The Canadian Air Cadet glider program not only sends Air Cadets solo but every year 230 to 250 air cadets get Transport Canada (ie the Canadian equivalent to the CAA) issued glider pilot licenses after completing the Air Cadet glider training program.

Suitably proficient Air Cadet Glider pilots have the opportunity to fly other younger cadets on glider experience flights.

I think the key elements of this record of success are as follows.

1) The gliders and tow planes are owned by the Air Cadet organization and are civilian registered and operated under civil gliding regulations.

2) All of the flying qualifications including those of the instructors are civilian licenses

3) No flash glass ship flash, just the simple all metal just about un-bustable SW 2-33, is the only type operated. It's extremely benign flying characteristics make it the perfect first glider for new young pilot.

4) Air Force direct involvement is mostly on operational flight safety matters and providing a relatively stable core funding stream to the Air Cadet organization.

The Canadian Air Cadet program has its problems too but after watching the slow motion Shyte Show that is the present and future UK Air Cadet flying program it seems a shame that the flying "pause" was not used to transform the program to a civilian based operation which has been so successful else where........

Hon President 2FTS 'IMPARTIAL' !!!!
 

Whilst not wishing to dispute the Hon Pres 2 FTS motives in 'pouring oil' on very turbulent waters the fact that he holds that post means in practice he is part of the system,and therefore not an impartial observer of the debacle.
I wonder how much contact he has had with a broad section of VGS operators,or indeed the 'actual actions' of Cmmt 2FTS.
He makes the same comments re AEF Accidents yet fails to also mention these were not airworthiness issues or involved volunteer staff.
He also 'plays up' the AEF factor when in fact there is no evidence that it in any way replaces the loss of Cadet Solo training,and as for aerobatics; well the T21's on Cadet flights were doing that over 4 decades ago.
The main crux though is no one is seemingly responsible for the complete failure of the tech back up that was the ultimate responsibility of the RAF.
There is no suggestion that any 'posts' are going to change in the ATC organisation that has so badly lost its capable leadership on the flying side.
However from my viewpoint it is the total lack of flying and tech respect shown to the Squadrons that leads me to the conclusion that the 'system' (who have been shown wanting) are in complete denial about their failure to deliver that part of the operation that they alone were responsible for.
As alluded to before if there are no changes at the top then nothing will change as the Titanic mentality is alive and well and they hope if they trot out the same old hype people will believe it.
Just calling an operation 2FTS does not confer any relationship to that organisation with a previous regime of flying training that held that name.And by the way no one 'hides' behind call signs it is normal practice for a forum,which in this case that has exposed the failures in a system we all revered and think it deserves better.

VGS
 

I am not an old VSO; my last rank was Fg Off, and I am more proud of my flying and command experience than anything else!
The reason I am an Hon President of 2 FTS is out of respect for the Hon President of Air Cadet Gliding, Bill Walker, who is terminally ill. I am, if you like, replicating his job without upsetting his family by assuming his title.
I have indeed visited several VGS, and do not frequent the MOD. I fly with many VGS pilots in a civilian capacity.
I believe in telling it as it is. The problems of the glider fleet go back many years, predate most in command appointments, many of whom have been working their socks off to try and solve this problem.
My priorities:
- The Cadets
- Getting the very best deal for the great volunteer instructors who will lose their Vigilant slots.
- Recovering the Vikings.
- Pressing for delivery of the full infrastructure piece.
- Looking at how best to recover capability, especially once the remaining Vigilants leave service; this means dedication from us all, leadership and investment. None is impossible if we all pull together.

I am a non-exec, but in my last remaining active years will dedicate myself to the ACO and VGS.

Anyone have any trouble with this; let us hear what you have to say, and don't hide behind screen names!

Venture Adventure!

Chris Coville

(Yes, I am indeed an Evertonian; perhaps the only one to have risen above the rank of Cpl!)

As an Air Cadet in the 1960s I flew in quite a few aircraft types but, to be fair, the RAF then had a huge number of RAF Stations and many aircraft types. Of the four annual camps that I attended, only the one unit was a none flying station; albeit that it did have a Chipmunk AEF. The RAF of today is a much smaller organisation and that their operational commitments are of a much higher order of magnitude. Is it therefore not understandable that the opportunity to fly Air Cadets, with air experience flying, is increasingly problematic?


On the subject of gliding courses, I did achieve my ATC A&B gliding certificate at RAF Hemswell. I was one of the lucky ones to be invited to return and, perhaps, become a staff cadet to assist with gliding operations for other cadets. I would "hitch-hike" from Sheffield to RAF Hemswell, every weekend, in the hope that my efforts would be rewarded by just the one flight before "hitch hiking" all the way back home and readying myself for school the next morning. I would surmise, in retrospect, that only a handful of cadets were ever selected to gain the opportunity to, perhaps, continue to fly beyond their A&B certificates. Given the huge numbers involved in giving (todays) cadets the opportunity to fly, are we perhaps kidding ourselves that we can do all of this on a shoestring budget and with fewer opportunities of RAF airframe availability?


Within a much earlier post (within this thread) I had suggested that, during the pause to flying, that cadets should, perhaps, be given a good grounding within the art of pilot navigation. The response, at that time, was met with much derision of, and I quote, "Most cadets don't have the mental capacity to wish to engage within the suggested mental arithmetic to remain interested in flying"!


I would therefore suggest that, for many (cadets), the futuristic belief that they might become fighter pilots isn't achievable! However, the fact that they might become more aviation orientated by experiencing free flight in a glider, could well become the catalyst for them to join the RAF in some other form of aviation related employment.


The "bottom line" in all of this "return to flight" saga is, what is the worth of Air Cadet Gliding upon the recruitment of cadets into the RAF?


To all of those folk who might wonder, or object, to the Haddon-Cave report. Yes, it has taken some significant time to filter down to Air Cadet gliding operations but, the MAA has had to consider, firstly, front line operations above all others. Like it or not, the MAA has a job to do and that it was wholly appropriate for the DH to pause flying operations. Everyone has been focussing on the word "pause"... it was initially meant to be a "pause", though, the enormity of the findings has gone well beyond what was initially thought to be something of a hiccup.


Air Cadet gliding has entered a new era of military aviation management and airworthiness requirements, which is the alignment of Air Cadet gliding operations to that of every other aircraft platform operated, and managed, by the military.


The pre-emptive strike that has been previously alluded to, by the release of the 2012 document, I believe, was a well written document and that each and every consideration was taken into account when considering the effects of the suggested closure of each VGS. Whilst that the report might not be well received by everyone, it does address the facts that were known at that time... it was a balanced report.


Where to go from here... deliver the capabilities as they are known today and for the foreseeable future. I believe that the report delivered the correct answers.


TCF

To c4aero;

Sir, welcome to pprune. We all fly, and most of us got our eyes opened to the fantastic world of aviation via the ATC.

The emotion on this fairly epic thread stems from one reason - the life-changing opportunities that we all experienced have been denied to current and future Air Cadets. To add to this, the dedication and passion of adult volunteers has been flushed down the toilet, after decades of loyal service.

To add insult to injury, all this has come about due to internal MoD politics, incompetence and arrogance.

There are many good air-minded people within the system, but they have been overridden by all kinds of vested interests, to the point where a young person has to choose between learning to glide or joning the ATC. Naturally, finances will dictate that decision for many.

Again, with respect, many posters on here will remain behind screen names. MoD can be fairly vindictive and ruthless as far as its self-image goes. We are loyal to the original aims of the ATC, and are heartbroken to see where the movement currently is.

Again, welcome to pprune, from a fellow bluenose.

TCF

The trouble is TCF - it appears that under cover of invoking the 'safety case' the brass have taken the opportunity to decimate the Gliding Units.
My view is that instead of being upfront about wholesale cuts to the ACO gliding system 'The Brass' have used the 'Pause' in a very devious way to chop out the Units they want to get rid of.
As I have said previously surely not many people now are naïve enough to believe this whole sorry saga has not been a devious way of making defence cuts !

VGS
 

Thanks, Subsunk.
OK, but we will have to disagree on some issues here.
We have a choice: whinge, rent our garments, cry 'it's them up there again', or get stuck into the challenge of returning aviation in full to the ACO.
I'm going for the latter option,
Chris C

Sir Chris

Thank you for coming forward. I am enthused with your notion of using Service air sports clubs to help provide flying. I am also pleased to hear that another type may be considered (ASK21s? We could call it the Vanguard! :ok:).

The infrastructure piece makes me whince a little. The chosen bases for the new look VGS seems odd:

1. Syerston. Apart from a spangly new maintenance area the rest of the Station is falling to bits. The runway also needs a resurface and the nearest RAF accomodation is Cranwell some 45 minutes away.
2. Little Rissington. In the winter it is normally in cloud and also needs a small fortune spending on it.
3. Kenley. Stuck under the London TMA on Common Land with access-right issues. No proper accommodation and a long way from any RAF support.
4. Predannack. Another airfield which has seen its best. Yes, it gets support from nearby Culdrose, but that's it. Not a RAF facility.
5. Wethersfield. Now a MoD Police facility and therefore outwith support of the RAF.
6. Ternhill. Away from mainstream RAF and relies on the Army's support.
7. Woodvale. Away from mainstream RAF support.
8. Topcliffe. Away from RAF mainstream and relies on the Army.
9. Kirknewton. Possibly the oddest of the lot. Normally a quagmire most of the year round. Not supported by mainstream RAF.
10. Hullavington replacement - Merryfield. Another ghost town with little infrastructure to support.

So why keep these and pull out of RAF main stations like RAF Cosford, St Athan, Henlow, Linton, Halton, Honington and Odiham? Also, the possibly better supported RMB Chivenor and Arbroath, plus Abingdon? I know some of these might be part of a DIO plan for disposal in the long term, but quite a few aren't. The infra bill at the VGS sites are going to be huge - money that could be spent on gliders!!! Also the infra receipts for these VGS-only places could be huge - real estate inside the M25 or the Cotswolds!

It's just one of a series of more and more baffling infra decisions in recent years accross defence. We'll shut Cosford to go to St Athan, then its we're all going to Lyneham, then its we'll stay at Cosford. Let's move all training into Shrivenham, hold on, it's too full. Let's put everything into Brize, oh hang on, it doesn't quite fit. Let's shut Leuchars but keep it open as a weather diversion. Merge PTC with STC then decide it doesn't fit at High Wycombe - rusticate some parts to Halton. Let's sell Halton for peanuts and then have to find a shed load of extra cash (hundreds of millions) to put recruit training at Cranwell. Having purpose built the Centre of Av Med at Henlow a few years back then let's move it to Cranwell. Then Cranwell is full with legacy flying training and MFTS planning to run alongside each other and the rest of RAF Lincolnshire living in their married quarters.

The infrastructure for the VGS is just as baffling as it is for the rest of us, so I guess I shouldn't be so surprised! I wonder if we need some operators in DIO instead of blotter-jotters that tend take these slots! :E

Excuse me for hiding behind my nome de plume but I doubt OC Admin Wg (or Base Support, or whatever) will like my last comment!

Anyway, thanks again for coming forward to the debate. :ok:

CPL Clott

PS. i'm sure some incumbents from the remaining VGS sites will say everything is rosy at their locations and a nice new shiney hangar and accomodation block is all they need!

PPS. Having just read your latest post, I agree, getting behind the wheel to get Cadets flying is the primary aim. But I think we should also challenge this decision in the mean time as well to see if there are further efficiencies/advantages to be had.

Basing comparison
 

just for information, a probable basing strategy for VGS/AEF (Based on a recent town hall meeting with OC 2FTS) compared with the 2014 laydown. I no longer have a horse in this race, but all the best to the VGS folks who are suddenly surplus!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wrj8qe2442...rison.png?dl=1

Already happening:
- 621 moving to Merryfield from Hullavington
- 13 AEF stood up at Aldergrove (# not confirmed, but co-located with Northern Ireland UAS)

Unconfirmed but probable (mentioned by OC 2FTS):
- UAS/AEF to move into Exeter Airport (BUAS seems the only real candidate, as Colerne probably won't have much hope in the Defence Estate Review and no one else is close - shown here as 3 AEF)
- UAS/AEF to move into Odiham (potentially someone moving in (London UAS?) or the second new AEF Squadron (shown here as 14 AEF))

The above is guesswork on my part (the map shows that option) - OUAS could move from Benson to Odiham and the new AEF could stand up at Exeter, .: BUAS would either stay or move somewhere else more local. Until the Defence Estates reports in the summer it's all conjecture.

2FTS didn't mention the northern Squadrons but Linton is probably a likely candidate to be closed, and potentially Leeming as well. No idea where current sqns likely to move to.

I stand ready to be proved wrong almost immediately.

Challenges
 

Quote:- Get stuck into the challenge of returning aviation in full to the ACO

Oh yes, and where are the dedicated, experienced, proven volunteers,going to come from,and more to the point where is the Leadership that can LEAD.
This is not about personalities it is about hard facts; one of which is the ability of sound judgement and knowing the job.In any other sector (especially those using volunteers) you take staff with you and encourage involvement; a factor totally devoid in the current 'management' of Cadet Gliding.

c4aero, thanks for coming on here and also for a certain epic 'Boulmer Sector Conference Dinner' at RAF Leeming rather a few years ago...!! Which cost us rather a lot thanks to the destructive ways of a few Lightning mates....

I'm intrigued by the use of Merryfield. I first knew it as RAF Merryfield in my (actual) childhood, when it housed a busy Vampire AFS and also some Canberras when Bassingbourn was being resurfaced. Westlands worked on Wyverns and F-86 as well as other aircraft and then came the RN squadrons once the AFS closed, as Yeovilton was being extended for the Sea Vixen. Lots of flying to keep a small boy interested as we lived on the approach.

When the RN moved out, most of the infrastructure went into 'care and maintenance'. But not much of either, really. Local 'travellers' helped themselves to all the wiring, drain covers, window frames and all other metal items, so after the hangars and old control tower were pulled down, there was little left. We kept 3000 pigs in the old domestic site and Officers' Mess (which probably improved the tone) and the old Westlands site became a formal gypsy site. RAFGSA came on an exped and lived in tents and the remains of the old ATC tower - and sent me solo in a T21.

In later decades when the station re-opened for RN helicopter work, everything other than the small air traffic enclave was levelled - there is NOTHING in the way of any other permanent buildings or safe storage for winches and gliders now. Also there are some very vocal noise moaners living nearby; oddly enough they didn't seem quite so concerned about the Vampires and later Sea Venoms, Sea Hawks and Gannets. So while those in charge of Merryfield would no doubt be content for ACO gliding, there will be a considerable cost in infrastructural terms...

I do hope that at least that part of the new ACO strategy goes ahead though.

Oh and Merryfield isn't 'near Exeter' - it's about 40 miles from there. Try Taunton?

Questions for Sir Christopher
 

Sir Christopher,

Having had sight of the FOGIES note I think that I and some others would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the following extracts/points - through one route or another - if you are able to offer them:

'The motor glider sorties are largely being replaced by more capable, interesting and varied Tutor sorties'; will it be possible for the AEFs to provide cadets with any formal flying training akin to elements of the Vigilant syllabus and, if so, which elements? Is the intention for CFS to pursue a bespoke qualification to enable non QFIs to be able to teach certain upper air exercises in a more formal sense?

'Conventional Viking gliding opportunities will increase threefold'; does this mean that the number of Viking launches will increase by a factor of 3 (from circa 48,000 to circa 144,000, once we have moved from 8 Viking VGS to 10 enlarged Viking VGS), or does it mean that 3 times the number of cadets will fly Vikings annually but each do on average only a third of the launches they would have done previously, or does it mean something else?

'fleet size enhancement'? Does this mean more Vikings (beyond the current planned fleet size of 73+) or the introduction of a new aircraft type?

Looking into the future, will any consideration be given to the introduction of a sufficiently sized fleet of new motor gliders - to enable operations across the UK where there are now the biggest gaps in gliding availability (and where there are no suitable airfields from which winch-launched gliders could be operated), noting their enhanced flexibility/'deployability'?

Will the ACO continue to send the highest number of 1st solos of any gliding organisation in the world each year? In 2014 I understand the annual requirement was for in excess of 2000 Gliding Scholarships; how will this number have changed once 'steady state' has been reached? A major incentive to becoming an Air Cadet is obviously the opportunity to fly (in anything). AEF becomes more personal and adds to the attraction. Gliding offers the 'gold standard' prospect of being able to fly one's 1st solo or beyond, even for the least-well-off cadets, with the springboard and confidence this provides for the future - whether in Service or civilian life. A lot of us (perhaps most of us) commenting on this site would not be where we are today let alone able to give back all that we do had we not been given this opportunity - at zero personal financial cost. The overall cost in Defence spending terms is extremely small given the return on the investment, and we still need to generate our future staff and QGIs. But you know all this.

I think most people are unlikely to declare their identities to you until they feel they can trust their command chain. At that point there will be no need for this thread.

VGS
 

Brief 'pause' from me, as I am off to Linton soon to award Qualified Aerospace Instructors Course certificates to air cadets?
I do not have the specialist knowledge to answer all your points, ATFQ, or to address all your very valid infrastructure issues, Cpl Clott! However, it has become increasingly difficult to run VGS activities on operational stations, as most are being backfilled with operational units as the number of MOBs reduces. As you say, DIO run the show here, and they are under remit to rationalise the Defence Estate. On constantly changing plans; true, but funding, politics and the bad guys are dynamic, not static.
But I would for now make the following points, the detail for which come from staff briefings:

- I believe the right aviation mix for the ACO is conventional gliders and AEF.
- The whole cadet aviation syllabus is indeed being revamped
- Only about 40ish Vikings were regularly used in the past; 73 will be used in the future, with additional more capable winches.
- There will be a 70% increase in Tutor sorties
- We have run several RAFGSA and BGA site courses for cadets during the pause; why not gap fill with these in the future, using ACO officers as required?

For Pobjoy, I suggest you reduce the venom in your comments if you want to be taken seriously. I don't need a lesson in leadership of volunteers; I run 7 charities!
Chris C

Leadership
 

C4 aero

Sir I was not aware that i questioned 'your' leadership,but if you care to check back on nearly TWO YEARS of this thread the common factor is all about the leadership of the ACO, and especially the lack of it on the gliding front.
The vast majority of those that post here do so because we feel the Cadet organisation that was so special to us has been badly let down and and the so-called recovery process is quite frankly a non event. How can an organisation heal itself with the same (paid staff) that got it into the mess to start with.
Remember; the tax payers are the ones who are still providing the resources that have been squandered with a disgraceful lack of 'provision'. The real loss is to the reputation of the Cadet organisation as a provider of an aviation experience to youngsters from all backgrounds.There are no winners here; so far two years worth of Venture Adventure has been lost despite the tax payers having paid for it.

Accountability
 

I'm curious, has it been clearly defined what the issues actually were that led to the aircraft being grounded for the past two years.

I understand there was an issue found with the controls of the aircraft, specifically connections between the cables and the control surfaces (rudder) cracking/failing. Is that the only issues or where there also others. I have read posts regarding possible incorrect/missing maintenance documentation and possibly that preventative maintenance had not being carried out - but what are the factual elements. If there was a lack of preventative maintenance as defined in the PM schedules, was that lack of maintenance attributable to the failing in the control components. Its the facts that are important.

The answer to these questions are really where the focus should be. I get that there is frustration in the way this entire issue is now being addressed and that the Vigilant fleet has been decimated - frustration I share having been a member of staff at a VGS, but that is more to do with the 'recovery', which may not be the most appropriate word given the plan that has now been presented and is a separate issue to that of 'Continued Airworthiness'

If there were indeed failings in the CA of the aircraft - that is what should be the focus of attention. The MAA Regulatory Articles are very clear in regard of an accredited Maintenance, Technical, Design or other such organization and their Accountable Executives and 'Nominated' Post Holders - be they military or civil.

:hmm:

So much emphasis on 'value for money'. Price of everything, value of rather less than anything?

I'm still convinced that the 'synthetic training' will be worthless and will actually provide negative training. Again I ask whether a proper TNA was conducted and also whether experienced flight training SMEs identified the appropriate training media for skill-based training as being these PTTs?

What Beags said! "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" seems to be the "official" line

"The restructured glider fleet will be operated by fewer, but larger, Volunteer Gliding Squadrons (VGS)"


I will be intrigued to see how they make the Viking VGS's larger!


You can only operate a certain number of conventional gliders in the circuit at ay one time (Granted, the 'few' soaring days a year may help!).

BEagle - Following on from previous I also note the fact that they are again referred to (incorrectly) as

Just as the Commandant referred to them in her Christmas YouTube video. Perhaps they feel that if they keep calling them such, people will take it as a given that that's what they are?

Couldn't agree more with BEagle - I very much doubt that the PTTs will be any use, and even giving cadets rides in Tutors and Vigilants doesn't do it for me. Being flown in an aeroplane means very little. Babes-in-arms and great grandmothers are flown in aeroplanes every day. To paraphrase (I think Lillenthal) "to be flown in an aeroplane is nothing - to fly an aeroplane, everything!" One of the great things about pure gliding (apart from that a lot more cadets actually get to fly, and solo) is that by its very nature everyone's involved and that although a cadet can take pride in a wonderful solo achievement, it is simply not possible without teamwork.

Dave Unwin

No greater satisfaction than Cadets talking loudly, exchanging experiences and finally the descending silence as they fall asleep in the minibus on the way home from a day out at the Viking VGS.

Never had that on the way back from a day at the AEF !!

Arc

One of my erstwhile VGS colleagues once observed that watching other people fly was rather like watching other people have sex -- mildly interesting but not remotely involving.

From the Government eMail response sent to all petitioners today and posted by BEagle

Clearly whoever wrote the original note, didn't proofread it ... I'm assuming it's a typo ... otherwise we will have more AEF's than Front Line Squadrons :\

BEagle, Airbus38 ...

If the MOD, 2FTS and the ACO continue to incorrectly describe these PTT's as 'Realistic Flight Simulators' ... then the remedy is simple ... such devices come under the jurisdiction of the MAA.

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

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

Specifically noting the requirement Point 3 ...

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/...psmtrdqbm0.png

I suspect the phrase PTT (although apparently not defined by the MAA) has been deliberately used as training terminology by 2FTS. But given the involvement of 'minors' in formal flying training ... I believe a TNA should be undertaken (if not already done so) and the Viking & Vigilant PTT's assessed by a QintiQ TP against those TNA's, as it may well then be appropriate to DE-FUNCTION some of the PTT's attributes to protect against the real risk of 'NEGATIVE training' as outlined by BEagle. Then (I assume ?) 22 Group will need to 'approve' a Training Course/Cadet Gliding Qualification specifying exactly what level/type of 'synthetic' training is permissible (if any) during Cadet Glider Training/Qualification.

NB. To be read in conjunction with Posts #1923 by Airbus38 and #1976 by BEagle

Another thought.........

If the additional Tutors had not been available as a result of the reduced BFT requirement what would they have done for the additional AEF Capacity which is being touted as such a great increase as part of this deal ??

I am assuming that there would have just been cuts to VGS and no 'sweetner' (if that is what it is) of increased AEF.............

Arc

The Grob Tutor is likely to be replaced with the Grob 120TP Prefect, a higher-performance aircraft with retractable undercarriage and a turboprop engine, under the future Ascent contract.

Given this aircraft's complexities, I think the exam question regarding this proposed uplift in powered AEF flying is 'When is the out of service date of the Grob Tutor in AEF and UAS service?'

government response to petition
 

Full of 'non statements' and more misleading ones,bordering on untruths.
Just three of the contents are enlightening.

Air Cadet Flying will be safer:- How does it get safer than the actual historical VERY SAFE !

Relalistic synthetic flight simulation :- They are at the most 'procedure trainers' which are neither Realistic or simulate flight. In the case of the Vig their use 'would' have been for 'drills' (but no Vig's!!) The Vikings have no 'systems' that need this.

Value for Money:- They are having a laugh here, Amount of Cadet training will diminish (on top of that already lost forever).No evidence that there will be more flying at less cost.

To be fair the use of the PTtrainers at Cadet Squadrons as opposed to VGS sites will at least give some 'flavour' of aviation that may stimulate ongoing interest to the very young.

From my perspective I would be interested to know:

What happened to the monitoring of the original contract?
Was that sufficiently robust with the correct Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in place. If not why not?
What money has been recovered from the original contractor for failure to deliver, this could then offset some of return to flight costs.

