none of that surprises me (other than the last paragraph as highlighted by @Farmerdan.
As a Squadron we already bring aviation scholarship/bursary schemes and the link to the attention of the Cadets. Although we have offered to help write applications, we make it clear that it is “a private venture, not linked to the ATC” but the Squadron population is a captive audience of aviation enthused Cadets who are more likely than the rest of their school to actually apply.
Interesting to see that a cadet taking part in a RAFAC event supporting some air display at a flying club ‘won’ a flight over the weekend - Fair play to the civilian pilot for offering the flight, I’m guessing the must have sorted the paperwork and the authority from HQAC out in double time 
A great opportunity for the cadets, but pretty sure it goes against all current policy… I’m intrigued to know if they asked HQ and got a yes, or of they just did it?
Considering the standards of aircraft safety revealed in the tome ‘The Inconvenient Truth’, then there was the Nimrod crash in Afghanistan, the Hercules shoot down or the tragic death of an engineer from an ejector seat malfunction at Scampton. The RAF and air safety is sometimes a contradiction in terms. Considering the drive to an airfield is probably far more risky than the flight itself.
Edited to add, the RAF tried to hang out to dry the two pilots Flt Lts Cook and Tapper and it took a concerted campaign over many years to have a Fatal Accident Inquiry, which exonerated them. The two senior officers who tried to screw them over have never been brought to account, Wratten and Day.
Rick Cook had been tapped on the shoulder to become permanently attached to ‘special forces’ as he was so highly regarded as a pilot.
Classic case of it being easier to apologise for something, than get approval for it! Good for them!
Lots of people say this but it’s not true unless you are taking a scheduled airline flight.
Someone did a proper analysis of the risks of civilian light aircraft flying and it’s similar to riding a motorbike - relatively risky but not stupidly so.
Having seen the antics of some motorcyclists and I don’t mean the vast majority of the ‘older’ generation I’m surprised there are not more fatalities. The number I see who have only a helmet on riding in just shorts or jeans frightens me. They haven’t experienced a severe case of ‘road rash’ yet.
Also if I remember correctly the likelihood of accident was similar to a motorbike, but the likelihood of surviving the accident is much higher in an aircraft…
I’d also love to see what was classed as an accident in the aircraft - as I doubt many cyclists are going to report on a little dent, where in a light aircraft the slightest knock or even a hard landing could be a reportable occurrence even though nobody was ever in any mortal danger.
I’ve not read it any real detail… but given there were 336 motorcycle deaths and 5,667 people were seriously injured out of over 16,000 accidents in 2019 I’m not convinced the risk profile is the same.
I see that the cadets on IACE have gone flying in GA aircraft from Gretchen to Dübendorf
Comments refer to a flap failure noticed during the checks
*edited because i didn’t read properly
Set them correctly…
Might have been raised post landing, but not set before take off…
Or worse… asymmetric flap failure during flap selection.
Does ACTO35 allow this, I wonder…
This really does boggle the mind. Cadets going flying overseas, cadets getting a flight at an air show, but we can’t organise them to fly/glide locally.
You are the responsibility of the hosting cadet force during IACE
Bizarre situation
Is it?
Your in an exchange so subject to the hosts rules & regulations.
I’m British, so can drink at 18, but if I go to the US I have to be 21.
The program isn’t approved by all 15 exchanging nations it would be a disaster.
I mean in the context of flying with private clubs. It makes the assurance argument (even more) illogical.
Not really because e the assurance is all about responsibility, if it’s a different countries Cadet Force organising then that risk sits firmly with someone else.
You mean just like the regulation and risk associated with flying in civilian aircraft is firmly with the CAA not RAFAC 
Parents, headlines, and the public won’t see that though.
It does somewhat quash the assurance argument, because it’s still cadets being allowed to fly in non internally assured aircraft/locations. The risk bearing is only one facet of that equation.
The more granular comparison/inplication is that we don’t trust the UK Aviation Industry standards, but are willing to trust others’ standards - the response why? Essentially “because we’re not taking the blame if it goes wrong”. That’s a worse stance on risk mitigation than using UK based clubs!
Does Haddon Cave ring a bell with 2FTS?