Air Cadets grounded? [Archive] - Page 4

The B Word

23rd Oct 2015, 09:04

This was posted on the Air Cadet Central forum:

Gentlemen,

You may be aware that options for the recovery of the glider fleets were presented to CAS on Monday. CAS and his senior staffs were absolutely on board with the need to salvage as much as possible from the glider recovery programme and they share our increasing frustration at the lack of progress in recovering airframes and getting cadets into the air. Despite the costs of recovery, they remain committed to gliding as a core part of the air cadet experience and, based on that commitment, have agreed to invest significant extra funds to let a contract to recover the Viking glider fleet as soon as possible. This will hopefully bring the Vikings on line quicker than current funding plans allowed.

In terms of wider plans for VGS basing and Vigilant long-term recovery CAS has asked that further work be done, hence no final decisions were made on Monday. The AOC is actively tasking key individuals with taking this work forward but it is likely to take some months before all the necessary costing evidence is available to satisfy CAS, DRes and others on the proposed next steps. In light of this further work the AOC and Comdt agreed that calling all the OC VGSs together was a potential wasted journey, particularly as some will travel long distances to reach either of the 2 venues. In simple terms, you need to know what ac will be recovered in what numbers and where they will be based. As we cannot answer those questions today, the briefing at RAF Syerston on sat 24th and at RAF Linton is postponed. The planned roads shows at Kirknewton, Linton, Cranwell, Boscombe Down and Halton are also postponed. You will be advised in due course the revised dates.

Comdt
2FTS

So I read from that the fears are starting to 'firm up':

1. Further protracted return of Viking fleet.

2. Likely scrapping of Vigilant fleet.

3. Likely loss of VGSs from current locations (smart money on the Vigilant locations). For current locations see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Gliding_Squadron

The only positive thing I can draw from this is that it gives at least some information - why it is treated as some sort of high-grade Top Secret fact, though, is beyond me...

The B Word

A and C

23rd Oct 2015, 12:23

I would agree with your logic, the Viking is a low cost recovery for an airframe that is next to worthless in terms of resale value due to the uncertainty of its type certificate.

The Vigilent has a civil type certificate holder and so the task of civil registration is relitivly straight forward and the aircraft will have a resale value to match, it also requires for long term operation an engine retrofit that will be expensive.

In terms of cost to return to service for the long term I would take a stab at one Vigilent will cost the same as five Vikings.

It is my opinion that the Vigilent is not giving the cadets the training value for money that the Viking can at a much lower price, I am a great advocate of real gliding because it builds a team who fly, recover and launch the gliders, you don't get this with motor gliders because before as a prop starts to turn the cadets have to be the other side of the fence in the Crewroom.

Wessex Boy

23rd Oct 2015, 12:48

Some Gliders must now be airworthy again as my daughter flew in a Vigilant at Syerston last Friday whilst on CCF camp at Wittering

Sook

23rd Oct 2015, 12:54

The Vigilants were due an engine swap anyway so it may be that they will look to roll this into the recovery program. As this was to allow a change in OSD, the PT would have to carry out either the RA5724 or 5725 activities (depending on whether the MAA decided it was a Life Extension or OSD extension). This would require a lot of resource for even a large PT, and my guess is that the Glider desks aren't exactly over-manned!

Thorr

23rd Oct 2015, 13:33

Except, of course, the bulk of the VGSs are now Vigilant schools (15 against 8). Going to a wholly conventional approach is going to leave large parts of the country - particularly the Midlands and the North unsupported by a gliding facility. Moreover, the general trend towards motor-gliders was out of site availability since the vigilant does not require the real estate that a Viking requires to operate. A vigilant VGS also needs fewer staff to launch, it could be done with a DI acting a crash crew leader and an additional crash crew support, plus a pilot of course.

chevvron

23rd Oct 2015, 22:30

Chev The Slingsby Grasshopper (or primary glider) was a crib of the German design but built specifically for the ATC/CCF

The name Dagling was what people actually called them no doubt because of the original German name Zogling.

Everyone knows what a Dagling is even though it covers the range of primary gliders.

Elliots of Newbury built a version but they are ALL cribs off the original German design and all look similar.

The Germans used them as proper primary trainers and 'pinged' them off mountain slopes on your own.

The ATC (before they had two seaters) used to give instruction in the single seater Tutor which consisted of ground slides followed by low and high hops. The instructor would also be the winch driver in many cases. The original ATC A&B badge was in fact a BGA certificate given after 3 solo's and the ability to do turns in both directions.
I'm sure I've seen pics of a 'primary' which didn't have the 'A' frame fuselage of the Grasshopper/Eton and that this was the Dagling. The 'fuselage' as far as I recall was 'V' shaped in planform ie when you look down on it and it had a 'pod' rather than an open cockpit.
They were phased out of VGS before I took my 'A & B' course in 1964, but one of the weekend volunteer staff was a Chief Tech Godfrey, who used to tour round CCF schools on weekdays servicing the 'primarys' and instructing on them too. He kept a bungee in the boot of his car, so when 613 (Halton) were issued with a T38, if the weather wasn't suitable for winch launching we would get the T38 out and bungee it backwards and forwards across the airfield.
When the 'primarys' were withdrawn from CCF use, several were stored at Halton and my Squadron commander (we were about 10 miles from Halton) asked if we could have one and we got it! Alas we could do nothing with it as the doors to the standard ATC Hut weren't big enough to lug it in and out in order to assemble it, so it was eventually passed on to another squadron.

POBJOY

23rd Oct 2015, 23:01

The 'optional extra' was the tripod kit with ball and socket.
It would be quite cheap to build a few of these again and get the Corps back on track.

Mechta

24th Oct 2015, 16:55

Pobjoy, A great idea in principle. However I would just love to read a present day risk assessment for Air Cadets flying solo from the start on a modern day Grasshopper. A work colleague recounted tales of flying one at school. An over enthusiastic launch, of what should have been a ground slide, saw him having to fly over a tree on the school boundary and land in in a field on the other side.

Here's how the Lithuanians do it:

26tNAW58ZXU

Regarding the Dagling, it got its name because it was first built in the UK by RF Dagnall of Godalming (better known for survival equipment as RFD), a copy of the Zogling, designed by Alexander Lippisch who also designed the ME163 Komet. The name Dagling seems to have been used subsequently for almost any primary glider, a bit like 'Hoover' for vacuum cleaners.

The SG38 was a German development of the Zogling, and benefited from a sprung skid. The SG 38 was licence-built after the war by Elliotts of Newbury as the EON Eton. The Slingsby Grasshopper was an SG38 with Kirby Kadet Wings.

The broken joint problems were partially overcome by using a nail to secure the landing wires to the kingpost. In the event of a heavy landing, the nail sheared and was easily replaced.

POBJOY

24th Oct 2015, 19:44

MY suggestion was not actually serious; but in the present situation what is serious is the complete lack of competence being shown by the organisation to get its house in order in a reasonable timescale.
My letter to CAS will be delivered next week (copy to the the Defence Minister).
In 'olden times' one would get a letter in Flight but the web seems to be getting the message out there now.
It is great that ex Cadets are just as furious as the the current ones such is the regard they hold the Air Cadet movement.

INT_QRU

27th Oct 2015, 11:25

Has anyone seen any technical documentation or report detailing (or even giving an overview) of the situation with both Viking & Vigilants?

There seems to be a lot of second hand information, updates from 2FTS with very little real content (and lots of big management words) but little hard information - or am I just looking in the wrong places?

Thanks

Freda Checks

27th Oct 2015, 12:18

This (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/234987/response/585814/attach/html/4/20140417%20Duty%20Holder%20Advice%20Notice%2086%20O.pdf.html ) should give you some clues, but I am sure it is not the latest information being dated from April 2014!

cats_five

27th Oct 2015, 13:16

AFAIK what is wrong (at least with the pure gliders - the Vikings) is the paperwork, and how it is wrong differs from glider to glider. Therefore the only way to get it right is to go through each glider with a magnifying glass to make sure it has all the mods it should have, and that any repairs (documented and undocumented) are done correctly. I can imagine the only way of ensuring the later is to redo them...

Arclite01

27th Oct 2015, 13:49

Cats 5

Having spoken to a few people who are 'involved' it also seems that some of the repair schemes applied to the Vikings break some of the rules with regard to size and style of repairs for the size of damage which potentially are not 'best practice' (read into that what you will).

Of course these repairs are not fully documented and have to be fully investigated before they are released to service (or re-repaired).

The good news is that the companies who are now doing the work do know what they are doing...............

No timeframes of course.

Arc

POBJOY

27th Oct 2015, 20:07

Arc what level or 'repair' could be undertaken at the average VGS base as opposed to having to go back to Centre.
What level of repair facility did/does the Centre have.
Who from the RAF was supposed to keep the tech side of the operation under scrutiny.

I can understand the odd problem occurring at a w-end base with no on site facility,but at a full time staffed Centre with the aircraft operating under a regular routine if there was a problem 'building' why did it not surface until the whole fleet (including theirs) had to be grounded !
Hardly a model of quality control or overall management.
Missive gone to CAS, Cmdt ATC, and Sir Michael Fallon MP asking for the VGS to be 'available' for the Corps 75th anniversary.

Corporal Clott

27th Oct 2015, 21:22

There are a couple of interesting reports on ASIMS at the moment regarding engineering issues and paperwork. Reading between the lines there would still appear to be issues with the aircraft document set with claims of advanced information leaflets overwriting old advanced information leaflets leaving the documents almost unreadable. Also aircraft being released for flight that have bits missing or screws missing. Seeing as they have supposedly had 19 months of scrutiny to sort out these sorts of issues, it's not very good is it???

Leadership starts at the top and responsibility stops at the top. I don't see much progress and only thin promises of 'jam tomorrow' for the Viking. Is it time for some new blood leading this utter debacle? Or are we better sticking it with it for continuity?

:confused:

POBJOY

27th Oct 2015, 21:56

CC All we know is something has s....... up big time over SIMPLE engineering.
Fixing the problem is not going to happen quickly with the same people involved.

The CAS needs an independent task force to sort it NOW with the mandate to have operations start again by 2016.He has plenty of expertise around with the RAF GSA.We do not need a witch hunt or cover up just a focused look at making a firm date to START OPERATIONS by 2016.This may have to be on an initial reduced scale (combined VGS ops) and every effort should be made to improve utilisation with evening and weekday ops. If this means starting again with one winch and a glider so be it.Once started momentum will rise and then a steady build up can ensue as staff get current and Cadets get involved.
2016 75th anniversary of the ATC without VGS NOT AN OPTION.
If they need a winch driver count me in !!! Lets get them up again chaps.

longer ron

27th Oct 2015, 22:18

I am not sure there will be much of an Air Cadet 'Organisation' left in the near future !Like the rest of britain it has to contend with growing amounts of risk aversion and red tape - all the interesting adventure type activities are rapidly disappearing - the cadet numbers are dwindling fairly rapidly because of loss of interesting activities.
Not to be able to get a simple and fairly small glider fleet airborne is ...........
(speechless)

Cat Funt

28th Oct 2015, 00:40

One really has to wonder, presuming this mess is ever sorted out, how many people on the VGSs would still be willing to go back to working 20-30hrs a week for the current leadership given the appalling lack of basic people skills thus far shown? I've seen nothing over the past 18 months (and longer given his previous tenure as Regional Comdt North) to suggest that Comdt 2 FTS has the first clue about what makes the ACO tick or how to handle unpaid volunteers. Ultimately, they're not dependent on him for their careers and are able to tell him to :mad: off at the high port, fill in a form, turn in their MoD90 and walk away. If nothing else, I think his intended "roadshows" would probably have given him a rather entertaining reality check.

Of course, if the comments in the thread below are to be believed, he doesn't fare much better with regular personnel either.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/533085-no-2-flying-training-school-no-2-fts-reforms.html

I firmly believe that those who choose stick around will do so in spite of him, rather than because of him, because they believe in what they are doing. But even those determined souls will have their limits.

Flugplatz

28th Oct 2015, 22:30

Rumour has it that they are looking at the 'powered' aspects with some discussion about Tutor/Vigilant - with cost being the driver.

Re. my previous post, and the split between Viking and Vigilant fleets, I don't see how the same level of training can be delivered, i.e. courses with the aim of going solo, if only limited numbers of Vigilants (or none!) come back into service. Unless they are going to up the number of Vikings, then I predict that training across the whole ATC won't be to the same level (except for a lucky few selected to get training all the way to solo). With the simulators already paid for, I think we could be looking at a mix of synthetic and actual flying - meaning a less lofty aim for the syllabus.

It does seem mind-boggling that the briefings have all been called off. We are not talking about deficiencies in the capabilities of front-line aircraft after all, so why all the secrecy and lack of info?? I believe that the briefings would have been a great opportunity to finally show some leadership and after the preliminary whinging and letting-off of steam, they would have perked everyone up and maybe restored some confidence in the Gp leadership.

We all know they have a difficult job and I think being open and honest would have gone a long way to restoring some faith in the system. In my experience, even if you can't offer a brilliant plan to put everything right, you at least win a bit of grudging respect for treating your staff/servicemen as intelligent human beings. We are not all wilting violets and in these situations, as a leader, you need to bring everyone with you.

Bad Show :rolleyes:

DC10RealMan

28th Oct 2015, 22:36

Cat Funt.

I am sure that the Commandant 2 FTS wouldn't have a problem with that as in a recent outburst he said that all VRT Officers should have their Queens Commissions replaced with Lord Lieutenants Commissions and CIs should "know their place" and if he had his way they would all be replaced by ex-Regulars (Good Luck with that one).

The irony is that the Air Cadet personnel he is being so disparaging about are more highly qualified, better educated, better paid, and unlike the Commandant some are even qualified pilots.

He also said that he is doing a grand job under difficult circumstances and that we are ungrateful curs for criticizing him on this website and he would do his best to identify and hunt us down.

"People skills" are not his strongest point.

1.3VStall

28th Oct 2015, 23:53

DC10RM,

Your remarks surprise me not at all.

A (very average?) ex-Tornado nav - and a failed pilot crossover to boot - so operationally suspect, with ****-all knowledge of gliding and well-advertised lack of people skills. So, just perfect for the role!

Who on earth even suggested that he was suitable for this position, never mind recruited him?:ugh:

Subsunk

29th Oct 2015, 00:09

ATC flying has been the victim of a tri-service idea that the best place to bury bad senior officers is in charge of cadet and reserve force organisations. What started as a fixable drama for cadet flying has turned into a crisis, and then into a catastrophe, because the personality at the top is temperamentally unsuited to the role. The whole thing has become a study in toxic leadership.

622

29th Oct 2015, 07:46

I do hope when this farce is over they arrange a good party....now surely they can organise a pi... oh, hang on! :E

Jimmyjerez

29th Oct 2015, 08:29

Appartly it could be million + quid for the vikking repair contracts and viggie mostly getting binned as no cash / too hard to fix. All these gliders would be flying by now and wouldn't need to spend all that money if contractor hadn't messed up and fixed them so is contractor getting sued? Taxpayer money so doesn't there need to be an enquiry?

Arclite01

29th Oct 2015, 09:55

@JimmyJerez

£1M sounds good value to return the 100 Vikings to service as 100 new K21 replacements would be £10M+ (and the delays in supply).

I agree though with the rest of your statements though about an enquiry. That will never happen though as the people who would commission it, undertake it and report back are the people who are to blame............Turkeys don't vote for Christmas do they ?

:}

Arc

Subsunk

29th Oct 2015, 10:51

The current 'Safety Case' and 'Duty Holder' regime which governs this whole crisis has been misapplied. Utterly.

The key phrase is 'ALARP' - risks must be made As Low As Reasonably Practicable. The key word in this phrase is 'Reasonably.'

Bringing all flying to a halt is not a reasonable response, just a weak one from a Duty Holder who would rather not have the risk at all. There was a famous quote from a US military spokesman during the Vietnam War, who said something like 'we had to destroy the village in order to save it' - thus, the response to one challenge was to conflate it with a load of others.
And will someone please tell Comdt 2 FTS that 'cascade' is a noun and not a f###ing verb?

TorqueOfTheDevil

29th Oct 2015, 11:32

all the interesting adventure type activities are rapidly disappearing - the cadet numbers are dwindling fairly rapidly because of loss of interesting activities.
Not to be able to get a simple and fairly small glider fleet airborne is ...........
(speechless)

Ah good, more of the usual whining and exaggeration. Are you really suggesting that, following cadet deaths both flying and doing adventurous training, everything should continue as it always has been with no attention paid to safety concerns?

Yes the current situation with gliding is damaging and disappointing, but the constant drone of misery is both inaccurate and tedious. Do you have any figures to support your assertion about cadet numbers?

Just This Once...

29th Oct 2015, 12:13

Meanwhile the actual number of ATC cadets has increased over the last 5 years....

cats_five

29th Oct 2015, 12:18

The current 'Safety Case' and 'Duty Holder' regime which governs this whole crisis has been misapplied. Utterly.

The key phrase is 'ALARP' - risks must be made As Low As Reasonably Practicable. The key word in this phrase is 'Reasonably.'

Bringing all flying to a halt is not a reasonable response, just a weak one from a Duty Holder who would rather not have the risk at all.
<snip>

In my view grounding the Vikings was the only course of action on finding the paperwork problems, which have now been followed by other physical problems. A civilian club would have done exactly the same had they found one of their gliders to be in the same situation. My own club found an annual inspection had not been correctly done / documented, with the result it had to be complete repeated.

The question isn't if grounding was reasonable, it's about how the situation occurred. Once they were where they were there was no choice.

A and C

29th Oct 2015, 12:42

pr00ne

29th Oct 2015, 12:48

Just this once,

And how abut the last TWO years to eighteen months?

cats_five

29th Oct 2015, 12:52

Cats Five has the situation summed up correctly, what is now vital is that the recovery program it put in the hands of people who have the experience with glider maintenance, overhaul and have the motivation to so.

I'm sure Cats Five gliding club did not put their problem glider back in the hands those who messed up, it is vital that the RAF don't try to use the contractors who have failed to maintain the glider fleet in the past.

Thanks, and we certainly didn't, and won't in future!

However I don't think you need someone skilled in glider maintenance etc. to oversee the program to get the Vikings in the air again. IMHO you need a good manager with good people skills. If they are being paid to do that, that should be sufficient motivation unless of course they are being paid peanuts.

Aggamemnon

29th Oct 2015, 15:29

The statistics were made available earlier this year, and can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/435444/20150615_TSP7Apr15-O.pdf

Cadet numbers fell slightly 2014->2015.
ATC 2013 33,490
ATC 2014 33,590
ATC 2015 33,370

The real drop is in staff numbers, which have fallen more heavily.
ATC CFAV 2013 12,080
ATC CFAV 2014 10,430
ATC CFAV 2015 9,900

Jimmyjerez

29th Oct 2015, 15:48

One of my mates that's on a loca squaddron said they had been told that a few thousand cadets down this year

POBJOY

29th Oct 2015, 15:49

I do not think we should play the numbers game here as they are so easily manipulated when it suits.
However it should be pointed out that the ATC 'reduced' its lower age limit to 12 in 2014 which will have given it a boost. (ATC Creches next on agenda)*

What should be of more concern is the difficulty in keeping adult staff which continue to fall.

