Air Cadets grounded?

[Sky Sports]

My father-in-law recently had a major problem with his glider, requiring some serious repairs.

He trailered it to Poland, dropped it off and picked it up 6 weeks later. As good as new, all signed off.

Just saying!

[EnigmAviation]

Has Sir Andy Pulford CAS read the documents yet ? or has he been taken away to A & E with Tachycardia and severe Hypertension after reading the sad story ?

[cats_five]

My father-in-law recently had a major problem with his glider, requiring some serious repairs.

He trailered it to Poland, dropped it off and picked it up 6 weeks later. As good as new, all signed off.

Just saying!


I'm guessing his glider is firstly on the G-register and secondly has it's paperwork up-to-date with no need for a fine tooth comb inspection to get it all up-to-date, and no dodgy repairs to redo.

[paul m]

we transitioned 2000 gliders a few years back, by a bunch of volunteers. BGA/CAA/EASA system seems to work. Unlike a small scale set up with a bunch of professionals.

[Why oh why]

Even the expert civilian company tasked with the Viking recovery has still only managed to to produce a couple of aircraft in nearly 9 months and no doubt they did many, many BGA transitions

[A and C]

I was on the edges of that transfer between the BGA and EASA, all this gliders had up to date maintenance records and had not got any unauthorised/unrecorded repairs that had a common cause or common reason for these shortcomings.

The VGS is a totally different ball game, missing records, unauthorised & unrecorded repairs etc.

All operations have their mistakes and a few had been turned up by the BGA/CAA/EASA during the transition but this is on a totally different scale, these were individual cases of honest and isolated mistakes with no common factor rather than a systematic quality oversight failure across the fleet that's why the MAA pulled the plug on the VGS fleet.

I'm sure the RAF is deeply embarrassed about this whole sorry affair, it is going to take someone at the highest level to get to the bottom of why this happened and ensure that those responsible are encouraged not to continue to provide services of this type in the future.

[POBJOY]

There is someone already in the RAF system who could advise on this from a 'hands on' viewpoint.
The problem is the people at the top do not know anything about what is a reasonable response to the problem because they are advised by those who know even less.
Whilst i accept that there has to be a satisfactory 'trail' system in place when operating equipment used by 'minors' i do not accept that the fleet was in any more danger from an actual safety point of view than it had been in the past.
The lack of 'incidents' and reports from the users seems to indicate that what was needed was a rapid 'deep' inspection to satisfy any unknown faults in the fleet. As the vast majority of the flying is dual with instructors then the risk factor was very low and the actual response to the problem not well founded.
The whole point of having a 'management' structure in any organisation is to MANAGE the situation not to shut it down (Which is a complete FAILURE)
The ongoing timescale of the what has became an eye opener in how the RAF/MOD deal with 'situations' does little to give one any confidence that ANYONE at a senior level in the system actually knows anything about how it works or how it should work.
Anyway as there are no votes in any of this do not expect any great changes where needed as i do not think we have any VGS staffers who are also MP's.
There used to be(may still be) an 'Air Rank' who headed up the RAF GSA perhaps he should be 'parachuted in' as an adviser together with some of his 'members' at the coal face to give an expert input into this sad affair.

[beardy]

i do not accept that the fleet was in any more danger from an actual safety point of view than it had been in the past.

But, do you know and can you guarantee that the fleet was and would continue to be safe? If yes, then based on the shambolic paper trail which provides no evidence to support your beliefs, I would not let my child fly with you.

The lack of 'incidents' and reports from the users seems to indicate that what was needed was a rapid 'deep' inspection to satisfy any unknown faults in the fleet. As the vast majority of the flying is dual with instructors then the risk factor was very low and the actual response to the problem not well founded.



The lack of incidents is no gauge of future performance, dual or solo is irrelevant.


Your frustration is evident, but haste and corner cutting is how we got here, it is not a way out.

[Cows getting bigger]

"Dear Mr & Mrs Bloggs, we're really sorry that little Johnny (age 13 and there quarters) died yesterday but it's really quite unusual for a wing to fall-off one of our gliders. We trust you understand that the RAF has been a bit busy lately and we consequently forgot to check how maintenance of the glider fleet was being managed. Some chap highlighted that we may want to take a look at the paperwork and, in keeping with our impeccable standards, we sent a chief tech to Syerston last Friday afternoon on his way home. He thought there may be a couple of issues but all the gliders were nice and shiny, as were the random aircraft bits left in a bin in the corner of the hangar. He popped back on Saturday with his screwdriver (before Final Score) and we think we've probably solved the problem now, although there's some merriment within 2 FTS at the spare control rod that seems to have been inadvertently sent to us by Grob a few years back.

Johnny was fortunate enough to be the first cadet to fly in a UK military registered glider since early 2014 and in recognition of this fact, we have arranged honorary (posthumous) membership of the Guild of Test Pilots. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year......." :eek:

[squawking 7700]

It has to be said that the the duty of care extends to all those flying those aircraft, not just cadets.


7700

[A and C]

The biggest problem is that those at the top of the RAF have very little internal glider maintenance knowlage to turn to and only one supplier of glider CAMO services.

It matters not who you get to fix the gliders when you need to fly them the people who have to sign off the final release to service are the same people who had the rug pulled out from under them by the MAA for maintenance failures.

About a year back these people's support contract ran out and they have been on three month renewals and very recently have had the support contract renewed for a year, it follows that the support contract is up for grabs in a year.

If another company gets the glider recovery contract we are going to see a conflict of interest ? It would be in the CAMO,s interest to make as much trouble for the recovery company in terms of rejecting work on the smallest of grounds and being generally obstructive to prove that the other main player in the game is not fit to run the support contract.

This support contract is a long one and is the big prize in a commercial sence, the MoD will have to be very astute in who they chose, I expect to see the gloves come off in the new year when the support contract bidding starts for real.

If the inter company mud slinging starts losers in this will be the air cadets who's flying curtailed and the tax payer who is not getting the flying they have paid for, the RAF need to be on top of this situation.

My advice to any high ranking officer who has this crock of poo land in his lap would be to get a few reliable members of the RAF GSA to help bring a little specialist advice to the table and safeguard the interests of the people in this who really matter.......... The cadets !

[taxydual]

Has anyone had a word in the new boss's ear?

Kate Middleton beams as Prince Philip passes RAF Air Cadets patronage on to her - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/12055037/Kate-Middleton-beams-as-Prince-Philip-passes-RAF-Air-Cadets-patronage-on-to-her.html)

[Arclite01]

So really yet another outsource fiasco - we really don't do this stuff well do we..............

When we had MGSP and CGMF manned by service personnel we really did not have these sort of issues.

(MGSP - Mobile Glider Servicing Party for those of you not old enough to remember, later replaced by CGMF (Central Glider Maintenance Flight) when serving was centralised...................)

Arc

[Tingger]

Isn't the Chairman of the RAF GSA the previous OC CGS? So in charge of Syerston just preceeding the "pause"?

[teeteringhead]

It has to be said that the the duty of care extends to all those flying those aircraft, not just cadets.

But the "reputational risk" is much higher with cadets - think "Daily Mail Factor"!

When we had MGSP and CGMF manned by service personnel we really did not have these sort of issues.


But I understood some of the "issues" went back to "blue suit" days........??

[ACW342]

"paperwork that assured that the aircraft was safe to operate had been lost or incomplete"

LJ ( #1247) Should the above not read lost, shredded or incomplete?

Hence my earlier post some time ago referring to possible criminal acts.

A 342 (a numerical anagram as well as my old call sign)

[The B Word]

Jungle drums in HQ Air are beating that an announcement is imminent following a meeting with the head cheese...

...anyone know what the outcome was? :confused:

[DC10RealMan]

Blame the VRT Officers?

[EnigmAviation]

There's a hold up, just waiting for some bad news to bury the 2FTS announcement, so that all the VRT guys completely miss it !

📢

[A and C]

The proclamation from on high may be good news ! It might be that the MoD has finally awarded the Viking recovery contract.

On the other hand with the current track record ...................

[Tingger]

They announced the Viking recovery contract being awarded last month though. Surely can't do it twice?

[tmmorris]

I think they are all too busy with the pers staff Nativity Play.

No, I'm not making that up...

Http://Twitter.com/comdtac

[teeteringhead]

No, I'm not making that up...

Some of it you couldn't make up.......

[DC10RealMan]

In my experience "they" normally publish bad news at 1659 on the last working day before a two week public holiday.

[A and C]

While the intention of awarding the Vikng recovery contract was announced a few weeks back to the best of my knowlage ( as of Last Friday ) no one has put their name on the dotted line.

[Tingger]

While the intention of awarding the Vikng recovery contract was announced a few weeks back to the best of my knowlage ( as of Last Friday ) no one has put their name on the dotted line.

I was told Babcock had signed for 73 of them.

[A and C]

That was the word on the street and a lot of work has gone into moving in that direction however as of last week no news of a contract being signed had reached me.

[mary meagher]

Its all very well after a three year pause with next to nil instruction taking place in the Air Cadet organisation. Lovely if your two seat gliders have finally passed their inspection and are found fit to fly.

But meanwhile, what have all the instructors been doing to keep current?

Are the qualifications to be an Air Cadet instructor the same as those required of a civilian instructor? are they interchangeable or not? Long ago when I needed to maintain an aviation medical, I admired a photograph of an RAF fighter plane proudly positioned on the wall of the AME...and in my nosy way, asked the kind doctor how many hours did he have in his logbook.

Three hundred, he replied, and I wished I hadn't asked. This old woman since starting to fly at the age of 50 some time back has over 3,000 hours; 1,800 in gliders and 1,300 in power. More takeoffs and landings than any power pilot can begin to imagine, towing up gliders, practicing launch failures with students, flying in competitions cross country.

It costs so much to fly Her Majesty's aircraft,it is not surprising the average military pilot may not have acquired a lot of experience.

If Air Cadet instructors have gone elsewhere to keep current, they may not wish to return....

[AnglianAV8R]

B1566/15: Flight information region (FIR) : miscellaneous plain language
Q) EGTT/QAFXX/IV/NBO/E/000/033/5237N00029W005
WITTERING GLIDER SITE, PERMANENTLY WITHDRAWN, PSN 523645N 0002835W
HGT 3000FT AGL/3273FT AMSL.
AIP ENR-5.5 REFERS
FROM: 08 Dec 2015 00:00 GMT TO: Permanent

[WE992]

I don't understand the relevance of the Wittering NOTAM to this thread!

[A and C]

I think is is intended to demonstrate the withdrawal of another VGS site.

The pause in VGS gliding has become so extended that some think that it will never come back.

[iRaven]

Wittering's glider site was for the RAFGSA Four Counties' Gliding Club and not a VGS...sadly also now defunct! :ugh:

[Arclite01]

'Knee jerk' reaction at Wittering - there is no weekend flying there at the moment - could have had at least one or two more seasons there - 'knee jerk' seems to be flavour of the month nowadays..........

Arc

[AnglianAV8R]

My apologies if my posting of the Wittering NOTAM caused confusion. I have a vague recollection of Wittering being mooted as a possible site for Cadet gliding, in the event of a scaled down organisation ? I also believe that the move from Watton to Honington didn't come to much and the new hangar there never happened ?

[EnigmAviation]

As its Christmas fast approaching, can't we compose a parody based on that Xmas favourite, I'll start it off as follows:-

On the first day of Christmas, my true Guv said to me, ...................come on chaps, must have some ideas for the other verses like........

4 Grobs a flying,

All suggestions welcome

[Auster Fan]

My apologies if my posting of the Wittering NOTAM caused confusion. I have a vague recollection of Wittering being mooted as a possible site for Cadet gliding, in the event of a scaled down organisation ? I also believe that the move from Watton to Honington didn't come to much and the new hangar there never happened ?
I believe the purpose built VGS hangar at Watton remains there.

[bobward]

I've been told that a new hanger was built at Honington. Sadly, the door wasn't wide enough and they had to take the wings off to get the aircraft in and out.....

This came from someone who had contacts within the ACO gliding fraternity and I pass it on for what it's worth. The same source told me that OC Marham was very keen to get ACO gliding back there. Again, I pass it on for information. If it's wrong hopefully someone with better sources that i will correct it.

[cats_five]

I've been told that a new hanger was built at Honington. Sadly, the door wasn't wide enough and they had to take the wings off to get the aircraft in and out.....

<snip>.

Gosh just how narrow were the doors? I've seen gliders come out of hangers where the door is far narrower than the wingspan with the aid of putting the main wheel on a trolley with swivel wheels, and someone on each 'corner'.

[sycamore]

C5,you must stop such `original and lateral thinking` to sort out problems; surprised they didn`t think of having a fleet of `clipped-wing` gliders....or maybe they did...

[99 Change Hands]

No new hangar was built at Honington, the aircraft initially shared a HAS with the flying club but, of course, the HAS doors had not been maintained for years and didn't open fully, hence removing wings. They were then given their own HAS and there was talk of funding being available to repair the doors, that soon became a moot point of course.

[AnglianAV8R]

@ Auster Fan
"I believe the purpose built VGS hangar at Watton remains there."

Sadly, no airfield though :{

[cats_five]

Nothing original at all there, hanger packing is one of the arts of gliding for most clubs

[Auster Fan]

@ Auster Fan
"I believe the purpose built VGS hangar at Watton remains there."

Sadly, no airfield though :{
Yes, when I last flew over there from Old Buck, it looked a sorry sight...

[paul m]

so no news from CAS and JM?

[POBJOY]

Paul The news consisted of a report on how good the Xmas party at HQ Air Cadets was; very motivating it was too direct from AOC UK Air Cadets.
News from Syerston was that they are looking for locations to put Vikings and Vig's on poles outside former VGS locations.

Oh and JM has been bought an 'isopon' kit for Christmas with extra P38 for the difficult cover up bits.
Just waiting for the Haynes 'Viking rebuild manual' which is in heavy demand and likely to outsell the Lancaster one.

[paul m]

Now that made me smile, POBJOY

Why on earth has one asset been sent to Marshall's? Do they have some special skill, that the rest of the industry don't have.

[taxydual]

paul m

Marshall's are going to fit an all glass cockpit panel...............



I know, hat,coat etc.........

[paul m]

I hope that's a joke.

[Arclite01]

Paul M

I believe there was a plan to retrofit the Vigilant with a 'more' glass cockpit. I assume this will now be dropped if the aircraft is retired.

As for retrofitting the Viking I think it will be neither sensible nor technically practical. However that does not mean they (Contractors and Project Sponsor) won't waste large amounts of cash and man-hours doing it (trying) before admitting it's not worth pursuing.

In a world of shrinking defence budgets the Defence companies are even looking to wring a few £ out of areas where previously there was not really any budget or interest in doing it. I expect that the glass retrofit feasibility study would have a budget of a least £75K to start..................... not a lot of cash in defence terms but hey...............

Arc

[tmmorris]

One small grain of good news is that MOD has successfully written cadets into the Defence measurable output for the first time. All credit to those in Cadets branch who have achieved this. So, things which hurt cadet numbers or 'the cadet experience' will be accountable for - closure of estates, for example. Or reduction in gliding availability... None of this used to be counted or a formal part of Defence tasking.

[Milts613]

I have been sadly following these events since the "pause." An an ex-VGS instructor, I think we have seen the 'halcyon days' of Air Cadet Gliding in the 80's, 90's and 00's. The Viking and Vigilant fleets were great - I was fortunate enough to instruct over 1,000 hours on Vigilants.

When I look back at why I joined the Air Cadets as a 13 year old in 1981, it was to fly. I ended up doing everything that the ATC had to offer from shooting, DOE, band etc, but by far and away, flying and gliding were my favourite.

I fear for the ATC now. This debacle has demotivated not only instructors but also why would a cadet want to join when the scope for flying is so limited.

Personally, I think there is a wider issue. It would not surprise me if this were an overall liability issue. With crown indemnity gone I bet the legal bods have wanted to curtail "civilians" flying a: minors and b: "military airplanes. I maybe off the mark but who knows.

So sad - I made friendship on my VGS that will last a lifetime and it gave me a confidence I would have not gained.....

[A and C]

I am told the recovery contracts have now been awarded with Marshals getting the Vigilant and Babcock getting the Viking work.

I see no indication of major cockpit upgrades at the moment, just the aircraft returned to service in the current state following inspection and rectification of any defects found.

It is likely in the short term some Avionic work will be required, all the gliders will shortly have to have the radios upgraded to 8.33 to meet international standards and with the rapid development of affordable collision avoidance equipment some sort of FLARM equipment is likely.

As this sort of upgrade is currently happening in the wider gliding world this equipment is avalable and with the size of order the MoD would make to cover the fleet the cost per aircraft is likely to be quite modest in terms of both purchase and fitting.

[tmmorris]

Any word on the numbers in the contracts? i.e. Complete vigilant fleet, or reduced? Ditto Viking?

[Arclite01]

Milts613 - Are you are sure you are not me in a parallel life ? :-)

Arc

[A and C]

I would speculate that the Vigilant is going to be controlled by the servisable engine parts avalable, the Viking is most likely to be in the high 70's.

I am told that there are some airframes that the current contractor considers damaged beyond economic repair but the new contractors may view this with a different eye, so in the long run if money is avalable there may be more Vikings. However the aim is to get the largest number of aircraft into the air in the shortest time so I guess the least troublesome airframes will go down the line first.

[cats_five]

<snip>

However the aim is to get the largest number of aircraft into the air in the shortest time so I guess the least troublesome airframes will go down the line first.

I suspect that until they start examining them & the paperwork they don't know which are the 'least troublesome' airframes...

[POBJOY]

Apart from the current paperwork/tech control issues i thought the Vig engine life/spares situation was also an ongoing problem.
Can someone enlighten me !.
Is a re-engine program really on the cards for the fleet or just a few for Syerston.
ON the 'Radio' front i would have thought the limited radio work required by the machines would hardly warrant a new fit,and the GA fleet is not going to change wholesale.

[A and C]

I don't know how marshals are going to tackle the engine problems.

As to the radios the whole of aviation is going to have to change to 8.33 because the bandwidth wider of the old radios steps on the 8.33 bandwidth.

At least four manufactures are marketing 8.33 radios with low power requirements suitable for gliders, most fit into a standard instrument hole, one of them can also act as a FLARM display.

[Why oh why]

A &C I was speaking to an engineer from the maintenance organisation yesterday but you may need to revise your statement and replace speculation with facts, I know it may be a struggle.
The current MO will be still continuing with the the Vigilant recovery package but calling in additional engineering support of marshals to expedite an increased supply of airframes

[A and C]

So let's look at the facts, a company put in charge of maintaining a glider / motor glider fleet has its authority to fly the aircraft withdrawn, this is a huge failure in that they have been proven unable to supply serviceable aircraft to the customer.

The customer has given the recovery of the of the Viking fleet to another company who have a track record with other GRP aircraft fleets.

The Vigilants you say are being recovered by the original contractor with help from a company that is a specialist in heavy metal aircraft and who have very few staff remaining from the GRP aircraft MANUFACTURING company they took over.

Why am I not filled with confidence ?

No one would be more pleased than me to see the cadets back in the air but it is only industry capacity that has allowed the company that has failed spectacularly to forefill it's contract be involved with recovering these aircraft to flying status.

Interestingly the current company has had the VGS support contract renewed for a year, this has allowed the MoD a little more time to get tenders for the continuing support over the next ten years, I think that the RAF/MoD will be thinking very carefully about what they will ask for in the contract and if a company with the track record of the current contract holders are the right people to support air cadet gliding into the foreseeable future.

[Why oh why]

The proven company with experience of GRP that's only managed to produce 2 Viking in 8 months even with a multiple increase in Project team manning. Hmmmm. Pot/Kettle springs to mind

[krohmie]

For the engine problem:

You can repower the Vigilant (Grob 109b) with Limbach/Korff or with Rotax 912 engines.

Both conversions are proven and flying in EASA Land.

[A and C]

The current contractor is also the CAMO for the Vikings, they also hold the Spare parts and control inspections of the aircraft at Syerston, the aircraft also have a type certificate holder who has a poor knowlage of GRP repair techniques.

This leaves and subcontractor over a barrel in terms of how fast they an get things done, getting technical questions answered is difficult, if you go to Grob ( for the Tutor ) you can generally get an answer over the phone with drawings following quickly by email, Daimond are much the same. To get TQ's answered by the current type certificate holder take much longer.

With all large military projects it is getting the system running in the first place and the Viking recovery team are new to the military paperwork so getting the system started was part of the problem but in your pot, kettle black scenario leaves me having to ask What serviceable airframe production rate has been in the past two years from the contractor who had all the maintenance workshops and paperwork systems in place ?

[Cows getting bigger]

They had the systems in place? Hmmmm.

Time for an FOI request.

[paul m]

difficult for a few to understand, but why not a clean sweep. New ASK-21 and SF25 with full factory TC support, but hey they won't listen

[A and C]

The current contract holder has been running the gliders since the RAF gave them the contract, one has to assume that had the military paperwork system running along with the skilled staff employed to support the contract.......... The only problem is the MAA pulled the plug on them for failing to do the job properly, if their quality system had been up to scratch they would have found the alleged shortcomings of the previous RAF maintenance and pulled the aircraft with paperwork problems off line until it was sorted.

The new contractors for the Viking recovery had in place EASA145 as the tutors are civil aircraft, so the military paperwork system has to be put in place to comply with the MAA way of doing things.

Paul M

The glider manufactures don't have the capacity to get new aircraft delivered as anything like the rate the recovery program can get the current aircraft back in the air.

[cats_five]

difficult for a few to understand, but why not a clean sweep. New ASK-21 and SF25 with full factory TC support, but hey they won't listen

Read back through the thread and you will find that mentioned several times that Schleicher didn't want the business when they were procuring the gliders, and if will take years for them to get 70+ gliders built by Schleicher. It's a 30+ year old design and the serial number on our brand new one is under 1,000.

The quote for our new one was just over EU93k, then VAT has to be paid and the glider imported into the UK.

[Corporal Clott]

A and C

Have you asked LTB Sammet GMBH what their delivery times would be? I beleive that the RAFGSA have recently bought a bunch of Turbo-Falkes in a pretty reasonable timescale. I'm also reasonably sure that Herr Sammet and Herr Karl would be delighted to expand their production facilities in Heubach to accomodate a phased delivery if asked. Of the 65-odd Vigilants I'm resonably sure that over half would have been replaced in the past 600 days of non Air Cadet gliding!

The same would go for Alexander Scleicher who produce around 80 gliders per year with their 120 employees. If they increased their work-force by 50% then theor production would likely double.

As Paul M said, buying new civ-reg ASK-21 and SF25s is the wise thing to plan for if you want to future-proof Air Cadet gliding. So start putting the orders in now and plan for a phased withdrawal of the Viking/Viggy over the next 5 years...ploughing on with a mil-reg bunch of gear that might last another 10 years is a mug's game!

CPL Clott :ok:

[A and C]

I am told that the decision to keep the gliders on the military register is one taken at high level, it is a decision that narrows the RAF's options from an ease of suitable companies that can tender for military contracts and migh paint them into a bit of a corner in the future.

Most glider manufactures won't increase their workforce by 50% for one order, the social costs associated with getting rid of people in Europe are high, I know of one airline with a Uk, French & German companies that took the money out of the U.K. Company to prop up the French company because it was much cheaper to let the viable UK company go bust rather than pay the social security costs of busting the unviable French company.

[paul m]

Hi, I was involved in the purchase of the SF25 Turbo (qty 3). It far better then the Vigilant (G109B) for many reasons:
greater take off performance - for EFATO options
lighter weight
great cockpit weight limits
lower fuel burn
modern engine with full support
ease of repair
great visibility with less cockpit furniture

The Australian aircadets bought 11 ASK-21 Mi in a short time scale. Something to say about the bonuses of the ASK-21 design!

[Cows getting bigger]

A relatively small number of air cadets first-solo'd in the ASK21. IMHO, a far better aircraft than the Grob 103.

[cats_five]

<snip>
The same would go for Alexander Scleicher who produce around 80 gliders per year with their 120 employees. If they increased their work-force by 50% then theor production would likely double.
<snip>


It really isn't that easy, even if losing them once the 70 gliders had been built was simple.


Building gliders is very much a skilled hand. New employees would need training and it would take time before the new employees could be productive.
If they could magic skilled employees out of thing air, would they need another mould or moulds to double production?
Do they have space on the shop floor for more K21 moulds without sacrificing building their other gliders?

[paul m]

interesting thoughts on the costs for the last 24 months, new contracts for Serco, Babcocks and now Marshalls Aerospace.
New engine, glass cockpits, radios and Flarm etc etc.
Perhaps a FOI is needed,

I estimate that all above would be above £15 million to:
replace G103 with ASK 21
G109 with Sf25

all with type certificate holders support

Buy hey, I only have 3500 hours and a degree qualified aeronautical engineer

[A and C]

I don't think anyone is thinking of fitting glass cockpits to these aircraft, the new radio would only be what is required to meet international requirements and FLARM is cheap and all these things are not part of the current contracts.

The G109 engine requirement depends on the availability of engine parts in the short term, in the long term a retrofit is required. I don't know what the parts holding of the RAF for the current engine and things will depend on that.

From the efforts that SERCO & Marshals are putting into the G109 it would seem to indicate they have an adequate supply of parts for the near future.

[Corporal Clott]

C5

Let me answer those in turn:

Building gliders is very much a skilled hand. New employees would need training and it would take time before the new employees could be productive.
Agreed to small extent. However, there are similar skills needed in small boat, racing cars, motorcycles, other aircraft and bespoke bathroom furniture manufacturing - so man-made fibre with epoxy resin is hardly unique to the glider manufacturing industry. Also, training someone from scratch shouldn't take more than a couple of months and then you use your experienced people as your supervisors.

If they could magic skilled employees out of thing air, would they need another mould or moulds to double production?
Agreed, but not impossible. Either use the original wooden formers to make more moulds or use an extant airframe to make more.

Do they have space on the shop floor for more K21 moulds without sacrificing building their other gliders?
This is the easiest to fix of all - hire another industrial unit!!!

None are insurmountable and would reflect in the A-S and LTB S business models for their quote. I suspect that Paul M's costs would be undercut with a new buy...

...btw, go for a FOI request although I suspect they will redact all of the commercially sensitive bits that you're interested in!

CPL Clott

[Corporal Clott]

A and C

I believe there are 30-40 inhibited Grob 2500 engines in stores. So they should be able to keep ~20 of the fleet running until the planned OSD of 2025 even with the very low 1600hr TBO (unless anyone knows of a different TBO?). It would need careful management, so now is the time to get the SF25s with fixed-pitch props and normally aspirated Rotax on order to replace the Vigilant. Lead time for a fleet-wide replacement of Vigilant is probably 3 years or so with SF25s.

I believe that some Vigilants have engines running on condition with 4000hrs+ on them before the 'pause'. Not great for a youth flying organisation, even for a powered glider!!! :eek:

I'm guessing this is the delay in letting everyone know what is happening - they will need to axe some Vigilant units or turn them into Viking units unless they have found some more Grob 2500s? I'm also guessing that OSD for Vigilant will need to come forward and a line for replacement put into the ABC from 2016 to 2020 and then a sustainment line put in the ABC from thence on.

CPL Clott

[cats_five]

I think CPL Clott needs to let Schleicher know he has a stunning 10-year temporary business expansion plan that will rake in the Euros...

[Arclite01]

You are all missing the point.

Schliechers don't need the business - they have a full order book. They are highly profitable - they have a waiting list - they build K21's almost as a sideline compared to their other gliders.......

Many years ago the MoD asked if there was a possibility of licence build by Slingsby to increase delivery rates. This was declined....... Because Schliecher did not want to impact their marketplace going forward (why would you.....)

So all this talk of expanded space and production facilities is pointless. I am told that Schleicher won't even talk about it anymore.

So we need to sort out what we've got.

I fully expect that when we hit the OSD we will be in the same boat with no replacement kit and no supplier to fulfill the requirement in a short timescale or bulk-buy scenario.

Arc

[cats_five]

You are all missing the point.

Schliechers don't need the business - they have a full order book. They are highly profitable - they have a waiting list - they build K21's almost as a sideline compared to their other gliders.......

Many years ago the MoD asked if there was a possibility of licence build by Slingsby to increase delivery rates. This was declined....... Because Schliecher did not want to impact their marketplace going forward (why would you.....)

So all this talk of expanded space and production facilities is pointless. I am told that Schleicher won't even talk about it anymore.

<snip>

Arc

I realise that, that would be their answer to CPL Clott had he floated his scheme to them...

In addition they got burnt when they licenced building the ASW20 to Centrair who then produced a remarkably similar glider in the Pegase. AFAIK there was considerable fall-out at the time. Whilst AFAIK it was eventually resolved I'm sure the experience will also put them off licencing CPL Clott to produce K21s.

[Never Fretter]

Two points:

The CAMO for the glider fleet sits under a Crown Servant (by regulation) not a contractor.

The Type Airworthiness Authority is also a Crown Servant (by regulation). The TAA is part of a project team that was sent an MAA Warning Notice in March 2014 for lack of suitably qualified and experienced personnel.

[Mechta]

As Schleicher don''t want to play ball, Slingsby and the ACO could always run a competition for people who know what they are doing to design a glider for the Air Cadets that would be perfect for the job. Slingsby could then get on and build it. Please make a better job of it than the T53 though!

[Heathrow Harry]

why not just sub-contract all the flying to a decent commercial flying school..........


just asking........

[cats_five]

As Schleicher don''t want to play ball, Slingsby and the ACO could always run a competition for people who know what they are doing to design a glider for the Air Cadets that would be perfect for the job. Slingsby could then get on and build it. Please make a better job of it than the T53 though!

I'm guessing this is an ironic suggestion!

[RUCAWO]

Heathrow Harry (http://www.pprune.org/members/326184-heathrow-harry)




why not just sub-contract all the flying to a decent commercial flying school..........


just asking........
And what one of these covers all of England ,Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ? Or do you suggest tansporting cadets from around 1000 units to one location using coaches, ferrys, airlines, trains then providing accomodation for those 40,000 cadets and staff?:ugh:

[The B Word]

RUCAWO

There are 14x RAF Flying Clubs, 7x RAF Gliding & Soaring Clubs and 1x RAF Microlight Club scattered across England, Wales and Scotland. Could they not take up a lot of the slack? That's nearly the same number of flyimg organisations as the VGS.

With the use of the EASA Introductory Flight you can even take up people with a bog-standard EASA PPL/SPL for up to 90 minutes as long as you take off and land at the same airfield and don't do aeros.

Just saying...:8

The B Word

PS. Cats Five - I am not convinced by any of your nay-saying points over buying new gliders. Granted, you can't just buy them off of the shelf, but given a 2-3 year run as Cpl Clott suggests then I see no reason it can't be done save for cost (although it would probably be cheaper in the long run!). Business is business, and if you remunerate anyone the right amount then it can be done...

[A and C]

In a perfect world using the RAF flying clubs to fill the cadet flying gap would work but we now live in a world devoid of common sence and the clubs would be deluged in requirement for types of insurance, elf & safety audits, risk assessments and kiddie fiddler checks....... All a bit too much for a volunteer flying club without a professional support network.

[The B Word]

A and C

It's all self induced, though. RAF Halton flying club regulalrly fly 100+ children in the space of about 4 hours at their annual 'Young Flyers' event. All is 'above board', with licensed pilots, valid insurance, close supervision and has done this since I took my kid there 7 or 8 years ago. So why we have to make a huge 'meal' of flying cadets is just beyond me...

Anyway, if we are wedded to the uber-expensive 2FTS way of doing business then how about the following for their 'new' fleet if A-S won't play ball:

Schemp-Hirth Arcus: Arcus (http://h1485329.stratoserver.net/index.php?id=184&L=1)

Ximango: Home (http://www.ximangousa.com/home-1.html)

Stemme S12, S10 or S6: S12 - NEW STEMME (http://www.new-stemme.com/s12.html)

HK36 Dimona: HK36 Super Dimona ? Born to shine :: Diamond Aircraft Industries (http://www.diamond-air.at/single-engine-aircraft/hk36-super-dimona.html)

Alstar Perkoz: SZD-54-2 PERKOZ | Allstar PZL Glider Sp. z o.o. (http://szd.com.pl/en/products/szd-54-2-perkoz)

I'm sure some of them would like a contract for 50-100 aircraft to augment the current ailing Air Cadet gliding fleet - especially if there was an option to buy more when the rest wear out?

The B Word

[cats_five]

<snip>

PS. Cats Five - I am not convinced by any of your nay-saying points over buying new gliders. Granted, you can't just buy them off of the shelf, but given a 2-3 year run as Cpl Clott suggests then I see no reason it can't be done save for cost (although it would probably be cheaper in the long run!). Business is business, and if you remunerate anyone the right amount then it can be done...



It would take a lot more than 2-3 years if you wanted to buy K21s. Schleicher have a full order book and no desire for a temporary expansion to fulfil one order, even though it would be a big one. The alternatives are the Polish PW6 or Perkoz, maybe one of them would be interested in building 70+ gliders.

[A and C]

I'm with you on this one in an ideal world........... But these kids that you took flying at Halton had informed parental consent, do this as an air cadet activity and the lawyers will smell a pay day from the deep pockets of the govenment the very moment there is half a chance of a problem.

I don't like it but that is the way it is.

As to your new glider ideas....... Arcus, that would work as would the Alstar PZL. The Dimona might work as a motor glider, I don't know enough about the Ximango, however if you think that the over complicated over priced Stemme with its narrow track landing gear is suitable for VGS flying then Please would you send me some of what you are smoking before my next visit to the dentist.

[Arclite01]

None of the conventional gliders in post #1356 from the B word are suited to the ACO flying task. Large span, flaps = ground handling issues and unnecessary complexity - also probably not robust enough for large numbers of launches and landings with low experience students ( the bread and butter of ACO operations)

The Ximango might be a good Vigi replacement - but I think it would need serious evaluation as it really is more of a light aeroplane than a motor glider - folding wings help hangarage though.....

The other motor gliders I would suggest are unsuited.

Arc

[ACW599]

>HK36 Dimona<

Nice aeroplane but a non-starter for the VGS task because of its low MTOM. Several examples on the UK register cannot legally be operated with two crew and any useful fuel quantity.

[Mechta]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechta http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/538497-air-cadets-grounded-68.html#post9222523)
As Schleicher don''t want to play ball, Slingsby and the ACO could always run a competition for people who know what they are doing to design a glider for the Air Cadets that would be perfect for the job. Slingsby could then get on and build it. Please make a better job of it than the T53 though!

I'm guessing this is an ironic suggestion!

Cats Five, OK, so leave those mentioned out of the picture. Considering that the K21 design is 36 years old now, surely its time for someone to produce a training glider that is equally good without the German price tag?

[cats_five]

The only possible requirement for a training glider the k21 doesn't meet is being spinnable. It's comfortable, max cockpit load is 100kg in both seats, easy to handle on the ground, handles well, terrific in rough conditions and is very, very robust. It also holds its value well. The spin weights are best not mentioned. G is +6.1 -4 and it can be used up to intermediate level aerobatics.

Most pilots that continue flying and get their own glider will eventually own a design of a similar vintage - the discus for example was first built in 1984.

There are two training gliders built in Poland, but they are not that much cheaper and are not as well thought out or as robust. The pw6 dates from 1998 (1st flight) and the perkoz from 2011 but is a 1991 design.

Any glider built in the euro zone is going to be pricey, and if a new design was sketched out tomorrow I suspect the Vikings would be back in the air before it was in production.

[Bigpants]

OK bit tongue in cheek but why not have Shorts of Belfast licence build 200 lovely Blaniks? Would glide like a brick but strong and makes a disconcerting creaky noise when being aero battered.

Character building glider!

[A and C]

With the news that Marshal aerospace has just bagged the very big C130 life extension program one has to wonder if this will impact on the resources avalable for the VGS gliders ?

[Arclite01]

Cats

There is no spin requirement in the ACO syllabus - spinning is only taught to 'stall in the turn' level for students. If anything it's a safety feature for low time pilots that it won't spin easily.........

Arc

[mary meagher]

Cats five pretty well sums up the advantages of the K21 glider; London Gliding Club made this model the mainstay of the fleet and it is still doing good work, but at least one K13 glider is still used for spin training, which in the civilian clubs is considered a vital element for serious glider pilots. Lasham Gliding club still has a large fleet of the K13 glider and considers this to be the best all round training glider ever built, so does the club at Bicester.

Trouble is you can't build a wood and fabric glider using a mould, so the construction costs put it out of consideration. Maintenance takes time as well, but many are still going strong.

Polish gliders had a record of doing exactly what it says on the tin; if mishandled, they would spin. And recover using the correct actions, unfortunately not every pilot took the correct action when called for. The K21 would be a safer choice for ATC.

Certainly fibreglass maintenance has proved not to be beyond the skill of most civilian shops; they can cut and shut a bent glass glider just like new.

[cats_five]

Lasham have started gradually switching to k21s. I flew g-clol last April, but it will take them time as in years.

As to cut & shut, I happened to visit zulu glasstek some years ago and one of the gliders was a k21 having a broken tailboom repaired.

[A and C]

Zulu Glasstec are one of a small number of technically very capable glider repair shops in the UK almost all of who work under BGA/EASA part M sub part F&G because this is what the civil gliding world requires.

It is much harder to find a composite repair shop that has the MoD required full EASA145 standard of oversight ( and is therefore capable of working to the military equivalent standard ).

As a poor standard of oversight is what started this "pause in flying" it is not surprising the MoD are particularly interested in not letting this situation repeat itself.

[cats_five]

And there are only a small number of civilian shops as that is all there is work for. The existing shops are busy most of the time.

[Shaft109]

Could someone please explain briefly the difference between a normal 'civi' glider repair bay and an EASA 145 one?

[paul m]

EASA Part M - EASA non commercial aircraft maintenance and management

EASA 145 - Commercial air transport (including engines, airframes etc )

[Shaft109]

So there's a significant admin burden that means it's only likely to be medium sized companies and above that can handle the paperwork? (to get up to 145 standard in the first place).

And cost of training?

[paul m]

fees are the same at £3366 for 145 or Part M
Procedures are similar

paperwork very similar.

BGA fees are through he admin fees for inspector approvals and ARC fees

[Sook]

With the news that Marshal aerospace has just bagged the very big C130 life extension program one has to wonder if this will impact on the resources avalable for the VGS gliders ?

It's not really a LEP (the original OSD was 2030 until the 2010 SDSR), it's the latest extension of the existing support contract.

[A and C]

If EASA145 is so similar to part M F&G one wonders why there are so few maintenance companies who work to this standard at this end of the market ?

[cats_five]

No custom I suspect.

[A and C]

You are correct, no one operating a private glider wants the extra costs of EASA 145 oversight as this oversight standard is disproportionate in terms of both paperwork and cost for private flying.

While Paul M says the both systems are similar and to a point this is true but unfortunately the devil is in the detail and it is that detail that drives up the costs of operating to EASA145.

EASA have now recognised that they over egged the pudding when they introduced part M for light aviation largely because they failed to understand anything other than the oversight required by the airlines. The result was an increase in costs that has decimated the GA industry and forced EASA to have a rethink ( I suspect because they finally realised that if the GA industry contracted any further they would all be out of jobs having killed the industry that they are employed to regulate ! ).

So we now see the introduction of Part M lite, a new far more appropriate level of oversight for private flying.

This will help the costs in GA but as flying the nations youth is essentially a function that would in the civil world would require an AOC the MoD requires the military equivalent of EASA145 maintenance so no direct cost savings can be made.

The up side for the MoD is that in the medium term part M lite is likely to invigorate the GA sector and the economy of scale is likely to drive down the cost of some of the equipment it will have to retrofit in the near future.

[bobward]

How long before Air Cadet flying becomes part of the Aviation Nostalgia thread?

Exits to back garden to dig a deep hole to avoid incoming........





Happy new year to one and all, especially those busting heir butts to get the cadets flying again this year.:D:D

[POBJOY]

I think most of the interested parties on this thread are actually 'stunned' by the general lack of competence that has been shown by the very 'staff' that 'should' have been overseeing the ATC Gliding ops.
No blame can be attached to the VGS units that have demonstrated the ability to operate a safe training facility that had become overburdened with 'paperwork' that provided no extra safety.
However the full time paid staff responsible for the 'organisation' of the operation have been found to be completely out of touch with A:- What was needed,B:-The tech element,C:-How much practical experience (with continuity) is embedded with the schools,D,:-Or any element of practical and current knowledge of what is possible.
The organisation is being led by an element of non practical and tech incompetent staff (Military and civil servants) who have absolutely no idea of what they have done to the credibility of the organisation or the quality of leadership that is required.As Turkeys do not vote for Christmas i do not expect any dramatic change in direction unless there is some suitable change in leadership and the rapid influx of tech expertise. (no disrespect to Turkeys)

[A and C]

Your summation of the situation is very near the truth, I suspect that some in the RAF & MoD have overestimated the technical competence of the current primary contractor and been misled by this lack of ability to first organise and second maintain/fix the aircraft as has been demonstrated over the past years.

The primary contractor ( and staff ) are now feeling vulnerable as the support contract for the next ten years or so is up for renewal at the end of the year so to ensure a smooth transition this will have to be decided by the late summer.

The big question is will the team from the current contractor man up and work hard to turn out servicable aircraft ( in cooperation with a potential rival for the support contract ) and show themselfs deserving of the support contract or will they see this as an opportunity to try and rubish the performance of the opposition by being obstructive.

The support contract is the big prize in all of this and only time will tell if the next nine months of this glider recovery will be a genuine cooperative effort to get the cadets back into the air at best speed or a game of political dirty tricks with the only aim to secure the ten year support contract.

[The Old Fat One]

POBJOY,

I have some knowledge of the organisation, and its HQ, to which you refer (27 years in the RAF and then two years as a subbie to said organisation in and around 2008).

I highly doubt this is all down to the incompetence of individuals. Rather I suspect it is "structural" in nature. Public sector bodies, whoever they are, wherever they are, just don't do well at this sort of thing - its the nature of the beast. The military writ large have been ****ing up procurement for ever. Just recently circa 3.5 billion of tax payers wonga flushed down the lavvie for the MRA4, and that's just the tip of pretty monster iceberg.

Nor is it just the military...I live near Edinburgh a city that could not put up a building or lay a couple of miles of tram tracks without lawsuits, humongous delays and massive (10X FFS!) budget overuns.

It is what it is buddy. That's the nature of the country we live in. Blaming people is the easy (and not very nice) option.

[POBJOY]

O F O
Sorry O F O but why should we not accept the fact that it is the people in the system that makes it (or otherwise) work.
I am slowly winding down after decades in commercial aviation (Plus the ATC) and public transport operations.
Regulations for both flying and the tech side have increased many fold over the years but the private sector has to 'make it happen' or get out of the business.
The Air Force on the other hand has lost the plot on seeing the need for people who actually know about aircraft and systems and to have to shut down a fleet of gliders just shows how bad it is. You can not promote 'fancy websites' and 'hype' unless the goods are delivered.
Aviation is very much about competent 'leadership' and setting sensible attainable standards both tech and flying wise. Once you lose that basic ability then there is no point in trying to substitute paperwork as a replacement for knowledge and competence.
There are some very capable people in the RAF/MOD (some post on here) however a tech culture has been replaced by a system that promotes increasing record keeping and yet moves further away from the ability to actually maintain aircraft to their own requirements.Unless there is change then the future does not look very bright.

[1.3VStall]

TOFO,

It's unfair to blame the whole country. It's only in the public sector where people get to f*ck up in spades with absolutely no accountability.

Having worked for 20 years in the the private sector, after my 28 years in the RAF, I can vouch that people who demonstrably get it all wrong where there is commercial pressure are out on their @rses pretty quickly. And rightly so!

[Chugalug2]

TOFO, the difference between MOD incompetence and Edinburgh Council incompetence is that the latter can be sacked by those they represent whereas the former cannot. Despite clear evidence given to the Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip reviews of VSOs' incompetence, regulatory subversion, malevolent persecution of subordinates, and covering up (which continues) attacks on UK Military Airworthiness provision and maintenance, no-one has been charged let alone prosecuted.

The Air Cadets are merely the latest victims of this scandal which will continue until that evidence is acted upon and action taken to prevent a recurrence. That will entail making the MAA and the MilAAIB independent of the MOD and of each other.

[A and C]

Quote

Once you lose that basic ability then there is no point in trying to substitute paperwork as a replacement for knowledge and competence.


This is so true, at one time the Chief Engineer of a mid-sized GA maintenance company would have time to wander around the hangar and have an hour to hour knowlage of what was going on and sometimes get his hands dirty physically working on aircraft.............. Now it is all about shuffling paper.

The result of this is a loss of quality control at the front line of maintenance.

[Chugalug2]

A and C, it isn't so much that experienced qualified engineers are shuffling paper, it is more the case that the experienced qualified engineers (at least those who held responsibilities for UK Military Airworthiness) were got rid of (as they would not willingly suborn the regulations) and replaced by compliant non-engineers with little or no knowledge of the regulations which were thus soon forgotten, but who do have particular skills in shuffling paper.

[longer ron]

As I alluded to previously - also in industry I have seen several instances of where a certain individual is given a certain job (who is quite obviously a 'hatchet man' !).He then does untold damage to the organisation before being 'let go',but the point is that sometimes certain people are put into post to 'do a job' - that person may or may not realise what is going on depending how dumb they are LOL
I would also say that the correct key individuals can make a huge difference to the organisation as a whole - especially where flying/engineering is involved.
As I posted previously - whatever the key reasons are for this debacle - it has been very convenient for MOD at this time !

[The Old Fat One]

POBJOY and 1.3 Stall,

Pretty much agree with you both. POBJOY actually makes my point for me

however a tech culture has been replaced by a system that promotes increasing record keeping and yet moves further away from the ability to actually maintain aircraft to their own requirements.

That's a structural issue in my book, a people issue in yours. We are debating what the academics call "metaphysical" issues. In short, I agree with you as regards outcomes, I disagree somewhat over causal factors. We both seem agree there are a lot of good people doing the job as well as the inevitable oxygen thiefs to be found in all walks of life. No matter how good you are and what office you hold, you cannot always make the difference you would like.

(note:I have absolutely no regard - or respect - for posters who suggest you should therefore walk out on your job - clearly they do not have children to feed or mortgages to pay)

It's unfair to blame the whole country. It's only in the public sector where people get to f*ck up in spades with absolutely no accountability.

We agree 100%. In fact I almost posted this. Unfortunately, or not, the public sector is very much part of our society and it is not going anywhere.

[Mechta]

It's unfair to blame the whole country. It's only in the public sector where people get to f*ck up in spades with absolutely no accountability.

If only this were true! The sad fact is that there are many individuals, often accountants and managers, but not always, who move from company to company leaving a trail of corporate destruction behind them in the name of short term gains, whilst destroying the long term viability of the companies they've poisoned. The damage is rarely public knowledge at the time they move on to their next victim, so the cycle continues.

[POBJOY]

In the case of our present ATC gliding situation there are two issues that need attention.
The basic Tech ability of the system that actually provides the framework and equipment,and also the leadership at the helm of the flying operation.

The failure of the 'operational' part goes back some time but is possible to improve.

The lack of competent leadership on the flying side meant the whole system collapsed in a way that was a huge disgrace in the history of the schools fine traditions. The only part of the organisation that can hold its head up is the volunteer element of the schools that had a record second to none and has maintained a stance of trying to hold their operations together despite the appalling way they have been treated from Syerston.

Regardless what happens in the future the record will show that the flying side of ATC gliding has maintained a service and standards that are a credit to the ATC organisation and deserve a better system and leader to go into its anniversary year.

[Arclite01]

Hi POBJOY

Are you inferring that the Trappers are also complicit when you use the the term 'Syerston' or just the senior management and the tech staffs ??

Do you feel the Trapper staff should have stepped in and raised the issues or is it out of their remit ?.

I only ask because I was always told that 'nothing is out of our remit' whenever I had the temerity to ask what their job actually covered.......

