Air Cadets grounded? [Archive] - Page 5

Cat Funt

22nd Nov 2015, 12:30

Will be interesting to see what SDSR has to say about the Defence Estate as this will have considerable bearing on what happens next. Some of the prime sites, identified by 2 FTS in the original recovery plan as potential regional hubs to bring VGSs back into currency, are vulnerable since what makes them attractive for flying gliders (i.e. quiet airfields) is also what makes them vulnerable for the axe.

Someone here has already suggested that Hullavington is for the chop. It may be hard to justify a business case for Little Ris also, even though 2 FTS are already spending money on a new hangar and new facilities there. Any plan for provision of gliding with regional centres would be dealt a crippling blow as it leaves very little in the Southwest UK. Loss of the Vigilants would see the ACO lose Chivenor, Swansea, St Athan, Little Ris and Abingdon. If both Hullavington and Little Ris go, then West of the M4/M25 interchange, 2 FTS would be pretty much left with two Viking sqns: 622 at Upavon (tiny airfield) and 626 at Predannack (miles from anyone).

I've also heard rumours that Linton is to be closed, which would then logically bring Topcliffe into question also. That's another 3 Vigilant Sqns: 1 (642) at Linton, 2 (635 and 643) at Topcliffe, homeless and no cover for the North of England beyond 631's reach at Woodvale, which has a busy enough circuit already with two UASs.

A and C

22nd Nov 2015, 12:59

Far too much gloom & doom on this thread......... I have no doubt that good news is just over the horizon.

Lima Juliet

22nd Nov 2015, 13:47

Current plan is for Linton to close by the end of the decade as basic fast jet flying training moves to Valley under MFTS - announced this time last year.

LJ

Lima Juliet

22nd Nov 2015, 13:53

By the way, this was my prediction on the SDSR Rumour thread:

Seeing as the Air Cadet Gliding Organisations are in 'rag order' then I suggest the following might play out. The loss of the Vigilant due to cost of rectification and upgraded engine requirements, which leads to a loss of VGS (and closure of airfields) at:

Abingdon Airfield, Dalton Barracks (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
Arbroath Airfield, RMB Condor (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
Chivenor Airfield, RMB Chivenor (ties in with the loss of SAR so airfield will shut)
RAF Cosford (airfield stays open as UAS/AEF continues)
RAF Halton (airfield stays open as JSAT(G) and Recruit AEF continues)
RAF Henlow (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
RAF Honington (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
Kinloss Airfield, Kinloss Barracks (remains open as crash div for Lossiemouth)
RAF Linton on Ouse (already due for closure under MFTS)
RAF Little Rissington (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
Newtonards Airfield (Vigilants will go from civvy airfield)
RAF Odiham (airfield stays open for JHC activity)
RAF St Athan (recently announced closure as RAF Cosford becomes the centre of RAF tech trg)
Swansea Airport (Vigilants will go from civvy airport)
RAF Topcliffe, Allanbrooke Barracks (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
RAF Tern Hill (airfield stays open for DHFS activities)
RAF Woodvale (airfield stays open for UAS/AEF)

However, RAF Kenley, MDP Wethersfield, RNAS Predannack and RAF Kirknewton currently operate the Viking and are outwith any day to day full-time support from the military. So this could see the Viking introduced at RAF Cosford, RAF Halton, Kinloss, RAF Odiham, RAF Woodvale, RAF Topcliffe and RAF Tern Hill where DIO currently has to support an airfield with other on-going public funded flying.

So savings made through the closure of airfields at:
Abingdon, Arbroath (RMB Condor), RMB Chivenor, RAF Henlow, RAF Honington, RAF Little Rissington, RAF Kenley, RAF Topcliffe, MDP Wethersfield and RAF Kirknewton. The sale of this land could see a nice return of revenue to the Treasury. The sale of St Athan and RAF Linton on Ouse has already been announced.

Future Air Cadet gliding could be available at:

RAF Cosford
RAF Halton
Hullavington Airfield, Buckley Barracks
Kinloss Airfield, Kinloss Barracks
RAF Odiham
RNAS Predannack or RMB Chivenor (TBD)
RAF Syerston (HQ 2FTS)
RAF Tern Hill
Upavon Airfield, Trenchard Lines
RAF Woodvale

With the possibility of opening up Air Cadet gliding on the following sites:

RAF Leuchars (Waterloo Barracks - currently Lossie weather div and home of UAS/AEF and fills loss of Kirknewton)
RAF Leeming (capacity for weekend gliding and fills loss of Linton and Topcliffe)
RAF St Athan - keep an enclave for South Wales for VGS/UAS/AEF

So that's 13 locations delivering gliding with ~80 Vikings. So approximately 4 per VGS and always around 15-20 in servicing.

Then, with MFTS coming on line, then the excess Tutors could go to the AEFs to offer extra flying to the increased numbers of the Air Cadets.

Right, that's the Air Cadets sorted out...

...now for the rest.

I'm hearing rumours on a need to re-open the WSO pipeline and an increase in WSOps plus more pilots (FJ and ME with the possibility of crossing over some RW pilots) and that means the following is most likely coming:

- More Reapers under Project SCAVENGER
- Run on of the Tornado GR4 awaiting delivery of some more Typhoons
- A maritime patrol aircraft (P8 or other)
- MFTS expansion to deliver increased manpower (with more QFIs needed)
- Increase in techies going through RAF Cosford (which is why DCTT Lyneham has ceased)

I think we will see the reduction of Field Sqns in the RAF Regt. I would hope we see Admin branches (Scribbly, Trg and PEd) thinned dwon into FTRS and Civil Service posts.

I was wrong about Hullavington by the looks of it but let's see if I'm right this coming week...

chevvron

22nd Nov 2015, 13:56

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.
3 axis micros were used to fly ATC cadets in Herts & Bucks Wing in the 90s - see my earlier posts. The short lived Microlight Flying Scholarship scheme used aircraft with 2 -stroke engines (Konig as HQAC - not CFS) took a dislike to the Rotax engines, and was evaluated by CFS prior to it commencing.

POBJOY

22nd Nov 2015, 15:40

LJ The Pred rather lost the cred factor very quickly with me when i saw your 'appraisal' of RAF Kenley.
No land sale value as it is owned by the City of London as a common and would revert to that if the MOD had no further use.
Not only that but of 'all' the Squadrons Kenley is actually best placed for a very high concentration of Cadets and is served by an excellent Road and Rail system.
It has been devoid of 'on site' facilities since 1959 and thrived ever since.
Thats before we mention it is the best preserved 11 Group Battle of Britain airfield left and any attempt to sever this precious connection with our heritage would be met by an even more vigorous campaign than that seen on this thread.

As it happens Kenley is a real survivor so is not going to be concerned about the LJ factor.It was built on a common for the great war (Aircraft Park),and kept on under the defence of the realm act;upgraded for WW2 and survived the famous low level raid on the 18th Aug 1940 to provide an ongoing offensive base for 'wing' operations. 615 VGS proudly carries on the County of Surrey number and itself survived the loss of its Belfast shed (1978)(with all its equipment) and a hangar snow collapse later with the glass fleet.ANY FURTHER ATTEMPT TO CLOSE IT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. Nothing personal LJ but dont even think about it.

paul m

22nd Nov 2015, 18:27

LJ, Halton too short AC winch Ops.

Random Bloke

22nd Nov 2015, 18:36

Halton was long enough for ACO winch operations when the VGS were equipped with winch-launched gliders. It is also long enough for RAFGSA winch operations with gliders that are bigger than the Grob 103. Therefore it is clearly long enough for ACO winch-launch operations.

RUCAWO

22nd Nov 2015, 18:49

#1026 (http://www.pprune.org/9188254-post1026.html) (permalink (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/538497-air-cadets-grounded-52.html#post9188254)) Leon Jabachjabicz (http://www.pprune.org/members/15591-leon-jabachjabicz)

Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057

By the way, this was my prediction on the SDSR Rumour thread:

Quote:
Seeing as the Air Cadet Gliding Organisations are in 'rag order' then I suggest the following might play out. The loss of the Vigilant due to cost of rectification and upgraded engine requirements, which leads to a loss of VGS (and closure of airfields) at:

Abingdon Airfield, Dalton Barracks (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
Arbroath Airfield, RMB Condor (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
Chivenor Airfield, RMB Chivenor (ties in with the loss of SAR so airfield will shut)
RAF Cosford (airfield stays open as UAS/AEF continues)
RAF Halton (airfield stays open as JSAT(G) and Recruit AEF continues)
RAF Henlow (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
RAF Honington (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
Kinloss Airfield, Kinloss Barracks (remains open as crash div for Lossiemouth)
RAF Linton on Ouse (already due for closure under MFTS)
RAF Little Rissington (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
Newtonards Airfield (Vigilants will go from civvy airfield)
RAF Odiham (airfield stays open for JHC activity)
RAF St Athan (recently announced closure as RAF Cosford becomes the centre of RAF tech trg)
Swansea Airport (Vigilants will go from civvy airport)
RAF Topcliffe, Allanbrooke Barracks (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
RAF Tern Hill (airfield stays open for DHFS activities)
RAF Woodvale (airfield stays open for UAS/AEF)

However, RAF Kenley, MDP Wethersfield, RNAS Predannack and RAF Kirknewton currently operate the Viking and are outwith any day to day full-time support from the military. So this could see the Viking introduced at RAF Cosford, RAF Halton, Kinloss, RAF Odiham, RAF Woodvale, RAF Topcliffe and RAF Tern Hill where DIO currently has to support an airfield with other on-going public funded flying.

So savings made through the closure of airfields at:
Abingdon, Arbroath (RMB Condor), RMB Chivenor, RAF Henlow, RAF Honington, RAF Little Rissington, RAF Kenley, RAF Topcliffe, MDP Wethersfield and RAF Kirknewton. The sale of this land could see a nice return of revenue to the Treasury. The sale of St Athan and RAF Linton on Ouse has already been announced.

Future Air Cadet gliding could be available at:

RAF Cosford
RAF Halton
Hullavington Airfield, Buckley Barracks
Kinloss Airfield, Kinloss Barracks
RAF Odiham
RNAS Predannack or RMB Chivenor (TBD)
RAF Syerston (HQ 2FTS)
RAF Tern Hill
Upavon Airfield, Trenchard Lines
RAF Woodvale

With the possibility of opening up Air Cadet gliding on the following sites:

RAF Leuchars (Waterloo Barracks - currently Lossie weather div and home of UAS/AEF and fills loss of Kirknewton)
RAF Leeming (capacity for weekend gliding and fills loss of Linton and Topcliffe)
RAF St Athan - keep an enclave for South Wales for VGS/UAS/AEF

So that's 13 locations delivering gliding with ~80 Vikings. So approximately 4 per VGS and always around 15-20 in servicing.

Then, with MFTS coming on line, then the excess Tutors could go to the AEFs to offer extra flying to the increased numbers of the Air Cadets.

Right, that's the Air Cadets sorted out...

...now for the rest.

I'm hearing rumours on a need to re-open the WSO pipeline and an increase in WSOps plus more pilots (FJ and ME with the possibility of crossing over some RW pilots) and that means the following is most likely coming:

- More Reapers under Project SCAVENGER
- Run on of the Tornado GR4 awaiting delivery of some more Typhoons
- A maritime patrol aircraft (P8 or other)
- MFTS expansion to deliver increased manpower (with more QFIs needed)
- Increase in techies going through RAF Cosford (which is why DCTT Lyneham has ceased)

I think we will see the reduction of Field Sqns in the RAF Regt. I would hope we see Admin branches (Scribbly, Trg and PEd) thinned dwon into FTRS and Civil Service posts.

I was wrong about Hullavington by the looks of it but let's see if I'm right this coming week...

And again , exactly where do the cadets in Northeren Ireland get any gliding with this idea?
Newtownards must be the most cost effective, no airfield maintenance costs, building provided and maintained by RFCA NI, our AEF to Woodvale is now a total joke ,reduced from 24 a visit to six and for that six it costs around £1000 a time to get them over with usually no one getting to fly . England is not the only place the ATC exists!

chevvron

22nd Nov 2015, 18:55

LJ, Halton too short AC winch Ops.

1200m too short?

kaitakbowler

22nd Nov 2015, 19:10

Re the AMF glider trailer, ISTR they were procured by the ACO with no reference to proper MT procurement procedure, I was I/C MTMS at Newton at the time and when the first one arrived Syerston gave it to us and said get it registered. Support Cmd played along and did the business (they were not happy, but did). The adjustable tow hitch was a problem from day one, the tie downs inside always gave trouble, one glider was making its escape thru the back doors on the A1, when the crew were overtaken by another RAF vehicle and waved down.

The damage to the trailer in the advert was not the usual damage, failing to tighten the joints on the intermediate strut was more usual.

The other two wheeled AMF trailer was a nightmare, required careful load distribution to stop it snaking. The trailers "designer" AF himself came up to demonstrate its stability and frightened himself fa*Tless when towing behind a LWB LR. Had to issue sandbags to the ACCGS to ballast them.

POBJOY

22nd Nov 2015, 20:28

Shade under (similar Kenley) but no width and well used by fixed wing club and GSA.
Prob not ideal due 'sharing' situation.
Kenley's length assisted by being on a 'high spot' in its area and 'catching the wind';which kept the barges in on days that would help the Vik.

campbeex

22nd Nov 2015, 20:32

If a 1200m run at Halton is too short then however did we cope with the Viking at an airfield north of the border with it's runs measuring a smidge under 1000m.

Portmoak was shorter still, but still very much usable.

KPax

22nd Nov 2015, 20:49

Rumour in Shropshire is that Ternhill will lose it's VGS and possibly close the airfield altogether.

scarecrow450

22nd Nov 2015, 21:26

Ternhill is too important for DHFS, possibly a reduction in days its opened but
its needed.

Lima Juliet

22nd Nov 2015, 22:28

Messenger duly shot - hey, people, this is only my predictiom of what will be the outcome of this week's SDSR. who knows what will actually play out?

LJ

PS. 1200m is plenty. Don't forget that ACO activity would get priority over service flying clubs at weekends as well - they are encroachments using spare capacity on the defence estate.

POBJOY

22nd Nov 2015, 23:11

Hey LJ we have to keep our eye in for when the real targets bother to show themselves. (If they ever do).Meanwhile at Syerston a very large crystal ball has arrived for forecasting future ATC requirements.It is parked in its own space in the workshops for peace and quiet.

Cat Funt

23rd Nov 2015, 02:33

I can't envisage Cardiff Airport allowing the return of winch-launch gliders to St Athan. They were pulled from there in the early 2000s. They are being precious enough with plans to build up GA activity there and they're a frequent pain in UWAS's posterior these days.

If cadets return to string-flinging only, then acquiring and maintaining appropriate real estate will be a big problem and many cadets will will face very, very long trips to get there and that would likely cause fatigue problems for weekend courses. This would then lead to increasing pressure for midweek courses, which then puts additional pressure on volunteer staff. I can't see any situation, given a chronic manning crisis in all three services, whereby they would start hiring a sizeable cabre of full-time instructors. Nor would the idea of pulling kids out of school in term time be very popular with many schools and colleges. This s to say nothing of being unable to use busy stations like ODI regularly during the week. Even Tern Hill, being a satellite of Shawbs (And correspondingly Predannack/Culdrose for the Andrew) would be unusable most of the time midweek.

As expensive as a Vigilant refit may be, there is a very good reason why, at the time of the pause, only 7 squadrons used the Viking, despite there being a surplus of airframes. Little 626 down only the Lizard went from a 2a/c establishment to 5 or 6 not because there was a big expansion to Plymouth and Cornwall Wing, but because HQACO realised that nobody else could use them.

Arclite01

23rd Nov 2015, 09:07

Cat

You have some very good points there. None that I would disagree with.

Arc

teeteringhead

23rd Nov 2015, 09:53

I can't envisage Cardiff Airport allowing the return of winch-launch gliders to St Athan. They were pulled from there in the early 2000s. Main reason for losing the winch-launched gliders at Saints was the erection of the White Elephant (sorry - Red Dragon ;)) Hangar which was in the middle of what was effectively the North/South strip they used.

Being confined to the East/West concrete - shared with all sorts of other stuff at the time - meant Vigis were the better bet......

Still never understood why the Vigis could fly without (professional) ATC in the Tower, but Tutors couldn't ...... :confused:

POBJOY

23rd Nov 2015, 11:49

Sad that with 2016 bearing down upon us we are still no further forward to seeing substantial progress with 'enabling' the ATC GLIDING operation.
I say GLIDING as that is what we are/were engaged with,and it is the potential 'simplicity' of the operation that has been its champion for over 7 decades.
However an often overlooked scenario is the competence of how the whole operation worked with w-end volunteer staff spread across the country frequently without normal 'service' facilities.
Well it did/does work because the 'Schools' had/have solid competent leadership that knew what was/is required, and a system that allowed those who were capable and keen to develop their own ability in an environment that provided the correct amount of encouragement and safe practice.Above all they had continuity of capability not seen even in the services as people stayed for years and passed on experience and good practice.
It is this complete lack of continuity and competence at the TOP that see's us in the present position, and unless someone who actually knows what is required (and understands how) IS PUT IN POST the system will not be able to heal itself.
The expertise is within the VGS operation who have a proven track record of providing a safe service to Cadets.Unless this pool of competence is used to aid a recovery plan the current 'Team at the top' will destroy decades of good work.

Random Bloke

23rd Nov 2015, 15:30

Go on then POBJOY, put your money where your mouth is and write to Comdt ACO and offer your services.

