Obviously there is a rift between the MAA and CAA when it comes to gliding with cadets so i guess you and i are not going to be able to fix it here however much we would like to.
When it comes to rtl MAA duty holders would question the suppliers of gliders whether it be VGS or Joe Bloggs Gliding PlC to the same standards. VGS ate continuously being audits, where as Joe Bloggs may not have had an audit from MAA so yes initial use an audit is appropriate as to ensure compliance. Back to MOT analogy if police picked up a vehicle using ANPR as having an MOT would they say that fine must be ok, probably not given an opportunity they would still do a roadside check and if all well and good then happy days.
Why people think its great to just come on here and treat it like FB and make uneducated statements along the line that FTS are inept and civil is better than military is just childish, unless they can support with evidence then sorry it just goes comes accriss as a peeing contest which does not help anything.
I am trying not to be judgmental of the civil gliding fraternity as both parties will need to work together if we want to buy in some civil support which appears to be what the common issue is
As for Tayside taking your own advice and trying to stay on gliding topic, but you have a valid point which will only make the FTS more resilient and hesitant when going civvy which is unfortunate as there are other capablebcivy options.
But why do we do this with gliders/light aircraft but not external suppliers for AT activities? Itâs because 2FTS are not willing to accept the oversight of the CAA/BGA is sufficient. Therefore they are saying âwe are better than youâ.
For all other activities we can get outside suppliers in, rather than having to use RAF AT trained personnel. Many of these activities arguably have a higher RTL than aviation.
But why do MAA not want to? No one can state thus fact as if yet just caa is better than maa mumbo jumbo. I preferto drive and dont want to use the train,doesnt mean train is dangerous
But the standards that 2FTS/The MAA are trying to hold Civi providers to are a)ridiculous b)Not actually being followed.
Ive been to Tayside, i know instructors from Tayside, they were pushed to get students solo as early as possible, (remember that if a candidate went solo at 10hrs, that was their scholarship over) key parts IMHO were ommited from the syllabus. Conditions scholars were sent up in were often unsuitable for new learners.
So the auditing they did (yearly?) Of Tayside wasnât very thorough and was evidently more of a handshake deal where no due dillegence was made (hence going into administration after having the contract renewed).
My memory is that the problems with gliding only stared to come about after 2FTS had been formed or at least involved with cdt gliding. I believe the first commandant of 2FTS was a civil servant Regional Commandant that wouldnât retire but HQ needing them out of the way.
The biggest issue is that in volunteer world we deal with perception & confidence. If 2FTS is perceived to be in effective & as such does not have the confidence of the other volunteers to deliver & still fails to deliver then itâs perhaps time to rebrand 2FTS & retire or & replace it with something that people are willing to engage with as they are confident about itâs effectiveness.
To have an formation in such a high safety critical area that is seen to be ineffective (even due to reasons outsides itâs control or due to legacy issues from previous cdrs) is dangerous as people will just get into the habit of ignoring them which will make things a lot more risky.
So everytime the RAF uses a civilian aircraft on a scheduled flight to transport personnel they use an aircraft and pilot that has been through a thorough vetting process? No. The aircraft might be flying military personnel but itâs operating under CAA rules. If the RAF are paying the bill at a civvy club the flight doesnât suddenly fall under MAA rules.
In fact, weâre not even asking for that. Weâre asking to be allowed to use non-public money to fly cadets.
arguably the âsameâ standard the MOD do not trust the CAA/BGA that they are meeting the same standard and it needs checking.
fine - but as above, if both standards are âhighâ and near identical if not the same - why is it required.
i am sorry i do not understand.
are you suggesting Traffic Police, sat in their layby and their ANPR system says the car is âlegalâ they will still pull it over and complete a full roadside check?
Whatever the point you are making, it has ignored my point made about MY providers via Clarity.
Are the same checks made by the MOD MT department on MT providers via Clarity as 2FTS demand they do to BGA/Clubs and schools?
Or does the MOD accept the DVLA standards are being met?
Given the RAF, is too busy to check its local civilian partners for compliance who on earth in the MOD is going to be checking all the Hertz, Enterprise, Avis branches (of which there must be 1000s) when supplying a car, van or minibus, and indeed the 10s if not 100s of coach companies that provide MT via Clarity bookings let alone have the time for it?
why so??
FTS is not buying a service from the BGA or CAA, the Squadrons are. it is not FTSâs contract worth millions of taxpayers money paid in advance, but Squadron funds, likely raised through their own means (bag pack etc) and thus is the Sqns money, at their own risk, likely to be paid on the day in return for the flights achieved that same dayâŚ
CAA gets it done. MAA - so far - doesnât. Theyâve had years of failures. Investment is only going to go down, Vikings and Tutors will almost definitely not be replaced, and cadet flying will disappear forever unless someone puts on their big boy pants and gets civil flying off the ground, if you pardon the pun.
Good question. Ineptitude? Incompetence? Laziness? No appetite for risk? Take your pick. But whatever the reason, theyâre not delivering.
Just as a footnote to this, if this did happen & 2FTS was rebranded/disbanded, I would fully expect its replacement to have pretty much the exact same people with probably similar structures. It would just remove the toxicity of the brandâŚ
Yep but by paying the airfare the raf are not totallyvaccountable for the airworthiness of the aircrafft and operation of the airline, but they will use the more reputable ones which is 99.9% of Civy airlines. no doubt there will be a minor amount if not so good ones. If finally FTS and civvy operator do work together and for the sake of this arguement heaven forbid something went wrong, FTS are still accountable for the cadet as imagine the conversation with mr and mrs parent sorry we damaged your kid but it was not our fault, dont think will be a great conversation.
Therefore simply put if FTS say to rafac sqn x you can pay for civy gliding centre to take a cadet gliding and we will still be accountable then FTS will want to make all the necessary checks. Why they are saying no is up to them, but sounding like a parrot it is not a reflection on you civy gliding persons, it is an organisational / regulatory requirment. At end of the day this all costs money sobthe impasae will be here for a long time, meantime dk waving about stanadards is not appropriate nor helpful.
Maybe one day caa/maa will be a joint organisation with different SME for relevant type ofbflying, but life isnt that simple so still worknin progress, main point is sides are working tona standard, no short cuts, ignoring of etc, just different view points as whilst the love of the air isbthe same how they use it often differs which is something that is changing.
Just because an organisation doesnât share the same viewpoint does not make it ineffective.
Ultimately if FTS choses not to use civil operators it is their choice which is not neca judgement on civil gliding standards, and considering peoples biased opinions on here at the moment i cant see it changing, but hopefully i am wrong as my cadets enjoyed their non mod gliding experience at Deadalus many years ago.
i think i speak for everyone on here when i suggest that any âbiased opinionâ is only a bias to see Cadets in the air.
Weâd like to see the organisation working at achieving the expectation that the every Air Cadet does get the opportunity to get airbourne âregularlyâ
(we have no preference if it is via the military or civilian route, glider, 2 seat trainer, helicopter, or 4 engined transport or any other flavour - we want Cadets in the air - and many of us have BGA and CAA sites closer to us (in some cases numerous examples) than we do via VGS/AEF opportunities which are blocked from useâŚ)
