Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Former Flake (love the 'yes minister' quote - spot on!)
However, I sincerely hope you are wrong about Albert in Afghanistan
.
Maybe we should further expand the corporate manslaughter terms to include VC10, Trishaw and SH? I cannot believe that Basrah is totally benign - based on the fact that 'everyman and his camel' in the region have AK 47s and RPGs (not strictly true, I know but you get the gist?).
Ex-VC10 ppruners, would you want protection if it were available for your fuel tanks?
However, I sincerely hope you are wrong about Albert in Afghanistan
. Maybe we should further expand the corporate manslaughter terms to include VC10, Trishaw and SH? I cannot believe that Basrah is totally benign - based on the fact that 'everyman and his camel' in the region have AK 47s and RPGs (not strictly true, I know but you get the gist?).
Ex-VC10 ppruners, would you want protection if it were available for your fuel tanks?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
actual cost
i'm sure that when we first looked into this nige got quotes from lockheed direct and the figures were the £275,000 initially then £50,000 for each ac. i can try and check with my friend at marshalls. talking of nige, where is he? i hope AOC 2 Gp aren't thinking of holding him hostage maybe for the price of an ac receiving foam protection!
i have got so p****d off with reid i am doing a letter in the same format we did for blair on meeting with the families on the military families website. you can download the letter and send it off or you can go ahead and sign the petition i'm organising alongside the letter. i will be calling for him to permit foam for all aircraft now. please can you and the world sign it. it's not set up yet but by tomorrow it should be. fingers crossed. the same for the blog campaign web page. i will hopefully get that out around the media. the express are after a follow up so there is still interest there. hope you are all okay with the idea. i know that it's on the military families against war page and there will be many who do not disagree with the war but as far as i'm concerned this call for support is not about the war. it's for protection for all troops on alberts. i hope no one disagrees with this notion.i'll keep you posted.
as for gray, i've got my contacts sorting that out and hopefully making sure that he is mindful of his constituents in the future. bearing in mind this man turned up at six of the funerals without invitation. one would ask who was he there for?
i have got so p****d off with reid i am doing a letter in the same format we did for blair on meeting with the families on the military families website. you can download the letter and send it off or you can go ahead and sign the petition i'm organising alongside the letter. i will be calling for him to permit foam for all aircraft now. please can you and the world sign it. it's not set up yet but by tomorrow it should be. fingers crossed. the same for the blog campaign web page. i will hopefully get that out around the media. the express are after a follow up so there is still interest there. hope you are all okay with the idea. i know that it's on the military families against war page and there will be many who do not disagree with the war but as far as i'm concerned this call for support is not about the war. it's for protection for all troops on alberts. i hope no one disagrees with this notion.i'll keep you posted.
as for gray, i've got my contacts sorting that out and hopefully making sure that he is mindful of his constituents in the future. bearing in mind this man turned up at six of the funerals without invitation. one would ask who was he there for?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long day. AOC 2 kindly gave me 2 hours or so of his time. Fair to say we had a meeting of minds. I did not hold back on anything. Tonight I am content that I have passed on the concerns expressed by so many people via pprune. I feel he deserves some time to sort things out. We shared a lot of common ground. We disagree on the management of risk but that is a burden for him to bear and for me to criticise. We talked about the failure to fit foam and we came to an understanding. He is a good man and I respect him.
NG
NG
Last edited by nigegilb; 5th May 2006 at 02:05.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I cannot understand with all this is the notion that we didn't have the U.S experience of Vietnam to help us prepare our transport fleets. Surely the use of Nitrogen bottles to inert the Tornado fin tank was something which came from ground AAA fire research? Similarily pictures of Harriers/Sea Harriers returning from sorties over the Falklands with bullet holes in them should have atleast have promoted an understanding of the risks to fast jets let alone transport aircraft to groundfire.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the MOD managers out there, lets take that a bit further
Cost of Ac (anywhere between £1 - £10m) lets say, £4m.
