And who would you consider suitable experts in that field?
There are only a handful of companies out there that are in a position to provide such a contract, like the company that was providing engineering for Air cadet gliding when the pause hit? They are experts in their field. They were the preferred bidder.
Nothing guarantees a better outcome than what we have now.
At the moment with contracts that have years to run, and no money there’s no will to change.
1 Like
Some BGA GSA clubs have provided gliding scholarships to Air cadets on limited occasions.
I have been told that the BGA were approached during the gliding pause and advised that they wouldn’t be able to provide anything like what Air Cadets wanted in terms of Air experience or scholarships.
1 Like
I don’t know how it works in your place of work, but if you outsource something, it becomes one or more people’s job to monitor that contract to ensure that things are being done as they should be.
It would appear that Tayside is monitored by the CFS, which would suggest a potential overseer for similar matters.
Then we (as an organisation) need to wind back our expectations!
I would be much happier seeing cadets buzzing having had the “experience” of gliding than not.
I would rather they got that little taste that wet their appetite for a life of flying and gliding than not.
We don’t need scholarships to sell the RAFAC. We need to have the opportunity to get cadets in the air. Denying us that opportunity by setting the bar inconceivably high such that the BGA themselves aren’t interested is not a great way to get cadets in the air.
As I’ve said before, the “risk” doesn’t sit with 2FTS or 22Grp. They can exercise due diligence without raising the bar. They can ensure compliance without being overly burdensome of clubs - most of which, by the way, also want to enthuse young people and get them airborne too!
Do we need BGA clubs to deliver a complete gliding scholarship package? Actually, we don’t. If they could, brilliant - but it’s not what we actually want or need.
Do we need BGA clubs to deliver a “gliding training syllabus”? No. We don’t even need that.
Do we need a BGA club to deliver some progressive training system badging nonsense? No. We don’t need that either.
Do we want BGA clubs to deliver a gliding experience? Yeah. That’s actually more akin to what we need right now. Engaging with these clubs for that “experience” element would offer up a whole host of opportunities to far more cadets than our relatively small fleet of gliders and VGSs are able to do over the next few months and years until they are up and running. And, even then, lets keep those BGA clubs on side for delivering this stuff.
Let VGS’s deliver whatever they can in the air towards GSs, GICs etc. Let AGSs (wherever they came from) do whatever it is they are meant to do. But lets also engage other avenues of non-RAF flying and gliding and see what they can offer - and if it’s a 7 minute experience, excellent - job done. If it’s anything more? Epic.
3 Likes
Ok. CFS standardise pilots and instructors.
If you want military oversight on an engineering contract then the MAA are going to be all over it like a rash.
So. A Flying club providing air experience Flying to Air cadets would be leaving themselves open to CAA inspections, CFS standardisation and MAA inspections potentially before they get to fly a single Air cadet.
The MAA are all over Air cadet gliding at the moment. Speak to any VGS exec and they’ll tell what that’s like.
The question is, how many Flying clubs would be prepared to open themselves up to this for the pleasure of providing AEF for cadets? Start counting on one hand…?
2 Likes
It’s not a Corps thing - it’s an RAF thing. “Total Safety” encompasses the promotion of the safe culture in every activity undertaken by the service or one the service’s behalf, not just good old fashioned “Flight Safety”.
And there maybe “no such thing”, but it doesn’t stop being something to strive for.
2 Likes
Apart from the fact that the “Elementary” part of CFS is only manned to cope with the UASs and Tayside (and short term with the legacy part of EFT provided by the Tutor).
1 Like
But why? To ensure what exactly? CAA I can understand - but why do MAA need to get involved taking cadets flying? Because it says so in a book somewhere??? Maybe we need to look at said book and ask ourselves what they hell is going on!
Why do Central Flying School need to get involved in an Experience Flight? Are they training our cadets? No. They are giving them an experience. Are we asking them to subscribe to delivering a preset program of “experiences”. No. Are we asking them to let the cadet take control of the aircraft? Not if they don’t want to - it’s their aircraft afterall, Are we asking them to do aeros? Or complex manouvers? Or cross country flying? Or flying in restricted airspace? No.
We are asking for them to give our cadets an experience of flying.
And that’s what’s been happening!
Unfortunately any Air cadet Flying/gliding risk does lie with the respective DDH. That’s the way it is. Blame Haddon Cave if you like, but that’s the path history has woven for us.
Don’t get me wrong, I feel the frustration, but I can’t see a sudden reversal on this any time soon, not without oversight to give reassurance and to convince them that the risk is ALARP?
1 Like
It’d be a pretty boring AEF flight if they weren’t shown anything or allowed to touch the controls?
We’re now providing progressive training.
I suggest you look at the AEF sorties and relevant ACTO’s. AEF sortie 6 gives the cadet a navigation experience for example.
If you’re providing training, then you leave yourself open to inspection, be that CFS or OFSTED…!
1 Like
I just hope this progressive training takes off (pun not intended but I’ll happily take it)
Where I fly was going to arrange air experience evenings for local cadets, that got blown out of the water by all of a sudden a requirement for full-cat instructors. This sort of flying is normally done by Basic Instructors - the lowest rung of the BGA instructor ladder.
1 Like
I would love to see the stats for cadets flown over the last few years, both AEF and VGS. And then break that down by area.
Another farce is the way we have to now record minutes at AEF as from the moment they step out if the door to get to the aircraft to when they get back, which easily makes a 20 minute sortie look like 25 minutes.
1 Like
An AEF flight is recorded in the auto sheets, tech log and pilots log book from take off to landing.
How HQAC want to record stuff is up to them?
1 Like
Because some moron (an apt word in this instance I feel) somewhere has decided that everything we do needs to be a progressive learning activity…
No such things as “experiences” or “fun” any more.
No in this organisation anyway…
We actually log chock to chock times. I’m not sure what other AEFs do
1 Like
Yeh. But just because they’ve changed it’s name doesn’t mean it’s not fun anymore?
2 Likes
I still prefer the days when you could get into an aircraft and say to the pilot ’ Sir, can we go and pull the wings off it?’
1 Like
I’m not talking about Air Experience Flight at an AEF - I’m talking about “flights” outwith of the AEF system (to which I’m going to include gliding in this) - as governed by ACTO35. These are more experience flights which can give a cadet an insight into flying without a rare opportunity to go to an AEF to experience it. Yes, it’s a different kind of flying. Accepted, it won’t follow the prescribed ACTO sortie schedule. And it doesn’t conform to the organisations growing obsession on delivering a “blue badge experience” - but it doesn’t mean it’s worthless.
To you, it maybe a boring flight where the controls aren’t touched - but to a 13 or 14 year old who’ve never flown before; or to one which has only experienced one AEF sortie (which, BTW, is around 50% of our squadron (the rest having had none!)), then it’s an entirely relevant and worthwhile opportunity to be embraced. It’s comparable to a cadet getting an opportunity flight in a Puma or Voyager - they won’t touch the controls - they might not even get near the cockpit - but they will be chatting with their mates about it for weeks afterwards and it may well be the highlight of their cadet career.
Why should we rule out civilian flying as anything different - just because they don’t conform to the MAA or CFS instructional standards? A love of flying and gliding need not only be defined but what a VGS/AEF can deliver.
A flight in a Dragon Rapide or a DC3 for a trip down to the Isle of Wight and back could be just as valuable at instilling an interest in aviation as an AEF flight - and we should be free to embrace these opportunity as and when they occur - not be subjected to overbearing levels of paperwork, bureaucracy or undue appreciation of risk. And before anybody asks, yes, we have applied through the ACTO35 route. And we’ve been denied because 2FTS are “too busy to conduct audits on every BGA site for which an application made” - they can only “inspect” so many sites. Oh? Really - because that’s not what ACTO35 says at all…
Another part of the Corps refers to talks about “facilitating success”; the hanger at Syerston as much handbrake house as HQAC is these days.
This - however - did make me laugh. I’d love to see how many cadets have undertaken sortie 6. The other thing which makes me laugh every time I see it is page 12 of ACTO31; one of the most optimistic document I’ve seen from HQAC for sometime!!!
Cadets stay, on average across the Corps, 2.5 years with us - as I’ve alluded to above, most of my cadets have 1 x AEF flight in that time. Some, a very lucky few for which the stars have aligned, have maybe 3 sorties under their belt. Our most experience Dacre Sword nominee cadet managed a grand total of 2 flights in all her years of service with us - and not through lack of trying. IIRC, she got more flying on IACE than she has done in her entire time in the RAFAC - and that excludes her 2 international flights and 2 internal flights once she got in country. I do wonder if ACTO35 got followed on the IACE process… best not ask that awkward question - wouldn’t want to deny more cadets more opportunities incase JM finds out!
4 Likes
The problem is that ALARP is being used to justify protectionism and deep down doesn’t really mean anything to those who don’t live in the military bubble.
All flying is a risk and the best way to reduce that risk to zero is to not fly at all. Would getting rid of 2FTS and all of the VGS’s and instead using the money to fund gliding with the BGA greatly increase the risk? Well it would at the monent as we would go from no gliding to doing gliding.
Get rid of 2FTS make the Regional Commandants the DDH as they are for Adventure Training. Amend the ACTO to give rules as to what a gliding club must have in place but without making up or adding military stuff. (Keep to the Civilian standards for Civillian gliding). Give Wings a Budget and they can then make applications on bader like they would for an AT activity which would the be signed off by the Region Flying Officer.
4 Likes