Red Arrows to use only 7 aircraft in 2012
Discussion
300KPH said:
I cant actually say I ever saw her display either.
On the last two occasions I saw the Red Arrows she was not feeling well and the team had to run in an 8 ship formation.
I bet she was on her period (tongue in cheek!)On the last two occasions I saw the Red Arrows she was not feeling well and the team had to run in an 8 ship formation.
In all seriousness, I can't really see the team lasting much longer - cost etc. I do hope I'm wrong.
andyroo said:
300KPH said:
I cant actually say I ever saw her display either.
On the last two occasions I saw the Red Arrows she was not feeling well and the team had to run in an 8 ship formation.
I bet she was on her period (tongue in cheek!)On the last two occasions I saw the Red Arrows she was not feeling well and the team had to run in an 8 ship formation.
as my first thought was she had her period and therefore couldn't fly.eta I'm female and was more than pissed off with her not flying and there not being a reasonable explanation for it ( excepting the official line that she was ill).
Edited by condor on Sunday 4th March 23:47
condor said:
That was my thought when she first was off 'ill' at a major event I was at ( probably Goodwood FoS) - I remember she had only recently been appointed and when I heard she couldn't perform did a as my first thought was she had her period and therefore couldn't fly.
You could probably hear the squelch for miles as thousands of men rolled their eyes in unison at the announcement as my first thought was she had her period and therefore couldn't fly.
(again, tongue in cheek)Simpo Two said:
eharding said:
if you lose confidence in the aircraft, the safety systems and arguably the whole system, then the correct, professional course of action is to get out of the game.
Yes. But you wonder how she got that far.There's massive psychological stress in pushing the limits of very old, regularly u/s aircraft. You might say it just takes some longer than others to realise the risk they're taking!
Simpo Two said:
I suspect she was a token female in a misplaced gesture of political correctness that has proved a failure.
No.They would have had a female Red Arrows pilot years ago if they were into tokenism. I don't doubt there was pressure for a token female, but it was clearly resisted.
NDA said:
Perhaps she gave up because of the split second precision required to fly their incredible displays? Any anxiety could cause a major accident where such timing is critical.
Flying in front line duties, I suspect, does not call for the same levels of concentration.
While the aim is quite different, I think it's likely the concentration/workload required is massive in both cases. Obviously I don't know, as i've never flown something that can do 6 miles a minute, it's just the impression I get. Flying a light aircraft, while navigating and chatting on the R/T, can make you feel busy. Increase the speed by 4 or 5 times, maybe do it at 500 feet with a much more complex aircraft with weapons systems to sort out.... you get the picture Flying in front line duties, I suspect, does not call for the same levels of concentration.
Prawo Jazdy said:
NDA said:
Perhaps she gave up because of the split second precision required to fly their incredible displays? Any anxiety could cause a major accident where such timing is critical.
Flying in front line duties, I suspect, does not call for the same levels of concentration.
While the aim is quite different, I think it's likely the concentration/workload required is massive in both cases. Obviously I don't know, as i've never flown something that can do 6 miles a minute, it's just the impression I get. Flying a light aircraft, while navigating and chatting on the R/T, can make you feel busy. Increase the speed by 4 or 5 times, maybe do it at 500 feet with a much more complex aircraft with weapons systems to sort out.... you get the picture Flying in front line duties, I suspect, does not call for the same levels of concentration.
Semi hemi said:
Serious question, Sam, do you deliberately hunt out Threads to argue on them?
No, I post on threads that interest me, and I say what I think. If that happens to be controversial and sparks debate, well, what's the problem: this is an internet forum, and the purpose of forums is debate, no?If anyone finds themself getting worked up by what anyone says on the internet, I would respectfully suggest that they need to extract their head from their arse - it's only banter; we're not setting Government policy or anything in here, you know?
tank slapper said:
It is a long time since we put people up against the wall and shot them for cowardice when they suffered mental problems. I would have hoped that people would have similarly moved on, but the same old ignorance and misunderstanding rears its head yet again.
