Bit of an open statement, that could be said about profiteering civil businesses as well and if you knew the regulations them you know fts cant simply be pushed under the carpet because you dont like it
From Wrekin Council regarding the RAFGSA at Shawbury.
The relevant paragraph.
With regards to the decision to relocate the Wrekin Gliding Club, the Club is classed as a Service Sportsâ Club meaning that it is formally supported by the military and it provides a service in direct support of the military. It is regulated by the British Gliding Association which covers such things as medical fitness, age of pilots, qualifications and the currency that pilots must abide by. There is a rigorous process by which the Club proves to the Station, RAF and national regulatory bodies that they meet all the relevant regulations. In terms of COVID-19 specific rules, the Club will abide by all relevant British Gliding Association regulation and PHE advice.
The hold up looking at these guidelines are 2FTS.
I think we know and agree that 2 fts is the sticking point what we dont actually know is their decision reasoning (aside from being risk adverse and making stuff up).
1 Like
Is it actually 2FTS though or are they the mere spokesperson? I always thought the decision maker was AOC 22 Gp.
1 Like
Good question, whilst 2fts make the decision AOC must have visual of it.
1 Like
This is why I asked this a few days ago.
Once we know what the issue actually is, we can support breaking down those barriers. Until we have communication and knowledge we, as a customer, are left feeling frustrated and let down.
Terrible comms are part of this problem. It might be AOC22 group being a blocker, but we donât know. As the current post holder is new, there is potential there to reevaluate and try some different thinking, but all of that is useless without the core reason why our alleged flying organisation wonât let people fly.
That results in people thinking it is empire building, protectionism, turkeys not voting for Christmas etc.
The argument that itâs too risky for the MOD cannot be true, if the ACF and SCC are using this route.
Once you remove that as a viable excuse, there is very little option left but to assume it is because overnight 2FTS would be nearly redundant as we all flocked to an organisation with the resource, skill and appetite to support our cadets - something that 2 FTS has now had 10 years to prove and has consistently failed to do.
This is not a slight at the VGS volunteers who are no doubt as frustrated as we are, and doing an admirable job with no support from their hierarchy. Doing it all with their hands tied behind their back is commendable.
10 Likes
Completely agree. And important to emphasise as often as possible that frustration is with the system and people designing the system rather than the people operating within it.
8 Likes
Hear hear
3 Likes
no one is suggesting VGS isnât taking place - I have got filled 15 of my VGS slots this year.
this shouldnât be seen as a surprise that the flying side of the MOD is flying more Cadets than those who drive isnât for flying.
What we are driving at is they are getting the opportunities we are notâŚand the reason why we are not getting them, because the RAF will not allow it.
The RAF is shooting itself in the foot with egg on its face because those who donât offer flying/gliding as a USP are offering an opportunity those who do state that USP are banned from!
here is a hint - everywhere!
it has been discussed in this thread and within the âflying slotsâ thread that there isnât the capacity in the VGS system to address 50% of the Cadet population (on the expectation the other 50% is covered by AEF to get capacity in the two systems to fly every Cadet once a year) and the suggestion that even 10k slots is optimistic when taking into account instructor currency etc.
There are not sufficient places in the system to address expectations - note this isnât the facetious answer that there is never enough flying, I think 90+% of CFAVs and Cadets would be happy with 1 flight per year, per cadet - that is the expectation.
We, CFAVs know that the BGA are eager to take our money and support our enthusiastic air minded members (Cadets) and can see this as an easy way to plug the gap in the systemâŚ
the holes are everywhere as no one regardless of post code is getting 100% capacity of their Squadron annual. This isnât my target, or that of my Wing or Region, but is stated in HQACs own documents.
release ACT0035 in a manner which permits Squadrons to use BGA sites accepting the risks in the ACTO035 disclaimer that this is not Military flying and therefore does not fall under the control of 2FTS
firstly - should it matter?
secondly - what is the difference?
âAll instruction is carried out by BGA (British Gliding Association) Instructors.â
Source: https://armyglidingclubwyvern.com/
to answer your question from what I have seen it is BGA sites, but that isnât to say some of it isnât via AGA
but only there for the ATC - given the ACF manage it.
no one is denying this.
precisely, but no on is asking for more VGS places, it is well understood that simply wonât happen, the days pre-2014 are long gone we accept (although disagree) we have the situation we are in.
the easy way to plug the gap is âcontract outâ - not a method unfamiliar to the MOD, but without actually agreeing a contract - all we are asking for is permission to visit BGA ourselves to agree the termsâŚ
quoted here simply to reinforce the point.
no one is criticizing the VGS or their staff - we recognise things have changed (not necessarily for the better) and it doesnât matter how much âupscalingâ and comments suggesting a âfull returnâ there is, whatever (capacity) we get in the future it will never reach the capacity or scope/bredth/availability of the days pre-2014.
everyone can see the BGA as an obvious choice.
the ACF and SCC see that as a viable option, knowing the VGS is out of bounds to them (as I am sure many of their opportunities would be for us) yet it is embarrassing that they are able to achieve what we are banned from
4 Likes
we got 6 slots this year. They had a great time, ironically launching parallel to the wyvern club.
Thanks for other reasoned responses dont totally disagree with majority, i still putting to down as risk adversity, maybe the big boss could enlighten us one day if he dared to talk to us.
In the same light as VGS it is a management issue and not a slaint on the BGC pilots.
Maybe one day we get passed the impasse with capacity issues, until then lets see what the next challenge is, hopefully Tutors will become available soon but that is a different thread.
Something we have been saying for the last 9 years, and will be for the next 9 years at least.
3 Likes
At Wattisham Airfield there is;
- 1287 Sqn RAFAC
- Suffolk ACF Detachment
and - Anglia Gliding Club
Have a guess at which one of the first 2 regularly uses, 3) Anglia Gliding Club and which one is not allowed?
If you were a local youngster, which one would you join?
3 Likes
Can you choose 2 options?
AOC 22 Gp said he was not adverse to visiting the topic, so in early 2024, Iâll remind him.
3 Likes
My local BGA club has just taken the local Air Scouts on their 2nd flying day of the year. Everyone of them got to fly. Imagine thatâŚan âair mindedâ unit were every child member has had 2 glider flights already this year!
They also flew a local public school. I wasnât there so canât comment on the rumour that it was their CCF but in civvies!
4 Likes
We had a school gliding club at one point. Pure coincidence that the membership heavily overlapped with the CCF(RAF)
2 Likes
Sometimes Venn diagrams just end up being circles 
3 Likes
To be fair, though, having spoken to those who flew the Primaries, they got less out of it than we get with our VR flight sim - basic effects of controls, then they landed again!