Voyager Plummets (Merged)

[Jhieminga]

<In reply to Top Bunk Tester's itch>

A good question. The only thing I can think of (I'm speculating here) is that with the aircraft in a negative g bunt your arm may not be resting on the armrest but floating somewhat above it, depending on the tightness of your harness and perhaps a bit of 'give' in the system. I agree that muscle memory would normally pick up on something like this, but from hanging upside down in a Pitts I also know that under severe negative g muscle memory is not totally reliable as the sensations are so different.

[Top Bunk Tester]

beardy

Given the circumstance, in all honesty, would you have delicately taken hold of the top of the stick and applied just the normal amount of pressure. And for a second let's assume that this is what you did, then your next move would be to apply more pressure and shift your grip....... And surely the SI would have reconstructed the Captain's normal flying position in photo's that would ultimately be used as evidence in a CM?

Obviously none of us knows the actual circumstances, we weren't there. I'm just asking the question that others (several, all aircrew) have voiced to me privately.

[beardy]

TBT. I am sorry I didn't clarify. No In these circumstance and as also practiced in an emergency descent I would have gripped the CC firmly. The pressure required to move it is proportional to the displacement. That pressure, when released returns the CC to the neutral position. When the autopilot is engaged the CC is held in that neutral position, never anywhere else (i.e. not fully forward.)

I would imagine that you are correct, the SI would have replicated the seat and armrest positions, that does not ensure his forearm position was the same as in the photograph.

[Wessexdriver72]

It will be interesting to hear what changes will be implemented both within the RAF and to civilian airlines following this accident regarding what behaviors are acceptable in the cockpit/flightdeck.

What I mean is, how do pilots ward off boredom and low arousal levels when doing a boring and under-arousing job, particularly for the long hours in the long-haul cruise environment?

Obviously there are house-keeping jobs to complete in the cruise, such as waypoint activity, fuel checks, aircraft systems checks. There is the general situational awareness of where we are going, who are we talking to, what is coming up next. And there is the emergency awareness to update and 'what ifs" of what would we do with an engine failure, a fire, a passenger medical emergency. Can we drift down, what's the MSA for a depressurisation etc...and the list goes on...

But this can all be done and discussed in the first hour of the cruise, and updated as the situation changes or periodically; perhaps at the next FIR boundary, or at the next waypoint. But what happens when there are no changes over the ocean at night and waypoints are more than 45 mins apart? It is well established that humans are exceptionally bad at monitoring things when very little is changing except perhaps the distance-to-go and the fuel slowly ticking down on a long journey. It can be like watching paint dry.

What is the best way to keep awake and active in a very boring environment? What are the acceptable ways of maintaining an active mind, and thus minimizing the 'startle' response when things go wrong?

I would suggest that taking a break and leaving the cockpit for a cup of tea, as the copilot did, is an excellent way to get the blood flowing again and revitalize himself.

But I would also suggest that reading the paper, or a book, or an e-reader might also be a good diversion for a few minutes at a time. Perhaps checking the aircraft screens at the end of every news article, or when turning the page, might also be a good idea. Indeed engaging your mind with a little star gazing and in-flight photography, as the voyager captain was doing, might also be fully acceptable. Just be careful where you put down your book, paper, camera or mug of tea!

And does the situation and range of acceptable activities change when the other pilot is absent? Would it be unacceptable to do anything other than stare at the aircraft's displays if your fellow pilot was taking a physiologically required break. Or what if your airline's rules allowed the other pilot to take a short sleep in the seat?

Do you think there will be new restrictions to limit how pilots stay awake, and keep mentally active, alert and ready to deal with unforeseen situations?

[AutoBit]

Top Bunk Tester,

You're spot on. A number of us feel the same way. In accepting the verdict of the CM, I can only summise the utter panic going on in the flight deck.

The big 'scratch' that I can't itch, like you, is how he didn't see or notice the obstruction. It's already been mentioned that, unlike a control column, you need to make a positive effort to move your head and check the side-stick. So what!! Move your damm head then! I've had a control restriction in a FBW a/c where the controls are not immediately in your line of sight. One of the first things I did was to move my head down and look in between my legs to see if anything was blocking the controls. I then asked the other guy to do the same. My immediate and automatic response was 'what the hell is stoping the stick from moving?', and so I looked down.

[OTA Warrior]

The position of the camera in relation to the stick is what I was confused about....how could control be taken, or attempted to be taken, without realising a big chunk of something was in the way?

[thegndeng]

I'd like to listen to the CVR. The monologue text in the SI gives no idea to the actual tome and confusion on board. Listening to the actual recording would help to understand the context

[insty66]

All over now? (http://forces.tv/65112869)

[beardy]

That is somewhat over the top IMHO.

[Top Bunk Tester]

Well beardy, I find myself agreeing with you. As previously stated, we have to respect the verdict of the Court on the other three counts and it was a guilty plea on Negligence (Shame there isn't a charge of temporarily of being an idiot, something I think we could/would all plead to for past indiscretions, if we were being honest)

I am still of the opinion that had this been handled differently, by several parties, this would have resulted in a hats on with the AOC and a couple of years loss of Captaincy/seniority. MoD would then have paid out to those injured and the world would continue to turn AND we would have all learnt a valuable lesson.

However my itch still needs scratching.

[Treble one]

Undoubtedly this was a very serious incident and the officer in question was clearly negligent in his actions (as per the findings of the CM) which did cause considerable damage to, the aircraft, and many injuries on board.


However, I was extremely surprised to see things like costs introduced to the summing up by the prosecution in a bid to 'bolster their argument'.


I recall a very famous incident of a wheels up landing in a hawk which not only caused considerable damage the aircraft, but did considerable damage to many cars and a control tower......


I don't think the officer was dismissed from the service (nor went to a CM), and indeed I recall a very honest self appraisal of the accident in a well known safety publication.


I think there would have been quite a sum of money involved there too?


Presumably the main thrust of the CM was based on a judgement of whether the officer in question was being dishonest about the accident? Now he's been proven not guilty on these counts, it seems that dismissing him from the service, because 'he cost us a lot of money' is cutting ones nose off to spite ones face?


We have, after all, invested a considerable amount of time and money, in this officer over many years?

[Exrigger]

It would be interesting to see where people would place the pilot IAW the Just Culture and James Reason's FAIR flow chart (first one), in use within civil and military environments:

http://www.raes-hfg.com/reports/21may09-Potential/21may09-baines.pdf

[Chinny Crewman]

Didn't see that coming!

Any news on Sqn Ldr Nathan Giles? It was alleged by pilots that Giles threatened them during interviews for the SI (having switched the tapes off). Is he really on the Voyager OCU? Is there any investigation into his alleged behaviour?

[Harley Quinn]

Totally shocked at that outcome

[Brian W May]

Sad, but it's probably justice had to be seen to be done . . .

Inevitable in my book. He was the captain, he was on his own, he undoubtedly caused the incident. What else could the CM say?

[Pontius Navigator]

I have not finished reading the rest of the threads, pages 38/39, but there are loose articles and lost articles and unreported articles.

Earlier it was said that as ground crew he would expect a CM for a loose article. An unreported one, yes. Practically everything taken into a cockpit is a loose article until properly stowed.

I pointed out earlier the self-evident fact that a BA pilot had used a camera on the flight deck and that while the CM was in progress.

[Harley Quinn]

Sad, but it's probably justice had to be seen to be done . . .

Inevitable in my book. He was the captain, he was on his own, he undoubtedly caused the incident. What else could the CM say?

I think, if you check out the FAIR model a few posts up, that is supposed to encourage honesty in return for a just outcome, cost does not feature in the decision making model. I believe he was wrong, as does he by his guilty plea, but this sentence can only lead in future to outright denial of events and the closing of ranks. I think Flight Safety just took a massive step backwards.

[theboywide]

I'm a little shocked here tbh.
If you take away the charges of perjury etc, for which he was found not guilty, then you must assume the captains version of events are true.
In his case, the negligence of duty charge is a case of an honest man who made a mistake and reported what he saw to the letter.

How does this support a just culture and encourage open reporting when someone who made a mistake and reported what he saw and did is not only thrown out of the service but given a jail sentence and a criminal record.

This frankly stinks. Had there been no accusation of perjury the consequences could well have been so different. There are plenty of incidents where mistakes have written off multi million pound aircraft and resulted in nothing more than remedial training. How is this result either fair or just.

[Heathrow Harry]

The article or the sentence?

[Exrigger]

HQ, quite correct had the just culture the RAF promotes was followed, the FAIR model should have been included as part of the SI, and I could not get him across the red line into major disciplinary box.

That said I investigated an incident quite a while back and I was amazed at the numerous attempts by the management to try various convoluted discussions to get the person over the red line to fit the 'punishment' they had pre-determined they needed to set an example to others, not what the Just Culture ethos is about really. They did it get it right in the end.

[Harley Quinn]

In a similar vein, was Investors in People that a certain RAF station was awarded, when you read the criteria, most of them the station failed on, in the humble opinion of those who worked there.

Not really sure the IiP, (Investors in Plaques) gig is appropriate for this thread, I think this is serious sh!t, not an education officer's tick in the box.

[Exrigger]

Apologies HQ, was not trying to water down or intimate that it is not a serious matter.

[FJ2ME]

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.

I think the report says that the co-pilot did indeed do that, but as the captain believed that the autopilot had commenced the dive he was also pushing the autopilot disconnect button. As with all Airbus aircraft, once the autopilot is disconnected the same button becomes a "control override" button. So copilotpressed to overide captain, captain pressed to disconnect autopilot but actually overrode copilot, and so it went on. This stems from the captains lack of SA that the control column on his side was deflected fully forward and the autopilot disconnected.

Anyhow, this whole incident, including the SI and court martial has presented the RAF in a very bad light, and has denigrated the reputation of RAF pilots generally. I do not believe the man lied but his negligence, as he admits, caused the manoeuvre, and thus he is punished. Personally I think a bit harsh but there we go. Pour encourager les autres...

[Just This Once...]

So the going rate for an inadvertent action is a prison sentence and dismissal from the Service.

Brutal.

Quite a change from the days (i.e. every day before today) where you could crash a jet, or depart it from controlled flight or land one gear up or drop a live 1000lb bomb in your mates face, or accidentally strafe a UK range with HE, or bomb the wrong island, or shut down the remaining serviceable engine, or running out of fuel, or loft your external tanks or countless other mistakes with more drastic repercussions that would go without a criminal sanction.

Bye bye military aviation.

[tubby linton]

I am going to ask again because nobody has answered it, where were this crew trained on the Voyager?Manufacturer, in-house or third party? Having read these pages and the reports it seems to me that whoever trained them gave very poor service.

[Just This Once...]

Were the actions as intended?

No

Knowingly violating safe operating procedures?

Yes

Were procedures available, workable, intelligible and correct?

Yes

Routine or normative or common practice to ignore procedure?

Yes

= System induced violation

Anybody else get to the same point in the FAIR flow chart?

[TaccoHell]

I completely agree with Just This Once's post (775). The punishment is not in keeping with precedent and this will make military aircrew seriously question their position and question the future of open and honest reporting and the so-called Just Culture. In my humble opinion both are now in tatters.

I know Andy having been through an OCU and served on the same Sqn on a previous type quite some years ago; I feel for him this evening.

[Speedywheels]

People who were down the back end may feel justice has been done.

If it had ended up in a smoking hole we may never have known the root cause. Thankfully we do know what happened and nobody died, although some passengers/crew will will have to live with the consequences.

I have no sympathy for the Captain- he messed up and he has to now take his punishment. Sorry if that doesn't chime with you but he had a responsibility to his crew and passengers which he did not meet.

A very sorry tale and hopefully some lessons have been learnt and will be incorporated. We shall see..........

[Harley Quinn]

People who were down the back end may feel justice has been done.

If it had ended up in a smoking hole we may never have known the root cause. Thankfully we do know what happened and nobody died, although some passengers/crew will will have to live with the consequences.

I have no sympathy for the Captain- he messed up and he has to now take his punishment. Sorry if that doesn't chime with you but he had a responsibility to his crew and passengers which he did not meet.

A very sorry tale and hopefully some lessons have been learnt and will be incorporated. We shall see..........

I think you are wrong about the justice bit.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Shocked.
When the sentence for coming clean is just as harsh as one might expect for perjury then all hope is lost.

So in the future it might be better to lie and have a chance of getting away with it, rather than tell the truth and get hung anyway. Sorry, but that punishment does nothing for flight safety.

[Harley Quinn]

Shocked.
When the sentence for coming clean is just as harsh as one might expect for perjury then all hope is lost.

So in the future it might be better to lie and have a chance of getting away with it, rather than tell the truth and get hung anyway. Sorry, but that punishment does nothing for flight safety.

Too right. Decades of work building a Just Culture down the pan.

[Speedywheels]

I think you are wrong about the justice bit.
Correction - replace 'may' with 'will'

[typerated]

Interesting to compare to the Vulcan's barrel roll and the CAA's (lack of) action!

[Just This Once...]

I think in any military flight safety investigation the best plan is to refuse to say anything and lawyer-up asap. Failing to cooperate with a unit or service inquiry runs less risk than this.

Presumably this will go to the appeals court so plenty more dirty washing to be aired.

[Pure Pursuit]

Just culture looks after people who have made mistakes. AT's actions were negligent, plain and simple so, I don't think it's unfair for the RAF to have removed him from his role.

Owning up to your own negligence does not make it any less serious. Personally, I think it's right that he has gone; he almost killed 200 people through complacency and negligence. I very much doubt that there is an airline out there that would have let him keep his job.

[The Old Fat One]

Presumably this will go to the appeals court so plenty more dirty washing to be aired.

Townshend pleaded guilty to negligently performing a duty and was also handed a four-month suspended prison sentence.

Might want to brush up on your legal skills dude. Usually when you plead guilty ain't much to appeal about.

[Brian W May]

Just culture looks after people who have made mistakes. AT's actions were negligent, plain and simple so, I don't think it's unfair for the RAF to have removed him from his role.

Owning up to your own negligence does not make it any less serious. Personally, I think it's right that he has gone; he almost killed 200 people through complacency and negligence. I very much doubt that there is an airline out there that would have let him keep his job.

As difficult as it might be to accept, I think the above covers it.

In another life, I was an RAF SFSO and it's my understanding that the no-blame reporting NEVER meant that if there was a gross breach of trust/competence et al that no action would be taken merely because it was reported honestly.

I believe one or two of you are getting it rather mixed up.

This particular case has attracted huge interest outside the RAF. The aircraft commander admitted his (gross) error of judgement. I'm sad that someone who has done so much good has suffered this, however it began and ended with HIS actions alone.

Only one pilot strapped in, nobody else in control and he was so bored he lost SA to this degree. If the board did not take action THEY not him would be castigated for not bearing their responsibility seriously.

No winners here - we'll see the court cases next . . .

[thegndeng]

I dont think the blame can be appprtioned the the captain alone. For instance, why the co pilot out of the flightdeck so long? He's being hailed as some kind of God in some forums. Yet I believe a little of the blame could rest on him. There's also clearly cultural issues going on here too.

I believe according to the CM rules we can appeal the sentence.

In my opinion the sentence is harsh. Negligence yes. Gross negligence no.

[Just This Once...]

Might want to brush up on your legal skills dude. Usually when you plead guilty ain't much to appeal about.

My legal skills are rather weak, but stronger than some it seams.

He can appeal his sentence, just like everyone else in his position.

[Linedog]

#788
I think that just about sums it up.

[Carbon Bootprint]

I can't help but be reminded of Victor Hugo's A Fight With A Cannon (http://www.everywritersresource.com/shortstories/a-fight-with-a-cannon-by-victor-hugo/), though that had a far more drastic outcome.

In any case, I wish well for all involved in this unfortunate incident.

[Airbubba]

Might want to brush up on your legal skills dude. Usually when you plead guilty ain't much to appeal about.

My legal skills are rather weak, but stronger than some it seams.

He can appeal his sentence, just like everyone else in his position.

Here's some guidance on appealing the sentencing for the sea lawyers here:

2.25 Variation Proceedings (slip rule) [s 163(3)(h)]

After the Court Martial has passed a sentence, power exists [footnote 12 - Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules 2009 rr 118 to 124] for the court to vary the sentence during the 56 days after sentence. Variation proceedings may take place of the judge’s own motion, or on the application of the prosecution or defence. The court comprises the same judge as at the sentencing proceedings and all the same lay members, or as many of them as can practicably attend in person or by live video link. The purpose of the variation proceedings is to correct legal errors in sentencing (such as a longer period of custody than the maximum for that offence, or a sentence which is not available for a person of that rank). It is not intended to be used so that discretion can be exercised differently, or because opinions have changed. A defendant wishing to seek a variation should write to the Judge Advocate General giving reasons for his application. The JAG will forward the application to the judge who sat in the sentencing proceedings for a decision as to whether to list the case for variation proceedings. There is no appeal against a judge’s decision not to proceed, but the sentence whether varied or not is still subject to appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/guidance-sentencing-court-martial.pdf

So, does the dismissal mean that he will get an 'immediate pension' plus the lump sum?

3.3.2 The Armed Forces Pension Scheme 75 (AFPS75)

Pension benefits start to build up at age 18 for other ranks/ratings and age 21 for officers.

An immediate pension is payable to other ranks/ratings after completion of 22 years service (i.e. at age 40, or later for those joining the Service after the age of 18), and to officers after completion of 16 years service (i.e. at age 37, or 38 for RAF officers, or later for those joining the Service after the age of 21).

Those who leave the service after qualifying for immediate pension also receive a tax-free lump sum worth three times the annual pension.

So in the future it might be better to lie and have a chance of getting away with it, rather than tell the truth and get hung anyway.

As I've been corrected before here, I think you mean 'get hanged anyway'. ;)

From Blazing Saddles (1974):

[Bart returns unexpectedly after being sentenced to death]

Charlie: They said you was hung.

Bart: And they was right.

[M1key]

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/HG-witchscene.php

Reporting Culture - Lost.
Just Culture - Non existent. (Back to the 1990s).

Not sure where we go from here?

Is Air Safety a priority or not? Most Safety "Risks to Life" are related to medical issues and operating vehicles (Land Traffic Accidents).

All that work trying to build elements of a safety culture lost overnight.

We will never have a proactive safety culture (mostly pathological, reactive at best).

"If" he'd been found guilty of lying, then I get it. Otherwise, this sends out the wrong message (but clearly not for everyone).

It's a "Crimson Tide" moment. I see and understand the arguments from both sides; however, this isn't really about cameras on a flight deck any more, it's about application of the FAiR Model. I still don't see how that was applied correctly, but what do I know....🙄 (Only those that are trained are allowed to use it anyway, don't believe me, read the regulations).