Arc

[POBJOY]

ARC
I think the current 'leadership' at Syerston has to take a fair slice of the responsibility for the way the present situation has 'developed' and how the organisation has not been best served with the lack of respect dealt out to the schools.
As suggested before the schools record of actually 'doing the job' with w-end staff having to adjust to an ever increasing burden of poor support shows how little the 'boss' knew about the organisation or its capability.
The schools were competent to the point that their input should have been used before the grounding order occurred.
The schools knew their aircraft and staff capabilities and with a 'limited' reduction in 'first solo' flights could have continued operating whilst 'inspections' were arranged.
No evidence has been offered that the fleet was in actual danger of 'failures' and in practice (and has been well debated) it is the total lack of hands on tech expertise at the top that led to the dramatic stop of flying.
The management failure in all this has dealt a mortal blow to the continuity and ongoing experience level in the organisation and the staff cadet input effectively finished. Perhaps it was a way to 'reorganise' the operation, but in practice they have destroyed it.

[ACW VGL]

Imagine a desired strategic aim that stated: Post-Haddon-Cave and the loss of three cadets, the MOD can not have the PR risk of civilian volunteers flying RAF-associated young people in Mil Reg aircraft leading to a fatality and the enactment of loss of military authority over the MOD aircraft fleet. How would you achieve that effect?


1. Immediate stop to VGS flying - of course fully justified by the safety case
2. Greatly reduce the fleet to remove the need for volunteers
3. Re-brigade the schools to concentrate on the aircraft that look the least like military aircraft


I think throughout the last couple of years, maintenance of the aim has been very good and the desired end state has almost been achieved. I feel the real challenge will be filling the instructor seats for point 2, but the end justifies the means. Not flying achieves the aim, after all.


I think we are underestimating the leadership, vision and motivation manifest in the MOD. Why on earth would they want VGS staff, RAF GSA or the BGA input?

[Bigpants]

I fear your post might be close to the truth/reality of where we are with cadet flying and it might even make sense to many within the MOD bubble.

I then wrote a few ideas and concluded I was delusional and deleted it. The cadet world a much diminished and frankly boring place compared to the 1970s.

[Freda Checks]

I share the frustrations of the majority of posters on this thread as to how long the "powers that be" can sit on their hands in trying to sort this bebacle out. It should not be rocket science!!

Without ploughing through this lengthy thread looking for the reason as to why it could not be done I still think the answer is to put these gliders/motor gliders on the civil register. The VGS instructors could all be recategorised in accordance with the BGA instructor ratings. They may need to add an intermediate category to cover circuit instruction only :D

The equipment would then have some value in the future if some of the kit became surplus to requirements, without potential new owners having to jump through the hoops of transferring the current aircraft to civil registration. (They may need to convert the new winches back to gas though :ugh:)

[cats_five]

There will be just as much pain transferring the gliders to the civil register. The paperwork for each glider will have to be carefully checked against the glider, and the glider against the paperwork to make sure all ADs have been complied with and all repairs are correctly documented and executed. In other words just as much work as they need to fly again on the military register.

[EnigmAviation]

Yes I think the conspiracy theory is quite attractive really, in today's risk averse politically correct atmosphere. Unfortunately though , ( and disappointingly for those who regarded VR(T) and CGI instructors as slightly sub standard not quite up to silver wing master race standard ) the last three Cadets to perish in an RAF aircraft accident were being conveyed therein by fully qualified RAF pilots.

I think that notwithstanding the dreadful and catastrophic "pause" and the absolutely disgraceful lack of communication and regard for ALL the long serving, extremely competent army of volunteer staff, there is not one shred of evidence to connect them with ANY failure, technical, flying or Admin that has caused any part of the current shambles.

I absolutely deprecate the appalling treatment of such a loyal workforce, - and cannot help comparing and contrasting them, in the wake of the New Years Honours list where so many were "honoured" merely for doing the job that they were very highly paid to do, and some were elevated for little more than writing a cheque in favour of a political party. How many generously donated man hours were given collectively per annum in the service of VGS ?

Yes, ok we did enjoy it and the fruits of our labours remember those who set them on their road to success and some to fame in aviation careers. Just a shame that some of the hierarchy seem to have completely forgotten their hugely understated, un-remunerated workforce.

Maybe the RAF will soon have an entry in the Guinness Book of records for the longest pause in British history ! ( Dictionary : Pause noun, interval of inaction or silence esp due to hesitation ; temporary stop ). It certainly is text book as it has inaction, interval and silence !.

[Freda Checks]

Well said Enigma, you echo my thoughts of an earlier post, but more succinctly.

Cats, if there is pain associated with getting the fleet flying again (and it seems to be the same pain whether we keep the gliders on the military register or the civil register) it seems somewhat short sighted to choose the status quo. I understand that there are number of civil registered aircraft (albeit with roundels) that are in service with the RAF at present.

[A and C]

At this point I see little advantage in moving the Vikings to the civil register simply because of all the spending that has been made to keep them on the military register.

If the decision had been made to change at the start of the pause some savings could have been made and the aircraft retuned to service a little more quickly, as the recovery ramps up from a paperwork setting up exercise to an aircraft fixing one industry capacity will become the limiting factor to the speed of recovery.

The technical reasons for this have been well documented above, from the flying side BGA qualifications are not good enough as these are intended for private flying, the VGS is in civil terms an operation requiring an AOC and just like any commercial operation it requires its pilots to hold commercial pilot qualifications. ( please don't see this as a criticism of the flying abilitys of BGA instructors it is a paperwork issue )

[cats_five]

There are BGA clubs with paid instructors, several of them in the summer at Lasham. A glider being on the civil register with BGA oversight is no bar to the kind of operation the ATC are running, though the instructors are meant to jump through more hoops for their medical.

However since the BGA requires a Silver badge before becoming an instructor I suspect that would be a problem for many of the ATC's instructors.

[Freda Checks]

the VGS is in civil terms an operation requiring an AOC and just like any commercial operation it requires its pilots to hold commercial pilot qualifications.I was an A2* instructor with the Air Cadets. Never felt like a commercial pilot, never got paid, remember I was a volunteer!

[Flugplatz]

The VGS system is not the equivalent of an AOC operation; it is the equivalent to a 'corporate flight department' i.e. a private operation providing free flights to non-employees. The civil equivalent would be a pilot training organisation, which at the glider level, equates to the present BGA club system, albeit with cadets still not paying for their flights in the same way that BGA trainees do.

However since the RAF own the train-set, they could insist on whatever civilian equivalent type of organisation and pilot licence requirements that they think suitable for the level of risk they assign to the work.
Flug

[Wander00]

Saw an aircraft landing at Wittering midday-ish today. Does that mean that weekend fire and ATC cover there has been resolved?

[A and C]

While the AOC equivalent may be up for interpretation at the very least the equivalent civil operation is a commercial pilot training establishment, and this requires the instructors to have a CPL.

However as you say it is their train set and as long as the aircraft are on the military register ( or at least in the service of the crown ) the RAF can do what they like regarding pilot qualifications they issue.

[dervish]

RAF can do what they

IMO, the RAF doing what they like is what has got us to where we are!

[EnigmAviation]

The key to this is that in civilian flying, CPL is required as the instructors fly FOR HIRE or REWARD; in VGS the staff performed extremely competently Without any reward. QED !

They're all now reflecting on their magnificent reward - left out in the cold without even some decent communications.

[A and C]

While this is largely an accadmic discussion as the military have their own pilot qualification system it would seem that your hire & reward opinion is only good for teaching private flying in the club environment, I would be very surprised if his would be allowed at a commercial flying school.

As the VGS is clearly not a private flying club, under civil regulations it would fall into the commercial sphere of operations.

However your point about the way VGS staff have been treated is well made.

[BEagle]

A Part-FCL PPL holder may hold an FI certificate to instruct at up to PPL level. For PPL instructing he/she must have passed the CPL exams, but this is not required for instructing at LAPL level.

In either case, the PPL/FI may receive remuneration for providing flight instruction. This has been the case ever since the Aircrew Regulation came into effect in 2011...... Hitherto a R/BCPL was the minimum licence required for a pilot to receive remuneration, but this is no longer the case.

[astir 8]

Pardon my asking but why is the VGS "clearly not a private flying club"?

It's certainly not a commercial airline or business, it's only open to members of the ATC. Joe Public can't turn up and hand over cash just to have a go.........

The VGS are far more akin to civilian gliding clubs, only the clothing and the unbelievable amounts of paperwork seem to be different.

[Cows getting bigger]

It is paid for by the tax payer. That makes the State liable for its actions.

[astir 8]

That's for sure. Any civilian gliding club which hadn't flown anything for two years would have been dead and buried long since.:ugh:

[clivewatson]

Leon, concerning your post No. 61:

Ok, I'll spill the beans on some goings on within VGS over the past couple of years that I've seen (and, no, I won't name the VGS, but they may recognise who they are):

- Flying when the wind is gusting out of limits. (Using hand held anemometer to measure wind without applying the correction)
- Landing an aircraft in an area of rough ground following a rough running engine. Doing a non-engineering qualified inspection on the aircraft to release it for flight following the rough landing and a couple of engine ground runs before flying the aircraft again. (Apparently within the allowable regulation for suspected carb icing)
- Flying in flying suits that have not been accepted by a SE fitter.
- Stitching their own badges on their flying suits with non-approved thread and no inspection by an SE fitter.
- Flying after SS+15 (which is night time in air cadet orders, which is prohibited). (An error in time keeping)
- Breaching the flying order book on opening hours.
- Having out of servicing headsets.
- Anomalies in the parachute paperwork.
- An out of date extinguisher on the fire trailer. (Issue technically belongs to the fire section)
- An out of date fire extinguisher in their caravan. (Likewise above)
- Anomalies in the F700 paperwork.
- Caught speeding in the yellow landrovers on several occasions.

I am not sure which Gliding School you are referring to here, but I agree that it is completely outrageous behavior - especially the use of non approved stitching to sew on badges! You really should name and shame the school in question!!

I was somewhat flabbergasted though when I read that you had witnessed the yellow landrovers driving at excess speed! Are you REALLY sure you saw this with your own eyes because this really is a very serious allegation?

In my 30 odd years involved with ATC gliding I never heard of such a thing, and it is beyond the scope of my imagination to believe that any Gliding School staff member - Staff Cadets included- would ever contemplate exceeding any obligatory speed limit!!

[Frelon]

I am sure that Middleton is fully aware of this outrageous behaviour in the VGS organisation and will be taking these observations into consideration when deciding which VGS units to shut down (as if it makes any difference at the moment).

Come on, what's happening chaps?

[POBJOY]

Yes Clive i read that one and just 'groaned' at what it has come to.
Thank God we had no 'badges' to go on our 5th hand ex Korean War silver blue/oil/blood stained suits. WE also had very smart 10th hand denims and WELLIES (some even had a 'matched' pair.)
Staff Cadet flying never took place unless the cables were 'twinkling' over the tarmac bits and the hangar lights were on.
Never saw a speeding Landrover or a parachute,in fact if you could get a LR up to 60 i think it made Air Cadet News;but a west country school rolled two rovers and got closed down. One of the 'rollers' became a centre instuctor !!!!
Mind you we used to get 'oodles' of Cadet solo's and it was quite normal for an entire course to go solo on a 6 day job.
None of this 'nanny stitching' nonsense;when a centre bod came down he was more likely to relate a story about a rough running Sabre engine in his Tempest on a ground attack sortie where the leading machine 'vaporised' in radar controlled flack.What have these absolute Idiots (in charge) done to the organisation that did not need 'reinventing',because it did what it said on the tin;Flew Cadets,got them solo,and then the keen ones kept it going until the next 'batch' came along and kept the cycle going.The RAF never knew what a simple and safe operation they had;all down to continuity and people who knew the business from the grass roots. Frelon you will have to come clean about shooting the Austin with a bow and arrow or you will not be able do any winching when the organisation starts again.
Syerston knows all about 'stitching'; Numpty control has a MBA in Stitching the organisation up big time.

[DaveUnwin]

Non-approved thread eh? Good to see attention being firmly focused on the things that matter! They might not be able to keep simple sailplanes serviceable, and they may have taken the definition of the word 'pause' to another level entirely, but - by God- the RAF's proud tradition of the finest aeronautical Haberdashery WILL prevail!

[The B Word]

There are reasons to use the Squippers and their 'approved' thread.

1. The thread is supposed to be flame retardent and so it makes the bits inside a growbag easier to identify after an accident! Seriously, I have heard of aircraft accidents where body parts had to be identified by DNA and what items of clothing they were wrapped in.

2. If the badge falls off due to poor stitching quality and causes a control restriction and it was done by the Squippers then it is the RAF's fault. If it is done by an individual then it is theirs.

3. Aircrew Equipment Assemblies (AEA) are part of the airworthiness system for the aircraft (for reasons like the ones above). Any use of non-approved materials is a modification and so needs the authority to grant the approval for its use.

4. Gashly tacked on badges look rubbish!

The B Word :ok:

[1.3VStall]

The B Word,

How I've managed to fly gliders, motor gliders and tugs for nearly 50 years without using "approved" thread to attach badges to my clothing is a complete mystery to me!

Never in all my years of aviation has a badge dropped off my clothing and caused a control restriction - I guess I've been lucky.

Maybe my "gashly tacked on badges" have looked rubbish, but they've never stopped my enjoyment of flying, nor affected the quality of instruction that I give, nor caused a flight safety issue.

However, what is evidently clear is that people like you, with a firm grip of hiding behind the utterly trivial and inessential, are the real reason that young lads have been denied the chance of gliding for two years.

Do you really believe in the utter garbage that you post?

[DaveUnwin]

I suspect that the B-word on this occasion is 'Bulldust'!
But seriously B-word, I'm with 1.3. Do you really believe what you just wrote? Really? I can't imagine a Viking burning post-prang, a Vigi might, but even then one would hope that it would be the only one lost that day (if not that decade) so identifying the occupants shouldn't be too onerous.

[ShyTorque]

Non approved thread....tut, tut, what depths can one sink to?

I've been aviating since 1972 and for much of that time, I have to admit that no-one has bothered to approve my thread. Sounds like I've been extremely lucky in that so far my trousers have never fallen down and jammed the controls, especially when pulling G.

:rolleyes:

[chevvron]

Saw an aircraft landing at Wittering midday-ish today. Does that mean that weekend fire and ATC cover there has been resolved?
Was it military or civil? On many stations, personnel own their own civil registered aircraft and are allowed to fly them without ATC or fire cover.

[Wander00]

Chevron - white AEF/UAS aircraft - round thingys on it

[DaveUnwin]

Shytorque, it sounds as if you've been dicing with death for over 40 years! Personally, I think that the issue of using approved thread as opposed to using unapproved thread isn't being treated appropriately seriously.
Which - of course - can only lead to the inevitable question.

"Should the issue of using approved thread as opposed to using unapproved thread, have its own thread?"

We all know that a stitch in time saves nine, but right now it seems to me that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for the RAF to get some simple sailplanes serviceable.

[ShyTorque]

Good that folk are finally cottoning on to this issue. Time it was all sewn up then everyone can button their lip.

[teeteringhead]

And we can get back to reel issues, without any needling..........

[DaveUnwin]

There sure are some mighty fast punslingers on this thread, gosh-darn it!

[A and C]

As we head towards 1500 posts on this thread and two years when no cadet has flown a glider it is no surprise that things have descended in to farce over the last few posts.

Unfortunately I have seen over the past two years the mechanical equivalent of the " non approved thread " where the mechanical task in hand has become subservient to the administrative obligations and has not been done or has been done in a way that was compliant with the administrative obligations but involved 40 man hours work when common sense would have dictated the job required 0.5 of a man hour to complete the task.

Glider maintenance manuals assume a level of competent trade craft and so don't detail things down to the removal of the last screw, it is assumed that the tradesman involved in the maintenance task will be smart enough to know how to do the task without a screw by screw set of instructions.

But recently it would seem that this set of screw by screw instructions for any task IS REQUIRED, I don't quite know why this should be, it could be those with little skill hiding behind regulations, the work shy avoiding doing the job, a management obsessed with paperwork compliance or a number of other reasons.

What I do know is that this would not happen in a commercial operation because it would go bust, my guess is that it is primarily poor leadership from the local management of under skilled staff.

Judging from the rates of pay offered by one contractor recently I can only assume that the skill level inside the company is like the remuneration .......well behind the market.

