^^^it was sent to Sqn accounts from our Wg Media Officer…scrolling through the message there was no history other than the diret quote from Wg Cmdr Leighton, OC RAF CGS, OC RAF SYERSTON i
Just what I was thinking.
Someone higher up the food chain needs to give him a nudge.
I’ve had cadets take videos of their flights and shown them to their mates, next intake lots of little faces all wanting the same.
He’s obviously got his reasons, but an unrationalised edict ain’t the way to go. Maybe some of VGS fraternity here might be able to shed some light after a chat with their bosses.
I think it’s highly likely that some pilot as got all excited about being filmed, got lax, nearly screwed up and it’s ended up on some website.
What Tutor fiasco? If you’re referring to its current grounding, where they’ve identified the probable weak link, are fitting a new propeller (not an overnight job) and should have it flying again quite soon (sadly, but understandably, with AEF at the back of the queue), that’s hardly a fiasco is it? I’d certainly rather a grounding than a cadet AEF sortie with an EFATO.
As for this, sadly I suspect it’s due to the youtube factor, which is always very closely followed by the Daily Mail factor. Social media, and its potential for misuse, has its downfalls.
By “Tutor fiasco”, I refer to the fact that it’s been grounded before for the same (or very similar) issue, and as a consequence many squadrons haven’t had a flying slot for over 18 months. For an organisation which has aviation and flying as its main advantage over other uniformed youth organisations, that IS a fiasco.
Join the ATC and:
Fly powered aircraft -Nope
Go Gliding - weeel, maybe, but don’t tell anyone. (That’s if your VGS isn’t in the middle of relocating and converting to a new type)
Shoot - not if your Squadron needs ammunition from its parent station. (Well, unless you can persuade 4 appropriately trained VRT officers to take a day off work, arrange for the use of 2 green/white fleet vehicles and ask them to do a round trip of anything up to 150 miles…)
Sounds like fun, where do I sign up?
:lol:
[quote=“nsrco” post=4540]By “Tutor fiasco”, I refer to the fact that it’s been grounded before for the same (or very similar) issue, and as a consequence many squadrons haven’t had a flying slot for over 18 months. For an organisation which has aviation and flying as its main advantage over other uniformed youth organisations, that IS a fiasco.
Join the ATC and:
Fly powered aircraft -Nope
Go Gliding - weeel, maybe, but don’t tell anyone. (That’s if your VGS isn’t in the middle of relocating and converting to a new type)
Shoot - not if your Squadron needs ammunition from its parent station. (Well, unless you can persuade 4 appropriately trained VRT officers to take a day off work, arrange for the use of 2 green/white fleet vehicles and ask them to do a round trip of anything up to 150 miles…)
Sounds like fun, where do I sign up?
:lol:[/quote]
I understand your point to an extent, but I do not understand how you can call grounding an aircraft on safety grounds a “fiasco.”
It is also not the ACO’s fault that the prop’s keep distancing themselves from the aircraft is it?
The fiasco as I see it being referred as, is that they didn’t or apparently haven’t sorted it out properly the first time. On a propeller driven aircraft the propellor’s performance, especially on a single prop aircraft, is pretty damn critical, so to not identify and rectify the fault is just shoddy.
In the light of no Tutor AEF for the forseeable future, I wish that someone would get their act together and look in to, if at all possible, ‘passenger’ experience flights in service aircraft. OK not AEF as we would like or pitch to new cadets, but it would fill a gap and give cadets a different experience. But as this is lateral thinking and a little bit out of the box, out of scope for HQAC.
I think you underestimate our current Comdt AC; She alluded to this very fact yesterday at our Wing Conference! Seems she’s contacted the relevant people to see if its possible for aircraft to be made available for exactly what you suggest during Easter/Summer Camps if the Tutors are still grounded!
I think it fair to describe our headline activity being kyboshed as a fiasco. How often do we hear airships spout off about “putting the air back into the Air Training Corps.”
