RAF's now severed head speaks about cuts (to defence)..
Thanks for all the information guys! As I said at the beginning, we have suffered badly from a bunch of "Yes Men" for far too long! Love know if any of them watch this forum? Bet they are far too busy doing there consultancy work and attending functions in the RAF Club.
I seem to recall that CAS stood his ground against Mad Old Maggie in 1983/4 and was promptly handbagged for his pains?
The Military Salary scheme was introduced in 1970. As an APO at University, I couldn't believe my luck.
The Military Salary scheme was introduced in 1970. As an APO at University, I couldn't believe my luck.
Why would Graydon write to Marshall of the RAF Sir John Grandy and state ZD576 was "off course by some miles"? Letter D/CAS/16/1/6 (W0279f) dated 4.2.97 refers.
I think we should be told what the true course/destination was, as he was never asked to explain the claim. Otherwise, it will continue to be seen as an attempt to denigrate the skills of the pilots.
If he was being indiscreet and telling the truth, we'd have to start all over again on MoK!
I think we should be told what the true course/destination was, as he was never asked to explain the claim. Otherwise, it will continue to be seen as an attempt to denigrate the skills of the pilots.
If he was being indiscreet and telling the truth, we'd have to start all over again on MoK!
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newt,
Not wishing to assume what you in fact do, or don't, know about VSOs and their private boardroom meetings with Ministers etc, but is it fair to state that they are all "Yes Men"? Publicly it may seem that way, however I know that very few are privy to exactly how vociferous - or not - our Air Marshals/Generals/Admirals are in advocating their particular side of the debate. Being so senior goes hand-in-hand with being politically-minded and therefore knowing which fights are worth fighting and which are not.
Whether ACM Sir Michael Graydon has a chequered past or not should not detract from the value of him speaking out publicly in opposition to [almost] certain Defence cuts and the fact that our Armed Forces have been running on fumes and coalition good will from our US brothers and sisters for many years now.
One hopes that the forthcoming CSR and SDSR won't be such rush jobs this time around. The reality remains that the bottom line will be that of the balance book and not what we might actually need as a country.
Not wishing to assume what you in fact do, or don't, know about VSOs and their private boardroom meetings with Ministers etc, but is it fair to state that they are all "Yes Men"? Publicly it may seem that way, however I know that very few are privy to exactly how vociferous - or not - our Air Marshals/Generals/Admirals are in advocating their particular side of the debate. Being so senior goes hand-in-hand with being politically-minded and therefore knowing which fights are worth fighting and which are not.
Whether ACM Sir Michael Graydon has a chequered past or not should not detract from the value of him speaking out publicly in opposition to [almost] certain Defence cuts and the fact that our Armed Forces have been running on fumes and coalition good will from our US brothers and sisters for many years now.
One hopes that the forthcoming CSR and SDSR won't be such rush jobs this time around. The reality remains that the bottom line will be that of the balance book and not what we might actually need as a country.
MSOCS:-
What we don't need as a country is VSOs incurring massive deficits in the military supply budget by forcing through a doomed reorganisation, and making them up by attacking the ring fenced Air Safety one.
It has never recovered from that, UK Military Airworthiness still lies in ruins because of the actions of a very few old men, albeit very senior ones. They are beyond all reach it seems, despite breaking Military Law by issuing illegal orders to subvert the Military Airworthiness Regulations yet sign them off as complied with.
No-one wants to know; the SoS for Defence, Defence Ministers, the Head of the Civil Service, the HoC Select Committee for Defence, the House of Lords, the Thames Valley Police, or the RAF Provost Marshal. Evidently they are all honourable men and remain so in their sinecure jobs in the Defence Industries.
How any of this should come as news to long time PPRuNe members I fail to understand. It has been well covered in the various UK Fatal Military Air Accident threads in this very forum.
The reality remains that the bottom line will be that of the balance book and not what we might actually need as a country.
It has never recovered from that, UK Military Airworthiness still lies in ruins because of the actions of a very few old men, albeit very senior ones. They are beyond all reach it seems, despite breaking Military Law by issuing illegal orders to subvert the Military Airworthiness Regulations yet sign them off as complied with.
No-one wants to know; the SoS for Defence, Defence Ministers, the Head of the Civil Service, the HoC Select Committee for Defence, the House of Lords, the Thames Valley Police, or the RAF Provost Marshal. Evidently they are all honourable men and remain so in their sinecure jobs in the Defence Industries.
How any of this should come as news to long time PPRuNe members I fail to understand. It has been well covered in the various UK Fatal Military Air Accident threads in this very forum.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Tec, good point to raise - especially poignant to me as Graydon was the first person I wrote to (in 1994) voicing my concerns as to what they may have been doing close to the Mull and what steps I though were needed to gather particular evidence (in advance of the formal inquiries) before it was lost.
It was particularly disingenuous of him to say that they were miles off course as subsequent detailed analysis made it abundantly clear that they had been making a deliberate approach to a particular point on the Mull; that same analysis derived that they were in control right up to impact (all in an 80+ page illustrated submission I put into the Lord Philip Review).
When you say that MOK (thread) would have to start all over again, I say the debate never really started on the important aspects - from an airmanship view, they had run into an isolated low hill and yet navigation was never openly and honestly covered.
I note a similarity with the Falklands Chinook crash - hitting a ridge - in that there seems a reluctance to acknowledge the difficulty of judging distance off certain featureless terrain; how about doing it when an instrument is misleading you? (yeah, yeah, I'm bringing up the CPLS bogeyman again.)
It was particularly disingenuous of him to say that they were miles off course as subsequent detailed analysis made it abundantly clear that they had been making a deliberate approach to a particular point on the Mull; that same analysis derived that they were in control right up to impact (all in an 80+ page illustrated submission I put into the Lord Philip Review).
When you say that MOK (thread) would have to start all over again, I say the debate never really started on the important aspects - from an airmanship view, they had run into an isolated low hill and yet navigation was never openly and honestly covered.
I note a similarity with the Falklands Chinook crash - hitting a ridge - in that there seems a reluctance to acknowledge the difficulty of judging distance off certain featureless terrain; how about doing it when an instrument is misleading you? (yeah, yeah, I'm bringing up the CPLS bogeyman again.)
MSOCS you only have to look at what has happened in the years since the early sixties to realise what has been happening! Furthermore, take a look at the very brief career these guys have in the front line before promotion into the realms of fantasy! The system as it stands is unsustainable! There is no continuity between the front end and the VSOs. There needs to be some lateral thinking, especially as we have so few squadrons and frontline assets. Pilots should be professional pilots not future senior wheels! We need to rethink the structure before we get the results that reflect a modern Air Force. This has been the case for far too long!
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newt,
I completely disagree.
You may be referring to bygone days and practises but I'm not. Today's VSOs and those in the pipeline to replace them are indeed made up of the various branches (the majority are NOT pilots!) and almost all of those that spring to my mind have a great deal of experience of ops ("Front End"), having commanded at either/or both the tactical or operational levels. Few serving members of the Armed Forces, across all ranks, will have avoided the last 25 years we've been fighting baddies in the sandpit!
You say pilots should be professional pilots? The vast majority of pilots don't actually make it to VSO rank (1*+). Career routes such as the Professional Aviator spine allow pilots to remain in flying or flying-related posts for their entire careers. Indeed, a healthy, modern Air Force depends upon such people to pass hard-won experience onto others. For the very tiny minority who's personal choice and capabilities suit promotion to high rank then so be it, but it's their choice. If you are referring to VSO posts being filled "only by pilots" then you're out of date; take a look at ACAS (an Engineer) and the 2/3-star non-pilots across DE&S, DIO and in MoD. Those individuals are where they are by their own merits and demonstrate a far more level playing field than you've implied.
I completely disagree.
You may be referring to bygone days and practises but I'm not. Today's VSOs and those in the pipeline to replace them are indeed made up of the various branches (the majority are NOT pilots!) and almost all of those that spring to my mind have a great deal of experience of ops ("Front End"), having commanded at either/or both the tactical or operational levels. Few serving members of the Armed Forces, across all ranks, will have avoided the last 25 years we've been fighting baddies in the sandpit!
You say pilots should be professional pilots? The vast majority of pilots don't actually make it to VSO rank (1*+). Career routes such as the Professional Aviator spine allow pilots to remain in flying or flying-related posts for their entire careers. Indeed, a healthy, modern Air Force depends upon such people to pass hard-won experience onto others. For the very tiny minority who's personal choice and capabilities suit promotion to high rank then so be it, but it's their choice. If you are referring to VSO posts being filled "only by pilots" then you're out of date; take a look at ACAS (an Engineer) and the 2/3-star non-pilots across DE&S, DIO and in MoD. Those individuals are where they are by their own merits and demonstrate a far more level playing field than you've implied.
Newt, MSOCS,
No doubt there are some VSOs with the requisite experience and intellect to perform their roles adequately, but the overriding problem is the organisation itself. Without individual accountability it is impossible to determine an individual's suitability to hold high office. The whole edifice is a masterpiece of obfuscation and needs a root and branch review to make it fit for purpose. It's all very well for VSOs to be speaking out against defence cuts but they are part of the problem. Until they can show the government that the MoD is efficient and gives value for money they will have no credibility.
No doubt there are some VSOs with the requisite experience and intellect to perform their roles adequately, but the overriding problem is the organisation itself. Without individual accountability it is impossible to determine an individual's suitability to hold high office. The whole edifice is a masterpiece of obfuscation and needs a root and branch review to make it fit for purpose. It's all very well for VSOs to be speaking out against defence cuts but they are part of the problem. Until they can show the government that the MoD is efficient and gives value for money they will have no credibility.
Originally Posted by kintyred
Without individual accountability it is impossible to determine an individual's suitability to hold high office.
They don't seek our determination of anything, especially their suitability.
Some may be better than others and some may make mistakes or do things wrong. But they certainly neither need nor seek anyone's approval.
Goodness, that coming from me?
Why don't you rename this hijacked thread "MoK 2" guys?
By the way, I see the subject has started styling himself "Sir .." not "ACM Sir.." in letters to the press. (Times, yesterday). If he wants to bang on about 2% of GDP, fine. But first there should be an inquiry into gross and quite conscious waste and why very senior staffs practice and condone it. Then the subject and his mates could have their say, as a first hand witnesses.
Remember that these people do not live their lives in the public eye.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I don't care that much about anyone's perceptions of those that speak out or what they may or may not have done. We need these issues highlighted to the public and the politicians and I thank all of them for doing so.
The most important thing to me is the maintenance of our capability and my conditions of service.
The most important thing to me is the maintenance of our capability and my conditions of service.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 59°09N 002°38W (IATA: SOY, ICAO: EGER)
Age: 80
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentleman Aviator
And of course, under the "Duty Holder" construct, there IS identified, named individual responsibility, which can extend for life!!
To quote from the scary-ish letter sent by AOCs to DDHs:
To quote from the scary-ish letter sent by AOCs to DDHs:
As such [DDH] you are personally legally responsible and accountable [for all activities that may pose a Risk to Life] through me and the SDH [CAS] to the S of S.
Originally Posted by Mach Two
Actually, I don't care that much about anyone's perceptions of those that speak out or what they may or may not have done. We need these issues highlighted to the public and the politicians and I thank all of them for doing so.
The most important thing to me is the maintenance of our capability and my conditions of service.
The most important thing to me is the maintenance of our capability and my conditions of service.
VSO's
BomberH:-
But they all stick together! That is why the MAA cannot and will not probe the Haddon-Cave "Golden Period" when the real hatchet job on the system of UK Military Airworthiness provision was wrought. Because it will not go there, any attempt to get airworthiness working again is as a mansion built upon sand.
That is why the MAA must be independent of the MOD, so that it can do its job properly and make UK military aircraft safe again.
Mach Two:-
That is all I would want for you too. That is why I crack on in my attempts to ensure that the aircraft that you fly do not explode in mid-air, that the escape systems that you rely on to save your life will do so because they have a full safety case, that should your IFF fail in an operational environment you are at least warned of it in order to take the appropriate action and not lose your life in a Blue on Blue.
That is why I call for an independent MAA and MAAIB; of the MOD and of each other.
Not all are good. Not all are bad.
That is why the MAA must be independent of the MOD, so that it can do its job properly and make UK military aircraft safe again.
Mach Two:-
The most important thing to me is the maintenance of our capability and my conditions of service.
That is why I call for an independent MAA and MAAIB; of the MOD and of each other.