Air Cadets grounded?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you want to start a new organisation, which will need places to fly, gliders to fly in a means of launching them, somewhere to keep them, instructors and at the very least toilet facilities? The many BGA clubs already have all this, along with an established training scheme. By all means get sponsorship to help with the costs of both flying and travel, but if you want something 'right now' starting afresh (e.g. reinventing the wheel) is not the way to do it.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the idea being to highlight how ineffective the bureaucracy and many full time staffs are. If the Grob 109B can be operated by clubs for £40-50 per hour GS courses as were could be offered for £500 each. I would love the Vigilants to be disposed of and flying within 6 months... but I doubt that will happen.
The fate of the Vigilants....
I would love the Vigilants to be disposed of and flying within 6 months... but I doubt that will happen.
But with the CYA attitude shown by our current VSOs they are much more likely to be scrapped with a capital "S". This will stop the skilled people out here demonstrating that they can make them airworthy and get then flying again safely.
Come on VSOs, we know you read these forums. Just prove us wrong!! Release them to the civi market
It would be interesting to know the Vigilant disposal plans as I doubt if any will fly again, afterall the might of the RAF failed to achieve that so what chance a private individual. Gone also are the days of letting the station fire section burn an airframe for practice and I understand that as they are glass reinforced plastic, crushing and disposing as landfill is also prohibited. A friend who works in local government tells me that the best disposal method is high temperature incineration, a specialist method that, guess what? Costs money ie 2-3 thousand per airframe
recovery of airframes
ARC Rumour has it that Serco not 'assisting' SS in speedy recovery.
Those that 'can not' or actually do anything seem to be telling those who can how to do it !!
Unfortunately no one on the customer side who has any idea about anything anymore.
Those that 'can not' or actually do anything seem to be telling those who can how to do it !!
Unfortunately no one on the customer side who has any idea about anything anymore.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: LONDON
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Aerospace' (Royal Aeronautical Society magazine) Article by AOC 22 Group
Here's the recent article in 'Aerospace' (Royal Aeronautical Society magazine) that a friend has just sent to me. It's written by AOC 22 Group and is titled 'Putting the air in the Air Cadets at 75'. The introduction says: 'Air Vice Marshal, Andy Turner, RAF, AOC 22 (Trg) Gp, explains the thinking behind controversial changes to gliding in the UK's Air Training Corps which this year celebrates its 75th anniversary'.
Some of you will want to read and analyse what he has said.
Some of you will want to read and analyse what he has said.
The RAeS is fast becoming the voice of the MOD, a process begun by its refusal to publish a paper about Mull produced by "The Three Fellows", as "Airworthiness is no concern of the RAeS" !
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disposal of evidence
It would be interesting to know the Vigilant disposal plans as I doubt if any will fly again, afterall the might of the RAF failed to achieve that so what chance a private individual. Gone also are the days of letting the station fire section burn an airframe for practice and I understand that as they are glass reinforced plastic, crushing and disposing as landfill is also prohibited. A friend who works in local government tells me that the best disposal method is high temperature incineration, a specialist method that, guess what? Costs money ie 2-3 thousand per airframe
"It was simply not an option to continue to operate without a safety case"
"Airworthiness is no concern of the RAeS" !
Someone should write a book.....
airframes that were deemed B.E.R.
Who set the BER rate? There is only one person with that authority. The project manager in the Glider project team. At a stretch, you could say his boss could overrule, but in all my years I've never known it. Anyone with this authority is required to be experienced in Depth C repair, to component level, of the item under consideration, or something very similar. That means, fitter, diag, supervisor and QC, at least. He must also have a detailed understanding of the costs involved as he must make a written declaration that they are "fair and reasonable" or "excessive". To make a false declaration is to commit fraud by misrepresentation.
An example. When setting the BER rate, is it 30% of the cost of a new glider on a one-off basis, or 70% of a new glider based on a production run of 50? SI 0136 details the authority of the PM to set this rate, and his signature constitutes a contract amendment and is immediately binding - which MoD commercial people are taught cannot happen. (Which is why they hate applying the correct contract conditions, effectively throwing blank cheques at contractors).
A lot falls out of this one simple statement.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc, Chug,
I have already written to the RAeS expressing my concerns at the way that they are printing articles that are no more than propaganda for RAF Senior Officers. The 'Thinking to Win' article was the first one, the Air Cadet gliding article is another one, in my view. This needs to stop, and quickly.
Tuc, excellent spot on the lack of a safety case. This could be set to become an major scandal. Are we about to find out that the RAF have been flying school children in aircraft that were, by any sensible definition, totally non-airworthy? Because that's what the lack of a safety case would mean.
Best Regards as ever to those exposing the truth.
Engines
I have already written to the RAeS expressing my concerns at the way that they are printing articles that are no more than propaganda for RAF Senior Officers. The 'Thinking to Win' article was the first one, the Air Cadet gliding article is another one, in my view. This needs to stop, and quickly.
Tuc, excellent spot on the lack of a safety case. This could be set to become an major scandal. Are we about to find out that the RAF have been flying school children in aircraft that were, by any sensible definition, totally non-airworthy? Because that's what the lack of a safety case would mean.
Best Regards as ever to those exposing the truth.
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 12th Jun 2016 at 20:34.
Engines
Thank you.
My take on this is that there is a convoluted history of who has been contracted by MoD. When discussing airworthiness and the safety case the important contract is PDS, not spares, repairs or production. On the others, "all" you have to do is follow the regs and normal good practice. The contracts have tangible outputs and success can be measured. PDS, to most, is an intangible. It is not volume related. Most of it costs the same if you have one or one thousand aircraft. The supply manager AMSO decision to lump it together with the others revealed a dangerous lack of understanding, and MoD has never recovered. For 25 years PDS has taken a pro rata hit with every cutback, which became (to coin a phrase) positively dangerous by about 1996. Demonstrably, 99% of the problems we discuss on here, and most of the recommendations in the Nimrod Review and many BoI reports, amount to "implement mandated PDS regs".
