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 25th Jan 2018, 09:17
  #4121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,867
Good stuff about aircraft paperwork, but we must always remember that to be able to conduct and verify maintenance and servicing the aircraft must first be declared airworthy, as that is what facilitates serviceability.

It was not a case of simply sending the gliders to whatever repair shop. First, the airworthiness baseline had to be stabilised. To MoD/MAA, that is a major task, especially when there is no Safety Case and at the same time trying to hide the fact the failings apply pan-MoD - a political consideration post-Haddon-Cave. That would have slowed process. I cannot speak for the quality or performance at the various contractors, but their task is relatively insignificant.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2018, 09:37
  #4122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Banging my head on a VGS wall
Posts: 26
Originally Posted by squawking 7700 View Post
cats - Indeed, these aircraft's recent maintenance programme and history has been akin to that of a back street garage.......but without the history, because that's acknowledged (by 2FTS) as destroyed - who let the contractor destroy essential paperwork? going back to market value, without that provenance the asset value is markedly reduced.
I seem to recall that i addressed that fact in my post and the market value was adjusted to compensate for that.
My wife is Slovakian and rest assured the paperwork as it is would not prevent a Viking/Acro being registered (after appropriate sensible inspection) there, indeed a ASW20 that hadnt been flown for a good decade has been imported, examined and is now flying with virtually no paperwork history. That would be echoed in any eastern European state.

Quote. Regarding G103 (in all its incarnations) v Puchacz - in the context of Air Cadet training, the Puchacz is unsuitable, it's not as robust as the Grob, it doesn't have the winch speed latitude and it has its stall/spin characteristic.

At no point did i mention the use of the Puchacz in Air Cadet training, i said that virtually every eastern European club given the choice of a Puchacz or a Acro, would have the Acro
Why oh why is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2018, 09:44
  #4123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 75
Posts: 6,385
Given the time of year, I am surprised no one has set this saga to music and put it on the stage as a pantomime, but I guess tickets would not sell, just too unbelievable even for a pantomime
Wander00 is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2018, 09:50
  #4124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Old Hampshire
Age: 64
Posts: 562
Am I missing something? What kind of radar surveillance is needed for a bunch of up round and down operations? Which ATC gliders wandered far enough away from mummy to be of any interest to anyone else? My airmaps clearly show gliding sites (a big double cross) and 'areas of intense gliding activity'. Why would anyone in the GA or RAF wander into these zones except in an emergency.

You are forgetting the Vigilant fleet. Being motor gliders they did travel outside of gliding range of their own bases to land to operate at others. (I can supply photos of Abingdon based Vigilant ops at Cranwell, Wattisham, Valley and Coningsby if needed)
Also the VGS at Abingdon was under no illusion that the NOTAM declaring the airfield to be an 'area of intense gliding activity' would prevent other aircraft from wandering across (and on to) the airfield. Abingdon is located in the 'Benson, Brize gap' and close to the VFR navigational anchor that is Didcot power station which just helped to funnel GA aircraft through the gap, as well as being a regular turning point for gliding comps.
The towers at Kidlington, Brize and Benson were on the Duty Instructor's speed dial to help in finding out just who was controlling (if at all) or identifying the aircraft that had just flown through the Abingdon circuit. More than once the tower at Kidlington was contacted and asked if they could speak to (and question his ability as a pilot) the pilot of the expensive piece of GA hardware that had just approached, or landed and rolled at Abingdon before continuing north to Kidlington. The best of these incidents being a certain F1 racing driver piloting his executive jet, who landed, backtracked and asked the driver of the VGS Landrover where he was before taking off again for the short hop to Kidlington leaving a cadet asking if that was the reason he was a racing driver "because its difficult to get lost on a circuit."
VX275 is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2018, 10:05
  #4125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,388
Not forgetting the Be36 who landed gear up at Abingdon in about 2004. He'd had total electrical failure, was uncertain of position and phoned us (Farnborough) on his mobile.
Told me he was over an airfield with 2 runways; I asked 'do they cross roughly at right angles or at about 30 deg'. He said right angles so I phoned Benson to ask if they could see an aircraft over Abingdon; they said yes. Course this wasn't positive ident but I told the pilot where I suspected he was and he elected to land (cloudbase was already below 1,000ft).
Phoned me back about 10 min later and said he was down but hadn't been able to lower his gear as it was electrically operated. I gave him the phone number of the guardroom from our Helicopter Landing Site directory so he could try to sort things out.
Course the Army guys there hadn't noticed a thing!
Never heard what happened after that, apart from getting a phone call from a rather puzzled AAIB man who said there was an emergency lowering system fitted to the Be36 in case of electrical failure!

