If you are dealing with one glider then no, you can just get on with it, but dealing with over 70? There HAS to be a plan, and plans don't materialise out of thing air. I'm not saying the planning process didn't leave a lot of be desired but there undoubtedly has to be one so there equally undoubtedly has to be a process to create it.

Just spoke to my daughter, who left the ATC last year when she reached the age of 18 and was off to Uni. She only got the chance to fly once in four years (even though she became the unit's senior cadet before leaving and represented the ATC at sports). I told her about this news.

She just said: They should re-name the Air Cadets just ..."Cadets!"

Simulators?
 

In addition to the tragic losses inflicted on the organisation, as others have alluded to the introduction of the 'simulators' is an area which I strongly feel we should be concerned about.

Firstly, they were brought in under a cloud of suggestions that a certain (deliberately nameless) person within the organisation had very strong links with the sims' manufacturer. I couldn't possibly comment, but this does seem to be some sort of 'open secret'...

More importantly, the role which they now seem set to play is almost certain to create a dangerous and toxic situation for any aspiring pilot who comes in to contact with them. Until now, they have been referred to in official terms as 'Part-Task Trainers (PTTs)'; this presumably is so that nobody would make the mistake of thinking that these were anything other than a limited-value training aid. It appears now that given the text of the parliamentary update and internal briefing note these PTTs are set to become a key part of future VGS training.

Now first of all, it can't have slipped people's attention that the thousands of pounds of the Charitable Trust's money spent on Vigilant PTTs will have been completely wasted (even if you happen to be in the camp which believes these things were a good idea in the first place). No Cadets have been trained on Vigilants since their introduction; to my knowledge so far no instructors outside of CGS have been given the opportunity to regain instructional categories. Given the likely recovery timescales (to include bringing aircraft back to flying status, requalifying crew and finally bringing Squadrons back to operational status) it looks extremely doubtful that by the 2019 retirement date that much meaningful Cadet training will have been done on Vigilant aircraft. I suppose we can just add the charity money wasted by whoever made the procurement decision on to all the rest of the catastrophic financial decisions throughout this debacle.

In terms of the devices themselves, they leave an awful lot to be desired. In the interest of balance, it's perhaps important to say that I've not had the pleasure of the Viking PTT and therefore this relates to the Vigilant from somebody experienced on type and also experienced in instruction on other types (from light aircraft to turbine) including significant simulator training in various FSTDs/FNPTs/FFSs. I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of others and also some feedback from the Viking fraternity. The major failings are:

- These devices are wholly inappropriate to the task: Ab-initio visual flying training CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be taught in a synthetic training device (particularly a low-grade one) for a whole host of reasons; not least because this task requires mechanical sympathy, control feedback, full appreciation of aircraft trimming, full outside visual reference and a strong emphasis on LOOKOUT.

- They do not accurately depict the handling characteristics, attitudes or performance of the aircraft: For instance, far less power is required to maintain level flight than for the real aircraft, airbrake use produces far less effect than for real, control co-ordination required significantly off the mark, approximately half rudder deflection required to maintain balance in a 20-30 degree bank turn, no trim change with power application or speed change, trim lever totally ineffective (seems to be decorative), constant control force on all axes at all speeds.

Furthermore, the 'generic' handling characteristics mean that the PTT's behaviour as you move further from S+L flight becomes even less realistic. For instance, you can apply and hold full aft elevator, full rudder and full opposite aileron and you won't even see an incipient spin. Equally, it's possible to perform a fairly low-speed aileron roll at the end of the runway after take-off. A G109 will crash if you try that. Yes, I would agree that these devices are not intended as aerobatic trainers, however if a FSTD is to be used for structured flying training, it must not allow pilots to operate in such a way as would kill them in real life. This is a significant danger.

- Poor/nil replication of important controls: One possible way in which the device could have been put to use would be as an emergency procedures trainer. However, various important controls have been so poorly replicated as to have a negative training value. The feathering handle, for instance, which is used to cause significant drag reduction in case of power-unit failure, in the aircraft requires a firm pull of about 12 inches, before being rotated through 90 degrees. In the PTT, it only needs to be turned through 90 degrees, can be done with thumb and finger, and (incredibly) says 'DO NOT PULL' on it. The carburettor hot air control does not need to be rotated to unlock/lock, and moves out less than half the distance needed for fully hot in the aircraft. The airbrake lever, of which one of the main training points is that it has an over-centre lock and must be positively checked to be locked when not physically being used, is not fitted with any form of lock in the PTT. Not locking in the actual aircraft could result in a serious accident. I've witnessed an incredibly near miss, I'm sure I'm not the only one. I believe this was also the suspected cause of the crash at Henlow a few years ago which was a very lucky escape.