Cost of trg the flight crew (5) lets say approx £2m each = £10m
Cost of trg the rest of the crew (5) lets say approx £7m
Savings due pension vice salary approx £100k
Saving on NOT fitting foam (worst case) = £ 50k + £350k = £400k
So for the taxypayers sake,
We saved £0.5m but lost £21m
and now
we will have to spend another £21m to replace the crew and aircraft (if possible), while still losing all the crew's invaluable experience.
Ask yourself if this is good accounting or management? I fear the answer would be negative!
The old adage of "For a hay'p'th of tar the ship was lost" rings too true in our ears.
Cost of Ac (anywhere between £1 - £10m) lets say, £4m.
Cost of trg the flight crew (5) lets say approx £2m each = £10m
Cost of trg the rest of the crew (5) lets say approx £7m
Savings due pension vice salary approx £100k
Saving on NOT fitting foam (worst case) = £ 50k + £350k = £400k
So for the taxypayers sake,
We saved £0.5m but lost £21m
and now
we will have to spend another £21m to replace the crew and aircraft (if possible), while still losing all the crew's invaluable experience.
Ask yourself if this is good accounting or management? I fear the answer would be negative!
The old adage of "For a hay'p'th of tar the ship was lost" rings too true in our ears.
James Gray MP
I have just sent this email to James Gray, with copies to David Cameron and Liam Fox
Dear James Gray
If your words, published in a Wiltshire newspaper about one of your constituents, Nigel Gilbert, are a correct quote, then you, Sir, should be ashamed of yourself. The paper quotes you as saying "He seems to be a self-publicist. He keeps going on about the same story. I think he should just let it lie."
http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/sea...mans_claim.php
In writing this, I am assuming that the words are correct.
This man that you criticise has been an operational pilot on the front line of dangerous military operations for his - our - country. He knows what he’s talking about. As you well know, he is now engaged in a courageous campaign to make the MoD provide some long overdue safety measures for aircraft that are at great risk in operational areas.
I know, from close contact with Nigel Gilbert, that he is anything but a ‘self-publicist’. In fact, I believe that it is largely because of the media appearances of Nigel Gilbert and Sarah Chapman that the then Secretary of State for Defence felt obliged to admit, on the ‘Today’ programme on Radio 4 on 3 May, that “with hindsight....... of course it is possible to say that this tragedy might have been averted if we had done that” (installed explosive suppressant foam). You will be aware that the MoD had not admitted this previously.
When you suggest that “He keeps going on about the same story. I think he should just let it lie", you may wish to consider whether it is because people like you and the crassly uncaring MoD have been prepared to ‘let things like this lie’ that 10 courageous soldiers of The Queen died unnecessarily on 5 January 2005.
I suggest that you should immediately apologise publicly to Nigel Gilbert, and reapply yourself, as his Member of Parliament, to helping him right this disgraceful wrong.
standing by for incoming
airsound
Dear James Gray
If your words, published in a Wiltshire newspaper about one of your constituents, Nigel Gilbert, are a correct quote, then you, Sir, should be ashamed of yourself. The paper quotes you as saying "He seems to be a self-publicist. He keeps going on about the same story. I think he should just let it lie."
http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/sea...mans_claim.php
In writing this, I am assuming that the words are correct.
This man that you criticise has been an operational pilot on the front line of dangerous military operations for his - our - country. He knows what he’s talking about. As you well know, he is now engaged in a courageous campaign to make the MoD provide some long overdue safety measures for aircraft that are at great risk in operational areas.
I know, from close contact with Nigel Gilbert, that he is anything but a ‘self-publicist’. In fact, I believe that it is largely because of the media appearances of Nigel Gilbert and Sarah Chapman that the then Secretary of State for Defence felt obliged to admit, on the ‘Today’ programme on Radio 4 on 3 May, that “with hindsight....... of course it is possible to say that this tragedy might have been averted if we had done that” (installed explosive suppressant foam). You will be aware that the MoD had not admitted this previously.
