Air Cadets grounded?

[Tay Cough]

That's a shame. I would be happy to fly for an AEF. I have many thousands of hours, I fly (and have displayed) aerobatic and military types and I'm an instructor in current practice. I've never been a QSP though.

[pulse1]

I may be wrong but I thought that civilian instructors with no previous military experience instruct in the Grobs used for Pilot Grading, I have known two. Why should similarly qualified and experienced instructors not be allowed to fly for AEF?

[Tay Cough]

I have a full time job so would consider it on a volunteer basis. I was under the impression the flying grading was a full time position.

[Mushroom club]

Coffman

I admire your honesty and I think you've hit the nail on the head. I believe the AEFs has largely been seen as a club for ex regular QSPs. Nothing wrong with that and full respect to the chaps giving up their time to fly cadets. However, it begs the question since we now have a surplus of highly experienced VGS instructors who were qualified on a similar type then it should be straight forward to convert them.

Also, is there any reason why former CGIs and/or NCO pilots could not fly the Tutor? From a purely flying standards point of view there is no reason but they're not "chaps" are they? OC 2 FTS is well known for his dislike of civilians and presumably that extends to non commissioned riff raff.

Leaving aside the AEF issue the thing that really grates about the official announcement is the blatant spin involved. They're "putting lip stick on a pig" IMHO. The Air Cadets are having a huge reduction in flying TRAINING as opposed to air experience. To pretend otherwise is counter productive. By all means look at the glass as half full but it's still a very sad time for the ACO as a whole.

As to how this episode was handled and the way the VGS staff have been kept in the dark....don't get me started!:ugh:

Mushers

[ACW599]

Another issue perhaps worth thinking about is the blanket ban on those over 65. Surely what matters is actual medical condition rather than biological age?

There are many who are well into their 70s and fly far more demanding aircraft than those operated by the ACO. I converted a lady of 83 on to a Tecnam a few months ago with not the slightest difficulty and one of my current students is 77 and as sharp as a tack. Our club CFI is 74, is well known in aerobatic circles and displays an Extra and a Firefly.

I don't know quite how you can be an A2* VGS exec one day and judged decrepit the next, especially if you have and can retain a Class 2 medical. The CAA seems to be considerably more enlightened in this respect than the RAF.

[ATFQ]

Upcoming Business - Commons: Westminster Hall (13 Apr 2016) https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.theyworkforyou.com_calendar_-3Fd-3D2016-2D04-2D13-23cal8892&d=AwIDAw&c=axaOw2qHyp7zEDNbTjpgYA&r=YYRyvoC1zD9GLkV3p5YPZRhvmWWc20ZYR6IuvB6a8-8&m=dZ4HOe7psZkCqzHeOgkwVrfbCi_SUapLYXuleQGToLE&s=D61Z6kGN6kYWiLzhu-kW6TRAJySO9PGcPg_xqZhu1Uc&e=
Future of gliding and the *Air Cadet* Organisation - Angela Watkinson.
*Westminster Hall debate; 11:00 am - 11:30 am*

[Flugplatz]

Can someone confirm something for me? I am a CGI with one of the Squadrons that isn't to be disbanded, but have not recieved anything other than the Ministerial statement through our Squadron Boss. I understand that we were going to be written to individually, with options laid out; (although that may have already happened for the unfortunate Vigilant staff who are the priority).

So I have heard that the position of CGI will no longer exist, but don't know if this is true or exactly what it could mean? Does anyone know more, or if the intention is that CGIs would have to join the ATC/RAF VRT in some capacity or does it mean CGIs are now out of a job?

Any info appreciated :confused:
Flug

[Tingger]

Can someone confirm something for me? I am a CGI with one of the Squadrons that isn't to be disbanded, but have not recieved anything other than the Ministerial statement through our Squadron Boss. I understand that we were going to be written to individually, with options laid out; (although that may have already happened for the unfortunate Vigilant staff who are the priority).

So I have heard that the position of CGI will no longer exist, but don't know if this is true or exactly what it could mean? Does anyone know more, or if the intention is that CGIs would have to join the ATC/RAF VRT in some capacity or does it mean CGIs are now out of a job?

Any info appreciated :confused:
Flug

You should have got the same letter from 2fts and CAC as everyone else. CGI'S will be phased out with transfer over to ATC SNCOs complete by 2020 so no massive rush. Any new starters will go direct to snco from a date (not yet promulgated) but soon.

There will be limited staff numbers related to the squadron aircraft establishment though.

[Flugplatz]

Thanks Tingger! I have been out of the country for a week so the letter may be sitting at home.

Flug

[CoffmanStarter]

ATFQ ...

Here is a working link showing Westminster Hall Business ... Your Post 2005 refers.

Westminster Hall Business (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmagenda/fb160323.htm)

... Just trying to help :ok:

[Airbus38]

Well, allow me to be the first to don my tin hat and raise the next obvious issue...

Everybody knows that a good portion of VGSs are full of experienced CGIs who would rather just leave than wear uniform. This is by no means a judgment either way on whether I believe that they should be required to, but I think it's worth saying.

[207592]

I read this thread with incredulity. Gliding and AE Flying are the hallmarks ofthe ATC, what marks it out from the other Cadet Corps. How could HQ AC allow the cessation ofgliding? There is no defence in arguing “civilianization”or whatever: contracts have to be managed actively, and if “civilianization” isthe cause of poor maintenance God help the frontline RAF!
In the present economic climate, I could understand areduction in AEF hours, but gliding, with volunteer instructors …. ….. !
As to restricting AEF flying to Service pilots, it hasprobably got something to Crown immunity. Even retired regular “full-brevet” officer AEF pilots hold commissionsin the RAFRO. As to age of retirement,as an aged PPL, I regularly fly my Air Cadet grandson, and would be happy forhim to be flown by another pilot of my age (and temperament) who holds a Class2 medical.

[Jimmyjerez]

Already lots of non RAF pilot ex civvies and ex VGS flying AEF apparently, chatted to one doing some stuff at my civvy school only last week.

Will be interesting to see how they convert these Viggie guys and girls. Those that haven't done a Ppl etc in their own time aren't anywhere near even PPL standard on light aircraft. They never done - spinning, Aeros, navigation, used nav aid kit, diversions, power approaches, used flaps LOI, busy RT, used power during stalk recoveries etc. All the ground school they've ever done was glider stuff as well so will they have to do proper light aircraft ground school and exams?

For me as a civvy to do trial lessons with Aeros I would have to be a CPL/FI with Aeros course and test done. Can't see how a Viggie guy would be same safety standard without loads of training and tests. Good luck to them though they are all great people

[ATFQ]

It's worth making sure that your MP, if he or she has shown an interest, is made aware of the Westminster Hall debate on 13 April. It is in the detail of the order of business for the day and could easily be overlooked at a glance. I am sure that we would like any interested MPs to be able to hear from the Minister and to be able to ask him questions.

[Jimmyjerez]

Thinking about it, the NPPL legal stuff gives Viggie guys cross credits for light aircraft and they have to do about minimum 10hours, pass all PPL ground exams and pass the nav and flying skills tests, that's without Aeros and spins. So that would be a start as its already sorted out what they do as minimum for civvy flying. They looked at vig when prop dropped off the Tutor for training new pilots apparently but loads of stuff it couldn't do so they will have that study they can use to see what Viggie guys need to learn I guess.

[VX275]

OK I'll bite.
Have you ever flown a Vigilant? If you had you'll notice it has a tailwheel and a three position prop, both of which require a PPL to do differences training to use. Most VGS instructors will have been transit qualified having been trained to navigate the RAF way, Dead Rekoning with chart, compass and stopwatch. Who needs nav aids?
How many PPL practice a Forced Landing every time they land? How many PPL would mess their pants if the engine stopped in flight? Vigilant instructors did it for training and for fun, especially if their passenger was a PPL or best of all a helicopter pilot.
I had 1800 hours on Air Cadet motor gliders when I went for a PPL, it was also the first time I had ever used a nosewheel undercarriage, can't see why people think they're better. As for ground school I just sat and passed the exams and then walked away blaming the Air Cadets.
Conversion from Vigilant to Tutor shouldn't be a problem, although I fear the Sliver Winged Master race will make it such.

[Jimmyjerez]

How many hours did it take to get your PPL then?

[ACW599]

>If you had you'll notice it has a tailwheel and a three position prop, both of which require a PPL to do differences training to use<

Just for the record, the Vigilant does not have a true VP propeller; it has a three-position fixed-pitch prop, of which one position is feathered. Differences training is certainly required for someone from a Vigilant background converting on to an SEP aircraft with a VP propeller.

I also wouldn't sign anyone off for tailwheel differences training on the basis of having flown a Vigilant since the takeoff technique is not representative of a true taildragger.

[Auster Fan]

Notwithstanding all the other issues that those far more expert than me have commented on, I think the move to a uniformed cadre may prove a challenge. I believe there are issues with recruiting sufficient uniformed staff generally within the ACO, let alone into a specialism such as aircrew...

[Uniform0792]

I've followed this thread for some time and reading all the posts these decisions make me quite angry in the fact that the restructure will take even more flying away from young Air Cadets that are interested in flying and Gliding.

I have served my local VGS for over 15 years as a civillian and it's been brilliant and enjoyed teaching young buzzing Air Cadets.

Quite frankly many of us guys are not impressed by the no thanks for the service we have received and to be blunt senior 2 FTS 'chaps' can shove it, I'll take my skills elsewhere thank you.

[taxydual]

OK

I'm now wearing the biggest tin hat stores could provide.

Having read the posts on this thread (and agreeing with 99% of them), has it never occurred to the posters that the UK cannot afford a 'real' Royal Air Force any more.

Therefore, how can the UK afford an Air Cadet Organisation?

Where is MoD (taxpayer) money best spent? Surely the Front Line.

[tmmorris]

Ah, but the idea is more cadets = less antisocial behaviour = save money on police/social services. And cadets are better motivated at school, too.

I'm not entirely convinced it's cause and effect ('good' kids join cadet organisations) but there is a logic.

But - one suspects non-flying cadets are cheaper and would still achieve the aim.

[Arclite01]

TaxyDual

Funding for the ATC (Cadet forces generally) is pretty small - probably lost in the 'roundings' of the Accountants frankly compared to the overall defence budget.

Cost savings against 'non-vandalism' and associated 'kids hanging on street corners' are supposedly huge. So much so that not so long ago, the Home Office was considering funding the Cadet Forces when MoD whinged about budget cuts................

I think the term was that Cadets were not just military but part of the 'Fabric Of Society'..................(Blah, Blah, Blah) - maybe Dave Cameron should be advised that a big bit of his 'Big Society' just got chopped off.............I'm sure he'd care and get involved <<Yeah, right>>

Arc

[longer ron]

OK

I'm now wearing the biggest tin hat stores could provide.

Having read the posts on this thread (and agreeing with 99% of them), has it never occurred to the posters that the UK cannot afford a 'real' Royal Air Force any more.

Therefore, how can the UK afford an Air Cadet Organisation?

Where is MoD (taxpayer) money best spent? Surely the Front Line.


Absolutely spot on Taxydual - but the trouble is these cuts have been happening under the pretext of a 'safety pause',I think many people would have more respect for the Brass if they had been upfront about the real agendas.


rgds LR
http://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif

[longer ron]

Getting rid of CGI's is what one would expect when the boss has no time for volunteers - presumably he hates civvy volunteers even more than uniformed volunteers !
Is this also the thin end of the wedge and serve as an early warning for CI's on ATC Squadrons ?

[tucumseh]

has it never occurred to the posters that the UK cannot afford a 'real' Royal Air Force any moreA few years ago my opinion was that avoiding the worst examples of waste, much of it entirely conscious, would generate more money than the MoD could reasonably spend. But the savagery of the cuts in recent years, coupled with (e.g.) the rundown of irreplaceable corporate knowledge, has changed my view a little, as the balance has shifted. That said, MoD still pours astronomical sums down the drain every day.

Last week we saw unseemly arguments in Parliament over the Budget, and the "need" to find £4.3Bn savings from the welfare pot. Coincidentally, more or less the sum wasted on Nimrod MRA4. An idea emerges....

[romeo bravo]

Don't worry about the RAF, the experiment finishes in two years next Friday :E

[ATFQ]

Defence Estate Rationalisation Written Statement HCWS659, 24 March 2016:

MOD Wethersfield, home of 614 VGS, due to transfer to Homes and Communities Agency by 2020. Future location for 614 VGS yet to be identified.

[POBJOY]

The 'Civilian' element of the ACO has always been its 'jewel' in that it provided a cadre of capable adult staff at very little cost to the tax payer.
Whether in the Cadet Squadrons or the Gliding operations the civilian element was nigh on cost free.
As for the provision of a Cadet service at all, this has be balanced against the unseen advantages of providing an organisation that allows youngsters to engage in self developing activities with just enough discipline to keep it safe yet not stifle the normal enthusiasm for adventure. What the ACO 'had' in its Gliding set up was an organisation that provided a unique extra level of self development that was available to anyone who wished to participate without a financial limitation.
Where the ATC has gone astray is in its 'paid for' back up providers who have failed to provide a service yet the money has been spent.
There is also a big question mark hanging over the capability level of those that should have been overseeing this and then dealing with the problem that ensued. The Cadets that passed through the system took with them skills and a level of self development that equipped them for adult life and repaid that earlier investment many times over.
At the end of the day the civilian element of the ACO can holds its head up high; it never failed the Cadets and has a proud tradition of capability and service.

[Opsbeatch]

Oh dear, there were rumblings years ago about this. Bang goes East Anglia I guess, not too many cadets in that area luckily...

MOD Wethersfield (Home of 614 VGS) to Close
Defence Estate Rationalisation Written Statement HCWS659, 24 March 2016:

MOD Wethersfield, home of 614 VGS, due to transfer to Homes and Communities Agency by 2020. Future location for 614 VGS yet to be identified.

[UV]

Bang goes East Anglia I guess, not too many cadets in that area luckily...

Errr...weren't they supposed to cover London in the future plans....

[POBJOY]

Ok so what does this agency need all the 'Airfield' bit for.
There are plenty of useful buildings on the north side that can easily accommodate a glider operation,and plenty of space for 'launching'.
Does anyone ever look how civvy clubs manage on quite 'tiny' sites.
Does anyone at the top of the 'system' have any idea how 'operations' operate in the real world.

[Airbus38]

From the same Written statement - also included is Clive Barracks, Tern Hill... Isn't that another VGS site or is it purely the army barracks?

[bspatz]

Is it me or is there something going on that I do not understand. When I was a boy the country was struggling after the war yet we ran a large military a large police force with a policeman on every corner, a large NHS that never seemed to have any of the current problems and a civil service that was admired worldwide. Nowadays the country is richer than it has ever been and nothing seems to be affordable; the treasury cuts, sells and saves at every opportunity and the Air Cadets seems to be caught up in the mindset that savings need to be made at every opportunity.

[Tingger]

Ok so what does this agency need all the 'Airfield' bit for.
There are plenty of useful buildings on the north side that can easily accommodate a glider operation,and plenty of space for 'launching'.
Does anyone ever look how civvy clubs manage on quite 'tiny' sites.
Does anyone at the top of the 'system' have any idea how 'operations' operate in the real world.

Probably for the 4850 homes they are to build on it

[cats_five]

Wrt the NHS, medicine is far far more sophisticated and therefore expensive than 70 years ago. Expectations have increased as well, and we live longer.

[lightbluefootprint]

Ah, but the idea is more cadets = less antisocial behaviour = save money on police/social services. And cadets are better motivated at school, too.

I'm not entirely convinced it's cause and effect ('good' kids join cadet organisations) but there is a logic.

But - one suspects non-flying cadets are cheaper and would still achieve the aim.
Ah TMM, I believe your background and experience is with the CCF which is prevalent in upper education and public schools, so perhaps you haven't seen the whole range of student (dis)engagement.

We had an amazing relationship with our nearest school - we used their facilities and our staff supported their DEA activities very regularly. Some of their staff visited our Sqn during routine activities and were amazed to bump into one of their "problem pupils", standing to attention and to one side to allow them down a corridor. They were really surprised as this was someone they had been in despair of in school.

The impact of open cadet units on the general teenage population should not be underestimated.

[lightbluefootprint]

Ok so what does this agency need all the 'Airfield' bit for.
There are plenty of useful buildings on the north side that can easily accommodate a glider operation,and plenty of space for 'launching'.
Does anyone ever look how civvy clubs manage on quite 'tiny' sites.
Does anyone at the top of the 'system' have any idea how 'operations' operate in the real world.
With respect to tiny sites, the area that 617 used at Manston was considered very small and was out of the way of the main runway, so history suggests it doesn't need to be a logical and thought out decision.
617 VGS left Manston donkeys' years ago and has been homeless since, the section of airfield they used is still there and there is still a military presence with the Fire School maintained - therefore MT and domestic facilities could be there too. In terms of basic resources, there is no obvious reason why they didn't maintain 617 there. If it hadn't been located on Thanet, it would have made a great hub for ACO activities but there again I did my GS there so I'm probably a bit biased.

[lightbluefootprint]

Is it me or is there something going on that I do not understand. When I was a boy the country was struggling after the war yet we ran a large military a large police force with a policeman on every corner, a large NHS that never seemed to have any of the current problems and a civil service that was admired worldwide. Nowadays the country is richer than it has ever been and nothing seems to be affordable; the treasury cuts, sells and saves at every opportunity and the Air Cadets seems to be caught up in the mindset that savings need to be made at every opportunity.
In those days things were a lot cheaper - we certainly weren't paying millions per Lightning let alone for our other cold war inventory assets. The other thing we didn't have was a 20% income tax rate. Most people have been quite happy to receive a tax cut in most budgets over the last decade or so, but few realise that reduced contributions mean less in the pot to pay for public services such as the NHS, the Police and the Forces.

[POBJOY]

Ok 4850 homes = lots of youngsters to feed a 'facility'.
Ideal to have an 'Adventure' facility on part of the site to keep those youngsters active in something that will serve them for future life.
I suspect the Homes and Com agency would be pleased to support that,and remember the Prime Minister was trying to encourage 'school' cadet squadrons.
Is that too much out of the box to consider.
Why is it that so many service establishments and the housing fall into disrepair rather than get recycled into ready made work and live places.
RAF Kenley has a civilian club that operates during the week on a fraction of the whole airfield,which itself is only small compared with many sites.
As for 'Army' (former airfield sites) well they have an Air Corps so what is the problem with a joint venture Cadet corps operating from them,or is it a 'political' impasse with the services,that needs a bit of head knocking.

[BEagle]

As if the suspension of air cadet flying over the last 2 years wasn't bad enough, the local rag is reporting nimbyism from villagers living near Abingdon: "Penetrating" plane noise angers Abingdon residents (From Witney Gazette) (http://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news/14382624._Penetrating__plane_noise_angers_Abingdon_residents/)

There's a fraction of the activity around Abingdon now, compared to the busier times of 25 years ago. UAS and AEF aircraft flew from Abingdon from 1973 until 1992; thereafter only a handful of Vigilants flew there.

Of course one way of enabling more airspace to be available would be to scrap the redundant nonsense of the Harwell prohibited area....

Readers of the paper version of the Witney Gazette have been asked "What do you think? Email [email protected] "

[EnigmAviation]

See my Facebook response :-


":{


"Hands up the noise complainants who bought a house near the airfield BEFORE the airfield was constructed ? OK those people MAY have a cause for complaint; the others I'm afraid failed to do their homework before buying their house , thus NO sympathy"

[bobward]

Apologies for the thread drift here. Last summer the ACO held it's first ever conference for CI's at RAF Cranwell. People from all parts of the UK went and, in general, seemed pleased with the event.

One of the things discussed was the fact that civilians felt they were being pressured to go into uniform when they didn't want it. At the debrief the commandant was quite adamant that that would no longer be the case.To paraphrase, she's rather have a group of happy civvies than a much smaller group on junior pilot officers etc.

The civvies outnumber the uniforms by something like five or ten to one: the unit that won the Lees Trophy (best squadron in the Corps) was run by one officer and a group of CI's. Don't undersell what the civvies contribute to the ACO as it would not/ could not function without them.

The only downside to the conference was that it took HQAC over two months to send out the minutes taken. Since then, I've seen no progress made on any of the items considered priorities, although I suppose with the fracas over the gliders etc, ID cards and ATC issue sweatshirts are a much lower priority.....

[EnigmAviation]

Well said BobWard.


WHOEVER the staff are that give of their time so generously to further the careers and future aspirations of the Cadets, they deserve to be applauded and KEPT on. You are needed, and need to be listened to.:ok:

[DC10RealMan]

Dont tell JM!

[side salad]

I have the greatest of respect for our civilian instructors. We simply could not function without them and I for one have learnt an incredible amount from them. It's time their worth was shown with actions and not words.

[CBSITCB]

I write as a current ATC Squadron OC and paused pilot at a ‘spared’ VGS.

I have just read the information note from OC 2FTS on the “Future Aviation Training Package for ATC and CCF (RAF) Cadets”. In essence it is a structured package taking a cadet through from desk-top/PTT ‘familiarisation’ from age 12 to potentially ‘gold wing’ (AGT) standard. Nothing wrong with that in itself.

My concern (but admittedly it is early days) is that the structure will be too rigidly enforced. Whilst some have criticised the poor 2FTS communication with the VGS staff fraternity, to my knowledge there has been no communication at all with the wider ATC staff – certainly squadron OCs – with regards to gliding or AEF. We have not been involved in any sort of flying TNA.

I have seen future target figures for the number of cadets to be flying trained. This number is a high proportion of total cadets in the Corps. If ATC squadrons had been consulted it may have been discovered that a high proportion of squadron cadets do not want to fly - let alone receive structured aviation training. We can encourage and entice, but we cannot force it upon them.

Let’s assume that historic GIC/AEF cadet ‘throughput’ figures are healthy (whatever that may mean). Based on “every cadet getting one flying opportunity a year” it may seem that a large number of cadets get into the air annually. But the reality is (at least in my wing) that it’s not a large number, it is actually a much smaller number of cadets getting many flights a year.

It pains me to say this, but most cadets are not interested in going flying. I can say that for certain about my own Squadron (~40 on the books, ~30 regularly parading). It is often a struggle to fill an allocation of 4, and on the rare occasion I am allocated 8 it is virtually impossible. Speaking to neighbouring squadrons in the wing I hear the same story.

I grant that my data for other squadrons is purely anecdotal, but I would be interested to hear other views on this topic. Rather than ‘The number of cadet flights per annum’ it would be enlightening to see ‘The number of cadets flying/not flying per annum’. The data is all there in Bader.

A rigidly enforced five-stage structured package as currently proposed would prohibit the current ad-hoc and highly unstructured arrangements. However unpalatable, the current situation does mean that keen cadets get more of what they want, without apparent detriment to other cadets who have other interests.

All IMHO of course.

CBSITCB

[Cat Funt]

With Tern Hill and Wethersfield being sold off, we are now looking at going from 27 sqns in 2012 to perhaps as few as 6 sqns by 2019 if no alternative sites can be found. Remember, though, as Pippa is busy assuring everyone, the squadrons will be bigger and there will be no loss in capability. I supposed when you've never been a QFI it doesn't occur to you how terrifying/impossible a circuit with 8-10 gliders on ab initio training would be.

Well, with the reduction in annual camp places, I suppose this is one way of letting cadets know what life is like in the modern RAF.

It would be nice to think that a grown-up somewhere will now recognise the value of motor gliders and that the proposed plan, as unrealistic as it was, is just absolutely Dagenham (3 stops past Barking) in the light of the closure of these sites. Sure, they're not as good a team-building tool for cadets on a day out, but they're a lot more versatile from a basing point of view and were never used to their full potential as a training tool. I don't hold out any hope for this, though. Unless some large greenfield sites can be miracled from somewhere we will be faced with huge holes in coverage not only in the "peripheries" (as they were fond of calling places like Wales, Scotland, NI and The North) but now the West Midlands/Merseyside/Greater Manchester, and Northern London/Beds/Cambs/East Anglia.

[Fitter2]

I am absolutely in agreement that the present situation is dire, how it was arrived at and how it was handled is deplorable; I look forward to the resumption of ATC Gliding.

However

I supposed when you've never been a QFI it doesn't occur to you how terrifying/impossible a circuit with 8-10 gliders on ab-initio training would be.

It is neither terrifying nor impossible - I started my gliding on Cadet Mk3s a long time ago, and have been gliding ever since in the RAFGSA and BGA, including several years as a CFI.

Where I fly it is highly likely on any good day for there to be 8 + gliders in circuit, including ab-initio training. It teaches a good lookout from the start.

(How many gliders can a concentrated site launch 'simultaneously'? )

Nothing above detracts from a wish to see ATC Gliding resume on as large a scale, and at many sites as possible, as soon as possible.

[POBJOY]

CB I think you have raised a very valid point in that the changes in Squadron set ups are now very different to that when there was an all male 'aviation minded' group as the main base.
The ATC has now become more of the classic 'Youth Club' (in the absence of youth clubs) and reflects far less of the military scenario as opposed to 'public service'.
This is what you would expect with a mixed organisation and only reflects the reality of modern service life.How do you expect to retain Cadets when they are faced with a 4 year program for a solo flight,in an organisation where Cadets stay for much less time nowadays.Nothing; repeat Nothing replaces the ability to attend a conventional Gliding School,because it gives complete involvement for all the Cadets for the whole day doing something unavailable elsewhere to most of them,and this gives it that unique USP.

[RUCAWO]

I would love to see how the PTT bit is going to work, am I going to have to take my cadets on a 400 mile round trip with a sea crossing for a twenty minute go on FS 10 in a cockpit mock-up or will there be one for the Wing with 12 cadet places every two weeks as it is now to cover 17 Sqns plus 3 CCF units ?
For the system as it was I never had a problem filling our Gliding slots , usually every cadet wanting to go when they came up, as the closest Sqn to the VGS I was used to getting a call on a Saturday or Sunday morning to ask for extra cadets if someone couldn't make it and filling the place within ten minutes.

[longer ron]

CB


Even when I was a cadet - there was a proportion of cadets who for a variety of reasons did not want to fly - but we can be sure that the further that the Sqdns and Cadets have to travel to glide/fly will compound any attendance problems and that Sqdns/Cadets in certain parts of the UK will find it virtually impossible to attend.

[Failed_Scopie]

CB, an absolutely fascinating first post; I would like to carry on this discussion via PM if that is okay with you? F_S.

[ExAscoteer]

the changes in Squadron set ups are now very different to that when there was an all male 'aviation minded' group as the main base.

POBJOY please tell me just what gender has to do with it?

[DaveUnwin]

Interesting post CB. I'm a bit baffled as to why anyone would join the Air Cadets (the clue is in the name) and not want to fly but heigh-ho. If I may offer an alternative view - I was helping out as a BI at Buckminster GC yesterday, and flew a young girl who had been a cadet for over two years and had never been in a glider. More by luck than judgement I scraped away from a rather indifferent winch launch, clawed the K-21 up to 2,000ft while she followed through, and then let her fly for the next 50 minutes while I just coached. By the time we topped out at 4,500ft she was enthralled, entranced, engaged and soooooooooooo enthusiastic! It was a great flight and I enjoyed flying with her as much as I hope she enjoyed flying with me. I also hope that she's still telling her friends about it - and I just wish that all the people who have - for whatever reason - done their best to destroy ATC gliding, could've seen her face after we landed, and then reflect on what they have done.

[tmmorris]

Perhaps because the company is better than in the ACF?

[POBJOY]

EX-AS; CB made the point (as someone very involved) that there was less enthusiasm for actual flying in the Cadet Organisation nowadays.

Remember we are talking about 'aviation' here not general youth activities.

I made no comment about gender other than stating the FACT that the ATC used to be an all male organisation based on Military lines and having a level of discipline not to be found in general 'youth clubs'.

Many have posted here (Squadron Adults) that there are fewer Cadets now that see the Air Cadets as an 'Aviation' body and more of a 'youth organisation'.

When you add the reducing age limitation and falling numbers it has to be suggested that the aviation factor is no longer the main draw and in fact is probably a reflection of the general population attitude towards flying (reducing).

My point has always been that the original conventional gliding operations of the Corps were its greatest asset as it gave aviation minded youngsters the ability to get up close with real flying machines and actually be part of the operation. However the Cadets themselves were there for a single purpose
which was to engage with aviation and its surroundings not for a multitude of other activities not on offer.Gliding courses were always full and the centres operated week long courses during the main gliding season.Virtual reality and simulators did not exist but the 'real' experience of handling the aircraft and being a part of the operation plus the flying was what they had joined for.
Cadets joined up for the chance to FLY and the organisation did what it said on the tin.

[Wander00]

Dave - that's a cracker - brilliantly well done - another convert to aviation......

[ExAscoteer]

POBJOY you linked the fact that the ACO is no longer all male with CB's point that there is less enthusiasm for flying.

ERGO you implied that it is the girls joining that have caused this.

In that case, sir, you are a ******* idiot at best and a ******* sexist **** at worst.

There has ALWAYS been a cadre of Cadets who do not wish to fly, whether male OR female.

That goes back years and years, certainly to my time as a CCF Cadet in the very late '70s, certainly to my late father's time as an A2 QFI in the 60's and 70's.

IME the girls tend to be MORE enthusiastic than the boys.


Get out of you dinosaur attitude and get into the 21C.

[taxydual]

With respect ExAscoteer

I don't think POBJOY is referring to female cadets.

Female 'powers that be' maybe his target.

[ExAscoteer]

Taxydual what about those females who are QFI's?

What about those females who are Sqn Staff (inc VGS Staff)?

Frankly I call B/S

[Lima Juliet]

FWIW, I read Pobjoy's posts in the same way - extremely dissapointing reading.

BTW, the Air Scouts are looking for a volunteer to lead their Air Scouts program: UK Specialist Adviser (Air Scouts) | Scouts (http://scouts.org.uk/about-us/volunteering-vacancies/uk-specialist-adviser-air-scouts/)

Pobjoy need not apply as Scouts have also been mixed for a while now (and rightly so!).

LJ

[Capt Scribble]

I have ben flying cadets for more than 16 years and must agree with CB, many of them do not seem particulary enthusiasic about being in the air.

[POBJOY]

Ex-As My post makes no such implication as your ridiculous reply suggests,nor do i have any thoughts in that direction. I merely stated a FACT about how the Corps has changed from being a single 'flying' military based 'pre-entry' organisation into more of a broad based youth club.There is no gender element in this just a FACT.
Please do not tell me what i implied when there is no implication or intention.
My main complaint is about the lack of 'Flying' leadership that has got the organisation into its present mess,and that is most certainly NOT gender slanted.

LJ Is this the same LJ that told us some time back that there was a new sheriff in town and things were going to change.My goodness you were right,but for all the wrong reasons;not to mention the bit about JM and his CAMO sorting things out;well they did; they Killed it. Its all there in POST 42 2nd May 2014. DIb Dib Dib.

I do not need lectures about females in aviation thank you; i trained a CAA approved RFFS team that was 50% female and we passed the CAA LIC CAT tests first time thank you.

[taxydual]

I accept that interpreting posts can go two (or more) ways.

Whatever way I read it, I still believe POBJOY is referring to the hierarchy of the ACO since 2010.

Not the guys and gals on the ground.

Pun intended.


I'm sure POBJOY can answer for him (or her) self.

[taxydual]

POBs and my post crossed. Oops.

[c4aero]

For DaveUnwin,
I agree your point, but with a reservation. Many young people are as keen as mustard to fly; others do need a gentle push to overcome nervousness about flying. Others just want the associated syllabus ground work, and the high tech nature of 'Air'. We should accommodate all degrees of 'aerospace' aptitude and inclination, rather than think that all cadets want to fly. After all, many RAF folk love the service, but are not aircrew. They are still valued members of the Royal AIR Force.
On your gliding story, this would probably not happen too often on a busy Viking unit, and is even less likely on a Vigilant one. I would like to see greater opportunities in future for keen/capable cadets (and for that matter Instructors) to develop soaring skills through enrichment courses. Those who have flown on BGA sites have been able to do so.
I go back to an earlier point, but happy to be corrected by those closer to the front line: The Vigilant has given great service, but we have used it more like a light aircraft than a glider in ACO flying; the additional Tutors will partially replace this. The true gliding experience (winch, helping out on the ground etc) is best achieved on Vikings and similar. I get the locations point, and that not everyone will appreciate staying away from home; and the DIO activity is making relocation even more challenging. But we are where we are, and I continue to take a positive approach: let's get flying again.
Chris C

[CoffmanStarter]

I believe there remain two important issues as yet unanswered on this discussion thread ...

The use of PTT's

Posts 1923, 1976, 1983

Future Tutor AEF Pilots

Posts 1988, 1999

[Chugalug2]

DaveUnwin:-
...and I just wish that all the people who have - for whatever reason - done their best to destroy ATC gliding, could've seen her face after we landed, and then reflect on what they have done.

Your post (#2055) is perhaps the one that most captures the ethos of the ACO, extending back even further than when I was allowed off (3 times!) in sole charge of a T31 at Christchurch in 1957. I remember singing out loud for joy around the circuit (mercifully not so loud that I was heard from the ground!).

Your point about the use of gliders to fire an enthusiasm that is for instance so necessary to facing the challenges and setbacks inherent to becoming professional aircrew (military or civil) is thus well made. All the more reason then to determine who are, "the people who have - for whatever reason - done their best to destroy ATC gliding".

There has been a lot of flak here about those who presently hold senior posts and stand accused of orchestrating the destruction of ACO gliding. Now, I do not speak for them and it certainly seems clear that there has been much evidence of clay covered feet, but the responsibility for this "pause" lies not with them, nor even with the MAA (for whom I definitely do not speak!), but with those Air Officers who set about so successfully to subvert the airworthiness of not only ACO gliders but of every aircraft on the UK Military Register.

As has been said here before, this forum alone has threads relating to Airworthiness Related UK Military Fatal Air Accidents accounting for 63 deaths. It is the desperate measures that have been put in hand by the MAA to prevent that toll climbing ever higher that resulted in the fait accompli which is the theme of this thread.

That the MAA is part of the problem rather than the solution is an ironic twist to this, the most serious threat that has faced the RAF since WWII. That threat however lies outside the bounds of thread drift. My basic point though does not, that this grounding is as a direct result of the malevolent assault on UK military airworthiness in the late 80s/ early 90s. Unless and until that is faced up to (as it was not by the Nimrod Review), that threat will remain.

[RUCAWO]

Just worked out that to get our most westerly cadets in Omagh to gliding at Kirknewton is a 246 mile trip one way with a sea crossing showing at 6hrs 30 mins travel time . So on the first ferry over ,7:30 leaving home 04:30 to get to the port for one hour before sailing, docking at 9:30 ish probably arriving at Kirknewton after 13:00 , possibility of flying that day ? To get the return trip home ,and I have done similar several times on sports trips ,would need leaving Kirknewton at around 15:30 to get the 19:30 ferry back with the cadets arriving home at around 00:30 hrs all ready for school on Monday !
Gliding for NI cadets will not happen .

[The B Word]

It's also not so great for London and South East Reagion (LaSER). There are ~175 Air Trg Sqns (excluding CCF) and now only 614 at Weathersfield (looking dodgy), 615 at Kenley and at a push 637 at Little Rissington. So if you are one of the 9,000 plus London-area based Air Cadets your journey time could range from 5 minutes if you are in 450 (Kenley) ATC Sqn to an eye watering 2-3 hours in a minibus each way to Little Rissington (if the Oxford Ring Road is behaving itself) - and when you get there the cloudbase is <500ft as someone built an airfield on a 730ft hill in the Cotswolds.

Let's say that 30 % of the ~9,000 cadets (2,700) want to go gliding at one of these 3 glidinh sites - then each VGs will need to provide 900 places a year to LaSER - then they have to fulfil the requests to the Southern end of Central & East Region, the Eatsern end of South West Region and the South West end of Wales and West region. Thus you can probably add least another 1,000 cadets to Little Rissington and Weathersfield due to their location. More travelling for all.

These super VGSs are a stupid idea - 'little and often' rather than 'large and dispersed' should be key. Adding in the 7x RAFGSA sites could help with this if the GSA want to grow from within. Also using some key BGA sites would also help. Otherwise, gliding will whither on the vine in my opinion as time goes by. That would be tragic.

The AEF and Herr Grob's finest is not a replacement for giving youngsters the opportunity to fly on their own. As many of us know, going solo is one of the most character building events in one's life and if it can be done with youngsters that can have a life time impact; so much better than AEF and "OK Bloggs, watch this for some sh!t hot flying...".

The B Word

[Lima Juliet]

Pobjoy

Yes, it was me that announced a new Sheriff. He made absolutely the right decision at the time - grounding the fleet for inspection and auditing the VGS's processes was the correct thing to do. However, like the B Word's post above illustrates, the outcome is sub-optimal in my opinion. Just how much of this is the Sheriff's wishes I do not know, but if I were the Sheriff then I would have probably come up with a different solution:

1. As soon as I had a view on the state of the Vigilant fleet, I would have asked to take the money for re-engining the aircraft (believed to be an eye watering £60k per airframe over a 5 year period) and started placing orders for ASK-21s (calling them the extant Vanguard TX1 name). Within the 2 year pause I would have hoped to have at least a dozen or more, with at least another dozen coming off the production line during the Viking recovery. Let's say there were 30x Vanguards in the end - enough for 5x VGS to remain open and some at Syerston for trg and maintenance.

2. Sorted out my new Skylaunch winches ASAP to ensure there were clearnces to use Vikings and Vanguards.

3. Scrapped the Vigilant and told the instructors to start flying conventional gliders at RAFGSA clubs (giving them a small £500 grant to help them do so). When ready, the formal instructor categorisation could occur at Syerston.

4. This latest announcement could have read 17x VGS to remain open instead of 12. All with these low-fidelity simulators for poor weather day trg/experience - not a direct replacement to flying but better than nothing at all. 17 spread accross the could have seen a further 1 in Scotland, 1 in NI and 1 in Wales plus a further 2 in the South East to take up the strain of nearly 1/4 of the Air Cadet numbers.

5. Don't forget, that with these new Vanguards the Cadets could be flying them NOW!!

I'm sure there are other things that could have been done better. I can't help feeling that stopping in Apr 14 was the right thing to do, I just wish that the outcome could have been better!!

LJ

[DaveUnwin]

Thanks for the kind words Chug, but for me Arc nailed it at post #1981 with

"No greater satisfaction than Cadets talking loudly, exchanging experiences and finally the descending silence as they fall asleep in the minibus on the way home from a day out at the Viking VGS!" As the B word says, its the going solo that's the real deal. C4 - I think you're on the same page as most of us, but my point (irrespective of the soaring, which was a very nice bonus) is that that girl has been in the ATC for more than two years, and had never been in a glider. She visits the BGC for two hours, and goes flying. That may say something about the BGC, but it says a great deal more about the ATC.

[Lima Juliet]

Dave, I agree with you.

For c4aero, Sir, I also agree. Not everyone joins the Royal AIR Force to fly. That is why conventional gliding is the activity of choice for all cadets. If you don't want to fly there are so many things Cadets can help with and experience to launch a glider to achieve this. That is why I agree with your point on the Vigilant not being the best for trg, just like Tutor AEF being limited as well. With that case in point, then why are we running Vigilant on for another 3 years when we could be placing orders for ASK-21s? (and no I don't have shares, but it's a great glider, the military clearance has already been done and it's still in production). Taking the money from the re-engine program, the run on of Vigilant and spending monies from Service Charities to pay for gliders (instead of low-fidelity sims that cost 1/3 the price of a new glider) would surely be a better plan?

Best

LJ

[DaveUnwin]

I'd say that was an excellent plan LJ. And I didn't make myself entirely clear with regard to the flying. I fully accept that not everyone who joins the Air Cadets wants to fly.

But you know, it would be nice if they were at least offered the chance.

[Jimmyjerez]

Much is talked about of on Vikkings that cadets do loads all day but exactly what are cadets who visit for a days flying allowed to do? Nothing to do with the winch I suppose. Hat training do they get?

[ACW599]

>The Vigilant has given great service, but we have used it more like a light aircraft than a glider in ACO flying; the additional Tutors will partially replace this<

However it was used, we did at least train cadets to solo standard in it and habitually sent real solos in it. Additional Tutor flying may have a value but it will not replace the Vigilant since by definition, "air experience" flying cannot replace "training".

[Cat Funt]

Much is talked about of on Vikkings that cadets do loads all day but exactly what are cadets who visit for a days flying allowed to do? Nothing to do with the winch I suppose. Hat training do they get?

Wingtip orderly for launches and towing, attaching the cables, pushing and pulling under the supervision of sqn staff and Flight Staff Cadets.

Oh yes, FSCs are disappearing too. The Brain Trust has decided that they're to join ATC SNCO ranks, along with CGIs, once they turn 18. What exactly happens when 16.5yr olds complete AGT remains to be seen because, like so much else, this plan seems to have been written on the back of a cocktail napkin after a couple too many sherbets. Do they get sent away for 18 months for them only to find something else to do? What's supposed to happen to guys and girls, who are usually the amongst best and the brightest, when they are given the either/or choice of continuing gliding to the total exclusion of anything else they might want to accomplish in the Corps?

I was a FSC once upon a time. I was flying other cadets when I was 18. A couple of my squadron-mates were doing it at 17 and all of us were treated like, and (in and around the aeroplane at least) acted like, grown-ups. We received exactly the same training and flew to the same standard as CGIs, ATC WOs and commissioned officers. The same year I qualified I also got a flying scholarship and I went on the International Air Cadet Exchange. That was a quarter or a century ago and at least one of my mates was cutting about in the front seat of a Phantom- he was only about a year older than me.

These days, the Cadets have far more serious courses for serious people, such as Basic Expedition Leader and the Junior Leaders Course, from which they can gain formal and recognised qualifications and RCO courses where you have to be 18 to qualify. If the RAF is serious about using the ACO as an incubator for its future officers and aircrew, then establishing arbitrary barriers is very much a retrograde step.

[Cat Funt]

Ref Leon's plan for the K21s...

For the umpteenth time. (Please excuse the all-caps, but it's central to the disposition and siting of VGSs before The Cull.)

WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO PUT ALL THESE CONVENTIONAL GLIDERS?

The Vigilants were used by a majority of sqns because there was- and is- a chronic shortage of suitable airfields for conventional gliders. Tern Hill and Little Rissington are the only Vigilant bases where conventional gliding was practical. The ACO has had to sink millions (which could have been used to help fix or buy aicraft) into making the latter a viable site for Vikings- most of which will likely be flushed down the toilet when DIO number crunchers finally realise just how much they can get for a giant brownfield site in the Cotswolds.

Yes, we operated the Viligant like a light aircraft, but our reason for being was to train cadets to fly them properly, rather than let some joy-riding old boy or bored truckie chuck them upside down for half an hour. AEG, and latterly GIC, was simply a side function of building up a sustainable cadre of new instructors.

[POBJOY]

Cat F Like you I despair at the scant regard given to the Staff Cadet input.
This system was the backbone of the Gliding organisation as demonstrated by the numbers that went on to become senior (very experienced) instructors.
They knew all the jobs required and kept the standards of recruiting and training new staff cadets to a high level. At any school worth its salt the S-cadets would have the equipment checked and out on-line before the main staff arrived and it was a matter of honour to always see that cables got back down to the launch point without delay. The fact that this was done without reams of check lists and clip boards suggests the system was both capable and fit for purpose. One could even suggest that the ATC would not be in such a mess now if we had former staff cadets 'up top'.
As regards the 'planning' that has gone into deciding the future requirements why would you think there has been any !!!,I mean it looks like they are going to build a small factory just to 'recover' unbroken gliders (its like a Whitehall farce) Can you imagine the Cranwell big brief meeting with the equivalent of Brian Rix coming on stage to announce an estimate for the end of the 'Big Pause' followed by a big cheer before his trousers fell down. The fact that they do not realise what they have 'lost' says it all.

[Lima Juliet]

Cat

Ok, I'll answer your question; we could used conventional gliders at the following closed down VGS:

RAF Honington - plenty of real estate there and nearby good 'ole Uncle Sam doesn't fly that much at weekends.

Dalton Barracks (former RAF Abingdon) - plenty of grass as well as 2 runways at ~90 degrees to each other

RAF Halton - plenty of room and the GSA winch launch to well above 1,000ft on most weekends.

RAF Henlow - plenty of room from 3 grass runways.

RAF Odiham - the RAFGSA's Kestrel Gliding Club manages quite nicely at this site.

RMB Chivenor - no other users now that SAR has gone, plenty of room.

RAF Cosford - the RAFGSA's Wrekin Gliding Club manages quite nicely at this site, although it does have a UAS/AEF operating at the same time.

MOD St Athan - plenty of room if using the grass and leaving the tarmac for UAS/AEF.

RAF Topcliffe - plenty of real estate for gliding.

Swansea Airport - the first one where this might not be possible.

RAF Linton-on-Ouse - plenty of room on the grass.

RMB Arbroath - they have been comventionally gliding there for years!!!

Kinloss Barracks (former RAF Kinloss) - there is even a main runway and a parallel taxyway runway to choose from and plenty of grass.

Newtownards - the second one that would be an issue.

So Cat, I note that conventional gliding would only not be possible at Swansea and Newtonards. For Wales I would suggest setting up K21 VGS at Llewen Parc, Talgarth or Rhigos Gliding Sites. For Northern Ireland then Bellarina is about the only choice, or seeing if there is a GA airfield happy to have gliding.

Make sense?

LJ

[RUCAWO]

Leon, Bellarina is only suitable for aerotow and the only other GA airfield in NI is Enniskillen and that is not suitable for winch gliding as it is as busy as Newtownards.

[Arclite01]

Why did Condor close ?? And Kirknewton stay open ??

Arc

[Flugplatz]

I am hoping that the future set-up envisaged by 2 FTS does at least have some flexibility, i.e it is a starting point and could evolve if problems come to the surface with cadets and VGS staff travel time and availability. If they treat it like that then it may have some viability otherwise a cynic might suggest that they have just thrown the 'ball back into our court' and eventually blame VGS staff for failing to support the new arrangements. If they are so inflexible and demanding, then I could see that happen and provide an excuse for further cuts. You would call this constructive dismissal in civvy street I guess.

I do have some misgivings about the CGI / Staff Cadet move into a much more formal structure. I would not be surprised to see 'contracts' being signed (including the official secrets act), a minimum and inflexible amount of attendance being demanded and little choice about duties (e.g. whole weekends of PTT and cadet supervision plus a committment to local ATC squadrons). All very good but probably a bit too much like actually joining up and not able to cater for people's real lives. We all have people in our own VGS who may not be able to attend for a couple of months but then play a blinder during the full time summer courses etc. In fact in our squadron we are fairly loose with attendence (once past probation) and most people have their own little 'deal' which actually makes the system work and which caters to their circumstances, abilities and stage in life.

I also have some misgivings about the AEF on the staffing front. If they can't attract enough pilots already, how are they going to man an extra two squadrons? Vigilant pilots will no doubt do a good job but are they going to be enough? I think the RAF will have to have a think about what the minimum pilot requirements really are as the RAF is now so small. I understand ex-service pilots are paid around £40K (correct me if I'm wrong, although FOs at airlines can get less than that) to fly at AEFs but still the RAF are short. Seems strange for such a fun job!!

If they are going to make more use of volunteers I would imagine they would have their pick of applicants from civvy street; we are only talking about day VFR single-engine piston aircraft. It seems like only the RAF can have a recruiting problem like that!

Has the possibility of using University Air Squadron graduates been considered? After all they have been selected, taught from the ground up to fly the same aircraft (aerobatics, formation?) in the way the RAF wants it done and presumably would have the same kind of volunteer weekend availability as they expect from an ex-Vigilant instructor.

Just hoping for a bit of imagination and flexibility in getting the best out of the new structure!

Flug

[Lima Juliet]

Flug

The Flt Lt OC AEF is one of the only paid - that's about £40k/yr plus flying pay. The rest are Reserves, some VR(T), that are paid the normal rate for when they turn up. The Regular Officers just get Home to Duty who fly AEF.

I believe that the UAS student is now a shadow of their former selves regarding flying skills - many are barely solo.

I too fear that the requirements to fly a SE aircraft for the AEF will be too hard. They make it hard enough already by insisting on a fire category consistent for a small passenger carrying aircraft and full visual/radar air traffic control - both completely uneccesary for operating a small light aircraft!!!

LJ

[WE992]

LJ - Talgarth would be a non starter unless you are going to aerotow. Further more it is a difficult site to fly from and I can't imagine the ATC doing many first solos there. I don't think Rhigos is particularly clever either.


Kinloss used to be the home of Fulmar GC RAFGSA which re-located to Easterton.

[DaveUnwin]

WE992 is right LJ. I was the Tug Master and manager at Talgarth for several years - its quite a demanding site, and also far too short for a winch.
Not sure how much gliding is happening at Rhigos right now either.
You're right about the AEF requirement for full Fire and Radar etc etc though - completely OTT, IMHO.

[BossEyed]

Letter in the Telegraph today (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/12204400/Letters-The-In-campaign-overlooks-growing-frustration-with-EU-bureaucracy.html):

Air cadets will still get a seat in the cockpit
SIR – Ben Farmer’s coverage of the future of air cadet gliding (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12198890/Air-cadet-cuts-will-see-more-than-half-of-squadrons-axed.html) in Britain captures the dismay of many gliding instructors, for whom years of dedicated service will come to an end.

However, it is wrong to imply that the current grounding of the glider fleet was motivated by cost savings.This change has come about with the stiffening of flight safety regulations following the Nimrod accident review by Charles Haddon-Cave QC, and the subsequent discovery of significant shortcomings in engineering governance in the glider fleet.

After months of deliberations, final decisions were taken by the senior executive of the RAF, taking into account affordability, the needs of the cadets and volunteers, and a vision of the future. There has been criticism of how the decisions were announced. However, government rules prohibit any advanced notice of sensitive decisions until ministers have made formal announcements. There have been extensive consultations between senior officers and the volunteer gliding community.

While there will be fewer gliding locations, this will be largely offset by increasing powered flying opportunities, and by deploying more fully refurbished Viking conventional gliders at additional sites. New high-speed winches are being procured to increase launch rates; the training packages will be better, and the remaining gliding centres will boast vastly improved infrastructure, including bespoke accommodation.

Sir Christopher Coville
Air Marshal (Retired)
Hon President, No 2 (Gliding) Flying Training School
Sherborne, Dorset

[longer ron]

Definition of a condradiction ?
1st paragraph

However, it is wrong to imply that the current grounding of the glider fleet was motivated by cost savings.


2nd paragraph

After months of deliberations, final decisions were taken by the senior executive of the RAF, taking into account affordability

As I have said before - they had a few choices - two of which were either...


Spend gazillions,not fly for 4 years and end up with 20 odd year old gliders or...


Spend gazillions,not fly for 4 years and end up with new gliders.


K21's would have got my vote.
And to the people who posted that they would have had to order the new fleet at the same time as the Grobs - well they still have not ordered any new gliders as far as I know !

[Lima Juliet]

Ok, how about Usk for gliding? Or maybe Llanbedr, Aberporth, Mona or Valley? Sounds like a bit of a drama in NI though! However, let's face it, to start a gliding strip froms scratch you only need ~20-30 acres of flat and well-drained land. Surely there must be somewhere suitable???

Anyway, it's all academic as the decision has been made and even if gliders were ordered now they wouldn't be here in numbers until 2018. If only we had something to celebrate on that date for the roll out of an expansion of Air Cadet gliding again...:}

LJ

[CBSITCB]

CB, an absolutely fascinating first post; I would like to carry on this discussion via PM if that is okay with you? F_S.

F_S - I have the pleasure of spending Easter at one of the RAF’s more remote stations with limited internet and zero mobile data. In any case I am rather busy ‘commanding’ things at the moment. (This is my first chance to logon since my previous post.)

I signed-up just to make my point, because I feel strongly that it needs to be taken into account. How much of it is fact and how much anecdotal can easily be verified by those with access to the data.

I agree – and have experienced – how some lukewarm cadets can be stimulated and inspired by their first flight. But others will be put-off by the prospect of having to ‘sign-up’ to a long and highly structured course of training.

Perhaps it’s a bit like the QAIC. Many cadets would like to participate in most of the constituent parts in bite-sized chunks (I would!) but most are put off by the sheer ‘size’ of the whole package.

There will, in my view, always be a place for just a cheap and cheerful plain old GIC to catch the fancy of those cadets who are not already aviation-minded. Many will then become hooked and eager to get on the full-blown package.

CB

[Flugplatz]

Thanks for the update LJ! Sounds like an adjustment of the regs at the lower end may be needed.

I well remember the Vikings all being grounded along with the Vigis during the ash-cloud debacle and wondering how on earth the RAF could justify that on 'risk' grounds?? Still, it's their train set and I hope they care enough about cadet gliding to make some practical allowances for the reality of the new structure.

Flug

[[email protected]]

And how relevant is gliding to flying in the RAF??? Why the preciousness about needing long skinny wings? Just use a normal powered FW (God knows there are enough available) and get on with it. Maybe just bring back the Chipmunk:)

[XA290]

And how relevant is gliding to flying in the RAF??? Why the preciousness about needing long skinny wings?

I'm guessing you never worked your way up through the ACO gliding world. However, the "long skinny wings" as you put it, comes from cost effectiveness. As I'm sure you are aware, the vast majority of the winch launched gliders are (until it all got screwd up) very low cost aircraft. But why do I think you know that.

XA

[RUCAWO]

Sounds like a bit of a drama in NI though! However, let's face it, to start a gliding strip froms scratch you only need ~20-30 acres of flat and well-drained land. Surely there must be somewhere suitable???


Old airfields etc ,Ballywalter, surrounded by trees and a quagmire, Ballyhalbert caravan park and building site, Bishopscourt republican area would need armed security, Toome would need even more security, Ballykelly industrial development, Limavady same, there is a small airstrip at Carrickmore the locals tried to kill me there a few times ;) Fermanagh you would need seaplanes for half the year, Armagh nowhere, Antrim plateau nowhere, Kirkistown racing track, Greencastle caravan park, Nutts Corner, market, race track and chicken farm. Langford Lodge Martin Baker , industrial and farming, Maydown, industrial and police, Cluntoe do you have a spare rockape Sqn? Magaberry prison, Maze IRA skinny fecker of the year shrine plus showgrounds.

The answer is nowhere for winch launch.

[Cat Funt]

Sorry, LJ, but you seen to be about as well informed about Air Cadet gliding as the rest of the RAF, including the 2FTS brain trust.

If you go back and peruse the 2012 report, you'll see that just about every Vigilant base was ruled as unsuitable for conventional winch-launched ops. Some airfields are too small to winch launch, others (like St Athan) have had stuff built on them and/or have airspace restrictions, or would pose a hazard to other activities. Station commanders also get quite upset when cables and drogue chutes start ripping airfield fixtures out of the ground. (This has included a radar on at least one occasion.) Similarly, it can get scary to see falling cables and strops hitting powered aircraft or, God forbid, helicopters. Convention Air Cadet gliding sites, using winches, require a good sized patch of flat land, in good condition, free from obstructions, with little to no concurrent activity. Not much of that about these days. Vigilants, on the other hand. can fit in quite easily with other activity on the airfield.

With the exception of a slack handful sqns from 2 Welsh Wing, nobody is within 90mins of Llanbedr, Mona and Valley. The wing's centre of gravity is along the border. Are you really going to ask volunteer instructors (presumably from South Wales or Merseyside) to drive 4-5hrs to get there and fly? It's not the RAF, where you can just post people. These are people living in the real world.

As for Aberporth, 636 was there for about 5 years, before being chucked out when the runway was extended and it became West Wales Airport and a hub for UAV development, which means that it's normally NOTAMed as a no-go area.

[Cat Funt]

Letter in the Telegraph today (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/12204400/Letters-The-In-campaign-overlooks-growing-frustration-with-EU-bureaucracy.html):

I know Sir Christopher posts here so I'll choose my words carefully. Anyone who says this is either lying, is delusional, or fundamentally doesn't understand what's going on.

This was done primarily due to cost. Middleton was sat no more than 4ft away from me when told us as such. He said that the plan up until late summer of last year was to recover the Vigilants, but eventually SERCO said the job was beyond them. The RAF went out and got quotes from, IIRC, four other firms whose prices were far outside what the RAF was willing to pay.

The needs of volunteers and cadets were considered? Interesting, because I don't recall any consultation. I don't recall even being told anything meaningful via official channels about the extent of the problem, the difficulties they were having from an engineering point of view,the proposals that were being looked at or even what 2FTS were trying to accomplish or what their vision of the future was- and I don't know of anyone in our Region holding the rank of Wg Cdr or below who was. As for the future plan- I think that was decided before all this even blew up. MAA regs are a convenient smokescreen.

All we got for two years was the odd missive via email from Middleton which was invariably devoid of substance, other than asking for our trust and giving thinly veiled threats against posting on social media. The people you are defending kept us in the dark and fed us bull**** for two years, Sir Chistopher. THAT is what we are really upset about, not that the final outcome was announced by Parliament.

The people you're defending have killed the one thing that made the ACO stand out from all its rivals and competitors. They've come up with an abortion of a plan that has no short-term benefits, will massively under-deliver in the medium term and which will be utterly unsustainable in the long term. I say this as someone being asked to stay on and help implement it. Well, excuse me if I don't hold their hand as they jump off a cliff. I suggest that they instead offer up a prayer to St Jude.

[cats_five]

Why did Condor close ?? And Kirknewton stay open ??

Hopefully this is an ironic question, but the answer will be demography. Condor is near Arbroath, Kirknewton is on the west edge of Edinburgh so far easier for the majority of the population to reach.

Spend gazillions,not fly for 4 years and end up with new gliders.

There is no glider maker in the world that could supply sufficient (over 60) 2-seat gliders in that timeframe, even if negotiations had started years before and their entire production went to the Cadets.

[campbeex]

I guess the powers-at-be also had to justify spending a significant amount of money on Kirknewton to improve the airfield surface, drainage etc. Although Arbroath is a larger, flatter and drier airfield on an established military base complete with the facilities that go with that (security, messing etc).

So, in terms of a site, Arbroath is preferable, but on paper Kirknewton is probably a better location for the masses. Not that this is much consolation for those in the north of Scotland.

[incubus]

Hopefully this is an ironic question, but the answer will be demography. Condor is near Arbroath, Kirknewton is on the west edge of Edinburgh so far easier for the majority of the population to reach.

Don't forget that thousands has been spent over the last few years on getting the Kirknewton site up to a standard where it can actually be used for flying operations. I think they sorted the airfield out just around the time that all gliding ceased!

Also, is RM Condor's future secure? There has been chatter about moving 45 Commando to Faslane but I'm not sure if that is still on the table.

[campbeex]

Condor's future is probably as secure as any other MoD site. About as a secure as a chunk of real estate on the outskirts of Edinburgh would be you might say. ;)

[CBSITCB]

Letter in the Telegraph today (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/12204400/Letters-The-In-campaign-overlooks-growing-frustration-with-EU-bureaucracy.html):

"... taking into account affordability, the needs of the cadets ...".

As part of the ATC front line I am very aware of, and responsive to, the needs of the cadets. How did the ACO determine the needs of the cadets w.r.t. to gliding (as distinct from the - quite legitimate - needs of the RAF/ACO/2FTS)?

CB

[Engines]

Like many of those who have posted, I spent a very happy period of my youth in the ATC, and first got airborne in Chipmunks, then got the chance to go gliding at Manston. The ATC was instrumental in keeping my ambition to go and work in aviation alive, even if I did end up as an air engineering officer in the RN.

So, here's my two pennorth worth.

Like many, (and reluctantly) I can't take Sir Christopher's statements at face value. To be plain, this looks to me like a classic snow job. Reasons why I think this:

1. I can't honestly see why this issue would merit a Ministerial statement. Reorganisation of ACO gliding bases and fleet should have been announced at Department level. But if an organisation is trying to avoid embarrassment, a Ministerial statement handily stifles debate, shifts blame from those in the organisation responsible for the problem, and is a perfect platform for VSOs to issue statements along the lines of ' this is where we are now, stop whingeing and get with the programme, the Minister has spoken'. A bit like what's happened here.

2. Matters of fact, or the lack thereof. Firstly, this problem arose in 2014, five years after the Haddon Cave report. Did it really take the RAF five years to recognise there was a problem? Did they really leave Air Cadets at risk for five years? Secondly, the Regulations have not been 'stiffened'. When you get down to the business of keeping aircraft in an airworthy condition, the MAA has not actually changed anything that happens in the hangar. And thirdly, what were the 'engineering governance' problems? That's a weasel phrase if ever I heard one. What were the actual problems? Where's the MAA report? Who failed and what is happening to them?

Why the cover up? In my view (and that is all it is), it's this.

The Royal Air Force has allowed a fleet of the simplest possible aircraft to degenerate into a non-airworthy condition. The RAF, for crying out loud. if they can't keep these aircraft up to spec, what the heck is happening to the rest of their aircraft? I'm not at all surprised that they would rather not answer that one. (Please note that I've regularly posted my admiration for the RAF's technical and professional standards - I'm as mystified as anyone else at this)

This has cost money. A lot of money. That's bad enough. But it's also probable that the situation took a number of years before 2014 to develop, so Air Cadets were put at risk. That's not a small issue.

I sincerely hope that a couple of Parliamentary Committees get their teeth stuck into this. I'd like to see a few more facts out there.

Best regards as ever to those picking up the pieces at the sharp end

Engines

[Lima Juliet]

Cat Funt

I sincerely disagree that NONE of the sites I mentioned are suitable for winch launching (and I have visited over 50% of these in the last 12 months):

RAF Honington - there is nothing to stop a safe winch launched operation there. The airfield is infrequently used and most of the airfield furniture was either removed or is no longer required.

Dalton Barracks (former RAF Abingdon) - the Army are quite precious about the grass that they use for running around on. However, there is no reason not to use at the weekends. Indeed the Army have embryonic plans to use it for parachuting.

RAF Halton - an extant winch launching site up to 2,000ft AGL.

RAF Henlow - plenty of room from 3 grass runways. There is no reason not to winch off of it.

RAF Odiham - the RAFGSA's Kestrel Gliding Club manages to winch launch quite nicely at this site. The gliding site notifies winch launches to 2,600ft AGL.

RMB Chivenor - no other users now that SAR has gone, plenty of room. There is no requirement for any of the airfield furniture to remain.

RAF Cosford - the RAFGSA's Wrekin Gliding Club manages quite nicely at this site, although it does have a UAS/AEF operating at the same time but Rekin are able to operate concurrently (although seperated). The winch launch site is notified to 3,000ft AGL.

MOD St Athan - plenty of room if using the grass and leaving the tarmac for UAS/AEF. This might be the first 'show stopper' due to the airfield furniture, but if they manage at Odiham and Cosford then why not here?

RAF Topcliffe - plenty of real estate for gliding. No requirement for any airfield furniture.

RAF Linton-on-Ouse - plenty of room on the grass, so same argument as St Athan.

RMB Arbroath - they have been comventionally gliding there for years!!!

Kinloss Barracks (former RAF Kinloss) - there is even a main runway and a parallel taxyway runway to choose from and plenty of grass. The RAFGSA used to winch launch there as the Fulmar Gliding Club.

We could start gliding ops on any of these in days few. Certainly the 5 extra VGS IF we had placed orders for K-21s in late 2014 when the situation was known how much work the Viggis needed. I suspect that the 2012 report had its own agenda and reported sites as unsuitable - non-independent internal reviews do that often. I do have some glider time (more solo than dual - all in K-21s) and so I hope I do know about 'gliding more than the rest of the RAF' (if we want to be that sweeping). :ok:

LJ

[Jimmyjerez]

A mate on FB who was up there for some
Techy training on Vikiing recently said they have failed some big engineering audit in massive fashion only just recently and MAA put them on special measures or something? Big letters issued to bosses. Apparently it means that no schools away from the big base can start up? Don't know if the president chap been told this as he seems a good sort

[Freda Checks]

Like many here on this Forum I am frustrated with the whitewash that is currently being spread about the basic reasons for this cluster f*ck.

Why were simple aeroplanes (mostly without an engine) grounded (and have remained grounded) for two years?

Missing paperwork (as an excuse) does not cut it with me as we all know how important paperwork can be. But the use of unauthorised spare parts gives me cause for concern. But surely not enough concern to keep them grounded (and volunteer staff unable to fly) for two years.

The actual reasons are being hidden with weasel words (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word) coming from people who should know what they are doing.

The boys and girls of the ACO have been seriously let down - the volunteers have been well and truly let down. I feel for you chaps (and lady chaps - so as not to cause confusion with some readers).

I would not trust anything that is coming down from the existing management at the moment, they have miscommunicated from day one.

There needs to be a new broom, both head and handle (not Trigger's broom which lasted 20 years. But he did get a medal!)

watch?v=BUl6PooveJE

[cats_five]

So, in terms of a site, Arbroath is preferable, but on paper Kirknewton is probably a better location for the masses. Not that this is much consolation for those in the north of Scotland.

Inverness to Arbroath is only a couple of miles less than Inverness to Kirknewton. And it's not just on paper that Kirknewton is better for the masses. Central Edinburgh to Kirknewton - 11 miles. To Arbroath - 78 miles plus having to cross the Forth. The figures for Glasgow are 38 and 97 miles. It's also about twice as far to Abroath from Stirling, and only a few miles less from Perth. Also Perth to Kirknewton involves crossing the Forth. I found a cartogram which gives a good indication of where the population is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland#/media/File:Scotland_population_cartogram.png

The people who lose travel wise are those in east Scotland, north of the Forth.

Missing paperwork does not cut it with me, however the use of unauthorised spare parts gives me cause for concern.

I have heard there are some undocumented repairs as well. And whilst missing paperwork may not cut it with you, I know what sort of pickle I would be in if the paperwork for my glider was found to be missing. It would be grounded until it had had a very through inspection and the paperwork reinstated from that point in time, which is exactly what is happening to the Vikings and (I presume) the other aircraft.

Yes, the paperwork is a pain, and as an owner it's my responsibility along with the insurance & radio licence. It's also up to me to check through after it's had an annual, or if it has to go for repair, to make sure I'm happy it reflects what has been done, or in the case of repairs what I have paid for.

[planesandthings]

Cat Funt

I sincerely disagree that NONE of the sites I mentioned are suitable for winch launching (and I have visited over 50% of these in the last 12 months):

RAF Honington - there is nothing to stop a safe winch launched operation there. The airfield is infrequently used and most of the airfield furniture was either removed or is no longer required.

Dalton Barracks (former RAF Abingdon) - the Army are quite precious about the grass that they use for running around on. However, there is no reason not to use at the weekends. Indeed the Army have embryonic plans to use it for parachuting.

RAF Halton - an extant winch launching site up to 2,000ft AGL.

RAF Henlow - plenty of room from 3 grass runways. There is no reason not to winch off of it.

RAF Odiham - the RAFGSA's Kestrel Gliding Club manages to winch launch quite nicely at this site. The gliding site notifies winch launches to 2,600ft AGL.

RMB Chivenor - no other users now that SAR has gone, plenty of room. There is no requirement for any of the airfield furniture to remain.

RAF Cosford - the RAFGSA's Wrekin Gliding Club manages quite nicely at this site, although it does have a UAS/AEF operating at the same time but Rekin are able to operate concurrently (although seperated). The winch launch site is notified to 3,000ft AGL.

MOD St Athan - plenty of room if using the grass and leaving the tarmac for UAS/AEF. This might be the first 'show stopper' due to the airfield furniture, but if they manage at Odiham and Cosford then why not here?

RAF Topcliffe - plenty of real estate for gliding. No requirement for any airfield furniture.

RAF Linton-on-Ouse - plenty of room on the grass, so same argument as St Athan.

RMB Arbroath - they have been comventionally gliding there for years!!!

Kinloss Barracks (former RAF Kinloss) - there is even a main runway and a parallel taxyway runway to choose from and plenty of grass. The RAFGSA used to winch launch there as the Fulmar Gliding Club.

We could start gliding ops on any of these in days few. Certainly the 5 extra VGS IF we had placed orders for K-21s in late 2014 when the situation was known how much work the Viggis needed. I suspect that the 2012 report had its own agenda and reported sites as unsuitable - non-independent internal reviews do that often. I do have some glider time (more solo than dual - all in K-21s) and so I hope I do know about 'gliding more than the rest of the RAF' (if we want to be that sweeping). :ok:

LJ
Leon, perhaps you do know a bit more about gliding than most of the RAF at the moment, but you are certainly flawed in many of your ideas. Take it from myself as a BGA FI that many of these sites are unsuitable.
Honington I don’t know much about and you have valid points about Abingdon, however being army owned I don’t know what state the ground is in, some airfields like RAF Keevil where RAFGSA Bannerdown operate out of cannot use the grass because of the damage caused by military use to the land.
Halton + Odiham + Cosford are GSA sites, from my experience they’re not big fans of ACO operations as first solos can be quite disruptive and communication poor. There’s also the problem as mentioned in quite a few places that mutual operations are now subject to flight test trials by the MAA which cannot occur until VGSs stand up. Plus Cosford can only operate on alternate weekend because of traffic, Odiham does have quite a bit of airfield furniture which heavily restricts the landing area available compared to what you see and Halton isn’t the biggest place for ACO Conventional operations. Remember that the GSA abide by BGA regulations and people who fly there have to get used to the confinements of their sites unlike the VGSs which can land wherever they want in the DLA.
RAF Henlow do have an active flying club which you haven’t taken into account.
MOD St Athan had it’s conventional gliders removed some years ago when the big buildings were built. Odiham and Cosford do not have these problems as there is more space and also Odiham and Cosford do not share themselves regularly with large aircraft. It’s quite easy to see
Chivenor + Topcliffe, Kinloss, who knows what the grass state is like and also where it’d be safe to set up as unless you have actually visited the site you cannot tell what and what isn’t a hazard. Please do remember that though it may be perfectly safe to launch gliders in narrow places, as soon as the cable breaks you have absolutely no control over where the debris lands, I have known Buildings, cars, aircraft and people to get damaged/seriously hurt by winch launching going wrong when the cable breaks.
Linton on Ouse? Wouldn’t work particularly well if any weekday operations were required and also just a look at google maps shows enough airfield furniture to cause a headache. Remember that Air Cadet Gliding operates to very stringent safety standards quite rightly as cadets are being sent solo with not loads of experience, need the safest sites possible.
Arbroath is a great shame and I really don’t understand why that has been wiped off.
K21 mass production is a non starter. Many BGA clubs are ordering some at the moment, my club has had two deliveries in a year and a half because of production for the Australian Air Cadets who aren’t ordering anywhere near as many as you suggest for the ACO. The whole reason the Vanguard T1 was dropped was because Schleicher did not want to open a production line for the Air Cadets, I’d be surprised if that viewpoint has changed, if you visit the Schleicher factory you’ll see it’s a hive of activity producing K21s as well as top competition sailplanes which are in demand and are very valuable to the business of a sailplane manufacturer.
Finally your earlier post about Welsh Gliding sites unfortunately demonstrated your lack of experience in Gliding I’m afraid, I have flown from Lleweni Parc, minimum standards to fly there is Silver C and 100 hours in gliding, hardly suitable for most people below B cat really, it is a soaring site, there is not a gliding club there and the grass is unlandable now, only the runway, huge clutching hand effects on final approach. Talgarth and Rhigos have already been discussed by others here, look at Google Maps for some clear indications of where and where not to set up gliding sites.

[CoffmanStarter]

The Royal Air Force has allowed a fleet of the simplest possible aircraft to degenerate into a non-airworthy condition. The RAF, for crying out loud. if they can't keep these aircraft up to spec, what the heck is happening to the rest of their aircraft? I'm not at all surprised that they would rather not answer that one. (Please note that I've regularly posted my admiration for the RAF's technical and professional standards - I'm as mystified as anyone else at this)

Engines ... I think it's more to do with the MOD, and RAF in this instance, not being fully equipped to 'manage' outsourced contracts. I have former experience in managing multiple High Value outsourced contracts as a COO. So often is the case that many CEO's (read Mil VSO's in this instance) believe everything is 'solved' as soon as the ink is dry on the contract and payments flow.

The reality is that this is just the beginning ... Assuming (big assumption there) such contracts are constructed in the first instance with specialist outsourcing knowledge ... Unless you have a robust Supplier Risk & Supplier Performance Framework in place things will deteriorate rapidly. Not only do you devise robust reporting metrics but you actively (unannounced) test those metrics provided by the supplier and test/inspect 'on the ground' to be sure you are getting what you have paid for.

This all requires effort, skilled resources and COO's and CEO's who have the commercial experience to manage such arrangements ... Such skills are rarely found in SO's and VSO's who have worn a uniform for most of their career. Neither would I trust a Government Dept to 'manage' my Suppliers ... Because if they were any good they'd be in the commercial world on x3 salary.

But just my humble opinion ...

Coff.

[Engines]

Coff,

Thanks for coming back. Again just my opinion here, informed by my own experience as a Fleet Manager for various types.

