Red Arrows to use only 7 aircraft in 2012
Discussion
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.
Unfortunately, the headline currently reads something like (and I paraphrase
) 'female Red Arrows Pilot takes a decision to fly a desk at taxpayer's expense, because the deaths of two comrades have bothered her a bit'.
I wonder what the Army's response would be if all the Regimental colleagues of the 6 soldiers killed in Afghanistan on Tuesday asked to be transferred back to the UK because they were afraid their fears of being attacked by the Taliban might affect their performance in the field?
Unfortunately, the headline currently reads something like (and I paraphrase
) 'female Red Arrows Pilot takes a decision to fly a desk at taxpayer's expense, because the deaths of two comrades have bothered her a bit'.I wonder what the Army's response would be if all the Regimental colleagues of the 6 soldiers killed in Afghanistan on Tuesday asked to be transferred back to the UK because they were afraid their fears of being attacked by the Taliban might affect their performance in the field?
Sam_68 said:
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!
What I think Sam fails to understand is that she, like all sailors/soldiers/airman and officers, is a RAF Officer first, Pilot second. That is the first thing they teach you at Cranwell. Just because her trade is not currently an option does not mean the RAF does not have another job for her to do. Heck, they could probably send her on FET patrols in Helmand if they saw fit.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!
The cost argument doesn't really work in the RAF either - not when countless pilots are chopped at later stages in their training or are reroled to rotary wing/multi engine because there are not enough places on Squadron. Yet it is clear that the RAF, by their own measures, have had more than their pound of flesh from her. Her training is no more being wasted than that of a pilot who left the service at their 12 year point.
Incidentally, her first preseason training in Crete was the same one where the synchro pair collided and fortunately escaped serious injury. So that's 3 incidents (involving 4 pilots) in about 18 months.
andymadmak said:
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.
...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.
^^^ This. Thank you for your post, which gets to the root of what I've been trying to say, without apparently antagonising anyone. ...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.
My concern is that it goes beyond training, too: the whole soft and cuddly H&S nanny culture that we have in civilian life (and especially the public sector) is rubbing off on the military in terms of individual expectations of tolerance to shortcomings and deficicencies and I am concerned that this decadence is gradually eroding our capability.
The reason I made reference to WW1 and the Battle of Britain in my original post was that our pilots (for the most part) held together under extraordinary, unimaginable strain and without that resilience (in the BoB particularly) we would have certainly lost.
Unfortunately, the RAF is now so small that we simply could not tolerate a significant loss of trained aircrew to stress/LMF if it ever came to a serious conflict, with an enemy whose air force had any sort of equivalence to our own. Yet we seem to be fostering a culture where the slightest stress meets a response of 'there, there, now... you go have a nice long rest and don't worry about it.'
I'm probably being overly pessimistic, though: I'm sure if we ever faced such a situation, our forces would bear up admirably (as the Army is doing under what must be horribly stressful conditions in Afghanistan at present).
Sam_68 said:
The reason I made reference to WW1 and the Battle of Britain in my original post was that our pilots (for the most part) held together under extraordinary, unimaginable strain and without that resilience (in the BoB particularly) we would have certainly lost.
From my limited reading on WWII I understand that there was a host of psychological problems exhibited in many aircrew (probably all after a certain time but some didn't last long enough for their psychological issues to develop). I would suggest your assertion is incorrect - perhaps you're aware of this and you're simply trying to ruffle feathers, I'm not sure.Have a read of this thread: http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/war-air/41116-mental-...
Sam_68 said:
Unfortunately, the RAF is now so small that we simply could not tolerate a significant loss of trained aircrew to stress/LMF if it ever came to a serious conflict, with an enemy whose air force had any sort of equivalence to our own. Yet we seem to be fostering a culture where the slightest stress meets a response of 'there, there, now... you go have a nice long rest and don't worry about it.'
I think that accepting and indeed supporting aircrew with psych issues with a view to getting them back in the air or into other useful positions is more cost effective than telling them to put up or shut up. It also has the benefit of showing the rest of the aircrew that your bosses (occasionally) give a s
t, which is good for a service which has been massively cut back and has pretty low morale.Sam_68 said:
andymadmak said:
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.
...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.
^^^ This. Thank you for your post, which gets to the root of what I've been trying to say, without apparently antagonising anyone. ...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.
My concern is that it goes beyond training, too: the whole soft and cuddly H&S nanny culture that we have in civilian life (and especially the public sector) is rubbing off on the military in terms of individual expectations of tolerance to shortcomings and deficicencies and I am concerned that this decadence is gradually eroding our capability.
The reason I made reference to WW1 and the Battle of Britain in my original post was that our pilots (for the most part) held together under extraordinary, unimaginable strain and without that resilience (in the BoB particularly) we would have certainly lost.
Unfortunately, the RAF is now so small that we simply could not tolerate a significant loss of trained aircrew to stress/LMF if it ever came to a serious conflict, with an enemy whose air force had any sort of equivalence to our own. Yet we seem to be fostering a culture where the slightest stress meets a response of 'there, there, now... you go have a nice long rest and don't worry about it.'
I'm probably being overly pessimistic, though: I'm sure if we ever faced such a situation, our forces would bear up admirably (as the Army is doing under what must be horribly stressful conditions in Afghanistan at present).
Sam_68 said:
And they want front-line female combat pilots?How long would she have lasted flying fighters in 1916 or 1940, I wonder?
edited to add, Nice touch there, LMF... even the RAF shrinks abandoned that term in the 1960's
Its a ladder you use to get out of a hole not a spade.
Edited by Semi hemi on Thursday 8th March 19:48
Unfortunately military service and psychological issues seem to go hand in hand to some extent. Incidences of mental health problems are much higher in ex-services personnel than the general population. If they can deal with that by addressing problems as they arise, rather than leaving people to just get on with it and deal with it alone when they return to civilian life, then that has to be a good thing. More Falklands veterans have died through suicide than those who were killed in action during the conflict. It's about time this type of thing was treated as seriously as any other injury and not just dismissed as political correctness or molly-coddling.
tank slapper said:
Unfortunately military service and psychological issues seem to go hand in hand to some extent.
I agree absolutely - killing people, seeing your comrades killed, and being so obviously exposed to the risk of death yourself is clearly going to cause pychological issues for a great many people - but I think you may be approaching the problem from the wrong direction.We should be concentrating on ensuring that personnel have sufficient mental resilience to be able to cope, by selection and training, not on fixing them after they've been broken.
...and we seem to have miserably failed in this particular instance, if such a (relatively) minor level of trauma has proved sufficient to unsettle an experienced and senior front-line officer to the point where she no longer feels capable of performing her duties.
I ought perhaps to apologise if my posts have seemed to attack Flight Lieutenant Stewart herself: she's a symptom, not the disease.
Sam_68 said:
We should be concentrating on ensuring that personnel have sufficient mental resilience to be able to cope, by selection and training, not on fixing them after they've been broken.
Not possible I'm afraid. While you can select for certain personality types, people are individuals. There is no way to determine who will be affected by what, and to what degree. That is why it is unfair to judge people on what they have experienced - who are you to say to someone "sorry, you aren't allowed to have a problem you haven't seen anything serious enough"? It's completely the wrong way to go about things.tank slapper said:
Not possible I'm afraid. While you can select for certain personality types, people are individuals. There is no way to determine who will be affected by what, and to what degree.
Hmm... not sure I agree with that. Firstly, I think you can determine who will be affected by what, to some extent.Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there are ways to condition people to build up their resilience.
I know that our military training attempts to do both things already, but I still think we'd be better concentrating our efforts more heavily here, on prevention, rather than relying so heavily on enhancing aftercare.
I thought that the original release about the female pilot stated that it was hoped that she would return to flying duties but it was felt it would be about 6 months or so before that happened, and that was too late to enable her to take place in the Red Arrow displays this year.
Incidentially they have said that there will be 9 aircraft for fly pasts this year so where are the two extra pilots coming from to fly the other 2?
Incidentially they have said that there will be 9 aircraft for fly pasts this year so where are the two extra pilots coming from to fly the other 2?
Ayahuasca said:
dr_gn said:
I was told that the ground ejection fatality was probably a procedural mistake rather than a mechanical fault.
It was both, a procedural issue followed by a mechanical fault.Edited: http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&...
Edited by eharding on Thursday 8th March 21:59
Mojocvh said:
Ayahuasca said:
dr_gn said:
I was told that the ground ejection fatality was probably a procedural mistake rather than a mechanical fault.
It was both, a procedural issue followed by a mechanical fault.Ayahuasca said:
Mojocvh said:
Ayahuasca said:
dr_gn said:
I was told that the ground ejection fatality was probably a procedural mistake rather than a mechanical fault.
It was both, a procedural issue followed by a mechanical fault.
It will be interesting to find how, after so many years service, someone found a new way to defeat the system.
Ayahuasca said:
dr_gn said:
I was told that the ground ejection fatality was probably a procedural mistake rather than a mechanical fault.
It was both, a procedural issue followed by a mechanical fault.http://www.martin-baker.com/news---events/Press-Re...
Ayahuasca said:
dr_gn said:
I was told that the ground ejection fatality was probably a procedural mistake rather than a mechanical fault.
It was both, a procedural issue followed by a mechanical fault.eharding said:
Martin Baker released a mandatory maintenance directive relating to the scissor shackle on relevant versions of their seats within a few days of the accident, but I don't recall that there was a formal link made in public with the incident (understandably, given the circumstances).
Edited: http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&...
That would appear to imply that the parachute would not deploy in certain circumstances once the seat was outside the aircraft which seems to ring bells.Edited: http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&...
Edited by eharding on Thursday 8th March 21:59
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff