Sadly, ACTO 34 does state that a ACP badge can be worn by cadets who have completed a PPL, thus rendering cadets who earned the badge on merit indistinguishable from those whose parents were able to chuck enough money at a flying club to get young Bloggsy through.
I disagree with the above, as a PPL flying instructor - whilst yes you can ‘chuck’ money at a flying school to get bloggs to pass, they still do need the aptitude and ability to pass 9 ground exams and a flight skills test. There are situations where we tell bloggs/bloggs’ parents that we are unable to continue their training.
And even if enough money was ‘chucked’ in, it is a huge achievement to gain your PPL at any stage of life so is definitely worthy of an identifier if you pass whilst still a cadet.
I’d go as far to say that the achievement far outstrips a mere solo, which any competent teenager will probably achieve in about 8 hours. Perhaps it should have its own, superior badge.
Indeed.
stevenhawkingstennisracquet, do you have any flying experience? A PPL, perhaps?
It’s not like a driving licence.
Also, it’s considered good manners to read a thread through before commenting. You clearly haven’t, or you’d know that the Annexes to ACTO34 state the badge can be worn by anyone who has soloed privately.
I’d go as far to say that the achievement far outstrips a mere solo, which any competent teenager will probably achieve in about 8 hours. Perhaps it should have its own, superior badge.[/quote]
Like
[quote=“tmmorris” post=13209]Indeed.
stevenhawkingstennisracquet, do you have any flying experience? A PPL, perhaps?
It’s not like a driving licence.
Also, it’s considered good manners to read a thread through before commenting. You clearly haven’t, or you’d know that the Annexes to ACTO34 state the badge can be worn by anyone who has soloed privately.[/quote]
Indeed. I was awarded a 30hr RAF Flying Scholarship. I had to go to OASC to get that. It was run to a CFS-approved syllabus. You flew solo after 10hrs and if you hadn’t soloed by 10:30 you were chopped. If cadets don’t solo in the allotted time on an ACPS, they don’t pass the course and don’t get the wings- as opposed to those being paid for by mummy and daddy who can keep on throwing money at the problem.
Incidentally I paid for the extra 10hrs to complete my PPL and I’ve been a QGI on a VGS since 1994.
[quote=“stevenhawkingstennisracquet” post=13306]
Indeed. I was awarded a 30hr RAF Flying Scholarship. I had to go to OASC to get that. It was run to a CFS-approved syllabus. You flew solo after 10hrs and if you hadn’t soloed by 10:30 you were chopped. If cadets don’t solo in the allotted time on an ACPS, they don’t pass the course and don’t get the wings- as opposed to those being paid for by mummy and daddy who can keep on throwing money at the problem.[/quote]
My bold
As a VGI you should know that this is no easy task to dash someone’s hopes/dreams then.
Also your post, is all well and true in situations whereby you are doing an intense 10/30 hour scholarship over the course of 1 week/2 weeks/ 3 weeks … but If you are a 16 year old student, whereby mum and dad (or yourself in some cases) was only able to ‘afford’ to fly 1hr a week or so (and that was dependant on the weather too) as well as passing a class 2 medical (£££) and your air law exam whilst fitting in school. It will more than likely take you a lot longer than 10hours.
Also, I doubt you had to pass the CAA Air Law exam before you soloed. Much is implied by those who have undertaken military or paramilitary (in which I include the old 30-hour scholarship and GS courses) EFT about how it is ‘better’ than the civilian equivalent, but it’s not, it’s different. As VZ says, self-funded civilian training is unlikely to be continuous; but it is also more likely to include proper consolidation work, ground school and written exams, rather than just throwing someone at the aircraft continuously in order to achieve solo in artificially few hours.
Do I understand from VZ that you are now a gliding instructor on a VGS? If so, you need to have an attitude check. CCF cadets, whom I suspect will form the majority of those you are denigrating, form 23% of your customer base and keep you in the free flying you are currently enjoying.
I can confirm as a PPL holder I was not permitted to fly solo until the air law exam and my medical was complete
this I recall is similar to the GS I did way back when, there was a “theory test” to complete prior to any solo work
so I disagree based on my own experience that trainee pilots would be permitted to solo without air law/theory exam being passed first
[quote=“tmmorris” post=13343], rather than just throwing someone at the aircraft continuously in order to achieve solo in artificially few hours.
[/quote]
That’s not really true is it? Continuity and perpetual consolidation is just part of the job and the most efficient means to train people. Even a break over a weekend can affect progress at some times early on. You’re not going to be sent solo in any aircraft unless you are safe and competant. The time is irrelevant, albeit in a “state funded” scheme, if you aren’t solo within a reasonable time (some other factors permitting), continued effort is probably futile, as you’ve been selected for your potential.
I heard a case recently of a civvy at a major commercial flight training school, who, I was relieved to hear, was chopped having failed to solo in 25 hrs. Thank heavens.
Air Law - civvy flying school (CFSed or not)= must be done pre solo.
RAF - obviously just a bunch of hooligans with no idea having not taken it… 
You jest… but one of my cadets was in a notifiable AIRPROX at a VGS, and the very young instructor not only didn’t notify it, but wasn’t even aware such a thing existed. Wouldn’t have happened in a civvy flying school of any description.
I like the VGS system, but its members need to accept what they are: a basic training organisation which falls some way short of a ‘proper’ flying school, civilian or military, and with a different role. Unfortunately some of their members - overwhelmingly the younger ones - think they are something rather more pointy.
That is strange as the ASAR officer is working his backside off at the moment improving just such training maybe the inquiry should have been if he was aware of DASORs instead of airprox?
The constant theme at the moment is on air safety and has been for sometime DASORs, air safety management plans, ASIMS, transfer of data on to CADS all improvements only just this week an email about the robust chasing of the CAA over VGS airfield infringements. Hardly cowboys really?
[quote=“tingger” post=13464]That is strange as the ASAR officer is working his backside off at the moment improving just such training maybe the inquiry should have been if he was aware of DASORs instead of airprox?
The constant theme at the moment is on air safety and has been for sometime DASORs, air safety management plans, ASIMS, transfer of data on to CADS all improvements only just this week an email about the robust chasing of the CAA over VGS airfield infringements. Hardly cowboys really?[/quote]
He should have been aware of the hazard that presented itself. Even if he was unaware of the reporting chain (which, arguably as an operator of a service aeroplane, he should have been, and his CoC should ensure this), he should have had the nouse to mention it and be directed to a course of action.
Mr Morris: you make a good point. In some ways it is surprising that “mutual” cadet sorties (ie Staff Cadet flying a cadet pax) still exists in this risk averse orgsnisation.
Quite hard to say without knowledge of the actual incident but if relying on the cadets version of events of what happened can always be interesting to try and piece it all together. What I was alluding to was asking hm if he was going to file an AIRPROX got a no what are you talking about, maybe if the question had been are you going to file a DASOR then the answer would have been different.
A restriction is in place for two under 18s being able to fly together rather than on the position in the organisation.