I doubt Tayside do it for a warm fuzzy feeling.
No but they are heavily involved with the air
Cadets so will probably do it much cheaper than most.
Iâm sure their owner was a VGS OC for many years
And OC D&CS Wing for a bit. It is all on his LinkedIn page.
1 Like
didnât know that bitâŚ
I only really knew Colin Mcrae
Not specified in the experience / levels criteria; had significant input into the gliding aspects as they were originally ignored. After liaising with BGA Chairman & others, suggested differing criteria for the 2 main types of BGA pilot (passenger / instructional), but made them deliberately âlightâ on the basis that 2FTS would probably toughen things up. Yes they did, but the parameters were more or less as calculated to avoid an over-burden on BGA sites.
One has to assume that in the case of successful solo, they know the cadet covered all the lessons because they didnât dieâŚ
I think that may be assuming too much logic in the ivory towers
looking not just at ACTO035 but the associated forms that came with the copy i have (from 2016) it includes the following
which youâll notice indicates âto solo Y/Nâ under the âflight instructionâ table, so would seem yes it was possible to have received training from non-Service routes to solo standard.
of course the prevention is that box being tickedâŚwhen ACTO035 was in force, only those sites which had been visited by a 2FTS representative to check it out/audit the site was permitted to send cadets in the air, there could be the same restriction on solo activities as/when ACTO035 is reinstated
Thanks Steve thatâs interesting.
When ACTO 35 was withdrawn I asked a senior aviation lawyer if there was any way around it. The answer was something like this:
Any cadet can go to their local flight school and pay for flying lessons at the going rate, no ACO involvement.
Any organisation which can raise the funding can offer flying scholarships or bursaries to subsidize flying training for young people. Provided such a scheme is open to the general public we can introduce cadets to it. Thus, for example, we can bring air league scholarships to the attention of cadets and even help with their application.
However, without ACO approval, a civilian organisation could not offer flying scholarships or other flight subsidy exclusively for air cadets.
Not quite sure about that. If I won the lottery I could set up a trust to provide flying scholarships for young people in the RAFAC and there is nothing HQAC could do to prevent that. They could hinder it by refusing to allow C Wings to be worn by those completing it, or preventing it being advertised through official channels, or making it clear that there is no insurance or other liability offered by HQAC but they canât stop me running the scheme anymore than a school can stop me setting up a trust to pay for extra tutoring for students from that school
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 âa private venture, not linked to the ATCâ 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 âwonâ a flight over the weekend - Fair play to the civilian pilot for offering the flight, Iâm 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⌠Iâm 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 âThe Inconvenient Truthâ, 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 âspecial forcesâ as he was so highly regarded as a pilot.
4 Likes
Classic case of it being easier to apologise for something, than get approval for it! Good for them!
6 Likes
Lots of people say this but itâs not true unless you are taking a scheduled airline flight.
Someone did a proper analysis of the risks of civilian light aircraft flying and itâs similar to riding a motorbike - relatively risky but not stupidly so.
Having seen the antics of some motorcyclists and I donât mean the vast majority of the âolderâ generation Iâm 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 havenât experienced a severe case of âroad rashâ yet.
1 Like
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 aircraftâŚ
Iâd 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.
Iâve 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 Iâm not convinced the risk profile is the same.
2 Likes
I see that the cadets on IACE have gone flying in GA aircraft from Gretchen to DĂźbendorf
Comments refer to a flap failure noticed during the checks
*edited because i didnât read properly
Set them correctlyâŚ
Might have been raised post landing, but not set before take offâŚ
Or worse⌠asymmetric flap failure during flap selection.