Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flatiron
I regret you miss the point. This affair, like some others, results directly from Wrotten's personality. He now has a sinecural role with a military supplier. He is psychologically utterly unsuited to running any public concern outside the military. Only in the military would fawning staff officers have tolerated his psychotic arrogance.
He is essentially a weak character whose career was dogged by a deep, dark secret (or so he perceived it) which could, and perhaps eventually did, bring the house of cards tumbling down in a trice. His blustering arrogance was a defence against this; a trait well documented by psychologists and amply demonstrated on Newsnight last night. Coupled with these traits is an inability to accept information, however convincing, which contradicts a previously-held dogma or belief, and a tendency to rush to punitive judgement.
I have never seen Paxo so flabbergasted by such a transparent performance: Wrotten's nervous, smug grin belied his attempt at self confidence which came across as deluded, arrogant, self-satisfaction.
It seems the only man in the Country (other than Hoon) who supports Wrotten's view on this is his former arslikhan subordinate, Day: A man of such high moral fibre that when MPs objected to one of his pronouncements last month, he immediately grassed up Hoon or Guthrie (See thread: A big boy made me do it and ran away).
Beagle & Arkroyal
On an entirely unrelated matter, I am disappointed that you choose to relate this matter to the Govt's attitude to the equalisation of the homosexual age of consent. My views on equality for homosexuals were well documented in an earlier thread. The promotion of equality would, I contend, suggest that Blair is interested in fairness and justice in principle.
I suspect he has been foxed in this matter by Hoon's spurious 'need to uphold the integrity of the former BoI system and senior officers' and 'lack of new evidence'.
Said senior officers held to their dogma that the sky would fall in if gays were to serve openly, but Blair can plainly see that whatever the problems of the Forces today, gays are not one of them. Perhaps he can be persuaded that this BoI finding is also arrogant bluster.
[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 01 December 2000).]
I regret you miss the point. This affair, like some others, results directly from Wrotten's personality. He now has a sinecural role with a military supplier. He is psychologically utterly unsuited to running any public concern outside the military. Only in the military would fawning staff officers have tolerated his psychotic arrogance.
He is essentially a weak character whose career was dogged by a deep, dark secret (or so he perceived it) which could, and perhaps eventually did, bring the house of cards tumbling down in a trice. His blustering arrogance was a defence against this; a trait well documented by psychologists and amply demonstrated on Newsnight last night. Coupled with these traits is an inability to accept information, however convincing, which contradicts a previously-held dogma or belief, and a tendency to rush to punitive judgement.
I have never seen Paxo so flabbergasted by such a transparent performance: Wrotten's nervous, smug grin belied his attempt at self confidence which came across as deluded, arrogant, self-satisfaction.
It seems the only man in the Country (other than Hoon) who supports Wrotten's view on this is his former arslikhan subordinate, Day: A man of such high moral fibre that when MPs objected to one of his pronouncements last month, he immediately grassed up Hoon or Guthrie (See thread: A big boy made me do it and ran away).
Beagle & Arkroyal
On an entirely unrelated matter, I am disappointed that you choose to relate this matter to the Govt's attitude to the equalisation of the homosexual age of consent. My views on equality for homosexuals were well documented in an earlier thread. The promotion of equality would, I contend, suggest that Blair is interested in fairness and justice in principle.
I suspect he has been foxed in this matter by Hoon's spurious 'need to uphold the integrity of the former BoI system and senior officers' and 'lack of new evidence'.
Said senior officers held to their dogma that the sky would fall in if gays were to serve openly, but Blair can plainly see that whatever the problems of the Forces today, gays are not one of them. Perhaps he can be persuaded that this BoI finding is also arrogant bluster.
[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 01 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
***Calm thoughts***Calm thoughts***Calm thoughts
Blimey, I've never known it so busy!!
Thanks to everyone who has contributed. I think the Newsnight programme has been well covered so I won't go on about it here.
I would, however, like to thank the four who took part in the programme - Mr Paxman, Lord Chalfont, Mr Hoon and Mr Wratten. Everyone has their opinion on how each 'player' performed and there are those who performed well and those who did not. Purely a matter of personal opinion.
The way forward:- Hoon clearly does not have a grasp of the situation. Do not waste your time writing to him any longer (send him e-mails by all means!
). Instead, write directly to Tony Blair. We especially need letters from serving personnel informing him of how this issue is affecting your morale. Also, we need letters from families of serving personnel asking for reassurance with regard to the safety and reputations of their loved ones should anything terrible happen. Blair need to know how this is affecting morale! Were you thinking of joining the RAF but have, in the light of this 'breathtaking arrogance' decided against it? Let Blair know why. That said, every letter sent to Blair is invaluable so get writing. Get your MP to write too.
The Mull of Kintyre Group is seeking an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister so it is important that he gets those letters soon.
Thanks in advance.
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Blimey, I've never known it so busy!!
Thanks to everyone who has contributed. I think the Newsnight programme has been well covered so I won't go on about it here.
I would, however, like to thank the four who took part in the programme - Mr Paxman, Lord Chalfont, Mr Hoon and Mr Wratten. Everyone has their opinion on how each 'player' performed and there are those who performed well and those who did not. Purely a matter of personal opinion.
The way forward:- Hoon clearly does not have a grasp of the situation. Do not waste your time writing to him any longer (send him e-mails by all means!
). Instead, write directly to Tony Blair. We especially need letters from serving personnel informing him of how this issue is affecting your morale. Also, we need letters from families of serving personnel asking for reassurance with regard to the safety and reputations of their loved ones should anything terrible happen. Blair need to know how this is affecting morale! Were you thinking of joining the RAF but have, in the light of this 'breathtaking arrogance' decided against it? Let Blair know why. That said, every letter sent to Blair is invaluable so get writing. Get your MP to write too.The Mull of Kintyre Group is seeking an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister so it is important that he gets those letters soon.
Thanks in advance.
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brian
Just what I was thinking mate. I have already spoken to my MPs office, he has a letter on the way as does T. Blair. I have gone for the 'sack Hoon' option as postulated above. A mix of letters decrying the state of military morale coupled with the letters, properly argued, for Hoon's resignation could indeed have an effect.
Now is not the time to let up. Pressure must be applied in the right quarters.
Just what I was thinking mate. I have already spoken to my MPs office, he has a letter on the way as does T. Blair. I have gone for the 'sack Hoon' option as postulated above. A mix of letters decrying the state of military morale coupled with the letters, properly argued, for Hoon's resignation could indeed have an effect.
Now is not the time to let up. Pressure must be applied in the right quarters.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brian
Writing to my MP who happens to be the present slightly balding leader of the opposition – (JN – you know where I live!) I shall also write to the PM as you suggest. Whilst an interested occasional scanner of Prune, I have not contributed much in the past, due mostly to apathy. As a serving member, however, I am incensed by the disregard shown for front-line aviators by the Air Marshals involved and the resulting effect on service morale. Why should we stick our necks out operationally when we see our compatriots treated in this manner. Best of luck in your campaign – stick to it until justice is done.
Seething
Writing to my MP who happens to be the present slightly balding leader of the opposition – (JN – you know where I live!) I shall also write to the PM as you suggest. Whilst an interested occasional scanner of Prune, I have not contributed much in the past, due mostly to apathy. As a serving member, however, I am incensed by the disregard shown for front-line aviators by the Air Marshals involved and the resulting effect on service morale. Why should we stick our necks out operationally when we see our compatriots treated in this manner. Best of luck in your campaign – stick to it until justice is done.
Seething
Guest
Posts: n/a
Properly constituted Board of Inquiry. No findings of negligence.
Scottish Court and former Lord Advocate. Negigence verdict unsound.
PAC negigence verdict unsound.
Three independant bodies, with no axe to grind have all come to the same conclusion.
Hoon chooses to beleive two deluded self -opinionated t@a^s.
Why not write to Mrs Blair instead of the PM. She at least will understand the miscarriage of justice. She has dealt with many of them in the past. eg Gays in the forces
Scottish Court and former Lord Advocate. Negigence verdict unsound.
PAC negigence verdict unsound.
Three independant bodies, with no axe to grind have all come to the same conclusion.
Hoon chooses to beleive two deluded self -opinionated t@a^s.
Why not write to Mrs Blair instead of the PM. She at least will understand the miscarriage of justice. She has dealt with many of them in the past. eg Gays in the forces
Guest
Posts: n/a
Colinj,
Thanks for joining the debate. You have placed a link to this site on the Downing Street web site to direct people to this thread. Good. The more supporters the better.
However, everyone now needs to be vigilant as the Downing Street site is frequently hijacked by idiots and fools intent on ruining such a site. We may get bombarded with messages about Northern Ireland, and the pax of the flight being referred to as "terrorists".
I have contributed to Downing Street for several years so know what may happen. Anything untoward should be reported to the webmaster without delay.
Colin, if you have no objections, may I try to get the link removed from the Downing Street site?
Please don't think I am trying to control or 'police' the site, I'm not. I do know what will happen though.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Thanks for joining the debate. You have placed a link to this site on the Downing Street web site to direct people to this thread. Good. The more supporters the better.
However, everyone now needs to be vigilant as the Downing Street site is frequently hijacked by idiots and fools intent on ruining such a site. We may get bombarded with messages about Northern Ireland, and the pax of the flight being referred to as "terrorists".
I have contributed to Downing Street for several years so know what may happen. Anything untoward should be reported to the webmaster without delay.
Colin, if you have no objections, may I try to get the link removed from the Downing Street site?
Please don't think I am trying to control or 'police' the site, I'm not. I do know what will happen though.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
John Nicol:
Did you see my letter in 'Pilot' mag a few months ago? It was printed after yours'.
I can understand that everyone is outraged at this bloody Gov't (esp Bill 'please punch me out' Wratten), but you all seem to assume that there WAS no negligence - the same knee-jerk reaction at Hoon etc assuming there was negligence. No side of this debate has any solid evidence.
My point is that without a DFDR, CVR & radar trace there is NO EVIDENCE of anything, pilot error or FADEC failure. No-one seems to see this as a scandal!
As a civvy (ex TA) who might have flown on one of these machines I would be outraged that there would be no evidence for the Investigators if it crashed. **** , they might have blamed me!!
Maybe we should be putting pressure on the Gov't to spend the comparativley tiny sums to equip all service aircraft with orange coloured 'black boxes'?
PS If Wratten thought that junior officers were so inept, why did he appoint them?
[This message has been edited by swashplate (edited 02 December 2000).]
Did you see my letter in 'Pilot' mag a few months ago? It was printed after yours'.
I can understand that everyone is outraged at this bloody Gov't (esp Bill 'please punch me out' Wratten), but you all seem to assume that there WAS no negligence - the same knee-jerk reaction at Hoon etc assuming there was negligence. No side of this debate has any solid evidence.
My point is that without a DFDR, CVR & radar trace there is NO EVIDENCE of anything, pilot error or FADEC failure. No-one seems to see this as a scandal!
As a civvy (ex TA) who might have flown on one of these machines I would be outraged that there would be no evidence for the Investigators if it crashed. **** , they might have blamed me!!
Maybe we should be putting pressure on the Gov't to spend the comparativley tiny sums to equip all service aircraft with orange coloured 'black boxes'?
PS If Wratten thought that junior officers were so inept, why did he appoint them?
[This message has been edited by swashplate (edited 02 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nice to see that by blaming the pilots Mr Day hasn't damaged his career. The AMP is now AOC in C STC desig and has lost interest in personnel issues (recent visit to RAF base to find out about personnel changed at his request so that he can get back up to speed with ops). Has he visited Odiham recently?
[This message has been edited by Hybrid (edited 02 December 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Hybrid (edited 02 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sadbloke,
Welcome. If baldy man is your MP then why not pop along to one of his surgeries? Look him squarely in the eye and discuss the issue. Then, just before you leave, hand him your letter and the letter written by your family. That way, he will have to reply in writing to any of your concerns.
Swashplate.
Likewise, welcome.
I don't see how we differ. Our argument has always been that there is no evidence to support the verdict. With regard to flight recording instruments, have a look at my postings further in the site. That should give you the answers you seek.
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Welcome. If baldy man is your MP then why not pop along to one of his surgeries? Look him squarely in the eye and discuss the issue. Then, just before you leave, hand him your letter and the letter written by your family. That way, he will have to reply in writing to any of your concerns.
Swashplate.
Likewise, welcome.
I don't see how we differ. Our argument has always been that there is no evidence to support the verdict. With regard to flight recording instruments, have a look at my postings further in the site. That should give you the answers you seek.
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brian:
OF COURSE I agree that the verdict of negligence should be set aside - that goes without saying! Any one with any amount of grey matter can see that.
My point is that everyone is rightly outraged at the unfair and illogical verdict of 'Negligence to a gross degree' (is that worse than ordrinary negligence?), but no-one seems outraged at the fact that the aircraft had no black boxes!
As a civvy, I belive that this would affect me more that the pilots being blamed, however unjust that is.
Maybe I should have made this clearer, but I will state here for the record that I support the campaign to clear Cook/Tapper's names 100%.
However, I can appreciate that there are wider flight safety issues as well!
OF COURSE I agree that the verdict of negligence should be set aside - that goes without saying! Any one with any amount of grey matter can see that.
My point is that everyone is rightly outraged at the unfair and illogical verdict of 'Negligence to a gross degree' (is that worse than ordrinary negligence?), but no-one seems outraged at the fact that the aircraft had no black boxes!
As a civvy, I belive that this would affect me more that the pilots being blamed, however unjust that is.
Maybe I should have made this clearer, but I will state here for the record that I support the campaign to clear Cook/Tapper's names 100%.
However, I can appreciate that there are wider flight safety issues as well!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I echo Brian's welcome to all those new posters who, almost to a man, find the inability of our supposed leaders to see the obvious, beyond belief.
The finding of gross negligence required proof 'beyond any doubt whatsoever'. It was arrived at with no proof whatsoever and is so obviously flawed that the PAC, the Sherrif's court and anyone with an ounce of common sense are outyraged at Hoon's decision to let it stand.
This simple point must be the crux of your letters to PM and MPs. Keep them short and to the point so that they will be read. (I am hoping they will have a lot of them to read!)
Swashplate,
If you go back over this thread you will find that negligence has been accepted as a possible cause by those of us in the campaign. It is one of many possible causes, any of which required the same degree of proof.
Mrploppy,
I apologise unreservedly for my outburst. I was in a pretty hot temper at the time, and merely wanted to highlight the prioritising of the PMs tasks,; not to comment on the validity of them.You make some excellent points regarding Wratten's fall from grace. The resons will 'come out' I'm sure as the fight gets dirtier.
Brian, I agree re the No10 site. We could do without the kind of hothead that attracts on Pprune.
Now to get that letter to President Bliar finished.
The finding of gross negligence required proof 'beyond any doubt whatsoever'. It was arrived at with no proof whatsoever and is so obviously flawed that the PAC, the Sherrif's court and anyone with an ounce of common sense are outyraged at Hoon's decision to let it stand.
This simple point must be the crux of your letters to PM and MPs. Keep them short and to the point so that they will be read. (I am hoping they will have a lot of them to read!)
Swashplate,
If you go back over this thread you will find that negligence has been accepted as a possible cause by those of us in the campaign. It is one of many possible causes, any of which required the same degree of proof.
Mrploppy,
I apologise unreservedly for my outburst. I was in a pretty hot temper at the time, and merely wanted to highlight the prioritising of the PMs tasks,; not to comment on the validity of them.You make some excellent points regarding Wratten's fall from grace. The resons will 'come out' I'm sure as the fight gets dirtier.
Brian, I agree re the No10 site. We could do without the kind of hothead that attracts on Pprune.
Now to get that letter to President Bliar finished.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Apparently Blair and Alistair Campbell will be conducting a review of their efforts re the PAC on Monday am. If there's no furore in the Sunday papers, they will just declare next business and move on from Chinook. So two things.
1) PPRuNe people should bombard the newsrooms of strategic Sunday papers that Blair listens to: namely the Mail on Sunday, the Sunday Times, the Observer and the Telegraph. The more personal you can make it the better - even though it’s off the record, these guys take notice if more than one person actually starts ringing them. If there's any way of doing this without making it look organised, that would be better.
2) Email and write to Blair - not your MP. Its Blair or nothing now. RING your MP.
1) PPRuNe people should bombard the newsrooms of strategic Sunday papers that Blair listens to: namely the Mail on Sunday, the Sunday Times, the Observer and the Telegraph. The more personal you can make it the better - even though it’s off the record, these guys take notice if more than one person actually starts ringing them. If there's any way of doing this without making it look organised, that would be better.
