2007 Puma Crash, Enquiry and Inquest (Merged)

[cazatou]

baston

Look again at your #516 - they pushed the limits.

[bast0n]

Caz

The Air Staff or the crew of the illfated Herc?

And also what has your accident record have to do with the price of bread...........?

[biscuit74]

Tiger mate -

"Biscuit 74: It goes against the grain to defend an air force that leaves itself wide open for your comments, and I suspect the Navy & Army are quite happy that the Air Force are taking the flak that they could so easy be in the firing line for.

However if you want a static line up of nice new shiny aeroplanes and crews with high morale oozing out of their ears you need to invest in quality training, airframe & equipment procurement, and sufficient staff to permit a quality of life in balance with operational abscence. In short, the country cannot afford the air force you desire. Nobody would argue that your aspiration is not logical or reasonable, but those days are well and truly over."

Thanks. Very true. I agree those days are over. Actually I wasn't thinking of a nice line up of shiny new aeroplanes, wonderful dream though that might be to certain of 'Their AirShips', I was just reflecting basic good engineering practice. When I see stuff kept clean and tidy, neat, be it old or new, I know I am looking at an outfit which takes pride in what it does. As a gnarly old engineer and pilot, it tells me a lot about how much reliance I can place on their capability. That was the disappointing bit.

To me it doesn't look as if the RAF do care any more. The claimed reasons - overstretch, undervaluing by politicians I fully understand. 'Twas ever thus - as reading some Kipling will quickly show.
Recent accidents in the RAF, and some not so recent that folk simply won't accept were human error, don't give me much confidence in the quality and fibre of that force any longer. And as a taxpayer I pay a hell of a lot for that inadequate performance.

Very sad. Perhaps the Army and Navy, having been around longer, are better able to cope with this sort of challenge.

Thanks for your reply.

[Easy Street]

not one single RAF pilot who can put their hand up and honestly state they have never, and I do mean never, knowingly broken their auth in the pursuit of of some fun, not one http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

If the three of you so far with hands up have never ever once, even all those years ago during flying training when solo, never even pushed the envelope slightly, not even the tiniest bit for the thrill of it then I take my hat off to you for your complete and utter professionalism http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

SFFP's two statements don't tally up I'm afraid. There is a world of difference between "pushing the envelope slightly" and "knowingly breaking your auth in the pursuit of some fun". FJ pilots (and I presume RW as well, wouldn't care to guess about ME) are trained to operate their aircraft right up to the limits, and an inevitable consequence of operating to the limits is that occasionally they'll be inadvertantly exceeded. Hence the tolerance built into NE limits. Inadvertantly exceeding those limits does not constitute knowingly breaking your auth, in my book, although it might cost you a crate of beer for the engineers. Similarly, anyone who has ever infringed their MSD by 1' when crossing a ridge has technically broken their auth, but again I would contest an accusation of a knowing breach. A bit of a different situation to prolonged flight below MSD whilst egging each other on, I'm sure you'll agree.

Baston, as for RW crews breaking their auth on ops to achieve the task - I am sure they don't do that in search of "fun" or for the "tiniest bit of thrill". So those crews can put their hands up as well.

[BEagle]

...........you never once asked for a "bunt for the troops sir"

Would one of you RW back-enders who encourage pilots to provide such 'troop entertainment' please explain what this request for the pilot to show off and break the rules actually involves?

Is such an event really as common as has been suggested? If so, there is definitely a systemic issue which needs to be sorted out with some urgency.

[cazatou]

I do believe that it is possible that the penny has finally dropped for SFFP - not to knowingly bend or break the Rules is to act Professionally!!

To act otherwise is crass stupidity deserving of the most severe condemnation.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Beagle:

Contrary to SFFP and Roger's assertions "requests for troop entertainment" might have happened on rare occasions. In a mere 1200 hours of crewing the Puma over three years the pax never asked for anything illegal - if for no other reason than they had no idea what legal was. Their idea of "throwing it around" meant little more than straight and level flight - I can talk about this with some authority having previously been one of those troops down the back. With regard to low level flight I wrote the following in private to someone here that was flying Pumas when I was in the mid to late 80's and is still serving:-
Thinking back, whenever we did our "riskier" flying it was almost always in an empty airframe. Yes, we'd do some LL with pax but then the LL was, largely, done within legal limits. On one occasion with a QHI as captain and pax aboard we were clearly flying illegally - so much so that I made the comment that I didn't know how scared our pax were, (16 seat fit, doors open), but that he was scaring the **** out of his crewman. To the mans credit that's all I had to say. He pulled up and maintained safe flight after that and the episode was never mentioned again.Not surprisingly, the recipient of that message relates that I wouldn't recognize SH today and that this accident has been waiting to happen for several years and that it was only a matter of time. Granted, he did not state that it couldn't have happened back then but history is it's own witness.

A "bunt for the troops" is an utterly safe manoevre where the aircraft gains height while at speed and then suddenly decreases height to provide a small amount of negative g with no net loss in altitude. It's not a move that holds any risk at all and I have not idea why SSFP used it as an example. You'd have to ask him about his motives.

Roger:

You stated earlier that the squealing and yahooing was common on aircraft you flew on. You were also, by what you say, a pilot. One can only assume that you were the captain on at least some of these occasions. Introspection required?

[Farfrompuken]

Seldom,

there's a big difference between pushing ones own limits, and even the aircraft's, and BREAKING auth and legal limits.

One can be fun and safe, the other downright inexcusable and dangerous.

For the record I've never knowingly broken an auth and yet I seem to have had plenty of fun whilst developing my own skills to a more than acceptable level.

If this doesn't suit you then you would have no place in a professional aviation command.

[bast0n]

Easy street

Baston, as for RW crews breaking their auth on ops to achieve the task - I am sure they don't do that in search of "fun" or for the "tiniest bit of thrill". So those crews can put their hands up as well.

I am not sure how you got that from my posts, but you may have missed the point of my previous utterings.

My contention is that to stick rigidly to the rules on operations will seriously downgrade the service to the PBI and others using our services. The "can do" attitude that the customer requires is not best served by rigid adherence to the the strictures laid down by the authorising officer. (see Borneo 1965)

The mindset of "Rules uber alles" will never deliver the goods.

See my previous posts on my view of the "rules" and how to apply them.

1. A book of rules that tells you what you can do.

2. A book of rules that tells you what you cannot do.

Achieving the task in search of "fun"as you state makes no sense whatsoever in this context.

Caz
not to knowingly bend or break the Rules is to act Professionally!!

To act otherwise is crass stupidity deserving of the most severe condemnation.

Dear Caz - you seem to have lost the plot a tiny bit.

Sweet dreams........................

[PTT]

The rules state that breaking them is fine if it's in the service interest (JSP 550 preface para 6). The real question is, who decides whether or not it is in the service interest?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

A couple of points to address before bed,

Easy Street,

"There is a world of difference between "pushing the envelope slightly" and "knowingly breaking your auth in the pursuit of some fun".

Sir, did you ever have a written auth telling you to go explore the envelope, you can argue the knowingly thing till the cows come home but 20 odd years of Rotary and Fixed wing flying tell me something completely different :confused:

BEagle,

Imagine a freight bay full of troops all secured by lap straps, tactically the best way to escape the threat zone is to zoom climb to 1200' and at 1200' aggressive lowering of the collective lever reduces the "G" and folks get a little bit lighter in their seats. Technically nothing illegal but where the **** was that ever auth'd.

AA,

After several years as an aircraft technician I joined the SH force as a crewman in 1989, arriving on 33 in 1990. Tours on 33, 230, and 18 Sqn tell me that the SH force that you pontificate about bears little resemblance to the one I gained 2000 hours in. I could regale tails about bunts causing ammo boxes to leave the aircraft and more but suffice to say you, for reasons only best known to yourself are talking tosh :=

Farfrom,

"there's a big difference between pushing ones own limits, and even the aircraft's"

I fully accept that but were your ever in your whole flying career out briefed to go "push the aircrafts limits" ?

Flying is a whole bunch of fun and when the task is achieved there is absolutely no buzz like it but if someone tells me they have never ever ever broken the rules then sorry but I, and I can only imagine countless others reading this thread simply do not believe you :p

[jayteeto]

Seldom, did we do the same OCU??
Although I wasn't much of a 'wazzer' (who called me captain sensible?), I can remember doing things that were not quite cricket. There is more to breaking auths than wazzing. I have been known to carry pax who were not on the manifest :oh: and doing things like landing at RAF Carlisle for a shower (once or twice) during field conditions exercises. This wasn't professional, but it wasn't dangerous. I learned many many years ago that non regular passengers get a huge thrill just by being airborne, they don't need to see huge wingovers. In my current job, my licence is my future and I stick to the rulebook like glue. The comment from bannednew made me prickle a bit. Mate, from day 1 of military aviation, we have lessons to learn. You think things are SO different now?? Different aircraft, different crews but SAME OLD PROBLEMS. There is something to learn from us crusty old duffers who keep reading the military forums, even though we retired years ago. FACT: the Puma bites, it always did, I told the coroner that at a Puma inquest last year. There is a history of accidents, but it seems to have peaked in recent years. Why is that? What did we do differently? We flew it heavy and hot and high and had fewer accidents (fewer, not zero) Why was that?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

JT,

Not the same OCU but we were in Ireland together, flew together, I drank in your house when you and Mrs JT MK1 were together and you describe the SH force I knew so well perfectly, hope you are keeping well :ok:

[Farfrompuken]

Seldom:

in fact I spent quite a few years doing just that; pushing the a/c to it's limits quite within my auth. So: yes!!

Can be done and can be done safely and professionally.

If you think you can re-invent the rules go to ETPS. if not, then accept the Lims quite sensibly imposed.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Seldom:

in fact I spent four years doing just that; pushing the a/c to it's limits quite within my auth. So: yes!!

Can be done and can be done safely an professionally.

At no time was it unsafe or unprofessional.

Sir,

How many years have you been flying and with that in mind can you honestly say say hand on heart you have never ever ever done something even the tiniest bit illegal or just wrong :confused:

[Farfrompuken]

I've done things wrong; things I'd aim to improve on the next sortie. But wrong as in illegal; never. I've expressed issues over legal concerns at the auth and had them resolved there and then.

Hey; I'm always trying to improve my game so I will never offer the product to which I aspire but that is a long way from getting ****s and giggles by flying like a dick.

Sorry but I would expect every crewmember from my unit to behave the same.

[Roger Sofarover]

AA

Roger:

You stated earlier that the squealing and yahooing was common on aircraft you flew on.

No I did not! Show me where it says that. You seem to be reading whatever you want.

Between you and Roger you are demonstrating exactly why this accident occurred. You two, along with some others, seem to be perfect examples of the problem

AA

I really cannot work how your mind works or doesn't. YOU come on this thread, slagging off the standards of the crew, then YOU recall a story which recounts tales of extreme flying indisciplne, but you think that was OK for you but everybody else is an asshole.

So, you have less than twice the hours than I had. Interesting admittance for someone who tries to tell me how "it is/was" Hours flown are not an indication of ability or experience. The lads now adays do more in 300 hours than you did in 2000.. It's funny, on the few occasions where a bunt occurred it was, most often, the captain's suggestion most often? but not always!, (probably in response to the discussion he had had with the commanders of the unit we were flying), but most importantly he would inform me that it was about to occur and I would actually look back into the cabin if I wasn't already there and ensure that the area was secure before "giving him permission" you did not give permission, you told the Capt the cabin was secure! to carry out the manouevre...

Between you and Roger you are demonstrating exactly why this accident occurred. You two, along with some others, seem to be perfect examples of the problem

No AA, you are the problem. Your type think it OK to breach flying dicipline as you were being 'professional' and you are unable to admit you were wrong! THAT is the problem.

Thinking back, whenever we did our "riskier" flying it was almost always in an empty airframe almost!!. Yes, we'd do some LL with pax but then the LL was, largely, done within legal limits largely done!. On one occasion with a QHI as captain and pax aboard we were clearly flying illegally - so much so so much so! You either are or are not. There is not a sliding scale. that I made the comment that I didn't know how scared our pax were, (16 seat fit, doors open), but that he was scaring the **** out of his crewman. To the mans credit that's all I had to say. He pulled up and maintained safe flight after that and the episode was never mentioned again.well maybe you should have had a good chat about it!

You don't see how your self indulgent and "superior attitude" contributes(ed) to the problem:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

AA

For some reason you seem to label me as a pilot who was a serial rule breaker. On a public forum that is rather an uncharitable thing to do, particularly that when I have written I have not said I broke the rules. When I did the western Highway, I did it within my authorised height as was the same for the Eastern Branch. For the record I have knowingly broken my authorisation only once in my entire career, and it lasted 5 seconds. Having delivered supplies and had lunch with the soldiers at Hunting Caye, on my departure as normal when I did a 180 turn out to sea one would fly past the OP at 50 ft wings level, as per the authorisation. On this particular day I eased the height down to 30 ft wings level over the sea abeam the OP, as I passed, the 10 soldiers in the water waving all stood on their heads and to the crews amusement they were all stark naked. I eased up to 1000 ft for the trip home. Whilst the soldiers stunt was amusing, I was SO annoyed that I had actually broken my auth, I felt a complete and utter kn*b. Upon my return to base, I asked the boss for a cup of tea, told him what I had done and how I felt. He said no problems and thanks and I never ever knowingly broke my auth on any other occasion in my career.

[cazatou]

bannednew

Re your post #526

Congratulations, you get my vote for the most inane post yet on this thread.

I see from your profile that you were just 18 days old when I received my "Wings" and more than 30 years old when I left the Service. During that period the total number of RAF Aircraft Accidents (Cat 3 or above) totalled 764 and the number of fatalities ran into many hundreds.

A large proportion of those Accidents and fatalities were caused by people who "pushed the limits".

[cornish-stormrider]

Roger : re your post @ 01.46 - two things

One, I admire a man who can fess up to a sin like that, where by you have exceeded the auth and been illegal yet still safe and within personal ability and aircraft envelope. It is good to know that the skygod master race are human after all.

Two, it's stupid o clock here when you posted - go to bed.


I think there is some common ground between most of the posters: there has been in every pilot's flying life a time where by the lines have been crossed, some have been intentional, some have been in error. there is also the amount the line has been crossed to consider - yes for all the pedants there is no grey, BUT, in reality a few knots over VNE or a few feet below the min can generally be gotten away with AND LEARNED FROM.

Flying like (and I use the terms used previously) a total ******** (in whatever steed and where/when ever it was) is not acceptable.
End of..

the word was mentioned earlier - Discipline, it's either that or time to go fly a cargo plane full of rubber dog**** out of Hong Kong. I, and every other taxpayer that funds your lifestyle expect and demand you to be professional in all things, a non exhaustive list follows:

Flying, Drinking, having fun, being military, putting up with bull****, admin, not putting in fraudulent claims on JPA, engineering, owning up when you f*ck up, integrity, paying off the engineers beer when you flip the war and peace switch coz you failed to keep up with the words the engineers told you, briefs, auths, putting your hand up if you are too tired/sick to fly and should not try to man up.

In short, if you can't do this the I want you to hand your wings in and go and be helpful at main building - or send your scroll back to Auntie Betty.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

"Flying like (and I use the terms used previously) a total ******** (in whatever steed and where/when ever it was) is not acceptable.
End of.."

Not quite sure where from Roger's or any other poster in this tread you got the notion that we thought what you describe WAS acceptable :confused:

[Roger Sofarover]

Cornish

I am 7 hours ahead of UK time!!! So it was not stupid O'Clock ;)


But it is happy hour right now:E

[Two's in]

Jayteeto,

Many thanks for encapsulating this entire thread in one comment. May the dick dancing end here.

There is more to breaking auths than wazzing. I have been known to carry pax who were not on the manifest and doing things like landing at RAF Carlisle for a shower (once or twice) during field conditions exercises. This wasn't professional, but it wasn't dangerous.

Unprofessional versus Dangerous - know the difference before you leave home.

[Tiger_mate]

In the hope that a high paid person is taking the time to filter the bollo* from this thread in the hope of gleaning something constructive; can I invite a little thread drift to see if anybody considers any part of UK airspace to be an accident in waiting.

I love flying the (Ross-on-) Wye Valley, but everytime I do it a little bit of me is expecting a Tucano to be coming the opposite way, and I swear that if it does not get a long overdue flow arrow soon, one day I will be regretting uttering the words "I knew it" or "I told you so". Especially as you already need eyes on stalking to avoid wires and birds in the valley. (As sadly an RN Gazelle, and in happier circumstances an RAF Puma have already proved).

Are there any others fantastic flying locations that deserve to be 'policed' to make them as much fun but a darn sight safer?

[vecvechookattack]

Totally agree with your remarks ref the Wye valley but if you think that a location should have flow arrows placed on it then don't wait for someone else to do it.....why don't you do it..?

If you need the address to write to the it can be found at the front of the UKLF Handbook or MILAIP or whatever it is called nowadays.


Remember that the crew of that RN Gazelle had spent the previous evening enjoying themselves

[bast0n]

VVWHATSIT

Remember that the crew of that RN Gazelle had spent the previous evening enjoying themselves

What the hell has that got to do with a wirestrike................?:=

[Exrigger]

As an ex Chinook ground crew who used to fly rotortune test sorties in I will let you experts decide what heading the following would be deemed as:

returning back to base at 2000' when pilot decides when overhead to do the tightest spiral rapid descent possible in a Chinook which caused the positve g to make me very uncomfortable with the rotortune box on my lap, when I complained he laughed and said it was the quickest way to land.

I was on the first rotortune sortie post maintenance and the blades were not balanced at all well. Once I had got the figures and on the approach to the base the pilot said that he was going to do a auto rotate landing, when I pointed out that firstly it is not allowed with ground crew on board, secondly this manouvre was dependant on the blades being properly balanced. pilot said it would be no problem, aircraft promptly descended rather faster than designed, pilot recovered, just, and with a little laugh said 'I think the blades do need a bit off a tweak'.

On the ground trying to take the blade readings the aircraft developed a very bad case off ground resonance, the pilot asked me how long I would be to get a set off readings, when I told him he said I had about 30 secs before he shut down and i would have to best guess some adjustments before this aircraft would be started up again.

I know which was to me the most proffesional pilot but after the comments I have read on this thread, I look forward to hearing some peoples responses.

[vecvechookattack]

VVWHATSIT

Quote:
Remember that the crew of that RN Gazelle had spent the previous evening enjoying themselves
What the hell has that got to do with a wirestrike................?

Plenty. Have a look at the Accident report.

[Rigga]

Ex-Rigger,
I understand your concerns from those times - but the problem with RAF pilots is that they "know it all" and you cant get them sacked! I dont know of any sucessful engineering complaint against a RAF pilots "performance".

As you may now know, commercial pilots can get sacked (ask Pablo Mason - re company procedures) and pilots can also get sacked for incompetence and flaunting safety too.


...and do we know each other?

Check your PMs

[Exrigger]

Rigga, thanks for the response and accept your point, one which I was well aware. My post was mearly to see what certain other posters would deem acceptable behaviour purely to match up what they have been posting to date on what is high spirits, required training or breaking rules as there does seem to be some doubt and contradiction on these points.

It is possible we know each other, I have sent a PM back.

[PFR]

On the Jeremy Vine show Thursday they had an extract of the voice recorder just prior to the accident:eek:. Was that officially released:ugh: Not sure I can agree with that:hmm: - whether military or civil surely such should just be left with the professional investigators...:=
PFR.

[bast0n]

VVwhatsit

Plenty. Have a look at the Accident report

Link please. Thanks.

PS is this "on thread"? I thought that we were all agreeing that on the evidence so far that this Puma crew, or some of them, cocked it up in spades, and none of us are condoning(?Spelling) that. What the thread should stick to, and it is fascinating, is how far a military pilot feels it is right and safe to push the boundaries taking into account skill at poling, experience, conditions at the time etc etc. Please do not confuse hours flown or on type as a marker as to the competance of the pilot. Experience not applied is deadly and we all know of the high hours merchants on their high horses with whom we would not be happy to fly with sitting down the back out of reach of the controls.

To NEVER diverge from your authorisation seems to me to be the problem with some SH operations to the detriment of the service to the Pongos without whom we would not need to be here.


Any Pongos out there like to comment? Borneo/Bosnia/ NI/ Kuwait/Iraq/ Afg et all. Even Suez if you are seriously aged!

PPS - I like the idea espoused by some that to have flown numpty hours with never an accident makes the more qualified to comment. Want to know my history?:ok:

[Rigga]

No responses yet to Ex-Riggers comments on 'qualified' pilots who behave irresponsibly on maintenance flights?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I suspect that the behavour stated during air test is either a troll or a very rare misdemenour. Apart from boredom experienced during repetitive rotortunes, and knowing that a 100`agl hover is an uncomfortable place to be regarding avoid curves, the attitude of any airtest crew is that you are (legally) flying an 'unserviceable' aircraft. I have never seen anything other than what was asked by the rotor tune tech, unless weather or aircraft performance meant that a requested flight profile could not be achieved. Bottom line; the sooner the GCs get what they need, the sooner the cab is "S" and the crew stood down.

TM,

I am with you however in my younger days I do recall Air Tests that ended with an ILS or the like but never anything of the sort the Rigga Twins describe :p

[Exrigger]

I suspect that the behavour stated during air test is either a troll or a very rare misdemenour

TM, if this is aimed at my post, then I can assure you it is neither trolling nor were they rare misdemenours. I do concur that the more professional pilots did perform as you state and yes rotortuning probably is boring for you guys, I happened to find it interesting, more from the point of view of I took pride in getting the aircraft operational and with the least amount of vibration as I could achieve.

I would happily fly with any off these professional pilots and with regards to the other type :\

[vecvechookattack]

As an ex Chinook ground crew who used to fly rotortune test sorties in I will let you experts decide what heading the following would be deemed as:

returning back to base at 2000' when pilot decides when overhead to do the tightest spiral rapid descent possible in a Chinook which caused the positve g to make me very uncomfortable with the rotortune box on my lap, when I complained he laughed and said it was the quickest way to land.

I was on the first rotortune sortie post maintenance and the blades were not balanced at all well. Once I had got the figures and on the approach to the base the pilot said that he was going to do a auto rotate landing, when I pointed out that firstly it is not allowed with ground crew on board, secondly this manouvre was dependant on the blades being properly balanced. pilot said it would be no problem, aircraft promptly descended rather faster than designed, pilot recovered, just, and with a little laugh said 'I think the blades do need a bit off a tweak'.

On the ground trying to take the blade readings the aircraft developed a very bad case off ground resonance, the pilot asked me how long I would be to get a set off readings, when I told him he said I had about 30 secs before he shut down and i would have to best guess some adjustments before this aircraft would be started up again.

I know which was to me the most proffesional pilot but after the comments I have read on this thread, I look forward to hearing some peoples responses.



This is absolutely disgusting. Why didn't you raise this with your engineering team? Why didn't you put this in the Flight Safety Log? Why didn't you raise a flight safety report..? Do you guys use the "Anymouse" scheme or equivalent? As much as this is the aircrew to blame, you have to take some responsibility for allowing this incident to drift away .....

[cazatou]

Why the Rules are there - even if it does seem like overkill:

Back in 1968 I was a young Co-Pilot on 84 Sqn (Andovers) at RAF Sharjah. Those were the days when Dhows were built on the beach at Dubai and the only Hotel in Town had 12 Bedrooms and was built of wood.

It was about this time of year when we noticed cliques of Navigators, both from Sqns based at Sharjah and visitors, in corners in deep discussion which abruptly ceased when any member of the "Two Winged Master Race" ventured anywhere near. It was not until the following year that we found out the reason for this. It was the story of the RAF VC 10 which, heading west across the Atlantic, missed America; all of it - South, Central and North America.

The crew were tasked to fly from an airfield in the Midlands to Gander the VC 10 had positioned at that airfield the night before the Task. The Navigator did not sleep well that night partially due to a "Rock Band" performing in another Mess near to the Officers Mess.

At Flight Planning the Navigator found that the North Atlantic Planned Tracks were not available but the Minimum Time Track was so he decided to use that and also to use the Gyro/Grid Technique of Navigation although it was not Command Policy to use that Technique except when 2 Navigators were operating together, with one of them holding an A or B category.

Having routed via Airways to Tory Island and been cleared to fly at FL310 the Nav, having extracted the value of Earth Rate from the tables and added the Residual Transport Wander, set the product -11.8 Deg/hr on the Rate Corrector and switched to GYRO.

Unfortunately, the correct figure should have been +11.8 Deg/hr and the error had the effect of precessing the gyro at a rate of nearly 24 Deg/hr causing the aircraft to diverge slowly north of its intended track.

The first astro fix gave a position close to planned track. It was during the second astro fix that the Nav's attention was drawn to a large return on the CCWRwhich the crew concluded was a large amount of ice. They were correct - it was a large amount of ice, but it was ice attached to the Eastern coast of Greenland because the VC10 was now some 510 NM north of track still locked in a gentle turn to the right.

The second astro fix appeared to be hopelessly wrong so the Nav tuned in the Prince Christian NDB which confirmed his worst fears and an emergency was declared. Aftersome excellent work by USAF Air Defence radar operators the aircraft eventually land safely at Gander with considerably less fuel than intended.

What, however, would have happened if the CCWR had "gone on the blink" a couple of hours outbound? It would have been a "No-Go" item before departure but safely airborne and nearly half way across the Ocean with a benign Weather Forecast, would the crew have returned to the departure airfield or continued?

[Exrigger]

vecvechookattack, thanks for the post.

One can only assume that some of the posts here, in the Nimrod thread and others in the same vein have been missed, but you will see a pattern of people at the bottom of the career ladder and/or groundcrew complaining about aircrew/airworthiness/spares/tooling etc etc and that it has not been very effectively managed, or read ignored in most cases.

Who the hell cares when someone like me complained about those type of situations we found ourselves in, the management certainly did not, additionally we found that the head of the squadron supported his aircrew and came up with comments that I, and others, are just making it up/being a troublemaker/ exaggerating due to lack of knowledge of flying rules/limits/regulations.

As has been said before, the only time this sort of thing gets highlighted as being wrong is when there is a proper enquiry post an accident. No accident then it obviously is/was not a problem.

[Tourist]

I would just like to to interject that I believe that anyone who says they have never broken an auth or a limit is a either a liar or delusional.
I freely admit to having broken both on numerous occasions.
Sometimes for justifiable reasons which I have been happy to explain later to my superiors, and mostly because wazzing is fun.
I do, however, believe that my occasional flying of dubious legality has helped me perform more safely when the situation has required outside the envelope flying.
I also have always noticed that the "straight as a die" , "never explore the envelope" types are, almost to a man, poor pilots who are not really safe inside the auth/limits.
The simple fact is that the sort of person who is going to make a good operational pilot is the sort of person who has a high risk/arousal threshold and will waz.
You can fill your military with safe pilots, but they will be cr@p operationally.

[Sand4Gold]

Exrigger,

Who the hell cares when someone like me complained about those type of situations we found ourselves in, the management certainly did not, additionally we found that the head of the squadron supported his aircrew and came up with comments that I, and others, are just making it up/being a troublemaker/ exaggerating due to lack of knowledge of flying rules/limits/regulations.

All I can say is that your Station Flight Safety Officer was not on the ball, at all - to come away with that viewpoint suggests there were some serious failings within your Stn's Flight Safety culture - one option, clearly, was to submit a 'Condor', which is taken seriously at all command levels.

I don't know who the author is to the article below, but it gives balance to some of the recent replies - a parallel universe?


FLYING DISCIPLINE

Introduction

1. The subject of flying discipline is a complex area of aviation study that is far more wide reaching than would initially appear. On the surface, it could be considered as the study of how individuals conduct themselves in the air. While this is clearly an important aspect of the subject, it is only the final stage of a culture, or philosophy that begins before a new aviator even climbs into his first aircraft.

2. To properly examine the question of flying discipline would take a very long and in-depth study, which is outside the scope of this brief. However, this paper will address some of the key themes that, when taken as a whole, can be demonstrated to have a lasting impact on an aviator’s attitude towards flying discipline. Further, it will be argued that if the aviation oriented culture, or philosophy, is correct, then good flying discipline will naturally follow.

INDIVIDUAL FLYING DISCIPLINE

Flying Training

3. The Role of an Instructor. The basic role of an instructor in any skill is the same: to transfer the necessary skills, knowledge and understanding to a student in a comprehensible manner, and at a rate at which he can handle the information. Naturally, this applies to the physical skills of flying, but it also applies to the more subtle aspects of flying culture, which are not easily covered by formal lessons: attitude and responsibility. Whether he knows it or not, an instructor will leave a lasting impression on his students. He is their role model, their example of everything that they should aspire to be, as an aviator. He should instil in his students a sense of duty to themselves, to their colleagues and to the system as a whole. An undisciplined pilot can usually be demonstrated to be the product of poor training and poor individual instructors.

4. Setting a personal example is clearly important, but just as vital in the formation of a disciplined mindset is the practice of timely and accurate reporting, free from bias and cultural practices (i.e. we don’t like to fail a student as it insults his honour, so we would rather grade him as average and avoid confrontation!). Assessment is an integral part of training and learning; there may be a legal requirement or limitation on how an individual may be employed depending on his performance in the assessment. If the assessment does not accurately reflect the level of performance, or has been distorted, then an unstoppable decline in standards will begin. If left unchecked, sub-standard pilots will eventually get through the system to front line units, where they will sit like ticking Flight Safety time-bombs waiting to explode. Clearly, the quality of flying instruction has a direct impact on flying discipline.

5. Continuation Training. Beyond the sphere of academic flying training lies squadron level continuation training. The observations concerning the role of instructors are just as valid in front line squadrons as basic flying training. However, we now encounter the new problems of boredom and complacency. If training is repetitive, unchallenging and lacks focus, pilots, as intelligent individuals, will eventually become bored; boredom breeds complacency and flying indiscipline. A bored pilot rapidly becomes a dangerous pilot as he seeks to make his own entertainment or pushes his personal envelope beyond his level of competence.

6. To combat this problem, squadron training policy should accurately reflect its mission statement or assigned role. By providing a dynamic and challenging training syllabus that matches the unit’s requirements, commanders can not only consolidate and refine their capabilities; they can reduce the likelihood of boredom setting in. Additionally, if squadron instructors are encouraged to stimulate thought, and engender an atmosphere of discussion and exchange of ideas, a commander will prevent complacency. Instructors should strive to constantly develop the capabilities of pilots, and individual pilots should strive to match these expectations.

7. Structured Development. Once a pilot had converted to an operational type of aircraft, there is always a danger that he will drift and lapse into bad habits once the pressure of formal training has been removed. Naturally, all pilots require a period free from pressure to consolidate and develop their skills; however, they should undergo a continual process of structured development. A properly designed programme for development and qualification provides a sense of purpose and a measure of personal progress. It can also provide an essential management tool for squadron executives in the day-to-day running of a squadron. By highlighting potential problems at an early stage, commanders can employ remedial measures to prevent the situation developing to a point where an individual becomes a danger to himself and others.