I think the underlying problem is that we've moved on too far. Shooting conscripted soldiers for cowardice was unpleasant (though arguably necessary to maintain discipline in the context of the war in question), but we now find ourselves in a such a litigation and H&S driven, nanny-state bureaucracy that highly (and very expensively) trained combat personnel who have volunteered to undertake a well-paid and sought-after job can get a sick note from mummy at the slightest jitters. I'm sorry but if we continue down this route, our forces will cease to have any credible capability.
Shooting people for cowardice is going too far (except, perhaps, under the most extreme circumstances where someone has deliberately sold-out his or her colleagues to the enemy in order to save his or her own skin), but so is just quietly moving them to a desk job with no detriment to their career.
Personally, I’d go for cashiering them out of the service for LMF; or possibly simply reduce them to minimum rank and put them on peeling spuds and cleaning out latrines for the rest of their service, unless they buy out their contract (at a price which for pilots should reflect the abortive costs of training them).
Sorry, but I just don’t get the ‘soft and cuddly’ approach when applied to the armed forces: they’re there to kill people, and be killed if necessary, and you need sufficient discipline to ensure that they do just that.
I appreciate eharding's comment that public safety is paramount with the Red Arrows, but the OP seems to suggest that she is moving to an entirely non-flying role (for at least 6 months, after which we'll presumably be paying for intensive 'refresher' training to get her back in the air until she has her next tizzy-fit), rather than simply being removed from the Red Arrows to a 'less demanding' (!) front-line combat role.
Sam_68 said:
Semi hemi said:
Serious question, Sam, do you deliberately hunt out Threads to argue on them?
No, I post on threads that interest me, and I say what I think. If that happens to be controversial and sparks debate, well, what's the problem: this is an internet forum, and the purpose of forums is debate, no?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?
I would not be suprised if this is not the first time a RA Pilot has stood themself down, but as they were not in the spotlight because of their gender it would not be a story.
Semi hemi said:
I assume you are willing to admit your general ignorance that women can and have been flying as "frontline combat pilots" both in the 40's and throughout the past 20yrs in fast jets
+1And one female Apache pilot recently established some kind of record by firing 500Ks worth of ammo into Taliban positions in less than 10 minutes.
(Mind you, maybe that was something to do with time of the month.)
Semi hemi said:
I assume you are willing to admit your general ignorance that women can and have been flying as "frontline combat pilots" both in the 40's and throughout the past 20yrs in fast jets.
Not in the RAF until recently (1990's), though? I am well aware that other air forces used women as front-line combat pilots (notably the Russians in WWII... though they used children as front line troops, too, so perhaps not the best precedent to follow?), and that we used them as ferry pilots and for non-combat roles.
I'm also aware of the research that suggests that women are potentially better than men physiologically as fighter pilots (fat deposits on the breasts and hips help damp out the movement of blood and so increase G-tolerance slightly), but worse psychologically (better at making balanced, considered decisions, but notably worse at making the rapid, reactive decisions that are required in fast jets and in combat situations).
...But that's academic. The hard facts are that to gain acceptance in the services for front line combat, they'll have to prove themselves better than men, and this is hardly going to further their case.
Also, the main thrust of my concern is not the use or otherwise of women in front-line combat situations (though I think this can be problematical), but rather the general sofeting of discipline in the forces, that has developed in parallel with the nanny-state culture in civilian life.
Sam_68 said:
Shooting conscripted soldiers for cowardice was unpleasant (though arguably necessary to maintain discipline in the context of the war in question),
Most of your posts seem to be provocotive and seem to come from a disjointed thought process, but could you try to explain this one? It shows a complete lack of understanding of what took place and the circumstances but, have a go at defending your comment.Zaxxon said:
Sam_68 said:
Shooting conscripted soldiers for cowardice was unpleasant (though arguably necessary to maintain discipline in the context of the war in question),
Most of your posts seem to be provocotive and seem to come from a disjointed thought process, but could you try to explain this one? It shows a complete lack of understanding of what took place and the circumstances but, have a go at defending your comment.From the point of view of the Generals on both sides, the firing squads were a necessary evil to ensure that men continued to face apalling casulaties, in the knowledge that a high likelihood of death or injury in battle had to be balanced against a virtual certainty of death if they deserted.
