Air Cadets grounded?

[cats_five]

May I suggest the elephant in the room isn't necessarily real estate. The word in our corner of the Empire is:

2-4 serviceable airframes per VGS, probably closer to two than four.
Fatigue management plan limiting each airframe to 200 launches/year.
An out-of-service date of 2025.

Which airframes are these? Vikings? Vigilants?

[muppetofthenorth]

Which airframes are these? Vikings? Vigilants?
Vikings

Unit I'm close to just got it's first gliding slots (first flying slots of any kind) since late 2017. 4 spaces, and it's a unit of 60+. And that's it till at least September.

Flying in the air cadets is dead, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[beardy]

I'm not supposed to tell you that the young people I had in the aircraft yesterday were Air Cadets.

[Shaft109]

Erm is that 200 launches per year per airframe?

Where does that fit into normal useage before the pause versus Civil gliding numbers?

Doesn't seem very high

[hoodie]

What is the fatigue issue with a composite airframe? :confused:

[muppetofthenorth]

I'm not supposed to tell you that the young people I had in the aircraft yesterday were Air Cadets.

Some units, by fluke of geography, are getting more, it's true.

And there are these "experience days" where cadets get 15 minutes in a Chinook once a year, which while nice, don't come close to replicating the time they used to get only a few years ago actually flying and taking control.

But considering the size of the air cadets versus the size of the RAF, its not all that surprising. What is surprising is the continued propaganda being spouted by HQAC with regards to it all. If they were more honest about the reality of the situation there'd be a lot less animosity towards them.

[BEagle]

I'm not sure that 20 minutes in a Tutor with a pilot (who might never have been a QFI) is going to appeal quite as much as being taught to fly to solo standard in a Viking?

Certainly an Air Cadet instructor colleague of mine reckons that hanging around all day for a short AEF flight doesn't have anything like the appeal to his cadets as Vigilant flying once did. As for the part task trainers, he reckons that they're worse than useless and cause a degree of negative training.

Is that the generally-held view amongst those who instruct Air Cadets these days?

[Pegpilot]

Shaft109 - you're right to suspect that 200 launches p.a per glider is unimpressive. Our small weekend-only club last year managed 1300 launches between two training gliders or 650 per glider. I'm guessing that the 7-day a week clubs manage well north of 1000 launches per glider. So if you can solo a student from 50 launches that only represents 4 students per annum per glider, even assuming no Air Experience flying gets in the way of Ab Initio training. Not hugely impressive.

[muppetofthenorth]

I'm not sure that 20 minutes in a Tutor with a pilot (who might never have been a QFI) is going to appeal quite as much as being taught to fly to solo standard in a Viking?

Certainly an Air Cadet instructor colleague of mine reckons that hanging around all day for a short AEF flight doesn't have anything like the appeal to his cadets as Vigilant flying once did. As for the part task trainers, he reckons that they're worse than useless and cause a degree of negative training.

Is that the generally-held view amongst those who instruct Air Cadets these days?
Fwiw, cadets hate the PTT, but the new 'syllabus' means they have to use them first before being allowed near anything that actually flies.

Viking vs Tutor isn't really a question for them. Most cadets haven't had either for years, so anything is better than nothing.

[Glider111]

Quite a few errors creeping in. 200 launches a year is not correct. All the ones I’ve seen are limited to 200 launches between inspections. The inspections are very minor and the aircraft is normally good to fly another 200 launches by the next weekend.

I would say the majority of the instructors dislike the PTT but most cadets I’ve flown seem to enjoy it.

As for the claim that they can’t go near flying until after the PTT that’s not true. They can fly the tutor first then visit a VGS/AGS as and when and get the rest of the training completed. Our unit often fly cadets before doing the PTT to make use of a weather gap etc.

The negative training element you refer to is a possible concern, however we do not use the ptt for anything other than blue and bronze (gic). I don’t like it but like I say most cadets I’ve asked do and gives them a starting point for the airborne tasks or consolidates the training.

[Tingger]

May I suggest the elephant in the room isn't necessarily real estate. The word in our corner of the Empire is:

2-4 serviceable airframes per VGS, probably closer to two than four.
Fatigue management plan limiting each airframe to 200 launches/year.
An out-of-service date of 2025.

The fatigue management plan doesn't limit 200 launches per year at all. The planning assumptions is only marginally reduced from it's prepause level of 966. Plus there are recovered Vikings with over 7500 launches to use over the next 5 1/2 years if max launches and OSD are to match up.

[cats_five]

What is the fatigue issue with a composite airframe? :confused:

I have no idea why such a limit. We have K21 gliders where I fly and they do about 500 hours per year, which will be many more launches than 500 as almost no training flight is as long as an hour. Indeed quite a few are a couple of minutes or less. (practise cable breaks)

K21s can now be relifed to 18,000 hours.

And whilst these are not K21s, they don't have substantially lower life limits.

[muppetofthenorth]

Quite a few errors creeping in. 200 launches a year is not correct. All the ones I’ve seen are limited to 200 launches between inspections. The inspections are very minor and the aircraft is normally good to fly another 200 launches by the next weekend.

I would say the majority of the instructors dislike the PTT but most cadets I’ve flown seem to enjoy it.

As for the claim that they can’t go near flying until after the PTT that’s not true. They can fly the tutor first then visit a VGS/AGS as and when and get the rest of the training completed. Our unit often fly cadets before doing the PTT to make use of a weather gap etc.

The negative training element you refer to is a possible concern, however we do not use the ptt for anything other than blue and bronze (gic). I don’t like it but like I say most cadets I’ve asked do and gives them a starting point for the airborne tasks or consolidates the training.
That's assuming there's any flying availablity.

We've not had Tutors available for 2 years. We've not had gliders available for almost as long.

We're advertising a false reality.

[hoodie]

Thank you, cats_five and Glider111. It's good to know the situation may be bleak but not quite as bleak as painted in places.

[biscuit74]

Last I heard the Vigilants were to be literally scrapped, presumably because if they were sold off to the public and an accident occured which could be attributed to a unrecorded repair, MOD might face a law suit of some sort.

Strewth! That is appalling. Scrapping aircraft which could have useful remaining lives in civilian use because of a perceived future legal threat. I had have thought careful wording of any sale should avoid that. What happened to 'caveat emptor'?

Fine machines - sad.

[POBJOY]

Now come on chaps its not all doom and gloom.
I have it on very good authority that Crass Control at Cranwell have ordered some extra Group Captain uniforms for a new batch of 'celeb endorsee's',and that even now Boscombe Down are engaged in fatigue testing of replacement heated seats for the PTT.
This has been a bit of a problem after the initial batch were found to have the incorrect thermostats fitted (some mix up on e;bay with centigrade & F-Ht) and time ex'ed VGS staff used for the tests (because they had a plentiful supply) were seen to be hurling themselves into an adjacent water tank with their A...... on fire.
New badge for the Corps Staff replacing Venture Adventure with a Red and Yellow flash stating WE ARE ALL FIRED UP WITH ATC GLIDING.

[Buster11]

WE ARE ALL FIRED UP WITH ATC GLIDING.[/b]

Shouldn't that read FED UP...?

[Whizz Bang]

Strewth! That is appalling. Scrapping aircraft which could have useful remaining lives in civilian use because of a perceived future legal threat. I had have thought careful wording of any sale should avoid that. What happened to 'caveat emptor'?

Fine machines - sad.

While that may be the public explanation, I suspect it's more likely due to the embarrassing prospect of them flying again within 6 months on the civil register...

[bobward]

Last year I quit as an ATC instructor after 42 years. I had become totally fed up with the way the senior management of the organisation (=HQAC) were performing. They had driven most of the fun out of the organisation through piling more and more paperwork, risk assessments and other stuff onto the staff. On my unit we had two CI's doing nothing but admin work every week. What really hurt the most was seeing cadets spend most of their ATC career without getting airborne. The way gliding has gone is a national disgrace, which, thanks to MP's squabbling over Brexit will be quietly swept to one side.

The only saving grace I saw was when we had our AEF for Tutor flying changed. I'll not name either unit here as I don't want to embarrass those involved. When we changed units, the difference between the two was enormous. We were met on arrival and the unit staff ran the job with great efficiency, which meant the cadets were processed and flown without the delivering staff needing to get involved. They all had a great time, due in no great part to the enthusiasm of the unit staff. Every time I took cadets here there were also spaces made available for we staff to fly as well. That was impressive.

When I left I wrote to ma'am at HQAC to explain why I was going and put over my point of view. To her great credit, she wrote back within two days of my letter arriving. Sadly, I don't think she answered many of my points, although at least she knows how this tiny cog in the ATC machine felt. To those of you who soldier on, I wish you all the best and sincerely hope that one day things will get better. REading this thread, and noting it's length, we may well achieve Brexit before that happens.

[A and C]

As usual only about half the truth is getting out , the vilgilants could be sold but the MoD will only sell to organisations capable of inspecting and releasing the aircraft to EASA 145 standard, this is because of leagal liability over previous maintenance history.

The issue now becomes who is going to buy such an aircraft ? They will require substantial inspection and an engine retrofit as the current engine is no longer in production. My guess is that even if released from the RAF at a very low price the cost of the aircraft in fit for gliding club service would be in IRO £100k per aircraft and this only if a production run of ten or so aircraft financed up front.

While this might be achievable with the right customer you can see the difficulty as there are very few gliding clubs or individuals who are likely to have £100K to spend on such a project .

[biscuit74]

Thanks for that A&C. That makes a little more sense.

On the engine topic - did the RAF change that from the Grob 2500 which the 109B used? There are quite a few of those still happily flying in the civilian world. Being out of production doesn't necessarily mean they can't still be used - for example Gypsy engines are still used by quite a few machines...

[A and C]

Biscuit74

The engine problem is one of limmited availability , production of parts stopped some years back And unlike the Gypsy there is no big stockpile of parts from years of production or large support network.

Due to leagal issues with the airframe the inspection would return this to almost new standard so no operator is going to invest a sum of capital In an airframe that has an engine with a very uncertain future.

Find someone who wants a fleet of 20+ aircraft and has the cash and the project would work, the result of spreading the cost across twenty or so units would also bring down the unit cost a little.

[lightbluefootprint]

Last year I quit as an ATC instructor after 42 years. I had become totally fed up with the way the senior management of the organisation (=HQAC) were performing. They had driven most of the fun out of the organisation through piling more and more paperwork, risk assessments and other stuff onto the staff. On my unit we had two CI's doing nothing but admin work every week. What really hurt the most was seeing cadets spend most of their ATC career without getting airborne. The way gliding has gone is a national disgrace, which, thanks to MP's squabbling over Brexit will be quietly swept to one side.

The only saving grace I saw was when we had our AEF for Tutor flying changed. I'll not name either unit here as I don't want to embarrass those involved. When we changed units, the difference between the two was enormous. We were met on arrival and the unit staff ran the job with great efficiency, which meant the cadets were processed and flown without the delivering staff needing to get involved. They all had a great time, due in no great part to the enthusiasm of the unit staff. Every time I took cadets here there were also spaces made available for we staff to fly as well. That was impressive.

When I left I wrote to ma'am at HQAC to explain why I was going and put over my point of view. To her great credit, she wrote back within two days of my letter arriving. Sadly, I don't think she answered many of my points, although at least she knows how this tiny cog in the ATC machine felt. To those of you who soldier on, I wish you all the best and sincerely hope that one day things will get better. REading this thread, and noting it's length, we may well achieve Brexit before that happens.
I've been out for ten years now having been pleased to served in and out of uniform with the ACO for almost thirty years beforehand and sadly nothing you have written surprises me. The writing was on the wall when they prematurely moved on a certain A/Cdre who had an amazing rapport with cadets and staff because he was making too many positive inroads and dragging the ACO towards the 21st century. Personally I think the ACO will never get back to that position of strength, although the current CAC (with whom I have corresponded) does seem to have the PR side of things sorted in terms of getting the ACO/RAFC into the public eye.

[POBJOY]

(Grob 2500 Engine

For Grob engine read VW type 4.
Limbach were 'converting' VW for years with all consumable parts available (and to a very high spec).
The LAA have already confirmed they will have no issues certifying these engines or being able to oversee 'zero timing when required'.
Just to remind people that when Rollason at Croydon produced their range of Ardem VW engines 1200-1600 cc in those days ALL the parts came from the local VW dealer in Croydon. These were the engines that powered the original ATC ( Motor Falkes) and in many cases are still going well in their original airframes. So there is nothing too difficult in the original engine situation if operated under the LAA system. In fact considering the original 109 was designed as a TOURING Motor Glider not a circuit basher, I think that rather dispels the myths regarding engines, and in most cases the aircraft were operating at a higher all up weight than originally designed for, which shows how well it coped. IRMC.

Of course it is not surprising that the VW engine converts so well as its origins stemmed from its 'aviation led designer' which it why it was so light (Mag crankcase) and if correctly cooled (cowled) and keeps its oil coolers performs so well. The 'Hot Ship' VW engines used lightweight Porsche barrels with chrome bores.

[POBJOY]

It so happened that a certain ultralight VW powered aircraft (Rollason Turbulent) was 'improved' for racing. On the airframe side it received some 'cleaning up' including a reduced height windscreen and spats, gap sealing etc, but, but its real 'boost' came from an engine with high comp pistons and a prop that was matched to give speed rather than climb. The end result was a machine that could exceed its vne in level flight if run flat out.
The Duke of E flew one such machine on a normal flight, and unknown at the time (and unconnected) it later broke a crank (but still landed ok).
It transpired that there was nothing wrong with the basic crankshaft, but with a lack of a flywheel there was an extra stress condition and the cast crank would start to crack from a part number marking. Later engine models started to use forged cranks and have given decades of faultless service.
The original prototype ATC Slingsby Falke was delivered with a hand pull lever starter similar to that on the RF4. The RAF were not really aware that this was normally only used for airborne starts to get over the initial compressions, and of course the engine became difficult to start on the ground, as everyone else would hand swing the prop which was a normal operation. The standard Rollason Ardem had dual ignition (with lucas tractor mags in those days) so that side of things did not help the weight especially when fitted with an impulse coupling for starting.
If we fast fwd to the present time and the Grob 2500 engine this was produced with twin carbs with a high mounting so added a complexity not present in most VW conversions as any fuel/heat/airlock situation can lead to a very uneven engine balance if both carbs are not working in harmony. An interesting potential project could be to utilise an available fuel injection system with a single fwd facing air inlet that gives an element of ram air (as per normal light aircraft situation) and also reduces the usual 'carb icing' potential. All this could be done under the LAA system and may well be a solution for the future. It is quite obvious that the basic 109 is a well proven machine, and if operated at sensible weights as designed is quite capable of launching itself without problems. It does not need an expensive re-engine program (nor a glass cockpit) to perform as designed, and having served the Air Cadets so well for its required service life it could still proceed to its next life under the LAA as have the motor Falkes.

ATC gliding is never coming back 'as was' due to many factors; the main one being crass top management. However the legacy of this volunteer training machine will always be remembered for its ability to inspire youth to achieve solo flight with minimum fuss and maximum effectiveness, and as such it had no equal anywhere in the world. Be proud for its memory.

[DaveUnwin]

Hear hear Pobjoy, hear hear!!

[A and C]

While I completely agree with Pobjoy on technical issues and the direction that would be best for air cadet gliding we have to face the fact that the the world has moved on and the public perseption of risk has changed from an acceptance that risk is part of life to an almost fanatical attitude that there should be no risk in life and this should be assured by someone in charge.

It therefore follows that the public perseption is that their children should be exposed to no more risk than flying with the air cadets than they would if they get on an airliner to go on holiday, so despite the excellent stewardship of gliding demonstrated by the BGA their standards of maintenance and operation would be branded as unprofessional by the lawyers and as cheapskating with children’s lives by the press. I can just see the headlines if a cadet dies in an a accident powered by an autiomotive derived VW “ RAF kill child with in aircraft powered with second hand car motor “ would be the cry from the BBC.

It therefore follows that the minimum standard for maintenance is EASA145 with operations standards that match, this of course comes at a price but the RAF could keep this in check by looking more carefully at the way airlines run EASA145 rather than it’s own triple gold plated interpretation of the regulations .

Like Pobjoy I can remember that days when people realised that life was risk filled and it was a personal responsibility to manage that risk, unfortunately we have moved on to a culture that thinks risk is someone else’s responsibility and there are the ambulance chasing lawyer to back up this perseption. This is the world that the RAF have to work with and the current policy towards air cadet gliding has to be seen in this light when managing air cadet flying safely.

The one place that the RAF could improve its delivery of cadet gliding is in managing the performance ( or lack of ) by its contractors with a minimum fleet serviceability rate that if not met would attract financal penalty’s.

[tucumseh]

Pobjoy & A and C

Good posts. I would add, however, that when parents encourage their children to fly in MoD gliders, they assume (reasonably) that MoD has complied with regulations mandated upon it. It does not; and that is where acceptabe risk becomes gambling - both on MoD's and the parents part. The trouble is, the latter have nothing to base their decision on, except false assurances by MoD. That MoD permits and encourages these false assurances is the real problem. Mercifully, such contempt for the law is rarer in commercial aviation (notwithstanding recent events) but, as A and C says, parents apply the same standards to both. The risk of anything untoward happening while gliding is indeed low, but parents should be aware that MoD consciously increases the probability of occurrence as a means of saving money. No commercial enterprise, especially in the UK, would (or should) be allowed to get away with that, which is why I agree with the call to hand gliding over to a reputable company.

As many have pointed out, to MoD the re-setting of these assurances is prohibitively expensive, due in part to a poor or non-existent airworthiness audit trail. Yes, with enough money this can be recovered, but it is not a case of issuing a single plan for a fleet. Each aircraft must be addressed separately. The results of the survey must be reconcilable with the accompanying historical documentation. In practice, a 'Beyond Economical Recovery/Repair' price is agreed. As soon as that is reached, a tail number is scrapped. Long ago the RAF decided to stop resourcing the management of this. A figure of £100k per aircraft was mentioned, above. In 1990, avionic LRUs costing more than this were declared 'consumable' and scrapped, simply to avoid the perceived hassle of managing a repair. I recall an RN Board of Inquiry being gobsmacked at this, but it explained why two-thirds of the Sea Harrier fleet didn't have a full nav system.

No contractor would agree to minimum fleet serviceability rate without a caveat saying if the cause of delay was down to historical MoD actions, then there is no liability. Contractors tend not to want to embarrass MoD with this, so there exists a standard 'emergent work' clause that is simply inserted in the contract without comment. This requires MoD to have (a) a resident engineer on site, and (b) he must be intimately familiar with the product. Neither is MoD policy, and hasn't been for over 25 years. The term 'blank cheque' comes to mind.

[Big Pistons Forever]

While I completely agree with Pobjoy on technical issues and the direction that would be best for air cadet gliding we have to face the fact that the the world has moved on and the public perception of risk has changed from an acceptance that risk is part of life to an almost fanatical attitude that there should be no risk in life and this should be assured by someone in charge.


Like Pobjoy I can remember that days when people realized that life was risk filled and it was a personal responsibility to manage that risk, unfortunately we have moved on to a culture that thinks risk is someone else’s responsibility and there are the ambulance chasing lawyer to back up this perseption. This is the world that the RAF have to work with and the current policy towards air cadet gliding has to be seen in this light when managing air cadet flying safely.




I would suggest that Canadian and British parents have similar levels of risk tolerance for the safety of their children. So why can't the British Air Cadets basically give any of their cadets a meaningful "air" experience when the Canadian Air cadet organization manages to give around 300 cadets a full Transport Canada Glider Pilot License every year ? The Canadian Air Cadet program also has a robust program of air experience flights in gliders for the younger air cadets.

I personally think that playing the safety card is just an excuse for inaction. A robust gliding program where Air Cadets get to fly solo is totally doable If there is the organizational will to make it happen

[Bigpants]

A few years back I offered a draft article to Air Power in which I suggested that the RAF should radically change its approach to cadet flying. I pointed out that a couple of self build programmes where sponsors (Boeing UK, ReAS etc) had purchased kit aircraft for a school or ATC Wing in order that they build there own LAA approved aircraft. This had worked rather well and I thought it should be extended to all cadet wings in the hope that cadets might discover STEM can be fun, interesting and the completed aircraft used for air experience flights..

I also pointed out that the hero of the Hudson River Captain Sullenberger had been a keen member of the gliding programme at the USAAF Academy 40 years ago and that continues to run today I believe. So why did the Americans set up a gliding programme at their Air Force Academy? Perhaps because the best Luftwaffe pilots had started as glider pilots, examples include Eric Hartmann the top scoring ace of WW2 who was taught to glide in the 1930s aged 14 by his Mother thanks to (NAZI) government funding. Hanna Reich another example.

Then there are the STEM aspects of Germany's glider programme examples include the Horten Brothers whose work on a flying wing glider morphed into first a jet fighter bomber and plans for a large flying wing bomber capable of reaching the USA. The B2 stealth bomber owes some of its design features to work carried out by the Horten Brothers in 1944 including radar adsorbent paint.

Needless to say while the examples were perfectly valid the idea of the UK copying 1930s Germany was so alarming to the editor that the draft was rejected.

Today many of us are concerned about the quantity and quality of air cadet flying, the poor STEM skills in our teenagers and the lack of women pilots......

https://www.aerosociety.com/careers-education/schools-outreach/schools-build-a-plane/

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

[beardy]

I understood that the Germans had no other choice than to glide, powered military-aviation was banned by the Treaty of Versailles. Gliding and clandestine schools in Russia were the only options.

[POBJOY]

Leaving the tech aspects aside for a moment the Air Cadets need a top to bottom change for the organisation to survive as a credible youth (Aviation related) operation.
The organisation's problems stem from it having become a nice safe 'JOB' for too many in the higher echelons of the system and the parent service (The RAF)
These are the people that let the system down and just could not understand that the 'Hands On' element (Volunteers) were a very capable force that ran a flying training unit 'DESPITE' the poor back up being provided from above. With so many Pension Toppers in place there will be no reason to effect change, so they adopt the usual corporate remedy of spending huge amounts of money (Telling Lies) or as they would say promoting the activity (or lack of it), and bringing along Celeb promoters to dress the stage. The whole scenario of moving from being the CORPS to becoming RAF CADETS is just another wasted effort that no doubt saw even more pension toppers employed. The expanded AEF operation has not in any way replaced the accessibility of simple ATC Gliding, and certainly has not replaced the USP of the 'Youth Solo experience'. Look at the evidence 'Post Pause' huge amounts of money still being spent and idle equipment in store, but no real actual substantial FLYING going on where it should be or where it was promised, buts lots of jobs still in post 'doing what'.

[Lordflasheart]

...I understood that the Germans had no other choice than to glide,....


They could have sat safely on their RCs, shuffling paper, making up excuses, reorganising and patting each other on the back for a job well executed.

Look at all the trouble it might have saved if they had. ........ ;).

.........

[teeteringhead]

They could have sat safely on their RCs Thought for one moment there Milord Flash that you meant Regional Commandants!!

But then none of them are pilots these days I understand ... not too long ago they all were. Coincidence.....??

[DaveUnwin]

Big Pistons has the answer, if Teeteringhead is right there's your clue.

[Cows getting bigger]

I personally think that playing the safety card is just an excuse for inaction. A robust gliding program where Air Cadets get to fly solo is totally doable If there is the organizational will to make it happen

The only 'will' I see in the Air Cadets is for: endless grip-and-grin moments; rolling-out kids to stand at rugby matches, funerals, etc; adult staff (sorry CFAV) more focussed on themselves than the cadets; big 'super-camps' that have an air of exclusivity; Air Cadet choirs, orchestras etc (one presumes to stroke egos at big-wig functions); Total Safety gone mad, with hierarchy not actually knowing what Total Safety means; MBA style Performance Indicators that reach down to squadron level; civil servants who are not serving; Wing/Regional HQs and HQAC who regularly forget that they are the supporting element and not the supported; a half-hearted commitment to reduce admin burden that has completely failed to reduce; more grip-and-grins.

I see very little aviation minded structure - one just need to look at the Progressive Training Syllabus. A reminder, the aims of the ATC:

To promote and encourage among young men and women a practical interest in aviation and the Royal Air Force (RAF). To provide training which will be useful in both the services and civilian life. To foster a spirit of adventure and to develop the qualities of leadership and good citizenship.

Dear Comdt Air Cadets, how are you performing against the primary aim? Why don't you try and get aviation back to the forefront and spend less time of the pink-and-fluffy non-aviation stuff that is tweeted every few hours?

PS. Despite the rant, I still have huge amounts of time for the kids we help develop. It just annoys me that the organisation has evolved into a blue-suit version of the Scouts (who I admire) and has lost/is losing it's raison d'être.

[muppetofthenorth]

The only 'will' I see in the Air Cadets is for: endless grip-and-grin moments; rolling-out kids to stand at rugby matches, funerals, etc; adult staff (sorry CFAV) more focussed on themselves than the cadets; big 'super-camps' that have an air of exclusivity; Air Cadet choirs, orchestras etc (one presumes to stroke egos at big-wig functions); Total Safety gone mad, with hierarchy not actually knowing what Total Safety means; MBA style Performance Indicators that reach down to squadron level; civil servants who are not serving; Wing/Regional HQs and HQAC who regularly forget that they are the supporting element and not the supported; a half-hearted commitment to reduce admin burden that has completely failed to reduce; more grip-and-grins.

I see very little aviation minded structure - one just need to look at the Progressive Training Syllabus. A reminder, the aims of the ATC:



Dear Comdt Air Cadets, how are you performing against the primary aim? Why don't you try and get aviation back to the forefront and spend less time of the pink-and-fluffy non-aviation stuff that is tweeted every few hours?

PS. Despite the rant, I still have huge amounts of time for the kids we help develop. It just annoys me that the organisation has evolved into a blue-suit version of the Scouts (who I admire) and has lost/is losing it's raison d'être.

While I know what you mean by this, there another side to it. With the unit I'm attached to we got a calendar of events sent down by our Wing detailing all the things they were asking us to do, take part in, promote, assist with, etc... Of the 52 weekends in the year, 40 of them had something cadet related going on. That's before you get to the midweek sessions, the extras not planned in, and the things you want to do with your own unit. And then there's just wanting a weekend to yourself...

I don't blame fellow CFAVs for thinking about themselves a bit.

But there are still those who just want the clobber to pose around in. Them we can do without.

[POBJOY]

'ATC Gliding 'AS WAS' is still doable, but not under the current management regime, who have effectively killed it off.
Ask yourselves why; with new winches, trucks, and a supposedly reasonable supply of 'recovered machines' the UK skies are not home to the 'reborn Vikings'. Answer They don't know how to do it. The 'Doing It' expertise was all in the Squadrons and when they went so did the capability. Assuming you could find a suitable VGS team to help steer the ship back on course an 'experienced' VGS thinking 'think tank' would have to convene at HQ Air Cadets to make it happen. How would you do that; well I could suggest that a well proven way was to build a Squadron then split it until you have the required no of units. Whilst waiting for qual 'CATS' to cover solo ops this could be covered by suitably qualified types covering more than one operation as required.
The nonsense that is the PTT should be removed as part of the training, although they could go to the Wings for pr/recruiting duties that at least have an Aviation theme. In a nutshell they need to 'involve' those that were 'doing it' well for so many years and let them help get the system back on line, no one else has a clue.

[Tingger]

'ATC Gliding 'AS WAS' is still doable, but not under the current management regime, who have effectively killed it off.
Ask yourselves why; with new winches, trucks, and a supposedly reasonable supply of 'recovered machines' the UK skies are not home to the 'reborn Vikings'. Answer They don't know how to do it. The 'Doing It' expertise was all in the Squadrons and when they went so did the capability. Assuming you could find a suitable VGS team to help steer the ship back on course an 'experienced' VGS thinking 'think tank' would have to convene at HQ Air Cadets to make it happen. How would you do that; well I could suggest that a well proven way was to build a Squadron then split it until you have the required no of units. Whilst waiting for qual 'CATS' to cover solo ops this could be covered by suitably qualified types covering more than one operation as required.
The nonsense that is the PTT should be removed as part of the training, although they could go to the Wings for pr/recruiting duties that at least have an Aviation theme. In a nutshell they need to 'involve' those that were 'doing it' well for so many years and let them help get the system back on line, no one else has a clue.

err so you've pretty much described what is happening with CGS providing the nucleus to then split out to autonomous ops

[lightbluefootprint]

While I know what you mean by this, there another side to it. With the unit I'm attached to we got a calendar of events sent down by our Wing detailing all the things they were asking us to do, take part in, promote, assist with, etc... Of the 52 weekends in the year, 40 of them had something cadet related going on. That's before you get to the midweek sessions, the extras not planned in, and the things you want to do with your own unit. And then there's just wanting a weekend to yourself...

I don't blame fellow CFAVs for thinking about themselves a bit.

But there are still those who just want the clobber to pose around in. Them we can do without.
I was definitely in the same region as you appear to be in - possibly even the same wing given the reorganisation a few years back, and on our highly active Sqn probably had a similar level of activity through wing events or stuff we were doing for ourselves. The Sqn WO and I had very supportive partners and we reckoned that we were putting between 20 and 30 hours per week each into the Sqn. We worked that out on a unit that had basic hours of 6.30 -10.30 for staff twice a week plus weekends. Having a large, enthusiastic - and most importantly competent - team is absolutely key to support that level of activity, Wing HQ kind of knew what we were up to as they saw the paperwork (or wondered how the hell we were using so much .22 ammo) and the local AEF boss at Church Fenton knew he could call us on a Friday evening if slots were open, but this is the side of the activity that RHQ and Cranwell were by and large ignorant of. A Reg Cmdt on his first visit to a summer camp with Sqns from our wing was having dinner with a group of VRTs in the mess at Cosford and asked what they all did for jobs before they joined the cadets. That's the level of insight we sometimes had to contend with.....

[Chugalug2]

BPF:-
I would suggest that Canadian and British parents have similar levels of risk tolerance for the safety of their children. So why can't the British Air Cadets basically give any of their cadets a meaningful "air" experience when the Canadian Air cadet organization manages to give around 300 cadets a full Transport Canada Glider Pilot License every year ? The Canadian Air Cadet program also has a robust program of air experience flights in gliders for the younger air cadets.


As far as I know the Canadian Airworthiness Authorities have not deliberately subverted and suborned their own Airworthiness Regulations. The British Airworthiness Authority (aka the MOD and its wholly owned subsidiary the MAA) has, and maintains a continuing cover up of that illegal action, thus preventing reform. That is why, BPF, and will continue to remain why until Regulation and Investigation is removed from MOD control.

[Cows getting bigger]

Sorry for the misleading bit about 200 launches/year vs. 200 launches between maintenance. However, thinking on a bit more about the maintenance schedule and recovery plan, I'm left wondering with 50 or so airframes for recovery, why are only about a third of them serviceable and available to VGSs? One presumes a minor should maybe take a day? What about major inspections? When I ran a flying school, my chief engineer would get his parts felt if a 50hr took more than a day and an annual more than 8.

I suppose my query is regarding the efficacy of the recovery and ongoing provision of serviceable airframes.

[sycamore]

CGB, you should know the answer...` When the weight of the `gilet-jaunes,plus the paperwork is equal to.........`and has been scrutinised by CDS,ACMS,MAA,CAA,UNCLE TOM and the tea-lady....if we can then find a Duty Stakeholder,etc,etc,etc.....!!!

[Big Pistons Forever]

The Canadian Air Cadet aircraft are civil registered and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Flight training also follows the civil syllabus. The RCAF provides funding support, the use of some Military facilities on a non interference basis with RCAF operations, and also provides safety oversight with the RCAF flight safety program.

While not perfect it is a model that works.......

[POBJOY]

err so you've pretty much described what is happening with CGS providing the nucleus to then split out to autonomous ops
I see; 5 years on and 2 FTS has built a bigger empire, but the VGS element is now minimal., and Cadet solo !!!!.
With NO CHANGE there will be NO DIFFERENCE, just more of the HYPE, TYPE, and TRIPE emanating from the top. Squillions of £ spent on non flying 'trainers', and no evidence that they even understand what they have lost. It was quite obvious that something was seriously amiss when the question of 'Badge Stitching' had to be 'approved'. Well they got to grips with that, shame about the airworthiness of the aircraft !!!!
They not only threw the baby out with the bathwater they lost the B....y bath. Remember this is GLIDING we are talking about; the aviation equivalent to a hollow log, and in the main was run by youngsters still at school operating the equipment; with a great safety record to boot.
When capability gets replaced by box ticking watch out.

[Chugalug2]

BPF:-
The Canadian Air Cadet aircraft are civil registered and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Canadian Aviation Regulations.


Then you have answered your own question, BPF, as to why British Air Cadets cannot share the gliding experiences of Canadian cadets. The latter are regulated by a competent Air Regulator, the former are not. It would seem to me that the quickest solution would be for the British ACO to adopt the Canadian model, for the MAA will be unable to fulfil its purpose until it be made independent of the MOD and able at last to begin proper reform of British Military Airworthiness. Ditto British Military Air Accident Investigation.

[Tingger]

I see; 5 years on and 2 FTS has built a bigger empire, but the VGS element is now minimal., and Cadet solo !!!!.
With NO CHANGE there will be NO DIFFERENCE, just more of the HYPE, TYPE, and TRIPE emanating from the top. Squillions of £ spent on non flying 'trainers', and no evidence that they even understand what they have lost. It was quite obvious that something was seriously amiss when the question of 'Badge Stitching' had to be 'approved'. Well they got to grips with that, shame about the airworthiness of the aircraft !!!!
They not only threw the baby out with the bathwater they lost the B....y bath. Remember this is GLIDING we are talking about; the aviation equivalent to a hollow log, and in the main was run by youngsters still at school operating the equipment; with a great safety record to boot.
When capability gets replaced by box ticking watch out.

how big do you believe this empire is compared to the previous management system, especially as that obviously wasn't big enough or we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place?

Squillions of £ really?

heaven forbid flying suits provided by the RAF would be maintained in the same way all the other flying suits they provided are.

some of the old war stories of operating the wood and fabric gliders in the good old days are clearly unsafe, there are still plenty of youngsters involved in getting the operation running but doing it in a way that is as safe as reasonably practicable. The new commandant has been in post for a little over a month maybe there will be a change of direction but it's unlikely to go back to the 60s so it's best to get on with what is available.

[muppetofthenorth]

but it's unlikely to go back to the 60s so it's best to get on with what is available.

Which is why their language has to change. It's no longer justified to refer to what happened as "a pause", as that implies that at some point it will carry on as before.

Operations ceased. And have now begun -slowly- to restart, but at nothing like their previous level and will never reach their previous level. We're selling a false narrative to parents and cadets, and promising things that will never materialise. All cadet staff will be happy to accept a new reality, they won't be happy to be fed the same old promises that we know won't be met.

[Glider111]

Which is why their language has to change. It's no longer justified to refer to what happened as "a pause", as that implies that at some point it will carry on as before.

Operations ceased. And have now begun -slowly- to restart, but at nothing like their previous level and will never reach their previous level. We're selling a false narrative to parents and cadets, and promising things that will never materialise. All cadet staff will be happy to accept a new reality, they won't be happy to be fed the same old promises that we know won't be met.


What do you suggest, do the squadrons operating again call it the pause and the rest call it the cull? Maybe in time the pre pause(cull) levels of operation will get back but probably not without people doing the best with what we have got. And certainly not if everyone says what a wonderful job the BGA would do if we paid them.

Is it time for the title of the thread to change? “Air cadets has changed since 1960s/90s/2014.” So has the airforce/army/navy no one is saying they’re grounded. There are units operating, if not at, then very close to pre “pause” levels and people working very hard to make it happen.

[Tingger]

Which is why their language has to change. It's no longer justified to refer to what happened as "a pause", as that implies that at some point it will carry on as before.

Operations ceased. And have now begun -slowly- to restart, but at nothing like their previous level and will never reach their previous level. We're selling a false narrative to parents and cadets, and promising things that will never materialise. All cadet staff will be happy to accept a new reality, they won't be happy to be fed the same old promises that we know won't be met.

The ministerial statement that reduced the Viking fleet and slashed the vigilant fleet followed by the subsequent complete withdrawal of the Vigi were pretty clear it was not going to return in the same format.

You never know it might grow again as the next step.

[muppetofthenorth]

What do you suggest, do the squadrons operating again call it the pause and the rest call it the cull? Maybe in time the pre pause(cull) levels of operation will get back but probably not without people doing the best with what we have got. And certainly not if everyone says what a wonderful job the BGA would do if we paid them.

Is it time for the title of the thread to change? “Air cadets has changed since 1960s/90s/2014.” So has the airforce/army/navy no one is saying they’re grounded. There are units operating, if not at, then very close to pre “pause” levels and people working very hard to make it happen.

"Reduction", and "loss" would be more appropriate.

Coupled with problems in the AEF world there are areas of the country who have seen and continue to see virtually no flying at all. I'm past caring how it's spun, really.
We've got a busy unit of 60+ cadets. Less than 10% have ever flown. I'm fed up of passing promises over to them that we know will be broken, again.

[ATFQ]

Encouraging news on Air Cadet numbers.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/mod-sponsored-cadet-forces-statistics-2019

[Lima Juliet]

Encouraging news on Air Cadet numbers.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/mod-sponsored-cadet-forces-statistics-2019

Not really, Air Cadets are down to 32,850, which is a drop of 530 since 2015. Although CCF for Air Cadets is up 100, it is still a net loss. Considering, they should be around 40,000 then it’s not very good at all. In 2012 there were 35,750 before we started “pausing” gliding, so they are about 10% down on where they were. We’ve got to make sure that the 5 year stats don’t become the new ‘norm’.

[POBJOY]

When you consider that they had £50 million of libor money thrown at it, it is hardly a good return on Bangs for your Bucks.
A ship without a rudder is going nowhere, and unless the leadership is changed nothing else will.
The 'AIR' has left the Cadets but no shortage of Pension topping jobs still in the system.

[Wander00]

At what age can youngsters fly a glider solo with a BGA Club? Thought so. Why can the ACO not achieve the same? Answers on a postcard.......

[teeteringhead]

Like many, I soloed in a glider with the Air Cadets at the age of 16. This led to fixed wing flying - also with the cadets - and subsequently a 40-odd year flying career. No RAF or flying family background, so without that opportunity - who knows?

Could this happen now? Unlikely...... but they do have a lot more badges. We only had two for flying: the glider solo and then the Flying Scholarship.

[chevvron]

When you consider that they had £50 million of libor money thrown at it, it is hardly a good return on Bangs for your Bucks.
A ship without a rudder is going nowhere, and unless the leadership is changed nothing else will.
The 'AIR' has left the Cadets but no shortage of Pension topping jobs still in the system.
The 'Air' left Air Cadets back in the '90s which is why Rob Walton, then OC 2409 (RAF Halton) Sqdn started microlight AEF for cadets.

[Yellow Sun]

At what age can youngsters fly a glider solo with a BGA Club? Thought so. Why can the ACO not achieve the same? Answers on a postcard.......

Quite simply, the public attitude to “risk” has been conditioned to regard anything the least out of the ordinary as dangerous:

Cue Daily Whail headline about children flying ‘planes before they can drive cars!!!!!!!

At the same time the MoD appetite for “risk” has diminished to close to zero.

YS

[POBJOY]

Why do I get the feeling that if Bear Grylls was leading the Cadets numbers would be going up rather than down.
The Scouts are going great guns, and civvy gliding clubs sending 14 year olds solo so the problem is one of attitude.

Someone has to challenge the excuses for non delivery of potential Cadet experiences, and ask why other organisations seemingly are able to offer so much.
We need a complete change of direction from the top down, and someone has to ask searching questions as to why a civilian club can send a 14 year old solo in equipment that is certainly no better than the ATC had, and in theory still has. My old School at Kenley has just passed the 1000 th PTT badge point: to be quite honest if HQ Air Cadets had suggested that in my day we would all have 'walked' in disgust rather than pretend we were in the serious basic flying training business. (which we were and it worked just fine)

[Wander00]

Aah, PPL before driving licence was my biggest worry at just 17. Dad had been ill and could not drive for 9 months, got his licence back on 1 May 61, I passed my test on 8 June, and promptly started "teaching" my Mother who had let her wartime licence lapse. Got my PPL a month or so later, at Sywell with the irascible Les Hilditch.

[GliFly]

Last week we had two Air Cadets come along to our civvie gliding club to join up. They are brother and sister, 16 and 15 years old. They want to fly, but feel that the ATC will not be able to offer that opportunity. Another young person joined about a month ago again a former Air Cadet who decided to leave the ATC and come civilian gliding instead. He is very high aptitude and will do well.

[Mechta]

Given the hash that Serco made of the Air Cadet glider maintenance and records, its rather surprising that their attempted buyout of Babcock, (who have oversaw the work on the majority of the Viking fleet which were put back in the air) hasn't had a mention here.

[Engines]

As I've posted before, the responsibility for the 'hash' (actually a complete c*********k) made of ATC glider and maintenance records lies squarely with the RAF, not Serco. When you contract out a maintenance activity, you don't give up responsibility for supervising and monitoring the performance of that contract. The RAF failed to do this, as was mentioned in letters from the Minister responsible.

I was part of an Air Station team that supervised Serco's execution and performance of a contract to carry out packages of work for second line maintenance of Sea King helicopters back in the (very) early 90s. We took great care to ensure that the teams assembled by Serco were fully qualified to work on our aircraft, rejecting some of their appointments if we felt the people involved didn't pass muster. The Serco operation was fully supervised and checked as part of normal Air Station Quality Assurance and regularly inspected in the same way as every other unit. The result was very good, for us. I don't have shares in Serco, not did I ever have any stake in them. They were no better and no worse than other contractors I worked with, the general standard being good, as long as you kept a close eye on what was going on.

This was (and is) 'ops normal'. It wasn't us being clever, it was just us doing the standard, basic, straightforward job of managing contracted activity. The fact that the RAF proved incapable of doing that should be ringing serious alarm bells against all the other stuff that they've contracted out. Sadly, I suspect that those bells aren't ringing. I'd guess that not a few RAF personnel are content to blame it on the contractors. Thats not a good place to be.

Best regards as ever to all those managing contracts and getting the best out of them,

Engines

[DaveUnwin]

Hi GliFly, I heard a whisper that the ATC were actively discouraging cadets from flying with civil clubs. I also heard that when approached by some civil clubs about flying cadets the ATC insisted that only Full Cat Instructors could fly cadets. Can anyone confirm or refute this?

[chevvron]

Hi GliFly, I heard a whisper that the ATC were actively discouraging cadets from flying with civil clubs. I also heard that when approached by some civil clubs about flying cadets the ATC insisted that only Full Cat Instructors could fly cadets. Can anyone confirm or refute this?
In my day, AP1919 put so many restrictions on ATC cadets flying in light civil aircraft whilst wearing uniform it just wasn't worth the bother of going through the paperwork, the sole exception being the microlight AEF we did at Halton using a 'blood chit' which had been approved by HQAC; even Flying Scholarship cadets had to fly with instructors who had been checked out by CFS and had a minimum number of hours on type.

[Watson1963]

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LBP-2019-0067

"This House of Lords Library Briefing Pack contains a selection of material relevant for the forthcoming question for short debate on the Cadet Expansion Programme in schools; and what steps are being taken to encourage the growth of cadet units of all three services."

[The Nip]

As I've posted before, the responsibility for the 'hash' (actually a complete c*********k) made of ATC glider and maintenance records lies squarely with the RAF, not Serco. When you contract out a maintenance activity, you don't give up responsibility for supervising and monitoring the performance of that contract. The RAF failed to do this, as was mentioned in letters from the Minister responsible.
Engines

Too right.

Lots of years ago, I and my colleagues stood in front of a 1* showing evidence of a contractor failing to fulfill their contract.
It wasn't the first time. CMT were also called in to present evidence of checks being carried out to ensure contract was being honoured.
CMT had failed to highlight, to the authority, that work was not being done in accordance with the regulations. In fact they had just kept putting satisfactory against the concerns.

No further action taken as 1* was told things will improve.

Funnily enough, the OC of the CMT took a nice high paying job with the contractor!

[Chugalug2]

Engines:-
As I've posted before, the responsibility for the 'hash' (actually a complete c*********k) made of ATC glider and maintenance records lies squarely with the RAF, not Serco. When you contract out a maintenance activity, you don't give up responsibility for supervising and monitoring the performance of that contract. The RAF failed to do this, as was mentioned in letters from the Minister responsible.

While I don't quibble with your summary of the ATC Gliders descent into the present perpetual pause, I must take issue with your implication that this is a scandal solely affecting the RAF . The initial attack on Air Safety was perpetrated in the late 80's by RAF VSOs it is true, but such is the virulent nature of unairworthiness once the defences are down that it infected all UK military aviation regardless of the individual Service operators involved. The results are often fatal and can strike anywhere at any time.

One such tragedy was the mid-air collision of two FAA Sea King ASaC Mk7's on the 22nd March 2003 that killed all seven occupants. It transpired that the aircraft were improperly fitted with High Intensity Strobe Lights that replaced the previous Anti Collision Lighting in identical positions. The result was that the forward HISLs could blind the pilots from reflection from the surface of the sea or in cloud or poor vis conditions. An unofficial procedure to cope with this phenomena was to operate in such conditions with the forward HISLs switched off. This collision occurred in such conditions when the ever present Swiss Cheese holes put both aircraft in the same place at the same time. Were their forward HISLs switched off? Whether yes or no, they were by definition unairworthy along with the aircraft they were fitted to. No fleet, no Service, is spared from the curse of unairworthiness once the defences are down.

The defences remain down thanks to the cover up by RAF VSOs protecting those who first attacked UK Military Air Safety over 30 years ago. Army and Naval aviation fleets are just as exposed as Royal Air Force ones, including ATC gliders, make no mistake.

[Pegpilot]

But it's not just the Air Cadets infected by this risk paralysis. My gliding club has just been approached by a local school to offer them some glider flights on an activity day. Happy to help, except I now have to jump through the hoop of a 4-page questionnaire with 32 questions covering such diverse topics as
Do we have a Learning Outside the Classroom Quality Badge, GDPR Compliance statement, Waiver policy, Insurance, H&S Policy, Vehicles, Staffing policies, Accommodation, Sub-Contracting, Adventure Activities Licence, Staff Recruitment and Training Policy.....
Well I could go on. Just imagine the questionnaire author's face turning ashen if I sought to describe a winch launch and its inherent risks on the questionnaire.
I was sorely tempted to reply "You know what, we really can't be ar*ed", were it not for the fact that I'm a flying evangelist and would like some of these kids to have the same opportunities extended to me 40 years ago.
Hey ho !

[Engines]

Chug,

Thank you for coming back - I thought I should respond to your post.

I don't think that I have ever said that the UK's problems with military airworthiness were ever 'a scandal solely affecting the RAF'. I certainly agree with you that the problems caused in the 1980s within the MoD have filtered down to all operators of UK military aircraft, across all three services. But for this thread, that's not, in my view, the point.

The problems with the ATC glider fleet are, in my view, an RAF owned problem because this was an RAF procured, owned, operated and maintained fleet of aircraft. As this thread is about the ATC glider issue, I've posted to try to help discussion of what went wrong - and in this case, it went wrong within the RAF. I'd also add this observation: most of the things that went wrong with the glider fleet went wrong at first and second line, not within the upper reaches of the MoD. Very few VSOs were involved, whatever the colour of their stripes.

What has begun to emerge is a failure of people at first and second line to do their basic jobs. Maintenance wasn't properly supervised. Repairs weren't properly recorded. Airworthiness critical documentation weren't properly maintained and archived. Ageing aircraft audit recommendations weren't implemented. Damaged aircraft weren't repaired. And so on. To repeat - this sort of stuff was and is the responsibility of SO1s, SO2s, SO3s, Chief Technicians and so on across the chain. And the really big concern should be whether these failings are specific to the ATC fleet, or are systemic across the service.

I always try to stay away from subjective inter-service comparisons on these threads. I apologise if you feel I've not managed that this time.

Best Regards as ever to all those STILL trying to pick up the pieces,

Engines

[pr00ne]

Gliding in 2019?



What is this obsession with Gliding in relation to potential aircrew in the military? How relevant is gliding to flying a Typhoon/Lightning/Voyager/Chinook/Posiedon? Surely gliding is a minority hobby indulged in by a tiny percentage of the population. Even back in the 60's when I went through it I do not recall a single mention of gliding by any of my contemporaries at AOTS/FTS's/OCU etc.

Is it at all of any relevance in 2019?

Should we be spending ANY of the MoD budget on it?

Aren't there still many MANY applications for each and every single pilot place in the training pipeline?

[Chugalug2]

Engines, thanks for responding. With respect (and that is not just an empty phrase!), I feel it is always essential in regard to airworthiness to emphasise the wood for the trees. The MOD's default treatment of airworthiness related fatal air accidents is to stovepipe them and to obscure the common thread that connects them all, the totally dysfunctional UK Military Air Safety system that exists under its Regulator, the MAA, aka the MOD.

Of course, it takes incompetence of heroic levels to render such simple airframes as the ATC Gliders unairworthy, rendered as they were thus by the Royal Air Force. That incompetence though stems directly from the disintegration of a competent regulatory body, caused by the deliberate subversion and suborning of the Regulations and those whose mandated duty it was to implement them in full.

By saying this was an RAF owned problem we are doing the MOD's work for them, concentrating on those at the bottom of the food chain when the fundamental cause was the subversion wrought in the late 80s and the cover up ever since. So there were and are VSOs (mainly RAF) at the root of this dysfunction and I must challenge your assertion that:-

Very few VSOs were involved, whatever the colour of their stripes.

The ongoing Cover-Up is the very reason for the incompetence that you rightly highlight for the appalling state of the RAF ATC gliders. It has prevented meaningful reform of UK Military Air Regulation and Accident Investigation. Instead of the real independence necessary to prevent repeated interference by vested interests in both functions we have the Ersatz fake MOD interdependent MAA and MilAAIB (or whatever it's called this week). Thus those VSOs responsible for the initial subversion are protected, and thus airworthiness related air accidents (often fatal) continue.

Thank God that wasn't (AFAIK) the case with the ATC Gliders, but to consider them alone rather than as part of a UK Military Air Safety scandal connecting all three Services is to congratulate the Starboard Watch for their far superior arranging of deck-chairs while the Good Ship hurtles ever on at top speed. This isn't about inter Service anything. This is about life and death. If we don't get that, then aviation has a habit of reminding us all in very short order.

[chevvron]

Gliding in 2019?



What is this obsession with Gliding in relation to potential aircrew in the military? How relevant is gliding to flying a Typhoon/Lightning/Voyager/Chinook/Posiedon? Surely gliding is a minority hobby indulged in by a tiny percentage of the population. Even back in the 60's when I went through it I do not recall a single mention of gliding by any of my contemporaries at AOTS/FTS's/OCU etc.

Is it at all of any relevance in 2019?

Should we be spending ANY of the MoD budget on it?

Aren't there still many MANY applications for each and every single pilot place in the training pipeline?
All I can say in reply to you is that I genuinely feel my gliding experience made me a far better powered pilot than I would otherwise have been.

[tucumseh]

prOOne

I think there are two different things here. First and foremost, if it is MoD policy to fund/support ATC gliding, then it must be done properly (see Engines' post) regardless of individual opinion on whether it is money well spent. That policy decision places a legal obligation on many MoD staff, and it has been serially ignored. Not only ignored, but conscious false declarations made that it has been met.

It is of relevance because the gliders share a Type Airworthiness Authority with, for example, Hawk. Not entirely tongue in cheek, I have suggested before that this thread be merged with the Cunningham one. Same people, same problems, same solution. Only real challenge is finding someone with practical experence of implementing the mandated regs that would have prevented both. Last time anyone was trained on this was around the time Engines was doing the Serco contract he mentioned. That's no coincidence. Today, I'd show the contractor DGDQA Standing Instruction 0136; they'd breathe a sigh of relief and get on with it. On this type of work there are 3 bibles; 0136, DefCon 112 (Repair) and Def Stan 05-125/2. Let me know if you find anyone in DE&S who can find a copy. Every project officer or manager involved in support should know them by heart.

I would just add one thing to the recent debate, which I've said before. One must look at root causes. (Those that, if removed, would have prevented the problem). At what level were they notified? Initially, direct to a 2 Star (ACAS) and 3 Star (RAF Chief Engineer) by the RAF Director of Flight Safety (a 1 Star).

When Mr Haddon-Cave reported, he simply repeated DFS' notifications; although omitted this gem and took the credit. Only four of his 90+ recommendations were rejected. Most of the rest were already mandated. That automatically places the problem at a very senior level.

[teeteringhead]

What is this obsession with Gliding in relation to potential aircrew in the military? Hermann G and the Luftwaffe did quite well out of ex-glider pilots IIRC....

...... and some still flew gliders too, eg Eben Emael (sp?)

[POBJOY]

One of the facets of ATC GLIDING (in the days of minimum dual and max solo's) was it encompassed so much for youth to adhere to.
It had a good balance of discipline against enthusiasm, and promoted decision making at an early stage. It needed confidence with capability, and also bought out what we would now call networking with Cadets helping other Cadets to master the system.
There are no negative issues with regard to learning some good basic aviation ways, and the system was flexible enough to not get overburdened with the now ruinous box ticking of today.
Had we merely stopped using open cockpit fretwork fighters and gone to a medium performance metal or glass machine in a simple change then we would still be doing the same job with perhaps a couple of extra dual launches, and a simple flight guide that the Cadets could refer to prior to attending a school.
Even the RAF were surprised how students on the 'all jet courses' coped so well despite the comprehensive 'check lists' that had to be learnt.
If you are not told something is difficult its amazing how people cope.

[Olympia463]

Pobjoy is right. The ATC was never seen as a source of pilots for the RAF. The main thrust was the character development of the youngsters who joined. The teaching of flying and then going solo were very good at doing this but was almost incidental. I was in several gliding clubs over the years and I seldom met anyone who had been in the ATC except as a volunteer instructor. Gliding was and still is an expensive activity well beyond the means of most young people. I reckon anyone who can ride a bicycle can be taught to fly, and solo in a simple machine like a glider.

[sharpend]

When I left the RAF as a pilot with an 'Exceptional' rating, I had over 2000 hrs P1 Chippies & Bulldogs and had been an A2 Chippy/Bulldog QFI. I was in current fly practice and medically fit. So I suggested that my local ATC air experience unit might like my services. Oh no, they said, I would have to go to Cranwell to be assessed, do officer training etc etc. All that despite the fact that I had previously flown countless cadets in air experience Chippies over the years. So I forgot it. Later, I offered (at my expense) flights in my C of A certified Bulldog. 'Impossible, no chance' was the response. Seems to me that obstacles grow larger every day.

[tmmorris]

Gliding was and still is an expensive activity well beyond the means of most young people. .

Not sure where you got that idea. My son went solo for less than we spend on our Sky subscription in a year - and we have no movies or sport.

[rich34glider]

Given the plethora of basic handling errors that seem to occur at the highest levels of aviation ( i.e. heavy RTP) I think some gliding for all pilots is probably a good idea! Exposure to stall/spin handling & what a rudder is for (rather than taxiing!) can only help.

[Frelon]

Gliding in 2019?
What is this obsession with Gliding in relation to potential aircrew in the military?

It seems we are not alone in thinking that a glider pilot will make a better pilot in the long run. Air France will soon be sending up to 80 cadets per year to learn the basics of flight with DG1000 state of the art training two seat gliders. In the course of 50 flights the young pilots learn all necessary manoeuvres including basic aerobatics and recovery of dangerous flight situations. More than 60 DG-1000 and DG-1001 are in use for training purposes in Air Forces, such as the United States Air Force or the Australian Air Force. Read about it here (https://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/dg-aircraft-news/france-gliding-services/17922).

[POBJOY]

Those of us lucky enough to have experienced Cadet gliding at its best were not aware at the time what it gave us in addition to the 'Solo' bit.
From day one you got 'hands on' with both machinery and actual aircraft, and were expected to be part of the system.
Result a generation of 'youths' that accepted decision making and responsibility as the norm, leading to a head start in the wide world outside.
One of our staff cadets had solo'd in the MK3. his next solos followed :- Beagle Pup. Jet Provost, Hunter, lightning.!!! His basic training in the fretwork fighter did not seem to have restricted anything, even if the decisions got more interesting.

[lightbluefootprint]

Hi GliFly, I heard a whisper that the ATC were actively discouraging cadets from flying with civil clubs. I also heard that when approached by some civil clubs about flying cadets the ATC insisted that only Full Cat Instructors could fly cadets. Can anyone confirm or refute this?
It was pretty much always the case. I was an OC for about ten years and in all that time there was just one (failed) attempt at getting cadets into civvy flying seats and I remain convinced to this day that HQAC actively encouraged the project to wither on the vine as it wasn't their idea. Even with a Sqn located next to an airport, fixed wing flying school and heliport we couldn't (officially) use any spare seats, so cadets and parents were advised in writing that anything that they did with such companies etc was not through the Corps and not covered by insurance etc - that it was a completely private and independent venture on their part.

[lightbluefootprint]

But it's not just the Air Cadets infected by this risk paralysis. My gliding club has just been approached by a local school to offer them some glider flights on an activity day. Happy to help, except I now have to jump through the hoop of a 4-page questionnaire with 32 questions covering such diverse topics as
Do we have a Learning Outside the Classroom Quality Badge, GDPR Compliance statement, Waiver policy, Insurance, H&S Policy, Vehicles, Staffing policies, Accommodation, Sub-Contracting, Adventure Activities Licence, Staff Recruitment and Training Policy.....
Well I could go on. Just imagine the questionnaire author's face turning ashen if I sought to describe a winch launch and its inherent risks on the questionnaire.
I was sorely tempted to reply "You know what, we really can't be ar*ed", were it not for the fact that I'm a flying evangelist and would like some of these kids to have the same opportunities extended to me 40 years ago.
Hey ho !
A certain former Group Captain who may or may not have been the topic of discussion elsewhere in this thread once demanded that a caving group we were sending cadets to identify the precise staff and their qualifications that would supervise the cadets on the day FOUR MONTHS IN ADVANCE! A list of all of the centre's instructors was unacceptable and for a long time the activity was in jeopardy. For some reason he relented eventually - and as memory serves with a common sense compromise that we suggested - but again I had made myself into a thorn in his side.

[esa-aardvark]

The ATC taught me to fly gliders (Alf Warminger at Swanton Morley, Square (=S/L Ware) at Marham.
Flew once, with my father, in some metal glider somewhere in Germany.
After that my career was Space industry, so it didn't lead to a flying career for me.
Still it was a valuable experience, strange days before H&S.

[POBJOY]

There was a wonderful tale in an old S&G magazine which related to the said A Warminger and P Scott after they had landed out in some competition.
Plod arrived on scene and demanded to see their 'licences' . We don't have licences as there are none for gliding was the reply. Ok then we better take the aircraft registrations ! They don't have registrations because they are Gliders.
Righto then lets have some names and address's.
Sir Peter Scott, and this gentleman is The High Sheriff of Norwich (which he actually was)
Plod retires muttering.
Similar scenario to when a small Turbulent landed at Kenly with an engine issue. Staff Cadet at the winch end was already assisting the pilot by removing the cowling to investigate (based on fact that he drove a VW car) upon which a veritable cavalcade of cars arrived from launch end with assorted pilot and flying officer instructors. After berating the hapless individual and pointing out the dangers of landing at a gliding site a note book was produced and said pilots name requested. This caused the chap to suggest this was rather over the top as he had a power failure. Non the less a certain u/t pilot officer insisted on the information and stood poised with pen and notebook. Oh very well our friend sighed, I am Wing Commander XXXXXX a Hunter pilot currently at MOD !!. Impressive coming to attention and multiple salutes followed by said staff cadet being told to carry on assisting. Staff Cadet still falling over laughing about it weeks later.

[622]

Just hijacking this slightly (POBJOY's post above brought back a memory)…
I was attending my Initial Officers Holiday at Newton back in the early 90's, I had arrived early so thought I would go to the bar.
On arriving there was one other person there...early evening on a Sunday night the whole place was quiet. I thought I would be polite and start a conversation with something like " Hello, are you here on a course to?"..to which I got a very short "Yes"..and not much else....
A very quiet, and what seemed like an age passed before another person arrived and I got talking to them...the other quiet chap I recall sat in the corner on his own until he left.

Next morning we were all leaving the mess to go to the Air Cadet School of Officer excellence when said very quiet man is also leaving in uniform this time with many gold rings up his arm and a whole entourage of bag carriers and brolly holders outside.
We instantly all saluted, but he recognised me and came over and shook my hand before he left....cue many strange looks!

It turned out later he was a very senior Officer from I think somewhere like Romania or Bulgaria...but hardly spoke any English...hence the lack of chat!

[Davef68]

But it's not just the Air Cadets infected by this risk paralysis. My gliding club has just been approached by a local school to offer them some glider flights on an activity day. Happy to help, except I now have to jump through the hoop of a 4-page questionnaire with 32 questions covering such diverse topics as
Do we have a Learning Outside the Classroom Quality Badge, GDPR Compliance statement, Waiver policy, Insurance, H&S Policy, Vehicles, Staffing policies, Accommodation, Sub-Contracting, Adventure Activities Licence, Staff Recruitment and Training Policy.....
Well I could go on. Just imagine the questionnaire author's face turning ashen if I sought to describe a winch launch and its inherent risks on the questionnaire.
I was sorely tempted to reply "You know what, we really can't be ar*ed", were it not for the fact that I'm a flying evangelist and would like some of these kids to have the same opportunities extended to me 40 years ago.
Hey ho !

Welcome to youth activities in the 2010s. Sadly, much of this has been brought about following tragedies involving young people (Snowdon, Lyme Regis, Loch Carnan etc). It's pretty much about ensuring people follow the rules as well as having the rules in the first place, so everything needs to be risk assessed properly and documented.

[Fitter2]

The thread seems to have been thoroughly hijacked, so:

Gliders in the 1950's and '60s landed out much more frequently, and so 'interesting' stories were more common. One pilot landing in the grounds of a stately home was invited to have a restorative drink until the crew arrived. An hour or two later the butler announced 'The gentleman's crew has arrived'. Certainly, said the Duke of B...., give him refreshment in the servants' quarters while we finish here. "Certainly, my lord, I will show Sir Roger Conant to the servants' quarters.". A slight rearrangement of the hospitality was arranged.

Meanwhile, how can pressure be applied to give today's youth the introduction to gliding my generation had, leading in my case to 59 years (and still counting) of an enthralling pastime.

[chevvron]

The thread seems to have been thoroughly hijacked, so:

Meanwhile, how can pressure be applied to give today's youth the introduction to gliding my generation had, leading in my case to 59 years (and still counting) of an enthralling pastime.
Get Slingsbys to re-start Mk 3 production?https://www.pprune.org/images/icons/46.gif

[pr00ne]

chevvron,

You'll have to "re-start" Slingsby's first...

[Olympia463]

We all well OT here. See it as right relief from the tragedy that has befallen the ATC.

My own favourite 'land out' story:
My third (failed) attempt at my Silver distance. At Sutton Bank, on my instructor's ticket week, I had an afternoon off, Henrik Doktor (anyone remember him?) the CFI of the Yorkshire club decided I should go on a cross country to complete my Silver C as the conditions were favourable. So my own glider was rigged, and off I went, declaring Whitby. After an interesting flight over the North Yorkshire moors, including an ascent to 8000ft in a huge cloud (I had an artificial horizon fitted) I ran out of lift and landed in a nice paddock behind a big house about five miles short of goal. As I got out of the glider I saw a group of very smartly dressed people around my age, advancing across the field waving and laughing. It turned out They were celebrating a 21st birthday and thought that I was glidergram. Explaining that I wasn't, I was nevertheless invited to the party, and after letting my crew know where I was, and taking the wings off the glider and parking it against the hedge, I went in to the party. It took my crew about two hours and a half to reach me, by which time they say I was 'feeling no pain at all'. I slept all the way back to the club, and had a monumental hangover the following day.

As for name dropping: I was once at a dinner party with a lot of folk I had never met before. The chap sitting next to me looked very familiar, but I couldn't remember where I had seen him before but thought he might be another engineer that I had met or seen at a conference or similar. Turning to him, to strike up a conversation as one does at such an affair, I asked what he had been before he retired. There was a short pause, and then he said "Lord Chief Justice" - he was Lord Wolff and I had seen him on TV the week before. Very nice man. Met him again later on holiday in Venice and he remembered me.

[esa-aardvark]

years ago, my father "landed out" at a UK missile base.
Many difficulties ensued, pointed guns etc.
Also UK schoolchildren attended - "those are the Thor (?) missiles".
One day I will see if I can find how that is recorded in his logbooks.

[Tashengurt]

With the eldest boy wanting to give Air cadets a go we took a walk down to our local squadron a few nights ago.
During a chat with the OC they confirmed that gliding is essentially off the menu but powered flight is still fairly frequent.
They then mentioned that shooting was seriously curtailed after "an incident" down south led to all weapons being recalled to central armouries.
Anyone know what's going on there?

[Big Pistons Forever]

I was out gliding yesterday and was surprised to see 2 Canadian Air Cadet 2-33's and 2 tow planes at our field. Turned out their regular field was temporarily unavailable and they were just finishing off this years Glider Instructor Course in preparation for this summers regional gliding camp where 40 Air Cadets would hopefully graduate with a full glider pilot license. The youngest of the instructor candidates was an 18 year old in his third year of the Canadian Air Cadet Glider Program......

[muppetofthenorth]

With the eldest boy wanting to give Air cadets a go we took a walk down to our local squadron a few nights ago.
During a chat with the OC they confirmed that gliding is essentially off the menu but powered flight is still fairly frequent.
They then mentioned that shooting was seriously curtailed after "an incident" down south led to all weapons being recalled to central armouries.
Anyone know what's going on there?

Army cadet compound had been broken into and rifles taken.

All air cadet-held rifles (including DP rifles) are being returned to secure locations until alarms and storage can be upgraded.

[POBJOY]

With the eldest boy wanting to give Air cadets a go we took a walk down to our local squadron a few nights ago.
During a chat with the OC they confirmed that gliding is essentially off the menu but powered flight is still fairly frequent.
They then mentioned that shooting was seriously curtailed after "an incident" down south led to all weapons being recalled to central armouries.
Anyone know what's going on there?
It seems that a drill rifle went walkabout from a Squadron and due to case's (not ATC) of deactivated sometimes getting reactivated there was a big knee jerk, or should I say another knee jerk. All part of the great 'do nothing' syndrome so we are fireproof. As we have seen from the great Non Gliding scenario once you go down this route it is very difficult to reverse the situation. I think the 'fairly frequent flying' may also be a bit optimistic.
As someone who benefitted from the golden days of the Cadets it saddens me to see how we have reduced its aviation, and large bore shooting element, and I shudder at the thought of us being asked to fill shopping bags at a supermarket.
We have seen what happened when the Gliders paperwork was suspect (it has effectively killed off the system as we knew it) I can not imagine 'upgrading' rifle storage will be a happy experience. Of course there will be an opening for a 'virtual range', and as with the PTT that will become the norm.

[chevvron]

It seems that a drill rifle went walkabout from a Squadron and due to case's (not ATC) of deactivated sometimes getting reactivated there was a big knee jerk, or should I say another knee jerk. All part of the great 'do nothing' syndrome so we are fireproof. As we have seen from the great Non Gliding scenario once you go down this route it is very difficult to reverse the situation. I think the 'fairly frequent flying' may also be a bit optimistic.
As someone who benefitted from the golden days of the Cadets it saddens me to see how we have reduced its aviation, and large bore shooting element, and I shudder at the thought of us being asked to fill shopping bags at a supermarket.
We have seen what happened when the Gliders paperwork was suspect (it has effectively killed off the system as we knew it) I can not imagine 'upgrading' rifle storage will be a happy experience. Of course there will be an opening for a 'virtual range', and as with the PTT that will become the norm.
When I took over as OC 1811 (Marlow) Sqdn I found that I had a huge ex TA drill hall complete with 20 yd small bore range. A WSO visit a few months previously resulted in the range being closed, even though it had been safely used for small bore shooting for nearly 100 years, because it didn't comply with then current regs.(there was a glass window near the butts)
I managed to get it approved for air rifle shooting but it will take a lot of jumping though hoops to get it re-instated for small bore (.22 cal)

[Pegasus107]

Army cadet compound had been broken into and rifles taken.

All air cadet-held rifles (including DP rifles) are being returned to secure locations until alarms and storage can be upgraded.

Air rifle shooting is the new ‘norm’, an easy and inexpensive way of getting cadets into shooting.

[muppetofthenorth]

Air rifle shooting is the new ‘norm’, an easy and inexpensive way of getting cadets into shooting.

Not when you're not allowed to have the rifles, it isn't.
They've taken wooden drill rifles off people, air rifles are the devil's work in comparison...

I shudder at the thought of us being asked to fill shopping bags at a supermarket.
​​​​​​​With the anti-plastic campaign in full swing, that's going to happen less and less. Nobody uses bags.

[Tashengurt]

shopping bags at a supermarket.
With the anti-plastic campaign in full swing, that's going to happen less and less. Nobody uses bags.

​​​​​​​Huh?

[Riskman]

Lots of gliding at the VGS at Little Rissington. 3 of our cadets (290 Sqn, W-s-M) got their Blue wings this weekend.
VGS's are more 'regional' now, having been reduced in number from, I think, 22 down to 14 schools. We get 2 or 3 air experience slots per year, for 6 or 8 cadets at a time. St Mawgan in the summer period hosts an AEF, (I really do look forward to driving a minibus 31/2 hrs each way down the longest cul-de-sac in the country, in the holiday season) Boscombe occasionally, and RNAS Yeovilton have been very kind to us recently.
Bag-packing to raise funds is not my favourite activity but it demands commitment from the cadets and educates them on the cost of providing non-core activities and acquiring and maintaining equipment.

R

[Whizz Bang]

Lots of gliding at the VGS at Little Rissington. 3 of our cadets (290 Sqn, W-s-M) got their Blue wings this weekend.
VGS's are more 'regional' now, having been reduced in number from, I think, 22 down to 14 schools. We get 2 or 3 air experience slots per year, for 6 or 8 cadets at a time. St Mawgan in the summer period hosts an AEF, (I really do look forward to driving a minibus 31/2 hrs each way down the longest cul-de-sac in the country, in the holiday season) Boscombe occasionally, and RNAS Yeovilton have been very kind to us recently.
Bag-packing to raise funds is not my favourite activity but it demands commitment from the cadets and educates them on the cost of providing non-core activities and acquiring and maintaining equipment.

R

14 were disbanded, there are now ostensibly 11+CGS. There isn't lots of gliding going on, however you look at it.

[Tingger]

10 now 631 changed to an AGS after the end of the vigilant

[snapper1]

Good to see two 'Vikings' flying from Topcliffe this weekend.

[DaveUnwin]

I helped out at a 'Flying Evening' for Derby Scouts at Saltby Monday. I flew seven trips in the BGC Perkoz, six Scouts and one Leader, and the Puchaz did about the same. All the kids loved it - it wasn't complicated.

[Bigpants]

Has anyone else witnessed Elementary Flying Training (EFT) cadet pilots being farmed out to AEF/UAS in order to help free up the training backlog?

Seems totally unfair that resources originally allocated to air cadets are now being grabbed by the MOD to spare their ongoing embarrassment over the Multi Billion £ fiasco of contracting out RAF Flying Training.

[StopStart]

Suggest you might need to refocus there Bigpants. The RAF flying training system exists to train pilots. A sub role is to give air experience to air cadets.
I would struggle to understand anyone who prioritised some fun flying for youngsters (no matter how keen) over full-time, commissioned, salaried RAF Officers (not "cadet pilots") working towards becoming front line pilots.

PS.
I agree flying training is currently a fiasco.
My son is an air cadet and I assist on his sqn as a Service Instructor so I know what AEF means to them.

[ExAscoteer]

Has anyone else witnessed Elementary Flying Training (EFT) cadet pilots being farmed out to AEF/UAS in order to help free up the training backlog?


Only, that's not what's happening. I was at Wittering recently talking to a couple of young officers holding on CUAS and 5 AEF. They are not 'grabbing' flying from cdts, they are acting in staff roles.

[muppetofthenorth]

Only, that's not what's happening. I was at Wittering recently talking to a couple of young officers holding on CUAS and 5 AEF. They are not 'grabbing' flying from cdts, they are acting in staff roles.
And that's happened for years. Happened when I was on a different UAS 13/14 years ago.

[DrinkGirls]

Bigpants is correct. However, cadets are still flying.

[ExAscoteer]

Bigpants is correct. However, cadets are still flying.


Not according to either 16(R) nor OC 5 AEF.

[Bigpants]

OK look will ask when next flying but apparently these EFTS people are not holding pilots in staff positions but something else and yes the contracted RAF Flying Training System is a disaster area....well who would have predicted that?

[chevvron]

And that's happened for years. Happened when I was on a different UAS 13/14 years ago.
Met a guy in Gib when I was there for ATC Camp summer '82; he was 'holding' and was posted in to be 'Deputy ACLO'.
Met the same guy at Finningley 2 years later; still 'holding'.

[Bigpants]

Hi Chevron, I was going through advanced fast jet training in 1982 and became a QFI at Valley later that year. Never heard of any fast jet pilots holding for that long back then so assume he was another branch...Nav or perhaps multi engined?

He was the exception, I finished BFTS at Cranwell on the Thursday, cleared Friday and started at 4 FTS on the Monday!

[Big Pistons Forever]

Have a friend with British relatives. Their 15 yr old is airplane mad ( another poor young man with a blighted future :O) and is thinking of joining the UK Air Cadets. Will he get any flying ?

[POBJOY]

[QUOTE=Big Pistons Forever;10629913]Have a friend with British relatives. Their 15 yr old is airplane mad ( another poor young man with a blighted future :O) and is thinking of joining the UK Air Cadets. Will he get any flying ?[/QUOTE

Sadly most of the youngsters who really want to fly are avoiding the Air Cadets or leave early.
Not surprising as their actual contact with real aircraft is minimal, and what was the jewel in the crown of hands on gliding has been reduced to a minimum and replaced by the joke that is the Part Task Trainer for badge attainment.
Of course the current Cadet membership never saw the Gliding operation 'as was' so are not aware of what has been lost., and the days of a local 'flying' RAF Station being available for ad hoc visits long gone.
As this thread has alluded to, real solo flight has all but been abandoned and replaced by a 'synthetic experience', with a brave attempt to get the Vigilant fleet back in business under a LAA supported scheme thwarted by those who were going to be somewhat embarrassed by them rising from the ashes of what had been a proud capable flying training organisation.

[beardy]

Have a friend with British relatives. Their 15 yr old is airplane mad ( another poor young man with a blighted future :O) and is thinking of joining the UK Air Cadets. Will he get any flying ?
Despite the bleak outpourings of POBJOY who gives no alternative, the answer depends on which squadron he joins and his persistence. 'Twas ever thus.

[Blackfriar]

Tell him to join a gliding club and spend weekends and summers pushing gliders, driving tractors and operating winches as well as getting flying. He'll probably be solo by 16. Air Cadets seem to be lost. Ex Cadet Warrant Officer.

[longer ron]

Most Civilian Gliding Clubs have a 'Cadet' membership - where they get reduced membership fees etc and they can progress rapidly to bronze and siver badges these days.

[POBJOY]

Despite the bleak outpourings of POBJOY who gives no alternative, the answer depends on which squadron he joins and his persistence. 'Twas ever thus.

Obviously did not read the post !!!
Alternative was to utilise the Vigilants with engineering support by the LAA (actually agreed with LAA and well within their capability). In essence no different to the original Ventures getting another lease of life.
As regard to access to Aircraft 'was ever thus' not true. The actual no of RAF airfields and aircraft is but a shadow of its former self, and that is why the ATC Gliding movement was such a gem of access to hands on basic flying. The multitude of posts about this only confirm how a volunteer / Civilian operation managed to train youngsters to solo standard in large numbers,(at low cost), It also confirms how the mainstream RAF/MOD failed that organisation. The facts are very clear they have tried to replace 'hands on' with synthetic: lots of badges, but no real life changing experience of solo flight. Spectacular lack of leadership from HQ Air Cadets and 2 FTS did not help the situation.

[muppetofthenorth]

The facts are very clear they have tried to replace 'hands on' with synthetic: lots of badges, but no real life changing experience of solo flight.

Except, that isn't true.
If you actually look at the requirements of the PTS for flying and gliding you'll see that nothing is awarded for synthetic training alone, and rather only for synthetic and actual hands on flying.
Yes, there is a perception that they're getting a badge for a lot less work than previous, but it's not being held in the same regard.

[beardy]

Obviously did not read the post !!!
Alternative was to utilise the Vigilants with engineering support by the LAA (actually agreed with LAA and well within their capability). In essence no different to the original Ventures getting another lease of life.
As regard to access to Aircraft 'was ever thus' not true. The actual no of RAF airfields and aircraft is but a shadow of its former self, and that is why the ATC Gliding movement was such a gem of access to hands on basic flying. The multitude of posts about this only confirm how a volunteer / Civilian operation managed to train youngsters to solo standard in large numbers,(at low cost), It also confirms how the mainstream RAF/MOD failed that organisation. The facts are very clear they have tried to replace 'hands on' with synthetic: lots of badges, but no real life changing experience of solo flight. Spectacular lack of leadership from HQ Air Cadets and 2 FTS did not help the situation.

It was always dependant on which squadron one joined and on persistence. 'Twas ever thus.

And yes I did read your doom laden post.

[hoodie]

Is there any update (or at least, fresh rumour!) about the fate of the Vigilants?

Are they going to be scrapped or sold on, and if sold on why the apparent delay? I hope the engines at least are properly inhibited, wherever they are now (Little Riss, is it?).

[POBJOY]

Is there any update (or at least, fresh rumour!) about the fate of the Vigilants?

Are they going to be scrapped or sold on, and if sold on why the apparent delay? I hope the engines at least are properly inhibited, wherever they are now (Little Riss, is it?).

The powers to be do not want the Vigilants to rise again in their current form, and the VW based Grob motor will have to be replaced by a Rotax, and possibly a new panel.
The cost of this with associate replumb, and firewall forward items will also require a new certification from Grob.
An alternative route of return to flight with the LAA involved was far to easy and would have seen many machines back in the air and available for ongoing use.
Of course this would also have no doubt raised the question of why they were pulled from service, Many of the engines were on extensions of hours and Grob are no longer in the 'engine ' business (Actually the engine is based on the VW type 4 motor) but under the LAA the engine could have easily been OH with new parts and continued.
The former Ventures (VW Engine) are still flying so the process was quite viable.

[Asturias56]

I've met a couple of Air Cadets - kids of colleagues, in the last year and TBH the "flying" bit didn't seem to be a major driver to them. They liked the discipline, the training and the chance to "lead" and "take part" with kids of their own age. Both were very well turned out and would impress any interviewer (business or academic) IMHO. The training made them articulate and focused compared to their peer group.

[tucumseh]

in the last year and TBH the "flying" bit didn't seem to be a major driver to them.

Perhaps that's what MoD has been hoping for? It's been 5 years since the grounding, so most cadets who remember flying being routine are now gone. There is no longer an expectation.

But pleased to hear of articulate youngsters. No chance of a job in the media or politics though.

[hoodie]

Thanks for the update, POBJOY.

Does that mean that the engine and maybe panel upgrades will happen if the aircraft are sold on, and there is a plan for the sale?

Or is it simply that it could happen, and it is still uncertain whether the fleet will be scrapped?

[Glider111]

If they are interested in flying then the air cadets is still a great place for them. The solo element of flying hasn’t left and several VGSs are back to having cadets flying cadets. Sure if they have rich parents then there are faster and guaranteed ways to buy yourself into aviation. Being an air cadet or part of any youth organisation offers far more than just flying, as alluded to in other posts. The air cadets are not grounded but this thread that fails to die must be putting some people of.

Also please tell me more about other retired types we could get back in the air... I’m a big fan of the gannet

[POBJOY]

Hoodie To be honest i do not think there was a real attempt from the RAF/MOD to see these machine go on to another lease of life in their current form.
Despite any cogent tech reason for this and the genuine LAA support (the Tech masters in this field) a very expensive option of re-engine and certification for future use.was considered to be the ONLY option to release then out of service use. Had the LAA themselves offered to take the fleet and operate them 'in house' for very economical youngster flight experience then it would have been very hard to find fault with that option, but this was not on the table at the time.
The actual machines have many years of life left and the engines can easily be overhauled, as high spec replacement parts are readily available.
Considering the original machines were used for Cadet training (including solo flight) then it must be seen that they performed well despite not being designed for the job. Anyone who went through a 'Vigilant' Cadet training course would have had a very good introduction of light aircraft handling plus the added 'delight' of mastering a tail wheel machine. None of this would have been wasted when progressing on to other types so it has to be said that the decision to introduce the Vigilant was sound. Another factor for their use was the ongoing difficulty in finding suitable sites for the conventional winch launch gliding which was proving difficult to co habit with regular RAF airfields or Civ GA locations.

[beardy]

The actual machines have many years of life left and the engines can easily be overhauled

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but I thought that this could not be proven. I thought that the paper trail was incomplete for work undertaken.

[hoodie]

Thanks POBJOY. That's quite depressing. I hope they aren't just left to rot as it sounds like they could still be viable if the right commercial arrangement could be found.

Fingers crossed.

[POBJOY]

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but I thought that this could not be proven. I thought that the paper trail was incomplete for work undertaken.

The Vigilant engine is a Grob adaptation of the VW type 4 flat four air cooled motor, similar to that as used by Limbach and offered in 2.4 ltr form.
Grob needed more power and adapted the engine (bore increase to 2.5 ltr)
As most motor gliders use single ignition the standard heads can be used so parts costs are economical.
Under the LAA (the masters of VW engine use) engines can be reworked and OH under their inspector system which is both tech competent and very economical. This is because the engines are not used commercially (public transport). Every component is available for the Type 4 motor and indeed over the years a whole industry has developed supplying quality parts (including new high spec forged cranks).
When you add the long history of VW aero use and the tech expertise of the LAA there was a very cogent case for the current VIG engine to carry on in civ use.
Remember the VIG engine has no gearbox (unlike the Rotax) so it is a very simple unit that uses standard components for its main parts. The cost saving here are substantial and so is the reliability of the basic block and crank. Sorry another bleak, doom laden post from the west. But stating the facts !!!!
Anyone not familiar with the LAA (former PFA) system would be amazed at the level of expertise within that organisation, and its contribution to 'Flight' for anyone is considerable.

[beardy]

The Vigilant engine is a Grob adaptation of the VW type 4 flat four air cooled motor, similar to that as used by Limbach and offered in 2.4 ltr form.
Grob needed more power and adapted the engine (bore increase to 2.5 ltr)
As most motor gliders use single ignition the standard heads can be used so parts costs are economical.
Under the LAA (the masters of VW engine use) engines can be reworked and OH under their inspector system which is both tech competent and very economical. This is because the engines are not used commercially (public transport). Every component is available for the Type 4 motor and indeed over the years a whole industry has developed supplying quality parts (including new high spec forged cranks).
When you add the long history of VW aero use and the tech expertise of the LAA there was a very cogent case for the current VIG engine to carry on in civ use.
Remember the VIG engine has no gearbox (unlike the Rotax) so it is a very simple unit that uses standard components for its main parts. The cost saving here are substantial and so is the reliability of the basic block and crank. Sorry another bleak, doom laden post from the west. But stating the facts !!!!
Anyone not familiar with the LAA (former PFA) system would be amazed at the level of expertise within that organisation, and its contribution to 'Flight' for anyone is considerable.
Very interesting, but I thought that the ACO didn't have a proper paper trail for they carried out on both airframe and engine.

[chevvron]

As most motor gliders use single ignition the standard heads can be used so parts costs are economical.

In connection with a thread in 'Private Flying', does this apply to the VW engine used in the Fournier RF4b?
My Monnet Moni powered glider only had single ignition but then it wasn't a VW engine, it was a flat twin 2 stroke KFM 107E

[POBJOY]

Beardy The beauty of the LAA system is it deals with common sense and inspections not just paperwork, and it is not confused with regulations required for PT operations. This makes a huge difference to getting airframes and engines 'In the air'. What has happened to the 'other' certification regimes is that paperwork has replaced hands on inspection expertise (there being a shortage of experienced tech staff worldwide). Of course inspections are much easier on the sort of machines the LAA are involved with, however the level of competence of the inspection regime also allows then to inspect and pass airframes and engines built from scratch.
Nowadays this includes all manner of metal and composite machines plus the old wood and fabric ones. Although a volunteer fuelled organisation many of the inspectors are CAA lic engineers and are 'led' by a capable HO staff who have considerable experience in the industry including design authority.
Common sense will tell us that the Vigilant fleet (most of which were flown to their current store) are not falling apart or indeed in bad shape. The problem is the operators of the aircraft did not have an 'in house' capability to inspect or remedy faults therefore were/are in the hands of a contractor to perform the normal engineering back up. When this system was considered suspect there was no real in house 'expertise' to really query who did what and why, and therefore the great pause was upon us. In fact there was some serious capability in the actual RAF under their own GSA and someone should have asked for help when needed as it was not going to come from 2FTS and the OC there at the time. In fact 2FTS should have flagged all this up before it became a serious issue as they had a proper repair bay at Syerston but it was not in use, and no one seemed to know why. (me thinks the contractor was not able to deliver the proper service for various reasons, but 2FTS failed to identify how this would affect the long term serviceability issues) In fact the problem would have started when Syerston was called 3 FTS but the new OC upon its change to 2FTS was more interested in getting the Gliding volunteer 'civilians' into uniform and had no idea about leadership or morale (or indeed the fantastic operation he was supposed to head).
All the above covered in prev posts since 2014.

[POBJOY]

In connection with a thread in 'Private Flying', does this apply to the VW engine used in the Fournier RF4b?
My Monnet Moni powered glider only had single ignition but then it wasn't a VW engine, it was a flat twin 2 stroke KFM 107E

Hi Chev The RF4 (VW 1200 no starter or generator) operated as a motor glider hence its single ignition (a wonderful machine that flew like it looked 'beautiful' ) Fist saw one at Biggin Hill when Sportair utilised them as the 'solo' machine to compliment their RF5 Trainer (VW1700 Limbach and electics plus dual ignition). This was the trigger for me to 'go power' from ATC instructing. The RF5 'single wheel tail dragger' also gave me a very quick intro into the need for rudder on take off that was not an issue with winch launch gliders.
To be classed as a MG and therefore not need dual mags a machine needed a minimum modest glide angle. Its predecessor the RF3 'basic aileron' utilised a mod that decompressed the engine valves to effect an air start, the RF4 provided a lever in the cockpit. Many years later I tried to buy an RF7 (Clipped wing RF4 with the 1700 engine) 'An upgrade from my Turbulent' but the Comper came along so that was that.

[CISTRS]

Aaah - Tinless and Taildragging Sportair...

[beardy]

Common sense will tell us that the Vigilant fleet (most of which were flown to their current store) are not falling apart or indeed in bad shape.

Common sense does not stand up in a court of law. Should there have been any incident or, God forbid, accident there would have been no defence. That is an unacceptable risk when dealing with children's lives. And all because 'common sense' was relied upon because it was easier than proper record keeping.

[POBJOY]

Common sense does not stand up in a court of law. Should there have been any incident or, God forbid, accident there would have been no defence. That is an unacceptable risk when dealing with children's lives. And all because 'common sense' was relied upon because it was easier than proper record keeping.

The common sense statement refers to the 'actual' average state of the machines as delivered to their current stores, as they seem to have flown there without drama. The tragedy of all this in the case of the Vigilants (remembering that this is a motor glider) was the machine and its motor were quite unaware of some paperwork glitch and were operating normally. That the audit trail was suspect was down to the contractor not employing enough staff to service the contract or overseeing the laptop based records. However why was this not picked up by the CUSTOMER who should have had oversight of all this. Those of us that were around when the MGSP operated saw a 'team' of qualified RAF staff service and repair machines during the week who were also able to complete duplicate inspections. Aircraft records are not a mystery or shrouded in secrecy and in fact I think the Air Cadet system was laptop based therefore quite easy to operate and check. We are talking about very simple machines (even the engine) with virtually no systems, that did not need endless mods.
Children had been flying (and going solo) in Air Cadet aircraft for decades with a safety record to be proud of, and in relation to the number of flights probably one of the best records in the world. The capability at the 'schools' was very high due to the nature of bringing staff on (mainly Cadets themselves) so everyone knew the job. Fast forward to 2014 when the audit trail was suspect (not the schools fault) and they had no alternative but to cease operations whilst they sorted out the problem. With little of no in house expertise the contractors stayed in place and another small fortune was made whilst the problem was not solved. Another sad reminder of what happens when you loose control of your own operation. It was not just about paperwork but the way it was handled afterwards.

[pr00ne]

POBJOY,

The only organisation responsible for the safety and airworthiness of the Glider fleet was the Royal Air Force. Outsourced contracts have contract monitoring teams and oversight responsibilities, these clearly failed.

[POBJOY]

POBJOY,

The only organisation responsible for the safety and airworthiness of the Glider fleet was the Royal Air Force. Outsourced contracts have contract monitoring teams and oversight responsibilities, these clearly failed.
Quite agree with that and yet the contractors stayed in place !!!!

[pr00ne]

POBJOY,

So the Royal Air Force kept them on.

[Sky Sports]

Not surprising as their actual contact with real aircraft is minimal, and what was the jewel in the crown of hands on gliding has been reduced to a minimum and replaced by the joke that is the Part Task Trainer for badge attainment.
If you actually look at the requirements of the PTS for flying and gliding you'll see that nothing is awarded for synthetic training alone, and rather only for synthetic and actual hands on flying.
Yes, there is a perception that they're getting a badge for a lot less work than previous, but it's not being held in the same regard.

In our experience, the real problem lies with the availability of the Part Task Trainers. Embedding them with the VGS was a real mistake, as we know hardly any gliding takes place at all. In 2019 we have been offered zero gliding slots and along with that, the chance to do a 'Aviation Training Package' on the part task trainers.

In the same time, we have had 55 sorties at the local AEF. The cadets are completing the required airborne elements for their powered wings, but are being denied them because they haven't completed the ATP, (couple of PowerPoint shows and 10 minutes in a gliding simulator). We even have cadets who have completed all 6 AEF sorties, (approximately 3 hours of hands on flying in the Tutor), and still don't have even the basic Blue powered wings! How an extra 10 minutes in a gilder simulator makes them a better pilot, I don't know?

The part task trainers should be moved to the AEF's and the aviation training packages carried out there. Better still, let the cadet Qualified Aerospace Instructors carry out the ATP's at flight simulator equipped squadrons.

[chevvron]

Hi Chev The RF4 (VW 1200 no starter or generator) operated as a motor glider hence its single ignition (a wonderful machine that flew like it looked 'beautiful' ) Fist saw one at Biggin Hill when Sportair utilised them as the 'solo' machine to compliment their RF5 Trainer (VW1700 Limbach and electics plus dual ignition). This was the trigger for me to 'go power' from ATC instructing. The RF5 'single wheel tail dragger' also gave me a very quick intro into the need for rudder on take off that was not an issue with winch launch gliders.
To be classed as a MG and therefore not need dual mags a machine needed a minimum modest glide angle. Its predecessor the RF3 'basic aileron' utilised a mod that decompressed the engine valves to effect an air start, the RF4 provided a lever in the cockpit. Many years later I tried to buy an RF7 (Clipped wing RF4 with the 1700 engine) 'An upgrade from my Turbulent' but the Comper came along so that was that.
I used to read Meccano Magazine in the early '60s and it was there I first read about Rene Fournier and his VW powered RF01; I thought 'what a brilliant idea'' A few years later and it had morphed into the RF3, then RF4. In those days Biggin Hill airshows were televised live and I remember seeing a display by an RF4 with the engine shut down for at least part of its display. When it came time to re-start, the prop jerked round a couple of times then it was realised by Raymond Baxter that it wasn't going to start and was landing, the wheel dropping down just before it touched down.
There was one at Fairoaks for many years; I contacted the owner to see if he would let me fly it but before he could get the insurance sorted he was killed in an accident in another aicraft so I had to wait another few years before I saw a Monnet Moni tri-gear for sale and bought it.

[POBJOY]

Chev One of the RF4 'stars' was the young David Perrin who instructed at Sportair. His RF4 display was quite unique and all on the mighty 1200 VW (or shut down)
Before Sportair started I happened to be a Biggin when a beautiful 'sculptured' single wheel machine taxied onto the pan with its wings balanced by simple hoops. In those days you could wander across the area and have a peek. It was obvious this machine had a VW engine (like my car) and it stood out like a rose amongst the various spam cans austers, Tigers, Chipfires and the odd Prentice. This was a visit by one of the first RF3 in the country and confirmed to me the way ahead for going power. The 3 was French built but the aerobatic 4 was produced in Germany. A few years later having defected to the Tiger Club at Redhill the club did a deal with Sportair against a Stampe and we added yet another VW type to our clutch of Turbulents. It was heaven for the ex gliding types but the low power was not to everyones taste, and there was no discount for switching the motor off. Not really a farm strip machine but once aloft pure magic, with a built in petrol wash for the windscreen when rolled !!!. The RF4 also became well known later with the John Taylor (JT) (ex Cadet) and Brendan O Brien duo (Skyhawks/Unipart) giving a superb aerobatic flying ballet 'display ' (complete with Pink Floyd music plus smoke generators) 'and all still on the mighty!! 1200VW Rectimo '.

[POBJOY]

POBJOY,

So the Royal Air Force kept them on.


Loads of money !!!!! (but no flying for Cadets)

[POBJOY]

Is there any update (or at least, fresh rumour!) about the fate of the Vigilants?

Are they going to be scrapped or sold on, and if sold on why the apparent delay? I hope the engines at least are properly inhibited, wherever they are now (Little Riss, is it?).

Just to 'tidy up' this somewhat drifted debate on the Vigilant. These machines were still in service by the various VGS and had been 'unpaused'. They were supposed to go on for a few more years albeit with engines on extensions (quite normal) and as far as I know had not needed to be reworked by a specialist repair organisation like the Vikings. There had been talk of actually putting them through a re-engine (Rotax) and panel upgrade for the ATC but as the original Grob co had finished with Gliders this idea faded away (It would also be very expensive). The records for these machines are still held so there is plenty of info on hours flown and mods. As we all know if you delay things long enough the problem fades from scrutiny and people change jobs. In effect a complete B...... U.. as the Cadet organisation has been paying for new winches and all manner of transport which has had very little utilisation plus very little use from the very expensive reworked Vikings.

[treadigraph]

Just about a year since I posted some images of the new peri-track fence being erected at Kenley. No sign of 615 resuming gliding ops yet, though Surrey Hills do keep the airfield active on weekdays.

A new sign has appeared in the last couple of months...

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/750x1000/kenley2_cddbff69c4dd1cae76966862443b86bfee1d11e7.jpg

[chevvron]

I wish we could be sure the same will happen at other ex VGS sites like Halton.
There is no 'need' to build houses on Halton airfield as the main camp is sufficient to supply building land for many years when it eventually closes (presently projected for 2025)
I understand that Aylesbury Vale District Council has so far not included the airfield in its local plan so maybe there's hope for it yet either to re-establish a VGS or maybe become a civil airfield if MOD dispose of it.
The same could be said of Henlow.

[POBJOY]

Just about a year since I posted some images of the new peri-track fence being erected at Kenley. No sign of 615 resuming gliding ops yet, though Surrey Hills do keep the airfield active on weekdays.

A new sign has appeared in the last couple of months...

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/750x1000/kenley2_cddbff69c4dd1cae76966862443b86bfee1d11e7.jpg
Are you trying to wind me up Treds !!! As far as Kenley is concerned the ATC are not active nor have been since 2014. What should be a highly productive VGS is moribund with the airfield now reduced in size and rapidly becoming a cycling track. If you look at the facebook pages all the talk is about closing gates, dog mess, and cyclist's running over walkers, nothing about ATC Gliding. With 2FTS as the Airfield guardians they have turned a proud Battle of Britain heritage site into a free for all for clashes between walkers and cyclists but no ATC Flying.
Allowing a fence to divide the listed original peri track was a crass decision from 2FTS, and has ruined a fine loction plus will make resumed operations even more difficult.
Yet another C...U.. from the desk of the prev CO head of Air Cadet gliding at Syerston.

[treadigraph]

No wind up Pobjoy I quite agree with you. I had fondly imagined that the fence, crap though it is, heralded the return to flying by 615 in 2019... some hope. If 2FTS are incapable of organising a return to flying then Surrey Hills should be granted clearance to fly at weekends and air-minded cadets pointed in their direction.

I spoke to a young female cadet a year or two back and asked if any flying was on the cards; she'd won a scholarship for a gliding course and was looking forward to taking it up.

[POBJOY]

Tread's Your image is actually quite historic in a interesting way. Looking beyond the disgraceful fence and signs you will see the track that was the original Hayes Lane that was the western boundary of Kenley going back to WW1 (It was an acceptance park) built on Kenley common. Prior to WW2 when the airfield was extended, and provided with runways, a peri track and blast bays, Hayes Lane was a public route, and indeed we used to get locals still using it in the 60's which prompted a quick response from the winches to stop them getting a free 'LIFT' by our cables. To the left of image by about 40 yards is the location of the famous 'Spitfire in its blast pen image', taken by one of the attacking Dorniers on the 18th Aug 1940. Together with its near neighbours Biggin Hill (to the east) and the famous Croydon Airport to the north (all in 11 Group) Kenley (a sector station) played a crucial part in the summer of 1940, and then went on to house offensive Wings on sweeps over 'the other side'.
To be based there as a Cadet with 450 Sdn and later 615 GS was a amazing experience as the Camp was still in its wartime camo, and bore the scars of wartime attacks.
Due to its proximity to London, Kent, Surrey, and Sussex Air Cadet units it should have been one of the first VGS to get 'unpaused' but over 5 years later Treads tells us no sign of ATC Gliding !!! A great testimonial to those who head up ATC Gliding.

[ACW562]

I am an ex A2 Instructor, and lately BGA instructor. Having flown the Slinbsby MK 3 and Sedbergs and later the Vikings. I just have to make a small point that is subjective. It is simply that even in the last years of WW2 and the post war years the Air Cadet Gliding Movement was born. Posterity and government cuts more severe than now. It is so sad that individuals with no names have destroyed an organisation that is non political and only ever did good work for the individual Air Cadets and the wider community. RIP.

[ATFQ]

Advertisement for next Commandant Air Cadets.
https://www.raf.mod.uk/ftrs-ptvr-adc-verr/vacancies/vacancy-for-an-air-cdre-commandant-raf-air-cadets-rafc-cranwell/

[aw ditor]

Facebook page sez 615 start flying again in April, this year, or have i got the wrong April?

A/D (ex Old Lodge Lane denizen)

[treadigraph]

Well, fingers crossed! Is it six years? Or seven...

Six. Longer than World War 2...

[chevvron]

Facebook page sez 615 start flying again in April, this year, or have i got the wrong April?

A/D (ex Old Lodge Lane denizen)
Great news.
I wish they would do the same with 613 at Halton; there is a huge 'gap' north west of London with no gliding schools where there used to be 4: 613 Halton, 612 Abingdon (previously Benson) and 616 Henlow all before the 'pause' plus 617 Bovingdon (ex Hendon) until 1970.

[muppetofthenorth]

Having more VGS' is only half the story. An alarming number of the recently re-installed locations only fly on weekdays, which is useless floor the vast majority of cadets who can't get time off school, and their volunteer staff who can't get time off work.

Sure, it looks great on paper, but it's a noticeably poorer attraction.

[Tingger]

Having more VGS' is only half the story. An alarming number of the recently re-installed locations only fly on weekdays, which is useless floor the vast majority of cadets who can't get time off school, and their volunteer staff who can't get time off work.

Sure, it looks great on paper, but it's a noticeably poorer attraction.

All of the reinstated VGS operate on weekends, some of the AEFs only operate during the week

[chevvron]

All of the reinstated VGS operate on weekends, some of the AEFs only operate during the week
I thought AEFs operated the same days a UAS' ie tue - sun; I did hear of a problem at Wittering due to the part contracted out ATC though.

[ExAscoteer2]

When 5 AEF moved from Wyton to Wittering in March 2013 there was certainly a long pause in ATC (as opposed to CCF) cadets being able to access flying owing to the fact that Wittering's air traffic had been civilianised and were not contracted to work weekends. That is no longer the case and hasn't been for quite some considerable time.

[POBJOY]

Good news for Air Cadet gliding from Kenley. 615 has a new HQ and looking to be operational again in March.(6 years on). Fittingly 615 will be able to celebrate its return to actual flight as opposed to the PTT during the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, and maintains that link with 615 County of Surrey Squadron (Hurricanes) that had Kenley as its pre war home airfield.
Indeed a historic and welcome boost to the Air Cadets in the London and South East as Kenley can provide excellent access to a large number of Squadrons.
There will be operational challenges to deal with as the airfield has become more accessible to the public, and a fence now divides the peri track, but as in 1940 Kenley has survived not only the Luftwaffe but the difficulties of local development and 'own goals' from the MOD.
Treads will no doubt post some images when the Vikings appear on the airfield again.

[treadigraph]

I shall be delighted to be able to do so! :ok:

[POBJOY]

I shall be delighted to be able to do so! :ok:

The Gliders are no problem Treads, just watch out for the speeding cyclists, ramblers, runners, dog walkers, and poo. !!!

[treadigraph]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1163/kenley_8e57e47fe1faddf4bb07ba7d5a7cc23896a7e9bd.jpg

I've been asked to post this excellent painting of events at Kenley nearly 80 years ago - Kenley now hopefully rising again after its latest drama!

[Video Mixdown]

I've been asked to post this excellent painting of events at Kenley nearly 80 years ago - Kenley now hopefully rising again after its latest drama!
Excellent painting. An interesting detail is the use of the rocket launched 'parachute & cable' air defence system, shown just after launch on the northern perimeter. It plucked one of the Dorniers out of the sky, and another struck one of the cables but escaped serious damage. The system and its operation are described in detail in the excellent book 'The Hardest Day' by Alfred Price.

[campbeex]

I recall a time when this thread used to be about the state of gliding in the Air Cadets with relevant contributions from the likes of tucumseh and Engines.

[muppetofthenorth]

I recall a time when this thread used to be about the state of gliding in the Air Cadets with relevant contributions from the likes of tucumseh and Engines.
Everyone is resigned to the fact that motor gliding within the Air Cadets is dead, that sailplane gliding is a shadow of it's former self, and that the Air Cadets' Vikings are out of service in a year with no mention of any replacement anywhere.

[POBJOY]

I recall a time when this thread used to be about the state of gliding in the Air Cadets with relevant contributions from the likes of tucumseh and Engines.
It still is, RAF Kenley is about to start ATC Gliding(Viking) operations again, It just happens to also coincide with the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, and Kenley is the only Cadet Gliding field to have been part of that. 615 VGS (formerly 615 Gliding School ) has been at Kenley since inception, and is the only reason that the airfield has survived as long. The Air Cadets have a proud and historic location that can now serve the 'Cadet rich' area of London and the S-east again.

[POBJOY]

Everyone is resigned to the fact that motor gliding within the Air Cadets is dead, that sailplane gliding is a shadow of it's former self, and that the Air Cadets' Vikings are out of service in a year with no mention of any replacement anywhere.

I for one am appalled at the way the Air Cadets have been let down by those in charge at the top; but despite this the organisation still has a shed load of brand new winches and a quantity of 'refurbished' Vikings. Apart from anything else 2FTS will still want to keep themselves employed, and in the case of Kenley which serves the largest catchment area of all they have been provided with a brand new HQ on what is a secure site. The Vigilants have been killed off due to the lack of will to engage with the engine issue of being on extension, and despite an LAA based project to sort this out it no doubt suited those who wanted to 'bury the dead' for the patient to stay dead. The Vikings have now been effectively given an extra life, so with Kenley (615), (and soon 626) getting new facilities I think there must be a 10 year future at least. This is enough time to look at, and organise replacement equipment if the budget and will exists.
Either way although we will not see the organisation 'as it was' it at least still gives an 'AIR' element to those Cadets who aspire to train to solo standard.

[muppetofthenorth]

The Vikings have now been effectively given an extra life, so with Kenley (615), (and soon 626) getting new facilities I think there must be a 10 year future at least.
I standby to be corrected, but I think I remember reading somewhere of an out of service date of 2021 for the Vikings, by which point they'll be 36/37 years old.
I'm not sure whether they've had any substantial work completed on them to give another 10 years of life.

[Arclite01]

I standby to be corrected, but I think I remember reading somewhere of an out of service date of 2021 for the Vikings, by which point they'll be 36/37 years old.
I'm not sure whether they've had any substantial work completed on them to give another 10 years of life.

I thought the original OSD was based on the expected Fatigue Life. On the basis that the fatigue life has been hardly used, and the fact that all the returned airframes have had in depth inspections I think it's not an unreasonable expectation that the OSD might move back 10 years to 2029.


The sensible play now would be to order K-21's on a basis of 5 - 8 a year and re-equip 1 school per year on a rolling programme. My choice would be the ASK21Mi which could be winch launched and then used for extended training but also later on only for the circuit phase.

It'll never happen of course.

Arc

[tucumseh]

I recall a time when this thread used to be about the state of gliding in the Air Cadets with relevant contributions from the likes of tucumseh and Engines.

Thank you. If I may, the essential difference is that Pobjoy correctly highlighted and bemoaned the imminent demise of ATC giding and predicted the effect, while myself and engines (whom I know) drew on past experience and offered the solution. (Implement mandated regs). We all complemented each other.

I admit I haven't followed this recently, but am surprised at the timescales quoted. Is there a conflict between (a) the OSD of 2021, and (b) the Treasury requirement to show '5-years useful life' against any expenditure? Linked to this, as soon as the OSD is declared, annual support funding drops by 20% for each of the final 5 years. If this policy, which applied throughout my career, has been relaxed, then that would require a major hike in the equipment budget. Or, more likely, the diversion of existing monies from higher priorities.

Like much of this case, something doesn't smell right. Keep pushing Pobjoy.

[478152]

The Vikings have now been effectively given an extra life, so with Kenley (615), (and soon 626) getting new facilities I think there must be a 10 year future at least.

Viking flying returned to 626 and Predannack a fortnight ago, heavily supported and facilitated by 2FTS personnel. Still very early days and a long road ahead, but it's very welcome steps in the right direction. There is some hope that there might be some limited Gliding sorties for Cadets over the Easter period.

[Engines]

Campbeex,

I thought i'd respond to your mention - as ever, I hope that my occasional contributions might be of some use.

Here's a thought - how about a substantial effort by the PPrune community (e.g. a good many FoI requests) to the MoD for information on the Viking OSD? Here's a steer. My previous efforts got me a copy of the 2002 Viking Ageing Aircraft Audit (AAA). I'd asked for a copy of a 2009 AA, but it appeared that the 2002 document was all they held for the Viking at that time (2018). I also got an Ageing Aircraft Structural Audit for the Vigilant dated 2009, which reported significant gaps in that aircraft's structural safety case. I'd love to know how the Vigilant RTS survived after that document was issued.

By now, they must have carried out another AAA on the Viking. Perhaps we can get that one - it would provide definitive answers on OSD and fatigue life. There should also be documented and controlled documents setting out Viking Maintenance Policy, as well as a Fleet Management Plan. Oh, and of course a copy of the RTS should be released. Or, how about details of the 10 year funding lines for ATC gliders?

The MoD will fight tooth and nail to protect this stuff. None of it should be remotely classified, none of it would be commercially sensitive. But it would be embarrassing. And. from my direct personal experience, many in the MoD do not like FoI requests at all. They resent them, they dislike them, and they do their best to obstruct them. They've forgotten that they work for us, and that they are accountable to us.

Anyone want to pick up the cudgels?

Best regards as ever to all those really irritating people out there who keep digging,

Engines

[POBJOY]

Now having spent a considerable amount of effort and money to get two Viking Squadrons to the point of flight status by providing new facilities I do not see that could possibly mean it all closes again next year.
The organisation now has an actual surplus of new winches, and probably more refurbished Vikings that it can use at one time.
The actual Viking 'fatigue life' left is considerable so it would not be a problem to start to organise their replacement now without having to shut down operations.
Kenley has a good Cadet Catchment potential and is central to former staff from closed Squadrons. It would not be beyond the wit of man to utilise this location with more 'continuous courses' during school vacations thereby increasing utilisation and keeping some of the experience skill level going. Remember the ATC Gliding operation was a TRAINING ORGANISATION and it was very good at that. I know we will never get back to the days of the fretwork fighter with so few launches before going solo, but even so that goal of SOLO FLIGHT should always be something to aim for, and it can still give the Cadet force that unique facility that set it apart from other youth organisations. Giving that opportunity (available to all) is not just about learning to fly but it opens up a voyage of self discovery and decision making that is life changing. The Cadet gliding organisation should now rise to the occasion and show what it can offer, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain but they may have to up the utilisation situation to make up for the lack of sites. I wish them well and just like Kenley they will survive.

[POBJOY]

Viking flying returned to 626 and Predannack a fortnight ago, heavily supported and facilitated by 2FTS personnel. Still very early days and a long road ahead, but it's very welcome steps in the right direction. There is some hope that there might be some limited Gliding sorties for Cadets over the Easter period.

And a jolly well done to those were still around to make it happen. You have a fine location (and mushroom crop) which lends itself to 'summer camps' if you find enough staff. Not the best located for easy w-end access, but good enough for the keen Cadets who make the effort. Ideal location for two Squadrons to make the best use of the location and as alluded great location for summer camps to get the utilisation level up.

[Tingger]

Now having spent a considerable amount of effort and money to get two Viking Squadrons to the point of flight status by providing new facilities I do not see that could possibly mean it all closes again next year.
The organisation now has an actual surplus of new winches, and probably more refurbished Vikings that it can use at one time.
The actual Viking 'fatigue life' left is considerable so it would not be a problem to start to organise their replacement now without having to shut down operations.
Kenley has a good Cadet Catchment potential and is central to former staff from closed Squadrons. It would not be beyond the wit of man to utilise this location with more 'continuous courses' during school vacations thereby increasing utilisation and keeping some of the experience skill level going. Remember the ATC Gliding operation was a TRAINING ORGANISATION and it was very good at that. I know we will never get back to the days of the fretwork fighter with so few launches before going solo, but even so that goal of SOLO FLIGHT should always be something to aim for, and it can still give the Cadet force that unique facility that set it apart from other youth organisations. Giving that opportunity (available to all) is not just about learning to fly but it opens up a voyage of self discovery and decision making that is life changing. The Cadet gliding organisation should now rise to the occasion and show what it can offer, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain but they may have to up the utilisation situation to make up for the lack of sites. I wish them well and just like Kenley they will survive.

I feel you'll be sorely disappointed there is no large surplus of winches 2 at each squadron and a slack handful to cover CGS and survivability cover and they're all gone. No squadron has more than 4 airframes so again not a huge surplus to tap into. Fly the ones there are harder and they'll just stop flying while the wait for their slot in the maintenance schedule.

615 will probably spend the rest of the year RTFing their instructors and graded pilots before they begin cadet flying output, 626 even longer.

[POBJOY]

TNG Who has replaced the CGi's and staff cadets.

[Tingger]

TNG Who has replaced the CGi's and staff cadets.

No one replaced them, they haven't flown for 5 years as a unit though. They may well have all they're old school crews left on the books but their partners, children friends will have got used to having them around the adjustment back to the amount of time VGSing takes shouldn't be underestimated

[POBJOY]

No one replaced them, they haven't flown for 5 years as a unit though. They may well have all they're old school crews left on the books but their partners, children friends will have got used to having them around the adjustment back to the amount of time VGSing takes shouldn't be underestimated

Interesting, history repeats itself; In 1940 they could replace an aircraft overnight but the Pilots were a different matter.
Kenley (615) is probably in a better position for drawing in staff, plus has a civvy club on the same field, but 626 has no nearby units and is situated in an isolated position on the Lizard peninsular. There is a Navy GSA at Culdrose, so that may be able to help. Am I correct that there will be no CGI's in the future, and are staff cadets still drawn from former solo cadets who have already done advanced training.

[Tingger]

No new CGIs the ones there are can remain or move across, drawing them is one thing training them up another thing entirely.

Upto the OC to decide how he draws in staff cadets but with a set establishment getting cadets through at the right time to fill a vacant post without holding thar vacant post for a long time is a tricky juggling act

[ExAscoteer2]

So, basically they have screwed Gliding, screwed AEF flying, screwed shooting, screwed fieldcraft.

Not a lot of point left in being an Air Cadet really!

Oh, but for the whole badge chasing rubbish.

The Administration has serially failed a generation of youngsters.

Sad but true,

Air Cdre Chamier wll be turning in his grave.

[muppetofthenorth]

So, basically they have screwed Gliding, screwed AEF flying, screwed shooting, screwed fieldcraft.

Not a lot of point left in being an Air Cadet really!

Oh, but for the whole badge chasing rubbish.

The Administration has serially failed a generation of youngsters.

Sad but true,

Air Cdre Chamier wll be turning in his grave.
But they've made more paperwork, so that's great.

Only saving grace is that the kids don't know better. They don't know what they've 'lost', because they've never had it.

[622]

Obviously, this whole thing is a debarcle….but if I was 13 again would I join knowing what I know now....absolutely, and would I recommend anybody to join now...absolutely!
Even if I took the 'nice to have bits' - camps, flying, gliding etc etc back to a bare minimum (as they are now) I still had a fantastic time as a cadet (and later as Staff).
For team building and making a better person in later life I think the Cadets offer a fantastic opportunity.
I appreciate that paperwork / H&S etc has changed over the years...where hasn't it?....but I still think for a youngster the Air cadets has a lot to offer...and the squadron staff I am sure are still trying their best to make it fun / rewarding / educational...and all the other things I loved.

Would you get the same from the Army Cadets/ Sea Cadets / Scouts /Girl Guides etc etc....probably, but as I never was one, I am obviously biased...and I am sure they have all changed over the years to.

We would all love it to be the way it was, but it isn't......again most things these days seem to be like that, but lets not detract from what the cadets can offer...even it's just attending Parade nights.

Not all cadets just join because they can fly or shoot....some are there (and I do count myself as one who joined for other reasons!) because it is something good to do with your time.

Good luck I say to all those who are still involved at all levels....and thanks to all those who I knew in my time, you probably made me the person I am today...which I think is a good thing! :)

[RNAV10]

In the last few months my 15 year old has flown in the Grob, Viking, Chinook and Voyager. He has also shot the L98A2 as well as spending a week at RIAT. Thoroughly enjoys every minute of it. He also has a few badges he is proud of as well.

[Meester proach]

Apart from the one above, it sounds awful.

it was aerobatics in a chipmunk over the white horse vale that got me hooked on this as a career.

[RNAV10]

Apart from the one above, it sounds awful.

it was aerobatics in a chipmunk over the white horse vale that got me hooked on this as a career.

I suspect his recent Grob and Viking flights have had the same effect and have got him hooked.

[longer ron]

RNAV
As has been posted on this thread a few times - geographic location of individual sqns will have made a huge difference to to the amount of flying achievable by most cadets since the grounding/'pause'

[POBJOY]

Despite what has gone before, the rebirth of 615 and 626 is a step in the right direction. Kenley can serve a very large 'Cadet Rich' area, and Predannack with its very large field and nearby Culdrose could be a base for 'camps' rather than just serving the immediate Cadet area.
AS yet we do not know what effect the new OC 2 FTS will have on the organisation, but no doubt he will be seeking to maximise the existing fleet whilst grappling with introducing the new staff required.
Either way this will have gone some way to get the AIR back into the organisation, and despite the hill to climb can only be a good thing to BUILD on.
Who knows some common sense may even creep back into the Vigilant fleet currently gathering dust at Little Ris and Syerston. Perhaps with some out of the box thinking someone will realise that the required engine overhaul situation is well do able and that this fleet should go back to serve the organisation they were obtained for. The LAA were prepared to oversee getting the Vigilants back into the air, and this is a respected organisation with DECADES of engineering and design ability. The MOD could do a lot worse than utilise this experience to compensate for the lack of it in their own system.

[ExAscoteer2]

Viglant fleet? What have you been drinking?

[muppetofthenorth]

Who knows some common sense may even creep back into the Vigilant fleet currently gathering dust at Little Ris and Syerston.
Not a chance.

The Vigilants are dead and gone.

[POBJOY]

Viglant fleet? What have you been drinking?

Never heard of a Viglant, but would be a good name for a reborn Vigilant. I drink milk sometimes with lemon and honey !!! N E S P

As far as I know the airframes on the Vig fleet are not an issue, but an overhaul of a VW engine is of course second only in complexity to changing a crankshaft on a Napier Sabre.
In practice you could OH it on a substantial kitchen table if you had to (the VW that is). I did say the organisation will have to do some out of box thinking if it is to get back on track to providing a facility it should be doing, and has been paid for.
The Sabre would of course need a VERY SUBSTANTIAL table.

[VX275]

Not a chance.

The Vigilants are dead and gone.

Have the Vigilants been disposed of yet?
I know I haven't seen any photos of a landfill brimming with crushed GRP and let's face it, there isn't much money in scrap GRP and burning is out of the question, sixty odd GRP airframes is an awful lot of MMMF to go blowing in the wind.

[chevvron]

Does anyone have an idea which VGS/Sqdns have re-started operations at what airfields?
I've heard of Rissy, Kenley and Predanack from this thread but any more airfields?

[Tingger]

Does anyone have an idea which VGS/Sqdns have re-started operations at what airfields?
I've heard of Rissy, Kenley and Predanack from this thread but any more airfields?

RTF complete:
644 Syerston
637/621 Little Rissington
622 Upavon
661 Kirknewton
632 Ternhill

Converting (both squadron and airfield):
645 Topcliffe

Starting RTF:
626 Predannack
615 Kenley

Waiting:
614 Swanton Morley

[POBJOY]

Have the Vigilants been disposed of yet?
I know I haven't seen any photos of a landfill brimming with crushed GRP and let's face it, there isn't much money in scrap GRP and burning is out of the question, sixty odd GRP airframes is an awful lot of MMMF to go blowing in the wind.

Although it is unlikely to make headline news the Vig disposal looks like it is nearly settled with the idea that some airframes will eventually be RTF but not with the Grob engine.(not in UK anyway). I suspect the other airframes will not be scrapped but get RTP for eventual spares use, poss overseas. There is no desire to see the VW engine /airframe combination flying again in the UK no doubt due to awkward questions being asked. If they quietly find their way somewhere else it will effectively be a carpet sweep (under) that closes the chapter. For the record there was no tech reason for the machines not to go on to the LAA system, but the politics of the whole wider pause and recovery issue has rather clouded this alternative.
Of course this does not diminish the service they gave with a valuable addition to getting Cadets airborne which started (SLMG) with the VW engine Falk., It should also be remembered that Cadets did train to solo on both these machines at locations where winch launch operations were difficult to maintain. It is the lack of suitable winch launch sites that will limit the ongoing Gliding program for the future, but it is better than not having the facility at all. It is no different in the civilian gliding world with many locations quite remote, and not able to attract a wider membership.

[spekesoftly]

Is there any news on when 631 (Woodvale) may RTF ?

[chevvron]

RTF complete:
644 Syerston
637/621 Little Rissington
622 Upavon
661 Kirknewton
632 Ternhill

Converting (both squadron and airfield):
645 Topcliffe

Starting RTF:
626 Predannack
615 Kenley

Waiting:
614 Swanton Morley
Thanks for that.
So there's a massive gap in the area once served by Wethersfield, 616 Henlow, 613 Halton, 612 Abingdon and 618 Odiham plus nothing to serve Kent and East Sussex (previously 617 Manston).

[Phil_and_Sand]

Who knows some common sense may even creep back into the Vigilant fleet currently gathering dust at Little Ris and Syerston. Perhaps with some out of the box thinking someone will realise that the required engine overhaul situation is well do able and that this fleet should go back to serve the organisation they were obtained for. The LAA were prepared to oversee getting the Vigilants back into the air, and this is a respected organisation with DECADES of engineering and design ability. The MOD could do a lot worse than utilise this experience to compensate for the lack of it in their own system.
Pobjoy, you have written this line loud and often but I do not believe you. The Vigilant is very close to a Grob 109. That aircraft has a current type certificate supported by a type certificate holder. My understanding is that as a type it is not eligible for transfer to the LAA system. It doesn't matter what the LAA might have been prepared to do, it is the CAA who issue Permits to Fly, they cannot issue a permit to an aircraft that can have a CofA. From a passing involvement in this project I understood pretty much all of the airframes are unserviceable and require a Viking style survey by a competent organisation (unlikely to be LAA) to return them to flight. Not saying it can't/won't happen but as I understand it the only route is with a CofA and with the support of the TCH. The engine situation just adds more expense to the whole equation. With 109s fetching around £30K, who can justify doing very much to these airframes?

[muppetofthenorth]

Is there any news on when 631 (Woodvale) may RTF ?
I can't remember the reasoning, but I recall that there was a decision that (non-powered) gliding is verboten at Woodvale. The Vigilants were ok, but Vikings are a no. So, it won't.

[spekesoftly]

I can't remember the reasoning, but I recall that there was a decision that (non-powered) gliding is verboten at Woodvale. The Vigilants were ok, but Vikings are a no. So, it won't.
Thanks for your reply. It's a shame that they don't even have the option of returning to Sealand where they flew for many happy years.

[Tingger]

Thanks for your reply. It's a shame that they don't even have the option of returning to Sealand where they flew for many happy years.

631 changed to an AGS, along with 616, 633, 634, 663 and 664

[Arclite01]

I am convinced the Vigilants will fly somewhere again in some shape or form.

I don't believe they will be under the LAA banner though. And almost certainly not in the UK, and definitely not under the RAF/Air Cadet banner.

Which is sad. They earned their money when they were in service. I think there is certainly a political issue somewhere in the background either in MoD, the RAF or the ACO that does not like seeing Motorised aircraft operated by non-RAF pilot volunteer staff. I think they are not really in favour of aircraft being operated by volunteers full stop TBH but they 'accept' conventional gliders (just).

This engineering debacle suited them to just 'compartmentalise' what is left into a no-productive, expensive sideshow.........

Arc

[POBJOY]

[QUOTE=Arclite01;10694653]I am convinced the Vigilants will fly somewhere again in some shape or form.

I don't believe they will be under the LAA banner though. And almost certainly not in the UK, and definitely not under the RAF/Air Cadet banner.

Which is sad. They earned their money when they were in service. I think there is certainly a political issue somewhere in the background either in MoD, the RAF or the ACO that does not like seeing Motorised aircraft operated by non-RAF pilot volunteer staff. I think they are not really in favour of aircraft being operated by volunteers full stop TBH but they 'accept' conventional gliders (just).

This engineering debacle suited them to just 'compartmentalise' what is left into a no-productive, expensive sideshow.........



Absolutely ARC, the machines mainly flew to where they are now and I suspect in practice could fly out again. This was all about A... Covering. and there were so many A......'s the carpet would have had many bumps in it.
However what they failed to disprove is the fact that a VOLUNTEER CIVILIAN force managed to deliver excellent ab initio flying training to solo standard in a SLMG for many years with an enviable record of performance and safety. The fact that the 'students' were not streamed or selected just goes to show how well the system worked (we know that anyway). We all know who let the system down, and it was not those at the coal face.

[muppetofthenorth]

ACMB reporting “the planned post-recovery position is unlikely to exceed 30% of previous activity levels”.

Two thirds of gliding as was has been written off. For good.

[Bill Macgillivray]

Pobjoy,

I have tried to keep out of this debate for years. As an ex-ATC cadet who went solo in a T31 in 1953 and then joined the RAF as a pilot because of the influence of the ATC (and my desire) I am saddened to see the way things have gone! I am not out of touch, having been a CI at my local ATC squadron until a couple of years ago, and having flown gliders and various powered aircraft all my working life. I feel that the Air Training Corps (or Cadets, RAF Section?!) have lost their main reason for being! However, having followed this thread (and your first class explantions) I do sense that all is not lost with the people who really matter! Please keep up the good work!

Bill

[POBJOY]

[QUOTE=Bill Macgillivray;10696720]Pobjoy,

I have tried to keep out of this debate for years. As an ex-ATC cadet who went solo in a T31 in 1953 and then joined the RAF as a pilot because of the influence of the ATC (and my desire) I am saddened to see the way things have gone! I am not out of touch, having been a CI at my local ATC squadron until a couple of years ago, and having flown gliders and various powered aircraft all my working life. I feel that the Air Training Corps (or Cadets, RAF Section?!) have lost their main reason for being! However, having followed this thread (and your first class explantions) I do sense that all is not lost with the people who really matter! Please keep up the good work!

Bill, Indeed I to am furious at the needless waste of resources, and loss of a valuable experience to a huge number of Cadets who have been badly let down.
However we have a new boss at 2 FTS who must be given the chance to see the organisation gets 'enabled' to rise again even though we know it not be to the same level. The two new return to flying operations both have a chance to help this situation. 615 Kenley is in a prime location for Cadet Squadrons to access, and I know that it will rise to the occasion because both 615 and Kenley have a history of survival, delivering the goods, and the will to provide an excellent service.
626 at Predannack is a remote location but has a fantastic site with lots of space. Staffing may well be an issue there, but if 2 FTS are allowed to think outside of the box and utilise outside temporary help then this could be a great summer camp location with perhaps some staff coming down to run continuous courses, in the same way Halesland operated. Once Cadets see the gliding opportunities coming online it will be an excellent chance for them to get stuck in and help out with staffing and then the process can build again. This is what the organisation needs, hands on association with aircraft you can actually help to handle and get to fly, that's what the Air Cadets should be about for those who are keen. A bit of a 'hill' to climb, but better than letting it go without a fight. Venture Adventure, and B...... the twitter and facebook brigade. Regards Pobjoy.

[Arclite01]

If activity is only 30% of previous levels that means we need 70% less staff at HQAC, 2FTS and Syerston surely ? :}

Arc

[teeteringhead]

Fine words POBJOY, with which I agree 100%.

Like many, I soloed in a Mk 3 at 16, which gave me the "bug" which led to many decades as an RAF pilot.

Although I was originally CCF(RAF), I've spent the last decade or so involved with the ATC, and have seen what happened (or what didn't..........)

It will be a "big ask" (as they say these days) to get back to anything like it was. Fingers crossed, new brooms and all that.......

[POBJOY]

Fine words POBJOY, with which I agree 100%.

Like many, I soloed in a Mk 3 at 16, which gave me the "bug" which led to many decades as an RAF pilot.

Although I was originally CCF(RAF), I've spent the last decade or so involved with the ATC, and have seen what happened (or what didn't..........)

It will be a "big ask" (as they say these days) to get back to anything like it was. Fingers crossed, new brooms and all that.......

Hi TTHead As a Staff Cadet at Kenley I well remember the CCF Cadets attending our Easter and Summer courses. I seem to recall that their uniforms had more braid than ours and even had 'spats'. We used to greet and sort then out with denims and wellies, and they were somewhat surprised to find that the grounds ops were all run by local Squadron ATC Cadets.
WE gave them much banter but they must have enjoyed their week as eventually some asked to join as staff, and I never turned one away. It is the knowledge of what the organisation is capable of that drives me to keep the pressure on to build it up again. It may not have the 'numbers' but it can still have the quality of experience, and its worth keeping it going. The organisation needs to get back to 'hands on' activities not burdened by shed loads of paperwork, and one hopes that those in charge realise that twitter, facebook, and fancy advertising does not fool anyone with the reality of the results of loosing the plot.

[muppetofthenorth]

The organisation needs to get back to 'hands on' activities not burdened by shed loads of paperwork, and one hopes that those in charge realise that twitter, facebook, and fancy advertising does not fool anyone with the reality of the results of loosing the plot.
New CAC in this year, but a lot of damage to undo.

Nobody in is holding their breath.

[POBJOY]

New CAC in this year, but a lot of damage to undo.

Nobody in is holding their breath.
Mupp A new C A C plus the current OC 2 FTS can only be an improvement in the system. Kenley is now under OC 2 FTS direct control so he will be keen to see it prosper.
615 kept its staff utilised with the PTT, and have issued over 1000 certs to boot. This means they only have to re engage with their Vikings rather than trying to engage staff.
Kenley is a very historic location and a real Battle of Britain survivor. 615 carries on the number of a famous Surrey Squadron, and one can not escape the sense of flying from the site that not only sent its machines out to defend our country, but also survived a well planned low level raid that was intent on removing it from the Battle. 615 will rise to the occasion, and Kenley will always support it as it has for many decades. The Cadets now have a Gliding operation back in the London and the South East. Access is easy and the Squadrons numerous, so it is all there to play for. Once Cadets start 'TRAINING' the word and enthusiasm will spread, and who knows some sense may creep back into those up top and they will start to protect and improve what is special rather then see it wither. Well done 615 for keeping the faith and well done Kenley for still being there.
Kenley was built on a Surrey common in WW1 and used to assemble, and send machines to France. Under the defence of the realm it was kept after hostilities and underwent hasty improvements in the 1930's. However the improvements did not really give it protection of its own, and indeed the brick buildings and 'bungalow' ops room were more akin to a country club.
Like the nearby and better known Biggin Hill it was a vital sector station, but small in size. Unable to be expanded for the later jets Kenley stayed in a timewarp and eventually became an ATC Gliding school in the 50's.Having now been provided with a brand new HQ 615 has a most secure location, and a proud reputation to keep up. They will not let the Cadets down.

[chevvron]

.Having now been provided with a brand new HQ 615 has a most secure location, and a proud reputation to keep up. They will not let the Cadets down.
Hope they didn't spend too much on the new HQ; some beancounter at MOD might see the cost and say 'why are we spending money on an airfield with no powered flying; close it'.(Thinks: Wonder what's happened to the HQ they built at Abingdon for 612 GS?)
Anyway that's what happened to Bovingdon according to what I heard; 617 GS had just become established as 'sole user' having 'lost' their original home at Hendon; the 4 hangars were re-furbished and then they closed it because some beancounter noticed the cost of the 'new' hangars.
Still I can't complain; I got my Air Cadet Soaring Certificate/BGA 'C' Certificate at Bovingdon whilst operating a 613 GS detachment from Halton before 617 moved in.

[ExAscoteer2]

Hope they didn't spend too much on the new HQ; some beancounter at MOD might see the cost and say 'why are we spending money on an airfield with no powered flying; close it.

Anyway that's what happened to Bovingdon according to what I heard; 617 GS had just become established as 'sole user' having 'lost' their original home at Hendon; the 4 hangars were re-furbished and then they closed it because some beancounter noticed the cost of the 'new' hangars.

More or less. My Father was Adj at the time. They trialled a move to Manston with a summer course there in mid/late August 1970. The GS moved to Manston at the end of Oct/beginning Nov 1970.

[POBJOY]

Hope they didn't spend too much on the new HQ; some beancounter at MOD might see the cost and say 'why are we spending money on an airfield with no powered flying; close it'.(Thinks: Wonder what's happened to the HQ they built at Abingdon for 612 GS?)
Anyway that's what happened to Bovingdon according to what I heard; 617 GS had just become established as 'sole user' having 'lost' their original home at Hendon; the 4 hangars were re-furbished and then they closed it because some beancounter noticed the cost of the 'new' hangars.
Still I can't complain; I got my Air Cadet Soaring Certificate/BGA 'C' Certificate at Bovingdon whilst operating a 613 GS detachment from Halton before 617 moved in.
Kenley
AH Chev Kenley has a not very secret weapon up its sleeve. It is not an MOD asset but merely a 'peppercorn' leased field which has no commercial value. If gliding stops the field reverts back to being a common 'end of'. Manston and West Malling were lost because they had substantial development value when the RAF operations stopped, (and Bovingdon became a prison). Kenley was ideal for the fretwork fighters but deemed too small for Vig operations. The Viking has coped ok but higher performance machines would not be ideal. History will show that in fact the best machine for the ATC requirement was indeed the MK 3, and that record stands any scrutiny. The problem was 'dragging' the organisation into a more modern era whilst keeping it simple. The Viking has done well despite the efforts of those up top, and indeed could provide excellent service for years to come. The next generation kit will be interesting as in theory the clubs also need a glass trainer that is affordable.

[WB627]

Kenley
History will show that in fact the best machine for the ATC requirement was indeed the MK 3, and that record stands any scrutiny. The problem was 'dragging' the organisation into a more modern era whilst keeping it simple.

Although I was in the CCF at school, I did not go into the forces, so I have always been just a civvy and this is not a forum I post on lightly.

I have followed this thread since it started, as I feel, having soled at Kenley in 1974 on a Mk 3, I have some skin in this fight and feel desperately sorry for what has become of the ACO. My Dad was a staff pilot, a founder member, on 1 AEF from Biggin Hill in 1958, to Manston in 1982, having joined the RAF and trained a pilot in 1941. I worked the flight line at Manston as a supernumerary staff cadet as often as I could whilst I was in the CCF, so cadet flying is in the blood, so to speak.

My eldest son now 35, was in our local ATC and the deterioration in cadet flying since he was in it, is quite depressing.

Throughout my career (in construction) I had a mantra, KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. It worked. Rocket science not required. We had a Slingsby Grasshopper at school, one or two steps down from the Mk 3, but I learnt a lot from flying that. So I wonder if a new build Mk 3 is the way to go. It ticked all the boxes then, there are some still flying and I canot imagine they would not tick all the boxes now. It was simple uncomplicated, easy to maintain and easy to fly.

The only problem as I see it, would be the MOD procurement process, which no doubt would turn it into a multi £billion project for someone like BAE, which would never get off the ground.

[WB627]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x510/xk790_295_1_a9daddc600a7760d0bd2cc8478ee69310d00a6a7.jpg

[tucumseh]

The only problem as I see it, would be the MOD procurement process, which no doubt would turn it into a multi £billion project for someone like BAE, which would never get off the ground.

Slightly unfair given the raft of posts naming and blaming RAF officers for this debacle, who had no part whatsoever in the 'procurement process'. The process is robust. If the Services do the preliminary work correctly, delivery to time, cost and performance (and better) is for the most part a walk in the park. The trouble is, they seldom do.

It is the implementation that is lacking. If the Services don't/can't/won't do the preliminary legwork, the backstop was traditionally the project manager, who was required to know how to do this work and could correct matters very quickly. (As he'd learned and practiced it in his previous 5 or more grades). Implementation becomes very difficult if you haven't worked at those 5 grades, which are all below today's entry minima. No-one learns what is NOT being done.

That's the basic problem both the Services and DE&S face. The current 'solution' seems to be to employ an army of highly paid 'consultants', because MoD's own natural recruitment grounds were decimated long ago. Many of these consultants are doing work I'd have gladly entrusted, with minimal supervision, to 3rd year apprentices. And I mean proper apprentices, who use tools; not those who are.

One has to appreciate that if you substitute 'Nimrod' with' 'Gliders' in the 2009 Nimrod Review, it still makes perfect sense, as the systemic failings are the same. Read the Hawk XX177 Board of Inquiry report. Same Type Airworthiness Authority as Gliders, and infinitely worse failings.

[POBJOY]

[QUOTE=WB627;10699403]Although I was in the CCF at school, I did not go into the forces, so I have always been just a civvy and this is not a forum I post on lightly.

I have followed this thread since it started, as I feel, having soled at Kenley in 1974 on a Mk 3, I have some skin in this fight and feel desperately sorry for what has become of the ACO. My Dad was a staff pilot, a founder member, on 1 AEF from Biggin Hill in 1958, to Manston in 1982, having joined the RAF and trained a pilot in 1941. I worked the flight line at Manston as a supernumerary staff cadet as often as I could whilst I was in the CCF, so cadet flying is in the blood, so to speak.

My eldest son now 35, was in our local ATC and the deterioration in cadet flying since he was in it, is quite depressing.

Throughout my career (in construction) I had a mantra, KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. It worked. Rocket science not required. We had a Slingsby Grasshopper at school, one or two steps down from the Mk 3, but I learnt a lot from flying that. So I wonder if a new build Mk 3 is the way to go. It ticked all the boxes then, there are some still flying and I canot imagine they would not tick all the boxes now. It was simple uncomplicated, easy to maintain and easy to fly.

The only problem as I see it, would be the MOD procurement process, which no doubt would turn it into a multi £billion project for someone like BAE, which would never get off the ground
.
Great Image WB, Interesting design exercise Replacement MK3, Of course apart from the 'basic' features of the MK3 (which made it very suitable for a low time first solo) the schools were backed up by a first class servicing operation MGSP which kept the fleet in tit top order. Considering the ground handling they needed and got from untrained Cadets, the wood and fabric construction stood up very well, and the end result was the best value for money 'trainer' the RAF ever had, with many still flying (some with an engine).The MK3 suited the slightly odd shaped airfield at Kenley, but the low cable break exercise had to be correctly flown for the particular 'run in use' with little margin for error. Our boss at the time reduced the odds of a problem by keeping a 'solo cable' (no knots) proving that the organisation had some wonderful competent people watching over the system before H&S existed. Another little added safety feature was the winch driver had to be 'cleared' for 'first solo launching' such was the attention given to keeping it as safe as possible. Nowadays it would be called risk assessment (then it was normal good practice) with no paperwork !!! Having seen and been part of that era I know all to well what a great experience it gave the Cadets, those that continue to give their time do so under an increasing burden of non flying workload, and it is to their credit that they have kept the system going 'despite' the chaos bestowed upon them from above, VENTURE ADVENTURE difficult to kill off I am pleased to say.

[chevvron]

So I wonder if a new build Mk 3 is the way to go. It ticked all the boxes then, there are some still flying and I canot imagine they would not tick all the boxes now. It was simple uncomplicated, easy to maintain and easy to fly.


I've said the same in the past in this thread; POBJOY seems to agree.
There was no 'need' to go to a glider with a glide ratio of some 36:1 (Viking) in order to train as many cadets as possible to solo standard; the 18.5:1 of the Mk3 was perfectly adequate for that and lets face it, the main aim of Air Cadet gliding WAS to train as many 16 year old cadets as possible to fly to solo standard as safely and efficiently as possible whilst developing excellent teamworking skills.
The use of higher performance single seat vehicles such as Prefect and Swallow allowed a more advanced level of training should the cadets' ability merit it but there's plenty of types available for that type of gliding nowadays, it's just at the bottom end that something else is needed that is simpler to operate and maintain
I can only echo POB's remarks ('tit top order!')about the abilites of MGSP personnel; they would come in on a monday and do all necessary servicing on the 'fleet' so that you had a full quota of aircraft for next weekend without having to send the airframe away to a contractor unless major work was required, that contractor usually being Slingsby anyway.

[Chugalug2]

I have followed this thread since it started, as I feel, having soled at Kenley in 1974 on a Mk 3, I have some skin in this fight and feel desperately sorry for what has become of the ACO.

I too have followed this thread from the start and it has mainly managed to miss the point ever since. I strongly recommend those that care about the ACO, as I've no doubt we all do, to read tuc's post above as well as his preceding ones. The solution isn't choosing a suitable airframe, if it was then that would be easy-peasy. The solution is ensuring that it is, and remains, airworthy. That is why the ACO fleet was grounded in the first place. The bog standard process of keeping such simple aircraft airworthy is water off a duck's back to the likes of tuc. Unfortunately the likes of tuc are conspicuous by their absence these days, as are the Regulations that he and his fellow engineers complied with. Both were binned in the plundering of the ring fenced UK Military Air Safety budget by RAF VSOs. Even if such skills and such Regulations could be reinstated, airworthiness could not be simply restored as it is a process of record keeping and audit, a paper trail if you like. No such paper trail survived the purge, hence the grounding (or 'pause'!). Aren't other military air fleets also affected then? Of course they are, but the ACO ones involved minors, others don't. Even so the MR operational fleets were deemed expendable, hence the loss of Nimrod.

So what about the few ACO gliders that are flying? A very good question. The MAA that oversees their safe operation is founded on a lie, that of the Haddon-Cave 'Golden Period' when the subversion of UK Military Air Safety occurred. Unless and until UK Military Air Regulation and Air Accident Investigation is made independent of the MOD, and of each other, there can be no confidence in either. That won't happen until the cover up of the scandal of UK Military Airworthiness stops and the MOD, RAF, and MAA acknowledge their culpability.

[POBJOY]

I too have followed this thread from the start and it has mainly managed to miss the point ever since. I strongly recommend those that care about the ACO, as I've no doubt we all do, to read tuc's post above as well as his preceding ones. The solution isn't choosing a suitable airframe, if it was then that would be easy-peasy. The solution is ensuring that it is, and remains, airworthy. That is why the ACO fleet was grounded in the first place. The bog standard process of keeping such simple aircraft airworthy is water off a duck's back to the likes of tuc. Unfortunately the likes of tuc are conspicuous by their absence these days, as are the Regulations that he and his fellow engineers complied with. Both were binned in the plundering of the ring fenced UK Military Air Safety budget by RAF VSOs. Even if such skills and such Regulations could be reinstated, airworthiness could not be simply restored as it is a process of record keeping and audit, a paper trail if you like. No such paper trail survived the purge, hence the grounding (or 'pause'!). Aren't other military air fleets also affected then? Of course they are, but the ACO ones involved minors, others don't. Even so the MR operational fleets were deemed expendable, hence the loss of Nimrod.

So what about the few ACO gliders that are flying? A very good question. The MAA that oversees their safe operation is founded on a lie, that of the Haddon-Cave 'Golden Period' when the subversion of UK Military Air Safety occurred. Unless and until UK Military Air Regulation and Air Accident Investigation is made independent of the MOD, and of each other, there can be no confidence in either. That won't happen until the cover up of the scandal of UK Military Airworthiness stops and the MOD, RAF, and MAA acknowledge their culpability.

CHUG We well know how the MGSP kept us going, but they were staffed by properly trained tradesmen under the 'control' of the then centres, who in turn were backed up by tech qualified staff at HQ, who in turn had regular contact with Slingsby. Hardly a complicated system, which actually worked well and was able to adapt very quickly to replacing a machine quickly if needed. As far as the Air Cadets are concerned when we lost a UK manufacturer and the in house facility we lost control of everything. The GSA were already operating under BGA criteria so why did the largest glider fleet in the country allow itself to become 'contractor bound' to the point that know one knew what was (or was not) happening. At least the past few years has blown the myth so hopefully we will not go down this route again. Lots of money has been made by contractors not doing the business, and this must never happen again.
I honestly think that in the future the Cadets should get back to the 'going solo' syndrome in a machine that suits that purpose. Their is no downside to learning some basic flying on a simple machine. History shows us that starting this way repays itself many times over, imparting essential skills, and early DECISION MAKING. If and when the Cadets get a new fleet it should be on the basis that this facility can be shared with other cadet/youth organisations thereby increasing utilisation and possibly attracting extra help. Glidng shoud be kept simple and the ability to operate them equally so. The MAA is not really in being to accommodate our needs therefore we should align ourselves with a suitable system that offers an adequate alternative.

[muppetofthenorth]

If and when the Cadets get a new fleet.
Speaking as someone in the organisation currently, I know I speak for many when I say we simply don't see that happening.

The RAF and the MoD hates the risk it exposes them to, and if they can reduce / remove that risk and cost, they will.

With certain other changes in the air cadets in the last couple of years it'll be a minor miracle if the entire organisation is still here in 15-20 years time.

[Chugalug2]

CHUG We well know how the MGSP kept us going, but they were staffed by properly trained tradesmen under the 'control' of the then centres, who in turn were backed up by tech qualified staff at HQ, who in turn had regular contact with Slingsby. Hardly a complicated system, which actually worked well and was able to adapt very quickly to replacing a machine quickly if needed. As far as the Air Cadets are concerned when we lost a UK manufacturer and the in house facility we lost control of everything. The GSA were already operating under BGA criteria so why did the largest glider fleet in the country allow itself to become 'contractor bound' to the point that know one knew what was (or was not) happening. At least the past few years has blown the myth so hopefully we will not go down this route again. Lots of money has been made by contractors not doing the business, and this must never happen again.
All the organisations that you mention are known knowns and easy Aunt Sally's, just as were 'Grossly Negligent' Chinook Pilots, risible Test Pilot Establishments, daylight low flying Hercules crews, etc, etc. All the time the real gross negligence existed far further up the food chain in the MOD's corridors of power. Thus it was with the ACO's gliders. The faceless experts who made sure that they remained airworthy did so in the main in dusty offices, just as they assured the airworthiness of the training and operational aircraft that we graduated onto after our first memorable solos with the ACO. I only learned of these dedicated highly skilled and experienced CS engineers long after leaving RAF service, indeed after retiring completely. Of all the organisational layouts that had to be absorbed for the B & C Promotion Exams, none featured the Airworthiness 'Tree', indeed I don't recall airworthiness itself being featured as a subject. If you ever thought about it you assumed that the aircraft designers did their stuff and thereafter it was down to proper servicing by RAF Ground Engineers. If you did then you were wrong! It was all down to monitoring, an occasional need for action, and reams and reams of paperwork. So boring, so unexciting, and barely apparent. That turned out to be its Achilles Heel. It could be so easily swept aside with contempt when the urgent need to release monies to compensate for a financially 'Very Brave' AMSO policy that went disastrously wrong. Orders were handed out to suborn the regs or get fired, resulting in entire fleets receiving illegal RTS's. The effects on the RAF are still with us thanks to the high level cover up that still exists. The effects on the ACO were more apparent, for as muppet rightly tells us, that was one risk that could and should be mitigated.

I admire your determination to get ATC and CCF Cadets back in the air and soloed again. I respect the selfless dedication of all those like you who set me and thousands of other prospective pilots on their first faltering steps into the air. I can only wish you all well. I suggest that if the ACO is going to rise to the skies again it does so outside of the MOD, just as Military Air Regulation and Accident Investigation must.

[Engines]

Gents,

Responding to Pobjoy's, Chugalug's and Tuc's recent posts: I'm sorry to restate stuff I've previously posted, but trying to pin this on greedy contractors and contractorisation in general is, in my view (and thats all it is) not only missing the point, but also risks not identifying the real issues - and who was actually accountable.

To repeat - in my direct experience, having managed contractorised support for complex operational front line aircraft, the ultimate responsibility for the quality of such support lies firmly with the owning authority (in my case a Naval Air Station's Air Engineering Department). We were accountable for the oversight and management of the work carried out, which is why we took some care to have the work checked out, and to review the qualifications of every person working on our aircraft. We also made the contractors subject to our in house quality checks.

There isn't enough info on what happened with the contractorised support of the RAF's glider fleet (I did place a number of FOI request on this matter, all were refused on commercial confidentiality grounds) but there were clear admissions of failures by the RAF to carry out basic QA checks on the contractors. Here's the thing - these are failures at relatively low rank levels. As Tuc points out, all of this comes under the heading of failing to implement existing instructions and regulations. People were just not doing the stuff that they were to be doing. And what makes this really terrifying is the answer to the simple question: 'Did this only happen to ATC aircraft?'

The truthful answer to that has to be 'Don't know', because, and it hurts me to say it, the RAF is not very good at asking those sorts of questions of itself. Nor is the MoD, and I split these two because there are two important aspects to any airworthiness issue - the first is the procurement system (the 'MoD') doing its job by delivering an airworthy aircraft and sustaining that airworthiness through its life. The demise of Slingsby generated a number of challenges which, it appears clear, the MoD failed to tackle properly.

The second aspect is carrying out the required activity recording, maintenance and modifications required to maintain airworthiness in service. Here's where the RAF dropped the ball, and in my honest view appear to have dropped it big time. I'd offer the observation that when the glider scandal broke, the FTS staff clearly had a very poor grasp of how serious it was and what it would take to fix things - witness the repeated collapse of recovery plan after recovery plan. That lack of grasp indicates to me that it was some time since key people had been doing what they should have been doing. They just didn't appear to know what 'right' looked or sounded like.

My honest and regretful conclusion (speaking as a grateful ex ATC cadet) would be to can the whole exercise and give it over to a civilian organisation who can manage the safety aspects in a sensible and professional way. For the record, I don't agree with using public funds to fly schoolchildren in military aircraft to assist with RAF recruiting. Thats just my opinion, I know others will disagree.

Best Regards as ever to all those fine and honest people out there still picking up the pieces of all this,

Engines

[tucumseh]

I agree with Engines. Well, I would. We're of similar age and were taught in the same system. Our Bible was NAMMS, and training centered on how to implement it, and ensuring it was implemented. It's how I know what would have avoided so many unnecessary deaths; for example, the XX177 accident I mentioned, which was itself a recurrence. (Flt Lts Cunningham and Burgess). Same part of the RAF and MoD as gliding.

There is one subtlety I'd like to add, which I think was largely invisible to many...

the RAF is not very good at asking those sorts of questions of itself. Nor is the MoD, and I split these two because there are two important aspects to any airworthiness issue - the first is the procurement system (the 'MoD') doing its job by delivering an airworthy aircraft and sustaining that airworthiness through its life. The demise of Slingsby generated a number of challenges which, it appears clear, the MoD failed to tackle properly.

It is correct to look at the RAF and 'MoD' separately in this way. But there came a time when MoD(PE) regarded maintaining airworthiness as the 'rump end of PE' (our Director, in 1990, when advising us the work on equipment was being transferred to AMSO, and us with it). The line between the RAF and MoD blurred even further, as the RAF had already taken over supply management of RN and Army avionics.

AMSO (Director General Support Management) immediately put into practice two policies.

First, all admin staff were to be regarded as senior to any engineer. A young lady supply manager, 3 grades below me, was appointed my line manager. She was horrified, especially as the first request she received was from a unit wanting a briefing on an engineering investigation into power supplies in Engines' Sea Harrier radar. She baulked at this, but the majority at Harrogate revelled in this new-found authority. Senior officers gloated, 'We now have complete control'. Perhaps, but who's going to do the work? You can imagine the effect. Simple matters such as technical and financial approvals (which can only be delegated to an engineer) ground to a halt once these young clerks realised what they were signing for, and the legal implications given the policy coincided with us losing Crown Immunity. In short order, groundings were being mooted and cannibalisation became the de facto maintenance policy in many areas. Which itself brings extra layers of paperwork. And from this policy arose the concept of administrators self-delegating airworthiness approval, which led to many deaths. Something the MAA has only got to grips with in recent years.

Second, and making matters infinitely worse, was the quite deliberate policy to run down airworthiness management, to make savings at the expense of safety. A phrase later adopted by Haddon-Cave. (You don't think he made it up?!) Funding was cut, by over 25% a year for 3 years; and by January 1993 all of what I would term practical airworthiness management had ceased, simply by withholding funding. The RAF Director of Flight Safety railed against this from August 1992-on, but the money was used to compensate for waste elsewhere. No money, no work getting done, so our posts disappeared. Off back to PE. The RAF, now responsible for maintaining airworthiness across all equipment, were left with a few specialists who decided they were too old to up sticks to Bristol. In fact, only two that I can recall, from a department of 39. PE remained responsible for most of the aircraft themselves, but what aircraft is truly airworthy if you can't prove the equipment in it is, and mandated safety cases don't exist? Hence, for example, in June 1994 the Chinook's Fuel Computers, Navigation and Comms systems were 'not to be relied upon in any way whatsoever'; a restriction only lifted in January 1998. Gliders? No valid safety case. Hawk? Ditto. Same people, same policies.

All this may seem a long time ago. But, demonstrably, the effect was still being felt in 2009 (Nimrod Review), and as recently as 2018 (Cunningham trial), where nobody in court had the slightest idea what really killed him; never mind that it was traceable to these RAF policies. And, of course, gliders are not the first to suffer, Nimrod being scrapped for the same reasons.

As with Engines, I find myself repeating myself. But it is clear from the majority of posts here that history is being forgotten.

[Tingger]

Vigilants coming out (https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/former-mod-gliders-to-be-used-by-charity-to-change-lives/)

[Shaft109]

https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/former-mod-gliders-to-be-used-by-charity-to-change-lives/

[Arclite01]

https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/former-mod-gliders-to-be-used-by-charity-to-change-lives/

Absolutely scandalous. Verging on corrupt.

Can't find the public funds to refurb them for the ACO but can find the money to give them away and part fund their refurbishment for a 'charity'. All done behind closed doors.

Either they are airworthy - or they are not............

Outrageous doesn't begin to describe it.

Arc

[Engines]

Just a brief post:

Note the spin on this announcement. The Vigilants are, apparently, 'former MOD gliders'. Actually, they are 'former RAF gliders'. The words 'Royal Air Force' don't appear anywhere in this article. I can't think of the last time I saw any news item about RAF aircraft that didn't have the tag 'RAF' plastered all over it. And the use of the term 'decommissioned' is interesting - I suppose it's less embarrassing (for all concerned) than the more accurate 'grounded and removed from service due to being found non-airworthy'.

It might be interesting to see how much Aerobility plan to spend to get 2,600 kids into the air each air, then compare that with what the RAF are spending on their ATC organisation and the Vikings. Yes, I know it's apples and oranges, but....

But well done to Aerobility, and to the MoD for managing to find a bit of goodness out of this sorry saga.

Best regards as ever to all those getting young people into the air.....

Engines

[Mushroom club]

Absolutely scandalous. Verging on corrupt.

Can't find the public funds to refurb them for the ACO but can find the money to give them away and part fund their refurbishment for a 'charity'. All done behind closed doors.

Either they are airworthy - or they are not............

Outrageous doesn't begin to describe it.

Arc

Entirely agree. Outrageous! I can tell you the guys on at least one now disbanded VGS feel the same. I think Pippa’s plan to get rid of SLMG squadrons now plain to to see.

[Cat Funt]

C**ts, the lot of them. Utter c**ts.

[Mechta]

As the Air Cadet Organisation as a whole has been 'disabled' by the whole debacle, maybe this will allow its members to fly in the refurbished Vigilants?

[ExAscoteer2]

Dear gods you couldn't make it up!

[VX275]

Well that answers my question of 22 Feb.
Maybe now the members of the disbanded VGS's will get an apology. Though I doubt it.

[WB627]

"Aerobility, a charity which provides flying experiences to those who might otherwise never get a chance to take to the skies."

Like, well, Air Cadets?

Words fail me. Do we know how much they were sold for and how much the grant from the Department for Transport is?

And why could the ACO not have done what Aerobility have done and put Cadets back in these gliders?

[tucumseh]

And why could the ACO not have done what Aerobility have done and put Cadets back in these gliders?

Because to have a couple of junior staff simply follow regulations would expose the failures of their superiors who directed that the regulations be ignored, or sat back in the knowledge they were being ignored. Plus the aforementioned direct linkages to fatal accidents within the same command.

[POBJOY]

Well its official now. !0 Vigs get the full makeover (totally uneconomic) and 53 get to be 'refurbished' whatever that means, to pay for the other 10. Have no problem with Aerobility getting some airframes, but at what cost. It just proves that there was no reason to pull the fleet at all. It also shows that the other offered scheme using many of the airframes for AE youth flying for all was quite possible and at very low cost. Of course none of this was about getting the 'best use' from an out of service airframe it was all about trying to cover up the appalling way the Air Cadet fleet had been allowed to decay in airworthiness terms. It appears now that all the airframes are suitable for 'refurbishment' and indeed funds seem to be available to assist with this, so why did so many VGS Squadrons with a combined TRAINING service of hundreds of years get binned !!! This has been a megs scandal for the Air Cadets and a great loss of a fine World Class TRAINING organisation whose record is second to none. Has someone redefined the wheel, or just forgotten the Cadets already had a system that provided flying for ALL for 10s of thousands !!!! Actually
100s of thousands.

[pr00ne]

POBJOY,

Are you sure? The way I read that piece is that the first 10 will be overhauled and refurbished by Grob in Germany, and the remaining 53 will have the same work done by Southern Sailplanes in the UK.

[POBJOY]

POBJOY,

Are you sure? The way I read that piece is that the first 10 will be overhauled and refurbished by Grob in Germany, and the remaining 53 will have the same work done by Southern Sailplanes in the UK.I
I can only quote the RAF 'news bulletin' 10 aircraft will be 'Modified' with new engines, props and cockpits and recertified by GROB in Germany.

Depending which Rotax 912 is used a ball par real cost per aircraft for all that work would be in the order of £65,000 (prob more) per machine plus moving them about.
The remaining 53 does not mention 'modified', only engineered which is not surprising as the cost would be totally uneconomic, and who is going to pay.
Remember the basic airframe was designed as a TOURING SLMG not a trainer, and indeed the alterations done under ongoing Air Cadet usage were in the main to beef up the undercarriage and mountings which also also added a bit more weight.
This also asks the prickly question of whether the machine is ideal for its planned use as a 'disability platform'. The over wing access is certainly not in its favour, nor the door system.
The whole concept does not stack up against using a C 172 which is far more practical, access wise, space, and handling friendly. plus has a cabin like a van which makes it rugged and easy to adapt.
No mention is made as to the sale price of these machines to the parties concerned, so all in all the Air Cadets have lost a worthy valuable fleet and have gained nothing in return. Unlike the Viking fleet the documents for the Vigs were in store at Syerston so that tends to confirm that the histories are not defunct and hence the machines were as airworthy as the engine state.
To re-power with the Rotax is a major firewall fwd operation plus cowlings and a new prop is also required. With labour and certification fees I suspect my estimate above will have been on the low side, so the final cost could be VERY EXPENSIVE. (No surprise there). To sum up:- The Cadets lost a prized training facility and the experienced staff, Grob get some more well paid work, S Sailplanes get some well paid work, and a far from ideal machine gets used for disabled service at a highly uneconomic cost. Nothing changes then.
Someone will be able to post the real cost of 'recovering' the Vikings, and this was a simple machine with no engine !!!! I suspect you will be staggered. on an operational point of view the Grob is still a tail dragger which has handling limitations in crosswinds, and does not lend itself to rugged grass strips. With an ever increasing airfield availability of a single runway, utilising is always compromised with a tail wheel machine.

[Arclite01]

I am more concerned that someone, somewhere is making a bundle of ££ by getting aircraft effectively for free and then selling them on with what I expect to be the minimum amount of remedial work. I don't know the charity or who backs them or how they operate.................

And it has all been done behind closed doors. How do we know that this was the best deal and offers taxpayers the best value for money ??, why weren't other organisations given a chance to bid ??

Something smells here to me.................

Arc

[Caconym]

Worth taking the opportunity to highlight (with their words, my emphasis): 'Aerobility is a charity that, through exposure to aviation, seeks to improve the lives of people with all kinds of disabilities including physical impairments, learning difficulties, mental health conditions & sensory impairments...'

Serious questions to be asked of the RAF et al. about the entire gliding saga certainly, however this seems to be a better outcome than all of the airframes decaying in hangars whilst the executives avoided an uncomfortable decision.

Unable to post a link, but the G109 Able website may be of interest :ok:

[POBJOY]

I am more concerned that someone, somewhere is making a bundle of ££ by getting aircraft effectively for free and then selling them on with what I expect to be the minimum amount of remedial work. I don't know the charity or who backs them or how they operate.................

And it has all been done behind closed doors. How do we know that this was the best deal and offers taxpayers the best value for money ??, why weren't other organisations given a chance to bid ??

Something smells here to me.................

Arc

ARC My prev post was long enough without going for the 'financial reward' bit which I am fully in agreement with you on. Look at the companies involved. Grob, S Sailplanes, plus other smaller companies. The question is why would Areobility seek to obtain so many airframes with a less than ideal suitability and then announce 'some will be sold to expand operations'.
This only highlights the scenario that a substantial fleet of Aircraft were pulled from ATC use with little real reason other than various 'rumours' . It now seems that they will fly again but only after a huge amount of money gets expended which means more 'profit' for some people again. Either way the Cadets get NOTHING, and the real unanswered question is who decided that the training organisation that had given such quality of service for decades with experienced staff, was thrown away. They can Twitter and Facebook for all its worth the facts are the organisation lacks leadership and quality tech input. One hopes that the new OC 2FTS will address some of the issues ,but the stable door has been blown off its hinges and most of the horses are now grazing elsewhere. The alternative scheme offered with cooperation under the LAA did not require use of ALL the airframes, and indeed Aerobility could still have had as many as they needed to use. What it did not require was the aircraft being modified or having a new powerplant / propeller. Another interesting element was utilising prev VGS pilots if they were available and in suitable area's. The machines would have operated as detached flights with volunteer back up, and available to all youth organisations . No one was going to make any profit out of this but the satisfaction of seeing the machines being used for what they had been purchased for was enough for those involved.

[WB627]

So why could the ACO not have got Southernsailplanes to return the aircraft to airworthiness and provide ongoing maintenance, as Slingsby had done in the past? They appear to have the experience and the competence to do it. Perhaps the people at the top of the ACO just want to wash their hands of cadet flying?

Perhaps someone could persuade their MP to ask a question in the house? I've got no chance with mine, although she was recently sacked by Boris, I am certain that she is still a Conservative Party lackey.

[David Thompson]

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1067x800/linton1_1514d0ccad5fcbf2cd979efd96a5b6d3727b87a5.jpg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1067x800/linton2_8e155e432fff010eb6cfceb9236ca3acc16d28e4.jpg

I found these at Linton On Ouse last week and they were very close to a skip although possibly not beyond saving ?

[David Thompson]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1067x800/linton4_0a32895cf177528f4dc87f4cd7f959a5c0961fa1.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1067x800/linton5_1626ec2c66012f3ea8459fae706bb96a8fb4cc02.jpg
Also from Linton .

[Arclite01]

Pobjoy

What I am getting at is why would MoD (UK Plc) give away 62 airframes that have a considerable second hand value to a niche charity very few people have heard of and agree to part fund the refurbish of said airframes and also to allow the charity to semi-refurbish the others to a 'standard' and then pocket the cash to 'expand the organisation' ?

Even as they are the Vigilants have to be worth at least £10K (so 62 x £10K = £620K) scrap value each and as an 'airworthy' aircraft £40K each (62 x £40K = £2.5M) and as a refurbed Grob 109 'Advantage' (62 x £140K = £8.6M) - OK take out the refurbish costs but to the man in the street that is still big ££

The questions for me is/are 'Why' ?

Why did ACO not do this for their own people ? (small cost - big return)
Why has this all been done on the QT and not out in the Open ?
Why is the Govt backing this niche charity in this way ? Who are their powerful friends who have covered this up/'arranged' the transfer ?

I don't see fleets of refurbished Vigilants flying hordes of disadvantage or disabled kids any time soon. But I do see a lot of people on a nice gravy train going to the seaside on the taxpayers ££ and the much reduced capability of the ACO Gliding organisation.

Followed by a statement in a couple of years to say that sadly the project proved 'non-viable' for a variety of reasons.

Where are they going to store 62 Vigilant airframes ? - that's a huge footprint. I hope it's not going to be FOC on Government property (where they are now) surely............ - could always park them alongside the Shackletons at Paphos I suppose :}

Arc

[POBJOY]

Pobjoy

What I am getting at is why would MoD (UK Plc) give away 62 airframes that have a considerable second hand value to a niche charity very few people have heard of and agree to part fund the refurbish of said airframes and also to allow the charity to semi-refurbish the others to a 'standard' and then pocket the cash to 'expand the organisation' ?

Even as they are the Vigilants have to be worth at least £10K (so 62 x £10K = £620K) scrap value each and as an 'airworthy' aircraft £40K each (62 x £40K = £2.5M) and as a refurbed Grob 109 'Advantage' (62 x £140K = £8.6M) - OK take out the refurbish costs but to the man in the street that is still big ££

The questions for me is/are 'Why' ?

Why did ACO not do this for their own people ? (small cost - big return)
Why has this all been done on the QT and not out in the Open ?
Why is the Govt backing this niche charity in this way ? Who are their powerful friends who have covered this up/'arranged' the transfer ?

I don't see fleets of refurbished Vigilants flying hordes of disadvantage or disabled kids any time soon. But I do see a lot of people on a nice gravy train going to the seaside on the taxpayers ££ and the much reduced capability of the ACO Gliding organisation.

Followed by a statement in a couple of years to say that sadly the project proved 'non-viable' for a variety of reasons.

Where are they going to store 62 Vigilant airframes ? - that's a huge footprint. I hope it's not going to be FOC on Government property (where they are now) surely............ - could always park them alongside the Shackletons at Paphos I suppose :}

Arc
Spot on with the 'overview' of the situation as it appears that the biggest scandal that started it all has finished with another 'situation' that does not stand scrutiny.
I use the word 'situation' with care as the alternative word also starts with a S but finishes with an l. I did say all along that the 'Carpet' would have many bumps in it after the sweeping !!!
PM on its way. Pobjoy. I suspect the Vigs will be allowed to stay at Ris until required by 'whoever' for attention.