When you suggest that “He keeps going on about the same story. I think he should just let it lie", you may wish to consider whether it is because people like you and the crassly uncaring MoD have been prepared to ‘let things like this lie’ that 10 courageous soldiers of The Queen died unnecessarily on 5 January 2005.
I suggest that you should immediately apologise publicly to Nigel Gilbert, and reapply yourself, as his Member of Parliament, to helping him right this disgraceful wrong.
standing by for incoming
airsound
I don't want to detract from the excellent work of this thread, but......
It would appear that the UK has a long history of not providing it's airman with the best equipment to enhance their survival. I seem to remember reading that in WW1 the RFC/RAF did not provide its pilots with parachutes (the crews of observation balloons had them!) as they thought the pilots would 'bail out' at the first sign of trouble. As a result if the aircraft caught fire at height the pilot had to either to, try and ride it down, burn to death, or jump without a parachute to a certain fate!!
It would appear that the UK has a long history of not providing it's airman with the best equipment to enhance their survival. I seem to remember reading that in WW1 the RFC/RAF did not provide its pilots with parachutes (the crews of observation balloons had them!) as they thought the pilots would 'bail out' at the first sign of trouble. As a result if the aircraft caught fire at height the pilot had to either to, try and ride it down, burn to death, or jump without a parachute to a certain fate!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airsound, I am honoured that I have friends like you. I would like to add that Mike Hancock, Lib Dem Portsmouth, has asked 20 or so searching questions of our Defence Ministers. He has grilled them and harried them. He has probed a range of serious issues. He isn't even our local MP, but I truly believe he cares. I think the voters in North Wiltshire should take a careful look at how Mr Gray (Con), has behaved before they go to the polls next time.
Biggus lessons from History from a US perspective:
"Denying the lessons-learned from Vietnam is equivalent to ignoring the American Civil War's lessons on charging across open stretches of level ground towards entrenched troops armed with Maxim guns (Petersburg 1864). Might have made a difference in front of Serre and Beaumont Hamel in 1916.
If the RAF believes that the Hercules is adequately protected against the threats that it might face, they should be especially vigilant in ensuring they don't task the aircraft against threats the frames can't defeat. Can't defeat SA-10, don't fly against SA-10. Don't need DAS or foam to fly into Nellis, Bruggen and Akronelli, don't fly anywhere other than locations similar in threat level to Nellis, Bruggen and Akronelli."....
Simple threats don't attract the attention (money) that hi-tech ones do. But the USAF baseline for their Herks is with foam in the tanks, and all the rest of the kit is added on top of/after that. I never viewed foam as something that would be tough to get installed since it was an aftermarket addition to the first Herks, and added as a standard fit to later marks - including early C-130E's."
Biggus lessons from History from a US perspective:
"Denying the lessons-learned from Vietnam is equivalent to ignoring the American Civil War's lessons on charging across open stretches of level ground towards entrenched troops armed with Maxim guns (Petersburg 1864). Might have made a difference in front of Serre and Beaumont Hamel in 1916.
If the RAF believes that the Hercules is adequately protected against the threats that it might face, they should be especially vigilant in ensuring they don't task the aircraft against threats the frames can't defeat. Can't defeat SA-10, don't fly against SA-10. Don't need DAS or foam to fly into Nellis, Bruggen and Akronelli, don't fly anywhere other than locations similar in threat level to Nellis, Bruggen and Akronelli."....
Simple threats don't attract the attention (money) that hi-tech ones do. But the USAF baseline for their Herks is with foam in the tanks, and all the rest of the kit is added on top of/after that. I never viewed foam as something that would be tough to get installed since it was an aftermarket addition to the first Herks, and added as a standard fit to later marks - including early C-130E's."
Last edited by nigegilb; 5th May 2006 at 14:51.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duty of Care (Thanks to JB Chinook Thread)
"You have prompted me to put something on the Chinook thread, which in case you have not read it is as follows:
This thread has been quiet for a few days, and I guess many people like myself have been following the Hercules saga and the outstanding efforts by Nigel and chappie to both improve safety for the future and see justice done. Indeed it was in comparing what is happening on the Hercules and our continuing fight on the Chinook that it struck me that there may be another way to make MOD and indeed the RAF (in this case) management chain face up to its responsibilities.
