TBF Campbeex, your initial beef was ""I'm not sure how relevant it is to the current international situation". Somehow, I suspect that a thread with the title 'Air Cadets Grounded' is unlikely to have any relevance to the current international situation.

No, my initial beef was with a thread meant to be about the current Air Cadet gliding situation being bogged down by misty-eyed tales from the past (see post 5303).

It was Beagle who, in response, brought up the link, however tenuous, to the "current international situation" (see post 5316). I was merely replying to that.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that to avoid further thread drift.

Thud

The Vigilant was comparable to a C152 and in the latter it would be expected for a student to use a checklist. Not to mention listing the limitations and emergency procedures. Hope that helps.

BBK

Just an ex AC customer here, so I'll say my bit and then continue lurking. I was a CCF cadet and attended the local VGS and was later the lucky recipient of a Flying Scholarship. Both were a tremendous encouragement for applying to become an RAF pilot and both it would seem have all but disappeared (the FS then got you a shiny new PPL for nowt, other than the cost of the licence itself). As a recruiting aid the VGSs were well worth the modest cost they incurred to the taxpayer, given that the manpower involved was/is voluntary. The cunning plan worked and I duly became a GD/P.

Today an air minded youngster has little such encouragement and must remain swaddled in the HSE straightjacket inhibiting the learning of risk assessment that in my time began with 1.01; climbing a tree and then crawling out on its branch. What is going to happen if rapid expansion of our armed forces is called for? Little pre-service experience available and what there is for adventurous youngsters seemingly favours the ACF and CCF Army sections. Fewer and fewer RAF flying stations which are hence over crowded and too busy to host school children for any purposes, let alone air experience. A pilot training system that is barely capable of training any who persevere against the odds of being recruited, never mind becoming operational. As to currency, unless sausage side, minimal I suspect. All in all a bad portent for the future. It needs leadership to turn this mess around. In my time there was time to get rid of the deadwood and promote the achievers required. Not anymore. The RAF desperately needs a new Trenchard to make it fit for purpose. Where is he/she?

See? I didn't mention airworthiness once, did I? Doh...

Air Cadets Grinded
 

I knew the 'organisation' was going the wrong way when they issued grinding goggles for MK111 flying.
I mean when did you ever use a grinder when flying !!!

There was a time when MK8 goggles were issued to winch drivers for eye protection, but they were soon stolen by instructors as they looked so good in photographs (especially with soapy hat). Mine were lent to Neil Williams so he could fly a Sopwith Pup on test.

Sorry its late, I thought the thread said 'Air Cadets Grinded !!!'

Air Cadet Central Forum
 

https://forum.aircadetcentral.net/

This is well worth a look if you want to see how frustrated the staff have become, and why they are leaving in droves.

By 1981 it was:

C - Controls - Full & Free and moving in the correct sense
B - Ballast - Not Fitted(Check!)
S - Straps -Tight and locked
I - Instruments - ASI reading normally, altimeter set to zero.
T - Trim - Not fitted
C - Canopy - Not Fitted
B - Brakes - Not Fitted but we do have spoilers - Fully Open and in line, Fully Closed?[/QUOTE]

In later years for the high performance gliders CBSIFTCB The F being “Flaps - Not Fitted/Set for takeoff.

A342

You are wrong here. The MOD Disposal Sales team did sell all those to Aerobility in 2020 and MOD got fully paid by that organisation at that point and has zero stake in them now.
Every one of these is civil registered, the CAA authorised them to retain their military markings as is common for what they now are 'Warbirds'. See here
https://www.g109able.org/news/aerobi...isabled-flying
https://www.g109able.org/faqs
As an example in the photo is tailcode SH - From the GINFO civil register:

Mark: G-CMHV
Current reg. date: 09-Jul-2020
Previous ID:ZJ960
De-reg. date:
-
Status: Registered
Type: GROB G109B
Serial no.: 6556
Airworthiness category: CS-22A : Sailplane or Powered Sailplane - Utility Category
Year built:1990

Registered owner details
Ownership status: Owned
Registered owners:
AEROBILITY HOLDINGS CIC
BLACKBUSHE AIRPORT

The full register block is G-CMGD all the way to G-CMIN.
It was always Aerobility's plan to sell these on the open market. However, it is now the case that Aerobility working with Grob that has decided the refurbishment is too great a challenge (as the MOD had found before taking their disposal decision in 2020) with too small of a potential aftersales market for these 35 year old airframes. Therefore these civil airframes have instead been sold by aerobility to the scrappers. to recover the residual scrap value, offsetting.against the Aerobility initial investment and defray the (high) cost of refurbishment of the few airframes they actually wanted for themselves and which are airworthy with new engines in civll markings.

Another nail in the Cadet coffin
 

Well the Air Cadets certainly did not get anything from the scandal, and the 'carpet sweep' just got bigger. Amazing how one minute they were going to sell these airframes to subsidise a few for themselves and suddenly, 'Oh its uneconomic' we have to scrap them !!!.
I wonder what happened to the engines, props, and instruments as they would have had a value.
Well the LAA did not think they were scrap, so how did they suddenly 'age' in storage.
The whole refurbishment plan was a nonsense, and a financial one to boot. The aircraft had performed for years in its original state, and had many hours of life left with a simple engine that could be easily OH. It is amazing how much effort can go into trying to cover up the inability of the MOD to keep a fleet of Gliders and SLMG serviceable. All that has happened is there is absolutely no confidence or capability within the service to do anything themselves and that money has poured into 'outsourced' bodies that have also failed to perform. We need to get 'YES MINISTER' back with a new series as the scripts are already there, and the whole sorry process is alive and well.
In fact the whole Motor Glider scenario for the Cadet force had performed well, and was able to fit in with both military and civil airfields with ease. Compared with winches and cables that do not readily interface with power operations and normally utilise a dedicated site the Vig fleet was a step forward for the organisation and was very flexible. As an AE operation it was both available and economic, and it certainly gave the Cadet organisation flying for all.

New facilities at RAF Little Rissington

New accommodation and operational facilities at RAF Little Rissington now 'officially' opened for Air Cadets | Royal Air Force Air Cadets

Up until now, the cost of flying cadets has been a closely guarded secret. I’ve just found this on another forum. It’s pretty shocking!


So now we know…thanks to the Comdt and his dial-in. £600 per cadet

Admittedly, its not a cost per hour, but it is a figure that allows a comparison with the BGA world. And one that shows how hideously inefficient the VGS’s are!

A VGS in the midlands flying Air Cadets
£600 per cadet, who, if they’re lucky gets 3 flights during the day. Cost per flight = £200

A BGA club in the midlands flying Air Scouts
£50 per scout, who, if they’re lucky gets 2 flights during the evening. Cost per flight = £25

VGS’s are 8 times as expensive to run as their (equally safe) civilian counterparts!

Ditch the VGS’s, move RAFAC gliding to BGA and you get…
40,000 cadets per year gliding, instead of the measly 5,000, all for the same £3,000,000.

Or, if you want to save money, carry on with the 5,000 per year figure for a cost of £250,000.

Time for a radical change?

The MOD doesn't do "radical change"...

There are also careers, senior officer posts and pensions to protect.

How much flying & why
 

I spoke to some Cadets recently and asked about Gliding as there is a VGS fairly close.
Not good, and mainly down to weather and poss lack of qualified staff which means VGS seems to need input from 2 FTS to operate.
One Cadet who is keen and available has been waiting two years to get airborne so it makes you wonder if this is not unusual.
There was an attempt to get the vigilant fleet refurbed under the LAA and use them for AE, available to youth organisations. It was VERY DOABLE in practice but of course did not pass the scandal of the selection process at MOD and the real worry that it might actually work and then people would wonder why the Cadets had lost them. We all know what actually happened and of course we also the fate of the aircraft ( can not beat a good carpet sweep with an official broom).
The Cadet system has just become another job producer for the RAF who for decades were happy to leave it to volunteers until someone pointed out how much actual training and flying the organisation was doing at so little cost and with so little input from the mother body. Oops cant have that lets reorganise it ourselves with more senior 'paid' staff that will screw it up, and it did.