COLLECTIVE/SYSTEM FLYING DISCIPLINE


8. Orders and Regulations. It can be argued that good flying discipline starts with clearly written orders that are correctly disseminated and correctly enforced. If regulations are unclear or contradictory, and there is no system to check their compliance, by default, flying discipline will be compromised. If a junior pilot is exposed to a culture of poorly drafted or out of date orders, or non-compliance with regulations, how is he expected to know which orders to follow and which he should safely ignore? There should be no room for doubt; compliance with all regulations should be mandatory, and the regulations should leave no room for differing interpretation. To ensure aircrew are fully apprised of the regulations, sufficient sets of orders should be readily available on squadrons for crews to refer to.

9. Direct Supervision. In an ideal situation, a squadron will have a flying supervisor who is charged with running the daily flying programme. Free from general administrative tasks that may divert his attention; he will ensure crews are properly briefed on their flying duties. In this way, thorough crew briefing and debriefing become an established part of unit flying culture, irrespective of the rank of the crew. By setting guidelines, or limits, to the sortie, the supervisor reduces the possibility that a crew may inadvertently commit breeches of flying discipline. However, by the act of actively supervising the crew, he will generate an atmosphere of compliance with regulations, as crews will feel less confident of ‘getting away’ with deliberately undisciplined flying. This should be the aim of all flying supervision as once the aircraft is airborne; there is little a supervisor can do to directly influence the subsequent course of events.


10. Flight Safety Culture. Flying discipline is an essential component of Flight Safety. The development of a culture of Flight Safety begins during basic training and continues throughout an individual’s flying career. It can be developed through unit policy and local initiatives to enhance awareness. From the very start of their flying career, aircrew should be encouraged to be ‘open’ about their flying experiences, sharing their ‘I learnt about flying from that’ stories freely with their colleagues. Similarly, aircrew should be encouraged to file Incident Reports (either open or confidential) free from an atmosphere of retribution. Failure to do so only obscure the truth distorts Flight Safety statistics and develops an attitude of deception and poor discipline. A zero accident/incident rate is impossible to achieve, even in the most sophisticated of air forces, as flying is an inherently dangerous business. A unit that claims it has no accidents/incidents probably does not have a system for reporting them; does not encourage open reporting; is hiding the truth, or never goes flying! Any of the above is an example of poor flying discipline within Flight Safety.


AA

[vecvechookattack]

Couldn't agree more with AA..... as an example.

Last month a pilot on a Lynx Squadron had landed the aircraft safely and was preparing to shut the aircraft down. The Marshaller was monitoring the aircraft as well as keeping a careful eye on another aircraft on the spot behind his aircraft. That aircraft was in the middle of a Rotors running refuel.

Suddenly, the marshallers aircraft started the shutdown process without permission of the marshaller.

The marshaller was slightly disturbed at this and he consequently wrote a comment in the Squadrons Flight safety log.

The Squadron Senior pilot ordered the said pilot to report to his office and provided the pilot with a one way interview.... Bollocking over, the pilot apologised to the maintainer...

[Tiger_mate]

On a parallel track to this, it is worth taking a few minutes to read this article, and pay attention to the 'verdicts' delivered by onlookers, and self appointed juries.
RAF Hunter does London Tower Bridge (http://www.rafjever.org/4sqnper004.htm)

Of course nobody was killed and High Jinx had a different perception then. But have military aviators really changed sinced classed as Knights of the Air, Defenders of the people. I suppose for effect, I could have written this in German!

[Easy Street]

I can't quite understand the obtuseness of some posters above. Myself and a couple of others stated that we had never broken our auth in search of thrills / fun. Cue "boring", "operationally ineffective", "liar", blah...

To try and make my position clear for a final time, let me break the "breaking the auth" debate into 3 clear-cut scenarios:

1) Inadvertantly breaking aircraft limits / MSD / training rules / solo student limits etc...

I can confidently say that all of us have done this at some point in our careers. As Tourist et al have been queueing up to point out, if you haven't done so, you probably haven't learned what your aircraft is capable of. Hopefully we can all agree there.

2) Deliberately breaking your authorisation in order to complete a tasking...

Bast0n - I don't think it's wrong. Nor did any of the previous posters. This is in the military spirit that is vital at times of need.

If it happens every day, though, then the regulatory / supervisory framework is clearly not keeping up with the reality of ops.

3) Deliberately breaking your authorisation in search of thrills / fun...

This was SFFP's original question. I am neither delusional nor a liar, Tourist, and will happily restate that I have never done it. From the postings above, it seems that a number of you have, and that's disappointing.

Tourist, you're wilfully confusing 1) and 3), and do it in such strong language is a bit offside!

[Rigga]

To continue Ex-Riggers subject;

It is well known that all officers will look after the officer corps, doctors to doctors, etc. And that any "rankers" complaint against an officer had to be first subjected to an officer's approval before forwarding - often these first filters would give approving noises and then just bin the complaint - either due to the Old Boy network or just to avoid unneccessary hassles in the Mess. If the complaint did get through the first layer, there were several other layers of dissappearance it could go through. Even CONDORs & MURPHYs were subject to disapearances. In 24 years, I never heard of one complaint getting through.

The RAF/Army/Navy does not operate a 'Just' Culture - There was(is?) NO WAY of giving any formal complaint against crews without fear of retribution/posting/extra duties.

It is due to these differences from expected behavior - plain BAD behavior was most often named as "High Spirits" and that cover-up attitude did most to annoy "the ranks".

There must still be "B52 Majors" in the RAF, but no complaints can be made against them...until afterwards, of course.

[Tiger_mate]

Service Complaints Commisioner - Independent arbitration by a civilian.
Condors, Murphys and Open Reporting ARE taken very seriously. In my experience open reporting more so, simply because the reporting individual is prepared to stand up and be counted.

However you do not need to witness in person the result of a complaint being dealt with. There are two sides to every story, and everbody has a boss to answer to. There is a saying "Praise in public", - "Bollo* in private", which is applied better the higher up the food chain the alleged offender is. The rights and wrongs of this protocol are what create the perception that nothing gets done. Of cause there are strong and weak leaders irrespective of rank, and the latter can do much to cause a lifetime of ill feeling.

The bottom line is that there are protocols in place and clearly you do not have any repect or faith in them. That is a fault of the system. I would (with respect) advise caution about being narrow minded to the detriment of knowing a bigger picture. I know of many times the officer corps have had the mother of all one sided debates often accompanied by a string of extra duties. Nothing they would shout about, or anything you would necessarily see.

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

I find myself agreeing with the riggers.

Doesn't mean you can't do anything.

Way back, I was most dischuffed when my Friday afternoon shift was extended so that the 84 Sqn hofficers could be delivered to the Summer Ball in their Wessex helicopter, (because 34 Sqn Regt had turned up in their Scimitars (?) the previous year)

An authorised training flight for the duty crew, of course.

So I bubbled their plans to my hofficer mate on 34 and he ensured that the curtains were shut, & the throng turned their backs as they performed their ridiculous stunt, and the 2 i/c got to be in charge of the Officers Mess garden as a punishment.

Wrong thread, sorry.

[Exrigger]

TM, I fully get what you are saying, but the thread had gone down the road of debating who had or had not broken the rules as aircrew, with some justifying one type of indiscretion but not another, then there were those who seem to say it is ok to push the limits as long as there is not an accident.

All I asked was, given the scenarios I gave, 'what did the panel think' but it seems to have been turned around on Rigga & I, as if it is our failing, apologies if I have mis-understood you comments.

I think you will find we do have respect for the flying rules, but that is for the rules as we are informed by the aircrew/management as being correct, what hope do we have against that and I await the usual: I should of tried harder at school so I could have been one of the select few, or I must have a chip on my shoulder because I failed the entry exam, but I can live with that :cool:

Additionally you are probably correct in that we have lost faith in the various means off feedback, because they have never been seen to happen and attitudes did not change, despite your assurance off what went on behind closed doors, post a complaint.

[minigundiplomat]

I await the usual: I should of tried harder at school so I could have been one of the select few, or I must have a chip on my shoulder because I failed the entry exam


You won't get that from me. Ive seen aircrew screw up on numerous occasions. Ive also seen riggers, blunties, stackers etc etc screw up.

We're all human. Some just believe their own hype.

The good ones in all branches admit it, learn from it and move on.

[Rigga]

TM said
"Service Complaints Commisioner - Independent arbitration by a civilian.
Condors, Murphys and Open Reporting ARE taken very seriously. In my experience open reporting more so, simply because the reporting individual is prepared to stand up and be counted."

The SCC are the recipients of complaints. I am sure they are taken very seriously, but they only receive those that are allowed through the various layers of "filters".

You state that you have seen the results of complaints being dealt with locally, by quiet interviews and internal measures - and I don't doubt that.

In CRM (do the forces do CRM?) and HF terms, the split punitary systems you describe actually contribute to bad liaison, and distrust, with your own groundcrews and, by being seen to be a seperate breed who don't really get punished, crews will reduce conversation and information exchanges with those individuals when signing for aircraft. This also breeds contempt on both sides.

In a Just Culture, all complaints would be put through to the independant commission without "filtering". And all punitive actions would be visible for all to see. Pablo Mason's sacking being a good example, and the engineers on Trial for the Cyprus 737 or the Concorde crash being other examples.


MGD,
This isn't about inadvertantly screwing up - its about the deliberate abuse of flying expensive kit in an unsafe way for the local conditions.

[Tiger_mate]

The SCC are the recipients of complaints. I am sure they are taken very seriously, but they only receive those that are allowed through the various layers of "filters".


Not true. You have direct access the the SCC without any line manager consultation. The only downside to the SCC is that she (Dr Susan Atkins) can only pass on the complaint to ministerial level as a report, she cannot demand much from the chain of command between complaint and herself. She has been described as a shark without teeth. It is true that if you are unhappy with a formal redress procedure you can take it higher to SCC, but it is also true that you can bypass the redress procedure if you deem it appropriate to do so. SCC is in place because of Deepcut, and few people seem to know of its existance, so perhaps this thread will be of benefit to some after all.

Timing is everything :E

"The men and women who serve with our Armed Forces are trained to act with professionalism, integrity and respect for others and ultimately to lay down their lives for our country. They deserve to be treated well and, where they feel they are not, to have their complaints handled properly.

Ministers, the Armed Forces and the MOD have signalled their commitment to having a rigorous, independent and transparent scrutiny of the complaints system. I shall hold them to their word."
Dr Susan Atkins,

[BEagle]

No responses yet to Ex-Riggers comments on 'qualified' pilots who behave irresponsibly on maintenance flights?

Well, in the ME world, full flight test pilots are individually selected for their experience, professionalism and ability to cope with unusual events during the rigidly defined flight test schedule.

No-one should ever be allowed to conduct any form of post-maintenance flight test without specific approval from the Sqn Cdr. And anyone 'doing their own thing' in such an air test should never get a second opportunity.

I'm in total agreement with vecvechootattack's comments.

[Rigga]

TM,
I am not aware of the these changes of occurence reporting brought about due to the Deepcut enquiry since I left the service prior to that episode. However, that is a great improvement on what was before and I do hope the good Doctor does as she says. It's a pity she is described as a shark without teeth - she needs to paid the attention she deserves. (I wonder if she worked at SIDD at some time)

"...and few people seem to know of its existance." I hope too that many more get to know of this apparently NEW development. Perhaps it should be more widely promoted?

In the circumstances described by ex-Rigger - it is not a redress that would've been needed - it needed a full reprimand and potential formal warning for unsafe practices endangering all on board, and possibly Flight Auth reclassification and additional training.

BEagle,
"And anyone 'doing their own thing' in such an air test should never get a second opportunity."

Mine and Ex-Riggers' point entirely.

[you'llneverguesswhat]

I find it very disappointing that this thread seems to have been hijacked into a very public slanging match between characters known/unknown to each other, about how slack the modern air force is and how they people have/have not willfully breached all rules of the air.
The talk about Puma airworthiness was mildly interesting with some accuracy but mostly conjecture before facts came out, but the utterly stupid conversation about the present station commander and his lack of head gear (therfore lack of standards) is beyond approach. I say that from someone who does not know the man but I am guessing he would not have gotten promoted if his personal standards were not pretty good!
Is it not about time this thread addressed the subject and certain (but not any) alleyways that get thrown up, or just stop! People who do not no any different would look at this and be wandering how we are doing our jobs in the circumstances we are doing them.
Certain things have been brought up that will be very interesting in the near future. The BoI for one. How can it come up with anything other than the verdict that the coroner has already sumised? Was the Puma force the only one to be in that state? I seem to remember many grumblings from other types about operational pressure. etc etc

Still, I can get off my soap box now and relax with crap tv.

[Flying Lawyer]

you'llneverguesswhat Certain things have been brought up that will be very interesting in the near future. The BoI for one. How can it come up with anything other than the verdict that the coroner has already sumised?
It may or may not, but it would be a mistake to assume that a specialist inquiry would necessarily come to the same conclusion(s) as a local coroner.

For example, an extract from the Nimrod Review:
The Coroner’s Inquest produced little factual evidence of value to the Review. The Coroner’s finding as to the likely source of fuel did not accord with the realistic probabilities, or the evidence before him, and his Rule 43 recommendation (that the Nimrod fleet should be grounded pending certain repairs) was based on his misunderstanding of the meaning of As Low as Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). The Coroner’s widely-publicised remark that the MOD had a “cavalier approach to safety” was unjustified.

[cazatou]

Perhaps it should be borne in mind, by those who "push the limits", that a finding of "Negligence" can have a significant effect on the compensation paid to Next of Kin in respect of those Crewmembers deemed "Negligent" who have perished in aircraft "Accidents". It could also affect payments to those deemed "Negligent" who survive, if they are deemed to be unfit for further Service.

[Tiger_mate]

"Negligence" is itself a minefield as there are so many variations of it and drawing the dividing line is down to individual perception. ie Where does carelessness end and negligence begin. Furthermore where is the division between negligence and culpable or indeed criminal negligence in law.

Recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death or failing to do something with the same consequences.
or
Failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances.

Both of these statements are open to interpretation and are notable by the absence of a specific event (such as death) that would enable a right and fair decision. There are elements of this thread that leave "reasonable person" open to inconclusive debate. Glad I'm not a lawyer.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Do we still find people negligent in BoIs? I thought what was once negligence is now just human factors (aircrew)?

[Mick Strigg]

BoIs/SIs, Unit Inquiries, Ships investigations etc. are all "no-blame" inquiries, as are the RNFSAIC, AIEFSO & AAIB investigations. They are there to find out whay happened, why and how to prevent it from happening again.

Therefore, neglgence can only be apportioned following an investigation from another source, such as Service or Civilian Police etc.

[cazatou]

Written evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on Chinook ZD 576:

"Full and final settlement of the claims for compensation of the 2 deceased Pilots was reached on the basis of 50 per cent contributing negligence and with both parties acknowledging ( although not necessarily agreeing ) the basis on which the settlement was reached."

Your Car Insurance Company could reduce payment on a claim following a crash if it deemed conditions laid down by them had not been observed - even if no Police action was taken.

[Mr-Burns]

The media keep referring to RAF 'Experts' having conducted an inquiry with the North Yorkshire Police. As I understand it, the Service Enquiry hasnt stood up yet. Did the RAF provide SME advice to the Police or did they have their own guys?

[jayteeto]

I am in absolutely NO way condoning what happened, but has anyone out there with medical type training considered this line?
The services are looking to recruit a different type of pilot to the civil world. "OK Bloggs, you (and your crew for those types) go fly over Baghdad/Helmand and drop that BF bomb". "But Sir, the enemy are firing missiles/RPGs/Rifles at us!!" "Of course, don't bother, you might have to show lots of aggression and fly on the limits".
Of the soldier, saturday night in Aldershot. Sunday papers..... "Lunatic squaddies in mass brawl, witnesses say they should be locked up forever".

The British military activally recruit in the stable extrovert category and push them to the limits during training. History is littered with pilots who went out and pushed too hard in peacetime, pilots of ALL services not just RAF. How close is that fine line to the normal 'target' aircrew member?? The senior officers are criticised for not stepping in often enough, how can you do that if you don't see it as a problem? Do we need to recruit further across the scale, towards introvert?

[charliegolf]

Of the soldier, saturday night in Aldershot. Sunday papers..... "Lunatic squaddies in mass brawl, witnesses say they should be locked up forever".


There was a time when the CO would have an account of the damage, march in the guilty parties, apportion an equal cash hit as a fine and march em out again. Then pay the damages. The argument is as Jayteeto sauggests: how can you develop the 'kill it quick and clean' mindset, then turn it off for Saturday on the high street?

Not sure it transposes so well to Catterick though.

CG

[SiClick]

Mr-Burns wrote
The media keep referring to RAF 'Experts' having conducted an inquiry with the North Yorkshire Police. As I understand it, the Service Enquiry hasn’t stood up yet. Did the RAF provide SME advice to the Police or did they have their own guys?
The RAF BOI with AAIB assistance was stood down when the inquiry considered criminal proceedings might be involved. The police then conducted a criminal inquiry, they asked the AAIB to assist, but the AAIB refused as they are a safety organisation, who does not allocate blame. The police then asked the Navy, who conducted the technical part of the police inquiry. (The Navy are always happy to **** the RAF!)
Now the inquest is over, and the RAF chiefs have made their decision on any military prosecutions, one assumes the BOI will resume to finish its work.

[Mick Strigg]

Almost correct Si, but not quite.

The MOD offered RNFSAIC assistance to the NY Police, which was accepted. Plus, the MOD provided 2 SMEs, a Puma Pilot and Puma Nav, to assist the police. They gave evidence at the inquest.

I do take exeption to your The Navy are always happy to **** the RAF comment. RNFSAIC were totally impartial and did nothing or said nothing that could be interpreted as ****ing the RAF.

[SiClick]

Mick
I apologise for any offence caused, it was a feeble attempt at humour. I have the utmost respect for the work of RNFSAIC
Si

[Could be the last?]

MS,

Any particular reason why the RN used only a Pilot/Nav as SMEs? :confused:

[Mick Strigg]

The RN didn't! The pilot & Nav were working for the NY Police, not RNFSAIC.

[cazatou]

SiClick said at Post #582

"Now the inquest is over and the RAF Chiefs have made their decisions on any military prosecutions, one assumes the BOI will resume its work."

It may well be, in the light of the evidence given at the Inquest, that further investigation is deemed necessary in respect of certain aspects of Command and Operating procedures and compliance therewith. This could entail re - convening the BOI with a more Senior President and expanded Terms of Reference if that is the case.

It is possible, therefore, that some time may elapse before the findings of the BOI can be published, as they would be held in abeyance until any subsequent Disciplinary or Administrative Action had been completed.

[MightyGem]

Surprised no-one's picked up on this:
BBC News - RAF helicopter crash co-pilot spared jail (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16227941)

[jamesdevice]

MightyGem
It was, two separate threads, and both have vanished

[MightyGem]

Yeah, just read that on "another" thread.