Over the next six months or so it will be interesting to observe the performance of the legacy contractor recovering the Vigilant aircraft and the new company on the block recovering the Viking aircraft.

Of course the big prize it the VGS support contract that is up for grabs at the end of the year and IMO the MoD split the recovery contract between two contractors ( remember the legacy contractor should have all the facility's in place ) to help judge the performance of the two companies before awarding a ten year contract.

We are going to see a slow return to service of the aircraft over next few months but the long term future of the VGS is dependent on getting the right people to run the support contract, after all event the best leadership from the flying side of the VGS can't run it without aircraft, but with safe aircraft even a lacklustre flying leadership can get cadets flying.

[UV]

This thread now has me in stitches

[POBJOY]

Setting aside the total incompetence of the organisation in allowing this scenario to develop there is now the ongoing decaying of the staff and experience level at the schools.

This is going to play right into the hands of those up top who we all know would rather be operating a set up more akin to the AEF operation.

They already have full time staff at Syerston that can be deployed to head up any 'centre' required, and there will be a core of ex VGS people who can be used for w-end duties.

The 'training' set up is so protracted nowadays that the 'goal' of a single solo flight will not be enough of a draw to keep Cadets motivated unless they reduce the age requirement (not impossible)

The lack of 'plans' for the future or cogent information to the Squadrons can only mean an alternative path is on the cards and a major change being mooted that be 'sold' on cost and safety grounds.

[dervish]

As we head towards 1500 posts on this thread and two years when no cadet has flown a glider it is no surprise that things have descended in to farce over the last few posts.

:D

Unfortunately it's also no surprise that so few of the posts seem to realise that we've been through all this before on the MoK, Nimrod, Red Arrows and numerous other threads and the fix is the same.

[Freda Checks]

They already have full time staff at Syerston that can be deployed to head up any 'centre' requiredI wonder if they have been fully occupied during the 2 year "pause"? Have they been rewriting the Gliding Order Book to include more restrictions? Have they rewritten the Principles of Flight and Airmanship manuals?

I wonder how many times they have popped into the fabulous new hangar to see what is happening to the kit?

Or are they just as frustrated with the situation as the Air Cadet organisation that they serve?

[Chugalug2]

we've been through all this before on the MoK, Nimrod, Red Arrows and numerous other threads and the fix is the same

Absolutely right, Dervish, but horses and water, horses and water...

[romeo bravo]

Off on a tangent - how do VGS uniformed staff comply with PI202 for Officers, namely -

ATTENDANCE ON ATC ACTIVITIES BY RAFVR(T) OFFICERS

7. RAFVR(T) officers are expected to attend for not fewer than 12 hours in any one calendar month on official and semi-official ACO activities. For RAFVR(T) officers on VGSs this is interpreted as at least 2 days in any one calendar month.

With a two-year grounding of the whole VGS fleet, sorry 'pause', how many have failed to meet this requirement? Never seen VGS staff offering to assist at their local sqns/Wgs.

[Why oh why]

(Snip)


Over the next six months or so it will be interesting to observe the performance of the legacy contractor recovering the Vigilant aircraft and the new company on the block recovering the Viking aircraft.

Is that the new kids on the block that have taken nearly a year and only produced 2 Vikings?
AFAIK. The incumbent contractor is still supplying manpower to the new kids due to the fact they are unable transfer their documentation onto military paperwork

[EnigmAviation]

Sounds like a slight poke at VGS staff !

Despite the way they have been largely ignored, some of the VGS units have been actively pursuing all manner of activities in an attempt to retain staff interest, and one that comes to mind has excelled in that regard; they have also been involved with Cadet engagement activity.

As the parent organisation that wrote the said minimum hours criteria, is the same one that has played a part in the current cock up, then they may have a problem trying to enforce it !

Not only that, the now grounded staff at all VGS units have, over time, put in thousands of man hours over and above the minimum criteria, thus even with a world record pause duration, the RAF is still holding a considerable credit in man hours for each and every staff member.

When the long awaited and perhaps controversial new location master plan is revealed, it will be interesting to see how the redundancies are handled, although as time passes, many will no longer be there. Perhaps the world record pause duration is part of that managed personnel strategy ?

All that would be needed is some other week of bad news, in order to "bury" the VGS bad news.

[The B Word]

This is going to play right into the hands of those up top who we all know would rather be operating a set up more akin to the AEF operation.


Oh, I couldn't agree more. The ignoring of rules and regs, such as those for AEA/Safety Equipment, is another reason for the slow recovery. As post #61 suggested, these more trivial items were but the tip of a rather large iceberg. Just because you've flown 40 years without incident is no guarantee for it not happening the very next sortie - you can fly 10 crap circuits and get away with it, only to spank in on your 11th having flown the same crap (and run out of luck).

The VGS must come back stronger after this or I agree it will need to become an AEF-like operation. Mediocrity and a laissez-faire attitude in the military (even more so with youths involved) are no longer tolerable; they may have been 10, 20 or 30 years ago, but not now.

Standby for change, embrace it or wither. It's your choice.

The B Word

[A and C]

Quote......
Is that the new kids on the block that have taken nearly a year and only produced 2 Vikings?
AFAIK. The incumbent contractor is still supplying manpower to the new kids due to the fact they are unable transfer their documentation onto military paperwork.

You are very quick to defend the incumbent contractor who seems to have in two years produced IRO five servicable motor gliders when they have the facility's, staff and infrastructure in place to maintain two fleets of aircraft and was responsible for most of this situation in the first place ( some of it inherited from the blue suit days ) and is also has responsibility for the CAMO side of things. The fact that the incumbent contractor HAS to do part of the CAMO work rather leaves the new kids on the block to some extent reliant on the incumbent contractors for paperwork.

No doubt with the track record of the incumbent contractor it would not have gone unnoticed by the staff that there is more that an outside chance that the uncumbent contractor might not get the support contract so it is not surprising that you are not too enthusiastic about the arrival of another contractor on your turf.

But as I said in the post above the current two contractor situation will allow the MoD to judge both contractors on their merits over he next few months and when the time comes to award the support contract use the knowlage gained to pick the best contractor to ensure an uninterrupted supply of gliding to the VGS over the next ten years.

[biggles111]

I am not usually goaded into biting but I have to observe Romeo Bravo that you must have fantastic eyesight to know that not a single VGS member of staff is helping at the local squadron? I think such sweeping statements don't help the morale, and I suspect as a member of staff at such a squadron, you might want to remember those VGS staff who have served for many years, giving up every weekend, from 0630 hours to 2200 hours each day. I think they will have a few hours in the 'bank' and remember this pause is not of their making.

[Chris Gains]

I will also bite on the 12 hours a month requirement, I can only refer back to my own service over 12 years that included 2 years as an officer on a SQN as well as flying for the VGS. In that period I did a minimum of 1 week long course a year, as well as trips to Syerston for categorisation. Over that 12 year period I should have given a minimum of 1728 hours of my time.

Just looking at my weekend activities I did an average of 48 Saturdays a year and just over 12 hours a day. My service amounting to just 6912 hours in the 12 year period. I did more than some any less than a few others.

To insinuate that VRT’s should be hoofed out due to not operating for 2 years and not doing the minimum due to no fault of their own is not really on. I know of multiple officers and CI’s who are spending time at Squadrons and organising activities for cadets as well as trying to keep the VGS’s together in the hope that flying will eventually return.

But hey, I suppose if they remove all the VGS VRT's, then the rumoured changes to 'professional pilots' will have been achieved!!!!!:)

[POBJOY]

More damage has been done to the Flying Organisation and its capability by breaking the continuity of operations and the consequent lack of experience being 'handed on' by those who were quite capable of operating in a safe manner.
Producing 'books' of regulations and a 'tick box' system does not actually increase capability but merely 'loads' the system with records that have little meaning in the real world. We do not need a 'blame culture' operation,but one based on real capability together with continuity of actual operations.
The organisation has been badly let down by the 'full time paid system' not the actual schools doing the work.The utter rubbish talked about stitching and late flights just goes to show how far removed from the real world the 'system' has gone.
The school system was based on CAPABILITY where a Cadet who was keen and capable could become a Staff Cadet. He then learnt his trade from the winch end and by the time he was a P2 could do all the jobs required in a capable manner.There is no substitute for this type of operation that was based on capable people operating in a controlled system,and it did not need mountains of paperwork because the system was capable to start with.
Strange how the full time supposedly 'very safe' system was the one that could not even keep a fleet of Gliders operational.
Now the system does not even have suitable capability at the top,but the schools always had it and it still works.

[EnigmAviation]

Further to my post 1434 yesterday with regard to the RAF min hours and the actual massive contribution from VRT / VGS staff, may I absolutely concur with Biggles 111, Chris Gains, and Pobjoy, who have expanded upon my views and stated it so clearly.

This is the very reason why I so thoroughly deprecate the way that this totally loyal and hardworking team have been treated. Competent VGS staff ? Absolutely. One of my own proud moments, amongst many, was the quite unexpected RAF Flight Safety Award presented as the result of an incident.

I do hope that CAS and OC 22 Group start to listen to or at least begin to realise that lots of babies are going out in the bath water !

Keep up the fight chaps !

[POBJOY]

If one looks back at the recorded operational suitability of the schools going back decades it will be seen that they have a capability factor of 100%.
This is outstanding in real terms and is why the current(grounding)situation is so deplorable.
The fact that they have continued to offer a safe training facility in increasingly challenging times should be applauded and in fact even used as a role model on how the job can be done.
To be able to take a Cadet from a normal background without any aptitude selection or previous experience and get them off to a BGA A&B certificate standard of 3 solo's in under 1.5 Hrs actual flying says it all. The system worked and had no equal anywhere in the world (with the possible exception of the pre war Luftwaffe).I do not know why they changed the solo requirement down to one,but i bet that idea did not come from the coal face.

Unless there is a change at the top (Capability factor Zero) then how does the system get itself back on track. If the system was being run by the same capability that operates the schools we would not be in this present disgraceful situation . CAS and Cmdt ATC please note you are NOT being well advised on all this.

[A and C]

I can't offer any insight into the operational matters of the VGS apart from an view from the outside this indicates that the lack of accidents points to a tightly run ship.

From a technical point of view the grounding was inevitable, faced with the lack of technical records and the evidence of poorly executed repairs I have no doubt that if the BGA had been the airworthiness authority they would have done the same.

It is the management of the technical recovery that needs to be looked at along with an enquires as to who lost the aircraft records, perhaps Why Oh Why ( a Staunch defender of the incumbent contractor ) would like to illuminate us as to how a company with such wonderful workshop facility's and engineering staff failed to notice the lack of paperwork and poor repairs at a stage in the proceedings that would have enabled the suspect aircraft to have been withdrawn from service without grounding the whole fleet.

[cats_five]

<snip>
To be able to take a Cadet from a normal background without any aptitude selection or previous experience and get them off to a BGA A&B certificate standard of 3 solo's in under 1.5 Hrs actual flying says it all.
<snip>


I believe all that is flown is circuits, so if the average circuit is 5 minutes, that equates to 18 circuits. At a BGA club using winch launches even the most talented pilot would be struggling to get solo in that number of flights due to the number of winch launch failures which must be flown.

Even though they are young and therefore pick up flying much faster than the average middle-aged person, I would be surprised if most of them reached the Solo Endorsement (seems to have replaced A & B badges) level in that number of flights, or if they do the syllabus is smaller than the BGA one in which case they can't have achieved a standard equivalent to a BGA badge....

Solo Endorsement
The minimum age to qualify for the Solo Badge is 14.
Requirements
Minimum Experience;
a) Completion of the pre-solo elements of the training syllabus
b) One solo circuit in a glider or motor glider in unpowered flight after
the launch, followed by a satisfactory landing; and
c) An appropriate level of knowledge of rules of the air and local airspace restrictions must be demonstrated to the supervising instructor at the time of the first solo flight

[Stan0147]

This thread has taken some reading.

I only have really one thing to add. If someone else was to take my daughter flying I would want her in the most overly serviced, reliable, well equipped and piloted aircraft available.

Only a few people are taking the time to support the decision, we won;t ever know if the decision to stop flying saved lives, a little melodramatic I know, but still a possibility.

The recovery time is a whole other matter I'm unable to comment on, so I won;t.

Stay safe Ya'll.

Stan

[Subsunk]

''Ok, I'll spill the beans on some goings on within VGS over the past couple of years that I've seen (and, no, I won't name the VGS, but they may recognise who they are):

- Flying when the wind is gusting out of limits. (Using hand held anemometer to measure wind without applying the correction)
- Landing an aircraft in an area of rough ground following a rough running engine. Doing a non-engineering qualified inspection on the aircraft to release it for flight following the rough landing and a couple of engine ground runs before flying the aircraft again. (Apparently within the allowable regulation for suspected carb icing)
- Flying in flying suits that have not been accepted by a SE fitter.
- Stitching their own badges on their flying suits with non-approved thread and no inspection by an SE fitter.
- Flying after SS+15 (which is night time in air cadet orders, which is prohibited). (An error in time keeping)
- Breaching the flying order book on opening hours.
- Having out of servicing headsets.
- Anomalies in the parachute paperwork.
- An out of date extinguisher on the fire trailer. (Issue technically belongs to the fire section)
- An out of date fire extinguisher in their caravan. (Likewise above)
- Anomalies in the F700 paperwork.
- Caught speeding in the yellow landrovers on several occasions.''

Hardly breaching the low flying rule by taking a Viking, drunk, under a set of electrical distribution pylons at speed with a screaming cadet in the front, is it?

If those are the worst examples of malpractice that can be trawled up, then I suggest that there was a strong safety culture in place to begin with.

[Subsunk]

'ATTENDANCE ON ATC ACTIVITIES BY RAFVR(T) OFFICERS

7. RAFVR(T) officers are expected to attend for not fewer than 12 hours in any one calendar month on official and semi-official ACO activities. For RAFVR(T) officers on VGSs this is interpreted as at least 2 days in any one calendar month.'

VGS Instructors would be advised to use this time to stay current and proficient by any means. The best way for a pilot to assure flight safety is currency and hours in the air. Whoever was made to draft this little gem of an order must recognise that, as they used the words 'expected to' instead of the word 'shall.'

Tough, as cadets and adult volunteers are being made to decide between flying and the Air Training Corps. You can do either but you can't do both.

[Freda Checks]

Stan....

I only have really one thing to add. If someone else was to take my daughter flying I would want her in the most overly serviced, reliable, well equipped and piloted aircraft available. Many, if not most Air Cadet gliding instructors have sons or daughters. None of them would be prepared to take any risks with their own sons or daughters, let alone anybody else's. It was drummed into us that we had a very special responsibility to be able to train youngsters to fly Auntie Bettie's aircraft even before they were able to drive a motor car. My CO was fully aware of his part in all of this and would not allow any potential instructor to carry any cadet passengers until they had carried out at least 100 solo circuits of our airfield.

cats_five.....

The Air Cadet gliding organisation is not about training glider pilots to soar their glider. In my time it was to train the cadet to fly three safe solo circuits of the airfield - a skill boost that they could not obtain anywhere else at age 16. At that time the BGA required three solo circuits (both directions) to qualify for their A and B certificates. Bearing in mind that the average circuit in a Cadet MkIII was three minutes (less for launch failures) Pobjoy is indeed correct - it can be done.

The sequence or instruction was split into two stages.
Stage one - Handling
1 - Familiarisation flight
2 - Primary effect of controls - Normal straight glide
3 - Launch - Further effects of controls - Landing
4 - Turning
5 - Stalling
6 - Stalling in a turn
7 - Spinning and recovery
8 - Recovery from unusual attitudes

Stage two - Circuit Procedure
9 - The normal circuit
10 - The low circuit
11 - The high circuit
12 - (a) Cable break (High)
12 - (b) Cable break (Medium)
12 - (c) Cable break (Low)
13 - Pre- solo check

I went solo on my 21st launch on my second day's flying at Central Gliding School Hawkinge, having covered the above exercises, including three launch failures as above. I was not able to thermal the glider (probably unable to recognise a thermal if I saw one) but I am convinced (as were the CGS instructors) that I could fly my glider safely around the airfield 3 times.

I went on to join a weekend Gliding School and progress such that I could fly accurate 360° turns and even to fly in thermals......and, after some years (and lots more training and check flights with my CO/CFI and annual checks with the Trappers) sent many a cadet solo after having successfully completed their flying syllabus in a very short time period.

Sadly we seem to have thrown the baby out with the water with this current debacle surrounding Syerston and it's operation.

20:20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, but to maintain some continuity gliding operations should have been curtailed such that cadet flying should have been suspended (seems that is what happened) but instructor continuation flying could have been allowed. There must have been a small number of airframes that they could have made airworthy shortly after the "pause" was announced. Here it is two years later and.........no cadets have flown for two years, ergo no cadet solos, no staff cadets (potential instructors) to take the operations forward. Oh dear, oh dear

[cats_five]

Stan....

<snip>
The sequence or instruction was split into two stages.
Stage one - Handling
1 - Familiarisation flight
2 - Primary effect of controls - Normal straight glide
3 - Launch - Further effects of controls - Landing
4 - Turning
5 - Stalling
6 - Stalling in a turn
7 - Spinning and recovery
8 - Recovery from unusual attitudes

Stage two - Circuit Procedure
9 - The normal circuit
10 - The low circuit
11 - The high circuit
12 - (a) Cable break (High)
12 - (b) Cable break (Medium)
12 - (c) Cable break (Low)
13 - Pre- solo check

<snip>


Astonished and scared that LOOKOUT isn't there. Other items in the BGA syllabus not apparently mentioned trimming, drift track & heading, and it's hard to tell from what you have put if it's simply very economical with words or if it is indeed well short of the BGA pre-solo syllabus.

[Tingger]

It is the syllabus from the 70s

[ACW418]

Cats,

I think you need to stop reading out of date information. I was both a BGA Full Cat and an Air Cadet A2* at the same time and there was no difference in requirement with the exception of spinning pre solo in the Air Cadets. The aircraft would not spin so I guess CFS felt it was unnecessary.

The list given above is wildly out of date and probably applied when I went solo in 1961. The syllabus pre "the pause" was much more comprehensive and most definitely included Lookout. The mantra Lookout Attitude Instruments was taught and practised ad nauseam to every student. The average to solo was around 50 launches in Vikings.

The entire flying training system was devised by and maintained by the RAF Central Flying School who have almost universal acceptance as the leaders in flying training. Every instructor has to be checked by a CFS examiner once every two years - this is on top of re-categorisation checks with a Central Gliding School examiner which are no more than 13 months apart. The BGA have no similar standardisation regime. As an ex RAF pilot I can confirm that these checks are no different to what an RAF QFI would have to endure (except of course CGS does not apply).

ACW

[cats_five]

So it's in the current syllabus?

[BBK]

Cats

Lookout is included under 'Airmanship' on the CFS five point brief on EVERY sortie. Woe betide any instructor who doesn't maintain a good enough lookout on a CFS/CGS trip!

BBK

[Freda Checks]

Cats

You questioned Pobjoy's posting, I posted......

The Air Cadet gliding organisation is not about training glider pilots to soar their glider. In my time it was to train the cadet to fly three safe solo circuits of the airfield - a skill boost that they could not obtain anywhere else at age 16.Notice the "In my time" above. As other posters will have noticed, this is old stuff, but it could be done (Oh dear forgot to trim my MkIII :rolleyes:)

But, we all acknowledge that things move on, I did instruct for some years on the Viking and things were completely different to the earlier days of Air Cadet gliding.

There is not room here to post the full ACCGS/CFS syllabus (not related directly to this thread) but suffice it to say you should not worry about today's standard of Air Cadet gliding instruction. Remember, it has to be beyond reproach as we are (were) flying somebody's sons or daughters.


Freda

[cats_five]

And of course now the BGA minimum solo age is 14, there are plenty of 16yo members at my club and others who have done a huge amount more than 3 circuits. I know more than one who has gone solo on his or her 14th birthday.

[Stan0147]

Stan....

Quote:
I only have really one thing to add. If someone else was to take my daughter flying I would want her in the most overly serviced, reliable, well equipped and piloted aircraft available.
Many, if not most Air Cadet gliding instructors have sons or daughters. None of them would be prepared to take any risks with their own sons or daughters, let alone anybody else's. It was drummed into us that we had a very special responsibility to be able to train youngsters to fly Auntie Bettie's aircraft even before they were able to drive a motor car. My CO was fully aware of his part in all of this and would not allow any potential instructor to carry any cadet passengers until they had carried out at least 100 solo circuits of our airfield.

Freda.

This was pretty much my point.

[POBJOY]

Indeed my 1.5 Hrs suggestion was based on the MK111 3 MIN CIRCUIT.
A Cadet had to be able to be able to do turns in either direction,stall recovery,cable breaks,and get the height bands correct for a circuit.
If a Cadet found himself maintaining height on the base leg he was briefed to repeat the base leg (always turning into the airfield) until the magic 200 ft.
In practice this was only an issue on restricted runs as side slipping was not taught neither was use of spoilers. 19+ 2 checks+3 Solo was fairly common on a continuous course. 'Advanced' courses could be had at Halesland and this would include flying the prefect single seater on mainly ridge soaring, use of spoiler/air brakes and spot landings.Many C certs were obtained at Halesland in the Prefect.This was not exactly a 'large' site but the training seemed to be adequate for the situation at the time although i was surprised we did not have an 'official' land out field at the bottom of the hill.
Our CO at Kenley would not let a Staff Cadet be given a P2 until a min of 100 launches were done; with a substantial number of solo's and most dual flights having a cable break or stalls. On the normal w-end training scenario It was the lack of continuity (weather) that put up the pre solo launch situation combined with instructor changes and different circuits.This situation is no different to any other form of training 'continuity' will always give quicker results.
Anyway with two seasons now lost the 'continuity' factor has been blown away and a new word embedded in ATC Gliding (The M factor).

The good news is that with lots of spare equipment/locations/and staff kicking around the time has come to make a 'blockbuster ATC annniversary film; (Carry On Gliding) I can think of some excellent casting suggestions!!!

[Cat Funt]

Well, looks like 621 is going to be homeless. :sad:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-minister-mark-lancaster-announces-release-of-mod-sites-for-development

IIRC, the Plan A for glider recovery intended to use Hullavington as a the Southern hub for bringing Viking personnel back to currency.

Shame, really. I have some fun memories flying Chippies from there as a cadet.

[EnigmAviation]

Sad to say, the Defence Estates statement today puts the tin lid on RAF Hullavington, and intimates that there may be more disposals listed shortly.

This means that 621 VGS is now the first to get their closure during the world record pause. I only hope that Sqn Ldr Woolcock was informed beforehand.

[WE992]

OC 621 was made aware of the plans to dispose of "H" prior to it becoming public. However there are plans for 621 to relocate to another MOD owned airfield but unfortunately it is currently inappropriate to name that airfield at the present time.

[LlamaFarmer]

I hope 621 do get successfully rehoused.

Unfortunately I fear it may not be the only VGS to lose its home before they get back in the air. Would only have been half surprised to see Syerston on the list with them not bothering to rehouse CGS.

[Sky Sports]

OC 621 was made aware of the plans to dispose of "H" prior to it becoming public. However there are plans for 621 to relocate to another MOD owned airfield but unfortunately it is currently inappropriate to name that airfield at the present time.

The way this debacle has played out, I bet the planned relocation is to either Mildenhall, Alconbury or Molesworth! :rolleyes:

[Arclite01]

WE992

I am sure that Dave was only too aware of the situation at 'H'

The other MoD airfields - That can really only be Keevil or Merryfield.

Arc

**Sad to see yet more of the 'crown jewels' being sold off/given away for nothing. I was going to have my ashes scatted at 'H'. Not now though - I don't want to spend eternity on some 'ticky-tacky' 21st Century housing estate..............**

[POBJOY]

WE992


Ashes will now be 'cascaded' which means they can be 'shared around' to suit

One of my spots will be a 'common' in Surrey in 11 Group,then Redhill for an 'armsworth'. On the understanding not from a spam can.

[A and C]

My late wife asked for her ashes to be scattered from an aircraft flying over the EASA HQ with specific instructions that the ashes would not be removed from the urn.

Sorry for the thread creep but her opinion of what EASA was doing to her hobby was not good.

[Freda Checks]

Just a "Feel Good" picture before the bad news hits us...

When I was an ATC cadet I was told to aim for the moon and the world will be yours! Not quite achieved the "world" yet but my interest in aviation has lasted the 56 years since I first became a glider pilot with the Air Cadets.

I spent the day at Lasham yesterday and have pleasure in posting this picture of one of their K13s aiming for the moon on launch.

http://<a href=http://s183.photobucket.com/user/Biggles615/media/Resized-Lasham%20Gliding_zpsory4u1cr.jpg.html target=_blank>[IMG]http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x165/Biggles615/Resized-Lasham%20Gliding_zpsory4u1cr.jpg
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x165/Biggles615/Resized-Lasham%20Gliding_zpsory4u1cr.jpg (http://s183.photobucket.com/user/Biggles615/media/Resized-Lasham%20Gliding_zpsory4u1cr.jpg.html)


I am sorry that it is not a picture of an Air Cadet Glider, not many people (especially cadets) have seen one of those for a long time.

To those of you still wanting to be involved with the future of Air Cadet gliding, I take my hat off to you. You have been treated badly by the present management. I hope the outcome of this debacle is good for you.

Freda

[A and C]

The Viking recovery program is now in full swing with a long time glider maintenance company working with Babcock.

As with these things the production rate will increase with experience but I would hope to see the VGS starting to get instructors back on line soon.

[planesandthings]

FREDA

Not sure if I came across you yesterday but certainly a great photo; I was the young chap flying the big club Duo Discus at Lasham yesterday afternoon, I used to be a cadet in the ATC and for me it was a big boost in many ways, especially the camps and when we did have gliding, I second your good wishes to those still involved with the VGSs for the speedy recovery but offer that all cadets in the ACO should be aware that there are opportunities for cadets in their own time to glide even during this pause at their local gliding clubs! Many civilian clubs are 'Junior Gliding Centers' and offer flying for reduced rates and even sometimes free for just helping out.

I left the ATC just after the pause to focus on civilian gliding and work, the support given in the civilian side is to no end from presolo at 15 to now being helped through my BGA FI Rating (B1 Cat equivalent) at 18 to become a professional instructor for the upcoming season.
I'm not alone in this, there at Lasham and across the country there are hundreds of young people who have gone through the system and have learnt to fly gliders, sure there may be some expense but the costs are minimal compared to the benefits. It's just a shame more WGLOs and Squadrons have not informed cadets about this as I'm sure there would be people who would jump at the chance if only they knew!

Planesandthings

[Frelon]

The Viking recovery program is now in full swing with a long time glider maintenance company working with Babcock.

.......and this has been announced where, or is it just wishful thinking on the part of 2FTS?

[Fitter2]

One headed there yesterday, one more today. Only another 68 to go.....

[Auster Fan]

The Viking recovery program is now in full swing with a long time glider maintenance company working with Babcock.

As with these things the production rate will increase with experience but I would hope to see the VGS starting to get instructors back on line soon.
It was suggested to me at the weekend that my local VGS has lost somewhere in the region of 66% of it's staff during the "pause", so if they ever get their aircraft back, they've got a hell of a mountain to climb a) to get the remaining staff current and b) recruit new staff to make it viable...

[A and C]

The MoD put their name on the dotted line a week or two before Christmas but news seems to have got lost in the long holiday break, there was a prilimanary contract for work on a few gliders issued a few months before.

This first contract was a bit slow in terms of glider recovery largely because the scale of the problems had not been fully understood until the inspection of the airframe and the paperwork ( or lack of !) issues had been fully addressed.

There is a lot of inspection work to be done as due to the lack of records and the poor quality of some of the work done in the past so these aircraft have to undergo a very deep inspection and rectification of any defects found.

The delivery of recovered aircraft has started and will gather pace for some time until the aircraft with serious issues that have been pushed to the back of the line are reached. There are also some aircraft that the current contractor considered BER, these are also going to be looked at when all the others have been recovered so it is more that posable that there will be more aircraft returned to service than had been flying at the start of the pause.

The technical recovery is NOT wishful thinking on the part of 2FTS, it is fact, how they sort out the re-staffing of the VGS is not in my baillywick.

[mary meagher]

Freda, great photo of the Lasham K13 glider heading for the moon! and thanks
to planesandthings for going into more detail about opportunities for young people to fly at civilian gliding clubs...at Shenington Gliding Club we also have youngsters making rapid progress in flying. A very good thing in my opinion (as a retired instructor but still flying) that the new rules permit solo flying at the age of 14, certainly the kids who have made the grade are responsible and helpful on the airfield. Possibly because there are not too many of them, and so are participating as individuals, rather than regimented....

[Cat Funt]

Final decision is now at the ministerial level.

Personally, I've made the decision to get on with the rest of my life. Best of luck to everyone who chooses to remain working for free trying to keep this clown car on the road, but I've had a gut's full.

[romeo bravo]

Ministerial level doesn't sound good :sad:

[Arclite01]

Yes - 'Ministerial Level enquiry' usually means yet another nose poking session by an unqualified, bird brain with no subject matter knowledge...............

With the inherent added delays of course....................

Before they either:
a. Do what their minions (staff experts) tell them what they should have done ages before............
b. Decide that they know best and go around around the whole process again before arriving back where they started (months previously) but have tried to take any credit ensuing or distance themselves from any disaster associated with the item (Teflon is 'de rigueur' for politicians)
c. Place the contract with either one of their mates companies, or in their constituency...........


Arc

[pr00ne]

Arclite01,

..... "That can really only be Keevil or Merryfield."


How about Colerne? Much closer. A little bit of Lyneham maybe?

[Arclite01]

Proone

Colerne has UAS & AEF power traffic. Not a good mix with the Winch Launch Operation of 621. If it was Vigilant then just maybe..............

Lyneham is a non starter nowadays due to development, solar farms and other users.

For me it's Keevil I think as a co-lo with the GSA - although ACCGS has been trying to get onto Merryfield for years - originally as the preferred location when Weston-Super-Mare closed but I seem to remember the RN resisting due to the amount and type of traffic at Merryfield (Commando and Air Assault as well as training). That may have changed...............

Arc

[WE992]

Arc


The GSA fly off the tarmac runways at Keevil due to the grass being un-useable because of the damage caused by air dropped loads and the vehicles being used to recover them. Further more the grass areas are rented to the local farmer who grows it as high as possible for winter feed for his cattle.


In light of the current fiasco I would be very surprised if the ATC are allowed to fly alongside any other organisation when they get going again as it seems to be getting so risk averse!

[Arclite01]

Merryfield it is then. 😄

Arc

[The B Word]

I have also heard of the Minsub and that the likely reveal date of its content will be this Friday if it meets the deadline for Ministerial consideration earlier in the week. So fingers crossed there might be news this Friday or Monday.

If you want my best guess then I suspect we are looking at minimal Vigilants returning (maybe Syerston only for instructor course work?) plus most of the Vikings returning to a reduced footprint of airfields (10 or so given the 80-odd Vikings); and the majority from 2FTS/22Gp run airfields at that. I also hear rumours of the EFTS Tutors being considered for enlarging UAS/AEFs and standing up more on the MOBs, which would sound logical - if my maths is correct this would see 40 Tutors on UAS/AEF duties grow to around 80. The only question hanging over Tutors is where to get the UAS/AEF pilots from unless they change the criteria from Qualified Service Pilots and Qualified Service Navs (with PPLs and VPP difference training). With a plan like this is one wonders where the aircrew are going to come from given the extra required for the P8s, 'Protector' RPAS, the run on of GR4 and the extra Typhoon Sqns?

If I'm right then there will be a big training burden for the VGSs left to get the staff current or retrained (if they come from Vigilant). I would also not expect a full return to flight for some time yet. Also, if I'm right and 10-12 VGS remain, what ones will go and where? :sad:

My hunch is based upon multiple sources, all of whom said there were many plans in progress - so it could be utter hoop!!!

The B Word

[BEagle]

I flew my first solo at RAF Merryfield - in a T21 with the RAF GSA.

But these days there's a lot of helicopter activity, which couldn't really move elsewhere.

Also all the hangars have now gone and the only permanent structure is the ATC tower.

A far cry from the Vampires of my earliest memories!

[A and C]

I am being told the same sort of thing.


When I was a CI at an ATC unit I was not a fan of motor gliders as the cadets had to spend most of the day in the Crewroom awaiting their turn to fly, with pure gliding they had to get involved in launching and recovering while waiting to fly. This IMO was a better team building excersise.

To see gliding and power flying clearly split I think is a good thing and I would hope that with more AEF time avalable to cadets I would hope that rather than the six monthly "Jolly" that it is now the AEF could offer a bit more basic flying instruction and building on the flying skills that cadets learn when flying gliders.

While now having little doubt about the technical recovery of the gliders I am finding it a little more difficult to see how the operation is to be staffed without finding a route to get some VGS gliding instructors flying the Tutor.

[teeteringhead]

where to get the UAS/AEF pilots from unless they change the criteria finding a route to get some VGS gliding instructors flying the Tutor. A lot of logic there methinks!

ISTR quite a "family resemblance" between Das Teutor and the Vigi, although it's a while since I've flown either of them :(

Contrary to our current rules, but they are our rules so we can change 'em. :ok: Why shouldn't some/many/enough Vigi instructors convert to the Tutor.......

[EnigmAviation]

There is NO simple easy one size fits all. The hierarchy may think that there is a simple "numbers" solution, but simply put, there isn't !

"Conventional Glider" ops using the Grob 103 Viking require much more of a staff quorum to commence safe operations, e.g., as well as a DI, requires Winch driver, cable pulling driver, recovery drivers, signaller in Caravan etc, and various strong people around the launch point. Additionally, on a day where sink is more prolific than lift, then beneficial training time in the air is necessarily limited. Even to run a meaningful one week course requires an awful lot of man hours, organisation and sheer hard work on the airfield, not to mention the additional factors of feeding the troops and ensuring Cadet safety off airfield at the end of each flying day, not to mention coping with non airfield entertainment on bad Wx days.

Set against that, Grob 109B Vigilant ops are more productive with far less staff, and have the luxury of determining sortie length and profile iaw operational efficiency and Cadet training needs. The aircraft were efficiently used with 100% training application whether that was GIC, BGT or SCT. There were NO Air Experience passenger flights other than on Staff or Station Open days. Hard work still needed on the ground with staff and Flight Staff cadets in vital work before flying- e.g., OOPS checks, refuelling.Same constraints apply with regard to continuous courses, organisation, but usually can be done with less staff than that required for a conventional VGS.

The idea that Grob 115 Tutor ops could act as another suitable alternative would require some changes and is probably a pipe dream, based on the concept that we have some contracted flying hours under the Babcock contract that we are not fully burning off. For instance, at the moment, the Tutor ops are basically an Air Experience sortie - i.e., backside off ground for 25 mins tops, with the passenger ( as opposed to student) being asked what they "would like to do" after watching the self brief video etc, and sitting in the air side crew room for up to 50% of the day. The pilots are NOT instructors, nor are they formally instructing in any structured sense.

Currently the AEF set up requires full Service qualification as a pilot, or ATPL and substantial flying experience, but those so qualified are NOT undertaking any structured formal training of Cadets ( be that basic or to solo standard ) as prescribed in VGS operations, where all staff are trained by ACCGS to instruct to RAF standards - i.e., B or A Cat. Whilst there are a few VGS instructors who have the required RAF/ATPL qualifications that would, on the face of it, permit them to apply to an AEF unit, it is doubtful whether little more than a mere handful would ever be accepted by an AEF Unit OC.

If there were any moves to make the AEF's perform any structured training, then the pilots would necessarily be required to be trained and qualified to instruct to a structured syllabus.

If, as has been suggested by the Serious Rumour Squad on this thread, we are looking at a limited Vigilant contingent perhaps confined to ACCGS plus one north and one south hub, due to restricted serviceable airframes, then the ACO will lose a major resource of productive flying training for Cadets. They will also lose a very well qualified staff contingent, many of whom would be unable and /or unwilling to travel afar to Viking VGS units where they may find that they would need to start again in terms of coping with Conventional Gliders and instructing in that demanding environment.

The Viking contingent may also find themselves somewhat decimated if we are to reduce operating units to possible more regional hubs or VGS's.

The overall losers will be..................of course..........the Cadets, many of whom could have passed through the ATC in the world record "pause" without ever having been in the air in the VGS at all !!! Regional hubs also have a hidden cost and efficiency issue - costs of greater distance travel, and the gamble of whether the Wx will be suitable when they arrive - with lots of disappointment when they arrive, tired from a long weary road journey.

Even were there to be an announcement of structure/sites and numbers of aircraft in the next month, the chances of any sustained recovery are driven much towards 2017 as ALL staff are out of Category, and many have found other things to do, ( or their wives have found them other things to do !!!) and some have merely been appalled by the whole proceedings.

Not, I would suggest, the cause for any great excitement just yet, but we'll have to see what the Spin Doctors come up with !

Sad times................

[Arclite01]

Enigma

Well summarised, balanced piece.

Arc

[Frelon]

Enigma

Well summarised, balanced piece.

Arc

I concur with Enigma, a well thought out post, and by somebody who has obviously been there, done that. Like many posters, I guess.

But we are the last people that would be involved in any potential Air Cadet flying/gliding decisions 😂

[bobward]

As a former VRT officer, now turned Ci, I often get the chance to meet and greet the new cadets as they join our unit. The best thing that the ATC has to offer the next generation is the opportunity to fly, after a bit of basic training on the squadron. This is what sets us apart from the other cadet forces and youth groups.

For the myriad of reasons set out in this enduring thread, we (the organisation) have not given our cadets the joy of flight for some time. I now see cadets I welcomed, quit, because they can't fly. Has anyone at headquarters Air Cadets actually looked at how this 'pause' has effected cadet recruitment and retention?

If they have, what has been the effect?

[cats_five]

<snip>
The best thing that the ATC has to offer the next generation is the opportunity to fly, after a bit of basic training on the squadron. This is what sets us apart from the other cadet forces and youth groups.

<snip>

Every civilian glider club I know will teach young people to fly, and will send them solo at 14 if their flying is satisfactory. They can progress o Bronze badge, but have to be 16 to get the pre-requisites for solo XC flying signed off. I'm sure plenty are tugging at the leash on their 16th birthday to get those done so they can try their 50km Silver badge flight. AFAIK they can do the height gain & 5 hour flights before 16 as those don't require XC flying.

The differentiator for the ATC isn't flying gliders IMHO, it's the basic training on the squadron.

[EnigmAviation]

I concur with bobward and many others. The rather encouraging thought about this ongoing thread, is that it's rather like the aftermath of a catastrophic fire, that despite a disaster, the glowing and burning embers continue to glow, burst into flame and continue to cause outbreaks of fire.

Despite all that has happened, there have been over 270,000 hits on this thread,over 70 pages of contribution and lots of "interest" in the collective remarks in the pages. Indeed, I understand that some of the dissidents have been advised to cease their public utterances !

This is really a topic that requires the detailed examination by the Commons Defence Select Committee as there are important scrutiny issues e.g.,

1. Spending public money efficiently and waste.
2. Whether there have been any breaches of contract in civilian sub contracts for maintenance of the ACO fleet, and.... If so......
3. What action if any is being taken for any of the possible failures in contract e.g. Recovery action in civil court.
4. What , who or where and by whom, has there been any failures of contract supervision by RAF Engineering staff.

These and many more, but I guess what we'll hear, is "the most important thing at the moment is to get Cadets flying again" ( true but....) and then see " if lessons can be learnt" ( a la child abuse / social services scandals every other year ! )

This way it kicks it into the long grass never to be seen again, the tea and medals follow, and it's all forgotten, just like many other scandals.

Out in the hard old business world, if a sub contractor cocked up, then it's not only no pay, it's possible legal recovery action, and £££££ implications. Also those supervising pay the ultimate penalty......cards and P45. In HMG, it's a world apart, cover up all cock ups, start an inquiry that takes years, take no action but say "lessons will be learnt" , move miscreants, promote them or retire them with full final salary pension ....oh and an appearance in the New Year Honours list followed by a possible Non exec appointment / advisor in .......GUESS WHERE ? one of the sub contractor organisations !

Seems some MP's need to take a bit of interest in a referral to Select Committee and some awkward but well informed questions in the house, after taking their subsidised lunch and bar break.

[Scottish Mil]

Enigma,

Excellent article! I think you have absolutely covered it all. After a career in the service starting as an Apprentice and finishing as an Engineer Officer, I was inspired by soloing in a Venture when they weren't very old at age 16 (I can remember pushing the throttle forward and taking off at South Cerney after less than 6 hours training as though it were yesterday!), having joined the VGS as the pause arrived, it is disapointing not to be able to give something back at a time of life when I now have experience, time and am still fit and healthy. Fortunately, I own said Venture and will continue to instruct via an RAFGSA club, we have been fortunate enough to run some courses on a private basis between the club and cadets parents funded by the ACO and even sent a solo in our K21. I'll await Friday, but my current geographic location makes transfer and travel time to an alternate unit an unlikely option. For a very small amount of money it looks as if alot is to be lost.

[Arclite01]

Great post Scottish Mil.

Reminds me of my own thoughts and my emotions on my first solo - Sept 24th 1981 in a Venture.................. do we really want to deprive future generations of Air Cadets of that feeling of achievement and associated emotions of the 'first solo' ? - I really hope not.

Arc

[clunckdriver]

A few years ago, as a B767 Captain with Air Canada we were given a hold at the end of a Red Eye flight from Edmonton Alberta to Heathrow, we were given a rather odd place to kill time whilst some bod with an unsafe gear made up his mind where and when to put it down, {to the frustration of the Heathrow director I might add} From my left seat I gazed down at a familiar looking airfield below us, then the penny dropped, bloody hell, that's KENLEY! the place where it all started on a road which led me to the left seat flying this amazing aircraft! It all came back, the little silver gliders, the long days retrieving, launching, splicing cables, the friends, but most of all the instructors and staff to whom I owe so much! Now I read all this has been put in jeopardy by folks who don't seem to be able to organise a piss up in a beer store. Many times I have been asked "what would you be doing if you were not a pilot?" my answer was always the same, "I would be in jail". I"m sure I'm not the only wayward kid that owes so much to the Air Cadets, so for heavens sake folks, get your act together and get back in the air!

[Frelon]

Well said Clunck, you will find many Kenley supporters here on PPRUNE, ex cadets, ex staff cadets and ex instructors.

We all feel the same about this debacle and want desperately for today's cadets to be able to share our fabulous experiences of Air Cadet Gliding.

[POBJOY]

Kenley was a great place to start one's journey into aviation.
A wonderful peaceful location on a Surrey common yet within sight of London.
A faithful servant of this country in two conflicts and in particular held the line in 1940.
The spirit of its history continued when 615 Gliding School was its only remaining link with flying and it remains as a testimony to all those who flew from there.
It was a privilege to have been allowed to be part of its continuing story in getting Cadets airborne, allowing then to explore their capabilities and develop a spirit of adventure.
This is why so many of us are appalled at the cretons that have destroyed an organisation that was so good at delivering the goods.
So often in life the real enemy is where you least expect it; in the case of Air Cadet Gliding it is running the show.

[treadigraph]

you will find many Kenley supporters here on PPRuNe, ex cadets, ex staff cadets and ex instructors.


And those of us who just enjoy strolling over Kenley on a weekend afternoon and miss watching the aerial activities of 615.

[teeteringhead]

the long days retrieving, launching, splicing cables ... which is of course one of the big advantages of "real" gliders, without engines.;)

Even when there were Vigis to be had, there seemed to be little for the non-flying cadet to do, other than exercise his thumbs on the latest piece of technology.

For me it started at Hendon (617 IIRC??) followed by soloing at CGS at Swanton Morley about 3 weeks after my 16th birthday, and led on to 30-odd years as a regular RAF pilot........ :ok:

[1.3VStall]

Hey Chaps,

Don't forget Spitalgate (and many other long-gone VGS locations).

I can still remember my three solos in a Kirby Cadet Mk III as if it was yesterday, even though it was nigh on 50 years ago. It launched me (sic!) into an aviation career and, even though I am now retired I still glide, motor glide (both as an instructor) and fly power.

What a crying shame that the young cadets of today are missing out on such an enriching experience.

[A and C]

Enigma makes some very good points about the way the RAF conducts its business with civilian contractors and this is NOT confined to the VGS contract and is IMO due in part to military culture.

The general culture in the RAF is that military discipline requires people to put up with what the RAF provides and get on with the job in the best way they can, unfortunately some civilian contractors use this culture to provide service that is not up to the mark knowing full well that with at best the inertia of the RAF/MoD system they are unlikely to be forced to improve the service level beyond anything other than the minimum they can get away with and well short of what in civilian business would be excepatable.

Add the fact that the the contracts are usually awarded on price and so they cut the cost level to the bone. The result of this is the staff are paid very badly, in the past these contractors used a lot of ex-RAF staff who had a service pension to do the work and the tax payer got a good deal from workers who conducted themselfs with a service ethos for low pay........ All subsidised by a hard earned military pension.

The lack of business experience in the RAF was not a problem while the ex-RAF staff kept up the standards but with the increased use of civilian contractors and the falling number of ex-RAF workers to keep up standards the problem has come home to roost.

The civilians who now work for the contractors are vastly under paid so the contractors can only attract the people who can't get a Job with a private sector company........... Because if they could they would be gone in a heartbeat !

The whole thing is a toxic mix, money grabbing companies underpaying lacklustre staff supervised by RAF officers who's service ethic and lack of business practices results in poor oversight and a culture of poor service delivery within the contracting company.

If one did try to blow the whistle on these companies their first reaction would be to get the lawyers involved and dig up all sorts of accusations to rubbish the RAF officer who did so, none of this would stand up in court but is likely to tarnish a career and at best slow promotion.

If a contract is up for renewal and the incumbent contractor has its past failings pointed out resulting in the loss of the contract it is very likely that they will get the lawyers in to claim that the bidding process was unfair due to past "problems" clouding the contract renewal.

The MoD contracts department is not stupid but being confined by the fairness rules results in it being particularly difficult to remove a contractor for just poor service and so has to go about things very carefully in order to not get tangled up to in long leagal actions.

[chevvron]

Hey Chaps,

Don't forget Spitalgate (and many other long-gone VGS locations).

I can still remember my three solos in a Kirby Cadet Mk III as if it was yesterday, even though it was nigh on 50 years ago. It launched me (sic!) into an aviation career and, even though I am now retired I still glide, motor glide (both as an instructor) and fly power.

What a crying shame that the young cadets of today are missing out on such an enriching experience.
For me it was Halton. Although the RAF decided not to avail themselves of my services, NATS (or NATCS as it was in those days) kindly paid for my PPL course and sent me to Farnborough where I was able to scrounge rides in many different types eg Hunter, Wessex, Puma.

[Charlie_Zulu]

In defence of the Vigilant motor glider, some consider powered flying to be more civilised than conventional gliding. That's a real attraction for potential volunteers with extensive civilian flying experience.


Advantages of the Vigilant:


(1) Cockpit heating
(2) Throttle lever
(3) VGS staff and cadets get to sit in warm caravan while sortie is underway - no muddy knees or cut fingers!


I can see some advantages of Vikings in terms of keeping cadets busy and involved, but over all I think Vigilants are more productive than Vikings when it comes to completing sorties. It's already been mentioned that the return to flying is likely to come with a drastic reduction in staff numbers. If Vigilants do go and squadrons are relocated/merged, then it'll be a shame. The ACO will lose a lot of highly qualified and experienced people. Let's not forget that CGIs are typically professional people in their day jobs. I know many who are PhD students, aeronautical engineers, PPLs, ATPLs etc. Will those CGIs become CIs when their local VGS is relocated? Not likely. I don't understand why QGIs and PPLs/CPLs/ATPLs can be trained to fly Tutors with their local AEF squadron. Powered flying should remain a part of the ATC experience.

[Fitter2]

CZ

For undergraduate geologists, lecture halls are no doubt 'more civilised' than field trips. There are many other analagous situatuons. There is much more to being an effective pilot (or to enjoying the ATC Cadet experience) than is learned only by sitting in an airframe.

For me, flying in anything I could blag a ride in, and my A&B in 1960 at Kirton Lindsey VGS were the main reason I became an ATC Cadet, but I gained a great deal of other experience that has served me well ever since.

[POBJOY]

CZ whilst not suggesting that motor Gliders do not have their place the simple truth is they do not 'involve' Cadets much with contact with the aircraft as per winch launching.This is an important facet of the Viking fleet as there is precious
little actual contact with aircraft nowadays in the Air Cadet organisation.
This may not be important to the regular staff but the chance to actually get involved with the whole operation by a keen youngster is one of the organisations greatest assets. I was lucky in so much that my first ever flight was in a glider which i was able to sit in wearing the uniform i had arrived in not burdened by a parachute and bone dome.Although the flights were short they also required multiple take offs and landings therefore were quite exciting for a 13yr old.When not actually flying we were 'helping' either at the launch end,recovering,or assisting down at the winch. All this activity was 'hands on' and was much more interesting than sitting around trussed up like a turkey.
The key word was 'involvement' and the winch launch gliding operation had no equal in this.

[Thorr]

Unfortunately, I think the world has changed, and that whole being part of the operation doesn't have the appeal anymore. In fact, as a former VGS instructor, I flew many cadets who clearly did not want to be there at all, even the awe of flying did not hold any wonder. I would rather see the VGSs deliver gliding scholarships up to and beyond first solo, and scale back GICs and IGTs. If there were fewer scholarships available, and awarded to the most deserving, then there 'value' to the cadet would be far greater. The AEFs could be tasked to take on a greater proportion of the Experience flying.

As to Whether the organisation retains both Viking and Vigilant squadrons, It needs to be appreciated that the majority of Squadrons operate the vigilant, often for practical reasons. A wholly Viking organisation will result in a great loss of trained staff and fewer sites being able to operate. A move to fewer units will undoubtedly mean reduced tasking, but could also require increased manning - possibly even permanent staff.

[Thorr]

I suspect the transition from Vigilant to Viking will be far harder to achieve than the other way round. Furthermore, I would think that a great number of established Vigilant instructors would simply walk away rather than convert to the Viking. Many of the current vigilant sites are unsuited to Viking ops, so a wholly conventional air cadet gliding organisation is going to be severely reduced from pre-pause levels. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of staff returning is less than 25% of what it was. From that base, how long does it take to re-establish the organisation back to self sustaining levels. It would take several months to get a squadron back up and running, missing out on the productive summer months training. Another year without the throughput of cadets to become potential staff cadets. This means staffing remains tight for another year, etc, etc. To even begin to hope to achieve self-sustainment is probably going to be a 3-5 year endeavour, assuming the organisation broadly follows the same model as it did before the pause, albeit on a much reduced scale. IMHO a far better approach may be the creation of full-time fully staffed gliding centres, working much like the AT centres, The Joint Services Sailing Centre etc.

[Arclite01]

POBJOY, Buckley & Thorr

All good points:

POBJOY - The Youth of today aren't fussed about a winch launch and many find hanging around on the field 'boring'. Social interaction isn't high on their skill set nowadays (ask many employers). The excitement of an open cockpit launch in a MK3 was everything to me - but is nothing to them..............

Buckley - I think all your points are valid. Particularly the struggle to operate. My Viking school wanted at least 3 days a month and my local Vigilant school wanted 2 complete weekends a month !! - major commitment for people with families..............

Thorr - good points. I think many Vigi instructors would walk away. I like the model of centres (like the AT centres) - full time and part timers might work, will it be funded though ?? - it requires infrastructure (airfield and staff) not just a couple of portakabins like many VGS have at present)

Just my 2 pennyworth

Arc

[Wander00]

Sitting here on a wet morning, I fell to wondering what the answer would be if the question was asked for the first time, in the current scenario of the social environment, safety culture, etc. I think the point Is well made about kids not being too interested in the "social" aspects, but perhaps they need to be encouraged. As a 71 year old it is partly the social/co-operative aspect of gliding compared with powered flying that attracts me. Start with the objectives, and how those can be met best. But how to achieve it becomes more difficult the longer the lack of gliding continues. Volunteers will be fiendishly difficult to replace. Staff cadets will have all but disappeared. What is clearly required is strong and clearly visible leadership, and a clear understanding of how to lead and motivate volunteers, which from the outside appears to be lacking. In its absence I can, with great sadness, see the whole exercise folding.

[Arclite01]

Thorr

I also agree with your point regarding the motivation of cadets attending the VGS, many IGT cadets that I trained often said 'I only came because my mate was coming...........' and indeed often many of those cadets attending the BGT continuous courses had suspect motivation and would have failed pre-course 'screening' (had there been any). Difficult to generalise but I would say that the CCF cadets probably had more motivation than the ATC Cadets (and that from an ex-ATC Cadet !)

Maybe there should be some screening of cadets before the course is handed to them on a plate...............that way the more motivated ones might get the reduced number of places available..........., in future it appears that more travelling distances will be required - this will be a big factor for many.

Arc

[POBJOY]

ARC I do realise things are different nowadays,however there will be no Cadets who have ever had a winch launch in an open cockpit machine therefore nothing to compare with. The involvement on the field is down to an individual schools
operations,but i do not see why the old premise of staff cadets showing the day visitors what to do is any different. Having seen a Cadet Squadron filling shopping bags at a local supermarket; none of whom had a gliding badge what the hell has happened to the organisation.
Half the fun of going gliding were the simple things :- holding wings for launching,attaching cables,assisting strapping in,riding in Landrovers on recovery ops, in other words 'helping' with the days operation and learning lots about team work and how it all came together to go flying. The fact that most of the 'jobs' were being done by other Cadets made it even more of a exercise in a possible (that could be me) scenario. If you have never experienced that sort of operation how can it can be judged.I bet if you gave the average Cadet the chance for a days proper involvement at a Viking site or filling shopping bags it would be no contest.I do have to admit that 'recovery' duties could be made quite entertaining with some 'off road' excursions' en route to the recovery point !! (cadets loved it)

[Arclite01]

Something that occurs to me around staffing. If there are less centres that may have full time staff - where are they coming from ??

Currently there are approx 25 VGS plus 1 suspended (617) - on average 30 staff each = 750 staff

If you Full Time this it could reduce to 300 maybe ??. Currently the RAF has a pilot shortage, the AEF/UAS struggle to fill posts - so where will the staff come from ? (even FTRS would be a struggle)

Any thoughts anyone ?

Arc

[POBJOY]

Well you never know ARC we may have to reinvent the 'Dads Army' of the ATC gliding world.The first job would be a 'surgical strike' on Syerston and the removal of Public enemy No 1 to be sentenced to fill shopping bags at Tesco.
Tesco Iran that is.

[Freda Checks]

Arc

Maybe there should be some screening of cadets before the course is handed to them on a plateWhen I first joined my gliding school all cadets for gliding courses were screened (interviewed by CO/CFI) before being accepted on a course. The squadrons complained bitterly that some of their cadets were being turned down.

When we looked into it we found that squadrons were sending along cadets that would not be missed from the Sunday parade (make of that what you will). The best (in the eyes of the squadrons) were being kept back to keep things moving on the Sunday parades.

The screening was stopped and we had to take what we were sent by the squadrons........

[Arclite01]

I was interviewed by the VGS CO when I asked to become a Staff Cadet.

I was never interviewed when I applied to go on the Gliding Scholarship (Remember those ?) - although I believe you had to be recommended for 'Advanced' before you could apply to be a Staff Cadet though (Thanks Mr Tapson :ok:)

My Squadron and Wing objected to my joining the VGS as I was on the Wing Shooting Team (.303 and .22). This was 'referred' to the Region Staff and I 'escaped' only because I was 18 and most shooting competitions had an upper age limit of 18 years for some reason. I still coached the Squadron shooting team but the VGS became my preferred 'location' :}

I believe that the 'screening' of candidates is something that should be undertaken by the GLO before the course is allocated IMHO.

Arc

[EnigmAviation]

POBJOY - yes there was lots of involvement with Viking ops, as was the case on the old days with the Mk III, and Sedbergh with the old Balloon winches. The new MVG winches that came in around 1989 were a quantum leap in terms of efficiency, and particularly in terms of comfort for a day's winch driving,( What - a heater ???) although it could make lovely steel winch cable cable knitwear !!

I don't altogether accept that there was little involvement in Vigilant ops though. It all depends on DI leadership and the team in order that the whole troop is kept occupied, and not bored ----less.


BuckleyBoy - yes agreed that there will be a huge loss of up to 800 GS from Vigilant VGS ops if they are decimated, and I do agree that convex from Vigilant to Viking will be an enormously troublesome area - Do they want to ? Are they able to ? -.e., any relevant experience of conventional ops. Are they able to join in terms of geographic location? and are the sites entirely suitable for winch ops.


As for just concentrating on GS, I think that would be an altogether poor strategy as many young Cadets have a wonderful opportunity to see whether they like having their backsides off the ground by doing IGT, whilst some can overcome their fear of flying at the same time. I well remember one such Cadet who was so frightened ( not by me !!!) that he had to be removed from my aeroplane for a while until the DI had re-assured him and I had explained just exactly how I would deal with his fear. The result was a hugely successful sortie with a smile as long as the runway and a fear of flying totally conquered. How can anyone say that this work was not rewarding ?


I also remember getting a new CGI to solo standard after his "white knuckles" were made to relax sufficiently - that and many more.


Not only that, as we stand now, we have a new Winch to contend with, and all existing staff totally outside any category/currency limits. Indeed, some of the best expertise has gone, and continues to bleed away as time goes by.


Not many raw recruits wish to spend anything up to 18 hours a day , three days a month, plus at least one 7 day continuous period, away from home, on a bleak windswept airfield, with precious little work breaks, or refreshment and on top of that work their way up from the very bottom, i.e., retrieve driving, cable pulling, winch driving, signalling, pushing, pulling and heaving quite heavy GRP ships all day and then cleaning all the said machines at the end of the long day, and learning to rig and de-rig Vikings.


I suspect those in the Ivory Towers and above have failed to appreciate the very highly skilled, and generous public spirited workforce that they had, but will soon find out what they haven't got by the time they get some aircraft on some airfields in an attempt to enact their master plan for 2020. They can't even rely on any FSC's as they have all gone too , and no new ones have been trained for nearly two years.


They may even have to look the assistance of some of the old "Home Guard contingent" like self who could perhaps do some ground training of new recruits. I personally spent 30 years from Mk III to Sedbergh, Venture, Viking and Vigilant, and held executive posts on more than one unit and served on at least two operational front line stations, and one other. I retired gracefully on the last day that I was able to fly HM's aeroplanes, and I can truly say that I have seen some outstanding Cadets develop , some of whom are now Senior RAF Officers, some of whom have held prestigious appointments in the RAF. Would I do it again? Certainly.


Is it/ Was it a safe and professional operation ? Yes, absolutely. Yes, I will admit that we have seen the odd comedian/ Walter Mitty / Spanner, but by and large they were very soon rumbled and eliminated before they had any chance to cause a major problem. Amateurs in terms of pay, but totally professional in every operational aspect, borne out by some of the RAF PTC Flight Safety Awards made. I represented my VGS on the Station Flight Safety Committee, and in that time, not ONE complaint was levelled against the VGS. We also flew during normal weekday ops and operated under full Air Traffic Rules as indeed all the other FT RAF pilots and instructors did. We operated a station approved Health & Safety policy for the VGS and liaison was at all times courteous and correct.


Quite simply the best thing that OC 2 FTS could do is to come to terms with the fact that those who have in some cases a lifetime of experience, may be able to help exhume the VGS organisation from its current graveyard scenario. I think we can all agree here that Daddy does not know best !!!


I still think that when all the infighting has ceased and we have got > than a couple of dozen Cadets aviating again, that there is an overwhelming case for this whole taxpayer waste to be scrutinised and some people brought to account. It should NOT be left to blow away like petals from flowers at the graveside.


I think that many of us perhaps enjoyed the premium years, it's just such a terrible shame that incompetence has brought such a marvellous organisation to a complete standstill with a very slim chance of successful resuscitation. Perhaps a defibrillator applied to certain body parts in certain places may galvanise some greater pace ??

[LlamaFarmer]

I was interviewed by the VGS CO when I asked to become a Staff Cadet.

I was never interviewed when I applied to go on the Gliding Scholarship (Remember those ?) - although I believe you had to be recommended for 'Advanced' before you could apply to be a Staff Cadet though (Thanks Mr Tapson :ok:)

My Squadron and Wing objected to my joining the VGS as I was on the Wing Shooting Team (.303 and .22). This was 'referred' to the Region Staff and I 'escaped' only because I was 18 and most shooting competitions had an upper age limit of 18 years for some reason. I still coached the Squadron shooting team but the VGS became my preferred 'location' :}

I believe that the 'screening' of candidates is something that should be undertaken by the GLO before the course is allocated IMHO.

Arc

I did my GS on Saturdays back in spring in the early 00s, maybe 02 or 03 on a Viking. Towards the end of it the Boss asked me if I was able to make it on Sundays too. Sure, more gliding, absolutely sir.

Became good friends with a lot of FSCs and staff whilst I was there. Expressed interest in staying on at the VGS once I'd finished to became an FSC. Made sure the senior FSC, DCFI, CFI and Boss all definitely knew I wanted to.

Did my solo, then never heard back.

A few months later was staying with a friend who was an FSC so they dragged me back down on the Saturday, and I became an FSC just by continuing to turn up... was never invited to become one, never interviewed or anything, just happened, no process.


Once I did I realised my squadron was only turning up maybe 1/2 the time they were down for GICs... turns out my squadron OC (who was a royal C*** with a capital C) couldn't be bothered to give up his weekend most of the time, so didn't bother telling the cadets of the opportunities.
Even when I was a 19 year old CGI (I left the ATC at 18), so was an adult staff member, he wouldn't let me take the cadets down for the day. I informed Wing HQ, as I was well known to a few of the Sqn Leaders and Wing Commander, they didn't even care, said there was nothing they could do. I read between the lines and took it to mean there was nothing they could be bothered to do.


Came across this a lot in the ATC, amongst numerous different squadrons. Far too many uniformed staff seemed to massage their ego and get any enjoyment only for themselves, not to give something back to the cadets.

Tis a shame.



Once I get my new base, I'll try and make it back to the local VGS, if things are back up and running by then. And even if it's not I'll let the Boss know that I'll be there when it is.

[Arclite01]

Llama

I believe that technically you can't just turn up nowadays. Too much H&S for that to be possible.

FSC appointments have to be approved at Squadron and Wing level.

Otherwise every Tom, Dick and Harriet would be showing up and hanging out.............

It does appear that you have had a poor experience from your organisation at all levels though.

Arc

[LlamaFarmer]

Llama

I believe that technically you can't just turn up nowadays. Too much H&S for that to be possible.

FSC appointments have to be approved at Squadron and Wing level.

Otherwise every Tom, Dick and Harriet would be showing up and hanging out.............

It does appear that you have had a poor experience from your organisation at all levels though.

Arc

Well I did turn up just to say hi to everyone and was gonna go after the morning briefing before everyone headed out onto the airfield. But the DI told me to stick around and then come back the next week. So I did. and DCFI told me to keep coming, I guess they had decided I was to become an FSC... just not sure at what point they decided that and why they hadn't let me know before.

Right up until I left at 21/22 once I'd graduated uni and moved away for first job, there were always prodigal sons returning... former FSCs/CGIs who would rock up and spend the day in the caravan (at DI and/or GSDE's discretion) catching up with old friends. Even 8 years later I imagine bureaucracy has got so much that wouldn't be allowed.

[The B Word]

I hear there is a 7+ day delay to any decision. Not clear why, but I'm guessing the Minister is asking a few questions?

The B Word :confused:

[Bigpants]

Oh hell, why not re introduce primary gliders and let the young folks self launch themselves from the playing field with a length of bungee. Lord of The Flies style organisation, the strongest brutes launching the weedy ones into the air.

The survivors could then be wire launched behind a Rover Capri from a suitable length of Tarmac.

Character building, worked for the German Air Force, all their finest and brightest flew from the WasserKupper (Water Hill)....

[Bigpants]

Glider Pilot. co.uk (http://www.glider-pilot.co.uk/Wings%20of%20%20Wasserkuppe/Wings%20of%20%20Wasserkuppe.htm)