Team players, often referred to as mates, look out for each other in every single thing that life throws at them what ever the cost, it's only lifes chisellers that don't get that :=

You have no idea what this single incident has done to the (once quite envied) image of the RAF amongst your Asian contemporaries. And you have even less idea how much your, 'we need to drink to de-stress' culture is seen as further evidence of your moral bankruptcy.

I strongly suspect that Mr C Hinecap has more idea about how to be a team player in a conflict than 99% of you posting on here. I'd have him on my team in a heartbeat. And I'd trust him 100%.

Romeo how soon after the pissup were they flying ? I don't go anywhere my horse and cart until I at least stop smelling of it.

The booze-not the horse :bored:

Don't know Phil, but it's irrelevant. They may have been pissed and let themselves down and (maybe)tarnished the image of the RAF to the likes of H Jane, but they did not go flying. They were not a danger to anyone but themseves. The op programme was (probably) not affected and I'm sure they had to contend with more than sore heads in the morning. All in all a matter which should have been handled quietly in house and the press told the bare minimum, because the next day something far more important would happen ( has Ms Cole been sacked from the USA talent show because of her Geordie accent) and this incident would be forgotten. At least that's how it used to be when we had an Air Force. So on that Meldrew grump I'll retire to bed with a nice bottle of Fleurie.

Why did they not go flying ?

Cheryl who ?:vbored:

Because they couldn't get up the ladder. I always found flying not a problem after a skinfull, but those ladders to the cockpit were damn tricky.

Typhoon Two
 

Wot a shambles, yet again the minority ruin it for th majority but I have to say that in the tri-service arena yet again some on the FJ force have undermined the light blue effort. Hotels, rates, pools and grogg when the 'in town' spotlight is on further cuts pan defence and now that the cost of acommodation and subsistence is now greater than the original costs of originally deploying tents and RLS we as a service look like pretentious arses.

HAving had some very meaty OOA's on the ground I know we all cope with stress in different ways, alcohol, affairs or violence so I suppose alcohol is the best of the worst, what I cant get my head around is no-one looked after them, told them to stop or got a grip till it was too late. Are the TP force such a bunch of singleminded self centered boys or is this a symptom of single seat ops.

The MAA are aready looking at bringing in random alcohol testing and this may just be meat to the grinder. I have no sympathy 1021 them and send a strong message to all.

SLC

I endorse what you say and I would love to see the expression on Dir MAA's face if a positive blood-alcohol test was found on ops (or anywhere else, for that matter). Darth Vader would have nothing on Timo.

Attitudes have become a lot more grown-up over the last decade. I recall p!ssed SH aircrew in Macedonia and Kosovo falling off stools in morning briefings and the rather embarrasing international incident of two F3 guys getting very p!ssed in Bahrain on a 'breather run' from PSAB. Contrast that with the behaviour of most aircrew and ground personnel in Bastion and KAF - mostly happy, getting on with the job in the near-complete absence of alcohol.

Mr Chinecap knows what he's talking about; who would tolerate a pissed squaddie on patrol or an armourer who's a bit 'tired and emotional' when uploading and fusing ordnance.

The response is all about the risk. But was the risk perceived or real - was the threshold for risk greater or lesser than the capacity at the time?

If a booze ban was subsequently 'slapped' on the troops, then it would suggest there wasn't a ban in place. If they got so drunk that what they did would have attracted similar wrath in the UK, then fine - they are both adults and they can have no grumbles. If they were scheduled to fly, then again - fine.. they deserve nothing else and I am sure they would be the first to appreciate that. But lets strip away the feeding frenzy from the facts. In the absence of the facts (and I do not have the facts or the truth - only what the Sun says), if the response is nothing more than an over reacting, media driven backside covering exercise, then its a sad day.

I'm non-aircrew & therefore not terribly qualified (or seeking) to pass any kind of judgement here, but I'm a bit confused:

Were these gentlemen due to fly next day?
Were they on standby to fly next day?
Were they due to attend work at all next day?
Were they on stand-down/rest next day?

These are not facetious questions; I'm just trying to get the picture here.

HB

Regardless of when they were due to fly, being caught four sheets to the wind, in a public place by the local plod, is probably what sealed their fate.

HB, all good valid questions and the answers to which would obviously affect how the issue was dealt with. I doubt you will get any valid answers here.

What would however be incontestable was the nature of the event and their rescue by the Italian police. Had this occured in Lincoln High Street then it would have been dealt with in exactly the same way and the answers to your questions would have had exactly the same bearing on the matter.

Drinking unwisely has occurred before and will occur again. That the media will pick up on it again is also a certainty.

I'm sure they will reflect ruefully on that, and will learn from it. But I hope they get treated wisely and no differently than the hundreds of aircrew and groundcrew who have got hammered in similar circumstances before them. I hope that they get a measure of protection from the RAF too, and if there was no threat to ops or flight safety, then that point is hammered home.