Nobody can pretend that military operations will ever be safe, or indeed that there will not be accidents, but with the Crown no longer able to take advantage of Crown exemption it seems to me that the words “fitness for purpose” and “duty of care” are just as applicable to military operations and training (in peace and war) as they are to any other part of society.
If we take “fitness for purpose” it seems to me this must include giving the serviceman the most effective equipment to do the job – whether this is an assault rifle that works, a radio that works, an airworthy Chinook, or a Hercules with proper defensive aids and fuel tank inerting. How do you judge “effective” – well the obvious way is to compare what we have with the equipment standards of our allies and indeed enemies – sadly we too often fail on both counts.
If we send a serviceman or woman to fight with equipment that has obvious deficiencies and we then use tactics or make them “fight” in a way which makes those deficiencies more dangerous eg by authorising or insisting on low-level daylight operations where the threat regime highlights the deficiencies, then it seems to me that the commanders who took this decision may have now failed in their “duty of care”. The level at which this failure may have occurred could be quite low eg the officer of SNCO who allows military policemen to go on patrol with less than the required levels of ammunition or a radio that works. It could also be quite high – for example I am sure that Reid was correct when he said that it was a RAF decision not to fit tank inerting systems to the Hercules (they obviously saw JPA as more important!). The final link in the duty of care consideration must be that at command level you do not accept a task for which you do not have the right equipment – that might make the politicians more supportive! Given that the responsibilities would also feed back to the procurement of equipment the DPA might find a need to improve in a few areas as well.
Nonsense – totally incompatible with military operations – possibly – it would certainly make life much more difficult. We will always have casualties in military operations and training, but the fact remains that as far as I am aware the law applies equally to the Armed Services as to other walks of life, and one could argue that because military operations are so inherently dangerous they should only be undertaken when the command chain has made certain that they have met the most exacting “fitness for purpose” and “duty of care” considerations – and that would not, for example, have included selecting a Chinook Mk2 with ZD 576’s airworthiness history for a passenger flight against the captain’s recommendation and request.
Like war crimes this general issue comes down to being not just a command issue but also to an individual’s responsibility as, for example, a few MT officers found out in somewhat more benign circumstances, when some MOD MT operations did not meet the laws of the UK. It will be interesting to see what happens when the first family goes to the police to complain that MOD, or an individual, has failed in its/his “duty of care” responsibility and asks for a criminal investigation – it could never happen? We shall see – the words “Corporate Manslaughter” have appeared several times on the Hercules thread.
I look forward to hearing other people’s views.
AOC 2 Group may have his own ideas on the management of risk - but they still have to pass the duty of care requirements - which often have to be tested in court."
This thread has been quiet for a few days, and I guess many people like myself have been following the Hercules saga and the outstanding efforts by Nigel and chappie to both improve safety for the future and see justice done. Indeed it was in comparing what is happening on the Hercules and our continuing fight on the Chinook that it struck me that there may be another way to make MOD and indeed the RAF (in this case) management chain face up to its responsibilities.
Nobody can pretend that military operations will ever be safe, or indeed that there will not be accidents, but with the Crown no longer able to take advantage of Crown exemption it seems to me that the words “fitness for purpose” and “duty of care” are just as applicable to military operations and training (in peace and war) as they are to any other part of society.
If we take “fitness for purpose” it seems to me this must include giving the serviceman the most effective equipment to do the job – whether this is an assault rifle that works, a radio that works, an airworthy Chinook, or a Hercules with proper defensive aids and fuel tank inerting. How do you judge “effective” – well the obvious way is to compare what we have with the equipment standards of our allies and indeed enemies – sadly we too often fail on both counts.
