Air Cadets grounded?
Was it military or civil? On many stations, personnel own their own civil registered aircraft and are allowed to fly them without ATC or fire cover.
Shytorque, it sounds as if you've been dicing with death for over 40 years! Personally, I think that the issue of using approved thread as opposed to using unapproved thread isn't being treated appropriately seriously.
Which - of course - can only lead to the inevitable question.
"Should the issue of using approved thread as opposed to using unapproved thread, have its own thread?"
We all know that a stitch in time saves nine, but right now it seems to me that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for the RAF to get some simple sailplanes serviceable.
Which - of course - can only lead to the inevitable question.
"Should the issue of using approved thread as opposed to using unapproved thread, have its own thread?"
We all know that a stitch in time saves nine, but right now it seems to me that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for the RAF to get some simple sailplanes serviceable.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
Good that folk are finally cottoning on to this issue. Time it was all sewn up then everyone can button their lip.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not surprising !
As we head towards 1500 posts on this thread and two years when no cadet has flown a glider it is no surprise that things have descended in to farce over the last few posts.
Unfortunately I have seen over the past two years the mechanical equivalent of the " non approved thread " where the mechanical task in hand has become subservient to the administrative obligations and has not been done or has been done in a way that was compliant with the administrative obligations but involved 40 man hours work when common sense would have dictated the job required 0.5 of a man hour to complete the task.
Glider maintenance manuals assume a level of competent trade craft and so don't detail things down to the removal of the last screw, it is assumed that the tradesman involved in the maintenance task will be smart enough to know how to do the task without a screw by screw set of instructions.
But recently it would seem that this set of screw by screw instructions for any task IS REQUIRED, I don't quite know why this should be, it could be those with little skill hiding behind regulations, the work shy avoiding doing the job, a management obsessed with paperwork compliance or a number of other reasons.
What I do know is that this would not happen in a commercial operation because it would go bust, my guess is that it is primarily poor leadership from the local management of under skilled staff.
Judging from the rates of pay offered by one contractor recently I can only assume that the skill level inside the company is like the remuneration .......well behind the market.
Over the next six months or so it will be interesting to observe the performance of the legacy contractor recovering the Vigilant aircraft and the new company on the block recovering the Viking aircraft.
Of course the big prize it the VGS support contract that is up for grabs at the end of the year and IMO the MoD split the recovery contract between two contractors ( remember the legacy contractor should have all the facility's in place ) to help judge the performance of the two companies before awarding a ten year contract.
We are going to see a slow return to service of the aircraft over next few months but the long term future of the VGS is dependent on getting the right people to run the support contract, after all event the best leadership from the flying side of the VGS can't run it without aircraft, but with safe aircraft even a lacklustre flying leadership can get cadets flying.
Unfortunately I have seen over the past two years the mechanical equivalent of the " non approved thread " where the mechanical task in hand has become subservient to the administrative obligations and has not been done or has been done in a way that was compliant with the administrative obligations but involved 40 man hours work when common sense would have dictated the job required 0.5 of a man hour to complete the task.
Glider maintenance manuals assume a level of competent trade craft and so don't detail things down to the removal of the last screw, it is assumed that the tradesman involved in the maintenance task will be smart enough to know how to do the task without a screw by screw set of instructions.
But recently it would seem that this set of screw by screw instructions for any task IS REQUIRED, I don't quite know why this should be, it could be those with little skill hiding behind regulations, the work shy avoiding doing the job, a management obsessed with paperwork compliance or a number of other reasons.
What I do know is that this would not happen in a commercial operation because it would go bust, my guess is that it is primarily poor leadership from the local management of under skilled staff.
Judging from the rates of pay offered by one contractor recently I can only assume that the skill level inside the company is like the remuneration .......well behind the market.
Over the next six months or so it will be interesting to observe the performance of the legacy contractor recovering the Vigilant aircraft and the new company on the block recovering the Viking aircraft.
Of course the big prize it the VGS support contract that is up for grabs at the end of the year and IMO the MoD split the recovery contract between two contractors ( remember the legacy contractor should have all the facility's in place ) to help judge the performance of the two companies before awarding a ten year contract.
We are going to see a slow return to service of the aircraft over next few months but the long term future of the VGS is dependent on getting the right people to run the support contract, after all event the best leadership from the flying side of the VGS can't run it without aircraft, but with safe aircraft even a lacklustre flying leadership can get cadets flying.
CONTINUITY
Setting aside the total incompetence of the organisation in allowing this scenario to develop there is now the ongoing decaying of the staff and experience level at the schools.
This is going to play right into the hands of those up top who we all know would rather be operating a set up more akin to the AEF operation.
They already have full time staff at Syerston that can be deployed to head up any 'centre' required, and there will be a core of ex VGS people who can be used for w-end duties.
The 'training' set up is so protracted nowadays that the 'goal' of a single solo flight will not be enough of a draw to keep Cadets motivated unless they reduce the age requirement (not impossible)
The lack of 'plans' for the future or cogent information to the Squadrons can only mean an alternative path is on the cards and a major change being mooted that be 'sold' on cost and safety grounds.
This is going to play right into the hands of those up top who we all know would rather be operating a set up more akin to the AEF operation.
They already have full time staff at Syerston that can be deployed to head up any 'centre' required, and there will be a core of ex VGS people who can be used for w-end duties.
The 'training' set up is so protracted nowadays that the 'goal' of a single solo flight will not be enough of a draw to keep Cadets motivated unless they reduce the age requirement (not impossible)
The lack of 'plans' for the future or cogent information to the Squadrons can only mean an alternative path is on the cards and a major change being mooted that be 'sold' on cost and safety grounds.
As we head towards 1500 posts on this thread and two years when no cadet has flown a glider it is no surprise that things have descended in to farce over the last few posts.
Unfortunately it's also no surprise that so few of the posts seem to realise that we've been through all this before on the MoK, Nimrod, Red Arrows and numerous other threads and the fix is the same.
Syerston!
They already have full time staff at Syerston that can be deployed to head up any 'centre' required
I wonder how many times they have popped into the fabulous new hangar to see what is happening to the kit?
Or are they just as frustrated with the situation as the Air Cadet organisation that they serve?
we've been through all this before on the MoK, Nimrod, Red Arrows and numerous other threads and the fix is the same
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Peterborough
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off on a tangent - how do VGS uniformed staff comply with PI202 for Officers, namely -
ATTENDANCE ON ATC ACTIVITIES BY RAFVR(T) OFFICERS
7. RAFVR(T) officers are expected to attend for not fewer than 12 hours in any one calendar month on official and semi-official ACO activities. For RAFVR(T) officers on VGSs this is interpreted as at least 2 days in any one calendar month.
With a two-year grounding of the whole VGS fleet, sorry 'pause', how many have failed to meet this requirement? Never seen VGS staff offering to assist at their local sqns/Wgs.
ATTENDANCE ON ATC ACTIVITIES BY RAFVR(T) OFFICERS
7. RAFVR(T) officers are expected to attend for not fewer than 12 hours in any one calendar month on official and semi-official ACO activities. For RAFVR(T) officers on VGSs this is interpreted as at least 2 days in any one calendar month.
With a two-year grounding of the whole VGS fleet, sorry 'pause', how many have failed to meet this requirement? Never seen VGS staff offering to assist at their local sqns/Wgs.
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Banging my head on a VGS wall
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Snip)
Over the next six months or so it will be interesting to observe the performance of the legacy contractor recovering the Vigilant aircraft and the new company on the block recovering the Viking aircraft.
Is that the new kids on the block that have taken nearly a year and only produced 2 Vikings?
AFAIK. The incumbent contractor is still supplying manpower to the new kids due to the fact they are unable transfer their documentation onto military paperwork
Over the next six months or so it will be interesting to observe the performance of the legacy contractor recovering the Vigilant aircraft and the new company on the block recovering the Viking aircraft.
Is that the new kids on the block that have taken nearly a year and only produced 2 Vikings?
AFAIK. The incumbent contractor is still supplying manpower to the new kids due to the fact they are unable transfer their documentation onto military paperwork
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimum hours for Officers
Sounds like a slight poke at VGS staff !
Despite the way they have been largely ignored, some of the VGS units have been actively pursuing all manner of activities in an attempt to retain staff interest, and one that comes to mind has excelled in that regard; they have also been involved with Cadet engagement activity.
As the parent organisation that wrote the said minimum hours criteria, is the same one that has played a part in the current cock up, then they may have a problem trying to enforce it !
Not only that, the now grounded staff at all VGS units have, over time, put in thousands of man hours over and above the minimum criteria, thus even with a world record pause duration, the RAF is still holding a considerable credit in man hours for each and every staff member.
When the long awaited and perhaps controversial new location master plan is revealed, it will be interesting to see how the redundancies are handled, although as time passes, many will no longer be there. Perhaps the world record pause duration is part of that managed personnel strategy ?
All that would be needed is some other week of bad news, in order to "bury" the VGS bad news.
Despite the way they have been largely ignored, some of the VGS units have been actively pursuing all manner of activities in an attempt to retain staff interest, and one that comes to mind has excelled in that regard; they have also been involved with Cadet engagement activity.
As the parent organisation that wrote the said minimum hours criteria, is the same one that has played a part in the current cock up, then they may have a problem trying to enforce it !
Not only that, the now grounded staff at all VGS units have, over time, put in thousands of man hours over and above the minimum criteria, thus even with a world record pause duration, the RAF is still holding a considerable credit in man hours for each and every staff member.
When the long awaited and perhaps controversial new location master plan is revealed, it will be interesting to see how the redundancies are handled, although as time passes, many will no longer be there. Perhaps the world record pause duration is part of that managed personnel strategy ?
All that would be needed is some other week of bad news, in order to "bury" the VGS bad news.
This is going to play right into the hands of those up top who we all know would rather be operating a set up more akin to the AEF operation.
The VGS must come back stronger after this or I agree it will need to become an AEF-like operation. Mediocrity and a laissez-faire attitude in the military (even more so with youths involved) are no longer tolerable; they may have been 10, 20 or 30 years ago, but not now.
Standby for change, embrace it or wither. It's your choice.
The B Word
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why Oh why
Quote......
Is that the new kids on the block that have taken nearly a year and only produced 2 Vikings?
AFAIK. The incumbent contractor is still supplying manpower to the new kids due to the fact they are unable transfer their documentation onto military paperwork.
You are very quick to defend the incumbent contractor who seems to have in two years produced IRO five servicable motor gliders when they have the facility's, staff and infrastructure in place to maintain two fleets of aircraft and was responsible for most of this situation in the first place ( some of it inherited from the blue suit days ) and is also has responsibility for the CAMO side of things. The fact that the incumbent contractor HAS to do part of the CAMO work rather leaves the new kids on the block to some extent reliant on the incumbent contractors for paperwork.
No doubt with the track record of the incumbent contractor it would not have gone unnoticed by the staff that there is more that an outside chance that the uncumbent contractor might not get the support contract so it is not surprising that you are not too enthusiastic about the arrival of another contractor on your turf.
But as I said in the post above the current two contractor situation will allow the MoD to judge both contractors on their merits over he next few months and when the time comes to award the support contract use the knowlage gained to pick the best contractor to ensure an uninterrupted supply of gliding to the VGS over the next ten years.
Is that the new kids on the block that have taken nearly a year and only produced 2 Vikings?
AFAIK. The incumbent contractor is still supplying manpower to the new kids due to the fact they are unable transfer their documentation onto military paperwork.
You are very quick to defend the incumbent contractor who seems to have in two years produced IRO five servicable motor gliders when they have the facility's, staff and infrastructure in place to maintain two fleets of aircraft and was responsible for most of this situation in the first place ( some of it inherited from the blue suit days ) and is also has responsibility for the CAMO side of things. The fact that the incumbent contractor HAS to do part of the CAMO work rather leaves the new kids on the block to some extent reliant on the incumbent contractors for paperwork.
No doubt with the track record of the incumbent contractor it would not have gone unnoticed by the staff that there is more that an outside chance that the uncumbent contractor might not get the support contract so it is not surprising that you are not too enthusiastic about the arrival of another contractor on your turf.
But as I said in the post above the current two contractor situation will allow the MoD to judge both contractors on their merits over he next few months and when the time comes to award the support contract use the knowlage gained to pick the best contractor to ensure an uninterrupted supply of gliding to the VGS over the next ten years.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oop North
Age: 57
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not usually goaded into biting but I have to observe Romeo Bravo that you must have fantastic eyesight to know that not a single VGS member of staff is helping at the local squadron? I think such sweeping statements don't help the morale, and I suspect as a member of staff at such a squadron, you might want to remember those VGS staff who have served for many years, giving up every weekend, from 0630 hours to 2200 hours each day. I think they will have a few hours in the 'bank' and remember this pause is not of their making.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will also bite on the 12 hours a month requirement, I can only refer back to my own service over 12 years that included 2 years as an officer on a SQN as well as flying for the VGS. In that period I did a minimum of 1 week long course a year, as well as trips to Syerston for categorisation. Over that 12 year period I should have given a minimum of 1728 hours of my time.
Just looking at my weekend activities I did an average of 48 Saturdays a year and just over 12 hours a day. My service amounting to just 6912 hours in the 12 year period. I did more than some any less than a few others.
To insinuate that VRT’s should be hoofed out due to not operating for 2 years and not doing the minimum due to no fault of their own is not really on. I know of multiple officers and CI’s who are spending time at Squadrons and organising activities for cadets as well as trying to keep the VGS’s together in the hope that flying will eventually return.
But hey, I suppose if they remove all the VGS VRT's, then the rumoured changes to 'professional pilots' will have been achieved!!!!!
Just looking at my weekend activities I did an average of 48 Saturdays a year and just over 12 hours a day. My service amounting to just 6912 hours in the 12 year period. I did more than some any less than a few others.
To insinuate that VRT’s should be hoofed out due to not operating for 2 years and not doing the minimum due to no fault of their own is not really on. I know of multiple officers and CI’s who are spending time at Squadrons and organising activities for cadets as well as trying to keep the VGS’s together in the hope that flying will eventually return.
But hey, I suppose if they remove all the VGS VRT's, then the rumoured changes to 'professional pilots' will have been achieved!!!!!
Rules Regulations and TRIVIA
More damage has been done to the Flying Organisation and its capability by breaking the continuity of operations and the consequent lack of experience being 'handed on' by those who were quite capable of operating in a safe manner.
Producing 'books' of regulations and a 'tick box' system does not actually increase capability but merely 'loads' the system with records that have little meaning in the real world. We do not need a 'blame culture' operation,but one based on real capability together with continuity of actual operations.
The organisation has been badly let down by the 'full time paid system' not the actual schools doing the work.The utter rubbish talked about stitching and late flights just goes to show how far removed from the real world the 'system' has gone.
The school system was based on CAPABILITY where a Cadet who was keen and capable could become a Staff Cadet. He then learnt his trade from the winch end and by the time he was a P2 could do all the jobs required in a capable manner.There is no substitute for this type of operation that was based on capable people operating in a controlled system,and it did not need mountains of paperwork because the system was capable to start with.
Strange how the full time supposedly 'very safe' system was the one that could not even keep a fleet of Gliders operational.
Now the system does not even have suitable capability at the top,but the schools always had it and it still works.
Producing 'books' of regulations and a 'tick box' system does not actually increase capability but merely 'loads' the system with records that have little meaning in the real world. We do not need a 'blame culture' operation,but one based on real capability together with continuity of actual operations.
The organisation has been badly let down by the 'full time paid system' not the actual schools doing the work.The utter rubbish talked about stitching and late flights just goes to show how far removed from the real world the 'system' has gone.
The school system was based on CAPABILITY where a Cadet who was keen and capable could become a Staff Cadet. He then learnt his trade from the winch end and by the time he was a P2 could do all the jobs required in a capable manner.There is no substitute for this type of operation that was based on capable people operating in a controlled system,and it did not need mountains of paperwork because the system was capable to start with.
Strange how the full time supposedly 'very safe' system was the one that could not even keep a fleet of Gliders operational.
Now the system does not even have suitable capability at the top,but the schools always had it and it still works.
