Air Cadets grounded?
Poking finger through fabric
I would say the aircraft was NOT AIRWORTHY if you could 'poke' the aforementioned finger* through its fabric.as the fabric would have lost its integrity. An 'instant' check is a knuckle applied to the surface in a steady manner which when removed has not left a 'dent' in its surface.
Of course if the finger is endowed with a long nail then thats the same as applying a knife,and not a test.
No we do not need a thread creep discussing the merits of Irish Linen v American Cotton v Dacron/Poly thank you.
Actually good quality Irish Linen with proper uv protection was superb.
Of course if the finger is endowed with a long nail then thats the same as applying a knife,and not a test.
No we do not need a thread creep discussing the merits of Irish Linen v American Cotton v Dacron/Poly thank you.
Actually good quality Irish Linen with proper uv protection was superb.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XV275
No doubt with your experience and EASA part 66 engineering licence covering composite airframes you will be able to do a bit of subcontracting and help with the skills shortage within the industry.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All gone quiet on this frequency ?
Has all opposition been eliminated? Can't believe four days have gone by with no comment and the thread moved down to page 2 .
Concerned that 2FTS agents have been running around with poison tipped umbrellas and radioactive cups of tea !
Concerned that 2FTS agents have been running around with poison tipped umbrellas and radioactive cups of tea !
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Seat 21A
Age: 49
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still here, but personally I'm not giving another second of
my life to the ACO, apart from this thread. Seeing how the senior and experienced volunteers have been treated after a lifetime of service has put me off.
The ACO is not the only way to get kids air-minded. I'm not going to be responsible for turning potential future Pilots off aviation because the ACO has developed a fear of flying.
my life to the ACO, apart from this thread. Seeing how the senior and experienced volunteers have been treated after a lifetime of service has put me off.
The ACO is not the only way to get kids air-minded. I'm not going to be responsible for turning potential future Pilots off aviation because the ACO has developed a fear of flying.
There is a danger of missing the central point. The ATC, as an organisation, including the hierarchy all the way up to the regular/permanent staff in MoD who run it, have little or nothing to do with the root cause. For that, all you need do is read the Nimrod XV230 thread,or the latter end of the Chinook ZD576 thread. Or, for a simpler summary, the Red Arrows XX177 thread. There are those in MoD who will be openly smirking that they have no need to indulge in too much disinformation in this case, because the ATC is getting a good kicking here. The real culprits are well known, but also, unfortunately, well protected. This is not the first time such a thing has happened. One should ask why it was not nipped in the bud, but allowed to develop (over many years) into a 2-year+ grounding. This case is just another Appendix to the Nimrod and MoK Reviews. Therein lies MoD's great weakness.
Good post, tucumseh. I too urge those who are directly affected by this grounding and its aftermath to not take too great a parochial reaction to it. As he says, the real culprits in the MOD have used the "stove piping" of individual tragedies over the years to obscure the fact that all were airworthiness related, and have perpetrated a cover up to prevent those VSOs responsible to be held to account for offences under Military Law.
Now that the Police cover up of their conduct at Hillsborough and Orgreave has not only been faced up to but action against certain Senior Police Officers begun at last, we need to ensure that the Royal Air Force faces up to similar problems within its own High Command. This is not a call for retribution, or even of bringing closure for grieving families, but a call for reform of the provision and maintenance of UK Military Airworthiness. That requires both separate and independent Regulatory and Air Accident Investigation Authorities. That in turn requires an objective assessment of why we are in the present impasse.
The MAA (now subsumed into the Defence Safety Authority) was based on a lie perpetrated by the Haddon-Cave Report, that the late 80s/early 90s were a Golden Period of Airworthiness Regulation. Instead of that the system had been largely rendered inoperative by illegal orders to subvert the regulations, by persecuting and hounding out experienced and dedicated engineers who sought to enforce them, and by replacing them with unqualified yes-men who were thus biddable. Very soon the system collapsed and unairworthiness spread like a canker throughout the military airfleets, until even the ACO gliders were so afflicted.
No BoI has ever exposed this scandal, and no military investigator will ever do so while held in the MOD's clutches. The MilAAIB has now even ceased to exist, and all investigation and all regulatory control of not only Military Aviation, but of Ground, Sea, Nuclear, Explosives, Munitions, etc, come under one man, the DSA DG, who is responsible to the SoS for Defence.
Independent? Objective? How does that work then?
