[quote=“timmyrah” post=5470][quote=“romeo bravo” post=5460]
TBH if you are coming up from the south, via A14, its about 25-30 mins extra driving from Wyton; [/quote]
It’s more the fact it’s already a 3+ hour journey. I can still live in hope of there being an AEF in the south east![/quote]
still dont understand why they dont use the tutor fleet at Middle Wallop for weekend AEFs
I have long held the belief that the AEF delivery in its current form is broken, it costs a fortune to deliver a 20 minute flight to Cadets.
It would be more cost effective per flying hour to contract this activity out to local Flying schools, this would also save on travel etc and more importantly time.
UK Flying schools work under a very tight regulatory system and the Risk is owned by the operator not the RAF.
The only Fly in the ointment is that I believe the UAS flying contract with the reduced delivery of Flying hours would be unviable without the AEF bolt on. But they could also move to Flying clubs and save a fortune as well for the same reasons as above, especially as they no longer deliver EFTS syllabus any more.
The “military” flying regime justification to retaining it in house is not a strong enough argument given that the airframe is a civilian aircraft maintained by Civies- just changing the driver and having a VRT AEF manager at the Flying school would be an effective control tool.
Discuss
Ok, a few counterweights, sorry, arguments! 
On paper, but then again, it’s a huge contract it is part of. Actually, when you break it down to the rough hourly cost, I think for the peace of mind you get in a thoroughly professional operation, rather than flying schools of variable quality, it very good value.
So RAF “owned” Air Cadets flying at civilian schools - there’s an accident. Do you really think there’s no “risk” being held by the RAF? At least in a current system where the safety is exceptionally closely overseen by the flying hierarchy at Cranwell and beyond, the RAF can certainly be said to be mitigating it as much as possible. How would you propose it was done at every single civilian flying organisation? That’s a lot of workload to ensure standards are upheld across all the aircrew, unless you limit it, perhaps to a dozen or so sites. Sound familiar?
*On this point, actually we’d have been far better placed to transfer to a system like this in the late 90s/early 2000s when we still had the full Flying Scholarship system in place, and where all the schools offering the system were “CFSed”. I know CFS still visit Dundee, but don’t know about the others.
The whole point of the flying side of the UAS is to give a taster of military flying training, so wouldn’t really be transferable to a civil training organisation; unless of course they were run on a pseudo military basis using suitable aeroplanes, which would, even at current hire rates cost £200/hr upwards. In which case they’d be mainly staffed by former regulars an cost several arms and legs. The UAS syllabus, as most of the world now fails to understand is about far more than flying anyway. UAS and AEF flying, IIRC, is about, or just under a quarter of the total Tutor hrs across the whole task.
Really? In this day and age? Not a hope. At least with the AEF system you can pretty much guarantee the suitability of those who would be flying our children (and yes, after the tragic accident at 6AEF, these rules, as have most, have been tightened quite a lot), not taking the chance that the person doing it is someone who’s paid for all their flying and hour building and is actually a exceptionally average aviator with very little experience. Effectively what you suggest is what we have, except we already have the aeroplanes suitable for use (and again, like the aircrew, not some very average 30 year old C152 Aerobat with dubious aerobatic performance).
Good question. Possibly because the Army have said no. Generally what they say goes. The other reason of course is that Boscombe’s just down the road anyway. That said, having Tutors in the circuit at Boscombe (using the parallel taxyway as a runway), you wonder if there’d be mileage in placing SUAS and the AEF at Wallop? I somehow think someone would veto that!
Accepting the current system, its contraints and occasional disappointments is preferable, IMHO, as I suspect the real (practical) alternative is…
…ZERO.
why couldnt wallop form as a seperate AEF from boscombe therefore increasing airframe hours in the south east?
Don’t forget that the ACO has been subcontracting Flying Scholarships to civilian flying schools for decades.
Would they have the scope for general AEF? A few chosen cadets doing a scholarship each year, is a far cry from 40 odd cadets turning up most weekends for a flight.
