Has anybody received any form of update as yet in regard to the future plans? For example squadron merge, aircraft types or God forbid closures.

Redesigned System
 

LR Whilst i can see that the situation is panning out in a most UNPROFESSIONAL
way i struggle to understand why 'the powers to be' would go about a reorganisation in this manner.
As a reflection of the overall organisation it is a DISASTER
As a lesson in competent management it is a DISASTER
AS a reflection of the senior officers who control the organisation it hardly is a model of leadership or overall competence.
AS a reflection of the basic competence of the MOD/RAF to organise a flying unit it beggars belief.
In PR terms it is the biggest cock up in the Cadet organisation in all of its 75 years.

Whilst JM may well have been put in post to 'reorganise' the organisation i doubt even if the brightest bunnies at the top would see this debacle as the best way to do it.
However whilst the appointment of JM must be seen as a huge mistake it shows great concern with regard to the ability of those at the top that chose him.
There are too many 'concerned' experienced people who know about this now,and no carpet big enough to hide in under.

Pobjoy
As I posted previously - sometimes a certain person is put into a certain job to get a specific result (not always a good one).
Historically - modernish brits are masters at closing things down - if they only spent as much energy keeping things open and working our country would be somewhat different.
One only has to look back at the Railway closure programme to see the full suite of dirty tricks employed to ensure that a Line failed.
At my last job - the company employed a really strange guy to take charge of the aircraft engineering side - the result was horrendous and it has taken years after his dismissal to get it back more or less where it was !
As I also posted previously - the almost 2 years of grounding has been extremely convenient for MOD as they are looking to save money on non operational units/airfields etc.
I am certainly not putting the whole blame on one person - I think there is far too much going on concurrently !
As I also posted previously - any agendas will become clearer with time.
The VGS staff have been treated horrendously !

Strange guy
 

Ron- slight thread drift but would you care to expand about the strange guy in the Aircraft Engineering dept you refer to?

Just curious as to the story if you don't mind

PM sent S109 !

The field at which I keep some of my "toys" is used by the local Air Cadets for their gliding program, many of the instructors are in fact ex -employees of our flight schools and charter operation, I recently met up with one for a coffee and asked if had read this thread, "yes he had", to which I made a comment to the effect that it was good that we in Canada had avoided such a bloody mess, he then went out to his car and returned with the "new and improved" SOPs, the book is actually thicker than the SOP manual for Canada's largest airline! It seems that this rot has started over here pushed by the same agenda as in the UK, that is the take over by retired regular force types who have no background in such basic flying operations as flying simple little gliders and aircraft. I think we need to not allow any managers into a system which has run so well for seventy years unless they have come up through the very same system, it seems that over here the regular Military just dont understand "Kiss". {Keep it simple stupid !}

75th
 

Brief but to the point little ditty here...

Happy 75th birthday, Air Cadets: Glider fleet still grounded after 2 YEARS | Defence for Dummies

The truth can't come out........... Yet !
 

This thread is particularly frustrating in that the truth of what is going on with the technical side of the recovery is being well hidden for leagal reasons.

No one wants to say too much about the way some of the contractors are conducting themselfs because contracts are up for renewal and if those competing for new contracts said too much about the performance of others competing for contracts that they have had interaction with the Lawyers would be out playing the fairness card and make the proccees of getting the new maintenance & support contracts put in place take even longer.

The RAF now well aware and with a highly embarrassing situation on their hands have put some very bright people on the case to try and resolve the issues that are holding back the glider recovery. I am sure that they have a firm grasp of the facts and the action needed to resolve the problems but they can only work within the limitations of the current situation.

They are faced with a number of problems mostly revolving around industry capacity and contracts that might be expensive to cancel even IF ( and I stress IF ) they found a contractor who was failing to deliver the goods simply kicking them out would result in nothing happening at all while new contractors are hired and they have to find the capacity from what is a very small industry.

The contracts for both the support & type certificate holder are up for renewal at the end of this year and SHOULD the RAF decide to award the contracts to new contractors this time would be used to ensure a smooth hand over.

AandC


That is an excellent post if you don’t mind me saying so.


