Air Cadets grounded?

[RUCAWO]

A lot depends on the Sqn staff, there are some who just drift along and do not push for anything extra for their cadets or anthing that does not interest them.
As it is I have been given 14 places for autumn camp for my sqn and I will be pushing to fill any spare places during the summer. I have one cadet selected for IACE this year and I will be getting some to RIAT camp, there are approx 800 places for that this year and going up to 1000 for next year.
As well as that I am hopefuly taking 45 cdts and ten staff to the Somme next year for the 100th anniversary.
The staff on a sqn need to be proactive ,pushing for anything they can get not just floating along. As for AEF for a dozen places I had 35 wanting to go.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

The staff on a sqn need to be proactive ,pushing for anything they can get not just floating along.


Very true. One example that springs to mind was at Boulmer, where some weeks the cadet staff would come across to A Flt soon after arriving to enquire about chances of flying cadets during the camp, whereas others would ring up (presumably the 300 yard walk from the Officers' Mess was too much?) the day before going home to arrange flying as a last-day treat. Guess whose cadets got airborne...

[RUCAWO]

On camp there are two CCs I always go with, both when they arrive on camp visit everyone who can help with the camp and during the week keep pushing especially with visiting aircrew, at Leuchars we got eight cadets ,in pairs , flying in four C-130s up on a SF exercise also a dozen cadets on a VC 10 tanking thanks to a few beers in the mess. Another I did camp with once cancelled a visit to 41 Sqn because "the cadets" otherwise him, wouldn't be interested :rolleyes: Never worked with him again.
When we leave camp a box of biscuits, bottle of wine or slab of beer goes to whoever helped us during the week, just as a thank you.
Worst I seen was a CCF officer who was taking over from us, she was phoning up units demanding things, ACLO wasn't impressed neither was the SWO ,don't think she got a lot of help during the week.

[Sky Sports]

With my civvie gliding club head on I fielded a membership enquiry this evening from a young air cadet desperate to fly
Sad isn't it, that a the Air Cadet Organisation, and by extension, the RAF, cannot put something in place to get this cadet flying and yet he can walk down the road and be flying (a lot) the next day!

[fade to grey]

It's a bloody shame, if it's going this way.
It was the 20 min chipmunk flights from Abingdon that sealed my interest in aviation ,
im thinking of rejoining as a CI as I do airline stuff now, and am a keen shooter ( when in the US)

[Bonanza_KCT]

I've been a CI for 5 years with my local (East Mids) Squadron, and was a cadet from the moment I could join to when I had to leave at 22 (in 2002) at my 'home' squadron (West Merican Wing).

I take care of all matters aeronautical on the Squadron and find that some of the comments above ring true with my observations. I was chatting to one of the other staff about it after parade on Monday night. We are very lucky to have a good relationship with our local AEF and we have had lots of flying slots over the past year - about once every 6-8 weeks on average with two slots (for 24 cadets in total) for the first two months of 2015 alone. Brilliant.

What I am finding puzzling however is that I am having to plug away to get all the slots filled. Thinking back to my time as a cadet (typically 1-2 AEFs a year at Shawbury) we were fighting to get a place to go flying and were frequently disappointed. We are now able to fly the super-keen aviators regularly which is great for them but I am surprised that for many of the cadets, they just don't seem interested.

Last Autumn I briefed our cadets on the Air Cadet Pilot Scheme (~10 hrs flying at a civilian flying school all paid for) and had only one completed application returned. The opportunity of receiving a good £1,500 of flying training plus various other bits raised surprisingly little interest - I can't figure out why?

Finally, we are trying to boost mental arithmetic skills. I'm no maths genius but even amongst those I teach aeronautical subjects to (talking 14-16 year olds), super simple mental arithmetic poses a much bigger challenge than I'd ever realised.

Ours is a large city Squadron, very successful over the past few years with a big group of cadets and a large pool of talented and passionate staff.

Would be interested to hear anyone else's experiences/observations on the above.

[Lima Juliet]

I thought the Air Cadet Pilot Scheme was the choice of one flying school - Tayside Aviation in Dundee. Not a lot of good for East Northants! (Or even worse those from the South or South West of the UK)

See link Air Cadets - Pilot schemes (http://www.raf.mod.uk/aircadets/whatwedo/pioltschemes.cfm)

LJ

[The Old Fat One]

LJ

Doesn't matter where in the UK you are, or abroad for that matter. It's a residential course, all expenses paid including travel.

[Sky Sports]

LJ
There are also places on the Pilot Schemes available at local AEF units.
See your link.

[Lima Juliet]

TOFO

It depends how much you trust your 16 year old to go to Dundee on a residential course - 'all expenses paid'! :eek:

LJ

[Sky Sports]

Given that, to win a place on the Pilot Scheme there is a prerequiste to have achieved a gliding solo and won your silver wings, does this mean that there will be a period of 2-3 years when no cadets are qualified to join the scheme??
Looks like those that are joining civvie gliding clubs are positioning themselves quite nicely.

[A and C]

There are moves afoot to send a large number of the gliders to civil maintenance companies to get them back in the air, also civil registration is under investigation, the aim being to get the gliders under more appropriate airworthiness oversight than the MAA.

[Lima Juliet]

A&C

Is that just for Vikings?

LJ

[Heathrow Harry]

'all expenses paid'!

yeah but in Dundee a little goes an awfu' long way.............:}:}

[ExAscoteer]

Given that, to win a place on the Pilot Scheme there is a prerequiste to have achieved a gliding solo and won your silver wings, does this mean that there will be a period of 2-3 years when no cadets are qualified to join the scheme??


The simple answer is no. However Cdts must have applied for a gliding course.

[paul m]

Leon,only Vikings currently. The Vikings that are long term dead. The idea is being looked at high level, with no decision being made yet.

[Lima Juliet]

Thanks Paul, if they are civil registered as well then they may as well work to the full BGA rules as well?

LJ

[Heathrow Harry]

amazing what happens when you let a little light into things................

[TheChitterneFlyer]

[quote]Finally, we are trying to boost mental arithmetic skills. I'm no maths genius but even amongst those I teach aeronautical subjects to (talking 14-16 year olds), super simple mental arithmetic poses a much bigger challenge than I'd ever realised.[quote]


A totally brilliant idea, though, I suspect that many youngsters (these days) might have huge difficulty in just the one simple task of mentally adding two numbers together! If you could somehow instil the necessity of 'guestimating' simple trigonometry into how to estimate drift/groundspeed problems you might then give your cadets a better understanding of what they have to academically achieve in order to be a pilot. They might then make a better effort with their schooling... maybe? Though, I wouldn't hold my breath!


TCF

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Remember that you now have a situation where the vast majority of younger teachers do not know how to do mental arithmetic. As such, its use is likely to be discouraged, nevermind just not taught.

Students of mine regard my mental math skills as nothing short of magic, which is concerning.

Without mental math skills for rough estimates, they are frequently unable to spot when a 'switch-pigs' with the button-pressing has given a ludicrous answer.

Furthermore, the vast majority do not even know how to use many of their calculator's helpful functions (such as ENG or SCI display). They aren't taught it, and no one reads a manual these days.

That said, it is possible to train them if you can build their skills gradually on topics which are of daily relevance to them (e.g. how not to be late).

[A and C]

All is up for review in the maintenance side of the air cadet gliding fleet but my guess is the minimum standard of civil oversight that would be approved by the RAF would be EASA 145 ( the same as the Grob Tutor fleet ).

[ACW599]

Remember that you now have a situation where the vast majority of younger teachers do not know how to do mental arithmetic. As such, its use is likely to be discouraged, nevermind just not taught. Students of mine regard my mental math skills as nothing short of magic, which is concerning.


While our fleet remains grounded I'm teaching air navigation to the local ATC squadron. Lovely kids, bright and well educated -- but entirely unable to cope with simple distance/speed/time calculations. They seem to have no concept at all of solving rule-of-three problems mentally and are astonished when I do.

What's even more striking is that despite a good deal of practice, they don't seem to be getting any better. They can just about cope by the end of the lesson but by the beginning of the following week it's gone. I've thought long and hard about my teaching technique, but they seem to be able to retain other taught skills perfectly well. So I'm a bit baffled.

[Shaft109]

"What's even more striking is that despite a good deal of practice, they don't seem to be getting any better. They can just about cope by the end of the lesson but by the beginning of the following week it's gone. I've thought long and hard about my teaching technique, but they seem to be able to retain other taught skills perfectly well. So I'm a bit baffled."

Why think for yourself when you have the University of Google / Youtube to answer all of your questions without thinking critically about it?

As I've mentioned in a previous post people in general have access to practically all the information they can ever need thanks to smartphones and the internet, but the underlying simple principles are neglected - everyone can use a GPS but how many can map read?

K.I.S.S.

[teeteringhead]

Students of mine regard my mental math skills as nothing short of magic, which is concerning. Was explaining a Wizz-wheel (circular slide rule) on the back of the DR Computer to some Air Cadets not too long ago.

They'd "found" the computer, but didn't have a scooby how to work it.

"OK" says I, "we'll work an example." They were doing an MS Flight Sim light aircraft trip IIRC.

"Airspeed?" (no wind for easy starters) "170 knots"

"Distance?" "51 nautical miles"

"Don't need the computer for that one - it's 18 minutes!" :eek::eek:

I could not have made a greater impact if I had made sparks come from under my fingernails, and turned one of them into a frog! O tempora o mores.

[thing]

I was at Biggin in '91 and one of the questions asked during the group mental tasks bit was how long does it take to travel 150 miles at 90mph? There wasn't even any working out to do to me, the answer is obvious. I couldn't write it down quickly enough for fear of being the last with his bit of paper up in his hand. I was the first....by about a minute. Couldn't believe it.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

and as I jokingly say to them:

"now try doing it flying supersonic in the dark. And if you get it wrong, you die. No pressure."

[TheChitterneFlyer]

Except that flying at supersonic speed there is very little drift effect over a short distance! An easier question than previous.

[Sky Sports]

A staff member at the local ATC sqn, has told me that he has seen an email, saying that the glider fleet will return to the air 'soon'.

Can anyone elaborate on this?

[teeteringhead]

One understands that there is a big Air Cadet Conference at Cranditz this week. I'm sure the latest (correct) buzz will come out of that......

[romeo bravo]

If gliding is to resume sooner, rather than later, they had better start pulling their fingers out to get the aircraft airworthy.

Yes, there is a conference at Cranwell this week.

[Wander00]

As a former CCF and ATC cadet and, for a short time, a VR(T) officer, I am much saddened by the inability to fly cadets over the last year or so. For all said and done, that what most cadets join for. Otherwise join the ACF, another great organisation. I am, however, still not clear whether the problem has been one of the way the gliders and other aircraft have been maintained, or whether the system of maintenance was not "approved", or the paper trail for each aircraft was not maintained properly. Is a succinct summary possible for the terminally stupid.

[Lima Juliet]

As I understand it, only 1x Vigi is flying and a 2nd is due to start soonish. I really can't see a full return to flight of the whole fleet 'soon'. Maybe a handful of the instructors getting current over the summer is more likely.

I further understand that the Vikings are going to be put out to various civilian glider mainenance organisations. Again, as far as I can understand it, it won't be 'soon'.

As for Wander00's question - a quick summary just wouldn't be possible as I understand it; lot's of issues accross the board! From what I do know (which I'm not willing to share), then OC 2 FTS and his Chf Eng made exactly the right call to take the 'pause' - although, 1 year later I think I would actually call it a 'grounding'!! If something had happened in the last couple of years then I suspect Mr Charles Haddon-Cave QC would have carried out his threat of the military being on its final warning and taken military aircraft airworthiness out of our hands. We would be reporting to a seperate regulator for the airworthiness of military aircraft and all that would entail...:eek:

In my view, XV230 was lost because of a systemic breach of the Military Covenant brought about by significant failures on the part of all those involved. This must not be allowed to happen again.

LJ

[snapper1]

It seems cash has been found to send some ATC pilots/instructors to civilian gliding clubs so that they can get current. My club has hosted several groups recently. They have invariably been keen, polite and grateful for the opportunity to get in the air again - very nice youngsters to have around.

They confirmed that there is a plan to send some Air Cadet gliders to civilian maintenance facilities. There is a problem with this however as the capacity at these organisations will be stretched, causing delays for the Air Cadet aircraft as well as civilian gliders needing repair or annual inspections. This situation has been made worse by EASA's demands putting some civilian maintenance operations out of business.

[1.3VStall]

there is a plan to send some RAFGSA gliders to civilian maintenance facilities

Snapper1, I think you meant Air Cadet gliders - the RAFGSA is perfectly capable of looking after its own fleet under BGA oversight, as are all civilian gliding clubs.

[snapper1]

1.3. You're right, of course. I meant Air Cadet gliders. Must take more water with it:O

[Never Fretter]

Description of planned activity: The authority is considering running a competition for a Military Airworthiness Authority (MAA) Regulatory Publication / Military Part 145 Maintenance Approved Organisation Status (MRP/Mil Part 145 MAOS) approved organisation (or company able to achieve MRP/Mil Pt 145 MAOS approval) to provide Integrated Operating Support (IOS) to approximately 145 aircraft, the fleet of gliders used by the Air Cadet Organisation (ACO). The current fleet of aircraft have a funded Out-of-Service Date (OSD) of 31 March 2025, and it is expected that this contract will run until then, either for an initial period of 5 years with subsequent options, or for the full duration until OSD. However, industry engagement may indicate this is not suitable and other options may be considered. The requirement is expected to include:

SUPPORT ELEMENT:

A. Scheduled maintenance, rectification and associated engineering support services for the glider fleet (approximately 65 Vigilant self-launched motor gliders (SLMG) and approximately 80 Viking conventional winch launched gliders) based at the RAF Central Gliding School (CGS), RAF Syerston and the dispersed Volunteer Gliding Squadrons (VGS) across the UK (inc Northern Ireland).

B. A number of the Military Airworthiness Authority Regulatory Publication Military Part M Sub Part G (MOD Continuous Airworthiness Management Organisation (CAMO)) tasks (in whole or in part) on behalf of the MOD Continuous Airworthiness Manager (MODCAM).

C. Flight servicing activities to support CGS flying at RAF Syerston.

D. Provision of aircraft spares (other than Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)) to support the above activity, including acting as single point of contact for return of major components for repair and/or overhaul for both aircraft.

