There should of been a Sharepoint announcement at the very least the same time as the press release…
Having read the thread, no, I don’t think there will be.
If you can I would suggest that you all or any others who may be concerned by all this contact your MP to ask them to ask Public Accounts Committee to follow up on all this. Then may be the National Audit Office can look at the handling of this whole debacle and get to the truth of it all.
1 Like
For anybody not a regular user of Pprune, there’s a long standing thread over there on this that’s turned up some gems recently; https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/538497-air-cadets-grounded-251.html
So, a few quick thoughts, what have I missed out:
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST
I wish to establish the full circumstances behind the recent decision for MOD’s Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) organisation to sell 63 decommissioned Vigilant T1 aircraft to Aerobility.
My understanding was the the Vigilant was withdrawn from service with the Air Cadets based on age & associated costs for refurbishment (to include new engines, etc). Yet, several years later, they now seem to have a productive life (subject to refurbishment).
Please answer the following - this is not a complete list of questions & should not be used for an any excuse / delay / omission under any relevant FoI Schedule in order to provide the full associated facts / information. Any gaps will result in further FoI questions in order to ascertain the full picture.
What considerations were taken by MOD to secure the same result for the original users (RAFAC) & if not seen as acceptable, why not?
What were the precise reason(s) for decommissioning the Vigilants (please provide all related correspondence)?
What were the proposed costs of works to bring them back online for RAFAC service?
What was the value of sale of the 63 airframes?
What was the value of the DfT grant?
Why was such a DfT grant not considered / sourced for RAFAC, & if not feasible, why not?
Why were GROB not approached to refurbish the Vigilant airframes for RAFAC (at associated costs) as opposed to attempting to source (without success) any other independent company?
If GROB were approached, what was the reason(s) for not accepting any proposed solution?
If not seen as viable for RAFAC, what were the prime drivers for subsequent sale / refurbishment?
When was the decision made to sell the Vigilant airframes to Aerobility?
Why was this decision made?
Who made this decision?
Why weren’t the RAFAC CFAVs at squadron level informed before the RAF publicity was announced via their website?
When will HQRAFAC communicate (in retrospect) to RAFAC CFAVs full reasons for this disposal (to Aerobility) of the Vigilant airframes?
8 Likes
I like.
I suspect I won’t like the answers, however.
4 Likes
you almost certainly won’t get an individual named here, at best an office but even then I am not so sure. if it is included it will be redacted
one question i would like asked
was there any consideration for a Vigilant replacement airframe costs vs refurbishment of the existing (if aging out) Vigilant airframes.
(and why were both rejected)
they (the 103 and 109s) sat still for years in Little Ris parked up going no where. the donation to Aeromobility could have occurred any time from 2015 knowing that the a/c would not be used by the MOD/RAF/ACO again (aged out, questionable airworthiness and too expensive to refurbish) and during 2015-2020 we’d get the next generation of SLMG
instead the donation has occured in 2020, and there is no replacement for the Vigilant.
1 Like
Well, they had better be open about things; Home Office Firearms Dept were rather “frugal” with their reply to one of my several FoIs - & took 65 working days to respond(!!) - I asked for a review, they got it wrong again (+ another 4 months!), so I complained to the ICO. Other than one area that I hadn’t covered adequately (my fault, but not an important factor), the rest was found in my favour. Huge smack on the bum for the Home Office.
[If you want to review the ICO response to me, it is here. 
]
1 Like
While I do not wish to indulge in personal abuse in any way I would observe that there seems to have been a distinct lack of lateral thinking from the powers that be.
All the decisions appear to have been made on the basis of " as there is not enough money for the RAF to run a mixed fleet of gliders then one has to go".
As a result a charity has been allowed to take the Vigilant fleet and pursue a business plan which seems to be based on selling on a number of refurbished aircraft in order to support their enhanced/enlarged fleet.
Unless I have missed a trick, at all levels of the RAFAC there are registered charities whose money supports the non-publicly funded activities. Once the decision was made that RAF funding would no longer be available for the Vigilant fleet ( and therefore powered gliding becoming, potentially, a non-publicly funded activity ) why couldn’t the charitable side of the organisation have been given the opportunity to do exactly the same as Aerobility has.
Please don’t get me wrong, I think Aerobility do a great job but I can’t see why we couldn’t have done the same. In Canada the gliders are owned by the Air Cadet League but a number operated on RCAF Airfields and the Tutors of course are civil registered but RAF operated. Just a thought.
1 Like
Seems to smack massively of Whitehall budget spafferey. They can’t look at the bigger picture, instead look at a small pot allocated to one area over a short timescale
Personally, I wouldn’t FOI this. I definitely wouldn’t go and speak to my MP about it… especially as AP1919 frowned against such things what with us being VR(T) and all… oh wait… there is no AP1919 at the moment from which to seek guidance… and we’re not VR(T) anymore either…
5 Likes
Wonder if anyone is going to send a Pre-Action letter to the MOD alleging that the decision is flawed ala the Heathrow decision
1 Like
a good point - and with ~60 aircraft that is ~2 per Wing if people wanted to split it evenly, i appreciate not every Wing has a VGS or suitable airfield, but pooling a few Wings aircraft together at one location could have created a win-win situation
2 Likes
Ta - might just nick that!
1 Like
Get it stopped.
Over turned.
Gliders returned.
Upgraded.
Flying again.
Then you are eligable for the title of World President for life.
FoI request sent, letter to my MP sent. I also mentioned the dire state of ACTO35 within the letter to my MP.
3 Likes
Well done you!
It would be great to have a copy of that letter to your MP that maybe others could send to theirs too?
1 Like
Chop / change / augment as you will for your local circumstances (as mentioned above I did steal one or 2 quotes )- don’t forget to include your address. Links left unembedded for ease of copying.
========================================
As an instructor in the Air Training Corps, I would like to raise my concerns over the decision to sell 63 Vigilant motor-gliders to Aerobility, please see the link:
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/former-mod-gliders-to-be-used-by-charity-to-change-lives/
In brief, the history is that about 5 yrs ago, the RAF Air Cadets (RAFAC) enforced a gliding “pause” based on engineering safety concerns; in particular, the Vigilants were considered as being too expensive to refurbish (requiring new engines amongst other items).
So, 5 yrs ago, these aircraft were “not fit for RAFAC” use, but now, they are considered acceptable for a charity. I am pleased for the charity, but appalled that there have been 5 yrs wasted for RAFAC gliding - the cadets have really suffered in this respect, & continue to do so - our sqn in XXXXX has not experienced any RAFAC gliding since the “pause” started.
There have been several Hansard entries relating to RAFAC gliding & subsequent “review,” but I cannot find in-depth coverage that pinpoints any monetary aspects:
Air Cadet Organisation and Gliding - Wednesday 13 April 2016 - Hansard - UK Parliament
So, I cannot understand this about face. Had this decision been made say 5 yrs ago, then perhaps the RAFAC “gliding” route could have been very different, with monies from any sale being put towards replacement airframes?
Incidentally, whilst not directly linked to this issue, RAFAC issued an authority document, ACTO35, which specified many convoluted hoops in order for cadets to be permitted to go flying in “Non-Service Aircraft” such as paying at flying clubs, or paying to go gliding (Gransdens for example). We managed, once, to get 4 cadets gliding this way, & also 20 or so airborne at XXXXXX Flying Club. However, ACTO35 has been suspended since at least summer 2018. It “may” be re-issued Q2/Q3 this year, but the RAFAC hierarchy seem to be very reluctant to permit cadets to fly at such organisations (very risk averse?); this is strange, as such flying clubs / gliding centres are under direct authority / legal supervision by the CAA or BGA. This is another counter-productive area that is penalising cadets.
Had this been a commercial organisation selling the Vigilants, then I suspect that managers would be seeking alternative careers? I cannot believe that this is value for money, nor best use of resources.
Separately, I believe that at all levels of the RAFAC, there are registered charities whose money supports the non-publicly funded activities. Once the decision was made that RAF funding would no longer be available for the Vigilant fleet (& therefore powered gliding becoming, potentially, a non-publicly funded activity) why couldn’t the charitable side of the organisation have been given the opportunity to do exactly the same as Aerobility has?
Please may I ask that this entire situation is reviewed in-depth by suitable authorities, perhaps the Public Accounts Committee or the National Audit Office. I shall ask MOD a variety of questions under FoI; I doubt I shall get the full picture.
Yours sincerely,
9 Likes
For Parliamentary Bills, any costs have to be specified, & if there are proposed changes that increase cost above a certain limit, then the Cost Assessment has to be revised.
I would have thought that whilst the “process” for Vigilants was completely outside such methodology, there has to such significant financial changes from then (start of the “pause”) to now, to warrant a major review of the entire circumstances.