Airports forcing troops to change on tarmac?

[Jimlad1]

Guys,

this is a thread running on arrse - http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=85216/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=0.html

Can anyone think of a reason why they would be forced to change beyond that stated? The guys there are rightly getting hacked off, but I'm wondering if there may be deeper reasons than the one given?

[14greens]

nothing to do with the crews on this one
sadly its down to the airport authority that insist on this blody stupid rule, think government policy on how the miltary are viewd in public is the biggest issue here to be honest, Bangor international in the US even has a welcome group for all homecoming troops providing free drinks cookies etc
Its caled pride in the military and what they are doing

[BlindWingy]

All makes sense now...while waiting for my luggage in Brize last week, we were warned over the tannoy that personnel travelling to connecting airports would not be allowed in wearing military uniform.

Another kick in the teeth for our troops.:(

[ArthurR]

Now you have the real truth of what the goverment and authorities think of the servicemen and women, I hope these people will feel ashamed, but I doubt that they will......:yuk: :mad: :yuk:


Addition......What happened to the earlier Idea " be proud of you uniform "

[Lyneham Lad]

we were warned over the tannoy that personnel travelling to connecting airports would not be allowed in wearing military uniform.

This makes my blood boil - why on earth should military personnel not be allowed to travel on public transport of any type in uniform?????????? Indeed, one could make the case for those returning from duty in Iraq or Afghanistan to have free travel (in uniform) on public transport, whether it be by air or by train, when transitting to their home address.

Merry Christmas to all those in HM's Armed Forces - and a pox on those who less than wholeheartedly support them.

LL

[merlinxx]

Please ID which airport/s. If known we folks in CivAv can get a motion (yup ours maybe bigger than theirs!) going. We can lobby, object, be a bloody pain in the arse greater than they can. This is all down to so called 'counter terrorism applications'. It's a extreme load of old BOLLOCKS. Welcome home folks,**** the numptys, the politicos put you there, now they don't want to see you when you get back!!!!!!

Post the locations for us all in CivAv to act.

Thanks.

[diginagain]

From reading the post on Arrse it would appear to be BHX.

[A2QFI]

I have just sent the following ill-considered rant to BHX Management. Link to the airport websitesite is on Page 2 of Arrse thread.
Shameful and degrading treatment of Members of HM The Queen's Forces at your airport
Dear Sir/Madam,
It has come to my attention, that your airport humiliated Members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces, returning to this country for well deserved R&R.
They were forced to change from H.M The Queens uniform into civilian clothing and in the open air, it is reported. Not only have you shown total disrespect to these soldiers, but to all our soldiers, sailors and airmen/women. In fact I would go as far as to say that you have insulted the Queen by demonstrating that her uniform is not welcome at your airport.
If this had been any other group of people that had this forced upon them, I would think that lawyers and the police would be involved. I further add that I have seen people dressed in 75% + of military and combat clothing and they seem to have no trouble. They are popularly known as "Goths" and they are no more threat to you, your airport or its security then the disciplined and dedicated members of our Armed Forces that some jobsworth at your airport has seen fit to treat so shamefully.
I walk round UK cities and see many people draped from head to toe in Burquas and I am sure you have them at your airport too. How are these strangely dressed people less of a threat to your security than the uniformed defenders of this country?
Are policemen carrying loaded weapons allowed to walk on patrol in and around your airport? If so why not unarmed soldiers in uniform?
I look forward to your response.
Regards

[StbdD]

Civil airports have NO authority over military personnel. The senior military Officer present does.

One of our own wimped out.

[ARINC]

I'd get some tee-shirts printed with a massive Sqn. or Regimental crest. This sort of stuff completely p.....s me off. :ugh:

And another thing what was the Archbishop of Canterbury going on about, re the environment etc....He should have been leading prayers for our TROOPS !!!!

I was heartened to see the Queen take the usual lead on this !

[OmegaV6]

Forwarded link to BBC, ITC, Sky news ... lets all make a huge fuss and get this crap treatment made very very public

[merlinxx]

If you have an idea who this numpty was, I will make representations to OC unit/Regt etc. Plse PM me. Also to those, sorry can't put into words, @ MoD.

Yup I'm a CivAv guy not Mil.

[airborne_artist]

I've just sent an email to Private Eye. Really makes my blood boil. HM the Queen's Christmas message was very appropriate, and there have been some good items on News 24 recently including one on the AAC crews.

[maxburner]

A simple F##K O## and walk in would seem to be the answer.:*

[Sven Sixtoo]

I'm having the greatest difficulty believing this. Is anyone really this stupid in our country today?

[Avitor]

The OinC knew for sure, he would face the PC bowler hat crowd had he refused the order.

[OmegaV6]

If you go to this site ... top right is a "contact me" link .... if enough of us do it perhaps he will actually take the PM on over this ??? What do we have to lose by trying ?

http://www.davidcameronmp.com

[A2QFI]

Avitor, what 'order'? Given by whom?

[Tigs2]

Chaps and Chapessess I want to reply on this one , BUT, the blood is beginning to boil. and this is the nicest day I have had in 20 years! So I will not answer and stay calm. I will reply tomorrow, when I can assure you that my full wrath and venom will be directed at aiming a campaign against this s***e. I suggest EVERYONE sends a link into here! The first unstaged and the second may have been, but the message remains the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmlCetK2tDk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N1DetO0RGI

[Avitor]

A2QFI....
Avitor, what 'order'? Given by whom?
=============================
I am assuming the change of attire was not voluntary, are you assuming the OinC gave the order on his/her own initiative?
If that is so, then I stand corrected.

[tescoapp]

Anyone who wants to travel on my aircraft in uniform is more than welcome.

In fact if your late phone tell them its going to be tight but your going to get there (just lie) I wait for you for 15mins on the last flight of the day.

tesco an ex stab sapper

[africacorps]

ahead ofAs an ex Raf bod,seeing these vids in US and what happened to our guys!!!! i am so angry I can`t say any more without getting banned from here,that S--t B---n and Swiss Des,come the revolution they are now ahead of `Lawyers`I for one and my colleagues who have all served salute you,thankyou.:*:D:D:D:D:ok:

[galaxy flyer]

In the US (so often trashed hereabouts) uniformed members of Forces are routinely seen at airports and everywhere else. Frequently, they are patted on the back, welcomed home and applauded as they board or exit from commercial airlines FIRST! The thought of changing clothes is silly on stilts. Always good to see!

Papers and TV news also features stories on local deployed soldiers.

GF

[50+Ray]

Please name and shame the ******** responsible for this disgrace. I am at work this morning, and this story has so enraged me that I am not going to be fun to be around for the next few hours.
Ray

[sitigeltfel]

I travel through Prestwick about twice a month and it is not uncommon to see hundreds of US troops milling about the terminal in desert combat gear. Staging flights to and from the middle east pass through there and the guys and girls get off to have a break from the alloy tube and stretch their legs. The airport has set up a separate scanner area in the departure lounge for them when re-boarding.
PIK is not a BAA airport, which may make a difference.

[Blacksheep]

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

How very up-to-date Kipling was. :(

[barnstormer1968]

I too, could not reply yesterday.
Today, things are not much easier! I wall admit that watching the first Youtube video brought tears to my eyes. Maybe like so many others on this site, I have happily spam bashed (only in fun though), but am so glad they are on our side in the sandpits, and appreciate the vital support they give us in so many ways (because my own government have not seen fit to equip British forces with the necessary equipment).
There is something just SO VERY WRONG with the UK's current leadership, I really am not sure who's side in this they represent any more.
Those of us that did any form of R to I training (or whatever it's called these days) will remember being stripped to degrade us, or make us feel vulnerable etc etc. So who ever allowed this to take place, I have some advice for you...Have a look at your self in the mirror, maybe take a walk in the fresh air, walk around your local shop, maybe go to a pub or a restaurant...When you have done all this, remember that you could do it in peace and safety, and without fear..All thanks to ultra professional BRITISH SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN putting their lives at risk daily, in far of places, separated from their families and loved ones, in ultra harsh conditions...And you thanked them by doing this to them, on a cold open and public area of an airport.
AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, I AM FEELING SO ASHAMED TO THINK THIS WAS DONE IN MY NAME.