E. Provision and maintenance of a dry-lease, civil registered light aircraft to support aero-tow operations at RAF Syerston.

F. Winch launch consumables such as drogue chutes, carabiners etc

G. Spares-inclusive, repair and overhaul of Vigilant propellers (both legacy and future types).

H. On-aircraft embodiment of the modifications required for a Vigilant re-engine programme, to be developed by Grob Gmbh under contract from the United Kingdom Military Flying Training System Project Team (UKMFTS PT).

I. Support to all special to type ground support equipment including but not limited to glider launch winches, launch control caravans, fire response vehicles and fuel bowsers.

RECOVERY ELEMENT:

A. Possible recovery of any aircraft, subject to the glider recovery assurance programme, outstanding at the end of the current maintenance contract.

B. Possible recovery of approximately 20 currently stored, long-term unserviceable Viking aircraft.

Estimated Value Range excluding VAT:

It is expected that the value of the contract is thought to be category C banding until March 2025, with the Contract Notice being published in the OJEU and DCO in the summer of 2015. The Contract notice will be accompanied by an on-line Dynamic Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ). Interested suppliers will be invited to a market day to provide feedback thoughts and possible solutions the MOD may not have considered at RAF High Wycombe on the 29th of June 2015. All interested bidders are encouraged to attend this event. All comments made at this point may be considered, and a full requirement will be produced taking account of suppliers feedback and comments where relevant. The subsequent requirement will then be competed in line with Public Contract Regulations (2015), with contract award anticipated for late spring 2016.

[Lima Juliet]

Have Serco 'pulled the plug'? I thought they had the maintenance contract?

LJ

[WE992]

Probably had the plug pulled from them for incompetence!

[DC10RealMan]

I wonder if there may be a problem with the instructional staff after the aircraft come back into service as I was speaking to a grounded instructor over the weekend who has found other things to do with his time and he told me that he would not be going back into ATC flying.

[VX275]

I wonder if there may be a problem with the instructional staff after the aircraft come back into service
There is already, even before the aircraft come back, VGS's have already lost most of their Staff Cadets who are the seed corn of any future VGS staff.

[tmmorris]

There is already, even before the aircraft come back, VGS's have already lost most of their Staff Cadets who are the seed corn of any future VGS staff.

Perhaps they could try being more flexible with the volunteers they do get, then. A friend and colleague (with much flying experience, relevant and not) gave up in the end as there was no acceptance that not everyone has a 9-5 job with weekends free.

[paul m]

rumour is that its going to take another 18 months before they get the Vigi serviceable

[longer ron]

Serco job advert for glider technician which expired only 4 days ago...


Job Description
Serco is an international service company that improves the quality and efficiency of essential services that matter to millions of people around the world. The work we do for national and local governments involves us in the most important areas of public service, including health, education, transport, science and defence, and Our private sector customers are industry-leading organisations in a wide variety of markets.

RAF Syerston is currently a satellite airfield of RAF College Cranwell and home to the RAF Central Gliding School (CGS), part of 3 Flying Training School. The operations at Syerston consist of a mixture of light aircraft and gliders with occasional fast jet and helicopter movements in support of OACTU exercises and pre-deployment training.

Serco is currently recruiting for 4 Aircraft Technician Mechanical. The role is to generate and maintain serviceable aircraft to meet the flying requirement for No2 Flying Training School.

Responsibilities:

- Scheduled and corrective maintenance on Viking and Vigilant aircraft located at RAF Syerston airfield and at Volunteer Gliding Squadrons throughout the UK.
- Fault finding, problem solving and repair of Mechanical and Airframe systems in line with quality procedures.
- Ground movement of aircraft.
- Preparation of aircraft for road or air transportation.
- Certification and quality control of aircraft maintenance, components, ground equipment, service equipment and documentation relating to the completion of maintenance tasks.
- The participation in development and training of apprentices and others in line with the company succession plans
- Comply with all relevant Health, Safety and Environment regulations and exercise a Duty of Care promoting a positive approach towards workplace health and safety.
- Promote best practice, report bad practice and non-compliance and take preventative action to ensure continual improvement in the organization.
- The role requires flexibility to work with any element of the Maintenance Team and at any Volunteer Gliding School within No 2 Flying Training School as determined by business need.



Qualifications, Skills and Experience:

- Qualified Aircraft Airframe and/or Propulsion Mechanic/Technician - (City and Guilds Aeronautical Engineering Parts 1 and 2 or NVQ equivalent or higher qualification or a British Glider Associated Inspector).
- Experience in civilian industry or Armed Forces in a relevant trade group preferred.
- Possess good fault diagnosis skills, demonstrating a thorough understanding of aircraft mechanical systems.
- Hold full driving licence
- Previous Employment within a Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Organisation preferred.
- Working knowledge of military or civilian aircraft maintenance documentation and publications preferred.
- Be physically able to meet manual handling requirements of aircraft rigging and de-rigging tasks and general aircraft maintenance.

Additional Information:

- This post will be located at RAF Syerston but the individual must be prepared to travel away from RAF Syerston overnight on a regular basis.

[lightbluefootprint]

If OC 2 FTS is who I think it is - someone who on appointment asked the first VRTs he met what they used to do for a job before getting involved with cadets - his focus is entirely on getting the job done and won't be interested in people having "real" lives. Fair enough in the RAF, but not the spirit needed to engage volunteers with.

[longer ron]

I remember sitting on trap 2 at 231 OCU eng flt back in 1973ish,behind the door was a poster proclaiming 'Promote Flight Safety'...
Some wag had written in underneath ...

'By not Fokin Flying' !!

Very apt for the current state of Air Cadet gliding - there are other ways of getting the cadets airborne but those in command do not seem to want to allow that (as we have previously discussed).
The longer this goes on - Middletons command gets smaller !

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

OC 2 FTS

3 FTS, surely? 2 FTS disappeared some time in the last millenium.


I wonder if there may be a problem with the instructional staff after the aircraft come back into service as I was speaking to a grounded instructor over the weekend who has found other things to do with his time and he told me that he would not be going back into ATC flying.


Same thing happened to some extent on the AEFs. There is still a shortage of pilots now on some AEFs, nearly two years (I think?) since the latest grounding was lifted/

[ExAscoteer]

3 FTS, surely? 2 FTS disappeared some time in the last millenium.


3 Fts covers the AEFs

2 FTS covers the VGSs

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

2 FTS covers the VGSs


Oops - every day's a school day! Sorry!

[POBJOY]

Bath water and Baby come to mind with this debacle. The Haddon cave scenario was really about a long term management problem trying to use old aircraft in a role they were not designed for and then the people at the sharp end trying to get the job done without proper engineering/design back up or a budget to ensure it was done correctly. Either way it is down to MONEY not being spent on the important frontline facility.
The ATC situation was different. They had a brand new fleet of SLMG and Gliders that by any standard had good back up and proper secure hangar facilities. Compared to a civvy operation they had a sheltered life overseen by a central engineering and operational system. If this had been operated under the BGA or RAFGSA as the parent body would the fleet have had to be grounded !!
The ATC had plenty of capable staff on the flying side that gave decades of trouble free operations, and the addition of the SLMG (usually using a converted VW engine) was not a problem; so what happened on the 'back up' side that was not fit for purpose to the point that they are not allowed to fly. I suggest that the decision to outsource important facilities and then allow your own in house expertise to decline will always find favour with the bean counters, and no heads can roll as it is so SAFE to do nothing.

[Lima Juliet]

Pobjoy

Sorry, but I think you are wrong. The Haddon-Cave report was not about "trying to use an old aircraft in a role that it wasn't designed for" - the AAR system could have gone 'bang' on a maritime recce mission, just as much as on ops over AFG. Have a look at the executive summary and you'll see criticism of the way MoD do business on the whole. For example:

History of MOD In-Service Support

19. Huge organisational changes took place in the MOD in-service support and airworthiness arrangements for Defence equipment and RAF aircraft in the years prior to the loss of XV230. There were three major themes at work: (a) a shift from organisation along purely ‘functional’ to project- oriented lines; (b) the ‘rolling up’ of organisations to create larger and larger ‘purple’ and ‘through- life’ management structures; and (c) ‘outsourcing’ to industry.

Organisational trauma 1998-2006

21. The MOD suffered a sustained period of deep organisational trauma between 1998 and 2006, beginning with the 1998 Strategic Defence Review. Financial pressures and cuts drove a cascade of multifarious organisational changes, which led to a dilution of the airworthiness regime and culture within the MOD, and distraction from safety and airworthiness issues as the top priority. There was a shift in culture and priorities in the MOD towards ‘business’ and financial targets, at the expense of functional values such as safety and airworthiness. The Defence Logistics Organisation, in particular, came under huge pressure. Its primary focus became delivering ‘change’ and the ‘change programme’ and achieving the ‘Strategic Goal’ of a 20% reduction in output costs in five years and other financial savings. Airworthiness was a victim of the process started by the 1998 Strategic Defence Review.

Sounds kind of familiar when it comes to the VGS set up - outsourcing, dilution of culture, delivery of change and large 'through-life' management structures (which IPT are gliders a part of?).

In support of OC 2FTS, he made the right decision in my opinion. Whilst it is unfortunate and unpalatable to those caught up in the aftermath, the chance of another loss of an Air Cadet, however small, being linked to some of the things they have found and been rectifying would probably have finished Cadet flying for good - it would also have seen another independent review and probably the MoD having to have its airworthiness independently regulated. Not good for all.

So, I think OC 2FTS made EXACTLY the right call here initially, but the progress has been cripplelingly slow. Seeing as VGS, AEF and UAS are not a part of MFTS then the longer this goes on then the more likely that the whole flying training of Air Cadets will end up being a different solution - there is scoping work ongoing on possible solutions right now. Possibly SDSR may have some role to play in this decsion?

For now, let's hope that we get some VGS capability back in the next 6-12 months. There is still an 'elephant in the room' for the Vigilant - what to do with the Grob engine that will become unsupported in years few? So even after a return to flight, the fleet is not 'out of the woods' just yet.

LJ

[longer ron]

And let us not forget the plight of the poor cadets caught up in the aftermath of this management style - they are bored witless - if all the current guidelines are followed it is very difficult for the cadets to actually get out of the building !!
Mostly classroom work is not what most of these young people joined up for and it would be interesting to see the percentages of leavers at the moment (or since JM took over anyway).
Over risk averse means nothing happens and will soon lead to a very small ATC movement.
This is not speculation on my part - I do have contacts and I am not hearing good things :(

[A and C]

The first six gliders are with a civilian maintenance company as I write and are contracted to be back in service in about twelve weeks.

The motor glider issue is a bit more complicated however it is likely that the fleet will be retrofitted with the Rotax 912 engine.

I would also expect the whole gliding fleet require an Avionic upgrade with 8.33 comms and a traffic system such as FLARM, this is likely to happen to coincide with the EASA 8.33 comms mandate.

[1.3VStall]

LJ,

the MoD having to have its airworthiness independently regulated. Not good for all.


What planet are you on? The reason that MoD airworthiness has been systematically compromised over the past 25 years, or so, is precisely because there has been no independent regulation!

[ACW599]

>...likely that the fleet will be retrofitted with the Rotax 912 engine.<

The requirement to "gurgle" a Rotax to check the oil level -- which entails 10-20 manual rotations of the propeller -- should give the health and safety people some food for thought...

[Lima Juliet]

1.3Vstall

"Not good for all" depends from what side that you look at the problem:

Independence might be great, but let's say it's the CAA, would there be politicking between the SoS Defence and the SoS Transport? Would it be cheaper or more expensive? Would the military lose it's advantage to just do stuff in times of crisis? Would all military flying be regulated by rules written, in the main, for public commercial air transport? Would the added expense of civilian licensing all of our aircrew, engineers and air traffickers be affordable and doable in a short period of time? What would that mean for 'legacy' personnel too old to retrain in their last, say, 3 years of Service? Would the MoD ever recover from the reputational damage of not being able, or be trusted, to self-regulate?

I don't know, but my opinion at present is that it would not be "good for all", unless you would like to offer your considered view?

LJ

[A and C]

The problem WAS cost cutting and lack of oversight and failing to learn the lessons of experience, what was needed was a system of oversight based on the civil system but with the contigencys that are needed by the military in a crisis.

The new MIL145 system has by and large addressed that issue, there are one or two teething problems where the military are sticking to old limitations that the civil world ( operating the same equipment ) have updated and employing contractors who have vast ( and valuable ) experience with military equipment trying to apply this experience to technologically totally different equipment rather than employing experts in the new technology, I guess this is due to the inertia of going first to the contractors you used for the previous job.

[Rigga]

To those nay-sayers...
I have personally seen that the RAF did absolutely nothing for a commonly used aircraft Maintenance Programme for approx. 20 years. 5-yearly reviews just penned-off. Warnings of maintenance requirements routinely ignored.

This is the standard the glorious RAF had plumbed to - that is now being revised through the enforced introduction of MIL 145/M. The obvious lack of impartiality of the current MAA should quite rightly be removed to at least an independence from MOD budgets.

MOD (not just the RAF) in my humble opinion cannot recover from this fully developed and completely institutionalised 'arrogance and ignorance' towards airworthiness and flight safety.

Further to this thread: Grob aircraft are NOT combat aircraft - just what "emergency measures" do you see these light training aircraft going through?

To help LEON's traditional issues: I had often proposed the theory that the MOD could (if it wanted to) declare "COMBAT OPS" where, for nominated aircraft, they could indeed drill/punch holes, without external influence, where they wanted and glue artillery into them...but those aircraft would/could NOT fly in "non-combat zones" unless those mods were properly OEM tested and supported and/or for one-flight-only for de-modification/rectification to the formal airworthiness standard as listed in the RTS. I assume that, as it wasn't invented in MOD, my proposal was ignored.

Finally: If there was a truly independent authority it would be as clear as the CAA in releasing the detail behind its decisions and "politicking" would soon be spotted and political decisions halted in the name of flight safety and airworthiness rather than cost and politics. The previous (and possibly still current) MOD/OEM practices of hiding facts to make a contract work could also be prevented by independent reviews of test results such as that seen during the A380 wing load test failures which Airbus classed as a success.


