Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Air Cadets grounded?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Air Cadets grounded?

Old 15th Dec 2016, 12:59
  #3021 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fresno
Age: 70
Posts: 253
Thanks Arc. Testing the hook as part of a Daily Inspection is what we do over here - but testing every which way every launch seems a bit OTT (and must really slow up the launch rate).
Thud105 is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2016, 13:11
  #3022 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,375
All the civilian clubs I fly at test once at the start of the day. My example was for a private glider which depending on the syndicate often flies once per day.

However you could say that if no extra unnecessary checking takes place then the total number of actuations = (days flown*3) + (flights*2).
cats_five is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2016, 13:12
  #3023 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,008
Cats - you are correct. (x2)

Arc
Arclite01 is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2016, 13:16
  #3024 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,375
Just how does flying a cadet require such a huge MAUW? The BGA data sheet for a G103 gives the maximum load for each seat as 110kg including parachute, which is over 17 stone. And if flown at that MAUW doesn't it interfere with the CoG position? Or is it that the seat limits are unaltered and this allows for lots of heavy repairs? But if a glider is repaired to that extent, again I would worry about what has happened to it's CoG. Too far forward and it's nasty to fly, too far back and it's not only nasty to fly but dangerous.

Can most certainly believe the repaired gliders are heavier, one way of triaging before checking them would be weighing. Do the lightest ones first, reweigh the ones from the coast after a while in a dry storage area.
cats_five is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2016, 13:55
  #3025 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Banging my head on a VGS wall
Posts: 26
Arclite. I think you're incorrect with your assumption on the variance between the Viking and the G103. Sure you're not confusing the twin 3 with it's different profile.
Why oh why is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2016, 14:20
  #3026 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Banging my head on a VGS wall
Posts: 26
Cats five. The BGA data sheet does indeed give a maximum seat loading of 110kg front and rear. However the total loading of the empty airframe and cockpit load must not exceed the BGA max AUW

Many BGA 2 sweaters have hugely reduced rear cockpit loading limitations if the front seat is fully loaded. I flew in one with a 70kg max rear seat load when front occupant was 100kg
Why oh why is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2016, 16:34
  #3027 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,008
WOW

I think the Viking is the Twin II (Grob103a) but not the Acro with the upgraded spar caps..............

Happy to be corrected (not that it's really in the mainstream of this discussion thread though)

Arc
Arclite01 is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2016, 17:39
  #3028 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
RAF - Viking T1
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2016, 18:27
  #3029 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Banging my head on a VGS wall
Posts: 26
Arc.
The serial numbers of all the Viking are followed by a "K".

Therefore K means Kunstflug. Therefore they are Acro
Why oh why is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2016, 19:31
  #3030 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,375
The BGA data sheet does indeed give a maximum seat loading of 110kg front and rear. However the total loading of the empty airframe and cockpit load must not exceed the BGA max AUW

Many BGA 2 sweaters have hugely reduced rear cockpit loading limitations if the front seat is fully loaded. I flew in one with a 70kg max rear seat load when front occupant was 100kg
Hence read the placard before launching. Our 2-seaters have a little chart that gives details for normal & aerobatic flight, however there are few people too heavy to fly (and they will take 110kg in both seats), just a few how need to put a weight in.
cats_five is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2016, 14:17
  #3031 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,008
WOW

Thanks for the clarification - I stand corrected. I believe at one point when the spigot fatigue issue was raised and temporarily grounded the fleet previously they investigated the possibility of manufacturing and fitting Acro III wingsets to the existing Viking. In the end, not required/proceeded with.

Hence my confusion !!

Arc
Arclite01 is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2016, 22:56
  #3032 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,178
However you could say that if no extra unnecessary checking takes place then the total number of actuations = (days flown*3) + (flights*2).
Its worth bearing in mind that its the actuations of the hook that count, regardless whether it had load applied on it or not.

A lot of civilian clubs use golf buggies or ATVs (e.g. John Deere Gator) to tow a glider from where it lands back to the launch point; attaching the tow rope to one or other of the hooks. You can probably add 50% to the number of hook actuations* for these clubs. What the Air Cadets were doing for recoveries beyond hand push range before the 'pause' , I have no idea.

* If using the C of G or winch hook, it is possible to attach and release the hook by moving the back release ring rather than the release knob in the cockpit, however our regional examiner considers this to still be a hook actuation as far as its life is concerned.

Last edited by Mechta; 20th Dec 2016 at 13:34. Reason: Spelling
Mechta is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2016, 18:30
  #3033 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,375
Good point about the retrieve, change flights*2 to flights*4. And I agree with your RE. It's the spring & hook mechanism which are the issue, not the cable to it.
cats_five is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2016, 14:26
  #3034 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Third rock from the sun.
Posts: 174
Civvy glider pilot here. Been following this thread since it began.

I think the information in the attached link is a recent development re Air Cadet Gliding. If its already common knowledge, please don't be too harsh. I'm genuinely interested in seeing Air Cadets back in the air!

http://tinyurl.com/zqg662t
snapper1 is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2016, 17:26
  #3035 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Happy 75th --- Cadets on the ground

Interesting exchange on FB responding to Commandant's 75th Anniversary message ......................


