training available to ex-Vulcan co-pilots when the aircraft left service? If not, then anyone who hadn't had the benefit of the old Gnat/Hunter pre-TWU course before being restreamed would undoubtedly have found TWU hard work, particularly at around 35 years old.

Nevertheless, without proper gliding opportunities, the Air Cadet organisation won't be very attractive to youngsters of today. The rubbish about 'cyber', 'drones' and 'synthetics' is a distraction - the real reason is that it is cheaper than establishing gliding schools and sending youngsters solo in a glider.

Ewan Whosearmy

3rd Nov 2018, 15:25

BEagle

3rd Nov 2018, 15:28

He is entitled to either as he was Combat Ready on the Vulcan as a co-pilot, having previously been a navigator.

I can only imagine that he considered the pilot's flying badge more appropriate for his Air Cadet activity?

beardy

3rd Nov 2018, 17:03

'Pippa' was originally a navigator, then after a crossover course, became a Vulcan co-pilot. When the Vulcan left service, he was unsuccessful at TWU and was offered a choice of another ME pilot slot, or a FJ navigator slot - he chose the latter.

Not quite accurate. He withdrew from pilot training before re-roling as a navigator. It is true that he was unsuccessful at TWU, but, I believe, indirectly related to his performance in the air. Being a QWI Air Defence and Ground attack on both F4 and Tornado is no mean feat.

Lima Juliet

4th Nov 2018, 18:14

I can’t think of anything that would negate you from no longer being a pilot but allowing you to be a FJ Nav? Apart from a crippling lack of ability poling the aircraft?

Cows getting bigger

5th Nov 2018, 15:31

Some of us can remember when they sent pilots (and navs) to be air traffickers and we're not talking that long ago.

ASRAAMTOO

5th Nov 2018, 16:55

Actually I think he has made a HUGE contribution to th safety of Air Cadet Gliding. I mean if you don't actually DO any gliding you can't possibly have any accidents.

What could be safer?

A and C

6th Nov 2018, 08:37

Now there has been a management change is it not time to learn the lessons of the past and draw a line under past events.

Its time to remember that the objective of this exercise is to get cadets flying and if posable give then that ability to fly solo. For this staff have to be put in place to do the training and contractors who can supply serviceable aircraft.

Perhaps the most important thing is to recruit both staff and contractors who have a proven track record if a speedy return to providing cadet flying is going to be accomplished.

chevvron

6th Nov 2018, 09:01

Build some new Mk3's and get them popping off on their own after an hours flying (that's the standard to beat).UNBEATABLE.
What I've been saying for several years now.

tucumseh

6th Nov 2018, 18:53

draw a line under past events

I'm afraid that's how it was allowed to happen in the first place. Today, the MAA is in a state of complete denial about what caused all this in the first place, even going on record claiming it identified the failings which Haddon-Cave had reiterated.

recruit both staff and contractors who have a proven track record

Indeed, and a laudable aim. Again, we must hope the likes of the MAA changes its mind. But this time there is a significant political barrier.

Training Risky

7th Nov 2018, 18:41

Good to see the ATC get a plug on the One Show tonight.

Shame Carol Vorderman doesn’t know how to zip a jacket up.

Also, are there any white male cadets in the ACO? Because no examples were thrust forward into the spotlight...

Shaft109

7th Nov 2018, 19:58

Well as Tucumseh has pointed out any new aircraft will be on the road to UN airworthiness from day 1 unless registered on the CAA/ BAA register but you can read all about it on this very thread -it's all here.

But to point out the Volunteer staff have been badly burned from this saga and lots would be unwilling to invest so much time again after the near radio silence we received over a period of years then the disbandment announcement.

Personally being a CI worked but the idea of being fake NCO aircrew in uniform doesn't do much for me - and I personally heard JM say he could recruit new staff from adverts in national papers. Not necessarily the calibre of people we HAD in the organisation of a known quantity then.

Simple things like the odd AEF day at a UAS or flight from say Brize on a Tanker sortie would've gone down well as it meant we were actually being thought about and I can't see why something simple like that never happened - Known, vetted staff with RAF or Class One medicals and flying kit should've been within someone's grasp - but hey ho then.

Really all my best for the guys and girls remaining, and lamenting the passing of such a jewel of an organisation that gave lots of us a leg up and belief we could make it in aviation without a spare £100k lying about.

Tingger

8th Nov 2018, 09:24

FleurDeLys

8th Nov 2018, 09:54

Declaration of interest: veteran of many happy years instructing on T21/31, Venture & Vigilant - and as sad as anyone else to see the demise of Air Cadet Gliding - but......
If we look forward rather than hark back, just what sort of 'air minded' future should the Air Cadet movement aspire to inspire and prepare young people for in the future? Anything planned today will take a decade to get into full swing, and will have to be planned to meet the foreseeable needs of 30 years hence - and the likely direction of travel beyond that.
Is 'stick and rudder' flying to solo standard in basic aircraft a relevant stepping stone to a career in aviation - military or civil?
Personally, I suspect there is an even more exciting - and relevant - future for the Air Cadet organisation, its cadets and volunteer staff in planning and then delivering a new experience preparing 'air minded youth' for a world in which, in all probability, the only aircraft to have people aboard will be those whose purpose is to carry passengers.
And you know, on balance and given the chance, I think I'd prefer the challenge of being part of that than of trying to 're-launch' Air Cadet Gliding

Lima Juliet

8th Nov 2018, 20:43

Is 'stick and rudder' flying to solo standard in basic aircraft a relevant stepping stone to a career in aviation - military or civil?

Yes

Why? It is still the basic element of any flying career and even for unmanned aviation - the Protector still has throttle, stick and rudder pedals. Further, the confidence it gives a youth to fly solo, and the huge responsibility earned through trust, cannot be understated. You cannot get that in a simulator or part-task trainer.

POBJOY

8th Nov 2018, 20:47

F D L It matters not that the 'fretwork fighters' were old and simple; it is the 'purpose' they achieved that made the system so good.
The rapid requirement to 'make decisions' as you were going to be 'on your own' and the paperless teamwork is just as relevant NOW as then.
Some of our Cadets went on to Lightnings (first tour) so the MK3 must have sparked something there, and this early requirements to MAKE DECISIONS without a committee meeting or reams of bumf is a lesson that needs to be learnt again for the future. Synthetics have no equal when compared to that 'first solo' in a 3d environment. I firmly believe that todays so-called managers could also benefit from many of the facets of training that the ATC did as the NORM. At the time we did not know what a fantastic opportunity we had been given to develop some self capability in decision making (intermediate cable break on a small airfield comes to mind) but that process implanted a grain of self development for the future that was to serve us well. I will repeat my maxim again and stand to be challenged. An organisation that could train a Cadet to international (FAI) A&B standard in around a total of 60 + minutes (continuous course) and allow him 3 solo flights had to be a WORLD CLASS example of getting it right, and not getting side tracked into spurious add ons that loose sight of the objective. Give someone that chance to do something on their own early enough, and then they can teach themselves later, and not be frightened to MAKE DECISIONS. The Air Cadets lost its way once they started to 'tick boxes' and do too much dual; they had lost the lessons of history. Of course some LEADERSHIP at the top helps.

teeteringhead

9th Nov 2018, 11:16

I firmly believe that todays so-called managers could also benefit from many of the facets of training that the ATC did as the NORM. Not many (any?) aviators in the ACO hierarchy these days I think. A few years ago ALL RCs were pilots. Any connection d'ye think.......?

multum in parvo

9th Nov 2018, 13:48

There are elements of what I see as " the truth" in many of the most recent posts. There is a need to look forward and not backwards, the way air cadet gliding was delivered was both effective and character building and yes the RC's these days are not usually pilots. In addition, there is much more form filling than there has ever been. However, the environment that the leadership of the Air Cadets finds itself operating has been shaped by others; the cessation of an RAF maintenance organisation for gliders which forced outsourcing, the "rationalisation" of the defence estate that has led to a rapid reduction of available airfields, the imposition of a safety regime designed for fast jet assets rather than far more simple aircraft and the legal sword of damocles that hovers above all those with responsibility, an overly bureaucratic Health and Safely regime.
What concerns me most is the delivery of effective experiences for cadets that build their knowledge, skills and resilience. It is the last of these that causes me real concern. When cadets of yesteryear spent whole days in an outdoor environment dealing with the practical issues of running an airfield it built the foundations of the resilience so necessary to deal with the many challenges that life would throw at them. While I see the current air cadet training system building knowledge and skills I see no evidence to date that the technology-based approach to flying will build the resilience that I believe will be more important than ever for our young people as they face a progressively more complex world. I would be delighted to be proved wrong.

POBJOY

9th Nov 2018, 14:58

Bang on MULTI you have to have people at the top that know what is needed and the will to get on with it.
We did not have to create a Glider Operation from scratch only keep it going despite the 'glitches'.
There is plenty of MOD real estate out there still, but the crats in charge are clueless how to use it.
In fact the old RAF magazine AIR CLUES could be reborn for the ATC management as AIR CLUELESS.
It seems that there are some 40+ Vikings recovered and yet they sit in a hangar at Syerston rather than OUT THERE doing the job.
No excuse; the money has been paid and yet the system is dormant, time to hand the lot over to an organisation** that can actually deliver the goods for the Cadets; someone should talk to the GSA** and get some sense into the system, there is no expertise or capability in the higher echelons of the current Air Cadet movement.

Engines

9th Nov 2018, 15:31

Multum,

I'd like, if I may, to make a couple of observations here. Yes, the RAF organisation needs to look forward and change to meet new needs. It also needs to look back and make sure that what went wrong doesn't go wrong again. However, it needs to recognise what actually went wrong. It may not.

The RAF's maintenance organisation for gliders wasn't subject to 'cessation' - nor was outsourcing 'forced' - these were both deliberate decisions by the RAF and MoD departments all of which, by that time, were RAF led and manned. The main source of the ATC's problems was, in my view (opinion here but backed up by my FOI research) the mismanaged procurement and support of an extremely large fleet of composite gliders and powered aircraft. The RAF simply didn't properly execute the basic, simple, easy (I'm running out of synonyms here) steps that should have been second nature to any military aircraft procurement organisation. Once in service, they failed to properly execute the basic first and second line support and maintenance functions for which they were accountable.

As to the 'imposition of a safety regime designed for fast jets' - sorry, it would be nice if this were the cause, but in my view it wasn't. The MAA was designed and implemented in response to the Haddon-Cave inquiry's criticisms of their airworthiness regime. This effort was, in very large part, led by senior RAF officers, who designed and built the MAA regime the Services work under today. It's designed for all military aircraft, and while it is bureaucratic and overly proscriptive (in my view) complying with it it should be straightforward for any professional operating and support organisation. The fact that 2FTS was demonstrably neither of these when the MAA 'came calling' in 2012/13 was not the MAA's fault. It was the RAF's

The other aspect that the RAF badly needs to recognise is the utter shambles that followed the 'pause' (grounding). It took 2FTS and the MoD departments involved two years to get any sort of handle on the technical issues, risks, costs and timescales of recovering any part of the ATC fleet. To repeat a line I've often used - the RAF had been flying schoolchildren in its non-airworthy military aircraft. How much more of an emergency did it need to get the situation sorted out? It's only the indifference and ignorance of what passes for a 'defence press' in the UK that saved the RAF from a PR disaster. Oh, and a few judicious lies told to MPs and ministers.

Finally, as an ex Air Cadet I most strongly support those who point out the 'people skills' aspect of the ATC and the gliding organisation it ran. It gave callow teenagers like me an unforgettable set of lessons in independence, team working and decision making that was second to none. Flying a jobbed up Xbox flight sim programme around simply doesn't cut it in the least. In my view. That said, I'll end in the usual way:

Best Regards as ever to all those working to enthuse, inspire and lead today's Air Cadets. You are doing a great service to young people.

