RAF Regiment in RAF News
 

Just throwing my eyes over the letters page in RAF News, can anyone tell me what was said in the previous issue that ignited fuming letters from the lads in the Regiment?

Alex, this forum is about Military Aircrew. The RAF Regt., fine organisation though it is (my brother was a Rock for 17 years), is not Military Aircrew. There are rather too many tangential topics here, and we are in danger of alienating our core, aircrew, audience. May I suggest you direct your query to e-Goat or (possibly) AARSE.

Scroggs

Forum Description:

A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.

Perhaps we should have the description changed as from where I'm standing, the RAF Regt fit the above criteria.

Oi Scroggs

.... up to a point Lord Copper...

....Force Protection and security of deployed operating bases? Doesn't that count??

'kin hell Scroggs! Can tell you left HM Forces a few years ago. I think you're being a tad harsh to Alex - the RAF Regt are, IMHO, an integral part of (RAF) air power, which in turn is of interest to (RAF) military aircrew.

To use your reasoning why is there a thread about a USAF doctor getting 50 years for rape. Military yes, but not aircrew.

Edited to add:

The original letter on 2 Feb came from an RAF Policeman who felt that the RAF Regt wasn't 'the only line of defence for aircraft on the ground'.

He was, obviously, quite right, because without the barrier at the main gate being in the down position who knows who could drive in ....:E

Do JPAC come under the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground?

OK, chaps! You'll note, before this discussion goes any further, that I haven't edited, moved, locked or otherwise played with this thread. I anticipated that my comment might cause some reaction, and I'm happy to argue the point.

You might remember Pprune Towers' intervention a few weeks ago, when the number of 'copy'n'pasted' political-issue threads was becoming something of an epidemic, and it was mentioned that we'd like the Military Aircrew forum to regain its focus on Military Aviation. My point is simply to provoke further discussion as to how focussed this should be.

Patently, the fact that a certain pilot wants to, say, buy a particular type of car is of no relevence to this forum, even though he or she is 'Military Aircrew'. The subject is the car, not pilots, so it gets binned. Equally, the fact that some USAF officer has been convicted of rape is not about Military Aviation, it is about the civil offence of rape and the civil justice treatment of that crime - not relevent here.

Letters in the RAF News about the RAF Regt? Well, you tell me. Where is the relevence to Military Aviation, other than the tangential and circumstantial one that the RAF Regt's role is airfield defence? I don't see it, myself.

Scroggs

Scroggs,
It is my duty as aircrew but more as a SNCO to be aware of, sympathetic to and at least slightly interested in the roles played by those who have chosen a non-flying career but who's contribution is so vital to the success of those of us who do leave the ground.
Personally I feel showing a little mutual respect and listening to the often-ignored gripes of the ground trades is the least we can do to show our appreciation of the work they do, and as such I have no problem with Rocks writing to RAF News, nor with further comment appearing on any aviation website.
I agree with your sentiment regarding civil matters where the only link is an individual's occupation, but in the case of Rocks v Plods it's an issue that IS relevant to military flyers since it may eventually have a mild knock-on effect at an airfield when it starts to emerge that Police Flight and Regt Section aren't talking. Mild I grant you but ignore it at your peril. At an OOA base where Rocks and Plods work more closely, it could start to be a real problem.
If our FP chaps suddenly showed signs of being totally unmotivated and thoroughly pi$$ed off, I'd want to know why so having even a slight insight in to their world is no bad thing.
To dimiss the RAF Regt or any other ground trade as not worthy of comment based purely on the fact they never physically touch an aircraft is plain arrogance with a dash of ignorance.

To commute or not to commute: very military aviationish!

CG

I agree - and the one about Age Discrimination a few months back!

I missed the two threads referred to above. You chaps do realise you can report threads that are inappropriate (or in any other way unacceptable), do you not? The Mods can't be expected to read everything that appears on these pages; we have jobs, wives/girlfriends, kids, houses, etc all demanding our attention as well!
There was no insult to the RAF Regt stated or implied in my post. Any such inference you may have taken is mistaken. Nor is there any statement in the original post what the topic was that caused so much angst in the RAF News. However, your suggestion that it was some RAFP/RAF Regt issue increases my feeling that it is not relevent to this forum.
I entirely applaud your empathatic approach to your non-flying colleagues and subordinates, but Pprune has no remit to be an unofficial RAF management tool. This forum is about military aviation. I have seen nothing yet that justifies the original post's inclusion here.

