Tuc,
In my fastjet and bigjet RAF flying experience, there were a fair number of aircrew with little knowledge of the statement of operating intent. However, the knowledge was held by some of us and, the document was formally reviewed on a regular basis to keep abreast of changes in useage. The more pertinent documents for operational aircrew would be the aircraft flying manual, limitations, orders and SOP's, these later documents being more widely referenced by (most) aircrew. Those of us in the know would keep a careful eye on changes in usage. :)

OAP

OAP & LJ

Correct. And changes in use (and intent) had to be fed into the safety case, build standard (if necessary) and RTS (the Master Airworthiness Reference). Which would result in amendments to the other parts of the Aircraft Document Set you mention.
Always assuming you had the necessary contracts in place, the funding and the properly trained staff to do all this. And you need someone with oversight to ensure this airworthiness chain remains unbroken (especially after the entire process was fragmented instead of being a core, centralised function). None of this has been MoD policy for many years. So much so, the new MAA regulatory set gets the definition of the underpinning process wrong, and wanders off at a tangent never to return.

And to be fair to the much-maligned Commandant 2FTS, he has very little to do with this, except to notify violations and take action if his superiors do nothing. Which is what he did (but for not entirely the correct reasons). I can think of many deaths arising from people in his position not taking action. This is exactly the same as Nimrod. The IPTL, Gp Capt Baber, was criticised by Haddon-Cave for having a poor safety case. But there was no mention of the fact Baber had the gumption to let a task to resurrect the safety case, when he should have inherited a continuous task/contract and valid safety case. In both cases, (relatively) junior officers have taken the hit for failings at a more senior level. (On Nimrod, there was no mention of the various Stars who signed to say there was a valid safety case - and it's the same for gliders). We saw the same on C-130 XV179. Sea Kings ASaC. Chinook ZD576. Once you appreciate the linkages, you can focus on the solution.

If I may, I'd like to offer this Fire Brigade Union press statement from yesterday which sets out the issues eloquently. It applies to any accident, and especially to subsequent inquiries.



Commenting on the testimony given to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry by Watch Manager Mike Dowden, Fire Brigades Union (FBU) general secretary Matt Wrack said:

Yes, I do agree with the sentiment. Very strange how even TV licensing seems to have greater legal enforcement!?:ooh:

OAP

Lima Juliet:-
Ditto (albeit many many years ago). I think we are getting to the nub here. The system worked in my day because everybody did their job properly. I drove the airworthy aircraft provided iaw FRCs Flying Orders Manuals etc, others like tuc ensured that the aircraft were airworthy iaw the Regulations. Then some RAF VSOs in the late 80s/early 90s decided to subvert all that by ordering those like tuc to suborn the regs for short term financial savings, thus instantly ensuring unairworthiness. When those like tuc defied the illegal orders they were disciplined, hounded, and got rid of, thus instantly ensuring that any wish to regain lost airworthiness became impossible due to the lack of knowledge and skills. The great unwashed (like LJ and me) didn't miss what they never knew, that is until the internet and this very forum connected all the resulting tragedies that inevitably followed. Anyone who followed those various airworthiness related fatal accident threads now has a good grasp of the importance of airworthiness and the cost in blood and treasure of its lack.

As tuc says, the villains in this scandal have far more rings on their sleeves than Commandant 2FTS. He may have spoiled your fun, but he probably saved your life or someone else's at least! It is the various RAF VSOs that plunged UK Military Aviation into this morass, and even more so those who protected them by maintaining a cover up ever since, who should be castigated and brought to book rather than the various JOs and SOs offered up by the Star Chamber as scapegoats.

Another good reason to give all Air Cadet flying to civil flying and gliding schools and save the taxpayer money.

I totally agree with tucumseh in terms of the original decision to ground both fleets; if the safety audit trail is suspect then there is no option but to act. However, without knowing the contractual background, the decision to spend a considerable amount of money in an attempt to refurbish aircraft rather than dispose of both fleets and go for new airframes seems at first glance to be the wrong one. It will be interesting to see if the full facts of this saga ever see the light of day.

I can only speak about the Viking gliders. Grob no longer make gliders and there are very few 2-seat training gliders available. The favourite is probably the AS K21, who build only a few every year. It would take 20 years or so to replaces all the Vikings with K21s, or whatever the RAF decided to call them. Lead time for an order is 9 months or more and they only build 20 or so per year. *if* the aircadets managed to buy 3 per year then in 20 years they would have a fleet of 60, less of course any they have terminally bent in the interim.

