Back up plan?? I really thought that you’d know better by now 
It looks as if the applicant shot themselves in the foot with this one.
With several reloads… ;-)[quote=“papa_november, post:979, topic:1152”]
Back up plan?? I really thought that you’d know better by now
[/quote]
I couldn’t find the emoji for sarcasm on a nuclear scale! 
All the eggs were put in one basket - & got smashed.
This means that the “pause” will be significantly longer.
1 Like
If only we were part of an organisation that had airfield and hangars
[quote=“MikeJenvey, post:978, topic:1152”]
PROPOSAL: Outline Application - Erection of three hangars for servicing of planes. Matters to be considered Layout and Access.[/quote]
I would if a key word was missing from the application?!?! A ‘plane’ to me comes with noise, it has an engine.
Would what the answer would have been if it read ‘sail planes’?!?!? Sail planes don’t have engines!
Bet people thought the ‘planes’ would be delivered by air and not on the back of trailer!
Many a slip…
The planning process is long and complicated and the experts know how to play it best, although with the MOD as your partner…
Also, the form may have been specific but a planning committee aren’t technical experts and may mis interpret it.
Read the main application letter - there are statements that could have been made up by the fairies.
Notwithstanding those weakness, not providing the other information as requested was exceptionally poor business practice.
Whereas, Serco’s record of business practice is impeccable.
Don’t mix the issues (if, of course, there is a problem with Serco!)…
The Design Statement was, in several areas, a joke. Quoting “national security interest” was laughable. Probably as a result of limited credibility, coupled with the lack of information as requested, the application was refused.
So, where is the back-up plan, & where is the statement of intent concerning repair timescale &/or alternative gliding options? As I said earlier, no location & no timescale = no-one will apply for any of the maintenance job options.
Umm… Isn’t this where it all started? Either Serco fouled up, the RAF fouled up or the MOD fouled up in the first place. As far as I know Southern Sailplanes had no hand in creating the “pause”.
Of course, we should know which organisation/person caused the problem in the first place, but none of their paperwork is in the public domain.
[quote=“XN150, post:988, topic:1152, full:true”]
the RAF fouled up or the MOD fouled up in the first place.[/quote]
No exceptional need has been made and the MOD Contract noted appears to be unfounded and spurious.
The bold says it all. My interpretation is that the MOD contract didn’t exist which would suggest that the MOD couldn’t or wouldn’t provide an outline contract to show the potential increase in business, initially and into the future.
You sort of get an impression that the MOD found the problem with the gliders, grounded them, approached the company who it seems don’t have the facilities in early 2015 who then put in a planning application to build more hangars on the basis of a contract that didn’t actually exist and or no ‘promise’ of extra work into the future to support the requirement to extend as per the application. It could be said that this was stuffed up by Southern Sailplanes who did an half-baked job in the application and he MOD who must have some splinters where the sun doesn’t shine in terms of actually supporting the application as I suggested above.
Also SS must know they are in an ANOB and planning permissions are never going to be a walk in the park if they involve greenfields, especially if there are brownfield sites or existing buildings that could be developed.
All that we can be assured of is that gliding is off the menu for a lot longer than we might have expected after the statement a few weeks ago.
Thankfully I don’t have to rely on this lot to get a pint in a pub.
Southern sail planes are already fixing aircraft so there must be a contract already.
Don’t think ex RAF Membury is greenfield it has the M4 right through the middle, Membury services and SS existing site there already
Letter in The Telegraph, in reply to XN150 letter?
Cadets will fly high
SIR – The air cadet glider fleet was not grounded solely as a result of cost considerations (Letters, April 3).
Following a full inspection, initiated in 2014, no reliable contractor could be found to take on a large-scale refurbishment of the Vigilant gliders. Faced with no viable option but to draw down the fleet for safety reasons, the Ministry of Defence is in fact increasing spending on cadet flying by returning Viking gliders to service and offering more powered air experience flights and synthetic training. While I understand that this process has been frustrating, the safety of instructors and cadets must come first.
I am confident that air cadet gliding will emerge more resilient in the long run thanks to this reorganisation, and that all cadets across the country will have flying and gliding opportunities.
Julian Brazier MP (Con)
Minister for Reserves
A look at the letter would suggest otherwise, either that or there wasn’t/isn’t enough ‘business’ to warrant the extra hangars into the future.
There must be “brownfield” on the site that can be developed rather than building new. But being in an AONB would be a massive block unless a really need could be warranted.
I saw that letter and thought it was atypical BS from someone who is clueless.
Most likely one or a combination of all 3 - but still preceding the “now we need to get airframes fixed” = a seeming mess (my “auto spell” inserted steaming at first, maybe more appropriate? 
) from start to finish - although finish is the wrong word, the end is nowhere in sight.
And the Vikings??
Sadly, we’re not. DIO is, and their motives aren’t necessarily in th best interests of the wider MoD. They’re more of a cowboy landlord.
Not quite right. They have a job to deliver savings to the MOD purse, and if that means selling off land to put money back into the HMG purse then they do!!
They do (you may have sensed my reply was a little tongue in cheek) and in doing so they make it very difficult to get some stuff done. They seem far more interested in making money which is why even simple tasks cost the MoD an arm and a leg in fees - which go to the treasury, not back into defence.
I am fairly sure that all airfields were defined as brownfield by Prescott some time ago.