Air Cadets grounded?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have in 1995 !
And just to be complete in evidential terms about that fatal mid air. Not mentioned in the official written report was the fact that the FRC's ( compiled and endorsed by RAF Handling Sqn at Boscombe) were incorrect with reference to Canopy jettisoning, which may have prevented the safe and timely egress of the two fatalities. The FRC Emergency Drills Card 4 read as follows:-
" pull (back) both red handles fully back simultaneously,
"push canopy up and away"
"Release seat harness"
"Stand and bale out over the cockpit side"
the fatal error being that the RH handle was spring loaded and thus when removing R Hand to push canopy up with both hands, the hinge pin re-engaged and prevented canopy release. Thus whilst there was an airmanship issue and a degree of negligence, in colliding mid air during thermalling, there was a major contributory survival issue.
Arguably had the FRC's been correct, then two fatalities would have been avoided.
" pull (back) both red handles fully back simultaneously,
"push canopy up and away"
"Release seat harness"
"Stand and bale out over the cockpit side"
the fatal error being that the RH handle was spring loaded and thus when removing R Hand to push canopy up with both hands, the hinge pin re-engaged and prevented canopy release. Thus whilst there was an airmanship issue and a degree of negligence, in colliding mid air during thermalling, there was a major contributory survival issue.
Arguably had the FRC's been correct, then two fatalities would have been avoided.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RandomBloke
"the tragic fatalities in 2009 were as a result of accidents; the pilots didn't deliberately crash into the other aircraft"
They never do Random !
But all accidents have a preceding chain of events, and prevention, as the RAF Flight Safety course teaches, means actively trying to ensure that we break the chain and prevent the accident.
In one of the Tutor accidents, the causal chain stretched back a good way in the pilot's records with regard to cervical spine mobility and scan capability when "concerns had been raised during his course at 115 Sqn" ( ex accident report). Several people drove past this very clear amber signal that should have caused a red light to illuminate.
By making various recommendations the RAF managed to avoid admitting that in reality, the pilot should probably have never been in the aeroplane or indeed any aeroplane as Pilot.
Whilst truth always has a bruising effect, the purpose of my remarks was to illustrate that no matter whether VR(T) of full GD pilot, there can be no generalisation about whether professional is always the best ! Accidents afflict all pilots irrespective of full or part time, VR(T) or GD if they are careless - even ETPS graduates have managed to prove that is true.
They never do Random !
But all accidents have a preceding chain of events, and prevention, as the RAF Flight Safety course teaches, means actively trying to ensure that we break the chain and prevent the accident.
In one of the Tutor accidents, the causal chain stretched back a good way in the pilot's records with regard to cervical spine mobility and scan capability when "concerns had been raised during his course at 115 Sqn" ( ex accident report). Several people drove past this very clear amber signal that should have caused a red light to illuminate.
By making various recommendations the RAF managed to avoid admitting that in reality, the pilot should probably have never been in the aeroplane or indeed any aeroplane as Pilot.
Whilst truth always has a bruising effect, the purpose of my remarks was to illustrate that no matter whether VR(T) of full GD pilot, there can be no generalisation about whether professional is always the best ! Accidents afflict all pilots irrespective of full or part time, VR(T) or GD if they are careless - even ETPS graduates have managed to prove that is true.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Somewhere in England
Age: 60
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I see it, the debate over professional versus amateur is not to do with the likelihood of accidents because accidents can happen to anyone. The issue is to do with workload and what can be reasonably expected of a part-time volunteer who is effectively doing it for their hobby.
I think that it is totally unreasonable to expect a part-time volunteer to run a VGS on the same lines as a Typhoon Sqn, ensuring that all the paperwork and BTRs are up-to-date as well as all the engineering QA and the myriad of other assurance activity etc. In this case the system is setting people up to fail because when there is a conflict between their high-pressure civilian employment (which pays the mortgage and puts food on the table) and their volunteer work then it is in the part-time area that they will take their eye off the ball and may well be held to account as a result.
In effect, the ACO seems to be trying to have its cake and eat it.
I think that it is totally unreasonable to expect a part-time volunteer to run a VGS on the same lines as a Typhoon Sqn, ensuring that all the paperwork and BTRs are up-to-date as well as all the engineering QA and the myriad of other assurance activity etc. In this case the system is setting people up to fail because when there is a conflict between their high-pressure civilian employment (which pays the mortgage and puts food on the table) and their volunteer work then it is in the part-time area that they will take their eye off the ball and may well be held to account as a result.