Rant over...and now breathing less heavily

[Flying_Anorak]

As an owner of a Grob 109B with a VW engine and an 8.33 avionics fit + FLARM, I've been reading these replies with interest. I love the aircraft and it is a great tourer too (mine's been to the south of France and back) but it's one failing is that it is relatively underpowered for its weight which can limit where you can get out of (not into with those great airbrakes!). At Aero in Friedrichshafen this year there was a G109B with a Rotax 912 conversion. It looked interesting (I have pics if anyone wants to see them?) and makes the 'cute' G109 look much more purposeful, but it has yet to fly and with a price tag of circa €30K to convert, it seems that take up will be slow. Maybe if the MOD do go down this route it'll help bring the price down for us civvie owners?

In the meantime, we'll just keep trying to do what we can unofficially to fly disgruntled Cadets and stop them discovering street corners etc...

[ShyTorque]

Looking back some forty years or so, I was a school CCF cadet. During my time with the cadet force I flew many times and was lucky enough to be awarded a flying scholarship. It more than kindled my ambition to join the RAF and fly, which I managed to do, and still do for a living, although I shall retire soon.

My daughter has just left the ATC as senior cadet of her squadron. In her four plus years with them she put in a huge amount of effort and time and represented the corps at hockey and her "wing" at many other sports.

She managed to fly just once. Quite a sad state of affairs.

[A and C]

A military size order for the Rotax 912/Grob 109 would undoubtedly give the retrofit program a boost in terms of economy of scale and is the only game in town for the continued operation of a Grob 109 fleet of any size. However the biggest slice of the cost is the engine so I don't see much change in the £30k cost.

All is now being done ( within the ability of the industry ) to get the air cadet gliders back into service, motor gliders will come later.

I look forward to the day in the near future that ATC cadets will be once again enjoying gliding as I did far too long ago !

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

My daughter has just left the ATC as senior cadet of her squadron. In her four plus years with them she put in a huge amount of effort and time and represented the corps at hockey and her "wing" at many other sports.

She managed to fly just once. Quite a sad state of affairs.


Absolutely right. But the last four years happen to have been a very turbulent period for cadet flying, with both powered and unpowered flying suspended for much of that time coupled with the cull of AEF pilots. But the green shoots of recovery seem to be appearing, with new AEF pilots being trained...things may never be quite the same again, but the future isn't entirely bleak!

[AnglianAV8R]

As one poster mentioned previously, there are serious H&S questions regarding the pre-flight prep of a 912. For the first start of the day, or after several hours of inactivity, it is necessary to turn the prop until the oil reservoir 'gurgles'. I have heard of at least one instance where the damn thing fired and almost took the arm off the hapless pilot concerned. The problem lies at the mag switches which build up carbon over time and end up 'ign on' despite being selected 'off'. As for the 912 engine, it is a dependable bit of kit, but what is wrong with the existing engine ?

[Lima Juliet]

A & C - I agree, things are pretty desperate if we want to mod our Vigis for combat ops, but that doesn't really cover my point. As far as I am aware, the honourable QC gave the MOD one last chance to get its ship in order with regards to safety. So an accident with a Grob glider/motorglider on the military register would be deemed just as bad as if it had been a Typhoon and the QC would carry out his threat and take the MOD's right to underwrite its own airworthiness away.

AnglianAV8R - the mags on a 912 fire off at 220RPM. Now even with a 2.43:1 gearbox you still need to swing the prop at around 90RPM to get it to fire. So if you're conducting the 'gurgling ritual' at 90RPM then you aren't doing it right!!! Never heard of a 912 start during 'gurgling' although you can hand swing a 912 if you swing the prop quickly enough (ie. 90RPM+ to generate 220RPM+ on the crank that will self fire the mag to the Ducati electronic ignition unit). Also, starting from cold is harder and so you would probably need the choke selected as well. Finally, a very well known ROTAX expert in the UK (and world hovercraft champ) explained that 'gurgling' is all about constant slow and positive movement rather than flicking it like a hand start. Remember ROTAX 912s are different to your average Lycoming/Continental/VW set up.

LJ

[paul m]

ACW559: Perhaps, speak to a Rotax technician. It only takes 4-6 turns to gurgle a 912.

Or my advice, is to turn the engine over slowly onto the compression stroke and hold it, then turn its again to compression and so on. Gurgling this way works. And less effort:D

[Lima Juliet]

Like wot he said^^^^^

Remove oil tank cover, turn the propeller slowly by hand in direction of engine rotation several times to pump oil from the engine into the oil tank.
It is essential to build up compression in the combustion chamber. Maintain the pressure for a few seconds to let the gas flow via the piston rings into the crankcase. The speed of rotation is not important but the pressure and the amount of gas which is transfered into the crankcase


Direct quote from the ROTAX 912 operating manual...

LJ :cool:

[POBJOY]

In 1960 i had my first flight ever as a 13 year old cadet from RAF Kenley in a MK111 glider launched by the trusty MB twin drum winch.
55 years later the only real change was the part introduction of the SLMG and that was hardly a problem; you just need less clothing to keep warm.
When you look at the number of launches/flights/cadets flown/first solo's/and the AE task in that time how does the accident record stack up against other
similar organisations that offer a similar service.
I could suggest it would hard to beat the record of the Air Cadet organisation and when you consider, the clue is in the name AIR with the motto
Venture Adventure then do we really want to dilute this great organisation to the level of being so risk adverse we do nothing; for to do nothing is a failure to young persons to engage in activities that give them a chance to develop their abilities and also learn to think outside of the box.

[Lima Juliet]

Pobjoy

Perhaps you should consider the bigger picture? Look at the following:

23 May 82 - Chipmunk - Cambridge Airport. 5 AEF Aircraft flew into the ground due to Pilot incapacitation, pilot suffered major injuries, Cadet uninjured.

12 Aug 93 - Wessex - North Wales. Helicopter tail rotor failure and crashed into lake. 3x cadets killed.

26 Aug 93 - Chipmunk - St Athan (aircraft from Benson). Aircraft stalled during turnback maneuver. RAFVR pilot killed, ATC CI passanger badly injuried.

05 Aug 95 - 2 x Viking Gliders - Sealand - mid air collision while soaring in same thermal, one aircraft crashed killing the civilian instructor and Cadet on board, while the other instructor (who was badly injured) managed to land his aircraft with an uninjured cadet on board.

05 Mar 99 - Bulldog - Leuchars - Cat 5 due to heavy landing during AEF staff continuation training turnback maneuver.

11 Feb 09 - 2x Grob Tutor - St Athan - mid air. Both collided killing both pilots and both cadets.

14 Jun 09 - Grob Tutor - Benson - mid-air with glider. Both pilot and cadet killed. Glider pilot survived.

The last 2 accidents some 6 years ago are effectively the 'watershed' moment for Air Cadet flying, in my opinion. Regardless of what is being flown - Tutor/Viking/Vigi - and the RAF is found 'wanting' and I suspect that flying Air Cadets would be 'ENDEX'. The RAF took a right mauling over the final 2 accidents (and rightly so), a repeat in Air Cadet flying would be a disaster for all concerned.

So it's not really being "risk averse" but more a case of understanding the risk, realising that flying minors takes a higher level of responsibility and acting when you know something is wrong. No one would thank 2FTS if they knew there were known issues and they continued to fly and there was an accident (even if unrelated directly to an accident). The days of turning a blind eye and hoping everything will be alright, are over - people will be held culpable these days.

LJ

[ACW599]

>Direct quote from the ROTAX 912 operating manual...<

Many thanks -- that's very useful. I hadn't seen that quotation and the POHs for two aircraft with which I'm familiar (one with a 912 and the other with a 914) aren't anything like as descriptive.

[sharpend]

All very sad. When I was a boy (about the time Pontious was a pilot) I flew regularly with the CCF and obtained my gliding licence. Great times.

After 50 years of aviation and thus becoming well qualified, I decided to give a lot back to the cadet force. Firstly I offered my services to the local ATC Sqn but just got apathy. I then contacted another and got no reply.

One has to ask why. And take my word for it, all that is nothing to do with my character or qualifications.

Rather sad really.

[Lima Juliet]

ACW599 - you can find the 912 operating manual here: http://flyrotax.com/portaldata/5/dokus/d06151.pdf

Sharpie - after 50 years of aviation? That would make you too old to fly cadets as I believe that the cutoff age is now 65 years of age following the unfortunate accident from 14 Jun 09 mentioned above - 'Dems da rools'.

LJ

[POBJOY]

My point LJ is that Air Cadet Gliding has an excellent record which you confirm in your post.
Sad though it was the Glider collision (as were most of the other non glider incidents) not Tech based, therefore the actual record shows the organisation to be fit for purpose on that score.
When you then consider the operation is in the main run by w-end staff most of whom do not have a service flying background then it makes the organisation seem pretty fit for purpose by any standards.
The grounding was made on tech grounds and has had a severe impact on the organisation. I suggest that had there been some cooperation with the BGA/RAFGSA as parties with similar equipment then a better solution could have been arrived at that did not require such a damaging effect on the organisation.

[Lima Juliet]

Pobjoy

I see your point as well. But as they say in a variety of fields "past performance is not an indicator of future results". It could be that the flying is so benign that the mitigations are totally treating the risk, or that VGSs are full of Burt Rutans and Chuck Yeagers, or that they have had a good run of luck?

Now if you find significant issues with the assurance of your aircraft's airworthiness, and as a newly formed organisation you discover working practices that does not chime with the way the rest of military do business, plus that you know that if there's an accident that these will probably add up to end RAF-sponsored youth engagement flying - what would you do? Ignore and hope you're lucky whilst you try to sort it out? I don't think so; the last time we did that type of ignoring the QC had the military for breakfast.

So, I still believe that the decision was the right thing to do, however, with less than a handful of aircraft flying after 14 months something seems strange - there must have been some deep rooted issues and that, maybe, after all, we were incredibly lucky not to have a significant event resulting in a fatality(s)? This whole process is costing mega bucks and so they aren't doing it for fun!

By the way, I agree, they should have left the G109Bs on the G-Reg, got all the instructors BGA/EASA gliding instructor ticks and run it under the RAFGSA/BGA umbrella many years ago. However, that's not where we are today and to put the Grob 103 Acros and 109Bs onto the civilian register would take much cash and effort. So I guess they're stuck in the rut they find themselves in - 14 months down the line with only a handful of aircraft flying.

LJ :ok:

[Shaft109]

At least the foundations will be solid when they start operating again.

Also would it not have been possible to keep a skeleton fleet say one a/c per VGS purely for SCT?

[Lima Juliet]

Shaft 109

I agree, the organisation will be far stronger after.

As I understand it all airframes were deemed non-airworthy for a number of reasons. I also understand that it took over 9 months to get all the processes, previous repairs and current rectification procedures assured to return ONE aircraft back to flight. However, now that most of the work has been done it is now much simpler for the rest. But if you take the fleet of 60-odd Vigis then even if its 1 month per airframe then it would take a further 17 months to return a Vigi to each VGS using them!

Also, 'quantity has a quality all of its own' so having just one on a VGS would mean that you would have no spare aircraft. Personally, I think it woould make sense to pool the aircraft between, say, 3x VGS whilst they all get current again. I think 2FTS are looking at something similar by planning to put a bunch of aircraft at 3-4 locations and then bringing the instructors back up to speed. Once that's done then they will bring the individual VGSs back on line. That's also going to take time and also pretty rubbish if you're last on the list!

As others have said - I expect another 12-18 months before things are back to where they were before. The best news seems to be that things are moving forward and that the pace of recovery is likely to quicken from now on (one hopes!).

For the Cadets there is AEF, flying scholarships at Dundee and also gliding scholarships with the RAFGSA. So whilst there is no-where near the same opportunities to fly as there was, there are still some opportunities. However, if my teenage child, as a RAF dependant, wanted some flying experience I would seriously look at the RAF Gliding & Soaring Assoc, RAF Flying Clubs' Assoc and RAF Microlight Assoc for further opportunity over the Air Cadets right now - it might cost a few bob, but its far cheaper than the local civvy club option. A trial lesson with those would probably work out around £30-£100 depending on time and what is flown (gliding being the cheapest option).

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafgliding/

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafflyingclubs/

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafmicrolight/

LJ

[Sky Sports]

My lad has finally lost the passion and banged out.
The final straw was missing out on his only chance to fly this year. They had jacked up a jolly in a Merlin as part of spring camp, but it went tits on start. He was absolutely gutted.

He has now joined the civvy gliding club up the road. £50 membership, £3 per launch, air-time and instruction free! He has a smile on his face again.

[longer ron]

Trouble is it has all dragged on too long now - even if it was the correct decision at the time !
I am still involved in military aircraft maintenance so I know how difficult it is to get aircraft out of the hangar door these days but I would say that it is probable that the air cadet movement has been permanently damaged by the lack of flying available to cadets (along with the lack of other 'adventure'/outdoor activities).
Hopefully somebody is monitoring the number of leavers !

[longer ron]

At least the foundations will be solid when they start operating again.

Eventually the aircraft might reappear but how many instructors/staff cadets will be left patiently waiting !

[Wander00]

I had not realised adventurous training had disappeared as well

[longer ron]

Some of it certainly has - but may vary with squadron/wing !

[Sky Sports]

When my lad started 18 months ago, including his intake, there were 30 cadets plus about 10 NCO's.

The last few times he went they were down to 6 cadets plus the NCO's. They need 15 for the sqn to be viable.

[Wander00]

SS - How sad is that

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I had not realised adventurous training had disappeared as well


It hasn't. It is simply more carefully scrutinised, after - guess what - cadet deaths on AT activity, which means that more effort is required well in advance to make it happen.


After 50 years of aviation and thus becoming well qualified, I decided to give a lot back to the cadet force. Firstly I offered my services to the local ATC Sqn but just got apathy. I then contacted another and got no reply.


Maybe the first unit had sufficient staff? And how do you know the second ever got your message? Sadly the websites listing contact details are rarely updated...always better to turn up in person.

[bobward]

Since I gave up the day job, I've been helping out part time at a flying school near to my home. The school has recently had a second audit from the CAA which it passed sucessfully. As I'm also an ATC CI i passed on the school details 'up the line' to Wing HQ, with a suggestion that they might like to use the school to give cadets some sort of air experience.

I was told that these had gone into 2 FTS (?) for action. Well, it's thre months on, and the school hasn't even had an acknowledgement from 2FTs.

As it seems it's it will be some time before any regular cadet flying starts, why can't use be made of properly certified civilian training organisations?
I'd really appreciate it if someone out there could answer come up with some sort of reply.

[FleurDeLys]

Keep eyes on main prize: get the fleet back airborne with full confidence in the airworthiness systems supporting them.

