Proposal for a Mil history/nostalgia thread

[ralphmalph]

Gentleman and ladies,

The opening gambit of this thread is that it is for Mil aviators.

My experience over the past 7-8 years is that this is becoming less true.

Perhaps we should split the thread and have a "nostalgia/memories" thread and "current ops"

Thoughts?

Ralph

[Sun Who]

Ralphmalph said:
Perhaps we should split the thread and have a "nostalgia/memories" thread and "current ops"Why?

Sun.

[ralphmalph]

Sun,

Because the disconnect from today and yesterday is never so big as now.

I want to hear about mil stories, current ones... Not about Changi in the dark ages.

Less and less of my serviceman and women venture here for the reason.....it's irrelevant.

[Bigpants]

Perhaps because with so little to look forward too Military Aviation has become a nostalgia wall anyway.

Half the stories seem to be about how good/bad it used to be....

[ralphmalph]

Perhaps,

But there would be a context.....scroll down the posts on page now.....how any are from today's military?

Ralph

[MPN11]

I assume you have conducted a detailed survey of your people to determine whether they read PPRuNe ?

However, as an old fart who only did 30 years, feel free to insert your head in your bottom and ignore the lessons of history.

Fly safe.

[Sun Who]

A quick review of the threads currently running suggests to me there's a (roughly) 505:50 split between 'current' stuff and more 'nostalgic' stuff.
For my tastes, that split sits about right.
The present is informed by the past. I find a minority of posts by the 'old boys' to be bigoted, narrow minded and out of touch. I find a minority of the posts by those still serving to be naive and poorly informed.

I find the majority of posts to be interesting, informative and frequently humorous.

For my vote - leave things as they are, I like the mix.

Just saying.:)

Sun.

[TomJoad]

Sun,

Because the disconnect from today and yesterday is never so big as now.

I want to hear about mil stories, current ones... Not about Changi in the dark ages.

Less and less of my serviceman and women venture here for the reason.....it's irrelevant.

Ralph I'm going to make an assumption here (SOP for PPrune) that you like me are a fairly intelligent fella. Here's what I do when opening PPrune. I read the post title and open those that appeal to me. I tend to ignore the ones that do not. Hell, every now and then, just for a laugh, I open the ones that don't appeal; well you know you got to live fella.:ugh:

[SASless]

Where do you draw the line between "Current Ops" and "Old Ops"?

I find discussions about WWII just as entertaining as i do those about this morning's news.

Do you think I would find a WWII SK R-4 Pilot's tales of flying in Burma to be any less valuable than some current fellow crying about a cut in allowances?

Get real folks....read what you want....get involved in the discussions you want.....and ignore everything else. In most cases you are not missed.

[Evalu8ter]

SASLess,
Absolutely. A phrase I like to use is 'history is prologue'; often this 'history' is paid for very dearly. We need to be very careful not to overlook the lessons of the past and other types of campaigns in other theatres as we focus on current Ops. The last thing we need is a generation of Desk Officers that only understand Ops through the Afghan prism; fora such as this should be widely read by junior aircrew to broaden their knowledge and experience. I give a RW tactics history lecture to junior aircrew - the lack of background knowledge of anything other than Afghanistan is disappointing, but not unexpected. If operators ignore the lessons of history then ignorance and hubris can be the result

[taxydual]

I think Ralph has a point.

Perhaps an 'in mil' / 'ex mil' split would work. Who knows?

My take on PPRuNe Mil is that it is a continuation of Mess Happy Hour / Squadron Beer Calls / Section Piss Ups etc

Banter. serious, lamp-swinging, informative, historic, all types of chatter is here.

Besides, where would us sad old ex tossers go for our fix?

[Sun Who]

taxydual said:

Perhaps an 'in mil' / 'ex mil' split would work. Who knows?

I still don't see the point. SASless had it right:

Get real folks....read what you want....get involved in the discussions you want.....and ignore everything else. In most cases you are not missed.


SUN.

[Basil]

where would us sad old ex tossers go for our fix?
Age: 58

Buggah!:sad: I'd better shut it then :{

[taxydual]

What was the slogan of the 'News of the World'? Oh yes, all human life is here.