My gut feeling here is that, in the dim and distant past, there was a valid safety case or, as it used to be called, safety argument. Then, PDS was run down, or the contract handed to an inappropriate organisation whose contract no longer called up the regs; which were eventually scrapped without replacement some years ago. Lack of configuration control is the giveaway, and CDP) admitted the systemic failings to the Public Accounts Committee in March 1999.
This is precisely the problem the Nimrod IPT faced in April 1999 (that date again). The dreadful decision by Haddon-Cave to name and shame Gp Capt Baber ignored the fact that decisions of 1991 militated against him having a valid safety case. He let a contract to resurrect it, which he should have been praised for. H-C conveniently omitted to mention who allowed this situation to develop - instead praising it as the "golden period". (And therein lies the link to the RAeS). That CDP had admitted the failings the previous month, simply highlighted the fact he should have stepped forward in 2009 to tell Haddon-Cave he was wrong.
Yes, the truth is coming out, but as ever it is merely a minor variation on what was exposed on Chinook, Nimrod, Hercules, Sea King, Hawk, Tornado and more. Any "campaign" or letters to the media has to emphasise this point. Not a single word of this is new.
Thank you.
My take on this is that there is a convoluted history of who has been contracted by MoD. When discussing airworthiness and the safety case the important contract is PDS, not spares, repairs or production. On the others, "all" you have to do is follow the regs and normal good practice. The contracts have tangible outputs and success can be measured. PDS, to most, is an intangible. It is not volume related. Most of it costs the same if you have one or one thousand aircraft. The supply manager AMSO decision to lump it together with the others revealed a dangerous lack of understanding, and MoD has never recovered. For 25 years PDS has taken a pro rata hit with every cutback, which became (to coin a phrase) positively dangerous by about 1996. Demonstrably, 99% of the problems we discuss on here, and most of the recommendations in the Nimrod Review and many BoI reports, amount to "implement mandated PDS regs".
My gut feeling here is that, in the dim and distant past, there was a valid safety case or, as it used to be called, safety argument. Then, PDS was run down, or the contract handed to an inappropriate organisation whose contract no longer called up the regs; which were eventually scrapped without replacement some years ago. Lack of configuration control is the giveaway, and CDP) admitted the systemic failings to the Public Accounts Committee in March 1999.
This is precisely the problem the Nimrod IPT faced in April 1999 (that date again). The dreadful decision by Haddon-Cave to name and shame Gp Capt Baber ignored the fact that decisions of 1991 militated against him having a valid safety case. He let a contract to resurrect it, which he should have been praised for. H-C conveniently omitted to mention who allowed this situation to develop - instead praising it as the "golden period". (And therein lies the link to the RAeS). That CDP had admitted the failings the previous month, simply highlighted the fact he should have stepped forward in 2009 to tell Haddon-Cave he was wrong.
Yes, the truth is coming out, but as ever it is merely a minor variation on what was exposed on Chinook, Nimrod, Hercules, Sea King, Hawk, Tornado and more. Any "campaign" or letters to the media has to emphasise this point. Not a single word of this is new.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tuc, the history lesson is good and for sure needs following through. However AOC 22Gp, as an individual, inherited this mess and has to try and figure a way forward. It seems to me that he is working in the right direction, yes?
CGB, AOC 22Gp has already taken the most important decision, which was of course to ground the ACO fleet. Other AOC's may not feel a similar freedom to do likewise with the vital RAF operational fleets for which they are responsible, but make no mistake the airworthiness shortcomings that caused the ACO gliders to be grounded are systemic, as tuc says.
AOC 22Gp may well have a cunning plan to rearrange the deck-chairs for which he has responsibility, but the ship they are on is foundering. To save it needs urgent and radical action which must start by the RAF admitting that Haddon-Cave got it wrong, that his "Golden Period" was instead a time of deliberate and malevolent destruction of the UK Military Airworthiness system by certain RAF VSOs from which it is yet to recover. The MAA that was founded on the Haddon-Cave Report is compromised by that lie, which is why it must be exposed before the system can be reformed by protecting it from any future such interference.
Time is of the essence and lives are at stake. The reputations of those certain RAF VSOs should be of a secondary consideration against the security of the Nation !
AOC 22Gp may well have a cunning plan to rearrange the deck-chairs for which he has responsibility, but the ship they are on is foundering. To save it needs urgent and radical action which must start by the RAF admitting that Haddon-Cave got it wrong, that his "Golden Period" was instead a time of deliberate and malevolent destruction of the UK Military Airworthiness system by certain RAF VSOs from which it is yet to recover. The MAA that was founded on the Haddon-Cave Report is compromised by that lie, which is why it must be exposed before the system can be reformed by protecting it from any future such interference.
Time is of the essence and lives are at stake. The reputations of those certain RAF VSOs should be of a secondary consideration against the security of the Nation !
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do they really believe that absolute cobblers they are putting in their about getting people in the fast jet pipeline at age 12, the introduction of 'different colour badges', the transition of Vigilant pilots to Tutor and the creation of an 'Aviation Centre' at Kirknewton ?? etc...............
The only truth in the whole thing is that Air Cadet gliding is not going to be anything like what it was................. or anywhere near as good.
Arc
The only truth in the whole thing is that Air Cadet gliding is not going to be anything like what it was................. or anywhere near as good.
Arc
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Preston
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know the current state of the disposal of Vigilant air frames, I'd like to understand the likelihood of obtaining an air frame for a local ATC squadron for use in training and fund raising events.