Air Cadets grounded?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Tutor was not put through a full Boscombe Down Evaluation. Had they done so it would have become apparent that the aeroplane was unlikely to survive the daily thrashing AEF and UAS aircraft receive.
The Chipmunk airframe and Dripsy Major Engine did the same job amazingly well for decades but then the whole operation was far better supervised.
The Chipmunk airframe and Dripsy Major Engine did the same job amazingly well for decades but then the whole operation was far better supervised.
It is no coincidence that the past 7 years the Air Cadets have been headed by scribblies. Prior to that the previous Commandants were aircrew over a similar period. Further I don't believe any of the ATC Regional Commandants have flying backgrounds either. I believe that these people form the Executive Board of the Air Cadets and so flying will probably not sit high on their priority list. The Gp Capts that run 2FTS and 6FTS will likely sit on the Board but thy are not Air Cadet main business (certainly not anymore) and so only get limited air time in meetings. Plus, don't forget that Comdt 2FTS works for HQAC and so is overseen by the scribbly 1-star; so the majority of the Board not understanding the intricacies of aviation they probably think everything is going according to plan!
So unless there is a change at the top, and the only known one is AOC 22 changing this summer, then I suspect we are unlikely to see any massive change of direction. I even heard that the head of 2FTS has been extended in post to see the job done.
So unless there is a change at the top, and the only known one is AOC 22 changing this summer, then I suspect we are unlikely to see any massive change of direction. I even heard that the head of 2FTS has been extended in post to see the job done.
Beags - yup.
The rumour is that it is a 1 or 2 year extension to the current commitment. I am surprised at this as I truly believe that some fresh minds are needed on this; ideally someone with a civvy gliding background. I still believe that his original recommendation to AOC 22 to 'pause' was right, but the recovery lost its way and the treatment of the volunteer staff appeared to be poor. So a fresh mind is needed in my humble opinion.
The rumour is that it is a 1 or 2 year extension to the current commitment. I am surprised at this as I truly believe that some fresh minds are needed on this; ideally someone with a civvy gliding background. I still believe that his original recommendation to AOC 22 to 'pause' was right, but the recovery lost its way and the treatment of the volunteer staff appeared to be poor. So a fresh mind is needed in my humble opinion.
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 26th Mar 2017 at 19:57.
OC 2 FTS
Total Disaster; Zero Leadership, and had not a clue what was being destroyed.
There were plenty of options that could have kept the organisation going (even at a reduced scale for a while) using leased aircraft whilst some 'capable' people put a proper plan for the future together. They wasted thousands on PTT and winches, and worst of all chucked decades of instructor expertise away in the process, plus killing off the Staff Cadet route that worked so well. Pension my foot, head on a pole on London Bridge quite reasonable.
There were plenty of options that could have kept the organisation going (even at a reduced scale for a while) using leased aircraft whilst some 'capable' people put a proper plan for the future together. They wasted thousands on PTT and winches, and worst of all chucked decades of instructor expertise away in the process, plus killing off the Staff Cadet route that worked so well. Pension my foot, head on a pole on London Bridge quite reasonable.
Two Seat Gliders
I think the whole of Europe could have come up with a few that satisfied BGA cert standards.
We are talking about a 'plan' that kept a hub of flying going and the staff current. This of course needed the ability to think outside the box and get into the real world. Would have been better than the destruction of an organisation, and I suspect the GSA could have been brought in to help if asked.
The 'Military' input seems to be incapable of original thought or the ability to organise a rescue plan. In fact they seem to be expert at wasting money and not producing the goods. In any normal organisation the 'management' would have been sacked by now and NEW PEOPLE brought in to sort it. Extending the 'employment' of the current failures only confirms that there is nobody in the current 'management' that has a clue about basic aviation or leading a worthy group of trained volunteers. As alluded to at the start of all this only a real change at the top was going to produce any results. For the mainstream RAF/MOD to allow this only reduces their credibility, and the top brass of the Cadet organisation have to accept that their leadership of the organisation has been found wanting. The clue is in the title AIR CADETS
We now have THREE SCANDALS
The first was having to ground the fleet.
The second was allowing the original contractors (who are in default) to be part of the recovery.
The third is THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FINEST VOLUNTEER TRAINING ORGANISATION IN THE WORLD and the UK had it.
We are talking about a 'plan' that kept a hub of flying going and the staff current. This of course needed the ability to think outside the box and get into the real world. Would have been better than the destruction of an organisation, and I suspect the GSA could have been brought in to help if asked.
The 'Military' input seems to be incapable of original thought or the ability to organise a rescue plan. In fact they seem to be expert at wasting money and not producing the goods. In any normal organisation the 'management' would have been sacked by now and NEW PEOPLE brought in to sort it. Extending the 'employment' of the current failures only confirms that there is nobody in the current 'management' that has a clue about basic aviation or leading a worthy group of trained volunteers. As alluded to at the start of all this only a real change at the top was going to produce any results. For the mainstream RAF/MOD to allow this only reduces their credibility, and the top brass of the Cadet organisation have to accept that their leadership of the organisation has been found wanting. The clue is in the title AIR CADETS
We now have THREE SCANDALS
The first was having to ground the fleet.
The second was allowing the original contractors (who are in default) to be part of the recovery.
The third is THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FINEST VOLUNTEER TRAINING ORGANISATION IN THE WORLD and the UK had it.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know the modern RAF and its MOD sir humphrey's would have said no but when the pause had been ordered what would have been the response from ex cadets, the BGA and aircraft owners if someone had asked for a Dunkirk style response to keep the cadets flying? Anyone with an airworthy two seater glider or powered aifcraft asked to bring them to the VGS bases to maintain some kind of flying programme?
Bring licence, C of A or permit and insurance docs. Quick dual ride with a VGS instructor and on that basis a yes or no to flying cadets? There is no Dunkirk Spirit left in Little Britain and its a shame.
Bring licence, C of A or permit and insurance docs. Quick dual ride with a VGS instructor and on that basis a yes or no to flying cadets? There is no Dunkirk Spirit left in Little Britain and its a shame.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Behind you...
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags - yup.
The rumour is that it is a 1 or 2 year extension to the current commitment. I am surprised at this as I truly believe that some fresh minds are needed on this; ideally someone with a civvy gliding background. I still believe that his original recommendation to AOC 22 to 'pause' was right, but the recovery lost its way and the treatment of the volunteer staff appeared to be poor. So a fresh mind is needed in my humble opinion.
The rumour is that it is a 1 or 2 year extension to the current commitment. I am surprised at this as I truly believe that some fresh minds are needed on this; ideally someone with a civvy gliding background. I still believe that his original recommendation to AOC 22 to 'pause' was right, but the recovery lost its way and the treatment of the volunteer staff appeared to be poor. So a fresh mind is needed in my humble opinion.
You've got to be kidding me. I realise that FTRS service with the Air Cadets is seen increasingly by the volunteer cadre as an old folks home for retired incompetents who wouldn't survive 6 months in the real world, but the delusions of adequacy this muppet harbours is truly next-level stuff.
My guess is that most of those volunteers who were willing to stay on through this spinning bow-tie extravaganza did so on the assumption that he was being quietly shuffled off to the glue factory in the next 12 months.
Last edited by Cat Funt; 28th Mar 2017 at 07:47.
Helping Out
B-pants your assessment of the situation is confirmed by the response to the situation on this thread.
It was quite obvious to those who had experienced the organisation when it actually was 'organised' to see quite clearly how far apart from reality it had drifted, and how there was a complete loss of competent leadership.
The equipment we are talking about were basic SLMG (powered by a converted car engine) and a fleet of simple conventional gliders. All this equipment is also used by clubs and private owners all over the World and in many case's the owners actually take part in the maintenance program. There were hundreds of competent staff on the schools who already had 'powered' experience and I suspect would have had no problem being approved to provide 'duplicate checks' and basic servicing. Syerston as the flying HQ should have picked up on the fact that aircraft were not being repaired and indeed one wonders what quality control was in place to oversee the basic day to day requirements.
GRP repairs are not quite as simple as the previous fleet but the knowledge is out there to keep control on what is acceptable or not. For the Air Cadet organisation not to have an overall engineering oversight for this is negligent, and there is no excuse as the GSA operated a satisfactory system for their machines so a template was there. For aviation to operate there has to be a sound 'engineering' base looking after equipment. The PFA and latterly the LAA have shown that this is possible using a volunteer element that are qualified to undertake inspections and actual building of complete aircraft.
The volunteer element of the ATC has not been found wanting but has been let down by the complete absence of capability and competence by the very people paid to organise it.
It was quite obvious to those who had experienced the organisation when it actually was 'organised' to see quite clearly how far apart from reality it had drifted, and how there was a complete loss of competent leadership.
The equipment we are talking about were basic SLMG (powered by a converted car engine) and a fleet of simple conventional gliders. All this equipment is also used by clubs and private owners all over the World and in many case's the owners actually take part in the maintenance program. There were hundreds of competent staff on the schools who already had 'powered' experience and I suspect would have had no problem being approved to provide 'duplicate checks' and basic servicing. Syerston as the flying HQ should have picked up on the fact that aircraft were not being repaired and indeed one wonders what quality control was in place to oversee the basic day to day requirements.
GRP repairs are not quite as simple as the previous fleet but the knowledge is out there to keep control on what is acceptable or not. For the Air Cadet organisation not to have an overall engineering oversight for this is negligent, and there is no excuse as the GSA operated a satisfactory system for their machines so a template was there. For aviation to operate there has to be a sound 'engineering' base looking after equipment. The PFA and latterly the LAA have shown that this is possible using a volunteer element that are qualified to undertake inspections and actual building of complete aircraft.
The volunteer element of the ATC has not been found wanting but has been let down by the complete absence of capability and competence by the very people paid to organise it.
All I can say gentlemen is that the whole sad saga leaves me both bereft and bemused. I know that in my MK3 T21 days it was all a bit 'kick the tyres and fly' and I fully understand the airworthiness issues at play. I can also see that some of the decison making is driven by a need to avoid the negative publicity of yet another dead ATC cadet. I seem to recall two accidents where sadly life was lost and we all need to keep that thought uppermost. My grandson keeps a close eye on this thread muttering that he hopes all issues will be resolved before he puts on his first blue suit. (You've got 18months to sort it guys). Good luck and best wishes. Ex cloudscraper.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I think the whole of Europe could have come up with a few that satisfied BGA cert standards."
When we found ourselves a K21 short the UK couldn't come up with one.
*Edit not a single glass 2-seat basic trainer so not a K21, not a Grob of any type, etc.
"My grandson keeps a close eye on this thread muttering that he hopes all issues will be resolved before he puts on his first blue suit"
If your grandson seriously wants to fly gliders his nearest BGA club will provide flying right now, and he can go solo at 14 as long as his flying is up to it. Most BGA clubs have very good deals for Juniors.
When we found ourselves a K21 short the UK couldn't come up with one.
*Edit not a single glass 2-seat basic trainer so not a K21, not a Grob of any type, etc.
"My grandson keeps a close eye on this thread muttering that he hopes all issues will be resolved before he puts on his first blue suit"
If your grandson seriously wants to fly gliders his nearest BGA club will provide flying right now, and he can go solo at 14 as long as his flying is up to it. Most BGA clubs have very good deals for Juniors.
DLGC Club News 28 March 2017
''Group of ATC Cadets Joins. A group of 13 ATC cadets from Knutsford have joined the club as under 18 members in an arrangement in which up to any three at a time may come to learn to fly with us''.
''Group of ATC Cadets Joins. A group of 13 ATC cadets from Knutsford have joined the club as under 18 members in an arrangement in which up to any three at a time may come to learn to fly with us''.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So in the opinion of 2 FTS, the LAA's airworthiness oversight regime is not fit for purpose (at least not for the purpose of flying cadets).
Last edited by Rivet gun; 2nd Apr 2017 at 18:31.
Well, one interesting snippet. I hear that some youngster scored a DH on Pippa-the-fat-navigator's forehead with a chuck glider at a recent gliding association's dinner...
One can almost hear the lad saying "That's what a ******g glider looks like, you d------d!!"
One can almost hear the lad saying "That's what a ******g glider looks like, you d------d!!"
Volunteer Capability
Rivet Gun
My point was/is that the PFA/LAA and indeed the BGA are all Volunteer organisations that have their own airworthiness and certification sections. In the case of the BGA they have had to adapt to the advent of quite high tec machines and also numerous motor adaptations. Their ability to cope with this has never been in question.
In the case of what is now the LAA they are responsible for homebuilt construction of quite complicated and powerful aircraft and the ongoing maintenance. Both organisations are largely Volunteer run with high quality tech leadership and design capability. As we have seen with the ACO the volunteer element has proven to be 100% capable of delivering quality safe TRAINING. Had it also operated the engineering backup using the same element of capability as the above organisations including the GSA then we would not be in the current pickle. It is the SHOCK that the parent organisation for delivering the engineering part of Air Cadet gliding has been seen to be wanting to extreme, and also the paid full time 'staff' so lacking in both capability and actual leadership let alone an ability to deal with a (NOT QUITE ROCKET SCIENCE ISSUE) .If the parent engineering base was so incapable (why would anybody with a brain let it organise a recovery)
My point was/is that the PFA/LAA and indeed the BGA are all Volunteer organisations that have their own airworthiness and certification sections. In the case of the BGA they have had to adapt to the advent of quite high tec machines and also numerous motor adaptations. Their ability to cope with this has never been in question.
In the case of what is now the LAA they are responsible for homebuilt construction of quite complicated and powerful aircraft and the ongoing maintenance. Both organisations are largely Volunteer run with high quality tech leadership and design capability. As we have seen with the ACO the volunteer element has proven to be 100% capable of delivering quality safe TRAINING. Had it also operated the engineering backup using the same element of capability as the above organisations including the GSA then we would not be in the current pickle. It is the SHOCK that the parent organisation for delivering the engineering part of Air Cadet gliding has been seen to be wanting to extreme, and also the paid full time 'staff' so lacking in both capability and actual leadership let alone an ability to deal with a (NOT QUITE ROCKET SCIENCE ISSUE) .If the parent engineering base was so incapable (why would anybody with a brain let it organise a recovery)
It really is time we had a 'like' button in here.