I’m still awaiting follow-up concerning my request to 2FTS for dispensation to use an external gliding provider.
Apparently Wg Cdr Flying is OOO and Comdt 2FTS is bouncing from one meeting to another on numerous return to flying issues…
Of course, the ACTO refers to “CAA Approved” facility = not relevant for gliding. I hope that a a “fresh & original” approach can be considered.
Bear in mind this isn’t an airframe issue. It’s every single part that has been repaired, replaced or modified that’s having to be checked, source traced and documented.
Flying is my profession, so I have a teeny-weeny insight in airworthiness aspects & engineering requirements.
Unless the relevant manufacturers/suppliers are still in business (& with the relevant records held), sourcing tracing & follow-up of documentation could be a very, very time-consuming nightmare - with no guarantee of success.
Scrap them, buy or lease new - despite any previous history/politics with such options.
But how many parts does the Viking have that could have been replaced.
It’s some wings, a couple of instruments and hook that opens and closes [Bare-bones I know] Yet we are still waiting 18 months on with a timeline that just extends at every update
All companies are still in business, but the maintenance contractor didn’t keep the necessary records because someone told them they didn’t need to. I understand the same applies to various military units as well?
No idea, but when a repair was done to a strut, the source of that strut, the bolts and the engineers who did it all have to be checked, traced and redoxumented. Same applies to civil airliners - watch few of those documentaries about crashes when bits fall off. They cansource the mother of the operator who delivered the wrong bolt!
How do you know so much, and how come we know so little?
If you work for HQAC, why hasn’t this information been cascaded (other than letting people know that they absolutely suck at delivering anything).
If you don’t work for HQAC where is the source?
Regardless of the controlling authority (e.g. EASA/CAA or MAA), there will have been a mandatory requirement to keep maintenance/engineering records archived for a set period. For example, for a service life-limited component, EASA states no less than 36 months retention of records. This timescale (36 months) is the same in my company for retention of technical logs. So, this would probably not be "someone told them they didn’t need to" - if the records were over the required retention limit = no legal requirement to keep them.
As we are about 18+ months down the “gliding paused” period, then they might only be able to go back 18 months anyway. Of course, if someone had made it a contractual requirement, that would be a different matter.
So, trying to move back to “birth of aircraft” accountability (especially with regard to record keeping) = grasping at non-existent straws.
The lack of detailed information is very poor. I think I’ll ask 2FTS “nicely” for full visibility of the planning & budgetary aspects of their “return to gliding” planning - & then ask under FoI if I don’t get anywhere.
I’m not joking if I say that sqns could probably have hit the fund-raising hard & have purchased a glider per wg by now…
As I said:
Scrap them, buy or lease new
The lack of gliding isn’t doing us any favours. I’ve got an intake next month, I sort of lied to the last lot as the expectation was something by the end of 15. But this lot will have to be told straight. Reading something I recall mention of a drop of 3000 cadets over the past few years largely ascribed to lack of flying in both guises.
If HQAC and others think this is acceptable / sustainable they’re even more clueless than you would think possible and in the wrong job. Where are the much vaunted senior contacts in the RAF? Can’t we get our ambassador on the case? I’m sure Carol’s fluttering eyelashes would get the right result.
MJ’s right. We should scrap what we have, buy new and start again as there is no foreseeable end to this cock up which is just pouring good money after bad and it has to be cheaper in the long run OR just stump up the cash so we can seek it via civvies and lose all the BS admin. We need AIR Cadets to be flying in the AIR and not on glorified computer games. You can see given this is wasting so much money, why the armed forces have been cut after discovery of the financial black hole.
If OC 2FTS had been managing this project in the real world, he’d had his P45 and down the job centre months ago.
Beers over a BBQ with someone who runs a VGS.
As it has been mentioned in this thread several times…
As far as I’m aware, no weekend flying from 5AEF until at least next year due to the radar manning issues. It would seem that AOC 22 Gp was at a recent camp & the situation was mentioned to him.
Well, AOC 22 Gp certainly visited a camp at Lossie last month with cadets affected by the 5 AEF issue, a month later an AEF slot has been found at Cranwell. I’m not going to link the events as I didn’t hear the conversations at Lossie 
Well if that is the case, why hasn’t this been done before it gets to 2* level, hearing about the problems at a summer camp, to make the calls. It beggar’s belief.
Solid rumour about Marshalls sending engineer(s) to Syerston to have a peek at things. Maybe full-blown major inspections to come at Cambridge??
Does this rumour mean it has finally been accepted it has taken far too long and they need someone to sort it out?
It has gone quiet on the official update front.
I do hope so - as otherwise the timescale for large-scale return to flying will move even more to the right… If it goes ahead, they will need a test pilot to check each airframe after the major!
Can’t remember, but I think that this option was suggested on this forum yonks ago.
Not 100% sure, but I suspect that there might be an element of the contractual element with Serco playing a part - allegedly, the extension to the contract said that it would stay current until the relevant inspections were completed. If that is correct, it is not the best incentive to rush ahead & finish things off in rapid time! Likewise, dunno if there was any “action date” included - it not included, it would seem that MOD contract system is still the same from years ago…
From how this is dragging on and on and on, I can’t imagine there is a satisfactory OTIF bouns clause or any action dates / milestones. I think the only action points are tea breaks, lunch and home time.
It does seem a blank cheque has been handed to whoever (Serco?) to do this work and they are in no hurry. But then it needs to be actively managed and that doesn’t seem to be happening either, if it is there is a different understanding of actively managed to the one I’m used to. Maybe this is the MoD way of doing things, which explains an awful lot.
Whenever I think of this the pace of work reminds me of “Right Said Fred” by Bernard Cribbins
… So Charlie and me had another cuppa tea
And then we went home.
… You see the trouble with Fred is, he’s too hasty
You’ll never get nowhere if you’re too hasty.
It will only be a matter of time before questions are asked in “the house”.
