A thousand times this.
We’re no longer a military organisation in anything but name. It is inappropriate to govern us with military and draconian rules simply because someone has decided to put an RAFR group captain in charge of the handbrake.
Can scouts do it? You know, those immature, inexperienced 8 year olds? Uhh Yeh, they can. Why the hell can’t we?
The more I read this topic the angrier I get at my cadets being denied opportunities for unjustifiable reasons.
I think that most of the oiks in my Sqn would be happy to see ‘Sortie 2’. Never mind ‘Sortie 6’…
Or, “high rotational” rapid descent in a Chipmunk over the Solent! Happy days! 
And when the AEF came to you (Bembridge, Isle of Wight), minimal travel, maximum flying - oh, & no hearing / noise issues to prevent more than one flight in the day,
Or 6 Cadets to have one sortie …
Sortie One please! 
I should be clear again: I have nothing but respect for the VGS and AEF pilots and staff giving up their time to fly cadets. My problem is at the decision makers (or lack of decision makers as the case may be).
I was trying to be optimistic rather than realistic.
Haven’t you heard, pEp? We’re no longer the Air TRAINING Corps. No, no, no. We’re now the Air TWITTER Corps.
Sounds about right with everything going on (or not going on as the case may be).
Apologies. I misunderstood your post.
Don’t have an issue with opportunity flights, but a lack of them shouldn’t lead to an attack on the AEF/VGS system that is doing all it can to provide valuable Flying experiences for cadets.
The progressive training stuff has been forced upon us with little consultation or awareness training.
Cadets are being put through sortie 6, I can personally vouch for that.
Apologies if you construed it as an attack - not my intention at all. I do have the utmost respect for the AEF pilots and teams - i’d naturally like more, of course! My issues lie more with the two tier system whereby military flying is deemed “better” than civi flying because the risk is - allegedly - lower.
I think it’s also to do with oversight and accountability?
We’ve just had a decision made that keeps AEF pilots VRT so that they can still be accountable in military law for their actions. That’s a fairly strong message as to how seriously they take the issue of young cadets Flying in powered aeroplanes.
I think that the ‘military law’ argument is a a little weak as the civil rules are there ad nauseum if applied fully and correctly, as they are in the military world. The last thing I want to see are any more incidents - those of you who know me might spot me in this little video showing part of my world <iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fcranfielduni%2Fvideos%2F10155830620464882%2F&show_text=0&width=560" width="560" height="315" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>. So, yes I do understand about safety.
It’s about micro-management and empire building.
Our biggest activity that injures cadets is sport and cadets are most likely to suffer a serious injury on Adventure Training. The risk for both is held at Region and they are managed under the NGB qualifications and rules for that activity. There is zero reason why that can’t also be done for gliding. (I acknowledge that AEF is somewhat different).
Military aviation requires an appointed DDH. They are of a suitable rank and background. That’s how it is. Cmdt 2FTS is still accountable if he authorises cadets to fly in BGA aircraft. I would suggest anybody in that position will put any potential provider under the microscope?
If you call that empire building or micro management I would disagree. Sometimes difficult decisions have to be made.
It’s sub-optimal, however much you look at it. To require MAA approval for a CAA-approved flight training facility?
That is gross empire building in my mind; is 2FTS suggesting that MAA safety is “better” than CAA safety? Ridiculous.
They couldn’t even get ACTO35 written in a way to minimise the administration (as noted before, individual permission required for Cadet A to fly in Aircraft A with Instructor A - ah, Aircraft A has a technical issue on the day, but Aircraft B is available - nope, ca’;t fly unless individual permission specified that aircraft). Then 2FTS had to be pushed into including gliding with ACTO35 (cheaper, easier to get more cadets flying).
Even looking back at the gliding scholarship “stop gap” (RAFGSA locations) - ah, no DBS for RAF instructors, parents / guardians / CFAVs required to attend for all weekends. Who validated / inspected RAFGSA? CFS? 2FTS? Number of such scholarships actually completed - minimal (I listed details elsewhere).
The whole “pause” has been an embarrassment, too little done over far too long a period. GSA locations should have been brought on board as soon as it became clear that the problem was on a long-term timetable.
Thrown in the award of a servicing contract to a company that didn’t have a suitable repair facility - planning permission applied after the contract was awarded - ah, planning refused. You couldn’t make it up.
It’s a crying shame that a large number of cadets will have joined the organisation, left, or aged out, with minimal or zero AEF & zero gliding.
Link broken?
A youth organisation flying in civilian gliders is not military flying. If that’s what the book says it is the book needs to be rewritten.
Everything we do has to have an appointed DDH, if we are outsourcing there is no need for that DDH to be an extra Group captain and his Staff, it can be the local Regional Commandant who is already the DDH for everything else.
There is putting the provider under the microscope and having policies which go out of the way to prevent anyone else from providing what 2FTS has failed to do for 3 years.
I get that at the moment all of this falls under 2FTS, my point is that we would have been better off getting rid of 2FTS and all the VGS in one go when it became clear that the VGS system had died. Give Wings the funding direct as a proportion of the cadet numbers they have, ring fenced for gliding and make it easy to use external providers. (As we do for AT)
Stop this heresy @daws1159. Everyone knows that unless 2FTS are involved it isn’t really aviation
MikeJenvey, you have hit the nail on the head! This is the travesty! All the whinging about the CTC, rank slides (some of it done by me!) and other issues pales into insignificance when you realise how true the above statement is!
Still the RAF may get as much flying as the Air Cadets if the Defence Cuts bite!
Because, like it or not, it’s a military organisation providing the experience, whoever actually does it at the coalface.