Dakka dakka dakka dakka 
2 Likes
As a point of information St Johns is a really bad example as they don’t do community events anymore really & are the case study on how NOT to manage change in a volunteer organisation.
Lowland Rescue, Air Scouts & the other cadet forces seem to be where we are losing volunteers to.
2 Likes
Still nowhere close to requiring Kevlar. I engage here because I agree that we needed to improve comms.
This is not ‘my audience’ and there are no ‘frenemies’. We are all committed to doing the best for the Cadets.
I will reiterate the comments on here which suggest the relative perceived simplicity and cost of civ flying. It’s social media, I get that, but please don’t take my comments out of context or ignore my explanation.
Still, tried my best to engage. If my view isn’t important to hear I will invest my time elsewhere but please don’t then complain about poor comms. I’ll agree again that I respect challenge and disagreement but if it a wasted endeavour I’ll stop trying to offer insights from my perspective.
Yet I know of several CFAV who have given up RAFAC and joined them. I don’t know much about them personally - but if they’re awful yet some are still seeing it as a better option 
1 Like
I know few who did but have then left after 18 months - was a bit of “grass is greener situation”
Air scouts & the other cadet forces seem to do well. Low land SARs seems to do well but vary by county one their volunteer engagement. Masonry is hoovering some up as well.
I wouldn’t say it’s a wasted endeavour- volunteers can become a little ……fixated…. Sometimes feeling that they have the magic bullet to fix things & make everything right if we just did this one thing. It’s why the same topic seems to be keep being brought up amongst several threads even it’s nothing to do with the topic.
It’s why so many empires keep trying to be built and some volunteers spend more time playing the politics as they try to assert their philosophy over the organisations than focusing on the cadets - mainly trying to turn the clock back to the to when they were cadets & everything was fantastic with no issues.
What I fail to understand is how AOC22 group or even CAC can be the blocker for the day to day - unless the organisation has become truly dysfunctional.
By & large volunteers faced with difficult paid staff will just wait the paid staff out (this is why your E1 & E2s are the most valuable to you - they tend to stick around longer and be most tuned in to managing the volunteers with the proper support, preventing volunteers from playing paid staff off against each other - think of the party Whips in parliament & you’re not far off the mindset they have to grabble with - under no circumstances let CFAVs take on these roles or you will be in for a world of hurt).
It is natural in a volunteer organisation that the volunteers want the organisation to run round them. How ever that may not be in the best interest of the organisation.
What is needed is a level forum for debate & idea generation which this forum should be about.
So personally I think it’s great you are engaging & it adds value (& personally i would be interested to hear your suggestions / reviews on the books or Leadership Clips but that’s a personal geekism). I would say perhaps like some more post to show engagement even if you don’t comment but that’s an individual call.
I think that there needs to be an acceptance & expectation that this forum is a bit like the pub / mess & what is put in here will not or cannot become policy without going through formal channels.
2 Likes
That started about 8 years ago when they brought in so-called professionals at the senior management level, many volunteers just upped stakes and left. The organisation turned into a shambles.
1 Like
One of the reasons I’m cautiously optimistic about the new CAC is that they’ve spent 9 years managing volunteers so already have an idea rather than someone implanted from the RAF whose leadership skills are calibrated for a different industry/mindset.
5 Likes
I meant me but happy to accept your top cover
or it might mean that there’s been budget cuts & you have to fend for yourself with an old saucepan 
Good points.
I’ve been off line most of today, and this whole thread (and the related ones) is starting to do my head in, frankly.
I’m not one to defend senior people just because of their rank or position (talking truth to power etc, sorry @Cab Sir) but the thing that got me interested in aviation was flying in a military aircraft (see my avatar). Pootling around in Piper whatnot didn’t interest me frankly.
Fast forward a small number of years… and I think most of my cadets are the same.
I appreciate that’s not a popular view among my fellow CFAV, I will don my mk7 helmet and take cover behind the sofa.
2 Likes
Thank god I’m not the only one - it keeps derailing Topics.
I want to hear the thoughts & opinions of Ian/Cab to add into the mix of the debates but I don’t really want AOC 22 group making decisions on here as it just gunks up the conversation & takes things off topic when people try to lobby a position.
(I appreciate that strictly speaking they are the same person but legally they should be considered distinct separate entities with different thoughts, opinions & agendas).
3 Likes
hang on…
please see
moving on
errm… 
they already have.
an Annex to ACTO 035 was 2 FTS form 002 which had such a declaration. (ie ACTO 035 had everything in place, to cover everyone’s responsibility and liability)
indeed - consider a simpler form of transport - the motorcar. there are Squadrons with an SOV yet the Cadets it transports come from families that cannot afford a car!
and this must be a reason that ACTO035 was pulled.
there were a dozen or more Squadrons who took advantage of it, at least one in our Wing where the Squadron OC flew his cadets in the flying club aircraft he was a member of - and there was no concern about his hours or qualification he is a commercial pilot for BA, who contunies his flying passion as a hobby.
