Wing Commander Spry [Archive]

Wg Cdr Spry

3rd Jul 2013, 11:05

It is not a name change as such my dear chap, merely a new term.

If I may take a moment to put on my 'Corporate Hat' and quote from the MAA policy

Air Safety is the state of freedom from unacceptable risk of injury to persons, or damage, throughout the life cycle of military air systems. Its purview extends across all Defence Lines of Development and includes Airworthiness, Flight Safety, Policy, Regulation and the apportionment of Resources. It does not address survivability in a hostile environment.

Flight Safety describes a collective endeavour to operate in the Defence aviation domain safely and embraces any activity that contributes to the safe operation of military airworthy systems in flight or on the ground.

'Corporate Hat' off !

In embracing my newly found internet wizardry, I have managed to set up a Facebook page (with Percys help I must add) called RAF Flight Safety, so for all you social media gurus, please look us up.

yours aye

Spry

BEagle

3rd Jul 2013, 11:19

Thanks for the response, Spry.

However, whilst it might mean something to the MAA, personally I find the distinction between Air Safety and Flight Safety rather pointless and confusing.

Sorry, I don't do Far$ebook or Tw@tter, but anything* which promotes Flight Safety is A Good Thing, in my opinion.

*such as 'Dr FOD and the Wayward Body' on DVD, perhaps?

WhiteOvies

3rd Jul 2013, 14:27

Spry,

Many thanks for this, for those of us out and about away from the Defence Intranet and DII it is most useful to be able to see these.

Best Regards,

WhiteOvies

Tankertrashnav

3rd Jul 2013, 15:22

Oh dear.

The last time I saw Wg Cdr Spry he was an officer of mature years - certainly a lot older than I was, a junior flight lieutenant at the time.

I now appear to be a lot older than the wing commander, but I have a feeling that this has as much to do with the "policemen looking younger" syndrome as any change in Spry's appearance :(

Still, on the bright side, I appear to have more hair than Fg Off Fixe, the navigator :)

Just noticed:

"Spry say's" (sic)

"Backtune say's" (sic)

:ugh:

CoffmanStarter

3rd Jul 2013, 15:35

Mind you TTN ... I wouldn't want to meet Sgt Straddle on a dark night :eek:

He looks capable of inserting more than an apostrophe ...

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/38de45d6-0f26-43cf-9c5e-fa91170d632e_zps92a0e61c.jpg

Lima Juliet

3rd Jul 2013, 17:23

Dear Wg Cdr Spry

When is the MAA going to stop 'throwing hand grenades' over the airfield perimeter? The number of new posts required to conduct aviation on Crown Property in accordance with recent MAA direction will soon outnumber our front-line fleet - SFSOs, Risk Register Managers, SEMSCOs, LEMSCOs, UFSOs, Stn FOD Offs, HF Instructors, ASIMS Ocurrence Managers all putting together ASMPs, Defence Aerodrome Manuals, DAAFs, Risk Registers, Hazard Logs, Stn FOD plans, etc...etc...

...if I didn't know better, they truly are trying to become a military equivalent of the Campaign Against Aviation!

Aye

LJ

PS. Welcome on board. I suggested to a CinC once that Flight Safety should have a public face on Pprune and was given a resolute "no". He wouldn't even entertain a forum on the Intranet. So it's good to see the senior leadership signing up to this.

Wensleydale

3rd Jul 2013, 17:49

May I draw your attention to the following item for sale on e-bay? Although excellent for a pilot's image, it may well become a FOD hazard if used in the cockpit!

http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/d/l140/pict/110787144115_1.jpg
Adult Fancy Dress Costume Accessory

Stick On Wing Commander RAF Pilot Tash

CoffmanStarter

3rd Jul 2013, 17:52

LJ OMG :eek: ... What was wrong with JSP318, Flying Orders and a good brief from the Authorising Officer ... all overseen by a good/experienced Boss :confused:

CoffmanStarter

3rd Jul 2013, 18:00

Wensleydale ... Looks perfect :ok:

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/Spry7JPEG.jpg

Wg Cdr Spry

3rd Jul 2013, 21:39

Thank you all for embracing this thread. Some wonderful questions are arising which I will try to answer in time and perhaps even respond to in our next edition of Air Clues.

I think this forum is a fantastic way to discuss some of these issues, including I suppose the minor grammar/spelling mistakes in the current edition (TTN).;) I will be having a word with Percy about those tomorrow.

Dont forgot to have a look at our Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/RAFFlightSafety
where you can post your ideas to contribute towards improving our Flight Safety promotions.

Yours aye

Spry

1.3VStall

3rd Jul 2013, 23:08

LJ, what the **** do all those acronyms stand for?

ExAscoteer

4th Jul 2013, 00:09

Aside from the fact they aren't acronyms....

tucumseh

4th Jul 2013, 16:39

Wg Cdr Spry

I have one question which, I suggest, must be addressed before all else.

What is MoD (including the MAA) doing about the underlying cause of “Savings at the expense of Safety”?

After all, it was the main criticism of the Nimrod Review, which led to the formation of the MAA. To date, there has been much waltzing around the subject, revamping perfectly good regulations and seeking to justify hundreds of staff and consultants by creating a raft of new terms and abbreviations. But all this serves to confuse, with the root problem left untouched. New (or old) regulations are useless if the underlying problem is that implementation is optional.

How about someone in the MAA, or a Project Team, writing an article on why, when rain forests are being chopped down to accommodate these new papers, the one Def Stan setting out the mandated procedures for maintaining the Build Standard, a pre-requisite to the Safety Case, Airworthiness and Air Safety, has been cancelled without replacement. If that person wants a copy of the Def Stan, give me a shout, because MoD no longer has one. In other words, the basics are being forgotten in the rush to hide the elephant in the room.

Best wishes

PlasticCabDriver

4th Jul 2013, 18:06

While we're being a nitpicky bunch, in Dan McBride's article you have expanded "SF" into "Special Forces", (its usual meaning), when in the context of Northern Ireland at the time and Bessbrook Mill it meant "Security Forces" ie regular army/RUC.

Doesn't detract from the point of the article excellent article though.

Is Jan's hat still on Tigger?

tucumseh

4th Jul 2013, 19:08

Wg Cdr Spry

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer.
I appreciate you are not the MAA. I firmly believe the MAA has approached their task from the wrong angle, simply because it is an embarrassment to admit what the real problem is. The result is, from what I read here because I no longer have any direct contact, that Front Line has borne the brunt of this change for the sake of change.

The root problem is crystal clear. It was not at Front Line. It was at 3 Star level in the RAF and 2 Star level in MoD(PE). The former caused the waste that forced the “savings at the expense of safety”. That latter was complicit, supported by our 4 Star (where, I believe, Haddon-Cave’s rather cutting comment about submariners managing aviation came from).

I have had the opportunity to speak to senior MAA figures and I can tell you there was not an iota of understanding of the difference between airworthiness and fitness for purpose, or that airworthiness facilitates serviceability. They had no idea how to (a) attain airworthiness (which is almost entirely invisible to Front Line) or (b) maintain airworthiness (which is largely invisible to Front Line, especially since the regulations governing aforesaid Build Standard were dumped).

How many in the MAA have direct experience of the area where the root problem is? There are plenty with Front Line experience, but few with attaining and maintaining Airworthiness. And we already know from evidence at one inquest that staffs are no longer taught how to attain and maintain fitness for purpose. I just feel you are being inundated with a raft of ingenious solutions to non-existent problems, while the real problems are ignored to protect the guilty.

Courtney Mil

4th Jul 2013, 21:21

Hello again guys. Been away for a few weeks and delighted to find this thread on my return. Thank you, Wg Cdr, for doing us the honour and for the links to Air Clues.

I didn't want my first post back here to be a rant, BUT, I really do feel strongly about one thing. The good Wg Cdr Spry is here of his own free will as a service to us. I think it only fair to treat him with the respect that deserves and, more importantly, to remember his role. He is NOT an MoD punch bag to be expected to field policy questions, especially those that relate to issues of the past, how they happened or how they were (or are being handled). All of those issues may well be valid topics for debate, but not in this thread.

If there are beefs from the past or issues of current policy then either write an article for the Wg Cdr to consider for publication or publish your points in a more appropriate thread. This is Flight Safety today and getting the message out to flyers, not a forum for recriminations or arguments about policy issues.

If it wouldn't be published in Air Clues, soft, strong and thoroughly absorbent, it probably shouldn’t be published here.

You may feel differently, but those are my thoughts. Wg Cdr Spry is not a punch bag.

Courtney
(happy to be back)

Chugalug2

4th Jul 2013, 21:55

CM:-
Wg Cdr Spry is not a punch bag.
Absolutely right CM, so who has been punching him? This is a forum for grown ups. Grown ups should be able to discuss the scandal that is UK Military Airworthiness. The good Wg Cdr himself has explained that Flight Safety and Air Safety are both dependent on Airworthiness. That is the conundrum, because what happened in the past during Haddon-Cave's "Golden Period of Airworthiness" reduced Airworthiness, and hence Flight Safety, and hence Air Safety, to the dire straits that it is in today.
We can either ignore that, keep ticking the boxes and keeping our fingers crossed, or face up to it like, well grown ups. RAF VSOs perpetrated this mess. It is for the RAF to clear it up.
Hope that's not too punchy, Courtney.

tucumseh

5th Jul 2013, 06:00

CM

I asked myself why the sudden change and willingness to seek opinion from an anonymous forum. The answer must be a certain level of disquiet among the Wg Cdr's colleagues at the enormous changes going on.

Most, I believe, will be asking Why? They are certainly not told why by MoD. To understand the present, you must understand the past; how else can you be sure the failings have been corrected? At the moment, it is a blind charge toward constant change. No one wants to acknowledge that many people got it right in the past.

In time, there will be vague memories of someone screwing up on something called Nimrod. A Typhoon operator or maintainer will be thinking "Nowt to do with me then". MoD/MAA have promoted this line, compartmentalising the issues. For example, they say Chinook guys having to use Argentinean tech pubs (CHART 1992) is unrelated to Kinloss not having up to date pubs for Nimrod (DRA 1994/6, NART 1998, H-C 2009). Wrong, because both were served by one department whose funding was rundown by the very people charged with a Duty of Care. Why is that Argentinean story not well known? Because VSOs tried to bury the report, denying the existence of that Annex in the media and to Ministers.

MoD/MAA have publicly accepted all but four of H-C's recommendations, but in private still rage against anyone who attempts to meet legal obligations. A thread ran last October about the joint MAA/RAeS conference at which these same old stories were trotted out, grossly misleading everyone there. I wonder how many of Wg Cdr Spry’s readers felt properly represented?

Therefore, my posts seek to reassure the Wg Cdr that those who actually know what caused the failures, and how to fix them, wholeheartedly support the Front Line. Were it up to me, the fixes would be largely invisible to them, except you'd begin to see feedback improve, Fault Investigations would be carried out, Tech Pubs would be accurate and up to date, 765s answered in days, not years and you’d no longer find Mods that worked but weren’t safe (and vice versa); in short, all the little things that combine to maintain a stable, safe Build Standard. All mandated, all ditched in 1991-93 by the CE.

This wouldn’t cost much more. We spend huge amounts getting these things wrong. Often quite deliberately. I’d spend it getting it right. Service training, for air and ground crews, is the best in the world. That is not where the problem lies. One thing I’d do is introduce one brief talk (or handout, it is already written) into training answering the oft-asked question “How do we (front line) influence procurement?” Most will think “We can’t”, but the answer is an eye opener and after 45 mins you’ll realise the reason you don’t think you can is because of the decision to rundown airworthiness. When you see little links like this a lot falls into place.

CoffmanStarter

5th Jul 2013, 09:28

I asked myself why the sudden change and willingness to seek opinion from an anonymous forum.

I happen to think that this "Wing Co Spry" recognises the huge potential value of tapping the vast pool of experience offered by the members of this forum be they current serving or retired. Constructive and informed participation could be very powerful indeed. Just a thought ...

Good to see you back Courtney :ok:

Coff.

Wg Cdr Spry

5th Jul 2013, 12:10

Whilst I do appreciate a heated debate, it would indeed be wrong of me to comment in this forum on policy matters. Please be assured though that I am closely following this thread and, with the contributors permission, I hope to answer some of your concerns or questions in the next edition of Air Clues. My main intent on this thread is, as Coff quite rightly stated, to improve flight safety by tapping the vast pool of experience offered by members of this forumIn particular I welcome articles for inclusion in Air Clues on your own experiences, that would benefit the masses by sharing the lessons you may have learnt (“I learnt about…….from that”).

Yours aye

Spry

Roland Pulfrew

5th Jul 2013, 12:28

new posts required to conduct aviation on Crown Property in accordance with recent MAA direction will soon outnumber our front-line fleet - SFSOs, Risk Register Managers, SEMSCOs, LEMSCOs, UFSOs, Stn FOD Offs, HF Instructors, ASIMS Ocurrence Managers all putting together ASMPs, Defence Aerodrome Manuals, DAAFs, Risk Registers, Hazard Logs, Stn FOD plans, etc...etc...

LJ, what the **** do all those acronyms stand for?

And wasn't one of the key findings in H-C (to paraphrase) that he was: stunned that any of us ever got airborne given the mass of documents that we were all supposed to read, inwardly digest and sign for every month/amendment issue.

Actually, what was really wrong with:
JSP318, Flying Orders and a good brief from the Authorising Officer ... all overseen by a good/experienced Boss ?

tucumseh

5th Jul 2013, 13:48

Roland

There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you realise there are people supporting you in the background whose job it is to provide an airworthy aircraft, and others whose job it is to ensure it is fit for purpose. (And where there is overlap, they must know when it is occurring). Only when that is permitted, does "JSP318, Flying Orders and a good brief from the Authorising Officer ... all overseen by a good/experienced Boss" become remotely acceptable. You were happy with JSP318, I was happy with JSP553, 00-970, and 125/2. Each to his own, and together they delivered.

That it is not permitted is why Haddon-Cave was asked to conduct his Review.

Speaking of Haddon-Cave, I learnt from DE&S (!) this week that the official MoD/MAA position is that the systemic failings he reported are entirely unrelated to the systemic failings reported to him, despite them being precisely the same failings.

Now, that's a new one, but entirely consistent with an organisation in denial. To be fair, DE&S did name a senior MAA officer in the reply, so one assumes he is content with this. But it does rather call into question - WTF is going on? Does the MAA pass these gems of wisdom over to Front Line? Or Air Clues staff? Or is it just selective incompetence?

thefodfather

5th Jul 2013, 22:36

I know from experience how tough Wg Cdr Spry's job is and the great step forward that has led to his opening this thread on Pprune. Whilst I have a great deal of respect for the views of many regarding airworthiness, the continued raising of these issues on this thread will severely hamper the good Wg Cdrs ability to continue in this way.

The problems were not just airworthiness related but centre around how to "do" SMS in a military organisation. I would encourage people to use this thread to explore how the brave new world of safety of the MAA and the single services below it can meet the future challenges of defence.

The past is the past, and tragic as that maybe, lets help the well meaning people doing safety today meet the challenges they face in a practical way. I hope that we can all help Wg Cdr Spry with plenty of good material that he can use. He is not here to defend policy decisions elsewhere in defence.

dervish

6th Jul 2013, 05:52

He is not here to defend policy decisions elsewhere in defence.

But surely "he" is there to challenge policies that adversely affect safety? If you don't you're part of the problem.

I'm not convinced by this "past is past" and "no recriminations" stuff. As tuc said earlier, I'd like to know what the failures were so I'd be confident they were being fixed. It seems to me the recriminations continue but against the people who pointed out the failings.

But well done Wg Cdr Spry. I hope you can answer some of questions. Why not just publish the evidence to Haddon-Cave?

Chugalug2

6th Jul 2013, 08:40

TFF:-
...explore how the brave new world of safety of the MAA and the single services below it can meet the future challenges of defence.

You sum up the dilemma of the MAA and of its chosen path perfectly, and with some style too might I add TFF. Just as in the novel that you quote, all that is past is past and we now go forward together from a new Year Zero. Perhaps we should remind ourselves that Mustapha Mond, Big Brother, and Pol Pot were all bad news for those contemplating a quiet life, let alone a safe one.

That is no way to run a pub, let alone Airworthiness. Nothing less than enforcing the Regulations from start to finish will do. The problem is that has not happened for the last three decades, principally because the Airworthiness Authority (the MOD) scrapped the Regs and sacked those engineers who would not comply with an illegal order to sign them off as complied with anyway. Before we can take one positive step into the future the Airworthiness Authority must come to terms with that scandal and confront those who perpetrated this mess and then covered it up.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that can only be done by an independent Airworthiness Authority, ie the MAA must reform out with the MOD and be civilian led. Ditto the MAAIB. Only then can
well meaning people doing safety today meet the challenges they face in a practical way

CoffmanStarter

7th Jul 2013, 14:18

I note that Gp Capt Ian Gale's piece (Page 23 Perfect Storm) made the Sunday Times this weekend ... clearly sourced from Air Clues. A good honest account from a VSO ... Well done Sir :D:D:D:D

Mind you I hope the Personnel Bod responsible for exiting such skilled resource without understanding operational dependencies got his/her Brown Envelope :suspect:

Easy Street

7th Jul 2013, 19:46

CS

Whilst there were some compulsory redundancies, the majority of the problems at Lossie were brought on by voluntary redundancies and ETs (all helped on their way by aggressive recruiting into the offshore industries), so not really the fault of any individual poster. What it does go to show is that whilst offering voluntary redundancy is one way of sweetening a bitter pill, it can result in the 'wrong' people leaving (from the Service's point of view) and that - dare I say it - greater use of compulsory redundancy in other areas of the Service might have had less effect on 'the sharp end'. Perhaps Manning could have refused a few more of the VRs - but a tough call to make when the policy is 'volunteers first'.

By the way, Spry, it's Gp Capt Gale, not Gail - are you calling him a girl? :)

By the way again - I must admit to being a little confused as to why this interesting, but in the grand scheme of things fairly minor, story gets pinched by the Sunday Times, when the much bigger and dirtier story continually told by tuc (et al) stays resolutely low-profile. Perhaps if Air Clues can run a story based on the evidence here (https://sites.google.com/site/militaryairworthiness/home), it might make the press! (get Fg Off Fixe to write it - sounds like he doesn't have much of a career to lose!)

CoffmanStarter

8th Jul 2013, 07:04

ES ...

Thanks for that. Having had the unenviable task of taking this kind of action, as a COO in a Global Company, I recognise the difficulty of "ring fencing" the experience and talent you want to keep ... but it's not impossible ... if there is a will there is usually a way.

Cheers ...

Coff.

Sandy Parts

8th Jul 2013, 11:22

LJ - to be fair, while those posts do need to be filled (in order to allocate some responsibility for the various efforts they involve), they don't need to always be different persons. Some do, but many can be 'double-hatted' e.g LEMSCO (Local Error Management Safety Co-ord) can also do HF (Human Factors) training and will also be an ideal OI (Occurrence Investigator). In practice, many of the roles are secondary duties with only the SFSO and perhaps SEMSCO (Station Error Management etc etc) needing to be primary posts. Yes, it is new, but at least it is attempting to address the issue. Having seen it at close quarters, the effect will depend greatly on the individual carrying out the duty but at least you will know WHO that is these days!

dervish

8th Jul 2013, 12:54

Well done Gp Capt Gale. But you'll never get a job in the MAA now. Or perhaps that was the cunning plan.............

Chugalug2

8th Jul 2013, 13:16

SP:-
Yes, it is new, but at least it is attempting to address the issue.
Could you explain what issue you refer to, SP? It seems to me that we have a situation here whereby all the effort is being directed inside the Station Gates, wherein rules and regulations are generally obeyed, and punishment usually follows when they are not.
In contrast, outside of the gates the opposite appears to be the norm, in respect of Airworthiness provision at least. That is where the Elephants are still trampling down the rose beds. That is where the "issue" needs urgently addressing.

Easy Street, thank you for the link. I would commend careful study of it to all who seek to understand what has happened and what should be done to put it right again. I repeat it here:https://sites.google.com/site/militaryairworthiness/home

teeteringhead

8th Jul 2013, 15:29

Dear Spry

I am delighted to see your return and that of the ageless Percy Prune as part of the team.

I suppose in these PC times we have to accept the loss of WAAF Winsum, who in any case in her day would have been discharged on marriage and/or pregnancy - whichever came first, although she does appear to be a MIU - Mother in Uniform - below. (Percy P did make an honest woman of her eventually)

But why did Percy's four-legged friend (and intellectual superior) "Binder" have to change breeds and names to become "Watson"?

I attach an old family photo of all of the above - and Percy Jnr, whom I assume to be the father of the present Percy III.

http://www.airmuseum.ca/mag/050509h4.jpg

CoffmanStarter

8th Jul 2013, 15:36

Could the babe in arms be a young BEagle ... the plot thickens :}

Wg Cdr Spry

8th Jul 2013, 15:38

The following is taken from the MOD blog page following on from yesterdays article in the Sunday Times.

The Sunday Times ran a story titled 'Dambusters hit by defence cuts bombshell' (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Defence/article1284192.ece) which commented on an article from the RAF's flight safety publication 'Air Clues' and tried to paint a somewhat sensationalistic picture of engineering and manning issues off the back of the recent redundancies within the RAF.
The headline of the story is misleading; the facts of the events in question are that only 12 (Bomber) Squadron, not 617 Squadron, ceased flying training operations at RAF Lossiemouth for 3 days during the review of engineering practices. Whilst 617 Squadron's fleet allocation was temporarily reduced from 13 to 10 aircraft, 617 Squadron continued flying training as normal and returned to operating with a full aircraft complement shortly thereafter.
The article also mentions the loss of 270 technicians from the redundancy round; whilst this was the case across the RAF, only 37 technicians were required to backfill RAF Lossiemouth - notably none of these actions affected deployed operations.
The decision to publish the full details of the management of engineering issues at RAF Lossiemouth in 'Air Clues' proves that the RAF's highest priority remains flight safety. It also demonstrates that 'open and honest' flight safety reporting is positively encouraged at all levels and, importantly, is listened to; in this case leading to appropriate measures and actions being introduced by management to ensure safety and operational effectiveness.
In sum, this is a hugely positive story of best practice from RAF Lossiemouth and is considered a classic example of how the RAF should be doing business in terms of listening to our people, identifying issues, planning rectification, enacting a plan and then publicising the results so that all can learn from hard-earned experience.

Yours aye

Spry

CoffmanStarter

8th Jul 2013, 15:40

Well said and the right response ...

Wg Cdr Spry

8th Jul 2013, 15:43

Unfortunately, as I'm sure you are aware, dogs have quite a short life span.;) Rest assured though that, the rest of the team and I are eternal. I feel as though I havent aged a day in almost 70 years, in fact some would say I'm looking younger...:)

Madbob

8th Jul 2013, 16:03

Dear Wg Cdr Spry,

It's great to have you on board after an over-long absence and it is great to be able to also get Air Clues as an on-line .pdf publication. I am sure that you are absolutely right in trying to promote Flight Safety to the modern RAF using the treasure trove of past experience available here on PPRuNe, as you have already said in your reply to Coff above.

I will try and work on an "I learnt about flying from....." story and will send it to you for consideration. I have one in particular in mind when at Linton in the early 1980's which may still pass the test of time.....today's student pilots surely can't be THAT different a generation on, when the over-confidence of youth and inexperience made (at least some of) us think we were invulnerable?

In the meantime, I wonder as you try and tap into the "vast pool of experience" here whether it would be possible to scan back issues of Air Clues from the IFS archive and make them available as .pdf's? Who knows, a few of us might even recognise ourselves from the days of yore, pre baldness and/or going grey - not that vanity is an emotion that any self-respecting aircrew would admit to having!

The passing on and receipt of knowledge is a two-way street and it would be a great shame if all that archive material had been lost forever.

Keep up the good work Sir!

Yours sincerely,

MB

(Please forgive my poor service writing, it's been a while since I left and I was never interested in being a scribbly anyway).

Wg Cdr Spry

8th Jul 2013, 16:21

MB,

Scanning in all the past editions of Air Clues is on my To Do list. This will take some time but once complete I will upload them to our web site.

I always welcome articles for inclusion in Air Clues, however I'm afraid they cannot be anonymous.

Yours aye

Spry

NutLoose

8th Jul 2013, 19:13

Cool Air clues, I used to enjoy reading that and will again, hope you have finally sorted out the FOD issues, all the time I served the FOD collected posters always used to contain a 12 inch ruler, we / you must have been losing literally hundreds of them. :O

Glad to see you are looking at including older back issues, the types might have changed but the core knowledge they contain remains relevant, especially as some of the types are still in service, and lessons learnt by earlier generations may be unknown to the present incumbent's operating them.

dervish

9th Jul 2013, 08:33

Easy Street, thank you for the link. I would commend careful study of it to all who seek to understand what has happened and what should be done to put it right again. I repeat it here:https://sites.google.com/site/milita...orthiness/home

I particularly recommend the Hercules and Tornado papers. Extraordinary combination of personal recollections, contemporaneous notes (showing the foresight involved) and official reports (just proves that to exploit Freedom of Info you need to know the question.) My only comment is that early sections don't name names but more recent ones do. Why would be interesting.

Would Air Clues publish a word if it? Not a hope.

Sandy Parts

9th Jul 2013, 12:33

Chug - in reply to your comment "what issue...". The issues being addressed are those that CAN be addresses by those 'within the wire' as you term it. I see it as similar to walking past a large pile of rubbish dumped on your drive - you can moan and write letters all day to the police/council about fly-tippers etc, but the most pressing need is to pick all the rubbish up before it causes other problems (or attracts more dumping). The fact that the recent establishment of a robust and clearly defined station 'Air Safety / Flight Safety' (:p) system may not affect issues way further up the tree shouldn't stop it being used for good in the meantime. I've previously been involved in the system from the very early days and while not perfect, it is doing good work on the ground.

By the way - "wherein rules and regulations are generally obeyed, and punishment usually follows when they are not. " You'd be surprised how often that local investigations/reviews uncover the very opposite. By highlighting the errors it is hoped to re-educate those 'sinners' who may have been unwittingly/deliberately not following 'the rules'.

Chugalug2

9th Jul 2013, 19:54

SP:-
You'd be surprised how often that local investigations/reviews uncover the very opposite.
Well not really Sandy, for it is a constant effort of promoting best practice and publicising the results of bad practice. No doubt like you and many others, I have walked the apron gathering in the harvest (into a large refuse bag) and depositing it on the Wg Cdr Ops desk with a "I believe this lot belongs to you, Sir". It was a pleasure and a privilege too, I might add.

What surprised and shocked me was that years later it seems that all this was turned on its head by the RAF High Command who ordered that bad practice be the norm for Airworthiness provision. So an aircraft subject to best practice departs properly serviced from a FOD free airfield with a fully trained crew operating to the letters of the regulations, only to be destroyed because it has a dry bay containing fuel couplings and a source of ignition, or a FADEC with positively dangerous code, or an IFF that does not alert the crew of its failure in a tactical environment, or fuel tanks lacking ballistic protection in a tactical environment, etc. How stupid is that?

How stupid is it that it is the repeated position of the MOD, unchallenged by the MAA, that it remains a disciplinary offence to refuse to obey an order (given by an RAF Air Rank Officer) to make a false declaration of financial probity and airworthiness? I'm afraid that these two incompatible and contradictory positions, one inside and one outside the Station Gates, are the very antithesis of Flight Safety, and anyone professing to serve its cause has to stand up and declare that.

Little point in getting all the deck chairs aligned if, due to substandard rivets or steel sheet, insufficient safety equipment or whatever, the ship is not seaworthy and so sinks. The RAF ship is not seaworthy and there appears to be a lack of leadership to deal with it. If that leadership is to come from anywhere then it must come from those who are informed enough to point out the lamentable failings in airworthiness provision, ie from those serving in Flight Safety.

It has been tried before, the RAF Flight Safety Inspectorate commissioned the 'Arts, looking into airworthiness failings in the Nimrod, Hercules, Chinook, Tornado, etc. Instead of being published they were pulped (or at least ordered to be so). Time they were published, so how about it Wg Cdr Spry? Will you accept dervish's challenge? You may well be damned if you do, but aren't we all damned if you don't? Aviation does not allow of political correctness, rather it kills if not continuously stopped from doing so. Time it was stopped!

Self Regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation it Kills!

thefodfather

9th Jul 2013, 22:46

Chug

Whilst your continual support of the cause of airworthiness does you credit, I think you need to view safety in its wider context and the MoD should be congratulated on its efforts in this regard.

Many of the issues of which you speak occurred when today's leadership were but junior officers and to suggest that they are actively complicit in fraud or illegal activities is absurd. Aviation regulation today is very different to 20 years ago, in all aspects. Please don't denigrate the hard work of the many well meaning people in the MAA and the single services doing safety today because of actions and decisions made by others many. many years ago.

The changes that have taken place since the crash of XV230 are immeasurable and many people have put their necks on the line to support these improvements, Wg Cdr Spry included.

Please support this thread in the spirit which, I think, led to its creation and enable Spry to support the future generation in staying safe.

dervish

10th Jul 2013, 05:07

How stupid is it that it is the repeated position of the MOD, unchallenged by the MAA, that it remains a disciplinary offence to refuse to obey an order (given by an RAF Air Rank Officer) to make a false declaration of financial probity and airworthiness?

Even I can understand that. Key word is "remains"

Many of the issues of which you speak occurred when today's leadership were but junior officers and to suggest that they are actively complicit in fraud or illegal activities is absurd. Aviation regulation today is very different to 20 years ago, in all aspects. Please don't denigrate the hard work of the many well meaning people in the MAA and the single services doing safety today because of actions and decisions made by others many. many years ago.

I'd recommend again you follow the link above and read the section on the elephant in the MAA's room. The latest update quotes a recent letter from DE&S and names names. Are the staff who approved that "actively complicit in fraud or illegal activities?" Can Air Clues ask the MAA to comment on these DE&S letters?

That doesn't mean everyone is complicit but it only needs one person to think this way.

Chugalug2

10th Jul 2013, 09:21

TFF:-
Please don't denigrate the hard work of the many well meaning people in the MAA and the single services doing safety today because of actions and decisions made by others many. many years ago.

I don't denigrate anyone doing their best to do safety, on the contrary I can only encourage them to go on doing so to their absolute utmost endeavour. It is the MAA that I denigrate, for the simple reason that it is based on a lie and continues to perpetuate that lie. The lie is the Haddon Cave report, that the MAA was established as a consequence of.
The report claims that before the sequence of events that led to the tragic loss of XV230 there had been a "Golden Age of Airworthiness". If only! XV230 was merely a link in a chain that extended back to that "Golden Age" when the subversion of Flight Safety by RAF Air Officers really began. That was in 1987. By turning its back on its own (the MOD's) history, the MAA is doomed to have it repeated. Nothing has changed, that same chain of possible subversion and consequence still exists.
Unless and until the RAF faces up to and accepts that chain, the actions of its own Air Officers, and the continued cover up of their actions, then the chain will stay in place, threatening efforts to:
support the future generation in staying safe
Once that bullet is bitten then the way of breaking that chain is to make the MAA and, just as importantly the MAAIB, civilian led and independent of the MOD and of each other.
Given my take on the situation I hope you will not think me rude when I say that I find your suggestion that:
the MoD should be congratulated on its efforts
risible.
The reason that what I quote is from the past is that is what history is made of. What is happening today will be tomorrow's history. Let us all "put our necks on the line" for real, and ensure that those who sit in judgement on our efforts in the future will approve of them and say that this was indeed the very beginning of a "Golden Age of Airworthiness".

Wg Cdr Spry

15th Jul 2013, 09:25

I'm glad to see that this thread is sparking up some interesting debate. I wish to assure you that I am reading your posts with interest, however I'm afraid I will not discuss policy of current or previous administrations in whatever guise on this anonymous forum. Please do not see this as me being dismissive, we all have our masters. If, however you would like to write to me, my email address is [email protected] and I will endeavour to get back to you. I may even post your letter in my next edition of Air Clues.

Looking forward, I would like to perhaps start some discussion on current Flight Safety initiatives and welcome any ideas for future development.

Dont forget, you can now find us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/RAFFlightSafety

Your aye

Spry

Easy Street

17th Jul 2013, 00:30

This is an excellent 15-minute talk by the FT journalist Gillian Tett (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b036tz9w)which describes how her training as an anthropologist helped her to identify during 2006 that all was not well in the world of international finance, despite her unfamiliarity with much of the language. She noted that bank executives tended to spend all their time talking about the stock and currency markets, and rarely (if ever) spoke about the bond and credit markets, despite these forming a large and rapidly-growing part of the balance sheets. This silence fitted certain anthropological theories and pointed to trouble...

It's well worth a listen to, and thought-provoking in an Air Safety context as well. What are the things that our senior executives (their Airships) never talk about? Obviously the last page of this thread covers one topic, but it would be interesting to see if there are others and whether it is the same basic human behaviour at work. I wonder if there is a basis for an Air Clues article in here?

SOSL

17th Jul 2013, 14:07

If it is true that it is the repeated position of the MOD, unchallenged by the MAA, that it remains a disciplinary offence to refuse to obey an order (given by an RAF Air Rank Officer) to make a false declaration of financial probity and airworthiness?.
Then why are we all shilly-shallying about; it is a crime to give the order and a crime to obey it (c.f Nuremberg military trials - "I was only following orders" but still we hung them!)

If it's not true then we are wasting our time chasing our own tails.

Rgds SOS

SOSL

17th Jul 2013, 14:16

What an enlightening talk by Gillian Tett and a beautiful example of the power of cross-disciplinary reasoning.

I couldn't agree more that
It's well worth a listen to, and thought-provoking in an Air Safety context as well. What are the things that our senior executives (their Airships) never talk about? Obviously the last page of this thread covers one topic, but it would be interesting to see if there are others and whether it is the same basic human behaviour at work. I wonder if there is a basis for an Air Clues article in here? Maybe the wingco could ask her for her thoughts.

Rgds SOS

Wg Cdr Spry

17th Jul 2013, 21:48

Now that Percy has finally worked out how to use our scanner, I will be uploading the back issues of Air Clues to our Internet site. I am starting right back at the beginning with our predecessor Tee Emm Issue 1 dated April 1941. I hope to have the first 20 editions of Tee Emm uploaded by the end of next week. In the mean time keep an eye on our Facebook page as I will be uploading Issue 1 there.

Yours aye

Spry

tucumseh

18th Jul 2013, 05:57

SOSL

In reply to your last two posts, I think the obvious things our airships don't talk about is the elephant in the room; that DE&S/MAA has advised six Mins(AF) and the Head of the Civil Service to uphold the rulings mentioned.

The current staffs are stuck between a rock and a hard place. To advise Min and HoCS otherwise would be to openly disagree with their immediate predecessors, who have been mostly responsible for their advancement. So, they continue to follow the same old party line, hoping against hope that nothing will happen on their watch. We saw this blind allegiance when Dalton pinned his colours to the mast when writing to the press agreeing with these retired VSOs; and then complete silence when his appalling lack of judgement was exposed and Lord Philip ruled against them. He is by no means an isolated case.

I have no doubt some in the MAA disagree with the rulings (and, equally, many don't give a damn), but until they say this, and stop hiding in the background while DE&S spout this rubbish in MoD's name, there can be no wider openness and honesty. In turn, this militates against what Wg Cdr Spry is trying to achieve (and the MAA SHOULD be trying to achieve).

I understand, up to a point, when the Wg Cdr says he cannot comment on past or present policy (same thing in this case). But that inability to even speak of the elephant, never mind cull it, is precisely what caused the systemic failings in the first place. The opportunity to constrain this to an isolated act of insanity was lost long ago, and support for it is now too deeply ingrained in our upper echelons. (MAA - it is now 2.5 years since a Minister arranged for you to be briefed on this; what have you done? Nothing, except disparage those who had the balls to report it ). Yet, it is an offence NOT to report such failings (read your letters of delegation). Such abrogation is itself systemic, not because people are incompetent but because they are frightened to speak up. That one admission by Wg Cdr is the best argument for true MAA independence.

Lima Juliet

18th Jul 2013, 09:00

Tuc

As always, wise words. However, you mention "elephants in the room"; the one "elephant in the room" that is often missed is the neccesity of 'getting the job done' with the equipment we are given. Reality is never perfect and sometimes we have to use the substandard equipment/infrastructure and 'get the job done' whilst keeping the risks 'As Low As Reasonably Practicable' (ALARP). Sadly, we are starting to get to a place where we will never be able to do anything (just like the HSE allows no-one to use ladders to paint buildings with and use more expensive staging, towers, cherry pickers and scaffolding!).

Everything in moderation, consult wisely amongst real operators/users, understand/manage the risks and use common-sense and we won't go far wrong. However, it all boils down to how much risk is acceptable - in my book, within the more dangerous world of mil aviation, then this risk might be more than we like to think to 'get the job done' if it is operationally necessary.

LJ:ok:

Chugalug2

18th Jul 2013, 10:21

Leon, the discussion here has nothing whatsoever to do with the necessity of risk taking in military aviation, unless of course you mean knowingly releasing an unairworthy aircraft into military service. That would undermine military aviation capability and enhance the risk for no good military purpose.

Wg Cdr Spry:
we all have our masters
and therein lies the rub. No Airworthiness Authority or Air Accident Investigator should have any master other than themselves. That the MAA and the MAAIB do not obey that simple requirement is at the root of all that has gone wrong in UK Military Aviation and is the first thing that must be put right.

SOSL:
If it's not true then we are wasting our time
And time is of the essence, as lives are at stake. One of these two papers is untrue, simply because they are totally incompatible with one another:
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc0809/hc10/1025/1025.pdf
https://sites.google.com/site/militaryairworthiness/home
If ever there were a case of a need of mass RAF CRM then this is the time. This isn't a matter of sharp practise in Military Pensions, or sub standard MQs, or shattered career ladders, all of which might be summarised by the "If you can't take a joke then you shouldn't have joined" response. This is about the RAF's sole raison d'etre; aviation. Anyone who knows anything at all about that knows enough to know that you don't take liberties with it or it will bight your "arrse" off. The MAA and the MAAIB are presently doing just that, and the MOD policy is that is the right course to take. Are they right?

tucumseh

19th Jul 2013, 08:45

Leon

Sorry, sporadic access to technology at the moment.

What Chug says is correct. The vast majority of what I post about refers to (a) attaining airworthiness and (b) maintaining it. That two sided coin is a mandatory pre-requisite to you having an aircraft that you can then make your fitness for purpose (operational) decision about. Having maintained said aircraft, I'm not unfamiliar with the decisions you have to make.

That is why Lord Philip reminded MoD in his report that (in old speak) the CA Release is mandated upon ACAS. The evidence, supplied inadvertently by MoD, revealed that mandated process had been serially ignored and false declarations made that it had been adhered to. In other words, an avoidable accident could have been avoided by implementing perfectly good, simple regulations, long before you ever saw the aircraft. The MAA is now engaged in re-inventing that good wheel, while completely ignoring the underlying culture that permitted, in fact encouraged, the false declarations.

BEagle

19th Jul 2013, 09:21

Dear Spry,

Earlier you wrote:
Now that Percy has finally worked out how to use our scanner, I will be uploading the back issues of Air Clues to our Internet site.
To which Internet site do you refer?

Wrathmonk

19th Jul 2013, 14:42

I would hope it is the one he/she links to in post #5 and not FaceBore!

Wg Cdr Spry

20th Jul 2013, 19:19

Beag's

I will be uploading the first batch to the flight safety page on the main MoD web site next week. At the moment there is a small taster on our 'Facebore' page to keep you going.

Yours aye

Spry

CoffmanStarter

20th Jul 2013, 19:31

Spry ...

Big thanks to Percy ... looking forward to a PDF version :ok:

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/image_zps4ccfe629.jpg

Coff.

BEagle

22nd Jul 2013, 16:00

Dear Uncle Spry,

Thanks for your reply. Is the 'Flight safety page on the main MoD web site' a closed site, or viewable by retired, now-sadly-civilian filth such as yours truly?

Notwithstanding Crown Indifference, Data Protection and other such nanny-state bolleaux, perhaps you might consider marketing Percy's excellent work through a deserving charriddddyy (not 'arf, mate) such as RAFBF, H4H et al.? Many of us would, as I'm sure you'll realise, gladly cough up for local access to TeeEmm and Air Clues from days, weeks, months and years gone by....

At a rough guess, I'd say £20 for 5 years of TeeEmm / Air Clues would be a Billy-bargain buy. Kick some ar$e with the MoD marketing faggots and see what can be done? Please? Pretty (within limits) please?

With very best wishes,

Your infuriating nephew,

BEagle

PS - I don't do 'Me...me...it's all about me!!' Far$ebore ( :ooh: ) or Tw@tter yoof-meeja sites...

ian16th

23rd Jul 2013, 18:43

Spry,

Welcome, I first came across you writings in the Yatesbury libbrary, in 1952! You have survived very well. :ok:

I bought a CD of TM's a few years ago.

They are in PDF format, surely the MOD still has the copyright and has a copy of the CD.

So putting them on a website should be simple.

Wg Cdr Spry

25th Jul 2013, 09:37

Unfortunately I no longer have e-versions of past editions of Air Clues. However Percy has been working hard with the scanning gadget and I have now had the first batch uploaded to our MoD web site.

I will continue to upload them as they get produced. I am making no charge for this material as flight safety knowledge should be shared freely, in my humble opinion. That being said, if you should wish to make a charitable donation to the RAF Benevolent Fund then please do so.

Please enjoy reading our very first publications at the following link
RAF - RAF Flight Safety Legacy Publications (http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/fltsafetylegacy.cfm)

As the poularity of our Facebook page grows I will be adding more and more content. In order for me to guage support for this page I closely monitor its usage and activity. To that end please 'like' the page if you are subscribed to Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/RAFFlightSafety

Yours aye

Spry

CoffmanStarter

25th Jul 2013, 13:17

Thanks Wing Co Spry ...

Thats my bedtime reading sorted for a few months :ok:

Please pass on my/our thanks to Percy ... he clearly studied IT at Uni ;)

Coff.

Lima Juliet

26th Jul 2013, 16:33

Wg Cdr Spry

Thanks for the Tee-Emm link - fascinating! Any chance of old Air Clues as well? The one's I read in the RAF Club Library from the 60s made a great read as well. It would appear there are no new mistakes in aviation - only ones to be re-learned!

Aye

LJ

CoffmanStarter

26th Jul 2013, 16:53

LJ ... I believe that is the Wing Co's plan ... and why Percy is working like a "one armed paper hanger" :ok:

Wg Cdr Spry

30th Jul 2013, 14:37

I now have Air Clues from the 1950's ready to go however I will have to wait until the magazines are declassified before they can be uploaded.

yours aye

Spry

BEagle

30th Jul 2013, 15:56

I now have Air Clues from the 1950's ready to go however I will have to wait until the magazines are declassified before they can be uploaded.

Excellent - wouldn't want Johnny Foreigner learning too much about the Canberra, Meteor, Hunter, Swift, Venom, Javelin......or the ultra secret V-bombers :uhoh: Have to be a bit careful there...:=

But thanks, Spry old bean, they'll be well worth waiting for....:ok:

Lima Juliet

30th Jul 2013, 18:04

Wingco

There are several bound volumes of Air Clues in the RAF Club Library - I didn't see any redaction in any that I read...

LJ :ok:

Wg Cdr Spry

30th Jul 2013, 19:22

Unfortunately I am unable to upload them to the Internet until I get the Restricted caveat removed. Hopefully it will be pretty straight forward and I can provide some Cold War bed time reading. For those of you with DII access I will be uploading them to the RAF Flight Safety team site this week, or rather Percy will be.

Yours aye

Spry

Wg Cdr Spry

31st Jul 2013, 15:23

Good news.

I have had the restricted caveat removed from the old editions of Air Clues.

However, the RAF web site is unable to cope with the size and number of the files. Until Percy finds a work around we are somewhat stalled. I will happily take suggestions on this issue.

Yours aye

Spry

Lima Juliet

31st Jul 2013, 19:06

Sadly, Spry, old boy, your scanning has let you down. Looking at your Tee-Emms, it looks like Command Graphics or Repro-Graphics have scanned each page as a picture - hence they are ~9 mega bytes for a small 15-odd page document! If they had used OCR (optical character recognition) and scanned the pictures as JPGs then the files would be less than 2 mega bytes.

I suggest that you get them to scan the Air Clues and Tee-Emms to a more manageable size.

LJ :ok:

Wander00

31st Jul 2013, 19:16

LJ - agree entirely, and would still be readable at half or a quarter that size

Tocsin

2nd Aug 2013, 14:49

A possible host if the RAF website can't manage it - why not try the RAF Museum? They already host old copies of the RAF Historical Society Journals at RAF Historical Society Journals | Collections | Research | RAF Museum (http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/default/raf-historical-society-journals.aspx)

Hope that helps!

ninja-lewis

6th Aug 2013, 00:35

As short term measure, how about using a site like Scribd (http://www.scribd.com/)

You can display documents using their platform on your official site while they worry about the behind-the-scenes hosting.

Wg Cdr Spry

15th Aug 2013, 16:02

Due to the lack of online storage space on our MoD page we have been unable to upload the entire collection of Air Clues. As a compromise I will be uploading 2 editions from each decade. I will be changing these regularly so please remember to keep checking our page. For now I have uploaded 2 editions from the fifties which can be found at RAF - RAF Flight Safety Legacy Publications (http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/fltsafetylegacy.cfm)

Don't forget to look us up on Facebook and for those of you with DII access, the entire collection will be available on our team site as they are scanned.

Yours aye

Spry

dervish

15th Aug 2013, 18:15

This thread has quickly degenerated into a debate about a routine admin task of scanning and uploading old issues of a safety rag going t*ts up, apparently due to lack of necessary software and online storage space.

Meanwhile people interested in safety are being slagged off in other threads. Perhaps the RAF safety people could comment over there and give us a clue whose side you're on? That'll be really interesting. :E

NutLoose

15th Aug 2013, 18:49

I'm just thankful for them doing this and the fact I am able to read Air Clues again, end of the day, they didn't have to do this, but they are, so take heart and kudos to you Winco Spry and Co, your work IS appreciated :D:D:D

Wander00

16th Aug 2013, 09:24

Delighted to see in one of the editions of Air Clues photos that included the then AVM Gus Walker. A brilliant officer.

FantomZorbin

16th Aug 2013, 09:33

Is there any chance of the '70s batch including the article by Bob Vere on categorising officers by Winnie the Pooh characters? ... May '77. It was surprisingly accurate!!!

Wander00

16th Aug 2013, 10:17

FZ - I LOVE it. Can recall a few "Eeyores"

John Eacott

16th Aug 2013, 10:27

Due to the lack of online storage space on our MoD page we have been unable to upload the entire collection of Air Clues.

Spry, old chap: I've just taken the liberty of running a couple of your scans through Adobe Acrobat Pro and have reduced the file sizes significantly without loss of quality. One has reduced from 12mb to 8mb, the other from 10mb to 5mb.

I am more than happy to do this with any .pdf file you want, should it improve your storage space problem?

windriver

16th Aug 2013, 10:55

Can anyone tell me more about the Happy Landings publications?

It was published circa 1946 by the Air Ministry Directorate Of Accident Prevention and is very similar in layout to the early editions of Air Clues.

In particular I'd be interested to know the start and end dates of publication.

I have 3 copies from 1946 in my collection and could make pdf's available should anyone be interested.

BEagle

18th Aug 2013, 16:43

As a compromise I will be uploading 2 editions from each decade. I will be changing these regularly so please remember to keep checking our page.

Many thanks, Spry.

Perhaps you could post a brief note on PPRuNe whenever the 2 editions are changed?

Courtney Mil

2nd Sep 2013, 18:34

BEags. That's Wg Cdr Spry to us. :=:=:=

Standards in a public place.

Uncle Ginsters

4th Sep 2013, 14:33

Dear Wg Cdr Spry, Sir,

I'd like to share a modern anecdote about the pressures placed upon our crews by the modern tete-a-tete of finance vs flight safety.

In order to balance it properly, I'm trying to recall the origin of a statement that I've read recently saying words to the effect of "thou shalt not impinge flt safety as a cost-saving measure"

Do you, or any other contributor have a reference for that statement?

Regards,
Uncle G :ok:

Onceapilot

12th Sep 2013, 18:20

Uncle G. Was that not this quote of a VSO, "and, do not try to blackmail me with Flight Safety"?

OAP

Wg Cdr Spry

12th Sep 2013, 20:02

I am in the process of putting together the Autumn edition of Air Clues. If you have an article that you would like me to consider for inclusion, please email me at [email protected]

I am particularly on the lookout for some I learnt about flying from that... articles. With the wealth of experience here on PPRuNe I'm sure there are some fantastic stories worthy of sharing.

Yours aye

Spry

dervish

13th Sep 2013, 16:25

UG

In order to balance it properly, I'm trying to recall the origin of a statement that I've read recently saying words to the effect of "thou shalt not impinge flt safety as a cost-saving measure"

Careful, you're in danger of thread drift. :}

I know the phrase "savings at the expense of safety" is often used. The best description of the process which is meant to avoid this is here........

https://sites.google.com/site/militaryairworthiness/5-waste-in-mod

Not quite what you asked but it does show the problem is nothing new, nor the policy to combat it.

Uncle Ginsters

13th Sep 2013, 20:38

OAP,

As it happens, I was there when that statement was made at the very beginning of our Afghan involvement...it seems little has changed :ugh:

Onceapilot

14th Sep 2013, 19:55

Ahhhhh.... Uncle.G, you will be telling me that an ACC had the competence to decide the servicability of aircraft next.....?

OAP

Wg Cdr Spry

15th Sep 2013, 20:24

Following the recent Hawk bird strike at Mona (Ref thread:Hawk in the barrier at Mona) BBC News - RAF jet ends up in safety net at Mona airfield after 'goose strike' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-24083131) I would like to remind my brothers in aviation that the majority of bird strikes occur within 3nm of the airfield, keep those eyes on stalks.

Here at Spry towers, we are continuously analysing bird strike statistics which I will publish once I get back to the office.

On a side note, there have been requests here for a copy of my bio. I am happy to report that Percy has managed to find my original draft which I will happily share in the near future ( as you can imagine it needs a little updating).

Yours aye

Spry

Wg Cdr Spry

17th Sep 2013, 20:44

Percy has put some stats on our Facebook page regarding bird strike analysis. Granted they are from 2012 but the trend stands. In addition, the clever Flight Safety chaps at Lossiemouth have had a cartoon commissioned depicting a few mishaps that have occurred there.

You can see our page at www.facebook.com/RAFFlightSafety

Yours aye

Spry

Wg Cdr Spry

18th Sep 2013, 11:34

The biography of Wing Commander S H P Spry DFC AFC DFM RAF

Wing Commander S H P Spry DSO DFC AFC DFM RAF was the youngest son of a Brigadier from a Guards regiment. Born during the First World War (1916 is the best estimate from records) he enjoyed a privileged background (Norton nanny, clockwork train set, and 2 oranges in his stocking at Christmas) and attending public school. Unlike his brothers who all joined their father's regiment, Spry rebelled. He has no desire to wear puttees, spurs and a stripe down his trouser leg but instead yearned to be a fighter pilot in the RAF. He would often gaze into the Summer skies and watch the fighter pilots practice their up-diddly-up-ups and decided that this would be the life for him. He refused to accept his allocated place to study the classics at Oxbridge, choosing instead to feed his craving for aviation matters by joining the Royal Air Force in 1934.

Yours aye

Spry

BEagle

18th Sep 2013, 13:02

Unlike his brothers who all joined their fathers’ regiment, Spry rebelled.

fathers' would imply that the Spry brothers had more than one father, all of whom were members of the same wedgiment.

Unless Mrs Spry was married several times, this is presumably apostrophic abuse on Percy's behalf, who perhaps intended to have written father's. Either that or he is implying that she was the wedgimental penny-farthing....:eek: In which case he is an absolute shower, a cad and a bounder who should be cuffed severely about the swede.

Wander00

19th Sep 2013, 10:23

Beagle - love it. great!
W

teeteringhead

23rd Sep 2013, 09:54

And surely Norton is a motorcycle - Norland is the Nanny of choice.

Spot the Difference!

Norton

http://www.bikeexif.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/norton-commando.jpg

Norland

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/22/article-2373721-00174DDB00000258-209_640x402.jpg

teeteringhead

23rd Sep 2013, 10:46

On reflection, there might just be a connection......

http://kalafudra.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/nanny_mcphee_and_the_big_bang1.jpg

...although to be picky that appears to be an Ariel (a WW2 350cc W/NG methinks) rather than a Norton .........

Wg Cdr Spry

24th Sep 2013, 07:22

Chaps

That's the last time I dictate my PPrunery to Percy.

If any of you are reasonably gifted poets please send me a message. I have a little challenge for you which will let you be part of a bigger project we are working on. Sounds intriguing ?

Yours aye

Spry

Wg Cdr Spry

18th Oct 2013, 14:20

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=438138039626174&id=393293607443951&set=pb.393293607443951.-2207520000.1382105847.&refid=17

Arthur1Daley

28th Oct 2013, 23:11

Dear Wing Commander Spry

Really looking forward to the XMAS edition of Air Clues - I trust that you will provide some top tips along with some hidden humour to keep us chaps engaged!

Tally-ho!

Wg Cdr Spry

3rd Nov 2013, 21:57

Mr Daley

Your anticipation will soon be rewarded. In our Autumn (Christmas) edition of Airclues I have included quite a few I learnt about flying from that... articles for your reading pleasure, along with the usual features. What will make this edition unique is that it will be our first ever interactive edition of Airclues (once i get the nod from the powers that be in their shiny offices, the location of which I am still uncertain).

What does this mean you ask?

Over to Percy.

Thanks to Blippar, you can download their app and through the wonders of technology, scan any image in our magazine to reveal further online content and
information.

In addition, we have enlisted the help of a famous celebrity to assist us with an exciting Christmas message.

For now, please keep up to date on Facebook at www.facebook.com/RAFFlightSafety (http://www.facebook.com/RAFFlightSafety) where you can see the new addition to the RAF Flight Safety team and Percys betrothed, Flt Lt Winsum.

Yours aye

Spry

MACH2NUMBER

11th Nov 2013, 19:30

Dear Spry,
I was Wing Commander Spry in 1983 operating from Adastral House and got a minor bollocking for dressing the cartoon character in different clothing for different seasons i.e. Bermudas in the summer etc. in Air Clues. Hope things are more enlightened now.
SPRY 1983

Chugalug2

11th Nov 2013, 21:30

M2N:_
Hope things are more enlightened now.

Welcome to this wild and lonely thread yea ken, Sir.

My reply to your wistful thought above must be, "would that they were". You may have blotted your copy book with Bermuda Shorts (I mean, really!) but you bestrode your command in a time of plenty compared to nowadays.

The aircraft then in service were the subject of proper enforcement of the Airworthiness Regulations by fully qualified and experienced engineers who knew what they were doing, and were doing what they knew. All that was to be swept away by VSOs later, following catastrophic financial bungling in 1987 that had to be bailed out by a quick injection from some Piggy Bank or other. The one chosen was the one that had thus far been ring-fenced as sacrosanct, ie Flight Safety. The engineers were ordered to suborn the Regs but sign them off as complied with. The ones who didn't were sacked and replaced with non-engineers who knew no better than to do what they were ordered.

Subsequent Airworthiness Related Fatal Air Accidents featured on this Forum alone accounted for 62 deaths. Only recently has the finding of Gross Negligence by the pilots of the worst of those accidents been set aside. No other action has been taken following evidence of the Gross Unairworthiness of that aircraft and of the Illegal RTS that put it into RAF service, despite (or because of?) the loss of 29 lives.

The airworthiness of the RAF's aircraft is still a matter of great concern, the lack of Independence of its Regulator and of its Air Accident Investigator is still a matter of concern, the cover up of the above scandal is still a matter of concern. So, no, I'm afraid that things are far from enlightened now, as this link will testify....
https://sites.google.com/site/militaryairworthiness/

Wg Cdr Spry

1st Dec 2013, 10:12

Since I have been pipped to the post with the announcement of our Autumn 2013 edition of Airclues being available online, I would like to elaborate on a few bonus features.

From 4 Dec 13, the magazine should be starting to arrive on Units. From this date onwards you will be able to access the interactive content of the magazine by downloading the Blippar image recognition app on your smart phone.

Some of this content is also available on our website and as you will see there is seasonal bonus material.

I hope you enjoy this edition, packed with great articles and festive fun.

RAF - Flight Safety - Air Clues Issue 12 Autumn 13 (http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/aircluesautumn13.cfm)

Yours aye

Spry

tucumseh

1st Dec 2013, 11:44

Wg Cdr Spry

May I make one point about the most recent Air Clues? In both your foreword and that of IFS “Functional Safety” is mentioned. As Functional Safety begins many years before the RAF actually see the aircraft – in fact, often before DE&S even receive an endorsed requirement - is there not a danger those who are meant to be responsible through-life will now think the new RAF Safety Centre will do it all, and opt out? It is a continuous process, which requires a through-life commitment and resources; which since 1991 has not been MoD policy to provide (or even ask for). Requests are routinely turned down.

This is a very serious question. There have been many rulings over the years to the effect Functional Safety can be waived entirely. For example, this led directly to the Tornado/Patriot shootdown of March 2003. When pre-warned in 1998, DGAS2 (Fauset) told staff to wind it in, that he was content aircraft were being delivered functionally unsafe – a view repeated many times since and still the policy of DE&S at a higher level, with the MAA’s support. This was repeated to another 2 Star (XD5 Porter) in 2001; similarly, wind it in, don’t care. Tragically and frustratingly, it was then highlighted years later in the BoI report by the senior RO, Sir Brian Burridge, who directed that the practice be reinstated. He was ignored.

During the Mull of Kintyre campaign, when asked about Functional Safety (remember, the Chinook Mk2 was functionally unsafe), MoD (Adam Ingram) eventually conceded on 17th May 2007 there was no longer a requirement to do this in DPA (at the time of asking), but reassured MPs it was now done at MACD; which will presumably explain why RAF Swanton Morley grew to twice the size of Norwich to accommodate the necessary Rigs, equipment and aircraft, which before Alcock’s cuts in the early 90s used to be situated at 73 different companies - and that was just avionics. And much of the kit was owned by these companies, so one assumes Ingram approved possibly THE biggest procurement exercise in MoD’s history. :rolleyes: All balls of course.

I think you need to look at some of the detail here, and ask just who it is writes these briefings to Ministers, because they are militating against what you are trying to achieve. And their complete lack of corporate knowledge seems to have spread.

dervish

2nd Dec 2013, 09:59

tuc, I wouldn't waste your breath. The authors are frantically backtracking now it's been revealed functional safety isn't a new idea.:E

Am I right in saying Inspector Flight Safety used to be an Air Commodore?

1.3VStall

3rd Dec 2013, 05:02

Derv,

You are correct. The deputy was a gp capt.

dervish

3rd Dec 2013, 07:01

Thanks 1.3VStall

In which case I'd question MoD's commitment to the subject. Group Captains are for hanging out to dry when things go wrong.

thefodfather

3rd Dec 2013, 11:22

Thankfully things have improved significantly in recent years, for which I think Wg Cdr Spry and the team should be very much congratulated. It's not so long ago that the demise of IFS and the establishment of the DASC led to the senior safety person in Strike Command being a Wg Cdr. Many of the things I hear people complaining about have now been fixed and continue to improve every day. It might not be perfect and people might find some of the new words a little confusing, but the same is true of safety in areas of aviation outside the military as well. New management style words are everywhere, its not just in Air/ Aviation/ Flight Safety.

NutLoose

3rd Dec 2013, 12:00

Congratulations on the winter edition, excellent reading, I don't know if you want any feedback, but to be honest I thought the flight safety poster on the very last page is not a very good design.
A poster needs to be eye catching, simple and easily understood when glanced at, to have to add a key to decipher the acronyms tells you even the originators thought it failed in that respect.

.

CoffmanStarter

3rd Dec 2013, 13:52

A poster needs to be eye catching, simple and easily understood when glanced at ...

Something like this Nutty from the 70's then ...

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/4546/normalgetemdownry9.jpg

But not very PC these days :=

Best recent edition of Air Clues ... have a "Good Show Award" Wg Cdr Spry and a Team :ok:

Coff.

I appreciate I'm off your Christmas Card List ... But, honest, ... I did wait when I first noticed the link appear last week :)

tucumseh

3rd Dec 2013, 16:35

Regarding my Functional Safety question, this edition of Air Clues includes a definition that is so far removed from the formal definition as to be downright dangerous. I won't expect a reply.

So here’s another question. As the new RAF Flight Safety organisation is responsible for “Air Safety”, who is now responsible for Fitness For Purpose (FFP)?

Most here will recall Hercules XV179 was broadly airworthy against its SOIU, but not Fit for the Operational Purpose to which it was being put (as it lacked ESF). And that the IPT Leader stated in court that he did not know how FFP was achieved or maintained, completely washing his hands of it. He also stated it was not his or the Design Authority’s responsibility to monitor or manage vulnerability, or include FFP in the Safety Case after initial delivery (1960s), which is an even more radical departure from reality. Despite the regulations placing the responsibility for continual Vulnerability Assessment fairly and squarely on the IPTL and Design Authority (or Custodian), the MoD legal man interrupted and instructed the IPTL not to answer, it was not his job (despite 00-970 mandating it upon him). The IPTL did not evade or mislead; he just answered wrongly. Let us be kind and say he wasn’t trained for the post, which can be fairly said of many in MoD. It is not their fault. Few in MoD have the necessary background to answer such detailed questions in court, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have drafted them for the QC. It only took that one question to expose MoD’s (not just the IPT) failure to implement or understand simple airworthiness regulations.

But, having got this so fatally wrong, what action was taken to re-educate? Who has taken over this role, given it is not (apparently) the RAF Safety Centre?

Back to my original point. Functional Safety sits inside the Air Safety boundary, not outside as Air Clues states. Read the Tornado/Patriot papers. The IFF, as a standalone piece of kit, was physically safe. But, because its failure warnings were not integrated properly, it was functionally unsafe, rendering the aircraft vulnerable to friendly fire. As I said earlier, the recommendation to have this functional safety checked and corrected was rejected by two 2 Stars and the Directorate concerned (D/MCP); all of whom ruled that physical safety was sufficient, if the aircraft was vulnerable that was ok. And, criminally, that a false declaration should be made that it WAS functionally safe and contracts paid off in full.

My point is that I find the various pieces in this edition of Air Clues dangerously contradictory. It lacks substance and accuracy and key post holders will be thoroughly confused. If the new Safety Centre follows its mandate as published in Air Clues, I would have no confidence whatsoever that the Tornado problem, for example, would even be identified today, never mind fixed. At least in 1998 the problem was identified, demonstrating that a large part of the process worked correctly. The regs and procedures worked just fine; but they do not allow for subsequent criminal activity that amounted to sabotage. Who polices this aspect?

I just feel that MoD as a whole is a victim of change for the sake of change, when all that is needed is implementation of mandated regulations. So many new names, acronyms and definitions have been introduced that it must be very confusing. This applies to procurement as a whole, not just safety. We all know why. The prime objective is to avoid admitting past failures by individuals, so by re-writing all the regs the implication is that THEY were somehow wrong. But you should not lose sight of what the various Boards of Inquiry and Inquests all said. Nimrod, Chinook, Sea King, Hercules, Tornado....... Mandated regs were not implemented. In each case junior staffs insisted they should be, seniors staffs ordered they should not. The problem was not the regs! But no-one wants to address that unpalatable fact.

BEagle

26th Jan 2014, 07:12

It's all gone rather quiet on the Wg Cdr Spry front on here...

Has he gone to the sandpit? Or did tucumseh scare him away with a few home truths?

CoffmanStarter

26th Jan 2014, 09:44

And another thing ... When you do come back Wg Cdr Spry ... The use of "sticky tape" when constructing a paper aeroplane ... The very idea of it :=

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/image_zps939db2eb.jpg

MAA Certification Process (http://www.paperaeroplanes.com)

1) A paper aeroplane should be made from just one piece of A4 paper. Paper aeroplane designs should not incorporate any additional material. No tape, no glue, no staples, no paper clips.

2) The paper should not be cut or torn to achieve a certain wing or fuselage shape, or shift the centre of gravity.

3) Paper aeroplane designs should be capable of approximately straight, level flight when calibrated correctly.

#JustJoshin :ok:

Chugalug2

23rd Feb 2014, 09:54

Wg Cdr Spry, may I draw your attention to discussion on another thread which, unlike this one, concerns Flight Safety? As the Royal Air Force representative of what was once a world leader in espousing the constant need to remind everybody that 'Flight Safety Concerns You!', should you not be pushing that very same message here, instead of leaving it to wander through a nostalgic journey of past publication?

The thread I speak of is that concerning the tragic fatal accident involving Flt Lt Sean Cunningham of the Red Arrows, here:-
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/531572-flt-lt-sean-cunningham-inquest-33.html

You will notice that attention has turned away from the SI criticism of RAFAT to criticism of the MAA itself, of its failure to tackle the Systemic Failures that permeate Airworthiness Provision and Air Accident Investigation throughout UK Military Aviation. I can't think of a greater threat to Flight Safety than that those charged with enforcing it cannot do so because of failure by the Regulator to ensure Air Safety. Can you?

The MAA appears to be the problem, not the solution. Is RAF Flight Safety part of the problem too?

binbrook

14th Mar 2014, 10:52

My Dear Wg Cdr Spry
Thanks for letting us see the old Air Clues. Flt Lt Marsh (letter Sep 58 issue) was right: having got into your SS dinghy in the open sea baling it out really was impossible. Did anyone in DFS pursue his idea for a combined bale-out/top-up pump, and did anything ever come of it?

Blue Bottle

18th Mar 2014, 13:01

I dont think the good Wg Cdr is allowed to talk to us on here anymore, is it about time to make this thread 'unsticky' as its of no value without his direct input !

dervish

18th Mar 2014, 13:43

Surely any thread on flight safety is better off without the input of RAF Flight Safety or the MAA?

binbrook

18th Mar 2014, 14:58

Thanks Blue Bottle - I only arsked! And it would be nice to know. Certainly I don't remember any change in my time.

dervish

18th Mar 2014, 16:09

Binbrook

FWIW, I think you're entitled to expect an answer. The Flight Safety people presumably asked pprune mods to make this a sticky as they wanted feedback. It now appears they only want feedback that aligns with their own distorted view of flight safety.

thefodfather

18th Mar 2014, 22:52

Whilst I applauded Wg Cdr Spry for his intentions in starting this thread, it is slightly depressing that it didn't last very long. For a short while, it appeared that a thread like this on Pprune might be part of an organised and considered communications strategy. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would have expected to have a few pointed questions raised regarding some traditional areas of discussion on military aviation safety and considered how to deal with it. Instead, it looks like a half arsed, ill thought out flash in the pan. Which is a shame, I'd have killed for the hierarchy to have allowed such a thing in years gone by. Come on Wg Cdr Spry, its time for a bit of gumption and considered engagement on Flight Safety matters instead of the sporadic efforts like an Air Clues whenever you get chance. I'm normally a great supporter of the system, but the silence is becoming a tad disappointing.

passpartout

21st Mar 2014, 17:14

Wg Cdr Spry,

On a point of order, p46 of the last (I think) Air Clues is dedicated to 'Erratums'

Should that not be 'Errata'?:ooh:

dervish

21st Mar 2014, 17:41

On a point of order, p46 of the last (I think) Air Clues is dedicated to 'Erratums'

Should that not be 'Errata'?

Would you like this correction instead of getting the definition of safety correct, or as well as? One is just a little bit more important.

passpartout

21st Mar 2014, 21:43

dervish,

Yes you're right, partially.

To me, there's a matter of credibility. If you can't be convincing in your use of English (Latin), particularly on a page about editorial mistakes, then why should I pay any attention to your flight safety messages?

dervish

22nd Mar 2014, 07:19

Or to put it another way, RAF Flight Safety should try understanding English before attempting another language! I was referring to tuc's post in which he pointed out their definition of "functional safety" comes nowhere near that used by everyone else in MoD. As you say, lacking in credibility.

binbrook

24th Mar 2014, 12:12

My Cassell's Compact Latin Dictionary tells me that the plural of 'erratum' is 'errati'. Any classicists out there who can explain?

dogle

24th Mar 2014, 16:24

Latin dictionaries commonly offer you a clue to the declension by indicating secondly the genitive singular ending, not the nominative plural ... as you will no doubt now recall! FWIW, the Dons concur with the plural errata in English usage (and Spry will no doubt blame the hapless Prune for the gaffe, 'twas ever thus).

Agree with others' sentiments, poor cred - safety is surely that field, above all others, where judicious nitpicking and impeccable communication make the difference.

binbrook

25th Mar 2014, 10:56

Thank you dogle. Ah yes, I remember it well! When I did the Long GW Course (anything but the V-force) navs and pilots with degrees were in Set 1 and the remaining pilots were in Set 2 - I was in Set 2. Pity Spry has gone to earth somewhere.

Chugalug2

27th Mar 2014, 11:01

binbrook, I'm sorry that your perfectly reasonable question remains unanswered. I suppose that Sea Survival is as much a preoccupation these days as it was in ours and would hope that the seaworthiness of the Single Seat Dinghy can be relied upon accordingly.

The problem is that these days the airworthiness of the aircraft, and in particular their escape systems, is of even greater concern. It seems that the Hawk's Mk10 ejection system never possessed a Safety Case, an absolute prerequisite for airworthiness, and hence it must be unairworthy. If that is so then the aircraft itself is unairworthy, and yet it still flies. That is a matter of very great concern.

Like you I would expect RAF Flight Safety, in the guise of Wg Cdr Spry, to address these concerns on this very thread, a sticky dedicated presumably to Flight Safety. Instead he is conspicuous by his absence and our concerns go unanswered, though in fairness it is more likely due to direction from on high.

A very different regime these days it would seem compared to that which you and I were lucky enough to inhabit. We need to ask ourselves why that should be.

binbrook

27th Mar 2014, 17:42

Sorry to keep on about this, but it is over 55 years since Marsh made his eminently sensible suggestion in Air Clues, and it is 48 years since Wg Cdr Spry's grandfather was sent (through the proper channels of course) an example, made just as Marsh described, which actually WORKED! The SS liferaft on the RFD website doesn't appear greatly different from what we sat in in the 70s, and I just wondered whether the shocked and shivering user now has the means to pump out the 3 gallons of seawater in there with him/her, or still has to use body heat to warm it all up. If Spry won't/can't tell me, does anyone know?

Chugalug2, I fear nothing changes. The mod programme to bring the Mk1 seat up to its final standard -was it GL/90Kt? - proceeded at glacial pace until there was another unnecessary fatal, in an unmodified aircraft, and only a little earlier a BoI into a fatal could be found recommending that formal instruction in shallow-dive marking using Canberras (at night naturally) should be introduced. How long did it take to get rid of the infamous 3-needle altimeter?

Chugalug2

27th Mar 2014, 19:41

The progress may well have been slow, binbrook, but every step along that road of improving the Mk1 seat would have been recorded, confirmed to be in accordance with the regulations, and could have been used to pin point any subsequent shortcomings. All that changed in the late 80s/early 90s when RAF VSOs made short term savings by issuing orders that regulatory work be suspended but signed off as complied with. Those who would not comply (usually fully trained and experienced airworthiness engineers) were sacked and replaced by untrained and inexperienced non engineers who would do as they were told, if for no other reason that they knew no better.
The Mk10 seat that killed Sean Cunningham was the result, as is the system that cannot even find the SIL that Martin Baker sent all of its customers operating that seat. Hence the overtightened shackle bolt, hence the non deployment of the parachute, hence the tragic and needless death of Flt Lt Cunningham.
The direct results of the sabotage of UK Military Air Safety during Haddon Cave's 'Golden Period' feature in all the Airworthiness Related Fatal Air Accident threads on this forum that account for 63 deaths (shortly to become 65?). The MAA that resulted from Haddon-Cave's Report still knows no better and is anyway constrained by the Star Chamber's cover up of illegal orders by its retired members.
Finally never apologise for trying to further Flight Safety, rather keep on demanding an answer. You never know, you might eventually get an answer if only to shut you up! That's my philosophy anyway, annoying though it be.

chute packer

28th Mar 2014, 12:33

binbrook
- the SSMK15 dinghies have an integral baler in the floor with a flapper valve. Doesn't shift a whole lot of water but it does work well. Our advice to aircrew was to do the initial large bale out using their helmet first, then close up the canopy and finish the job with the built in one.

Duncan D'Sorderlee

28th Mar 2014, 18:23

He was active on 8 Mar 14. Perhaps he's just getting his leave in before the end of the leave year!

Duncs :ok:

binbrook

31st Mar 2014, 12:38

chute packer: Thank you for the gen on the baling pump. I'm glad that it did eventually appear - even if not in the form envisaged 40-odd years ago.
Chugalug2: Thank you too. All I can say is that in my(our?) day cockups used to be sins of omission, and not commission.

ValMORNA

31st Mar 2014, 19:27

Harking back to my days at Bexhill County Grammar School for Boys (good old 'Wispy' Waring i/c Latin), Erratum, being neuter, becomes Errati.
(The spell correction facility wanted me to spell it 'errata' or 'erratic' - just about sums it all up)

chippy63

12th Apr 2014, 20:37

It 's errata!

Tashengurt

18th Apr 2014, 06:51

This seems to be a pointless sticky now. Come on mods, let it die with dignity.

Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

Chugalug2

18th Apr 2014, 07:09

let it die with dignity.

Along with RAF Flight Safety it would seem...RIP!

dervish

18th Apr 2014, 12:06

Or you could keep it as a constant reminder of how utterly useless ........

Tinribs

20th May 2014, 09:49

I first sat on an ejection seat in 1965 (Acklington) and last in 1984 (Bedford) throughout there was a fairly common standard of pre flight

You checked the handle was fully down and all pins were in correctly when climbing in because we knew you could get the seat pan pin in with the handle partially withdrawn

We checked the scissor shackle was "floppy" but I never understood why

So we knew what to do courtesy of routine flight checks but not always why we were doing it

As a further example; we did check for loose articles near the seat but I nerver realised that a dropped wander light could set off the drogue gun with "interesting" results. Had I noticed the wander light would not latch in the holder correctly I would probably have flown and reported it later

My rather laboured point is that knowing what should be done works even better if subject person knows why

Wander00

20th May 2014, 10:48

Tinribs - glad to see your post - I recalled checking scissor shackle for free movement - but did not want to display in public what might have proved to be an appalling memory!

tucumseh

20th May 2014, 12:27

I don't want to seem awkward in any way but.......

This thread is a sticky and we've got to assume that "Wg Cdr Spry" has satisfied the moderators he is a bonafide representative of MoD Flight Safety.

We've also got to assume, not unreasonably, that "Wg Cdr Spry" has permission to use a largely anonymous forum to gather opinion and seek assistance. It pretty much follows that you'd expect him to heed good advice and opinion, otherwise what is the point?

The last two posts relate to a well known accident. They, and others, contradict to a greater or lesser extent what has been said in evidence and published by the SI.

So, my question is, has "Wg Cdr Spry" met his obligation and reported these contradictions and conflicts to the SI president(s) and Coroner(s) / Procurator(s) Fiscal? (As the same question could be applied to other similar cases). Most here would agree that pprune is the de facto centre of excellence for flight safety and, demonstrably, the place where MoD's Corporate Knowledge now resides.

Perhaps more seriously, many examples of offences committed by serving and retired MoD staffs have been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. Have the Wg Cdr's leaders reported these to the proper Authority? The example that always sticks in my craw is CAS's letter to Marshall of the RAF Sir John Grandy stating, categorically, that Chinook ZD576 was "off course by some miles". We await Graydon's evidence as to what the true course was; east of the Mull between it and Arran (or even further over in the Clyde approaches), or to the west up the coast of Islay; but the immediate problem is a willingness to deceive his seniors with a clear aim of denigrating the deceased pilots. So many laws have been broken there is is hard to know where to start.

Perhaps the Wg Cdr could offer comment on just how much attention his organisation pays to the facts revealed here on pprune, and to what extent he is encouraged (or otherwise) to meet his legal obligation to report such offences.

20th May 2014, 17:15

Most here would agree that PPRuNe is the de facto centre of excellence for flight safety and, demonstrably, the place where MoD's Corporate Knowledge now resides.
That has got to be the funniest thing I've read all year!

tucumseh

20th May 2014, 17:59

That has got to be the funniest thing I've read all year!

Ridiculous? Yes. But it is still demonstrably true. Funny? No. Tragic more like.

Just ask who submitted the flight safety related evidence to various Coroners and Inquiries, who unanimously rejected MoD's version. Ask who Lord Philip had to approach to obtain MoD JSPs, Def Stans, reports etc because MoD couldn't find them or denied their existence. AP3207 for example. Ask why MoD couldn't even provide evidence of the Release to Service procedures. When the Chinook Mk2 RTS was provided to him independently, Lord Philip rejected MoD's claims that there was no such thing in 1993/4. When the CHART report was provided independently, it disproved VSOs' claims that it did not refer to Chinook Mk2. When the complete CHART report was provided independently, it contained 348 more pages than MoD claimed existed.

Read the last few pages on this thread. If you get the definition of Functional Safety wrong, the entire system wanders off at a tangent and whole generations are taught the wrong thing.

Chugalug2

20th May 2014, 20:25

Well said tuc!

MG, you obviously have a keen sense of humour. Why don't you amuse us all by saying where you place the de facto centre of excellence for UK Military Flight Safety; the RAF, the MOD, the MAA?

You cannot be serious!

20th May 2014, 20:29

Well it certainly isn't on here, with its smug, self-importance. It's Pprune, nothing more.

Chugalug2

20th May 2014, 20:55

Ok, fair cop, banged to rights, I dunnit, I dunnit, I dunnit, but that still doesn't answer the $64K question, does it? Never mind excellence, where can be found a viable Flight Safety organisation in present day UK Military Aviation? You know, one that prevents avoidable accidents happening...

20th May 2014, 21:03

Well I guess if I were to be able to answer that, we could roll up this thread, and others like it, right now. I've been out of flying since before the MAA and much has changed. I know friends who still do it and some of whom work damned hard in the areas that you mention. There's a way to go, but to suggest that the MOD doesn't care and to pretend that pprune is akin to the Royal Courts of Justice and that it sits on a moral pedestal is fatuous. And annoying; can you tell?

Chugalug2

20th May 2014, 22:29

MG, the really annoying thing is that aviation doesn't give a damn about dedication, hard work, or any other such admirable traits. If it can be given half a chance to kill then it will. Having it regulated by those who don't know how to because they replaced those who did, having its regulations constantly rewritten because the ones that worked before were binned, having the inevitable consequent airworthiness related accidents investigated by an Air Accident Investigation Branch that is actually a part of that Regulatory Authority (which is about to demonstrate yet again the lack of its authority!) so that it does not point the finger at the Authority for Gross Airworthiness shortcomings, gives it far more than half a chance to kill and is really annoying!

The last noteworthy attempt by the RAF Flight Safety Organisation to get to grips with the scandal that is UK Military Airworthiness was when its Inspector General commissioned the 'Arts' on various fleets that were the subject of Flight Safety concern; Hercules, Nimrod, Chinook, Tornado, and others. All were buried to the point that their very existence was denied by the MOD and the RAF High Command. That more than anything showed how ineffective and submissive this supposedly CoC independent organisation is. That is really annoying!

You are annoyed? Join the club.

tucumseh

21st May 2014, 06:17

MG

Did you ask the questions I suggested? Really annoying to discover that MoD claims only one employee satisfied his legal obligation to report systemic failings, isn't it? Pretty disturbing too, that MoD happily admit it and denigrate that one person; even now, post-Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip.

In the Chinook case, one of THE key documents was the AP outlining the "beyond any doubt whatsoever" test. Do you really find it acceptable that MoD could not find it or provide it to an Inquiry set up by the Secy of State? Not even an extract with that relevant section. Lord Philip had to ask members of the public.

Or that MoD had lied to Ministers regarding the definition of Safety Critical Software, but when asked could not provide the policy document stating the definition? Again, it was provided to Lord Philip independently, this time proving MoD lied and the definition they hung their case on was wrong all along. That the software WAS Safety Critical and was NOT permitted in a service aircraft. When asked for the relevant Def Stans, they could not produce them; so Lord Philip was provided with them independently, along with contact details of the original author. Law Lords tend to be deeply unimpressed with such behaviour and incompetence.

THAT is Corporate Knowledge that MoD is required by law to retain, and the kind of factual information a Centre of Excellence is required to have immediately to hand. MoD didn't. pprune contributors did. Fact.

I guess I'm in a position of strength here, because if MoD wish to argue I'm wrong, then they are also admitting committing serious offences; withholding this information from numerous inquiries and inquests, misleading by omission and commission and serially lying. All imprisonable offences. Either way, it doesn't bear thinking about.

Similarly, and back to my original point, what did the RAF Flight Safety organisation know and did they report it? We already know the MAA were fully informed, and said nothing, but I'd like to know what Wg Cdr Spry's organisation knew and did. And when. Because many people have died unnecessarily since I first reported the failings in January 1988 (I can't speak for anyone else), including aircrew I knew well. I know it is a lie that only one person reported it, because my immediate boss supported me, commissioned an independent audit, and the report advised PUS and the Chief Engineer we were right. And they did nothing. That is the kind of evidence someone like Lord Philip tends to find compelling; especially, again, when MoD cannot provide the report, but it is provided independently.

I'm fully prepared to accept that staff in Wg Cdr Spry's organisation were placed under direct orders to keep quiet. We certainly were, and disciplined if we even looked like disobeying. This remains formal MoD policy to this day, at least for civilian staffs. I understand the extreme pressure they may have been under. But, let me repeat this. People died because those with the legal obligation and duty to speak up did not.

MOSTAFA

21st May 2014, 07:47

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for an answer from the right person to that one Tuc.

But a letter to the Times/Telegraph might bring on a very painful reoccurrence of those pesky haemorrhoids for someone.

Don't answer the door to anybody in a hire car!

Madbob

8th Sep 2014, 11:41

Dear Wing Commander Spry

I, and no doubt countless others in the RAF and on PPRuNe, are wondering if Air Clues is ever to appear again.

Personally speaking I found it to be an excellent medium for communicating the Flight Safety message to all, both aircrew and non-aircrew alike. It would be a shame if it were to be scrapped as the message is even more significant today as whilst a single loss is the same as it ever was, as a percentage of what we have left today it is of even greater importance......prevention is always better than cure!

I appreciate manpower is tight but it's not as though you are having to produce a monthly publication; that was sacrificed a long time ago.

I am sure that there is still plenty of material to fill all your column inches and a bi-annual/quarterly publication cycle should be achievable even with diminished resources in your office. Being cynical however (not normally in my nature:ok:) I might be tempted to say that the MoD/MAAS/MAAIB are afraid to revealing themselves in print or to invite (from the readership) comments which might expose fleet airworthiness/management short-comings.

Maybe Tuc and others on PPRuNe could be asked to offer articles/comment for publication?

I look forward to seeing a Christmas bumper issue!

Yours sincerely

MB

CoffmanStarter

8th Sep 2014, 12:38

MB ...

Most current ... Issue 13 Spring 2014

You can download here :ok:

RAF - Air CluesAir Clues (http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/airclues.cfm)

Still awaiting the Summer 2014 issue ...

PS. The Wing Co hasn't been here for a while ...

nutnurse

10th Sep 2014, 08:22

I wrote to him in 1963 and got a reply from some other WingCo banging on about "people at the sharp end". You'd have thought they'd give him a fourth ring after all this time.

FantomZorbin

10th Sep 2014, 11:06

I wrote to him in 1974 ... and he was a Sqn Ldr! :uhoh:

What had he done to deserve the demotion!? :hmm:

nutnurse

10th Sep 2014, 13:25

WRAF-bothering, maybe?

ACW342

16th Oct 2014, 13:45

I read Sqn. Ldr. Taits excellent and honest article in Air Clues, on his RHAG engagement gone wrong. One of the things he relates to is that the hook shoe sits about 3' below the main wheels on approach. That then introduces another complication, as indicated by the adviceto touch down a little further down the runway than normal. The complication, if fitted, is, of course, the approach end BARRIER.

One day in the late eighties I was the duty runway controller (RWC} at Bruggen, when a Tornado declared (If I remember rightly) a no nose wheel low light, necessitating an approach end RHAG engagement

Once the approach end RHAG was readied and the fire crews vacated the runway, the crew started their approach. I confirmed to the tower when the a/c called downwind that the hook was down. All looked good until, on late finals, I realised that the a/c was perfectly positioned for a landing on the numbers, which it did.

And took the top cable of the lowered approach end barrier.

Pretty spectacular stuff then ensued, with the barrier stanchions and various heavy mechanical bits ripped apart and dragged out of the ground, flying everywhere, including a large chunk of the braking system fom my side of the runway, which had been accelerated to a speed rivalling that of the landing Tonka and arrived in a fashion somewhat similar to that of a mortar round, coming to a rapid stop less than 5' away from where I was sitting in the runway caravan. Had circumstances been even the slightest bit different, I would have been the first RWC fatality for many a decade.

The pilot did comment on the R/T that he had felt a slight retardation immediately on touchdown but that it had disappeared quite quickly. The a/c engaged the RHAG normally and stopped as advertised. The airfield, unsurprisingly, was declared Black and Laarbruch got a few unexpected visitors for a night stop.

After answering the towers question on the Hadley box as to the state of my health, I sat and ruminated, with the aid of a packet of No. 6 (cigarettes to the youngsters) as to my good fortune. The Staish checked on me in the caravan and, as is required, the pilot later,not only bought me the usual crate of beer, but also included a freshly purchased triple pack of underpants.