Gliding "paused"

Everyone Flying
524

We could also look at the emerging picture.

DofE awards are down - we have slipped out largest operator crown and handed it to the (scouts?). Is this because of other factors which the kids see, the extra burden from qualifications required above and beyond external bodies. I don’t know. The crown was slipping when schools started pulling funding to deliver DfE and made it part of various extra curricular syllabuses.

Lack of RAF Aircraft and Stations - defence spending is down. Vastly down. There’s an emergency recruitment ongoing as the trend has slipped below the line, but there are less and less stations. Don’t believe the government hype about increased budgets. Anyone else see the bad new burried on the last day of Parliament? My organisation has government funding. On one day the Givenrment minister stood up in front of press and told them it’s a serious matter they are investing in, then cascaded details of a 15% cut two hours later. They may be saying The RAF are critical and important, but ask anyone in the RAF how things are at the moment.

525

There are a couple more, but one has to go to work :-/

526

I’m not sure where this thread is going. It is about why we haven’t got any gliding happening, but the last few posts seem to be heading towards “let’s not bother, a lot of cadets aren’t really interested”. Is that really what people think?

As for the comments with regard to the servicing organisation, many years ago I was full time with one of the very large gliding clubs, we had a big fleet of both two seaters and single seaters. We also had a professional glider mender on the airfield who did get a lot of the work, but never all of it. Some always went to other organisations (including the one that has been mending Vikings). The reasons for this were mainly “never put all your eggs in one basket”, but also proving to all concerned that we were prepared to go elsewhere. With the amount of work we were offering that kept the maintainers interested in keeping us as customers. MOD have never understood this, they just want to get a company contracted and forget it. That is where the fault really lays, they can’t be bothered to put the effort in.

Of course the massive amount of completely unnecessary paperwork that the VGSs are faced with every day in no way helps. All that paper work and it still went wrong? No the paperwork contributed to it going wrong, “can’t se the wood for the trees” (lots of them with all that paperwork).

Question 1: how many signatures are legally required to fly a civilian light aircraft or glider (assuming it is in check and serviceable)?

Question 2: How many signatures does a VGS aircraft require to fly under the same conditions?

Question 3: Are the VGS aircraft safer because of it?

527

i think its moore nuanced than that.

if i could offer my 45-odd cadets a dozen gliding slots every third weekend, AEF once a month, and some form of opportunity flight every two months the names on the list would reach the floor.

however, that not where we are - my Sqn is lucky if it can offer my 45 strong Sqn a single days AEF for 6 cadets once a year, no gliding, and no opportunity flights unless they happen to be both at camp, and at a flying station, and very lucky. given that my camp allocation is often less than half a dozen, those are pretty mean odds.

my cadets have simply decided that the ACO is not a flying organisation, its an AT, shooting, fieldcraft, jolly, and social organisation with an academic programme that is slanted towards air based subjects - hence them not getting wildly excited when ‘planes’ are on the horizon.

i, as a cadet, benefitted from a massive flying programme - i did a 10 day gliding course and went solo, i had an opportunity flight in a C-130/Tristar/VC-10 every few months, i flew in Chinooks, Puma and Gazelle, AEG or AEF was every 8 weeks or so, and one of my Sqn mates got a back seat trip in a Hawk at Camp. we were a flying org that did loads of other stuff as well.

now we’re not, we’re a youth club that offers AT, Shooting,fieldcraft etc… and an air based academic programme, and very occasionally, and based entirely on very random luck, we can offer the odd flight. we need to get used to that, we need to embrace it, and we need to get a damn sight better at doing the ‘other’ stuff, because now its all we’ve got.

i would note as an example - to add to the above about how defence footprint has shrunk - that there is not a single flying Stn between Leeming in North Yorkshire and Lossiemouth in Moray. thats nearly four hundred miles and eight hours drive where there’s simply nothing in flying terms. against that backdrop, how can the ACO possibly be imagined to be an orgainistion that regularly gets people in the air or interested in the air?

1 Like
528

Since no-one else has bothered, the answers are

  1. None.
  2. On a Saturday morning 12 signatures for the first A/C, 11 for subsequent A/C and 3 for every flight after the first.
  3. No, well not statistically (is there any other way to measure?)
529

He said it was serviceable so it would be one to sign for the aircraft.

530

Not sure I know which answer you are referring to.

If a civil light aircraft or glider is serviceable and in 50 hour check, it requires no signature. The pilot has only to “satisfy himself that…”, get in it and fly it. Some clubs may require a signature, but there is no legal requirement.

The Vigilant on a Saturday morning (assuming the last After Flight was completed on the previous Sunday) would need:

1 Signature for a new After Flight (don’t ask!)
1 Signature for the Before Flight and 1 signature for a supervisor to check the first signature.
2 signatures for the OOPs and 2 supervisor’s signatures for the OOPs
2 Signatures for the parachutes
1 Signature for the duty instructor to sign on
2 Signatures to authorise the flight

The next aircraft will require one less signature (duty instructor has already signed on)

Subsequent flights will require 3 signatures, 2 to authorise, 1 after flight.

