Dead F-111 Pilot was only a passenger

[Vector]

Make up your own mind Martin but this post from Brash (below) seems a
fair representation of the RAAfs attitude to their operational
screw-ups and inadequacies.

From such oafs right up to Air Marshal Errol McCormack, AO Chief of
Air Force who reportedly told Kim at the time of the tragedy she
would get a coronial inquest over his "dead body".

Thoroughly consistent with the BOI whitewash and subsequent treatment
of Kim and her kids.

Most wouldn't know Shorty's background or the RAAFs treachery.

He topped the class at the elite US Navy "Top Gun" test pilot school
and four of his classmates are now NASA astronauts.

Last year, his wife Dr Kim Short a RAAF reservist agreed to waive her
right to an inquest. The RAAF agreed, in return, to settle her common
law damages claim.

"Subsequently they pulled the Air Accidents Act out of the hat and
said I hadn't applied for compensation in the two-year period," she
said.

Under the Act, Squadron Leader Short would be regarded as a passenger,
limiting the maximum payout available to his family to $200,000.

Pack of *******s!

..
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:02:02 +1000, "Brash"
> wrote:

>"Vector" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:20:22 +1000, Martin Taylor >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There's a lead in article in today's Herald-Sun newspaper regarding the
>> >widow of an F-111 pilot who was killed when his A/C crashed. It's about
>> >how the widow is being denied "adequate" compensation.
>> >
>> >Who here, who may have been in the RAAF, thinks that it's a fair
>> >article, or a beatup?
>>
>> Beatup? Wash your mouth out Martin - and don't expect anybody from
>> the RAAF to respond to this shameful blot on their character..
>>
>> And do not, repeat NOT you or anybody else ever question ir describe
>> this bloody disgrace to todays ****weak organization of boy scouts
>> which basks in the former glory of the RAAF as a beatup.
>
>Ain't it funny though that any number of these "boy scouts" could beat the
>living **** out of you. What a disgrace for you, that would be.

Some could - most wouldn't.

So what anyway - Wanna address the more important topic of RAAF
treachery towards it's own dead?

[VH-MR2]

You may look a little more intelligent if you based your rant on fact. The
RAAF to NOT (repeat NOT) deal with these issues, they are dealt with by the
Government (Department of Defence). If you have an issue with the
inadequate compensation then take it up with the Government.

This issue is no different from the issue of that poor young thing in Perth
left to raise a small child on a pitifully embarrasing pension per year
after her husband was killed in Afghanistan.

The RAAF is an organisation made up of workers, your attempt to lump them
all into the one category here is quite pathetic but not surprising given
the attitudes and stupidity of many who take oxygen under false pretences in
this world.






"Vector" > wrote in message
...
> Make up your own mind Martin but this post from Brash (below) seems a
> fair representation of the RAAfs attitude to their operational
> screw-ups and inadequacies.
>
> From such oafs right up to Air Marshal Errol McCormack, AO Chief of
> Air Force who reportedly told Kim at the time of the tragedy she
> would get a coronial inquest over his "dead body".
>
> Thoroughly consistent with the BOI whitewash and subsequent treatment
> of Kim and her kids.
>
> Most wouldn't know Shorty's background or the RAAFs treachery.
>
> He topped the class at the elite US Navy "Top Gun" test pilot school
> and four of his classmates are now NASA astronauts.
>
> Last year, his wife Dr Kim Short a RAAF reservist agreed to waive her
> right to an inquest. The RAAF agreed, in return, to settle her common
> law damages claim.
>
> "Subsequently they pulled the Air Accidents Act out of the hat and
> said I hadn't applied for compensation in the two-year period," she
> said.
>
> Under the Act, Squadron Leader Short would be regarded as a passenger,
> limiting the maximum payout available to his family to $200,000.
>
> Pack of *******s!
>
> .
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:02:02 +1000, "Brash"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Vector" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:20:22 +1000, Martin Taylor >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >There's a lead in article in today's Herald-Sun newspaper regarding
the
> >> >widow of an F-111 pilot who was killed when his A/C crashed. It's
about
> >> >how the widow is being denied "adequate" compensation.
> >> >
> >> >Who here, who may have been in the RAAF, thinks that it's a fair
> >> >article, or a beatup?
> >>
> >> Beatup? Wash your mouth out Martin - and don't expect anybody from
> >> the RAAF to respond to this shameful blot on their character..
> >>
> >> And do not, repeat NOT you or anybody else ever question ir describe
> >> this bloody disgrace to todays ****weak organization of boy scouts
> >> which basks in the former glory of the RAAF as a beatup.
> >
> >Ain't it funny though that any number of these "boy scouts" could beat
the
> >living **** out of you. What a disgrace for you, that would be.
>
> Some could - most wouldn't.
>
> So what anyway - Wanna address the more important topic of RAAF
> treachery towards it's own dead?
>