I recall seeing at least two occasions on Social Media he took a plane full (4 seater) of Cadets up
it worked, and worked safely. removing ACTO 035 it wasn’t a knee jerk reaction to a near miss, or hazard which could have unfortunate circumstances, it was just pulled despite numerous examples of it working, and working well.
4 Likes
So thinking about this - is SMS the issue?
My understanding of the two cadet force management systems is that Westminster was designed centrally to work primarily for the paid staff - so an oversight database
SMS was budded off what an individual at a Sqn insisted on using so was designed as Sqn management - so more of an electronic records database.
So the question, from the paid staff perspective is SMS an effective activity assurance system?
We know that SW region was struggling with activity safety assurance.
We also know that the sea cadets & army’s do activities which the ATC are not permitted because of safety assurance - yet they use a difference assurance system.
So bringing back to topic - one positive thing that we need to do is have the last half of the 5 MoD cadet forces move over to the same safety assurance system as the rest especially if it works better for the paid staff & gives them more confidence.
I believe the RAF use to have a separate MT system called JAMES? Which they resisted merging until ordered to go to myDrive, perhaps this is the example of face saving not as an RAF thing but a HQAC that their cadet safety system is not sufficient from a paid staff viewpoint resulting in the increased bureaucracy & curtailment of activities.
1 Like
the point i was trying to make was the “someone always wants more” element - ie as good, practical and reasonable ACTO035 and the annexes were, “someone always wants more” (in this case AOC22 Grp suggesting all the checks and disclaimers is still not enough assurance)
we see it on a local scale be that Sector, Wing or Region - even more so in SWR case, where extras and addition expectations are added.
but i do see the logic in your post.
while sample A can do activity X sample B cannot. when comparing the differences between Sample A and B the digital record library/system is different and could well be a influencing factor into why some elements are easier to achieve
although it still requires the AOC to approve it - so while I see the logic, the person on the end of the pen which signs it off (or nowadays on the end of the mouse button click) still needs to be happy that they are not going to get stung.
does the document storage system matter so much, is that not simply a visual change rather than cultural one?
1 Like
Wow - I would love to say, “I can’t quite believe how many joined in with the discussion since my last comment…” but that would be a lie…
@Cab Sir, as @steve679 pointed out, there has been a provision previously to enable use of a third party provider for flying.
If the terms of the disclaimer or the minimum requirements that need to be met by the service provider don’t tick enough boxes - then this is an admin matter - perhaps not as straightforward as all of us would assume - but certainly not beyond rectification.
I would argue that no cadet, parent, guardian or other reasonable adult would insist that RAFAC and the RAF held total responsibility for EVERY single aspect of every activity - unless RAFAC / RAF are actually providing those services…
RAFAC / RAF would not be liable for an injury / death occurring during a flight on a civilian flight for example to an overseas camp - provided due diligence had been carried out to ensure the carrier was insured…
You can carry that same level of expectation across every activity that has been provided - sailing, canoeing, museum visits, indoor rock climbing, even participation in sports…
I’m not saying that access to local gliding and flying clubs is the panacea that we might hope it could be - but in many situations it COULD be a practical solution.
As others have stated simply adding ONE additional, approved centre per Region could have a drastic impact - frankly, it could double the opportunities available - not to mention slash the travel costs for transporting cadets and staff to and from…
I’m not trying to suggest that we move towards flying every weekend for all squadrons - as amazing as that would be… but I am talking about trying to increase access to THE number one attraction we should be offering.
I’ve known entire groups of cadets that have left after their first AEF, that among the reasons cited for leaving have declared the non-likelihood of getting the chance to go up again, as one of the biggest reasons.
Scales of economy may be achievable - but certainly not guaranteed, I agree. But most gliding clubs would be only too pleased to work hand in hand with their local squadrons - as it means an opportunity to raise their own profile and membership.
(Out of interest - not the best example I guess - but how did Tayside Aviation manage to become an approved service provider… if all flying has to be conducted in service aircraft…)
@Cab, my apologies on behalf of some of the other users of this forum, for their vitriol - but you must have foreseen their reaction, based on other comments elsewhere, when you basically said “if you want to fly go elsewhere…”
This is an exceptionally passionate and committed group of volunteers that are doing their level best to train, educate and inspire young people.
They overwhelmingly look to take a collaborative approach, especially to problem solving - and will be the first to drop what they’re doing to take up last minute slots, whenever possible.
Synthetic training alternatives have come a LONG way in a short space of time - but even they don’t replicate the magic of being in a light aircraft - I’m sure you’d agree…!
The “simplicity” of using 3rd party “cheap” flying clubs is something of an over simplification…
Using a provider considerably closer to the squadron could have a multitude of benefits in addition to building useful connections for potential CFAVs; closer proximity means greatly reduced transport costs and hence less volunteer time spent not travelling as opposed to delivering activity - making more efficient use of volunteer time.
It is semantics to argue “aviation AND the RAF” - as though the two HAVE to go together.
I think you’d have to recognise the number of cadets that join, because they want to become airline / civilian pilots one day, and see RAFAC as an opportunity to add to their CV.
I’m not suggesting that use of civvy aircraft should replace military flying - far from it. But it can be used to greatly augment opportunities to get in the air.
Disclaimers and aircraft limitations have been used in the past - may I respectfully ask why these are no longer considered acceptable?
Thank you
3 Likes
i would be interested to know if ANY due diligence was conducted in these examples though.
for ACTO035 a CFAV had to collect aircraft details, and reg, and pilot details (licence type and hours flown) and confirm the level of insurance on the pilot/aircraft - when booking EasyJet to Cyprus or BA to Gibraltar i would be astonished if anyone in the RAFAC is completing any of that “diligence” on a commercial flight other than ensuring it is a “reputable carrier”
While ACTO035 required what many would be seen as “acceptable checks” (similar is done for other third party providers for AT opportunities) no such checks would be done for a commercial flight.
I lean on the likes of @dazizian and others with commercial flying experience but pilot(s) and aircraft reg, and I suspect even type cannot be predicted weeks in advance as ACTO035 was likely worked to.
i applaud your optimism that checks were done with BA, Easyjet, RyanAir or otherwise but i doubt any were completed.
that would only be an additional 6 though, and in the case of S&NI someone is definately going to miss out due to that stretch of water inbetween the two.
While a centre in Cornwall would hit the “one per region” for SW, it wouldn’t do much for Thames Valley. likewise approving a centre near Durham isn’t going to help those in South Yorkshire.
there is never going to be an easy or right answer when limiting the number of places to get in the air. While pre-pause the VGS were not “universal” it was at least practical for most to achieve in a day’s roundtrip. nowadays that isn’t the case for Wales who have no VGS within its boundary - how do those in Swansea or Aberystwyth get in the air?
the most viable solution to remove a postcode lottery is to open up civilian clubs to all (providing certain minimums are met on the pilot) else it doesn’t matter if it is one, two or six (ie one per Wing) clubs per region, it is still a cross county (or two) journey.
As a for instance there are three flying schools (not clubs, schools where instruction takes place) closer to our Squadron than there is a VGS, (although in fairness about the same distance for AEF as the 2nd and 3rd options) - it seems mind boggling that we travel further for a similar experience which as far as the law goes both are legal in what they achieve and how they achieve it, simply because one is an “RAF” operation (run by CFAV, overseen by 2FTS)
agree.
no one is suggesting Cadet progress through the aviation PTS via civilian flying routes, that is reserved for RAF provided opportunities (AEF/VGS) but to get hours in a logbook, the civilian option is not foolish be that flying or via BGA
1 Like
Type would be reliable. Pilots semi-reliable, as pilots tend to be. Reg … not a chance.
1 Like
This was an initial problem with ACTO35, cadet approval was “handcuffed” - Cadet A, Airframe A & Instructor A. No variation allowed.
I pointed out to 2FTS that for 30 cadets, with an opportunity for 3 airframes (not unusual for a flying club) & at least 3- 4 instructors, this would require 30 x 3 x 3 (maybe 4) sets of approval forms to accommodate all the variations. After all, Airframe B might have had a tech issue on the day, but Airframe D was available as a replacement. Similarly, Instructor C might have had a cold = no fly.
As things stood, there was no option to move cadets to different airframes / instructors; the permission route was set in stone. They went with my idea of a composite list of each category (cadets, airframes, instructors) & the permission would be valid as one from each group linked up.
For both a CAA ATO & BGA facility, as long as the airframes are serviceable (with C of A & associated insurance) & each pilot is suitably qualified / current, then they are no safety reasons not to use these organisations. It should NOT be down to 2FTS to micro-manage associated factors, such as Pilot F isn’t in currency on the day, etc; that is for the supervisory aspect of the flying organisation.
As to the question of any commercial airline being checked out - I doubt it very much - each airline has its own Air Operating Certificate (AOC) from their respective CAA. No AOC = no fly pax! Typical list of operators.
An AOC will be granted only to operators that demonstrate conformity to all set requirements.
That is the same route as a being awarded ATO status - incomplete conformity = no ATO approval.
2 Likes
This is why I “assumed” that there HAD to be a “simple” workable solution. ((Yes @Cab - I know… those horrible words “assume - simple” and “workable”).
1 Like