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 24th May 2018, 18:34
  #4461 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by POBJOY View Post
The more this sorry saga goes on the more suspicious I get re the motives emanating from 2 FTS.
The whole ' jam tomorrow ' scenario looks to be an excuse for easing away from an essentially volunteer run organisation and building up a new set up (big hubs, accommodation blocks, transport requirement,.catering requirement, etc) just like a mini Syerston, and no doubt run like the AEF.
And who will run these operations (devoid of Staff Cadets and CI's). Well HQAC itself have become a convenient 'home' for Pension toppers so why change the model.
In any other organisation the leaderless top would have long gone, and a new regime imposed by the shareholders, but in the AC organisation the VOLUNTEERS and Cadets are those paying the price for the gross failures of others. The VGS were just lied to, and their efforts dismissed by those that were incapable of doing their own job to a satisfactory level. The TRUTH has been watered down by 'cascading' rubbish from HQAC and 2 FTS to the point that they must know what they are saying is not based on facts yet they bring on more Ce-lebs, and carry on. Utterly disgraceful and a good enough reason to say :- It 'WAS' a great organisation that ANYONE could join and explore their potential. They have completely failed the 'AIR' word, and have just become burdened by job sitters and non deliverers. To the Volunteers I say You are/were better than them and really showed what VENTURE ADVENTURE was all about., sorry you were shafted by such a sorry bunch.
Seems much the same to me. Well said Pob!

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 24th May 2018, 21:06
  #4462 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 11 GROUP
Age: 72
Posts: 907
Historic RAF Kenley

Kenley is still the named base for 615 and although they are as we know 'dormant' due a well known screw up in the system they have been a very long term unit there and indeed the only flying unit there since 1959. In fact Kenley owes its ongoing survival due to 615,and all those that have flown from there will know what an amazing place it is with an incredible historical significance. However there is a new threat in the making, so I have put a 'missive' on the Aviation History thread if you care to read it.
Thanks PP
POBJOY is offline  
Old 25th May 2018, 15:09
  #4463 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 70
Posts: 8,084
Originally Posted by ExAscoteer View Post
RAFVR(T) is no more and hasn't been since Dec last year.
When my Wg Cdr decided I wasn't 'pulling my weight' (I was only doing WGLO duties 6 hours every other weekend and attending the Sqdn for less than the required 8 hr/month; the Sqdn Cdr had made it clear to me there was no 'role' for me on the Sqdn anyway) and terminated my commission I was sent a letter saying I could if I wished use the title 'Flt Lt....... RAFVR(T) Retd' if I wished and if I ever feel the need I shall continue to do that.
I was irked when I discovered I wasn't required to attend the Sqdn anyway as WGLO had been made an established Wing Staff post, a fact my Wg Cdr had neglected to tell me.
Unfortunately the Wg Ad O, a retired 'rock' Wg Cdr who I got on well with and who was an excellent communicator, was sidelined due to a bad motorbike acident otherwise I'm sure I would have been told.
chevvron is offline  
Old 25th May 2018, 16:32
  #4464 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 69
Originally Posted by ExAscoteer View Post
RAFVR(T) is no more and hasn't been since Dec last year.
The RAFVR(T) hasn't disappeared completely 6FTS retains them flying the tutor and 2FTS has a number of VR(T) in the HQ and CGS.
Tingger is offline  
Old 25th May 2018, 20:19
  #4465 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sneaking up on the Runway and leaping out to grab it unawares
Age: 56
Posts: 653
Indeed, I was referring to the 'mainstream' VR(T).

The AEF staff will remain as VR(T) owing to accountability, but letter I received from Cmdt RAFAC states that they are actively looking at changing their reserve status.
ExAscoteer is offline  
Old 26th May 2018, 10:56
  #4466 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,004
If AEF staff are remaining VR(T) on basis of 'Accountability' then VGS staff should also be in that category - for the same reasons

IMHO.

Arc
Arclite01 is offline  
Old 26th May 2018, 23:29
  #4467 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: liverpool uk
Age: 62
Posts: 1,141
Originally Posted by ExAscoteer View Post
Indeed, I was referring to the 'mainstream' VR(T).

The AEF staff will remain as VR(T) owing to accountability, but letter I received from Cmdt RAFAC states that they are actively looking at changing their reserve status.
She may have difficulty getting that past AOC 22 group as the new CFC has no accountability in it.

Last edited by air pig; 27th May 2018 at 10:00.
air pig is offline  
Old 27th May 2018, 06:09
  #4468 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sneaking up on the Runway and leaping out to grab it unawares
Age: 56
Posts: 653
Hence they will still be part of the Reserves and outside the CFC.
ExAscoteer is offline  
Old 27th May 2018, 10:13
  #4469 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 11 GROUP
Age: 72
Posts: 907
Titanic Mentality

In the REAL world the aircraft were quite happy being flown by 'qualified' staff many of whom had no RAF rank.
This is the main problem now; the organisation has lost its way about WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING TO PROVIDE A SERVIVE TO THE CADETS , and we are left with 'cascading', and spin, but NO B...…….. Machines. Those at the helm would have been quite at home on the Titanic,or burning Rome.
POBJOY is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2018, 20:11
  #4470 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 627
Vigilants to be scrapped.
hoodie is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2018, 21:29
  #4471 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 930
From the quoted link:

A report by British engineering company Qinitiq suggested that many of the training flights were logged as one flight when in fact there were multiple flights, meaning the aircraft’s fatigue life was unknown in some cases.
That doesn't sound like common sense procedure to me.
beardy is online now  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 05:50
  #4472 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: EGOS Field 24
Posts: 1,024
Originally Posted by beardy View Post
From the quoted link:

That doesn't sound like common sense procedure to me.
Not something we did at either of the two VGSs on which I served. I also don't recall the Vigilant being lifed on landings.
ACW599 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 06:47
  #4473 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Head in the Clouds
Posts: 72
That doesn't sound like common sense procedure to me.

OC2FTS making something up again!

Put one of these with a gliding club and they will have it airworthy in no time!

Are we aware that there are more Cadet MkIIIs and Sedberghs flying today in comparison with those (Vikings) that replaced them! It is all down to the people who look after them. They should be taken away from 2FTS before he scraps them too!
Freda Checks is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 07:07
  #4474 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 930
The report comes from QinetiQ, do you know who they are and if they have any relationship, apart from a contractual one, with 2FTS? Or is that unimportant?

Last edited by beardy; 27th Jun 2018 at 08:10.
beardy is online now  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 08:32
  #4475 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Head in the Clouds
Posts: 72
Suggestion from QinetiQ

it seems that it was a suggestion from QinetiQ!

Are we scrapping aircraft based on suggestions now?
Freda Checks is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 09:26
  #4476 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Uranus
Posts: 326
Why any volunteers waste their time any more with this mess is beyond me, turn up Saturday grounded Sunday. It'll happen with he Vikings too.

No one cares anymore.

At least no one was killed.
Shaft109 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 10:44
  #4477 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: East Anglia
Age: 69
Posts: 761
The question taxpayers should be asking is this - "If the RAF is incapable of assuring the airworthiness of simple gliders and motor gliders, of which hundreds of examples of the same types continue to be operated safely worldwide, how can we be sure much more advanced platforms, such as Typhoon and Lightning II, are airworthy?"

(A supplementary question might be - "Who is being held accountable for this gross waste of taxpayers' money?").
1.3VStall is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 12:07
  #4478 (permalink)  
622
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hants
Age: 51
Posts: 674
Originally Posted by beardy View Post
From the quoted link:



That doesn't sound like common sense procedure to me.
..I don't know...I had quite a few students who tried to turn one flight into many....and that was in a Viking!
622 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 14:55
  #4479 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Up North
Posts: 6
QinetiQ report

I have not commented on this topic before and must first say that the efforts made by the vast majority of the Staff at the VGSs are commendable. However, (there is always a however) as an ex RAF engineer, ex VGS CI, BGA inspector and actively involved in the continuing airworthiness of military aircraft (I may have identified myself to some) I FULLY concur with the QinetiQreport. When I joined the VGS and reviewed the F700 verses the training through put stats I suspected the integrity of aircraft flight time recording may be a bit wayward. How on one Sunday they managed to carry out 12 GIC (4:00), finish 4 GS students (8:00) and do four SCT trips (4:00) with 3 Vigilant with less than two hours remaining on each before their servicing extensions ended; the F700 recorded two hours and 6 landings on each Vigilant. The CO and Tech Officer said ‘it’s OK everyone does this’. Additionally, an aircraft departed the runway; traveling across rough ground, was ‘brushed off, no incident report was raised and flown later that week-end. A quiet word to the ‘senior staff’ and it was made abundantly clear this would stop; it never again happen on days I was there but I did suspect some creative accounting continued to occur. Equally, aircraft almost inevitable flew on extensions indicating that the maintenance support provided from Syerston was undermanned or underfunded (probably both). The lifing of the aircraft is predicated on the operations carried out in accordance with the Statement of Operational Intent and Usage (SOI&U), should aircraft flight time and landing recording be creatively managed the basis for the Airworthiness Safety Case is undermined. As the SOI&U parameter cannot be confirmed thus the aircraft cannot be declared airworthy I am not saying they are unsafe I am saying that their safety cannot be guaranteed.I sit back and await the backlash and cries of that never happened on my squadron.
RRNemesis is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 16:30
  #4480 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,835
1.3VStall

The question taxpayers should be asking is this - "If the RAF is incapable of assuring the airworthiness of simple gliders and motor gliders, of which hundreds of examples of the same types continue to be operated safely worldwide, how can we be sure much more advanced platforms, such as Typhoon and Lightning II, are airworthy?"

(A supplementary question might be - "Who is being held accountable for this gross waste of taxpayers' money?").
In this case, one must also look at what other aircraft the Type Airworthiness Authority is responsible for. I've said before, you could merge this thread with the Red Arrows XX177 one, because the same people are involved. Neither aircraft had a valid safety case.

RRNemesis

As the SOI&U parameter cannot be confirmed thus the aircraft cannot be declared airworthy I am not saying they are unsafe I am saying that their safety cannot be guaranteed.I sit back and await the backlash and cries of that never happened on my squadron.
Precisely. Remember, in 1992 the Director of Flight Safety reported that Chinook didn't have a SOIU, never mind one with parameters that could be verified. Why has nothing changed in 26 years? Or are we to be grateful that there's actually an SOIU, albeit one that is ignored. Please also remember, that all aircrew are required to be familiar with the SOIU, so that they may report violations. I'm not sure how that works with Air Cadets.

Which brings us back to 1.3's question;

"Who is being held accountable?"
tucumseh is offline  

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.