BTW what has happened to all the ACCGS instructors during this hiatus?

[teeteringhead]

bobwardI was told that these had gone into 2 FTS (?) for action. Well, it's thre months on, and the school hasn't even had an acknowledgement from 2FTs.

As it seems it's it will be some time before any regular cadet flying starts, why can't use be made of properly certified civilian training organisations?
I'd really appreciate it if someone out there could answer come up with some sort of reply. I'll try and answer as best I can - as I understand it. Under normal circumstances 3 FTS (AEFs) and 2FTS (VGSs) look after cadet flying.

Clearly, we are not IN normal times, particularly for gliding. But OC 2 FTS and OC 3 FTS retain what is called Delivery Duty Holder (DDH) responsibility for all cadet flying. This is a named, personal, legal responsibility for safety. As such they - the individuals and their staff - must assure themselves of safety.

It's all detailed in ACTO (Air Cadet Training Order) #35 which - as a CI - you should be able to access via BADER. Alternatively your WGLO will (should!!) have the answers and the approval process off pat.

[tmmorris]

Exactly. And unfortunately it doesn't matter if the civilian school is safe or not; they'd still have to assure themselves of that safety personally.

(Speaking as a DDH myself in another area of cadet activity)

[paul m]

that accident could have been prevented if the medics did their job. Further more the old boys network was culpable.
Then again some missing medical history from the medical branch, ( is that a shredder I can hear)

[Yellow Sun]

that accident could have been prevented if the medics did their job

I have found that most AMEs; service and civilian; took the view that their job was to help people retain their medical category rather than downgrade them. If there was an error it was not to clearly state at a much earlier stage the possible prognosis for the condition and its implications. It might have meant that the later AMEs would have had better guidance for their assessments.

Further more the old boys network was culpable (sic)

You don't appear to have thoroughly read the accident report, or if you have, you haven't understood the process by which the decision was made.

Then again some missing medical history from the medical branch, ( is that a shredder I can hear)

Nothing to do with his two exchange tours when his PMEs were not carried out by UK service examiners? Not everything follows you home, it's a fact. Was it relevant anyway?
YS

[bobward]

Thanks for the information, I'll have a look next time I'm on the squadron
Cheers
B:ok:

[Wander00]

I was not aware of cadet death(s) on AT - fault of the system, or sadly did the youngster(s) have a med issue?


The Grob/glider collision- certainly there were "aircraft" and airspace issues, but I think the BOI makes clear that sadly the captain should not have been flying due to his long term medical condition. I knew the guy and was always surprised he was allowed to fly the \Nimrod

[diginagain]

I was not aware of cadet death(s) on AT - fault of the system, or sadly did the youngster(s) have a med issue?
MoD censured over cadet Kaylee McIntosh's death - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-21201543)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I was not aware of cadet death(s) on AT


Sadly, there have been several - the case that Diginagain has linked to, and another also in Scotland about 6 years back where a girl was killed jumping off a cliff into a pool.

[Sky Sports]

How about this for an idea, and apologies if it is already happening.

Each ATC squadron does a class based lesson on HLS selection. They then identify suitable local sites. Ask the landowners permission. Carry out a site survey.

All the site details, timings of parade nights and contact details are fed into the system.

As part of the rotary training program, crews are encouraged to visit as many ATC squadrons as the sortie permits. Even if it is just a 'touch and go' whilst being 'marshalled' by a cadet.

At least this way, cadets will get a look at the aircraft, even if they can't fly in them.

They could even dispatch an aircraft once a week solely for this purpose. I bet you could 'touch and go' 10 sqns in a 2 hour trip.

[Opsbeatch]

We used to get the local squadron into our hanger when we had aircraft on maintenance and show them around. This helped with them see how aircraft actually worked. It was great doing gear swings and letting the kids select gear down and up, even let them come on engine runs in some cases.

Theres a lot of people looking for a reason not to do something as oppose to the way that things should be done, find a way of doing it!

I was a member of the ATC for some years and saw a constant stream of handbrakes coming through to stop us providing a service to those that wanted to experience and learn. I really do think that the parent service has lost the way on this and needs to do something quick to put the Air back in the ATC.

OB

[Wander00]

Digin - very sad indeed, but was that ACF or ATC involvement. Not that it would matter to the family but I was being specific about AT, given the discussion about what not happening in the ATC, like flying, AT or anything much really, which also saddens me.

[pitotheat]

Do the RAF want to continue to be responsible for Air Cadet flying, particularly VGS flying? It does not easily fit into the present structure, it is hard to properly monitor with so many remote units operating mostly at weekends and it presents Senior Officers who find themselves in a supervisory role having to chose between following all procedures fully and curtailing activity or using some discretion which could be career ending. Some of the military flying training task is contracted out to civilian companies. The civil training side has a number of TRTOs who provide a safe environment churning out cadet pilots for the airlines. I am told the "cost" of 1 hour of Vigi flying is £250 the bulk of which is the cost of the considerable support the military think is necessary and up to now has so sadly failed our young people. If we want to provide flying experience and training up to solo standard there are countless flying clubs up and down the country who are regulated and can provide this training at a fraction of the cost. Even with the necessary oversight the RAF would want to put in place this would be a more cost effective and quicker solution to this sad episode.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Precisely.

In the current regulation vs career regime, large numbers would like adventurous training of any sort to just 'go away', but absolutely no-one wants to be seen saying so or being blamed. The same applies to AT in schools, science practicals, field trips, etc.

The Death Of A Thousand Cuts by Trivia it shall be. :{

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

very sad indeed, but was that ACF or ATC involvement. [sic]


Does it matter? It's hardly as if the ACO could ignore fallout from other cadet forces' AT disasters.


Theres a lot of people looking for a reason not to do something as oppose to the way that things should be done, find a way of doing it!


Very true. I remember only a few years ago sorting out a training sortie over the Scottish borders and contacting the local ATC unit to see if they wanted some flying. All we needed was somewhere to land, so they got permission for us to land at Thirlestane Castle and we managed to fly about 30 cadets from several units so remote from the main ACO hierarchy that little else came their way. Minimal effort on our part and they seemed fairly happy.

[chevvron]

Do the RAF want to continue to be responsible for Air Cadet flying, particularly VGS flying? It does not easily fit into the present structure, it is hard to properly monitor with so many remote units operating mostly at weekends and it presents Senior Officers who find themselves in a supervisory role having to chose between following all procedures fully and curtailing activity or using some discretion which could be career ending. Some of the military flying training task is contracted out to civilian companies. The civil training side has a number of TRTOs who provide a safe environment churning out cadet pilots for the airlines. I am told the "cost" of 1 hour of Vigi flying is £250 the bulk of which is the cost of the considerable support the military think is necessary and up to now has so sadly failed our young people. If we want to provide flying experience and training up to solo standard there are countless flying clubs up and down the country who are regulated and can provide this training at a fraction of the cost. Even with the necessary oversight the RAF would want to put in place this would be a more cost effective and quicker solution to this sad episode.
See my posting at no #34 of this thread.

[Sky Sports]

They just want to fly. Simple as that. It doesn't have to be hands on. Passenger flying will do.

Obviously, the 'hands on' part of flying is currently beyond the capabilities of the RAF at the moment, but that doesn't mean to say flying opportunities should be reduced to near zero.
After all, not all cadets enjoy the 'hands on' stuff. For many it is stressful and not as enjoyable as being flown.

Surely it is logical to think, 'if we as an organisation can't let the kids do some flying, we will do our best to fly them'.

For example, make a Herc available at the weekend for jollies.

[chevvron]

They just want to fly. Simple as that. It doesn't have to be hands on. Passenger flying will do.

Obviously, the 'hands on' part of flying is currently beyond the capabilities of the RAF at the moment, but that doesn't mean to say flying opportunities should be reduced to near zero.
After all, not all cadets enjoy the 'hands on' stuff. For many it is stressful and not as enjoyable as being flown.

Surely it is logical to think, 'if we as an organisation can't let the kids do some flying, we will do our best to fly them'.


When we did sunday 'liaison' visits to Benson or Abingdon, it always included a flight in a Beverley or Argosy with a volunteer crew.
Anyway, the microlight operation I described at #34 fulfilled your criteria.

[chevvron]

Back in the 90s there were some of us, both RAFRO (OC Airfield and Wing Admin Officer - a retired Wg Cdr) and RAFVRT who considered there was too little 'Air' in Air Training Corps' so we started a 'microlight AEF' at Halton which flew many cadets in civil registered microlights (initially Cyclone AX3 then Chevvron 2-32C) with an HQAC approved 'blood chit' and eventually developed to offer HQAC approved Microlight Flying Scholarships.
Regretfully after achieving some 19 microlight 'Restricted' PPLs, it all folded when HQAC 'pulled' the funding and the microlight school was forced into liquidation.
The cadets were awarded a specially produced 'Microlight Flying Scholarship' badge which they wore on the breast of the woolly pully, not on the shoulder patch like other cadet flying badges.
See #349 and #351 above.

[phantom2430uk]

anyone else notice this is mentioned in the current issue of Pilot magazine?

[Lima Juliet]

Yes, I read Dave Unwin's article with interest. It doesn't really mention any real facts about what has happened apart from that he can't believe it's taken since Apr 14 to get some airworthy aircraft. He also blames the MAA (quite unfairly in my view).

What I do agree with is the fact that the Vikings have taken so long to sort out - as far as I'm aware they are Grob 103 Acros withoutthe fiddling that the Grob109s has to become Vigilants. Is this assumption correct? I would have thought that prioritising the Vikings to return to flight first might have made more sense, rather than the Viggis.

Now that this 'pause' has lasted 15 months is it time for 2FTS to come clean over why the grounding has occured? It really can't be a pause after all this time and might proactively stop media articles like Dave's causing the RAF further embarassment with speculative articles with a headline like:

Brought down, not by enemy action...You simply won't believe how long the RAF Air Training Corps has been denied serviceable gliders (c) Dave Unwin, Pilot Magazine 2015

LJ

[Cows getting bigger]

This is such a sorry tale and it will take years to get back on track. A whole generation of potential staff cadets, gone. A generation of pilots who are willing to give two weekends a month, gone. Cadets who, if they're lucky, will fly (AEF/VGS) once or twice throughout their whole 'career' in the Corps.

Flying is the only thing that makes the Air Cadet Organisation stand out above the rest. It makes me wonder whether they would have been better-off spending their weekends chasing Kirby Cadets/Sedburghs around a damp bit of grass.

[tmmorris]

I didn't see it myself, but a VERY reliable friend (airline pilot, spotter and ex-cadet himself) says he saw a Vigilant over Abingdon yesterday. I checked and yes, it had dayglo stripes on the wings so is unlikely to have been a civilian one.

I wondered if some instructor training had started at Rissington, which isn't that far away...

[WE992]

Perhaps it was on its way to RIAT. ZH197 / UK is at Fairford.

[VX275]

Syerston to Fairford via Abingdon? Sounds like someone at Brize didn't want the risk of a Vigilant flying through Brize Zone. ;)

[DaveUnwin]

Hi Leon (and everyone else), facts were hard to come by because people weren’t really prepared to talk and no one was prepared to be quoted. I blamed the MAA because my understanding is that it grounded the aircraft and kept them grounded because the paper trail has been found wanting, not because the aircraft themselves are suspect. I know a bit about gliders and – IMHO - as flying machines go, they’re quite simple. Why is it taking so long to return them to service? Furthermore (and with all due respect to my friends and colleagues in BGA clubs all over the UK) I suspect that the ATC Vikings constitute possibly the best maintained glider fleet in Britain.
If there’s really an airworthiness issue, why not take a couple of Vikings to reputable sailplane maintainers, such as Southern Sailplanes or Roger Targett (other sailplane maintainers are available) and get them stripped right down and thoroughly inspected. Will they find a reason that’s kept these aircraft grounded for the last 15 months? I very much doubt it. In fact I’d be prepared to bet a sizeable sum of money that there’s actually nothing wrong with them. After all, the global G103 fleet isn't grounded is it? And as Cows points out, so much damage has already been done – and for what?
That’s the real tragedy.

[Wander00]

- like you, I do not know much if any of the background, but like you I am astonished and gravely disappointed it is taking so long to resolve. I seem to hear the sound of gurgling babies going with the bathwater. The effect on the Air Cadet Organisation is clearly catastrophic

[DaveUnwin]

Exactly Wander! Just how hard can it be to inspect a fixed undercarriage unflapped glider?
When the Vikings were first grounded it was described as a 'pause' in gliding ops. Fifteen months later I'm sure we can all agree that the MAA has taken the use of the word 'pause' to another level.

[STN Ramp Rat]

Essex Wing has no flying powered or otherwise at the moment, the move of the powered flying from Wyton to Wittering can't have gone well as there has been hardly any flying since the move and its currently suspended UFN. The Gliders were grounded before my son Joined and I imagine will still be grounded after he has left in another year.


Still it has prepared him well for life in the modern RAF !!!

[DaveUnwin]

"Still it has prepared him well for life in the modern RAF !!"


Genius STN, genius. Wish I'd written that line in my column.

[Lima Juliet]

Furthermore (and with all due respect to my friends and colleagues in BGA clubs all over the UK) I suspect that the ATC Vikings constitute possibly the best maintained glider fleet in Britain.
If there’s really an airworthiness issue, why not take a couple of Vikings to reputable sailplane maintainers, such as Southern Sailplanes or Roger Targett (other sailplane maintainers are available) and get them stripped right down and thoroughly inspected.

Dave - I'm hearing of some pretty poor maintenance tales through the flight safety world. From my limited knowledge it was the right call (not by the MAA I hasten to add!).

I believe that the Vikings are being looked at under sub-contract by a number of experienced glider maintenance facilities (including your suggestion). I understand that the Viggis are keeping our own crowd quite busy. Furthermore, once the spotlight shifted onto the VGSs then other things started to be discovered as well, unconnected with maintenance, that also needed sorting out - as ever in the new world of post-Haddon Cave, every day is a school day!

How I understand it is that the VGS used to be the responsibility of the Air Cadet Org and they weren't really up to speed with modern continuing airworthiness practices. In the new MAA world the VGS were put under the Duty Holder (DH) for 1EFTS. After a period of time (and problems within their own primary aircraft type) the DH responsibility shifted to 3 FTS right at the point that they also had problems with their primary type (props falling off!). So 2FTS was re-formed to be the DH for VGS (about time too in my humble opinion) and after a year or so they felt the need to pause flying (again, from what I hear, this was the right decision) and, as I understand it, they have had more problems than expected with their return to flying (sort of 1 step forward and then 1 step back).

