Prince Charles - Flying Career

[athonite]

It is cited on wkipedia as follows:

Prince Charles has qualified to fly a Chipmunk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-1_Chipmunk) basic pilot trainer, a Harrier T Mk.4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier) V/STOL fighter, a BAC Jet Provost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_Jet_Provost) jet pilot trainer, a Nimrod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker-Siddeley_Nimrod) maritime patrol aircraft, a F-4 Phantom II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-4_Phantom_II) fighter jet, an Avro Vulcan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan) jet bomber, and a Spitfire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire) classic WWII fighter.

Can someone clarify the position here, because he may have 'stirred the pudding' as he did on the 146, but what was he actually qualified to fly as P1 or P2, interestingly it doesn't mention the Wessex 3 or 5, an as for the some of the types it strikes me as inaccurate or possibly pure fantasy.

Can anyone enlighten us?

[paully]

Doesnt mention the Andover either...he used to fly that then upgraded to the 146 until his sticky ending :rolleyes:

[cazatou]

paully

HRH didn't get a sticky ending - but the Aircraft Captain did because HRH wouldn't hand over control.

[taxydual]

AFAIR, HRH qualified in:

Chipmunk
Basset
JP
Wessex
Andover
HS146

Everything else, he had a 'pole' of.

taxydual (ex-TQF, I used to collate his hours for Log Book entry purposes by the Captain of Kitty 4).

[paully]

Cazatou

Take your point although that wasnt the case when he commanded HMS Bronington...He used to hand over regularly to the 2 i/c when berthing...He was somewhat lacking in this basic bit of seamanship apparantly and they were afraid of what he might do to one of his Mum`s minesweepers :rolleyes:

Always been a pompous prick with a high opinion of himself by all accounts :}

[Tallsar]

Might make King one day then.....:E

[Tankertrashnav]

By the same reckoning as Wiki, I'm a qualified Lightning pilot (about 10 minutes straight and level at 35,000' in a T4). I let the other bloke do the easy bits, take off, climb out, descent, landing etc ;)

[Clockwork Mouse]

Paully
And you would know of course.

[RRAAMJET]

Hello Taxydual!

Met you at re-union?

Cheers...ex-TQF living in USA...(not K8)
K4 was a great Capt, lots of fun to fly with, and v professional. Hung out to dry is right. I'd fly with him anytime, anywhere....

[taxydual]

RRAAMJET

Ah, my Kitty 4 was Andovers'. It's that long ago!

I agree, though, about your opinion of the hangings!

The word 'scapegoat' still springs to mind.

Rgds

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

In his defence, many RN types, not just Prince Charles, were (are?) short on boat parking time. I had several coming out on Joint Service yachts I skippered to remedy that.

On the other hand, just how much of his supposed solo time was 'ghosted'? I had heard it was all of it.

[taxydual]

'Ghosted'
Certainly not the first solos' in the Chipmunk and JP. As to everything else........does it really matter?
HRH was never bound for a full career in aviation after all.

[Exascot]

Taxydual & RRAAMJET,

I concur re. comments on K4. He was a great guy to fly with and taught me a lot. A real stepping stone for the rest of my flying career. And, K2 of course. K3 taught me a few things as well :cool:

[alfred_the_great]

Paully,

on the basis my MCMV CO did the first coming alongside every month, and every other Officer took turns in doing it thereafter, I'm not surprised by your "report". The Jimmy needs more practice than the CO!

[paully]

Indeed, but in the Merchant (my background) the `Old Man` always did the docking, even with a pilot, the `jimmy` was always at the pointy end...

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

It is cited on wkipedia

Yet another reason to ignore "wkipedia" and consult a reliable and accurate source.:*

[blaireau]

I recall HRH coming out to GKXS (aka Ark Royal) mid 70's. He flew a Cat/trap in the Bucc with, ISTR, Tony M*rt*n. The F4 was apparently deemed too un-British.

As he sat in the front row during Ops/Met brief, his bald spot was very apparent to the rest of us; even then.

[hunty]

Gents

HRH Prince Charles flew Gannet T-5 XG889 from the centre cockpit during a 1 hour flight and he also landed the aircraft at RNAS Yeovilton. He then flew in the starboard observer's seat of Gannet AEW-3 XL500. This was all part of "Exercise Red Dragon" which took place at RNAS Yeovilto on October 18th 1972. The pilots for this exercise was CO 849 Squadrons
Lt Cdr Tim Goetz.

This aircraft is currently being restored to airworthy condition at Exeter and HRH Prince Charles is patron of this project.

Hunty :cool:

[Union Jack]

Indeed, but in the Merchant (my background) the `Old Man` always did the docking, even with a pilot, the `jimmy` was always at the pointy end...

Which, sadly for you, Paully, makes both your posts irrelevant. In the Royal Navy, the second in command (whatever his rank) is almost invariably on the bridge at harbour stations and it's perfectly normal for him to be given shiphandling experience. That said, I was on some of the same CO's Course as the PoW, and subsequently saw him take BRONINGTON in and out of harbour without any obvious assistance from Roy Clare. How often did you see him doing so?:uhoh:

Back to his flying career ......

Jack

[cojones]

I remember an incident in 1969 when Chas was learning to fly on the Chipmunk T10, on the pull-up into a loop, they suddenly spotted an aircraft directly above. The instructor (M.P. if I remember rightly, those are the initials - he wasn't an MP) took control and rolled and pulled to prevent collision. It was very, very close, so we nearly didn't have King Charles III.
Anyone else remember the incident and confirm/deny/elaborate thereon?

[cazatou]

HASELL checks?:ugh:

[MrBernoulli]

Might make King one day then.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

.... so we nearly didn't have King Charles III.

"Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." :ok:

[With thanks to the wonderfully mad minds of the Monty Python team]

[brakedwell]

It was very, very close, so we nearly didn't have King Charles III.

He wants to be crowned King George VII. At least he won't need an autopilot.

[aviate1138]

His Mummy [bless her cotton socks] will live to at least 110 so doubt whether we see King Charles/George ever get the chance!

In 1976 I had the pleasure of meeting all three brothers in my office and after they left I was sure none of them had the character/duty their mother has demonstrated for so many years.

IMHO he is a waste of space and he has two sons that could do the top job standing on their heads.

We don't need a selfish old King. :rolleyes:

[dagenham]

what actually happened on that fatefull flight

[Clockwork Mouse]

I found him gentle and genteel, knowledgeable and interested, passionate about his country and the environment, not at all stand-offish, with a common touch and an excellent, rather goonish, sense of humour. Though his Mum is the gold standard of monarchs, when the time comes I think he will do us proud.

[aviate1138]

Arrogant, selfish, a misinformed Green stalwart who has an appalling personal life that I find hard to equate with being a Monarch and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

[NutLoose]

When he did his parachuting jumps they cleaned the bottom of the Herc so when he looked up to do his canopy checks he would see a nice clean aircraft........ think I would of had other things on my mind...

I think he will make a dire king, and as for the other 'Arf

[Dawdler]

He should have done the decent thing when he married Camilla and renounced his accession to the throne. After all the last thing the monarchy needs is a concubine queen!

With regard to to the 146 incident, was it a downwind landing?

[Clockwork Mouse]

Concubine queen? I could have sworn that they were married.

[NutLoose]

Report into the 146 cross country excursion

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/65F3C701-0FE7-4086-80FA-EEF5242D2A13/0/maas94_01_bae_146_cc2_ze700_29jun94.pdf

[dagenham]

thanks...... so what really happened

did he ignore advice given?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

The 146, as are many others, is not very tollerant of high, fast appraoches as it will not slow down easily

Really? How's 250kts to just under 4 miles?:p

Granted, not on a steep approach!

[Exascot]

Speedbird you are well out of order and disrespectful of our Royal Family. Please withdraw your post.

[cazatou]

Exascot

We could always report him to the Spelling Police!!

[Tourist]

Speedbird.

What exactly was the white wash?

[airpolice]

Speedbird, the way it read at the time, and even today, the aircraft commander had two issues.

A failure to exercise captaincy and a disregard for the safety of all on board.

It takes guts to tell the heir to the throne he's not capable of handling the aircraft, but the alternative is a much greater chance of seeing said guts out in the open very shortly. I thought the difficult decisions are the reasons the gaffers get the big money.

I feel sorry for the Nav. "No Stick - No Vote" should ensure no stick to stir means no stick to get beaten with.

Do we know if the Captain was a QFI? I ask this in connection with a thread running in Private Flying about allowing unqualified people to "have a pole" in aircraft without an Instructor present.

What circumstances / rules allowed HRH to handle the aircraft?

My view is that HRH "bumped" the aircraft, but the captain allowed him to do so.


To get back on topic, who knows what handling skills HRH has nowadays, but the events with the 146 that day suggest that he didn't know when to say he didn't know. What a shame that nobody told him at the time.

[BBK]

Air police

I haven't read the report but I flew with an ex Queen's Flt chap who gave me the same impression. I believe he may have been the investigating officer.

Speedbird48

The 146, thanks to that huge air brake, could go down AND slow down. Another ex RAF chap always told me it will go down "1 in 1" ie 1000 feet per mile.

[brakedwell]

The 146, thanks to that huge air brake, could go down AND slow down. Another ex RAF chap always told me it will go down "1 in 1" ie 1000 feet per mile.

If George had been flying a B757 he might have ended up in Iceland. :E

[Finningley_Fred]

One of my mates was a creamie who was a QFI on the JP Fleet. He taught HRH and said that he was not a natural pilot and probably would of been chopped if he was anybody else.

[Arkroyal]

would of been chopped

I despair. Utterly.:ugh:

[airpolice]

Ark, I know what you mean.

I suspect that HRH will not be too distressed to read that he so poorly rated by those who are a bit hard of thinking.


I'm inclined, however, to think that the general opinion of skills with a small s might be accurate.

[parabellum]

With Mummy going to hold on to the very end, and her family history is to go at a good age, he will never make King and you will get one of his, I understand, quite capable sons at the helm, and be saved his cock-up's.



Constitutionally Charles would have to either abdicate or die before William can become King.

The Queen will probably stay on the throne until she becomes the longest serving monarch.

Speedbird48, I would love to sit in either the SIM or the a/c and watch you perform when you only get/got as much consolidation and practice flying as Charles does/did.

[Exascot]

I feel sorry for the Nav.

The whole inquiry was a farce and as you say blaming the nav was ridiculous. I am surprised the steward wasn't done for something.

Do we know if the Captain was a QFI?

Yes, one of the best actually.

[AR1]

He may have been a QFI, but did he at any point mention the tailwind? Did he at any point attempt to regain control of the aircraft as Captain?
Because if he did, it doesn't mention it in the report.

I accept that being royal doesn't endow HRH with 'magical powers' - despite what the fawning character played by David Walliams might say, and yes, the only person in the cockpit that nothing stuck too was the 'HP' - but I'd really like the senior guy in the front to speak up if things are going wrong, and he didn't AND he signed for the aircraft.

[PPRuNeUser0139]

Quote:
would of been chopped
I despair. Utterly.
Clearly the OP meant "should of been chopped..?":E

(I jest - just in case there's any doubt!)

[GANNET FAN]

Or even, ..............should have been chopped

[Exascot]

The report is a summary. More happened than is reported. I know that this is a rumour network but I am not prepared to present hearsay. They found two scapegoats. For the record I flew with this crew many, many times. The two gentlemen were exceptional operators. I am sure that the captain is following this thread but he can't defend himself here. Unfortunately the navigator is no longer with us.

[cazatou]

Exascot's assessment of the Captains skills is spot on. Personally, I have known the Aircraft Captain for 44+ years and he was an exceptional Pilot, Instructor and Examiner. I have also flown the BAe 146 in RAF Service.

[scotbill]

Perhaps some of the contributors to this thread (particularly those who believe personal abuse is a legitimate form of debate) should actually read the report. There is no mention of windshear but the aircraft crossed the threshold of a short runway 32 k too fast.
Any employee in whatever field has difficulty in criticising a boss - never mind a royal. However, in my previous employment, that would have been a compulsory go-around and any captain permitting another pilot to continue would expect to be hung out to dry.
We've all done things we shouldn't have but the important thing (in the days before quick access flight recorders) was to have got away with it!

[Agaricus bisporus]

It is hard to imagine how a military enquiry could apportion blame to someone who was a) not military in the strict sense, and b) not a pilot trained on type. How do you blame someone for getting a landing wrong if they aren't qualified to do it? Its not as if he was even in the formal role as a stude, and therefore within the scope of military reponsibility for his doings. As said above the Captain had signed for the aircraft and in military terms that is pretty much the end of the argument. He undoubtably felt great pressure not to overrule HRH but this is nowadays recognised as a CRM failure and similar in the broad sense to the Polish presidential accident. The Capt was apparently a QFI and "a good one" et he must have judged the landing, tailwind notwithstanding, to be achieveable and if it turned out otherwise his judgement must necessarily have been at fault from the inflexible military point of view. I can't see what else the enquity could have found, unless it wished to risk a political/protocol storm by criticising the long established and accepted right of senior Royals to fly military aircraft which was probably not within its remit, being tasked to ascertain causes and culprits only.

