Nimrod Information
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Away with the Fairies
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSM, Hear, Hear!! 
It may not be the most technically acurate piece, but anything that highlights the sorry state of all our fleets at the moment is good news.
The only bad publicity is no publicity.
It may not be the most technically acurate piece, but anything that highlights the sorry state of all our fleets at the moment is good news.
The only bad publicity is no publicity.
TSM
I think you have misunderstood what I meant, either that or I did not make it clear. In fact I cannot see how my comments cast a slur on the BOI team. I do not state, or infer, that the BOI team will be influenced by a BBC programme.
Just to make this clear I am NOT having a dig at the BOI team!!!!
To quote TD
I am just trying to say that TDs assertion that 9 months is too long for a BOI is at best naive. It is a difficult unpleasant job and made ALL THE MORE DIFFICULT, in this case, because of the location and circumstances.
I suspect that the BBC will come out with rumour and half truth without waiting for the FACTS from the BOI. Unfortunately the general public will accept the BBC programme as "fact" but without an understanding of any of the factors that the BOI WILL investigate and present when they HAVE COMPLETED THEIR INQUIRY.
I think you have misunderstood what I meant, either that or I did not make it clear. In fact I cannot see how my comments cast a slur on the BOI team. I do not state, or infer, that the BOI team will be influenced by a BBC programme.
Just to make this clear I am NOT having a dig at the BOI team!!!!
To quote TD
If the BBC had done the inquiry maybe the families would not still be waiting 9 months later for it !!!!!
3 people on the BOI working 40 hrs a week x 9 months = 4320 hours and still no result
3 people on the BOI working 40 hrs a week x 9 months = 4320 hours and still no result
I suspect that the BBC will come out with rumour and half truth without waiting for the FACTS from the BOI. Unfortunately the general public will accept the BBC programme as "fact" but without an understanding of any of the factors that the BOI WILL investigate and present when they HAVE COMPLETED THEIR INQUIRY.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland,
I can't see why you can't accept this forth coming documentary in a positive light.
The public need to see the state of the current armed forces, after all they pay for it, and the danger it's putting serviceman in. Like someone has already mentioned on this thread any publicity is good publicity.
Even though I'm confident that the BOI will carry out their job effectively, I'm not so certain that the average Joe on the Street would give two hoots about their findings however, I think a hard hitting Panorama documentary would carry more impact in highlighting our current plight!!!
I can't see why you can't accept this forth coming documentary in a positive light.
The public need to see the state of the current armed forces, after all they pay for it, and the danger it's putting serviceman in. Like someone has already mentioned on this thread any publicity is good publicity.
Even though I'm confident that the BOI will carry out their job effectively, I'm not so certain that the average Joe on the Street would give two hoots about their findings however, I think a hard hitting Panorama documentary would carry more impact in highlighting our current plight!!!
IGAT
I am not a fan of sensationalist reporting. I believe that many of our news services do not report facts anymore. I am fed up with "special correspondants" being asked for "their opinions" rather than just reporting the "facts". I feel (and I will be happy to be proved wrong) that the BBC report will be based on rumour and half truths - because the BOI has not yet reported. Significant amounts of work will be generated in answering MPs and the publics questions raised by this programme many of which cannot be answered because the BOI still has to report.
And, IMHO, this programme will not generate the good publicity that we seek, it will drive the public's opinion, if they even care, along the "Bring our troops home" route rather than the "Fund our military properly" route. If we cannot be used for what we are employed for then we leave ourselves wide open to further and drastic cuts from HM Treasury.
If the progamme went out with the benefit of having the BOI, ie with the "facts", then I could understand the value - until then......
I am not a fan of sensationalist reporting. I believe that many of our news services do not report facts anymore. I am fed up with "special correspondants" being asked for "their opinions" rather than just reporting the "facts". I feel (and I will be happy to be proved wrong) that the BBC report will be based on rumour and half truths - because the BOI has not yet reported. Significant amounts of work will be generated in answering MPs and the publics questions raised by this programme many of which cannot be answered because the BOI still has to report.
