Air Cadets grounded?
Moving On
As i see it the only good news is that in actual real money terms the cost to the RAF/MOD to prevent another PR disaster is by their standards relatively low.
It stacks up well against one of todays stories about the Watchman Drone which was 4 years late £400 million OVER BUDGET and has only had the equivalent of 6 Days operational use,plus is not doing anything useful.(investigation about to start).
The actual cost of getting a reasonable number of useful air frames back into ATC service is paltry compared with anything else the services do, and gets plenty of PR points. What they do not have is anyone who knows how to go about this in their mainline system so that is the stumbling block.
They need to be talking direct to the BGA to effect a plan that covers both recovery and the ongoing regulation trail. The BGA could also benefit by this as any 'profit' made will go back into their operation rather than contractors shareholders.
When you look at the facilities sitting around at Syerston requiring some proper management and motivation the actual cost to get them producing the goods is minimal compared with the cost of running the place that has produced NOTHING for years. We can not change the past or what happened with the 'changeover' but it only takes some sound management and manpower motivation (including proper paid tech staff) to get the show on the road.Apart from anything else a recovered fleet has value and surplus machines could be sold to offset some costs. It needs the BGA/Engineering to be given a short term contract to oversee this.
It stacks up well against one of todays stories about the Watchman Drone which was 4 years late £400 million OVER BUDGET and has only had the equivalent of 6 Days operational use,plus is not doing anything useful.(investigation about to start).
The actual cost of getting a reasonable number of useful air frames back into ATC service is paltry compared with anything else the services do, and gets plenty of PR points. What they do not have is anyone who knows how to go about this in their mainline system so that is the stumbling block.
They need to be talking direct to the BGA to effect a plan that covers both recovery and the ongoing regulation trail. The BGA could also benefit by this as any 'profit' made will go back into their operation rather than contractors shareholders.
When you look at the facilities sitting around at Syerston requiring some proper management and motivation the actual cost to get them producing the goods is minimal compared with the cost of running the place that has produced NOTHING for years. We can not change the past or what happened with the 'changeover' but it only takes some sound management and manpower motivation (including proper paid tech staff) to get the show on the road.Apart from anything else a recovered fleet has value and surplus machines could be sold to offset some costs. It needs the BGA/Engineering to be given a short term contract to oversee this.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pobjoy
The BGA does not have the systems or approvals in place to provide the airworthiness oversight for these gliders as the minimum the MoD require is EASA/MIL 145.
The BGA do an excellent job in administering the sport of gliding in the UK but it is not part of there remit to provide airline standard airworthiness. Such oversight would be inappropriate for the sport of gliding ( as well as expensive ) a military training system needs to be overseen by a much more stringent system, it is the shortcomings in stringent oversight that presiptated this fiasco in the first place.
The BGA do an excellent job in administering the sport of gliding in the UK but it is not part of there remit to provide airline standard airworthiness. Such oversight would be inappropriate for the sport of gliding ( as well as expensive ) a military training system needs to be overseen by a much more stringent system, it is the shortcomings in stringent oversight that presiptated this fiasco in the first place.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: across the border....
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GR7,
You cannot glibly and effectively say that the elevator issue is a non-event and is 'OK now', as the fact that it happened in the first place is beyond reproach.
7700
You cannot glibly and effectively say that the elevator issue is a non-event and is 'OK now', as the fact that it happened in the first place is beyond reproach.
7700
Ye gods ! This is one of the services supposedly in existence to help protect the country - and they can't manage a simple fleet of gliders and motor gliders. Machines flown, maintained and safely operated by civilians throughout the land.
I know several military maintenance folk, at both the sharp end of things and further up the line of command; in my view they are competent & effective, good practical and practicing engineers. What this so clearly suggests to me is how inept overpromoted ex-aircrew are, in many cases, at anything approximating senior management. At the very least some serious re-training is needed. Sadly the whole MoD set up appears to be incompetent in almost all respects.