I think there is far too much modern revisionist thinking in many of the posts above. That is simply how things were done 20 years ago. We'd no doubt do it differently now, but that doesn't necessarily make those 20 yr old pre-political "correctness" decisions wrong.

What is wrong is some of the spiteful, and ill informed personal remarks posted here about the heir to our throne. I can only hope that they were not made by serving military personnel who have, after all, sworn an oath of loyalty to the Crown which some time in the future will belong to the subject of this thread...

[FODPlod]

Take your point although that wasnt the case when he commanded HMS Bronington...He used to hand over regularly to the 2 i/c when berthing...He was somewhat lacking in this basic bit of seamanship apparantly and they were afraid of what he might do to one of his Mum`s minesweepers :rolleyes:

Always been a pompous prick with a high opinion of himself by all accounts http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Not "by all accounts" at all. As someone who spent a few days on board Bronington in his company and has mixed with him at service occasions a few times since, I find your spiteful remarks ignorant and totally unwarranted.

It is normal in the RN for COs to allow their officers to berth and unberth the ship so they don't find themselves doing it for the first time when in post (or when necessary in the CO's absence). Moreover, the fact that HRH followed this practice militates against accusations of him being some sort of control freak.

[Exascot]

I can only hope that they were not made by serving military personnel

Recent threads, this one and the sad accident with the Red Arrows come to mind, are a very good case for the 'Military Aircrew Forum' to be restricted to 'Military Aircrew' active or retired as are the Private Airline Forums. Why should some of these idiots be allowed to join in or indeed the press have access to these discussions.

[cazatou]

Exascot

Seconded !!!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Exascot

Thirded!

[Exascot]

Thank you K you are hard on my heels on this thread ;)

[cazatou]

P

Just biding my time!!

[ian16th]

Exascot,

The heading of 'Military Aircrew' for this forum, is at odds with the description of it!

Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.Please note my italics and underline.

Maybe the title should be changed to 'Military Aviation', or the description changed to exclude the un-winged.

[brakedwell]

We are entering the world of Deja vu :ugh:

[FODPlod]

...I can only hope that they were not made by serving military personnel who have, after all, sworn an oath of loyalty to the Crown which some time in the future will belong to the subject of this thread...

Concur entirely although RN personnel don't swear such an oath. It is simply taken as read.

[SOSL]

HRH trained on the JP at Cranwell, under the aegis of "Operation Golden Eagle".

On 31 March that year a notice appeared in the hall porters lodge in College Hall stating that a fault had been discovered in the left heel of all Poulsen and Skone shoes (these were bespoke shoes issued to cadets with their first No. 1 uniforms).

Cadets were to attach a baggage label with their name and number to the left shoe and place it on the floor outside the lodge.

On 1 Apr the hall porter and everyone else who passed by were greeted by a sea of shoes and baggage labels almost covering the left hand side of the rotunda.

Yes the notice had been posted by the prince - so don't tell me he was a "pompous p....". At that time he was a Flight Cadet and he behaved like a Flight Cadet.

[Halton Brat]

I believe HRH flew Hunters at 4FTS Valley in the early 1970's?

HB

[Clockwork Mouse]

I believe he also took and passed P Company to earn his parachute wings.

[Haraka]

At that time he was a Flight Cadet.......

Er, actually he wasn't .

[Piggies]

FODPlod,

Concur entirely although RN personnel don't swear such an oath. It is simply taken as read.

Isn't there something about the way RN officers are forced to carry their swords, on account of not being trustworthy in the presence of Royalty?

[dalek]

Back in his training days HRH had just completed a bad sortie on the Basset.
Trying to broach the subject the QFI is supposed to have asked.
" How many t's in atrocious."
To which he replied.
" Not sure, but there is only one in treason."

You never know, it may even be true

[FODPlod]

Isn't there something about the way RN officers are forced to carry their swords, on account of not being trustworthy in the presence of Royalty?

Good dit but yet another inaccurate myth. Army officers (and RAF officers who copied the Army arrangement) wear their swords close-buckled to the belt so that the scabbard is fixed in a position. Naval officers have a sword scabbard which is attached to the sword belt by two leashes, one about nine inches long and one about two feet long. Officers of the Day wear a sword belt, but no sword, as a mark of their duty status. This is one of the best explanations I've found. I believe it originated with Lt Cdr Nick Bradshaw RN, a naval historian and fellow of Exeter University:Officers but not Gentlemen (http://www.nzaaawgtn.org.nz/pdf/nl0607.pdf)


Naval officers, in accordance with dress regulations, are required to carry or trail their swords rather than being hitched at the waist. The scabbard is suspended from two long hanger straps requiring the wearer to carry the scabbard to prevent it dragging on the ground, unlike army and air force officers who hitch their swords and scabbards to their belts.

The myth surrounding this unique naval custom is that naval officers are required to carry their swords as a mark of disgrace, allegedly for involvement in the Spithead mutiny of 1797 that was confined to sailors, not officers, although it might be said that officers' mismanagement led to that situation. It wasn't until Victoria came to the throne that details regarding the carrying of swords became uniform and Victoria’s reign was well after the Spithead and Nore mutinies. In any case, the major mutinies of the Royal Navy involved ratings, with officers having no involvement. There is some suggestion that Victoria had made a casual remark that “naval officers were not gentlemen” (and the wearing of a sword was the mark of a gentleman.) In one sense she was quite correct.

Naval officers in British society were unique. The navy had, by the late 1600s, made it clear that being a “gentleman” was not sufficient to enter or succeed as a naval officer. Skill, as opposed to social status, was the mark of a naval officer and the navy exercised equality of opportunity at the point of entry over a century before the army saw the merits of such a program. Army commissions, very much the preserve of the nobility, were generally purchased. Naval commissions were granted only after a young teenager had learned his trade, passed his examinations and was selected for promotion on the basis of merit. When wartime required the navy to expand its officer corps, most were drawn from the seaman pool where education and skill in handling ships carried weight; social status carried none.

Those aristocrats who did enter the navy found themselves competing on an equal basis with the sons of merchants and labourers. Given that, naval officers were not considered less than an aristocratic army officer; just different, and the title “naval officer” carried with it a degree of social standing which indeed made one a gentleman. So, while they may not have been the sons of gentlemen, naval officers were certainly considered gentlemen in British society.

Some historians suggest that naval officers never wore swords at sea and when the sword was used, the scabbard was discarded as useless, particularly when boarding another vessel. That certainly makes practical sense except that for most naval officers, who were unlikely to be good fencers, an edged sabre was the weapon of choice for close quarters fighting. Swords and rapiers had little place in the hack and slash boarding fights of the days of sail.

What is more likely is that the army changed and the navy did not. Trailing a sword shows up as an act of pride among light horse regiments where both officers and troopers loosened their spurs and allowed their trailing sword scabbards to rattle over the cobblestones. Naval officers, who would have no reason to wear a sword except when ashore, copied what was then a military display. So, all officers, regimental and naval, actually trailed their swords, with slings as long as possible, as a means of attracting attention to the wearer. This is the origin of the term, “sabre rattling”.

On parade, all officers carried their swords whether they were army or navy. Soldiers eventually slung their swords from their belts, for practical purposes, particularly as field drill developed. Naval officers, having never used swords for practical reasons and rarely wearing them in any case, saw no need to change and continued to carry them when dress dictated...

Next week, why RN officers are permitted to sit for the loyal toast :).

[hammy21]

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-maVMOtw8rQ0/TiHn-70QLEI/AAAAAAAAO8o/5cS8kbdbWfA/hmsarkroyalr09p25crk6.jpg
Often wondered why slipper tanks were not fitted. Thought they improved handling on approach?

[SOSL]

Good point Haraka - it was the vodka and tonic what dunnit. BTW were you there?

[glojo]

The report is a summary. More happened than is reported. I know that this is a rumour network but I am not prepared to present hearsay. They found two scapegoats. For the record I flew with this crew many, many times. The two gentlemen were exceptional operators. I am sure that the captain is following this thread but he can't defend himself here. Unfortunately the navigator is no longer with us.
The report is indeed a summary but summary or not the officer in command is just that. He is in command and letting an inexperienced person fly this piece of equipment is his decision and allowing someone to land the aircraft in anything other than the most easiest of conditions is again just one more decision that has to be made.

This officer may well be a highly competent, highly experienced, gifted and talented pilot but....

On that specific day, on that specific flight he failed in his duty of care and responsibility. Is it easy to say no to someone of such high office? Of course not and it would be silly to suggest otherwise. However this officer had a duty to stand up and be counted. He had a duty to simply state that on this occasion it was not right for the prince to land the aircraft.

By just reading the summary it is easy to feel sorry for the navigator and I like the comment about 'no stick, no blame........' but the summary gives no information about what was either said or not said. Did the navigator point out the wind conditions just to ensure they had been fully understood and appreciated by those flying the aircraft? Or did the navigator just sit there waiting for this accident to happen?

Please note those comments are NOT meant to be critical of this person, they are just questions.

From the outside looking in, it appears that HRH was attempting to do something that perhaps was beyond his levels of ability??

If the captain of the aircraft was happy with the flying skills of HRH and the approach, then quite clearly he was not the man that folks are describing (I am sure that is not the case) If he was NOT happy about what was happening then he was duty bound to step in...

I have a degree of sympathy for the captain of the aircraft but I feel there was a case to be answered regarding his conduct on that one very specific incident.

It is rumoured we can make a prince out of a frog, but you cannot turn a prince into a Royal Marine.

Prince Edward was treated in exactly the same way as any other member of Her Majesty's Forces, no special treatment, no being afraid of calling a spade an earth moving implement and no being afraid of telling someone they are perhaps better off being employed in a different role within Her Majesty's Forces. Instructors have a responsibility of care and would they be happy to allow an incompetent person to be responsible for the lives of those he leads?? The instructors made the right decisions no matter who the pupil was.

I have never met with, nor served with Prince Charles but have heard all types of stories regarding this person, both good and bad. I guess he is human being and possibly not perfect, unlike some of those that contribute to this forum??

[Haraka]

SOSL see PMs ,
Haraka:)

[airpolice]

Glojo, eloquently put.:ok:

[Exascot]

Glojo, a very fair post for the information you have available. And, some very valid points. I regret I cannot comment, I wish I could.

[glojo]

a very fair post for the information you have available. And, some very valid points. I regret I cannot comment, I wish I could.

Hi Exascot,
I guess I am just like the majority of folks that frequent this forum and hopefully we can all accept that in life NOTHING is ever going to be black and white.

There but for the grace of God go I!!

[Exascot]

Thank you for your understanding Glojo.

[BEagle]

Report into the 146 cross country excursion:

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/65F3C701-0FE7-4086-80FA-EEF5242D2A13/0/maas94_01_bae_146_cc2_ze700_29jun94.pdf



That is a heavily sanitised version of the actual report....:uhoh:

[taxydual]

Is the actual report available?

[dagenham]

Freedom of imformation request anyone

I would but living outside uk and a foreign national it is not going to be allowed

Any upstanding volunteers?

[airpolice]

I'm looking forward to this becoming clearer, as I've been unable to imagine a situation where this is not the Captain's fault.


Was there....

No "I have control!"

No "Go Around!"

No inadvertant squeeze of the PTT as you say, "I insist that you relinquish control, Your Highness" for the benefit of the tape?

For the two bob that it's worth, the public view will be that Chuck made a mess of it, but he wasn't a real Pilot anyway. He had a full time job doing other stuff and was only getting the odd clutch, like this, now and then, as most of us have had.

My concern is with what the Nav's treatment says about a service inquiry. Perhaps if there are circumstances to exonerate the aircraft commander, they should have been made public. Are we to accept that this had never nearly happened before?

There are so many lessons to be learned from this incident, and yet the very people who ought to make them public seem content to keep quiet.

[Jimlad1]

Personally I'm glad that I live in a country where the heir to throne and his sons do more than just pay lip service to the concept of being our future commander in chief. In my mind, given how easy it would have been for them to sit back and live a life of luxury, to willingly step forward into some challenging environments is laudable and an example to many other countries leaders.

[cazatou]

Exascot cannot comment.

The Aircraft Captain cannot comment.

The Navigator cannot comment.

I cannot comment because I was not on the aircraft.

What I can say is that I had known (and served with) the Aircraft Captain on different Units for over 25 years and I have also served with Exascot. I flew the same type of aircraft as the one in this accident during my 16 years as an Aircraft Captain flying VIP's in the RAF. I was lucky - I only had to cope with 3 to 5 Star Air Officers who wanted to fly the new aeroplane.

[BEagle]

Is the actual report available?

Aircraft Incident Report D/IFS(RAF)/140/22/94/1 referring to BAe 146 CCMk2 ZE700 on 29 June 1994 is classified 'Restricted'.

[ACW599]

>Aircraft Incident Report D/IFS(RAF)/140/22/94/1 referring to BAe 146 CCMk2 ZE700 on 29 June 1994 is classified 'Restricted'.<

Jim Hacker: This report is marked “confidential”.
Bernard: At least it wasn’t marked “restricted”.
Jim Hacker: Why?
Bernard: “Restricted” means it was in the papers yesterday. “Confidential” means it won’t be in the papers until today

[benmac]

In the early 70s, HRH came to Kinloss to get the Nimrod MR 1 in his
log-book.
In preparation for his flight, he spent a couple of hours in the flight simulator. The Console Operator was asked if he had planned a nice gentle sortie for the Prince. "Not at all", he replied. "In fact I've been instructed to treat him just like any Flight Lieutenant who is going to be King!

[Airborne Aircrew]

In my mind, given how easy it would have been for them to sit back and live a life of luxury, to willingly step forward into some challenging environments is laudable and an example to many other countries leaders. Absolutely... All the carpers and whiners in this thread need to remember he completed No. 1 PTS on the course before me. You can't fake that. I'll bet barely any, (probably none), of the complainers have or would complete the eight jumps required.:rolleyes:

[oxenos]

The Captain who flew him on his Kinloss visit got a Xmas card from him. It was still on their mantlepeice the following October.

[rjtjrt]

"I am sure that the captain is following this thread but he can't defend himself here."

By the same token, in reality Prince Charles can't defend himself here either!

[Airborne Aircrew]

All the carpers and whiners

Golly, the silence is absolutely deafening... :hmm:

[WorkingHard]

Is it possible to defend the indefensible?

[Trim Stab]

I'll bet barely any, (probably none), of the complainers have or would complete the eight jumps required.:rolleyes:

I thought he only did one jump? I heard it was considered too dangerous to do the last qualifying jump (night, full kit, continuous stick out of both side doors) so he was allowed to qualify after a single aircraft jump. I also heard he was excused milling on the grounds that it would be unfair on his opponent.

Whilst on the subject, does anybody know why Wills didn't get his para wings while he was on his army stint?

[ZH875]

Whilst on the subject, does anybody know why Wills didn't get his para wings while he was on his army stint?



They ran out of Corn Flake Boxes

[beamer]

Compared to the 'middle brother', HRH POW looks almost reasonable !

[Airborne Aircrew]

I thought he only did one jump?

While I don't have a source confirming completion of all eight jumps I was on the course after him and had he been given any quarter it would have been all over Brize. Also, reading around, the consensus seems to be that he completed Brize but didn't do P Coy. The "rumour" is that when he was made Commandant of the Parachute Regiment he couldn't wear the uniform and the beret and "look them in the eye" without having jumped.

Even if he only did one, he jumped and until someone has stood in the door of a big, smelly, noisy Fat Albert looking down at what appears to be a nice model going by below and leapt into the 120kt slipstream they can't say they would.

[AR1]

they can't say they would. No but they can admit they wouldn't. And I know I wouldn't put myself in that position.

[goofer]

This thread - in common, it seems, with any other that mentions the Windsors - instantly divides otherwise fairly rational Ppruners into two groups of bickering children. On one side are the traitorous carpers and on the other the loyal cringers.

Carper or cringer, nobody has yet tried to excuse HRH's failure to speak up on behalf of the real officer he literally landed in the poo. Because there is no excuse and everyone knows it? Just a guess.

As I recall, the incident occurred on the day the PoW went on worldwide TV to admit adultery with the wife of a brother officer. Adds a whole new level of meaning to the concept of "self-authorising..."

[Clockwork Mouse]

How do you know he didn't speak up for him?

[Tay Cough]

This thread - in common, it seems, with any other that mentions the Windsors - instantly divides otherwise fairly rational Ppruners into two groups of bickering children. On one side are the traitorous carpers and on the other the loyal cringers.

Whether you're a fan of PoW and his family or not, the fact that part of this discussion is revolving around whether he has the character to succeed his mother and whether his sons would be better as a future head of state, has one siginificant positive.

One fewer politician. :ok:

[Clockwork Mouse]

How do you work that out?

[gijoe]

'Even if he only did one, he jumped and until someone has stood in the door of a big, smelly, noisy Fat Albert looking down at what appears to be a nice model going by below and leapt into the 120kt slipstream they can't say they would.'

...those words brought standing in the door right back...

AA is right in that HRH did not do P Coy (and rightly so) but does it matter?

He lobbed out of the side onto land and not out of the back onto water, survived and got the badge - he will own the Company one day!

G

[parabellum]

Whether you're a fan of PoW and his family or not, the fact that part of this discussion is revolving around whether he has the character to succeed his mother and whether his sons would be better as a future head of state


1. Servicemen don't have an option to be a 'fan', they have sworn a voluntary oath of loyalty to HMQ and all her successors.

2. Hands up all those here who consider themselves qualified to decide if the POW is suitable material for a King, or not?

[cazatou]

parabellum

There was another Prince of Wales who, in living memory, was forced by Public Opinion to renounce the Throne because his choice of Spouse was deemed unsuitable.

It would not surprise me if the same sort of Public reaction arose in the case of the current Prince of Wales.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Whereas in France sexual misconduct and rape appear to be an essential qualification for presidential candidates.

[cazatou]

Clockwork Mouse

Or a certain Welsh Man who became Prime Minister in UK?

[charliegolf]

Is it now about POW's 'poling' career?

CG

[airpolice]

Hands up all those here who consider themselves qualified to decide if the POW is suitable material for a King, or not?

Nobody ought to be making that choice, today, based on allegations of conduct on that afternoon in June 1994.

His Mum got the job without the nation having had 60 years to asses Her suitability.

[cazatou]

airpolice

I was in my first year at Primary School when HMQ acceeded to the Throne on the death of King George VI. I cannot think of any time when Her Majesty gave rise to serious adverse comment in the Media in the last 60 years.

That is not the case with her Heir whose treatment of the late Princess of Wales aroused severe antagonism in a large section of the UK population.

[parabellum]

That is not the case with her Heir whose treatment of the late Princess of Wales aroused severe antagonism in a large section of the UK population.


Well, without knowing her treatment of him leading up to and during the same period we are all, once again, totally unqualified to comment. He fooled around , (with Camilla), She fooled around, (with several), that is about all we know, who was the most discreet as oppose to who had the most access to to a gullible, salivating media is for you to judge.


It would not surprise me if the same sort of Public reaction arose in the case of the current Prince of Wales.


It wouldn't surprise me, it would amaze me, Camilla goes down quite well with the British public.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Their problems only came into the public domain through illegal phone tapping. Thereafter it was a feeding frenzy and they didn't stand a chance of saving anything from their unfortunate and ill suited union.

They were both excellent and loving parents though, and it is good to see how both boys have turned out.

[cokecan]

2. Hands up all those here who consider themselves qualified to decide if the POW is suitable material for a King, or not?

me.

he will, or will not, be king because we say he will, or will not, be king.

the great hallmark of living in a constitutional monarchy is that we get to decide whether we live in one or not. personally, i'm not a fan - like i'm not a fan of a number of other national policies - i'm quite happy to let any one looking for my vote to know that the PM/LotO who persuades charlie that its best if he decides to renounce his claim to the succession can consider themselves towards the top of my list.

unlike the generation above him, and unlike the generation below him, he has done very little to inspire any confidence that can undertake the role of king in a constitutional monarchy.

[Clockwork Mouse]

And what have you done to inspire confidence in your ability to make an informed judgement on such an important matter? I am not disputing your right to do so of course.

[Fitter2]

There is one, and only one qualification to be Monarch, and to receive our oath of allegiance - to be the eldest son of the reigning monarch (or daughter if there are no sons).

Charles is fully qualified.

I believe he is prefereable to any self-serving politician, but that may be prejudice (based on cynicism and experience).

[goofer]

Loyalty is of course essential if our armed services are to do their duty with efficiency and honour.

The question raised by this thread seems to be: loyalty to what or to whom? When serving, my loyalty was to the Crown and all the good things for which it stood. Since the Crown was embodied in HMQ, no compromise with conscience was required.

The problem arises - as evident from preceding posts - when a prospective head of state is perceived to fall short of the expectations of the office. We shouldn't be surprised if this happens from time to time, given human fallibility.

It may therefore be worth considering the option of an oath to the office rather than to the individual. Our US friends have no difficulty with such a concept: they may not care for the president of the day but loyalty to the office, the constitution and the flag ensures the necessary continuity.

You may argue no change is needed in the way we do things. If it ain't broke etc. But the fact that some posters feel a tad queasy at the prospect of King Charles and (especially) Queen Camilla suggests the present admirable arrangement should be open to some clear-eyed reassessment. The Crown - and the principles it represents - are only diminished if we have to put our conscience on hold as we salute our King and Queen.

[Airborne Aircrew]

But the fact that some posters feel a tad queasy at the prospect of King Charles and (especially) Queen Camilla suggests the present admirable arrangement should be open to some clear-eyed reassessment.

Then the queasy posters can PVR like anyone else. No-one is forcing them to serve Charles. It's like everything else in the forces, you can't chose to serve one monarch and not another just like when that tw@t of a Flt. Cdr. gets posted in you can't say "Sorry Sir but I won't serve under you". Take the lumps or get out...

[goofer]

Fair point, AA. But funnily enough, from time to time in our history people have chosen not to serve under a particular king and, if their views are shared widely enough, have gone off and imported another one (William III and George I come to mind).

The point about the tw@t flight commander is that his/her authority derives from the Crown. It's for the health of the whole system that the fancy badge on his/her hat should command unequivocal respect.

PVR is not really the answer. Chances are you joined up to serve your country not the individual who happens to be symbolic Head of the armed forces by accident of birth.

Country first, king second. Just a thought. What if Edward VIII hadn't gone quietly?

[Clockwork Mouse]

Your oath of loyalty is to the institution of the monarchy, to the Crown, not to the particular individual who is wearing it at the moment.

We have been very fortunate in our recent monarchs. Perhaps Charles will not attract the same admiration as QE2, but that is because she ascended while very young so we know nothing of her views and opinions. Charles has been a busy and concerned PoW who has ruffled feathers but will have to go silent when he wears the crown. I am sure he will due his duty well.

[Airborne Aircrew]

but that is because she ascended while very young so we know nothing of her views and opinions.

I thinks it's more a product if the times. When she ascended there would be very little that she said or did that wasn't pre-vetted and that which was, if it was unflattering it wasn't reported like it is today. In fact, today, the good isn't heavily reported but woe betide a Royal that makes the slightest mistake.

Charles has been brought up in a society where there is far more access to the Royal Family and, really, the Royals are encouraged to be more accessible by society itself in order to justify their existence. So now, the very people who demand access to the Royals are the one's whining because we see them, warts and all... :rolleyes:

[Wander00]

Rumour was she went down well with Himself!

[goofer]

Point taken, AA. However, it's worth remembering that most of the whining in this instance has come from inside palace walls - thanks to self-justifying authorised biographies (Dimbleby/Morton) and relentless media briefing.

The sophisticated news-management techniques of modern royal press offices are unlikely to be discontinued after the next coronation. Hence widely-reported concern that we risk a head of state who operates with a politician's apparatus but without political accountability.

The armed forces of the Crown depend on public trust for their legitimacy. That trust has always been given on the understanding that the Crown remains aloof from politics as a single unifying symbol. It's a fragile arrangement and, in the 21st century, people are unlikely to trust any organisation that doesn't live up to its own publicity. Unlike happier, simpler times, loyalty - even to the Crown - is a reward for honest dependability.

If future generations of recruits believe their loyalty is being earned as well as expected then they probably will suck up everything service life throws at them, lumps and all. But a note of caution seems appropriate. The current comfortable status quo won't last for ever.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Point taken, AA. However, it's worth remembering that most of the whining in this instance has come from inside palace walls

Might I ask that if your family was being attacked daily by a significant proportion of the population of the UK, (that might also affect your "quality of life" amongst other things), would you not use the media you have access to, to try to alleviate the situation?

The armed forces of the Crown depend on public trust for their legitimacy.

I know what you mean, but it's not really true. There will always be an Armed Forces if the country cares to look after itself. If people don't want to serve a particular monarch then they will not join, the cost of hiring will go up and people will join. In a volunteer force economics is as important as loyalty.

[goofer]

My point exactly, AA. "Honest dependability" is the royal ideal - not self-indulgent (and self-defeating) attempts to "use the media."

Using the media in practice has meant using spin. And I don't mean the aeronautical kind (tho' the results are likely to be the same if left uncorrected).

[parabellum]

"Honest dependability" is the royal ideal - not self-indulgent attempts to "use the media."
(Edited).

Now we are back to Princess Diana.

[goofer]

Ha! You wish...

[Airborne Aircrew]

Parabellum has a point...;)

[VictorPilot]

Just spotted this thread and cannot let it go by without a bit of fact thrown in. I was his his No 2 instructor while he was at Cambridge, and over a period of his study time his continuity of training was abysmal. He constantly said he would be at Oakington at .... but then at the last minute something else turned up and he did not arrive. That said, considering what a dreadful aircraft the Bassett was to fly - let alone instruct on, he did surprising well. He was sent solo in a reasonable time, and his No 1 instructor considered him to be an above average student. He suffered an engine failure during a solo exercise and recovered the aircraft safely - a bit of a wonder in that dreadfully under-powered machine. I remember being in the tower at the time - the Stn Cdr arrived and was in a panic that the Heir to the throne might go splat on his real estate. He did not - and went on to fly the JP at Cranwell with RJ. During the time I was there, he was great fun playing practical jokes on the groundcrew, and even playing "Are you there Moriarty" (and getting hit) after a dinning in night! A typical spirited student. Pity he did not stay with the RAF - his future might have been much better.

[Laarbruch72]

Pity he did not stay with the RAF - his future might have been much better.


Are you sugesting that a career as a pilot in the RAF is considered "better" than being heir to the throne? I'm not sure I follow you here. Can you clarify?

[diginagain]

He might have experienced a fulfilling career by now, rather than having to spend his adult life waiting for a vacancy to come-up.

[goofer]

Nothing is better than a career as an officer, whatever the colour of the uniform.

The PoW unfortunately has another career. One in which actions are too often insulated from consequences - yet promotion is guaranteed. Any who mumble dissent can be intimidated into silence - and the others will be enchanted that he knows how to play Moriarty.

Along the way, he can depend on the reflex, benign deference of all those who have taken an oath to serve his family. Including any unfortunate P1, I suspect.

Those aren't the ideals I joined to defend. What price loyalty?

[Airborne Aircrew]

Nothing is better than a career as an officer, whatever the colour of the uniform.I'm sorry... But that isn't exactly true... Just so you know...

[phil9560]

Can Prince Charles fly a plane ?

[goofer]

AA - that's an interesting debate. Probably belongs to another thread, though!

[P6 Driver]

Goofer - "Nothing is better than a career as an officer, whatever the colour of the uniform."

Well that's put the "other ranks" in their place then!

So glad the class system isn't dead yet, and some people are still up themselves with it.

[Fareastdriver]

Goofer for King!

[Exascot]

Goofer - "Nothing is better than a career as an officer, whatever the colour of the uniform."

Only a little 'goof'. Know what you mean though. For the record I went through officer training with a chap who did not want to be an officer just a RAF pilot. He had no choice. He had a very successful career and made senior officer rank.

[goofer]

Apologies, P6 - absolutely no slight intended. The subject was the PoW's career path and - for better or worse - he's in the Cranwell/Dartmouth/Sandhurst intake.

My point would have been better made if I'd specified any Service career, on the strength that it requires commitment to a set of unselfish ideals, a life of comradeship lived by an agreed code and the ultimate readiness to "do and die." An honourable profession, regardless of the size of your cap badge.

[VictorPilot]

Did I start a hare running??? My comment about PoW staying in the RAF was just a pointer to the idea that if his life pattern had changed at that point, a lot of the subsequent problems might never have arisen! That apart, I have no doubt that a career as an officer or other rank in the military (No colour bias!) is a totally fulfilling life experience. We lost a lot when National Service was abolished, and subsequent generations never had the benefit of the experience of military training, learning personal discipline, finding respect for others, and the reward of finding out how to benefit from all the talents each individual is born with.

[Exascot]

Now, very well put Goofer:

My point would have been better made if I'd specified any Service career, on the strength that it requires commitment to a set of unselfish ideals, a life of comradeship lived by an agreed code and the ultimate readiness to "do and die." An honourable profession, regardless of the size of your cap badge.

And don't post in the early hours of the morning again :p

[pr00ne]

VictorPilot,

You said:

"I have no doubt that a career as an officer or other rank in the military (No colour bias!) is a totally fulfilling life experience. We lost a lot when National Service was abolished, and subsequent generations never had the benefit of the experience of military training, learning personal discipline, finding respect for others.."

Looking at the disproportionately large percentage of ex service personnel among our prison population, the homeless and those suffering from mental health issues, I have to seriously question the validity of that statement.

[JW411]

I have only just discovered this thread (but I have read every single page before any of you clever sods out there suggest that I haven't).

First of all, I spent 18 years of my life as a pilot in the Royal Air Force (I never did a ground tour) and I spent around 10 years on and off based at the home of TQF, RAF Benson.

Despite being a Scotsman, I have always and I continue to be, totally loyal to Mrs Windsor and Phil the Greek. However, the way I feel nowadays in my advancing years is that the whole system should come to a halt with the demise of our beloved Queen.

In a way, I am terrified that the replacement organisation would have to be something along the lines of the American presidential style of government.

On the other hand, I would have serious problems with signing an oath to the Tree Hugger, Randy Andy, the Failed Marine or any of the others (with the notable exception of Princess Anne - who works so hard for charity).

Going back to Charlie's failed Hebridean landing; I spent 19 years of my life teaching and examining on the BAe146. I can confidently state (and hundreds of my students would agree) that if Charlie was not getting it right, then I would absolutely not have let him go any further for I was never known for being diplomatic (especially where my life and the creation of paperwork was concerned).

The man who first got me into aviation (DH Rapide) taught me the very first rule, "I don't mind dying but I would hate to lose my licence".

To end on an amusing note; the original BAe146 simulator (BC104) was installed at Hatfield. Upstairs was a reception/crewroom area. The Human Remains department at BAe had seen fit to flood the area with potted palms and, in the corner, a large model of a BAe146 on a plinth.

Enter stage left a wonderful chap called Paul Bolton who was a TRI/TRE for Air UK based in Aberdeen. (Sadly, Paul is no longer with us). He discovered that TQF were in the sim ahead of him and it was the day after the Tree Hugger's Hebridean excursion which had garnered a fair amount of media attention.

He got the large model BAe146 model off its plinth and buried it nose down in the potted palms. When TQF came out of the sim, Paul said "Ah, I see Charlie's been here"!

It went down like a lead balloon with TQF.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Looking at the disproportionately large percentage of ex service personnel among our prison population, the homeless and those suffering from mental health issues, I have to seriously question the validity of that statement
Just out of curiosity Pr00ne, what is that as a pecentage of those leaving the Armed Forces?

[olympus]

JW411

It was the much-loved and late-lamented Captain Paul Burton.

[Earl of Rochester]

Despite being a Scotsman, I have always and I continue to be, totally loyal to Mrs Windsor and Phil the Greek. However, the way I feel nowadays in my advancing years is that the whole system should come to a halt with the demise of our beloved Queen.


QEII has achieved near global respect for the lifelong commitment she has shown towards her "job". Sadly (and despite the fact that Charles and William are pleasant people) neither of them can compete with "mum".

When QEII moves on it will naturally be the end of an era and the chances of any newcomer gaining similar respect are highly improbable - partly because they just don't make them like QEII anymore and partly because society cares less and less for royalty.

So hang in there JW411, it will all be over (in one way or another) soon enough!

[Clockwork Mouse]

And what do you suggest will replace it?

[Exascot]

HMQ will be difficult to replace however the job must go on.

I quote the summary of this article:

The bottom line is that the cost of supporting the British monarchy works out about 62p per person per year, including security travel and accommodation. The financial return on that in tourism, media jobs, charity works, economic ties overseas represents possibly the best in the world.

The Real Jobs of the British Royal Family | Suite101.com (http://david-porter.suite101.com/the-real-jobs-of-the-british-royal-family-a383670)

[500N]

Earl
I think she had a good footing to start from and that helped.

Father (and mother) who stayed around in London during the war / blitz
even though everyone else wanted them out of London.

HMQ also did her bit for the war effort.

And of course HMQ has of course done a superb job since.


Re the cost of the Monarchy, I think many people forget what they bring inand 62p is peanuts in the scheme of things. IMHO money well spent.

.

[Airborne Aircrew]

The issue over a "less than competent" monarch succeeding a "competent" monarch is hardly a new one. The discussion has taken place a dozen times throughout history. The only difference is this one is being carried out on computers which has never been done before. :D

[parabellum]

So hang in there JW411, it will all be over (in one way or another) soon enough!


Total tosh!

Everytime a Royal dies or gets married the British public rally round and form very solid ranks of support. viz. The Queen Mother, Prince & Princess of Cambridge.

(Can't include Princess Diana, she was more of a pop star).

[Exascot]

Prince & Princess of Cambridge.

Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Sorry to be pedantic ;)

[cazatou]

Parabellum

Where do the Duke and Duchess of Windsor fit into that theory?

[MagnusP]

Exascot: Earl and Countess of Strathearn from where I sit! :p

[Exascot]

Fair enough Magnus. Not even HRH PP has a title here as far as I am aware.

[Fareastdriver]

Where do the Duke and Duchess of Windsor fit into that theory?

The Great British public had no choice. It was the Establishment and especially the Church of England that forced the abdication of Edward VIII. What the public would have thought about them being king and queen is pure conjecture because it did not happen.

The same system prevented Princess Margaret from marrying Group Captain Townsend.

[jamesdevice]

Is she Duchess of Windsor? Surely being Duke of Lancaster in her own right would negate that title.

[teeteringhead]

Sorry cazatou (see below??), but the Monarch, King or Queen, is always the Duke of Lancaster.... cos they won the Wars of the Roses or something.

Some Lancastrian Regiments still make the Loyal Toast: "The Queen, Duke of Lancaster"

Allus a good trivia question (well, was :():

"Who is married to the Duke of Lancaster?"

And of course the appalling Mrs Simpson was the one and only Duchess of Windsor ......... that particular Dukedom is now extinct, and I would guess unlikely to be revived.......

Edited to add:

How on earth did my response to caz get in before his post :confused:

[cazatou]

You cannot be a Duke if you are Female.

[teeteringhead]

And on Prince Philip's marriage to the (then) Princess Elizabeth, he was created a Prince of the UK and Duke of Edinburgh ......

..... not a bad wedding pressie from Pa-in-Law ...

[cazatou]

Exascot

HRH Prince Philip served in the Royal Navy during WW2 as "Prince Philip of Greece"

[teeteringhead]

He was also a Prince of Denmark*, but renounced that along with his Greek title just before his marriage. And of course, he also converted from Greek Orthodox to (surprise surprise!) C of E!

* One can note echoes of his Greek and Danish background in his Arms as D of E. Will try and be clever enough to post an image....

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSM2v2RS-Nnv69bFUlLVaCNLYu0kEWs2T5LeTUJR1zGU0KC4akT2w

Edited to add:

Success! Top left is Denmark, top right is Greece, bottom left is Mountbatten and bottom right is Edinburgh.

Interestingly (sic!), in the grant of those arms in 1949 he is referred to as Sir Philip Mountbatten, so he must have already picked up his KG and/or KCVO by then....

...... really really must get out more......

[cazatou]

jamesdevice

The Dukedom of Windsor was bestowed on Edward VIII when he abdicated.


teeteringhead

I stand corrected.

[Wander00]

However, he should have been shot, or at least incarcerated as a traitor!

[cazatou]

Is there any chance we could have a clue as to who "He" is? After all, if you are referring to the then "King Edward", he did serve in the Army during WW1 and was awarded the MC.

PS. I am aware that Prince Albert (King George VI) served in the RN during WW1 and was a Gunnery Officer at the Battle of Jutland.

[1.3VStall]

The reigning monarch is always the Duke of Lancaster, whatever the gender. However, one is only allowed to toast the D of L in Lancashire. (Any erstwhile members of MUAS - before it became MASUAS - will know this).

[cojones]

(Sorry - this was meant for Lord Spandex Masher - I have 'drifted' the thread - apologies.)
I was asked by PANC ATC if I could maintain high speed in the descent.
I answered:
"Affirm, what speed would you like?"
"300kts OK?"
"That's fine...How long do you want us to maintain that?"
"All the way to the gate, if you can."
Only in the good ol' USof A.
(I was a bit slow though; I should have countered:
"OK you'd better let the guy on the ground frequency know about this!")

[Pontius Navigator]

TTN, beat you. I had 30 minutes low level in a T-bird. Never managed to get a lock on on the radar though.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Is something really wrong with PPRuNe or are the last two posters intending to type the messages they are in this thread?

This is also something of a test...



Well, this message went where it was supposed to go

[bpilot52]

The royal heir? Well, I wouldn't let him fly my Andover. So he jumped out the back. :cool: