"He took part as crew in a legitimate authorised training sortie."
Right.
So why did a recently passed out (that afternoon) pilot, who leaves the RAF in two weeks time, who will not be posted to any frontline type or unit, and who will make no "return of service" need to undertake a training sortie in a Chinook (authorised or otherwise)?
I can see that it might be deemed useful and appropriate to attach him to a Chinook squadron on exercise, getting him to man the ops desk, and flying him as a co-pilot and as an extra loadie on a few sorties actually carrying troops. At least that would enhance his military education as an Army JO.
But to undertake a flying training sortie, per se, on an operational aircraft type (as opposed to flying him on a more representative sortie) seems to be unnecessary and - in the light of the ongoing defence cuts - a disgusting waste of money.
And who are we kidding? Technically this may have been authorised as a flying training sortie, but that's a fig-leaf to cover what was a taxi service for W&H to go to a party. How often do Chinook OCU sorties include a landing in London to pick up a passenger before terminating at Bembridge?
How many other students have gone straight from their wings parade to any form of authorised training sortie that afternoon?
And why wasn't he having a beer with his course mates?
I don't especially mind that the second in line to the throne was flown, at public expense, to a private party (Though isn't that more what 32 are for? Wouldn't it have been cheaper by A109 or Squirrel?).
What grips me is that people think that the public are stupid enough to swallow this nonsense about it being a normal and legitimate training sortie. If we're going to treat the Royals differently, lets have the courage of our convictions and be honest about it, and not sink to New Labour levels of spin, deceit and trickery.
Whoever thought that this was a good idea is either afflicted with an astonishing degree of F-wittery (it was bound to attract attention) or a breathtaking degree of arrogance.
Or both.
And while I'm banging on about it, had he fulfilled the normal requirements for the award of wings?
It would be interesting to compare William's training with what is usually required for the award of wings.
Don't you have to complete EFTS and BFTS to get wings, at the moment (there was a time, IIRC, when you had to finish AFTS at Valley, wasn't there?) or get to the equivalent stage at Shawbury (Griffin?)? Wings are hard-earned and that's why they're accorded the respect they are. They imply that the wearer has qualified and is competent, and there is an inference that they have some specific competences in formation and instrument flying, etc.
And isn't there an alternative? Could he not have been awarded the PFB? What are the qualifications for that, now?
So how many hours did he fly in the respective types? Tutor, Tucano, Squirrel? (Dual/solo hours, how many sorties, did he take and pass the normal Basic Handling Test, Final Handling Test, Advanced Flying Test in any of the aircraft flown, and did he fly with a 'safety pilot' in his helicopter and Tucano 'solo' flights).
Don't get me wrong, I think that it's great that he, as our future head of state, did the flying he did. It's great that he did go and look at the RAF and get an insight into how others are trained.
But if he didn't earn wings, then his being awarded them surely devalues the badge. They should be worn ONLY if won on merit.
And what's next? Perhaps a single stroll across Dartmoor and he can have a green beret and commando dagger? Or a day's classroom teaching and a tower jump and he can put up para wings? And wouldn't a DFC and an AFC look nice under those wings. Why not blur the qualifications for those, as well?