Red Arrows to use only 7 aircraft in 2012

[Sam_68]

Semi hemi said:

1992 to 2012 = 20yrs you Numptie, Why not just admit you were talking Ballcocks or was posting pished.

When you're my age, 20 years is recently, you Numptie - anything after the Falkands war counts as a 'recent conflict' as far as I'm concerned. Now, back to your school work!

Also, I think you'll find that there was a bit of a gap between the first female pilot being declared 'combat ready', and the first time one actually flew in a combat zone (I seem to recall some hesitation to let them loose over enemy-held territory, in particular, due to the propaganda risks if one was forced down).

[Semi hemi]

Sam_68 said:

When you're my age, 20 years is recently, you Numptie - anything after the Falkands war counts as a 'recent conflict' as far as I'm concerned. Now, back to your school work!

You poor dear! I guess I am lucky at the tender age of 54 to still be able to recognise the passage of time and not get delusional about the people I am speaking to.
It must be hard for you, but there are associations that can provide support for you and your family

[Marc W]

The plane missing at the Goodwood FOS was one of the male pilots and had to pull out due to a technical issue on take off. Kirsty was very definitely flying that weekend as they made a point of point of pointing out her voice over the radio on each display.

[Sam_68]

Semi hemi said:

I guess I am lucky at the tender age of 54 to still be able to recognise the passage of time...

And are your faculties still up to the mental arithmetic to calculate the number of years from when the first combat mission was flown over enemty territory by a female RAF pilot (as opposed to having the 'paper' credentials to untertake such a mission)?

Would you care to enlighten us, O Venerable One?

[Eric Mc]

Sam, your posts are becoming more and more tiresome. Your debating skills seem terribly abrasive and rather offputting.

Maybe you should tone down your posts a bit and ease off on the personal barbs.

[eharding]

Eric Mc said:

Sam, your posts are becoming more and more tiresome. Your debating skills seem terribly abrasive and rather offputting.

Maybe you should tone down your posts a bit and ease off on the personal barbs.

Indeed. I was going to suggest he try his luck peddling his particular brand of hogwash over on the Military Aircrew forum on the Proon, but it appears that they've already rounded up those trolling on this subject and had them all shot.

[Ian Lancs]

Sam_68 said:

Semi hemi said:

I guess I am lucky at the tender age of 54 to still be able to recognise the passage of time...

And are your faculties still up to the mental arithmetic to calculate the number of years from when the first combat mission was flown over enemty territory by a female RAF pilot (as opposed to having the 'paper' credentials to untertake such a mission)?

Would you care to enlighten us, O Venerable One?

Being declared CR in 94 when there were many more squadrons than today, meant, through no fault of their own, crews could be waiting for approx. 2yrs before going to combat (assuming a "standard" 3month rollover as was the norm)

[Semi hemi]

Sam_68 said:

Semi hemi said:

I guess I am lucky at the tender age of 54 to still be able to recognise the passage of time...

And are your faculties still up to the mental arithmetic to calculate the number of years from when the first combat mission was flown over enemty territory by a female RAF pilot (as opposed to having the 'paper' credentials to untertake such a mission)?

Would you care to enlighten us, O Venerable One?

Combat Ready is combat ready so if after Q, they were required for combat they were ...err ready,

All this bilge is getting away from my point that your statement about the capabilities of female pilots in general c/w with the roll eyes was ridiculous. I suggest that you make use of the link I provided earlier and seek out this Dept you could also try these as they have experience in picking up toys and spat out dummies.

[Munter]

If I was doing a job entertaining people, using ageing equipment, which had killed 20% of my co-workers in the last year I'd refuse to keep doing it unless there were some significant changes.

The way I see it. Last year it was safer to fly combat missions (where you take risks in order to protect someone's life/Britain’s interests), than it was to ponce about entertaining a few people wearing a bright red jumpsuit.

You can justify combat losses as "We lost john but he saved 20 people on the ground". What did she have to justify 20% chance of death by getting back in the aircraft this year? Some cash for the RAF? Easier recruitment? Stuff that.

