It isn’t, that I know of, though I probably should’ve marked it as such.
Is this because HQAC have spotted the irregularity at not recognising CAA’s airworthiness accreditation of civilian aircraft?
1 Like
Picking up on points made above (sorry, I’m not as clever as you lot and don’t know how to insert multiple quotes)
Early warning of camps: With regards to RIAT - surely this is a LONG TERM arrangement - so why AREN’T dates standardised…? Short of going to war, I would have thought that the RAF already have the dates for the next five years at least… not least beicse it’s always the same weekend!
The same thing with other routine camps and activities… take the guesswork out and make life easier for your CFAVs and give them a chance to plan their lives outside of RAFAC - this isn’t rocket science.
Seasonal camps at air stations will presumably be subject to operational demands, availability, support and co-operation from each station - which may not be known in advance - or may not be reliable…
Flying…
Mid week flying slots - realistically, the only people I can see taking up such slots will be either sixth formers, the home schooled or CCF cadets with “amenable” staff - or pupils during school holidays.
The entire USP of RAFAC is to get cadets in the air… why on earth is HQAC / 22 Group seemingly going out of their way to prevent this…
If you have to restrict access to AEF to weekends and school holidays, you NEED to maximise the availability of resources - and thanks to the lack of access internally - the only option is to outsource it.
Instead of being control freaks and saying NO, let’s look at ways to be able to say YES and find solutions.
This isn’t rocket science - get more kids in the air more often…
Make volunteering easier (and more enjoyable) for your CFAVs or expect to lose both.
Instead of fudging your answer of “we’re not happy with the level of risk that ACF are prepared to accept”, how about give an honest explanation of WHY - what is so wrong…?
Better yet - publish the minimum terms of safe operation you will accept.
2 Likes
Easy peasy. Copy your required text - it will be highlighted as “quote.” Accept the quote option, write your desired words of wisdom underneath. Hit a couple of returns for spacing…
Go to different post within the thread, repeat the process.
Or, you can copy text, place where you want it, then highlight it, & click on the inverted commas option at the top of the reply box.
This has been a much repeated point through this (& other threads - car marshalling for example).
- What was the question - the answer is NO* - let’s look at ways to make the answer YES - revise protocols, look at other organisations (Air League, etc) & see what might be feasible. Cadet / CFAVs don’t mind fund-raising if they can use other providers (BGA, etc); this was possible under ACTO35 before the axe came down on it.
2 Likes
At the risk of bringing the ban hammer down on another activity - good point! Why are IACE flights fine for cadets to be on but not other CAA approved aircraft? Looks to me like double standards that @cab is happy for children to be risking their lives on a commercial airliner but not on any other CAA approved craft (I am being deliberately faceitious here)
4 Likes
Isn’t there a difference in pilot quals between transport (which is the majority of CAA carriers) instructors?
Opportunity flights in civilian aircraft would tend to fall into the instructor category?
So there is trust that CAA qualifications and assurance is fine for transport but not for teaching?
1 Like
I don’t know but they are two separate streams with different regulations.
Same as difference between driving instructor vs taxi driver.
1 Like
If only there was some kind of Authority that had oversight for the accreditation of Civilians involved with Aviation… that was also responsible for overseeing Civilian Instructors and their aircraft…
Olive branch moment to HQAC - even if it meant a restriction to the type of activities that can be performed - ie no Aeros “unless xxxxx”…. But for pity’s sake - get kids in the air, otherwise what on earth is the point… call it quits and let’s go purple…!
The cadets are fiercely proud of the organisation - despite its best attempts to limit their opportunities
5 Likes
Where has this come from?
1 Like
Sorry, this is absolute nonsense and needs to be called out as such. I want and my team wants to optimise flying for our Cadets but as part of a wider, enriching experience linked to the RAF. I’ll reiterate that I don’t, at present, have the capacity / resources to exploit civ means. I have to work in the world of reality, apply the directed regulatory requirements and live within our means. Please don’t cast erroneous accusations against good people doing their utmost to do the best for the Cadets.
You mean the one that granted Delegated Authority status (jn 2023) for issuing of glider pilot licences to the British Gliding Association…
1 Like
2FTS surely don’t have to monitor ACPS under AEF units, therefore they should have spare capacity to look at due diligence / safety / whatever for ATOs / BGA. Of course, you could always accept CAA audits for an ATO…
How do the Air League chose an ATO for their flying scholarships? What do they do for due diligence, etc? I’ll ask a couple of the Life Vice-Presidents. Maybe that would be 90% of the required “military” process? Has anyone actually looked at this?
7 Likes
You’ve said this before, and then when I asked what could we do to increase that capacity changed to say it wasn’t capacity but a principle of flying outside the RAF is not going to happen on your watch. So which is it? If it is capacity, tell us what you need to increase it and we’ll work with you. If it isn’t capacity don’t pretend it is as that’s a convenient excuse, and be honest with us.
7 Likes
Similarly his OC 2FTS (Baz Dale) is a Court Assistant within the Honourable Company of Air Pilots who this year awarded
- 10 Full PPL Scholarships
- 48 Gliding Scholarships
- 2 Flight Instructor Scholarships
5 Likes
Even if you found the capacity to assure one civilian site per region, picked in a manner that improved geographical coverage optimally for the effort expended, that’d be a pretty big win…
In fact, assure just one and I’ll believe it isn’t ideological.
12 Likes
Surely this gentleman should withdraw due to a serious conflict of interest?
1 Like
Why not lean on these guys to help?
I appreciate you want to keep the RAF in RAFAC but I used to be a member of the organisation and I would hope the air part was more important (actually isn’t the first aim "to promote among young people and active interest in aviation and the RAF - aviation obviously coming first)?
5 Likes
He should bloomin’ well know what hoops that they jump through then! 
1 Like