dismissal revoked.
 

....

Well according to his barrister's chambers' website - he won his appeal last February .......

https://www.23es.com/news/mr-john-pr...lin-townshend/

LFH

......

The order for his dismissal from the service of the RAF was revoked.

Think so to.

Ridiculous state of affairs.

As a matter of interest, and without going into the specifics regarding this individual, what does the RAF do in a case like this, with a pilot who has made a pretty serious mistake/error of judgement, but is not dismissed from the service?

A period of retraining? Sim/CFS/QFI checkrides, and then back in the cockpit?
Posted on a ground tour?
Flying rubber dogs doo out of Hong Kong?

After all, there's been a lot of public money spent getting an individual to a squadron. Someone (many people), somewhere obviously thought that such an individual has what it takes to operate on the front line.

I think he may have sold the offending item, to be honest.

Legalese - allowed to appeal means you can appeal, Appeal allowed means your appeal has been upheld.

Why? Please explain.

"Think so too​​​​​​"

I read it as saying he should not have been dismissed.

Where it is a matter of opinion - a pilot grounded but overreacting by his Air ship - full reinstatement and possibly a sunshine benefit in further career (Just my thoughts)

Where an officer was found not guilty but everyone knew he was probably guilty or had been the victim as a result of provocation, it is quietly suggested that an application to immediate PVR would be accepted. For the individual this has the advantage of returning to civvy street with not a stain on his character and pension etc preserved. (I know two).

He was/Is being punished for a lack of leadership and supervision at the immediate higher level.

No integrity left anymore then?

Having followed this saga, with interest from day one, I am now drawn to the conclusion that the result is simply the way that things are nowadays.

The current fad of no blame and no shame, no matter what, seems to extend to the obviously guilty as well as those having committed a serious but honest mistake.

As ever, the punishable offence is not the endangering of the aircraft and people on board, but the lack of integrity (or "telling lies", as it was called when I was serving) that followed.

I no longer serve in the Royal Air Force, and I have no say in how it is run, despite contributing through taxation, to the costs of the service. However, I am saddened to see that the current Royal Air Force has been reduced to a state where this situation can be allowed to define the standard of acceptable behaviour of Commissioned Officers.

I remain hopeful that someone will see sense and right this injustice, but I am not holding my breath.

Regardless of how much money has been invested in this man, he's a cad and a bounder, as they used to say, and has no place serving in a blue suit.

I say this not because he used a camera on the flight deck, but because he clearly lacked the moral fibre to say, right away, that he had done so, and tried to apportion the blame elsewhere.

When we have a situation, as clear cut as this, what hope is there for dealing in a fair and honourable way with genuinely bad people? Where is the incentive to do the right thing, when doing the wrong thing has no real lasting consequence?

The original decision to dismiss him from the service, was in my view, entirely correct, but when the established authority makes a decision to overturn that sentence, it is incumbent on us all to accept that.

In a word, tragic.

In two words, fuc tup.

Absolutely, AP. A handheld camera on the flightdeck is a loose article and quickly becomes FOD. PIC should have more sense and lead by example.

Airpolice - all agreed. As a 20-year ex-aircrew, and also court-martial board member a few times, I believe you have summed up the case accurately. I think your two words are entirely apposite - fuc tup it is.

In complete contrast - and also as a bit of thread diversion - I was in the local tonight when a young man came in, smartly turned out in camo uniform. He was an LAC from that same big secret Oxfordshire RAF station, and he was bearing a set of bagpipes. An ill wind that nobody blows good, I thought. But he was collecting for the RAF Benevolent Fund, and he did a magnificent job, to much acclaim all round. He tells me he's collected more than a hundred grand for service charities doing this - and that he hopes to become a corporal next year. I was deeply impressed by his commitment, and I felt obliged to remark - trying hard not to sound condescending - that he was behaving in the very best traditions of the service.

Faith restored.

airsound

He should have put his hands up right away, and it would have been a learning point.

The dismissal is deserved for the lack of integrity after the event, not for the simple error.

To remove him from flying duty is a way to punish the lack of captaincy skills of an aviator. To dismiss him from the service is a way to punish his lack of respect for his fellow servicemen, and the culture that he was supposed to be part of.

ap:-
Can I just remind you and others that he was found not guilty of the three charges relating to perjury and making false record? Now you may well know different, but since when did Military Law become mob law? The discussion since has been about the severity of the sentence passed and to why that should be. Now we find that he has successfully appealed and is no longer dismissed the Service. Let's just accept due process and put the nooses away shall we?

ATG :-
Why do you ask that? I've taken cameras onto flight decks, both civil and military. Nobody made me, and why should I want to lie about it? He was charged with not having admitted that he had jammed the controls with his camera by motoring his seat forward. He was found not guilty of that because he hadn't known that he had. As far as I know he was not charged with having taken the camera with him to the flight deck, because as far as I know that is not an offence. No doubt you are about to tell us different...

The tragedy in all this is that there would appear to have been a design fault in the pinch point between control stick and arm rest in which anything could have jammed. Has this been mitigated, or is it now simply an offence to allow this known hole to align with all the waiting other holes?