That argument would carry a lot more weight if the gliding on offer in the organisation was sufficient.
1 Like
This is great news. As we know that Facebook is the preferred method of delivering policy, this must mean we can now approach our local BGA sites as private enterprises and go from there. Seems to confirm what I said above.
2 Likes
The Facebook screenshot above seems to confirm what I thought then?
1 Like
If it’s organised by the Civ Com as a charity then it seems we can crack on. Civ Com make it clear it’s not a RAFAC activity, and if we as staff want to pop along then we don’t claim fuel/pay. Seems like a much better solution too as there’ll be no SMS application to deal with as it’s not a RAFAC activity.
Looks like this hard-line may work for those Sqns that have CWC with spare cash.
2 Likes
This is a problem with SM that the chronically naïve seem to overlook time and time again.
1 Like
So, is this a genuine lifeline to flying, or something on the agenda for Monday morning to stamp out (we all know they roll in late and leave early on a Friday, and nobody would be so unkind as to try and schedule a meeting on the pre-weekend day in the civil service!).
So enjoy it whilst it lasts - we’ll soon be offered some “clarity” - clarity on stopping activity is the only clarity we get!
1 Like
Does anyone want to remind 2FTS who Chairs the CAA…and has done since August 2020?
don’t say it too loud, its Sir Stephen Hiller, former Chief of the Air Staff
#oneoftheirown
1 Like
Maybe Baz Dale knows Stephen… and has as much trust in him as we do in Baz!
Is it Baz’s fault we can’t do non-RAFAC flying though?
1 Like
Well he’s the Head of 2FTS and its 2FTS saying “no”
He’s probably busy “increasing the gliding capacity for the benefit of the Air Cadets” and so hasn’t considered how the BGA can add to that capacity
His words - Upon appointment
I was always under the impression it was AOC 22Gp who was the decision maker on that, albeit probably influenced by Baz/Tony.
The examples given (Air League and HCAP), aren’t Approved or Declared Training Organisations - they don’t have any aircraft of their own. They’re member associations that support pilots and bring like minded people together. They do provide sponsorship in the form of scholarships
I - and many others - have taken this portion of the Commandant’s words to mean that ‘RAFAC can advertise scholarships provided by these and similar organisations, but make it clear these are non RAFAC activities and the sponsoring organisation (the Air League/ HCAP in the example given) is responsible for safeguarding and safety in conjunction with the flying training school providing the training that results from the scholarship.
Que the Commandant stage left on Facebook:
This says ‘your squadron’s parents can club together to pay directly for the cadets to go gliding at a local club’, just make sure it’s clear it’s a private activity. There’s no scholarship needed.
Exit Commandant stage right exclaiming ‘If you have a query contact your Regional Aviaton Officer’
The Regional Aviation folk will be busy!
Why is this just so difficult?
I’m really not a thick person, generally, but I just cannot see the difference between this and where we go to external providers for other activities.
Where we contract out AT we (in general, unless it’s a non-licensable activity) rely on a civilian organisation to do the assurance for us - the Adventurous Activities Licensing Service. Yet the RAF does AT as well, so why don’t they want to assure that?
I’m genuinely quite interested to understand why there is, apparently, a difference, given that they are both RtL activities and arguably the volume of people doing AT with external providers is likely to be greater than those flying (thus the risk is probably greater?).
9 Likes
Gold mate…
They upgraded to gold, due to their excellence in all things project ASTRA.
This.
I took this as a policy strategy all the way up to 2fts…
I Got, ripped apart. Sod this org.
Never never put an ex-CCF cadet and law post-grad in charge of anything. My employers know how well that turns out
3 Likes
So what would the difference be in the cadets’ parents (who happen to be on the civilian committee) using non-public funds to buy some memberships of a local gliding club that only children who happen to attend a local squadron could use. Maybe then making a donation using non-public funds to subsidise the launch fees and airborne minutes.
As long as the cadets and their parents knew the activity was assured and safeguarded by that untrustworthy and amateur CAA, that would be fine wouldn’t it?
In fact they could take it a step further. They could issue a letter to all parents explaining the situation and that the BGA are the organisation providing oversight and control. They could then offer info about the BGA.
The committee could then have some sort of service level agreement with the local club over which pilots would be allowed to fly the local young people, and which aircraft they would use. Maybe only certain levels of experience, and aircraft that meet a certain criteria…
We could call it “Acceptable Criteria for Training Others” and there might have to be about 35 clauses in it…
3 Likes
since when was this not allowed?
For 10+ years I have been posting on Squadron pages about the latest scholarship or bursary available. Only this week I found out the BMAA Bursary is open and will be posting to the FB group
go on - expand. how did they explain how it is different???
fair enough getting ripped apart if there is indeed sound justification but the two activities on the face of it are operated differently for no apparent reason…did they offer that reason to you?
Sounds like huge potential for reputational damage there 
"What? you’ve got a fleet of gliders but you can’t fly the cadets enough? You’ve got to rely upon this external organisation?