All this doesn't help the fantastic volunteers that give their time to our youths so selflessly. However, as you may have read what I have typed before in this forum, 2FTS have done the right thing. Taking known uneccesary risks with youth flying is never ever going to be palatable for the RAF and/or Air Cadet Org and I hope/expect that the VGS will come back from this far stronger/safer than before. Some recent flying accidents with air cadets has also re-focussed attention and appetite for risk - very sadly, indeed.

Please note that I do not work for a VGS, nor 2FTS, and I have only observed from afar of what is happening. Therefore, what I tell you is my own OPINION and RUMOUR. You have reached the limit of my current knowledge.

LJ

[A and C]

The problem with these gliders is not the airworthiness of the glider its self, it is within the certification.

The aircraft were modified by the RAF to a point that they no longer comply with the Grob type certificate, the paperwork for some of these modifications has been lost giving those inspecting and doing recertification the problem of no data to comply with ! Added to this you have some repair work that has not been recorded, most of this is OK but some not and this all has to be inspected and re-certified or re-repaired IAW modern data.

The current type certificate holder is a company with a long and prestigious record of military aircraft maintenance but a small GRP glider is well out of there normal remit and to say that they are having to adjust their world view ( from a technical point of view ) to cope with this is something of an understatement.

If you are looking for someone to blame for this fiasco then you should look to those who had not kept and disposed of a large chunk of the aircraft records , not those who are currently working hard to fix the problem while working within a military flight safety system that is intended to assure the safety of complex military aircraft and is somewhat excessive for a simple glider.

[CISTRS]

I joined the ATC in 1957.
During those magic years I flew in various types:
Anson
Chipmunk
Varsity
Beverley
Single Pioneer
Sedbergh glider
Cadet Mk3 glider

Annual Camps:
Linton on Ouse
Thorney Island
St Athan

Gliding Proficiency Course at RAF Hornchurch...

Happy days.

[Wander00]

CISTRS - you and me both - but I was CCF RAF Section, with a short time before the Towers with Ruislip ATC.


Flew in Anson, Varsity, Chipmunk, Dragonfly, Dominie (the one with 2 of each!), Valetta, Piston Provost, Sea Devon


Camps - Tern Hill, Tower of London (Twice), others I cannot remember
day visits to Bassingbourn, Hendon, White Waltham etc


Flying Scholarship
Gliding A & B at Swanton Morley


Great times

[Big Pistons Forever]

The aircraft were modified by the RAF to a point that they no longer comply with the Grob type certificate,

.

Why didn't they just buy the standard off the shelf, certified version ?

[VX275]

When bought in 1990 the Vigilant were just that, Grob 109b just like anyone else could buy. But then the fuel system was altered (improved?) to improve hot starting, the instrument panel layout was altered, Mag and engine oil experiments reduced the number engine misfires and dayglo patches were stuck on the wings. However the biggest change from what Grob produced was the change to the undercarriage legs as Grobs design kept snapping when used by the Air Cadets on grass runways (never the tarmac strips, odd that). The new legs were designed by the boffins at Farnborough and reduced the number of new propellors needed by not breaking.

[A and C]

I was talking about the Grob 103 Gliders rather than the Grob 109 motorgliders.

It is one of the mysteries of the british military that they cant resist changing things, this pushes the price up and results in all sorts of other problems, the C17 procurment was seen as the gold standard of military procurment....... but this is because the need for the aircraft was so urgent that they did not have the time to change things and push up the price.

[Random Bloke]

The Vigilant is a Grob 109b and has been modified from the basic civilian version, although not too extensively and in some cases the civilian versions now match the Vigilant (undercarriage legs etc). The Viking, save for the addition of some decals, is still the basic vanilla Grob 103 Twin II Acro.

[DaveUnwin]

Well, to paraphrase F.E. Smith, I may be better informed but I'm still none the wiser! Are the Vikings essentially Grob Acros, or not? And paperwork aside, a Viking isn't a complex jet, with pressurisation, afterburners, retractable undercarriage, flaps etc etc. How long does it take to inspect a sailplane? They're pretty simple really.

Furthermore, I don't recollect one 'clapping hands' halfway up a winch launch or falling apart in a strong thermal, so I'd suggest there's nothing inherently wrong with them (and remember, all the other G103s all over the world aren't grounded). In fact, I've always found the G103 to be a very robust machine.
In my column for Pilot I related the story of the World Gliding Championship held at RAF South Cerney in 1965. The Russians arrived with new metal sailplanes – KAI-14s - one of which crashed during a field landing. The pilot (Oleg Suslov) was understandably dejected, but the two RAF officers attached to the competition (Air Cdr Cleaver and Sqd Ldr Robertson) arranged for the wrecked aircraft to be taken to the RAF’s No.71 Maintenance Unit at Bicester, where a team of volunteers from the MU and the RAFGSA set to with a will. Less than 48 hours, later Suslov was presented with a completely rebuilt KAI-14, allowing him to re-join the competition.

So, it would seem that 50 years ago we had the ability to completely rebuild a crashed sailplane in 48 hours, but these days after 17 months its not possible to return to service gliders that were actually serviceable when they were grounded. Remarkable.

[Jimmyjerez]

From what I hear the whole VGS set up is totally screwed. Most of the experienced guys have walked and those that are left were pretty low hours and haven't flown for best part of two years now, will take them staks of hours to get anywhere safe to fly cadets. All the Viggies have been sat in damp hangars for all this time so I wouldn't trust those engines now.

[Mechta]

Its worth noting how many ex-Air Cadet Vikings have been sold into civilian hands, rebuilt and put back in the air after being written off (click on the blue information button on the right hand side for the aircraft history).

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

Are the Vikings essentially Grob Acros, or not? And paperwork aside, a Viking isn't a complex jet, with pressurisation, afterburners, retractable undercarriage, flaps etc etc. How long does it take to inspect a sailplane? They're pretty simple really.


From what I was told by someone who was involved with the original acquistion of the Grobs for the Air Cadets, one concern was the inability to check control linkages and bellcrank pivots in the base of the fin on a daily basis. The gliding world has accepted this as an idiosyncrasy of composite fuselages with T-tails, however according to the rules at the time for military aircraft, it was unacceptable.

[Sky Sports]

To add insult to injury, the air cadet organisation is flatly refusing to even consider allowing sqns to team up with local civvy gliding clubs, to allow their cadets to get some gliding. This despite the civvy clubs being all for it, and offering some really good deals to sqns. I hear of one club offering a local sqn £3.50 launches and free instruction/air time.

Why not? You guessed it - health & safety, risk assessments, CRB/DBS, paperwork, red tape etc. etc. :ugh:

In the meantime, Army cadets over at Wattisham have successfully teamed up with the Anglia Gliding Club and are busy racking up the hours in their gliders :ok:

In a year or two, the only cadets who will qualify for the flying scholarships will be Army cadets!!!!

[teeteringhead]

the air cadet organisation is flatly refusing to even consider allowing sqns to team up with local civvy gliding clubs Sorry Sky Sports - not quite true.

Whilst there may be annoying hoops to jump through (H&S, DBS, ACO orders etc etc etc) a number of units are teaming up as you suggest, and I know of quite a few more currently being looked at.

It might be difficult to get approval, but the ACO is most certainly not "flatly refusing to even consider" as you suggest.

If you do have access to/connection with an ATC Sqn, then they can find the exact procedure in ACTO (Air Cadet Trainng Order) #35.

Not an easy procedure to be sure - but not impossible.

[FleurDeLys]

Lets understand. Airworthiness isn't the 'absence of occurrences of the type falling out of the sky', its a 'paper-trail setting out the integrity of the design, build, maintenance and operating systems amounting to overwhelming evidence of a lack of likelihood that one of the type will fall out of the sky.'

An obsession with not 'gold plating' the tech and operating processes of the old VGSs, beyond what was deemed absolutely necessary, ultimately blew up in the organisation's face. A perfect storm of more complex technology, higher expectations in airworthiness across the Service, a couple of high profile (but non-airworthiness) accidents in Air Cadet flying which should never have happened - all combined to mean the old ways simply wouldn't do any more.

I applaud those who had the courage to confront this awkward truth - and then to apply themselves to the task of setting it right. I wish them well with completing it before somebody puts it in the 'too difficult' file

As to whether the VGS staffs can ever be re-built, there was always a constant process of self regeneration of staffing in the VGSs. Once the process starts, it will happen again.

If I were a few years younger, I'd be offering to drag my uniform out of mothballs and help with the first steps of that regeneration, and then bow out to make way for a new crop of A2s to carry the standard forward.

Good luck to you all

[DaveUnwin]

Why is it "difficult to get approval" and what is this " more complex technology"? The thrust of my column is that sailplanes that were airworthy when their use was 'paused' (ha) 17 months ago are still not airworthy.
For the removal of all doubt, the Viking T.1 AKA Grob G103 Twin Acro is a pure sailplane. It does not have an engine, flaps or a retractable undercarriage.
So with regard to returning them to service (and with the best will in the world) - just how hard can it be?

[pitotheat]

I fear that we will have to wait until all those who were involved in the "pause" decision have moved on to their next posting so that there is some daylight and deniability between the decision to stop and the decision to restart. No one in the present leadership set up have the courage to restart operations. The good news is that everyone's flying suits will have standardised flying patches so something really worthwhile has happened over the last 18 months.
Those thinking the retention and recruitment of staff is not a problem are unfortunately wrong.

[teeteringhead]

so that there is some daylight and deniability between the decision to stop and the decision to restart. Two problems with that idea pitotheat.

First is that under the "DDH Construct" (see my post number #335 on page 17), safety responsibility is for life :eek: so that a DDH can be called to account - legally - for any decision he makes, for all time (or until he dies one presumes.....)

Secondly, the DDH (OC 2 FTS) is an FTRS post, and so will not be "posted" (indeed - he can't be) in the foreseeable future.

[pitotheat]

That is my point. Now that he has halted flying OC 2FTS and his staff have a far higher threshold to satisfy themselves it is safe to resume flying compared to the regular review of continued operations. In reality to hold anyone responsible for a decision that is amended and reviewed by subsequent post holders until death would never stand up in a court of law. The decision to stop flying could never be argued to be unsafe it is the decision to hit the green button that will exercise the minds of many and will perhaps lead to some bringing forward their retirement plan and thereby leaving the decision to a fresh group of staff.
As for a DDH not being posted whilst part way through a review would not necessarily be in the interests of the Service or individual and as at the moment this is an open ended problem there will come a time when either retirement or Service needs will become a factor.
The management of this pause has been poor. E mails through the chain of command periodically have been at times aloof and fail to acknowledge that they are addressed to volunteers who deserve some respect. Many are in management roles themselves and are bewildered by the way this has been handled. The cadre of many VGSs is crumbling and there is little support from the top to galvanise support. Visits have been cancelled at short notice and not rescheduled. Our leadership above individual VGS level is absent.

[DaveUnwin]

"The decision to stop flying could never be argued to be unsafe it is the decision to hit the green button that will exercise the minds of many and will perhaps lead to some bringing forward their retirement plan and thereby leaving the decision to a fresh group of staff."

I think you've hit the nail on the thumb there Pitotheat.

[Flugplatz]

To my mind, setting the bar high at a point where everything is known about the serviceability and maint. record of these aircraft is one thing - but then maintaining it there will be another real challenge.

The volunteer staff include an EngO, who is not a qualified engineer and defects etc are reported by other volunteers. Sqn staff have only a limited degree of authority for sign-offs (rigging and de-rigging etc). Serious problems are then passed on to Serco (or whoever takes on the contract). The paperwork trail at all these points does not always have Is dotted and Ts crossed, but then you are relying on volunteers (the same people who are flying them!). This has worked reasonably well and I certainly have confidence in the people doing it.

If the paperwork and inspection bar is to be reset to a higher standard; would it not make sense to think about a RAF full-time engineer or two being apointed to go around the VGSs and coordinate on a full-time basis? Otherwise you are relying on volunteers, who come and go (I am one) to get it right every time in every way with the paperwork. Just saying that if you are doing this every day you would soon get to know the fleet and can be there to advise the volunteers when they need help.

In civvy street, there are a whole range of aicraft airworthiness certifications, starting at EASA and going down to Permit to Fly or even none at all. One size does not fit all but it seems the RAF may be falling into that trap. These are not public transport category aircraft - they are light instructional aircraft with students who have been briefed etc.

Flug

[Jimmyjerez]

Flug

Spot on. They now want it all run like a proper RAF squadron and station now. fair enough. But they expect unpaid volunteers to do the engineering, driving, run the airfield, run the radio, run the school, do all the paperwork stuff and all the flying etc.. Etc...

It's totally unworkable nowadays.

How come the AEFs have paid bosses, all engineers and drivers provided and ATC etc.. Their pilots just fly. VGS have nothing!!!

[Lima Juliet]

JJ

That's not entirely true. For example the VGS at RAF Cosford, Odiham, Halton, Henlow and Swansea and Newtonards have other people running the airfield and the radio! I'm sure there are others that I have missed.

LJ

[longer ron]

It is sad that we have to resort to a forum to discuss this - the whole affair is obviously soooo top secret that not many people really know what is actually happening (or not)!
The time is well overdue for OC 2 FTS to publicise some details to the shrinking band of volunteers.
Is any ATC non powered glider flying underway at Syerston yet ?

[longer ron]

I never go on 'Twittah' but made an exception in this case....

john middleton ‏@oc2fts 18 Apr 2014
Mindful of the inconvenience caused by pause in gliding. Team working 24/7 to resume flight. Will provide update on BADER next week oc2 fts


The team must be exhausted if they have been working 24/7 since April 2014


john middleton ‏@oc2fts 27 Mar 2014
OC 2Fts thought for the day

We have ACO Gliding for at least 10 years don't let us compromise it by rushing the next "cadet sortie"
Oc2 fts

Well they sure did not rush that next ''Cadet Sortie'' :ugh:

[Jimmyjerez]

LJ - really has that changed then? Sure I went to a few of those places and VGS we're doing radio from their caravan thing and provided all the fire cover as well. Good news if the RAF provide proper firemen now for VGS sites as I always thought it was as bit dodgy having the volunteer VGS chaps do it.

