Hawks Grounded (merged with Hawk Display Cancelled)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The poorly worded initial press release caused it to make the press. It needn't have mentioned any 'incident' with the Hawk Display Aircraft, or that the pilot had been 'removed'.
That got the matter discussed in lots of places where there is an interest in military avition and not just here - and no doubt roused the hack from his ethanol-induced stupor to dig around until he found someone willing to give him details of the 'incident' or HFOR.
That got the matter discussed in lots of places where there is an interest in military avition and not just here - and no doubt roused the hack from his ethanol-induced stupor to dig around until he found someone willing to give him details of the 'incident' or HFOR.
The poorly worded initial press release caused it to make the press. It needn't have mentioned any 'incident' with the Hawk Display Aircraft, or that the pilot had been 'removed'.
They could just have said that all the creamies have had their tours cut short due to a decrease in student numbers, and have had to start TWU early to maintain a steady flow of pilots to the front line. That would be true and would not invite such adverse comment.
It's not rocket science, media relations, but boy are we good at screwing it up sometimes.
It's not rocket science, media relations, but boy are we good at screwing it up sometimes.
That would be true
"the pilot is unable to display due to operational reasons" or "... an internal matter"
"the pilot is alleged to have (infringed some rules/ made an error / had a problem with his aircraft) and in the interests of flight safety has been temporarily grounded subject to an internal investigation"
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
TOTD, if you scroll up you will see that the vagueness of the PR led someone to make scurrilous suggestion that had no bearing on what seems to be the issue.
Pontius,
You're absolutely right - though I think some would have complained if the PR had been more specific (RAF should keep internal matters internal etc etc) while others would have been upset had no explanation been given.
I'm not claiming that the PR was ideal, nor am I claiming to be a media specialist, but I suspect that someone was tasked to put it out within a very tight deadline, with restrictions on what they could put, and they did their best in the time available.
You're absolutely right - though I think some would have complained if the PR had been more specific (RAF should keep internal matters internal etc etc) while others would have been upset had no explanation been given.
I'm not claiming that the PR was ideal, nor am I claiming to be a media specialist, but I suspect that someone was tasked to put it out within a very tight deadline, with restrictions on what they could put, and they did their best in the time available.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
TOTD, yes, probably the the duty bod on a swing shift with a general tri-service brief.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole sorry saga has the malodorous whiff of Senior Officers covering their anal cavities. The pilot must have undergone rigorous examination and competition to be given the job in the first place. With all that, plus his display practice experience, surely a debrief, followed by a temporary increase in minimum display height, with subsequent authorised lowering to absolute minima, should have solved the problem.
If ever the RAF needed a top display pilot, this was the season. If this 'Staff College Approach' to display flying gets any worse, all future displays in the UK will be by foreign military aircraft and civilians.
What a wasted opportunity.
If ever the RAF needed a top display pilot, this was the season. If this 'Staff College Approach' to display flying gets any worse, all future displays in the UK will be by foreign military aircraft and civilians.
What a wasted opportunity.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The handling of this "issue" may not be seen as perfect. But only Tom and those that are investigating know what the alleged issue is. Rather than random speculation such as the previous post about staff college graduates, would it not be better to let the issue lie. The media can speculate all they like, but they do that, often in a manner driven by this forum. For Tom's sake, should we not all stay quiet?
...but somewhat economical with the truth
would have created a lot of adverse comment (eg RAF wastes money on numerous display work-up sorties only to cancel display half way through season etc).
Not difficult.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: All over the place
Age: 51
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to reinforce that line I wouldn't have rushed a Hawk role demo into service.
Nevertheless
implies that the incident will be commented on at a later time?
Another foot-in-mouth MoD PR comment?
"The incident is being investigated and it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time."
Another foot-in-mouth MoD PR comment?
And what about all the shows in the second half of the season, some of them pretty huge, which would have then missed out?
I was not in a position to hear the commentary and did wonder if any explanation was given. It was still good to see it there though.
However, the Tutor and Tucano made up for it with superb, tight performances. The Tucano in particular seemed to be pulling some very high g maneuvers.
Neptune,
On the face of it, what you write seems reasonable - but do you know exactly what the 'problem' was? If not (and, with respect, it appears you don't), it might be worth waiting to find out what happened before commenting on whether or not the RAF's response was appropriate.
On the face of it, what you write seems reasonable - but do you know exactly what the 'problem' was? If not (and, with respect, it appears you don't), it might be worth waiting to find out what happened before commenting on whether or not the RAF's response was appropriate.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, the Tutor and Tucano made up for it with superb, tight performances. The Tucano in particular seemed to be pulling some very high g maneuvers.
