Just for clarity ACTO 010 does not class any aviation activity from QAIC and ground school activities to flying scholarships as “high risk” all can be approved in SMS at a Sqn level = low risk events
Wouldn’t be unreasonable to me to NOT carry this across to BGA though. Even with assurance in place. It would act as an additional check.
1 Like
I agree completely.
I am simply pointing out that based on ACTO 010 HQAC does not class aviation as a high risk activity
Which is ironic when you consider how it’s demonstrably the most dangerous activity we offer. We’ve lost more cadets to aviation than anything else I’d wager.
Is it? I think shooting is probably more dangerous? Or water sports? Or highland AT/mountain biking?
You’d think so but we’ve had more deaths in aviation incidents that shooting…
It’s our super safe flying assurances that make this surprising to me!
2 Likes
Those impeccable medicals where the RAF doctors have access to GP records 
Clearly making no difference to the likelihood of a horrific, freak accident.
And were those deaths bought about by?
A) Civilian pilots at a civilian flying school (Tayside)
B) Military pilots at an AEF
Personally, I think a direct comparison between medical standards is misleading.
Take the 2009 midair collision over Abingdon.
A medical event was a factor because the AEF pilot was attempting to perform an aerobatic maneuver, during which he was unable to perform an adequate lookout.
There is no indication that the Glider Pilot’s actions were influenced by any medical issue.
In this particular incident, the lack of RAF standard medical would not have affected the outcome at all.
With regards the Benson one the pilot had restricted movement in hos head/neck yet was signed off by an RAF Dr (who was later sacked) and so couldn’t conduct a full and proper visual all round check before doing aeros.
The Cardiff one the pilots happened to be in the same piece of air unknowingly.
It’s because of this (as i understand it) Tutors are fitted with the proximity FLARM or similar instrument indicating that there is another aircraft near by.
But in both cases there needed to be a death(s) before the fix to the contributing factor was considered.
In the meantime BGA gliders have been using FLARM for years abd years (and why it was a quick fix for the Tutors as a proven priduct) and AME are not paid by the CAA to give good results but by the pilot themselves who isn’t going to throw mot inconsiderable money at the Dr if they know they’ll fail
1 Like
So, what we’re saying is civvie flying is accessible and likely actually safer than RAFAC flying?
Due to the robust oversight of the BGA and CAA.
Thinking like that just will not do. Manage that man out the organisation!
2 Likes
This is a problem with the organisation’s risk assessment - there’s what could go wrong, and what does. There are far more road vehicle crashes than aircraft, yet the bar for who can drive our cadets around is about as low as it could be, but CAA standards aren’t good enough for flying. We don’t check licensing and currency for provided drivers, or service records for hire vehicles, presumably because we inexplicably have faith in this instance that the providers are following their legal and contractual requirements.
In other news, people could get shot yet no one has for decades, but for that slimmest of chance we need tourniquets and specialist training. In other other news, I need to provide locations of AEDs even if an event has SJA and paramedic cover…
1 Like
At the risk of taking the bait I don’t think that is the claim at all. All that is being asked is that in order to safely increase the glider flying opportunities available to cadets (which has always been the USP of the air cadets) let the professionals carry out a proper supplier invitation to tender process.
Let the RAF determine the full requirement and invite expressions of interest from potential providers. If there is interest from BGA Clubs, carry out whatever checks are required and provided that reality matches what is written down, trial at one site to start with. Identify and work through the problems and then review to ensure the expected benefits to cadets were realised. Then, and only then, if the outcomes are positive and the risks ALARP, commence a manageable expansion.
What has passed is gone, draw a line, explore the art of the possible and whatever the final decision we can then all move on.
But who is going to PVG and BPSS the civilian flying school pilots etc? They will then have to spend 5 weekends doing mandatory training and AVIP
Someone’s given themselves away as Scottish!
I get that you’re (probably?) being facetious with the BPSS part as there’s no MOD security element, but don’t give any ideas!
That’s true I had cadets on the flying axes scheme.
It’s fully funded by others
The cadets are in. Civilian clothing and need a bit of forms signed showing it’s totally outside the remit of the corps also the just sit and get a tour of the area there isn’t anything hands on taught.
Just for clarity are you pilot or work with CAA as knowing your background may allow greater understanding of the points you are trying to make.