WTActualF? Did Dawn and John make any effort to get their hands on that money?
1 Like
Hmmm, got a link for that please to save me some time; the Baroness I was in contact with (before Covid19 hit us) will be very interested in that information.
2 Likes
Many thanks - will chat with this with the friendly Baroness.
5 Likes
Could one govt dept give another govt dept money because of their ineptitude, in this case the RAFâs ineptitude in not ensuring the upkeep of some gliders, as was the initial problem.
You do wonder if say a charitable body (I donât know the Gliding Charitable Trust) could not have been set up, taken the gliders at knock-down price and then sought the funding to get them airworthy. Itâs primary function would be offering gliding to Air Cadets, but with a business arm offering gliding to the wider community at a cost. The only problem would be, it would be outside the RAF, so no cushy little jobs for the boys/girls.
I am not an accountant, and I have no idea of the legal implications, but could the GP fund trustees not have made a bid for funding, and paid for the work on the gliders, whilst they were still owned by us?
1 Like
As I recall the situation only came to light after 2FTS was formed and they did a maintenance audit, by which point it was too late. But ⌠as we have found a solution was there.
From what I have read on this forum and from publicly available information I suspect the following sequence of events.
(1) During the refurbishment programme, being run by the previous Comdt 2 FTS, someone looked at the figures involved and decided that the overall programme was proving to be too expensive and needed to be cash limited.
(2) 2FTS/HQAC did their sums and decided that a 2 aircraft type fleet was unsustainable and immediately grounded the Vigilants.
(3) The options considered by the MOD led to the selection of âtransfer ownership to a charityâ ( the release of the aircraft in ones and twos into the civilian fleet would have been considered too much of a reputational risk but the charity option was a âgood newsâ story).
(4) Unfortunately I would guess that the costings done for retention of the Vigilants were based on the requirement to meet the standards imposed by the Military Airworthiness Authority. However, the transfer of the aircraft to the charitable arm of the RAFAC does not seem to have been considered. As I have mentioned before, in Canada the aircraft are owned by the Air League of Canada but with the cadet training programme funded by the Canadian military ( they must have come to an acceptable agreement over aircraft maintenance standards etc which would seem to have eluded the authorities in the UK - I am sure that they are just as concerned about cadet safety in Canada as we are).
(4) In terms of inter-departmental costings, the destruction of the airframes (a specialist task) would have been a charge against the MOD budget. This way the costs, to the MOD, were minimised and (I am sure it is hoped) not too much egg was stuck to too many faces!!
(5) The one missing part of the jigsaw, unless anyone knows better, is whether the Vigilants were transferred at no cost or sold to Aerobility.
No problem at all with the current owners, their aims and objectives but I am always concerned by opaque processes.
Been in touch, maybe more details to come from a recent Air League meeting. She had posed some questions in the Lords, but seemingly no reply, so she will ask them again.
Value of sale of the Vigilants = commercially sensitive- so just match that against the DfT grant?
3 Likes
I see each question has the same stock answer.
This only shows that government knows it ballzd up.
2 Likes
Give it 30 or 50 years and the truth will out. Nor sure itâs the govt or a deliberate move by the MoD/RAF, as the answer suggests they didnât even bother to look into any alternatives, including the novel one of a charitable flying organisation, open to public use but with air cadets getting priority.
I saw an article in yesterdayâs DT that those passing their flying training at a flying academy will be allowed to do drone piloting as there are fewer airline pilot jobs at the moment and foreseeable future.
Yep, will be following up with the good Baroness; will be in contact next week with one of the Air League peeps.
1 Like
Makes me sick.
The lies we were sold.
The absolute that dawn and her cronies extolled is laid bare with one glance at this website.
At least they will be flying again.
But we would have made so much better use of them.
Really want to know how much they will be flogging this off for.
Thatâs right people theyâre not even keeping them all! They are selling some off to private buyers once renovated.
$âŹ$ÂŁ# ;$âŹ$ÂŁ# ;#^_ @/Ă:Ă ,#ÂŁ# ÂŁ#&#&
so it would seem there wasnât even any âconditions on aleâ - at a guess was the contract something like the below?
*Dear Aerobility *
You can have these almost airworthy aircraft for the price of the change you can find down the back of your sofa but donât feel you need to hold to them for 2 years as part of this agreement.
feel free to spend the money we cba to find, to get them back in the air to then flog them as highly capable aircraft with new improved engines and glass cockpits - we hope someone will do well out of this deal as the RAF is only interested in egg on its face
Signed - the RAF
Aerobility signature agreeing to deal__________________________________
4 Likes
From looking at the Aerobility website, theyâve clearly done an amazing job gathering sponsors and partners for this project. I assume that selling some of the aircraft provides funding for the refurbishment of the whole fleet, so at the end theyâll have a much smaller fleet than we had originally. Perhaps this approach wouldnât have been suitable for us?
If the RAFAC had taken the same approach (although I donât think HQAC have the skills or ability to pull this together), would the fleet have been big enough to deliver training to cadets as well as ongoing staff training? There must be a point where the fleetâs too small to be sustainable for us.
given the RAFAC gliding fleet is smaller for not having the Vigilants - given we now operate Vikings only (except one location plus Syerston) I donât feel this argument stacks up.
Any number of Vigilants would be of benefit to the RAFAC
The VGSâs have operated a two aircraft type fleet for decades it was never a decision of one or the other, until recently when it was decided the Vigilants were too costly and so one aircraft type fleet would be the route forward
Weâre now running fewer sites in part because the move was to only have Viking gliders. Those sites not suitable for Vikings/conventional gliding were closed by default. Had the Vigilants been saved however (ie not sold to Charity and made airworthy) some of those sites that have been closed may have remained viable.
I am not suggesting there would be double the number of gliding locations (the plan it would appear was to always reduce the numbers of VGS locations) but had the Vigilants been a viable option for the MOD I suspect some sites would have stayed open.
2 Likes
Iâm sure youâre right that, had the Vigilants been managed better, there could be a sustainable fleet of that type. The overheads and infrastructure costs of a mixed fleet will be higher though.
It seems that Aerobility are initially operating 8 aircraft from 63 purchased and selling many of the rest to cover costs. Even if HQAC/3 FTS could have managed to do the same (and I think thatâs a big IF, as Aerobility seem to be a highly competent and very effective charity) a fleet of 8 Vigilants would barely cover CGS and a VGS, wouldnât it? My suggestion was that having the extra costs of a mixed fleet, to equip only one VGS isnât the best option.
As i understand it we already are operating a mixed fleet.
all of the VGS except one are VikingâŚthe one simply isnât suitable for conventional glider operations but to close it meant its catchment area would be outside of the 2hr driving window set upon VGS locations (ie the next nearest one is too far away)
that said a quick look on 'tinternet and I canât find it.
i had a feeling there was a unit North of England/Scotland that remained with Vigilant. perhaps not.
anyone else remember this??
when i was a Cadet (sounding old) our local VGS had 3x Vigilants, and later was seen regularly with four. so I would argue 8 would be sufficient for CGS and one other Vigilant VGS particularly as I doubt the CGS aircraft are used as much as the VGS would be
Yes but the point is also that the fleet could have if not planned to be used, sold at commercial price and a whole bunch 30/40 regular gliders bought to supplement the fleet. Thereby we only suffer a little reduction in glider flying. Not the halving that took place.