Would any of you admit to making a mistake again and report it because you trust the system?

It's going to be a difficult few weeks I expect.

😐

PS. He's just human, not a criminal. I know it was an awful experience for everyone down the back and they will feel that "justice" has been served. A Just Culture? Lost forever I expect.

"IT'S A FAIR COP" (Witch).

[Bob Viking]

M1key et al.

I suspect this is viewed very differently by most outside the multi-engined world (are you an ME guy?). I am a FJ guy with no experience of ME flying. I have also never flown on a Voyager but have been a passenger on many other ME types.

You and several others speak of a just culture gone forever. Maybe that is the general consensus within the ME world but I don't know of anyone in my world that feels that way. I don't know the pilot concerned and I'm sure he's a great guy but I think others have summed it up well. His negligence cannot go unpunished.

Some have tried to compare his actions to FJ incidents (the Cranwell Hawk for instance). Maybe I'm being precious or you may think I'm acting superior but when guys make mistakes in the FJ world they tend to be under very different pressures and operating in a very different way. I don't think it is possible to make direct comparisons with punishments (or lack of) handed down to a FJ pilot and the punishment in this case. They also do not have passengers.

I can empathise with the boredom experienced by ME pilots on a long flight but as a mere passenger I would expect there is always someone who is fully engaged with flying/monitoring the aircraft.

Despite the rules against carriage of cameras (in their current guise they only came in relatively recently - coincidence?!). I wouldn't have a problem with someone taking photos whilst someone else is with him (I have seen many cockpit photos on FB from airline pilots) but doing it whilst alone on the flight deck seems (to my FJ brain) a little silly.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts and despite how others feel this incident would not affect my decision to openly and honestly report an error. As we are always told a just culture is not a punishment free culture. That concept doesn't alter the way I do my job any more now than it did before the verdict was delivered.

BV

[Cows getting bigger]

BV, I agree. In my world (civilian AOC) we have clear protocols to follow when a pilot is left alone in the cockpit. In the simplest terms this encourages the pilot to concentrate on operating the aircraft, not taking photos.

Should he have been kicked-out? I don't know, but I am sure that my company would have given me a P45 if I had done the same.

[Pure Pursuit]

Those on here who believe that just culture will die as a result of this CM verdict don't understand, imho, the process. If the SI is ever proven to be, as suggested on here, less than 100 % subjective, we would have to look at this again but, as it stands, I think the JC system worked. It's a two way process... Punish mistakes and people won't report. Fail to punish negligence... a small minority will start cutting corners. On the fleet I'm on, the reporting culture is strong and I don't see how this CM will change that. We use the system as an invaluable method of highlighting issues. It's all down to the guys having confidence of their OC and of those above him/her. If that trust is in place, the system runs on rails.

If somebody is able to accurately place AT's actions into the 'error' or 'system induced violation' brackets, I'll stand corrected. Sadly, as I read it, its blatant negligence and had to be dealt with as such. As previously stated, his own actions brought him to this sad conclusion.

Somebody mentioned the Vulcan barrel roll going unpunished. Was that event ever proven? I only saw some random photographs. Perhaps there was insufficient proof.

[Treble one]

Those on here who believe that just culture will die as a result of this CM verdict don't understand, imho, the process. If the SI is ever proven to be, as suggested on here, less than 100 % subjective, we would have to look at this again but, as it stands, I think the JC system worked. It's a two way process... Punish mistakes and people won't report. Fail to punish negligence... a small minority will start cutting corners. On the fleet I'm on, the reporting culture is strong and I don't see how this CM will change that. We use the system as an invaluable method of highlighting issues. It's all down to the guys having confidence of their OC and of those above him/her. If that trust is in place, the system runs on rails.

If somebody is able to accurately place AT's actions into the 'error' or 'system induced violation' brackets, I'll stand corrected. Sadly, as I read it, its blatant negligence and had to be dealt with as such. As previously stated, his own actions brought him to this sad conclusion.

Somebody mentioned the Vulcan barrel roll going unpunished. Was that event ever proven? I only saw some random photographs. Perhaps there was insufficient proof.

In a recent interview Dr Plemming admitted the aircraft had been rolled and even named the handling pilots at the time saying that they had both regretted their actions.....

[BEagle]

The disproportionate severity of this iniquitous sentence is truly shocking. I sincerely hope that the case will go to appeal.

Thank you for the kind comments of those who've contacted me - I will try to pass them on to Andy.

tubby linton asked who had provided the initial TR training. I am told it was Thomas Cook Airlines. However, when that was and what levels of refresher theoretical knowledge training and simulator sessions were given since then, I do not know. The MoD spokeswoman stated that training had been reviewed - as the lawyers acting for the injured will no doubt wish to know, specifically what training and why did it need to be reviewed.

- What SOP was in place concerning one pilot off the flight deck? Was it followed?

- Why did the co-pilot spend so long making a cup of tea and "chatting with an old mate"?

- What guidance existed regarding the placing of objects on the sill panels?

From British Forces News:
Prior to sentencing, prosecutor Mr Nigel Lickley QC told the court of the consequences of Flt Lt Townshend's actions.

Mr Lickley QC raised the costs of the Voyager fleet being grounded for 13 days after the incident from the 9th to the 21st of February.

He told the court, according to information from Air Commodore Lushington, that several million pounds were paid to Airtanker for Service Defence, despite the fleet being grounded.

The repairs to the affected aircraft cost £207,000 including a new side and new ceiling panels.

In order to backfill the scheduled Voyager flights, £827,000 was paid for civilian aircraft to replace services.


As Lushington knows very well, AirTanker costs the taxpayer at least £1M per day, whether their rented aircraft fly or not. This is a consequence of the absurd PFI contract. Thus the true figure is probably the cost of damage to the aeroplane and for the civilian charters.

As others have stated, the severity of this sentence will simply ensure that no-one ever cooperates with a service inquiry without the presence of a solicitor. Errors and mistakes will go unreported, putting back Flight Safety (or is that now 'Air' Safety') several decades.

After his Bf109G accident, ACM Sir John Allison told us that he recognised that "People do make mistakes - I did", but that flagrant disregard for rules wouldn't be tolerated. Quite right too. But on this occasion, there was no flagrant disregard of rules and no intent to cause danger and distress. Andy was cleared of any accusation concerning his integrity, so when he said that he didn't know what caused the event, he was speaking the truth.

As someone said to me last night, "This is MoD being vindictive - we couldn't get him on perjury, so we'll give him the sentence he would have received if we'd won our case over the other charges".

It might have cost MoD around £1M plus the costs of this case, but when the lawyers acting for the injured lay into them, it'll undoubtedly cost them a whole lot more.

Every time I fly on an airliner these days, the safety brief mentions that turbulence can occur at any time, so whenever you are seated, you should keep your seatbelt loosely fastened. Does the RAF brief the same?

[safetypee]

Pure Pursuit, you make an interesting point at #797.
Just Culture involves the reporting of events or activity which could identify safety improvement, and assumes that the individual(s) involved knew of the contributing factors, and thus consciously understood what occurred at the time.
In this incident the 'cause' appears to have been deduced with hindsight, and thus an individual's contribution has been constructed - most probable cause.
From an individual viewpoint there was no 'error' to report, only the event, best described and investigated in technical terms, thus does not involve the process of Just Culture. Even so the close association with Just Culture will be very damaging.

The admission of 'error' was after the choice of legal activity.
In civilian terms this would be a separate process involving the law of the land, but in military terms, the investigation, choice of action, and legal process are all under the same umbrella. This is what 'we' sign-up for in the Military, but in return there is an exchange of trust involving fairness and proportionality.
This incident has challenged that trust, the loss of which may be far more damaging than apparently not promoting a Just Culture.

[Treble one]

Beagle I know you have a personal connection with the pilot in this case. I have to agree however as an outsider looking in, it seems that someone had decided that whatever happened at the CM this man was going to get 'nailed'. The whole point of the CM was surely to try the chap regarding his integrity. No one disputed the fact that he had been negligent in leaving the camera where he did.

BV thanks for your insight into the difference between the workload of the FJ pilot and the ME one. My contention in my comment was meant to highlight what I found strange in that the cost of this incident was almost used as a stick to beat this chap with in the CM.

[PEI_3721]

Spry; Wing Commander RAF, ..SO, ..FC*, etc. Laid to rest following a short and painful public illness.
The champion of RAF flight safety, a stalwart and foundation of operational improvement, efficiency, fairness and trust for nearly 100 years; undone in an instant.
Condolences from Pilot Officer P. Prune, T. Emm, 'Griff' the Gremlin, 'Murphy', and the Society of Just Culture.

A wake will be held at Prune Pava, home to many illustrious participants of 'wizard prangs'; no doubt there will many recollections of having 'been there' and 'done that'.
The lament should recall past successes, but through cloudy beer, the future of effective operation may be less assured.

Reporting of future events with regard to Spry will be withheld, but references to the necessary activity can be found in the publications of Reason, Dekker, Holnagel, Woods, Amalberti, which should be available at the highest levels of management (but if not, they are available on request).

[212man]

If the SI is ever proven to be, as suggested on here, less than 100 % subjective, we would have to look at this again but, as it stands, I think the JC system worked
Freudian slip?

Every time I fly on an airliner these days, the safety brief mentions that turbulence can occur at any time, so whenever you are seated, you should keep your seatbelt loosely fastened.

With pilots also making occasional abrupt control inputs too! Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation Investigation Report A11F0012 (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2011/a11f0012/a11f0012.asp)

[downsizer]

Beagle said

Every time I fly on an airliner these days, the safety brief mentions that turbulence can occur at any time, so whenever you are seated, you should keep your seatbelt loosely fastened. Does the RAF brief the same?

They do since this happened. Can't recall it pre incident.

[Chugalug2]

safety typee:-
In civilian terms this would be a separate process involving the law of the land, but in military terms, the investigation, choice of action, and legal process are all under the same umbrella. This is what 'we' sign-up for in the Military, but in return there is an exchange of trust involving fairness and proportionality.

Good post, st. The process that you describe is the absolute fundamental of Service life, and few would question it or seek to alter it. Unfortunately it is also the process of UK Military Air Safety, wherein the Operator (the MOD and its subsidiary Services), the Regulator, and the Air Accident Investigator, are also under the same umbrella. The direct result of this is that the Operator has effectively compromised and rendered toothless the other two components. BoIs and SIs have been prone to improper pressure from above, and the Regulator has been made dysfunctional for some three decades thanks to VSOs issuing illegal orders, the dismissal of experienced engineers who would not obey them and their unqualified replacements who would, and the wholescale scrapping of Regulations that had been disregarded anyway, together with the ongoing cover up and denial of all of that.

Whether or not this sentence was the result of VSO pressure I do not know. If it was, then I suspect it will eventually emerge. It always does. One thing is certain however, Aviation is not swayed by such pressures and will go on killing given half a chance. We combat that by a system of Air Safety, which is however broken in UK Military Aviation. That in turn means that our Air Power is badly compromised. All that could change if the RAF confronted the lie in Haddon Cave, and admitted that the so called "Golden Period" was anything but. Only then can the need for an independent Regulator and Investigator, both of the MOD and of each other, be officially recognised and acted upon. Only then can the slow return of airworthiness happen to UK Military Aviation.

[Heathrow Harry]

can I ask those who think the officer was badly done by to tell us what they think a fair & proportionate sentence should have been?

[BEagle]

Given 3 years of false accusation concerning his personal integrity, the alleged threatening behaviour of a senior officer at the Inquiry towards him and taking into consideration his unblemished career as a professional military aviator, for his moment of regrettable carelessness I would have expected him to have received a severe reprimand and 2 years loss of seniority.

Right now military justice is clearly an oxymoron.

[Heathrow Harry]

It's a tough call - he could have killed a lot of people by doing something a bit stupid but he didn't

I can't see letting him off totally - or allowing him to fly in the RAF again TBH but I really fail to see what a suspended prison sentence is supposed to achieve. Do they think he'll do it again??

[melmothtw]

As an outsider I appreciate that emotions are running high with those who know the pilot involved, but as an observation on the justice of it all I'd say that in any role if you come within a hair's breadth of killing nearly 200 people through your own negligence then losing your job is probably the least you can (and should) expect.

[sharpend]

I can only comment on what is written here, but in my many years as JP (no, not junior pilot) if a person is found Not Guilty of a charge then he should not the punished. It appears to me that all this pilot did was leave his camera in a dangerous place. Well, we have all taken photos from the flight deck and placed our cameras somewhere close. Obviously this pilot had no idea that what he did would result in a problem. So the error was not deliberate, but he was Culpable and caused Harm by his mistake. So he should be punished, but there is plenty of mitigation. Moreover, a person's previous record should be taken into account. Now I did not follow this case in Court and am not privy to all the facts. Additionally, in Courts Marshal there are two type of evidence: 'Beyond reasonable doubt' (which a criminal court must bide by, as in this case) and 'On the balance of probabilities', which is only used in civil proceedings. However, and here is the rub, sometimes, if the evidence lies between the two types of evidence, the judiciary will increase the sentence to the maximum they can award. Personally, given all the pilot did was make a mistake, but not forgetting the Harm element, I am surprised at the sentence. I wonder if MAFL has a list of Sentencing Guidelines as the civilian Judiciary have and if so, what it would be for a minor mistake that cause major Harm?

[Top Bunk Tester]

In the time between the initial not guilty verdict on the two counts of perjury and one count of falsifying a document, although I respected the the Courts verdict, I personally found it to be incredulous and still do, even though at that stage we knew the Captain had pleaded guilty to negligently performing a duty (which I opine was the lesser charge of the four) . I was suspicious that some horse trading had occurred between prosecution and defence.

I would have wholeheartedly agreed with the sentence IF and it's a big IF the Captain had been found guilty of the first three counts, it would have been proportionate to the alleged offence(s). But the fact is that he wasn't found guilty.

We all know that it wasn't a premeditated act, it was a mistake. A mistake that led to a situation with consequences that no aircrew would ever knowingly put themselves in. I regarded the negligence charge as the minor charge in the bigger scheme of things. I have tried to get the JC tables in post #763 to reflect a guilty outcome on the Captain and cannot, whichever way I cut it.

This all leads me to conclude that the sentence passed is wholly disproportionate in a Just Culture environment and was more of a revenge sentence for the Captain being found not guilty on the integrity charges. Something stinks and the unintended consequence of this is loss of the Just Culture environment ( if, of course, it ever existed in the first place )

In this case there will always be those that sit firmly on one side of the fence or the other and the repercussions of this poorly handled incident ( from the time the Co-pilot left his seat to the time the sentence was passed yesterday ) will be felt for many years to come.

[MOSTAFA]

Post 775 and well said Just this once. Hit the nail right on the head.

[sharpend]

I also recall a perhaps more serious accident some years ago where a Hercules Pilot (ex mate of mine) flew very low over a truck at South Cerney airfield, hit a soldier standing on the truck and killed him. I don't think he was awarded custody and I doubt if he was as he continued to serve afterwards.

[melmothtw]

I also recall a perhaps more serious accident some years ago where a Hercules Pilot (ex mate of mine) flew very low over a truck at South Cerney airfield, hit a soldier standing on the truck and killed him. I don't think he was awarded custody and I doubt if he was as he continued to serve afterwards.

Maybe the injustice was in that case rather than this one? Just saying.

[ImageGear]

Perceptions of what constitutes a really serious "beyond our control" situation are very different between the front office drivers, frequent flyers and the "SLF" sitting down the back in the cheap seats.

I have sat through prolonged turbulence knowing that we were simply bouncing along in the efflux of another jet that was a few miles ahead of us on the airway. Passengers without that knowledge tend to believe that they are on the edge of disaster and are preparing to meet their maker.

On a trans-oceanic flight we were once denied entry around 56/10 due to a defective INS and were forced to return to Heathrow. Many pax did not understand that this is a situation where nothing serious had occurred and were scrutinising every part of the interior and exterior of the aircraft to see if the pilot was in fact lying, and we were all "doomed".

When the fuel dump started from the wing tips the shouts went up "We're on fire", I was reassuring a number of pax in my area by explaining that the aircraft was simply dumping fuel to get down to landing weight. I ended up holding an old ladies hand for almost 2 hours until the wheels were back on the ground.

In the situation described in previous posts, even seasoned flyers would have been considering their options. Consequently, I am inclined to see the judgement as being appropriate to the level of fear and anguish among the passengers and crew, not just the front office, and not just the act of endangering the aircraft. I'm sad that it occurred with the pilot, who will, I am fairly sure, get over the fear a lot faster than his pax.

Finally to say that many members of the RAF and other services are as uncomfortable and fearful of flying as any who "bus" it down to Ibiza every year.

Imagegear

[iRaven]

Oh dear, people have been using the wrong FAIR model. You need to use the Defence Aviation one in the Manual of Air Safety. See page 44:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/577618/MAS_Issue_5.pdf

Was there a conscious, substantial and unjustifiable disregard for risk?

No, but only just!

Were the rules broken intentionally?

Yes, he took a personal item of equipment onto the flight deck.

Given the condition at the time could the task been done in accordance with the rules?

Yes, he didn't need the camera.

Was the action to the benefit of the individual?

Yes, he would get some nice pictures for his personal collection.

That means under DA-FAIR it crosses the 'red line' as "Selfish Rule Breaking / Violation". If I were really hard nosed about it and answer "yes" to the first question then it would be "Recklessness".

Now the fact that he has caused permanent injury to his crew and passengers - all of which trusted their lives to his impeccable behaviour - he has to be punished. Is it too harsh? Ask those with injuries they will have to suffer from for the rest of their lives.

Sorry, but consequences always have a bearing on the level of punishment. He has been punished for what he has done - intentionally or unintentionally.

iRaven

[iRaven]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpend View Post
I also recall a perhaps more serious accident some years ago where a Hercules Pilot (ex mate of mine) flew very low over a truck at South Cerney airfield, hit a soldier standing on the truck and killed him. I don't think he was awarded custody and I doubt if he was as he continued to serve afterwards.
Maybe the injustice was in that case rather than this one? Just saying.

Absolutely. A poorly tried case where the Rad Alt unlocking for a very short time as it crossed the airfield boundary effectively swayed the Jury. He was very lucky to get away with it in my humble opinion. I understand that he never flew again and left the RAF?

[iRaven]

Spry; Wing Commander RAF, ..SO, ..FC*, etc. Laid to rest following a short and painful public illness.
The champion of RAF flight safety, a stalwart and foundation of operational improvement, efficiency, fairness and trust for nearly 100 years; undone in an instant.
Condolences from Pilot Officer P. Prune, T. Emm, 'Griff' the Gremlin, 'Murphy', and the Society of Just Culture.

A wake will be held at Prune Pava, home to many illustrious participants of 'wizard prangs'; no doubt there will many recollections of having 'been there' and 'done that'.
The lament should recall past successes, but through cloudy beer, the future of effective operation may be less assured.

Reporting of future events with regard to Spry will be withheld, but references to the necessary activity can be found in the publications of Reason, Dekker, Holnagel, Woods, Amalberti, which should be available at the highest levels of management (but if not, they are available on request).

A very whitty post, but had the Captain come forward that his camera might have clonked into the controls at some point then 'Just Culture' may have had a chance. Instead a long drawn out investigation revealed that his camera had clonked his controls - too late for 'Just Culture' by then...

[BEagle]

iRaven, those last 3 posts of yours really are utter rubbish.

There was no rule about taking items of personal equipment onto the flight deck; if you read further, you might note that he was intending to use the images to illustrate a technical manual he was putting together for the benefit of others.

How you can say that Hercules pilot who decapitated the soldier through ill-disciplined and unnecessary low flying 'got away with' anything is beyond me.

[H Peacock]

How you can say that Hercules pilot who decapitated the soldier through ill-disciplined and unnecessary low flying 'got away with' anything is beyond me.

Because he was found not guilty!!! ��

[Tankertrashnav]

I would have expected him to have received a severe reprimand and 2 years loss of seniority.

I'd go along with that, plus maybe a hefty fine. Also, he's what, 49? Maybe taken off flying and finish up his time doing a ground tour or two? Dismissed the service and suspended prison sentence seems incredibly harsh to me.

Incidentally how does the sentence affect his pension rights?

[Chinny Crewman]

Pension rights unaffected, he earned it. Obviously misses out on accruing a further 5-6 years of benefits.

[safetypee]

Many posts have fallen foul of hindsight bias.
The safety risk for an occurrence is a projection, a judgment of likely-hood and severity of outcome.
The risk in an event should not be judged after the fact, based on the outcome, on the findings of investigation, or on what could have happened. Nor should 'after-cast' risk / activity be based on the number of people who were subject to the risk during the event; a fatal accident is just as fatal for one person as for many.

Risk considers the potential for harm or fatality in a future event.
As a derivative of a civil aircraft with a 'novel' control system, then the risk of a jammed control would have had an extensive assessment. The certification would have considered system limiting and airframe integrity, and mitigating intervention by the second pilot; but other than for takeoff or landing this may not have considered the absence of that pilot; perhaps concluding that the risk was acceptable as defined by a previously agreed standard.

Arguably the risk of a similar event would be less because of publicity, but would that involve all similar aircraft, all operators irrespective of publicity, or at some future date when we forget lessons learnt.
Would the after-cast risk be judged differently if the second pilot was able to intervene earlier, or the pilot flying seen and removed the obstruction with minimum flight path deviation.

Judgement after the event might be appropriate where 'negligence' (www.hospitalmanagementasia.com/uploads/Pages/site167_30020_en_file1.pdf ) is defined as failure to exercise the skill, care, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent person; however the more serious category of 'recklessness' (appreciating that these definitions may not match those in a CM) - a conscious disregard of a visible, significant risk implies some predetermination and knowledge of the specific risk - the probability and outcome.
Negligence involves a failure in recognition - at the time; recklessness, a conscious disregard - intent, before the event.

Hindsight is a cruel weapon, but one which often backfires on those who judge.

"The hindsight bias (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.583.602&rep=rep1&type=pdf) is not about history and not a bias. Rather it is about controlling the future. Or, more specifically, about giving oneself the perception of being able to control the future." S Dekker

[alfred_the_great]

Having just spoken to our Flight, they think the Just Culture has been upheld. In knowingly taken an article not on the RTS into the cockpit, making it into a loose article, and then causing harm to his passengers through his actions, deserves punishment.

The fact he wanted to make a technical manual is neither here nor there.

As a member of the "SLF" and not the 2 winged PAS master race, I feel safer for him not flying me any more.

[fantom]

From post #748

As a (slight) aside, the captain's armrest - if accurately shown - is at an absurd position.

As a 330 instructor and examiner for very many years, I have only seen one captain have the armrest in a similar position and we had a very comprehensive conversation about it.

The armrest is to support the arm, to allow the wrist and hand free movement, not to act as an elbow fulcrum.

It should be about horiz with a bit of nose-down and as high or low as you like.

If he had been taught properly, or listened if he were, this accident would never have happened.

Was an Airbus expert at the CM to confirm this?

[iRaven]

Alfred

Well said :D.

The amount of hand-wringing by multi-engined Captains with the implied "how very dare you he is multi-engine Captain with 5,000hrs, don't you know?" attitude is an example of closing ranks if I ever saw one! Just like the Shoreham pilot, this guy scr3w3d up and hurt a lot of people (thankfully no one was killed). I find it laughable that he could not notice that a friggin' mahoosive camera was pushing his control stick forward at some point during the bunt manoeuvre whilst his poor co-pilot was doing the Apollo 13 - was he still looking outside at the stars??? :ugh:

Standing by for more "rubbish" accusations of my posts.

iRaven

[Bright-Ling]

Which definition do the military use?

"Just Culture" is a culture in which front-line operators and others are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them which are commensurate with their experience and training, but where gross negligence, wilful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated.- (Eurocontrol definition)

I guess we all accept the Capt had the experience. Training; Was that questionable? Wilful violation? Gross negligence?

Sad to see a competent person with lots of proven ability and skill to lose it all - but hard to see any other outcome, IMHO.

[Paracab]

My brother in law was on this particular trip and remains rather pissed off at being pinned to the ceiling wondering whether he was even going to make it to Afghan at all. He is a reasonable, amicable man, he also significantly outranks the Captain of this aircraft. The RAF pilot sat next to him wasn't that impressed either.

When I last had a chat with him I suggested some remedial training might resolve this issue. He still wanted to tear the Captain a new one. They went through 27 seconds of hell. Brother in law would rather be in a contact than that unknown. He **** out and cost the tax payer a million quid. Unfortunate end to an unfortunate situation. But ultimately correct. The old boys network went years ago.

[Legate]

Is taking a camera onto the flight deck negligent when it is considered perfectly normal to eat a meal whilst sat in the same seat, cutlery and all?

[Always a Sapper]

Moving away from the CM verdict for a moment, one thing leaps to my mind is to question why the seat/armrest/control stick was designed in such a way that allowed something to get jammed between the arm rest and the control stick in the first place?

[mr snow]

The negligence is based on the fact that, although being the sole person on the flight deck, he decided to direct his attention to taking happy snaps instead of flying the aircraft and taking responsibility for his crew and passengers. Try telling the military personnel who are stil too traumatised to fly on the Voyager that he was a bloody nice bloke who has been hard done by.

[alfred_the_great]

Is taking a camera onto the flight deck negligent when it is considered perfectly normal to eat a meal whilst sat in the same seat, cutlery and all?
I presume the eating of meals is in the RTS, and there are appropriate SOPs to ensure that if one of the pilots drops their fork, the aircraft doesn't go into a dive and seriously injure people, with the chance of killing all 200 onboard.

[Tankertrashnav]

"how very dare you he is multi-engine Captain with 5,000hrs, don't you know?

Would you care to give a link or just a post number where anybody on here has said anything of the sort?

As a member of the "SLF" and not the 2 winged PAS master race, I feel safer for him not flying me any more.

Not one of the "two winged master race either", and I am sure I wouldn't want him flying me, or anyone else again, but as I and others have posted the same result would be achieved by grounding him and docking him some seniority.

[m0nkfish]

I think discussions on just culture are futile now. The moment this went to a CM it effectively divorced itself from the flight safety world and set a trap which has now been sprung. I doubt the powers that be ever intended to string him up just for negligence, they wanted perjury and to nail him on integrity as its integrity that is held the most dearest of all in the military.

I hope the passengers onboard, particularly those that were injured can overcome what must have been a truly terrifying ordeal. I would be interested to see how this would have played out if the pilot had not pleaded guilty to negligence. Its probably the measure of the man that he pleaded so and a sign of how seriously he took his responsibilities that most likely weighed on him long after the aircraft was safely on the ground.

I do not know the pilot but on the presentation of the facts that are publicly known I disagree with the level of punishment and hope this goes to appeal. Nobody has won in this situation and the service has lost a highly valuable and experienced pilot. Given his otherwise unblemished record I would be more than happy to sit in the back of an aircraft he was in command of.

[tucumseh]

Always a Sapper

The answer is in Alfred the Great's earlier post....

In knowingly taken an article not on the RTS into the cockpitOne must be able to reconcile the Statement of Operating Intent and Usage, Aircraft Specification, Safety Case and RTS. In this case, you couldn't. According to previous reporting, it seems this subject came up in court, because he stated that it was known he took photographs, and some were on open display. Perhaps he concluded there was tacit approval; and it would seem nobody challenged him. After all, very few Aircraft Document Sets can be reconciled, and many RTSs are, frankly, nonsense. It works both ways. There is a duty to ensure the ADS is correct. At the risk of repeating myself, we have discussed many here that were not, including Chinook Mk2 and Sea King ASaC (the latter was a lazy copy of the old AEW Mk2, to such an extent it could be characterised as dangerous). There is an organisational fault here, and the pilot is the latest victim. He may have erred, but prior negligence occurred, only for the pilot to be hammered for the final act.

[Pontius Navigator]

So deleting the pictures from the camera was a red herring.

he stated that it was known he took photographs, and some were on open display.

[thegndeng]

If you are going to say he's negligent for taking the camara into to flightdeck against what the RTS says, then based on that thoery the entire Voyager fleet of pilots are negligent as they all take iPads etc on the flightdeck for use during the flight and the RTS says nothing about them either.

The court passed comment on the deleted photos saying while they don't believe he did it to cover any thing up, they believe he did it to save himself looking unprofessional. It fact he did himself no favours there but ultimately the court believes there was no intent to deceive in doing so.

Considering the Captain admitted negligence some 2 years the MOD need to answer why it took so long to go to court martial. Interestingly according to reports coming out, the judge asked the same question and also was less then happy with the prosecution for the near lack of evidence presented for the 3 charges he was found not guilty of.

[BEagle]

So deleting the pictures from the camera was a red herring.

Correct. That was commented upon previously - it's what most digital photographers do. Transfer all images to a storage medium, so that the best ones can be tweaked using digital image programs, but bin the ones that are no good. Or just delete them from the camera preview without bothering to download, if you judge them to be no good.

Back in the days of Ektachrome, I wouldn't keep all my slides either. Keep the good ones, throw out the rest.

Quite which numpty tried to make something of the fact that Andy had deleted images from his camera, I don't know. But it was a total red herring.

Those who haven't seen Andy's art have missed some truly excellent photography; his prowess as a photographer is well known.

[Chugalug2]

I see that it is now over 10 years since I joined here as a PPRuNe member. I remember that what motivated me to do so was the Mull "hitting back" thread, calling for the RAF BoI review finding against the deceased pilots to be scrapped. It was simply a sense of injustice at that stage, it was only later that it emerged that there was in fact proven Gross Negligence, it had simply been by VSOs, rather than the JO pilots that were their scapegoats.

I have that same feeling of injustice at this sentence. This JO has been found Not Guilty of Perjury and Lying. He has pleaded guilty to negligently performing a duty (by allowing his camera to jam the control stick), but the sentence for that seems vindictive to me (just as it did for the Mull pilots).

I would add that many of the FJ comments posted here about Multi engine pilots are equally biased in my view. They seem to imply that military justice should be more severe for those who are negligent, the larger their aircraft and the more the occupants. The corollary of course is that those in small single or dual seaters should be treated more lightly in contrast. That was certainly the apparent attitude of the CinC Strike Command in his treatment of Chinook and Tornado accidents under his command. With all due respect I think that he was gravely in error, despite his lack of consistency being blamed on a certain Legal Services Sqn Ldr.

Malevolence and Vindictiveness is no way to run an Air Force, it requires leadership. There appears to be a great dearth of that these days.

[wiggy]

Is taking a camera onto the flight deck negligent when it is considered perfectly normal to eat a meal whilst sat in the same seat, cutlery and all?

At the risk of now being an outsider (ex RAF FJ, current civil longhauler) I don't want to comment of the specifics of the case but may I offer the following; I agree with the above comment, but it seems to me some here need a rule for absolutely everything when instead airmanship/commonsense should apply.

Was the camera in the RTS? No idea, but this isn't a FJ or similar, do people think every single type of or every combination of nav bags/pilot bags is listed in the civvie equivalent of the RTS, plus allowable Knives, forks, plates etc? I do appreciate it's your trainset but in the civvie world every single item allowable on the Flight Deck won't be listed in every civvie Ops Manual or FCOM (pilots notes), but there will be generic statements in the Ops Manual about the risks of loose articles.

As for comments and in some cases it appears criticism over the length of time the P2 was off the flight deck...Longhaul Flight: there are physiological risks of being sat in the seat for hours on end. Aircraft/Flight decks are designed with single pilot ops in mind. As long as a break is coordinated between the pilots involved there shouldn't be a problem.

Just my two pence worth, now back in my box.

[alfred_the_great]

I see that it is now over 10 years since I joined here as a PPRuNe member. I remember that what motivated me to do so was the Mull "hitting back" thread, calling for the RAF BoI review finding against the deceased pilots to be scrapped. It was simply a sense of injustice at that stage, it was only later that it emerged that there was in fact proven Gross Negligence, it had simply been by VSOs, rather than the JO pilots that were their scapegoats.

I have that same feeling of injustice at this sentence. This JO has been found Not Guilty of Perjury and Lying. He has pleaded guilty to negligently performing a duty (by allowing his camera to jam the control stick), but the sentence for that seems vindictive to me (just as it did for the Mull pilots).

I would add that many of the FJ comments posted here about Multi engine pilots are equally biased in my view. They seem to imply that military justice should be more severe for those who are negligent, the larger their aircraft and the more the occupants. The corollary of course is that those in small single or dual seaters should be treated more lightly in contrast. That was certainly the apparent attitude of the CinC Strike Command in his treatment of Chinook and Tornado accidents under his command. With all due respect I think that he was gravely in error, despite his lack of consistency being blamed on a certain Legal Services Sqn Ldr.

Malevolence and Vindictiveness is no way to run an Air Force, it requires leadership. There appears to be a great dearth of that these days.
But he's not a Junior Officer; as we've been told before, he's got 30+ years of experience as an Officer. Wasn't that the entire point of PAS to make sure experienced and capable pilots (who do safe things) exist to mentor their juniors, provide a Just Culture ethos etc etc.

And no, "grounding him" wasn't good enough: we're paying £++ to fly, that's the only reason he had a job in the RAF - taking his wage down by 2 increment points and then letting him sit on his arse doing nothing doesn't strike me as reasonable. It sounds like a reward frankly.

[Megaton]

Don't know about the A330 but other side-stick Airbus aircraft I've flown had a specific note in the FCOM not to leave objects in the vicinity of the side stick. I would suggest that to leave a bulky object there in contravention of manufacturer advice may be more than careless.

[Tengah Type]

TTN

I agree with you. In past incidents it was normally a banishment to Ascot Ops for a
few years.

If the cost of the incident/accident ( as raised by the CM prosecution ) is now be
part of the equation - "Gawd 'elp" anybody who bends an F35.

[thegndeng]

And no, "grounding him" wasn't good enough: we're paying £++ to fly, that's the only reason he had a job in the RAF - taking his wage down by 2 increment points and then letting him sit on his arse doing nothing doesn't strike me as reasonable. It sounds like a reward frankly.

I would think losing the job you love would be quite a come down rather than a reward.

Has anyone seen the sentencing notes from the CM yet or are we all still basing our opinions on what was reported in the mainstream media? (Including me)

[iRaven]

TTN

Quote:
"how very dare you he is multi-engine Captain with 5,000hrs, don't you know?
Would you care to give a link or just a post number where anybody on here has said anything of the sort?

Quote:


It looks like you missed the preceding word "implied". :cool:

iRaven

[Chugalug2]

ATG:-
But he's not a Junior Officer; as we've been told before, he's got 30+ years of experience as an Officer.
He's a Flt Lt, ergo he is a JO. As to the PAS business, you make it sound as though he might just as well be a contracted-out civvie by your job description. He is primarily an officer (that's the "O" bit in JO!), as are all commissioned aircrew. It sounds to me as though the RAF is cutting its nose to spite its face. Perhaps though it is attempting to save the face of the RAF Star Chamber rather than that of the Royal Air Force. They are two very different things. The job of the Royal Air Force is to exert Air Power on behalf of the United Kingdom. The job of the Star Chamber is to protect past and present VSOs from the consequences of their actions (be they illegal orders or gross incompetence) by;

a). Covering them up for as long as is possible and,

b). Finding scapegoats amongst those of 1* and below (often well below!) and,

c). Diverting attention by creating contentious situations such as in this case. If we are busy arguing about the rights and wrongs of this sentence then we are not wondering about the overall leadership of the RAF (or lack of it!).

[Pontius Navigator]

I served with a timing serving pilot JO who, having applied to PVR I presume, was grounded and posted to an ops slot on a distant station with a different role. It was not a happy arrangement for all concerned.

Once someone has 'left' the Air Force or the Air Force rejected them, the civilian black bin bag is probably the better outcome for all.

[alfred_the_great]

ATG:-

He's a Flt Lt, ergo he is a JO. As to the PAS business, you make it sound as though he might just as well be a contracted-out civvie by your job description. He is primarily an officer (that's the "O" bit in JO!), as are all commissioned aircrew. It sounds to me as though the RAF is cutting its nose to spite its face. Perhaps though it is attempting to save the face of the RAF Star Chamber rather than that of the Royal Air Force. They are two very different things. The job of the Royal Air Force is to exert Air Power on behalf of the United Kingdom. The job of the Star Chamber is to protect past and present VSOs from the consequences of their actions (be they illegal orders or gross incompetence) by;

a). Covering them up for as long as is possible and,

b). Finding scapegoats amongst those of 1* and below (often well below!) and,

c). Diverting attention by creating contentious situations such as in this case. If we are busy arguing about the rights and wrongs of this sentence then we are not wondering about the overall leadership of the RAF (or lack of it!).
oh what bollocks, frankly.

I know full well that as a Flt Lt he is a "Junior Officer", drawn from the fact that the RFC followed the Army traditions of Field Officers etc. He is not, however junior; he might or might not be a Officer. I'll be honest, most of the PAS/FTC(A) Aircrew I've met are entirely happy to just fly, and whinge mightly if presented with anything outside of that, cf Fitness Test threads and OOA deployment threads passim on here.

Whilst I admire your continued vendetta against your self-described "Star Chamber", every post you make that doesn't acknowledge what AT did was wrong and deserved to be punished diminishes any kind of argument you may or may not have against the process. With 30+ years of experience in the cockpit, it is not excusable to blame a poorly written or incomplete RTS for the fact he took a camera into his cockpit and then didn't take charge of it during a period he should have been even more aware of his actions. If he'd been an Air Cadet, then perhaps the Just Culture would've provided a different outcome, but he's not.

I've been interacting with both the MAA and Defence Accident Board recently, and neither seem particularly vindictive, if anything, the former is frustratingly risk averse.

As for RAF VSOs, they seem significantly more people focused than my own Service, and I rather envy them. I've worked alongside FJ, RW and ME flightcrew in the last 6 months, and they were all good people, led by solid Officers.

tl;dr - stop making excuses for a man who should've know better and has been punished for his mistake.

[Always a Sapper]

Always a Sapper

The answer is in Alfred the Great's earlier post....

Quote:
In knowingly taken an article not on the RTS into the cockpit
One must be able to reconcile the Statement of Operating Intent and Usage, Aircraft Specification, Safety Case and RTS. In this case, you couldn't. According to previous reporting, it seems this subject came up in court, because he stated that it was known he took photographs, and some were on open display. Perhaps he concluded there was tacit approval; and it would seem nobody challenged him. After all, very few Aircraft Document Sets can be reconciled, and many RTSs are, frankly, nonsense. It works both ways. There is a duty to ensure the ADS is correct. At the risk of repeating myself, we have discussed many here that were not, including Chinook Mk2 and Sea King ASaC (the latter was a lazy copy of the old AEW Mk2, to such an extent it could be characterised as dangerous). There is an organisational fault here, and the pilot is the latest victim. He may have erred, but prior negligence occurred, only for the pilot to be hammered for the final act.

tuumseh

Thank you for your answer and I can see your reasoning. But my original question wasn't aimed at the Pilot although I struggle to see why he took the camera into the cockpit to take pictures for a manual as stated in the thread above in the first place, surely that was an exercise that could have been achieved with the aircraft on the ground and in a place where he could apply 100% of his attention on getting the right pictures or while the second pilot was flying the aircraft.

At the end of the day the only reason he was there in the first place was to fly the aircraft from point A to point B in a safe manner, while applying 100% of his attention to that task, not playing David Bailey or write a tech manual. And he was also the Captain of the Aircraft to boot so more responsibility and possibly a reason why no one questioned him?

But then what do I know as mere SLF who has in the past on many occasions trusted the flight crew to get me from one place to another in one piece while putting their complete and undivided attention to the task in hand while doing it and no doubt will do so again in the future on the civilian airlines... I, along with every other person on the aircraft trust them to do it and to be perfectly honest the trust in their training, competence and professional ability to do so is generally so great that we actually don't really worry about it (apart from when someone is stood at the end of the cabin waving their arms about and reading the 'actions on' sheet).

It's a historical fact that the whole sorry incident was caused by an object getting jammed between the seat arm and the control, that it was a camera and whether it was appropriate for it to have been in the cockpit in the first place is neither here nor there in so far as my original question.

Question was (and I trust this was considered by the BoI/Manufacturer etc and hope that it's not considered stupid by the learned audience present) why was, what is in hindsight an obvious pinch point between the seat arm and the control stick ever allowed to exist in the first place when it could have so easily been designed out?

Lets be honest here, there's probably more items than a loose camera being brought into a cockpit that have a far more valid reason to be there and could have accidently got jammed in the same place with similar consequences.

[Herod]

An airline job will probably pay better.

[tucumseh]

Always a Sapper

I confess I know nothing about the aircraft in question. Alfred the great brought up the subject of what the RTS permits, and I was pointing out that, while important, the RTS is one of a number of reference documents that must be reconcilable. At various stages of development, Design Reviews are held and Hazard Logs populated. During this mandated process (which the MAA/MoD is completely ambivalent about, having ruled that such Reviews can be waived, full payment made, and false record made that they were conducted satisfactorily), issues such as “carry on equipment”, their use and their stowage are addressed. Trying to place myself in the designer’s shoes, it may well be that a Review mentioned the potential for a loose article to jam the control. In a way, it is no different to tool control. The design cannot stop, with certainty, a maintainer leaving a tool behind. One develops procedures and training to prevent it.

One would assess the risk, and mitigation may range from complete redesign to putting a line in the RTS saying “No carry on equipment”. MoD would tend toward the latter – and I mentioned the fact that this general subject was raised at the Courts Martial, because the pilot referred to his photographic work being openly publicised.

My question is, therefore, was he actively prohibited from carrying a camera? If he was, then he’s been a silly boy; but there remains an element of supervisory error (which may be the point he was making). If he is not prohibited, say by an error of omission in the RTS or other breakdown earlier in the process, then one must ask what training was given on stowage. I suspect a proper investigation would reveal a few gaps here. MoD is unlikely to have sanctioned such an investigation, and the pilot would not have the wherewithal to have it carried out.

A comparison was made with forks. There is quite a difference, not least if the offending camera is electrically driven. But that “simply” changes the impact score in the risk assessment, and would necessitate testing to assess impact. Again showing my age and ignorance, I wonder at the degree of “read across” granted from the civilian version of this aircraft.

My point, and concern, is that the pilot may indeed have committed a relatively minor offence; but lacking an official record of the proceedings, we cannot know what was entered in evidence, or used as a defence. His solicitor is unlikely to be competent in the above matters. The other cases we discuss here, where infinitely worse gross negligence, perjury, lying and making false record have occurred, teach us one thing. As a junior officer he had little or no chance of a fair trial.

[t7a]

Alfred the Great. A perfect summation of forty odd pages!


As an aside, a lot seems to have been made of the captain's 30 years of service and his 5000 hours of experience. He must have had a lot of ground tours :sad:.

[wiggy]

then what do I know as mere SLF who has in the past on many occasions trusted the flight crew to get me from one place to another in one piece while putting their complete and undivided attention to the task in hand while doing it and no doubt will do so again in the future on the civilian airlines...

Do you think civvie crew don't on occasions have and use cameras on the flight deck? It's when you use them/how you use them / stowage that can be an issue (cf. alfred and Megaton's comment.)

If you think both pilots on your holiday flight are somehow different to RAF ones and always sit bolt upright, manfully/womanfully giving the operation their complete and undivided attention throughout the sector you might be dissapointed!!!

I'll leave the issue of punishment out of this but IMHO the PIC wasn't doing anything that thousands of commercial (and possibly) military pilots have done over the years...the problem was for him on that flight the holes in the cheese lined up.

[Chugalug2]

ATG:-
oh what bollocks, frankly.

Glasshouses and stones, old boy, glasshouses and stones! qv:-

every post you make that doesn't acknowledge what AT did was wrong and deserved to be punished diminishes any kind of argument you may or may not have against the process.

He pleaded guilty himself to the charge for which he was sentenced. In doing so he accepts that he should be punished. If he didn't then he should have pleaded Not Guilty as he did for the other two charges, otherwise he has been very silly (to quote tuc). I am neither against the process (by which I assume that you mean of Military Justice) nor against punishment, I'm just against this punishment.

It seems that everything that happened was accidental, no criminal forethought present whatsoever. It seems he was not contravening any direct orders about cameras and Flight Decks either, other than generic ones about loose articles (although I bet the FOB is bursting with them now!).

As for RAF VSOs, they seem significantly more people focused than my own Service, and I rather envy them.

I'm glad to hear that your impression of our VSO's people skills is so favourable. As to your comments of those of your own Service, you may well say that, but I couldn't possibly comment! ;). It isn't their people skills that concerns me, it is the concerted cover up of past VSO actions that stands in the way of Air Safety reform. Unless and until the RAF comes clean about the attack on UK Military Air Safety by its own VSOs during H-C's so called "Golden Period", then the need to place the Air Regulator (MAA) and Air Accident Investigator (MilAAIB or whatever it's called this week) outwith the MOD and independent of each other is obscured.

Now, let's all try to keep it nice and polite, boys and girls, shall we?

[MPN11]

...
If you think both pilots on your holiday flight are somehow different to RAF ones and always sit bolt upright, manfully/womanfully giving the operation their complete and undivided attention throughout the sector you might be dissapointed!!!
...
indeed! As SLF, I recall a flight to Malta some 30+ years ago. Waving my NATS business card at the Cabin Crew, I was soon invited up to the flight deck of the 737 as it droned over the Med off the west coast of Italy on an overnight schedule.

Both pilots had their feet propped up on the instrument panel. An RT call from Italian ATC told them to re-route via "Point Bravo" [of which there must be thousands!]. An Upper Airways chart was produced, which didn't actually have too many labels on various intersections of the Upper Air Routes. The Captain and FO looked at the map, and the Captain said "It's probably that intersection there", and adjusted the autopilot to point us at "Point Bravo" [possibly].

I decided that flying Air Malta in the future was not on my personal agenda.

[Pontius Navigator]

MPN, similarly a Britannia captain and check captain landed at Luqa. Their destination, Fontarosa had diverted them to Pantelleria but they didn't know where it was.

[MPN11]

MPN, similarly a Britannia captain and check captain landed at Luqa. Their destination, Fontarosa had diverted them to Pantelleria but they didn't know where it was.
No En-Route Supplement in the Nav Bag? Sheesh!

[Pontius Navigator]

MPN, sorry I meant Britannia Airways 737.

[Top Bunk Tester]

MPN11

According to some of the posts above this would have been regarded as a loose article and so should have been prohibited.

[Herod]

Many civil pilots carry cameras, but they are usually in the flight bag (or used to be, when I was carrying one), and are put back there at the end of use.

[heights good]

I haven't read every single post so this may have been covered.

The pilot in question has been discharged from the Service... However, and I am merely playing devils advocate here, this may have been a win/win for the RAF and him. If I was in his shoes I doubt I would wish to remain in the RAF; the RAF want to ensure justice has been served. So, if he wishes to leave ASAP to ensure everything is behind him then he has a quick way out. Straight away the entire sorry saga disappears without the shame of going back to his unit and always being 'that guy'. He can get on with his life without being put on a horrendous ground tour doing something like (ironically) writing aircrew manuals or SFSO somewhere random like
Syerston.

From the RAF point of view I think after an appeal his sentence will probably be changed and he will be allowed to remain in the Service. Regardless of the final outcome, people in the wider military will only remember the initial verdict and its implications for their integrity; objective achieved from the RAF point of view. It sounds awfully like there is something that we are all missing.

Just my tuppence worth...

[Bigbux]

Cameras on duty eh! They seem to cause a great deal of bother. I presume the compensation claims from the injured will be pouring in soon.

[Pontius Navigator]

Bigbux, I believe there is another widely ignored rule that I recall from the dim and distant past, namely imagery taken on duty is Crown Copyright.

Of course this is as meaningful today as sketching was to the OSA 1911

[Chugalug2]

hg:-
Just a thought...

I think that you have overlooked the suspended prison sentence.

[Brian W May]

So BEags, (since you're talking again) I refer again to #162 (as I did in #500)

What will happen then? I await with interest . . .

[Brain Potter]

And yet one doesn't have to look too hard on Social Media to find images like this, posted or re-tweeted by official accounts.

http://https://twitter.com/70sqna400m/status/832554522685890561 (http://twitter.com/70sqna400m/status/832554522685890561)

[heights good]

hg:-


I think that you have overlooked the suspended prison sentence.

I dont know the legal ramifications of this but a suspended sentence wont mean jail time which could have been the sweetener for discharge from the Service. I would definitely prefer that to even a few days in jail!

I was just getting at the point of there being a plethora of legal wrangling back and forth that ends up with a 'win' for both sides.

[GipsyMagpie]

Does the guy retain his accumulated pension rights on dismissal?

[tucumseh]

ends up with a 'win' for both sides


While I know what you're getting at, I wouldn't say both sides win. Any management system which establishes, tolerates, or fails to detect latent errors is an accident-enabling system; it, not the final act of the pilot, is the most serious deficiency. The way this has been (mis) managed conveniently body-swerves system failures.

[Chugalug2]

hg, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you and say instead that this is more of a lose/lose situation for defendant and the Royal Air Force. The whole ethos of Flight Safety seems to have been lost sight of in the last three years. A combination of a loose article, a convenient ledge, and a vulnerable control stick were brought violently together by a fourth feature, the arm rest that could be set to such a seemingly pointless low angle that when propelled by its motorised seat resulted in the near loss of this aircraft and its occupants. The only redeeming part of this dreadful scenario was the built in self preservation features of Airbus FBW aircraft. A very low tech accident ameliorated by very high tech design!

That is the aviation bit then, and no doubt a combination of revisions to the FOB, training, and arm rest settings have since been enacted. What we do all know is that the wretched seat occupant has faced CM for Perjury, Lying, and Negligent Performance of his Duties (in that he introduced the loose article into the trap described above). Not Guilty, Not Guilty, Guilty. Fair cop and banged to rights, but does the punishment fit the crime? Not in my book.

A Dishonourable Discharge with a Criminal Record, for doing what others here have put their hands up to (and now me!), ie using a camera in the Flight Deck? We now all know that the ledge was the last place that he should have put it down on, but he was tried for what he did, not what is now so apparent. Does his employer not bear some responsibility for that trap? Does the aircraft designer?

It strikes me that the severity of this sentence owes more to the legal implications for those last two participants. The severity of this sentence isn't about Flight Safety nor even Service Discipline, it's about politics and money and quite frankly it stinks!

[Sandy Parts]

don't agree with Tuc. Any safety system needs a 'just' culture where those knowingly breaking the 'rules' are dealt with. Blaming the system for not stopping those who knowingly subvert the protections in that system seems illogical and ultimately impossible.
You'd spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to double-think all the possible scenarios and you'd end up restricting the flexibility of the resultant system to a point where it is actually more dangerous by being rigid by design.

[tucumseh]

Sandy Parts

Nothing you say is at odds with my last post. I agree with you, but the point is that MoD's perfectly good regulatory system is not implemented properly. This is a quite deliberate act. It is not an oversight. In fact, we have had legal reviews (Haddon-Cave, Lord Philip) and internal audits (Director of Flight Safety, Director Internal Audit) which have stated that it is not implemented properly. The MAA was formed as a result of the evidence to the Nimrod Review (despite what its Technical Director claims). As the MAA has made little or no progress in addressing the systemic failings - it has yet to even admit them - then it remains an accident enabling system. That being so, it is unfair to place sole blame on the pilot.

Your last point is also correct, but there are surprisingly few areas where you have to "double think" a scenario. The classic example was ESF in Hercules. The regulations list the threats - you don't have to think them up. The first on the list was "inert projectiles", and the laid down mitigation was ESF. Somebody MUST have made a conscious decision - Hercules will NEVER be at risk of being hit by projectiles. Instead, MoD denied all knowledge of ESF, and was caught committing perjury in court when its own ESF specifications were produced. In that case, what was the more serious breakdown? MoD's deliberate lies, poor oversight or the mistaken decision not to fit ESF? I suggest the lies, because that is a cultural failing and very difficult to correct.

I explained earlier the simple process of design reviews that avoids having to overthink this current failure. You don't have to spend extra time or money, because the reviews have to be held anyway. (Despite what MoD says). I've already opined (and I accept some might disagree) that the solution is not expensive re-design. You issue a directive - no cameras. Or, issue a definitive approved list of carry on equipment. This is routine work during development. Just because this aircraft is a variant of a commercial one doesn't mean the work can be waived. (I think there is more to come on this subject).

Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that those who knowingly break the rules should be dealt with. Let's start with a certain Assistant Chief of the Air Staff and Chief Engineer. (Making false record, and lying). Then Director General Air Systems 2 and the Chief of Defence Procurement. (Condoning making false record and lying). What of those who INSTRUCT staff to make false record and lie? Each and every one of them has committed far more serious offences than the pilot was charged with, never mind found guilty of.

[Top Bunk Tester]

Whilst I agree with all you say Tuc, you will find that the best protection you can have is an Ivory Tower. Totally impervious to all know projectiles :) They just bounce off and fall on the poor sods standing below!

[MOSTAFA]

Tuc, I think you are absolutely spot on and should be cited in mitigation at appeal, should the harshly treated pilot IMO care to go down that route. Especially the last paragraph.

[melmothtw]

"...should the harshly treated pilot IMO..."

IMO, the pilot isn't the victim here. It's the other 197 folks onboard.

[essdee]

The root cause of this incident was the pilot motoring his seat forward. I hope that one of the lessons learned is that the handling pilot should always be seated correctly such that he can assume full manual control of the aircraft at any time. This captain clearly was not in a position to do that. Did he have his seat back before the co-pilot left the flight deck? Did he motor it back while he was alone on the flight deck? Given the apparent distrust he had of Voyager's autopilot that was a rash move indeed.

[Brian W May]

The root cause of this incident was the pilot motoring his seat forward. I hope that one of the lessons learned is that the handling pilot should always be seated correctly such that he can assume full manual control of the aircraft at any time. This captain clearly was not in a position to do that. Did he have his seat back before the co-pilot left the flight deck? Did he motor it back while he was alone on the flight deck? Given the apparent distrust he had of Voyager's autopilot that was a rash move indeed.

Spot on. Endex.

[PEI_3721]

Brian, SD, root cause - seat. So why punish an individual if the activity might be widespread, both military and civil.
Safety, human performance, involves behaviour; behaviour can be monitored.
Thus the outcome could reflect the failure to monitor, to detect or acknowledge the behaviour and change the system.

No such thing as 'root cause'?

[BEagle]

Chugalug 2, an excellent summary!

[teeteringhead]

Does the guy retain his accumulated pension rights on dismissal? Almost certainly - it just about takes High Treason to lose those (contrary to what many think).

One shared an office once with one of the RAF's top P1 gurus, who had spent most of his career in that specialisation, had never known a forfeited pension (once IPP had passed of course).

Naturally the conversation began - er - below the belt one might say - concerning a pulchritudinous PA in an adjacent office. Taking her roughly (consensually of course) across the photocopier would result in instant dismissal, but NOT loss of pension.........

[Pontius Navigator]

TH, many years ago our accounts officer was cashiered and he retained his pension.

[fantom]

Oh the irony: an accounts officer being cashiered.

[safetypee]

The discussion appears divided between retributive justice which considers who was responsible and restorative culture which asks what is responsible, (ref * )

Does the choice of view depend on being a pilot / non-pilot, military / non-military; and would an individual view expressed publicly be reversed if subject to such an event?

"The Just Culture in La La Land approach takes the retributive route, but gets it badly wrong." *
Has the CM in this incident taken an inappropriate route or just got it wrong ?

"In the end, we all have one job. Our job is to learn." *
What have we learnt, individually and collectively; what might senior management (mil / civil), or the overall military organisation have learnt?

* https://humanisticsystems.com/2017/03/03/just-culture-in-la-la-land/

"A scapegoat, or safer systems? We can’t have both."

[IcePack]

If you want to be a captain then you have to take responsibility whatever that maybe. Basically the buck stops with you. That is what you are paid for however harsh the retribution. (Assuming the findings are correct)
How long were the pilots in jail for, for sliding off the old Athens airport. (Wet rwy)

[Stuff]

I'm fairly sure that Teeter's comments will be solely responsible for at least a 300% increase in searches for the word "pulchritudinous."

I like it, I hope it gains it's own place in common parlance even if, alongside "punctilious" it only appears in a particular phrase which we all know well.

[alfred_the_great]

The discussion appears divided between retributive justice which considers who was responsible and restorative culture which asks what is responsible, (ref * )

Does the choice of view depend on being a pilot / non-pilot, military / non-military; and would an individual view expressed publicly be reversed if subject to such an event?

"The Just Culture in La La Land approach takes the retributive route, but gets it badly wrong." *
Has the CM in this incident taken an inappropriate route or just got it wrong ?

"In the end, we all have one job. Our job is to learn." *
What have we learnt, individually and collectively; what might senior management (mil / civil), or the overall military organisation have learnt?

* https://humanisticsystems.com/2017/03/03/just-culture-in-la-la-land/

"A scapegoat, or safer systems? We can’t have both."
What chutney, sounds like you want a no-blame system, not a Just Culture.

Or is it just no-blame for the pilots?

[woptb]

All the 'stuff' about design & systemic issues is valid, but shouldn't people be punished for not reporting or cooperating &/or lying ?
Within the context of a just culture we want people to put their hands up when they get it wrong.
Military reckless definition, a conscious & substantial & unjustifiable disregard for risk. Surely if, within the context of a just culture, people do not 'own up' or cooperate with an investigation they greatly increase the risk of recurrence?
This of course assumes you have a just culture and believe reporting is 'safe'!!

[tucumseh]

All the 'stuff' about design & systemic issues is valid, but shouldn't people be punished for not reporting or cooperating &/or lying ?

Yes. See comments above about ACAS, CE, DGAS2 and CDP. I assume you’re not talking specifically about the pilot, as he was found not guilty of this. One problem is that, on MoD’s own admission, the regulatory authority (MAA) does not have anyone who has ever reported such offences, yet claims each member has vast experience and exposure to the failings.

Within the context of a just culture we want people to put their hands up when they get it wrong.
Military reckless definition, a conscious & substantial & unjustifiable disregard for risk. Surely if, within the context of a just culture, people do not 'own up' or cooperate with an investigation they greatly increase the risk of recurrence?

Correct. But there are many examples, too, of prior notification of failings and the “system” flatly refusing to act to prevent occurrence. Classic examples; Nimrod XV230, Tornado ZG710, Hercules XV179……. In the case of Tornado, the formal notification to 2 Star was later that year cited in an annual report as good reason to mark the person down and withhold promotion recommendations and performance pay. Staff were formally notified of these decisions by their Trades Union, the clear message being; if you report wrongdoing, you’re in the crap.

This of course assumes you have a just culture and believe reporting is 'safe'!!

Reporting is demonstrably not safe. MoD manages by bullying, and staff have been threatened with dismissal for reporting immediate risks to life. We await word of what action is to be taken against the SI officer who (allegedly) threatened the two pilots. It will be interesting to see if he cites precedent.

[woptb]

I agree with almost all you say, but whilst the MAA is imperfect it was stood up after & in the case of XV230,because of the losses.
DASORS (failings acknowledged) is widely used & has done some good. There are also DCORS & the whistleblowing avenue available.

[tucumseh]

Thanks woptb

I retired before DCORS came in, but as I said, reporting air safety concerns was usually met with disciplinary action. As recently as November 2015, Minister for AF and Cabinet Secy ruled that this action should stand. Whistleblowing (a term I don't like as it is given negative connotations, yet could be said to be a legal obligation if you have formal delegation) likewise attracts immediate retribution. However, at least MoD has admitted that one is entitled to take such concerns to the media - it stated this in the 2015 briefing to Minister (supplied under FoI) when advising him that making false record is NOT an offence, and nor is instructing one to do so. BUT, refusing to obey that instruction is an offence. I know, I know, the pilot was charged with this! But studying the respective cases, the difference is the rank of those involved. MoD is happy to persecute a Flt Lt, but not an Air ranking officer. It is that protection, by virtue of rank, that I cannot abide. It has killed too many.

[Al R]

<<Events enabling forfeiture. If a member, deferred member or pensioner member is convicted of treason or offence(s) under the Official Secrets Act and is sentenced to at least 10 years imprisonment, or is convicted of an offence that the Secretary of State considers to have been gravely injurious to the defence, security or other interests of the State, or has incurred a monetary obligation to the Crown which arises out of criminal, negligent or fraudulent act and is in connection to service in the Armed Forces, benefits may be forfeit.>>

Scheme rules apply and although the Forfeiture Act of 1870 is largely consigned to history and repealed, section 2 still applies. The police service is particularly hot on pension forfeiture and it was speculated that David Kelly was threatened with disciplinary action that may have resulted in forfeiture.

I have an ongoing FoA request with the MoD about this very thing.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/afps

[airpolice]

My understanding of the rules, which may be a couple of years out of date is that a Police officer convicted of an offence which brings the service into disrepute MAY be subject to a loss of Pension. This is a very race action, and even if taken, results no tin no money, but simply a return of the contributions paid into the scheme over the years of membership.

There is no mechanism to leave them with nothing.

[Al R]

Jasbir Dhanda was charged with six counts of misconduct in a public office and five breaches of the Data Protection Act, and in 2015, he forfeited 40%. For a multitude of reasons, I don't think forfeiture could ever apply in this instance.

Policeman?s pension cut over sex with vulnerable prostitute | The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4346925.ece)

[Hangarshuffle]

The pilot was 49 years old and with the rank of Flt Lt. This is a very junior rank, against his age. And somehow, its all related.

[kweelo]

Hangarshuffle - not fair and I disagree. Do not not confuse rank with experience and ability. On the fleet I fly with, some of the most able / best pilots (in my opinion) are Flt Lts. You have career pilots who are Flt Lts and are very talented.

[tubby linton]

I would leave him with his pension to reflect his previous service. His CV will ask a number of questions plus I doubt any chief pilot in the uk will not know his name in an adverse way. Obtaining an airline job in the UK would probably be doubtful but the sandpit is always an option.

[Pontius Navigator]

HS, at that age, in this age, it is pay grade that matters not rank.

[Willard Whyte]

The pilot was 49 years old and with the rank of Flt Lt. This is a very junior rank, against his age. And somehow, its all related.

And I thought some other folk 'round here spouted utter ballocks.

That vomit takes the arse biscuit.

[Brian W May]

Hangarshuffle I'm afraid your secret is out.

We now all know what an ill-informed, ignorant little poster you are . . . you just proved it.

Why don't you ask questions instead of making stupid statements.

[Top Bunk Tester]

HS

Can you say PA Spine?

[AutoBit]

HS

Allow me to translate. It's called FTC(A) in the RN......but of course you knew that already, right?

[Pontius Navigator]

To add, if all PAS carried the rank for the pay rate it would be chaos with wg cdr exec indistinguishable from wc cdr aircrew. Or even gp capt if you follow the airline style.

[Chugalug2]

Some posters seem to be moving away from the OP to a more general consideration of Just Culture. Fair enough, until it is used as a stick to beat those questioning the severity of the sentence of this CM. No-one to my knowledge is suggesting that there be no punishment at all, least of all the defendant who, in pleading guilty to negligently carrying out his duty, implied that he expected to be punished.

In particular we have atg's responses to posts from both myself and from safetypee (whose #884 merely quoted from, and linked to, a piece published by Humanastic Systems) at:-

https://humanisticsystems.com/2017/03/03/just-culture-in-la-la-land/

re retributive and restorative justice. Now I know that it includes a lot of big words, but can we be a little more grown up and argue the pros and cons of scapegoating versus safety systems? Scapegoating has always been the preferred option of the RAF High Command since its VSOs set out to Subvert, Suborn, and in turn Cover-Up, in their attack on UK Military Air Safety, as described above by tucumseh.

Of course, atg has told us how much he admires RAF VSOs. Perhaps it was while mingling among them that he picked up such classic retorts as:-

oh what bollocks, frankly. and
What chutney, sounds like you want a no-blame system, not a Just Culture.

UK Military Air Safety has been rendered dysfunctional by the illegal orders, actions, and cover up by RAF VSOs. It must be removed from such malevolent influence by taking the Regulator (MAA) and Accident Investigator (MilAAIB, or whatever it's called this week) outwith the MOD and then be made independent of each other.

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

[Cows getting bigger]

Looking at the Shoreham report, it would appear that external regulation also has the ability to fail.

[woptb]

Chug, agreed. Self regulation/self policing (clue in the term!) is intrinsically unsafe.Subversion from above or as dangerous, the appearance of subversion quickly destroys confidence.

[safetypee]

Chugalug2, #904. The objective of my quotes and questions in #884 was to seek debate.
Very few issues in life are absolute; your views appear somewhat extreme, although I would agree with the sentiments and direction of the argument.

An alternative position is that Just Culture is an unobtainable academic concept; a top down view of human activity to achieve unvalidated objectives. The idea that self reporting will provide insight to human behaviour is flawed (IMHO), although other activities may have value - Creating a learning culture, Designing safe systems, Managing behavioural choice. (Ref *) Note "knowing that systems / human will never be perfect" slides 11/12.
Subsequent slides are equally important - 'JC is about' (20-22): Understanding risk and risk management, Changing managerial expectations.

The span of the JC issue ranges retributive to restorative, the key point is where an organisation's culture is positioned, remembering no absolutes.
Military views will by nature tend to retributive; a more focussed discipline in training, yet enabling (encouraging) variability and adjustment as required by the situation (e.g. war), thus there is greater focus on teaching / acquiring / reinforcing skills of judgement - but where 'punishment' might be used as reinforcement agent. Is this event one of learning or punishment?
The CM relating to this incident reflects a retributive culture. The thread discussion relates to the degree of punishment, which appears biased by hindsight, severity-outcome bias, and considering the resultant vice the behaviour. This judgment depends on who and when it is made - "who draws the line" (S. Dekker).

There is no objection to outlining problems - 'what's wrong', but not who as that might curtail restorative activity. The really important issue is how we might improve - safety, attitudes, behaviour.
I don't have a solution, but I am prepared to consider alternatives, new views of error, the human as an asset, work as actually done.

Is military management (RAF) sufficiently flexible or willing to consider alternatives, have they forgotten the caveats of military training re adjustment vs discipline (new views), is man management seen as the control of a hazard or managing valuable assets, are they close enough to the front line (work as done).

The learning value in this incident is that a small margin in judgement can have serious unforeseen consequences, either in the air or in managing policy relating to punishment.

Ref * https://www.unmc.edu/patient-safety/_documents/patient-safety-and-the-just-culture.pdf

[Chugalug2]

CGB:-
Looking at the Shoreham report, it would appear that external regulation also has the ability to fail.
Indeed, and the CAA got criticised for it by the AAIB report! When was the last SI that openly criticised the Military Regulator? Any system can, and eventually will, fail. Of course! All the more reason to make it as robust as possible therefore. Making Operator, Regulator, and Investigator one and the same is a dead cert for failure. In the case of UK Military Aviation to the tune of 70 deaths catalogued in this forum, let alone the billions squandered, all in wholly avoidable airworthiness related accidents.

For national security purposes let alone the sheer needless waste, we must do better and make the reform of UK Military Air Safety our top priority.

[Engines]

Perhaps I can provide a little input to the ongoing discussion over SI reports and the MAAIB.

I absolutely agree that the aircraft accident investigators have to be independent of those carrying out Service Inquiries. In the past (in one service) they were, to a degree. The RN's arrangements for Boards of Inquiry into accidents ran something like this:

1. FONAC (FAA's two star) would direct that a Board be convened, normally within 24 hours of an accident. Board members would be drawn from units and stations not involved with the accident.
2. President of Board decided whether an investigation was required, and if so (almost always) the RN's Accident Investigation Unit (AIU) would be requested to carry out said investigation. Usually within hours of FONAC order.
3. Board of Inquiry suspended.
4. AIU carried out investigation, prepared report, submitted report to Board of Inquiry.
5. Board reconvened, carried out Inquiry using AIU report and calling witnesses as required. Report of the Board, submitted to FONAC, referenced the AIU report.

The thing to note was that the AIU reported to a two star post in MOD(RN), not to FONAC. Also note that their report was compiled independently, and always sat separately to the Board's eventual report.

Also note that Haddon-Cave explicitly praised the RN's system for accident investigation, and recommended it as a template for use across military aviation. Downstream staff work and plain skulduggery ended up creating the MAAIB as an integral part of the MAA, and resulted in the almost unreadable SI reports we see these days.

I'll say here that I don't for one moment claim that the RN system was perfect. But, the independence of the AIU within the setup was well understood and respected across the FAA, as was the expertise within the AIU. It's no surprise that the main horsepower of the MAAIB came from the AIU. (It's also no surprise that the new MAAIB required a full Colonel in charge, against the Lt Cdr who very effectively headed up the RNAIU).

The current 'fix' whereby the MAAIB answers to the three star head of the DSA is better than it being part of the MAA, but not much, as it still locates the MAAIB within the organisation that 'owns' the MAA. This inhibits it from presenting criticism of the MAA. Also, incorporating MAAIB activities within the SI process compromises their independence.

My suggestion - remove the MiAAIB from the DSA, establish it as a separate agency reporting direct to SoS for Defence. SIs call on it as required, and MAAIB reports are prepared and published as separate documents.

Best Regards as ever to all those accident investigators making the system work as best they can,

Engines

[Pontius Navigator]

Engines, admirable as it was, no matter how many or separate organisations are involved, they are all within the CoC. You can never guarantee that the members of an SI will be 100% impartial.

I can understand why an SI should be in-house for technical or professional reason.

[Engines]

Pontius, thanks for coming back.

Correct, I did say that I wasn't claiming that the RN system was perfect. The point I was trying to make (badly) was that a technical accident investigation report should, in my view, be carried out separately from the SI.

For one thing, it would make the accident investigation report far easier to read and digest. It would also stop the SI staff 'editing' the accident inquiry report. Most importantly, it would allow the accident investigators to raise any issues concerning the regulatory authority.

I know for a fact that immediately after the RNAIU was folded into the MAA, its staff were being tasked by DGMAA to carry out 'investigations' into alleged issues at various stations where no accidents had actually taken place. The Colonel placed in charge of the MAAIB did as he was told by the DGMAA, and it was left to the RN investigators to point out the effect being used as 'MAA police' would have on their ability to carry out future investigations in an open manner.

The important thing (in my view) is for accident investigators to be effectively and publicly separated out from any aspect of apportionment of blame. The RNAIU was well respected about the FAA for its expertise and fiercely preserved its independence. As a result, people always felt able to speak to it without let or hindrance. I sincerely hope that the MAAIB can hold that reputation.

Best regards as ever to all those seeking the truth out there

Engines

[BEagle]

From today's Witney Gazette:

Judge Advocate Alan Large said the board ruled Townshend had deliberately deleted photographs from his camera because he feared they would make him look unprofessional, although he said there was no ban on using a camera in the cockpit.

He said "This was not a momentary lapse of concentration. Your eye was well off the ball."

Astonishing. How can someone in such an authoritative position be so apparently ignorant of the normal behaviour of any normal person who uses a digital camera?

Judge Large also said the MoD was subject to a £14M contract to AirTanker for the aircraft they could not use for this (13 day grounding) period.

MoD pays over £1M per day for their leased PFI nonsense, no matter whether the aircraft fly or not....:ugh:

Military justice is clearly an oxymoron!

[airpolice]

Judge Large also said the MoD was subject to a £14M contract to AirTanker for the aircraft they could not use for this (13 day grounding) period.

MoD pays over £1M per day for their leased PFI nonsense, no matter whether the aircraft fly or not....

I'm not sure that's true.

[BEagle]

Well, that's what I was briefed by a Gp Capt at RAF Brize Norton during an official GAPAN (as it was) visit to the station a few years ago....

Perhaps he was wrong? But that's what he told us.

[Just This Once...]

I am surprised that the CM attached such weight to the deletion of photographs - a rather common and routine practice. Having seen the poor quality and blurry mess of the images taken they are not pictures you would normally keep.

If the pilot wanted to impede the investigation he could have thrown the memory card and camera away. As I understand it he handed everything over when asked to do so and readily admitted to use of the camera on many sorties.

Still, if he feels that the sentence is overly harsh he can appeal, so the next move his to make.

[Sideshow Bob]

I'm not sure that's true.
Unfortunately it is; however, £1M+ per day covers everything not just the aircraft (facilities etc.). It's something that has been open knowledge, certainly within the Brize/AAR community, since contract award. Not sure where the value for money is in this PFI.

[PEI_3721]

The point about grounding cost should consider who and when the decision was taken, and what was the timing w.r.t. the progress of the investigation. When was it established that a camera could have contributed?
Even though the Voyager differs from the A330, are these differences significant regarding the control system.
Did MOD discuss the investigation and proposed grounding with the national authority or manufacture; noting that many more civil aircraft had been flying for a significant time and continued to do so.

I.e. What proportion of the responsibility for grounding should be borne by the organisation / their safety process.
Grounding / not to ground is a catch 22 for them, but having played safe you should not blame someone else to cover the cost.

[Just This Once...]

With the changes to the baseline aircraft and the issues some of these had caused the pause in flying was probably not unreasonable. Bringing in the costs incurred is new ground, especially with respect to a punitive contract arrangement agreed by MOD.

This cost precedent has got quite a few of us scratching our heads. It is not uncommon for this to be raised in civil proceedings but it is the first case I can recall where costs incurred to military aviation by a military pilot have been considered in court as part of a criminal sentence for negligence.

Legal precedence is a remarkable thing. Previous to this event we did not raise it when a Jaguar pilot ejected from his aircraft after driving it through trees, or the Jaguar pilot who shut down his only serviceable engine, or the Phantom crew who ejected over the Med from their departed but otherwise serviceable aircraft, or the Tornado pilot who didn't complete his after T/O checks and then departed his aircraft at low level on his first hard manoeuvre, or the Tucano display pilot who failed to meet his gate parameters, or the Tornado crew who accidentally drifted into their leader during a boring tanker trail, or the Hawk pilot who mismanaged his practice turn-back and crashed an otherwise service aircraft, or the Hercules crew that landed gear-up at Brize, or the Typhoon pilot at China lake, or the Hawk gear-up pilot at Cranwell, or the Harrier pilot grabbing the nozzle leaver and dropping his aircraft into the sea and the list goes on....

