Civilian Gliding Experience

Everyone Flying
41

As a non-aviator I offer the following:

(1) On the (re) formation of 2FTS a review of procedures discovered a number of issues that generated such concern that gliding was “paused”.

(2) The formation of an independent Military Aviation Authority (MAA) the equivalent of the independent Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) was as a result of the investigation of the Nimrod loss in Afghanistan. Since its formation all military registered aircraft (its seems irrespective of complexity) have to follow the same procedures and work within the same framework.

(3) If the “issues” discovered during the 2FTS review included potential breaches of contract then it is no wonder it has taken as long as it has to work towards a long term solution.

HOWEVER

(4) Registered Civilian Gliding Clubs work within the rules regulations and framework overseen by the BGA which is, I understand, in turn overseen by the CAA. Aircraft have Certificates of Airworthiness, instructors are registered and all adults working as instructors with children should hold CRB/DBS certificates.

(5) If the ACO carries out the appropriate checks on a particular BGA registered gliding club and receives the copies of certificates and written evidence of compliance I would suggest that they have met the requirements of their duty in law to protect cadets and volunteer staff.

(6) I can only surmise that someone has decided that the risk to reputation supersedes the legal duty of care and therefore flying cadets with a BGA registered club is a No No for this reason and this reason alone.

(7) So we now seem have a position where the rules, quite rightly imposed by the MAA, do not allow cadets to fly until the gliding fleet is declared airworthy. At the same time the ACO will not allow cadets to fly in aircraft declared airworthy with a club working under rules and regulations imposed ultimately by the CAA. Are the RAF/ACO saying the CAA is not fit for purpose?

I AM NOW VERY CONFUSED

This same logic would appear to suggest that air travel to an overseas destination on an official Air Cadet expedition cannot take place in civilian aircraft with CAA (or EASA) airworthiness certification unless the aircraft are also approved by the MAA?
In addition, as the Grob Tutors are civilian registered I assume they are regulated for engineering purposes by the CAA - which doesn’t seem to cause a problem??

I just hope the at the apparent decision for cadets not to “officially” glide anywhere, in order it seems to protect reputation, ultimately leaves us with an organisation to protect .

42

I don’t think you’re confused at all.

The SCC/CCFRN inspects and approves RYA centres for the delivery of afloat quals, as well as running their own RYA centres. AT can be and is carried out either under JSP419 (e.g. JSMTC) or NGB rules (e.g. Windermere/Capel Curig).

I don’t understand the difference between these and flying/gliding either.

43

[quote=“tmmorris” post=25794]Oxon ACF has an ex-RAF officer as CEO and he arranges gliding for the Army Cadets, too…

In a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation he worked out once that the UAS/AEF system costs around £600 per hour to run. It’s massively inefficient…[/quote]

And is under contract for a certain number of flying hours per year to cover EFT, UAS and AEF. The UAS system isn’t without purpose, and that purpose will change focus in the next 2-3 years. The AEF piggy back onto the UASs. On the subject of keeping open airfields, it can be quite useful; Church Fenton was used for EFT right up to its closure in 2013.

There is no “training”. What the AEF system allows is for the RAF to quality assure those who will be responsible for flying minors in a (relatively) high performance GA type. This could not effectively be guaranteed at a civvy flying outfit (CFS did visit the old Flying Scholarship providers, and still visit Tayside to standardise). Yes, there are some very capable and good civvy pilots, who are majority, but you would have no mechanism to ensure you don’t subject cadets to the bad or reckless ones. The current system allows visibility of ability, currency and suitability for selection by predefined criteria.

44

[quote=“tmmorris” post=25794]In a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation he worked out once that the UAS/AEF system costs around £600 per hour to run. It’s massively inefficient - not least due to keeping dedicated maintenance teams on airfields, and even in some cases keeping airfields open purely for this (though I appreciate that’s stopped/stopping with the closure of Wyton and Church Fenton).

Even allowing for compliance procedures doubling the hourly rate, they could use civilian flying clubs for around half that and provide twice as many hours. The problem is the military blinkers which say that non-military flying instructors are worthless - yet the level of flying ‘training’ being provided is so basic that there is no effective difference…[/quote]
Would anyone be surprised at this? No. MoD/public sector, described as hugely inefficient financially, anything else would be a surprise and add in wrt to this particualar instance an attitude that ‘we’ are better than civvies doing essentially the same thing and overburdomsome admiin and box ticking and it becomes even less of a surprise.
You only need to look at some of the costs attributed to basic maintenance by RFCA and you can see financial expediency is not and never will be on the agenda.
As an ACF CEO one would assume he’d be more than aware of this.

I do also find the notion that ‘civvie’ instructors are inferior to ‘military’ ones, laughable, given that FS are done through a civilian flyng business and when I was a cadet FS were always done (in our Wing) at one of 3 local flying schools, depending where you lived in the Wing. A large percentage went on to complete PPLs with the same people. What makes the argument even more incongruous is the fact these instructors teach to PPL. If they didn’t achieve passes or were rubbish they’d go out of business, so they have to be a lot more professional in that respect to the people we have. Do instructors teaching to PPL have to be registered as instructors with the CAA or similar? Are our instructors similarly registered? The DBS is just an administrative excuse.

45

Ahhhh, a flying school versus a flying club may well be a very different argument…

46

I wonder what the total cost per hour to the MOD of Tayside Aviation is, including assurance costs.

I suppose that could be a FOI request…

47

A quarter of a century ago I was running a pleasure flying operation with a Tiger Moth in my spare time. We actually used to give away a number of flights for cadets to RAF Uxbridge for summer camp. In fact by calling in a few favours at the airfield we upped the operation with a large number of other aircraft donated by other organisations. The first year we did it, 36 cadets turned up and by the end of the day they had all flown 4 times each at no expense to the taxpayer.

On the back of this we looked into putting up a private fleet of three Tiger Moths to do AEF. Our calculations showed that we could do it for about a quarter of what the RAF was doing it for. The operation would have held an Air Operators Certificate and the pilots would have all been airline pilots with the DH82a on part 1 of their licences. Aircraft would have been maintained to Public Transport (Passenger) standards.

We got quite a long way down this path, including getting past one senior officer who couldn’t believe that air cadets would want to fly in a Tiger Moth, (see the latest Air Cadet Magazine cover). It was finally stopped by a man who insisted that cadets could only fly with RAF winged pilots, even after the fact that Vigilant pilots were not RAF winged was pointed out to him.

In the end we just continued to give the free flights every summer until Uxbridge stopped doing camps. The free flights would nowadays be contrary to ACTI 35 (I think).

Not sure why I am telling you this except to say “twas ever thus”

48

The fact is, the current system, where AEF pilots are either breveted military pilots or, in a very small number of cases, suitably qualified civilians or reservists provides a SQEP and more easily assured cadre of aircrew. It’s probably irrelevant for several years as the contract has quite some time to run.

49

And very successful it has been, except for three totally avoidable fatal accidents!

50

Only one of which could be pointed specifically at an aircrew limitation, and which has now been mitigated against as best as possible.

51

ACTO 35 is the policy dipocument; there is no equivalent experience level quoted for gliding schools should a sqn wish to use this option. I am currently trying to fight that battle… Last time I spoke with Wg Cdr Fkying 2 FTS, there was a draft replacement ACTO35 in the wings.

With regard to AEF flying & civilian qualification, if it refers to ATPL, then you exclude a large number of pilots who may wish to take part in AEF flying but only have a “frozen” ATPL = CPL - until they have the hours to unfreeze this.

It would be interesting to get the overall statistics fir AEF pilots to see how many are current QSPS & how many are civilian. Don’t forget that civilian pilots working for a commercial operator often have to count their AEF flying towards their weekly/monthly/annual maximum totals.

52

I don’t agree, but it is off topic, so I will keep my peace.

53

Ok, a “physical aircrew limitation”. Undeniable fact - A med cat that should not have been awarded and the doctor who awarded it having to face disciplinary action.

54

OK, I wasn’t going to pursue this, but as you have continued.

Yes, a physical limitation plus doing aerobatics in the middle of a promulgated gliding competition which points to poor airmanship and possibly poor supervision. Inadequate lookout also featured in another accident.

55

I feel we should also ensure that BGA instructors should be subject to DBS and BASIC course. After some cadets in our wing went gliding two became friends on facebook with their pilot.

Just another thing to consider.

56

And did the work end, were the Police called, did the pilot abuse his position of power or was it an unpowered glider, did they all live happily ever after in a two up two down in Tewksbury.
That’s what happens in the real world. Just because FaceBook use the label Friend it doesn’t mean that they are friends in the traditional sense. It is just a was of keeping in contact that is easier than phoning or writing a letter.

DBS yes but seriously a BGA instructor doing a BASIC, that will be 8 hours of his life they will never get back.

57

Just throwing the spoon in, agreed with the BASIC being a bit of a bore.

DBS is a nice thing to have though.

Tewksbury, do people live there?? joking

58

BigSpoon

As a BGA instructor, I have flown with countless school and scout groups, I’ve even flown with special needs children and teenagers in the care of the local authority.

Not once was I asked if I had a DBS check. And indeed I don’t need one. You can hardly touch a kid when you’re in the back seat of a tandem glider.

The only time I was ever asked to have a DBS check was for flying air cadets, and indeed I now have one.

Having done a BASIC course as an Instructor cadet with the air cadets in the past. That’s is where I draw the line, and quite honestly, I wouldn’t take Air Cadets flying if there was a requirement for me to sit through a BASIC course.

I’m sure other BGA pilots and instructors will say the same thing.

As far as I’m concerned, the Air Cadets shouldn’t get to influence the policies of another extremely successful organisation (check out BGA Junior Gliding) because of its own failures.

59

I am truly amazed! I agreed with everything that BigSpoon put in his last post.

60

It wasn’t **BigSpoon’**s post!! :-o