Female C-130 pilot - The Sunday Times
Yes - why don't we just sweep it under the carpet and imagine that it just didn't happen........
You need a reality check. I'm sorry, but its things like this that damage the aircrew/ground crew (all ground trades included in this) relationship. Do you honestly think that any ground crew, will want to do anything to help her since she marginalised them all in one sweeping statement?
You reap what you sow I'm afraid.
You need a reality check. I'm sorry, but its things like this that damage the aircrew/ground crew (all ground trades included in this) relationship. Do you honestly think that any ground crew, will want to do anything to help her since she marginalised them all in one sweeping statement?
You reap what you sow I'm afraid.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh what a silly man
SFFP
Your name just about sums it up!
I have never seen such an arrogant, self-important reply on this forum. It doesn't matter if what she said was taken out of context, she said it. It was a stupid statement but I also agree with many of the other replies that this should never have got past her OC, DETCO or the CRO.
As one of those who does "less stringent duties" I am offended by her apparent disregard for those who allow her to complete her mission.
What does she think the rest of the detachment does when she is airborne? Where does her food come from? What about weapons? Who sorts her pay out? Who makes sure the aircraft is fit to fly? Who spends much of her sleeping hours preparing the int, ops and met data? All three services, at all ranks and in all trades work just as hard if not harder. She is the talk of all three services, and none of it is good.
So rather than defend her because you think she is a good egg, agree with the rest of us that the article was foolish and naive at best and has caused a great deal of resentment and a level of anger from those of us who are not "clever enough" to fly.
Your name just about sums it up!
I have never seen such an arrogant, self-important reply on this forum. It doesn't matter if what she said was taken out of context, she said it. It was a stupid statement but I also agree with many of the other replies that this should never have got past her OC, DETCO or the CRO.
As one of those who does "less stringent duties" I am offended by her apparent disregard for those who allow her to complete her mission.
What does she think the rest of the detachment does when she is airborne? Where does her food come from? What about weapons? Who sorts her pay out? Who makes sure the aircraft is fit to fly? Who spends much of her sleeping hours preparing the int, ops and met data? All three services, at all ranks and in all trades work just as hard if not harder. She is the talk of all three services, and none of it is good.
So rather than defend her because you think she is a good egg, agree with the rest of us that the article was foolish and naive at best and has caused a great deal of resentment and a level of anger from those of us who are not "clever enough" to fly.
Just another day
''So rather than defend her because you think she is a good egg, agree with the rest of us that the article was foolish and naive at best and has caused a great deal of resentment and a level of anger from those of us who are not "clever enough" to fly. ''
I can agree in context, but without actually knowing for sure what was said, and that it is not Journo manipulation, I will continue to defend her a a person. And she is a good person.
As for Mr Winco you say:
'' That is all I am suggesting she does - own up, say sorry and ask for it to be put to bed.''
How would you suggest she does this? On this wonderful forum, RAF News or possibly another article in The Times??
''So rather than defend her because you think she is a good egg, agree with the rest of us that the article was foolish and naive at best and has caused a great deal of resentment and a level of anger from those of us who are not "clever enough" to fly.
''I can agree in context, but without actually knowing for sure what was said, and that it is not Journo manipulation, I will continue to defend her a a person. And she is a good person.
As for Mr Winco you say:
'' That is all I am suggesting she does - own up, say sorry and ask for it to be put to bed.''
How would you suggest she does this? On this wonderful forum, RAF News or possibly another article in The Times??
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wilts
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qoute
"What is difficult about guard duty, I have done it in Best blue armed with a pick axe handle, QRF on a nuclear armed base, live armed guard as we are now and guard commander and have yet to find anything difficult about it. Yes it's tiring, boring, tedious pick your own adjective for it but it's certainly not difficult."
Staying out of prison when you shoot somebody who is some where he shouldn't be or in other words doing your job.
