Prince Charles - Flying Career
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ark, I know what you mean.
I suspect that HRH will not be too distressed to read that he so poorly rated by those who are a bit hard of thinking.
I'm inclined, however, to think that the general opinion of skills with a small s might be accurate.
I suspect that HRH will not be too distressed to read that he so poorly rated by those who are a bit hard of thinking.
I'm inclined, however, to think that the general opinion of skills with a small s might be accurate.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,097
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Mummy going to hold on to the very end, and her family history is to go at a good age, he will never make King and you will get one of his, I understand, quite capable sons at the helm, and be saved his cock-up's.
The Queen will probably stay on the throne until she becomes the longest serving monarch.
Speedbird48, I would love to sit in either the SIM or the a/c and watch you perform when you only get/got as much consolidation and practice flying as Charles does/did.
Registered User **
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Botswana & Greece
Age: 68
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel sorry for the Nav.
Do we know if the Captain was a QFI?
He may have been a QFI, but did he at any point mention the tailwind? Did he at any point attempt to regain control of the aircraft as Captain?
Because if he did, it doesn't mention it in the report.
I accept that being royal doesn't endow HRH with 'magical powers' - despite what the fawning character played by David Walliams might say, and yes, the only person in the cockpit that nothing stuck too was the 'HP' - but I'd really like the senior guy in the front to speak up if things are going wrong, and he didn't AND he signed for the aircraft.
Because if he did, it doesn't mention it in the report.
I accept that being royal doesn't endow HRH with 'magical powers' - despite what the fawning character played by David Walliams might say, and yes, the only person in the cockpit that nothing stuck too was the 'HP' - but I'd really like the senior guy in the front to speak up if things are going wrong, and he didn't AND he signed for the aircraft.
Registered User **
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Botswana & Greece
Age: 68
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report is a summary. More happened than is reported. I know that this is a rumour network but I am not prepared to present hearsay. They found two scapegoats. For the record I flew with this crew many, many times. The two gentlemen were exceptional operators. I am sure that the captain is following this thread but he can't defend himself here. Unfortunately the navigator is no longer with us.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exascot's assessment of the Captains skills is spot on. Personally, I have known the Aircraft Captain for 44+ years and he was an exceptional Pilot, Instructor and Examiner. I have also flown the BAe 146 in RAF Service.
Last edited by cazatou; 23rd Aug 2011 at 08:36.
Perhaps some of the contributors to this thread (particularly those who believe personal abuse is a legitimate form of debate) should actually read the report. There is no mention of windshear but the aircraft crossed the threshold of a short runway 32 k too fast.
Any employee in whatever field has difficulty in criticising a boss - never mind a royal. However, in my previous employment, that would have been a compulsory go-around and any captain permitting another pilot to continue would expect to be hung out to dry.
We've all done things we shouldn't have but the important thing (in the days before quick access flight recorders) was to have got away with it!
Any employee in whatever field has difficulty in criticising a boss - never mind a royal. However, in my previous employment, that would have been a compulsory go-around and any captain permitting another pilot to continue would expect to be hung out to dry.
We've all done things we shouldn't have but the important thing (in the days before quick access flight recorders) was to have got away with it!
Last edited by scotbill; 23rd Aug 2011 at 08:51.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is hard to imagine how a military enquiry could apportion blame to someone who was a) not military in the strict sense, and b) not a pilot trained on type. How do you blame someone for getting a landing wrong if they aren't qualified to do it? Its not as if he was even in the formal role as a stude, and therefore within the scope of military reponsibility for his doings. As said above the Captain had signed for the aircraft and in military terms that is pretty much the end of the argument. He undoubtably felt great pressure not to overrule HRH but this is nowadays recognised as a CRM failure and similar in the broad sense to the Polish presidential accident. The Capt was apparently a QFI and "a good one" et he must have judged the landing, tailwind notwithstanding, to be achieveable and if it turned out otherwise his judgement must necessarily have been at fault from the inflexible military point of view. I can't see what else the enquity could have found, unless it wished to risk a political/protocol storm by criticising the long established and accepted right of senior Royals to fly military aircraft which was probably not within its remit, being tasked to ascertain causes and culprits only.
I think there is far too much modern revisionist thinking in many of the posts above. That is simply how things were done 20 years ago. We'd no doubt do it differently now, but that doesn't necessarily make those 20 yr old pre-political "correctness" decisions wrong.
What is wrong is some of the spiteful, and ill informed personal remarks posted here about the heir to our throne. I can only hope that they were not made by serving military personnel who have, after all, sworn an oath of loyalty to the Crown which some time in the future will belong to the subject of this thread...
I think there is far too much modern revisionist thinking in many of the posts above. That is simply how things were done 20 years ago. We'd no doubt do it differently now, but that doesn't necessarily make those 20 yr old pre-political "correctness" decisions wrong.
What is wrong is some of the spiteful, and ill informed personal remarks posted here about the heir to our throne. I can only hope that they were not made by serving military personnel who have, after all, sworn an oath of loyalty to the Crown which some time in the future will belong to the subject of this thread...
Originally Posted by Paully
Take your point although that wasnt the case when he commanded HMS Bronington...He used to hand over regularly to the 2 i/c when berthing...He was somewhat lacking in this basic bit of seamanship apparantly and they were afraid of what he might do to one of his Mum`s minesweepers 
Always been a pompous prick with a high opinion of himself by all accounts
Always been a pompous prick with a high opinion of himself by all accounts
It is normal in the RN for COs to allow their officers to berth and unberth the ship so they don't find themselves doing it for the first time when in post (or when necessary in the CO's absence). Moreover, the fact that HRH followed this practice militates against accusations of him being some sort of control freak.
Registered User **
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Botswana & Greece
Age: 68
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only hope that they were not made by serving military personnel
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 87
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exascot,
The heading of 'Military Aircrew' for this forum, is at odds with the description of it!
Please note my italics and underline.
Maybe the title should be changed to 'Military Aviation', or the description changed to exclude the un-winged.
The heading of 'Military Aircrew' for this forum, is at odds with the description of it!
Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Maybe the title should be changed to 'Military Aviation', or the description changed to exclude the un-winged.
Originally Posted by Agaricus bisporus
...I can only hope that they were not made by serving military personnel who have, after all, sworn an oath of loyalty to the Crown which some time in the future will belong to the subject of this thread...