This has been asked on VoP before.
Apparently because we’re “the flying service”, more is expected of what the RAF can be affiliated to, and more safety is expected.
Quite why, or what safety the others are lacking is curiously never explained.
They won’t be happy until every cadet activity is classroom based, or at best, ‘synthetic’ !
#When The Fun Starts, STOP!
2 Likes
Nulla actio sine periculo
So the ACC and FAA in their view are unsafe, hope they didn’t say that to any senior members of either organisation? If they are so unsafe why is the present CO of 617 an FAA officer?
Funny how the recent sad incidents have all been in RAF aircraft.
1 Like
Given that’s exactly where the RAF is going, it’s hardly surprising.
Would that level of arrogance suprise you?
No, not really, but it’s easy in a nice cloistered world where your word is law.
Really feeling that one in the nut sac.
1 Like
Whats wrong witha good old fashioned waiver…
Cadets are under 18 thus don’t have the capacity to sign a waiver, so you’d have to either drag the parents down or make it part of the consent form. Which is more paperwork which noone wants.
Also, it doesn’t give people much faith if they have to sign something that says, “If anything goes wrong then that’s your problem”
1 Like
No more or less than currently exists!! But, if it meant a bit more any flying for cadets, I’d personally drive the waiver to each of our cadets houses to make it happen for them.
3 Likes
Except parents will sign that anywhere they take their kids. Local climbing wall? Sign it. Laser quest? Sign it. Heck, even the local supermarket will have a sign up saying that they don’t accept responsibility and you can only enter if you agree.
And in any event those waivers tend to have limited legal force.
What he said ^ and naturally if we were choosing a local flying /gliding school, i’d definately be previsiting and checking the faciliites.
Although i can see the positives in this post the cynic in me suggest HQAC saying one thing but end up using the data to go in the other direction…
3 Likes
Yep …beware of what the data shows…I agree!
Still, looks an impressive set up and I bet that was “fun” getting that lot approved within the wheel of MOD & airworthiness etc.!
1 Like
Wondering if they started the procurement and approvals in 2014 during the original pause when they realised they didn’t have any actual data to benchmark things against!
I wouldn’t be too cynical in this as Keelings an engineer so this makes perfect sense & is actually a bit of future proofing.
It’s something that should have been done previously but probably been put into the too difficult box.
If you want to be cynicial it’s when that data lands in the hands of the non-engineers & accountants that we need to be worried.
3 Likes
Still doesn’t negate the fact that we should be looking at their replacement sooner rather than later. They arrived in '84/85… We’re not far off from sending cadets flying in 40 year old aircraft.
2 Likes
A replacement at this time is not a good option I would have thought.
I doubt there are many ‘off the shelf’ basic 2 seaters still being made? …anybody know?
…and with a much smaller fleet now…cost per unit would go up as you have less bargaining power.
Lets hope the boffins find they are good to go with the current fleet.
And I wonder how many we now have in reserve…I am not aware they sold any 103s (Vikings) after the big hold!
1 Like
I was reading somewhere (think it was about tanks) that when it comes to military procurement of large assets (ships/tanks/planes) there’s not price difference per unit between ordering one or ordering 100.
It’s due to the bespoke nature of military procurement & the wholesale price nature.