Hawks Grounded (merged with Hawk Display Cancelled) [Archive]

Double Zero

28th Jul 2010, 10:54

Could someone please post the details here as I can't get the link to open for some unknown reason.

Seat faults are something close to me after Taylor Scott's accident with a Mk12, when I was photographer on the BOI.

MB didn't come out shining...

I've encountered true 'sabotage' on other systems and equipment, but certainly not at the user end.

On a lighter note;

I was once called by a foreman at Dunsfold " come quick with your camera, the XXXX has been sabotaged !

( A certain Sea Harrier guidance sytem, which in our case consisted of a long line of several wires pegged about 6" up above the grass ).

" The b*****ds knew which lines were live ! " he exclaimed...

When I went to look, there were rabbit droppings under each 'cut'...

lsh

28th Jul 2010, 11:33

Quote:
Well spotted; always bound to get a few teething problems when a new type enters service,

Shy, tell us about the problems you spotted when the Sycamore entered service!

CG

Nice one, CG, even if very unfair!!

(More like JD, "The Green Nail", he had 1500 hrs on them, "wooden rotor blades"!)

Good spot by the guy though, there is enough danger in military aviation without the "last resort" having a fault.

lsh
:E

ShyTorque

28th Jul 2010, 12:46

The last resort? Surely the last resort is to land on and say "Crewman, clear for chock!"

A chock can never fail. Except when Norm W. lost ours.

CG, the biggest threat to those wooden blades was a woodworm attack while waiting for the crewman to catch up :p

dctyke

28th Jul 2010, 13:53

When I first started working on Ej Seats in the 70's they were serviced in the bay every 6 months beit every 'other' check was mainly a visual with complete stripdown and instrument testing done on an annual basis. However on the 'visual service' we did find frayed straps and the occasional damage caused by the many people getting in and out of the cockpit. When it was deemed in the 80's that Seats only needed to go into the bay every 12 months it certainly increased phonecalls to the bay and subsequent visits out to the sqns to do ad-hoc work. The next step was to change bay servicing to every 2 years, cannot comment on that because by then I was driving a desk. I am now told (not varified) that some ej seat bays have closed completely and ejection seats are crated and sent back to a central location every 5 years for servicing?

This must be one hell of a cost saving over the years.................. but do you do cost/risk management on what some folks on this thread call the 'last resort'.

gwalltcoch

28th Jul 2010, 14:49

A crack was found in the top cross beam, MB flew in this morning to take the seat away,

26er

28th Jul 2010, 16:35

On 7th November 1957 I was scrambled at Chivenor to search for a chap who had ejected from a Hunter whilst air/air firing off Hartland Point. The tug pilot had seen him eject but didn't see a parachute. I saw nothing of note and he was never found. However a considerable number of the OCU's aircraft - if I remember correctly more than twenty - were subsequently discovered to have the drogue gun projectile lanyard incorrectly routed such that it would probably have clobbered the ejectee and was considered to be the likely cause of the fatality.

John Farley

28th Jul 2010, 17:32

DZ

MB didn't come out shining...

You may know something of those events that I do not but I never saw or heard anything about MB's performance during that sad period which was in any way below par.

JF

glad rag

28th Jul 2010, 18:20

A crack was found in the top cross beam, MB flew in this morning to take the seat away,Good spot. :ok:

mra4eng

28th Jul 2010, 18:26

Another good order for BAE. Let's hope the contractors will be able to find more exports to make up for the savage cuts that will come as a result of the SDSR.

"Defence group BAE Systems and engine supplier Rolls-Royce have signed a £700m deal to supply India's Hindustan Aeronautics with 57 Hawk training jets.
Over £500m will go to BAE and £200m to Rolls-Royce in the deal that should create about 200 jobs in the UK.
The jets will be used to train pilots in the Indian air force.
The deal was announced to coincide with British Prime Minister David Cameron's visit to India, designed to strengthen relations and boost trade.
'Government support'
Mr Cameron said: "This is an outstanding example of India-UK defence and industrial partnership, and this agreement will bring significant economic benefits to both our countries."
The deal follows an order for 66 Hawk jets by India's air force in 2004.
"BAE Systems is extremely pleased to have secured this follow-on order for Hawk," said BAE's chairman Dick Oliver.
"It reflects the long-standing successful relationship between BAE Systems and Hindustan Aeronautics and the importance of solid government support.""

Double Zero

28th Jul 2010, 18:32

Hello John,

I was tempted to mail you personally as I think myself lucky to count you as a colleague & friend, but thought I'd take a leaf out of your book again and stand up front - I'm sure you know all this.

For the benefit of others;

When Lt.Cdr.Taylor Scott, A Fleet Air Arm Test Pilot at Dunsfold, ( where Harriers of all UK types were assembled and test flown, along with development work on the Hawk and Harrier ) took an early GR5 - ZD325 - for a routine test flight, it ended badly.

After no response to Air Traffic the Harrier was eventually visually contacted by a nearby Galaxy, and photographed with the seat still in, but no pilot; the aircraft was heading West either by trim or autopilot.

It eventually ran out of fuel and went down relatively gently in the Southern Irish Sea, 12,000' down - as deep as the Titanic.

There followed an extensive search all along the flightpath, with some false alarms of seat rockets ( which couldn't be right ).

Taylor's body was found near Winchester; it became apparent quite early in the BOI ( I was photographer on it ) that the drogue chute had fired, and dragged him straight through the canopy, breaking an arm, and he was quite possibly dragged for a short time before the chute shredded.

I have been in contact with his family several times, who were a lot more up-front than I was prepared to be, so they will hopefully not be surprised when I say the evidence indicated Taylor was fighting the shredded 'chute ( the temperature probe on the fin was thought to be the culprit for the chute damage ) all the way with his one good arm.

There were various theories as to what caused the drogue to fire;

Personally I think the barostatic unit was involved, as Taylor was at 35.000' doing pressurisation checks.

Some think he was hypoxic due to a malfunction on the then new OBOGS onboard oxygen generating system, and grabbed the wrong seat lever - manual separation, which would have fired the drogue as described.

Snag is, on the Mk 12 seat for this to happen there's an interlock, one must first have tried the main ejection handle or the manual separation won't act.

It was found on inspection that many of these interlocks didn't work; hence my comment about MB.

The official theory was that as Taylor was flying into the setting sun, he motored the seat down and the drogue initiation hit a 'wander-lamp' fallen from the aft cockpit bulkhead; I photographed that being tried repeatedly, out of 40 tries, 39 times the seat sprang around it, once it contacted the drogue firing mechanism.

