Air Cadets grounded?
Got a lot of time for Sir Gerald; every time he vistied Farnborough Radar and I was on duty, he would come over, address me by name and have a chat.
When I told him about the fiasco of the PAR 2000 (being restricted to VMC only use for a long time) he was very interested.
When I told him about the fiasco of the PAR 2000 (being restricted to VMC only use for a long time) he was very interested.
Last edited by chevvron; 12th Dec 2018 at 13:11.
Chevvron
Agreed. He'd asked for a brief about Nimrod MR4 and been told BAeS were to blame. Unlike many, he sought other opinions and was shocked at the links between it and other cases of waste, such as Chinook Mk3; and airworthiness-related deaths, like Nimrod XV230. He found it a real eye-opener that the same few names were all over them. He was particularly upset that prior written warning had been given in 2005 to a Defence Minister (Ingram) which was a brief summary of what Haddon-Cave said 4 years later; and Ingram had been briefed by MoD to reject that evidence. Like Lord Philip and Haddon-Cave, he was not amused that a couple of his ex-MoD plebs could produce written evidence that MoD denied the existence of, both to Ministers and in court. And the letter from Ingram. He'd clearly done his homework and, we thought, spoken to Haddon-Cave; because we didn't seek him out, he invited us.
I hope those fuming at the ACO fiasco don't think the last few posts are thread drift. Work back a few years and this is directly related. But it does illustrate just how difficult it is to achieve change in the face of closed ranks. But it helps to identify those ranks. There is no point at all in going after a single Gp Capt, unless you think he might speak out and reveal all. He won't, because he patently doesn't understand how the fiasco could have been avoided. Why would he? He wasn't trained. Those really responsible can't believe their luck that (another) pleb is being blamed. You have to appreciate that his mistakes were simply repeats of what led to all the other cases we discuss. You have to ask what it is about MoD that permits these to happen time and again. Gliding was 'paused' on airworthiness grounds. What is MoD's stated position, under oath, about airworthiness regulations? 'Irrelevant'. Coroner Walker disagreed, and we had the Nimrod Review; but MoD succeeded in compartmentalising it again, just like gliders. One of these days someone in MoD might read the evidence and think about doing something. It's required reading, and offers a focus. Perhaps then the MoD/MAA will stop claiming 'credit' for it. That's what you're up against, the MAA Technical Director claiming credit for the contents of a document sent to a Minister in 2005, and a 3 Star in 2000, and.... Summary of said document? 'Do what the regulations already tell you to do'. MoD refused, and stills does. That's why the ACO has been decimated. Best of luck.
Agreed. He'd asked for a brief about Nimrod MR4 and been told BAeS were to blame. Unlike many, he sought other opinions and was shocked at the links between it and other cases of waste, such as Chinook Mk3; and airworthiness-related deaths, like Nimrod XV230. He found it a real eye-opener that the same few names were all over them. He was particularly upset that prior written warning had been given in 2005 to a Defence Minister (Ingram) which was a brief summary of what Haddon-Cave said 4 years later; and Ingram had been briefed by MoD to reject that evidence. Like Lord Philip and Haddon-Cave, he was not amused that a couple of his ex-MoD plebs could produce written evidence that MoD denied the existence of, both to Ministers and in court. And the letter from Ingram. He'd clearly done his homework and, we thought, spoken to Haddon-Cave; because we didn't seek him out, he invited us.
I hope those fuming at the ACO fiasco don't think the last few posts are thread drift. Work back a few years and this is directly related. But it does illustrate just how difficult it is to achieve change in the face of closed ranks. But it helps to identify those ranks. There is no point at all in going after a single Gp Capt, unless you think he might speak out and reveal all. He won't, because he patently doesn't understand how the fiasco could have been avoided. Why would he? He wasn't trained. Those really responsible can't believe their luck that (another) pleb is being blamed. You have to appreciate that his mistakes were simply repeats of what led to all the other cases we discuss. You have to ask what it is about MoD that permits these to happen time and again. Gliding was 'paused' on airworthiness grounds. What is MoD's stated position, under oath, about airworthiness regulations? 'Irrelevant'. Coroner Walker disagreed, and we had the Nimrod Review; but MoD succeeded in compartmentalising it again, just like gliders. One of these days someone in MoD might read the evidence and think about doing something. It's required reading, and offers a focus. Perhaps then the MoD/MAA will stop claiming 'credit' for it. That's what you're up against, the MAA Technical Director claiming credit for the contents of a document sent to a Minister in 2005, and a 3 Star in 2000, and.... Summary of said document? 'Do what the regulations already tell you to do'. MoD refused, and stills does. That's why the ACO has been decimated. Best of luck.
DO NOT LET THEM REWRITE HISTORY
CHEV Your last post is an excellent summary of the 'position', and we should remember that this thread has been consistent in seeking to bring this out in the open (albeit with the ATC element).
That so many well qualified opinions (facts) have been exposed there is no chance that unchallenged 'carpet sweeping' will be a common feature in the future.
The AIR CADET organisation will never be as we knew it (for many reasons) but at least we sowed the seeds to ensure a true hands on aviation experience can still be a desirable alternative to plastic bath tubs and screens.
If the Vigilants are saved it will because of this thread, and the thousands of valid comments that are now in the public arena.
That they 'may' well rise again under a different guise is welcome, but if they encourage youth to aspire to decision making, and self development then the country will be better off for it.
Best Wishes to all Pobjoy Pete
That so many well qualified opinions (facts) have been exposed there is no chance that unchallenged 'carpet sweeping' will be a common feature in the future.
The AIR CADET organisation will never be as we knew it (for many reasons) but at least we sowed the seeds to ensure a true hands on aviation experience can still be a desirable alternative to plastic bath tubs and screens.
If the Vigilants are saved it will because of this thread, and the thousands of valid comments that are now in the public arena.
That they 'may' well rise again under a different guise is welcome, but if they encourage youth to aspire to decision making, and self development then the country will be better off for it.
Best Wishes to all Pobjoy Pete
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,597
Received 275 Likes
on
153 Posts
Don't fence me in
Up on Kenley Aerodrome early this morning and as the Surrey Hills GC weren't yet flying, took the opportunity to walk down the main runway, something I'd never done before. I'd noticed some building activity at the NE end of the runway earlier in the week - it turns out they are building the fence along the peri track about three or four metres in from the "public" edge. It looks as though it extends as far as the 615 hangar so far. I presume the gates may allow public access airside when flying isn't taking place. There is a large gate at the end of the runway corresponding with the crash gate into the field beyond.
So, can this possibly mean 615 will be ready to fly again by Easter?
So, can this possibly mean 615 will be ready to fly again by Easter?
restricted airfield becomes smaller
Another legacy of JM. By having a fence on the actual peri track as opposed to the land around it, it has reduced the available area for emergency landings (cable breaks) and imposed a substantial hazard to any machine running into it.
A crass and stupid decision that typifies the crass and stupid way the ATC have been 'LED'.
To think this peri track was in use during the Battle of Britain and later whole wings would be weaving their way around it makes me weep.
A crass and stupid decision that typifies the crass and stupid way the ATC have been 'LED'.
To think this peri track was in use during the Battle of Britain and later whole wings would be weaving their way around it makes me weep.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,597
Received 275 Likes
on
153 Posts
Still good access to the Wattenden aw ditor, in fact I nipped in there a couple of weeks ago after getting caught in a heavy shower as I walked up the peri track.
Was up there again yesterday, took the opportunity to walk down the shorter runway (and the old road!). The fence starts hard by the 615 hangar and is now progressing down the western edge of the airfield. I regained the public side of the fence via a latch gate. Agree with Pobjoy, it does represent a potential and unnecessary hazard; I would have thought replacing the "temporary" crowd barriers around the runway ends would have been sufficient.
Was up there again yesterday, took the opportunity to walk down the shorter runway (and the old road!). The fence starts hard by the 615 hangar and is now progressing down the western edge of the airfield. I regained the public side of the fence via a latch gate. Agree with Pobjoy, it does represent a potential and unnecessary hazard; I would have thought replacing the "temporary" crowd barriers around the runway ends would have been sufficient.
The Kenley Fence😱
The fence should have been on the outside of the peri track on common land. On an already small airfield this introduces an additional flight safety hazard. It was put there to appease the minority nimbys who have moved to the area in recent years who think they have right to walk all over the airfield because they see it as part of Kenley Common. The fence will not stop their dogs from leaving deposits all over the airfield on non flying days. These deposits rarely get picked up by the owners of the dogs, despite doggy bags and bins being available. These deposits are picked up by the launching cable parachutes and on the knees of glider pilots when attaching cables to the gliders😱
It seems that some cyclists even want the (historic) bullet holes in the peri track removed and replaced with nice smooth tarmac so they can ride their bikes even faster round the peri track! The signs look good, let's see what the nimbys think about them!
Let us see Air Cadet gliders over RAF Kenley again! Looks like the "pause" will turn out to be five years for 615!
It seems that some cyclists even want the (historic) bullet holes in the peri track removed and replaced with nice smooth tarmac so they can ride their bikes even faster round the peri track! The signs look good, let's see what the nimbys think about them!
Let us see Air Cadet gliders over RAF Kenley again! Looks like the "pause" will turn out to be five years for 615!
Last edited by Frelon; 17th Dec 2018 at 14:50.
The fence should have been on the outside of the peri track on common land. On an already small airfield this introduces an additional flight safety hazard. It was put there to appease the minority nimbys who have moved to the area in recent years who think they have right to walk all over the airfield because they see it as part of Kenley Common. The fence will not stop their dogs from leaving deposits all over the airfield on non flying days. These deposits rarely get picked up by the owners of the dogs, despite doggy bags and bins being available. These deposits are picked up by the launching cable parachutes and on the knees of glider pilots when attaching cables to the gliders��
It seems that some cyclists even want the (historic) bullet holes in the peri track removed and replaced with nice smooth tarmac so they can ride their bikes even faster round the peri track! The signs look good, let's see what the nimbys think about them!
Let us see Air Cadet gliders over RAF Kenley again! Looks like the "pause" will turn out to be five years for 615!
It seems that some cyclists even want the (historic) bullet holes in the peri track removed and replaced with nice smooth tarmac so they can ride their bikes even faster round the peri track! The signs look good, let's see what the nimbys think about them!
Let us see Air Cadet gliders over RAF Kenley again! Looks like the "pause" will turn out to be five years for 615!
Last edited by chevvron; 20th Dec 2018 at 08:13.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: No Fix
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the RAF Kenley facebook page, perhaps even inside would have been better than the zig-zagging idiocy which disadvantages 'both sides of the fence' and introduces several hundred points of failure into an ageing hardstanding.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,597
Received 275 Likes
on
153 Posts
I didn't know about the bullet holes Frelon! I mostly walk along the western side of the airfield between Waterhouse Lane and Hillcrest Road but in the last couple of weeks have used several other entrances to the site and discovered the rifle range wall in the trees on the southern edge. Sadly graffitied...
I had to laugh at a comment on one of the Kenley sites that cyclists are doing 30-40mph around the peri-track - I seriously doubt it!
I had to laugh at a comment on one of the Kenley sites that cyclists are doing 30-40mph around the peri-track - I seriously doubt it!
Royally Screwed
This historic and noble airfield has been done for by the nerds at Croydon Council suitably assisted by super nerd JM and 2 FTS who were the planning applicants for the fence.
Anyone with a modicum of gliding experience knows that substantial fences (and signs) on the actual airfield are a hazard and in the case of Kenley have reduced the operational area.
It would not surprise me if someone now decides that the site is too restricted for Cadet training and therefore that would be another excuse to prevent 615 from returning.
Anyone with a modicum of gliding experience knows that substantial fences (and signs) on the actual airfield are a hazard and in the case of Kenley have reduced the operational area.
It would not surprise me if someone now decides that the site is too restricted for Cadet training and therefore that would be another excuse to prevent 615 from returning.
Nice to see this scandal has finally made the mainstream media. Private Eye has picked it up off the back of Philip Whiteman's Editorial in the current issue of Pilot magazine.
Hi A&C, I will once that issue has gone 'off sale'. As someone who works in print media I know how frustrating it is when people just 'give stuff away' on the internet while its still on sale on the High St!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Teddington, Middlesex
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And may I invite you to email any comment/correction to my editorial reproduced earlier in this thread for publication in the magazine: I want to present an accurate and balanced picture in 'Pilot'!
Here is what is says on their website
Private Eye In The Back
CADETS GROUNDED
The Air Cadets’ long-grounded motorglider fleet faces a sell-off, after maintenance contractor Serco and the RAF failed to keep them airworthy.
The Air Cadets’ long-grounded motorglider fleet faces a sell-off, after maintenance contractor Serco and the RAF failed to keep them airworthy.