Prince Charles - Flying Career
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Poorly
HRH trained on the JP at Cranwell, under the aegis of "Operation Golden Eagle".
On 31 March that year a notice appeared in the hall porters lodge in College Hall stating that a fault had been discovered in the left heel of all Poulsen and Skone shoes (these were bespoke shoes issued to cadets with their first No. 1 uniforms).
Cadets were to attach a baggage label with their name and number to the left shoe and place it on the floor outside the lodge.
On 1 Apr the hall porter and everyone else who passed by were greeted by a sea of shoes and baggage labels almost covering the left hand side of the rotunda.
Yes the notice had been posted by the prince - so don't tell me he was a "pompous p....". At that time he was a Flight Cadet and he behaved like a Flight Cadet.
On 31 March that year a notice appeared in the hall porters lodge in College Hall stating that a fault had been discovered in the left heel of all Poulsen and Skone shoes (these were bespoke shoes issued to cadets with their first No. 1 uniforms).
Cadets were to attach a baggage label with their name and number to the left shoe and place it on the floor outside the lodge.
On 1 Apr the hall porter and everyone else who passed by were greeted by a sea of shoes and baggage labels almost covering the left hand side of the rotunda.
Yes the notice had been posted by the prince - so don't tell me he was a "pompous p....". At that time he was a Flight Cadet and he behaved like a Flight Cadet.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loyalty to the Crown
FODPlod,
Isn't there something about the way RN officers are forced to carry their swords, on account of not being trustworthy in the presence of Royalty?
Concur entirely although RN personnel don't swear such an oath. It is simply taken as read.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in his training days HRH had just completed a bad sortie on the Basset.
Trying to broach the subject the QFI is supposed to have asked.
" How many t's in atrocious."
To which he replied.
" Not sure, but there is only one in treason."
You never know, it may even be true
Trying to broach the subject the QFI is supposed to have asked.
" How many t's in atrocious."
To which he replied.
" Not sure, but there is only one in treason."
You never know, it may even be true
Originally Posted by Piggies
Isn't there something about the way RN officers are forced to carry their swords, on account of not being trustworthy in the presence of Royalty?
Originally Posted by New Zealand Antique and Historical Arms Association
Naval officers, in accordance with dress regulations, are required to carry or trail their swords rather than being hitched at the waist. The scabbard is suspended from two long hangar straps requiring the wearer to carry the scabbard to prevent it dragging on the ground, unlike army and air force officers who hitch their swords and scabbards to their belts.
The myth surrounding this unique naval custom is that naval officers are required to carry their swords as a mark of disgrace, allegedly for involvement in the Spithead mutiny of 1797 that was confined to sailors, not officers, although it might be said that officers' mismanagement led to that situation. It wasn't until Victoria came to the throne that details regarding the carrying of swords became uniform and Victoria’s reign was well after the Spithead and Nore mutinies. In any case, the major mutinies of the Royal Navy involved ratings, with officers having no involvement. There is some suggestion that Victoria had made a casual remark that “naval officers were not gentlemen” (and the wearing of a sword was the mark of a gentleman.) In one sense she was quite correct.
Naval officers in British society were unique. The navy had, by the late 1600s, made it clear that being a “gentleman” was not sufficient to enter or succeed as a naval officer. Skill, as opposed to social status, was the mark of a naval officer and the navy exercised equality of opportunity at the point of entry over a century before the army saw the merits of such a program. Army commissions, very much the preserve of the nobility, were generally purchased. Naval commissions were granted only after a young teenager had learned his trade, passed his examinations and was selected for promotion on the basis of merit. When wartime required the navy to expand its officer corps, most were drawn from the seaman pool where education and skill in handling ships carried weight; social status carried none.
Those aristocrats who did enter the navy found themselves competing on an equal basis with the sons of merchants and labourers. Given that, naval officers were not considered less than an aristocratic army officer; just different, and the title “naval officer” carried with it a degree of social standing which indeed made one a gentleman. So, while they may not have been the sons of gentlemen, naval officers were certainly considered gentlemen in British society.
Some historians suggest that naval officers never wore swords at sea and when the sword was used, the scabbard was discarded as useless, particularly when boarding another vessel. That certainly makes practical sense except that for most naval officers, who were unlikely to be good fencers, an edged sabre was the weapon of choice for close quarters fighting. Swords and rapiers had little place in the hack and slash boarding fights of the days of sail.
What is more likely is that the army changed and the navy did not. Trailing a sword shows up as an act of pride among light horse regiments where both officers and troopers loosened their spurs and allowed their trailing sword scabbards to rattle over the cobblestones. Naval officers, who would have no reason to wear a sword except when ashore, copied what was then a military display. So, all officers, regimental and naval, actually trailed their swords, with slings as long as possible, as a means of attracting attention to the wearer. This is the origin of the term, “sabre rattling”.
On parade, all officers carried their swords whether they were army or navy. Soldiers eventually slung their swords from their belts, for practical purposes, particularly as field drill developed. Naval officers, having never used swords for practical reasons and rarely wearing them in any case, saw no need to change and continued to carry them when dress dictated...
.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: milton keynes
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HRH back seat ride Red Dragon 1977.
Often wondered why slipper tanks were not fitted. Thought they improved handling on approach?
Last edited by hammy21; 24th Aug 2011 at 09:53. Reason: Spelling!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
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
The report is indeed a summary but summary or not the officer in command is just that. He is in command and letting an inexperienced person fly this piece of equipment is his decision and allowing someone to land the aircraft in anything other than the most easiest of conditions is again just one more decision that has to be made.
This officer may well be a highly competent, highly experienced, gifted and talented pilot but....
On that specific day, on that specific flight he failed in his duty of care and responsibility. Is it easy to say no to someone of such high office? Of course not and it would be silly to suggest otherwise. However this officer had a duty to stand up and be counted. He had a duty to simply state that on this occasion it was not right for the prince to land the aircraft.
By just reading the summary it is easy to feel sorry for the navigator and I like the comment about 'no stick, no blame........' but the summary gives no information about what was either said or not said. Did the navigator point out the wind conditions just to ensure they had been fully understood and appreciated by those flying the aircraft? Or did the navigator just sit there waiting for this accident to happen?
Please note those comments are NOT meant to be critical of this person, they are just questions.
From the outside looking in, it appears that HRH was attempting to do something that perhaps was beyond his levels of ability??
If the captain of the aircraft was happy with the flying skills of HRH and the approach, then quite clearly he was not the man that folks are describing (I am sure that is not the case) If he was NOT happy about what was happening then he was duty bound to step in...
I have a degree of sympathy for the captain of the aircraft but I feel there was a case to be answered regarding his conduct on that one very specific incident.
It is rumoured we can make a prince out of a frog, but you cannot turn a prince into a Royal Marine.
Prince Edward was treated in exactly the same way as any other member of Her Majesty's Forces, no special treatment, no being afraid of calling a spade an earth moving implement and no being afraid of telling someone they are perhaps better off being employed in a different role within Her Majesty's Forces. Instructors have a responsibility of care and would they be happy to allow an incompetent person to be responsible for the lives of those he leads?? The instructors made the right decisions no matter who the pupil was.
I have never met with, nor served with Prince Charles but have heard all types of stories regarding this person, both good and bad. I guess he is human being and possibly not perfect, unlike some of those that contribute to this forum??
Registered User **
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Botswana & Greece
Age: 68
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glojo, a very fair post for the information you have available. And, some very valid points. I regret I cannot comment, I wish I could.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a very fair post for the information you have available. And, some very valid points. I regret I cannot comment, I wish I could
Hi Exascot,
I guess I am just like the majority of folks that frequent this forum and hopefully we can all accept that in life NOTHING is ever going to be black and white.
There but for the grace of God go I!!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's have the whole truth.
I'm looking forward to this becoming clearer, as I've been unable to imagine a situation where this is not the Captain's fault.
Was there....
No "I have control!"
No "Go Around!"
No inadvertant squeeze of the PTT as you say, "I insist that you relinquish control, Your Highness" for the benefit of the tape?
For the two bob that it's worth, the public view will be that Chuck made a mess of it, but he wasn't a real Pilot anyway. He had a full time job doing other stuff and was only getting the odd clutch, like this, now and then, as most of us have had.
My concern is with what the Nav's treatment says about a service inquiry. Perhaps if there are circumstances to exonerate the aircraft commander, they should have been made public. Are we to accept that this had never nearly happened before?
There are so many lessons to be learned from this incident, and yet the very people who ought to make them public seem content to keep quiet.
Was there....
No "I have control!"
No "Go Around!"
No inadvertant squeeze of the PTT as you say, "I insist that you relinquish control, Your Highness" for the benefit of the tape?
For the two bob that it's worth, the public view will be that Chuck made a mess of it, but he wasn't a real Pilot anyway. He had a full time job doing other stuff and was only getting the odd clutch, like this, now and then, as most of us have had.
My concern is with what the Nav's treatment says about a service inquiry. Perhaps if there are circumstances to exonerate the aircraft commander, they should have been made public. Are we to accept that this had never nearly happened before?
There are so many lessons to be learned from this incident, and yet the very people who ought to make them public seem content to keep quiet.
Personally I'm glad that I live in a country where the heir to throne and his sons do more than just pay lip service to the concept of being our future commander in chief. In my mind, given how easy it would have been for them to sit back and live a life of luxury, to willingly step forward into some challenging environments is laudable and an example to many other countries leaders.