Following the grounding why did it take 2years to get anything moving? It only took 3 years or so to get an availability contract in place for the dear old VC10! Sure there were challenges, but all parties worked together to overcome them on a vastly more complicated aircraft.

I might as well drop these questions to my MP, he has served on the PAC for a number of years and would be well versed in taking these questions forward.

c4aero ...

Welcome to you ...

I'm still mystified as to who will fly the upscaled Tutor AEF Fleet. I seem to recall that the AEF Flying Order Book (Chipmunk Days ... many years ago) made reference to the fact that only RAF and RN Pilots could be considered for AEF Cadet Flying Duties. Noting that Army Pilots could be considered based on their individual Fixed Wing experience. So as not to upset anyone of a khaki persuasion ... I believe this 'restriction' was connected with the 'truncated' Chipmunk syllabus designed at the time to get the aspiring Army pilot solo on fixed wing ASAP to then be followed by intensive rotary training to wings standard.

I also recall that the other primary driver was to have a serving/retired Military Pilot so as to "instil a military ethos' into the overall AEF experience.

Given the (sadly) reduced size of the RAF, RN and Army these days and known current shortages of AEF pilots ... Where are the additional aircrew to come from ?

I note the reference in the various briefing papers issued to date the 'possibility' of 'some' Vigilant QGI's converting ... if genuinely true, how realistic is this ?

Thank you ...

PS. Other 'Gems' from the old Chipmunk AEF Flying Order Book ... 'At the OC AEF's discretion, Cadets holding a Flying Scholarship qualification and in possession of a valid/current PPL, could occupy the Front Seat' (designed to hep FS Cadets keep their PPL's current ... If I remember correctly the Cadet recorded P1/s with the OC counter signing the Civilian Logbook which was acceptable to the CAA) ... The OC AEF was then invariably a QFI and could operate from the boot ... If only to check-out his staff.

The requirements/process of converting the Vigilant to the Tutor has been put to the VGS staff. However, the process dosen't appear to have been throught through properly as it appears that they had forgotten there are a number of Vigilant instructors who are serving RAF NCO, junior ones at that. Could this see the RAF finally having Corporal pilots like the AAC?

OK VX275 ... Let's hear from c4aero :ok:

POBJOY

Whilst I think what has happened to Air Cadet gliding is completely unacceptable and indefensible, I'm not sure I agree with you on the procedural trainers.

Whilst I don't expect them to be much more than a glider mockup with a big screen/projector, they could be both useful and interesting to the cadets (although not as interesting as actual flying).

Certainly 20 minutes on this could introduce the effects of controls in all 3 axis, and save at least one 5-minute Viking launch. Not that I am suggesting reducing the number of launches for each GIC, but the launch "saved" could be used for more productive practice with the cadet at the controls, rather than the instructor at the controls demonstrating/explaining.

When it came to cadets on the GS, it would be useful to practice proper landing technique over and over, getting some degree of "muscle memory" for the round out/hold off. And cadets having problems with ballooning or bouncing could go back to the trainer for a number of landing attempts to nail the technique rather than wasting circuits.
20 landing attempts on a trainer might take 10 minutes to practice. They wouldn't let every cadet approaching solo with 'landing issues' have 20 launches in a day just to practice the landings, instead they'd give them their Blue wings and send them on their way home.

Used properly with a good instructor, it could mean many more people get to go solo who would otherwise have just ended up with Blue wings.


I remember the BGA had rather a good glider simulator (with very realistic aerodynamics computations, you could accurately stall and spin it). If each VGS got one of those then they would be very valuable in teaching not only cadets, but new volunteer staff.

Whilst it certainly doesn't replace real flight, a lot of time during gliding lessons is spent demonstrating and explaining, i.e. see it, do it. Make the most of a training device on the ground and the time in the air can be much more productive.

Simulation
 

Lama F
Unless a Glider simulator has motion and 'feel' it will not replicate the required handling that is required for landing,and as gliders do not have a vast array of flight, nav, and engine instrumentation there is little value in using them in conjunction with the actual flying training.
Slightly different with the Vig with the extra systems,but then these seem to be history now.
However as mentioned i do see the value to have even a simple 'trainer' available to Cadet Squadrons to raise awareness of aviation and promote 'flying training' that will be available when they are old enough to progress through whatever system is left. It may be that the age limit for solo is reduced to the BGA requirement which could be great for keeping the young starters (poss 12 year olds) enthused as they see the goal posts getting closer,rather than 4 years away.
The whole point about basic glider training was it gave an opportunity for 'anyone' to get hands on experience with a real flying machine in a controlled safe environment that also developed self confidence and decision making.As an exercise in that alone combined with the required team effort it has no equal and provided a basis for ongoing useful flying practices that were still relevant in this digital world(Space shuttle).What could be better 'value for money' than a Cadet getting his BGA A&B badge with so little air time,again this has no equal,and certainly will never be repeated.Going down to one solo was a real cop out and i never understood why it had to be.

CFS is demanding 500hrs P1 on the Vigilant at present. Having recently been in touch with three of the binned sqns, I can count on one hand the number of people thinking of applying to cross train and still have a finger or two left over. Nobody has figured out if the Convex can be done locally or if volunteers would have to take a month or two off work.

The VGS guys have been told that they will need to be commissioned if they want to fly the Tutor. No NCO pilots allowed. Personnel affected by this nonsense have been asked to submit their re-role requests (Tutor/Viking/Ground Instructor/Admin/ATC sqn) by 31Mar. CGIs will become extinct, as will VGS FSCs.

I too would love to know where the AEFs will get the pilots to fly the additional Tutors, given that many can't fill the seats they've already got and whatever pilots they pick up from the Vigilant squadrons they will likely lose an equivalent number through the loss of holding officers once MFTS training starts and EFT gets taught on the 120TP. As I see it, the only way would be to bring in civilian pilots from the outside, thus losing the rationale of the "military ethos".

OK CF ... Let's hear from c4aero :ok:

Not wishing to dilute the already weak offerings being made to (former) VGS pilots, there are those of us within the ACO, holding thousands of relevant flying hours as pilots, instructors and examiners who would jump at the opportunity of flying for an AEF.

Hi CGB ...

What's preventing you and 'others' then if you are Ex Mil ? Is it because you have been commissioned as a VRT Squadron Officer and the Wing/Region won't let you :confused:

Back in the 70's there were quite a few AEF Pilots who were also Squadron Officers ...

One VGS pilot who is a good friend has been "offered" transfer to another VGS with travel provided, he must commit to two full weekends a month, OK so far.

1. He is married so has a life.
2. He is a police officer who on his duty roster gives him two weekends a month off .
3. The police unit he is with is a Public Order unit with CT duties and the units rest days can be and are cancelled at the last minute and at certain times of the year are cancelled all together.
4. He is an ATC Sqn Commander so has other cadet commitments some weekends and camps.

He has the figures for AEF but it appears that he would need to be B1 and he is at B2 due to him having to cancel his B1 course because of work.
He could fly locally as his shift hours allowed him to fly in the morning before duty on lates ,16:00-midnight or on "nights" 19:00 -03:00 he could fly in the afternoons.

Will he fly with the ACO again ? I would think not !

If NCO AEF pilots are not allowed, will this prevent regular RAF junior ranks (many of whom are VGS pilots) from flying the Tutor?

Surely if the issue is that AEF pilots need to be service personnel, then the fact that someone is already serving in a regular capacity should not be an issue?

There is a vast, currently untapped potential, of regular RAF personnel who hold PPLs who I'm sure would love to fly for AEFs, and who could contribute the vital military ethos.

Creating links between the AEFs and RAF Flying Clubs and schemes such as the Junior Ranks Pilot Scheme would be an excellent idea, in my opinion.

I don't want to appear cynical ... But this is looking more like what's called in the Corporate World as a 'Constructive Sanction'. In other words you say publicly 'YES' but then use conditions/criteria that make it almost impossible to achieve. Even if 'someone' had all the right credentials there is no guarantee they would pass the proposed Tutor conversion course ... :suspect:

To be clear and honest with everyone ... I come from the view point that Cadet AEF in the Tutor should only be undertaken by appropriately experienced/qualified UK Mil/Ex Mil Pilots (Full Brevet). But that doesn't prevent me from objectively debating the wider issues. I have no axe to grind ... My last connection with the ACO/AEF World was in the early 80's.

Website now live:

www.savethevgs.co.uk