Air Cadets grounded?
Tail Accident
ARC As tail accidents are very common with glass ships no doubt competent repairers are able to, and indeed required to conduct a repair (to the manufacturers specifications) I wonder who signed this off !!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a very botched repair, I wouldn't want to fly it.
Predannack Hangar Collapse 1990
Another number of Vikings were destroyed at Predannick (sp) when snow collected on the temporary hangar and caused it to collapse.
If they were "destroyed" how come all 3 were sold to gliding organisations and registered as airworthy aircraft?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting couple of posts on Viking losses at Predannack.
When a military aircraft is damaged, that damage is assessed and categorised. This event sounds like a 'Cat 3' (could be repaired at the the unit by specialist teams) or 'Cat 4' (could be repaired by the manufacturer). (Cat 5 is 'beyond any repair'). Normally, aircraft assessed as Cat 3 or 4 are only disposed of if they are judged to be 'BER' - Beyond Economic Repair'.
I'd like to see what the damage assessment was, who decided that they were 'BER', and who approved the sale of the aircraft to the RAF's own gliding association.
I'll also take a bet that the MoD had failed to place any contracts for the manufacturer to assess and repair damaged aircraft. There have also been rumours that the Aircraft Repair Manuals were inadequate.
Any info on this subject from any PPruners out there?
Best regards as ever to anyone fixing the aircraft
Engines
When a military aircraft is damaged, that damage is assessed and categorised. This event sounds like a 'Cat 3' (could be repaired at the the unit by specialist teams) or 'Cat 4' (could be repaired by the manufacturer). (Cat 5 is 'beyond any repair'). Normally, aircraft assessed as Cat 3 or 4 are only disposed of if they are judged to be 'BER' - Beyond Economic Repair'.
I'd like to see what the damage assessment was, who decided that they were 'BER', and who approved the sale of the aircraft to the RAF's own gliding association.
I'll also take a bet that the MoD had failed to place any contracts for the manufacturer to assess and repair damaged aircraft. There have also been rumours that the Aircraft Repair Manuals were inadequate.
Any info on this subject from any PPruners out there?
Best regards as ever to anyone fixing the aircraft
Engines
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Early on I believe that many of the Cat 5 airframes were stripped for spares. I saw at least 3 airframes which had been stripped back to absolutely nothing (shells). These were then sold off by MoD tender.
I was told that the logic was that no spares forecasts had been completed for the airframe and no spares ordered (not an untypical situation with an end of year splurge 'use it or lose it' accounting system which was where the original funding tranche came from), which meant that any items that needed to be replaced (other than wheels, tyres and brakes) had to be special orders from Grob. During the first third of the airframe life Grob announced that they were not going to make gliders any more and focused on Powered aircraft. Items from Cat 5 aircraft such as control columns and airbrake assemblies, seats, straps etc were certainly reused in other aircraft.
This meant that the spares source effectively ceased, although Grob would make spares on a 'one off' basis at an exorbitant price per item.
Later some Cat 5 airframes were BER'd and only partially stripped - others sold in an 'as is' condition (such as the trailer accident). These were probably repairable but not cost effective to do so. As we know - anything is repairable if you throw enough £ and/or skill at it. Since there was a glut of Vikings at this stage (due to basing strategies meaning that many Viking sites were closing) I assume it was decided to reduce the overall numbers anyway by releasing the damaged airframes.
In parallel MoD was hunting down civilian Grob 109's that had been built at the same time as their own and purchasing them at above market rate and then having Modifications embodied to bring them to the same level as their existing fleet. These were then issued to VGS's to replace Vikings at sites where the Viking was no longer 'acceptable' to the unit basing strategy.Hence the increase in Vigilant Numbers overall and reduction in Viking.
WRT to sales of Vikings - These sales were all by the usual MoD Tender system as far as I am aware. Maybe the RAFGSA just got lucky (or unlucky !!).
Arc
I was told that the logic was that no spares forecasts had been completed for the airframe and no spares ordered (not an untypical situation with an end of year splurge 'use it or lose it' accounting system which was where the original funding tranche came from), which meant that any items that needed to be replaced (other than wheels, tyres and brakes) had to be special orders from Grob. During the first third of the airframe life Grob announced that they were not going to make gliders any more and focused on Powered aircraft. Items from Cat 5 aircraft such as control columns and airbrake assemblies, seats, straps etc were certainly reused in other aircraft.
This meant that the spares source effectively ceased, although Grob would make spares on a 'one off' basis at an exorbitant price per item.
Later some Cat 5 airframes were BER'd and only partially stripped - others sold in an 'as is' condition (such as the trailer accident). These were probably repairable but not cost effective to do so. As we know - anything is repairable if you throw enough £ and/or skill at it. Since there was a glut of Vikings at this stage (due to basing strategies meaning that many Viking sites were closing) I assume it was decided to reduce the overall numbers anyway by releasing the damaged airframes.
In parallel MoD was hunting down civilian Grob 109's that had been built at the same time as their own and purchasing them at above market rate and then having Modifications embodied to bring them to the same level as their existing fleet. These were then issued to VGS's to replace Vikings at sites where the Viking was no longer 'acceptable' to the unit basing strategy.Hence the increase in Vigilant Numbers overall and reduction in Viking.
WRT to sales of Vikings - These sales were all by the usual MoD Tender system as far as I am aware. Maybe the RAFGSA just got lucky (or unlucky !!).
Arc
So, she gets a CBE for this...imagine what she'd have got if they'd completely destroyed it...!
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/qbhl2017.cfm
OB
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/qbhl2017.cfm
OB
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, she gets a CBE for this...imagine what she'd have got if they'd completely destroyed it...!
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/qbhl2017.cfm
OB
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/qbhl2017.cfm
OB
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, she gets a CBE for this...imagine what she'd have got if they'd completely destroyed it...!
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/qbhl2017.cfm
OB
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/qbhl2017.cfm
OB
Who deserves an award?
No doubt she is doing a great job, whilst getting paid for it, and is publicising herself doing it on FaceTwit!
BUT, it is the cadets who should be given an award as they have been deprived of the jewel in the Air Cadet crown for 3 years.
Not forgetting the many volunteer Air Cadet gliding instructors and staff cadets who have been trampled over whilst this debacle unfolded.
Well done all of you, it is you who deserves the recognition.
BUT, it is the cadets who should be given an award as they have been deprived of the jewel in the Air Cadet crown for 3 years.
Not forgetting the many volunteer Air Cadet gliding instructors and staff cadets who have been trampled over whilst this debacle unfolded.
Well done all of you, it is you who deserves the recognition.
OB
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed .........BUT.....
Yes, absolutely correct BUT she has been busy broadcasting the propaganda on Facebook about how wonderful things are, rather than a more considered line saying perhaps that she was somewhat disappointed by the 3 year break in Cadets learning to fly and glide at 24 VGS' and apologising on behalf of the RAF. Scribbly Admin branch people who are not pilots and instructors don't have the same zeal or understanding of the need for flying for Cadets, failing to realise that the initial word of her organisation is "AIR" !!! not Ground
Medals Galore
Just the usual (under the carpet with the truth) and highlight the (what a great job the 'higher up's have done). No one takes any of this seriously because its just part of the medal rationing system we have festooned ourselves with.
The simple fact is the RAF have allowed themselves to become part of the whole 'outsourcing system' with companies that themselves have ex senior VSO's in house.
The Cadets have been lied to, and a generation of then denied a facility that has already been paid for.
The 'political nature' of the services must frustrate those that have spent a career trying to get the real job done. The ACO will not be seen as an important facet compared with governments trying to cope with saving money and keeping the 'in house jobs' going for the suits in the ministry. With so little RAF hardware and base's nowadays the ATC has become a convenient 'billet' to keep employment going, rather than a centre of excellence to provide a flying input to the Cadets. The ex volunteers will be appalled at the way the organisation has been treated by those PAID to back it up. ALL AN UTTER DISGRACE.
The simple fact is the RAF have allowed themselves to become part of the whole 'outsourcing system' with companies that themselves have ex senior VSO's in house.
The Cadets have been lied to, and a generation of then denied a facility that has already been paid for.
The 'political nature' of the services must frustrate those that have spent a career trying to get the real job done. The ACO will not be seen as an important facet compared with governments trying to cope with saving money and keeping the 'in house jobs' going for the suits in the ministry. With so little RAF hardware and base's nowadays the ATC has become a convenient 'billet' to keep employment going, rather than a centre of excellence to provide a flying input to the Cadets. The ex volunteers will be appalled at the way the organisation has been treated by those PAID to back it up. ALL AN UTTER DISGRACE.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair Critisism?
While I fully understand the anger and frustration that appears throughout this thread I have great difficulty in seeing what, if anything, the current Commandant could have done to rectify the gliding situation.
As I understand it, the contract to provide engineering support for the glider fleet was let before her time in office. The responsibility for air cadet gliding was subsequently transferred out of HQAC to 3 FTS to ensure there was sufficient flying SQEP involved in the process, aithough the engineering contract monitoring remained within HQAC. The issues concerning engineering standards and compliance were only discovered when 2FTS stood up. Whatever individuals feel about the current incumbant his suspension of flying was greatly to his credit. Since then issues of finance, contract and industry capacity will have severely constrained the options.
Given that the current Comdt has been handed the distinctly unpleasant end of the stick I believe she has done as well as anyone could (and better than most) to not only hold the organisation together but to ensure that this generation of cadets get the best experience that they can given the circumstances. We may not be twitter and facebook fans but the cadets are and they enjoy her posts Those that meet her comment on her enthusiasm, energy and commitment which for teenagers is vital and so sadly lacking in many areas of society.
Have the VGS volunteers been treated in the worst possible way by the leadership at 2FTS? It would appear that the answer (if this thread reflects the truth) can only be yes. Have cadets missed out on the gliding experience that was the common currency of previous generations, yes that have. But, if future cadets are going to have an RAF supported aviation organisation to join, can I think of anyone who could have worked harder to ensure it will be there for them, no I can't.
For the record I am former serving and still work with cadets. I could be described as an admin shiney but I hope one of many that understand the absolute and central requirement for the air in air cadets.
As I understand it, the contract to provide engineering support for the glider fleet was let before her time in office. The responsibility for air cadet gliding was subsequently transferred out of HQAC to 3 FTS to ensure there was sufficient flying SQEP involved in the process, aithough the engineering contract monitoring remained within HQAC. The issues concerning engineering standards and compliance were only discovered when 2FTS stood up. Whatever individuals feel about the current incumbant his suspension of flying was greatly to his credit. Since then issues of finance, contract and industry capacity will have severely constrained the options.
Given that the current Comdt has been handed the distinctly unpleasant end of the stick I believe she has done as well as anyone could (and better than most) to not only hold the organisation together but to ensure that this generation of cadets get the best experience that they can given the circumstances. We may not be twitter and facebook fans but the cadets are and they enjoy her posts Those that meet her comment on her enthusiasm, energy and commitment which for teenagers is vital and so sadly lacking in many areas of society.
Have the VGS volunteers been treated in the worst possible way by the leadership at 2FTS? It would appear that the answer (if this thread reflects the truth) can only be yes. Have cadets missed out on the gliding experience that was the common currency of previous generations, yes that have. But, if future cadets are going to have an RAF supported aviation organisation to join, can I think of anyone who could have worked harder to ensure it will be there for them, no I can't.
For the record I am former serving and still work with cadets. I could be described as an admin shiney but I hope one of many that understand the absolute and central requirement for the air in air cadets.
Gentleman Aviator
Scribbly Admin branch people who are not pilots and instructors don't have the same zeal or understanding of the need for flying for Cadets
Process of recovery
Shaft 109 On a scale of 1 to 10 10 being 100% about -1 I am not aware of any Squadrons flying Vikings yet, not to mention the staff availability for the massive retraining required for those not 'aged' out. I suspect there will be some 'recruitment' from civvy clubs required as there will be no staff cadet element left to draw from. In fact just to drive a winch or one of the support tow vehicles will prob now require some sort of course,so nothing will happen overnight.
Back in 79 I watched a C Cat as he launched two gliders with the two cables on the Bedford winch, he then talked me through the next pair, after that I was on my own. I don't think 'my course' lasted much longer than half an hour. These days it will be a week at Syerston.