[POBJOY]

This whole saga is just another example of an over complication of what was a relative simple operation.
If we take the 'pure glider element' of the VGS it appears that all that happened was the MGSP was replaced by a civilian organisation that serviced the aircraft rather than carrying out repairs that would require a return to HQ. As there does not seem to have been a series of incidents that resulted in a major problem then one must assume the system worked but that the paperwork trail was seen to be a 'possible' (not actual) item for onward fine tuning.However what has happened is the 'civilian' element in the VGS seems to be held in less regard nowadays than was the case for decades. Most of the VGS operations do not require aircraft to be rigged/de-rigged on a regular basis but i suspect that the organisation still requires suitable staff to be able to conduct heavy landing checks and structure inspections to a standard that picks up a potential fault.
I would therefore suggest that the 'system' was fit for purpose even if it needed a better 'file' operation.
As for the Vig then you merely had to add an extra level of tech training to those Squadrons to look at the engine/prop side of things.As there are hundreds of PFA/LAA machines all over the UK operated by non certified owners then it is hardly a problem to train suitable staff to undertake some of the extra inspections that the addition of a VW engine would give,and an engine issue is really only another version of a cable break in the take off mode. What seems to have happened is the tech back up/training from centre has been diluted over the years to be replaced by more paperwork/websites/glossy advertising,and press releases.The organisation has had a major morale and leadership issue that has deprived Air Cadets the chance to engage in something that is a great confidence boost with the ability to show initiative and become more involved.VENTURE ADVENTURE is the motto Air Cadets is the name (the clue is in word AIR),and i would suggest that the organisation in the main was/is fit for purpose and that improvements could have been made without the classic baby and bathwater approach.

[A and C]

The problem with the VGS fleet is that the maintenance records are incomplete, and as a result the aircraft have unrecorded repairs and modifications.

So the task is to get these aircraft back to a state where the aircraft meets a known technical specification and have a quality assurance system that makes sure it stays that way.

The biggest problem is that some of the modification paperwork has been lost and it is therefore impossable to check compliance of a part if the data refering to that part is missing.

What would be a small problem with a civil glider where you could just consult the owner and replace the part with a new part from the manufactures but this is complicated because you have to maintain a fleet standard and dont know (without a lot of investigation ) if the unrecorded modification has an impact on another unrecorded modification or you are going to take one aircraft away from the fleet standard.

The decisions as to the action to take in these cases is being taken very carefuly by the military (as it should be) some migh accuse them of being slow in these decisions, this is partly because this type of aircraft is not their usual bread and butter and partly because they are acutely aware that they need to get this recertification program correct first time.

There are a lot of people writing above who say this should be a simple task, this view demonstrates that they dont have the full picture or perhaps I should say they dont understand the lack of picture that the people doing the recertification have been presented with.

As always with these forums there is a seach for the root of the problem and this is the missing fleet Technical data for modifications and the poor or missing individual aircraft records, had significant parts the aircraft fleet technical data and individual aircraft records been securely kept the fleet would not be stopped flying.

I am confident that the gliding fleet will be retuned to service not only in a safe state but in a better state as this review has highlighted areas in which the civil gliding world has moved to better practice and until now these practices had not been followed by the military.

As with all big projects the biggest problem is finding out what you dont know and this takes time, once this knowlage has been aquired the pace of aircraft return to service will sharply increase.

[DaveUnwin]

As Flug pointed out - one size does not fit all. There's a creeping tendency within EASA to treat a C-172 as if it were a B-727 and a PA-28 as if it were an MD-82. They're not, in exactly the same way that a Viking T1 isn't the same as a Hawk T1 - yet the MAA seem to think that they are.
I still think (as an ex-Air Cadet) that this sorry saga is truly shameful - and its not finished yet. Does anyone know if even a single Viking has been returned to service yet?

[RUCAWO]

Good news for one of my cadets who started his GS the day of the grounding, he has been awarded twenty hours of instruction at Oxford Aviation for being best cadet at RIAT camp this year , so at least one getting airbourne :D

[A and C]

I think you are quite correct in saying that this is a shameful situation but you seem to be pushing the blame onto the people trying to clean up the mess rather than finding out who failed to keep the required aircraft records in order............ the problem that precipitated the situation.

As you say the MAA are not properly set up for glider oversight, their mandate was for complex military aircraft and that is what their rules are writen for but trying to get this fleet back into the air and re-writing the MAA rule book all at the same time is too big an ask if you want to see a glider flying this side of 2020.

I am sure that inside the MAA they are fully aware that one size oversight will not fit all and that the rules will be applied sympatheticly and no doubt in the future rule changes will be made to provide an appropriate oversight for the glider fleet.

EASA has taken years to publish CS-STAN so they are no standard to judge the MAA by, who have recently formed after the Haddon-Cave report inherited oversight of an aircraft fleet that could not be further from their normal remit.
EASA's remit was for light aviation from day one and after years of doing their very best to destroy the GA industry with masses of inappropriate paperwork are finaly getting their act together, I have no doubt that the MAA will,; after climbing the glider learning curve move swiftly mandate the apropriate oversight.

I think your statement that "shamefull sarga- is not over yet" very wide of the mark and deeply insulting to those who are working hard to clear up the mess that has been left by the poor record keeping.

I am told Gliders are now ready to fly from a technical point of view and the final paperwork issues are now being delt with before release for test flight.

[DaveUnwin]

Hi A&C, it sounds as if you know more about it than I (but I can assure you I did try). If I read your post right, you don't think its the MAA's fault that its taken more than 17 months to not return to service gliders that were serviceable when they were grounded. So who's fault is it? Even if the paperwork wasn't up to scratch, why has it taken so long? For as you point out, there still aren't any that are actually airworthy and they were grounded April 2014. At this juncture I suppose I should point out that I've owned several sailplanes and even managed a gliding club for several years so I do have a vague idea what goes into keeping a sailplane airworthy.
I don't mean to insult anyone, and I'm sure that some people somewhere are working hard to rectify the problem. I just think that it really is a damned shame the Air Cadets haven't had a serviceable sailplane for almost a year and a half, and simply can't get my head around why.

[Frelon]

I agree with you Dave, a very sad state of affairs for the future of Air Cadet gliding.

I flew with the Air Cadets many moons ago and worked my way from Staff Cadet to CFI at one of the schools. We volunteers worked long and hard with very little thanks from on high. My feeling is that if this "pause" had happened during my time the morale of the staff and cadets would have been at an all time low, whatever the reason.

It would seem that the 3 Grob Viking gliders that were damaged in 1990 when the hanger at Predannack collapsed did better than the rest of the Air Cadet fleet!! I recently flew one of them and it flew very well.

[Sky Sports]

Sorry Sky Sports - not quite true.

Whilst there may be annoying hoops to jump through (H&S, DBS, ACO orders etc etc etc) a number of units are teaming up as you suggest, and I know of quite a few more currently being looked at.

It might be difficult to get approval, but the ACO is most certainly not "flatly refusing to even consider" as you suggest.

If you do have access to/connection with an ATC Sqn, then they can find the exact procedure in ACTO (Air Cadet Trainng Order) #35.

Not an easy procedure to be sure - but not impossible.

This may be the case, but the 'end user' or 'customer' (14 year old boys who just want to fly) are not being told this. All they know is, they can't fly gliders, while army cadets are.

I am told Gliders are now ready to fly from a technical point of view and the final paperwork issues are now being delt with before release for test flight.

Can we start a sweepstake on how long the 'final paperwork issues' will take to sort out, and at what cost.

I'll start with 1 year and £1M!

[A and C]

To get a Fleet of this size recertified ( remember this is to MIL/EASA145 standard Not BGA standard, while BGA standard is technically OK it will not do in terms of oversight when you are the RAF flying someones kids) takes time and the will and the money to do it. It should also be remembered that air cadet gliding is not at the top of the list when it comes to the day to day work of the RAF as a whole and so recorces have to be prioritized.

At first the size and scale of the problem was not fully understood by the military and it took some digging to reveal this but once it had become clear to the MAA appropriate action was taken.

I could but wont comment on the sorce of the problems but as this would only be my opinion and not hard fact that would stand up in court so I think it is best I say nothing on this issue.

Sky Sports.

If I was thinking you had the money to back up your bet I would take it and would be placing the order for a new Beech Barron today!

I think the first glider will fly very much sooner that you seem prepared to bet !

[longer ron]

I do hope it is soon A+C but I fear it will take some time to get much of the fleet airborne...possibly just not in time to rescue the remnants of the VGS's and ATC squadrons - some of which are struggling with cadet retention !

The shameful bit really is the absolute lack of information from 2FTS - if people have a realistic timescale to work to then they have the correct expectations !

I work in military aircraft maintenance so I do understand the standards required these days - but I do think this whole situation has been badly mishandled from the top !

They would perhaps have been better to give the Groupies job to a keen and very experienced gliding instructor rather than an ex Tornado Nav with a bit of a reputation !

[A and C]

I too want to see the VGS system running without further delay, my first contact with flying was with the VGS and it set me on the way to 14,000 hours of flying, it pains me to see the air cadets of today not getting the the same chance at a start in this business as I did.

I cant comment on any of the goings on in the airforce managment, that would be pure speculation and personal opinion.

What I can say is the hard part of this sort of project is the first six or seven aircraft, once a system is in place the task rolls along at an ever increasing pace with the last airframe taking 20% that the first five did !

My only concern is that the operational side of the VGS can keep pace with the aircraft return to service in the latter stages of the project, with no flying for this long period crew training and revalidation will be a major task.

[longer ron]

No arguments with anything you have posted A+C ,I work on a small eclectic fleet of aircraft and in the last couple of years have changed quite a few completely serviceable expensive components purely because of slight item Log Card anomalies so I do understand some of the potential pitfalls !
I just think that the whole situation has been badly mishandled - with little info and no realistic timescales from the Brass !

[Lima Juliet]

On a more positive note, I hear that Viggi No 3 is now airworthy. I'm also hearing that a Viking might be airworthy by the end of the month. If that is the case then I do believe the end of the tunnel may be swinging into view...:ok:

LJ

[RUCAWO]

It is hoped to get 200 cadets flown in gliders at the Aerospace camp at Syerston next month :D

[Cows getting bigger]

Good, that only leaves 45,800.:sad:

[Tinribs]

i have not followed this string closely because I stopped flying ATC cadets in Chipmunks many years ago but do have an interest because I now fly Gliders

Gliding clubs operate under a set of rules which will seem strange to jet operators but they have continued to provide safe machines for many years. My own club has experienced one fatal in thirty five years and that was non technical. Many of the Venture staff will be of that ilk. It would be all to easy to slip into gliding club mode

So far as I can tell the big problem at the base of all this delay has been the need to correctly address liability. Taking youngsters flying in what look like military aircraft had gradually become a serious worry for the top echelon and rightly so.

We owe an obvious duty of care to these kids and the service repute is very much at stake if we fail in that duty. I think I recall an awful stink when a Chippy hit the hangar at St Athan and a similar attitude when the boss of an midlands AEF stood a Chippy on its nose because the wind was obviously out of limits.

Picture the headlines if even a minor incident revealed an RAF engineering failure. One of the oft overlooked problems with outsourcing is that the parent organisation is grabbed by liability for the actions of an agent and the public will not accept "it was them guv"

We should applaud them at the top for having the wit to see the bigger long term risk and resist the temptation to see AEF/Gliding as an extension of civil gliding clubs

[teeteringhead]

Taking youngsters flying in what look like military aircraft And indeed are - in law - military aircraft....... the gliders don't even have a "covert" civil reg like the Tutors do.

[DaveUnwin]

"I'm also hearing that a Viking might be airworthy by the end of the month."

Anyone know if they finally managed to get one airborne? My ATC contacts say not yet.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I was amazed the other day to hear cadets from Fife talking about how much flying they have had of late: one, who only joined in April this year, was on his third Tutor flight (he said that his father was ATC staff which may have helped...) and another, who was 15, was enjoying his fifth trip at his fourth airfield (adding Cosford to Leuchars, Benson and Cranwell!). Every cadet I spoke to that day had flown in Tutors at least twice before, in stark contrast to the more local cadets who are usually first timers. Great that some cadets are getting so much, and it gives the lie to the doom merchants' claims that cadet flying is a thing of the past...

[DaveUnwin]

That's fantastic news Torque - I'm very glad to hear that some cadets are flying Tutors. But the reason I originally came on here was to discuss the Viking grounding. Towards the end of last month there was speculation that they were going to get some Vikings airworthy by early August.

Its now mid-August.

Does anyone know if there are any Vikings airworthy? Anyone?

[Lima Juliet]

Not yet.

Rumour is that they have a found quite a few issues in the first batch being done by the civvy gliding servicing company. I don't know the exact issues encountered but it does seem to vindicate OC 2FTS's decision - if a seperate and independent organisation is finding issues then I would offer that he was right all along? :cool:

Pontificating the 'ins and outs' of why, doesn't really do any good. I would suggest we leave them to it and wait for some good news.

I also hear that the Tutor AEFs have been taking up strain - great news, but the VGSs offer the capacity if the Cadet Organisation is to grow in accordance with the Government direction.

LJ

[ExAscoteer]

I also hear that the Tutor AEFs have been taking up strain - great news,

It rather depends on the AEF. 5 AEF moved from Wyton to Wittering almost a year ago yet nobody thought about the lack of ATC cover at W/Es.

Result? No flying on the very days when ATC Cadets are available to go flying (unlike CCF Cadets or Annual Camps).


You couldn't make it up.

[Fluffy Bunny]

Not only that, but the other flying activity (RAFGSA) was punted out of Wittering because of issues with two operating entities at the weekend.... :ugh:

[Wander00]

Where did the GSA go then; and I cannot believe that no one thought about ATC and probably fire cover. Basic IOT planning exercise or what?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

yet nobody thought about the lack of ATC cover at W/Es.

Result? No flying on the very days when ATC Cadets are available to go flying (unlike CCF Cadets or Annual Camps).


Or it was thought of but there weren't enough ATC staff at Wittering to introduce 7-day cover. Is there a plan to remedy this or will Wittering remain weekday only TFN?

[Fluffy Bunny]

Four Counties was closed down and it's membership and fleet have either re-allocated to another GSA club or been sold off.

[squawking 7700]

Weren't the VGS at Syerston using one of Four Counties' K21's for instructor training whilst the Vikings are out?

That must be the biggest indignity - having originally been booted out of Syerston because of VGS politics only to have the VGS using their gliders because they're homeless.