It is all very well claiming that they are trying to operate to a higher military maintenance standard etc., and that these smaller simpler aircraft therefore cause the system a problem. It seems no-one has ever justified the process supposedly being used. If it is OTT for this purpose, then it is not fit for purpose, by definition. Blinkers appear to be firmly ON.
This shambles doesn't lead to any confidence that the 'leaders' know what they are doing. That leads to unsafe operations, eventually - which is where the ATC shambles came in....
As for the defence of the realm. Hmm - piss ups, breweries, anyone? Worrying - and this is my - our - money being wasted. The only minor ray of sunshine is that by normal UK military standards the waste of money is small.
Can we afford an RAF in future if this the best they can offer, or is this why it is such a sad shrunken relict of its former impressive self?
I know several military maintenance folk, at both the sharp end of things and further up the line of command; in my view they are competent & effective, good practical and practicing engineers. What this so clearly suggests to me is how inept overpromoted ex-aircrew are, in many cases, at anything approximating senior management. At the very least some serious re-training is needed. Sadly the whole MoD set up appears to be incompetent in almost all respects.
It is all very well claiming that they are trying to operate to a higher military maintenance standard etc., and that these smaller simpler aircraft therefore cause the system a problem. It seems no-one has ever justified the process supposedly being used. If it is OTT for this purpose, then it is not fit for purpose, by definition. Blinkers appear to be firmly ON.
This shambles doesn't lead to any confidence that the 'leaders' know what they are doing. That leads to unsafe operations, eventually - which is where the ATC shambles came in....
As for the defence of the realm. Hmm - piss ups, breweries, anyone? Worrying - and this is my - our - money being wasted. The only minor ray of sunshine is that by normal UK military standards the waste of money is small.
Can we afford an RAF in future if this the best they can offer, or is this why it is such a sad shrunken relict of its former impressive self?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biscuit74
The problem is that the contractor has failed to maintain the aircraft in accordance with normal aviation standards both with regard to work done on the aircraft and the records of that work. If the BGA had been providing the oversight I have no doubt they would have taken the same action as the MAA has. ( I know the BGA have in the past taken such action but one private glider grounded won't make national news ).
So to reintroduce the aircraft in to service thorough inspection of the airframe has to be undertaken to find just what has and has not been done. This will involve inspection but if a repair can't be garrenteed to be in compliance with standard practice or an approved repair then it will have to be redone as well as rectification of defects.
If the MoD/ RAF have made a mistake it was to have too much trust in the contractor to resolve the problem, part of this was due to lack of manpower. The military system grinds slowly and with its inertia is difficult to change direction but it has slowly dawned on the MoD/ RAF that this contractor was in desperate need of help and they pointed them in the right direction but they failed to heed this advice. At this point the RAF/ MoD asked other defence contractors to bid for the work ( to my knowlage at least two others have shown an interest ) and I would expect an announcement to be made in the near future as to has been awarded the contract.
So to reintroduce the aircraft in to service thorough inspection of the airframe has to be undertaken to find just what has and has not been done. This will involve inspection but if a repair can't be garrenteed to be in compliance with standard practice or an approved repair then it will have to be redone as well as rectification of defects.
If the MoD/ RAF have made a mistake it was to have too much trust in the contractor to resolve the problem, part of this was due to lack of manpower. The military system grinds slowly and with its inertia is difficult to change direction but it has slowly dawned on the MoD/ RAF that this contractor was in desperate need of help and they pointed them in the right direction but they failed to heed this advice. At this point the RAF/ MoD asked other defence contractors to bid for the work ( to my knowlage at least two others have shown an interest ) and I would expect an announcement to be made in the near future as to has been awarded the contract.
"If the MoD/ RAF have made a mistake it was to have too much trust in the contractor to resolve the problem, part of this was due to lack of manpower."
Eh? What do you mean 'If'? Aren't those aircraft owned by the RAF? Where do you think the buck stops?
A small fleet of simple sailplanes grounded for 20 months due primarily to incompetence? Laughable.
Eh? What do you mean 'If'? Aren't those aircraft owned by the RAF? Where do you think the buck stops?
