A post was split to a new topic: What makes a successful Squadron?
Outsourcing is not a new concept to the MOD and hasnāt been for, to the best of my knowledge, 20 years and probably much longer.
Aircraft maintenance, flight simulator (ie the ones used by the RAF), catering, MT etc etc so why would provision of experience flights for cadets be any more difficult to organise. The flying scholarships have been outsourced with Tayside for yonks, is the suggestion their aircraft and instructors are below par?
Iāve known cadets and many others do PPLs and experience flights at local flying schools and no one questions or queries the validity the professionalism of the pilots/instructors, so why if there is a suggestion or at least allusion that if these were used for cadet experience flights, somehow there would be aircraft falling out of the sky, the aircraft would falling apart and the pilots not up to scratch.
Sounds very protectionist and not founded on anything vaguely sensible.
As for cost one of our neighbours got their 13 yo son a 30 minute trial lesson for his birthday last year and it was Ā£85. He was full of it especially as he took control. Based on that cost point and say 40000 cadets you could give each cadet a 30 minute flight for Ā£3.4 million, no on costs for maintenance etc, If the MOD were savvy Iām sure they could negotiate a better price. His dad asked about the ATC and flying and I said donāt bother and put the money into flying lessons if his son is really interested.
1 Like
Put yourself in the shoes of those that have to manage the risk.
If we talk about air experience Flying with a cadet who is 13/3months. AEF sortie 1 gives them the opportunity to take control and 99.9% of them want to do that and do. The majority want to go on and do more. Aerobatics for example. How many ppl pilots are aerobatic qualified?
The RAF directly controls the standards of the pilots delivering this safe fun experience to cadets. Thatās the difference. If youāre not in control of delivery standards the arses of the risk mitigators start to twitch and they stop it dead.
Iāve experienced standards in both military and civilian aviation worlds. I know where Iād feel more comfortable leaving my son/daughter. Iām not saying all ppl pilots have low standards, but there is a difference. Currency is one example. The military impose more exacting pilot currency rules.
If retaining what weāve got is more expensive, but in the eyes of the risk mitigator is āsaferā, what price do you payā¦?
2 Likes
I think we need to be realistic and proportional.
The BGA has currency rules for its pilots too, itās not like they just let anyone up in the air.
The rules we have at the moment are not proportional, based on nothing other than someone not wanting to expose anyone to any amount of risk. People seem to have forgotten that all flying is risky, and you can never mitigate against everything. Using military rules for allowing teenagers to get some experience of being airborne is over the top and serves no purpose other than to deny people the chance to fly.
Its odd ā I read this and my mind instantly considered cars/driving.
We can drive our own cars, sort out our own MOT, insurance and choose to servicing, or not, our personal cars, or pay a garage to service them for us, and all the RAFAC wants to see every so often is a Driverās licence yet we can drive Cadets up and down the country in anything from a two seat sports car, small hatchback, 7 seater family bus or a Sport-badged German taxi with more horses than the RAF have aircraft.
Statically we are more likely to be in a road incident than a flying incident.
Think about it. How many people do you know personally, actual friends or colleagues do you know who have been involved in some road traffic incident? How many of those have resulted in injury, be it whiplash, or more serious. Now consider aircraft incidents. I am not talking about knowing what the news reports say, I mean you know personally an injured party of an aircraft incident?
If the private pilot provides not just a licence, but service history of the aircraft, insurance policy of the aircraft and is of proven experience (minimum number of hours) ā why is there such a chasm of difference in the two approaches?
I admit the outcome of an aircraft incident is more severe, but so are the checks 2FTS put into place. Yet they still find reason to say no ā its is not just risk adverse but a flying adverse approach
3 Likes
Our neighbourās son was not much older and took control on the lesson he had for his birthday treat.
We had a 15 yo cadet who was learning to fly and went solo on his the day after his 16th birthday and would have done more than cadets at any point of AEFs, so you are saying the instructors who must be licenced by the CAA are more dangerous / worse than any military pilot, given IIRC many of our AEF pilots were frontline pilots āputting something backā at the weekend, so not actual flying instructors. Also the aircraft used would be unsafe. I wouldnāt think that any pilot would fly an aircraft if they didnāt think it was going to have a problem.
