Gliding "paused"

Going by the report I heard on the radio it would appear the MOD’s financial scrutiny and processes are being questioned as it seems they’ve been creative with their accounting practices to get them right.

Those reports seems more to do with the political creativity (spin) surrounding the MOD’s accounts - HMG shifting as much as it can, particularly it seems anything to do with “security” under the “Defence” banner, to meet the NATO 2% target.

A lot of posts about small service fleets of aircraft, but very little about gliders.

Most gliding clubs manage to “economically sustain” very small fleets of two seat gliders and usually only one motor glider. A big two seater fleet would probably be considered four aircraft.

I believe that from the “Town Hall Meetings,” there were assurances that “everybody will know what they are doing by the end of Apr at the latest.”

Any news anywhere??

WRT servicing - where there is a will, there is a way.

Unfortunately there has not been and continue to be no will to make things happen. So servicing a fleet of gliders no matter how big or small will be used as a reason to do nothing.

Are these assurances from the same person that was promising us that said gliding would be back in 2015? Then promised 2016 … now we are looking at 2018 or later, with the draw of playing computer games as a replacement.
Given the realism I’ve seen on some of our son’s video games, we need something bloody good to make cadets think that was worth the effort turning up.

I suppose there is absolutely no chance of any of the names of the officers that are making these decisions ever appearing (rather than a collection of meaningless letters and numbers), because I would rather like to make sure none of them are on my Christmas card list.

1 Like

The problem is the name can change but the letters and numbers remain the same, or, they reinvent the role / dept / section with a different set of letters and numbers and leave the same idiot in post.

Quite interesting recent comments on the ‘pprune’ website (military aviation) about all the goings on, if anyone is interested.

Hopefully the whole saga has ‘bottomed out’ and gliding will slowly come to life once more

unfortunately HQAC set a “two year” indicator of return to operation so if we dont see anything around 2018 this topic will rise again…

Given HQAC’s record on “due by dates” for projects etc they aren’t exactly covered in glory. They may Highways England look good!

2018 will come and go and we’ll get another load of BS and empty promises in late 2018 / early 2019. We’ll get a lot of silence and small pieces of information hinting that things are happening inbetween and loads of jolly hockey sticks and mindless management babble on social media. They should be trying to instil confidence in us that they are on top of this by being completely open with monthly progress updates to all email addresses.

I will admit that I have gone quiet on this as I regard Air Cadet Gliding is unlikely to return in any way that I recognise before age makes me wonder what they are talking about.

Let us just remember those in charge at the time and treat them with the contempt they deserve.

Couple of restrictions on that ;
1 You’re forgetting there seems to be a lot around the Corps who feel their bathwater is the food of Gods and they can do no wrong and defend their incompetence.
2 They should have been sacked 18 months ago but their managers seem unable and more so unwilling to hold them to account. They must have bloody good mates in high places among other things.

Any updates at all? haven’t heard a squeak!

This letter was posted elsewhere, makes for interesting reading - perhaps uncomfortable reading when it hits the relevant desks?

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Your Ref: XXXXXXX
MOD Ref: XXXXXXX

Dear Mr. Merrimen,

Air Cadet Glider Fleet

Firstly, I’d like to thank both you and the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for your replies to my original correspondence dated 14th April 2016. As invited by you, I have now considered the Minister’s comments and feel I must respond and seek further answers from him, via your office.

The MOD has invested a significant sum of Public Money in a fleet of some 146 Grob Viking Gliders and Grob Vigilant Motor Gliders for use by the Air Cadet Organisation. I think I am correct in assuming these aircraft are subject to Military airworthiness regulations. The Minister mentioned the ‘Configuration’ state and I understand this to mean that being both ‘Correct and Maintained’ is a prerequisite to the aircraft being considered airworthy. It is equally important that the information about the ‘Material’ state of the aircraft is collected and retained, and I am disappointed that in this case the records would seem to have been destroyed. May I ask when this was discovered and what action is being taken to prevent recurrence?