Would they have the scope for general AEF? A few chosen cadets doing a scholarship each year, is a far cry from 40 odd cadets turning up most weekends for a flight.[/quote]No, but it proves that underlying principle of a civilian flying school undertaking training for the ACO is proven.
I happen to think that having civvy schools run AEF in its current form is not feasible and the system would need to be radically redesigned. Schools don’t tend to have a surplus of aircraft and instructors just sitting around so there would need to be significant capital expenditure to gear up to the task to such an extent that we may as well start up a new, country-wide, civilian flying school with the primary task of operating AEF but with civilian training as a secondary business. It would still probably be cheaper than the current system.
I don’t think there is any sustainable argument that ex Military Pilots make better aircraft operators than fully qualified and current Flying instructors from Private Flying Clubs. Nor that their safety record is any better than Civilian Flying schools in the AEF Task. Most Civil Flying Schools have a lot of experience doing this kind of Flying- Trial lessons.
The cost will be cheaper because it can be negotiated down, any Flying School would love a longish term fixed cost contract to provide a simple flying task, most would probably use this to invest in a platform for this, but the newer 172’S would be fine for this. The exciting part of AEF for the cadets is actually flying the aircraft not holding onto their lunch while some ex Fighter jock relives his youth throwing the airframe around for their own pleasure.
The localised supply would leave units able to build relationships with the local Flying schools. For governance maybe a proper VRT post as “OC” AEF (ex service pilot) to make sure the Flying task is managed properly and to be the Uniform presence on Flying days.
The saving in time for the cadets and staff would be immense as would the actual delivery as the contractor would still have to make up the Flying rate with replacement days if their are lost through cancellations of slots.
Too many flying days are curtailed or cancelled due to no Pilots being available or willing to Fly, or poor servicabilty as now due to componant failure, if the single type tech problem raised its head the School would have to source and provide an alternative type, not the current complete stop!
Training and currency for Pilots is removed from the Flying task.
Can’t see any convincing argument that would support keeping it the way it is to be honest, as incubus states one part of the Flying task can be farmed out successfully, why not the rest?
Yes they do, but it’s the quantity that’s the issue, in the context of the ACO. You’d have more sitting around doing not a lot. Most AEFs with the aircaft and pilots, can turn 20-25 cadets around in 2-2½ hours. I doubt most civvie schools would manage half that. Would they have 5-8 servicable aircraft each Saturday and Sunday for the sole use of the ATC and more importantly the instructors to fly them?
The notion of cultivating a relationship locally is interesting, but like so many things would come down to location and the time an individual at the squadron or Wing HQ has to invest.
What number of flying schools would be engaged and how could the financial stability / viability of them individually be assessed, given they are at the end of the day a business? Would you envisage 2, 3, 4+ times the number of civvie schools as we have AEFs nationally. I’m sure you’re right the civvie schools would love a long term contract, but very much on their terms in what the cadets would get to do and probably not fitting what they get currently. I have little faith that the RAF/MoD would be able to negotiate a deal which wasn’t all about the cheapest deal and didn’t actually favour the cadets.
We are currently subject to the whim and fancy of the MoD in terms (as in the OP) for the location of AEFs. Go down the civvie route and if your local school goes bust or suddenly loses a number of its instructors, what happens then? As I imagine the model envisaged is of provision based on serving a small number of squadrons, within say 20-40 road (not straight line) miles of the school. Get much further away and you are closer to an AEF model in terms of distance. I would imagine some more remote squadrons would be no better off. The AEF model isn’t perfect, but it has worked for years, although not as well IMO since the demise of the Chippy.
My point is that it is not working at the moment at all is it?
As for quantity this would be reduced if it were the same number of slots spread around 5 locations instead of one remote one?
Contract management is not a black art- the existing provision is contractorised, just with a single type not a set number of hours delivered on a suitable airframe.
If local Schools go bust it is no loss to the RAF- you’d be a bit thick to pay for it all up front- periodic release of funds would safeguard it- it is not that hard once you decide to go with the concept. I would apply all the same tests that are applied to Tayside in this for example.
You could factor in local variations for example taking the aircraft to the Squadrons in the case of oop norht?/NI
You’re “no sustainable argument” re AEF pilots suffers a considerable blow by an obvious lack of knowledge of the demographic of a modern AEF pilot. Not to mention the currency and standardisation checks they undertake.
Also, I seem to remember, last time I took a cadet flying, the profile of the sortie is very much their choice, not the pilots’ excuse to show what a skygod he once was. Or, as it’s his weekend off from his op sqn, how much he still is.
actually the sortie contents are laid down in the contract and in your auth sheets.
you obviously have no knowledge of the demographic of a modern Flying school QFI or their currency and standardisation checks?
Don’t assume people do not know things Chaz
In any case you do not offer much of an argument in support of keeping it except you appear to enjoy it!
Forgot about this thread…
TGOs technically, and final sortie profile depends on the experience and desire of the cadet.
Fairly limited, but probably not that different to that when I started flying (which was at a very well regarded and high quality civilian flying school . You seem to be ignoring my point that I see a better system using pilot who have ALL qualified as military pilots in arguably the most high quality flying training system in the world (over many years). In turn they will all be operating the same aeroplane, maintained by the same engineering company. A far smaller potential minefield.
Steady on…
No, my argument is we have, in its current form as part of the LAFT flying task, a system which is as safe as can be, and relatively easy to regulate.
Contracting out, and keeping the same levels of safety (see current grounding) and satisfaction would be nigh on impossible. Sadly it would be inappropriate to apportion any evidence to back up this opinion in a public forum.
It’s all about cadet safety and enjoyment. I fail to see how any other system fulfill those requirements without far more hassle and people overseeing it.
(PS, are you wanting to “civilianise” the entire ATC? :lol:
On the basis that 5AEF are still not able to carry out flying of cadets at weekends (no radar cover), I have messaged OC 6FTS to try & ascertain more information.
[Oh, if you are trying to get through to 6FTS by 'phone, via the MOD operator, don’t! You have to ask for 3FTS as the notification of changes - if actioned from Cranwell - hasn’t been updated in the MOD 'phone listings. Doh!!]
Had a very speedy & detailed reply from OC 6FTS.
In short, earliest date for weekend cadet flying at WTZ is 05 Mar 2016.
This is due primarily to ATC manning issues; coupled with other personnel “solutions,” one FTRS slot has recently been advertised.
So based on the date, that’s at least 9 months with no AEF for the squadrons.
Bloomin’ marvellous.
I think we’re going to need Arthur Daly or Del Boy to promote the Corps, as it’s beginning to look like a dodgy tele with no remote, with the instructions in Uzbek and only designed to pick up Outer Mongolian programmes. Either that or they issue us with camel hair overcoats and trilbys and a CD with the “Flash Harry” music from the original St Trinian’s film.
Just as an aside I hear a unit turned up at 5AEF last week with a bunch of eager cadets all carrying expired parental consent forms. Being a weekday I believe it involved the CCF rather than ATC unit, but that’s irrelevant. In a time when the system is under pressure and slots are scarce that is unacceptable. Rather good weather too. What a waste.
but it is still a consent form.
I was told in the past Keep It Simple Stupid.
The system should enable the cadets to fly and not find ways to stop them.
When I was a cadet our consent form was the log book. Now cadets have to turn up with several bits of paper
and the log book.
In the end the cadets are flying in a very simple slightly aerobatic aircraft and not a Typhoon FGA4. If I pay my £45 and turn ups an J blogs flying club. What will Mr J Public need to fly?
Actually no it isn’t; it is a medical declaration form and has a lifespan of 3 months. Some paranoid entity has determined that risk associated with flying young people in a low-performance aircraft requires a detailed medical report and possibly a referral to a doctor because something maybe nearly happened once.
Parents suing the MOD don’t help