Gliding "paused"

Everyone Flying
181

The issue of non-flying in non-ATC aircraft is very frustrating, but the crux of the matter is the lack of ATC aircraft. Why the paucity of feedback &/or the lack of detailed breakdown of the technical/airworthiness issues?? It really is getting beyond a joke to have so few aircraft “operational.”

Separate issue - we fired off the paperwork for “pax flights” as per the ACTO - give or take, about [color=#ff0000]10 weeks[/color] ago!! B*gger all has come back - heaven help us if we had wanted to get cadets flying in the interim period - oh, sorry, we did, & we couldn’t. Chasing messages have been sent up the chain, to no avail. Sorry, this is not acceptable. Please will the relevant people extract their digits & get the approval back to us.

182

Woodvale has gone from having a fleet of 9 Tutors to now only having 6 with one in maintenance on rotation.

The other 3 were taken by EFT as they were short of airframes.

It also doesn’t help that the weather restrictions and parachute/ LSJ restrictions are hindering the task.

It has been formally mentioned further up the chain but I wonder if HQAC are fully aware of the effect of said restrictions or are 3FTS just brushing it under the carpet?!

183

It appeared as one of the bullet points in a presentation given to the ACO conference, but the PPT alone offered no substance so unless someone present can fill us in I have no idea how much was discussed or whether they have a solution.

184

Rightly or wrongly the ATC seems to grub around at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to flying, despite it being our USP among cade/youth organisations.
The situation is beyond a joke and it might be the time to unleash parents who pay for their children to be in the Corps and have to ultimately deal with the disappointment of their children. There is little or no point in us complaining as some be-ringed individuals would get all ranky about it.
My youngest had a school trip to Germany cancelled due to the cost rising, but then the parents said so what we’ll pay the extra. The headmaster was unrepentent, so a number of us ear 'oled the governors and put our annoyance in writing. Speakng to a couple of the governors at the time, the head was carpetted by the chairman and the trip reinstated. Parent power is not to be underestimated and we have 30 odd thousand at our disposal.

I’ve had parents ask me about the lack of flying in all guises and accept that it’s out of our control and fully sense the staff’s frustration.
Maybe a few thousand letters / emails / social media missives to CAC, OCs 2 and 3 FTS and potentially some questions ‘in the house’, might have some effect. I know I’m completely fed up with promising ‘jam tomorrow’ and feel extremely disappointed for youngsters joining in the last 2-3 years after seeing pictures of their age group in flying garb and not getting the same opportunities. The other things we offer are no different to what can be done in other youth organisations or even school and are not a substitute In the real world heads would have rolled or at least been spying the axe in the corner long before now.

It would have been a fair question requiring an honest answer, given that it seems such things were suggested. As for putting him on the spot, given his salary and position, it has to be expected. They wouldn’t hesitate to do it to the volunteers if we were thought not to be doing something.

185

You can’t magic volunteer pilots up.

186

… and because the way things have been handled this is going to be problem for the first few years once gliding gets underway again, the same it has been wrt powered flying.

In the powered flying fraternity as the down time has meant pilots fall out of currency, so a weekend at home doing the things people do at the weekends has a lot more appeal than pitching up to fly cadets around. Add in the number who are older and have more frequent medical checks and at what point does it become a chore? It does seem the experience of the down time with the Tutors hasn’t been learned from. It would have been eminently sensible (regardless of the admin and prissy mindset of mil vs civ) to attach VGS instructors to civvie clubs, if only to keep their flying skills up to date and pay/reimburse them in the usual way, who knows they could have even done flips for paying customers. That way when the ATC’s gliders come back there are potentially still a large pool of instructors who if nothing else have been flying.

Maybe there needs to a drastic overhaul of the current system of relying on solely on military / retired military pilots to volunteer for AEF and maybe we need instructors from the civvie and military world and pay some sort of bounty to all to ensure continuity of service. As the saying goes you get nothing for nothing.

But as MJ said this was suggested and any notion was blown out of the water a year ago. Frankly because I can’t imagine a commercial concern with contractual agreement to supply something getting away with fobbing people off because of technical issues like winches being u/s. I’ve lost count of the times there were problems as the VGS were waiting for someone fix a winch.

I don’t what the deal is with Tayside Aviation and FS, but there is a precedent for using commercial outfits.

187

Actually you’re wrong. The folks who are linked to civil aviation are having their normal duties messed about with so airlines can squeeze everything they can out of them and the chaps who are military bases are struggling to commit.

188

When I said civvie I meant was civvie club instructors, not airline pilots and given the general reduction in military pilots it’s no wonder they aren’t able to commit, but being almost reliant on them has painted us into a corner.
I suppose another route is having AEF only pilots and setting them up as a trade group, with emphasis on training/instruction. Not exciting perhaps but it means there are always pilots.
Or as I said the arrangement with Tayside sets a precedent for contracts with commercial concerns, so you could actually fold AEFs and VGSs and contract flying and gliding out.

189

VGS use Civilian Gliding Instructors and VR(T) instructors. It’s only AEF that use ex military or holding pilots.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

190

Sorry I was solely referring to AEF chums

191

Yes aware of that. But there are also a number of older / retired pilots. I’ve seen at least 2 former Commandants floating around as Flying Officers I believe.

What about of taking cadet AEF, GIC and scholarships out the military sphere altogther though and use the buying power of the Corps. This would I feel secure the flying in terms of aircraft and people to instruct the cadets. Plus commercial outlets couldn’t and wouldn’t be anymore than a couple of weeks without an aircraft, let alone more.

192

Although we have a large buying power it isn’t like there is a large nation wide gliding club so the buying power is pretty much not an issue, we would still only be buying a few slots here and there. WHEN the VGS structure works it works very well - lots of GICS, lots of Schols and lots of staff development. Most instructors come from within and are either unpaid or only allowed 28 days - can’t see a civvie club doing it for free??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

193

[quote]
You can’t magic volunteer pilots up.[/quote]

If you don’t have aircraft, you can’t magic anything up. No refresher flying, no trg of new pilots, no cadet flying, no nothing.

With regard to airline flying, as a current airline pilot, I think I’m qualified to comment… Airline pilots are rostered for their duties, often several months in advance, or, by nature of a fixed roster (“x” days on earlies, “y” days off, “z” days on lates, “y” days off, repeat). Contractually, these can’t change. All other flying has to be taken into account for the annual legal maximum. It’s not unusual for pilots to have “gardening leave” for 2-4 weeks as they approach the end of their flying “calendar year” to avoid going over the limit, currently 900 block hrs.

Consequently, I’d be very surprised to hear of such pilots getting their lives “messed around.”

Incidentally, I (politely) rattled the cage of a contact within 2FTS; I said that it was intensely disappointing that there had been zero feedback about the engineering /airworthiness plan, & also that if this had related to a commercial airline, then it would have gone into liquidation. I’m just wondering if a FoI request will speed things up…

194

Strangely there’s peak demand for certain airlines, which certain areas have a proportion of staff helping on AEFs, and that peak demand isn’t friendly to weekend working.

195

No surprises there - especially for “bucket & spade” operations where weekend flights/hotel changeovers are a major part of their working timetable; this should be predictable for the relevant AEFs. The airline pilots concerned will not have short notice changes unless there is contractual agreement for this - & in some cases, these will be impossible, as some flight schedules demand additional rest aspects prior to the duty due to the crew duty timings, crew composition (third pilot not required) or flight duration. Also, weekly/monthly cumulative duty hrs have to be taken into account, so again, no-one is getting their lives messed up, it is an established way of operating an airline.

196

This from elsewhere:

[quote]

Description of planned activity: The authority is considering running a competition for a Military Airworthiness Authority (MAA) Regulatory Publication / Military Part 145 Maintenance Approved Organisation Status (MRP/Mil Part 145 MAOS) approved organisation (or company able to achieve MRP/Mil Pt 145 MAOS approval) to provide Integrated Operating Support (IOS) to approximately 145 aircraft, the fleet of gliders used by the Air Cadet Organisation (ACO). The current fleet of aircraft have a funded Out-of-Service Date (OSD) of 31 March 2025, and it is expected that this contract will run until then, either for an initial period of 5 years with subsequent options, or for the full duration until OSD. However, industry engagement may indicate this is not suitable and other options may be considered. The requirement is expected to include:

SUPPORT ELEMENT:

A. Scheduled maintenance, rectification and associated engineering support services for the glider fleet (approximately 65 Vigilant self-launched motor gliders (SLMG) and approximately 80 Viking conventional winch launched gliders) based at the RAF Central Gliding School (CGS), RAF Syerston and the dispersed Volunteer Gliding Squadrons (VGS) across the UK (inc Northern Ireland).