Turning now to related Public Domain information, I note from the minutes of the Public Accounts Committee, which sat in March 1999, some eight or nine years after the Release to Service of the Grob Viking and Vigilant, that the question of a lack of ‘Configuration Control’ is publicly aired.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmpubacc/300/9030301.htm

So when the Minister mentions ‘Configuration Control Discrepancies’ in his third paragraph, I feel compelled to ask what protocol was adopted for the Air Cadet Glider Fleet from its inception? Particularly so, as some limited research of Public Domain information makes uncomfortable reading on the issue of a wider lack of ‘Configuration Control’ within other MOD aircraft fleets. For example, was the configuration ever controlled, or was the practice cancelled at some point? If so, by whom?

Similarly, when the Viking and Vigilant aircraft were Released to Service, was there a valid Safety Case? If not, why was the aircraft released? If there was, when was it cancelled or withdrawn, and who approved this?

What is concerning here is that the PAC heard evidence from MOD’s Chief of Defence Procurement admitting poor Configuration Control in other aircraft. See specifically the Q&A response to Q35 on the above URL link. On a prima facie basis, this appears to have been a serious failing by the MOD. It therefore seems clear that over a period of time from the beginning of the 90’s, the original ‘Safety Case’ for the fleet became progressively invalid, even under pre MAA Regulations. If this is the case, then those responsible need to be held to account. I have read, for example, the Nimrod Review, which would seem to articulate similar failings.

In the above context, I note the comment made recently by Air Vice Marshal Andrew Turner CBE, MA, MSc, BA, FRAeS FCMI, RAF, AOC 22 Group, in his paper published by the RAeS in their ‘Aerospace’ magazine.

“It was simply not an option to continue to operate without a Safety Case”

So yes, while the Minister is quite correct in saying ‘The safety of Air Cadets must remain paramount’ and ‘Any doubt regarding the airworthiness of an aircraft in which they fly is unacceptable’, it would appear that for many years MOD has not implemented its own regulations to ensure the safety of the Air Cadets. My question, as a layman, is how can an entire fleet be without a Safety Case? On the face of it, this is worse than the Nimrod, which actually had a safety case, albeit invalid.

Finally, whilst I won’t presume to advise the Minister, even if the MOD/RAF may have disputes with its contractors, it seems odd to me for the ‘contributory parties’ to ‘discuss the apportionment of respective liabilities’ as mentioned in the Ministers letter. That, in my opinion, should be done by an independent arbiter and the outcome made public, as we are talking of Public Money.

I look forward to receiving the Ministers reply,

I think we were hoping for too much and sea change in thinking/mind set with respect to useful information dissemination thinking, for us to be told things as described. If we were ‘being told off’ or saying something was stopping they’d be all over it like acne.

I would take it since all the white noise a while ago, nothing has changed.

There was a lot made of information being passed a few years ago, but that died a death pretty quickly.

If anyone from HQAC / 2 FTS / 22 Gp reads this; even if there is nothing to say, tell us, if there is good/bad tell us, as it is, don’t “spin it” with dressed up nicities. None of us are that stupid not to be able to smell a rat, if it is dressed up. I doubt with something like this, there is no news at all. Oh yes and do it in all address emails, not a few to cascade.

1 Like

There is of course the dedicated Badger page that holds the information and has done for a few months now

Thanks to @tingger i have found this information as always hidden away and not actively shared.

Recovery Plan Engagement

It needs to be actively shared and all address emails are the way to go and not linked documents or parts of the system that need us to log in to another part of the system. Mind you this is a major flaw of Bader.

Share what? A pretty graphic with nothing else there?

2 FTS Recovery Plan Engagement Site
Welcome to the landing page of the 2 FTS Recovery Plan Engagement Site. Please click on the large buttons below, at the bottom of the page, to access the relevant areas.