Engines

ATFQ

9th Nov 2018, 17:46

Amongst some of the (very) understandable emotion in this thread there is much sense and very many correct and wise words (not least in some of the more recent posts). Much of where we are today has to do with leadership. We now have a new Commandant 2 FTS. Painful as it might be, I hope that he takes a couple of days to read through the more than 4,600 posts on this thread (which have attracted more than 1.1 million views since April 2014): they will tell him almost everything he needs to know; some trusted individuals at Syerston and elsewhere will fill in the gaps. So, Euge, if you are reading this then please wade through this extended history lesson. We are grateful you are in charge: the organisation craves good leadership.

multum in parvo

9th Nov 2018, 19:54

Engines,
Many thanks for your thoughts. As a non-engineer I have followed your comments on RAF engineering standards (or in your view, lack of them) with interest. Your obvious passion for getting things right should be shared by all who currently serve and by those who have had the opportunity to serve in the past.
As ATFQ says, the new Comdt 2FTS has an opportunity to take an objective view of history, look at the resources made available to him and recommend a way forward to those who hold the purse strings.
My view remains the same, most youth organisations impact skills and knowledge to their young people. The Air Cadets that I experienced provided opportunities to develop resilience with gliding and air experience at the centre of its offering. If it cannot do that into the future, our young people will be the poorer for it.

I share will Engines best wishes to all those who provide so many opportunities to today's RAF Air Cadets.

Engines

9th Nov 2018, 20:28

Multum,

I'd just like to come back to say that during my career I worked with many RAF engineers and organisations. I regularly encountered really excellent standards, and almost all of the time, I worked with dedicated and hugely professional engineers. I sincerely apologise if anyone thought I was making a blanket judgement about the RAF engineering branch - it certainly wasn't my intention.

However, as Haddon-Cave made clear, and many others can attest to, the RAF's organisation and execution of some of its core engineering tasks just haven't been as good as people thought they were. Most seriously, they weren't as good as many senior RAF people thought they were. The ATC gliders saga is the latest in a distressingly long line of similar scandals, where the common feature is the failure of commands and departments to properly monitor and examine what the h**l was going on. If I have a single serious concern over the Post-MAA airworthiness engineering landscape (in all three services) it's this: if you have elevated the level at which normal everyday engineering decisions are taken from Sqn Ldr to Gp Capt, who is going to be monitoring the Groupie? The Air Commodores may be a trifle too busy to do QA checks.

Best Regards as ever to all those in the ATC working the stuff out for real - not just droning on like me.

Engines

A and C

4th Dec 2018, 05:49

The latest edition of Pilot Magazine has an interesting editorial that comments on the issue of air cadet gliding.

Bigpants

5th Dec 2018, 08:48

The latest edition of Pilot Magazine has an interesting editorial that comments on the issue of air cadet gliding.

Any chance of a precis of the editorial? I assume not glowing with compliments but did it offer a way forward?

Fitter2

5th Dec 2018, 10:08

I hope I'm not infringing Pilot Mag.s copyright:

The Great Grob Reprieve?

A welcome announcement on the day this issue of Pilot went to press: the Air Cadet Grob motorglider fleet. grounded since 2014 and scheduled to be scrapped. appears at the eleventh hour to have won a reprieve. The Air Cadets will not get them back, but a number of the aircraft at least are set to fly again - and be used to give young people in the UK and abroad air experience flights - in a joint enterprise by the Spitfire Heritage Trust and the Light Aviation Association.

This is a rather happier end, at least as far as the aircraft are concerned, to the sorry saga of Cadet flying being curtailed after The entire Air Cadet fleet of seventy Grob Viking gliders and sixty Vigilant motorgliders was 'paused' by the military duty holder, No.2 Flight Training School.

In fact the officer in command. Group Captain John Middleton didn't have much choice in 2014 but to ground the fleet after an RAF engineering audit of civilian company Serco, which had been contracted to maintain the aircraft, revealed fundamental airworthiness issues. These problems arose not because the Vikings and Vigilants were actually unfit to fly, but were related to the paperwork - poor administration and recording of maintenance tasks and repairs.

In an attempt to put right all this nonsense, a 'recovery programme' was established involving two outsourcing specialists, Serco (again) and Babcock. Both in turn subcontracted their work to what you might call proper aircraft maintenance companies (one wonders how much of the contract value was nevertheless trousered by the two service providers).

Serco subcontracted work to Marshall. They have not recovered any airframes and given up on that task. Babcock subcontracted the recovery of the gliders to Southern Sailplanes Ltd. Southern Sailplanes has so far delivered most of the total of 46 gliders expected to come back into service.

So something of a result there? Sadly not: Serco currently manages to keep available for flying around a dozen of those forty or so gliders. The BGA advises that its gliding clubs regularly achieve close to 100% glider fleet availability.

You have to ask why it is that the MoD and its contractors have failed to get the motorgliders, currently in storage at Little Rissington, back into the air. Although they are said to be facing some (surely arbitrary) airframe life limitation, the aircraft are reported to be in good condition. Would it have been such a problem for Grob to certify and re-life them as civilian aircraft? The differences between Vigilants and the certified 109 are minimal. It seems that the main issue was that the Grob/ Limbach engine is no longer supported, so the Vigilants would have needed to be re-engined, perhaps with Rotax nine-series engines. However, it is hard to see how this would have been much of a problem.

Well we know there is now an avenue open - provided that the LAA can negotiate successfully with the CAA to recognise the Vigilant as a non-EASA aircraft - but the fact remains that Air Cadets have lost their motorglider fleet and get their 'wings' today after merely flying a glider simulator and being taken on an air experience flight. And the MoD has blown £8m on a recovery plan that has put just a dozen Air Cadet gliders back into regular service and failed to return a single motorglider to the air.

Despite the aircraft being saved from the scrapman's axe. It is hard to see this entire affair as anything less than an absolute scandal. While Babcock seems to have done the right thing, the MoD, the RAF and Serco should not be allowed to get away with it!

Philip Whiteman, Editor

Engines

5th Dec 2018, 15:43

Fitter and others:

Having followed this saga fairly closely, and having obtained a number of documents under FoI, I've learned to look hard at any public statements about it. For what they're worth, my observations on the 'Pilot' Magazine piece:

The 'Pilot' piece aligns with a (generally helpful to the RAF) view that the problem was caused by failures by civilian contractors, which were discovered by the RAF. Simply not true. The 'pause' followed a December 2013 MAA audit of 2FTS, not an 'RAF engineering audit of civilian company Serco". Indeed, the MAA audit noted that proper engineering audits hadn't been carried out by 2FTS and other Mod/RAF departments.

It also aligns with a view that the problems were 'paperwork' issues, and that 'the problem arose not because the Vikings ad Vigilants were actually unfit to fly". The piece describes the 2FTS driven recovery programme as 'an attempt to put right all this nonsense'. Again, not accurate. What happened with the ATC fleet was not paperwork 'nonsense' keeping serviceable aircraft grounded. At the risk of repetition, if the paperwork is not right, an aircraft is non-airworthy. It is unserviceable. You don't know what its material state is. For the ATC, this was the end result of a long period of bad execution of basic engineering and airworthiness management responsibilities.

The 'Pilot' piece asks why the MoD and its contractors have failed to get the Vigilants back in the air, mentioning a '(surely arbitrary) airframe life limitation'. It is, apparently, 'hard to see' how re-engining the fleet 'would have been much of a problem'. First, re-engining the Vigilants was not part of the 'innovative solution' announced just two years ago. Putting new engines into 15 aircraft with an OSD of November 2019 was always a financial impossibility. Second, airframe life limitations aren't usually 'arbitrary'. Of course, if you rushed the aircraft into service using an underspend without doing the proper technical work to substantiate the airframe in the first place it's possible that the airframe life limitation might be seen as 'arbitrary'. Then you start asking who signed off on the RTS.

However, the 'Pilot' gets it absolutely right is at the end - 'It is hard to see this entire affair as anything less than an absolute scandal. While Babcock seems to have done the right thing, the MoD, the RAF and Serco should not be allowed to get away with it!'. Amen to that. House off Commons Defence Committee investigation anyone?

Just a final observation. In November 2016, the RAF announced its 'innovative proposal' to recover 15 Vigilants to flight by giving away 65 aircraft to Grob. OSD was November 2019, just 36 months away. It apparently takes 2FTS 18 months (half of the expected remaining service life) to realise this is a non-starter, so it pulls the plug over a weekend. My opinion, and that's all it is, is that something safety related happened this May to force OC 2FTS to ground the Vigilants. Are there any PPruners out there in possession of any of the related instructions? Just asking....

Best regards as ever to all those dedicated people who worked, and those who still support the ATC cadets

Engines

Sky Sports

5th Dec 2018, 16:23

£8m on a recovery plan that has put just a dozen Air Cadet gliders back into regular service and failed to return a single motorglider to the air
Well done MOD/RAF, medals all round.
What would 12 brand new Grob 103 cost?

Chugalug2

5th Dec 2018, 17:18

Engines, excellent post as always. Thank you. There is a common theme across all the PPRuNe Military Forum Airworthiness related threads (mercifully at least, this one is not also a Fatal Accident thread). Not only does every thread shine a light on the chronically dysfunctional UK Military Air Safety system, but also on the despicable moves by the MOD to offer scapegoats for its own incompetence. As a rule they go for the deceased aircrew, but failing that, as in this case, they have started electing Civilian Contractors. They chose that target by proxy in the case of Red Arrow Flt Lt Sean Cunningham's tragic death. The deed being done there on their behalf by HSE. Here they have gone for Serco, anything to obscure the gross lack of expertise and knowledge within the MOD and its subsidiary Services.

That is as a direct result of the illegal actions of RAF VSOs in the late 80s/early 90s and the cover up that has been maintained by their successors to the present day. What grounded the ACO gliders extends throughout the UK military airfleet and will continue until UK Military Air Safety is reformed. That means an independent Regulator and Investigator, both of the MOD and of each other. Anything less is mere fudge. Aviation deplores fudge and will kill if that is all it is offered.

Self Regulation Doesn't Work, and in Aviation it Kills!

VX275

5th Dec 2018, 21:42

Just for the record, reengining the Vigilants with Rotax 912 and the installation of a 'glass cockpit' was being promised to the staff of the VGS's BEFORE the pause.

POBJOY

6th Dec 2018, 04:21

The 'PILOT' editorial has hinted that the Vigilants 'may' rise again under a somewhat different guise. In fact this is an 'intention' but in practice is still in a sensitive negotiation phase albeit with a positive path.
The actual machine has given great service and confirmed that the 'self launching' facility was indeed a very practical way to operate especially when utilising normal airfields that had shared use.
The machine is well suited in its current config and certainly does not need a glass cockpit or the expense of a new engine with the added certification issues. The LAA are the ideal body to be involved as they have decades of real technical experience and design capability, and are the masters of practical aviation operation and cost effective 'power'.
The sad demise of ATC gliding 'as was' is a separate issue that has been well aired on this forum, and as we know there little comfort that the current leadership of the organisation has any idea of what they have lost, or a cogent plan for a 'hands on' future; the treatment of the capable volunteer staff was appalling. The suggestion that the introduction of a PTT was a serious upgrade of the operation merely shows the complete lack of a 'safe pair of hands' at the helm.
If the Vigilants can rise again and provide a service to the youth of this country then that has to be applauded and If the LAA are involved then this would be a very positive move for everyone.

tucumseh

6th Dec 2018, 06:45

VX275

I think one of the things Engines was alluding to (correctly) is the requirement to show x years (usually five) useful life from an investment. Before the grounding, an upgrade would get through scrutiny. But not after announcing the OSD. Related to this, support funding gradually decreases over the last five years. Only safety related work is permitted, and often not even that. Thus, if a replacement programme is delayed, both need a hike.

Engines

At the risk of repetition, if the paperwork is not right, an aircraft is non-airworthy. It is unserviceable. You don't know what its material state is. For the ATC, this was the end result of a long period of bad execution of basic engineering and airworthiness management responsibilities.

Needs to be said more often, until someone listens. Excellent post. Interestingly, the MAA witness at the Cunningham/Red Arrows trial in February disagreed. A clue to MoD's woes.

POBJOY

6th Dec 2018, 20:16

Engines I suspect that there may have been some issues with the Vigilants engine life and use on an 'on condition' basis.
whilst not an issue if used for AE work the thought that a minor may be going solo in a machine may well have caused some ripples in the system.
The Vig was designed as a TOURING MOTOR GLIDER not a circuit trainer, yet it has performed well despite being operated at a high all up weight. Climb speed should be to give correct engine cooling and not best rate of climb, and shut downs in flight in accordance with a prior cooling period to prevent shock damage to the cylinder heads. The dear old VW based engine seems to have coped quite well with this (as I would expect) and indeed if operated with due care and under weight has plenty of service life left as new parts are readily available.
Any future use in conjunction with the LAA would incorporate an ongoing engine re life plan which of course the LAA are well placed to oversee.