If we send a serviceman or woman to fight with equipment that has obvious deficiencies and we then use tactics or make them “fight” in a way which makes those deficiencies more dangerous eg by authorising or insisting on low-level daylight operations where the threat regime highlights the deficiencies, then it seems to me that the commanders who took this decision may have now failed in their “duty of care”. The level at which this failure may have occurred could be quite low eg the officer of SNCO who allows military policemen to go on patrol with less than the required levels of ammunition or a radio that works. It could also be quite high – for example I am sure that Reid was correct when he said that it was a RAF decision not to fit tank inerting systems to the Hercules (they obviously saw JPA as more important!). The final link in the duty of care consideration must be that at command level you do not accept a task for which you do not have the right equipment – that might make the politicians more supportive! Given that the responsibilities would also feed back to the procurement of equipment the DPA might find a need to improve in a few areas as well.
Nonsense – totally incompatible with military operations – possibly – it would certainly make life much more difficult. We will always have casualties in military operations and training, but the fact remains that as far as I am aware the law applies equally to the Armed Services as to other walks of life, and one could argue that because military operations are so inherently dangerous they should only be undertaken when the command chain has made certain that they have met the most exacting “fitness for purpose” and “duty of care” considerations – and that would not, for example, have included selecting a Chinook Mk2 with ZD 576’s airworthiness history for a passenger flight against the captain’s recommendation and request.
Like war crimes this general issue comes down to being not just a command issue but also to an individual’s responsibility as, for example, a few MT officers found out in somewhat more benign circumstances, when some MOD MT operations did not meet the laws of the UK. It will be interesting to see what happens when the first family goes to the police to complain that MOD, or an individual, has failed in its/his “duty of care” responsibility and asks for a criminal investigation – it could never happen? We shall see – the words “Corporate Manslaughter” have appeared several times on the Hercules thread.
I look forward to hearing other people’s views.
AOC 2 Group may have his own ideas on the management of risk - but they still have to pass the duty of care requirements - which often have to be tested in court."
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wilts
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chappie/ NigeGilb Et Al,
I have backtracked through most of the recent postings on this sorry state of affairs....
Time and time again i see a common denominator.....
CASH !!!!
WE cant or WONT be able to afford the cost of modding every aircraft that flies into hostile areas....
Where has the duty of care gone ???
Where has the rationale of providing equipment that is fit for purpose gone ??
Early '80's all Op Banner a/c had to have SDS fitted if not they werent used !!
OK, we have lost an airframe in XV179, that is replaceable by 1 of a fleet of (xxx) what is not replaceable, is the dedicated crew that fly/operate them.....!!!
All of us old enough to remember the Falklands will recall that we lost 3 Chinooks, Bravo November being the sole survivor, and flew her rotors off providing support to all and sundry...
What if the worse case scenario was we lost all the crews to fly them...maybe then the powers that be would listen ???
Although this next statement may be off tangent a bit, it's just my view opinon...
Someone mentioned about "downing tools" , well, while flying at an airfield in RAFG in a glider, i was downwind to land. My landing area was blocked by a slow recovery of another glider. I extended my base leg and landed on the runway.. One of Brize's finest was due in shortly behind me and had to "go around" due to "black runway"....!!
SATCO wanted my blood, as a SAC i took my roasting on the chin and then pointed out the letter of the law, power gives way to gliders and that as the "a/c capt" i had a decision to make and made it!!! My glider, my approach , my landing !!! i got no option as i got no means to go around...
If he had a problem lets go see Staish !!!! He declined....!!!
My point being if more people stood up to the spineless wonder that are supposedly the peers n masters then things may change...Sadly there are those that prefer to safeguard their careers first and foremost without a care for those whose responsibility they are entrusted with...!!!
For the Government to threaten to withhold pension payments is like saying you have to pay to be killed in the defence of your country or those you are there to protect...!!! this stinks !!!! Also i guess it's how the Government fund repatriation/recovery of downed aircraft...!!! Just my view....
No intention to offend anyone here .....
