F15 Court Martial (Merged thread)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SPOT, you helped me out 14 years ago when I was wondering what direction to take in life. After 13 years in Air Traffic I still enjoy going to work - Thankyou. You have total support form all at the unit I work at and you are also in the thoughts and prays of all of your friends in Crowle, Worcs.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM Monday
Good luck on Monday Spot and hopefully you can take comfort in the knowledge that you have support from ATC operatives as far away as Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
As one who has experienced the malicious and vindictive intent of those in the upper echelons of one of Her Majesty's defence forces who seek to cover their own arses by persecuting junior officers, I can empathise with your position. These people are beneath contempt to leave a junior officer hanging out to dry as a scapegoat while their own misdeeds never see the light of day.
All ATCO's, particularly those that wear the uniform are, firmly behind you in your fight and are hoping the RAF hierarchy take a sound thrashing from this CM and a well deserved bath in the media.
Thanks to Dick and Mike for keeping us all updated and if you would be so kind as to provide links to any continuing media coverage of the CM we would all appreciate it.
As one who has experienced the malicious and vindictive intent of those in the upper echelons of one of Her Majesty's defence forces who seek to cover their own arses by persecuting junior officers, I can empathise with your position. These people are beneath contempt to leave a junior officer hanging out to dry as a scapegoat while their own misdeeds never see the light of day.
All ATCO's, particularly those that wear the uniform are, firmly behind you in your fight and are hoping the RAF hierarchy take a sound thrashing from this CM and a well deserved bath in the media.
Thanks to Dick and Mike for keeping us all updated and if you would be so kind as to provide links to any continuing media coverage of the CM we would all appreciate it.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot
As discussed mate, here is the signal.
Originator: HQSTC
DTG: 290741ZMAR01
SIC: KBE/KBA
UNCLAS
HQPTC FOR D TRG GPS FOR AOCS, UNITS FOR STN CDRS. SUBJECT: UK ATC PROCEDURES AND OPERATING PRACTICES. THIS SIGNAL IS ADDRESSED TO ALL MAJOR FLYING UNITS AND FOLLOWS DISCUSSION WITH GP AND HQPTC STAFFS. THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT THERE ARE VARYING LEVELS OF UNDERSTANDING SURROUNDING THE PROVISION OF AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES IN THE UK. FOR EXAMPLE, NOTWITHSTANDING JSP318A, DO AIRCREW AND CONTROLLERS COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER RAS/RIS AND THE LIMITATIONS/SCOPE OF THE SERVICE BEING PROVIDED QUERY.IF THERE ARE WEAKNESSES, HOW MIGHT WE WE BEST ADDRESS THEM QUERY. ARE ANY MILITARY ATC REGULATIONS AMBIGUOUS QUERY. ARE DAY TO DAY ATC PRACTICES SOUNDLY BASED ON EXTANT REGULATIONS QUERY. YOUR VIEWS ON THESE ISSUES WOULD BE APPRECIATED THROUGH GP AND PTC COMMAND CHAINS WITH COPY TO AIR CDRE OPS SPT, BY COP 6 APR 01. THE DEBATE WILL BE FURTHER INFORMED BY THE OUTPUT OF A SEMINAR TO BE HELD AT HQSTC ON 10 APR 01 TO WHICH ALL SATCOS WILL BE INVITED. AIRCREW INPUT WILL BE PROVIDED BY GP REPS AT SO2 LEVEL.
Seems like an admission by the responsible authority that the ATC services on offer at the time were not readily understood, were flawed and needed revision. I know that the response from at least 2 units echoed such concerns. In addition, you might want to see if there is any crossover from the outcome/comments of the Kosovo inquiry and your situation. You have my number if you want to take that further. I can hard-copy you the above signal if you need it.
Take care mate and remember what I said today - right and justice will prevail.
As discussed mate, here is the signal.
