@DaveUnwin

That's the thing as I understand it - they didn't have records of what had been 'pranged' or not. Which meant a full survey.

I agree these are non-complex airframes. But MoD has it's own processes and the ACO has to follow them to obtain release to service.

That's the world they are in................

Arc

Ahhhh, thanks for that Arc - your post does help make sense of something I've been trying to wrap my head around.
If they literally don't know which ones have had a bump and which haven't then that really would complicate matters.

Self Build & Fly?
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingsby_T.21

Just a suggestion but in doing some digging I noticed a handful of T21s were self built and felt Cadets would get far more value from gliding if they actually built a few of their own aircraft under supervision.

Value coming from team skills, tool skills, patience, persistence and a better understanding of aero engineering and aerodynamics.

Sadly I could not find a suitable training glider kit and I assume certification cost and complexity plus liability issues have stopped this.

So has anyone got the plans for a T21, a few aluminium struts, plywood and canvass? Would the BGA, MOD and MAA object or co operate?

Bigpants

You clearly don't undertand the ACO Gliding setup at all...................either equipment or objectives.

Arc

Open Minded
 

Do you understand the difference between past and future?

Royal Aeronautical Society | Ercall Wood

The grounding is an opportunity to think of new ideas for getting cadets engaged and back in the air. It would be a pity if nothing new was considered.

@Bigpants

The ACO Gliding Operation is a military training operation, with a structured and defined training programme.

The introduction of Random, non-standard, amateur built aircraft would not really achieve anything towards the flying task in the ACO Gliding world.

That's not to say that the encouragement of Cadets in other aviation activities is not required or beneficial and I am a supporter of the LAA YES. Just its output wouldn't fit into the VGS setup.

IMHO

Arc

Hat and coat....................

I have heard that a large number of 'gliders' have started to appear at a well-know aerospace company located close to Cambridge city centre. The said company is also the Design Authority for the Viking glider.

I suspect they have been looking very carefully at the airframes and anything & everything has to be checked against the paperwork, so whilst they don't have motors, flaps & retractable u/c there is still plenty to have to check. An annual inspection can be done in a day on a simple glider, but this is much more.

I have no idea if all repairs or just undocumented or incorrectly documented ones have to be replaced...

Mandator, that is my understanding as well. Maybe some employees who lurk on hear may be able to help?

Course they won't Brokenlink, you should know better than that. := :oh:

There is an even quicker answer...

The RAF has 7x Gliding Clubs with the RAFGSA, 14x Flying Clubs with the RAFFCA and 1x Microlight Club with the RAFMA. So that is 22x CAA approved recreational clubs on MOD property and funded in part via the RAF Sports Board.

Now that Introductory Flights are allowed by the CAA/EASA by qualified pilots on type without remuneration but the cost of the flight paid, then the Air Cadet Org could fly an awful lot of Cadets in very short order with very little effort - IF they dropped their ridiculous stance on the experience requirements:

There is no way that the average VGS pilot has 500hrs total time and 300hrs as PIC and 60hrs in the last 12 months. So why this ridiculous requirement for a qulaified pilot, many with an ICAO standard licence?

It is over-controlling gold-plating idiocy like this that is killing the Air Cdet Organisation plus when the Govt is trying to expand the whole Cadet Forces in general. When you consider RAF based recreational/sporting flying clubs they are IDEAL in that they are assured by the CAA and suoervised on the military estate to their own requirements. If they don't like what they see they can stop it immediately. Plus, there is an untapped resource to help the Clubs with the VGS staff that are also unable to fly at present.

Beggars belief!

B Word

B word

I don't have the statistics to hand but the safety record of the VGSs is, probably(?) far better than the equivalent record for GSAs and civilian clubs.... and I've witnessed the latter in action!

The VGS world is far more regulated and for good reason.

BBK

BBK

Seeing as we're only intersted in 'risk to life', I am not aware of a single fatality in the RAFGSA, RAFFCA and RAFMA over the past 15 years of my knowledge of such organisations. Each Club has around 100 members (on average) and so 2,200 pilots have flown at least 22,000 hrs per year across all of the Clubs. Multiply that by 15 years and you get 330,000 flying hours without a fatality.

The current MoD fatal accident rate is around 1 per 50,000 flying hours not including operational losses. So this type of flying is at least 6 times safer than normal RAF trg flying.

So go figure...:ok:

B word

I was taking about VGS ops, not MOD. Tragically cadets have died in recent years but they were in Tutor aircraft not VGS ones. Not that I want to get into some sick contest about such matters.

However, at my local airfield the safety record of the VGS had been excellent in no small part to very close supervision and the level of training and oversight by CGS and CFS.

BBK

Dave Unwin
 

In your post #520 you state that " was it really that difficult to look at the records of each aircraft and starting with the ones that have never been pranged or de-rigged..............?"

This shows that you have still failed to grasp the problem because these records had not been kept by the contractor and what has been kept are very incomplete, repairs have not been properly recorded both from a parts used and a compliance with approved data point of view and some have no record at all !

Add to this the fact that unlike metal airframes there is very little visual evidence of a repair with GRP construction
If the methods and techniques I was taught as an apprentice ( for large metal aircraft with GRP parts) had been used these these are totally unsuitable for GRP primary construction. As both the type certificate holder and maintaince contractor both come from a big metal aircraft with GRP bits background and the repairs have not been recorded properly it is not possible to see if first the glider has had repair work or if it has he correct techniques have been used without very close inspection by experienced staff.

Trying to use aircraft de-rigging as a filter for aircraft damage is unsound, gliders are de-rigged on a daily basis and so de-rigging records ( if they are available and I doubt it) will only tell you that the aircraft was de-rigged but not why. Most gliders arrive at the maintenance facility in a trailer for the routine annual check....... It is not an indicator of damage so to use de-rigging as an indicator of posable damage would be at the very least misleading.

A&C, you say to me;- "In your post #520 you state that " was it really that difficult to look at the records of each aircraft and starting with the ones that have never been pranged or de-rigged..............?"

This shows that you have still failed to grasp the problem because these records had not been kept by the contractor and what has been kept are very incomplete, repairs have not been properly recorded both from a parts used and a compliance with approved data point of view and some have no record at all !"

Actually, it doesn't. What it actually shows is that either you didn't read, or don't understand, what I wrote.

Have another go, (but you don't need to give me a lecture about de-rigging. I've been gliding for 30 years and am an instructor, have owned several gliders and used to be the Manager of the Black Mountains GC).

Also, Arc has already explained about the shocking record keeping. It is truly a massive FUBAR, and when you combine it with the quite incredible time its taken to STILL not return ONE single solitary sailplane to service well, words fail me.

As a flyer who has a foot in RAFFCA, a civilian gliding club and a civvy GA airfield it seems to be symptomatic of the way things are with MOD these days. I think they would be happy just to ground the whole of the MOD reg fleet just in case something amiss happens.

Thing, I suspect you've just hit the nail on the thumb! I must admit I've been starting to think exactly that. Does the MoD even want Air Cadets to fly? When you consider this whole sorry saga and realise that, after 18 months, they've not managed to return one sailplane to service, it is hard not to get just a little suspicious.

Some Vigilants are flying and have been since January and a pair of Vikings have been completed and await transport back to Syerston, just to clarify.

Add to that the ongoing programme with Skylaunch to dieselise the winches (or is that keep on keeping on 'cos the money's already spent?)...