Voyager Plummets (Merged) [Archive] - Page 3

Brian W May

9th Feb 2017, 15:34

I flew many hours with the Captain on VC10's as part of the front end operating crew. He was a true professional and I would have no qualms flying with him captaining an aircraft with myself as a passenger in the future. Hopefully he will not get hung out to dry, and the Court Martial see sense and get him back flying in the future.

Many threads mention how lucky they were to get away with something, this captain was unlucky, the aircraft system design should have prevented this occurrence.

But I doubt Airbus recommend using the area around the side-stick as a parcel shelf . . .

Personally, I just wonder what this has cost. All the work done to try and find out why it happened, all the negative publicity, all the potential re-design plans.

The stick was pushed forward (apparently) and the aircraft pointed its nose down. Surely that IS the system design . . .

When I taught flight safety, I always said 'nice guys always get more opportunities to kill you than nasty bastards' . . . just a thought.

Top Bunk Tester

9th Feb 2017, 15:55

ON
Luckily the aircraft worked as advertised and self recovered. As already stated this has nothing to do with the Captains abilties, although is definitely linked to his professional conduct, of which integrity plays a huge part.

Likewise I hope the CM sees sense but not with the result you hope for!

Hueymeister

9th Feb 2017, 17:25

I'm quite concerned about what the 'impartial' S/L investigator did to the Co-Pilot re. not telling anyone and threatening to break his legs...that's not the standard of a 'Just Culture' and casts some doubt as to that S/L's ability to conduct investigations at all...(Ok it was in the Daily Fail, but...)

Invictus pilot tells how he saved a nose-diving plane | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4204818/Invictus-pilot-tells-saved-nose-diving-plane.html)

Runaway Gun

9th Feb 2017, 20:01

If the Squadron Leader did threaten the copilot like that, then he's crazy. Nathan Jones is not only extremelt honest and trustworthy, but is also bigger and fitter than most Bronco Bulls.

TwoStep

9th Feb 2017, 20:14

Looks like two officers' careers could be ending based on that article.

Chinny Crewman

9th Feb 2017, 21:04

Runaway Gun, Flt Lt Jones was badly injured in the incident so if we are to believe his evidence on oath then Sqn Ldr Giles threatened someone recovering from a severe back injury who was facing the loss of his flying career and the prospect of a life with severe mobility problems.

The more I read of this the more incredulous I am. I've never been a big believer in the Officer and Gentlemen bollocks I've meet some right idiots in my time. The one thing that always stood out however was the professionalism of RAF Aircrew especially when it came to honesty in order to prevent/improve etc. It seems I was a bit naive!

Politely_amused

9th Feb 2017, 22:47

tucumseh

10th Feb 2017, 05:44

Well, this one just got interesting. Will MoD deny this threat was made? Will the co-pilot then pull out his own recording, which he left running? Will MoD then deny the interview took place? It's all happened before.

Red Line Entry

10th Feb 2017, 07:50

I'll wait to hear from a more reliable source than the Daily Mail! :ugh:

beardy

10th Feb 2017, 08:25

Post #347
One point which must be made to the ignorant 'hang him high' people posting here, is that the Captain's integrity is most certainly NOT in any doubt.

Such an emphatic statement seems at odds with the current judicial process which is certainly questioning his integrity. I wonder what prompted such group loyalty.

Top Bunk Tester

10th Feb 2017, 09:03

Yes but that was BEagle's ramblings, he seems to have gone very quiet this last week.

I would have thought the two in question must now be scrabbling around for the telephone number of a certain Mr Bob Massingbird QC, a most gifted gentleman.

vascodegama

10th Feb 2017, 09:26

I would expect the one on trial has already made that call, if not it's a bit late!

brakedwell

10th Feb 2017, 09:53

I'll wait to hear from a more reliable source than the Daily Mail!

Very sensible, Wikipedia has banned The Daily Mail as an 'unreliable' source.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website?CMP=share_btn_fb

Basil

10th Feb 2017, 09:59

Very sensible, Wikipedia has banned The Daily Mail as an 'unreliable' source.

Sorry - we haven’t been able to serve the page you asked for.
404
You may have followed a broken or outdated link, or there may be an error on our site.

Looks like The Graun's had second thoughts :p

brakedwell

10th Feb 2017, 10:01

I have fixed the link. Here it is again.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website?CMP=share_btn_fb

Wander00

10th Feb 2017, 11:43

Brakedwell - pity the British people did not have the same common sense over the Brexit debate

Geordie_Expat

10th Feb 2017, 11:53

What the hell has Brexit to do with this:ugh: Do we have to have it mentioned on EVERY thread ?

Surplus

10th Feb 2017, 11:56

I guess you do, if you're 72 and live in France ;)

MACH2NUMBER

10th Feb 2017, 11:57

Yes Wander00 keep your politics in France.

Basil

10th Feb 2017, 14:01

From Wiki: In 2017, a discussion panel of contributors to the English-language version of the Wikipedia website concluded that it could not generally be used as a reliable source due to its "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication."
Seems to me that The Guardian article is grossly exaggerating the importance of the comments of a 'discussion panel'.

Wander00

10th Feb 2017, 14:58

It was more a comment about the Daily Wail....and Wikipedia's apparent view that it is an unreliable source. That's not "politics"

MACH2NUMBER

10th Feb 2017, 15:24

Its certainly not on thread. Find another post for Brexit.

Bing

10th Feb 2017, 17:25

It was more a comment about the Daily Wail....and Wikipedia's apparent view that it is an unreliable source.

They're quite happy for you to cite Russia Today though, so you know best not to take Wikipedia as a reliable source.

Chinny Crewman

10th Feb 2017, 18:11

I really do hope that the DM has got it wrong otherwise we have an officer giving evidence under oath saying that another officer who was a member of a SI threatened him with physical violence unless he lied when giving evidence to the SI. If true I'm not sure what it says about 'just culture'.
I also hope that Flt Lt Townshend is acquitted and Beags and others can say 'I told you so'. The alternative is that one of the most senior AT pilots in the RAF was stupid enough to lie/cover up or whatever... again 'just culture'!

Politely_amused

10th Feb 2017, 21:36

Chinny C

The link I used wasn't from the Daily Mail, it was from the Telegraph, focusing largely on Flt Lt Jones as the GB Captain for this year's Invictus games:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/08/raf-co-pilot-badly-injured-plane-nosedive-competed-prince-harrys/

Either way, they are reporting what is said at a CM. While the press always spin for copy there are some serious accusations in there.

dervish

10th Feb 2017, 22:27

lie/cover up or whatever... again 'just culture'!

Surely in a 'just culture' all ranks who lie/cover up would be court martialled?

Chinny Crewman

10th Feb 2017, 22:38

Dervish; I would like to think so.

Politely; yes my fault for not being clearer. The DM article was originally quoted by Hueymeister, reference:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4204818/Invictus-pilot-tells-saved-nose-diving-plane.html

I have copied the relevant/contentious paragraph:

As he was preparing to give evidence, he told the court martial that Squadron Leader Nathan Giles - one of those investigating the incident - switched off the tape, grabbed him by the collar of his flying suit and said: “If you tell anyone about this I will break your ******* legs.”

I do hope they made it up!

Chugalug2

11th Feb 2017, 08:12

dervish:-
Surely in a 'just culture' all ranks who lie/cover up would be court martialled?

You'd think so wouldn't you? We still wait for VSOs to be the subject of official investigation for the issuing of a knowingly false RTS that put a Grossly Unairworthy aircraft into full squadron service despite the Controller Aircraft Release limiting it to "Switch on Use Only". That should have limited it to being the most expensive procedures trainer ever and could thus have saved 29 lives. We still await investigation of the witnessed issuing of an order by a VSO to subvert the airworthiness regulations but sign them off as complied with. We still await investigation of the continuing cover up of the above to the extent that the formal inquiry into the Nimrod tragedy characterised it as a "Golden Period" of airworthiness! We still await investigation of the edict from ministers downwards that confirms that an order to subvert the regulations was correct and that disobeying such an order was an offence. We still wait...

It seems that all are equal under military law, but that some are more equal than others!

Brian W May

11th Feb 2017, 13:16

Could have sworn I'm hearing 'Haddon Cave' being muttered . . . .

JFZ90

11th Feb 2017, 22:57

Grabbed his collar?

Really? Is the S/L still in the RAF?

I assume the implication/angle here is that the S/L was keeping options open for a cover up? Not under his own initiative one assumes. Something not quite stacking up here.

tucumseh

12th Feb 2017, 05:07

Could have sworn I'm hearing 'Haddon Cave' being muttered . . . .

Lord Philip would be a better reference point. H-C avoided the issue of senior officers lying and making false record, whereas LP didn't.

OhBother

12th Feb 2017, 06:37

Daily Telegraph 8 Feb 17 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/08/raf-co-pilot-badly-injured-plane-nosedive-competed-prince-harrys/): "Flight Lieutenant Nathan Jones, 34, fractured his back and was left with several other injuries after the incident and was medically downgraded. He told the hearing how he crawled along the ceiling to wrestle back control of the plane, saving the lives of those on board by steadying the Voyager aircraft after it was sent into a 4,400ft-dive in just 29 seconds (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/06/bored-raf-pilot-sent-187-passengers-nosedive-playing-camera/)."

Service Inquiry (1.3.35) (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/414358/20150317_-_Voyager_ZZ333_SI_Report_Part_1.1_-_1.3_Ex_Pub.pdf): Injuries - "the Co-Pilot...received minor injuries".
Service Inquiry (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/414371/20150317_-_Voyager_ZZ333_SI_Report_Part_1.5_-_1.6_Ex_Pub.pdf) (Convening Authority Comments) "the aircraft's automatic high-speed protection system triggered after 13 seconds, reducing the engines to idle before commencing a sustained positive 'g' recovery"

Chugalug2

12th Feb 2017, 10:28

tuc:-
H-C avoided the issue of senior officers lying and making false record, whereas LP didn't.

Not only avoided VSOs actions, but by moving the timeline of the start of airworthiness problems he implied that they were responsible for his "Golden Period" rather than the subverting and suborning of the Air Safety system and hence the breaking of it. H-C thus became part of the cover up, as is the MAA (which quotes H-C as its corner stone).

If this were just about the disgruntled "muttering" of a few old men about other old men and their actions some three decades ago, then the apologists cry of "time to move on and leave all this behind us" would be valid. The problem is that the system was broken and remains broken with no apparent possibility of reform.

The whole point of an Air Force is to gain air superiority and then to exploit it in order to defeat an enemy. At some point this nation will be faced by an enemy Air Force which will be trying to do just that. We saw at the start of WWII what happens if you have aircraft not fit for purpose ranged against those that are. It was our good fortune that we soon had the aircraft and systems (such as monoplane fighters, 4-engined bombers, radar, etc) to overcome that initial reverse and hence assure our defence and contribute to our ultimate victory. In other words the deficiencies were not systemic. Now they are, and unless and until we are honest with ourselves about what happened, why it happened, and what we must do to reverse it, UK Military Airworthiness will remain broken and our future security compromised.

The apologists will claim that the exigencies of the Service require that the past actions of VSOs not be questioned. I would respond that the exigencies of this nation require that they are! The MAA and the MAAIB must be made independent of the MOD and of each other. That requires that the cover up ends now!

Self Regulation Does Not Work and in Aviation It Kills!

Pontius Navigator

12th Feb 2017, 11:46

OhBother's post rather suggests a lot of interview and undrunk coffee

t7a

12th Feb 2017, 12:08

It's not immediately apparent from the Service Inquiry extract what effect the co-pilot had in the recovery of stable flight. What is of interest, however, is the fact that he would probably have had extreme difficulty in re-entering the flight deck if the door had been locked as would have been the case with most airlines.

EAP86

12th Feb 2017, 14:22

I suspect that the difference between 'minor' and 'major' injuries as far as the MilAAIB is concerned is the length of time the injured party is unable to work, with the boundary between the two being fairly arbitrary at 10 days. The fracture in question may have been quite limited so 'minor' was deemed appropriate. I'm not an expert so this might be cobblers.

EAP

Brian W May

12th Feb 2017, 19:30

What is of interest, however, is the fact that he would probably have had extreme difficulty in re-entering the flight deck if the door had been locked as would have been the case with most airlines.

Oh you are SO right . . . doesn't bear thinking about.

tucumseh - yep, something really stinks about this whole affair.

Deafening silence from our prolific poster on this topic . . .

Timelord

12th Feb 2017, 20:35

Oh you are SO right . . . doesn't bear thinking about.

tucumseh - yep, something really stinks about this whole affair.

Deafening silence from our prolific poster on this topic . . .

Actually, as I understand the SI the aircraft began the recovery on its own, so the arrival of the co pilot is neither here nor there. Not, by the way, to decry his efforts in any way since he didn't know that at the time.

Stuff

12th Feb 2017, 20:52

As [co-pilot] FLt Jones was preparing to give evidence [to the SI] told the court martial that Squadron Leader Nathan Giles - one of those investigating the incident - switched off the tape, grabbed him by the collar of his flying suit and said: “If you tell anyone about this I will break your ******* legs.

Having given evidence to an aircraft accident SI myself there's a lot of this that doesn't make sense. Principally there's an assumption that this was a 1 vs 1 interview. That is not my experience at all. I understand that not all SI are conducted the same way but I find it impossible to believe that this interview was conducted without the presence of at least the legal representative and it's improbable the President wasn't also there for primary evidence gathering.

In my case it was 7 vs 1 with only 2 of the 7 actually asking questions and the remainder sat in the background for 'checks and balances' - hangers-on as the aircrew might call them! The whole thing was scrupulously fair and the emphasis was on not only being fair but being seen to be fair.

Surely an unexplained break in the tape recording would be quite obvious?

tucumseh

13th Feb 2017, 05:59

Stuff

I understand that not all SI are conducted the same way but I find it impossible to believe that this interview was conducted without the presence of at least the legal representative and it's improbable the President wasn't also there for primary evidence gathering. In my own limited experience, twice it has been one on one, the other two on one. At no time was I permitted representation, or even a "Mackenzie friend". It would appear, and this has been confirmed by (e.g.) the Cabinet Secretary, that this "right" does not extend to (in my case) civilians interviewed by a Service Inquiry, or equivalent. I think this wrong, but am in no position to prove otherwise. In any case, each time, as you say, the conduct of the interviewers was proper, but there is no way you could say it was an "interview" in the legal sense and I was not given my statements to sign. But it must be said that when I tried to follow up the most recent one (February 2004), the investigator told me he had been shut down because my evidence cleared the prime target (I won't say suspect, because he was known to be innocent), and they would not dare go after the 2 Star who had actually committed wrongdoing. At the Inquest, MoD changed target, to a junior officer; then afterwards re-acquired the original target. When the family of one of the deceased asked for the investigator's report, MoD denied all knowledge of the investigation, It was only 2 years ago that it let slip that it retained the reports. The rules, such as they are, are not applied equally!

beardy

13th Feb 2017, 06:33

Actually, as I understand the SI the aircraft began the recovery on its own, so the arrival of the co pilot is neither here nor there.
Not quite. The protections had kicked in preventing an overspeed and excessive pitch angle. The flight control system would have then permitted a high speed descent commensurate with the control column demand. The aircraft subsequently recovered to level flight, nowhere does it say "on it's own"

Mil-26Man

13th Feb 2017, 06:57

I haven't' read the SI myself I confess, so does it say the aircraft subsequently recovered to level flight or the aircraft was subsequently recovered to level flight? The former would suggest that it was the aircraft's doing, while the latter that it was the pilot's.

Just This Once...

13th Feb 2017, 07:39

Actually, as I understand the SI the aircraft began the recovery on its own, so the arrival of the co pilot is neither here nor there. Not, by the way, to decry his efforts in any way since he didn't know that at the time.

I think you misunderstand the basic aircraft fundamentals. In all cases if you demand pitch-down then the aircraft will go down and continue to do so - it is after all what you are commanding it to do. It would be a worrisome design if the aircraft could level-off despite a constant demand to do otherwise.

As already noted I think you may be confusing the protection systems that attempt to avert a flightpath/speed limit exceedence. When these activate they only attempt to influence the flightpath/speed to an extent that would keep the aircraft within the prescribed limits - in this case the aircraft would still be going down like a brick, with the throttles neatly parked at flight idle.

ExRAFRadar

13th Feb 2017, 07:48

So all this talk about the aircraft levelling off by itself is just plain wrong?

beardy

13th Feb 2017, 08:08

It doesn't say BY ITSELF.

Timelord

13th Feb 2017, 08:09

JTO and Beardy, Quite right - I make no pretence of understanding Airbus fundamentals and I defer to your greater knowledge - but what if the camera had been freed by then - would the aircraft THEN recover itself?

Mil-26Man

13th Feb 2017, 08:19

It doesn't say BY ITSELF.

But this is what Airbus has said, or at least implied.

Mil-26Man

13th Feb 2017, 08:22

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a330-flight-control-laws-saved-voyager-inquiry-find-410491/

“The initial recovery from the dive was the result of the aircraft’s own protection measures, and not the product of pilot inputs.”

Just This Once...

13th Feb 2017, 08:36

Probably more accurate to say the initial recovery inputs during the dive were the result of the aircraft's own protection measures. The pilot's subsequent inputs actually recovered the aircraft from the dive.

Mil-26Man

13th Feb 2017, 08:58

Thanks JTO, so just to clarify, the Voyager would have crashed had it been left to its own devices then?

beardy

13th Feb 2017, 09:13

If the control input had been maintained, yes.

Mil-26Man

13th Feb 2017, 09:21

Thanks beardy, I think the confusion might be coming from the term 'recover', which suggests the aircraft came out of the dive, whereas from what you at JTO say it was still in the dive but that the aircraft put itself within the parameters for that dive.

EESDL

13th Feb 2017, 09:39

I thought Airbus had a 'primary control' switch to determine whose control was #master#.
Rather than 'manfully' grapple with the controls and the camera, would it not have been 'easier' to press the over-ride button and fly from the other seat?
yes - sat in comfortable armchair using hindsight but is that not training and time spent in the cruise considering 'what-if' scenarios are for - rather than getting 'bored'?

airsound

13th Feb 2017, 10:29

212man

13th Feb 2017, 15:45

Guys, can I recommend the actual words of the Service Inquiry report, which will resolve most of the queries in the past few posts?
You probably need to start reading at Paragraph 1.4.51, in the section titled 'The response of the aircraft'
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/414367/20150317_-_Voyager_ZZ333_SI_Report_Part_1.4_Part_2_Ex_Pub.pdf

airsound
Beat me to it! Pages 37-39 give the details. Probably the most significant protection that assisted was the pitch limiting function, that stopped the nose going past -17 degrees. This was then augmented by the overspeed protection which initiated the recovery. Without the former protection, the aircraft would have ended up vertical (with no protections I assume it would simply respond conventionally - and that's what full forward stick normally does!)

Not the first time a protection has assisted: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422f73640f0b613420005db/Boeing_737-73V__G-EZJK_09-10.pdf

ShotOne

13th Feb 2017, 15:56

EESDL, you're right; each sidestick has a takeover button which disengages the opposing side stick. Even if it had been impossible to free the ill-advisedly placed camera, the aircraft could have been flown normally from the other seat with no wrestling involved.

As for the recovery, once the obstruction was freed, the aircraft would have recovered itself to 1g flight. Put simply it would continue in stable flight where it was pointed. If a spin is being generated along the lines of "hero flight-crew saved aircraft" it is, to put it mildly, very wide of the mark.

Flight_Idle

13th Feb 2017, 19:25

Engines

13th Feb 2017, 19:51

Perhaps I can add to the discussion over control of loose objects in cockpits.

A few years ago, I was involved in a meeting to review location and design of some new switches on the centre console of a well known RAF heavy lift helicopter. At one stage, I was asked what I was doing about the risk of certain switches being accidentally knocked on or off. I replied that we would use DefStan 00-970 guidance and regulations, using gated switches plus clear indications in the primary field of view of the status of the switches. I was then told that we would have to add a set of large guards around a certain switch 'as the pilots always put their flip cards and other folders on the centre console in flight, as there wasn't anywhere else to put them'.

My first reaction was stunned incredulity. The idea that you'd have a folder sculling about loose in the cockpit, potentially knocking switches (and preventing the aircrew from getting at the controls) was, to me, amazing. I was even more amazed when this 'requirement' was endorsed by QQ, and led to a late design change to put a great bit set of side bars around the switch. However, I wasn't in the least surprised when the same people then tagged the side bars as a potential hazard as they 'might prevent access to the switch'. Sometimes, you just can't win.

There was (and still might be) a very strong culture that loose objects were 'acceptable' in this particular cockpit. A bit like the Voyager. If that's the case, then you could paint the whole s*****g cockpit red, covered in 'DON'T DO STUPID STUFF' signs, and you'd STILL get the problem. I agree with the Airbus response to this one. Putting a camera loose on a coaming anywhere near a control stick is just asking for trouble. And dull. Sorry, it just is. Same goes for putting folders on switches.

Best Regards as ever to all aircrew doing the long miles,

Engines

stilton

14th Feb 2017, 06:13

Not so sure about the AB 'excellent design' preventing this incident.

You'd need a damn big camera to jam the yoke forward on a Boeing..

212man

14th Feb 2017, 06:53

Not so sure about the AB 'excellent design' preventing this incident.

You'd need a damn big camera to jam the yoke forward on a Boeing..
Or an NVG case.....
https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/04/18/c-130j-crash-killed-14-caused-forgotten-night-vision-goggle-case/83182244/

(I know LM not Boeing, but same idea)

Pontius Navigator

14th Feb 2017, 07:45

I know this incident was caused by a personal article but as the 212's post Service articles are also the cause of accidents. Kit is procured but often no stowage provision or guidance is given.

The Nimrods were provided with BAE Steady Scope viewers but as far as I know there was no provision for secure storage. I suspect that much such kit is provided with little thought to due process.

Brian W May

14th Feb 2017, 09:17

A handy shelf, motorised seat & armrest, right before the control input.

Sloping? Painted red with 'Put no objects here?

VERY basic stuff in design, many hours flown without incident until it goes wrong.

Just saying how the very simple things matter. I imagine the general public scratching their heads at such a simple mistake.

This guy is a pilot . . . pilots DEAL in 3 dimensions, everyday. Spatial awareness . . . !!!

The uninformed me (I only jump seated on civil A330 once) says it's plain and simply gross negligence. I admit I don't have all the facts, but there are some seriously shonky dealings going on here.

EESDL

14th Feb 2017, 09:29

Shot One
Thanks - sounds like crew panicked and didn't really know their aircraft - lack of credibly training or an 'attitude' problem within?
Fu$k knows what I would have done in that situation but I have been in various predicaments and glad to report still sitting here in comfy chair and spouting rubbish :D

Pontius Navigator

14th Feb 2017, 10:19

EESDL, so are they.

3 bladed beast

14th Feb 2017, 10:26

I know where you're coming from EESDL, but you sound very judgemental and Pontius makes a correct response.

Even though he is going through court martial, the Captain helped bring the plane into service and the Co is a capable pilot.

It's easy to judge from a comfy chair.

Top Bunk Tester

14th Feb 2017, 11:13

3 bladed beast

I don't think the Captain's knowledge and experience has ever been questioned. What I believe is being questioned is his INTEGRITY or lack thereof which as a direct consequence led to an RAF fleet grounding, the waste of countless manhours internally within MoD and externally at Airbus, and the undisputed disruption to Op HERRICK.

This of course is a personal opinion only and am always open to other points of view.

Avtur

14th Feb 2017, 17:49

The Nimrods were provided with BAE Steady Scope viewers but as far as I know there was no provision for secure storage. I suspect that much such kit is provided with little thought to due process

From what I remember PN, you are quite correct. I think we just put them on the floor or on the pilots side shelves. In this incident, it was a personal item, not cleared for carriage/use on the flight deck, that was the culprit.

RetiredBA/BY

14th Feb 2017, 17:55

I'm sure that the ongoing SI will take a thorough look at the simulator training given to the RAF's Voyager pilots, particularly concerning AP disconnect, jammed sidestick and control priority procedures. Plus the associated aural warnings; for example the different nature of the AP disconnect aural warning when anything other than the AP disconnect button is used.

Perhaps there will be additional safety procedures introduced regarding temporary 'one pilot only' flight deck procedures and the importance of keeping the area around the sidestick base clear of any potential loose articles.

One point which must be made to the ignorant 'hang him high' people posting here, is that the Captain's integrity is most certainly NOT in any doubt.

So, might I ask why the CM!

Pontius Navigator

14th Feb 2017, 18:00

Avtur, as I said, it was a service supply item but was stowage ever considered? I know one piece of kit in a Vulcan was withdrawn because Boscombe Down refused clearance. However, like the Steady Scope, I don't think any thought was given to the CVBS case.

Also compare and contrast a civil airline procedure for stowing flight rations and the ration boxes, cooking utensils, sauces etc in an MPA crew kit.

Avtur

14th Feb 2017, 18:22

PN, I get that, understand, and not arguing, but the offending camera was a personal item, so technically should not have been on the flight deck in the first place.

Pure Pursuit

14th Feb 2017, 19:32

Beagle,

You're talking grade A BS I'm afraid. The captain's integrity is very much in question and having spoken to a few Voyager peeps, the CM seems very, very justifiable.

He made a mistake, let's give him that but, endangered several hundred people's lives and then allegedly attempted to cover it up causing no end of headaches to the AT world and the Herrick logistics line. That aside, I'm sure he'll be fine...

Pure Pursuit

14th Feb 2017, 19:36

212man

14th Feb 2017, 20:02

Out of interest, is there any open source info regarding how much stress the airframe was during the event? I've often wondered if it's service life might be somewhat shorter than the rest of the fleet.
Do you think 2.06 g is going to affect the airframe life? Are you familiar with CS/FAR-25?

Pure Pursuit

14th Feb 2017, 22:38

212man,

I am now... Thank you.

Pontius Navigator

15th Feb 2017, 06:20

Is the CM still in progress?

Brian W May

15th Feb 2017, 08:09

My impression is Beags actually knows the chap concerned and perhaps has a conflict of loyalty.

Doesn't excuse making rash unsustainable comments, but perhaps they are understandable. Most of the rest of us do, but we may not be SO dogmatic.

What perhaps needs to be said again is this IS a 'Rumour' network and all the moralists who say 'Wait for the outcome' are missing the point. YES the threads can be seen by 'outsiders' who will perhaps take information as gospel - from this 'Rumour' network. Caveat Emptor.

I started my own 'secret' Facebook page called 'Armchair Speculators' where we can say what the hell we like without 'sanction'. We only share our comments with invited 'Friends', with Facebook, GCHQ, NSA and DHS (daresay there's a few more).

dsc810

15th Feb 2017, 17:21

@Pontius
The Oxford mail is reporting on it
see
Senior officer 'threatened' pilot over Brize Norton flight that went into sudden nosedive (From Oxford Mail) (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15094292.Senior_officer__threatened__pilot_over_Brize_Norton _flight_that_went_into_sudden_nosedive/)

tubby linton

15th Feb 2017, 18:37

Out of personal interest and the detail would have been in an AAIB report , how many hours did the crew have on type and where did they do their conversion course? What struck me was the co-pilot saying that he was gentle with the recovery. The bus has load factor protection even when the FBW laws are degraded.There was no indication it had degraded to direct law , where it is lost.

Pontius Navigator

15th Feb 2017, 19:26

dcs, thank you, fascinating. So two threads appear. One is that there was an effort to hush things up by the MAAIB and the other that the accused had become perturbed when asked to explain the difference between his statement and the evidence.

Chinny Crewman

15th Feb 2017, 19:32

Deleted posts. Just my opinion and I'm not a mod.
Retired I read one of your deleted posts and in it you quoted and discussed a private message sent to yourself. We're not politicians so we don't 'leak' to create mischief consequently I think it is right that post was removed.

Union Jack

16th Feb 2017, 08:40

My impression is Beags actually knows the chap concerned ..... - BWM

.....and BA/BY as well, looking at the latter's profile?;)

Jack

RetiredBA/BY

16th Feb 2017, 11:05

My impression is Beags actually knows the chap concerned ..... - BWM

.....and BA/BY as well, looking at the latter's profile?;)

Jack

Completely wrong, I,m afraid. My VC10s were BOAC and BA and my tankers were the Victor 1s of 57 Sqn. at Marham, so you can see my connection with AAR and Air Safety. I have updated my profile to show that.

Air Tanker were kind enough to show me the flight deck of a Voyager during a GAPAN visit to BZN.

Now, let's see if the mods delete that !

Thud105

16th Feb 2017, 11:12

"One point which must be made to the ignorant 'hang him high' people posting here, is that the Captain's integrity is most certainly NOT in any doubt."

Errr, surely if that was the case there wouldn't be a CM?

Whilst one is well aware that this chap is an officer in Her Majesty's Royal Brittannic Air Force, and consequently by definition a thoroughly Good Egg who treats his women, servants and dogs well, someone somewhere has decided that perhaps his integrity might require questioning at this juncture.

Top Bunk Tester

16th Feb 2017, 12:32

Careful Thud105, it's posts like that that get your posts deleted, regardless of how true it is :(

TorqueOfTheDevil

16th Feb 2017, 12:32

My impression is Beags actually knows the chap concerned and perhaps has a conflict of loyalty.

...and/or is struggling to accept that the shiny new aircraft was in no way to blame despite all the new-fangled gimmicks like 'side-sticks', 'autopilots' and 'computers';)

Heathrow Harry

16th Feb 2017, 12:55

and a closed cockpit................

Mil-26Man

16th Feb 2017, 13:38

It didn't have a closed cockpit.

Tocsin

16th Feb 2017, 14:00

It didn't have a closed cockpit.

I think that's closed as in 'has a roof on it' :)

Mil-26Man

16th Feb 2017, 14:08

Ah I get it, because he's old.

Lyneham Lad

16th Feb 2017, 15:10

This thread seems to be (like the Voyager) plummeting. About time to hold straight and level on-topic.

Pontius Navigator

16th Feb 2017, 17:31

Is there any more on the CM?

Dominator2

16th Feb 2017, 17:33

Thud105, I absolutly agree, of course the man’s integrity is in question. Not too sure what planet BEagle is on but seems to have a private agenda OR all that we have read so far is untrue and he has the true version

Linedog

16th Feb 2017, 17:36

Thank you, PN. This is turning out to have more in-fighting that the SI.

RetiredBA/BY

17th Feb 2017, 06:34

May I ask if it is RAF policy, sop, for locked cockpit doors, as civil practice since 9-11 for the remaining pilot to be fully strapped in when the other is absent. I remember some years ago some US airlines even required the "solo" pilot to be on oxygen.

brakedwell

17th Feb 2017, 06:37

Obviously not as the Co-pilot returned to the FD when he was weightless.

RetiredBA/BY

17th Feb 2017, 07:34

Obviously not as the Co-pilot returned to the FD when he was weightless.
Yes I know. Sops, Flying Orders, etc., and Policy are not always followed in practice which is why I asked the question.

212man

17th Feb 2017, 07:57

May I ask if it is RAF policy, sop, for locked cockpit doors, as civil practice since 9-11 an the remaining pilot to be fully strapped in when the other is absent. I remember some years ago some US airlines even required the "solo" pilot to be on oxygen.

I assume the somewhat different 'customer' base would make this requirement unnecessary.

brakedwell

17th Feb 2017, 08:29

I assume the somewhat different 'customer' base would make this requirement unnecessary

Exactly, but the Gurkhas did have to hand in their Kukris when we carried them between Hong Kong and Kathmandu. The knives were secured in a locked box fixed to the floor near the front galley.

Onceapilot

17th Feb 2017, 09:10

Gentlemen, I would remind everyone that RAF operating and security procedures are often classified info. Whatever comes out into the public domain from the CM would usually reflect that as well. :ooh:

OAP

RetiredBA/BY

17th Feb 2017, 11:21

I assume the somewhat different 'customer' base would make this requirement unnecessary.

Not necessarily. There have been cases of rogue serviceman, both British and foreign, and even a deranged crew member , German Wings, led to the loss of the aircraft and all on board. Why take the risk, as I assume a Voyager has the same armoured door as civil A330s. ?

I think it hardly sensitive to ask if it's RAF policy for a "solo" pilot to be fully strapped in when alone in the cockpit.

brakedwell

17th Feb 2017, 11:24

I think it hardly sensitive to ask if it's RAF policy for a "solo" pilot to be fully strapped in when alone in the cockpit.

Surely that is basic airmanship.

RetiredBA/BY

17th Feb 2017, 11:30

Surely that is basic airmanship.
I seem to remember that some even very basic airmanship, for mist of us, was defined in the flying order book.

When I say fully strapped in I mean just that, shoulder harness included, not just the usual lap strap.
Is it ever possible to get a simple answer to a simple question here?

sycamore

17th Feb 2017, 14:42

b-dll/BA, seems more like a lack of `awaremanship`;a lot of `cheese holes lining up;,compounded by a p***-poor handover of contol when the co-pilot left the cockpit.It might be `boring` in the cruise,but you just `suck-it-up` until it`s your turn for a break...
Maybe they need a `third man`....err.. engineer with a big stick...

Pontius Navigator

17th Feb 2017, 17:06

Where is the CM? Is it at Bulford or here on pprune?

Linedog

17th Feb 2017, 18:22

I'm surprised no-one has volunteered for the firing squad yet.

Brian W May

17th Feb 2017, 18:50

It is my belief Captain Darling is dealing with the firing squad . . .

Linedog

17th Feb 2017, 18:51

As long as they don't leave it to Slack Bladder.

Easy Street

17th Feb 2017, 19:19

even a deranged crew member , German Wings, led to the loss of the aircraft and all on board. Why take the risk,

An odd example when you consider that it was strict flight deck security that created the conditions for that accident.

The 'different customer base' point is not just about the reduced likelihood of unlawful interference happening in the first place: it's also that 200 squaddies are extremely unlikely to sit there doing nothing while their flight is unlawfully interfered with!

Personally I think the open cockpit on military AT is a wonderful thing; it is an example of implicit trust, which is good for cohesion between arms and services, and it enables flight deck visits which give servicemen a little bit of insight into why the Air Force is the way it is.

Pontius Navigator

17th Feb 2017, 19:30

Ah, ES, maybe that was the problem, 200 squadies upset the CoG.

Pontius Navigator

20th Feb 2017, 20:31

It seems that cameras in cockpits is not confined to military aircraft:

Dramatic moment German fighter jets intercept London-bound flight after pilot lost contact with air traffic control (http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/dramatic-moment-german-fighter-jets-intercept-london-bound-flight-after-pilot-lost-contact-with-air-traffic-control/ar-AAn8CFP?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp)

airsound

21st Feb 2017, 14:30

With one or two people asking about the progress of the Court Martial, I thought I'd ask the Military Court Service. A very helpful person emailed me straight back with this it is expected the prosecution case to be completed on Wed 22 Feb and hopefully start the defence case that day also. If Flt Lt Townshend is to give evidence, it is likely to start on Wednesday and may go on until Thursday. If this all goes as expected we would expect closing speeches Thursday. It is anticipated the board will return with a verdict on the Friday. However, this is a fluid business and time-scales can change.
You only 'as to ask...

airsound

Pontius Navigator

21st Feb 2017, 18:07

AS, thank you. I was curious as to why it has been 'invisible' to the media and also the length of the proceedings.

Whatever the outcome it will satisfy and dissatisfy the readers here in equal measure.

airpolice

21st Feb 2017, 20:33

I think that there is a certain amount of satisfaction that a CM has been held.

Justice seen to be done and all that.

Lordflasheart

24th Feb 2017, 17:49

Oxford Mail Feb 24th. Seems to be reporting on yesterday, ie. Thursday 23rd

Brize Norton pilot tells court martial he was 'devastated' to be blamed for nose dive (From Oxford Mail) (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15110610.Pilot_tells_court_martial_he_was__devastated__to_be _blamed_for_nose_dive/)

The trial continues ................

........................

Brian W May

24th Feb 2017, 20:11

Oxford Mail Feb 24th. Seems to be reporting on yesterday, ie. Thursday 23rd

Brize Norton pilot tells court martial he was 'devastated' to be blamed for nose dive (From Oxford Mail)

The trial continues ................

........................

Who the hell else would it be ? Good grief

Pontius Navigator

25th Feb 2017, 07:34

Just This Once...

25th Feb 2017, 13:10

Indeed, as already covered this trial pivots on the opinion of the SI that the camera could only have been moved by a conscious act. As I understand it the SI has no proof of this beyond testing a theory in a simulator and not under the dynamic circumstances experienced during the flight. As to whether this theory, limited in testing as it was, is good enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this was a conscious act is beyond me.

Personally I have always struggled with the idea that in such challenging circumstances that any of us would have the presence of mind and clarity of thought not to mention the cause of the control restriction to the other crew member if/when discovered. I don't think I would have the capacity to think about a cover-up at that point and slip so gracefully into acting mode.

Still, we shall see what the jury thinks once presented with all the opinions out there.

Just This Once...

25th Feb 2017, 14:02

Really? Is a judge advocate siting on their own for this case?

Lordflasheart

25th Feb 2017, 14:36

Is a judge advocate sitting on their own for this case?

No, Judge Advocate Alan Large with a Board of 7 (the maximum) in this case.

It's all explained here and on the branch links provided -

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-military-court-service#organisation

These include the Military Court Listings - except in this case you need to view the previous fortnight's list, which in their spirit of transparency, has been replaced by the current one, which regrettably doesn't mention this ongoing CM.

LFH

......................

Just This Once...

25th Feb 2017, 14:58

Ok, that is how I understood it having sat on one of these once or twice.

Just This Once...

25th Feb 2017, 15:42

Didn't see the pedant light on. A 'board' it may be but even the judges referred to us as the jury. Aside from the sentencing deliberations and the smaller number of people I would be hard pressed to think of a difference between a military and civilian court these days. Very different to the CMs in my early career. Undoubtedly better for it too.

Pontius Navigator

25th Feb 2017, 16:20

JTO, in that I am out of date, but unlike a random number of the general public the board is different. What is the actual composition?

Just This Once...

25th Feb 2017, 17:04

In my last one there were 6 officers and 1 WO with a spread of backgrounds and very tri-service. We dropped down to 6 total but not told the reason why. Having done a stint as a civilian juror the process was identical in all regards apart from the sentencing bit where I think the military court process is probably ahead of the civilian one. Well, at least from my seat!

sycamore

25th Feb 2017, 19:29

Anyone know what the fore and aft travel of the sidestick is...?

The Old Fat One

25th Feb 2017, 20:01

My point stands, a board is NOT a jury.

Having been on the inside of both a CM and a Criminal Trial, I would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a "board" in a CM and jury in Crown Court. I'm sure there are all sorts of legal differentiation's but to all intents and purposes they both fulfill a very similar function.

And juries/courts have differences anyhow. Scottish courts have juries of 15 and "not proven" verdicts (been there, done that). Northern Ireland have Diplock courts. All variations on a similar theme. Concur...pedant alert.

Heathrow Harry

26th Feb 2017, 09:39

But isn't the critical difference that a CM is comprosed of individuals who know something about the service whereas a civilian jury is specifically selected at random so they DON'T have any knowledge of the backgound?

Kitty Hawk 1

26th Feb 2017, 11:19

Oxford Mail:

He added that he would not use the camera during "busy periods" such as take-off and landings.

Well thank goodness for small mercies.

But isn't the critical difference that a CM is comprosed of individuals who know something about the service whereas a civilian jury is specifically selected at random so they DON'T have any knowledge of the backgound?

Very good point HH. And, they can probably all read and write and with luck understand English.

superplum

26th Feb 2017, 14:09

....and weren't passengers on the flight!
:cool:

Pontius Navigator

26th Feb 2017, 14:24

Super plum, so?

Heathrow Harry

26th Feb 2017, 17:12

"Very good point HH. And, they can probably all read and write and with luck understand English."

I hope you are refering to the CM - I've been on a few civilian juries and those three skills were often missing ........................

Brian W May

26th Feb 2017, 20:14

Brian, that is out of context but appears to be the whole basis for his defence. He recognizes that it was caused by his camera and it jamming the controls. He said at the time he was convinced that it was the aircraft, therefore his fault report was true as that is what he believed at the time

Thanks PN.

Hmm, simply put, I wasn't there along with everyone else (presumably). I just have a bad feeling about this whole thing . . . .

We live in interesting times

airsound

27th Feb 2017, 11:00

A very nice Court Officer at Bulford tells me that closing speeches are happening today Monday, which could mean verdicts tomorrow.

Just This Once...

27th Feb 2017, 11:36

Well, if it is effectively all over:

I think that there is a certain amount of satisfaction that a CM has been held.

Justice seen to be done and all that.

I do wonder about that too even though I hope it is not true. But yes, aspects of this investigation do alarm me and seem to fall short of a just and fair process.

During MilAAIB training the legal aspects and police primacy, if or when there is any possibility of criminal conduct, is beaten into you and the SI members have access to legal advice at all times. This has caused much angst in the past when police efforts have effectively undermined a timely accident investigation but the framework exists to protect all so that justice and fairness prevails. Irrespective of the verdict of this case I am very uncomfortable as to how this investigation was carried out.

I find the evidence and opinion contained within the SI report deeply troubling with more than a hint of reinforcement bias. The use of a simulator and a 'camera similar in size' just does not make a compelling case when the SI opines that the camera could not work free by itself.

The physical evidence faithfully recorded in the SI shows that the camera and stick changed shape and had physical damage, so the forces and interactions were dynamic. At or around the time the camera came free the aircraft was transitioning from negative G to positive, the aircraft was over-speeding and crew & equipment were crashing around all over the flight deck. The copilot faithfully recounts the state of chaos and the amount of stuff thrashing around the flight deck, yet the SI fails to even consider or even mention how this could have changed the situation with respect to the restriction.

The SI went on to opine that the captain's 'ok, ok, ok' mutterings were linked to him consciously removing the restriction. The human factors evidence included in the SI suggested that the pilot was completely channelised at this point, hence the repeated and non-standard behaviours. The SI has not offered how, at such a pinnacle of stress, did the captain recognise the hazard. Worryingly the SI displays more than a little bias and economy of truth when they state in their report that:

"...immediately prior to the camera becoming free, the Captain said, "ok..... ok, ok, ok," [superimposing it on the DFDR trace and adding a text caption where the camera came free to link it all together for the reader]. It was not possible to confirm what this referred to. The Panel noted that there were no obvious changes in either the flight deck indications or the aircraft attitude at this point."

Even if we set aside the bias shown in the editing of the evidence above the final sentence is an absolute howler. The rather less edited / padded DFDR data recorded earlier in the report shows that the Captain's 'ok, ok, ok' quote (using the time stamp) came at the point where the aircraft was transitioning from going ever-downwards to recovering to more normal flight. This recovery was not initiated by either pilot but by the aircraft protection systems. Given the acknowledged stress / panic during the dive the aircraft recovering would have come as some relief to both pilots. The pilots may have even believed that it was their efforts that had initialised the recovery rather than the aircraft. As such, muttering 'ok, ok, ok' at this point looks natural and not incriminating.

My final point is the legal aspects and the conduct of the SI at the point where they considered potential criminal aspects. At that stage the primacy moves to the police so that evidence can be secured and statements can be made under PACE with appropriate access to legal representation. What we have learned is that at least one SI member carried on with interviews. Not only that he apparently told at least one witness (the co-pilot) of their potentially criminal findings and (allegedly) compounding this breach of a criminal investigation by turning-off the tape machine and threatening violence.

I have no knowledge of this case outside of the public domain info and I don't know either of the pilots. I have no idea if the captain is guilty or not, but I have grave misgivings about the motives, bias and apparent misconduct by one or more members of the SI. Indeed, I can only conclude that the SPA had to think long and hard about proceeding to court once it became clear that the testimony of at least one key witness (the co-pilot) had been tainted by the SI.

Whatever the verdict I do not think the SI & MilAAIB process is operating in a fair and just manner. The Service has long maintained that witnesses giving evidence to an SI do not need legal representation, even though service personnel can be compelled or ordered to attend. Sadly, I think that position is completely untenable.

Just This Once...

27th Feb 2017, 11:43

Apologies to those who gain satisfaction from a lynching, I am more interested in air safety and promoting a just culture.

Jhieminga

27th Feb 2017, 12:17

I can only speak for myself but I appreciate that, and thank you for a good summation of the pertinent aspects of this incident and investigation.

tucumseh

27th Feb 2017, 14:44

Just This Once

Excellent post. If anything, you've been too kind to BoIs/SIs. Pprune is full of examples of incompetence and maladministration in the conduct of inquiries. One of the worst was failing to even comment on there being no safety case for the Hawk seat; and by definition the aircraft case being contaminated. On Sea King ASaC (2003), an investigation was halted altogether when the truth emerged; MoD now deny it even took place. Going back further, the truth behind Chinook ZA721 30 years ago only emerged last year; a completely different version to the official report, giving weight to the evidence, given under oath, of the BoI being directed. Frankly, I'd take any SI report with a huge pinch of salt.

It will be interesting to see how MoD deals with the (alleged) offences by the Voyager SI member.

Brian W May

27th Feb 2017, 15:17

Well frankly it's become a bloody circus and certainly doesn't show the RAF, its institutions, or indeed its members in a good light.

The sooner it's over and the dust settles, the better - for good or ill.

Pontius Navigator

27th Feb 2017, 15:24

BWM, actually that is also previous as there has been little in the national media since the start. Only here have I seen anything of note. To the man in the street I suspect it is entirely invisible.

Brian W May

27th Feb 2017, 17:28

PN . . . are you SURE we've not been married :) (I reckon we must know each other . . . )

Seriously though, most of my friends are ex-aviators and we are all well aware of this incident.

Take your point but how many visits have been made to this thread by journos who love nothing more than to be negative (don't think they've needed much help with this one).

What a dog's breakfast.

Pontius Navigator

27th Feb 2017, 19:41

Brian, agree aviators and ex are well aware and that journos love to rake, but the aviation community is tiny and as far as I know nothing has happened to disturb the national media.

There will a short shut storm with the verdict and then J Public will forget about it. Now if this incident had affected an A330 then I think the media and public would be more aware. I acknowledge it was covered in detail at the time.

Chugalug2

27th Feb 2017, 20:05

JTO, can I too add my thanks for your post? This is a site for Professional Aviators (both Air and Ground). This forum is for Professional Military Aviators, who should be greatly concerned about your post. It's all very well being concerned about the RAF's dirty washing being shown in public, perhaps it would be more appropriate to be concerned about the dirty washing itself. As tuc points out this is yet another example of a dysfunctional SI to add to all the others that have been more about cover up than about the avoidance of accident repetition.

Whatever the fate of this Voyager captain, the fate of the RAF seems to be that if and when it receives its 100th birthday telegram it will be as any other centenarian, able only to shuffle around devoid of its former fitness, for airworthiness will be but a distant memory.

Professionals who care for the Royal Air Force must demand that the cover ups end, and that Air Regulation and Accident Investigation be wrested from the MOD, and then be made independent of each other. Only then can the return to fitness begin.

beardy

28th Feb 2017, 08:49

JTO
You raise some interesting points.

In the interest of Flight Safety we now all realise the dangers in having loose articles in the cockpit and what happens when they interfere with the controls. Flt Lt Townsend has acknowledged his part in the event, he has pleaded guilty to " negligently performing a duty by allowing his camera to become wedged behind the stick."

The more problematic is the subsequent reporting of the event, which is pertinent to the Just Culture (which is often misunderstood to be no-blame.) If, as you conjecture, the principle evidence to support the charges of perjury was incorrectly gathered and presented then it ought not to be considered. I am not confident that this was presented at the court martial. If your opinions are valid, then in the interests of justice and a just culture the court martial verdict, whatever it is, should be invalid and this may be shown in an appeal (is there such a thing in a CM and is it available to both sides?)

Of course the verdicts have validity in law, but that is not always coincident with justice.

Just This Once...

28th Feb 2017, 09:35

I've no idea what has been presented at court and no idea as to the verdict the CM is likely to reach. Personally I have quite a bit of faith in the SPA and CM process and the access to the appeals court.

I've limited my comments to the SI report and the comments released by the press regarding the SI panel member. I'm an air safety guy with T&E experience and approaching 30 years of military aviation. I don't have access to all the data that the SI could draw upon so perhaps they have a bigger picture. But I do not think the data and opinion published in the SI supports the conclusion they reached. Just comparing the time stamps on the DFDR snapshots undermines their narrative. The failure to consider the dynamic interactions, at a time when the flight deck resembled a shaken snow globe, sets off professional alarm bells.

I fear that the SI came to a conclusion (which may or may not be correct) and used the SI report to sell it to the command chain who, in turn, sold it to the police and SPA. The SI should have provided equal weighting to all possible options, highlighting where the evidence supported or detracted from them.

A just culture is not free of blame, but to get to the blame bit the process has to be just.

Cows getting bigger

28th Feb 2017, 10:07

In the interest of Flight Safety we now all realise the dangers in having loose articles in the cockpit and what happens when they interfere with the controls.

Well, that lesson was being taught in the 80s when a spotty young CGB went through FTS and I'm pretty sure it wasn't a new OHP slide back then.

(For the youngsters - OHP was something used before Powerpoint :))

beardy

28th Feb 2017, 10:09

Not sure about equal weighting to all possible options. Equal consideration, yes, along with, as you say a consideration of the evidence, which in turn would lead to recommendations to improve safety. In this case the principle cause was evident and subsequently admitted to. In the interest of a just culture the reason why there was no initial true statement of events should be discovered.

I am ex military (20+years) with a background of flight safety. I have flown the A330 and am aware of the topography of the control column and sidestick area and the forces involved.

There are some here on this forum who have blindly defended the pilot, others who you say want to lynch him. I would like justice to be done.

brakedwell

28th Feb 2017, 10:22

Quote:
In the interest of Flight Safety we now all realise the dangers in having loose articles in the cockpit and what happens when they interfere with the controls.
Well, that lesson was being taught in the 80s when a spotty young CGB went through FTS and I'm pretty sure it wasn't a new OHP slide back then.

(For the youngsters - OHP was something used before Powerpoint )

And the fifties too. Frightened the pants of myself during a low flypast when I inverted a Meteor 7 and a crowbar dropped down to the roof :eek:

Just This Once...

28th Feb 2017, 10:52

I would like justice to be done.

I agree.

_________

beardy

28th Feb 2017, 11:22

Sorry, I should have said
I would like justice to be done and be seen to be done.

Jhieminga

28th Feb 2017, 11:31

...inverted a Meteor 7 and a crowbar dropped down to the roof :eek:
It is very logical to think that, as this subject has been covered in minute detail on various Powerpoints, OHPs, scrolls and stone tablets throughout the years of (military) training that went into producing today's airmen, they will all be fully aware of this issue at all points during their daily life. But in real life you can only say something so many times before people start shutting their eyes to it and dismissing it as 'yes, yes, we've heard all that'. It takes that crowbar, and the subsequent moment in the laundry room where you decide that the underpants in question are not fit for purpose anymore, to really drive the message home and never, ever forget it again. Before instructors start chucking loose items of hardware in the cockpits of their students as they send them off on their first solo, I am not advocating that we all go through this precise scenario but I would like to say that I think that we may rely a bit too much on the 'training covers everything' mantra.

There are two types of pilots out there. Those who have encountered that crowbar in mid roll (substitute pen, coffee mug, camera, notepad, kneeboard, spanner, phone or any other item of choice for crowbar if you want) and those who have not. I would venture a guess that the first group is a bit more enthusiastic in their teaching on this subject than the second group. Nothing wrong with being in either group but we need to accept that the relevant message is ingrained in each student with various degrees of effectiveness.

Going back to the Voyager incident. I for one think that this is the mother of all Swiss Cheese examples (even though I am not a huge fan of that particular model). In no particular order we have:
- Window of circadian low
- Low workload
- A distraction
- A very specific setting of the armrest
- An object that is exactly the right shape to fit against the sidestick base
- A not-fully-familiar cockpit (let's face it, how long has the Voyager been in operation)
- A flight control system without feedback to the controls
- An unfamiliar autopilot with various options to consider when faced with an anomaly

I'm sure that this list can go on. My main point here is that this particular combination of circumstances was on one hand so unlikely that I doubt if it would have taken more than five minutes during a type rating course, if at all, but on the other hand it is a great lesson for all of us in the non-crowbar group to take with us and, hopefully, help us to stay away from that group for a little while longer.

Kitty Hawk 1

28th Feb 2017, 13:19

At the risk of repeating previous posts. This is not an inquiry about the cause of the incident it is a Courts Martial for perjury (x2) and falsifying reports. The whole episode has not reflected well on the service, thanks to one officer. It has also not reflected well on a Squadron with an exemplary history and reputation. i served on 10 Sqn for 9 years, latterly as an executive officer. I await the outcome with great interest .

Airsound, we are looking to you, your reputation and your contacts for a rapid report.

beardy

28th Feb 2017, 13:38

He was also charged with and has admitted negligently performing a duty.

The preceding inquiry seems to form the basis of the prosecution evidence. If the inquiry is flawed the evidence may also be flawed and if so justice may not be served.

thegndeng

28th Feb 2017, 14:07

At the end of the day it was an accident. Yes it was serious and he's admitted that he was to blame but he clearly didn't do it on purpose.

There's a culture of taking electronic items on the flightdeck and it could have happened to anyone. It would be interesting to see if 10 and 101 have learned from this however from my last trip as a passenger tells me they have not...

None of us have been privy to the entire un redacted SI or all of the evidence that has been presented to the court martial so none of us are in a postion to make claims against the pilot in question.

I wonder if anyone on here as actually spoke to the pilot in question since the incident and heard his story from him. Probably not.

airsound

28th Feb 2017, 16:18

Kitty HawkAirsound, we are looking to you, your reputation and your contacts for a rapid report. No pressure there then KH.

As it happens, I may not be able to help, since I'm en route to Malta for the European Air Show Council annual wingding. But I gather that the CM panel are still deliberating this evening, Tuesday.

I sympathise with you being on 10 - I was on 53 (Belfasts) when we shared a building with you guys. We always reckoned four good screws were better than a blow job any day....

I'll let you know if I hear anything - but don't hold breath.

downsizer

28th Feb 2017, 18:23

Just This Once...

28th Feb 2017, 19:51

Hopefully everyone will accept the verdict as the CM process is sound and subject to normal legal scrutiny.

downsizer

28th Feb 2017, 19:53

That's my opinion as well, I don't think some will though, regardless of the outcome.

tucumseh

1st Mar 2017, 06:07

Genuine question, what if he is guilty of lying initially to the SI and trying to cover up his actions as alleged.

Would posters on here accept that? It seems as though they wouldn't, are we saying the verdict of the CM is unsound regardless now? Good question. What I'd like to know is why MoD has pursued this officer, but condoned far worse. This selectivity and singling out is unacceptable. Senior officers, serving and retired, lied through their back teeth on Chinook ZD576, Hercules XV179 and others. On Sea King ASaC, the MoD investigations were lied to, and the Coroner's Court grossly misled (and some would say perjury committed). As was the ZD576 Fatal Accident Inquiry. On ASaC, MoD denied pertinent facts to families, despite photographic evidence proving MoD wrong. It made claims before the Inquest that it was not prepared to repeat in court, and then made them again after the Inquest despite knowing them to be lies. Some would say lying to families of deceased is heinous, especially when the aim was to (a) blame someone who was innocent, and (b) deflect attention from the guilty. A recurring theme in many investigations. Why do these cases not draw comment? When you look at the facts, it can only be because of the rank of those involved.

melmothtw

1st Mar 2017, 06:25

What I'd like to know is why MoD has pursued this officer, but condoned far worse.

Nearly 200 servicemen came within a hair's-breadth of being killed by the actions of this officer. What 'far worse' incidents have there been?

Lordflasheart

1st Mar 2017, 07:06

What 'far worse' incidents have there been?

About 70 actual fatalities at the last count (give or take a score) for the references immediately above. ....... LFH

......

Chugalug2

1st Mar 2017, 07:19

melmoth:-
What 'far worse' incidents have there been?

You used the word "incidents", not tuc! The MOD has consistently lied about the systemic problems that beset UK Military Air Safety and still do. They have even lied to a widow, telling her that a Release to Service had not been issued to the aircraft type that her husband died in, claiming that none at all then were, let alone an illegal one that obscured the fact that the aircraft was Grossly Unairworthy from its aircrew! If the subject of this thread was indeed an isolated incident, then whatever caused it can indeed also be isolated, and future repetition avoided. You cannot avoid future airworthiness related fatal air accidents if the system that is supposed to prevent them is systemically broken. That is what has happened to UK Military Air Safety. I would say that is potentially far worse than any isolated "incident", no matter what or who caused it.

thegndeng

1st Mar 2017, 11:23

One big concern for me is the accusation that the pilot and Co pilot were threatened by a member of the SI during the investigation. This accusation has been made by both the defendant and the co pilot while he was a prosecution witness.

If this is true, it puts the SI at risk and therefore any evidence from it used during the SI at risk.

This could potentially mean the outcome of the CM be an injustice and/or be open to an appeal process from either side depending on outcome.

Abbey Road

1st Mar 2017, 12:27

What I'd like to know is why MoD has pursued this officer, but condoned far worseSomething that is probably worth adding to Tuc's list of events, concerning senior officers covering their own arses, is the one which spawned from the inquiry into a low-flying RAF C130 which hit and killed a soldier who was standing atop a vehicle at South Cerney, in August 1994.

I seem to recall that this inquiry then uncovered a tradition whereby some C130 aircrew, written down in the authorisation sheets as members of C130 crews, were then not landing with the aircraft they took off in! That is, some of the crew were making unauthorised para-jumps at the end of sorties and so not completing the sorties with the aircraft they were supposed to be crewing!

It raised a stink at the time, and as the investigation started uncovering more and more evidence of this 'tradition' having been going on for many, many years, more and more people up the chain of command were being implicated! Is it not true that the investigation into uncovering these unauthorsed jumpers was pressured in to stopping when culprits at Wing Commander level started to show up on the radar? It seems that the really senior officers didn't want that particular trail of slowly burning gunpowder to reach the stacked kegs in RAF Ivory Towers ......... or can anyone here say otherwise?