[dr_gn]

Munter said:

If I was doing a job entertaining people, using ageing equipment, which had killed 20% of my co-workers in the last year I'd refuse to keep doing it unless there were some significant changes.

The way I see it. Last year it was safer to fly combat missions (where you take risks in order to protect someone's life/Britain’s interests), than it was to ponce about entertaining a few people wearing a bright red jumpsuit.

You can justify combat losses as "We lost john but he saved 20 people on the ground". What did she have to justify 20% chance of death by getting back in the aircraft this year? Some cash for the RAF? Easier recruitment? Stuff that.

I think the point is that the other 8 members of the team didn't conclude the same thing, and it looks like another team member has lost his place as a result this year.

She probably did the right thing, shame but there you go. At least she got there and had a go.

[Sam_68]

Bedazzled said:

Frankly, the short period women have been flying fast jets in combat says more about the resistance from male establishment than it does about the ability of women pilots. If you question their ability in combat by quoting archaic 'research' from the 1950's you're going to come across as a misogynist dinosaur, imho.

This I certainly agree with; and whatever the validity or otherwise of the research on their abilities (just because it dates back to the 1950's doesn't necessarily mean it's incorrect, but if you think it has been disproven by later research, by all means expand - I have a professional interest in design psychology and ergonomics ), all research will prove is averages, and there will be exceptions to the rule in both directions.

There remain valid concerns about their liabilities in combat over enemy territory, however; there have already been instances where captured female pilots have been sexually abused, and in the context of current western wars agains (mainly) Muslim opponents, there's no denying the potential for negative propaganda.

I don't mind if you think I come across as a mysogynist dinosaur - I'm not, the majority of my technical staff are female in a very male-dominated industry - or indeed what you think of me generally. 'Tis only the internet.

HOWEVER, my main point on this thread is, and remains, the softening of discipline and tendency toward a 'nannying' approach throughout the forces in general.

I'm sure the likes off Eric will be able to clarify, but I've seen figures of circa £3 million as the cost of training a front-line fighter pilot.

With these sort of costs to the taxpayer involved, it is completely unacceptable (IMO) for a trained pilot to walk away from HIS or HER duties, simply because they've got a dose of the collywobbles. We should be weeding out the psychological weaklings much earlier ([i]yes we can - my brother went through SAS selection procedure - and failed - so I know of some of the techniques used to do this), and those that make the grade should be held to face up to their duties and responsibilities.

[Sam_68]

Eric Mc said:

Maybe you should tone down your posts a bit and ease off on the personal barbs.

Eric, I suggest you review all of the posts on this thread. You'll find that in no case did I use 'personal parbs' before others had directed them at me.

I'm quite happy to have a grown-up debate on valid (if emotive) issues, but if others insult me, I'm quite happy to insult them back.

Like I said, 'tis only the internet - it's all just fun and banter.

[anonymous-user]

If you're not happy mentally and your brain isn't in the right place you don't go flying. You certainly shouldn't do air show close formation display flying in a jet.

It's braver to admit things arent quite right than to go up and cause a big accident.

There has been a few crashes at air shows where the pilot expressed a reluctance to do a certain manoeuvre in a briefing but then did it anyway and ended up dead.

[ninja-lewis]

Sam_68 said:

HOWEVER, my main point on this thread is, and remains, the softening of discipline and tendency toward a 'nannying' approach throughout the forces in general.

I'm sure the likes off Eric will be able to clarify, but I've seen figures of circa £3 million as the cost of training a front-line fighter pilot.

With these sort of costs to the taxpayer involved, it is completely unacceptable (IMO) for a trained pilot to walk away from HIS or HER duties, simply because they've got a dose of the collywobbles. We should be weeding out the psychological weaklings much earlier ([i]yes we can - my brother went through SAS selection procedure - and failed - so I know of some of the techniques used to do this), and those that make the grade should be held to face up to their duties and responsibilities.

She has served in the RAF for 14 years including two operational tours over Iraq and serving as Qualified Flying Instructor on the Hawk and Tornado GR4. The minimum service is ussually 12 years so the RAF have already had their pound of flesh from her.

Furthermore the only source for all these "grief" reports seems to be an "unnamed official" in a tabloid - not an official statement. That alone should caution against undignified speculation.

