One in 2 weeks? :blink:
Whilst for a commercial airliner, time off-line equals money, but a C check can be accomplished in the same timescale, with thousands of man hours. A glider (motorised or not) is not in the same league of size, complexity or depth of certification.
One in 2 weeks? :blink:
Whilst for a commercial airliner, time off-line equals money, but a C check can be accomplished in the same timescale, with thousands of man hours. A glider (motorised or not) is not in the same league of size, complexity or depth of certification.[/quote]
20 folks per day, split across a rotating 24 hours shift system, seven days a week, in a dedicated maintenance facility.
We could assess the whole fleet in a few months. We might have to sell Cranwell to housing developers to pay for it though.
Iâve no idea of the overall running costs, but with no gliding at the moment = a considerable saving on normal operating budgets.
Throw that money at the inspections.
The largest proportion of costs that would be being âsavedâ are the costs of CGS and all their staff are engaged on tasks to support the return to flying. Other than them all youâd really be saving is fuel costs.
Whatever the reason for the âpauseâ its an embarrassment. Us poor mugs on the coal face are the ones to have to explain to cadets why their gliding slot has been cancelled - yet again.
If this organisation was a private company people would be out the door.
CGS have nothing else to do - no training, no supervision of VGS, no standards checks, no flying, no nothing. That still leaves an element of cost saving. Likewise, VGS flying = zero. Minimal costs to have skeleton staff for basic admin functions. Indirectly, there are others costs saved by not flying, such as airframe hours towards next inspection, etc.
With regard to CGS forward planning for return to flying, it would not appear to be a difficult task. Get aircraft âre-certifiedâ for flying, prioritise those units/staff for return to flying duties. Initially, it is an engineering project that then merges into a training requirement. The engineering timings will obviously affect the flying - I presume there will be a âdrip feedâ of aircraft to allow progressive return to flying.
CGS donât have any flying task youâre right thats why some of them are assisting the engineers write documentation finding forms or what ever is required might be quite expensive admin clerks but I very much doubt OCCGS, SO1 gliding or OC 2FTS are letting them kick their heals in the crew room for weeks.
VGS not flying wouldnât reduce their staff costs they donât get paid for their weekend flying anyway. On the hours until next service all the glider major/minor servicing is on date and hous/launches so they all keep getting closer to a service point if they fly or not.
Hereâs a suggestion: Iâm sure that the VGS personnel can only usefully tidy their desks and reorganise their crew rooms so often during this lengthy pause so they may wish to pitch up to local squadrons and assist or do a bit of PR. I realise this wonât be on their usual days.
[quote=âPerry Masonâ post=18577]
If this organisation was a private company people would be out the door.[/quote]
It isnât âthis organisationsâ doing. You can thank HMâs RAF for this oversight.
Still want to throw them out of the door along with that baby and the bath water?
<<<< Still want to throw them out of the door along with that baby and the bath water? >>>>
It depends on the circumstances. If there has been genuine mis-interpretation of requirements that have caused such over-sights, then no.
However, if there has been deliberate avoidance of regulations/engineering aspects, that is a very different matter.
[quote=âPlt Off Pruneâ post=18597][quote=âPerry Masonâ post=18577]
If this organisation was a private company people would be out the door.[/quote]
It isnât âthis organisationsâ doing. You can thank HMâs RAF for this oversight.
Still want to throw them out of the door along with that baby and the bath water?[/quote]
The ACO is increasingly in one of those precarious canât live with them, canât live without them relationships in terms of the RAF.
But can the contracting RAF properly support the ACO either directly with personnel and services or indirectly by managing contractor contracts, across the board?
It strikes me that closer ties are sought with the RAF in terms administrative comtrol but other things that require more tangible support with people to do technical and provide things seem to be looser. The problem for me is that I donât think that HQAC personnel are on the ball enough to arrange and manage contracts. All they seem have become any good at is delivering edicts, tinkering and not much positive.
As Prune mentioned, the issues with the gliders at the moment are most definitely not of HQACâs making, they are as a result of assurance work undertaken by the RAF. Iâm not having a dig at your comments GHE2, but to understand what is happening/has happened with respect to the ACOâs glider fleet, you really need to appreciate the whole military Air Safety/Engineering/Duty Holder construct post Haddon-Cave. Much of what happens with respect to safety and assurance activity on the RAFâs aircraft was going on before anyway, but a lot of it wasnât linked with proper, accountable, lines of responsibility; having an operator as the individual ultimately responsible for safety has also focussed interest. Years ago, it was the good old Eng O who would put his signature to an aircraft release document and it was he/she who could have ended up in front of the Coroner if something went wrong. The Eng O may still be there now, but so will several others!
The contract for Glider Maintenance will also not be directly with HQAC, they do not have a Commercial Branch; it will either be with the Training Aircraft PT or 22 (Trg) Gp through HQ Air Cmd. As we know, our HQ is undermanned for what they are already expected to do, so youâre right, asking them to take on formal commercial work probably isnât wise.
Oh good. David Jason has just delivered our 25 gliding simulators to Syerston - just in time. Hope he wasnât hoping for a crafty flight.
Excellent there is ÂŁ625,000 well spent. Shame most of them have to stay at Syerston as hardly any VGS has the infrastructure to accommodate oneâŚor a syllabus to use on it! Rodney you plonker!!!
Are they anything special or just another bunch of PCs with normal screens?
This shows a typical layout (edit) for RAC:
[quote=âMikeJenveyâ post=18617]This shows a typical layout:
http://www.aircadetonline.com/flash_site/news_pre_gs.htm[/quote]
Youâre wrong. This is what the VGS Sims look like.
I had heard each VGS would be getting one delivered and there is a contract in place for their upkeep for 5 years! In addition Iâd guess a sylabus is been written by the VGSs while their not flying?
Donât suppose you got a picture of the viking version?
My previous post edited.
Whilst theyâre not flying, thereâs probably no need to write a syllabus? Just use the GS one. Otherwise if different (or needed for younger cadets), âEffects of Controls Oneâ & onwardsâŚ
Looks quite reasonable - shame they didnât push the boat out on the visuals.