RAF personnel don’t use those clubs as RAF personnel
Yes it does. It contains a blanket policy on cadets flying in non service aircraft. It obviously wasn’t the intention to stop you getting a BA flight to Cyprus camp but the way it has been written fails to implement the intention.
3 Likes
I’m drawing the line.
No more arguing over the semantics of whether airline flights are or aren’t included in the IBN.
People really need to stop reading too much into jokes.
3 Likes
That’s not entirely true. To be a member one has to be serving (although a very few places are open to local civilians). The RAF also offers the Junior Rank and Junior Officer Pilot Scholarship which provided funded training purely for junior serving personnel. The flying schools operate from RAF airfields, the military certainly has a duty of care.
We arent RAF personnel as we have been told a million times.
Edited for context.
Argument is civvie RAF clubs allow RAF pers to fly.
Civvie reg tutors with civvie cadets… why does that need RAF oversight yet the example above doesnt.
We all know why. But the hypocracy stinks.
1 Like
The IBN doesn’t ban flights in civilian aircraft, it bans cadets flying in Non-Service Aircraft with Non-Service Pilots. The Tutors are flown by Service Pilots.
Not sure of the relevance of your comment there - could just be lacking context?
If RAF personnel, as RAF personnel, have somewhere non-mod that the RAF allows them to go, then why can the RAF/RAFAC not allow RAFAC personnel to have somewhere non-mod to go?
Farmerdan was suggesting that maybe the RAF cares less about that situation because the RAF personnel in question attend as individuals, not as personnel.
Have edited for context.
Doesn’t RAFCT provide the funding for JRPSS…? So, non-public funds.
Please give this topic a rest.
Not sure, but regardless of who funds it the risks must be the same.
Come on, we all know we are we are when it suits and the impotent ivory tower sitters want to flex the minute amount of muscle they have.
1 Like
It’s not as simple as that, as also:
The RAF clearly believes their pilot training and standards are better than the CAA’s
Even if there is evidence to suggest that MOD aircraft are better maintained and less likely to have a fault (there isn’t) the civilian pilot still need to meet the RAF standards which are infallible as it clear given the evidence (exhibit A: death of a Cadet on an AEF flight out of Benson, exhibit B death of two (related) cadets on AEF flights out of St Athan) where pilot error does not occur nor would it create unacceptable risk if it were to happen…
2 Likes
Yes they are, and are assets of Babcock, but operated under MOD Contract for MOD purposes and so considered “service aircraft” as they are flown for Service operations (only), managed by Service contractors, paid for by Service money…
Weekly output from HAQC on Twitter is interesting.
Check out at 0.53; air cadets flying in what 
1 Like
Was done at tayside… The only assured non service training facility
Which suggests a framework is in place to sign off non-service providers… If only that document could be released and we could see what it entails. And we could see how many other flying clubs/training organisations would be able to meet the grade!
2 Likes
That’s interesting - The clip, is based on this post Redirecting... shows cadets flying in a Piper PA28.
Two queries
-
Is Tayside only approved by RAFAC to deliver ACPS, or any flying training?
-
The cadets sat in the rear of the aircraft cannot be being ‘instructed’ as they can’t reach the controls, therefore they must be passengers. This is only permitted by the CAA where no payment has been made for the carriage of the passengers, unless the civilian company has an Air Operators Certification which Tayside don’t have. So did the RAFAC pay for all the cadets to go flying or just the one sat up front?
1 Like
FOI it
1 Like