"Business as usual ? Well I suppose that if it's based on the time since April 2014 when all the VGS units were suspended from flying , then yes, it is business as usual ! With currently about 2 Viking T Mk1, and 3 Vigilant T Mk 1 ( now grounded due to engine problems) and virtually NO instructors current, many VGS units closed down permanently, "spare " Grob Tutor aircraft sold off to the Finnish Air Force, and their staff occupying RAF training that VRT officers redundant from closed VGS units are finding hard to get, then over two and a half years downstream, it's anybody's guess when we'll ever see the AIR in Air Cadets in the next couple of years. Worst thing is, this awful situation was brought about by the professionals, and NOT the loyal VRT Officers and CGI's who spent every spare waking hour in the service of VGS units. Not an anniversary to be proud of really ma'am in my humble opinion"


Response ex Commandant :-


"You are entitled to your opinion. Forgive me if I don't share your share your views."

Response to Commandant from FB post(er) individual :-


"Well ok, opinions aside, which of the numerous facts quoted are incorrect ? E.g., airworthy serviceable aircraft available with clear F700 for VGS ops nationwide as of today, current and re-categorised instructors and pilots, ready for duty this week ?"

Final word ex Commandant:-


"sorry, not prepared to get into a confrontational debate in an open forum - not what my FB account is for. If you have questions or complaints that cannot be answered by the 2FTS chain of command or others, write to me at the HQ and I will do my best to answer your concerns"


I suppose publication of facts will be the subject of security restrictions as this could be of use to Mr Putin. Debate now open - the only grossly optimistic sign is that ACCGS are advertising a vacancy for an instructor - but for Viking only !.


I see one other post responded


"Ostrich head sand buried. Make what you will of it." !!!


Any views ??
EnigmAviation is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2016, 18:32
  #3036 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 49
Posts: 476
Truly shocking. I had heard that the Vigilant was grounded again due to engine issues. Not the Grob 109B, mind, just the Vigilant because we fiddled with the engine rather than leave it 'bog standard'. Why do we insist on fiddling with commercial off the shelf purchases...
iRaven is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2016, 19:58
  #3037 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: LONDON
Posts: 106
2016 AEF Christmas Message

2016 AEF Christmas Message:
Attached Images
ATFQ is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2016, 20:15
  #3038 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: LONDON
Posts: 106
Comdt 2 FTS Christmas Message

Comdt 2 FTS Christmas Message for 2016
Attached Files
File Type: pdf
20161213-Letter All OC VGSs.pdf (512.1 KB, 95 views)
ATFQ is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2016, 20:32
  #3039 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 49
Posts: 476
So the "AEFs will pick up the slack for the loss of VGS" has not delivered then as promised earlier this year when the VGSs were culled? From the note at the above link there were 400 less AEF sorties since last year. The excuse about the lack of fire engines is laughable - the Grob Tutor is a light aircraft, so why the hell do they insist on Crash Cat 2? I can fly the very same aircraft, a Grob 115 with a G-Reg, with no crash-cat whatsoever at a farm strip or even if I'm doing flying training then Crash Cat "Special" is more than sufficient (this was what the Vigilant used to use). Also, if I owmed 4x Grob 115s then I would expect there to be 4x Grob 115s on the line each morning, however, when it becomes a Grob Tutor then why is it OK to have at best a couple on the line? It would be a different matter if the Grob 115s had a mahoosive accident rate, but they don't, they are broadly the same as the Tutor.

We are all collectively to blame for letting our Cadets down due to ridiculous 'gold plating' of our regulations and airworthiness requirements for these simple light aircraft. Just when the CAA/EASA are stripping out 'red tape' then the MoD/MAA are tying the military up in it...

We need to embrace cheap and safe air experience flying for our Cadets quickly, or we run the risk of losing a complete generation of youths. A really quick fix would be to release public funding for Service Flying/Gliding Clubs to give 'introductory filghts' (as per CAA/EASA rules). The Halton Aero Club flew over 100 children in one afternoon using their own money - YOUNG EAGLES TAKE TO THE SKIES . Providing flights at cost with volunteer pilots under ACTO35 could see thousands of extra Cadets flying each year at a fraction of the cost of the uber-expensive Tutor. A flight in a Tutor (including the ridiculous Air Traffic Control and Fire Cover requirements) amounts to ~400/hr, whereas a civvy reg aircraft can operate at less than a quarter of that cost.

We have got this so badly wrong. Shameless...
iRaven is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2016, 20:47
  #3040 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Banging my head on a VGS wall
Posts: 26
My understanding is the engine issue would of shown itself up on G109a/G109b or Viking, it's just that the Viking engineering system is a bit more robust than the BGA and it was spotted earlier

Originally Posted by iRaven View Post
Truly shocking. I had heard that the Vigilant was grounded again due to engine issues. Not the Grob 109B, mind, just the Vigilant because we fiddled with the engine rather than leave it 'bog standard'. Why do we insist on fiddling with commercial off the shelf purchases...
Why oh why is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.