It gets my vote. Plus Barton do not charge the military any landing fees (which is why they get a lot of military rotary action!), and we could ditch the LSJs and get smaller cadets flying!
I’d also vote for a move to Blackpool, Warton, or even Hawarden. Anything, just as long as my cadets get to fly!
(I appreciate that it’s not that easy, and that SERCO are contracted only to Woodvale blah blah blah, but we can but dream…)
Does the RAF operate any G115Es from grass, though? I get it that G115As are operated by civilians from grass without problems.
Just to clarify a couple of Squadgys points.
less than an hour from Woodvale correct but for pilots from as far as Lytham, Lancaster and Carnforth its an additional hour.
Not in the LAFT contract to operate away from Woodvale
Hangarage comes at a cost and there is no money
Not really. Remember, we look after cadets from as far north as Lancaster.
Crash crews would need to be made familiar with the aircraft and equipment we use.
correct
ok, but would they be able to cater for everyone? is accommodation available for approx 50-60 cadets plus 10 staff plus 5-8 pilots plus 10 engineers plus 5 staff cadets?
true but suffer from some water logging during the winter months.
We’ve discussed this before.
The cost of hangarage and accommodation plus the adjustment to the LAFT contract far out weighs the cost to repair the runway.
Blackpool - hangarage, accommodation, engineering, fuel,
Warton- as above plus a security nightmare!
Hawarden- as above but without the security issue.
Trust me folks, ALL options have been looked at and deemed not suitable at this time.
Don’t think that we are all sat around not doing anything. We are still keeping pilots current and training new pilots in the meantime so that when we do become active again, we will be ready.
We are all as disheartened as you are but we can only wait to see what Command and 22Gp come back with.
Hahahahahaha
Oh wait. You’re serious. Let me laugh even harder
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
We have. But surely you can understand why people are advocating such courses of action?
As a tax payer, I’m struggling with the concept of keeping an AEF operating, but not providing cadet flights.
If operating from a base other than Woodvale is out, then let’s chop 10 AEF altogether, and disperse pilots and equipment to other AEF locations, who can then provide flying places.
What’s the point of paying for a service provider, if that service isn’t provided?
Simply put, the UAS are still flying do business as usual.
Simply put, the UAS are still flying do business as usual.
correct.
The closure of 10 AEF is not on the cards.
10 AEF is not operating fully.
The cost to keep it open is negligible. We have no OC. All our pilots are volunteers. I am a volunteer. The aircraft are being used by the UAS as well as our pilots and are owned by Babcock which supply them as part of the LAFT contract.
Most of the Woodvale fleet has already been utilised elsewhere as we do not have the requirement for a fleet of 7 airframes however, once we are back up and running, the 4 aircraft will be recovered and we will be back running as ‘normal’.
I’m not sure of your back ground or current position with the ACO but you have to remember that the majority of AEF pilots get paid less that an ACO Flt Lt after tax, plus they travel on average an hour and a half to come to Woodvale to fly your cadets for less that £50 a day for up to 10 hours. So cost per hour is pretty good value for money. I’d like to see an ACO Sqn officer travel and hour and a half to go to his Sqn. Personally I have a 60 mile round trip to Woodvale and do it twice a week if I can.
You talk about re-positioning pilots to other AEFs. If the likes of Cosford or Linton were closer for them, don’t you think they would go there instead of come to us? Chances are, rather than utilising them elsewhere, they would probably leave and no one would be any better off.
Plus, where do the 4500 cadets that we look after go? I’m pretty sure that both Cosford and Linton wouldn’t be able to take up the slack.
So that begs the question, why are NI cadets looked after if they normally task to 10 AEF but during this lul they are sent elsewhere.
For the same reason that the gliders at Topcliffe were sent to South wales?? Politics?
I don’t have an answer to that one I’m afraid.
NI CCF cadets currently go to Glasgow and have done for some time.
I’m not sure if NI ATC go but I can check
Can I just say thank you for taking the time to communicate about the situation - I think 10 AEF are lucky to have you as an unofficial spokesman.
To be honest, if there was an end date, or even a proposed solution, I would grumble a bit, but probably wouldn’t argue with you. But it’s starting to have parallels with the Gliding pause, and we’ve seen how long that is taking to sort out.
In terms of cost, regardless of how cheap it is to operate, paying for an organisation to provide a service that it then can’t provide isn’t value for money.
In terms of repositioning, it was more of a temporary measure, rather than permanent. My thought was that if Cosford and Linton each had an extra 2 aircraft, plus pilots, then at least a reduced AEF could be offered for the cadets, rather than none.
You might think that this is pointless sniping, but my frustration stems from the fact that this has come at rather an unfortunate time for our wing, and my squadron. We’ve had 3 years of no gliding, .22 shooting has been stopped until we get the new weapon (and even then, it will take years to reach parity with .22 numbers), and there is now no flying. When trying to recruit cadets, I either have to lie, or admit to potential recruits that the three biggest draws to the ATC are, in fact, not available for them. My cadets are a good lot, and fairly loyal, but they are all on twitter and facebook, and all of them are getting fed up of seeing other people being given opportunities that they haven’t.
I sympathise with you, I really do.
My son has recently joined the ATC and can’t even fly at his Dad’s AEF. One because he’s too small for the LSJ and 2 because we don’t have a runway.
The gliding pause is a different issue. Engineering and airframe serviceability plus the re-org of units has had a detrimental affect on whats happening right now (my own opinion). Speaking to some of the gliding fraternity, they too are just as frustrated with their situation.
As a previous Sqn Commander, I can understand the problems you face and how difficult it is and in my almost 30 years within the Corps, I’ve never seen anything like it.
We don’t give up our time for pay or medals. We do it for the young individuals who want to do more in life and that’s what keeps us going. Unfortunately we are going through a rocky patch and I think we just need to batten down the hatches and wait for the storm to pass.
Hopefully, in Woodvale’s case anyway, we will be up and running as quickly as we can. The RAF and MOD as a whole is strapped and asking for a wheelbarrow full of cash is a big ask.
However, the more cages you rattle and the higher you rattle them you may just wake someone up!!
I’ve always wondered why woodvale hasn’t been sold off in the DIO jumble sale. There’s nonnuclear material contaminating the land, and if the military need landing spots, EGCC will work (but cost), and lets face it what would they need to land?
Apart from the standing up of the reserves unit, there’s nothing going on.
[quote=“Moist_Van_Lipwig, post:37, topic:3129, full:true”]As a tax payer, I’m struggling with the concept of keeping an AEF operating, but not providing cadet flights.
What’s the point of paying for a service provider, if that service isn’t provided?[/quote]
I to have struggled with the whole concept of flying (inc glding) in the ATC as being from a unit serviced by 5 AEF (although for different reasons), there is little or no return for a large chunk of England for the babcock contract. Have the babcock workers been on reduced salaries since certain AEFs have or effectively been non-operational?
This is question that if asked in ‘the house’ would be directed away referring to those AEF still operational and ignoring those that aren’t and timeframe and money spent. I’d shudder at how much of our money 2FTS has squandered in the last 3 and quarter years and still nowhere near providing nation wide service.
I cannot imagine that at Woodvale someone woke up one day and the runway was u/s, which begs the question why was it allowed to get into that state and not repaired in an ongoing way, rather than allow it to get to the state it seems to be in. If it is because Woodvale has no direct operational requirement, then sell it and up sticks to somewhere else, may be a small commercial airport.
The cogs in the MoD/RAF machine move really slowly and ‘we’ need something done quickly. As has been said many times if the MoD had to operate as business it wouldn’t be around for very long. Just the way it treats its customers (like us) would see its demise.
The whole of the public sector is strapped for cash and sometimes you have to cut your losses and either stop or look for an alternative. The problem within the MoD is empires and I imagine losing something like AEF would create a sizeable hole in someone’s empire and they may not be needed anymore. I was made redundant as the powers that be in the business wanted an alternative and it’s not without a rye smile that me and my former colleagues like to see the alternative didn’t work, despite all of us saying it won’t work, as while lending our expertise to those taking over it was plain to see they weren’t up to delivering the service we did.
Scrounger - Many thanks for taking the reply to my points - It must be very difficult when there is no OC in place and you are taking the flack, but at least someone is listening, for which I’m grateful.
I think everyone on this thread agrees that the situation needs resolving. As you have mentioned, Woodvale remains an active airfield and the UAS are operting quite happily off the cross runway - but the lack of EFATO options means that RAFAC does not want to expose cadets to that risk - which everyone understands.
Air Cadets however need to engage in aviation based activities, and to have an undefined period of down time at Woodvale just adds to the previous issues caused by props being thrown, the VGS ‘pause’ (there has been some light in that respect, in that Topcliffe are now up and running again on the Vigilant), and that Woodvale now opens Sun - Thu, meaning Saturday flying is no more.
Just to iron out some specifics :
Google Maps suggests that the jorney time from the Lancaster area is actually less to Barton than to Woodvale.
Catering - I don’t believe the Woodvale mess ever fed cadets - packed lunches seemed to be the order of the day, but yes Barton does cater for hundreds of people on a busy weekend, and could certainly cope with 10AEF aircrew and staff.
The runways at Barton have been regraded at a cost of £££ with additional drianage etc installed - The number of down days per year are minimal, and mostly when the weather would preclude VFR flights in any case
Issues such as Crash Crew training are easily overcome
With regards to the costs involved (hangarage, landing fees etc), has anyone visited or picked up the phone and had a conversation to establish what, if anything, these costs may be at any of the local airfields?
If 10AEF would like to have a chat about the possibilty, and would like me to aid introductions etc then PM me. For ‘all possibilities to be considered’, IMHO that has to be a deep dive in to alternative solutions given the downtime incurred to ops so far, and the lack of any definitive date for a runway fix at Woodvale. The current situation is demoralising for CFAV volunteers who just want to get their cadets airborne, and more importantly demoralising for the cadets themselves.
i can’t comment on whether Barton has been contacted as I wouldn’t know.
All I’ve been told is that all viable options have been looked at.
It may also have something to do with the current engineering contract which doesn’t allow for engineering deployments away fro Woodvale. I think the only AEF that has this is Colerne as they detach to St Mawgan for camps during the summer.
The reason the flying week was changed fro Sunday to Thursday was to allow the EFT students to use Warton radar during the week. The AEF had priority on the Sunday for AC so a radar service was not required per se. EFT get priority I’m afraid they have a time frame to achieve their task and only being able to operate 3 days a week was not viable. We weren’t happy about it and it was discussed with your WGLO but it seems the information was not passed on.
I had to fight to keep the Sunday as the original plan was to go to Monday to Friday!!!
You need to bare in mind that there are 2 other Sqn’s that operate from Woodvale. LUAS and MASUAS. Even though we do, or did, 80% of the flying at Woodvale they are still permanently manned and training EFT and UAS students.
I’m more than certain that The Station Commander has looked at all options but it’s way way above my pay grade.
Please do feel free to drop him a letter with your thoughts and ideas though.
Liverpool UAS can travel easy enough. Manchester students live on the landing path of Barton looking at the map.
Looking at their website they have a decent range of office space available to rent (that ticks the operation support facility box), they have fuel, they don’t have AC hangerage at the moment, but there is space. The RAF are quite good at putting up temporary facilities aren’t they? Isn’t this what they do worldwide?
I think some people who have “looked at all available options” haven’t really thought outside the box or challenged opposing views.