‘a RAFAC representative will attempt to discuss this issue with each cadet personally.’
Having read through the JI’s, I wonder what has changed? The MOD requested changes to the course, (see below), which Tayside implimented. The MOD must have been happy with them or else they wouldn’t have told Tayside to release the JI’s to the selected cadets and told them to get Class 2 medicals at £250 a pop!
Surely its far more risky them going back to school this week?
COVID 19 information
Tayside Aviation is a CAA Approved Flight Training Organisation and safety is our first consideration in all our activities. We have completed a number of risk assessments in order to begin flight training again, as well as a number of specific changes requested by the MOD in order to ensure our cadets and staff are able to fly safely during these difficult times.
During COVID 19 active period we are making the below changes
** Single room accommodation*
** Appropriate PPE for all staff and cadets*
** Social distancing markers in corridors and workspaces*
** Changes to classroom layout to ensure social distancing*
** A reduction in number of trainees*
** Allocation of a single Flight Instructor for the duration of the course*
** Increased hand washing and disinfectant facilities*
** Cleaning aircraft after each use*
** Single toilet facilities*
I’m at a loss as to why (for the purposes of this year only) the ACPS can’t be run at a local flying school to the cadet. (Yes I know there are contractual obligations and whatnot)
It’s not necessary to run it as a residential course and there are flying schools all over the country making similar CV-19 precautions, and as @Turbo said if they’re going back to school - isn’t that more risky in terms of number of people in a building?
I myself am finding myself wearing this whilst teaching PPL Students.
The MOD will only allow cadets to fly with authorised schools & instructors, which their local school will not be. Also, some “local” flying schools can be hundreds of miles away for some people.
Tayside’s Instructors are still EASA Licensed CPL FIs - or at least PPL FIs with CPL/ATPL TK under their belts I’d hope/assume - unless they’re using LAPL Instructors to teach cadets on ACPS. Which could lead to some disappointed if a cadet continued their training post ACPS and wanted to achieve their PPL.
Regardless the qualification the instructors hold is the same - and just because someone at 2FTS has had Tea & Biscuits with someone at Tayside doesn’t mean that other schools/instructors are less qualified.
And similarly to @GrandMaster_Flush almost all the cadets on the course are more likely to have at least 1 flying school closer to them than Tayside (probably more) - I didn’t mean that they would do it residential at a closer flying school, just on a Week-to-Week basis, with the same instructor/same aircraft which is what we’re doing at my flying school as much as possible.
Same thing - a (f)ATPL is a CPL without the hours and Multi-Crew Time, although you’re right, i could edit my above to say CPL/ATPL TK. (Theoretical Knowledge)
That would probably work better, however the problem is with the MOD not the CAA. They aren’t going to suddenly change their mind on a debate that’s been ongoing for years.
Unfortunately the MOD has a default of applying one size fits all solutions. In this case if they have stopped all residential courses then not only can they guarantee that there will be no negative publicity but they save a considerable amount of staffing time that would be spent trying to delineate between residential courses that could go ahead and those which could not. However, there may have been at least one more option; cancel all residential courses on MOD property but allow individual cadet HQ to review all contracted courses delivered by external providers. Given that the ACPS is contracted out to Tayside and Tayside are operating within CAA guidelines they must be deemed to be minimising risk. That being the case HQAC could contact all parents and guardians of award holders, explain the situation and leave parents/guardians to make a decision on attendance. Given the cadet cohort are, according to statistics, a low risk group (far lower I suspect that their instructors) I know what decision I would make. Parents/guardians are making far more difficult decisions on a daily basis and, provided all advice is followed, there is every chance that the course would be a great success.
Some misconceptions here. ACPS is not cancelled for FY20-21, but already booked course dates have been unbooked until MOD allows the courses to restart (MOD not RAFAC or 22Gp or Air Command), allowing RAFAC HQs to decide who gets the smaller number of courses available when they do restart.
Cadets have been individually contacted (some managed to do this by phone, some had to email) to let them know. Please don’t shoot the messengers: neither volunteers, nor RAFAC permanent staff, have made this decision; and I’m sure MOD had reasons even if some of you may not agree with them.
On the point of the location, cadets used to go to local flying schools to do FS, but at some point the MOD gave Tayside a monopoly. If local schools are taking people through to PPL, can’t see why they can’t do the shorter FS. Two of my mates did this and carried on to get their PPLs and I know of others who did the same at local schools. You can lose the residential aspect, as they could go back and forth.
All Tayside instructors are checked by CFS ‘trappers’. That didn’t use to be the case for the old style FS (when I did my PPL at Welshpool in 2001 there were indeed cadets there on FS).
