Funnily enough none of my kids wanted to fly solo and they never asked to join the club. I think they just liked to be able to brag to their mates that they could fly an aeroplane.

My youngest actually flew once when he was four. We couldn't locate the ballast weight for the Capstan (some idiot had left it in the cable towing truck). He went up as the ballast with one of my mates. He loved it. Highly irregular, but that's one of the beauties of civvy gliding. Between that, and his twelve year old sister who liked driving round the peri track in my car with her siblings on board. She taught herself to drive in that car. Mind you it was an automatic, because I doubt she could have managed a geared car.

Not at any club I've flown at.

If strapped in securely, and parent happy, why not? I have also flown two small children (with parent's permission) in one seat of a T21 (and one is now an International Comps winner, so it can't have done any harm).

However, we are back in thread drift. There are two main issues, one: how did the aircraft end in an unairworthy state, and two, where does ATC gliding go in the future.

Regarding airworthiness, it is extremelyunlikely that any of the fleet would have put anyone in any danger if given a good DI, pulled out to the launch point and flown. However, the paperwork was incapable of proving that, and a range of people at all levels, but primarily those with the responsibility for oversight are at fault. The ATC fleet was not alone in this regard, and MILCam are trying to ensure it doesn't happen in the future. IMHO, the danger is some unnecessary concentration on trivia at the expense of real engineering knowledge.

Regarding the future, there is, I fear, some nostalgia for a bygone age. Ed Meddings, who was on the team at Detling which evaluated the Cadet Mk3 prototype and pronounced it ideal told me he felt guilty for years afterwards at the torture he had inflicted on a generation or two of instructors. Times and youth have changed in attitudes and other optional activities. The fact the ATC gliding is continuing in any form is a miracle - I wish it the best of luck.

Fitter2
Good on you Fitter. Modern clubs must be pretty droll places. The 'ballast' went on to an honours degree in physics at Imperial College and a telephone number salary - he still remembers that flight though because I wasn't the pilot!

And I think we are well OT. I have read all of this thread right back from where it started and I have to say it makes very interesting and infuriating reading. The initial mistake was made by the PE in allowing their Airships to go ahead and spend all that money. Everything else is history as they say.

I used to get rung up by the PE about this time of year and asked if I had a project on hand that needed a couple of million, and 'could I hurry it up' to get it in the current financial year otherwise some unspent money would be snatched back!!

Can you strap a 4yo in securely, given its all designed for adults?

And the only way you can be sure the gliders are safe is if the paperwork is present and correct. Would love to be s fly on the wall at southern sailplanes.

Security wasn't the problem. He wanted to see out. Two parachutes and a fat cushion tightened up his straps lovely. He was quite a well grown 4 year old. My mate said he was quiet to the top of the launch and then wouldn't stop talking. He was still talking about it all the way home in the car.

Back on topic. How did all this horrible story come to light? Did something fall off/not work on a Viking, causing an incident/accident? Did the top man get off his chair one day and stroll down to a school and do a personal audit.

The Viking and Vigilants both had ageing aircraft audits carried out on them. Having read both reports I'm sad to say that calling for the pause was the ONLY action in this whole debacle Pippa got right.

What is the point of giving parachutes designed for adults to children? You can get cheaper cushions.
The BMk 71 and 72 used by the VGS had a minimum mass of 37kg, Irvins couldn't believe you could get cadets that small (Oh yes you can). At 37kg the parachute had an opening shock load in excess of 12g, Boscombe never knew the real reading as its test equipment only went up to 12g and that's what the trace was clipped at

VX275,

What exactly is an 'ageing aircraft audit'? How old did you have to be to get one if you were a glider. The Civil side of gliding never had anything like that when I was flying. Following Cof A our machines were deemed to be good as new. Was this 'audit' a kind of super CofA? What sort of defects were found that justified grounding or was it just the paperwork irregularities.

PS who is this 'Pippa'? If he/she was indeed derelict in his/her duty here, why has there been no penalty.

"Ageing Aircraft Audit" is a routine part of the MAA (carried over from previous regs) airworthiness system. IIRC (I've not been in that world for 7 years) the first AAA comes at 5yrs after ISD, and then every 5 years thereafter. They are intended to see if thgere's a forest hidden by the trees which the front-line staff are maintaining.

PDR

PDR

The only output I've ever seen from AAA is the removal of a capability rather than an engineering solution. Really AAA should have 2 outputs for me:

1. A status report with a suggested OOS date
2. A strategy for the maintenance of the capability or replacement of.....

Arc

I'm guessing these audits aren't publically available :(

As to parachutes as cushions etc., I know someone who has a phrase of 'if it will look stupid in the accident report don't do it' and personally I think using parachutes and a cushion to fit a 4yo in a glider falls in that category. BTW I hope the cushion was Dynafoam or similar energy absorbing foam, not squishy furnishing foam which can worsen injury after a crash.

https://members.gliding.co.uk/librar...s/safety-foam/

Trampoline accidents are similar to a high-g crash on normal foam - all is well as you sink into it, then it rebounds and it all gets painful. I speak from experience on the trampoline front.

On the flying front I did a horrid landing in front of the CFI at another club, and the person who came to help retrieve the glider was concerned about my back, which I knew was fine. The seat cushion is about 2cm of Dynafoam.

My glider was sent for a free heavy landing check by the CFI which thankfully showed it was fine.

Unless the MAA is vastly more complicated than EASA there isn't a forest, more a small copse for gliders especially simple ones like Vikings. Fixed undercarriage, no engine, no flaps, basic instruments, possibly no electrics at all fells many woods.

However I do suspect that putting the Vikings on the civil register as they are recovered would be worthwhile and I hope to hell that the units receiving them are given suitable instruction in keeping them airworthy after all the expense with tax-payers money that has gone into recovering them.

If the units haven't and things carry on as before the pause the outcome can only be another 'pause' only (probably) a permanent one.

The website 'whatdotheyknow' might be helpful, some ageing aircraft audits were supplied, amongst other things, in response to FOI requests. Obviously varying the search terms might yield different results. I would post a link but PPRuNe won't let me just yet.

Ageing Aircraft Audits
 

Perhaps I can help here. I have both of the Ageing Aircraft Audits, obtained via FOI requests. The Viking’s was done in 2002, the Vigilant’s in 2009.

I’d be grateful for advice on how to attach documents to a reply- am on the road, so will sort it in a few days.

Hope this helps

Engines

Ageing airframes
 

Not much to 'age' on a Viking, and especially if proper pre flights are carried out to include heavy landing checks. The machines have proved fine for the job intended and quite suitable for Ist solo excursions. In VGS use they have quite a cosseted existence as most of the time they are in a proper hangar and in the main flown by a limited no of people. I do hope the units that are to be 'spared' get back online with suitable staff ASAP, and that the crass 'anti civ volunteer' direction from 2FTS gets dispelled, and the H&S brigade do not throw the baby out with the bathwater with regard to operating the ground equipment.
In fact a change at the top at Syerston would be a welcome improvement for morale and leadership capability.

OK, that all-seeing know-all Mr Google tells me that either my memory was at fault or the regs have changed. I clsuspect the latter, but as my memory hasn't been subjected to an Ageing Anatomy Audit I must have an open mind toward the former.

BS aside, Mr goole tell me the current regulation is RA5723 and the initial audit becomes due at 15 years from ISD* rather than five, with repeats at 10 year intervals. This is for aircraft which are new at the time of ISD - for pre-cherished aeroplanes an earlier review date is to be agreed before ISD. Where pre-cherished aeroplanes are already arguably "ageing" there is a mandatory requirement for an AAA prior to main-gate procurement approval (ie as part of the purchase process, before commitment of funding or agreement of price).

You can read the details in the above link, but there are a few higlights:

• A provision for waiver if the requirement for a short-duration fleet where it can be shown that no member of the fleet will achieve more than 50% of a cleared life (of any component) before the planned OSD

• A provision for using data from a comparable airworthiness programme for the type to avoid duplication of effort to meet some of the requirements of the AAA where felt appropriate and agreed (in advance).

• The AAA is comprised of seperate audits of structural, systems and propulsion ageing.

• The actual document does cite JSP886 amongst its references, which as far as I know is now a withdrawn document (but I doubt that affects much)

On my reading it looks like a pretty sensible process - YMMV.

PDR

* or the mid-point between ISD and OSD, whichever is the sooner

Again, that know-all Mr google has pointed me to the AAA reports in question.

That for the Viking may be found here, while that for the Vigilant may be found here (well the structural audit bit of it, in an abstracted form at least. The propulsiuon and systems audits are not included for some obscure reason).

PDR

Mr Google took me straight to the audit report on the Vigilant, but there seems not to be a Viking one. The report is 88 pages long, terribly verbose, and at the end of it I could see no recommendations that suggested grounding. Shurely shome mishtake as 007 would have it. If this report is not the basis of the grounding then what is? This whole business is beginning to smell. Looks awful like civil servants covering their arses in paper.

The basis of the grounding (described at the time as a 'pause' ) is documented in Duty Holder Advice Notice (DHAN) 20140417 - DHA/86, this has previously been made available under FOI and can be found here.

You can't do a heavy landing check as part of the Di as the seat pans have to be removed. It should also be noted as such in the logbook and in easa land I believe signed by am inspector. You also have to check the tailboom very carefully and possibly spars as a very sudden stop can cause damage as the wings try to continue.

What I remember of the heavy landing check on my glider involved taking out the seat pan, close inspection of the undercarriage and using a powerful torch to check the tailboom.