Heads Up! Fighter Pilot: The Real Top Gun
And you do know that there are people on the other end of the media, the internet and social media, right? And that the overwhelming majority of those are being controlled by, again, your peers.
I bet when the instructor asked the cameras to leave he gave Bally his own log in!
Strewth, one throwaway/flippant comment by one of the trainees and apparently the whole of society is crumbling around our ears... (and did I spot a woman amongst their number?? Arrgghhh!!)
Persoanlly I though the prog was rather good - despite being on the third channel
Persoanlly I though the prog was rather good - despite being on the third channel
Was going to ask if it had really long ad breaks to simulate holds.
From the original book chapter on Brawdy: ‘The students call the instructors by their first name, they are no longer Sir’
However, I admit I was inwardly cringing at matey, buddy etc...yoof of today eh?
However, I admit I was inwardly cringing at matey, buddy etc...yoof of today eh?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
This old fossil, and ex-Valley Hunter QFI, enjoyed the programme. I did cringe at some of the early airborne front/back seat dialogue, but hey, things move on. Encouraging to see the quality and character of the studes is little changed. Looking forward to seeing their transition to the F35.
From my armchair, the Valley runways and approaches were as yesterday (well, a tad longer than that).
From my armchair, the Valley runways and approaches were as yesterday (well, a tad longer than that).
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,807
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
I know the world has changed, but I’m still struck by how long the training is these days. One wonders how front line sqns in the 1960s acquired their generous complement of fg offs! Between Nos. 20, 45, 74 and 81 there must have been about 2 dozen at Tengah.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I believe the training time is very similar MPB11; it's the holding times, generally speaking, that are horrendously wasteful. In my case (old fart hat on), Feb 62 - Jun 64 was join date to arrival on 8 in Aden; that included a two-month hold. That was the norm.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Moray
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ultimately the RAF is a fighting force; disciple, respect and standards are vital. - Op TELIC, Op Herrick, Op Ellamy and Op SHADER proved the RAF was a fighting force and still is. If you remember AP 1, Respect, Integrity, Service and Excellence is still extant.
Really? RISE still extant as you state? Not sure at the moment.....my memory serves me well, but I, and many who are legislated to have a view, no longer share your optimism, below only a week or 2 back....? We are not talking about complaints about rations either....so one the one side of the coin we have serious complaints being covered up, and on the other side of the coin we have malicious complaints against someone in authority whose decision one does not like, leading to all being entangled in a process badly exercised for years which simply erodes operational effectiveness......
07 August 2019Neither the individual Armed Forces, nor the system for their independent oversight headed by the Service Complaints Ombudsman, Nicola Williams, has yet succeeded in establishing an effective and efficient system for handling grievances by serving personnel.
Within the Services, the key performance target of resolving 90% of complaints within 24 weeks has never been met, whilst decisions on the admissibility of complaints – supposed to be made within a fortnight – have taken up to 86 weeks to complete.
At the oversight level, the burden on the modestly-sized office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman has been disproportionate to resources ever since it superseded the office of the Service Complaints Commissioner in 2015.
This was largely because its role was widened to include 'the duty of re-examining the substance of complaints – rather than just ruling on the adequacy of procedures followed and time taken by the Services in handling them'.
The result has been 'large backlogs and unacceptable delays'.
The Defence Committee learned that, instead of looking on the Ombudsman as an asset, the Ministry of Defence took almost seven months to produce a 5-page response to her 2017 annual report.
It also failed to supply her with the results of internal Service reviews about high levels of complaints by female and ethnic minority personnel.
Government Legal Department lawyers were not always available to give advice when required, and delays in clearance by the Security Vetting service led to skilled applicants for posts in the Ombudsman's office looking elsewhere for employment.
The Committee concludes that the only solution that will have a lasting effect is for the individual Services to improve their own complaints procedures and practices, and not to rely upon the Ombudsman's office to make up for their own shortcomings.
It expresses concern at suggestions that pressure has been put on some complainants not to proceed, and demands a list of the provisions currently in place for each Service to monitor and record withdrawn complaints.
[QUOTE]"It is essential that Service personnel have a fair, effective and efficient complaints system to deal with valid grievances, but the Service Complaints Ombudsman has consistently reported that this does not exist.
Really? RISE still extant as you state? Not sure at the moment.....my memory serves me well, but I, and many who are legislated to have a view, no longer share your optimism, below only a week or 2 back....? We are not talking about complaints about rations either....so one the one side of the coin we have serious complaints being covered up, and on the other side of the coin we have malicious complaints against someone in authority whose decision one does not like, leading to all being entangled in a process badly exercised for years which simply erodes operational effectiveness......
07 August 2019Neither the individual Armed Forces, nor the system for their independent oversight headed by the Service Complaints Ombudsman, Nicola Williams, has yet succeeded in establishing an effective and efficient system for handling grievances by serving personnel.
Within the Services, the key performance target of resolving 90% of complaints within 24 weeks has never been met, whilst decisions on the admissibility of complaints – supposed to be made within a fortnight – have taken up to 86 weeks to complete.
At the oversight level, the burden on the modestly-sized office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman has been disproportionate to resources ever since it superseded the office of the Service Complaints Commissioner in 2015.
This was largely because its role was widened to include 'the duty of re-examining the substance of complaints – rather than just ruling on the adequacy of procedures followed and time taken by the Services in handling them'.
The result has been 'large backlogs and unacceptable delays'.
The Defence Committee learned that, instead of looking on the Ombudsman as an asset, the Ministry of Defence took almost seven months to produce a 5-page response to her 2017 annual report.
It also failed to supply her with the results of internal Service reviews about high levels of complaints by female and ethnic minority personnel.
Government Legal Department lawyers were not always available to give advice when required, and delays in clearance by the Security Vetting service led to skilled applicants for posts in the Ombudsman's office looking elsewhere for employment.
The Committee concludes that the only solution that will have a lasting effect is for the individual Services to improve their own complaints procedures and practices, and not to rely upon the Ombudsman's office to make up for their own shortcomings.
It expresses concern at suggestions that pressure has been put on some complainants not to proceed, and demands a list of the provisions currently in place for each Service to monitor and record withdrawn complaints.
Chair’s comments
Defence Committee chairman, Dr Julian Lewis MP, says:[QUOTE]"It is essential that Service personnel have a fair, effective and efficient complaints system to deal with valid grievances, but the Service Complaints Ombudsman has consistently reported that this does not exist.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Moray
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That said, FWIIW, I thought the production was excellent. A useful reminder of the exceptional qualities of those who serve their country today, and the need to ensure that they are not let down during their period of Service nor beyond. Am up north tomorrow to see a 12 Sqn techie who has been let down....so let us not forget (not that you are..) those behind the jet that make Air Power work?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the series will go down well. If I could wish for two improvements:
1. I think the programme makers should explain what they’re talking about. It would take 10-15 seconds to show high grade animations/CGI of a battle turn or rotate...and another 2 to say that it’s a way of manoeuvring a formation and maintaining mutual support.
2. I think all the filler footage should be relevant. The programme reused the same VRIAB or flat turn footage to accompany various bits of verbage. It was a little lazy to have the aeroplane turning different ways in the cut from HUD to external view.
I can only assume the somewhat progressive comm between cockpits was supplied by the ‘youthful’ instructor rather than the two ‘experienced’ gentlemen.
1. I think the programme makers should explain what they’re talking about. It would take 10-15 seconds to show high grade animations/CGI of a battle turn or rotate...and another 2 to say that it’s a way of manoeuvring a formation and maintaining mutual support.
2. I think all the filler footage should be relevant. The programme reused the same VRIAB or flat turn footage to accompany various bits of verbage. It was a little lazy to have the aeroplane turning different ways in the cut from HUD to external view.
I can only assume the somewhat progressive comm between cockpits was supplied by the ‘youthful’ instructor rather than the two ‘experienced’ gentlemen.
And they must surely have a technical advisor who can spot when the words spoken on the RT or intercom aren't correctly reproduced on the subtitles - reminded me of W1A
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Quite enjoyed the programme but a few bits were very annoying. The "progressive comm" was appalling and did not show the RAF in a good light. Is 4 Sqn full of Ex Harrier "mates"?