Bit like PPRuNe Mil.

Something for everyone.

[Bollotom]

I am extremely interested in current ops as well as old and bold. My take on it would be that a week of postings would cover current ops and then where do you go? As has been pointed out, it's just as easy to read the post headings and dive in or stay out. And any real; change would be subject to thread drift such as the Harrier, don't mention Sharkey, did a job the Spitfire couldn't, though the Mk IX, while Tonka...so you see my point. But thanks everyone for making this a place to spend many happy hours. :ok:

[StopStart]

I'd tend agree with the thread starter but to be honest Pprune is a very different place from when I joined in 96. The number of serving military users has decreased markedly over the last 5 years or so, due to a combination of thumbscrews from the military hierarchy along with the slow dilution of the interesting stuff with triv, rubbish and spottery.

Lots of the historical stuff is fascinating; the thread on life as WW2 pilot for example is gold dust. Sadly there is an equal amount that is just tenuous triv. The old adage of any forum is "if you don't like the subject, don't read the thread". That's all well and good but sadly most interesting/relevant subjects quickly vanish up their own cyber backsides as random people get involved adding more and more noise of ever decreasing relevance.

The Wg Cdr Spry thread, for example, should be a place to discuss current topics or good old "I learnt about flying" stories that inform and educate. It shouldn't be a place to air tired and tedious old hobby horses or to pick fault with the RAF hierarchy.

I'd agree that there is a place for historical & nostalgic military aviation chat but I think there is also a place for discussion of current military topics, drawing where necessary, on the mountains of retired experience out there.

Pprune is currently of little relevance to 90% of serving folk. A bit of demarcation might turn that around....

[smujsmith]

I have to go with Tomjoad on this one. 30 years in and I still have stuff to learn from "current servers", I also have lots to learn from Danny42C, I suggest that PPrune Mil forum tends to find its own balance, and if anyone wants to split off and go all "hissy fit" then so be it. I for one have no interest.

Smudge

[Nervous SLF]

As a humble civilian who loves to read all the stories that appear I hope PPRuNe Military Aircrew stays about the same.
This is the only place that I know of where I can read these stories. Oh yes and surely the really modern stuff is still
covered by The Official Secrets Act and perhaps shouldn't even be mentioned ?

Sorry to intrude I will go away now, thanks for your time.

[Lima Juliet]

Ralph - in a word "no"

The best comment I've seen is

My take on PPRuNe Mil is that it is a continuation of Mess Happy Hour / Squadron Beer Calls / Section Piss Ups etc

I 100% get this. As a Fg Off on my first FL sqn I learned masses from the old sweats in the Mess Pub. Now nearly a quarter of a century later, I am that "old sweat", still serving and with the way NEM is going I might be in for another 15-20 years!!! The knowledge I gleaned to help my in my service career from retired honourary mess members was invaluable.

As for current ops, they should not live on an insecure open-to-all bulletin board - but I guess you already knew that! :ok:

LJ

PS I did leave the Regs to go FTRS, would you propose that the 400 or so FTRS mates have their own thread as well...:} (alright, don't answer that!)

[smujsmith]

LJ,

I for one fully agree with your argument. If this forum is for anything it's to give all of us, ex military, a chance to have an opinion. I can disagree with Beagle or Flight idle, it doesn't matter, both respect my right to an opinion. The OP seems to be suggesting that the serving personnel should divorce themselves from their own history. Well, that sounds a bit sad to me. I still have mates serving, we share a few beers, some banter and respect each others opinions. What's the need for stripping out the current from the ex ? We all have something to learn.

Smudge

[NutLoose]

And the current serving page would be a ghost town, Current ops... now there's an idea, discuss them on an open forum, sure that'll go down a treat in Whitehall.
Also how would you tell a current from a former member?

[Chugalug2]

I suspect that those proposing this move don't like being told that there is something to be learned from the past and from those that served in it. So be it, but the forum that does not learn from the past is doomed to repeat it...

[smujsmith]

Chug,

Spot on.

Smudge

[SASless]

This thread is exactly what is right about this Forum in general.