B. A number of the Military Airworthiness Authority Regulatory Publication Military Part M Sub Part G (MOD Continuous Airworthiness Management Organisation (CAMO)) tasks (in whole or in part) on behalf of the MOD Continuous Airworthiness Manager (MODCAM).

C. Flight servicing activities to support CGS flying at RAF Syerston.

D. Provision of aircraft spares (other than Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)) to support the above activity, including acting as single point of contact for return of major components for repair and/or overhaul for both aircraft.

E. Provision and maintenance of a dry-lease, civil registered light aircraft to support aero-tow operations at RAF Syerston.

F. Winch launch consumables such as drogue chutes, carabiners etc

G. Spares-inclusive, repair and overhaul of Vigilant propellers (both legacy and future types).

H. On-aircraft embodiment of the modifications required for a Vigilant re-engine programme, to be developed by Grob Gmbh under contract from the United Kingdom Military Flying Training System Project Team (UKMFTS PT).

I. Support to all special to type ground support equipment including but not limited to glider launch winches, launch control caravans, fire response vehicles and fuel bowsers.

RECOVERY ELEMENT:

A. Possible recovery of any aircraft, subject to the glider recovery assurance programme, outstanding at the end of the current maintenance contract.

B. Possible recovery of approximately 20 currently stored, long-term unserviceable Viking aircraft.

Estimated Value Range excluding VAT:

It is expected that the value of the contract is thought to be category C banding until March 2025, with the Contract Notice being published in the OJEU and DCO in the summer of 2015. The Contract notice will be accompanied by an on-line Dynamic Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ). Interested suppliers will be invited to a market day to provide feedback thoughts and possible solutions the MOD may not have considered at RAF High Wycombe on the 29th of June 2015. All interested bidders are encouraged to attend this event. All comments made at this point may be considered, and a full requirement will be produced taking account of suppliers feedback and comments where relevant. The subsequent requirement will then be competed in line with Public Contract Regulations (2015), with contract award anticipated for late spring 2016.[/quote]

197

Some interesting points…

AEF pilots - there’s quite a big pool of regular and ex-regular pilots of all three services who are willing to give their time. With the current interest in the mitigation of “risk”, I can’t see anyone having an appetite to change that - it’s not broke. The only “down side” is the implementation of the upper age limit, which may have removed some airline-roster-free flexibility!

3FTS food chain - believe me, the Air Cadets aren’t at the bottom of the food chain… they certainly get priority over available radar services (which can be to the detriment of other tasks) and at busier airfields will often get aircraft priority over the UAS at certain times. Sadly as the other Tutor users, ie EFT, have a tangible military output, the AEF sorties will often come second. This applies to the distribution of aircraft too (and hence maybe why some sites have fewer 'frames than before)…

…on the plus side, 6 FTS will soon exist, and in about 2-3 years time EFT shouldn’t be using the Tutor at all. :slight_smile: They’ll (almost) all be yours!

198

Can you tell me where this pool of pilots can be found as we certainly struggle to find any.

Not too bad if you live in ‘Bomber County’ but up here we rely on airline or TP’s

@mikejenvey. I’m led to believe that the Tutor hours doesn’t count towards your 900hrs max as the AUW is too low. (Unless you work for Ryanair where the amount of time you spend on the loo counts towards your 900!!)

Can only quote what I’ve been told.

We find that a lot of our Bucket and Spade chaps only just get to fly their minimum during the 30day period in the summer months, also many of our Chaps work for carriers out of LGW and LHR. And the BA 320 boys are almost maxing out on 900 hrs with only minimum rest and it’s not fair to expect them to give up their single day off.

We also have quite a few service pilots that fly with us but with recent goings on they are OOA or on call.

This along with weather restrictions, supervisory limitations, LSJ and parachute restrictions makes our like quite difficult.

199

If it’s not broke why have we had as a Wing a number of AEF details cancelled in the last 2 years due to lack of pilots? It would appear the pools are very localised.

200

If you go back two years that brings the whole prop issue into play. Was there the same “manning” issue before the failures?

As for Woodvale, it seems there may be a lot of reasons not to keep it open!