And, IMHO, this programme will not generate the good publicity that we seek, it will drive the public's opinion, if they even care, along the "Bring our troops home" route rather than the "Fund our military properly" route. If we cannot be used for what we are employed for then we leave ourselves wide open to further and drastic cuts from HM Treasury.
If the progamme went out with the benefit of having the BOI, ie with the "facts", then I could understand the value - until then......
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland,
What is needed, more than anything right now for the RAF IS publicity. I don't care if it is a bit sensationalist, as long as it gets out into the public domain the unacceptable and catastrophic position that the aircrew and the groundcrew of the RAF are currently in, especially those up at Kinloss.
After the programme is aired, I want the public to talk about it non-stop and comment on the appalling state that our Armed Forces are in. It's no good having a 'nicely nicely' report about the crash, it needs to be hard-hitting and shocking. I accept that some of it will not be 100% factually accurate, but frankly I don't care anymore. Reasonable debate has failed us, as has the joke refered to as the PR machine (I refer to Abingdon? - enough said!)
The public need hitting hard with the stark reality that our Armed Forces are:
1. Overstretched
2. Outdated (Typhoon excepted)
3. Undermanned imeasurably
4. And lastly, BANKRUPT!
Now if the BBC wishes to dress that up in any way they want, I'm all for it. But it's about time the British people were shown a few home truths, and I for one hope sincerely that we are all utterly shocked, each of us, after we have watched the programme.
TSM
What is needed, more than anything right now for the RAF IS publicity. I don't care if it is a bit sensationalist, as long as it gets out into the public domain the unacceptable and catastrophic position that the aircrew and the groundcrew of the RAF are currently in, especially those up at Kinloss.
After the programme is aired, I want the public to talk about it non-stop and comment on the appalling state that our Armed Forces are in. It's no good having a 'nicely nicely' report about the crash, it needs to be hard-hitting and shocking. I accept that some of it will not be 100% factually accurate, but frankly I don't care anymore. Reasonable debate has failed us, as has the joke refered to as the PR machine (I refer to Abingdon? - enough said!)
The public need hitting hard with the stark reality that our Armed Forces are:
1. Overstretched
2. Outdated (Typhoon excepted)
3. Undermanned imeasurably
4. And lastly, BANKRUPT!
Now if the BBC wishes to dress that up in any way they want, I'm all for it. But it's about time the British people were shown a few home truths, and I for one hope sincerely that we are all utterly shocked, each of us, after we have watched the programme.
TSM
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Shed
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree 100% Roland , the most effective and credible programme on this disaster would have been one after the BoI reports. Then, armed with all the facts and considerations of the board, they could make a critical assessment of the findings and make whatever point they wanted.
Suspect the programme was intended to transmit coincident with the BoI report, but with time dragging, the BBC decided not to wait.
Naturally, there is a lot of interest in the report, not least from the families. This is understandable. They want the answers as quickly as possible.
However, the BoI is considering all the FACTS and circumstances. This takes time. The 'public' accident report is generally a very slim document, but the complete report is generally inches thick, reflecting the time and effort going into it.
The public, if they care at all, will watch the programme and make up their minds based on that, not the facts. Panorama may well identify some of the salient issues, but I for one want to see the official report.
Suspect the programme was intended to transmit coincident with the BoI report, but with time dragging, the BBC decided not to wait.
Naturally, there is a lot of interest in the report, not least from the families. This is understandable. They want the answers as quickly as possible.
However, the BoI is considering all the FACTS and circumstances. This takes time. The 'public' accident report is generally a very slim document, but the complete report is generally inches thick, reflecting the time and effort going into it.
The public, if they care at all, will watch the programme and make up their minds based on that, not the facts. Panorama may well identify some of the salient issues, but I for one want to see the official report.
TSM
You and I know that we are:
1. Overstretched - to the point of going snap in certain areas
2. Outdated - in most areas
3. Undermanned - and yet we are still persisting with MTWS
4. Bankrupt - and that applies to all 3 Services
It is a shame that the Very Senior Officers at the top of the tree don't say so more but...........
