POBJOY

VSO Turkeys don't vote for VSO Christmas to they ?, they don't want their chances of a shiny, shiny OBE or KBE going down the pan.................

Arc

Turkeys 'Form orderly queue please'
 

ARC The sad fact is that most of the people that could have helped have little or no indepth knowledge of the subject.
This means they rely entirely on briefings from those that can manipulate the information to their own ends.
That is why the position of Cmt 2 FTS was so important,and why the selection made was so disastrous.
The ACO has been led down what will prove to be a one way street to Decline City. The 'jewel' of the 'hands on' flying available to anyone has been sacrificed on the alter of incompetence and personal agenda's,and the system is in such 'mega denial mode' they can not see what has happened and why.
It will be interesting to see if the Scouting movement can take up the slack from this debacle, and whether some of the decades of Cadet Gliding can help them do this.
With no changes on the horizon at Syerston the future is just a 'downward spiral'.

Julian Brazier MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and Minister for Reserves,
House Of Commons
Houses Of Parliament
LONDON
SW1A 0AA

Given, again, the continued public reference to the use of 'Simulators' by the Minister for 'Glider Training' ... The comments made by Airbus38 and BEagle at Posts 1923, 1976 and 1986 remain entirely apposite.

I was recently PM'd with the following information ...

My Bold

So out of curiosity, more than anything, I looked up the MAA Regulations (available on-line and in the Public Domain) fully expecting to see how the MAA 'Define and Specify' Flight Simulators for use by the UK Military ... Here is what I found ...

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

I have also included two screen grabs to preserve the present information.

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/...psii0juvue.jpg

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/...psc01pgqdz.png

Image Credit : MAA Public Document RA 2375

Contrast this with the EASA 'Certification Specifications for Aeroplane Flight Simulation Training Devices' and the MAA Regulatory Article begins to look a little 'thin'. Whilst I'm not readily conversant with modern day terminology such as ADH or AM(MF), it still seems a bit perplexing for the MAA to 'Devolve' a responsibility to 'Approve FSTD's' without first fully Defining and Specifying what a FSTD is or isn't ... after all the MAA published mandate on RA's is ...

The purpose of Regulatory Articles (RA) is to provide the framework of policy, rules, directives, standards, processes and the associated direction, advice and guidance, which governs military aviation activity and against which air safety is assessed.

Now see EASA Example ...

Certification Specifications for Aeroplane Flight Simulation Training Devices

Page 5 of the above document helpfully describes the various sub-categories of Civilian FSTD's.

Some might think I'm being pedantic ... But without a clear Definition and Specification by the MAA on FSTD's there is a clear anomaly between MAA RA 2375 and the 2FTS PTT OTM ... and without a MAA FSTD Definition who decides on 'what' elements can be taught ?

In closing ... have a look at this video of the Vigilant PTT at Topcliffe. To be clear ... I'm not making any criticism of the Instructing Staff ... My specific point relates the the availability of the completely unnatural 'Slew View' Function to view the deployed spoilers ... As a minimum this function IMHO should be inhibited as in real life you turn your head. Keeping your head 'Looking Out' is the Airmanship point ... relying on the slewing of views could well induce bad and dangerous habits. I assume the Viking PTT has the same 'Slew View' Function.

Vigilant PTT : Slew View : Potentially Bad Habit Forming

Happy to stand corrected/respond to further comments.

Well I tried - the reply I have received to my "RAF 100" suggestion , that they sorted Air Cadet gliding


Thank you for contacting RAF100 with your thoughts on Air Cadet Gliding. Unfortunately this does not fall within my remit to resolve, however, I am aware that AVM Knighton is working closely with AVM Turner to try to improve issues such as gliding.


Kind regards
Zerrin)


Your ideas formThis form was sent at: 02-Apr-2016 12:16
YOURIDEA: Get Air cadet gliding sorted
WHEREWOULDITTAKEPLACE: CountrywideWHOWOULDITBEFOR: Air Cadets - the FUTUREORGANISEYOURSELFORWIDERSUGGESTION: RAFHAVEYOUORGANISEDSOMETHINGSIMILARBEFORE:
NoMYIDEAWOULDSUPPORTRAF100BY: Inspire

CS

The RA provides the "framework". The problem is, there is nobody willing to mandate and ensure that it is implemented. That was the basic issue reiterated by the Nimrod XV230 senior Reviewing Officer, and then reiterated again by Haddon-Cave. And, given the above RA dilutes hitherto mandated regulations to "should" instead of "shall", it can be seen the current MAA regime is a regression.

You are not being pedantic. You are absolutely right.

Cheers Tuc :ok:

PTT
 

To be fair the PTT is good from an instructor POV as a proceedure trainer and keeping existing skills sharp but yes the all important lookout is neglected as the screens force you to stare forwards.

Not sure it's quite sharp enough as an initial trainer

Thanks S109 :ok:

But at c. £25K a pop (£625K for 25) it seems a bit excessive for just a 'Procedures Trainer' ... Most of us just sat in a cockpit, in the hanger, with the FRC's and drilled until hands and brain eventually synchronised :uhoh:

Initial Trainer/PTT all a bit meaningless without a formal MAA FSTD Definition/Specification ...

Coff, I started at 664 at age 46 and sat in the hangar with a FSC aged 17 and went through the FRC's as you do. I'm now retired and he's flying left hand seat in executive jets.

Just think of how many cadets won't become FSCs and who are not going to get the opportunities to light the fires of aviation ambition (and not be trained by the crusty old CGI's who formed the backbone of the VGS's)

PTT
 

On the basis that a 'Glider' has few systems, nav equipment,electrics, comms,fire control,or indeed anything needing a static 'procedure' simulator where exactly does a PTT fit in with the Viking fleet (If we are to believe the recovery program).
The main 'emergency' situation for Gliders is the low cable break,and the training for this is best done 'for real', this is the only sensible way to get a student used to the combined attitude change and decision making which is a total waste of time in a static PTT. The PTT may have had a place in the Vig's with a modicum of things to 'practice' but as they are history that requirement goes with them.
By all means let the Cadet Squadrons have them as something to give a semblance of 'aviation' but do not pretend they are a substitute for 'hands on' gliding.

As an avid home simulation fan myself, I have something to add to this discussion:

The idea of using fixed screens for flight simulator displays is fast becoming old fashioned, the future is in Virtual Reality goggles.

Without wanting to geek anyone out - essentially they feature a screen that you mount to your head, which fills your entire peripheral vision with the simulated scene. The headset tracks the movement of your head in 360 degrees and moves the view in the simulator accordingly - so real head movement will mirror the simulator head movement, giving you the ability to practice good lookout.

The goggles present two different views to each eye, with one offset slightly from the other, in order to give true 3D vision, which gives the critical aspect of depth perception, important for judging height on round-out, etc.

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-conten...ft-640x353.jpg


Everyone I know who has tried it say that the feeling of immersion is fantastic, and that you feel like you’re really sitting in the cockpit.

Compatible with all major consumer sims, including FSX (and its modern successor, Prepar3D by Lockheed Martin) a VR goggle flight-sim system can be purchased for around £2,500 all in.

In future, low-cost motion platforms will also be available, which, when coupled with the fact that VR goggles fill your entire peripheral vision, will trick the brain into believing that the motion is real.


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


While the PTTs will be useful for practicing procedural drills, VR goggle-based sims would be useful for practicing visual circuits, developing good lookout, etc.

I had more than one instructor ask me upon landing whether I had any home simulation experience, and when I replied in the affirmative, they said it showed in my flying.

One instructor summed it up well – simulation teaches you to recognise what a “good picture” should look like, thus allowing you to, for example, judge whether your approach is too high or too shallow, and adjust accordingly.

A simulation company called Iris Simulations (owned by an ex-cadet) has already developed a fantastic Tutor, and are working on a Viking.

https://www.irissimulations.com.au/w...or-t-1/vc2.png


http://i1.wp.com/www.simflight.nl/wp...S-GrobTwin.jpg

The technology that is out there right now really is going to blur the lines between low-cost desktop simulation, and high-end full motion dome simulators.

Simulators
 

HP90 Whilst not denying the quality of the new technology the ATC do not have this or should be having it at the expense of the real experience.
The top brass are using the 'excuse' of PTT to suggest it is now a real part of the training package (which it is not).
We are in danger of talking ourselves out of the whole point of ATC gliding which was to provide a REAL flying experience to any Cadet up to solo standard using simple technology.
Just because the cretons in charge (up top) could not manage to keep the system in shape does not mean the original purpose was not excellent or the VGS were not doing a good job under difficult circumstances.
With a lower entry age limit and a potential long wait to attain 'The Solo' the ACO have lost the plot on the reality that few Cadets will have stayed long enough to go solo.
Giving them different badges on the extended 'dual' journey is a complete farce as it does not even lead them to a BGA cert when they solo.
Just because the F...W...s in charge are on different planet and believe their own spin on FB and Twatter does not mean they have any idea what they had was World Class, or how 'they' have destroyed a fine system.

I have this dream that someone like Dave reads this thread and drags those responsible to No.10 (on a Sunday) and locks them in a room until they come out with a simple, workeable fix...............................

HP90 ...

Thank you for your contribution.

However ... We need to be perfectly clear here. Initial Flying Training (for Gliding even more so) involves the 'teaching' by an instructor 121 and the 'learning' of a highly practical skill by the student that requires full immersion in the 'real' world thus allowing the ab initio Pilot to develop/master the necessary eye, hand, feet and brain coordination to succeed. The student then builds on these foundations as they progress through their training ... FACT There is NO substitute for this as mentioned by Pobjoy

In fact there are many Mil & Civ QFI's who will say that anyone wishing to learn to fly should stay well away from any form of 'simulation' (especially Desktop PC 'Game' simulation) until they have gained 'safe habits' and sufficient experience with 'real' world flying first ... Even then to be cautious about such usage.

Don't get me wrong, there is a place for proper 'synthetic' training ... But not at the ab initio stage. A 'procedures' trainer is perfectly acceptable (aka a Cardboard Bomber) to learn NORMAL and EMERGENCY FRC Drills ... But it's just as easy to sit in a cockpit in the hanger and 'chant' away until your checks and drills become second nature. That way, when your QFI pulls the throttle on take-off and asks you to perform an EFATO, you have a sporting chance of getting most of the exercise right :ok:

Turning to your comments on VRG's, yes it partially solves the 'view' issue, but they introduce more inconsistencies with the 'real world' flying environment. Just using your Tutor T1 example screen shot ... If I were to reach out (goggles on) with my right hand to adjust the OBS Knob, I wouldn't see MY right hand doing the necessary. In any case (unless you intend to go for the open cockpit 'Biggles' experience ... the goggles you show are again an 'unnatural' experience)

These Air Cadet PTT's are based on the X-Plane 'Game' software (£49.99 from TransAir) with many other 'add-ons' both soft and hard (scenery, cockpits and simulated gauges etc). If they are to be NO more than a 'procedures trainer' then there is no need for the visuals IMHO. So any reasonably informed observer would have a valid case to question the CapEx spend of £650K if they are to be no more than a 'procedures trainer'.

I think the PTTs are going to end up being a useful 'fill-in' for an organisation that has not only failed to extract its digit, but has followed it up its own orifice.

With the PTTs, they can now build up a whole virtual flying world, and an additional, spurious hoop to jump through for both adult volunteers and cadets. The only way to save PTTs, which became obsolete as soon as the decision was made to retire the entire VIGI fleet, will be to cobble together some simulator-based pipeline around them.

So, the choice seems to be clear - you can either fly or be in the ATC. The 2 ends are mutually exclusive during the 75th anniversary of the Air Training Corps.

Stand by for a smug little press release involving a PTT, a celeb, a cadet and a growbag-suited instructor letting us all know how much better things are now that we don't actually fly any more.

PS: no disrespect at all aimed at ATC volunteers and cadets. Any disrespect is aimed squarely at the 'professionals' and Senior Officers who broke the faith and brought a fine institution to its knees. Have any operational aircraft types been subjected to a catastrophic long-term grounding like this, or is it just the Tutor, Vigi & Viking?

