Overlooking the obvious - Military flying can be dangerous!

[Two's in]

Warning -Non PC Comments follow.

Is it just me, or has the coverage and response to recent accidents/incidents (and not so recent accidents) on this forum demonstrated a polarisation of attitudes that can only be detrimental to the furtherance of Flight Safety and the avoidance of such accidents/incidents? Any report of an incident is immediately followed by a flurry of the same outrage:

1. The pilot/crew was not to blame under any circumstances.
2. The accident was caused by a lack of funding for… (Insert hobby horse here).
3. The Government caused it by undermining service morale by fighting wars on 2 fronts.
4. The very old equipment was very old.

Without a doubt, bean counters and the commercialization of the Military have been directly attributable to the deaths of personnel and the needless destruction of critical equipment, but do we no longer consider the inherent dangers and risks associated with operating in a Military environment, both in peace time and during Operations? By all means, let’s continue to try and reduce all the manageable risks to a minimum before we start doing the things that take us further into the risk envelope, but somehow everyone seems to have overlooked that Military flying by its very nature carries inherent risks that would not be readily acceptable in a commercial setting.

Despite the fact that Military training is often the finest available, the human being is a complex beast that cocks up unpredictably. While I’m quite happy to put Military aviators on a higher pedestal than most mere mortals, that doesn’t grant them the God-like status of accident free flying. Yes the FUBAR’s are usually less frequent and less erratic than those not blessed with structured training, but nevertheless they still occur.

My point? Quite simple really. Before we all get into the mode of wearing Hi-Viz safety vests and using Hi-way staging to change the Mess bar light bulbs, and decry loudly and often that said light bulbs failed due to a Government oversight and a risk laden support framework, let’s consider for a moment that some of the stuff that the Military are required to do is perhaps a little outside the norm, and sometimes even downright dangerous! We hear frequently about the “Nanny State” but at the same time seem determined to make it the Nanny Military.

If we want to be objective and learn anything from our mistakes we can start by accepting that the inherent dangers in Military flying are an integral part of the overall risks, and sometimes it really isn't anyone's fault but simply part of that environment.

[Trim Stab]

If we want to be objective and learn anything from our mistakes we can start by accepting that the inherent dangers in Military flying are an integral part of the overall risks, and sometimes it really isn't anyone's fault but simply part of that environment.


OK, but exclude from your thesis basic errors like landing with the wheels up (three times in two years) and crassly irresponsible attitude to the lives of passengers (Catterick). Civilian pilots also face the "risks" of forgetting to put the gear down, and also have to take responsibility for the transport of people. There is nothing "special" about the military that excludes them from basic aircrew responsibilities.

[Chugalug2]

Hear hear, Trim Stab.
Two's in:
response to recent accidents/incidents (and not so recent accidents) on this forum demonstrated a polarisation of attitudes that can only be detrimental to the furtherance of Flight Safety the avoidance of such accidents/incidents?

The only polarisation of attitudes that I am aware of on this forum re military air accidents is to avoid avoidable ones. On the whole that accounts for just about every one which is the subject of a thread, and quite probably others where the cause remains not known. The purpose of military flight safety is not:
to make it the Nanny Military.
but to maintain force strength, in personnel and equipment, in order that it be available for its purpose, the conduct of air power. Sea King x2, Tornado x2, Chinook (Mull), Nimrod (Afghanistan) and Hercules (Iraq) were all lost in avoidable accidents I would contend. OK that's a provocative statement I admit and merely my opinion. The sole enemy presence AFAIK was one AK47 round (or equivalent). With the exception of the Hercules which was unfit for purpose (AT with no fuel tank protection in hostile terrain), and one Tornado (the subject of crew continuity speculation), the rest were lacking in airworthiness which should not be possible given the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations. The reason is that those Regulations were flagrantly and deliberately flouted. This isn't about military flying being intrinsically dangerous, its about senior commanders being dangerously reckless in their budget driven decisions. That is why we need a separate and independent MAA to inhibit such recklessness. We have still to get that.

[Rigga]

Chug said:
"This isn't about military flying being intrinsically dangerous, its about senior commanders being dangerously reckless in their budget driven decisions."

In addition, and my view, in the UK military, is seems there is no real differential between what goes on "In-Theatre" and what goes on at home.

It is becoming apparent that some perceived necessity-driven "omissions" are being brought back to UK as new operational techniques instead of lessons to be used for future operations or even towards Contingency Maintenance.

This means that all the shortcuts currently being used for the very best of reasons, for maintenance and by crews "In Theatre", are now being used UK-Wide. And I acknowledge these techniques may have worked in the short term to produce Flying Hours WHEN OPERATIONALLY NEEDED.

The result of continued maintenance and aircrew shortcuts will eventually amount to a critical item removed from view by the perception of "Operationally developed" routines obscuring the original safety requirement.

