RAF Regiment in RAF News

[Alexander.Yakovlev]

Just throwing my eyes over the letters page in RAF News, can anyone tell me what was said in the previous issue that ignited fuming letters from the lads in the Regiment?

[scroggs]

Alex, this forum is about Military Aircrew. The RAF Regt., fine organisation though it is (my brother was a Rock for 17 years), is not Military Aircrew. There are rather too many tangential topics here, and we are in danger of alienating our core, aircrew, audience. May I suggest you direct your query to e-Goat (http://www.e-goat.co.uk/) or (possibly) AARSE (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=17751.html).

Scroggs

[Tombstone]

Forum Description:

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.

Perhaps we should have the description changed as from where I'm standing, the RAF Regt fit the above criteria.

[teeteringhead]

Oi Scroggs

Alex, this forum is about Military Aircrew. .... up to a point Lord Copper...

and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. ....Force Protection and security of deployed operating bases? Doesn't that count??

[Wrathmonk]

'kin hell Scroggs! Can tell you left HM Forces a few years ago. I think you're being a tad harsh to Alex - the RAF Regt are, IMHO, an integral part of (RAF) air power, which in turn is of interest to (RAF) military aircrew.

To use your reasoning why is there a thread about a USAF doctor getting 50 years for rape. Military yes, but not aircrew.

Edited to add:

The original letter on 2 Feb came from an RAF Policeman who felt that the RAF Regt wasn't 'the only line of defence for aircraft on the ground'.

He was, obviously, quite right, because without the barrier at the main gate being in the down position who knows who could drive in ....:E

[Lafyar Cokov]

Do JPAC come under the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground?

[scroggs]

OK, chaps! You'll note, before this discussion goes any further, that I haven't edited, moved, locked or otherwise played with this thread. I anticipated that my comment might cause some reaction, and I'm happy to argue the point.

You might remember Pprune Towers' intervention a few weeks ago, when the number of 'copy'n'pasted' political-issue threads was becoming something of an epidemic, and it was mentioned that we'd like the Military Aircrew forum to regain its focus on Military Aviation. My point is simply to provoke further discussion as to how focussed this should be.

Patently, the fact that a certain pilot wants to, say, buy a particular type of car is of no relevence to this forum, even though he or she is 'Military Aircrew'. The subject is the car, not pilots, so it gets binned. Equally, the fact that some USAF officer has been convicted of rape is not about Military Aviation, it is about the civil offence of rape and the civil justice treatment of that crime - not relevent here.

Letters in the RAF News about the RAF Regt? Well, you tell me. Where is the relevence to Military Aviation, other than the tangential and circumstantial one that the RAF Regt's role is airfield defence? I don't see it, myself.

Scroggs

[Talking Radalt]

Where is the relevence to Military Aviation, other than the tangential and circumstantial one that the RAF Regt's role is airfield defence? I don't see it, myself.

Scroggs,
It is my duty as aircrew but more as a SNCO to be aware of, sympathetic to and at least slightly interested in the roles played by those who have chosen a non-flying career but who's contribution is so vital to the success of those of us who do leave the ground.
Personally I feel showing a little mutual respect and listening to the often-ignored gripes of the ground trades is the least we can do to show our appreciation of the work they do, and as such I have no problem with Rocks writing to RAF News, nor with further comment appearing on any aviation website.
I agree with your sentiment regarding civil matters where the only link is an individual's occupation, but in the case of Rocks v Plods it's an issue that IS relevant to military flyers since it may eventually have a mild knock-on effect at an airfield when it starts to emerge that Police Flight and Regt Section aren't talking. Mild I grant you but ignore it at your peril. At an OOA base where Rocks and Plods work more closely, it could start to be a real problem.
If our FP chaps suddenly showed signs of being totally unmotivated and thoroughly pi$$ed off, I'd want to know why so having even a slight insight in to their world is no bad thing.
To dimiss the RAF Regt or any other ground trade as not worthy of comment based purely on the fact they never physically touch an aircraft is plain arrogance with a dash of ignorance.

[charliegolf]

To commute or not to commute: very military aviationish!

CG

[Lafyar Cokov]

I agree - and the one about Age Discrimination a few months back!

