What reputation? The only reputation we have at the moment is one of under delivering, stifling opportunity and bureaucracy. Hardly going to cause more damage to outsource to a competent, willing and welcoming 3rd party.
I know that, We all know that.
Internally the Air Cadets has that reputation, but I’m not sure it does externally.
In what way exactly?
It’s never not been allowed. My point is the Commandant set boundaries in the IBN that sponsorship was the extent of what is allowed to be publicised . The Commandant has then appeared to contradict himself on Facebook by saying that a private arrangement could be made to pay a civilian gliding or flying club outside a sponsorship scheme.
Simple, don’t publicise it then
Also, get ready for the barrage of why can’t little Johnny get one of those Blue Flying Badges after you took him flying.
I agree completely and can’t see the technical difference either. I think the difference is political/reputational. The RAF being unable to provide flying and gliding opportunities for the Air Cadets and then cadets looking for opportunities elsewhere could be (or is!!) seen as an embrassing failure. One way to make it less obvious… stop cadets flying anywhere else and promise jam tomorrow. In contrast, using external providers for AT doesn’t have that reputational risk.
I think the question HQAC needs to ask itself is, “why are all the squadrons, staff and cadets so keen to use civvy gliding/flying clubs?”
By the way, has anybody seen the results of the cadet aviation experience survey?
Perhaps HQAC are looking at the problem from the wrong end of the telescope.
From a "Flyer " article in May 2016:
Julian Brazier, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence said in a recent debate, “Let us be clear that the recent restructuring of air cadet gliding is not a cost-cutting exercise. The Air Cadet Organisation remains hugely valued and the Royal Air Force is fully committed to offering flying training to all air cadets.
“The blunt truth is that we were unable to find a sufficiently reliable contractor with the capacity to take on the bulk of the Vigilant fleet. Faced with no viable option, we are increasing spending to get almost all the Viking gliders back into service as well as offering an uplift of more than 50% in air experience flights. We aim to have a significant gliding programme again by this summer and to have the full programme in place by 2018.”
If taken at his word, the Minister said it is not a money problem but an engineering issue. However the result, of course, was a reduction of more than 50% of the VGS. with the remaining not equally geographically spread. This has been exacerbated by the failure to have “the full programme in place by 2018” Result- a failure to deliver a comprehensive gliding experience (and I won’t go here into the ongoing problems with AEF serviceability).
I accept entirely that the capacity is not available to visit and approve a large number of BGA clubs but I suggest there is no requirement to act at scale. Why not identify and approve a far more limited number of geographically spread BGA Clubs to provide the first glider flight experience for all cadets? Then use the VGS for a more limited number of cadets to do next stage training towards their solo flight and beyond. You then have a deliverable and sustainable pyramid. Given that the BGA clubs would deliver experience flights only the aircraft mix wouldn’t matter.
An income stream for the approved BGA Clubs, an improved chance of a first flight for all cadets and a manageable approvals level for HQAC.
Only a thought.
4 Likes
This was looked at several yrs ago; I went with our R Av O to Little Gransdens - RAFAC was investigating this path. All seemed very promising, then it died a veru quick death.
What a shame it didn’t get taken forward. While the RAF has to reduce its footprint the RAFAC is a nationwide organisation that must do its best to deliver the air experience right across the country.
Do you know why it died?
Might be worth re-visiting?
i don’t think that was ever in question.
the paperwork for the fleet was not water-tight and so upon an audit there was no evidence that X, Y and Z had been replaced/inspected/oiled/tightened/other >delete as appropriate< and so was grounded as there was no assurance the fleet was safe - correct decision.
no one is questioning that.
we accept that there is a financial penalty to get the aircraft “up to scratch” again, and in part was the reason the Vigilants went (although there is a much larger discussion around the end of service life for that aircraft anyway which in 2014 was fast approaching)
we don’t accept that the situation got that bad in the first place, nor do we accept that having made that mistake once, that the RAF/VGS/2FTS won’t make the same errors again.
The RAF/2FTS seem to think because it happened to them then it could happen to other VGS-style operators, such as the BGA, who is a volunteer run organisation (at the coal face at least) and because the RAF missed the target on safety then who is to say the BGA/CAA won’t also?
except there is no evidence that the BGA or CAA have ever had such issues, and certainly not on a whole fleet, or even a whole club. the civilian world is just as, if not more, picky on safety items. Having had inspectors check over my aircraft i know that they are making decisions which potentially puts my life (and that of my passenger’s life) in their hands.
those decisions are not made lightly - often “if there is any doubt, then there is no doubt” - ie if you think something looks a little worn, then there is no doubt it is worn, get it replaced.
yet the BGA and CAA already do so there is capacity there for the civilian organisations.
what 2FTS needs to do is audit the CAA or BGA and if happy all who adhere to those standards get the green light.
otherwise it is like taking your car to an DVSA approved MOT station, only for the RAF to not accept that result, and require its own mechanics to check that they are not only meeting the DVSA standards but the RAFs own (potentially) different standard.
i know for some it did and maybe 3-4 sites were approved and flew Cadets if only in a small window between being said we could, getting approval to use the site, and then stopping it dead.
as far as i can tell no sites that the RAF visited to audit failed to meet the standards set - either indicating the RAF standard is easily met (perhaps lower than the BGA operate), is already inline with how the BGA operate and so is simply a case of the standard SOP, or whatever differences there are between the RAF’s expectations and how the BGA operate was so small it was easily implemented on the spot.
If this is the case in the minds of decision-makers, then they aren’t looking past the end of their nose. I don’t buy that this logic stands up to any scrutiny.
It is far more reputationally damaging to offer an insufficient amount of your USP for it to actually be a USP than it is to outsource it. We advertise AT - no one cares that we use external providers. No one will care who owns the aircraft or who the instructor is if they actually get to fly in the Air Cadets - preferably for free or at least heavily subsidised/discounted.
If a business subcontracts certain aspects of projects because they don’t have the skills, certification, or sufficient labour to complete a project all in-house the client accepts it, because what they want gets done.
Over the last 10 years we’ve disappointed an entire generation of cadets. The natural recruitment pipeline of “my mum/dad was an air cadet and really enjoyed it, they did loads of flying which sounds cool so I want to join” is in huge peril and presents a future existential crisis for the entire organisation, not least because it’s also coupled with damage in many areas to shooting and fieldcraft which are two other huge draws. I don’t like slippery slope arguments, but so much of what is happening has huge potential to be genuinely and permanently damaging.
Anyone fancy the Two Dukes Cadet Force? (Edinburgh and York)
1 Like
I “think” the risk aversion aspects caught up. Never got a concrete answer. I would certainly push for this sort of opportunity to be investigated again.
Agreed. I’m not trying to suggest that this is a logical or coherent position, but suggesting that may be why flying is treated differently from AT by an RAF organisation.
If there is a perception by senior leaders that the RAF outsourcing flying and gliding implies that they don’t have the skills, certification or resources to deliver it or to assure it, then they might avoid that option. Rather than recognising that the CAA do a very good job of assurance and that not delivering the USP is worse.
Sometimes organisations make really bad decisions that defy logic. Exhibit 1: P&O Ferries.
1 Like
Don’t doubt you at all.
Even the “we can’t assure everyone” argument is dead as soon as you consider that for anything else the first thing we do is go “we need your PLI/RAs/Qual Certs/Licence/etc”.
DELEGATE - WHQs and other auth persons check IDs and references for BPSS, DBS, etc; SMEs check applications for area approvals and quals/currency, TSAs check and authorise EUFs - there are people that could do the paper shuffle.
Want to BGA glide? They submit [whatever the CAA provides as authorisation - I assume there’s something they do when they certify/audit?] plus some signed agreement to meet various criteria in advance to WHQ to go on the list, and SMS events have pilot details and certs on and WgAvO checks and authorises. Just like everything else in the case of the second part.
1 Like
Equivalence….
Little Johnny air cadet gets hurt in a Tutor or Viking, the Duty Holders can demonstrate all the things they put in place to assure safety. Little johnny gets hurt flying at a civvy club, the Duty Holder cannot demonstrate the same equivalent actions. They wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
You may all think it’s equivalent, and in some respects it probably is, but if you can’t demonstrate it who would take the risk?
i don’t think that was ever in question.
With apologies for poor referencing. I was linking to the Ministers statement that there was money available but no companies in the UK to do the work to refurbish the Vigilant fleet fleet.
, “Let us be clear that the recent restructuring of air cadet gliding is not a cost-cutting exercise. The Air Cadet Organisation remains hugely valued and the Royal Air Force is fully committed to offering flying training to all air cadets.
“The blunt truth is that we were unable to find a sufficiently reliable contractor with the capacity to take on the bulk of the Vigilant fleet."
If money was not the problem then why wasn’t the BGA option pursued beyond the initial engagement mentioned by Mike Jenvey and others?
There could certainly be some embarrassment as mentioned elsewhere in this thread. My question would be why? The parent service concentrates its uniformed personnel into its deployable assets and contracts out much of the non-military core activities (second line and deep servicing of aircraft).
Why not then contract out the air experience gliding and concentrate the uniformed expertise on higher level skill delivery? It would have seemed the logical way forward,
It may, of course led to some reductions at 2FTS. Now let me think, who was Commandant 2FTS in 2016?
1 Like
But you can demonstrate it…?
2 Likes
Then how do they allow us to use non RAFAC AT providers? Surely by your logic that all needs to stop right now.
2 Likes