Barnstormer1968 (feeling a bit lost, and wondering how things have gone so badly wrong in the UK)

[Avitor]

I have fired off a (personal) email to David Cameron. I feel he should, on behalf of our military, have something to say on the matter, officially.

[A2QFI]

Avitor. No, I am assuming nothing. I am wondering who gave the order and was it someone in command of the troops or in a position to give an order with which they were bound to comply. If it was a military person I think they were wrong to give the order and if it was someone in BHX security I doubt that an 'order' that they give/gave has to be complied with, by the military at least.

[Avitor]

A2QFI.

Yes, I think the person who gave the order should be exposed and asked why it was given.

[PPRuNe Radar]

There should never be a problem with armed forces travelling in uniform in public, save where security issues laid down by orders from their own organisation preclude it. Plenty of uniformed civilians also do it and are not asked to change.

PIK is not a BAA airport, which may make a difference.

It is true that Prestwick is not, but then neither is Birmingham (BHX) where the issue arose.

A simple F##K O## and walk in would seem to be the answer.

At which point you will probably be breaking a local airport bye-law and liable for arrest and a criminal charge, assuming it was an airport staff member who 'ordered' you not to enter. Much as it is frustrating, civil disobedience is not the answer. The military are not above the law. The issue needs to be dealt with by our politicians. So there is no hope I am afraid :(

[Vim_Fuego]

This is easily believable...Perhaps it went along the lines of airport manager is made aware of multiple uniformed people on board and has a word with the senior ranking person who concedes to make his men change.

I don't know any of that for sure but these days it's down (usually) to a couple of individuals so worried about upsetting 'somebody' that they react in an unwise manner...

Not on the same scale but only a few weeks ago I'm returning home from working in the states with our flagship airline when I'm tannoyed at the gate...It was explained to me (by a Brit BA employee) that one of my bags had never made the previous Delta flight but one had and it was at another gate quite a distance away and with boarding already underway it probably wouldn't make it as she couldn't devote any time to my problem as she had to crack on and tend to the needs of 1st class passengers...I kept as calm as I could and explained that I was military and most of the tools of my trade were in (possibly) the one bag that had made it (Two sets of flying kit and extras) and I needed it pretty much on my return...

The answer I got was 'Sir...I'm sure you do something really important back home but right now I have to board these first class passengers'...

I got the last of my bags 4 days later at 0100 when I crewing in at 0600...It was a harsh reminder of peoples attitudes back here in comparison to the States...:eek:

[airborne_artist]

There is of course another solution - bring the lads/lasses back from the sandpit(s) in civvies. What advantage is there to them travelling in uniform? I too would prefer them to be able to go through BHX in uniform, BTW.

[14greens]

The comment that it is up to the senior military person on board that decides if uniform can be worn in the airport is wrong!!!
At Birm and even Man if a jet is diverted and on a quick turn then the passengers in civvies or uniform are not even usually allowed off the jet

The decision by Birm to not allow uniformed passengers to transit the terminal is an aiport decision!!! NOTHING to do with crew, passengers, snior officer!!! If the senior officer was to demand that passengers transit in unform it would be interesting to see how!!! airport would just refuse to provide transort or access

[wg13_dummy]

What we would like to know is WHO made the decision. The airport is just a collection of buildings but someone in there made this call. We would like to know why.

[Compass Call]

When I was in the RAF(1970), it was a requirement that all personnel travelling to/from duty did so in uniform. This applied wether from home to station or from detachment back to the UK. This we were proud to do. I believe the same rule applied to the Navy and Army as the military uniform was common everywhere.

Has this rule now been abolished? Or are the officers more scared of civvie jobsworths than being proud of the uniform that they wear?

Regards,
CC

[airborne_artist]

CC - wearing of uniform travelling etc. stopped when PIRA started bombing mainland UK targets in the mid 70s.

[A2QFI]

It may have 'stopped' but was this done on a base by base arrangement or were QRs amended? Can a security person at an airport countermand orders issued by an officer in charge of a group of military personnel and who holds the Queens Commission? Security person probably has a job spec and a Union Membership card!

[Mr C Hinecap]

Calm down Q - we don't have military rule here, so why would an Officer have authority over a civilian during peacetime?

It will be a perceived increase in threat to the airport - simple. Any transit point accessible to the public containing a concentration of troops off to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq WOULD draw the attentions of those we seek to defeat. I understand the why, but not the way it is applied.

[wg13_dummy]

See your point Mr C but if it was a security related issue, why has BHX had quite a bit of publicity in the past when troops arrive or depart? Bands playing, media and families etc.

And even if you made all the squaddies change into civvies, they're not all of a sudden going to be invisible. If 'the threat' were going to mount an attack, they will already know that a place is being used as an APOD whether blokes are in rig or not.

For security, it would seem to be a sensible rule but I dont think its as clear cut as that. My feelings are it is some jumped up Stasi-crat who is using the issue for his own PC or anti-war agenda.

[diginagain]

Over on Arrse the OP has posted that the instruction was passed to the pax by the pilot. (link at post #1)
From whence it came, still no indication.

[SPIT]

I was in SHANNON airport before christmas and contrary to this country being pacifist there were 2 large aircraft old Lockheed 1011 ??? full of US troops and on entering the buildings they all wore US Type Desert Cammo rig and NO ONE OBJECTED, the airport authority even made special clearway provisions to the terminal from the aircraft.

[wg13_dummy]

As I'm sure it would be in this country too. Surely no law abiding tax paying citizen of the UK would object to seeing their own troops in an airport. The only people who would have a problem with is maybe some of the oppositions recruits possibly found in the vicinity of BHX. :rolleyes:

[richatom]

Calm down everybody! Try to see it from the side of the average member of the UK public. Remember that the majority of the UK population opposed the US/UK invasion of Iraq, but nevertheless the government went ahead anyway, ordering the attack against the will of the people who elected them. Of course the military had no option but to follow the order (once the Attorney General had magically declared it legal). But that does not mean that the public is obliged to suddenly change their opinion and support the policy, especially now that the initial sceptism of the public has been proved correct in the view of most wise observers. Whether you like it or not, it is fairly inevitable that a lot of people who do still do not support the policy, the carnage and the expense, are going to translate their anger at the misrepresentation of their views and the mis-spending of their taxes into disregard and antagonism to the military. So I don't think it would greatly help the situation for military or government at the moment to have huge numbers of uniformed military in public airports at the moment.

Before you start flaming me, don't argue with me, the above are not my personal views - just an observation. I think that you should direct your anger at Blair, who ultimately ordered the attack, at Scarlett who produced the famous "dodgy dossier", and at Attorney General Goldsmith who declared the attack "legal". Once those three are investigated and held to account, I expect much of the public anger will subside. And if Sir Richard Dannat really wants to stand up for the military, he should stop blaming the long suffering tax-paying "public" for not supporting them, but should instead demand a public inquest into how Blair/Scarlett/Goldsmith lead the UK into the war, against the clear democratic will of the people.

But if you must have my own view, I think that one of the great things about Britain and the British military is the way the military does such a good job when it is asked to do so but does not strut and preen itself in public!

[RileyDove]

I don't think there are any security issues at Birmingham at all. It's not to the best of my knowledge used for large numbers of trooping flights and this flight was a diversion anyway. In terms of overall security - it's impossible to make anyone transiting to or from an airport secure. Whilst a large number of the British public didn't support the war - the support for the troops themselves is a different thing. I cannot see that anyone would voice any discontent at the troops transiting the terminal .Anyway don't most airports have security ? Are the population of Birmingham and surrounds a perceived threat on the level of the Taliban or Al Qaeda?

Basically someone at Birmingham or in the forces has a backbone problem!

Happy Christmas BMX

[EdSet100]

From a civilian perspective, the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are a political issue. You are either affected by it or not, and if you are not you either agree or disagree with what the government are doing. The airport security executive has no obligation to support Foreign policy and MOD operations. His job is to use appropriate measures to maximize security at his airport. He obviously perceived an increased risk in allowing his airport to be seen, by all and sundry (particularly the bad guys), as an APOD for the military. Perhaps this was not the first time that the army has passed through his airport.

So, did he get it wrong, or did those above him who set the policy get it wrong?

Whether we like it or not, the British military is not currently seen in the same light as that when we fight for our sovereign territory. Individually, we currently receive respect and admiration, but as a military body (such as a ship, regiment or a squadron or even a planeload of soldiers) we are nothing more than a manifestation of debatable government policy and we, as a political tool, cannot demand nor expect universal appreciation by our own civilian community. Indeed, some of them even want to kill us.

During the N Ireland troubles we were ordered to civilianize our clothing in public. We didn't complain, then, when we had to change into civvies while traveling around the UK. The PIRA didn't use suicide bombs. They left the bombs in cars and other containers in places associated with the MoD (and, sadly, purely civilian locations) where we we had a (slim) chance of finding the devices. Now, we face lunatics (born here in UK) prepared to carry the explosives on their body and as a consequence we have absolutely no chance whatsoever of intercepting a suicide bomb in a UK airport. We now have only 2 methods of preventing an explosion at any given location: intelligence and risk avoidance. If you believe that a regular visible military presence at an airport increases the risk of that airport becoming a terror target, you have to accept the fact that we have to become more discrete in those areas and hopefully avoid the threat of a bomb killing our kids in one of our airports. We want to fight these lunatics in their backyard, not ours. It is for the greater good.

If we do not want our lads, en masse, to change out of their uniform in an undignified manner, we have to either travel in civvies or choose only military alternate airfields.

As an apparently lone voice, I hesitate to click on the submit button...

[Uncle Ginsters]

Richatom,
I'm sorry, but that argument just holds no bearing. From everything i've seen, the British public is intelligent enough to differentiate between political will, and men and women putting their lives in danger in the line of duty. (and those that aren't that intelligent read the Sun, which has done a pretty good job of supporting the military :D )

That kind of weak-willed political view, and lack of big-picture view is EXACTLY what has caused this to happen - whether it be in airport management or chain of command (the latter i fail to believe!)

Last summer i was passing through a US airport and witnessed a standing ovation for two very humble-looking USMC guys. The lump in my throat rapidly gave way to anger a how the UK treats its troops in instances such as those mentioned above.

To those who can - get a grip!

Uncle G

[richatom]

Uncle Ginsters,

It is not "weak-willed". Simple facts. The current engagements of the UK military are not popular, never were and never will be. You can't expect the UK public to suddenly treat the UK military like heroes when their action was never supported by them in the first place.

The UK military is doing the job they were told to do by the government, but the government's decision was flawed. Best thing UK military can do to retrieve the situation and to recover the support of the wider UK public is to support a public inquest in to why we ever went into these wars. Just blaming the public and trying to make them out to be "weak willed" or cowardly will just exacerbate the situation!!

[Green Flash]

Folks, a thought. Why not call your local airport and ask what their policy is on Forces personel transiting the airport in uniform and then publishing it here? Name and shame?

[Uncle Ginsters]

You can't expect the UK public to suddenly treat the UK military like heroes when their action was never supported by them in the first place.

Actually, i think you can. :ugh:

[Maxeret]

Hit the website guys and ask BHX for their explanation. Should be interesting.
Max

[richatom]

Well maybe you can "expect", but most will disagree! Just despising the wider public for not supporting the military action is not going to help matters. As I said, the best way to close the policy gap with the public is for Sir Richard Dannat to stand up and ask why the military was ever misled into such a catastrophe. If he does that, then problem over!! I expect the public sympathy would swing rapidly behind him and the military.

[Tigs2]

As an apparently lone voice, I hesitate to click on the submit button...

A pity you did not hesitate longer! When we bow to the terrorist, they win. They are winning now.

Uncle Gimnster hit the nail on the head

the British public is intelligent enough to differentiate between political will, and men and women putting their lives in danger in the line of duty

[Avitor]

Hovering ominously over the debate is the fact that there are some 60 mosques in Birmingham! :cool:

[Uncle Ginsters]

Just despising the wider public

My apologies, but where did you get that idea from?

As it happens, I have great respect for the general public (as I thought my original post inferred). What does make my blood boil are those in positions of power/responsibility who make decisions based more on either how it will make them look or so as not to upset anyone, than on what actually makes sense - that, in my view, IS weak-willed!

My final post on this topic as I think that ultimately, we are in agreement - this practice is wrong!

Season's Greetings

Uncle G

[GeeRam]

The only people who would have a problem with is maybe some of the oppositions recruits possibly found in the vicinity of BHX.

Nail....head.....hit.......:D

[richatom]

"When we bow to the terrorist, they win. They are winning now"


Depends how you define terrorists. The IRA were defined as terrorists in the UK for many years. But to much of the US they were "freedom fighters". I remember being on an exchange visit to US Army in 1990s, sitting eating at a US Army mess table on St Patrick's day, and US Army came around shaking tins for IRA!! As we now know, the truth lay somewhere between the two extremes and a more accommodating by UK govenrment has stopped the pointless bloodshed and led to peace in NI.

You can draw analogies with the situation today if you are broad minded enough....

[A and C]

As the Captain of an airline that sometimes works for the MOD I can assure you that I would do all in my power (and push my luck to do a lot that was not) to stop this sort of politicly correct nonsense.

The problem is that the military is too concerned about public opinion and folds to the numptys who push this sort of rubbish. It's quite surprizing how quickily the PC types run away and hide when you tell them to F.O.

I urge any officer faced with such P.C. rubbish to put up a "robust" responce.

I for one am proud of the work that all the British forces do................ I wish that I could say the same of the support that the forces get from the goverment and the part time minister for defence!

[OFBSLF]

Bangor international in the US even has a welcome group for all homecoming troops providing free drinks cookies etc

The military flights often land at very early hours of the morning (e.g., 3 AM). The civilian volunteers try to meet every flight, even those at such hours. According to the Bangor airport web site, they've met over 2500 flights and 500,000 soldiers and airmen:

http://www.flybangor.com/troopgreetings.html

[Tigs2]

Richatorn


At the time the great majority of americans at the time had little knowledge of politics outside the US interest. What they did with the IRA was wrong, but the information was sponsered and condoned by successive US governments'

So are you now concerned that the great british public believe that Al Queda and the Taliban are freedom fighters? Bye the way, not one british muslim I know believes anything other than they are murderers who are harming Islam. We are not allowed to fly our flag as it is seen as racist, so now our troops cannot wear the uniform they are prepared to die in (and many have), for fear of upsetting someone. just what are we fighting for?? freedom? its a joke!

The british public have prooved they support our troops, by the great receptions they have put on recently for Regiments returning home, and as I mentioned on another thread, when travelling on a train recently next to a few lads in desert cam, I handed them a can of beer each and said thanks for what they were doing, and everybody around them started clapping.

Stick your head in a bucket of sand, and you won't see anything!

[Hoots]

Sadly this is not just a BHX problem, when arriving back at BZN have heard the tannoy message stating that those travelling to LHR and LGW have to get changed as they would not be allowed to fly onwards from those airports in uniform. I don't know if this is just a BAA thing or not, but it's still a poor way to treat people. As for myself and others like me, we just look forward to the 12 hour bus journey North from BZN (in uniform usually). PC and EO has gone mad.

[ekoja]

On an American Airlines flight out of LAX to Honolulu recently, when the boarding call came, the first to be asked to board were our men and woman in uniform, then First class etc etc.
Not only were they accorded that privilege but all were upgraded to first class, including a Merchant Marine officer despite his explaining that he in fact was not military. Then once we were under way an announcement was made especially welcoming these people onto the flight, followed by Applauses.(I gather that these people were returning home to Hawaii, by the gathering at Honolulu.) I was sitting next to the desk, so that is how I heard all of this.

[johnny99]

"Depends how you define terrorists."

What utter pish.

[RobinXe]

Unfortunately richatom, it is not Sir Richard Dannat's place to stand up and oppose government policy, as much as we might like him to. Nor is it his place to play a popularity game with the affections of the general public. He took the same oath the rest of us did.

The burden of keeping the government 'honest' is borne by every member of the UK electorate, we do their bidding, by proxy of the power we have all vested in our elected government. If people have a problem then they can get off their apathetic asses and go to the polls!

I echo the sentiments that the Great British public are not ignoramuses, and to suggest they would not appreciate the service of the troops, regardless of their views of the government, is to credit them with less discernment than our oft-maligned American cousins, who seem to appreciate their troops so well.

As always, this PC nonsense comes from those with so little regard for the intellect of those they fear may be offended that they themselves are the ones acting in a discriminatory fashion, and only succeed in alienating everybody!

[allan908]

So if the order/request was allegedly given by the pilot then the carrier was????

I'm sure that someone on PPRuNe would be able to furnish that particular piece of information.

Note to Richatom et al - capitulation to terrorism is a different concept to pragmatism when dealing with criminality dressed up as religeous buffoonery.

[S78]

Sounds like a one off decision made by a muppet.

I work at BHX and have seen loads of trooping flights/medevacs - including diverts from Brize - come through in camos and carrying weapons.

The only part which has ever caused me concern re the diverts was the MOD instruction for the squaddies to hire cars and make their own way back to Brize rather than the MOD taking the trouble to sort out transport for them:ugh:



S78

[A2QFI]

The situation to date seems to be that someone has decided that the Queen's troops, wearing their official uniform can't be in some parts of the UK as they represesnt some sort of 'threat', rather than the forces of law and order. I suppose that they might be targets of some terrorist attack or that they might cause an attack to take place. Bearing in mind that the Queen herself might be considered a target and that thousands of people turn out to watch the Changing of the Guard, I am amazed that this ceremony is carried out in uniform. BHX more important than Buckingham Palace? I don't think so

[BEagle]

This shouldn't take that long to sort out, surely?

1. Perhaps Birmingham Airport's 'Customer Relations Executive' or 'Security Management Team' could clarify whether the airport has any specific policy regarding the movement of troops in uniform?

I doubt very much whether the airport would make any such stipulation.

2. If the airport has no such policy, where is this directive coming from? Is it the Air Movs empire (no, I don't want to start a 'mover-bashing' discussion) - or is it some faceless suit at whatever DTMA is called these days? Or some shiny arse in the mad Mod-box?

No matter who gave such an order, to expect homecoming troops to change their clothes on the apron in mid-December is outrageous. As is S78's report that others have been told to make their own way to Brize in hire cars, rather than in a chartered coach....

[helimarshaller]

Does this new policy of BHX mean that next time there is a Terror Alert, BHX will be patrolled by a bunch of Ragheads from the local Militias or will they call in British Armed Forces, the Professionals?:=

Of course they will call in the British Armed Forces to ensure the publics safety when travelling. But will the British Armed Forces be expected to patrol in civvies? I think not.:ugh:

I know that when I travel through any airport, the sight of someone in uniform adds to my re-assurance that I can travel in safety. Irrespective of whether they are on duty or travelling on leave.

Let our British Armed Forces travel in uniform and let us be proud of these men and women who serve OUR Country:D

[goudie]

think it is turning out to be a load of bollox

Just had a glance at Arsse and this is the latest post.
Prostestations abound but after 70 posts and 6000 views PPRuNe appears to be no nearer the truth. I'm surprised a journo hasn't picked this one up and investigated.
I'm still trying to work out how long it would have taken for these soldiers to get to their civvies, which surely were in the hold, then strip down to their underwear and put civvies on, on the apron, in December!! I really can't imagine British soldiers allowing themselves to be humiliated in this manner or their Officers condoning it.

[wg13_dummy]

Goudie, you are probably better off ignoring that last post on Arrse. Sven isn't exactly one of the 'more enlightened' posters on that site. I think hes the sort that would disagree that waters wet. He'd even be able to pick an arguement with Kofi Annan!

[goudie]

Thanks for that Wg13, we have a few of the type on PPRuNE also

[GPMG]

No we don't :)

[goudie]

I rest my case.

[Green Flash]

1.5 M

My thoughts exactly.

Look lads, there isn't that many of us. United we stand, divided we fall.

[14greens]

re the troops getting changed on the tarmac and having to wait for the bags to come out of the hold!!!! hey anyone flying ascot airways is a fool if they do not carry at least one nights kit as handbaggage in fact I think its usually always suggested

Bangor meet and greet love it when the brits come through as well, even when we are coming from a US airport heading back home, great cookies

[Melchett01]

The situation to date seems to be that someone has decided that the Queen's troops, wearing their official uniform can't be in some parts of the UK as they represesnt some sort of 'threat', rather than the forces of law and order. I suppose that they might be targets of some terrorist attack or that they might cause an attack to take place.

But how can a diverted flight be a threat? The threat to security at BHX would come from regular military movements that could be monitored by an extremist group and who could then act on any pattern setting they observed, whether that be to target the ac, either on app / dep or to target the personnel it was carrying as they were in the building.

To target a diverted flight in an opportunistic attack would mean a security breach from someone with inside knowledge of the intended military movements and that BHX is currently being dicked by an extremist terrorist cell, actively looking for a target of opportunity. And if that is the case, then quite frankly, the head of security at BHX has much bigger problems than a few squaddies in deserts to contend with.

Sounds like a load of politically correct tosh and nonsense dressed up in the thin veneer of security. Like so much else this Govt has done.

[EdSet100]

Terrorism is about predictability. If a civilian airport is known to be the "standard alternate", due to hitherto obvious and regular troop movements through it, it could become a target. We need to be unpredictable when selecting our alternates; particularly when the alternate is likely to be used. It would only need information in the public domain to work out when a standard alternate might be used. I give you the 23/24 Dec as a prime example. A lunatic with a bomb in his suitcase will gladly wait all day in the hectic arrivals area of the terminal building waiting for the lads to appear. Its not rocket science, it doesn't need any inside assistance and, unfortunately, it would work.

I, for one, do not have any criticism of a MoD policy of discretion with regular troop movements in the civilian environment. Occasional individual movements (one bloke or a few lads in a car) in uniform will not make an airport a target. However, such a policy of discretion with large troop movement must be carefully thought out to avoid the ridiculous situation cited by the OP. Troops undressing on the tarmac is outrageous.

