Centrino
Surely to be defamatory then the statements would need to be untrue? I'm reasonably content that the basis of them is true. That's the norm. Also, there would need to be intent to vilify an individual or organisation? I've not named an individual or organisation for good reason - that's not the flight safety way.
Flight safety requires us to be open and honest about mistakes in the past to be better for the future. Others have said they know of other goings on (not at the same unit, I add) and are unwilling to mention them due to the obvious nature of their moniker. I do not seek to embarrass anyone, in fact the examples I use have all seen progress being made with the improvements that 2FTS bring.
There are dozens of lessons from things that have happened in the past that are discussed on Prune, what makes the VGS a subject that is forbidden? These lessons are free to read in publications like the excellent Air Clues. Other types of open sharing of these types of mistakes go in Airprox publications (now Clued Up) and human factors publications like CHIRP. None of the lessons I mention are confidential and could be talked about in any one of many aviation safety and aircraft operations meetings that I attend - there is no closed shop on matters such as these when mentioned in a wider context (ie. without mentioning individuals, dates, times, places or specific organisations).
I would offer that if personnel from the VGS are so sensitive to airing mistakes/errors that I mention then maybe they should consider why the rest of the RAF and wider UK mil aviation see fit to share each other's mistakes without so much concern?
I refute that my comments are defamatory. I've even spent some of my own time (and fuel) to try and address some of the issues I've mentioned. If I was out to score points then why would I bother? All I want to do is to fix things.
Finally, I have apologised if my comments caused offence, they were not aimed at any individual in particular - they were meant to answer a specific point that was made implying that the VGS is as safe as it can be because it hasn't had an accident in 30 years. I believe this view is flawed. Past performance is no guarantee of future success. We know where holes have existed in the support for VGS, it is now time to plug these gaps - I include myself in part of this process.
Once the other issues that have caused this 'pause' are dealt with then the ongoing series of improvements that the MAA, and more recently 2FTS, have brought about will continue to be rolled out.
Doing nothing, like the 'good old days', is not an option.
LJ