Air Cadets grounded?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaft 109
You are correct there are standard repairs but these are limited by size and location to critical areas.
Once you go outside these limits you require a design organisation repair scheme, this is not a problem with civil gliders as the manufactures will for known reliable repair companies turn these around in a few days.
The design organisation for the Vikings is a large defence contractor............ I shall say no more !
Once you go outside these limits you require a design organisation repair scheme, this is not a problem with civil gliders as the manufactures will for known reliable repair companies turn these around in a few days.
The design organisation for the Vikings is a large defence contractor............ I shall say no more !
Pilot Magazine article
Dave
I read your excellent article in Pilot magazine all those months ago, and have followed your posts on this forum. Sadly it appears that the key people involved with Air Cadet gliding and flying have not read your article, so well done for including it above for us all to see.
Keep up the good work, we must get those cadets back in the air.
Venture Adventure, as we used to say!
I read your excellent article in Pilot magazine all those months ago, and have followed your posts on this forum. Sadly it appears that the key people involved with Air Cadet gliding and flying have not read your article, so well done for including it above for us all to see.
Keep up the good work, we must get those cadets back in the air.
Venture Adventure, as we used to say!
Last edited by Frelon; 9th Feb 2016 at 10:21. Reason: Apostrophe in wrong place! Damned predictive text!!
Dave Unwin
I enjoyed reading that. Well said.
It is 5 years since I last spoke to the MAA; they seem to be going backwards. However, if that is backwards to the correct starting point (refusal to implement regs, not the regs being wrong) then it may be for the best in the long run. The tragedy is they’ve existed for 6 years and simply will not acknowledge facts. Some of their papers resemble the old, discredited, CDPIs from 1993/4. They were cancelled because DPP, having immediately got definitions wrong (e.g. the process that maintains the Safety Case and airworthiness), they immediately went off at a tangent. The MAA’s equivalent document makes precisely the same mistake. You can implement it to your heart’s content, but you won’t achieve anything. That’s the situation you describe, perfectly.
I do not know the official reason for disbanding the Chief Engineer post in the late 90s but with hindsight, and now the various ARTS from 1992-98 have been released, it would not be unreasonable to link it to the abysmal job the 1991-96 incumbent did. The Nimrod ART of 1998 is infinitely more critical than Haddon-Cave ever was. You may recall these reports were buried by the CE until revealed during the ZD576 campaign. You mention Haddon-Cave’s confirmation (not revelation – he was told this in evidence) that unqualified staff were let loose. That was stated policy under that CE in AMSO/AML in 1991, and became so in MoD(PE) in 1996 under the Chief of Defence Procurement. Both systematically ran down airworthiness and safety in general. It may have been directed from above, but their subsequent rulings and attitudes suggest not.
Finally, composites. While I know nothing about the gliders, I do know the officer (retired Sqn Ldr, now in his 70s) who oversaw the award of the original contract. (He also lectured on Air Legislation). He assures me that having the necessary certifications only got them to our door. Each and every engineer was then required by MoD to go back to school and retrain on composites. The regression you describe is not unrelated to the CE/CDP policies I outlined above. They may have been issued 25 years ago, but if nobody challenges them they remain.
Best wishes
I enjoyed reading that. Well said.
It is 5 years since I last spoke to the MAA; they seem to be going backwards. However, if that is backwards to the correct starting point (refusal to implement regs, not the regs being wrong) then it may be for the best in the long run. The tragedy is they’ve existed for 6 years and simply will not acknowledge facts. Some of their papers resemble the old, discredited, CDPIs from 1993/4. They were cancelled because DPP, having immediately got definitions wrong (e.g. the process that maintains the Safety Case and airworthiness), they immediately went off at a tangent. The MAA’s equivalent document makes precisely the same mistake. You can implement it to your heart’s content, but you won’t achieve anything. That’s the situation you describe, perfectly.
