How can our chubby, drug-addled and right-on Army protect us from our enemies?

Are you still labouring under the illusion that opinions are wrong?

If you think something is a load of old boll0cks, that's your shout.

It doesn’t matter if one, some, most or none of the RAF pilots agree with me that some policies are boll0cks. It's just opinions.

It must grate though, that not everyone in aviation agrees with your POV.

Feel free to persevere in 'winning' a difference of opinion.
Oh, and while you're on your high horse about opinion, have you submitted your "opinion" to the MAA that their Policy is bollocks. If your opinion is so "right", they'll change their policy.

I look forward to not having to bother with these bothersome bollocks mandatory FOD checks. I'll buy you a pint when it happens.
 
Keep digging. It's not an opinion, it's policy.

Just because you or your imaginary pilot friend doesn't understand why the policy is in place doesn't make it less valid or an "opinion", it makes you and your non-existent pilot friend wrong.

Simple as that.

You may have an opinion that 70mph on the motorway is a "load of old boll0cks". That's fine, I accept that. It's still the law (policy) and exceeding the mandated limit makes you wrong, whether you like it or not.

So bore off, Mr Wrong.
You're still not getting this, are you?

Checking tyres for stuff that might fall onto a rubble strewn surface is indeed policy.

That opinion exists to say it's a load of horse shit is fact.

Is there a requirement for FOD checks before crossing an active runway at night?
It would be a bit mad to endanger aircraft by not checking, wouldn't it?

Speed limits are often also a load of old boll0cks too, a view shared by many coppers, who still enforce laws they disagree with.

Exceeding the speed limit or failing to do FOD checks are wrong. Considering them inappropriate in certain circumstances is opinion.
 
Mate, pay attention and catch up. We have all moved on, we're talking about rubbish on runways now.
FOD is important to some. We must recognise the emotional rights of all, and be appropriately attentive when they drool. I'm not averse to drifting myself, when I feel that the thread is not meeting my needs as a Person of Minority. And if you call me a Pom you'll be up for racial stereotyping.
 
None of you can talk about fod plods...until you’ve conducted one on a warship flightdeck whilst a team of dabblers with Jason’s pistols (pneumatic paint chipper things) are still very much at work on the upperdeck about 20m fwd of the flightdeck!

Boxes need to be ticked though, and checklists need to be adhered to.
 
You're still not getting this, are you?

Checking tyres for stuff that might fall onto a rubble strewn surface is indeed policy.

That opinion exists to say it's a load of horse shit is fact.

Is there a requirement for FOD checks before crossing an active runway at night?
It would be a bit mad to endanger aircraft by not checking, wouldn't it?

Speed limits are often also a load of old boll0cks too, a view shared by many coppers, who still enforce laws they disagree with.

Exceeding the speed limit or failing to do FOD checks are wrong. Considering them inappropriate in certain circumstances is opinion.
It's already been pointed out that on the said airfield that you were honking on about there was still the Air Ambulance and other Aircraft operating. VAHS was still active too.

It's already been pointed out that the said airfield was prior, was during, and was afterwards, a live airfield.

In this scenario - of which you appear to have incomplete data on - it was entirely correct to carry out FOD Checks.

Why are you so angry about the fact that your pilot mate has spun you a dit that was probably there to show "how daft H&S policy is", but when examined under the cold light of fact turns out to be incorrect. Why are you arguing with a random bloke on the internet about it? Why don't you go back to your pilot mate and tell him he made you look a cnut on the internet?

You're entitled to your opinion, however ill-formed it was. I'm entitled to call you out on it. Which I am doing. So stop crying.
 
It's already been pointed out that on the said airfield that you were honking on about there was still the Air Ambulance and other Aircraft operating. VAHS was still active too.

It's already been pointed out that the said airfield was prior, was during, and was afterwards, a live airfield.

In this scenario - of which you appear to have incomplete data on - it was entirely correct to carry out FOD Checks.

Why are you so angry about the fact that your pilot mate has spun you a dit that was probably there to show "how daft H&S policy is", but when examined under the cold light of fact turns out to be incorrect. Why are you arguing with a random bloke on the internet about it? Why don't you go back to your pilot mate and tell him he made you look a cnut on the internet?

You're entitled to your opinion, however ill-formed it was. I'm entitled to call you out on it. Which I am doing. So stop crying.
What makes you think I'm angry or crying?

If the live airfield was so critically subject to FOD checks, how could the cabs operate, when half of Lincolnshire was being dropped on the airfield?

Perhaps they operated on a section that was clean? FOD checks to enter that clean area would be obvious even to people outside the intense world of Aviation Safety.

You still think a FOD check to follow plant across the runway, dropping all that rubble, is entirely appropriate?

Of course you do. It's the rules. Lives are at stake if you don't check tyres before proceeding across a runway that resembles a ploughed field.

What about those suspended FOD checks on an active runway at night, good idea or not?

Edited to add -

In fairness, a FOD check on leaving the runway resembling a ploughed field, to ensure you're not carting half of Lincolnshire away, would've been more appropriate.
 
What makes you think I'm angry or crying?

If the live airfield was so critically subject to FOD checks, how could the cabs operate, when half of Lincolnshire was being dropped on the airfield?

Perhaps they operated on a section that was clean? FOD checks to enter that clean area would be obvious even to people outside the intense world of Aviation Safety.

You still think a FOD check to follow plant across the runway, dropping all that rubble, is entirely appropriate?

Of course you do. It's the rules. Lives are at stake if you don't check tyres before proceeding across a runway that resembles a ploughed field.

What about those suspended FOD checks on an active runway at night, good idea or not?

Edited to add -

In fairness, a FOD check on leaving the runway resembling a ploughed field, to ensure you're not carting half of Lincolnshire away, would've been more appropriate.
All this after an idle moan from your pilot chum about an airfield you've probably never even visited. You need to get your tongue out of his crack, does he know you're white-knighting his opinion so very very hard?
 
Why are you so angry about the fact that your pilot mate has spun you a dit that was probably there to show "how daft H&S policy is", but when examined under the cold light of fact turns out to be incorrect. Why are you arguing with a random bloke on the internet about it? Why don't you go back to your pilot mate and tell him he made you look a cnut on the internet?
Ah...but you are not just some 'random bloke on the internet'. You are VG, of arrse acclaim.
I for one will look to you for clarification and validation of all my fodplod requirements!

You also inhabit an office with views of a Ford Focus.
 
@Dan Gleebles
I think you may be slightly misinterpreting my comments and "liking" them as such as some nudge at Gyroscopic precession in a non-horizontal plane.

I can assure you I hold he, and his opinions in the highest regard - despite his knee-jerk reaction to the Sir Phil Green affair and him now stating he will refuse to shop at TopShop anymore.
 
@Dan Gleebles
I think you may be slightly misinterpreting my comments and "liking" them as such as some nudge at Gyroscopic precession in a non-horizontal plane.

I can assure you I hold he, and his opinions in the highest regard - despite his knee-jerk reaction to the Sir Phil Green affair and him now stating he will refuse to shop at TopShop anymore.
Mind that gag reflex there sailor.
 
Ah...but you are not just some 'random bloke on the internet'. You are VG, of arrse acclaim.
I for one will look to you for clarification and validation of all my fodplod requirements!

You also inhabit an office with views of a Ford Focus.
He didn't mention the colour of the said ford focus, anyway he can't see shit from 1 hangar

@verticalgyro
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
E The NAAFI Bar 23
ThunderBox The NAAFI Bar 2
T Photography 120

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top