In effect, the ACO seems to be trying to have its cake and eat it.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Random
We've got here by being 'Salami sliced'
The VGS can just do this........, oh and this, and this, etc............... the individual tasks are small, the cumulative task is massive.
I remember doing fuel stats, flying stats, vehicle returns, travel returns, course bookings, course admin all after a days flying (having run the line).
So I would be up at 06.00 and drive 75 miles to my VGS, Do all the setup paperwork, Fly or run the line, closedown and put everything away, do said paperwork and lock up, return the keys and drive home. In the summer I would get home around 23.55 (an 18 hour day)and maybe back 2 hours earlier in the winter (as it got dark). My 'better half' was soon disillusioned................ this was at least 3 days a month - sometimes more.
I'll never forget those late nights in a freezing portakabin doing stats.........
The thing that I often wondered was 'what happens to these, where do they go and why do they need them ?' - one day I asked the HQAC people - was it OK if I sent them Monday morning ? - 'Oh there's no urgency - Wednesday will be fine.................' she said.
The solution - at least 1 permanent FTRS member of staff is obvious (for me). If we are treated as an FTS we should be resourced like an FTS...............
Arc
We've got here by being 'Salami sliced'
The VGS can just do this........, oh and this, and this, etc............... the individual tasks are small, the cumulative task is massive.
I remember doing fuel stats, flying stats, vehicle returns, travel returns, course bookings, course admin all after a days flying (having run the line).
So I would be up at 06.00 and drive 75 miles to my VGS, Do all the setup paperwork, Fly or run the line, closedown and put everything away, do said paperwork and lock up, return the keys and drive home. In the summer I would get home around 23.55 (an 18 hour day)and maybe back 2 hours earlier in the winter (as it got dark). My 'better half' was soon disillusioned................ this was at least 3 days a month - sometimes more.
I'll never forget those late nights in a freezing portakabin doing stats.........
The thing that I often wondered was 'what happens to these, where do they go and why do they need them ?' - one day I asked the HQAC people - was it OK if I sent them Monday morning ? - 'Oh there's no urgency - Wednesday will be fine.................' she said.
The solution - at least 1 permanent FTRS member of staff is obvious (for me). If we are treated as an FTS we should be resourced like an FTS...............
Arc
I believe the engine problems were partly due to a combination of using MOGAS bought from filling stations and prolonged use of carb heat causing vaporisation in the fuel lines. I did a course at Rissy in '91 and I can remember taking fuel samples to Brize for testing.
Valley would also be a useful VGS location it would save the North Wales cadets having to travel to Woodvale
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ulster
Age: 64
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing wrong with Newtownards as it is, and until the "pause" was getting some of the highest VGS results. West Freugh close to Sranraer but to get the ferry , a two and a half hour trip, you have to be at Belfast an hour before boarding, and from the units in Omagh and Coleraine that is close to a two hour trip to get there so about five hours travel each way to get there.
Where the VGS are now are mostly good locations they just need the aircraft back.
Where the VGS are now are mostly good locations they just need the aircraft back.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Random Bloke
To a limited extent I concur when you state the level of demand, given the volunteer staff. I personally can vouch for the massive commitment level of the Execs on a well run VGS. It's not just a 3 days a month that we used to become absent husbands, fathers and partners, it's the weekdays during day job time, the necessary phone calls that uk business never knew they were financing , the computer printer work that they never knew they were financing, the multiple Station sorties to arrange sqipper servicing, collecting supplies, checking Eng work done, sorting out vehicle repairs,etc.
As a former Adj on three VGS's it also encompassed days on Station writing H&S procedures, Stn Cdrs inspections, not to mention on some flying days, the emptying of OC's briefcase and car of all inbound post, registry thereof and auctioning and distributing before shooting off to briefing and flying - oh and sometimes slipping in the odd OOPS , F700 and parachute check before going off with Bloggs, followed at day's end by refuel, washing aircraft and notifying issues to ACCGS Eng for work to be done.
Sometimes also the odd phone call to go in on day off when short staffed, and the issues of arranging continuous courses, Stn liaison , and ensuring that all our studes were medically fit, and had no logistics issues.
Add to all that, keep current, up to standard, go on courses, attend Stn flight safety meetings, check personnel CRB / DBS status, prepare for CFS checks documentation ..........
And then finally, on Monday go to work, after briefly reminding wife/ partner of your face, kissing kids goodnight. Mind you it did get a bit easier after the early retirement !
Would I do it again ? Yes oh yes, proud of what we achieved.
Do I think that our lords and masters truly understood the level of commitment and man hours ? No , no, never.
Were we appreciated by our students ? Absolutely yes, and many have gone on to become outstanding RAF pilots and generally outstanding people in many walks of life.
Would FTS be the answer ? No it may even take something away, and be divisive.
I sincerely hope that all of our valuable HR resource will start to be valued. Remember, it's not enough to think it, you have to say it and evidence it by your actions, so start engaging them in some consultation, not dictation.
As a former Adj on three VGS's it also encompassed days on Station writing H&S procedures, Stn Cdrs inspections, not to mention on some flying days, the emptying of OC's briefcase and car of all inbound post, registry thereof and auctioning and distributing before shooting off to briefing and flying - oh and sometimes slipping in the odd OOPS , F700 and parachute check before going off with Bloggs, followed at day's end by refuel, washing aircraft and notifying issues to ACCGS Eng for work to be done.
Sometimes also the odd phone call to go in on day off when short staffed, and the issues of arranging continuous courses, Stn liaison , and ensuring that all our studes were medically fit, and had no logistics issues.
Add to all that, keep current, up to standard, go on courses, attend Stn flight safety meetings, check personnel CRB / DBS status, prepare for CFS checks documentation ..........
And then finally, on Monday go to work, after briefly reminding wife/ partner of your face, kissing kids goodnight. Mind you it did get a bit easier after the early retirement !
Would I do it again ? Yes oh yes, proud of what we achieved.
Do I think that our lords and masters truly understood the level of commitment and man hours ? No , no, never.
Were we appreciated by our students ? Absolutely yes, and many have gone on to become outstanding RAF pilots and generally outstanding people in many walks of life.
Would FTS be the answer ? No it may even take something away, and be divisive.
I sincerely hope that all of our valuable HR resource will start to be valued. Remember, it's not enough to think it, you have to say it and evidence it by your actions, so start engaging them in some consultation, not dictation.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Salisbury
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB
Totally agree with your comments. Over the last 20 years or so the organisation has changed considerably to such extent that there is too much burden of expectation placed upon the volunteers to try and run the VGSs in-line with the requirements of the MAA. The 18 hour days is certainly something I recognise from my days on a VGS, and there was an ever increasing paperwork burden that just took time out of the flying. Furthermore, the organisation relied heavily on the goodwill of its volunteers and by extension their employers, to do additional mid-week work. No doubt the result of this pause will add further to this - such that it would be difficult for the organisation to continue as was.
Staffing is going to be a significant issue because you have lost at least 2 years worth of cadets going through the system who would become the staff cadets and instructors of the future. Some existing staff will no doubt also decide not to return, so you start from an much reduced base. Front loading staff training could be the answer, but you then just further delay the core training requirement. Even with a fair wind, I would suggest it is unlikely the VGSs will be in some semblance of normality before 2017.
The advantage of using FTRS - just as is done on the AEFs/UASs is that all that admin, maintenance and staff training burden is properly resourced so it is completed mid week, maximising the time available to undertake flying training on the weekend. Furthermore, increasing the number of week-long courses makes more efficient use of time. A residential course means you don't have cadets making multiple journeys to and from a VGS to complete their GS. Concentrated continuation training often results in a student achieving solo standard with fewer launches/hours. You also maximise use of the airframes, meaning that they are not sat in hangars 5-days a week, and you can potentially achieve the same output with fewer aircraft thereby reducing the maintenance burden. Likewise, fewer staff would be required, and so savings would be made from the T&E budget. You also making logistics and admin savings. Fewer sites, fewer medicals, fewer flying suits required, etc, etc, etc. I am not suggesting that cumulatively these savings will be enough to cover the increased staffing costs, however I think that the difference between the two would not be as great as suggested.
Totally agree with your comments. Over the last 20 years or so the organisation has changed considerably to such extent that there is too much burden of expectation placed upon the volunteers to try and run the VGSs in-line with the requirements of the MAA. The 18 hour days is certainly something I recognise from my days on a VGS, and there was an ever increasing paperwork burden that just took time out of the flying. Furthermore, the organisation relied heavily on the goodwill of its volunteers and by extension their employers, to do additional mid-week work. No doubt the result of this pause will add further to this - such that it would be difficult for the organisation to continue as was.
Staffing is going to be a significant issue because you have lost at least 2 years worth of cadets going through the system who would become the staff cadets and instructors of the future. Some existing staff will no doubt also decide not to return, so you start from an much reduced base. Front loading staff training could be the answer, but you then just further delay the core training requirement. Even with a fair wind, I would suggest it is unlikely the VGSs will be in some semblance of normality before 2017.
