RAF 100

I wonder, perhaps, that those clambering to suggest it should have contained more from coastal command, or whatever other branch/section/theatre are missing a point. I’d suggest that a decent number here are pretty well read in their field of interest and for us as viewers would we have learned anything more than we already know in perhaps a few minutes given to other areas? I suspect not.

As somebody who has worked over 30 years in aviation, is a lifelong enthusiast and have volunteered for a similar period in aircraft museums and organisations, I don’t think that there would be much a 90 minutes could tell me than I knew already. BUT…. 90 minutes including some wonderful GoPro filming from a Lysander, Typhoon, etc. etc., now that was worth watching as it is something I wouldn’t have seen or experienced otherwise.

Andy -indeed I understand your remit and what was required to make that work. The producers undoubtedly had a difficult task – to make a programme that was enjoyable to watch
but at the same time respectful.

In reality its a story that even with hours of television couldn’t be fully told .

David. To clarify, in BBC terms, the McGregor brothers = the ‘talent’ to which I refer.

I am happy with my contribution which was (simply) to source flyable aircraft and negotiate with the owners for their use. I fulfilled the role for which I was engaged.

What happened thereafter, and how the programme was structured, or its content, was not my remit.

David, I was really commenting on what I perceived to be criticism of Tangmere1940’s role in the proceedings, rather than commenting on the programme as a whole. Within the limits of my own experience, Tangmere1940 is in the clear.

On the whole, I don’t much like celebrity-driven programmes but this is clearly how it was set up from the start. RADIO TIMES listed it as “RAF at 100 with Ewan and Colin McGregor“. Alhough it got categorised as a documentary, we pretty much knew what we would get before it was aired. RADIO TIMES said that the brothers would ‘take to the skies in aircraft from across the air force’s history’ and gave some examples and isn’t that just what they did? The trailers didn’t dress it up as anything more than that. We got what it said on the tin. This was a Sunday evening programme on the BBC’s main TV channel, aimed not at ‘us’ but at an average viewer sitting down in front of the television set, on the evening before starting a week at work. This is not a defence of the programme but more an attempt to put it into some sort of context.

Would I have preferred a more serious and comprehensive documentary spanning 100 years of the RAF’s history? You bet, but ‘RAF at 100’ was never intended to be that programme.

Incidentally, the BBC News weather programme this morning (I forget its name) came from RAF Brize Norton and RAF Marham. It wasn’t so much about the aircraft as the role of the RAF’s meteorologists and the role of those whose tasks include keeping the runways clear when it snows – not exactly an aviation programme but at least something about those backroom personnel without whom … etc … etc.

Earlier on it was the Gregors or nothing ! Now its ‘talent’ ! I don’t think anyone disputes that well known names help to bolster viewer numbers -whether the ‘brothers’ format added anything is debatable!

As is clear your very happy with your contribution and I am not advocating that you could have turned it into a multi hour documentary of every RAF aircraft . What I find unusual is that the RAF’s work in the Balkans – Afghanistan- Libya-Iraq and Syria didn’t even seem to register in the role of precision strike – but the fact that RAF aircraft can still dogfight
seemed a preoccupation!

No. But commissioning editors want ‘talent’ involved. It gets the viewing figures. Without that, it simply wouldn’t have happened – however hard one might find that to fathom.

Problem is when the facts are presented – it makes you scratch your head even more! I find it frankly baffling that a programme would not be commissioned at all without the McGregor brothers ! The BBC would have done nothing ?

As to criticising the programme makers – surely that is no different to any other programme produced ? You are judged on the end product not how you got there !

I’m afraid that commissioning editors don’t work that way. It had to be the McGregor brothers – or the programme would not have been commissioned. Simple as that! Period.

What wasn’t simple, though, was getting any of it to work at all; timings, availability, weather, serviceability etc. etc. etc. That a programme was achieved at all is nothing short of a miracle, and what had to be cut/edited/not used was another story in itself.

It is very easy to criticise the programme makers without being in full possession of the facts.

