Air Cadets grounded?

[treadigraph]

Colleague who lives by Kenley tells me there has been a major fire on aerodrome overnight, looks as though it may be amongst the buildings to the north of the 615 hangar. :{

Another colleague who lives next to the site hasn't appeared yet, I gather there are some road closures.

Nothing on the local news sites yet.

[Cows getting bigger]

News snippet

Six fire engines battles blaze at Kenley Aerodrome | Surrey Mirror (http://www.surreymirror.co.uk/engines-battles-blaze-Kenley-Aerodrome/story-28630364-detail/story.html)

[Freda Checks]

Sadly the end of another era.

I used to be a member of the Officers' Mess at Kenley and went to the last two Battle of Britain balls held there before it closed it's doors for the last time, so this is very sad. I have fond memories of the place.

The owners/developers of this part of what remains of this historic airfield have been trying to build some expensive houses but the presence of the Officer's Mess complete with its history has stopped them.

I sincerely hope that this site is now razed to the ground and made part of Kenley Common and that the developers are not able to benefit from this "accident".

[DaveUnwin]

Isn't it amazing how often these damp old buildings, sometimes listed, often inconveniently blocking a lucrative development, spontaneously self-combust? It really is quite remarkable - I don't suppose anyone out there understands the scientific principles behind these unusual conflagrations?.

[RUCAWO]

It happened to Paddy Maynes home here, useful alcos apparently started a fire to drink round :rolleyes:

[treadigraph]

I don't suppose anyone out there understands the scientific principles behind these unusual conflagrations?.

Usually some arse on a mission...

[clunckdriver]

To burn down a Battle of Britain legacy building such as the Mess at Kenley is a slap in the face to all those who lost their lives in WW2, both ground crew and air crew. Some time ago I brought an RCAF vet to the UK on one of my scheduled flights, we dined at the Kenley Officers mess as guests of my old Air Cadet C.O. Flt Jack Archer, a WW1 RFC vet,Jack must be turning in his grave over this, is nothing valued or sacred in the UK any more?

[pr00ne]

clunckdriver,


It's not a slap in the face to anyone!

It was a derelict abandoned building that hadn't been used for years. Plenty is valued in the UK, and this building is hardly rare or of any particular architectural merit.

It was going to be converted into flats. It's less than half destroyed so this could still happen.

[Freda Checks]

clunckdriver,


It's not a slap in the face to anyone!

It was a derelict abandoned building that hadn't been used for years. Plenty is valued in the UK, and this building is hardly rare or of any particular architectural merit.

It was going to be converted into flats. It's less than half destroyed so this could still happen.

Who would want to live in flats so close to an airfield with all those noisy gliders flying around all day? Oh, I forgot the VGS is not flying at weekends, it's just Surrey Hills Gliding Club during the week!

[clunckdriver]

Actually, the building was constructed to the standard layout for such an airfield, both before and after the "Expansion Scheme", and does in fact have much merit as such, by your logic Windsor Castle should be torn down, it certainly lacks any redeeming features and has not contributed to the survival of the free world , {or whats left of it} as Kenley has in the recent past.The old Guards Barracks in Caterham have been turned into civilian housing, the Kenley Mess deserves to be preserved, but then you may have forgotten about "The Kenley Wing", led by Johnie Johnson, that's if you ever cared about the contribution made by Canada to your survival.

[chevvron]

Isn't it amazing how often these damp old buildings, sometimes listed, often inconveniently blocking a lucrative development, spontaneously self-combust? It really is quite remarkable - I don't suppose anyone out there understands the scientific principles behind these unusual conflagrations?.
Hopefully the Fire Service will be able to tell us how it started when they've had time to investigate.

[Frelon]

Despite the former Officers' Mess being a listed building (https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1334947) it seems that Tandridge local authority in Surrey wants to redevelop part of the Battle of Britain conservation area in a drive to build thousands of homes on the Green Belt.

See article here (http://insidecroydon.com/2016/01/17/tandridge-has-plans-for-thousands-of-homes-on-green-belt/). ....and what date was that article? Oh dear so recent as 17th January 2016!!

Today's report in the Inside Croydon (https://insidecroydon.com/2016/01/29/battle-of-britain-officers-mess-at-kenley-destroyed-by-fire/) website observes that..

Firefighters were still on the scene at 10am today, with a spokesman from Surrey Fire and Rescue reported as saying that the building’s interior are “completely destroyed”. Which should make it all the more convenient for any development plans, someone is bound to suggest.


I am very happy to report that last year, the Friends of Kenley Airfield were granted a £881,000 Heritage Lottery Fund grant for a project to preserve parts of the historic site, which the Lottery described as “an incredible example of outer London’s heritage”.

Sadly the Officers' Mess will not now be part of that preservation.

[ExAscoteer]

Actually, the building was constructed to the standard layout for such an airfield, both before and after the "Expansion Scheme"The Mess at Kenley was built in 1932 so well before the 'Expansion Period' and has nothing in common with Expansion Period messes.

[ACW342]

So, apart from an old officers mess having been burned to the ground and the Control Tower and other buildings, as well as the runways being demolished at RAF Ballywalter to enlarge an american style trailer park, I believe that the ACO gliding fleet has been grounded. Any truth in that?

[clunckdriver]

ExAscoter, I stated that this was the "standard design" BEFORE and AFTER the expansion scheme, I stand by this as was actually copied in Canada with a few modifications at two locations ,both alas gone, {such as improved plumbing, heating and snow load stress,} in fact it states quite clearly that the design was found to be satisfactory without much modification AFTER the expansion scheme started , Of course there was no way Canada was going to replicate such fine buildings when the BCATP started. How do I know this trivia? As part of my research into a local BCATP airfield I came across memos between the RCAF and the RAF on this very subject.As for it "having nothing in common" with pre -expansion buildings, all the specs for red bricks , steel roof trusses and other components were, I recall, written to the same specifications, some of which, such as bricks, could not be duplicated in Canada.But such obscure stuff wont get the cadets flying, or undo the damage to the building.

[POBJOY]

Amazing; the part that has gone is the 'listed bit'. which of course was very inconvenient to the developers.I believe the 'wings' although of the same vintage somehow missed getting listed therefore are less of a problem to them.
'Protection' for listed structures does very little to stop this sort of 'removal' as i doubt if Tandridge Council have the resources to follow up any investigation and
follow on action.
Does not affect the security for 615,but just confirms how little regard we have for modern history and the very important part Kenley played in the countries survival in 1940.
I do hope the planners do not roll over and give the developers a clear run,but fear the legal argument will be expensive to follow up,although the owners did have a responsibility to protect the location.
CLUNK; Jack Archer was still 'assisting' at 450 as a civilian when i joined in 1960,and i think he actually 'lived in'. You are quite correct it is a disgrace to Kenley's part in two conflicts and those that were part of it.

[Wander00]

I see from the latest RAF Museum Newsletter that they are going to have an exhibition to mark the 75th Anniversary of the ATC. Exhibition will apparently include Viking glider "which you can sit in"!

[Flying_Anorak]

Its been there for a while, it has the sides cut away to make it easier to get in and out of!

[cats_five]

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

Vary interesting, thanks. The Wasserkuppe is somewhere I'd like to fly, and since I fly to Frankfurt when I go to Germany all I need to do is make sure I'm well current and arrange the travel!

[Frelon]

Now let's see what they have achieved since this (http://www.raf.mod.uk/aircadets/newsandevents/index.cfm?storyid=0FE9C881-5056-A318-A853B62D34BE97D9) excellent PR article....

err..........excellent flight safety, white fleet with no mileage, instructors not instructing, gliders stuck in hangers doing nothing.....

I am sure we can add to that list!

Happy Anniversary 2FTS.

[EnigmAviation]

We'll certainly 100% Flight Safety and 100% ground ops safety has been achieved, but keep this quiet in case they adopt the current ops level as being SOP consistent with zero risk ops.

I just wonder when the veil of secrecy is to be lifted ? Any ideas chaps ?

[Wander00]

Group Captain John Middleton, said: “I feel honoured to have the opportunity to take air cadet gliding forward into a new era


Well, he certainly did that

[Aggamemnon]

Air Vice Marshal Mike Lloyd, the Air Officer Commanding 22 (Training) Group which will oversee 2FTS, said: "I am delighted to see the gliding community recognised in this way and I look forward to many more cadets earning their wings under the expert guidance of John and his team".


I don't think this quite panned out as the good AVM hoped.

Saying that; while I usually try and ascribe events to incompetence rather than malice it is increasingly difficult to do so.

[POBJOY]

Whilst JM did not cause the initial 'glitch in the system' he has certainly been responsible for the disaster that has befallen the organisation since easter 2014.
Not only was he totally unaware of the capable way the the Squadrons had performed for decades he also chose not to engage with them to find a way forward in a less painful manner.(This was a major failing)
He has no leadership quality that engineered a prompt resolution, and has only alienated those who have served the organisation for decades,and who now have no confidence in his capability to head up what was a fine training service.
If he stays in post the organisation may as well cease, as it will not be led by a person who has any idea what is required or how to engage with capable people.
If the 'higher authority' in the service do not see this then they are as guilty by association in allowing it, and it does the RAF great disservice to its reputation.

[EnigmAviation]

Well said old boy, I just don't know how the heck this awful situation is being allowed to keep rolling on so long.

By the time the next few weeks have passed by we approach the 2 year marker, during which time information has been on D notice, absolutely no consideration for such amazing, dedicated and hard working staff, and precious little in tangible resources flowing back to kick start the training machine.

Without some Ex Lax and / or other purgatives, there is a real chance that no really serious aviation will take place before 2017. By then there will be few staff left, with the real risk that VGS ops may close for ever.

It's an absolute disgrace.

[A and C]

While the VGS operational management seems to be lacklustre at best I am starting to think the real scandal is with the technical support. Or at least the technical support delivered up until recently.

Like Enigma I can't see gliding return in any quantity until the support contract gets awarded and then only if we get a new broom to sweep away the old maintenance and support practices.

[tucumseh]

Whilst JM did not cause the initial 'glitch in the system' he has certainly been responsible for the disaster that has befallen the organisation since easter 2014.

I cannot comment on the individual or his performance during his tenure.

But it would be wise to remember that Haddon-Cave disgracefully named and shamed individuals who, demonstrably, had absolutely nothing to do with the policy decisions made at least 12 years before they took up post (June 1987 by the then AMSO) that led to the underlying failures. I have no idea how long the current Gp Capt has been in post, but we saw with Nimrod that a 3 year tour as IPTL (and given most have no prior experience) gives you no time at all to even understand systemic failings, never mind draw up a plan for the Gods to consider.

If the problems were confined to his own little part of MoD, then 3 years might be enough, but I doubt it. It takes 18 months just to bid and get funding and, because of the rundown in capability and expertise in both MoD and Industry, probably another year just to agree the necessary contract. Industry don't retain expertise if MoD decides to cancel contracts. It makes people redundant. The fact that the necessary procedural Standard has been cancelled without replacement, and the current MAA regs show no understanding of the subject, makes this doubly difficulty.

But, this is a systemic failing. The Gp Capt may be trying very hard indeed. Equally, he may have made an initial inquiry, only to have the last Minister for the Armed Forces' edict thrust under his nose and realised that doing something about it is a career killer. The Gp Capt is a VERY junior officer in this game. No real point in having a pop at him. My own feeling is that the likes of CAS is well aware of the problem and has had to earn his corn by making a decision. Front Line or ATC. He will have asked DG MAA, who will have told him he is years away from understanding the depth of the problem created nearly 30 years ago. Haddon-Cave wrongly baselined this at 1998. To fix all the problems, MoD is short of at least 11 years funding. This is one reason entire fleets have been retired. To acquire this funding, you have to at first acknowledge the problem. We haven't reached that stage yet as the MAA has only existed for 6 years.

[POBJOY]

TUC We are talking about a Glider fleet here which is as basic as you can get in aviation terms.
This is not a fleet that had 'issues' with control or airframe failures but a fleet that was operated by competent staff that knew their equipment and how it worked with no history of problems.
Buy not engaging with the actual operators before grounding the entire fleet (with a subsequent ongoing ending of operations) this shows how little JM knew about his operation or the level of capability of the Volunteer staff.
The operation of gliding is SIMPLE in tech terms which is why it has been such a useful part of the ATC organisation and why Cadets of all abilities are/were able to undertake it.
This has now been destroyed for no cogent reason other than the lack of of knowing how to deal with the matter with a REASONABLE RESPONSE.
The first part should have been to liaise and confer with the operators in order to assess the risk factor.This would have had the benefit of concentrating ALL THE EXPERTISE together to arrive at a ( REASONABLE solution).
Of course if you do not really want volunteers running the operation then you have a major flaw in the entire set up,but do not hide behind safety and paperwork to attend to that issue.
The ATC Schools were an unique operation in the RAF/MOD system and have demonstrated for decades their ability to operate in a safe competent manner and deliver high quality training and an excellent Cadet experience.
In some respects they are a model of how well things can be done by having capable people running an aviation facility and using their own trained staff who offer continuity of operations and standards. This has not changed over the years and has adapted well to the addition of the SLMG without undue complications.
What the organisation did not need was someone who did not bother to find out what a fine system he had and seems to hold the whole volunteer element with distain. No Leadership, No Confidence = No Gliding and the Cadet organisation now has a credibility factor of a lead balloon.No amount of paperwork shuffling can now hide this disaster for the organisation and i have now 'mailed' the new CDS to tell it as it is.

[A and C]

Pobjoy, there was not much wrong with the VGS at the operational sharp end and in my opinion if it not broke there is no need to fix it !

The glider maintenance is another matter and without saying too much that might prejudice the upcoming support contract there is no doubt that the maintenance of the fleet was very substandard.

[longer ron]

With all that is going on with MOD real estate at the moment I still think that the whole affair was not simply an airworthiness issue.
The choice of JM to take over ACO gliding may or may not have been an honest mistake by 'somebody' but it would probably have been very difficult to find anybody more unsuited to the task.
I know some people think that it is unlikely that any other agendas were at play - but as I posted previously - the ACO gliding system has in effect been dismantled - thereby possibly making it easier to close certain sites (or at least move certain units from them - since these 'units' no longer exist in practice) - and not a whimper from anybody on an official level !

[longer ron]

''and that doing something about it is a career killer.''


This particular Group Captain was a retired wing cdr navigator and already over age for the 2FTS job so I doubt he had much of a future career ahead !




sorry cannot get quote facility to work

[romeo bravo]

Has anyone thought that the delay could be down to the Delivery Duty Holder's responsibilities; and that would sit with OC2FTS. The legal responsibility lies with the DDH to the point they leave this mortal coil; and on a fleet of gliders when you (as an individual) are not 100% confident of the serviceability, paperwork trail, etc. I definenately wouldn't.

[tucumseh]

Pobjoy & l ron

As I said, I have no wish to denigrate the man. I don't know him and am in no position to challenge your own experiences. When there are systemic failings, I don't like to see an individual singled out for being unable to cope with decisions of yesteryear. Very few knew how to. I suspect anything he has done pales into insignificance when judged against those who were warned their illegal acts would kill aircrew, and carried on regardless in the knowledge they would be allowed to judge their own case - and then did. That is truly malevolent. My "career killer" comment refers to the rulings of, for example, Andrew Robathan MP Min(AF) on 8.1.13; and DE&S's confirmatory statement of 13.2.13. (One of many). Thou shalt not refuse to obey an order to make a false declaration about airworthiness (even though it carries a 2 year sentence). But if your man did make such a declaration, then I of course withdraw....and he deserves your opprobrium.

[clunckdriver]

Dear Lord, the aircraft are single engine, unpressurized ,fixed gear,uncomplicated flying machines, what is so bloody difficult about keeping them safe and serviceable? My wife and I kept over twenty similar aircraft in service with a utilization of about 230 hours per month on each air-frame/engine combination, and didn't kill a single person, and now the whole might of the RAF takes two years to think about what to do? Its like a Monty Python show!

[John Purdey]

Well said Clunkdriver. In my day (1960s) we had one Sqn Ldr to whom all 27 Gliding Schools and 2 Gliding Centres reported. He had 2 (very experienced) JEngos, who had roaming technical oversight, and one GD Flt Lt J class officer deputy. He also had one Flt Lt overseeing all the Air Experience Flights and another looking after Flying Scholaships, and the links to the flying clubs involved. We never had an accident nor even a serious incident in my two years of happy involvement, including a very great deal of aero-towing. When did it all become so complicated?! JP

[Lima Juliet]

The glider maintenance is another matter and without saying too much that might prejudice the upcoming support contract there is no doubt that the maintenance of the fleet was very substandard.

Well said...:D:D:D

This is/was exactly the issue; the rest of the issues were minor and could have been sorted during normal operations (like the minor AEA issues that have attracted so much flak!). Some of the issues came out in that FOI request about incorrect elevator hinges being fitted, incomplete aircraft document sets and failures in the independent inspections. I know there were many more and that would definately prejudice commercial sensitivities.

As I have said all along JM made exactly the right decision to suspend flying, however, what happened after that as things developed may not have been as clear cut. To publically assassinate his personality without him knowing who you are is, in my opinion, bad form.

LJ

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/491324/20150121-FOI08296Attachment.pdf

[paul m]

This particular Group Captain was a retired wing cdr navigator and already over age for the 2FTS job so I doubt he had much of a future career ahead

Nav or Pilot? He wears pilot wings!

[Chugalug2]

JP:-

When did it all become so complicated?! JP


When it started becoming dangerous. That was when the UK Military Air Regulator (aka the MOD) began to renege on its duty of care to ensure the airworthiness of UK military aircraft. That began in 1987 when, to misquote Haddon-Cave, savings were made at the cost of safety. Not his date though as he considered that to be a Golden Period of Air Safety! Strange, when staff responsible for ensuring that airworthiness were ordered to disregard the regulations but to sign them off as complied with. I'm pretty certain that such an order is illegal, but the Air Officer concerned was supported by his superiors up to ministerial level, and it remains written MOD policy that such an order is permissible, and that to disobey it is an offence.

The effect on the professional and experienced engineers whose whole existence was dedicated to ensuring airworthiness (including '60s Air Cadet gliders, JP!) can be imagined. One way and the other they left, to be replaced by compliant untrained inexperienced non-engineers. The regulations that were not now being applied were removed and forgotten. Very soon nobody was left who understood them or remembered them. Airworthiness related fatal air accidents, such as the Mull of Kintyre tragedy that killed 29, were investigated under the auspices of the MOD, but the cause was never found to be lack of airworthiness. 63 such airworthiness related fatalities have been identified in threads on this forum alone.

The MAA, "the independent" MOD subsidiary resulting from the Nimrod Review, is struggling to cope with the lack of airworthiness that now infects all MOD fleets (including Air Cadet gliders) Its modus operandi is to reinvent the wheel, but without having any trained wheelwrights. The result is the paper mountain complained of in this thread. You may think your aircraft are simple and therefore safe. They should be, but they are not. If it is the fault of anybody, then it is the fault of the Air Officers who subverted the regulations in the 80s/90s, and the Air Officers who have covered that up ever since. As Tuc says, they are fond of using JOs and SOs as scapegoats for their own actions, so don't fall for it.

Unless and until this is confronted by the Royal Air Force it will be compromised as a fighting force. Unless and until the MAA and the MilAAIB are made independent of the MOD and of each other it can all happen again anyway.

So, clunk driver, that is why it's so bloody difficult to keep them safe. It's all about airworthiness, not serviceability.

[clunckdriver]

Chugalug, We operated in our God awful climate for 26 years with such aircraft, I can assure you our aircraft were not only airworthy but serviceable and safe, the fleet consisted of Grob 115, DA 40, DA20, C172, B19 along with various twins,and taildragers, flying from both high intensity large airfields, grass strips and ski runways with a bit of float flying thrown in for good measure, flown mostly by very low time pilots .If the RAF cant keep things both serviceable and safe with the benign flying conditions in the UK and all the support available then I suggest that you have the wrong folks running things.Time to clean house!

[Chugalug2]

cd:-
Time to clean house!

Couldn't have said it better myself. With all due respect though, the only people that can authoritatively say that an aircraft is airworthy are the relevant competent air regulator. Therein lies the rub, the UK Military doesn't have one, hasn't had one for nigh on thirty years. Maintaining airworthiness is a continual auditing process. Break that continuity and you can no longer claim airworthiness. That continuity has been long broken. All it needed was a paper trail IAW the regulations. No regulations, no paper trail, no airworthiness.

It all sounds arcane and boring I know, but the lack of that paper trail can kill, and has killed.

Can I again make the point that this is not a reflection on those concerned with servicing, but on the MOD whose responsibility it is to procure and ensure airworthy military aircraft. It has reneged on that responsibility.

[tucumseh]

MoD used to have robust regulations implemented by lots of backroom staffs (primarily trained engineers) which resulted in many of the issues debated here being nipped in the bud and never seen or even heard of by operators.

As Chug said, this system was rundown as a result of the "savings at the expense of safety" culture reiterated by Mr Haddon-Cave - although he put the wrong start date on it. The correct date is not made up - it is recorded in an internal MoD audit report.

While I have no direct knowledge of the aircraft, Leon's description is depressingly similar to failures in other cases; such as Chinook, Nimrod, Tornado, C130, Sea King, etc.

incorrect elevator hinges being fitted, incomplete aircraft document sets and failures in the independent inspections

An incomplete ADS is sufficient to ground aircraft. Evidence that the Chinook ADS was fabricated by the Air Staffs led to the setting aside of the ZD576 findings. In the face of such a high profile revelation and ruling, may I suggest any sensible officers in the Gp Capt's position would have done the same as he. It is highly unlikely he knows what comprises a valid ADS (not a criticism) but has asked the question, not received a satisfactory answer, and taken the only step open to him. Corrective action lies in the hands of others, who have not served him well. We must accept they may be hamstrung by higher priorities, and will themselves be having a good old moan about predecessors not implementing regs properly. If they want to pinpoint the historical timeline, the Philip Report is a good starting point; especially the publicly available evidence to the Review.

I must say this seems to be dragging on. Expertise must be thin on the ground. Or else lack of progress has been directed. It is a real PR blunder.

[POBJOY]

Clunk The good old UK has really lost its 'build it fix it' capability and 'engineering' now seems to be based on sitting in front of a monitor with clean hands.
The 'Glider' fiasco is only one of a number of issues that stem from the lack of engineering capability in the forces.
They binned the world class training bases years ago so the 'hands on' skills started to depart after that.
With engineering not a high priority at the MOD you have no one to 'oversee' all sorts of schemes that go wrong.
There is also the problem of not being able to produce simple GA type equipment that would suit some of the basic requirements of the Forces.
To a degree it has to be expected as progressive 'cuts' have reduced the core structure of our industry and expertise to a low level.What you do then is to have lots of meetings and reports to satisfy the Government bodies that money is well spent not wasted.
No easy fix as there is no one with any real clout at the top who knows what to do or how to go about it.The ATC Gliding organisation ran so well for so long because it was staffed by competent people and had a continuity in bringing on new blood to feed the system. When you 'outsource' all the facilities then you leave yourself open to a multitude of potential problems no one contemplated at the time because it was 'sold' as being 'cost saving'.
When the system fails how cheap was that.

[A and C]

From the technical standpoint the RAF is cleaning the house and is fully aware of the shortcomings of some of the contractors, unfortunately just shutting down a poorly performing contractor is not instantly posable because a replacement contractor has to put the manpower in place to take on the work, this can't be done overnight added to this some sort of handover of official documentation ( assuming it has not been lost) has to take place when contractors change.

With Babcock getting the Viking recovery job ( the fleet with the long term future ) it would appear that this process of contractor change is underway.

The support contract tender document will be released soon and this will give all party's the chance to bid, no doubt the past performance and performance on other contracts will come into play when choosing a contractor for the support contract.

It would be interesting to see the odds Paddy Power would give on the uncumbent contractor getting the support contract !

[Chugalug2]

A and C:-
From the technical standpoint the RAF is cleaning the house

It rather depends which house you are referring to. I think that clunkdriver was referring to the RAF's own house (and that of the MOD), and that is certainly what I meant by it. It is all very well removing the mote from others' eyes, but first some casting out of beams of one's own is required, as once famously called for.

If those subject to regulatory authority have, unchecked, not kept to the regulations then that is a condemnation of that regulatory authority. The words breweries and piss-ups come to mind...

As POBJOY has said, there is a total dearth of trained experienced military engineers who are knowledgeable of the regulations, let alone having the ability and willingness to enforce them. Without them the process you describe is simply rearranging the deck-chairs.

It is the MAA that is the real problem. It can't do its job because it doesn't know how to. In order to avoid further suborning of the regulations, as described by tucumseh, it has to be removed from the control of the MOD. At least for starters I feel that it should then be sistered to the CAA, so that some professional expertise can be called upon in order to reform and rebuild it. Ditto with the MilAAIB and the AAIB. Then, and only then, might we hope for some authority from the authority, and some objective investigation from the investigator. It is a 1000 mile march, so best we get started soonest!

[ACW VGL]

I read through the Winter edition of 'Air Cadet' magazine this week, which included cadets bobbing about on TS Royalist and others winning a skill at arms competition. As the only flying seems to have been by the 'honorary group captain', should we try for a name change to Joint Service Cadets? A new purple uniform could look rather fetching and would help reflect the level of support and commitment shown by the blue uniformed ACO/2FTS 'leadership'. I think another new Headquarters could also be justified.

[tmmorris]

On a slightly serious note I've been advocating that for years. The degree of duplication and bureaucracy of three different cadet systems (not to mention the embedding of Army cadet staff officers into regional brigades) is massively wasteful. Though only the RAF seems to feel the need for a dedicated FTRS Comdt (no personal slight on her - she works very hard indeed).

[622]

...Not to mention the CCF which just seem to duplicate the ATC / ACF / SCC.

[tmmorris]

But with better clientele.

(Ducks)

[Wander00]

As a former CCF cadet..........oh, and I was ATC between school and the Towers, I have a memory that the legal positions of the different cadet forces is different - SCC is totally separate from MOD ISTR, army cadets come under the Lord Lieutenant's bailiwick and the light blue we know about. CCF is all I think under MOD, irrespective of colour uniform. I suspect a number of sacred cows would have to be slaughtered to get all three cadet forces under one umbrella. perhaps we need a cadet forces "Mountbatten"!

[Mechta]

With regard to future contracts for maintaining the Air Cadet fleet, whichever company wins the contract is going to have to take on employees or individual contractors with the relevant skills and experience to actually do the work. Given that the people with the relevant hands-on experience on these types are working for the current contract holder, I would like to know how anyone plans to sort out which individuals are part of the problem and which have been trying to get things right? Changing the name at the top of the headed paper is only one small part of the solution.

As we have seen, the money being offered previously is hardly likely to make anyone up sticks and move to the other end of the country to take on this poisoned chalice, so who at an individual level is going to do the hands-on work?

Looks like one job is already advertised:

Job for Viking Recovery Contract Manager ? Fixed Term Contract ? 2 years ? Babcock International ? Membury ? ENG | Job posted by Babcock International at Jobmask.co.uk (http://www.jobmask.co.uk/jobs/viking-recovery-contract-manager-fixed-term-contract-2-years-babcock-international-membury-eng/)

and this one looks very unlikely to found outside the current workforce:

Viking Technical Services Lead (Fixed Term initially 6 months) - Membury Airfield, Berkshire jobs from Babcock International Group PLC in . Apply now | JoZoo (http://jozoo.co.uk/job/viking-technical-services-lead-fixed-term-initially-6-months-membury-airfield-berkshire-1373627)

[A and C]

It would appear that Babcock have found rather than just employing staff from the usual military suspects who have little glider experience they are getting expert glider fixers to do the work with their own people too shuffle the military paper.

[bobward]

Mechta,
I think you've hinted at the problem. When I was in the day job, albeit the offshore industry, our experience duplicated what the RAF has gone through recently. We went from doing all the supply chain work ourselves to having a contractor provide the service. Our base team went down from many to seven. Those seven were tasked with managing the contractors.

This meant getting out of the office and working alongside the contractor, checking and auditing what they did. Once a degree of trust and mutual respect had built up, the levels of C & A were reduced to a reasonable level.

Does anyone know, or might be able to comment, on how the contract for cadet gliding has been managed prior to the 'pause' we now endure?

From my personal experience, the hardest part of the job was knowing when to let go, and then trying to set up a reasonable level of checking that didn't stifle the contractor.

BTW, HQAC may just have an inkling that there are too many levels of 'management' in the system. When I was at a Corps wide conference last year, one question tabled by a VSO was whether or not we really needed regional headquarters, when, in the days of instant comms, we could get instructions direct from HQAC at Cranwell......

[Cows getting bigger]

Add-in Wg HQ, Sector Cdrs and the dozens of civil servants (sorry, Reserve Officers) at HQAC. :)

[brokenlink]

CGB - the reason we need WHQs is to provide the direct support to squadrons. Local one has 3 staff to support 30 squadrons and in excess of 1000 cadets. Sector Officers supply invaluable support to squadrons and carry out many of the mandatory inspections that are required in a very admin heavy organisation. In addition Sector Officers also have responsibilities linked to the recruitment of new staff. IMHO consideration needs to be given to increasing the F/T staffing at Winf/Sector level but that will remain a pipe dream I am afraid.

[POBJOY]

Does anyone here know how effective the Cadet Expansion Program has/is in getting more 'School based Cadet units'.This was targeted specifically for urban area's but of course will eventually impact on resources for flying.

[romeo bravo]

Interesting that some CEP units have actually been formed on school premises where there are current ACO units, or in very close proximity; which is now causing a recruitment problem, as schools not letting units on to recruit.

As for flying, and gliding if it ever comes back, no doubt they will be included in the mix; in the same way GVC and Air Scouts are supposed to do!!

CGB - Backing Brokenlink on this one ( ;) ), it is surprising just how much cr@p WSOs cut out both ways. They assist OC Sqns acting as a sounding board for questions/queries and at the same time take away some admin burden that HQAC expects to happen, whilst reducing some workload on OC Sqns from the deluge of dross that comes down the CoC.

[Arclite01]

@Cows

Turkeys NEVER vote for Christmas.......................

Ergo: High Ups never vote for anything that might take them out of a job....................

Arc

[tmmorris]

Does anyone here know how effective the Cadet Expansion Program has/is in getting more 'School based Cadet units'.This was targeted specifically for urban area's but of course will eventually impact on resources for flying.

On track: 100 new units parading by Sep, 500 target total units (requires approx another 140) by ISTR 2020? Not sure of deadline.

Some units 'parading' only just, and lots still to be done, but I've met some great cadets. I do worry about sustainability, though.

[POBJOY]

Thanks TM & RB
This makes it even more imperative that there is a comprehensive 'availability' of hands on flying activity for the future.
It is also quite obvious that the current VGS operations are best placed to deliver this whether it be coventional or a reborn SLMG system (or both).
There is no point in attempting to expand the Cadet movement unless the aviation element is in being;fit for purpose,and led by someone who can take the dedicated staff onwards and upwards with their confidence.

[longer ron]

I think many people have misunderstood my postings vis a vis JM,I thought I had made it quite clear that I believe there was always more to this whole debacle than just the airworthiness issue with the gliders !
My point was more 'who' gave him the job and 'why' was he given this job when his 'personality' would have been well known (+ he was already overage for the job) .
I will reiterate that I do not believe there was ever any intention of returning to the old VGS system and that the ACO gliding 'organisation' is being redesigned whilst the fiasco plays out.

[Flap and Throttle]

Has anybody received any form of update as yet in regard to the future plans? For example squadron merge, aircraft types or God forbid closures.

[POBJOY]

LR Whilst i can see that the situation is panning out in a most UNPROFESSIONAL
way i struggle to understand why 'the powers to be' would go about a reorganisation in this manner.
As a reflection of the overall organisation it is a DISASTER
As a lesson in competent management it is a DISASTER
AS a reflection of the senior officers who control the organisation it hardly is a model of leadership or overall competence.
AS a reflection of the basic competence of the MOD/RAF to organise a flying unit it beggars belief.
In PR terms it is the biggest cock up in the Cadet organisation in all of its 75 years.

Whilst JM may well have been put in post to 'reorganise' the organisation i doubt even if the brightest bunnies at the top would see this debacle as the best way to do it.
However whilst the appointment of JM must be seen as a huge mistake it shows great concern with regard to the ability of those at the top that chose him.
There are too many 'concerned' experienced people who know about this now,and no carpet big enough to hide in under.

[longer ron]

Pobjoy
As I posted previously - sometimes a certain person is put into a certain job to get a specific result (not always a good one).
Historically - modernish brits are masters at closing things down - if they only spent as much energy keeping things open and working our country would be somewhat different.
One only has to look back at the Railway closure programme to see the full suite of dirty tricks employed to ensure that a Line failed.
At my last job - the company employed a really strange guy to take charge of the aircraft engineering side - the result was horrendous and it has taken years after his dismissal to get it back more or less where it was !
As I also posted previously - the almost 2 years of grounding has been extremely convenient for MOD as they are looking to save money on non operational units/airfields etc.
I am certainly not putting the whole blame on one person - I think there is far too much going on concurrently !
As I also posted previously - any agendas will become clearer with time.
The VGS staff have been treated horrendously !

[Shaft109]

Ron- slight thread drift but would you care to expand about the strange guy in the Aircraft Engineering dept you refer to?

Just curious as to the story if you don't mind

[longer ron]

PM sent S109 !

[clunckdriver]

The field at which I keep some of my "toys" is used by the local Air Cadets for their gliding program, many of the instructors are in fact ex -employees of our flight schools and charter operation, I recently met up with one for a coffee and asked if had read this thread, "yes he had", to which I made a comment to the effect that it was good that we in Canada had avoided such a bloody mess, he then went out to his car and returned with the "new and improved" SOPs, the book is actually thicker than the SOP manual for Canada's largest airline! It seems that this rot has started over here pushed by the same agenda as in the UK, that is the take over by retired regular force types who have no background in such basic flying operations as flying simple little gliders and aircraft. I think we need to not allow any managers into a system which has run so well for seventy years unless they have come up through the very same system, it seems that over here the regular Military just dont understand "Kiss". {Keep it simple stupid !}

[campbeex]

Brief but to the point little ditty here...

Happy 75th birthday, Air Cadets: Glider fleet still grounded after 2 YEARS | Defence for Dummies (http://defencefordummies.com/2016/02/05/happy-75th-birthday-air-cadets-glider-fleet-still-grounded-after-2-years/)

[A and C]

This thread is particularly frustrating in that the truth of what is going on with the technical side of the recovery is being well hidden for leagal reasons.

No one wants to say too much about the way some of the contractors are conducting themselfs because contracts are up for renewal and if those competing for new contracts said too much about the performance of others competing for contracts that they have had interaction with the Lawyers would be out playing the fairness card and make the proccees of getting the new maintenance & support contracts put in place take even longer.

The RAF now well aware and with a highly embarrassing situation on their hands have put some very bright people on the case to try and resolve the issues that are holding back the glider recovery. I am sure that they have a firm grasp of the facts and the action needed to resolve the problems but they can only work within the limitations of the current situation.

They are faced with a number of problems mostly revolving around industry capacity and contracts that might be expensive to cancel even IF ( and I stress IF ) they found a contractor who was failing to deliver the goods simply kicking them out would result in nothing happening at all while new contractors are hired and they have to find the capacity from what is a very small industry.

The contracts for both the support & type certificate holder are up for renewal at the end of this year and SHOULD the RAF decide to award the contracts to new contractors this time would be used to ensure a smooth hand over.

[tucumseh]

AandC


That is an excellent post if you don’t mind me saying so.


If I were Mr MoD, in parallel with all this activity I’d be conducting a review into why the existing “system” has broken down. This would take 5 minutes, as it was included, with examples, in the evidence to the Nimrod Review. A search of “Nimrod” on pprune would suffice.


It will surprise many that management of such issues, and preventing such failures, is not in the first instance the job of the much maligned DE&S. It is something you do before being promoted to the most junior grade in DE&S, and is the role of Service HQ branches. For example, in the FAA it was a small part of a civilian’s job in DGA(N) HQ. I hope these bright people looking into such things as balancing MoD/Industry capacity aren’t being paid much, and are no more than Grade D! Maybe they’d be better employed getting experience in these now disbanded posts. Ah, a clue.

[POBJOY]

Am i missing something here or is the 'system' just grinding on in its usual manner with no real improvement in how they organise things.
How difficult can it be to 'Recover' a fleet of machines that were all quite happily flying around one day without 'tent-pegging' into the countryside.
We are talking about 'inspections' not rebuilds; not exactly an unusual occurrence in the aviation world.
If some serious work is required then the machines in question can be 'sent out' in the same way as the GSA would do.
The fact that TWO YEARS down the line there has been no real progress that has resulted in some of the Squadrons being able to resume operations just confirms that no one knows how to run this show and money is being spent every week without the goods being delivered or Cadets flying.
Perhaps the chief engineer of the BGA or GSA should be brought in to tell them what to do;at least the 'system would get the benefit of tech competence and ability to assist the situation as opposed to bumbling along in a bureaucratic cloud without instruments.

[ATFQ]

A related article:


Happy 75th birthday, Air Cadets: Glider fleet still grounded after 2 YEARS | Defence for Dummies (http://defencefordummies.com/2016/02/05/happy-75th-birthday-air-cadets-glider-fleet-still-grounded-after-2-years/)

'Today marks the 75th birthday of the Air Training Corps. Yet amongst today’s formal celebrations is an elephant in the room: the corps’ 150-strong glider fleet has been grounded since 2014 – and may stay there for another two or three years.

In 2014 concerns were raised over airworthiness of the Grob G.109B Vigilant and G.103 Viking fleets, which are owned by the RAF and on the military register, after aircraft repair logs were found not to reflect the true state of the airframes. Sensibly, the RAF grounded them all while it investigated.

However, this left cadets without any gliding training at all. Although ATC and CCF(RAF) cadets are able to take part in air experience flights in the RAF’s Grob Tutor powered aircraft alongside a qualified instructor, they do not receive any formal, structured flying training.

The Vigilant and Viking fleets were used to teach cadets the basics of flying and gliding up to first solo standard. Staff cadets took on more advanced gliding training and could even become qualified gliding instructors themselves. Although RAF-owned, the gliders are maintained by Serco under an outsourcing contract.

Meanwhile the RAF’s No.2 Flying Training School, commanded by Group Captain John Middleton, a former regional commandant with the ATC, has continued to dither about the process of “recovering” the two glider fleets (which it is responsible for) back to flying status. While a tiny handful of gliders are now in flying condition and based at RAF Syerston, 2 FTS’s Nottinghamshire home, this is cold comfort for teenagers in Cornwall, Scotland or Northern Ireland who joined the ATC to fly.

The ATC has consistently refused to allow cadet units to organise flying or gliding training opportunities with local civilian clubs, instead insisting that cadets must wait for 2 FTS to pull its finger out. After two years of total inactivity, however, the instructors of the ATC’s Volunteer Gliding Squadrons (VGSs), volunteers who give up their free time to teach cadets to glide, will need to refresh skills that have significantly degraded through lack of practice. Many, it is feared, will have walked away from the ATC altogether and found something else to do with their free time.

Cadets and their volunteer staff have been given no official confirmation of when gliding will resume, despite many vague promises from the ATC and 2 FTS. However, Babcock International, a defence contractor, is currently advertising for a Viking Recovery Contract Manager on a two year basis. This would mean by the time the contract ends, cadet gliding will have taken almost five years to resume.

Venture Adventure indeed.'

[Lima Juliet]

Now that the 75th anniversary is here there is a certain amount of irony with the logo:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/aircadets/rafcms/mediafiles/401E6156_5056_A318_A89EF0466A59F143.JPG

:}

(75 being the likely number of Vikings to be recovered!)

[Lima Juliet]

I understood that the Minister made his decision earlier in the week. Does anyone know if OC 2FTS has called the VGS OCs yet? I believe that nothing will be said until the VGS OCs have been informed; and rightly so...

...the silence is deafening!

LJ

[romeo bravo]

Ah, "the Air Cadet waving bye-bye to the glider fleet...." as it is known by some :E

As for when will we hear something on the recovery, taken from Commandant Air Cadet's FB page yesterday -

"Just to reassure those of you sending me messages about the glider recovery programme. We still await clearance to put the plan into the public domain so we are not trying to delay or hide things from you. The announcement is inextricably linked to the DIO Basing Review and you can understand that the MoD does not want to preempt that, which is due to report in June. We are just working out what we can release without prejudicing other important work and we will announce as soon as we can. I know, I sound like a broken record but, believe me, these things are complicated and my hands are tied."

[A and C]

Fortunately ignorance is bliss as they say and your happiness when flying these machines was not taking account of what is under the skin, I think if you had been aware of some of the things that have been found in terms of badly executed repairs you might adjust your opinion.

One of the big problems with composites is that even the worst repair can be covered with filler & paint leaving even those with a passing knowlage of the subject fooled. Some of the aircraft have very substandard repairs and due to the disappearing records there is no way to know if an aircraft has of has not had any repair work in the past so an inspection requiring IRO 150-160 man hours has to be carried out.

Once the inspection has been done any problems have to Be addressed and this is when the problems start, if the repair work requires input from a design authority ( in the civil world normally the manufacturer ) they have to be consulted and a repair scheme issued. Most glider manufacturers are on top of this and a repair scheme is usually issued within 7 days or so.

The Vikings type certificate holder & design authority is a large defence contractor with some composite manufacturing experience but very little repair experience and apparently no contracted time scale for issuing repair schemes !

As you might guess this is the sort of culture that when something goes outside the design authoritiys ( limited ) comfort zone the problem gets kicked around for weeks and if they are lucky gets lost in the long grass when something less taxing to do turns up and allows them to look busy.

Pobjoy I would like to assure you that there are people trying very hard to push this project along at speed but are wading neck deep in the treacle put in place by people who are well outside there comfort zone with composite structures

[Mechta]

Update released on Twitter

@2ftsaerospace hi guys hope to release gliding news soon It will mean change but future Aco gliding will be second to none comdt2fts As far as glider flying goes at the moment, the ACO has none, and what is being promised is second best to that... Don't get your hopes up! :E

[T-21]

Should have overhauled the Venture fleet they would probably still be flying. After 12 years flying them appalled at what is happening to the Gliding Schools and the morale of staff and cadets.

[ATFQ]

romeo bravo,

So, one assumes that it will be confirmed imminently (this week?):

How many gliders from each of the Vigilant and Viking fleets will ultimately be recovered.

What the RAF's intended/preferred future VGS lay-down looks like - pending the outcome of the DIO Basing Review.

What options are open to instructors and staff to move to another VGS where their own VGS happens to be disbanded (should this turn out to be the case).

Another thought: given that gliding is such a fundamental part of delivering the 'Air' in Air Cadets, that Air Cadet numbers have declined significantly and continue to do so as a consequence of the lack of gliding, and that the Government (including the Prime Minister) is committed to increasing cadet numbers, one would expect the VGS footprint necessary to provide adequate coverage over the UK (based on ATC sqn [and CCF(RAF) unit] disposition) to be an important factor in its own right in the DIO Basing Review. Yes, some bases have to close, but Ministers will not wish to make decisions that kill off large swathes of the cadet population where a bit more flexibility could have been exercised at minimal additional cost.

Finally, I think that it is about time that these volunteers who have given so much to the organisation in the past were now told the truth that is known and the detail behind any uncertainty over basing that still remains (as a consequence of the DIO Basing Review). They are at least owed this level of honesty before the tank of goodwill runs completely dry (it already has for some). VGS instructors and staff could then at least start to weigh up their options, and someone could start putting a plan together to help them out - properly - if we want to keep them.

[1.3VStall]

The announcement is inextricably linked to the DIO Basing Review and you can understand that the MoD does not want to preempt that, which is due to report in June.

Well, there's another four months delay then - what an utterly disgraceful shambles!:ugh:

[Frelon]

Should we be reading anything into this Twitter posting by OC2FTS?

https://twitter.com/oc2fts

Hi guys been a little busy !also have had a Twitter phaff- daughter sorted it Now cooking on gas - 5 rings watch this space comdt 2fts

Seems he is not able to manage his Twitter account without help from his daughter!!

Surely the professionals should be handling any information that is disseminated over Twitter and Facebook by this, and other very responsible persons, with regard to this "Pause in Air Cadet Gliding" debacle.

A simple glance at any of the VGS web sites gives some clues as to lack of any direction/organisation with regard to publicity. They (the VGS's) are stumbling in the dark with no guidance or leadership from above about the message that is (or should be) conveyed to interested Air Cadets. I say "Well done" to those Squadrons who have managed to keep some sort of ball rolling.

Like many posters I am very saddened in the way that this has been allowed to happen to Air Cadet Gliding, not by the Volunteers, but by some very high ranking, highly paid people who somebody trusted to do a good job!

Rant over......

[EnigmAviation]

From A & C we hear that some of the fleet may have hidden problems, and I accept that as a former Aviation Industry Engineer who at one time used to produce repair schemes for aircraft that the RN had tried to destroy ! Yes GRP can conceal some hidden problems, but then so can metal at times.


However, having flown and instructed on all of the ACO GRP types, and with the networking that went on, ( i.e., where one had been pranged!), I knew of only one Viking that had been seriously compromised ( i.e., tailplane in total removed) and the said tail end replaced by a seriously large GRP repair at the aft end of the fuselage. There were of course others that were Cat 5 like the surviving one from the Viking mid air at Sealand. As for Vigilants, there were two involved in a mid air, (but landed by some miracle with no loss of life), thus the overall numbers of potentially seriously, or potentially non-airworthy airframes will likely as not be a very small proportion of the fleet.


Having said all of this, the exercise consists mainly of paperwork research, and whilst time consuming, it cannot take years ( can it ?). Has anyone thought of checking the location(s) of each airframe over their life, and checking with VGS staff whether they recall any incidents requiring major repair or accident damage ??


Despite the 2 FTS Twitter messages and the emollient messages from Commandant ACO, I know that they don't want to utter their future plan until the DIO Basing report is issued - I heard this last October !


Thus my prediction is unchanged - nothing much before 2017, and then god only know how little there will be due to Staff training / currency issues, not to mention the massive loss of very experienced staff over the three year pause. Then of course from an Air Safety viewpoint, there will be an enhanced risk due to the three year gap in operations aided by having a lot of new staff on board lacking in substantive experience, plus pressure to deliver after a three year interval.


Aviation forecast : Summary : GRIM - with periods of great uncertainty and risk; there will also be scattered new tomes of rules and regulations produced by ACCGS, resembling Encyclopaedia Brittanica, designed to keep all but the most determined aviators on the ground. Staffing issues and shortages will be considerable.


I'd love to be proven wrong, but doubt it !

[POBJOY]

Never underestimate the power of the 'system' to promote the organisation.
We have just had 'the uniforms' 'promoting' at St Clement Danes (CV and Cmmt ATC) extolling the virtues of all sorts of activities (apart from Flying)
Funny they also did not mention 'Supermarket bag filling'.
Had JM bothered to consult with the schools they could have had a list of machines that had 'repairs' in a couple of weeks and the others (prob 85%) could have had an inspection.
No the system knows best (The system knows J...S...) about the real world of fixing and records.
The only real problem would have been an unauthorised structural repair that was kept quiet. I think the probability of that is Zero due to the integrity of the schools organisation.
Unless there is CHANGE in the management of the Cadet organisation there will be NO IMPROVEMENT in the clumsy 'crat led' system that has absolutely no idea what they are doing or how to deal with it.
They have taken incompetency to a new 'high' and nothing will improve unless the rot is removed.

[Mandator]

BB: Interesting. Linky?

Edit: Thanks BB - your edit and clarification noted.

[Tingger]

Never underestimate the power of the 'system' to promote the organisation.
We have just had 'the uniforms' 'promoting' at St Clement Danes (CV and Cmmt ATC) extolling the virtues of all sorts of activities (apart from Flying)
Funny they also did not mention 'Supermarket bag filling'.
Had JM bothered to consult with the schools they could have had a list of machines that had 'repairs' in a couple of weeks and the others (prob 85%) could have had an inspection.
No the system knows best (The system knows J...S...) about the real world of fixing and records.
The only real problem would have been an unauthorised structural repair that was kept quiet. I think the probability of that is Zero due to the integrity of the schools organisation.
Unless there is CHANGE in the management of the Cadet organisation there will be NO IMPROVEMENT in the clumsy 'crat led' system that has absolutely no idea what they are doing or how to deal with it.
They have taken incompetency to a new 'high' and nothing will improve unless the rot is removed.

So just to check you're saying Cmdt 2FTS should have consulted with the old boys to see if they could remember which tail numbers had undergone repair in the last 32 years, and if they couldn't should just keep flying that one with someone else's kid in it?

Not sure that would look great in court.

[POBJOY]

TING
Who is talking about 32 years.
I assume the 'OLD BOYS' you refer to are the CO's of the Squadrons.
The CO's/Tech Staff of the Squadrons will be the best persons to collate information with regard to repair issues with their own machines;and i would suggest that they have a better recall than the 'system'.
The minimal no of aircraft with structural repairs are far outweighed by machines that only ever needed normal servicing.
Your Tech regard for the VGS staff seems to be on a par with JM.

Anyone with any sort of Aviation experience can see that the ATC glider fleet has had a very protected existence.
The ATC had them from new and has had total control over use and storage.
The actual condition and lack of issues confirms the system at the VGS level was fit for purpose,and as they were the ones that flew the machines who would know them better.
I would suggest that the competency at VGS level far outstripped that found elswhere in the system.
With a Cmmt 2FTS who has no experience or qualification on types or an in depth knowledge of how w-end ops work it would have been quite sensible to confer with the operators so a REASONABLE RESPONSE could be made.
The lack of consultation and his disdain for the Volunteers merely confirms we have the wrong person heading up ATC Gliding.Two years of grounding confirms a momental C........F..... that has no eqaul; heads need to roll but not at VGS level.
What is all this utter rubbish about Twitter Facebook and 'Cascading' for goodness sake anyone with a grain of a brain cell knows we need people who know the difference between Snap on and it Snapping off.

[DC10RealMan]

Gents.

The trouble is you are all too pessimistic and should look on the bright side such as this "situation" should keep Middleton in a well-paid second pensionable job for many years.

He will be able to expand his empire to the greater glory of John Middleton and the icing on the cake is he may get a Knighthood as well for all the good work he has done.

By the way, what has a "manager" who has no experience, qualifications, or knowledge of the job got to do with anything?

Know your place, keep paying your taxes and dont dare question your commissioned betters particularly if they flew Tornados!

[EnigmAviation]

POBJOY,I have to agree that perfectly serviceable airframes with no "form" could have been largely singled out by a combination of paper trail, VGS enquiries, etc.

Notwithstanding limited rotation of aircraft due to routine maintenance and repair, most OC's and Eng O's would have known which aircraft they have had and this simply could be verified by ref to Log books. Not only this, they would know what accidental damage had occurred, and again this could have been verified by reference to local records, and in major incident cases by reference to accident reports in VGS files and at ACCGS.

As for standards locally at VGS units, whilst the "suits" may have thought that we were all rank amateurs, two of my former Eng.O colleagues were very amply qualified, one a licensed A/c engineer working every day in Army Aviation, whilst another was an ex Wg Cdr Eng on front line A/C. IMHO they operated to a totally professional standard, neither associated with anything other than the highest of standards.

As for "dodgy repairs " , I don't think that I have ever heard of anything carried out by VGS staff, the only repairs and servicing were ALWAYS carried by ACCGS Eng out working parties or at ACCGS base. During my time, this work was carried by RAF technicians under SNCO and RAF commissioned Eng.O control. Only in more recent years was the work subcontracted out.

Therefore in terms of accountability, we cannot allocate any blame upon VGS units, it is solely either RAF or Sub contractor, and in both cases, the activity was supervised by RAF Engineers in the higher management roles wherever they were located. Sadly in many areas of Her Majesty's government, there is a belief that sub contracting means risk transfer , ie, hand over and forget. However sub contracting may be the accountant's dream, but in reality, if it is to be an effective and professional drop in substitute, it STILL needs day by day hands on supervision.

What we now see before us, is the result of the RAF thinking that subcontracting works without getting involved. Un-announced QA visits including working practice and paper trails are a very useful tool to keep "subbies" on their toes !

I doubt that we will ever know the full unexpurgated truth, as there is no public disclosure on the grounds of commercial confidentiality . However when and if flying ever gets going again some freedom of information requests should be made. For instance, how many serious airworthiness issues were found, by category and aircraft type. How many were deemed to be caused by non standard / unauthorised repair method or components. Who was the RAF Eng authority having jurisdiction at the material times. This and many more. It can't be of any use to Mr Putin, thus cannot be bounced by Security !

[Tingger]

1984 to 2016 yep 32 years I wouldn't want to try and remember that ding old what's his name had back in the eighties or who fixed it and how.

And assuming the Tech officer and OC haven't changed several times in that 30 odd years and 30 airframes haven't rotated through the VGS it's a bit of a long shot for the DDH to make that call.

[Lima Juliet]

BB

It's all terribly sad when I look back over my thousands of launches and days happily gliding, but my airfield has gone now and I think there is nothing to do but look forward. I feel for the Vigilant crews as now looks like they have lost their mount and the sites closing, but we have got to consolidate and make the sites that are to remain open work. We owe that much to the next generation of cadets.

I'm also expecting very few Vigilants to come back as they must be beyond economical repair with new engines now needed that aren't manufactured anymore. Running a few with remaining spares might be an option, but the cost of putting different engines in the rest (with all the testing/modification/paperwork required) is likely going to be too expensive with everything else that needs to be done on top of the engine work. I wonder if they will buy something else in the longer term? What will be mildly amusing (embarassing!) is when all these ex-mil Grob 109s start appearing on the civil register in airworthy condition on an ex-mil permit to fly with a VW derived engine. I wonder if they will be broken up and not put up for disposal as complete assets to save any embarassment?

I did see your original post making some sad reading. I suspect that you won't be far from the truth in your numbers - if it was good news then it would have come out by now! Saving what is left and coming up with a plan that delivers maximum opportunity to Cadets has to be the main mission now. I hope that we are 'out of the woods' with the Viking, even though only a handful have so far returned to flight after 9+ months of effort. I fear that any delay to that recovery programme will see the end of all Air Cadet provided gliding as we know it. That would be a total tragedy for everyone involved.

For the Cadets, the last 4 years have been a disaster. I hear rumour that since the Grob Tutor propeller issues began, and then gliding 'pausing' shortly after the Tutors returned to flight, that Cadet numbers have fallen by 10% or so. If that figure is broadly correct then we need to try and generate flying opportunities for the remaining 90% and fast. RAF Gliding, Flying and Microlight Clubs make an obvious choice as they operate from Govt Aerodromes and there are over 20 of them accross the UK. They can be scrutinised by the RAF and now fall under the responsibility of AOC 22Gp - he now holds the risk for all RAF sports. As the Govt are planning to increase the size of the Cadet Forces in general for 2020 then with an expanded UAS/AEF fleet (thanks to MFTS), a reduced VGS fleet and the use of service flying clubs then we might just keep to the 'deal' of offering Air Cadets flying a couple of times a year.

I don't get the 'DIO basing review' piece. You can announce a VGS closure without giving away the basing review - unless it is used solely for VGS activity like Kenley or Kirknewton (there are others). But then if it is them then so what? Just start getting on with it before we lose another 10%!

In my humble opinion, of course :ok:

LJ

[Flugplatz]

Good post LJ

Those at the top don't seem to know the difference between 'risk' and 'safety'

Flug

[ATFQ]

LJ,

I understood that the number of ATC cadets fell by about 7% between Autumn 2014 and Autumn 2015, so I would not be surprised if we are now looking at a figure of closer to 10%. It is also worth highlighting that the true extent of the outflow has been masked by the lowering of the joining age to 12 (from around Sep 14 - the start of the school year - if I remember rightly).

I couldn't agree more that decisions that are known could (and should) be briefed to all VGS COs and their staff - without delay - before they are leaked. It is not difficult, and people could then at least see where the focus of Air Cadet gliding is as it moves forwards. As someone said in an earlier post some pages back: 'serve to lead'.

[BEagle]

This whole sorry saga needs to hit the national press....

Back in 1967, the RAF managed to scramble 100 V-bombers airborne within 4 minutes - yet now it's taken YEARS to sort out a few cadet gliders....???

Sorry, make that NOT to sort out a few cadet gliders :uhoh:

Makes you sick.....:mad:

[Frelon]

BEAGS

I suspect that there are many "journalists" watching this c...... f... very closely with pages of quotes taken from this thread.

They, like us, are waiting for some meaningful (not Twitter or Facebook stuff) information to be released before they let rip.

The Daily Mail's inexperienced hacks are just waiting to jump on this, especially after today's 75th anniversary celebrations of the formation of the Air Cadets.

[A and C]

It needs to be made crystal clear a lot of the technical records have GONE MISSING.

This leaves those recovering the aircraft in the position that a very detailed inspection of the airframe and technical records is required, this inspection takes just short of four weeks work for one man.

Then you have to get into fixing things.

My own thinking is that the technical education on GRP repair within the metalcentrc aircraft industry is very poor, my own education in GRP repair was based largely on what Boeing were putting out and AC43 ( published by the FAA ) and this had to be un-learned when I started getting involved with modern GRP repair. A quick look at the latest issue of AC43 shows no improvement of technical advice !

My guess is that the repair education of those working on the VGS fleet was a basic RAF composite repair course that was based on AC43 & Boeing practice for secondary structure, this would have left the workforce very poorly placed when faced with a repair scheme designed by Grob as they would have never seen anything like it on the basic GRP course.

With this background it is not surprising that damaged aircraft that were capable of being repaired were written off and poor repairs had been carried out. I did see a military technical investigation that misidentified the use of thickened resin as a fault...... Not a standard construction technique !

Even now the technical education requirement asked for by one of the contracting companies is to have attended the military GRP course, this is unlikely to cover any of the techniques for the type of repair needed on these gliders.

Despite what some above say about these aircraft being simple this is not the case when it comes to repair work, this is a highly skilled job and takes years to become highly proficient.

I can't help wondering if the technical records disappeared when a few people started to realise just how bad some of their work had been ( because of lack of education rather than incompetence ) or was it down to some manager parachuted in from another industry who wanted a bit of shelf space and failed to realise the importance of technical record keeping ?................ My money is as always on the cock up rather than the conspiracy as I don't think these people have the management skills to organise a conspiracy !

[clunckdriver]

Our companies were some of the first in Canada to go to Carbon/Glass built aircraft, both myself and others took some pretty extensive courses on repair and maintenance of these structures before we took delivery of the aircraft,having said this we sent any major work to a company which was in this field repairing gliders since these materials first came into service, however, other operators failed to develop relevant skills and Transport Canada were, {and maybe still are}way behind, most inspectors knowing little or nothing about the subject, this caused us much grief when dealing with TC. We, in retirement have gone the other direction now, being involved in vintage wood/fabric aircraft and are finding that the skills needed to keep them safe is also in short supply today.Step one to solve the Cadet mess must involve setting high standards and training for those involved in maintaining/fixing these aircraft, without this being done nothing will change!

[Freda Checks]

A and C

This leaves those recovering the aircraft in the position that a very detailed inspection of the airframe and technical records is required, this inspection takes just short of four weeks work for one man.You seem to know an awful lot about this, vested interest perhaps?

[bobward]

Unless something sorts this out fairly quickly, with fewer cadets getting the chance to fly, we may end up with 75 Air Cadets in total.........

[A and C]

I am unfortunately not in a position to make any money out of these contract as my qualifications are not for gliders but for powerd composite aircraft that have exactly the same GRP construction. My position in the industry has me working closely with some of those involved in the recovery project but on other projects.

My primary interest is to see air cadets flying, the cadet movement set me up for a successful career in aviation and I want to see today's youth get the same opportunities that I had, there are not a lot of organisations that provide the sort of character building activitys combined with so much fun and it pains me to see the flying removed from a whole generation of cadets because of the failure of the companies contracted to support the VGS fleet.

I got wind of trouble with the VGS support maybe six years back when the unserviceable gliders started building up due to union problems with the new GRP repair bay I never in my wildest nightmares imagined that it would come to this.

I am sure that when the dust settles on this unhappy situation there will be a doctorate in business management for anyone who writes a thesis about this disaster. I feel that only then will those who's shortcoming and greed that have presiptated this situation might realise their guilt, at the moment they are not bright enough to realise this and continue to think that they are doing a good job.

[DaveUnwin]

Frelon, I dedicated my entire monthly column in Pilot magazine to this embarrasing debacle many months ago. This is what I wrote;-
" Way back in the seventies,
Britain not only had a large
air force but it also had a
sizeable Air Training Corps,
That I (and, I suspect, many
Pilot readers) joined. I had a pretty good
time as an Air Cadet, flying T-21 Sedburgh
and T-31 Kirby Cadet gliders, DH Chipmunks
and once even rode in an RAF Comet 4C
from RAE Farnborough. I also liked
shooting — anybody else remember those
ancient .450 calibre falling-block Martini-
Henry rifles from the 1880s, which had
been converted to .22? — and even quite
liked drilling on the parade ground.
However, it was the getting airborne that
really interested me, and when flying
opportunities mysteriously dried up after a
couple of years I didn’t hang around to find
out why.
Nevertheless, most of my memories of
the ATC are positive, and if my sons,
William and George expressed an interest
in joining I always thought I’d encourage
them. Of course, the RAF is but a shadow
of what it was 1975, and the Hunters,
Harriers, Lightnings, Jaguars, Phantoms,
Buccaneers, Canberras, Victors and
Vulcans are long gone. The fighters and
bombers are now the Typhoon, Tornado
and er… that’s it. As the air force has
shrunk, I imagine that opportunities for
cadets to fly have also diminished — but
even so, I thought that in 2015 cadets still
had a reasonable chance of getting
airborne in something.
Consequently I could scarcely believe my
ears when an acquaintance who is in the
ATC revealed that not only were all their
Viking T1 sailplanes grounded on April 17th,
but even in late June very few were
airworthy. “What” I queried, somewhat
incredulously “you’re telling me that it’s
taken more than eight weeks to inspect
probably the best-maintained gliders in the
country?” “No,” he replied “they were all
grounded on April 17, 2014 — it’s already
taken more than fourteen months, and
most of the fleet is still U/S! And,” he
continued “it looks like they won’t all be
ready until 2017.”
If this were a laughing matter, I’d say
that my grob was smacked (see what I did there). I don’t know what the RAF found
that made it ground the entire fleet, but
what I do know is that the Viking is a
relatively simple, composite sailplane. The
undercarriage is fixed, and it doesn’t have
flaps or an engine. What can possibly be
taking two years? (It should be borne in
mind that the rest of the world refers to
the Viking T1 as the Grob G103A Twin Acro
II – and as far as I can tell, the Grob 103A
fleet is not grounded!
A little digging soon revealed that the
problem appears to lie not with the ATC, or
even the RAF, but with the Military Aviation
Authority, or MAA. For decades the
ultimate responsibility for the maintenance
of RAF aircraft lay with the Chief Engineer,
which was a ‘three-star post’ (Air Vice-
Marshal or above) in the Air Council. After
the post was abolished (as a cost-saving
exercise) the overall quality of maintenance
was bound to suffer, because there was no
longer one individual in overall charge.
Instead, the MAA was created, and
replaced the chain of professional
responsibility which had previously existed
with a hierarchy of regulations and
procedures largely drawn from commercial
aviation and airline practice. Interestingly,
there are parallels here to be drawn with
the banking system, for you may recall that
the banks also replaced their chain of
professional responsibility (previously
exercised by local
managers) with
computer based
algorithms,
administered from
central office. Well,
the banks failed —
and the RAF
suffered the quite
unnecessary loss of
a Nimrod MR2 over Afghanistan.
Sir Charles Haddon-Cave QC headed an
inquiry into the loss of Nimrod XV230,
and his conclusions were scathing. In
particular, he observed that ‘engineering
qualifications were less of a prerequisite
for many posts [than] hitherto might have
been the case because increasing amounts
of in-service support for aircraft came
from industry and ‘generalist’ business management and financial skills and MBAs
were required more as the Armed Forces
‘modernised’ post-SDR. ‘In my view,’ he
continued ‘this was a mistaken and
blinkered approach which failed to have
regard to the highly technical and
specialist nature of aviation and aeroengineering.
Heavier-than-air machines are
different. Keeping them flying safely is
technically very complicated. A safe system
requires skilled and qualified engineers at
all levels.’
Unfortunately, it now seems that
whenever the MAA is faced by any sort of
airworthiness issue, its stock response is to
ground the type in question, and then keep
it grounded as long as possible. While this
undeniably does enhance flight safety (if
you want a good flight safety record, the
best way is clearly to not do any flying) I
suspect it’s done considerable and possibly
irrevocable damage to the ATC.
It’s all a far cry from the RAF of yore.
During the World Gliding Championship at
RAF South Cerney in 1965, the Russians
arrived with new metal sailplanes —
KAI-14s, one of which crashed during a
field landing. The pilot, Oleg Suslov was
understandably dejected, but the two RAF
officers attached to the competition, Air
Cdr Cleaver and Sqd Ldr Robertson
arranged for the wrecked aircraft to be
taken to the RAF’s No71 Maintenance Unit
at Bicester, where a
team of volunteers
from the MU and
the RAFGSA set to
with a will. Can you
imagine Oleg’s
reaction when, less
than 48 hours later,
he was presented
with a completely
rebuilt KAI-14, allowing him to re-join the
competition. When asked why he was so
generous to Cold War enemies the MU’s CO
replied “when they get back home they will
give a most impressive account of our
capability to repair and return to service a
damaged aircraft — it was worth every
penny.” Would this be possible these days?
And why can’t the MAA return simple sailplanes to service?"

[Shaft109]

Without wishing to comment on the VGS situation specifically I'm curious about composite repair -

Surely the manufacturers of any Composite airframe publish a guide referencing how to go about it as the structure must contain many different layers and weaves etc.

[A and C]

You are correct there are standard repairs but these are limited by size and location to critical areas.

Once you go outside these limits you require a design organisation repair scheme, this is not a problem with civil gliders as the manufactures will for known reliable repair companies turn these around in a few days.

The design organisation for the Vikings is a large defence contractor............ I shall say no more !

[Frelon]

Dave

I read your excellent article in Pilot magazine all those months ago, and have followed your posts on this forum. Sadly it appears that the key people involved with Air Cadet gliding and flying have not read your article, so well done for including it above for us all to see.

Keep up the good work, we must get those cadets back in the air.

Venture Adventure, as we used to say!

[tucumseh]

Dave Unwin


I enjoyed reading that. Well said.



It is 5 years since I last spoke to the MAA; they seem to be going backwards. However, if that is backwards to the correct starting point (refusal to implement regs, not the regs being wrong) then it may be for the best in the long run. The tragedy is they’ve existed for 6 years and simply will not acknowledge facts. Some of their papers resemble the old, discredited, CDPIs from 1993/4. They were cancelled because DPP, having immediately got definitions wrong (e.g. the process that maintains the Safety Case and airworthiness), they immediately went off at a tangent. The MAA’s equivalent document makes precisely the same mistake. You can implement it to your heart’s content, but you won’t achieve anything. That’s the situation you describe, perfectly.



I do not know the official reason for disbanding the Chief Engineer post in the late 90s but with hindsight, and now the various ARTS from 1992-98 have been released, it would not be unreasonable to link it to the abysmal job the 1991-96 incumbent did. The Nimrod ART of 1998 is infinitely more critical than Haddon-Cave ever was. You may recall these reports were buried by the CE until revealed during the ZD576 campaign. You mention Haddon-Cave’s confirmation (not revelation – he was told this in evidence) that unqualified staff were let loose. That was stated policy under that CE in AMSO/AML in 1991, and became so in MoD(PE) in 1996 under the Chief of Defence Procurement. Both systematically ran down airworthiness and safety in general. It may have been directed from above, but their subsequent rulings and attitudes suggest not.


Finally, composites. While I know nothing about the gliders, I do know the officer (retired Sqn Ldr, now in his 70s) who oversaw the award of the original contract. (He also lectured on Air Legislation). He assures me that having the necessary certifications only got them to our door. Each and every engineer was then required by MoD to go back to school and retrain on composites. The regression you describe is not unrelated to the CE/CDP policies I outlined above. They may have been issued 25 years ago, but if nobody challenges them they remain.



Best wishes

[Sky Sports]

Great post TelsBoy, absolutely spot on.

What annoys me the most, is how the cadets have been doubly let down.
Firstly, gliding was 'paused' and they lost the opportunity to fly, (I know there is the AEF, but that amounts to one trip every 2 years in my experience).

Then, to rub salt into the wound, the organisation did NOTHING to replace to loss of flying or compensate for it. Would it really have been that hard to arrange extra visits to willing civvie gliding clubs, or, laid on extra jollies in Chinook, Merlin, Puma, Herc etc?

I was at a squadron open night last month, and the staff were still talking about the opportunities to go gliding. The enrolled cadets had that knowing look on their faces!

The organisation should have been open and honest about the 'pause' right from the start and said, "Look guys, there's a problem with gliding and it might take a while to fix. But don't worry, we're launching 'Project CadetFly' to get you all maximum air-time!"
Heck, someone might even have been promoted or got a Queens honour for it.

[LlamaFarmer]

"More AEF" is not an answer as AEF does not provide any structured training programme and, even going back 15 years when I was Cdt TelsBoy, AEF only came up once a year if we were lucky, despite the nearest AEF only being an hour's drive away. Then the inevitable "so what do you want to do today then, Cdt Bloggs?" once sat in the cockpit - no structure at all.

This is a bigger problem than they realise. They probably think every cadet just wants to go and do 30 minutes of aeros, but actually a great deal want to learn how to fly... even if once they leave the cadets they never get at the controls of an aircraft again.


I was lucky and had over 10 AEF flights in my time (although 2 were air experience flights but not at "AEF" units or on a Tutor).
Only one of those was of useful value as well as enjoyment.

It was when I was 19, on a camp at Leuchars. The pilot was an ex-F3 jockey who had left the mob and was now at BA. I was a G1, had been on the ACPS the year before, and was wearing my flying suit so he could see my "G" wings name badge.

He spent 5 minutes on the ground before startup discussing what my experience was and what I'd like to do. After establishing that I was quite proficient and experienced (from a powered fixed wing point of view) compared to the vast majority of cadets he flies, and explaining that I was going to be training for my PPL the next year, he taught me some useful navigation and PFL techniques and tips which I still used even in my CPL cross country years later.

He let me taxi out, whilst covering the rudder pedals himself, so that he could draw some things on his kneeboard, and briefed me on a few things whilst holding, then got me to fly the take off, again whilst he covered the controls as I don't believe cadets are supposed to fly the Tutor below a certain height. Once a few hundred feet up he began explaining what he was going to teach me. Considering it was a last-minute and improvised brief, it was very concise and structured... I don't know whether he was a QFI in the past, or a TRI/TRE at BA, but from my experience he would have made an excellent instructor no matter what he was teaching on.

It is a shame it was not a longer flight, as it was invaluable.
It was an even bigger shame he was an exception rather than the norm.

[DC10RealMan]

I take my Squadron Cadets to my local aero club to watch the aeroplanes. The Club are very supportive of them and allows them to climb inside the Club aeroplanes on the ground, visit the aerodrome tower, visit engineering, etc so at least they know what an aeroplane looks like.

They are regularly asked if they want to fly with some of the aircraft owners and club members which unfortunately we have to refuse due to health and safety, vetting issues and the fact that the pilots are non-AEF, RAF or dont hold an ATPL.

It seems such a shame that given the goodwill shown to the Air Cadets by many in the world of Aviation that we are unable to capitalize on it in some way but instead we have to wait until "The Management" get their act together which I suspect may be some time.

[The B Word]

The post I made at #1480 seems to be the most likely course of action according to my various mates and the rumour network. Exact detail still remains sketchy although I did hear that due to the sensitivity that further ministerial involvement is happening and that we might hear something in the last week of Feb (don't forget it's a leap year!). I suspect the last minute meddling will be about MP's constituencies and border sensitivities, so the final die is yet to be cast...

Another high-grade rumour is that 2-3 extra AEFs might be formed, as well as bolstering the current ones. So I suspect the "Lord will giveth as He taketh away". I still wonder where the pilots for that will come from unless there is a change of rules?

As Telsboy wrote, but seems to have deleted, it is better to have some news than none at all. So let's just get on with it!

They really have kept a tight wrap on all of this. The information available through normal channels has been well compartmented - maybe 2FTS should do provision of OPSEC strategy instead of gliding. They seem to have found their niche! :p

The B Word

[LlamaFarmer]

I take my Squadron Cadets to my local aero club to watch the aeroplanes. The Club are very supportive of them and allows them to climb inside the Club aeroplanes on the ground, visit the aerodrome tower, visit engineering, etc so at least they know what an aeroplane looks like.

They are regularly asked if they want to fly with some of the aircraft owners and club members which unfortunately we have to refuse due to health and safety, vetting issues and the fact that the pilots are non-AEF, RAF or dont hold an ATPL.

It seems such a shame that given the goodwill shown to the Air Cadets by many in the world of Aviation that we are unable to capitalize on it in some way but instead we have to wait until "The Management" get their act together which I suspect may be some time.

That's good of you, I know many squadron staff who unfortunately have better things to do than give up additional time for their cadets.


It's been a number of years now, but I seem to recall we made use of one of the Unauthorised Activity disclaimer forms in ACP20A. Appendix E of Section 1 or something like that rings a bell.
Basically a parental permission slip that says the RAF/MOD have absolutely nothing to do with the activity, there is no public insurance in place, and they will not accept any liability for any incident or accident.

We used it a few times for various activities.

[teeteringhead]

DC10

due to health and safety, vetting issues and the fact that the pilots are non-AEF, RAF or dont hold an ATPL. Don't need an ATPL - do need a DBS clearance (and so they should), but don't have to be AEF/RAF.

Please look at the current rules, which I hear have just been changed - is it ACTI or ACTO 30-something - 34 or 35? The pilots don't even need to be FIs for Air Experience.

And just which bits of Health & Safety would you have them ignore????

B Word

I still wonder where the pilots for that will come from unless there is a change of rules? Hmmm - fewer Vigis, more Tutors - there's a logical answer there somewhere..... And they're RAF/ACO rules, so they could be changed.

But that's far too logical! :ugh:

[Auster Fan]

I believe these are the latest minima from ACTO 35 unless someone still serving can confirm otherwise. This of course applies where it is looking to be classed as an official ACO activity and not a private arrangement:

a. Passenger Flying:
1. 250 Hrs Total.
2. 10 Hrs on Type.
3. 2 Hrs Last 30 days.

b. Flight Instruction:
1. 500Hrs Total
2. 50Hrs on Type.
3. 2Hrs Last 30 days.

[DC10RealMan]

Do AEF pilots have an ATPL or do they have to be ex-RAF or service trained to fly Cadets?

Teeteringhead. I wouldn't have them ignore any Health and Safety, vetting rules, medical status/licencing, Low flying Rules, Rules of the Air or the Air Navigation Order.

[chevvron]

It's been a number of years now, but I seem to recall we made use of one of the Unauthorised Activity disclaimer forms in ACP20A. Appendix E of Section 1 or something like that rings a bell.
Basically a parental permission slip that says the RAF/MOD have absolutely nothing to do with the activity, there is no public insurance in place, and they will not accept any liability for any incident or accident.

We used it a few times for various activities.
I think that's similar to the form we used at Halton in the '90s to give AEF to cadets in microlights, however although the forms said clearly it was not an official Air Cadet activity, Rob (the boss) had insurance which covered all service personnel including cadets.

[LlamaFarmer]

I think that's similar to the form we used at Halton in the '90s to give AEF to cadets in microlights, however although the forms said clearly it was not an official Air Cadet activity, Rob (the boss) had insurance which covered all service personnel including cadets.

Yeah insurance was always in place, but it was under the insurance of the activity provider rather than the ATC insurance which covers cadets on any authorised activity.

[TheChitterneFlyer]

I'm not quite sure why there are so many "Old Timer" VGS folk who are quite so vociferous about the "Pause to flying" declaration by the ODH. Why is it not so surprising that the whole fleet has been grounded when there has been so many discrepancies within the (none) recording of Engineering practices of the ACO aeroplanes?


The ODH was 100% correct with his assessment of the lack of ACO engineering expertise and the "fudges" that have been made with respect to "none authorised repair schedules" that have been made to the fleet aircraft.


The ODH signs-off the "Risk to Life (RtL) Register" of all of the items on the Risk Register (an MAA requirement) and that, in this instance, he was not satisfied with the lack of authorised engineering support with respect to authorised repair schedules to the ACO aeroplanes.


With respect to VGS Flying Instructors and other voluntary staff, no one is blaming the standards of your particular area of expertise. If there is one area that the volunteer staff of the VGS should recognise, it should be the heightening of awareness of the MAA regulations and NOT the "old school" dictat that... if it aint broke; don't fix it! It WAS broken AND it required fixing!


To all of the VGS part-time staff... get a grip upon the MAA Regulations; like it or hate it... the MAA is here to stay! If you have no wish to participate in any part of the regulatory requirements of the MAA... might I suggest that origami might suit you better!


Stop whinging and start making plans with respect to how you might best serve the ACO with whatever expertise that you might have within your armoury. YOU owe it to the remaining kids, no matter how few they might be, to deliver your best!


Get on with it!


TCF

[Cows getting bigger]

TCF, from my perspective CFAV's have been getting on with it. Personally, I completely get why the fleet was grounded. What I don't get is how poorly the recovery plan has been communicated.

[cats_five]

Astonishingly some don't seem to get why it's grounded.

[Sky Sports]

Astonishingly some don't seem to get why it's grounded.

However, ALL don't get why it's been grounded for soooooo long!

[tucumseh]

TCF

Excellent post.

One comment....

The ODH signs-off the "Risk to Life (RtL) Register" of all of the items on the Risk Register (an MAA requirement) and that, in this instance, he was not satisfied with the lack of authorised engineering support with respect to authorised repair schedules to the ACO aeroplanes.

While true, and mandated policy since God knows when, although terms have changed, what the MAA refuse to get to grips with is the formal rulings that a 2nd or even 3rd Risk Register may be created, excluding all MoD-owned risks (such as you describe), to be wheeled out come audit time or investigation. This occurred, for example, after a multiple fatality crash in 2003, which 3 weeks ago (19/1) was submitted to the Defence Select Committee by an MP representing the family of one airman. The MAA are fully aware of this, but won't talk to you about it. Matters aren't as clear cut as they would have you believe. I think they are well-intentioned, but lack of independence stifles them.

[tmmorris]

Unfortunately from some of the posts above I think it will be some time before we are allowed the full story on what happened, for commercial reasons. This is a disgrace but the whole contracting out thing goes much higher up the food chain than the ACO.

For those doubting A and C's motives... he does have an insider view of part of the recovery process but he is an ex ATC cadet and just wants to see the recovery completed.

[longer ron]

TCF - most people do understand the original 'pause'.


AFAICS - there may be at least 3 or 4 different factors to the problem...


(1) The glider fleet engineering management lost control of the situation and failed to keep up with modern MOD/MAA life.

(2) (and this has not yet been mentioned yet AFAIK) There may be a problem with some (or most) VGS Hangars not meeting MAA standards.

(3) MOD are desperate to save money and may want to decrease the number of Gliding Units down to ??? (insert your own guess).

(4) Some of the maintenance 'errors' highlighted are a bit of a red herring and the situation could have been partly eased by the application of good common sense engineering quite quickly.


However because of the various agendas at play - I really do not think that 'They' want the situation sorted quickly - as I posted previously they in effect dismantled the old system by grounding all the aircraft and completely ignoring the VGS volunteers,they can now take as much time as they like to decide how many Gliding units will emerge in the future.

[Chugalug2]

tuc, your post #1618 is an indication to anyone who wishes to see beyond their only little corner that nothing here is new, but merely the latest consequence of a ball that was set rolling in 1987.

As you say, the MAA is unable to stop its inexorable progress of gathering more accidents and more lives in its path other than by grounding entire fleets, be they Nimrods or Vigilants. That is because it lacks the prime need of any Regulator, that of independence. It is instead shackled to the operator, the MOD and its subsidiary Armed Forces, that has a higher priority than Air Safety, which is to cover up illegal actions by retired VSO's.The same goes for the Investigator, the MilAAIB, which is shackled to the Regulator as well as the Operator. All three need to be separated from each other to do their work, or the ball will go on gathering yet more casualties.

If "multiple fatality crash in 2003" refers to a multiple crash as much as to multiple fatalities, I assume that to be the mid-air collision between two Sea King baggers that killed all 7 occupants. Yet another example of where pre-existing airworthiness shortcomings were not made known to the invstigation by the Regulator (aka the MOD), and which is a matter of controversy still.

Independence is not a bonus, it is essential in maintaining Air Safety!

[tucumseh]

Chug

Correct. The 3 contributory factors noted by the BoI had been front and centre in the Risk Register since 1996. Mitigation plans had been drawn up, approved and contracts let. They were cancelled by an official who had no authority to do so, and who then quietly employed two consultants to (separately, and unknown to each other) create a 2nd and 3rd Register which omitted these risks. This was approved by 2 Star (same as Chinook and Nimrod) and 4 Star. When revealed to investigators post-crash, the investigation was halted when they realised the ranks/grades involved. The BoI remains incomplete. The Inquest was misled.

I won't apologise for thread drift, as it's not. Work your way down from that 4 Star ruling and you will get to this current problem.

[A and C]

In your post above I can't comment on items 2 & 3 but you underestimate the problems in items 1 & 4.

I would like to comment further but I think that we are nearing the point when the contract process for the support contract will start and any accurate comments made that are critical of one party or another are likely to be grasped by the company lawyers of those who who fail to win the contract and be used as evidence of unfairness in the awarding of the contract. The result of this would likely be a contract re-run and further delay in the full return to service of the fleet.

Only when the support & type certificate holder contracts have been awarded will the full truth of the matter come to light, the good news is that both of these contracts are likely to be hotly contested by some very good companies using expertise from outside the defence sector.

Despite the contract bunfight I would hope to see some cadets in the air this summer, gliders will be avalable to fly but it is for the VGS to sort out how they get the training program up and running.

If the MoD get the right people in to run the contracts I see a bright future for air cadet flying with the technical side supplying substantial number of servicable airframes by mid 2017.

This may seem a like slow progress to some but the limiting factor is the capacity of the small gliding maintenance industry to take on the large number of VGS airframes and still support its regular civil gliding commitments.

[cats_five]

<snip>

This may seem a like slow progress to some but the limiting factor is the capacity of the small gliding maintenance industry to take on the large number of VGS airframes and still support its regular civil gliding commitments.

I've said the same thing. Hopefully they are doing some sort of prioritisation. I imagine quite a few of the Vikings will pass their inspections, but I hope work on the ones that need it is deferred until all have been inspected, and those that need work are done from best to worst.

[A and C]

This is being done I am told, at the moment selection of the airframes is being done and some are being pushed to the back of the line with the aim of getting airframes returned to service as quickly as posable.

I don't share you optimism that the airframes will simply pass inspection, it seems that most of the airframes will require some work as there seems to be quite a lot of unreported minor damage and minor mechanical problems as result of basic husbandry.

As always there is the unexpected, unrecorded ( or undocumented ) repairs have been found and these have to be investigated to check compliance with approved repair data or if found to be non-compliant re-repaired.

It is the lack of reliable maintenance records that have forced the need for such detailed inspection, someone would do well to find out just how some of the aircraft records went walkabout.

[longer ron]

A+C


[quote] - In your post above I can't comment on items 2 & 3 but you underestimate the problems in items 1 & 4. [quote]


I would say that I did not underestimate items 1 and 4 because almost 2 years ago I posted that I believed it would be cheaper and easier to just replace the fleet - but that would have involved planning before we got to this sorry state.
I do actually have a fair bit of experience with MAA audits and generally speaking if it is a problem with a log carded item - it is usually easier to just change the component !I have changed many serviceable components purely because of a log card anomaly and quite often the replacement item was in worse condition - but the log cards were filled in correctly.


rgds LR


still cannot get the quote facility working on this pc LOL

[Tingger]

I've said the same thing. Hopefully they are doing some sort of prioritisation. I imagine quite a few of the Vikings will pass their inspections, but I hope work on the ones that need it is deferred until all have been inspected, and those that need work are done from best to worst.

The first off the line and to fly in December had previously snapped it's tail so maybe not just easy ones first.

[A and C]

The problem with this sort of project is finding out what you don't know, even a major repair is not a problem if the repair is fully documented and well executed.

[cats_five]

<snip>
almost 2 years ago I posted that I believed it would be cheaper and easier to just replace the fleet - but that would have involved planning before we got to this sorry state.
<snip>


They would have had to start planning and buying a replacement fleet more or less when the Grobs were brought.

[cats_five]

The problem with this sort of project is finding out what you don't know, even a major repair is not a problem if the repair is fully documented and well executed.

Indeed not. I saw a K21 having it's snapped tail boom repaired when I happened to visit Zulu Glasstek a few years back.

If the Viking mentioned by Tingger was well documented and the repair was done correctly then it was one of the easy ones. The hard ones are where close inspection reveals undocumented repairs, especially if they are in crucial areas. Suspect they are looking at as much of the internal surfaces as the external ones.

[Arclite01]

Longeron

Thank goodness we haven't got to fight a war under these rules...............

Oh wait a minute...............

Arc

[Sook]

If the Vikings are regenerated, I presume the fleet will still need to undergo either a Life Extension Programme (RA5724) or an OSD Extension Programme (RA5725) if they are to go on until 2025. Both of these are substantial pieces of work which should have been completed some time ago. Does the PT have the capacity to carry this out at the same time as the recovery, and if not will the MAA require it to be completed before the aircraft can return to service?

[A and C]

These are good questions that need answering by people who understand composite structure to get the correct answers so it is critical that the design organisation are composite experts or it will become a long and unnecessary expensive program plagued by inappropriate technical restrictions.

[cats_five]

If the Vikings are regenerated, I presume the fleet will still need to undergo either a Life Extension Programme (RA5724) or an OSD Extension Programme (RA5725) if they are to go on until 2025. Both of these are substantial pieces of work which should have been completed some time ago. Does the PT have the capacity to carry this out at the same time as the recovery, and if not will the MAA require it to be completed before the aircraft can return to service?

Relifing gliders is based on hours flown rather than actual age. About how many hours do the Vikings have?

[LlamaFarmer]

Relifing gliders is based on hours flown rather than actual age. About how many hours do the Vikings have?

Would it not be more complex than that due to winch launching?

1 hour airtime could result from one launch, or it could come from 10. Would that not need consideration?

[cats_five]

Would it not be more complex than that due to winch launching?

1 hour airtime could result from one launch, or it could come from 10. Would that not need consideration?

It's on hours pure and simple.

Hooks are on number of launches, though the formula for that isn't straightforward.

[LlamaFarmer]

It's on hours pure and simple.

Hooks are on number of launches, though the formula for that isn't straightforward.

Do they make an assumption that each frame has a high high launch/hr ratio then, as per a normal 5-launch GIC? Any lower launch/hr ratio thereby being less stress on the airframe.

[cats_five]

There is nothing especially stressful about a launch for the glider if the correct weak link is used as it will break if necessary. I have no idea what a 5-launch gic is, but at a civilian club that winch launches, a 2 seat glider can easily fly twice that and more in a day. Our k21s do about 500 hours most years.

[cats_five]

I should add that the special case for a k21 isn't launches but total hours of aerobatics. A requirement for relifeing is that it can be shown it doesn't exceed a certain amount. Don't think the odd loop is a problem, it isn't, but k21s are used for aerobatic training and lower level competition and are designed for +6.5 to -4 g.

[Fitter2]

Composite glider life hours are an arbitrary number, put in because the certification process requires it to have one. There has never been (I am willing to be corrected here) an instance of fatigue failure of a composite construction glider, and examples are flying that were built over 50 years ago with many hours airborne. The manufacturers can (and do) produce a life extension process when one reaches the certification life.

Release hooks have a number of launches before exchange and replacement or refurbishment; this is a manufacturers (TOST GmbH) figure. Since many have separate aerotow and winch releases, it is theoretically possible to have a glider which has only used one form of launch, but has to have an unused release replaced. (The one never used for launching would of course be exercised every time the other was used for launching).

Other items, such as harnesses, have a calendar life (normally 10 years before replacement or refurbishment).

It would probably be logical in a sane environment to do a life extension as part of the Viking return to service, as the inspection is all being done in any case, but this is unlikely to be in the commercial interest of anyone involved.

[cats_five]

Since many have separate aerotow and winch releases, it is theoretically possible to have a glider which has only used one form of launch, but has to have an unused release replaced. (The one never used for launching would of course be exercised every time the other was used for launching).


Only if you have a separate release for each hook. Although the one not used doesn't 'take the strain' it gets operated and hence the spring gets weakened.

[POBJOY]

I do wonder if the 'PR' dept at HQ ATC Cranwell actually paid someone to design
the 'opening' background for the 75th at Hendon.
CV was trotted out for this occasion with a very large picture of Viking ZE 608 as the main picture behind her (how clever was that)

I would have thought it was not beyond the wit of man to find an 'ex Cadet' from the early years together with a young boy and girl from 'now' with a real Mk 111 as the backdrop.

Far more 'honest' in my mind and a great tribute to the machine that sent so many off solo for so long; (a record that will never be broken) and is the trusty steed that put the AIR in Cadets and Venture in Adventure.

