I stand corrected….but you get my point about vastly differing experience levels.
Having seen this conversation:
I can well imagine that the following could easily have occurred…
why is it so hard for the two organisation overseen by the same sponsor have such a different outlook on activities and risk?
is it anyone wonder there is “one book” but 900 (Squadron) ways of interpreting it if there is such a vast chasm between what is considered a permitted activity between two similar organisations (the ATC and ACF)?
Well, we have a “response” to why everyman and his dog can use private gliding clubs but we can’t:
The response from the HQ is on the Teams Channel.
Basically, we don’t care, we won’t listen, we know best and screw you all. Not from RC(N), he’s done his best to get a reply, but you’ll note that OC2FTS couldn’t even be bothered to post his own reply to that and had to be chased by RC(N) to get anything. Utter contempt.
2 Likes
What a load of rubbish. Technically, the statement is true. Our position has been clearly articulated, ie, we’re not allowed. But the reasons why ACF can and we can’t is still a mystery. The response from the Fg Off on there is spot on:
either:
“The RAF don’t have capacity to safety check these sites. The Army do, but we don’t accept their assurance checks.”
or
“The RAF don’t have capacity to safety check these sites, and the ACF are being dangerous by not conducting their own checks. Instead they rely on CAA/BGA regulatory systems which are not sufficient to ensure safety when flying.”
If it’s the former, then the follow up question is why don’t we accept the ACF checks on gliding sites?
If it’s the latter, then the follow up question is why isn’t the MOD stopping ACF cadets gliding if civilian regulation is so dangerous?
That really needs answering.
11 Likes
The response has made me genuinely angry. I’m fighting hard to not reply as I’d like to and be more professional about it. I want to ask what part of RISE that we’re supposedly held to allows someone to write that response, not even put their name to it and leave it? It’s disrespectful, it shows no integrity, it does not put the service before their own self interests and it’s one of the least excellent things we’ve ever done. I’m seething.
5 Likes
I see there is already a deleted reply underneath RC North’s, so I’d guess someone has already said something they shouldn’t have…
Yes, a shame we can’t see it really. Maybe the person who posted it will write it here instead.
The interesting bit on there though is that RC North is suggesting we could do scholarship type grants from the CWC to allow flying at a BGA site. AFAIK this was explicitly not allowed. So again, the statement that our position has been clearly articulated is a load of rubbish,.
@MikeJenvey is this not something that was suggested but shot down?
No, the wording is very carefully different. What we can’t do, is buy a membership from a BGA site and buy a set number of launches/minutes, then award them to a cadet. What we can do, it seems, is work out how much that might cost and give a cadet a cheque to do with it what they wish wink wink, nudge nudge.
Not just suggested, it was in progress. I was one of the drivers to include gliding in ACTO35 (as well as tidying up the inappropriate admin requirements ), & also assisted the then Reg Av O when consideration was being given to pre-approve some BGA facilities (youth centres) to streamline the ACTO35 approval process. We visited Cambridge Gliding Centre to discuss resources, logistics, the whole palaver. All very productive.
Howver, this concept died a very quick death - think it was pending the overall “larger” review.
You mean 2 FPS (Flying Prevention School) decided it might erode their power and actually allow some gliding to take place?
4 Likes
So you could issue your cadets X money and point them in the direction of a few suitable places?
Or award a grant and refund the cost upon presentation of a receipt from their chosen gliding club that demonstrates the award’s purpose has been fulfilled?
Sounds pretty good.
Behind the scenes work could take place to perhaps provide a good package to cadets who enquire, provided they were genuinely responsible, with parents, for choosing what they did in private.
1 Like
I don’t think this is what is being said. The first option of giving money could be done, if they then choose to use that to fund themselves gliding then fine. I don’t think we can specifically pay for them to do the gliding which we would be if we’re reimbursing them on presentation of an appropriate invoice.
1 Like
Yay!..just been given my first gliding slots since July 2023. I’ve now only to decide which of the 60 cadets will get the 2 slots!
Interesting to see again we are promoting the Air League scholarships (as we should be), but reminding people they would take part as private individuals.
Having your cake and eating it springs to mind.
One of the discussion points when I met up with the Air League CEO recently… Great to have a formal connection - but how to use it???
2 Likes
Not sure how else AOC 22 can do it - if we promote them actively but have no safety oversight, what happens if something goes wrong? Whereas if we promote them but say ‘obviously we don’t run this, so we can’t tell you if it’s safe - at your own risk’ that’s a sensible approach?
I know you’d think the Air League would be different but it’s not, really, any more than HCAP.
Surely, if we are that worried about private providers and their safety records we shouldn’t be advertising it at all is my point. We can’t use BGA clubs for this reason, so how come we’re allowed to promote these air league scholarships to cadets? Please note I’m not for one minute suggesting the Air League are unsafe, or that we shouldnt want to get cadets airborne, but the inconsistency of the approach to the two things confuses me.
2 Likes
They set out MoIs, standards & suitable duty of care protocols with the providers. I’ve got copies. They seem very sensible / appropriate.
All RAFAC / AOC 22 Gp @Cab would have to do is check for comparable standards & perhaps add on a couple of RAFAC requirements (but hopefully not as restrictive as drone flying!). Use a suitable agreement letter (as was done for ACTO35) saying that external providers are being used.
Done deal…
5 Likes