Put it this way; all my photogaraphs of the ( 47 I think ) of modifications made to seat and aircraft were siezed by the new manager after JF left, and unknown to me at the time BAe put up teams of highly paid lawyers against his widow.

After 5 years of bitter battle ( which I wish I'd known about ) - she won.

She collapsed in the court when she heard his last words to the groundcrew ( I had seen ZD325 being towed out that evening as I drove home, one of the first green camouflage GR5's, and thought to myself how good it looked ) - Taylor remarked " What a lovely evening ".

lampeterexile

28th Jul 2010, 21:46

Thought it was quiet around Lampeter today:rolleyes:

Rigga

28th Jul 2010, 21:57

"Takes me back to 1975 when...Regrettably, the cause was identified as sabotage."

...as was often the case then, when the SIB couldnt spell anything else.

Also in 1975, as an LAC Mechanic, I was once questioned by a sample of said so-called "investigators" when someone reported some suspiciously broken locking wire on a Whirlwind Lay-Rub unit.

SI Bloke: "How do you think this wire became detached?"

Me: "Was it cut or did it shear?"

SI Bloke: ".....what do you mean?"

Me: "Well, were the ends of the wire sloped like a cut or stretched like it broke? Do you have it? Can I see it and I'll tell you whether it's one or the other..."

SI Bloke: "I dunno!...No, I don't have it..."

Me: "Well I think you should know that - don't you?"

Interview ended very quickly afterwards

I've always treated Snowdrops with disbelief ever since then and have only been disappointed in their "development" to date. Nicely coloured cars today though, but they're still only good for walking dogs and checking IDs - sometimes.

Rigga

WannabeCrewman

31st Jul 2010, 20:33

Ah, so it is metal fatigue;

Spoke to a guy from Babcock at Valley whilst at work today (Selling phones in Bangor, all laugh on 1...2...3!) who was talking about cracks in the seats.

thing

31st Jul 2010, 22:15

I was involved with a case at Gut in '78 on 3. There had been a spate of wrongly set patch switches, ie if the jock was firing SNEBS, when he pressed the tit, instead of the rockets firing, the whole SNEB pod dropped off. SIB were involved in that and I got the old 'good guy, bad guy' interview. I was the last guy in the cockpit being Flight Systems as I ran up the INAS before the Jock strapped in so I was apparently prime suspect number one. I didn't even know where the patch switches were not being an armourer and they being hidden underneath the instrument panel. The switches that is, not the armourers. The questions they asked were ludicrous as in 'What position were the aircraft in on Delta dispersal last Monday?' I wouldn't have remembered what position they were in five minutes before never mind last Monday. Anyway I wasn't interviewed again so I suppose they thought I was too dumb to have done it.

But what surprised me was the thought that it was sabotage (I never got to find out one way or the other), I thought that sort of thing only happened in Len Deighton novels. But then I suppose it was the height of the cold war etc etc. It was quite exciting really.

Ah, talking of the SIB, I also had the misfortune to do a Firestreak/Red Top course, all four months of it, at RAF Newton which at that time was plod central training school. They trained the SIB there too and I was sat in the airman's mess one day, having reached the heady ranks of corporal when two guys in M+S suits came to join me at my table. 'We're proper substantive corporals' they said, 'We thought we ought to sit together'. OK I thought, I'm off for a paper and a sit down in the foyer but do join in.

SIB number one pipes up with 'You must be on the RTFM guidance course, so what's the range of the missile then?'

My reply was similar but more robust than 'Chaps, if you think I'm falling for so obvious a ploy on your part then you are I'm afraid sadly mistaken but please do take this opportunity to expedite yourself from my company.'

Honestly, they were scarily bad.

Dengue_Dude

1st Aug 2010, 14:30

Saw a colour photo of the crack and it didn't look particularly new. It could easily have been missed as just a mark in the paintwork.

Hell of a spot, well done that man.

AR1

3rd Aug 2010, 06:35

A very good spot, and I know this might sound a bit sad, but I was always sufficiantly motivated by the Good Shows to take a bit of time to look around me.

I can also confirm a bit of history with the SIB - well we all know how important those parking offences are dont we? Eventually, married I found myself on the same patch and opposite the place where he parked his car. Sauntering home from the Westwi...er, famlies club! one night, I looked at his car. The following morning he found his rear tyres had been let down. I can confirm it was sabotage.

jimgriff

3rd Aug 2010, 14:54

They are flying again! 15.52BST and one has just gone past my study window at - um! well very low.
Mind you it was that low and fast that all I could see was that it was one of the newer marks of hawk (longer nose and wingtip rails) and they might not have the same seats as the Mk1a hawks, so I could be wrong......:uhoh:

Wwyvern

3rd Aug 2010, 15:12

I did the Hunter OCU early in 1960. The spinning exercise in the T7 had been removed from the programme because during an earlier spinning flight the aircraft would not recover. The crew initiated the ejection sequence, the canopy detached, but one of the seats wouldn't go. As the pilot prepared to clamber over the side, he noticed that the spin had stopped. He flew the aircraft home, and his seat was discovered to have some mis-rigged cables which would have stopped the parachute from opening. Sabotage was suspected, but couldn't be proven.

I don't remember if the successful ejection and become a successful parachute descent.

FantomZorbin

3rd Aug 2010, 15:30

Wwyvern

I think the incident to which you refer was in Sept '64. I watched the student drift slowly to earth over the Vale of Porlock as (the?) a/c did an orbit before heading off to Chivenor as the SAR helo arrived. I was most impressed ... not so my mother as I was off to IOT in a matter of days!!

cornish-stormrider

3rd Aug 2010, 20:22

regardless of the uselessness of SIB and talks of past sabotage - Big

Well Done, excellent spot.

to the engineer concerned - AF/BF/TR are the most important service

Just for the record any engineer I ever catch deliberately putting someones life at risk won't be an engineer again as it will be hard to spanner with ten fingers in 12" bench vice. Thats not a threat, that is a fact.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

4th Aug 2010, 10:21

Any info on when the Red Arrows might be serviceable please? Hoping to see them at Cowes on Friday..

teej013

4th Aug 2010, 10:29

I’m only a lowly bomhead, I know my place, ( insert mental picture of oily oik, head bowed, respectfully tugging forelock), and minds more superior than mine have given this problem much thought, but, the mk10 is fitted to a wide variety of platforms from the PC9 to the Tonka, most with a higher Fatigue Index than the Hawk, and the discrepancy is with the equipment and not the Aircraft, when will these fleets be grounded for inspection ?.

melmothtw

4th Aug 2010, 10:50

Only the Mk 10B seat is affected. Only the Mk 1 Hawk is fitted with this seat in UK service.

forget

4th Aug 2010, 11:28

I keep seeing mention of sabotaged seats. Is there any proof that this ever happened? Surely, even someone deranged enough to sabotage something has an end result in mind. With ejection seats the chances of their handiwork ever coming to anything are slim, and they won't see the result anyway, so why bother.

I'd prefer to think that these so called sabotage incidents are a c*ck up in the seat bay and the guilty party has cried sabotage to protect himself. If I remember, installing a seat was at least a two man job which makes sabotage even less likely. No?

PS. Why is it when I type c o c k it comes out as dog?

Saintsman

4th Aug 2010, 18:33

Surely if you sabotage something you are expecting the worst to happen in the near future. Sabotaging a seat seems pointless as it may never be used in anger.

Then again there are some w@nkers about.

L Peacock

4th Aug 2010, 20:27

melmothtw

Your second sentence is correct.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

5th Aug 2010, 07:12

Just read that the Red Arows are fully serviceable..

champair79

5th Aug 2010, 18:23

That's what I read Heathrow Director....

...except they didn't fly to Bournemouth today. There's been no announcement from the team as to why either. Cue a lot of annoyed spectators at both Scampton and Bournemouth who were expecting them to re-start the summer season after their mid-summer break.

P.S I wasn't one of them thankfully

airsound

6th Aug 2010, 16:26

I gather what happened was this. An RAF press release was put out (not by the Reds) saying they were all clear. But then the dreaded seat crack was found in one of the Reds' aircraft, and the press release had to be withdrawn. Oops. It's not yet clear whether they'll be able to display at, say, Lowestoft (12 & 13 Aug).

There also seems to be une petite problème with the solo Hawk. This has nothing to do with the seat. I hear that there will not be a solo Hawk display for the rest of the season, but that it may be replaced with a "rôle demo" Hawk, which may, or may not, appear in time for Lowestoft.

It's not really been a great year for RAF hawks.....

If the "rôle demo" does appear, at least we may still be able to see the imaginative and elegant colour schemes that commemorate the BoB Spitfires.

airsound

gareth herts

6th Aug 2010, 18:50

They flew down to Cowes today having completed an ISP at Scampton but the weather was too bad for them to display.

PS The Spitfire schemes are on the Tucano display aircraft - not Hawks :ok:

kiwibrit

6th Aug 2010, 18:54

Saw the Red Arrows flying near Scampton today:ok:

airsound

6th Aug 2010, 19:03

oops!

Apologies about the colour schemes. I'd like to say I was just checking to see if anyone was awake, but..........

airsound
:uhoh:

champair79

7th Aug 2010, 17:11

airsound, what's the problem with the display hawk?? :sad:

airsound

7th Aug 2010, 17:32

I'm afraid I don't know precisely what the problem is. When I said the problem was with "the solo Hawk", it would perhaps have been more accurate to say "the solo Hawk display".

I do know it's not an aircraft technical problem. Hence the possibility of an alternative 'rôle demo'.

airsound

Focks 2

7th Aug 2010, 17:55

Saw a colour photo of the crack and it didn't look particularly new.

Thats Anglesey for you.

;)

Sgt.Slabber

7th Aug 2010, 18:05

Forget,

If I remember, installing a seat was at least a two man job ...

Was 3 at least the last time I did a seat fit. 1 "tech" to fit the seat; 1 NCO to supervise and do the "Vitals"; SNCO not involved in the seat fit, or supervision thereof, to do the "Indies".

It was a little while ago...

Could be the last?

7th Aug 2010, 18:48

So what is the difference between a 'Display' and a 'Role Demo'? And other than trg (208/19 and JFACTSU)what role does the Hawk T1 have?????????

Anyway, I thought the the display was canx due to the integrity of the seat...........:E

airsound

8th Aug 2010, 10:25

So what is the difference between a 'Display' and a 'Role Demo'? And other than trg (208/19 and JFACTSU)what role does the Hawk T1 have?????????
Very good questions, CBTL. I have my own ideas, but I don't know the official answers. Anybody?
I thought the the display was canx due to the integrity of the seat.
I believe it was originally. But that was temporary. I understand the official Hawk solo display will not reappear this year. Unless anyone knows differently?

airsound

gareth herts

8th Aug 2010, 11:05

A role demo is a non-aerobatic display (a la Harrier and Tornado GR.4s this year) and it is much easier to gain a PDA for this than it is for a solo aerobatic routine - less work-up, fewer sorties etc.

BEagle

8th Aug 2010, 11:43

Well, the RAF Hawk Display Team website still shows plenty of appearances at display venues for the rest of the season....

Nothing on either the RAF Hawk Display Team - Latest News (http://www.raf.mod.uk/hawkdisplayteam/news/) or the RAF Hawk Display News (http://www.rafhawkdisplay.com/news.html) websites about any change to the display season content either.

If the website is so detailed as to be able to tell eager readers the name of the display supervisor's horse (I kid you not...:confused:), then presumably it will be bang up to date with any news?

(Oh and it's useful, not 'usefull' links, by the way - and recommended, not 'recomended' websites.....:uhoh:)

Could be the last?

8th Aug 2010, 12:02

Airsound

I think you were right with one of your previous posts...........

'I do know it's not an aircraft technical problem'
:ok:

Anonystude

8th Aug 2010, 14:14

Beags,

Nothing on either the RAF Hawk Display Team - Latest News or the RAF Hawk Display News websites about any change to the display season content either.Unless you missed the two-paragraph blurb on the left of the Hawk Display (http://www.raf.mod.uk/hawkdisplayteam/) website, perhaps?

It is with considerable regret that Flt Lt Tom Saunders has been withdrawn from his role as the Hawk solo Display Pilot for the remainder of the Summer display season. This follows an incident which took place recently involving the Hawk Display aircraft.

The RAF is aware of how popular the Hawk solo display is and apologises for any disappointment caused. Unfortunately, it is not possible to find a replacement display pilot in time for the remainder of the current season but we are looking at whether it is possible to offer alternatives to the solo Hawk display at the scheduled events instead.

Edited to add: I believe the role demo will consist of a heavyweight circuit (thrown away due to flying through the centreline), a MRT flown entirely in the heavy buffet, a flapless stall and the stude bonging Sennybridge, followed by some trimming and a thorough debrief over the speakers for the benefit of the crowd.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

8th Aug 2010, 14:19

<<They flew down to Cowes today >>

Really? They were scheduled to be based at Bournemouth for the Cowes show but the weather that evening was atrocious and I doubt they got anywhere near Cowes. Vis was poor and the cloud base 1-100 feet.

gareth herts

8th Aug 2010, 14:39

Beags posted well before that appeared.

green granite

8th Aug 2010, 14:41

Benjybh

8th Aug 2010, 15:28

Maybe he neglected to fly his routine over a different county to the one that was holding the airshow, as is usual practice for the Hawk Display? :}

Vox Populi

8th Aug 2010, 17:23

BEagle

8th Aug 2010, 18:59

It iswith considerable regret that Flt Lt Tom Saunders has been withdrawn from hisrole as the Hawk solo Display Pilot for the remainder of the Summer displayseason. This follows an incident which took place recently involving the HawkDisplay aircraft.

The RAFis aware of how popular the Hawk solo display is and apologises for anydisappointment caused. Unfortunately, it is not possible to find a replacementdisplay pilot in time for the remainder of the current season but we arelooking at whether it is possible to offer alternatives to the solo Hawkdisplay at the scheduled events instead.

I've just seen this item - it wasn't there earlier.

Apart from the fact that it's very badly written, it comes across like something pushed out from the Kremlin in the Kruschev era. I'm surprised that it didn't conclude "Tovarich Saunders will be receiving political re-education in accordance with the glorious policy of the Peoples' Glavnoye Upravlyeniye Ispravityel'no-Trudovih Lagyeryey i koloniyat (GULag)."

By the nature of the beast, PPRuNe is a rumour site. So this thoroughly unpleasant announcement will do nothing except to raise speculation.

It needs to be removed and re-released in a more acceptable form.

No idea what's been going on, but good luck to you, Tom!

green granite

8th Aug 2010, 20:07

When you consider the incident with the Typhoon at the RIAT practice which was very very close to being a disaster but the pilot was allowed to continue his displays, this must have been an horrendous incident. Or of course it may not have been flying related.

Vox Populi

8th Aug 2010, 21:09

Or of course it may not have been flying related.

This follows an incident which took place recently involving the HawkDisplay aircraft.

As Beagle states - this clumsily written press statement fuels what might be very unfair speculation.

Benjybh

8th Aug 2010, 21:24

A new press release (http://rafhawkdisplay.com/release.html) has now been issued.

Pontius Navigator

8th Aug 2010, 21:33

Well that clears that up then.:\

Al R

8th Aug 2010, 21:38

What hamfisted, clunky writing. Little wonder the scribbly isn't risking scratching a living in the real world.

Why has the RAF cancelled the solo Hawk Display? � An incident has occurred involving the pilot of the RAF Hawk Display aircraft, who has since been withdrawn from his role. The incident is being investigated and it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.

Could easily have been..

Why has the RAF cancelled the solo Hawk Display? � Due to various operational circumstances, the display is currently suspended until further notice. We apologise for any inconvenience and dissapointment caused.

Tosser. :ugh:

drugsdontwork

8th Aug 2010, 21:54

Is this how we in the RAF treat our finest??

Guy has clearly messed up in some way, who hasn't? Not sure what it is but im pretty sure Tom has brought more good than bad to the RAF. By all means throw the book at him with our internal procedures as appropriate, but this public slapping? Disgusting.

Keep your pecker up mate and don't let the
b@stards get you down.

PPRuNeUser0211

8th Aug 2010, 22:07

DDW - seconded!

Pontius Navigator

9th Aug 2010, 10:23

Interesting bit of thread pruning there. Well done Mods.

glad rag

9th Aug 2010, 11:28

Hmm, This is an internal matter and should be handled as such, not in the public's eye, as has been said above.

BEagle

9th Aug 2010, 12:29

Hmm, This is an internal matter and should be handled as such, not in the public's eye, as has been said above.

Perhaps. However, the ridiculous '....has since been withdrawn from his role' Stalinist prose of the MoD press release merely raises more questions than it answers....

green granite

9th Aug 2010, 13:21

Unfortunately Glad Rag it is now in the public eye and therefore immediately has the effect of everyone wishing to know what he'd done to merit such action, it's called human nature.

BOAC

9th Aug 2010, 14:00

gg - Gladrag knows that! We are now discussing the way MOD have (mis)handled this rather than human nature.

green granite

9th Aug 2010, 14:24

His post was a bit ambiguous and I thought he was suggesting we should not be curios, hence my comment.

I agree about the MOD's handling of it could have been much more sympathetically done. If, as been suggested on another forum, that he goes to the TWU next week then "operational requirements" could have been used

BEagle

9th Aug 2010, 18:31

Very well said, stick ninja!

green granite

9th Aug 2010, 18:34

Very well said, stick ninja!

Agreed, just about sums it all up. :ok:

thing

9th Aug 2010, 18:48

'I remember when we used to look after our mates and when your boss would value his men over his own career but that is clearly no longer the case these days.'

Er....nope. I joined the mob in '74 and twas ever the case that 'the boss' would protect his derriere. Or maybe I was just unlucky.

Good luck to Tom by the way, I agree it's an appalling press release.

Mountain Wings

9th Aug 2010, 19:01

I have just spent 4 years at Valley and was fortunate to see a great deal of Toms display practices at the various heights down to display height.

I thought it was probably the best display I've seen in a long time and I grew up at Valley so saw many displays over the years.

Best wishes to him for the future regardless of what happened.

(just looked at the RAF Hawk display news page and the following article has been posted. As you can see, it's not in English so not sure what it's about...)

RAF Hawk Display Team - Latest News (http://www.raf.mod.uk/hawkdisplayteam/news/index.cfm?storyid=56F3F5C6-5056-A318-A81027D29CFDE863)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam turpis leo, sodales nec sollicitudin vitae, porttitor ac lectus. Curabitur ipsum augue, varius vel blandit et, venenatis nec ipsum. Suspendisse convallis tortor nec felis consectetur vel varius ante interdum. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Maecenas sit amet augue pretium arcu porta lacinia a ac justo. In tempus, ipsum at porta dictum, risus dui rutrum turpis, quis malesuada tellus massa non ipsum. Maecenas malesuada, orci vel pellentesque accumsan, ipsum erat tincidunt enim, vel dignissim sem libero ac orci. Fusce porta augue tellus, at adipiscing tortor. Quisque vel magna a augue tincidunt ullamcorper. Nulla sapien magna, rutrum vitae sagittis sit amet, convallis nec sem. Vestibulum sagittis rhoncus rutrum. Nulla ullamcorper justo in urna lacinia eget luctus leo venenatis. Sed consectetur faucibus dolor, ut euismod dolor auctor eu. Donec enim purus, bibendum sit amet facilisis sodales, posuere in nulla. Proin mattis libero et dui interdum laoreet. Ut nec odio nulla, nec cursus leo. Nullam consequat neque ut erat aliquet iaculis tristique ante vulputate. Vivamus vitae mi lectus, sed suscipit orci. Pellentesque tristique eleifend leo, in facilisis neque laoreet varius.

MostlyHarmless

9th Aug 2010, 19:33

Good old RAF Website CMS :)

Lorem ipsum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorem_ipsum)

Lyneham Lad

9th Aug 2010, 19:42

Well, there actually is a news article (http://www.raf.mod.uk/hawkdisplayteam/news/index.cfm?storyid=55F5D0B0-5056-A318-A802ED3642AA06ED) there, which states:-

It is with considerable regret that Flt Lt Tom Saunders has been withdrawn from his role as the Hawk solo Display Pilot for the remainder of the Summer display season. This follows an incident which took place recently involving the Hawk Display aircraft.

The RAF is aware of how popular the Hawk solo display is and apologises for any disappointment caused. Unfortunately, it is not possible to find a replacement display pilot in time for the remainder of the current season but we are looking at whether it is possible to offer alternatives to the solo Hawk display at the scheduled events instead.

So what gaffe (if any) did he make?

High_Expect

9th Aug 2010, 19:51

It is of course satisfying to know 'the top' occasional read Pprune. *I hope they realise that for once they have managed to unite all branches of the Airforce including SAR pilots :-p into proving something that we've all long thought..... It turns out they actually don't give a damn about any of us. *This is just another clear example! *Of course they won't be reading this right now as there all to busy networking to ensure their industry 6 figure salaries when the Air Force is disbanded post SDSR. Instead of doing what they should be doing and publicly articulating what the Air Force brings to the table. I have yet to hear a single star rank speaking up to this twaddle in the press. *Today's Radio 2 debate was another classic example. If the Navy Cdr is still serving, he is a disgrace to his uniform. If he's retired he should have kept his outdated, blinkered, bias opinions to himself.

Tom, we're all behind you mate!

2* stars and above... Congratulations, you've achieved something the Nazis failed to achieve. You've broken moral and we've all lost faith in the powers that be. * Enjoy your future lives and private pensions whilst those of us that do the work will probably end up out of a job.

And one last thing.... Why did I have to sign up for 20 years and yet the Air Force only have to give me 3 months notice! *European Courts anyone? Or is the queue already huge?

**Rant mode off**

Pontius Navigator

9th Aug 2010, 20:33

LL, at least that news article should stop many potential rumours.

PhantomAviator

9th Aug 2010, 20:41

The reasons can be anything.
Normally with display aircraft it is the CAA who pull the plug on the pilot.
This can be for the slightest misdemeanor to an accumilation of minor incidents.
These incidents can rang from flying to low, to fast, encrouching on the spectator area to any other number they deem in the rule book.

But for them to have pulled Tom (an experienced display pilot), they must have had their reasons.

Unless the RAF pulled him for a different reason.

But no matter i wish Tom all the best in his future.

Op_Twenty

9th Aug 2010, 22:36

I want to post about this but I am as angry as 'Stick Ninja' about how this guy has been, seemingly, 'hung-out' by his command chain.

It's been a lesson for everybody involved - this demonstrates how people will look after their careers over everything else; looking after the men and women - doesn't matter as long as YOU are ok.

Badly handled.

JFZ90

9th Aug 2010, 23:06

The details are bound to come out - the press must be sniffing a story by now.

One assumes the "diaplay" supervisor knows?

No matter what the incident, seems a shame that the show couldn't have been made the overriding priority.

glad rag

10th Aug 2010, 01:52

Not being funny, but perhaps it is the pilots OWN decision not to carry on POST incident?

Pete268

10th Aug 2010, 05:37

Not being funny, but perhaps it is the pilots OWN decision not to carry on POST incident?

I am pretty sure that in that case the wording should have been (or similar to) 'has stood down from his role' rather than ' has been withdrawn from his role'.

Peter

Uncle Ginsters

10th Aug 2010, 06:49

Whatever the nature of the incident, the tone of that press release is appalling.

The report into the Tucano display practice ejection is now in general circulation and the supervisory chain is squarely in the cross-hairs.

I just hope that Tom hasn't become a victim of someone else's narrow-minded career protectionism.

Good luck fella.

c130jbloke

10th Aug 2010, 09:17

Perhaps the moron who drafted the original statement could be removed from their duties for writing such cr@p ! What a typically inept peice of ass covering.

If you read this Tom, best of British and I hope whatever this is about is all over for you soon:ok:

korrol

10th Aug 2010, 12:02

On July 10th this year I saw a solo Hawk fly an extraordinary seven-minute display over the South Wales coast which was absolutely spellbinding.

Like most people here I've seen a fair number of flying displays over the years but nothing before like this. ...and it's not just me saying it, the large crowd watching was also totally enthralled. I wouldn't normally bother to find out who was flying any particular display, but this was different....and unforgettable. It turned out that the pilot was Flt Lt Tom Saunders.

I'm sure all Hawk pilots are top-notch, but Flt Lt Saunders seemed to be possessed of truly outstanding talent. I hope he continues to fly.

Thoughtful_Flyer

10th Aug 2010, 13:05

Hmm, This is an internal matter and should be handled as such, not in the public's eye, as has been said above.

In many other cases I would agree with you.

However in this instance we are talking about a high profile public display, widely admired and extensively promoted.

Most "internal matters" do not relate to an activity with its own website, Facebook page and Twitter account! Nor are servicemen normally encouraged to write in detail on public forums about their day to day activity or the training and planning behind it.

It is becoming all too common for people and organisations in the public eye to feel that they have an absolute right to free publicity when it suits and complete privacy when it doesn't.

If you choose to strut your stuff in public then you cannot complain if the public also take an interest in unfortunate aspects you would rather keep private. This is even more true when the activity is funded entirely by the public purse.

airshow-sweetheart

10th Aug 2010, 13:45

The Hawk Display is NOT "funded entirely by the public purse" actually.

BOAC

10th Aug 2010, 14:12

If you choose to strut your stuff in public then you cannot complain if the public also take an interest in unfortunate aspects you would rather keep private. - this thread is not about 'public interest' which is a fully and understandably entitled reaction - it is about the crass way the issue was handled by MOD.

