Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GR4pilot)
    There is nothing wrong with my ego DJ; it's just the doorframe's too damned small is all

    --------------


    damn those hobbit sized houses
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In the undying words of Homer 'It's funny cause it's true' - don't knock my size; I'm only the right size (sitting) for pilot by about 4mm, they had to retake it cause I was slouching
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wzz)
    That doesn't make them an air-minded force. The way they operate is entirely along the lines of a ground force.

    Wrong; they're very much thinking of the ground when airborne! Semantics again; yes, they fly in the air, but operate like any other ground unit within the Army. They do not have a primarily air-related way of running. I've spent time with them, and they do not have many complete career pilots like the RAF and FAA. They are an airborne attack group, like a different form of tank. They are a ground-biased force in the way they operate.
    Agreed, as far as I know the AAC's role is light transport and short range recce with a bit of tankbusting if it gets hairy.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wzz)
    Gaaah! Learn how to quote properly!!
    I know how, but it's a kick in the balls doing it for so many replies - my method is easier - but just for you I'll do it.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    That doesn't make them an air-minded force. The way they operate is entirely along the lines of a ground force. You can argue semantics all you like; the fact that they happen to fly and operate aircraft doesn't mean they operate as an air force; they operate like a ground force with tanks that happen to operate above the ground.
    This is pretty petty. I have said since the start, the AAC flies, it's in the air it is a force which operates from the air: it's an air force. If the pilot is in Afghani and is thinking of the sea, does that make it a maritime force? Not IMO.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    There are a lot of courses like that but none in the Brecons and none involving the SAS.
    Ok, I was wrong. But I must've read it somewhere - didn't just pluck it up from nowhere.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    He's right though; if you don't want a career at sea all the time, you shouldn't be in the FAA; as you'll be at sea for a very large proportion of your time. Comparing an embarked SHAR squadron; which could be aboard for six months; to a visiting RAF GR7 squadron which may embark for 3 weeks; is daft. Again, you can argue semantics if you fancy being exceptionally pedantic; no, SHAR mates aren't at sea for 100% of their time. But they are for a massive percentage of it compared to the RAF, and hence if you don't like going to sea you should pick the RAF over the FAA.

    For example; SHAR, Navy GR7/9, and all Navy RW assets do spend time at sea, sometimes a lot. RAF GR7/9 mates do spend a small amount of time at sea, often less than a month a year. RAF F3, GR4, Tristar, VC10, Hercules, Tutor, Hawk, Tucano, HS125, BAe 146, Dominie, King Air, Jaguar, Typhoon, Squirrel, Griffin and Nimrod mates spend NO time at sea EVER. Some SH mates might spend some time aboard.

