An absolute joke.
3 Likes
This paragraph isn’t helpful:
RAFAC would be willing to advertise flying and gliding opportunities being offered by organisations such as the Air League and the Honourable Company of Air Pilots. However, it must be made clear that such advertisement does not imply any formal endorsement by RAFAC, could not be considered RAFAC-sponsored activities and would therefore attract no financial support for travel and subsistence. Moreover, it must be clear to providers, cadets and parents that participation would be as a private citizen, with air safety and safeguarding remaining the sole responsibility of the sponsoring organisation, in collaboration with the relevant Approved or Declared Training Organisation providing the Flying or Gliding opportunity.
So does that mean we can offer sorties from the BGA, provided parents know it isn’t organised or assured by us and we don’t claim any public money towards it?
3 Likes
No flying overseas on expeds or IACE people. No capacity for the RAF to check these airlines are doing their jobs.
8 Likes
It also implies that since such flying has absolutely nothing to do with the ATC (or the RAFAC) therefore it doesn’t need to be on Bader as an Event and you can just crack on as a private individual.
3 Likes
If you do try that let me know how you get on! 
This IBN… What a total disgrace.
1 Like
No, not offer.
But you can discuss with your cadets that other opportunities to fly exist, including the BGA, and even suggest they check the BGA website for suitable local clubs. What you can’t do is stick a notice up in the squadron, make a list, and drive them there…
Which is rediculous.
2 Likes
This whole fiasco is!
3 Likes
“oh, what a coincidence that we would be here on the same day”.
It’s this type of short-sighted decision making and needless roadblocking that leads to exactly this. When people think a rule is stupid the likelihood they try to circumvent it increases.
How many non RAFAC paintball and airsoft days have there been by “independent” groups that consist of CFAV and cadets and maybe a couple of others to aid legitimacy?
How many park trips without TOPL?
They had a tough enough time bringing people out from the shadows to put stuff on SMS and stuff like this drives people back underground.
We HAD BGA flying - what do they claim went wrong?
If it ever does happen and something goes wrong, the organisation can hang whoever they like out to dry, but that won’t protect them and as soon as the story comes out that
“I did it because the AIR Cadets is unable to provide sufficient opportunities for flying. We used to be insured and have authorised centres to go to that went through an assurance programme to ensure safety, but this process was removed by HQAC without justification. What are we supposed to do when young people join to fly because we say we offer it and we don’t?”
They’re reputationally screwed two ways.
4 Likes
That is not what is being said?
No. that’s the point. Why is it fine for us to use providers for IACE, which they don’t audit/assure but do accept they conform to CAA standards, and yet not OK for us to do the same thing with national providers of services like BGA clubs?
I disagree, It says we can’t claim to drive them there or claim VA for the day… as long as parents know they can’t sue RAFAC. (well as I’ve said previously, a lot more GA flying goes on on a day to day basis that Viking/Tutor Flying - so its not any more or less risky - actually knowing the maintenance issues that have plagued those fleets in the past i’d probably say less risky 
)
So, If I’m working that day - and private funds are available to hire an aircraft for a period of time, i’m more than happy to forgo my instructional fee… might be even able to apply a staff discount on the hire price of the aircraft!
technically it is if you’re being pedantic
1 Like
Next they’ll not let us use personal vehicles, trains or coaches because they haven’t assured them. If only there was some sort of national standard to follow.
1 Like
Yep.
Hqac should just be cleared out.
Clearly they havent got a clue.
My cadets dont want half their syllabus to be space, cyber and stem.
Sure a bit here and there is fine.
They want. Shooting. Fieldcraft. AT. FLYING and GLIDING
NOT sim sim sim.
Just dont know what to say anymore.
It’s like they dont care.
No wonder Sqns are closing at their fastest rate in the last 60 years.
1 Like
Similar view from our Cadets. Many of them have flights sims and VR at home that when they come to the Squadron they want a different experience I.e. Shooting, FC etc.
Unfortunately the views of the many are not being heard and it is HQAC’s rules or you can exit.
Also I’ve heard some quite concerning things about the ACPS at Tayside (certainly of recent courses) where the student is sent ‘Ghosted Solo’ in conditions that even Jerry from Big Jet TV would get excited over. Recently, resulting in the instructor having to take over and the candidate only ends up getting Bronze Wings.
Too much pressure to get courses done and dusted instead of waiting an extra day?
*Ghosted Solo because of current difficulties with the UK CAA Medical Cellma system
2 Likes
My experience of Tayside is similar.
I wouldnt train there.
I will be amazed if they win the tender for renewed contract. But then we all know the clarity of thought provided by our 1* and their yes men.
1 Like
The more of this sort of thing happens the less credible we become as an organisation. Hands on flying and or gliding cannot be a once in cadet lifetime event, if they are in the right place or time which is how it seems to have become. People I know are astounded air cadets do not fly as a matter of course.
HQAC had from March 2020 (given they had nothing else to do) to get something real in place, such that when we restarted we could offer or have a firm promise of a proper AIR cadet experience. But no, their abject incompetence to support and provide us or allow us to organise external flying with their full blessing with something real is clear to see. I cannot imagine in any other setting where this would be condoned for so many years. It must be nice to have a job where no matter how poor you are, you are allowed to carry on doing it.
Can we have a vote of no confidence, because as sure as oaks grow from acorns any CFAV thought not to be up to it would be hounded out.
Haven’t tayside has the contract for the last 30years or so?
I would be very surprised if there was a change. In contract supplier after all this time - I don’t think it is a big enough contract to bring the interest in from other bidders.
The advantage of an MOD contract is being public sector, once they’ve got it, they’ve got it and can charge whatever they like and no one bats an eyelid.