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 May 2017, 21:05
  #3521 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,247
Originally Posted by boswell bear View Post
How did you find teaching in the Chevvron with it's central control column and drag flap lever left seat only?
Sorry mate, can't say as I was not an instructor, I just flew Air Experience.
I think the instructor flew right seat and talked the student through the operation of the 'flap cum airbrake' lever. One of the aircraft (we had 4) was found to have the 'B' wing with flaps which went down rather than up when it was delivered but this was soon changed to a 'C' wing. As for the central column, the technique so I was told was for the cadet to hold it by the handgrip and the instructor would then place his hand loosely round the base of the control column so he could take over by moving his hand upwards thereby displacing the cadet's hand.

Last edited by chevvron; 15th May 2017 at 21:20.
chevvron is offline  
Old 15th May 2017, 21:19
  #3522 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,247
Originally Posted by cats_five View Post
I find it sad that those 3 solo circuits were the end of glider training for most cadets - it barely scratches the surface of gliding in so many ways.
But don't forget it was free. If cadets were really keen after they soloed, they could apply to become a Staff Cadet at the gliding school and then would continue training and eventually become an instructor which once again was free.
To join a BGA or RAGFGSA club would mean paying out and many cadets being still at school they either had to rely on their parents doing this or forgo it entirely, which as most parents couldn't afford it is what most cadets did, but don't forget, they had flown solo in an RAF aircraft.
chevvron is offline  
Old 15th May 2017, 22:31
  #3523 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: northofwhereiusedtobe
Posts: 1,182
Trying to remember how many years ago I posted it would be easier cheaper and quicker to buy new gliders to solve the problem
Hey but what do I know ??
longer ron is online now  
Old 16th May 2017, 07:22
  #3524 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,169
Longer ron

The problem with buying new gliders is the production rate, the industry is simply not able to generate the airframes.

If you ordered a fleet of 50 gliders I would expect it would take two years to get ten airframes delivered so the only realistic option to get cadets back in the air is to recover the best Viking airframes while looking at a phased fleet replacement.

I think a lot of people fail to understand how small the gliding industry is and that it is not posable to increase production rate ( be it recovery or new aircraft ) because of the lack of skilled staff.
A and C is offline  
Old 16th May 2017, 07:28
  #3525 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by A and C View Post
If you ordered a fleet of 50 gliders I would expect it would take two years to get ten airframes delivered so the only realistic option to get cadets back in the air is to recover the best Viking airframes while looking at a phased fleet replacement.
The ACO has been waiting for more than 3 years for fewer aircraft.
Aggamemnon is offline  
Old 16th May 2017, 08:35
  #3526 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by Aggamemnon View Post
The ACO has been waiting for more than 3 years for fewer aircraft.
...and paid a ridiculous amount of money for the for those few which are still regularly unserviceable not to mention the amount spent on infrastructure the organisation doesn't need.
boswell bear is offline  
Old 16th May 2017, 09:33
  #3527 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,007
I still feel that the wrong decision has been made with regard to equipment.

The Winch Launch gliders which are better for teamwork and so on (fully recognized benefits) are harder to place in terms of real estate than the motorgliders. Regular units are happier to take Motorglider VGS as lodger units as they fit better with the working patterns of these units. And the FOD risks are much reduced.

The right decision would have been to re-engine the Motorglider airframes through an OEM programme run by Grob. Shuffle the airframes to keep a capability (reduced) in the UK until all Vigilants are re-engined. Then possibly have a reduced number of larger regional Motorglider VGS's afterwards. This also consolidates the approach which has been taken in the past where Vigilants have been temporarily detached to be 'nearer the customers' (such as 618 to Manston where there is no local permanent VGS). You just cant achieve that flexibility with a winch launch VGS.

Sell the Vikings 'as is', get rid of the new winches. Put the money in the pot.

Cost savings from consolidation of sites, standardization of equipment and standardization of training make the business case an absolute 'no-brainer' - but it doesn't fit with the model which appears to be that they don't like the VGS being powered operations.............

But what is done is done and sadly we are where we are................

Arc
Arclite01 is offline  
Old 16th May 2017, 14:20
  #3528 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 114
Get your applications in!

https://www.civilservicejobs.service...MjcxZWExZmZhMQ
boswell bear is offline  
Old 16th May 2017, 18:16
  #3529 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,354
Originally Posted by longer ron View Post
Trying to remember how many years ago I posted it would be easier cheaper and quicker to buy new gliders to solve the problem
Hey but what do I know ??
The problem is the paperwork, which might or might not hide problems with none / some / all of the gliders. It doesn't matter what gliders they do or don't have, if the paperwork is in a guddle the glider is unairworthy.
cats_five is online now  
Old 17th May 2017, 07:29
  #3530 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,007
Cats

LongerRon is very aware of the issues - take it from me................

Arc
Arclite01 is offline  
Old 17th May 2017, 08:17
  #3531 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 771
If I might...

The problem is not 'the paperwork'. The problems are the failures of organisation, culture and competence that led to the paperwork being in an unholy mess.

Looking after the paperwork for a fleet of utterly basic GRP aircraft should have been a walk in the park. The RAF and the MoD should have been able to meet all the applicable regulations. The people involved should have been able to carry out the repairs properly. The FTRS should have been able to pass their first CAMO assessments back in 2013 with ease.

But as one of my old chiefs used to say ''should' don't mean sod all, Sir'.

The basic question remains unanswered - how on earth did the RAF, of all services, end up putting schoolchildren into the air in non-airworthy aircraft?

Chug and Tuc would point to the actions of RAF VSOs in the 80s, when the dismantling of the MoD's airworthiness management systems started. They have a good point - but that doesn't fully explain why people in the MoD and the RAF apparently failed to carry out the basics for another 20 years from the 90s.

Honestly, I think it's time for an enquiry. Any thoughts?

Best Regards as ever to all those caught up in this and trying to do the right thing,

Engines
Engines is offline  
Old 17th May 2017, 09:07
  #3532 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,007
I can't see the appetite for a review frankly. Not because it's not required, but because certain VSO's feel 'it's not required' - if you get my drift

Arc
Arclite01 is offline  
Old 17th May 2017, 09:07
  #3533 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,844
Honestly, I think it's time for an enquiry. Any thoughts?
The first thing I'd say is, we've had an inquiry. The Nimrod Review, which was given the full historical details of why the system was run down, and by whom. That was simply factual information, although actively concealed by MoD - and Haddon-Cave. So yes, another is needed.

The question why this continued for (at the time) nearly 20 years was also addressed, but of course that can only be from the perspective of individual witnesses; although some had considerable experience and had witnessed first hand the RAF's reaction to the failings in December 1992 - threats of dismissal for refusing to obey orders to perpetuate the rundown. Under such a regime, many hitherto diligent and exceptional engineers will succumb to a culture of bullying, and ignore their training and regulations. In fact, MoD actually admits this, stating in a 2003 briefing to PUS that only one member of staff had complained, and that he was therefore wrong. (A notification provided under FoI, and submitted to Haddon-Cave). A lie in my opinion, but it is difficult to find anyone who will admit to voicing concerns; which is now both an offence and a legal obligation. But, also, many engineering decisions have been taken by non-engineers, who have self-delegated authority. This has never been resolved, although to be fair I think the MAA have snipped away at the outer edges. But 7 years of snipping should have exposed all!
tucumseh is offline  
Old 17th May 2017, 09:11
  #3534 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 77
Posts: 4,144
Engines, you rightly point to the actions of RAF VSOs in the 80s, but I would point in turn to further RAF VSO actions in the 90s and beyond. Most of those actions were directed at covering up the initial subversion of the UK Military Airworthiness system and of diverting blame to others of 1* downwards to JOs for its fatal consequences. In order to do that control of airworthiness was removed from qualified and experienced engineers to unqualified non-engineers who would do the bidding of their RAF VSO seniors. Gradually the corporate knowledge of the regulations vanished, together with the regulations themselves which were systematically scrapped. When this was all brought to light by those outside the MOD and a review ordered into the loss of Nimrod XV230, once again the MOD went into damage limitation mode. Aided by the extraordinary labelling in the Review of the period of subversion as a "Golden Period" of airworthiness practice, it gave us the "Independent" MAA manned mainly by those who had been complicit (knowingly or otherwise) in the lingering death of UK Military Airworthiness.

The MAA cannot change its spots. It is not independent, it is part of the MOD, the very institution that has perpetrated this scandal. It is not capable of reform, because it does not understand what it is that has been destroyed before and after its formation. Even if it did it cannot go about that reform, because it would first of all have to admit why the system was destroyed and who destroyed it. The cover up is still in place because RAF VSO reputations are deemed a higher priority than the airworthiness of UK Military Aviation. This reform can only happen outwith the MOD. Similarly, UK Military Air Accident Investigation must just as importantly be removed from the MOD and be made independent of the MOD and a reborn MAA.

That is my response to your :-

doesn't fully explain why people in the MoD and the RAF apparently failed to carry out the basics for another 20 years from the 90s.

Last edited by Chugalug2; 17th May 2017 at 09:38. Reason: Words, dear boy, words.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 17th May 2017, 11:16
  #3535 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,354
The problem is not 'the paperwork'. The problems are the failures of organisation, culture and competence that led to the paperwork being in an unholy mess.
Yes, that's being more explicit than I was. However I think we agree it wouldn't matter what they were flying - T21, K21, Viking, Capstan etc. they would be grounded because of the problems the paperwork is symptomatic of.
cats_five is online now  
Old 17th May 2017, 11:38
  #3536 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: across the border....
Posts: 172
Until those in positions of responsibility with regard to this mess are publicly named and shamed for exposing children to risk, nothing will be done about it.

You could say the RAF have taken an ambivalent disregard to safety in exposing children to undue risk and I'm thinking not just of the reason for this thread but certain lack of operational practices that lead to the deaths of innocents - not equipping aircraft with Mode C transponders and not making use of local radar services.


7700
squawking 7700 is offline  
Old 17th May 2017, 15:30
  #3537 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: 75' from the runway edge and 150' from the threshold
Age: 70
Posts: 160
Job Application

B Bear - I had a look at the job application. When I read the bit at Para 2 Line 3 I'm afraid my blood boiled somewhat, leading me to send the following email to the address for requesting information for clarification on the claims made in said paragraph.

Dear Sir or Madam
I read the job description, as above, with interest. I note that in paragraph 2 it is stated that "The gliders comprising a mix of self-launching and conventional types are MoD owned and maintained in accordance with current Royal Air Force maintenance procedures.

I would be obliged if you would let me know as to when this practice came into being as, when I was flying teen-age members of the Air Training Corps and others, the aircraft were, so it has been revealed, un-airworthy and Not maintained in accordance with current Royal Air Force maintenance procedures, thus making them legally un-airworthy and, ipso facto, unsafe and, thereby putting my life and the lives of my young students at risk.

I see, also, that the applicants will have to go through various checks (immigration and fraud, to name but two) and abide by certain compliances and codes (i.e.The Civil Service Code). This being so, what reciprocal agreements can the successful candidate expect in return that, for instance, the aircraft in which he is going to fly in has not only been declared airworthy and, therefore, safe but that process and procedures will be in place to ensure that that remains so, unlike the procedures and processes that were not adhered to, both by the Royal Air Force and the contractors concerned, which put my life and, more importantly, the lives of those students and passengers (including my wife of 45 years) at risk at that time.


I look forward to your reply.
ACW342 is offline  
Old 17th May 2017, 16:00
  #3538 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,012
Trying to remember how many years ago I posted it would be easier cheaper and quicker to buy new gliders to solve the problem
Hey but what do I know ??
In a rational world that might be so, but in the current one maybe not.

How long would it take to:

a) Review a 20 year old requirement to confirm it is still valid (or probably go through a desirable change spec)

b) Agree a budget for the purchase

c) go out to tender

d) review the submissions (if any were received)

e) Have MAOS audit and approve the proposed supplier. (which could take more than 12 months on its own. EASA Part 145 doesn't read across.)

e) go through the commercial contract issue process

f) carry out acceptance trials

g) write the complete APS for the aircraft, and have it MAOS approved.

My guess is 7-10 years before a single new glider was seen under the current system, and the cost including MOD overheads doubling the equivalent ex-works price to the civilian world.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 17th May 2017, 16:21
  #3539 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,844
ACW342

I hope you get a reply! Well done.

Regarding the Civil Service Code, during the MoK Review the Civil Service Commissioners confirmed there was no way the public could make a complaint that it was breached. Only a serving civil servant can do this, and I can assure you that doing so would be career ending. This could be construed as a breach of the Armed Forces Covenant.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 17th May 2017, 17:28
  #3540 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,354
Originally Posted by Fitter2 View Post
<snip>

My guess is 7-10 years before a single new glider was seen under the current system, and the cost including MOD overheads doubling the equivalent ex-works price to the civilian world.
That might give them time to sort out the organisational issues that have lead to the current situation. it would then take many more years to replace the fleet, as I suspect the K21 would be the only serious contender (not the Perkoz or PW6) and Shleicher can already sell as many as they can build so the ATC might get 2 per year.
cats_five is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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