Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Sign in to follow this  
gettafa

RAF confirms Saudi pilots train at Ronaldsway Airport

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Don't forget the NATO bombing range targets off Jurby too. Used to sit on the cliffs there and watch sometimes. Sometimes they used to fly up the coast below the level of the sand cliffs.

Now that would have been low..Calm down fella...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Actually only about 25 (finishing in 1993) according to Wiki.

Thanks Roger. I'm happy to accept that. 

(Not doubting, but would point out that Wiki is little more accurate than a man down the pub with an internet connection and a wiki account, or indeed Manx Forums.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Old Git said:

It’s the Crown actually. 

She also just happens to own the U.K.

The Crown does not mean the Queen personally it means that nebulous concept known as the State. It is what you make it mean or want it to mean when the occasion arises. The Queen personifies the Head of State and thus we see prosecutions as R or Regina v etc... or other way round but it is not personal. The overall constitutional set up is the Crown..The Queen speaks for it on behalf of the collective concept hence the Royal WE...there was once a time when the Monarch was known regarding the IOM as Lord Proprietor later cut down to Lord of Mann but once again the Lord of Mann did not own the territory so much as the Ceremonials. Same applies to the UK counties which are referred to as Ceremonial counties. The Queen has private property like Sandringham and Balmoral etc but the benefits of the actual Crown Estate were surrendered to Parliament as it were about 1760 and to this day the Royals receive a Sovereign grant out of the proceeds but the main proceeds go to the Treasury.. The Queen could not sell a piece of the IOM unless it was owned privately. It is all done in her Name that is all....In other words a legal fiction and it is what they say in Cabinet in Number 10 that counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SJR said:

Now that would have been low..Calm down fella...

Many jets fly ultra low. They have ground or surface hugging radar. The RAF Tornado was one such and as we saw in the Gulf many bombing runs were executed at 40 to 50 feet altitude. As I said the Tornadoes would fly down Laxey and exit over the harbour. This why the Jurby range was used to teach low flying and bombing. The ex Navy Buccaneer jets used by the RAF were also meant for surface hugging save they were not as digital and the pilot had to get down low using the MK1 eye ball and surf the pressure wave at 50 feet altitude. So yes they would fly as low as the man said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hissingsid said:

Probably this is all written in to the agreement we have with the U.K. regarding defence etc and it is the first time it has been implemented, we are talking about a few vapour trails in the sky and an agreement made yonks ago....calm down.

The hoot is that the Isle of Man actually pays the UK for defence and military matters and because of this the RAF, Army and Navy can use the Island. So you pay them to use you hence Saudi pilots in Hawk trainers can beat up Ronaldsway. This is known as The Constitutional Relation ship...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SJR said:

Now that would have been low..Calm down fella...

It was low. Believe me :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gettafa said:

(Not doubting, but would point out that Wiki is little more accurate than a man down the pub with an internet connection and a wiki account, or indeed Manx Forums.)

Actually Wiki is pretty accurate on most things, simply because the world is full of smart-arses only too happy to correct people when they get it wrong.  There are occasional instances of vandalism, but you can usually spot those because they don't 'look' right (they're also often written in a different style from the rest of the article) and there are classes of article that you need to be cautious about: very new ones for example or those about certain areas of popular culture which can get opinionated.  For some controversial subjects it's worth checking if they are 'locked' by one of the various protection statuses that Wiki has eg that only trusted editors can alter them under consensus.

In this case the article has been around a while (since 2010), there are plenty of references given to where the information came from, and a variety of sources are given.  The main contributor to it appears to be a trusted one  and it passes the plausibility test - closing in 1993 after the end of the Cold War is what you would expect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barrie Stevens said:

Wibble

Yeah, I understand what the crown is Barry. It’s not the U.K. though. 

This explains it very well

Wibble away

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching some this morning, about five, the vapour trails were heading upwards so certainly not commercial aircraft.    Doing no harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hissingsid said:

Watching some this morning, about five, the vapour trails were heading upwards so certainly not commercial aircraft.    Doing no harm.

Officer of the Watch: "Gun crew! Check Check Check Those aircraft are non-hostile"

Starboard Lookout: "Stick of four bombs coming down Sir!"

I think from "Three Corvettes" by Nicholas Monsarrat...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, the stinking enigma said:

I spent many hours as a kid looking down upon the f1-11's from atop my favourite spot on the sand cliffs so definitely lower yep.

Bet you were a right mondo teeno :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Actually Wiki is pretty accurate on most things, simply because the world is full of smart-arses only too happy to correct people when they get it wrong.  There are occasional instances of vandalism,

I agree on its accuracy in the main and also about the occasional bout of devilment. The Foxdale nuclear submarine base page was instructive.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

I was and I wasn't. 

I knew a man who said that all of the time. You'd ask him a question: "Well, it is and it isn't." "I am and I'm not." "I will and I won't." "She has and she hasn't." "I did and I didn't."

Most infuriating man in the freaking world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...