2) Email and write to Blair - not your MP. Its Blair or nothing now. RING your MP.
Guest
Posts: n/a
For those either unaware of Times coverage recently or too mean to go out and buy the papers:
The Times Second Leader (Editorial) of Friday 1 Dec 00 that supports the opinion of the majority of people here:
<A HREF="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,44658,00.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,44658,00.html</A>
Two letters to The Times today (Sat 2 Dec 00) about yesterday's Second Leader and opposing it:
<A HREF="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,45149,00.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,45149,00.html</A>
These URLs will change once the items are archived so after a few weeks you may have to search.
colinj, your point about mobiles did not go unnoticed and it gave me a jolt when I reflected on the dubious compatibility of mobile 'phones and avionics. However, the technology was fairly rudimentary in those days and that part of the UK was sparsely served. Nevertheless, I'm sure the BOI considered the possibility of spurious interference with the ac's avionics.
BD, I believe you will be overstepping the mark if you attempt to remove a link from No 10's Site that you did not put there yourself. This Forum has been here a long time and is well known to good guys and bad guys alike. Those here can look after themselves; a fact that is regularly demonstrated.
The Times Second Leader (Editorial) of Friday 1 Dec 00 that supports the opinion of the majority of people here:
<A HREF="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,44658,00.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,44658,00.html</A>
Two letters to The Times today (Sat 2 Dec 00) about yesterday's Second Leader and opposing it:
<A HREF="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,45149,00.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,45149,00.html</A>
These URLs will change once the items are archived so after a few weeks you may have to search.
colinj, your point about mobiles did not go unnoticed and it gave me a jolt when I reflected on the dubious compatibility of mobile 'phones and avionics. However, the technology was fairly rudimentary in those days and that part of the UK was sparsely served. Nevertheless, I'm sure the BOI considered the possibility of spurious interference with the ac's avionics.
BD, I believe you will be overstepping the mark if you attempt to remove a link from No 10's Site that you did not put there yourself. This Forum has been here a long time and is well known to good guys and bad guys alike. Those here can look after themselves; a fact that is regularly demonstrated.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fobotcso,
Having read the thread again, I would agree with you. I have no wish (nor any intention)to elect myself as the authority of the site and I offer unreserved apologies to all who contribute here. I will continue to campaign to the best of my ability, the same as everyone else.
Right, now where was I?? Oh yes, Dear Mr Blair............
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Having read the thread again, I would agree with you. I have no wish (nor any intention)to elect myself as the authority of the site and I offer unreserved apologies to all who contribute here. I will continue to campaign to the best of my ability, the same as everyone else.
Right, now where was I?? Oh yes, Dear Mr Blair............
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm a newcomer to this forum, although I have been following the issue for some time, having read the accident report and the various comments over the years in the trade press.
I'm not sure that the intemperate and often violent language in these pages is of any great benefit to the argument. All senior officers are criticised in crewrooms by those who eventually realise with maturity and promotion that command is not as easy as it looks; the language used here, though, whilst commonplace in those crewrooms, has no place on a public site. I believe that the relentless and often slanderous sniping from behind the parapet of anonymity serves little purpose except driving the participants into ever more entrenched and polarised positions and thus removing the necessary objectivity from the argument. The one useful purpose of a senior officer's review, is, after all, to view with an impartial eye the findings of a possibly partisan board of enquiry.
I should like those of you who are so CERTAIN that you are right to test your objectivity. Imagine that, in this accident, that the two highly experienced, highly respected and clearly much loved pilots were not at the controls but positioning with the others as passengers. Imagine also that the aircraft was being flown by two strangers, or even by the two very senior officers for whom you have so little respect. Would you be so quick to be so adamant that the crew made no serious error?
Honest answers, please, chaps.
I'm not sure that the intemperate and often violent language in these pages is of any great benefit to the argument. All senior officers are criticised in crewrooms by those who eventually realise with maturity and promotion that command is not as easy as it looks; the language used here, though, whilst commonplace in those crewrooms, has no place on a public site. I believe that the relentless and often slanderous sniping from behind the parapet of anonymity serves little purpose except driving the participants into ever more entrenched and polarised positions and thus removing the necessary objectivity from the argument. The one useful purpose of a senior officer's review, is, after all, to view with an impartial eye the findings of a possibly partisan board of enquiry.
I should like those of you who are so CERTAIN that you are right to test your objectivity. Imagine that, in this accident, that the two highly experienced, highly respected and clearly much loved pilots were not at the controls but positioning with the others as passengers. Imagine also that the aircraft was being flown by two strangers, or even by the two very senior officers for whom you have so little respect. Would you be so quick to be so adamant that the crew made no serious error?
Honest answers, please, chaps.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pilgarlick
Nool pwah for your entry in the Eurotroll competition. If you have followed this matter then you should know that WHOEVER was at the controls, an RAF Board of Enquiry may only make a finding of gross negligence if there is *no doubt whatsoever* that negligence was the cause.
Messrs Wratten & Day chose to flout that inconvenient regulation in a case where:
a. The highly experienced investigating members of the BofI (including AAIB people),
b. Sir Stephen Young's FAI,
c. Channel 4 News' and Computer Weekly's investigation teams,
d. Sufficient members of the RAeS to cause Wratten to storm off in a huff,
e. A considerable number of RAF Service people
all failed to find what caused the accident, let alone speculate on a cause "with no doubt whatsoever". The pilots may well have been in error, that is not the point. To find them negligent required "no doubt whatsoever", not idle speculation by a man who deserves all the comments written about him on this site (and more).
Nool pwah for your entry in the Eurotroll competition. If you have followed this matter then you should know that WHOEVER was at the controls, an RAF Board of Enquiry may only make a finding of gross negligence if there is *no doubt whatsoever* that negligence was the cause.
Messrs Wratten & Day chose to flout that inconvenient regulation in a case where:
a. The highly experienced investigating members of the BofI (including AAIB people),
b. Sir Stephen Young's FAI,
c. Channel 4 News' and Computer Weekly's investigation teams,
d. Sufficient members of the RAeS to cause Wratten to storm off in a huff,
e. A considerable number of RAF Service people
all failed to find what caused the accident, let alone speculate on a cause "with no doubt whatsoever". The pilots may well have been in error, that is not the point. To find them negligent required "no doubt whatsoever", not idle speculation by a man who deserves all the comments written about him on this site (and more).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pilgarlick,
"I believe that the relentless and often slanderous sniping from behind the parapet of anonymity serves little purpose"
I take then that you had a rather unusual christening party, as your parents clearly had a sharp sense of humour to give you such an unusual name.
I also take it that you have no conception of the intracies of this case, or the ramifications to aircrew. I for one have walked, in the past I have received no support whatsoever from the system, and this case highlights the contempt that senior officers seem to hold the rank and file in.
This was a particularly tragic accident that has affected Military aircrew deeply, regardless of service, or type flown. It is a shame that you cannot relate to this, because if you could, you may be a little more sympathetic towards the feelings of hurt and betrayal felt by most.
I have buried several friends due to helicopter crashes ( Lynx AH7 )and want to see a stop to them. This is, of course, unrealistic, but what is realistic is to have them dealt with in a professional manner, not career saving/making decisions which do nothing but offend and engender feelings of bitterness towards those ranking officers.
"I believe that the relentless and often slanderous sniping from behind the parapet of anonymity serves little purpose"
I take then that you had a rather unusual christening party, as your parents clearly had a sharp sense of humour to give you such an unusual name.
I also take it that you have no conception of the intracies of this case, or the ramifications to aircrew. I for one have walked, in the past I have received no support whatsoever from the system, and this case highlights the contempt that senior officers seem to hold the rank and file in.
This was a particularly tragic accident that has affected Military aircrew deeply, regardless of service, or type flown. It is a shame that you cannot relate to this, because if you could, you may be a little more sympathetic towards the feelings of hurt and betrayal felt by most.
I have buried several friends due to helicopter crashes ( Lynx AH7 )and want to see a stop to them. This is, of course, unrealistic, but what is realistic is to have them dealt with in a professional manner, not career saving/making decisions which do nothing but offend and engender feelings of bitterness towards those ranking officers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pillgarlick of Bristol......hmmm, for those who don't know, a 'pillgarlick' is a bald person. (OK - take the p*ss). But a bald-headed person who lives in Bristol and supports the contrary view of a brace of senior officers...?? You don't, perchance, happen to be employed as a Rolls-Royce flesh-presser, do you??