Air Cadets grounded?

[Arclite01]

I am sure the 700 with the airframe times/launches and landings for each airframe must still exist. In addition Engineering Control (ha !) at Syerston will also hold the information even if it were just in summary.

I think the documentation that 2FTS say has been destroyed is the log sheets and probably the Cadet Training Records which would have been held at VGS level.

That Engineering Control may have destroyed/deleted/discarded the job cards and information around older repairs carried out would not suprise me though.............. most of these records would probably have been held by the contractors who would then provide them for audit if required. This is what has not happened - I believe that the records were not archived and then when a problem occurred the audit showed up that the job records had not been kept................... ergo - fiasco !

Arc

[Fitter2]

(Rhetorical question )

Were the defects that involved unsatisfactory repairs not discovered on Major inspections (by the same contractor who might have carried them out)?

Regarding the nostalgic wishes to return to some mythical golden age, it clearly could never happen. There were wrecks, write offs and the occasional serious injury in the past, though few considering the amount of activity. We live in different, risk-averse, litigious times.

Commissioning a new fleet? However it was done the cost would make the present recovery program look like a tiny footnote in the accounts. The VGS will end up with 60 Vikings in ex-factory condition (maybe better, being GROB gliders), and having very red faces the MOD will make very sure it doesn't happen again, although the gold-plated paperwork system will not reduce the budget overhead.

[squawking 7700]

Before Southern Sailplanes commenced the overhaul, the assets' open market value was nil.

Those through the overhaul programme might be worth £30-40K each, having spent, reputedly, £100K per airframe.

Those left, are virtually worthless.

You'd have thought with the numbers at CGS/2FTS involved with engineering oversight (2 x Wing Commanders, Tech Sevices, Contract Management and Quality Audit) and that's in addition to the Serco/Oxford people, that between them they could've managed the paperwork a little better.
Imagine if this was any other aircraft maintenace operation, GA or airline, they'd have all been sacked - how many are still in post?

[Arclite01]

Fitter2

Unfortunately this is what you get when you let people 'mark their own homework'.

Everyone passes and the grades are high............... usually when an independent examiner comes in the grades are reduced or revised downwards, and this is what has happened in this case.

Arc

[cats_five]

Originally Posted by Arclite01

Fitter2

Unfortunately this is what you get when you let people 'mark their own homework'.

Everyone passes and the grades are high............... usually when an independent examiner comes in the grades are reduced or revised downwards, and this is what has happened in this case.

Arc

Another reason to move them to the G-reg and let BGA inspectors oversee the maintenance. In fact they are doing that now at Southern Sailplanes.

Edit - they are doing the overseeing, not moving them to the G-reg

[Frelon]

Another reason to move them to the G-reg and let BGA inspectors oversee the maintenance. In fact they are doing that now at Southern Sailplanes.

Cats, you are pushing for something that has been mentioned in this thread, many times! We all know it makes sense, the aircraft will have a value when the MOD have finished with them, whereas in the current system they have little or no value on the open market.

But, knowing it makes sense is probably the reason that their Airships chose to do the other thing!! It would be so simple to do it now that SS have their hands on them.

[Arclite01]

Sorry Cats

There's no more supervision inside the BGA than there is in the Air Cadet Organisation in terms of maintenance.

I know - I'm a BGA Inspector.

and the G Reg thing is a red herring. The gliders are not moving to that system.

Thanks

Arc

[Rigga]

The RAF do indeed love aircraft paperwork. But one of their faults is that they don't actually like holding it as an archive or using the data it holds for some good reasons like developing/modifying systems and such like.

It appears to me that there is some naivety in some of the above posts.

If, as I believe, the contracting company was working under the MOD maintenance rules for documentation before the MAA regulations were malformed/created, that organisation was then perfectly entitled to destroy any maintenance documentation over, perhaps as little as, one year old or that had susequently been repeated. This means that the gliders would, if administered as per the regulations at the time, have only some mod record cards, a few recently closed job cards and the F700...

The fact that companies were allowed to do this is purely an MOD issue. not a contractual issue. I am not sure if this rule has been revised....

[Arclite01]

Rigga

You are correct.

I was involved in a project with MoD many years ago to scan image all the docs for archive and sadly it was rejected on grounds of cost and 'why would we need to keep that anyway' (not glider related - other items)

Arc

[tucumseh]

Rigga/Arclite

Spot on. MoD is responsible for the audit trail, no-one else. But it doesn't hold it itself, it pays industry. Primarily, Design Authorities/Design Custodians; and, many years ago, what were called Agency Contracts. No contract, then industry is under no obligation. They'll just ask which car park you want your records/equipment dumped in. The most comprehensive record in MoD's hands was in the Directorate of Military Aircraft Projects Registry. This was closed in early 1993 as the finale to AMSO's rundown of airworthiness management. We were given no notice. Just wandered down one day to do some ex-Committee approvals before the next HQMC round, and the place was empty, with all files and staff gone.

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by Rigga

The RAF do indeed love aircraft paperwork. But one of their faults is that they don't actually like holding it as an archive or using the data it holds for some good reasons like developing/modifying systems and such like.
.

They also like 'over maintaining' their aircraft compared to a civilian equivalent.
When they bought 3 Navajos to replace the 4 Devons of Transport Flight at Farnborough, there were usually only 2 available every day with the third always in pieces in the hangar; if a civilian operator had been using them they would have kicked up a hell of a fuss only having 2 aircraft serviceable.

[cats_five]

Originally Posted by Arclite01

Sorry Cats

There's no more supervision inside the BGA than there is in the Air Cadet Organisation in terms of maintenance.

I know - I'm a BGA Inspector.

and the G Reg thing is a red herring. The gliders are not moving to that system.

Thanks

Arc

So they are stuffed either way.

[Olympia 463]

Originally Posted by Olympia 463

I maintain that the whole idea of how flying should operate in the ATC needs a root and branch review. What exactly are you trying to do?

Is there no one on here who is willing to have a shot at answering that question?

Till you do all that is going on here is arguing about painting the the cycle sheds while the roof is coming off the factory.

[Cows getting bigger]

..... and now it would appear that many AEFs are on hold. Something to do with air traffic control.

[tucumseh]

Till you do all that is going on here is arguing about painting the the cycle sheds while the roof is coming off the factory.

You could say the same by just addressing the ATC. Almost any fleet could have been grounded for the same reasons. Gliders was the path of least pain, while hoping to give the impression of doing something. Most here could easily cite ten accident reports, plus the Nimrod Review, where 90%+ of the recommendations amount to 'implement mandated regulations'. Once is bad enough, but to repeat that time and again? Perhaps you could offer a suggestion, but mine is - implement mandated regulations. Preferably those pre-dating the MAA.

[Cat Funt]

Originally Posted by Cows getting bigger

Just out of interest, is he called Pippa because of his beautifully formed rear end?

A perfect ar$e, to be exact.

[Chugalug2]

Olympia 463:-

I maintain that the whole idea of how flying should operate in the ATC needs a root and branch review. What exactly are you trying to do?
Is there no one on here who is willing to have a shot at answering that question?

Olympia, as tuc has so clearly answered your question, presumably you are now satisfied? Or do you disagree? The whole point of this thread is that the "pause", ie grounding, had little to do with the ATC, even its exquisite rear ends, but everything to do with the predictable and predicted consequences of certain RAF VSOs' actions in the late80s/early90s, and the high level cover up ever since. Those consequences have already resulted in the loss of all RAF Maritime Air capability. The ATC gliders were a no brainer for grounding. The rest of the UK military airfleet though cannot be dealt with so easily. Until the cover up ends, until Regulation and Investigation is wrested from the operator (ie from the MOD and its subsidiary Services), we may expect more airworthiness related air accidents and more needless deaths.

[Sky Sports]

AEF flying paused

All AEF flying has, this weekend, been paused for the foreseeable future.

The Commandant Air Cadets has gone on her Facebook page to say, confusingly, she cannot discuss the reason on a public forum.........but, at the same time, doesn't have a clue what the reason is!?!?

[Chugalug2]

Thank you Sky Sports. Interesting that today the Red's case resumes in court. Do you think that the two could possibly be connected....?

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by Sky Sports

All AEF flying has, this weekend, been paused for the foreseeable future.

The Commandant Air Cadets has gone on her Facebook page to say, confusingly, she cannot discuss the reason on a public forum.........but, at the same time, doesn't have a clue what the reason is!?!?

Wouldn't have happened if we'd been able to continue with Microlight AEF at Halton; the aircraft were all civil registered and maintained to well above the required minimum standard eg engines replaced every 300 hours and the one which was removed was stripped down for inspection before being used again.