Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

The First UK Independent Defence Authority

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

The First UK Independent Defence Authority

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 23rd Dec 2020, 16:32
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,759
Received 221 Likes on 69 Posts
Hardly my crusade alone LJ, as you well know. I guess this isn't the time or place to talk of airworthiness though. I was merely instancing the proven past illegal actions of certain RAF VSOs that led to the UK Military Airworthiness Systems becoming dysfunctional, and the continuing cover up of their actions by other succeeding RAF VSOs. All that constitutes a reneging of the Duty of Care owed to those they command in my view and hence shares common ground with the ideals of the IDA. Sorry.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2020, 18:07
  #62 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,874
Received 60 Likes on 18 Posts
All these arguments seem to miss the elephant in the room - The UK MoD mindset is fixed over Crown Immunity and the official policy for Crown negligence has not changed in a century: "Deny, deny, deny, obfuscate, obfuscate, compensate - then continue to deny."

You will never get the guilty to admit they caused and injury or death when the Crown policy forbids that. They will simply repeat the official mantra when in a court of law. Unless you change that policy, the Crown and its servants (us !) will continue to behave in a non-accountable manner in regard to duty of care. I understand the principle of what Graham and the team are trying to achieve here, I just hope they have a few Ministers and PUS in their sights if they want to make a real difference to government sanctioned negligence.

With the MoD it's never a conspiracy, it's always rank incompetence, which often makes the outcome worse.
Two's in is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2020, 08:16
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 652
Received 48 Likes on 24 Posts
Originally Posted by Lima Juliet
Chugalug2 - many of us below the Air Ranks don’t share your point of view either when it comes to your personal crusade against the military airworthiness systems and the many good people that work within them. Sorry.
I thought the point was that the "system" was okay, but hadn't been implemented? That's the message I got from the Nimrod review. I remember reading somewhere that immediately after Hadden-Cave reported somebody proposed cutting airworthiness funding in the SDSR. If that remains the level of training in the RAF then go for it Chugalug.
dervish is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2020, 08:51
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,759
Received 221 Likes on 69 Posts
dervish, thank you for your kind words. In return might I suggest that all who care about the future of the Royal Air Force; of its personnel, aircraft, and systems, should "go for it". Technology has given us all a voice that can be heard around the world. All that is required is the will to make your voice heard.

Two's in, The picture you paint of an obdurate and defiant MOD cannot be doubted. All the more reason to challenge it then, from within and without. The Royal Air Force is particularly vulnerable to its baleful influence by the very nature of its formation, designed from inception to directly adhere to central policy. In my day that was ameliorated by the powers of subordinate commanders, ie the SO's (and the occasional 1 star), who directly commanded personnel behind the station gates; the unit, squadron, wing, and station commanders.

I had a boss who challenged and won against the might of NAAFI HQ, in ensuring that a private contractor provided the 24Hr service to his personnel (air and ground crew) that NAAFI refused to on financial grounds. He was supported by the Station Commander who agreed that the operational effectiveness of the Squadron surmounted the historic NAAFI trading monopoly on MOD land. The arrangement continued until that Station closed. I offer this anecdote merely as an example of how those who commanded personnel (ie the real commanders!) had the discretionary powers to do so. The contract was simplicity itself, you owed your loyalty to your boss, he owed a duty of care to you. I could bore with many instances of how I was the personal recipient of the latter but suffice to say when it worked it worked well. Of course there were exceptions, commanders who should never have been in charge of a whelk stall let alone RAF personnel, but such is life.

I understand that these days much of that power has been removed upwards, into the bureaucracy that exists outside of those gates; to Group, Command, and thence to the MOD. None of those institutions command, they direct, and with the leaden hand that has brought about the likes of the IDA. I don't doubt that many who strive in that pyramid do their best and are mindful that there are human beings at the other end of whatever directive they are publishing, but the personal touch, the caring initiative of your own boss, is now replaced by policy document XX/A19 or whatever.

Reinstate the original powers of subordinate commanders (the only real commanders of personnel in the RAF) and thus raise morale and hence fighting efficiency. It might not be tidy, it might even be more expensive initially, but in the end it will save many fold in operational effectiveness (well it did with the NAAFI spat anyway!).

Last edited by Chugalug2; 28th Dec 2020 at 09:07.
Chugalug2 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.