Accountability?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: The higher plane of alcoholism..hic.
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accountability?
Folks,
Just watched the 'Air Crash' episode on a 1996 USAF accident near Dubrovnik, Croatia. Tragic event with some VVIPs lost in a poor vis / inadequately equipped jet scenario (wiki attached):
1996 Croatia USAF CT-43 crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What REALLY struck me was the fact that a very critical report (Haddon-Cave, anyone?) led to two General Officers getting fired and one getting demoted. Am I trying to compare apples to viscously-sharp pieces of mango?
Just a thought (about time I had one)...
FFS
Just watched the 'Air Crash' episode on a 1996 USAF accident near Dubrovnik, Croatia. Tragic event with some VVIPs lost in a poor vis / inadequately equipped jet scenario (wiki attached):
1996 Croatia USAF CT-43 crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What REALLY struck me was the fact that a very critical report (Haddon-Cave, anyone?) led to two General Officers getting fired and one getting demoted. Am I trying to compare apples to viscously-sharp pieces of mango?
Just a thought (about time I had one)...
FFS
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do indeed raise an interesting point. The spams really do hold to account quite drastically any officers who screw up through negligence - dismissal with loss of pension is not unusual. Another example was the USMC F/A18D crash at Miramar in 2008 - IIRC the engineering officer who signed off the plane was dismissed with loss of pension, and the officer who ordered the pilot to return to Miramar (rather than eject) was also "relieved" of his duties.
The RAF seem less inclined to hold their officers to account - for example the Wing Commander who wrote off a Hawk at Cranwell after he forgot to lower the undercarriage was even allowed to return to flying duties. And after the Typhoon crashed at China Lake, an RAF insider even glibly told a national newspaper that "these things happen from time to time" .
The RAF seem less inclined to hold their officers to account - for example the Wing Commander who wrote off a Hawk at Cranwell after he forgot to lower the undercarriage was even allowed to return to flying duties. And after the Typhoon crashed at China Lake, an RAF insider even glibly told a national newspaper that "these things happen from time to time" .
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"an RAF insider even glibly told a national newspaper that "these things happen from time to time" . "
And it is quite true that they do, but I cannot think of anyone who has done it more than once.
To dump someone who cost x million to train because they are human would be the height of petulant idiocy.
Everyone makes mistakes when flying. The lucky ones of us get away with them.
And it is quite true that they do, but I cannot think of anyone who has done it more than once.
To dump someone who cost x million to train because they are human would be the height of petulant idiocy.
Everyone makes mistakes when flying. The lucky ones of us get away with them.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was the rumour true about the Red's Hawk at Scampton where the pilot selected gear up during take off roll and relied on the pressure switch to keep u/c down? Saved one bit of cockpit workload just after take off!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone makes mistakes when flying. The lucky ones of us get away with them.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not done a Human Factors course then, Cirrus?
"Human factors" is not an excuse for being negligent in the wider world - though it seems to be acceptable in the RAF given recent incidences of mong flying.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
"an RAF insider even glibly told a national newspaper that "these things happen from time to time" . "
And it is quite true that they do, but I cannot think of anyone who has done it more than once.
To dump someone who cost x million to train because they are human would be the height of petulant idiocy.
Everyone makes mistakes when flying. The lucky ones of us get away with them.
And it is quite true that they do, but I cannot think of anyone who has done it more than once.
To dump someone who cost x million to train because they are human would be the height of petulant idiocy.
Everyone makes mistakes when flying. The lucky ones of us get away with them.
The atmosphere was paranoid with the SOs living on a knife edge and that from the actions of subordinates and the presumed omission by the chain of command as opposed to the issue of possibly illegal orders.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the late 60s early 70s the RAF did indeed follow current US practice. It was quite the norm for the wg cdr or stn cdr to be penalised for the errors or mishaps for a subordinate.
It is quite simple - if the senior officer has properly briefed the subordinate, with clear orders, sops, and limitations, but the subordinate fails to follow those orders, sops and limitations - then the senior officer has carried out his duties correctly and is not implicated. The subordinate shoud then be held to account. The senior officer is only held to account if he has failed to brief properly the subordinate. You can fault the US military for a few things, but not their command procedures. To suggest that current US procedures equate to UK procedures fifty years ago is not credible.
I am still frankly staggered by some of the well-documented mong flying that has occured in the RAF recently. There should be a culture of zero-tolerance for incidences such as the Typhoon China Lake crash, the Hawk at Cranwell, or the Caterick Puma.
I remember my ex-Bucc OC ULAS calling finals 3 greens on the Bulldog. Luckily for him, they were down!
""Human factors" is not an excuse for being negligent in the wider world - though it seems to be acceptable in the RAF given recent incidences of mong flying. "
A close friend who works at a RAF base told me of a certain Eng Wing's promotional slogan he had seen recently...
"Comfortable with Complexity"
I would doubt very much if any Human Factor courses attended actually meant anything to anyone there?
Maybe they should read H-C again?
A close friend who works at a RAF base told me of a certain Eng Wing's promotional slogan he had seen recently...
"Comfortable with Complexity"
I would doubt very much if any Human Factor courses attended actually meant anything to anyone there?
Maybe they should read H-C again?
Re: He was quite right to have that reflex. #10
Surely not – quite the wrong reflex; acting (calling) automatically in that situation.
The better ‘reflex’ is to check for the presence of three greens, and when not seen enquire if the gear is down. Both instructor and student might learn from that.
“...no matter how hard they try, humans can never be expected to out perform the system which bounds and constrains them. Organisational flaws will, sooner or later, defeat individual human performance.”
“Responsibility lies with those who could act but do not, it lies with those who could learn but do not and for those who evaluate it can add to their capacity to make interventions which might make all our lives the safer.”
Phillip Capper – ‘Systems safety in the wake of the cave creek disaster.’
Surely not – quite the wrong reflex; acting (calling) automatically in that situation.
The better ‘reflex’ is to check for the presence of three greens, and when not seen enquire if the gear is down. Both instructor and student might learn from that.
“...no matter how hard they try, humans can never be expected to out perform the system which bounds and constrains them. Organisational flaws will, sooner or later, defeat individual human performance.”
“Responsibility lies with those who could act but do not, it lies with those who could learn but do not and for those who evaluate it can add to their capacity to make interventions which might make all our lives the safer.”
Phillip Capper – ‘Systems safety in the wake of the cave creek disaster.’
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dubai
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another example was the USMC F/A18D crash at Miramar in 2008 - IIRC the engineering officer who signed off the plane was dismissed with loss of pension, and the officer who ordered the pilot to return to Miramar (rather than eject) was also "relieved" of his duties.
This is not accurate; 4 Officers not including the pilot were relieved of their duties after the incident, to the best of my knowledge none of them recieved any loss of pension although if that was true of any of them it would have been the AMO who left the service immediately after the crash.
Additionally there was never any suggestion that the correct course of action was to order the pilot to eject, the 'accident chain' in this instance was very long and complex.
The CO was relieved of command and subsequently retired, the other 2 officers were given negative fitreps and moved to other posts / Sqn.
To remain on topic, they were not fired because of the mistakes of the Pilot in Command (and as such held accountable for their subordinate's error) but were held directly accountable for their own mistakes as cited by the board.
It is my firm belief that had the same incident occured under the same circumstances in the RAF the results would have been similar.
Interestingly, the Pilot in Command kept his wings and is currently completing his F/A-18 training on another Sqn.
Adour
Last edited by Adour; 14th Jan 2010 at 06:20. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Forgetting to put the gear down is not a "mistake" - it is a negligent disregard of the most basic of checklists."
Gosh Cirrus, you must be fantastic to have never made an ommission of checks accidentally.
Or, more likely, you are 14yrs old and never graced the cockpit.
Gosh Cirrus, you must be fantastic to have never made an ommission of checks accidentally.
Or, more likely, you are 14yrs old and never graced the cockpit.
If an RN war canoe runs aground the CO, the Navigator and the Officer of the Watch get Court Martialled and yet it is very possible that both of the first two could legitimately have been in their bunks at the time.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Cirrus, slip of the brain, maybe deliberate.
Following from your senior officer covering his 6:
About 1982, the staish, later Sir Sandy Curtains, had all aircrew assembled in the large dining room at ISL - Buccaneer (the stars), Jaguar, Sea King and Shackleton - and proceeded to bollock us all.
A Bucc formation, RTB from Norway, had flown through an HPZ around one of the rig fields - bad, yes, but compounded by the Nav saying "What HPZ?"
He read the riot act and said it would not happen again; if it did then that man would never be a 4-ship lead and would forever be a wing-man.
As Shack SLF we were able to sit with smug grins as we would never be a 4-ship lead as long as we had ***** in our *****.
That said, one Shack controller, chasing a chinagraph dot, that managed to drive an F4 into Montrose Harbour when the target had already landed at Leuchars was not blamed.
Following from your senior officer covering his 6:
About 1982, the staish, later Sir Sandy Curtains, had all aircrew assembled in the large dining room at ISL - Buccaneer (the stars), Jaguar, Sea King and Shackleton - and proceeded to bollock us all.
A Bucc formation, RTB from Norway, had flown through an HPZ around one of the rig fields - bad, yes, but compounded by the Nav saying "What HPZ?"
He read the riot act and said it would not happen again; if it did then that man would never be a 4-ship lead and would forever be a wing-man.
As Shack SLF we were able to sit with smug grins as we would never be a 4-ship lead as long as we had ***** in our *****.
That said, one Shack controller, chasing a chinagraph dot, that managed to drive an F4 into Montrose Harbour when the target had already landed at Leuchars was not blamed.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gosh Cirrus, you must be fantastic to have never made an ommission of checks accidentally.
Or, more likely, you are 14yrs old and never graced the cockpit.
Or, more likely, you are 14yrs old and never graced the cockpit.
The number of crashes in the RAF due to foolishness or negligence would be completely unacceptable to an airline. Can you imagine if in the last couple of years BA had written off two aircraft through forgetting to put the gear down, and had killed a few passengers because the pilot decided amongst other things, that he wanted to "scare the **** out of a taxi driver"? You have to question the culture of an organisation that allows such completely avoidable accidents to happen.