In any event, Tuc is quite right. The Chinook accident alone and the disgraceful aftermath that it occasioned is reason enough to hold the MoD and certain very senior RAF officers in complete and utter contempt. The lies, obfuscation and cover-up were, and still are, a stain on the the otherwise magnificent history and tradition of the RAF. It sickens me to the core that certain very senior officers have not faced the legal processes they should have been forced to face, for their self-seeking actions in connection with this particular accident. A disgrace beyond explanation ...........

6foottanker

1st Mar 2017, 12:56

Forces News reporting a verdict of not guilty on the 3 charges of perjury and false records.

Top Bunk Tester

1st Mar 2017, 13:10

Blackadder: I remember Massingbird's most famous case: the Case of the Falling Aeroplane. An aeroplane was found by the co-pilot 4,400' away from where he had left it. The Captain had the sidestick in his hand, 198 witnesses had seen him on the flight deck alone and, when the co-pilot arrived back on the flight deck, whistling a famous Lionel Richie number, the CVR captured the Captain saying "Damn, I couldn't get a photo of the VSI, my camera was stuck between my seat armrest and the stick, but trust me it was a record breaker!" Massingbird not only got him off; he got him promoted to Sqn Ldr and knighted in the Birthday Honours List. And the passengers had to pay to replace the damaged ceiling panels.

This is satire. The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.

deeceethree

1st Mar 2017, 13:33

Forces News reporting a verdict of not guilty on the 3 charges of perjury and false records.
Interesting news!

MrBernoulli

1st Mar 2017, 13:43

BFBS news report here (http://www.bfbs.com/news/articles/raf/7020).

Kitty Hawk 1

1st Mar 2017, 14:01

I find this verdict incredulous.

Nice one old friend. Check PMs.

Blackadder: I remember Massingbird's most famous case: the Case of the Falling Aeroplane. An aeroplane was found by the co-pilot 4,400' away from where he had left it. The Captain had the sidestick in his hand, 198 witnesses had seen him on the flight deck alone and, when the co-pilot arrived back on the flight deck, whistling a famous Lionel Richie number, the CVR captured the Captain saying "Damn, I couldn't get a photo of the VSI, my camera was stuck between my seat armrest and the stick, but trust me it was a record breaker!" Massingbird not only got him off; he got him promoted to Sqn Ldr and knighted in the Birthday Honours List. And the passengers had to pay to replace the damaged ceiling panels.

This is satire. The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.

sled dog

1st Mar 2017, 14:22

What happens next , a return to flying duties ?

Lordflasheart

1st Mar 2017, 14:39

What happens next .......

Depends what he gets (if anything) for his reported formal admission of - "negligently performing a duty in relation to the camera colliding with the aircraft's control stick."

esscee

1st Mar 2017, 15:43

Tay Cough

1st Mar 2017, 15:55

What would happen if a A330 of a civilian airline had the similar incident. I suspect the captain would be lucky if he ever flew an aircraft again or even a desk. If the airline did not sort it out then the regulator may step in, and also imagine the passengers response to the captain's brief once they recognised his name. Not many would fly with that airline again.

You'll generally find (decent UK airlines) that if the culprit put his hands up straight away, the outcome will be proportionate. Depending on the type of incident, it can range from a quiet word post ASR through an interview (hat on variety) to retraining and possible loss of command.

The front door generally only appears in the process if anyone has tried to cover anything up or for extreme stupidity. Even then, there is generally an invitation to open the front door for yourself first.

BEagle

1st Mar 2017, 16:01

As those who know the Captain will no doubt agree, the verdict was never in any doubt.

I've known and flown with him since 1994, including on operational detachments. His integrity is totally unimpeachable and his professionalism is of the very highest order.

The reason why I have refused to sate the slavering trolls who have attempted to goad me for a response during the course of this Courts Martial, is that I did not wish to disclose the contents of messages exchanged with the Captain and others some 3 years ago - which I'd taken the precaution of printing off. When I first asked him what had happened, the Captain told me that the event had been terrifying to him; he had no idea what had caused it and was "looking forward to an answer as to what happened". As an example of the way he acts towards others, he went on "Have to say that my young cabin crew were amazing! I am very proud of them!".

Another PPRuNer, a senior officer, who knows the Captain well also told me "I spoke to him about what happened, shortly after the incident, and I am pretty certain that he did not know that his camera was the cause. He mentioned that his camera had been damaged but he thought that had been caused by it flying around the cockpit."

Another told me that when the cause was eventually established, the Captain was totally devastated by the event.

The Voyager variant of the A330 has a considerable number of modifications over the baseline 'green' aircraft and it was hardly a state secret that early Voyagers had experienced a number of issues following modification to the wiring looms. Hence it wasn't beyond the bounds of possibility that some gremlin lurking deep within the system could have made its unwelcome appearance over the Black Sea that night and that a possible AFS event might have been the cause, despite the reliability of the A330 system.

Hearing that the Captain had been charged with perjury was, to anyone who knows him, astonishing. But as the Courts Martial has revealed, some of the alleged manner of the MAA inquiry was even more astonishing.

Although I offered to send copies of the messages to his defence team and to appear as a character witness if that would help, the Captain told me that the prosecution witnesses had been better defence witnesses than he could ever have hoped for. Which was very heartening.

The excellent post made by Just This Once (27th Feb at 12:36) reinforces my own feelings. The startle involved when a boring night trudge across the airways turned into chaos cannot be underestimated; indeed the airlines are now beginning to realise the effect which startle plays during abnormal events.

The MoD statement reported on Forces News makes interesting reading:

"Our thoughts go out to all those on board the Voyager who were affected by what was a highly distressing experience. The MoD is grateful for the court's thorough consideration of the facts in this matter, lessons have been identified from this incident and training and procedures amended accordingly."

Lawyers acting for the injured passengers might well choose to pick up on the last sentence - specifically which'training and procedures' have been amended and in what way? For the statement reads like an admission of training inadequacy.

Anyway, I'm very glad this whole thing is over and that the Captain has been cleared of the iniquitous charges levelled against him.

I will be raising a glass to you, Andy - as I hope will all others who know you and knew very well that you were telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth throughout this whole sad business.

As for that Sqn Ldr who threatened the pilots with physical harm - check the third drawer down!

50+Ray

1st Mar 2017, 16:10

Good grief!

MPN11

1st Mar 2017, 16:19

Meanwhile, in the other seat/on the cockpit roof ...
The court martial heard Flt Lt Jones was subsequently medically downgraded and so severely hurt by the incident that he competed in Prince Harry's Invictus Games in 2016.

beardy

1st Mar 2017, 16:27

BEagle,
Your loyalty to this man does you credit, he should be proud to have you as a friend.

Your initial comments were to throw doubt on the integrity of the aircraft and defend the man from any accusation.

The man has admitted negligence and the aircraft has been shown to have had no fault.

Secret1

1st Mar 2017, 16:33

I/We have been monitoring the case and CM daily.

The 'thug' involved in the SI is for the 'high jump', indeed, he is likely to create a new record for the 'high jump'.

Interesting times ahead.

Ivor Fynn

1st Mar 2017, 17:09

Did my BFTS with Andy, I had no doubt about his integrity and from personal experience know what it feels like to have made a genuine mistake and nearly kill myself and someone else.

Very glad that it worked out this way.

Ivor

BEagle

1st Mar 2017, 18:30

beardy, thanks. However, there were quite a few concerns about the integrity of the Voyager-modified A330 at the time, given some of the reported issues. Hence my reasoning that an autoflight system bug could perhaps have been the cause of the unplanned descent.

Given the MoD's statement concerning the subsequent 'training and procedures' amendments, it wouldn't take a terribly bright lawyer to probe into the question of whether 'negligence' or basic 'ignorance' was the issue - 'ignorance' as in the true meaning of the word: 'lack of knowledge'.

So a lawyer might choose to ask:

What training, theoretical and practical, was given to Voyager pilots?
Who gave this training - and what formal qualifications did they hold?
How often were Abnormal Procedures involving s/s priority or jammed s/s practised in the simulator - and what formal qualifications were held by the assessor?

Union Jack

1st Mar 2017, 18:33

Your loyalty to this man does you credit, he should be proud to have you as a friend. - Beardy

Thoroughly agree - well played, BEagle:ok:, irrespective of any other aspect of this saga, and thankfully the old adage, "Justice delayed is justice denied" did not apply - eventually. That said, I cannot be the only person who finds it incredible - rather than "incredulous"! - that it has taken three whole years to reach this point....:ugh

Jack

brakedwell

1st Mar 2017, 19:04

It must have been a very stressful time. i hope Andy will soon be back in the left hand seat.

Jhieminga

1st Mar 2017, 20:08

I fully agree with BEagle, a verdict that does justice to Andy as a man, pilot and officer. I hope he can get back in the left seat soon and put this miserable episode behind him.

The B Word

1st Mar 2017, 20:16

I still can't fathom out why you would do this:

He also later deleted the 28 photographs he had taken from the cockpit shortly before the incident

It just doesn't seem to make sense as it must have likely been a deliberate act to delete them? Also, if the damage to the camera was made when it became free during the bunt then surely the aircraft would have not needed the co-pilot's side stick to recover it? Otherwise, if it remained in place, when the aircraft recovered and things went back to normal you would most likely see a camera wedged in the controls? Unless the Captain admitted that he knew that his camera had become jammed in the controls and that he deliberately hid this fact (which he didn't) then there would unlikely be enough proof to prove that he had intended to decieve. I can only guess this is where the deliberations were and why they delivered a not guilty verdict - no burden of proof and the presumption of innocence is a basic right of Law. They delivered that verdict and so that is that, unless someone appeals (very unlikely).

Others have said they know the Captain and say what a good chap he is. I'm sure he is, but I also know the much maligned inquiry interviewer allegedly threatening physical harm - I can't believe he would say this and that would be completely out of character from what I know of him (unless it was outrageously badly-timed banter!!). So where does that leave the debate when it is effectively one word against the other unless there is a full admission of saying it with intent?

As for trying to blame the training and SOPs - purlease.... I come back to Occam's Razor on this. If you take bits of kit into the cockpit and it causes an issue, then you must at least accept some culpability. Otherwise, where does it end? "When my trumpet got caught in the throttle quadrant no one had ever given me any training on how to deal with it...No one told me not to take brass band instruments into the cockpit...etc..." :ugh:

fabs

1st Mar 2017, 20:23

TwoStep

1st Mar 2017, 20:32

No DSLRs have this setting built in. They would have to be deleted, I suspect the investigators used recovery software to check this..

melmothtw

1st Mar 2017, 20:33

As for trying to blame the training and SOPs - purlease.... I come back to Occam's Razor on this. If you take bits of kit into the cockpit and it causes an issue, then you must at least accept some culpability. Otherwise, where does it end? "When my trumpet got caught in the throttle quadrant no one had ever given me any training on how to deal with it...No one told me not to take brass band instruments into the cockpit...etc..." :ugh:

Reminds me of the RMT's response after the Croydon tram crash when it was revealed that the driver had been doing 40mph in a 12mph zone. Rather than admitting the blame of the driver, the RMT blamed the operators for not having the proper systems in place to prevent the driver from speeding.

BEagle

1st Mar 2017, 20:34

fabs, quite so.

It is normal practice for most amateur photographers to download images onto a PC for editing/tweaking and to keep the camera SD card more or less empty.

Quite why the SI would make such an issue over something so trivial is difficult to comprehend.

MOSTAFA

1st Mar 2017, 20:41

I think I said many pages ago that it was for the Courts Martial to decide the outcome not the barrack room lawyers on here - as the outcome has now been established a lot of people on here should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Mil-26Man

1st Mar 2017, 20:45

as the outcome has now been established a lot of people on here should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Not sure I follow your logic here MOSTAFA. Would you have been thoroughly ashamed of yourself if the CM had found the other way?

alfred_the_great

1st Mar 2017, 21:12

But to confirm - he also plead guilty to the 4th charge?

Linedog

1st Mar 2017, 21:20

Hmmm. Speaking as an ex TG1 with 12 years experience, where would I have ended up had I left a loose article on the flight deck that had caused such an incident? Probably hung out to dry.

Any articles not necessary for the flight should not be allowed on the flight deck.

The B Word

1st Mar 2017, 21:23

To be fair on the deleted photos topic. My (very) similar camera is set to automatically delete the photos on the SD card as soon as they're uploaded onto my computer. Which I think was also mentioned at the CM.

Thanks, that explains that for me. I think of my iPhone where I haven't deleted photos from over 5 years ago...:ok:

I'm pretty sure it was reasoning like this that the case should never have gone to CM as it almost impossible to prove guilt without a confession. I think of other cases that seem far more 'water-tight' like the OJ Simpson trial and they ended in 'not guilty' verdicts. So quite what the military hoped to get by pursuing what was originally an error, covered up or not, with such voracity seems strange to me.

Hopefully we will all learn from this?

BigDotStu

1st Mar 2017, 21:34

No DSLRs have this setting built in. They would have to be deleted, I suspect the investigators used recovery software to check this..

Doesn't need to be a camera feature - often it's done from the computer end as part of the software performing the download...

Politely_amused

1st Mar 2017, 21:47

It is far too easy for all to start throwing 'I told you so' rocks. The point I'd make is that the standard of proof at a CM is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. As in the criminal courts, the Service Prosecuting Authority must have felt it had sufficient evidence to bring the case but the CM did not agree the case was proved.

Specifically (having no specific knowledge of the case) the SPA felt there was sufficient evidence that Flt Lt Townshend was not truthful after the incident - the CM did not agree. Many clearly agree with that verdict (supported by their view of the individual), but to now suggest this exonerates him from any culpability as A/c Captain is an extraordinary position (and I know people who were on that plane).

Ultimately, for innumerable Flight Safety courses for years to come, I suspect this will remain a fascinating example straddling the thin line between 'just culture' and the appropriate attribution of blame...

Timelord

1st Mar 2017, 21:48

Lots of posters seem to have missed the fact that he pleaded guilty to the charge involving camera / seat / side stick and pitch down and will, in due course, be sentenced for that. It was the allegation that he tried to cover up his actions of which he had now been acquitted.

MOSTAFA

1st Mar 2017, 22:03

H Peacock

1st Mar 2017, 22:18

Despite the verdict I'm not sure AT will be sleeping much better than he was. Will he really want to get himself back into any seat of a modern fbw cockpit?

As previously stated, there was clearly a strong vibe to some personnel within the SI that he was not being truthful. However, cover up or not, it is perhaps a sign of the times that this aircraft captain lacked the knowledge to even partly understand why his aircraft was doing as commanded and so make a much better job or recovering it to S&L flight. I can just about understand the gotcha of the camera, but I just can't comprehend how he didn't immediately use his side-stick to attempt to counter the initial pitch-down and hence discover his camera/seat had wedged it forwards.

Mil-26Man

1st Mar 2017, 22:52

Mi 26man are you real?

What if the CM did find him guilty? They didn't! Had they the barrack room lawyers who should be ashamed of themselves would have been right - as it happens the CM didn't; so they should be bloody ashamed of themselves.

My point, MOSTAFA, was that no one knew the outcome of the CM before it was announced, and so all comments made by both sides were based on the available evidence at the time. Why should they feel ashamed?

Someone else bought up the case of OJ Simpson on here earlier. Based on the evidence that was disclosed, did you think he was guilty of the crime at the time? Did you "feel ashamed"when he was found not guilty? Why should anyone feel ashamed here?

Linedog

1st Mar 2017, 23:27

Lots of posters seem to have missed the fact that he pleaded guilty to the charge .

Yes, once he'd been caught out.

Jhieminga

2nd Mar 2017, 06:04

... it is perhaps a sign of the times that this aircraft captain lacked the knowledge to even partly understand why his aircraft was doing as commanded and so make a much better job or recovering it to S&L flight.
It is easy to point to a 'lack of knowledge' now, when during the incident itself the crew was completely unable to understand the situation. There is a slowly increasing awareness in the industry of what is termed 'Automation Surprise', the situation where there is a significant gap between the actual workings of the autopilot/FMGS/other automated system and the crew's perception of what the system should be doing at the time. Someone mentioned the startle effect, but this is a more serious situation altogether, and modern FBW systems have been setting us up for this surprise for some time now. In my view this is made worse by the fact that Airbus states on one hand that you should trust the computer to fly you out of a difficult situation, but on the other hand they have had to implement a procedure where you need to switch off said protections (by switching off a few FBW computers) to get you back to a normally functioning airliner in Direct Law if the computer is misbehaving. I am not sure that we can expect our everyday flight crews to recognise the difference every time.

If your mention of 'sign of the times' was relating to this aspect where, by increasing the reliance on computers, we are making it more and more difficult for flight crew to stay in the loop, then I agree.

MOSTAFA

2nd Mar 2017, 06:42

Mil26 I'll ask you again are you for real? Do you have some sort impediment that requires you to rebroadcast everything I say to you to justify you don't like the verdict? WTF has OJ Simpson got to do with the price of fish? The judiciary of the land have passed their verdict. It's really that simple, just because you obviously don't like it you drag up OJ Simpson whoever he/she is! What is this fluffy world becoming. The bloke made a mistake, something we all do regularly, I don't know this pilot from Adam but if you are telling me valuable lessons have not been learn from this at no cost to life then you are very wrong. OJ Simpson FFS.

wiggy

2nd Mar 2017, 06:44

Nothing to say about the CM but absolutely in agreement with Jhieminga's post. It may be hard to comprehend if you've not flown modern FBW but it's not just a case of replacing old style rods and bell cranks, it has allowed the designers to incorporate subtleties such as envelope protection, and heaven knows what else and also a whole host of autoflight modes and sub modes that might at best get a passing nod in the "flying manual ". Just about anyone who has flown modern FBW for any length of time will have been "surprised" by some subtle feature of the FBW that they have been unprepared for or never been told about.

BEagle

2nd Mar 2017, 06:51

Timelord wrote:

Lots of posters seem to have missed the fact that he pleaded guilty to the charge involving camera / seat / side stick and pitch down and will, in due course, be sentenced for that. It was the allegation that he tried to cover up his actions of which he had now been acquitted.

A good summary. Sentencing is expected on Friday.

Linedog, there was no question of being 'caught out' as you put it. The Captain did not know what caused the event at the time. When it eventually emerged that his camera must have become jammed between the arm rest and the base of the side stick, he was was utterly devastated.

Voyager training will now no doubt include a warning that nothing must be placed on the sill panels, due to the risk of potential side stick fouling.

wiggy wrote: Just about anyone who has flown modern FBW for any length of time will have been "surprised" by some subtle feature of the FBW that they have been unprepared for or never been told about.

Or perhaps only told about briefly in a cost-driven TR course? I would hope that the extent and depth of Voyager training is reviewed in the light of this event.

Thud105

2nd Mar 2017, 07:53

It seems to me that the root cause of this accident (I would say it was more than an incident, as several people got hurt) has to be the placement of a loose object near a primary control.
Was the inadvisability of doing this not covered in basic flight training?

beardy

2nd Mar 2017, 07:53

So we are back to blaming the aircraft and the system.

Jhieminga

2nd Mar 2017, 08:26

My post was trying to point out that although the root cause is not in doubt, the subsequent confusion and delay in taking action was severely hampered by the disconnection between crew awareness (of what the aircraft was doing) and system logic, and in my view this is an inherent problem in modern FBW flightdecks. I think that this is a very important learning point from this accident but it is being overshadowed by other opinions about this saga.

BEagle

2nd Mar 2017, 08:41

I don't know how your draw that inference, beardy; no-one appears to be 'blaming' the aeroplane in recent posts.

The HF issues associated with 'automation surprise' and 'startle effect' cannot be ascribed simply to the aeroplane, but should be largely mitigated by improved training and particularly by more rigorous simulator sessions.

As I learned at a recent EASA meeting, following the AF447 accident involving an A330, some airlines are now beginning to grasp this nettle rather more firmly than perhaps was the case hitherto.

beardy

2nd Mar 2017, 09:12

The FBW characteristics of Airbus have been raised. Apart from preventing a disaster they have no bearing on the incident. The pilot did not read the FMA, this is a fundamental part of flying Airbus and is covered in depth in Airbus training . He did not make clear who was flying the aircraft, this is a fundamental part of captaincy. So far he has only admitted negligence in having a loose article. I posit that he handed the incident badly despite his training not because of it.

Just This Once...

2nd Mar 2017, 09:20

Sentencing is expected on Friday.

Well at least he will know quickly. Presumably everyone else who has taken a camera or other portable electronic device into a cockpit or flightdeck will be sentenced at a much later date?

The military courts are going to be busy for the next 20 years or so, especially as they can proceed against former serving personnel too.

Or will they expect this chap to 'take one for the team' without further action against anyone else?

:confused:

Thud105

2nd Mar 2017, 09:53

"Presumably everyone else who has taken a camera or other portable electronic device into a cockpit or flightdeck will be sentenced at a much later date"

Only if they allowed said device to wedge itself behind a primary control, causing multiple injuries and the grounding of an entire fleet....

Brian W May

2nd Mar 2017, 10:29

Only if they allowed said device to wedge itself behind a primary control, causing multiple injuries and the grounding of an entire fleet....

A rather important point methinks . . . .

thegndeng

2nd Mar 2017, 10:35

I presume that every pilot that's lost a loose article in the flightdeck is going to be prosecuted?

This was a bad incident but the pilot did not do it willfully.

Maybe also people are going to wait for the full CM transcripts to be made available before second guessing the CM reasoning behind finding him not guilty of lying?

tucumseh

2nd Mar 2017, 10:57

Or rather, missing an important point. Unless of course you subscribe to MoD's policy of not mitigating risk until after it manifests itself. That policy has killed too many.

Thud105

2nd Mar 2017, 13:05

"I presume that every pilot that's lost a loose article in the flightdeck is going to be prosecuted?"

No, - and no one has suggested that, it would be silly. But as previously pointed out, those that let a loose article wedge behind a primary control, causing multiple injuries and the grounding of an entire fleet possibly should be. Or do you think not?

thegndeng

2nd Mar 2017, 13:44

You make it sound like he purposely placed it there!! This was a tragic incident that he's admitted negligence to and will rightly be punished for. However the punishment need to be just.

He's not the first to take a camara or large object on the flight before and he won't be the last.

Hueymeister

2nd Mar 2017, 15:40

I bet the cross-cockpit authority gradient and all round atmosphere on the Voyager fleet will be interesting once the SI Sqn Ldr gets through the Voyager OTU!

sycamore

2nd Mar 2017, 18:56

A thorough `Handing over/Taking over control` of the aircraft would have prevented this near accident.....

Jhieminga

2nd Mar 2017, 19:02

I'm curious, could you elaborate on that?

sycamore

2nd Mar 2017, 20:01

If you read the report the Captain was using his camera whilst the co-pilot was out of the cockpit..as he was bored.
At some point the camera was put on the side,the Captain moved his seat forward,and there was a slight input to the sidestick,but not enough to disconnect the autopilot.A short while later the seat was again motored forward,moving the camera against the sidestick,pushing it forward,triggering an autopilot disconnect .
and the following `plummet`.
When `Taking-over control` from another pilot,even if the `other pilot is not leaving his seat,it is incumbent upon you to ensure you are fully harnessed,seat/armrests/pedals adjusted/headset etc/emergency oxygen mask ready/charts/maps all to hand,before you take control of the aircraft;It is your responsibility...even more so if the other pilot leaves his seat/cockpit...And there you remain,until relieved....not pi%%&*g about taking photos/chewing sandwiches ,moving the seat back/forwards,etc,etc.....

Jhieminga

2nd Mar 2017, 20:32

Thank you for that, I agree that this would have prevented this incident. But I wonder how many crews actually operate to this standard these days. That's why I mentioned the Swiss cheese model a few posts back, you've described what amounts to one additional layer in this model but in this case all the other holes (and there were quite a few of them) lined up as well. I guess that on many flightdecks small deviations from this procedure for taking over have been accepted for many years and as we're getting away with it, we're forgetting the reason for doing it like this in the first place.

thegndeng

2nd Mar 2017, 21:02

The SI highlights many things that individually would not cause an issue but in this case have all summed together in this incident. The captain needs to take responsibility for some and his admission of negligence goes someway. Although other crew members that day could possibly have prevented it.

There is also the 'cultural' side to it. How many flight crews do the correct hand over process, how many take unnecessary items on the flightdeck, how many spend excessive time away from the flightdeck, how many pilots left in sole charge don't become distracted etc.

In order to apportion blame, find culpability and give a fair punishment you need the full facts and evidence and also ask was his actions rouge and one off or was this a cultural problem across the RAF and the 'norm'

We are still not is possession of the full evidence that the CM has heard/seen.

beardy

2nd Mar 2017, 21:12

If, during the recovery, the CM2 (first officer/co-pilot) had been given control and had taken it and used the instinctive disconnect button to isolate CM1's sidestick, the event would have ended then and there. Instead both pilots wrestled with the controls, a no-no in an Airbus.

etsd0001

2nd Mar 2017, 22:46

I doubt there was any wrestling, I'd image both pilots were pulling back together!

OTA Warrior

3rd Mar 2017, 07:56

I may have missed this detail, but if both pilots were pulling back on their sticks, wouldn't the captain have realised the problem with the wedged camera?

jayteeto

3rd Mar 2017, 09:23

It's interesting that "startle" has been added to our company annual CRM refresher.
I knew Andy a long time ago, we shared a room on IOT. Even in that short time, I was surprised to hear that he was accused of lying. He was a quiet and professional lad who had no signs of arrogance or 'poor attitude'.
I have been on the wrong end of a fatal board of enquiry that went for my throat. I had to fight the system for months and it took ME to present information to the board with the threat of a brilliant civilian solicitor, before they would look at it. A VSO looked at it personally and backed me up. I had no confidence in the board and expected to be disciplined (career ending)

BEagle

3rd Mar 2017, 09:41

jayteeto, indeed. In some of his posts, beardy correctly describes what should have happened and that recovery could have been effected earlier if the correct procedure had been followed once CM2 was back in his seat.

Which is all fine and dandy - except that, as airlines now recognise, 'startle' means that correct abnormal procedures will not always be followed when something entirely unexpected happens. With a sudden bunt towards the Black Sea, the co-pilot off the flight deck having to pull himself off the ceiling into the seat, a plethora of call-outs and warnings, I would reckon that there was considerable 'startle' on this flight deck.

Andy recognises that he was careless with his camera, but whether the training the crew had received was adequate to recognise and recover from the situation in a textbook manner will doubtless be something being 'reviewed'...and should certainly have a significant bearing on the Courts Martial sentence. But will it....:uhoh:

thegndeng

3rd Mar 2017, 10:17

As already pointed out the one thing no SI, investigation or CM can have work out correctly is the level of stress how people's thoughts processes work in that environment. The actions that day were those of two very frightened pilots trying to recover the aircraft. I dare say the lack of Airbus 330 experience is a major factor in some of their reasoning.

While we can fault their actions from the outside, none of us were in thier shoes at the time.

H Peacock

3rd Mar 2017, 10:23

Birdstrike, Engine failure, Fire warning, UFCM - they'll all 'startle' you to a degree, but I would still expect a logical and swift response from anyone in the seat other than ab initio! It may well not be textbook, but to immediately assume the autopilot is trying to kill you is somewhat of a disappointing reaction.

beardy

3rd Mar 2017, 10:23

In an Airbus looking at the FMA should be second nature, it is neither an abnormal nor an emergency procedure. In this case it would have been obvious that the autopilot was not engaged. And yes, I have had an unexpected high altitude upset that tripped the autopilot after 5hrs in the cruise on the return to UK non acclimatised.
BEagle as an ex QFI and Captain you understand the importance of knowing who is handling the aircraft. In this case both pilots were. In my case the FO was, I assisted him.

Was I lucky? More pertinently, was I lucky to follow procedures?

TorqueOfTheDevil

3rd Mar 2017, 10:35

Voyager OTU

I wonder how many crews actually operate to this standard these days

Ah, the halcyon days of the Clipper Skippers...

if both pilots were pulling back on their sticks, wouldn't the captain have realised the problem with the wedged camera?

+1

tucumseh

3rd Mar 2017, 11:09

I'm obviously not aircrew but I do recall startle (or WTF was that and what do we do) being added to the specs for the pilot simulator and mission trainer for a certain helicopter in 1998, after introduction of a mandatory safety mod. But when a later BoI report was issued (7 dead), it became clear the changes had been cancelled, probably to save money.

beardy

3rd Mar 2017, 11:11

if both pilots were pulling back on their sticks, wouldn't the captain have realised the problem with the wedged camera?

No. The control columns are not linked, they move independently. As I understand it, the Captain could not move his control column, he surmised (without checking on the FMA) that the autopilot wouldn't let him (I have no idea why he would think that) he tried to disconnect an already disconnected autopilot using the button on the control column. If he had held this for 45 seconds he would have disconnected the other Pilot's control column. Luckily he didn't. The other pilot pulled back on the cc, the aircraft summed the inputs. This had no effect since the protections had already kicked in to start to pitch the aircraft up in order to control the speed. Had the obstruction remained in place there are 2 scenarios, either the other pilot continues to pull back, the aircraft sums the inputs and maintains 1g flight in whatever attitude it finds itself or the other pilot disenables the Captain's cc by taking control. Luckily, in +g flight the obstruction cleared itself.

Brian W May

3rd Mar 2017, 11:29

But I wonder how many crews actually operate to this standard these days.

I notice TorqueOfTheDevil also had highlighted that too.

Why wouldn't you? Have flight decks become THAT complacent that folks don't consider 'could I actually control it (the aircraft) having parroted the 'I have control' words'?

Having trained and flown on analog jets etc, our concern was always that glass cockpits and increasing levels of automation would ultimately de-skill pilots.

If the above attitude is reflected in (in)actions, then it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Very worrying that basic tenets of flight safety may be at risk. I often sat and mentally went through a random emergency drill - don't folks do that either?

Timelord

3rd Mar 2017, 12:54

Anyway, has anyone heard the sentence?

Jhieminga

3rd Mar 2017, 13:07

As I understand it, the Captain could not move his control column, he surmised (without checking on the FMA) that the autopilot wouldn't let him (I have no idea why he would think that) he tried to disconnect an already disconnected autopilot using the button on the control column.
With the autopilot engaged, the solenoid in the sidestick assembly restricts the movement of the pitch and roll axes, as Airbus states: "one solenoid to introduce; in AP mode, a higher threshold to move the side stick out of the zero position."

So when the Captain tried to move the side stick he felt a restriction and took this to be the side stick solenoid, leading him to conclude that the autopilot was still engaged. So there you are, FMA stating one thing, force on the side stick saying something else. What do you do? A pitch down command would have shown him that it was not the solenoid, but that is completely counter-intuitive at that point. Moving the stick from side to side would have told him the same thing, but with one parameter already moving off the scale, introducing a second variable in the form of a roll command would not be my first idea either. Confused? I would be.

And this is where another gotcha from Airbus flight deck design turns up. All your information as a pilot comes from the screens and instruments in front of you. So that is where you logically look for help whenever the world doesn't make sense to you. With a control column right in front of you it would be relatively easy (if you would have the spare brain capacity to think of it) to glance down and perhaps spot the offending object that is blocking it. With the side stick next to your hip on the lefthand side you have to consciously move your head and look down to spot the problem. Assuming you are sitting in front of your computer at this point have a go at this yourself. Rest your left hand in the approximate position of the side stick and focus on several points on and around your computer screen. See if your peripheral vision will pick up something that is below your wrist at the edge of your vision. Now try to visualise what happens when you are startled, frightened and the adrenaline is flowing freely through your bloodstream (and perhaps your underpants), your pupils dilate, allowing more light to enter, and visual exclusion—tunnel vision—occurs, allowing greater focus but resulting in the loss of peripheral vision.

I'm pretty sure I would not have seen the camera.

212man

3rd Mar 2017, 13:21

Interesting background info to the report here: http://www.isasi.org/Documents/library/technical-papers/2015/orr-voyager_pitch_down.pdf

Of particular note:
It is noteworthy that during the pitch down, the Captain, in his desperation to regain control, considered switching off the Air Data and Inertial Reference Units (ADIRU) in order to place the aircraft into ‘direct law’ control mode. Had he done this, the aircraft’s pitch and over-speed self-protection features would have been disabled and the aircraft would almost certainly have exceeded its certified flight envelop limits by a considerable margin, potentially leading to significant damage to the aircraft.

An understatement I'd suggest.

beardy

3rd Mar 2017, 13:24

Have you ever disengaged the autopilot on an Airbus by moving the control column? I have, both deliberately as part of the initial course (as everybody does) and accidentally. It does not require a large force. The control column moves, it feels like it overcomes a notch, the autopilot disengages complete with a cavalry charge warning and full, unrestricted, movement is restored. It is very difficult to confuse with a control column which will not move at all as in this case.

I don't know whether I would look at the control column in those circumstances. If the rudders were jammed, would you look at them? I agree the cc is out of peripheral vision.

Harley Quinn

3rd Mar 2017, 13:30

I just find it difficult to understand how, when taking hold of the control stick he was unable to notice the camera, surely it being jammed against the stick would have hindered his ability to hold it? or am I missing something?

beardy

3rd Mar 2017, 13:36

Yes you are missing something. Have a look at the photos in the SI and you will see the angle he had his armrest and the top of the cc. The armrest, cc and forearm would have formed a triangle in to which the camera would fit. The SI also comments on his preferred armrest position.

Top Bunk Tester

3rd Mar 2017, 13:36

Although the verdict of the recent CM must be respected and the individual concerned not be further besmirched, I have something niggling away like an itch that needs to be scratched. The CM found that the Captain genuinely believed that there was a system fault with the a/c and that he had no knowledge of the DSLR fouling the sidestick and therefore causing the 'undemanded' descent of the a/c, so was shocked when this was found to be the cause of the descent.

As we all know, when we carry out a repetitive action over a period of time we develop 'muscle memory' for that particular task, whether that be skiing, driving or in this case, flying. We all carry out repetitive tasks in one form or another every day. The only time these tasks become noteworthy or unusual is if there is a deviation from the normal 'muscle memory' state.

The Captain stated that he had no clue that the DSLR was between the seat armrest and the sidestick.

If we look at the first photo (taken from the SI Document) we see the interaction between armrest/sidestick/forearm. A comfortable and ergonomic position to control the a/c from and a position from which 'muscle memory' is committed.

http://i932.photobucket.com/albums/ad168/Gadget_Meister/IMG_3323_zpsjjtuojhr.jpg

If we now look at the undisputed forensic reconstruction of the fouling in the last photo, I just have one question.

http://i932.photobucket.com/albums/ad168/Gadget_Meister/IMG_3322_zpszrnfb96d.jpg

How can you take hold of the side stick without your left wrist coming into contact with the DSLR? Accepting that something highly unusual, unexpected and distracting is happening to your a/c, you attempt to take corrective action and find it has no effect. Firstly your 'muscle memory' will alert you that something does not feel 'normal' you would then use another sense (sight?) to confirm what is causing the 'alert', even just a quick glance would be all that would be required. Also you can plainly see the stick is deviated considerably to its fwd end of travel, which again would ring the muscle memory alarm bells. Does anybody else feel the itch?