Raf Kinloss 663 Vgs
I'm afraid I'm a bit more cynical than NDB. Give it a few years, then when the RAF have to make some more cuts they get rid of the VGS (Squadrons, not Schools) so they can say they've disbanded a number of Squadrons, thereby looking like actual cuts to the front-line!.
618 VGS - We Fly Harder.
618 VGS - We Fly Harder.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Dark side of the moon
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep the VGS
All i can say is as someone who was on a VGS is that it would completely ruin the chance of young people to get into Aviation. With the demise of much flying from AEF's the VGS's seem like the last step. I am not in the RAF but i do fly for a living and the VGS that i was on was a significant influence in my career so far!
Just my 76 South African cents worth.
Cheers
Just my 76 South African cents worth.
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry,
You miss the point and maybe I didn't explain myself, I believe it is 663 and not 633!
I understand you are saying that it is 663 Venture Gliding Squadron now and not School.
Either way I am merely asking how it can be either given that 663 Sqn already exists in the AAC.
Not a question of school or squadron but how can the number be allocated twice? Especially given that 663 Sqn was an RAF AOP squadron and the number, along with many others, was given over at the formation of the Army Air Corps!
Regards,
HEDP
You miss the point and maybe I didn't explain myself, I believe it is 663 and not 633!
I understand you are saying that it is 663 Venture Gliding Squadron now and not School.
Either way I am merely asking how it can be either given that 663 Sqn already exists in the AAC.
Not a question of school or squadron but how can the number be allocated twice? Especially given that 663 Sqn was an RAF AOP squadron and the number, along with many others, was given over at the formation of the Army Air Corps!
Regards,
HEDP
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HEDP, your logic is solid. I agree, it shouldn't be used twice IMHO (there is indeed a current middlewalloper version of this sqn numberplate).
Such contemporal existence only worked whilst the VGS remained a School and not a Sqn.
A quantity of former RAuxAF sqn boilerplates became adopted by the AAC following the 1957 cull (esp the Army Observation / Co-operation ones: http://www.aaca.org.uk/aop.htm refers at least in part).
However, there is at least one current double-numbers precident I can think of (thinks....yes): 2 Sqn (GR4 variety) and 2 Sqn RAF Regt (rock variety). Or is their some get-out regarding roman numerals....no, don't believe so?
Odd that the AFB didn't notice the 663 clash, and deconflict. Arguably would only cause operational grief if both units were deployed to same theatre
.....
Meantime, I'm waiting for 633 to get activated (*must* be saved from the fates of the Aldershot Aviation Corporation
)- maybe it could be used as a hold for tramatised Offrs completing the new IOT: now *that* would be worth watching 
wilf_san
Such contemporal existence only worked whilst the VGS remained a School and not a Sqn.
A quantity of former RAuxAF sqn boilerplates became adopted by the AAC following the 1957 cull (esp the Army Observation / Co-operation ones: http://www.aaca.org.uk/aop.htm refers at least in part).
However, there is at least one current double-numbers precident I can think of (thinks....yes): 2 Sqn (GR4 variety) and 2 Sqn RAF Regt (rock variety). Or is their some get-out regarding roman numerals....no, don't believe so?
Odd that the AFB didn't notice the 663 clash, and deconflict. Arguably would only cause operational grief if both units were deployed to same theatre
.....Meantime, I'm waiting for 633 to get activated (*must* be saved from the fates of the Aldershot Aviation Corporation
)- maybe it could be used as a hold for tramatised Offrs completing the new IOT: now *that* would be worth watching wilf_san
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The RAF Regt has always doubled up on numbers 27 as well for instance. I can guess that this is because they had no aircraft, unlike VGS or AAC.
Now were the numbers 21, 22 and 23 every allocated to the RSF Regt?
Pub quiz question. What was the lowest number that was never allocated as an RAF sqn number? Clue, it once appeared on the door to a sqn HQ in a film.
Now were the numbers 21, 22 and 23 every allocated to the RSF Regt?
Pub quiz question. What was the lowest number that was never allocated as an RAF sqn number? Clue, it once appeared on the door to a sqn HQ in a film.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit though that it seems odd and wonder whether it was considered or indeed whether it was an oversight.
It seems that 661, 662, 663 and 664 are all allocated both to Army Air Corps and also VGS.
The argument about 2 Sqn RAF and 2 Sqn RAF Regt is similar but as you alluded to, it doesn't involve aircraft or two flying squadrons.
Perhaps someone in the know would care to comment?
Regards,
HEDP
It seems that 661, 662, 663 and 664 are all allocated both to Army Air Corps and also VGS.
The argument about 2 Sqn RAF and 2 Sqn RAF Regt is similar but as you alluded to, it doesn't involve aircraft or two flying squadrons.
Perhaps someone in the know would care to comment?
Regards,
HEDP
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VGS not Sqn
As I mentioned earlier, it's "Volunteer Gliding Squadron", not "Squadron". Numbers are irrelevant.
Using another VGS as an example: 617 (currently disbanded).
617 Sqn is a real RAF flying squadron.
617VGS is 617 Volunteer Gliding Squadron.
So it can clearly be seen that there is no conflict on numbers.
One is a Sqn. Other is a "Volunteer Gliding Squadron". That is the title in it's entirety. The appropriate abbreviation is VGS, not Sqn.
Exactly where does the confusion exist?
Using another VGS as an example: 617 (currently disbanded).
617 Sqn is a real RAF flying squadron.
617VGS is 617 Volunteer Gliding Squadron.
So it can clearly be seen that there is no conflict on numbers.
One is a Sqn. Other is a "Volunteer Gliding Squadron". That is the title in it's entirety. The appropriate abbreviation is VGS, not Sqn.
Exactly where does the confusion exist?