[RobinXe]

Why would the current crop of terrorists wait all day in a crowded arrivals hall for our lads? They have shown no inclination to attack military targets within our borders, preferring the large-scale carnage of soft civilian targets. Surely this has been realised!

[blogger]

Well I hated travelling in uniform for 25 years.

I never travelled to work or from work in uniform always kept my kit in the work place and got changed there. Walked into work jeans + tee shirt.

Therefore I totally agree with BHX no uniform. It only takes a minute for a nutter in a car to think right troops in BHX thats it i'll have a go at the airport then we get another Glassgow airport drama and close down of every airport in the country, hundreds of flights suspended for what..... some bods in uniform, think guys you might like the uniform but not every one else does.

Oh short memories Can you remember why Germany BFG car plates got changed. Rail heads in the UK army troops shot at.

Uniform is just asking for trouble.

[RileyDove]

As far as I am aware the Glasgow airport incident did not actually target any members of the armed forces. I think it was an attack aimed at causing maximum damage to who ever was there. Sadly for members of the British public the term 'soft target' seems to apply . If we get to a position where our forces cannot be deemed safe at a U.K airport - maybe we need to deploy troops at the airports for security?

[Ronald Reagan]

Guys as a civilian who flies a few times per year I would like to say its great to see you out and about in uniform. It makes me proud to be British to see it. If you have to wear civi stuff you may aswell be average joe in the street.

If certain people don't like seeing you in uniform then they can :mad: *ff!!!!!!!!!

If its not safe to be seen in uniform in the UK then the war has been lost already and as someone said you guys need to be on duty in the streets here.

When I think back to the 1980s and Bentwaters, Woodbridge, Sculthorpe etc and the yanks being everywhere in uniform. It made one feel safe.

Don't any you guys in the forces give in on this issue.

I often write to my lib dem MP and a variety of Tory people on many issues relating to the forces. I just hope in some tiny way it may help!

[Skipness One Echo]

I have always found that people who insist that our troops should not be seen in uniform in this particular context really mean troops should not be in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we're ashamed or afraid to allow or soldiers, sailors and airmen to wear the Queen's uniform in public then this country truly has undergone a disgraceful change in attitude in recent years. I suspect that the majority of our people stand behind the military on this. Only our useless politicians and officials let us down time after time after time........
If Birmingahm Airport is really taking this attitide then they are making the reasons up to fit their policy and I hope they get Hell for it.

[gar170]

Found this press release from BHX website.

http://www.bhx.co.uk/page.aspx?type=bEyZftSD20U=&id=jAERoqnLlek=&article=K2SlneLIkSA=

Does not flatly denies it.

I for one would tell them to shove there heads were the sun dont shine it would have been a bigger cluster f*** if they tried to stop a load of squaddies on mass.

[The Dodger]

I have decided to post here as this subject I can relate to, due to personal experience. A long time ago I was traveling to foreign parts via Lynham. The Herc tasked to deliver us, had a fuel balance problem, so another one was laid on at very short notice to take us. Unfortunatly It only had enough fuel to take us to Stanstead. We were all in combats and we parked at the far end of the Airport, out of the way from everyone else. We were told in no uncertain terms that we had to get changed on the shuttle bus into our civvy atire, before we even got anywhere near the main terminal. We had a few ladies with us, so we got changed on the tarmac while they got changed in the bus. I have been told to do alot of crap things in my life but I never felt as low as to that being treated by BAA to make us strip on the tarmac into civvies with aircraft taking off and landing next to us, before they let us go into the terminal to board a civvy flight. I joined the Air Force as I had some pride in my country and to the queen. I never would have thought that my service and others to this country could be treated with such apathy and contempt by BAA and other agencies. If service to your country means being treated like this. What is the point then:ugh:

[Rossian]

Dodger
Just to clarify; Who told you "in no uncertain terms" to get changed into civvies? I promise you I'm not getting at you or anyone else; it's just that all the way through this thread no-one has said unequivocally WHO gave the instruction for people to change at whichever airport. The end result has been outrage without a target. We need to be clear about WHO we are outraged at. Then we can think about an appropriate course of action.
The Ancient Mariner

[The Dodger]

Hi Rossain. To answer your question, We were told after we landed. Ops had to inform BAA Stanstead of our arrival, and part of that reply from them, was that they were not going to permit us to travel through the terminal in our combats. This was a very last minute flight, alot of hard work by ops managed to get us on a civvy flight and it was credit to them that they managed to get us there. It was only a shame that others could not be so welcoming.:(

[StbdD]

I'm amazed at how difficult the key aspect of this is to some. These are military personnel properly wearing HMQ uniforms. Airports don't make decisions about that, the senior military person (chalk leader) does. Local govts have NO authority over national forces. Commercially owned/operated airports don't even enter the picture.

If there is a military directive saying they can't travel in uniform fair enough. Otherwise, it's the chalk leaders call.

If the chalk leader folded and had his/her personnel changing clothes on the ramp I'm amazed that there wasn't a formation mooning of the terminal. If there wasn't then there is a serious morale problem.

Beancounters and other idiots are queing up to fark yer people, your job is to train, protect, and nurture them until it's time to let them loose on the enemy again.

It's a leadership issue.

[Green Flash]

In the not too distant past I was on a civvy charter from sandland that was fog div'd to Luton. We were parked in the corner of the back pan and shuttle bused to the terminal. This caused an outbreak of pure horror from the airport terminal management. We were hearded to a far corner of the terminal and it was obvious that the management hoped that no one would see us. Sure enough, lot's of hungover, bucket & spade, two weeks in Majorca tourists poured through the terminal - and hardly gave us a second glance. In the end the management had all the buses to Brize sent round to the cargo gate and we had to leave by the back door.

[OFBSLF]

Here in the colonies, I must admit to being mystified as to why troopers would not be allowed to wear their uniforms in the terminal. If an airport or airline official tried that sort of thing in the US, the public outcry would be heard around the country and said official would be sacked forthwith.

[airborne_artist]

Many years ago ISTR clearing customs in uniform at Teeside ex an RAF VC10. The aircraft was dropping off our Northern brethren (23) and then continued to Lyneham. We all had to leave the aircraft, go through Customs and then back out again to satisfy the men from the revenue. We had no civvies to change into as we'd been on ex in BAOR. Must have been 83, the year of the Harrods bombing.

[Alvechurch]

I would urge everyone to read the statement on the BHX website.
It is a masterpiece of politically correct crap!

The final line is the clincher:
'The Airport Company will not automatically refuse to accept military personnel in uniform'.

As someone who pays his rates to Birmingham City Council I am appalled if this is the official procedure of BHX.
As an ex-RAF guy I'm disgusted that things have come to this in the UK.
We should be told just who has authorised this policy.

[gar170]

Heres the press release in full.


"BIA Statement Regarding Staff in Military Uniform
Under the byelaws of Birmingham International Airport (BIA), there are no restrictions relating to clothing or appearance for those using the Airport for public flights.
The Airport Company does not Police fashion, nor does it seek to single out or disrespect the uniform of the Queen, or those who wear it.
The Airport Company will continue to support the work of our service personnel across the UK and around the World.
The Airport Company will not automatically refuse to accept military personnel in uniform. "

:yuk:

The Airport Company will continue to support the work of our service personnel across the UK and around the World. (As long as you use the back door)

the only thing i can say is Tossers

[Skipness One Echo]

RIGHT pick one and write to :

local Birmingham newspapers
Private Eye
The local Birmingham MP
Your local MP
bbc.co.uk

I have emailed the airport, written to Private Eye and I'll work the list.
Shame the bastards.

[Secretsooty]

It's not just a case of the odd diverted flight though.

Military pax transport has been using Brum on a regular basis for years - I was told due to it's proximity to a hospital/medical clearance facility. Because they don't know if they will be transporting casualties in advance, the flight plans are for Brum regardless.

last time I came back from sandy climes we landed at Brum and had to get changed outdoors at silly o'clock on a January morning, parked over on the freight side where all the buildings were locked up!! Eventually someone (a sensible employee - thank you sir!) took pity on us, went and sourced some keys and opened up a building for us until our coach North arrived.

The issue of uniform isn't down to the airport - it was, at that time, MOD policy!!!! The MOD and government do not want the public seeing all these injured souls entering and leaving the hospital in case they suddenly become aware of just how horrific and numerically high the "casualty rate" really is. That, gents, was the bottom line in 2003.

What became the norm was a small hand bag with civvies in it, and a change of clothing whilst swapping jets at cyprus. Now, the size of bag that the movers allowed you was pathetic - you looked like you'd just been crumpled in a car accident after you'd got changed, and you hardly managed to even leave enough space in your pathetically small bag to take a book to read on the cattle-class vc10! It was all (and I assume still is) a complete load of b*lls having to go through the hassle. Best part was, you HAD to board initially in uniform, but HAD to get off in Britain in civvies. Crazy, pathetic, stupid "rules" made up by ar53h*les who had no grasp on reality because they were of a rank high enough that they did what they felt like.

Early in 2005, my family and I were going through LHR en-route home from a short holiday when I met an RAF Policeman that I knew. He was in desert uniform, as his bag had gone missing and he had nothing to change into. On arrival back at his base he was severely reprimanded for doing so, to the point that his boss asked why he hadn't simply gone and bought some civvy clothes! "After all, there are enough shops in the terminal" said his boss. Well, he obviously hasn't been caught in the endless boredom and drudgery that is Flight Connections - separated from all amenities like you have some sort of plague! That, gents, is how stupid this has all become!

[MightyGem]

From the original poster on Arrse:
After seeing an overwhelming response to this post , I have spoken again to my brother who does not want to rock the boat so to speak and gotten some more info, the request /order was passed to the passengers by the pilot (RAF) that they were not to wear combats when in the terminal and that they were required to reclaim bags off tarmac to find civvies and put them on before boarding the bus , they could reboard the aircraft to change but most people changed whilst they were on the tarmac as obviousley they wanted to get on way asap . Where the initial order was issued is unclear might of came from Military or BAA.
hope this clears up any confusion caused

Plus a statement from the airport(also on Arrse):
From Birmingham International:

STATEMENT REGARDING STAFF IN MILITARY UNIFORM


The facts are a little different. We've put the following comments on record, and these sentiments have been shared with MOD:
Under the byelaws of Birmingham International Airport (BIA), there are no restrictions relating to clothing or appearance for those using the Airport for public flights.
Copies of the byelaws are available at www.bhx.co.uk/Press/135.pdf (http://www.bhx.co.uk/Press/135.pdf) However, the Airport Company has been advised that certain airlines may refuse to accept personnel in military uniform. BIA is not party to a list of airlines operating such policies, nor is it aware of specific airlines that impose such policies.
The Airport Company does not Police fashion, nor does it seek to single out or disrespect the uniform of the Queen, or those who wear it.
The Airport Company will continue to support the work of our service personnel across the UK and around the World.
The Airport Company will not automatically refuse to accept military personnel in uniform; however it is possible that some airlines will. This is a matter for the airlines.
In brief, we would not seek to do anything to undermine the great work of our service people across the World. We feel so strongly about this that we have posted these comments to our own Web Site, in an effort to dispel the rumours.

[Faithless]

and Gents because of issues like this and all the other crap that is why I am seriously considering leaving the mob.....Im too old to put up with all the political and religious crap that tumble's our way on a regular basis.
What's happened to the days of go out and fight, come home with flag waving, no hassels, go and get drunk, go on leave then back to work........
We get kicked out of Harrods in uniform on Rememberance day, refused entry into pubs in dressed in rig and now have to change from our uniform (that most of us wear with pride, enblazend with many qualification badges) out on the tarmac of a wind swept airport in winter......Words fail me.
Why.....So we don't upset all the dross that is now living in this country, many of whom have fled thier's for the very reasons we go and fight somebody else's problem.
We dont subject our prisoners to this , So why do we let it happen to our Military guys and Gals.
This really is a bitter pill to swallow, BHX rot in hell.

[BEagle]

Can't you read?

It is clearly not a Birmingham Airport policy to require military personnel to change into civilian clothing.

So which faceless MoD brass hat has instigated such a policy?

[Pontious]

I've just spoken to a very nice lady who gave me the number of a very nice man who organises the transit of HM Forces personnel through BIA (BHX) on RAFAIR, Scheduled & Charter flights. It's 07770586735 and he mentioned a certain German carrier that bares the name of the capital city of the fatherland WILL NOT allow ANY military personnel wearing uniform to travel with their airline....

...but he also stressed BIA was a 'Civil Airport' and although BIA cannot stop what people wear to travel in, they are also powerless to enforce any similar rule on any airline operating out of BIA....

Sounds like a 'policy' from a 'Bird & Fortune' sketch so make of it what you will.

To me, it smacks of mis-interpretation of an operator-specific advisory notice, transformed into a PC inspired airport bye-law by a spineless 'apparatchick', enforced by a non-idigenous NED (Non-Educated Dillinquent), wearing a 'BIA Security' uniform doing his bit for the Jihad against the hordes of returning Infidel Crusaders & BIA hastily issuing a justification that clarifies NOTHING.

What this country needs is a Military Coup!
:ok:

[diginagain]

Thanks, Pontious, message passed.
:ok:

[PPRuNe Radar]

To me, it smacks of mis-interpretation of an operator-specific advisory notice, transformed into a PC inspired airport bye-law by a spineless 'apparatchick', enforced by a non-idigenous NED (Non-Educated Dillinquent), wearing a 'BIA Security' uniform doing his bit for the Jihad against the hordes of returning Infidel Crusaders & BIA hastily issuing a justification that clarifies NOTHING.

Sounds like a Daily Mail soundbite to me :)

[iain8867]

"BIA is not party to a list of airlines operating such policies, nor is it aware of specific airlines that impose such policies."


"he mentioned a certain German carrier that bares the name of the capital city of the fatherland WILL NOT allow ANY military personnel wearing uniform to travel with their airline...."

I can not believe that airlines can get away with this...........

I work as Cabin Crew for a Charter Airline and about 2005 we had a group of RAF on board, they had been recalled from holiday. As soon as I knew I spoke to the crew and we all chipped in to purchase drinks for them as a thank you for the thankless job that they do.

If the foreign carrier does not want uniformed personnel on board then they should not be booked to fly on them.

Unbelievable:confused:

[Top Bunk Tester]

Guys

As this, if memory serves, has already been mentioned in a previous thread on the subject, I believe that this is MoD policy, NOT that of BAA. Obviously this will need clarifying, can't wait to see the idiot on either side who admits to it though.

I have travelled back through BZZ regularly for the last 2 1/2 years from the desert and have been welcomed each time by a muppet on the Arrivals lounge PA telling the guys to get changed into civvies before boarding the busses to LHR/LGW. There are also numerous signs on display to the same effect.

Be careful where you lay blame fellas, it may be due closer to home.

Have a great and safe new year, especially if deployed.

TBT

[S78]

" If the foreign carrier does not want uniformed personnel on board then they should not be booked to fly on them"


Try telling that to the MOD - they're the ones who awarded the contract for the Germany-BHX trooping flights to Air Berlin in the first place......


S78

[orgASMic]

As TBT says above, it is MOD policy:

JSP 800 Defence Movements and Transport Regulations
Volume 2 Passenger Travel Instructions
2.2.18.012 Dress - Security

"In the interests of security the MoD wishes to reduce the military profiles of flights carried out on its behalf at civilian airports"

This does not excuse the fact that troops were made to change clothes on the tarmac. Whoever made that decision is an idiot. A bad policy poorly enforced.

[diginagain]

Sadly, it seems there's another contributor to the original thread on Arrse who would like to take issue with the service provision and decision-making process - see page 11.
Left out in the cold (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=85216/start=150.html)

[Top Bunk Tester]

Orgasmic
Thanks for the reference, but from BZZ by coach to LHR/LGW does not constitute a flight. What the muppets at BZZ are saying is that you cannot arrive at LHR/LGW by foot/car/coach/rail/taxi/tardis in any type of military uniform in case it causes some kind of offence to the 'minority' groups that dare to call this great country of ours home...........life would be a lot better if said groups would just pack up & Foxtrot Oscar to wence they came:ugh::ugh:

[slimjim007]

I work at BIA and its common understanding that military personnel cannot wear their uniform, never know why but thats alway been the case...

[RobinXe]

So does slimjim's post indicate that the BHX press release is a lie, or that someone in the MOD is still living in the era of 'the troubles'?

[orgASMic]

TBT - au contraire. The ref goes on to include travel to/from airheads to the extent that you cannot use obviously (ie green) mil tpt and drivers should be in civvies as well. Bunch of ARRSE.

Sorry to resort to getting the book out, I am an air trafficker and its what we do. Doesn't mean we agree with the book though.

[EdSet100]

JSP 800 Defence Movements and Transport Regulations
Volume 2 Passenger Travel Instructions
2.2.18.012 Dress - Security

"In the interests of security the MoD wishes to reduce the military profiles of flights carried out on its behalf at civilian airports"


OK, so its taken us 3 days to work out that this is a case of in-house stupidity in slavish adherence to a Regulation. Firstly, the regulation is only there to reduce the military footprint in the civilian environment, which is understandable (to some of us; not all). Secondly, it does not mean that we all, as individuals travelling/flying alone or in small groups, must wear civvies. The regulation applies only to "flights", not individual personnel, so we do not need to get all worked up about dress codes.

As some of us have already opined, it was the ridiculous and demeaning application of the regulation in the cited case that needs to be addressed. We either don't go to the civvie airports, or we make make sensible provisions to change into civvies while airborne, or we get on the jet in civvies. It can't be difficult to resolve. Either that, or the MoD reviews its profile policy.

With some luck this subject will on the CAS's desk on Mon 7th.

[Top Bunk Tester]

So from Orgasmic;s reply it seems I am borme out in my ascertation that this is an MoD cluster :mad: and not one of BAAs making? Yet again are we not our own worst enemy? Come on, someone with a spine at MoD resond!

[Two's in]

TBT,

Be careful where you lay blame fellas, it may be due closer to home.

I hope they've got you running the the Fortune Teller's tent at the Families Day, you'll make a killing.

When faced with the 2 C's in the MoD, Cock-up or Conspiracy, your best instinct must be to go with Cock-up first.

[Pontious]

It is an opinion based upon experience, observation & analysis. However feel free to PM me should you discover it copied into the 'Mail whilst you are perusing the tabloid.

Now c'mon, Chaps, about this Coup.....
:ok:

[Green Flash]

Now c'mon, Chaps, about this Coup.....
Ah, but only if you tick the right box on JPA and get it authorised .....:\ And keep all the reciepts, of course.

[rmac]

Sorry to throw this in, but it is worth consideration. I believe that the midlands has the nations largest concentration of south asian muslims, and the question should be asked, "Is MOD, or anyone else generating this policy out of fear of upsetting them ?"

[faarn]

This whole episode is not unusual.

Some guys I know where coming back from Telic last year and had to divert to Luton due to fog. When they landed on they went into the terminal to await baggage, still in uniform.

After 30 mins the number of armed police in the terminal visibly increased and they were put in a holding corner for another 20 mins, still no baggage.

In the end they were moved outside onto an empty end of the airfield in the cold to await buses. Still no baggage.

The baggage arrived eventually on the tractors that unload them from the aircraft; they had to unload the tractors themselves.

Welcome home boys, we appreciate all the work you are doing for the country.

[Melchett01]

I believe that the midlands has the nations largest concentration of south asian muslims, and the question should be asked, "Is MOD, or anyone else generating this policy out of fear of upsetting them ?"

This is England, not some tinpot 'stan full of religious extremists. Shouldn't even be considered as an after thought let alone as a policy thought.

Then again, this is Noo Lab, UK 2007......

[Faithless]

This is England, not some tinpot 'stan full of religious extremists. Shouldn't even be considered as an after thought let alone as a policy thought.
You've hit the nail on the head Melchett01... Even if BHX/MOD or who ever is right or wrong....THIS IS ENGLAND...GREAT BRITAIN...UNITED KINGDOM what ever you want to call it - our home.
Now do Iraqies/Afganies etc when visiting their home do things different not to upset us....MMMMMMmmm now let me think. :confused:

[call100]

slimjim007
common knowledge
I work at BIA and its common understanding that military personnel cannot wear their uniform, never know why but thats alway been the case...

I've worked there since it was just the Elmdon site and I can assure you all that this has not been a common understanding or indeed any policy at any time at Birmingham international.
As their statement said they cannot change an airlines policy. Your argument is with the MOD who booked the airline in question to ferry personnel without checking the policy or indeed once knowing cancelling said policy.

[slimjim007]

I can probably pull out me old training folder and its written in there somewhere that millitary crew cannot travel in uniform whilst in civilian airport, and that training manual nearly 6 -7 years old..

When checking in military personnel on a certain airline its also stated on the passengers itinerary's that passengers have to be in civilian clothes.

If a whole load of military personnel fly out regularly from civilian airport on a regular basis don't ppl think that airport will be a target??

[A10Mechanic]

Speaking on my own behalf, we LOVE to fly into Bangor! You will not ever meet a nicer bunch of people. :D:D

We meet all kinds in our travels and TDY's, some good, some not so.

[call100]

Let me elaborate
I can probably pull out me old training folder and its written in there somewhere that millitary crew cannot travel in uniform whilst in civilian airport, and that training manual nearly 6 -7 years old..

When checking in military personnel on a certain airline its also stated on the passengers itinerary's that passengers have to be in civilian clothes.

If a whole load of military personnel fly out regularly from civilian airport on a regular basis don't ppl think that airport will be a target??

Yes do elaborate...You work at not for BIA your training manuals are your company manuals. This is not a BIA policy. It has also already been established that individual airlines have their own policies which BIA has no control over.
Your last observation would be a fair assumption if it were not for the fact that all airports are targets. In case you haven't noticed its far more common and easier for them to attack innocent civilians.

[dionysius]

I may be a bit outdated on this one, but didn't the HQ 38/1 GP ops manual 1/08 have guidelines for this type of scenario. It was the manual that listed all the Ascot schedules and flight numbers etc....:confused:

[BEagle]

Jenkins - I hope you got the cabin staff to keep them well lubricated!

[Bill Macgillivray]

The only thing that can be done (and it needs many of us to do it ) is to write to our MP and demand that he/she investigates this shameful matter ASAP and reports back ! Have done this to mine (might work as it is our esteemed Tory party leader !) Will keep on as reqd..

IN THE MEANTIME I WISH ALL OUR SERVICE PERSONNEL A HAPPY NEW YEAR (BETTER THAN 2007 !) WITH MY THANKS AND RESPECT FOR A JOB WELL DONE DESPITE THE FORCES (VARIOUS ! ) WORKING AGAINST THEM !

[FantomZorbin]

The topic was briefly mentioned on the Today programme this AM in the first 'Review of today's papers' ........ never to be mentioned again :ugh:

.............. or did I go back to sleep? :O

[ORAC]

The Herald (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1938848.0.Returning_troops_strip_on_airport_tarm ac_after_uniform_ban.php)

[GIATT]

I have a letter on file from the MOD stating that George Robertson had issued instructions that military personnel could travel in uniform. One of the first things he did when made Sec of Def and a jolly good idea.

However the letter was caveated that the final decision rested with local commanders who may modify things in light of the prevailing local security situation. In practice this means that because an incident involving someone in uniform may adversely affect a CO's future career whilst the positive aspects of uniform wearing have little or no positive effects, the prudent (and spineless) commander will always rule against uniforms in public.

[goudie]

From the Herald

An MoD spokesman said: "We can confirm the incident occurred but because everyone is on leave, we have not been able to discover who gave the order.

So, when they're on leave Officers can't be contacted.
Very convenient!

[Climebear]

GIATT

That is reflected in the current RAF dress regs (http://www.raf.mod.uk/structure/uniforms.cfm) available on the RAF website:

0110. All RAF personnel at UK units should normally wear civilian clothes when they are not required for duty. However, unless otherwise ordered, No 1 and No 2 uniform modes may be worn routinely in public, on public transport, on foot or in private transport. This ruling must take into account security implications and a commonsense approach to local situations. The remaining paragraphs of this Chap also detail particular situations when uniform can and cannot be worn. Local orders, i.e. SSOs, SRO’s, etc, will detail current circumstances regarding the wearing of uniform. Uniform is not to be worn on the following occasions:

a. When participating in non-Service parades (e.g. on Remembrance Day, Battle of Britain Day, etc) serving officers are forbidden to wear uniform if conditions require them to appear in the ranks with serving or ex-Service personnel below commissioned rank. This does not preclude the wearing of uniform by those officiating at a saluting base or appearing officially with a party of civic officials.

b. Uniform is not to be worn by prospective or adopted parliamentary candidates at political meetings, or while canvassing, appearing in public or engaged in any other activities connected with their candidature.

c. Uniform is not to be worn at functions where fancy dress is worn; the wearing of uniform of obsolete design, which is clearly distinguishable from the pattern currently worn, is, however, permitted.

d. Uniform is not to be worn by personnel engaged in temporary or part-time civil employment or while seeking such employment.

d.[stet] When visiting Public Houses or places of entertainment and/or consuming alcohol, unless at a recognised Service function or when officially representing the Service at an external function.

f. Relaxed Dress. There may be occasions when a relaxed form of dress is appropriate, such as in DOR activities. Any Commanders proposing to initiate a relaxed dress policy is to obtain formal approval from the Chairman of the Dress Policy Committee.


Not that this helps in the case is hand in particular; however, the policy is clear that RAF uniform can be worn in public (but only the blue variety!)

[Chugalug2]

however, the policy is clear that RAF uniform can be worn in public (but only the blue variety!)

Well, I'm a member of the public and would be delighted to see Armed Forces personnel (of whatever persuasion), wearing any uniform they care to, in our midst. A similar thread to this ran (a year ago?) re LHR. The 'policy' seems to be a bit of a shambles IMHO. Of course security considerations should be paramount, but the defensive attitude of 'play it safe' even to the ludicrous extent featured by this thread is surely a security threat in its own right? What better way to encourage those within our midst who would harm us than to see that our own forces appear intimidated and apologetic about wearing uniform? The robust policy of the US strikes me as the more appropriate. The spontaneous support there comes with the routine recognition of the Armed Forces in their midst that we, the British Public, are in the main denied. You guys and girls want to wear your uniforms with pride, we want to take pride in seeing you doing so, and in our midst. Time for a brave decision I'm afraid Minister! As regards companies, be they airports, airlines, shops, or whatever, that deny entry/service to our Armed Forces in uniform, name and shame them I say, and their lick spittle excuses such as not wishing to alarm their customers!

[airborne_artist]

Time for a brave decision I'm afraid Minister!

Something we've not had for a long time in this country :ugh:

[ProfessionalStudent]

According to the BBC just now (it's even made it to the yoof station, Radio 1!), an MOD spokesman said "Troops were not entitled to wear uniform when not on duty"

Well, that clears it up then! So when we're on the way home we're not on duty then?:mad:

[airborne_artist]

When I was on the baby officers leadership course, it was made clear that all RN personnel were available for duty 24/7, unless on leave. Thus coming back on board totally p!ssed was an offence, as the minimum expected of any rating or officer was to be able to fight a fire. Too drunk to use an extinguisher = appearance at Captain's table.

However, it seems that leave from sandy/rocky places starts when personnel leave their unit sandyside, (regardless of the length of time it takes to get to the UK to enjoy the leave) so it may be true to say that those on the tarmac are on leave (in the main) and so not on duty.

It's still a load of t@sh that having lads/lasses in uniform at civilian airports presents a security threat, IMHO.

[EdSet100]

My understanding is that service personnel travelling on AT (which includes civvie charter) at any time are on duty, except when indulging. My further belief is that personnel travelling to/from R&R are not indulging. IMHO the MoD spokesman, if he was describing the events at Birmingham, was wrong.

Ed Sett

[Faithless]

The Airline concerned was Omni Air whos pilots were instructed by some desk jockey also known as a a "mover" at the MOD to divert /conduct of soldiers etc
Incidentally the reason charters are used is because the RAF stil fly Tristars which ony Vietnam and Ethopian regional carriers tilluse because they are so unreliable, more unreliable even than the Nimrod.
Now we Know who :mad:

[ShyTorque]

So, if a terrorist incident occurred while military personnel (not in uniform) were on scene at the airport or elsewhere, they would be simply expected to say "Sorry, we're on leave" and walk away....

[Razor61]

This thread or atleast the main story has now made it onto ITV teletext.
Page 318 in the "And Finally" section, wait for the pages to change and you'll see the Troops forced to change on Tarmac news item.

[Flying_Scotsman]

As a trial, I guess, and 'cos I'm like that, I flew from Luton to Inverness and Edinburgh back to Luton with the Orange coloured airline last week. The only comment I received was from another pax on the EDI-LTN leg who commented that it was nice to see an officer travelling in uniform. I'll keep the trial going!

[RobinXe]

Which uniform?

[Flying_Scotsman]

No2 Blues plus blue Goretex jacket.

[RobinXe]

Yeah, I reckon thats much less likely to raise eyebrows than CS95s.

[kkbuk]

When I first joined Her Majesty's Forces, wearing civilian clothes ashore was a privilege which was not always granted, even in one's home port and almost never whilst visiting foreign ports. Indeed, even in 1974 I was given instructions to join a ship in Portsmouth and those instructions contained the phrase 'to travel in uniform'! There was no reason to own civilian clothes as you had a uniform for every occasion. Obviously, of course, everyone, or nearly everyone, did have civilian clothes. However, I do remember one chap being flown home from foreign climes demanding that the Navy purchase him a suit as he had only his uniform onboard. The Navy paid up!

[navibrator]

Just fly into an airport in Germany. They dont care what you wear. Saw a Brit Army in full desert DPM go through baggage at Frankfurt only a few weeks back. Its only the UK who are ashamed of their servicemen and women.