Originally Posted by
Chugalug2
Yes, though I wouldn't presume to paraphrase BI's post. Suffice it to say Roland probably has it right, that critical references to a contracting company offended PPRuNe policy. So be it, their pram, their toys. In any case the point of what BI had to say was that contracting out such a core activity as the flight training of RAF aircrew, changes the traditional military aspects (he instanced military airmanship) of instruction. The common factor with the other major concern affecting the future conduct of UK Air Power, that of airworthiness, is of course the RAF leadership. The combination of maintaining the cover up of past VSO sabotage of UK Military Air Safety, and the feathering of nests involved in contracting out core activities, does not bode well for our future struggles for air superiority. The VSOs involved will no doubt be long gone, but their malevolent bequests will haunt the RAF for decades.
The cover up needs to stop and be owned up to. Reform of Air Regulation and Accident Investigation must follow, independent of the MOD and of each other. Then attention needs to focus on the RAF CoC outside of the station gates, because the present system clearly doesn't work for maintaining UK Air Power.
In the interests of retention I have quoted the above good precis without presuming to comment further.