Jimlad1

10th Aug 2010, 14:49

At the risk of sounding mildly pedantic, I wouldnt blame the MOD (which is essentially CTLB) but HQ AIR and the RAF chain of command for this decision.

HQ AIR and the RAF are the ones who ultimately would have taken the decision to suspend the pilot, staffed the issue and taken the decisions and ultimately done the drafting for the press statement (which does seem extremely crassly written).

Madbob

10th Aug 2010, 16:11

All I can say is that I'm glad I'm still not "in". With decision-makers in HQ Air and elsewhere in the chain of command ready to do anything to cover their *sses I can't see the point in volunteering to be in a display crew, no matter what the kudos or prestige may be amongst one's peers.

Just imagine it now if all the currently authorised display crews refused to display their ac partly to show solidarity, but also to question their leadership's perhaps over-eager reaction to sack the current Hawk solo diplay pilot so publically. The decent thing would to have created a story - all that was needed was to say he was "unfit to fly" - Joe Public could have read anything into that, from a bad head-cold to 'flu and being "unfit" wouldn't be deviating from the truth, if it's true that he'd really goofed-up.

Then there could be a discrete investigation with appropriate action and if necessary additional training/supervision or in extrimis a replacement appointment being made. At this rate I doubt there'll be (m)any pilots voluntering to be next year's "public face" of the RAF......that's assuming that there still is an RAF.:}:}

MB

Al R

10th Aug 2010, 16:18

However in this instance we are talking about a high profile public display, widely admired and extensively promoted.

Most "internal matters" do not relate to an activity with its own website, Facebook page and PPRuNe account! Nor are servicemen normally encouraged to write in detail on public forums about their day to day activity or the training and planning behind it.

It is becoming all too common for people and organisations in the public eye to feel that they have an absolute right to free publicity when it suits and complete privacy when it doesn't.

If you choose to strut your stuff in public then you cannot complain if the public also take an interest in unfortunate aspects you would rather keep private. This is even more true when the activity is funded entirely by the public purse.

I agree. But if you have to, give the public concise facts, based on reflection and deliberation - not amateurish, cack handed and gratuitous speculation. I wonder if Tom has redressed someone for the needless damage potentially done to his reputation by this unknown 'pen is mightier than the sword' wretch.

Benjybh

10th Aug 2010, 19:48

Their Twitter feed has been deleted :\

http://twitter.com/rafhawkdisplay

EDIT - Oh, 'Tw1tter' seems to be automatically changed to 'PPruNe'. As you wish.

Bill_Peters

10th Aug 2010, 20:07

Looks like the numpty PR bod has either also been "withdrawn" or is trying to distance himself from the whole sorry business.
The link from "The Team" RAF Hawk Display Team - The Team (http://www.raf.mod.uk/hawkdisplayteam/theteam/) to the PRO's page now directs back to the homepage.
:D

Thoughtful_Flyer

10th Aug 2010, 20:46

EDIT - Oh, 'Tw1tter' seems to be automatically changed to 'PPruNe'. As you wish.

Yes, that happened to my first post as well (quoted in No 105 just above)

I typed Twit Er (but with a third T and no space)

Let's try again - Twitter

Edit - Yep, done it again - Crazy :ugh:

Thoughtful_Flyer

10th Aug 2010, 21:02

UKAR Forum had a two line post from HawkDisplay this evening, not that it said anything useful.

However that was deleted within five minutes by it's author!

Getting more ridiculous by the second!

PPRuNe Pop

10th Aug 2010, 21:03

Not this side of he fence it isn't PN!

But its about time this was explained. With what appears to be a superb display it should.

Benjybh

10th Aug 2010, 21:35

Yep, just logged in on the UKAR account and I can read them, not on my personal one. Seems that you can only read their tweets if they follow you? :suspect:

Thoughtful_Flyer

11th Aug 2010, 06:34

I see that a particular reason has now been advanced on another forum quoting an "informed source".

I'm not going to repeat it here without more confirmation but, if true, it would make the decision understandable.

However it is difficult to see that anything could justify the appalling way in which the matter has been handled.

Neptunus Rex

11th Aug 2010, 18:32

Tom, everybody who has seen your display thinks it the best in the Hawk bar none. Is there a video that the rest of us can see?
All of us here are 'rooting for you!'

caligula

11th Aug 2010, 20:14

Tom

I don't know you from Adam, mate, or what happened. Sounds like you've had a bit of stress, however I would counsel you very strongly against engaging in any public debate in any context with regards to your day job. For what it's worth I am ex-RAF FJ.

Good luck

c130jbloke

11th Aug 2010, 20:35

Tom mate,

I second the above 100 percent.

Whatever is going on, I hope you sort it soon.
:ok:

TorqueOfTheDevil

11th Aug 2010, 21:01

No matter what the incident, seems a shame that the show couldn't have been made the overriding priority

Surely you don't mean this? Not speculating on this particular incident, but would you really want a flying display to go on even if there were, for example, serious safety concerns etc?

Then there could be a discrete [sic] investigation

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, how do you know that the investigation hasn't already happened? And in this day and age, with Freedom of Information and press leaks etc, any investigation is hardly likely to be discreet! I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but it's true...

JFZ90

11th Aug 2010, 21:13

Surely you don't mean this? Not speculating on this particular incident, but would you really want a flying display to go on even if there were, for example, serious safety concerns etc?

No, I don't in that circumstance. I was assuming it was a different circumstance. All sorts of scenarios spring to mind where the show could go on, but speculating is not helpful. It needs clearing up ASAP IMO to stop people thinking the worst due to the 'leading' press release.

Trim Stab

11th Aug 2010, 21:21

Interesting thread that shows that the Services are still slow in conrolling the individual enfranchisment of the internet - back in the fifties you had to steal a jet and fly it under Tower Bridge to put the machine in a spin - now all you need is a T@w@i@t@t@er account..

And who controls Pprune - why is t@w@i@t'er (t@w@i@t'er) always re-written as "Pprune". Also why does L$an$d Ro$v&er always get re-written as Lada? And lots of other dodgy examples - what is going on in Pprune land?

BEagle

11th Aug 2010, 22:14

...back in the fifties...

1968, actually.

Tom, the main issue most of us have is more with the heavy-handed neo-Stalinist way the news was broken and less with whatever the alleged incident actually was.

System test - SCUNTHORPE

Op_Twenty

12th Aug 2010, 15:44

BEagle's right - Service people are getting tired with being treated with such contempt by the higher echelons.

sunshine band

13th Aug 2010, 16:08

Tom,

Whatever has happened, you were a joy to watch and an individual inspiration to many...

http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/oo116/sband/Waddington%20airshow%202010/1024xx263flythruwad030710.jpg

SB

david parry

14th Aug 2010, 06:03

Sure i saw one overhead Kingsbridge on Wednesday noon ????

Bob Viking

18th Aug 2010, 08:51

I'm sure we all share in the collective outrage as mentioned on this forum, but do any of us here think that this article:
RAF air show pilot has wings clipped - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7950527/RAF-air-show-pilot-has-wings-clipped.html)
would have appeared on the front of today's Telegraph if it hadn't been discussed so openly on here?!
Lazy journalism maybe but he could have done without the extra attention I think!
BV:(

green granite

18th Aug 2010, 09:04

Why do you think that was lazy journalism?

Bob Viking

18th Aug 2010, 09:26

I would be willing to bet that their 'RAF source' may frequent this site and that many of their details may have originated from here as is often the case with stories like this.
Who remembers the RAF Kamikaze Pilot's thread from years ago? Where did the press get all their information from for that story?
BV:ugh:

TheWizard

18th Aug 2010, 09:36

Why do you think that was lazy journalism?

You mean apart from the picture of the Malaysian Hawk, the phrase 'stunt pilot', the RAF Auxiliary show (never heard of that one?!), never appeared at Sunderland.....should I go on?? :rolleyes:

BEagle

18th Aug 2010, 09:46

Surely the journos remember the sport of 'Donaldson baiting'?

An ex-RAF chap working as a journo for a major newspaper, Air Cdre Donaldson would frequent the RAF Club. Where he was always 'interested' in the latest news, particularly from those working at Adastral House. So, wise to this, in return for a few large G&Ts they would feed him with all manner of spoof stories, which would later appear in the rag as "An RAF source exclusively revealed....".

That's like 'spotter baiting'. A large chinagraph board with a few spurious details on an office wall at an airshow would attract attention from nosey spotters - who would dutifully reveal the 'Hunter Sidewinder modification programme' or whatever.

But the FAA were the experts. One fine day they hatched a plan and made a dummy missile out of old beer cans, added some wooden fins and painted it white. It was then attached to a Buccaneer parked on the flight deck as the ship sailed down the Suez Canal, attracting the attention of the duty Russian spies.....:E

....but the Russkies later got their own back by sailing a submarine on the surface through (I think) the Straits of Gibraltar - sporting a pair of Atoll look-alikes attached to the conning tower. I recall the flap which that caused when the photos subsequently appeared in the spy comics....:uhoh:

“He was a bit of a naughty boy who did things he should not have been doing, pulling too many Gs without telling anyone on the ground about it,” said an RAF source.

"He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"

green granite

18th Aug 2010, 09:53

I would be willing to bet that their 'RAF source' may frequent this site and that many of their details may have originated from here as is often the case with stories like this.

I can't find any mention of high energy manoeuvres in this thread.

TheWizard My comment really was, why should using this site for stories be lazy journalism? After all a news story is not a story until it's known about.

Playing devils advocate here by the way.

TheWizard

18th Aug 2010, 10:01

GG
Fair enough. Perhaps my comments should refer to 'crap journalism' rather than lazy! The rolling eyes were aimed at the article, not you by the way!!

Bob Viking

18th Aug 2010, 10:11

You're right of course. I'm sure this story was borne out of the utmost of journalistic integrity. I bet their research was second-to-none and that they are hitherto unaware of this website (and the PM function!!).
BV:ooh:

green granite

18th Aug 2010, 10:36

Pontius Navigator

18th Aug 2010, 10:59

I think you're missing the point that I was making Mr Viking, why shouldn't anyone, journalist or otherwise, use anything that is in the public domain? Or are you suggesting threads like this shouldn't exist?

GG, there is a warning somewhere on PPrune that people may not be what they seem. There is no reason, as you suggest, why others should not use pprune but we should be aware that anything we do say may be taken down in evidence and used against us.

Now BEagle mentioned Donaldson baiting. A good story is always based on a firm fact, even if the fact is fiction :), so how about a little baiting then.

In the 70's the knockers on 201 got a Name Tag in the name of Bas Heath. Bas then went to many places duly warning in to messes and hotels but never actually paid his mess bill. This went on for a long time with lots of irate correspondence threatening dire consequences winging there way to him at 201. Some he replied to, others he ignored.

The last I saw of Bas was at Castle Cornet Museum in Guernsey in the 201 Sqn display. Bas was there, resplendent in flying suit, and proudly wearing the latest two-colour sqn badge.:}

Neptunus Rex

18th Aug 2010, 13:12

What a shame. If all we are talking about is a little extra 'g' then the RAF Chief Poo Baahs are throwing away the baby with the bath water. Some years ago, after a display practice, I 'fessed up to the Group Captain that I had overstressed the aircraft. He simply said,
"Looked fine to me Neppie, just ease off a little next time."
Different Air Force, different attitude.

TorqueOfTheDevil

18th Aug 2010, 14:05

The just culture was designed to protect individuals who voluntarily owned up to honest mistakes, in the interests of lessons being learned by others rather than buried.

Noone ever claimed that the just culture was carte blanche for people to do anything they felt like and get away with it. If the powers that be decide that an event (and this is a general point, not aimed at this incident) was deliberate/premeditated/reckless, surely noone really expects them to ignore it?

Bob Viking

18th Aug 2010, 14:25

I think perhaps you are also missing my original point.
I was merely highlighting the fact that since this thread highlighted the story the poor young bloke has had his name dragged through the mud in the national press and now on the local Welsh news!
I realise this was supposedly because folks on here were trying to stick up for him but I bet he would have prefered not to get his name in the papers for it!
Let's hope this dies a death soon and he can get on with his flying.
BV

green granite

18th Aug 2010, 14:49

BV perhaps I misinterpreted your original sentiments, I thought you were 'ranting' at people on here for discussing it, as now the papers had got hold of it, but wouldn't have done if we'd said nowt.

FJJP

18th Aug 2010, 15:38

Beags, I remember Donaldson baiting in the Club very well! Did a tour at Main building and the group of senior officers I fell in with (took a young fresh-faced Fg Off under their wings!) Paid 10 shillings into the kitty once a week. They then proceeded to tell the most outrageous stories in whispered fashion...

The one whose story was published collected the kitty (and then bought another round!)

Rigger1

18th Aug 2010, 16:27

I've read the guy's HFOR and sure, he made a mistake but who hasn't and he's owned up

There more to it than that. Edited by requst.

PPRuNe Pop

18th Aug 2010, 16:41

And so it goes on.

RAF airshow ace suspended as MoD probes mysterious manoeuvres | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1304089/RAF-airshow-ace-suspended-MoD-probes-mysterious-manoeuvres.html)

rubberband2

18th Aug 2010, 17:46

From The Times today –

He was chosen to compete for the display in September last year. After designing his own aerobatic routine, which included moves called the Headbanger, Helter Skelter, Slingshot, Tombstone and Stinger, he was selected by his commanding officer in April to be the solo pilot for the exhibitions. By then he had spent four months practising intensively.

Now in my days we had the Derry Turn & the Porteous Loop as new and fun manoeuvres. Today, I seem to be limited to the occasional but welcome Harvey Wallbanger.

So can someone please explain Headbanger, Helter Skelter, Slingshot, Tombstone and Stinger?
:ok: :ugh:

airborne_artist

18th Aug 2010, 17:58

Stinger is when our mighty display pilot pretends to have been hit by a Manpad :eek:

TorqueOfTheDevil

18th Aug 2010, 19:43

Deliverance,

Indeed so - let's just hope they get it right this time, for once!

TOTD

Pontius Navigator

18th Aug 2010, 19:46

through the mud in the national press and now on the local Welsh news!

Are we suggesting that the Welsh is worse or just slow?

XV277

18th Aug 2010, 21:02

The poorly worded initial press release caused it to make the press. It needn't have mentioned any 'incident' with the Hawk Display Aircraft, or that the pilot had been 'removed'.

That got the matter discussed in lots of places where there is an interest in military avition and not just here - and no doubt roused the hack from his ethanol-induced stupor to dig around until he found someone willing to give him details of the 'incident' or HFOR.

TorqueOfTheDevil

19th Aug 2010, 09:18

The poorly worded initial press release caused it to make the press. It needn't have mentioned any 'incident' with the Hawk Display Aircraft, or that the pilot had been 'removed'.

How could the press release have been worded to reduce speculation, without being misleading? It would be wrong to suggest that the pilot was ill/injured, or that the aircraft was not available for the rest of the season, and simply to offer no explanation would have led to even more erroneous speculation as well as accusations of a cover-up by the RAF. It may not have been handled perfectly, but no doubt it has been a tricky situation to manage; a lot of people were likely to be upset about the whole thing simply because they're disappointed that they won't see the display, no matter how the bad news was broken. And to expect the press to overlook the cancellation of a high-profile military display is probably unrealistic.

Easy Street

19th Aug 2010, 09:49

They could just have said that all the creamies have had their tours cut short due to a decrease in student numbers, and have had to start TWU early to maintain a steady flow of pilots to the front line. That would be true and would not invite such adverse comment.

It's not rocket science, media relations, but boy are we good at screwing it up sometimes.

TorqueOfTheDevil

19th Aug 2010, 11:20

That would be true

...but somewhat economical with the truth, and would have created a lot of adverse comment (eg RAF wastes money on numerous display work-up sorties only to cancel display half way through season etc).

"the pilot is unable to display due to operational reasons" or "... an internal matter"

The above suggestions would have generated at least as much idle speculation as there has been!

"the pilot is alleged to have (infringed some rules/ made an error / had a problem with his aircraft) and in the interests of flight safety has been temporarily grounded subject to an internal investigation"

...then when the grounding became evidently permanent, everyone would deduce he was guilty of the alleged crime!

Pontius Navigator

19th Aug 2010, 11:47

TOTD, if you scroll up you will see that the vagueness of the PR led someone to make scurrilous suggestion that had no bearing on what seems to be the issue.

TorqueOfTheDevil

19th Aug 2010, 12:58

Pontius,

You're absolutely right - though I think some would have complained if the PR had been more specific (RAF should keep internal matters internal etc etc) while others would have been upset had no explanation been given.

I'm not claiming that the PR was ideal, nor am I claiming to be a media specialist, but I suspect that someone was tasked to put it out within a very tight deadline, with restrictions on what they could put, and they did their best in the time available.

Pontius Navigator

19th Aug 2010, 17:21

TOTD, yes, probably the the duty bod on a swing shift with a general tri-service brief.

Neptunus Rex

19th Aug 2010, 19:12

This whole sorry saga has the malodorous whiff of Senior Officers covering their anal cavities. The pilot must have undergone rigorous examination and competition to be given the job in the first place. With all that, plus his display practice experience, surely a debrief, followed by a temporary increase in minimum display height, with subsequent authorised lowering to absolute minima, should have solved the problem.
If ever the RAF needed a top display pilot, this was the season. If this 'Staff College Approach' to display flying gets any worse, all future displays in the UK will be by foreign military aircraft and civilians.
What a wasted opportunity.

CheapAsChips

19th Aug 2010, 23:08

The handling of this "issue" may not be seen as perfect. But only Tom and those that are investigating know what the alleged issue is. Rather than random speculation such as the previous post about staff college graduates, would it not be better to let the issue lie. The media can speculate all they like, but they do that, often in a manner driven by this forum. For Tom's sake, should we not all stay quiet?

Easy Street

19th Aug 2010, 23:13

...but somewhat economical with the truth

Nobody seriously expects any government agency to gush forth with the whole truth in response to bad news.

would have created a lot of adverse comment (eg RAF wastes money on numerous display work-up sorties only to cancel display half way through season etc).

....which could have been spun as "saving money on airshow appearances during these financially constrained times"...."the flying hours saved will be used for training front line aircrew".... "focus on the Red Arrows and BBMF as our public face". And to reinforce that line I wouldn't have rushed a Hawk role demo into service.

Not difficult.

gareth herts

19th Aug 2010, 23:21

And to reinforce that line I wouldn't have rushed a Hawk role demo into service.

And what about all the shows in the second half of the season, some of them pretty huge, which would have then missed out?

BEagle

20th Aug 2010, 06:58

Nevertheless"The incident is being investigated and it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time."implies that the incident will be commented on at a later time?

Another foot-in-mouth MoD PR comment?

pulse1

20th Aug 2010, 07:43

And what about all the shows in the second half of the season, some of them pretty huge, which would have then missed out?

I saw the Hawk "demo" at Bournemouth yesterday and, to be honest, they wouldn't be missing out on much. Close to the display line it was just a bit more interesting than the King Air, mainly because it made more noise.

I was not in a position to hear the commentary and did wonder if any explanation was given. It was still good to see it there though.

However, the Tutor and Tucano made up for it with superb, tight performances. The Tucano in particular seemed to be pulling some very high g maneuvers.