Not-so-woke Reds
Yes, I understand the point about third world relevance, however, I don't think that fully applies here. If it did, there'd likely be no series of sackings, suspensions and all the rest of it. That said, on a more positive note, if I may, Ray Hanna's Daughter has put her dad's original red flying suit and green flying jacket up for auction on 26 November, through an outfit called Aerobility. Contact Hebe Weir on 07592 628625 if you would like to place a bid, I reckon though it'll fetch quite hefty amount.
FB
FB
If they disband the Reds for politically (in)correct brainwashed reasons (or any other) they'll be gone for good.
They'd never return - they'd be consigned to history and hangars at Colerne and with it a vital and intrinsic part of Britain's 'soft power' as great as the loss of the Royal yacht.
In other words a stupendously irresponsible, short-sighted self-inflicted disaster for the image of this nation of the eyes of the world.
They'd never return - they'd be consigned to history and hangars at Colerne and with it a vital and intrinsic part of Britain's 'soft power' as great as the loss of the Royal yacht.
In other words a stupendously irresponsible, short-sighted self-inflicted disaster for the image of this nation of the eyes of the world.
RAFAT applications have just opened for the 2024 season.
If they disband the Reds for politically (in)correct brainwashed reasons (or any other) they'll be gone for good.
They'd never return - they'd be consigned to history and hangars at Colerne and with it a vital and intrinsic part of Britain's 'soft power' as great as the loss of the Royal yacht.
In other words a stupendously irresponsible, short-sighted self-inflicted disaster for the image of this nation of the eyes of the world.
They'd never return - they'd be consigned to history and hangars at Colerne and with it a vital and intrinsic part of Britain's 'soft power' as great as the loss of the Royal yacht.
In other words a stupendously irresponsible, short-sighted self-inflicted disaster for the image of this nation of the eyes of the world.
Ben Wallace is working his socks off and doing a great job with finite resources and Treasury parsimony. He does not need intangible soft power to confront Putin's blood stained sledgehammer.
If the Reds are grounded for safety reasons [as I argue] they may deserve to come back when we can afford them, and if they resolve to conform to 2022 standards.
The "image of this nation" is indeed sadly diminished but our intervention [led by BoJo as a statesman making one of his better decisions] in Ukraine surely outweighs the image presented by a fragnmented team, one of whom left for noble reasons, and several who left or are leaving for appalling behaviour.
Ben Wallace is working his socks off and doing a great job with finite resources and Treasury parsimony. He does not need intangible soft power to confront Putin's blood stained sledgehammer.
If the Reds are grounded for safety reasons [as I argue] they may deserve to come back when we can afford them, and if they resolve to conform to 2022 standards.
Ben Wallace is working his socks off and doing a great job with finite resources and Treasury parsimony. He does not need intangible soft power to confront Putin's blood stained sledgehammer.
If the Reds are grounded for safety reasons [as I argue] they may deserve to come back when we can afford them, and if they resolve to conform to 2022 standards.
Whereas the enquiry decided that the pilot was "ready to fly", my doubts centre on the current Reds' very public predicament , jointly and severally. Given that what they do demands 100% attention, I fear for them in the present turmoil.
God forbid I come to say "told you so!"
Not that this matters but I find this reminds me a lot of the 3rd world that I come from - where rules and standards apply only to the hoi polloi. It's almost the classic response to accusations of corruption back there: "they" (meaning politicians or connected businessmen etc) are too important to have to obey the law, let alone common decencies.
The most obvious case to most here is Chinook ZD576, but it was repeated again in the case of Jon Bayliss, the Red Arrows engineer killed in 2018.
As to hours worked, especially on additional duties, and the effect on safety, that was front and centre in the Bayliss case as well. The Reds are no longer allowed to work more than six consecutive days, an unheard of luxury to many in MoD. But I'd still prefer them to be allowed to concentrate on their day job, instead of making sandwiches and washing dishes. That applies to all aircrew.
I'm genuinely interested in who should clean up after them. Does the RAF still have the Trade Assistant General group? I can't imagine airmen of any technical or admin trade being impressed by having to carry out domestic duties that are considered too menial for aircrew. Or perhaps catering staff and dish-washing machines should be allocated to squadron crewrooms?
To clarify, one pilot (the accident pilot) had the responsibility for cleaning the kitchen, making sandwiches, and looking after IT. This was deemed onerous.
The report in question didn't offer any solutions, but in evidence one senior officer explained the reasoning - it was training for when they went abroad without the necessary support and had to fend for themselves. Implying some support was available at home, but not used, and that Circus weren't asked when away. The AOC confirmed he had sufficient staff at the Reds, but they weren't trained. Other more junior officers disagreed. The Panel made no attempt to resolve this internal dispute, leaving the AOC's words as the official line.
To clarify, one pilot (the accident pilot) had the responsibility for cleaning the kitchen, making sandwiches, and looking after IT. This was deemed onerous.
To clarify, one pilot (the accident pilot) had the responsibility for cleaning the kitchen, making sandwiches, and looking after IT. This was deemed onerous.
Tuc, are you really saying they no longer have a personal ‘Batman’ to do these onerous tasks, old boy?
Whatever next?
sorry… I guess I should have said ‘batperson’
And so it continues…
Not a clue, she well knew I was a respectable off-spinner and a stubborn number eight, short on runs, long on occupation of the crease.
Anyway, we inheritted the incumbent, who did a good job for little recompense plus NAAFI whisky [she was stealing it so I made it legal].
Para 1.4.1.4. of the Reds' fatal accident ejector seat enquiry, regarding aspects of pilot readiness to fly.
Whereas the enquiry decided that the pilot was "ready to fly", my doubts centre on the current Reds' very public predicament , jointly and severally. Given that what they do demands 100% attention, I fear for them in the present turmoil.
God forbid I come to say "told you so!"
Whereas the enquiry decided that the pilot was "ready to fly", my doubts centre on the current Reds' very public predicament , jointly and severally. Given that what they do demands 100% attention, I fear for them in the present turmoil.
God forbid I come to say "told you so!"
Good grief, what an anachronistic and expensive mess. I've always been sceptical of the oft quoted 'soft power' benefit but if they are deemed necessary, given they flew this season with a 7-ship, why not a more economically relevant 5-ship...
I refer you all to the Flight Safety film 'Distractions' starring Richard O'Sullivan. The principle held good then and holds good today. Social mores may have changed, but personal concerns are the same now as they were then. Flight safety comprises many factors, the least obvious will never be proven to prevent an incident, as accidents avoided can NEVER be attributed to any FS activity. Personal states-of-mind of each individual is paramount to safety, Langleybaston is right, if the working atmosphere is right, then operations will be right. That is a responsibility of command, if standards are ignored because of reputation, or reputation prevents effective standards being applied, flight safety will always be compromised. The biggest threat to flight safety, is the attitude that we are too good be affected by flight Safety, is dangerous. In the air, the RAFAT approach to safety is unsurpassed; however, in the support aspects, it would appear that some distractions have been ignored.
Administrator
Esteemed colleagues, let us disagree without being disagreeable.
Carry on.
Carry on.