What as I said about Tayside, where most FS get done? What is the pedigree of their instructors. Did the MOD assess the risk for that and thought, we canāt do it anymore so weāll have to do it that way, despite having all the experts on AEFs? Mates of mine did their FS at the same local flying schools I would suggest using for AEF, they didnāt do them at AEFs.
It seems the arguments against this are availability aircraft and pilots, which the RAF isnāt covering itself in glory with currently and maintenance with the allusion that civilian flying will be dangerous, when as far as Iām aware they employ people to maintain aircraft and who are as good as anyone in their field.
We expose cadets to risk, but we make it ALARP.
The 6FTS and 2FTS DDHās and AOC 22Gp take on that risk. As they will be keen to tell you, if something goes badly wrong they are the ones who are answerable in law.
Nobody is saying civilian Flying is dangerous, but if youāre going to compare it with AEF or VGS Flying then the factors already mentioned will be looked at very closely.
If there is the slightest increased risk any DDH will need convincing that itās a better option?
As Iāve said before, thereās no appetite for a repeat of history. Why do you think the gliding pause happened?
this was one factor a VGS pilot i know didnāt even apply to the local AEF - he wanted to remain flying yes, but he wanted to be an instructor more.
Joy rides are great but he knew heād miss the instruction side of it, seeing progression over the weeks of attendance rather than the each flight falling into one of three categories (first flight, second flight, more interesting flight)
The gliding stop (3 years isnāt a pause) happened because of fair reasons. The airframes werenāt correct or accounted for or serviced properly, as far as I know. No one has actually released any information to me that details the exact reasons, but from what Iāve heard I donāt actually have a problem with 2FTS trying to get its house in order. The problem comes from the shambles that has happened since.
But also, from where we are now ANY aviation is increasing the risk. Where does it end?
Ignore these - if you route via a CAA-approved flight school, then to fly for hire / reward, they must be CPL / frozen ATPL instructors. Aerobatics - some qualified.
For numbers versus allocated availability, external providers win hands down.
The Corps espouse a tag line of ātotal safetyā.
Thereās no such thing. Anywhere. For anyone. So it appears to me that itās easier for the DDH to say ānoā from the off rather than looking in-depth into relevant safety standards and the number of historic incidents involving civilian flying and gliding.
Little more than a joy ride. Have a look at the AEF sortiesā¦!
What a VGS is tasked to do is very different to what an AEF is tasked to do.
Some VGS instructors were given the opportunity to convert to the Tutor. Matter of choice, dependant on their experience, minimum category B1 (Vigilant).
All Iād say to that is, have a look at BGA incidents opposed to VGS incidents pre gliding pause.
In the hands of the relevant DDH. There lies your problemā¦
2 Likes
this was his point - a different type of flying.
yes ājoy rideā is a gloried term - but it is an experience not a lesson
Getting 20-25 minutes per passenger to experience flying Vs 60 minutes with each student wasnāt a big enough draw for him to consider the move to Tutor
I get that 2FTS hols the risk for Cadet gliding in our Gliders on VGSās but as the owner of our VGS surely itās a conflict of interest for him to hold the policy and risk for using other providers. (When more is achieved he looks bad) The SCC are managing to run (a small scale Gliding programme) if they can do that and manage the risk why canāt we?
At the end of it all the BGA are safe and competent to run gliding, we have had zero gliding for 3 years and a decision should have been taken long ago to abandon the VGS and close 2FTS rather than spend a fortune putting a small percentage of it back together again over a huge amount of time. How many thousands of cadets will have been in the organisation for years with zero gliding and if you are serviced by at least 2AEFās barely any flying.
1 Like
I find it strange as when you use a private provider, parents sign a waiver accepting that the ACO wonāt indemnify their offspring for using private clubs. How then does that make us accept any risk?
Iām not bashing, Iām just confused. Whatās the point in the waiver if we consider it too risky?
1 Like
Spot on. Iām confounded by this obsession about OC22Gp holding the risk when there is a clear waiver in place absolving the RAFAC of responsibility if something goes South!
I certainly canāt see how he or OC 2FTS would end up in the dock as the accused.
I know. I was a VGS instructor for 30 yearsā¦!