Originator: HQSTC
DTG: 290741ZMAR01
SIC: KBE/KBA
UNCLAS
HQPTC FOR D TRG GPS FOR AOCS, UNITS FOR STN CDRS. SUBJECT: UK ATC PROCEDURES AND OPERATING PRACTICES. THIS SIGNAL IS ADDRESSED TO ALL MAJOR FLYING UNITS AND FOLLOWS DISCUSSION WITH GP AND HQPTC STAFFS. THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT THERE ARE VARYING LEVELS OF UNDERSTANDING SURROUNDING THE PROVISION OF AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES IN THE UK. FOR EXAMPLE, NOTWITHSTANDING JSP318A, DO AIRCREW AND CONTROLLERS COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER RAS/RIS AND THE LIMITATIONS/SCOPE OF THE SERVICE BEING PROVIDED QUERY.IF THERE ARE WEAKNESSES, HOW MIGHT WE WE BEST ADDRESS THEM QUERY. ARE ANY MILITARY ATC REGULATIONS AMBIGUOUS QUERY. ARE DAY TO DAY ATC PRACTICES SOUNDLY BASED ON EXTANT REGULATIONS QUERY. YOUR VIEWS ON THESE ISSUES WOULD BE APPRECIATED THROUGH GP AND PTC COMMAND CHAINS WITH COPY TO AIR CDRE OPS SPT, BY COP 6 APR 01. THE DEBATE WILL BE FURTHER INFORMED BY THE OUTPUT OF A SEMINAR TO BE HELD AT HQSTC ON 10 APR 01 TO WHICH ALL SATCOS WILL BE INVITED. AIRCREW INPUT WILL BE PROVIDED BY GP REPS AT SO2 LEVEL.
Seems like an admission by the responsible authority that the ATC services on offer at the time were not readily understood, were flawed and needed revision. I know that the response from at least 2 units echoed such concerns. In addition, you might want to see if there is any crossover from the outcome/comments of the Kosovo inquiry and your situation. You have my number if you want to take that further. I can hard-copy you the above signal if you need it.
Take care mate and remember what I said today - right and justice will prevail.
Just echoing what many have said before. All the best in your 'trail'. You have right on your side and the brass know it. Maybe when they have been laughed out of court you could revisit the school and give a lecture to the JATCC on what has gone. Perhaps the powers that be will say no. All the best we are all behind you.
All the best mate we are thinking of you, G&V Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EDI, LHR, NQY
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Press Association a few minutes ago...
I've heavily edited this because the background has already been posted here.
1 COURT Jet Substitute 17:43GMT
An RAF air traffic controller today appeared before a court martial charged with causing the death of two pilots in a double jet crash.
Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Williams, 47, was on duty at RAF Leuchars, Fife, on the day two F15C jets crashed into a Scottish mountain.
Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Hyvonen, 40, and Captain Kirk Jones 27, of the United States Air Force, died in the incident at Ben Macdui in the Cairngorms during a snowstorm on March 26, 2001.
Flt Lt Williams, who had been providing radar information and was in contact with Lt Col Hyvonen, is alleged to have told the pilot to descend to 4,000ft when the minimum safe altitude in that area was 6,500ft.
The descent is said to have caused the deaths of the two pilots.
Williams faces an alternative charge of negligently performing in his duties as an air traffic controller.
He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
...
The court martial, which is expected to last several days, opened today before seven senior RAF officers assisted by a judge advocate.
RAF Group Captain Alistair McGrigor, prosecuting, said Flt Lt Williams had “created a false environment and lulled the air crew into a false sense of security”.
He said the air traffic controller had responded “inappropriately” by telling Lt Col Hyvonen, the lead pilot of the formation, to descend to 4,000ft.
However, he said Williams was not solely responsible for the accident and conceded that the pilots were responsible for the avoidance of any other air traffic and the terrain.
The court martial heard that Lt Col Hyvonen had used an American phrase “minimum vectoring altitude” which Flt Lt Williams had not queried.
Lt Col Hyvonen had then asked Flt Lt Williams to confirm the descent to 4,000ft, which the air traffic controller did.
...