If I were Mr MoD, in parallel with all this activity I’d be conducting a review into why the existing “system” has broken down. This would take 5 minutes, as it was included, with examples, in the evidence to the Nimrod Review. A search of “Nimrod” on pprune would suffice.


It will surprise many that management of such issues, and preventing such failures, is not in the first instance the job of the much maligned DE&S. It is something you do before being promoted to the most junior grade in DE&S, and is the role of Service HQ branches. For example, in the FAA it was a small part of a civilian’s job in DGA(N) HQ. I hope these bright people looking into such things as balancing MoD/Industry capacity aren’t being paid much, and are no more than Grade D! Maybe they’d be better employed getting experience in these now disbanded posts. Ah, a clue.

Recovery Another nail in the coffin
 

Am i missing something here or is the 'system' just grinding on in its usual manner with no real improvement in how they organise things.
How difficult can it be to 'Recover' a fleet of machines that were all quite happily flying around one day without 'tent-pegging' into the countryside.
We are talking about 'inspections' not rebuilds; not exactly an unusual occurrence in the aviation world.
If some serious work is required then the machines in question can be 'sent out' in the same way as the GSA would do.
The fact that TWO YEARS down the line there has been no real progress that has resulted in some of the Squadrons being able to resume operations just confirms that no one knows how to run this show and money is being spent every week without the goods being delivered or Cadets flying.
Perhaps the chief engineer of the BGA or GSA should be brought in to tell them what to do;at least the 'system would get the benefit of tech competence and ability to assist the situation as opposed to bumbling along in a bureaucratic cloud without instruments.

Related Article
 

A related article:


Happy 75th birthday, Air Cadets: Glider fleet still grounded after 2 YEARS | Defence for Dummies

'Today marks the 75th birthday of the Air Training Corps. Yet amongst today’s formal celebrations is an elephant in the room: the corps’ 150-strong glider fleet has been grounded since 2014 – and may stay there for another two or three years.

In 2014 concerns were raised over airworthiness of the Grob G.109B Vigilant and G.103 Viking fleets, which are owned by the RAF and on the military register, after aircraft repair logs were found not to reflect the true state of the airframes. Sensibly, the RAF grounded them all while it investigated.

However, this left cadets without any gliding training at all. Although ATC and CCF(RAF) cadets are able to take part in air experience flights in the RAF’s Grob Tutor powered aircraft alongside a qualified instructor, they do not receive any formal, structured flying training.

The Vigilant and Viking fleets were used to teach cadets the basics of flying and gliding up to first solo standard. Staff cadets took on more advanced gliding training and could even become qualified gliding instructors themselves. Although RAF-owned, the gliders are maintained by Serco under an outsourcing contract.

Meanwhile the RAF’s No.2 Flying Training School, commanded by Group Captain John Middleton, a former regional commandant with the ATC, has continued to dither about the process of “recovering” the two glider fleets (which it is responsible for) back to flying status. While a tiny handful of gliders are now in flying condition and based at RAF Syerston, 2 FTS’s Nottinghamshire home, this is cold comfort for teenagers in Cornwall, Scotland or Northern Ireland who joined the ATC to fly.

The ATC has consistently refused to allow cadet units to organise flying or gliding training opportunities with local civilian clubs, instead insisting that cadets must wait for 2 FTS to pull its finger out. After two years of total inactivity, however, the instructors of the ATC’s Volunteer Gliding Squadrons (VGSs), volunteers who give up their free time to teach cadets to glide, will need to refresh skills that have significantly degraded through lack of practice. Many, it is feared, will have walked away from the ATC altogether and found something else to do with their free time.

Cadets and their volunteer staff have been given no official confirmation of when gliding will resume, despite many vague promises from the ATC and 2 FTS. However, Babcock International, a defence contractor, is currently advertising for a Viking Recovery Contract Manager on a two year basis. This would mean by the time the contract ends, cadet gliding will have taken almost five years to resume.

Venture Adventure indeed.'

Now that the 75th anniversary is here there is a certain amount of irony with the logo:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/aircadets/rafc...466A59F143.JPG

:}

(75 being the likely number of Vikings to be recovered!)

I understood that the Minister made his decision earlier in the week. Does anyone know if OC 2FTS has called the VGS OCs yet? I believe that nothing will be said until the VGS OCs have been informed; and rightly so...

...the silence is deafening!

LJ

Ah, "the Air Cadet waving bye-bye to the glider fleet...." as it is known by some :E

As for when will we hear something on the recovery, taken from Commandant Air Cadet's FB page yesterday -

"Just to reassure those of you sending me messages about the glider recovery programme. We still await clearance to put the plan into the public domain so we are not trying to delay or hide things from you. The announcement is inextricably linked to the DIO Basing Review and you can understand that the MoD does not want to preempt that, which is due to report in June. We are just working out what we can release without prejudicing other important work and we will announce as soon as we can. I know, I sound like a broken record but, believe me, these things are complicated and my hands are tied."

Pobjoy
 

Fortunately ignorance is bliss as they say and your happiness when flying these machines was not taking account of what is under the skin, I think if you had been aware of some of the things that have been found in terms of badly executed repairs you might adjust your opinion.

One of the big problems with composites is that even the worst repair can be covered with filler & paint leaving even those with a passing knowlage of the subject fooled. Some of the aircraft have very substandard repairs and due to the disappearing records there is no way to know if an aircraft has of has not had any repair work in the past so an inspection requiring IRO 150-160 man hours has to be carried out.

Once the inspection has been done any problems have to Be addressed and this is when the problems start, if the repair work requires input from a design authority ( in the civil world normally the manufacturer ) they have to be consulted and a repair scheme issued. Most glider manufacturers are on top of this and a repair scheme is usually issued within 7 days or so.

The Vikings type certificate holder & design authority is a large defence contractor with some composite manufacturing experience but very little repair experience and apparently no contracted time scale for issuing repair schemes !

As you might guess this is the sort of culture that when something goes outside the design authoritiys ( limited ) comfort zone the problem gets kicked around for weeks and if they are lucky gets lost in the long grass when something less taxing to do turns up and allows them to look busy.

Pobjoy I would like to assure you that there are people trying very hard to push this project along at speed but are wading neck deep in the treacle put in place by people who are well outside there comfort zone with composite structures

As far as glider flying goes at the moment, the ACO has none, and what is being promised is second best to that... Don't get your hopes up! :E

Should have overhauled the Venture fleet they would probably still be flying. After 12 years flying them appalled at what is happening to the Gliding Schools and the morale of staff and cadets.

Announcement?
 

romeo bravo,

So, one assumes that it will be confirmed imminently (this week?):

How many gliders from each of the Vigilant and Viking fleets will ultimately be recovered.

What the RAF's intended/preferred future VGS lay-down looks like - pending the outcome of the DIO Basing Review.

What options are open to instructors and staff to move to another VGS where their own VGS happens to be disbanded (should this turn out to be the case).

Another thought: given that gliding is such a fundamental part of delivering the 'Air' in Air Cadets, that Air Cadet numbers have declined significantly and continue to do so as a consequence of the lack of gliding, and that the Government (including the Prime Minister) is committed to increasing cadet numbers, one would expect the VGS footprint necessary to provide adequate coverage over the UK (based on ATC sqn [and CCF(RAF) unit] disposition) to be an important factor in its own right in the DIO Basing Review. Yes, some bases have to close, but Ministers will not wish to make decisions that kill off large swathes of the cadet population where a bit more flexibility could have been exercised at minimal additional cost.

Finally, I think that it is about time that these volunteers who have given so much to the organisation in the past were now told the truth that is known and the detail behind any uncertainty over basing that still remains (as a consequence of the DIO Basing Review). They are at least owed this level of honesty before the tank of goodwill runs completely dry (it already has for some). VGS instructors and staff could then at least start to weigh up their options, and someone could start putting a plan together to help them out - properly - if we want to keep them.

Well, there's another four months delay then - what an utterly disgraceful shambles!:ugh:

Should we be reading anything into this Twitter posting by OC2FTS?

https://twitter.com/oc2fts

Seems he is not able to manage his Twitter account without help from his daughter!!

Surely the professionals should be handling any information that is disseminated over Twitter and Facebook by this, and other very responsible persons, with regard to this "Pause in Air Cadet Gliding" debacle.