I do not know the official reason for disbanding the Chief Engineer post in the late 90s but with hindsight, and now the various ARTS from 1992-98 have been released, it would not be unreasonable to link it to the abysmal job the 1991-96 incumbent did. The Nimrod ART of 1998 is infinitely more critical than Haddon-Cave ever was. You may recall these reports were buried by the CE until revealed during the ZD576 campaign. You mention Haddon-Cave’s confirmation (not revelation – he was told this in evidence) that unqualified staff were let loose. That was stated policy under that CE in AMSO/AML in 1991, and became so in MoD(PE) in 1996 under the Chief of Defence Procurement. Both systematically ran down airworthiness and safety in general. It may have been directed from above, but their subsequent rulings and attitudes suggest not.
Finally, composites. While I know nothing about the gliders, I do know the officer (retired Sqn Ldr, now in his 70s) who oversaw the award of the original contract. (He also lectured on Air Legislation). He assures me that having the necessary certifications only got them to our door. Each and every engineer was then required by MoD to go back to school and retrain on composites. The regression you describe is not unrelated to the CE/CDP policies I outlined above. They may have been issued 25 years ago, but if nobody challenges them they remain.
Best wishes
Great post TelsBoy, absolutely spot on.
What annoys me the most, is how the cadets have been doubly let down.
Firstly, gliding was 'paused' and they lost the opportunity to fly, (I know there is the AEF, but that amounts to one trip every 2 years in my experience).
Then, to rub salt into the wound, the organisation did NOTHING to replace to loss of flying or compensate for it. Would it really have been that hard to arrange extra visits to willing civvie gliding clubs, or, laid on extra jollies in Chinook, Merlin, Puma, Herc etc?
I was at a squadron open night last month, and the staff were still talking about the opportunities to go gliding. The enrolled cadets had that knowing look on their faces!
The organisation should have been open and honest about the 'pause' right from the start and said, "Look guys, there's a problem with gliding and it might take a while to fix. But don't worry, we're launching 'Project CadetFly' to get you all maximum air-time!"
Heck, someone might even have been promoted or got a Queens honour for it.
What annoys me the most, is how the cadets have been doubly let down.
Firstly, gliding was 'paused' and they lost the opportunity to fly, (I know there is the AEF, but that amounts to one trip every 2 years in my experience).
Then, to rub salt into the wound, the organisation did NOTHING to replace to loss of flying or compensate for it. Would it really have been that hard to arrange extra visits to willing civvie gliding clubs, or, laid on extra jollies in Chinook, Merlin, Puma, Herc etc?
I was at a squadron open night last month, and the staff were still talking about the opportunities to go gliding. The enrolled cadets had that knowing look on their faces!
The organisation should have been open and honest about the 'pause' right from the start and said, "Look guys, there's a problem with gliding and it might take a while to fix. But don't worry, we're launching 'Project CadetFly' to get you all maximum air-time!"
Heck, someone might even have been promoted or got a Queens honour for it.
"More AEF" is not an answer as AEF does not provide any structured training programme and, even going back 15 years when I was Cdt TelsBoy, AEF only came up once a year if we were lucky, despite the nearest AEF only being an hour's drive away. Then the inevitable "so what do you want to do today then, Cdt Bloggs?" once sat in the cockpit - no structure at all.
I was lucky and had over 10 AEF flights in my time (although 2 were air experience flights but not at "AEF" units or on a Tutor).
Only one of those was of useful value as well as enjoyment.
It was when I was 19, on a camp at Leuchars. The pilot was an ex-F3 jockey who had left the mob and was now at BA. I was a G1, had been on the ACPS the year before, and was wearing my flying suit so he could see my "G" wings name badge.
He spent 5 minutes on the ground before startup discussing what my experience was and what I'd like to do. After establishing that I was quite proficient and experienced (from a powered fixed wing point of view) compared to the vast majority of cadets he flies, and explaining that I was going to be training for my PPL the next year, he taught me some useful navigation and PFL techniques and tips which I still used even in my CPL cross country years later.
He let me taxi out, whilst covering the rudder pedals himself, so that he could draw some things on his kneeboard, and briefed me on a few things whilst holding, then got me to fly the take off, again whilst he covered the controls as I don't believe cadets are supposed to fly the Tutor below a certain height. Once a few hundred feet up he began explaining what he was going to teach me. Considering it was a last-minute and improvised brief, it was very concise and structured... I don't know whether he was a QFI in the past, or a TRI/TRE at BA, but from my experience he would have made an excellent instructor no matter what he was teaching on.
It is a shame it was not a longer flight, as it was invaluable.
It was an even bigger shame he was an exception rather than the norm.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take my Squadron Cadets to my local aero club to watch the aeroplanes. The Club are very supportive of them and allows them to climb inside the Club aeroplanes on the ground, visit the aerodrome tower, visit engineering, etc so at least they know what an aeroplane looks like.
They are regularly asked if they want to fly with some of the aircraft owners and club members which unfortunately we have to refuse due to health and safety, vetting issues and the fact that the pilots are non-AEF, RAF or dont hold an ATPL.
It seems such a shame that given the goodwill shown to the Air Cadets by many in the world of Aviation that we are unable to capitalize on it in some way but instead we have to wait until "The Management" get their act together which I suspect may be some time.
They are regularly asked if they want to fly with some of the aircraft owners and club members which unfortunately we have to refuse due to health and safety, vetting issues and the fact that the pilots are non-AEF, RAF or dont hold an ATPL.
It seems such a shame that given the goodwill shown to the Air Cadets by many in the world of Aviation that we are unable to capitalize on it in some way but instead we have to wait until "The Management" get their act together which I suspect may be some time.
The post I made at #1480 seems to be the most likely course of action according to my various mates and the rumour network. Exact detail still remains sketchy although I did hear that due to the sensitivity that further ministerial involvement is happening and that we might hear something in the last week of Feb (don't forget it's a leap year!). I suspect the last minute meddling will be about MP's constituencies and border sensitivities, so the final die is yet to be cast...
Another high-grade rumour is that 2-3 extra AEFs might be formed, as well as bolstering the current ones. So I suspect the "Lord will giveth as He taketh away". I still wonder where the pilots for that will come from unless there is a change of rules?
As Telsboy wrote, but seems to have deleted, it is better to have some news than none at all. So let's just get on with it!
They really have kept a tight wrap on all of this. The information available through normal channels has been well compartmented - maybe 2FTS should do provision of OPSEC strategy instead of gliding. They seem to have found their niche!
The B Word
Another high-grade rumour is that 2-3 extra AEFs might be formed, as well as bolstering the current ones. So I suspect the "Lord will giveth as He taketh away". I still wonder where the pilots for that will come from unless there is a change of rules?
As Telsboy wrote, but seems to have deleted, it is better to have some news than none at all. So let's just get on with it!
They really have kept a tight wrap on all of this. The information available through normal channels has been well compartmented - maybe 2FTS should do provision of OPSEC strategy instead of gliding. They seem to have found their niche!
The B Word
I take my Squadron Cadets to my local aero club to watch the aeroplanes. The Club are very supportive of them and allows them to climb inside the Club aeroplanes on the ground, visit the aerodrome tower, visit engineering, etc so at least they know what an aeroplane looks like.
They are regularly asked if they want to fly with some of the aircraft owners and club members which unfortunately we have to refuse due to health and safety, vetting issues and the fact that the pilots are non-AEF, RAF or dont hold an ATPL.
It seems such a shame that given the goodwill shown to the Air Cadets by many in the world of Aviation that we are unable to capitalize on it in some way but instead we have to wait until "The Management" get their act together which I suspect may be some time.
They are regularly asked if they want to fly with some of the aircraft owners and club members which unfortunately we have to refuse due to health and safety, vetting issues and the fact that the pilots are non-AEF, RAF or dont hold an ATPL.
It seems such a shame that given the goodwill shown to the Air Cadets by many in the world of Aviation that we are unable to capitalize on it in some way but instead we have to wait until "The Management" get their act together which I suspect may be some time.
It's been a number of years now, but I seem to recall we made use of one of the Unauthorised Activity disclaimer forms in ACP20A. Appendix E of Section 1 or something like that rings a bell.
Basically a parental permission slip that says the RAF/MOD have absolutely nothing to do with the activity, there is no public insurance in place, and they will not accept any liability for any incident or accident.
We used it a few times for various activities.
Gentleman Aviator
DC10
Don't need an ATPL - do need a DBS clearance (and so they should), but don't have to be AEF/RAF.
Please look at the current rules, which I hear have just been changed - is it ACTI or ACTO 30-something - 34 or 35? The pilots don't even need to be FIs for Air Experience.
And just which bits of Health & Safety would you have them ignore????
B Word
Hmmm - fewer Vigis, more Tutors - there's a logical answer there somewhere..... And they're RAF/ACO rules, so they could be changed.
But that's far too logical!
due to health and safety, vetting issues and the fact that the pilots are non-AEF, RAF or dont hold an ATPL.
Please look at the current rules, which I hear have just been changed - is it ACTI or ACTO 30-something - 34 or 35? The pilots don't even need to be FIs for Air Experience.
And just which bits of Health & Safety would you have them ignore????
B Word
I still wonder where the pilots for that will come from unless there is a change of rules?
But that's far too logical!
I believe these are the latest minima from ACTO 35 unless someone still serving can confirm otherwise. This of course applies where it is looking to be classed as an official ACO activity and not a private arrangement:
a. Passenger Flying:
1. 250 Hrs Total.
2. 10 Hrs on Type.
3. 2 Hrs Last 30 days.
b. Flight Instruction:
1. 500Hrs Total
2. 50Hrs on Type.
3. 2Hrs Last 30 days.
a. Passenger Flying:
1. 250 Hrs Total.
2. 10 Hrs on Type.
3. 2 Hrs Last 30 days.
b. Flight Instruction:
1. 500Hrs Total
2. 50Hrs on Type.
3. 2Hrs Last 30 days.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do AEF pilots have an ATPL or do they have to be ex-RAF or service trained to fly Cadets?
Teeteringhead. I wouldn't have them ignore any Health and Safety, vetting rules, medical status/licencing, Low flying Rules, Rules of the Air or the Air Navigation Order.
Teeteringhead. I wouldn't have them ignore any Health and Safety, vetting rules, medical status/licencing, Low flying Rules, Rules of the Air or the Air Navigation Order.
It's been a number of years now, but I seem to recall we made use of one of the Unauthorised Activity disclaimer forms in ACP20A. Appendix E of Section 1 or something like that rings a bell.
Basically a parental permission slip that says the RAF/MOD have absolutely nothing to do with the activity, there is no public insurance in place, and they will not accept any liability for any incident or accident.
We used it a few times for various activities.
Yeah insurance was always in place, but it was under the insurance of the activity provider rather than the ATC insurance which covers cadets on any authorised activity.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 71
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not quite sure why there are so many "Old Timer" VGS folk who are quite so vociferous about the "Pause to flying" declaration by the ODH. Why is it not so surprising that the whole fleet has been grounded when there has been so many discrepancies within the (none) recording of Engineering practices of the ACO aeroplanes?
The ODH was 100% correct with his assessment of the lack of ACO engineering expertise and the "fudges" that have been made with respect to "none authorised repair schedules" that have been made to the fleet aircraft.
The ODH signs-off the "Risk to Life (RtL) Register" of all of the items on the Risk Register (an MAA requirement) and that, in this instance, he was not satisfied with the lack of authorised engineering support with respect to authorised repair schedules to the ACO aeroplanes.
With respect to VGS Flying Instructors and other voluntary staff, no one is blaming the standards of your particular area of expertise. If there is one area that the volunteer staff of the VGS should recognise, it should be the heightening of awareness of the MAA regulations and NOT the "old school" dictat that... if it aint broke; don't fix it! It WAS broken AND it required fixing!
To all of the VGS part-time staff... get a grip upon the MAA Regulations; like it or hate it... the MAA is here to stay! If you have no wish to participate in any part of the regulatory requirements of the MAA... might I suggest that origami might suit you better!
Stop whinging and start making plans with respect to how you might best serve the ACO with whatever expertise that you might have within your armoury. YOU owe it to the remaining kids, no matter how few they might be, to deliver your best!
Get on with it!
TCF
The ODH was 100% correct with his assessment of the lack of ACO engineering expertise and the "fudges" that have been made with respect to "none authorised repair schedules" that have been made to the fleet aircraft.
The ODH signs-off the "Risk to Life (RtL) Register" of all of the items on the Risk Register (an MAA requirement) and that, in this instance, he was not satisfied with the lack of authorised engineering support with respect to authorised repair schedules to the ACO aeroplanes.
With respect to VGS Flying Instructors and other voluntary staff, no one is blaming the standards of your particular area of expertise. If there is one area that the volunteer staff of the VGS should recognise, it should be the heightening of awareness of the MAA regulations and NOT the "old school" dictat that... if it aint broke; don't fix it! It WAS broken AND it required fixing!
To all of the VGS part-time staff... get a grip upon the MAA Regulations; like it or hate it... the MAA is here to stay! If you have no wish to participate in any part of the regulatory requirements of the MAA... might I suggest that origami might suit you better!
Stop whinging and start making plans with respect to how you might best serve the ACO with whatever expertise that you might have within your armoury. YOU owe it to the remaining kids, no matter how few they might be, to deliver your best!
Get on with it!
TCF
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCF, from my perspective CFAV's have been getting on with it. Personally, I completely get why the fleet was grounded. What I don't get is how poorly the recovery plan has been communicated.
TCF
Excellent post.
One comment....
While true, and mandated policy since God knows when, although terms have changed, what the MAA refuse to get to grips with is the formal rulings that a 2nd or even 3rd Risk Register may be created, excluding all MoD-owned risks (such as you describe), to be wheeled out come audit time or investigation. This occurred, for example, after a multiple fatality crash in 2003, which 3 weeks ago (19/1) was submitted to the Defence Select Committee by an MP representing the family of one airman. The MAA are fully aware of this, but won't talk to you about it. Matters aren't as clear cut as they would have you believe. I think they are well-intentioned, but lack of independence stifles them.
Excellent post.
One comment....
The ODH signs-off the "Risk to Life (RtL) Register" of all of the items on the Risk Register (an MAA requirement) and that, in this instance, he was not satisfied with the lack of authorised engineering support with respect to authorised repair schedules to the ACO aeroplanes.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately from some of the posts above I think it will be some time before we are allowed the full story on what happened, for commercial reasons. This is a disgrace but the whole contracting out thing goes much higher up the food chain than the ACO.
For those doubting A and C's motives... he does have an insider view of part of the recovery process but he is an ex ATC cadet and just wants to see the recovery completed.
For those doubting A and C's motives... he does have an insider view of part of the recovery process but he is an ex ATC cadet and just wants to see the recovery completed.
TCF - most people do understand the original 'pause'.
AFAICS - there may be at least 3 or 4 different factors to the problem...
(1) The glider fleet engineering management lost control of the situation and failed to keep up with modern MOD/MAA life.
(2) (and this has not yet been mentioned yet AFAIK) There may be a problem with some (or most) VGS Hangars not meeting MAA standards.
(3) MOD are desperate to save money and may want to decrease the number of Gliding Units down to ??? (insert your own guess).
(4) Some of the maintenance 'errors' highlighted are a bit of a red herring and the situation could have been partly eased by the application of good common sense engineering quite quickly.
However because of the various agendas at play - I really do not think that 'They' want the situation sorted quickly - as I posted previously they in effect dismantled the old system by grounding all the aircraft and completely ignoring the VGS volunteers,they can now take as much time as they like to decide how many Gliding units will emerge in the future.
AFAICS - there may be at least 3 or 4 different factors to the problem...
(1) The glider fleet engineering management lost control of the situation and failed to keep up with modern MOD/MAA life.
(2) (and this has not yet been mentioned yet AFAIK) There may be a problem with some (or most) VGS Hangars not meeting MAA standards.
(3) MOD are desperate to save money and may want to decrease the number of Gliding Units down to ??? (insert your own guess).
(4) Some of the maintenance 'errors' highlighted are a bit of a red herring and the situation could have been partly eased by the application of good common sense engineering quite quickly.
However because of the various agendas at play - I really do not think that 'They' want the situation sorted quickly - as I posted previously they in effect dismantled the old system by grounding all the aircraft and completely ignoring the VGS volunteers,they can now take as much time as they like to decide how many Gliding units will emerge in the future.