The court martial, before Judge Advocate Edmwnd Hoelwyn-Hughes, was to continue tomorrow at the Royal Navy base in Helensburgh, Argyll and Bute, Scotland.
ends
An RAF air traffic controller today appeared before a court martial charged with causing the death of two pilots in a double jet crash.
Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Williams, 47, was on duty at RAF Leuchars, Fife, on the day two F15C jets crashed into a Scottish mountain.
Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Hyvonen, 40, and Captain Kirk Jones 27, of the United States Air Force, died in the incident at Ben Macdui in the Cairngorms during a snowstorm on March 26, 2001.
Flt Lt Williams, who had been providing radar information and was in contact with Lt Col Hyvonen, is alleged to have told the pilot to descend to 4,000ft when the minimum safe altitude in that area was 6,500ft.
The descent is said to have caused the deaths of the two pilots.
Williams faces an alternative charge of negligently performing in his duties as an air traffic controller.
He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
...
The court martial, which is expected to last several days, opened today before seven senior RAF officers assisted by a judge advocate.
RAF Group Captain Alistair McGrigor, prosecuting, said Flt Lt Williams had “created a false environment and lulled the air crew into a false sense of security”.
He said the air traffic controller had responded “inappropriately” by telling Lt Col Hyvonen, the lead pilot of the formation, to descend to 4,000ft.
However, he said Williams was not solely responsible for the accident and conceded that the pilots were responsible for the avoidance of any other air traffic and the terrain.
The court martial heard that Lt Col Hyvonen had used an American phrase “minimum vectoring altitude” which Flt Lt Williams had not queried.
Lt Col Hyvonen had then asked Flt Lt Williams to confirm the descent to 4,000ft, which the air traffic controller did.
...
The court martial, before Judge Advocate Edmwnd Hoelwyn-Hughes, was to continue tomorrow at the Royal Navy base in Helensburgh, Argyll and Bute, Scotland.
ends
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Exeter
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I have missed something in an earlier post or am barking up the wrong tree then I apologise in advance to all however….
While I am neither an ATCO nor a member of the RAF, I do have some considerable knowledge of Courts Martial proceeding – or more importantly the route to Courts Martial.
It has been mentioned that the decision to take this matter before a Courts Martial was made at Air Rank. Well – theoretically at least – a case can only be remanded for CM if one of the following two conditions are met.
1. The alleged offence is contrary to the equivalent civil charge covered by the RAF Act.
2. The offence carries a higher penalty than the Unit Commander or Next High Authority is allowed (under the powers of subordinate commander) to award.
The point of this is that the evidence should have been tested at subordinate command level before being remanded. As a very lowly PPL(A) I am fully aware of my responsibilities as far as terrain avoidance is concerned when receiving a RIS –in whatever language or variation of language I requested it in - therefore there should have been no case to answer and that fact should have been established at the initial hearing.
Having remanded the accused for CM, all the papers are sent to the next higher command where the evidence is tested again not only by that Commands staff but by the relevant arms Legal Services.
(I have deliberately missed bits out but only for brevity – the jist is all there)
The correct procedure was followed, I am sure, but some spineless wonder at some point in the chain of command failed to put a stop to the proceedings.
The problem here – as I see it then – is political expediency or the old boy network working in the wrong direction for whatever reason. It is shameful and smacks of the standard service maxim of “March in the Guilty B****rd”. I had though this mentality, that so prevalent whilst I was a serving member of another of HM Forces in the 70’s and 80’s, had dissipated after a number of high profile cases were lost for very much the same reasons as this case should be lost by the RAF.
The unfortunate issue here will become not the first charge but the second (where although I am sure the Officer is Not Guilty) will be proven by virtue of the wording and subsequent twisting of facts to fit the charge.
I have great sympathy with this Officer – the system very often gets it wrong for all the wrong reasons. I have never regretted my decision NOT to convert my SSC to Regular C – at least I do not have to put up with the s**t.
While I am neither an ATCO nor a member of the RAF, I do have some considerable knowledge of Courts Martial proceeding – or more importantly the route to Courts Martial.
It has been mentioned that the decision to take this matter before a Courts Martial was made at Air Rank. Well – theoretically at least – a case can only be remanded for CM if one of the following two conditions are met.
1. The alleged offence is contrary to the equivalent civil charge covered by the RAF Act.
2. The offence carries a higher penalty than the Unit Commander or Next High Authority is allowed (under the powers of subordinate commander) to award.
The point of this is that the evidence should have been tested at subordinate command level before being remanded. As a very lowly PPL(A) I am fully aware of my responsibilities as far as terrain avoidance is concerned when receiving a RIS –in whatever language or variation of language I requested it in - therefore there should have been no case to answer and that fact should have been established at the initial hearing.
Having remanded the accused for CM, all the papers are sent to the next higher command where the evidence is tested again not only by that Commands staff but by the relevant arms Legal Services.
(I have deliberately missed bits out but only for brevity – the jist is all there)
The correct procedure was followed, I am sure, but some spineless wonder at some point in the chain of command failed to put a stop to the proceedings.
The problem here – as I see it then – is political expediency or the old boy network working in the wrong direction for whatever reason. It is shameful and smacks of the standard service maxim of “March in the Guilty B****rd”. I had though this mentality, that so prevalent whilst I was a serving member of another of HM Forces in the 70’s and 80’s, had dissipated after a number of high profile cases were lost for very much the same reasons as this case should be lost by the RAF.
The unfortunate issue here will become not the first charge but the second (where although I am sure the Officer is Not Guilty) will be proven by virtue of the wording and subsequent twisting of facts to fit the charge.
I have great sympathy with this Officer – the system very often gets it wrong for all the wrong reasons. I have never regretted my decision NOT to convert my SSC to Regular C – at least I do not have to put up with the s**t.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Shrewsbury
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update Day1, Monday 27 Jan 03
Not much to report but before I give you a brief update of todays proceedings, I must applaud the comments of ajsh;his comments are accurate in the extreme and are to be applauded.
Todays events:
The Defence objected to one of the members of the Board, a fighter controller, who was subsequently replaced.
The charges presented were:
1. A charge of "Doing an act in relation to aircraft causing loss of life to a person contrary to Section 49". This refers to the deaths of one pilot.
2. As an alternative to the first charge- Negligently performing a duty contrary to section 29 of the Air Force Act.
3. A second charge of " Doing an act in relation to aircraft causing loss of life to a person contrary to Section 49" This refers to the death of the second pilot.
Interestingly, the Crown prosecutor conceded that terrain clearance was the responsibility of the pilot.
There are 2 major areas of conflict: the Prosecution state that Spot is negligent, the defence say NO his actions were not negligent. The prosection says there is a direct link between what Spot said to the aircraft formation and the subsequent crash; the defence believe that the link had been broken when the aircraft descended low level to the East, eventually crashing into high ground.
More tomorrow.
Watch your 6.
Todays events:
The Defence objected to one of the members of the Board, a fighter controller, who was subsequently replaced.
The charges presented were:
1. A charge of "Doing an act in relation to aircraft causing loss of life to a person contrary to Section 49". This refers to the deaths of one pilot.
2. As an alternative to the first charge- Negligently performing a duty contrary to section 29 of the Air Force Act.
3. A second charge of " Doing an act in relation to aircraft causing loss of life to a person contrary to Section 49" This refers to the death of the second pilot.
Interestingly, the Crown prosecutor conceded that terrain clearance was the responsibility of the pilot.
There are 2 major areas of conflict: the Prosecution state that Spot is negligent, the defence say NO his actions were not negligent. The prosection says there is a direct link between what Spot said to the aircraft formation and the subsequent crash; the defence believe that the link had been broken when the aircraft descended low level to the East, eventually crashing into high ground.
More tomorrow.
Watch your 6.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At a courtmartial I attended several years ago, the defendant was charged with two offences relating to the same action. The lesser charge was dismissed because the defense argued that you cannot be tried twice for the same offence. Surely this is relevent here. Spot is charged with three very serious offences, The lesser charge relates to the same act and so he is in effect being tried twice for the same offence and the lesser charge should be dropped.