1960's Stimulators
 

In the 60's we did not have simulators we had real live STIMULATORS.
One of these was the 1 Ton Austin 4x4 open body truck that was the main 'prime mover' for the winches,and also hauled cables.
However at lunch time this beast 'driven by staff Cadets not old enough to have a civvy licence' would do a quick round up of the course Cadets (in wellies) who would then leap up into the back and be transported with much laughter and sometimes singing off to the NAFFI or Airmens mess.The effect of course Cadets being assisted by S-Cadets was an essential part of the organisation,and it made the system quite unique in a 'service based operation'.The level of 'self development',and motivation whilst using service equipment has never been surpassed, and the sight of 'other Cadets' seemingly running the ground ops had an electric effect on the Students. This is what ATC Gliding was about;Cadets helping Cadets to go flying and eventually go solo.We had the best system in the world which cost very little in real terms,and nobody had the right to throw it away because it did not suit their blinkered views on how it should be done.
ATC Gliding was/should be a 'HANDS ON' experience ; this is what made it special,and STIMULATING.

Just to address some points raised here:

I’ll start by saying that I’ve thought for a while that small-scale flying and gliding clubs could make much better use of modern low-end simulation technology, in order to reduce the time it takes to get to solo, and thus reduce the cost of doing so (although with regard cadet gliding, the emphasis should be on saving time, not money).

I completely agree that simulation should not replace any “live” flying – all elements of the syllabus should be flown for real, not exclusively a simulator. However, that’s not to say that simulators can’t augment real flying.

I also agree that elementary training should be about getting a basic feel for flying – and feel is the one thing you really can’t get in a simulator. A common criticism of simulators is that aircraft fly like they’re on rails, and I would have to agree with this. You can’t simulate that random patch of sink or lift, or that random gust on approach, etc.

One thing that really surprised me when I first started learning to glide (having used simulators for a number of years beforehand) is how much the nose wanted to wonder around – in the simulator, it always stayed pointed where I wanted it. Another thing the simulator doesn’t replicate very well is adverse yaw, which makes getting a sense of the required co-ordination a lot harder.

And of course, simulators can’t give you force feedback, nor the sensations of G, and most critically, cannot give you the “pucker factor” of knowing that an error may well cost you your life.

Thus, in elementary training, I see simulators being used in the context of “familiarisation”, rather than actual “teaching” – meaning, being used to give a general overview of the concept in question, rather than how to actually physically fly it.

An example: When learning to fly circuits, my instructors would typically demonstrate how a circuit should be flown, while talking through the basic principles (once overhead X, make a 90-degree turn and position the wingtip in line with Y, etc.). Once running through that, they would ask me to follow through on the controls the next time around, before finally letting me have a go myself on the third flight.

But, what if that initial familiarisation flight could be done in a simulator, so that upon taking to the air, you already know the basic concept of how the circuit should be flown, allowing you to proceed straight to the follow-through stage? The end result would still be that you’ve flown a circuit, but you’ve reduced the number of flights it takes to do it.

There are numerous other examples too, such as stalling, spinning, how to center in a thermal, etc.

It might not be much of a reduction, but if you can shave off one flight here and there, then it all mounts up. I know I’m going to get pilloried for suggesting this, with people saying that the goal should be to get cadets more air time, not less, but whilst I agree with that, if the use of simulation can make the difference between having enough time to get to solo, and not, then which is better?

A point that’s been raised here before is that, at AEFs, cadets typically sit around just waiting to fly – well, imagine a networked simulator, with one instructor running through the basic concept of flying a circuit, or a stall, with 10 or so cadets all viewing that same simulation via their own VR goggles, listening to the instructor via audio. Wouldn’t that be a much better use of time than watching Top Gun?

Some other points I want to make:

I don’t quite know how those PTTs allegedly cost £25,000 each – guys build full replica 737 flight decks for less than that.

With regard not being able to see your hands in a simulator – there is in fact a solution for that – see this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp4-mLuV6lA

And here’s another good video demonstrating the principle of VR goggles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30pSJ0wOB6U

Whilst it’s true that X-Plane and FSX are marketed as “games”, not many people know that Lockheed Martin actually bought the rights to FSX from Microsoft, and now market a much enhanced version of it as a professional simulator under the name “Prepar3D”. This was apparently because LM saw a gap in the market for low-end simulators amongst their military customers, and Prepar3D is in fact now used in many military simulators around the world.

The Canadian air cadets recently set up their own simulation centre using Prepar3D, you can read about it here:
Canadian Air Cadets Get Prepar3D® ? Lockheed Martin - Prepar3D

Ultimately, what I’m trying to say is that I think simulators can indeed have a place in basic flying training, but more as a familiarisation/overview device, rather than as a traditional training device.

c4aero hasn't graced these pages for a while. However, perhaps he would be willing to post the text of his recent letter to the Air League? The last paragraph of which basically implies "Stop moaning, shut up and get on with it......" (not a direct quote, merely my interpretation).

:(

"Stop moaning, shut up and get on with it......"
 

Well, if retired VSOs (even if they say they are only Flying Officers) disseminate this type of demotivating message with regard to the Jewel in the Crown of the Air Cadet operation, there could well be more of this crass stuff coming from the current batch of VSOs.

I am not too sure I would volunteer my services to this lot of has beens!!

Stand by for incoming:rolleyes:

Loosing The Plot
 

The problem with the recent comments from the VSO's is it shows how little they actually know about the way ATC Gliding had evolved and how it was staffed by keen volunteers who did not need to be 'given orders' from above.
The system ran and disciplined itself in a very simple way, in that staff became capable and passed on that capability to those coming into the schools.The staff of the schools had to be multi-tasked due to the nature of their 'dispersed' locations that were not always in close support range of a RAF unit.
The Co's kept a tight reign on the operation and were used to getting the best out of 'volunteers' without needing formal military discipline.
In other words it WORKED,and the results are well recorded.
It must be a shock (not admitted) to those up top to see that the organisations failings have emanated from the full time paid staff (service and civil service) and not from that Volunteer part that actually flew the aircraft and trained the Cadets.The present situation shows us the classic failure of an organisation that lacks quality leadership and an understanding of what is required or how it should be done.F-Book,Twatter,and cascading have replaced sound leadership and a 'hands on' ability to get the job done to support those who have never failed the Cadets.

That doesn't sound very healthy to me, it makes normalisation of the deviation much more difficult to spot and prevent. Perhaps that is a contributory factor to the engineering problems.

Beardy

There were 2 independent audits of the system a year (all aspects) by teams from ACCGS and CFS Examining Wing. Later in my time on the VGS we also quite often got secondments to us from ACCGS or CFS to instruct on the courses.

I'd suggest that 3+ independent audits a year of 'standards' is certainly more than adequate. Each audit/inspection followed up with a comprehensive report listing faults found, remedial action required and timescales to do it in.

The auditors also had the authority to stop flying operations or suspend the VGS IMMEDIATELY if serious or critical deficiencies were found.

That's probably more inspections, reports and checks of operations than most units go through in a year.................

It is probably also worth noting that the failure of the system appears to have been solely confined to activities either at the centre of operations and policy or in the activities run from the centre of policy...............no issues have been found on the VGS themselves during this 'witch hunt' - yet it is they who are being wound up/down or 'punished/rewarded' (depending which way you look at it)

Arc

That certainly sounds very different from the set-up POBJOY described and does seem, in principle, sound.

And - I think not unreasonably - the Air Cadet Organisation no longer wants a bunch of cadets in the back of a truck driven (illegaly?) by underage, unlicensed cadets .......


........... however good the songs are!

For the sake of balance, I think it's probably fair to say that the historical VGS operation was fantastic, but large elements have had to change through necessity to bring it in line with what can be expected of a first-class flying organisation in the 21st century. The enthusiastic volunteer spirit still exists but long gone are the days of unlicensed drivers, marginal weather, in-house 'work-arounds' to serviceability issues, and I'm afraid to say (in line with much of the RAF) an old-fashioned attitude to reporting unfit the "following morning". Anybody suggesting these things weren't to some extent a feature of the historical model would be kidding themselves.

