Its more to do with rtl and accountability no one said civvies are less capable. In fact alot of civvies are ex military
1 Like
Has it, Hawk crash a Valley killing the back seater, ejector seat failure at Scampton killing a pilot. How is that for keeping up, just read the Coroners comments.
The civil sector have far more experience and a better safety culture than the RAF, because they know they will be liable for millions in court if they fail, plus an unsafe airline is a bankrupt one.
2 Likes
donât forget a ~50% of the airfields too, and the VGS StaffâŚ
a âfull returnâ which so far has taken 10 years following a preventable/avoidable pause and then only with 50% resourceâŚsounds optimistic!
2 Likes
Yeah⌠Vast majority of Haddon-Cave recommendations have been implemented in spirit and wilfully ignored on a daily basis.
Civilian standards are much higher.
1 Like
Really 737max crashes kills people and basically you are saying covil is more interested in money than lives. Keep going as your arguement is holding up so far
Really, why do you say that?
And how many millions is that going to cost Boeing ini the courts and in lost revenue, will not cost the RAF a penny in comparison.
When you consider commercial aviation and military aviation and the hours flown in non operational settings, you see how much safer the civilian sector is by comparison.
1 Like
If life was only that simple, what is you experience with military aviation?
Mines in civil aviation, where they try not to be negligent enough to kill their passengers and crews.
Because he lives and works it.
2 Likes
Really mine works with military who have totally rewritten their procedures since the hadden cave report and unlike boeing 737 donât deliberately put profit before safety. Both side have their faults and both sides fly differently. Now getting back to the glider arguement none of the above unfounded âcivil is better than military argumentsâ is relevant as it is purely down to accountability of which FTS are more than capable at doing safely, and no doubt civil gliders can do as well.
Well someone who lives and works it should no bettercthan making foundless statements of which he clearly hasnt bothered to fully understand
TBH to bring this back on topic, when it comes to gliding we are comparing the MAA Vs the CAA
the 737Max issues were an FAA issue as Boeing tried to brush a big change under their noses suggesting it didnât need to retrain pilots (ie cost everyone money).
There is no evidence the BGA/CAA are any more âriskyâ or have lower âStandardsâ than the MAA to suggest they are unsafe.
Civilian light aircraft flying is safe, perhaps not as safe as commercial flying, but there is little to suggest the BGA/CAAâs attitude is about money rather than safety - given the BGA is by and large a volunteer organisation (those on the ground at least) they cannot be in it for the money, from an instructors point of view it is their own self-preservation that drives their focusâŚ
1 Like
Since Hadden Cave the MAA have virtually rebuilt their processes inline with CAA so that both systems are safe and to a high standard , the gliding pause had nothing to do with anyone thinking civil was more risky, it just that FTS has no accountabilty of a civil supplier and no official statement was made contrary to this.
Sorry point wrt 737 was direct response to comment wrt boeing profit and a counter arguement that military standards are lower as that is not the case.
VGS continue to delivery what they. Can safely with what they have and with all the changes is evidence that military have kearnt from past mistakes.
suggest that the MAA was at a lower standard?
yetâŚ
the MAA are now inline with the CAA as they have:
yet cannot trust a civilian standard they now meet???
can you see why weâre confused why BGA/CAA sites and flying clubs need to be audited???
The MOD accepts NGB in the AT world, to deliver experiences yet when it comes to aviation a matched/similar standard needs additional checks???
1 Like
Iâm literally sat on an AV desk right now, fighting fires over how work needs to be done.
Itâs currently a choice between the ârightâ way and the right way.
If I was civie, this would not be the case. And it would be done right. Every day I see huge issues that if this were CAA would result in sackings and flight safety issues.
Haddon-Cave changed processes not culture. I would trust CAA assurance over MAA.
7 Likes
-
Yes first to agree that MAA and CAA were on different levels point is the MAA HAS taken action since hadden cave and both agencies now inline and infact work closely with each other.
-
Yet? there wont be as people are readings too much into it and making their own biased conclusions because for some reason they think someone doubts civil standards(for clarity i for one do not)
-
It is not about standards it is about accountability. All MOD suppliers need to be audited, it is not a judgement it is a health check. As you state civil is as safe as the military (bvice versa)supplied gliding so an audit should just be a formality, no doubt aside of accountability, the main problem is the cost to do it. Think of it as buying a car with an MOT, you wouldnt just accept the MOT certifcate and buy the car without looking at it, you would have a look around and test drive it first.
I do understand the problems as we got a knuckle wrap as we tried to use another gliding supplier when VGS were rebuilding and couldnt understand why as we could not as we had copies of all their documentation including insurance, however at no time did anyone say they are civil stay away they are dangerous, it was purely the FTS were the duty holders and were not accountable if there was an unfortunate accident.
Sorry if this sounded a rant but making (not you) unfounded and untrue open statements about military standards (or lack of) is not right, (this site isnt facebook) as the delivery units operate to high standards to the best of their ability with the resources they have. Aviation is always a continuous improvement process no matter which authority people fly under. Maybe one day either VGS will become more available and/or the civil/mil gliding management will get it on better and we can hire on some help with deliverying a safe and enjoyable gliding experience to everyone.
If the doubters need some assurance i would recommend trying a camp on an raf station so to see a first hand glimpse of what the they do, social media doesnt always show the true light of any organisation military/civilian or otherwise.
1 Like
they do.
2FTS do - as they will not accept that a CAA approved site meets minimum standards.
just like Tayside Aviation had a âhealth checkâ on their status to provide scholarships?
to take this motor vehicle example - was/is the same accountability offered to Clarity providers?
Given we get a different (sometimes local) coach company every time we go on camp/Wing event/parade or day trip, and when I have a minibus dropped off it isnât necessary the same hire company, so I question is there the same parallels??
Ie is someone from Head of MT (MOD) riding on coaches from every bus company, and driving Minibuses, and cars from every hire car company before they are assured they are fit for purpose?
Or does the MOD accept that the DVLA standards are being met and allow those company who supply MT to use under clarity to crack on?
2 Likes
I personally think that, having seen both, the vast majority of BGA club CFIâs would embarrass any 2 FTS examiner who came to check them out.
A club CFI would have the hours and experience that a 2 FTS examiner could only dream of.
The current state of play and 2FTS being âmaxed outâ is truly scandalous given that the âpauseâ was 9 YEARS ago.
5 Likes
I believe they do âknowâ better - and more articulately than you - hence the statements theyâre willing to make.
1 Like