IF ajsh is correct and the second charge is the one they will try to hang spot with, then if there is no second charge you can't get him.
Spot no one should have to go through what you are going through, But I hope you have gained strength from the knowledge that all these people are supporting you.
IF ajsh is correct and the second charge is the one they will try to hang spot with, then if there is no second charge you can't get him.
Spot no one should have to go through what you are going through, But I hope you have gained strength from the knowledge that all these people are supporting you.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Llnandydyffybryvin
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not much to say really as I'm off to work in a few minutes. We were hoping that the case would be thrown out at the first hurdle - i.e. when the defence admitted that Terrain Clearance is the pilot's responsibility. That has to be a key issue, as does the responsibility of the aircrew and Spot's chain of command. ajsh's post does give some hope that Spot will walk away from this. Give our best to Spot Tommy. xxx Stu B
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Shrewsbury
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Addendum to Day 1
Thanks to zkdli for that info, I'll ensure your views are put to Spot's defence team this morning.
I forgot to mention yesterday that Spot got through the day with dignity. He was nervous all morning, not surprisingly, and breakfast didn't stay down long!! On arrival he found plenty of press and a TV satellite truck; the case featured on TV Scotland at 6.30 pm, although there wasn't much to report.
The afternoon was relatively short, 2 pm to 4.15 pm and Spot spoke clearly throughout. We all felt that on marching in he looked ill - hardly surprising under the circumstances.
Spot and Sue were glad that the first day was over and felt a bit a bit more positive about the procedings.
More later.
Watch your 6.
I forgot to mention yesterday that Spot got through the day with dignity. He was nervous all morning, not surprisingly, and breakfast didn't stay down long!! On arrival he found plenty of press and a TV satellite truck; the case featured on TV Scotland at 6.30 pm, although there wasn't much to report.
The afternoon was relatively short, 2 pm to 4.15 pm and Spot spoke clearly throughout. We all felt that on marching in he looked ill - hardly surprising under the circumstances.
Spot and Sue were glad that the first day was over and felt a bit a bit more positive about the procedings.
More later.
Watch your 6.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the very best SPOT.
Very many thanks for your postings on events Mickydrip - excellent. The CM was mentioned on BBC Look East last night - there was a fleeting glimpse of 'himself' but it mainly concentrated on Lakenheath!
Very many thanks for your postings on events Mickydrip - excellent. The CM was mentioned on BBC Look East last night - there was a fleeting glimpse of 'himself' but it mainly concentrated on Lakenheath!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hants, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot,
Although we haven't met, I would like to add my voice to the many others on this list offering our total support and sympathy. My early years in ATC were as an Approach controller providing RIS/RAS/FIS, often to low-level military including LN jets, where terrain was significant, so I think I understand your situation.
What is happening to you is so very wrong, that I am sure just one ounce of common sense should stop this case.
Spot, I am sure that over the years in the service you have done much to prevent loss of life, maybe without realising it. You can hold your head high. Keep faith my friend.
M
Although we haven't met, I would like to add my voice to the many others on this list offering our total support and sympathy. My early years in ATC were as an Approach controller providing RIS/RAS/FIS, often to low-level military including LN jets, where terrain was significant, so I think I understand your situation.
What is happening to you is so very wrong, that I am sure just one ounce of common sense should stop this case.
Spot, I am sure that over the years in the service you have done much to prevent loss of life, maybe without realising it. You can hold your head high. Keep faith my friend.
M
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Shrewsbury
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Day 2, Tuesday 28th Jan 03
Another busy day for the Prosecution, with the Gp Capt calling 2 atco witnesses, one a current staff member at RAF Leuchars, the other a former training officer at the base. Incidentally, there are numerous witnesses to be called, the original list numbered 76; this has been reduced to 16, with the agreement of both sides. It’s probable that this trial will run into next week, possibly finishing on Wednesday.