Fortunately, the state-of-play nowadays has struck a much healthier balance of flight safety, SOP adherence and reporting culture and the organisation has become much stronger for it. Most of the dinosaurs have long since bees weeded out. I'm fully expecting some flak for suggesting the system wasn't always without flaws but it probably ought to be said. Not all of the change has been unwelcome!

Airbus & Teeters

I must be a dinosaur as I operated under the old system with the MK3 and T21 and also the new plastic system, actually probably one of the few left around to have flown the Swallow, MK3, T21, Valiant (ASW19), Vanguard (ASK21), Viking, Vigilant and Venture under ATC markings !! :D

I saw changes, most of them were not terrible in themselves but caused the organisation to die 'a death of a thousand cuts' until operations were not easy. By this I mean things like getting drivers licenced, the Stats return, Cadets fed, the Stats return, travel, the Stats return, flying clothing servicing, fuelling the vehicles, admin of all types (lots), the stats return, liaison with the wing and Sqns and servicing the aircraft (did I mention the Stats return ?) - all the 'administrivia' which on a regular unit on a regular station you have people to do whereas on a 'weekends only' unit at a detached location you just don't..................... these are 'the straws that break the camels back'. You can fly or you can have a complete set of paperwork and shiny vehicles - it seems the system wants the latter if it can't have both with resources available..................

Overall I think the Operation was OK and still working (not as much local authority as under the POBJOY system and not as much output/throughput) until this recent debacle around servicing (lack of, and associated records) which has killed it stone dead. And the people higher up have taken advantage of this fiasco to implement their own personal agendas for the VGS under the cloak of 'reorganisation' required to bring in the required changes to servicing.

I think in 5 years we will barely recognise the organisation we used to operate - and not in a good way.................

and Teeters - I agree about the comments regarding the truck.

Arc

All things being equal, I concur. But the Nimrod and MoK Reviews were all about adverse audit reports being buried (by the same people) without taking remedial action. Both took evidence that staff at the "bottom" knew what to do and tried to implement, but there was no top down support. In both cases, the process fell apart at the same level/rank/grade and it turned out that staff had been instructed NOT to take remedial action and actively prevented from doing so. I read here of the exact same failings. Might I suggest that despite the efforts and professionalism of those directly involved in cadet training, there are higher level failings here that are way beyond the ken or pay grade of anyone in the ATC. Those involved are permitted to judge their own case.

Arclite - you're right you must be one of very very few! By 'dinosaurs' I should perhaps clarify; I mean in terms of attitude and certainly not in terms of age or era. No offence at all intended.

Airbus - none taken :O

I quite enjoy the label. Over 5000 launches conventional and 250 hours in the M/G fleet.

Arc

@Tucumseh - I agree with your comments about the 'high ups'

Plenty of operational types (and more complex trainers) have been grounded at some point. The duration of the grounding has inevitably been shorter, as the impact of a prolonged grounding is rather more serious.

Grounding
 

Very good question, and TOTD is quite correct. At a certain level, the ATC simply won't register as the grounding isn't immediately significant. I think a more interesting question is what remedial action was necessary to prevent the even more frequent imminent groundings, and what the attitude at senior level was.


The obvious ones I can recall are the entire Sea King ASW and SAR fleets in about 1988 and RN Lynx in 1991. It would be more accurate to say the SKs would have still been able to fly, but without mission systems would have been extremely limited; pilot training only was mooted, for about 18 months. (Which some might say is pretty serious). Lynx was a safety critical fire hazard, with aircrew in hospital. Grounding was scheduled for the Monday and we were given the week-end to crack it. I can tell you exactly what the reply from above was - "Let the RN ground their fleet(s) and come begging for money next year". The first was fixed by the marketing director of a well known Design Authority tracking down critical spares in Lagos. (The problem had been identified, but Thompson-CSF had pulled the plug literally at the last minute. They should never have been given another MoD contract). The second by cancelling an RAF contract and using the money to make Lynx safe. (It wasn't expensive, just logistically difficult with about 30 deployed at sea). As I said before, the solution was well known and very simple, but there wasn't any support.

All staff cadets had RAF licences.
 

I know that most, if not all, Commanding Officers of Gliding Schools would not have permitted Staff Cadets to drive the MT without first having been tested and approved for an RAF driving licence by the local MT unit. My licence allowed me to drive the 1 Ton Austin and the Land Rovers on the airfield only (and that included the NAAFI and Airmans' Mess) despite not being old enough for a grown up civvie licence!!

The interesting fact was that the MT supplied to our gliding school was not deemed suitable for driving off the camp as they were only maintained to "Airfield Use Only" standards!!!

It was only later when our airfield finally closed down and the RAF left that the system allowed us to have vehicles which were road worthy to enable us to collect the cadets from the local army base. By this time naturally all drivers of Air Cadet vehicles had both an RAF Driving Permit and a civilian driving licence.

I see nothing about this system that was illegal, except now they would expect us all to be belted in (cadets included)!

FRELON

I believe the Yellow 600 covered you for 'Camp Area' as well as Airfield, and a civilian licence was not required as long as you stayed on MoD property.

Teeters has a point though - even then I would have been careful carrying Cadets in the back of the Landrovers (not saying you weren't) - ours were all soft-tops after all............. the Austin had long gone by then................ we had a range of Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3 Landrovers (with underseat PETROL fuel tanks), all in pretty ropey condition, later we had LHD ones from Germany after war stocks were released.................. they were much better, eventually these disappeared and the first DEFENDER types arrived (DERV burners)

Arc

Dinosaurs united !
 

Hi fellow Dinosaur - I myself have flown the Mk3, T 21, Venture, Viking, Valiant and Vigilant on four RAF Stations over a period of 30 years or so, and two of the four RAF Stations were "front line" where standards during the weekend and during courses had, by necessity to be of the highest order in terms of professionalism in every sense, not least of which was latterly operating full air Traffic requirements in a mixed traffic environment.

On two of those VGS Units, I was ( in addition to the flying duties) the Adjutant responsible for the ever mounting requirements of Health and Safety, CRB, Medical liaison, Personnel record keeping, Home to Duty Claims, and general Station liaison, Deputy Flight Safety Officer including attendance at mid week meetings, and whatever other Admin duties were required.

Many times in my latter years I was actually in on the Station, sometimes many weekdays when there was a new requirement. Suffice it to say, that our professionalism led to being held in high regard by successive Station Commanders who supported the VGS to the last word and letter.

The aircraft were maintained by ACCGS Eng, and every Sunday evening at close of play the Eng issues requiring attention were transmitted promptly to them, whilst our local Eng requirements were supervised by our own expert Engineer an ex regular Wg Cdr Eng.

Flying standards were of the highest order, as we regularly had serving and very experienced RAF Pilots as part of our normal staffing, in addition to the usual customary CFS/ACCGS checks. Accidents? - well the only Vigilant accident was the result of a visiting Supervising Officer - not one of the VRT staff of the unit.

The Cadets and Staff alike have been very badly let down by the professionals at higher level, whichever way you stack the cards. If it is/was an Eng issue that caused "airworthiness concerns", then please be forthcoming and tell the whole world what was found, when and by whom, and at the same time please tell the long suffering taxpayers what endeavours have been made to legally remediate and recover our losses, and what disciplinary measures have been taken to hold those responsible for supervision of the maintenance of the fleet - after all the reported £9.4M cost of the maintenance contract IS OUR BUSINESS - WE TAXPAYERS FUNDED IT !!! Equally it is not subject to national security constraints, thus please come clean - I think we all realise we are being conned somewhere, but we don't quite know where !!

Equally, please come clean about the disposal of the Vigilant fleet - are they going to be trashed by a JCB, or, as I suspect, re-appearing at an airfield near you as possibly RAF GSA or Army GS or civilian club ?

Another question, if the "airworthiness concerns" were uniformly distributed across Viking and Vigilant, why can almost 100% of Vikings be recovered, but only 15 Vigilants and then only for a short period of time ?

As for the future - PTT's plus perhaps a half hour Tutor jolly once a year, with a day's travel to a Viking Super centre plagued by low stratus - is that what is going to make the Air Cadets join up ? I think not, and certainly isn't going to make large numbers of Adults pledge their weekends into infinity. Time alone will tell, but I suspect it's not looking like a good future.

Still the party line is being broadcast, the latest being the farcical Westminster "debate" where the Under Secretary more or less repeated verbatim his earlier speech in the House of Commons.


!:{

RAF Driving Licence
 

T-Head/ARC
Staff Cadets driving Winches,Landrovers, Trucks 1 ton 4x4 All had a RAF driving licence issued (after test) by a parent station. I am surprised you have no knowledge of this.In fact the licence was type specific so you needed two tests for the Austin and LR. The fact that you could do this one year before driving on the road was because the licence was for airfield use only.
Beardy.
Staff Cadets were not involved with Glider servicing or repairs nor were the schools other than very minor repairs.The MGSP covered all that as well discussed before and it certainly was both sound and worked well. One could attend No1 Gliding Centre and do a Glider Inspection Course which would let the person do the daily DI and minor repairs/replacements, rig derig etc.
Staff Cadets could do this course and several did.Your comments on the 'engineering' only shows a lack of actual knowledge on how the system was organised and worked very well,with standards second to none.The 'Key' to the wooden fleet was the fact that the RAF ran it themselves to normal service standards,and it is only when they 'outsourced' that the problems started. By the time a Staff Cadet became an instructor he would know everything about the operation from the ground up and in those days most new instructors came up that way. The Schools were under the direct control of the Gliding Centre not their local Wing and that was the strength of the operation.

Very interesting, although I am not sure what the difference is between 'knowledge' and 'actual' knowledge. Whichever, I feel enlightened now

With the current economic climate of responsibility and attributable culpability would the system you have described be achievable now on a plastic fleet?

"Fortunately, the state-of-play nowadays has struck a much healthier balance of flight safety, SOP adherence and reporting culture and the organisation has become much stronger for it.

Interesting observation Airbus - I wonder if you'd mind qualifying it for me? Recruitment is down, the volunteer staff (the backbone of the ACO) are thoroughly fed up and - it would seem - are voting with their feet, both fleets have been essentially grounded for over two years and cadets are obviously getting very little (and no solo) flying. How, exactly, is the ACO stronger? Its clearly safer, I would imagine that both fleets have enjoyed a 100% safety record over the last two years - that's the inevitable byproduct of not er actually flying them! But stronger?
Please elaborate.

POBJOY

I think I have agreed with all you have said.........................

Arc

Capability
 

Beardy (With respect), We are talking about a Gliding System that had evolved from students learning in 'Single seaters' (instructor gave brief and then drove winch) to give 'ground slides' then low and high hops. The MK3 gave the organisation a proper basic two seater and the start of formal instruction as we know it today.This was long before CFS and such like, and No 1 Gliding Centre headed up the training system.
My point was/is that it was VERY SIMPLE and not overburdened by masses of paperwork,but the MT had its own records even though the equipment was usually 'hand me downs' from RAF stocks.
Everything ran under the normal RAF regulations except that in many cases the parent unit may not have been on the Gliding site.At the start of a days ops all the equipment was given a 'DI' (staff cadets) and signed for.Aircraft were signed off by those with a suitable 'ticket'. The GS Adjutant would keep the paperwork in order and make required 'returns'.
The system have to revolve around the fact that the actual flying time per launch was very limited 3mins so the pre-flight brief had to work; as comms in the air had to be limited to 'corrections' rather than a conversation.
My point about 'actual knowledge' really means 'hands on experience' on the job as opposed to reading notes and taking a test. 'Everyone' in the system started at the winch end and had to chop cables; and so when they eventually became instructors themselves they knew the advantage of a good cable DI to prevent cable breaks. This system spawned a very comprehensive knowledge of what was important (and safe) hence it was able to send thousands of Cadets solo* (3* in those days) which also got them an A&B BGA Cert. I have yet to be convinced that the following years 'improvements' saw improved benefits to the Cadets and just seems to have upped the amount of dual flying. We certainly did not need to go on an external 'motivational' course to be appraised about 'spinning' !! As to how the system has evolved with glass; well at the VGS level it has evolved very well, but has been let down by the those further up the food chain who were supposed to be backing it up. As said before; the Schools never failed the Cadets the failure point is higher up in the system.