Always a Sapper
I confess I know nothing about the aircraft in question. Alfred the great brought up the subject of what the RTS permits, and I was pointing out that, while important, the RTS is one of a number of reference documents that must be reconcilable. At various stages of development, Design Reviews are held and Hazard Logs populated. During this mandated process (which the MAA/MoD is completely ambivalent about, having ruled that such Reviews can be waived, full payment made, and false record made that they were conducted satisfactorily), issues such as “carry on equipment”, their use and their stowage are addressed. Trying to place myself in the designer’s shoes, it may well be that a Review mentioned the potential for a loose article to jam the control. In a way, it is no different to tool control. The design cannot stop, with certainty, a maintainer leaving a tool behind. One develops procedures and training to prevent it.
One would assess the risk, and mitigation may range from complete redesign to putting a line in the RTS saying “No carry on equipment”. MoD would tend toward the latter – and I mentioned the fact that this general subject was raised at the Courts Martial, because the pilot referred to his photographic work being openly publicised.
My question is, therefore, was he actively prohibited from carrying a camera? If he was, then he’s been a silly boy; but there remains an element of supervisory error (which may be the point he was making). If he is not prohibited, say by an error of omission in the RTS or other breakdown earlier in the process, then one must ask what training was given on stowage. I suspect a proper investigation would reveal a few gaps here. MoD is unlikely to have sanctioned such an investigation, and the pilot would not have the wherewithal to have it carried out.
A comparison was made with forks. There is quite a difference, not least if the offending camera is electrically driven. But that “simply” changes the impact score in the risk assessment, and would necessitate testing to assess impact. Again showing my age and ignorance, I wonder at the degree of “read across” granted from the civilian version of this aircraft.
My point, and concern, is that the pilot may indeed have committed a relatively minor offence; but lacking an official record of the proceedings, we cannot know what was entered in evidence, or used as a defence. His solicitor is unlikely to be competent in the above matters. The other cases we discuss here, where infinitely worse gross negligence, perjury, lying and making false record have occurred, teach us one thing. As a junior officer he had little or no chance of a fair trial.
Last edited by tucumseh; 5th Mar 2017 at 11:50.