[scroggs]

I missed the two threads referred to above. You chaps do realise you can report threads that are inappropriate (or in any other way unacceptable), do you not? The Mods can't be expected to read everything that appears on these pages; we have jobs, wives/girlfriends, kids, houses, etc all demanding our attention as well!
To dimiss the RAF Regt or any other ground trade as not worthy of comment based purely on the fact they never physically touch an aircraft is plain arrogance with a dash of ignorance. There was no insult to the RAF Regt stated or implied in my post. Any such inference you may have taken is mistaken. Nor is there any statement in the original post what the topic was that caused so much angst in the RAF News. However, your suggestion that it was some RAFP/RAF Regt issue increases my feeling that it is not relevent to this forum.
Personally I feel showing a little mutual respect and listening to the often-ignored gripes of the ground trades is the least we can do to show our appreciation of the work they do, and as such I have no problem with Rocks writing to RAF News, nor with further comment appearing on any aviation website.
I entirely applaud your empathatic approach to your non-flying colleagues and subordinates, but Pprune has no remit to be an unofficial RAF management tool. This forum is about military aviation. I have seen nothing yet that justifies the original post's inclusion here.

Scroggs

[The Burning Bush]

scroggs,

I am slightly bemused by your attitude and the content of your posts given the clear description written at the top of this forum.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more your tone and lack of understanding of the current RAF and expeditionary ops irritates me.

If you are indeed a moderator, perhaps you should remove all after the first comma in the forum description and replace it with a full stop; I could then see your point, and would close my account never to return.

Until that day happens, I, like many others in the RAF who are not aircrew, will continue to post and reply to topics that are not directly related to the actual mechanics of flying. They are however related to Military Aviation.

[scroggs]

Neither I nor any other mod has said that this forum is restricted to Military Aircrew (despite its title), though the demand for that to be so is ever there from the more puritanical of your aircrew colleagues! However, it is here for the discussion of items directly pertinent to military aviation. Inevitably, the line between what is and what isn't relevent is blurred, and occasionally the focus of this forum strays beyond its declared (by Pprune and its owners) remit. Often, as in any of our forums, those threads that don't fit within that remit are either moved or, if there's no obvious Pprune forum for the topic, it is closed. On rare occasions, perhaps because of legal or taste concerns, the topic will be removed.

It is not the intention that this forum should be a discussion area for all things military; we run the risk of alienating the core readership of this forum, who are military aircrew. It's not enough to say that all military subjects necessarily concern aircrew because some individual who works on aircraft/cooks meals/guards the gate might be distracted by his concerns and thus affect flight safety; that is simply an argument for having no boundaries whatsoever. Without boundaries there is no focus, and without focus the forum has no useful function beyond being a virtual crewroom. That is not our intention for this place.

However, as you can see, the topic is open for discussion - so long as it stays on-topic, and remains free from insult, abuse and snide sarcasm.

Scroggs

[Pontius Navigator]

Just to throw in a penny or two not having read the article, but OC 904 EAW said that the Khandahar Force protection moved inside the wire because things got too hot outside. The RAF Regt arrived and commenced offensive patrolling out to 5 clicks.

The incidence of indirect fire rockets dropped for every night to 28 days at one time.

[Jaguar Pilot]

Come on Scroggs!!

You might just have put the cat amongst the pigeons with this one.

And by the way, quote - "....and remains free from insult, abuse and snide sarcasm"

Some threads seem to be full of this! Go check.

...and I'm even older than you.

[The Burning Bush]

That is not our intention for this place.
Ahh, it becomes slightly clearer.
Well all I can say is that on current ops, no support/FP = no Military Aviation, but I suppose you and your core audience could still talk about it, on PPRune.
Methinks alienation works in more than one direction.

[Tombstone]

Just opened the latest edition and I have a funny feeling that it may rather annoy any personnel who are, or have recently been, delayed in theatre due to AT issues.

There is a rather lovely picture of a meet & greet onboard one of our C17s where people are having a polite glass of mineral water with a few members of the Royal family. Now, if we could honestly tell the guys out in theatre that this meet & greet did not require the C17 in question to be cleaned from top to bottom then fine, not a snag however, I rather suspect that it was kept on the ground for longer than need be when, quite frankly, the drinks could have been held in the mess.

