Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Kr 1154

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,723
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 26 Times in 24 Posts

    Default Kr 1154

    I'd appreciate advice in respect of the wording or interpretation of KR 1154. My query is in relation to the loss of FK743 (251 Squadron) which flew into high ground when returning to Reykjavik from a MAGNUM sortie on 27 March 1945. The subsequent Court of Inquiry recommended that action be taken against the Reykjavik Flying Control Officer under KR 1154.

    Brian

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    859
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts

    Default Re: Kr 1154

    Brian,

    No idea really but Kings Regulations? 1154?

    Regards,

    John.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,723
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 26 Times in 24 Posts

    Default Re: Kr 1154

    That's what it says, John:

    Blame and Disciplinary Action: FCO. Action under KR 1154.

    Brian

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Bewdley, UK
    Posts
    2,817
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 31 Times in 30 Posts

    Default Re: Kr 1154

    Yes Kings Regulations and Air Council Instructions usually KR&ACI but sometimes KRs.

    My copy is 1941 amended to May 1942 but in this case the clause will have been the same in 1945 - possibly with small changes to wording as years passed.

    "1154 Reproof of Officers and Warrant Officers.

    1. A C.O. or any superior air force officer may reprove an officer or warrant officer under his command for an offence which, in his opinion, is not of such a serious nature as to merit disciplinary action under the Air Force Act. The reproof of an officer or warrant officer is not a recognised punishment under the Act and will not be entered in the officer's or warrant officer's record although it may be referred to if necessary in a confidential report......"

    An additional paragraph details that reproof should not be given if superior authority considers that the offence may lead to action under the Act.

    What used to be known as "a interview without tea and biscuits - where the CO did all the talking and you did all the listening".

    Ross
    The Intellectual Property contained in this message has been assigned specifically to this web site.
    Copyright Ross McNeill 2015 to 2021 - All rights reserved.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reading, Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,381
    Thanks
    90
    Thanked 73 Times in 68 Posts

    Default Re: Kr 1154

    Ross,
    Tks the last line of yr post.
    I now know the technicalities associated with that type of interview!!!!!!!!
    HTH
    Peter Davies
    Meteorology is a science; good meteorology is an art!
    We might not know - but we might know who does!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,723
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 26 Times in 24 Posts

    Default Re: Kr 1154

    Many thanks, Ross, it makes sense now.

    Peter
    You? Never.

    Brian

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reading, Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,381
    Thanks
    90
    Thanked 73 Times in 68 Posts

    Default Re: Kr 1154

    I plead the 5th Amendment! H2 filled balloons at a formal function!!
    Peter Davies
    Meteorology is a science; good meteorology is an art!
    We might not know - but we might know who does!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •