RAeS Q&A Session with ACM Sir Richard Knighton
Thread Starter
RAeS Q&A Session with ACM Sir Richard Knighton
On the RAeS website.
"Ahead of the Chief of the Air Staff’s Global Air & Space Chiefs’ Conference 2023 on 12-13 July, an exclusive Q&A with Air Chief Marshal Sir RICHARD KNIGHTON KCB FREng FRAeS,Chief of the Air Staff, Royal Air Force - the first ever engineer officer to command the world's oldest independent air force."
"Ahead of the Chief of the Air Staff’s Global Air & Space Chiefs’ Conference 2023 on 12-13 July, an exclusive Q&A with Air Chief Marshal Sir RICHARD KNIGHTON KCB FREng FRAeS,Chief of the Air Staff, Royal Air Force - the first ever engineer officer to command the world's oldest independent air force."
He needs to be asking the questions rather than RAeS members, like why do you support MOD/RAF apologists and appoint them to some of your most influential positions? One of them proudly stated that UK Military Airworthiness is not the business of the Society!
What is then?
What is then?
The following 3 users liked this post by Chugalug2:
The following 3 users liked this post by Timelord:
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
Pretty much the top question revolves around why is COS Pers still in her job alongside her supporters that enforced that dreadful discrimination uncovered in the NSI. Many thought that if it had been a lower rank they would have been disciplined and likely sacked.
TBH, 1-stars and above are only as good as their next job. Now the NSI is out it is hard to understand why the instigators above Gp Capt Nicholl are still in their jobs after publication. Of course, if any of them had a shred of decency they would have resigned by now, too.
TBH, 1-stars and above are only as good as their next job. Now the NSI is out it is hard to understand why the instigators above Gp Capt Nicholl are still in their jobs after publication. Of course, if any of them had a shred of decency they would have resigned by now, too.
CC :-
There's the rub. The Royal Air Force was invented (by a committee?), while the other two Services evolved over time. It was designed to respond to political needs and took the form of a pyramid; with Groups and Commands rising upwards to the top of its Home and Overseas Air Forces. To all intents and purposes it was a uniformed Civil Service outside of its Station Gates. That may well produce a quick response to directions from above but it doesn't give much scope for leadership. There is still a need for unit, wing, and station commanders within those same gates but outside of them the RAF has more in common with a Town Hall than a fighting service. How many times have we read here that some VSO was a great squadron commander but has since become yet another Star Chamber member?
I generalise of course, and know that I was lucky to serve when so many of the then VSOs were ex wartime, with memories and experiences that transcended such design limitations. They are now long gone and I fear so has their moral compass. Shreds and decency? Yer 'avin a larf, aintcher?
Of course, if any of them had a shred of decency they would have resigned by now, too.
I generalise of course, and know that I was lucky to serve when so many of the then VSOs were ex wartime, with memories and experiences that transcended such design limitations. They are now long gone and I fear so has their moral compass. Shreds and decency? Yer 'avin a larf, aintcher?
"The Royal Air Force was invented (by a committee?),"
Pretty much by Jan Smuts - I don't think there was a Committee as such - he wrote the report assisted by Genl, Sir David Henderson- who was, in 1911, the oldest man to learn how to fly at the age of 48.
Pretty much by Jan Smuts - I don't think there was a Committee as such - he wrote the report assisted by Genl, Sir David Henderson- who was, in 1911, the oldest man to learn how to fly at the age of 48.
The consolidation of the three service ministries into the single MOD and further reforms since, most recently Levene, mean that the differences in leadership culture today are much smaller than could be inferred from differences hundreds of years ago.
All the big decisions are taken in Whitehall, notionally by ministers but on terms dictated by a handful of senior military and (mainly) civil service individuals orchestrating the central policy-making apparatus. Almost all acquisition is dealt with by MOD agencies (DE&S, SDA, DD, DIO) and even big "single service" programmes like guided weapons, shipbuilding and FCAS are managed by MOD, as the services are thought insufficiently wedded to UK industrial strategy. The three service commands and their executive boards are left to fiddle around with scraps like diverse recruitment and uniform policy; there is never anything of real substance on the service board agendas.
Whatever structures exist below MOD level are therefore almost irrelevant. The extent to which Cpl Bloggs's lot is made better is largely determined by the ability of CAS and senior leaders to influence, manipulate or bypass central processes. This is transparently obvious to those serving, even to Cpl Bloggs, which helps to explain why Sir Rich Knighton has had such a warm reception - we all know that he is good at that stuff and might actually get some results.
[Wiggy is not a good counter-example, for sure, but I would note that we have had traditional "leaders of men" in highly influential positions in recent years whose inability to navigate "the system" has made them actively harmful. When they fail to secure change in MOD, but still need to attain the goals which have been set for them, they fall back on tried and trusted "leadership" to attain the goals anyway, resulting in the "do more with less" spiral currently trashing both the RAF and the Navy.]
All the big decisions are taken in Whitehall, notionally by ministers but on terms dictated by a handful of senior military and (mainly) civil service individuals orchestrating the central policy-making apparatus. Almost all acquisition is dealt with by MOD agencies (DE&S, SDA, DD, DIO) and even big "single service" programmes like guided weapons, shipbuilding and FCAS are managed by MOD, as the services are thought insufficiently wedded to UK industrial strategy. The three service commands and their executive boards are left to fiddle around with scraps like diverse recruitment and uniform policy; there is never anything of real substance on the service board agendas.
Whatever structures exist below MOD level are therefore almost irrelevant. The extent to which Cpl Bloggs's lot is made better is largely determined by the ability of CAS and senior leaders to influence, manipulate or bypass central processes. This is transparently obvious to those serving, even to Cpl Bloggs, which helps to explain why Sir Rich Knighton has had such a warm reception - we all know that he is good at that stuff and might actually get some results.
[Wiggy is not a good counter-example, for sure, but I would note that we have had traditional "leaders of men" in highly influential positions in recent years whose inability to navigate "the system" has made them actively harmful. When they fail to secure change in MOD, but still need to attain the goals which have been set for them, they fall back on tried and trusted "leadership" to attain the goals anyway, resulting in the "do more with less" spiral currently trashing both the RAF and the Navy.]
Last edited by Easy Street; 9th Jul 2023 at 09:20.
All the big decisions are taken in Whitehall, notionally by ministers but on terms dictated by a handful of senior military and (mainly) civil service individuals orchestrating the central policy-making apparatus. Almost all acquisition is dealt with by MOD agencies (DE&S, SDA, DD, DIO) and even big "single service" programmes like guided weapons, shipbuilding and FCAS are managed by MOD, as the services are thought insufficiently wedded to UK industrial strategy. The three service commands and their executive boards are left to fiddle around with scraps like diverse recruitment and uniform policy; there is never anything of real substance on the service board agendas.
]
]
Bye, Bye Byford
Not only should AVM Byford no longer be a serving member of the RAF, but she should probably be finding herself a good solicitor. Let’s be honest, she is a disgrace. She has also proven that, whilst women can be every bit as good as men, they can also be every bit as bad.
BV
BV
The following 6 users liked this post by Bob Viking:
What I have discovered in years is that people are people- they're the same all the world over. Some are good, some are bad
Doesn't matter how you categorise them - religion, nationality, wealth, age, sex, education - whatever .
They're still the same mix
Doesn't matter how you categorise them - religion, nationality, wealth, age, sex, education - whatever .
They're still the same mix
ES:-
Almost perhaps, but not quite. Wigston's gang of zealots at least declared their weird beliefs and could be identified and, one hopes, dealt with. The major part of the RAF leadership though continues on its pernicious way, doing great harm to those who serve under it and covering its tracks with lies and deceit. I speak mainly of course of the attack on UK Military Airworthiness by RAF VSOs and of the subsequent cover up of that attack by succeeding VSOs. Anyone who doubts that still need look no further than here :-
Now, there are those no doubt who don't share my zeal for the urgent reform of UK Military Airworthiness and Air Accident Investigation but that for a change is not my main point (Mods take note, please!). Rather it is the state of the RAF High Command in general. David Hill's books prove repeatedly that time and time again the RAF leadership connives to hide the truth of RAF VSO malevolence and incompetence. No doubt that exists in the British Army and Royal Navy as well, but the scale of deceit by RAF VSOs in particular points to their total absorption into the machinations of the Ministry of Defence. The only saving grace is that the MOD was bequeathed us by a sailor with a record of many such 'courageous decisions'. This one was certainly up to par. I merely point to this known RAF VSO subversion, suborning, the issuing of illegal orders, and suggest that it didn't just stop at airworthiness!
Whatever that bling was dangling around Hermann Goering's neck should have been distributed by the cart load to the RAF Star Chamber from 1987 et seq!
Whatever structures exist below MOD level are therefore almost irrelevant.
Now, there are those no doubt who don't share my zeal for the urgent reform of UK Military Airworthiness and Air Accident Investigation but that for a change is not my main point (Mods take note, please!). Rather it is the state of the RAF High Command in general. David Hill's books prove repeatedly that time and time again the RAF leadership connives to hide the truth of RAF VSO malevolence and incompetence. No doubt that exists in the British Army and Royal Navy as well, but the scale of deceit by RAF VSOs in particular points to their total absorption into the machinations of the Ministry of Defence. The only saving grace is that the MOD was bequeathed us by a sailor with a record of many such 'courageous decisions'. This one was certainly up to par. I merely point to this known RAF VSO subversion, suborning, the issuing of illegal orders, and suggest that it didn't just stop at airworthiness!
Whatever that bling was dangling around Hermann Goering's neck should have been distributed by the cart load to the RAF Star Chamber from 1987 et seq!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 9th Jul 2023 at 14:34. Reason: Words, dear boy, words!
The following 2 users liked this post by Chugalug2:
That happens everywhere at all levels - ever seen a big US company where the Founder employs his family - or (worse) people "like him" - just as bad as dictatorship somewhere in Africa
"the RAF leadership connives to hide the truth of RAF VSO malevolence and incompetence"
but "the leadership" is the VSO's no? so why are you surprised they cover up their lamentable behaviour?
You need politicians who are there for a bit longer than a 9 month stint to be able to see just what is (or rather is not) happening
but "the leadership" is the VSO's no? so why are you surprised they cover up their lamentable behaviour?
You need politicians who are there for a bit longer than a 9 month stint to be able to see just what is (or rather is not) happening
Given his many accurate posts on the subject I reckon Chug would be surprised if they didn't cover up the actions of their predecessors and patrons, at least while serving. (I add that last bit, because quite recently a retired VSO came forward to report possible perjury. Well done Sir).
I'd be more worried about the influence CAS's predecessors obvious hold in the RAeS. Who can forget one of them threatening to withdraw all RAF membership if the RAeS dared publish a letter from three distinguished Fellows regarding that officer's lies during the aftermath of the Mull of Kintyre affair? The President of the Society rolled over, so the Fellows published privately.
The following users liked this post:
A56:-
I don't know how I gave the impression of being surprised anymore. On the contrary, each new airworthiness related avoidable fatal accident thread here has thrown up yet more evidence of illegal and immoral VSO behaviour. Perhaps you mean that it should be accepted, on the basis that everyone is at it so what's different? What's different is that RAF VSOs are subject to military law, have broken military law, and have still to be investigated let alone charged. Given that illegal orders led directly to a loss of airworthiness in service aircraft, to the RTS of knowingly unairworthy aircraft, which in turn led to over 100 deaths (most recorded in this very forum), it is very much the case that evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
We are told that we now have a good man at the head of the RAF. No-one doubts he has an enormous task ahead but it begins with the very first step. I'm afraid that the Service has already been dragged into disrepute by his predecessors and only good will come from cleaning out these particular rancid stables. He will need support, from those above and those below. Always assuming of course that he is indeed a part of the solution...
so why are you surprised they cover up their lamentable behaviour?
We are told that we now have a good man at the head of the RAF. No-one doubts he has an enormous task ahead but it begins with the very first step. I'm afraid that the Service has already been dragged into disrepute by his predecessors and only good will come from cleaning out these particular rancid stables. He will need support, from those above and those below. Always assuming of course that he is indeed a part of the solution...
I attended a brief given by ACM Sir John Allison at RAF Waddington. He wanted to know why people were leaving, but admitted that he had a constrained set of options. He apologised that he would report to the AFB, but wouldn't be able to change things sufficiently to make more than a marginal difference. A nice, honest talk; afterwards his Wg Cdr wrote to me to thank for the points I'd raised regarding military / civil equivalence and the retention incentive a decent level of accreditation would provide and asked me to write to him. I did so and eventually that led to the credits we had until they were stupidly lost when similar credits weren't negotiated as EASA replaced JAA...
One of the final questions to the good ACM as 17:00 approached was rather good:
"Sir, is it true that 74 Sqn are toast.....and would you prefer yellow or brown?"
"I'm sorry, but I couldn't possibly comment on that...."
"Understood sir, but yellow or brown?"
He laughed and said how glad he was to know that humour was still alive despite all the unhappiness he knew that many felt.
One of the final questions to the good ACM as 17:00 approached was rather good:
"Sir, is it true that 74 Sqn are toast.....and would you prefer yellow or brown?"
"I'm sorry, but I couldn't possibly comment on that...."
"Understood sir, but yellow or brown?"
He laughed and said how glad he was to know that humour was still alive despite all the unhappiness he knew that many felt.
I did so and eventually that led to the credits we had until they were stupidly lost when similar credits weren't negotiated as EASA replaced JAA...
presumably there is no reason they cannot be reinstated?
Not only should AVM Byford no longer be a serving member of the RAF, but she should probably be finding herself a good solicitor. Let’s be honest, she is a disgrace. She has also proven that, whilst women can be every bit as good as men, they can also be every bit as bad.
BV
BV
Allowing her to stay in post, as her successor is inbound in a few months (apparently) sends the wrong message entirely. All he appears to have done so far is to rearrange the deckchairs on a sinking ship. Same old same old?
He's got an awful lot to put right - have personnel got basic hygiene and comfort facilities in their accommodation, (hot water, heating etc?) or has that been bumped further down the list yet again at the expense of dubious rank structure changes and fretting over addressing somebody by their correct pronoun and gender?