Aviation is an unforgiving environment when mistakes are made and sadly many pay the ultimate price even when aircraft have escape systems. But we recognise that people make mistakes with consequences that can cause death, injury and the loss of multi-£M aircraft.

Until now that is.

A new legal threshold has been set by a pilot-induced control restriction that caused an uncontrolled decent, numerous injuries and a financial cost to the MOD. It will be interesting to see what happens to the next serviceman who crashes an otherwise serviceable aircraft.

Everyone must respond to this and lawyer-up as soon as possible after any incident or accident. You must protect yourself to the fullest extent possible under the law. Do not use ASIMS, DASORs or even the aircraft F700 to postulate what you thought had happened. They can and will be used against you in a court of law.

[thegndeng]

Some of the costings and prosecutions statements have been questioned around the bazaars. The cost of the damage to the aircraft appears to have been taken by Airtanker and not the MOD. Also the status of the Co Pilot not resuming flying duties yet is a topic of conversation.... as he flew several of the guys in my office last month.... as captain.

[Chugalug2]

Some very good posts above. To quote from but a couple,
JTO:-
Do not use ASIMS, DASORs or even the aircraft F700 to postulate what you thought had happened. They can and will be used against you in a court of law.

You show us a glimpse of the possible unforeseen consequences of this vindictive sentence. That technical feedback should be withheld for fear of punishment is the very antithesis of Flight Safety and is unacceptable. That it could be an unforeseen result of the attack on UK Military Air Safety 30 years ago illustrates the ongoing effects of those illegal acts.
and:-
I am surprised that the CM attached such weight to the deletion of photographs

I'm not! That emphasis will be put out time and time again in explanation of the severity of the sentence, despite the Not Guilty verdicts of Perjury and Lying. Mud sticks! We are still told that the Mull pilots should have climbed to MSA once they entered IMC. What isn't mentioned is the +4C icing limit they were not allowed to breach and which was well below MSA, or the various SFIs about UFCMs or FADEC failures, or of the illegal RTS that did not even allow of engine starts let alone flights, or that the aircraft was Grossly Unairworthy anyway! One wonders what we haven't been told about in this case. The words Leopards and spots come to mind...

Engines, excellent posts as always! We all seek the same outcome, a fully functional system of UK Military Air Safety. How to get there? You remind us rightly and proudly of the RN AIU. I could just as proudly mention the RAF IFS that produced the ARTS series, which if acted upon could have saved lives, money, and rendered the RAF more effective than it now is. They were buried instead. Both the RNAIU and the IFS were centres of excellence, based upon dedication, expertise and personal integrity. Was it possibly the lack of that latter quality that so characterised parts of the RAF High Command three decades ago? If so, I would respectfully suggest that those who now fulfil that role should ponder upon the conflict of loyalty to those who produced this mess and those they owe a duty of care to, ie the present Royal Air Force.

Which brings us to safetypee. Your posts strike me as being somewhat cerebral if I may say so. The thread discussion is less concerned about the pros and cons of a retributive versus a restorative culture, but rather about the apparent RAF default to the former. In that regard we have the Mull Review Finding of Gross Negligence against the deceased pilots, the SO (ie 1* and below) scapegoats named in the Nimrod Report, and now this CM sentence. All of which serves to obscure the damage to Military Air Safety by certain VSOs.

If I seem extreme in my views to you it is because those JOs and SOs are punished while retired VSOs are protected by others whose duty should be rather to the present Royal Air Force instead.

[Wander00]

"and now this CM sentence" Don't know the guy, never a transport pilot Service or civilian, but unless I am missing something are you suggesting a sanction-free outcome for the captain. - leaves me floundering.

[Chugalug2]

Wander00, certainly not. As I've said before he pleaded guilty to negligently carrying out his duty, so clearly expected to be punished. The sentence though seems excessive to me; a dishonourable discharge, and a criminal record (for the suspended prison sentence). Given that he was found not guilty of Perjury and Lying, it seems that he hadn't deceived but had simply made a mistake. A bad one admittedly but as JTO asks, since when was the financial consequence of such a mistake reflected in the severity of the sentence? Since 2017 it would seem.

[zalt]

Where does that leave the expensively delivered Blame Simmons DAEMS program?

[Airbubba]

The sentence though seems excessive to me; a dishonourable discharge, and a criminal record (for the suspended prison sentence).

Did he actually get a 'dishonourable discharge'?

I know in the U.S. these terms differ for officers and enlisted and even among the services. And the media always seems to get it messed up anyway.

I was under the impression that the sentence included a 'Dismissal without Disgrace' as described here:

3.2 Dismissal and Dismissal with Disgrace from Her Majesty’s Service

3.2.1 Dismissal is a sentence imposed by a court; discharge is an administrative action resulting in the ending of employment. Although the effects may appear similar, there are significant differences. Dismissal either with or without disgrace can have far-reaching consequences on an ex-Service person in civilian life. The primary consideration for the Court Martial is whether the offence is serious enough that the offender should be dismissed as a sentence [s 265(1)]. In R v Downing18 Judge LCJ said:

“The question whether the criminal activities of a member of the military require dismissal from the Service is pre-eminently, although not exclusively, a decision for the Court Martial. For this purpose, for the assessment of the impact of the applicant’s convictions on his ability to continue to serve in the relevant force, the Court Martial must be regarded as an expert tribunal, entitled to the same level of respect to which any such tribunal is entitled when an appeal court is considering its decision.”

It is, therefore, well established that dismissal should not be imposed as a matter of mere expediency. It would be wrong in principle to dismiss purely because the offender is, for some extraneous reason, not fitted for Service life, or states that he does not wish to remain in the Service. In those circumstances administrative discharge may be appropriate, and that is not a matter within the power of the court. Dismissal can be awarded with or without either imprisonment or detention, and in combination with any other punishment. Dismissal and dismissal with disgrace remains on an offender’s record for 12 months from the date of sentence before becoming spent; (6 months for offenders sentenced when under 18 years old).

3.2.3 An offender who is dismissed from the Service must also be reduced to the ranks [s 295(4)] (except in the case of a commissioned officer, whose commission is forfeit) and has no right to a resettlement course or terminal leave. There is inevitably a financial effect on the offender of losing his job, and added effects, which may be more significant, if he has not yet qualified for a pension in immediate payment (see para 3.3 below).

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/guidance-sentencing-court-martial.pdf

[Chugalug2]

Airbubba, I used the colloquial "dishonourable discharge" to emphasise the effect of the criminal conviction of a suspended prison sentence that went with it. I'm not a lawyer, and Military Law seems to have changed its terminology in the same way as everything else since I served. Whether his dismissal was with or without disgrace I don't know. Can you be without disgrace with a suspended prison sentence?

The fact that this officer was tried by Court Martial at all is a bad signal for all UK military aircrew, when past precedent would have seen him dealt with summarily (by his AOC or CinC?), perhaps fined, lose seniority, but be retained in the Service. If the RAF thought him to have lied to it, then it would seem that it was greatly in error. If he was tried because of the costs that he caused then, as has been pointed out, causing the total loss of an F35 will be a very serious offence, no matter the details. If he was tried to assuage inter-Service politics then that is a comment on the RAF leadership rather than of him. Or perhaps there was another reason?

[safetypee]

Chugalug2, #919. As you say, ;)
Again I would not disagree that the core of the discussion relates to a default retributive culture and the apparent excessive sentence. However in order to understand this, clarify the arguments, and fairly conclude, I strongly believe that it is necessary to consider alternative viewpoints and understand as able the background theories - even if they their academic origin is not in keeping with (mil) aviation practice.

Another reference below indicates that we are our own worst enemy (including me).
Look beyond the title and academic presentation; consider the role and behaviour of organisational leadership, teams, and individuals.
I do not contribute to the particular blog, nor like the academic approach, but occasionally alternative views shake up the grey cells, which in this case would agree with your conclusions, but perhaps with alternative evidence and understanding. :ok:

"... many teams struggle to admit mistakes and bring up challenging and often disconfirming information. While people loathe appearing ignorant, incompetent, intrusive and negative, the very nature of hierarchy within organisations makes it difficult to speak up. Typically, lower status members will feel less safe than higher status members in taking interpersonal risks and voicing concerns. Additionally, leaders who seek confirmation of their own ideas, unwittingly inhibit voice in lower status members of the group. Thus, the pervasive effects of status and power (particularly on subordinates) mixed with an individual’s inherent sense of self-preservation heighten the interpersonal risks of speaking up."
http://www.safetydifferently.com/making-it-safe-the-importance-of-psychological-safety/. 4th para onwards.

There may be more benefit in encouraging the organisation and leadership to consider alternative views opposed to just blaming them, even though it is self satisfying.

P. S. on reflection there is a need for an aviation practice version of the above; perhaps this is the basis of the thread; but would the organisation management and leaders read, understand, ...

[Lyneham Lad]

See Abilene Paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox)

[Fortissimo]

Chug,

Re your #924, the system has changed markedly in this century. Your much-distrusted VSOs have no part to play in decisions to prosecute or otherwise; that decision belongs to the Service Prosecuting Authority (tri-Service) which runs on civilian lines and means there has to be a realistic prospect of a conviction for a trial to take place on any charge. Given that charges were beyond the scope of summary disposal (AOC etc) the only route would have been CM.

As the website (http://spa.independent.gov.uk/)makes clear, the SPA is totally independent of the relevant Service chain of command. It was the SPA that selected the charges that were heard at the CM, not the RAF, and it would have nothing to do with potential cost of an act by the individual or with inter-Service politics. Lawyers at the SPA would have reviewed the evidence presented to them and decided there was a case to answer on charges X,Y and Z, and the (civilian) head of the SPA would have to agree. That is the only reason for prosecuting anyone.

The fact that the individual was acquitted of the more serious charges does, not mean the decision to prosecute was wrong per se, just that the case as perceived by SPA was not proven to the satisfaction of the JA and CM members, and therefore he was quite rightly declared innocent. That is the UK justice system at work, and the same thing happens daily in courts across the country.

[Chugalug2]

Fortisimo, thank you for telling us about the SPA, whose website indeed proudly states its "independence" in its very web address:-

Service Prosecuting Authority (http://spa.independent.gov.uk/)

Some might feel a certain reassurance from that, but others might query the need to emphasise it so. Perhaps it is because it is part of the MOD; like the MAA, like the MilAAIB, like the IFS, all of which have had their "independence" questioned if not clearly demonstrated to be but a fig leaf. In my time RAF Flight Safety was proudly stated to be independent of the RAF CoC. So it well might have been, but the IFS was just another part of the MOD, its dire warnings of lack of airworthiness among many air fleets (the ARTs) could be and were indeed buried, and the various forecasts in them accelerated by the illegal acts of certain RAF VSOs set to plunder the hitherto ring fenced Air Safety budgets. They succeeded, by issuing illegal orders to suborn the regs, persecuting and dismissing those who would not comply, and by pulping the regs lest they be quoted. They got hold of the money, and UK Military Air Safety took such a hit that it is still reeling from it.

Evidence and testimony of this has been presented to the RAF Provost Marshal and the Thames Valley Police. Neither have acted upon it. Neither the SPA nor its Service predecessors have either. If the SPA were really the true representation of the Statue of Justice that stands atop the Old Bailey, it would surely weigh all the evidence and consider the acts of RAF VSOs in the late 80s/ early 90s. That would bring light to bear on the many UK Military Airworthiness Related Fatal Air Accidents suffered since, on the findings, naming, and verdicts against JOs and SOs since, and of the continuing cover up of those RAF VSO acts since. It doesn't though, and so becomes part of that MOD cover up, and another obstruction to the urgently needed reform of UK Military Air Safety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Prosecuting_Authority

[Tankertrashnav]

The fact that this officer was tried by Court Martial at all is a bad signal for all UK military aircrew, when past precedent would have seen him dealt with summarily (by his AOC or CinC?),

Not necessarily Chugalug. When I was at Khormaksar I attended as officer under instruction the court martial of an Argosy captain who had been involved in a taxing accident. Two aircraft were damaged (Cat 3 I think) when his starboard wingtip struck the tailplane of another Argosy and there were no injuries. In spite of the fact that it was proved that the taxiway lines he was following had been incorrectly laid out when painted, and the static aircraft that he struck was parked six feet out of position (nearer to the taxying aircraft) and also that he had been given a "clear starboard" by his nav who was acting as lookout, he was still found guilty. The court's view was, he was the captain so he carried the can.

A far less serious incident than the one we are discussing, but nevertheless it still went to court martial, not dealt with by C in C AFME. He was reprimanded and lost a year's seniority, certainly something the C in C could have done, and the general opinion was it had all been a bit of overreaction to a simple error of judgement.

[Chugalug2]

An interesting case, TTN. Was he charged with, and convicted of, negligently carrying out his duties as in this case? What is the more negligent action if so, striking and damaging two aircraft in a taxiing accident or placing one's camera on a side shelf and subsequently motoring your seat forward? We are told that the resultant costs are not an issue, and that inter-Service politics (ie enraged Colonels demanding that a severe example be set for the danger and injury their personnel were exposed to) are not either. So it is the action that precedes the accident that is all important. You imply that the offence in this case is more serious than the offence in yours. I'm not sure that it is.

[Tankertrashnav]

At this distance (51 years :() I cant remember the actual charge. I wonder if he pleaded not guilty on the grounds of the incorrect line painting etc, and refused to accept it being dealt with by the C in C , determined to have his day in court. I think the results in the Voyager case were certainly more serious, but whether the captain's actions were more blameworthy than the Argosy chap is open to argument.

I frequently had to peer out of my little window of the Victor, and give my captain a "clear starboard" when taxying, and often thought of that Argosy when I was doing it!

[Chugalug2]

I cannot think of any aircraft accident CMs in my time of surviving aircrew, but no doubt there have been some. JTO's list gives an idea of the usual default treatment. This accident has a flavour of Mull, that the captain was going to be made an example of for what in retrospect seems to have been more accidental than negligent. He pleaded guilty to the latter though so clearly expected punishment. I'm not sure that he expected this one. I certainly didn't!

[Pontius Navigator]

In a comparison, running a war canoe into the ground seems invariably to end in a CM, a Rep or Severe Rep, loss of seniority, dismal from ship etc.

In this case is the system breaking entirely new ground.

[tucumseh]

airpolice

An interesting tale that rings true. (And anything that wastes MoD money is relevant to a forum where many complaints are about lack of funding).

In 1993 I started a new job on helicopters and inherited a raft of correspondence from Bill Paying Branch in Liverpool. Long story short, there was an apparent shortfall on an RN sonics contract and could they please have another £1.5M to pay it off, as the company were claiming the contract had been completed 2 years previously. Drove up to Wolverhampton to pay a visit, sniffed round their workshop and uncovered about 20% of the kit they had allegedly upgraded and delivered lying in a corner. (That shocked them, that an MoD project manager actually recognised the kit). Further investigation showed we'd been double-charged on about 40 items, and even triple-charged on a few. Auditors went in, but came down on the side of incompetence, despite serial lying, false record keeping, falsified delivery advice notes and more. My Director was furious as it was clear fraud, and we'd been getting rocks from the RN about shortage of kit and delayed contracts. Company had to issue credit notes, to be offset against next contract. (Why think about giving them another?) Point being, MoD doesn't have too many specialists to investigate such things, and finds it easier to roll over.

[Tankertrashnav]

In a comparison, running a war canoe into the ground seems invariably to end in a CM, a Rep or Severe Rep, loss of seniority, dismal from ship etc.

In this case is the system breaking entirely new ground.


Further to my last post, I have to reiterate there is nothing new in courts martial of captains involved in flying (or indeed taxying) accidents.

Another case I remember was a Twin Pin pilot at Seletar who suddenly lost both engines at low level over the South China Sea and rapidly found himself in the oggin. The board decided he had cocked up his fuel switches and it was decided to court martial him (again possibly because he refused to accept summary punishment from the C in C). He engaged a clever civvy lawyer who managed to convince the court that there was a possible (but highly unlikely) technical fault which could result in simultaneous engine failures, and he was found not guilty, probably on the direction of the JAG bloke.

Everyone knew the guy had cocked up, and he as good as admitted it towards the end of the celebratory p**s up in the bar afterwards. The fact that he had dived into the sinking aircraft and rescued his nav who had got trapped went a long way to everyone thinking that it was a good result all round.

[airsound]

TTN, loved your story about the Twin Pin. Going totally off-thread, I was reminded of what they used to say about the Pioneer family - you were actually safer in a (single) Pin, because with either aircraft, the loss of a single engine invariably resulted in a rapid termination of flight, and it was twice as likely in a Twin. (Perhaps that could have been part of your gent's defence?)

And that makes me think.... what has happened to the beautiful Primrose, at Mike Collett's late-lamented Classic Air Force at Coventry? I had the great pleasure of flying in her a few years ago, and much enjoyed the roar of two serviceable Alvis Leonideses as she went sideways in a stiffish crosswind....

Sorry, daydreaming....

[Chugalug2]

TTN:-
He engaged a clever civvy lawyer

I wonder if that was Dato David Marshall? While on 48 Sqn 1963/66 at Changi as a Hastings co-pilot, my secondary duty was deputy squadron adjutant, to stand in for the WO adj who also ran the football team and hence was often "away". Among the many filing duties, etc, was the need to draw up lists for officers to attend CMs as officers under instruction. If I remember rightly you had to score three of these and could then be nominated to be a Board Member yourself. With that unenviable outlook, many and varied were the excuses given to be excluded from such lists.

Then an upcoming murder trial was announced! The arrangement between the British and Singapore governments was that all crime committed on British bases, that only involved British Servicemen/women and was not covered by the Singapore RTA, would be dealt with by Service courts, including it seems murder! This case involved members of the Sergeants Mess, one of whom died in rather gruesome manner in a Married Quarter. After investigation by RAFP, charges were made and a trial date set.

The first I knew of all this was a week when I was required to man the Orderly Room and told to draw up the usual lists for each day of the trial. It turned out to be a doddle! Rather than being inundated with excuses, my clients were trying to subvert the process by begging to be listed for every day! Other hopefuls lingered around outside hoping for last minute cancellations.

The big pull was the drama being enacted on a daily basis in the court. The defence counsel was Dato David Marshal, a renowned local lawyer and politician. He ran rings around the prosecution witnesses, particularly the RAFP who had been proceeding in an easterly direction, etc, only to end up contradicting themselves under his cross-examination. To cut the story short, what seemed at first to be an open and shut case ended with a verdict of Not Guilty to the murder charge, but Guilty of manslaughter. On appeal this latter verdict was quashed and our man went free without a stain on his character. The really galling thing about all this was that I wasn't allowed to list myself and hence learned about all this third hand!

[Pontius Navigator]

Chug, similarly a friend in Cyprus was tried for flying indiscipline and the court was packed each day with officers from the Lightning and Vulcan sqns. Remember most details, think he got a Rep, but the best was the defence barrister, a Gp Capt who ate the flt lt prosecutor!

[tarantonight]

I think you'll find it is 'Proceeding in an Orderly Fashion😁😁😉.

TN.

[Union Jack]

I think you'll find it is 'Proceeding in an Orderly Fashion' - TTN

Unlike the numbering in this thread - presumably due to a "moderating" influence ....:)

Jack

[Hueymeister]

So has Townsend launched his appeal ?

[Lordflasheart]

....

Well according to his barrister's chambers' website - he won his appeal last February .......

https://www.23es.com/news/mr-john-price-qc-co-head-of-chambers-at-23-essex-street-appeared-in-the-courts-martial-appeal-court-in-relation-to-r-v-flt-lt-andrew-colin-townshend/

Following his dismissal from the service of the RAF by order of the Court Martial when sentencing him on Friday 3rd March 2017, Flt Lt AC Townshend having pleaded guilty to a charge alleging the negligent performance of a duty contrary to Section 15 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 in respect of his role as Pilot in Command on 9th day of February 2014, of RAF Voyager Airbus, Flight number ZZ333, the appeal against that sentence was allowed by the Courts Martial Appeal Court on Wednesday 28.02.18 and the order for his dismissal from the service of the RAF was revoked.

LFH

......

[Just This Once...]

I read that as being allowed to appeal, nothing more.

[airpolice]

The order for his dismissal from the service of the RAF was revoked.

[glad rag]

The order for his dismissal from the service of the RAF was revoked.

Think so to.

Ridiculous state of affairs.

[Treble one]

As a matter of interest, and without going into the specifics regarding this individual, what does the RAF do in a case like this, with a pilot who has made a pretty serious mistake/error of judgement, but is not dismissed from the service?

A period of retraining? Sim/CFS/QFI checkrides, and then back in the cockpit?
Posted on a ground tour?
Flying rubber dogs doo out of Hong Kong?

After all, there's been a lot of public money spent getting an individual to a squadron. Someone (many people), somewhere obviously thought that such an individual has what it takes to operate on the front line.

[Cows getting bigger]

Send him to RAF Tumbleweed as the Staion Photographer?

I’ll get my own coat, thank you.

[Treble one]

Send him to RAF Tumbleweed as the Staion Photographer?

I’ll get my own coat, thank you.

I think he may have sold the offending item, to be honest.

[Davef68]

I read that as being allowed to appeal, nothing more.



Legalese - allowed to appeal means you can appeal, Appeal allowed means your appeal has been upheld.

[VinRouge]

Think so to.

Ridiculous state of affairs.
Why? Please explain.

[Pontius Navigator]

Why? Please explain.
"Think so too​​​​​​"

I read it as saying he should not have been dismissed.

[Pontius Navigator]

As a matter of interest, and without going into the specifics regarding this individual, what does the RAF do in a case like this, with a pilot who has made a pretty serious mistake/error of judgement, but is not dismissed from the service?

Where it is a matter of opinion - a pilot grounded but overreacting by his Air ship - full reinstatement and possibly a sunshine benefit in further career (Just my thoughts)

Where an officer was found not guilty but everyone knew he was probably guilty or had been the victim as a result of provocation, it is quietly suggested that an application to immediate PVR would be accepted. For the individual this has the advantage of returning to civvy street with not a stain on his character and pension etc preserved. (I know two).

[glad rag]

Why? Please explain.

He was/Is being punished for a lack of leadership and supervision at the immediate higher level.

[alfred_the_great]

He was/Is being punished for a lack of leadership and supervision at the immediate higher level.

Someone made him bring the camera into the cockpit, and then lie about it?

[pr00ne]

No integrity left anymore then?

[airpolice]

Having followed this saga, with interest from day one, I am now drawn to the conclusion that the result is simply the way that things are nowadays.

The current fad of no blame and no shame, no matter what, seems to extend to the obviously guilty as well as those having committed a serious but honest mistake.

As ever, the punishable offence is not the endangering of the aircraft and people on board, but the lack of integrity (or "telling lies", as it was called when I was serving) that followed.

I no longer serve in the Royal Air Force, and I have no say in how it is run, despite contributing through taxation, to the costs of the service. However, I am saddened to see that the current Royal Air Force has been reduced to a state where this situation can be allowed to define the standard of acceptable behaviour of Commissioned Officers.

I remain hopeful that someone will see sense and right this injustice, but I am not holding my breath.

Regardless of how much money has been invested in this man, he's a cad and a bounder, as they used to say, and has no place serving in a blue suit.

I say this not because he used a camera on the flight deck, but because he clearly lacked the moral fibre to say, right away, that he had done so, and tried to apportion the blame elsewhere.

When we have a situation, as clear cut as this, what hope is there for dealing in a fair and honourable way with genuinely bad people? Where is the incentive to do the right thing, when doing the wrong thing has no real lasting consequence?

The original decision to dismiss him from the service, was in my view, entirely correct, but when the established authority makes a decision to overturn that sentence, it is incumbent on us all to accept that.

In a word, tragic.

In two words, fuc tup.

[Linedog]

Absolutely, AP. A handheld camera on the flightdeck is a loose article and quickly becomes FOD. PIC should have more sense and lead by example.

[airsound]

Airpolice - all agreed. As a 20-year ex-aircrew, and also court-martial board member a few times, I believe you have summed up the case accurately. I think your two words are entirely apposite - fuc tup it is.

In complete contrast - and also as a bit of thread diversion - I was in the local tonight when a young man came in, smartly turned out in camo uniform. He was an LAC from that same big secret Oxfordshire RAF station, and he was bearing a set of bagpipes. An ill wind that nobody blows good, I thought. But he was collecting for the RAF Benevolent Fund, and he did a magnificent job, to much acclaim all round. He tells me he's collected more than a hundred grand for service charities doing this - and that he hopes to become a corporal next year. I was deeply impressed by his commitment, and I felt obliged to remark - trying hard not to sound condescending - that he was behaving in the very best traditions of the service.

Faith restored.

airsound

[airpolice]

He should have put his hands up right away, and it would have been a learning point.

The dismissal is deserved for the lack of integrity after the event, not for the simple error.

To remove him from flying duty is a way to punish the lack of captaincy skills of an aviator. To dismiss him from the service is a way to punish his lack of respect for his fellow servicemen, and the culture that he was supposed to be part of.

[Chugalug2]

ap:-
As ever, the punishable offence is not the endangering of the aircraft and people on board, but the lack of integrity (or "telling lies", as it was called when I was serving) that followed.


Can I just remind you and others that he was found not guilty of the three charges relating to perjury and making false record? Now you may well know different, but since when did Military Law become mob law? The discussion since has been about the severity of the sentence passed and to why that should be. Now we find that he has successfully appealed and is no longer dismissed the Service. Let's just accept due process and put the nooses away shall we?

ATG :-
Someone made him bring the camera into the cockpit, and then lie about it?

Why do you ask that? I've taken cameras onto flight decks, both civil and military. Nobody made me, and why should I want to lie about it? He was charged with not having admitted that he had jammed the controls with his camera by motoring his seat forward. He was found not guilty of that because he hadn't known that he had. As far as I know he was not charged with having taken the camera with him to the flight deck, because as far as I know that is not an offence. No doubt you are about to tell us different...

The tragedy in all this is that there would appear to have been a design fault in the pinch point between control stick and arm rest in which anything could have jammed. Has this been mitigated, or is it now simply an offence to allow this known hole to align with all the waiting other holes?

[Secret1]

'An officer and a gentleman', 'honesty and integrity'... Ex officer Peter Harding might be reflecting on those attributes(?) as he celebrates his birthday today. How many Ppruners have sent him a card?

[airsound]

BGG An LAC who has collected > £100K - well spotted double-oh-seven. My bad - a typo (after the pub? shurely not). He was an SAC. And, I would say, probably a bit above the normal age-range for that rank. So I don't know how long he's been raising money. I merely took him at his word. He certainly appeared genuine - and presented his ID to the landlord before starting. So I'm inclined to remain with my view that he represented the best traditions of the service.

Anyway - as I said, this is obviously thread drift, for which I apologise.

airsound

[The Nip]

ap:-


Can I just remind you and others that he was found not guilty of the three charges relating to perjury and making false record? Now you may well know different, but since when did Military Law become mob law? The discussion since has been about the severity of the sentence passed and to why that should be. Now we find that he has successfully appealed and is no longer dismissed the Service. Let's just accept due process and put the nooses away shall we?

ATG :-


Why do you ask that? I've taken cameras onto flight decks, both civil and military. Nobody made me, and why should I want to lie about it? He was charged with not having admitted that he had jammed the controls with his camera by motoring his seat forward. He was found not guilty of that because he hadn't known that he had. As far as I know he was not charged with having taken the camera with him to the flight deck, because as far as I know that is not an offence. No doubt you are about to tell us different...

The tragedy in all this is that there would appear to have been a design fault in the pinch point between control stick and arm rest in which anything could have jammed. Has this been mitigated, or is it now simply an offence to allow this known hole to align with all the waiting other holes?

I am not going to disagree with your view. I have recently had to take part in jury service. It wasn't a complicated case. The judge, prior to us the jury retiring, gave us a very simple precis of what he expected us to consider.
He, in his experience, gave us two questions to debate and answer.
In the case above, could questions have been;
Did the pilot take into the cockpit a camera? Is this permitted to be used during flight?
Did camera cause the aircraft to plummet?
Did the pilot own up to the incident to help the investigators determine the cause saving time, money and helping the victims?
I find in today's world that honour, integrity and taking responsibility for one's actions are being hidden behind get out clauses in the legal world. Just an opinion mind.

[beardy]

I am not going to disagree with your view. I have recently had to take part in jury service. It wasn't a complicated case. The judge, prior to us the jury retiring, gave us a very simple precis of what he expected us to consider.
He, in his experience, gave us two questions to debate and answer.
In the case above, could questions have been;
Did the pilot take into the cockpit a camera? Is this permitted to be used during flight?
Did camera cause the aircraft to plummet?
Did the pilot own up to the incident to help the investigators determine the cause saving time, money and helping the victims?
I find in today's world that honour, integrity and taking responsibility for one's actions are being hidden behind get out clauses in the legal world. Just an opinion mind.


Justice and law are not always coincident. Serving a sentence does not always relieve the feeling of guilt.

[Chugalug2]

TN, all very reasonable questions to ask oneself, and no doubt were asked by this CM.
My guesses (as I was not there to listen to the evidence) would be:-

1. Yes and yes
2. Yes, in concert with the low setting possible for the pilot arm rest.
3. No, because he was unaware of 2.

If you start questioning honour, integrity, and taking responsibility for one's actions in today's world then fine. In this case the defendant did the latter. He pleaded guilty to negligently carrying out his duty. For that he was punished, severely in my view but that is only my view. He was not punished for lack of honour or integrity, as he was found not guilty of the three charges of perjury and making false record. Personally I would query the integrity of throwing mud at someone who has caused a serious accident by his negligence, gone through the trauma of a, to say the least, questionable SI, faced CM, pleaded guilty to his negligence, was dismissed the Service (reversed on appeal) and given a suspended custodial sentence. In my view he was poorly served by a vindictive system and is now facing mob rule by some.

If you are questioning honour, integrity, and taking responsibility for one's actions then I suggest that you start with the RAF High Command, past and present. By subverting the regulations pertaining to Air Safety, by persecuting those who would not suborn them when so ordered, by knowingly falsifying records in issuing illegal RTS's, and by putting the blame on their juniors for the resultant fatal accidents those in the past tick all your boxes. By maintaining the cover up of these illegal acts those in the present tick all mine. This SI and CM reeks of hypocrisy and bullying in my view and brings the Service into disrepute in its centenary year.

Just an opinion mind.

[The Nip]

If you start questioning honour, integrity, and taking responsibility for one's actions in today's world then fine. In this case the defendant did the latter. He pleaded guilty to negligently carrying out his duty. For that he was punished, severely in my view but that is only my view. He was not punished for lack of honour or integrity, as he was found not guilty of the three charges of perjury and making false record. Personally I would query the integrity of throwing mud at someone who has caused a serious accident by his negligence, gone through the trauma of a, to say the least, questionable SI, faced CM, pleaded guilty to his negligence, was dismissed the Service (reversed on appeal) and given a suspended custodial sentence. In my view he was poorly served by a vindictive system and is now facing mob rule by some.[QUOTE]

I am not throwing mud. Everytime either my wife or I have been on military flights we have always understood that the person flying is doing their job to the highest of standards. They are top notch pilots. Best training and well respected.
They expect us, all the support trades, to do our jobs to the highest standards as well.

[QUOTE]If you are questioning honour, integrity, and taking responsibility for one's actions then I suggest that you start with the RAF High Command, past and present. By subverting the regulations pertaining to Air Safety, by persecuting those who would not suborn them when so ordered, by knowingly falsifying records in issuing illegal RTS's, and by putting the blame on their juniors for the resultant fatal accidents those in the past tick all your boxes. By maintaining the cover up of these illegal acts those in the present tick all mine. This SI and CM reeks of hypocrisy and bullying in my view and brings the Service into disrepute in its centenary year.

Just an opinion mind.

I have read your posts (various threads) regarding your points in this last paragraph. I have always agreed with your stance in regards to this.

[alfred_the_great]

This place does seem to be the last vestige of the "no blame" flight safety culture, where there's always someone else or some process to blame.

I'll simply note that on the TV piece that accompanied the closure of Headley Court, there was a piece to camera by someone e who'd broken his back in this incident. He is now permanently disabled, and all because of this pilot's actions. And that disabled individual could be living a pain-free life if the pilot had decided that taking a camera into the cockpit, and subsequently stowing it in an unauthorised stowage was a jolly good wheeze.

There is nothing 1950s about this; it's about expecting individuals to take professional responsibility, especially when placed in positions of considerable influence.

[Just This Once...]

...if the pilot had decided that taking a camera into the cockpit, and subsequently stowing it in an unauthorised stowage was a jolly good wheeze.



Just to keep the facts in perspective but in no way to argue the case in either direction, this flightdeck was awash with unstowed equipment that had no designated storage. Regrettably this was the case across all RAF ME aircraft and reported on numerous flight safety and accident reports on other aircraft types. This included heavy items such as weapons, ammunition, route bags, NBC equipment, body armour, helmets etc.

Whilst the recommendations to retrofit flightdecks with suitable storage were numerous, compelling and included a number of serious injuries to aircrew, the money did not follow. It should also be noted that crews were also routinely issued with cameras similar to the one used on this flight. They too had no stowage provision or warnings as to where they could or could not be placed. RAF ME crews were just supposed to get on with it but as ever, risks held higher up only ever flow down with gravity.

Again, this is just to add clarity to the debate. I am not an apologist for anyone.

[Chugalug2]

The Nip, sorry to be so long replying. I have a "Not secure" warning preceding the https:// address on this page and have sought advice before posting again. One other member also has it, but it is only showing on my Edge browser with everything being normal on Chrome. It's been reported and I understand it might be an insecure link on the page somewhere. If anyone else has the same experience it would be nice to know.

I was not meaning to cast doubt on your integrity, and apologise if that was not clear. Rather I meant to criticise those who have persisted in casting doubt on that of the defendant in this case when his conviction was for negligence and for which he pleaded guilty, having been found not guilty of perjury and making false record. It is a well tried technique of the apologists, to persist with a theme despite evidence that it is wrong. They did the same with Kintyre, "They should have climbed to Safety Altitude" despite that entailing flying in Icing Conditions contrary to the (illegal) RTS.

ATG, who is calling for no blame here? The defendant himself admitted the negligence that led to this accident and for which he was convicted at CM. What more do you want? Your tale of cause and effect is clear and no-one would not sympathise with those who have suffered as a direct result of the defendant's negligence, hence the accident, hence the conviction. What more do you want? Flight Safety used to be about learning what led to an incident/accident and how to prevent a recurrence. Not any more it seems, given the shocking state of UK Military ME Flight Decks as described by JTO above. But let's not concern ourselves with all that tosh, eh? Just march the guilty bastard in!

Oh, and where in the Voyager RTS does it prohibit cameras on the Flight Deck? Only you have mentioned that, so we still await confirmation...

[Saab Dastard]

The Nip, sorry to be so long replying. I have a "Not secure" warning preceding the https:// address on this page and have sought advice before posting again. One other member also has it, but it is only showing on my Edge browser with everything being normal on Chrome. It's been reported and I understand it might be an insecure link on the page somewhere. If anyone else has the same experience it would be nice to know.
I see it as well in Firefox - all it is is airsound's avatar being http rather than https.

Thanks for reporting it.

SD

[Chugalug2]

Thanks for that SD. It certainly sets my mind at rest, and a few others perhaps. Thanks for the swift follow up.

[airsound]

all it is is airsound's avatar being http rather than httpsOooer how embarrassing - a public naming and shaming. So here's a public apology. I'm very sorry for being the cause of consternation and disruption amongst the estimable PPRuNerhood.

It was a complete surprise to me, especially since the avatar, for which I had to pay, has been there for years. Anyway, I think it's being fixed. I hope so.

Sorry again
airsound

[ShotOne]

Point well made regarding the perjury acquittal Chugalug but not your final-paragraph conclusion that it’s all down to a design fault. No. Every aircraft ever built has a pinch-point between something and its controls. Decades of safe operation by over 1,300 other A330s plus nearly 6,000 A320 family jets with an identical “design fault” suggests this is undue loyalty on your part to the defendant.

[BEagle]

1. Early Voyagers were known to have wiring 'issues', so an unexpected event not encountered on normal A330 family aircraft was a possibility - later shown not to be the case.

2. I do not know how much training had been given in the 'jammed sidestick' procedure, nor by whom such training was delivered nor their qualifications.

3. I do not know what SOPs were in place regarding 'one pilot off the flight deck' time or procedures. However, common sense would suggest that if there's only one pilot on the flight deck, he/she should be required to be correctly strapped-in and seated at the controls with his/her seat correctly adjusted. Quite why the co-pilot was off the flight deck for such an extended period of time is open to conjecture.

4. I do not know what SOPs existed regarding protection of the side stick from poorly placed loose articles. But again, common sense would suggest that nothing should ever be placed in such a position that it could interfere with the controls - as a US C-130 crew discovered when an NVG box jammed the control column.

5. I do not know whether guidance was given to the passengers to remain seated with their belts loosely fastened, as is normal on most airlines.

Although I would criticise the pilot for having seat in the position it was and taking photos when he was the sole flight deck occupant, I know him to be as honest as the day is long and he is most certainly not a liar. When he told me that he had no idea what caused the event and that he thought that the damage to his camera was occasioned by it being bounced around the flight deck, I certainly believed him. When he later found that it had jammed the sidestick, he was utterly distraught.

I took many a photo from the VC10 flight deck, but never when I was PF. It also went back in its bag behind my seat as soon as the photos had been taken.

The first court made its finding and I considered the sentence to be disproportionately harsh. It was rightly overturned on appeal.

Time to accept the court of appeal's finding and put this whole matter to bed, I venture to suggest.

[esscee]

He is a "bloody nice chap". So that is OK then? Do not think so, he made an error that caused injury etc to many passengers.

[beardy]

BEagle your loyalty does you proud as does your humility in admitting how much you don't know. However, you cannot assert that somebody is not a liar, only that he has never lied to you; you can only express a belief that he has not lied at any other time.

[BEagle]

Fair enough, beardy, I see your point.

esscee , as I commented, were the passengers advised to follow normal airline guidance regarding seat belts? Whether the cabin staff were asked to give evidence, I do not know. Of course I feel sympathy for those who were injured either physically and/or mentally - but had they been given any guidance which would have reduced any potential risk of unexpected events?

I came back on a flight the other day from Europe and we were thrown about by turbulence from an A380 ahead. I stayed in my seat, whereas the woman in the aisle seat didn't - I was strapped in i.a.w. Lufthansa guidance, whereas she wasn't.

[Chugalug2]

airsound, my PC seems to greatly approve of your improved and amended avatar, thank you. I'm sorry if I have been the cause of any public embarrassment in having pulled the PPRuNe communication chord. If I had known it was only your avatar that had caused my computer to flag up continuous warnings to me I would happily have ignored them with the contempt they deserved. As it was imagination ran riot, was I being personally targeted by the PLA or FSB? Paranoid, moi?

SO, I don't think that I said that this accident was all down to a design fault, did I? I may have suggested that a motorised seat with an arm rest that could be driven forward to create a pinch point that anything, even an en-route supplement , could be engaged by and with the same sorry result as here is yet another accident waiting to happen. If I didn't then I do now. If the RAF has seen fit to do anything about that I know not, but if airbus hasn't, if numerous worldwide Regulators haven't, then I would be greatly surprised. The MOD default is, we know, there's a problem, let's wait to see if anything happens. The default of any professional aviator should be to act instead.

I know nothing about different airbus flight decks, let alone the armrest, shelf, control stick interface. You tell me they are all identical in that regard. Fine, there will be a common fix then, if it's only to arrest forward seat movement if the armrest touches anything. Should be a doddle with all the computer thingies on board.

Not only do I know nothing about airbus flight decks, I do not know the defendant in this case either, so rather than having
undue loyalty on your part to the defendant
I owe him no loyalty, nor he to me. There is however an old fashioned concept of right and wrong. In my mind slagging off the defendant online as a liar is wrong. Every one of us has lied at one time or another. If you know him to have lied about the events leading up to this accident then it was/is your duty to have offered yourself as a prosecution witness, or in the vernacular, put up or shut up! By "you" I mean anyone who has suggested that he lied about what happened, I do not mean anyone who hasn't suggested that. I hope that's clear enough.

[mymatetcm]

CREW RELEASED PA SOP ".............................. Ministry of defense policy is that you keep your seat belt loosely fastened whenever you are seated"..............................

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

If the RAF has seen fit to do anything about that I know not, but if airbus hasn't, if numerous worldwide Regulators haven't, then I would be greatly surprised.

Prepare to be greatly surprised.

[Jabba_TG12]

As a matter of interest, and without going into the specifics regarding this individual, what does the RAF do in a case like this, with a pilot who has made a pretty serious mistake/error of judgement, but is not dismissed from the service?

A period of retraining? Sim/CFS/QFI checkrides, and then back in the cockpit?
Posted on a ground tour?
Flying rubber dogs doo out of Hong Kong?

After all, there's been a lot of public money spent getting an individual to a squadron. Someone (many people), somewhere obviously thought that such an individual has what it takes to operate on the front line.

Well, if other public services are to be used as a template, given that an old schoolfriend of mine was found guilty at a Navy Courts Martial of being a significant contributory factor into a Perisher student driving a nuclear submarine into the seabed causing £5M worth of damage - he ended up driving a desk for 4-5 years at MOD before leaving the service as a Commodore, last tour of duty being Commander British Forces Gibraltar, and the other famous case of a certain Metropolitan Police Gold Commander's loss of control resulting in a Brazilian electrician being turned into swiss cheese by the men in black and later ending up as Commissioner, I think we can safely say this errant pilot's path to CAS is assured.

Especially if he's done the Common Purpose course.:E

[Treble one]

Jabba-surely this chap cant be CAS? He doesn't drive anything pointy enough....

[Dominator2]

Treble one,

I don't consider a Tornado GR1/4 as a "pointy" thing, its just a mud mover.

Any way, he could not be CAS as be has too much flying experience! Even be much of it gained while taking photographs, and not seated correctly as PIC of an aircraft.

I was so pleased to hear that RAF pilots are able to persuit their hobbies whilst earning the "Queens Shilling".

[Runaway Gun]

What if it had been a cup that jammed the controls, from his recently consumed cup of tea? Or even a ‘Silver Chock’ publication? And the Captain had no idea?

Would this trial have finished any differently?

[ShotOne]

“I don’t think I said this accident was down to a design fault..”. Er, you did actually, Chug. And your suggested fix hasn’t been deemed necessary by the regulatory authorities of the thousands of Airbuses that have clocked up squillions of flight hours over the last thirty-odd years.

[Chugalug2]

“I don’t think I said this accident was down to a design fault..”. Er, you did actually, Chug. And your suggested fix hasn’t been deemed necessary by the regulatory authorities of the thousands of Airbuses that have clocked up squillions of flight hours over the last thirty-odd years.



That was my response to your post:-
Point well made regarding the perjury acquittal Chugalug but not your final-paragraph conclusion that it’s all down to a design fault. No. Every aircraft ever built has a pinch-point between something and its controls. Decades of safe operation by over 1,300 other A330s plus nearly 6,000 A320 family jets with an identical “design fault” suggests this is undue loyalty on your part to the defendant.
What I had actually said was:-
The tragedy in all this is that there would appear to have been a design fault in the pinch point between control stick and arm rest in which anything could have jammed. Has this been mitigated, or is it now simply an offence to allow this known hole to align with all the waiting other holes?
I didn't claim that it was all down to a design fault, as you well know. Very few accidents are down to any one thing, hence the Swiss Cheese model. The defendant pleaded guilty to negligence and was sentenced accordingly, but clearly there was a pinch point between his armrest and his Voyager side stick for his negligently placed camera to be trapped in, otherwise the very serious accident that followed would not have occurred! As I and another poster have pointed out, the same pinch point could trap anything else placed there.

It was you who stated that there is an identical pinch point on other airbus aircraft. If that is the case then common sense would suggest that some form of mitigation be introduced on all such common types. My suggestion of a touch sensitive pad on the end of the armrest was only one of any number of possible common sense solutions. Restricting the depth to which the arm rest can be lowered is another. I remain convinced that this issue has been considered and mitigation sought, if not by the RAF then by others. I said previously that I would be greatly surprised if that were not case, only to have a response from itsnotthatbloodyhard:-
Prepare to be greatly surprised.
Very amusing, but aviation notoriously has no sense of humour. This accident can happen again. The whole point about Flight Safety is to prevent a recurrence, or don't we do that any more?

[Bill Macgillivray]

Maybe more awareness is needed! Why place your camera (if really required!!) in this position! Surely we must know our aircraft and any "limitations" (for want of a better word) that apply to them? Maybe I am being old-fashioned but, in my opinion (and only mine!), this incident should never have occured!

Bill

[Chugalug2]

Bill, absolutely agree that it should never have happened, but it did, and it was an accident rather than an incident. Of course the camera shouldn't have been there but in a safe stowage, which I presume to be the pilot's nav bag. Loose articles, like FOD, are as old as aviation itself and it is a constant battle to contain both. Part of that battle is to protect the more vulnerable areas that they can effect. We could have lost this aircraft and all who were onboard. As it is some were injured, a few very seriously. We owe it to them to ensure that it never happens again. If the DS solution is simply harsh treatment then memories of that soon fade and the gremlins are ready to strike again. So something more permanent is required, or history will repeat itself, or God forbid even worse!

We were both around when Flight Safety was once a central pillar of the Royal Air Force. Its purpose was to avoid avoidable accidents, just like this one, principally by trying to avoid them in the first place, or failing that by making sure that everything be done to try to avoid a repeat. By reducing the number of accidents you preserve both aircraft and aircrew, and hence Air Power. Both men and machines were far more plentiful in our time, though it was just as wasteful to lose either of them unnecessarily. It seems that simple common sense attitude has changed somewhat and not for the best. If that is old fashioned then that makes two of us!

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

I remain convinced that this issue has been considered and mitigation sought, if not by the RAF then by others. I said previously that I would be greatly surprised if that were not case, only to have a response from itsnotthatbloodyhard:-



I’m sorry you didn’t like my response, but if you can produce any evidence of a mitigating redesign, I’ll be fascinated to see it. I think your idea of a touchpad-activated cutout is actually a good one and should arguably have been part of the original design - but to incorporate it now on a worldwide fleet of many thousands of aircraft is far from the ‘doddle’ you suggest.

You previously claimed to “know nothing about different airbus flight decks, let alone the armrest, shelf, control stick interface”, and this is evident in suggestions like ‘restricting the depth to which the armrest can be lowered.’ (FWIW, with the armrest assembly in my preferred position, there’s about 10mm clearance between it and the horizontal surface below. Any significant depth restriction would render the entire arrangement unusable.) The fact is that the ‘shelf’ extends for probably less than 10 cm behind the stick, and I suspect it would never occur to most people to even try to place anything like a camera on it. While a touchpad-activated cutout might be nice, I think the practical solution here is going to involve education (and common sense).

[BEagle]

I think the practical solution here is going to involve education (and common sense).

Quite so! A technological 'solution' is wholly unnecessary. However a clearly marked 'sterile area' adjacent to the side stick, within which nothing may be placed, would perhaps be a cheap enhancement?

[Chugalug2]

intbh:-
The fact is that the ‘shelf’ extends for probably less than 10 cm behind the stick, and I suspect it would never occur to most people to even try to place anything like a camera on it.

Well it occurred to one person that we know of and, given the squillions of flight hours the design has been exposed to claimed by ShotOne, it's a pound to a penny that it's occurred to others as well. With the 10cm pinch point that you claim is practically unchangeable then education is an obvious starting point, I agree.

I would also back that up by a visual reminder that the sidestick shelf is a no-no area to place absolutely anything on. The international conventionally recognised way of indicating that is by black and yellow hachured markings. Whether Airbus would be prepared to issue such a recommendation to all A330 and A320 family operators and thus draw attention to this Achilles heel in its design is a matter of conjecture, but the UK regulators (ie CAA and MAA) should certainly consider it, don't you agree?

Ah, just been pipped at the post by Beagle, with whom I find I am in violent agreement.

[The Nip]

Bill, absolutely agree that it should never have happened, but it did, and it was an accident rather than an incident. Of course the camera shouldn't have been there but in a safe stowage,

I'm sorry, but the pilot was solely responsible for where he put his camera. We all do things without thinking of the consequences. His job was the safe passage of his passengers. As an experienced pilot, he should have(probably did) understand the dangers of putting any item it that position. Yet he did for an unexplained reason. Every time I hear the words 'incident, not accident,' it usually follows that someone is not taking responsibility.

You have consistently and correctly lambasted air safety in the RAF and those responsible.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

I would also back that up by a visual reminder that the sidestick shelf is a no-no area to place absolutely anything on. The international conventionally recognised way of indicating that is by black and yellow hachured markings. Whether Airbus would be prepared to issue such a recommendation to all A330 and A320 family operators and thus draw attention to this Achilles heel in its design is a matter of conjecture, but the UK regulators (ie CAA and MAA) should certainly consider it, don't you agree?

Ah, just been pipped at the post by Beagle, with whom I find I am in violent agreement.

I’d also agree with that one. I wouldn’t go as far as to call it a design Achilles heel (there are a few other things I’d take issue with first) - for most pilots it’s blindingly obvious that you’d never place objects there, any more than you’d hang a bag from the control stick, but some sort of visual reminder still has a lot of merit.

[Chugalug2]

INTBH, your PPRuNe ID is very appropriate for the harmony that Beagle, yourself, and I seem to have reached. It wasn't so bloody hard after all, was it? :ok:

That was all I was seeking in my previous posts, a workable mitigation that would serve to help avoid a repetition of this avoidable accident.

Yes, TN, it was an accident and not an incident, you are right. I certainly hold those who are responsible for UK Military Air Safety as responsible for the lack of it, who else?

The very basis of your post, that the accident could not happen, either then or in the future, were it not for one particular individual is flawed. It would seem to be the basis for the CM sentence too, ie remove that man from the Service and the accident by definition cannot recur. That theory is flawed too. That is why we need to look beyond this man and his negligence. That is why some form of preventative action is needed, such as the suggestion in the preceding posts. Classic Flight Safety!

[Jhieminga]

Well it occurred to one person that we know of and, given the squillions of flight hours the design has been exposed to claimed by ShotOne, it's a pound to a penny that it's occurred to others as well. Without wanting to reignite any previous discussions, I'd like to put up a thought for consideration:
The report describes how a visit to the flightdeck by a purser prompted the 'storage' of the camera. That to me indicates a distraction, and in such cases people's minds often revert to ingrained behaviour. If you've spent many hours on flightdecks where the controls are positioned front and centre, the area next to your seat has for many years been a safe area to quickly store whatever needs storing. The action of putting down the camera may well have been one of those automatic actions that your mind may not fully remember afterwards. Yes, as flight crew we should all be very aware of all the things that happen on our flight decks, but still, I'm sure all of us have examples like this in our experience where at least part of the decision was made by our built-in autopilot. It is very sad that it turned out the way it did, but I'm just saying that at the time, the action of that one person was not something that occurred to him as a good idea, but something that, for the automatic part of his brain, appeared as a logical and sensible thing to do. And the rational part of his brain that should have screamed was distracted by something else.
I agree too by the way: designating that area as a 'sterile area' with some sort of visual reminder would be a good idea. For many it may not appear to be necessary, but if we can prevent just one more accident like this, the lesson will have been useful.

[m0nkfish]

This place does seem to be the last vestige of the "no blame" flight safety culture, where there's always someone else or some process to blame.

I'll simply note that on the TV piece that accompanied the closure of Headley Court, there was a piece to camera by someone e who'd broken his back in this incident. He is now permanently disabled, and all because of this pilot's actions. And that disabled individual could be living a pain-free life if the pilot had decided that taking a camera into the cockpit, and subsequently stowing it in an unauthorised stowage was a jolly good wheeze.

There is nothing 1950s about this; it's about expecting individuals to take professional responsibility, especially when placed in positions of considerable influence.

The SI lists the number of injuries in this incident as zero for major and 32 for minor physical. It goes into quite some detail, especially section 1.4, and nowhere does it indicate somebody broke their back. I would imagine this kind of injury, especially if there was permanent disability associated with it, would be classified as major surely?

[Just This Once...]

Injuries are reclassified all the time, especially with spinal injuries, such as the one experienced by the co-pilot. Some of the head and neck injuries were also significant and mental health issues usually take a while to manifest themselves.

[50+Ray]

I really did not wish to join in this debate, but...
I have taken all sorts of stuff into a cockpit, and thankfully never jammed anything. The sterile area painting is an obvious good idea.
I do not know the pilot. I have not followed the CM proceedings, or the verdicts. I am 'old school'. It was a cock-up!
As Captain, or indeed as Co, if I was in control I was never in a position where I needed to move the seat to safely fly the aircraft manually.
Loss of pension etc & dismissed the service is harsh, but that is what I would have expected.
Ray

[ShotOne]

It’s astonishing to still be reading of “Achilles heels and design flaws” at this stage. Far from flawed, the area around the sidestick is a model of safe design. Bizarrely, Chugalug bets us a pound to a penny this has happened many times before. Seriously? ..and the passengers and crew all chose to keep quiet about their roller-coaster rides?

[FlightDetent]

However a clearly marked 'sterile area' adjacent to the side stick, within which nothing may be placed, would perhaps be a cheap enhancement? BEagle, please. Are there “do not place stiff objects of more than 7 inches in length” warning stripes on the flying suits at “just below” the waist area? Anything could get jammed between there and a conventional column.

What happened exactly as if the sole occupant would slide the seat back, take pictures, then let his massive DLSR hang down from neck in front of the lower belly and moved forward, back into the proper position.

[Chugalug2]

FD, I'll take it that you make your point seriously and it's not a sardonic attempt at humour. The defendant was convicted of negligence for which he had pleaded guilty, rightly in my view and I suspect most here would agree, though the CM Sentence is perhaps another matter. His camera was a loose article and it should have been stowed when not being used, presumably in his Flight Bag for which I again presume there is a stowage space in the Voyager, given its A330 equivalent. It was his negligence in not having safely stowed it that hazarded his aircraft and all aboard. In the scenario that you describe the camera would also be unstowed and also a potential loose article.

On 29.11.95 The Director of Flight Safety notified the Chief Engineer and ACAS of problems relating to camera stowage, and how to manage this hazard. It would seem his recommendations were ignored, forgotten, or not read across to all aircraft. So can it be said that the Regulatory Authority had a grip on matters?

Oh it wasn't serious? Well it bloody well should have been! We could easily be looking at the worst UK Military Fatal Air Accident thread yet!

ShotOne, your habit of misquoting me has one slight flaw, people can go back to the post you ostensibly quote only to find you have (again!) misquoted. To save them the trouble I quote you and myself (again!) :-

You,
Bizarrely, Chugalug bets us a pound to a penny this has happened many times before. Seriously? ..and the passengers and crew all chose to keep quiet about their roller-coaster rides?

Me,
Well it occurred to one person that we know of and, given the squillions of flight hours the design has been exposed to claimed by ShotOne, it's a pound to a penny that it's occurred to others as well.
In which by occurred I mean using the side stick shelf as a...well, shelf! I didn't say that it has led to the same result as in this case, now did I? I merely suggest that it could have done, that this is a swiss cheese hole that needs plugging, and that marking the shelf in such a way as to positively discourage putting anything on it might well accomplish that..

I don't know what your problem is. Mine is that the hue and cry for this defendant rather obscures the eternal lesson of all aircraft accidents, that it can happen again unless mitigating action is taken to render that less likely.