If you think the general public give 2 hoots about the Armed Forces when the Treasury will use the vote catching Sacred Cows (for which read black holes) of Educashun and the NHS then I think you may be deluded. This story will run for 2 days, tops, before the great unwashed turn their attention back to Big Bruvver or Bid for a Kidney.
You and I know that we are:
1. Overstretched - to the point of going snap in certain areas
2. Outdated - in most areas
3. Undermanned - and yet we are still persisting with MTWS
4. Bankrupt - and that applies to all 3 Services
It is a shame that the Very Senior Officers at the top of the tree don't say so more but...........
If you think the general public give 2 hoots about the Armed Forces when the Treasury will use the vote catching Sacred Cows (for which read black holes) of Educashun and the NHS then I think you may be deluded. This story will run for 2 days, tops, before the great unwashed turn their attention back to Big Bruvver or Bid for a Kidney.
Roland, i believe you 100% correct, all we are going to get is hearsay and rumour, no doubt the journo's have looked at this site. The BBC don't have access to the aircraft, the documentation or personnel involved in
in Nimrod servicing, where as the BoI does. Yes it has been a long time comming, but surely we want an accurate investigation with a sound conclusion!
in Nimrod servicing, where as the BoI does. Yes it has been a long time comming, but surely we want an accurate investigation with a sound conclusion!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spanners, Roland and the Smiter,
We all know that the vast majority of the Public will never ever get to see the results of the BoI. Indeed, because of its CAVEAT, probably very few people will get to see it in it's entirety, and I would even suggest that the families will only get a sanitised version of it if they're lucky.
The time really has come to stop pussy footing about and get this out into the open, irrespective of any inaccuracies, deliberate or otherwise the BBC portray. I am at a loss as to why you are so adament for this programme to be shown.
TSM
We all know that the vast majority of the Public will never ever get to see the results of the BoI. Indeed, because of its CAVEAT, probably very few people will get to see it in it's entirety, and I would even suggest that the families will only get a sanitised version of it if they're lucky.
The time really has come to stop pussy footing about and get this out into the open, irrespective of any inaccuracies, deliberate or otherwise the BBC portray. I am at a loss as to why you are so adament for this programme to be shown.
TSM
TSM,
"The time really has come to stop pussy footing about and get this out into the open, irrespective of any inaccuracies, deliberate or otherwise the BBC portray. I am at a loss as to why you are so adament for this programme to be shown."
I am not against this programme being shown, far from it. It's just that I feel that it could be shown at a better time, ie post BoI.
Inaccuracies can only do harm and short term wise, the Nimrod will get publicity, but bad IMHO. This can not be in anyone's best intrests!
"The time really has come to stop pussy footing about and get this out into the open, irrespective of any inaccuracies, deliberate or otherwise the BBC portray. I am at a loss as to why you are so adament for this programme to be shown."
I am not against this programme being shown, far from it. It's just that I feel that it could be shown at a better time, ie post BoI.
Inaccuracies can only do harm and short term wise, the Nimrod will get publicity, but bad IMHO. This can not be in anyone's best intrests!
Roland, Smiters and spanners - add me to the list 100% agreeing with you.
As you stated, a panorama programme that looked on 12 months from now to see how any BoI recommendations had been implemented (or not), would be OK. As it stands however, Mondays programme before the BoI is likely to :
a) be boll*x
b) possibly whip up a political storm to get MoD to act on "BBC findings".
On the surface b) sounds helpful (as many here seem to assume), however, the actual outcome of b) is what worries me, in that the BBC could dredge up any old airworthiness issue (for the sake of argument, lets avoid Kapton and take another old chestnut "V Band Clamps"). Hence, having whipped up storm demand action taken on "V Band clamps" despite not having a clue as to what they are or whether they are really implicated or not. Politicians face questions as to why they are not doing anything about "V Band Clamps". Politicians insist that MoD/RAF be seen to be doing something about "V Band Clamps" so they can asnwer the questions. Expensive programme put in place to "fix" the V Band Clamp problem (remember - I'm making this up without facts but just cobling together vaguely believable babble). Hence valuable money gets wasted so politicians can say they are acting on "BBC findings". Engineers pull hair out in frustration whilst real problems not addressed/properly funded.
