ATC - yoof, not controllers

[ChampChump]

It seems that the regulatory hoops are getting ever smaller. Having volunteered to be one of the local Strut flying some ATC youngsters in the near future, I was not overly surprised to learn that the LAA requirements are:

Total time: 250 hours
Total P1 time: 150 hours
Hours on Type: 20 hours
In the previous 3 months 10 hours or 15 landings
In the previous month 3 landings

But the ATC organiser regretted to inform us:
"As it stands at the moment, unless everyone can do 60 hours in the past year and have 500 hours I can't allow the cadets to fly".

That wouldn't rule out most of the local strut, methought, as I submitted my hours to the organiser. No problem: I bet most of us are 'in'.

Today this was received:
"Thank you so much for volunteering to fly cadets, it really does mean a lot to them, and me. It is something special, when people like you are willing to fly cadets as you do especially when flying opportunities within the ATC are reducing as they are as it means the cadets actually manage to do the one thing they join for.

Unfortunately, I have had to cancel this years event because I can not get approval for it and having started down that path I can't do what I really want to. It seems that not only do I need to send all the information on the hours that I had requested, I now need to send copies of people log books as well to back up what is being said"

and the person concerned just hasn't got the time to do all this at this stage. I won't quote the rest in order to keep identities out of it, but the writer is pretty miffed, of course.

Reading the evident dismay from this ATC person is heart-breaking for us too. Here we all are, ATC volunteers, Strut members, parents, ready, willing and able to help, but somewhere there are RAF jobsworths too scared of their own shadow to allow this to happen. I dare to suggest that logbook 'evidence' is as valuable as the paper it is written on, even though we are all presumably, jolly upright types and G-BIRO unheard of. Currency is important and I do accept that there are more safeguards now than we enjoyed, but if we compare this with Starlight Day, for example, the RAF would appear to have lost the plot.

Excuse my rant, but I'm still mad, hours after reading the e-mail.

[Brian Hope]

Hi Nic, couldn't agree more. Too many people are more concerned with protecting their backs than taking a realistic view of the risks. ATC should be honest and just admit they do not want their cadets to fly, absolute safety is, after all, going buggar all.
The most aggravating part is that we are all treated as if we are complete fools, only those on high understand the risks and we, the great unwashed, have to be told what we can and cannot do because we are incapable of making a single judgement. Of course there have to be high quality systems and risk management in place, but we must start from a position of 'how can we mitigate the risk and make this happen' rather than 'Oh shit this looks dodgy let's stop doing it.' I fear flying youngsters will eventually become such a pain in the butt for the volunteers to comply that it will cease altogether - for the very best of intentions of course.

[Mike Mold]

Nic, from experience of the Devon Strut, the way round this is to get the cadet leader to invite the cadets to the YA day in civvies, outside of the squadron organisation.

[cardiffrob]

Similar thing when I tried to arrange for some of my ATC group to have a look round my B757 when it was parked up. High viz vests, insurance, passport detais in advance, one pass holder per visitor and finally a risk-assesment letter.

[J.C.]

Why not just have a strut open day, nothing to do with ATC but make sure all the cadets know about it.

[ChampChump]

Comments (and support!) noted. Off to work in a hurry now, but I'll ensure the practical work-arounds are fed back (if not already....).

[Mike Potts]

It seem that like everything, there are rules and the organiser reads them as they wish. We recently flew some ATC cadets and had to send our hours up to some ATC bloke, who then decided who could fly.
I think the YA idea is very good, we do not seem to have the same issue flying scouts.

As an aside, if the ATC organiser has not read the AAIB on the Benson mid-air, he/she should, it may change theirs minds.

Mike

[Bill Scott]

Well, let that be a lesson to you! Children should be placed firmly in front of a screen and fed constant meedjya propagandah, not have ideas above their stations in life. It is our (UK) role to be mass market consumers, nothing more.

Seriously though, as one who's been through this ATC/H&S nonsense both before becoming a sky-god and since, I fully sympathise.

The other side of the coin.... A Squadron gets six Cadet places allocated for AEF flying but Staff struggle to get 'volunteers' for the flying.
Funny old world.

[Ian Melville]

The other side of the coin.... A Squadron gets six Cadet places allocated for AEF flying but Staff struggle to get 'volunteers' for the flying.
Funny old world.

Yes met that one in my time with the ATC. Even had a "Do we have to go flying Sir?". In my day we just stopped short of killing each other for a slot.
It you do class it as a civi event then make sure you send a letter to every parent/guardian explaining the implications of this, and get a signed confirmation that they accept this.

[Bill Scott]

Ian, I know what you mean. However, it's not that simple. The ATC staff can't be seen to be 'organising' an event that is not an official ATC event.
I know it goes on but RAFVR(T) Officers face double jeopardy and could be dealt with under military law. Although that is an extreme, it might be possible in the aftermath of something going wrong with such an event. The problem lies at the top where the organisation has become incredibly risk averse. The blizzard of H&S paperwork is stifling the organisation to the point that it can't retain staff.
I gather that CRB checks are also de rigeur if a pilot offers to provide experience flights. What worries me there, speaking as a retired Peeler, is that such checks only prove somebody hasn't been caught. The reliance that is placed in them is terrifying.
What a crazy world!

[Chris B]

This is how the ATC website describes Air Experience Flights and, presumably, is what the parents and cadets expect:

"Air Experience Flights

And what an experience! As a cadet you'll have the chance to fly with the best - RAF pilots.

Air Experience Flight (AEF) instructors are all current or former RAF service pilots who volunteer to pass on their knowledge and enthusiasm for flying to you. Flying takes place at one of 12 AEFs around the country, mainly at RAF stations. You're shown how the aircraft flies and given the chance to control it and experience aerobatics. And the views from 3,000ft are stunning.

Up in the air

Every air cadet gets the opportunity to have a flight each year. You'll join a long list of cadets going back over 50 years – including royalty - who have benefited from this fantastic experience."

I'm not sure where that leaves strut involvement - except, perhaps, as an independent follow up activity to those that have the flying bug.


Chris

[Bill Scott]

Yes, the AEF is the primary source of flying experience for Cadets. Opportunities to fly in operational types have been much reduced over the last couple of decades and one would hope that any opportunity to get in the air would be appreciated. The same arguments apply to shooting... The ATC are consistently the top cadet force and actually fire more live rounds than the ACF. But I recall murmerings that top brass would chop that activity at the first opportunity in their risk averse approach to governing ATC activities.
Parents do sign consent for their children to fly in both military and civil aircraft, but the obstacles are increasing all around.
You might expect that a flight in a civilian light aircraft would be considered boring in comparison to a high octane ride in a fully aerobatic plastic chariot, but I can vouch for the opposite. During the summer I met a yongster who declared his ambition is to be a pilot in the Fleet Air Arm. He's an ATC Cadet, but leapt at the chance to have a jolly in my Rans. Having gained parental permission, we met up at Priory Farm and I took time to show him the various aircraft types in residence, explain the licensing sytem for pilots and the permit system for aircraft. We did a thorough pre-flight which gave him the opportunity to see how the control surfaces are operated etc. I explained everything that would take place in a thorough manner including actions in the event of an emergency.
The flight was an enjoyable half hour and my passenger delighted in the opportunity take the controls and do some very respectable turns. No mean feat for a first time at the controls of a Rans. I told him that I was impressed by his handling and coordination and I hope he goes on to achieve his ambition. In contrast, Cadets attending AEF watch a video safety briefing and sit around awaiting their turn. There follows (typically) a 20/25 minute flight with a taste of aerobatics if the Cadet is up for it. It is a brief opportunity with a very limited taste of aircraft handling. There really isn't time to give the benefit of a thorough one to one introduction to flying. In this case I can vouch for a Cadet declaring that his flight experience in a light aircraft was the best he'd had. It's just a shame that we live in a society that has so many rules and reg's that we are tying ourselves in knots. I believe that flight is a joy to be hared, but fear that doing so by way of organised activities is ultimately doomed.
It's sad, but there you have it

[Brian Hope]

The Cadets certainly enjoyed their civil flying with Kent Strut over several years because, as has been mentioned, opportunities to fly with RAF pilots are getting ever scarcer. It is sad that this year we wont be flying them, and now the link has now been broken one wonders if we shall ever fly them again.
Suggestions that the Strut somehow arrange a covert operation to enable its members to fly Cadets who are masquarading as 'ordinary' kids simply highlights the absurdity of it all. We are volunteers wanting to do a good thing, not subversives having to lie and cheat underhandedly. I cannot reiterate enough that the more obstacles that are put in the way, the fewer the number of people who will be prepared to continue to participate.

[Dave Hall]

I heard from Andre at MKAS that their pool of volunteer pilots for flying the Young Aviators last weekend was about 2/3 the number who offered in 2009.

As he manages a mixed scouts and non-scouts with the different currency requirements it can't all be due to that, but I suspect the economic climate hasn't helped, nor the uncertainty being expressed about liabilities. I thought this had settled down but there still seems to be some disquiet.

I've had a minimal response for the scout flying at Kemble this Saturday - I can't blame the pilots - I don't qualify to fly scouts either.

[Chris B]

In the Events section, Andre requested LAA volunteers and pilots to help out at last weekends MKAS Young Aviators Day (working with YES).

What insurance cover was provided and what were the associated pilot requirements? (As I understand it, MKAS is not covered by the strut insurance and it wasn't an LAA event). Were our members made aware of any differences and implications?

The new insurance requirement states that ATC/scout pilot requirements are the same, which may be true from the insurers point of view, but could mislead LAA members into thinking that this is the ATC requirement, which we now know is more onerous

In part:

To be eligible to conduct Young Aviators flights a pilot must be assessed as SAFE and COMPETENT by the organisers, have currency in line with CAA regulations including 100 hours flying total and 25 hours on type. To fly ATC Cadets/Scouts they MUST have the following experience and currency:
Total time: 250 hours
Total P1 time: 150 hours
Hours on Type: 20 hours
In the previous 3 months 10 hours or 15 landings
In the previous month 3 landings

Incidentally, how do we assess and document that a pilot is SAFE and COMPETENT in order to satisfy our insurers?

Chris