My guess would be the organisation is approved to delivery any flying training, but I think the individual pilots have to be approved, and not all of their instructors are approved.
I don’t think it’s as simple as that. They will be flying under the Flying Aces scheme which is funded externally (I think). Bottom of this article provides info:
In which case they would only be allowed to take part as members of the public, not cadets.
Never heard of this until now
The plan is to offer flying experience to 720 cadets in a four-seater Piper PA-28-161 Warrior III aircraft – and the ultimate aim is to allow them to take over the controls and fly the plane themselves
So we have cadets in Scotland being afforded greater opportunity to learn to fly, purely by virtue of them having the only approved RAFAC civilian provider in the area.
For what its worth when i did my ACPS i was given the option of Warrior /C152 or a G115
@Squadgy This applies to so many things due to location.
But flying/gliding really has descended into a postcode lottery. I can imagine there are places in Scotland where Tayside would be considered too much of a faff on the off-chance of a flight.
Hm. I wonder if this is why the Flying Aces brief requires that it’s civilian dress 
Worth also mentioning the only AEF in Scotland is 12 AEF at Leuchars.
There are (IIRC) 10 AEF sites servicing England.
There’s more flying with Flying Aces than there would be otherwise, but definitely not greater access here.
4AEF Glasgow.
I stand corrected
You miss my point - There is more Flying Training available to Scottish Cadets as the stated aim of Flying Aces is that they will teach cadets to fly the plane themselves - AEF does not offer that, so essentially we now have a Scotland only ACPS.
Not really if you read the article the aim is for them to take control. So no different to AEF or even gliding really. It’s not a course but a bums on seats, numbers exercise from the details. Will simply be more AEF opportunities for Scotland.
That’s my understanding, too, although I believe it’s ATC only not CCF as it is funded from ATC non-public funds. I may be wrong, though, as a CCF would presumably be free to use their own NP funds to take part.
Well there’s a whole can of worms he’s just bust right open!
In a way I’d rather he just stick to the line of “No”.
After all, that’s what we’ve been briefed to pass on.
This is just so monumentally unhelpful to RAvnO and WAvnO’s.
Cue a tonne of emails in my inbox asking what this means in the morning. And I’ll have been given no advice to answer it with.
Plus, it’s that assurance rubbish again.
I’ve always found the CAA to be pretty robust and enthusiastic in its application of the rule of law and its own advice. More so than HQAC.
So I still don’t get why HQAC feels it’ll do a better job than those who’s raison d’être is to regulate flying activity.
It means if a squadron can afford it and potentially some form form of waiver is signed ensuring parents are aware its not a RAFAC event, we can go flying…
Same for parachuting, paintballing etc etc. 
Just wait for that tonne of bricks to come down on those that try it.
It’s typical RAF arrogance “we know better than the Civvies because we are the Silver Winged Master race”
Fortunately we have that screenshot
“Due to our own gliding offer”
Insert ‘we have X at home’ meme here