The serviceability or model of the existing gliders is not the issue here. It's MoD's inability to manage the airworthiness of any of its aircraft. If that isn't fixed, it doesn't matter what glider it used.
The root causes are well known, as are those responsible. It's nothing to do with Grob or Serco or any other part of industry. It's to do with MoD flatly refusing to implement its own mandated regulations and, latterly, the MAA continuing to permit that fraud. Please understand that the MoD/MAA constantly briefs against those who want to see this put right. It does not want the truth to be explored further. It positively purrs over comments on pprune that compartmentalise this to gliders.

Do you have any confidence the gliders being returned to service will stay airworthy? I don't.

C5

First of all, I'd like to know if they are airworthy in the first place. That's what facilitates serviceability. Some company may have done some work on them and think they may be serviceable. But we all know, from the Red Arrows XX177 case, that the same part of MoD remains content that the Services continue to use rogue servicing instructions and make false declarations in aircraft documentation.

The Vikings have been / are being inspected etc. by Southern Sailplanes who I personally believe will have done their job properly. They are well-known & respected in the gliding world, and have a great deal to lose (everything) if either they botched the job, or they allowed themselves to be interfered with.

Found this, I await the answer with interest:

cats_ five. We could debate production rates of ASK21s but without company comment we would all be speculating. Your point however is well made , there are very few 2 seat training gliders available. I would suggest that:
(1) The current Viking fleet is trickling back into service but will probably not last more than a max of another 20 years (my speculation).
(2) Unless there is a long term replacement strategy (delivery commencing early 2020's at 3 per year complete 2040 for a 60 aircraft fleet,minus terminally bent) then air cadet gliding will inevitably cease.
What the RAFAC need is confirmation from its parent service that funding for replacements will be available. Without that confirmation, the business case for the development of properly equipped residential regional gliding centres must, in my view, be fatality flawed.

What is needed is a training glider of similar or slightly better performance than T21b/T31 types which can be produced quickly and at reasonable cost using todays materials and technology.
The microlight manufacturers produce lightweight airframes (metal framework with a fabric, Dacron, ultralam or plastic type covering) which are robust enough to be used for training so why not see if they would be willing to produce a non-powered aircraft?
Problem is knowing how long the MOD take in the bidding/procurement/contracts side of things it woudn't be in service before about 2030.

I've no doubt Southern Sailplanes are excellent at what they do. But they do not sign off the Master Airworthiness Reference, thus making a legally binding declaration that there is a valid safety case and a maintained build standard. The aircraft were grounded because THAT declaration was confirmed as wrong, not because the aircraft were unserviceable. That many required remedial work was fall-out and a minor issue. As I said, no difference whatsoever from Nimrod.

It suits MoD/MAA for people to think it is a serviceability issue. In DE&S, such things are managed by the lowest technical grade it employs (and it would be even lower, but MoD doesn't recruit at those grades any more), who are easy targets when the real culprits are at 2 Star and above. There is someone in DE&S managing this 'get well' programme who is completely hacked off that he's being asked to do work well below his paygrade. He's wondering Why Me? It's holding him back, as his next annual report can at best say that he's proven himself capable of doing a job at least one grade lower. Big deal. Passed over.

I'd be much happier if I knew MoD/MAA had sacked the clown who briefed Sir Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service, that it remains an offence to refuse to obey an illegal order to make a false declaration in aircraft documentation (28 October 2014). While I appreciate Sir Jeremy is very ill at the moment, that should not detract from the fact both he and his predecessor (Lord Robert Kerslake) were content to make this ruling in writing, both to Ministers and members of the public.

Does anyone know how many Cadets went solo last year, and how much the VGS budget is?

Thanks for telling me how to do my job Lima Juliet. Do you really think that when you submit an FOI request that you automatically get the truth? Really? Yes they are some ranters on PPRuNe, but there are also some people who are very much 'in the know'. They often are well-placed, and can 'leak' info. I then filter all the information I've gathered, and draw my own conclusions.

You are wise to be cautious. The Information Commissioner has ruled that information provided need not be accurate, and the provider is under no obligation to correct it when presented with the truth, and may repeat it.

Had the gliders been given to a civilian club with the paperwork as delivered to SS they would have been grounded - without correct up-to-date paperwork they would not have been deemed airworthy.

Clearly the military has a few (many?) extra layers of paperwork.

HI LJ, I think that if it suits the Govt then yes why not tell the truth - but if it doesn't then see Tuc's post. Re leaks and tips - if, for example one person tells me that XX???? was heavy landed on the ?/?20?? and it was brushed under the carpet and returned to service I'd treat the report with suspicion. If 4-5 people tell me the same thing and the dates etc tally maybe I'll dig a bit deeper. And contrary to your prediction, several people have already fed me info, which I will now filter. They know I never reveal my sources.

Qinetiq is the company based at Farnborough which began as RAE, became DRA then DERA and was then privatised.
I know from experience at Farnborough it is full of 'boffins' and technical experts who have absolutely no experience in the things they comment on.
The RAE boffins for instance, used to try to tell us (Farnborough Air Traffic Control) we weren't doing our job properly because the way we did it didn't conform to the way they assumed it should be done.

I did admin officer on a course at a VGS in 1991, the first course that VGS had run using Vigilants.
Late on the friday evening, a cadet was sent off for his solo flight. While he was airborne, the wind changed through 180 deg and on landing, a swing developed with much screeching of tyres into a ground loop.
Now after that, I would have expected that aircraft to be put u/s pending inspection of the undercarriage, but no, it was flown next day by the weekend staff (not the same staff who had been running the course) after just a normal DI. Whether there was anything recorded in the Tech Log I don't know; I was only supposed to be looking after the cadets not the aircraft and had no right or mandate to look into the unit paperwork.

As nothing more than an interested bystander (although I suppose I might encourage my grandson to join in about 15 years time :)) with 27 years RAF and 2 years deeply involved with Air Cadet Flying post RAF career, may I politely ask, what is the current state of Air Cadet flying in total (Gliding, AEF, ACPS, or whatever)?

Thanks LJ - and apologies for my rather churlish initial reply. It was unnecessary. And you are quite right, it is an emotive subject, and I do need facts, not feelings! I must admit, I'm increasingly drawn to the conclusion that it'd better all around if the ATC admitted that its lost its way and just gave all their kit to the BGA and RAFGSA. In return the BGA and RAFGSA could agree to fly X amount of cadets each year. I've heard the "in the ATC we fly like the RAF, which is good for the cadets" argument but I believe it to be specious. It doesn't matter if your instructor is wearing the same boots and badge-bedecked flying suit as a frontline fighter pilot, with the best will in the world, they're flying gliders.

When I did my Flying Scholarship many moons ago, the aircraft were civilian-owned, registered and operated. There was not an RAF uniform in sight. It didn't stop me subsequently serving as a pilot in the RAF for 18 years.

Exactly JW411. I believe that most if not all of the Flying Scholarships were contracted out to civilian flying clubs as they were much more cost-effective. And as you point out, you still signed up and served in the RAF as a pilot for 18 years. It wasn't necessary to have all the (expensive) military bulldust at the basic flying training stage.

5 Viking VGS running:
Syerston, Upavon, Little Rissington independently

Ternhill & kirknewton under CGS supervision.

Topcliffe converting

Kenley, Swanton Morley, Predannack waiting for aircraft.

Woodvale converting to an AGS

Unless things have changed a lot since my day (T21/Mk3) I would have thought that it was difficult to integrate civillian and ATC gliding training, although perhaps not impossible. My civil training was designed to bring me to a level where I could self authorise to fly solo albeit under limited conditions. This was one's status after a successful first solo flight(x3) At least at London Gliding Club, it typically took more than twice the number of launches allowed the average ATC cadet to go solo. The only instructional flights were then required when conditions changed or to carry out regular checks to make sure I wasn't developing bad habits. As an ATC instructor, the sole aim was to get the cadet competent to fly solo in the conditions at that time., and to do it in the minimum number of launches. Integration would surely require one operation to make significant changes to the way they operate.

aerospace ground squadron many of the VGS converted over kinloss, newtownards, st athan, cosford and a new one at northolt.


contains the Part Task Trainer element

The change over to aerospace was the latest one heard due to the aspiration to include space, drones and ATC "stuff", detail on the "stuff" was a bit vague though.

the squadron/school debate I suppose hangs on if 7 guys/girls constitutes a squadron or not.

The common theme appears firmly to be the "Ground" element of the name.

Advanced Gliding School?
Used to be at Halesland.