ACO volunteers rightly feel undervalued and put upon, but with respect they are not the real losers of this scandal. Bereaved families, broken careers and health have all been the outcomes of this UK "Dreyfus Affair". Can I please urge you all to see the big picture and support the campaign to reform and restore UK Military Airworthiness by calling for both an independent Air Regulator and an independent Air Accident Investigator, from the MOD and from each other?
Self Regulation Does Not Work, and in Aviation it Kills!
Now that the Police cover up of their conduct at Hillsborough and Orgreave has not only been faced up to but action against certain Senior Police Officers begun at last, we need to ensure that the Royal Air Force faces up to similar problems within its own High Command. This is not a call for retribution, or even of bringing closure for grieving families, but a call for reform of the provision and maintenance of UK Military Airworthiness. That requires both separate and independent Regulatory and Air Accident Investigation Authorities. That in turn requires an objective assessment of why we are in the present impasse.
The MAA (now subsumed into the Defence Safety Authority) was based on a lie perpetrated by the Haddon-Cave Report, that the late 80s/early 90s were a Golden Period of Airworthiness Regulation. Instead of that the system had been largely rendered inoperative by illegal orders to subvert the regulations, by persecuting and hounding out experienced and dedicated engineers who sought to enforce them, and by replacing them with unqualified yes-men who were thus biddable. Very soon the system collapsed and unairworthiness spread like a canker throughout the military airfleets, until even the ACO gliders were so afflicted.
No BoI has ever exposed this scandal, and no military investigator will ever do so while held in the MOD's clutches. The MilAAIB has now even ceased to exist, and all investigation and all regulatory control of not only Military Aviation, but of Ground, Sea, Nuclear, Explosives, Munitions, etc, come under one man, the DSA DG, who is responsible to the SoS for Defence.
Independent? Objective? How does that work then?
ACO volunteers rightly feel undervalued and put upon, but with respect they are not the real losers of this scandal. Bereaved families, broken careers and health have all been the outcomes of this UK "Dreyfus Affair". Can I please urge you all to see the big picture and support the campaign to reform and restore UK Military Airworthiness by calling for both an independent Air Regulator and an independent Air Accident Investigator, from the MOD and from each other?
Self Regulation Does Not Work, and in Aviation it Kills!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 11th May 2016 at 10:04. Reason: Words, dear boy, words!
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Seat 21A
Age: 49
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point made. The ACO fleet was grounded because it was expedient to do so for several reasons. Easily done when it is a non-operational fleet whose absence from the ORBAT will not affect any promotions, decorations and the like.
Subsunk:-
Perhaps, but the only reason that matters is that it was unairworthy. You may well be right that other fleets too are so afflicted but are not grounded for operational reasons, but that doesn't alter the facts re the ACO fleet.
Not sure what call that is. If it was to ground the ACO fleet then he was merely passing on that command. I assume that it came from the MAA, or doesn't the title Authority mean what it says?
The ACO fleet was grounded because it was expedient to do so for several reasons.
OC 2 FTS made the call as is his prerogative
Just to be quite correct here, as I understand it:
Comdt (then OC) 2FTS made the recommendation that flying should be paused. AOC 22(Trg) Gp, then AVM Mike Lloyd, made the 'call' - it was his prerogative! 
LJ
OC 2 FTS made the call as is his prerogative, but the overkill we have seen since then indicates how many other factors were at work.
LJ
The Air Cadet Organisation are now guilty of a very misleading advertising campaign which would completely fail to satisfy the ASA in its representaion of the facts.
The main website is so devoid of portraying what the ATC can really offer (and deliver) it is a disgrace and those in charge should consider their positions with regard to the honesty of the information that is supposed to encourage youngsters to join.
The main website is so devoid of portraying what the ATC can really offer (and deliver) it is a disgrace and those in charge should consider their positions with regard to the honesty of the information that is supposed to encourage youngsters to join.
LJ:-
Interesting information, Leon. Was the 'call' the 'pause', or a formal grounding? If not the latter then who made that call and when, or was it perhaps never made? Has the MAA made any 'calls' with regard to the ACO fleet? Thanks.
AOC 22(Trg) Gp, then AVM Mike Lloyd, made the 'call' - it was his prerogative!
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happy to be corrected but, as I understand it, the ODH identified the risk and initiated the pause as he was unable to accept it. Passed to the DDH who was empowered but unwilling to accept the risk and confirmed the pause.
tmmorris
You are correct. I'd be interested in what background, training and qualifications either has to warrant being "personally legally responsible and accountable for the airworthiness, maintenance and safe use" of the aircraft.
