Nail. Head. Hit.
For example, Cambridge Aero Club has always had excellent ATO audit results from the CAA & I believe has just received an exemplary audit outcome.
I would say similar to BGA facilities - & incidentally, the CAA granted Delegated Authority responsibility to BGA for issuing of licences - BGA has to be seen as a responsible organisation for the CAA to have done this.
The Air Cadets flew with Kestrel under the old ACTO 35 rules. Initially it was great, then the members started to not turn up on days they knew the cadets were there as they felt they were doing the VGSâs job and they joined the GSA to have fun flying, something they were no longer doing. At the end only 2 pilots would fly cadets - and they were both VGS pilots flying there while the VGSâs were paused. It led to a lot of cancelled cadet flying, did a but of damage to the GSA itself that took a while to recover from and the allocations died off before ACTO 35 did despite there being plenty of money available.
There were also a number of other issues including, for example, a cadet launched in an aircraft with the tail dolley still attached - everyone got to watch it fall to the ground at the other end of the airfield, luckily not hitting anything or anyone. It highlights the differences between that and a VGS - the VGS has multiple checks to prevent that and both the operation and individual staff are routinely standardised to make sure itâs happening.
At ÂŁ300 quid a launch Iâd expect a dolly with a trolly offering me champagne downwind with the VGS!
One assumes lack of engagement on the BGA front is more around optics of the RAF not being able to provide, or 2FTS not willing to engage; as to do so does seem a pragmatic approach.
Iâm glad someone else said this; Iâve long held in my mind that it is more driven from reputational risk rather than physical. Still canât decide if itâs cynicism pushing me to this opinion or not.
I think youâre right.
This was feasible in the past, to pre-approve some BGS locations for cadet flying under ACTO35 as it was; ACPS has been âsortedâ - no extra due diligence or commercial aspects required now as all ACPS earmarked for AEF locations.
Therefore, 2FTS have the commercial resources available now to look at this (& use of CAA ATOs for powered flying). As I previously mentioned, from my Teams chat last year with AOC 22 Gp, OC 2FTS & Cmdt RAFAC, there was no outright ânoâ when I suggested a replacement for ACTO35. My recollection is that AOC 22 Gp said he wasnât averse to the idea & OC 2FTS said anything would have to wait until the (then plan) commercial contracts situation for ACPS was complete & resources became available. I have asked for the Teams link for the recording of the meeting to refresh my memory; nothing sent yet. Shall I FOI it? 
I donât see a high level of risk of looking at a core group of BGA youth locations initially (CAA ATOâs should be a âslam dunkâ based on their CAA audit trail). This should easily be within the resources capability of 2FTS &, at the very least, an objective look would give a firm indication to the DDH (@Cab) if any perceived risk was ALARP or not. Very happy to help out for anything linked to Cambridge Gliding Centre. 
Safety comparisons - Tutors with props detaching, cracked tabs & other grounding issues? 
[not commenting on policy decisions only observations on CAA vs RAF systems for interest]
Very few PPL schools are ATOs, the vast majority are DTOs which are not approved by the CAA. Oversight is very limited; for example there is no airborne sampling or standardisation.
CAA instructors can go 6 years between airborne checks, AEF pilots are checked every 6 months. CAA instructors often operate on Class 2 medicals, AEF pilots are Class 1 with enhanced cardiac screening.
And so on⌠non of this is a good vs bad polarisation. The challenge when operating across systems is that evidencing equivalence can be a challenge (and that work both waysâŚ)
SAR, surely?
I donât recall the meeting being recorded and it is unusual for us to do so. I committed to addressing the ACPS challenge and I am doing so. I still lack the assurance capacity to exploit civ means so, no matter how many times you raise this, it is not going to happen in the form you suggest. Grateful for your ongoing support though.
Out of interest, what resource do you need that you donât have? Could we (the royal we, not me) help? If we have CFAVS with the appropriate knowledge and expertise could they be utilised to increase your capacity?
Sir, tell us what we can do to get more than 1 in 10 cadets gliding (and thatâs given ideal circumstances), and we will do everything we can to support you.
Presumably you canât be happy with gliding status quo?
I am very happy with the compendium of activities undertaken by the Royal Air Force Air Cadets where we continue to grow the flying offer following myriad challenges. We will continue to grow within the capacity of the resources available but the link to the RAF is paramount. Thanks for your support.
But it should be standard practice for minutes to be taken, shouldnât it?
If this was a scheduled meeting with an agenda, not taking minutes would suggest a poor standard of governance.
So perhaps the minutes can be released?
Nope, it was an opportunity for direct engagement with myself and not a formal meeting. Genuinely nothing to see hereâŚI am clearly open to engagement through many outlets / vehicles. Whatâs the issue other than folk might disagree with some of my D&G. Trust me, I am very comfortable with that and I can respect different points of view. I will also share what I can but there are limits.
That the âAir Cadetsâ appear to have less time in the air, both as a cumulative total and on a per cadet basis, than the other CFs.
And as people on the coal face, weâre just trying to get to the bottom of why this is the case. Arguable, right now, RAFAC has lost its USP against the other CFs due to what is perceived as OTT risk aversion - we donât appear to be working risks down to ALARP, but almost attempting to get the risk score to 1.
Edit; this is the first time youâve responded to a question on here from myself. Whilst I do want to say thank you for doing so, I find it noteworthy that the response is to tell me thereâs no information - rather than having responses to the other questions that were specifically asking for information. Could this be a reason why FOI numbers are so high?
I can assure you all the risks I manage are done so to a position of ALARP and tolerable meeting all the regulatory requirements of air and functional safety.
Just so I understand, are you suggesting that other CFs (Army Cadets and Sea Cadets) are getting more flying than RAFAC?
For what itâs worth, the CCF(RN) offers their âUSPâ, afloat activities, via the RYA centres - not all of them, only designated approved ones. They run some of these themselves, and some are private centres. They use the resource they have principally to approve existing centres, not run their own.
I would strongly argue that for RAFAC to use ATOs to deliver flying represents a very small risk - not at all the same thing as a âflying clubâ DTO. And I say that as a member of the same âflying clubâ DTO as @cabâŚ
I wonder how sustainable in the long term it is for RAFAC to maintain a network of gliding only airfields (given that shared ops with powered flying are not tolerated)? I argued at one point (at a meeting in Dawn McCaffertyâs time) for Proj VENTURE to look at a self-launching platform for this reason - 3-axis microlight or SLMG - as this would give us the ability to use RAF airfields at weekends if we lost the likes of Little Riss, etc. and/or to operate from civilian sites. Unfortunately there seems to be too much baggage with the VGS system and cadet gliding for anyone to want to start from a properly blank sheet of paper.
My local Air Scout group has been gliding 3 times already this year. On each occasion, the majority of the scouts got 2 flights each.
7 months into the year and they have had 5-6 flights EACH.
My Sqn of 55 cadets has had ZERO gliding slots this year, with none on the horizon either.
See above.
Just goes to show, doesnât it, that the bird that represents our organisation should be changed to a penguin. Looks smart but canât fly.