"What is difficult about guard duty, I have done it in Best blue armed with a pick axe handle, QRF on a nuclear armed base, live armed guard as we are now and guard commander and have yet to find anything difficult about it. Yes it's tiring, boring, tedious pick your own adjective for it but it's certainly not difficult."
Staying out of prison when you shoot somebody who is some where he shouldn't be or in other words doing your job.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just an opinion, but..... What is the fascination with bitching about the RAF AT fleet on PPrune? We air our washing, snipe at each other and generally do our best to look like spoilt children on a very public forum. It demeans us. We are now at 8 or 9 pages of this drivel and it’s embarrassing and tedious. Perhaps we should all forgive and forget and for those of you who can't forgive or indeed feel that forgiveness is unnecessary maybe just move onto the forget bit.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: chippenham
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSM, thanks for your comment in reply to my previous post but i never post anything i never genuinely believe in. As far as all the ground trades are concerned i think they are all doing a fantastic job with limited manpower and resources.
I`m not sure how much you know about the streaming process but it is true to say that to get posted to the C130J or C17 they would have done quite well at 45(R) Sqn (Multi Engine Trg Sqn) .....its all part of flying an aircraft where you do not have a Nav or Air Eng to bail you out. So yes....I do not think there is such a thing as a Mk1 bog-standard co-pilot when you are asking them to fly into hostile places on a regular basis. That is not to say they are worth more than other co-pilots, I just feel we should move away from giving a gear monkey stereotype impression. Maybe you know more than me on the streaming process or life as a C130 J Co-pilot but i doubt it.
Caz did make an unfortunate remark but i doubt very much it was made maliciously. If it was banter then that was also an error of judgement. I am sure she would apologise to any individual that is losing sleep over this.
What i am surprised at is the experienced SNCOs who are contributing to this thread and are hell bent on starting an "us and them" debate. Grow up boys and girls and pass on constructive criticism and lets stop slagging each other off.
I have earned my operational medals many times over and have been proud to work with both my aircrew colleagues and groundcrew alike.
Last post from me on this one.....time to move on when the civilian posts on this thread are making the most sense!!!
I`m not sure how much you know about the streaming process but it is true to say that to get posted to the C130J or C17 they would have done quite well at 45(R) Sqn (Multi Engine Trg Sqn) .....its all part of flying an aircraft where you do not have a Nav or Air Eng to bail you out. So yes....I do not think there is such a thing as a Mk1 bog-standard co-pilot when you are asking them to fly into hostile places on a regular basis. That is not to say they are worth more than other co-pilots, I just feel we should move away from giving a gear monkey stereotype impression. Maybe you know more than me on the streaming process or life as a C130 J Co-pilot but i doubt it.
Caz did make an unfortunate remark but i doubt very much it was made maliciously. If it was banter then that was also an error of judgement. I am sure she would apologise to any individual that is losing sleep over this.
What i am surprised at is the experienced SNCOs who are contributing to this thread and are hell bent on starting an "us and them" debate. Grow up boys and girls and pass on constructive criticism and lets stop slagging each other off.
I have earned my operational medals many times over and have been proud to work with both my aircrew colleagues and groundcrew alike.
Last post from me on this one.....time to move on when the civilian posts on this thread are making the most sense!!!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My dear Winco
I have just seen your post addressed to me. I admit that I am as surprised by your extraordinary presumption and arrogance as I have been by the aggressive tone of many of your fellow Caz bashers.
I infer from your remarks in other posts that you are, or were, an RAF officer. If that is the case, then attacking another officer IN PUBLIC is un-officerlike, counter-productive and is far less defensible than anything young Caz was reported as saying in The Times article.
Why do you attribute my remarks to a "sence of loyalty to her?" I am not, nor ever was, in the RAF and I don't know her from Eve and have no reason to harbour any sence of loyalty towards her. But then neither do you.
If she did indeed let the side down badly, as you maintain, the general public would probably never have noticed it until you and your fellow bashers started laying into her IN PUBLIC. And make no mistake about it, Prune IS very public.
You then suggest I should get the young lady to make an unreserved apology on Prune. And why would I want to do that? I do not know her, nor am I in the RAF. This is your own, internal, self-indulgent, RAF cat-fight, which I find rather distasteful and certainly damaging to the image of your service. But I, thankfully, am not part of it.
And finally, you suggest that I inform everyone of the dangers of speaking to the press. OK! I will make a start. Winco, old bean, take your own advice and be aware of the dangers of washing your dirty linen IN PUBLIC.
I have just seen your post addressed to me. I admit that I am as surprised by your extraordinary presumption and arrogance as I have been by the aggressive tone of many of your fellow Caz bashers.
I infer from your remarks in other posts that you are, or were, an RAF officer. If that is the case, then attacking another officer IN PUBLIC is un-officerlike, counter-productive and is far less defensible than anything young Caz was reported as saying in The Times article.
Why do you attribute my remarks to a "sence of loyalty to her?" I am not, nor ever was, in the RAF and I don't know her from Eve and have no reason to harbour any sence of loyalty towards her. But then neither do you.
If she did indeed let the side down badly, as you maintain, the general public would probably never have noticed it until you and your fellow bashers started laying into her IN PUBLIC. And make no mistake about it, Prune IS very public.
You then suggest I should get the young lady to make an unreserved apology on Prune. And why would I want to do that? I do not know her, nor am I in the RAF. This is your own, internal, self-indulgent, RAF cat-fight, which I find rather distasteful and certainly damaging to the image of your service. But I, thankfully, am not part of it.
And finally, you suggest that I inform everyone of the dangers of speaking to the press. OK! I will make a start. Winco, old bean, take your own advice and be aware of the dangers of washing your dirty linen IN PUBLIC.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Ivan Rogov, I think your post is one worth responding to.
There is a media ops course at Halton and complementary TV courses etc. These are usually well subscribed and aimed at those who will be giving interviews as part of their job - Al Lockwood for instance - or who might become involved in the event of an incident - Stn Cdrs for instance. Then there are courses for minders and MCOs.
Nothing new there but once, when I refused to give my details for the 'Home Town Story' I was told I would be banned from the trip. I caved and the press did not use the story anyway - I had been 15 years away. Yes aircrew are taught and try to keep to the Big-4 and are then pressed to give an interview. Blame the MCO.
Yup, spot on but see above.
Journos get invited by the MOD to visit theatres and get home town stories. Home town stories are the bread and butter of the local rag and worth quids. Land something like this and its worth big bucks. It is the delicate balance between No News and Good News.
The US Navy learnt that lesson the hard way in GW1. They went all hard-nosed and kicked the press off the boat. The USAF and Army released all the footage they could. Who had a hard time at the next defense bidding round?
The RAF also learnt to its cost that it needed good useable air-ground video for the News. The French released some brilliant footage early on. Only when the guys took their camcorders airborne did the RAF get some good footage. PR is everthing.
It will be interesting to here what the MCOs have to say at the symposium in a couple of weeks.
Isn't there some media training that personnel are supposed to have before letting the press loose on them? 7644 Sqn perhaps?
This looks like a classic own goal by the PR spin machine. Like it or not the media plays a crucial part in almost all modern military campaigns, in fact some would argue that the media can win or lose them. 'Civilized' countries often don't have the resolve to do what is required win, especially when they are shown the results on a daily basis.
This looks like a classic own goal by the PR spin machine. Like it or not the media plays a crucial part in almost all modern military campaigns, in fact some would argue that the media can win or lose them. 'Civilized' countries often don't have the resolve to do what is required win, especially when they are shown the results on a daily basis.
What happened to keeping your details out of the press (especially when in theatre!), aircrew have been taught this, aren't all personnel now taught this in pre-deployment training? This is how we should think trough out our time in the service, not now and then. It's not like anything could happen to you or your family back to Blighty either (see press for details), just how difficult is it to trace a name to an address, phone number etc. If you don't believe me Google your name, are you ex directory, what's on your name badge?
Top tip, stay away from cameras and reporters unless you really know what you are doing!
Journos get invited by the MOD to visit theatres and get home town stories. Home town stories are the bread and butter of the local rag and worth quids. Land something like this and its worth big bucks. It is the delicate balance between No News and Good News.
The US Navy learnt that lesson the hard way in GW1. They went all hard-nosed and kicked the press off the boat. The USAF and Army released all the footage they could. Who had a hard time at the next defense bidding round?
The RAF also learnt to its cost that it needed good useable air-ground video for the News. The French released some brilliant footage early on. Only when the guys took their camcorders airborne did the RAF get some good footage. PR is everthing.
It will be interesting to here what the MCOs have to say at the symposium in a couple of weeks.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .....................................
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My dear Winco
I have just seen your post addressed to me. I admit that I am as surprised by your extraordinary presumption and arrogance as I have been by the aggressive tone of many of your fellow Caz bashers.
I infer from your remarks in other posts that you are, or were, an RAF officer. If that is the case, then attacking another officer IN PUBLIC is un-officerlike, counter-productive and is far less defensible than anything young Caz was reported as saying in The Times article.
Why do you attribute my remarks to a "sence of loyalty to her?" I am not, nor ever was, in the RAF and I don't know her from Eve and have no reason to harbour any sence of loyalty towards her. But then neither do you.
If she did indeed let the side down badly, as you maintain, the general public would probably never have noticed it until you and your fellow bashers started laying into her IN PUBLIC. And make no mistake about it, Prune IS very public.
You then suggest I should get the young lady to make an unreserved apology on Prune. And why would I want to do that? I do not know her, nor am I in the RAF. This is your own, internal, self-indulgent, RAF cat-fight, which I find rather distasteful and certainly damaging to the image of your service. But I, thankfully, am not part of it.
And finally, you suggest that I inform everyone of the dangers of speaking to the press. OK! I will make a start. Winco, old bean, take your own advice and be aware of the dangers of washing your dirty linen IN PUBLIC.
I have just seen your post addressed to me. I admit that I am as surprised by your extraordinary presumption and arrogance as I have been by the aggressive tone of many of your fellow Caz bashers.
I infer from your remarks in other posts that you are, or were, an RAF officer. If that is the case, then attacking another officer IN PUBLIC is un-officerlike, counter-productive and is far less defensible than anything young Caz was reported as saying in The Times article.
Why do you attribute my remarks to a "sence of loyalty to her?" I am not, nor ever was, in the RAF and I don't know her from Eve and have no reason to harbour any sence of loyalty towards her. But then neither do you.
If she did indeed let the side down badly, as you maintain, the general public would probably never have noticed it until you and your fellow bashers started laying into her IN PUBLIC. And make no mistake about it, Prune IS very public.
You then suggest I should get the young lady to make an unreserved apology on Prune. And why would I want to do that? I do not know her, nor am I in the RAF. This is your own, internal, self-indulgent, RAF cat-fight, which I find rather distasteful and certainly damaging to the image of your service. But I, thankfully, am not part of it.
And finally, you suggest that I inform everyone of the dangers of speaking to the press. OK! I will make a start. Winco, old bean, take your own advice and be aware of the dangers of washing your dirty linen IN PUBLIC.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to smile, you really do 
Go on then justanotherday please explain to me
"I have never seen such an arrogant, self-important"
Apart from trying to defend a colleague how on earth, bearing in mind not a single soul on here has a clue who I am, how do you arrive at the above, surely I would be shouting my name from the roof tops if what you say is correct.
"It doesn't matter if what she said was taken out of context, she said it."
So do you know what context was it said in? There is no sane person on the planet who would argue the implications of dropping a pencil or porking up at 250 kts and 250' in Albert but how do you or anyone else here know exactly what was said during the interview
I further state that could I be bothered to trawl through the thousands upon thousands of posts in the Aircrew forum I would find hundreds of references to "the dropped pencil" from aircrew and a variety of other trade groups, take a peek at the JPA thread for some classic examples.
For those old enough to remember there was even a flight safety vid, I think it was called Break the Chain where one of the main contributing factors to a FJ mate almost stoofing in was a particularly unhelpful admin wallah, so it;s not exactly a new thought process
In conclusion there are 3 main types folks posting on this thread.
Those who are looking in with bemusement and wondering why in the big scheme of life this is such an issue.
Those of us with first hand knowledge of Caz who know that without a doubt the accusations leveled at her on this thread are groundless, after all is there one post yet from anyone at Lyneham who actually knows her, groundcrew or aircrew actually condemning her?
Then there are those who are armed with a little knowledge, who despite their better instincts have taken the word of a journalist at face value, made a judgment call and have gone after Caz in a most cowardly fashion........shame on you.
If you want a classic example of this check out the "a flying air trafficker" thread
Go on then justanotherday please explain to me
"I have never seen such an arrogant, self-important"
Apart from trying to defend a colleague how on earth, bearing in mind not a single soul on here has a clue who I am, how do you arrive at the above, surely I would be shouting my name from the roof tops if what you say is correct.
"It doesn't matter if what she said was taken out of context, she said it."
So do you know what context was it said in? There is no sane person on the planet who would argue the implications of dropping a pencil or porking up at 250 kts and 250' in Albert but how do you or anyone else here know exactly what was said during the interview
I further state that could I be bothered to trawl through the thousands upon thousands of posts in the Aircrew forum I would find hundreds of references to "the dropped pencil" from aircrew and a variety of other trade groups, take a peek at the JPA thread for some classic examples.
For those old enough to remember there was even a flight safety vid, I think it was called Break the Chain where one of the main contributing factors to a FJ mate almost stoofing in was a particularly unhelpful admin wallah, so it;s not exactly a new thought process
In conclusion there are 3 main types folks posting on this thread.
Those who are looking in with bemusement and wondering why in the big scheme of life this is such an issue.
Those of us with first hand knowledge of Caz who know that without a doubt the accusations leveled at her on this thread are groundless, after all is there one post yet from anyone at Lyneham who actually knows her, groundcrew or aircrew actually condemning her?
Then there are those who are armed with a little knowledge, who despite their better instincts have taken the word of a journalist at face value, made a judgment call and have gone after Caz in a most cowardly fashion........shame on you.
If you want a classic example of this check out the "a flying air trafficker" thread
Last edited by Seldomfitforpurpose; 16th Feb 2007 at 02:06.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFFP,
OK, I wasn't going to waste any more time, but I've got a few minutes before the first little jaunt of the day, so here goes.
This is what you said;
In conclusion there are 3 main types folks posting on this thread.
Those who are looking in with bemusement and wondering why in the big scheme of life this is such an issue. Yes, would agree with you there.
Those of us with first hand knowledge of Caz who know that without a doubt the accusations leveled at her on this thread are groundless, after all is there one post yet from anyone at Lyneham who actually knows her, groundcrew or aircrew actually condemning her? No, sorry. The only accusations being levelled at her are that she said the wrong things, thats the fact of the matter. And as for no one at Lyneham making comment, so what? Are you now saying that means that she didn't say those things?
Then there are those who are armed with a little knowledge, who despite their better instincts have taken the word of a journalist at face value, made a judgment call and have gone after Caz in a most cowardly fashion........shame on you. Sorry, can't agree there. you are just being silly!
This is your problem; You have a young Girlie co-pilot who has screwed up, absolute fact, unless you know something that the rest of us on this forum don't know of course?? If that is the case, then stop talking crap and tell us what she did actually say. Did she or did she NOT say those things? especially the bits about the groundcrew? Please, just for once on this forum try to answer the question.
If she didn't say those things and the transcript is wrong, then I will gladly make a public apology to the young lady, and have a rant about the journo, but you and your colleagues never ever deny what was reported, instead you choose to bleat on about it being taken out of context. I therefore have I believe the comments as reported, because you don't have the courage to admit she was wrong.
I don't have a poroblem with you defending the girl as a fellow officer. As I have said before to you and others it is admirable loyalty. What I am suggesting is that it is misguided loyalty, and you should show an equal amount of loyalty, if not more, to your own groundcrew instead of a fellow officer in this instance, who clearly made a big mistake by spouting off in the manner she did.
As for your particular groundcrew not saying anything, you will be telling us next that you are a mind reader and know what they are thinking! I'll bet you that they and most other groundcrew are pretty annoyed at her comments. I can tell you that it has been the talk of the groundcrew where I am for several days, with lots of them asking 'Hey Sir, do you know that %&%$£"$^*&*& of a co-pilot down at Lyneham?' to which I am pleased to say that I don't!
She made a mistake, you have defended it, which is wrong. Admit it and accept it.
TSM
OK, I wasn't going to waste any more time, but I've got a few minutes before the first little jaunt of the day, so here goes.
This is what you said;
In conclusion there are 3 main types folks posting on this thread.
Those who are looking in with bemusement and wondering why in the big scheme of life this is such an issue. Yes, would agree with you there.
Those of us with first hand knowledge of Caz who know that without a doubt the accusations leveled at her on this thread are groundless, after all is there one post yet from anyone at Lyneham who actually knows her, groundcrew or aircrew actually condemning her? No, sorry. The only accusations being levelled at her are that she said the wrong things, thats the fact of the matter. And as for no one at Lyneham making comment, so what? Are you now saying that means that she didn't say those things?
Then there are those who are armed with a little knowledge, who despite their better instincts have taken the word of a journalist at face value, made a judgment call and have gone after Caz in a most cowardly fashion........shame on you. Sorry, can't agree there. you are just being silly!
This is your problem; You have a young Girlie co-pilot who has screwed up, absolute fact, unless you know something that the rest of us on this forum don't know of course?? If that is the case, then stop talking crap and tell us what she did actually say. Did she or did she NOT say those things? especially the bits about the groundcrew? Please, just for once on this forum try to answer the question.
If she didn't say those things and the transcript is wrong, then I will gladly make a public apology to the young lady, and have a rant about the journo, but you and your colleagues never ever deny what was reported, instead you choose to bleat on about it being taken out of context. I therefore have I believe the comments as reported, because you don't have the courage to admit she was wrong.
I don't have a poroblem with you defending the girl as a fellow officer. As I have said before to you and others it is admirable loyalty. What I am suggesting is that it is misguided loyalty, and you should show an equal amount of loyalty, if not more, to your own groundcrew instead of a fellow officer in this instance, who clearly made a big mistake by spouting off in the manner she did.
As for your particular groundcrew not saying anything, you will be telling us next that you are a mind reader and know what they are thinking! I'll bet you that they and most other groundcrew are pretty annoyed at her comments. I can tell you that it has been the talk of the groundcrew where I am for several days, with lots of them asking 'Hey Sir, do you know that %&%$£"$^*&*& of a co-pilot down at Lyneham?' to which I am pleased to say that I don't!
She made a mistake, you have defended it, which is wrong. Admit it and accept it.
TSM
Just a thought have any of you with a problem with this lady have ask her her thoughts as you are all in the same sevice and should have a telephone directory number for her!
As a outsider all this talk is worst than what she had said right or wrong.
just my 2 pence.
As a outsider all this talk is worst than what she had said right or wrong.
just my 2 pence.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'The Sunday Times Circulation Booster'
Another civilian view, (just to get the agro going, cos we civvies don't know what it is like in the sand box and away from home all the time. Thought the service was your home).
When I was (here we go again), in the RAF, under the list of treasonable offences was 'Talking to the press' We were instructed not to discuss ANY matters with persons of the press, if approached then said person should be referred to officer XYZ. Now, as a civilian, there is a clause in our contracts to refer press approaches to the head office, this does not regarding military contracts but general activities.
So, I see a clear lack of following procedure, not necessarily by this unfortunate, now, scape goat, but a failure of the system.
Scanning through this thread seeing the fores and againsts, my two pennorth suggests the lady was specially chosen to tell the press about her day because:- (delete non-applicable)
1 She is the only girly driver on site, therefore extra newsworthy
2 She is not flying today and has time to waste talking to journalists
3 She has been told she WILL give an interview when she returns from flight
4 Add your own reasons, being current serving members.
I can imagine #3 and returning from an extended (we are not allowed to state how many hours, self incriminating, etc.), day, having been given instruction from PR officer or whatever they are called, decides she doesn't want to do it therefore, gives scribe want he/she wants to hear, add a bit of baiting from said scribe and voila there is the Article.
Poor girl is in debt up to her arm pits having to buy many 'I didn't mean to say that' beers in the mess for all offended. I don't think slaggers-off on this forum qualify.
I know I am not at my best or most pleasant after an 18 hour day, even when not frequenting some of the nicer places you folks hang out in, so why should anybody else be ready for the press interogation after a flight.
Leave the girl alone and go after the idiot who put her up for this without either briefing her properly or holding her hand and guiding her through the interview.
As has already been said this is a lot of molehill making and has only added to bringing the good name of the RAF down. Not many people read the Sunday Times, stop boosting their circulation.
Everybody is perfect, until one day.
Experience is only learned afterwards.
When I was (here we go again), in the RAF, under the list of treasonable offences was 'Talking to the press' We were instructed not to discuss ANY matters with persons of the press, if approached then said person should be referred to officer XYZ. Now, as a civilian, there is a clause in our contracts to refer press approaches to the head office, this does not regarding military contracts but general activities.
So, I see a clear lack of following procedure, not necessarily by this unfortunate, now, scape goat, but a failure of the system.
Scanning through this thread seeing the fores and againsts, my two pennorth suggests the lady was specially chosen to tell the press about her day because:- (delete non-applicable)
1 She is the only girly driver on site, therefore extra newsworthy
2 She is not flying today and has time to waste talking to journalists
3 She has been told she WILL give an interview when she returns from flight
4 Add your own reasons, being current serving members.
I can imagine #3 and returning from an extended (we are not allowed to state how many hours, self incriminating, etc.), day, having been given instruction from PR officer or whatever they are called, decides she doesn't want to do it therefore, gives scribe want he/she wants to hear, add a bit of baiting from said scribe and voila there is the Article.
Poor girl is in debt up to her arm pits having to buy many 'I didn't mean to say that' beers in the mess for all offended. I don't think slaggers-off on this forum qualify.
I know I am not at my best or most pleasant after an 18 hour day, even when not frequenting some of the nicer places you folks hang out in, so why should anybody else be ready for the press interogation after a flight.
Leave the girl alone and go after the idiot who put her up for this without either briefing her properly or holding her hand and guiding her through the interview.
As has already been said this is a lot of molehill making and has only added to bringing the good name of the RAF down. Not many people read the Sunday Times, stop boosting their circulation.
Everybody is perfect, until one day.
Experience is only learned afterwards.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the prestigious honour of working with the K in Iraq. Those crews never once mentioned crew duty time and were available any time of the day at a minutes notice. True professionals. They were subjected, as we all were, to daily bombardment from mortars and rockets and then they climbed into their Albert and flew some very long missions, once again in harms way. It beggars belief that this particular J Officer has the nerve to moan and bleat that her conditions are far from ideal or that she has had her sleep interupted. She needs to think about her oppos in other areas in conditions far worse than hers (if her conditions are in fact 'bad'). The rotary crew females that I have known do not worry if they are tented with their male colleagues. They were always too knackered to worry about any modesty. As for breaking pencils, theres only one place I want to break some pencils and it is not publishable here!
Get a grip girl.
Get a grip girl.