The advantage of using FTRS - just as is done on the AEFs/UASs is that all that admin, maintenance and staff training burden is properly resourced so it is completed mid week, maximising the time available to undertake flying training on the weekend. Furthermore, increasing the number of week-long courses makes more efficient use of time. A residential course means you don't have cadets making multiple journeys to and from a VGS to complete their GS. Concentrated continuation training often results in a student achieving solo standard with fewer launches/hours. You also maximise use of the airframes, meaning that they are not sat in hangars 5-days a week, and you can potentially achieve the same output with fewer aircraft thereby reducing the maintenance burden. Likewise, fewer staff would be required, and so savings would be made from the T&E budget. You also making logistics and admin savings. Fewer sites, fewer medicals, fewer flying suits required, etc, etc, etc. I am not suggesting that cumulatively these savings will be enough to cover the increased staffing costs, however I think that the difference between the two would not be as great as suggested.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Salisbury
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could not the vigilant fleet be integrated into the UAS set up? Meaning the UAS staff deliver powered GS training? Is there anything the UAS currently does that couldn't necessary be achieved using the Vigilant (other than the aeros component)?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thor
The Vigilant is a dead duck, it is not a cost effective solution due to the cost of the new engine required in the near future.
The current word on the street is that the G115 excess capacity will be used to give cadets more powered flying and the Viking recovery contractor will soon be announced, once the contract is in place the Viking recovery will ramp up.
The current word on the street is that the G115 excess capacity will be used to give cadets more powered flying and the Viking recovery contractor will soon be announced, once the contract is in place the Viking recovery will ramp up.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Somewhere in England
Age: 60
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Vigilant engine problem is apparently still an issue because it appears as a specific risk on the Vigilant Risk Register.
I am told that the ironic thing about the Vigilant is that the AOC 22 Group allocated the money to re-engine and refurbish the Vigilant fleet in 2012/13 but this programme was halted by HQ ACO so that they could do a 'study' into the future of gliding. By the time that study was finished (and I assume it concluded that they should carry on as normal) it appears that the money had been re-allocated because it hadn't been spent. It all suggests that if HQ ACO had just let 22 Group get on with it in the first place then the refurbishment programme would be well under-way by now.
I am told that the ironic thing about the Vigilant is that the AOC 22 Group allocated the money to re-engine and refurbish the Vigilant fleet in 2012/13 but this programme was halted by HQ ACO so that they could do a 'study' into the future of gliding. By the time that study was finished (and I assume it concluded that they should carry on as normal) it appears that the money had been re-allocated because it hadn't been spent. It all suggests that if HQ ACO had just let 22 Group get on with it in the first place then the refurbishment programme would be well under-way by now.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grob 115 Tutor capacity
That's what I had heard, but under-used capacity of flying hours does not automatically convert into actual increase in Air Cadet flying availability, as AEF pilot availability is a limiting feature.
The chances of more than a very small handful of Grob 109B Vigilant Instructors convexing to add pilot capacity are somewhat remote.
Thus on paper, spare flying hours unused under the Babcock contract will result in a very small uplift in flown hours for Air Cadets, added to which they will be AE only and not instructional.
Net loss overall when compared to former Vigilant ops.
The chances of more than a very small handful of Grob 109B Vigilant Instructors convexing to add pilot capacity are somewhat remote.
Thus on paper, spare flying hours unused under the Babcock contract will result in a very small uplift in flown hours for Air Cadets, added to which they will be AE only and not instructional.
Net loss overall when compared to former Vigilant ops.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vigilant Engine problem
Whether it is or not, I experienced no engine problems whatsoever in may last few years ! Nonetheless, I fear the Vigilant may be doomed - as has been stated, the cash required to re-engine, the time required, and the fact that it is still a 20yr old airframe will probably result in it's demise.
Last edited by EnigmAviation; 17th Nov 2015 at 15:54. Reason: Added text
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Somewhere in England
Age: 60
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EnigmA,
According to 22 Group Orders, the rules as to who may fly the Tutor are very stringent. Pilots have to be either a qualified service pilot, ie awarded the full flying badge in the RAF, FAA or AAC (no, QGI wings don't count) or hold an ATPL.
I think you're right, very few Vigilant QGIs will be able to convert.
According to 22 Group Orders, the rules as to who may fly the Tutor are very stringent. Pilots have to be either a qualified service pilot, ie awarded the full flying badge in the RAF, FAA or AAC (no, QGI wings don't count) or hold an ATPL.
I think you're right, very few Vigilant QGIs will be able to convert.