[Phil Smith]

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:44:23 +1000, Vector >
wrote:

>Make up your own mind Martin but this post from Brash (below) seems a
>fair representation of the RAAfs attitude to their operational
>screw-ups and inadequacies.

Which operational screw-ups and inadequacies, for instance?

The accident occurred in one of the most hazardous situations known to
military operators at a time when something went wrong. Its something
that anyone who serves in uniform learns is the reality of military
life, particularly military flying. It's happened in the past...it'll
happen in the future. Military planners actually factor an *expected*
attrition rate into the predicted lifespan of a combat aircraft fleet.

>From such oafs right up to Air Marshal Errol McCormack, AO Chief of
>Air Force who reportedly told Kim at the time of the tragedy she
>would get a coronial inquest over his "dead body".

Because he was satisfied that the existing enquiry and accident
investigation process, that has been used countless times in previous
military flying accidents arrived at a satisfactory outcome and that
the additional time and effort of further inquiry would simply not
produce anything that was not already known.

>
>Thoroughly consistent with the BOI whitewash and subsequent treatment
>of Kim and her kids.

You mean that the Board of Enquiry outcome wasn't what some people
wanted to hear.

>
>Most wouldn't know Shorty's background or the RAAFs treachery.
>
>He topped the class at the elite US Navy "Top Gun" test pilot school
>and four of his classmates are now NASA astronauts.

So what has this got to do with the price of fish? He was top of the
class because he simply had the highest demonstrated proficiency
amongst his course peers. It still doesn't make him infallible or
entitle his family to any more additional privilege than any other
pilot in the processes and outcomes of a death occurring during
military flying.

>
>Last year, his wife Dr Kim Short a RAAF reservist agreed to waive her
>right to an inquest. The RAAF agreed, in return, to settle her common
>law damages claim.
>
>"Subsequently they pulled the Air Accidents Act out of the hat and
>said I hadn't applied for compensation in the two-year period," she
>said.
>
>Under the Act, Squadron Leader Short would be regarded as a passenger,
>limiting the maximum payout available to his family to $200,000.

Well...the lawyers came at the Government with a legal challenge over
and above the existing established processes of handing a death due to
a military flying accident. The Government is therefore fully entitled
to meet that challenge with its own legal resources.

>
>Pack of *******s!
>

The reality of military combat flying (including training and
proficiency retention) is that it *is* a hazardous business from the
outset, even in peacetime. The people who do it know it full well, but
are still willing to take on the risk. But they go to inordinate
lengths to minimise the risk.

[Next point] Military superannuation schemes have *always* included a
death benefit element that is intended to provide for the next-of-kin
in the event of a member dying while serving in uniform. Aircrew also
are paid a flying allowance, part of which is intended to cover the
higher cost of life insurance. The 'system' therefore *does*
acknowledge the hazards of military flying.

But the moment that the next-of-kin of a deceased member starts
pulling the Oliver Twist line and gets lawyers to start plucking out
intangible claims on the basis of , say, "loss of potential future
earned income" [my husband pilot had planned to finish his flying
career in the Air Force, then become an airline pilot, earn lots of
money so that we can live in a nice big house and now that's all gone
and I want equivalent compensation]...the 'system' definitely *won't*
roll over and cop it sweet!

[The CO]

"Brash" > wrote in message
...
> "Vector" > wrote in message
> ...

<snip>

> > He topped the class at the elite US Navy "Top Gun" test pilot school
>
> No such ****ing thing. If you're referring to the "Naval Fighter
Weapons
> School" (odd that they would send a strike-pilot to attend a fighter
> course), its not a test pilot school. They have this thing called the
"Test
> Pilot School" for **** like that.

Correct. Paxutent River. At least one former CO of ARDU was a
graduate,
a very fine gentleman named Peter Sadler.

<snip>

The CO