    Therefore, whether or not you like the concept of going to sea is a very good reason to consider when you're picking between FAA or RAF. You can't dismiss it with a casual "oh, but RAF pilots go to sea as well." The FAA go to sea lots, the RAF very very little.
    Mate, I didn't originally say anything about choosing a career whatsoever, simply said that RAF pilots will go ahoy too, nothing about choosing the Navy if you like water or vv. Incase you're bothered, I actually said it just as a joke at first - seems to have got into a full blown riot here.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    Wrong; they're very much thinking of the ground when airborne! Semantics again; yes, they fly in the air, but operate like any other ground unit within the Army. They do not have a primarily air-related way of running. I've spent time with them, and they do not have many complete career pilots like the RAF and FAA. They are an airborne attack group, like a different form of tank. They are a ground-biased force in the way they operate.
    I've answered the same thing over and over. I haven't been speaking of when their not flying, I was talking of when they are in the air, they attack via the air, air power, air force. When they are on the ground - as you've said, they are not.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    Where does it happen? Don't be coy; where have you seen RN people complain or start trouble with RAF NCA due to their accelerated promotion? Anyone who joins in with this sort of stuff really needs to grow up and act like they've got these years of service you mention!
    Ok, I'll rephrase again, shouldn't have said 'usually', it happens, not always, and not the majority of the time. Again this was a passing remark, not meant to offend anyone or start an argument. I seen it happen at RNAS Culrose, although - on this instance, the RAF fella wasn't actually NCA. I agree! All I said is I know of it happening, not that I condone it.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    Again, a rather hefty generalisation for someone with very very little time in one of the services.
    Perhaps, but it's not exactly false. Are you so naive you don't believe what I'm saying, or just sparking a debate? Obviously with you serving, you have seen it for yourself - not like I'm making it up. It's not simply a case of the forces, it's a remark of human nature, and I'm right.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    .... if you wind up being a Harrier pilot or an unlucky SH mate, maybe. Are you honestly saying that someone shouldn't pick the RAF if they don't want seasickness because they go to sea? The Navy spend a phenomenal amount of time at sea, and like the majority of my colleagues I've never been anywhere near it; and only my Harrier mates have.
    Answered this above, I didn't say pick any of the forces based on going to sea or any other factor. Simply said that RAF mates do go aboard, granted not all of them, granted not very often, granted not for long, but they still embark, therefore they still go to sea.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    IC of what? I'm sorry, but at 18/19 when in you are impressionable, and regardless of any post you may have been given that doesn't change that fact. You're claiming morale was fine in your section, so where are all these people who hated it? Where are all the RAF and Army people who don't like their jobs?
    IC of AE/052, my squad-mates. How so? Mate, I'm not one to be led astray; I see what I see for myself, and I make up my own mind. Yes, it was. They are all over, next to the guys who love their jobs.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    How do you know that? The PVR/release from engagement system means there's no need for anyone to stay in longer than they want
    Yes, the PVR gives you a chance to see if its for you - then you're expected to serve for so long. Granted most for this amount of time and a lot longer will love their job, but some people won't, and are stuck in a job they don't like. Returning service for paying for your training, not like your job, stuck, unhappy.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    What experience with the Army and RAF do you have to quantify that? How many different establishments within the Navy did you see as an 18 year old with 1 year's service to his name to quantify that within your own service? Or is this just the words of some grizzled old CPO you've leapt on while waiting for your turn in the barrel?
    None, I only have experience with the RN and RM. I met RAF and Army folks, but didn't work alongside any of them. As I said I only talk about what I actually seen, hence why I'm pretty quiet on the forums. With being in the FAA, I seen the relevant establishments, and a couple more, even Wittering (not even a Navy base!). Nope - Didn't actually have too many old Chiefs anyway.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    Well, go on then; what have you personally experienced? You've said that in your personal experience morale was fine; so what have you seen that says it won't be somewhere else? And how is that relevant to someone joining the RAF as an officer? I'd be very interested to hear what career path you followed anyway; I seem to remember you talking about being IC of a bunch of Lieutenants at some stage, which surprises me for an 18 year old with less than 6 months post-initial training.
    Already said above. And a couple of ables, and killick mates aboard Albion, Ocean and Ark are unhappy, waiting to get out. Their morale is not high, they don't want to be there. The morale amongst myself, and the guys around about me, including the 'grizzled old CPO' was high and we had a lot of good times. But as I've said, I seen it for myself, and I know of people who are not happy. Why does it not apply to an RAF Officer? Do RAF Officers not feel the same feelings as others? Perhaps, has a baby and starts to miss it, want's to go home but can't? Who knows. Throughout the forces there are highs and lows, ups and downs - some people will have low morale, and like I said, say in the Navy, off to sea for months, had a crap trip, didn't stop anywhere nice, missing the girl/boyfriend and theres more than one person feeling the same, morale will be low.

    If you go find it, you'll find I didn't say I was IC of them, they were leading us in the Brecons, I said I thought their leadership abilities were crap - and I stick by that, a Sub LT doing some make goals out of rope with these two trees type leadership stuff, running over - your my timekeeper to my mate who didn't have a watch rather than ask who had one, getting us to tie wrong knots, and generally panicking and nervous about the situation, didn't seem very good to me. Not that I take anything away from him as a person, just thought he sucked at being a leader. It was one LT as it happens, and he was the best of them, the other I mentioned was a freshie from Dartmouth, however - even though just finishing BRNC, he was an old man, and had served in the RNR if I remember rightly and was a CPO, something like that, I don't remember quite right now.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    Are you guessing?
    (Original post by Wzz)
    RAF officer cadre. Morale in that in general is fine
    (Original post by Wzz)
    Again a slightly sweeping generalisation! What RAF wannabes here have been criticising the RN?
    I'm not going to trawl through the forums to find quotes, I didn't say they criticised the Navy. Just that some seem to think the RAF is better, and as such can say some things about the other two.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    If you have a problem with the specifics of what one person says, I suggest you take it up with that individual rather than come out with the torrents you have been. You may also notice, that egos and confidence aside, the majority of RAF wannabes on this forum have been successful at OASC!
    I have done, and will do. Not contradicting you, and I wish everyone the best of luck going, but the comments that go around here and there are sometimes not required. I mean, I'll just refer to all of you as the Brylcream boys, sound fair? Seeing as the RAF wannabes think it's fine to say the Navy mates are all gay. There are a couple of big egos on the forums, which I have no problem with, I'm a very egotistic person myself, I just wasn't in the mood that day - which is why I said.

    (Original post by GR4pilot)
    There is nothing wrong with my ego DJ; it's just the doorframe's too damned small is all

    --------------

    lol, I didn't name names! :P

    (Original post by GR4pilot)
    In the undying words of Homer 'It's funny cause it's true' - don't knock my size; I'm only the right size (sitting) for pilot by about 4mm, they had to retake it cause I was slouching
    Lol, slouching tsk tsk - bad for your back!

    Mark
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    (Original post by djmarkmclachlan)
    I know how, but it's a kick in the balls doing it for so many replies - my method is easier - but just for you I'll do it.
    Thank you kindly. Copy and paste the quote=Wzz bit and it makes it a lot quicker

    (Original post by djmarkmclachlan)
    This is pretty petty. I have said since the start, the AAC flies, it's in the air it is a force which operates from the air: it's an air force. If the pilot is in Afghani and is thinking of the sea, does that make it a maritime force? Not IMO.
    No, but if he operates from a boat, serves in a force which is predominantly maritime, and operates in the same manner as his maritime colleagues, it does. Trust me; the AAC is very very similar to an armoured regiment; their whole ethos, way of working, and modus operandi match those of a ground based force. The fact that their assets happen to be airborne have nothing to do with it; they have much much more in common with an Army tank unit than an RAF or FAA flying squadron.

    (Original post by djmarkmclachlan)
    Ok, I was wrong. But I must've read it somewhere - didn't just pluck it up from nowhere.
    The courses start at the BFJT/BFT level with a simple land survival exercise. The FJ AFT equivalent adds some basic E&E stuff, and the pre-employment post-OCU stuff is rather hardcore and unpleasant, and not for discussion here.

    (Original post by djmarkmclachlan)
    Mate, I didn't originally say anything about choosing a career whatsoever, simply said that RAF pilots will go ahoy too, nothing about choosing the Navy if you like water or vv.
    Someone mentioned that the RAF was a better choice for those who disliked the sea, and you said that RAF pilots go to sea as well. Hopefully, for those interested, it's now clearer.

    (Original post by djmarkmclachlan)
    I've answered the same thing over and over. I haven't been speaking of when their not flying, I was talking of when they are in the air, they attack via the air, air power, air force. When they are on the ground - as you've said, they are not.
    And when they're in the air, they operate along the same lines as a bunch of tank mates or similar. They power project as a ground force would; as I've said, the fact they fly is ancilliary.

    The FAA's very similar to the RAF; the AAC isn't.

    (Original post by djmarkmclachlan)
    Perhaps, but it's not exactly false. Are you so naive you don't believe what I'm saying, or just sparking a debate? Obviously with you serving, you have seen it for yourself - not like I'm making it up. It's not simply a case of the forces, it's a remark of human nature, and I'm right.
    It frustrates me a very great deal when I meet people in the RAF with relatively little experience going on and on about various things they're highly unlikely to have encountered. I have very little experienced compared to some people, and I know it, and don't go on about things I've picked up through hearsay or opinion.

    Therefore, it's only natural that I dislike such broad-brush comments regarding morale in all three forces; and advice on how people should conduct themselves when facing it; coming from someone who, no offense, has had the bearest flicker of a career in the forces at a very young age.

    (Original post by djmarkmclachlan)
    Answered this above, I didn't say pick any of the forces based on going to sea or any other factor. Simply said that RAF mates do go aboard, granted not all of them, granted not very often, granted not for long, but they still embark, therefore they still go to sea.
    But for such a tiny amount of time that it's almost not worth considering when making career choices. You're picking very very semantic arguements here; picking fault over exact wordings and pointing out how you're technically correct. If someone fails to pick the RAF as a career choice because they don't want to go to sea, they're being crazy!