This is exactly the sort of thinking that has money being spent on the "filter lake for de-icing fluid" that TD complains of. Hence I hope I've shown that pre-BoI nonsense could lead to more money spent in the wrong places.
As you stated, a panorama programme that looked on 12 months from now to see how any BoI recommendations had been implemented (or not), would be OK. As it stands however, Mondays programme before the BoI is likely to :
a) be boll*x
b) possibly whip up a political storm to get MoD to act on "BBC findings".
On the surface b) sounds helpful (as many here seem to assume), however, the actual outcome of b) is what worries me, in that the BBC could dredge up any old airworthiness issue (for the sake of argument, lets avoid Kapton and take another old chestnut "V Band Clamps"). Hence, having whipped up storm demand action taken on "V Band clamps" despite not having a clue as to what they are or whether they are really implicated or not. Politicians face questions as to why they are not doing anything about "V Band Clamps". Politicians insist that MoD/RAF be seen to be doing something about "V Band Clamps" so they can asnwer the questions. Expensive programme put in place to "fix" the V Band Clamp problem (remember - I'm making this up without facts but just cobling together vaguely believable babble). Hence valuable money gets wasted so politicians can say they are acting on "BBC findings". Engineers pull hair out in frustration whilst real problems not addressed/properly funded.
This is exactly the sort of thinking that has money being spent on the "filter lake for de-icing fluid" that TD complains of. Hence I hope I've shown that pre-BoI nonsense could lead to more money spent in the wrong places.
On balance, I agree with TSM. I have no faith in BOIs; or, to be more precise, I think they honestly seek out the truth, but when they discover its unpalatable politics kick in.
Look at the BOI reports into Mull, Tornado/Patriot, AEW collision, Sgt Roberts/Body Armour and others. You can see they found out the truth, or got very close, but backed off to the extent that KEY issues are just mentioned in passing, if at all. They don’t dig deeper, ask searching questions or follow up their recommendations. In at least three of the above examples, pertinent evidence was, I believe, withheld from the BOI. (Otherwise the narrative wouldn’t be so embarrassingly bereft of detail). An example, which I’ve used before as it’s so simple. The Tornado report recommends IFF failure warnings be integrated into the cockpit. Fine. But why not ask (a) Why was this not done in the first place, (b) Why was it not done when more instances were discovered in the mid-late 90s, and (c) Why was it not done when specific warnings were given the previous year. Here’s a cracker. Why did CDP rule it was ok not to integrate IFF warnings – 18 months before the incident? Go through all these cases and the common denominator is – they were warned.
One other aspect I don’t like. I have twice personally experienced being hunted down and the finger of blame pointed at me. On each occasion, due to meticulous record keeping (records others denied the existence of) I was able to re-direct the inquisition. No further action was taken, because, while it was ok to come after me, a mere pleb, they didn’t like it when the true culprits were more senior. Nor was I asked to give further evidence.
Look at the BOI reports into Mull, Tornado/Patriot, AEW collision, Sgt Roberts/Body Armour and others. You can see they found out the truth, or got very close, but backed off to the extent that KEY issues are just mentioned in passing, if at all. They don’t dig deeper, ask searching questions or follow up their recommendations. In at least three of the above examples, pertinent evidence was, I believe, withheld from the BOI. (Otherwise the narrative wouldn’t be so embarrassingly bereft of detail). An example, which I’ve used before as it’s so simple. The Tornado report recommends IFF failure warnings be integrated into the cockpit. Fine. But why not ask (a) Why was this not done in the first place, (b) Why was it not done when more instances were discovered in the mid-late 90s, and (c) Why was it not done when specific warnings were given the previous year. Here’s a cracker. Why did CDP rule it was ok not to integrate IFF warnings – 18 months before the incident? Go through all these cases and the common denominator is – they were warned.
