Red Arrows to use only 7 aircraft in 2012

[Munter]

dr_gn said:

Sam_68 said:

dr_gn said:

I the headline had been something like:

"Inquiry reveals female Red Arrows pilot responsible for killing 50 people at airshow had been denied transfer"

Would your posts have been any different?

Yes, of course. So would they have been if the headline had been something like 'female Red Arrows pilot discharged from service on mental health grounds'; I would have had a great deal more sympathy.

If you read between the PR lines, isn't that effectively what's happened?

That's what I'm reading. But it appears Sam is taking the way a headline is written to influence his opinion on the matter! A headline written to make you read the story, and not written to represent the facts.

It's sad that people are now unable to assess a story in the press and simply just read the headlines!

[Sam_68]

dr_gn said:

Sam_68 said:

Yes, of course. So would they have been if the headline had been something like 'female Red Arrows pilot discharged from service on mental health grounds'; I would have had a great deal more sympathy.

If you read between the PR lines, isn't that effectively what's happened?

No, 'moved to a ground role' does not equate to 'discharged from service on health grounds'. She's retained her full rank and salary, as far as we are aware?

Hell, even in the civilian private sector, if she was incapable of doing her job for mental health reasons, she'd be on long-term sick receiving statutory sick pay, not drawing her full salary to count paperclips.

[Eric Mc]

Sam_68 said:

Eric Mc said:

You are doing an awful lot of wondering.

I am, and nobody seems willing to offer any answers for me.

Because they are unsanswerable.

As in your previous possts on other threads, you keep battering away accusing people of not answering your points when your points, by and large, do not warrant an answer.

Do you want her sacked?

[Sam_68]

Eric Mc said:

Do you want her sacked?

It's not my call, of course, but as I've already stated, if shes unfit to do the job she's been trained and paid for, I think she should be discharged on health grounds... and if she's fit to do the job, she should do it.

[Eric Mc]

Sam_68 said:

Eric Mc said:

Do you want her sacked?

It's not my call, of course, but as I've already stated, if shes unfit to do the job she's been trained and paid for, I think she should be discharged on health grounds... and if she's fit to do the job, she should do it.

You really are a pleasant chap.

[dr_gn]

Sam_68 said:

Eric Mc said:

Do you want her sacked?

It's not my call, of course, but as I've already stated, if shes unfit to do the job she's been trained and paid for, I think she should be discharged on health grounds... and if she's fit to do the job, she should do it.

And what if she's been moved to a ground based role for which she is qualified, which happens to have equivalent (or higher) rank and salary?

Countering what-if's with what-ifs I know. We don't even know if she is on the same salary or rank.

[Sam_68]

Eric Mc said:

You really are a pleasant chap.

Welcome to reality... it's certainly the way my company, and every other private sector company I have worked for, would function.

If, as an Architect, I lost my vision, do you think I should be maintained by my employer on full salary to do some sinecure job?

Personally, I'd expect my contract to be terminated and to have to either find another job that was within my capabilities, or else live on DLA (or whatever it's called this week). If the loss of vision was temporary, I'd expect to be on sick leave, being paid statutory sick pay, until I was fit to return to work.

[Sam_68]

dr_gn said:

And what if she's been moved to a ground based role for which she is qualified, which happens to have equivalent (or higher) rank and salary?

That's more reasonable, but it still means that her (allegedy) £3 million worth of training as a combat pilot is being wasted and unless the job was vacant and actively seeking an applicant,it still smacks of 'sinecure'.

Of course, plenty of aircrew get promoted to desk jobs when their experience begins to mean that they are more valuable in a staff role, but I would hope that it's fairly unusual to base selection for promotion on their inability to do their current job!

There's the old joke that people are promoted to the level of their incompetence, but I hope it's not true!

[Eric Mc]

This lady is probably eminently qualified to do lots of things within the RAF and it would more than likely be a woeful waste of taxpayer's money to just turf her out because she has asked not to fly in the Red Arrows for the time being.

Sorry Sam, I find your posts so offensive that I will not be replying to them in future.
You seem to just want to argue for argument's sake and nothing anybody says causes you to rethink your original position or even ameliorate your views in any way.

Debating with you is simply not much fun.

[dr_gn]

Sam_68 said:

dr_gn said:

And what if she's been moved to a ground based role for which she is qualified, which happens to have equivalent (or higher) rank and salary?

That's more reasonable, but it still means that her (allegedy) £3 million worth of training as a combat pilot is being wasted and unless the job was vacant and actively seeking an applicant,it still smacks of 'sinecure'.

Of course, plenty of aircrew get promoted to desk jobs when their experience begins to mean that they are more valuable in a staff role, but I would hope that it's fairly unusual to base selection for promotion on their inability to do their current job!

There's the old joke that people are promoted to the level of their incompetence, but I hope it's not true!

Im sure I'll be corrected - again - by Ms. G15, but I'm pretty confident that the minimum service requirement for an RAF pilot will be less than the 14 years she's already served. So as I said, you can't complain about her not having fullfilled her role and justified her training costs - it simply makes no sense to argue that.

I agree it's a bit of a PR fk up, but I can't see whay she should pay with her job after already risking her life for her country. And even I can see that flying in a combat situation in real life is not going to be *quite* as safe as playing a video game, whether your opponents are armed with rocks or rockets...

[andymadmak]

Eric Mc said:

This lady is probably eminently qualified to do lots of things within the RAF and it would more than likely be a woeful waste of taxpayer's money to just turf her out because she has asked not to fly in the Red Arrows for the time being.

Sorry Sam, I find your posts so offensive that I will not be replying to them in future.
You seem to just want to argue for argument's sake and nothing anybody says causes you to rethink your original position or even ameliorate your views in any way.

Debating with you is simply not much fun.

I've been reading this thread very carefully. Whilst I understand the concerns and hostility towards the way Sam has expressed some of his opinions, there is nevertheless an issue at the centre of this that should be able to be discussed in a sensible manner.
As I see it, the question is not one of Male vs Female pilots, but one of how the modern day RAF selects and trains its aircrew. I am sure that all the Reds were deeply affected by the loss of their comrades, but it is interesting that only one has felt the need to stand down as a result. I doubt it has anything to do with her gender, and more to do with the pilots ability (or lack thereof) to deal with the emotions stirred up by the losses. That being the case, and given the cost to the taxpayer of training a fast jet pilot these days, are there not some tests that all prospective pilots could be subjected to at an early stage that would identify those (of both genders) who might be affected so badly in the event of conflict or even similar accidents? It seems wrong to spend the money to train pilots who, whilst exhibiting exemplary skill in their handling of an aircraft in peacetime, would be unable to cope with the emotional pressures of conflict/accidents that lead to the loss of his/her comrades. It's been 32 years since I did my basic flight training with the UAS, so I cannot remember all the interviews I did prior to being selected, but I don't think I sat any kind of psychological assessment beyond being interrogated by a couple of officers on my understanding of the workings of the NIMROD's radar system! Is there a test these days? If not, should the RAF have one? Would it work?

[egor110]

I think what we've established is sam's a billy bullst desk jockey.
That pilots already risked her life fighting for this country, she has nothing to prove to you.

[andymadmak]

egor110 said:

I think what we've established is sam's a billy bullst desk jockey.
That pilots already risked her life fighting for this country, she has nothing to prove to you.

Um, if that's directed at me, then I think you should wind your neck in a bit. I asked a reasonable question. (politely!)

[egor110]

Have another read, it clearly says sam.

Edited by egor110 on Thursday 8th March 14:16

[Ian Lancs]

andymadmak said:

Eric Mc said:

This lady is probably eminently qualified to do lots of things within the RAF and it would more than likely be a woeful waste of taxpayer's money to just turf her out because she has asked not to fly in the Red Arrows for the time being.

Sorry Sam, I find your posts so offensive that I will not be replying to them in future.
You seem to just want to argue for argument's sake and nothing anybody says causes you to rethink your original position or even ameliorate your views in any way.

Debating with you is simply not much fun.

I've been reading this thread very carefully. Whilst I understand the concerns and hostility towards the way Sam has expressed some of his opinions, there is nevertheless an issue at the centre of this that should be able to be discussed in a sensible manner.
As I see it, the question is not one of Male vs Female pilots, but one of how the modern day RAF selects and trains its aircrew. I am sure that all the Reds were deeply affected by the loss of their comrades, but it is interesting that only one has felt the need to stand down as a result. I doubt it has anything to do with her gender, and more to do with the pilots ability (or lack thereof) to deal with the emotions stirred up by the losses. That being the case, and given the cost to the taxpayer of training a fast jet pilot these days, are there not some tests that all prospective pilots could be subjected to at an early stage that would identify those (of both genders) who might be affected so badly in the event of conflict or even similar accidents? It seems wrong to spend the money to train pilots who, whilst exhibiting exemplary skill in their handling of an aircraft in peacetime, would be unable to cope with the emotional pressures of conflict/accidents that lead to the loss of his/her comrades. It's been 32 years since I did my basic flight training with the UAS, so I cannot remember all the interviews I did prior to being selected, but I don't think I sat any kind of psychological assessment beyond being interrogated by a couple of officers on my understanding of the workings of the NIMROD's radar system! Is there a test these days? If not, should the RAF have one? Would it work?

There are tests to assess suitability, and she passed them - hence the opportunity to become a QFI and perform operational tours over Iraq.

[andymadmak]

As you were then!

[Prawo Jazdy]

Sam_68 said:

Prawo Jazdy said:

Sam_68 said:

I claim no expertise whatsoever in military flying and none and never.

Yet...

Sam_68 said:

but lets not also forget that much of our Air Force's combat flying in fast jets is in situations that are little more than a very expensive video game...

Ok, I guess it's fair that I justify that a bit, for those who are unable to make the mental link themselves (though I note you carefully edited off the bit of my post where I'd done that already ):

Look at the statistics for British and German losses during the World War II: both sides took heavy losses, because both sides were reasonably well matched.

Now look at the statistics for Coalition and Iraqi casulaties in the Gulf war. True, you won't find that many Iraqi losses in the air, but that's 'cos we'd mainly wiped them out on the ground before we got there. UK losses - particularly those to enemy action as opposed to pilot error, equipment failure and friendly fire - were fairly trivial, all things considered.

My problem was saying you don't know much about something, and then saying the job of fast jet crew is basically a posh video game. I don't care how much better your chances are against certain opponents, it looks like a bloody hard job to me even if no one is shooting at you.

[andymadmak]

Ian Lancs said:

There are tests to assess suitability, and she passed them - hence the opportunity to become a QFI and perform operational tours over Iraq.

OK, well, if the RAF are doing all they can to ensure selection of the best and most resilient then that's all that can be done I suppose. Whilst there is no "Maverick and Gooseman" style ending for this story, I do hope the pilot in this case is able to find a new path in her career that allows her to recover her confidence. It must be awful to have to give up something that you love, and which represents the very top of the ladder so to speak in terms of recognition of ones skill. It cannot have been easy for her to come forward with this decision. I commend her candour and thank her for her service.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

[Yertis]

andymadmak said:

I don't think I sat any kind of psychological assessment beyond being interrogated by a couple of officers on my understanding of the workings of the NIMROD's radar system! Is there a test these days? If not, should the RAF have one? Would it work?

I was wondering that too. When I was at OASC the interview board asked me if I'd mind dropping a nuclear weapon, did I have a girlfriend, and that was about it.

[fatboy69]

Without wishing to get involved in the arguments on here all i would like to add is that, in my opinion, the lady concerned has been very brave to ask to be moved from 'active flying' with the Arrows.

It must have taken a large amount of courage to admit to her CO that she couldnt face flying knowing that she would probably be lambasted for her perceived lack of courage.

From my perspective - which is a total lack of knowing anything about her, flying, pressures of the job etc etc - i would rather that she admit to her 'problems/fears/concerns', whatever they may be, rather than continue to fly with the Arrows, go to a display, loose concentration for a split second & end up causing carnage & mayhem if her plane came down.

Can you imagine the crap that both she & the RAF would get if ever that happened?

Therefore i think that it is the best decision & safest for all concerned - & her welfare should be paramount - that she leave the Red Arrows.

It is very sad that she has taken this decision however i think that she should be commended for her honesty.