The fact that a maintenance activity is outsourced does not absolve what used to be called the Fleet Managers (uniformed engineers) of their basic responsibilities. These days these fall to what I understand is called the CAMO.

Nor does contractorisation or outsourcing absolve the operators (now the duty holders) of their responsibilities. The RAF was happy to advertise how bringing the ACO aircraft into the fold was going to improve things - now they have to carry the can because demonstrably it didn't.

And I come back to the key issue - the simplicity of these aircraft. This cannot have been a complex contract to set up and manage. Where in the name of all that is holy were the regular quality checks on work carried out? Where were the inspections of the engineering records? Where were the aircraft inspections on entry to the contract servicing system? And the inspections on exit?

I certainly agree that the MOD and the RAF aren't properly equipped to manage complex contracts (see the MAA's annual report on lack of 'SQEP' personnel) (incidentally, a contender there for the worst ever abbreviation). Tecumseh and others have been pointing this out some time. But I contend that even if the contract wasn't well set up, normal (and I do mean normal) service engineering practice would have caught the problems well before they led to a grounding.

Why didn't this happen? That, for me, is the question the RAF ought to be asking itself. I also believe that the MAA should be investigating, and publishing their reports. Transparently. Openly. No corners.

Best regards as ever to those who actually walk the walk,

Engines

[POBJOY]

Well here we are folks are on the anniversary of the biggest Aviation cock up (Air Cadets wise) in its entire history.
Another Easter has been frittered away with no gliding courses and nothing on the horizon to suggest a swift end to this debacle.

Why the excessive timescale for action ! Because the people that got us into this mess are still there, and by definition are as clueless to deliver a solution as they were getting us into the situation to start with.

Let us be clear about this;the fleet was not falling apart or having serviceability
problems,the machines were been flown by experienced staff that had the best experience of anyone as to their state,and had not had reason to question any safety issues. The aircraft did not feel unwell or had asked to see the doctors because they were actually in fine fettle by any standards.

However there was this 'glitch' in the paper trail that needed attention,and the way it has been handled shows us how the lack of tech competence in the system allowed an escalation of the situation to a full blown disaster (for that is what it is). What was needed was a swift consultation with the 'operators'(schools) followed by some expertise parachuted in to deliver a rapid return to flying. What we got was more of the same sorry examples of incompetence and poor leadership that has been the hallmark of the situation since day one. No changes meant no improvement and we have all been appalled at how the RAF/MOD seem to have got themselves into such a state with such a simple operation.

The spanners have been replaced with facebook and twitter which are no substitute for practical experience and capable staff,they have killed off a fine facility that delivered the goods and have the audacity to suggest it will be a better service 'in the long term'. The lunatics are still firmly in control and they still do not have a clue.

[CoffmanStarter]

Engines ...

I think we are jointly 'banging the same nail firmly on the head' :ok:

Best ...

Coff.

[Engines]

Pobjoy,

A long long time ago in an engineering universe far away, I was trained to understand that in aircraft maintenance, the work and the paperwork were indivisible. I am certain that my RAF counterparts were trained in exactly the same way.

Part of the problem here is that no details of the material or documentation 'problems' have been made public. These aren't front line aircraft and details of their condition does not affect national security. So let's see the details. After all, the taxpayers will be the ones footing the bill.

By any normal metric, taking two years to sort this issue out has to be an indictment of the organisation and people involved. And I am extremely sad at that. The public rightly expects better. They should know more about this. I'd hope that some keen young reporter does some more digging.

Coff, thanks and fully agree.

Best regards as ever to those waiting for some good news,

Engines

[cats_five]

Finally your earlier post about Welsh Gliding sites unfortunately demonstrated your lack of experience in Gliding I’m afraid, I have flown from Lleweni Parc, minimum standards to fly there is Silver C and 100 hours in gliding, hardly suitable for most people below B cat really, it is a soaring site, there is not a gliding club there and the grass is unlandable now, only the runway, huge clutching hand effects on final approach.

Quite a hump in the runway as well I believe, just to add to the other issues. LLP was set up as a wave soaring site which it does well, but beyond that...

[POBJOY]

Engines; I know there has to be an 'audit trail' in aviation; anyone involved with the ARB,CAA,JAA,EASA, knows that,but in those organisations (until recently) the 'hands on engineers' still carried weight and were available for face to face discussions with a view to keep fleets flying.What we have now are aircraft in service where the constructors have gone bust and therefore little incentive for the 'res-erected' 'new company' to get involved. However in the case of GROB i suspect that they could have probably been availed of to come up with an inspection plan for the ATC fleet as apart from anything else they are still very much in evidence as a 'provider' to the RAF and therefore it would be in their interests to show confidence in their earlier products.In the real world someone would have made a telephone call and at least sounded out the options.
I am aghast that what we have ended up with is the possible funding of a 'mini factory' just to inspect simple gliders that were happily flying around before being grounded.This of course is because of the 'mind-set' in the system that really is clueless, and that is what most of us find appalling; in that such a fine institution as the RAF are nowadays unable to actually control anything remotely technical (In house). Sir Stanley Hooker summed it up when he quoted Lord Hives (RR) statement 'If the engineers get it wrong we are all wrong'! Well it appears that the RAF are decidedly lacking in 'engineering' at a top level,and its all come home to roost.

[Failed_Scopie]

CB, you have asked the $64,000 question. Just don't expect an answer...

I strikes me that some RAF VSOs had an anti-volunteer agenda here - I've seen it all in the Army Reserve over the last ten years.

[MidB30]

Some time ago I, as an A Category instructor, was on loan to 664 VGS in Northern Ireland. The cadet I was given to check was excellent and I sent him off for his first solo in a Vigilant. It was a textbook solo. Afterwards, as he was recovering from his elation, I told him that I had noticed that he seemed to stay apart from his fellow cadets. I asked him to explain why. He said that he was a different religion to them. He also said that his mother knew that he was an Air Cadet but that he dare not tell his father. I asked him what his hopes were for the future. He said that he would go to the mainland and apply to join the Royal Air Force.
What guts this cadet had and almost certainly still has. Surely we are not going to let him and others like him down by closing their gliding school.

[tucumseh]

Pobjoy, what excellent posts. I am long retired and know little about the situation except what I read here, and what the regulations say must be done.

When you say What was needed was a swift consultation I am reminded of my first job in an aircraft office in MoD. My late boss (Assistant Director Helicopters) told me I was to be his "rottweiler". This is one grade above "troubleshooter", which was an actual position I had held some years before (when I first met Engines!). I know that Kevin would have sent us in, told us to crack it by any means possible, and he would back us to the hilt. I have a very nice letter of commendation from the RAF (pre-Alcock) when myself and oppo did precisely this when it was announced the SAR fleet was to be grounded the next day. It wasn't. But I'm afraid you are 100% correct. There just isn't the will anymore. There was keen competition for that post - today they don't exist and most would run a mile. I cannot see resurrection in my lifetime. But I wish you all the best.

[POBJOY]

CB : Letter would have been more impressive if it was from a 'coal face' instructor getting the boot.
As is was it is just another layer of very thick wallpaper going over the great chasm of cover ups.

I am intrigued to find out that the new winches 'will increase launch rate'; in my day that was limited by the gliders optimum climb rate (loading), but mainly by getting the cable back to the launch point. I fail to see how the new winches will make up for a 'reduced' operation or where all the 'jolley' staff will come from not to mention their experience levels. The letter is based upon 'opinion' not the hard facts of the case.

[Auster Fan]

LJ and others

I believe that the USAF were/are concerned about pop up traffic appearing under the flight paths to Mildenhall and Lakenheath and consequently wanted powered gliders as opposed to conventional gliders based at Honington. Those in Norfolk and Suffolk Wing and/or 611 VGS who post on here will no doubt correct me if I'm mistaken... It was a sad day when they had to leave Swanton Morley....tragic waste of an airfield.

[1.3VStall]

Pobjoy,

And did you notice that a few days ago on this very thread Coville, when I described him as a long-retired VSO, denied he was such and claimed that his last rank was fg off.

Hmm, funny that the Air Marshal rank suddenly appears when he writes crack-covering, party-line untruths in the Torygraph.

[longer ron]

Cats Five
There is no glider maker in the world that could supply sufficient (over 60) 2-seat gliders in that timeframe, even if negotiations had started years before and their entire production went to the Cadets.


I know that - you know that - so why have they not been ordered already ?

[Airbus38]

I'm going to risk sounding very ignorant here, and so may I first put in a disclaimer that I'm a lovely chap and this is in no way meant to be taken as an aggressive post.

I've been in the organisation for a good number of years and yet this thread is the first mention I've heard that 2FTS has an Honorary President. I've seen no mention of it on the 2FTS 'Bader' site, no mention via e-mail to VGS post-holders, no mention in 2FTS routine orders. As I understand it, these are the methods of communication that one would expect to be informed of appointments at 2FTS.

Please forgive me if I've missed something here, that being the case I will of course concede that it is I who has been remiss. However it just strikes me as odd that an official figurehead has cropped up on a social media site and in the national press about whom I genuinely had previously heard nothing (at least not in relation to 2FTS) and certainly not during this two-year period of inactivity and lack of information.

[brokenlink]

AF, think one of the reasons for not using Vikings at Honington was that they could not be fitted with Transponders, very useful for operating in a MATZ.

[Lima Juliet]

I'm still hearing made up reasons for not using these other sites. The excuse about service flying/gliding clubs is lame - these are encroachments that have lower priority than a VGS, as a lodger unit paid for out of the Defence budget, to use a Government Aerodrome.

Also, the stuff about Honington - you don't need a transponder to fly into Honington and the flying club on the Stn don't have an issue with MLD or LAK - they either call RAPCON or they call them via landline beforehand. Pop ups are just as bad for the RAPCON controller if they are a light aircraft as they are a glider - there used to be a Pietenpol Aircamper flying out of there with no transponder without an issue. About 1/5th of the old Honington ATZ sits within the USAF's CMATZ and the rest is in completely clear Class G (ie. No MATZ).

Also I wonder how the BGA mamage to operate quite safely out of airfields that would be 'tight' for a VGS and then send them solo at age 14 vice nearly 3 years later for an Air Cadet.

Finally, gliders landing anywhere following a launch failure is practiced on a regular basis and also gliders are designed to land out on unprepared fields and then be trailered off to fly again - just how bumpy do you think the grass is around an airfield??? :confused:

Point accepted on the Welsh gliding sites, never been to them. So if the Welsh (and Northern Irish) haven't got any suitable gliding sites for ab initio flying, then they're obviously not bothered, so let's keep them in England and Scotland then...[joke]. Seriously, there must be somewhere in Ulster and Wales where a youngster can glide safely without an egg whisk on the front?

LJ

[POBJOY]

1.3 vs & Airbus 38 Lovey chap;Hon pres 2fts has been 'parachuted in' to calm the angry seas with suitable 'spin'.
Too little and much too late for it to be taken seriously (not sure about the number of o's in that one) and of course just putting out the 'party line' to those who may take the bait (not on this thread).
Calling Syerston 2FTS means nothing in real terms as it is only as good as the service it delivers. Shiny new 'showrooms' (hangars) and a workshop that looks like a laboratory but can not repair the kit. Lovely new office complex for whatever is supposed to go on in them but no one seemed to notice that they could not fix GRP work despite having a bespoke shop. Ah but they certainly nailed those unofficial badge sewing bandits (shame about the airworthiness of aircraft bit). No changes will mean no NO CHANGE the Cadets have been failed but the spin 'spins away'. And the answer is to build a factory to inspect the fleet,keep the faith,and lets get the Cadets flying (they were until it was screwed up)
What was needed was a public flogging and the odd head on a pole on London Bridge, unfortunately Baldrick lost the whip and no one could find the stores number for an AXE.

LJ (as we are having an Easter truce) why would you expect common sense and reason to be part of the 'process'.Gliding and SLMG flying does not require that much airfield infrastructure as you well know,but it does require those who are part of the planning to have some idea of the way it works and what is possible. ASK THE B.... SCHOOLS they know best because they have been quite good at doing it for 70+years, and are quite capable of knowing what is possible.Why is it those in charge seemingly ignore the very people that have demonstrated their capability in delivering the goods and think they know best.By the way Kenley is very secure; it is owned by the City of London as a common; can not be developed for anything else, and will be available for gliding as long as the RAF wish,plus the City of London are quite proud to have a fine example of an 11 group Battle of Britain airfield under their care.

[Mechta]

How can a transponder possibly be an issue in an Air Cadet glider? For club use, battery capacity on an all day cross-country could be a problem, but for a glider doing circuits its no big deal to swap batteries every few flights. A quick check suggests a mode S glider transponder might use 0.28A when active, so a typical 7AH (Amp Hour) gel cell battery should be more than adequate for a couple of hours reliable operation. As few cadets are likely to be at the top end of the weight range, carrying extra batteries instead of ballast weights would be a possibility too.

With regard to sites, the technology already exists to use the width limited ones; namely a retrieve winch. A 90 to 120 second launch cycle is easily achievable with one of these, and the fact that the parachute end of the cable is pulled back onto the launch run after release minimises the likelihood of the cable going where it shouldn't. An added benefit for site owners that are precious about the condition of their airfield, is that the cable only needs to be pulled out by a vehicle once a day, so the cable run doesn't get chewed up. Sure, its an extra piece of equipment to learn to operate, but one only has to go to Long Mynd to see what a slick launch cycle it offers.

Given how gliding started, its quite bizarre that Wales is considered unsuitable as it is too hilly. If the Welsh Air Cadets do lose their sites and still want to fly, perhaps they should speak to the Joint Services Hang Gliding and Paragliding Centre (JSHPC) near Crickhowell. Obviously hang glider control input is different, but so are bicycles and cars. Flying a hang glider on tethers is very safe and most definitely a group activity which will ensure the passengers are asleep in the minibus on the way home.

[cats_five]

I know that - you know that - so why have they not been ordered already ?

Schleicher apparently declined the order for 70+ K21s. I reckon they would do that today, not wanting to devote their entire output to one customer for several years.

Grob no longer build gliders, neither do Centraire, which I think leaves the choices of a PW6 or a Perkoz, both Polish gliders. I have no idea if their builders would be able to fulfil a large order even over a great many years.

The DG1000, Duo Discus, Arcus & Quintus are not basic trainers.

[Frelon]

When I started to fly at Kenley (identified as one of the smaller ACO glider sites) we only used half of the available airfield because the powers that be decided to use half for weekend sports so we were prohibited from using that side!

This is a photograph taken by the late Alex Watson of a Prefect overhead the unused portion of the airfield, clearly showing the rugby posts and the prohibited area below.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x165/Biggles615/RAF%20Kenley/Prefect%20at%20Kenley%20Early%20days_zpsurixe87x.jpg

The use of the cable retrieve system as mentioned in the previous post seems to have been completely overlooked by the "experts" at Syerston. Buying new winches is not going to increase the launch rate but this system would. But there what do we know, they seem to know everything.

I just had a look at the earlier thread on Air Cadet Gliding pix in the 80s, what a wealth of knowledge and experiences that will never be repeated. They have a lot to answer for!

[longer ron]

Cats Five


Schleicher apparently declined the order for 70+ K21s. I reckon they would do that today, not wanting to devote their entire output to one customer for several years.


Yes I had heard that - But they might have gone for a smaller order to allow the Air Cadets to operate a mixed fleet.
Of course Schleicher might balk at any MOD modifications LOL - it would have to be a 'standard' airframe buy (I know Iknow - it'll never happen ! )
No problem operating a mixed fleet when they get their shiny new shed built - as a K21 is simplicity itself to maintain (as of course is a Grob acro ;))

[POBJOY]

Ah Frelon Always good to see an image of this fabulous location before it was left to go to disrepair.If there was an 11 Group Battle of Britain airfield that should have been 'listed' then Kenley would head up the list.If you look closely there is even a 'ghost' of a Hurricane wishing it could land.

Back on thread; We are all now under no illusion regarding the complete lack of competent leadership that the gliding organisation has at the top, and the appalling way the 'end' that does know what to do has been treated. We were proud to operate from Kenley and preserve its availability for gliding i think the current bunch of banana's up top have no such respect for history or the VGS 'volunteers' that kept it going. They may try to 'rewrite' the VGS history to suit themselves,but as this thread proves there are too many out there who know the score and will not let them get away with it.
PM for you Frelon

[ACW342]

Point accepted on the Welsh gliding sites, never been to them. So if the Welsh (and Northern Irish) haven't got any suitable gliding sites for ab initio flying, then they're obviously not bothered, so let's keep them in England and Scotland then...[joke]. Seriously, there must be somewhere in Ulster and Wales where a youngster can glide safely without an egg whisk on the front?


LJ, would these "Egg Whisks" on the front be similar to the ones on the Tutor? You know, the ones that failed because the QSPs thought that Flick rolls would be great, but which AFAIK were prohibited by both the aircraft & propellor manufacturer.

[Thorr]

New winches and retrieval systems are all well and good, but the thing that is really going to dictate output is the staff. There is going to be a greater burden on CT requirements with a larger school, assuming of course the squadrons can recruit the staff. With all training in-house, it is going to be difficult to provide instructors with sufficient continuation in order to progress. Also, staff turn over is far greater, with staff cadets joining the squadron, being productive for a short while before going off to Uni etc. It needs a better re-think than simply fewer but big squadrons operating in the same way as before.

[CoffmanStarter]

I really would like to read the current AEF Flying Order Book then ACW342 ... Being blessed (or cursed) with a near eidetic memory for such detail ... The AEF Flying Order Book (70's) strictly prohibited any form of Flick Manoeuvre when carrying Air Cadets. Not because of the aircrafts capability (or lack of then), but it was considered an extreme manoeuvre likely to unnecessarily alarm the young passenger and not conducive to giving 'air experience'.

Coincidentally ... The same rationale drove the prohibition of spinning and continuous conventional aerobatics for non-First Timers (each manoeuvre required a period of straight and level before the next along with an inquiry as to the 'wellness' of the young passenger). Aerobatics of any form were prohibited for all First Timmers.

I can see no reason why those sound regulations, back then, should no longer apply today ... If they do ... Then it's a Flying Discipline matter.

[99 Change Hands]

The Americans didn't want 'proper' gliders at Honington because the Mildenhall heavy traffic routes in over there at 1500ft (the C130s often lower). In the days of TWCU, departing GR1s would be held on the ground unless they were visual with 'Mildenhall Traffic South'. The Flying Club has certainly operated non-transponder in recent years but the powered circuit is not a confliction.

[Arclite01]

But it had no objections to Watton where Lakenheath would route F-15's over the middle of the Airfield at 600 feet...................

Hmmmm

Anyway, Mildenhall won't be there much longer. By the time this debacle has played itself out they (C17/KC135) will be long gone..............


Arc

[99 Change Hands]

Watton, 16 miles on Lakenheath centreline, fast jets, Mon - Fri, no bank holidays. Honington 11 miles on Mildenhall centreline, heavies, 24/7. Enough of a difference maybe? I don't remember ever doing 16 mile final at 600ft in a GR1.

[Arclite01]

I looked down on one (F15) when I was on the wire once...................

I think it would still hurt if it hit you...................:D

Arc

[GroundedGrob]

Well after 2 years hanging on I've decided to call it quits.

The reasons are multiple but the new look organisation doesn't seem to fit what I can offer around my real life and as my SQN is due for chopping it seems like a convenient dovetail.

There was a lingering sense of shame that I was bailing out when the people remaining probably need all the help they can get but having seen (and participated in) a lot of behind the scenes work and effort for the RTF brushed aside with no warning then hey ho - time to move on.
- things like painting the briefing room on a winter Sunday evening which other members had procured at their own expense to make it happen.
- cleaning the aircraft every other month which are now either due for selling or scrapping.
- Cleaning the Buildings and Hangar for inspections and audits.
- Helping on courses for cadets to try and keep the unit as a going concern.

I don't even lay the blame with 2FTS - it's what I think of as the British Leyland syndrome. That slow growing cancer of paralysis across the RAF and Industry. Instead of trampling the problems to death in a matter of months and making things happen it was the slow decline of morale, updates and progress that made me realise it was going to be bad.

It's so frustrating that the best single gliding organisation in the world has been totally decimated and is no where near out of the woods yet. All that time from everyone, effort, perseverance. Gone.

What a waste.

But the most important aspect is the door it opened for me to get my foot into a Commercial aviation career. Willing to bet most reading this know of any number of cadets who have gone from nowhere through a VGS into Mil or Civ careers that would otherwise be unavailable.

My thoughts are with the remaining staff. All the best.

[ACW342]

CS,
Not with cadets. I am reliably informed that neither the aircraft or propellor manufacturer included flick rolls in the range pf permitted manoeuvres. I am willing to stand corrected, but again, I am informed that the stresses involved in such were a major cause of Tutor propellor mishaps.

[brokenlink]

GroundedGrob - thank you for the time you have put into the ACO. I do not think it is VGS staff alone who are considering their future, it is highly likely that some squadron staff are also considering where the ACO and themselves go from here.

[planesandthings]

I have deleted my original comments. Some of them were in major frustration I apologise.
Some of my points still stand though. As an 18 year old failed by the ACO and it's very slow and painful downfall in aviation opportunities, I moved to the BGA. The denial of flying to many likeminded young people is totally unacceptable, the training needs to be brought into the 21st century if you're going to use new gliders, fact as most two seaters other than the K21 will spin, spinning accidents at low level have killed in the past and they will do again. Many along with I will never totally understand the ACO way of doing things, but until differences are settled the glory days are over, my club along with many are finding it difficult to cooperate with 2FT/HQAC so have no option but to just reject cadet flying as unfeisable. Change is required, but in more places than first thought.

I can only hope that these are the darkest days and that I will be one of very few young air minded people to succeed by actually having to leave the ACO. Because I fear otherwise that at this rate there won't be many instructors in many years to come to teach aspiring aviators as the average age of instructors continues to rise (B1 or above) in both civillian and VGS gliding.

Planesandthings

[CoffmanStarter]

Fair do's ACW342 :ok:

[Subsunk]

GG,

Best wishes for the future. An all too common story across the disorganisation, sadly.

I've lost interest as it's too painful to watch. My only remaining question is, are we dealing with an organisation which is utterly, wildly incompetent, or an organisation which is delivering a plan to get out of the cadet flying business entirely in the long term? There are no other theories which fit the facts, if you tune out what is being said and focus on what is being done.

[Arclite01]

PlanesandThings

You clearly do understand the BGA way.

You clearly don't understand the MoD, ACO and VGS way !!

Your comments on VGS Training, Objectives, Service Clubs, policy and basing strategy are way off piste..............

Arc

[Frelon]

planesandthings

I think you are a brave young man posting here!! You appear to have no idea about the objectives of Air Cadet gliding.

Many regular posters here have been/are well established senior instructors with the Air Cadets, but they also instruct with the BGA. I wonder how they manage that??

[GroundedGrob]

Sub - I'm not given to conspiracy theories but something isn't right here.

Maybe using the illusion or reality of the first part to cover the move to your second point.

I'm led to believe there's a series of town hall meetings. Unfortunately I only found out at short notice (irrelevant now) and can't make them anyway due to WORK.

The last time this happened I arranged to sort cover for work so I could get to one. It was canx at short notice - maybe for valid reasons - but in this age of email and instant comms maybe a message direct to a sqn member who held a mailing list to forward on to others before people had their ducks in a row.

The whole show makes me miserable thinking about it.

[POBJOY]

Ground Grob Good luck with your onward path in aviation;however you can always return (to an organisation, ATC or alternative) if the circumstances change.
The 'Schools' have been treated with utter contempt by the 'system' and frankly the Corps will never be the same again. Your time with the Air Cadets will have given you an insight into how good and how bad it can get and in most cases it is the PEOPLE that make an organisation not ranks and structure.
The ATC has sunk to a low level.but eventually there will be changes and it will rise again,so do not despair, be ready for the second coming, regards and the 'basic's' of gliding will always stand you in good stead whatever you fly.(Space shuttle dare i say more) PP

[ACW342]

Pobjoy,
It's not the ATC's problem. It's these pesky CGI's. Don't they know about the secret plan, you know, the one where all the higher ups pi$$ off the CGI's and then they're supposed to resign in disgust and then they'll be followed by the Uniforms cos their airfield are being sold off and they'll have nowhere to fly and then flying will be forbidden because gravity is an unacceptable H&S risk. But don't tell anybody, 'cos it's a secr......DOH!!

[WE992]

Planes and Things - I'm afraid a lot of what you are saying is utter dribble. For a start there are very few actual serving service personnel who fly at RAFGSA clubs. 3 years ago the figure was less than a 100! The majority of the membership are civilians flying on the cheap subsidised by service sports grants mean't for servicemen!

[Lima Juliet]

Planes and Things

The document that you need to read is JSP362 Ch14 and Ch15.

Basically, Service Flying Clubs are not paid for by the MOD or parenting Service. They are funded through non-public monies and Service Sports Charities. Furthermore, they are 'encroachments' using spare capacity on the Defence Estate, therefore they are a very low priority compared to taxpayer funded activity.

For the Air Cadet Organisation (ATC and CCF(RAF)), they are part of the RAF. They serve under AOC 22(Trg) Gp as one of the 5 functional areas under AVM Turner's command. The head of the ACO is a FTRS 1* paid for by tax payer's money, as are the rest of her staff - Regular, Reserve or Civil Service. They are a publically funded organisation and so they, and their subordinate units, have way more clout, as Lodger Units, over any encroachment activity.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/no22traininggroup/organisation/index.cfm

Your naivety on this matter is poor and others have also contested your views on the quality of VGS solo training...'nuff said.

LJ

[ATFQ]

Old RAF site at Wethersfield has potential for 4,850 homes... or as a prison site (From ) (http://www.braintreeandwithamtimes.co.uk/news/north_essex_news/14387887.Old_RAF_site_at_Wethersfield_has_potential_for_4_85 0_homes____or_as_a_prison_site/?ref=mr&lp=5)

[nowt ont clock]

LJ,

Well said :D

NOC

[BEagle]

Press release from the Honourable Company of Air Pilots (formerly known as GAPAN):



New funding initiative for Air Cadet aircraft needed

The UK Air Cadet organization has given young people initial flight training in gliders and motor gliders for decades, taking many to solo standard thanks to the work of hundreds of volunteer instructors. The last two years has seen a suspension of flying activity due to problems in the management of a maintenance contract.

New proposals have been put forward which mean a significant reduction in the number of training squadrons, airfields and gliders, and the end of the motor glider fleet by 2019.

Whilst the new proposals aim to revive Air Cadet flying, they do so with a much-reduced ‘footprint’ for the organisation across the country. Travelling time to reach flying units will increase. There will also be a considerable reduction in overall airframe numbers. Lengthy lead times will also be incurred in reforming and retraining the instructor cadre, and are likely to lead to a long term reduction in the number of courses to solo standard.

Former Air Cadets have gone on to serve in large numbers in the Royal Air Force, The Fleet Air Arm and the Army Air Corps. Many have also gone into civilian aviation. The prospect of going solo has inspired generations of young people to be interested by the key subject areas of Science, Technology Engineering and Mathematics, (STEM).

These subjects are critical, not only to future pilots and engineers in our armed forces and our airlines, but also to our country’s long term future as we seek to rebalance our economy away from a dependence on financial and other services.

If we are serious about ‘Winning The Global Race’ and inspiring our nations’ young people then it is time to look at a new funding mechanism for Air Cadet flying training aircraft that acknowledges current financial constraints in order to make these life-changing and motivational experiences as widely available as possible.

Additional new aircraft are needed, either more ‘Viking’ Gliders to add to the existing fleet, or a fleet of modern light training aircraft. These should all be operated on the civilian register to achieve operating efficiency and predictable costs. Military involvement would be confined to flight safety, training standardisation and core operating funding. This would re-energise UK Air Cadet flying training, and enable the critical developmental experience of going solo to be the core goal of the training program.

Now is the time to recognize the need for a new partnership funding approach between Central Government, the RAF and the aviation industry, as already used by the Sea Cadet Corps and marine industry to deliver sea training assets, to procure additional new aircraft for the Air Cadets.

Organisations such as our own Livery Company can and do provide gliding and flying training scholarships, but we cannot begin to bridge the gap in the numbers formerly trained by the Air Cadet organisation.

We call for a new approach, and offer to co-ordinate a new form of funding initiative between Central Government, the RAF and the UK aviation industry that could procure an additional, modern training fleet for the UK Air Cadet flight-training organization to make its benefits widely available across the country.



Captain Peter Benn
Master
The Honourable Company of Air Pilots.

[RUCAWO]

664 VGS Newtownards 2007, in all three are pilots from 664, the crewman in the Puma was a former FSC and continued as staff when with 230 at Aldergrove, the Robinson pilot also a 664 instructor.
Not going to happen again .
ACW342 I believe this was the day your glasses escaped from the Puma door ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/sniperUK/VGS07047-1.jpg

[CoffmanStarter]

Well said Captain Peter Benn :D:D:D:D

[CoffmanStarter]

Just for the record ... Can we try and piece together a view on the pertinent financials here ...

Hansard (Public Domain info) records that the Air Cadet Glider Fleet Maintenance Contract (Syerston) was £9,400,034 for the 7 year period, 3 February 2008 to 31 March 2015. Say a RevEx spend of c. £1,342,862 pa. I appreciate that these maintenance arrangements wern't 'Full Life' for the fleet.

Hansard (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131111/text/131111w0001.htm?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffer24b6a&utm_medium=twitter#13111136000018)

Does anyone know the original CapEx spend (Public Domain) for the acquisition of the original Viking and Vigilant (entire) fleet ?

We'll discount other CapEx and RevEx costs FTB

[Arclite01]

More Vikings is a non-starter. They have been out of production for years. And if by Light Aircraft he means 'Light Aircraft' rather than 'Motorgliders' I don't get it.................

However a replacement Motorglider would be worthwhile and replacement (rolling) of Viking with K21 makes better sense.

I do however endorse all the sentiments from the Honourable Company of Air Pilots.

Will anyone listen though I wonder ??

Arc

P.S.Coff - I seem to remember the purchase price for Viking as being approx £7M

[CoffmanStarter]

Thanks Arc ... Let's see what else turns up :ok:

[POBJOY]

The sentiments are fine; however it was/is not the lack of funding that saw the Air Cadets in the situation it is now in.
They have had the 'funds' but poorly overseen it. As we have seen with the ongoing 'recovery' situation there have been no 'savings' with the lack of flying just no end product, but it has been PAID FOR. The very idea that a new 'mini factory' is required to inspect and recover the fleet hardly shows a funds problem, but does highlight a serious management oversight about the results of having had the money BUT NOT GETTING THE GOODS.
I wonder if the Capt from the Hon Company is really aware of the full picture or has he had a 'sanitised' version from the senior RAF members of the company.
I just think it strange that we now have these 'well meaning comments' from elements that seemingly have had no earlier concerns despite the problem going back TWO YEARS.
It is not a new 'partnership funding approach' that is needed it is the acceptance that a serious change of ability is required (and more tech competence) to actually plan implement and oversee the use of the existing funding.
The above is hardly 'ground breaking' thinking it is the NORMAL way any business has to operate in the real world.

[typerated]

It is a long time since I flew an ATC glider - a T-21 (not an K-21!), so I might be a bit out of touch!

It seems to me though that the goal is to get pupils past solo and get them a bit of solo time. If that is the case then doing it in trolleys (Vikings) seems a bit of overkill - especially if there is a struggle to get enough airframes. Surely once the student has gone solo in the twin then they should convert into a single seater as soon as possible. Single seaters are much cheaper to buy and free up a valuable resource (the two seater) for instructing.

At the risk of people queuing up to pour scorn on my idea I think the ATC could do much worse than buy a second hand PW-5 for each station.

Why a PW-5?

Well, they are modern, simple and generally in very good condition - very cheap to buy and there a lot on the worldwide market, very easy to maintain (annuals are a breeze). They are easy to fly, go up on the smell of an oily rag. My old club had two and used them for post solo hour building with great success

A lot of people criticize PW-5s mainly for being low performance but remember the cadets would not be doing 300K's or gold badges but just a bit of local soaring in a very fun to fly machine.

I think the ATC could get a lot of bang for very few bucks!

LJ, Why do you fly the K-21 solo? is it because there are no single seaters at your club?

[POBJOY]

The simple truth Typerated is the numbers of actual 'solo's' nowadays is very much reduced compared with the 'wood' days.
Even after all the dual (planned) a Cadet gets one solo and then has to rely on getting an 'advanced' course.
The Canadians use very simple metal (strutted) gliders but i am not sure if they are available any more.
No manufacturer was going to make a bespoke aircraft that only suited the ATC and to be fair the Viking has done well in service (they look amazingly fit considering they are grounded)
The whole gliding scenario has been diluted with the advent of para-wings hang gliders and simple powered micro lights.The eye-watering cost of a glass two seater (which are designed to train distance and speed flying) and have fantastic performance rather distances them from the basic ATC requirement.

[Lima Juliet]

Typerated

LJ, Why do you fly the K-21 solo? is it because there are no single seaters at your club?

Because HM is paying for it and on the JSAT courses I have done I have been solo on the Tuesday afternoon and flying for the rest of the week on my own! :ok:

LJ

[Mechta]

With regard to gliders, if Schleicher won't play ball, and Grob are out of the glider business, then the Glaser-Dirks could be a good alternative. The company is still actively manufacturing gliders, and when last buil, the DG-505, in its Orion form, was built in Slovenia, so should be rather more affordable than one built by German labour. For an order of 80 or so aircraft plus spares, they may consider restarting production.

The Air Cadets, if they are to carry on with conventional gliders need to adapt to the sites it will have access to in the future. The disused or unobstructed grass airfields which were plentiful in the 50s and 60s, are now the very ones the bean counters and housing ministers have in their sights, so will always be at risk, leading VGSs to have a nomadic existence.

A couple of points with regard to the RAFGSA, sure the numbers of servicemen actively involved in clubs throughout a given year may be smaller than in the past, but that is due to the reduced size of the RAF these days and the numbers of personnel deployed away from their home stations and overseas. Sure there are ex-service and civilian members, these are the people who provide the continuity and do maintenance tasks to ensure gliders and equipment are serviceable when serving personnel are available to come and fly.

Also, to suggest that several runway lights are broken per club per year is a gross exaggeration. I can recall two at our club in the ten years I've been a member. If other clubs are breaking more, their winch drivers and pilots need retraining.

[typerated]

That's a big shame Pobjoy,

I think my first solo thermaling flight was much more enjoyable and memorable than first solo!

One of the joys students get from converting from a Twin Astir to a PW5 is flying a light nimble machine that you 'wear' rather than a big truck that you have to give a fortnights notice before it will turn - They get so much out of the first 10-15 hours after solo

just read this LJ RAF Gliding & Soaring Association - What is JSAT (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafgliding/jsat/whatisjsat.cfm)

So if the Wx is crap you have to go MTBing! I think that is taking AT a bit far! What happened to the pub for ground school when the weather is crap?

K-21 is a good basic/intermediate trainer - just a bit boring and very expensive at that- Nothing beats a K-13 ( red glider in the photos) as a trainer though!

LJ, Did you fly gliders before fast jets? If not how easy was it to convert?

TR

[cats_five]

With regard to gliders, if Schleicher won't play ball, and Grob are out of the glider business, then the Glaser-Dirks could be a good alternative. The company is still actively manufacturing gliders, and when last buil, the DG-505, in its Orion form, was built in Slovenia, so should be rather more affordable than one built by German labour. For an order of 80 or so aircraft plus spares, they may consider restarting production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DG_Flugzeugbau#Ownership

[POBJOY]

T-Rated Not sure where the F-Jet bit came from,but i would love a ride in a Hunter should you care to arrange it!!
The whole gliding (two seater world) was rather hit by the loss of many Blaniks due to ongoing cert issues,but they would be an easy aircraft to mass produce again if the orders were there.(plus could be modded for longer life).
Club flying is very much 'pointed' towards performance machines which frankly are not really what the ATC require.
A dedicated trainer for solo and AE work needs to be 'rugged' and be cockpit friendly with all the pupil changes.
Composite machines are super good in the performance region but not in the cost and 'easy repair' scheme of things,and as the ATC are a winch launch operation the machines have to be suitably stressed for multiple launches and should have 'classic' handling qualities.
As we have seen with composite light aircraft they are difficult to repair,and also difficult to 'damage assess' compared with wood or metal,but thats the way industry has gone.
I would like to think that the Cadets could do far more solo work 'in the system' as it would encourage them to keep gliding and progress to the exciting world of distance and mountain flying,plus keep them in uniform longer.

[squawking 7700]

Didn't the Air Cadets have a number of K23's at one time? - a fairly viceless piece of kit for early solos.

The best 'modern' two seat trainer is the Puchacz because of its spin and recovery characteristics. Reasonable performance, roomy front or back and aerobatic but not particularly robust or well finished and the max winch speed is only four knots above the optimum.

K13's are old hat, don't spin that well and neither comfortable or particularly accomodating in either cockpit.


7700

[Arclite01]

Squawk

The ACO never had K23's. It had 5 x ASW-19 for advanced training/solos/X-Country/Competition. Never for first solos and not really for early solo pilots IMHO (never saw anyone under a G1 fly one)

The Pushchair (Puchatz) is exactly what you say. But it has a flaw and that is that it spins too easily and it needs aggressive positive recovery action, recognise it late and respond late and it will bite you. It's OK at 3000' but most of the ATC flying is below 900' - the combination of low hours/low experience pilots, low altitudes and an aggressive spinner is not one I would recommend to any one, definitely not the ACO

The K13 was the glider they should have brought 20 years ago (it was still in production at the time they brought the Viking with Schleicher sub-contractor Jubi) but Glass Gliders were seen to be the way to go, and with Taxpayers paying, why not have a Rolls Royce...............

POBJOY - The Blanik gets my vote every time across the spectrum of handling, construction, cost etc but nowadays would seem to be almost out of the Ark (you sit in one and see !!)

Arc

[POBJOY]

ARC; The ARK did what it said on the tin (so i'm told by Noah who lives near me) just what the ATC needs now.anyway they could 'tidy up' the cockpit,and i just love those wing tips and handling. Well Remember a certain 'instructor' who gave quite spirited displays in one !!!!
It ticks most of the boxes and would be easy to improve and produce to the latest safety specs.Tell me about the Canadian glider fleet ARC.
There are a couple of certified mods out there to recert the Blanik, and i believe the Australian one is affordable.

[Arclite01]

POBJOY

Whatever happens - the ACO has to buy new to escape this uncertain aircraft history fiasco..................

I am a great Blanik fan too (over 1000 launches in them) That display pilot would be Andy Gough I assume................ although I have seen Clive Watson do a few good trips too..............

Arc

[squawking 7700]

Arc,
It was a question re. the K23's not a statement! - why didn't they buy an early solo single seater like the K23? or it's predecessor the K18 (very pleasant and easy to fly) instead of ASW19's.

I like the Puchacz (no 't') I know it's not suitable for the Air Cadet approach to getting kids to solo but it teaches accurate flying......or it could kill you, as it did in its early years in the UK and first solos in it were banned in the US.

The Blanik though.......is like sitting in a bath tub (I actually thought it was OK to fly).


7700

[Thorr]

Who are going to instruct on all these gliders?

The decision on the machinery is surely the last to take, you need to decide the operation regime first. The status quo on fewer, further spread sites will struggle...

[kevindb63]

The Canadians use very simple metal (strutted) gliders but i am not sure if they are available any more.


The Canadian gliders are SGS-233A's There are no cadet owned powered aircraft except the towplanes. The tow planes are L-19's, Belanca Scouts or C182's. Some areas also winch or auto tow.


The aircraft are civilian owned and registered by the Air Cadet League of the provinces. The aircraft are operated by the military to civilian standards, unless there is a more restrictive military standard. All pilots operate on their civilian licences.


The cadets all should receive 1 air experience in the glider every year. Powered Fam Flying is also done locally by the squadrons at their expense in locally sourced aircraft.


Cadets can receive their full civilian glider licence at a 6 week summer training course.


A 7 week summer training course to PPL standard is contracted out civilian flight schools


Here are few video links
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrctbfusPWs
https://youtu.be/jgD9sBqt1Wo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTCqi_6r4n8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K15X60uhDh8

[Arclite01]

Apologies Squawk

My reply did seems a bit vehement in it's content. A bit more background for you..........

The ASW19 came as part of the original purchase of 10 x K21 (Vanguard TX1 in ACO service) and was called the Valiant TX1. It was specifically purchased for advanced solo/competition environments. The K23 would have been a better buy if you wanted something for low experience pilots to fly and consolidate solo in, but frankly that was never the goal of the ACO who followed the sensible policy of many civilian clubs and sent the first student solo in the front seat of the two seater the student learned in (the Viking). Since the goal of the ACO was Proficiency standard (1 solo only - although originally 3 solos) there was never a real need for anything other than the Two seaters used for the syllabus (Don't get me started on the Janus purchase). The 3 solo policy was reduced to 1 as I understand because there was a fear that the student might get too 'cocky' on the second or third solo and get themselves into trouble with a wide or low circuit or a launch failure. As we all know the first solo is the safest flight you ever make.......................

The rush to get to glass meant that the K18 was never considered as the push was to get away from 'rag and tube' or 'sticks and rags'. IMHO the K18 would have suited the ACO well but by the time the fleet change was made the K18 was out of production and replaced by the K23 (which you have mentioned).

The decision to re-equip came about as I understand it due to a defence budget underspend and that made a load of cash available under the 'spend it or lose it regime' practised in the Government Departments. This gave cash for a 'root and branch' re-org in very short timeframes which saw the purchase and introduction of:


Van Gelder Winches (multi drum required to launch the heavier gliders)
4 ton lorries (required to pull the heavier winches)
Tractors (to tow the heavier multi cables and spreader bar required to stop cables crossing on tow out)
Changes in Licences to enable staff to drive heavy lorries and tractors
Approx 10 x K21 Vanguards (later cancelled as supplier unable/unwilling to supply)
2 x Janus C two seater advanced soaring and cross-country trainers (flappped)
Approx 90 Vikings (to replace Cadet MK3 & T21)
5 x ASW19 Valiants (for advanced solo and competitions to replace Swallow TX1)
Approx 50 Grob 109b Motorgliders (Vigilant TX1 to replace Venture T2 Motogliders)
Introduction of White Fleet Landrovers to replace the old Landrovers which were deemed unsafe for the carriage of passengers/Cadets
Introduction of Central Glider Maintenance Flight at Syerston (to replace Mobile Glider Servicing Parties at various UK Locations)
Introduction of Glass Fibre Bay at Syerston run by Soaring Oxford to repair Vikings
Introduction of 'Maintenance Contract' with Third Party SERCO to replace RAF staff who were deemed unable to maintain the GRP Gliders............



Quite a lot of changes in short order !! (Planned or 'cause and effect' I am not sure - you decide :D)

Hope this helps

Arc

[cats_five]

Composite machines are super good in the performance region but not in the cost and 'easy repair' scheme of things, and as the ATC are a winch launch operation the machines have to be suitably stressed for multiple launches and should have 'classic' handling qualities.

Grobs, K21s and the like all are all quite suitable for this sort of use.

[chevvron]

POBJOY

Whatever happens - the ACO has to buy new to escape this uncertain aircraft history fiasco..................

I am a great Blanik fan too (over 1000 launches in them) That display pilot would be Andy Gough I assume................ although I have seen Clive Watson do a few good trips too..............

Arc
The Blanik was actually the 'first choice'as a T21/T31 replacement back in the '60s but we couldn't have them 'cos they were built in what was then an Iron Curtain country, hence Slingsby tried to copy it and built the T53.

[typerated]

T53 - thermals well but...

[POBJOY]

OK; We will go with new build Super Blaniks with the 'sharp start' launch sysytem. That should give the organisation the 'boost' it needs. Happy to help with development. I think we will have to forgo the T & C Stoff fuels and start with slow burn cordite.Look pretty spectacular at the airshows with a formation 'launch' !!, and stand by for spectacular Cadet recruitment. Instructor will stay on the ground (you only need one for the whole school) as the dual will be remote control.

[ACW342]

This thread is drifting - heads up!! It's not what we should/have could have, it's what we have got and lets get back on track and concentrate on stopping the decimation of ACO gliding. 11 and a bit days to Westminster Hall. I've confirmed my MP will attend - what about yours?

Are there any other steps that could be taken? Anyone contacted the chair of the Public Accounts Committee?

Any one complained to the Air Force Board?

Does anyone think that a crime or crimes along the lines of defrauding the public purse have been committed?

Lets get our a$$e$ back in gear!!

[Subsunk]

ACW 342, fair one, in answer, no, dunno yet, no, no and yes. Time to go to work on this.

[POBJOY]

ACW Well i have actually written several letters direct to all the top brass including the Defence Minister at his office.No reply from HQ ATC or The Minister and reply from CAS was from his PR dept stating that all was getting better and Cadets were getting flying elsewhere at present (in other words they do not really accept there is a problem).
This of course is the main problem;the organisation is in complete denial as to what is wrong and what is actually required,and as you have seen from Hon Pres 2FTS and what was GAPAN they are only now making comments and 'spinning' the official line. We have brought this out into the open (press now involved),but in the end what else do we do. As alluded before unless there is a change at the top there will be no change to what is going on,because they are not going to admit they are at a complete loss as how to run the system,or what it requires to get it back on track.

[GroundedGrob]

Just to refer to what Beagle et al said about the PTT's. I've seen a note that says yes the initial introduction for cadets to Roll, Pitch and Yaw will be done in the PTT.... then in the aircraft.

[brokenlink]

Considering booking a chat with my MP, until recently he sat on the PAC so should have a good grasp of procedures etc. Peronally feel that the taxpayer should get a sizeable refund from the contractor who caused the problem in the first place, should go someway to cover the cost of repairs?

[EnigmAviation]

ACW 342, Can you tell me the details of the Westminster Hall job, and who is going to be there, etc. ?

[ACW342]

Enigma, inlieu of my utter inability to copy the link provided by Coff, and AFTQ let me refer you to page 101 of this thread and posts 2006 and 2010. As for who might be there, my MP has said she will be there. Why don't you persuade yours to attend also

[Tinribs]

Throughout this sorry saga which I have watched with mounting irritation the assumption, wrong I think, that we should get back to where we were

For many years scholarships were provided at flying clubs for cadets with great success. The training met the need and was cheap. Clubs obtained reward so long as they did the job correctly and passed inspection

There are many Gliding Clubs meeting the BGA rules and offering big price reductions to the young. Borders Gliding Club (Milfield) has offered my Rotary Club an excellent deal allowing us to provide a local youngster with a Gliding Bursary up to solo

It would be interesting to examine the cost of the proposed solution and how many more youngsters could be trained to fly for the proposed budget

No doubt there would be issues of staffing and insurance but they are not insurmountable as our bursary shows. At least we would have a workable solution which would not repeat this debacle

[BBK]

Tinribs

I believe the BGA were asked if they wanted to undertake large scale cadet gliding and declined. Nothing wrong with ad hoc local arrangements to get cadets flown but it's not "air cadet gliding" as such. As to "where we were" well that was very good system (the VGSs) that worked had it not been for failings elsewhere.

BBK

[EnigmAviation]

Enigma, inlieu of my utter inability to copy the link provided by Coff, and AFTQ let me refer you to page 101 of this thread and posts 2006 and 2010. As for who might be there, my MP has said she will be there. Why don't you persuade yours to attend also

ACW 342 - thanks, I have traced it, and have now also written to my MP, given him the full 9 yards, and asked him if he can attend, as well as sending him my draft FOI questions with regard to this whole "Yes Minister" farce.


Whilst he does belong to Cameron's party, he's something of a dissident, thus not necessarily following the party line. We shall see

[ATFQ]

Verdun Luck has written on Air Cadet gliding: telegraph.co.uk letters, 3 April 2016: 'Grounded air cadets'.

[POBJOY]

Verdun has taken issue with Hon Pres 2FTS on three issues.

Verdun makes the point that long term cost savings and lack of performance from the MAA has caused the grounding.

He queries the statement that there has been extensive consultation with the VGS

He Also takes issue with the assertion that the new AEF will increase flying opportunities,plus points out that nothing replaces the Solo training in gliding.

Well done Verdun i think that makes is 40 love and the opponent needs a new script writer.

[David Thompson]

Link to Telegraph letter here ;
Letters: Britain?s EU membership is a far cry from its relationship with the US (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/04/01/letters-britains-eu-membership-is-a-far-cry-from-its-relationshi/)


and text ;
Grounded air cadets

SIR – Contrary to Sir Christopher Coville’s assertion (Letters, March 27) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/03/27/letters-the-in-campaign-overlooks-growing-frustration-with-eu-bu/), the grounding of the air cadet glider fleet was brought about entirely as a result of cost considerations.
The keeping of maintenance records over the past two decades fell far short of the standards required by the new (and inexperienced) Military Aviation Authority. This lack of adequate record-keeping was most assuredly caused by cost savings in the past. Identical aircraft in civil use continue to fly quite safely under civil maintenance requirements.
I would also challenge the assertion that there have been “extensive consultations between senior officers and the volunteer gliding community”. As far as I am aware, there has been very little consultation with anyone, with most information coming from unofficial internet forums.
The increased power flying opportunities that Sir Christopher refers to cannot replace air cadet gliding, where cadets are taught up to solo standard.
Verdun Luck
Former British Airways captain
High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire

[tucumseh]

Colville's position is typical MoD dissembling. He blames stricter rules post-Nimrod Review. What the Nimrod Review actually reiterated (not revealed) was (a) poor implementation of mandated regulations, and (b) savings at the expense of safety. I'm being kind. For "poor implementation, read "flat refusal". Why were "savings" thought necessary? Quite deliberate, astronomical waste. The MAA have so far refused to address or even acknowledge that elephant in the room. Well said Captain Luck.

[Lima Juliet]

Don't forget it was NOT just the engineering paperwork. There was evidence of engineering malpractice as well - the FOI documents discuss the fitment of incorrect elevator hinges, without Design Authority approval, and also the use of non-approved materials. I suspect there are other examples of poor engineering practice to be cited that have not been revealed via FOI yet.

LJ

[Engines]

LJ,

There has certainly been mention of engineering issues, but it would be nice to get some detail. I seem to remember than a hinge was fitted that was subsequently approved by the DA, but happy to be corrected. Let's have some more facts.

As I've posted before, the central issue (for me) is the apparent failure of the RAF Engineering Authority to comply with basic regulations and good practice in supervising their maintenance organisation. It's a central issue because if this isn't addressed the same could (and probably will) happen with a new contract.

As Tuc has rightly pointed out, the post MAA regs are, in practice, the same as the old ones. The main change has been to move the levels of decision authority upwards by at least one rank or sometimes two. That's bad news, because engineering decisions that could be taken at the correct working level will now have to be 'staffed' for a senior officer to approve. That will add time and subtract common sense and engineering judgement. This system will not survive a shooting war.

Best regards as ever to all those working the system as best they can

Engines

[longer ron]

Don't forget it was NOT just the engineering paperwork. There was evidence of engineering malpractice as well - the FOI documents discuss the fitment of incorrect elevator hinges, without Design Authority approval, and also the use of non-approved materials. I suspect there are other examples of poor engineering practice to be cited that have not been revealed via FOI yet


That one may be a bit of a red herring LJ - I believe the hinge was replaced by a standard Grob item that was superior to the non standard item which was originally fitted to the glider (uneccessary MOD modification perhaps ?)
The MOD are renown for insisting on uneccessary mods :ugh:

[Bigpants]

Decline and Fall?

The problem of air cadet gliding and flying may prove to be just a chapter in the book on the decline and fall of the RAF. We live in a world where many younger people associate the RAF roundel with Mod culture. Ironically we are in this mess because of MOD culture.

[squawking 7700]

Longer Ron,
Regardless of whether the hinge was a standard Grob part (and was it a standard part for that glider or a standard part from another Grob aircraft?) from the DHAN it would suggest that implementation of that modification hadn't been through due process with the type certificate holder.

What I'd like to know is what the SO1 & SO2 Engineering, Quality Audit and Contract Management posts and Soaring (Oxford) at Syerston were doing prior to 'the pause'.


7700

[longer ron]

squawking 7700
I absolutely agree with all you say but there are 'problems' and 'problems' and I am sure most people must now realise that severe cuts and changes to the gliding system are being carried out under the smokescreen of invoking the safety case.
As quite a few of us have said - Haddon Cave was many years ago and should not be blamed for findings in the last 2 years.
As with others on here I am sure the whole thing could have been handled very differently but it was an extremely convenient 'pause' for MOD whilst making savage cuts.


rgds LR

[squawking 7700]

Longer Ron,
I can't believe that it was anything but purely coincidental.........


7700

[ACW342]

AL 90000000001- Page 1 line 1 Word 1:Delete Pause. Insert STOP - CUT - RESTART

[Jimmyjerez]

Dumb question probably guys but I keep seeing these 'QAIC' cadets in flying suits with presentations and stuff on Twitter and things what is this? Is it some new flying scholarship? Thanks

[Auster Fan]

Dumb question probably guys but I keep seeing these 'QAIC' cadets in flying suits with presentations and stuff on Twitter and things what is this? Is it some new flying scholarship? Thanks

It's this.....

http://www.qaic.org/Pages/AboutTheCourse.php

[Bill Macgillivray]

Auster,

That link does not tell us very much about the course aim and content! In fact, I would suggest it is just "yuck - speak"!

[Lima Juliet]

Ref: my post #2194

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

Para 5 says:

The following significant issues were identified:

a. Aircraft Document Set (ADS):

i. lack of ADS configuration control across glider maintenance sites.

ii. workforce carrying unauthorised maintenance and modification activities eg. Introduction of an elevator hinge pin modification that was designed and carried out by the maintenance organisation without authorisation and engineering authority input.

iii. independent inspections not being carried out on systems vital for the safety of the aircraft.

b. Progression of SI(T)s and F765s had not been managed effectively.

c. Lack of an effective Quality Management System.

6. Further investigation revealed that these concerns were not exhaustive and that there were a significant number of other contributing factors that led the Glider EA to state he was unable to confirm the type airworthiness of the fleets...


That's more than "a lack of accurate record-keeping"! Over the past 2 years many stones were uncovered to find many issues over and above this Duty Holder Advice Note as I understand it. Also, the Grob 109B and the Vigilant TMk1 are not identical as far as I'm aware - the Viggi has a reconfigured fuel system and undercarriage mods for a higher AUW? So I'm afraid Verdun Luck's letter is slightly off the mark in my humble opinion.

LJ :ok:

[lightbluefootprint]

Bill Macgillivray

This might be a bit more informative - pages 20-22
http://www.raf.mod.uk/aircadets/rafcms/mediafiles/71BC5B26_5056_A318_A8A3621A7728620E.pdf

[Why oh why]

If you're going to quote the DHAN verbatim. Quote it verbatim. Para 5. States 'hinge pin', not hinge, bit of a difference I feel.