We used to have to wear flying gloves and have covered arms for fire protection. Is there no longer a fire risk or is discipline so lax that not wearing flying gloves is ignored?
So much more could be made of the programme to show the RAF in a good light.
Showing the F35 failing to load personal software was not a great advert for our newest fighter. Surely the RAF PR guys should have said no to that being shown. There must be so much better footage available from Beaufort?
We used to have to wear flying gloves and have covered arms for fire protection. Is there no longer a fire risk or is discipline so lax that not wearing flying gloves is ignored?
So much more could be made of the programme to show the RAF in a good light.
Showing the F35 failing to load personal software was not a great advert for our newest fighter. Surely the RAF PR guys should have said no to that being shown. There must be so much better footage available from Beaufort?
BV and Toadstool....well said! 
And none of the old codgers spotted the ridiculous subtitle (mis-)quote "c/s finals, go down"
I'm surprised the outrage bus didn't stop by the side of the road for a pee break.
And none of the old codgers spotted the ridiculous subtitle (mis-)quote "c/s finals, go down"
I'm surprised the outrage bus didn't stop by the side of the road for a pee break.
We used to have to wear flying gloves and have covered arms for fire protection. Is there no longer a fire risk or is discipline so lax that not wearing flying gloves is ignored?
Are you saying that some of them were flying without gloves? My reaction to blokes calling each other "mate" is just to harumph a bit and shrug my shoulders. Dispensing with gloves when flying a fast jet, though, is just unbelievable. I once attended a talk by a retired USAF VSO who had been a fighter pilot in the Korean War and had been in a crash when his aircraft caught fire. He had gloves on but rolled down so that his wrists were exposed. One wrist was so badly burned in the fire that he was in danger of losing that hand which was only saved by means of some very clever surgery. After that I never flew without ensuring that my gloves were pulled right up and securing my flying suit sleeves around them, a lesson these "mates" need to learn, it seems
Didn't notice the exposed arms/hands whatever it was. Was it Hawk or F35 or both. Do both have MDC (before another outrage bus sets off)? You often see non-MDC US FJ pilots flying with exposed skin so context is everything.
Let me get this right: Pilots are "Mates", but are not to be addressed as "mates", unless you reach some level of "Mate".
And that in direct contradiction of evidence from continued conflicts, the use of mate by non-Mates to Mates has resulted in a precipitous decline in the RAF's ability to do its job.
And that in direct contradiction of evidence from continued conflicts, the use of mate by non-Mates to Mates has resulted in a precipitous decline in the RAF's ability to do its job.
1. The 'Top Gun' references were puerile meeja nonsense, as was the 'fighter pilot school' meme, 'fast jet driving test' and the like.
2. 'Oxford and Cambridge of fighter pilot training'? Daft comment - meaning only the rich and privileged are likely to make it to Valley.
3. F-35B - I cannot imagine anyone NOT wanting to fly it! OK, so there was some personal Sw loading issue, but watching the stability in the hover and the enthusiasm everyone had - what an amazing jet.
4. Age. What a criminal shame that it's taking such an age for trainees to reach Valley. That means that they're more likely to have family commitments at a time of life when their predecessors were thinking of little except flying, beer, flying, sports cars, flying and chasing girls...
5. 'G'. How does anyone develop routine 'G' tolerance with such little flying and with such gaps in their training progress. I guess we old fossils were lucky in that the JP certainly helped in that respect.
6. Staff / student interaction. Perhaps much of the 'intercom chat' was aimed at the TV audience, as in the '80s series. I was lucky enough to be on the first of the 'new' Chivenor courses and reckon that sharpend and his colleagues had it spot on at the time. We could be pretty informal on the ground, but in the air things were a bit more formal. OK, things might have changed a bit since then, but was what we saw last night typical of today?
7. Valley's infrastructure has improved immeasurably since my day!
8. Interesting to see how 'Danners' planned that low level trip with a modern planning system. Lucky her! No-one can convince me that the faffing with map guillotines, gorilla snot glue and nav rulers of my era was better!
The 617 sequences were vastly better than the Valley sequences, to my mind. Overall it looks like being a good series which is somewhat overdue.
2. 'Oxford and Cambridge of fighter pilot training'? Daft comment - meaning only the rich and privileged are likely to make it to Valley.
3. F-35B - I cannot imagine anyone NOT wanting to fly it! OK, so there was some personal Sw loading issue, but watching the stability in the hover and the enthusiasm everyone had - what an amazing jet.
4. Age. What a criminal shame that it's taking such an age for trainees to reach Valley. That means that they're more likely to have family commitments at a time of life when their predecessors were thinking of little except flying, beer, flying, sports cars, flying and chasing girls...
5. 'G'. How does anyone develop routine 'G' tolerance with such little flying and with such gaps in their training progress. I guess we old fossils were lucky in that the JP certainly helped in that respect.
6. Staff / student interaction. Perhaps much of the 'intercom chat' was aimed at the TV audience, as in the '80s series. I was lucky enough to be on the first of the 'new' Chivenor courses and reckon that sharpend and his colleagues had it spot on at the time. We could be pretty informal on the ground, but in the air things were a bit more formal. OK, things might have changed a bit since then, but was what we saw last night typical of today?
7. Valley's infrastructure has improved immeasurably since my day!
8. Interesting to see how 'Danners' planned that low level trip with a modern planning system. Lucky her! No-one can convince me that the faffing with map guillotines, gorilla snot glue and nav rulers of my era was better!
The 617 sequences were vastly better than the Valley sequences, to my mind. Overall it looks like being a good series which is somewhat overdue.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
BV and LJ,
I am not offering any criticism but trying to explain some misunderstandings.
YES, in 1972 we certainly did call our instructors Sir at AFTS whenever at work, on the ground or in the air. In the Mess or socially elsewhere it was first names for all (or nearly all) JOs. Once at TWU it was first names except when in the Sh1t. In those days very few had Flying Nick names. They really appeared from the USAF in the late 70s when the F15 and A10 appeared in Europe. I was lucky enough to teach in the air until 2011 and even then neither instructors nor students used such facile language as that used at the beginning of the programme.
As to the standard of instruction in the 70s and 80s. Personally my instruction in the early 70s was outstanding at Linton, Valley and TWU. It was a different era when things were done differently. The proof was in the outcome of the product. Operating a Cold War jet was a totally different proposition to operating a 5th Gen aircraft in 2020. The threat which was ever present put a totally different emphasis on Flight Safety. People were expected to take far greater risks than is acceptable today. Consequently, they viewed fast jet aviation in a totally different way. Still professional but operating in an Air Force with different expectations of it's fighting men and woman (or course no women in fast jets in that era).
Don't become too dismissive as there is always something to learn. Non of us has ownership of being right all of the time, although some may be correct for some of it!
I am not offering any criticism but trying to explain some misunderstandings.
YES, in 1972 we certainly did call our instructors Sir at AFTS whenever at work, on the ground or in the air. In the Mess or socially elsewhere it was first names for all (or nearly all) JOs. Once at TWU it was first names except when in the Sh1t. In those days very few had Flying Nick names. They really appeared from the USAF in the late 70s when the F15 and A10 appeared in Europe. I was lucky enough to teach in the air until 2011 and even then neither instructors nor students used such facile language as that used at the beginning of the programme.
As to the standard of instruction in the 70s and 80s. Personally my instruction in the early 70s was outstanding at Linton, Valley and TWU. It was a different era when things were done differently. The proof was in the outcome of the product. Operating a Cold War jet was a totally different proposition to operating a 5th Gen aircraft in 2020. The threat which was ever present put a totally different emphasis on Flight Safety. People were expected to take far greater risks than is acceptable today. Consequently, they viewed fast jet aviation in a totally different way. Still professional but operating in an Air Force with different expectations of it's fighting men and woman (or course no women in fast jets in that era).
Don't become too dismissive as there is always something to learn. Non of us has ownership of being right all of the time, although some may be correct for some of it!