Air Cadets grounded?
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Behind you...
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buckley Boy:
Thank god for that... but don't give them ideas. Your "plan" leaves huge swathes of the country completely uncovered and, IMHO, would be completely unacceptable.
Leon:
Correct. CAS should be getting briefed this week, as per JM's email.
Longer Ron:
You're not alone in this opinion. More than a few people have suggested to me that the mushroom treatment may be part of a ploy to see if enough instructors will sign off en masse to legitimate shutting down squadrons because they've shrunk below a critical mass to stay sustainable. Certainly, even if the fleet were declared ready to go tomorrow, there are plenty of people who are giving serious consideration of whether or not they want to serve under the current (and I use the word very loosely) "leadership".
Thank god for that... but don't give them ideas. Your "plan" leaves huge swathes of the country completely uncovered and, IMHO, would be completely unacceptable.
Leon:
Correct. CAS should be getting briefed this week, as per JM's email.
Longer Ron:
You're not alone in this opinion. More than a few people have suggested to me that the mushroom treatment may be part of a ploy to see if enough instructors will sign off en masse to legitimate shutting down squadrons because they've shrunk below a critical mass to stay sustainable. Certainly, even if the fleet were declared ready to go tomorrow, there are plenty of people who are giving serious consideration of whether or not they want to serve under the current (and I use the word very loosely) "leadership".
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should all meet "The Management" personally as an unpaid, highly experienced and professionally qualified volunteer you get W*nquespeak, personal humiliation and abuse thrown in as well.
What is a "Robust engagement campaign" in English?
What is a "Robust engagement campaign" in English?
Last edited by DC10RealMan; 10th Dec 2015 at 10:26.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mostly lack of correct documentation as I understand it, but getting it right is a tedious task as the whole glider needs very close inspection and AFAIK bigger problems have been uncovered on some of them.
Last edited by cats_five; 10th Dec 2015 at 07:48.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arclite01
I have had a look at the Marshalls website and it would seem that their composite expertees ( if the website is correct ) is in the construction of pre-preg autoclaved composites.
This is a very different game to the repair of epoxy foam sandwich composite structures.
Slngsby did build this type of structure with the T67 but most of this expertees has disbursed since Marshalls took over and they did not often repair this type of structure.
The expertees in repairing this type of is now almost totally within the UK gliding industry and very few glider repair companies have the EASA145 maintenance oversight ( basicly public transport standard ) as most of them are working under EASA part M sub part G & F via BGA oversight. The MoD rightly require a minimum of EASA145 oversight for subcontractors doing this work.
Babcock have for some time been astute enough to realise that they don't have the expertees to do composite repairs to their Grob Tutor fleet, so they subcontract out any damage repaire work to an EASA145 approved company who specialise in this work, this is a well worn process as the Grob Tutors are on the civil register and the paperwork can exclusively be handled under EASA145. The Viking recovery is a little more difficult as the Military are imposing their airworthiness oversight on the project.
The bottom line is SERCO & Marshalls have been floundering around for 20 or so months with something they don't really understand and achieved very little Babcock are the newcomers to this project having come to it in about May this year and have with their policy of subcontracting experts to do the work got two gliders flying in the face of SERCO obstruction and reams of MoD paperwork.
This is a very different game to the repair of epoxy foam sandwich composite structures.
Slngsby did build this type of structure with the T67 but most of this expertees has disbursed since Marshalls took over and they did not often repair this type of structure.
The expertees in repairing this type of is now almost totally within the UK gliding industry and very few glider repair companies have the EASA145 maintenance oversight ( basicly public transport standard ) as most of them are working under EASA part M sub part G & F via BGA oversight. The MoD rightly require a minimum of EASA145 oversight for subcontractors doing this work.
Babcock have for some time been astute enough to realise that they don't have the expertees to do composite repairs to their Grob Tutor fleet, so they subcontract out any damage repaire work to an EASA145 approved company who specialise in this work, this is a well worn process as the Grob Tutors are on the civil register and the paperwork can exclusively be handled under EASA145. The Viking recovery is a little more difficult as the Military are imposing their airworthiness oversight on the project.
The bottom line is SERCO & Marshalls have been floundering around for 20 or so months with something they don't really understand and achieved very little Babcock are the newcomers to this project having come to it in about May this year and have with their policy of subcontracting experts to do the work got two gliders flying in the face of SERCO obstruction and reams of MoD paperwork.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A&C - I agree with your comments.