A few years ago, during one of the Tutor 'pauses', the flying school where I worked approached the ACO to offer their services. We could have flown up to three cadets per sortie, for an hour, for around £200 (this was around ten years ago). We were told the offer had been passed up the chain. We still await a reply. The school operated from a mid-sized regional airport, and had been certified as an ATO by the CAA, so not a 'cowboy' outfit. All the instructors would have met Corps requirements, and we had suitable rooms to accommodate cadets. As I say, the offer was never acknowledged by higher authority. As I was, at that time, an instructor with a local unit, I was embarrassed by this lack of courtesy, and that was where I started to lose my enthusiasm for the organisation. I left in 2018 after 42 years as an instructor, yet, in a way, I still miss the enthusiasm and drive of the cadets and staff members, despite the higher level attitude.

Good luck to those still plugging away there. You all deserve a medal.

Maybe if they had worked the cost out based on a proper VGS rather than ACCGS the cost would have been a lot lower.

What is the difference?

Well as ACCGS operated both the powered and conventional fleet and a Robin for aerotows using full time paid staff and frankly £600 per cadet is believable at the pace they worked. Each VGS had its own operational ethos and obviously operating Vigilants was different to operating Vikings. I would love to see how that £600 figure was achieved.

The RAFGSA used to reckon to get you in the air for the price of a pint!

I know it's difficult to calculate but in my recollection, it was the launch rate which always used to make a difference between a VGS and a BGA/GSA club.
With a VGS, there was always someone there 'chivvying' the cadets to ground handling the gliders and doing other things [like positioning the cables, hanging on to wingtips etc] and in general making the operation more efficient whereas with the BGA/GSA clubs I've visited there were always those who were reluctant to assist, sitting in the caravan waiting for 'their' flight.
At 613, we usually operated AEG with 2 or more aircraft, when a gllder launched it was quickly replaced by the next one to be launched and as soon as a fresh cable arrived the next cadet would be airborne; by spot landing you often got a turnround time of less than 5 minutes with the pilot not even getting out of the aircraft, just a change of cadets. I never saw this at a BGA/GSA club which to me seemed to operate in a very slow and innefficient manner,

Not my GSA experience. We used to throw them in the air like there was no tomorrow! Launches paid the insurance bill.
I was a member at Halton (more than once), Cosford, Bruggen and Gutersloh. Usually the launch rate only dropped off when we ran out of aircraft to launch or pilots to fly them. Of course, the other difference that would affect launch rate was the GSA tended to try to stay up whereas the Cadets used to try to get down again.

Air cadet gliding cost £3,000,000 last year, and the VGS’s managed to get 5,000 cadets airborne. That’s £600 per cadet.

There seems to be a lot of worries over health and safety with the cadet glider program, but how many cadets were actually hurt under the current glider program when the air cadet program moved to the current glass gliders and motor gliders, but before the "pause" ?

In the 'wooden' era I experienced one fatality and two accidents which involved broken legs in the period 1964 to 1970; I'm sure there were more but we didn't get to hear about them all except when there were 'D' Notices issued so of course they were hushed up.

We ran a 'production' line
 

The simple facts regarding the 'MK3' type of operation was that was unique to the Air Cadets. We had a very simple reliable machine that was easily adapted for trolley retrieve as opposed to 'walk backs' from mid field. In the case of A&B training this meant that aircraft could be back on line sometimes before cables arrived. When the AE really got going, then the line would be arranged to allow for spot landings at the t-off point and then the crew could stay on board.
With a couple of twin drum winches the launch rate was amazing, and we used to give AE cadets 3 launches as the norm. This was not only good for the Cadets but also gave the P2/UT instructors a concentrated experience level.
Being a w-end operation meant we could not guarantee low launch solo's compared to a continuous course, so it also highlighted how continuity also played its part.
In hindsight the system could not be improved on as a producer of 'Solo's' but of course it also provided an amazing experience for youngsters that were not even 'streamed' for capability. That was the ATC USP, and it could never be improved on due to the simplicity of the equipment and mega enthusiasm of the youngsters who were also a major part in the hands on operation. A bit like the Bumble Bee that does not know he can not fly the ATC ran like it did because they did not know any other way, and of course they were correct. My goodness how lucky we were to have had that magic time before it was 'organised' !!!!. Oh and by the way it was also SAFE, and that was because the system was CAPABLE end of.