Or do you believe that Haig and the other Generals on all sides were simply sadistic monsters who shot men because they thought it was good fun?
The thing is, without knowing anything about the pilot in question, we simply cannot speculate as to her reasons for not wanting to fly. The simple fact of the matter is that her atitude to risk has changed. Flying is a high risk environment, when things go wrong, often the result is serious injury or fatality. If her personal situation has changed (relationship, family, marriage or even children) perhaps what was previously an acceptable risk has become an untenable one.
I also suspect that in the largely male and machismo driven world of combat/ airforce flying, actually coming out and saying you don't want to fly is probably harder than just "manning up" and getting on with it.
I also suspect that in the largely male and machismo driven world of combat/ airforce flying, actually coming out and saying you don't want to fly is probably harder than just "manning up" and getting on with it.
Sam_68 said:
Semi hemi said:
I assume you are willing to admit your general ignorance that women can and have been flying as "frontline combat pilots" both in the 40's and throughout the past 20yrs in fast jets.
Not in the RAF until recently (1990's), though? Sam_68 said:
...But that's academic. The hard facts are that to gain acceptance in the services for front line combat, they'll have to prove themselves better than men, and this is hardly going to further their case.
Also, the main thrust of my concern is not the use or otherwise of women in front-line combat situations (though I think this can be problematical), but rather the general sofeting of discipline in the forces, that has developed in parallel with the nanny-state culture in civilian life.
Also, the main thrust of my concern is not the use or otherwise of women in front-line combat situations (though I think this can be problematical), but rather the general sofeting of discipline in the forces, that has developed in parallel with the nanny-state culture in civilian life.
Obviously all the people spouting off in here are aware that Flt Lt Stewart (moore) has already been on combat ops so def. can hack it??
Edited by Ian Lancs on Monday 5th March 22:14
Bedazzled said:
Can you provide a link to this research, to back up your claims?
No, I didn't come across it online, and I came across it a number of years ago in a very dull, but very comprehensive book on ergonomics and design psychology, that I'd borrowed from the British Lending Library. Amongst other stuff, it included summaries of the aero-medical research work undertaken by Colonel Stapp and others in the US, in the period from the late '40's to the early '60's. I can't even remember the title, but I'm sure if you searched the British Lending Library at Boston Spa for books on the subject of ergonomics, you'd find it eventually.
You can choose to believe it or not believe it as you see fit... which is one of the reasons I used the word 'suggests' - it's only one body of research and like all scientific research, it's never beyond question or scrutiny.
Edited by Sam_68 on Monday 5th March 21:56
tank slapper said:
No, they shot men because they were utterly ignorant of mental health, much as you appear to be.
I think that if you read some of the more academic and informed histories of the First World War, you'll find that that's far from the case. The generals on both sides were far from ignorant or inhuman, but they had the near impossible task of trying to win a war where weaponry had outstripped tactics.The contemporary histories glossed over the mutinies on both sides, and how close it had come to general mutiny and revolution in both Britain and Germany (and of course Russia went over the edge), but if you think that all that was required to keep out patriotic boys fighting on the Western front was the fear of someone leaving a white feather in their beer glass, you're sadly misinformed.
Edited by Sam_68 on Monday 5th March 21:55
Sam_68 said:
Semi hemi said:
I assume you are willing to admit your general ignorance that women can and have been flying as "frontline combat pilots" both in the 40's and throughout the past 20yrs in fast jets.
Not in the RAF until recently (1990's), though? Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff