It’s been chinned off, came to nothing some of the funds moved to cosford.
HQ 2FTS already have new offices 800k worth
And it seems the Aviation Skills Partnership is rebranding?
this hits the nail on the head of what i was thinking as i read it
Problem - too complex (resource and funds) to get the fleet airworthy again for the Cadets
Solution: spend the money and resource to get the fleet airworthy again for a charity…
As i read it the Charity put forward a business plan that would work for the MOD to justify spending the money. And if the charity helped fund it, ironic that the Charity found the funds while the MOD couldn’t…
#sadtimes
I see someone has put a FOI in for the aviation academy… it will be interesting to see what comes back
i’d be interested to know
1 - what cost was considered too high to return the fleet to the Cadets
2 - what the cost is to make airworthy and donate to the charity
but on second thoughts i am not sure i would like to know the answer!
I thought I’d read that the charity was paying to make them airworthy, rather than MoD doing it?
They would then sell off the majority to other civil users to pay for it.
maybe so - which raises the question how come the charity could afford it but not the MOD?
well is there really a point in the MoD maintaining a fleet of ~half dozen aircraft for the air cadets?
Charities will attract and be able to attract financial backing for something like this, given the donations would be tax write offs and looks good on a website/news article.
I’m not sure a publicly funded body like the MoD could attract charitable donations like that and I’m not convinced the ATC is a big enough draw for an ongoing sponsorship. The latter can be very flimsy given the sponsors need to be actively managed and given concessions etc or they can pull out.
Wrong question. MoD was able to, could easily afford it. They simply didn’t want to.
As I understand it the financing model is as Old Newbie has indicated:
However, the initial funding seems to have come from a grant from the Dept for Transport (DfT) (i.e.from HM Govt’s pot of money). The question is, therefore, why no-one explored the possibility of setting up a special purpose vehicle (SPV)(organisation) to sit within the non-publicly funded element of the RAFAC. Such a SPV, funded from a DfT grant to meet its charitable aims, could act as the owner of the refurbished aircraft, register them within the civil aviation sector and operate under the RAF rule set (as other aircraft used by the RAF are). As a charitable trading company such an organisation could have delivered through the same financing model as Aerobility. People might think such an option may have worried some within the CoC that there would be a loss of control, but as other aircraft are operated by the RAF within the same framework I don’t see that there would have been a problem; I suspect that the former Comdt 2FTS may not have shared my views.
Remember too that the gliders operated by the Canadian Air Cadets are owned and maintained by the Air Cadet League of Canada and it doesn’t seem to cause the RCAF too many problems.
All that being said(and I feel a lot better for venting) it is now history and I wish Aerobility all success in their very worthwhile venture.
1 Like
Would have had to bring all the VGS instructors back to being VRT to operate civilian aircraft under the RAF rules like those others are
They got a DfT grant!!!
@tingger Why would you need VR(T) pilots?
I think you would have to have a leadership element with a real passion for gliding to consider doing what you have suggested, and neither JM or DM strike me as ticking those boxes!
1 Like
The Air Navigation Order exempts military pilots flying on duty from the requirement to hold pilots’ licences (which VGS instructors, AEF pilots etc. don’t) while flying civilian registered aircraft.
RAFAC gliders are military registered. Tutors are civilian registered and so would the Vigilants be under that proposed solution.
CFC commissions are non military, so Vigilant pilots would have to hold a VR(T) commission.
Ah, I see. I forgot the gliders are on the mil register.
How hard would it be to transfer the VGS qualifications to civil qualifications?
Everything related to cadet experience flying seems to be overly complicated and I would suggest the biggest stumbling block is the MoD. There are or now maybe were flying instructors all over the UK training and passing people to fly everything from gliders to “air transport” (fixed and rotary), yet it seems ridiculously difficult for us as an organisation to tap into this resource, unless (if allowed) to go through a paperchase, to be able to get the backsides of young people in an “air minded” organisation in gliders and light aircraft just to experience small aircraft flying, any flying qualification can come later if there is a displayed aptitude for it.
However tbh I cannot see people being allowed to be in close enough proximity either by a rule or personal choice for twin seat flying as we used to do, for some considerable time and mass passenger flying as we have had for decades in larger aircraft will I imagine only be undertaken if there is a burning need. So our quite righteous indignation about the way the MoD handled this is somewhat moot. Not saying it wouldn’t be good to know the decision making and thought process that saw the gliders given to a charity, at the same time we were being led to believe it was a slow process to get cadet gliding up and running. Depending how far the process had gone, the charity could now well be left with some white elephants.
Well, it’s still happening. One airline even promised to clear middle seats and then… didn’t.
It may well be happening but will it ever get to where it did until a few weeks ago, where air travel was deemed almost like getting on a bus? People will fly, but more out of an absolute necessity rather than for say holidays for some time hence.