DenisPC9

I was posted to Cocos 1979 - 81 the RAAF used to fly in on P3s, the occasional C130 and the even rarer VIP Sqn. The P3 crews used to tell me as part of a NavEx they used to tune in to VKW (Broadcasting on 1404 kiloHertz to ships in the air, planes at sea and anyone else silly enough to be listening 😉) carrier wave (from memory) more than a few hundred miles out and just follow the strengthening signal until they picked up the voices, then they knew they were less than 100 miles out. 12.05S 96.53E burnt into my brain.

Hmmm, I recall tall tales and true from a former work colleague who, in a previous life was a "Trash hauler" used to tell stories of "Herc racing". His version was that when a pair of C130s were tasked for a particular Operation, say Richmond to Edinburgh, they would try and get the jump on each other to arrive first. I believe it bore some relation to the Mess, Beer and who had to buy it. From memory they would request a certain FL then climb to 500' above it and accelerate back down to the approved FL. Then repeat the climbing and descending. So that would have been "the Step" in action.

I had experience in their "business dealings" here in Australia around a decade ago. The small Melbourne Software company that I worked for was doing a Tender to supply a Command Support System for the ADF. This was going to run the ADF Aviation Missions, Operations, Hours, Currencies, Recencies and a number of other events as well. We heard through back door sources that Boeing was installing a similar but greatly scaled down piece of their own Software at RAAF Williamtown for the Hornet Conversions Courses. They were approached through Industry channels to stop their implementation because this was already within the Tender process under Air whatever number Program. And that their product wasn't DRN/DSN certified. In effect they told us to bugger off because they were Boeing. So we sent a high level team to Defence Canberra. Boeing were told to remove their software. But it had to come from the highest levels of Defence. We also experienced mid to upper levels of contracted out and PS IT structure that were very sympathetic to the Boeing venture, even though Defence were (naturally) committed to the Commonwealth and ADF Tendering and Contract process.

Weren't there cases of Australian politicians (Bronwyn Bishop, from memory) telling RAAF aircrew when and where to land?

My take is that they have mentally reached the stage of "Too big to fail". For a long time they appeared to have the FAA and DoD in their pocket. That would breed a certain amount of hubris.

Someone, a few days ago, quoted that GFC saying "Too big to fail". Someone back in the GFC days, equally senior to the originator of the "Too big ot fail" comment responded with: "If they're too big to fail, they're too big to exist". His rationale was that if they knew they would get Govt bailout after Govt bailout, then why should they really try for the highest standards. Implicit with the Bailout mentality, was the (almost) surety that after a few Govt Bailouts a bunch of slick lawyers would sue the Govt because it may be then deemed that the Govt had some interest in the product.

True but like you and the rest of this scurvy bunch we are doing all this on a laptops, desktops, tablets and phones, So at least I, will remain seated. ?

Phonetically it was pronounced "STUDS". It may have been "STUDES" in your days, but you know what succeeding generations do. And it never quite matches up to what their forerunners did ?

I suspect it was an average. Although I don't know that "average of what", maybe annually. During the 4 years I as there, some Courses only lost a few and other Courses lost more than half the Studs. The only "foreign" students on Course when I was there was when the RAF Tucanos were all grounded due to "stuff" in the breathing system. It didn't take long for 2 complete Courses, Det Commander and QFIs were re-located to 2FTS, Australia and they carried on. It wasn't quite what they were used to. We don't have Batmen and we were very much more thorough in assessing the progress of Students. Ours was all Computer based, whereas many of the RAF flying aspects were on the say-so of the QFI. And using our system they had Students fail on their CO/CFI Assessment (Wings) Flight. Apparently that was a first. Although they took to the social life like Poms to a good Bitter. ? But I did hear from mates who went through Duntroon that that was the case for foreign Cadets.

A couple of decades ago I heard from an RAN Fixed Wing Pilot, when the RAN flew Fixed Wing aircraft, that's that's what they used to do. An Observer would be given lessons on rudimentary aircraft control and landings. So if the PIC became incapacitated, someone on board could still bring it down, in a semi-controlled fashion.

That happened to me more than a few times when I lived in PNG in the 1970s. I was stationed in Mendi, Southern Highlands District (later to become Province) and after a few trips to Moresby and back, I was put in the RH seat. The aircraft were usually Barons. I am not nor ever was a pilot. However when they had new pilots on the run, it helped having someone (usually an expat) who was familiar with the route. And whilst travelling around the District on business, flying was the way to go. A 30 minute flight to say, Erave or Tari would take 10+ hours driving. In the Highlands it was often cloudy but rarely 10/10s, so when approaching the vicinity of the target ah Station, the PIC would look out the LH side and I would look out the RH side. Whoever saw it, made the call and the PIC then did what they were paid to do. This also occurred in other Districts where I worked when I was doing Cash runs to Outstations or just jaunting out there for an Inspection or deal with recalcitrant staff.

Military Flying Training has had a 60% washout rate since WWI up until 2005. That's when I left the Industry. I ran the software that ran the School's Ground based rep-Flight training as running the daily Operations and Flight Scheduling. I got this piece of information from the Psychs who assess for suitability in selections and those that assess Students in training. They were in Defence and also had overseas experience in these fields. I suspect civilian washout rates are nowhere near 60% but I also suspect their success rate is nowhere near 100% either.

I sit corrected, High School Latin has finally lost. ?

Given the much higher level of intelligence exhibited here than many other fora, I assumed as that slack legislative drafting would naturally lead to legislation full of loopholes and exemptions, which enables all sorts of carrying-ons and shenanigans, it would have been apparent in the indignation of the tone of the article, whereby foreign law companies are making a motza here due to those holes in the legislation. It obviously wasn't apparent to some.

Hmmm, I read a small article in the Sydney Morning Herald from memory some 4 - 5 years ago, the gist of it being that the Brit Govt told the Australian Govt that it would no longer train Australian Legislative Draftsmen. No reasons were given and there was never any follow by anyone. Reading articles like this and many, many others where Aust law is full of loopholes and escape clauses I can understand the actions of the Brit Govt. We certainly need to lift our standards with Legislative Drafting