I dont think anyone is suggesting disband the VGS’s, but the capacity and the “higher” costs associated with a VGS could be streamlined for cadets on a GS - so that they can be taught the service way of doing things during the GS.
Then use the “cheaper” and more accessible BGA sites for Experience flights to increase the numbers of cadets who get a taster of flight.
That also leaves more capacity for the VGS to focus on GS and AGS.
The same could go for current plans for ACPS (if costs are similarly inflated), use the Tutors and the UAS instructors for the Scholarships and look for using local CAA ATO/DTOs for experience flights. This frees up availability for ACPS and increases experience flights availability and access.
Would you not do it the other way round similar to how the flying scholarships were with Tayside?
Have the volunteers at VGSs do the GICs/AEGs so cadets are introduced to gliding through the military way and have your gliding scholarships done through the civvy route.
That way you can more cadets through in the good weather summer months, the gliding scholarship lot learn more about the intricacies of gliding from those who do it regularly.
The precedent we have is radio & shooting. Cadets learn the military way for Radio or target shooting and then at the more advanced level get involved in the civvy side by getting their Radio license or joining a civilian rifle club.
I know very little bout the specific regulations round flying & gliding but how easy is it to convert civilian gliding wings over to military?
One thing you also have to consider is that while it looks great on paper to get all these Cadets flying at civvy clubs …most clubs only have a few 2 seaters …they aim to get people into single seaters asap .
They will also have to cater for their own ‘paying members’ who want to glide!
Also don’t recall having any requirement to complete any groundschool whatsoever at my BGA club before going solo that cadets cover in their GS. So if anything cadet cliding requires more.
Whilst this is supposed to be about ACPS and is rapidly descending into a gliding thread.
To put it simply they couldn’t cope. Most clubs don’t have much extra capacity with their ‘paying members’ My club manages to squeeze in the air scouts about 3 times a year for no more than 4 kids at a time. The civvy system doesn’t have a massive available capacity to fill the gap. Coverage is also prodominitley in the south of England so doesn’t solve the issues in the north, Wales or Scotland where access will still be difficult for most.
Regardless of the potential “uplift,” we don’t have the option to try for it = we’ll never know.
Cambridge Aero Club is right next door to our sqn & is a CAA-ATO - we would get a heavily discounted rate to get as many cadets as possible up in the air in C172 / C182. Many sqns would happily raise funds / seek local sponsorship for flying opportunities.
I really would like to know the full / documented safety reasons as to why UK ATOs / BGA facilities are not considered “safe” for cadet use. If there are any huge hurdles (I can’t see why there should be), then what mitigation could be applied to remove such hurdles. We should be working to expanding cadet flying across the board.
Sir, cadets don’t give a monkey’s it if is service led or not, they just want to go gliding.
The current setup - service led VGSs - ‘aim to fly’ 5000 cadets a year. That’s 1 in 10 cadets getting a flight per year. Our squadron is not even getting this ratio BTW. Cadets can go the whole 7 years and not get a single glider flight. That is the grim reality.
If the cadet gliding budget - £3M according to Tony - was used in such a way that 40,000 cadets were getting a glider flight each and every year then it has to be seriously looked at.
It would be sad to see VGSs go and feel like the end of an era, but that’s what happened to the Vigilants!
The bottom line is that, with a tough decision, 8 times as many cadets will be flying in gliders for the same financial outlay. And that’s all they want to do.
The danger is that currently the RAFs gliding delivery is through the VGSs.
If the VGS go then gliding as whole goes & it will never be returned or re-established.
Similar to when we lost the vigilants that capacity would never be restored, if VGS go then the RAF lose a whole capacity for an aspect of aviation that would need to be built up from scratch if it was ever needed again.
Link VGS to BGA? There again, there was absolutely no interest in allowing VGS staff to link to BGA facilities during the glding “pause” to maintain currency, etc - so I doubt if that idea would go down well.
Fortunately, I ‘give a monkeys’. Our Air Cadets should have a gliding offer which is provided by the Service and not by civilians. This is why we are working so hard to expand the VGS offer…or should we close Little Rissington?
My apologies, I thought I had conveyed my position openly and transparently with someone with similar views. I am the Operational Duty Holder for Cadet aviation. It is my personal signature which says yes or no to whether children, our Cadets, fly and how they fly. As civilians they can do as they please. As Cadets, I bear that responsibility…for all of them. Have you taken time to consider what this means? Clearly I have no risk aversion otherwise Cadets would not be allowed to solo on ACPS. This is a rational, well thought through decision as are all my decisions. This is a question of my ability assure civilian clubs as we did at Tayside. I lack the capacity to do so and, as a result, I directed that we bring ACPS in house. If I had more capacity to assure civ flying clubs I might (NB might) open the door but my focus at this point is ACPS. This is what I judge to be the correct direction right now and, as above, it’s my judgement which matters (as I am personally accountable should a different approach be taken without assurance and go awry).
I think we just don’t understand why flying gets such a special status; we use civilian qualifications and external providers on a wide variety of other activities - which the service just doesn’t have the capacity to provide., adventure training being one. We don’t assure providers to the same extent there, only doing basic due diligence checks (appropriate licenses, insurance etc).
Presumably this is underwritten by your signature too; a lot of people simply cannot understand why the difference in approach when we have a commercial industry with a well regulated and licensed delivery model in exactly the same way.
Exactly this. The inference is the civilians are inherently unsafe and that the RAF is so much better is the issue, and then when we see see cadets, army cadets and scouts using it and we can’t it seems unfair. The implication is, if other MOD sponsored cadets can use them, that either we are over cautious or they are not discharging their safety duties appropriately.
