And are now forming an orderly queue to be the next new build housing estate.
However as this is an ANOB if it is outside of the âbuilt upâ area, ie out on the airfield and it is deemed that it will spoil the view and or not making a sufficient economic return, then itâs unlikely to get the nod.
I donât know but SS may have got what they have on the promise of economic return for the area and this hasnât been delivered, so new builds on a similar basis will be regarded with a bit of scepticism. You do get a sense that SSâs business acumen isnât high and the MODâs seeming reluctance to give them the contract for gliding repairs for say 30 years, means it ainât gonna happen, unless they can convince the local council that there is some worth to the local economy.
BUT the larger part of that economy is tourism and tagging an area ANOB, SSSI, National Parks is to boost tourism. Having said that I would love to know which level of idiot thinks a load of turbines across what I would regard as ANOBs as a good idea. Maybe SS want to put in an application for a wind farm and get the go ahead without a blink of the eye.
Housing estates etc are a different kettle of fish, so developing all or part of an old airfield when there is already a housing estate (MQ) and other living quarters / messes on the site, isnât a major change of use.
We have several villages near to us that are or have parts regarded as conservation areas and the people I know who live in these say if you live in the conservation boundary getting anything done, ie changes, new builds etc come under much more scrutiny than those wanting the same in the same village but outside of the conservation area.
We just have reconcile ourselves to the fact that the company selected and the people making that selection are in the business sense (at least) incompetent.
I would be inclined to agree with you on the principle, but in this case RAF Membury is more RAF Airfield than RAF Station.
(ie a runway with associated buildings, more than a technical and domestic site seen at a flying station)
The housing, living quarters, mess etc and other âstationâ furniture expected in a Domestic site is not in place at Membury. In fact the adjacent service station is much more of a âStationâ than what is left at the airfield.
Having flown over the site many a time (the 500â mast is a welcome navigation aid) I will take a punt it is a shadow of its former self and Google satellite seems to show that too. The buildings on site are already industrial, either hangers or farm based. (Wikipedia indicates âthe former technical site now home to an industrial estate (Membury Business Park)â)
I am not suggesting the application should not have been rejected given the content, but the argument that housing would slot in more readily against what is already on site is false and from what I have seen of the site and a quick search online the opposite is more likely (if correctly worded!)
That was the, later acknowledged, error in making entire airfields brownfield sites. The original idea being, presumably, that old runways were brownfield. Unfortunately this wasnât how the incompetents in Whitehall drafted John Prescottâs idea and even grass airfields were included.
To quote the man himself âThe green belt was a labour idea and we intend to build on that.â
I wasnât talking about Membury specifically for housing, but the general principle for old airfields now becoming housing estates.
If Membury is already largely industrial use, SS must have made a colossal boob on the application to get it rejected.
1 Like
Having looked where they are the only land they seem to have is a green field next to the sheds, so not likely to go well. They arenât even on what I would call the airfield.
If they purchased some of the units close by then maybe they could just change them for glider repairs. Most warehousing and industrial units are designed to be altered easily. Itâs not like you need âcleanâ facilities like those used by aircraft manufacturers.
Regardless of any historical background of brownfield/greenfield/outfield, they have, to quote our USA cousins, âscrewed the pooch.â
Nothing on OC2FTS Twitter feed, resounding silence across the board.
Westminster Hall Debate - 13 Apr 2016 - Hansard
Basically, the âparty lineâ - Simulators, blah, blah. No-one asked any probing questions about why we are in this situation.
MikeJenvey my feelings precisely. The minister was clearly just blurting out what he was briefed and a lot of faith is being put in these simulators to be able to achieve part of the taskâŚ
It is the future of the flying experience and what we are to offer our cadets which worries me; the cockups of the past are more of an annoyance. Part of me feels like a change to flying was going to be on the cards even if weâd retained fully operational fleets and I remain unconvinced on the direction we are now taking.
It is excellent to see that some squadrons / staff have sought to get MPs on the case. Well done 
However I do agree that the real question is how did we get to this point, ie 2 years without gliding. The fact that the gliders supposedly were in such a state they couldnât fly lost its relevance nearly 2 years ago.
A few bits from the debate interested me
Given the reduction in volunteer gliding squadrons, the number of units using 614 VGS at Wethersfield is predicted to increase from 55 to around 135 or 140
Which wasnât helped by
Wethersfield and 614 Volunteer Gliding Squadron. The plan remains that the size of the squadron will be expandedâshe mentioned thatâto facilitate its role as a regional hub. As she mentioned, Wethersfield has been identified for disposal as part of the MODâs programme of estate rationalisation by 2020. This is part of the Governmentâs commitment to provide land for 160,000 extra homes by the end of the Parliament, so the squadron will move to another site.
This interested me in that it would be interesting to see what the increase in tasking will be for the other VGS and what as the MP quite rightly points out, the extra travelling and time commitment from staff and cadets. When 614 moves (which you would hope for all concerned is being considered now and not 2020) will it lose/gain other squadrons and where will those it loses be tasked to. You canât see the size of the VGSâ expanding just its tasking.
Letâs not forget cadets will have homework, revision etc, will the new âexpandedâ VGS have the facilities so that cadets forced into a weekend away for effectively a couple of flight, can do homework, ie PCs and printers? OK the cadets should sort themselves beforehand, but our 3 all got multiples of homework and coursework with varying deadlines depending on how organised the teachers were. No matter how much we kept them on top of things, I can recall our kids spending all weekend doing things and I know cadets have been in similar positions. The last people to be considered in this are VGS staff, squadron staff and cadets, if any of these groups were being considered, the decision to reduce the number of gliders would have been communicated as soon as it was known.
I am confident that, throughout its transition to a future location, the staff of 614 Squadron will continue to ensure that the unit provides the same excellent training to cadets as it always has in the past.
Why should this be expected? They arenât employed by the RAF (remember the first statement mentioning no redundancy costs as they are volunteers) or contracted to anyone. Why should it be expected that any VGS staff will just move?
I have taken advice from RAF experts, who are extremely committed to solving the issue.
RAF experts??? ⌠Experts in what? Messing things up? Not being able to run projects?
Given the length of time (since Apr 2014) they havenât been that committed. I wonder if the commitment is linked to the statement in The House last month?
How long before synthetic flight (love that term) becomes policy and all squadrons need to have a synthetic flight set up with a minimum expectation for what we have to have? If it does WILL this be funded it centrally in toto to ensure consistency or will it like all other HQAC policies dreamt up by idiots and something squadrons have to fund? We must have better things to do than scrounging money from all manner of people to fund HQACs pipe dreams?
I find it rather depressing to be honest. Futile would be another word. Embarresing to finish off.
1 Like
Seconded; it has raised awareness & (fingers crossed), might generate some high-level personnel movement (by movement, I mean out of the organisation).
From those on high, the lack of input, contingency planning, response to alternative solutions (including formal involvement with BGA) has been terrible.
Information I was given last night would indicate that the plan is that only VR(T) officers and ATC NCOs will ever be instructors in the new system. Than means no staff cadets doing anything but menial jobs and no civilian gliding instructors; pretty much as I predicted.
This means no continuity from first solo to instructor, a cadet would have to wait four years for any meaningful flying after a GS.
At last the guy in charge (we all know who he is) will have achieved the control he wants and created a system where adults do things for cadets who become merely consumers. A very fitting way to celebrate a 75th anniversary.
As someone who has spent a fair amount of his life doing simulator checks, I can tell you absolutely that however good they are they donât have much reality in them; even the big ones that cost millions of pounds. What they are good at is teaching instrument flying procedures (not sure if cadets will want to spend hours learning how to fly an accurate holding pattern on an NDB) and dealing with complicated technical failures. Airline crews in simulators spend most of the time with the autopilot engaged.
Our squadron has a simulator. The cadets now seem quite bored with it and show every indication of preferring World of Tanks or such. In any case the cadets usually have a simulator on their PC at home (where they donât have to share it).
Thereâs a surprise.
IF the great and the good had been open with us about the prospects for gliding into the future, if only looking at the numbers of gliders expected to be left, then may be people wouldnât think they need to get MPs involved. Even then Julian Brazier is only a mouthpiece and doesnât really know, only what heâs been told to say.
A 6.5% reduction in numbers, suspected to become 10% this year, when weâve actually increased the age range of the cadets canât be ignored. How many do you think we can lose before the MOD bean counters start asking questions about viability?
Remember the email ref clearances for shooting last year and the fact we couldnât lose shooting indefinitely if we werenât to see greater reductions in numbers (CACâs view).
Agreed. Simulators are very good at practicing procedures, IF based flying, emergencies and the like, and the less âvisual flyingâ there is, the more use they are. Thereâs a good reason(s), for example, that the RAF do not (currently) use a simulator in any of the Tutor courses (that may change with the G120TP). Any decent sim would also cost more to operate per hour than the aircraft too at an elementary stage.
Not necessarily, I use Class D sims for many of the examples mentioned, but we also use them for visual/emergency at âspecial airportsâ - the imagery is very, very realistic - the picture doesnât do justice to the texture, depth of view, etc.
I do have to say that I was impressed by the Ministers maths. When discussing the AEF aspect he said âThis will increase by more than 50% from 40 to 70â I think we know why heâs not in the Treasury 
1 Like
50% of 40 is 20. To increase by 50% it would only need to go to 60 (40+20)
So the ministerâs statement was correct.
But in the context (and affordability) of whatâs being suggested - although admittedly better visuals are easier to come produce these days⌠I was talking recently to someone whoâs had the pleasure of practicing in the (now somewhat basic and elderly) Tucano sim, doing circuits; he was somewhat surprised as he tipped in on final to find the runway disappear off the visual! 
As youâll appreciate, trying to teach a full CFS L-A-I scan with only a 45-180 degree field of view can be a challenge!