Well, since you ask… didn’t I, and others, suggest moving to another airfield…?
You did and it has been discussed at a higher level and deemed not viable.
Unfortunately I am unable to discuss the reasons on here but what you may think as a simple solution isn’t really a viable one when looked into… and we have looked into all options.
Was it not mentioned earlier that elements of 10 AEF had moved to 8AEF? So we were kind of correct?
I understand that thinking if you’re looking at a one off person who owns their own aircraft, but BGA and private schools still have to meet rigid criteria to fly. At the end of the day, why would any pilot deliberately endanger themselves let alone someone else.
Accidents happen, I know that. I’d like to minimise them as far as reasonably practical, but simply banning something isn’t reasonably practical, and nor is imposing overly arduous criteria on something which in effect makes it impossible.
1 Like
Wasn’t suggesting anything different, was trying to explain that you don’t get any extra pay or allowance for doing it. Was a service instructor for over 14 years so I knowhow much you guys give up to get the cadets in the air, some on here have no idea.
sigh … as you asked i happen to be an OC of a sqn with 127 cadets, average parade strength of 90. Have a excellent staff and senior cadet team. We are active on all core activities on offer. We go on expeds in the UK and overseas. We fundraise a huge amount for local charities and ourselves. We have 2 minibuses and 2 landrovers on unit. So in answer to your “comment” yes I am an OC at the coalface and not in an ivory tower, and nor do i wish to be in such a place … if such a place actually exists. My team and I are positive in our outlook, the glass is always full. We do get frustrated with paperwork and process but for the sake of the cadets we adapt and overcome and move forward. Hope that answers your question … and yes we are an ATC squadron not a CCF private school.
Well the man is a blinkered fool, albeit entitled to his opinion. Hopefully with the size of your unit he’s not the only one you have students from.
1 Like
The main sticking point may be that the current aircraft and support contract is in place until 2022 or 23. In a year or two as the final Tutor EFT winds down that will solely be for the provision of UAS and AEF. Hard to see any change before then. I did see work on the post Tutor a AEF model a few years ago, potentially being quite different (and significantly cheaper by using a far less capable aircraft), but I don’t know where that’s going long term.
2 Likes
Outsourcing is not a new concept to the MOD and hasn’t been for, to the best of my knowledge, 20 years and probably much longer.
Aircraft maintenance, flight simulator (ie the ones used by the RAF), catering, MT etc etc so why would provision of experience flights for cadets be any more difficult to organise. The flying scholarships have been outsourced with Tayside for yonks, is the suggestion their aircraft and instructors are below par?
I’ve known cadets and many others do PPLs and experience flights at local flying schools and no one questions or queries the validity the professionalism of the pilots/instructors, so why if there is a suggestion or at least allusion that if these were used for cadet experience flights, somehow there would be aircraft falling out of the sky, the aircraft would falling apart and the pilots not up to scratch.
Sounds very protectionist and not founded on anything vaguely sensible.
As for cost one of our neighbours got their 13 yo son a 30 minute trial lesson for his birthday last year and it was £85. He was full of it especially as he took control. Based on that cost point and say 40000 cadets you could give each cadet a 30 minute flight for £3.4 million, no on costs for maintenance etc, If the MOD were savvy I’m sure they could negotiate a better price. His dad asked about the ATC and flying and I said don’t bother and put the money into flying lessons if his son is really interested.
1 Like
Put yourself in the shoes of those that have to manage the risk.
If we talk about air experience Flying with a cadet who is 13/3months. AEF sortie 1 gives them the opportunity to take control and 99.9% of them want to do that and do. The majority want to go on and do more. Aerobatics for example. How many ppl pilots are aerobatic qualified?
The RAF directly controls the standards of the pilots delivering this safe fun experience to cadets. That’s the difference. If you’re not in control of delivery standards the arses of the risk mitigators start to twitch and they stop it dead.
I’ve experienced standards in both military and civilian aviation worlds. I know where I’d feel more comfortable leaving my son/daughter. I’m not saying all ppl pilots have low standards, but there is a difference. Currency is one example. The military impose more exacting pilot currency rules.
If retaining what we’ve got is more expensive, but in the eyes of the risk mitigator is ‘safer’, what price do you pay…?
2 Likes
I think we need to be realistic and proportional.
The BGA has currency rules for its pilots too, it’s not like they just let anyone up in the air.
The rules we have at the moment are not proportional, based on nothing other than someone not wanting to expose anyone to any amount of risk. People seem to have forgotten that all flying is risky, and you can never mitigate against everything. Using military rules for allowing teenagers to get some experience of being airborne is over the top and serves no purpose other than to deny people the chance to fly.
Its odd – I read this and my mind instantly considered cars/driving.
We can drive our own cars, sort out our own MOT, insurance and choose to servicing, or not, our personal cars, or pay a garage to service them for us, and all the RAFAC wants to see every so often is a Driver’s licence yet we can drive Cadets up and down the country in anything from a two seat sports car, small hatchback, 7 seater family bus or a Sport-badged German taxi with more horses than the RAF have aircraft.
Statically we are more likely to be in a road incident than a flying incident.
Think about it. How many people do you know personally, actual friends or colleagues do you know who have been involved in some road traffic incident? How many of those have resulted in injury, be it whiplash, or more serious. Now consider aircraft incidents. I am not talking about knowing what the news reports say, I mean you know personally an injured party of an aircraft incident?
If the private pilot provides not just a licence, but service history of the aircraft, insurance policy of the aircraft and is of proven experience (minimum number of hours) – why is there such a chasm of difference in the two approaches?
I admit the outcome of an aircraft incident is more severe, but so are the checks 2FTS put into place. Yet they still find reason to say no – its is not just risk adverse but a flying adverse approach
3 Likes
Our neighbour’s son was not much older and took control on the lesson he had for his birthday treat.
We had a 15 yo cadet who was learning to fly and went solo on his the day after his 16th birthday and would have done more than cadets at any point of AEFs, so you are saying the instructors who must be licenced by the CAA are more dangerous / worse than any military pilot, given IIRC many of our AEF pilots were frontline pilots ‘putting something back’ at the weekend, so not actual flying instructors. Also the aircraft used would be unsafe. I wouldn’t think that any pilot would fly an aircraft if they didn’t think it was going to have a problem.
What as I said about Tayside, where most FS get done? What is the pedigree of their instructors. Did the MOD assess the risk for that and thought, we can’t do it anymore so we’ll have to do it that way, despite having all the experts on AEFs? Mates of mine did their FS at the same local flying schools I would suggest using for AEF, they didn’t do them at AEFs.
It seems the arguments against this are availability aircraft and pilots, which the RAF isn’t covering itself in glory with currently and maintenance with the allusion that civilian flying will be dangerous, when as far as I’m aware they employ people to maintain aircraft and who are as good as anyone in their field.
We expose cadets to risk, but we make it ALARP.
The 6FTS and 2FTS DDH’s and AOC 22Gp take on that risk. As they will be keen to tell you, if something goes badly wrong they are the ones who are answerable in law.
Nobody is saying civilian Flying is dangerous, but if you’re going to compare it with AEF or VGS Flying then the factors already mentioned will be looked at very closely.
If there is the slightest increased risk any DDH will need convincing that it’s a better option?
As I’ve said before, there’s no appetite for a repeat of history. Why do you think the gliding pause happened?
this was one factor a VGS pilot i know didn’t even apply to the local AEF - he wanted to remain flying yes, but he wanted to be an instructor more.
Joy rides are great but he knew he’d miss the instruction side of it, seeing progression over the weeks of attendance rather than the each flight falling into one of three categories (first flight, second flight, more interesting flight)
The gliding stop (3 years isn’t a pause) happened because of fair reasons. The airframes weren’t correct or accounted for or serviced properly, as far as I know. No one has actually released any information to me that details the exact reasons, but from what I’ve heard I don’t actually have a problem with 2FTS trying to get its house in order. The problem comes from the shambles that has happened since.
But also, from where we are now ANY aviation is increasing the risk. Where does it end?
Ignore these - if you route via a CAA-approved flight school, then to fly for hire / reward, they must be CPL / frozen ATPL instructors. Aerobatics - some qualified.
For numbers versus allocated availability, external providers win hands down.
The Corps espouse a tag line of ‘total safety’.
There’s no such thing. Anywhere. For anyone. So it appears to me that it’s easier for the DDH to say ‘no’ from the off rather than looking in-depth into relevant safety standards and the number of historic incidents involving civilian flying and gliding.