Albert driver wrote:
So when you write these articles are you going to state in them that you didn't want to pay a few hundred pounds for access...
No. The intention is to make the RAF look good, not bad.
Albert driver also wrote:
...access to the current, definitive information at source, so instead you interviewed a handful of people who may have been through some part of the system five, ten years ago?
The point of posting here is to come direct to the source and appeal to current studs and QFIs (or recently retired QFIs) to let me talk to them. I would describe these people as primary source, current and perfectly well qualified to have formed a view worth sharing.
Albert driver ended with:
And is the RAF expected to be grateful for articles written this way?
My objective is not to imbue the gratitude of the RAF, although I would hope that RAF aircrew reading the spreads would think I had done a good job representing their skill and expertise in a very challenging environment to the general public.
What I do want to do is show the world that the RAF is bloody good at what it does, and that it produces the best aircrew in the world. With so little being written about the RAF nowadays, that's an honorable goal, IMO.
So, no, I don't think the RAF should be grateful. But equally, I don't think that they should make it financially impossible for me to sing their praises.