Ive heard this too…im sure it was a headline to a newspaper article
Currently 100,000 on waiting lists l, which doesn’t come close to their numbers nationally.
1 Like
We have no waiting list and if we get newbies then we ask if they have any friends that will want to join with them. Filling out the forms on their first night and give it a couple of weeks before we add them to make sure they kind of like it and turn up.
When we are asked about flying and gliding by the parents, I tell them it’s a possibility and if they aren’t interested in flying then they don’t have to stress as we don’t force them to do anything. We then give them a tour of the building and the NCOs give them a brief of what to expect on the first 6 months on sqn.
Maybe I had it wrong — it’s more on their waiting lists than involved in our organisation.
The sooner we all acknowledge that the RAF can no longer provide for the air cadets, the better. The budget simply doesn’t allow for it anymore.
5 Likes
So posting here instead as it’s more appropriate for the discussion.
I’ve been thinking about this & extrapolating a bit (I.e. educated guessing) I think I can understand the rationale which is a little further than cadet world over-cautiousness.
So for this though experiment let us assume that the RAF endorses a private club as safe for use for cadet gliding/fluing/parachuting.
Clubs are private organisations with a semi-commercial arm bit like a community interest company for its members.
Can of worms number 1
Now if the RAF endorses a club as “inspected & safe for cadet use” then that club would then use it as a marketing aspect to increase membership & possibly annual subs as the club is RAF approved.
If the RAF, as a public/crown body, gives endorsement to one particular enterprise then it then has to endorse (or go through) the majority of clubs as otherwise the unendorsed club cry foul and sue the RAF for not even going through the process.
Can of Worms number 2
So the RAF has inspected & endorsed a club as “safe”. That club then has a fatality with a non-cadet. Club looking at a hefty HSE inspection & legal action by relatives try to pass the buck to the RAF who have deeper pockets to fight any legal action. The RAF is embroiled in a legal row which it had no involvement in but it is forced to fight the action probably because it has to prove that it’s safe system wasn’t followed either by the club or the fatality. Media will also have a field day.
Can of Worms number 3
Privatisation of military assets. So privatisation has been creeping more & more into area that exclusively use to be government prerogatives.
Search & Rescue is a good example, along with flying training plus other non-military aspects such as prisons or Government Pipeline & Storage System
Should gliding, flying & parachute training be outsourced for cadets (the most vulnerable group in the military) then there would be a push to privatise these aspects making our armed forces dependent on private companies for operations even more than they currently are (& avoid the problem of strike action by the civilians)
When G4S dropped out of the olympics the military had to pick up the slack something they would never want to do with areas that are operational such as flying training, particularly with the likely sausage grinder transactional nature that comes with the private/commercial sector.
So looking at this even if the safety case can be made for cadets using civilian gliding/flying/parachute clubs, I would argue that the wider business case & legal case do not.
Is there a way round this?
There maybe a way round can of worms 1 &2.
What would need to happen is that the national governing bodies would need to introduce & enforce a rating & grading system that can is independent of but accepted by the RAF.
Think similar to the food hygiene star systems that council use for food outlets. You would then dictate in policy that only 5star approved clubs would be permitted to be used by cadets.
Is there a precedent for this?
Kinda - all (civilian & military) rifle ranges use to be inspected by the MoD until about 15-20 years ago where the MoD said they would only do those ranges used by military units. Approval for civilian ranges was kinda transferred to the NGBs of the NRA & NSRA but I don’t know how effective that would be.
Regardless this still leaves can of worms number 3 & that will be tied up in politics and will not be able to even be touched until after the next election.
So in summary, even if the safety case can be made, I don’t believe that looking at the wider picture that the proposal makes good business sense nor legal sense.
Thy were all outsourced to Tayside Aviation until that collapsed into administration.
1 Like
Thought they only did the flying scholarships?
One of the reasons for Scotland is that the safeguarding legal requirement are less for post 16s than in England & wales.
I’m not familiar with the details around using civilian gliding schools but we used to have a policy that allowed us to do it so it’s clearly possible. It seems unlikely that the policy would’ve been endorsed without consideration of those aspects.
The UK Military Flying Training System has already been outsourced to Ascent, so that precedent is already set and cadets flying privately presents no risk to flying training being privatised: it already is.
1 Like
In which case Ascent might claim that cadets using other non-military flying organisations would compromise an exclusivity clause in their contract & that any civilian gliding or flying training must be offered to them first.
Out of curiosity does the timeline on the removal of non-service aircraft flying for cadets coincide with that contract?
Ascent don’t have a good reputation for effectiveness anyway - just for milking the system & delivering little.
2 Likes
Good points that sound just like the reasons given for the lack of sandwich vans, etc, visiting stations and why we can’t have barbecues on them.
1 Like
Just had a google - it seems to tally
is there a precedent for this though in a none aviation example?
Be that an AT or otherwise? It doesn’t have to be a fatality I just wonder has a ATC/RAFAC/RAF/MOD “approved” third party provider be that AT, MT, or otherwise provided a service which resulted in sour consequences and what was the result?
Through Clarity we are constantly supplied coaches from the local bus companies. Given driving is seen as a major risk by HQAC, i wonder what incidents have happened by third party provided MT, and have they since been blacked balled?
2 Likes
The Air League use several different ATOs for their flying scholarships.
I presume they contract with them for numerous reasons such as size of facility, location, average age of aircraft, etc, etc.
1 Like
Why does the RAFAC have to “approve” anything?
Surely it should just stay in its lane.
If the provider can provide its RAs and other legal documentation, I’d say it’s completely unreasonable to have anyone else double checking homework.
1 Like
Not come across the sandwich van problem - the Benson one is alive and well?
(thread drift!)
Tayside also did ‘familiarisation flights’ or jolly’s as we called them, they’d take three Cadets up for a flight around the local area for half an hour, possibly an hour (can’t quite remember), no instructing, just purely time in the air, one in the front, two in the back. So essentially what they could pay to do at the local flying club, except this involved a three hour drive each way.
2 Likes
I’m guessing it’s operated by the holder of the exclusive catering contract?
If the event is coordinated, planned, advertised or implemented by any RAFAC resources then it will fall under RAFACs umbrella for assurance & compliance - for safeguarding reasons if nothing else. This includes discussing the event at the unit or advertising it using information that has been provided to RAFAC.
ACTO10 & local unit certify is meant to minimise the issues with this but it needs logging officially somewhere.
1 Like