Rgds
LL
I have backtracked through most of the recent postings on this sorry state of affairs....
Time and time again i see a common denominator.....
CASH !!!!
WE cant or WONT be able to afford the cost of modding every aircraft that flies into hostile areas....
Where has the duty of care gone ???
Where has the rationale of providing equipment that is fit for purpose gone ??
Early '80's all Op Banner a/c had to have SDS fitted if not they werent used !!
OK, we have lost an airframe in XV179, that is replaceable by 1 of a fleet of (xxx) what is not replaceable, is the dedicated crew that fly/operate them.....!!!
All of us old enough to remember the Falklands will recall that we lost 3 Chinooks, Bravo November being the sole survivor, and flew her rotors off providing support to all and sundry...
What if the worse case scenario was we lost all the crews to fly them...maybe then the powers that be would listen ???
Although this next statement may be off tangent a bit, it's just my view opinon...
Someone mentioned about "downing tools" , well, while flying at an airfield in RAFG in a glider, i was downwind to land. My landing area was blocked by a slow recovery of another glider. I extended my base leg and landed on the runway.. One of Brize's finest was due in shortly behind me and had to "go around" due to "black runway"....!!
SATCO wanted my blood, as a SAC i took my roasting on the chin and then pointed out the letter of the law, power gives way to gliders and that as the "a/c capt" i had a decision to make and made it!!! My glider, my approach , my landing !!! i got no option as i got no means to go around...
If he had a problem lets go see Staish !!!! He declined....!!!
My point being if more people stood up to the spineless wonder that are supposedly the peers n masters then things may change...Sadly there are those that prefer to safeguard their careers first and foremost without a care for those whose responsibility they are entrusted with...!!!
For the Government to threaten to withhold pension payments is like saying you have to pay to be killed in the defence of your country or those you are there to protect...!!! this stinks !!!! Also i guess it's how the Government fund repatriation/recovery of downed aircraft...!!! Just my view....
No intention to offend anyone here .....
Rgds
LL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LL, your point is well made. I was very impressed with AOC 2 yesterday, but I am not convinced that he is going to get enough hard cash to achieve what our partners are doing. It is an area in which I intend to fight the Govt hard. There is a realisation in the military that transport/helos must be given a higher priority now. I am not sure it will come about by increased funding more like reorganisation. Sadly the boys/girls on front line duties need protecting right now. The lack of experience will only worsen as more aircrew leave the service. I had not read pprune for a long time til recently. I have become a keen reader of JPA. I cannot believe the RAF is struggling to pay its people. The immediate future in terms of manning looks grim. Hey politicos, hope your listening.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i would like to say nige, despite my earlier wobble on tues i intend to stand by your side and fight alongside you to get the government to initiate foam fitting with immediate effect on all ac. yes, there are alot of areas that are short of money but what we are asking for is not unreasonable or undoable (if that is a word!) what is needed along with one of the spineless idiots that enjoy high office is to get their heads out of whoevers a*** they have got it up, grow some balls and start doing what they are paid to do. we are not living in dreamland asking for this technology fleet wide. there are gross misuse of funds in the government on a daily basis that the cash can be released from, so i do not and will not buy the notion that there is not the money.
i want to make it clear to those of you who may wonder what the hell is a nurse doing getting involved in this. bob o'connor that's what. those men died on election day in iraq and as a sister i struggled to find a sense of purpose in the loss i felt. i thought of peace in the new iraq. well, we can see how that turned out. this is not a replacement for my brother, nor is this a stage for me to use. this is about fighting for a legacy to be left from the downing of XV179 and ensuring that no one, and i mean no one has to go through what i've had to endure again as a result of the measures that weren't taken. i have heard that there is concern that i am using my brother as political bait and i'm being disrespectful to his memory. how that conclusion has been reached i do not know. if this view is the opinion of those of you who have watched and supported this please let me know. needless to say i am distraught at this notion but i am keen to recieve feedback as it is essential that this does not happen. i have had to talk of bob to rationalise why i am here in this fight. i await your views.