I do not mind going back to help driving a winch but i am not wearing those b....y Wellies or silly badges !

* Creche Squadrons will have lego aircraft sims, Lancaster cockpit cots,and high chairs that look like an ejector seat trainer.

Random Bloke

29th Oct 2015, 16:27

Simply showing how many cadets and CFAVs are in the ACO in a given year might not tell the whole tale. Each year, hundreds of young people join the ACO in the hope of Venture Adventure. An accurate gauge of morale might be to measure how many of those recruits stay for more than, say, 3 years and then determine the reasons behind leaving.

A similar story for CFAVs: there are many reasons why they might leave; age, pressure of work, change of career etc. Again it would be necessary to know why they had left rather than assuming that it had anything to do with the lack of gliding.

On the question of the suitability of OC 2 FTS, it is worth noting that Comdt ACO accepted his application and nomination when he was already beyond the mandatory retirement age for FTRS (which is 65). I'm not defending his performance in role (although it could be argued that he has made the ACO gliding organisation safer than it has ever been), but he was either the only candidate, the best candidate, absolutely the right man for the job, or some other reason.

Sky Sports

29th Oct 2015, 17:14

Meanwhile the actual number of ATC cadets has increased over the last 5 years....
Cadet numbers fell slightly 2014->2015.
ATC 2013 33,490
ATC 2014 33,590
ATC 2015 33,370

The real drop is in staff numbers, which have fallen more heavily.
ATC CFAV 2013 12,080
ATC CFAV 2014 10,430
ATC CFAV 2015 9,900

To summarize then, SINCE the gliding pause, numbers of cadets and staff HAVE dropped, (like all of us at the coal-face keep saying), DESPITE the organisation lowering the entry age to attract more cadets!

Now that deserves one of those sad face things that go at the end messages!

Arclite01

29th Oct 2015, 17:18

It is easy to play the numbers game. It's what keeps many of these people in jobs.............

What is at issue is the fact that fairly shortly we will have Cadets who have not been gliding or know what a VGS does (did). After a bit 'you don't miss what you never had' and then the writing is on the wall for the capability/activity. An easy cost saving opportunity.............

It's a great shame. At all levels................

Arc

TorqueOfTheDevil

29th Oct 2015, 17:42

numbers of cadets and staff HAVE dropped, (like all of us at the coal-face keep saying), DESPITE the organisation lowering the entry age to attract more cadets!

And has the upper age limit for cadets stayed the same?

teeteringhead

29th Oct 2015, 18:29

lowering the entry age to attract more cadets! Not quite as simple as that...

..... as I understand it, the entry is now Year 8 (2nd Form in old money) rather than an age, and the logic, at least in part, was to save breaking up groups of mates.

Bunch of kids arrive, Sqn Cdr says "You can join now, you can come in at Easter, but you can't come 'til Summer!"

Net result - they all go somewhere else. (As a Gemini, it always peed me off to be the last-ish one in class to be able to do anything (legally! :E)) And for numbers to be meaningful, they must be put against the size of the cohort/age group. There is (a bit of) a "demographic trough" affecting cadet age; remember all those primary schools which closed a few years ago due to "falling rolls"? That cohort is now of cadet age.

That accounts for some at least of the missing cadets. I'm not saying that none have left because of lack of gliding, nor that 2 FTS is a model of managerial competence, or that OC 2 FTS is a Saint.

But I AM saying that post hoc rarely equals propter hoc; there are usually a number of contributory factors. As an example, real world pressures contribute to a lack of adult volunteers, which is absolutely a key driver of cadet numbers. In times of austerity/economic stagnation/low pay, fewer people want to be the bloke/lass who has to get off sharpish every Monday and Thursday (or whatever).

And cadet exit age remains their 20th birthday.

Just saying'..........

Just This Once...

29th Oct 2015, 18:44

To summarize then, SINCE the gliding pause, numbers of cadets and staff HAVE dropped, (like all of us at the coal-face keep saying), DESPITE the organisation lowering the entry age to attract more cadets!

Now that deserves one of those sad face things that go at the end messages!

I think you are rather desperate to quote a sub 1% variation in cadet numbers over 3 years as evidence of a rapid decline and all the numbers quoted are still above those of just 5 years ago.

It is a tragic state of affairs but making up statistics will not help the cause.

longer ron

29th Oct 2015, 18:54

Just This Once
There has been a definite drop off in cadet numbers this year,statistics are always out of date !
I am not saying it is all caused by lack of gliding but certainly it is a big factor !

Nobody on here has said that the grounding was totally wrong - it is the secrecy and lack of leadership/info/lack of practical time scales and lack of getting cadets airborne (officially) by other means.
We are talking very simple aircraft here and I doubt that all of them were unairworthy to any great extent.
Lack of adventure training will kill the ACO (remember when we used to actually go shooting ?)

rgds LR

POBJOY

29th Oct 2015, 22:56

Ok The problem is Cadets leave much earlier than they used to due to education/job, other more 'fun' aspects.
Ok They (as from 2014) can join earlier,but that makes a longer wait for a 'solo' gliding course.(remember them)
Also hardly any Service bases left with a flying element.
As it happens i was lucky to go on one of the first 'experimental' AE Gliding visits long before it became a regular activity.
When i went for my first Chipmunk flight (trussed up and hardly being able to see out) it certainly did not surpass that steep climb and superb view from the ringside seat in the MK111.
It was all about the quality of the 'EXPERIENCE' and also being able to take part in handling the aircraft before and after launch.
This is what sets gliding apart from all other ATC flying; you actually help with all the activity and interact with your pilot who may well be another Cadet.
The fact that you can eventually get to fly a machine on your own is an outstanding opportunity not to be underestimated.
This facility/operation MUST be back in order by 2016 Period.

chevvron

30th Oct 2015, 03:48

When schools were all winch launched, visiting AEG cadets were kept occupied all day with ground handling the aircraft when not flying, whether it was hanging on to wingtips, hooking on cables,(making sure you used the correct hook on a Mk3!) waving signal bats/flashing aldis lamps or just pulling them back to the launch point. A camararderie quickly developed as you went through the day.
Nowadays at Vigilant schools, cadets just hang around doing whilst waiting to fly.

cats_five

30th Oct 2015, 07:24

<snip>
This facility/operation MUST be back in order by 2016 Period.

AFAIK there are over 100 Vikings (pure gliders), which is an awful lot of gliders. G-INFO lists 74 K21s, 98 K13s, 29 G103s and 28 Puchatz. There are a few other gliders used for training - the odd DG505, DG1000, Duo, a few other types - but these 229 are the bulk of the civilian training fleet. Maybe the whole civilian training fleet is ~250 gliders.

In that context the cadets have a massive fleet - maybe 1/3 of the civilian fleet. The supply of skilled people who can do and sign off an annual check on a G-reg glider (e.g. BGA inspectors) more or less matches the demand, so finding spare people to check etc. 100+ gliders in 6 months (by May 2016) is not going to happen.

They might all be done in 2 years IF whoever is doing the checking can average 1 per week. However where issues other than paperwork that need addressing that airframe will take longer, and if they start needing lots of parts that could be the wrong sort of 'entertaining'.

I reckon 4 years to get every single Viking either airworthy, though I also think it possible some will get condemned if those airframes have a lot of undocumented repairs.

In that light I also think it possible the ATC gliding will reshape what it does to offer less gliding per cadet. BGA clubs could take up some of the gliding, but if the ATC insist on Full Cat instructors (as the one we are talking to has) that will make it very hard for much gliding to be provided.

A and C

30th Oct 2015, 07:58

Sook

30th Oct 2015, 08:17

POBJOY

30th Oct 2015, 09:20

You do not need all 100 machines for a restart.
There are only 8 Glider VGS so they could start again with 2 each.
If the 'system' can not get 16 out of 100 'available' for 2016 then there is no point in considering it a serious operation and people should depart to be replaced with those who are capable.
There will have to be some lateral thinking on utilisation with the possibility of weekday and evening flying, but any VGS worth its salt will no doubt be glad to get their backs into getting Cadets airborne again.
This is not rocket science,there is nothing complicated in flying/servicing these machines to the required standard.The RAF have the GSA as a guide as to how to work within BGA/EASA guidelines which is all that is required to maintain safe
practice. This current situation can be resolved by Leadership and Capability,if this is deficient then changes have to be made.It is the appalling delay and lack of honest information to the staff that is unforgivable.

cats_five

30th Oct 2015, 09:24

One more time you hit the nail on the head, the quality of management of the project is critical to its success.

Two contractors are currently bidding for the contract, one is offering to pay £45k for the general manager role, the other is offering IRO £ 30-35 K ( with other roles advertised at about £10K short of the going rate)

It will not surprise you that the company offering the lower remuneration is the company that has had the contact for the past few years and has been responsible for the mess that the MAA found.

To me this shows that I the upper management are so wide of the mark about the quality of the people they want to put in place and what you have to pay to get these skills that it demonstrates their underestimation of the task in hand.

You are in danger of being my newest Best Friend. :)

However IMHO it's hard to say what the going rate for the job is, at least by comparison with the civilian world. The glider workshops we use are all small with a few employees, who work very hard and the owners might well be pleased to earn the lower of the incomes you mention.

The nearest comparison might be what Lasham pay their workshop, which maintains a fleet of 20 gliders (if I've correctly counted their G-INFO entries) and possibly some tow planes, plus I suspect they also look after the winch and so on. I have no idea what he earns, but doubt it's £45k. Someone with access to the Lasham accounts might have a better idea.

Tingger

30th Oct 2015, 13:14

A and C

30th Oct 2015, 13:41

The military require the glider recovery to have oversight in line with EASA145 rather than lower standards of oversight required by most of light aviation.

It follows that if you are going to have airline standard oversight then the people who deliver oversight to to this standard are going to command remuneration that reflects the industry norm for such work.

The contractor who had the maintenance contract for the gliders has clearly failed to meet the required standards, first when maintaining the fleet and then following the grounding by the MAA has failed to get any sort of recovery underway.

Part of the reason for this must be the failure to put in post people capable of the task. It is clear to me that the company has failed to understand what it costs to secure the services of such people when you look at the advertisements for these posts.

It might just be starting to dawn on this company that the days of underpaying, relying on ex- military people who are getting a military pension and are spooling down to retirement to do these jobs on the cheap is over, because unless they are incredibly lucky any one they get at that price will just not be up to the job.

POBJOY

30th Oct 2015, 17:18

A&C The whole point of a recovery phase is that things have to be different.

The MOD have to get their act together re contracts and capability.
They then have to have a system that monitors standards 'before' a grounding is required.
They then have to have someone heading up the 'system' that can keep it running,and motivate all those concerned.
This is not about money it is about managing a fleet of aircraft to a standard as per the contract. If the contractor has failed he must pay. If the contract was poorly written then its the clients fault.

Tigger No one is suggesting that the VGS have been deficient in this debacle,however they must be prepared to explore all opportunities to get the best utilisation out of a 'reduced' fleet. They can decide what they 'can' do with the available resources to assist providing flying again.Its quite amazing who turns up when there is extra flying available. I only suggested that flying could 'start again' with a couple of AC per VGS. Better to get going and then expand when more AC are available.

Mechta

31st Oct 2015, 00:28

What gets me about the job descriptions, is that they are advertising salaried positions as opposed to contracts, yet once the aircraft have been through the system, will all the staff be retained? If not, why would anyone move to Syerston for a low paid job, with a skills requirement (composites)that would get them a decent job in the motor racing industry, wind turbines or an Airline? Once you subtract the typical cost of digs (i.r.o. £4K/yr), working away from home is hardly likely to be an option.

As A and C says, the business model on which the company concerned operates is dependent on having ex-servicemen with the necessary skills, a pension and a reason not to move away from the area near where they were serving. In this case, I suspect those people will be in short supply.

On a project like this, in which time is, or at least should be, of the essence, having to train staff in either the paperwork or repair skills is not an effective option. In any normal company would mean hiring in already skilled contractors and paying them accordingly.

A and C

31st Oct 2015, 09:44

You are correct, things have to be different, and the best part of different is not to let the contractors who caused this fiasco within a thousand miles of the recovery contract or the maintenance and upkeep contracts that will follow.

Correctly run operating to EASA/ MIL 145 standard is only marginally more costly than the light aviation / BGA standard when the cost is spread over a fleet and his size and as long as you are flying young people who are not fully informed of the risks you have to operate to public transport standards of oversight. This assumes that you have the system in place that is staffed by people who have the required skills to run it.

You can of course try to pay peanuts but eventually the quality of monkey maintenance will catch up with you, which I think precipitated this situation in the first place.

POBJOY

31st Oct 2015, 14:10

Hey A&C we are nearly agreeing (this has got to stop or the thread will get boring).
My 'missive' to the CAS suggested he 'talks' to his chums that run the RAF GSA and gets some real 'hands on' feedback as how the system 'could' be run and also satisfy the regulations. What is really frustrating is whilst all this 'cascading' and other 'yuk speak' has being going on the fleet could have been sorted if in the hands of a 'capable' system.
I suspect the original contract is not that watertight therefore no one wants to 'push' the contractor into a legal corner.
The priority should be to get some suitable airframes into the system so operations can start again.If these are EASA cert then they can come from anywhere and we do not need 100 (20 to start) to get going. The Viking fleet can then be 'recovered' as the VGS build up strength again.
I agree the contract should be given to a proven source (poss even the BGA/ GSA) and also the expertise of the LAA would not be a bad thing as they have a good tech history of certifying both old and new built aircraft including hi tech ones under the EASA banner. The longer this disgraceful debacle goes on the ATC will loose people and capability, if there was a time in its history that LEADERSHIP was needed it is now.(cue Reach for the Sky theme,and dont prod the AOC with your pipe Turner)

cats_five

31st Oct 2015, 18:40

<snip>
The priority should be to get some suitable airframes into the system so operations can start again.If these are EASA cert then they can come from anywhere and we do not need 100 (20 to start) to get going.
<snip>

That is so easy to say and so hard to do. A handful of decent 2-seat gliders come up each year, but I imagine the cadets won't want a hodge-podge of whatever turns up - they will want a fleet. As to new gliders, the lead time on a new K21 is 6-9 months, I have no idea what it is for a Perkoz or a PW6, but I doubt getting 20 airframes in a year is feasible.

Subsunk

31st Oct 2015, 18:42

A & C, fully agree with your post no. 804. The usual contractorisation bandits run a business model which depends on chronic underpayment of their employees, on the assumption that there are 'sufficient numbers of ex-military chumps out there with their pensions in the bag' - not my words, but those of someone pushing for a major contract.

This sounds like what has killed ATC Shooting in South Wales, and rather than revisit the salary to provide a living wage for a skilled employee to run the central armoury, it's apparently simpler and easier all round to cease shooting. I am open to challenge on this, but I'll warrant that if this is contractorised, then the said contractor will still be getting paid while cadets do not get skill at arms training.

Contractorisation works well for all, as long as you negotiate a robust contract, police it, and if there is a shortfall, you get a rock and shove it all the way up the contractor's back passage. This is business. All the talk I've heard about contract 'partnerships' leads to cases like the 'pause in flying' where core capabilities are neglected and the contract provider still gets paid.

If the ATC fleet can be grounded owing to shortfalls, then those who failed need to be held to account. If this means tighter scrutiny of contracts and harsher sanctions on failing service providers, then some good will have come out of this whole goat rodeo.

longer ron

31st Oct 2015, 19:29

It is all too easy to blame the contractor (this may or may not be warranted !)

The trouble is - to negotiate the modern MAA airworthiness requirements needs good leadership and high quality people in liaison between the contractor and the MAA 'audit' team.
As I have said before - an absolutely airworthy aircraft can be grounded purely on very minor paperwork anomalies,we try to do our airworthiness reviews during scheduled servicing but the aircraft can still be delayed back into service.
As I have also previously posted - In the last 2 years I have changed many serviceable components purely because there is a very minor log card anomaly,but sometimes it is easier to change the component than seek deferment until a bigger servicing/servicing opportunity !
I have always suspected the grounding is a little more complex than simple un-airworthiness and that a different mix of 'personalities' might well have tackled this problem very differently !
I still very much doubt that all the gliders were unsafe to fly and if it was obvious to the 'top brass' that there was really a serious issue then a new fleet would have been the easiest course of action !
But of course a new fleet might well not have been part of whichever Agendas are being acted out !

POBJOY

31st Oct 2015, 20:40

C5 I said to get (some 'suitable' air frames into the system) assuming that most of these could be the best of what is in the fleet now.
If we need some extra's then the balance could be made up of EASA cert machines.
As for operating a 'Hodge-Podge' (your words not mine; i would have said mixed fleet) i was not aware that the BGA Clubs/ GSA operated in any other way.
If the 'improved system' can not generate 20 air frames in 6 months then they might just as well close the whole thing down and give the flying contract to the clubs/GSA. It may well be that 'currency' can be regained with AE flights to start with followed by an increased training task as machines and instructor availability returns. The whole point is the CRISIS is here; it is not going to magic itself back to normal without some change in both management capability at the top of the system and out of the box thinking from everyone.
PS Will post reply from CAS when/if i get one.

cats_five

31st Oct 2015, 20:42

<snip>
I still very much doubt that all the gliders were unsafe to fly and if it was obvious to the 'top brass' that there was really a serious issue then a new fleet would have been the easiest course of action !
<snip>

I suspect most of them are actually safe to fly, but with the paperwork in a very poor state there is no choice.

And no, given the lead time on new K21s a new fleet will take years to acquire. Grobs are no longer build built, suspect the other alternatives are not suitable. For one thing the Perkoz & PW6 look pretty flimsy compared to Grobs & K21s, and I don't think anyone is going to suggest Duos, Arcuses, DG100s & their ilk are a suitable glider for the ATC.

longer ron

31st Oct 2015, 21:58

C5

And no, given the lead time on new K21s a new fleet will take years to acquire

Other countries seem to manage - it is called planning !

We are rapidly approaching 'years' since any cadet flying happened !

rgds LR

A and C

1st Nov 2015, 08:32

Part of the Viking recovery is that the type certificate holder is not the manufacturer but a large defence contractor.

This contractor has a long and successful history of large aircraft maintenance, overhaul and repair .......... But next to no experience in the field of GRP gliders.

If you need to repair a civil glider and the damage is outside the repair manual limits the manufacturers will talk with repair agencies they trust and quickly come up with an authorised repair, they can do this because they have a long experience of fixing broken gliders.

With this type certificate holder things are very different, the lack of experience and defence industry culture result in decision that could be taken with a quick phone call and a few emails with a glider manufacture taking weeks to get through the system.

The MoD need to take the bold step of finding a company that can set up an EASA part 21 operation dedicated to air cadet gliders and give them the Viking type certificate, the company would not be one of the usual suspects as it is glider expertees that is required..... Not the ability to fix large metal aircraft.

I am sure that the current type certificate holder would not be too displeased with the loss of this small contract as I am sure they could make much more money with a lot less effort working with the type of aircraft they know best.

Thorr

1st Nov 2015, 10:34

Before any return to flying is signed off, revised support systems and procedures need to be in place. This whole saga resulted from a procedural failure which needs to be addressed.

