There is no issue. Most junior gliding centres already have the correct DBS or Child Protection procedures in place.
The main issue is the ridiculous age and experience requirements (does anybody have a recent copy?) that 2FTS are placing upon BGA (and EASA) rated instructors.
It simply means that the majority of instructors fall outside of the limitations created by 2FTS which therefore means that Air Cadets have a significantly smaller opportunity to fly at BGA sites than young people from Schools, Scouts, Colleges, Brownies etc etc currently do. Each of these organisations respect the BGAās own operating procedures and therefore enjoy a significantly larger number of gliding opportunities and have done so for a great number of years.
The message is simple. Once 2FTS remove their ridiculous further restrictions they have placed upon flying at BGA sites, Cadets will begin to see a significantly larger number of civilian gliding opportunities opening up within their local area.
The solution is simple and has been for many years: any person who is serious about advancing their aviation interests in the form of practical flying and useful instruction needs to do that as a private individual directly with a gliding or flying school. Do not try to do it through the ACO.
[quote]DISCLOSURE AND BARRING SERVICE (DBS) CLEARANCE
a. In accordance with Chapter 8 of Air Cadet Publication (ACP) 4 ā Safeguarding and
Protecting Children, pilots offering one-off flights to cadets do not require DBS clearance.
b. Pilots who are in regular contact with ACO cdts by providing either regular flights or opportunities that involve multiple flights with cdts (more than once every 6 months) must be DBS cleared (or equivalent in Scotland).
[/quote]
i guess you are looking at continual flight instruction if you have DBS hoops to jump through?
Iām sure that there are also additional age restrictions for pilots/instructors being aged between 21-65?
I know some absolutely fantastic gliding instructors who fall both below and above these age restrictions and are therefore not able to fly with cadets.
DBS isnāt an issue as such given that Air Cadet flying is a very minute part of a BGA instructors flying.
Those powered aircraft criteria arenāt bad. In fact 2 hours in last 30 days is pretty lenient. (Theyāll have to have 3 takeoffs and landings in last 90 days as well for CAA criteria.)
Just a short note on the further insanity of those directing ACO flying.
A young man of my acquaintance, who happens to still be a cadet, is not permitted to fly as a passenger in a Tutor due to a well managed medical condition.
This young man is a solo pilot at two non ACO flying organisations and will become an instructor soon. He holds a CAA class 2 medical certificate which makes this completely legal and in the eyes of the CAA safe.
The same young man with this qualification would be able, under ACTO 35, to carry cadets in a civil light aircraft, but he is not allowed to fly as a passenger in a Tutor.
Yes, heās does and that would not be relevant. Anyway, since when have aerobatics been compulsory on an AEF flight?
It is purely a paperwork problem associated with the Form Med 1 and the āstop accidents by padlocking the hangarā approach by the ACO/RAF.
I am, of course, not at liberty to discus a cadetās medical issues here, but trust me the reasons are ridiculous. I think we can accept that the CAA have a lot of experience and know what they are doing. There are over 20,000 persons holding CAA medicals in the UK with the CAA keeping continuous records of all of them; I suspect that is a huge database compared with anything the RAF has.
What has been done with regard to applying for specific clearance through CFMO IAW ACTO31 F Med 1?
Should include the relevant log book copies + CAA Class 2 medical certificate - this should make it simple.
If you PM me an email address, Iāll send you the direct email for the CFMO - I was in contact with him when the F Med 1 was originally issued (2 yrs ago) & he was very helpful.
He said at the time:
Remember that the minimum civ standard would be an NPPL / LAPL, with intent to lower standards to match fitness to drive with no further medical input at all.
Sounds like your man has this already! He is clearly not a āsafety hazardā as per the quoted Mental & Physical Limitations.
Does he need to fly in a tutor? If he is a regular flyer would a tutor trip not be better spent on a first time flyer? I guess the experience should be open to all cadets but it would appear that the CAA are able to accept more risk than our ACO/RAF decision makers, sad times. I too can not fly in ACO aircraft but I like my pies these days.
I think itās very important to go down the route of getting permission to fly - even if he doesnāt decide to take up a slot. Any anomalies or inflexiblilty in the ACTO35 / F Med 1 need to be highlighted & improved if relevant.
I think you are rather missing the point here. I am sure that the cadet is very happy doing the flying that he is and wouldnāt have time to go AEF. The point was that the rules are probably very wrong.
As for the CAA being willing to accept a higher risk, are you aware that the CAA defined and stated acceptable risk for all sorts of things many years ago. A good example was the risk that is acceptable for an automatic landing in fog; the required level of safety is a failure causing a major accident every 10 million automatic landings. The CAA have medical risk rates for pilots (that you and I would probably need to be a doctor to understand). They base their rules on these.
I suspect that the RAF have based their rules on nothing more than a thought by a busy senior officer worrying about his pension and what the Daily Mail might say. The fact is that the RAF have very little experience of these sorts of issues since all their own pilots are selected as being fully fit. The CAA have a massive database of pilot medicals and outcomes.
