Air Cadets grounded?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A&C's post is very understandable, but it might help to offer a couple of points:
It's only two years since, with much fanfare and a notable absence of RAF officers taking any responsibility, a politician was jobbed to stand up and announce the 'recovery plan' for ATC gliders. That followed three years of fumbling, denial and outright lies while 22Gp, 2FTS and the MoD struggled to work out how to recover the airworthiness of a fleet of the simplest, easiest to maintain aircraft that (taxpayers) money could buy. As part of that, the RAF would effectively hand over its 65 Vigilants to Grob, who would recover 15 aircraft to a give an OSD of 2019. Grob would keep the other 50 for resale.
At the time, I wondered who on earth had approved this idea, just how bad things had got that the MoD thought that effectively giving 50 aircraft away for nothing to the firm we bought them from in the first place was a good idea. I also wondered how they justified this huge loss of taxpayer assets for an OSD just three years away when they made the announcement (March 2016).
So now, after two years of not much information, 2FTS suddenly announces that this is 'no longer an option'. Why? One thing for absolute certain - the last two years of non-progress will have cost the ATC, and the taxpayers, even more for absolutely no result. Sadly, any hope that this latest 'screw up' will release any more funds for Viking recovery is very probably unfounded. Getting things badly wrong for two years doesn't come cheap.
22Gp and 2FTS (and the MoD) spent over two years trying and failing to get a semblance of control over this scandal, and only started getting some sort of grip when given direct instructions by CAS and the MAA. The announcement in March 16 that effectively dismembered the ATC's operations was deliberately framed to obscure the central scandal. Now, another two years have passed and a central part of the 'new plan' has fallen apart. Which means that 22Gp, 2FTS and the MoD still don't have a grip. After five years. Five years.
The cadets who have been deprived of the central activity that they were promised, the ATC staff who have worked so hard to try to manage through this debate, and the taxpayers who have ponied up for this absolute crock, all deserve an explanation. The MoD and the RAF need to properly investigate what the hell happened, and take swift action to plug the gaps that clearly exist.
I'd hope that someone pushes for a formal Commons Committee inquiry. It's justified.
Best regards as ever to all those having to tell the cadets the bad news,
Engines
It's only two years since, with much fanfare and a notable absence of RAF officers taking any responsibility, a politician was jobbed to stand up and announce the 'recovery plan' for ATC gliders. That followed three years of fumbling, denial and outright lies while 22Gp, 2FTS and the MoD struggled to work out how to recover the airworthiness of a fleet of the simplest, easiest to maintain aircraft that (taxpayers) money could buy. As part of that, the RAF would effectively hand over its 65 Vigilants to Grob, who would recover 15 aircraft to a give an OSD of 2019. Grob would keep the other 50 for resale.
At the time, I wondered who on earth had approved this idea, just how bad things had got that the MoD thought that effectively giving 50 aircraft away for nothing to the firm we bought them from in the first place was a good idea. I also wondered how they justified this huge loss of taxpayer assets for an OSD just three years away when they made the announcement (March 2016).
So now, after two years of not much information, 2FTS suddenly announces that this is 'no longer an option'. Why? One thing for absolute certain - the last two years of non-progress will have cost the ATC, and the taxpayers, even more for absolutely no result. Sadly, any hope that this latest 'screw up' will release any more funds for Viking recovery is very probably unfounded. Getting things badly wrong for two years doesn't come cheap.
22Gp and 2FTS (and the MoD) spent over two years trying and failing to get a semblance of control over this scandal, and only started getting some sort of grip when given direct instructions by CAS and the MAA. The announcement in March 16 that effectively dismembered the ATC's operations was deliberately framed to obscure the central scandal. Now, another two years have passed and a central part of the 'new plan' has fallen apart. Which means that 22Gp, 2FTS and the MoD still don't have a grip. After five years. Five years.
The cadets who have been deprived of the central activity that they were promised, the ATC staff who have worked so hard to try to manage through this debate, and the taxpayers who have ponied up for this absolute crock, all deserve an explanation. The MoD and the RAF need to properly investigate what the hell happened, and take swift action to plug the gaps that clearly exist.
I'd hope that someone pushes for a formal Commons Committee inquiry. It's justified.