A small fleet of simple sailplanes grounded for 20 months due primarily to incompetence? Laughable.
A&C,
The problem is that the contractor has failed to maintain the aircraft in accordance with normal aviation standards both with regard to work done on the aircraft and the records of that work.
I have commented several times on people being held responsible for their actions as that is what we all get paid for. What will the MOD do about this contractual failure?
By past experience, nothing.
The problem is that the contractor has failed to maintain the aircraft in accordance with normal aviation standards both with regard to work done on the aircraft and the records of that work.
I have commented several times on people being held responsible for their actions as that is what we all get paid for. What will the MOD do about this contractual failure?
By past experience, nothing.
A&C,
The problem is that the contractor has failed to maintain the aircraft in accordance with normal aviation standards both with regard to work done on the aircraft and the records of that work.
I have commented several times on people being held responsible for their actions as that is what we all get paid for. What will the MOD do about this contractual failure?
By past experience, nothing.
The problem is that the contractor has failed to maintain the aircraft in accordance with normal aviation standards both with regard to work done on the aircraft and the records of that work.
I have commented several times on people being held responsible for their actions as that is what we all get paid for. What will the MOD do about this contractual failure?
By past experience, nothing.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Somewhere in England
Age: 60
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all the blame can be laid at the door of the contractor. The aircraft are effectively 'owned' by the project team (PT). The PT produce the aircraft document se (ADS); the 'Haynes Manual' if you will, and the contractor services the ac in accordance with those instructions and the PT is supposed to monitor the contractor to ensure compliance. I understand that the ADS was woefully inadequate and yet the PT had not addressed the problem so the contractor was hamstrung from the outset. Before you blame the RAF remember that the PT is part of DE&S and the PT engineers are mostly Civil Servants (remember when the SA80 was referred to as the Civil Servant because "you can't make it work, and you can't fire it").
Should the RAF now step in and solve the problem? I think that would set a dangerous precedent for other contractors - screw up and the RAF will sort it. No, the contractor is paid to do a job and so the contractor and the PT should sort it. With an SDSR looming and reducing budgets I can't imagine the ACO gliders being high on the list and tough decisions may have to be made.
Should the RAF now step in and solve the problem? I think that would set a dangerous precedent for other contractors - screw up and the RAF will sort it. No, the contractor is paid to do a job and so the contractor and the PT should sort it. With an SDSR looming and reducing budgets I can't imagine the ACO gliders being high on the list and tough decisions may have to be made.
Tough decisions? Any decision would be good! As with most things MoD then planning in isolation seems to have occured yet again. No news, closed shop for anyone else - why do we do this to our people?
This isn't the first time and probably won't be the last. I just hope that there isn't too much squabbling going on in the closed shops to protect various empires whilst MFTS plays out in the shadow of a SDSR.
LJ
This isn't the first time and probably won't be the last. I just hope that there isn't too much squabbling going on in the closed shops to protect various empires whilst MFTS plays out in the shadow of a SDSR.
LJ
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BACK TO BASICS
As Victor Meldrew would have said "I don't believe it!" Well, actually I do, but I am prompted to ask if anyone has asked an Air Cadet what he/she would like to achieve on a gliding course? I' d say "to go solo/gain his/her gliding wings" - BGA A&B standard. I'm sure an Air Cadet would be happy to do that in the most basic of aircraft and wholly in the Circuit.
So, solution to dilemma? Sack the existing staff and contractors and acquire some second basic gliders and get the cadets flying again. Leave jollies in powered aircraft for Annual Camps - or are they now out of fashion? (Seem to remember night flying with pilots converting to Hercules at Thorney Island, handing out sick bags - ah those were the days ........)
So, solution to dilemma? Sack the existing staff and contractors and acquire some second basic gliders and get the cadets flying again. Leave jollies in powered aircraft for Annual Camps - or are they now out of fashion? (Seem to remember night flying with pilots converting to Hercules at Thorney Island, handing out sick bags - ah those were the days ........)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you were to do that where would that leave the Commandant and his Empire at Syerston?
Last edited by DC10RealMan; 6th Nov 2015 at 21:19.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Get some 2nd hand gliders' sounds so simple. In reality very few come up each year in easa land - literally a handful or two.
Last edited by cats_five; 7th Nov 2015 at 07:26.
Thanks A&C. I do understand what you are saying, however the main point in my comments was that the notional leaders here have demonstrated total lack of management capability. If you appoint contractors, first you make sure they are competent before your sign the contract - due diligence - and then you monitor and oversee performance as required (using competent people with suitable authority and experience)to ensure standards set are indeed met. That process can relax later if all is well, once capability and operation assured and proven.
In this case it appears MoD civil servants failed in some respects- nothing new there, sadly - however the RAF is the customer and supposedly knows enough to define what is required. The 'Project Team' may also have dropped a clanger, though I feel there is excessive slopey shouldering being allowed, even on here. If you don't think the documents (the ADS or whatever) set the standard you require, then you get them sorted BEFORE you accept the ruddy aeroplanes, not years later. Arguably that is part of the management task, right up front. Possibly poor task setting and responsibility definition - maybe no-one thought that was part of his/her responsibility?
'Random Bloke' - should the RAF step in? They should have been there long since ! My sceptical engineer's view is it is far too late for that, at least using the existing command arrangements; the RAF seems to me to have demonstrated a lack of ability to manage this folly in any sense, which is very disappointing.
Ah well; useful lessons, though it doesn't sound much as if anyone involved directly is interested in learning any. A great shame that such an excellent, effective and enjoyable way to enthuse youngsters about flying and the RAF has been all but lost. Very sad.
DC10 - I think we all know where that should leave them...
In this case it appears MoD civil servants failed in some respects- nothing new there, sadly - however the RAF is the customer and supposedly knows enough to define what is required. The 'Project Team' may also have dropped a clanger, though I feel there is excessive slopey shouldering being allowed, even on here. If you don't think the documents (the ADS or whatever) set the standard you require, then you get them sorted BEFORE you accept the ruddy aeroplanes, not years later. Arguably that is part of the management task, right up front. Possibly poor task setting and responsibility definition - maybe no-one thought that was part of his/her responsibility?
'Random Bloke' - should the RAF step in? They should have been there long since ! My sceptical engineer's view is it is far too late for that, at least using the existing command arrangements; the RAF seems to me to have demonstrated a lack of ability to manage this folly in any sense, which is very disappointing.
Ah well; useful lessons, though it doesn't sound much as if anyone involved directly is interested in learning any. A great shame that such an excellent, effective and enjoyable way to enthuse youngsters about flying and the RAF has been all but lost. Very sad.
DC10 - I think we all know where that should leave them...
Last edited by biscuit74; 6th Nov 2015 at 23:11.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Somewhere in England
Age: 60
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thinking about it I am convinced the question is not 'should' the RAF step in? But 'could' the RAF step in? After many defence reviews, options for change, front line first and any other euphemisms for 'cuts' the RAF is a shadow of what it was even 15 years ago. There are not enough engineers to man the front line let alone anything else because the Service has been forced to contractorise so much Unfortunately the public do not see the issues through the political smoke and mirrors; every time savings are required the Red Arrows are offered but successive Prime Ministers have refused to take that saving because so long as the Red Arrows can thrill crowds at air shows, the general public are hoodwinked into believing that everything is rosy.
So, a serious question to all the armchair pundits: What do you want the RAF to stop doing in order to get the air cadets back in the sky? Air defence of the U.K.? Support to worldwide operations? Cease support helicopter operations? Cease basic engineer training? Perhaps we could ground the ISTAR fleets?
I am not being melodramatic, just reflecting reality. Who should fix the problem? The people who created it in the first place and at their own expense, then the civil servants in the project team who let it happen should be held to account - sorry I forgot; civil servants cannot be held to account.
So, a serious question to all the armchair pundits: What do you want the RAF to stop doing in order to get the air cadets back in the sky? Air defence of the U.K.? Support to worldwide operations? Cease support helicopter operations? Cease basic engineer training? Perhaps we could ground the ISTAR fleets?
I am not being melodramatic, just reflecting reality. Who should fix the problem? The people who created it in the first place and at their own expense, then the civil servants in the project team who let it happen should be held to account - sorry I forgot; civil servants cannot be held to account.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Random bloke
The funding is now in place to get a good number of the Viking fleet back into service, the only question is who is going to get the contract ?
The current contractor is clearly bidding for it ( as demonstrated by the job advertising) and two others have shown an interest, my opinion of the current contractors ability to forefill the contract is based on their track record of successful glider maintenance.
One of the other potential contractors provides Grob Tutors to the RAF, at this they seem to be successful ( the propellor problems has been the result of a poor prop choice by others).
The third I know little of but seem to lack the infrastructure to start the recovery program quickly
The current contractor is clearly bidding for it ( as demonstrated by the job advertising) and two others have shown an interest, my opinion of the current contractors ability to forefill the contract is based on their track record of successful glider maintenance.
One of the other potential contractors provides Grob Tutors to the RAF, at this they seem to be successful ( the propellor problems has been the result of a poor prop choice by others).
The third I know little of but seem to lack the infrastructure to start the recovery program quickly
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Somewhere in England
Age: 60
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A&C.
That is good news. However, I suspect that the devil will be in the detail because once the sub-contractor has completed the work on the Vikings the aircraft still have to be accepted as airworthy by the MAA, the project team, the contractor and the design organisation; oh and the release to service folk, all of whom will want their say and, of course, their 'cut'. I can see a situation where there are perfectly serviceable, refurbished Vikings sitting idle for months while the Byzantinely complex airworthiness organisation gets its collective act together.
That is good news. However, I suspect that the devil will be in the detail because once the sub-contractor has completed the work on the Vikings the aircraft still have to be accepted as airworthy by the MAA, the project team, the contractor and the design organisation; oh and the release to service folk, all of whom will want their say and, of course, their 'cut'. I can see a situation where there are perfectly serviceable, refurbished Vikings sitting idle for months while the Byzantinely complex airworthiness organisation gets its collective act together.
Indeed good news that funding is now available.
Judging by A&C's comments about the contractors and random bloke's comments about the complexity of the processes and hoops to be jumped through and the shortage of capability within our shrunken forces it sounds as if -
(a) things won't be up and running swiftly - a matter which doesn't seem to concern the folk in charge much - and
(b) there is a strong possibility that the 'new' system will not be significantly improved over the previous set up. If the existing contractor is advertising for folk at lowest possible rates already, that doesn't augur well. Are any lessons being learned?
Hmm - none of this is new anyway. Didn't the RAF have to scrap a number of Tornado F Mk2s which were being overhauled or modified by a civilian contractor? I seem to recall they dismantled part of the structure using a very crude drilling out process, which caused enough damage to be beyond economic repair. Luckily the machines were an interim type so the impact wasn't disastrous, but surely that emphasised the need for good oversight . My recollection is that the company involved wasn't viewed as a dubious or fly-by-night one either. Mostly working outside their expertise and 'comfort zone'. Too long ago for the current management folk to recall?
Judging by A&C's comments about the contractors and random bloke's comments about the complexity of the processes and hoops to be jumped through and the shortage of capability within our shrunken forces it sounds as if -
(a) things won't be up and running swiftly - a matter which doesn't seem to concern the folk in charge much - and
(b) there is a strong possibility that the 'new' system will not be significantly improved over the previous set up. If the existing contractor is advertising for folk at lowest possible rates already, that doesn't augur well. Are any lessons being learned?