7700

[Random Bloke]

The RAFGSA is currently leasing (at cost) an ASK-21 to the Central Gliding School for instructor training and currency. The RAFGSA is also undertaking a number of air cadet gliding scholarships at RAFGSA clubs ( paid for by HQ Air Cadets - at cost) in order to help keep air cadet gliding viable and to help with the regeneration of VGS. Some VGS instructors have also joined the RAFGSA to maintain currency.

[chevvron]

I was amazed the other day to hear cadets from Fife talking about how much flying they have had of late: one, who only joined in April this year, was on his third Tutor flight (he said that his father was ATC staff which may have helped...) and another, who was 15, was enjoying his fifth trip at his fourth airfield (adding Cosford to Leuchars, Benson and Cranwell!). Every cadet I spoke to that day had flown in Tutors at least twice before, in stark contrast to the more local cadets who are usually first timers. Great that some cadets are getting so much, and it gives the lie to the doom merchants' claims that cadet flying is a thing of the past...

It's the summer camp period so no doubt the AEF Tutors are being made available at many stations hosting camps.

[Failed_Scopie]

Very busy with Air Cadets at RAF Odiham at the moment and the kids appear to be getting plenty of trips in Chinooks, which is good practice for when they join the Army... :E

On a different note, none of the VR(T) Officers that I met in the Mess while staying there for a couple of nights myself, appeared to be under the age of 50.

[chevvron]

I was kicked out of the VR(T) when I was 50! (after 36 years service as cadet and adult staff) My wingco decided I wasn't attending the squadron often enough, I was Wing Gliding Liaison Officer (went to the VGS most weekends) and worked shifts but he wouldn't listen.
It seemed to me then (late 90s) that the policy was get rid of the old lags like me and appoint younger ex-cadets as squadron officers.

[Failed_Scopie]

Not good on many levels... Clearly, in the intervening 25 years, the younger officers have now become the old lags. I'm not a fan of ex-cadets becoming adult staff in their old sub-unit/unit. Out of interest, why does the RAF no longer permit duel-commissioning i.e. RAuxAF/RAFVR(T) and the Army still does (a very good friend of mine is a Maj AR(Gp A) and a Lt AR(Gp B).

[Cows getting bigger]

Don't know about dual commissions but as a VR(T) chap I can say that there is an extreme lack of uniformed staff, especially ex-military for which there is a definite role.

PS. Benson AEF is short of pilots. :{

[Failed_Scopie]

Not being a pilot, I can't help you out at RAF Benson... Are ex-AAC Pilots encouraged to join AEF's?

I am just about to start at HQ 3 Div as an AR SO2 in what will probably be my last tour... I am seriously toying with the idea of joining the Cadets as adult staff afterwards, although coming from a Tech background (R Signals), I would probably prefer the Air Cadets...

[RUCAWO]

Don't know about AEFS but on our local VGS recently we have had one RN Lt Commander, one former AAC Major now promoted to Lt Col and two AAC Sgts, had to be the highest ranking VGS staff in the Corps :O

[squawking 7700]

RB - I think the irony is lost on you (but probably not for 4C's members).


7700

[Failed_Scopie]

Which is exactly how it should be; if either of my children were to join the Air Cadets then I would want them instructed in the air by fully-qualified military pilots...

[romeo bravo]

Chevvron - they carry you out in a box now; 'retirement age' has been raised to 65 yrs, from 55; and you can get 1 yr extension after that!

[Hueymeister]

Cows Getting Bigger:

Benson AEF has plenty of short pilots..the boss is vertically challenged for a start!:}

I'll get my coat!

[longer ron]

Which is exactly how it should be; if either of my children were to join the Air Cadets then I would want them instructed in the air by fully-qualified military pilots...

At the gliding school (pre VGS) where I was on the staff - the only serious accident we had (stall/spin from winch launch cable break) was being flown by a 'fully qualified' ex RAF pilot... just being an ex military pilot does not guarantee safety.
The ATC gliding schools have always had a high proportion of very talented instructors - the majority without a military flying background.
I know some 'professional' pilots with an 'amateur' attitude but conversely I know some 'amateur' pilots with a 'professional' attitude.

[Random Bloke]

7700

I don't want to start a debate, but let's just say that you are a bit wide of the mark on that one;)

[squawking 7700]

A difference of opinion and interpretation......


7700

[ACW342]

I was speaking with a colleague still in the Air Cadet world. It would appear that it is most likely that my old VGS staff will start home based SCT sometime in the summer - next summer!! From there, gliding courses to start sometime in 2017.

Note the continued use of sometime. I think that for a lot of VGS's, there will be severe problems in retaining staff. Certainly a lot of adult staff will have found that that they can do the week-end overtime the boss keeps putting their way and that Mrs (or Mr) adult staff likes the extra money coming in/ the wee jobs that that are getting done that used to take forever/the picnic on a sunny Saturday or Sunday that used to be out of the question.

Staff cadets have, I suspect, re-ignited their week-end daytime interest in the other gender and - finally - I believe that under the current risk averse (thats a risk to some SO's career ladder) atmosphere that appears to be prevalent at higher levels within the RAF and ATC, the paperwork trail will be long and tortuous and too much of a total faff to be wort the effort. The V in VGS stands for Volunteer and I think that some of those in the higher echelons forget this.

Might I suggest that, as posted on a roof by the RAF POWs in Tengah POW camp awaiting release after the relief of Singapore, senior staff " Extract Digit"

[Fluffy Bunny]

ACW, you forgot one lot. Those that were using the VGS's as their own private flying club. Not so prevalent in the conventional fleet but (back a few years ago) fairly common on the Vigi fleet.

That being said the organisation has almost a clean sheet to start again with. So hopefully, as you say those who can be bothered to make the effort or have stuck with the organisation can re-build successfully.

[brokenlink]

FB - hope you are correct but speaking to a couple of VGS pilots it appears that certainly the one our local unit uses has lost a significant number of instructors during the "pause" to operations. Before they can start flying cadets they will have to make up that deficit and get everybody current again.
A sad state of affairs and one that could have easily been avoided methinks.

[TheChitterneFlyer]

Brokenlink, do tell how this might have been "easily" avoidable?

[DaveUnwin]

"It would appear that it is most likely that my old VGS staff will start home based SCT sometime in the summer - next summer!! From there, gliding courses to start sometime in 2017."

2017!

If true, that will be three years since the grounding, and takes the use of the word 'pause' to an entirely new level!

[Lima Juliet]

ChitterneFlyer

I was thinking the same thing.:D These aircraft were not and most still are not airworthy. I hear that the repairs at the well-recognised civil glider maintenance facility have been far slower than expected due to the number of issues they have also found.

So the only way I could see this being "easily avoided" was about 20-odd years ago when the maintenance regime started to fail. I still believe that OC 2FTS and his team made exactly the right decision to 'pause'; although I do think this should be upgraded to 'grounded' now!

LJ

[brokenlink]

LJ - That was the point I was trying to make, if you take an in house service and privatise it the overriding concern of the supplier is to turn a profit which can be at the expense of the output especially when the main variable is staff and they either get cut or their salary is reduced which can cause problems if people don't feel valued.

Regards.
BL

[teeteringhead]

LJ and brokenlink

Not just the contractors: my understanding is that some of the "issues" go back to "blue suited engineers" days.

[brokenlink]

TTH - You may well be correct but having seen some of the effects of hiving of the work to the private sector I can well believe that any existing issues were simply magnified.

[Lima Juliet]

TTH

You may be right, but just how incentivised the 'blue suiters' would have been on the hand over to contractors may be a factor?

Anyway, I still don't think 'easily avoided' is accurate.

Just an opinion, though...:O

[longer ron]

LJ

There are of course 'problems' and 'problems'.
Many 'problems' nowadays do not mean that an aircraft is dangerous or unairworthy - just that there may be slight anomalies with log cards or documentation.
I can understand a civvy maintenance organisation being confronted by problems if they are perhaps encountering a 'BMAR' or similar for the first time,it would probably have been quicker and cheaper to order a new fleet of gliders than undertake this long winded fiasco !

[Mechta]

it would probably have been quicker and cheaper to order a new fleet of gliders than undertake this long winded fiasco !

Just about everyone who has come into contact with this fiasco must have reached the same conclusion within a very short space of time.

[aw ditor]

Different budget?

[cats_five]

LJ
<snip>
it would probably have been quicker and cheaper to order a new fleet of gliders than undertake this long winded fiasco !

Not sure about quicker - how many gliders are involved? The lead time on a new K21 is 6 months or more. Not sure about cheaper either, depends a lot on the exchange rate, but at present £70k or thereabouts.

It would have been more certain though. But had that happened would they would have been happy with a standard glider & instrument fit?

[DaveUnwin]

"But had that happened would they would have been happy with a standard glider & instrument fit?"

I very much doubt it. Indeed, I'd have been more surprised if the various parties involved some how didn't manage to increase the price and empty weight while simultaneously reducing the max cockpit weight, increasing the min cockpit weight and lowering the Vne.

[cats_five]

DaveUnwin, that's exactly what I thought.

[longer ron]

I agree cats5 but the cost of this 'pause' must be fairly high and i also understand aw ditors comment about budgets - I am still reaping the 'benefits' of operating older aircraft of a very low mod standard - but of course these costs are 'hidden' rather than being upfront !

[Lima Juliet]

I believe that the ASK-21 was the prefered glider for the Air Cadets many years back but the Schleicher factory couldn't produce them fast enough to enough volume - step forwrd Herr Grob and his Acro!

So there was little chance of getting a complete set of K21s even by now - and I doubt that 2FTS expected their 'pause' to have lasted this long anyway!

Hindsight is a wonderful thing! :ok:

[DaveUnwin]

Even if they'd bought K-21s, there's no way the RAF could have resisted 'improving' them. After all, what does the manufacturer know?

[TheChitterneFlyer]

Perish the thought of having DIRCM turrets fitted to the aft fuselage!

[Arclite01]

Leon Jab

The full story regarding the K21 is on this thread............


http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/284073-air-cadet-gliding-pix-80s-pre-glass.html

Arc

Page 11

[RUCAWO]

A few more flown at Syerston this week.

https://www.facebook.com/1207Maldon

[cats_five]

Those look like motorgliders, not gliders.

[RUCAWO]

Full marks for that one:D Grob Vigilant T.1s ,sixty five of which used by seventeen VGSs that make up the self launching part of the Cadet gliding fleet and have all "paused " as well :ugh:

[Duplo]

The main problem with AEF manning is getting some of the volunteers to come in and fly! That said, the AEF near me has just launched its 3679th cadet this year just now..!

[F.O.D]

When I had the pleasure to serve as an AEF volunteer pilot, weekends were the most convenient for me and the cadets. Of course, no one in command would think of moving the AEF from RAF Wyton to a base where weekend cadet flying was not supported. Doooh!!! Some of the volunteers have to work during the week!

[brokenlink]

Duplo, take it you mean Cranditz based not Wyton/Wittering?
Only cadets who are currently flying from Wittering is any on Annual Camp locally plus CCF when term time starts. Not sure when Air Traffic is going to be sorted at Wittering, any on here know please?

[Lima Juliet]

Seen this today:

"Until now, HQ and supporting personnel of 2 FTS have been dispersed at a variety of locations, including RAFC Cranwell, RAF Syerston and RAF Linton-on-Ouse, due to lack of accommodation; however, a formal HQ has now been constructed to encompass all 2 FTS HQ personnel. Therefore, the new 2 FTS HQ has been stood up at RAF Syerston as of the 1 Sep 15."

So no Air Cadet gliding activity but a shiney new HQ - that's priorities for you! Maybe spending money on some new gliders or maintenance facilities first? :ugh:

LJ

[longer ron]

Yes priorities LJ

Perhaps they could change the header on their facebook page which reads...

No 2 Flying Training School RAF delivers Gliding to the Air Cadet Organisation (ACO)

Or Not

rgds LR

[Wander00]

AL 1. Before "delivers" insert "might sometime". Delete "s" from "delivers".
Hat, coat.............

[brokenlink]

Wander00. Spot on!;)

[thing]

the only serious accident we had (stall/spin from winch launch cable break) was being flown by a 'fully qualified' ex RAF pilot.Indeed. I've met some seriously gash mil pilots in GA. Most aren't I might add but I've been surprised at some of them.

Edited to add: there are some seriously gash non mil pilots too but you would probably expect a certain percentage who do it for a hobby now and again to cock up occasionally.

[DaveUnwin]

Exactly Thing. With regards to RAF pilots, I've always been amazed at how many people (generally not pilots I hasten to add) assume that just because a pilot is Sierra Hotel in a Typhoon or Tornado, they can just hop in a Champ or Cub. For example, RAF pilots recieve excellent training in nosedraggers, and (in my experience) are excellent operators - in nosedraggers. Put one in a taildragger and (without further training) it'll eat his or her lunch!
Look at the T-61 (AKA Venture). A very simple machine that can humble even the best pilot. Landing any monowheel on concrete in a crosswind is not for the faint-hearted!
And if you get a cable break at a tricky height, the best person to handle it is someone current on type and winch launching!
Anyway, back on track. I guess they had the money to build the new HQ because they hadn't spent any on actually flying! I don't suppose anyone on the inside can give us an update on how the 'pause' is proceeding (or not)?

[Wander00]

Of course the usual sequel to the completion of any HQ is cancellation and closure..............hat, coat............

[Ali Qadoo]

For example, RAF pilots receive excellent training in nosedraggers, and (in
my experience) are excellent operators - in nosedraggers. Put one in a
taildragger and (without further training) it'll eat his or her lunch!


You're not kidding. I'd just finished my second tour on F4s when I got the chance to fly a Tiger Moth - dual, of course. I've never worked so hard in my life and the (ahem) 'ability gaps' in my godlike poling abilities were plain for all to see. I climbed out of that aircraft a very chastened chap!

[Lima Juliet]

Listening to the distant jungle drum beat I hear that about half a dozen Vigilants will be airworthy at Syerston by the autumn and there are absolutely no Vikings airworthy yet - the latter despite there being several agencies working on them and one being a well respected sailplane maintenance organisation!

I'm guessing there must be some really significant issues as its now nearly 18 months since they 'pulled stumps' (or pause, grounded, gone tech, or whatever you want to call it! :ugh:).