[Lima Juliet]

Why oh why

My apologies. I couldn't cut and paste from the PDF and so I quickly typed it - pure mistake and now amended!

LJ :ooh:

[megapete]

LJ
I note that the reference to the elevator hinge pin is in the paragraph headed a Aircraft Document Set this implies to me that the problem was one of documentation rather than the pin being unsuitable for use. It would be interesting to know if the solution to this particular issue is to retrospectively approve the mod or to re fit the original part - do you happen to know ?

paras b and c look like paperwork issues as well.

I can see that the paperwork needs to be correct to ensure airworthiness but would love to know if there was a fleet of serviceable aircraft with a paperwork problem or a fleet of problem aircraft grounded for 2 years

That is the crux of the matter and until something less sketchy is published there will continue to be speculation about the motives behind all this.

After all the sexing up of dossiers has some history.......


MP - An ex C Cat CGI from the seventies

[POBJOY]

Hope you were impressed with the 'content' Bill.

Apart from the multitude of 'non flying',and 'virtual' activity for Cadets there were two articles that stood out; one on quality of information and the other on a statement of the current (as was ) gliding training.

The article on the Battle of Britain display at Capel le ferne mentions one
Fl Lt G Mellum 94 (but nothing more).
I assume this is in fact Sqdn Ldr Geoffrey Wellum DFC who was with 92 Sqdn at Biggin Hill during the battle;was one of the youngest pilots in the battle,went on to fly offensive sweeps over France before flying a Spitfire into Malta,and then tested Typhoons on a 'rest tour'.Does anyone at Air Cadet know anything about our history or the basic facts!!
There was then an article about 'Motivational Flight Package' at the end of which the 'instructor' who attended stated that the exercise was incredibly useful 'especially the spin awareness training which is something we do not tackle within the Air Cadet Gliding domain'!!
Just about sums up the way things are now.

[longer ron]

Megapete
I note that the reference to the elevator hinge pin is in the paragraph headed a Aircraft Document Set this implies to me that the problem was one of documentation rather than the pin being unsuitable for use. It would be interesting to know if the solution to this particular issue is to retrospectively approve the mod or to re fit the original part - do you happen to know ?

paras b and c look like paperwork issues as well.

I can see that the paperwork needs to be correct to ensure airworthiness but would love to know if there was a fleet of serviceable aircraft with a paperwork problem or a fleet of problem aircraft grounded for 2 years


The 64,000 dollar question - I doubt that the subject pin was unsuitable just as I doubt that many of the Gliders were in any way unsafe to fly(before they were grounded),they are really simple a/c which spend most of their flying lives at less than 70kts.
There were probably 3 or 4 ways of tackling the problem,but that would have needed natural leaders in charge and of course would not have suited the various personal and MOD agendas.
As I have said before - the lack of communication with the VGS personnel over the last two years speaks volumes about the real aims/agendas during the 2 year 'pause' - they did not want to have to answer searching questions.
Every maintenance organisation has paperwork/procedural issues - nobody is perfect and sometimes need strong leadership and direction to keep up with modern/current ways of doing things.
It would be easy to get 'hung out to dry' if ones company had failed to keep up with up to date procedures but it was a huge failing of whoever was supposed to have oversight of the maintenance side of ACO gliders.


As I previously posted - I had heard that there might also have been a problem with some VGS Glider Hangars (not meeting MAA standards ?) but have not seen that mentioned yet !

[Arclite01]

I still think the MGSP maintenance regime was best. It offered a documented, rolling Minor/Major maintenance programme, minor repairs done on site by qualified tradesmen overseen by qualified experienced supervisors, major repairs removed from site and returned to the main servicing site for completion or deep servicing and spare airframes which could be swapped out if required to minimise the impact on the VGS. And an independent audit programme...................done by the Central function.

Perfect................... So lets 'bin' that.

Arc

[Why oh why]

but as its been previously stated, some of the issues stem from the very same blue suited regime you feel was perfect.

[Chris Gains]

Now the closing date of the 31st March has passed, It would be interesting to find out the results of the forms that had to be filled out by all staff affected by the cull......

[Arclite01]

Why oh Why

The MGSP regime pre-dated the CGMF regime you are referring to.........

DO try and keep up old chap :D

Arc

[ACW342]

Arc
:ok: I lived at Dishforth, home of MGSP North, just two doors down from the SNCO i/c. Great bunch of professional SERVICE engineers

[Why oh why]

And what years did your beloved MGSP operate


Why oh Why

The MGSP regime pre-dated the CGMF regime you are referring to.........

DO try and keep up old chap :D

Arc

[taxydual]

The RAF Dishforth based MGSP were certainly in residence in the mid '70's /early '80's.

One of the MGSP SNCO's was an accomplished poacher. His wife worked in the Dishforth feeder and provided us with some 'interesting' lunches that the RAF Leeming catering office knew nothing about.

[POBJOY]

The strength of the MGSP were they were a travelling 'team' complete with a Bedford lorry load of spares and in-house duplicate inspections.
They could repair the classic 'wheel box' incidents on-site and left your fleet looking spick and span and very fit for for purpose.
The canvas hangars also benefited from their attention and were kept in good condition.
The system was perfect, and anything requiring a 'duplicate' completed at the time.
If one happened to go to the school midweek whilst they were in attendance it was quite a shock to see the machines in bits and on trestles getting expert attention.
Come friday evening they were all back in service and duly signed off,or a replacement in place.
But then this was a truly quality service, provided by highly trained and motivated staff usually led by a Chief Tech;i do not recall a time when the w-end flyers were let down by this system. Sadly in most cases we never met them but their reputation was of the highest order.
And Why oh Why the term 'beloved' did not exist, they were simply a LEGEND!

[Why oh why]

Pobjoy. As per my question to Arc. When was this utopian engineering era


QUOTE=POBJOY;9334478]The strength of the MGSP were they were a travelling 'team' complete with a Bedford lorry load of spares and in-house duplicate inspections.
They could repair the classic 'wheel box' incidents on-site and left your fleet looking spick and span and very fit for for purpose.
The canvas hangars also benefited from their attention and were kept in good condition.
The system was perfect, and anything requiring a 'duplicate' completed at the time.
If one happened to go to the school midweek whilst they were in attendance it was quite a shock to see the machines in bits and on trestles getting expert attention.
Come friday evening they were all back in service and duly signed off,or a replacement in place.
But then this was a truly quality service, provided by highly trained and motivated staff usually led by a Chief Tech;i do not recall a time when the w-end flyers were let down by this system. Sadly in most cases we never met them but their reputation was of the highest order.
And Why oh Why the term 'beloved' did not exist, they were simply a LEGEND![/QUOTE]

[POBJOY]

50's-80's. The first casualties were the 'Bessonneu' hangars which needed regular servicing to keep them going.
I had defected to power by the the time the glass ships arrived,but no doubt the MGSP were aligned to the wood fleet.
Spares were not a problem as Slingsby used common parts on so many of their products,and of course the machines were low tech.
We have yet to have evidence of what problems are being found in the Viking fleet,but i suspect it will be 'flagged up' to fit the situation.

[ACW342]

Y.O.Y.
:=I feel as if i'm feeding a troll, but l do intensely dislike the way in which you use the phrase "Utopian Engineering Era" in an almost sneering manner and which I consider offensive. You are, in modern parlance "dissing'" people that I personally knew to be good, conscientious engineers who provided a service second to none by comparison with the apparent lack of engineering professionalism shown by the Serco engineers and the incompetence of the uniformed people who were supposed to oversee the work on behalf of the RAF.

To answer your question AFAIR MGSP North was winding down when I was posted in late '83

A342

[campbeex]

One hears on the jungle drums that the rank of CGI is to be done away with and those currently in that position are to be given the option of going into uniform or leaving (like it or lump it in other words). I assume this would mean an ACO NCO rank.

I realise this has been briefly mentioned before but looks a bit more definite now. Has anyone else heard anything confirming this change?

Just to add, personally I'm against the move as I know more than one CGI who would have had no interest in donning the blue stuff but were very capable instructors. Therefore, they would likely have been lost to the ACO.

[Arclite01]

Why Oh Why

I think MGSP Operated from the mid 1960's to about mid 1980's. I don't believe they maintained the glass ships so on that basis the demise of the wood fleet around then ties in with the timescales.

Nice guys and a skilled group tradesmen to boot.

OK this was wood and not glass so different technologies but you can teach the technology - it's about how you use it, eh !

Arc

[Frelon]

The world has gone mad!!

What on earth are they thinking?? The Staff Cadets and junior instructors are/were the life blood of Air Cadet gliding operations.

On the airfield they wear flying suits just like the commissioned staff - they do not need uniforms for goodness sake.

When I became a commissioned officer at a Gliding School (having been a Staff Cadet and CGI) I seem to remember wearing my uniform when traveling to the airfield, then I changed into my flying suit. I then changed into uniform for going into the mess at lunchtimes. When the Officers' Mess closed (along with the rest of the airfield) I traveled to the airfield in my flying suit and we all looked the same.

When I went to Syerston for recategorisation I was most surprised to see Mess users wearing growbags. I suppose a sign of the times!!

If I was a CGI I would certainly not give any consideration to becoming an adult NCO in the Air Cadets. My old squadron adult Warrant Officer would turn in his grave at the very thought. He was a CPO on minesweepers during the second war and had also fought in the first war. His medal ribbons were a sight to behold and always caused lots of discussion in the SNCO Mess wherever we went to camp!!

There were some very senior and experienced Gliding Instructors on my Gliding School who did an excellent job as CGIs. They did not need the hassle of donning blue uniforms, and despite some of them having been offered commissions, they were very happy just doing what they were good at - instructing young people to go solo.

[ACW342]

A Mess, at Syerston? of course it is... Oh you mean an Offs Mess. I wonder if Pippa wants to rebuild it in order to keep the hoi-poloi SNCO instructors in their place (shh.. you know? the ones that used to be.... CGI's)

[POBJOY]

Frelon They have already gone mad,that is why the organisation is unable to heal itself from the self inflicted wounds.
Standard (poor company tactic) close the old system (which in this case was not broke) flag up the NEW system and ensure no one around to query the incompetence.
Parachute in some senior spokespersons's to talk to the press and media circus and 'hey presto' all is well and much safer !!
We all know it is utter B...s,and those running this fiasco are complete nit wits,but those at the very top have no idea what it is all about anyway so rely on the 'so-called' commanders in post to appraise them.
The RAF/MOD have enough problems in the real defence system to worry about so the Air Cadets are way down the lists of concern.
If i were a CGI i would be contacting the scouts who are looking to expand their 'Air' bit and offering my experience to them. I also suspect the no Civilian bit is being used to fill the 'uniform' gap in the normal Cadet Squadrons.
Either way it shows a complete lack of knowledge on the part of HQ ATC as to where a huge part of the input came from and how well they served the system safely for decades.
As stated before this sorry bunch of no-hopers at the top would never have passed Staff Cadet selection in our day. Dib Dib Dib.
I feel deeply for those Cadets who were deprived of a life changing experience and have been so badly let down. IT IS A COMPLETE AND UTTER DISGRACE.

[ACW342]

A question for those who profess to have some knowledge of the law. If I, as a UK citizen resident in one part of the UK, Northern Ireland, or maybe Scotland or possibly Wales, say, or even a county in England like, say, Cumbria, were to have suspicions that a crime or series of crimes had taken place in another part of the UK in, shall we say, Nottinghamshire, and I had no proof of such, nor indeed what particular crime or crimes had been committed but DID have various statements from official sources that, on being read MIGHT indicate that a crime or crimes had been committed, could I report such to the appropriate county police force?

If that were to be so, would it complicate matters if such alleged crime or crimes had been committed on MoD land by civilians, but not investigated by the appropriate Provost Marshall of the military arm concerned and whose property had been affected? - Just asking:confused:

[622]

Re the above (and very much tongue in cheek...)


Have you been mis-sold PPI...Plastic Plane Inspection....


Then contact ACME Claims direct for a no win no fee service....:E

[ACW342]

Would that particular ACME be Air Cadet Mis-managers Extraordinaire?

[squawking 7700]

Southern Sailplanes' planning application apparently turned down for additional hangars/workshops.


7700

[Airbus38]

A Mess, at Syerston? of course it is... Oh you mean an Offs Mess. I wonder if Pippa wants to rebuild it in order to keep the hoi-poloi SNCO instructors in their place (shh.. you know? the ones that used to be.... CGI's)
I'm pretty sure the 'us and them' segregation at Syerston happened well before JM came on the scene... Last time I was there, there was a sign on the door of the crewroom in the tower decreeing that visiting instructors (irrespective of rank) were not allowed in at lunch time.

Visiting Officers and CGIs had to spend their down-time in the trainee crewroom with the cadets on scholarships. I kid you not.

[Arclite01]

The separation rule certainly in place since at least 1981......

Arc

[bobward]

I find the idea to force civvies into uniform a bit strange. Last August the Air Commodore told me categorically that civilian staff would not be pressured into taking up NCO / officer status. Her words being along the lines of 'rather have them happy in civvies than miserable in blue'.

Admittedly this was for staff on ATC squadrons, but surely the sentiment stays the same. It rather tends to support another statement made to me by a VSO about senior officers running their own little fiefdoms within the corps.....

[Krafla]

Been at Syerston today.

CGS flying 3 of our Cadets, in Vigilants. 5 through 'recovery', only two available.. Nice day for the kids.

Understand 8 Vikings going through same process.

No word on progress of the re organisaton. Not much enthusiasm expressed either.. Lots of cars present, nice modern buildings, Lots of folk in clean modern, warm comfortable offices.

2 people seen in hanger, mainly full of Vigilants. Not many Vikings to be seen...

Nice Viking and Vigilant PTT, simulators, two of each in old 644 building, kids enjoyed.

Lots of photos taken, suspect promo article on progress of Air Cadet Gliding recovery to appear soon?

[planesandthings]

Southern Sailplanes have been rejected on multiple grounds on planning permission including logistical capabilities with where Membury is, employment abilities and actual exceptional need for hangers on a greenfield site as well as the usual noise and AONB considerations. All documents are viewable publically on the West Berkshire Council Website 16/00142/OUTMAJ

Interestingly a report states that the MOD contract which would obviously be for the Vikings has not been shared with the council. What's to hide?

Yet another setback and letdown for the cadets. When will it end?

Planesandthings

[BossEyed]

..including logistical capabilities with where Membury is

Pity it isn't closer to the M4.

[Subsunk]

The debate into the 'Future of Gliding and the Air Cadet Organisation' takes place next Wed 13th April, 1100-1130, in Westminster Hall.

I've emailed my MP. Even trying to keep it brief and sticking to the highlights and the facts, it reads like a rant.

If there is a move to fully militarise all volunteers, that would be in keeping with a strategy to ensure the long-term collapse of the gliding organisation. The list of hoops that an adult volunteer will have to jump through will deter sufficient numbers, and in years to come the whole thing can be wound up owing to lack of volunteer support. Someone will get a mention on a New Year's Honours List for their sterling services to the ACO and the nation's youth...

[Flugplatz]

Yep,
Has all the hallmarks of 'constructive dismisal' if that is the intent? then the blame can be thrown back at the volunteers. So no need to rush with the glider recovery program if the new organisation shows signs of an unsustainable manning shortfall.

Flug

[teeteringhead]

Last August the Air Commodore told me categorically that civilian staff would not be pressured into taking up NCO / officer status. Her words being along the lines of 'rather have them happy in civvies than miserable in blue'.

Admittedly this was for staff on ATC squadrons, but surely the sentiment stays the same. I heard that the "must be in uniform to fly" rule was (yet another) MAA diktat.

Apart from the special case of contractors' personnel (before anyone mentions MFTS) you have to be in uniform apparently to fly military aircraft. And the VGS fleet are just that; unlike the Tutors they don't even have a "shadow" civvy registration.....

[Arclite01]

Actually Teeters

They do have Shadow BGA numbers................. so a G Reg move would be fairly easy. Not that it's going to happen of course...............

Arc

[teeteringhead]

Thanks ARC - that'll teach me to believe what "some bloke told me in a bar!" :ok:

[VX275]

you have to be in uniform apparently to fly military aircraft
Anyone told the staff of ETPS that?

[Arclite01]

That is a good point.

When on duty VGS CGI's are actually Civil Servants.................


Arc

[Freda Checks]

I was always told to keep it simple (KISS).

The obvious solution (which has been thrown out by the VSOs) is is to put them (the Vikings) on the civil register. Would solve most of the obstacles currently being put up. But there, what do any of us know about it😂

[ACW342]

If the cause of the so called pause was because of poor workmanship, improper maintenance & repairs and loss of the appropriate documentation by the employees of the contractor and sub contractor(s) with the effect that the aircraft were deemed to be (and in some cases were) not airworthy and required a lengthy and costly investigation into such, and which is requiring an equally lengthy and costly recovery operation, should then the fees paid for such improper work done be not recovered from the contractor (s) and be paid back into the ACO budget?

Furthermore, as the lengthy and costly recovery operation is as a direct result of the said poor workmanship, improper maintenance & repairs and loss of the appropriate documentation by the employees of the contractor and sub contractor(s), should not then the contractors be responsible for the cost of the recovery operation rather than be paid for out of the ACO budget? :confused:

[POBJOY]

I suspect the original contract and its requirements will not be as 'robust' to the point that compensation is an option;plus the other question to be covered is why it took so long for the problem to surface. There seems to be a complete lack of 'oversight' on the part of the RAF/MOD who in the end are responsible for delivering a service to the ACO; which has been funded, and paid for yet no service provided. I do not imagine the VSO's will be keen to have an in depth investigation as to why they have allowed this situation to develop.
No doubt a cleaner somewhere will go to the stake.

[squawking 7700]

Pobjoy,
As I said in post 2198:-

What I'd like to know is what the SO1 & SO2 Engineering, Quality Audit and Contract Management posts and Soaring (Oxford) at Syerston were doing prior to 'the pause'.

As I understand it from a previous 2FTS statement, one of those from the above is overseeing 'the recovery' - as he was in post at least a year before'the pause', what was he doing?


7700

[Arclite01]

Squawking 7700

I don't know what he was doing for the year before - or what he did in the 2 years since.................

I can tell you that what he is doing now: Covering his Ar$e like crazy. I bet the shredder is working overtime.................

Arc

[squawking 7700]

Arc,
No shredder required.......as nothing's been documented anyway!!!!


7700