Air Cadets grounded?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cat F, restrain yourself; bad language wins no friends.
* * * * * * * *
At our gliding club, we are sponsoring 3 lads who should be flying with Air Cadets, they fly with us instead, and two are solo already.
Did all you guys realise that now we can send them solo at the age of 14? We are very proud of them, and think it a poor show that the RAF can't sponsor a flying programme with all that real estate and equipment available.
I suggest they shut down the Trident and spend the money on aviation. Who do we think we are deterring when our chief enemies are suicide bombers and the Ruskys, Germans, and Japanese are allies.
I hold a British and an American passport, and have signed the petition.
* * * * * * * *
At our gliding club, we are sponsoring 3 lads who should be flying with Air Cadets, they fly with us instead, and two are solo already.
Did all you guys realise that now we can send them solo at the age of 14? We are very proud of them, and think it a poor show that the RAF can't sponsor a flying programme with all that real estate and equipment available.
I suggest they shut down the Trident and spend the money on aviation. Who do we think we are deterring when our chief enemies are suicide bombers and the Ruskys, Germans, and Japanese are allies.
I hold a British and an American passport, and have signed the petition.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: LONDON
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sign Sign Sign
I probably sound like a stuck record, but everyone should and can sign. We owe it to ourselves and the next generation of air cadets. We live in a free society.
The Government wants to put 'the next generation first'. This is about helping them. It is unusual to be court-martialled for supporting the Government position.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/124333
The Government wants to put 'the next generation first'. This is about helping them. It is unusual to be court-martialled for supporting the Government position.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/124333
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Behind you...
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's great, Mary, but those cadets are probably being paid for by the bank of mum and dad. I understand there are some training bursaries out there, but they simply can't hope to replace the scale of what the air cadets once did.
If we pull out the maps of where the planned sites will be, we will notice hoofing great holes in the poorest areas of the U.K. One sqn in Scotland (Assuming they can make the airfield operable.) nothing in Wales, nothing in NI and, once the last of the Vigilants go from Topcliffe and Woodvale, nothing North of Syerston in Nottinghamshire until you reach Kirknewton. If you live in places like the Home Counties and the Cotswolds, then it's damn close to business as usual.
What truly beggars belief are the figures I've heard thrown around concerning the amount of money that will be required to upgrade these sites so they can operate Vikings safely. And please bear in mind, that all of these places are backwaters as far as the wider MoD is concerned. Millions are being spent to upgrade places like Little Riss and Upavon when it could be spend on aircraft. To be sure, the Viking operation is perhaps a more inclusive affair for day visitors doing Fam/GIC but as a TRAINING platform, the vigilant was far more flexible in terms of its ability to deploy elsewhere, the ability to integrate with other airfield users, the smaller amount of support equipment it needed and far fewer people required to operate them. There was a very good reason why there has always been a gaggle of de-rigged Vikings at Syerston- they ran out of places to put them. What's more, the Vigliant was never used it to its full potential. For example, for the cost of installing a GMC or even just a directional gyro, it could have been used to teach nav courses in addition to ab initio training.
I firmly believe that the solution put forward was Middleton's plan from the beginning. It wasn't a secret that he was opposed to volunteer non-QSPs flying powered aircraft while he was RC North. I've been in the room with him when he said he didn't understand the need for Vigilant and Tutor for AEF and UAS (albeit this was while the Tutor was grounded so he seemed to imply that the Vigilant could perhaps be used for both- as was being mooted elsewhere.) VSOs and ministers don't make up policy in a vacuum. Unless it's something of central importance to them, they'll tend to choose the path of least resistance and pick what ever has been dressed up to be the most palatable by the "sponsor", as has already been discussed.
Instead, the ACO has committed to the far more expensive Tutor to provide powered flying. And all it will do is put bums in the air instead of providing TRAINING. I can't wait to find out where 6FTS intend to find pilots for these larger and more numerous AEFs since most of them already have quite severe manning problems, the RAF is getting ever smaller and EASA regs are putting more pressure on volunteer QSPs who now fly in the commercial sector.
I think most people who understand the Air Cadets- which sadly doesn't include the bevy of FTRS has-beens in the White House at Cranwell- also understand that this is yet another blow from which they will not recover. Cadet numbers will continue to fall as they realise that the ACO offers little more than a myriad of other organisation do. Volunteers will see how badly even the most committed amongst them will be treated and also vote with their feet. They will continue to see that their parent service continues to let them down as support dwindles, timelines slip, admin burdens increase along with pressure to provide a "light blue footprint" at one dog and pony show after another, which accomplish little but to further detract from the things the kids joined up to do.
If we pull out the maps of where the planned sites will be, we will notice hoofing great holes in the poorest areas of the U.K. One sqn in Scotland (Assuming they can make the airfield operable.) nothing in Wales, nothing in NI and, once the last of the Vigilants go from Topcliffe and Woodvale, nothing North of Syerston in Nottinghamshire until you reach Kirknewton. If you live in places like the Home Counties and the Cotswolds, then it's damn close to business as usual.
What truly beggars belief are the figures I've heard thrown around concerning the amount of money that will be required to upgrade these sites so they can operate Vikings safely. And please bear in mind, that all of these places are backwaters as far as the wider MoD is concerned. Millions are being spent to upgrade places like Little Riss and Upavon when it could be spend on aircraft. To be sure, the Viking operation is perhaps a more inclusive affair for day visitors doing Fam/GIC but as a TRAINING platform, the vigilant was far more flexible in terms of its ability to deploy elsewhere, the ability to integrate with other airfield users, the smaller amount of support equipment it needed and far fewer people required to operate them. There was a very good reason why there has always been a gaggle of de-rigged Vikings at Syerston- they ran out of places to put them. What's more, the Vigliant was never used it to its full potential. For example, for the cost of installing a GMC or even just a directional gyro, it could have been used to teach nav courses in addition to ab initio training.
I firmly believe that the solution put forward was Middleton's plan from the beginning. It wasn't a secret that he was opposed to volunteer non-QSPs flying powered aircraft while he was RC North. I've been in the room with him when he said he didn't understand the need for Vigilant and Tutor for AEF and UAS (albeit this was while the Tutor was grounded so he seemed to imply that the Vigilant could perhaps be used for both- as was being mooted elsewhere.) VSOs and ministers don't make up policy in a vacuum. Unless it's something of central importance to them, they'll tend to choose the path of least resistance and pick what ever has been dressed up to be the most palatable by the "sponsor", as has already been discussed.
Instead, the ACO has committed to the far more expensive Tutor to provide powered flying. And all it will do is put bums in the air instead of providing TRAINING. I can't wait to find out where 6FTS intend to find pilots for these larger and more numerous AEFs since most of them already have quite severe manning problems, the RAF is getting ever smaller and EASA regs are putting more pressure on volunteer QSPs who now fly in the commercial sector.
I think most people who understand the Air Cadets- which sadly doesn't include the bevy of FTRS has-beens in the White House at Cranwell- also understand that this is yet another blow from which they will not recover. Cadet numbers will continue to fall as they realise that the ACO offers little more than a myriad of other organisation do. Volunteers will see how badly even the most committed amongst them will be treated and also vote with their feet. They will continue to see that their parent service continues to let them down as support dwindles, timelines slip, admin burdens increase along with pressure to provide a "light blue footprint" at one dog and pony show after another, which accomplish little but to further detract from the things the kids joined up to do.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: LONDON
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
facebook link
I have just placed a post in Rumour & News urging more people to sign the petition. I have done so, even though this thread here is covering the issue in great detail, because not everyone reads about military aviation and we need many more signatures on this petition.
Hi All, just a quick 'Thanks a bunch' for all the PMs - some interesting facts and some fascinating figures! I think 4Turbo has already made the point I was trying to though - if they got 34 years out of him then the investment was well and truly returned - in spades. And we all know there's many like him. Thanks once again.
Cat Funt - I did like your " wouldn't give the steam off their p*** " comment, notwithstanding Mary's disapproval. Had me guffawing - a fine example of minimalist thinking.
On your next post, like you it amazes me how much the RAF or MOD appears
happy to spend uselessly.
On your next post, like you it amazes me how much the RAF or MOD appears
happy to spend uselessly.
My lad gave up with with the Air Cadets as an avenue to fly this time last year. We had a talk and decided that staying in the air cadets would be a good idea solely for the purposes of a CV. But, if he really wanted to fly as a career, then joining the local gliding club concurrently would be a good move.
Consider this. He has been a member for exactly one year and has chalked up 60 flights. He is charged £3.50 per launch and all air time is free. Had he not done this, it will take him 30 years in the 'Air' Cadets to get to the same stage!
30 years experience for £210. 'No brainer' as they say!
Consider this. He has been a member for exactly one year and has chalked up 60 flights. He is charged £3.50 per launch and all air time is free. Had he not done this, it will take him 30 years in the 'Air' Cadets to get to the same stage!
30 years experience for £210. 'No brainer' as they say!
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
There is no way that pressure can be applied to an individual to not voice their concerns via a petition. As long as you do not use your rank or in-Service status and sign it as Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms then there is absolutely no issue at all. It is a basic right of every citizen (civilian or military) to be able to voice their opinion in the UK - it's just that those of us who wear HM's uniform must not overtly criticise the Govt whilst wearing said uniform or acting in a Service capacity. Whilst off duty, in the comfort of one's own home, the same individual is able to voice personal opinions as much as they like (like signing a petition).
Think about it, if you were not able to voice a personal political preference then you wouldn't be able to vote!
Facebook is subtly different as many persons put pictures of themsleves in Viggis/Vikings - then if you criticise then their is the faintest argument that you are bending the rules. But for a petition there is no such danger as long as no reference is made of your status (ie. Rank or connection to the Service)
CPL Clott
Think about it, if you were not able to voice a personal political preference then you wouldn't be able to vote!
Facebook is subtly different as many persons put pictures of themsleves in Viggis/Vikings - then if you criticise then their is the faintest argument that you are bending the rules. But for a petition there is no such danger as long as no reference is made of your status (ie. Rank or connection to the Service)
CPL Clott
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Peterborough
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Generally a good piece but missed the key point that youngsters had the opportunity to fly 'solo' in a glider ... Which is more than just gaining 'flying experience' even if the proposed expansion of the Tutor AEF fleet is achievable ... It's more than just 'airframe' numbers ... Cadets won't be going 'solo' in a Tutor.
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 19th Mar 2016 at 17:05.
Telegraph Article
Romeo Bravo
This is a great opportunity to get the real facts out there by us writing (e-mail) to the Defence Correspondent and appraising him of what has really happened to the ATC,and exposing the lies that are now emanating from Sleasford / Suspecston and MOD.
As this is the Defence column and the TG it will get read by many more than a tabloid journo plug.
Just the simple facts will do;and if enough do it we will get far more exposure on the sublect.
Remember;what the nit wits hate is a PR black hole,and all we have to do is to state the FACTS.
This is a great opportunity to get the real facts out there by us writing (e-mail) to the Defence Correspondent and appraising him of what has really happened to the ATC,and exposing the lies that are now emanating from Sleasford / Suspecston and MOD.
As this is the Defence column and the TG it will get read by many more than a tabloid journo plug.
Just the simple facts will do;and if enough do it we will get far more exposure on the sublect.
Remember;what the nit wits hate is a PR black hole,and all we have to do is to state the FACTS.
N4790P
As an ex Air Cadet, {450 Sqdn and 143 Gliding school} I'm a bit ticked of that I am not allowed to sign the petition, I think with the mass migration from the UK in the late forties and early fifties the are many of us in the same boat. Clunck,{RCAF pilot retired}
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
To those in the know ...
There are many of us here on PPRuNe who aren't FBook 'Users/Members'. It would be good to know when the dedicated 'Save The VGS Campaign Website' will go live ... so we can help 'cascade' the message
Thanks ...
Coff.
There are many of us here on PPRuNe who aren't FBook 'Users/Members'. It would be good to know when the dedicated 'Save The VGS Campaign Website' will go live ... so we can help 'cascade' the message
Thanks ...
Coff.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zet, it doesn't say ex Air Cadets cant sign the petition, but it does say one has to be resident or citizen of the UK, which looking out the window a ten foot snow banks I don't think I fit that description! {God was only joking when he made Canada!}
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 71
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want a conspiracy theory, the 2016 decision was stitched together as early as 2012:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...0Study%20O.pdf
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...0Study%20O.pdf
Can't help but notice that the security caveat within the above document is "RESTRICTED - COMMERCIAL"... a brave post!
CF
Nothing brave at all. This is a redacted FOI version hence the web address of "whatdotheyknow.com".
From this FOI it still looks like it was almost a pre-decided conclusion back in 2012!
iRaven
Nothing brave at all. This is a redacted FOI version hence the web address of "whatdotheyknow.com".
From this FOI it still looks like it was almost a pre-decided conclusion back in 2012!
iRaven