We could compare this with what is needed to get an airliner flying in the morning.

1 Signature for the Check A (overnight check)

1 Signature from the Captain for re-fuelling

1 Signature from the Captain to accept the aircraft.

I am leaving out signatures for loadsheet, de-icing and other items that don’t apply to a Vigilant.

If only civil aviation knew how dangerous it was with so few signatures!

531

It was question 2 where you said it was a serviceable aircraft. 7 of the signatures in your list are for servicing.

You don’t “necessarily” need parachutes in certain conditions.

Authorisations aren’t signatures.

I missed the DI signing on but that’s not really to a specific aircraft but the whole operation.

You wouldn’t need the after flight to “get flying”

If servicing is included it could be how long is a piece of string, what if it’s derigged and needs two wheels replacing. Does it include signing out the hangar keys from the guardroom or signing the MT out?

532

I’m not quite sure what you are defending here. The 7 “servicing” signatures are for servicing items that in the civil world are considered unnecessary. The aircraft is serviceable before you do them and it gets no more serviceable after you’ve done them; in fact it could get less serviceable since you have now carried out actions could result in the aircraft now being faulty (incorrectly re-fitted cowlings, that sort of thing). The more often you do these things, the more likely you are to make a mistake. The most ridiculous is turning the landing light on to check that it is working; bulbs mostly fail as they are switched on, so all you have done is make it one cycle closer to failing, much better to foster an environment where an aircraft landing without the light on is noticed.

Authorisations are not signatures? You mean no-one signs anything? A person holding a pilot’s licence (private, commercial or ATPL) legally always authorises his own flying in a civil aircraft.

I totally agree that the parachutes are unnecessary. Statistically they do not save lives, they just make the aircraft heavier and therefore a bit lower over the hedge on take off. Never the less they are almost always carried.

The after flight signature expires between Sunday night and the next Saturday morning and has to be done again before anything else. It is a totally ridiculous rule that achieves nothing on a simple aircraft. You would need it to be completed to “get flying”

As for your last paragraph, I thought I made it clear. The aircraft was serviceable and in-check. In the civil world you get it out of the hangar, do a daily inspection to your satisfaction and fly it. If it is a Vigilant you turn yourself into an RAF tradesman for an hour with numerous trips back to the office to complete the paperwork.

The system being used was designed for a complicated aircraft being serviced by numerous tradesmen, not a plastic glider with a car engine and one pilot doing a daily inspection.

533

The saga of the signatures is a dire read, especially the defence of it.

Any analysis of accidents show the majority are due to ‘operator error’ of some sort, not mechanical failures. We get accidents at work and it’s invariably it’s the people using some kit being at fault not the piece of kit.
IMO you could sign off every part of something and still have an accident or have that carefully checked part fail when used.

It does seem like a public sector’s bums on seats approach and people doing things because they’ve always done it like that, rather than a real underlying need.

535

The F700 is used in any military registered aircraft regardless of how complex it is forces wide (excluding tutors). The gliders are military aircraft, it’s the only way you can have what are essentially unlicensed pilots flying it. If you want to get the MOD to pay for your flying in those aircraft they get a 700, there won’t be a whole new way of authorisation done to suit a what is a tiny sideshow to UK military aviation. If the tax payer is providing the cash to put you in the sky you follow their rules. It has to be accountable as some one states in the PPRUNE thread if it goes wrong it looks bad enough if it’s a service pilot that was flying let alone what the Daily Mail Wpuld say if you had to explain what a VGS instructor is.

537

XN150 I’m defending that the BGA way isn’t always the only way either and isn’t necessarily the right way either not signing or “servicing” anything for 50 hours seems like a long time. As FAA says its all ar*e covering if anything goes wrong “they” are going to be looking where it went wrong. As we’re talking about the basic OOPS if your BGA aircraft has soft looking wheels at 48hrs and Mr Bloggs pumps them up he can’t quite remember how, because its been ages since he did it so pumps them well over the pressure setting. Pilot comes along on hr 49 and flys tyres look fine but on landing goes bang and causes the aircraft to come together with some obstacle you wouldn’t know where in the preceding 49hrs it happened. Down the VGS route you’d know who did it, who supervised that they did it correctly and who co-ordinated the paperwork trail.

Even in your BGA example “get it out of the hangar do a daily inspection and fly it” if it crashed how would you know if the pilot did the daily inspection if he happens to have buried the aircraft in a field from 4000’ and is very very dead?

GHE2 yep it normally is “Human Factors” that’s why those signatures are checking the “tradesman” is qualified, has carried out the task correctly and then completed the papertrail. Its not really a bums on seat approach when you know that all those 12 signatures are able to be done by no more than 2 individuals.

Vigidriver you should know full well your F700 and a Typhoon F700 contents are not really the same at all there are plenty of completely empty sections in the glider 700 the one that are there make perfect sense! (I’ll give you that the F700 itself is exactly the same, it being just an A4 black plastic folder)

538

Where in the MAA’s list of priorities do you think that staffing that would have fallen?

Before or after the drawdown in Afghanistan? Before or after every aircraft in the UK inventory going through some major state change? Before or after continuing work on introduction of A400m? Or before or after they implemented the new RA’s they had to come up with.

I’m not defending the length of time it’s taken that’s 2FTS fault, what I’m saying is that the calls for a different system or that CAS or whoever should think about the delays it’s caused are probably misguided. CAS probably doesn’t really know the extent of it or if he does he’s more concerned about say how current ops from cypress are going, or what the outcome of the SDSR are going to effect the force, or even if the OCU’s are starting to match demand better. Because at the end of the day his job and the RAF’s job is give the UK a foot on the world stage through a variety of means…

The books are the way they are for the point made above about oleos. It’s so of one day someone’s mother or father is demanding to know who is at fault for their child dying be it in a Chinook crashing into the side of a hill in some foreign land or tragically as part of an AEF/VGS accident. Because everything needs to be accountable in our modern world.

541

The signatures mean the person that did the work or took the aircraft or auth’d the flight is accountable for their actions. As has been stated before is it acceptable if something has been done to the aircraft in maintenance that causes it crash killing both occupants that no one would know who did that? If someone doesn’t carry out the servicing they said they did correctly then they are at fault. As described in the BGA model that is non existent. It exists on some way shape or form in all situations where commercial carriers operate and so it should too with other people’s children, and with military aircraft that re being paid for by the tax payer.

542

Um… I didn’t mention the BGA. Those rules are the CAA’s and enshrined in legislation. If the accident rate indicated a problem the law would be changed.

The logic has lost me here (and I repeat these are not the BGA’s rules), If the tyres are soft, then the aircraft requires maintenance which will be recorded in the aircraft log book and, yes, signed for. Of course, if you take the unnecessary wheel spats off the Vigilant (as most other operators who use them in the circuit do), you can not only see the tyre much better, you can also pump them up more easily. Tyre pressures are important, although a light aircraft operating at low speed with the wheels that have no function with either steering or traction and only used for light braking on a largely unobstructed airfield would seem to be far less important than those on your car. Do you check the tyre pressures on your car every morning? Every week? When they look flat?

In any case the pressure is painted next to the wheel.

You still seem to be confusing a daily inspection with a signature. Same circumstances with a Vigilant and all you know is that there was a signature, not that a DI had been actually done properly. It also points to the service mania of finding blame. Not sure what missed item of a DI could result in the accident you describe. In my experience aeroplanes stay serviceable if you don’t mess with them too much.

I was around at a GS (before the V appeared) when this nonsense first began with endless signatures on the flying log. (Does anyone remember “Pigswill” and “Swivelguts”?). Signatures and unnecessary engineering work do not make aircraft safer, if anything the reverse. The civil world dispensed with independent checks, in many cases, as it was discovered that errors were far more likely to get through the net if there were endless duplicate signatures on maintenance documents than if the individual took responsibility for his actions.

I have a feeling that you and I will never fully agree on this. Maybe you have an extensive experience of flying outside a very limited service background, but I suspect not.

543

OK, I’ll go along with a signature on a document from the guy who did the Daily Inspection. A signature that accepts responsibility for the inspection being done. That would seem to deal with all your objections. As I have already explained a British airliner would only need 3 signatures, one for the Check A, one from the Captain to accept the aircraft and another to confirm the fuel figure.

Do I need to say it again, they are not BGA rules, they are CAA rules, They have been doing this for a long time.

544

Possibly not

it would seem we’re not comparing like for like in the 12 Vs 1 signature, Tyre check would require an entry in the tech log and signature, the OOPS includes that pressure check its just happening every 7 days and they very often are out of “spec” every week so is it that bad to formalize that?

Nope i don’t have to check my tyre pressures every week as my car does that everytime it’s switched on, and the oil and water and all the electrics don’t have that luxury in a Vigilant or Viking

545

Incorrect term. The only light aircraft that would normally have a Tech Log would be those operating Public Transport (Passenger) flights under an Air Operators Certificate. The aircraft log book is not a tech log.

Checking a tyre pressure wouldn’t need a signature as you would just look at it.

546

I flew 3 (airline) flights today. I signed for the aircraft prior to each flight.

Three signatures in total for a multi-million $$$ aircraft. If there is a fuel uplift, I sign a separate fuel chit.

A plethora of signatures is merely a means to cover someone’s backside or to provide ear defenders from the noise of all the umbrellas being opened in the event of something going wrong… Over-kill leads to over-reliance, & sometimes deliberate avoidance of the “rules” as they are seen to be overly restrictive.

1 Like
547

and they have been “served” well they have got out what they want…
I don’t think anyone would question what we offer without getting airborne is worth it, numbers at our unit have remained steady since the pause so something must be right

but there are some who do want to fly and they are the ones the ACO is failing

Can you quantify this with some numbers?
Purely out of personal interest.
From what I recall the recent fatal incidents involving Cadets there was no indication the occupants left the craft let alone pulled there 'chute, there are cases where they have been used and saved lives