Working on both sides, engineering and aircrew, the system in place is perfectly adequate admittedly with areas of leaning. The difference in FAA’s case is that an Airline pilot doesn’t necessarily do engineering. If you split the roles carried out by VGSs; in their aircrew role, they only actually sign one box in the F700 - that is to accept the aircraft on the flight servicing certificate. They can either sign off the aircraft, or let someone sign over them under continuous charge. Let’s be honest, the military operate a completely different regime to civilian aircraft private or commercial - for a start, no military aircraft has a Certificate of Airworthiness.
Culpability is a key part of the Just Culture and in airworthiness. The MAA’s ASIMS covers the entire military. They also have reps who deal with cases (triggered from DASORs) involving military aircraft on the Airprox Board. You do not see the BGA or PPL clubs feeding into an inclusive reporting system at the same level or detail.
Incorporating the AEFs, you have an organisation that trains a huge number of children. The VGSs alone exceed most other training schools across the world simply in the number of first solos they send. You remove that supervisory oversight (in engineering or Squadron command/control) and the system will collapse on a sniff of an incident.
Exactly the point. If the risk isn’t managed properly here the current pause would be a complete shutdown.
Someone even earlier on in the thread said its a way of training future people for the forces. So having a totally different document set would defeat that surely?
Somewhere in the past I set up and ran for 12 years, as designated Chief Pilot and Operations Manager, a pleasure flying company with a Tiger Moth. We operated on a full Air Operators Certificate (AOC), that is what BA or any airline holds that operates public transport passenger flights. We did not do trial lessons.
The engineering setup was JAR 145 and the aircraft operated on a tech log. The tech log is a company document and the format was unique to our aircraft (which is why I totally refute the idea that the RAF can’t have a more suitable system for its large number of Vigilants). The JAR145 and AOC required that the aircraft check cycle included a Check A, which is an engineering function, every day. The pilots were duly trained by the maintenance organisation to carry out the Check A; this was done en-masse and took about an hour once a year. So far does this sound like the same situation as the Vigilant?
The Check A took about 10 minutes to complete before flying and the pilot was often helped by the ground crew. The pilot then signed for the check in a box on the tech log page. Each tech log page had provision for up to 8 flights and before each flight the pilot (who could, of course be different from the one who signed the Check A, or had flown the aircraft before him/her) made one signature that covered the requirements of accepting the aircraft, confirming fuel state and accepting the A/C loading. After a flight it needed another signature to confirm nil defects, or, if there were defects, listing them in that section. A new page was required if any engineering work was carried out, the aircraft was refuelled, the date changed or you had run out of lines to record flights. On a turnround the tech log was taken out to the pilot who made the signatures while the passenger was being strapped in.
It was simple, quick and easily understood by all concerned. The operation was not unlike GIC in a Vigilant (except that we did a lot more flights). The flights complied with all the requirements of Public Transport (Passenger) operations. There was only one page that fulfilled all requirements (which, incidentally, exceeded anything that the Vigilant operation requires). The system was respected by the CAA and I was asked by the Flight Ops Inspectorate to help set up a number similar operations.
If manpower is a problem I still have the originals of that tech log and would make them available to the service, or draft a tailored one (although I am prepared to bet no-one will, nasty civil ideas). Message me if you want to know more.
Just as an aside, the operations manual that is part of the AOC and was written by me consisted of just 24 pages. It contained all relevant instructions for the operation in one cover.
Sounds like pretty much more or less that is fairly similar to the 700s section 4. And that what you’re really after is the OOPS to be included in the check A/ BF so that it doesn’t involve section 1 and all its 707 forms?
I’m not sure of the form numbers, but probably. The only paperwork that was required for flying was the tech log Sector Record Page and the Deferred Defect Record Page. The only other item in the tech log cover was a copy of appendix F of the Operations Manual which was the details of what was required for a Check A. This was a single sheet and the check did not require the use of any tools. Tyre pressure was assessed by a visual inspection.
If the ACO gliding operation was to decide to change its paperwork, now would be the time to do it. If left until later it would be much more difficult with aircraft on different schemes during the changeover.
Can anyone tell me who to contact to state my case?
Just for the record it was me in collusion with the CFMO that re-designed the whole F6424 change to the DVLA basis and redesigned the TG21 from the hopeless two page design down to one page (although HQAC felt they had to change a few things). Needless to say I never got a word of thanks from the ACO for either.
If you think it’s a safety problem. Taking covers off refitting incorrectly, signatures signing but not supervising etc surely it would be popped on a DASOR or whatever DAEMS is called this week and staff it through 2FTS ASAR.
They may wonder why it’s only turned up 20 months after the last VGS flights if it’s an issue though!?!?
Sorry, I don’t understand the initials. To clear the decks, I am (now) a CI on a squadron, so no longer directly in the loop of a VGS, but I was offering to help with a problem. Clearly sticking to established channels hasn’t produced any improvement. What I am looking for is someone to send an idea to who will either reject it or say “you might have a point, can we talk?”. Perhaps I am just a silly civilian, but that would work in the civilian world.
This is true altruism as I am unlikely to gain anything personally!
2FTS Air Safety and Regulation Sqn Ldr at Syerston or his Deputy Flt Lt. All of Syerston contact details are on Bader 2FTS drop down, or the Wg Cdr would be able to point in the right direction.
Nice idea, but 2 FTS doesn’t dictate regulation. Regulation comes from the MAA. An B14 OOPS requires a tradesman, supervisor, and the whole activity coordinated by a Tech authority. You can’t streamline that area of the F700 much further than they’ve already done.
The engineering paperwork isn’t really an issue. The admin burden is reams of paperwork coming with cadets each morning (such as medical forms), recording each aspect of training/briefings before flying, duplicating the utilisation figures from forms to spread sheets/databases to forms to email.
On 17 Dec, CAS reviewed the options. Gliding/Flying announcement is imminent - via HQAC of course…
{Surely GOOD news would have been released before Christmas… Boost morale for the troops, huzzah & all that!}
Slightly linked issue, 2FTS-HQ-CAPE SO2 has been on sick leave for a while; he deals with any request for “external” flying under ACTO35. I’m trying to find out who is the POC whilst this situation continues.
EDIT1 - ACTO35 requests - they have taken steps to cover 2FTS-HQ-CAPE SO2 work & any new applications should still be sent to that address. However, if there are any requests still pending (no action as yet), please send a reminder.
EDIT2 - as far as I am aware, no input/requests to BGA.
Mike, Sqn’s in our wing sort their own flying with C130, Chinook etc. I say crack on as a Sqn. Get the cadets as much flying as possible whilst the pause continues, and after as I imagine the VGS left will take a while to get back up to speed and ready to fly our cadets .
A good option but ONLY if you are geographically located to suitable flying locations, & the flying task permits carriage of pax. If not then you face a very lengthy journey - if staff are available - & if the tasking changes or there is aircraft unserviceability with no replacement, all for nothing.
I have been trying in our area for over a year, but due to operational circumstances = no go. If you look further from the BZN/ODI locations, there ain’t much about! No Nimrods or Shackletons any more, AEW sqns are bolt-holing at Coningsby & have other very good reasons why they aren’t doing pax trips at the moment, jumping on a King Air at Cranditz is very much pot luck, & of course, a ride in a Typhoon (or other fast jet type) is worse odds than winning the lottery jackpot! SAR bases used to be reasonable options - but civvy contracts has taken out the direct RAF link = would probably have to be linked to an ACTO35 application. As for the “planned” Voyager trips - no (polite) comment - but see comments about tasking & availability…
There is no automatic approval for BGA gliding locations = another battle under ATO35…
I flew lots of cadets whilst in the RAF, the best one was a routine tanker sortie (& the rules stated no “learner” pilots trying to get fuel if carrying pax) where the tasking changed when airborne to an operational role of picking up a live-armed fighter (definitely not a learner!) to go & intercept Russian aircraft. We were in close-ish formation with Bear-D reconnaissance aircraft = the flight of a life time for the cadet!
To quote from elsewhere, as it provides (in my view) an appraisal of the circumstances that rings true:
I suspect that some in the RAF & MoD have overestimated the technical competence of the current primary contractor and been misled by this lack of ability to first organise and second maintain/fix the aircraft as has been demonstrated over the past years.
The primary contractor ( and staff ) are now feeling vulnerable as the support contract for the next ten years or so is up for renewal at the end of the year so to ensure a smooth transition this will have to be decided by the late summer.
The big question is will the team from the current contractor man up and work hard to turn out serviceable aircraft ( in cooperation with a potential rival for the support contract ) and show themselves deserving of the support contract or will they see this as an opportunity to try and rubbish the performance of the opposition by being obstructive.
The support contract is the big prize in all of this and only time will tell if the next nine months of this glider recovery will be a genuine cooperative effort to get the cadets back into the air at best speed or a game of political dirty tricks with the only aim to secure the ten year support contract.
.