I seem to recall someone telling me that the VGS at RAF Sealand couldn’t convert to winch launch, because of there were other users of the airfield. Perhaps that’s the unit you are thinking of?
Sealand VGS was a Viking unit, who moved to Woodvale when Sealand closed. Woodvale is apparently non comparable with winches, so they converted to Vigilant.
RAF Sealand closed in 2006, the VGS 631 then moving to Woodvale. 631 and 645 at Topcliffe were to operate post pause Vigilants until their retirement from service (645 operating 2017 & 2018).
Topcliffe are converting to Viking, Woodvale to an AGS
1 Like
What does this tell us about HQAC/RAF/MoD?
No imagination, or, slightest hint of initiative, or, giving a monkey’s.
You can see all 3 of these within Aerobility as they obviously care about what they are doing and wanting to provide.
The funniest thing is aerobility have got DfT and the Welsh Govt listed as sponsors.
I’ll list this most recent answer in full:
————————————————————
Baroness Vere of Norbiton, the Department for Transport, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL6462):
Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the value of the grant from the Department for Transport to Aerobility for the Vigilant T1 aircraft. (HL6462)
Tabled on: 06 July 2020
Answer:
Baroness Vere of Norbiton :
A grant of £745,000 was awarded to Aerobility, a registered charity, to support its work to refurbish the Vigilant T1 glider fleet, acquired from the Ministry of Defence. The gliders had been grounded by the Royal Air Force in May 2018. The grant was specifically to cover the costs relating to the refurbishment package, including modifications needed to enable people with physical disabilities to fly the gliders, and for the full refurbishment of eight aircraft, to be retained by Aerobility for its operations.
Expanding Aerobility’s fleet of aircraft will lead to a number of benefits, including, improving access to flight training and flight experiences for those living with physical and mental disabilities. It will also enable Aerobility to offer services at additional locations in the UK.
Date and time of answer: 20 Jul 2020 at 16:25.
At the risk of boring the pants off all who have followed this saga over the last 6 or so years and in particular those who have been good enough to read my infrequent posts. You may have picked up that I think that due process (including the following of existing rules and indeed the law) is key to fair and transparent decision making. I follow a simple maxim; if those rules or laws are not fit for purpose change them, but don’t ignore them just because they are inconvenient.
I therefore note with great interest the final comment of Baroness Goldie in the standard civil service answer drafted in response to Baroness Garden’s question concerning the value of the Vigilant Sale:
" I am withholding the value of the disposal sale as it would prejudice commercial interests."
I assume that answers to question put by members of Parliament, whether they sit in the Commons or the Lords, would be answered with no less clarity than is required by the FOI Act Section 43(2). To apply the “would prejudice commercial interests” defence then the following would apply:
-
In order to apply section 43(2), the public authority must satisfy itself that disclosure of the information would, or would be likely to, prejudice or harm the commercial interests of any person (this can include the public authority holding it). This is known as the prejudice test.
-
The term “would…prejudice” means that prejudice is more probable than not to occur (ie a more than a 50% chance of the disclosure causing the prejudice, even though it is not absolutely certain that it would do so).
What is a commercial interest?
- A commercial interest relates to a person’s ability to participate competitively in a commercial activity. The underlying aim may be to make a profit however it could also be to cover costs or to simply remain solvent.
Further guidance is given in the following document:
When could releasing information cause prejudice to
commercial interests? General considerations relevant to the test of ‘prejudice’
To decide whether or not disclosure could prejudice commercial interests, you need to
identify:
the interests themselves and how disclosure might prejudice them
whose interests they are
A department’s, or other body’s, commercial interests might, for example, be prejudiced where a disclosure would be likely to:
damage its business reputation or the confidence that customers, suppliers or investors may have in it
have a detrimental impact on its commercial revenue or threaten its ability to obtain supplies or secure finance
weaken its position in a competitive environment by revealing market sensitive information or information of potential usefulness to its competitors.
It is important to note, however, that a simple assertion by an individual or body that there would be prejudice to his or its interests is not sufficient.
The assertion must be supported by reasoned argument, and where practicable by empirical evidence. In particular it is not sufficient for a body simply to mark a document commercial in confidence for the information in it to be exempt. It is important, in this and other contexts, to be alert to the differences between using this exemption to protect the interests of a third party and using it to defend a public authority’s own interests. (my bold)
These differences are considered in further detail below.
Commercial sensitivity will often diminish over time - in some cases quite quickly. You should consider whether the prejudice applies at the time the request is received. For example release of information about a new product prior to public release could be damaging, but after release might not be.
Examples of information the disclosure of which may have a particular potential to damage commercial interests include:
research and plans relating to a potential new product
product manufacturing cost information
product sales forecast information
strategic business plans, including for example, plans to enter, develop or
withdraw from a product or geographical market sector
marketing plans, to promote a new or existing product
information relating to the preparation of a competitive bid
information about the financial and business viability of a company
information provided to a public authority in respect of an application for a licence or as a requirement of a licence condition or under a regulatory regime.
I have read and re-read these FOI reference documents and nothing I have seen appears to have any relevance to the “would prejudice commercial interests” claim.
We do not have access to all the facts that needed to be considered by the RAFAC and the MOD concerning the disposal of the Vigilant fleet; it is now a done deal. However, confidence in decision makers is rarely enhanced when they appear to be hiding behind a defence which is more than open to challenge. What difference would it make at this stage to provide a proper answer to Baroness Garden’s question?
Aerobility are a fine charity and once again I wish them all the best for their project and to the many disabled former servicemen who will benefit.
1 Like
i think what your saying is
the price paid for the purchase has been redacted behind the legal (sounding) phrase “would prejudice commercial interests”
yet indicate via the links that such a phrase not only requires a due process to be valid in the use of “prejudice” (which hasn’t been done), but when combined with the other words in the phrase, is not a reason which holds water or indeed exists as a reason to redact information…
is that it?
2 Likes
Or more simply.
We were had.
3 Likes
Worse still many thousands of cadets since 2014 and into the long distant future denied an activity due to the utter incompetence of senior RAF staff.
In the real world all concerned would have been sacked, no matter how high up the food chain they were.
I would still love to see all those involved (irrespective of rank) throughout “the pause” publicly brought to book and reported in the open press, not some hushed up MOD BS. How many £000s of taxpayer’s money have been wasted on salaries, buildings etc while they faffed around? I think they should be made to refund their salaries as they were getting money under false pretences.
3 Likes
I also put that very same point to the good Baroness at the time the answers came out - very suspicious statement. We will be back in touch in due course.
I can only imagine they’re claiming that on behalf of Aerobility, who as we know will be selling some.
Although hiding behind that would also disguise how much of a pittance they may (or may not) have gone for.
Well, the £745K DfT grant is a probable clue, to include all purchase / refurb costs, etc, etc. 
1 Like
steve679. You have spotted that brevity was never my strong-point , never using few words when many will surfice(and often loosing my focus as a result).
So,in direct answer to your question: yes that is it.
If the phrase “would prejudice commercial interests” is to have any validity it should be linked to a reference e.g. “would prejudice commercial interests as defined within the Freedom Of Information Act Section xxx”. Without such a reference the phrase is merely an opinion and therefore, in my view, is open to further challenge.
1 Like
So the suggestion is the £745K from the DfT will do all that?
If this is correct, for a paltry £745K (given how much money gets wasted by the MOD pa, let alone 6 years) the unwashed within HQAC/22Gp/MoD couldn’t gather the collected nous to get the gliders back in the air? If this is the case then it is clear that all those in ‘senior command’ clearly treat the Air Cadets as a place to play at RAF, bolster lacklustre careers and get their pensions up. They really are only fit to produce bits of paper telling what we can’t/shouldn’t do and occasionally what we can do and wasting their days on SM. What do we do wrong (staff and cadets) do to deserve people like this?
1 Like
Isn’t the grant just a ‘Kick starter’ loan, though?
Does it not pay for the initial job lot, and for the first set of repairs. The first repaired glider gets sold at a decent rate, which then funds the next tranche of repairs, and so on until the charity is left with the Gliders it wants, and presumably, some money for its coffers?
1 Like
Quite possibly - but that doesn’t get around the secret squirrel “would prejudice commercial interests” statement. Definitely going to ask the friendly Baroness to get stuck in again.
3 Likes
this has got me thinking…
in 6 years, how much wage did these seniors take?
taking the wage of the lowest Wg Cdr (source) at £74k/pa, over 6 years that is £444k per Wg Cdr
to make the figure match up you’d add to the “team” a lowely paid Sqn Ldr (£52k) to hit the £746k in 6 years…
I know its isn’t as easy that to consider value for money, but interesting to see to get that figure over that time frame is just one Wg Cdr and one Sqn Ldr out…
That’s just their salary get to the true cost and it’s a lot scarier.
£74K salary - c.£125K cost pa
£52K salary - c.£90K cost pa
So 6 years based on employment cost Wg Cdrs c.£750K each and Sqn Ldrs c.£540K each.
A Gp Capt OC 2FTS on say £90K - c.£150K cost pa that’s c.£900K over 6 years
So you are looking at well over £2M to employ these people for 6 years.
This is based on a very loose calculation but it gives an idea of the true costs. This may be a drop in the ocean in terms of the MoD budget, but that’s people getting paid, when there isn’t really a job. I’m not sure many businesses would be letting that happen. How many people have been furloughed recently as a way of businesses etc saving not just salaries but the additional costs. Maybe the MOD should have furloughed HQAC staff, I know a number of people in the public sector who have been furloughed.
1 Like
I appreciate that…I was just offering numbers for context
Does anyone know the current situation with CGIs? I thought they had all become SNCO/Officer but I see a post on 632 VGS’ twitter talking about one of their CGIs.