RAF Tanker Deal
A considerable number of RAFResA and some RAFResO were called-out for GW2. Many had PVR'd and some were married and had new names. But since some bright spark had stopped giving them their annual £25 to keep Binnsworth informed of their whereabouts, actually finding them wasn't easy and a considerable number of call-out notices were returned 'gone away'....
Trades needed were typically Med Admin, Med Assistants, Drivers, Chefs - all the trades, in fact, which had been contractorised.
A tiny handful didn't respond to their call-out (less than a dozen) - and mostly because someone (wife, mother, lover) had signed for their papers but they themselves were away on overseas business etc. When someone decide to consider sending in the heavy mob to get one of them, I pointed out that Binnsworth hadn't actually kept copies of the call-out papers which had been stamped and dated - so nothing could be proved if 'chummy' decided to contest things...
Any cheap lawyer would have made mincemeat of any attempted prosecution - particularly when even cabinet ministers were resigning over Bliar's lies.
My army colleague was all for sending in the Gestapo with rubber truncheons in the middle of the night to grab recalcitrant folk - he was very soon advised to explore all other avenues first.
There are differing degrees of liability for 'call-out' under the RFA as compared to 'recall'. But very little is understood by about 95% of ex-service personnel concerning their liability - a scruffy piece of photocopied paper written in blunty-speak being all that most received. There should be a clear "You may be liable to 'call-out' until (date) or 're-call' until (date)" - plus a clear explanation of the circumstances under which either would apply including the precise definitions. I understood it all at the time as I was dealing with it on a daily basis - but not now.
Trades needed were typically Med Admin, Med Assistants, Drivers, Chefs - all the trades, in fact, which had been contractorised.
A tiny handful didn't respond to their call-out (less than a dozen) - and mostly because someone (wife, mother, lover) had signed for their papers but they themselves were away on overseas business etc. When someone decide to consider sending in the heavy mob to get one of them, I pointed out that Binnsworth hadn't actually kept copies of the call-out papers which had been stamped and dated - so nothing could be proved if 'chummy' decided to contest things...
Any cheap lawyer would have made mincemeat of any attempted prosecution - particularly when even cabinet ministers were resigning over Bliar's lies.My army colleague was all for sending in the Gestapo with rubber truncheons in the middle of the night to grab recalcitrant folk - he was very soon advised to explore all other avenues first.
There are differing degrees of liability for 'call-out' under the RFA as compared to 'recall'. But very little is understood by about 95% of ex-service personnel concerning their liability - a scruffy piece of photocopied paper written in blunty-speak being all that most received. There should be a clear "You may be liable to 'call-out' until (date) or 're-call' until (date)" - plus a clear explanation of the circumstances under which either would apply including the precise definitions. I understood it all at the time as I was dealing with it on a daily basis - but not now.
Reserve liabilities? I'm sorry, I'm busy elsewhere doing something else ....... and being paid comfortably for it. I can't be bothered with Bliar and his overseas nonsense. Ram it!
Besides, with such a miniscule AAR force (or rather, flight?) of a mere 9 A330 tankers, who would ever need any reservists?
9 regular use aircraft. Just nine. With another 5 bucket-and-spading for third part revenue. Looking back at my notes of the 1996 AT-AAR seminar, it seems that they were talking of '25-30' future tankers back then.
Now, I thought that the TypHoon had both rather a small internal fuel capacity and a very slow onload rate. So how will so few hoses in the sky be able to cope, should there ever be a real need?
The ever-imploding RAF. In 1963 there were 22 squadrons of V-bombers alone, plus an entire Command of air transport aircraft. Soon, it seems, when the VC10s finally retire not long before their 50th birthdays in RAF service, the entire AT-AAR force will fit on just one aerodrome.......
9 regular use aircraft. Just nine. With another 5 bucket-and-spading for third part revenue. Looking back at my notes of the 1996 AT-AAR seminar, it seems that they were talking of '25-30' future tankers back then.
Now, I thought that the TypHoon had both rather a small internal fuel capacity and a very slow onload rate. So how will so few hoses in the sky be able to cope, should there ever be a real need?
The ever-imploding RAF. In 1963 there were 22 squadrons of V-bombers alone, plus an entire Command of air transport aircraft. Soon, it seems, when the VC10s finally retire not long before their 50th birthdays in RAF service, the entire AT-AAR force will fit on just one aerodrome.......
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
The ever-imploding RAF. In 1963 there were 22 squadrons of V-bombers alone, plus an entire Command of air transport aircraft. Soon, it seems, when the VC10s finally retire not long before their 50th birthdays in RAF service, the entire AT-AAR force will fit on just one aerodrome.......
And the people who flew the 'stuff going on all over the world' didn't live in 'temporary tented accommodation' all the time either!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...actually BEagle, I think you'll find they did.
They also used to slowly walk towards the enemy in a line, wearing bright red tunics, occupied places like Shaibah and Kabul and had no clear mission or exit strategy.
They also used to slowly walk towards the enemy in a line, wearing bright red tunics, occupied places like Shaibah and Kabul and had no clear mission or exit strategy.
Apart, that is, from those with two pencils up their noses, underpants on their heads and a vocabularly limited to one word....
"Wibble"
"Wibble"
