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 1st Jan 2019, 17:13
  #4681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
Thud105, there's a really big difference between "serviceable" and "airworthy".
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 17:27
  #4682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fresno
Age: 69
Posts: 247
Are they either or neither Cows?
Thud105 is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 17:52
  #4683 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 70
Posts: 8,025
Originally Posted by Thud105 View Post
Has it really taken almost five years for the RAF to get a handful of motorgliders serviceable?
It's what you get when you employ a civilian maintenance organisation which is not unknown for its 'cost cutting' procedures (and presumably chosen on the basis of the lowest of 3 bids) to maintain a simple aircraft to military standards including keeping records of all work carried out on each and every aircraft.
chevvron is online now  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 18:34
  #4684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 11 GROUP
Age: 72
Posts: 901
Return to service

There are plenty of machines that have been released by SS (to Syerston) that were capable of being put back in to operation if there was an organisation left that had enough staff to operate.
JM's legacy was that he killed off the organisation, and that was always going to be the difficult part to replace.
In reality they are faced with starting from scratch, and with a w-end operation the expertise (as was) will take years to replace.
Of course with so little actual 'solo' requirement the pressure has eased, but just the simple tasks of setting up for a days flying has also gone, so who is actually gong to 'train' the staff (assuming) they are available when required up to a level of capability that we used to take for the norm.
JM's vision of an 'all uniformed' organisation was always flawed, and there is not even an 'experienced' staff cadet force in being to provide the required level of help anymore.
POBJOY is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 08:42
  #4685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 69
Originally Posted by POBJOY View Post
There are plenty of machines that have been released by SS (to Syerston) that were capable of being put back in to operation if there was an organisation left that had enough staff to operate.
JM's legacy was that he killed off the organisation, and that was always going to be the difficult part to replace.
In reality they are faced with starting from scratch, and with a w-end operation the expertise (as was) will take years to replace.
Of course with so little actual 'solo' requirement the pressure has eased, but just the simple tasks of setting up for a days flying has also gone, so who is actually gong to 'train' the staff (assuming) they are available when required up to a level of capability that we used to take for the norm.
JM's vision of an 'all uniformed' organisation was always flawed, and there is not even an 'experienced' staff cadet force in being to provide the required level of help anymore.
That's not strictly true it being the AOCs directive to transition to uniformed staff and while it's been a paperwork exercise to get going once established is it really that onerous a task to go through. Most of the operating VGS have staff numbers in the 30+ and 5-10 staff cadets some of whom are already grade 1 pilots.

while 2FTS maybe could have done extra to keep staff interested part of that burden does rest with the squadron OCs those that did motivate their staff with little extras have strong teams in place, those that didn't will struggle.
Tingger is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 10:04
  #4686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 11 GROUP
Age: 72
Posts: 901
Transition to uniformed staff !!

I am sorry but as effectively the OC of ATC gliding JM would have had a major input into any changes to the VGS set up, and OC Air Cadets would have had little first hand knowledge of how the operation used to run or how reliant it was on the civilian element.
As alluded to before many times its all down to capable leadership, and that is something the HQ element of the Cadets has suffered from, which was not assisted by equally poor 'people management' from 2FTS.
Remember; the conventional VGS units were fully equipped and staffed; yes they lost the aircraft, but it would not have been rocket science to get a limited no of machines back in the air even if a unit only had one to keep going.
The truth is if the heads of organisations are not capable for the post, then what should have been a tech set back became a complete disaster.
Of course all the facebook / twatter/ celeb endorsements rubbish poured out in profusion, but it did not hide the fact that the ship had no rudder or even someone who knew how to use one.
Even the comments on the official ATC forums are damming so no one is in any doubt where the problem lay.
POBJOY is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 10:21
  #4687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 69
Not HQ air cadets, the AOC 22 group.

they're not attested so still civilians just with a badge and a hat.

there is 0 ways in which an SNCO and a CGI operate once the NCO has done a weeks learning about safeguarding and walking up and down a square
Tingger is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 12:54
  #4688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The sky mainly
Posts: 234
Most of the operating VGS have staff numbers in the 30+ and 5-10 staff cadets
All that staff and yet, when I went to 644 VGS last year, they only flew 4 cadets on the first occasion and 6 on the second!

Another grumble. Cadets, especially those who fly at AEF's, are desperate to use the Part Task Trainers, (simulators) so that they can qualify for 'wings'. 25 cadets in my sqn have done the qualifying airborne sorties, but only 4 have gone through the groundschool/simulator element. Unfortunately, the only places that have the simulators are the VGS and they only allow the handful of cadets on a gliding day to use them. On my two visits to 644 the simulators stood unused for 75% of the day and half the staff stood round with nothing to do. A real shame both couldn't be employed to get the masses of cadets through their groundschool. Different budgets apparently!
Sky Sports is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 13:20
  #4689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 69
That assumes they didn't fly SGS cadets on the same day or staff cadets as well.

Were those stood around PTT qualified staff able to teach these hundreds of cadets?

They can also access PTT at the AGS sites not just the VGS.
Tingger is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 13:23
  #4690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: LONDON
Posts: 106
Part Task Trainer Usage & VGS Productivity

Originally Posted by Sky Sports View Post
All that staff and yet, when I went to 644 VGS last year, they only flew 4 cadets on the first occasion and 6 on the second!

Another grumble. Cadets, especially those who fly at AEF's, are desperate to use the Part Task Trainers, (simulators) so that they can qualify for 'wings'. 25 cadets in my sqn have done the qualifying airborne sorties, but only 4 have gone through the groundschool/simulator element. Unfortunately, the only places that have the simulators are the VGS and they only allow the handful of cadets on a gliding day to use them. On my two visits to 644 the simulators stood unused for 75% of the day and half the staff stood round with nothing to do. A real shame both couldn't be employed to get the masses of cadets through their groundschool. Different budgets apparently!
Sky Sports,

The number of gliders available was the limiting factor on output LAST YEAR. As for utilisation of the Part Task Trainers, perhaps they should be located away from VGSs, placed centrally in catchment areas in an ATC HQ with space. They could then be made available for use on any day (or evening) of the week. A major part of the cadet experience of going gliding is the practical teamwork involved in launching gliders; this requires cadets to be out on the airfield - not stuck inside with the 'simulator'. And, as in the past, as aircraft availability does improve then these visiting cadets will become critical to daily flying output through their roles in attaching cables, acting as wing-tip orderlies and holding canopies (in blustery winds). Even a 'brand new' cadet does not take very long to train, and each who is trained then frees up a VGS member of staff to go flying - with cadets - or to carry out other support tasks that cannot be carried out by a visiting cadet. The number of gliders that can be operated simultaneously therefore increases. It is as simple as that.
ATFQ is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 21:52
  #4691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 11 GROUP
Age: 72
Posts: 901
PTT Joke !!

That the PTT is even considered as a serious part of 'Gliding' says it all.
The whole experience of a Viking operation was its USP in giving Cadets the opportunity to be part of the 'hands on' operation.
To suggest that staff have to be qualified to even sit in the bath tub (not moving) looking at a screen is so removed from what the Cadets used to do it beggars belief.

This is what happens when you dumb down a organisation from a full blown training service to a mere 'badge box tick'. The rot seems to have taken hold when they reduced the 3 solo qualification, and I am surprised the OCs of the Schools did not fight that battle at the time. Not only is nobody on the helm the b....y rudder has fallen off.
The 'recovered' airframes are out there, but it seems the system don't have them !! Surprise Surprise. Private Eye could make a better job of running the organisation.

Last edited by POBJOY; 2nd Jan 2019 at 22:04.
POBJOY is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 10:30
  #4692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Head in the Clouds
Posts: 72
The 'recovered' airframes are out there, but it seems the system don't have them !!
........and 26 sparkly new Skylaunch winches sitting somewhere gathering dust!
Freda Checks is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 11:12
  #4693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: 75' from the runway edge and 150' from the threshold
Age: 69
Posts: 157
Criminal

Originally Posted by POBJOY View Post
That the PTT is even considered as a serious part of 'Gliding' says it all.
The whole experience of a Viking operation was its USP in giving Cadets the opportunity to be part of the 'hands on' operation.
To suggest that staff have to be qualified to even sit in the bath tub (not moving) looking at a screen is so removed from what the Cadets used to do it beggars belief.

This is what happens when you dumb down a organisation from a full blown training service to a mere 'badge box tick'. The rot seems to have taken hold when they reduced the 3 solo qualification, and I am surprised the OCs of the Schools did not fight that battle at the time. Not only is nobody on the helm the b....y rudder has fallen off.
The 'recovered' airframes are out there, but it seems the system don't have them !! Surprise Surprise. Private Eye could make a better job of running the organisation.
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. Several someones, somewhere within the RAF/ACO and its contractors have committed criminal acts, including fraud of several types, have put the lives of teenage children and adult staff at risk and have criminally shredded many documents. They should be held to account in a court of law.

Why there hasn't been a criminal investigation, not least by the SIB, and more correctly by the various constabularies where these acts have taken place I don't understand. It's time that SoS for defence took up the case. Whoever on here has him as their constituency MP should request that he extracts digit and gets on with it.Ditto anyone with the Home Secretary as their MP in reference to the various local constabularies

A342
ACW342 is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 11:44
  #4694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,817
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. Several someones, somewhere within the RAF/ACO and its contractors have committed criminal acts, including fraud of several types, have put the lives of teenage children and adult staff at risk and have criminally shredded many documents. They should be held to account in a court of law.

Why there hasn't been a criminal investigation, not least by the SIB, and more correctly by the various constabularies where these acts have taken place I don't understand. It's time that SoS for defence took up the case. Whoever on here has him as their constituency MP should request that he extracts digit and gets on with it.Ditto anyone with the Home Secretary as their MP in reference to the various local constabularies
Precisely.

And while the inquiry is at it, encompass those where the same offences have been committed. Chinook ZD576, Hercules XV179, Hawk XX177, Nimrod XV230 and many others.
Oh, and the names are known and have been published - and they go far higher than some Gp Capt. MoD denied the names were known. Those who could read MoD's phone directory knew.

Secys of State have been informed. The only one who spoke up was Malcolm Rifkind, on Chinook and many years after leaving office. Every member of the Defence Committee has been informed; most recently Johnny Mercer, who was the only one decent enough to reply. Many other MPs, notably Angus Robertson and Sir Roger Gale, have made a nuisance of themselves asking awkward questions. All were lied to. The judiciary knows this and is content. As are the police. Coroners know, and for the most part have been robust (the main exception being the Sea King ASaC mid-air, where he stopped families challenging MoD lies). The mainstream media is MoD's dog. MoD denies the existence of written, photographic, aural and video evidence. The public provides it, but these entities accept the denials.

The honourable exception was Haddon-Cave (for all his faults). The problem is, very few (including many posting here) recognise that his Review discussed the same failings that apply to gliders. Substitute 'Nimrod' with 'gliders' or 'Hawk' and his report remains perfectly valid.

Whoever provided Private Eye with the information has done a good thing.
tucumseh is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 12:20
  #4695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 77
Posts: 4,073
ACW342 :-

Why there hasn't been a criminal investigation, not least by the SIB, and more correctly by the various constabularies where these acts have taken place I don't understand.
It's not for lack of trying! As tuc says; Civil Police, Service Police, SoS's, MPs, Senior Civil Servants, HoC's and Lords Committees, HSE, QC's, HM Coroners, have all had verifiable evidence presented to them. Some have acknowledged, many have not, some have tried to help, most have been in total denial and obstructive. The net result is that not one VSO has been called to account despite up to 100 related deaths. In short the Establishment has circled its wagons and maintains the cover up. As long as the MAA and the MilAAIB (or whatever the sign outside says this week) are so compromised and UK Military Airworthiness thus remains dysfunctional, airworthiness related accidents will continue with an ever rising toll in blood and treasure.

UK Military Air Regulation and Air Accident Investigation must be made independent of the MOD and of each other before real reform can even begin!

Last edited by Chugalug2; 3rd Jan 2019 at 12:49.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 12:53
  #4696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: across the border....
Posts: 172
But Chuggy, who would pay for an independent UK Military Air Regulation and Mil AAIB and for them to be independent of each other?............they'd be government funded, which means exactly the same strings are pulled re. Civil Police, Service Police, SoS's, MPs, Senior Civil Servants, HoC's and Lords Committees, HSE, QC's, HM Coroners when backsides need to be covered..........nothing is ever completely 'independent'.
squawking 7700 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 14:30
  #4697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,817
squawking

If I may, that is an age-old question which MoD policy says is satisfied if line management chains are independent. In this case, MoD claims the MAA and DG Safety are independent of the RAF hierarchy - in practice, CAS, given DGS is a 3 Star. I don't agree, but accept one could discuss semantics for ever. The most obvious conflict of interest in recent years is the MAA being directly involved in the root cause of Flt Lt Cunningham's death (Hawk XX177), yet being allowed to provide the Prosecution's 'star witness' against Martin-Baker. For whatever reason, he did not mention under oath that his superiors could have prevented the death by adhering to the regulations they issued, but falsely certified had been met.

In the past, this independence was satisfied by having the people who made this decision form quite separate, core departments in MoD. (For example, on avionics it was called ALS/PD). But as part of the 'savings at the expense of safety' policy (see Nimrod Review) these core departments, and the independent oversight committees, were shut down and the task given to the same people who were defying the regulations. That is, they self-certified false declarations. The chairs of these committees were some of MoD's most experienced engineers, and had the power of God. Because of this, they were (uniquely) named in contracts; as opposed to post titles. If there was a screw up, you knew exactly who to go to. Today, the MAA boast that it can narrow responsibility down to four individuals. (Recent evidence to Defence Committee). Which is better than the previous system, where most were anonymous. But not nearly as good as that I describe. Why did they Services demand change? Goes back to what Pobjoy said earlier. Militarisation of as many posts as possible, and grabbing control. Fine, if you do it properly. But do RAF career patterns permit 10-12 years continuous training at 6 separate ranks and posts, before even being considered for the 7th post, which is to be a 20-year vocation? No, and I wouldn't expect many servicemen to want such a job. It's not why you join. That's why you shouldn't have a Gp Capt chairing a meeting and making (wrong) decisions that a civilian apprentice is trained to do (correctly) in his sleep. Horses for courses.

The mandated procedures governing that system were set out in one Defence Standard, with 20 accompanying Specifications. Implementing that one Standard would, in all probability, have prevented this glider fiasco, and most of the fatal accidents we discuss here. Conversely, I reckon 95% of all Service Inquiry recommendations amount to 'implement this mandated standard'. Repeatedly. For example, and demonstrably, Flt Lt Cunningham's accident. And the reason I keep mentioning this case is because Hawk and gliders shared the same Type Airworthiness Authority. Hawk didn't have a valid Safety Case when Sean Cunningham died in 2011, which is a pretty good clue where to look for other problems caused by the same failures, by the same people. First stop, gliders. Another section in the same team. Only they didn't bother.

Regarding cost, I could tell you how much this system cost per year on avionics to the nearest M, but only guess at how much more it costs nowadays not to do it. 20, 30 times more. Pick a figure. More if you include the resultant lost lives and assets.

Hope that helps.
tucumseh is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 17:42
  #4698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 77
Posts: 4,073
Thank you tucumseh for a far more detailed explanation than I could ever rise to.

squarking 7700, I would only add to tuc's excellent post that the people who broke UK Military Air Safety saw such expenditure as a waste of money anyway. Having just wasted a huge amount of public money themselves they killed two birds with one stone, covering their own incompetence while ridding the MOD of people like tuc who strove to enhance UK Military Air Power by enforcing the Air Safety Regulations. They did such a good job that the Regulations and those who understood them disappeared together, almost without trace. That is still the case and the attempts of the MAA to reinvent the wheel while upholding the Haddon-Cave fantasy of a Golden Period of Military Airworthiness both perpetuates the cover up and wastes yet more precious time and money.

You want to know the cost of not having an independent Regulator and Investigator? Just look at the present day state of airworthiness as its utter dysfunction is revealed in thread after thread on this forum. Just look at the way the cover up seeks new scapegoats, be they JOs, SOs, or private companies, to deflect attention from the corruption at the top. Just look at the way it goes on subverting the great institutions of the land as its canker spreads ever further outwards. All to protect those who perpetrated this sabotage and those who continue to cover it up.

Of course there is no simple panacea, but if Military Air Safety Regulation and Accident Investigation can be removed from the maw of the malevolent and baleful influence that is the MOD, then good and dedicated people can start out on the long road of recovery and make airworthy again that which is now not.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 20:07
  #4699 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: across the border....
Posts: 172
I didn't ask how much it would cost, I asked who would pay for such 'independence' - if it's government funded then the government and all its facets pulls the strings, look at the XX177 whitewash, neither the HSE or the police have been interested in really pointing the finger and M-B just rolled over.
The HSE are supposed to be independent, the police are supposed to be independent but they're both bankrolled ultimately by the government and where it's not in their interests to have the finger pointed at the MoD then 'independence' goes out the window where perhaps certain persons' reputation (and pension) are at stake, whether they be minister, VSO or in the commercial or security interest of certain companies.
Independence of the MoD is no guarantee of influence from afar - you will never have a completely independent regulator/investigator.

Unfortunately it'll never change or if it did it would be the result of a public outcry and that's not going to happen unless there's a catastrophic incident involving multiple members of the public - all of the accidents so far, sad and avoidable as they were, have not involved the public at large in that sense.
squawking 7700 is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2019, 05:39
  #4700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,817
Squawking

Totally agree. And you actually make a very good point asking who pays for it. Most would say 'MoD, obviously'. But in the XX177 case, the HSE's stated position was that if MoD decides not to implement advice provided by Martin-Baker, and instructs its maintainers not to implement the content of air publications and their training (I've just summarised up the facts, and M-B's defence had they chosen not to roll over), then it is for M-B to step in. Free of charge. Without contract.
tucumseh 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.