Arclite01

23rd Nov 2015, 15:53

POBJOY

Sadly I think that in these days of defence cuts and numbers the RAF now wants to 'own' the VGS to pad out the skinny body. The impact of this is that the VGS now has to be run as an FTS more along the lines of the regular air force rather than at arms length and seen as a 'bast@rd son' as in the past............

It means that the old ways will be swept away and not referred to in future. And in a few years it will be like it never existed in a previous form.................

Not progress in my view but sadly the direction I am sure it will take.

Arc

POBJOY

23rd Nov 2015, 16:39

Sadly RBloke their Comms system is even more broken than the ability to operate aircraft, as i have had no acknowledgement to my prev missive yet.
Anyway i am not suggesting 'my services' but the input of those that have been operating the system at the 'coal face' for years.

Arc If the RAF want to do that they should be more honest with the advertising
rather than suggest (as they do) that the operation is essentially a volunteer effort. The Squadrons have not been deficient in their operations and indeed have coped very well with varying resources; as stated before it is the PAID STAFF that are deficient in providing the competence in back up services.

Quite frankly as an 'ex member' who is still current in aviation i just look at the 'Badge Stitching' nonsense as an example of how out of touch the system has got. Having said that i never felt the need for badges anyway; that was a 'Scout' thing!.

A and C

23rd Nov 2015, 17:24

You may find that any reluctance to reply to your letter is because an honest answer would breach the requirement for commercial confidentiality that is required by the MoD when contracts are put out to tender.

Things are moving on the contract front so the last thing needed in this sorry situation is for a company that fails to get the contract for the glider recovery program to cry foul in the courts sighting unfair treatment because an officer has revealed commercaly sensitive data before the contract process is complete.

If a company did cry foul in the courts it would result in the whole contract having to be re-run and a further delay of 6-9 months.

longer ron

23rd Nov 2015, 19:04

As I alluded to in my previous post - I believe this is sort of going to 'plan'.
A massive 'review' of Air Cadet gliding ops being carried out whilst there is no flying capability - because the 'safety case' has been invoked.
There is simply too much going on for it to be a mere coincidence - the 'volunteer' side has been scuppered and there was seemingly nobody from the top brass 'onside' to have helped when needed !

rgds LR

POBJOY

23rd Nov 2015, 20:28

Well I sent a very polite missive that contained some pertinent FACTS that could not be disputed.
Although not sent by registered mail i did obtain 'proof of posting' just to have the record.
It would have been entirely in order to have had an 'acknowledgement' of receipt,even if a detailed reply was not available at the time.

To have no replies suggests:- Lost in the 'system', To close to the truth, ignore it and it will go away, wait to xmas eve and then make official statement.

Either way it hardly gives one confidence that anyone 'up top' has any idea of what is going on or has been appraised of the deficiency embedded therein.

Lots of full time people are being paid lots of money to run this 'facility' for the benefit of the Cadet Organisation. To have failed in such a spectacular fashion with no apparent 'questions' begs speculation that the situation is not unusual.

Shell Management

23rd Nov 2015, 21:14

Tomorrow at the RAeS

Airworthiness & Maintenance Group Workshop

How can the integrity of airworthiness accountability be ensured through contracts for services?

Speakers from Serco, their training provider Baines Simmons and the RAF, with a lawyer.

This half day workshop will build upon the outcomes of the last Airworthiness & Maintenance Group conference which was entitled 'Outsourcing Aircraft Support = Abdicating the Airworthiness Accountability?' and took place in October 2014. This event explored accountability and responsibility for airworthiness in the context of sub-contracted services.

5 Issues were identified that
affected airworthiness in the context of sub-contracted services:

The Definition of Accountability
The understanding of the definition of accountability varies between organisations. Different outsourcing models make it ever more challenging.

Organisational Complexity
Complex and bespoke arrangements, especially in the military context, between organisations in the supply chain mean that outputs are unpredictable when designing a support solution and it is difficult for one individual to be certain of compliance.

Contracts and Agreements
Formal agreements between operators, CAMOs, HUA providers etc are key to improving the way accountability and clarity is assured. There is a need to focus more on interfaces and the product. Hence
Contracts/IBAs/SLAs are key to this and should help to underpin assurance, although it shouldn’t be forgotten that they will only work if backed up with good communications and relationships.

Approvals and Oversight
Approvals are only good at ‘the point when the ink is drying’. Accountable managers need to review them personally and to examine their context to understand whether they can be relied upon – eg how old is the approval? This requirement for oversight activity needs to be included in formal arrangements. ‘Performance
Based Environment’ is the title of an EASA document which will place a requirement on accountable managers to ensure that their management system is effective.

Evidence for Decision Making
In many situations there is a lack of evidence to underpin airworthiness decisions. An example is the situation
with pooled parts. This issue is less of a hazard when parts are new but increases with age. Building in access to evidence, eg strip reports, reliability reports, QMS outputs at the contract stage is key.
Relationship building also plays a key part. If the CAMO does not have access to the QMS outputs then they will need to be replicated.:E

See more at: Royal Aeronautical Society | Event | Airworthiness & Maintenance Group Workshop (http://aerosociety.com/Events/Event-List/2205/Airworthiness-Maintenance-Group-Workshop#sthash.cRILuKJL.dpuf)

Shell Management

23rd Nov 2015, 21:31

What seems to be missing in this sorry case is effective compliance monitoring.

longer ron

23rd Nov 2015, 21:47

Probably more than just lacking compliance monitoring in this particular case SM !

Good communications and relationships are completely missing in this case - they are vital and it is a team effort to get aircraft out of the door these days !

Contracts/IBAs/SLAs are key to this and should help to underpin assurance, although it shouldn’t be forgotten that they will only work if backed up with good communications and relationships.

Of course how hard people try rather depends on what the required end game actually is !

Chugalug2

23rd Nov 2015, 21:59

CM:-
What seems to be missing in this sorry case is effective compliance monitoring. What is missing (never mind "seems") in UK Military Airworthiness compliance (never mind "monitoring") are an independent Regulator and an independent Investigator, both of the Operator (the MOD) and of each other. How is compliance supposed to work when the Regulations are thrown onto the scrap heap by those whose duty it is to enforce them?

Haraka

24th Nov 2015, 17:40

So, as I see it,:
On the one hand,the qualification and certification paperwork trail, required procedures and necessarily involved entities continues to ever expand . On the other hand, the Nation's original capacity to build all its own military and civilian aircraft has continued to decline, to the extent that it is now unable to produce , not even a basic trainer, but even an acceptable indigenous powered glider to meet its own local commitments.

Unfair to so many I know, some who will smile at my obvious naivete , but it resonates in my tiny skull........

A and C

24th Nov 2015, 18:36

While you exaggerate the situation somewhat you are headed in the right direction, the situation within the whole of UK industry is one of endless meetings with the only firm decision to have another meeting, the participants are fearful of any decision that could be attributed to them personally and so aim to push any sort of decision so far down the line that no one can remember who decided it was a good idea.

A charismatic and firm leader is what is required to kill the meeting culture dead, the best example I can think of is John Bloor who has taken Triumph Motorcycles from a basket case to a serious international success........ But it took twenty years to do so.

Krystal n chips

25th Nov 2015, 05:34

Given the many and varied sentiments expressed on this thread, there is a certain unintended and unfortunate irony to the theme (s) of this years Cosford Air Show..

Themes (http://www.cosfordairshow.co.uk/themes.php)

It will be interesting to see what appears, on the ground, and in the air, therefore.

POBJOY

25th Nov 2015, 07:58

Quite cunning plan.
Plenty of original T61 Ventures (in original scheme) that can be asked to 'fly in' for a 'reunion'.No chance of another sudden 'pausing' to spoil the day and lots of machines on show to impress the public.Well done Baldrick and we do not even have to check with Syerston. Chippies can aerotow in 621 Historic flight just to finish the job. A wonderful tribute to common sense and a real Venture Adventure.

teeteringhead

25th Nov 2015, 09:21

And I believe that there are also plans to have at Cosford (civilian owned) Chippies and Bulldogs in AEF (Raspberry Ripple) colours .........

bobward

25th Nov 2015, 09:37

When we went to Innsbruck a couple of years ago, I was surprised to see they were winch launching gliders to the north side of the runway at Innsbruck International Airport. The gliders kept to the north side, and didn't get in the way when EasyJet etc were trogging in and out. Never happen here though, will it??

Chugalug2

25th Nov 2015, 09:45

A and C:-
A charismatic and firm leader is what is required to kill the meeting culture dead, the best example I can think of is John Bloor who has taken Triumph Motorcycles from a basket case to a serious international success........ But it took twenty years to do so. Nail, hammer, hammer, nail! The MOD has got itself into a deadend as far as Military Airworthiness is concerned. Having ordered the suborning of Regulation and Enforcement, as well as ensuring the compliance of Investigation, its solution now is the MAA/MilAAIB, which will ensure that the dysfunction simply continues. Why does it do that? Simply to protect those who first caused the sabotage of Military Air Safety and those who have covered it up since. The system has to be rebuilt from the ground up and outwith the MOD, which is an Air Safety hazard in its own right.

As you say, it needs a leader to make that happen, another Trenchard, Dowding, or indeed Bloor. The rot permeates the body military, with many tainted by association, others have seen their careers ruined, their health broken, for daring to resist illegal orders. There is now at least enough common sense not to needlessly risk non-military lives (cadets in this case), which is an improvement on the reckless use of a grossly and knowingly unairworthy aircraft to take 25 pax fishing. Yet another tragedy that has never been properly investigated, where evidence was suppressed, where willing witnesses were not called, where deceased crew were made scapegoats for a decade and a half.

Someone has to tackle this situation which has now morphed into the pointless bureaucratic paper shuffling exercise complained of here. Someone...?

Arclite01

25th Nov 2015, 10:45

Chug

Escalation would be to the Politicians who are supposedly the 'Lords and Masters of the Military'. Since they are equally complicit in the 'paper-trail-arse-covering-not-on-my-watch-mate' process you would get absolutely no-where.

We are no in a society where a decision not to make a decision is seen as a good decision and a good career move by many...........

It's not going to change quickly I'm afraid. We could set up a 'leak enquiry' though as per 'Yes Minister'

Awesome Eh !

Arc

Chugalug2

25th Nov 2015, 11:23

Oh, it has already escalated to SoS level, Arclite. From minister downwards it has been officially declared, in writing, that to issue an order to disregard mandated regulations but to sign them off as complied with is lawful, and that to disobey such an order is an offence.

I have no doubt that you are correct, that we face an impossible situation, but when did that ever stop the Royal Air Force achieving a good result? It faced total extinction post WWI. It faced total annihilation in 1940. On both occasions with good leadership it turned the situation around in its favour. I grant that this time round that the enemy within, its own Star Chamber, is as tough a nut to crack as any, but it can and has to succeed.

An Air Force riddled with unairworthiness carries the seeds of its own destruction. 62 people have died in airworthiness related accidents featured on this forum alone. The RAF lost its entire MAR fleet, and lost numerous other aircraft that had deficiencies common with yet others.

The greatest loss of all though was that of the cadre of trained and experienced engineers with Airworthiness responsibilities. Because their whole raison d'etre was knowledge of the Regulations and the importance of complying with them, the VSO's (almost solely RAF) who carried out this sabotage had no option but to divest themselves of these turbulent priests and replace them with non-engineers who were without training or experience. Within a generation all was lost, knowledge, experience, and even the Regulations themselves. The MAA has been trying to rebuild their house since by re-inventing the wheel and dreaming up new regs which are poor facsimiles of the old ones. The result is the army of apparatchiks that now purport to be Military Air Safety.

Airworthiness is primarily about continuity, about a constant process of technical auditing. Once you break that continuity, especially over a period of decades, you cannot declare any system, any aircraft, to be airworthy. That is the dilemma facing UK Military Aviation today. As I say an impossible situation, so a challenge I'll grant you, but beyond overcoming by the Royal Air Force? I refuse to believe that. We have been saved before by good leadership and we will be saved again by someone who will lead. Someone...?

John Purdey

25th Nov 2015, 14:37

Chugalug. I think you and I have been here before, but please give us chapter and verse for "From minister downwards it has been officially declared, in writing, that to issue an order to disregard mandated regulations but to sign them off as complied with is lawful, and that to disobey such an order is an offence.[/B][/I] Regards JP

Chugalug2

25th Nov 2015, 15:51

JP, I am very loathe to encourage you to post yet again a never ending list of questions while you in turn answer none, as was your custom on the Mull thread. As you say we have been around this buoy many times. Having said that the latest "chapter and verse" which you seek was a written ruling from the Cabinet Secretary dated 28th October 2014. That should be provenance enough, so why don't you just seek confirmation from him?

Perhaps though your time might be better spent looking at the act which started the systemic failures, the policy of conscious waste which forced the "savings at the expense of safety" noted by Mr Haddon-Cave.

If you are so minded, you could seek access to letter of promulgation D/DDSS11(RAF)/48/9 dated 30th November 1987, or perhaps go back further to the internal RAF correspondence of June 1987 when the policy of waste was being formulated. In particular, D/DDSS11(RAF) 24/1 dated 8th June 1987, and D/DDSS11(RAF)/24/2 dated 23rd June 1987 (and 20th October 1987). However, you are of course aware of these as they were noted in evidence to Haddon-Cave, and SUBMITTED in evidence to the Mull of Kintyre Review.

dervish

25th Nov 2015, 17:05

Chugalug

Brilliant! :ok::D The November one makes the RAF organisation concerned, and its boss, look idiotic.

Chugalug2

25th Nov 2015, 21:04

BB, forgive me, but I thought that this thread is about the grounding of the VGS fleet due to airworthiness concerns. The cause of those concerns, in not only that fleet but others of the RAF, may seem ancient to you but is very much present in its effects today.

Many of the young people who have been cheated of the thrill of being at the controls for the first time may want to know why, even if you don't. I agree that to them the cause may indeed be ancient, but its effects are being felt by them right now and if as we hope they still join the RAF the effects will go on being felt by them, unless and until Military Airworthiness and Air Accident Investigation be wrested from the MOD and made independent of it and of each other.

Chugalug2

25th Nov 2015, 22:22

BB:-
That's how the thread started, it's moved on to the recovery and the future for the organisation.Moved on by you, BB? Threads I grant move to and fro, often with loud shrills of "thread drift", but this is the first time I've been accused of thread drift for posting re the OP! How does your recovery work without aircraft anyway?

You may not like what I write, to be honest I'd much prefer to feel not compelled to. There have been threads here re fatal accidents concerning Nimrod, Hercules, Chinook, Tornado, Sea King and the MB Mk10 seat. I think that on every one I, and others like me, have been invited to post elsewhere. This was about their world, so butt out! Yet each of those accidents had two things in common, unairworthiness and lost lives; 14, 10, 29, 2, 7, and 1 respectively. 63 needless and avoidable deaths.

That is why your aircraft are grounded and, before rearranging the deckchairs, you need to take that on board. It is very easy to ground a fleet, but very difficult to get it off the ground again, especially when the problem is systemic rather than purely technical. Just saying...

Chugalug2

25th Nov 2015, 22:46

I have none, other than to return RAF fleets (including VGS ones) to full airworthiness by the reforms I previously mentioned. What can be done in the interim will fall to the likes of you, I suspect.

I'm just the messenger, so shoot me if you will, but others on thread might be interested in the back story to what has befallen the Air Cadets Organisation. I was one once, and remember the thrill of first solo in a Cadet glider at Christchurch. If I'd been told on my first day that there would be no gliding for me, today or any other, I would want to know why. There are people to blame and it is because they are protected that the problem is not confronted, even by the MAA. Just in case you were interested...

A and C

26th Nov 2015, 08:39

I think once the recovery contract has been awarded, the dust has settled and servisable gliders take to the sky's the real truth will surface.

Chugalug2

26th Nov 2015, 09:46

A and C, if the recovery contract is for aircraft on the civilian register which will thus be regulated by the CAA, and if necessary to be investigated by the AAIB, then that is indeed a solution that should provide for an early return of Air Cadets to the skies, I agree.

If they are still to be military registered aircraft the problem remains, and I for one cannot see that happening anytime soon, I'm afraid. It is one thing for RAF aircraft operated by Service crews to remain flying, they clearly have to. It is quite another for civilians, especially teenagers, to be exposed to the dangers of present day UK Military Airworthiness.

cats_five

26th Nov 2015, 10:03

The Vikings are on the military register. If they were to be transferred to the civilian register, the paperwork etc. would have to be all in order, so the inspections etc. would still have to be done. It might however be slightly easier to find a contractor to do the work although civilian glider shops are pretty busy most of the year, so I'm not sure it would happen much if at all faster.

A and C

26th Nov 2015, 10:04

As the Viking fleet has no civilian type certificate and the design authority is a company contracted by the MoD moving the type to the civilian register would be problamatical ( but not imposable under Annex 2).

So moving to a civilian registration would inevitably result in further delays when the military system is very close to producing the first servisable aircraft.

As with all these things the hard part is getting the paperwork system agreed and in place, the technical issues are comparatively minor.

As you might expect there are a number of vested interests when it comes to the contract for the Viking fleet recovery and as the MoD has yet to announce the winner of this contract and until this is done all involved are keeping tight lipped for fear of breaking the rules on fairness when it comes to issuing MoD contracts.

POBJOY

26th Nov 2015, 10:08

Chug Just for interest what were Airspeed/DH building there at that time,and how long had the hard runway been there.
Interesting bit in a book about the ATA where the 'lady' is waiting to go off but has to let a squadron of bomb laden Thunderbolts depart.
One of the first wave never quite makes it and takes out a bungalow,and then one of the next wave nearly makes it but passes through the hole left by the first one to take out the bungalow behind it!.I think the surface then was grass (poss with psp).Either way the airfield looks to be a bit 'tight' even by wartime standards for a 'loaded' P47.

A and C

26th Nov 2015, 10:13

The problem is bigger than finding a glider shop that can do the work, as this is effectively would be an AoC operation with a military dispensation it requires full EASA145 oversight. Most UK glider shops operate under the BGA's part M sub part F & G approval and this not suitable oversight for the military gliding operation.

This would limit the number of UK glider repair facility's that could do the work.

Fluffy Bunny

26th Nov 2015, 10:15

So the Viking is so far modified from the Grob 103 design that it cannot be intergrated into that types certificate?
I know there are significant technical differences between the Vigilant and the G109, as there were with the Venture and the Motor Falke, yet most of the ex-ATC Ventures are on the civilian register and flying quite happily.

Or maybe not.... All three gliders from the predannack Hangar incident were on the Civil Register after being sold off.

Engines

26th Nov 2015, 10:22

I've hesitated to post here - the number of posts show that it's a sensitive subject, and my personal experience only goes as far as having once been an ATC cadet. And being an aircraft engineer for around 30 years, including being the Engineering Authority (TAA in new speak) for a front line combat aircraft. So my contribution will be a little general, but hopefully useful.

Positive suggestions - for a fleet of aircraft like this, the recovery should be fairly straightforward. Honestly, it should.

First. Recover configuration control - what is the actual state of the fleet against the approved and cleared design standard? This fleet should not have had many modifications, but there was a report of an unauthorised mod, so some work to be done in that area, but it can't be a big job.

Second. Align the maintenance records against the material state, with repairs probably being the focus. Again, if records are patchy, it's 'check the airframes' time, but honestly, with aircraft like these, the 'hot spots' will be well known and easily inspected. Not a big issue. If GRP repairs are suspect, cut out and re do. Or inspect and monitor. Or, in extremis, replace assemblies (e.g. wings).

Both of these will require the full involvement of the TAA and the CAMO, plus the aircraft Design Authority. They should have the people to provide this support - the MAA have approved their personnel as competent, right? The aircraft must have a DA, otherwise it can't have been operating on the Military Register - right?
The key to success will be a small team of competent, experienced and hard working engineers. A decent SO2 plus a few Chief Techs, with one or two specialists from the DA would have been my start point.

Thirdly, and probably most 'political' (I hate that word, but probably unavoidable now), get an outside agency to conduct a full investigation into how the fleet got to where it did, and what needs to be done to prevent a reoccurrence. If you don't do this, it will happen again somewhere else.

It's here that I would support Chugalug2 (a bit), because it's hard to see where such a review team would come from. Not the organisations that hosted the old EA, or the one that was running the show for the last few years (22Gp?). The MAA? Problematic if they gave this organisation any sorts of approvals. So who? Answers on a postcard, I guess. (The DES Airworthiness Team? The Deputy Head's a Group Captain, so they should be able to cope with this)

The aim is simply stated - build a known and serviceable aircraft fleet and build an organisation that can properly support, maintain and operate them. These aircraft were designed specifically to be low on maintenance and easy to maintain. This is not a challenging engineering target, honestly it's not. If it's being made complicated, it's being got wrong again.

My main observation is that this scandal (and it is a scandal - serious wads of taxpayer pounds have gone into shiny new facilities, big contracts and lots of senior officer salaries, with absolutely no return for two years and a bigger bill coming along) should be out there in the public domain. This is public money hosed down the drain.

It should be embarrassing for the organisations concerned, and people's salaries and pensions should suffer the consequences, if only through the 'soft' options of early retirement and denial of promotion. Had this happened in a commercial outfit, heads would have rolled long ago.

Best regards as ever to those doing the hard work of sorting through the rubble,

Engines

romeo bravo

26th Nov 2015, 10:51

I’m starting to find this thread boring, yet hilarious, by the comments made by people who were once in the ATC, or to call it by its more modern acronym, the ACO, those remembering the glory days when cadets could feel the fresh air around their gills as they flew in open cockpits.

We are where we are. There are many rumours and conjectures being written here, blaming certain areas for non-compliance, raising this and that as an excuse. The ACO and RAF know exactly where we stand. A strategy to get the fleet back into an airborne condition is being devised by those in the know and will be promulgated to sqns in due course. Whilst it is taking longer than we were originally told, is it affecting what is happening at sqn level? No.

So, how many people on this thread are actually current members of the ACO; I am for one, and proud to be serving in the best uniformed youth organisation out there. Whilst cadets may not frequent this forum, it certainly shows that, if they did, they would see just how people who think they know what is happening in the ACO are happy to whinge about something that is out of their control.

Fine, bang on about the H-C Report and what should be done. But in reality it didn’t, that’s why we are in the mess we are. Mods were done to airframes, documents not kept current, etc; that was/is the responsibility of individuals who should be held to account. The individuals who carried out work and/or sign-off work should be held accountable for their action, but as the general populous, we will never know the outcome.

Whilst the ‘pause’ in gliding is not ideal, it is not having a massive affect on sqn numbers or retention; and any OC Sqn saying different needs to look closely at what their sqn is delivering to cadets. Cadets join to ‘have a go’ at many things during their time within the ACO, it just happens that flying and gliding is top of the list of activities as we are parented by the RAF.

As for where we should place the VGSs, etc, they will be placed where agreed. Look at what happened with the AEF reshuffle back in the late 90s, the ACO moved 1 AEF out of Manston to Boscombe Down; outcome was sqns from the south-east had to travel up to Wyton. The RAF agreed with the ACO this was going to happen, and it did. Whilst it’s a pain to travel, no one openly whinges, they just get on with it; the same with happen with VGS when/if it happens. I remember doing a camp at Valley, and having to drive cadets to Woodvale for AEF on summer camp. Welcome to the life of a volunteer; we just get on with it for the benefit of the cadets.

Give it a rest and wait for the official response on what is happening; the constant ping-pong of comments is getting tedious.

Rant over.

Chugalug2

26th Nov 2015, 12:12

I should perhaps clarify my previous post. Knowing what the CAA now know about Military Airworthiness maintenance, I doubt very much if they would accept an ex-military fleet onto their register anyway. My suggestion for civilian registration was for a civilian fleet, whether new or existing. It sounds as if that is unlikely, so back to square one.

A&C, the serviceability of these aircraft may or may not be in question. I don't know. What is in question is their airworthiness, simply because all UK Military Airworthiness is in question, quite apart from any fleet specific airworthiness issues. In that regard the MAA is part of the problem, as is the Haddon-Cave Report which is its foundation. His "Golden Period" was anything but, because as we see in the letter references in my reply to John Purdey the attack on airworthiness can be dated back to 1987. By not admitting to that it has a foundation laid on sand. Why? Simply to protect those responsible at the cost of future airworthiness.

Engines, with respect (and that is sincerely meant), the review you speak of should be one of UK Military Airworthiness as a whole rather than of just one fleet alone. That needs to be done completely independently, and there is the rub, as you so rightly say. The way these things go (thinking of Chilcot) it would be cheaper to buy a brand new civilian glider fleet for the ACO and job done (if only)! Back to para 1?

POBJOY Many thanks for light relief. I guess it must have been 1957, and very occasionally we had to suspend operations while DH launched (usually a Sea Vixen) on the paved runway (build date unknown). I guess it was because we operated weekends that there were not many such interruptions. The factory was indeed still there, but its days of aircraft manufacture were all but over. It became a wallpaper factory (Shand-Kydd?), before being levelled as part of the housing/industrial estate that now covers the whole area. DeHavilland Way and Airfield Way are but two roads that give hints of previous occupation.

Cows getting bigger

26th Nov 2015, 12:58

RB, let me comment from my end (ATC sqn VR(T) Officer).

The ACO has done extremely well in broadening it's horizons and keeping things interesting for the cadets. One only has to look at the vast number of events, competitions and opportunities that arise. We have everything from adventure training, marching band competitions and sailing (latest trawl for cadets to join RAF ocean sailing exped). We also have pre Gliding Scholarship courses (why?), aviation training days (marshalling Land Rovers), drill courses (yes, cadets can spend a few days being shouted at on the parade square), pastoral weekends (Amport House), sports competitions, fieldcraft exercise and many, many other things. There is lots to do and many cadets remain motivated by the non-aviation related opportunities.

What we don't have is regular, easy access to flying. My sqn has 54 cadets but only three of them have ever been gliding and this is not through want of trying. I personally have faith that 22Gp and the ACO will get the whole issue resolved but feel that, if they don't, we may as well ditch the 'Air' bit of the ACO.

A and C

26th Nov 2015, 13:27

The MoD decided to move put the Viking on a military type certificate and pay a well respected UK engineering company to oversee that type certificate, this arrangement has run for years.

Why should Grob take responsibility for aircraft that have been out of there oversight as well as for maintenance practices, repairers and modifications that they have had no input ?

If I was Grob I would take the view that the MoD got themselfs into this mess and those who the MoD paid to administer he type certificate should do what they have being paid for and help get the MoD out of the mess !( but I do have to say that the situation is by and large not the type certificate holders fault ).

Chugalug2

You would do very well to carefully read Engines post he has just about summed up the way forward.

Some on these pages give the impression that nothing is happening, this could not be further from the truth, the engineering oversight process is being delt with and other ways of bringing gliding to cadets is being investigated, very soon I would expect to see Vikings take to the air. Once all the paperwork issues are finally resolved I expect the recovery rate to accelerate with only the capacity of the UK glider industry limiting the flow of serviceable aircraft.

tucumseh

26th Nov 2015, 13:52

The airworthiness system in the RAF is what it is. The VGS fleets were not compliant; they stopped flying. Brave and respectable decision. They are trying to recover the aircraft to an acceptable standard to start flying again and this effort needs full support now. If you want to continue your vendetta against overall MOD airworthiness policy don't try and drag the VGS recovery into it unless you've anything constructive to offer.
The casual acceptance in the first sentence is what was wrong all along. To use the vitriol of the last sentence against anyone advocating safety of minors is :oh:. Chug has for many years offered constructive suggestions involving heeding and implementing sensible, mandated regulations. If you or MoD/MAA don't agree that's hardly his fault. And it doesn't mean the regulations they're spending millions on replacing are wrong. In fact, what Engines suggests is, under those regulations, called a minor PDS Task.

But no longer, as the mandated Standard has been cancelled, without replacement, and MoD do not have a copy of either volume. I know Engines of old (operative word) and his suggested approach is absolutely right. The only thing I'd add is that, under the regulations, the Design Authority would have the necessary contractual authority to self task and approve expenditure (within limits) to kick off a safety related task. The onus is then on MoD to use this time to formalise the task and approve further expenditure. This process was finally abandoned in January 1993 when the RAF Chief Engineer ordered "no more safety tasks". That some aircraft remained reasonably airworthy was simply down to some of us ignoring the dolt. But the likes of Chinook and Nimrod? - they slavishly followed the order. A&C's reassurance is pleasing, but those of us who've done this many times know it has taken far too long. The process is now outlandishly prolonged and bogged down by the failure to recognise there even is a mandated solution, never mind having sufficient trained staffs to implement it.

No reply from John Purdey? When you remind yourself of the correspondence Chug mentioned, please say if, in hindsight, you think the policy unwise. I can't recall if, in 1987, AMSO himself (an ACM) would be required to approve a major amendment to AP830 which involved deliberate destruction of hundreds of millions worth of brand new spares, then immediately committing 10 years budget replacing them. But surely someone told him "Boss......this is insane". It's also fraud.

POBJOY

26th Nov 2015, 14:15

Hi All the CAS has replied to my missive of the 26 OCT via Secretariat High Wycombe.

Confirmation that ATC Gliding remains core activity. (Well not at the moment it seems) but recovery has proved to be 'challenging'.

Confirms 'additional' contract has been let to 'second' contractor for Viking fleet recovery.

Confirms 'extra' AEF flying has been afforded on the Tutor fleet and other front line
military aircraft.

States that 'many Cadets' have completed GS (and solo) with civilian clubs,and that the RAF Charitable trust has funded VGS staff motivational flying with civilian clubs that has been popular!.

The last bit is interesting.

THE RAF HAS NOW OVERHAULED THE AIR CADET GLIDER ENTERPRISE TO PROVIDE BETTER FOCUS AND OUTPUT FROM 2FTS AND THE VGS UNITS IN THE FUTURE. IT HAS REBUILT ITS APPROACH TO MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES GOING FORWARD;INTRODUCED LEAN ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES AND SHARPENED OPERATING PROCEDURES.

No doubt those VGS at the sharp end will know what it all means !

The Relief of Mafeking only took 7 months !

tucumseh

26th Nov 2015, 14:21

BB

Not me who requires an apology. It is the families of those who died.

Random Bloke

26th Nov 2015, 14:33

Buckley Boy old chap, I hate to point out what might be obvious but PPrune is a site where folk post their opinions. None of the posts on here are actually contributing anything to 'sorting the recovery'; they are merely offering thoughts, so telling people that their posts are hindering the recovery to flying is a bit wide of the mark. While I share your frustration with the lack of progress, in-fighting on forums such as this tends to take peoples' eyes off the ball.:ok:

Fluffy Bunny

26th Nov 2015, 15:20

Type Certificate and the Predannack three.

If it is so difficult, how then are these three aircraft still flying, on the civil register, with their original name, the Grob 103A Twin II Acro?

Thanks to UK serials and ASN for the info.

ZE525 and ZE612 were sold to the RAF Gliding & Soaring Association at Bicester as R70 and R71.

ZE525 later to BGA3015, to G-DEWR Bristol GGC Nympsfield
ZE612 later to BGA3064, to G-DEYS, to Belgian Air Cadets PL97
ZE634 later to BGA3076, later to G-DEWZ in 2008

I flew ZE525 when it was in it's guise as R70.

Chugalug2

26th Nov 2015, 15:28

Thank you, tucumseh

A and C

26th Nov 2015, 15:50

Just to take one of these aircraft G-DEWR it was sold by the MoD in 1990 and repaired under the BGA airworthiness system pre EASA. The BGA system was considerably more lax back then when it came to paperwork and took a much more practical approach as was the usually the case twenty-five years back.

The fact that these aircraft might form a way of using grandfather rights to get the aircraft onto the civil register could be investigated however regulatory oversight has moved on in twenty-five years ( for that you can read got a lot worse for little or no flight safety advantage ) would make the the task of moving the aircraft to the civil register a difficult task.

The task of moving the aircraft back to a Grob type certificate would require the sort of oversight that the RAF is now performing and the agreement of Grob, ask your self if you were Grob what is in it for you ? Perhaps 80 gliders flooding the market and trashing any chance of new glider sales ?

If I was Mr Grob I would leave well alone.

Chugalug2

26th Nov 2015, 16:02

BB;- What are your recommendations for the recovery of the VGS organisation?
There is no quick fix, BB. I know that answer makes you angry but I can't do anything about that. The VGS fleet is on the UK Military Register. Every aircraft that is on that register is compromised by the UK Military Regulator (aka the MOD, now masquerading as the MAA).

If FB is correct, that the CAA is prepared still to accept ex-military reg'd gliders onto the Civil Register, then perhaps that is the quickest solution. I can't think why they should, unless all the appropriate paperwork is in order, but Catch 22 says if that were the case then what is the problem anyway?

If you want to vent your spleen on someone, then I would direct you to the VSO's who created this mess in the first place, and those who continue to cover it up. Then I would suggest joining the campaign to reform UK Military Airworthiness. How about it?

A and C

26th Nov 2015, 16:21

This has nothing to do with the CAA as the civil Viking is an EASA annex 1 aircraft.

The UK CAA is now no more than a regional office of EASA that only directly controls a few annex 2 aircraft.

dervish

26th Nov 2015, 16:54

you've now thrown the tragic grief of deceased aircrew families

http://www.jonrb.com/emoticons/whatever3.gif

longer ron

26th Nov 2015, 19:10

RB - you are lucky that your particular sqn has not suffered because of lack of flying.Others have !
The engineering is one aspect of this sorry mess but there are almost certainly other agendas tied up in this affair,it has happened at a very convenient time for 'cost saving' (as if that ever works with mod !) - the volunteers have been left out in the cold and it will be interesting to see the 'background/make up' of the future instructor staff.
Either by accident or design (or a bit of both ?) it has been a very convenient grounding whilst the whole gliding organisation is redesigned !

cats_five

26th Nov 2015, 19:23

<snip>
ask your self if you were Grob what is in it for you ? Perhaps 80 gliders flooding the market and trashing any chance of new glider sales ?

If I was Mr Grob I would leave well alone.

Grob no longer build gliders, and are no longer the type certificate holder.

http://www.grob-aircraft.com/tl_files/pdf/G102_103_103SL_104/SL_14_Type_certificate_holder_change.pdf

Tingger

26th Nov 2015, 19:44

longer ron

26th Nov 2015, 20:04

Any agendas will become clear in the future !

But to start from near the beginning -why would an 'organisation' like the RAF put a bloke like Muddleton into a post like 2 FTS when he has a proven track record of absolutely zero people skills !

Like it or not money and politics run everything in our lives !

rgds LR

longer ron

26th Nov 2015, 20:09

On one hand those in 2FTS are accused of not being able to organise anything, while simultaneously arranging a most bizarre method of cost cutting by spending loads of time and cash?

Typical MOD 'cost saving' !

edit - sorry should have added - 'future cost saving' planned would probably be closing of airfields and thereby saving any support costs for running the doomed VGS's.

Tingger

26th Nov 2015, 21:39

Would think taking in the OC's of 6xx, 6xx, 6xx to Syerston and telling them they are being folded into one site would be far simpler than grounding every aircraft, stopping cadets from gliding for 18 months, drafting in many engineers, letting recovery contracts then doing exactly the same in the end anyway.

JM sat the board in front of a diverse range of 1* & 2* with the other candidates for the job. He must have told them something good wasn't just shoehorned in by mates rates.

longer ron

26th Nov 2015, 21:53

Some people are put into post to do a particular job/achieve or help to achieve a particular goal - I have seen it many times in industry...of course it could all be coincidental !
I have never heard anybody say a good word about him - which speaks volumes !
As a previous poster said - one needs good communications dealing with airworthiness - even a couple of slightly wrong personalities can have a huge impact on any results.
I have direct contact with an airworthiness team every 3 months or so on average - one has to have a good relationship with them and try to work with them.

rgds LR

mary meagher

26th Nov 2015, 22:10

O dear. What a mess. Looking at the swamp in which the Air Cadets have bogged down, I do sympathise with all the youngsters who have enjoyed the camaradie, the events, the discipline, and the adventure yomping , yachting, etc etc. ....but find it not easy to get off the ground due to unfortunate circumstances.

A few years back I was horrified when there were two midairs involving young people in Grob Tutor aircraft, due partly to an unqualified instructor flying with serious health problems, and also due to flying in crowded airspace when alternate areas were available. Though lookout may have been somewhat obstructed by the canopy framework, these same machines have been flying safely in the civilian environment for years.

Please let me offer a way out for the young people. My club, and many other civilian clubs, do offer flight training in gliders to youngsters at special rates. Some kids and their families have made the transition already. No uniforms, no marching, just flying and the achievement of knowlege and skills. Would these Air Cadet organisations be willing to contact the civilian clubs, and arrange for their youngsters to get off the ground at last? We are insured, you know.

A and C

26th Nov 2015, 22:10

cats_five

27th Nov 2015, 06:49

The change of ownership of the type certificate is neither hear or there, if the type certificate holder can't make a quid or two on the deal to take over the Vikings and get them back on the civil register they won't .

My point was that since Grob no longer make gliders, depressing the price isn't something they will be concerned about. In theory whatever is done to get them in the air again well involve buying spares, but I wonder how big the spares stock is? Can major parts still be made if necessary?

Arclite01

27th Nov 2015, 07:35

@Cats - anything can be made. Few items available off the shelf though. Depends what we are talking about - my impression is that the issue is not airframe parts as much as airframe repairs that are at issue here...........

@Mary (chicken hearted Granny glider pilot :}) - if you read this thread end to end it will explain why your ideas have not been actioned previously (nor likely to be in the future

@Longer Ron - I am loving your conspiracy theories - and would not be at all surprised if they didn't have at least SOME basis in fact.............

and with all this chatter there are still no dates for return to flight (either type) and no declared strategy published for future basing - lets hope for a good Xmas present on those items..........

Regards All

Arc

Random Bloke

27th Nov 2015, 08:42

Mary M. You said: "A few years back I was horrified when there were two midairs involving young people in Grob Tutor aircraft, due partly to an unqualified instructor flying with serious health problems, and also due to flying in crowded airspace when alternate areas were available."

Fact: the instructor was not 'unqualified', he was a Qualified Flying Instructor.

Remember that it was not only the Tutor that was flying in crowded airspace when other areas were available: so we're all the other aircraft; no one had to be there.

Skeleton

27th Nov 2015, 09:17

Let's not open that can of worms, but we can replace Mary's opinion of "Unqualified" and "flying with Serious injuries" with

The Tutor and glider pilots were properly licensed and held the required medical certificates.

From the accident report.

A and C

27th Nov 2015, 10:32

As far as I know parts are not a problem, most of the parts are standard items and are available.

The radios are of a type that Marconi would have known and will have to be replaced in a few years due to the 8.33 legislation.

The airframe comes out of two tins in liquid form and those skilled in glider repair can fix just about anything ( type certificate holders now get a bit funny about scarffing main spar booms but most other things can be done) as has been demonstrated by the three Vikings that had the hangar collapse on them back in 1990.

I have to wonder why these three aircraft did not get retuned to RAF service and speculate that a still metal-centric RAF contractor failed to understand that these aircraft could be repaired economically and continue in service.

I understand that some problems have been caused by manufactures improving parts and giving the improved parts new part numbers that are direct replacements for the old part number, I am told that lack of knowledge of glider industry practice and insistence that obsolete part number items are fitted has resulted in problems over he last few years.

Mechta

27th Nov 2015, 13:04

I have to wonder why these three aircraft did not get retuned to RAF service and speculate that a still metal-centric RAF contractor failed to understand that these aircraft could be repaired economically and continue in service.More likely that the gliders were uneconomic to repair on paper. For the company that did repair them to be able to do so at their leisure when other work was quiet, and possibly with access to serviceable airframe parts from other damaged G103s to cannibalize, is a very different situation. Think of all those Cat C and Cat D cars that go back on the road despite main dealers having said they are beyond economic repair.

Even if the gliders were only repaired and sold at cost, the opportunity for future spares and maintenance support might have made the return to use cost effective.

What must not be ignored is that composite work in the aircraft industry is a growing market and that skills and experience in this field are in very short supply. Many of the glider repair companies have found that manufacture of composite sub-assemblies to aircraft standards (e.g. for motor racing, submersibles, wind turbines etc. ) is a more lucrative business than fixing gliders. Any organisation that thinks it can jump in, pay bottom dollar wages to people with no understanding of these aircraft, how they are made, repaired or used, and make a success of it, is both deluding itself and the customer.

chevvron

27th Nov 2015, 15:01

What must not be ignored is that composite work in the aircraft industry is a growing market and that skills and experience in this field are in very short supply. Many of the glider repair companies have found that manufacture of composite sub-assemblies to aircraft standards (e.g. for motor racing, submersibles, wind turbines etc. ) is a more lucrative business than fixing gliders. Any organisation that thinks it can jump in, pay bottom dollar wages to people with no understanding of these aircraft, how they are made, repaired or used, and make a success of it, is both deluding itself and the customer.
I remember visiting Slingsbys at Kirbymoorside once where, alongside gliders they were building composite boat hulls and even parts for submarine conning towers for Vickers at Barrow!

A and C

27th Nov 2015, 15:40

It might be the case that they had been considered uneconomic to repair but the MoD are usually inclined to pay top dollar for defence related stuff so I suspect that is not the case, add this to the general lack of composite knowlage in the business and you see a picture of aircraft getting written off without good reason, you do have to remember that in 1990 composite technology was not understood outside a few glider repair shops.

The glider business is accustomed to glueing aircraft back together but powered aviation is by and large stuck in the metal frame of mind, off the top of my head I can think of about six powered aircraft written off by insurers that have been repaired and shown a tidy Proffit in doing so.

I will second your statement about composite skills being in short supply, one of the companies trying to get the lions share of the glider recovery project is offering wages £10K+ below the current market and to my mind are demonstrating they don't understand the cost of the skills needed to carry out this work, it follows that if they get the contract this very sorry farce will continue due to lack of skilled manpower.

Flugplatz

27th Nov 2015, 21:33

Out of all of this I still don't see RAF Engineering having been asked to develop any in-house glider-repair expertise. That being the case, I very much fear we could well be back to the same situation in a few years time! Without at least some in-house technical expertise, how will the RAF be able to quality control/audit the quality of the new contractor's airworthinees work? How can they have the skills and experience to work on super-high tech complicated jets, yet apparently be completely foxed by very basic light aircraft technology?

It is this basic shortfall that seems to have led to the current situation having developed to the extent that two whole fleets having been grounded.

Imagine if an equivalent situation prevailed on the flying side (i.e. CFS and Syerston unable to check flying standards on the VGSs because "We have no expertise with gliders - we only deal things such as Tutors, helicopters, multi-engine and swept-wing jets") :ugh:

Flug

A and C

27th Nov 2015, 22:49

The RAF have no Tutor engineering input, that is all done by the civil contractor who puts the complex GRP repairs out to another EASA 145 company. So far this combination has delivered the goods ( the prop problems were not of their making !)

This company combination is one of the companies bidding for the glider recovery program.

EnigmAviation

28th Nov 2015, 15:29

Yes, agreed, he did hold valid rating and medical.

However the point you overlook ( but the report didn't !) is whether he should have held a valid medical.

In this sad case, there were three occasions when the causal chain could have, and should have, been broken to prevent the fatal accident. One medical, one operational, and the final one, a negligent omission by the pilot himself. Any one of the three would have prevented the accident.

His FMed4 was held as is normal on Station, but the examining MO failed to read all the relevant reports in the file, for reasons not explained or accounted for. (p 42 of report).

Had he done so, he stated, that he may have carried out cockpit checks himself. He didn't read all the relevant history, so he didn't do the checks as a clinician, and the result was self evident.

Thus in accident terms, the first opportunity to "break the causal chain" was missed. Should we expect a clinician to read your file where you have a complex and serious history ? Same applies in Hospital before any surgical procedure is undertaken. The GMC would not look kindly upon a clinician who failed to read the file before treating you with a complex history!

Another lost opportunity was that when the pilot was being trained at 115 Sqn, when no less than 4 instructors commented that "the pilot could not do the full range of lookout i.a.w. CFS standard"

Another link in the casual chain missed.

On the fateful day, as the report states "...immediately before entering any manoeuvre, it is normal practice for a pilot to ensure that the area is clear of other aircraft".

How basic is that routine to those of us who have been instructors?

The report concluded that "on the basis of the medical evidence, it is highly unlikely that he would have been able to do this."

He failed to do so, and thus his omission brought about the fatal accident.

No matter what technology of an advanced nature is introduced, human failure cannot be eliminated. Despite all the other technology improvements suggested and discussed in the report, none of them would have prevented this fatal accident.

No medical granted would have totally removed the pilot from any RAF flying duty ( and possibly any CAA activity on private Class 3 medical) and prevented this unnecessary accident.

cats_five

28th Nov 2015, 15:43

@EnigmAviation (http://www.pprune.org/members/140196-enigmaviation) thank you for pointing these issues out. As you rightly say, although he had a medical, should he? My personal view and that of any other glider pilot I've discussed it with is an emphatic no.

PPRuNeUser0211

28th Nov 2015, 15:51

Chaps,

I'm pretty sure we've been around the buoy several times on the two Tutor accidents. In addition, a huge number of lessons have been learnt by the RAF as a whole from them.

Let's just leave it a that shall we and stick to discussing getting the glider fleet back to flying, given that the AEF organisation is now pretty much up to speed on the tutor it seems.

cats_five

28th Nov 2015, 15:57

Unfortunately the two Tutor accidents have made the AC far more risk-averse in the wrong area - AFAIK there were no airworthiness issues contributing to the incidents occurring.

Random Bloke

28th Nov 2015, 16:11

Careful there EnigmA, the report concluded that it was highly unlikely that he was able to look out properly, not that he failed to do so. The board could not conclude that he failed to do so because the evidence could not be conclusive. That may be your own conclusion, but stating that as fact in public may leave you exposed.

Anyway, as has been said already this is not germane to the issue.

mary meagher

28th Nov 2015, 19:57

Random Bloke and Skeleton, it is of course very sad that the Pilot flying the Tutor when it collided with a glider in busy airspace had been flying with a condition known as Ankylosing Spondylitis. If you care to read up on this condition, you would be horrified and astonished that he may have been permitted to fly children, and it was a mistake by the authorising medics that he was permitted to fly at all. It is your duty and indeed anyone who is aware that a pilot to your knowlege is not physically fit to fly passengers, to express your concern to the person in charge. If you neglect to do this and an accident happens, you must share the blame. That is why this must concern all of us. It is not to be forgotten or swept under the rug.

There were two reports on this incident, one by the RAF, one by the AAIB. I have read both of them long ago, and the lessons that officialdom MUST LEARN is not to repeat these mistakes. The people supervising any program that flies children must take care that instructors are fit and of good character.

If you have indeed read both of these reports, you will realise that the pilot's colleagues should certainly have flagged up his condition; no way they would not have been aware. It is your friends who first begin to notice you are starting to loose it. Officialdom is the last to find out.

And flying in airspace that is very very busy on a good soaring day, and performing aerobatics in such airspace, is unwise to say the least.
Why was not airspace over say Brize Norton or Benson made available to the Tutor?

In any event, it is unnecessary to throw kids around the sky to give them a taste of flight. Just letting them have a go on the controls is enough of a thrill. Aerobatics should be saved for later, or at least reserved for consenting adults.

BEagle

28th Nov 2015, 20:22

mary meagher, the last time I met the pilot in question was some 25 years before the fatal accident. I was surprised even then that he was still flying as his condition was clearly acute - but I was astonished to learn about his later accident as I assumed he would have given up flying years earlier.

Certainly in the late 1970s, the word was:

1. NO aerobatics on a cadet's first ever flight.
2. Subsequent flights could include aeros if the cadet asked.

However, since when did AEF pilots ever obey the rules?

Flugplatz

29th Nov 2015, 00:29

A&C,

I am not questionig the Tutor Contractor's capability, I am saying that the RAF seem to have given up on certain areas of technical expertise. Whilst these have no-doubt been assessed as not affecting thier 'real job' of keeping front-line aircraft airworthy, it does seem that this is the root-cause of the present grounding of two aircraft types.

I am sure this is an outcome of the usual Cost/Benefit analysis (a process I have no real beef with since it is virtually essential when dealing with the reality of a limited budget). However the same process should have revealed the lack of oversight expertise as a 'risk'.

Bearing in mind that that risk was realised, it should also follow that you don't want to make the same misstake twice. Ergo they should be identifying this failure as a definite item that needs to be corrected if they are not to end up in the same situation again, rather than try pot-luck with another contractor who hasn't already screwed up.

You mention Part-145, and who approves and oversees that standard? an independent organisation that has the expertise to say that the do or don't meet the standard!

Please don't take this as a personal criticism, I am really just trying to say that in all these situations you do need a source of expertise that can spot when an organisation is not doing work that is up to the agreed standards.

Flug

A and C

29th Nov 2015, 11:18

I agree with you about the need for the RAF to have a more robust oversight of the contractors product delivery, In the case of the gliding contract the RAF unit responsible was woefully understaffed and stretched to breaking point with front line work, this is an example of short term cost cutting that costs more in the long run.

The lack of knowlage of glider technology and industry cuts both ways, while the RAF might get shortchanged by some contractors other contractors yet have gliding industry best practice questioned and hindered by those who have yet to grasp that the technology is totally different from a pressurised metal airframe.

The very close investigation of the gliders has also uncovered holes in the technical data that had not been questioned since the aircraft was built, twenty years back these small items would have been ignored or fixed by using common sence and industry coustom and practice, these days the lawyers will take to task anyone who fails to comply with the official technical data.

EASA 145 approval is overseen by EASA who audit the company on a regular basis, normally this is by a formal annual inspection ( in the UK by the CAA) however due to the nature of the business CAA surveyors will visit these company's on other business ( inspections of individual aircraft, MOR investigation, approval upgrade or change etc) and these visits often paint a picture for the formal annual inspection.

Mechta

29th Nov 2015, 12:57

All the talk focussing on one Tutor pilot's limited neck movement deflects from the real 'elephant in the the room', namely that to open the canopy and bail out of this aircraft is nearly impossible after a mid-air collision. Two other Tutors collided with each other, also resulting in the loss of all on board, yet it seems to be accepted as 'one of those things'.

The RAF's focus is on air combat with experienced crew and the need to get out of a burning aircraft is paramount. In the case of the Tutor, 50% of those on board are likely to be on their first flight in one, and possibly their first flight in any aircraft. As in-flight fires are pretty rare, isn't it time the AEFs recognise which the most likely hazards and either modify their Tutors to accept an airframe parachute, or change to a type which can be so equipped?

A and C

29th Nov 2015, 14:01

Airframe parachutes are not realistic retrofit, the Kevlar straps that support the aircraft have to be laid into channels in the structure.

Cirrus aircraft have these channels built into the aircraft at manufacture and I can't see any reasonably priced option to do this on an airframe that has not been designed from the outset to have this system fitted.

The only improvement that I could be made at reasonable cost would be something to assist canopy opening.

The Grob 120 that looks like it will be the next RAF primary trainer can be fitted with a M-B light weight ejection seat but I have my reservations about putting the younger cadets in a bang seat.

Hawk98

29th Nov 2015, 14:40

From what I've heard the new G120TPs are only for EFT (which would make sense) whilst the excess Tutors are getting thrown into the AEF/UAS system so more cadets can get airborne as more airframes should be available when others are out for maintenance etc, though I stand to be corrected if someone knows more than I do

EnigmAviation

29th Nov 2015, 15:32

Random Bloke - with the greatest of respect, no, the report didn't specifically say he failed to carry out either an eyeball check/scan or eyeball check/scan + clearing turn, BUT by the evidence of the facts, there could be no other rational explanation for the evidence of collision. In legal terms "Res Ipsa Loquitur" the facts speak for themselves.

A qualified pilot who had just immediately before contact occurred, carried out the normal pre-manoeuvre checks expected of this grade of pilot, and then knowingly pulled up into traffic in his overhead that he had just "eyeballed" would have been knowingly negligent at best, and suicidal at worst, especially since the aircraft overhead was a glider - and Rules of the air.........power gives way to.......etc. By deed of the evidence he cannot have done so otherwise the accident would never have taken place.

Agreed it's not totally relevant to the current lack of ACO VGS aircraft but it has some relevance insofar as there have been some suggestions in this thread, that all future ACO aerial activity should be led by the professionals, if not flown by professionals.

The current limiting qualifications for the AEF Pilots on the Grob 115 Tutor would ordinarily preclude most if not all VGS Instructors, despite the remarkable similarity between that and the Grob 109B Vigilant T Mk1 aircraft operating systems, and despite the fact that the role in VGS aircraft is of a higher skill level - i.e., instructional sorties rather than Air EX.

All that I aimed to show was that human errors cut across the whole of the RAF, and are not confined to the VR(T) guys. 100% flight safety can only be assured by welding up the hangar doors - something not entirely miles away from where we've been since April 2014 !

The B Word

29th Nov 2015, 18:25

A and C

"Airframe parachutes are not a realistic retrofit" - What rot. There is a kit to modify the Cessna 172/182 with a BRS - probably one of the most ubiqitous training aircraft out there.

BRS Parachutes | Cessna 182 Systems FAQ (http://brsparachutes.com/cessna_182_faq.aspx)

Anything can be modified, it just depends on whether you are prepared to pay for the engineering design costs, the flight testing and the certification. I suspect that there aren't enough G-115E owners out there to make the upfront costs worth it. Indeed it would probably be cheaper to bin the G-115s and buy Sportstars or alike...

The B Word

Arclite01

30th Nov 2015, 08:01

Hey Enigma

Welding up the hangar doors would introduce a fire risk.

Can I suggest bolting them up instead (making sure they are not over-torqued of course) ?

:}

Arc

biscuit74

30th Nov 2015, 16:32

Oh good grief. 'Airframe parachutes' or 'lightweight ejection seats'. While no doubt well meaning you are rather demonstrating why the RAF has such trouble with all this.

If the darn thing is so hard to get out of, make it easier. Why was that not part of the original assessment - or was it?
So - sort its exit procedures. Improve the canopy jettison if required. Add air bags under the seat squab - becoming common practice in heavily reclined position racing sailplanes. Use a time expired airframe or simple mock-up to allow passengers to practice exit before flight if you are really paranoid. There are relatively cheap effective solutions.

The AEFs and others used Chipmunks for years, with standard parachutes for cadets. That was viewed as satisfactory, with adequate briefing. What has changed - the attitude to risk ?I flew a Grob 109B occasionally. Really hard to get out of quickly, but it can be done. We carried parachutes. Handy to practice exits, just in case, if high enough.

But there will always be risk.

This is not directly part of the Air Cadets thread it seems to me, though the OTT thinking at time sounds rather familiar!

VX275

30th Nov 2015, 18:22

In days gone by UK military aircraft were tested for canopy jettison / abandonment / ejection seat function at the Blower Tunnel facility at Boscombe Down using both dummies and live subjects. None of the Grobs ever went through the process, if they had maybe the difficulties with canopy jettison that led to the fatalities could have been discovered before rather than after the event. It'll never happen now as the Blower Tunnel is no longer in service and is due for removal.

snapper1

30th Nov 2015, 18:27

''Skylaunch has completed the order to replace the Air Cadet's ageing winch fleet, with the delivery of the 25th Skylaunch Evo twin drum (6.6 litre turbo diesel engine).''

From 'Sailplane and Gliding', - the British Gliding Association's magazine, Dec 15/ Jan 16 edition.

Hopefully, the MOD got a good deal for a bulk buy of these top-of-the-range winches. Let's hope they get used before too long.

A and C

30th Nov 2015, 18:32

So Mr B word I am guessing that you are are a licensed engineer who has extensive experience of composite aircraft maintenance and repair especially Grob 115 and Cirrus types ?

The BRS retrofit for the Cessna is particularly easy as the main structural members that the Kevlar strops attach to are on top of the aircraft ( main spar webs & rear spar frame ) can be reached by one central channel along the top of the cabin.

To retrofit a low wing aircraft the strops would have to be routed along the outside of the fuselage to the engine frame mount structure aft of the firewall and to a hard point in the aft fuselage. For C of G equipment reasons and to attach to the rear spar carry through structure the parachute/rocket pack would have to be mounted in the rear baggage area of the Grob. This means that the strops to the forward hard points would have to go under the sliding canopy and the canopy and the canopy rails would have to be jettisoned during deployment, this would require some sort of explosive canopy ( and mounting rail ) jettison system that would sequence ahead of the parachute rocket deployment.

Unlike the Cessna or Cirrus that have the crew & pax in an enclosed cabin the need to jettison the canopy the crew of a Grob would be very close to the canopy as it is explosively jettisoned and then be exposed to the rocket motor as it fires.

As Mr B word you have clearly considered these issues I would be very interested to know how your engineering expertees would resolve these problems with the Grob and what your estimated cost would be ?

Mechta

30th Nov 2015, 21:16

A and C, Grob themselves evidently considered a Ballistic Recovery System (airframe parachute) as seen in this G115/120TP marketing presentation of theirs, on page 10:

http://www.grob-aircraft.eu/tl_files/custom_login/trainer_english/10_Grob_Presentation-G120TP_short-10-02-19.pdf

Figures for the Cirrus and Cessna 182 BRS systems indicate a weight between 79 and 85lbs.

Looking at the cutaway of the Tutor http://www.eaachapter837.org/pages/media/aircraft_cutaways/grob-g115-cutaway.jpg suggests that connecting a strop to each spar/main leg would be possible, with a third line going under a frangible fairing to the top of the firewall. Frangible fairings covering external strops would be the easiest way of achieving this without the trenches in the structure used by Cirrus.
If firing the parachute out the top is impractical for the reasons you describe, then firing it out one side or the other has to be the next best solution.

If there was a will to fit an airframe parachute to the Tutor it could be done.

Biscuit74 wrote The AEFs and others used Chipmunks for years, with standard parachutes for cadets. That was viewed as satisfactory, with adequate briefing. What has changed - the attitude to risk ?Recollections from ex-cadets who flew their AEFs in Chipmunks, include sitting on piles of folded up RAF greatcoats between their bottom and the parachute, to take up the slack in the parachute straps and to get them high enough to see out. Successful egress in an emergency clearly wasn't a priority then! :sad:

The B Word

30th Nov 2015, 21:28

I say again "what rot"!

Please see here: http://www.brsparachutes.com/files/brsparachutes/files/PR%202009%2012%2001%20Grob%20Partnership%20Final%20Version.d oc

If there was an appetite for it then Grob would be rolling it out right now on their types.

The B Word

A and C

30th Nov 2015, 22:04

Mr B word, anything is posable if you chuck enough money and effort at it but the cost of fitting a BRS to the Grob 115 as a retrofit would be prohibitively expensive. Apart from quoting brochures and sales stuff about posable new aircraft fits do you have any engineering data to show that a parachute system could be economicly retrofitted to the G115 ?

Mechta

With a new build I have no doubt a parachute system could be accommodated but one of the critical issues is to get the aircraft occupants to be decelerated forward with their body weight held aganst the harness, to do this the inital declaration is in a aircraft nose down attitude with line cutters firing to lower the aircraft into a more level attitude once the the aircraft has slowed.

I don't know how a sideways facing rocket could be made to do this without the chance of the occupants sliding half restrained sideways out of there seats.

Having spent considerable time over the last five years involved with G115 structural repair I can't see any easy retrofit items that would economicly do the job given the engineering problems and small production run to spread the development costs.

Edit.

The Cirrus has a restriction on the structure that prohibits installation of anything under the seats, this is because the area under the seats is part of the colapsable structure that protects the occupant from rapid declaration when the aircraft hits the ground, no such area is avalable in the Grob 115 due to the flying control pushrods and flap motor being fitted in the bottom of the fuselage below the seats.

ACW VGL

1st Dec 2015, 06:43

Spot on biscuit74 ' Use a time expired airframe or simple mock-up to allow passengers to practice exit before flight if you are really paranoid. There are relatively cheap effective solutions.'

As a direct result of the AEF fatalities, the VGS recieved additional training facilities, practice and monitoring of escape proceedures prior to the 'pause'.

Being paranoid about safety is a good thing and I know from experience the level of professionalism applied by the 'amateur' VGS pilots of all grades, categories and ages, many of whom fly with 100+ passengers behind them in their day jobs.

A and C

1st Dec 2015, 07:59

You make a good point about escape training but there seems to be some doubt as to the ability of the crew to get the ( quite heavy ) Grob Tutor canopy open in the event of an emergency.

Rather than the hugely costly and payload restricting BRS device favoured by some contributors above would not a simple compressed gas driven canopy opening device with a sequenced inflatable seat cushion be far more practicable.

EnigmAviation

1st Dec 2015, 12:55

Arclite 01 - yes love it, but with bolts, you'd need to address the concerns of "working at heights" and have all ladders, telehoists or other equipment certified to EN 9994567 or similar, overalls to flame proof standard, safety goggles and all torque wrenches calibrated.

biscuit74

1st Dec 2015, 19:10

Thanks Mechta - yes the rather 'relaxed' parachute arrangements in the Chipmunk AEF days is something I had forgotten.

VX275 - Thanks also. I wasn't aware the Blower Tunnel was going; should have realised, given how much has been shut down, sold off. That is an interesting and disappointing oversight; I wonder why the Grob canopy was not tested. Viewed as too simple to warrant it, perhaps?

And ACW VGL - delighted to hear that. I too get paranoid and obsessive about such things...

Wander00

1st Dec 2015, 20:03

Did means of escape not get tested at BD?

ACW VGL

2nd Dec 2015, 08:27

A and C.

No need for the complexity of compressed air. The Chippy has a small canopy assits panel that aids the pilot to slide back the lid at high speed.

I believe an issue in the Tutor v Glider mid-air was a potential delay in starting to abandon, due to the lack of the 'Jump, Johnnie, Jump' order to the unfortunate cadet, as his captain may not have survived the initial impact.

VX275

2nd Dec 2015, 08:43

Did means of escape not get tested at BD?

No.
IIRC The only time BD has been involved with the Viking was for spin testing with the Nose Whiskers fitted.
The Vigilant has only been subjected to an engineering assessment against the Super Falke prior to selection and some increased wind limit trials which were wasted when the lower wind limits for the parachutes was promulgated.
The Tutor only came to BD because that's where the AEF/UAS is based. As a civilian aircraft there is no need to put them through the rigor of a BD assessment so hated by the PTs and users alike.

622

2nd Dec 2015, 09:38

Ref the BD testing mentioned above..I can confirm they did carry out Spin trials (from Upavon).
However, the more I think about it ..I can't remember if spin whiskers were fitted or not?

I think they did about 3 or 4 aero tow launches and IIRC it did not spin too well...but I think they only had the one crew in the front seat so maybe not the best C of G config.

RUCAWO

3rd Dec 2015, 08:51

Is this the way to go :ok: https://www.facebook.com/northernirelandaircadets/photos/a.412417495588008.1073741827.412404488922642/536312356531854/?type=3&theater

A and C

3rd Dec 2015, 12:11

cats_five

3rd Dec 2015, 13:49

The Grob canopy is about triple the weight of the DHC-1 canopy, some sort of drag producing canopy opening assistance is something that should be considered. Aerodynamic investigation is the only way to find out if this is practicable.

For new designs maybe but the Grob is what it is, a new canopy would involve far too many legislative hoops to jump.

Arclite01

3rd Dec 2015, 15:32

A&C - Cats is right, there won't be anything like that sort of change to the airframe. Especially since the MoD/ACO/RAF don't even own the aircraft.

It would be more likely (in the current environment) that they would do a risk assessment, say that the canopy (in its present form) is too greater a risk to continue using in that role (AEF), and that the AEF should therefore be scrapped ('paused'):}

Arc

bobward

3rd Dec 2015, 15:53

TorqueOfTheDevil

3rd Dec 2015, 16:10

Rather than start major mods on the Tutor why not look at an alternative?

There are many civilian flying training organisations spread across the country. All are required to have a CAA audit into their training systems and facilities.

Why doesn't the ACO look at these pre-audited schools and see if they might fill the needs for cadet AEF? An aircraft like the PA28 could take two, possibly three cadets (depending on their mass) and fly them for an hour or so for a reasonable rate. Spreading the load across a larger number of FTO's around the country might mean that at least some of the cadets do actually get to fly during their ACO service.

Because (a) the risks of further Tutor mid-airs have been reduced (fitting TAS, requiring radar service while flying cadets whenever possible) and (b) your solution denies many cadets the chance to handle the controls or even see clearly out of the front. Having flown both Tutor and PA28, I know I feel safer in a Tutor given the enormously better view from the cockpit backed up by the TAS.

And your parting shot (implying that currently no cadets get to fly) is an inaccurate slur - perhaps unintended - on those people who continue to work hard to deliver exactly that.

DC10RealMan

3rd Dec 2015, 16:53

I wonder if these are the same civil flying training organisations that I fly at and who are regulated by the CAA and who are used to training student pilots, including Commercial flight training and whose aircraft have Public Transport Certificates of Airworthiness and Public Liability Insurance?

I, as a taxpayer would be delighted to fund such activities to get Cadets back into the air although I wonder if the OC 2FTS is more interested in shiny new buildings and empire building at Syerston.

These RAF senior officers are only used to the RAF way of doing things and are completely unfamiliar with the civil flying world and I am sure that we could get more Cadets flying and at a cheaper cost than keeping senior officers in their comfort zone.

Auster Fan

3rd Dec 2015, 17:15

And your parting shot (implying that currently no cadets get to fly) is an inaccurate slur - perhaps unintended - on those people who continue to work hard to deliver exactly that.
I doubt very much that it was an intended slur. Cadets in Norfolk and Suffolk Wing have suffered hugely a) from lack of gliding opportunities as 611VGS ceased flying long before the current pause, having lost their airfield when Watton was closed (as the then WGLO, it was greeted with dismay as they had purpose built facilities there) and b) they've suffered with the move of 5 AEF to Wittering with the problems with weekend ATC cover that followed. I left the ACO in June 2013 and I'm told that unless cadets get flying at annual camp and obviously available cadet places are less than there used to be, cadets in that Wing have pretty much forgotten what aircraft look like. I believe a handful have been gliding via the RAFGSA...

Taking your point about not being able to take the controls in a PA28 etc, that precedent was set years ago as my first flight as a cadet was in the Beagle Husky at 5AEF. I absolutely agree it's not ideal, but at least they'd get airborne...

brokenlink

3rd Dec 2015, 17:56

Auster Fan, its not just Norfolk & Suffolk who have lost out on the flying/gliding front with the situation you describe, the next county across has suffered exactly the same. The challenge for the volunteers is to try and make up the shortfall with other activities. Not an easy task.

Arclite01

3rd Dec 2015, 19:31

Bobward,austerfan and brokenlink

As an ex611 VGS Instructor I concur. The loss was huge - the question for me was why was Watton closed ?

STANTA still needs an airfield - now they have to use Sculthorpe (miles away) if they are doing any form of airdrops ( not realistic unless you are re-enacting Arnhem with the distances tripled ) and Mildenhall lost their nearest strip for off field strip training. More importantly to me and the ACO was the loss of a great airfield for winch launching and we had just spent a fortune building a hangar and facilities and it was Central for a lot of people travelling (an issue in East anglia)

Another mad decision, all users inconvenienced - another victory for the bean counters !!

Arc

P.S. I flew over it the other day - floor to ceiling straw bales on that lovely 6000' runway.

P.P.S. - why not a return to Swanton Morley ??

Auster Fan

3rd Dec 2015, 20:22

chevvron

4th Dec 2015, 07:22

P.P.S. - why not a return to Swanton Morley ??

You gotta be joking. When the Army takes over a former RAF base, they invariably go out of their way to make the airfield unuseable, especially if it's not paved.
Wonder if Wattisham is a possibility although it's a bit of a long trek for Norfolk based squadrons and an airfield the Army (for once) hasn't ruined.

A and C

4th Dec 2015, 07:53

Perhaps some new ideas are needed to bring gliding yo the cadets ? While most of the current VGS sites should be retained as a base level of service why not boost the level of service avalable at peak times ?

Gliders are easily moved by road as is 90% of what is needed to run a gliding training operation, the peak demand is during the summer and during ATC summer camps so why not move say Four gliders a winch and the support equipment to locations that can easily be accessed by cadets on camp ?

These units would not have to use exclusively MoD land as I am sure for a modest fee most gliding clubs would welcome a three or four week visit from such a unit. These units could also be used to boost the conventional VGS units during peak demand.

Staffing would be a mixture of full time instructors and normal VGS staff from the area that the unit was operating in.

During the winter the glider transport equipment and full time staff would be used for collecting and delivering gliders from VGS units and taking the gliders to a central servicing vacility for annual checks and maintenance.

Thorr

4th Dec 2015, 11:19

VGSs already increase delivery during the summer and Easter by running continuous courses over the period. But I agree that this could be ramped up to maximise utilisation during these periods. If say an average of 50 gliders could be made available over the 6 week summer holiday, and 4 GSs completed per aircraft per week, you very quickly complete 1,200 GS - very close to 50% the annual target for the entire organisation. Replicate that at Easter - potentially another 2 weeks as well as half term holidays, you see how you could maximise the delivery of training in the most efficient way possible. But this would need investment - particularly for staff. You would probably need 100-150 instructors.

TorqueOfTheDevil

4th Dec 2015, 13:55

If say an average of 50 gliders could be made available over the 6 week summer holiday, and 4 GSs completed per aircraft per week, you very quickly complete 1,200 GS - very close to 50% the annual target for the entire organisation. Replicate that at Easter - potentially another 2 weeks as well as half term holidays, you see how you could maximise the delivery of training in the most efficient way possible.

...and in the process put hundreds of cadets in the air at the exact same time as every other man and his dog is puttering round the sky in flying machines various. This might cause some hesitation from the hierarchy. However your plan will never happen because, as you rightly say, there aren't enough instructors available and it's hard to see how this will change.

Arclite01

4th Dec 2015, 13:57

This thread just runs and runs........

@Auster fan - we probably do know each other then !!. Flew over Swanton Morley last week - it appears that the Army have removed some trees !!, however there is the hangarage issue. Also I notice now that on the 1:250,000 it shows microlights at Swanton (never seen any though). I am told that the GSA Club at Wattisham are considering running summer courses there this year (aerotow only)

@Chevvron - highly unlikely as Wattisham is too busy, even at weekends now. Note that the issues with winches and cables and active airfields, lighting and aerials still exists................. weekday ops are virtually zero for gliders and weekends can be a bit fraught I am told (see my comment above about GSA)

@A&C - it's been tried (AKA the Challock 'Experiment' for 618VGS). sadly summer is busiest time for civilian clubs also with many doing their own 'holiday courses' which are big revenue earners for clubs.They don't want any aircraft interfering with their own activities, Also it's the competition season so again, not really feasible for many sites to mix the two............. there is also rafts of paperwork from MoD and ACO so just rocking up with a winch, some gliders and a few people to a site really isn't feasible or a practical training proposition. Actually it wouldn't even get past first base................. (you should see the paperwork associated with the Portmoak 'detachments' for a few weeks in the summer - now discontinued I think.....)

@Thorr - I like your idea - when I was on 625 VGS and we shared Hullavington with 621 VGS we would often lend each other aircraft for courses. An extra 2 airframes pushed the productivity up for the course cadets and also we could so more SCT with the staff cadets to move them upo to 'AGT' or through to G2/G1 or doing some soaring training. Often our limitation was instructors to man them !! (So successful that they merged the 2 schools Doh !!)

Just my 2 pennyworth on a variety of subjects/topics..............

Arc

Cat Funt

4th Dec 2015, 17:23

A self-congratulatory email went out today, with 2 FTS patting themselves on the back for getting a Viking airborne in just 19 short months from the beginning of the fiasco.

IIRC, three quarters of a century ago, North American designed, built and flew the Mustang in about 1/6 of the time.

bobward

5th Dec 2015, 09:40

Torque,
First of all, I never intended any slur upon those trying so hard to get the whole mess sorted out. My closing statement was based on hard cold facts. As an ATC squadron training officer I regularly check cadets record of service books, so I can offer the following:

Fact 1: The only cadets who have had powered flying in light aircraft under RAF sponsored conditions in the last year are three senior NCO's who achieved flying scholarships in September this year. A few others did get trips whilst on annual camp. However, since less then ten went to camp, from a squadron of around 30, that's a low number to me.

Fact 2: When cadets decide to leave, I'll go through their record of service books,to make sure they get credit for what they might have achieved with us. Sad to say, in many instances, the flying sections have no entries in them.

Adding up my cadet service, and subsequent instructor time, I've now spent 50 years with the ACO. I consider it to be the pre-eminent youth organisation in this country and am fiercely proud of having had the privilege of being part of i. I grow increasingly angered, saddened and disheartened at the way I see 'the system' taking violin lessons whilst the organisation smolders.....

End of rant.

Wander00

5th Dec 2015, 09:51

BW - IMHO ranting entirely reasonable in the circumstances. I suspect that this whole fiasco is a disaster from which the ACO will have difficulty in recovering, if ever. As an ex CCF and ATC cadet, VR(T) officer, regular RAF officer (twice) and avid supported of the ACO, I too am greatly saddened.

POBJOY

5th Dec 2015, 13:21

Wloo I to am appalled at the way that the volunteer element of the organisation that has worked so well to provide the 'AIR' in Air Cadets has been let down by the paid element that have destroyed any confidence that they are qualified to organise a suitable ongoing operation.
A lot of highly paid full time people are being paid lots of money to 'head up' the organisation and provide a facility that has failed in its basic delivery of the goods.
They have broken a facility that was working well and are so inept they have no idea how to fix it. Using the 'safety' card is an easy way out: however even that does not stack up as an excuse.
Unless someone capable is brought in to sort this then the existing 'team' will just cascade from one meeting to another rearranging the deck chairs.
The lack of expertise is staggering and is replaced by what Roger Bacon in the old Flight magazine called 'YUK SPEAK'.With the 75th anniversary year a few weeks away Monty Python would be proud. Staff Cadet Baldrick says it was a pretty poor show when he let a parachute go into the rollers;but now thinks this 'new lot at the top' have taken incompetence and lack of leadership on to a new MBA level.

Freda Checks

5th Dec 2015, 14:00

Well said Wander, Arclite, Pobjoy and others, whom I recognise from their postings as ex VGS instructors with vast experience between them.

We used to look up to the Centre instructors, many of whom came up the same way as the rest of us, by starting as weekend gliding instructors at the "schools". We had great respect for them having worked through the system, and they had great respect for us.

We need a new broom, complete with head and new handle, to bring back the fabulous gliding organisation that we all knew and loved.

A and C

6th Dec 2015, 08:12

I think that the technical side of the Viking recovery is now well underway, the difficult part was always going to be the quality control paperwork aspect with the new contractors who have had to adapt to the heavy and sometimes inflexible airworthiness oversight expectations of those who's previous experience was with much more complicated aircraft of entirely different construction.

The fact that a Viking has had air under its wheels is a major step forward in that those in control of quality assurance and safety oversight have run out of reasons to keep the aircraft on the ground.

Now the "system" has been established I see the aircraft returning to service as quickly as the industry can manage with the resources avalable.

Cat Funt

6th Dec 2015, 08:49

I wish I shared your optimism, A&C, but what's going to be done with them when they have been recovered? My cynicism stems from the recurring point that the fact that those who have been operating Viking and Vigilant have gone very nearly two years having been told naff-all divided by six about what is likely to happen to them. They know that changes are coming, but they don't know what, when and to whom. They appreciate that these decisions will need to be taken at the highest levels of the RAF but haven't even been told what the 2 FTS heirarchy is trying to implement for the future and they don't even know what the range of options presented to Their Airships look like. As has already been said, there is a very distinct breakdown of leadership if the hundreds of people you command are a disregarded afterthought and the wider ACO, who ultimately can be seen as one's customers, don't have the first clue what is going on and what you are trying to do.

VGSs haven't been issued any guidance on how to keep staff engaged in the mean time. The more proactive squadrons are doing things, working on activities and lectures to try and keep the knowledge in people's heads. The ones with more passive leadership are staging little more than monthly coffee mornings and are dying a death.

All anyone outside Syertston knows for sure is that a horrible, shouty, little man, who is seemingly only capable of making his subordinates and peers happy when he departs, who has a reputation as a hatchet man, who had made no secret in the past of his distain for volunteer pilots and instructors, and whose only discernible skill thus far is for nest-feathering is now running the show- and we have absolutely no idea what his intentions are beyond the broadest of platitudes which he delivers like they're the Sermon on the Mount.

Wander00

6th Dec 2015, 08:58

CF - why don't you let us know what you really think!! But huge empathy for your view, and I don't even know the bloke (OC 2 FTS that is)

A and C

6th Dec 2015, 09:23

I too wonder what will happen staff wise, the VGS volunteers ( and their family's ) will have discovered what they can do with the free time that the gliding pause has liberated.

Getting these people back into the units is likely to a bigger task than getting those who come back re-qualified.

I think that the generic term Syerston is not helpful in this conversation as there are two separate operations at the airfield, the RAF VGS management who run the flying part of the show and SERCO who at the moment have the support contract and have the responsibility to maintain the glider fleet.

IMO posts should be precise in who they are referring to.

Warmtoast

6th Dec 2015, 16:53

My grandson had his first air experience flight in a Tutor at Benson last Friday.
A half-hour trip, he felt a bit queasy towards the end of the flight because of the turbulence caused by the very high winds, but he made it and looks forward to the next flight in the new year.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/IMG_3273_zpskffchvqb.jpg

Height-raising cushion.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/IMG_3274%20adjusted_zpsgvya1mik.jpg

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/IMG_3278_zpscf3khjkc.jpg

Instructor with Flying Officer rank (I think) hard to judge the width of the stripe

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/IMG_3279_zps3bpiiii7.jpg

mary meagher

6th Dec 2015, 19:40

Delighted to see the kid flying the Tutor at RAF Benson on Friday - we were flying gliders at Shenington (formerly Edgehill) and it was indeed a lovely day with interesting conditions on approach through some testing windshear.

I am particularly pleased to see that he has his hands on the stick and trust that he had some time in control. Benson being just down the hill from my old gliding club at Wycombe, I've landed there several times; and was always made welcome.

Bill Macgillivray

6th Dec 2015, 19:57

WT, some great pictures and the AEF at Benson are great! Just wondered why, in the final picture, he is only wearing one flying glove? May be it is Defence savings!!!

tmmorris

6th Dec 2015, 21:19

Guessing but... Took glove off to operate mobile phone camera?

Good outfit, 6AEF, efficient and friendly (squipper banter notwithstanding)

Stitchbitch

7th Dec 2015, 05:59

Nice to hear Squipper banter is also available on AEFs. Good luck to the VGS squadrons, hope you get some aviatable frames back soon.

EnigmAviation

7th Dec 2015, 08:04

Keep those photo's, they are historic - An Air Cadet FLYING !!!

Sky Sports

7th Dec 2015, 17:04

Just in case there are any senior officers reading this thread, and they are thinking to themselves, "Don't know what all the fuss is about. There are plenty of other opportunities to fly besides the gliders." Here is a run down of my son's opportunities to fly, in the 2 years exactly, that he has been in.

Nov '14 - Grob Tutor (20mins)
Apr '15 - Chinook ride during green camp (cancelled - Aircraft u/s)
Aug '15 - Grob Tutor @ Benson (cancelled - weather)
Merlin ride @ Benson (cancelled - Aircraft u/s)
Oct '15 - Vigilant @ Syerston (cancelled - weather)

2 years in the cadets, one 20 minute spin in a tutor.

Sky Sports

7th Dec 2015, 17:11

I think that the technical side of the Viking recovery is now well underway,

So......presumably there is a plan somewhere, and that plan presumably has dates on it?

Fitter2

7th Dec 2015, 17:24

Good to see a little flying is taking place, but nothing comparable to the many hours I logged during my ATC membership 1955-60 (not to mention my gliding B Cert).

The Irvin-GQ back 'chutes look a lot easier to walk in than Chippy seatpacks.

CoffmanStarter

7th Dec 2015, 18:09

Here's a touch of nostalgia then ... :ok:

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/img977%20Medium%20V2_zps4e2sx3xw.jpg

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/img978%20Medium%20V2_zpsoswdfekx.jpg

1 AEF RAF Manston late 60's

That's No flying gloves, helmet or suit for the cadets in those days ... Note the 'wire frame' headset which had a 'dangling' mic.

PS. That's the old Blue 4 Point seat harness you can see ...

BEagle

7th Dec 2015, 18:13

The 'dangling' microphone meant that at least one of the little buggers' hands would be occupied, so less chance of a 'wonder what this does' switch operation - such as magnetos or muting.

CoffmanStarter

7th Dec 2015, 18:19

Spot on BEagle :ok:

Or you held the back of the mic against the Perspex, with the switch on, and allowed the ensuing vibration to emulate 8 Browning Machine Guns ... So I'm told :E

Lima Juliet

7th Dec 2015, 18:38

Likewise, this would be the best we should expect for now until some SF25s with fixed pitch props and Rotax non-turbo 912s can be procured. That would be the 'gold plated' solution for the future...

IMHO of course! :ok:

LJ

Cows getting bigger

7th Dec 2015, 18:50

Well, something positive must be happening. Just had notice to withdraw any sqn held Vigilant pax brief due to legacy aircraft abandonment procedures. Clearly they're re-writing.

Concurrently, a thoroughly motivating and comprehensive three paragraphs from Gliding Central.

BBK

7th Dec 2015, 22:44

Buckley Boy

Are you at liberty to say where this info is from?

CBE

Maybe the Vigs aren't going to fly again?

BBK

Arclite01

8th Dec 2015, 08:52

Buckley Boy

That suggests basing on the ownership of the land/sites rather than geography/catchment.

New organisation being proposed:

Viking VGS

Halton - MoD owned - good central location and facilities
Kenley - Long term tenants (not MoD owned) - good central location
Kirknewton - MoD owned - the only Scottish location - really ??
Merry field - MoD owned - assume for Hullavington squadrons when it closes
Predannack - MoD owned - OK for Cornwall and extreme SW locations
Syerston - MoD owned - good central ocation and facilities (obvious)
Ternhill - MoD owned - OK central location for NW and Midlands
Upavon - MoD owned - OK for central South and good facilities
Wethersfield - MoD owned - good central ocation and OK for East Anlia (just)

Regional Centre - Viking & Vigilant

Little Rissington - MoD owned - Why ?? (except some new hangarage being built) weather here can be pants and local politics bad
Topcliffe - MoD owned - OK location for the North & NE and good facilities potentially. Airspace will go quieter when LoO closes

So it is the death knell for VGS at:

Henlow (MoD Owned - good facilities)
Odiham (MoD Owned - good facilities)
Lossie (MoD Owned - good facilities)
Honington (MoD Owned - good facilities)
Cosford (MoD Owned - good facilities)
Chivenor (MoD Owned - good facilities)
Saint Athan (MoD Owned - good facilities)
Woodvale (MoD Owned - good facilities)
Newtownards
Swansea
Arbroath RM Condor (MoD Owned - good facilities)

My opinion is that it's not the best basing strategy but equally not the worst. It leaves some of Extreme South East UK, Scotland, NI and Wales underprivileged IMHO

But it is a future. Any news on what the manning policy will be ??

Arc

(If all this is true of course)

RUCAWO

8th Dec 2015, 09:15

So good bye Air Cadets in Northern Ireland then :D ,what is the point of existing if there is no flying available.
Little Englandshire based thinking as usual:ugh:

Mechta

8th Dec 2015, 09:38

So good bye Air Cadets in Northern Ireland then :D ,what is the point of existing if there is no flying available.
Little Englandshire based thinking as usual:ugh:If there is the sufficient enthusiasm amongst cadets and instructors, perhaps forming an independent organisation without the formal links to central ACO is the answer? Building your own microlights has already started in NI, so if the ACO are going to ignore your needs, just do it your own way. As pointed out by Skysports, its not like you will be depriving the cadets of lots of flying in MOD aircraft. Other typical cadet activities could be organised by forging links with appropriate shooting and outdoor pursuits clubs.

There is an independent group near here along the lines of Army Cadets, so it can be done.

RUCAWO

8th Dec 2015, 10:06

The usual second class citizen reaction.:ugh:

Freda Checks

8th Dec 2015, 10:13

Come on BBK, this is a rumour network, you cannot mix rumours with the truth.

After all, the rumour about gliders coming back has been around for ages. What has the team been up to since then, apart from working 24/7?

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x165/Biggles615/Middletwit_zpsv95z5rme.jpg (http://s183.photobucket.com/user/Biggles615/media/Middletwit_zpsv95z5rme.jpg.html)

Sook

8th Dec 2015, 12:46

How can you only have 2 regional centres when there are 6 Regions in the Corps? At least the much maligned Regional Activity Centres were actually somewhere near the region they served.

EnigmAviation

8th Dec 2015, 17:04

Notwithstanding all of the previous, mainly centred upon aircraft, perhaps another revolutionary idea may be to consider where the customers are ? ( Customers ? what are they Blackadder ? can't we do without them ?)

Another fairly basic concept for OC 2FTS to think about is location of expertise - particularly if we have most, if not all Vigilant ops erased. And, for the elimination of doubt, to run a 4/5 ship Viking VGS requires a heck of a lot of staff on every operational day, and it's not a fast track operation to germinate and grow that talent, if the safety card is foremost. In order to give staff some days off, then you need a large roster of qualified expert staff.

Furthermore, with larger catchment areas, what time of day will they expect the Cadets to set off for the remote VGS ? - and what time can ops commence ? And cost of travel at public expense ?

Until we see the airfield review/basing, we will not know for certain but it certainly does appear that 2016 will mark the end of many highly productive VGS locations.

Another issue to be examined is the level of staffing required to run a Viking operation at the levels required to service a much larger catchment area.

How many staff will remain, and how will those VGS staff remaining feel after the whole organisation has been absolutely "rogered" where many staff will just be left to walk away without so much as a thank you from doing the unpaid job that they absolutely loved to do, seeing the fruits of their toil develop into RAF Pilots of the future.

Many may well feel wary about how they are to be treated in the future after the fairly awful way they have been treated during the last 19 months.

Aircraft and Airfields are vital, but then of no use if they have not got the vital instructional and support staff required.

Lima Juliet

8th Dec 2015, 18:48

No mention of Abingdon either with its 2 runways almost at 90 degrees to each other. Is this as a result of the Oxford and Brize Norton airspace change proposals?

LJ

Lima Juliet

8th Dec 2015, 18:52

On the AEF front I think there is a plan to expand AEFs with the extra Tutors coming on line with MFTS not needing them. So I suspect we might see some new AEFs coming up in the gaps (including NI).

That's the rumour I've heard anyway. Good news for Cadets if they can find the pilots (unless they relax the requirements to Servicemen with PPLs).

LJ

longer ron

8th Dec 2015, 19:11

Arc

@Longer Ron - I am loving your conspiracy theories - and would not be at all surprised if they didn't have at least SOME basis in fact............

Not really a conspiracy theory Arc (I do not really 'do' conspiracy theories),My initial reaction to the grounding was to think ''what is the real aim of this 'pause' ?''

I think the real reasons/agendas have become clear - after all - if you wish to make wholesale cuts to the VGS 'organisation' then just ground the lot and then keep the volunteers out of the loop for at least 18 months whilst redesigning the ACO gliding future whilst also planning to close some expensive airfields.
As some of us said at the time - were all the VGS gliders unairworthy ? - no chance !But most will be now due to lack of maintenance since the 'pause'.
Putting an abrasive character in charge who hates 'amateurs' was a master stroke by the hierarchy - his character would have been very well known to them.
All very sad !

Lima Juliet

8th Dec 2015, 20:12

The fire cover required for the Tutor is complete arse at present. DFRMO require RFF Category 2 when the CAA require RFF Category Special for the same aircraft (effectively what the VGS do at present). The really arse thing about it is that a civil registered Grob 115E could land at a RAF airfield and only need Special when if the same aircraft, now called a Grob Tutor TMk1, lands it needs Category 2. Same for a civvy Chipmunk vs a BBMF Chipmunk, etc..etc..

Utter madness for what is supposedly a risk based decision. :ugh:

Anyway, it'll all be different when I'm in charge! :ok:

LJ

CoffmanStarter

8th Dec 2015, 20:32

Leon for CAS ... Get's my vote :ok:

Cat Funt

8th Dec 2015, 23:31

Buckley Boy,

On scale of Impeccable to "Curveball", how reliable and well-placed is your source? Put another way, how much of your own money would you be willing to bet on your info being gen?

Instinctively, I have to admit, it seems plausible given the complete absence of any meaningful word from 2 FTS. He did, however, email the VGS OCs on Monday to announce that he's sending his proposals to CAS this week... he hopes.

622

9th Dec 2015, 06:50

The info may be gen......but will it be gen next week...or next year. I wouldn't place any bets until the VGS's are up and running:rolleyes:

EnigmAviation

9th Dec 2015, 08:04

I'd put some serious money on BB's info - they're now adopting HMG standards in spin

Allow some leakage
Sit back and read reaction
Assess reaction
Await some other bad news to bury particular bad news
Construct closing passages to convey some upbeat spin i.e., "2016 will see Air Cadets flying at VGS's again " - even if it's only a shadow of former organisation
Job done - time for tea and medals, relax until next crisis

Aggamemnon

9th Dec 2015, 09:16

Has anyone approached their MP regarding this?

BBK

9th Dec 2015, 10:07

Freda Checks

Yes you're quite right, these are only rumours and of course the VGS staff can just wait for some comms from official sources. What was I thinking:confused:

Lots of other very good points made by people, like me, that are sad to see this wonderful organisation in such dire straits. Just one last point and it is this: I hope someone can remind the senior Officers, that will decide the future of the VGSs, that the "V" in VGS stands for volunteer. There is a limit to their patience and the young VGS staff who are highly unlikely to read this forum, will probably just drift away.

BBK

romeo bravo

9th Dec 2015, 10:49

Taken from comment on AirCadetCentral -

"Dear Guys

You may be aware we have 2 Viking ac at RAF Syerston , recovered by SS and we flew the first air test on Friday; I expect the second air test today or tomorrow. We continue to be in negotiations with Babcock to finalise delivery rates of the Viking fleet.

We have 4 Vigilant ac at RAF Syerston, 2 are longish sick with GRP repairs. A fifth is expected in Jan . SERCO have sent an ac to Marshalls to trial an alternative recovery line.

Staffing is still in hand with the laydown paper and powered /unpowered mix of ac. I am hopeful it will go to CAS this week? I am still uncertain if we will have the results before Xmas. Be assured we will follow the decision with a robust engagement campaign.

I will update you further if/when any changes
Regards
JM
Comdt 2 FTS"

So we will wait and see; and wait, and wait, and wait :oh:

Cat Funt

9th Dec 2015, 11:04

MPs?

If the basing plan is anything like what's suggested, I'd imagine the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Ni might like to know. I know First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, is the President of his local squadron.

EnigmAviation

9th Dec 2015, 13:45

What on earth do they mean by this ? Have they got a GRP ICU there ? Probably taken a while to source another Halford's Glass Fibre repair kit !

A and C

9th Dec 2015, 14:19

I shall say no more than Marshals area of expertees is in large metal aircraft.

EnigmAviation

9th Dec 2015, 14:35

Here, here A & C !

cats_five

9th Dec 2015, 15:30

I shall say no more than Marshals area of expertees is in large metal aircraft.

From their website:

"Another division of Marshall also has expertise in composite repairs."

I've no idea what that other division is though!

Arclite01

9th Dec 2015, 16:20

Cats, A&C

Marshalls now own Slingsby. No-one builds capability any more - they buy it (growth by acquisition rather than organically).

So although it says sent to Marshalls it does not necessarily mean Cambridge..............

Arc

1.3VStall

9th Dec 2015, 16:38

Be assured we will follow the decision with a robust engagement campaign.

Muddleton has clearly done the management w@nquespeak course!

back seat billy

9th Dec 2015, 18:22

From their website:

"Another division of Marshall also has expertise in composite repairs."

I've no idea what that other division is though!

Used to be known as Slingsby

POBJOY

9th Dec 2015, 18:37

So 20 months after a grounding we have two Vikings for 'Air Test'. (WOW)
This may impress the CAS but nobody else will be fooled.
How did the ATC get saddled with such expensive incompetence that has allowed a 'problem' to escalate into a full blown disaster.
I always thought the whole point of 'management' was to lead by example and 'progress' an organisation in the most suitable manner.
There is no way this level of mismanagement should be allowed any input into the future structure of the organisation.

longer ron

9th Dec 2015, 18:54

I still read the situation that they never had any intention of letting the VGS's fly again fairly quickly,If only the Brits were as clever at keeping things working as they are at closing things down -over the years I have seen this many times - the Air Cadet gliding fiasco certainly bears some of the classic hallmarks !

A and C

9th Dec 2015, 19:43

Just how long have these people been trying to repair these aircraft ? Certainly long enough to file one out of the solid ! Perhaps I should not joke as may be that is what they are trying to do.

Meanwhile the Babcock consortium have two aircraft flying and been at the problem less than a quarter of the time ! ( that's quite quick when you have to deal with the MoD and all the hangers on )

Lima Juliet

9th Dec 2015, 20:40

Rumour is that CAS is being briefed next week having seen the draft plan (whatever that is!).

Cat Funt

9th Dec 2015, 21:45

Buckley Boy:

Thank god for that... but don't give them ideas. Your "plan" leaves huge swathes of the country completely uncovered and, IMHO, would be completely unacceptable.

Leon:

Correct. CAS should be getting briefed this week, as per JM's email.

Longer Ron:

You're not alone in this opinion. More than a few people have suggested to me that the mushroom treatment may be part of a ploy to see if enough instructors will sign off en masse to legitimate shutting down squadrons because they've shrunk below a critical mass to stay sustainable. Certainly, even if the fleet were declared ready to go tomorrow, there are plenty of people who are giving serious consideration of whether or not they want to serve under the current (and I use the word very loosely) "leadership".

DC10RealMan

9th Dec 2015, 23:48

You should all meet "The Management" personally as an unpaid, highly experienced and professionally qualified volunteer you get W*nquespeak, personal humiliation and abuse thrown in as well.

What is a "Robust engagement campaign" in English?

Cows getting bigger

10th Dec 2015, 05:38

Something which hasn't happened to date. :yuk:

Sky Sports

10th Dec 2015, 07:29

What is a "Robust engagement campaign" in English?

Wasn't it a robust engagement with hammers and chisels that knackered the gliders in the first place?

cats_five

10th Dec 2015, 07:33

Wasn't it a robust engagement with hammers and chisels that knackered the gliders in the first place?

Mostly lack of correct documentation as I understand it, but getting it right is a tedious task as the whole glider needs very close inspection and AFAIK bigger problems have been uncovered on some of them.

A and C

10th Dec 2015, 08:00

I have had a look at the Marshalls website and it would seem that their composite expertees ( if the website is correct ) is in the construction of pre-preg autoclaved composites.

This is a very different game to the repair of epoxy foam sandwich composite structures.

Slngsby did build this type of structure with the T67 but most of this expertees has disbursed since Marshalls took over and they did not often repair this type of structure.

The expertees in repairing this type of is now almost totally within the UK gliding industry and very few glider repair companies have the EASA145 maintenance oversight ( basicly public transport standard ) as most of them are working under EASA part M sub part G & F via BGA oversight. The MoD rightly require a minimum of EASA145 oversight for subcontractors doing this work.

Babcock have for some time been astute enough to realise that they don't have the expertees to do composite repairs to their Grob Tutor fleet, so they subcontract out any damage repaire work to an EASA145 approved company who specialise in this work, this is a well worn process as the Grob Tutors are on the civil register and the paperwork can exclusively be handled under EASA145. The Viking recovery is a little more difficult as the Military are imposing their airworthiness oversight on the project.

The bottom line is SERCO & Marshalls have been floundering around for 20 or so months with something they don't really understand and achieved very little Babcock are the newcomers to this project having come to it in about May this year and have with their policy of subcontracting experts to do the work got two gliders flying in the face of SERCO obstruction and reams of MoD paperwork.

Arclite01

10th Dec 2015, 08:29

A&C - I agree with your comments.

In addition most companies nowadays that sell themselves as 'having a capability' usually mean 'expertise vested in one individual' (usually near to retirement age) and really mean they subcontract any work as cheaply as possible....................

Arc

Arclite01

10th Dec 2015, 08:31

Cat Funt

Delete 'Leadership' - insert 'Structure'

(I specifically stayed away from the word 'Organisation' :) )

That works better

Arc

Why oh why

10th Dec 2015, 08:59

*Snip*
The bottom line is SERCO & Marshalls have been floundering around for 20 or so months with something they don't really understand and achieved very little Babcock are the newcomers to this project having come to it in about May this year and have with their policy of subcontracting experts to do the work got two gliders flying in the face of SERCO obstruction and reams of MoD paperwork.

A & C, I take it you've a vested interest in Babcock. with your above statement, if one looks at the timescales between the DHAN being issued and the First Vigilant flying its very similar to the timescale between Babcock starting and the first Viking flying, and taking into account the huge uplift of IPT employees to assist the task, there's nothing in it.

Additionally your comment regarding SERCO obstruction seems hugely unfounded, I was advised that it was SERCO MO staff that had to transpose the documentation back into the F700 for Babcock and complete the airworthiness review to allow the aircraft to fly.

POBJOY

10th Dec 2015, 10:01

When you are incompetent you surround yourself with a virtual world rather like a film set.
Shiny new offices and 'workshops' are the facade but no real work goes on or 'real' decisions are made.
Meetings become the buzz word for what should be 'operations' and flying suited staff 'engage' in 'not flying'.
Leadership is replaced with 'instructions' and veiled threats of being hunted down if you have an opinion.
Web sites and press releases abound with misleading information and photo opportunities.
This is how some large organisations used to operate decades ago when the 'Head Office' syndrome ruled the commercial world.
Reality then kicked in and costs forced a rethink into what was actually needed;which was to 'BACK UP' the field force and give them the tools.
Many large organisations operate in the commercial sector using a high % of volunteer staff. They do this because it releases income for :-The Charity or in the case of the National Trust gives them a manpower input that would be non sustainable in commercial terms. However these organisations realise the value and professional input they get from volunteers and 'manage' the system in such a way that everyone is seen as an important contributor to the system.
The 'schools' have a long history of providing safe flying operations;with a continuity of staffing that ensured best practice and standards were passed on and also adapted to increasing levels of change and scrutiny.The very people that should have been 'engaged' with helping to deal with the 'glitch' in the system and who had more combined knowledge of what goes on have been ignored and treated with disdain.Unless a change is made to the command structure at the top any ongoing decisions will not be based upon competence or an abilty to lead a volunteer organisation.

A and C

10th Dec 2015, 16:44

So let's take a look at the goings on............

About 20 months ago the MAA pulled the flight approval of two fleets that SERCO had the contract to maintain because of inadequate technical record keeping, and as yet the only SERCO contribution to the Viking recovery is to transcribe the tech records from EASA145 to military standard ?

I am sorry but as a tax payer I think that this is a bit rich from a company that has failed to do what it was paid to do. IE provide the maintenance and support for the ATC glider fleet, it is clear that SERCO must have failed to keep proper records over a sustained period to require the MAA to ground the whole fleet

As I understand things the MoD has just about finnished dotting the I's & Crossing the T's on the Viking recovery contract and this will be confirmed next week. The glider support contract is also up for grabs and SERCO who's contract ran out a few months back are at the moment on three month renewals.

My guess is that two big contract applications in a short space of time was too much for the MoD to chew over and at once the glider recovery contract is sealed they will go onto the support contract. At this point you have to ask yourself if awarding the contract to a company that has failed so spectacularly to provide the service it was contracted to do would be a wise course of action ?

I have no financial interest in Babcock, just an keen interest in seeing the youth of this nation getting the opertunity to go gliding just like I did when I was an air cadet and don't as a tax payer take kindly to a company that has failed so lamentably to provide the services that it has been paid to do.

longer ron

10th Dec 2015, 19:02

C F

You're not alone in this opinion. More than a few people have suggested to me that the mushroom treatment may be part of a ploy to see if enough instructors will sign off en masse to legitimate shutting down squadrons because they've shrunk below a critical mass to stay sustainable. Certainly, even if the fleet were declared ready to go tomorrow, there are plenty of people who are giving serious consideration of whether or not they want to serve under the current (and I use the word very loosely) "leadership".

Agreed - And one of the biggest worries is that the current ''leadership'' actually would like the volunteers to leave as he hates 'Amateurs',one of my big worries is that we will end up with very few 'Gliding Schools' (I am avoiding the title 'VGS' purposely) if he tries to staff them with 'professionals' and or his old boy network.

DC10RealMan

10th Dec 2015, 19:46

Longer Ron.

Are you actually saying that "The Management" is professional?

Surely some mistake?

Why oh why

10th Dec 2015, 19:54

I think you'll find that your technical record keeping issues fall well behind Serco times. Much of it back to blue suit days.
And I'm informed the initial Babcock Viking recovery deal was 6 gliders in as many weeks. However 7 months down the line they only appear to of produced 2 and those have only flown with considerable input from the current MO, and thrown the towel in with the remaining quota

QUOTE=A and C;9206678]So let's take a look at the goings on............

About 20 months ago the MAA pulled the flight approval of two fleets that SERCO had the contract to maintain because of inadequate technical record keeping, and as yet the only SERCO contribution to the Viking recovery is to transcribe the tech records from EASA145 to military standard ?

I am sorry but as a tax payer I think that this is a bit rich from a company that has failed to do what it was paid to do. IE provide the maintenance and support for the ATC glider fleet, it is clear that SERCO must have failed to keep proper records over a sustained period to require the MAA to ground the whole fleet

As I understand things the MoD has just about finnished dotting the I's & Crossing the T's on the Viking recovery contract and this will be confirmed next week. The glider support contract is also up for grabs and SERCO who's contract ran out a few months back are at the moment on three month renewals.

My guess is that two big contract applications in a short space of time was too much for the MoD to chew over and at once the glider recovery contract is sealed they will go onto the support contract. At this point you have to ask yourself if awarding the contract to a company that has failed so spectacularly to provide the service it was contracted to do would be a wise course of action ?

I have no financial interest in Babcock, just an keen interest in seeing the youth of this nation getting the opertunity to go gliding just like I did when I was an air cadet and don't as a tax payer take kindly to a company that has failed so lamentably to provide the services that it has been paid to do.[/QUOTE]

BEagle

10th Dec 2015, 19:54

Marshals area of expertees is in large metal aircraft...

Oh really? Look at Marshalls history with TriStar ZD949... A multi-million pound scandal which never really came to the public's attention. Expertise indeed...

I wouldn't trust them further than I could smell them....:uhoh:

Flugplatz

10th Dec 2015, 20:02

LR:

Doesn't like amateurs and would prefer professionals? does that mean the CGIs might get paid?? or just put on a non-flying suit uniform and salute everyone?

Flug

longer ron

10th Dec 2015, 20:26

DC10/Flugplatz

Are you actually saying that "The Management" is professional?

No way LOL

See my previous comments about Muddleton if in any doubt !

I was saying that JM has a 'thing' about 'Amateurs' and I have always worried that he might want to use cronies/old boy network to staff a much reduced Air Cadet Gliding 'organisation'.

rgds LR

DC10RealMan

10th Dec 2015, 20:41

Of that I have no doubt.

I am sure that he would much prefer his old boy "professionals" than the actual volunteers who are only highly educated, professionally qualified, highly experienced and some are even professionally qualified pilots but didn't know "himself" on the Squadron because they are career civilians.

Free flying for retired senior RAF officers at the taxpayers expense HURRAH!!

Arclite01

11th Dec 2015, 07:51

DC10

They will soon get fed up with repeated walks back to the launch point and standing outside on freezing airfields for a few launches and five minute circuits - paid or otherwise...............

Arc

romeo bravo

11th Dec 2015, 10:31

Now that we are all most at the end of the 100 year experiment of the RAF, I wonder if someone is going tell us that there was another experiment going on behind the scenes, which is about to come to a close; 75 years of Air Cadet flying.

Closure date: 05 Feb 16. 75 years after the formation of the ATC......

A and C

11th Dec 2015, 11:49

The slow rate of initial progress I am told was due to the type certificate holder being slow to answer technical questions and supply repair data.

The supply of parts has been erratic and some involved with this process have no understanding whatsoever of Glider maintenance.

From a purely mechanical point of view the first glider has been ready to fly months ago, but paperwork issued both of history and the process going forward delayed things.

I do find it rather rich that anyone can defend a system that has so consistently over a considerably time scale failed to come up with the goods.

multum in parvo

11th Dec 2015, 13:07

As a former civil servant and ATC (non flying) volunteer I have watched this developing debacle with a great deal of sadness. I will not wander into the technical aspects of the issue( although to a layman it does seem that a lot of the issues are caused by military process rather than safety )but do think the changing nature of the commissioning system for senior leaders in the ATC may have had an impact. Until 2009 everyone ,apart from I think the Comdt, were Civil Servants with a Civilian Component commission. Overnight these commissions were withdrawn as being incompatible with Civil Service
Terms and Conditions. The options for the full time leadership were either to take a VR(T) commission or to convert certain posts back to the RAF under FTRS T&C. It seems the later course was chosen. Why might that have an impact? Once back in the RAF " mainstream" it appears that some of the senior leadership have moved even further away from the volunteers, forgetting that the strength of the organisation has always been the dedication and skills brought to the party by people who want to be , but don't need to be , there , week in and week out. As mentioned elsewhere bringing the "corporate knowledge " of the volunteers into the centre of solving this problem would have been a bonus. It may not have moved the technical solution forward ( although I suspect it would have) but it would have demonstrated that the senior leadership valued the volunteers who have been the backbone of the flying organisation since its inception. Leading volunteers needs a specific skill set that is probably summed up by the Sandhurst motto - Serve To Lead. It would be such a shame if the unintended consequence of a change to the commissioning system in 2009 has moved some of the senior leaders so far away from the volunteers that they no longer lead in any meaningful way at all.

brokenlink

11th Dec 2015, 18:45

RB, that probably explains the 75th Anniversary logo then!

Flugplatz

11th Dec 2015, 22:18

Check this link out: https://www.ted.com/playlists/140/how_leaders_inspire

Okay it is apples and oranges, but why does the present leadership seem to do all the things that are completely guaranteed NOT to inspire their followers? He has had the training and presumably many years of practice, why can't he get even the basics right (communication etc)?

I can only presume that this is a monstrous ego thing, doing the reverse of all the basic leadership techniques, just to prove he is some sort of top dog (mutt more like). I have now changed my opinion somewhat and am beginning to feel that we may be the lucky ones compared to those working with him day-to-day. Completely bizarre and I can't see how things have been allowed to degenerate to this degree; surely he should get his marching orders once this is all over?

Flug

DC10RealMan

11th Dec 2015, 23:18

"The Management" is only communicating with VRT personnel and they dont count.

In my opinion it is the monstrous ego compounded by arrogance and if these were virtues he would be canonized.

I also have no doubt that in the end it will be a great triumph resulting in bonuses, backslapping amongst senior officers and knighthoods?

POBJOY

12th Dec 2015, 01:08

When this debacle started i was more interested in the poor decision making and the lack of tech expertise that abounded as i had no direct experience of the current 'leadership' to make a judgement based on that side of the situation.
As a clearer picture emerged of the really bad decision making and total inability to engage with the 'schools' in a professional manner it became obvious where the real problem lay.
When you add a 'tech' glitch that went back some time (But had not resulted in a 'real' serious operating problem) then the resulting action was not based upon sound risk judgement. It may have been a better option to put a hold on Cadet solo for a short period until inspections were made,rather than throw the baby out with the bath water.
The schools should have been brought in when this situation cropped up and that way nobody could say a proper picture of the 'risk' had not been looked at.
What we have now is a total loss of confidence in A :- The leadership,and B:- The very system that is supposed to be the 'managing' component.
When the Air Force are seen to be incapable of operating such basic machines in a competent manner; then there has to be a change of staff to get an ongoing improvement.
To ignore the expertise and input of those engaged at the 'coal face' of the operation was both arrogant and devoid of common sense,and it will take a change of direction and staff to provide a way ahead to regain the confidence with the system for the future.

A and C

12th Dec 2015, 08:32

I find viewing this thread with utter despair at the lack of ability of those in charge to appropriately manage this situation using judgment appropriate to the risks.

On the flying side the operating expertees ( proven over years of safe operation ) seems to be held entirely by volunteer staff at the coal face with those who are aledgedly in charge having climbed so far up he slippery pole that they would have difficulty recognising a glider. The worst of this is that they seem totally unable ( or unwilling ) to harness the talent within the volunteer staff pool to improve the situation.

The technical leadership has been lacklustre to say the least, I think part of this was due to the inital reliability of the fleet lulling the contractor and type certificate holder into a state where resources had become deployed on other projects and had failed to develop the skills required to maintain the fleet, I would then guess that those in charge tried to hide this lack of ability by very dogmatic adherence to technical manuals that had been written by an industry that assumes a level of competent tradecraft. What followed was a culture within the organisation that it was best to do nothing when exact detailed guidance was not avalable because their lack of tradecraft knowlage could not fill in the gaps n the technical instructions and allow them to use industry best practice.
No doubt by this point the hangars were filling with broken gliders and the can't do culture had become embedded when the train hit the buffers, at this point with the MAA breathing down their necks the corporate culture did what the clueless do best and started having recovery meetings, at these meetings the only firm decision that was made was to have another meeting.

At this point the RAF insist they get outside help.........the outside help could have fixed the first few gliders within weeks of they had been on the civil register but the reams of military paperwork and the lack of a type certificate holder with any glider repair experience turns the whole exercise into a massive paper trail.

Lima Juliet

12th Dec 2015, 09:03

On the flying side the operating expertees ( proven over years of safe operation )

A and C, expertese is not going to save you and neither is previous safe operation if the aircraft are unsafe. Even if they're safe then you need a way of assuring that they are safe to operate. From the FOI request some posts back we know that the paperwork that assured that the aircraft was safe to operate had been lost or incomplete, we also saw in the same FOI that elevator hinges had been fitted to the wrong aircraft. There has also been anecdotal tales of unrecorded accident damage and repairs. We know that a singular accident involving a Cadet could have proven catestrophic for all ACO flying. What would you have done if you had been presented with this issue - talking to the Volunteers as you suggest?

Prior performance is no guarantee of future performance...

I have said all along that stopping flying was the correct thing to do. I cannot criticise this decision knowing what we know from the FOI, rumours and other posts on here.

I agree that the return to flight program has been ridiculously sluggish, however, I suspect that 2FTS became entangled in the mire of commercial contracts. That's no excuse for the paucity of information flow, in my humble opinion. However, I remain hopeful for 2016 and the return of gliding for Air Cadets - rumour has it that CAS makes a decision next week and one would hope that the message will be broadcast to all before Christmas and New Year.

LJ :ok:

Freda Checks

12th Dec 2015, 10:51

LJ, to be really pedantic it should be expertise!

What a sorry state of affairs for the Air Cadet Organisation to be in.

We have lots of new winches, a fabulously expensive new operations HQ at Syerston and gliders that were not really broken, grounded for more than 20 months!

Words just fail me, and I feel for the many volunteers who are now wondering about the management. I know many would have wanted to vent their feelings here on PPRUNE but refrained from doing so because of veiled threats of being found out by overpromoted "managers" in the system. Well done for sitting on your hands chaps.

Fortunately there are many others who share your frustrations and are prepared to post here.

I feel the Air Cadet Organisation need to fire their current PR company (do they even have one) because the messages coming out have been muddled and confusing.

A professional PR company needs to be employed soon to sift through the ashes of this debacle and start afresh. We need good PR soon or any future of the Air Cadet Organisation will be in doubt.

DC10RealMan

12th Dec 2015, 11:31

Freda Checks.

An interesting post about employing a PR company to fulfill the role normally taken by Leadership and Responsibility.

You refer to muddled and contradictory messages, but surely clarity of purpose and making sure that everyone understands their role, communication and appropriate timescales is part of the primary role of any Leader.

One might think that you are getting ready to prepare the ground by employing a PR company AT THE TAXPAYERS EXPENSE to diffuse and "muddy the waters" about the roles and responsibilities and therefore blame if any uncomfortable questions are asked particularly in Parliament.

Do I win my prize, Group Captain Middleton?

A Taxpayer.

Fitter2

12th Dec 2015, 12:19

Freda, saying that gliders that were not really broken rather ignores some of the woefully incompetent repairs uncovered by the professional glider maintenance outfit that did the survey.

In my professional experience, a competent organisation doesn't need a 'PR Consultant', although one that wants to hide the facts and misrepresent the facts can sometimes benefit from one.

A and C

12th Dec 2015, 12:22

I totally agree with your understanding of the reason for the grounding however
I know that a lot of the VGS staff are involved in the civilian gliding movement and would have been able to point the RAF in the direction of expert help with the recovery program long before the RAF worked it out for themselfs.

It must of been clear from long before the grounding that the current contractor was falling well short of the mark, I was told tails of composite repair bays going unused, staff refusing to do independent inspections and gliders with minor damage being written for years before the grounding. While I did at the time suspect that this was a lot of hot air unfortunately it has come to pass that the rumours had some foundation.

If I who am on the very outer edges of both the gliding & air cadet movements had been getting these murmurings how is it the RAF management missed them ? Have they never heard of management by walking about ? ( this is when you walk about your bailiwick talking to those at the coal face to find out what is actually going on rather than the middle management view ).

A good communication path between the VGS upper management and the volunteers who run the day to day operation might well have caught this problem while it was just a few gliders that failed to meet airworthiness standards and long before the fleet grounding was the only option.

A and C

12th Dec 2015, 12:46

The fact is that most of the gliders do not meet oversight standards and so should not fly until they do ( most of them would not kill you right now but a little way down the line who knows ?).

What the ATC needs is to spend its money on good engineering recovery and support. Not a PR company that charge hard cash to roll in glitter the turd that the present management have attempted to polish !

The only solution to this problem is serviceable gliders provided at the best speed the industry can muster.

Freda Checks

12th Dec 2015, 14:12

Fitter writes,

In my professional experience, a competent organisation doesn't need a 'PR Consultant', although one that wants to hide the facts and misrepresent the facts can sometimes benefit from one.

Agree 100%, but I feel that under the circumstances we do not have evidence of a competent organisation.

Lima Juliet

12th Dec 2015, 17:00

Oh bolleaux - expertise it is...:ugh:

Yup, I agree that there are many people that could get these aircraft airworthy to permit to fly standards under the BGA in far quicker time. But persisiting with the military airworthiness system is probably yet another 'devil in the detail'. If they were G-reg'd then another can of worms could be opened in that the VGS instructors would need SPLs with FI ratings, would they not? At the very least LAPL(S)? Plus all the medicals via civvy AMEs?

I suspect in the longer run it woukd have been better to go this route now, but at the time getting the aircraft airworthy under the military system was probably seen as the easier/cheaper route?

LJ

A and C

12th Dec 2015, 20:21

I think you are misunderstanding me, I was suggesting that the staff of the VGS would be able to point the RAF management at companies capable of operating to EASA145 standard.

It took the RAF about 14 months to come to the conclusion that this was what was required perhaps with a little more comunication with the grass roots of the VGS this decision could have been reached a little more quickly.

To just clear up the oversight standards EASA 145 is the standard that airlines operate to for Public transport and is equivalent to current military standard.

Most gliders are operated to EASA part M sub part F & G, this is the normal standard for private flight and club training in Europe, for gliders the BGA have a big hand in this for UK gliders but also oversee some older aircraft under Annex 2.

Permit aircraft are usually home builds and overseen by the LAA.

I know this is a sweeping generalisation but it will do for the purposes of this thread.

As Gliders pioneered the use of GRP technology some of the glider maintenance companies moved into the maintenance of the new breed of GRP powered aircraft ( the Grob 115 Tutor being a good example ). With the coming of EASA most of the companies in this sector opted for EASA part M sub part F & G but a few opted for EASA145 to enable them to work in the public transport sector.

The Viking fleet could be operated on the G plate under EASA145 maintenance as there is a well worn system to permit the military to operate civil aircraft using military qualified crew and this is how the Tutors are flown.

In my opinion going down the civil route for registration of the Vikings flown using the dispensation to use military flight crews would have considerable advantages in cost and speed of return to service as it would have put the Viking recovery entirely under one maintenance oversight system, into a system that understands gliders, put the type certificate back in the hands of Grob experts, streamlined the replacement of obsolete parts, allowed fleet wide standard repairs and most important of all totally shut the people who precipitated this crisis out of the recovery process.

The system of military operation of civil aircraft has been successful as the Tutor fleet has proven, they may have had their technical issues but the oversight system has run very smoothly.

Unfortunately I have to agree with you in that the recovery process is too far down the road to change oversight systems now and it is at this stage best to stick with the system we have in place.

Lima Juliet

12th Dec 2015, 21:37

All understood, thanks :ok:

O-P

13th Dec 2015, 00:23

I'd much rather they'd put Muddleton in charge of a few carrots rather than an F3 Sqn, or 2FTS, that Guy really knew how to cripple morale. Nothing seems to have changed.

Oh, for some obscure reason, he doesn't seem to think it's his fault!:mad:

mmitch

13th Dec 2015, 10:59

A month ago I asked if a question had been asked in parliament about this.
I have not seen anything in the news. They go on yet another holiday this week.
mmitch.

brokenlink

13th Dec 2015, 12:19

Hansard Page 654 for the 19th October mentions the "pause".

cats_five

14th Dec 2015, 08:22

POBJOY

14th Dec 2015, 12:07

There are enough air frames to keep the 'winch' fleet going for years,even if some of the 'damaged' ones are used for spares recovery.
The Vig situation is also not that bad if common sense prevailed and they overhauled the current engine. Even if they went for a 'new' engine then one of the standard Limbach models would be an easy fix as they are already retrofitted in that airframe. I personally would not opt for a gearbox type engine as it just adds another complexity that is not justified for a training fleet operation.
The whole point of operating a SLMG is to reduce the level of 'issues' to that as near as possible to a pure glider.
Even the 'parachute' option is questionable on both fleets due to the average operating height and the added question of the reality of being current enough in escape drills. When the ATC moved from the Mk3/T21 to glass the operation did not justify parachutes as an added safety measure as there had been no case that required it.In the case of the VIG it just adds weight that reduces performance,and an engine fire situation would be better served with a 'single lever' control that cut the fuel off and engaged a halon bottle.The main issues with the winch fleet will be finding enough suitable sites that can accommodate the operation and are also near to centres of population.The Vig operation is ideal for dealing with 'upper air work' and the first handling of control so has its place if the fleet is kept.There may have to be some 'out of box' thinking on extending summer w-ends to include frid-mon with staff from disbanded schools involved. None of this is rocket science or beyond reach; but does require some serious decisions at the top and the inclusion of the schools to see how they can adapt to new challenges.
What it WILL REQUIRE is inspirational leadership by someone who the schools can rely on and getting back to the basic reason of what they are there for;which is to get Cadets airborne in something they can eventually get to fly themselves !

A and C

14th Dec 2015, 14:35

Parts are not a problem as such, most of the bits to make the gliders work are avalable off the shelf from the original German manufactures, the problem is that more than a little product improvement has happened and the upgraded part will get a new part number as this point the civil type certificate holder will issue a service bulletin to allow the fitting of a different part number.

This is the work that the military type certificate holder should have been doing but they seem to had gone to sleep for a few years ( no doubt comfortable that the money was still rolling in ) and not kept up with the game so come the recovery program a parts shortage of obsolete parts appears because the book gives an obsolete part number and nothing else can be fittted without the type certificate holder updating the paperwork.

I think we have been around the block with the Vigilant engine issues, as I understand it the type certificate holder is no longer supporting the engine, the result of this is when the parts supply drys up the engines can no longer be overhauled to EASA145 standard and without this can't be used by the VGS as EASA145 is the minimum oversight standard that meets the military requirements.

As to retro fitting the Rotax 912 engine, from a technical viewpoint a cant see a down side, the reason for needing a replacement is that the low production run engine is no longer economic to support, the Rotax is one of the most successful light aircraft engines of all times, thousands have been made and it is ultra reliable ( even if it has a gearbox ), I would guess that with the numbers being produced both myself & Mr Pobjoy will be six foot under before the type certificate support bites the dust.

POBJOY

14th Dec 2015, 16:13

A&C I am not too sure about the 6ft bit (damm cold & dark) may opt for the giant (cat 4) aerial bombs with extra 'cascade' (9 of them) followed by Hurricane beat up. Over Kenley of course,and on 18th Aug.
Anyway not planning a departure as yet until this sorry mess with the 'Donkey' dept (no disrespect to Donkeys) is sorted.
This would 'out cascade' all the other previous cascades from higher authority.

POBJOY

14th Dec 2015, 18:56

It appears that this somewhat 'reserved' forum has finally got fed up with being fed H....S... from Syerston and has posted a direct and to the point message to Cmdt 2FTS.
Actually it might even make quite a good Xmas card with a bit of photoshop snow and some funny hats.Have a peek !
Methinks someone will have a real sense of humour failure over this and the hunting season will start early !

A&C I am going to start a Limbach fan club. It will be a bit like the referendum campaign (Say NO To gearboxes) (unless it is a copy of a double helical Pobjoy one !)
Be quick i suspect it will get censored (the peek that is)

Mechta

14th Dec 2015, 23:16

It always seems to take time for glider parts. A wing for a K21 was 6 months, almost the same for a canopy & frame. We have a new this year K21. This is a glider design that's 30 years or so old, and it's serial number is less than 1,000. Gliders are not mass-made, they are hand-built to order, so if the ATC suddenly needed lots of parts for a glider model that is no longer made it's no surprise they are hard to get. There's not much sign of automation in a glider factory. When you see how labour intensive the manufacture is, at German rates of pay, you begin to appreciate why they are so eye-wateringly expensive for what they are.

I_atJwXxcrU

Generally the manufacturers already have a waiting list, so if you need parts which are not in stock, you go on the end of the queue. As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, the reason the Air Cadets bought the Grob 103 was that Schleicher, who made the competitor, weren't interested in a trying to accommodate a large order against a short timescale.