RAF give Flt Safety to RN
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: teeing it up on the 16th
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel compelled to write in to this forum before I snake off to happy hour again (and there's a free barrell on so I'll be quick.). .Firstly thanks to all who compared Tigs' post to mine. I thank you for the complement (?!) but I have nothing to do with this.
I do, however, agree with some of his points. Whilst Flight Safety is everybody's responsibility, I think there is a need for specialisations here as in all issues. The RAF should primarily be responsible for Flight Safety issues to do with it, and the FAA and AAC likewise. It would be as ridiculous for the RAF to assume responsibility for the saftey of the Navy's boats, as it would the RN to look solely after flight safety. I think an element of jointery is a good thing, but let's not forget who does what, best.
Note how I didn't 'flash up' and call you a tw@t. Some other posters might like to take note of this. Jacko, apologies for the previous dig.
I do, however, agree with some of his points. Whilst Flight Safety is everybody's responsibility, I think there is a need for specialisations here as in all issues. The RAF should primarily be responsible for Flight Safety issues to do with it, and the FAA and AAC likewise. It would be as ridiculous for the RAF to assume responsibility for the saftey of the Navy's boats, as it would the RN to look solely after flight safety. I think an element of jointery is a good thing, but let's not forget who does what, best.
Note how I didn't 'flash up' and call you a tw@t. Some other posters might like to take note of this. Jacko, apologies for the previous dig.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following some lengthy "discussion" between the 3 services the Defence Aviation Safety Centre (DASC) will form up on 1 Apr 02. The IFS staff have been bolstered by a few individuals from the other services to make the whole thing "Joint".. .The DASC will be based at Bentley Priory and will replace IFS; but not Command FSO, or those at RNFSAIC or HQ DAAvn.
Apache for HEMS - Strafe those Survivors!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hope the mags stay. "Air Clues" has finally made itself relevant in the last couple of years and, speaking as an RAF helo pilot, I have always found "Cockpit" an informative and enjoyable publication.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AG
"but let's not forget who does what, best."
So you have stats to prove this do you?
and "best" at what precisely?
Each service (or arm of service ie FAA/AAC) fulfils roles generally dissimiliar (with a few exceptions) from the other. Thats why they were originally formed although I accept that we are moving into the era of increased jointery, so maybe a joint FS organisation will be a good thing.
Crabs flying off war canoes can learn from the Fleet Air Arm's experience and vice versa with our SHAR force now under the auspices of 3 Group RAF (although headed by a WAFU).
(AG - in the RN a boat is a submarine and if you like you can email me if you need help with the aviation orientated acronyms) <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
[ 08 February 2002: Message edited by: Oggin Aviator ]</p>
"but let's not forget who does what, best."
So you have stats to prove this do you?
and "best" at what precisely?
Each service (or arm of service ie FAA/AAC) fulfils roles generally dissimiliar (with a few exceptions) from the other. Thats why they were originally formed although I accept that we are moving into the era of increased jointery, so maybe a joint FS organisation will be a good thing.
Crabs flying off war canoes can learn from the Fleet Air Arm's experience and vice versa with our SHAR force now under the auspices of 3 Group RAF (although headed by a WAFU).
(AG - in the RN a boat is a submarine and if you like you can email me if you need help with the aviation orientated acronyms) <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
[ 08 February 2002: Message edited by: Oggin Aviator ]</p>
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Temporarily unsure of my position
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose 'Jointery' is the P.C./Cost saving way ahead - but please let's not replace Cockpit with Air Clues. I'm so bored with reading articles about the RAF's finest hour in WW2!!!!!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Various Street Corners
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What kind of power is this organisation going to have?
I always felt the RNFST did an excellent job but were severely limited when it meant getting more money out of the budget to implement something, maybe I’m wrong but it’s just a view from the bottom.
Do we really need 3 flight safety organisations for one military? Providing it is comprised with the interests and concerns of each represented I can only think it to be a good idea. Money needs to be saved and effectives increased as it means more money can be spent on what is actually needed to defend the countries interest. Either that or a bloody big war!
I always felt the RNFST did an excellent job but were severely limited when it meant getting more money out of the budget to implement something, maybe I’m wrong but it’s just a view from the bottom.
Do we really need 3 flight safety organisations for one military? Providing it is comprised with the interests and concerns of each represented I can only think it to be a good idea. Money needs to be saved and effectives increased as it means more money can be spent on what is actually needed to defend the countries interest. Either that or a bloody big war!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
I agree. The navy do a good job of publisising Flt Safety, but If there is to be one organisation looking after the interests of Mil Flt safety, shoudnt it be the RAF?
I agree. The navy do a good job of publisising Flt Safety, but If there is to be one organisation looking after the interests of Mil Flt safety, shoudnt it be the RAF?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Various Street Corners
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tigs,
Why does it have to be RAF, can’t it be joint service? With all this purpletry/jointedness/economixing going on the separate services no longer have the luxury of being distinct organisations.
Whilst we may not end up being a single service (I'm not stamping my feet during drill, or having to shave my palm to salute) but they will all become more aligned.
