He’s got a point, though…
1 Like
All i got was a load of 
emjois? No point mentioned at all. In the "Adult staff"section perfect opportunity for reasonable debate rather than embarrassing immature comments? On our Squadron we have had more “flying” on our investment in flight sims than actual AEF. Gliding is still the highest of slot providers due to our AEF not flying at weekends
Essentially the point is that the VGS’ have been entirely hamstrung, have had fleets swept from under them, under invested, and do not cover the country in any meaningful way.
None of that is the fault of the VGS’ volunteers, for the record.
The notion that they could be the mainstay of RAFAC flying is fanciful.
8 Likes
Fixed that for you
3 Likes
Agreed definitely wouldn’t be the preferred option. At the moment we are reliant on an Aircraft that has been grounded due to mechanical reasons twice already this year. Understand the weather conditions cant be helped which has caused other lost hours. However It would be nice especially for those that rely on AEF Sqns as their mainstay of flying slots to at least have an insight of the future. It could well be that they have x number of prefects on back order and waiting for implementation and cross training or they have sourced a different powered aircraft. It was 2007 when they first tendered their interest in replacing the Tutor which brought about the Prefect program. I suppose least the engineering guys at UAS are getting plenty of work experience.
May require correction, but I was under the impression there was some reason why Prefects were deemed inappropriate for cadet AEF?
Cant say i am in the know but would make sense that CFS have them in service already and AEF are still on the Tutors.
Is it not because of the Ascent contract, and the switch to MFTS?
A quick look at the stats shows that we operate 3 times more tutors than Prefects - I can’t imagine quadrupling the number of Prefects,would be cheap.
Nope, not allowed anywhere near them.
Aside from being provisioned under MFTS and it not being in contract, they also have retractable gear which is a guaranteed cock up waiting to happen.
2 Likes
It’s a turboprop and as I understand it deemed not suitable for AEF use.
Don’t know but could be ejector sets 
minimum weight to operate correctly
Yeah, this is what I was told, but no clue if it’s actually true!
Prefect is also a Turboprop which would be a super expensive way to provide air experience flying.
Probably. Jet A1 is cheap, but turboprop maintenance is not!
1 Like
Do Prefects have ejector seats?
Prefects do not have bang seats. It was an option the RAF did not exercise.
Not acceptable comms. I would have expected that for each occurrence there would have been a DASOR - not sure of the protocol, but as the Tutors are on the civil registration, then there should have been a feed to the CAA (mx & safety?). If this shows as a possible RAFAC fleet-wide problem (most likely), then this should also bounce to EASA for mx recommendations / safety notice.
As it is, to minimise rumour control, I’ve had to add a note to our sqn private media to say that there is a mx issue that is being investigated. I should have been able to cut / paste from an official announcement to state the problem.
We have AEF slots on 09 Jul - I would be surprised (but pleased) if they go ahead. It does seem to be probably linked to my earlier information (2700 RPM as max continuous power versus, ah, maybe it should have been 2400 RPM), so if that has caused oil leaks (seals / pipe unions, etc?), that’s a lot of mx checking & verification of operating standards.
There should be but I have not seen anything.
There is a 'phone number listed on the last page of Air Clues for 2FTS Safety… 