Obviously, a new HQ and Hangar comes out of a different budget to potentially newly purchased gliders (the old RDEL/CDEL game). But from a taxpayers viewpoint supporting a great youth organisation, it does seem a bit 'arse about face' sorting out the infra whilst everything else is knackered. I'm also hearing rumours of a new runway at Syerston - I have to say, what's wrong with the grass? Defence and the Public Purse is supposed to be skint!

There are still some big 'elephants in the room' as well as the Vigilants were originally getting new engines and PowerFLARM fitted from 2015. I don't believe that the current work to return the aircraft to flying status will address these (unless anyone else knows different)?

LJ

[Jimmyjerez]

Few beers with my old Viking dudes last week. Quite clear the VGS organisation has been destroyed. Most instructors have finally seen the light and done one, the system hasn't a clue what dates VGSS will get gliders again and some say centre continue to fire out directives like they have an army of employees. any goodwill from the volunteers has gone apparently. I don't think they'll get it back from this. So so sad from what it was. So glad I went civvy, we see loads of youngsters our way now as well.

[thing]

Flew past Syerston this afternoon, looked very deserted. Sad.

[iRaven]

Thing, I'm not surprised, you can count the amount of availlable aircraft on one hand! :(

[longer ron]

I don't suppose anyone on the inside can give us an update on how the 'pause' is proceeding (or not)?

Nah its all top secret !

LJ - the actual physical problems with the gliders do not necessarily have to be really serious from an airworthiness angle - quite often the biggest problems can come from the 'paperwork trail' and log book anomalies these days !

[A and C]

Longer Ron has the situation summed up in a nutshell, it is the paper trail that is the problem add a bit of CYA and a bit of " that's not how we do it on the C130, hawk, typhoon" and you get the picture.

As with all projects like this it is getting the process set up that takes the time, once all are happy with the way to go about things then the return to service rate will accelerate.

[Aggamemnon]

once all are happy with the way to go about things

The fact that this has taken 18 months to deliver zero Vikings is risible.

[EnigmAviation]

Expect an announcement in next 7-10 days.

[DaveUnwin]

"....the return to service rate will accelerate."
I don't mean to sound pedantic, but as thus far ZERO Vikings have been returned to service, surely the ' return to service' process needs to start before it can accelerate?
And, judging by some comments on here, huge damage to the VGS organisation has already been done.
It really is a damn shame. I had my first-ever flight in an ATC T-21 more than 40 years ago, as (I suspect) did many others on here. It was at Tangmere, and the cable broke at 400ft. Great fun, and as we swept down for a graceful landing I knew then that flying was what I wanted to do.
I feel very sorry for all the cadets who haven't flown in a glider over the last 18 months.

[Mach Jump]

Of course the usual sequel to the completion of any HQ is cancellation and closure............

Many a true word..... :ooh:


I heard the other day, that it will cost £100,000/airframe to get the Vigilants flying again. :eek:

The entire pyramid of currency, training , seniority, etc will have to be rebuilt from the top downwards. That will take years.

On top of that, the task of rebuilding the volunteer base itself will be enormous, as the vast majority of the volunteers will have found other things to do with their time by now.

I can't see the VGSs ever recovering from this shambles. :*


MJ:ok:

PS. Lucky I'm not one for conspiracy theories.

[Wander00]

MJ - if that estimate is true would have been cheaper and a bl@@dy sight quicker to buy new aeroplanes

[Arclite01]

Buy what new aeroplanes ??

The Vigilant has been out of production for a long time now. And the Viking as well.

There are not many other 'suitable' types to replace either in production at the present time. And not many small aeroplane manufacturers can cope with rapid delivery of these types of aeroplane in volume................

So not really an option.

I am also wondering which 'Organisation' would do the maintenance of the Vikings going forward. There are over 100 airframes - no small number..........

Arc

[Corporal Clott]

Scheibe Falkes and Schleicher ASK-21s are still in production. Indeed the RAFGSA is taking delivery of brand new Turbo Falkes at present. No need for these as they're being used as glider tugs as well, but the normal rotax 912 variants are less than £100k each.

I'm sure, after 18 months, we could have had some brand spanking new Falkes and K-21s to fly the Cadets in. Grob aren't the only guys in this game and as well as the others I've mentiomed there is also Diamond Dimonas to comsider as well.

CPL Clott

http://blog.hobbyexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ask21_0012.jpg

[pitotheat]

It's not just the lack of staff that will be challenging. The communities around these now dormant airfields have grown use to the quiet weekends. The re-introduction of operation, particularly obviously Vigilants, will need to be preceded by a hearts and minds campaign.
I wonder if CGS/CFS have taken the opportunity to review some of the documentation associated with the operation including the engineering F700? No I thought not so over time this could all happen again.

[Rocket2]

How many nice shiny (new) Skylaunch winches have they received now?

[Flying_Anorak]

About 15 of those ordered I'd expect.

[DaveUnwin]

Well, I think we can all agree that (with a nod to today's date) this has definitely not been "Our Finest Pause" - although I suspect it may well be the longest!

[1.3VStall]

Rocket2 - you mean the shiny new Skylaunch winches that had to be re-engined with diesels (no doubt at vast expense) because installing LPG tanks at VGS sites was not acceptable? Dohhh!

[Arclite01]

@Cpl Clott

The issue is the same as last time. Schleicher can't do the volume. That is approx 3 - 4 years production for them. They were not willing to do it last time and certainly won't do it now (several reasons, some logistical, some political and some commercial). There is plenty about this on the Air Cadet Gliding Thread <<6 Vanguards (ASK-21) as I remember at 618VGS - we got all the K21's eventually apart from 2 which remained at Syerston. I always thought Catterick was small to operate the K21 on the eagle winch but West Malling was a fantastic site for the Air Cadet Operation, hard surfaces, large grass areas, big hangars, unobstructed approaches, uncontrolled airspace, no other major airfield users - no wonder they built all over it (wuckfits !!)

Personally I thought that the K21 and the current Grobs were chalk and cheese - the K21 was a fantastic aeroplane all round and the Grob a real plastic pig. Heavy controls, not enough rudder, ran out of elevator quickly with a heavy front cockpit load and insufficient rear trim. No suprise that Grob could deliver so many so quickly - they had a bundle of them sat on the shelf because the Germans did not want them........... and they know a thing or two about sailplanes.................. :-) - IIRC Group Captain J*** D******** was the agent for Grob at the time and may have been a powerful lobbyist

I always thought it was a shame Slingsby did not licence build the K21 like they did the T61 - that would have made production and delivery much faster. I was told that Schleicher would not lend out moulds anymore though becuase they had been stung by Centrair building the Pegasus 101 from ASW19 moulds and either undercutting prices or not paying licencing fees (can't remember which) - although that might just be rumour

Arc>> http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/284073-air-cadet-gliding-pix-80s-pre-glass-11.html


With regard to the Falke I agree it would be perfect but the decision to move away from Rag and Tube aeroplanes was made nearly 30 years ago by ACCGS.

I can't see them going back - despite the benefits from a maintenance perspective for the type of operation they run. High volumes of cheaper aeroplanes and low complexity technology is much better than fewer, expensive and higher spec IMHO.............. but there you go

What is all this about Skylaunch winches ? - are the Van Gelders being replaced ??

Arc

[Mechta]

Skylaunch Latest News (http://www.skylaunchuk.com/latestnews.php)

Its a shame they are re-engining them with diesels as the LPG engined Skylaunches are so easy and responsive to drive.

Diesel is, however, a much more benign fuel from a filling and storage point of view, particularly if cadets get involved in filling, and most operational stations will have a supply of red diesel anyway.

[Arclite01]

What was wrong with the Van Gelder then ??

I always found it superb. And 6 drums more than adequate.

I assume this mean 3 per school of these. I can see some benefit. If 1 is U/S then the others are OK whereas if the Van Gelder was U/S it was game over, and these will be easier to tow.............

I think the Diesel decision is a general decision for the vehicle fleet across MoD, cheaper and easier.

Arc

[Corporal Clott]

Hi Arc

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. So in 3-4 years we could have better gliders and we've wasted nearly half that time on what sounds like a p!ss-poor glider in the first place? Sounds like another scr3w up then. We could, on your numbers, have at least half our conventional VGSs flying by now with 'Vanguards' if we had not bothered with the Vikings and 'cut our losses' back in Apr 14. I understand, talking to one of those who has been working on the Vikings, that they are with 2 sub-contractors and have been for several months. He told some stories of the discovery of non-documented glass-fibre repairs in fuselages and wing leading edges that need to be done all over again and then properly recorded. If that is the case then it is hardly surprising that it's taking so long to do a fleet of 80+ aircraft.

Furthermore, of the 60-odd Vigilants, we could probably have replaced 27 (estimating 1.5 Falkes per month from the factory) - or just under 50%. Modern coverings on these are far better than that of the Venture. It also has conventional sprung gear rather than the old mono-wheel.

If we had done this then we would have half the VGSs flying again and they would be 'future proofed' in not needing new engines for the motorgliders.

Still, too late now. This 'pause' is not our finest hour...:(

CPL Clott

[ACW418]

Cpl Clott,

Not everyone agrees with Arc's analysis of the two gliders. I have flown and instructed on both types in both the Air Cadets and with BGA clubs and each has its own good points and bad points.

Rather than get into a pissing contest over this it would be best to just say the Vanguard (K21) has better rudder/aileron co-ordination in the front cockpit and the Viking (Grob 103 Acro) is much better in the rear cockpit.

That probably equates to the Vanguard being better for training but I never had any problems with students in either aircraft. The whole thing is academic anyway since Schleicher refused to have anything to do with supplying the 100 aircraft needed by the Air Cadets.

ACW

[Rocket2]

Mechta
LPG is a darned site easier to store unless the military HSE gophers get involved. Go to any house, petrol station or even a civvy gliding club that uses it, no bunding or 6 ft protective fences required, doesn't matter if you "spill" some & is perfectly safe to use so long as you take basic precautions. Its cheaper & gives a far better launch that any diesel powered winch - I suspect the engines last longer too rather than the smoky turbo charged diesel versions.
Cheers
R2

[1.3VStall]

R2,

Yes we all know that!

However, as in every other procurement case in recent history, the MoD decides that off-the-shelf purchase of a proven product is simply not acceptable - in this case LPG storage was the issue. (What issue?)

So the proven spec is b*ggered about with, the supplier adds significant additional cost and we - the taxpayers - end up paying way over the odds for a non-standard piece of kit that performs worse than the original.

What makes this case even more laughable is that all these new Skylaunch winches have nothing to launch because of yet another MoD f*ck up.

Never mind, those young air cadets that can't glide can go along to Wittering at the weekend for some AEF flying: not! Sorry, I forgot, the feckwits that moved all the flying units from Wyton failed to resource the air traffic organisation so that the Wittering could open at weekends, so a fleet of Tutors stands idle!

You really couldn't script it!:ugh:

[The B Word]

The RAF Gliding and Soaring Assoc (RAFGSA) use LPG Sklylaunch winches and manage to store LPG on MoD airfields. If they can do it, then so could the VGSs.

:confused:

[Mechta]

R2, I do drive an LPG Skylaunch most weekends (and fill it when necessary). I agree that they give good launches and having driven a Supacat diesel winch as well must say I prefer the Skylaunch.

The MOD has had a policy for quite a few years of moving towards diesel/JP-8 fuels only, even the Royal Marines 'Rigid Raiders' use diesel outboards. The principle exceptions to this being training aircraft i.e. Tutors and Vigilants. Bringing in another diesel winch is a relatively simple matter, whereas an LPG one needs the infrastructure and all the HSE ball-ache that goes with it. In the post Haddon-Cave world, that would be a lot of extra work for each location.

One more thing; if the LPG storage tank is empty and someone forgets to order any, no-one glides at the weekend. If the tank is empty on a diesel winch, you could always fill it from jerry cans.

[Frelon]

....and I wonder what the trappers are doing with themselves? There are so many times you can rewrite the training manuals and the VGS's must be fed up with admin checks!!

...and how do the trappers keep current?

Oh well, I expect someone is due for a posting soon, so the problem will be somebody else's to sort out :ugh:

A VERY sad débacle (definition: A sudden and ignominious failure; a fiasco) for the Air Cadet organisation, and one I fear that will change this fantastic organisation for many years to come.

Venture, Adventure!!

[Wander00]

Venture, Adventure, Misadventure..................hat, coat..............

[DaveUnwin]

"What makes this case even more laughable is that all these new Skylaunch winches have nothing to launch because of yet another MoD f*ck up."

I know what you mean 1.3. For a while I thought that this whole sorry affair was reminiscent of a Marx Brothers caper, but it is now beyond parody. Even David Brent and Basil Fawlty could've done a better job.

[Arclite01]

ACW418

Sorry if I sounded super critical of the Viking. It's done sterling work for the VGS. I just personally felt that the Vanguard (K21) was better at the task (having operated both on a VGS) of teaching cadets.

I'd have to say the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The K21 is still in production in largely its original form - the 103 (having gone through several iterations) is not.

Personally I always felt that the K13 was the glider the ATC should have brought - but don't get me started on that !!

And I think the Canadian Air Cadets are still using their original Schweitzer 2-33's from the 1960's !!

I just wish the fiasco could be sorted and everyone back to work.

Regards

Arc

[cats_five]

Did Schleicher not want to build 100 K21s full stop, or 100 K21s with mucked around specs?

[A and C]

You shoud understand that there are now a number of gliders that would be condsidered ready to fly from a mecanical point of view however in a post Haddon-cave enviroment the paperwork culture is very cautious and parts certification issues are a problem as the military has to get to grips with the way the gilder manufactures release servicable parts to service under EASA.

it is rather a pitty that the gliders are not on the civil register (as are the Grob Tutors,) f they were the whole thing would fall under EASA 145 oversight and not have the complication of a foot in both certification camps when it comes to parts supply.

This is one of the few times I have ever seen when EASA oversight would remove complication.

[DaveUnwin]

A & C I do understand that. As someone who has managed a gliding club, I also understand the frustrations of many on here.
To recap the situation as I understand it - more than 18 months ago gliders that were serviceable on the day they were grounded, were grounded.
18 months later, these gliders are still not serviceable.
In a nutshell, is that - or is that not - a reasonable precis of the situation?

[DaveUnwin]

"Did Schleicher not want to build 100 K21s full stop, or 100 K21s with mucked around specs?" I know what you means Cats5 - as Schleicher are in the glider building game to make money it could only have been the latter!