A simple glance at any of the VGS web sites gives some clues as to lack of any direction/organisation with regard to publicity. They (the VGS's) are stumbling in the dark with no guidance or leadership from above about the message that is (or should be) conveyed to interested Air Cadets. I say "Well done" to those Squadrons who have managed to keep some sort of ball rolling.

Like many posters I am very saddened in the way that this has been allowed to happen to Air Cadet Gliding, not by the Volunteers, but by some very high ranking, highly paid people who somebody trusted to do a good job!

Rant over......

The future - what future
 

From A & C we hear that some of the fleet may have hidden problems, and I accept that as a former Aviation Industry Engineer who at one time used to produce repair schemes for aircraft that the RN had tried to destroy ! Yes GRP can conceal some hidden problems, but then so can metal at times.


However, having flown and instructed on all of the ACO GRP types, and with the networking that went on, ( i.e., where one had been pranged!), I knew of only one Viking that had been seriously compromised ( i.e., tailplane in total removed) and the said tail end replaced by a seriously large GRP repair at the aft end of the fuselage. There were of course others that were Cat 5 like the surviving one from the Viking mid air at Sealand. As for Vigilants, there were two involved in a mid air, (but landed by some miracle with no loss of life), thus the overall numbers of potentially seriously, or potentially non-airworthy airframes will likely as not be a very small proportion of the fleet.


Having said all of this, the exercise consists mainly of paperwork research, and whilst time consuming, it cannot take years ( can it ?). Has anyone thought of checking the location(s) of each airframe over their life, and checking with VGS staff whether they recall any incidents requiring major repair or accident damage ??


Despite the 2 FTS Twitter messages and the emollient messages from Commandant ACO, I know that they don't want to utter their future plan until the DIO Basing report is issued - I heard this last October !


Thus my prediction is unchanged - nothing much before 2017, and then god only know how little there will be due to Staff training / currency issues, not to mention the massive loss of very experienced staff over the three year pause. Then of course from an Air Safety viewpoint, there will be an enhanced risk due to the three year gap in operations aided by having a lot of new staff on board lacking in substantive experience, plus pressure to deliver after a three year interval.


Aviation forecast : Summary : GRIM - with periods of great uncertainty and risk; there will also be scattered new tomes of rules and regulations produced by ACCGS, resembling Encyclopaedia Brittanica, designed to keep all but the most determined aviators on the ground. Staffing issues and shortages will be considerable.


I'd love to be proven wrong, but doubt it !

The Future
 

Never underestimate the power of the 'system' to promote the organisation.
We have just had 'the uniforms' 'promoting' at St Clement Danes (CV and Cmmt ATC) extolling the virtues of all sorts of activities (apart from Flying)
Funny they also did not mention 'Supermarket bag filling'.
Had JM bothered to consult with the schools they could have had a list of machines that had 'repairs' in a couple of weeks and the others (prob 85%) could have had an inspection.
No the system knows best (The system knows J...S...) about the real world of fixing and records.
The only real problem would have been an unauthorised structural repair that was kept quiet. I think the probability of that is Zero due to the integrity of the schools organisation.
Unless there is CHANGE in the management of the Cadet organisation there will be NO IMPROVEMENT in the clumsy 'crat led' system that has absolutely no idea what they are doing or how to deal with it.
They have taken incompetency to a new 'high' and nothing will improve unless the rot is removed.

BB: Interesting. Linky?

Edit: Thanks BB - your edit and clarification noted.

So just to check you're saying Cmdt 2FTS should have consulted with the old boys to see if they could remember which tail numbers had undergone repair in the last 32 years, and if they couldn't should just keep flying that one with someone else's kid in it?

Not sure that would look great in court.

TING
Who is talking about 32 years.
I assume the 'OLD BOYS' you refer to are the CO's of the Squadrons.
The CO's/Tech Staff of the Squadrons will be the best persons to collate information with regard to repair issues with their own machines;and i would suggest that they have a better recall than the 'system'.
The minimal no of aircraft with structural repairs are far outweighed by machines that only ever needed normal servicing.
Your Tech regard for the VGS staff seems to be on a par with JM.

Anyone with any sort of Aviation experience can see that the ATC glider fleet has had a very protected existence.
The ATC had them from new and has had total control over use and storage.
The actual condition and lack of issues confirms the system at the VGS level was fit for purpose,and as they were the ones that flew the machines who would know them better.
I would suggest that the competency at VGS level far outstripped that found elswhere in the system.
With a Cmmt 2FTS who has no experience or qualification on types or an in depth knowledge of how w-end ops work it would have been quite sensible to confer with the operators so a REASONABLE RESPONSE could be made.
The lack of consultation and his disdain for the Volunteers merely confirms we have the wrong person heading up ATC Gliding.Two years of grounding confirms a momental C........F..... that has no eqaul; heads need to roll but not at VGS level.
What is all this utter rubbish about Twitter Facebook and 'Cascading' for goodness sake anyone with a grain of a brain cell knows we need people who know the difference between Snap on and it Snapping off.

Gents.

The trouble is you are all too pessimistic and should look on the bright side such as this "situation" should keep Middleton in a well-paid second pensionable job for many years.

He will be able to expand his empire to the greater glory of John Middleton and the icing on the cake is he may get a Knighthood as well for all the good work he has done.

By the way, what has a "manager" who has no experience, qualifications, or knowledge of the job got to do with anything?

Know your place, keep paying your taxes and dont dare question your commissioned betters particularly if they flew Tornados!

Common sense
 

POBJOY,I have to agree that perfectly serviceable airframes with no "form" could have been largely singled out by a combination of paper trail, VGS enquiries, etc.

Notwithstanding limited rotation of aircraft due to routine maintenance and repair, most OC's and Eng O's would have known which aircraft they have had and this simply could be verified by ref to Log books. Not only this, they would know what accidental damage had occurred, and again this could have been verified by reference to local records, and in major incident cases by reference to accident reports in VGS files and at ACCGS.

As for standards locally at VGS units, whilst the "suits" may have thought that we were all rank amateurs, two of my former Eng.O colleagues were very amply qualified, one a licensed A/c engineer working every day in Army Aviation, whilst another was an ex Wg Cdr Eng on front line A/C. IMHO they operated to a totally professional standard, neither associated with anything other than the highest of standards.

As for "dodgy repairs " , I don't think that I have ever heard of anything carried out by VGS staff, the only repairs and servicing were ALWAYS carried by ACCGS Eng out working parties or at ACCGS base. During my time, this work was carried by RAF technicians under SNCO and RAF commissioned Eng.O control. Only in more recent years was the work subcontracted out.

Therefore in terms of accountability, we cannot allocate any blame upon VGS units, it is solely either RAF or Sub contractor, and in both cases, the activity was supervised by RAF Engineers in the higher management roles wherever they were located. Sadly in many areas of Her Majesty's government, there is a belief that sub contracting means risk transfer , ie, hand over and forget. However sub contracting may be the accountant's dream, but in reality, if it is to be an effective and professional drop in substitute, it STILL needs day by day hands on supervision.

What we now see before us, is the result of the RAF thinking that subcontracting works without getting involved. Un-announced QA visits including working practice and paper trails are a very useful tool to keep "subbies" on their toes !

I doubt that we will ever know the full unexpurgated truth, as there is no public disclosure on the grounds of commercial confidentiality . However when and if flying ever gets going again some freedom of information requests should be made. For instance, how many serious airworthiness issues were found, by category and aircraft type. How many were deemed to be caused by non standard / unauthorised repair method or components. Who was the RAF Eng authority having jurisdiction at the material times. This and many more. It can't be of any use to Mr Putin, thus cannot be bounced by Security !

1984 to 2016 yep 32 years I wouldn't want to try and remember that ding old what's his name had back in the eighties or who fixed it and how.

And assuming the Tech officer and OC haven't changed several times in that 30 odd years and 30 airframes haven't rotated through the VGS it's a bit of a long shot for the DDH to make that call.

BB

I'm also expecting very few Vigilants to come back as they must be beyond economical repair with new engines now needed that aren't manufactured anymore. Running a few with remaining spares might be an option, but the cost of putting different engines in the rest (with all the testing/modification/paperwork required) is likely going to be too expensive with everything else that needs to be done on top of the engine work. I wonder if they will buy something else in the longer term? What will be mildly amusing (embarassing!) is when all these ex-mil Grob 109s start appearing on the civil register in airworthy condition on an ex-mil permit to fly with a VW derived engine. I wonder if they will be broken up and not put up for disposal as complete assets to save any embarassment?

I did see your original post making some sad reading. I suspect that you won't be far from the truth in your numbers - if it was good news then it would have come out by now! Saving what is left and coming up with a plan that delivers maximum opportunity to Cadets has to be the main mission now. I hope that we are 'out of the woods' with the Viking, even though only a handful have so far returned to flight after 9+ months of effort. I fear that any delay to that recovery programme will see the end of all Air Cadet provided gliding as we know it. That would be a total tragedy for everyone involved.

For the Cadets, the last 4 years have been a disaster. I hear rumour that since the Grob Tutor propeller issues began, and then gliding 'pausing' shortly after the Tutors returned to flight, that Cadet numbers have fallen by 10% or so. If that figure is broadly correct then we need to try and generate flying opportunities for the remaining 90% and fast. RAF Gliding, Flying and Microlight Clubs make an obvious choice as they operate from Govt Aerodromes and there are over 20 of them accross the UK. They can be scrutinised by the RAF and now fall under the responsibility of AOC 22Gp - he now holds the risk for all RAF sports. As the Govt are planning to increase the size of the Cadet Forces in general for 2020 then with an expanded UAS/AEF fleet (thanks to MFTS), a reduced VGS fleet and the use of service flying clubs then we might just keep to the 'deal' of offering Air Cadets flying a couple of times a year.

I don't get the 'DIO basing review' piece. You can announce a VGS closure without giving away the basing review - unless it is used solely for VGS activity like Kenley or Kirknewton (there are others). But then if it is them then so what? Just start getting on with it before we lose another 10%!

In my humble opinion, of course :ok:

LJ

Good post LJ

Those at the top don't seem to know the difference between 'risk' and 'safety'

Flug

Declining Cadet Numbers
 

LJ,

I understood that the number of ATC cadets fell by about 7% between Autumn 2014 and Autumn 2015, so I would not be surprised if we are now looking at a figure of closer to 10%. It is also worth highlighting that the true extent of the outflow has been masked by the lowering of the joining age to 12 (from around Sep 14 - the start of the school year - if I remember rightly).

I couldn't agree more that decisions that are known could (and should) be briefed to all VGS COs and their staff - without delay - before they are leaked. It is not difficult, and people could then at least see where the focus of Air Cadet gliding is as it moves forwards. As someone said in an earlier post some pages back: 'serve to lead'.

This whole sorry saga needs to hit the national press....

Back in 1967, the RAF managed to scramble 100 V-bombers airborne within 4 minutes - yet now it's taken YEARS to sort out a few cadet gliders....???

Sorry, make that NOT to sort out a few cadet gliders :uhoh:

Makes you sick.....:mad:

BEAGS

I suspect that there are many "journalists" watching this c...... f... very closely with pages of quotes taken from this thread.

They, like us, are waiting for some meaningful (not Twitter or Facebook stuff) information to be released before they let rip.

The Daily Mail's inexperienced hacks are just waiting to jump on this, especially after today's 75th anniversary celebrations of the formation of the Air Cadets.

Records ....... What records ?
 

It needs to be made crystal clear a lot of the technical records have GONE MISSING.

This leaves those recovering the aircraft in the position that a very detailed inspection of the airframe and technical records is required, this inspection takes just short of four weeks work for one man.

Then you have to get into fixing things.

My own thinking is that the technical education on GRP repair within the metalcentrc aircraft industry is very poor, my own education in GRP repair was based largely on what Boeing were putting out and AC43 ( published by the FAA ) and this had to be un-learned when I started getting involved with modern GRP repair. A quick look at the latest issue of AC43 shows no improvement of technical advice !

My guess is that the repair education of those working on the VGS fleet was a basic RAF composite repair course that was based on AC43 & Boeing practice for secondary structure, this would have left the workforce very poorly placed when faced with a repair scheme designed by Grob as they would have never seen anything like it on the basic GRP course.

With this background it is not surprising that damaged aircraft that were capable of being repaired were written off and poor repairs had been carried out. I did see a military technical investigation that misidentified the use of thickened resin as a fault...... Not a standard construction technique !

Even now the technical education requirement asked for by one of the contracting companies is to have attended the military GRP course, this is unlikely to cover any of the techniques for the type of repair needed on these gliders.

Despite what some above say about these aircraft being simple this is not the case when it comes to repair work, this is a highly skilled job and takes years to become highly proficient.

I can't help wondering if the technical records disappeared when a few people started to realise just how bad some of their work had been ( because of lack of education rather than incompetence ) or was it down to some manager parachuted in from another industry who wanted a bit of shelf space and failed to realise the importance of technical record keeping ?................ My money is as always on the cock up rather than the conspiracy as I don't think these people have the management skills to organise a conspiracy !

Our companies were some of the first in Canada to go to Carbon/Glass built aircraft, both myself and others took some pretty extensive courses on repair and maintenance of these structures before we took delivery of the aircraft,having said this we sent any major work to a company which was in this field repairing gliders since these materials first came into service, however, other operators failed to develop relevant skills and Transport Canada were, {and maybe still are}way behind, most inspectors knowing little or nothing about the subject, this caused us much grief when dealing with TC. We, in retirement have gone the other direction now, being involved in vintage wood/fabric aircraft and are finding that the skills needed to keep them safe is also in short supply today.Step one to solve the Cadet mess must involve setting high standards and training for those involved in maintaining/fixing these aircraft, without this being done nothing will change!

A and C

You seem to know an awful lot about this, vested interest perhaps?

Unless something sorts this out fairly quickly, with fewer cadets getting the chance to fly, we may end up with 75 Air Cadets in total.........

FREDA
 

I am unfortunately not in a position to make any money out of these contract as my qualifications are not for gliders but for powerd composite aircraft that have exactly the same GRP construction. My position in the industry has me working closely with some of those involved in the recovery project but on other projects.

My primary interest is to see air cadets flying, the cadet movement set me up for a successful career in aviation and I want to see today's youth get the same opportunities that I had, there are not a lot of organisations that provide the sort of character building activitys combined with so much fun and it pains me to see the flying removed from a whole generation of cadets because of the failure of the companies contracted to support the VGS fleet.

I got wind of trouble with the VGS support maybe six years back when the unserviceable gliders started building up due to union problems with the new GRP repair bay I never in my wildest nightmares imagined that it would come to this.

I am sure that when the dust settles on this unhappy situation there will be a doctorate in business management for anyone who writes a thesis about this disaster. I feel that only then will those who's shortcoming and greed that have presiptated this situation might realise their guilt, at the moment they are not bright enough to realise this and continue to think that they are doing a good job.

Frelon, I dedicated my entire monthly column in Pilot magazine to this embarrasing debacle many months ago. This is what I wrote;-
" Way back in the seventies,
Britain not only had a large
air force but it also had a
sizeable Air Training Corps,
That I (and, I suspect, many
Pilot readers) joined. I had a pretty good
time as an Air Cadet, flying T-21 Sedburgh
and T-31 Kirby Cadet gliders, DH Chipmunks
and once even rode in an RAF Comet 4C
from RAE Farnborough. I also liked
shooting — anybody else remember those
ancient .450 calibre falling-block Martini-
Henry rifles from the 1880s, which had
been converted to .22? — and even quite
liked drilling on the parade ground.
However, it was the getting airborne that
really interested me, and when flying
opportunities mysteriously dried up after a
couple of years I didn’t hang around to find
out why.
Nevertheless, most of my memories of
the ATC are positive, and if my sons,
William and George expressed an interest
in joining I always thought I’d encourage
them. Of course, the RAF is but a shadow
of what it was 1975, and the Hunters,
Harriers, Lightnings, Jaguars, Phantoms,
Buccaneers, Canberras, Victors and
Vulcans are long gone. The fighters and
bombers are now the Typhoon, Tornado
and er… that’s it. As the air force has
shrunk, I imagine that opportunities for
cadets to fly have also diminished — but
even so, I thought that in 2015 cadets still
had a reasonable chance of getting
airborne in something.
Consequently I could scarcely believe my
ears when an acquaintance who is in the
ATC revealed that not only were all their
Viking T1 sailplanes grounded on April 17th,
but even in late June very few were
airworthy. “What” I queried, somewhat
incredulously “you’re telling me that it’s
taken more than eight weeks to inspect
probably the best-maintained gliders in the
country?” “No,” he replied “they were all
grounded on April 17, 2014 — it’s already
taken more than fourteen months, and
most of the fleet is still U/S! And,” he
continued “it looks like they won’t all be
ready until 2017.”
If this were a laughing matter, I’d say
that my grob was smacked (see what I did there). I don’t know what the RAF found
that made it ground the entire fleet, but
what I do know is that the Viking is a
relatively simple, composite sailplane. The
undercarriage is fixed, and it doesn’t have
flaps or an engine. What can possibly be
taking two years? (It should be borne in
mind that the rest of the world refers to
the Viking T1 as the Grob G103A Twin Acro
II – and as far as I can tell, the Grob 103A
fleet is not grounded!
A little digging soon revealed that the
problem appears to lie not with the ATC, or
even the RAF, but with the Military Aviation
Authority, or MAA. For decades the
ultimate responsibility for the maintenance
of RAF aircraft lay with the Chief Engineer,
which was a ‘three-star post’ (Air Vice-
Marshal or above) in the Air Council. After
the post was abolished (as a cost-saving
exercise) the overall quality of maintenance
was bound to suffer, because there was no
longer one individual in overall charge.
Instead, the MAA was created, and
replaced the chain of professional
responsibility which had previously existed
with a hierarchy of regulations and
procedures largely drawn from commercial
aviation and airline practice. Interestingly,
there are parallels here to be drawn with
the banking system, for you may recall that
the banks also replaced their chain of
professional responsibility (previously
exercised by local
managers) with
computer based
algorithms,
administered from
central office. Well,
the banks failed —
and the RAF
suffered the quite
unnecessary loss of
a Nimrod MR2 over Afghanistan.
Sir Charles Haddon-Cave QC headed an
inquiry into the loss of Nimrod XV230,
and his conclusions were scathing. In
particular, he observed that ‘engineering
qualifications were less of a prerequisite
for many posts [than] hitherto might have
been the case because increasing amounts
of in-service support for aircraft came
from industry and ‘generalist’ business management and financial skills and MBAs
were required more as the Armed Forces
‘modernised’ post-SDR. ‘In my view,’ he
continued ‘this was a mistaken and
blinkered approach which failed to have
regard to the highly technical and
specialist nature of aviation and aeroengineering.
Heavier-than-air machines are
different. Keeping them flying safely is
technically very complicated. A safe system
requires skilled and qualified engineers at
all levels.’
Unfortunately, it now seems that
whenever the MAA is faced by any sort of
airworthiness issue, its stock response is to
ground the type in question, and then keep
it grounded as long as possible. While this
undeniably does enhance flight safety (if
you want a good flight safety record, the
best way is clearly to not do any flying) I
suspect it’s done considerable and possibly
irrevocable damage to the ATC.
It’s all a far cry from the RAF of yore.
During the World Gliding Championship at
RAF South Cerney in 1965, the Russians
arrived with new metal sailplanes —
KAI-14s, one of which crashed during a
field landing. The pilot, Oleg Suslov was
understandably dejected, but the two RAF
officers attached to the competition, Air
Cdr Cleaver and Sqd Ldr Robertson
arranged for the wrecked aircraft to be
taken to the RAF’s No71 Maintenance Unit
at Bicester, where a
team of volunteers
from the MU and
the RAFGSA set to
with a will. Can you
imagine Oleg’s
reaction when, less
than 48 hours later,
he was presented
with a completely
rebuilt KAI-14, allowing him to re-join the
competition. When asked why he was so
generous to Cold War enemies the MU’s CO
replied “when they get back home they will
give a most impressive account of our
capability to repair and return to service a
damaged aircraft — it was worth every
penny.” Would this be possible these days?
And why can’t the MAA return simple sailplanes to service?"

Composite repair
 

Without wishing to comment on the VGS situation specifically I'm curious about composite repair -

Surely the manufacturers of any Composite airframe publish a guide referencing how to go about it as the structure must contain many different layers and weaves etc.