One other aspect I don’t like. I have twice personally experienced being hunted down and the finger of blame pointed at me. On each occasion, due to meticulous record keeping (records others denied the existence of) I was able to re-direct the inquisition. No further action was taken, because, while it was ok to come after me, a mere pleb, they didn’t like it when the true culprits were more senior. Nor was I asked to give further evidence.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Under a stone
Age: 68
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is full of what ifs and maybes - just what most people are accusing the BBC of!!
Lets wait for the programme, watch it and then pass judgement upon its effects and causes. Anticipating events is the very thing that we criticise the media for so perhaps we should not indulge in the practise ourselves. Like the BOI, we can make our own sound judgement once the facts are known and not descend into prejudice and rumour.
(We can then all bash the BBC/Senior Officers etc on Tuesday).
Lets wait for the programme, watch it and then pass judgement upon its effects and causes. Anticipating events is the very thing that we criticise the media for so perhaps we should not indulge in the practise ourselves. Like the BOI, we can make our own sound judgement once the facts are known and not descend into prejudice and rumour.
(We can then all bash the BBC/Senior Officers etc on Tuesday).
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
There is nothing to stop the BBC from presenting another programme on the Nimrod post the BoI, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is something they are keeping up their sleeve. This then gives them some ammunition to say...'look, we said this before the BOI, the BOI siad the same, and yet nothing has been done'... it seems fairly logical to me. I would look on this as a way of bringing the subject back in the public domain before the results of the BOI are announced, and I can see nothing wrong in doing that.
I think that your fears about money being wasted on unneccesary projects are quite unfounded. We all know, only too well that despite the loss of the C-130, the government didn't immediately throw money at what was, at the time, a vital recommendation namely the use of fire-suppressant foam in fuel tanks. The fact is, neither the government or the service has money to spent in the wrong places as far as the military is concerned.
As has already been said, the programme will probably be full of inaccuracies and will therefore will be slammed by the military, but I think the fact that it gets it back out into the public domain will be a valuable tool for when the BOI is released. It then opens the door for the BBC to produce another programme on the matter and have another go, and that can only be a good thing surely?
Kind regards
The Winco
There is nothing to stop the BBC from presenting another programme on the Nimrod post the BoI, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is something they are keeping up their sleeve. This then gives them some ammunition to say...'look, we said this before the BOI, the BOI siad the same, and yet nothing has been done'... it seems fairly logical to me. I would look on this as a way of bringing the subject back in the public domain before the results of the BOI are announced, and I can see nothing wrong in doing that.
I think that your fears about money being wasted on unneccesary projects are quite unfounded. We all know, only too well that despite the loss of the C-130, the government didn't immediately throw money at what was, at the time, a vital recommendation namely the use of fire-suppressant foam in fuel tanks. The fact is, neither the government or the service has money to spent in the wrong places as far as the military is concerned.
As has already been said, the programme will probably be full of inaccuracies and will therefore will be slammed by the military, but I think the fact that it gets it back out into the public domain will be a valuable tool for when the BOI is released. It then opens the door for the BBC to produce another programme on the matter and have another go, and that can only be a good thing surely?
Kind regards
The Winco
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you mean like the BBC have waited for the BoI results?
I seem to remember hearing stories of worried families at Odiham, Benson, Lyneham and Kinloss as the BBC reported a Herc down, no wait it was a Chinook, no wait it was a Merlin.....
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England - Now
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe half the comments on this thread. Firstly I've been on the "wrong side" of a BoI three times. Once after CAT 5'ing one of Betty's aeroplanes and twice due paperwork I had been involved with prior to losing aircraft. I have every faith with the actual BoI and it's individual members. Once they report fully of course certain Very Senior officers may poke noses in and B'Liars mob may alter the thrust of the report. However comments such as that from TSM quote- irrespective of any inaccuracies, deliberate or otherwise - unqoute are absolutely appalling and nonsense. If the programme contains deliberate or unintentional innaccuracies then the spin docs in the MoD and B.Liars entourage will be ale to rubbish the whole programme. If any unpalatable facts are found out and the finger of blame is pointed somewhere then any incorrect statements will mean the whole prog will be rubbished. Aren't we the ones on this site who are always demanding absolute perfection from the Beeb and the rest of the journos normally described as "Lying Journo Scum". After that tragic event last Sept. this site was full of comments from people demanding the Beeb get it's facts right first and as the previous poster said we were complaining about the usual rent a mob talking head avation "experts" being wheeled out at the Beeb prattling on about Chinooks and Hercs whilst it seemed all the Kipper fleet and many others had worked out it was a Nimrod from the crew complement and where it was working. If this programme presents "Facts" as spouted on this site e.g the MR2 is a converted Comet airliner - then it does not deserve to be shown. In the event of the BoI report either ducking the issue or being pressurised to say certain things then that is when a good Beeb journo could really do some good by pulling it to ribbons and asking why it was altered and who altered it.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Headstone, I have a feeling I know who you are, but whatever.
As you will be well aware, the findings of any BOI have a caveat that almost always prevents them from getting into the public domain. Indeed, a couple of year ago I came across one for a Vulcan that was lost, many years ago, and was still classified. It didn't have anything untowards in the actual report other than the fact it was a V Bomber, and it was still classified many years aftre its loss.
That said, there is no way that the BBC (or anyone else of a similar organisation) will be able to get hold of the report to see 'the facts' and the outcome of the BOI. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the BBC to produce the best programme possible with the limited amount of factual information available to them surely?
I know they have approached a number of people at Kinloss and I have no doubt that they will have spoken at length to a number of ex Nimrod 'experts' in an effort to get as much legitimate info as possible, and that is perfectly fair and reasonable.
The thrust on this forum is that the BBC should have waited until after the BOI announces their findings. I would suggest that it is equally justified to wait until after the programme has been transmitted before we condemn it, don't you?
The Winco
As you will be well aware, the findings of any BOI have a caveat that almost always prevents them from getting into the public domain. Indeed, a couple of year ago I came across one for a Vulcan that was lost, many years ago, and was still classified. It didn't have anything untowards in the actual report other than the fact it was a V Bomber, and it was still classified many years aftre its loss.
That said, there is no way that the BBC (or anyone else of a similar organisation) will be able to get hold of the report to see 'the facts' and the outcome of the BOI. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the BBC to produce the best programme possible with the limited amount of factual information available to them surely?
I know they have approached a number of people at Kinloss and I have no doubt that they will have spoken at length to a number of ex Nimrod 'experts' in an effort to get as much legitimate info as possible, and that is perfectly fair and reasonable.
The thrust on this forum is that the BBC should have waited until after the BOI announces their findings. I would suggest that it is equally justified to wait until after the programme has been transmitted before we condemn it, don't you?
The Winco
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hove
Age: 72
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only speak from the civvie side of the fence and will never see, or hear, anything you Lads and Lasses will from any BOI.
Regardless of what the BBC may know or doesn't, I would like to hope that it may open the eyes of some non military minded voters and make them change their vote at the next general election. They won’t know the real story, or even understand the details, but in my mind any publicity will be better than none at all.
I may be but again if it gets questions asked by an MP, even better. 
Regardless of what the BBC may know or doesn't, I would like to hope that it may open the eyes of some non military minded voters and make them change their vote at the next general election. They won’t know the real story, or even understand the details, but in my mind any publicity will be better than none at all.
I may be
but again if it gets questions asked by an MP, even better.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tappers Dad best regards to you and you family.
I just hope this report will highlight the true fact of white wash in the service's today.
Old kit held together by over worked techies doing sell certification, LAC's doing what once was a JT's job (no dis-respect it's just the way it is.)
After all forces are only firefighters now....... If its not need yesterday we can't spare the time to do it today.
Smaller, leaner and just about falling over.
1983 RAF was 102,000 bodies now in 2007 41,400...... sad.
I just hope this report will highlight the true fact of white wash in the service's today.
Old kit held together by over worked techies doing sell certification, LAC's doing what once was a JT's job (no dis-respect it's just the way it is.)
After all forces are only firefighters now....... If its not need yesterday we can't spare the time to do it today.
Smaller, leaner and just about falling over.
1983 RAF was 102,000 bodies now in 2007 41,400...... sad.