Hmm - none of this is new anyway. Didn't the RAF have to scrap a number of Tornado F Mk2s which were being overhauled or modified by a civilian contractor? I seem to recall they dismantled part of the structure using a very crude drilling out process, which caused enough damage to be beyond economic repair. Luckily the machines were an interim type so the impact wasn't disastrous, but surely that emphasised the need for good oversight . My recollection is that the company involved wasn't viewed as a dubious or fly-by-night one either. Mostly working outside their expertise and 'comfort zone'. Too long ago for the current management folk to recall?
Vikings returned to service yet?
...and what news on the Vikings that were in the care of Southern Sailplanes, are they flying again? Have they even been picked up yet?
Or are they still bogged down in the paperwork at Syerston?
I take my hat off to the many boys and girls in the VGS system (the V standing for Volunteers) who appeared to have been given the mushroom treatment.
They give up (have given up) much time in getting cadets off the ground, safely for many years, with very little thanks from above. On the regular visits from ACCGS there is no acknowledgement of the volunteer status of these youngsters. I wonder how many will be left after this debacle? Will they still want to work with people at the top who have clearly lost the plot?
Well done the members of the VGS organisation, officers, civilian instructors and staff cadets. I salute you.
Or are they still bogged down in the paperwork at Syerston?
I take my hat off to the many boys and girls in the VGS system (the V standing for Volunteers) who appeared to have been given the mushroom treatment.
They give up (have given up) much time in getting cadets off the ground, safely for many years, with very little thanks from above. On the regular visits from ACCGS there is no acknowledgement of the volunteer status of these youngsters. I wonder how many will be left after this debacle? Will they still want to work with people at the top who have clearly lost the plot?
Well done the members of the VGS organisation, officers, civilian instructors and staff cadets. I salute you.
Didn't the RAF have to scrap a number of Tornado F Mk2s which were being overhauled or modified by a civilian contractor?
All was covered in Hansard in 1993 - Airwork Ltd. (Hansard, 26 July 1993)
Quite shocking really, but when you have a procurement system that always takes the cheapest option (or ones to save British jobs) then what do you expect? The system is doomed to failure and mediocrity beckons...
What is funny about the Airwork story is contained in the following snippet:
Following a management buy-out in 1988 Airwork became part of the Bricom Group of companies. In 1992 a contract with the RAF at St. Athan to modify a number of Tornado F3 aircraft was to have far reaching consequences for the company. Serious damage was caused to the centre fuselage of 16 aircraft during the removal of rivets. When the extent of the damage became clear the Ministry of Defence cancelled the contract with Airwork and pursued compensation from Bricom. Questions were asked in the Houses of Parliament and the reputation of Airwork, at least in the UK, was dealt a grievous blow. A multi million pound compensation settlement was eventually agreed out of court and the F3 aircraft involved were repaired by new contractors replacing the damaged centre fuselages with those from surplus F2 aircraft which had been earmarked for disposal.
Short Brothers of Belfast, which had itself been bought by the Canadian company Bombardier in 1989, acquired Airwork as a wholly owned subsidiary in November 1993 and the company became known as Bombardier Defence Services Limited. The VT Group subsequently took over the business – renaming it VT Defence - in a £30m deal in June 2000. Whilst in the UK the former Airwork element of the business now trades under the name VT Aerospace, the name and brand of Airwork is still used prominently in Oman as ‘Airwork Technical Services and Partners LLC’ where a new five year contract to support the Royal Air Force of Oman commenced in January 2005.
Short Brothers of Belfast, which had itself been bought by the Canadian company Bombardier in 1989, acquired Airwork as a wholly owned subsidiary in November 1993 and the company became known as Bombardier Defence Services Limited. The VT Group subsequently took over the business – renaming it VT Defence - in a £30m deal in June 2000. Whilst in the UK the former Airwork element of the business now trades under the name VT Aerospace, the name and brand of Airwork is still used prominently in Oman as ‘Airwork Technical Services and Partners LLC’ where a new five year contract to support the Royal Air Force of Oman commenced in January 2005.
Which takes me back to this recent comment:
One of the other potential contractors provides Grob Tutors to the RAF, at this they seem to be successful ( the propellor problems has been the result of a poor prop choice by others).
The B Word