Having flown 2 types that are referenced as having severe airworthiness issues that is scarey reading.

What we really lost
 

This will now be the 4th Easter course lost to the ATC and brings home to me just how much we really have lost.
The Easter course was a great 'kick start' to the busy part of the gliding operation and by bringing together so many of the staff for at least a complete week also provided a wonderful 'bonding' of the smooth running of the school.
The intense activity was excellent to 'bring on' junior staff and the bonus of getting up to 20 (depending on school size) A&B's off gave everyone a good dose of motivation.
The fact that this was done with a minimum of fuss and paperwork was a testament to the capability of those involved at all levels and of course was why it was a World Class system.
I still wonder at how all this happened without phones (landline and mobile) or e-mails; but work it did, and is a fantastic credit to the organisation at that time and those who were privileged to be part of it.

Requirements change over time, the people responsible for the airworthiness paperwork seem to have failed to change with it.

POBJOY:-
Agreed. As a beneficiary of that system I was blissfully unaware of it, both as a schoolboy CCF cadet and later as an RAF Pilot. When the campaign to reinstate UK Military Airworthiness provision and maintenance began, I suspect that was the same for many of those who succeeded me. Not any more though. If there is anyone in UK Military Aviation who isn't aware of the scandal of how that behind the scenes system of ensuring that the aircraft you fly is airworthy was sabotaged, subverted, and suborned by RAF VSOs, then they must be on an extended tour of Mars!

The people responsible for that most certainly did change it, cats five. They reduced it to impotence, and there it remains and will remain until Military Air Regulation and Accident Investigation is made independent of the MOD and of the RAF VSOs who maintain the cover up still of their predecessors illegal acts.

Glad I'm not the only one with this viewpoint.

Changing the system
 

CHUG The question has to be WHY and for what reason would any sane person seek to diminish the quality of airworthiness at any level of aviation, and especially that involving complex machines (RAF) and the training of minors (ATC).
I always held the RAF in the highest regard when sharing their airfields as part of the gliding world. However when I moved over to power and had to use their facilities as a customer, it became quite obvious that the actual 'Flying' was not the foremost feature of the service organisation (as it had always been) and an attitude of 'jobsworths' seemed to infiltrate what had been a trade led tech based operation. No doubt this decline affected all levels of the service, and led to a situation where there was a real lack of actual tech knowledge in the highest echelons. No doubt the demise of the solid trade training (such as Halton) must have eventually affected all levels, but why this was not picked up on earlier was a serious omission that they only have themselves to blame. In the case of the Nimrod (in theatre) scenario it amazes me that crew escape was not even considered; especially in a war zone and operating at the height that made it quite feasible.

POBJOY, if you want to know what happened and when it happened then I suggest you read David Hill's book above. As to why it happened, why RAF VSOs chose to order that mandated regulations be suborned, ie disregarded but signed off as if complied with, and why those airworthiness engineers who did not obey such illegal orders but strove to carry out their mandated duties were acted against, dismissed, and replaced with untrained and unskilled administrators, you would have to ask those same VSOs.

That is the point, no one has interviewed them, charged them, or taken any action whatsoever in their regard, despite evidence being presented to the civil police, the military police, and the Nimrod and Chinook enquiries. David Hill suggests possible reasons, but that is as close as we get to answering your:-

Somewhat off-topic but does anyone know how many ex-VGS people have made the transition to the AEF Tutor? I only know of two.

Not as many as they hoped is all I have heard :rolleyes:

I heard that around 50-60 expressed an interest. Some didn't make the cut and others were brushed-off sight unseen by some AEFs that are well-staffed already. I know of one currently cleared to fly cadets and another who has been in training for the last 12 months.

Would love to know how they're planning to increase AEF provision with insufficient aircraft and insufficient pilots on local and national scales. The number of QSPs is ever decreasing and it would appear that few retire to places like NI, Wales, Merseyside, West Midlands etc. Once training on the Prefect kicks in, it's unlikely that holding pilots will be able to fly cadets if their only previous Tutor experience is their UAS flying.

The incorporation of former VGS instructors, even if it was to be successful, was only going to be a one-time windfall of warm bodies. If AEF is to continue, what you will likely see is an influx of civilian pilots, which is rather ironic given Pippa's (and some VSOs) alleged aversion towards civilians flying things with engines for the Air Cadets.

To my mind, the "jam tomorrow" promise of more AEF was always nonsense. The only real question is whether the promise was made due to stupidity or mendacity.

And as a retired QSP in one of those areas who would love to fly cadets, I discover I'm too old!! [Decision made by Navigator C-in-C!]

PPL should still work when I get it "refreshed", but now I'll have to pay to fly .........:(

AEF
 

AEF was ALWAYS a poor convertor of cash into flying for Cadets.
I well remember the Squadron going to White Waltham on a coach for a supposed AEF detail only to return later as the 'weather' was deemed too windy. It so happened that I was not on that detail 'too junior' and had been left with others to clean the HQ (Sunday parade). God showed his hand on that day as the local 615 Gliding school at Kenley (our base) ran out of course Cadets and came over to ask for 'volunteers' to go gliding for the day.
It therefore came to pass that those left behind went flying and the 'seniors' did none.
All H.... let loose on the next midweek parade when those in charge found out, but there was little they could do about it as we had not actually disobeyed any orders (although the HQ was never polished that week).It soon became apparent that Chipmunk flying was rather a 'black art' that needed very good weather as every other one was 'weathered out'. For me the situation opened up a new horizon of 'helping' at the Gliding school until I was old enough to do the A&B course, and I never even applied for AEF after that, as flying gliders and driving landrovers and I ton trucks on a former Battle of Britain airfield seemed a better option. When I started power flying a few years later I realised how little flying the AEF for Cadets actually achieved for the equipment and facilities it had at its disposal.

>When I started power flying a few years later I realised how little flying the AEF for Cadets actually achieved for the equipment and facilities it had at its disposal.<

Out of interest, what is the length and content of an AEF sortie nowadays?

A 30 minute flight, take off, some straight and level with the Cadet flying it, some turns and the better ones get a go, then a couple of simple aerobatics (loop, roll or stall turn) then recovery to land. Sadly not the same as sending a young Cadet solo...:{

During the last Foot and Mouth outbreak 612VGS deployed to Benson and operated alongside 6 AEF. I remember one day the cloud was low but within limits for the VGS so we got the Vigilants flying (before anyone from the AEF turned up). Slowly cloud base went up, but not by much and a few Tutors launched only for the boss to call them back. Between flights I went to the AEF coffee bar where I saw all the VSO AEF Pilots sitting and looking like naughty schoolboys as their boss wagged the finger at them. "Just because the gliders are flying does not mean you can."

Actually Flying Solo
 

B Word.
That's the point; on AEF you went for ride. On a gliding course you actually were 'TAUGHT' to fly a glider to solo standard (not to mention the ground handling) and then got to do 3 of them with a BGA cert at the end. After that you could solo again on an advanced course and if keen join the staff. The experience of flying on your own and then being able to drive a service vehicle on an airfield (before you could even have prov civ licence) was an incredible situation that was even more incredible by the lack of 'issues' it caused. We integrated with the parent station and learnt values that were both life changing and prepared us for future life, even if we did not realise it at the time. Being given such responsibility at an early stage was accepted with the knowledge that you did not risk letting others down by abusing the system (or at least getting caught).My first inkling that the system was loosing the plot was the introduction of 'headsets', followed by safety goggles (as used in metalwork classes) and the last straw when the NAFFI closed.

Where we are today....
 

I see on the Facebook pages, post Bank Holiday, that Topcliffe VGS report sending ONE Cadet solo on the Vigilant , (WOW - a whole ONE !!!) and 644 VGS after THREE days of Bank Holiday have sent ONE staff member solo, and have completed 150 launches of Vikings over three days - wow, an average of 30 a day - that's world class ! ( one rained off) - WOW !!! We are going to make rapid inroads into getting Air Cadets backsides off the ground like this !!!! (NOT )


Add to that the miserable rate of Convex of VGS Instructors to AEF pilots - and extreme tardiness in converting and qualifying to take Air Cadet PAX, it looks like they almost could get "done" under Advertising Standards legislation for having the word "AIR" in the name of the organisation !


And of course not forgetting that the Vigilant will be gone by 2019 latest ( if it survives that long ), and the combined numbers of "recovered" airframes of both Viking and Vigilant will be only 31 to 41 in TOTAL ( and notably a huge number less than what our Parliament was told !) , then the future would seem remarkably bleak.


Can we have a new statement made to Parliament to reflect the actuality rather than the aspirational one made some time ago ?:rolleyes:

Although the VGS' are not producing the same output as prior to the pause, the VGS staff have been working extremely hard to deliver even this within the confines of what they have available. If misinterpreted, comments like the above can be disheartening in an already fragile situation for the volunteer staff who have endured the pause and remained committed :D

Grounding. (Pprune tells me too short.) Grounding.

Grounding and decimation!