If either ended up in court during an attempt to enforce this, I imagine it would take 30 seconds flat to establish they were not afforded the correct training or resources, so could not, reasonably, be held liable. In my mind, that renders the entire concept a nonsense.
If I am wrong, why are we still in this position? The regulations require both the ODH and DDH to have the experience and skill to (a) prevent this in the first place, and (b) fix it if inherited. Responsible for airworthiness? I suspect neither has a clue where to start and the MAA RAs they must work to don't offer any help. This is the great elephant in the room. Would anything the MAA is doing have prevented the airworthiness related accidents such as Nimrod, Chinook, C130, Hawk, etc? No.
When does a "pause" become "grounding"?
You are correct. I'd be interested in what background, training and qualifications either has to warrant being "personally legally responsible and accountable for the airworthiness, maintenance and safe use" of the aircraft.
If either ended up in court during an attempt to enforce this, I imagine it would take 30 seconds flat to establish they were not afforded the correct training or resources, so could not, reasonably, be held liable. In my mind, that renders the entire concept a nonsense.
If I am wrong, why are we still in this position? The regulations require both the ODH and DDH to have the experience and skill to (a) prevent this in the first place, and (b) fix it if inherited. Responsible for airworthiness? I suspect neither has a clue where to start and the MAA RAs they must work to don't offer any help. This is the great elephant in the room. Would anything the MAA is doing have prevented the airworthiness related accidents such as Nimrod, Chinook, C130, Hawk, etc? No.
When does a "pause" become "grounding"?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you chaps, has been long enough for the details to seep from my memory...!
Essentially, my point was that once he knew, OC 2FTS wasn't in a position to do anything other than pause, so it wasn't really his 'call'.
Essentially, my point was that once he knew, OC 2FTS wasn't in a position to do anything other than pause, so it wasn't really his 'call'.
tucumseh:-
Well seemingly not yet, unless we be told otherwise. So the AOC as ODH exercised his prerogative and 'paused' ACO gliding over two years ago. What statement, supporting or otherwise, has the Military Aviation Authority made since? Is it anything to do with the MAA, or are ACO Gliders solely the business of the AOC 22 Group? Can he just as unilaterally end that pause, again without word from the MAA? Has he?
As tucumseh comments, this places an onerous burden upon one man, particularly one untrained in the arcane arts of airworthiness maintenance. In this brave new world of individuals taking on Departments of State policies and winning their case (witness the father cleared of not paying a fine for taking his family to Disneyland in term time), is there not a danger of some disaffected ATC cadet seeking redress for being denied gliding by a VSO decision unsupported by the MAA? I only ask because it seems strange that the 'pause' has not been followed by a formal grounding by the Airworthiness Regulator, aka the MAA, aka the DSA, aka the MOD? Or has it?
When does a "pause" become "grounding"?
As tucumseh comments, this places an onerous burden upon one man, particularly one untrained in the arcane arts of airworthiness maintenance. In this brave new world of individuals taking on Departments of State policies and winning their case (witness the father cleared of not paying a fine for taking his family to Disneyland in term time), is there not a danger of some disaffected ATC cadet seeking redress for being denied gliding by a VSO decision unsupported by the MAA? I only ask because it seems strange that the 'pause' has not been followed by a formal grounding by the Airworthiness Regulator, aka the MAA, aka the DSA, aka the MOD? Or has it?
Thanks for that succinct summary of the situation Whizz Bang. So here we have an ODH who has effectively grounded the fleet for which he is responsible, having assessed the risk of not doing so as unacceptable. Good for him!
Of course, that fleet is non-operational and its grounding has no immediate operational effects on the Royal Air Force (though the long term effects are almost certainly profound). All that rather begs the question of what about the ODHs of front line fleets? If they took similar action what effect would that have on the RAF? What effect would it have on their own careers?
As tucumseh asks, when does a pause become a grounding? When will the MAA publicly support this ODH's action? Where is a 'pause' defined by the MAA anyway?
In short, is this the slight flaw in H-C's cunning plan, whereby we have an Authority that seemingly has no real authority at all?
Of course, that fleet is non-operational and its grounding has no immediate operational effects on the Royal Air Force (though the long term effects are almost certainly profound). All that rather begs the question of what about the ODHs of front line fleets? If they took similar action what effect would that have on the RAF? What effect would it have on their own careers?
As tucumseh asks, when does a pause become a grounding? When will the MAA publicly support this ODH's action? Where is a 'pause' defined by the MAA anyway?
In short, is this the slight flaw in H-C's cunning plan, whereby we have an Authority that seemingly has no real authority at all?