In addition most companies nowadays that sell themselves as 'having a capability' usually mean 'expertise vested in one individual' (usually near to retirement age) and really mean they subcontract any work as cheaply as possible....................
Arc
In addition most companies nowadays that sell themselves as 'having a capability' usually mean 'expertise vested in one individual' (usually near to retirement age) and really mean they subcontract any work as cheaply as possible....................
Arc
)Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Banging my head on a VGS wall
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm
*Snip*
The bottom line is SERCO & Marshalls have been floundering around for 20 or so months with something they don't really understand and achieved very little Babcock are the newcomers to this project having come to it in about May this year and have with their policy of subcontracting experts to do the work got two gliders flying in the face of SERCO obstruction and reams of MoD paperwork.
A & C, I take it you've a vested interest in Babcock. with your above statement, if one looks at the timescales between the DHAN being issued and the First Vigilant flying its very similar to the timescale between Babcock starting and the first Viking flying, and taking into account the huge uplift of IPT employees to assist the task, there's nothing in it.
Additionally your comment regarding SERCO obstruction seems hugely unfounded, I was advised that it was SERCO MO staff that had to transpose the documentation back into the F700 for Babcock and complete the airworthiness review to allow the aircraft to fly.
The bottom line is SERCO & Marshalls have been floundering around for 20 or so months with something they don't really understand and achieved very little Babcock are the newcomers to this project having come to it in about May this year and have with their policy of subcontracting experts to do the work got two gliders flying in the face of SERCO obstruction and reams of MoD paperwork.
A & C, I take it you've a vested interest in Babcock. with your above statement, if one looks at the timescales between the DHAN being issued and the First Vigilant flying its very similar to the timescale between Babcock starting and the first Viking flying, and taking into account the huge uplift of IPT employees to assist the task, there's nothing in it.
Additionally your comment regarding SERCO obstruction seems hugely unfounded, I was advised that it was SERCO MO staff that had to transpose the documentation back into the F700 for Babcock and complete the airworthiness review to allow the aircraft to fly.
ROBUST ENGAGEMENT CAMPAIGN
When you are incompetent you surround yourself with a virtual world rather like a film set.
Shiny new offices and 'workshops' are the facade but no real work goes on or 'real' decisions are made.
Meetings become the buzz word for what should be 'operations' and flying suited staff 'engage' in 'not flying'.
Leadership is replaced with 'instructions' and veiled threats of being hunted down if you have an opinion.
Web sites and press releases abound with misleading information and photo opportunities.
This is how some large organisations used to operate decades ago when the 'Head Office' syndrome ruled the commercial world.
Reality then kicked in and costs forced a rethink into what was actually needed;which was to 'BACK UP' the field force and give them the tools.
Many large organisations operate in the commercial sector using a high % of volunteer staff. They do this because it releases income for :-The Charity or in the case of the National Trust gives them a manpower input that would be non sustainable in commercial terms. However these organisations realise the value and professional input they get from volunteers and 'manage' the system in such a way that everyone is seen as an important contributor to the system.
The 'schools' have a long history of providing safe flying operations;with a continuity of staffing that ensured best practice and standards were passed on and also adapted to increasing levels of change and scrutiny.The very people that should have been 'engaged' with helping to deal with the 'glitch' in the system and who had more combined knowledge of what goes on have been ignored and treated with disdain.Unless a change is made to the command structure at the top any ongoing decisions will not be based upon competence or an abilty to lead a volunteer organisation.
Shiny new offices and 'workshops' are the facade but no real work goes on or 'real' decisions are made.
Meetings become the buzz word for what should be 'operations' and flying suited staff 'engage' in 'not flying'.
Leadership is replaced with 'instructions' and veiled threats of being hunted down if you have an opinion.
Web sites and press releases abound with misleading information and photo opportunities.
This is how some large organisations used to operate decades ago when the 'Head Office' syndrome ruled the commercial world.
Reality then kicked in and costs forced a rethink into what was actually needed;which was to 'BACK UP' the field force and give them the tools.
Many large organisations operate in the commercial sector using a high % of volunteer staff. They do this because it releases income for :-The Charity or in the case of the National Trust gives them a manpower input that would be non sustainable in commercial terms. However these organisations realise the value and professional input they get from volunteers and 'manage' the system in such a way that everyone is seen as an important contributor to the system.
The 'schools' have a long history of providing safe flying operations;with a continuity of staffing that ensured best practice and standards were passed on and also adapted to increasing levels of change and scrutiny.The very people that should have been 'engaged' with helping to deal with the 'glitch' in the system and who had more combined knowledge of what goes on have been ignored and treated with disdain.Unless a change is made to the command structure at the top any ongoing decisions will not be based upon competence or an abilty to lead a volunteer organisation.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why oh why
So let's take a look at the goings on............
About 20 months ago the MAA pulled the flight approval of two fleets that SERCO had the contract to maintain because of inadequate technical record keeping, and as yet the only SERCO contribution to the Viking recovery is to transcribe the tech records from EASA145 to military standard ?
I am sorry but as a tax payer I think that this is a bit rich from a company that has failed to do what it was paid to do. IE provide the maintenance and support for the ATC glider fleet, it is clear that SERCO must have failed to keep proper records over a sustained period to require the MAA to ground the whole fleet
As I understand things the MoD has just about finnished dotting the I's & Crossing the T's on the Viking recovery contract and this will be confirmed next week. The glider support contract is also up for grabs and SERCO who's contract ran out a few months back are at the moment on three month renewals.
My guess is that two big contract applications in a short space of time was too much for the MoD to chew over and at once the glider recovery contract is sealed they will go onto the support contract. At this point you have to ask yourself if awarding the contract to a company that has failed so spectacularly to provide the service it was contracted to do would be a wise course of action ?
I have no financial interest in Babcock, just an keen interest in seeing the youth of this nation getting the opertunity to go gliding just like I did when I was an air cadet and don't as a tax payer take kindly to a company that has failed so lamentably to provide the services that it has been paid to do.
About 20 months ago the MAA pulled the flight approval of two fleets that SERCO had the contract to maintain because of inadequate technical record keeping, and as yet the only SERCO contribution to the Viking recovery is to transcribe the tech records from EASA145 to military standard ?
I am sorry but as a tax payer I think that this is a bit rich from a company that has failed to do what it was paid to do. IE provide the maintenance and support for the ATC glider fleet, it is clear that SERCO must have failed to keep proper records over a sustained period to require the MAA to ground the whole fleet
As I understand things the MoD has just about finnished dotting the I's & Crossing the T's on the Viking recovery contract and this will be confirmed next week. The glider support contract is also up for grabs and SERCO who's contract ran out a few months back are at the moment on three month renewals.
My guess is that two big contract applications in a short space of time was too much for the MoD to chew over and at once the glider recovery contract is sealed they will go onto the support contract. At this point you have to ask yourself if awarding the contract to a company that has failed so spectacularly to provide the service it was contracted to do would be a wise course of action ?
I have no financial interest in Babcock, just an keen interest in seeing the youth of this nation getting the opertunity to go gliding just like I did when I was an air cadet and don't as a tax payer take kindly to a company that has failed so lamentably to provide the services that it has been paid to do.
C F
Agreed - And one of the biggest worries is that the current ''leadership'' actually would like the volunteers to leave as he hates 'Amateurs',one of my big worries is that we will end up with very few 'Gliding Schools' (I am avoiding the title 'VGS' purposely) if he tries to staff them with 'professionals' and or his old boy network.
You're not alone in this opinion. More than a few people have suggested to me that the mushroom treatment may be part of a ploy to see if enough instructors will sign off en masse to legitimate shutting down squadrons because they've shrunk below a critical mass to stay sustainable. Certainly, even if the fleet were declared ready to go tomorrow, there are plenty of people who are giving serious consideration of whether or not they want to serve under the current (and I use the word very loosely) "leadership".
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Banging my head on a VGS wall
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find that your technical record keeping issues fall well behind Serco times. Much of it back to blue suit days.
And I'm informed the initial Babcock Viking recovery deal was 6 gliders in as many weeks. However 7 months down the line they only appear to of produced 2 and those have only flown with considerable input from the current MO, and thrown the towel in with the remaining quota
QUOTE=A and C;9206678]So let's take a look at the goings on............
About 20 months ago the MAA pulled the flight approval of two fleets that SERCO had the contract to maintain because of inadequate technical record keeping, and as yet the only SERCO contribution to the Viking recovery is to transcribe the tech records from EASA145 to military standard ?
I am sorry but as a tax payer I think that this is a bit rich from a company that has failed to do what it was paid to do. IE provide the maintenance and support for the ATC glider fleet, it is clear that SERCO must have failed to keep proper records over a sustained period to require the MAA to ground the whole fleet
As I understand things the MoD has just about finnished dotting the I's & Crossing the T's on the Viking recovery contract and this will be confirmed next week. The glider support contract is also up for grabs and SERCO who's contract ran out a few months back are at the moment on three month renewals.
My guess is that two big contract applications in a short space of time was too much for the MoD to chew over and at once the glider recovery contract is sealed they will go onto the support contract. At this point you have to ask yourself if awarding the contract to a company that has failed so spectacularly to provide the service it was contracted to do would be a wise course of action ?
I have no financial interest in Babcock, just an keen interest in seeing the youth of this nation getting the opertunity to go gliding just like I did when I was an air cadet and don't as a tax payer take kindly to a company that has failed so lamentably to provide the services that it has been paid to do.[/QUOTE]
And I'm informed the initial Babcock Viking recovery deal was 6 gliders in as many weeks. However 7 months down the line they only appear to of produced 2 and those have only flown with considerable input from the current MO, and thrown the towel in with the remaining quota
QUOTE=A and C;9206678]So let's take a look at the goings on............
About 20 months ago the MAA pulled the flight approval of two fleets that SERCO had the contract to maintain because of inadequate technical record keeping, and as yet the only SERCO contribution to the Viking recovery is to transcribe the tech records from EASA145 to military standard ?
I am sorry but as a tax payer I think that this is a bit rich from a company that has failed to do what it was paid to do. IE provide the maintenance and support for the ATC glider fleet, it is clear that SERCO must have failed to keep proper records over a sustained period to require the MAA to ground the whole fleet
As I understand things the MoD has just about finnished dotting the I's & Crossing the T's on the Viking recovery contract and this will be confirmed next week. The glider support contract is also up for grabs and SERCO who's contract ran out a few months back are at the moment on three month renewals.
My guess is that two big contract applications in a short space of time was too much for the MoD to chew over and at once the glider recovery contract is sealed they will go onto the support contract. At this point you have to ask yourself if awarding the contract to a company that has failed so spectacularly to provide the service it was contracted to do would be a wise course of action ?
I have no financial interest in Babcock, just an keen interest in seeing the youth of this nation getting the opertunity to go gliding just like I did when I was an air cadet and don't as a tax payer take kindly to a company that has failed so lamentably to provide the services that it has been paid to do.[/QUOTE]
Marshals area of expertees is in large metal aircraft...
I wouldn't trust them further than I could smell them....
DC10/Flugplatz
No way LOL
See my previous comments about Muddleton if in any doubt !
I was saying that JM has a 'thing' about 'Amateurs' and I have always worried that he might want to use cronies/old boy network to staff a much reduced Air Cadet Gliding 'organisation'.
rgds LR
Are you actually saying that "The Management" is professional?
See my previous comments about Muddleton if in any doubt !
I was saying that JM has a 'thing' about 'Amateurs' and I have always worried that he might want to use cronies/old boy network to staff a much reduced Air Cadet Gliding 'organisation'.
rgds LR
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of that I have no doubt.
I am sure that he would much prefer his old boy "professionals" than the actual volunteers who are only highly educated, professionally qualified, highly experienced and some are even professionally qualified pilots but didn't know "himself" on the Squadron because they are career civilians.
Free flying for retired senior RAF officers at the taxpayers expense HURRAH!!
I am sure that he would much prefer his old boy "professionals" than the actual volunteers who are only highly educated, professionally qualified, highly experienced and some are even professionally qualified pilots but didn't know "himself" on the Squadron because they are career civilians.
Free flying for retired senior RAF officers at the taxpayers expense HURRAH!!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC10
They will soon get fed up with repeated walks back to the launch point and standing outside on freezing airfields for a few launches and five minute circuits - paid or otherwise...............
Arc
They will soon get fed up with repeated walks back to the launch point and standing outside on freezing airfields for a few launches and five minute circuits - paid or otherwise...............
Arc
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Peterborough
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that we are all most at the end of the 100 year experiment of the RAF, I wonder if someone is going tell us that there was another experiment going on behind the scenes, which is about to come to a close; 75 years of Air Cadet flying.
Closure date: 05 Feb 16. 75 years after the formation of the ATC......
Closure date: 05 Feb 16. 75 years after the formation of the ATC......