When i say 'for so long' i of course was referring to its time in doggedly reliable service not the duration of the 2-3 min flights,which again must be a record for the 'lack of dual time' before solo. Its been downhill since (just like its performance).

[A and C]

Your talk of the Mk3 is bringing back Happy memory's likely to but is likely bring tears to my eyes but only suppressed by the anger I feel for the lazy incompetent & greedy people who's total failure to what they have been paid to do precipitated this crisis.

There are a lot of people working towards getting servicable aircraft for the cadets to fly but this is still being hindered by people who are in positions of power but lack the knowlage and experience to make sensible decisions and so to hide their lack of ability under outlandish technical requirements and mountains of paperwork.

My hope is that 2017 will see a new broom sweeping through the technical side of VGS gliding provision with the contracts run by people who understand composite structure and have the ability to use the military airworthiness system for the reason it was put in place, not as an excuse for not doing any work.

When the dust settles following the award of contracts will the full story be told but IMO even the apparent lacklustre performance of some of the military VGS management will be seen in a different light when the full story comes to light.

Only when the VGS system has been purged can the cadets benifit from the same opportunity to learn to glide that I and a lot of others on this forum enjoyed and this will come not one moment to soon.

[Cows getting bigger]

Drinking port the other evening, there was a rumour percolating that 2 FTS were confident of FOC in 2018. :bored:

[POBJOY]

With 'virtual' staff no doubt to go with the part task trainers in the Squadron creche's.

Imminent missive expected from Cmmt 2FTS to all schools with regard to implementing emergency 'cryogenic' program to preserve critical staff for 'reborn Squadrons' for 2018.

These 'clowns' are rewriting the book on how not to fix a problem.

[ACW342]

Pobjoy,
Sorry to disagree with you, but what have clowns ever done to you? For me, they entertained, made me smile and laugh and brought tears of joy rolling down my face.

No, i'd rather use the relatively modern term, a bunch of Dick Heads, with no idea of organisation, proper engineering and management and have no honour. Not one of them, AFAIK, has offered to "Fall on their sword" The only tears they have brought to my face are tears of anger and frustration.

A342

[POBJOY]

Quite right ACW and i usually put in such a disclaimer,but i was lulled into being kind at the thought of seeing the F....W... driving around the circus ring in cars that fall to pieces and thinking;the poor souls think that is normal.
On a more positive note; on a recent trip to the Bristol area i happened across the old RAF Locking camp to find it completely obliterated (although the Spitfire plinth remained) (no doubt kept for a Viking).I had several visits there way back as a Cadet on an advanced course and then to help.It amused me to see the electrical trainees parading in the mornings with nice little tool kits as opposed to rifles.
Weston Airport has also finally succummed to the developers with the runway now ripped up (we used it when the cloud was on the hills around Cheddar).
BUT the dear old Halesland site lives on and is still a little gem of a location with the original hut and hangar still ok plus a new installation and trailer park down near the 'ROCKS'.
In my day there were some 'markings' 400ft and Robbies head at that end but there is a 621 number still visable.
So at least the ATC left its mark on that piece of the Mendips.

[Freda Checks]

Ahhh.....Halesland, that is a name to remember.

Advanced Instructors' Courses with the good guys from CGS. The ridge never seemed to work when I was there but I did manage to get my Silver distance by flying the Air Cadet hot ship (the Swallow) from Halesland to Upavon.

Oh, I seem to remember some great evenings at the Webbington Country Club - seems the Officers' Mess at Locking had a special membership arrangement!!

It is a pity that we are not discussing the return of the current fleet of air cadet gliders, all those promises from 2FTS over a year ago seem to have been forgotten.......I wonder what is happening to the current crop of instructors at ACCGS, have they got fed up with this debacle??

Will we will get any news this week?

[POBJOY]

Whilst the 'system' swims around in a sea of very thick custard we can do well to remind ourselves why we are so 'annoyed' at the way they 'broke' a fine operation.**
Halesland was one such 'gem'.
Very much the 'baby' of 87/621 School at Weston Airport it emerged to become a well used site for Cadet advanced flying and later schools summer deployment.
By modern standards it was 'limited' but its location and the ability to get a 'C' in a Prefect was in itself a real jump from flying the circuit at your normal base.
Even the drive to the site was fun and the unspoiled scenery quite spectacular;via the 'back way' through Burrington Combe.I seem to remember the ATC would not allow cadets to be driven via the more direct route as the hill was considered rather steep for the brakes of the day.
One took 'rations' for the day and for 'scouts' like myself it was back to organising cooking and meals.
Many times there would be a local shepherd up there huddled in a simple shelter (we would supply him with tea) and i well remember getting a ticking off for giving him a hot drink.
The main kit was T21/Prefect and the occaisional Swallow.
On my first visit there was a BRAND NEW V8 winch up there which was not used as we had the MB twin drums by then.
Halesland weather could give you sunburn or hypothermia,and it could change very quickly.The field 'undulated' to the point that taking up slack would show up the gullies with the cable becoming a bridge.
This was the real spirit of the ATC in action;operating from a 'field' that had no resemblance to our normal base yet Cadets would be popping off in the Prefect after a few trips in the T21.The site was vacated when the glass ships arrived however the civvy club who are now resident seem to get along ok and have 'improved' the runs to cater for the later machines.
Happy memories of mega 'fry ups' when the weather clamped and i still wonder where that 'new' V8 barrage balloon winch went !
**I am not blaming the 'system' for the demise of Halesland, but merely suggesting this was just one example of how well the the system ran without an excess of paperwork, and how capability ruled the day.

[EyesFront]

Memory; herding the cattle out of the field before flying, then following the field-phone cable along the wall to find out where the cows had eaten the insulation...

[astir 8]

http://s1379.photobucket.com/user/DavidWeekes/media/DSC05920%20comp%201_zpsplfgrd0v.jpg.html

Greetings from Sedbergh WJ 306 to all who flew her at Halesland.

Still flying - which is more than you can say about her plastic successors!

Sorry - I'm not good at posting photos - can't make the link work

[POBJOY]

Does not appear in my Halesland visits,but is a frequent 'mount' in my Predannack days from 69 on;which according to my LB included some 'evening' cable twinkling fly ins. Oh dear i will prob be grounded again for that.Most of my other freq mounts went up in flames in the Kenley hangar fire,and my Cadet first solo machine was w/o in the 60's.

[John Purdey]

The success of Halesland was almost entirely due to dear old Robbie, who found the place and named it after the local landowner from whom he arranged the sale -Mr Hale. He was sorely missed, but at least he was given some recognition for his remarkable efforts in his well-earned MBE.

[POBJOY]

As alluded to earlier 'Robbies Head' was a feature made down near the rocks. I suspect some of him was robbed to make a 400ft mark at the 'Rocks end'.
Now we have some 'Haleslandite's' on thread does anyone know if any flights were made to Weston from there, or any aero tows 'in' to the site to position aircraft.
On one 'very non gliding day' i was killing time down at Weston where the windsock was stuck out like a carrot at 90 degrees to the single wet runway.
I was then somewhat surprised to hear the roar of a couple of large radial engines followed by the sideways view of a Varsity on finals appearing out of the gloom (i mean sideways).To say this looked spectacular (i still remember it) as the beast stayed sideways until a few feet before a late kick off and spike on followed by more noise and lots of spray.
It was the only powered machine i ever saw there in my ATC visits.
Years later i needed an early morning 'fuel stop' for my non radio Turbulent and duly popped in after a phone call the prev day. The Air Traffic 'hut' was perched on stilts (stiil there) and had started life as the Taxi rank booking office from WSM sea front. This is near the Helicopter museum and i believe they are trying to 'list and preserve it'.

[astir 8]

POBJOY

Quite right WJ 306 was at Predannack 1969 - 76 and Weston/Halesland 1976-81 with a refurb spell at St Athan late 80-early 81.

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/284073-air-cadet-gliding-pix-80s-pre-glass-22.html

shows WJ 306 in silver/dayglo patches but after 1981 became red/white/grey in which she remains

(I still can't get the link to Photobucket to work to show her in her present AIRWORTHY state !):mad:

[Freda Checks]

Our national security is at risk as a result of this cock up............have a look here (http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/all-districts/17335/New-aircraft-hangars--vital-for.html).

What a load of :mad:

[Cat Funt]

Whoever it was needs a good rogering with last year's Christmas tree. To be honest, the only thing that surprises me now in this whole saga is the depths of stupidity to which various decision makers are seemingly capable of plunging. I'm starting to think they're competing with each other for some sort of prize. A balloon and an ice cream, maybe.

[chevvron]

Years later i needed an early morning 'fuel stop' for my non radio Turbulent and duly popped in after a phone call the prev day. The Air Traffic 'hut' was perched on stilts (stiil there) and had started life as the Taxi rank booking office from WSM sea front. This is near the Helicopter museum and i believe they are trying to 'list and preserve it'.
WSM used to share a frequency with Farnborough (122.5) and I can remember listening to a VFW 614 going in there probably late '70s.
Looking at WSM on www.flashearth.com , there's no sign of building/re-development going on (don't know when the satellite photos were taken though).
What a waste of a perfectly useable airfield.

[A and C]

We all know the press don't like to let the truth get in the way of a good story, a quick look at the plans has this building situated next to two buildings that look the same, to the south there is an industrial estate, to the west a field full of solar panels and to the north a motorway service area......... It by planning policy is on a brownfield site !

But I do so admire the local paper hack for this one I have not often seen the truth stretched to these limits even by the grown up press in the Nationals......... The Membury M4 service area an AONB ?......... Pull the other one !

But returning to the thread, it shows some one is putting money into getting the VGS flying if new hangars are being put up.

[dervish]

Our national security is at risk as a result of this cock up............have a look here.

Those nasty planners are to blame. Everybody in MoD cleared. Crack on.

[POBJOY]

Chev Runway is now the site of entrance road to development. The 'Tower' and Helicopter museum are at the original 'civvy' airport base right by the road to what was RAF Locking. The original wartime shadow factory site is intact and houses a variety of units. (if you close your eyes you can hear the Beaufighters running up).
Without a proper grass management scheme gliding became difficult and even the civvy club (the last users) found it a problem with the newer glass ships.
On my last flying visit in the 80's (mag problem) it was a 'swaying' sea of green.

Back on thread if the Membury 'thing' is true then it just confirms the complete
'loosing of the plot' by those in charge and why there should be a mega 'change' of those who are guiding the system. (misguiding).
No doubt they are working hard on the script for the press release to cover A....
(Air Cadet Gliding 'SAVED' by heroic engineering efforts from 'The Team'). Honours and medal list to follow.

[The B Word]

The release of the Membury data and the '70 gliders' it will support seems to confirm that not all Vikings are recoverable. That chimes with my rumour that 70-75 Vikings will return. That's not enough for the Vigilant VGS and so I also still believe that only a proportion of Vigilants will return (25-40%). Best case with those numbers would be ~15 VGSs returning to flying and worst case will be a meagre 10 - less than half they started out with.

Why this information is so very 'hush hush' is beyond me - it most definately is NOT of National importance for the main Defence tasks. Now that information is coming out through newspaper articles like this on planning, then it is time for the VGS volunteers to be told. Otherwise, there will only be more vociferous accusations of incompetence within the management to come - I am not talking about a somewhat lowly Gp Capt but the wider RAF Senior Leadership Team, the MOD and the Ministers who also know about this. Trying to hide around the MOD Footrpint Reviews just does not cut it with me - you can announce closures, like they have with Hullavington, without giving away the wider plan. Out of interest, just because Hullavington is shutting it doesn't mean that the resident VGS won't be rebased elsewhere! Likewise, announcing the closure of a VGS does not necessarily mean the closure/disposal of the estate that they fly from!

The latest rumour is that an announcement will be made next week around 26 Feb. Let's hope so as this debacle is turning sour very quickly.

The B Word :*

[G-CPTN]

That the facilities at Membury (or, elsewhere) are subject to a planning application signifies that there will be a delay (planning applications typically take several months to resolve) after which there needs to be a construction phase which is unlikely to be 'overnight'.

[lightbluefootprint]

It looks like the thoughts above about 70 Vikings might be a bit wide of the mark unless there are going to be two servicing centres across the country. This link clearly says "......upto 48 Viking T Mk1....."

https://www.tenders4u.co.uk/permission_denied/41200

[A and C]

I think some of you are jumping to conclusions on the basis of a round figure being used in a planning application.

The number of recoverable Vikings rather depends on how good you are at fixing gliders, the current support contract holder has had years to maintain the fleet for and now the MoD finds it has to contract in help from Babcock (& associated companies) to help out.

[lightbluefootprint]

A and C, the link above your post seems to be a tender document, not a planning application. It even names OC 2FTS. Apologies if you are referring to other posts.:ok:

[A and C]

I was referring to the planning application ( see he link in post #1656 ) rather than the posted tender document.

As to the tender document I think the MoD having had a contractor(s) fail to deliver the goods in the past split the contracts so they are not stuck with a failing contractor for the whole 70+ gliders........... Once bitten ..... etc !

[cats_five]

"The application can be viewed in full and commented upon by visiting West Berkshire Council website’s planning section and using the reference 16/00142/OUTMAJ"

Simple Search (http://publicaccess.westberks.gov.uk/online-applications/)

[John Purdey]

POBJOY. I reply to your earlier, on June 8th 1961 !!! I aerotowed a Prefect from St Eval to Halesland, with Freddie Hillman as the towee. We had arranged that if we were running short of fuel by the time we overflew Christchurch, I would cast him off. But I decided we could indeed make the whole distance and pressed on- much to the discomfort of Freddie, who by then was freezing and seized up on the controls. JP.

[Wander00]

It must have been Easter 64 we aerotowed 2 x T21s from Cranwell to W-S-M for a 10 day gliding camp. I was second dickey in one of them, wearing 2 flying suits a cloth inner and a Mk1 bonedome. It was still numbingly cold. Mike Johnson was one of the tug pilots, and we diverted into a disused airfield, ISTR Weston Zoyland, to refuel the Chippies from the fuel carried illegally in jerricans in the second seat in the tugs. It rained virtually the whole 10 days.

[POBJOY]

JP & Woo Thats what the ATC 'WAS' all about and of course quite mini epics in their own right.
No doubt all arranged on the back of an envelope and i love the 'jerry can' bit; (still doing that).

This is why the thread has so much input from those who know how capable the organisation was at organising 'itself' when the need arose.

A long barge tow is hard work at any time but the scenery en route spectacular even if progress is slow.

JP i do not think Christchurch would have been en-route do you mean Chivenor !

My first ever aero tow was an unofficial event provided by a Navy T-Moth.
This was a 'check' in a Mk3 and then a couple in the Prefect.My next one was in a T53 at Swanton. (no one ever noticed the 'Navy' bit)

[teeteringhead]

to refuel the Chippies from the fuel carried illegally in jerricans No doubt all arranged on the back of an envelope and i love the 'jerry can' bit; (still doing that).

This is why the thread has so much input from those who know how capable the organisation was at organising 'itself' when the need arose

So these are examples of the "professional" organisation which should be left to its own devices??

Small step methinks from "illegal jerricans" to unrecorded modifications and repairs.

And you wonder why MAA got involved? :rolleyes:

[John Purdey]

POBJOY. No, it was Christchurch- chosen as possible diversion because there was an Air Cadet gliding school there. JP

[chevvron]

POBJOY. No, it was Christchurch- chosen as possible diversion because there was an Air Cadet gliding school there. JP

Only Christchurch airfield I know in the UK was near Bournemouth so I can understand Pobjoy's query.

[Wander00]

But TTH that was not the ACO, but the "press on" regular RAF..............

[BBK]

Teeteringhead

My understanding is that the Vikings and Vigilants are grounded because of issues surrounding maintenance and airworthiness. VGS staff have nothing to do with either of those areas.

As for the events described by POBJOY et al it is obvious, to me at least, that they happened a long time ago and do not reflect the reality of the current environment. That is not, repeat not, a criticism but things were just different in society as a whole with respect to risk. We all did things unthinkable now - going on trips sans seat belts in the back of a soft top Land Rover for example.

The real issue here is how and why did the RAF, its support staff and contractors end up with the fleet being grounded. Also, I believe that the whole organisation was being scrutinised after the tragic deaths of the three cadets in the AEF accidents. No system or organisation is perfect but I honestly think that the VGSs delivered safe and professional training over many decades. Sorry for the thread drift.

BBK

[teeteringhead]

A fair call Wander00, and exactly correct. But that was then .......

But my point was really that the world has changed - whether you agree or not is not going to change it back! - and my feeling is that the VGS world is still - in some part and in some places - adhering to that culture of bygone days.

When I think of some of the things we did in the regular RAF flying world ...... :eek::eek::eek: ..... I'm grateful that (more by luck than good judgement probably) I'm now an old pilot, not a bold pilot.

In the old days, the (flying) Sqn Cdr was God, who could just about do what he liked. No longer so ......... :(

[Edited to add: you too are right BBK, but it seems that some posters here believe it would all be fine and dandy if we went back to the good (sic) old days.]

[BBK]

TTH

I agree and we cannot nor should we seek to turn the clock back. I have enormous respect for POBJOY and his colleagues as it was their generation that taught me to fly. We all share the frustration because if this problem isn't fixed soon then, in my humble opinion, there won't be the volunteers around to man the new VGSs. Just my two penn'orth.

BBK

[teeteringhead]

I've been told that the fix was agreed with CAS before Christmas, and it's been awaiting the "Ministerial Tick" since then. :ugh:

Whatever it is I do hope we know soon, it's only human to invent rumours to fill an information vacuum.

And I must agree about the "influence" of the VGSs - my 3 solo launches in a Mk 3 way back when led - pretty directly, via a Flying Scholarship - to 30 + years and 5000-odd hours of regular RAF piloting.......

[John Purdey]

What we had in those far off days was heaps of experience. The instructors at No 1 Gliding Centre Hawkinge claimed that between them they had flown every aircraft in the RAF inventory- and the flt lt OC held a DSO from the campaign in Burma. We cannot bring all that back of course. JP

[POBJOY]

JP I know what you mean;at Kenley out CO had us making loads of useful equipment from scratch,it was a spin off from his job at the Woolwich Arsenal.
At least 50% of the original instructors had started when the ATC only had single seaters and after briefing his cadet would then winch him on a ground slide! many of the others were former aircrew.
You were encouraged to attend courses for Glider inspections and simple repairs so consequently even staff cadets were 'qualified' to be hands on with all the equipment in use.
If someone had suggested we aerotowed a machine to Halesland the answer would probably have been 'why only one'.
I am sorry T-head but the schools were both capable and safe and did not need a hangar full of p-work to operate because they knew their business and passed on quality and capability to a high standard.I agree there was far less of a H&S culture but that was because it had not been invented then; however it did exist by the very capability,common sense, and standards the schools operated to without the 'tick box' mentality that has been the reason for the current debacle.
Remember all of the current problems stem from the full time paid 'system' that is supposed to back up the VGS operations;i would also remind you that the safety record (which is the only bench mark you can use) is not exceeded by any other flying organisation including the RAF.

[WE992]

I guess it depends what you call safe? My records indicate that 8 of the 15 Prefects, 21 Barges and 50 Mk3s were written off in Air Cadet Service and no I have not included Hangar fires and buildings collapsing.

[POBJOY]

I suspect the write offs were more to do with the reducing ability to repair aircraft, similar to the situation with the canvas hangars that became u/s due to eventual lack of maintenance.
Barges were also prone to 'blow-overs' when mini-sqalls 'nipped in' and it did limit their use when operating with limited manpower and the inability to 'quickly' return then to a hangar.
The Prefect skid was not that beefy, and i seem to recall the pylon behind the pilot could 'spring' if the nose dug in on a poor or undulating surface.
However when you look at the flying incidents record against the type of operation,length of service,huge no of launches, and ratio of injuries(virtually zero) the record is second to none.
Remember; the organisation was turning out 'HUNDREDS' of A&B certs every year with Cadets having far less dual before doing 3 solo's.
The CFI's would keep a very careful watch on operations and in the main were VERY experienced instructors that no one questioned.

I recall that at restricted sites the base leg and final turn was only 400/200 ft
which gives very little margin for error,and sites like Halesland would never have been chosen in later years.
I think the 'capability' factor carried on due to staff continuity and the pride the Schools had in their operation.
Looking back at the actual way standards were maintained i think the rising staff Cadet element were always aware that although they had great freedom;an abuse of that trust would mean a swift departure out of the system and the CFI needed only to 'hint' about something for it to be taken very seriously. In fact this had the effect of increasing 'capability' as one aspired to maintain standards but also became 'capable' of avoiding being caught on 'excursions' !!

[Freda Checks]

I see the official channels are working.....

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x165/Biggles615/JM%20Twit_zpsueo7rih8.png (http://s183.photobucket.com/user/Biggles615/media/JM%20Twit_zpsueo7rih8.png.html)

Seems that we have to search social media (Twitter and Facebook) to see what is really happening out there.


Freda

[EnigmAviation]

Some faltering progress then, extrapolating to maybe having ACCGS operational soon, followed by a search for any remaining VGS staff who may live somewhere near to the new non-disclosed locations post Basing review.


Try to fit them in to re-categorise at ACCGS, and hopefully having the odd aircraft to put into VGS location for local checks, and hey presto, there may be a shadow of something that we used to have years ago - by mid 2017. Only the New Years Honours list to submit names for "Queens Commendation for valuable service on the Ground" hereinafter named "The Fig leaf".


Good to see it's being treated as a rush job !

[TheChitterneFlyer]

IMHO this thread has seen far too many posts that have been dedicated to "bashing the head" and the belittling of the management structure of the ACO.


It matters not who or what is to blame for the "temporary" grounding of Air Cadet Gliding Operations. The whole point of the matter is that the Operational Duty Holder (ODH) made the "right call" in the bringing to a halt of gliding operations.


It matters NOT how "excellent" everyone, in the past, might have been within their old style management of the ACO. Moreover, "the system" has since moved on and, like it or lump it, everyone within the ACO is now held accountable for their actions within the structure of the MAA.


EVERY aircraft platform, within the RAF (Army or Navy), must have a risk register. It so happens that the Risk to Life (RtL) register of the glider platform was proven to be lacking with the engineering documentation. The fact of the matter is... there have been many repairs made to the glider fleet that didn't have an "authorised" repair schedule. The quantifying of those unauthorised repairs has become the subject of closer examination and, upon the necessary re-examination of those unauthorised repairs, new work schedules have been written, where appropriate, to approve the work that had been previously undertaken.


Hence, it matters not whether or not a flying suit didn't have the correct "stitching" to a name badge or that a fire extinguisher was found to be out of date (as previously reported), the whole "point" of the matter is that there were many shortfalls, within the engineering documentation, that warranted the "pause to flying".


Flying Regulation and the following of "correct engineering procedure" is the cornerstone of "airworthiness" for the whole of the ACO. The Viking and Vigilant, none complex platforms that they might be, remain under similar close scrutiny as any other aircraft platform that the RAF, Army or Navy might operate.


No one is doubting the ability of the VGS staff who have painstakingly made every effort to continue with their professional contribution to this worthwhile organisation. I would ask everyone who's involved with Air Cadet Gliding to reconsider some of the negative attitudes that have been so vociferously displayed here on PPrune to think again. Your "worth" to the young folk who wish to continue to fly within the ACO is within your hands.


TCF

[ATFQ]

So, up to 78 Vikings left to recover (if the fleet size of 81 that has been quoted is correct).

Does anyone know what the expected recovery rate is for the Viking? We cannot hide from the truth that the recovery rate has been shockingly low to date, by anyone's standards (8 aircraft in 22 months). This is now what needs to improve, lest the level of skill fade grows further and comes back to haunt us. It would be nice to think that every VGS could have at least 3 or 4 aircraft back by the middle of the summer.

[ATFQ]

I was just casting my eye back over the XV230 report by Charles Haddon-Cave QC.

It is titled 'A failure of Leadership, Culture and Priorities'. It cites 'a series of weaknesses in the area of personnel'. And one of the recommendations says:

'Recommendation 28.7: Officers’ terms on appointment should no longer include ‘change objectives’ but should, in future, include a statement requiring them to consider carefully the impact of any changes or initiatives and whether there might be any indirect or direct implications for Safety or Airworthiness.'

So, why has someone thought it sensible to replace a fleet of fully serviceable Van Gelder winches during the 'pause'. Not only will there be flying skill fade to contend with when gliding resumes there will now also be the challenge of operating a new type of winch, which is bound to bring teething problems - some no doubt airfield specific. A resumption of operations with the old winch followed by the gradual introduction of the new winch once instructors and staff had achieved a sensible level of flying currency would have been far preferable. As it is, another 'moving part' has been changed that did not need to be. The level of risk has been elevated unnecessarily, not to mention for no improvement in output.

[A and C]

The uniformed side of this debacle while not showing spectacular management skills should not be the target for most of the wrath from the forum.

The majority of the problems and the slow recovery rate of aircraft is largely a result of the legacy contractors lack of urgency, culture of indifference, lack of basic composite skills and a contract that lacks a performance criteria ( IE tech questions that go unanswered for months )

In the face of the lack of or wildly inaccurate data from the legacy maintenance & support contractors the uniformed side of this unfortunate mess have just stopped talking because anything they say is likely to be rendered untrue because they have been misinformed.

The MoD & VGS management are between a rock and a hard place, on one side is the very poor performance of the legacy contractor and the other to quickly return aircraft to service, the MoD may well have wished to have terminated the legacy contractors long ago but this action would have delayed the return to service further as it would take another contractor time to take over.

Part of the problem is that the culture inside the legacy contractors ranks is such that one would not want to employ anyone from that company for fear of poisoning the work ethic in your own company so the normal military contract practice of re-employing the workforce and a seamless change of management is not avalable.

There is no doubt that the underperformance of the contractors should have been picked up years back but with the budget of the RAF under pressure and other much more pressing business the line taken by the MoD was "it is only a simple glider contract, how can it go wrong ". An attitude that one can understand when you have much bigger fish to fry and not much money to do it.

[pitotheat]

Chitterne Flyer
Few people on here have criticised the original "pause" decision. How the VGS aircraft got into such a poor state of "airworthiness" is quite another question. There are too many vested parties who have had too long to cover their tracks for any investigation to be worthwhile.
The criticism of the leadership of 2 FTS and ACO senior leadership is founded on the many hundreds of people left let down by unworthy and aloof Officers who have been promoted and appointed into these positions after an undistinguished RAF career to supplement or enhance their pension.
In normal times these characters would not be found out as the organisation would continue to function despite their efforts, however, these are not normal times. In true military fashion whilst the important issues are ignored or nudged in one direction and another the focus turns to the trivia such as flying badges and empire building. More effective leadership could well have found us on this very same path with the same outcome. The timescale may not have been that much different. What would have been different is the communication and leadership from the very top all the way down to Staff Cadet level in the various VGS and the newly joined youngster in the ATC squadrons.
Unlike the regular forces where poor leadership has to be tolerated due to military law and discipline, outside in the Civilian world poor leadership is quickly spotted and is generally dealt with quickly to remove obstacles to success. This is the reality of modern management for business to survive. The VGS is operating with British Leyland style leaders in a Google world.

[The Nip]

TCF,

I'm sorry but I will disagree with part of your post.

It does matter who is responsible for this mess. Whoever, they were getting paid to do a job. They failed to carry out that task. That is public money and the tax payers have every right to expect their money not to be wasted and those responsible held to account.

If it was the contractor, what were the CMT doing to ensure there was compliance with the contract?

It is now becoming more popular in today's environment that people of all professions think that they can absolve themselves of responsibility when it goes tits up.

[ricardian]

Brave teenage cadets pull woman trapped in burning car to safety after crash in Stockport

Report in Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/brave-teenage-cadets-pull-woman-10946513#ICID=ios_MENNewsApp_AppShare_Click_Message)

[ATFQ]

Two brave young men, and a perfect example of why we should be doing everything we can to grow the number of cadets. The number of air cadets has reduced by around 10 per cent over the past 18 months - arguably (and most likely) because of a lack of gliding (and flying) opportunities.

[cats_five]

Two brave young men, and a perfect example of why we should be doing everything we can to grow the number of cadets. The number of air cadets has reduced by around 10 per cent over the past 18 months - arguably (and most likely) because of a lack of gliding (and flying) opportunities.

Are they brave young men because they are Air Cadets, or are they Air Cadets because they are brave young men?

[A and C]

It is a bit of both, the ATC will always attract the more adventurous but they tend to bring others along with them.

The ATC develops positive character in young people of all abilities, the flying is a recruiting hook but the confidence and self esteem that flying solo gives along with the sence of responsibility is a tool for building responsible adults.

The actions reported from Stockport show how the skills developed in the ATC have a positive impact in society at large, this was well understood Mrs Thatcher when she considerably boosted the cadet forces budget.

Finally I am sure that along with the rest of this forums contributors I would like to congratulate the two cadets from Stockport for their actions.

[teeteringhead]

To be fair to the ATC in terms of numbers, it should be considered against the demography of the ATC target cohort 13-ish to 20.

The size of that cohort has been falling; we can all remember a few years ago a number of primary schools closing or amalgamating because of falling rolls - that has now moved on to reduce the size of the pool in which the ATC can fish for cadets.

Not saying that lack of flying hasn't turned off some cadets, just saying it's not the only reason for falling numbers ......

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Not saying that lack of flying hasn't turned off some cadets, just saying it's not the only reason for falling numbers

Agree. It's wrong (if utterly predictable from some parties) to lay all the blame for falling cadet numbers at the door of the AEF/VGS issues.


Would it really have been that hard to arrange extra visits to willing civvie gliding clubs, or, laid [sic] on extra jollies in Chinook, Merlin, Puma, Herc etc?


Hate to break it to you but all the aircraft types you mention (and most others) have been somewhat busy in recent years. But if you feel that wars, upgrade programmes, manning crises and the like shouldn't stand in the way of providing AEF in operational types, please contact the Stn Cdr at the relevant base to make your point. And do share the reply.

[tmmorris]

Hmm. But CCF RAF cadet numbers are falling in schools where the number of pupils hasn't.

[scarecrow450]

Vigilants are being moved from Ternhill to Syerston this week, 90 day inspection/repair ? timescale has been quoted, believe some are leaving Cosford as well for Syerston soon.

[POBJOY]

As i heard it from am impeccable source the winches did not really need replacing but are going to be replaced by a 'smart winch' because on paper it leaves less to operator 'input',and provides some income for the winch company.
As many on here will know a winch is as complicated as a motorised fishing reel,if fact less complicated.The basic 'end product' has not changed and was yet another task readily undertaken for decades by young staff cadets many of whom had no driving licence.
On the MB twin drum there was still a choice of gears,and a 3rd gear launch on a windless day would not work.
Having said that the driver would know what aircraft he was launching and the approx wind strength.He would then consult a very complicated multi functional onboard computer and operate as required when given suitable signals.
As each computer was tailored to individual parameters the drivers took them home with them for safe keeping.The driver also had to remember to turn off the fuel when finished to avoid it draining into the oil sump which would then need draining and refilling with OMD11O. As the drain plug was enormous (about 36mm) it was not a size in most peoples car tool kit.It was of course down to the staff cadet who had an old VW Beetle and serviced it himself that could arrange this vital tool if ever required. The paperwork and documentation for all the aforementioned 'winch operation' was less than a A4 sheet and it worked.No operation has been improved by making it more complicated than required, but it is a good way of spending taxpayers money.

[Arclite01]

Just because they are going to Syerston doesn't mean they will be coming back from Syerston.................. :}

[Tingger]

As i heard it from am impeccable source the winches did not really need replacing but are going to be replaced by a 'smart winch' because on paper it leaves less to operator 'input',and provides some income for the winch company.
As many on here will know a winch is as complicated as a motorised fishing reel,if fact less complicated.The basic 'end product' has not changed and was yet another task readily undertaken for decades by young staff cadets many of whom had no driving licence.
On the MB twin drum there was still a choice of gears,and a 3rd gear launch on a windless day would not work.
Having said that the driver would know what aircraft he was launching and the approx wind strength.He would then consult a very complicated multi functional onboard computer and operate as required when given suitable signals.
As each computer was tailored to individual parameters the drivers took them home with them for safe keeping.The driver also had to remember to turn off the fuel when finished to avoid it draining into the oil sump which would then need draining and refilling with OMD11O. As the drain plug was enormous (about 36mm) it was not a size in most peoples car tool kit.It was of course down to the staff cadet who had an old VW Beetle and serviced it himself that could arrange this vital tool if ever required. The paperwork and documentation for all the aforementioned 'winch operation' was less than a A4 sheet and it worked.No operation has been improved by making it more complicated than required, but it is a good way of spending taxpayers money.

Your impeccable source sounds like they hadn't been near an MVG winch for a while! Of the 8 Viking Squadrons some had to stop flying prior to the great pause because of an inability to get a serviceable winch.

If you did have a winch the chance of having 4 or more drums working was unlikely due to lack of spare parts.

[Arclite01]

Tingger

Pobjoy is correct for the TWIN DRUM Winch which preceded the MVG 6 drum winch (and obviously you :))

You are correct with regard to your comments on the MVG for which it was beginning to get hard to get spares for since MVG ceased trading. I also felt that since the MVG was not a mainstream bit of RAF kit the MT fitters never really got to grips with it as they only saw it a few times a year..................

WRT to your comments though in the end ACCGS had spare MVG's because there were fewer and fewer Winch Launch schools operating against establishment so I am not convinced about the 'Pause before the Pause' argument - sounds like someone at the centre fobbing you off as they would have to arrange a low loader to move it...............:}

Arc

[Tingger]

That pause before the pause definitely happened when the only serviceable spare winch "fell" off the low loader and broke it's back.

[cats_five]

It is a bit of both, the ATC will always attract the more adventurous but they tend to bring others along with them.

The ATC develops positive character in young people of all abilities, the flying is a recruiting hook but the confidence and self esteem that flying solo gives along with the sence of responsibility is a tool for building responsible adults.

The actions reported from Stockport show how the skills developed in the ATC have a positive impact in society at large, this was well understood Mrs Thatcher when she considerably boosted the cadet forces budget.

Finally I am sure that along with the rest of this forums contributors I would like to congratulate the two cadets from Stockport for their actions.

Is it a bit of both? Did you look at the sort of school those young men are going to? It's the sort of school that prides itself on developing 'positive character in young people of all abilities' and of course it has a lot longer with it's pupils than the ATC do.

[POBJOY]

Ah so they could not even keep the winches properly serviced.
Must have been manna from heaven when they grounded the fleet in 2014 as it saved another scandal of u/s winches stopping flying.
Good news for those of looking for a cheap winch when they come up for disposal,i mean, who will want one!!!
Having said that there was nothing wrong with the MB twin drum that a 're-power' for the new ships could not have sorted.

If Winkle Brown had been running ATC gliding we would have had mini rockets pods by now,and queue's of Cadets wanting 'another launch'.
Having said that the Staff Cadets would no doubt have been tempted to see how many were needed to get a LR through the 60 barrier,(early LR i mean).

[Freda Checks]

....and if there was engine or transmission problems with the MVG winches none of those 6 drums would have been available!! I suspect quite a number of flying days have been lost because of this since their introduction.

Hence I suspect, that each (surviving) VGS will now get two of the new Skylaunch winches, just like we used to have two twin drum winches. As they say.."what goes around..."

[WE992]

Some of you gents need to stop living in the past and quit moaning all the time. The new Skylaunch winch is significantly better and safer than any previous winch the Air Cadet organisation has ever been equipped with. Oh and by the way it comes equipped with plastic rope rather than steel cable - no doubt this will give you something else to moan about?

[cats_five]

What surprised me about Eric Brown's list of types was how few gliders were on it, and nothing from the modern era e.g. a Slingsby Vega for example. I wonder what he would have made of flying 500km in something like an ASH25 with a 60:1 glide ratio even at getting on for 80 knots? The back seat pilot gets a stunning view of the flexible wings doing their thing...

