Air Cadets grounded?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: 75' from the runway edge and 150' from the threshold
Age: 74
Posts: 247
Received 30 Likes
on
12 Posts
Will he be as England centric as Pippa was or will we see gliding back in the Principality or the Highlands or poor wee Nor'n Ir'n? Probably not
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: LONDON
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Option for Return of 662 VGS to RM Condor, Arbroath
The recent Defence Estate announcement confirmed that the airfield at RM Condor, Arbroath (former home of 662 VGS) was now to be retained indefinitely (i.e. zero plans for closure), so there is no reason why 662 VGS could not re-emerge there. It is a great airfield, in the right place, with zero airspace restrictions and decent hangars and other facilities. The Royal Marines have always been extremely accommodating, even to the point of still welcoming former 662 VGS members back for Mess social functions, so the relationship is strong. The Ministerial Announcement in 2016 allowed for 11 Volunteer Gliding Squadrons (if you read it carefully), not 10.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: LONDON
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11 Volunteer Gliding Squadrons is Ministerial Position
My point is that the Ministerial Statement allows for up to 11 VGS (indeed, it actually directs that there will be 11 VGSs); it is the RAF's choice how many VGSs it chooses to equip - depending on (as you say) glider availability.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wethersfield:
In 2014 2FTS produced a somewhat incomplete draft glider aerodrome requirements document which has yet to be accepted by the Military Aviation Authority (MAA).
Subsequent to this draft an inspection report in 2015 by 2FTS of Wethersfield saw no reasons why gliding could not continue at there with some minor issues addressed.
Then in 2016 a yet unpublished inspection report indicated that £1.4m was required for the runway (singular) to meet MAA standards, and this was the primary reason for the 614 VGS relocation. This was strange, the (MAA) Manual of Aerodrome Design and Safeguarding is based on the runway lengths. So, using that criteria at Wethersfield with it’s very useful long runways, the regulation was based on large international aerodromes which would explain the £1.4m. The use of such criteria is not really suitable for a conventional glider site for many reasons that principally include safety and cost.
The MOD appeared to have justified this significant cost decision based on this flawed assessment for some reason ignoring numerous other options the site has to offer in terms of safety and facilities.
This was perplexing for staff at 614 VGS who know the site in detail, particularly considering the historic difficulties in retaining conventional gliding sites for Air Cadet gliding over the decades. Following the usual interactions with 2FTS some staff at 614 VGS decided to conducted some further research. This examined the application at Wethersfield of MAA/ ICAO based aerodrome safety requirements in a conventional gliding context, that included hangar facilities and other facilities the site offered. Relevant people from the aviation industry who were suitably qualified and experienced were engaged to assist with this in their subject areas. This report, as an example of the options available, described 3 options ranging from a basic £18K with some operational restrictions to a £550K longer term investment option.
It was sent to the MOD in February 2018. The MOD did not respond.
As of today, 614 VGS are at Swanton Morley which is less accessible to a larger majority of cadets than their previous home. With no hangar, no cadet accommodation, poor staff accommodation, no garage facilities for vehicles or equipment, a shared office/ PTT facility with 611 AGS along with their PTT, a future office in the old listed Tower (therefore expensive to renovate) which requires work and a fence around airfield with no gate wide enough to allow a rigged Viking on or off it. With all this, it comes at a much higher cost than Wethersfield, what were they thinking?
In 2014 2FTS produced a somewhat incomplete draft glider aerodrome requirements document which has yet to be accepted by the Military Aviation Authority (MAA).
Subsequent to this draft an inspection report in 2015 by 2FTS of Wethersfield saw no reasons why gliding could not continue at there with some minor issues addressed.
Then in 2016 a yet unpublished inspection report indicated that £1.4m was required for the runway (singular) to meet MAA standards, and this was the primary reason for the 614 VGS relocation. This was strange, the (MAA) Manual of Aerodrome Design and Safeguarding is based on the runway lengths. So, using that criteria at Wethersfield with it’s very useful long runways, the regulation was based on large international aerodromes which would explain the £1.4m. The use of such criteria is not really suitable for a conventional glider site for many reasons that principally include safety and cost.
The MOD appeared to have justified this significant cost decision based on this flawed assessment for some reason ignoring numerous other options the site has to offer in terms of safety and facilities.
This was perplexing for staff at 614 VGS who know the site in detail, particularly considering the historic difficulties in retaining conventional gliding sites for Air Cadet gliding over the decades. Following the usual interactions with 2FTS some staff at 614 VGS decided to conducted some further research. This examined the application at Wethersfield of MAA/ ICAO based aerodrome safety requirements in a conventional gliding context, that included hangar facilities and other facilities the site offered. Relevant people from the aviation industry who were suitably qualified and experienced were engaged to assist with this in their subject areas. This report, as an example of the options available, described 3 options ranging from a basic £18K with some operational restrictions to a £550K longer term investment option.
It was sent to the MOD in February 2018. The MOD did not respond.
As of today, 614 VGS are at Swanton Morley which is less accessible to a larger majority of cadets than their previous home. With no hangar, no cadet accommodation, poor staff accommodation, no garage facilities for vehicles or equipment, a shared office/ PTT facility with 611 AGS along with their PTT, a future office in the old listed Tower (therefore expensive to renovate) which requires work and a fence around airfield with no gate wide enough to allow a rigged Viking on or off it. With all this, it comes at a much higher cost than Wethersfield, what were they thinking?
Last edited by Oopscheck; 17th Mar 2019 at 19:47. Reason: Minor text edit
Just a cursory glance at the piccies of Wethersfield show it to be in as good if not better condition than Lasham, the busiest gliding centre in the country.
When I was WGLO with Herts & Bucks Wing ATC, we were split between 3 x VGS; Halton, Henlow and to a lesser extent Abingdon (previously Benson); at one time for about 6 weeks, I was WGLO for all 3.
There are no 'local' gliding schools left near this wing now, so where will cadets go for AEG/BGT?
When I was WGLO with Herts & Bucks Wing ATC, we were split between 3 x VGS; Halton, Henlow and to a lesser extent Abingdon (previously Benson); at one time for about 6 weeks, I was WGLO for all 3.
There are no 'local' gliding schools left near this wing now, so where will cadets go for AEG/BGT?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: LONDON
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Wethersfield Opportunity
Oopscheck, chevvron,
Now the context has changed (i.e. Wethersfield is staying open) then there is the opportunity to continue to use Wethersfield for a VGS (which would not have to be 614 VGS by the way; it could quite easily be another, unused VGS 'numberplate'). This could occur for a good many years and at very modest cost compared with other Air Cadet infrastructure projects (VGS and non-VGS related). This would represent a great return on investment not only for cadets but also for the taxpayer. Gliding at Wethersfield (with a reset NOTAM) could resume almost immediately.
Now that things have changed, it would be fairly straightforward for people to work together to achieve this, and with very little effort given that Wethersfield operated a VGS (614 VGS) for about 30 years, up until the first day of the 'pause' in Air Cadet gliding on 17 April 2014.
Now the context has changed (i.e. Wethersfield is staying open) then there is the opportunity to continue to use Wethersfield for a VGS (which would not have to be 614 VGS by the way; it could quite easily be another, unused VGS 'numberplate'). This could occur for a good many years and at very modest cost compared with other Air Cadet infrastructure projects (VGS and non-VGS related). This would represent a great return on investment not only for cadets but also for the taxpayer. Gliding at Wethersfield (with a reset NOTAM) could resume almost immediately.
Now that things have changed, it would be fairly straightforward for people to work together to achieve this, and with very little effort given that Wethersfield operated a VGS (614 VGS) for about 30 years, up until the first day of the 'pause' in Air Cadet gliding on 17 April 2014.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,644
Received 300 Likes
on
168 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I suggest the elephant in the room isn't necessarily real estate. The word in our corner of the Empire is:
2-4 serviceable airframes per VGS, probably closer to two than four.
Fatigue management plan limiting each airframe to 200 launches/year.
An out-of-service date of 2025.
2-4 serviceable airframes per VGS, probably closer to two than four.
Fatigue management plan limiting each airframe to 200 launches/year.
An out-of-service date of 2025.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I suggest the elephant in the room isn't necessarily real estate. The word in our corner of the Empire is:
2-4 serviceable airframes per VGS, probably closer to two than four.
Fatigue management plan limiting each airframe to 200 launches/year.
An out-of-service date of 2025.
2-4 serviceable airframes per VGS, probably closer to two than four.
Fatigue management plan limiting each airframe to 200 launches/year.
An out-of-service date of 2025.
Vikings
Unit I'm close to just got it's first gliding slots (first flying slots of any kind) since late 2017. 4 spaces, and it's a unit of 60+. And that's it till at least September.
Flying in the air cadets is dead, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Unit I'm close to just got it's first gliding slots (first flying slots of any kind) since late 2017. 4 spaces, and it's a unit of 60+. And that's it till at least September.
Flying in the air cadets is dead, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
And there are these "experience days" where cadets get 15 minutes in a Chinook once a year, which while nice, don't come close to replicating the time they used to get only a few years ago actually flying and taking control.
But considering the size of the air cadets versus the size of the RAF, its not all that surprising. What is surprising is the continued propaganda being spouted by HQAC with regards to it all. If they were more honest about the reality of the situation there'd be a lot less animosity towards them.
I'm not sure that 20 minutes in a Tutor with a pilot (who might never have been a QFI) is going to appeal quite as much as being taught to fly to solo standard in a Viking?
Certainly an Air Cadet instructor colleague of mine reckons that hanging around all day for a short AEF flight doesn't have anything like the appeal to his cadets as Vigilant flying once did. As for the part task trainers, he reckons that they're worse than useless and cause a degree of negative training.
Is that the generally-held view amongst those who instruct Air Cadets these days?
Certainly an Air Cadet instructor colleague of mine reckons that hanging around all day for a short AEF flight doesn't have anything like the appeal to his cadets as Vigilant flying once did. As for the part task trainers, he reckons that they're worse than useless and cause a degree of negative training.
Is that the generally-held view amongst those who instruct Air Cadets these days?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Northants
Age: 63
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaft109 - you're right to suspect that 200 launches p.a per glider is unimpressive. Our small weekend-only club last year managed 1300 launches between two training gliders or 650 per glider. I'm guessing that the 7-day a week clubs manage well north of 1000 launches per glider. So if you can solo a student from 50 launches that only represents 4 students per annum per glider, even assuming no Air Experience flying gets in the way of Ab Initio training. Not hugely impressive.
I'm not sure that 20 minutes in a Tutor with a pilot (who might never have been a QFI) is going to appeal quite as much as being taught to fly to solo standard in a Viking?
Certainly an Air Cadet instructor colleague of mine reckons that hanging around all day for a short AEF flight doesn't have anything like the appeal to his cadets as Vigilant flying once did. As for the part task trainers, he reckons that they're worse than useless and cause a degree of negative training.
Is that the generally-held view amongst those who instruct Air Cadets these days?
Certainly an Air Cadet instructor colleague of mine reckons that hanging around all day for a short AEF flight doesn't have anything like the appeal to his cadets as Vigilant flying once did. As for the part task trainers, he reckons that they're worse than useless and cause a degree of negative training.
Is that the generally-held view amongst those who instruct Air Cadets these days?
Viking vs Tutor isn't really a question for them. Most cadets haven't had either for years, so anything is better than nothing.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Dorset
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite a few errors creeping in. 200 launches a year is not correct. All the ones I’ve seen are limited to 200 launches between inspections. The inspections are very minor and the aircraft is normally good to fly another 200 launches by the next weekend.
I would say the majority of the instructors dislike the PTT but most cadets I’ve flown seem to enjoy it.
As for the claim that they can’t go near flying until after the PTT that’s not true. They can fly the tutor first then visit a VGS/AGS as and when and get the rest of the training completed. Our unit often fly cadets before doing the PTT to make use of a weather gap etc.
The negative training element you refer to is a possible concern, however we do not use the ptt for anything other than blue and bronze (gic). I don’t like it but like I say most cadets I’ve asked do and gives them a starting point for the airborne tasks or consolidates the training.
I would say the majority of the instructors dislike the PTT but most cadets I’ve flown seem to enjoy it.
As for the claim that they can’t go near flying until after the PTT that’s not true. They can fly the tutor first then visit a VGS/AGS as and when and get the rest of the training completed. Our unit often fly cadets before doing the PTT to make use of a weather gap etc.
The negative training element you refer to is a possible concern, however we do not use the ptt for anything other than blue and bronze (gic). I don’t like it but like I say most cadets I’ve asked do and gives them a starting point for the airborne tasks or consolidates the training.