This is in no way a slur on the AT guys, I know how hard you guys work however, it strikes me as a bad PR hit as far as the army goes.

[Talking Radalt]

Without boundaries there is no focus, and without focus the forum has no useful function

Yeah, and fear leads to anger, anger leads to hatred, hatred leads to the Dark Side.:rolleyes:
Give us our forum back!

[jambomc77]

Not wishing to antagonise anyone, just wanted to add my two pence worth on this one.

From what I've seen on other forums (e-goat, arsse etc) Gunners seem to get an awful lot of stick from not only Army/RM colleagues but also from colleagues in the RAF.

Call me immature but are we not all on the same team here, be it the RAF or all three services?! Given the increase in Exped ops, why not start to be grateful for the rocks who step outside of the wire all day, every day to maintain operational capability?


They aren't after all, that bad a bunch of guys!

[The Burning Bush]

Yes, I must admit I did have a wry smile at scroggs's suggestion of posting this thread on ARRSE.

It wouldn’t have been pleasant.:ouch:

[NURSE]

I do wish the RAF Regiment would be refered to as such as 'Gunners' is the Royal Regiment of Artillery and Royal Horse Artillery and has been for the last couple of hundred years.;)

[Safety_Helmut]

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.
Doesn't seem to include has beens ? Many ex mil posters do offer something constructive, some just don't have a clue !

S_H

[Safety_Helmut]

Scroggs

Thanks for your PM, I must have hit a nerve, do you fit that category then ?

Yes I am about to be ex-military, almost there really, just a few days being paid by the RAF remaining. Already well settled into civilian life and employment, and thoroughly enjoying it I should add.

Your comments on the thread that prompted your PM bear witness to your lack of currency and awareness with things military. The comments from others clearly support that. Are you sure you’re up to moderating the military forum ?

Stick to your comfy A340 seat mate !

[Alexander.Yakovlev]

Thanks (particuarly Scroggs) for help with answering my question. Must admit, not quite the response I had expected, bit of a shame really. It is a sad state of affairs when the "Coltishall gate guardian" is deemed acceptable content, and the RAF Regiment not so. Clearly, Scroggs, directing me to AARSE is totally pointless advice.
Regards,
Yakovlev

[scroggs]

Why's that, Alex? Is it because you feel that discussion of an RAFP/RAF Regt. squabble would be outside the context of a site for British Land Forces (primarily the Army, of course)? You may be right; you'd probably get short shrift there, because they like to keep their site within their self-imposed context. Well, here's some news: so do we. Why do you think that such a subject should get greater shrift here? This is a forum for military aviation. Yes, of course we accept topics and contributors that aren't necessarily about aircraft or by aircrew, but the context must remain military aviation. The RAF News exchange of letters you referred to in your original post does not fit that context.

Now, I would be grateful to read some intelligent, considered and coherent debate on the topic, rather than the chorus of 'nyer, yah boo sucks' style of name-calling and abuse that has characterised many of the contributions on this thread so far - and, yes, I have deleted some. I don't have to tolerate personal abuse, especially when it's directed at me!

This forum will maintain its Military Aviation focus. If that's a little too restrictive for some of you, I'm sorry, but that's tough. There are forums on here where politics etc may be discussed, but there are inevitably subjects which have no home whatsoever on Pprune. Of course it's up for discussion, but, at the end of the day, you'll have to live with whatever policy we choose to operate. We can't - and won't - be all things to all men.

Scroggs

[Grimweasel]

Scroggs,

You still seem to have missed the point. Military Aviation. Can't fly without Force Protection when you are on Ops, but then I doubt you'd know that. From your profile I see that you were a Herc lad. I'm guessing you must have left for civvi street prior to Ops in Iraq and Afghanistan and simply see the RAF Regt as those tiresome lot you went to see once a year for a green card.
Well times have changed and most Herc / Aircrew would not have a bad word said against the personnel out there beyond the wire protecting your sound night's sleep and your early morning take-off.

And beside the point, how can you, an EX-military pilot have the right to moderate a forum for MILITARY aircrew when you now fly self-loading freight around the world. This just smacks of some jumped up little megalomaniac civi, goose stepping around his living room trying to get everyone to pander to his needs.

Well, If that's how you want to play it then I suggest everyone leaves and you can talk about MILITRAY aviation amongst your civi pals. You are talking out of your ar$e which, co-incidentally is where we should all migrate. Go bury your head in the sand.

[KENNYR]

Scroggs, why dont you and Danny just rename the whole site and call it what you really want to call it,,,,,,,,Royal Air Force Pilots Only Club!!!! I must say, the moderators/administrators recent attitude to non-aircrew, non-RAF persons is becoming tiresome. :rolleyes:

[Level 28]

but the context must remain military aviation. The RAF News exchange of letters you referred to in your original post does not fit that context.


I agree with Scroggs on this one, a balance needs to be struck here. However, many an ISTAR mission was flown in southern Iraq with a RAF Regiment Liaison Officer as a member of the crew. Furthermore, the RAF Regiment are, IMHO, the best of the best when it comes to Force Protection.

[gar170]

[QUOTE]
Scroggs, why dont you and Danny just rename the whole site and call it what you really want to call it,,,,,,,,Royal Air Force Pilots Only Club!!!! I must say, the moderators/administrators recent attitude to non-aircrew, non-RAF persons is becoming tiresome. :rolleyes:

Matches female pilots if all accounts are correct.

[An Teallach]

So, after 28+ posts taking a pop at the mods; are those of us who don't take the RAF News ever likely to find out what has irked our petrine brethren?

[Snakecharmer]

I joined the RAF due to passion for aviation and it's military use; I had a great time in the Service. The only real downside (as a non-aircrew officer) was being expected to show in interest in oh-so-many peripheral non-aviation activites and the concerns of those who spend their time doing them. No-ones saying that rock apes, cooks & bottlewashers etc don't make an essential contribution to the projection of power, particularly in the expeditionary age. It's just great to come to a place in one's own time where the focus is purely on the aviation iself - where's the harm in that?!

[The Burning Bush]

Grimweasel
This just smacks of some jumped up little megalomaniac civi, goose stepping around his living room trying to get everyone to pander to his needs.

LOL (although I'm sure it's not true) ;)

scroggs,

Your attitude leaves me speechless. I'm sure you are a very nice chap and had a blindingly successful career in the RAF, but you clearly haven't a clue of what is happening on ops nowadays.

You seem to be completely oblivious the main point that the majority of posters on this thread seem to be making, myself included. And that is not what may, or may not, have been published in the RAF News; rather it is your quite bizarre, and seemingly random interpretation of what subjects can or can't be included under the rather generic term Military Aviation.

I see the comma is still present in the forum description; if you really are striving to achieve a forum where purist flying related topics can be discussed by aviators, I would again suggest you replace with a full stop and delete the remainder.

Perhaps if you were to share your definition of Military Aviation with us, it might help to keep everyone on the path you appear to be laying for us.

[Shack37]

Scroggs

Last September a Nimrod crashed killing all fourteen persons on board.
Twelve were military aviators, two of their comrades were not.

I think a little leeway would not go amiss.
The other posters here are more aware of how different roles are becoming more and more inter-dependent than you or I who have become civilianised.

I am even older than the other who commented on age but I feel more in touch with their posts than with yours. Easu up please.

S37

[allan907]

I cannot comment further on this thread as 2 p*sts of mine have already been binned by the A340 driver/coffee drinker and the politburo in PPRuNe Towers. :ugh:

[claude liardet]

As a Rock it is good to see that we have some supporters out there in Pruneland. I too would love to know the answer to the original question but I guess that will have to wait until 'constitutional' questions are sorted out.
Scroggs, rather than pressing your own unique personal interpretation of the Forum's purpose, why don't you just start more aircraft related threads, and then contribute to them? There are a few threads which have no place here, but this ain't one of them!

[GPMG]

Any second now Scroggs will deploy his nasty, highly trained final solution of a weapon......SamuraiMat!!!!!!!

Whining on about ...'neeeerrrrrrr this isn't mil aviation.....change my nappy......your not talking along the clearly defined standards of these forums......there is a clear and obvious process for posting here....nerrrrrrr'

Fricken tax inspectors and auditors the lot of em.

[Wrathmonk]

To drag this back to the original question, and before the thread is locked / deleted ....

The original letter, as published in the RAF News 2nd Feb 07, from a Cpl in the RAF Police stated:


According to the latest advert, broadcast on national radio, ‘the only line of defence for aircraft on the ground is the RAF Regiment gunner’.

This has come as something of a surprise to me and, no doubt, the thousands of RAF Police dog handlers who have spent the last 60-plus years patrolling airfields throughout the world.

What doesn’t come as a surprise is the realisation that our hard work and even our existence is now being denied.

The RAF Police have suffered one cut-back after another and have had our workload dramatically increased.

We have continued with our role without fanfare and self-promotion and, as a rule, have not complained. However, there comes a time when something has to be said.

I would suggest the people responsible for these adverts re-think their reearch procedures before spending time and our money making spurious claims to recruit youngsters to stand in watch towers for a living.

They should consider limiting their advertisements to those which correctly identify them as airfield defence.


The official reply from the Inspectorate of Recruiting at Cranwell was:


The radio advert in question was part of a campaign to raise awareness of a particular trade, in this case the RAF Regiment.

The advert was aimed at potential recruits who may not have considered the RAF Regiment as an option.

The word ‘only’ was used to emphasise the importance of the trade, not to undermine in any way the important role undertaken by other key personnel who have an active role in the protection of a station, such as the Military Guard Service, MOD Police, station guard force and, of course, the RAF Police dog handlers.

Moreover, it would be incorrect to state that the existence of the RAF Police, including the dog handlers, would ever be denied.

When adverts are placed to help bolster recruitment for the RAF Police, similar emphasis is used to highlight the vital role they undertake.

[samuraimatt]

Any second now Scroggs will deploy his nasty, highly trained final solution of a weapon......SamuraiMat!!!!!!!

I guess you have had a sarcasm bypass GPMG.

[endplay]

I remember the flight safety campaign which drew te link between a pilot not getting his breakfast and a claim not being paid (or somesuch) and the clear link being established that the resultant accident was, in part, attributable to every link in the chain.

I'm RAF, I'm not aircrew or in an aircraft associated trade but if my job isn't to contribute to air power then what the fcuk have I been diong for the last 30 odd years!!

[KENNYR]

Thank you Wrathmonk for your answer to the question that we have all been waiting for. Every single person in the Armed services contributes in one way or another to the war effort, no matter how small that contribution is. The RAF aircraft, no matter how big or small, rotory or fixed wing cannot fly without the attention of a myriad of personnel.

Someone has to service it, clean it, paint it, fly it, Nav it, arm it, feed the crew, feed the technicians, groundies, bowser mongs, empty the loos, control it on the ground and in the air, etc. etc., the list is endless.

Lets all respect each others trades and "get along" ! ! !

[cockneyrock]

According to the latest advert, broadcast on national radio, ‘the only line of defence for aircraft on the ground is the RAF Regiment gunner’.
This has come as something of a surprise to me and, no doubt, the thousands of RAF Police dog handlers who have spent the last 60-plus years patrolling airfields throughout the world.
What doesn’t come as a surprise is the realisation that our hard work and even our existence is now being denied.
The RAF Police have suffered one cut-back after another and have had our workload dramatically increased.
We have continued with our role without fanfare and self-promotion and, as a rule, have not complained. However, there comes a time when something has to be said.
I would suggest the people responsible for these adverts re-think their reearch procedures before spending time and our money making spurious claims to recruit youngsters to stand in watch towers for a living.
They should consider limiting their advertisements to those which correctly identify them as airfield defence.
Well, as Rock Ape, I can see why this letter drew such a heated response. Cpl "Dog Handler" made some reasonable points until his 2nd to last paragraph where he instantly destroyed any support he might have had by degrading another trade by referring to the RAF Regiment as "stand in watch towers for a living".
Maybe his dog should have proof read his letter?:}
(Blast, now I've just lowered myself to his level!!!!)

[samuraimatt]

Don't forget he does get the high pay scale for following that dog around all day.

[GPMG]

Aha....I've been fooled again.