[POBJOY]

Eric Brown really 'rated' his gliding flights in the ME 163 Komet (plus his hot one)

[A and C]

The educational establishment that I went to was crap............. When I was a CI with a local ATC unit the schools in the area had not improved.

I am sure that the ATC unit I was with kept more than a few young people out of prison by inspiring them, rather than the school that seemed to put them in a box marked factory fodder.

If the nations education system has improved I am pleased, but the product may have archived academic goals but seems to still lack life skills, something that the cadet forces do well.

A well funded cadet force is an investment in people that is priceless for the nation.

[622]

Ref winches....


I say bring back the twin drum Eagles! :E


Hours of fun teaching people to use them...you certainly learned all about clutch control 'driving' one of those!

No need for practice launch failures....you got so many real ones! :eek:


Those lovely after flying (or pre flying on a windy/cloudy/wet morning) hours spent retying knots.


...And a few other antics I couldn't possibly comment on! :p

[POBJOY]

It is not entirely true to say there was no H&S culture in the old days.
When instructing new S-Cadets on the chopping of cable to retape knots i always told them to 'blink' just before the axe made contact.
Not too early so it missed your fingers.
No goggles, no gloves, and no eye injuries.

Then there was the demonstration of 'drum brake fade' when the pressure was on to get the cable 'in quick' so a pair could be sent back to the launch point.

With the canvas parachute 'sailing' along at a few feet and getting rather close the picture on the winch drivers face when he closed the throttle and pushed the clutch/brake but all to no avail as the brake drum expanded and there was the unmistakable sound of the 'parachute through the rollers' followed by some very metal to metal noises.

[RUCAWO]

I had an interesting meeting at the RIAT Hangar Party a couple of years back, a collegue and I got talking (with much beer ;) ) to the Irish CASA crew ,great bunch of guys but one didn't really mix and sat back.
The crew got up to get some food the quiet one then came over and said to my mate "your RAF(VR)T" "Yes", "You are Air Cadet staff" "Yes" "You're L****" big look of shock!
Conversation followed , the airman was from West Belfast (where he was from I probably knew the family as I was stationed there for ten years) and joined a local Sqn with one of his mates from a school outside the area, loved the experience and on leaving school applied to join the RAF, two problems one "the boys" called round and threatened to shoot him if he continued on with this , two uncle was a senior Provo so security clearance was not going to happen. As a result of this he joined the IAC and he put it all down to the ATC as he said most of his "mates" from West Belfast ended up as joyriders etc. The ATC gave him something to aim for that otherwise he wouldn't have thought about and he recognised my mate straight away as he had been with him on several cadet activities .

[The B Word]

Latest rumour is to expect news between 7th of March and Good Friday. Starting to grow tired off the slippage of new news now... :zzz::zzz::zzz:

The kids really do need some positive news as we approach the end of year 2 of no air cadet gliding. :{

The B Word

[Chris Gains]

Does the rumour say which year?!!!!

[A and C]

It is more than a bit difficult for the VGS management to say much when they continue to be so badly let down by the holders of the support and type certificate contracts who use technical paperwork to cover their lack of ability to support the recovery.

As I have said before they are between a rock and a hard place, if they fire them ( may be they would like to do this ) then no work gets done untill new contractors get up to speed and if they keep them on very little gets done.

So they have chosen a middle ground with the Vikings, another contractor is doing the physical work but still bound by the legacy contractors and type certificate holders for parts and technical data.

It would seem to me that they are setting up for contractor change but this has to happen at a rate that the industry can cope with and avoid getting into a legal mess by letting things run until the end of existing contracts.

[Freda Checks]

Saw this on another forum and thought it may help to lighten the situation while we wait for some news..

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x165/Biggles615/IMG_1629_zpsaysg7rwj.jpg (http://s183.photobucket.com/user/Biggles615/media/IMG_1629_zpsaysg7rwj.jpg.html)

[kaitakbowler]

Tingger

Pobjoy is correct for the TWIN DRUM Winch which preceded the MVG 6 drum winch (and obviously you :))

You are correct with regard to your comments on the MVG for which it was beginning to get hard to get spares for since MVG ceased trading. I also felt that since the MVG was not a mainstream bit of RAF kit the MT fitters never really got to grips with it as they only saw it a few times a year..................

WRT to your comments though in the end ACCGS had spare MVG's because there were fewer and fewer Winch Launch schools operating against establishment so I am not convinced about the 'Pause before the Pause' argument - sounds like someone at the centre fobbing you off as they would have to arrange a low loader to move it...............:}
Arc

I've just picked up this Re the MVG winch, as I looked after a VGS equipped with the MVG I can say with all honesty that it presented no challenge at all in regard to maintenance, the main issue was with poor quality parts provided when spares were required, in particular the vertical guide rollers. As regards moving the winch, we always used a low loader, it was obvious that that was the only way to do it safely, I don't recall ever getting any advice from ACCGS on this, it was a decision we took locally.

PM

PS WE992, surely not "plastic" rope? A "Dyneema" type?

[ATFQ]

I have heard from a reliable source that we can expect a public announcement on 10th March. There is planned to be a formal written statement released by the Minister at some point on this date.

[teeteringhead]

Sounds good ATFQ.

I understand that - for some reason - Ministerial announcements are always on Thursdays. :confused:

And remember; whatever it is, it's been with Minister since before Christmas! :ugh:

[cats_five]

<snip>
As regards moving the winch, we always used a low loader, it was obvious that that was the only way to do it safely, I don't recall ever getting any advice from ACCGS on this, it was a decision we took locally.
<snip>

The Skylaunch can safely be towed by a large car, including up & down the motorways. Once ours had settled down it's been very reliable, and we do far more launches than the ATC would have done as weather permitting, we fly 7 days a week 12 months a year.

[The B Word]

Rumours are brewing from some that an announcement will be made here quite soon: Written statements - UK Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statements/)

I wonder if the VGS OCs will be given the courtesy and told in advance of the announcement? Expectation is as before, good news for some and not so good for some others (which is supposedly tied to future basing decisions as I understand it, like the Hullavington selll off).

The B Word

[teeteringhead]

I wonder if the VGS OCs will be given the courtesy and told in advance of the announcement? Very unlikely; ISTR it's actually illegal to break the embargo on Ministerial announcements.

In theory - although obviously not in practice - it would be seen in the same light as telling Budget plans in advance ........ :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[A and C]

So to take a guess we will get details of the future of air cadet flying and the start of the tendering process for the contract to support the operation.

By now the MoD will know what is holding up the recovery program and who is failing to deliver the goods in terms of producing servisable airframes, old contracts will have been reviewed and the holes that allow contractors prevarication ( usually because they are clueless ) will be plugged.

I see a bright future for the technical side of air cadet flying ( not just gliding ) but this can't be fully delivered untill new contracts are in place a the end of the year.

I would like to see those responsible for this mess taken to court for failing to produce the goods but think that poorly written contracts written years back are likely to let them slip off the hook.

[tmmorris]

Rumours are brewing from some that an announcement will be made here quite soon: Written statements - UK Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statements/)

I wonder if the VGS OCs will be given the courtesy and told in advance of the announcement? Expectation is as before, good news for some and not so good for some others (which is supposedly tied to future basing decisions as I understand it, like the Hullavington selll off).

The B Word

Well, one I know does seem to be aware his Sqn is for the chop. So it appears yes, they have.

I had fun introducing him to Comdt AC a couple of weeks back, not that it's really her fault.

[Cat Funt]

According to some impeccably-placed sources who will be in the bar of a certain ivy-covered, red-brick officer's mess just outside Sleaford tonight, it will finally be tomorrow when the verdict will be passed to the VGS OCs. Town Hall meetings set up for sqn staff for the following couple of weeks.

Best of luck, everyone!

[romeo bravo]

Anything to do with an impending ACMB Meeting :O

[Why oh why]

Rumour has it that the babcocks consortium with the "expert glider fixers". See post 1551. Have still only produced 3 Vikings as nearly a year has passed. Looks like they appear to be suffering in the same way as the current MO

[Aggamemnon]

I had fun introducing him to Comdt AC a couple of weeks back, not that it's really her fault.

I'm sure there is plenty of "glory" to be spread about regarding this farce but she is the 1* Boss and has been for some time. If it isn't (partly) her fault then whose?

Where does the buck stop, or has that gone out of fashion?

[Arclite01]

I am less interested now in Glider repair - it is what it is (a Cluster ****)

Now I am interested in the future of the schools and the future basing strategy - the people side of things...............

Arc

[ACW342]

A&C, your post 1725.

In employment, there is, as far as I am aware, a thing called the Master - Servant relationship where, AFAIK, the Master can responsible for the actions of the Servant. Therefore, where the servant sanctioned servicing without oversight or lost ("Lost" Latin for shredded, in this context) paperwork, it is possible that the Master can be prosecuted for not ensuring that the servant has carried out his duties in accordance with the Masters instructions.

(I shall now duck into my air raid shelter which is an exact copy of the one at Bruggen ATC before the REs condemned and destroyed it, and wait for incoming from the legal beagles).

A342

[BEagle]

From:
Written statements - UK Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statements/)

Made by: Mr Julian Brazier (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) )

In April 2014 all Air Cadet Organisation gliding was paused due to airworthiness concerns with the Grob Viking conventional glider and Grob Vigilant motorglider fleets utilised by the Air Cadet Volunteer Gliding Squadrons (VGS).

Substantial operational, technical and commercial negotiations with a range of aerospace leaders in this field have failed to find a value for money approach to successfully repair and recover all 146 gliders. Consequently a comprehensive Air Cadet Organisation review has proposed restructuring this activity. It has been decided that the best value for money solution is to recover at least 73 Vikings, a reduced Vigilant fleet of up to 15 aircraft, combined with an uplift to Grob Tutor fixed wing Air Experience Flights (AEFs).

The reduced glider fleet will be operated by significantly fewer, but larger, VGS, which will have a regional focus and be better integrated with synthetic training and increased AEF locations. The number of Grob Tutor aircraft beyond 2017 for AEF/ University Air Squadron (UAS) use will go from 45 to 70 airframes, enabling the enlargement of existing AEFs and the formation of two new AEFs. Regional VGS hubs, which have the facility to provide overnight accommodation, will be also created across the UK.

The Volunteer Gliding Squadrons that are due to be disbanded are: 611 Squadron currently based at RAF Honington, 612 Squadron currently based Dalton Barracks (Abingdon), 613 Squadron currently based at RAF Halton, 616 Squadron currently based at RAF Henlow, 618 Squadron currently based at RAF Odiham, 624 Squadron currently based at RMB Chivenor, 633 Squadron currently based at RAF Cosford, 634 Squadron currently based at MOD St Athan, 635 Squadron currently based at RAF Topcliffe, 636 Squadron currently based at Swansea Airport, 642 Squadron currently based at RAF Linton-on-Ouse, 662 Squadron currently based at RMB Arbroath, 663 Squadron currently based at Kinloss Barracks and 664 Squadron currently based at Newtownards.

The Volunteer Gliding Squadrons that are due to be retained are the Central Gliding School and 644 Squadron currently based at RAF Syerston, 614 Squadron currently based at MDP Wethersfield, 615 Squadron currently based at RAF Kenley, 622 Squadron currently based at Trenchard Lines Upavon, 626 Squadron currently based at RNAS Predannack, 631 Squadron currently based at RAF Woodvale, 632 Squadron currently based at RAF Ternhill, 637 Squadron currently based at RAF Little Rissington, 661 Squadron currently based at RAF Kirknewton and 645 Squadron currently based at Topcliffe (from October 2019). 621 Squadron currently based at Hullavington will be retained at RNAS Merryfield.

As part of this process, a number of regional gliding hubs are to be created. We also expect that 2 new Air Experience Flights will be created, 13 AEF and 14 AEF. It is anticipated that 14 AEF will be located in Northern Ireland.

While work is undertaken to set up this new structure, the future locations of these Squadrons remains subject to the outcome of MOD estate rationalisation due to announce later this year. While it is likely that many Squadrons will remain at their current locations, we are working to ensure that, where this is not the case, flying opportunities will be made available to Cadet Units within their region and any new locations will be as geographically close to the existing locations as possible.

We recognise that this means that some uncertainty will remain for our cadets, but we are confident that this new structure will maximise flying opportunities for them.

As VGS are run by volunteer staffs, this will not result in any job losses, albeit volunteering options will be affected. The RAF is extremely grateful for the volunteers that support each VGS; without this support Air Cadet gliding would not be possible. Consequently we will develop a crossover plan which will enable many volunteer gliding instructors who become surplus on affected VGS to convert to Viking; transfer to a formally established ground cadre within a VGS; transfer their instructional skill sets into the units of the mainstream Air Cadet Organisation; or to retrain to fly the Grob Tutor in the expanded AEF construct.

The RAF remains committed to Air Cadet flying and will ultimately increase investment in the VGS and AEF sites which will remain to include the provision of residential accommodation for cadets and staff. This will enable those cadet units which have to travel greater distances to the VGS to undertake a residential weekend, with better associated force development and ground training opportunities alongside the gliding and flying. With the introduction of glider simulators, funded by the RAF Charitable Trust, the Air Cadet Organisation have developed a common syllabus for cadet flying which better integrates and allocates cadet flying opportunities between realistic synthetic flight simulation, glider flying and an uplift of AEF flights.

We will make a further statement when we can say more on basing.

[Why oh why]

snip. sanctioned servicing without oversight or lost ("Lost" Latin for shredded, in this context) paperwork

On my VGS. The MOD policy is that aircraft documentation is to be disposed of Major + 6 months. Indeed short repetitive servicing may be disposed of when superceeded

[Mushroom club]

BEagle

Many thanks for the info. Was there a communication from 2 FTS that mentioned decimating the VGS organization. 11 VGSs to be disbanded. :ugh:

Mushers

[bspatz]

What is the future for those airfields where a VGS sqn is the only public funded user and does this clear the way for further sales of MOD real estate?

[Arclite01]

Shocking.

Almost akin to the decimation of a Roman Legion.

Bad news if you are in the East of the UK.....................

Arc

[Freda Checks]

Absolutely shocking....

Now we have to wait two or more years before everything (or anything) is flying again!

It should be welcomed that such expansion is required at Membury Airfield and that the increase of hangar space will accommodate the seventy gliders that require urgent
maintenance over the forthcoming years.
http://planning.westberks.gov.uk/rpp/showimage.asp?j=16/00142/OUTMAJ&index=1062933

....and that can only happen when the planning permission is granted and the hangars are built ready for use...

What a Cluster **** indeed!

[Arclite01]

If that facility was for the urgent maintenance of the 70 gliders what is the maintenance facility at Syerston for ??

http://www.templemandesign.com/projects/raf-syerston/

Storage ??

Arc

[VX275]

As VGS are run by volunteer staffs, this will not result in any job losses


38 years service to the VGS and that's the thanks you get.:{

[Milts613]

RIP VGS's.

A sad day.

[Freda Checks]

If that facility was for the urgent maintenance of the 70 gliders what is the maintenance facility at Syerston for ??....to store the old Van Gelder winches and the unused, not now needed, (of the 26) new Skylaunch winches :=

[Arclite01]

Hmmm

1. Nice to have some spare winches though.............

2. I think some of the old Vigi schools may be Viking re-equipped...........

3. I wonder where the 'Regional Centres' will be ?? - will they be in addition to the named sites ?

4. What happens if it rains all weekend when you've travelled a long way for your gliding slot ?, is that your allocation lost for that 6 months or calendar quarter ??

and finally...............

5. I'm sure some of the closures will release MoD real estate for sale................. I would have thought Kirknewton would have been on the hit list. Mind you it's a Viking school. The others are Vigilant equipped in Scotland that are up for the chop............... bad news for travel if you are in the North of Scotland.............

Arc

[flyinggeek87]

No vgs in Wales. Crazy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-35777707

[QA_270]

Very very sad news, I had the most fantastic experience on a VGS and would never be where I am today with out meeting the most professional diverse group people I have ever worked with.

I am hoping that the future of air cadet flying does continue as I would like to be part of the new system whatever the new pathway is as I would like to continue to give something back and inspire the current and next generation of youth.

[CoffmanStarter]

synthetic training ...

I've heard it all now :(

[POBJOY]

As the current req for AEF flying is RAF Wings (or poss ATPL) unless your Vig pilot has one of the above how do they suddenly 'retrain' Pilots who are now not even current on the SLMG they used to fly.
As SLMG/Tmg hrs would not normally be 'fully' accepted as counting towards a CPL/ATPL is the RAF now going to rewrite the 'Wings' syllabus specially for the AEF !! Normally powered hours had to be done in a class A machine.
Whilst i accept that the AEF task is hardly onerous the RAF had always required formal qualifications to operate in the system.

[EnigmAviation]

The irony of this is that we now can see clearly that the former VGS unpaid volunteers who have so loyally worked to produce some outstanding talent by acting at all times so professionally, have now been completely overshadowed by the paid professionals who have now proven that they were the real amateurs unable to manage the engineering resources to service the totally professional VGS empire !

I now wait with some interest to see the disposal of the 50% fleet assets deemed non-recoverable...........and where and when they fly again elsewhere ! As for "no job losses" and "some moving to Tutor flying AEF units", I wonder if some of these people have been consuming "legal highs" as countless VGS staff will by geographic considerations be "out of work", and 90% + former VGS staff will fail to have the minimum criteria for entry to Tutor flying, even assuming that the Unit Commander would wish to have them in preference to serving Officers. ( And CGI's would not be transferable assets as they are non-uniformed):{

[Auster Fan]

A very sad day, but I do wonder, given the extra tasking that the remaining VGS will have to presumably absorb, how long is it going to take to get the instructors current again, convert from one type to another where necessary and where are the next generation of instructors coming from given that the pause will have presumably dried up the normal flow of VGS Staff cadets? As an ex WGLO, it's devastating to see this and I hope it's not a game changer for the ACO in any way...

[DC10RealMan]

The Group Captain has no time for VRT people so if he could replace them with proper RAF types more to his liking whilst building up his empire.

Why it requires an ATPL to fly a single-engined light aeroplane is quite beyond me.

Its a win-win situation!