Last edited by chevvron; 25th Jan 2018 at 11:54.
chevvron is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2018, 10:44
  #4126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,374
Originally Posted by squawking 7700 View Post
cats - Indeed, these aircraft's recent maintenance programme and history has been akin to that of a back street garage.......but without the history, because that's acknowledged (by 2FTS) as destroyed - who let the contractor destroy essential paperwork? going back to market value, without that provenance the asset value is markedly reduced.
For each glider that Southern Sailplanes release to flight I personally would be happy with the paperwork & glider at the moment it was loaded into the trailer. At present I have no confidence that it will stay in that state as in one that accurately reflects the maintenance history of the glider post-Southern Sailplanes.

As an aside, pre-EASA the BGA used to keep all the glider paperwork we sent in each year. When they wanted a clear-out it was offered free to the current owners, with the result I have a bulging file of 25+ years of paperwork for my glider and AFAIK most other owners do as well.
cats_five is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2018, 22:38
  #4127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 1,904
Slating the maintenance companies is both stupid and ignorant.
The core issue is the poor RAF/MOD contracts which approve (and possibly instruct) those maintenance companies to destroy vital historic documentation within that contracts regulatory bounds. UK fighter aircraft are operated in a similar way but, in my experience, those contractors are smarter than the MOD/RAF idiots 'in charge' who would still want the document destroyed. Those contractors know that to throw away ANY documentation is to discard evidence should the MOD turn on them...as they regularly do.
Aircraft engineers and technicians are not stupid and not idiots. Their integrity keep you flying. They can read contracts and always abide by the regulations required (MAA/EASA, etc.) - its their livelihood. And they mostly make profits because they can write contracts too.
Rigga is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2018, 01:33
  #4128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,388
Originally Posted by Rigga View Post
Slating the maintenance companies is both stupid and ignorant.
The core issue is the poor RAF/MOD contracts which approve (and possibly instruct) those maintenance companies to destroy vital historic documentation within that contracts regulatory bounds. UK fighter aircraft are operated in a similar way but, in my experience, those contractors are smarter than the MOD/RAF idiots 'in charge' who would still want the document destroyed. Those contractors know that to throw away ANY documentation is to discard evidence should the MOD turn on them...as they regularly do.
Aircraft engineers and technicians are not stupid and not idiots. Their integrity keep you flying. They can read contracts and always abide by the regulations required (MAA/EASA, etc.) - its their livelihood. And they mostly make profits because they can write contracts too.
Wasn't there a 'problem' with a few Tornados about 15 years ago? Contractor (I believe but may be wrong) was Airwork.
chevvron is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2018, 02:02
  #4129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 783
Originally Posted by chevvron View Post
Not forgetting the Be36 who landed gear up at Abingdon in about 2004. He'd had total electrical failure, was uncertain of position and phoned us (Farnborough) on his mobile.
Told me he was over an airfield with 2 runways; I asked 'do they cross roughly at right angles or at about 30 deg'. He said right angles so I phoned Benson to ask if they could see an aircraft over Abingdon; they said yes. Course this wasn't positive ident but I told the pilot where I suspected he was and he elected to land (cloudbase was already below 1,000ft).
Phoned me back about 10 min later and said he was down but hadn't been able to lower his gear as it was electrically operated. I gave him the phone number of the guardroom from our Helicopter Landing Site directory so he could try to sort things out.
Course the Army guys there hadn't noticed a thing!
Never heard what happened after that, apart from getting a phone call from a rather puzzled AAIB man who said there was an emergency lowering system fitted to the Be36 in case of electrical failure!
Of course the Army guys didn’t notice...probably because they were too busy supporting ops or training for, instead of being a ginger-middle child telling everyone who can be arrse’d to listen, or who isn’t bored, or hasn’t worked it about all Crabs, how great they are!

Or just maybe the driver was an idiot....like the 2 that joined the circuit at 800ft at Old Sarum with no radio calls when I had just let 10 blokes with self-deployed silk from 12k out of the door, before racing them down at 140kts.

Morons.
gijoe is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2018, 05:58
  #4130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 559
^^^
Ooooh, get you!
Walk through the wrong career office door?
Or just bitter you failed those RAF aptitude tests?

Either way, your banter is pretty puerile and low average. Guess the pongos found their man eh?

Last edited by high spirits; 26th Jan 2018 at 06:24.
high spirits is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2018, 06:31
  #4131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,867
Chevvron

You are indeed correct, but might have been more than 15 years. I wasn't involved but do recall a few questions being raised over MoD's Approved Contractor's scheme, and whether it had been implemented. There was a lot of 'appoint a prime who doesn't actually do anything, except sub the work to Joe Bloggs down the road' going on. I know that in 1994 I was the subject of a political overrule, with a major programme (£hundredsM) being handed to a company, who weren't approved, and who hadn't (been allowed to) bid. Westland and Boscombe ended up doing the difficult work. Just so happened Minister for Defence Procurement had a 'Joe Bloggs' in his constituency, but I'm sure this wasn't a factor.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2018, 08:54
  #4132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,179
Thread drift

Can anyone tell my why the Be36 driver did not use the hand crank to lower the landing gear, it is fitted for use in the event of electrical failure.
A and C is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2018, 09:12
  #4133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Head in the Clouds
Posts: 72
Too many thread drifts. They detract from the importance of this topic. Pay attention chaps, keep up with the subject in hand, the lack of air cadet gliding!
Freda Checks is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2018, 12:53
  #4134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Third rock from the sun.
Posts: 174
Might this help?

Glider Pilot Network > Classified Adverts
snapper1 is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2018, 13:13
  #4135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 598
Originally Posted by snapper1 View Post
Not really, as it requires a login.
BossEyed is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2018, 13:48
  #4136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,388
Originally Posted by A and C View Post
Can anyone tell my why the Be36 driver did not use the hand crank to lower the landing gear, it is fitted for use in the event of electrical failure.
As I said on the last line, the AAIB man was puzzled about that too. Having no experience of this type I don't know.
chevvron is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2018, 13:54
  #4137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,374
Originally Posted by BossEyed View Post
Not really, as it requires a login.
Here you go

After many years of faithful service I have decided to sell my T31 “XE802” “BGA 5283” and she needs a new home.
This is rare flying example of this type of glider in full RAF ATC colours and still carries the original RAF registration.
XE802 has been carefully dry stored in a trailer in a barn and brought out for many VGC rallies and has given a lot of pleasure to those who have flown it.
XE802 is a star of TV / Film and Newspaper articles so is well known both here in the UK and in Europe.
I’m reluctantly selling because I have too many other projects and no longer have the time to fly her.

The glider was reweighed in 2015 by Dave (The Glider Doctor) Bullock and has the Rear hook modification also by Dave Bullock (Nov 2014 - this is the original Slingsby winch hook location so she goes up the line very nicely).
The glider has the original intercom fitted, the head sets are a little tatty.
XE802 will come with a 12 month C of A and all the paper work.

Hrs:1,026
Launches:- 30,032

Unfortunately the trailer is not for sale but I can deliver with prior arrangement
XE802 can be viewed at Dartmoor or Lasham with prior arrangement.
Loads of pics on Google search just type in “XE802” and click ”images”

Asking price £1,550 ono
cats_five is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2018, 14:33
  #4138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,532
An average of 2.05 minutes per launch?

Is that typical? I know that the Tandem Tutor didn't have a sparkling performance, but even so.....
BEagle is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2018, 15:01
  #4139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,388
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
An average of 2.05 minutes per launch?

Is that typical? I know that the Tandem Tutor didn't have a sparkling performance, but even so.....
Depending on cable run ie wind direction at Halton, it was not unknown to only get about 800ft off the launch, just about enough height for 2 min, but I think most Mk 3 circuits I logged (about 200) were 3 min.
chevvron is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2018, 18:30
  #4140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,012
When I did my A&B in 1959, the 18 pre-solo launches included 3 simulated cable breaks at various heights, logged at 1 minute each. That tends to push the average down.

The 3 solos added up to 14 minutes, a solo launch gets rather more launch height.

(Average solo flight time in 2017 was 4 hrs 15 or thereabouts, but all in somewhat better performance machines).
Fitter2 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.