Wing Commander Spry
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Lancaster Block
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coming soon
The biography of Wing Commander S H P Spry DFC AFC DFM RAF
Wing Commander S H P Spry DSO DFC AFC DFM RAF was the youngest son of a Brigadier from a Guards regiment. Born during the First World War (1916 is the best estimate from records) he enjoyed a privileged background (Norton nanny, clockwork train set, and 2 oranges in his stocking at Christmas) and attending public school. Unlike his brothers who all joined their father's regiment, Spry rebelled. He has no desire to wear puttees, spurs and a stripe down his trouser leg but instead yearned to be a fighter pilot in the RAF. He would often gaze into the Summer skies and watch the fighter pilots practice their up-diddly-up-ups and decided that this would be the life for him. He refused to accept his allocated place to study the classics at Oxbridge, choosing instead to feed his craving for aviation matters by joining the Royal Air Force in 1934.
Yours aye
Spry
Wing Commander S H P Spry DSO DFC AFC DFM RAF was the youngest son of a Brigadier from a Guards regiment. Born during the First World War (1916 is the best estimate from records) he enjoyed a privileged background (Norton nanny, clockwork train set, and 2 oranges in his stocking at Christmas) and attending public school. Unlike his brothers who all joined their father's regiment, Spry rebelled. He has no desire to wear puttees, spurs and a stripe down his trouser leg but instead yearned to be a fighter pilot in the RAF. He would often gaze into the Summer skies and watch the fighter pilots practice their up-diddly-up-ups and decided that this would be the life for him. He refused to accept his allocated place to study the classics at Oxbridge, choosing instead to feed his craving for aviation matters by joining the Royal Air Force in 1934.
Yours aye
Spry
Last edited by Wg Cdr Spry; 19th Sep 2013 at 08:39.
Unlike his brothers who all joined their fathers’ regiment, Spry rebelled.
Unless Mrs Spry was married several times, this is presumably apostrophic abuse on Percy's behalf, who perhaps intended to have written father's. Either that or he is implying that she was the wedgimental penny-farthing....
In which case he is an absolute shower, a cad and a bounder who should be cuffed severely about the swede.
Last edited by BEagle; 18th Sep 2013 at 13:04.
Gentleman Aviator
And surely Norton is a motorcycle - Norland is the Nanny of choice.
Spot the Difference!
Norton
Norland
Spot the Difference!
Norton
Norland
Last edited by teeteringhead; 23rd Sep 2013 at 10:03.
Gentleman Aviator
On reflection, there might just be a connection......
...although to be picky that appears to be an Ariel (a WW2 350cc W/NG methinks) rather than a Norton .........
...although to be picky that appears to be an Ariel (a WW2 350cc W/NG methinks) rather than a Norton .........
Last edited by teeteringhead; 23rd Sep 2013 at 10:47.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Lancaster Block
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps
That's the last time I dictate my PPrunery to Percy.
If any of you are reasonably gifted poets please send me a message. I have a little challenge for you which will let you be part of a bigger project we are working on. Sounds intriguing ?
Yours aye
Spry
That's the last time I dictate my PPrunery to Percy.
If any of you are reasonably gifted poets please send me a message. I have a little challenge for you which will let you be part of a bigger project we are working on. Sounds intriguing ?
Yours aye
Spry
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christmas Special
Dear Wing Commander Spry
Really looking forward to the XMAS edition of Air Clues - I trust that you will provide some top tips along with some hidden humour to keep us chaps engaged!
Tally-ho!
Really looking forward to the XMAS edition of Air Clues - I trust that you will provide some top tips along with some hidden humour to keep us chaps engaged!
Tally-ho!
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Lancaster Block
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christmas Airclues
Mr Daley
Your anticipation will soon be rewarded. In our Autumn (Christmas) edition of Airclues I have included quite a few I learnt about flying from that... articles for your reading pleasure, along with the usual features. What will make this edition unique is that it will be our first ever interactive edition of Airclues (once i get the nod from the powers that be in their shiny offices, the location of which I am still uncertain).
What does this mean you ask?
Over to Percy.
Thanks to Blippar, you can download their app and through the wonders of technology, scan any image in our magazine to reveal further online content and
information.
In addition, we have enlisted the help of a famous celebrity to assist us with an exciting Christmas message.
For now, please keep up to date on Facebook at www.facebook.com/RAFFlightSafety where you can see the new addition to the RAF Flight Safety team and Percys betrothed, Flt Lt Winsum.
Yours aye
Spry
Your anticipation will soon be rewarded. In our Autumn (Christmas) edition of Airclues I have included quite a few I learnt about flying from that... articles for your reading pleasure, along with the usual features. What will make this edition unique is that it will be our first ever interactive edition of Airclues (once i get the nod from the powers that be in their shiny offices, the location of which I am still uncertain).
What does this mean you ask?
Over to Percy.
Thanks to Blippar, you can download their app and through the wonders of technology, scan any image in our magazine to reveal further online content and
information.
In addition, we have enlisted the help of a famous celebrity to assist us with an exciting Christmas message.
For now, please keep up to date on Facebook at www.facebook.com/RAFFlightSafety where you can see the new addition to the RAF Flight Safety team and Percys betrothed, Flt Lt Winsum.
Yours aye
Spry
Wg Cmdr Spry
Dear Spry,
I was Wing Commander Spry in 1983 operating from Adastral House and got a minor bollocking for dressing the cartoon character in different clothing for different seasons i.e. Bermudas in the summer etc. in Air Clues. Hope things are more enlightened now.
SPRY 1983
I was Wing Commander Spry in 1983 operating from Adastral House and got a minor bollocking for dressing the cartoon character in different clothing for different seasons i.e. Bermudas in the summer etc. in Air Clues. Hope things are more enlightened now.
SPRY 1983
M2N:_
Welcome to this wild and lonely thread yea ken, Sir.
My reply to your wistful thought above must be, "would that they were". You may have blotted your copy book with Bermuda Shorts (I mean, really!) but you bestrode your command in a time of plenty compared to nowadays.
The aircraft then in service were the subject of proper enforcement of the Airworthiness Regulations by fully qualified and experienced engineers who knew what they were doing, and were doing what they knew. All that was to be swept away by VSOs later, following catastrophic financial bungling in 1987 that had to be bailed out by a quick injection from some Piggy Bank or other. The one chosen was the one that had thus far been ring-fenced as sacrosanct, ie Flight Safety. The engineers were ordered to suborn the Regs but sign them off as complied with. The ones who didn't were sacked and replaced with non-engineers who knew no better than to do what they were ordered.
Subsequent Airworthiness Related Fatal Air Accidents featured on this Forum alone accounted for 62 deaths. Only recently has the finding of Gross Negligence by the pilots of the worst of those accidents been set aside. No other action has been taken following evidence of the Gross Unairworthiness of that aircraft and of the Illegal RTS that put it into RAF service, despite (or because of?) the loss of 29 lives.
The airworthiness of the RAF's aircraft is still a matter of great concern, the lack of Independence of its Regulator and of its Air Accident Investigator is still a matter of concern, the cover up of the above scandal is still a matter of concern. So, no, I'm afraid that things are far from enlightened now, as this link will testify....
https://sites.google.com/site/militaryairworthiness/
Hope things are more enlightened now.
My reply to your wistful thought above must be, "would that they were". You may have blotted your copy book with Bermuda Shorts (I mean, really!) but you bestrode your command in a time of plenty compared to nowadays.
The aircraft then in service were the subject of proper enforcement of the Airworthiness Regulations by fully qualified and experienced engineers who knew what they were doing, and were doing what they knew. All that was to be swept away by VSOs later, following catastrophic financial bungling in 1987 that had to be bailed out by a quick injection from some Piggy Bank or other. The one chosen was the one that had thus far been ring-fenced as sacrosanct, ie Flight Safety. The engineers were ordered to suborn the Regs but sign them off as complied with. The ones who didn't were sacked and replaced with non-engineers who knew no better than to do what they were ordered.
Subsequent Airworthiness Related Fatal Air Accidents featured on this Forum alone accounted for 62 deaths. Only recently has the finding of Gross Negligence by the pilots of the worst of those accidents been set aside. No other action has been taken following evidence of the Gross Unairworthiness of that aircraft and of the Illegal RTS that put it into RAF service, despite (or because of?) the loss of 29 lives.
The airworthiness of the RAF's aircraft is still a matter of great concern, the lack of Independence of its Regulator and of its Air Accident Investigator is still a matter of concern, the cover up of the above scandal is still a matter of concern. So, no, I'm afraid that things are far from enlightened now, as this link will testify....
https://sites.google.com/site/militaryairworthiness/
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Lancaster Block
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airclues Autumn 2013
Since I have been pipped to the post with the announcement of our Autumn 2013 edition of Airclues being available online, I would like to elaborate on a few bonus features.
From 4 Dec 13, the magazine should be starting to arrive on Units. From this date onwards you will be able to access the interactive content of the magazine by downloading the Blippar image recognition app on your smart phone.
Some of this content is also available on our website and as you will see there is seasonal bonus material.
I hope you enjoy this edition, packed with great articles and festive fun.
RAF - Flight Safety - Air Clues Issue 12 Autumn 13
Yours aye
Spry
From 4 Dec 13, the magazine should be starting to arrive on Units. From this date onwards you will be able to access the interactive content of the magazine by downloading the Blippar image recognition app on your smart phone.
Some of this content is also available on our website and as you will see there is seasonal bonus material.
I hope you enjoy this edition, packed with great articles and festive fun.
RAF - Flight Safety - Air Clues Issue 12 Autumn 13
Yours aye
Spry
Wg Cdr Spry
May I make one point about the most recent Air Clues? In both your foreword and that of IFS “Functional Safety” is mentioned. As Functional Safety begins many years before the RAF actually see the aircraft – in fact, often before DE&S even receive an endorsed requirement - is there not a danger those who are meant to be responsible through-life will now think the new RAF Safety Centre will do it all, and opt out? It is a continuous process, which requires a through-life commitment and resources; which since 1991 has not been MoD policy to provide (or even ask for). Requests are routinely turned down.
This is a very serious question. There have been many rulings over the years to the effect Functional Safety can be waived entirely. For example, this led directly to the Tornado/Patriot shootdown of March 2003. When pre-warned in 1998, DGAS2 (Fauset) told staff to wind it in, that he was content aircraft were being delivered functionally unsafe – a view repeated many times since and still the policy of DE&S at a higher level, with the MAA’s support. This was repeated to another 2 Star (XD5 Porter) in 2001; similarly, wind it in, don’t care. Tragically and frustratingly, it was then highlighted years later in the BoI report by the senior RO, Sir Brian Burridge, who directed that the practice be reinstated. He was ignored.
During the Mull of Kintyre campaign, when asked about Functional Safety (remember, the Chinook Mk2 was functionally unsafe), MoD (Adam Ingram) eventually conceded on 17th May 2007 there was no longer a requirement to do this in DPA (at the time of asking), but reassured MPs it was now done at MACD; which will presumably explain why RAF Swanton Morley grew to twice the size of Norwich to accommodate the necessary Rigs, equipment and aircraft, which before Alcock’s cuts in the early 90s used to be situated at 73 different companies - and that was just avionics. And much of the kit was owned by these companies, so one assumes Ingram approved possibly THE biggest procurement exercise in MoD’s history.
All balls of course.
I think you need to look at some of the detail here, and ask just who it is writes these briefings to Ministers, because they are militating against what you are trying to achieve. And their complete lack of corporate knowledge seems to have spread.
May I make one point about the most recent Air Clues? In both your foreword and that of IFS “Functional Safety” is mentioned. As Functional Safety begins many years before the RAF actually see the aircraft – in fact, often before DE&S even receive an endorsed requirement - is there not a danger those who are meant to be responsible through-life will now think the new RAF Safety Centre will do it all, and opt out? It is a continuous process, which requires a through-life commitment and resources; which since 1991 has not been MoD policy to provide (or even ask for). Requests are routinely turned down.
This is a very serious question. There have been many rulings over the years to the effect Functional Safety can be waived entirely. For example, this led directly to the Tornado/Patriot shootdown of March 2003. When pre-warned in 1998, DGAS2 (Fauset) told staff to wind it in, that he was content aircraft were being delivered functionally unsafe – a view repeated many times since and still the policy of DE&S at a higher level, with the MAA’s support. This was repeated to another 2 Star (XD5 Porter) in 2001; similarly, wind it in, don’t care. Tragically and frustratingly, it was then highlighted years later in the BoI report by the senior RO, Sir Brian Burridge, who directed that the practice be reinstated. He was ignored.
During the Mull of Kintyre campaign, when asked about Functional Safety (remember, the Chinook Mk2 was functionally unsafe), MoD (Adam Ingram) eventually conceded on 17th May 2007 there was no longer a requirement to do this in DPA (at the time of asking), but reassured MPs it was now done at MACD; which will presumably explain why RAF Swanton Morley grew to twice the size of Norwich to accommodate the necessary Rigs, equipment and aircraft, which before Alcock’s cuts in the early 90s used to be situated at 73 different companies - and that was just avionics. And much of the kit was owned by these companies, so one assumes Ingram approved possibly THE biggest procurement exercise in MoD’s history.
All balls of course. I think you need to look at some of the detail here, and ask just who it is writes these briefings to Ministers, because they are militating against what you are trying to achieve. And their complete lack of corporate knowledge seems to have spread.
tuc, I wouldn't waste your breath. The authors are frantically backtracking now it's been revealed functional safety isn't a new idea.
Am I right in saying Inspector Flight Safety used to be an Air Commodore?
Am I right in saying Inspector Flight Safety used to be an Air Commodore?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere near the Rhine
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankfully things have improved significantly in recent years, for which I think Wg Cdr Spry and the team should be very much congratulated. It's not so long ago that the demise of IFS and the establishment of the DASC led to the senior safety person in Strike Command being a Wg Cdr. Many of the things I hear people complaining about have now been fixed and continue to improve every day. It might not be perfect and people might find some of the new words a little confusing, but the same is true of safety in areas of aviation outside the military as well. New management style words are everywhere, its not just in Air/ Aviation/ Flight Safety.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
Congratulations on the winter edition, excellent reading, I don't know if you want any feedback, but to be honest I thought the flight safety poster on the very last page is not a very good design.
A poster needs to be eye catching, simple and easily understood when glanced at, to have to add a key to decipher the acronyms tells you even the originators thought it failed in that respect.
.
A poster needs to be eye catching, simple and easily understood when glanced at, to have to add a key to decipher the acronyms tells you even the originators thought it failed in that respect.
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 3rd Dec 2013 at 15:45.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Nutty
A poster needs to be eye catching, simple and easily understood when glanced at ...
But not very PC these days
Best recent edition of Air Clues ... have a "Good Show Award" Wg Cdr Spry and a Team
Coff.
I appreciate I'm off your Christmas Card List ... But, honest, ... I did wait when I first noticed the link appear last week
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 3rd Dec 2013 at 16:49.
Regarding my Functional Safety question, this edition of Air Clues includes a definition that is so far removed from the formal definition as to be downright dangerous. I won't expect a reply.
So here’s another question. As the new RAF Flight Safety organisation is responsible for “Air Safety”, who is now responsible for Fitness For Purpose (FFP)?
Most here will recall Hercules XV179 was broadly airworthy against its SOIU, but not Fit for the Operational Purpose to which it was being put (as it lacked ESF). And that the IPT Leader stated in court that he did not know how FFP was achieved or maintained, completely washing his hands of it. He also stated it was not his or the Design Authority’s responsibility to monitor or manage vulnerability, or include FFP in the Safety Case after initial delivery (1960s), which is an even more radical departure from reality. Despite the regulations placing the responsibility for continual Vulnerability Assessment fairly and squarely on the IPTL and Design Authority (or Custodian), the MoD legal man interrupted and instructed the IPTL not to answer, it was not his job (despite 00-970 mandating it upon him). The IPTL did not evade or mislead; he just answered wrongly. Let us be kind and say he wasn’t trained for the post, which can be fairly said of many in MoD. It is not their fault. Few in MoD have the necessary background to answer such detailed questions in court, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have drafted them for the QC. It only took that one question to expose MoD’s (not just the IPT) failure to implement or understand simple airworthiness regulations.
But, having got this so fatally wrong, what action was taken to re-educate? Who has taken over this role, given it is not (apparently) the RAF Safety Centre?
Back to my original point. Functional Safety sits inside the Air Safety boundary, not outside as Air Clues states. Read the Tornado/Patriot papers. The IFF, as a standalone piece of kit, was physically safe. But, because its failure warnings were not integrated properly, it was functionally unsafe, rendering the aircraft vulnerable to friendly fire. As I said earlier, the recommendation to have this functional safety checked and corrected was rejected by two 2 Stars and the Directorate concerned (D/MCP); all of whom ruled that physical safety was sufficient, if the aircraft was vulnerable that was ok. And, criminally, that a false declaration should be made that it WAS functionally safe and contracts paid off in full.
My point is that I find the various pieces in this edition of Air Clues dangerously contradictory. It lacks substance and accuracy and key post holders will be thoroughly confused. If the new Safety Centre follows its mandate as published in Air Clues, I would have no confidence whatsoever that the Tornado problem, for example, would even be identified today, never mind fixed. At least in 1998 the problem was identified, demonstrating that a large part of the process worked correctly. The regs and procedures worked just fine; but they do not allow for subsequent criminal activity that amounted to sabotage. Who polices this aspect?
I just feel that MoD as a whole is a victim of change for the sake of change, when all that is needed is implementation of mandated regulations. So many new names, acronyms and definitions have been introduced that it must be very confusing. This applies to procurement as a whole, not just safety. We all know why. The prime objective is to avoid admitting past failures by individuals, so by re-writing all the regs the implication is that THEY were somehow wrong. But you should not lose sight of what the various Boards of Inquiry and Inquests all said. Nimrod, Chinook, Sea King, Hercules, Tornado....... Mandated regs were not implemented. In each case junior staffs insisted they should be, seniors staffs ordered they should not. The problem was not the regs! But no-one wants to address that unpalatable fact.
So here’s another question. As the new RAF Flight Safety organisation is responsible for “Air Safety”, who is now responsible for Fitness For Purpose (FFP)?
Most here will recall Hercules XV179 was broadly airworthy against its SOIU, but not Fit for the Operational Purpose to which it was being put (as it lacked ESF). And that the IPT Leader stated in court that he did not know how FFP was achieved or maintained, completely washing his hands of it. He also stated it was not his or the Design Authority’s responsibility to monitor or manage vulnerability, or include FFP in the Safety Case after initial delivery (1960s), which is an even more radical departure from reality. Despite the regulations placing the responsibility for continual Vulnerability Assessment fairly and squarely on the IPTL and Design Authority (or Custodian), the MoD legal man interrupted and instructed the IPTL not to answer, it was not his job (despite 00-970 mandating it upon him). The IPTL did not evade or mislead; he just answered wrongly. Let us be kind and say he wasn’t trained for the post, which can be fairly said of many in MoD. It is not their fault. Few in MoD have the necessary background to answer such detailed questions in court, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have drafted them for the QC. It only took that one question to expose MoD’s (not just the IPT) failure to implement or understand simple airworthiness regulations.
But, having got this so fatally wrong, what action was taken to re-educate? Who has taken over this role, given it is not (apparently) the RAF Safety Centre?
Back to my original point. Functional Safety sits inside the Air Safety boundary, not outside as Air Clues states. Read the Tornado/Patriot papers. The IFF, as a standalone piece of kit, was physically safe. But, because its failure warnings were not integrated properly, it was functionally unsafe, rendering the aircraft vulnerable to friendly fire. As I said earlier, the recommendation to have this functional safety checked and corrected was rejected by two 2 Stars and the Directorate concerned (D/MCP); all of whom ruled that physical safety was sufficient, if the aircraft was vulnerable that was ok. And, criminally, that a false declaration should be made that it WAS functionally safe and contracts paid off in full.
My point is that I find the various pieces in this edition of Air Clues dangerously contradictory. It lacks substance and accuracy and key post holders will be thoroughly confused. If the new Safety Centre follows its mandate as published in Air Clues, I would have no confidence whatsoever that the Tornado problem, for example, would even be identified today, never mind fixed. At least in 1998 the problem was identified, demonstrating that a large part of the process worked correctly. The regs and procedures worked just fine; but they do not allow for subsequent criminal activity that amounted to sabotage. Who polices this aspect?
I just feel that MoD as a whole is a victim of change for the sake of change, when all that is needed is implementation of mandated regulations. So many new names, acronyms and definitions have been introduced that it must be very confusing. This applies to procurement as a whole, not just safety. We all know why. The prime objective is to avoid admitting past failures by individuals, so by re-writing all the regs the implication is that THEY were somehow wrong. But you should not lose sight of what the various Boards of Inquiry and Inquests all said. Nimrod, Chinook, Sea King, Hercules, Tornado....... Mandated regs were not implemented. In each case junior staffs insisted they should be, seniors staffs ordered they should not. The problem was not the regs! But no-one wants to address that unpalatable fact.