It was best used on a windy day on the tripod - you properly saw & felt the affects of the control surfaces without all the launches using a bungee rope or crashing on the 1st XI cricket pitch.
1 Like
Thatās not the win the media team think it isā¦
1 Like
A bit later than planned, I have sent the reminderā¦ 
1 Like
Good luckā¦
We can but try - the previous problem was 2TFS staff resources at the time, carrying out all the due diligence for the new ACPS tender / contract.
No ACPS = resources should be availableā¦
2 Likes
Hoist with Oneās Own Petard
Theyāll have some other cock and bull excuse ready to go now
1 Like
I got a rather abrupt - the IBN (05-22) says NO, & go through CoCā¦
So, I (politely) pointed out that CoC = irrelevant as this was the level of comms previously (&I doubted if I had started at the bottom if any missive would have hit his desk); moreover, as OC2FTS indicated that he would ācheck resourcesā after ACPS sorted, that negated any aspects of the previous IBN. I asked for a link to the Teams recording so i can check my memory (which I know is correct 
).
New IBN - pointing out V22 of ACTO32.
1 Like
Iām truly baffled as to how a 18 year old gold wings FSC, with 30ish launches and gliding hours you can count on 2 hands, can be considered safer than a 52 year old BGA instructor with 1000ās of launches and 100ās of hours?
2 Likes
I would assume the cadet has a harder time maintaining currency too.
There arent going to be any gold wings FSCs with 30 launches flying anyone else
A cadet with Gold wings cannnot fly a cadet they need a minimum of Grade 1 pilot (G1) gold equates to completing the AGT and going towards G2 work up
I stand correctedā¦.but you get my point about vastly differing experience levels.
Having seen this conversation:
I can well imagine that the following could easily have occurredā¦
why is it so hard for the two organisation overseen by the same sponsor have such a different outlook on activities and risk?
is it anyone wonder there is āone bookā but 900 (Squadron) ways of interpreting it if there is such a vast chasm between what is considered a permitted activity between two similar organisations (the ATC and ACF)?
Well, we have a āresponseā to why everyman and his dog can use private gliding clubs but we canāt:
The response from the HQ is on the Teams Channel.
Basically, we donāt care, we wonāt listen, we know best and screw you all. Not from RC(N), heās done his best to get a reply, but youāll note that OC2FTS couldnāt even be bothered to post his own reply to that and had to be chased by RC(N) to get anything. Utter contempt.
2 Likes
What a load of rubbish. Technically, the statement is true. Our position has been clearly articulated, ie, weāre not allowed. But the reasons why ACF can and we canāt is still a mystery. The response from the Fg Off on there is spot on:
either:
āThe RAF donāt have capacity to safety check these sites. The Army do, but we donāt accept their assurance checks.ā
or
āThe RAF donāt have capacity to safety check these sites, and the ACF are being dangerous by not conducting their own checks. Instead they rely on CAA/BGA regulatory systems which are not sufficient to ensure safety when flying.ā
If itās the former, then the follow up question is why donāt we accept the ACF checks on gliding sites?
If itās the latter, then the follow up question is why isnāt the MOD stopping ACF cadets gliding if civilian regulation is so dangerous?
That really needs answering.
11 Likes
The response has made me genuinely angry. Iām fighting hard to not reply as Iād like to and be more professional about it. I want to ask what part of RISE that weāre supposedly held to allows someone to write that response, not even put their name to it and leave it? Itās disrespectful, it shows no integrity, it does not put the service before their own self interests and itās one of the least excellent things weāve ever done. Iām seething.
5 Likes
I see there is already a deleted reply underneath RC Northās, so Iād guess someone has already said something they shouldnāt haveā¦
Yes, a shame we canāt see it really. Maybe the person who posted it will write it here instead.
The interesting bit on there though is that RC North is suggesting we could do scholarship type grants from the CWC to allow flying at a BGA site. AFAIK this was explicitly not allowed. So again, the statement that our position has been clearly articulated is a load of rubbish,.
@MikeJenvey is this not something that was suggested but shot down?