Don't get me wrong - I admire what goes on In Theatre, and I understand why you need to do those shortened routines over there. But, knowing that these practices are omiting some previously normal details, I don't see why you should practice those "War-Only" techniques over our (your) own homes?

And I don't accept the "Train For War" answer which insinuates that it is therefore okay to needlessly crash at home! as you may needlessly crash in a war.
Remember that we once heavily practiced "Battle Damage Repair" techniques - but we never dared to use them!

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

No you're not alone 2's in, but I joined and flew in the non PC non fluffy RAF which seems to have changed in recent years. If you crashed in the morning and survived you flew the next sortie. If you didn't survive, your mate flew the sortie.
Of course military flying is dangerous and those who have never done it, (Trim Stab ,gingerbeers, and "flight analysts" take note), will never know.
All Aircrew accept that Flight Safety is paramount, and sensible funding and the "right" Senior Officers, and a full appreciation of the appropriate engineering support is necessaryb but the bottom line is the guy(s) in the aircraft. He/she/we, all cock up occasionally , and often there are many other contributing factors but it is us who have to swallow the pill of responsibility.
With regard to wheels up and passenger carrying, comparing corporate flying with the military is like comparing chalk and cheese.....and I do know, I've done both. Corporate jet is a relaxed cake walk, even I an elderly navigator could do it!

[tucumseh]

Chug

Sea King x2, Tornado x2, Chinook (Mull), Nimrod (Afghanistan) and Hercules (Iraq) were all lost in avoidable accidents I would contend. OK that's a provocative statement I admit and merely my opinion.

I wouldn't call it provocative, not when causal factors in all those you list were predictable, predicted and ignored. Early mitigation would not have been difficult - it was merely a case of implementing the regulations before the aircraft were even released to the Service. As you say, get the basics right, avoid the avoidable and manage the unavoidable, thus giving users a fighting chance if **** happens.


Two's In - Preface your post with the above and I agree entirely, especially;

bean counters and the commercialization of the Military have been directly attributable to the deaths of personnel.

Of course, past Ministers disagree with you, but that automatically makes you right!



Romeo

All Aircrew accept that Flight Safety is paramount

Indeed they do (I hope!), but the problem is that those who have a Duty of Care over them have consistently refused to accept this, witnessed by the above list and the evidence in numerous reports, including H-C.

[Geehovah]

I agree that military flying is inherently risky and I consider myself fortunate to have made the same number of landings as take offs. The original post hit a chord with me.

At risk of being called a BOF, it's not too long ago that Lightning losses were one a month. We lost 48 F4s over the time it was in service, again at a rate of one a month at times. Very little of that was underfunding, (nor fortunately at that time through combat losses), although there were never enough spares. We do, however, have short memories and I'm yet to find the aircrew mate who made a deliberate mistake.

I also agree that cheque book warfare is appalling and responsible for many deficiencies but accidents will always happen.

[Puck2]

Excuse me, 2's IN, but where is all this anger and bitterness coming from, what happened? Would you like to tolk about is?
Your not the only one that's being dump up on during this financial crises. At least you military guy still have a job, stop :mad: wining!

[Mr C Hinecap]

If we want to be objective and learn anything from our mistakes we can start by accepting that the inherent dangers in Military flying are an integral part of the overall risks, and sometimes it really isn't anyone's fault but simply part of that environment.

That isn't being objective or allowing anyone to learn from mistakes. If you just shrug your shoulders and say 'pfft - mil flying is a bit risky' you perpetuate bad practice. If you give it due deference and properly analyze causes, effects and accidents you get to root causes. Applying that knowledge is where it gets challenging.

[Red Line Entry]

Puck2

You make a very useful contribution when you say:

"At least you military guy still have a job, stop wining! "

Maybe we should start losing instead...?

[The Old Fat One]

...but accidents will always happen.


You can't say that on here Geehovah; you'll get banned!

PS

Puck2 Maybe a knew keebored wood help

[Wander00]

RLE - Is that "winning" or "whining"?

[cazatou]

WanderOO

Given our Country of Residence I doubt either of us has any desire to "stop wining".

[Chugalug2]

TOFO:

"...but accidents will always happen."
You can't say that on here Geehovah; you'll get banned!
Well I'll say it, though not gladly. If F1 drivers were losing control of their cars at the same speed and in the same circumstances because of a known shortfall in suspension design would they be likely to merely shrug their shoulders and spout the above, or demand that the constructors get their act together and provide them with roadworthy vehicles? OK, it's another car analogy and carries the usual health warning. Just because you guys operate(d) high performance aircraft with limited redundancy designed in or room to manoeuvre when things go wrong, is that excuse for those who provide you with those aircraft to do so knowing them to be unairworthy or to not ensure you have sufficient monthly hours to maintain your competence? It needlessly adds to the loss rate and hazards lives. I'm an ex-truckie but still managed to write off one of HM's aeroplanes. Turned out it was a known design fault in the main-wheel construction that was shared with the Halifax, Lancaster, Lincoln, Shackleton etc. Seemed pretty stupid to me at the time and still does. OK, no lives lost but a very valuable piece of kit trashed (an HP Hastings no less) in an avoidable accident and an irate Staish left with an unwanted Cat5 Hastie stuck in the middle of his airfield just prior to his AOC's inspection!

[Wander00]

Cazatou - D'accord

[Chugalug2]

TOFO:
Frankly, like many aircrew, I can't be bothered with the endless airworthiness debate so often conducted on our behalf, because our views are often belittled, despite the fact that we are (were) the ones doing the business.
Well that of course is your prerogative. To be frank any efforts I make are not made on behalf of anyone specifically for the very reasons you make but rather from a professional wish that UK military aviation advances rather than regresses. Let go of the customs and practises that have evolved over the years and you end up scattered over the terrain before you can say s**t! I don't aim these remarks at our aircrew or their groundcrew but at their seniors who seem to have taken unbelievable risks on their subordinates behalves over the years. You may have been aware of the Nimrod's problems, if so did you know that they contravened the Airworthiness Regulations? That might not bother you but it was the job and the duty of senior officers and their staff that they were not so contravened. That duty was reneged on, 14 good men died and the aircraft that you love (if I could love the Hastings I'm damned sure you could love the Nimrod) is put out to pasture. More stupid than my mainwheel!
You obviously know far more than I about F1 (when will I learn not to use motoring analogies?). Do you think that Senna's attitude to a known fault as I proposed would be "I'm not bothered"? Of course F1 is at the limit, that fear or reserve will inhibit performance and the chance to win. All the more reason to have all your ducks in a row before the off if you possibly can, surely? The reasons you gave for flying on I can empathise with and indeed can say been there too (excepting the free cream dairy sponge, never AT issue in my day and perhaps just a little suspect? :))
As to being out for someone's head, the only heads to date that I know of were named in the H-C report. To be frank I see them as much as sacrificial lambs as the 2 Mull pilots. Behind both groups are the Air Marshals that knew of and presided over the airworthiness shortcomings of those two aircraft types that killed 43 people. Some were your colleagues I know, but all of them left bereaved loved ones behind. When I was a Flight Cadet so many many years ago, I was told that I was to obey all orders from my superiors with one exception. That exception was the "illegal order". Now I suspect that they had in mind the sort of orders that those arraigned at Nurembourg were charged with obeying, but I would suggest that; "Disregard the Regulations, we neither have the money nor the time, but sign them off as complied with anyway", from an Air Marshal, would fit the bill as well. Want his head? You bet! Likely to get it? Hmm...

[cornish-stormrider]

A pair of well reasoned posts - TOFO, don't go. Your hexperience and input is wanted here. Chug, as always, a good write and simples to understand explanation - even I got the gist of it.

Mil flying is dangerous, Tis the nature of the beast. I would want the crews to be fully aware of any issues with the jet and then say - right, accepted, don't get into this situation yadda yadda yadda rather than stoof in as some desk driving wiener didn't tell the truth and man up.

You don't just "pen up" docs and stuff like this......

Same as engineers don't just pen up independants or 100% checks. Well they never did on my shifts

[endplay]

Rigga you said "Remember that we once heavily practiced "Battle Damage Repair" techniques - but we never dared to use them!"

Slight thread drift (for which I apologise) but I had a mate who was tasked to do just that. It was a long held belief that a hole in a Radar aerial could be "patched" with little or no loss of signal strength. To prove or disprove this a spare Watchman (IIRC) aerial was signed out then shot at (no loss of signal), holed with a small amount of PE (again no loss) then attacked with a larger amount of PE. The Michael Caine line can be inserted here. Once they had swept it all together it only remained to nominate someone to return it to stores with an appropriate F731.

[Safeware]

I think the important factor is, as in the medical world, the concept of informed consent. I have no issue with the fact that military aviation is inherently risky. I have no issue, only pride, and a tinge of jealously, with those that choose to engage in this risky business. But as a professional engineer, I also have a job to do, a responsibility to discharge. How those with authority, and ultimately the real customer sitting in the cockpit/tank/ship chose to act on information I give them is for them to decide. But they should do it with their eyes open, as I believe Aryton Senna et al would.

Whether preparing safety cases or independently reviewing them, I aim to take a realistic approach to risk. Our profession is not well served by those that underplay, or overplay risk, esp when it is about 'never mind the quality, feel the weight'.

sw

[Two's in]

Mr C,

If you give it due deference and properly analyze causes, effects and accidents you get to root causes. Applying that knowledge is where it gets challenging.

And that's where I couldn't agree more with you. Understanding the root causes, establishing an acceptable baseline for safety and airworthiness, and ensuring that the MoD's Duty of Care is fully exercised should be the starting point, not some lofty aim or jargon-laden "mission statement". Sadly we seem to be a long way from the start line on this, and that gap is a direct function of many things such as lack of funding, adoption of inappropriate commercial practices and selling off Airworthiness to the lowest bidder. But my question was really aimed at the premise that, supposing one day we actually address all these issues correctly, do we then recognise that Military flying carries some inherent risk? It concerns me that in our zeal to reach this amorphous start line of flight safety we tend to overlook the danger in what we do.

[biscuit74]

‘Twos in’ –
Interesting thread.

There does seem to be a default tendency on here to presume (in most cases) the crew are not at fault in any way, and to blame all sorts of external influences. This does seem to be curious and rather a change from the attitudes of the past, as one or two of your correspondents suggest.

Since most accidents in any sphere are rarely single cause, there is some justification for alluding to other effects and influences, additional causes. Which is primary and which is secondary is often arguable. In the military sphere, it seems to me these have recently included poor operations management at several levels, inadequate oversight of operations especially involving relatively junior crew, poor man management as well as what I would describe as strategic maintenance issues which in effect become airworthiness matters. Not and exhaustive list, and I've left out some of the 'old standards' of course. There certainly seems to be a need to improve the high level overview of both military airworthiness and safety thinking.


That said, there is a tendency on certain rather high profile running arguments to refer to what are all but ‘Little green men from Mars’ postulates to avoid any crew blame whatever. That is counter productive.

Ultimately flying crew take the risks and, human nature and operations being what they are, too often become the casualties. Sometimes they are just unlucky, in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oft times they are in some greater or lesser way part of the cause of the accident. For all sorts of reasons. Again, that is human nature. Denying that does no-one any favours, does nowt for air safety. The more we look openly & understand what can go wrong,with us, the human element, the safer things should become.

And on luck - A famous golfer , after sinking a very long putt, was congratulated on his luck by an interviewer. “ Yeah”, he drawled “ It’s funny. The more I practice, the luckier I get”. (a) I wish those cutting back annual flying hours would note that and (b) he’s right – to a large extent you make your own luck, by good planning & thinking defensively.

[Chugalug2]

biscuit:
there is a tendency on certain rather high profile running arguments to refer to what are all but ‘Little green men from Mars’ postulates to avoid any crew blame whatever. That is counter productive.
Not sure what long running arguments those might be. Crews are not to blame if they are required to operate aircraft that senior officers know are unairworthy, but they don't. If they then have an accident in which they die, no-one that I am aware of is saying that whatever happened it was not their fault. What I say is that the known unairworthiness of the aircraft is an issue in its own right which may or may not have been a causal factor of the accident. Thanks to the antediluvian practice of neither fitting CVR's nor ADR's to UK military aircraft (fast being corrected), as often as not that is not known (a cynic might say that is why the practice continued as long as it did). Such is the situation with the Chinook Mk2 crash at Mull. It is certainly not the case with Nimrod though. Of course, if the little green men are Walter's.....

[finestkind]

A quick toe in the water.

Forgive me if the quote is not quite correct but I believe Yeager once stated " its not that I'm a better flier than anyone else its just that I fly more than anyone else". A big statement considering the ego that generally goes with these high achievers.

No doubt less flying means less or more degrading of skills. This aligns with the dangers of flying, in particular military flying. Forgetting operational flying it is still a bit different to civilian. The fact that the gear was not out down can be attributed to numerous items such as the 1.0 hour of burning an turning under high G man's plus the extraneous secondary duties and the fact that this has been repeated daily is slightly fatiguuuueing. I know the civvy equivelant of spending X amount of hours siping coffee trying to stay awake is also fatiguing and constantly high pressured, as is instructing in the civvy world.

Stdby to rec.

[Madbob]

Several posters have talked about implications of a reduction in flying hours/training and the difference between military and civil flying....

The differences should I think be obvious....

In the civil world aircrew need to obviously keep their type, instrument, and night ratings current, including visits to the sim for emergency drills etc.

A military pilot needs to keep current with.....perhaps the following additional skills which we all know are perishable skills which rapidly fade if not practiced...


Weaponeering - air to air, air to ground, with bombs/rockets/guns;
Air to air refueling - by day and night;
Low flying - and with NVG's at night;
Tactical formation flying;
Electronic warfare and threat mitigation;

This on top of maintaining "poling" skills to include manoevering skills which in the civil world which would be called aerobatics.

Then there are programs such as TLP, Red Flag, QWI/QFI courses, and dreaded "secondary" duties!

Small wonder that 15-20 hrs per month on a fast jet squadron is hardly enough particularly when it includes "transit" time which is of little training value.....:sad:

MB