Air Cadets grounded?
Very Clear Picture LJ
My point LJ is that Air Cadet Gliding has an excellent record which you confirm in your post.
Sad though it was the Glider collision (as were most of the other non glider incidents) not Tech based, therefore the actual record shows the organisation to be fit for purpose on that score.
When you then consider the operation is in the main run by w-end staff most of whom do not have a service flying background then it makes the organisation seem pretty fit for purpose by any standards.
The grounding was made on tech grounds and has had a severe impact on the organisation. I suggest that had there been some cooperation with the BGA/RAFGSA as parties with similar equipment then a better solution could have been arrived at that did not require such a damaging effect on the organisation.
Sad though it was the Glider collision (as were most of the other non glider incidents) not Tech based, therefore the actual record shows the organisation to be fit for purpose on that score.
When you then consider the operation is in the main run by w-end staff most of whom do not have a service flying background then it makes the organisation seem pretty fit for purpose by any standards.
The grounding was made on tech grounds and has had a severe impact on the organisation. I suggest that had there been some cooperation with the BGA/RAFGSA as parties with similar equipment then a better solution could have been arrived at that did not require such a damaging effect on the organisation.
Pobjoy
I see your point as well. But as they say in a variety of fields "past performance is not an indicator of future results". It could be that the flying is so benign that the mitigations are totally treating the risk, or that VGSs are full of Burt Rutans and Chuck Yeagers, or that they have had a good run of luck?
Now if you find significant issues with the assurance of your aircraft's airworthiness, and as a newly formed organisation you discover working practices that does not chime with the way the rest of military do business, plus that you know that if there's an accident that these will probably add up to end RAF-sponsored youth engagement flying - what would you do? Ignore and hope you're lucky whilst you try to sort it out? I don't think so; the last time we did that type of ignoring the QC had the military for breakfast.
So, I still believe that the decision was the right thing to do, however, with less than a handful of aircraft flying after 14 months something seems strange - there must have been some deep rooted issues and that, maybe, after all, we were incredibly lucky not to have a significant event resulting in a fatality(s)? This whole process is costing mega bucks and so they aren't doing it for fun!
By the way, I agree, they should have left the G109Bs on the G-Reg, got all the instructors BGA/EASA gliding instructor ticks and run it under the RAFGSA/BGA umbrella many years ago. However, that's not where we are today and to put the Grob 103 Acros and 109Bs onto the civilian register would take much cash and effort. So I guess they're stuck in the rut they find themselves in - 14 months down the line with only a handful of aircraft flying.
LJ
I see your point as well. But as they say in a variety of fields "past performance is not an indicator of future results". It could be that the flying is so benign that the mitigations are totally treating the risk, or that VGSs are full of Burt Rutans and Chuck Yeagers, or that they have had a good run of luck?
Now if you find significant issues with the assurance of your aircraft's airworthiness, and as a newly formed organisation you discover working practices that does not chime with the way the rest of military do business, plus that you know that if there's an accident that these will probably add up to end RAF-sponsored youth engagement flying - what would you do? Ignore and hope you're lucky whilst you try to sort it out? I don't think so; the last time we did that type of ignoring the QC had the military for breakfast.
So, I still believe that the decision was the right thing to do, however, with less than a handful of aircraft flying after 14 months something seems strange - there must have been some deep rooted issues and that, maybe, after all, we were incredibly lucky not to have a significant event resulting in a fatality(s)? This whole process is costing mega bucks and so they aren't doing it for fun!
By the way, I agree, they should have left the G109Bs on the G-Reg, got all the instructors BGA/EASA gliding instructor ticks and run it under the RAFGSA/BGA umbrella many years ago. However, that's not where we are today and to put the Grob 103 Acros and 109Bs onto the civilian register would take much cash and effort. So I guess they're stuck in the rut they find themselves in - 14 months down the line with only a handful of aircraft flying.
LJ
Shaft 109
I agree, the organisation will be far stronger after.
As I understand it all airframes were deemed non-airworthy for a number of reasons. I also understand that it took over 9 months to get all the processes, previous repairs and current rectification procedures assured to return ONE aircraft back to flight. However, now that most of the work has been done it is now much simpler for the rest. But if you take the fleet of 60-odd Vigis then even if its 1 month per airframe then it would take a further 17 months to return a Vigi to each VGS using them!
Also, 'quantity has a quality all of its own' so having just one on a VGS would mean that you would have no spare aircraft. Personally, I think it woould make sense to pool the aircraft between, say, 3x VGS whilst they all get current again. I think 2FTS are looking at something similar by planning to put a bunch of aircraft at 3-4 locations and then bringing the instructors back up to speed. Once that's done then they will bring the individual VGSs back on line. That's also going to take time and also pretty rubbish if you're last on the list!
As others have said - I expect another 12-18 months before things are back to where they were before. The best news seems to be that things are moving forward and that the pace of recovery is likely to quicken from now on (one hopes!).
For the Cadets there is AEF, flying scholarships at Dundee and also gliding scholarships with the RAFGSA. So whilst there is no-where near the same opportunities to fly as there was, there are still some opportunities. However, if my teenage child, as a RAF dependant, wanted some flying experience I would seriously look at the RAF Gliding & Soaring Assoc, RAF Flying Clubs' Assoc and RAF Microlight Assoc for further opportunity over the Air Cadets right now - it might cost a few bob, but its far cheaper than the local civvy club option. A trial lesson with those would probably work out around £30-£100 depending on time and what is flown (gliding being the cheapest option).
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafgliding/
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafflyingclubs/
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafmicrolight/
LJ
I agree, the organisation will be far stronger after.
As I understand it all airframes were deemed non-airworthy for a number of reasons. I also understand that it took over 9 months to get all the processes, previous repairs and current rectification procedures assured to return ONE aircraft back to flight. However, now that most of the work has been done it is now much simpler for the rest. But if you take the fleet of 60-odd Vigis then even if its 1 month per airframe then it would take a further 17 months to return a Vigi to each VGS using them!
Also, 'quantity has a quality all of its own' so having just one on a VGS would mean that you would have no spare aircraft. Personally, I think it woould make sense to pool the aircraft between, say, 3x VGS whilst they all get current again. I think 2FTS are looking at something similar by planning to put a bunch of aircraft at 3-4 locations and then bringing the instructors back up to speed. Once that's done then they will bring the individual VGSs back on line. That's also going to take time and also pretty rubbish if you're last on the list!
As others have said - I expect another 12-18 months before things are back to where they were before. The best news seems to be that things are moving forward and that the pace of recovery is likely to quicken from now on (one hopes!).
For the Cadets there is AEF, flying scholarships at Dundee and also gliding scholarships with the RAFGSA. So whilst there is no-where near the same opportunities to fly as there was, there are still some opportunities. However, if my teenage child, as a RAF dependant, wanted some flying experience I would seriously look at the RAF Gliding & Soaring Assoc, RAF Flying Clubs' Assoc and RAF Microlight Assoc for further opportunity over the Air Cadets right now - it might cost a few bob, but its far cheaper than the local civvy club option. A trial lesson with those would probably work out around £30-£100 depending on time and what is flown (gliding being the cheapest option).
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafgliding/
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafflyingclubs/
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafmicrolight/
LJ
My lad has finally lost the passion and banged out.
The final straw was missing out on his only chance to fly this year. They had jacked up a jolly in a Merlin as part of spring camp, but it went tits on start. He was absolutely gutted.
He has now joined the civvy gliding club up the road. £50 membership, £3 per launch, air-time and instruction free! He has a smile on his face again.
The final straw was missing out on his only chance to fly this year. They had jacked up a jolly in a Merlin as part of spring camp, but it went tits on start. He was absolutely gutted.
He has now joined the civvy gliding club up the road. £50 membership, £3 per launch, air-time and instruction free! He has a smile on his face again.
Trouble is it has all dragged on too long now - even if it was the correct decision at the time !
I am still involved in military aircraft maintenance so I know how difficult it is to get aircraft out of the hangar door these days but I would say that it is probable that the air cadet movement has been permanently damaged by the lack of flying available to cadets (along with the lack of other 'adventure'/outdoor activities).
Hopefully somebody is monitoring the number of leavers !
I am still involved in military aircraft maintenance so I know how difficult it is to get aircraft out of the hangar door these days but I would say that it is probable that the air cadet movement has been permanently damaged by the lack of flying available to cadets (along with the lack of other 'adventure'/outdoor activities).
Hopefully somebody is monitoring the number of leavers !
At least the foundations will be solid when they start operating again.
When my lad started 18 months ago, including his intake, there were 30 cadets plus about 10 NCO's.
The last few times he went they were down to 6 cadets plus the NCO's. They need 15 for the sqn to be viable.
The last few times he went they were down to 6 cadets plus the NCO's. They need 15 for the sqn to be viable.
I had not realised adventurous training had disappeared as well
After 50 years of aviation and thus becoming well qualified, I decided to give a lot back to the cadet force. Firstly I offered my services to the local ATC Sqn but just got apathy. I then contacted another and got no reply.
Since I gave up the day job, I've been helping out part time at a flying school near to my home. The school has recently had a second audit from the CAA which it passed sucessfully. As I'm also an ATC CI i passed on the school details 'up the line' to Wing HQ, with a suggestion that they might like to use the school to give cadets some sort of air experience.
I was told that these had gone into 2 FTS (?) for action. Well, it's thre months on, and the school hasn't even had an acknowledgement from 2FTs.
As it seems it's it will be some time before any regular cadet flying starts, why can't use be made of properly certified civilian training organisations?
I'd really appreciate it if someone out there could answer come up with some sort of reply.
I was told that these had gone into 2 FTS (?) for action. Well, it's thre months on, and the school hasn't even had an acknowledgement from 2FTs.
As it seems it's it will be some time before any regular cadet flying starts, why can't use be made of properly certified civilian training organisations?
I'd really appreciate it if someone out there could answer come up with some sort of reply.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Runway vacated
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep eyes on main prize: get the fleet back airborne with full confidence in the airworthiness systems supporting them.
BTW what has happened to all the ACCGS instructors during this hiatus?
BTW what has happened to all the ACCGS instructors during this hiatus?
Gentleman Aviator
bobward
I'll try and answer as best I can - as I understand it. Under normal circumstances 3 FTS (AEFs) and 2FTS (VGSs) look after cadet flying.
Clearly, we are not IN normal times, particularly for gliding. But OC 2 FTS and OC 3 FTS retain what is called Delivery Duty Holder (DDH) responsibility for all cadet flying. This is a named, personal, legal responsibility for safety. As such they - the individuals and their staff - must assure themselves of safety.
It's all detailed in ACTO (Air Cadet Training Order) #35 which - as a CI - you should be able to access via BADER. Alternatively your WGLO will (should!!) have the answers and the approval process off pat.
I was told that these had gone into 2 FTS (?) for action. Well, it's thre months on, and the school hasn't even had an acknowledgement from 2FTs.
As it seems it's it will be some time before any regular cadet flying starts, why can't use be made of properly certified civilian training organisations?
I'd really appreciate it if someone out there could answer come up with some sort of reply.
As it seems it's it will be some time before any regular cadet flying starts, why can't use be made of properly certified civilian training organisations?
I'd really appreciate it if someone out there could answer come up with some sort of reply.
Clearly, we are not IN normal times, particularly for gliding. But OC 2 FTS and OC 3 FTS retain what is called Delivery Duty Holder (DDH) responsibility for all cadet flying. This is a named, personal, legal responsibility for safety. As such they - the individuals and their staff - must assure themselves of safety.
It's all detailed in ACTO (Air Cadet Training Order) #35 which - as a CI - you should be able to access via BADER. Alternatively your WGLO will (should!!) have the answers and the approval process off pat.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly. And unfortunately it doesn't matter if the civilian school is safe or not; they'd still have to assure themselves of that safety personally.
(Speaking as a DDH myself in another area of cadet activity)
(Speaking as a DDH myself in another area of cadet activity)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: england
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that accident could have been prevented if the medics did their job. Further more the old boys network was culpable.
Then again some missing medical history from the medical branch, ( is that a shredder I can hear)
Then again some missing medical history from the medical branch, ( is that a shredder I can hear)
that accident could have been prevented if the medics did their job
Further more the old boys network was culpable (sic)
Then again some missing medical history from the medical branch, ( is that a shredder I can hear)
YS
I was not aware of cadet death(s) on AT - fault of the system, or sadly did the youngster(s) have a med issue?
The Grob/glider collision- certainly there were "aircraft" and airspace issues, but I think the BOI makes clear that sadly the captain should not have been flying due to his long term medical condition. I knew the guy and was always surprised he was allowed to fly the \Nimrod
The Grob/glider collision- certainly there were "aircraft" and airspace issues, but I think the BOI makes clear that sadly the captain should not have been flying due to his long term medical condition. I knew the guy and was always surprised he was allowed to fly the \Nimrod