Is it correct they’re grounded? Clearly on safety grounds it is - but its still a fiasco.
It is at least positive that Cmdt AC is looking at ways of geting some A/C in the air.
Exactly. I didn’t say it was the ACO’s making, but it is affecting us.
Encouraging words from the new Comdt, hopefully something will be worked out.
Perhaps this relates to certain material which I witnessed where a GoPro was attached to the side of a conventional glider and a low level beat up of the airfield was undertaken into a wing over followed by an uneventful landing…
Surely then, if they who live in growbags want to take risks, its the risks that should be dealt with, not the fact it was caught on camera?
The ACO should be embracing social media and PR (wheres Barber when you need him?) not banning it all together.
And a very thorough debriefing with hats on and without tea and biscuits!
[quote=“5432golf” post=4544][quote=“nsrco” post=4540]By “Tutor fiasco”, I refer to the fact that it’s been grounded before for the same (or very similar) issue, and as a consequence many squadrons haven’t had a flying slot for over 18 months. For an organisation which has aviation and flying as its main advantage over other uniformed youth organisations, that IS a fiasco.
Join the ATC and:
Fly powered aircraft -Nope
Go Gliding - weeel, maybe, but don’t tell anyone. (That’s if your VGS isn’t in the middle of relocating and converting to a new type)
Shoot - not if your Squadron needs ammunition from its parent station. (Well, unless you can persuade 4 appropriately trained VRT officers to take a day off work, arrange for the use of 2 green/white fleet vehicles and ask them to do a round trip of anything up to 150 miles…)
Sounds like fun, where do I sign up?
:lol:[/quote]
I understand your point to an extent, but I do not understand how you can call grounding an aircraft on safety grounds a “fiasco.”
It is also not the ACO’s fault that the prop’s keep distancing themselves from the aircraft is it?[/quote]Seeing as it’s a PFI deal, you’d have hoped that there was some sort of clause to ensure that ac (of some sort) were available regardless. I really don’t understand how government departments manage to negotiate things so badly - pretty much the only advantage of using a PFI deal and not actually owning the ac is that it’s not your problem when they go u/s.
And yet somehow it still is.
Was having the same discussion with my Adj last week.
If we in private business negotiated contracts as badly as the government we’d be out of business and bankrupt in no time…
Even if some aircraft were available, they’d be put to use by the regular RAF.
We’d still be in the same situation as we are now.
Or should we be demanding our own aircraft?
Agreed it is the unique element of the ACO, and not flying is a pain in the rear end (set to lose another lot of flying next week) but I simply do not feel the urge to bash HQAC over it.
However, someone who does need bashing, is whoever’s great idea it was to start playing up for the cameras…probably over the head, with a stick!
that would imply that that style of action occured, was recorded and there is someone to identify…i have still not seen any reasoning or justification other than mear suggestion from these boards
does anyone have any significant information which has caused the decision to be made and can offer some evidence? (by that i dont mean, “my Adj spoke to Flt Lt Bloggs, who’s ex-CWO now VGS pilot said it was because of X”)
[quote=“5432golf” post=4563]Even if some aircraft were available, they’d be put to use by the regular RAF.
We’d still be in the same situation as we are now.
Or should we be demanding our own aircraft?[/quote]If the contract was properly negotiated, then the correct number of ac would be available!
[quote=“steve679” post=4581]…i have still not seen any reasoning or justification other than mear suggestion from these boards
[/quote]
Perhaps something worth mentioning in the “ACO Comms” survey? 
[quote=“Perry Mason” post=4590][quote=“steve679” post=4581]…i have still not seen any reasoning or justification other than mear suggestion from these boards
[/quote]
Perhaps something worth mentioning in the “ACO Comms” survey? ;)[/quote]
to be fair, i knew about it good time, what is annoying is that the comms only goes half way…as if it is a “need to know” situation
They did identify and rectify the fault to the best of the ability of the evidence presented. If they “hadn’t done it properly”, do you really think the CAA would have signed of the rectification work?