PPRuNe Forums - Air Cadets grounded?

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)

- - Air Cadets grounded? (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/538497-air-cadets-grounded.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExAscoteer (Post 10155918)

RAFVR(T) is no more and hasn't been since Dec last year.

When my Wg Cdr decided I wasn't 'pulling my weight' (I was only doing WGLO duties 6 hours every other weekend and attending the Sqdn for less than the required 8 hr/month; the Sqdn Cdr had made it clear to me there was no 'role' for me on the Sqdn anyway) and terminated my commission I was sent a letter saying I could if I wished use the title 'Flt Lt....... RAFVR(T) Retd' if I wished and if I ever feel the need I shall continue to do that.
I was irked when I discovered I wasn't required to attend the Sqdn anyway as WGLO had been made an established Wing Staff post, a fact my Wg Cdr had neglected to tell me.
Unfortunately the Wg Ad O, a retired 'rock' Wg Cdr who I got on well with and who was an excellent communicator, was sidelined due to a bad motorbike acident otherwise I'm sure I would have been told.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExAscoteer (Post 10155918)

RAFVR(T) is no more and hasn't been since Dec last year.

The RAFVR(T) hasn't disappeared completely 6FTS retains them flying the tutor and 2FTS has a number of VR(T) in the HQ and CGS.

Indeed, I was referring to the 'mainstream' VR(T).

The AEF staff will remain as VR(T) owing to accountability, but letter I received from Cmdt RAFAC states that they are actively looking at changing their reserve status.

If AEF staff are remaining VR(T) on basis of 'Accountability' then VGS staff should also be in that category - for the same reasons

IMHO.

Arc

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExAscoteer (Post 10156869)

She may have difficulty getting that past AOC 22 group as the new CFC has no accountability in it.

Hence they will still be part of the Reserves and outside the CFC.

Titanic Mentality

In the REAL world the aircraft were quite happy being flown by 'qualified' staff many of whom had no RAF rank.
This is the main problem now; the organisation has lost its way about WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING TO PROVIDE A SERVIVE TO THE CADETS , and we are left with 'cascading', and spin, but NO B...…….. Machines. Those at the helm would have been quite at home on the Titanic,or burning Rome.

From the quoted link:

Quote:

A report by British engineering company Qinitiq suggested that many of the training flights were logged as one flight when in fact there were multiple flights, meaning the aircraft’s fatigue life was unknown in some cases.

That doesn't sound like common sense procedure to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beardy (Post 10182414)

From the quoted link:

That doesn't sound like common sense procedure to me.

Not something we did at either of the two VGSs on which I served. I also don't recall the Vigilant being lifed on landings.

That doesn't sound like common sense procedure to me.

OC2FTS making something up again!

Put one of these with a gliding club and they will have it airworthy in no time!

Are we aware that there are more Cadet MkIIIs and Sedberghs flying today in comparison with those (Vikings) that replaced them! It is all down to the people who look after them. They should be taken away from 2FTS before he scraps them too!

The report comes from QinetiQ, do you know who they are and if they have any relationship, apart from a contractual one, with 2FTS? Or is that unimportant?

Suggestion from QinetiQ

it seems that it was a suggestion from QinetiQ!

Are we scrapping aircraft based on suggestions now?

Why any volunteers waste their time any more with this mess is beyond me, turn up Saturday grounded Sunday. It'll happen with he Vikings too.

No one cares anymore.

At least no one was killed.

The question taxpayers should be asking is this - "If the RAF is incapable of assuring the airworthiness of simple gliders and motor gliders, of which hundreds of examples of the same types continue to be operated safely worldwide, how can we be sure much more advanced platforms, such as Typhoon and Lightning II, are airworthy?"

(A supplementary question might be - "Who is being held accountable for this gross waste of taxpayers' money?").

Quote:

Originally Posted by beardy (Post 10182414)

From the quoted link:

That doesn't sound like common sense procedure to me.

..I don't know...I had quite a few students who tried to turn one flight into many....and that was in a Viking! ;)

I have not commented on this topic before and must first say that the efforts made by the vast majority of the Staff at the VGSs are commendable. However, (there is always a however) as an ex RAF engineer, ex VGS CI, BGA inspector and actively involved in the continuing airworthiness of military aircraft (I may have identified myself to some) I FULLY concur with the QinetiQreport. When I joined the VGS and reviewed the F700 verses the training through put stats I suspected the integrity of aircraft flight time recording may be a bit wayward. How on one Sunday they managed to carry out 12 GIC (4:00), finish 4 GS students (8:00) and do four SCT trips (4:00) with 3 Vigilant with less than two hours remaining on each before their servicing extensions ended; the F700 recorded two hours and 6 landings on each Vigilant. The CO and Tech Officer said ‘it’s OK everyone does this’. Additionally, an aircraft departed the runway; traveling across rough ground, was ‘brushed off, no incident report was raised and flown later that week-end. A quiet word to the ‘senior staff’ and it was made abundantly clear this would stop; it never again happen on days I was there but I did suspect some creative accounting continued to occur. Equally, aircraft almost inevitable flew on extensions indicating that the maintenance support provided from Syerston was undermanned or underfunded (probably both). The lifing of the aircraft is predicated on the operations carried out in accordance with the Statement of Operational Intent and Usage (SOI&U), should aircraft flight time and landing recording be creatively managed the basis for the Airworthiness Safety Case is undermined. As the SOI&U parameter cannot be confirmed thus the aircraft cannot be declared airworthy I am not saying they are unsafe I am saying that their safety cannot be guaranteed.I sit back and await the backlash and cries of that never happened on my squadron.

1.3VStall

Quote:

In this case, one must also look at what other aircraft the Type Airworthiness Authority is responsible for. I've said before, you could merge this thread with the Red Arrows XX177 one, because the same people are involved. Neither aircraft had a valid safety case.

RRNemesis

Quote:

As the SOI&U parameter cannot be confirmed thus the aircraft cannot be declared airworthy I am not saying they are unsafe I am saying that their safety cannot be guaranteed.I sit back and await the backlash and cries of that never happened on my squadron.

Precisely. Remember, in 1992 the Director of Flight Safety reported that Chinook didn't have a SOIU, never mind one with parameters that could be verified. Why has nothing changed in 26 years? Or are we to be grateful that there's actually an SOIU, albeit one that is ignored. Please also remember, that all aircrew are required to be familiar with the SOIU, so that they may report violations. I'm not sure how that works with Air Cadets.

Which brings us back to 1.3's question;

Quote:

"Who is being held accountable?"

>I sit back and await the backlash and cries of that never happened on my squadron.<

It most certainly did not happen in my 23 years on 632 and 633 VGS.

I'm waiting to see how long it takes for the Viking to become un-airworthy again :(