A provocative post is made (even if not meant to be such) and a very good discussion takes off.

When we bring up the value of historical context, I am reminded Ol' BEAGS should be the go to person as he was a Corporal when the Wright Brothers were born.

The amazing amount of experience that can be found here has always been something I have enjoyed. As I have survived to become an Old Fart.....I freely admit I owe it to those that I followed in this business of flying airplanes and helicopters.

I see no way to break what we do into nice neat convenient segments so that we can just pigeonhole our discussions. No matter how a Thread starts....there is no requirement it continue on a straight defined course to its completion.

If one wanders....in time someone will inject a comment that causes a change in course....maybe even back to the original topic.

[PPRuNe Pop]

We do, of course, have a history and nostalgia forum that has always included mil in many of its past forms. It works, and it is interesting, when a topic is opened that throws a few people back to when they were a lad in the mil.

With diminishing returns of our current military it is probably better to leave things as they are.

[Courtney Mil]

Funny how this old chestnut turns up from time to time. If you missed the last couple of episodes, Ralphmalph, I must assume you're not a hugely regular user here. And that is part of the issue; as mentioned before, it would be a pretty quiet place without all the current and highly active members that we have now.

If you were to be made redundant next year would you immediately hand in your keys to PPRuNe along with your ID card on the grounds that your opinion was valid here yesterday, but not today?

It has always been the case here that serving personnel tend to read more than they post, often for good reasons, not the least being that the powers that be take a dim view of people that put themselves forward as unofficial spokspersons, especially if the views expressed are sensitive, controversial or critical.

PPRuNe Pop's decision is a good one for ALL that use the Mil Forum.

Courtney

[Genstabler]

Right! That's settled. Can we close this one and open a nostalgia thread then?

[ExRAFRadar]

I remember when Nostalgia threads were much better than the current crop...

[Genstabler]

Yep! They don't grow them like they used to when I was a young whipper snapper.

[sisemen]

"Today's Ops" become "Yesterday's Ops" in very short order. At some point in one's life the fit young rooty-tooty top gun becomes the "old bugger full of war stories sitting in the corner with his pint". However, as many have pointed out, those war stories come at some cost and have been hard won by experience.

So go ahead and split the forum; miss out the histories and stuff that might possibly stick in your head and save your life some day. Most of us don't really care if the OP ends up in the proverbial smokin' hole in the ground - except that it's a fellow RAF serviceman in that unfortunate position and we'll commiserate along with your squadron mates.

The RAF is for the young. But don't forget the young at heart of those that served, for we have only your best interests at heart. And anyway we enjoy a good yarn over a beer or three :ok:




'twas ever thus.

[Ali Qadoo]

the "old bugger full of war stories sitting in the corner with his pint."


Oi! I resemble that remark

[Courtney Mil]

Permission to join your corner, Ali.

[Warmtoast]

I am reminded Ol' BEAGS should be the go to person as he was a Corporal when the Wright Brothers were born.


Surely not - wasn't he the model for this 1920 recruitment poster?

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/RAF-SeeTheWorld-1920RecruitmentPoster1_zps26db0aa0.jpg

[BEagle]

Very funny, but the only time I was an NCO was in the school CCF.

[Blacksheep]

Wow! I didn't know they had a CCF back then.

[AGS Man]

Ok I was never a Military pilot but I did serve as ground crew so the last time I checked I'm ok to use this forum. But as I'm now a civillian Military Contractor (not waste of space btw) I'm just wondering where I fit into the proposed scheme:confused:

[ralphmalph]

AGS man,

My original post is borne out of a number of desires.

For the serving man/woman, this forum can be a gold mine. I have perceived over the years a steady decline in my fellow serving members participating.....for many reasons, one being continually raised in crew rooms is

"It's full of old duffers banging on about how it was in xxxxxx"

Maybe unfair, but there is an element of truth and straight talking in that. All of us as servicemen like to reminisce.

I know security is a limitation.....and some topics are verboten.

My views are no "hissy fit", merely an idea to try and bring information, discussion and debate.

I understand the relevance of past lessons....And am a huge proponent of the adage.. "Before you blindly run off like an enthusiastic spastic, someone somewhere has probably done this before"

I am in no way denigrating those who have served before....and whose ranks I will join.....perhaps very shortly!

Honestly.....if I am being very very truthful, I feel that the proportion of relevance to me as a serving military aviator.....is diminishing.

Not much to be done about that but just skim the site once a week.

SASless....my OP was not meant to inflame or be provocative.....it was borne out of frustration, and a desire to perhaps see the same kind of interaction that used to occur on PPrune. IHMO.

Ralph

[NutLoose]

I am reminded Ol' BEAGS should be the go to person as he was a Corporal when the Wright Brothers were born.

Rumour has it when he signed up they used a slate for the "paperwork".

:E

[Union Jack]

Surely not - wasn't he the model for this 1920 recruitment poster? Warmtoast

The equivalent dark blue slogan was "Join the Navy and see the world", which inevitably led to "Join the Fleet Air Arm and see the next ....":(

Very funny, but the only time I was an NCO was in the school CCF. - BEagle

I'm shocked - Let's hope that the RAF Club doesn't find that out ....:D

Oh, and regarding Ralph's original point, Shakespeare summed it up pretty well in The Tempest when he said "What's past is prologue".:ok:

Jack

[haltonapp]

In those days Beags you didn't have to be a commissioned officer to be a pilot. Anyway, I bet under that hat he has more hair than you ever had!

[LateArmLive]

I think the previous three posts illustrate precisely where ralphmalph is coming from ;)

[BEagle]

LateArmLive - agreed....:(

For the serving man/woman, this forum can be a gold mine. I have perceived over the years a steady decline in my fellow serving members participating.....for many reasons, one being continually raised in crew rooms is

"It's full of old duffers banging on about how it was in xxxxxx"

It has indeed declined over the last few years. Those who might have become 'old duffers' have largely pulled the B&Y and buggered off to the airlines, so nowadays there's an increasing gulf between the "I tell you, young lad, the Vimy was a damn fine old kite" oldies and the "Another $hitty day in the sand pit" youngsters.

Plus with so few aircraft, so few aerodromes and so few people, there's perhaps less breadth of interest these days in any case?

But I do see ralphmalph's point; I started a thread asking what people thought about the new style of the RAF Club website, but it was immediately hijacked by the usual suspects. So I deleted it as it was probably just boring everyone...

[CoffmanStarter]

Ralph ...

I think you have a valid point in what you have said @#37 ...

However, like many have said here already, we need as a PPRuNe Community to have contributions/threads/participation coming from the Gentlemen and Ladies at todays sharp end on topics that are relevant and of importance to them today. There will always be some "detractors" (very much in the minority on here IMHO) ... as in all walks of life ... who will say "we didn't do it that way when I were a lad" etc.

Try and encourage some of your guys to take the plunge (gang up if necessary) on a topic relevant to them today and I'm sure they will be surprised how helpful people can be.

But clearly they shouldn't expect a banter/leg pulling free zone :ok:

[Courtney Mil]

Agreed, Coff. And anyway, even if you were to change the strap line to include something about "serving personnel only" I would guess that the usual suspects are still going to come here and continue just the same.

Ralph, I would still be interested to hear your response to my earlier point:

If you were to be made redundant next year would you immediately hand in your keys to PPRuNe along with your ID card on the grounds that your opinion was valid here yesterday, but not today?

[smujsmith]

As a relative newcomer to this forum, I've read this thread with interest. The point Ralphmalph makes about "serving" personnel is very relevant. I proffer the forums own introduction;

Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.

Note the term "who fly". On that basis alone I, and probably many others should cease posting on this forum. I might have spent 30 years "mendin em!", but I haven't done so for a good few years now. So perhaps I should have put more thought into that intro than I did.

Secondly, I note references to "the usual offenders" etc etc in previous posts. Can someone tell me;

1. Who compiles the list of "the usual offenders"?

2. What constitutes the offence ?

3. Am I on the list ? ( just a passing interest ):eek:

Finally, after reading all the posts on this thread several times I'm not too sure what Ralphmalph is suggesting. Does he want a currently serving forum only ?. Aircrew only ? Officers only ? SNCO's only ? I'm not too sure.

I do know that I look and learn from PPRUNE Military Aircrew thread most days. I enjoy having somewhere that banter and "wind up" can be taken without offence. It's a shame that it seems that current serving RAF personnel have no interest, and, if my presence is a reason for that, my leg is already half way out of the door. Problem is, the serving mates I go down the pub with dont seem to find me so troubling. No offence, just wanting to throw some thoughts into the mix. As Ringo said (several times) "peace and love, peace and love)!

Smudge

[TomJoad]

I think someone said it best when they compared the forum to "happy hour" - the opportunity to sort out the worlds ills by chewing them over with some like minded fellas. Ok, so sometime we can all go to far and wind each other up bit and I'm sure for most parts it really is unintentional. At the end of the day most of us have a common outlook on life informed largely from the service spirit imbued by either our current or past service. You could easily have another banner heading but how would you police it? I think the forum works fine as is.:ok:



Edited just to say: What smudge said:D:D:D


Must admit I didn't really realise that the forum membership "back room boys and girls thing" placed such a clear emphasis on the present tense. Just never noticed it before smudge pointed it out like that. Well, if I appear on "the list" I too will happily exit stage left.:(

[ralphmalph]

Courtney,

I am pretty close to being one if those individuals. I wouldn't hang
Up my keyboard, as anyone is able to view the posts and follow as they see fit.

I would think about any relevance my comments would bring to a discussion.

Some elements of supposition would remain for the years following my retirement.......

I could imagine posing a few questions and being corrected as to "the new way things are done now"

But TBH.....I'm not sure I'd loose much sleep over it then....

[Courtney Mil]

So pretty much like the rest of us. Well, there is a way to find out. All but those who are not currently "professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground," could leave the forum for a while. Ralph, you can rustle up all your serving mates to come and have the place to yourselves and see how it goes. Perhaps we could have an "Ex Mil - Aviation" forum, the rules for posting being exactly what it says on the tin.

Easy enough to move the appropriate threads over there. I suspect most of the "Old Duffers" that "Bang On" would happily welcome posts from serving personnel too, should they so wish.

Just a thought.

[smujsmith]

Courtney,

Maybe that's the answer to this conundrum. Without trying to feign hurt or psychological damage (:rolleyes:), from this thread its topic and the simple fact that I suddenly feel like someone who has gifted a pork pie at a Jewish bar mitzvah, I do see that such as the "gaining a pilots Brevet ......" Thread and "Memories of the VC10", might be more relevant to us ex personnel. Surely, there are still some current servicemen flying and working the VC10 who must be able to give us oldies a flavour of the current state of play?

Whatever, I believe that all military organisations are better for their amalgamation of history and current knowledge.

Just packing my bags now, ready for the move to the new thread.

Smudge

[MPN11]

Military Aircrew. A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.

So, unless my reading glasses have fogged over through fumes from the brandy and/or cigar smoke … you don't actually have to be a pilot to post here? (Within reason, of course). :cool:

Hmmm … so why is the Forum called Aircrew? Is that the 'back room' in the aircraft, or the 'back room' on the Unit? (Sorry, long-time Staff Officer moment there, please excuse me ;) )

PPRuNe is, IMO, whatever it is at any moment in time. Like the Army Rumour Service, which goes through the same regular navel inspections (I left RumRation).

We, whoever we are/were, should surely be an inclusive Community? Or is it it a case of "You haven't got 5,000 hours/30 years on <insert type/role> so poke off"?

Is it that hard to keep On Topic, and not talk utter Cr@p? We have Mods :D who can sort out hiccups as necessary.

[Always a Sapper]

Ah well, being an ex squaddy who's only involvment with things that leave the ground was the pretty lights out on the field and things 'infrastructure' that's me well n' trully stuffed and headed for the door then...

Taxi for one please...


ps... next time your on finals and the lights start doing 'disco' its not me, honest :suspect: clicky... clicky... clicky :E

[TomJoad]

Hey just a final questions before I go. At what age do Duffers become Old?
I don't see myself as being Old, so am I just a "Duffer" or perhaps a "practice Duffer":p Please don't answer that I'm feeling sensitive and all alone at the moment:eek:

[Courtney Mil]

...and that's why a good forum title might be "Ex Mil - Aviation". Ex mil folks talking about aviation (or very loosely related topics like barbecues or the Royals or whatever). Smudge et al should not feel any less at home than aviators in zimmer frames. Mind you, who would keep the good news coming about how brilliantly the F-35 is doing?

Tom, sorry Mate, but it looks like you became both the moment you stepped out the door. What, did you somehow manage to have an entire life after serving? Incredible. :E

[smujsmith]

MPN11,

It's the "Fly" bit and "keep the aircraft flying" that seems to be an "itch in the craw" of the OP. I can't vouch for your good self, but I have none of the current qualifications required. And in that respect, his observation should be acknowledged for what it is, a simple statement of fact and a plea to bring the forum back to eligible members only. Sorry if it sounds a bit OTT, but he has a point, several others have cast nasturtiums and I think it's worthy of discussion, decisions and action. That's how grown ups do it.

Smudge

A small addendum.

I joined this forum after spending months reading a thread called "Did you fly Vulcans". I never flew them, but did work on them a bit, and have (or had) a Q- AVUL-A on my docs. I was spellbound by the stuff those bloody fly boys used to do with the end product of my grafting, and I never knew the half of what my labour on that fleet was done for. I, probably like many ex Groundcrew can read stuff like that all day, but to interact with the people who did it, ask pertinent questions etc is a real bonus. Since joining this forum I've always appreciated people's tolerance of what sometimes may appear to be a stupid question, none have ever said that though. Finally, in the past few months, and through my activity on the forum I have reconnected with several people who I had the honour, and pleasure to serve with years ago, that's priceless.

[SOSL]

It didn't bore me Beags!

Rgds SOS

[Courtney Mil]

Smudge,

Wrong, Mate. The banner about who the forum is for is very clear. Ralph's gripe is that those of us that no longer fit into that category should not be posting here - that exclusion applies to ex-aircrew as much as it does ex-groundcrew, ex-controllers, ex-suppliers, ex-scribblies.

[downsizer]

White mans problems....:cool:

[TomJoad]

Tom, sorry Mate, but it looks like you became both the moment you stepped out the door. What, did you somehow manage to have an entire life after serving? Incredible. :E

Courtney I have no idea what you are on about but I like the sound of it so you are getting some of these:D:D::D:D

Hey, If leave the forum will there be a march-out ? Best I get cleaning up all my previous posts:p Oh crap.

[smujsmith]

Courtney,

Point taken and well made as always.

Smudge

[NutLoose]

But I do see ralphmalph's point; I started a thread asking what people thought about the new style of the RAF Club website, but it was immediately hijacked by the usual suspects. So I deleted it as it was probably just boring everyone...

Damn it has gone :sad: i was probably one of your suspects..

I was looking fwd to the report from the contributor that was going to stay at the Victory Club, I hadn't realised I could still use it to be honest, last time I visited it was while serving and it failed to meet my expectations, it looked a 1000% improvement... I did mention the RAF Club, though I do think the name is wrong as it does NOT cater to the RAF, simply a small portion of it.
To be honest the new website seems to be aimed at bringing in everyone but the RAF, it is mainly aimed squarely at Corporate and Wedding parties.... I do not know how that effects those serving or retired using the facilities, but it must have a detrimental effect on as to what's available to those staying.

As for the nostalgia thread, well there is already one on the site and with the diminishing returns in manning levels as said by the Moderator, a couple of years from now there will be no one left in here.

..

[Courtney Mil]

Thanks, Tom. I should have said, "It looks like WE bacame both..."

Shame about deleting the latest RAF Club thread. I guess I'm a usual suspect too?

[TomJoad]

MPN11,

A small addendum.

I joined this forum after spending months reading a thread called "Did you fly Vulcans". I never flew them, but did work on them a bit, and have (or had) a Q- AVUL-A on my docs. I was spellbound by the stuff those bloody fly boys used to do with the end product of my grafting, and I never knew the half of what my labour on that fleet was done for. I, probably like many ex Groundcrew can read stuff like that all day, but to interact with the people who did it, ask pertinent questions etc is a real bonus. Since joining this forum I've always appreciated people's tolerance of what sometimes may appear to be a stupid question, none have ever said that though. Finally, in the past few months, and through my activity on the forum I have reconnected with several people who I had the honour, and pleasure to serve with years ago, that's priceless.


Smudge I'm sure there is some Philosophical name for the analysis you have just used there to counter the proposition. I have no idea what it is though:ooh: But I agree and identify with your thoughts wholeheartedly. You have highlighted the value of the ex service membership, how it actually enriches the forum and in turn how the forum benefits the Duffers, old, practice or otherwise. I recall the posting about the American Spitfire (Recce) pilot who was traced by someone who had a 35mm film of his crash landing during the War. That posting and the movie reduced me to tears, as have others which tell a similar story of the character of the men and women who have served and continue to serve their country in the forces. Likewise the wee boy who only in the last few days or so wore a red flight suit and got to see the Red Arrows. You are absolutely correct this place is priceless and long may it continue. The banner may say or imply currently serving but as the saying goes - rules, obedience, fools and wise men. I invoked that, guess as we all did, frequently throughout my service, so why break the habit! So I guess unless the EU introduce some rule that bans me from the site I'm gonna stay - i'll get the Daily Mail on my side;)

There I am no longer feeling sensitive or in a lonely place. I'm still not old either:E

[Courtney Mil]

So, Tom. You can take the man out of the Service, but you can't take the Service out of the man?

[TomJoad]

Thanks, Tom. I should have said, "It looks like WE bacame both..."

Shame about deleting the latest RAF Club thread. I guess I'm a usual suspect too?

Yeah I thought the RAF Club thread was fine to be honest. Maybe Beagle was feeling sensitive and in a lonely place too!

In a funny kind of way the travails of the RAF Club are relevant to this post. The club has been forced to cast its membership net wider as the Service shrinks; you can't fault it for that. In the same way this forum needs the ex service, civil service, associated service, industrial partner, occasional spotter, random poster with mil aviation interest, and to keep us on our toes even the odd troll, WALT and wanabee. God Bless us, everyone (as a small urchin once said). ;)

[SOSL]

Looking back at all the threads on this board, it's obvious that the title of the board and all the threads have had only a vague effect on what's posted.

It's a "social network" - people post what they want to; always have done.

Change the title - won't make any difference.

Create a new differently titled board - won't make any difference.

Why get worked up? Why bother?

It's only a web-site.

Rgds SOS

[Rosevidney1]

I still don't know whether or not to be pleased about being thought of as 'one of the usual suspects'. :confused:
Are you in the same mental whirl, TTN?

[TomJoad]

So, Tom. You can take the man out of the Service, but you can't take the Service out of the man?

Definitely - you can see that in the eyes of the old guard each Nov, especially if you get them talking as you stand around the memorial. I was never the military cabbage type but I took it seriously, did my best, had a laugh along the way. I was ready to leave though and while I don't miss it, I'm happy to say it has left me a better person. You are of course right Courtney, you can't take the Service out of the man. They take away the pay though - boy do I miss that :)

[TomJoad]

I still don't know whether or not to be pleased about being thought of as 'one of the usual suspects'. :confused:
Are you in the same mental whirl, TTN?

Hell's teeth I'm celebrating it. And if I'm not on the list I wan't to know why not. Anyway, where is the list?


ps.

I'm considering submitting an FOI request to have the list disclosed.:ok:

[Courtney Mil]

So, anyone care to research the number of posts/posters here are serving and how many are not?

I agree about the Club thread, Tom. And it goes further than that. It's an issue that crosses that ficticious boundary between serving and ex. Exactly the sort of thing that belongs here.

I would also point out that even the old duffers sometimes choose to discuss current issues.

And another thing! How many threads would even get started if Coff weren't here?

Anyway, must dash. Meals on Wheels are here. Hope it's pie tonight. I love pie.

[smujsmith]

Tom #62,

Thanks for that. Occasionally I get to write what I think. Anyway, this forum is open to all of the Service operators and it would be interesting to hear how our Canadian, American and other allies feel on the subject, or is this just a "Small local difficulty" ? Whilst it still exists lets make it an open forum at least.

Smudge

PS. It's a shame that Beags binned his RAF Club Website thread. It started on web site presentation and was developing to being a useful guide to service facilities available currently in London. Surely of use to current servicemen as well as us oldies.

[NutLoose]

Careful with the Zimmer you now fly Courtney, remember you're now behind what's happening, not ahead of the game :E




..

[Courtney Mil]

Oh, thanks a bunch, Nutty. You woke me up and made me spill my hot chocolate. Hang on. That's not hot choc. It must be Tuesday. I love Tuesdays.

[CoffmanStarter]

Me ... I've always been suspect since I could walk ... well that's what my Headmaster once said :suspect:

Now let's all have a (metaphorical ... It's not the Navy you know) hug and Carry On :ok:

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/image_zps4cc9b359.jpg

[CoffmanStarter]

How many threads would even get started if Coff weren't here?

Courtney ... "I'm the Threadstarter" ... Wasn't that a track released by the Prodigy in 1996 :cool:

Best ...

Coff.

[Courtney Mil]

I'm the self inflicted, mind detonator.
Yeah, I'm the one infected, twisted animator. :eek:

[Genstabler]

Blimey! No wonder we Brits can't succeed at procuring sensible defence equipment. Here we are, four pages already of learned discussion about the basic specification and we still aren't any nearer to agreeing how many legs the camel should have.

[Courtney Mil]

I think the reason for that, Gen, is that the vast majority of us are quite happy with the design of camel we already have. One leg at each corner seems to work pretty well.

[ralphmalph]

Courtney,

Your idea of throwing open PPrune to the floor is a good one.

However, I fear most of the current serving proliteriat have either stopped using the site or are infrequent visitors, for many reasons.

Yes, I know......therefore it would be a very quiet place until the habit grew again. What a shame.

When I leave the military, ill probably spend more time looking at Flight Global, Shepard et al.... And have the occasional glance back to see how things are. Indeed.....glancing back will have no benefit for the future...just make me reminisce, which will be nice.

My personal view on those involved is this:

If you are any way involved.......stores, clerk, pilot, engineer...you are in. Isn't that what our HF training says?

The views expressed about this topic are a reflection of the current members....as it should be..

This however, speaks volumes about the "mil" thread.

IMHO

[thing]

Can't see what the problem is. If serving personnel want to start a topic what's stopping them?

Either that or if you want to be really pedantic change the forum title to 'serving and ex'

[teeteringhead]

Such changes/innovations - like many others - have been suggested before. But whether it's the subjects of threads or the status of those who contribute you might wish to restrict, how on earth would you enforce/police it?

And the devil is in the detail. Could a retired person - who might now work for an arms manufacturer - not contribute to a "current ops" thread. Contrariwise, would a serving person not be "allowed" to contribute to a "nostalgia" thread??

Some threads have a long life - like it or not. As an example, a quick look tells me that BEag's first contribution to the WEBER thread was in Apr 2006, when IIRC he was still serving. His latest was last night! Should he have removed himself at some time to coincide with retirement?

I have always liked the comparison of this forum with a good Happy Hour. Many people - serving and retired - many conversations from the erudite to the frankly silly. But the random conversations have one thing in common. You are not obliged to join any of them!

I might listen to the current ops conversation and be impressed by the young lads and ladettes just back from the "sandpit". I would certainly listen - as I hope the youngsters would - to the 90 year old Polish Hon Mem telling us real war stories. I probably wouldn't listen to conversations about pensions or march-outs! That's my choice

But all the conversations are in the same bar! So we have here a one stop shop for diverse "conversation" - and fun! Why change?

[ralphmalph]

Teetering heard...

[teeteringhead]

:ok: akljdlf lkdolikdpw, lkkql;kq;lw