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 10th Dec 2018, 17:49
  #4661 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,190
Illegal orders are not to be obeyed, end of! That was what I was taught at Sleaford Tech early 60's in Air Force Law lectures. I doubt very much if that has changed since, despite the subsequent change to Military Law. Catch-22 is of course that not only are they not to be obeyed but they must also be reported! Hence the extraordinary official MOD position as stated by tucumseh above (#4655), whereby refusing to make false record is an offence whereas ordering it to be done is not!

That is front and centre of this scandal and why Regulation and Investigation has to be removed from MOD interference and made independent of it and each other.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2018, 20:51
  #4662 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,848
ancient & thud

There have been many such rulings, but in my own experience the first was by Director General Support Management (an AVM) in December 1992. He threatened those who refused to make false record with dismissal. An Internal Audit report was sent to PUS (Sir Richard Mottram) on 26 June 1996 supporting those who had 'offended', but he didn't act.

The RN likewise on 2 October 1999; but it only regarded it as insubordination, issuing formal written warnings. (Not all the RN - a Senior Captain and Commodore). That was an interesting case, as a Rear Admiral in OR stepped in and supported civilian 'offenders' against the Capt and Cdre. Written became verbal, but the offence itself was confirmed. Who can shoot down a Rear Admiral?..........

The Chief of Defence Procurement placed it in writing on 19 November and 13 December 2001. On 18 September 2002, after unsuccessful appeals, our Trades Union wrote to members advising them of the ruling. (I can't say how widely this was circulated, but I have my copy).

On 23 April 2003, the head of Personnel advised the Asst Under-Secy of State to uphold the rulings, which he did to an MP.

More recently, on 28 October 2014 the Cabinet Secy, the late Sir Jeremy Heywood, formally declined a request that he rescind the ruling. His reply was copied to a Minister through whom the request had been made.

You'll perhaps appreciate I have copies of all this correspondence, courtesy of DE&S Secretariat who were quite happy to provide it under FoI. To read about the inevitable outcome, go to the old Nimrod, C-130, Chinook, Tornado, Sea King threads. Well over 60 deaths.

I should add that on 6 February 2010 Sir Gerald Howarth, former Defence Minister, agreed with you both. It was illegal, and he would have expected his staff to disobey. I was there, in his house, with another ppruner - a retired Sqn Ldr.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2018, 03:12
  #4663 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,288
Got a lot of time for Sir Gerald; every time he vistied Farnborough Radar and I was on duty, he would come over, address me by name and have a chat.
When I told him about the fiasco of the PAR 2000 (being restricted to VMC only use for a long time) he was very interested.

Last edited by chevvron; 12th Dec 2018 at 14:11.
chevvron is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2018, 05:52
  #4664 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,848
Chevvron

Agreed. He'd asked for a brief about Nimrod MR4 and been told BAeS were to blame. Unlike many, he sought other opinions and was shocked at the links between it and other cases of waste, such as Chinook Mk3; and airworthiness-related deaths, like Nimrod XV230. He found it a real eye-opener that the same few names were all over them. He was particularly upset that prior written warning had been given in 2005 to a Defence Minister (Ingram) which was a brief summary of what Haddon-Cave said 4 years later; and Ingram had been briefed by MoD to reject that evidence. Like Lord Philip and Haddon-Cave, he was not amused that a couple of his ex-MoD plebs could produce written evidence that MoD denied the existence of, both to Ministers and in court. And the letter from Ingram. He'd clearly done his homework and, we thought, spoken to Haddon-Cave; because we didn't seek him out, he invited us.

I hope those fuming at the ACO fiasco don't think the last few posts are thread drift. Work back a few years and this is directly related. But it does illustrate just how difficult it is to achieve change in the face of closed ranks. But it helps to identify those ranks. There is no point at all in going after a single Gp Capt, unless you think he might speak out and reveal all. He won't, because he patently doesn't understand how the fiasco could have been avoided. Why would he? He wasn't trained. Those really responsible can't believe their luck that (another) pleb is being blamed. You have to appreciate that his mistakes were simply repeats of what led to all the other cases we discuss. You have to ask what it is about MoD that permits these to happen time and again. Gliding was 'paused' on airworthiness grounds. What is MoD's stated position, under oath, about airworthiness regulations? 'Irrelevant'. Coroner Walker disagreed, and we had the Nimrod Review; but MoD succeeded in compartmentalising it again, just like gliders. One of these days someone in MoD might read the evidence and think about doing something. It's required reading, and offers a focus. Perhaps then the MoD/MAA will stop claiming 'credit' for it. That's what you're up against, the MAA Technical Director claiming credit for the contents of a document sent to a Minister in 2005, and a 3 Star in 2000, and.... Summary of said document? 'Do what the regulations already tell you to do'. MoD refused, and stills does. That's why the ACO has been decimated. Best of luck.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2018, 18:37
  #4665 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 11 GROUP
Age: 72
Posts: 914
DO NOT LET THEM REWRITE HISTORY

CHEV Your last post is an excellent summary of the 'position', and we should remember that this thread has been consistent in seeking to bring this out in the open (albeit with the ATC element).
That so many well qualified opinions (facts) have been exposed there is no chance that unchallenged 'carpet sweeping' will be a common feature in the future.
The AIR CADET organisation will never be as we knew it (for many reasons) but at least we sowed the seeds to ensure a true hands on aviation experience can still be a desirable alternative to plastic bath tubs and screens.
If the Vigilants are saved it will because of this thread, and the thousands of valid comments that are now in the public arena.
That they 'may' well rise again under a different guise is welcome, but if they encourage youth to aspire to decision making, and self development then the country will be better off for it.
Best Wishes to all Pobjoy Pete
POBJOY is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 10:41
  #4666 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 55
Posts: 5,836
Don't fence me in

Up on Kenley Aerodrome early this morning and as the Surrey Hills GC weren't yet flying, took the opportunity to walk down the main runway, something I'd never done before. I'd noticed some building activity at the NE end of the runway earlier in the week - it turns out they are building the fence along the peri track about three or four metres in from the "public" edge. It looks as though it extends as far as the 615 hangar so far. I presume the gates may allow public access airside when flying isn't taking place. There is a large gate at the end of the runway corresponding with the crash gate into the field beyond.

So, can this possibly mean 615 will be ready to fly again by Easter?




treadigraph is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 12:06
  #4667 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Pathfinder Country
Posts: 447
Still good access to the Wattenden then?
aw ditor is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 13:14
  #4668 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 11 GROUP
Age: 72
Posts: 914
restricted airfield becomes smaller

Another legacy of JM. By having a fence on the actual peri track as opposed to the land around it, it has reduced the available area for emergency landings (cable breaks) and imposed a substantial hazard to any machine running into it.
A crass and stupid decision that typifies the crass and stupid way the ATC have been 'LED'.
To think this peri track was in use during the Battle of Britain and later whole wings would be weaving their way around it makes me weep.
POBJOY is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2018, 10:18
  #4669 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 55
Posts: 5,836
Still good access to the Wattenden aw ditor, in fact I nipped in there a couple of weeks ago after getting caught in a heavy shower as I walked up the peri track.

Was up there again yesterday, took the opportunity to walk down the shorter runway (and the old road!). The fence starts hard by the 615 hangar and is now progressing down the western edge of the airfield. I regained the public side of the fence via a latch gate. Agree with Pobjoy, it does represent a potential and unnecessary hazard; I would have thought replacing the "temporary" crowd barriers around the runway ends would have been sufficient.
treadigraph is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2018, 12:33
  #4670 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 203
The Kenley Fence😱

The fence should have been on the outside of the peri track on common land. On an already small airfield this introduces an additional flight safety hazard. It was put there to appease the minority nimbys who have moved to the area in recent years who think they have right to walk all over the airfield because they see it as part of Kenley Common. The fence will not stop their dogs from leaving deposits all over the airfield on non flying days. These deposits rarely get picked up by the owners of the dogs, despite doggy bags and bins being available. These deposits are picked up by the launching cable parachutes and on the knees of glider pilots when attaching cables to the gliders😱
It seems that some cyclists even want the (historic) bullet holes in the peri track removed and replaced with nice smooth tarmac so they can ride their bikes even faster round the peri track! The signs look good, let's see what the nimbys think about them!
Let us see Air Cadet gliders over RAF Kenley again! Looks like the "pause" will turn out to be five years for 615!

Last edited by Frelon; 17th Dec 2018 at 15:50.
Frelon is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2018, 17:21
  #4671 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,288
Originally Posted by Frelon View Post
The fence should have been on the outside of the peri track on common land. On an already small airfield this introduces an additional flight safety hazard. It was put there to appease the minority nimbys who have moved to the area in recent years who think they have right to walk all over the airfield because they see it as part of Kenley Common. The fence will not stop their dogs from leaving deposits all over the airfield on non flying days. These deposits rarely get picked up by the owners of the dogs, despite doggy bags and bins being available. These deposits are picked up by the launching cable parachutes and on the knees of glider pilots when attaching cables to the gliders��
It seems that some cyclists even want the (historic) bullet holes in the peri track removed and replaced with nice smooth tarmac so they can ride their bikes even faster round the peri track! The signs look good, let's see what the nimbys think about them!
Let us see Air Cadet gliders over RAF Kenley again! Looks like the "pause" will turn out to be five years for 615!
You're lucky; the Army tend to build a fence inside the peri track whenever they move onto an airfield eg Abingdon.

Last edited by chevvron; 20th Dec 2018 at 09:13.
chevvron is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2018, 19:07
  #4672 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: No Fix
Posts: 7
Looking at the RAF Kenley facebook page, perhaps even inside would have been better than the zig-zagging idiocy which disadvantages 'both sides of the fence' and introduces several hundred points of failure into an ageing hardstanding.
Caconym is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2018, 09:14
  #4673 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 55
Posts: 5,836
I didn't know about the bullet holes Frelon! I mostly walk along the western side of the airfield between Waterhouse Lane and Hillcrest Road but in the last couple of weeks have used several other entrances to the site and discovered the rifle range wall in the trees on the southern edge. Sadly graffitied...

I had to laugh at a comment on one of the Kenley sites that cyclists are doing 30-40mph around the peri-track - I seriously doubt it!
treadigraph is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2018, 09:31
  #4674 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 11 GROUP
Age: 72
Posts: 914
Royally Screwed

This historic and noble airfield has been done for by the nerds at Croydon Council suitably assisted by super nerd JM and 2 FTS who were the planning applicants for the fence.
Anyone with a modicum of gliding experience knows that substantial fences (and signs) on the actual airfield are a hazard and in the case of Kenley have reduced the operational area.
It would not surprise me if someone now decides that the site is too restricted for Cadet training and therefore that would be another excuse to prevent 615 from returning.
POBJOY is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2018, 18:12
  #4675 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 59
Posts: 218
Nice to see this scandal has finally made the mainstream media. Private Eye has picked it up off the back of Philip Whiteman's Editorial in the current issue of Pilot magazine.
DaveUnwin is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2018, 09:03
  #4676 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,169
Dave, please can you cut and paste the PE article.
A and C is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2018, 16:45
  #4677 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 59
Posts: 218
Hi A&C, I will once that issue has gone 'off sale'. As someone who works in print media I know how frustrating it is when people just 'give stuff away' on the internet while its still on sale on the High St!
DaveUnwin is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2018, 11:13
  #4678 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Teddington, Middlesex
Posts: 101
And may I invite you to email any comment/correction to my editorial reproduced earlier in this thread for publication in the magazine: I want to present an accurate and balanced picture in 'Pilot'!
Philip Whiteman is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2018, 21:21
  #4679 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,885
Originally Posted by A and C View Post
Dave, please can you cut and paste the PE article.
Here is what is says on their website

CADETS GROUNDED
The Air Cadetsí long-grounded motorglider fleet faces a sell-off, after maintenance contractor Serco and the RAF failed to keep them airworthy.
Private Eye In The Back


Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 17:13
  #4680 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fresno
Age: 69
Posts: 253
Has it really taken almost five years for the RAF to get a handful of motorgliders serviceable? How many gliders did they manage to return to service?
Thud105 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.