Ian – the problem with the premis is that the programme was neither fully blown documentary nor a celebration in light format of the RAF. As has already been pointed out -there had to be an ability for both brothers to fly simultaneously. Quite why this was such an issue is perplexing – without the combination -another presenter could have done a similar role -Clarkson or Dan Snow spring instantly to mind.
As it was we ended up with a sequence for instance where brothers
swapped seats in a Lysander. Adding little to the programme. In terms of that
being a feature -it meant in real terms that workhorses of the RAF like the Harrier -Jaguar-Tornado-Nimrod and Hercules didn’t even feature at all! How
You can tell the story of the RAF in the last quarter century without even the smallest of mention is bizarre.

So yes you cannot please everyone -however there was atleast 98 years notice to formulate the programme !

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43612268/raf-anniversary-flypast-at-biggin-hill

Brian

A bit late due to church parade, but i’d like to wish the RAF and its personnel past and present a very happy birthday, and on a personal point all the enjoyment you’ve given me…
and here’s to the next 100 in whatever form, it may be.
regards,
jack…

You can’t please all of the people all of the time. As demostrated here.
:rolleyes:

Well Happy 100th to the RAF: let’s take a moment today to remember.

I do not know in precise detail what Tangmere1940 contributed to “RAF100” but, as someone who has been a consultant for a BBC television programme in the past (not aviation-related but something entirely different), some of the comments herein seem unnecessarily harsh. If my experience is anything to go by, it is a misunderstanding of the role, at the very least.

I was not involved at the commissioning stage, when the broad parameters and approach of the programme were settled. I was not the person who directed or filmed the programme. I was not involved in the script/commentary in any way. I was certainly not involved in the editing of the programme, one of the most crucial aspects. There again, I was not the person to carry the can, had things gone wrong. Mine was a purely advisory role – making suggestions, pointing the programme makers in certain directions, suggesting people to contact and the like.

Just as in this thread, some expressed disappointment and criticism following its broadcast – and with greater validity than with “RAF 100”, I should add – but I really enjoyed the experience despite that.

To reply to Cherry Ripe.

As previously explained, my job was simply to ‘source’ flying/flyable aircraft and initiate discussions with the owners and operators for the production company.

My role did not extend to any input to the programme content, or any decision as to which aircraft were used – although a much wider range of aircraft types etc. were in the mix supplied to the production company as possible contenders for inclusion. What made the cut was not my decision and I had no part in that process. However, it mostly came down to logistics and budget and factors such as weather on booked flying days and the corresponding availabilities of film crew, aircraft and the presenter’s availability around his other commitments. All of those factors were tricky elements to get together.

Finally, Cherry Ripe’s post suggests that I perhaps should have expressed dissatisfaction and walked away from the project – or possibly infers that I had some dissatisfaction? Neither premise is correct.

I had no dissatisfaction, either pre or post production.

As somebody so rightly pointed out, you can’t please everybody!

#49 True but where would the RAF be without them?

Because the film had to incorporate significant flying scenes involving the McGregor brothers there was not much choice but the Lysander although the Blenheim had also been on the list of flyers.

Another option would be to express dissatisfaction and walk away from the project.

TV producers will keep making shallow, character-focused, unchallenging ‘entertainment’ so long as people keep compromising to meet their ‘vision’. Maybe someone needs to point out that their vision sucks.

As others have said, TV progs have their limits (running time, budget, scope of subject etc). I’m not sure that I would have wanted to be in the presenter or producer’s position with this one, there is so much to cover in 90mins that you’d have to make some pretty heartbreaking decisions on what not to include. Overall, it was a decent skim over the subject for the average viewer and a good bit of PR for the RAF. My favourite part was probably the Lysander spy-drop, for one thing it made me realise how vital that ladder was on the SOE versions. Getting in and out without it in civvies and carrying lots of kit wouldn’t have been fun!

We have the good fortune that the memorial to RAF history is being conserved and created by many who care. Taking a wider view than one TV programme there is now a greater interest than in the early 1960s when a small number of people struggled to preserve the heritage..eg Peter Thomas. Many writers and archivists interviewed those who were there and the IWM saved a lot of this material. Nowadays the challenge regards accounts is to keep sorting the wheat from the chaff. And while not all re builds are destined for flight there are truly wonderful projects flying eg Blenheim, early biplanes. The static display due at RAF Cosford will look grand.

Since when were the ATA part of the RAF?

FB