Scroggs

scroggs,

I am slightly bemused by your attitude and the content of your posts given the clear description written at the top of this forum.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more your tone and lack of understanding of the current RAF and expeditionary ops irritates me.

If you are indeed a moderator, perhaps you should remove all after the first comma in the forum description and replace it with a full stop; I could then see your point, and would close my account never to return.

Until that day happens, I, like many others in the RAF who are not aircrew, will continue to post and reply to topics that are not directly related to the actual mechanics of flying. They are however related to Military Aviation.

Neither I nor any other mod has said that this forum is restricted to Military Aircrew (despite its title), though the demand for that to be so is ever there from the more puritanical of your aircrew colleagues! However, it is here for the discussion of items directly pertinent to military aviation. Inevitably, the line between what is and what isn't relevent is blurred, and occasionally the focus of this forum strays beyond its declared (by Pprune and its owners) remit. Often, as in any of our forums, those threads that don't fit within that remit are either moved or, if there's no obvious Pprune forum for the topic, it is closed. On rare occasions, perhaps because of legal or taste concerns, the topic will be removed.

It is not the intention that this forum should be a discussion area for all things military; we run the risk of alienating the core readership of this forum, who are military aircrew. It's not enough to say that all military subjects necessarily concern aircrew because some individual who works on aircraft/cooks meals/guards the gate might be distracted by his concerns and thus affect flight safety; that is simply an argument for having no boundaries whatsoever. Without boundaries there is no focus, and without focus the forum has no useful function beyond being a virtual crewroom. That is not our intention for this place.

However, as you can see, the topic is open for discussion - so long as it stays on-topic, and remains free from insult, abuse and snide sarcasm.

Scroggs

Just to throw in a penny or two not having read the article, but OC 904 EAW said that the Khandahar Force protection moved inside the wire because things got too hot outside. The RAF Regt arrived and commenced offensive patrolling out to 5 clicks.

The incidence of indirect fire rockets dropped for every night to 28 days at one time.

Come on Scroggs!!

You might just have put the cat amongst the pigeons with this one.

And by the way, quote - "....and remains free from insult, abuse and snide sarcasm"

Some threads seem to be full of this! Go check.

...and I'm even older than you.

Ahh, it becomes slightly clearer.
Well all I can say is that on current ops, no support/FP = no Military Aviation, but I suppose you and your core audience could still talk about it, on PPRune.
Methinks alienation works in more than one direction.

Back to the RAF News...
 

Just opened the latest edition and I have a funny feeling that it may rather annoy any personnel who are, or have recently been, delayed in theatre due to AT issues.

There is a rather lovely picture of a meet & greet onboard one of our C17s where people are having a polite glass of mineral water with a few members of the Royal family. Now, if we could honestly tell the guys out in theatre that this meet & greet did not require the C17 in question to be cleaned from top to bottom then fine, not a snag however, I rather suspect that it was kept on the ground for longer than need be when, quite frankly, the drinks could have been held in the mess.

This is in no way a slur on the AT guys, I know how hard you guys work however, it strikes me as a bad PR hit as far as the army goes.

Yeah, and fear leads to anger, anger leads to hatred, hatred leads to the Dark Side.:rolleyes:
Give us our forum back!

Not wishing to antagonise anyone, just wanted to add my two pence worth on this one.

From what I've seen on other forums (e-goat, arsse etc) Gunners seem to get an awful lot of stick from not only Army/RM colleagues but also from colleagues in the RAF.

Call me immature but are we not all on the same team here, be it the RAF or all three services?! Given the increase in Exped ops, why not start to be grateful for the rocks who step outside of the wire all day, every day to maintain operational capability?


They aren't after all, that bad a bunch of guys!

Yes, I must admit I did have a wry smile at scroggs's suggestion of posting this thread on ARRSE.

It wouldn’t have been pleasant.:ouch: