AM Dick Garwood
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AM Dick Garwood
Afternoon All,
Does anyone know where Dick Garwood has gone? He was DCom Ops at HQAIR but this post now appears to be filled by Air Marshal Greg Bagwell. Not seen any recent Air Rank Appointment Lists to confirm if he’s left the Service or gone onto another appointment?
Does anyone know where Dick Garwood has gone? He was DCom Ops at HQAIR but this post now appears to be filled by Air Marshal Greg Bagwell. Not seen any recent Air Rank Appointment Lists to confirm if he’s left the Service or gone onto another appointment?
Last edited by Black Swan; 3rd May 2013 at 11:54.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes - just checked that, thanks for the update.
I know Baz North was due to be promoted to AM and take up that appointment (DG for MAA). I wonder if he's being lined up to take over from Andy Pulford when he becomes CAS and Baz North takes over the role of AMP and DCom Pers?
I know Baz North was due to be promoted to AM and take up that appointment (DG for MAA). I wonder if he's being lined up to take over from Andy Pulford when he becomes CAS and Baz North takes over the role of AMP and DCom Pers?
Last edited by Black Swan; 3rd May 2013 at 12:54.
Air Rank Appointment Lists now seem to tell us what we already know!
Really pleased to see Baggers promoted again. I thought he'd blown it after this little episode, but evidently Op ELLAMY and a bit of 'purple' time have done the trick!
RAF commander: our Air Force will be little better than Belgium's
Once bitten, twice shy? Nah, I reckon he'll keep telling it how it is!
RAF commander: our Air Force will be little better than Belgium's
Ministry of Defence sources said that Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, Chief of the Air Staff, “did not share” Air Vice-Marshal Bagwell’s views.
Once bitten, twice shy? Nah, I reckon he'll keep telling it how it is!
Last edited by Easy Street; 3rd May 2013 at 19:59.
Ministry of Defence sources said that Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, Chief of the Air Staff, “did not share” Air Vice-Marshal Bagwell’s views.
Unless I have missed it, I don't think Dick Garwood is getting promoted just yet - DG MAA is a 3* post.
In my opinion, the DG MAA post had 'last tour of duty' written all over it when created - 100% on that count so far! Doing a proper job as head of a regulatory body is hardly likely to endear the occupant to any of the heads-of-shed, making it harder to get a single-service 4* post thereafter.
In my opinion, the DG MAA post had 'last tour of duty' written all over it when created - 100% on that count so far! Doing a proper job as head of a regulatory body is hardly likely to endear the occupant to any of the heads-of-shed, making it harder to get a single-service 4* post thereafter.
More important is that Dick Garwood is a good man to be doing tha MAA job. He's done excellent work thus far and I can think of no one better to do this job. It's not all about seeing how far one can get. Is it?
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 4th May 2013 at 19:51.
In my opinion, the DG MAA post had 'last tour of duty' written all over it when created - 100% on that count so far! Doing a proper job as head of a regulatory body is hardly likely to endear the occupant to any of the heads-of-shed, making it harder to get a single-service 4* post thereafter.
And that is precisely why the MAA should be independent!
PS Why did Baz North not take up post?
Last edited by tucumseh; 5th May 2013 at 07:40.
tuc:-
I know what you mean, tuc, but I also know that you would be the first to say that the real reason that the MAA be made independent of the MOD is in order to avoid avoidable air accidents, particularly fatal ones. Ditto the MAAIB which must in turn be made independent of the MAA. If indeed
then good! The star chamber might then support that call. Then again that would mean it admitting the part played by some of its members in reducing UK Military Flight Safety to the dysfunctional state it is in today, so perhaps not...
And that is precisely why the MAA should be independent!
the DG MAA post had 'last tour of duty' written all over it when created
I would say, 'So perhaps not', Chug. Also, remember that the people we're talking about here were not those brought up in discussion in earlier threads that may be implicated in such accidents. Despite remarks in other threads around here, the people we're talking about here are honourable leaders, far more deserving of our respect.
It isn't honour that maintains Airworthiness Provision, Courtney, it's men and women, civilian and military, of all grades and ranks, simply doing their duty. When they stop doing that the Laws of Physics move in and aircraft spontaneously explode, become uncontrollable, become invisible to closing traffic, and become apparently visibly hostile to allies. In short, people die. They stopped in the late 80's and unless and until the MAA faces up to why they did and what were the results, then its very foundation is built on sand and the pointless consequences will continue. It doesn't even need a man of honour as DG to resolve that, merely one who will do his duty. If he be a man of honour as you state then he will do his duty. That is all that is required of him, as it is of everyone who serves. That the cover up continues, that no effort has been made to face up to the true extent of this scandal, means that many have not done their duty.
All I can say for now is that Dick Garwood is no more responsible for the issues you're talking about that I am. Quite what his remit is in the job, I have no idea. Whether he is in a position to right past wrongs, not for me to say. What I do know is that he will do his duty, as he has always done, in a professional and reasonable way.
Quite what might be expacted of him in terms of challenging previous wrongs, again I do not know. All I was saying is that he is a good man for the job. His job now is to run the MAA in a professional and correct way. I'm sure he will do that. I doubt it is in his terms of reference to dig up past failings.
Sorry if I have you wrong.
Quite what might be expacted of him in terms of challenging previous wrongs, again I do not know. All I was saying is that he is a good man for the job. His job now is to run the MAA in a professional and correct way. I'm sure he will do that. I doubt it is in his terms of reference to dig up past failings.
Sorry if I have you wrong.
I doubt it is in his terms of reference to dig up past failings.
Only by determining the nature and extent of that suborning and subversion can a process of rebuilding commence. Instead, the MAA has a policy of introducing new processes and procedures from an arbitrary year zero, carefully picked to come after the laughably entitled "Golden Period of Airworthiness" when the dirty deeds were done. That ensures that the honour of those involved remains unquestioned. It also ensures that he cannot do his job of ensuring airworthiness. He must either continue that policy, or else do his job. He cannot do both...
Last edited by Chugalug2; 5th May 2013 at 22:22.
The problem AM Garwood has is this.
Anyone who has had airworthiness delegation during the past 25 years MUST have known of the systemic failings. Their letters of delegation required them to report their concerns. No-one currently serving in the MAA did so. (Source – MoD, under the Freedom of Information Act). Therefore, any such person is part of the problem and has no place in the MAA.
If one has never had delegation, then it is far too early for them to be in the MAA as, by definition, they lack the necessary practical experience of the actual failings that led to its formation (which the MAA has not yet sought to address).
AM Garwood’s first concern should be to identify which category each of his staff is in – his, or the other one. Know your enemy.
Anyone who has had airworthiness delegation during the past 25 years MUST have known of the systemic failings. Their letters of delegation required them to report their concerns. No-one currently serving in the MAA did so. (Source – MoD, under the Freedom of Information Act). Therefore, any such person is part of the problem and has no place in the MAA.
If one has never had delegation, then it is far too early for them to be in the MAA as, by definition, they lack the necessary practical experience of the actual failings that led to its formation (which the MAA has not yet sought to address).
AM Garwood’s first concern should be to identify which category each of his staff is in – his, or the other one. Know your enemy.