Best regards as ever to all those having to tell the cadets the bad news,
Engines
Well said Engines. The only comment I'd make is that MoD/MAA, and especially the RAF, will never conduct a full and honest investigation. The point has to be made, repeatedly, that this is just one in a sequence of aircraft fleets affected by conscious decisions not to manage airworthiness properly. Apart from the level of waste, there is absolutely no difference between Gliders and Nimrod MRA4. Including, notification of the problem years in advance. If the Commons Committee are again (!) invited to look at this, perhaps it could ask if MoD met its legal obligation to advise the HSE of 'defined dangerous occurrences'.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc,
I fully agree that the MoD/MAA are not equipped, nor are they inclined, to conduct the sort of investigation required - that's why I suggested a Commons Committee inquiry. Yes, this is just another point on a long and inglorious line of events, and I would hope that any inquiry would connect the points. I'd be happy to help them do that, if asked.
But, as ever, I'd offer the observation that there were plenty of people, in many positions, within the MoD and the RAF, who could have, and should have done their jobs far better than they did. Maintaining airworthiness files? Not hard. Keeping records of repairs? Routine stuff. Maintaining proper support contracts? A doddle. Just not done.
Best regards as ever to all those who have beaten this drum for so long with such integrity,
Engines
I fully agree that the MoD/MAA are not equipped, nor are they inclined, to conduct the sort of investigation required - that's why I suggested a Commons Committee inquiry. Yes, this is just another point on a long and inglorious line of events, and I would hope that any inquiry would connect the points. I'd be happy to help them do that, if asked.
But, as ever, I'd offer the observation that there were plenty of people, in many positions, within the MoD and the RAF, who could have, and should have done their jobs far better than they did. Maintaining airworthiness files? Not hard. Keeping records of repairs? Routine stuff. Maintaining proper support contracts? A doddle. Just not done.
Best regards as ever to all those who have beaten this drum for so long with such integrity,
Engines
tuc:-
You make a good point tuc, as last time it was quite prepared to have the wool pulled over its eyes by dissembling VSOs, thus joining all the other official long stops in just not wanting to know (QC's, Asst. Chief Constables, MPs, Ministers, Provost Marshals, etc). In the end this will only get sorted and UK Military Aircraft restored to Airworthiness by men of integrity. It seems plain to me that they can only do that if they are independent of those responsible for the farrago that is present day UK Military Air Safety, ie the RAF High Command and the Ministry of Defence. This scandal goes way beyond ATC gliders and Maritime Air Reconnaissance, scandal enough though that both are to all intents now gone. Someone, somewhere, somehow, with the integrity and power to effect the changes needed, has to be found and made aware of the depth and extent of this canker that threatens the very vitals of our Air Power and consequently our survival if we are ever threatened by an opposing Air Power.
Anyone there?
If the Commons Committee are again (!) invited to look at this
Anyone there?
Oh, and what are they going to do with those new 26 Skylaunch winches? They were specially built to MoD specification to use diesel instead of the preferred fuel, gas!!
Best wishes to those volunteers who have stayed with it. They deserve a pat on the back!
Best wishes to those volunteers who have stayed with it. They deserve a pat on the back!
I have to ask why they were ever put on the military register? The ridiculous red-tape and espoused hand-wringing nonsense coming from the so-called “Airworthiness Authorities” both pre and post Haddon Cave is an absolute joke for a glider and a motor glider - it is this nonsensical drive for a military airworthiness standard that has led to the disaster we have today. It would have been so much easier to operate these under the umbrella of the BGA and the CAA/EASA. We could have skipped the endless MAA regulations and ‘gold plating’ of what is a very simple aircraft to operate. Having all the volunteer pilots on SPLs and PPLs using Class 2 medicals conducting Introductory Flights would have been fine.
inquiries, witch-hunting the senior leadership and carping on about the good old days will do no good. We need leadership and (forgive me) blue-sky thinking to resolve this. My proposal would be to set up 2FTS as Declared Training Organisation, train up the staff to a minimum of EASA PPL/SPL and then buy some aircraft on the civvy register and put some roundels on them. Use a Part-M organisation to do outsourced servicing, then go flying! I reckon this could be achieved inside 6 months. In fact, these organisations already exist with 13x RAFFCA, 7x RAFGSA and 1x RAFMFA clubs - just tag onto the side of those through the RAF Directorate of Sport (which is also 22 Gp owned).
It beggars belief...
inquiries, witch-hunting the senior leadership and carping on about the good old days will do no good. We need leadership and (forgive me) blue-sky thinking to resolve this. My proposal would be to set up 2FTS as Declared Training Organisation, train up the staff to a minimum of EASA PPL/SPL and then buy some aircraft on the civvy register and put some roundels on them. Use a Part-M organisation to do outsourced servicing, then go flying! I reckon this could be achieved inside 6 months. In fact, these organisations already exist with 13x RAFFCA, 7x RAFGSA and 1x RAFMFA clubs - just tag onto the side of those through the RAF Directorate of Sport (which is also 22 Gp owned).
It beggars belief...
FRESH START
The Cadet organisation is only going 'downhill' under the auspices of RAF control.
The time has come to break away from this increasingly unnecessary overcomplicated situation that seems to be unable to make decisions or keep to a plan.
The whole organisation is chocked to death with just running itself, and has lost sight of the reason it exists.
A Cadet organisation would be better off being run as an independent charity, and those who wish to assist could do so without the requirement of Cranwell or 2FTS, neither of which have added to the CADET EXPERIENCE, and in fact have only caused its slow death by 1000 cuts.
You need look no further than the shrinking Cadet numbers despite the lower age limit, and inability to attract adult staff.
The organisation has been used as an employment plan for many yet the actual CADET EXPERIENCE has been reduced despite large amounts of money getting soaked up by THE SYSTEM. Compare the joke that is 2FTS with the former Gliding Centres. Nothing will change unless the people change, and I do not think that this is likely as they do not accept that anything is wrong. Any organisation needs quality leadership at all levels. The Squadrons and 'Schools' had it from a volunteer force operating at the coal face; the system is seriously flawed from above that level and in particular at the higher levels.
Just read the comments on the Air Cadet forum, it is full of input from those who care but are not being listened to at the top. The appalling way the long term staff at the VGS were treated should have been enough to show anybody how things were going, and these were the people who had been actually training Cadets to a required standard for decades with a great safety record. The current staff running the higher levels of the ACO have not shown an ability to deliver an experience deserving the title Venture Adventure with the addition of AIR in the equation. This is not going to change under the present 'occupation' therefore a Cadet body would be better served under a different regime and stewardship.
The time has come to break away from this increasingly unnecessary overcomplicated situation that seems to be unable to make decisions or keep to a plan.
The whole organisation is chocked to death with just running itself, and has lost sight of the reason it exists.
A Cadet organisation would be better off being run as an independent charity, and those who wish to assist could do so without the requirement of Cranwell or 2FTS, neither of which have added to the CADET EXPERIENCE, and in fact have only caused its slow death by 1000 cuts.
You need look no further than the shrinking Cadet numbers despite the lower age limit, and inability to attract adult staff.
The organisation has been used as an employment plan for many yet the actual CADET EXPERIENCE has been reduced despite large amounts of money getting soaked up by THE SYSTEM. Compare the joke that is 2FTS with the former Gliding Centres. Nothing will change unless the people change, and I do not think that this is likely as they do not accept that anything is wrong. Any organisation needs quality leadership at all levels. The Squadrons and 'Schools' had it from a volunteer force operating at the coal face; the system is seriously flawed from above that level and in particular at the higher levels.
Just read the comments on the Air Cadet forum, it is full of input from those who care but are not being listened to at the top. The appalling way the long term staff at the VGS were treated should have been enough to show anybody how things were going, and these were the people who had been actually training Cadets to a required standard for decades with a great safety record. The current staff running the higher levels of the ACO have not shown an ability to deliver an experience deserving the title Venture Adventure with the addition of AIR in the equation. This is not going to change under the present 'occupation' therefore a Cadet body would be better served under a different regime and stewardship.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FOI request?
POBJOY,
as someone who many moons ago soloed in a T21 at Sealand, perhaps an FOI request (or two...) is the way to bring to the wider public the extent of this taxpayer funded fiasco? Just a thought...
as someone who many moons ago soloed in a T21 at Sealand, perhaps an FOI request (or two...) is the way to bring to the wider public the extent of this taxpayer funded fiasco? Just a thought...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ (and others),
I sincerely apologise if my posts have come across as 'witch hunting', and as an ex-Air Cadet who flew in T21s and Sedberghs at Manston many years ago I fully appreciate your frustration at the current situation.
You ask why were the aircraft ever put on the military aircraft register? The short answer would be because they were bought using money that was allocated by the Government for military aircraft. They were bought by the MoD to be operated by an arm of the RAF. If the RAF operates aircraft, they have to be on the military register.
My view, and happy for anyone to disagree - The RAF should stop using scarce taxpayer's money to try to run the world's largest fleet of publicly owned gliders. The original justifications (recruiting, promoting 'air-mindedness') can't possibly stand scrutiny in the current financial climate. Again, my view. I think your suggestion for a way forward goes half way, and Pobjoy's is probably the only realistic way forward. The RAF should stop trying to own and operate these aircraft, and hand them off to a civilian organisation that is funded through charitable donations. No need for 2FTS, or the MoD posts that have tried (and failed) to operate and support these aircraft to a satisfactory standard. There's only one thing I'd disagree on - the suggestion that the RAF should 'buy some aircraft on the civvy register and put some roundels on them'. That money's gone. Been spent. Been wasted. Been flushed. If the RAF really wants to go that route, it would (in my view) have to find the funds from within its current budgets.
Just to explain why I think there should be an enquiry. The issue, to me, is not so much that the ATC gliding setup has been screwed up, although that's bad enough. It's that the RAF, which has worked so hard to build an enviable reputation for its standards and professionalism, has put that reputation at risk by failing in nearly all aspects of supporting and maintaining a fleet of simple aircraft. Even worse, it's put children (and it's own people) at risk in the process. As others have pointed out, this is not an isolated occurrence. So, here's the question I'd put to CAS - 'How do you know this isn't happening somewhere else in the RAF?'. To use the current jargon, 'is there a systemic problem'? There needs to be an answer to that one, and that's why I think an enquiry is required.
Best regards as ever to all the aircrew and support staff working damn hard to keep the RAF operational and effective,
Engines
I sincerely apologise if my posts have come across as 'witch hunting', and as an ex-Air Cadet who flew in T21s and Sedberghs at Manston many years ago I fully appreciate your frustration at the current situation.
You ask why were the aircraft ever put on the military aircraft register? The short answer would be because they were bought using money that was allocated by the Government for military aircraft. They were bought by the MoD to be operated by an arm of the RAF. If the RAF operates aircraft, they have to be on the military register.
My view, and happy for anyone to disagree - The RAF should stop using scarce taxpayer's money to try to run the world's largest fleet of publicly owned gliders. The original justifications (recruiting, promoting 'air-mindedness') can't possibly stand scrutiny in the current financial climate. Again, my view. I think your suggestion for a way forward goes half way, and Pobjoy's is probably the only realistic way forward. The RAF should stop trying to own and operate these aircraft, and hand them off to a civilian organisation that is funded through charitable donations. No need for 2FTS, or the MoD posts that have tried (and failed) to operate and support these aircraft to a satisfactory standard. There's only one thing I'd disagree on - the suggestion that the RAF should 'buy some aircraft on the civvy register and put some roundels on them'. That money's gone. Been spent. Been wasted. Been flushed. If the RAF really wants to go that route, it would (in my view) have to find the funds from within its current budgets.
Just to explain why I think there should be an enquiry. The issue, to me, is not so much that the ATC gliding setup has been screwed up, although that's bad enough. It's that the RAF, which has worked so hard to build an enviable reputation for its standards and professionalism, has put that reputation at risk by failing in nearly all aspects of supporting and maintaining a fleet of simple aircraft. Even worse, it's put children (and it's own people) at risk in the process. As others have pointed out, this is not an isolated occurrence. So, here's the question I'd put to CAS - 'How do you know this isn't happening somewhere else in the RAF?'. To use the current jargon, 'is there a systemic problem'? There needs to be an answer to that one, and that's why I think an enquiry is required.
Best regards as ever to all the aircrew and support staff working damn hard to keep the RAF operational and effective,
Engines
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: In a happy place
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>The recovery of remaining 9 Vigilant aircraft relied on an innovative recovery proposal from Grob Aircraft SE. This is no longer an option.<
Can anyone clarify why "This is no longer an option"? And what precisely stops the Vigilant fleet from being sold into the ordinary civilian market and refurbished or re-engined as required, as the Ventures were?
Can anyone clarify why "This is no longer an option"? And what precisely stops the Vigilant fleet from being sold into the ordinary civilian market and refurbished or re-engined as required, as the Ventures were?
GROBS NOT GOING CIVVY
If the remaining Grob Vigilant were released on to the private market (under the LAA system) they would be flying again very soon.
This is a simple machine with a converted car engine something the LAA (PFA) have grown up with and are quite capable of organising.
Yes they may require an inspection but there is plenty of expertise out there to deal with that. Because they would only be for 'private use' the certification situation is simplified. However how could the RAF explain that these machines had to be grounded !!!!. By having them 'destroyed' it conveniently removes the awkward questions that they would have difficulty in answering. Most of the current decisions relating to the former Air Cadet gliding fleet are based on covering up the disgraceful situation that allowed a fantastic training organisation to be destroyed by incompetence and lack of tech management. The money has (still is) been spent and wasted, so why waste even more and allow this broken excuse of a system to continue to pretend it has any idea or ability to run it. Cadets will be Cadets because they want to do something and they do not need the 'burden' of incompetence to do it. Shake off the shackles of the past and start anew, i for one would happily go back and drive a winch if it helped them get going again under a different stewardship, and I suspect many others would do the same as we know what a great 'experience' and self starting 'hands on' involvement can give to youth ,who in turn can pass it on.
This is a simple machine with a converted car engine something the LAA (PFA) have grown up with and are quite capable of organising.
Yes they may require an inspection but there is plenty of expertise out there to deal with that. Because they would only be for 'private use' the certification situation is simplified. However how could the RAF explain that these machines had to be grounded !!!!. By having them 'destroyed' it conveniently removes the awkward questions that they would have difficulty in answering. Most of the current decisions relating to the former Air Cadet gliding fleet are based on covering up the disgraceful situation that allowed a fantastic training organisation to be destroyed by incompetence and lack of tech management. The money has (still is) been spent and wasted, so why waste even more and allow this broken excuse of a system to continue to pretend it has any idea or ability to run it. Cadets will be Cadets because they want to do something and they do not need the 'burden' of incompetence to do it. Shake off the shackles of the past and start anew, i for one would happily go back and drive a winch if it helped them get going again under a different stewardship, and I suspect many others would do the same as we know what a great 'experience' and self starting 'hands on' involvement can give to youth ,who in turn can pass it on.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pobjoy
The RAF have been told by the leagal types that they can’t sell any unserviceable aircraft excepting under specific conditions so these aircraft can’t be made available to private individuals.
Should an EASA part 145 company or equivalent make an offer for the aircraft then sale could be considered otherwise the aircraft have to be rendered unusable and sold as scrap.
According to the lawyers if a private individual got hold of one of these aircraft and then had an accident the RAF would be liable for damages....................like the rest of this debacle it makes no sense to me so don’t shoot the messenger.
Should an EASA part 145 company or equivalent make an offer for the aircraft then sale could be considered otherwise the aircraft have to be rendered unusable and sold as scrap.
According to the lawyers if a private individual got hold of one of these aircraft and then had an accident the RAF would be liable for damages....................like the rest of this debacle it makes no sense to me so don’t shoot the messenger.
Servicability and the new Superpause
If the Grobs were fully serviceable two weeks ago and performing as required then what has caused them to be grounded.
Is there some genuine technical reason that has arisen !!! or is it due to another 'paperwork issue' in that a 'deal' can not be brokered with the parties as was expected.
If it is merely a 'deal break down' then the aircraft are no less fit now than they were before the most recent grounding.
If Grob have not issued an airworthiness directive (or the military equivalent) then what has changed.
If it 'suits' the RAF to ground and destroy; then they must show that the machine is deficient in some way, but as it has been in normal operation without a problem then it is either fit or they have been flying them knowing then to be unserviceable.
If someone has pulled the approval they must show why, and the RAF must be aware as to why they were operating under such an unclear situation.
It only confirms that the system is so unfit for service it should not be trusted to operate a Cadet Training Service ever again.
Is there some genuine technical reason that has arisen !!! or is it due to another 'paperwork issue' in that a 'deal' can not be brokered with the parties as was expected.
If it is merely a 'deal break down' then the aircraft are no less fit now than they were before the most recent grounding.
If Grob have not issued an airworthiness directive (or the military equivalent) then what has changed.
If it 'suits' the RAF to ground and destroy; then they must show that the machine is deficient in some way, but as it has been in normal operation without a problem then it is either fit or they have been flying them knowing then to be unserviceable.
If someone has pulled the approval they must show why, and the RAF must be aware as to why they were operating under such an unclear situation.
It only confirms that the system is so unfit for service it should not be trusted to operate a Cadet Training Service ever again.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2FTS Statement
'The 2016 relaunch of Air Cadet Gliding stated we would operate up to 15 Vigilant powered gliders with an Out of Service Date (OSD) of October 2019, 6 having been recovered already. The recovery of remaining 9 Vigilant aircraft relied on an innovative recovery proposal from Grob Aircraft SE. This is no longer an option. The removal of this option, challenging technical support for 2 fleets, and low Vigilant availability mean that continued operation of Vigilant is no longer considered viable. Consequently, we will withdraw the Vigilant glider fleet from service immediately, bringing forward its planned OSD. The Topcliffe VGS will convert to the Viking aircraft earlier than originally planned. This approach will free up engineers and allow the glider engineering enterprise to focus solely on the safe recovery and operation of the Viking fleet.
Comdt 2FTS’
My reading of the announcement from Comdt 2 FTS is that 6 of the planned 15 aircraft had been recovered but that there was no longer a recovery option for a further 9 and therefore the Vigilant fleet was to be taken out of service to concentrate resources on the Viking fleet. If that is the case the RAF appear to have 6 perfectly serviceable Vigilant aircraft for disposal. What the announcement does not explicitly say is whether Grob withdrew their "innovative proposal" or whether it was rejected by the RAF for reasons of safety or cost. Wouldn't it be nice to know which!!
Comdt 2FTS’
My reading of the announcement from Comdt 2 FTS is that 6 of the planned 15 aircraft had been recovered but that there was no longer a recovery option for a further 9 and therefore the Vigilant fleet was to be taken out of service to concentrate resources on the Viking fleet. If that is the case the RAF appear to have 6 perfectly serviceable Vigilant aircraft for disposal. What the announcement does not explicitly say is whether Grob withdrew their "innovative proposal" or whether it was rejected by the RAF for reasons of safety or cost. Wouldn't it be nice to know which!!
Engines - it was a generic comment on ‘witch hunting’ and not aimed at anyone in particular :-)
However, I’m afraid you are quite wrong here with this
Our current Grob Tutors are on the civilian register and we have operated some Front Line types on the civvy register in the past as well. Further I believe that Shadow and Voyager are operated to Part-145? The ANO allows for civil registered aircraft to be flown by military aircrew when on military duties. However, to make it simple, for Air Cadet purposes, I would propose that any civvy reg gliders/TMGs be flown by staff with appropriate civvy licences - again our Military Regulatory Publications (MRPs) make provision for this if required.
So it could be done VERY easily IF there was an appetite to do so. But for some unknown reason it isn’t! Part of me suspects it is because corporate knowledge of civvy flying is so very low in military circles...
However, I’m afraid you are quite wrong here with this
You ask why were the aircraft ever put on the military aircraft register? The short answer would be because they were bought using money that was allocated by the Government for military aircraft. They were bought by the MoD to be operated by an arm of the RAF. If the RAF operates aircraft, they have to be on the military register.
So it could be done VERY easily IF there was an appetite to do so. But for some unknown reason it isn’t! Part of me suspects it is because corporate knowledge of civvy flying is so very low in military circles...
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: In a happy place
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil.
cease this nonsense NOW
Dear All
We are now at the stage that the Corps have lost 5 seasons of training and courses, with no end in sight plus the continued spend of the budget with nothing to show.
The system has no aircraft or trained staff to talk of; just even more missives from 2 FTS which can only be treated as joke (if was not so serious). We have nothing, and are getting nothing really worth having other than some nicely paid jobs staffed by non deliverers.
Stop the rot now; close 2 FTS and let a Cadet system start afresh as it should, but not under the burden of the RAF or its pension plodders.
We have nothing, so the quicker this happens then the sooner a fresh start can begin (using those trained people but not in uniform).
Why anyone would think that these people should be allowed to continue in post amazes me; they are a disgrace and the Corps would be well rid of them.
We are now at the stage that the Corps have lost 5 seasons of training and courses, with no end in sight plus the continued spend of the budget with nothing to show.
The system has no aircraft or trained staff to talk of; just even more missives from 2 FTS which can only be treated as joke (if was not so serious). We have nothing, and are getting nothing really worth having other than some nicely paid jobs staffed by non deliverers.
Stop the rot now; close 2 FTS and let a Cadet system start afresh as it should, but not under the burden of the RAF or its pension plodders.
We have nothing, so the quicker this happens then the sooner a fresh start can begin (using those trained people but not in uniform).
Why anyone would think that these people should be allowed to continue in post amazes me; they are a disgrace and the Corps would be well rid of them.
Last edited by POBJOY; 14th May 2018 at 13:43.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It smacks of the TSR2 and the Avro Arrow.
Destroy all the evidence - physical and documentary - that way our incompetence will never be discovered or auditable..............
Hmmm
Arc
Destroy all the evidence - physical and documentary - that way our incompetence will never be discovered or auditable..............
Hmmm
Arc