Questions from the Prosecution and the Defence produced lengthy and detailed discussion on the intricacies of Flight Level/Altitude and Heights, also the vagaries of VFR, VMC, IFR and IMC. The Board members, who are all ground trade officers, looked somewhat puzzled – it’s a lot to try to grasp in a relatively short period of time. It was warming to watch the Defence QC carefully draw out from the witnesses, precise information, which was readily assimilated by all in the room; he’s certainly a talented man. A very interesting period saw him listing the various types of ATC service, carefully highlighting the shared responsibilities of both the atco and the pilot. Two other important points covered were that the Radar Vectoring Map was not displayed anywhere in the approach room, although it was available as a selectable map (containing barely readable figures for safety heights); also that the controllers were not required to commit this map to memory. Surely if that’s the case, it strikes me that a display must be considered absolutely essential. I’m told that the RV map now features heavily in the approach room.
Finally, it seems that the Judge Advocate, who has a very Dickensian look about him, has a sense of humour. When the subject of the electronic tote was raised, he questioned whether this had some gambling conotation, and smiled!
Spot is reading this every day and thanks to you all for the strong support.
More tomorrow
Watch your 6
Questions from the Prosecution and the Defence produced lengthy and detailed discussion on the intricacies of Flight Level/Altitude and Heights, also the vagaries of VFR, VMC, IFR and IMC. The Board members, who are all ground trade officers, looked somewhat puzzled – it’s a lot to try to grasp in a relatively short period of time. It was warming to watch the Defence QC carefully draw out from the witnesses, precise information, which was readily assimilated by all in the room; he’s certainly a talented man. A very interesting period saw him listing the various types of ATC service, carefully highlighting the shared responsibilities of both the atco and the pilot. Two other important points covered were that the Radar Vectoring Map was not displayed anywhere in the approach room, although it was available as a selectable map (containing barely readable figures for safety heights); also that the controllers were not required to commit this map to memory. Surely if that’s the case, it strikes me that a display must be considered absolutely essential. I’m told that the RV map now features heavily in the approach room.
Finally, it seems that the Judge Advocate, who has a very Dickensian look about him, has a sense of humour. When the subject of the electronic tote was raised, he questioned whether this had some gambling conotation, and smiled!
Spot is reading this every day and thanks to you all for the strong support.
More tomorrow
Watch your 6
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Here,there,everywhere
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was there any reason given why the Fighter Controller was dismissed from the board by the defence?
It was mentioned above that the board is now made up entirely of 'ground types' surely a Fighter Controller would have understood all the details of the radar services etc.....and so would be of benefit to Spot.
I only mention this as this CM has lots of implications in the Fighter Control world, we routinely let our a/c work surface and above overland. We have only to remind them that they are responsible for TA and set the appropriate FIS level that we deem our radar coverage degrades. As a lot of you out there know we sometimes have a lot of aircraft operating in a generally small area in and out of radar and radio coverage, and BELOW the minimum area safety altitudes. The responsibility is completely on the aircrew.
The FC world is watching and wishes him good luck.
It was mentioned above that the board is now made up entirely of 'ground types' surely a Fighter Controller would have understood all the details of the radar services etc.....and so would be of benefit to Spot.
I only mention this as this CM has lots of implications in the Fighter Control world, we routinely let our a/c work surface and above overland. We have only to remind them that they are responsible for TA and set the appropriate FIS level that we deem our radar coverage degrades. As a lot of you out there know we sometimes have a lot of aircraft operating in a generally small area in and out of radar and radio coverage, and BELOW the minimum area safety altitudes. The responsibility is completely on the aircrew.
The FC world is watching and wishes him good luck.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the best
Glad to hear that Spot is able to know that we are all behind him - Good Luck to you Spot (+Sue) - it was great to spend some time with you at RAF Leuchars Air Show in the Squadron Prints Stall
Spot. Don't let them grind you down mate. All in the leafy lanes of Shropshire (just past Grinshill going west) wish you well. How are you doing for pickled onions, do you need any sending up?