Talk:No. 5 Operational Training Unit RAAF/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 07:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No DABs, but some of the external links need to be cleaned up.
- Hi Storm, do you mean the code 302s returned by the naa.gov.au links? I think those codes are quite common for the site but the links do work... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, they do work. Point withdrawn.
Images appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit surprised that the unit flew operational missions when it was reactivated for the last time. Any background on that? Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks but I didn't think I implied it flew operational missions -- was it misinterpreting "No. 5 OTU was divided into instructional and operational flights"? In any case I've now linked "flight" to the military unit to avoid any confusion with "sortie" or "mission"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd certainly interpreted it that way. Good idea to link "flight", but then what did the operational flight do if not training?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suspect the term "operational" is being used in its broadest sense, since none of the RAAF's fighter units at this time ever engaged in warlike operations, and that the Instructional Flight was purely for training and the so-called Operational Flight was for participating in exercises and flypasts (I hadn't mentioned the latter but will). Unfortunately the source doesn't make any of this explicit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Following up, I went through the RAAF's newspaper from 1970 to 1971 to double-check for any mentions -- there was some useful detail about the rationale for retiring the Sabre and hence disbanding the unit, which I've added, but nothing to clarify the precise division of work between the two flights. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]