Wing Commander Spry
Gentleman Aviator
Dear Spry
I am delighted to see your return and that of the ageless Percy Prune as part of the team.
I suppose in these PC times we have to accept the loss of WAAF Winsum, who in any case in her day would have been discharged on marriage and/or pregnancy - whichever came first, although she does appear to be a MIU - Mother in Uniform - below. (Percy P did make an honest woman of her eventually)
But why did Percy's four-legged friend (and intellectual superior) "Binder" have to change breeds and names to become "Watson"?
I attach an old family photo of all of the above - and Percy Jnr, whom I assume to be the father of the present Percy III.
I am delighted to see your return and that of the ageless Percy Prune as part of the team.
I suppose in these PC times we have to accept the loss of WAAF Winsum, who in any case in her day would have been discharged on marriage and/or pregnancy - whichever came first, although she does appear to be a MIU - Mother in Uniform - below. (Percy P did make an honest woman of her eventually)
But why did Percy's four-legged friend (and intellectual superior) "Binder" have to change breeds and names to become "Watson"?
I attach an old family photo of all of the above - and Percy Jnr, whom I assume to be the father of the present Percy III.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Lancaster Block
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following is taken from the MOD blog page following on from yesterdays article in the Sunday Times.
Yours aye
Spry
The Sunday Times ran a story titled 'Dambusters hit by defence cuts bombshell' which commented on an article from the RAF's flight safety publication 'Air Clues' and tried to paint a somewhat sensationalistic picture of engineering and manning issues off the back of the recent redundancies within the RAF.
The headline of the story is misleading; the facts of the events in question are that only 12 (Bomber) Squadron, not 617 Squadron, ceased flying training operations at RAF Lossiemouth for 3 days during the review of engineering practices. Whilst 617 Squadron's fleet allocation was temporarily reduced from 13 to 10 aircraft, 617 Squadron continued flying training as normal and returned to operating with a full aircraft complement shortly thereafter.
The article also mentions the loss of 270 technicians from the redundancy round; whilst this was the case across the RAF, only 37 technicians were required to backfill RAF Lossiemouth - notably none of these actions affected deployed operations.
The decision to publish the full details of the management of engineering issues at RAF Lossiemouth in 'Air Clues' proves that the RAF's highest priority remains flight safety. It also demonstrates that 'open and honest' flight safety reporting is positively encouraged at all levels and, importantly, is listened to; in this case leading to appropriate measures and actions being introduced by management to ensure safety and operational effectiveness.
In sum, this is a hugely positive story of best practice from RAF Lossiemouth and is considered a classic example of how the RAF should be doing business in terms of listening to our people, identifying issues, planning rectification, enacting a plan and then publicising the results so that all can learn from hard-earned experience.
The headline of the story is misleading; the facts of the events in question are that only 12 (Bomber) Squadron, not 617 Squadron, ceased flying training operations at RAF Lossiemouth for 3 days during the review of engineering practices. Whilst 617 Squadron's fleet allocation was temporarily reduced from 13 to 10 aircraft, 617 Squadron continued flying training as normal and returned to operating with a full aircraft complement shortly thereafter.
The article also mentions the loss of 270 technicians from the redundancy round; whilst this was the case across the RAF, only 37 technicians were required to backfill RAF Lossiemouth - notably none of these actions affected deployed operations.
The decision to publish the full details of the management of engineering issues at RAF Lossiemouth in 'Air Clues' proves that the RAF's highest priority remains flight safety. It also demonstrates that 'open and honest' flight safety reporting is positively encouraged at all levels and, importantly, is listened to; in this case leading to appropriate measures and actions being introduced by management to ensure safety and operational effectiveness.
In sum, this is a hugely positive story of best practice from RAF Lossiemouth and is considered a classic example of how the RAF should be doing business in terms of listening to our people, identifying issues, planning rectification, enacting a plan and then publicising the results so that all can learn from hard-earned experience.
Spry
Last edited by Wg Cdr Spry; 8th Jul 2013 at 15:39.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Lancaster Block
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, as I'm sure you are aware, dogs have quite a short life span.
Rest assured though that, the rest of the team and I are eternal. I feel as though I havent aged a day in almost 70 years, in fact some would say I'm looking younger...
Rest assured though that, the rest of the team and I are eternal. I feel as though I havent aged a day in almost 70 years, in fact some would say I'm looking younger...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old editions of Air Clues
Dear Wg Cdr Spry,
It's great to have you on board after an over-long absence and it is great to be able to also get Air Clues as an on-line .pdf publication. I am sure that you are absolutely right in trying to promote Flight Safety to the modern RAF using the treasure trove of past experience available here on PPRuNe, as you have already said in your reply to Coff above.
I will try and work on an "I learnt about flying from....." story and will send it to you for consideration. I have one in particular in mind when at Linton in the early 1980's which may still pass the test of time.....today's student pilots surely can't be THAT different a generation on, when the over-confidence of youth and inexperience made (at least some of) us think we were invulnerable?
In the meantime, I wonder as you try and tap into the "vast pool of experience" here whether it would be possible to scan back issues of Air Clues from the IFS archive and make them available as .pdf's? Who knows, a few of us might even recognise ourselves from the days of yore, pre baldness and/or going grey - not that vanity is an emotion that any self-respecting aircrew would admit to having!
The passing on and receipt of knowledge is a two-way street and it would be a great shame if all that archive material had been lost forever.
Keep up the good work Sir!
Yours sincerely,
MB
(Please forgive my poor service writing, it's been a while since I left and I was never interested in being a scribbly anyway).
It's great to have you on board after an over-long absence and it is great to be able to also get Air Clues as an on-line .pdf publication. I am sure that you are absolutely right in trying to promote Flight Safety to the modern RAF using the treasure trove of past experience available here on PPRuNe, as you have already said in your reply to Coff above.
I will try and work on an "I learnt about flying from....." story and will send it to you for consideration. I have one in particular in mind when at Linton in the early 1980's which may still pass the test of time.....today's student pilots surely can't be THAT different a generation on, when the over-confidence of youth and inexperience made (at least some of) us think we were invulnerable?
In the meantime, I wonder as you try and tap into the "vast pool of experience" here whether it would be possible to scan back issues of Air Clues from the IFS archive and make them available as .pdf's? Who knows, a few of us might even recognise ourselves from the days of yore, pre baldness and/or going grey - not that vanity is an emotion that any self-respecting aircrew would admit to having!
The passing on and receipt of knowledge is a two-way street and it would be a great shame if all that archive material had been lost forever.
Keep up the good work Sir!
Yours sincerely,
MB
(Please forgive my poor service writing, it's been a while since I left and I was never interested in being a scribbly anyway).
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Lancaster Block
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MB,
Scanning in all the past editions of Air Clues is on my To Do list. This will take some time but once complete I will upload them to our web site.
I always welcome articles for inclusion in Air Clues, however I'm afraid they cannot be anonymous.
Yours aye
Spry
Scanning in all the past editions of Air Clues is on my To Do list. This will take some time but once complete I will upload them to our web site.
I always welcome articles for inclusion in Air Clues, however I'm afraid they cannot be anonymous.
Yours aye
Spry
Last edited by Wg Cdr Spry; 8th Jul 2013 at 16:26.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,754
Received 2,737 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
Cool Air clues, I used to enjoy reading that and will again, hope you have finally sorted out the FOD issues, all the time I served the FOD collected posters always used to contain a 12 inch ruler, we / you must have been losing literally hundreds of them. 
Glad to see you are looking at including older back issues, the types might have changed but the core knowledge they contain remains relevant, especially as some of the types are still in service, and lessons learnt by earlier generations may be unknown to the present incumbent's operating them.
Glad to see you are looking at including older back issues, the types might have changed but the core knowledge they contain remains relevant, especially as some of the types are still in service, and lessons learnt by earlier generations may be unknown to the present incumbent's operating them.
Last edited by NutLoose; 8th Jul 2013 at 19:18.
Easy Street, thank you for the link. I would commend careful study of it to all who seek to understand what has happened and what should be done to put it right again. I repeat it here:https://sites.google.com/site/milita...orthiness/home
Would Air Clues publish a word if it? Not a hope.
Chug - in reply to your comment "what issue...". The issues being addressed are those that CAN be addresses by those 'within the wire' as you term it. I see it as similar to walking past a large pile of rubbish dumped on your drive - you can moan and write letters all day to the police/council about fly-tippers etc, but the most pressing need is to pick all the rubbish up before it causes other problems (or attracts more dumping). The fact that the recent establishment of a robust and clearly defined station 'Air Safety / Flight Safety' (
) system may not affect issues way further up the tree shouldn't stop it being used for good in the meantime. I've previously been involved in the system from the very early days and while not perfect, it is doing good work on the ground.
By the way - "wherein rules and regulations are generally obeyed, and punishment usually follows when they are not. " You'd be surprised how often that local investigations/reviews uncover the very opposite. By highlighting the errors it is hoped to re-educate those 'sinners' who may have been unwittingly/deliberately not following 'the rules'.
) system may not affect issues way further up the tree shouldn't stop it being used for good in the meantime. I've previously been involved in the system from the very early days and while not perfect, it is doing good work on the ground.By the way - "wherein rules and regulations are generally obeyed, and punishment usually follows when they are not. " You'd be surprised how often that local investigations/reviews uncover the very opposite. By highlighting the errors it is hoped to re-educate those 'sinners' who may have been unwittingly/deliberately not following 'the rules'.
Last edited by Sandy Parts; 9th Jul 2013 at 12:40.
SP:-
Well not really Sandy, for it is a constant effort of promoting best practice and publicising the results of bad practice. No doubt like you and many others, I have walked the apron gathering in the harvest (into a large refuse bag) and depositing it on the Wg Cdr Ops desk with a "I believe this lot belongs to you, Sir". It was a pleasure and a privilege too, I might add.
What surprised and shocked me was that years later it seems that all this was turned on its head by the RAF High Command who ordered that bad practice be the norm for Airworthiness provision. So an aircraft subject to best practice departs properly serviced from a FOD free airfield with a fully trained crew operating to the letters of the regulations, only to be destroyed because it has a dry bay containing fuel couplings and a source of ignition, or a FADEC with positively dangerous code, or an IFF that does not alert the crew of its failure in a tactical environment, or fuel tanks lacking ballistic protection in a tactical environment, etc. How stupid is that?
How stupid is it that it is the repeated position of the MOD, unchallenged by the MAA, that it remains a disciplinary offence to refuse to obey an order (given by an RAF Air Rank Officer) to make a false declaration of financial probity and airworthiness? I'm afraid that these two incompatible and contradictory positions, one inside and one outside the Station Gates, are the very antithesis of Flight Safety, and anyone professing to serve its cause has to stand up and declare that.
Little point in getting all the deck chairs aligned if, due to substandard rivets or steel sheet, insufficient safety equipment or whatever, the ship is not seaworthy and so sinks. The RAF ship is not seaworthy and there appears to be a lack of leadership to deal with it. If that leadership is to come from anywhere then it must come from those who are informed enough to point out the lamentable failings in airworthiness provision, ie from those serving in Flight Safety.
It has been tried before, the RAF Flight Safety Inspectorate commissioned the 'Arts, looking into airworthiness failings in the Nimrod, Hercules, Chinook, Tornado, etc. Instead of being published they were pulped (or at least ordered to be so). Time they were published, so how about it Wg Cdr Spry? Will you accept dervish's challenge? You may well be damned if you do, but aren't we all damned if you don't? Aviation does not allow of political correctness, rather it kills if not continuously stopped from doing so. Time it was stopped!
Self Regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation it Kills!
You'd be surprised how often that local investigations/reviews uncover the very opposite.
What surprised and shocked me was that years later it seems that all this was turned on its head by the RAF High Command who ordered that bad practice be the norm for Airworthiness provision. So an aircraft subject to best practice departs properly serviced from a FOD free airfield with a fully trained crew operating to the letters of the regulations, only to be destroyed because it has a dry bay containing fuel couplings and a source of ignition, or a FADEC with positively dangerous code, or an IFF that does not alert the crew of its failure in a tactical environment, or fuel tanks lacking ballistic protection in a tactical environment, etc. How stupid is that?
How stupid is it that it is the repeated position of the MOD, unchallenged by the MAA, that it remains a disciplinary offence to refuse to obey an order (given by an RAF Air Rank Officer) to make a false declaration of financial probity and airworthiness? I'm afraid that these two incompatible and contradictory positions, one inside and one outside the Station Gates, are the very antithesis of Flight Safety, and anyone professing to serve its cause has to stand up and declare that.
Little point in getting all the deck chairs aligned if, due to substandard rivets or steel sheet, insufficient safety equipment or whatever, the ship is not seaworthy and so sinks. The RAF ship is not seaworthy and there appears to be a lack of leadership to deal with it. If that leadership is to come from anywhere then it must come from those who are informed enough to point out the lamentable failings in airworthiness provision, ie from those serving in Flight Safety.
It has been tried before, the RAF Flight Safety Inspectorate commissioned the 'Arts, looking into airworthiness failings in the Nimrod, Hercules, Chinook, Tornado, etc. Instead of being published they were pulped (or at least ordered to be so). Time they were published, so how about it Wg Cdr Spry? Will you accept dervish's challenge? You may well be damned if you do, but aren't we all damned if you don't? Aviation does not allow of political correctness, rather it kills if not continuously stopped from doing so. Time it was stopped!
Self Regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation it Kills!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 9th Jul 2013 at 20:19.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere near the Rhine
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chug
Whilst your continual support of the cause of airworthiness does you credit, I think you need to view safety in its wider context and the MoD should be congratulated on its efforts in this regard.
Many of the issues of which you speak occurred when today's leadership were but junior officers and to suggest that they are actively complicit in fraud or illegal activities is absurd. Aviation regulation today is very different to 20 years ago, in all aspects. Please don't denigrate the hard work of the many well meaning people in the MAA and the single services doing safety today because of actions and decisions made by others many. many years ago.
The changes that have taken place since the crash of XV230 are immeasurable and many people have put their necks on the line to support these improvements, Wg Cdr Spry included.
Please support this thread in the spirit which, I think, led to its creation and enable Spry to support the future generation in staying safe.
Whilst your continual support of the cause of airworthiness does you credit, I think you need to view safety in its wider context and the MoD should be congratulated on its efforts in this regard.
Many of the issues of which you speak occurred when today's leadership were but junior officers and to suggest that they are actively complicit in fraud or illegal activities is absurd. Aviation regulation today is very different to 20 years ago, in all aspects. Please don't denigrate the hard work of the many well meaning people in the MAA and the single services doing safety today because of actions and decisions made by others many. many years ago.
The changes that have taken place since the crash of XV230 are immeasurable and many people have put their necks on the line to support these improvements, Wg Cdr Spry included.
Please support this thread in the spirit which, I think, led to its creation and enable Spry to support the future generation in staying safe.
How stupid is it that it is the repeated position of the MOD, unchallenged by the MAA, that it remains a disciplinary offence to refuse to obey an order (given by an RAF Air Rank Officer) to make a false declaration of financial probity and airworthiness?
Even I can understand that. Key word is "remains"
Many of the issues of which you speak occurred when today's leadership were but junior officers and to suggest that they are actively complicit in fraud or illegal activities is absurd. Aviation regulation today is very different to 20 years ago, in all aspects. Please don't denigrate the hard work of the many well meaning people in the MAA and the single services doing safety today because of actions and decisions made by others many. many years ago.
I'd recommend again you follow the link above and read the section on the elephant in the MAA's room. The latest update quotes a recent letter from DE&S and names names. Are the staff who approved that "actively complicit in fraud or illegal activities?" Can Air Clues ask the MAA to comment on these DE&S letters?
That doesn't mean everyone is complicit but it only needs one person to think this way.
Last edited by dervish; 10th Jul 2013 at 05:08.
TFF:-
I don't denigrate anyone doing their best to do safety, on the contrary I can only encourage them to go on doing so to their absolute utmost endeavour. It is the MAA that I denigrate, for the simple reason that it is based on a lie and continues to perpetuate that lie. The lie is the Haddon Cave report, that the MAA was established as a consequence of.
The report claims that before the sequence of events that led to the tragic loss of XV230 there had been a "Golden Age of Airworthiness". If only! XV230 was merely a link in a chain that extended back to that "Golden Age" when the subversion of Flight Safety by RAF Air Officers really began. That was in 1987. By turning its back on its own (the MOD's) history, the MAA is doomed to have it repeated. Nothing has changed, that same chain of possible subversion and consequence still exists.
Unless and until the RAF faces up to and accepts that chain, the actions of its own Air Officers, and the continued cover up of their actions, then the chain will stay in place, threatening efforts to:
Once that bullet is bitten then the way of breaking that chain is to make the MAA and, just as importantly the MAAIB, civilian led and independent of the MOD and of each other.
Given my take on the situation I hope you will not think me rude when I say that I find your suggestion that:
risible.
The reason that what I quote is from the past is that is what history is made of. What is happening today will be tomorrow's history. Let us all "put our necks on the line" for real, and ensure that those who sit in judgement on our efforts in the future will approve of them and say that this was indeed the very beginning of a "Golden Age of Airworthiness".
Please don't denigrate the hard work of the many well meaning people in the MAA and the single services doing safety today because of actions and decisions made by others many. many years ago.
The report claims that before the sequence of events that led to the tragic loss of XV230 there had been a "Golden Age of Airworthiness". If only! XV230 was merely a link in a chain that extended back to that "Golden Age" when the subversion of Flight Safety by RAF Air Officers really began. That was in 1987. By turning its back on its own (the MOD's) history, the MAA is doomed to have it repeated. Nothing has changed, that same chain of possible subversion and consequence still exists.
Unless and until the RAF faces up to and accepts that chain, the actions of its own Air Officers, and the continued cover up of their actions, then the chain will stay in place, threatening efforts to:
support the future generation in staying safe
Given my take on the situation I hope you will not think me rude when I say that I find your suggestion that:
the MoD should be congratulated on its efforts
The reason that what I quote is from the past is that is what history is made of. What is happening today will be tomorrow's history. Let us all "put our necks on the line" for real, and ensure that those who sit in judgement on our efforts in the future will approve of them and say that this was indeed the very beginning of a "Golden Age of Airworthiness".
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Lancaster Block
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad to see that this thread is sparking up some interesting debate. I wish to assure you that I am reading your posts with interest, however I'm afraid I will not discuss policy of current or previous administrations in whatever guise on this anonymous forum. Please do not see this as me being dismissive, we all have our masters. If, however you would like to write to me, my email address is [email protected] and I will endeavour to get back to you. I may even post your letter in my next edition of Air Clues.
Looking forward, I would like to perhaps start some discussion on current Flight Safety initiatives and welcome any ideas for future development.
Dont forget, you can now find us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/RAFFlightSafety
Your aye
Spry
Looking forward, I would like to perhaps start some discussion on current Flight Safety initiatives and welcome any ideas for future development.
Dont forget, you can now find us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/RAFFlightSafety
Your aye
Spry
This is an excellent 15-minute talk by the FT journalist Gillian Tett which describes how her training as an anthropologist helped her to identify during 2006 that all was not well in the world of international finance, despite her unfamiliarity with much of the language. She noted that bank executives tended to spend all their time talking about the stock and currency markets, and rarely (if ever) spoke about the bond and credit markets, despite these forming a large and rapidly-growing part of the balance sheets. This silence fitted certain anthropological theories and pointed to trouble...
It's well worth a listen to, and thought-provoking in an Air Safety context as well. What are the things that our senior executives (their Airships) never talk about? Obviously the last page of this thread covers one topic, but it would be interesting to see if there are others and whether it is the same basic human behaviour at work. I wonder if there is a basis for an Air Clues article in here?
It's well worth a listen to, and thought-provoking in an Air Safety context as well. What are the things that our senior executives (their Airships) never talk about? Obviously the last page of this thread covers one topic, but it would be interesting to see if there are others and whether it is the same basic human behaviour at work. I wonder if there is a basis for an Air Clues article in here?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
If it is true that
.
Then why are we all shilly-shallying about; it is a crime to give the order and a crime to obey it (c.f Nuremberg military trials - "I was only following orders" but still we hung them!)
If it's not true then we are wasting our time chasing our own tails.
Rgds SOS
it is the repeated position of the MOD, unchallenged by the MAA, that it remains a disciplinary offence to refuse to obey an order (given by an RAF Air Rank Officer) to make a false declaration of financial probity and airworthiness?
Then why are we all shilly-shallying about; it is a crime to give the order and a crime to obey it (c.f Nuremberg military trials - "I was only following orders" but still we hung them!)
If it's not true then we are wasting our time chasing our own tails.
Rgds SOS
Last edited by SOSL; 17th Jul 2013 at 14:08.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
ES
What an enlightening talk by Gillian Tett and a beautiful example of the power of cross-disciplinary reasoning.
I couldn't agree more that
Maybe the wingco could ask her for her thoughts.
Rgds SOS
I couldn't agree more that
It's well worth a listen to, and thought-provoking in an Air Safety context as well. What are the things that our senior executives (their Airships) never talk about? Obviously the last page of this thread covers one topic, but it would be interesting to see if there are others and whether it is the same basic human behaviour at work. I wonder if there is a basis for an Air Clues article in here?
Rgds SOS
Last edited by SOSL; 17th Jul 2013 at 14:40.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Lancaster Block
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that Percy has finally worked out how to use our scanner, I will be uploading the back issues of Air Clues to our Internet site. I am starting right back at the beginning with our predecessor Tee Emm Issue 1 dated April 1941. I hope to have the first 20 editions of Tee Emm uploaded by the end of next week. In the mean time keep an eye on our Facebook page as I will be uploading Issue 1 there.
Yours aye
Spry
Yours aye
Spry
SOSL
In reply to your last two posts, I think the obvious things our airships don't talk about is the elephant in the room; that DE&S/MAA has advised six Mins(AF) and the Head of the Civil Service to uphold the rulings mentioned.
The current staffs are stuck between a rock and a hard place. To advise Min and HoCS otherwise would be to openly disagree with their immediate predecessors, who have been mostly responsible for their advancement. So, they continue to follow the same old party line, hoping against hope that nothing will happen on their watch. We saw this blind allegiance when Dalton pinned his colours to the mast when writing to the press agreeing with these retired VSOs; and then complete silence when his appalling lack of judgement was exposed and Lord Philip ruled against them. He is by no means an isolated case.
I have no doubt some in the MAA disagree with the rulings (and, equally, many don't give a damn), but until they say this, and stop hiding in the background while DE&S spout this rubbish in MoD's name, there can be no wider openness and honesty. In turn, this militates against what Wg Cdr Spry is trying to achieve (and the MAA SHOULD be trying to achieve).
I understand, up to a point, when the Wg Cdr says he cannot comment on past or present policy (same thing in this case). But that inability to even speak of the elephant, never mind cull it, is precisely what caused the systemic failings in the first place. The opportunity to constrain this to an isolated act of insanity was lost long ago, and support for it is now too deeply ingrained in our upper echelons. (MAA - it is now 2.5 years since a Minister arranged for you to be briefed on this; what have you done? Nothing, except disparage those who had the balls to report it ). Yet, it is an offence NOT to report such failings (read your letters of delegation). Such abrogation is itself systemic, not because people are incompetent but because they are frightened to speak up. That one admission by Wg Cdr is the best argument for true MAA independence.
In reply to your last two posts, I think the obvious things our airships don't talk about is the elephant in the room; that DE&S/MAA has advised six Mins(AF) and the Head of the Civil Service to uphold the rulings mentioned.
The current staffs are stuck between a rock and a hard place. To advise Min and HoCS otherwise would be to openly disagree with their immediate predecessors, who have been mostly responsible for their advancement. So, they continue to follow the same old party line, hoping against hope that nothing will happen on their watch. We saw this blind allegiance when Dalton pinned his colours to the mast when writing to the press agreeing with these retired VSOs; and then complete silence when his appalling lack of judgement was exposed and Lord Philip ruled against them. He is by no means an isolated case.
I have no doubt some in the MAA disagree with the rulings (and, equally, many don't give a damn), but until they say this, and stop hiding in the background while DE&S spout this rubbish in MoD's name, there can be no wider openness and honesty. In turn, this militates against what Wg Cdr Spry is trying to achieve (and the MAA SHOULD be trying to achieve).
I understand, up to a point, when the Wg Cdr says he cannot comment on past or present policy (same thing in this case). But that inability to even speak of the elephant, never mind cull it, is precisely what caused the systemic failings in the first place. The opportunity to constrain this to an isolated act of insanity was lost long ago, and support for it is now too deeply ingrained in our upper echelons. (MAA - it is now 2.5 years since a Minister arranged for you to be briefed on this; what have you done? Nothing, except disparage those who had the balls to report it ). Yet, it is an offence NOT to report such failings (read your letters of delegation). Such abrogation is itself systemic, not because people are incompetent but because they are frightened to speak up. That one admission by Wg Cdr is the best argument for true MAA independence.
