Back to gliding - we’re told 2FTS have to assure BGA sites in order for them to be used. Does anyone know:
a) what the assurance involves?
b) who can assure?
As the biggest issue with them doing it was the lack of resources to assure sites, I wonder if it’s something that CFAVs who are appropriately qualified could assist with? We have enough people in the aerospace industry that could help out, couldn’t they?
given it is a tick box exercise - show me examples of X - where X is insurance, evidence of competency, hours flown, maintenance records etc, all it really needs is someone who is switched on. given the CAA are happy with BGA sites I am not sure what additional assurance HQAC actually need but as an audit trail i can understand the need that someone in a blue suit needs to visit to ensure due diligence (although given the CAA diligence is met it is still a confusing point for me)
It’s a power thing.
You can have holding officers with 200 hours flying cadets in a Tutor to kill some time but not a flight instructor/examiner with 10000 hours. Because they don’t wear a flying suit, basically.
The intent was there (under ACTO35) several yrs ago (2018-2019, maybe earleir?) - I went with the B&C Reg Av O to help “inspect” / liaise with Cambridge Gliding Centre for them to have a “pre-approved” status to operate under the specified conditions at the time.
No DBS issues - a “youth” centre, all quals / experience / insurance, all ticketdy-boo - was well over 90% on the way to get up & running.
Then ACTO35 got binned… 
Use the Reg Av O’s as a filtering resource, then get 2FTS to go to the top BGA contenders. More recently, the CAA have devolved issue of gliding licences to the BGA, so it’s not as if the BGA is a hick organisation!
I don’t mean the paperwork we had to send off when ACTO35 was live, the pilots’ hours on type, qualifications, maintenance records etc.
I mean 2FTS have said they must assure these sites, and they could only do a limited number across the country. So what does that assurance actually look like, to satisfy the organisation that a particular club is OK to use?
If we know that, and who can do them, we could rapidly up skill existing CFAV across the country to assure other sites. That way we get to fly, the RAF gets its assurance and the BGA get thousands of new members.
yes this is what i was referring to.
Surely it is a checklist attached to a clip board, please show me X, Y and Z.
having shown X, Y and Z, the club gets a rubber stamp and then the Squadrons submit the ACTO 035 required paperwork from there…
We know it won’t include financial viability
agreed - but when it comes to BGA sites, we’re not offering them a contract worth £££ - simply a chance to pay £50 for an afternoon of gliding for a handful of Cadets!
Fair point. Though to me, financial viability is an important part of the process. If you’re short on cash then safety checks can often be cut to try and save the pennies. Sadly you see it across all industries so it’s a factor I would want to consider.
You make a very good point here. They claim there is a lack of resources, and yet there are hundreds of wannabe RAF pilots who are ‘on hold’ awaiting EFT, or between courses. All of them under the control of AOC 22 Gp. Some of them are on 2 year holds waiting for the next course. The vast majority of these ‘holdies’ are driving a desk doing really pointless, boring jobs (i/c station car parking etc.).
I’m sure some of them would love a short course on quality assurance, and then to be let loose at the BGA sites carrying out audits.
But, that would solve a problem and get more cadets flying so it’s definitely not going to happen!
And when they inevitably come back and say we need military people doing the assurance we can tell them to give the relevant people VR commissions in the same way we still give them to AEF pilots or VGS staff who need them for their specific role.
I think you may find that the assurance process involves CFS/2FTS examiners flying with the BGA pilots that will be flying with air cadets.
2FTS are still full focused on the full return to gliding following the 2014 pause.
I believe 2FTS only has one CFS examiner and the other 2FTS examiners are maxed out trying to fulfil the above and assure what has returned.
There’s no process and no staffing for this. Unfortunately, one of the nails in ACTO35’s coffin was the amount of staff time which was being taken up with assurance processes after the Pause…
This is not similar to 611 VGS standing up at Honington.
Rumour has it no cadets flying until next financial year, despite having gliders on the air now. This is due to having to get pilots and ground crews up to standard before cadets can fly.
2FTS don’t have a supply of staff who they can parachute on to fill slots, they have to be filled via volunteers, most of not all come from ATC squadrons; taking these staff away from squadron planned activities 
It takes ages for individuals (and VGSs) to become proficient in each of their areas, that’s before the cadets get involved
They could do a “standards” check on the BGA main “examiner” pilots rather than all & sundry? That said, anyone (military or civilian) can be tested on a standards check & be as good as gold, but revert to lesser standards afterwards. If yiu want to play the assurance game, you should also run a cross-check on the output, i.e. different levels of student pilots.
It’s this imposition of MAA safety / quality assurance on civilian (alreqdy approved to CAA / BGA level) standards that really is a pointless exercise to cover the percieived risk.
Oh, I’m still waiting for the answer to my FoI (they came back with a clarification question) about all the DASORs raised “recently” on the Tutor; that’ll put the cat amongst the pigeons when I get them…
Anyone calling it a “full return” with <50% of the airframes is being disingenuous.
I prefer the terms “lying out of their ■■■■”, and “woefully misinformed”.
It seems to all be based on the assumption that the military way of doing things is superior.
Civilians can’t possibly be up to standard, they must be trained and assessed by the military first, before they could ever be up to scratch.
Shift that mindset and there’s hope.
If the military are up scratch in their eyes, just read Haddon-Cave and various other reports into RAF ‘superiority’ in standards.
And since then s lot has changed, keep up