For a Gp Capt, isn't he a little light on the medal front?

Mandator

I smell spin doctors at work.......................

Ultimately the most boring experience - absolute scandal...............in the current circumstances.

Arc

Just a quick update on the eMail (Full Text : see Post 2272 http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...unded-114.html) I sent to my MP asking a very specific question on this topic.

My MP's reply ...

I will update further when I have a reply ...

Air Cadets grounded
 

Can someone please tell us JM's background? JP

A New Era!
 

A simple Google search found.....

Well, a new era it certainly is:rolleyes::rolleyes:

A few 25(F) Squadron stories here ... From Post 10 onwards ...

2 FTS Reforms

JP:-
Coffman Starter's link above gives a clue as to what has been done here, which is to offer him a poisoned chalice that he has eagerly accepted. It takes a certain type to do that, and as often as not they have already reached the level of their own incompetence and been selected for that very reason. It is those who have made that selection and their reasons for doing so that deserve inspection.

As others have pointed out, the ACO is an excellent organisation, doing essential work for the Royal Air Force in particular, by providing the seed corn of its future aircrew and engineers. It is only able to do this thanks to the expertise, knowledge, and experience of volunteers that is given freely and willingly. I can only applaud such selflessness and feel guilty that I have not done likewise.

That this excellent organisation has been so badly served by the main recipient of its output is a comment on the RAF leadership, the very leadership that still conspires to cover up the incompetence and negligence of VSOs that infected the UK military airfleet with unairworthiness, including the gliders and motor gliders of the ACO. That same cover up extended to the Haddon-Cave report, to the extent of calling the era of that subversion a "Golden Period"! Irony it seems blooms in the corridors of power.

The Royal Air Force appears to be set upon self destruction as it approaches its centenary. "Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad"...mad or bad?

My first flight was in an Argosy so I stood little chance of taking the controls then. My second was about a month later in a piston Provost when I did take the controls and I found the experience was definitely NOT boring.
Much later, flying air experience first in Air Cadet gliders (Sedburgh/Mk3) then later in Cyclone AX3 microlights, I always made a point of demonstrating primary and further effects to my passenger if it was their first flight, then allowing them to take the controls.

My children's school is sadly suffering an implosion in the numbers of what was once a very well attended and vibrant CCF (200+). Apparently only three turned up this week in the RAF section while historic numbers would be in the high forties+ :sad:

Unfortunately the lack of opportunities across all three sections is having a very bad effect but it is the RAF section that is taking the worst hits. These children joined to fly and experience aspects of the RAF - they feel very short changed with one flight every six months (if they are very lucky) and filling in the balance of their time on drill, swimming, and other activities doesn't really compensate that much.

I've tried helping out by arranging some AEF flights at Odiham in an attempt to re-ignite their interest but I think they are in serious trouble. If anyone has contacts at other bases who might be able to organise a station visit could they please PM me?

Such a shame and waste of potential and eager talent :=

CCF AEF
 

WOKKA; AEF was never really a 'hands on' experience even in Chipmunk days as one struggled out to the rear of the machine and only saw the back of a bone dome inner up front. The Grob at least saw you sat alongside the pilot,but a Cessna 172 would have seen 3 Cadets aloft together sharing the experience all on 150hp.
When they started AE gliding the 'experience' meant complete involvement with the operation and had far more team input.It also sowed the seeds of eventually being able to go on a course and go solo in the same aircraft.
Your CCF is suffering from the fact that the 'Organisation' up top has lost its way in realising that the Cadets join an 'Air Corps' because they have shown an interest in the 'Air' bit. With little of that on offer (and reducing) why would they stay when the 'goods' do not materialise. Gliding WAS a very simple way of getting Cadets involved and hands on with AIRCRAFT; it encompassed the entire operation from moving the machines from a hangar,helping to get them airborne,getting airborne themselves,and seeing them back indoors later.This was the unique nature of what was on offer,and frequently they would also see other Cadets being trained to go solo. That was an experience no other organisation could offer and the decades of results speak for themselves. Sorry about your local problem but the change has to come from the 'leaderless top' who do not have a clue what is needed,as they have 'seen off' a first rate operation that did what it said on the tin (and at very good value for money)

I see the trawl for AEF pilots has gone out:

20160418-IBN 33 16 Additional Volunteer Air Experience Pilots.doc
Request For Additional Volunteer Air Experience Pilots – 6 FTS

• Pilots must hold either a Service Flying Badge or CPL.
• By exception, pilots with 500 hrs light aircraft will be considered subject to a positive recommendation and Flying Ability Test.
• Volunteers must either hold a Regular or Reserve Commission or meet the minimum requirements for a Volunteer Reserve (Training) Commission.
• Full conversion training will be provided on Tutor 115E aircraft.
• Volunteers should be able to contribute a minimum of 40 hours flying per year.

I don't see anything specific about VGS pilots. Would the Vigilant count as a 'light aircraft'? It is normally either a TMG or SLMG depending on your PPL type. However, hours on them do count towards revalidation of a SE(P) rating if you hold a valid SLMG or TMG rating on the same licence.

Anyone know what the criteria for VGS pilots is for transferring to AEF? Is it the same as above or something different. :confused:

LJ

AEF Pilots
 

LJ Where are we with 'Civilians' in the organisation now.
The ATC website still talks about training to be a CGI and also mentions AEF flying as to include:- Taking control,aerobatics,Low level flying. Your 'AEF' Pilot Details' makes no mention of any instruction qualification or will the system put pilots through a CFS course.In practice a 500 hr Vig instructor should have no issues flying the 115 although they may find the whole ATC/Radar bit slightly less fun than back on the school.
I thought the 'low level' flying bit was interesting;do the website people actually know what really is on offer on AEF, and reading it no one would know there has been zero gliding for 3 seasons.
To be honest in trying to suggest that AEF in any way replaces or is an 'improvement' on the ATC Gliding just shows how out of touch the organisation has got,and is quite frankly misleading in its information.

So does that exclude the non-commissioned ranks then, who are obviously not able to attain a VR(T) appointment since they are already in the service?

Many now ex-VGS pilots came from the junior ranks, and many of the junior ranks hold PPLs and could contribute the vital service ethos to the AEFs (especially WSOp's, quite a few of whom have both PPLs and service flying experience), and it would be a shame if they were overlooked for the sake of preserving the "only officers can fly" elitism.

Leon Jabachjabicz wrote: I hear that Vigilant instructors are to be offered a mere 5 hours conversion onto the Tutor. Presumably conducted by a QFI, not some 'QUI' who hasn't completed the normal CFS course and been formally cat'd.

These new AEF pilots, without any formal aeroplane instructional qualification except for 'sailplane' instruction on TMGs, are apparently then going to be able to let cadets handle the flight controls above 1000'......

How is this being permitted in the MAA risk-averse culture of today?

No doubt That Charming Man Pippa will be able to explain why this is safe, given his thousands of hours experience as a pilot instructor....:rolleyes:

I suspect he might say 'That's 6 FTS's problem' ... 'I'm 2 FTS' :ugh:

Assuming that any of the ex Vigliant instructors are actually assessed as being 'acceptable' that is ...

Low Level Flying
 

I think i will offer my services on the 'Low Level' bit citing my previous experience on the Pawnee (complete with wire cutter) and flying Turbulents under (in my day) 10ft high bunting at airshows. I will be happy to demonstrate this to the Grob Trapper although we may increase the bunting height to 15ft!
The min 1,000ft exercises no good for me as i will get 'giddy' up there and suffer from hypoxia.
They have obviously given all this considerable thought including the 'bale out' provision on the low level bit when the Grob hits an equally low level Canada Goose which are now well established in the UK
In fact the low level 'bird strike' can be well demonstrated in the PTT with the added 'realism' of a whack from a 'ex' free range chicken and liberal use of ketchup from Lidl.
Beagle has that nice chap (hon pres 2FTS) answered your reasonable question yet !!!!

BEagle ...

It would seem that the MAA 'Regulator' devolves authority/responsibility under RA 2340 ... See Section RA 2340(1) 2c and 2d ... noting the word 'SHOULD' is used. I thought a Regulator 'Defined' then 'Manadated' and 'Enforced' compliance :confused:

RA 2340 Flying of Passengers on UK Mil Aircraft

CoffmanStarter, MAA regulations appear to ape EASA terminology, in the adoption of 'Acceptable Means of Compliance' soft law. EASA AMCs are non-binding and hence 'should' is correct - AMCs do not use 'shall' or 'must' as Alternative Means of Compliance (AltMoCs) can be raised by a MS as they wish.

AMCs are not a concept used in the UK Air Navigation Order, in which only 'hard law' mandatory regulations are included.

In more sensible times, a military document would use 'are to' for any mandatory regulation - adoption of EASA 'soft law' terminology must be rather confusing for many who are more used to military orders.

5Hrs conversion is the AEF standard minimum, even for ex-rotary pilots. All AEF pilots are allowed to let cadets handle the controls above 1000ft without having had ANY formal instructional qualification, ever.

BEagle ...

Many thanks and all understood ... I totally agree about the apparent 'confusion' given terminology ... Having, many years ago, had the responsibility of doing the amendments for JSP318 and the Flying Order Book, I'm more accustomed to 'Hard Law' mandatory regulations and Military Orders.

... And if I'm honest, don't see the logic of moving away (for the Military) from a Military Orders model. Presumably it was expedient for the MAA to lift an existing regulatory 'framework' and then 'adapt' in the wake of Haddon Cave.

Simply out of curiosity ... Does anyone know what (regular) 'mechanics' exist for the MAA to ensure compliance ? Do they, say for example, audit all of 22 Groups FO's ?

G- Reg aircraft
 

Am i correct in thinking that the Grob Tutor are on G reg.
If so do they by definition run under at least part EASA regulations both for maintenance and use. If 'instructing' a Cadet in the Grob Tutor i would have thought the Pilot would need the appropriate 'instructor ticket' from CFS or EASA.
I can not imagine those who decide such things at MOD will think they have 'covered' themselves by not attending to such details.
Is there a difference between 'instructing' a minor as opposed to giving them control.
If a member of the public attends a civvy school for a trial lesson he has to be flown by an suitable instuctor duly licenced for the flight.
If the same person wants a 'pleasure flight' with his family he has to find an operation that has an AOC and a suitable commercial' pilot duly type checked and current. The 'Duty of Care' is the same for both counts it is just the level of regulation that is different.Either way the minimum requirement for 'club' activity would need an instructor ticket on top of his CPL. In some cases the CPL will be on grandfather rights (instructing only).

LJ, the requirements stated from 2FTS when the 'request' for a return in the 'VGS Future Involvement Letter' was:

Minimum Requirements for Consideration for Conversion from Vigilant to Tutor

a. 2FTS Endorsement
b. A VRT Commission
c. 500 hrs Captain
d. B1 Gliding Instructor
e. Laudatory Report from OC VGS
f. 6FTS Endorsement
g. Successful completion of Vigilant to Tutor Conversion Course.

Additionally, to amortise training costs, a minimum period of 18 month service (post Tutor qualification) is also required (Note: maximum age for Tutor flying is 65 years).

Even this simple task of information gathering has been tragically carried out. Some returns have been lost in the ether and I hate to think how much time has been wasted by someone collating this data. And to think JM's baby (BADER) is based on SharePoint - the prefect tool for gathering such replies!

Considering many instructors have not flown anything for 2 years I can see the failure rate of conversion being very high unless a realistically achievable training package is provided.

I think you know the answer to that: yes there is a difference. AEF pilots do not instruct Air Cadets. The AEF is not being paid, as would a 'civvy' school be. The rules you seem to on about are not about duty of care, they are about money changing hands.

Sounds like the next phase in the plan - set requirements so high that it precludes the bulk of serving volunteers.

See previous comments (Post #1999) regarding 'Constructive Sanction'.

Instructing Cadets
 

Beardy On a trial lesson the 'client' is going to receive instruction and be given control of the aircraft;which sounds very similar to what the AEF is offering.
Because this system operates under what was private club rules (soon to be all under at FTO) no AOC is required nor is the Pilot type rated; but he has to have the required EASA Instructor rating.

In a AOC pleasure flight; control of the aircraft is NOT handed over to the 'client' who has not 'contracted'for this. However the (min CPL) pilot has to be type rated on type and have passed a recent flight test.The flight will have to be from a Lic airfield and not include a land away.

We are now talking about a 'new entry' of non service pilots to perform AEF flying which the Air Cadet Website states include; Taking control of the aircraft,Aerobatics,and low level flying. Their words not mine.In a G reg machine two of those functions would require a 'rating' and the low level bit would be difficult under EASA rules. Will non service AEF pilots be given suitable ratings. If they are only suggesting a 5hr conversion has this been thought out,or is the whole exercise just a 'well we gave them the chance to apply' scenario.

Constructive Sanction
 

Coff Got That, sounds about what is happening.

The clue lies in
they will be reservists of one form or another. Post RAF-service I instructed at EFT as a civilian and had to have a commercial licence and an instructor's rating. As an AEF pilot and now reservist I do not need any of these. (Although I do have them)

Cadets are not given formal instruction, none that may be counted toward the training required for a licence, but may be allowed to handle the controls.

As for all the other cases you cite, money is changing hands in a civil environment, that is the crucial difference for licencing.

There are most probably be some excellent pilots from the gliding world who will adapt to AEF flying easily.

There is an article on page 64 of the May edition of Pilot magazine about the whole debarcal........

Why the Air Cadet Organisation is So Important to the RAF and to Society
 

Someone has kindly emailed me this link. It's a Research Paper from almost 10 years ago, but much of what it says is as valid today as it was back then. Worth a read - at least the conclusion for those who are too busy to read the whole document.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

Broken link?

Just checked - it works

Well, as an ex Cadet I have read this thread with dismay, today my wife and I went to Smith Falls Airport {CYSH} to finish getting our very old "toy" {DH 87B Hornet Moth} ready for this years Air Show and Fly In events. The first thing we saw as we drove into the airport was a yellow Bird Dog towing a yellow 233 glider into the air, yes over here the Air Cadets have not yet been destroyed by idiots as in the UK, so send the kids over here, we could use some young blood in our ageing population!

Dont rub it in Clunk
 

Hey Clunk erase off; its bad enough over here without being reminded of it.
We have no gliders 'yet', we would not be allowed to use the Bird dog,and as for air shows well a large number are now binned due after effects of Shoreham.
Good news is Kenley will survive as a ATC Gliding operation which of course will please us both.
Rather send some of the 'idiots' over to loose somewhere well away from decision making.

Sorry Pobjoy, didn't mean to rub it in, but looking at the demographics of our population we could use a whole swag of younger folks, and those with a cadet background are the type of younger set we need. As for sending over the twits who have created this mess for you, yup we have lots of places with names beginning with "Fort" and "Post" we could ship them to, but I doubt the locals would make them very welcome! Of topic a bit, but any progress on the fire damaged officers mess at Kenley,? We have a WW2 vet who was based there with the RCAF, he is rather annoyed by the news of the fire damage.

Kenley
 

Clunk The 'idiots' shipped over(one way ticket) can be made to 'chip out' on hard rock 1000 times 'I am so sorry to have destroyed the UK Air Cadet Gliding force' Do not give them any food and gloves and let them deal with the Bears.

Kenley will live on and is potentially one of the most secure ATC bases as the MOD do not own it and the airfield can not be developed.The Mess is another matter and although listed (That system has no sharp teeth). Most of 11 groups Battle of Britain pilots will have passed through the place at some time,and of course the Canadian Wing was there. L19 Bird dog makes a great tow plane and are those 'Gliders' still available from the States.

The 'Idiots' are also trying to suggest that the PTT system will be an improvement on the traditional 'Hands on' basic Gliding training.You are correct they are Idiots and should be ashamed of themselves;do not give them any boots either.

Checking the Air Cadets website today I see that not only do they get to fly in a Grob Tutor as well as gliding but they may get a chance to fly in a VC10 or a Tristar!

Air Cadets Website
 

MMITCH I suspect the website breaches the code of the advertising standards agency it is so misleading and devoid of facts.

Here is a snap of some of the content.

Join the ATC as a civilian gliding instructor; you will receive full training and if you attend your VGS regularly you could win your instructors wings in 12-18 months !!! (Wow thats a really experienced instructor)

Just about sums up the way that one half of the organisation does not have a clue about how the other half is running (or not running) after all there has been NO GLIDING for 3 seasons. In fact the whole system is so 'spin happy' the truth has been lost on the way and no one seems to have noticed.

While perusing Skylaunch’s website last night, it occurred to me that 2FTS could really do with ordering some of their cable retrieve winches.

Skylaunch Cable Retrieve Winch

While the old MVP winches had 6 cables each, the new Skylaunch EVO winches only have 2 cables each, meaning more retrievals will be needed. This will be compounded by the fact that the future VGSs will be larger, meaning more launches, and thus even more retrievals.

In addition, assuming that the 25 new Skylaunch winches will be divided up between the 11 future VGSs, resulting in 2 winches per VGS (with 3 still spare), that will result in double the number of already much increased retrievals.

If however 2FTS were to purchase some Skylaunch cable retrieve winches, then the retrieval time could be vastly reduced, and thus the “sortie generation rate” much increased (in theory allowing for up to 60 launches per hour).

I would think that, at a minimum, 22 retrieve winches would be needed (one for each main winch). I also imagine the retrieve winches would need to be converted to Diesel. And as always, cost would be the limiting factor. But interesting to ponder nonetheless…

Cable retrieve winches
 

Whilst in no way wishing to damping the enthusiasm to do away with staff cadet duties i would point out that the limiting factor in launch rate was frequently having gliders 'available' to launch at the caravan end.On a continuous course with machines not landing at the launch point (unlike AE launches) i seem to recall it was not uncommon for cables to be returned well before the aircraft were there to use them. It mattered not; as the Staff Cadets could then get on with sun bathing in their LLoyd Loom (ex Battle of Britain) chairs and or plinking with their air rifles;having despatched someone to the NAFFI for a supply of fruit pies. It was not unknown for messages to be sent to the other end asking if we are 'still flying' !!!. Of course all this is rather academic now as one actually needs a supply of gliders 'on the airfield'; to be launched in the first place.