[Semi hemi]

dr_gn said:

I think the point is that the other 8 members of the team didn't conclude the same thing, and it looks like another team member has lost his place as a result this year.

She probably did the right thing, shame but there you go. At least she got there and had a go.

Two of her team mates might have valid complaints about their aircraft...

[dr_gn]

Semi hemi said:

dr_gn said:

I think the point is that the other 8 members of the team didn't conclude the same thing, and it looks like another team member has lost his place as a result this year.

She probably did the right thing, shame but there you go. At least she got there and had a go.

Two of her team mates might have valid complaints about their aircraft...

They might have, as might the rest of the 2012 team who also had the option of leaving, but didn't (so far).

[Semi hemi]

dr_gn said:

They might have, as might the rest of the 2012 team who also had the option of leaving, but didn't (so far).

True, but they maybe do not have her 14yrs of service behind them and are not in the position to say "F**k this for a game of soldiers"

[Sam_68]

Semi hemi said:

True, but they maybe do not have her 14yrs of service behind them and are not in the position to say "F**k this for a game of soldiers"

My brother did this (quite literally) after several tours in Northern Ireland in the 70's and '80's.

Every one of his small group of friends who had joined up together from their home town of Hunslet in Leeds had been killed, except him, so he came to the superstitious conclusion that his luck was probably close to running out.

Oddly, though, despite being a mere squaddy trained at a total cost of three shillings and sixpence, he was obliged to 'buy out his contract' (at a cost that was quite substantial to him, at the time), before he was allowed to walk away from his obligations.

[Sam_68]

Bedazzled said:

Averages are meaningless when the selection criteria are so stringent; all top fighter pilots will be exceptional.

Yes, I agree (which is why I said it).

Perhaps the fact that there are so few female jet pilots is because there are fewer women with the right exceptional qualities, though? And it would appear that in this instance, the selection criteria failed to weed out the lack of mental resilience that caused the problem?

For what it's worth, I'm guessing that there is going to be a greater prevalence of women who have the physical characteristics that are suggested by the research I referred as offering them better G-tolerance (short stature, fat deposits on breasts and hips) than there is a pronounced bias toward the reduced ability to make fast judgement calls, so it could be argued that on balance of those particular physical and psychological traits, they are better suited to piloting fast jets than men.

But those are only two factors: there are many others, including the possible propaganda issues mentioned above, the potential for a very expensively trained and scarce resource becoming unexpectedly unfit for active service due to pregnancy at a critical time, and the undeniable and very pronounced statistical fact that women take much more sick leave (about 35% more) than men in general, so again there is the potential that your very expensively trained and critical resource isn't going to deliver as much productivity for your money, and may fail to do so at a critical time.

Equal rights and equal opps are all very well (and I strongly support both, in civilian fields), but the difference with the armed forces is that the ONLY thing that matters is our ability to beat the enemy in a conflict situation.

If there is any possibility that sex, disability, or (yes, I'm going to be controversial again) even ethnic or religious groups would reduce (or enhance) potential fighting efficiency or cohesiveness of a military unit, then I think it should be left to the forces themselves to form a view on whether those groups should be denied access to (or positively encouraged within) certain sectors of the service.

In short: political correctness should not be allowed to influence military selection.

[dr_gn]

Semi hemi said:

dr_gn said:

They might have, as might the rest of the 2012 team who also had the option of leaving, but didn't (so far).

True, but they maybe do not have her 14yrs of service behind them and are not in the position to say "F**k this for a game of soldiers"

They have all done their time (read individual service summaries in the link):

"All nine Red Arrows display pilots are fast jet pilots from frontline Royal Air Force squadrons.

Once they have finished their three-year tour with the Team they will return to their Royal Air Force duties.

To apply for selection to the Team, pilots must first meet certain criteria:

* They must have a minimum of 1,500 flying hours.
* They must have completed a frontline tour.
* Be assessed as being above average in their flying role. "

http://www.raf.mod.uk/reds/behindthescenes/display...

As an aside, has it been officially confirmed that the two fatalities last year were caused by "equipment failure"? Or was one a bird strike and the other a procedural error?