    (Original post by djmarkmclachlan)
    Yes, the PVR gives you a chance to see if its for you - then you're expected to serve for so long.
    What do you mean? If you PVR, you're given a fixed waiting time then leave the service after that time's elapsed. Amortisation of training costs doesn't come into it for aircrew until you're winged, and it's tiny for other branches.


    (Original post by djmarkmclachlan)
    Why does it not apply to an RAF Officer? Do RAF Officers not feel the same feelings as others? Perhaps, has a baby and starts to miss it, want's to go home but can't? Who knows. Throughout the forces there are highs and lows, ups and downs - some people will have low morale, and like I said, say in the Navy, off to sea for months, had a crap trip, didn't stop anywhere nice, missing the girl/boyfriend and theres more than one person feeling the same, morale will be low.
    No, RAF officers don't feel the same feelings as Naval ratings you've encountered. We don't go to sea for months for a start; our overseas work tends to be measured in weeks instead. Morale obviously goes up and down, but you cannot say that things you experienced amongst Naval ORs automatically apply to RAF officers. They don't.

    (Original post by djmarkmclachlan)
    Just that some seem to think the RAF is better, and as such can say some things about the other two.
    People joining the RAF are naturally going to think it's better; and if they have sensible comments about the others, fine. Especially considering the reasons they may have chosen the RAF over the others.

    Someone in the RAF may have prejudices about the other services, but someone joining can't; they're not in yet, so they'll have considered all three services when deciding what they wanted. So their reasons are perfectly valid.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wzz)
    ... Trust me; the AAC is very very similar to an armoured regiment; their whole ethos, way of working, and modus operandi match those of a ground based force. The fact that their assets happen to be airborne have nothing to do with it; they have much much more in common with an Army tank unit than an RAF or FAA flying squadron.
    Just to pour some oil onto troubled waters...

    A couple of years ago I had to give a presentation titled "Is the helicopter the new tank?".

    It was based on the capability, firepower and vulnerability of the Apache with respect to the Challenger II, whilst also comparing the tactics of each.

    In a nutshell, they each have their own pros and cons, but as you say, their modus operandi are remarkably similar. Eg, the AAC also have a recce screen and the Sqn formations mirror those of an Armoured Sqn etc.

    If anyone is really interested (or sad enough), I might still have the powerpoint presentation and notes buried on a disk somewhere.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by REME-Bod)
    Just to pour some oil onto troubled waters...
    Isn't it "oil on the fire"? Only kidding

    A couple of years ago I had to give a presentation titled "Is the helicopter the new tank?".

    It was based on the capability, firepower and vulnerability of the Apache with respect to the Challenger II, whilst also comparing the tactics of each.

    In a nutshell, they each have their own pros and cons, but as you say, their modus operandi are remarkably similar. Eg, the AAC also have a recce screen and the Sqn formations mirror those of an Armoured Sqn etc.

    If anyone is really interested (or sad enough), I might still have the powerpoint presentation and notes buried on a disk somewhere.[/QUOTE]

    I'm sad enough... would love to know more! Poss send me a PM :p:
    -----------------------

    Also re: the whole "ACC: is it a land force or air force" debate. Firstly... I put my hands up and declare my naivety, inexperiance and slight knowledge on these matters :p: but.... (you all knew that was coming!) isn't the difference down to the focus of each group (RAF/ACC). RAF focuses on achieving air supremecy, whilst the ACC is totally orientated around protecting/aiding troops on the ground? Am I right in thinking ACC will have minimal combat with other aircraft and engage in air to ground (?) attacks?

    As I said, my knowledge on this is seriously limited, just my perception, but would like to understand more as obviously imporant
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by REME-Bod)
    Just to pour some oil onto troubled waters...

    A couple of years ago I had to give a presentation titled "Is the helicopter the new tank?".

    It was based on the capability, firepower and vulnerability of the Apache with respect to the Challenger II, whilst also comparing the tactics of each.

    In a nutshell, they each have their own pros and cons, but as you say, their modus operandi are remarkably similar. Eg, the AAC also have a recce screen and the Sqn formations mirror those of an Armoured Sqn etc.