Adcuratio

8th Dec 2018, 13:35

The 'Pilot' piece aligns with a (generally helpful to the RAF) view that the problem was caused by failures by civilian contractors, which were discovered by the RAF. Simply not true. The 'pause' followed a December 2013 MAA audit of 2FTS, not an 'RAF engineering audit of civilian company Serco". Indeed, the MAA audit noted that proper engineering audits hadn't been carried out by 2FTS and other Mod/RAF departments.

For clarity:

The newly formed 2 & 3 FTS CAMO team instigated an audit of all 2 FTS (newly formed in Jan 2014) glider engineering operations as part of their ‘stand up’ programme. The findings of that audit led them to craft DHAN 86 which was the formal recommendation to pause flying:

(https ://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/491324/20150121-FOI08296Attachment.pdf)

The MAA were then invited to review their work given the severity of the findings.

tucumseh

8th Dec 2018, 15:06

The MAA were then invited to review their work given the severity of the findings.

Marking their own homework?

To understand the full extent of the maladministration, one must go back further. Some might say that audit arose from a December 2012 report highlighting serious airworthiness shortfalls going back many years. As reported by the RAF Director of Flight Safety from August 1992. And before him..... It's all now a matter of public record, which doesn't stop the MAA claiming none of this happened and that they, alone, uncovered the airworthiness failings post-2010.

Chugalug2

8th Dec 2018, 15:36

Adcuratio:-
The MAA were then invited to review their work given the severity of the findings.

Ah, a maiden post, welcome!" Apologies if that's a sexist comment, so easy to fall into the pit these days...

Who, might I ask, is ever going to be invited to review the MAA's work given the severity of its effects on UK Military Air Safety?

Engines

8th Dec 2018, 20:37

Adcuratio,

Thank you for responding, and adding another piece of the story - I suspected that 2FTS had carried out some form of audit in early 2014, your confirmation helps complete the picture. In the interests of clarity, which we all desire, the story of the start of this scandal now reads as follows: (This is as I understand it, please feel free to correct me)

1. 16 Dec 2013 - the MAA carries out an audit of the Vigilant and Viking organisation. The areas audited appear to have been 22Gp's CAMO organisation, Serco and a number of other posts.
2. MAA issues its audit report late December (Reference for the audit report was CAMO/CERT/2012/051). It's a pretty comprehensive 'fail', and 22 Gp CAMO are told they won't be approved by MAA. They're given 28 days to respond with a Corrective Action Plan
3. Early in 2014, 2FTS carry out an audit of all 2FTS glider engineering operations
4. DHAN 86 is issued by 2FTS on 17 Apr 14, then re-issued on 28 Jan 14 at Update 1. (The detailed Annexes setting out the airworthiness issues were not released in response to FoI request)

My take (and that's all it is) is that the starting gun for this debacle (and debacle it undoubtedly has been) was the MAA CAMO audit in December 13. 2FTS undoubtedly did the right thing in early 2014, but here's a key point - 3FTS and 22Gp should already have been doing 'audits' of glider engineering operations for years. In fact, on their formation 2FTS should have been supplied with the reports from recent QA and other inspections to guide their 'stand up' activities.

I absolutely agree that 2FTS were handed a big problem on their formation. It was a problem that had been building up from at least the year 2000, and was entirely due to serious and systemic failures in the RAF's execution, supervision and oversight of glider engineering activities. Examination of subsequent events shows that 2FTS (and very probably 22Gp) had absolutely no grasp of the scale of the problems facing them in April 2014. It took a searing letter from MAA to OC 2FTS in September 2015, and intervention by CAS the following month, to get some element of realism into the recovery plan. And that plan failed anyway.

I've often and regularly posted about my direct experience of simply excellent RAF engineering personnel, and I stand by those comments. But the bald facts are that, in this case, the RAF seriously dropped the airworthiness ball - which led to children being flown in non-airworthy aircraft. Why go on about this? Because I've seen absolutely nothing in public that indicates that the RAF understand and accept that they fouled up. Their public statements (e.g. from AVM Colville) has been designed to cover the problem up. Ministers have been led to make statements that come damn close to outright lies to help the cover up.

I'd be happier if more people were properly and blazingly upset over this. Sadly (so far) they're not.

Best Regards as ever to all those who have worked so hard to try to get Air Cadets back in the air.

Engines

POBJOY

8th Dec 2018, 22:11

Engines When this whole 'episode' kicked off in 2014 I thought it was all rather strange that this was so soon after the handover to a reformed 2 FTS. (From 3 FTS)
It also coincided with JM making it clear that the Civilian Volunteer element of this wonderful capable organisation (the flying side as was) was going to be reduced and decades of experience discarded. It was almost as if the full time RAF was trying put the blame on the volunteers (rewrite history) and hope the bad taste faded away. It may well have done if not for PPrune and the fury that previous ATC Cadets/Instructors felt about the way that their proud organisation with decades of capable operations was being treated. The main steam MOD/RAF have not come out at all well in all this, and have let the Cadets down in extreme; but they were never let down by those at the 'coal face' who had to endure years of poor back up from those paid to give it. If the Vigilants rise again it will be because we refuse to have history rewritten, and that the true spirit and legacy of the ATC Gliding has not been lost or sacrificed on the alter of incompetence. Best wishes and thanks for all those that have exposed this sorry story and lets us hope that we have shown what a fantastic organisation we had, and that it refuses to be destroyed.

Chugalug2

8th Dec 2018, 23:15

Engines:-
My take (and that's all it is) is that the starting gun for this debacle (and debacle it undoubtedly has been) was the MAA CAMO audit in December 13.

POBJOY:-
Engines When this whole 'episode' kicked off in 2014...

While your time lines are in keeping with the 'episode', ie the OP (the grounding of the ACO Gliders), that is exactly the way that the MOD wants it to be seen. That is how it wanted the Mull Chinook, the Iraq C-130, Tornado, and 2 RN Sea Kings, the Afghanistan Nimrod, and the Red5 ejection tragedies to be seen, ie as separate and unconnected accidents. The default presentation is to stovepipe them, and we oblige by treating each airworthiness related fatal accident to a separate thread. Thank God this one isn't a fatal accident as well, and 2FTS got that bit right at least, if nothing else. We have to take in the wood rather than concentrate solely on each individual tree, for there is no end of those potential fatal accidents waiting to happen if that is our approach.

This episode didn't start in 2013 or 2014, it started when all the others started, and where the next UK Military Airworthiness Related Fatal Air Accident will have started, with an AMSO policy change in 1986. Its gross ineptitude set the MOD looking for a source of short term financial gain to plug the breach in its budgetary dam. It homed in on the only ring fenced finance left, the Air Safety Budget. After it was finished plundering the damage was devastating and permanent. This was Haddon-Cave's so called 'Golden Period'! Thus the very report that the MAA was founded upon was a lie. The MAA is as culpable as the RAF VSOs who carried out the plunder and those who have covered it up since.

What happened here is terrible. A wonderful organisation that inspired new generations of young people into air mindedness has been cut off at the knees. I would remind everyone though that real tragedy has befallen the families and loved ones of those who died in the fatal accidents I have listed, and whose threads exist here as witness to the terrible cost of the illegal actions perpetrated.

Engines, you say:-
I'd be happier if more people were properly and blazingly upset over this. Sadly (so far) they're not.

Well, amen to that. But be very clear. This is much bigger than the ACO scandal, it is much bigger than RAF Engineering, which you seem focussed upon. This is a scandal that has been covered up by the MOD, the MAA, the Civil and RAF Police, the HSE, and HMG. That is the extent of this wood, so standing around and barking at one particular tree alone will serve their purposes well.

Nothing short of a completely separate and independent Military Air Regulator and Military Air Accident Investigator, of the MOD and of each other, can hope to put this genie back in its bottle. I'd be happier if more people were properly and blazingly upset over that!

tucumseh

9th Dec 2018, 07:51

I'm not going to go over old posts, but merely point people to the 'Review of ACO Flying and Gliding' report of 1 December 2012. Do a simple word search for 'safety'. 21 references, most suggesting 'safety enhancements'. Specifically (given a recent post) it recommends these be progressed quite separately from the planned engine replacement. If one is to compartmentalise this case, then that report is a good starting point.

I feel there is sometimes a tendency to go after a certain individual, at the expense of the historical facts and wider picture. I don't know the man concerned and cannot comment. But I do know a few of the 2 Stars who were personally warned as to the impact of ignoring mandated airworthiness regulations, and making draconian cuts to the implementation budget. As Engines has often said, few if any set out to deliberately cause harm. But if someone is warned by experts in the field that their actions will cause harm (to persons or, in this case, fleets of aircraft), and they continue with their actions, there is a conscious element to that decision. If they plead ignorance, then they are in the wrong job - which I accept is prevalent in MoD. These sometimes malicious acts go back a very long way, and there is little separation between the aircraft affected at the time and gliders. If you want to go back just one step from gliders, look at the serious offences committed in the Hawk XX177 case, which shares (shared?) the same Type Airworthiness Authority as gliders. That's the date pushed back to 2010. And so on, through an unbroken line of maladministration going back to June 1987. There I stop, because before that date, while there were problems, they were mostly dealt with properly. There may not have been all the funding necessary, but there was acceptance of the problem, proper risk assessment, and considered acceptance of risk. June 1987 is when the policy to save money at the expense of safety commenced.

BEagle

9th Dec 2018, 08:02

From a letter at the time, written by a VSO:

I should mention that some believe we should all close ranks, allocate blame for the engineering governance issues, and try to reverse the decision taken by the AFB and endorsed by Ministers. This is unrealistic, and diverts us away from what we should be doing: ‘Aye’ Aye, Sir; get on with it; lead our people through this challenging transition; and do our best to add value iteratively to the package we have been handed. This will require leadership, vision, determination and understanding. The time for retrospection and garment renting is over; we now need to move forward.

In other words, "Shut up, stop moaning, do as I say and get on with it....??"

Haraka

9th Dec 2018, 08:12

..and as you would put it Beags : expressed in typical "wanque speke".

tucumseh

9th Dec 2018, 13:45

And of course the outcome of 'Shut up....do as I say...' was a series of easily avoidable deaths.

To my dying day I will never forget the complete and utter c*** of a civilian 2-Star who laughed in my face when I told him his decision, and that of another 2 Star (Nimrod, Chinook) and 4 Star (CDP), was in all likelihood going to kill Tornado aircrew. I was pulled away by two Colonels and a Brigadier. The latter gave me a right bollocking for being aggressive towards a 2 Star.

When ZG710 was shot down the following year, and the Senior Reviewing Officer (unwittingly) repeated my words, the Brigadier remembered and came to my house and apologised. The utter c***? Onwards and upwards. You never forget. Same people. Same decisions.

Lima Juliet

9th Dec 2018, 14:24

civilian 2-Star this always makes me laugh :p

There is of course no such thing. The whole alignment of Civil Service grades was done for allowance and pay purposes - the funniest thing is that the notional “2-star equivalent” earns about £30,000 less even before you take the non-contributory pension of the Service person into account. An SCS2 earns between £85k and £100k whereas an Air Vice Marshal earns between £115k and £125k. So really there is no equivalency at all.

To quote this website: https://www.civilservant.org.uk/information-the_armed_services.html

”The following list compares old and new civil service grades with their equivalents in the armed services. But it shouldn't be taken too seriously. Ken Graham pointed out that the list was prepared mainly for arranging travel, accommodation and messing (e.g. whether a chap was likely to know which fork to use!).”

There is no doubt that the senior civil servant has the responsibility but “2-star” they are not...

tucumseh

9th Dec 2018, 17:11

airpolice

9th Dec 2018, 22:59

Lima

Great that you can laugh at such a serious matter. Anything to divert attention from serial offences and resultant deaths.

Perhaps I should have listed the AVMs and above who supported these decisions while trousering more pay.

I've said it before, and I'll no doubt say it again.

You really should name and shame, not just in the books, but on here as well.

tucumseh

10th Dec 2018, 05:38

airpolice

Thank you. My point, and that made by chugalug, is that these accidents/events share common root causes. Thus, most have already been named on, for example, the Chinook ZD576, Nimrod XV230, Hercules XV179 (etc.) threads. In many cases, they placed themselves in the public domain by writing to the press.

As you say, they have also been named in books, each of which passed MoD scrutiny. Perhaps surprisingly, but truth is the ultimate defence and when you can produce written, photographic and recorded evidence of events MoD deny even occurred, then it tends to back down (while maintaining its denial).

For the record, the staff who ruled that a false declaration could be made that IFF failure warning integration could be ignored, but a false declaration made in airworthiness documentation that it had been effected and passed, were; Ian Fauset, Director General Air Systems 2, then Executive Director 1 (Chinook, Nimrod, etc) and the 4 Star I mentioned, recently retired Vice Admiral Sir Robert Walmsley, Chief of Defence Procurement. (Which is probably why he liked being termed a 4 Star).

The former was asked, in writing, what was the greater offence - refusing to make false record (fraud by misrepresentation) or the order to commit it. He ruled, in writing, that the only offence was the refusal. Issuing the order was not an offence, nor was taking disciplinary action for refusing to obey. Walmsley upheld this in writing, twice; as have successive Cabinet Secretaries and Heads of the Civil Service - latterly supported by the Military Aviation Authority.

The altercation I mentioned was on the same subject (specifically, Tornado IFF failure warnings), with Stan Porter, Executive Director 5. He made no formal ruling, simply laughing at immediate risk to life and walking away. I feel confident repeating this, as I know the retired SF Brigadier I mentioned will stand witness. He lost friends on ZD576, and takes a very close interest. His 2i/c would have been pax #26 had he not been called away on a job.

Now, go buy the books!

Engines

10th Dec 2018, 08:50

Tuc, Chug and others,

My final post here for some time - Christmas coming and all that.

I certainly don't dispute that there has been long-term mismanagement and very probably malfeasance in the upper levels of the MoD around airworthiness. However, this thread is about the grounding of the ATC glider fleet, and that's what I've attempted to keep my focus on. I've tried to do that so that the many people who gave so much of their own time to get cadets into the air can better understand how this particular scandal came about, and to help those at the sharp end today.

I share Tuc and Chug's frustration that the VSOs who started all these balls rolling in the late 80s have never been held to account. But the ATC glider scandal shows that the RAF (not the MoD) still has serious issues with how it actually practices airworthiness management at the 'sharp end'. My aim in posting here is to encourage all those good and professional aircrew and engineers in the RAF (and I know quite a few of them) to learn from what's happened here, and stop it happening in their patch today. Right now. If you're on a squadron, get the overalls on, get out in the hangars and on to the flight line, and cast a really sharp eye on what is actually being done by your crews, and your contractors. Check your paperwork. Check your aircraft. And if you don't like what you see, or are unsure, stop it, fix it and stop it happening again. Don't wait for the MAA to issue a new RA - you are the ones who will actually make the biggest difference. If you're aircrew, don't wait for an MAA course - get alongside your engineers and get acquainted with maintaining airworthiness and how it affects you, and what part you play in keeping it sound.

Things will only get better if the people actually doing the job today make it better. As ever, my warmest regards to all of them.

Engines

Chugalug2

10th Dec 2018, 09:46

Engines, how would you have advised the Reds' engineers and pilots to react to an RTI that instructed that the seat should be serviced in situ, and that the scissor shackle nut and bolt be undone and then done up again with no means of testing if the shackle would then release in an ensuing ejection (only possible if the procedure was carried out in the now non-existent bay)? With such illegal orders from above no amount of running around at Squadron level will repair this broken system. I take your point that the ACO thread is about the ACO scandal, and fully empathise with those who have had their years giving of their skills and time thrown back in their faces. I think that putting the scandal in perspective, alongside Mull, Baggers, ESF, Iraq Blue on Blue, Afghanistan Nimrod, Reds, etc, reinforces the issue. Just treating each one on its own simply serves the MOD's (not the RAF's alone!) agenda.

The problem is at the top rather than the bottom (though training, or lack of it, has certainly left its mark there). The MOD (where aviation is largely in the hands of RAF VSOs I'll admit) is where it started and where it still lurks, in particular with its dysfunctional subsidiary the 'independent' MAA and its vassal, the MAAIB (or whatever it's called this week). To zero in on one particular Service as the problem area is to dangerously distort the extent of the problem. ALL UK Military Aviation is affected, all of it!

tucumseh

10th Dec 2018, 12:14

The point I try to make, unsuccessfully it seems, is that the root causes from the 80s still persist. Yes, the decision to waste money and make savings at the expense of safety was made by AMSO (RAF), at a time before he had control over practical airworthiness money or the civilian staff who were MoD's corporate knowledge and expertise. Things got far worse when that changed in 1991.

MoD, not just the RAF, has never recovered. Yes, senior RAF officers in AMSO railed against those who complained, threatening dismissal (Dec 1992). But just as many, if not more, senior staff in MoD(PE), then DPA, DLO and now DE&S followed suit. Few actually knew the subject; something that is evident on pprune - which is not a criticism, because very few servicemen are expected to ever work in this area. That was ok until the aforementioned CDP ruled neither should civilians. (July 1996). He wasn't RAF - he was a submariner, which tends to be an RN job. The civilians I mentioned supported him. Not because they agreed, but because he was their boss. Common enough, but they went too far when declaring airworthiness optional, and false declarations could be made. Those who have the papers relating to this glider case should study them with that thought in mind. Have false declarations been made? Oh yes, by both the RAF and DE&S. Perhaps inadvertently, but that would again highlight they are in the wrong job. As Engines said some time ago, they are signing something way below their paygrade, that they know SFA about.

I fully understand the ACO experts here focusing on gliders. What has happened is appalling. I merely ask you to analyse the root causes. You will find they were reported to ACAS and the RAF Chief Engineer in 1992-98 by RAF Directors of Flight Safety. (Why did CAS ignore his personal appointee?) To PUS in 1996 by the Director of Internal Audit. And to around two dozen senior civilian staff in MoD(PE), and a raft of Ministers. Not one lifted a finger.

Always remember, gliders were the easy target, to deflect from the real problem. Also remember, the same part of DE&S could not find a valid safety case in 2012, after the XX177 accident. That, as Chug says, it didn't know the basic regulations and issued a rogue technical instruction. That, maintainers were instructed not to implement mandated servicing instructions on a safety critical escape system. Killing Flt Lt Cunningham. To the best of my knowledge, it wasn't an RAF signature on that bit of paper. (It's redacted). But the MAA, DE&S, RAF and RN attended the meeting that made the decision. These are, or were, the people in charge of gliders. Yer man JM doesn't feature.

ancientaviator62

10th Dec 2018, 13:04

When I did my law degree I learned that obeying an illegal order was an offence in itself. The Nuremburg trials surely placed this beyond dispute. So my query is, when did the law change ?

Thud105

10th Dec 2018, 14:57

That's an excellent question. An illegal order can and should always be disobeyed or ignored, on the simple grounds that it is an illegal order.

Chugalug2

10th Dec 2018, 16:49

Illegal orders are not to be obeyed, end of! That was what I was taught at Sleaford Tech early 60's in Air Force Law lectures. I doubt very much if that has changed since, despite the subsequent change to Military Law. Catch-22 is of course that not only are they not to be obeyed but they must also be reported! Hence the extraordinary official MOD position as stated by tucumseh above (#4655), whereby refusing to make false record is an offence whereas ordering it to be done is not!

That is front and centre of this scandal and why Regulation and Investigation has to be removed from MOD interference and made independent of it and each other.

tucumseh

10th Dec 2018, 19:51

ancient & thud

There have been many such rulings, but in my own experience the first was by Director General Support Management (an AVM) in December 1992. He threatened those who refused to make false record with dismissal. An Internal Audit report was sent to PUS (Sir Richard Mottram) on 26 June 1996 supporting those who had 'offended', but he didn't act.

The RN likewise on 2 October 1999; but it only regarded it as insubordination, issuing formal written warnings. (Not all the RN - a Senior Captain and Commodore). That was an interesting case, as a Rear Admiral in OR stepped in and supported civilian 'offenders' against the Capt and Cdre. Written became verbal, but the offence itself was confirmed. Who can shoot down a Rear Admiral?..........

The Chief of Defence Procurement placed it in writing on 19 November and 13 December 2001. On 18 September 2002, after unsuccessful appeals, our Trades Union wrote to members advising them of the ruling. (I can't say how widely this was circulated, but I have my copy).

On 23 April 2003, the head of Personnel advised the Asst Under-Secy of State to uphold the rulings, which he did to an MP.

More recently, on 28 October 2014 the Cabinet Secy, the late Sir Jeremy Heywood, formally declined a request that he rescind the ruling. His reply was copied to a Minister through whom the request had been made.

You'll perhaps appreciate I have copies of all this correspondence, courtesy of DE&S Secretariat who were quite happy to provide it under FoI. To read about the inevitable outcome, go to the old Nimrod, C-130, Chinook, Tornado, Sea King threads. Well over 60 deaths.

I should add that on 6 February 2010 Sir Gerald Howarth, former Defence Minister, agreed with you both. It was illegal, and he would have expected his staff to disobey. I was there, in his house, with another ppruner - a retired Sqn Ldr.

chevvron

11th Dec 2018, 02:12

Got a lot of time for Sir Gerald; every time he vistied Farnborough Radar and I was on duty, he would come over, address me by name and have a chat.
When I told him about the fiasco of the PAR 2000 (being restricted to VMC only use for a long time) he was very interested.

tucumseh

11th Dec 2018, 04:52

Chevvron

Agreed. He'd asked for a brief about Nimrod MR4 and been told BAeS were to blame. Unlike many, he sought other opinions and was shocked at the links between it and other cases of waste, such as Chinook Mk3; and airworthiness-related deaths, like Nimrod XV230. He found it a real eye-opener that the same few names were all over them. He was particularly upset that prior written warning had been given in 2005 to a Defence Minister (Ingram) which was a brief summary of what Haddon-Cave said 4 years later; and Ingram had been briefed by MoD to reject that evidence. Like Lord Philip and Haddon-Cave, he was not amused that a couple of his ex-MoD plebs could produce written evidence that MoD denied the existence of, both to Ministers and in court. And the letter from Ingram. He'd clearly done his homework and, we thought, spoken to Haddon-Cave; because we didn't seek him out, he invited us.

I hope those fuming at the ACO fiasco don't think the last few posts are thread drift. Work back a few years and this is directly related. But it does illustrate just how difficult it is to achieve change in the face of closed ranks. But it helps to identify those ranks. There is no point at all in going after a single Gp Capt, unless you think he might speak out and reveal all. He won't, because he patently doesn't understand how the fiasco could have been avoided. Why would he? He wasn't trained. Those really responsible can't believe their luck that (another) pleb is being blamed. You have to appreciate that his mistakes were simply repeats of what led to all the other cases we discuss. You have to ask what it is about MoD that permits these to happen time and again. Gliding was 'paused' on airworthiness grounds. What is MoD's stated position, under oath, about airworthiness regulations? 'Irrelevant'. Coroner Walker disagreed, and we had the Nimrod Review; but MoD succeeded in compartmentalising it again, just like gliders. One of these days someone in MoD might read the evidence and think about doing something. It's required reading, and offers a focus. Perhaps then the MoD/MAA will stop claiming 'credit' for it. That's what you're up against, the MAA Technical Director claiming credit for the contents of a document sent to a Minister in 2005, and a 3 Star in 2000, and.... Summary of said document? 'Do what the regulations already tell you to do'. MoD refused, and stills does. That's why the ACO has been decimated. Best of luck.

POBJOY

11th Dec 2018, 17:37

CHEV Your last post is an excellent summary of the 'position', and we should remember that this thread has been consistent in seeking to bring this out in the open (albeit with the ATC element).
That so many well qualified opinions (facts) have been exposed there is no chance that unchallenged 'carpet sweeping' will be a common feature in the future.
The AIR CADET organisation will never be as we knew it (for many reasons) but at least we sowed the seeds to ensure a true hands on aviation experience can still be a desirable alternative to plastic bath tubs and screens.
If the Vigilants are saved it will because of this thread, and the thousands of valid comments that are now in the public arena.
That they 'may' well rise again under a different guise is welcome, but if they encourage youth to aspire to decision making, and self development then the country will be better off for it.
Best Wishes to all Pobjoy Pete

treadigraph

13th Dec 2018, 09:41

Up on Kenley Aerodrome early this morning and as the Surrey Hills GC weren't yet flying, took the opportunity to walk down the main runway, something I'd never done before. I'd noticed some building activity at the NE end of the runway earlier in the week - it turns out they are building the fence along the peri track about three or four metres in from the "public" edge. It looks as though it extends as far as the 615 hangar so far. I presume the gates may allow public access airside when flying isn't taking place. There is a large gate at the end of the runway corresponding with the crash gate into the field beyond.

So, can this possibly mean 615 will be ready to fly again by Easter?

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/20181213_090608_resized_f243ed974f1c9f792fe0731bd62aa1463ebb 3418.jpg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/20181213_090707_resized_b1d034f111a8927f0bb69682a0d299afa0fd 5c35.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/20181213_090459_resized_8104ad6f69ded91759cbfd53377604007570 b4cf.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/20181213_090426_resized_f3b38f97d850fd4f23bdc5fc09fc45596c5f 5525.jpg

aw ditor

13th Dec 2018, 11:06

Still good access to the Wattenden then?

POBJOY

13th Dec 2018, 12:14

Another legacy of JM. By having a fence on the actual peri track as opposed to the land around it, it has reduced the available area for emergency landings (cable breaks) and imposed a substantial hazard to any machine running into it.
A crass and stupid decision that typifies the crass and stupid way the ATC have been 'LED'.
To think this peri track was in use during the Battle of Britain and later whole wings would be weaving their way around it makes me weep.

treadigraph

17th Dec 2018, 09:18

Still good access to the Wattenden aw ditor, in fact I nipped in there a couple of weeks ago after getting caught in a heavy shower as I walked up the peri track.

Was up there again yesterday, took the opportunity to walk down the shorter runway (and the old road!). The fence starts hard by the 615 hangar and is now progressing down the western edge of the airfield. I regained the public side of the fence via a latch gate. Agree with Pobjoy, it does represent a potential and unnecessary hazard; I would have thought replacing the "temporary" crowd barriers around the runway ends would have been sufficient.

Frelon

17th Dec 2018, 11:33

The fence should have been on the outside of the peri track on common land. On an already small airfield this introduces an additional flight safety hazard. It was put there to appease the minority nimbys who have moved to the area in recent years who think they have right to walk all over the airfield because they see it as part of Kenley Common. The fence will not stop their dogs from leaving deposits all over the airfield on non flying days. These deposits rarely get picked up by the owners of the dogs, despite doggy bags and bins being available. These deposits are picked up by the launching cable parachutes and on the knees of glider pilots when attaching cables to the gliders😱
It seems that some cyclists even want the (historic) bullet holes in the peri track removed and replaced with nice smooth tarmac so they can ride their bikes even faster round the peri track! The signs look good, let's see what the nimbys think about them!
Let us see Air Cadet gliders over RAF Kenley again! Looks like the "pause" will turn out to be five years for 615!

chevvron

17th Dec 2018, 16:21

The fence should have been on the outside of the peri track on common land. On an already small airfield this introduces an additional flight safety hazard. It was put there to appease the minority nimbys who have moved to the area in recent years who think they have right to walk all over the airfield because they see it as part of Kenley Common. The fence will not stop their dogs from leaving deposits all over the airfield on non flying days. These deposits rarely get picked up by the owners of the dogs, despite doggy bags and bins being available. These deposits are picked up by the launching cable parachutes and on the knees of glider pilots when attaching cables to the gliders��
It seems that some cyclists even want the (historic) bullet holes in the peri track removed and replaced with nice smooth tarmac so they can ride their bikes even faster round the peri track! The signs look good, let's see what the nimbys think about them!
Let us see Air Cadet gliders over RAF Kenley again! Looks like the "pause" will turn out to be five years for 615!

You're lucky; the Army tend to build a fence inside the peri track whenever they move onto an airfield eg Abingdon.

Caconym

17th Dec 2018, 18:07

Looking at the RAF Kenley facebook page, perhaps even inside would have been better than the zig-zagging idiocy which disadvantages 'both sides of the fence' and introduces several hundred points of failure into an ageing hardstanding.

treadigraph

19th Dec 2018, 08:14

I didn't know about the bullet holes Frelon! I mostly walk along the western side of the airfield between Waterhouse Lane and Hillcrest Road but in the last couple of weeks have used several other entrances to the site and discovered the rifle range wall in the trees on the southern edge. Sadly graffitied...

I had to laugh at a comment on one of the Kenley sites that cyclists are doing 30-40mph around the peri-track - I seriously doubt it!

POBJOY

19th Dec 2018, 08:31

This historic and noble airfield has been done for by the nerds at Croydon Council suitably assisted by super nerd JM and 2 FTS who were the planning applicants for the fence.
Anyone with a modicum of gliding experience knows that substantial fences (and signs) on the actual airfield are a hazard and in the case of Kenley have reduced the operational area.
It would not surprise me if someone now decides that the site is too restricted for Cadet training and therefore that would be another excuse to prevent 615 from returning.

DaveUnwin

29th Dec 2018, 17:12

Nice to see this scandal has finally made the mainstream media. Private Eye has picked it up off the back of Philip Whiteman's Editorial in the current issue of Pilot magazine.

A and C

30th Dec 2018, 08:03

Dave, please can you cut and paste the PE article.

DaveUnwin

30th Dec 2018, 15:45

Hi A&C, I will once that issue has gone 'off sale'. As someone who works in print media I know how frustrating it is when people just 'give stuff away' on the internet while its still on sale on the High St!

Philip Whiteman

31st Dec 2018, 10:13

And may I invite you to email any comment/correction to my editorial reproduced earlier in this thread for publication in the magazine: I want to present an accurate and balanced picture in 'Pilot'!

Lima Juliet

31st Dec 2018, 20:21

Dave, please can you cut and paste the PE article.

Here is what is says on their website

CADETS GROUNDED
The Air Cadets’ long-grounded motorglider fleet faces a sell-off, after maintenance contractor Serco and the RAF failed to keep them airworthy.

Private Eye In The Back (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/in-the-back)

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/450x636/privateeye_09276895b5c76d440be8a8a5bceecacd1a37e8b0.jpg

Thud105

1st Jan 2019, 16:13

Has it really taken almost five years for the RAF to get a handful of motorgliders serviceable? How many gliders did they manage to return to service?

Cows getting bigger

1st Jan 2019, 17:13

Thud105, there's a really big difference between "serviceable" and "airworthy".

Thud105

1st Jan 2019, 17:27

Are they either or neither Cows?

chevvron

1st Jan 2019, 17:52

Has it really taken almost five years for the RAF to get a handful of motorgliders serviceable?
It's what you get when you employ a civilian maintenance organisation which is not unknown for its 'cost cutting' procedures (and presumably chosen on the basis of the lowest of 3 bids) to maintain a simple aircraft to military standards including keeping records of all work carried out on each and every aircraft.

POBJOY

1st Jan 2019, 18:34

Tingger

2nd Jan 2019, 08:42

There are plenty of machines that have been released by SS (to Syerston) that were capable of being put back in to operation if there was an organisation left that had enough staff to operate.
JM's legacy was that he killed off the organisation, and that was always going to be the difficult part to replace.
In reality they are faced with starting from scratch, and with a w-end operation the expertise (as was) will take years to replace.
Of course with so little actual 'solo' requirement the pressure has eased, but just the simple tasks of setting up for a days flying has also gone, so who is actually gong to 'train' the staff (assuming) they are available when required up to a level of capability that we used to take for the norm.
JM's vision of an 'all uniformed' organisation was always flawed, and there is not even an 'experienced' staff cadet force in being to provide the required level of help anymore.

That's not strictly true it being the AOCs directive to transition to uniformed staff and while it's been a paperwork exercise to get going once established is it really that onerous a task to go through. Most of the operating VGS have staff numbers in the 30+ and 5-10 staff cadets some of whom are already grade 1 pilots.

while 2FTS maybe could have done extra to keep staff interested part of that burden does rest with the squadron OCs those that did motivate their staff with little extras have strong teams in place, those that didn't will struggle.

POBJOY

2nd Jan 2019, 10:04

I am sorry but as effectively the OC of ATC gliding JM would have had a major input into any changes to the VGS set up, and OC Air Cadets would have had little first hand knowledge of how the operation used to run or how reliant it was on the civilian element.
As alluded to before many times its all down to capable leadership, and that is something the HQ element of the Cadets has suffered from, which was not assisted by equally poor 'people management' from 2FTS.
Remember; the conventional VGS units were fully equipped and staffed; yes they lost the aircraft, but it would not have been rocket science to get a limited no of machines back in the air even if a unit only had one to keep going.
The truth is if the heads of organisations are not capable for the post, then what should have been a tech set back became a complete disaster.
Of course all the facebook / twatter/ celeb endorsements rubbish poured out in profusion, but it did not hide the fact that the ship had no rudder or even someone who knew how to use one.
Even the comments on the official ATC forums are damming so no one is in any doubt where the problem lay.

Tingger

2nd Jan 2019, 10:21

Not HQ air cadets, the AOC 22 group.

they're not attested so still civilians just with a badge and a hat.

there is 0 ways in which an SNCO and a CGI operate once the NCO has done a weeks learning about safeguarding and walking up and down a square

Sky Sports

2nd Jan 2019, 12:54

Most of the operating VGS have staff numbers in the 30+ and 5-10 staff cadets

All that staff and yet, when I went to 644 VGS last year, they only flew 4 cadets on the first occasion and 6 on the second!

Another grumble. Cadets, especially those who fly at AEF's, are desperate to use the Part Task Trainers, (simulators) so that they can qualify for 'wings'. 25 cadets in my sqn have done the qualifying airborne sorties, but only 4 have gone through the groundschool/simulator element. Unfortunately, the only places that have the simulators are the VGS and they only allow the handful of cadets on a gliding day to use them. On my two visits to 644 the simulators stood unused for 75% of the day and half the staff stood round with nothing to do. A real shame both couldn't be employed to get the masses of cadets through their groundschool. Different budgets apparently!

Tingger

2nd Jan 2019, 13:20

That assumes they didn't fly SGS cadets on the same day or staff cadets as well.

Were those stood around PTT qualified staff able to teach these hundreds of cadets?

They can also access PTT at the AGS sites not just the VGS.

ATFQ

2nd Jan 2019, 13:23

All that staff and yet, when I went to 644 VGS last year, they only flew 4 cadets on the first occasion and 6 on the second!

Another grumble. Cadets, especially those who fly at AEF's, are desperate to use the Part Task Trainers, (simulators) so that they can qualify for 'wings'. 25 cadets in my sqn have done the qualifying airborne sorties, but only 4 have gone through the groundschool/simulator element. Unfortunately, the only places that have the simulators are the VGS and they only allow the handful of cadets on a gliding day to use them. On my two visits to 644 the simulators stood unused for 75% of the day and half the staff stood round with nothing to do. A real shame both couldn't be employed to get the masses of cadets through their groundschool. Different budgets apparently!

Sky Sports,

The number of gliders available was the limiting factor on output LAST YEAR. As for utilisation of the Part Task Trainers, perhaps they should be located away from VGSs, placed centrally in catchment areas in an ATC HQ with space. They could then be made available for use on any day (or evening) of the week. A major part of the cadet experience of going gliding is the practical teamwork involved in launching gliders; this requires cadets to be out on the airfield - not stuck inside with the 'simulator'. And, as in the past, as aircraft availability does improve then these visiting cadets will become critical to daily flying output through their roles in attaching cables, acting as wing-tip orderlies and holding canopies (in blustery winds). Even a 'brand new' cadet does not take very long to train, and each who is trained then frees up a VGS member of staff to go flying - with cadets - or to carry out other support tasks that cannot be carried out by a visiting cadet. The number of gliders that can be operated simultaneously therefore increases. It is as simple as that.

POBJOY

2nd Jan 2019, 21:52

Freda Checks

3rd Jan 2019, 10:30

The 'recovered' airframes are out there, but it seems the system don't have them !!

........and 26 sparkly new Skylaunch winches sitting somewhere gathering dust!

ACW342

3rd Jan 2019, 11:12

That the PTT is even considered as a serious part of 'Gliding' says it all.
The whole experience of a Viking operation was its USP in giving Cadets the opportunity to be part of the 'hands on' operation.
To suggest that staff have to be qualified to even sit in the bath tub (not moving) looking at a screen is so removed from what the Cadets used to do it beggars belief.

This is what happens when you dumb down a organisation from a full blown training service to a mere 'badge box tick'. The rot seems to have taken hold when they reduced the 3 solo qualification, and I am surprised the OCs of the Schools did not fight that battle at the time. Not only is nobody on the helm the b....y rudder has fallen off.
The 'recovered' airframes are out there, but it seems the system don't have them !! Surprise Surprise. Private Eye could make a better job of running the organisation.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. Several someones, somewhere within the RAF/ACO and its contractors have committed criminal acts, including fraud of several types, have put the lives of teenage children and adult staff at risk and have criminally shredded many documents. They should be held to account in a court of law.

Why there hasn't been a criminal investigation, not least by the SIB, and more correctly by the various constabularies where these acts have taken place I don't understand. It's time that SoS for defence took up the case. Whoever on here has him as their constituency MP should request that he extracts digit and gets on with it.Ditto anyone with the Home Secretary as their MP in reference to the various local constabularies:ugh:

A342

tucumseh

3rd Jan 2019, 11:44

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. Several someones, somewhere within the RAF/ACO and its contractors have committed criminal acts, including fraud of several types, have put the lives of teenage children and adult staff at risk and have criminally shredded many documents. They should be held to account in a court of law.

Why there hasn't been a criminal investigation, not least by the SIB, and more correctly by the various constabularies where these acts have taken place I don't understand. It's time that SoS for defence took up the case. Whoever on here has him as their constituency MP should request that he extracts digit and gets on with it.Ditto anyone with the Home Secretary as their MP in reference to the various local constabularies

Precisely.

And while the inquiry is at it, encompass those where the same offences have been committed. Chinook ZD576, Hercules XV179, Hawk XX177, Nimrod XV230 and many others.
Oh, and the names are known and have been published - and they go far higher than some Gp Capt. MoD denied the names were known. Those who could read MoD's phone directory knew.

Secys of State have been informed. The only one who spoke up was Malcolm Rifkind, on Chinook and many years after leaving office. Every member of the Defence Committee has been informed; most recently Johnny Mercer, who was the only one decent enough to reply. Many other MPs, notably Angus Robertson and Sir Roger Gale, have made a nuisance of themselves asking awkward questions. All were lied to. The judiciary knows this and is content. As are the police. Coroners know, and for the most part have been robust (the main exception being the Sea King ASaC mid-air, where he stopped families challenging MoD lies). The mainstream media is MoD's dog. MoD denies the existence of written, photographic, aural and video evidence. The public provides it, but these entities accept the denials.

The honourable exception was Haddon-Cave (for all his faults). The problem is, very few (including many posting here) recognise that his Review discussed the same failings that apply to gliders. Substitute 'Nimrod' with 'gliders' or 'Hawk' and his report remains perfectly valid.

Whoever provided Private Eye with the information has done a good thing.

Chugalug2

3rd Jan 2019, 12:20

ACW342 :-

Why there hasn't been a criminal investigation, not least by the SIB, and more correctly by the various constabularies where these acts have taken place I don't understand.

It's not for lack of trying! As tuc says; Civil Police, Service Police, SoS's, MPs, Senior Civil Servants, HoC's and Lords Committees, HSE, QC's, HM Coroners, have all had verifiable evidence presented to them. Some have acknowledged, many have not, some have tried to help, most have been in total denial and obstructive. The net result is that not one VSO has been called to account despite up to 100 related deaths. In short the Establishment has circled its wagons and maintains the cover up. As long as the MAA and the MilAAIB (or whatever the sign outside says this week) are so compromised and UK Military Airworthiness thus remains dysfunctional, airworthiness related accidents will continue with an ever rising toll in blood and treasure.

UK Military Air Regulation and Air Accident Investigation must be made independent of the MOD and of each other before real reform can even begin!

squawking 7700

3rd Jan 2019, 12:53

tucumseh

3rd Jan 2019, 14:30

squawking

If I may, that is an age-old question which MoD policy says is satisfied if line management chains are independent. In this case, MoD claims the MAA and DG Safety are independent of the RAF hierarchy - in practice, CAS, given DGS is a 3 Star. I don't agree, but accept one could discuss semantics for ever. The most obvious conflict of interest in recent years is the MAA being directly involved in the root cause of Flt Lt Cunningham's death (Hawk XX177), yet being allowed to provide the Prosecution's 'star witness' against Martin-Baker. For whatever reason, he did not mention under oath that his superiors could have prevented the death by adhering to the regulations they issued, but falsely certified had been met.

In the past, this independence was satisfied by having the people who made this decision form quite separate, core departments in MoD. (For example, on avionics it was called ALS/PD). But as part of the 'savings at the expense of safety' policy (see Nimrod Review) these core departments, and the independent oversight committees, were shut down and the task given to the same people who were defying the regulations. That is, they self-certified false declarations. The chairs of these committees were some of MoD's most experienced engineers, and had the power of God. Because of this, they were (uniquely) named in contracts; as opposed to post titles. If there was a screw up, you knew exactly who to go to. Today, the MAA boast that it can narrow responsibility down to four individuals. (Recent evidence to Defence Committee). Which is better than the previous system, where most were anonymous. But not nearly as good as that I describe. Why did they Services demand change? Goes back to what Pobjoy said earlier. Militarisation of as many posts as possible, and grabbing control. Fine, if you do it properly. But do RAF career patterns permit 10-12 years continuous training at 6 separate ranks and posts, before even being considered for the 7th post, which is to be a 20-year vocation? No, and I wouldn't expect many servicemen to want such a job. It's not why you join. That's why you shouldn't have a Gp Capt chairing a meeting and making (wrong) decisions that a civilian apprentice is trained to do (correctly) in his sleep. Horses for courses.

The mandated procedures governing that system were set out in one Defence Standard, with 20 accompanying Specifications. Implementing that one Standard would, in all probability, have prevented this glider fiasco, and most of the fatal accidents we discuss here. Conversely, I reckon 95% of all Service Inquiry recommendations amount to 'implement this mandated standard'. Repeatedly. For example, and demonstrably, Flt Lt Cunningham's accident. And the reason I keep mentioning this case is because Hawk and gliders shared the same Type Airworthiness Authority. Hawk didn't have a valid Safety Case when Sean Cunningham died in 2011, which is a pretty good clue where to look for other problems caused by the same failures, by the same people. First stop, gliders. Another section in the same team. Only they didn't bother.

Regarding cost, I could tell you how much this system cost per year on avionics to the nearest £M, but only guess at how much more it costs nowadays not to do it. 20, 30 times more. Pick a figure. More if you include the resultant lost lives and assets.

Hope that helps.

Chugalug2

3rd Jan 2019, 17:42

Thank you tucumseh for a far more detailed explanation than I could ever rise to. :ok:

squarking 7700, I would only add to tuc's excellent post that the people who broke UK Military Air Safety saw such expenditure as a waste of money anyway. Having just wasted a huge amount of public money themselves they killed two birds with one stone, covering their own incompetence while ridding the MOD of people like tuc who strove to enhance UK Military Air Power by enforcing the Air Safety Regulations. They did such a good job that the Regulations and those who understood them disappeared together, almost without trace. That is still the case and the attempts of the MAA to reinvent the wheel while upholding the Haddon-Cave fantasy of a Golden Period of Military Airworthiness both perpetuates the cover up and wastes yet more precious time and money.

You want to know the cost of not having an independent Regulator and Investigator? Just look at the present day state of airworthiness as its utter dysfunction is revealed in thread after thread on this forum. Just look at the way the cover up seeks new scapegoats, be they JOs, SOs, or private companies, to deflect attention from the corruption at the top. Just look at the way it goes on subverting the great institutions of the land as its canker spreads ever further outwards. All to protect those who perpetrated this sabotage and those who continue to cover it up.

Of course there is no simple panacea, but if Military Air Safety Regulation and Accident Investigation can be removed from the maw of the malevolent and baleful influence that is the MOD, then good and dedicated people can start out on the long road of recovery and make airworthy again that which is now not.

squawking 7700

3rd Jan 2019, 20:07

I didn't ask how much it would cost, I asked who would pay for such 'independence' - if it's government funded then the government and all its facets pulls the strings, look at the XX177 whitewash, neither the HSE or the police have been interested in really pointing the finger and M-B just rolled over.
The HSE are supposed to be independent, the police are supposed to be independent but they're both bankrolled ultimately by the government and where it's not in their interests to have the finger pointed at the MoD then 'independence' goes out the window where perhaps certain persons' reputation (and pension) are at stake, whether they be minister, VSO or in the commercial or security interest of certain companies.
Independence of the MoD is no guarantee of influence from afar - you will never have a completely independent regulator/investigator.

Unfortunately it'll never change or if it did it would be the result of a public outcry and that's not going to happen unless there's a catastrophic incident involving multiple members of the public - all of the accidents so far, sad and avoidable as they were, have not involved the public at large in that sense.

tucumseh

4th Jan 2019, 05:39

Squawking

Totally agree. And you actually make a very good point asking who pays for it. Most would say 'MoD, obviously'. But in the XX177 case, the HSE's stated position was that if MoD decides not to implement advice provided by Martin-Baker, and instructs its maintainers not to implement the content of air publications and their training (I've just summarised up the facts, and M-B's defence had they chosen not to roll over), then it is for M-B to step in. Free of charge. Without contract.

Chugalug2

4th Jan 2019, 07:10

Squawking, I can only state the blindingly obvious. The RAF is riddled with unairworthiness. An unairworthy air force isn't a national asset but a national liability. Of the many airworthiness related fatal accident threads in this forum, only one can be ascribed to enemy action (the Iraq Hercules) but all can be ascribed to the dysfunctional state of UK Air Safety resulting from RAF VSO incompetence, malevolence, hubris, and ignorance. It is thus a vital national security issue and has to be put right. Who pays for it? Why, the PBTP! Who else? This is going to be a very demanding challenge and requires leadership of the highest calibre to regain the professionalism and dedication that my generation were the beneficiaries of, though blissfully unaware of at the time.

To be honest, money will be the least of the challenges. Government will have to re-arrange the goal posts and no doubt find new money as well. If the new MAA and MAAIB are to be truly independent then I cannot see them being funded out of the Defence Budget for therein lies dependence. I've always preferred a sistering with the CAA and AAIB respectively, in order to cross fertilise the professional experience therein. In that scenario they would be part of the DoT, with an Aviation Authority being split into Civil and Military Depts, likewise with Air Accident Investigation, all with civilian DGs. From the very start both will have to assert themselves over a truculent operator, ie the MOD. Sean Cunningham died because his seat was unairworthy, a direct reflection of the UK Military Air Regulator, aka the MAA, aka the MOD. In future such maladministration must have legal consequences. We need a Regulator and Investigator with teeth, instead of the present toothless dependents.

You are right to remind us that those institutions that would be normally expected to deal with such illegality have reneged on their responsibilities and duty, with the honourable exception of the 700 year old HM Coroners Service. The implications are indeed worrying, but if something along the lines of what I propose above is instituted then they will be dealing with official legal bodies rather than concerned citizens as now. That will hopefully encourage them to do their job rather than deciding not to.

Lordflasheart

4th Jan 2019, 10:13

...........

" ... with the honourable exception of the 700 year old HM Coroners Service."

Are you sure about that Chug ? It's not the general impression I'm getting, from my rather PPrejudiced position.

LFH

...........

Lima Juliet

4th Jan 2019, 11:04

But Chuggy, who would pay for an independent UK Military Air Regulation and Mil AAIB and for them to be independent of each other?............they'd be government funded, which means exactly the same strings are pulled re. Civil Police, Service Police, SoS's, MPs, Senior Civil Servants, HoC's and Lords Committees, HSE, QC's, HM Coroners when backsides need to be covered..........nothing is ever completely 'independent'.

Squawking 7700, I’ve had the same discussion with Chug and Tuc about this - nothing is completely ‘independent’ and the UKAAIB work for DfT as does the CAA, and the SoS for Transport within DfT holds safety responsibility for UK registered aircraft. So guess what, they aren’t ‘independent’ either! Also, if we took it outside of MOD or DfT then this independent body would still be Government funded and so still not truly ‘independent’.

The best defence we have is ‘whistleblowing’ and the likes of the following book (written by someone very close to this thread):
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Their-Greatest-Disgrace-campaign-Chinook/dp/1526204460

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/333x499/41xnrrg5wul_sx331_bo1_204_203_200__eb8ec99b68d31d3ce91943ecb e7594043b894613.jpg

That holds people to account when all else fails in my humble opinion as it tends to embarrass politicians - and they don’t like that!

Sky Sports

4th Jan 2019, 11:08

Taken from the 'Air Cadet Central' forum. 645 Sqn at RAF Topcliffe converting onto the new stealth gliders!

https://forum.aircadetcentral.net/uploads/default/optimized/2X/d/d88b76c16d703f4dfee10a8c11c9a0ac6be6decc_1_666x500.jpeg (https://forum.aircadetcentral.net/uploads/default/original/2X/d/d88b76c16d703f4dfee10a8c11c9a0ac6be6decc.jpeg)

tucumseh

4th Jan 2019, 11:13

Chug and Lordflasheart

If I could butt in and say I think you are both correct. Messrs Masters and Walker (Wilts & Oxon) showed their mettle. Both were apoplectic at being lied to by MoD, and were happy to take evidence (MoD documents, downloaded from the internet) from the public that MoD denied the existence of. In the case of L/Cpl Matty Hull, Mr Walker said **** you to the US Government and revealed to the family that they had been lied to by MoD - that there was indeed a cockpit video of the attack.

On the other hand, the Coroner who presided over the Sea King ASaC Inquest in 2007 should only be given one choice. He condoned outright lies and told the father of one pilot to sit down and shut up when he tried to offer the truth. It is easier to say which of the Coroner's Rules he complied with. The families were then quoted over £3k + VAT each for a copy of the transcript. Bluff called and his behaviour is there on tape for all to hear. So much so, he actually drowns out witnesses giving evidence, as he isn't interested and is chatting to others in the court.

In the Flt Lt Cunningham case, the Lincolnshire Coroner didn't perform particularly well at the Inquest itself in 2014. Or perhaps it is fairer to say his Officers and Investigators didn't, because unlike Oxon and Wilts they refused to take evidence from the public that MoD, again, denied having. However, on 6 February last year, before sentencing of Martin-Baker, he forwarded MoD papers to the Judge (again, provided by the public) which wholly refuted the HSE allegation and proved both it and MoD had misled the court. The Judge didn't read them, simply accepting the HSE's word they were irrelevant. My view is that both she and the HSE should have heard alarm bells at the public providing key information that both MoD and Philip Dunne MP (Def Min) had denied the existence of. So, having been misled in 2014, when advised of the truth Mr Fisher did the right thing.

When MoD denies all knowledge of (e.g.) Explosion Suppressant Foam, and a family QC stands up and hands the Coroner two MoD ESF specifications, a competent Coroner is only going to believe one of them. In such circumstances there is no room for interpretation. Unless MoD claims the evidence is somehow forged. In the Chinook ZD576 case it continued to deny the content of a report by the Director of Flight Safety, even briefing Liam Fox (Secy of State) to issue a denial to the House. That was after the author had given evidence to Lord Philip that he had written the report. At least Fox had the decency to retract; although in a letter to another Minister, not to the House. But MoD carried on denying. That's the level of deranged stupidity we're dealing with here. All this has been published and MoD hasn't thought to offer a challenge.

PS I understand the proceeds of that book above go to Medecins sans Frontieres. Help for Heroes benefits from Vol.2. I think the forthcoming Vol.3 will be St Richard's Hospice in Worcester. Nice one Lima.

squawking 7700

4th Jan 2019, 11:48

LJ,
That was my point, regardless of whether it's the AAIB or a Mil AAIB manned by civi's/mil personnel or any other watchdog organisation, the purseholder (government) ultimately pulls the strings (and I don't mean financially) when it's deemed to be necessary e.g. when a significant stakeholder (could be the MoD.......) thinks it's not in their or certain people's interests to be exposed.

I'd agree that public whistleblowing disclosure is perhaps the only way to effect change, the MoD will not, as it's not in their interests, allow independent (as much as there would ever be true independence) investigation - could you ever see the government taking that away from the MoD?
And let's face it, there's been quite a lot of whisleblowing but has it changed the MoD's approach either to airworthiness or investigation of the after effects.?

As I said, it would take something on the scale of a large transport/surveillance/tanker aircraft to impact a city with tens or hundreds of lives lost where the root cause was a lack of airworthiness, before there's a fundamental change in investigation and by whom. One or two lives lost here and there, sad as the causes were, where only service personnel are involved will not effect that change toward independant investigation.

lightbluefootprint

4th Jan 2019, 12:07

LJ

Members of the VGS community have been specifically told not to post on pprune. As such a right of reply is difficult to your defamatory remarks.

However, I will report your comments via the appropriate channels.

BBK

Edited to add: the order regarding pprune is specifically regarding the current grounding not a general prohibition which is just as well as the Air Cadet organisation does a fantastic job IMHO.

A bit late to the party, but just spotted this gagging reference.
JM hated social media. There was an equivalent site used by ACO staff and cadets known as Air Cadet Central. Several members of that forum were hounded out of the organisation by JM who even involved the CivPol when a CFAV posted something about him. Ironically I only discovered the forum when it was mentioned in Wing Routine Orders.

Lordflasheart

4th Jan 2019, 15:21

.........

Squawk77 - " ... it would take something on the scale of a large transport/surveillance/tanker aircraft to impact a city with tens or hundreds ... "

The A400M crash at Seville in May 2015 wasn't far off that scenario. https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/561162-reports-a400-crash-saville-spain-17.html

As I understand it, any accident report, whether military or civil, will not be made publicly available. No-one seems to know who has jurisdiction. I am not even sure if any final formal report has been completed. I suppose there has been (or will be) some kind of coroners inquest.

LFH
...........

tucumseh

4th Jan 2019, 15:45

JM hated social media.

Then he would have also hated a certain retired 3 Star who used to act as MoD's mouthpiece on the Mull of Kintyre thread! Oddly enough, the same 3 Star under whose command the 'savings at the expense of safety' policy was developed, which as JM surely knows by now lies at the root of these problems.

Chugalug2

4th Jan 2019, 20:23

S7700, the reformed MAA and MilAAIB will be no sinecures, those who man them will be fighting two deadly opponents, aviation accidents and the MOD, and from day one. It won't be easy, but they will be carrying out their appointed duty in doing so. When they find operator shortcomings they must ensure that corrective action is taken promptly in order to avoid avoidable accidents. To do that they must have powers to enforce such action. That is where it gets really difficult. These are unchartered waters I admit, and nothing less than a complete revelation of all the evidence of illegal orders and actions, of subverting and suborning the mandated regulations, and so wilfully ignored by all the institutions charged with enforcing the law and punishing transgressors, will suffice. Aviation does not tolerate fudge, is indifferent to solemn and biding undertakings, it only respects 24hr continuous professional input to tame its suicidal tendencies.

I take your point that you and LJ make, that as publicly funded bodies they will be subject to Government interference from time to time. As I say, this will be no sinecure, and success in carrying out their mission will depend on the character and steadfastness of their leaders. Why would they want such a thankless task? Because I am convinced there are those who truly believe in ensuring Air Safety, not for bling, not for sinecure jobs in industry, but for the professional satisfaction of spending a worthwhile lifetime saving lives. Such people exist, such people post here, all they need is the opportunity to do what they know, what they believe in.

I am no starry eyed idealist. Life is never black or white, but many shades of grey (can't quite remember just how many for the moment). The CAA and AAIB have both had days they'd prefer to forget I'm sure, and the same will be true of the MAA and MilAAIB, but at least they can try to effect what they are now utterly unable to do, that is to carry out their responsibilities without constant meddling from the MOD's little helpers. There is a mountain of dross to be cleared up, making Stygian Stable duty appear to be a doddle. A lot of compromises will be needed to avoid grounding the entire UK Military Airfleet, but at least it will be recognised, assessed, and acknowledged. None of that happens now; there were no illegal orders, no subverting of the Regs, no substituting dedicated professional engineers with young ignorant non-engineers, no junior scapegoats (some of who died in the Grossly Unairworthy Aircraft they were manning), nothing to see here, we've all got homes to go to.

I'm surprised you put your faith in whistle blowers while acknowledging that the very people they inform either take no action or alternatively when they do, it's often not against the perpetrator but against the informer. As tuc tells us, it is official MOD policy that issuing an order to suborn the Regs is not an offence, while refusing to obey it is! Only an official body can hope to tackle such corrupt attitudes, individuals will simply be crushed.

LFH, I only excepted the Coroners Service because some of its Coroners have stood up for families and justice (though others have not). That you have issues with that generalisation I fully accept. I just take heart from anyone willing to do the right thing. It is my belief that when an example is set of doing the right thing, others are encouraged to do the same. We need to have faith in such people and remind ourselves of what is right and what is wrong.

DaveUnwin

7th Jan 2019, 14:39

Freda Checks

7th Jan 2019, 15:40

Some of you may be interested in the Feb issue of Pilot magazine, which contains a full flight test of a Slingsby Type 31/Cadet TX Mk.3. Kind of ironic that WT900 is still airworthy and serviceable, while most of the Grob Vikings that superseded it aren't.

I understand that there are more ex Air Cadet T31/Cadet TX Mk3 and Slingsby Sedburgh T21s in private hands flying on a regular basis than there are "recovered" Grob Vikings. Says it all really!

DaveUnwin

7th Jan 2019, 20:35

I'm sure there are. There are also more airworthy ex-Air Cadet Slingsby T.61F Ventures than Grob 109 Vigilants. Which does indeed "say it all" Freda!

POBJOY

8th Jan 2019, 09:00

I think you will find that there are now plenty of 'recovered' (ex SS) Vikings back at Syerston or en route, so why is the 'system' not using them.
Probably because they threw the baby out with the bathwater in their haste to reorganise a system that did not need it.
The 'schools' operated despite the lack of a capable 'Head Office'; when the schools went so did the capability, and rebuilding is a huge task.

boswell bear

10th Jan 2019, 08:48

Just for the record, reengining the Vigilants with Rotax 912 and the installation of a 'glass cockpit' was being promised to the staff of the VGS's BEFORE the pause.

We all knew that was BS!

tmmorris

12th Jan 2019, 08:14

I'm sure there are. There are also more airworthy ex-Air Cadet Slingsby T.61F Ventures than Grob 109 Vigilants. Which does indeed "say it all" Freda!

Pretty sure I saw a Venture at Shobdon a couple of weeks back, too.

Capt Beaky

13th Jan 2019, 16:39

WE992

13th Jan 2019, 21:37

DU & TMM you are correct! ZA656 still going strong.https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1342/img_5266a_653033f885dfd21e23f7668ffcfad3f094dbf450.jpg

DaveUnwin

13th Jan 2019, 23:04

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1329/1_1111_crop_slingsby_t_61f_g_bufr_saltby_10_05_2017_dps_lead _2_2694885b4750c171ba9ac29fc10ea59ba2443a36.jpg

Ditto XZ560!

chevvron

14th Jan 2019, 11:36

Followed with interest the discussion on root cause as well as the effect. Unfortunately, whilst the focus on air worthiness has consumed us, gnawing away in the background, the MoD has disposed of the real estate! Even if the money was found for a new ACO VGS fleet, sadly, many “almost perfect for air cadet training” regional airfields have been sold off.

Nonetheless, there remains opportunity for conventional air cadet gliding with new aiircraft to return. Given the Political will and a relatively small amount of funding. The U.K. coukd relaunch ACO Gliding within an ICAO recognised and compliant Next Generation U.K. Aviation Professionals programme....

Halton hasn't been disposed of - yet.
In my experience, the flooding which used to occur at Halton during the winter months (causing us to 'bolthole' to Bovingdon) would preclude it from being suitable for housing, especially as a large amount of the airfield has PSP or steel mesh tracking just below the surface.
Plus there is a 'need' for another airfield in the home counties (in addition to Kenley) suitable for Air Cadet gliding if it is ever re-organised; I understand cadets from Herts and Bucks Wing have to go to Wethersfield in Essex at the moment.
Course I suppose Northolt might be a possibility, especially as there will be no powered fixed wing traffic there for much of this year:E

Tingger

14th Jan 2019, 12:47

Weathersfield closed and moved to Swaton Morley last year.

chevvron

14th Jan 2019, 15:44

Weathersfield closed and moved to Swaton Morley last year.
Gawd knows where my old wing goes for AEG now then 'cos Halton, Henlow and Abingdon are presently NEP.

ATFQ

6th Mar 2019, 09:19

ATFQ

6th Mar 2019, 19:31

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_3503_8c3f0cd8dbb0cc3468658800fa8c1a9a7850d5be.jpg
Runway 28 (Main Runway)
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_3551_689f6d768c0738ae8d9952e2a543c46aa5b3f325.jpg
Runway 10 (Main Runway)
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_3494_8cc6bc7a747232f49ef863d6b605de9a57d8b7e3.jpg
Runway 22 Left
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_3557_3c294da39761b2f3e882d41d8623920a2c73650f.jpg
Runway 04 Right
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_3553_238982126505b3cf0c0f2a9c77850e18236d82bf.jpg
Runway 14 Right
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_3555_a2543482e30459952f621ac499d8ac5708e365e8.jpg
Runway 32 Left
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_3498_59a3e06bbf5b87e3ad12f85ac7a31b008fc72d7b.jpg
Aircraft Hangar
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_3563_972b1ff0d33aee61937e004fe248bd05047ed481.jpg
Aircraft Hangar

Tingger

7th Mar 2019, 15:14

That's does assume that there is any appetite to move 614 back down the road or that any of the experienced staff would return after being deemed SNLR

Rocket2

7th Mar 2019, 18:17

On the Slingsby Venture front XZ557 (of which I have a share in) is still going strong in sunny Wiltshire & should do so well past my lifetime spares permitting.

pr00ne

8th Mar 2019, 08:49

ATFQ,

The closure delay announced refers to the MOD Police HQ.

No reason why they can't start building on the airfield right away.

ATFQ

8th Mar 2019, 18:00

Pr00ne,

The lack of (i.e. zero) building activity on the airfield to date perhaps shows best the negative appetite to build anything there, probably because of the poor service infrastructure and road links, and probably because Braintree District Council has other plans for new housing (for example).

It will be for someone to decide whether this unexpected new opportunity (a 'ready made' and previously proven VGS site) should be put back to its former and recent use (since the 1980s). I accept that it will take a small amount of enthusiasm, but not that much effort.

The reality is that 614 VGS would never have been moved out of Wethersfield in the first place (given its proximity to large numbers of ATC squadrons) had the extension to 2025 been known about upfront, and gliding would have already recommenced there by now.

ACW367

11th Mar 2019, 11:51

Announced that Wethersfield Airfield (former home of 614 VGS) now remaining open - until at least 2025.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782294/Estate_document_for_gov.uk.pdf

And it still has a hangar and usable runways. Great news for ATC units in Essex, North London, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire etc.

Thanks for the pics. Really does show how unsuitable and dilapidated the infra has become there. That Hangar does not seem to be anywhere near Part 145 compliant for the Maintenance Organisation to use under their MAOS MAA approval. The runway is also severely degraded and will not pass a Aerodrome Operator hazard to operation Bow-Tie Risk Assessment anymore. You can really see how many £Millions it will take to get that back to the MAA Glider Aerodrome regulatory and Duty Holder Total Safety standards. Those Regs only benefit the safety of cadets. No more hitting a series of landrover tyre ruts on landing and hoping for the best (without getting whiplash), or kicking up debris from a severely degraded runway and skidding on the gravel as used to happen when I was flying them in the 80s.

Also I have heard that Wethersfield also only used to have portacabins for accommodation with no way to effectively separate male/female cadets and staff from Cadets. A very big no-no in the current safeguarding regime. Do we have pictures of Swanton. Hopefully it is far better provisioned.

ATFQ

11th Mar 2019, 20:50

ACW367,

I’ll take the liberty of correcting your inaccuracies/assumptions if I may, so that other readers are not misinformed.

1. Unlike you suggest, the landing areas shown at Wethersfield in the photos above are in pretty good condition. And no gravel. Other surfaces (not really needed) could be made available at a cost of £10ks to £100ks. Only repairs to pavement standard required for gliders, so relatively cheap (and sensible in comparison with the cost of the ongoing glider recovery programme).

2. All take offs and landings at Wethersfield with Viking were from paved or tarmac surfaces. So no issue with ruts on grass. I guess you are thinking back to the early 80s - when vintage gliders were flown from grass at Wethersfield.

3. Elements of the Wethersfield Hangar Annexes were recently refurbished, as you can see from one of the photos. The Hangar is not brand new, but then again neither are most regular RAF hangars are they? And a Rubb Hangar could easily be erected either inside it or alongside it instead (a Rubb Hangar is also being installed at Swanton Morley for example, which does not have a Hangar as yet. Therefore no gliders there until next year?)

4. Permanent, good quality (multiple) block accommodation is available on site, and was used previously on a regular basis. So safeguarding is not a factor.

And finally. It is not really a choice of Wethersfield OR Swanton Morley. You could have both. The benefit of having a site close to north London and Essex ATC units would be high.

Tingger

11th Mar 2019, 23:23

Are there and 614 "South" instructors left to come back and run this arrangement after being dumped last year?

ATFQ

12th Mar 2019, 17:02

Are there and 614 "South" instructors left to come back and run this arrangement after being dumped last year?

It would be fairly straightforward, with the right leadership, to attract around thirty (out of the original 45) back, with a number more possible ex Henlow and Halton VGSs for convex to Viking. Enough former staff miss it enough to want to come back.

Tingger

12th Mar 2019, 17:58

And would they share Swantons allocation and have 2 aircraft each?

ASRAAMTOO

12th Mar 2019, 18:24

chevvron

12th Mar 2019, 18:35

It would be fairly straightforward, with the right leadership, to attract around thirty (out of the original 45) back, with a number more possible ex Henlow and Halton VGSs for convex to Viking. Enough former staff miss it enough to want to come back.

Bit of a long haul for ex 613 staff, but then a lot of people commuted from Middlesex/Hertfordshire to Manston when 617 was transferred there.
Pity one or both airfields couldn't be retained though., especially Halton as Aylesbury Vale District Council don't seem to be interested in the site, so I expect in accordance with the original covenant, it will revert to farmland.

longer ron

12th Mar 2019, 19:07

Halton has had a reprieve until circa 2025 (?)
But I do not know if that includes the airfield.

hoodie

12th Mar 2019, 20:25

Is there any update on what is planned for the redundant Vigilant and Viking fleets? Sale or scrap or other?

air pig

13th Mar 2019, 00:24

chevvron

13th Mar 2019, 06:01

Is there any update on what is planned for the redundant Vigilant and Viking fleets? Sale or scrap or other?
Last I heard the Vigilants were to be literally scrapped, presumably because if they were sold off to the public and an accident occured which could be attributed to a unrecorded repair, MOD might face a law suit of some sort.

Shaft109

13th Mar 2019, 18:29

Reported in another place the new OC 2FTS.

" It’s all change at 2 Flying Training School as Group Captain Baz Dale takes over as the new Commandant. Baz, a former RAF Tornado pilot with extensive experience overseas will now head up the RAF Air Cadets’ gliding fleet and 10 Volunteer Gliding Squadrons across the UK."

Good luck to him - he could start by not treating the Volunteers like mushrooms.

If the leadership is seen (and indeed felt to be) putting the effort in everyone else will respond in kind and be willing to put that bit extra in that made the previous system such a success.

Would I return after everything that's happened? not really sure but if he can re energise the system it lays the foundations for the next generation

Bigpants

14th Mar 2019, 10:22

Good phrase "re energise the system it lays the foundations for the next generation". In my opinion for this to happen the Air Cadet Organisation needs its own budget separate from MOD and the freedom to look seriously at a self build programme of new light aircraft constructed under LAA rules. If you want to get young people engaged with STEM and flying then get an Air Cadet Wing to self build an aircraft under supervision with individual Squadrons assembling parts. The aircraft could then be flown under CAA rules from local airfields.

Something like this has been tried under sponsorship RAeS and Boeing UK and this could be up scaled to reach more cadets.

The problem was never with the volunteers and VGS/AEF "frontline" staff it was with the senior idiots who civilianised cadet flying 20 years ago.

Chugalug2

14th Mar 2019, 12:20

Bigpants:-

In my opinion for this to happen the Air Cadet Organisation needs its own budget separate from MOD and the freedom to look seriously at a self build programme of new light aircraft constructed under LAA rules.

Good post. It was the Lack of Airworthiness Authority (aka the MOD) that precipitated this crisis in the first place. Just as UK Military Airworthiness reform can only occur if Regulation and Investigation are made truly independent of the MOD and of each other, so ACO gliding needs to be independent of the MOD if it is ever to get its cadets airborne again in demonstrably airworthy aircraft.

Beancountercymru

14th Mar 2019, 18:19

https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircadets/news/baz-takes-over-helm-of-2fts/

ACW342

15th Mar 2019, 14:59

Will he be as England centric as Pippa was or will we see gliding back in the Principality or the Highlands or poor wee Nor'n Ir'n? Probably not

ATFQ

15th Mar 2019, 18:50

Will he be as England centric as Pippa was or will we see gliding back in the Principality or the Highlands or poor wee Nor'n Ir'n? Probably not

Gp Capt Dale is a fresh pair of eyes and intelligent.

The recent Defence Estate announcement confirmed that the airfield at RM Condor, Arbroath (former home of 662 VGS) was now to be retained indefinitely (i.e. zero plans for closure), so there is no reason why 662 VGS could not re-emerge there. It is a great airfield, in the right place, with zero airspace restrictions and decent hangars and other facilities. The Royal Marines have always been extremely accommodating, even to the point of still welcoming former 662 VGS members back for Mess social functions, so the relationship is strong. The Ministerial Announcement in 2016 allowed for 11 Volunteer Gliding Squadrons (if you read it carefully), not 10.

Tingger

15th Mar 2019, 19:24

That 11 was before the withdrawal of the vigilant 2 of the 11 were going to operate. There aren't the airframes to equip 11

ATFQ

15th Mar 2019, 19:34

My point is that the Ministerial Statement allows for up to 11 VGS (indeed, it actually directs that there will be 11 VGSs); it is the RAF's choice how many VGSs it chooses to equip - depending on (as you say) glider availability.

Oopscheck

16th Mar 2019, 18:40

Wethersfield:

In 2014 2FTS produced a somewhat incomplete draft glider aerodrome requirements document which has yet to be accepted by the Military Aviation Authority (MAA).

Subsequent to this draft an inspection report in 2015 by 2FTS of Wethersfield saw no reasons why gliding could not continue at there with some minor issues addressed.

Then in 2016 a yet unpublished inspection report indicated that £1.4m was required for the runway (singular) to meet MAA standards, and this was the primary reason for the 614 VGS relocation. This was strange, the (MAA) Manual of Aerodrome Design and Safeguarding is based on the runway lengths. So, using that criteria at Wethersfield with it’s very useful long runways, the regulation was based on large international aerodromes which would explain the £1.4m. The use of such criteria is not really suitable for a conventional glider site for many reasons that principally include safety and cost.

The MOD appeared to have justified this significant cost decision based on this flawed assessment for some reason ignoring numerous other options the site has to offer in terms of safety and facilities.

This was perplexing for staff at 614 VGS who know the site in detail, particularly considering the historic difficulties in retaining conventional gliding sites for Air Cadet gliding over the decades. Following the usual interactions with 2FTS some staff at 614 VGS decided to conducted some further research. This examined the application at Wethersfield of MAA/ ICAO based aerodrome safety requirements in a conventional gliding context, that included hangar facilities and other facilities the site offered. Relevant people from the aviation industry who were suitably qualified and experienced were engaged to assist with this in their subject areas. This report, as an example of the options available, described 3 options ranging from a basic £18K with some operational restrictions to a £550K longer term investment option.

It was sent to the MOD in February 2018. The MOD did not respond.

As of today, 614 VGS are at Swanton Morley which is less accessible to a larger majority of cadets than their previous home. With no hangar, no cadet accommodation, poor staff accommodation, no garage facilities for vehicles or equipment, a shared office/ PTT facility with 611 AGS along with their PTT, a future office in the old listed Tower (therefore expensive to renovate) which requires work and a fence around airfield with no gate wide enough to allow a rigged Viking on or off it. With all this, it comes at a much higher cost than Wethersfield, what were they thinking?