MR
[ 11 February 2002: Message edited by: Mike Rosewich ]</p>
Why does it have to be RAF, can’t it be joint service? With all this purpletry/jointedness/economixing going on the separate services no longer have the luxury of being distinct organisations.
Whilst we may not end up being a single service (I'm not stamping my feet during drill, or having to shave my palm to salute) but they will all become more aligned.
MR
[ 11 February 2002: Message edited by: Mike Rosewich ]</p>
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike. .Fair call, but if it is Joint service I just think that the majority of the personnel should be RAF. Flying is the prime role of the RAF. The fact of life is (and this is not meant to offend anyone!)that the prime concern of Admirals is Ships and the prime concern of Generals is Tanks, and that makes obvious sense. Flying is not the priority in the Army and Navy although respective flight crews may disagree, but in the RAF every man and his dog is employed in support of air ops. None of this reflects in anyway on the professionalism of the aircrew within the 3 services, but it does have implications on the culture of the organisation concerned.
I know that we will end up with a joint system, I guess that sometimes I get a bit frustrated when it appears (and it's probably just perceptions) that once again the airmarshals do not seem to be fighting our corner with as much conviction as the Admirals and Generals seem to fight theirs.
I know that we will end up with a joint system, I guess that sometimes I get a bit frustrated when it appears (and it's probably just perceptions) that once again the airmarshals do not seem to be fighting our corner with as much conviction as the Admirals and Generals seem to fight theirs.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: tanker ghetto
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does not surprise me that IFS is being wrapped up. It always was a toothless tiger. Having condored twice,with no effect whatsoever, and been a SFSO I speak from experience. As for FAA paying lip service to flight safety, I would say the RAF would more fit this description.
Tigs - while I agree that, from the outside the view may be that Admirals look after Ships and Generals look after Tanks, it actually misses the integrated nature of both the FAA and the AAC in the two respective Services. If you look at the tasks carried out by the Navy (including the Royal Marines) and the Army you will see just how much the air assets of those two Services feature in day to day operations.
Certainly, in the Navy, be it a Squadron on a CVS or a Ships' Flight on a Frigate, the Air element is a major asset/Weapon System available to the Command. Also, numerically, it is worth a look at how many airframes the FAA and AAC have. Not an insignificant number! Given the diverse nature of the operations of the three Services, each has it's own problems/dangers which are best represented by people who are involved at the sharp end of the respective Services. Finally, you must remember that FS includes the education RN General Service staff and similarly for the Army. For example, much time is spent educating cooks on ships not to ditch Gash (rubbish) over the side as Gas Turbines do not take kindly to potato peelings etc! While perhaps the FAA and AAC are used to dealing with the RAF (indeed, even have friends wearing Light Blue) your average Matelot/Squaddie would have difficulty relating to the RAF, particularly being told what to do/not to do by people who may not have been near a ship/tank. Sounds a minor point but just think about it for a second and you'll get my drift. All "hearts and minds" stuff!
"Jointery" is clearly useful when representing things to the Treasury but you should be careful you don't lose that grass-roots experience which reflects the peculiarities of the respective Services. The trick is to combine to win the finacial battles, but not to the extent that the FS aspects associated with a particular Service are lost. Just my view!
Cheers, H 'n' H
P.S. Just a thought - most ships in the RN are actually "airfields" so even the Marine Engineers are directly responsible for providing the propulsion to get the "airfield" to where it is required and then suppling the "airfield hardstanding/hanger" with fuel, hydraulics, electricity, heating, lighting ..... for the FAA to use. Fairly major input me thinks!!!!!!!!!!
[ 17 February 2002: Message edited by: Hot 'n' High ]</p>
Certainly, in the Navy, be it a Squadron on a CVS or a Ships' Flight on a Frigate, the Air element is a major asset/Weapon System available to the Command. Also, numerically, it is worth a look at how many airframes the FAA and AAC have. Not an insignificant number! Given the diverse nature of the operations of the three Services, each has it's own problems/dangers which are best represented by people who are involved at the sharp end of the respective Services. Finally, you must remember that FS includes the education RN General Service staff and similarly for the Army. For example, much time is spent educating cooks on ships not to ditch Gash (rubbish) over the side as Gas Turbines do not take kindly to potato peelings etc! While perhaps the FAA and AAC are used to dealing with the RAF (indeed, even have friends wearing Light Blue) your average Matelot/Squaddie would have difficulty relating to the RAF, particularly being told what to do/not to do by people who may not have been near a ship/tank. Sounds a minor point but just think about it for a second and you'll get my drift. All "hearts and minds" stuff!
"Jointery" is clearly useful when representing things to the Treasury but you should be careful you don't lose that grass-roots experience which reflects the peculiarities of the respective Services. The trick is to combine to win the finacial battles, but not to the extent that the FS aspects associated with a particular Service are lost. Just my view!
Cheers, H 'n' H
P.S. Just a thought - most ships in the RN are actually "airfields" so even the Marine Engineers are directly responsible for providing the propulsion to get the "airfield" to where it is required and then suppling the "airfield hardstanding/hanger" with fuel, hydraulics, electricity, heating, lighting ..... for the FAA to use. Fairly major input me thinks!!!!!!!!!!
[ 17 February 2002: Message edited by: Hot 'n' High ]</p>