    If anyone is really interested (or sad enough), I might still have the powerpoint presentation and notes buried on a disk somewhere.
    Opsec permitting I'd like to see that PPT if i may, so tanks for the offer...
    Is a PM the best way?
    tricky
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LouE3D)
    ... the ACC is totally orientated around protecting/aiding troops on the ground? Am I right in thinking ACC will have minimal combat with other aircraft and engage in air to ground (?) attacks?
    Pretty much.

    (Original post by trickydicky)
    Opsec permitting I'd like to see that PPT if i may, so tanks for the offer...
    Np problem. I'll dig it out after Xmas (I'm off on hols in about an hour). As for Opsec, the info I used was pretty much public domain stuff anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by REME-Bod)
    Pretty much.


    Np problem. I'll dig it out after Xmas (I'm off on hols in about an hour). As for Opsec, the info I used was pretty much public domain stuff anyway.
    Cheers and merry christmas
    tricky
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Bravo Wzz, bravo!!!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I know this one has pretty much died, but thought I'd reply as this my first chance to since you last posted

    (Original post by Wzz)
    Thank you kindly. Copy and paste the quote=Wzz bit and it makes it a lot quicker
    Indeed, as I've done this time round - my way is still quicker though

    (Original post by Wzz)
    No, but if he operates from a boat, serves in a force which is predominantly maritime, and operates in the same manner as his maritime colleagues, it does. Trust me; the AAC is very very similar to an armoured regiment; their whole ethos, way of working, and modus operandi match those of a ground based force. The fact that their assets happen to be airborne have nothing to do with it; they have much much more in common with an Army tank unit than an RAF or FAA flying squadron.
    It does, kind of - you must atleast see my point, semantics or not - they fly in the air, so that's why I said they are an air power, which still they are

    (Original post by Wzz)
    The courses start at the BFJT/BFT level with a simple land survival exercise. The FJ AFT equivalent adds some basic E&E stuff, and the pre-employment post-OCU stuff is rather hardcore and unpleasant, and not for discussion here.
    I found where I read it, and as unreliable as it may be, it was 'Bravo Two Zero', where 'McNab' was talking about his SAS training and having to navigate alongside some RAF pilots, who were doing nav work in the Brecons, and had to hide in ditches and stuff.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    Someone mentioned that the RAF was a better choice for those who disliked the sea, and you said that RAF pilots go to sea as well. Hopefully, for those interested, it's now clearer.
    Hopefully, but I mentioned it as a sideline, not supposed to grab the attention that it did, just that the RAF mates go aboard too But hey, the Apache were on HMS Ocean(?) not long ago, I believe.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    And when they're in the air, they operate along the same lines as a bunch of tank mates or similar. They power project as a ground force would; as I've said, the fact they fly is ancilliary.

    The FAA's very similar to the RAF; the AAC isn't.
    This one, I still can't get to grips by, you say their a ground force - but they are airborne. That's an oxymoron, no matter what they're thinking of while flying, and the way they attack, they're still an air force?

    (Original post by Wzz)
    It frustrates me a very great deal when I meet people in the RAF with relatively little experience going on and on about various things they're highly unlikely to have encountered. I have very little experienced compared to some people, and I know it, and don't go on about things I've picked up through hearsay or opinion.

    Therefore, it's only natural that I dislike such broad-brush comments regarding morale in all three forces; and advice on how people should conduct themselves when facing it; coming from someone who, no offense, has had the bearest flicker of a career in the forces at a very young age.
    Indeed, and as I said - I have my own opinions, and see things for myself, I don't just adapt the same idea's and opinions of my peers or my superiors. But even someone who has not served in the forces (provided they have common sense) must realise that the forces is not for everyone and people will not enjoy it, and that not everywhere is going to be rosey; that some places might actually have members who don't wish to be there, or who don't like the forces but can't leave etc etc.

    I accept that, however, understand my point - it's obvious that people will not be happy, and therefor will be unhappy, thus enforcing my argument that a lot of people in the forces will drag the place down, and the mood within it. Non taken, however - and I keep repeating myself here, I'm not an immature little kid, I was travelling Europe on a weekly basis at the age of 15, myself. I accept I wasn't in a long time, and that reflects in what I've said, and again, I don't participate as much as I could, simply because I don't wish to talk of things of which I have no knowledge atall, hence why I'm such a redundant member. I didn't actually give advise however, I simply said to brace yourself; because it's out there, and it is.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    But for such a tiny amount of time that it's almost not worth considering when making career choices. You're picking very very semantic arguements here; picking fault over exact wordings and pointing out how you're technically correct. If someone fails to pick the RAF as a career choice because they don't want to go to sea, they're being crazy!
    Indeed. However if someone picks the RAF purely because they don't want to go to sea, then they might end up out on Invincible, and be unhappy, I appreciate thats petty, but gets my point across. I didn't say about picking any of the forces, as I've said before, that was someone else

    (Original post by Wzz)
    What do you mean? If you PVR, you're given a fixed waiting time then leave the service after that time's elapsed. Amortisation of training costs doesn't come into it for aircrew until you're winged, and it's tiny for other branches.
    Well, that's different from the RN - as that's what I was basing imy argument on. Yes, but if someone PVR's, it means they're not happy being in the forces and for that time may be sour as to having to wait so long to get out. I appreciate differant circumstances for people leaving, but using that as an example.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    No, RAF officers don't feel the same feelings as Naval ratings you've encountered. We don't go to sea for months for a start; our overseas work tends to be measured in weeks instead. Morale obviously goes up and down, but you cannot say that things you experienced amongst Naval ORs automatically apply to RAF officers. They don't.
    You've indirectly said the same thing as I did, 'Morale obviously goes up and down,', and when it's down it's the same no matter which force you're in. However - this one isn't just RAF Officers, it's all military personnel, they will have ups and downs, and some people like I've said, will want out and their morale will be on a down, a lot more than it is up.

    (Original post by Wzz)
    People joining the RAF are naturally going to think it's better; and if they have sensible comments about the others, fine. Especially considering the reasons they may have chosen the RAF over the others.

    Someone in the RAF may have prejudices about the other services, but someone joining can't; they're not in yet, so they'll have considered all three services when deciding what they wanted. So their reasons are perfectly valid.
    I agree, but some of the comments considered 'banter' are of things they know nothing of, as having never served anywhere amongst any of them. This on can lay, I was just being a ***** when I originally posted that. However, 'sensible comments' are fine, but all out, piss-taking isn't what anyone comes on here for.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I found where I read it, and as unreliable as it may be, it was 'Bravo Two Zero', where 'McNab' was talking about his SAS training and having to navigate alongside some RAF pilots, who were doing nav work in the Brecons, and had to hide in ditches and stuff.
    Is that the same Andy McNabb who said that when flying back from t'Gulf (in a Swissair 727), that the pilot...

    "banked the aircraft steeply and put us into a perfect barrel roll. The other Swissair jet came up level with us, and both aircraft flew in concentric circles, meeting up again in the middle".

    Bugger fast jets, Swissair is where the exciting flying's at!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    DJ you've been away for 3 weeks and you still wanna cary this on ???

    lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If anyone is really interested (or sad enough), I might still have the powerpoint presentation and notes buried on a disk somewhere.
    Yep i'd be interested to see that as well please
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ergo bibamus)
    Is that the same Andy McNabb who said that when flying back from t'Gulf (in a Swissair 727), that the pilot...

    "banked the aircraft steeply and put us into a perfect barrel roll. The other Swissair jet came up level with us, and both aircraft flew in concentric circles, meeting up again in the middle".

    Bugger fast jets, Swissair is where the exciting flying's at!
    Ahh, I don't remember that part of it somehow. :confused: I thought they got a Herc on their way home?

    So that's why people want to go commercial?! Ahh!

    (Original post by GR4pilot)
    DJ you've been away for 3 weeks and you still wanna cary this on ???

    lol
    lol, well - I wouldv'e replied at the time, if I'd been online And it's one of the few threads I was active in.
 
 
 
Poll
Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?
Useful resources

Articles:

Guide to the armed forcesGuide to the Royal Air ForceA job in the Army

Featured recruiter profiles:

Army logo

The Army is recruiting now

"With hundreds of roles available, there’s more than one way to be the best."

Quick Link:

Unanswered Armed Forces Threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.