>HK36 Dimona<

Nice aeroplane but a non-starter for the VGS task because of its low MTOM. Several examples on the UK register cannot legally be operated with two crew and any useful fuel quantity.

Cats Five, OK, so leave those mentioned out of the picture. Considering that the K21 design is 36 years old now, surely its time for someone to produce a training glider that is equally good without the German price tag?

The only possible requirement for a training glider the k21 doesn't meet is being spinnable. It's comfortable, max cockpit load is 100kg in both seats, easy to handle on the ground, handles well, terrific in rough conditions and is very, very robust. It also holds its value well. The spin weights are best not mentioned. G is +6.1 -4 and it can be used up to intermediate level aerobatics.

Most pilots that continue flying and get their own glider will eventually own a design of a similar vintage - the discus for example was first built in 1984.

There are two training gliders built in Poland, but they are not that much cheaper and are not as well thought out or as robust. The pw6 dates from 1998 (1st flight) and the perkoz from 2011 but is a 1991 design.

Any glider built in the euro zone is going to be pricey, and if a new design was sketched out tomorrow I suspect the Vikings would be back in the air before it was in production.

Plastic fantastic
 

OK bit tongue in cheek but why not have Shorts of Belfast licence build 200 lovely Blaniks? Would glide like a brick but strong and makes a disconcerting creaky noise when being aero battered.

Character building glider!

C130 LEP
 

With the news that Marshal aerospace has just bagged the very big C130 life extension program one has to wonder if this will impact on the resources avalable for the VGS gliders ?

Cats

There is no spin requirement in the ACO syllabus - spinning is only taught to 'stall in the turn' level for students. If anything it's a safety feature for low time pilots that it won't spin easily.........

Arc

Cats five pretty well sums up the advantages of the K21 glider; London Gliding Club made this model the mainstay of the fleet and it is still doing good work, but at least one K13 glider is still used for spin training, which in the civilian clubs is considered a vital element for serious glider pilots. Lasham Gliding club still has a large fleet of the K13 glider and considers this to be the best all round training glider ever built, so does the club at Bicester.

Trouble is you can't build a wood and fabric glider using a mould, so the construction costs put it out of consideration. Maintenance takes time as well, but many are still going strong.

Polish gliders had a record of doing exactly what it says on the tin; if mishandled, they would spin. And recover using the correct actions, unfortunately not every pilot took the correct action when called for. The K21 would be a safer choice for ATC.

Certainly fibreglass maintenance has proved not to be beyond the skill of most civilian shops; they can cut and shut a bent glass glider just like new.

Lasham have started gradually switching to k21s. I flew g-clol last April, but it will take them time as in years.

As to cut & shut, I happened to visit zulu glasstek some years ago and one of the gliders was a k21 having a broken tailboom repaired.

Cats Five
 

Zulu Glasstec are one of a small number of technically very capable glider repair shops in the UK almost all of who work under BGA/EASA part M sub part F&G because this is what the civil gliding world requires.

It is much harder to find a composite repair shop that has the MoD required full EASA145 standard of oversight ( and is therefore capable of working to the military equivalent standard ).

As a poor standard of oversight is what started this "pause in flying" it is not surprising the MoD are particularly interested in not letting this situation repeat itself.

And there are only a small number of civilian shops as that is all there is work for. The existing shops are busy most of the time.

EASA145
 

Could someone please explain briefly the difference between a normal 'civi' glider repair bay and an EASA 145 one?

EASA Part M - EASA non commercial aircraft maintenance and management

EASA 145 - Commercial air transport (including engines, airframes etc )

So there's a significant admin burden that means it's only likely to be medium sized companies and above that can handle the paperwork? (to get up to 145 standard in the first place).

And cost of training?

fees are the same at £3366 for 145 or Part M
Procedures are similar

paperwork very similar.

BGA fees are through he admin fees for inspector approvals and ARC fees

It's not really a LEP (the original OSD was 2030 until the 2010 SDSR), it's the latest extension of the existing support contract.

Paul M
 

If EASA145 is so similar to part M F&G one wonders why there are so few maintenance companies who work to this standard at this end of the market ?

No custom I suspect.

Cats five
 

You are correct, no one operating a private glider wants the extra costs of EASA 145 oversight as this oversight standard is disproportionate in terms of both paperwork and cost for private flying.

While Paul M says the both systems are similar and to a point this is true but unfortunately the devil is in the detail and it is that detail that drives up the costs of operating to EASA145.

EASA have now recognised that they over egged the pudding when they introduced part M for light aviation largely because they failed to understand anything other than the oversight required by the airlines. The result was an increase in costs that has decimated the GA industry and forced EASA to have a rethink ( I suspect because they finally realised that if the GA industry contracted any further they would all be out of jobs having killed the industry that they are employed to regulate ! ).

So we now see the introduction of Part M lite, a new far more appropriate level of oversight for private flying.

This will help the costs in GA but as flying the nations youth is essentially a function that would in the civil world would require an AOC the MoD requires the military equivalent of EASA145 maintenance so no direct cost savings can be made.

The up side for the MoD is that in the medium term part M lite is likely to invigorate the GA sector and the economy of scale is likely to drive down the cost of some of the equipment it will have to retrofit in the near future.

Just a thought
 

How long before Air Cadet flying becomes part of the Aviation Nostalgia thread?

Exits to back garden to dig a deep hole to avoid incoming........





Happy new year to one and all, especially those busting heir butts to get the cadets flying again this year.:D:D

EXTRA LARGE CARPET NOT BIG ENOUGH
 

I think most of the interested parties on this thread are actually 'stunned' by the general lack of competence that has been shown by the very 'staff' that 'should' have been overseeing the ATC Gliding ops.
No blame can be attached to the VGS units that have demonstrated the ability to operate a safe training facility that had become overburdened with 'paperwork' that provided no extra safety.
However the full time paid staff responsible for the 'organisation' of the operation have been found to be completely out of touch with A:- What was needed,B:-The tech element,C:-How much practical experience (with continuity) is embedded with the schools,D,:-Or any element of practical and current knowledge of what is possible.
The organisation is being led by an element of non practical and tech incompetent staff (Military and civil servants) who have absolutely no idea of what they have done to the credibility of the organisation or the quality of leadership that is required.As Turkeys do not vote for Christmas i do not expect any dramatic change in direction unless there is some suitable change in leadership and the rapid influx of tech expertise. (no disrespect to Turkeys)