As a member of the triple-winged master race (one AE brevet & one pilot brevet), I think I detect a twinge of jealousy. 
If you earnt it, you wear it!
5 Likes
How has this changed? I always thought it was the case that cadets could get C wings for a civvy solo or licence.
Delegated downwards, it used to say:
SO2 CAPE, HQ 2FTS will consider each case on its meritsā¦
2 Likes
Something about us being an aviation themed organisation, and wanting to recognise actual aviators within that organisationā¦
No, youāre right, letās not do that 
2 Likes
Dont forget the āwinged master raceā now includes: drone pilots, baloonists, kite flyers, paper aeroplanes and wannabe be BA sprogs.
Never.
Corrected for you.
1 Like
And one of the largest Operating Authorities within the DofE Award Scheme, but still no badge allowed 
this is true - and there was a story this year about the Drone brevet being scrapped and all pilots irrespective of aircraft type having the same badge thus making an MOD pilot = pilot
Isnāt it the case that any type of PPL holder must have flown solo as part of their training? If so why is there need for paragraph 14?
2 Likes
Because sadly fundamentally the aviation āexpertsā in this aviation organisation frankly havent a scooby.
2 Likes
I have always wondered what % staff hold any qualification Beyond PPL & IR (Restricted) and if they do what input do they have into the strategy vs though in the role with the basic quals
Para14 is there as it is an absolute right for a PPL holder to wear the C wings. For those that have flown solo the right is only to apply (and be considered) to wear them.
Given cadets will not reach (with very few exceptions), PPL standard through RAFAC training or sponsorship what value do you see in the staff that have those advanced quals (I can think of five I know personality off the top of my head), in setting strategy?
We should have a goal of getting as many cadets airborne as possible, and for those with aptitude to progress to solo - currently due to COVID weāre not delivering that; and really struggle even in normal times. Why does it need an ATPL holder to drive that simple strategy?
Well, when I spoke to Wg Cdr (Flying) at 2 FTS when ACTO35 was first issued, he couldnāt see the difficulties relating to the various permissions & how they were linked to cadet A, instructor A & aircraft A, etc. They did not consider sickness issues on the day for instructor A, or technical unavailability of aircraft A, etc. There was a very blinkered approach to risk / permissions. Took quite a while for them to agree to a ālistā basis, so āxā number of cadets, āyā number of instructors, & āzā number of aircraft, perm any 1 from the 3 categories.
Now, this was worrying, because 2FTS clearly had not thought about āreal worldā situations (which they should have been aware of from AEF / VGS units (or with previous military service, life on a sqn), where it would be quite normal for an pilot to have a cold, or an airframe to have fault that needed fixing, so re-plan, & crack on with the other resources.
It was equally worrying that it took another long battle with 2FTS for them to include gliding within ACTO35.
As to ACPS Tutor flying for cadets, of course that is frozen - but commercial organisations are carrying out student trg flights in similar āside by sideā aircraft. Some have a very simple (partial) perspex divider, & flights are conducted wearing masks. Now, āourā Tutors are G registered aircraft, so there shouldnāt be any āmilitaryā nonsense about using similar dividers (no certification needed). However, I would bet a huge amount of money that the system will say ātoo dangerousā - might impede emergency egress, abandoning the aircraft in flight, etc. For me, considering the practicality (simple) & apportionment of risk, I would fit dividersā¦
Iāve asked 2FTS how they see the various schemes & the outlook for the near future.
3 Likes
HQRAFAC really needs to decide what they want from 2FTS and 6FTS.
For example:-The last two years have seen meetings with RAvOās voting to replace Nav scholarships with more AEF flying. For every scholarship student (10 hrs flying) you get up to 30 AEF trips.
The demise of scholarship flying does nothing to enthuse older cadets into aviation, takes more of the āairā out of air cadets and drives the notion that RAFAC may no longer appeal to anyone over 18 who is air minded?
4 Likes
They want to cut the hours of ACPS too
The 12 hours currently allocated at ACPS is to ensure the bulk of cadets finish with a solo flight.
Cutting the hours will only reduce the number of cadets going solo and gaining gold wings and then you have to ask, āwhatās the point?ā
Or maybe thatās what they want? Further down the line they can say, āfewer cadets are passing the course, Its no longer relevant, therefore we are not renewing the contract with Tayside Aviation!ā
1 Like
I would be interested in see the overall statistics for Tayside - number of students attended, progress / number of solo sorties, number / percentage of flights cancelled due to weather, etc.
From what Iāve been advised today, the main factor for freezing ACPS is based on:
The National Youth Agency (NYA) Readiness Level is currently Amber with current guidance being āThe Government continues to advise against domestic (UK) overnight and overseas visits for children and young peopleā¦ā¦providers should not offer overnight or residential tripsā.
As soon as restrictions on residential training are lifted, they will begin ACPS training immediately. ACPS is still planned for 2021, application timeframes are yet to be decided.
Still baffles me why itās safer for a cadet to be in their squadron accommodation with 16 others, than being in their own room in the Dundee Hilton hotel?
It also baffles me why nobody at HQAC has had the balls to challenge the NYA decision?