These are just a sample of the device's shortcomings, however the possible consequences of training low-time students with such fundemental elements lacking could be catastrophic. As yet, I believe a sim training programme has not yet been implemented (although I understand one exists), however I personally am not prepared to partake in any such training as I believe it to be not only of poor value, but also dangerous. I would encourage other VGS personnel to think carefully before becoming involved in this, and if you feel strongly enough to report it through the normal safety reporting channels.

Safe flying,
A38

With regard to the redundant Vigilants flooding out onto the civil market, I'm not so sure. When faced with a similar situation several years ago, the USAF destroyed its complete fleet of plastic Fireflies rather then let them onto the civil market where people actually knew how to fly them.

The furore over this current Air Cadet situation might just prompt the 'powers that be' to do the same so that any flaw in their thinking about the condition of the aircraft might not be exposed.

Nice piece Airbus38 :ok:

But with the greatest respect to the Minister, Julian Brazier (MP for Canterbury and Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Ministry of Defence), I doubt he has sufficient detailed knowledge and/or aeronautical experience (even as a former Shadow Transport Minister responsible for Aviation & Shipping) to have been able to have offered any robust technical 'challenge' to what he was apparently 'briefed' on (which I'm sure will have covered the proposed use of Vigilant PTT's), when visiting RAF Kirknewton recently.

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/...psziqgrhdu.jpg

Image Credit : MOD (I appreciate the above is a Viking Sim)

Minister Visits RAF Kirknewton

NB. Mr Brazier joined the Territorial Army aged 19 in 1972 and served for 13 years, five of which were with 21 SAS(R). He was awarded the Territorial Decoration in 1993.

So much for the increase in defence spending when the very bedrock that sustains future RAF recruitment is decimated this way.
AEF flying taught this wee boy from the 60 's slums to look up....

Hard faced descision..but a descision to save money.
 

It's not and never will be in the Conservative Party's DNA to give deprived kids a pull up. They'd rather send them up an industrial chimney with a brush if it could raise some money, or save some money to keep GB PLC on the road..
SOS for Defence was moaning on ages ago about the amount of MOD golf courses and all the rest of it, several years ago as I recall - so this is part of the slashing of cash/end of a fringe benefit that is deemed not useful.


BTW - How many of you leapt on the outrage bus when the council house bedroom tax kicked in? That gained a few quid as well. Shafted a lot of decent people mind....but only council houses dwellers and who cares about them?
Its salami slicing of cost to the taxpayer/treasury and you/we/us plebs had better get used to it.

Part Task Trainers
 

Does anyone have any idea how much the 'procedure trainers' cost the purchasers !!!

Need to ramp up the info to the press now,whilst they are interested.

Most of us on the sqns have heard the figure £25k apiece thrown around, Pobjoy.

No idea if this is pukka gen though.

And they ARE pants as a training aid and the CGS instructors will invariably tell you as much over a quiet beer. No more useful than the tried and tested cardboard bomber for touch drills.

£625k for 25 simulators according to this:

?Del Boy? Marks Trust?s £1 Million Moment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quZ7Ha5c2C8

Glad Rag ...

You are so right ... Decimation is the most apt description ... :(

Put aside for one moment airframe type and numbers that were available under the previous VGS Organisation, the proposed new VGS 'footprint' seems ridiculous (also see previous posts above on site locations/lack of representation).

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/...psecimnkut.jpg

Image Credit : Save The VGS FBook

Coff

For completeness the extra AEFs at the following locations will come into play from 2017. I know they don't provide the same capability (ie. Solo flight) but it does paper a bit over the cracks...

http://www.raf.mod.uk/universityairs...ges/uasmap.jpg

Best

LJ

Cheers Leon :ok:

I'm not familiar with MAA docs ... I've had a quick look (and still looking) ... But does the MAA 'mandate' min requirements for 'synthetic' training environments ? What involvement would 22 Group have ?

Ahh ... Found something !

MAA : RA 2375 - Approval and Use of Flight Simulator Training Devices

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...180/RA2375.pdf

But I don't see a formal definition of what a PTT is/should be ?

Does anyone know what level of formal 'approval' these PTT's (Viking/Vigilant) have/will have ?

AEF in NI by 2017 ? I think add 2-3 years on that, IF it happens !

Realistic AEF Operation
 

Have i missed something or has the AEF system been short of Pilots for years.

Thinking back 'many' years to when i was a Cadet i recall we missed an awful lot of 'allocations' due weather and other issues to the point that i never missed something that never seemed to happen.

Cue; hot footing across to 615 to 'help' and actually get airborne,and it was a much better experience as we were 'hands on' with the equipment and then was sat in an aeronautical orange crate and had a amazing 'launch' which i still remember;elbows out in the breeze and an uncluttered view,whilst wearing normal uniform 'sans beret'.

YOU Cretons at HQ ATC and MOD have destroyed something that any Cadet could experience and develop with the system if keen enough. B........s to your Part Task Trainers,Cascading,Face Book,and all that C...p.You are clueless and have no idea of Leadership or leading by example.You have lied to the Cadets,and staff plus treated them with contempt and disdain.You are a disgrace to the organisation that did so much for the ordinary youth,and also to those who provided so much encouragement and real leadership in the Corps developing decades. I am so sorry that the Squadrons that took on the fine traditions and adapted to new equipment have been so appallingly treated to the point of near treachery by the very people that should have been backing them up.In this 75th year let us remember the Squadrons never failed they were failed by those up top.

Signed, as an ex 633 and 632 stude.

The ATC had no real bearing on my career trajectory - that was set long before I was old enough to join, however, the wealth of knowledge I gained at those two units, on my squadron (2415) and as a staff cadet at 8 AEF, along with the people I kept company with across the age and rank structure positively affected my life then and now - I had an edge all the way though University, and in to my career as a structures engineer in aerospace, specifically because of what I had been exposed to as a cadet, all that stuff you can never learn in books.

I've watched this thread quite closely, and its been a sad time in the history of the Air Training Corps for a whole raft of reasons.

Airbus 38 wrote:

Absolutely. A PTT is only of use for procedure training and should never be used for ab initio visual flight training.

Presumably a Training Needs Analysis was conducted before this grant was made? Or was this yet another case of "Don't bother me with facts"?...:rolleyes:

Absolutely right ... Shame, therefore, that the Air Cadet Commandant doesn't seem to appreciate the very important difference :ugh:

I'm 'playing' the issue under debate not the 'personality' ... Skip to 5:00 for reference to PTT's for "Basic Flying Training" and "Simulated Air Experience" (whatever the latter means ?).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4zJe0WBca4

Like Coffman, I play the facts, not the person. But this was uploaded 3 years ago to YouTube and it shows OC2FTS' "personal" views, when he was a Regional Commandant, on the use of technology and 'quality over quantity'. This would chime with my previous conspiracy theory that today's position has been a long time coming:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjn8lRO3tsM

I don't share the same horrror about using a low-grade flight sim as some on here if it is used for what it is. However at £25k a go, I don't think that is value for money - certainly not 'quality over quantity' in my personal opinion. Three simulators could buy a new glider/motorglider, for instance.

Whilst I don't think that the VGS decision will get reversed, I hope that it will be relooked at (independent review) and a better plan is developed for say 4 years time - they could aim at the planned loss of the Vigilant in 2019. Phoenixes can rise from the ashes if given a chance and the time is now to get some money put aside in future years to pay for this - maybe a partnership with Service Charities is a good thing?

The review I propose must be independent as there appears to be too much personal influence running through the decisions taken of late. A fresh set of eyes to a problem that has dragged for a number of years is normally a good thing!

iRaven

Message from Honorary President of 2 FTS
 

"You will be aware of the recent decisions on the future of Air Cadet Gliding, which will see the demise of most of the Vigilant fleet, leaving only circa 15 for the next few years, and a significant reduction in gliding locations. There is no way I can dress all this up as good news. However, much media coverage has been ill-informed, mischievous and selective with the facts. As your President, and also Hon President of 2 FTS, I wanted to give you all my view of the background, the decisions and the future.

In terms of my own role in all this, you will be aware that I could exert influence, but the final decisions were taken by the senior executive of the RAF, taking into account affordability, the needs of the ACO and a vision of the future. It was especially necessary to consider the cost-effectiveness of a lengthy recovery programme for the Vigilant fleet, alongside the requirement to re-engine the motor gliders in the 2020 timeframe.

I have briefed you before on the reasons behind the current grounding of the VGS fleet, which is now approaching two years. In essence, the root causes were a stiffening of flight safety regulations post the scathing Nimrod accident review by Haddon-Cave QC, and the subsequent discovery of significant shortcomings in engineering governance in the VGS fleet. With cadet safety paramount, especially after the tragic Tutor accidents of recent years, I believe the ACO authorities had no choice but to initiate the pause to flying.

There has been understandable criticism of how the decisions were announced. However, government rules emphatically prohibit any advanced notice of sensitive decisions until Ministers have made formal announcements. Informal briefings invariably leak, with consequent embarrassment. Moreover, there have been extensive discussions and consultations between senior officers and the VGS community; I attended on several occasions. Of course, in the end a decision was taken at Air Force Board level, but no one can fairly claim that they were in the dark on the dire state of the fleet, the costs involved to mount a full recovery, and the difficult decisions which had to be made. I might add that the Commandant Air Cadets personally wrote to all members of the ACO as soon as protocol allowed, with a full explanation, expression of deep regret, especially for those displaced instructors, and a clear message about future aviation opportunities. In addition, John Middleton will visit every affected VGS; he has been to 10 already.

On the plans themselves, whilst there will be far fewer gliding locations,there will be more fully refurbished Vikings at more sites, new high speed winches are being procured, the training package will be better and will include excellent STE, and the remaining centres of excellence will boast vastly improved infrastructure, including bespoke accommodation. Indeed, with a rationalised fleet of purely conventional gliders, I would argue that the true gliding experience should be enhanced. Taken alongside significantly increased powered air experience flying (AEF), with plans for two more Flights, using aircraft currently in reserve, the ACO has no reason to fear that flying opportunities are under threat. The 'Air' element will remain at the heart of the Organisation.

Of course, much of the VGS package represents bad news, notably for so many dedicated instructors; my heart goes out to them. However, some will be able to convert to AEF on the Tutor; others will be offered a crossover to the Viking. Sadly, many will not be able to continue serving the ACO, and their feelings of being let down are entirely understandable.

So, very challenging days for the VGS community, ourselves included, but in the end the decisions are logical, were as well managed as protocol allows, and we must now move forward. I will do my best to ensure that current plans are progressed as quickly as possible, that appropriate deals are made available to the Vigilant instructors, and that you are all kept informed of progress. In the future, I will be looking with John Middleton at ways of increasing conventional gliding opportunities, especially as the remaining Vigilants are phased out. Clear possibilities include RAFGSA, Civilian Clubs for bespoke scholarship courses, and perhaps the addition of another glider type to the current Viking fleet. Your views at Linton will be much appreciated. I shall be wearing my flack jacket!

Warm Regards
Chris

Sir Christopher Coville

President FOGIES

Hon President 2 FTS
Supplementary Notes:

- The decisions on future Air Cadet gliding were taken in the best interests of cadet flying opportunities, not to make savings.
- The motor glider sorties are largely being replaced by more capable, interesting and varied Tutor sorties, which unlike the Vigilant can include aerobatics.
- Conventional Viking gliding opportunities will increase threefold, as a result of fleet size enhancement and acquisition of additional modern winches.
- Number of flying sites (AEF and VGS) remains about the same.
- Number of flying opportunities largely unaffected, but could actually increase as new winches, increased Viking numbers and additional AEF role out.
- New, modern simulators will add value to airborne time.
- The whole training package is being improved, along with far better infrastructure.
- The final distribution of gliders and AEF will maximise flying opportunities for cadets, taking into account travel distances and regional needs.
- When recovery is complete, the UK ACO will have the largest youth flying enterprise in the world, and the largest single fleet of conventional gliders in any similar organisation."

The final supplementary note may be true; but the fleet will be far smaller than it was. :(

iRaven



I have not posted on this thread for some time,surely there cannot be many people now who believe this was just an airworthiness issue - I am not a 'conspiracy theorist' at heart but I believe this situation has been handled in at best an amateur way by the brass and at worst in a very devious way by the brass .
I certainly do not blame one man but I would still question who and why gave him that particular job at such a crucial time,his 'personality' is well known in the RAF - especially since he was overage for the post anyway.
The Haddon Cave report was a long time ago and it cannot really be blamed for something that was 'found' only 2 years ago,I have seen many machinations in my aviation career and this one is up there with the best (worst) of them :rolleyes:

When I first read this I thought it was not going to do exactly that. Then I read the supplementary notes and saw 'window dressing' yet again. I wonder if the supplementary notes were from Sir Chris?

On the messaging of VGS OCs and Stn Cdrs about the decision. This is a modern age, and so as soon as the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) came out around 1230hrs on 10 Mar 16, then all OCs should have been texted and emailled a link ASAP; better to find out this way from an official source rather than Facebook and text message notes of condolence. The previous 2 videos keep talking about 'use of technology' in the Air Cadets - then use it! Writing letters to Stn Cdrs dated 1 day after the announcement and speaking to the staff 3 hours after the announcement is very bad form in my humble opinion. I believe it could have been done so much better:

1. Text link of Ministerial Statement to all VGS OCs with a note stating "HQ 2FTS will call you as soon as we can".
2. Follow up call needs to be brief - "Hello Sqn Ldr X, I'm dreadfully sorry to tell you....etc...I have 13 other Sqn Cdrs to call right now, but I wanted you all to know at the very earliest opportunity. I must go but one of my staff will call you straight back with further details."
3. The follow up staff probably won't know much more than the VGS OC but at least they have someone to chat with and start to help sort out the jumbled, and sometimes irrational, thoughts that a Sqn disbandment announcement can bring.

Why would this have been so very difficult? Many knew for weeks that an announcement was expected and so putting a plan in place like the one above was quite simple. Defence WMS normally come out on a Thursday and so you could even plan the right day of the week!!!

CPL Clott

PS. "Clear possibilities include RAFGSA, Civilian Clubs for bespoke scholarship courses, and perhaps the addition of another glider type to the current Viking fleet" - Hallelujah, Sir Chris :D:D:D

Sir Christopher Coville (c/o ATFQ) :-
The root cause was the deliberate and malevolent actions of a few RAF VSO's in the late 80's and early 90's. They sabotaged UK Military Air Safety for short term financial gain (to compensate for the incompetent policies of AMSO), subverting Military Airworthiness by ordering subordinates to suborn the regulations but to sign them off as complied with anyway or face disciplinary action. Pretty soon there were no experienced engineers left who knew the regulations, let alone were prepared to enforce them against such pressures. They were replaced by inexperienced untrained non-engineers who would do as they were told. The regulations themselves were scrapped so that they could not be quoted. The Airworthiness of all UK military aircraft and systems thus took a hit from which it has never recovered. All of this was covered up by subsequent serving VSOs, the MOD, Haddon-Cave, and Lord Phillip, and was only exposed in the long running campaign in this forum to reverse the infamous finding of the Mull of Kintyre BoI ROs, Messrs Wratten and Day.

It is thus not only the Air Cadets that have fallen foul of that sabotage but UK Military Aviation as a whole, particularly the Royal Air Force. The only way to start the 1000 mile march to reinstate UK Military Airworthiness provision and maintenance is to make the MAA and the MilAAIB independent of the MOD and of each other, and time is of the essence...

LJ - not sure if I'm missing something on your map of AEFs. The map shows roughly where their associated UASs may be, but not AEFs; thats unless they plan to move the Tutor fleet around again.

For example, CUAS is in Cambridge and LUAS in London, but both flying from RAF Wittering; home of 5 AEF. Same with EMUAS, based in Nottingham, but flies from Cranwell; home of 7 AEF.

RB

Sorry it was an old map. However, I understand there will be a 13 AEF and a 14 AEF stood up. One of which is supposedly expected in Northern Ireland to replace the Newtonards VGS. Looking at the other AEF location, it surely must go to Wales?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think AEF is a good replacement for VGS gliding. But then again I don't think motorgliders are good for keeping the Cadets amused all day either - conventional gliding is the best by far in my opinion. :ok:

LJ

Conspiracy Theory!!!
 

Thanks to iRaven for posting this earlier.

At the time of this report (Dec 2012) there were 27 VGS establishments with 146 aircraft (65 Vigilants and 81 Vikings)

How is it possible for the paperwork on 146 airframes to go missing? One or two perhaps under very special circumstances, but 146!! Knowing how these things should work (even with a contractor working for MoD) someone must have asked someone for permission to destroy (what would have been a mountain) of this very valuable paperwork. Someone put a signature to a document allowing this to happen, but surely they will have ensured that there was a copy or at least the info should have been transferred to digital media?? Perhaps things have changed since I was involved with Air Cadet gliding some 40 years ago, but even then the paperwork required was becoming unbearable.

The more I think about it and having re-read iRaven's document the more I agree with many of the posters that this was a plan put in place long before the "pause". Losing the paperwork was just an excuse to sit on hands doing nothing and have yet another review of Air Cadet gliding.

Perhaps we could invite Haddon-Cave to investigate and uncover who was responsible for authorising the destruction of the paperwork leading to this debacle.

Yes, conspiracy does spring to mind:ugh:

Freda Checks
 

I'll redirect you to my post #1837.

Direct fron the RA
Maintenance records should be retained until the work it records has been
invalidated by documented work carried out subsequently (for example, Scheduled
Base Maintenance (SBM), Major maintenance, or equivalent); RA4311 and MAP-01
Chapter 7.6 provides further regulation and guidance in this respect.

No where does it say keep until the world ends

What documentation exists?
 

So there must be some documentation then??

The obvious solution was really for the system to repair the Vikings and replace the Vigilants with another Motorglider. Possibly the Ximango.............

While that was going on, place a long term order for Viking replacement.

Problem solved..............

Arc

WRT to JM I have not met the man, I don't know him from Adam, but the 'Interview' on You Tube (URL higher up this thread) left me feeling that he was a 'Cold Fish', with no personality and an inability to connect with his audience, as well as appearing to have no sincerity at all..............on that basis totally the correct man for this job.<<Politician>>

Freda Checks
 

With regards to your statement/statements. I'll repeat myself.


Maintenance records should be retained until the work it records has been
invalidated by documented work carried out subsequently (for example, Scheduled
Base Maintenance (SBM), Major maintenance, or equivalent); RA4311 and MAP-01
Chapter 7.6 provides further regulation and guidance in this respect.



i dont think that anyone,(well apart from the biggest buffon) thinks that ALL the paperwork for specific aircraft is AWOL

Further to my even earlier post, on the Viking at my VGS (with a 3 year interval between majors) with a current major , there would be no requirement to hold any MWO past that 36 month timescale, for minor repetive tasks, that duration can be as short as 28 days. MAA rules.

Did it ever exist in an acceptable format and level of detail?

That's probably the key [my bold]

Your quote is correct for Cat B paperwork but Cat A is required to be kept for 5 years after an aircraft is taken out of service. If its the Cat A paperwork that has gone missing there needs to be questions asked. If it hasn't, the argument for the loss of airworthiness loses some of its strength.

Since when did a Flying Training School need an Honorary President? It's supposed to be a operational organisation for f***s sake, not some sort of Service club that needs a long retired VSO as a figurehead.

But if it is to have a President I can think of none better than CCCC. He has experience of volunteers as President of RAFA Europe, and of the ACO as an AEF pilot. He is also a current glider pilot. He seems, IMHO anyway, to tick all the boxes.

Absolutely agree Wander00. CCCC ( 4 x Cs surely?) is indeed a top bloke under whom I have served with pleasure - IIRC - three times.

Shame he's an Evertonian really ............. (only joking Sir!)

I have nothing but respect for CCC

I liked his post. He's the first VSO to declare his hand and involvement.

The only thing I can say is that I'd rather he had spoken to people at the VGS's than the the Ivory Tower people at 2FTS and HQAC they would have got a more balanced view (if they had wanted it of course............) and some more options.............

I think he is right in his assumptions and I do feel that it's unlikely we will see a reverse of the decision now. However 'it's not over until it's over' and you never know what is around the corner. My thoughts are that unfortunately ACO Gliding (like most other 'facilities') would be incredibly expensive to restart once it's decommissioned (model holds good for a range of industries - shipbuilding, coal, steel, aerospace etc) as the capital required just isn't there, and UK Plc wants everything 'now' rather than thinking about '5 years time'. 6 months after this announcement there will be no 'seedcorn' to plant from.......................

'I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith'

Arc

Oh LJ, you fell for it and applied logic!

I'm reliably informed that the current candidate for the other new AEF is at Odiham.

The Vigilant never was great for hands on but it was a more productive machine for the input, even when the hourly costings (£ 250?!) were applied with all the costs of the 'professionals'... who led us to this mess.

To me the most important product of the VGS system is (was) the ability to send kids solo. No matter how this is dressed up there will be less solo even with the new system at full capacity (unless the VGSs start flying full time!).

Air experience at all levels before that point was (is) pretty unengaging and poorly structured so I welcome some of the new ideas that have emerged from the debacle. The quality of the synthetics is questionable but as part of a broader package may well retain interest.

A single fleet is flawed. But then if there are going to be two conventional types why not return to the 'old' system?