i want to make it clear to those of you who may wonder what the hell is a nurse doing getting involved in this. bob o'connor that's what. those men died on election day in iraq and as a sister i struggled to find a sense of purpose in the loss i felt. i thought of peace in the new iraq. well, we can see how that turned out. this is not a replacement for my brother, nor is this a stage for me to use. this is about fighting for a legacy to be left from the downing of XV179 and ensuring that no one, and i mean no one has to go through what i've had to endure again as a result of the measures that weren't taken. i have heard that there is concern that i am using my brother as political bait and i'm being disrespectful to his memory. how that conclusion has been reached i do not know. if this view is the opinion of those of you who have watched and supported this please let me know. needless to say i am distraught at this notion but i am keen to recieve feedback as it is essential that this does not happen. i have had to talk of bob to rationalise why i am here in this fight. i await your views.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foam fight
Chappie,
You do not need to justify yourself to anybody - we know where you are coming from and are with you.... 100%.
I did not know Bob well but I am certain he would have been very proud of your obvious courage and true grit. Hold on to that thought.
You draw our attention to the big picture, once again. Yes, this protective foam is absolute peanuts in the great scheme of things, so why is it not fitted, especially after the BOI? Only the minister knows that.
The only reason why there is not enough money in the Herc 'pot' is because because the right people 'up high' have not stamped their feet and jumped up and down until MOD finds some spare cash - it is there but thiose same people cannot be bothered to rock the boat/shake the tree to find it.
Sadly, it is only the threat of ministerial criminal proceedings or loss of career that grabs peoples' attention (was Reid's reshuffle as a result of that sort of pressure?).
I cannot believe it is so hard to find the cash, even in the RAFs budget.
Given the choice between JPA, UASs or the Red Arrows and better protection for all our OPERATIONAL ac - I know what would get my vote!
Keep going lass, you are doing fine!
You do not need to justify yourself to anybody - we know where you are coming from and are with you.... 100%.
I did not know Bob well but I am certain he would have been very proud of your obvious courage and true grit. Hold on to that thought.
You draw our attention to the big picture, once again. Yes, this protective foam is absolute peanuts in the great scheme of things, so why is it not fitted, especially after the BOI? Only the minister knows that.
The only reason why there is not enough money in the Herc 'pot' is because because the right people 'up high' have not stamped their feet and jumped up and down until MOD finds some spare cash - it is there but thiose same people cannot be bothered to rock the boat/shake the tree to find it.
Sadly, it is only the threat of ministerial criminal proceedings or loss of career that grabs peoples' attention (was Reid's reshuffle as a result of that sort of pressure?).
I cannot believe it is so hard to find the cash, even in the RAFs budget.
Given the choice between JPA, UASs or the Red Arrows and better protection for all our OPERATIONAL ac - I know what would get my vote!
Keep going lass, you are doing fine!
Airsound,
Good letter - but it was a typo that you put 5th Jan wasn't it? As you know, the tragedy occured on 30 Jan 2005. Don't want your position to be discredited!
An easy way for anyone else to get through to their MP - try this: http://www.writetothem.com/
Good letter - but it was a typo that you put 5th Jan wasn't it? As you know, the tragedy occured on 30 Jan 2005. Don't want your position to be discredited!
An easy way for anyone else to get through to their MP - try this: http://www.writetothem.com/
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airsound,
A hard-hitting epistle - well done! I have sent a similar letter too , though nowhere near as erudite, of course.
I would like to think that most Lyneham families have done the same.
If not please do so as soon as you can - try this address
[email protected].
Mr Gray will have to do a lot of back-peddaling to recover his lost votes and his credibility.
Flipster
A hard-hitting epistle - well done! I have sent a similar letter too , though nowhere near as erudite, of course.
I would like to think that most Lyneham families have done the same.
If not please do so as soon as you can - try this address
[email protected].
Mr Gray will have to do a lot of back-peddaling to recover his lost votes and his credibility.
Flipster