Red Arrows - toxic culture
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: AKT no more
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
A short sighted vision of the RAF/RN future by ambitious senior officers - .
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,009
Received 2,896 Likes
on
1,240 Posts
The one man that doesn’t seem to come up in all the chat is the Squadron Warrant Officer. On the four front line squadrons I served on he was the man who directed what could, and what could not be deemed acceptable from the groundcrew and at times the junior officers. He was answerable only to the squadron boss who quite frequently would have known him previously as he himself climbed the aircrew ladder.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
We used to have an excellent way of representing the RAF (and the RN) in the military SAR Force but this was moved out of the military and into commercial aviation.
Most people recognised either the yellow RAF aircraft or the grey RN ones and knew that the crews were military and spent 98% of their time rescuing civilians from life and health threatening situations, some very high profile.
We were sacrificed on the altar of Defence spending cuts because we weren't a 'core-military capability' despite a constant presence in the Falklands and providing our paramedic winchmen to MERT crews in Afghanistan.
Now the commercial operator is running out of rearcrew because they can't poach them from the military, where they used to be excellently trained.
A short sighted vision of the RAF/RN future by ambitious senior officers - if they had defended the SAR Force even half as much as the Reds, military crews would still be training and delivering top drawer SAR.
Those military crews who moved to the contractor have ensured the high standards remained but it would have been so much better to have kept those skills and personnel in house.
Most people recognised either the yellow RAF aircraft or the grey RN ones and knew that the crews were military and spent 98% of their time rescuing civilians from life and health threatening situations, some very high profile.
We were sacrificed on the altar of Defence spending cuts because we weren't a 'core-military capability' despite a constant presence in the Falklands and providing our paramedic winchmen to MERT crews in Afghanistan.
Now the commercial operator is running out of rearcrew because they can't poach them from the military, where they used to be excellently trained.
A short sighted vision of the RAF/RN future by ambitious senior officers - if they had defended the SAR Force even half as much as the Reds, military crews would still be training and delivering top drawer SAR.
Those military crews who moved to the contractor have ensured the high standards remained but it would have been so much better to have kept those skills and personnel in house.
Those of us who migrated from SH to SAR in the latter days could see the writing on the wall long before it happened. The move across to a civilian service has been a success despite the naysayers. They will solve the rearcrew challenges, the commercial world is very good at that.
Military SAR is long gone, it's time to move on. I have a feeling the reds may be in their last throes too. Time will tell.
The following 2 users liked this post by llamaman:
Gap of something like 12-15 months at most, I think? Last Gnat withdrawn from an FTS in late 1978; RAFAT certainly had Hawks by May 1980, since that was when the Hawk/Yacht mast interface occurred at Brighton.
Funding more displays by a solo Typhoon and a solo F-35B - including at venues not necessarily air shows - would be much more inspirational than a repetitive display using a bunch of clapped out trainers that first entered service over 47 years ago!
The following 3 users liked this post by RAFEngO74to09:
Please.
While I'm sure that you're right, neither the F35 nor Ty Force have the capacity to absorb any extra tasking for display without an increase in resource (never going to happen) or a reduction in other tasking (never going to happen). The Ty display is great but comes out of OCU resource and the wider force is strapped so there's no easy way to draw in extra to support more. I would want my taxpayer cash going to get more Ty on ops rather than more air shows.
While closing the RAFAT may seem like a way to get more pilots / TG1 to the FL I suspect that the shop floor would see it as a removal of another good deal at a time where they're leaving faster than we can replace them and we lack the rewards structure to pay them appropriately....if only we could have bespoke pay scales for our pilots and TG1 as we do for dentists/doctors/nurses/padres/SF etc....or indeed have HR support/MT/C4I etc....
While closing the RAFAT may seem like a way to get more pilots / TG1 to the FL I suspect that the shop floor would see it as a removal of another good deal at a time where they're leaving faster than we can replace them and we lack the rewards structure to pay them appropriately....if only we could have bespoke pay scales for our pilots and TG1 as we do for dentists/doctors/nurses/padres/SF etc....or indeed have HR support/MT/C4I etc....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,009
Received 2,896 Likes
on
1,240 Posts
Considering Cosford is the only show the RAF does you would think they could show the tax payers the aircraft they have funded.
The following users liked this post:
The difference is that one organisation is all about the mission and not about elitism. The other is all about a select group and absolutely all about elitism. Which one had the issues?
The following users liked this post:
Then you'd have to do the same to BBMF, who to the best of my knowledge, have not suffered the same issues? Why should they lose their identity for the actions of RAFAT personnel?
The difference is that one organisation is all about the mission and not about elitism. The other is all about a select group and absolutely all about elitism. Which one had the issues?
The difference is that one organisation is all about the mission and not about elitism. The other is all about a select group and absolutely all about elitism. Which one had the issues?
BBMF and RAFAT are fundamentally different in form and function.
BBMF aircrew (not just pilots) are taken from other Sqns and are volunteering their spare time to display their glorious old birds in flights of respect and remembrance. The aircrew generally have full time jobs on other RAF sqns. Having operated with quite a few of them (although I’ve never been anywhere near BBMF), I was often told how they wished they could be given a proper, full tour on BBMF like the Reds do.
However the way I see it now, it is to BBMF’s credit that the aircrew are not separated and cocooned from the wider RAF and allowed to foster an identity of elitism.
They wear green growbags during the week and black at the weekend. The stars of the show are the aircraft and what they represent, not the pilots.
The following 2 users liked this post by SVK:
Is it not time for a reality check on both BBMF and RAFAT?
BBMF isn’t actually just about BB at all, and only partly commemorates important WW2 aircraft. I am all for a memorial flight, but why not get the name right or even contemplate including significant RAF aircraft more widely. There is a very active historic aircraft “scene” which could be harnessed to the task of presenting a meaningful historical perspective for current and future generations.
RAFAT is a more difficult argument to make in the current environment, but persisting with the reds in their current format seems wrong, and does the RAF a disservice in my view by duping the public as to the scale and wellbeing of the current service. Added to which I think we have all been somewhat numbed to the impact of the reds as a result of their displays essentially being “the same” to layman’s eyes for so long. I wouldn’t go very far out of my way to see the reds and don’t think I am alone. Loud fast jets on the other hand……
Intended as a supportive reality check rather than a criticism of anyone involved in the respective teams.
BBMF isn’t actually just about BB at all, and only partly commemorates important WW2 aircraft. I am all for a memorial flight, but why not get the name right or even contemplate including significant RAF aircraft more widely. There is a very active historic aircraft “scene” which could be harnessed to the task of presenting a meaningful historical perspective for current and future generations.
RAFAT is a more difficult argument to make in the current environment, but persisting with the reds in their current format seems wrong, and does the RAF a disservice in my view by duping the public as to the scale and wellbeing of the current service. Added to which I think we have all been somewhat numbed to the impact of the reds as a result of their displays essentially being “the same” to layman’s eyes for so long. I wouldn’t go very far out of my way to see the reds and don’t think I am alone. Loud fast jets on the other hand……
Intended as a supportive reality check rather than a criticism of anyone involved in the respective teams.
The following users liked this post:
Placing the team on a pedestal is asking for normalisation of deviation. In many airforces, the demonstration team is operational and do additional demo duties. That may not be ideal, but placing the crew in a position of privilege is asking for consequences.
The other top tier teams have less bad PR, but it is not certain they also don't have issues underneath.
Bin BBMF?
My apologies for any egg sucking. The flight is named for the RAFs most famous air battle and was originally only equipped with fighters that represent some of the types that fought in the Battle (Hurricane, Spitfire, we can quibble on Marks). The bomber was a later addition and represents the huge losses (55,573, a 44.4% death rate) faced by bomber command aircrew.
The Dakota replaced the Dove/Devon for multi engined training and then she became a display item in her own right and not only represents the RAFs cargo, troop and aeromed operation, but is also a visible symbol of the UKs airborne forces.
Chipmunks? Tail dragger training tools. Yes, the name could change to more acurately reflect the current aircraft mix, just 'memorial flight' might be better, but BBMF is fine imho. The inclusion of civilian 'warbirds' has been done, and BBMF aircraft have flown many times in mixed formations (Duxford, RIAT, Waddington), however the recent inclusion of a Typhoon and Spitfire/F-35 and Lancaster display not only 'steps things up' but also display the vast change in the RAFs combat airpower.
Behaviour was mentioned, I don't know about RAFAT, but for BBMF I would put this down to the veterans who visit the flight (or the flight visting them) both at home and at various events in the UK and abroad. A few minutes in their presence is more than enough to check the ego at the door and to remain level headed/sensible.
All gave some, some gave all. Lest we forget.
My apologies for any egg sucking. The flight is named for the RAFs most famous air battle and was originally only equipped with fighters that represent some of the types that fought in the Battle (Hurricane, Spitfire, we can quibble on Marks). The bomber was a later addition and represents the huge losses (55,573, a 44.4% death rate) faced by bomber command aircrew.
The Dakota replaced the Dove/Devon for multi engined training and then she became a display item in her own right and not only represents the RAFs cargo, troop and aeromed operation, but is also a visible symbol of the UKs airborne forces.
Chipmunks? Tail dragger training tools. Yes, the name could change to more acurately reflect the current aircraft mix, just 'memorial flight' might be better, but BBMF is fine imho. The inclusion of civilian 'warbirds' has been done, and BBMF aircraft have flown many times in mixed formations (Duxford, RIAT, Waddington), however the recent inclusion of a Typhoon and Spitfire/F-35 and Lancaster display not only 'steps things up' but also display the vast change in the RAFs combat airpower.
Behaviour was mentioned, I don't know about RAFAT, but for BBMF I would put this down to the veterans who visit the flight (or the flight visting them) both at home and at various events in the UK and abroad. A few minutes in their presence is more than enough to check the ego at the door and to remain level headed/sensible.
All gave some, some gave all. Lest we forget.
The following 9 users liked this post by Stitchbitch:
The one man that doesn’t seem to come up in all the chat is the Squadron Warrant Officer. On the four front line squadrons I served on he was the man who directed what could, and what could not be deemed acceptable from the groundcrew and at times the junior officers. He was answerable only to the squadron boss who quite frequently would have known him previously as he himself climbed the aircrew ladder.
He wasn't the one "they" (reds management) wanted at interview but manning gave him the job. He tried to intervene in many issues (both engineering and unacceptable behaviour) but was never supported by the Sqn Execs. It got so bad he PVR'd and left the service over what was going on and still has an effect on him to this day.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
Someone raised the point around T1 - delete in 2029, replace with T2 and allow the flying training system to operate a jet that has a) high availability and b) representative of 5th Gen trg needs.
In the same way that "Red Arrows" is just a nickname for the properly-styled Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team, so "Battle of Britain Memorial Flight" is also a misnomer; its actual title is just "Royal Air Force Memorial Flight" (check out the Unit's emblem).
I'd agree with most of the sentiments expressed here regarding the apparent relevance of the Red Arrows. The problem with our collective viewpoint however is that, as most of the posters here comprise Roger Bacon's Total Aviation Persons, we are probably the least representative panel to discern its perception by the person on the Clapham omnibus.
The Reds do at least serve a useful purpose for all attendees at air shows; as a finale, they ensure that Joe Public is obliged to sit through the boring Chinook, Typhoon and F-35 displays in order to enjoy the pretty smoke at the end. And whilst they stand transfixed, the rest of us can make a sharp dash for the exits.
I'd agree with most of the sentiments expressed here regarding the apparent relevance of the Red Arrows. The problem with our collective viewpoint however is that, as most of the posters here comprise Roger Bacon's Total Aviation Persons, we are probably the least representative panel to discern its perception by the person on the Clapham omnibus.
The Reds do at least serve a useful purpose for all attendees at air shows; as a finale, they ensure that Joe Public is obliged to sit through the boring Chinook, Typhoon and F-35 displays in order to enjoy the pretty smoke at the end. And whilst they stand transfixed, the rest of us can make a sharp dash for the exits.
The following users liked this post:
According to the RAF website the Red Arrows “…is the public face of the service. They assist in recruiting to the Armed Forces, act as ambassadors for the United Kingdom at home and overseas and promote the best of British.”
In contrast - Predatory sexual behaviour, a toxic ego culture and misplaced elitism in the modern world. That is what the Reds now signifies to me whatever is done to try and rehabilitate them in the public eye. They are pretty when they zoom past Buckingham Palace but so is a Typhoon or Spitfire. And that’s before we even get into the cost, the decline of airshows, and the modern day relevance of an ancient jet showcasing 21st Century Industry and Air Force. They have had their day. Time for them to go.
I’d personally build a future model around a single organisation centred on BBMF linking heritage to future. Add a few heritage jets. The current types can still be managed within their respective structures.
In contrast - Predatory sexual behaviour, a toxic ego culture and misplaced elitism in the modern world. That is what the Reds now signifies to me whatever is done to try and rehabilitate them in the public eye. They are pretty when they zoom past Buckingham Palace but so is a Typhoon or Spitfire. And that’s before we even get into the cost, the decline of airshows, and the modern day relevance of an ancient jet showcasing 21st Century Industry and Air Force. They have had their day. Time for them to go.
I’d personally build a future model around a single organisation centred on BBMF linking heritage to future. Add a few heritage jets. The current types can still be managed within their respective structures.
The following users liked this post:
Reds changed over to Hawk in late '79, right after last displays on Gnat at end of '79 season, so pretty much just the 12 months after Gnat was retired from FTS.
The following users liked this post: