In whose eyes?
Genuine question, but if we contracted a civilian flying school to provide AEF, why would 6FTS have to be involved?
Surely an organisation delivering flight training to few paying customers, up to and beyond PPL will be licensed and checked out by the CAA? And fully insured?
The only thing that wouldnât be routinely sorted at the flying school would be DBS, but that could easily be sorted?
We allow AT, sport, D of E etc to go ahead with 3rd party providers, as long as basic checks are carried outâŚ
1 Like
6FTS are the current service provider, hence why they currently manage the risk and provide the supervision structure and management, alongside 3FTS. HQAC arenât set up to do this.
A civilian contract is a fine idea, but it will need management, oversight etc. Also, how many FTOs have the staff and capacity to support such a contract? Same for flying clubs etc. Estate issues etc.
Itâs not as simple as some like to make out IMHO. Or necessarily cheaper.
Jobs basically. The question is who needs who more in the current climate? If they are failing to get cadets into aircraft we donât need them, we need someone who is willing and capable.
A quick look and a 30 minute flight comes in at around ÂŁ90 which would mean c.ÂŁ3M to give cadets a flight per year, which is what afaia the current contract which isnât being filled is supposed to give. Iâm sure with a guaranteed âaudienceâ a reduction could be negotiated. What is the current cost or rather how much is given for AEF?
As a private venture it could be paid on a flight by flight basis, so if itâs not possible to fly they donât get paid. And as you would only be travelling a short distance it wouldnât be a pain like it can travelling for a couple of hours each way for nothing. The suppliers would be insured etc just like other external activity providers.
Do the pilots that fly cadets have PPL or are they only military pilots?
We could apply the same line to shooting and just go civvie for shooting as I guarantee we could access more than we are getting currently from the military model.
As you say we use third party providers for AT etc and thatâs fine as the RAF isnât able or set up for it and therefore no jobs under threat.
1 Like
Pilots who apply to an AEF have to have a minimum of 1500 hours and a CPL and be either ex mil or ex VGS. They must hold some form of licence to fly light aircraft.
Most pilots are ex military who are now professional pilots flying for an airline or have retired from military/civilian flying.
There are a handful of ex VGS instructors who have transitioned over to AEFs due to the closure of some VGS units.
From my experience, very few non ex military pilots can take on board what is required to complete the convex. Minimum hours until solo is 5. weâve had to chop non ex mil guys after 14 hours as they still werenât getting to grips with it.
You could put little Jonny into a 172 with a guy whoâs only got a ppl with 300 hours and HQAC not get twitchy about it.
Also with regards to cost, all its costs HQAC is a days pay and mileage for the pilots who attend. OC AEF is paid by 6FTS therefore the RAF as its an FTRS post and requires him/her to be a QFI which, in turn, gives them the flex to work within the UAS structure to ease the work load.
Aircraft are owned by the RAF and maintained by Babcock who are paid by the RAF under contract.
So, in essence, it costs very little to send 40 little Jonnyâs to an AEF where as it would cost quite a bit to send them to a civilian club.
1 Like
Civilian schools are generally good at what they do, but they are no substitute for a volume flying capability with the desired levels of safety. Not one civilian school in the UK has the levels of ground staff, safety equipment, flying clothing, traffic awareness and avoidance equipment or pilot standardisation as an AEF. You canât abdicate risk ownership by outsourcing - just ask BAâŚ
1 Like
Jobs? I think about 14 people are purely in employment for the AEFs to function.
What about engineers and ground staff.
I know that our fleet would reduce from 7 to 3 if they werenât needed for AEF ops. Saying that we have loaned some out while we are kaput
I was referring to those posts whose existence is based purely on the AEF. What Babcock would chose to do with their pool of staff would be a consequence of any change.
ok as a PPL holder i will bite:
I have my own aircraft and when taking passengers act as the âground crewâ (assisting with strapping them in and brief of flight plan etc)
âSafety equipmentâ is simply the headset so they can hear me and is fitted at the point of use - the aircraft. For gliding where a parachute is more commonly seen in the civilian fling world this can be fitted prior to jumping in
Flying clothing 90%of PPL flying wonât need gloves, helmet or flight suits to be worn as an SOP.
the AEF setup could not be used at a civilian airfield simply because it is a different ball game. AEF requires helmets, suits and gloves, requires evacuation procedures to be known (video) and practised all of which requires time, effort and man power.
Flying in the civilian world i can rock up to the airfield, complete pre-flight checks and fuel up and brief and strap in a passenger in the same time it takes to watch the AEF video.
If i ever wanted to offer a 20-30 experience flight with a group i would offer them the same brief at the start of the day stood around the aircraft rather than repeat myself each time.
Traffic awareness?? Any airfield big enough to accommodate any number big enough to be worthwhile would have a established radio procedure and circuit pattern in place. Even the most basic of farm strips have established approach to circuits due to noise abatement conflicts (not that these would be viable for groups of cadets to fly from)
(youâll note I have not included avoidance equipment - something that is not in place for Civilian flying which is an valid point I cannot argue against)
Teflon. You appear to be writing off the whole AEF system based on your personal experiences? Donât forget that other AEFs are providing their service at the moment! Iâm sure that Woodvale will return to normal service as soon as?
Doubtful
Actually incorrect
We are awaiting an announcement imminently.
I said doubful not impossible.
Itâs not just Woodvale, Colerne seems to be in abatement as well.
Most of the other AEFs, with the possible exception of the one at Glasgow can fall foul of the fickle pen of the MoDâs estate sell off at any time.
Those who get the service we should all get, fine, but this doesnât mean people not so lucky should just accept their lot and hope that someone gets their finger out.
If some of the things Iâve heard there is a dearth of people wanting to be âweekendâ fliers for cadets and since new(?) rules were imposed on some of the older AEF pilots, they arenât making themselves as available as they might once have, which isnât good for the longer term, as in order for it work into the future you need lots of younger pilots (30-40) getting involved, if not it will shrink.
The only restriction on AEF pilots is regards to their age which has a maximum of 65. This is one of the decisions that came from the 2 tutor incidents.
Nothing else has really changed.
I thought a number of older pilots were having increased medical rules applied and some of these were opting for easier weekends, affecting the delivery at AEFs.
Not that Iâm aware.
For over 60âs they need a stress ECG every 2 years. All AEF pilots have to have an annual medical irrespective of age.
It may be the case that your local AEF has some other rule but thereâs nothing else regarding medical from what I can think of right now, (Iâm not currently in the office) in TGOs
I canât understand why a medical rule would enable an older pilot from flying Monday to Friday but be able to fly Saturday and Sunday. Unless his gardening day is midweek!
To be honest we do have a large number of airline pilots that fly with us and only 1 retired pilot. We have quite a lot of service pilots which, as a nature of their daytime job, prevents them from AEF flying mid week.
Had that announcement yet?
He said imminently, not within a couple of weeks. Sheesh!
3 Likes