It is likely to be over-engineered, and decided who will implement it. Already vgs were suffering from excessive administration burdens, are volunteers going to want to return if they face more paperwork and less time flying. The whole issue is more complicated than simply resolving the technical issue and off we go as before.

It needs a fundamental rethink on how the organisation delivers gliding. Far better to decide future strategy now in a calm and considered manner and create a robust future proof system, rather than panic and feel the need to get flying, no matter in what shape as soon as possible. However, as soon as the magnitude of this problem became apparent, those in charge should have realised that the organisation could never be as it had been, and so should have begun the end to end review far sooner.

POBJOY

1st Nov 2015, 15:43

I have just had sight of a FOI report as to the cost of the former contract for servicing the two fleets (Viking/Vigilant) for the ATC.
The contract ran from Nov 2008 until Mar 2015.and cost £9.6 million.
It seems amazing to me that it took over 5 years before the 'system' was found to be wanting.
It would be interesting to see how many contractors have shown an interest in the 'recovery' plan.
Not sure if the ATC 'white fleet' contract runs to the same timescale.
Nice work if you can get it!,even if the customer does not get it.
It seems to me that the contractors should have been put under more pressure to resolve the situation whilst they were still responsible to provide the service.
Unless of course the 'contract' was not exactly well founded in the first place and those responsible for that input are now out of the 'blame trail'.

A and C

1st Nov 2015, 16:55

I did hear talk of the problems starting years back when the " new" composite repair bay was the unused because of some sort of dispute ( elf & safety + a bit of industrial action if I remember correctly ).

The result was a backlog of unserviceable airframes building up with some being written off for what a civil gliding club would have considered a routine repair.

It should have been picked up a lot quicker by the MoD and the contractor made to fix the problems but I suspect the contractor was not paying enough money to attract experienced staff and no amount of pressure from the MoD could have resolved the problems without the contractor getting outside help.

The other issue is that the MoD has much bigger fish to fry than gliders and not much glider expertees to bring to any dispute with the contractor who they must of assumed and trusted could run the maintenance of these simple aircraft.

longer ron

1st Nov 2015, 17:38

A and C
From what you have been posting I would say that a new fleet was the only viable option,but of course it needed to be planned and phased in before the whole situation got out of control !
Only MOD could have mishandled the aquisition of a simple glider fleet as badly as they seemed to have done,they never have seemed to grasp the idea that glider manufacturers are capable of designing gliders good enough for cadets to fly without expensive modifications LOL
Same happened with the motorfalke,G109 etc etc

POBJOY

1st Nov 2015, 19:38

LR I go with that,but that is another two years delay. The existing fleet is 'fixable' (only option at present).
I always suspected that Syerston was not exactly on the ball with all this and i think the then CO was tasked with the Tutor inquiry so not around as much.
As for air frame backlog not being dealt with; then other than those that were killed in snow related hanger collapse's what level of repairs were usually dealt with.
No doubt another 'cascade' will be forthcoming soon to inform those who are to be affected by this utterly disgraceful 'pausing' episode.

The only part of the RAF/MOD system that seems to have delivered the goods is the VGS part when it was allowed.

Bill Macgillivray

1st Nov 2015, 20:35

So many really erudite and professionally correct replies (and I am NOT being sarcastic!). However, this fiasco appears to be getting so complicated that I fear that it is only likely to be solved by at least an expert of 3* rank!!! (Now sarcastic!) Somewhere along the line the thread has been totally lost and, in the end, the only people suffering are the Cadets! DISGRACEFUL in this day and age!!

Flugplatz

1st Nov 2015, 20:59

I doubt they will go after the previous contractor as somewhere in the system an RAF NCO/Officer would have had the responsibility of 'auditing' the contractor's activity, probably on an annual basis. This would have been part of the quality assurance and since that has lamentably failed, some awkward questions would be asked about the RAF's oversight.

You can imagine the headlines: "RAF learn nothing from Haddon-Cave and have been flying 14 year olds in death-trap aircraft, so dangerous that the entire fleet has now been grounded" when in reality the situation has been brought about by HC and a somewhat belated decision to use a much higher airworthiness yardstick.

As regards the recovery, unfortunately the RAF/MoD are so set in their ways (which are effective for large complex jet aircraft) that I don't really think they know how to deal with any organisation that is not set up like an expensive defence contractor.

I think the overall task would be better off split into two:

1. the Recovery, in which they should think out of the box and in addition to the UK, look to recruit individuals from across Europe as there are many composite light aircraft designed and manufactured on the continent. It would be necessary to appoint an overall technical head of the operation who would then coordinate the teams, plus possibly to sacrifice one airframe on which the 'hired-hands' would be shown the approved repair techniques for the Viking, so that they could all use their existing composite aircraft skills to the same method/standards. This of course would require moving outside the current 'comfort zone' a little and forming a team rather than going to one 'name brand' UK based supplier. They would have to be paid a rate that is enough for them to leave whatever they are doing now and go to this temporary job, and the RAF would have to recruit enough to really be able to recover 'in parallel' rather than the serial process they seem to be set on at the moment.

2. Continued airworthiness. Once the Recovery team has got them back up to the required standard, then the longer-term continued airworthiness (i.e. keeping them in that state) could be taken on by a smaller number of people or one organisation (aren't Tutors also relatively simple, composite light aircraft made by Grob? so the RAF does have some technical expertise available to them outside of the VGS and civvy clubs).

It all depends on how imaginative/motivated/funded the effort is. So I'm not holding my breath from the 'progress' so far :bored:

Flug

cats_five

2nd Nov 2015, 05:11

The g115s are on the civilian register.

A and C

2nd Nov 2015, 07:41

The RAF has not light aircraft maintenance experience what so ever and the contractor who supplies the fleet is not approved for major repair of the aircraft.

The difference between the former glider contractor ant the contractor who supplies the Grob Tutors is that the glider contractor did not recognise the need to go out of house when a problem got to specialised for them, the contractor who supplies the Grob Tutors has the nouse to contract in specialist help when they don't have the capacity or expertees to do the job. An example of this was when the Tutor needed a traffic system fitted they got Grob to design the modification and Gama to do the Avionic fit.

The cadet glider grounding is an issue of poor management not a technical issue, the contractor did not put the right people in post and the reason for this they are not prepared to pay the rate for the job............and by the looks of things are still not able to see the results of not paying the going rate !

Flugplatz.

The glider and G115 construction is identical, but I don't see the need to sacrifice an airframe for maintenance training, there are enough bits of broken glider in the civil system that the clubs would part with for not a lot of money if training is needed.

Longer Ron.

The Viking fleet is basically sound from a technical point of view and with the right people put in place the airworthiness issues can be addressed at modest cost however those who undertake the task must have a clean sheet to deal with the issues and the previous contractor must have no input whatsoever.

The Grob 105 fleet is another matter, it has a very expensive engine retrofit needed and the replacement of these ( along with the maintenance cost saving ) may well favour replacement with new conventional gliders.

POBJOY

2nd Nov 2015, 08:07

BILL Yes this is complicated;but has been made complicated by the very system that is full of paid full time staff backing the system up.
This thread is different from many in that it really has unleashed some heartfelt passion to see the Corps continue to offer a unique service to its Cadets,with much of this coming from 'former' Cadets who feel the running of the organisation could be better served from the top.
The actual flying and servicing of the aircraft is most certainly NOT COMPLICATED hence the frustration that comes to the fore as those with only a pen/keyboard for ammunition are energised. I for one am deeply dismayed that a whole intake of Cadets have been let down by incompetence at the top and this has to be reversed. My letter to CAS Cmdt ATC and Sir Michael Fallon MP included the following lines

The chance for a youth to control a basic aircraft and actually being able to solo one can be a life changing experience that is repaid many times over when they enter adult life.The VGS have maintained the core delivery of safe flying for decades using volunteer staff and are an asset the RAF should be proud of.

OK it may not change anything, but at least 'they know that we know' what the score is and that something has to change to get back on track. PP

POBJOY

2nd Nov 2015, 08:39

Hi A&C What is/were the issues with the Grob engine in the Vig.

A and C

2nd Nov 2015, 08:56

The current engine fitted to the Grob 109 is out of production and the support is getting to be limited, for the private owner who flys the aircraft as a glider with the engine being used just to launch the aircraft this is not a big problem as the engine hours can be used sparingly.

The in air cadet flying the engine is never switched off so engine hours are used quickly.

Grob are offering an engine retrofit using the ( very good ) Rotax 912. When all is said and done the cost will be IRO £60K per aircraft.

As you might guess with the airframe recovery costs about the same as the Viking plus the £60K bill for the engine you could well be better off buying new gliders ( not motor gliders ) on a one for one basis and taking the advantage of lower maintenance costs.

POBJOY

2nd Nov 2015, 09:29

A&C Was the existing Grob engine a 'in house' product or a adaptation.
Either way why can they not be o/h by an approved company.

Fluffy Bunny

2nd Nov 2015, 10:08

The design of the engine is Grob's modification (bore-out to 2500cc) of Porche's 4 pot Boxer.

Can't see where clubs would be saving engine hours by using them as SLG, There's a lot better performing "turbo" gliders on the market.
All the clubs I've visited use them for field landing checks, Comp "spotting" and as a cheap alternative to a light aircraft for touring/general handling. The glide ratio 28-30/1 isn't brilliant, but perfectly adequate for the jobs described above.

If the ACO did decide to re-engine with rotax 912's then they could add hooks and bring aerotowing capability back to the ATC.

The RAF does have a limited capability for light aircraft/glider support. The half dozen or so guys at Halton who run the RAFGSA centre, are all serving, or LEC, qualified on pistons/GRP/light airframe repair and did completely re-build three Pawnees (one of which is now part of the Glider-FX display team), whilst also keeping the GSA centre fleet and the Chip(super)munk fleet in the air.

Mechta

2nd Nov 2015, 11:02

Having seen the Air Cadet Grob 109s (Vigilants) in action, I question the suitability of the Rotax 912 for the task.

Day after day, hour after hour, the Vigilants take off, fly a circuit and land. As a result, for a large part of the flight, the engine will be at the low RPMs which give the propeller gear reduction a pounding, due to the resulting torque reversal (the same thing which destroys dual mass flywheels and alternator belts in diesel cars).

The Jabiru 2200 has been proven in the 109; surely a direct drive engine such as this would be a simpler and less trouble-prone powerplant?

Wander00

2nd Nov 2015, 11:10

But is it the CHEAPEST (and I don't mean the most ECONOMIC) solution

A and C

2nd Nov 2015, 12:26

The six guys at Halton may be technically sound but this glider recovery task is far too big for six guys who sound like they are busy enough as it is !

Wander00

2nd Nov 2015, 12:40

You know, I can think of few events that have saddened me so much as this Air Cadet gliding fiasco. I find it hard to believe that it has gone on so long and that each mossy stone that is turned finds another stinking mess. The RAF, which I love dearly, should hang its head in shame, and apologise to near on 50,000 kids and their instructors who have been so badly let down.

DaveUnwin

2nd Nov 2015, 14:10

Seconded Wander - it is truly shameful that a force that was once (rightly) revered can't somehow manage to keep a fleet of around 100 simple sailplanes serviceable, or return at least some of them to service after a hiatus lasting over A YEAR AND A HALF! As a British aviator, I'm both disgusted and embarrassed in equal measures. And as Pobjoy has already pointed out, the actual flying and servicing of these aircraft is clearly NOT COMPLICATED.

mmitch

2nd Nov 2015, 14:11

Perhaps a question in Parliament or by the defence committee is needed?
mmitch.

POBJOY

2nd Nov 2015, 17:32

As i do not have a Vig to look at can someone tell me if the G109 engine has a VW base (unlikely to be Porsche).

What have been the actual real engine issues (not including carb icing or fuel line related)

Who maintains or overhauls those engine in the civvy world.

I think Limbach are still around (direct drive units) i not think anything with a g-box would be the answer.

For ATC use you need something that is as SIMPLE as it gets. Reliability is quite often a question of proper simple cooling and not having an engine installation that looks likes a robots intestines.I am a big fan of VW based units as they have prooved themselves for decades and have a huge aftermarket support.

cats_five

2nd Nov 2015, 17:35

<snip>

As you might guess with the airframe recovery costs about the same as the Viking plus the £60K bill for the engine you could well be better off buying new gliders ( not motor gliders ) on a one for one basis and taking the advantage of lower maintenance costs.

You might be if they were available off the shelf. The lead time for a new K21 is 6-9 months, and the difference in maintenance costs between a new pure glider and a well-used one is trivial.

VX275

2nd Nov 2015, 19:04

the G109 engine has a VW base (unlikely to be Porsche).

The VW Beetle engine (and the Transporter engine that forms the base of the Grob conversion) was designed by Ferdinand Porsche.

Jimmyjerez

2nd Nov 2015, 19:29

https://email.number10.gov.uk

Sent my bit in. Reckon if loads of us email in it will get some big cheese help.

Mechta

2nd Nov 2015, 19:47

Wikipedia suggests the Grob uses a Porsche engine as the basis for the engine in the 109, probably based either upon that in the Porsche 914/4 or the one in the later 912E which, in turn, was based upon the engine from the VW Type 4 cars.

http://www.airbornecomposites.co.uk/fly121.pdf

Power came from a 2 litre/80 hp Limbach, based on the Volkswagen ‘Type 4’ engine – the aircooled motor you’d originally have found under the rear luggage compartment of the 411 (remember them?) or more expensive versions
of the VW camper van. This gave the 109 just about enough performance, but Grob always wanted more. When Limbach failed to come up with the goods, Grob home-brewed the 2500 – a big-bore, 2.5 litre stretch of the VW engine that uses heads from Volkswagen partner Porsche’s hotter version of the Type 4 to give 95 horsepower at a reasonably propeller-friendly 3,500 rpm.

POBJOY

2nd Nov 2015, 21:08

I think Limbach are still around with VW type 4 engine variants up to 125kw.
Does anyone know why the original engine can not be overhauled.
Have flown and driven with these units (they do what they say on the tin).

Mmich
My letter to the CAS has been copied to the Defence Minister Sir Michael Fallon.

I felt the need to point out that the the Gliding Schools (VGS) have been providing safe flying training for over 70 years using volunteer staff and are being let down by an overcomplication of the system backing them up.

I did not use the word incompetence because i only wished to highlight the situation not cause offence,but i did suggest that 'Action this Day' was needed before the 'patient' died.

Let us hope some 'sense' gets into the system before it is too late. PP

Auster Fan

2nd Nov 2015, 21:30

The now OC 2FTS looked a the Gliding Syllabus back when he was Commandant North Region. Anyone with Bader Sharepoint access will probably be able to find it (do a global search for "GLIDING SYLLABUS"). Basically it looked at spliting the GS in two - into Initial Glider Training (mostly general handling) and GS (circuits, emergencies and solo).
As a WGLO, I attended a meeting where this was discussed. The proposal was to use both Vigilants and Vikings on the same VGS. The rationale was for Vigilants to be used for the upper air work and Vikings for the circuits, on the basis that Vigilants were in essence "touring" gliders, not designed for circuit bashing and hence it would reduce the impact on their fatigue life (I may stand corrected on that point). Whether it happened I don't know, as I left the ACO shortly afterwards. That said, my local VGS suffered more than most of the others, having been told to cease flying in April 2013 when the former RAF Watton was sold to a private landowner. As far as I know, they've hardly flown since, as they relocated (eventually) to Honington, it didn't go smoothly and that was before the current grounding commenced....

Arclite01

3rd Nov 2015, 08:13

Hi Auster Fan

The concept of using mixed Viking & Vigilant schools within the current basing model is flawed on a number of levels:

It's too complex in terms of pilot currency for weekend only staff
It's complex to operate 2 different types of ground operation - including fire cover
Propellers and conventionals with inexperienced ground handlers - recipe for disaster/accident..........
Many sites not wide enough to get separation required
Noise issues
Hangarage
Fuel storage

So many - I can't even begin to cover them all.

I am amazed that the idea was even floated..................

shows a complete lack of understanding from the higher levels...........

Arc

Martin the Martian

3rd Nov 2015, 10:13

Serious question: does anybody know why the ACO went for powered gliders in the first place (back in the days of the Slingsby Venture)?

And using them as conventional aircraft throughout seems to be defeating the object of why you have them in the first place. If that was wanted why not get a fleet of microlights?

EnigmAviation

3rd Nov 2015, 11:21

"I felt the need to point out that the the Gliding Schools (VGS) have been providing safe flying training for over 70 years using volunteer staff and are being let down by an overcomplication of the system backing them up." ( Pobjoy post)

It's very important to emphasise this fact, and to remember that despite the massive over-reaction and scaremongering in the current crisis, the VGS staff have not been involved in ANY Cadet fatality since August 1995, which is a better record than the AEF's where experienced RAF pilots were involved in no less than 3 Cadet fatalities in short time a few years ago.

This crisis is tragic considered the continued loss of real flying experience and flying training for Air Cadets , remembering the name of the organisation with that very important word - AIR. Not only is it the loss to Cadets, but also the loss of some extremely well experienced and extremely hard working VGS staff who have given their all for the benefit of our air minded youth and the fulfilment of the aspirations of many past, serving and trainee RAF Pilots.

As a former Aeronautical Engineer and 30 yr+ VGS staff man now retired, with experience on 5 types of VGS powered and conventional aircraft over the years , I know that F700's, paper trails and QA are an important and vital part of the machinery of producing safe and reliable operations. Equally, I have seen nothing yet, that would cause me to think that the aircraft that I flew until 2006 were anything other than totally safe and airworthy. ( and my RAF PTC Flight Safety award tells me that I'm quite good at spotting the non-airworthy machines !)

What I have seen, is that for reasons of availability and commercial considerations, the Engineering and maintenance contract was outsourced without adequate Managerial oversight and supervision, which has resulted in the present crisis.

One of the fundamental issues for ALL HMG departments and RAF Air Command is to ensure that civilian contracts are placed where expertise is evident and proven, and more importantly, that Supervision is ever present, not just an occasional oversight visit. Sub contracting is not an easy option if it is to be executed correctly - on the face of it, it is an accountant's dream, but as we have now found, it can be a practical nightmare, and indeed is just that.

Sadly for Air Cadets and VGS staff, the outcomes are not going to be good, and may well involve much reduced capacity, much increased travel distances, loss of very experienced staff, possible loss of aircraft and far less availability overall. Some units have already almost bled to death and if we go on much longer, they will be beyond resuscitation. As for using surplus AEF hours, this will provide only air experience and not instruction and participation, not to mention Flight staff Cadet experience as a grounding for future careers in the RAF.

Surely CAS can inject a little common sense into this, as he is a very pragmatic man ? Has anyone up there ever hear of "Action this day " ???

POBJOY

3rd Nov 2015, 11:30

M t M
The concept was ok and it was supposed to extend the flight time to get more 'handling' in per flight as opposed to the 2-3 mins in a MK3.

The problem was the 'launch performance' was poor and no doubt it was not helped as it got heavier. The BGA clubs were also looking to have something that avoided the winch/cable issues at restricted sites.

They only really suited large airfields where an EFTO was less of a problem,as the ATC were used to a situation that a 'cable break' procedure saw you land on the airfield, as opposed to outside the boundary (in a field) as per normal ppl training in powered craft.

There was always an issue with climb as it really needed more power and the engines available at the time (VW) were limited.

Freda Checks

3rd Nov 2015, 14:00

Dear All
Following on from my note last week I wish to provide you with some additional information explaining the glider activity that will take place between now and Christmas.
First at the outset let me remind each of you that Gliders have the highest visibility with our Senior Leadership both in Air Command and the MOD, and we retain their total support to sustain gliding well into the next decade.
Viking
So turning first to Viking. Commercial are actively engaged in outsourcing a comprehensive Viking recovery program. Once the details are agreed I can provided you with further information. We also continue to recover the Vikings with Southern Sailplanes.
Vigilant
22 Trg Gp and 2FTS are :

Continuing with Vigilant recovery at RAF Syerston
Undertaking a quick review of the merits of powered and unpowered gliding and powered flight

Reviewing the relative merits of Tutor vs Vigilant

Producing a generic definition of the gliding (powered/ conventional) requirement for cadets

Once the above work is completed a second piece of work will follow to:

Review Options (cost, time , risk)
Mixes of fleets
Basing
Sqn attribution
This work is to be completed before Christmas.

RAF Syerston Activity
Supplementary to this we anticipate Vikings at RAF Syerston soon and once we have refreshed our QGIs we will be inviting some of the Viking Community to RAF Syerston to undertake flying to FAT standard.
We continue to fly our Vigilant alternating between cadets and VGS staff. We soon anticipate inviting some G1/2 Vigilant staff to fly at RAF Syerston. We have secured additional funding (RAFCT) for more staff motivational flying. Details to follow soon from John Bradbury. Finally we are working on a program to deliver a formal part task trainer syllabus to cadets. I am minded some of you are already doing this but we intend to make it a formal element of the VGS training package to cadets in the future. I anticipate having this to you in the New Year.
Personal Note
On a personal note I am well aware of your frustrations regarding recovery of gliders; they are no different to mine. From afar it must seem quite an easy problem to solve. But I can assure you, glider recovery is most probably the most challenging task I and my supporting staffs have had to deal with. Yes we have glitches, mistakes are made, assured deadlines move to the right to name a few. But let me reassure you, some individuals are all working many long hours to solve the problems as quickly as possible.
And from myself, I am personally committed to getting this sorted. My maturity tells me some of you are unhappy with decisions, timing of information etc- I can only do my best which I do with passion and total commitment. That said, whilst I remain on watch, I intend to leave a legacy for ACO gliding that is fun, safe, sustainable and demonstrates we are worthy as a community of the significant investment and confidence placed in us by wider Defence. There are still many hard decisions to come and some of you, most likely, will be disappointed. I sense the future “glider space” is most likely to change, just like the RAF has changed over the years. That said, I encourage each and every one of you to work to the future alongside me and 2 FTS staffs. Moreover, encourage your VGS members to follow and contribute to it success. We must not lose sight we are all in this for the betterment of the air cadet - nothing more nothing less.
Thank you
Comdt 2FTS

Cows getting bigger

3rd Nov 2015, 15:24

One presumes that email has only gone to the VGS? it certainly hasn't filtered down to sqn level.

cats_five

3rd Nov 2015, 15:47

"<snip>
the VGS staff have not been involved in ANY Cadet fatality since August 1995, which is a better record than the AEF's where experienced RAF pilots were involved in no less than 3 Cadet fatalities in short time a few years ago.
<snip>"

And airworthiness was not an issue in those fatalities. The airframes concerned were on the G register. I also struggle to think of a civilian glider accident where airworthiness was an issue, other than where the glider was misrigged. Can think of a few of those included one which killed a friend. :(

However now the paperwork and other defects have been uncovered there is no way any of the affected airframes will fly again until the paperwork and the rest is in a satisfactory situation. If the pure gliders were to be transitioned to the G register this work would still have to be done.

Arclite01

3rd Nov 2015, 15:50

So reading between the lines...........<>

'Dear All <You Vocal moaners>
Following on from my note last week I wish to provide you with some additional information explaining the glider activity that will take place between now and Christmas. 
First at the outset let me remind each of you that Gliders have the highest visibility with our Senior Leadership both in Air Command and the MOD, and we retain their total support <They have no idea of the mess this is> to sustain gliding well into the next decade <Only 4 years away really and it'll take at least 2 to sort this mess out>.
Viking
So turning first to Viking. Commercial are actively engaged in outsourcing a comprehensive Viking recovery program. Once the details are agreed I can provided you with further information. We also continue to recover the Vikings with Southern Sailplanes. <Nothing to report of any substance so we'll submerge it in 'Commercials'>
Vigilant
22 Trg Gp and 2FTS are :
Continuing with Vigilant recovery at RAF Syerston
Undertaking a quick review of the merits of powered and unpowered gliding and powered flight 
Reviewing the relative merits of Tutor vs Vigilant <Why ? the Tutor wasn't a glider of any shape or form last time I looked>
Producing a generic definition of the gliding (powered/ conventional) requirement for cadets <Management drivel that no one will understand and has no definable output that can be associated with me>
Once the above work is completed a second piece of work will follow to:
Review Options (cost, time , risk) 
Mixes of fleets 
Basing 
Sqn attribution 
This work is to be completed before Christmas. <No one will look at it until February at the earliest>
RAF Syerston Activity
Supplementary to this we anticipate Vikings at RAF Syerston soon <no idea of date> and once we have refreshed our QGIs we will be inviting some <not the vocal troublemakers> of the Viking Community to RAF Syerston to undertake flying to FAT standard.
We continue to fly our Vigilant alternating between cadets and VGS staff. We soon <no idea of date> anticipate <no concrete commitment so we are safe here.....> inviting some G1/2 Vigilant staff to fly at RAF Syerston. We have secured additional funding (RAFCT) for more staff motivational flying <no commitment to SCT whatever happens so we are safe here......>. Details to follow soon <no idea of date> from John Bradbury <pass the buck - I am Teflon WRT this>. Finally we are working on a program to deliver a formal part task trainer syllabus to cadets <another pointless hoop introduced and a few more people kept busy generating meaningless shelfware but hey-ho>. I am minded some of you are already doing this but we intend to make it a formal<That is another hurdle to slow down the line queuing at the checkout> element of the VGS training package to cadets in the future. I anticipate having this to you in the New Year <no idea of actual date>.
Personal Note
On a personal note I am well aware of your frustrations regarding recovery of gliders; they are no different to mine. From afar it must seem quite an easy problem to solve. But I can assure you, glider recovery is most probably the most challenging task I and my supporting staffs have had to deal with. Yes we have glitches, mistakes are made, assured deadlines move to the right to name a few . But let me reassure you, some individuals are all working many long hours to solve the problems as quickly as possible.
And from myself, I am personally committed to getting this sorted. My maturity <?> tells me some of you are unhappy with decisions, timing of information etc- I can only do my best which I do with passion and total commitment. That said, whilst I remain on watch <until I leave>, I intend to leave a legacy for ACO gliding that is fun, safe, sustainable and demonstrates we are worthy as a community of the significant investment and confidence placed in us by wider Defence. There are still many hard decisions to come and some of you, most likely, will be disappointed . I sense the future “glider space” is most likely to change , just like the RAF has changed over the years. That said, I encourage each and every one of you to work to the future alongside me and 2 FTS staffs. Moreover, encourage your VGS members to follow and contribute to it success. We must not lose sight we are all in this for the betterment of the air cadet - nothing more nothing less.
Thank you
Comdt 2FTS'

Hmm

DC10RealMan

3rd Nov 2015, 16:05

What does "assured deadlines move to the right" mean in English

Wander00

3rd Nov 2015, 16:14

= LATE (late) (to make 10 characters)

1.3VStall

3rd Nov 2015, 16:20

So, the $64,000 dollar question is - "So, Comdt 2 FTS, what the f*ck have you and your staff been doing for the past 18 months?"

The man has, IMHO, always been an oxygen thief and this latest outpouring of utter management w@nkspeak merely provides further evidence to reinforce my opinion!

Frelon

3rd Nov 2015, 16:30

Nice one Arc, we knew you could read between the lines, and indeed find the hidden messages that we all suspected would be there :ok:

Arclite01

3rd Nov 2015, 16:46

I don't see anywhere an emphasis on:

Getting VGS people involved - after all, we know our area better than anyone....

Getting Cadets Flown - we exist to fly our cadets - and I don't mean the staff here...........

Emphasis on enjoyment - we used to enjoy our gliding, a day out in the fresh air with our mates and like minded people - not so anymore. Far too much emphasis on paperwork and syllabus.

Last time I was at Syerston doing my 'B' Cat, Bruce Tapson (who sent me first solo in 1981 !) was retiring and he spoke to me and said he thought 'we'd seen the best of Air Cadet Gliding....................'

how right he was............

Please God let this fiasco be rapidly resolved.

Arc

A and C

3rd Nov 2015, 16:47

Cynical at Olympic level or what !

I can however see why one would take this view following the events of the last year or so but the glider grounding comes at the same time as the armed forces are under huge pressure to economise and look for new ways of doing things.

With this in mind the the whole air cadet flying requirement is under review, I get the impression that the feeling is that gliding should be just that rather than the motor glider half way house to powered flying.

With the high cost of the motor glider engine retrofit that will be required and the better availability of the Grob Tutors ( due to the reduction in RAF pilot training ) the opertunity to increase the cadets powered flying in the Tutor has presented its self ( albeit at the loss of motor gliding ).

The RAF is acutely embarrassed by the glider grounding as it is the longest grounding in RAF history yet on the simplest aircraft they own and I see a real determination to get the situation resolved ASAP. It would seem that they now have the money to resolve the problems with only the capacity of the industry to govern the time this will take.

I have no doubt some gliding sites will close, extra capacity will be available to others and more powered flying will replace some of the motor gliding, in short things will change but next summer the RAF will have air cadets flying gliders once again.

Freda Checks

3rd Nov 2015, 17:02

With this in mind the the whole air cadet flying requirement is under review, I get the impression that the feeling is that gliding should be just that rather than the motor glider half way house to powered flying.
Yes, but Air Cadet Flying has been "under review" for some years even before this debacle.

Have a look here (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/207647/response/532404/attach/html/6/20140616%20ACO%20Flying%20Review.pdf.html) dated January 2013.

Arclite01

3rd Nov 2015, 18:14

Freda

That is an interesting document for sure.

Seems to have been overtaken by events sadly. Interesting that they were considering replacing Vigilants with new airframes at that point !!

Arc

Jimmyjerez

3rd Nov 2015, 18:36

Very interesting read cheers mate

I spotted the 'Task the TUcano and Gliding Support Authoirty to identify a clear engineering pathway to improve engine reliability/husbandry' which 'will mitigate the engine reliability risk'

What was that all about? Were cadets flying behind dodgy engines?

Flugplatz

3rd Nov 2015, 20:09

EnigmAviation: Good summary.

My interpretation of the OC 2 Gp e-mail is that Vigilants will almost certainly get the chop, however cadets will get more AEF with the possibility of some basic handling? Still leaves a shortage of Viking sites/aircraft so I assume a reduced syllabus (plus part-task trainers) will be on offer, with fewer getting to the solo stage. To make the numbers work, I would also assume each individual cadet will get a reduced number of flights (glorified GIC?) and only the top performers/more committed will do the entire current syllabus.

Flug

1.3VStall

3rd Nov 2015, 20:21

A & C

"I see a real determination to get the situation resolved asap".

Oh really? That is why, 18 months after the grounding - sorry, pause, Comdt 2 FTS is talking about further studies into syllabi, equipment, basing and even the mix between powered flying and gliding for cadets.

The lunatics are running the asylum and the sad fact is that the lunatics know diddley squat about gliding.

Nearly 50 years ago I did a one-week ATC gliding course at RAF Spitalgate and went solo. It inspired me to join the RAF and I am still gliding and flying. It saddens me that the current generation of youngsters is being denied that thrill at the start of their careers.

A small team of knowledgeable, enthusiastic consultants could put together an achievable recovery plan to sort out air cadet gliding in a matter of weeks. Selling it to the RAF hierarchy would be more difficult though!

A and C

3rd Nov 2015, 21:09

Like you I did the air cadet thing and this resulted in a career in aviation and I too share the opinion of most on this forum that the chance to fly with the air cadets is vital to the youth of this nation.

That being said we can't sent the young people of this nation flying in aircraft of questionable airworthiness.

There is no doubt that the aircraft should have been grounded, the mistake was to let the contractor who presiptated this problems try to run the recovery program, any commercial operator would have shown them the door.

Recently the RAF have grasped the nettle and started working with others to get the gliders back in the air.

Your opinion that a small team of enthusiastic consultants is not far wide of the mark but if you think you will have the fleet back in the air in a few weeks then you vastly underestimate the scale of the task in hand.

The airworthiness oversight has to up to airline standard and the paperwork is a real mess, it will take time but I would be very supprized if we don't see cadets flying next summer.

Freda Checks

3rd Nov 2015, 21:56

http://www.pprune.org/<a href=http://s183.photobucket.com/user/Biggles615/media/GeoffNayloratHawkinge.jpg.html target=_blank>[IMG]http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x165/Biggles615/GeoffNayloratHawkinge.jpghttp://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x165/Biggles615/GeoffNayloratHawkinge.jpg

This is the guy who inspired me and trained me to solo standard in 1959 (Geoff Naylor at Hawkinge, one of the best).

Even now I still get a thrill when flying an LS4.

I wonder how many of our young cadets have had this opportunity taken from them during this "pause"?

POBJOY

3rd Nov 2015, 23:00

Just look at those 'cool' wellies !.
Geoff went off to the LGC at Dunstable for 66-67 a big loss to the ATC.

romeo bravo

4th Nov 2015, 08:52

Not wishing to be too cynical but there are no timescales really mentioned in the email from OC2FTS. Yes it talks about Christmas and the New Year, but no year; could be in a couple of months could be in several years when 'things' eventually get sorted. It talks about the future and when things have been sorted; but all of this is as long as a piece of string. We need specific timescales, so people can be held accountable for their actions, or lack of.

If this was a football club, the manager would have fallen on their sword by now as a result of the performance of his/her players.

Aggamemnon

4th Nov 2015, 12:54

I made a request under the FOI for details on the cost of the new HQ for 2FTS. The MoD has provided the data.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_the_new_hq_for_2fts_at_r

Total £794,863.

POBJOY

4th Nov 2015, 14:52

AGG What did they actually get for £795.000

Is this in addition to the £7.1 Million Pounds spent on knocking down the original hangars and building the current infrastructure!

Am i missing something here or have the RAF spent nearly £8 million pounds on providing a centre of ATC Gliding that could not actually

deliver serviceable gliders or repair them. I thought 'Yes Minister' was a TV comedy not a documentary.

Wander00

4th Nov 2015, 16:19

Always was a documentary................., but this one nearly outdoes all that has gone before

POBJOY

4th Nov 2015, 18:32

Location:- A VGS near you

Setting:- CO's Office/cupboard/ (Checking latest Prune Posts)

Action:- Staff Cadet Baldrick where are you !
Here sire; i was just cascading some information to the staff.
Jolly Good how many are left !
Just the two of us sire and the Squadron cat.
Get your wellies out of the emergency stores lad i need some urgent action !
Righto Sire what am i to do
I need half a dozen 6ft poles with a pointed end !
Not a problem Sire i am a Staff Cadet in wellies everything is possible
Well done lad; if only we had more like you at the top of the system !
I always do my best sire even when despised by those above us
You are a true stalwart Baldrick unlike those ......s who cant run a B.....P...U.in a .....g Pub,and have royally shafted my beloved organisation because they are totally useless!
Do not despair Sire we Staff Cadets are a mighty force and will prevail over evil
I am truly humbled by your support Baldrick; get me the post code for London Bridge with the poles,and the axe off the winch;i will prepare the list !
You cant do this alone sire let me come
No you valiant chap the Staff Cadets must live on to tell the story!
Ok Sire is there anything else before you go
I might need some more poles Baldrick !

EnigmAviation

4th Nov 2015, 19:01

Ye gods ! Didn't realise they have built a new HQ for 2FTS at Syerston ! Of all places to locate it, in the midst of an almost moribund station hanging on by the skin of its teeth.

Just reminds me of the old trick question " how do you know when they're about to close a station ?" ANSWER = when they've just spent a load of £££££ on it !!

Thus when the "pause" has resulted in the inevitable, we have a shiny new edifice stuck in the middle of a run down old RAF station, with grazing cattle around it and Gypsies ripping out the remaining valuables as scrap.

It gets worse ! But lots of us will be able to remember the former achievements and be very proud. Perhaps a VGS memorial in London and an annual service ?

brokenlink

4th Nov 2015, 19:05

Flug - re your post 860.

More AEF?, some would be nice as this area is still experiencing the effects of the unmitigated c@ck up that was the 5 AEF move from Wyton to Wittering back in April!

POBJOY

4th Nov 2015, 19:49

Enig

Did you not think the flag Pole at £3,450 was value for money then !!

I do wonder sometimes if they just get the decimal point wrong.

Flugplatz

4th Nov 2015, 19:50

Brokenlink: Just trying to think how they may make up any Vigilant-loss shortfall in flying opportunities! they did mention Tutors in the missive and we know that they will be phased out in the coming few years.

Having said that... as you mention, the AEFs aren't exactly firing on all cylinders either... beginning to think that anything the RAF Flight Training Head Honchos touch, rapidly turns to s**t!

Flug

Cows getting bigger

4th Nov 2015, 19:51

Looks very tidy though :(

http://www.templemandesign.com/app/uploads/2015/07/Syerston-17-1170x600.jpg

Lima Juliet

4th Nov 2015, 20:00

Here is what £800k buys you...

Central Glider Squadron RAF Syerston - Templeman Design (http://www.templemandesign.com/projects/raf-syerston/)

POBJOY

4th Nov 2015, 20:21

LJ I think you will find that lot cost £8,500,000 !!!!

Not including the flagpole. Those decimal points are really confusing !

Lima Juliet

4th Nov 2015, 21:11

:eek::eek::eek:HOW MUCH!:eek::eek::eek:

What an absolute disgrace...:mad:

I see what you mean now it is on the front page of my link:

£8,500,000

That's a lot of money and not a lot to show for it...:eek:

EnigmAviation

4th Nov 2015, 21:46

Dead ringer for closing down if they have almost spent £10m !

POBJOY

4th Nov 2015, 22:02

LJ That hangar looks like it is housing some of the best serviced u/s aircraft in the country; poss the world.

The largest risk factor involved with that entire operation is slipping on the shiny hangar floor.

I truly hope the ATC can get some sense back into the system before its too late.

Flugplatz

4th Nov 2015, 22:46

I like the use of rolls of razor-wire atop the fence; obviously there to keep any 'air-minded youth' / crazed FS Cadets from storming the compound in complete frustration!

Hopefully there is still a gate around the back where shaggy Glider Recovery 'operatives' can still shuffle towards the hanger clutching a tube of Araldite ("Mungo fix plane!!!").

With this level of screw-up, surely there must be some OBEs/MBEs in there somewhere??

Flug

J1N

4th Nov 2015, 23:42

Looking at the link to the Syerston works website: £8.5M evidently doesn't buy verbs agreeing with their subject, consistent case and tense within a sentence or apostrophes placed where convention would dictate. Is this attention to detail symptomatic of the whole fiasco?

My first solo was in a T21 at Sealand: very sad that things have come to this.

DC10RealMan

5th Nov 2015, 07:22

This reminds me of the episode of "Yes Minister" where Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey go to a brand new and expensive hospital costing millions of pounds and which is a hive of activity except that there are no patients.

POBJOY

5th Nov 2015, 08:37

DC10 Thats quite right.

I seem to recall that when JH (the minister) asked why there were no patients Sir H said
:- It interfered with the smooth running of the system !

It really was a documentary,and still relevant.Sad thing is that the program could brings tears of joy and now we have just tears.

Freda Checks

5th Nov 2015, 08:51

If this was a football club, the manager would have fallen on their sword by now as a result of the performance of his/her players. Elf and safety are now confiscating Officers' swords, just in case some of them have a conscience and want to fall on them.

There is no problem in spending money on upgrading the buildings and buying new winches, but to ground aircraft (which did not know they were unserviceable the day before) without a plan to get them flying immediately is a disaster for the whole Air Cadet Organisation.

Yes, I know the paperwork was suspect, but if this was in the "real" world of industry a plan would have been put in place before the grounding.

Heads must roll, and no more MBEs or OBEs for anybody involved.

DC10RealMan

5th Nov 2015, 09:14

In the 21st Century Management do not "fall on their swords"

They blame others normally those junior to themselves or those "moved on" with the benefit of an large payoff normally at the taxpayers expense.

POBJOY

5th Nov 2015, 09:36

DC10 You are very naughty encouraging me to produce a new script for the proposed 'Yes Defence Minister' series.

Hacker insists on visiting a local VGS for the 75th anniversary
The darkened Range Rover is discreetly parked on the peri track some distance from the 'activity'.
Hacker insists on actually seeing it close up so is taken to the 'winch end' and finds a cardboard cut out full size model.
On querying this he is told it is a 'decoy' winch as thats how it was in the War.
Slightly puzzled by now he insists on seeing a line of parked gliders.
They nearly get away with that until he asks to sit in one;whereupon he finds they are in fact inflatable ones.
Sir H explains these are 'decoy' gliders because of the security situation.
Hacker (trying to look intelligent) asks where are all the staff.
Sir H 'cascading his hands' explains that they are 'pausing' at this moment.
Hacker (looking puzzled again) asks if this is a lunch pause !
Sir H says yes but they are on a long lunch pause today. (Sir Humphrey will claim later he thought the Minister said LAUNCH PAUSE)
Hacker now slightly bemused asks to visit the new hangar complex.
Despite protestations from Sir H regarding security,health and safety,and not being CRB checked Hacker insists on going inside to find it teeming with toddlers in blue romper suits jumping up and down and flapping their little arms.
Hacker (showing visible signs of shock and horror) turns to Sir H for an explanation .
Sir H bringing his years of training and dedication to the fore smiles and sweeping his arm across this swarming scene says
:- Minister these are the future of the Corps and they are training to PAUSE.

cats_five

5th Nov 2015, 09:46

<snip>

Yes, I know the paperwork was suspect, but if this was in the "real" world of industry a plan would have been put in place before the grounding.
<snip>

No, no NO.

There was no choice but to ground the gliders as soon as they found the suspect paperwork. Until each and every airframe is fully inspected no-one as any idea as to what actual defects are hidden behind the paperwork.

If there was one accident causing injury or lose of life in an airframe with defective paperwork the ATC would be put to the sword regardless of if there was any actual defect that contributed in any way.

This is exactly what any civilian club would do faced with a glider with dodgy paperwork. Way back in the thread I mention it's exactly what mine did in that situation.

There Is No Choice.

squawking 7700

5th Nov 2015, 10:02

It's not just the 'paperwork' - read the DHAN for an 'example' of other issues - a modification to the elevator.

Would you want to fly an aircraft that had a modification to a primary flight control that hadn't been through a design review process in association with the manufacturer/type certificate holder? and was undocumented? Are all of the mods the same? you'd have no way of knowing.

And it's acknowledged that a number of airframes that weren't in service prior to the pause were unserviceable because the 'maintenance contractor' (term used loosely) didn't have the skills to repair them.

7700

cats_five

5th Nov 2015, 10:05

teeteringhead

5th Nov 2015, 10:07

Just reminds me of the old trick question " how do you know when they're about to close a station ?" ANSWER = when they've just spent a load of £££££ on it !! And get really worried when they build a swimming pool.......;)

squawking 7700

5th Nov 2015, 10:10

I'd suggest everyone who has been calling for the return of the aircraft to read that DHAN, the link is a few pages back.

7700

Freda Checks

5th Nov 2015, 10:13

This is exactly what any civilian club would do faced with a glider with dodgy paperwork. Way back in the thread I mention it's exactly what mine did in that situation.

OK perhaps my post was wrongly worded (brain gets carried away). Grounding immediately, but plan immediately. However it should not take 18 months of sitting on hands and still have nothing to show for it.

For a club it would mean lost revenue so something would be done immediately, no hand wringing like we have at the moment.

cats_five

5th Nov 2015, 10:30

I'd suggest everyone who has been calling for the return of the aircraft to read that DHAN, the link is a few pages back.

I've been back to page 31 without finding it. Can you post it again, please? It might explain what DHAN stands for as well!

squawking 7700

5th Nov 2015, 10:32

cats five,
I think I downloaded it, I'll have a look and post it in its entirety if I can find it.

7700

squawking 7700

5th Nov 2015, 11:22

cats five - have a look here

[URL="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/234987/response/585814/attach/4/20140417%20Duty%20Holder%20Advice%20Notice%2086%20O.pdf"]

or put Duty Holder Advice Note 20140417 in to Google and the link is at the top of the first page - it makes sobering reading, would you let your kids fly in these gliders?

7700

teeteringhead

5th Nov 2015, 11:46

DHAN link is at post #764 on page 39.

And scary reading it makes too!

Unauthorised/uncleared elevator modifications FFS! :eek::eek:

romeo bravo

5th Nov 2015, 11:56

Got to love para 11 of document -

"11. Implications on Task. Significant impact on all glider operations. This impact will have to be carefully managed across the Air Cadet Organisation."

Arclite01

5th Nov 2015, 11:57

The DHAN makes interesting reading. There is some unacceptable stuff in there for sure.

The question for me which no one seems to ask is 'Why ?'

The underpinning processes and paperwork are there. Why were they not followed ??

Arc

A and C

5th Nov 2015, 13:28

Arclite01 the answer to your question is that the maintenance contractor was simply not up to the job, the management was lax, the people working on the aircraft had insufficient guidance and in some cases skill, the management also lacked leadership skills. You can also add a bit of good old fashioned trade union obstructiveness with a sprinkling of elf & safety political correctness. Add to this a total lack of the commercial drive that the military lacks and that keeps the civil world on its toes.

The reason for the poor management of the project is that the upper management was not prepared to pay the going rate for the job and so put people into roles that they did not have the skills and experience to forefill.

The cream of the joke is the upper management still don't get it !

They are advertising vastly under paid jobs that assumes that they will get the glider recovery project. There are at least two other defence contractors who are looking at this contract and one of them is offering the going rate for one of the positions ( just over £10k above the rate advertised by the current contractor ).

Only with people with the correct experience of project management along with a detailed knowlage of composite maintenance, repair and airworthiness oversight will the recovery program be a success.

I am confident that the RAF see this very clearly but the big question is can they get the cost past the bean counters ?

GR7

5th Nov 2015, 14:32

With regards the elevator, I am reliably informed that the issue was that a hinge used on other Grob control surfaces was used in place of the original. This was because it does not relly on single use fasteners.

It was a very sensible engineering decision, which did not have the correct administrative approvals. This has now been fully approved by DA/PT, and therefore the issue no longer exists!

Many of the issues with the glider fleets are far less dramatic than the titles alone would suggest!

POBJOY

5th Nov 2015, 14:51

As i see it the only good news is that in actual real money terms the cost to the RAF/MOD to prevent another PR disaster is by their standards relatively low.

It stacks up well against one of todays stories about the Watchman Drone which was 4 years late £400 million OVER BUDGET and has only had the equivalent of 6 Days operational use,plus is not doing anything useful.(investigation about to start).

The actual cost of getting a reasonable number of useful air frames back into ATC service is paltry compared with anything else the services do, and gets plenty of PR points. What they do not have is anyone who knows how to go about this in their mainline system so that is the stumbling block.
They need to be talking direct to the BGA to effect a plan that covers both recovery and the ongoing regulation trail. The BGA could also benefit by this as any 'profit' made will go back into their operation rather than contractors shareholders.

When you look at the facilities sitting around at Syerston requiring some proper management and motivation the actual cost to get them producing the goods is minimal compared with the cost of running the place that has produced NOTHING for years. We can not change the past or what happened with the 'changeover' but it only takes some sound management and manpower motivation (including proper paid tech staff) to get the show on the road.Apart from anything else a recovered fleet has value and surplus machines could be sold to offset some costs. It needs the BGA/Engineering to be given a short term contract to oversee this.

A and C

5th Nov 2015, 15:21

The BGA does not have the systems or approvals in place to provide the airworthiness oversight for these gliders as the minimum the MoD require is EASA/MIL 145.

The BGA do an excellent job in administering the sport of gliding in the UK but it is not part of there remit to provide airline standard airworthiness. Such oversight would be inappropriate for the sport of gliding ( as well as expensive ) a military training system needs to be overseen by a much more stringent system, it is the shortcomings in stringent oversight that presiptated this fiasco in the first place.

squawking 7700

5th Nov 2015, 15:30

GR7,
You cannot glibly and effectively say that the elevator issue is a non-event and is 'OK now', as the fact that it happened in the first place is beyond reproach.

7700

biscuit74

5th Nov 2015, 15:43

Ye gods ! This is one of the services supposedly in existence to help protect the country - and they can't manage a simple fleet of gliders and motor gliders. Machines flown, maintained and safely operated by civilians throughout the land.

I know several military maintenance folk, at both the sharp end of things and further up the line of command; in my view they are competent & effective, good practical and practicing engineers. What this so clearly suggests to me is how inept overpromoted ex-aircrew are, in many cases, at anything approximating senior management. At the very least some serious re-training is needed. Sadly the whole MoD set up appears to be incompetent in almost all respects.

It is all very well claiming that they are trying to operate to a higher military maintenance standard etc., and that these smaller simpler aircraft therefore cause the system a problem. It seems no-one has ever justified the process supposedly being used. If it is OTT for this purpose, then it is not fit for purpose, by definition. Blinkers appear to be firmly ON.
This shambles doesn't lead to any confidence that the 'leaders' know what they are doing. That leads to unsafe operations, eventually - which is where the ATC shambles came in....

As for the defence of the realm. Hmm - piss ups, breweries, anyone? Worrying - and this is my - our - money being wasted. The only minor ray of sunshine is that by normal UK military standards the waste of money is small.
Can we afford an RAF in future if this the best they can offer, or is this why it is such a sad shrunken relict of its former impressive self?

A and C

5th Nov 2015, 17:45

The problem is that the contractor has failed to maintain the aircraft in accordance with normal aviation standards both with regard to work done on the aircraft and the records of that work. If the BGA had been providing the oversight I have no doubt they would have taken the same action as the MAA has. ( I know the BGA have in the past taken such action but one private glider grounded won't make national news ).

So to reintroduce the aircraft in to service thorough inspection of the airframe has to be undertaken to find just what has and has not been done. This will involve inspection but if a repair can't be garrenteed to be in compliance with standard practice or an approved repair then it will have to be redone as well as rectification of defects.

If the MoD/ RAF have made a mistake it was to have too much trust in the contractor to resolve the problem, part of this was due to lack of manpower. The military system grinds slowly and with its inertia is difficult to change direction but it has slowly dawned on the MoD/ RAF that this contractor was in desperate need of help and they pointed them in the right direction but they failed to heed this advice. At this point the RAF/ MoD asked other defence contractors to bid for the work ( to my knowlage at least two others have shown an interest ) and I would expect an announcement to be made in the near future as to has been awarded the contract.

Thud105

5th Nov 2015, 19:44

"If the MoD/ RAF have made a mistake it was to have too much trust in the contractor to resolve the problem, part of this was due to lack of manpower."

Eh? What do you mean 'If'? Aren't those aircraft owned by the RAF? Where do you think the buck stops?

A small fleet of simple sailplanes grounded for 20 months due primarily to incompetence? Laughable.

The Nip

6th Nov 2015, 08:41

A&C,

The problem is that the contractor has failed to maintain the aircraft in accordance with normal aviation standards both with regard to work done on the aircraft and the records of that work.

I have commented several times on people being held responsible for their actions as that is what we all get paid for. What will the MOD do about this contractual failure?

By past experience, nothing.:ugh:

chevvron

6th Nov 2015, 08:46

Random Bloke

6th Nov 2015, 17:28

Not all the blame can be laid at the door of the contractor. The aircraft are effectively 'owned' by the project team (PT). The PT produce the aircraft document se (ADS); the 'Haynes Manual' if you will, and the contractor services the ac in accordance with those instructions and the PT is supposed to monitor the contractor to ensure compliance. I understand that the ADS was woefully inadequate and yet the PT had not addressed the problem so the contractor was hamstrung from the outset. Before you blame the RAF remember that the PT is part of DE&S and the PT engineers are mostly Civil Servants (remember when the SA80 was referred to as the Civil Servant because "you can't make it work, and you can't fire it").

Should the RAF now step in and solve the problem? I think that would set a dangerous precedent for other contractors - screw up and the RAF will sort it. No, the contractor is paid to do a job and so the contractor and the PT should sort it. With an SDSR looming and reducing budgets I can't imagine the ACO gliders being high on the list and tough decisions may have to be made.

Lima Juliet

6th Nov 2015, 18:58

Tough decisions? Any decision would be good! As with most things MoD then planning in isolation seems to have occured yet again. No news, closed shop for anyone else - why do we do this to our people?

This isn't the first time and probably won't be the last. I just hope that there isn't too much squabbling going on in the closed shops to protect various empires whilst MFTS plays out in the shadow of a SDSR.

LJ

207592

6th Nov 2015, 20:15

As Victor Meldrew would have said "I don't believe it!" Well, actually I do, but I am prompted to ask if anyone has asked an Air Cadet what he/she would like to achieve on a gliding course? I' d say "to go solo/gain his/her gliding wings" - BGA A&B standard. I'm sure an Air Cadet would be happy to do that in the most basic of aircraft and wholly in the Circuit.

So, solution to dilemma? Sack the existing staff and contractors and acquire some second basic gliders and get the cadets flying again. Leave jollies in powered aircraft for Annual Camps - or are they now out of fashion? (Seem to remember night flying with pilots converting to Hercules at Thorney Island, handing out sick bags - ah those were the days ........)

DC10RealMan

6th Nov 2015, 20:24

If you were to do that where would that leave the Commandant and his Empire at Syerston?

cats_five

6th Nov 2015, 22:55

'Get some 2nd hand gliders' sounds so simple. In reality very few come up each year in easa land - literally a handful or two.

biscuit74

6th Nov 2015, 23:00

Thanks A&C. I do understand what you are saying, however the main point in my comments was that the notional leaders here have demonstrated total lack of management capability. If you appoint contractors, first you make sure they are competent before your sign the contract - due diligence - and then you monitor and oversee performance as required (using competent people with suitable authority and experience)to ensure standards set are indeed met. That process can relax later if all is well, once capability and operation assured and proven.

In this case it appears MoD civil servants failed in some respects- nothing new there, sadly - however the RAF is the customer and supposedly knows enough to define what is required. The 'Project Team' may also have dropped a clanger, though I feel there is excessive slopey shouldering being allowed, even on here. If you don't think the documents (the ADS or whatever) set the standard you require, then you get them sorted BEFORE you accept the ruddy aeroplanes, not years later. Arguably that is part of the management task, right up front. Possibly poor task setting and responsibility definition - maybe no-one thought that was part of his/her responsibility?

'Random Bloke' - should the RAF step in? They should have been there long since ! My sceptical engineer's view is it is far too late for that, at least using the existing command arrangements; the RAF seems to me to have demonstrated a lack of ability to manage this folly in any sense, which is very disappointing.

Ah well; useful lessons, though it doesn't sound much as if anyone involved directly is interested in learning any. A great shame that such an excellent, effective and enjoyable way to enthuse youngsters about flying and the RAF has been all but lost. Very sad.

DC10 - I think we all know where that should leave them...

Random Bloke

7th Nov 2015, 06:40

Thinking about it I am convinced the question is not 'should' the RAF step in? But 'could' the RAF step in? After many defence reviews, options for change, front line first and any other euphemisms for 'cuts' the RAF is a shadow of what it was even 15 years ago. There are not enough engineers to man the front line let alone anything else because the Service has been forced to contractorise so much Unfortunately the public do not see the issues through the political smoke and mirrors; every time savings are required the Red Arrows are offered but successive Prime Ministers have refused to take that saving because so long as the Red Arrows can thrill crowds at air shows, the general public are hoodwinked into believing that everything is rosy.

So, a serious question to all the armchair pundits: What do you want the RAF to stop doing in order to get the air cadets back in the sky? Air defence of the U.K.? Support to worldwide operations? Cease support helicopter operations? Cease basic engineer training? Perhaps we could ground the ISTAR fleets?

I am not being melodramatic, just reflecting reality. Who should fix the problem? The people who created it in the first place and at their own expense, then the civil servants in the project team who let it happen should be held to account - sorry I forgot; civil servants cannot be held to account.

A and C

7th Nov 2015, 09:09

The funding is now in place to get a good number of the Viking fleet back into service, the only question is who is going to get the contract ?

The current contractor is clearly bidding for it ( as demonstrated by the job advertising) and two others have shown an interest, my opinion of the current contractors ability to forefill the contract is based on their track record of successful glider maintenance.

One of the other potential contractors provides Grob Tutors to the RAF, at this they seem to be successful ( the propellor problems has been the result of a poor prop choice by others).

The third I know little of but seem to lack the infrastructure to start the recovery program quickly

Random Bloke

7th Nov 2015, 09:48

A&C.

That is good news. However, I suspect that the devil will be in the detail because once the sub-contractor has completed the work on the Vikings the aircraft still have to be accepted as airworthy by the MAA, the project team, the contractor and the design organisation; oh and the release to service folk, all of whom will want their say and, of course, their 'cut'. I can see a situation where there are perfectly serviceable, refurbished Vikings sitting idle for months while the Byzantinely complex airworthiness organisation gets its collective act together.

biscuit74

7th Nov 2015, 10:33

Indeed good news that funding is now available.

Judging by A&C's comments about the contractors and random bloke's comments about the complexity of the processes and hoops to be jumped through and the shortage of capability within our shrunken forces it sounds as if -
(a) things won't be up and running swiftly - a matter which doesn't seem to concern the folk in charge much - and
(b) there is a strong possibility that the 'new' system will not be significantly improved over the previous set up. If the existing contractor is advertising for folk at lowest possible rates already, that doesn't augur well. Are any lessons being learned?

Hmm - none of this is new anyway. Didn't the RAF have to scrap a number of Tornado F Mk2s which were being overhauled or modified by a civilian contractor? I seem to recall they dismantled part of the structure using a very crude drilling out process, which caused enough damage to be beyond economic repair. Luckily the machines were an interim type so the impact wasn't disastrous, but surely that emphasised the need for good oversight . My recollection is that the company involved wasn't viewed as a dubious or fly-by-night one either. Mostly working outside their expertise and 'comfort zone'. Too long ago for the current management folk to recall?

Freda Checks

7th Nov 2015, 11:01

...and what news on the Vikings that were in the care of Southern Sailplanes, are they flying again? Have they even been picked up yet?

Or are they still bogged down in the paperwork at Syerston?

I take my hat off to the many boys and girls in the VGS system (the V standing for Volunteers) who appeared to have been given the mushroom treatment.

They give up (have given up) much time in getting cadets off the ground, safely for many years, with very little thanks from above. On the regular visits from ACCGS there is no acknowledgement of the volunteer status of these youngsters. I wonder how many will be left after this debacle? Will they still want to work with people at the top who have clearly lost the plot?

Well done the members of the VGS organisation, officers, civilian instructors and staff cadets. I salute you.

The B Word

7th Nov 2015, 11:22

Didn't the RAF have to scrap a number of Tornado F Mk2s which were being overhauled or modified by a civilian contractor?

Nearly right. A contractor called Airwork Ltd allegedly used air chisels to take out the wing boxes - the bolts are an interfernce fit and so need to be cooled to get them out. They wrote off the centre sections of several Tornado F3s. Luckily we had some Tornado F2s in storage that had the same wing boxes and so a classic 'cut and shut' was done mating the back and front of a F3 to a F2 centre section to recover the aircraft.

All was covered in Hansard in 1993 - Airwork Ltd. (Hansard, 26 July 1993) (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1993/jul/26/airwork-ltd)

Quite shocking really, but when you have a procurement system that always takes the cheapest option (or ones to save British jobs) then what do you expect? The system is doomed to failure and mediocrity beckons...

What is funny about the Airwork story is contained in the following snippet:

Following a management buy-out in 1988 Airwork became part of the Bricom Group of companies. In 1992 a contract with the RAF at St. Athan to modify a number of Tornado F3 aircraft was to have far reaching consequences for the company. Serious damage was caused to the centre fuselage of 16 aircraft during the removal of rivets. When the extent of the damage became clear the Ministry of Defence cancelled the contract with Airwork and pursued compensation from Bricom. Questions were asked in the Houses of Parliament and the reputation of Airwork, at least in the UK, was dealt a grievous blow. A multi million pound compensation settlement was eventually agreed out of court and the F3 aircraft involved were repaired by new contractors replacing the damaged centre fuselages with those from surplus F2 aircraft which had been earmarked for disposal.

Short Brothers of Belfast, which had itself been bought by the Canadian company Bombardier in 1989, acquired Airwork as a wholly owned subsidiary in November 1993 and the company became known as Bombardier Defence Services Limited. The VT Group subsequently took over the business – renaming it VT Defence - in a £30m deal in June 2000. Whilst in the UK the former Airwork element of the business now trades under the name VT Aerospace, the name and brand of Airwork is still used prominently in Oman as ‘Airwork Technical Services and Partners LLC’ where a new five year contract to support the Royal Air Force of Oman commenced in January 2005.

So Airwork became VT Aerospace and I think they are the ones that do the work on the Grob Tutors? :eek:

Which takes me back to this recent comment:

One of the other potential contractors provides Grob Tutors to the RAF, at this they seem to be successful ( the propellor problems has been the result of a poor prop choice by others).

It's a funny old world...:cool:

The B Word

Engines

7th Nov 2015, 11:47

Ive watched this thread for some time, and have hesitated to post. However, as an ex Air Cadet who was inspired by my ATC flying to become an aircraft engineer, I would like to offer some observations that might help stimulate discussion.

There's a focus on what the contractor did, which is understandable. However, in my view there needs to be an equally strong focus on the 'customer area', specifically what the TAA (Type Airworthiness Authority, which is the PT) - the CAMO (specifically what the CAE(Chief Air Engineer) have been doing, and the activities of the various Duty Holders.

In 2010, with a bit of fanfare, the Air Cadet fleet was brought under the stewardship of the mainstream RAF, and an apparently comprehensive organisation put in place, including technical officers at every gliding squadron (according to Wiki - sorry, it's all I have to go on), and a chain of ever more senior officers, all 'in charge'. Plus a shiny new HQ replete with new facilities at some cost to the taxpayer. It also appears that Serco had been maintaining the aircraft under a contract that was originally placed in 2008.

I can only guess that a complete chain of RAF Duty Holders (DHs), CAE, TAA, and SO posts was established in 2010 or thereabouts, because if it hadn't been the aircraft should not have been flying on the military register. These post holders, particularly the TAA and the CAE, would have had to carry out the necessary oversight and assurance of the aircraft maintenance activity to make the statements required by the MAA regs.

I'd also expect that well before 2014, the MAA would have carried out some form of assurance activity on the PT's TAA activities as well as 22Gp's CAMO organisation, and their evidence trails, to allow DGMAA to make his required declarations about the Vigilant and Viking fleets.

So my first question is this. What were the MoD and RAF responsible engineers and engineer officers doing to 'assure air safety' between 2010 and 2014, while the Viking and Vigilant fleets were apparently being so comprehensively trashed? My second is this - what was the MAA doing to assure 'air safety'?

I sincerely hope that the MAA is starting an investigation to find out what appended to the 'assurance chain' between 2010 and 2014. But I'd not be surprised if the MAA had a problem trying to investigate itself.

A final thought. These are simple, robust, mass produced aircraft designed to be maintained and operated with minimal facilities and effort. Any competent military aircraft engineering organisation should have been able to keep these machines in tip top condition with absolutely no problem, even with a contractor involved. Guys, this is basic stuff. Unless maniacs have been hacking the airframes about with band saws and gaffer tape, they should and could be back in the air in days and weeks. Thoughts?

Best regards as ever to those trying to pick up the pieces at the coal face.

Engines

POBJOY

7th Nov 2015, 18:23

Engines
If you trawl back in the thread i think there have been many posts alluding to the lamentable 'Tech Back up' from both Syerston and the 'system' that was supposed to support them.
The problem is a lack of hands on tech experience in the system as apart from the idea that understanding the paperwork and regulations is actually providing maintenance to a satisfactory standard. To be fair the fleet is not exactly falling apart or has given the operators (The VGS) much grief therefore it seems that although the sharp end was not 100% they were actually providing satisfactory service but were not part of a system that had any idea of what was required.
When the RAF got involved with this new technology (Glass gliders/SLMG) they did in fact have some in house expertise within the RAF GSA which itself operated in conjunction with the BGA.
The expertise on tech matters with gliding is still with the BGA (operating to EASA standards) therefore the RAF should stop trying to 'militarise' something simple but operate to the best standards in current practice. Ultimately the buck stops with the CLIENT (MOD/RAF) who for many reasons has failed to ensure that a satisfactory system actually existed to satisfy their own requirements.What i do not understand is why Syerston as the full time staffed centre of ATC gliding was not 'alerted' to the current situation long before a grounding was required.

cats_five

7th Nov 2015, 19:10

<snip>

A final thought. These are simple, robust, mass produced aircraft designed to be maintained and operated with minimal facilities and effort. Any competent military aircraft engineering organisation should have been able to keep these machines in tip top condition with absolutely no problem, even with a contractor involved. Guys, this is basic stuff. Unless maniacs have been hacking the airframes about with band saws and gaffer tape, they should and could be back in the air in days and weeks. Thoughts?

Best regards as ever to those trying to pick up the pieces at the coal face.

Engines

Not sure about the 'maintained with minimal facilities', but what wasn't maintained was the paperwork. Since that is wrong each glider has to be examined in minute detail. Days and weeks doesn't cover it, months and years does.

ACW342

8th Nov 2015, 16:10

Like Engines I've watched this thread from afar, not wishing to comment, but have tried to keep up with what is happening on the ground through contact with my old colleagues on the Sqn.

Considering the damage that has been done to the ACO as a whole, with the word "Air" almost totally removed from the name of the organisation, let me be (possibly) the first one to ask the question that is the Elephant-In-The-Room. Is anyone going to prison over this? Has the law been broken and if so, civil or military?

McG

POBJOY

8th Nov 2015, 17:53

342 Of course no one is going anywhere regarding this for the simple reason no one person is responsible;nor should they be.
The 'system' has screwed up because of the general lack of Tech expertise within it.
You can have as many meetings and committees as you want but unless there is some actual Tech competence* involved it means nothing.

This* starts with the manufacturer who is best placed to advise on the aircraft he designed and made.
He will have also planned and published a maintenance schedule and advised on repair schemes,plus issued AW notices as required.
Even if that company (on paper) has finished there are usually a core of engineers still in the 'reborn' company who can be used for advice. (Grob are in that situation). The ATC has been the ONLY user of their fleet and the nature of the organisation means the control of the aircraft has been excellent;in that there will be plenty of evidence of use and locations.
This takes a huge amount of the 'unknown' out of building up a history of any machine.As regarding the risk of unreported issues then again the nature of the operation would require a substantial 'cover up' and i do not think the VGS organisation is at all likely to be party to that.The highest probability of reducing the airworthiness of a glider is in a de-rig / rig scenario, however the VGS seem to have been quite capable of maintaining safe practice in this.
As stated before we are talking about SIMPLE TECHNOLOGY that at the worst requires a 'manufacturer quality inspection' to re certify. To be at the current stage we are at 18 Months later confirms that those 'in place' where the decisions are made are not competent to deliver this recovery in a reasonable timescale.The VGS element in this have shown far more actual competence in operating the fleet than the PAID STAFF in the system controlling them.

EnigmAviation

8th Nov 2015, 21:02

Pobjoy,

Well said, and entirely logical. Given that the two fleets were maintained by and under direct control of the RAF until a few years ago, and furthermore that the very much underrated, and underestimated VGS staff have diligently A/F and B/F ' d and OOPS'd them then flown them, I doubt that there would be huge issues that could have remained undiscovered and which could not have been checked on a planned rolling clearance long ago.

I would be extremely interested to see what exactly are the suspected major airworthiness issues.

All of the many that I have served alongside, including former aircrew and ATPL's , qualified Aeronautical graduate engineers and many other varieties of professional including myself would never have entertained the thought of taking to the air in anything having the slightest hint of a problem - they too have wives and young families and all were greatly aware of the huge responsibility of flying our young ATC and CCF Cadets. 🔦

DC10RealMan

12th Nov 2015, 22:44

On a matter of military etiquette the Commandant of 2 FTS wears "wings" on his uniform but if he failed the Nav/Pilot crossover "thingy" is he still entitled to wear his RAF wings or are they glider pilot wings?

I am just curious as an ex-VRT Officer I know who was also a senior British Airways Jumbo pilot had a very tough time with the Commandant so much so that he felt obliged to leave the Corps.

A touch of envy perhaps?

1.3VStall

13th Nov 2015, 06:35

I heard a rumour last night that Southern Sailplanes has been contracted to return 48 Vikings to flying status and that Serco will not have a new support contract, but Babcock will.

beardy

13th Nov 2015, 07:09

I don't think he failed the crossover from Navigator to Pilot. I believe he had more than 6 months operational as a pilot on the Vulcan, so can keep his wings. I believe he failed the subsequent fast jet pilot 'crossover' which is when he returned to being a Navigator. Incidentally QWI both ground attack and air defence both F4 and Tornado.

Random Bloke

13th Nov 2015, 07:27

The entitlement to wear the RAF Flying Badge or 'wings' is covered in QR (J) 727. In order to retain wings it is necessary to have been designated as combat ready (CR) in role rather than just doing 6 months in role. It is very unusual to find a pilot who was CR on one type and who subsequently failed a fast-jet crossover to be re-roled as a navigator; they would normally either revert to type or re-train on another multi (or helo) or go to be a QFI.

I have however, flown with several navigators who were pilots but who failed to get CR and were re-roled as navigators. In this case their entitlement to wear pilot's wings ceased and so they could not just elect to wear pilot's wings if they felt like it.

I cannot explain why someone who went through an entire and successful career as a navigator would want to wear pilot's wings.

teeteringhead

13th Nov 2015, 08:08

One was never a V-Force person, but I understand that some co-pilots, although operational as co-pilots (CR not a term used in them days), failed to become captains on that or - in some cases - any other type.

So they would retain the entitlement to wear "The Flying Badge". That said, if they subsequently were employed as a Nav (or other brevet wearer) then IIRC other rules apply.

Along the lines of: if entitled to wear more than one flying badge/brevet, you have to wear the one appropriate to the post you are currently filling. If not filling such a post, you can wear any to which you are entitled.

One was once acquainted with another such ex-V co-pilot who became a Provost Officer (of quite some seniority). He wore his wings.

So while JM is perhaps making a point (and why not?) - IMHO he is within the letter of the law.....

I cannot explain why someone who went through an entire and successful career as a navigator would want to wear pilot's wings. Random - most pilots could!! :ok:

POBJOY

13th Nov 2015, 08:26

1.3 VS Sounds like very good news 1.3, So no reason why the 'users' of the fleet can not start to get current again,and be ready for 2016.

1.3VStall

13th Nov 2015, 09:22

POBJOY,

What I didn't get from rumour control is a timescale, but - if the rumour is true - then it has to be good news for air cadet gliding in the longer term.

POBJOY

13th Nov 2015, 13:24

All we need now is some decent 'Leadership' in the system to 'enable all this'.
Perhaps they could get all the CO's/CFI's of all the VGS together and choose a group of say (6) as a hands on steering group** to ensure the important information is properly looked at before ongoing decisions are made.
This could be a temporary but urgent 'fix' until the system gets going again and at least will reduce the timescale of decisions.
It would also ensure that whoever is to be the OC will have to show actual leadership and competence rather than Rank and position.
When you see the pictures of Syerston and all those pristine facilities it is to no ones credit that behind the facade lurked a complete failure of any ability to prevent a TWO SEASON shutdown of a service that they were tasked to provide.
** This is an entirely reasonable answer to a difficult situation that any large organisation would employ to aid a recovery.

EnigmAviation

13th Nov 2015, 13:46

Sounds about right in terms of the Serious Rumour Squad ! However if only 48 Vikings - what about the rest, and more importantly what about the Vigilants ? And what about airfields, locations and staff - assuming there are a few still hanging on ??

If they treat as a "rush" job, who knows, some activity may resume in 2016, at some airfields, with some staff, tea and medals all round whoopee (Not !)

IMHO the whole business is a disgrace and should be examined by the Defence Select Committee to ascertain who is /was in the hot seat and what sanctions are being applied.

EnigmAviation

13th Nov 2015, 14:12

I wonder how this rumour squares with the MoD Invitation to Tender on this link for a "Glider integrated operating support contract" to run w.e.f.25/4/2016 to cover RAF glider fleet (approximately 65 Vigilant self-launched motor gliders (SLMG) and approximately 80 Viking conventional winch launched gliders. See the link :-

http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:198227-2015:TEXT:EN:HTML

(with contract award anticipated for late spring 2016 )

All answers on a postcard to PPrune, best answer provided will be awarded a ground tour of RAF ACCGS Syerston to examine the polished floors and read the new GOB which should extend the "pause" well into 2017.

POBJOY

13th Nov 2015, 14:48

Hang on Enigma they have not formed the group yet.!

There are only 8 Viking Squadrons so the best chance of ANY recovery is to start with them,as the aircraft will be relatively easy to to 'approve',and there are less issues with the equipment.
It may well be possible to convert some Vig operations to Vik if their locations are suitable.
As for the Vig fleet we do not know the financial cost of the ongoing position,or even if there IS an ongoing position.
If the air frame life is sufficient to upgrade then a replacement engine is not out of order plus the existing side by side set up suits AE work well,and the machine performs well in actual practice.
The organisation already has the Part task trainers in the system and the equipment also fits in well with the main AE fleet of the Grobs.
Yes this may lead to a reduced scale of operation (as per the RAF in general) however it does make real sense from a 'where we are situation'.
A modern engine upgrade for the 109 is available, and again not rocket science to perform although myself i would not go for one with a gearbox.

EnigmAviation

13th Nov 2015, 16:00

That's a death wish word - almost as bad as "handbrake". I do think that as you implied PobJoy, there is another agenda re the Vigilant. The snag is, that having planned some time ago, to re-engine the aircraft and planned funding, we then had this "pause" crisis, the economy waned/defence cuts, and the ship has sailed whilst they have all been grounded. Now, two years or more further on, the aircraft are older, less "life" and other factors have changed such as airfield availability, costs of getting the Vigilant back to service, availability of G 115 Tutor hours ( albeit that the sorties are not training per se, merely "experience" sorties of short duration) are all complicating factors that go into the Defence "Kenwood mixer". The end result, I fear, is that we will emerge from the crisis with a Viking fleet only aided by the 25 mission trainers, and on limited number of sites where the customers will have extensive travel, sometimes to no avail due to the variable weather, plus limited scope sorties at existing AEF's. I hope that I am wrong.......................

Cows getting bigger

13th Nov 2015, 16:42

1.3 Stall, I heard similar but the number was 75 and not 48. Regardless, promising news.

A and C

13th Nov 2015, 17:01

You seem remarkably well informed !

POBJOY

13th Nov 2015, 17:20

Hey Enigma my 'thoughts' were based on the premise that an input from the 'users' could only speed things up. (from stationary)
'IF' SS have a contract then this implies movement soon,hence 'some' start date could be predicted.
The Viking situation is limited by suitable locations,but there are a core that have a secure base.
The Vig fleet is 'portable' and with suitable training the staff could operate anywhere required.
As regarding cost;well there is an understanding of funds for many years so in the great scheme of things having spent £8 million plus on Syerston another couple of million for aircraft must seem almost good value.
I really do not think that an 'extended' start date would be acceptable to anyone, as apart from anything else the actual staff available will be so reduced as to be non effective and the real 'experience' will have departed or be time expired.

Bigpants

13th Nov 2015, 19:52

Ah this thread is never ending. Here's a thought why not arrange an unfortunate hangar fire? Burn the whole fleet and start over? If you are really bright you could claim all of the perfect up to date maintenance records got burned as well...

Well it's a plan, got a better one?

POBJOY

13th Nov 2015, 20:13

I think 26 hangar fires might be considered too much of a coincidence,and judging by the 'competence' of the system they would probably get the wrong ones.

Random Bloke

14th Nov 2015, 05:30

Teeters - just because you put a Spirit of Ecstasy figure on a Ford Mondeo it doesn't turn into a Rolls Royce. :ok:

teeteringhead

14th Nov 2015, 16:36

Random

:D:D:D :ok:

Subsunk

15th Nov 2015, 06:37

I second Bigpants' idea about a convenient hangar fire and an insurance job. Since this whole sorry saga began, we've had death by committee, the usual dysfunctional MoD/contractor gravy train where everyone wins except the end user, betrayal of the only people in the system who made it work, and a series of pretty surreal PR events aimed at distracting attention away from the core issue.

The current Commandant (can someone explain the rationale behind this name change?), to be fair, inherited a lot of these problems when he took on the job. However, at that level of rank, you expect some managerial competence and some real leadership skills. This individual's dullness and arrogance has made the situation far worse, and the shape of the new organisation will be poorer because of it.

Armed services need to keep a close eye on these comfy little pension-building posts for senior officers. When you appoint the wrong person to them, this is what you get.

Anyway, fire/insurance job? Not as daft an idea as anything we've seen so far in this cluster. It's a farce from the outside and no doubt a tragedy from the inside.

1.3VStall

15th Nov 2015, 08:01

This individual's dullness and arrogance has made the situation far worse

Yes, whoever appointed this prat should be held to account - why would you select an ill-thought-of navigator, who knows the square root of f*ck all about gliding to run a gliding organisation?

Oh, of course, it's part of the jobs for the boys scheme!

Wander00

15th Nov 2015, 08:24

Nor, it would seem, how to deal with and lead volunteers

POBJOY

15th Nov 2015, 16:34

I am going to sit this bit out for the sake of my class 1 medical.
However before i retire my points would be:-

The VGS at the COAL FACE are not finished by a long chalk.

The current locations are where the population is well served.

One of the facets of the Gliding organisation is that Cadets CAN GET INVOLVED on a regular basis.

There is no point in having far less sites in the middle of nowhere (so to speak)

The SYSTEM has to realise it exists FOR THE CADETS not as a training organisation for itself.

In the short term the Viking fleet have a better chance of surviving this debacle as there are far less issues involved, and they have already ordered the new winches. It is also a fact that conventional gliding gives far more hands on activity with the aircraft and operation than the powered route.

Random Bloke

15th Nov 2015, 16:46

That's too much for one FTRS person; it will need a small team. Probably an OC, Adjt and a QFI for each centre. The way it works is the organisation that establishes the FTRS posts needs to fund them out of its own budget. 9 FTRS posts at an estimated total capitation cost of about £750,000 per year, just where is 2FTS/HQ ACO going to find that money? And no, they're not allowed to create new posts by asking for more money - FTRS is a savings measure.

Lima Juliet

15th Nov 2015, 17:17

I think the 3x super VGS in remote locations will be a disaster:

1. Who is going to come from Cornwall or Kent to Little Rissington! - that's a 3-4 hour minibus journey!

2. Once establsihed where are the staff pilots going to come from. It's hard enough finding volunteers to give up a couple of days a month; a lot, lot fewer will want to give up a whole weekend that will start late Friday and finish late Sunday, with no booze because the very same will be looking after the Cadets.

I hope you are wrong, as this is a bad idea in my opinion...

LJ

RUCAWO

15th Nov 2015, 20:50

Try getting cadets from Northern Ireland , or the Scottish islands to those locations for gliding,typical little Englandshire answer :rolleyes: AEF for us is bad enough ,now cut from 24 per visit to 6 , my 6 two weeks ago didn't get to fly except on the Easyjet over and back , next six in March.

Mechta

15th Nov 2015, 21:30

All those new winches which are standing idle could be a thorn in the side of operations when they do resume. They have an engine which is new to the winch and a type of cable new to the cadets. With everyone a bit rusty after the long layoff, throwing in a new bit of kit, which is bound to have its own idiosyncracies, is likely to result in delays just when everyone is anxious to launch as many cadets as possible.

The designers at Skylaunch will have used their experience to build the Air Cadets a new winch which is as ergonomic and trouble-free as possible. Only after a few hundred launches, however, in a wide variety of wind conditions plus all the possible failure cases, can a winch driver be confident to make the right decisions and pull the right levers at the right time.

To the best of my knowledge there are no winch simulators on which to practice the many failure cases, so it could take a good while before winch drivers experience the bulk of them. If the winch driver gets it wrong, at best it might be a snarl up on the cable drum, putting that drum out of action for half an hour; at worst, it could result in the glider flying into the winch parachute or cable.

By siting the new winches at BGA and Service clubs until the Vikings are ready, a few thousand launches could be made across the fleet, building up a substantial track record for the type, thus ensuring that when they start launching cadets, both winch drivers and winches are known quantities.

As a the old adage says, 'Amateurs practice till they get it right, professionals practice till they can't get it wrong'.

Random Bloke

16th Nov 2015, 08:19

BB said I've come out the other side of my despair now and I've realised we've got to rebuild this for future generations, no matter how painful it's going to be in the short term.

Spot on. I think though that the ACO needs to use this grounding to take a fundamental look at what it is trying to achieve with its gliding and this probably needs to be done by an outside agency in order to remove the emotion from the debate. When I was a cadet (late 70s & early 80s) I had a great time but there were only about 22,000 of us and I think there were 33 VGS and about 14 AEF. I went gliding 4 times a year and Chipmunk flying at least twice a year and on an annual camp as well. Brilliant fun and it inspired me to become an RAF pilot and then a QFI as well and I've spent many happy hours teaching ab-initio pilots in a variety of aircraft.

I think that the ACO has missed several opportunities to re-define its gliding and flying mission and the offer to the cadets.

The first one was when they changed from the old fleet to the Grob 103. The T21s, T31s and Ventures were simple to fly (I know I went solo on a T31) and they followed a simple syllabus. Importantly the ac were light and didn't have much energy and were thus quite forgiving, so it was possible to teach even the most ham-fisted cadet to fly a safe circuit. At the same time the engineering was done to BGA principles. The ac were relatively easy to fix as well. The introduction of the Viking changed the dynamic, a heavier and more complex ac and so the syllabus was increased to take that into account; cadets took more launches to solo and there would have been a decrease in the number of training slots available but, as there were still only around the same number of cadets the effect would have been negligible. Still, the ACO should have had a re-think at this point as to what it was trying to achieve and indeed as to what it could achieve with these super new aircraft.

The next was the introduction of the Vigilant. The Grob 109 is a touring motor glider, it is not an ab-initio trainer and is not designed to be thrown at the ground ad infinitum and thrashed around the circuit. I understand that there were problems with both the undercarriage assembly and the engine - I wonder why? Again, I suggest a missed opportunity to fundamentally alter the basic business model to take account of the new capability.

Then a previous Comdt of the ACO decided to almost double the size of the ACO (well before Dave's Big Society). Even the dullest candidate on "The Apprentice" will understand that if you increase the size of the business but don't make an appropriate increase in the resources you will never be able to achieve the task so there are two choices: increase the resources to achieve the task or change the task, to balance the task to the available resources. Simply thrashing the original resource harder to try to make up the shortfall is a sub-optimal plan (and look what's happened).

Finally, the introduction of the MAA and the Haddon-Cave review should have triggered a look at whether the VGS is still an appropriate delivery model. Should the ACO still be expecting volunteers to deliver the required level of assurance and the inevitable increase in admin and workload? They can't surely expect busy people with high-pressure civilian jobs to deliver another high-pressure workload at weekends, and get it right, no matter how well intentioned they might be.

Whatever emerges from the ashes needs to be fit for purpose in all respects for 2017 (or 2018 when ever it will be) rather than for 1998; this may involve taking a more holistic view and incorporating the AEF to achieve the overall task (whatever that might be) rather than trying to run them as separate enterprises.

DC10RealMan

16th Nov 2015, 11:05

"Busy people with high pressure civilian jobs" is the bit that the Commandant doesn't get.

Thorr

16th Nov 2015, 11:57

The core of the VGS output is the GS. GICs are essentially AEF dressed up as training and since the VGSs are staffed by volunteers with instructor training in-house, it gives those junior staff a chance to practise and hone their instructional skills, and all adds to the stats. However, the trend is towards a more "professional" organisation with increased administration and over-sight. It would therefore seem appropriate to change to a full time VGS organisation - employing paid staff to delivering GS training on the weekend during school term times and throughout school holidays. To match current output, the organisation would need to deliver approx. 2,500 scholarships per year, or 50 per week. You then build your organisation around that requirement. AEF flying would be better handled by AEFs. A "professional" organisation also reduces the in-house training burden, allowing effort to concentrate on the key deliverables.

Additionally, the proposed re-introduction of the IGT would not be a sensible move. When the IGT was first introduced, students were too young and the IGT training still had to be repeated when they returned for GS. Far better to just stick to the GS.

Arclite01

16th Nov 2015, 13:08

Thorr

You are spot on with your comments.

Arc

EnigmAviation

16th Nov 2015, 14:06

"appropriate to change to a full time VGS organisation - employing paid staff to delivering GS training on the weekend during school term times and throughout school holidays. "

How unrealistic is this ?

Here we are debating defence cuts, the smallest peace time RAF ever, and a fleet of grounded Gliders and Motor Gliders, and someone comes up with a huge cost escalation plan which has no merits whatsoever.

Paid staff ? - on a contract for weekends during term times and throughout school holidays? Really !!! ( maybe another zero hours contract which seems in vogue!)

Paid staff ? - where from ? - certainly not Civvy clubs, and certainly not RAF GD pilots as we are clean out of them. The ONLY people who hav e the vast experience are those currently "resting" from the VGS's while they await HM's pleasure ( or was it misery?)

And, lest anyone should forget, remember that the Titanic was commanded by a professional and that Noah was an "amateur" - the only fatalities to Air Cadets in accidents over the last 15 years have involved...............well...........let's say, NOT the VGS staff, or their aircraft.

I have no doubt whatsoever that we will be seeing the paralysis/arrest continue for some time yet as nobody in Air Command can find their defibrillator, and if they don't get a wriggle on, there will be no patients to resuscitate - as retention of this vastly experienced and skilled resource is being prejudiced by every minute of vacillation, not to mention the way in which they have been excluded from the loop in every sense.

As for some of the other ideas seen in the last couple of days or so on this thread - god help us if Little Rissington was a major centre - as the Wx profile is not conducive to reliable operations, not to mention the prop wrecking loose runway surface.

Major centres - far from being a cost saving, will be a major non-productive cost - transport of Cadets over large distance at public expense only to find Wx u/s , with a resultant demotivated and disappointed Cadet force, tired out and p***** off.

Also, before disposing of the Grob Vigilant fleet, remember, that it has worked well for twenty years, and is a very efficient training machine where conventional gliders cannot be deployed, and where staffing is necessarily fewer. Also remember, that to operate a fleet of 4/5 Vikings, you do need a sizeable staff to allow for mixed duties, drivers, winch drivers, and rotations including leave and holidays, and time off. Contrary to a recent post, the Viking has been an excellent trainer, not complex or difficult - and with 3000+ launches plus the old wood ships and Vigilant also, I should know !

One thing is for sure, the organisation as we knew it, chaps, is never going to be quite the same again, sad to say. The losers will be the Cadets initially, which eventually will cascade onwards to what remains of the RAF, as the Cadets of the future may not enjoy the pre-service training that used to be enjoyed by so many.

Arclite01

16th Nov 2015, 14:31

I can't see them creating regional centres. We closed down the regional gliding centres many years ago.

I'm not saying they are a bad idea - I just can't see them paying for it..........and also we have less and less bits of suitable real estate to base them on................

I think (For what it's worth):

1. Less VGS's with more permanent staff would be better. This model would be similar to the model found on TA Units, with a cadre of permanent staff (FTRS) for the week (and the admin cr@p - which is necessary BTW !!). Does not necessarily need to be a flying post.
2. 1 x CGS and 8 x Winch Launch Schools better/best model.
3. Cost savings could be obtained by reducing the number of VGS and associated VR(T) staff and T&S, and operate less complex (single aircraft type)
4. In addition downgrade the VGS ranks to F/L rather than Sqn/Ldr - make everyone else no higher than F/O.
5. Make sure the VGS had accommodation for staff and cadets overnight and access for Food. This suggests that the sites need to be either Permanent RAF or Army sites with cookhouse facilities.
6. Make it Gliding 'weekends' to try and make sure that at least 1 day is flyable...............
7. Goodbye Vigilants, I am a fan of Motorgliders but I think we need to focus down to 1 more simple type more in line with our training aims and profile.
8. Start to plan Viking replacement now - order the replacements with an in service date 5 years from now............... These could even be ASK-21Mi (so we could extend the sorties if required) (as used by Aussie Air Cadets)

Arc

Random Bloke

16th Nov 2015, 14:35

Mate, WTF does "And, lest anyone should forget, remember that the Titanic was commanded by a professional and that Noah was an "amateur" - the only fatalities to Air Cadets in accidents over the last 15 years have involved...............well...........let's say, NOT the VGS staff, or their aircraft" contribute to the debate?

Please remember that the tragic fatalities in 2009 were as a result of accidents; the pilots didn't deliberately crash into the other aircraft. Accidents that cold have easily happened to anyone. It's probably only by the grace of God that the VGS have never had a fatal mid air collision.

Arclite01

16th Nov 2015, 14:42

Random

Sadly - they have, at Sealand August 1995

Arc

EnigmAviation

16th Nov 2015, 15:09

And just to be complete in evidential terms about that fatal mid air. Not mentioned in the official written report was the fact that the FRC's ( compiled and endorsed by RAF Handling Sqn at Boscombe) were incorrect with reference to Canopy jettisoning, which may have prevented the safe and timely egress of the two fatalities. The FRC Emergency Drills Card 4 read as follows:-

" pull (back) both red handles fully back simultaneously,

"push canopy up and away"

"Release seat harness"

"Stand and bale out over the cockpit side"

the fatal error being that the RH handle was spring loaded and thus when removing R Hand to push canopy up with both hands, the hinge pin re-engaged and prevented canopy release. Thus whilst there was an airmanship issue and a degree of negligence, in colliding mid air during thermalling, there was a major contributory survival issue.

Arguably had the FRC's been correct, then two fatalities would have been avoided.

EnigmAviation

16th Nov 2015, 15:38

"the tragic fatalities in 2009 were as a result of accidents; the pilots didn't deliberately crash into the other aircraft"

They never do Random !

But all accidents have a preceding chain of events, and prevention, as the RAF Flight Safety course teaches, means actively trying to ensure that we break the chain and prevent the accident.

In one of the Tutor accidents, the causal chain stretched back a good way in the pilot's records with regard to cervical spine mobility and scan capability when "concerns had been raised during his course at 115 Sqn" ( ex accident report). Several people drove past this very clear amber signal that should have caused a red light to illuminate.

By making various recommendations the RAF managed to avoid admitting that in reality, the pilot should probably have never been in the aeroplane or indeed any aeroplane as Pilot.

Whilst truth always has a bruising effect, the purpose of my remarks was to illustrate that no matter whether VR(T) of full GD pilot, there can be no generalisation about whether professional is always the best ! Accidents afflict all pilots irrespective of full or part time, VR(T) or GD if they are careless - even ETPS graduates have managed to prove that is true.

Random Bloke

16th Nov 2015, 15:54

As I see it, the debate over professional versus amateur is not to do with the likelihood of accidents because accidents can happen to anyone. The issue is to do with workload and what can be reasonably expected of a part-time volunteer who is effectively doing it for their hobby.

I think that it is totally unreasonable to expect a part-time volunteer to run a VGS on the same lines as a Typhoon Sqn, ensuring that all the paperwork and BTRs are up-to-date as well as all the engineering QA and the myriad of other assurance activity etc. In this case the system is setting people up to fail because when there is a conflict between their high-pressure civilian employment (which pays the mortgage and puts food on the table) and their volunteer work then it is in the part-time area that they will take their eye off the ball and may well be held to account as a result.

In effect, the ACO seems to be trying to have its cake and eat it.

Arclite01

16th Nov 2015, 16:24

Random

We've got here by being 'Salami sliced'

The VGS can just do this........, oh and this, and this, etc............... the individual tasks are small, the cumulative task is massive.

I remember doing fuel stats, flying stats, vehicle returns, travel returns, course bookings, course admin all after a days flying (having run the line).

So I would be up at 06.00 and drive 75 miles to my VGS, Do all the setup paperwork, Fly or run the line, closedown and put everything away, do said paperwork and lock up, return the keys and drive home. In the summer I would get home around 23.55 (an 18 hour day)and maybe back 2 hours earlier in the winter (as it got dark). My 'better half' was soon disillusioned................ this was at least 3 days a month - sometimes more.

I'll never forget those late nights in a freezing portakabin doing stats.........

The thing that I often wondered was 'what happens to these, where do they go and why do they need them ?' - one day I asked the HQAC people - was it OK if I sent them Monday morning ? - 'Oh there's no urgency - Wednesday will be fine.................' she said.

The solution - at least 1 permanent FTRS member of staff is obvious (for me). If we are treated as an FTS we should be resourced like an FTS...............

Arc

RUCAWO

16th Nov 2015, 16:42

Buckley Boy

Exactly where do you suggest in your plan that the 400 plus cadets from Northern Ireland get any gliding !:ugh:

chevvron

16th Nov 2015, 16:44

Also, before disposing of the Grob Vigilant fleet, remember, that it has worked well for twenty years, and is a very efficient training machine where conventional gliders cannot be deployed, and where staffing is necessarily fewer.

Yeah but just over 20 years ago, there were big engine problems to the extent of introducing 'ghost' solos where the student had an instructor along for their solo flight and for a long time, all fuel supplies had to be tested periodically.
I believe the engine problems were partly due to a combination of using MOGAS bought from filling stations and prolonged use of carb heat causing vaporisation in the fuel lines. I did a course at Rissy in '91 and I can remember taking fuel samples to Brize for testing.

VX275

16th Nov 2015, 17:13

Buckley Boy

Exactly where do you suggest in your plan that the 400 plus cadets from Northern Ireland get any gliding !:ugh:

I've always thouight that West Freugh would be a suitable location for a VGS to serve NI. OK I realise it means a ferry trip but I know that NI cadets have been sent to Benson for their GS in the past.
Valley would also be a useful VGS location it would save the North Wales cadets having to travel to Woodvale

RUCAWO

16th Nov 2015, 17:27

Nothing wrong with Newtownards as it is, and until the "pause" was getting some of the highest VGS results. West Freugh close to Sranraer but to get the ferry , a two and a half hour trip, you have to be at Belfast an hour before boarding, and from the units in Omagh and Coleraine that is close to a two hour trip to get there so about five hours travel each way to get there.:ugh:
Where the VGS are now are mostly good locations they just need the aircraft back.

EnigmAviation

16th Nov 2015, 18:15

That's an old issue, not been heard of for years. 🎬

EnigmAviation

16th Nov 2015, 18:50

To a limited extent I concur when you state the level of demand, given the volunteer staff. I personally can vouch for the massive commitment level of the Execs on a well run VGS. It's not just a 3 days a month that we used to become absent husbands, fathers and partners, it's the weekdays during day job time, the necessary phone calls that uk business never knew they were financing , the computer printer work that they never knew they were financing, the multiple Station sorties to arrange sqipper servicing, collecting supplies, checking Eng work done, sorting out vehicle repairs,etc.

As a former Adj on three VGS's it also encompassed days on Station writing H&S procedures, Stn Cdrs inspections, not to mention on some flying days, the emptying of OC's briefcase and car of all inbound post, registry thereof and auctioning and distributing before shooting off to briefing and flying - oh and sometimes slipping in the odd OOPS , F700 and parachute check before going off with Bloggs, followed at day's end by refuel, washing aircraft and notifying issues to ACCGS Eng for work to be done.

Sometimes also the odd phone call to go in on day off when short staffed, and the issues of arranging continuous courses, Stn liaison , and ensuring that all our studes were medically fit, and had no logistics issues.

Add to all that, keep current, up to standard, go on courses, attend Stn flight safety meetings, check personnel CRB / DBS status, prepare for CFS checks documentation ..........

And then finally, on Monday go to work, after briefly reminding wife/ partner of your face, kissing kids goodnight. Mind you it did get a bit easier after the early retirement !

Would I do it again ? Yes oh yes, proud of what we achieved.

Do I think that our lords and masters truly understood the level of commitment and man hours ? No , no, never.

Were we appreciated by our students ? Absolutely yes, and many have gone on to become outstanding RAF pilots and generally outstanding people in many walks of life.

Would FTS be the answer ? No it may even take something away, and be divisive.

I sincerely hope that all of our valuable HR resource will start to be valued. Remember, it's not enough to think it, you have to say it and evidence it by your actions, so start engaging them in some consultation, not dictation.

Thorr

17th Nov 2015, 09:03

BB

Totally agree with your comments. Over the last 20 years or so the organisation has changed considerably to such extent that there is too much burden of expectation placed upon the volunteers to try and run the VGSs in-line with the requirements of the MAA. The 18 hour days is certainly something I recognise from my days on a VGS, and there was an ever increasing paperwork burden that just took time out of the flying. Furthermore, the organisation relied heavily on the goodwill of its volunteers and by extension their employers, to do additional mid-week work. No doubt the result of this pause will add further to this - such that it would be difficult for the organisation to continue as was.

Staffing is going to be a significant issue because you have lost at least 2 years worth of cadets going through the system who would become the staff cadets and instructors of the future. Some existing staff will no doubt also decide not to return, so you start from an much reduced base. Front loading staff training could be the answer, but you then just further delay the core training requirement. Even with a fair wind, I would suggest it is unlikely the VGSs will be in some semblance of normality before 2017.

The advantage of using FTRS - just as is done on the AEFs/UASs is that all that admin, maintenance and staff training burden is properly resourced so it is completed mid week, maximising the time available to undertake flying training on the weekend. Furthermore, increasing the number of week-long courses makes more efficient use of time. A residential course means you don't have cadets making multiple journeys to and from a VGS to complete their GS. Concentrated continuation training often results in a student achieving solo standard with fewer launches/hours. You also maximise use of the airframes, meaning that they are not sat in hangars 5-days a week, and you can potentially achieve the same output with fewer aircraft thereby reducing the maintenance burden. Likewise, fewer staff would be required, and so savings would be made from the T&E budget. You also making logistics and admin savings. Fewer sites, fewer medicals, fewer flying suits required, etc, etc, etc. I am not suggesting that cumulatively these savings will be enough to cover the increased staffing costs, however I think that the difference between the two would not be as great as suggested.

chevvron

17th Nov 2015, 09:44

That's an old issue, not been heard of for years. 🎬

So what are you trying to hide from that remark?

EnigmAviation

17th Nov 2015, 10:47

Nothing to hide, problem was fixed, honest Guv

Thorr

17th Nov 2015, 13:13

Could not the vigilant fleet be integrated into the UAS set up? Meaning the UAS staff deliver powered GS training? Is there anything the UAS currently does that couldn't necessary be achieved using the Vigilant (other than the aeros component)?

A and C

17th Nov 2015, 14:19

The Vigilant is a dead duck, it is not a cost effective solution due to the cost of the new engine required in the near future.

The current word on the street is that the G115 excess capacity will be used to give cadets more powered flying and the Viking recovery contractor will soon be announced, once the contract is in place the Viking recovery will ramp up.

Random Bloke

17th Nov 2015, 15:28

The Vigilant engine problem is apparently still an issue because it appears as a specific risk on the Vigilant Risk Register.

I am told that the ironic thing about the Vigilant is that the AOC 22 Group allocated the money to re-engine and refurbish the Vigilant fleet in 2012/13 but this programme was halted by HQ ACO so that they could do a 'study' into the future of gliding. By the time that study was finished (and I assume it concluded that they should carry on as normal) it appears that the money had been re-allocated because it hadn't been spent. It all suggests that if HQ ACO had just let 22 Group get on with it in the first place then the refurbishment programme would be well under-way by now.:ugh:

EnigmAviation

17th Nov 2015, 15:50

That's what I had heard, but under-used capacity of flying hours does not automatically convert into actual increase in Air Cadet flying availability, as AEF pilot availability is a limiting feature.

The chances of more than a very small handful of Grob 109B Vigilant Instructors convexing to add pilot capacity are somewhat remote.

Thus on paper, spare flying hours unused under the Babcock contract will result in a very small uplift in flown hours for Air Cadets, added to which they will be AE only and not instructional.

Net loss overall when compared to former Vigilant ops.

EnigmAviation

17th Nov 2015, 15:52

Whether it is or not, I experienced no engine problems whatsoever in may last few years ! Nonetheless, I fear the Vigilant may be doomed - as has been stated, the cash required to re-engine, the time required, and the fact that it is still a 20yr old airframe will probably result in it's demise.

Random Bloke

17th Nov 2015, 16:11

EnigmA,

According to 22 Group Orders, the rules as to who may fly the Tutor are very stringent. Pilots have to be either a qualified service pilot, ie awarded the full flying badge in the RAF, FAA or AAC (no, QGI wings don't count) or hold an ATPL.

I think you're right, very few Vigilant QGIs will be able to convert.

DC10RealMan

17th Nov 2015, 17:06

ATPL to fly a Tutor?

Surely some mistake?

If so "they" are crazy.

Random Bloke

17th Nov 2015, 17:42

DC10,

Nope; it's there in black & white. If not a Qualified Service Pilot (QSP) then an ATPL is required. I think there are still one or two non-QSP AEF pilots out in the sticks who have PPL or CPL but they will have 'grandfather rights'. All new non-QSP, AEF pilots need an ATPL. Even then, I suggest that it's not an automatic right of entry.

I suggest that perhaps it's not entirely the fault of the RAF, remember that the waiver to fly a public transport category aircraft (which the Tutor is, given its role) without a licence only applies to QSP (Rule 58? of the ANO).

Lima Juliet

17th Nov 2015, 19:09

I'm reasonably sure that a Nav with a PPL can also fly AEF in a Tutor - I know one! :ok:

I also think that Vigilant is probably now doomed. The extension for the engines from 2015 was for 2 years to 2017. With 2016 fast approaching then I suspect maybe a small number of low-houred Viggies will fly maybe at just Syerston? Sadly the engine extension has been squandered with the 'pause' and I believe it's unlikely that Grob will extend again...

As for Viking. I suspect there is still a long haul ahead. There is still not a single one airworthy nearly 20 months down the line. Also the newly bought Skylaunch winches do not have a clearance to operate the Viking from. Some test flying and amendment to the RTS and aircrew manual will be needed. I was hoping that this work would have been done during said 'pause' but I have seen no evidence that it has - anyone know for sure?

Seeing as it is the 75th Anniversary of Air Cadets in 2016 then they are cutting a bit fine to have something to crow about!!! :eek:

LJ

Random Bloke

17th Nov 2015, 19:28

LJ,

That was then and they probably have the grandfather rights I mentioned. Now it's QSP or ATPL.

Lima Juliet

17th Nov 2015, 22:21

I don't understand why you need an ATPL? There is no remuneration element, the aircraft is not operating on an AOC and is not a passenger carrying airliner. The pilot is doing this as a secondary duty outisde their primary duty. Some of the AEF flight profiles meets the intent of the EASA Introductory Flight - which only requires a PPL - https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/InformationNotice2015029.pdf

So is this another attempt to 'guild the lilley' or 'gold plate' by those that regulate Air Cadet flying? The Grobs are even on the Civilian register!!!

LJ

cats_five

18th Nov 2015, 06:22

ATPL to fly a Tutor?

Surely some mistake?

If so "they" are crazy.

The same sort of thinking that means our local ATC want full-cat instructors to fly cadets in our club gliders on what are AirEx fights.

Also astonished at "Also the newly bought Skylaunch winches do not have a
clearance to operate the Viking from."

When we got our Skylaunch there was some training for the winch drivers, for the glider end there was no additional training except a briefing it would happen a bit faster than before. The Skylaunch documentation includes the settings for the Grob 103, if they had the Viking changed so much it's different to launch that is the work of utter p*ll*cks.

ShyTorque

18th Nov 2015, 07:11

An ATPL to carry out basic flight instruction in a SEP? :confused:

I'd say that seems bizarre because the majority of currently employed civilian instructors on this category of aircraft are most likely to hold a CPL.

Random Bloke

18th Nov 2015, 07:25

It seems to indicative of a growing culture of over-regulation; because over-regulation makes things safer doesn't it? Of course it doesn't but it does satisfy the needs of those who "need to be seen to be doing something" to improve safety.

Demanding that ATC cadets can only be flown by BGA full category instructors is bizarre because the ACO and the BGA already have a mutually agreed conversion scheme for VGS instructors who want to gain a BGA rating. Providing the VGS instructor has a minimum of a FAI Silver C the Laws and Rules allow:

Current experience as an Air Cadet A or B category instructor,can be recognised towards an individual obtaining a BGA instructor rating. Air Cadets ‘A’ Category Instructors on conventional gliders who hold the qualifying experience required by the BGA may convert to a BGA Assistant Instructor Rating either by attending a BGA Assistant Instructors’ course, or by local training with a Regional Examiner (RE) or a Senior Regional Examiner (SRE), as necessary to reach the required standard. Other categories of Air Cadet instructor must complete the approved BGA course.

So, the ACO has agreed that its top rated VGS instructors are the equivalent of a BGA Assistant Instructor. They are also happy for cadets to be flown by graded pilots on VGS who may be cadets themselves. Why then does the ACO insist that an instructor at a BGA club has to be a Full Category (a higher qualification than exists in the ACO) to fly cadets?

Answers on a postcard...

A and C

18th Nov 2015, 08:35

To address some of your questions:-

You are correct that the public transport category of C of A has gone under EASA but some of the requirements for tighter operating standards remain under the ANO. As the aircraft in civil terms is being operated as a commercial venture it requires a pilot with at least a CPL unless it is operated under a military waver.

This is why a service pilot has to be up to wings standard, just think of the headlines in the Daily Mail if a cadet was killed and the pilot instructor was not qualified up to the basic RAF standard or if a civilian did not hold the basic civilian qualification for the civil operation of the type.

As for a financial interest in the Viking recovery program....... That is in the lap of the MoD and their contracts department as a few crumbs might indirectly fall my way. However a large slice of the loaf might come my way should the MoD opt for a sustainable Vigilant recovery program but a realistic view of the costs involved makes it a non-starter, the airframe recovery will cost the same as a Viking plus the the engine retrofit adds IRO £60k per copy. Add to this the aircraft having a civil type certificate and so is an immediate candidate for putting on the civil register so the aircraft is financially a very attractive candidate for disposal.

( it should be noted that the RAF policy of not shutting down the Vigilant engine in flight adds to the engine problem, in civilian hands the Gilder part of motor glider would no doubt be taken advantage of extending the engine life)

As much as my wallet would like to see a big Vigilant recovery program I see it as the wrong way to go for the Air Cadets, real gliding is a much better team building a exercise involving cadets occupied all day ( rather than sitting about the Crewroom waiting for their flight ) and the numbers stack up towards the Vikng recovery program with the money saved by not recovering the Vigilants ( and selling them ) being spent on other forms of cadet flying or new gliders.

Bigpants

18th Nov 2015, 08:52

One way forward might be to encourage cadet organisations to look at self build projects to get more youngsters engaged in aviation. Rather than bus a bunch of cadets to an AEF or VGS in the hope of a flight subject to weather and aircraft some bases should have a self build project underway for cadets to assist with.

For example, RAF Cosford has an AEF, VGS, Cadet HQ, gliding club, Joint Service Flying Club as well as being the home of RAF Engineering. I think it could also be a place for a self build project where, under supervision, cadets are shown how a basic glider or powered aeroplane is built. Cadets can then have a go at riveting, metal bashing and other trades before being allowed to do something live on the self build kit.

Once completed to the satisfaction of the LAA, BGA etc the self build aeroplane could be handed over to the club for use.

Sadly, the MOD is so risk averse they would wet themselves at the thought of teenagers building a glider or powered light aeroplane. When I was 17 there were still schools bungee launching kids in primary gliders from playing fields and as far as I know there were few serious incidents with these hops.

A and C

18th Nov 2015, 09:50

While I totally agree with your sentiments we now live in a society where the ambulance chasing lawyers and headline seeking journalists would wreck the career of anyone who takes any sort of calculated risk with that added bonus that the govenment is a bottomless money pit if they win in court.

The only way to go if you are a public servant and want to see your pension is to disguise any decision within committees and endless meetings to avoid any one person being responsible, there are some very good people in the RAF and cadet forced who are forced to drive daily through this sea of bull~*#! in order to make some sort of progress, they are hindered on one hand by "compliance" and on the other by endless budget cuts.

I have a great deal of respect for 99% of the RAF officers I have met and worked with but they have to operate in the environment they find thenselfs in, it is not a surprise to me that with all the pressures these people took their eye off the ATC glider ball while having to attend to front line duties.

I long for the days when I was a cadet, the risk assessment of cadet activities was done in my squadron but two guys one who's risk assessment training had been done at night over Berlin and the other at Arnem, these very tough men had common sence by the bucket load but I would bet that had something gone badly wrong their logic would have been torn apart in court by a modern ambulance chasing lawyer who has years to scrutinise a decision that had to be taken in seconds.

I'm sorry to say this Bigpants but you and me are just dinosaurs in this risk free PC fantasy that the lawyers have created to make a fast buck, sadly the real victims are the youth of today who have to turn to video games to get any sort of adventure and due to lack of risk exposure will become a danger to themselves as they will fail to develop any common sence of their own.

Arclite01

18th Nov 2015, 11:28

and the endgame is no-one does anything as they have institutional paralysis.
.................and societal paralysis

Which is where we are now.

The losers of course, being society and the institutions.................

Arc

Bigpants

18th Nov 2015, 12:33

Royal Aeronautical Society | Ercall Wood (http://aerosociety.com/Careers-Education/buildaplane/ercallwood)

I accept the points made in the previous posts. All the more disappointing is that a self build programme is underway at Ercallwood with the RAeS funded by Boeing.

The MOD and cadet forces could try something similar and Cosford the obvious place to start while Cranwell perhaps another possibility but as has been said it would require numerous committees to sit and consider and they would conclude it was "too risky".

Sook

18th Nov 2015, 12:47

I think that risk is fairly low down the list, after all schools manage to run the programme so it shouldn't be a problem for the ACO.

However I don't believe it could be run as a programme similar to AEF, rather it would have to be like the Aerospace Instructors or Junior Leaders courses. Cadets could be selected from around the Corps and attend one weekend a month over a year with possibly a week camp at the end to 'finish things off'. You could restrict the age range so that you can control your risk further (assuming a 17/18 year old is less dangerous than a 13 year old!). Running it this way would reduce the strain in the volunteer staffing resource (regular or ACO). Let's call the course Air Cadets Junior Engineers! We can even have a lanyard like the other courses - hi-vis orange and reflective white like a warning flag.:p

If you wanted to have some engineering 'hands on time', there is always plenty of time sitting around at AEFs waiting to fly and there are only so many times that you can watch Top Gun and Memphis Belle! Exercises could be provided to either be run by the supervising staff or perhaps something more in depth could be provided if suitable engineering support was available.

POBJOY

18th Nov 2015, 15:08

We already have a proven (until APL 2014) system that had worked well for decades and managed to keep up with changes in legislation.
The system started off with staff 'Volunteer and paid' that worked well together and always had the CADETS interests at heart.
BUT ! The system also had sound leadership and the Gliding Centres knocked out Cadet A&B during the week.
The amount of SCT was minimal and so were the issues in the actual performance of the schools/squadrons.
The system was not 'broken' and only needed some 'fine tuning' as the equipment changed. Even those schools that went slmg did so without a major hiccup which was not surprising as if adding a VW engine to a glider was not that groundbreaking technology and gliding clubs had been there and were still doing it.
I think the centres lost sight of the increasing paperwork scenario and therefore were too slow to input a suggestion that required a staffing increase/ improvement (poss non flying) as per normal RAF practice,and should have backed up the VGS feedback that the system needed to be kept simple and/or be staffed to cope.
The next bit is what i find difficult to understand. The ATC had/has a full time staffed Gliding Centre that also was/is the hub for equipment and training.
How could anyone in charge of that operation not have the knowledge that 'flagged up' deficiencies in the basic airworthiness situation that went back years. RECOVERY from where we are is again hampered by a total lack of leadership and tech ability where it counts (at the top). If the ATC has to go back to a total winch launch operation for a speedy recovery so be it,The Vig's will sell like hot cakes and they can then decide what/if there is a requirement for a future SLMG. Long term a VIG+ operation for AE would be fine and anyway the 'Aero's' bit is overstated for initial flights,so can be handled by the current AE G115 fleet.
I look at the pictures of Syerston and see a typical Head Office situation where the reason for the whole operation (Cadets) has been lost in an empire building scenario backed up with mega increases in websites and PR exercises that have FAILED to deliver the goods and also failed to back up the Schools that were so good at getting the job done.

Random Bloke

18th Nov 2015, 16:06

POBJOY.

It seems as though the flying side was watertight and that those that ran the organisation were doing a good job. After all, the transition to MAA regs etc appears to have been straightforward.

The issue with engineering seems to have set in following contractorisation when the engineering was taken out of the hands of those who run the organisation. They say that "a camel is a horse designed by a committee" in other words complex organisations can get things wrong. I am not sure how many moving parts there are in the engineering organisation but as a starter for 10, I reckon: the MAA, the RAF, the contractor, the PT, HQ ACO and the design organisations. All of these can drop the ball but with so many it is difficult to tell when and where it has been dropped. I wouldn't mind betting that part of the recovery solution has been to chuck even more engineers and organisations at the problem - each with their own agendas. Just because there are so many engineers attacking the problem I looked up on Google the collective noun for a bunch of engineers - it came up with an "Awkward of Engineers".

I feel for them actually. Having declared the aircraft as not airworthy they're going to have to make damn sure that they are, and they can prove it, before they put them back in the sky.

Mechta

18th Nov 2015, 17:05

Going to an aluminium tube and fabric three-axis microlight instead of a the composite construction of the current fleet, would certainly make inspections easier. This current debacle would probably have been sorted out months ago if the airframes had almost no composite parts.

In 1985, three-axis microlights were only just getting to grips with 'Section S' and very, very few had four stroke engines, so it would have been inappropriate to use them for Air Cadet flying. These days things are very different, and a proven design which could be assembled by cadets under the supervision of experienced engineers, as happens in the LAA's School 'Build a Plane' Project could result in cadets with a far better understanding of the aircraft in which they fly. An aluminium tube and fabric airframe would also be easier to adapt to an airframe parachute, which is appropriate both for the way the aircraft is used and who is being carried.

Even allowing for all the contractors, its probably fair to say that there are still more engineers & technicians than pilots in the RAF. At present the Air Cadets seem to focus solely on the flying and not the skills required to keep their aircraft airworthy.