It possibly won't reflect too well on personal judgement, but I hope their professional abilities remain appropriately intact. A said earlier, their greatest crime could possibly have been one of getting caught. I certainly am the last person to cluck at anyone getting hammered overseas when younger..

PN, I wholeheartedly agree. Faux pas of this calibre, regardless of peripheral circumstances, should be confined to on-base limits, for the good of all.

I am as guilty as many of excesses in this regard (in my younger days...), but it is clear that such antics in public will not wash any more, particularly given the propensity of the trash press to feed upon same.

HB

If the Military are meant to reflect society, then that is what we have here. Every weekend in the UK, civilians get drunk, fall over and cause hassle for police. It amazes me that some think the Military are meant to be some group that have higher standards than anyone else. The fact is they do not, no more than MPs, Police, Judges, footballers - need I go on!

As has been said before, this is something that should have been dealt with internally unless of course they had caused damage or impacted others when the local law might be involved. I do remember a Harrier Squadron being sent home once - and for all those who think only aircrew are responsible for the misdemeanours of the RAF, have a good look around you.

Team players wouldn't put their mates in that awkward position in the first place. I've covered guys for many things in many parts of the world, but I expect a grown up to know whether they are a two pint screamer or a three pint screamer.

GN, I had considered posting the following before but held back:

It has been an official view that as far as some papers are concerned: MOD=bad: Troops (RAF)=good.

This can be modified to read:

Brass=bad: Troops (squadies etc)=good.

In otherwords the higher up the ladder the greater you are in the spotlight whereas the lower down you are downtrodden working classes.

As I said before, their job is to sell papers and who buys their papers? The highest 'scandal' which was either in the Mirror or the new Sun concerned Lord Louis Mountbatten.

Each year he would fly to Canada for a conference named the Eagle River Conference. It was IIRC classified and he used to fly to Goose Bay in a Vulcan. What we didn't know, before it was published in the red tops, was that this was a salmon fishing expedition with a number of US military chiefs as Mountbatten was a 5* CDS.

It all came to light when the wife of an airman (cpl IIRC), whose job was to role equip the Vulcan, blew the whistle. Mountbatten cancelled the trip and pretended it was a false story. He made his displeasure known and I think the stn cdr's career came to a sudden stop.

Of course when squaddies indulge in naked bar that sells papers too.

I heard that the two invoved were the Squadron CO and 2IC - if that is true then the answers to your questions are self-evident.

This incident also needs to be judged against the backdrop of the media campaign by the RAF prior to this incident. There had been a number of leaks to the press describing how due to defence cutbacks we did not have enough Typhoon pilots, that only eight were current for ground-attack operations, and that there weren't enough spares to maintain operations. It will be a lot harder now for the RAF to place stories in the media about the effect of defence cuts on Typhoon operations.

I think the fact is people expect a higher standard from the military because they not only represent an entire country, but because they have been given the power to take/protect life. Especially considering aircrew that have such huge potential for destruction, the thought that these men dont live to higher standards is a very worrying thought...

...just imagining if the pilots that bombed Hiroshima were drunk or high on drugs.... "are we at the right spot?" "yeah i'm *hic* positive..." :ooh:

Gee, stuck at Gp Capt. Bummer.

WW, indeed.

I was reflecting on "conduct unbecoming . . ." and thinking back to those I knew who had done the correct thing: at least two ACM, one AVM, two Air Cdre, but sqn ldrs of whom I knew 2-3 were pushed rather than biting the bullet.

Clearly what happens next is entirely dependent on one's future pension.

PS, and two ACM that didn't (3 maybe).

Were these gentlemen due to fly next day?

If they were, I know of Air Forces where if they were on active service they'd have been shot. After due process of course.


If they were, ditto the above.

Were they due to attend work at all next day?

As I understand it, they were on active service. That's 'work', right?

Were they on stand-down/rest next day?

Ah, the Western concept of taking a break during active service. "Sorry, all this stuff for real on my MFD's has got too much for me, it's stressing me out and I'm having trouble sleeping. I need a few days on a beach somewhere. Or maybe some counselling." How quaint.

These are not facetious questions.

No, they're not facetious questions. They're very valid.

These guys were killing people - hopefully the right people - and destroying stuff - hopefully the stuff it was intended they destroy. Which is why it's almost unbelievable they reached the positions they did in the RAF. Presumably they had 'mates' who covered for them in the past. See where that attitude got them?

Eeh, what a fuss. Interesting to see the divide in opinion between the "they were blowing off steam and we've all done it" through to the "they are officers and gentlemen and should know better"
As with most good arguments both sides have an element of truth but I suspect that what really holds the key to their predicament is that which has taxed warriors since man first took up sticks against man. They got caught. Endex.

If a manager in almost any major industry were found drunk in the gutter he'd be tossed out out the company as a site safety risk. By "major industry" I mean real jobs like mining / engineering / chemicals / pharmaceuticals / electronics with safety-critical requirements.

There's more than a hint of schadenfreude about some of the comments in this thread.

Nevertheless, the hard word probably does need to go out about drinking to excess. Like many on here, I've seen some pretty poor examples set by senior officers when on deployed operations. Gulf War 1, in 'dry' Saudi Arabia, being a case in particular.

There was also an incident in Bahrain, when a crew was breathalysed by the military police when driving in to fly a mission during Op Southern Watch. The driver failed, so had to leave the car at the gate. Then they went flying......

Most of us like the odd sherbet, but FFS, there are times and places.

As for blanket bans being imposed on the otherwise innocent, who are capable of self-discipline, that's totally out of order.

Beagle

Unfortunately the reasoning behind it was probably along the lines of:-

"If officers cannot be trusted to act responsibly then obviously the other ranks, with their limited cognitive powers, cannot be trusted either."

After all the officers are the grown-ups and everyone else must be treated as a child right?

Can think of at least one poster who is going to choke on the inference here, personally I love the irony :ok:

I realise that the RAF hasn't got that much of a military ethos, but when I was in the Army, If 1 person screwed up, everyone else suffered as a consequence.

I believe the thinking behind it was to reduce the chances of screwing up, after all, it pays to be a winner. :ok:

Highly unlikely particularly for a first offence. The company would interview the individual to see if there was an alchohol dependancy issue or other issues. It is likely to re-assign the person to a task which can be monitored and isn't so critical or front line. It certainly wouldn't enhance the CV or career prospects though.

If one person screws up deal with them and leave the good blokes out of it! This "one person fouls up punish everbody" approach implies an unwillingness to sort a problem out and spoil everone's life to be sure of catching the culprit. Pathetic in a 21st century organisation, military or otherwise

Well, good for all you front end guys. Thread was about two crew that pushed the limit too far. I hope they get what was coming. As a past 'back end' crew, (ie cabin staff/ground crew), a lot of the previous posters have missed the point. Just about everyone has commented on the good/bad aspects of 'flight crew' getting themselves in this mess, (which, with a bit of honesty, would have ended in a bloody BIG bollocking), and no one has mentioned that there could be hundreds of passengers behind these guys depending on the usually, utmost pofessionialism of 99% of all you aircrew.

As an ex-crew chief I have been in a similar state and I even though I cannot justify it, ( I have submitted a near miss on my thoughts), I have had the benefit of going down the back and sleeping it off. I have had to rectify a kite with the mother of all hangovers and have got it sorted out but what if I had got my diagnosis wrong and what of the knock on effects?

I am not calling the kettle black but, as I have said, I had the additional benefit of sleeping it off and 99% of my crews were the perfect professionals. It is a shame that a few let the trade down.

I take it no one asked their wife to take the penalty, and that she has now blipped him in a fit of pique over a supposed mistress.

Errr, what jumpseater said, plus doesn't that rather depend on whether your hypothetical miscreant was on duty or on his/her own time?

Truck - not sure you meant it this way (surely not?) but you appear to be saying you serviced aircraft whilst badly incapacitated by drink, then go on to offer So, that'd be you then?

Outrage bus, all aboard, ding ding....

Dave,

I admit it, as I said, I brought it up in Air Clues 'I learnt from servicing from that'. I do not try to avoid it and there is NO justification for being in that state. I told my captain and went down the back and slept it off.

In these days of two man crews does a crewmember have that same choise?

I have been down route and seen members of other crews/aircraft types in far worst states and have asked myself the question. I let myself down that trip but learnt from it and I hope that other GEs that I have trained have also learnt from that lesson

I just hope these guys do the same!

Perhaps oorah and the sky god have a connection

Semper fi verticalis

Facts. They were not due to fly for over 24 hours. There was no dry or 2 can policy. There is just a lot of knee jerking. Press coverage is out of order esp as happened 6 weeks ago. Seems dodgy (?sp).

The worst feature of this event is that the senior officers involved acted in such a way that that the misdemeanors were eventually made public. If they had performed their duty well the miscreants would have been sorted and 'the good working order and discipline' of the service would have remained intact.

Having said that, what a pair of plonkers!

Was that because they were too pissed to stand up straight?

All real fighter pilots have been there! We know it happens!

To those that have never been fighter pilots " Up yours"

To those that treasure the memories, I salute you!

The rest can go to:mad:

Proof
 

Sorry
But this just proves what I have known for years that knuckleheads drink like girls, they do sit down to pee you know:E:ok:
Does this affect the 51 lads warm coccoa before bed:D
Seems I have missed my high horse that the most of you have found in the blunty stables of exercises and REMFs.
Charlie sends
from the tank!