2007 Puma Crash, Enquiry and Inquest (Merged)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a parallel track to this, it is worth taking a few minutes to read this article, and pay attention to the 'verdicts' delivered by onlookers, and self appointed juries.
RAF Hunter does London Tower Bridge
Of course nobody was killed and High Jinx had a different perception then. But have military aviators really changed sinced classed as Knights of the Air, Defenders of the people. I suppose for effect, I could have written this in German!
RAF Hunter does London Tower Bridge
Of course nobody was killed and High Jinx had a different perception then. But have military aviators really changed sinced classed as Knights of the Air, Defenders of the people. I suppose for effect, I could have written this in German!
I can't quite understand the obtuseness of some posters above. Myself and a couple of others stated that we had never broken our auth in search of thrills / fun. Cue "boring", "operationally ineffective", "liar", blah...
To try and make my position clear for a final time, let me break the "breaking the auth" debate into 3 clear-cut scenarios:
1) Inadvertantly breaking aircraft limits / MSD / training rules / solo student limits etc...
I can confidently say that all of us have done this at some point in our careers. As Tourist et al have been queueing up to point out, if you haven't done so, you probably haven't learned what your aircraft is capable of. Hopefully we can all agree there.
2) Deliberately breaking your authorisation in order to complete a tasking...
Bast0n - I don't think it's wrong. Nor did any of the previous posters. This is in the military spirit that is vital at times of need.
If it happens every day, though, then the regulatory / supervisory framework is clearly not keeping up with the reality of ops.
3) Deliberately breaking your authorisation in search of thrills / fun...
This was SFFP's original question. I am neither delusional nor a liar, Tourist, and will happily restate that I have never done it. From the postings above, it seems that a number of you have, and that's disappointing.
Tourist, you're wilfully confusing 1) and 3), and do it in such strong language is a bit offside!
To try and make my position clear for a final time, let me break the "breaking the auth" debate into 3 clear-cut scenarios:
1) Inadvertantly breaking aircraft limits / MSD / training rules / solo student limits etc...
I can confidently say that all of us have done this at some point in our careers. As Tourist et al have been queueing up to point out, if you haven't done so, you probably haven't learned what your aircraft is capable of. Hopefully we can all agree there.
2) Deliberately breaking your authorisation in order to complete a tasking...
Bast0n - I don't think it's wrong. Nor did any of the previous posters. This is in the military spirit that is vital at times of need.
If it happens every day, though, then the regulatory / supervisory framework is clearly not keeping up with the reality of ops.
3) Deliberately breaking your authorisation in search of thrills / fun...
This was SFFP's original question. I am neither delusional nor a liar, Tourist, and will happily restate that I have never done it. From the postings above, it seems that a number of you have, and that's disappointing.
Tourist, you're wilfully confusing 1) and 3), and do it in such strong language is a bit offside!
To continue Ex-Riggers subject;
It is well known that all officers will look after the officer corps, doctors to doctors, etc. And that any "rankers" complaint against an officer had to be first subjected to an officer's approval before forwarding - often these first filters would give approving noises and then just bin the complaint - either due to the Old Boy network or just to avoid unneccessary hassles in the Mess. If the complaint did get through the first layer, there were several other layers of dissappearance it could go through. Even CONDORs & MURPHYs were subject to disapearances. In 24 years, I never heard of one complaint getting through.
The RAF/Army/Navy does not operate a 'Just' Culture - There was(is?) NO WAY of giving any formal complaint against crews without fear of retribution/posting/extra duties.
It is due to these differences from expected behavior - plain BAD behavior was most often named as "High Spirits" and that cover-up attitude did most to annoy "the ranks".
There must still be "B52 Majors" in the RAF, but no complaints can be made against them...until afterwards, of course.
It is well known that all officers will look after the officer corps, doctors to doctors, etc. And that any "rankers" complaint against an officer had to be first subjected to an officer's approval before forwarding - often these first filters would give approving noises and then just bin the complaint - either due to the Old Boy network or just to avoid unneccessary hassles in the Mess. If the complaint did get through the first layer, there were several other layers of dissappearance it could go through. Even CONDORs & MURPHYs were subject to disapearances. In 24 years, I never heard of one complaint getting through.
The RAF/Army/Navy does not operate a 'Just' Culture - There was(is?) NO WAY of giving any formal complaint against crews without fear of retribution/posting/extra duties.
It is due to these differences from expected behavior - plain BAD behavior was most often named as "High Spirits" and that cover-up attitude did most to annoy "the ranks".
There must still be "B52 Majors" in the RAF, but no complaints can be made against them...until afterwards, of course.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Service Complaints Commisioner - Independent arbitration by a civilian.
Condors, Murphys and Open Reporting ARE taken very seriously. In my experience open reporting more so, simply because the reporting individual is prepared to stand up and be counted.
However you do not need to witness in person the result of a complaint being dealt with. There are two sides to every story, and everbody has a boss to answer to. There is a saying "Praise in public", - "Bollo* in private", which is applied better the higher up the food chain the alleged offender is. The rights and wrongs of this protocol are what create the perception that nothing gets done. Of cause there are strong and weak leaders irrespective of rank, and the latter can do much to cause a lifetime of ill feeling.
The bottom line is that there are protocols in place and clearly you do not have any repect or faith in them. That is a fault of the system. I would (with respect) advise caution about being narrow minded to the detriment of knowing a bigger picture. I know of many times the officer corps have had the mother of all one sided debates often accompanied by a string of extra duties. Nothing they would shout about, or anything you would necessarily see.
Condors, Murphys and Open Reporting ARE taken very seriously. In my experience open reporting more so, simply because the reporting individual is prepared to stand up and be counted.
However you do not need to witness in person the result of a complaint being dealt with. There are two sides to every story, and everbody has a boss to answer to. There is a saying "Praise in public", - "Bollo* in private", which is applied better the higher up the food chain the alleged offender is. The rights and wrongs of this protocol are what create the perception that nothing gets done. Of cause there are strong and weak leaders irrespective of rank, and the latter can do much to cause a lifetime of ill feeling.
The bottom line is that there are protocols in place and clearly you do not have any repect or faith in them. That is a fault of the system. I would (with respect) advise caution about being narrow minded to the detriment of knowing a bigger picture. I know of many times the officer corps have had the mother of all one sided debates often accompanied by a string of extra duties. Nothing they would shout about, or anything you would necessarily see.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find myself agreeing with the riggers.
Doesn't mean you can't do anything.
Way back, I was most dischuffed when my Friday afternoon shift was extended so that the 84 Sqn hofficers could be delivered to the Summer Ball in their Wessex helicopter, (because 34 Sqn Regt had turned up in their Scimitars (?) the previous year)
An authorised training flight for the duty crew, of course.
So I bubbled their plans to my hofficer mate on 34 and he ensured that the curtains were shut, & the throng turned their backs as they performed their ridiculous stunt, and the 2 i/c got to be in charge of the Officers Mess garden as a punishment.
Wrong thread, sorry.
Doesn't mean you can't do anything.
Way back, I was most dischuffed when my Friday afternoon shift was extended so that the 84 Sqn hofficers could be delivered to the Summer Ball in their Wessex helicopter, (because 34 Sqn Regt had turned up in their Scimitars (?) the previous year)
An authorised training flight for the duty crew, of course.
So I bubbled their plans to my hofficer mate on 34 and he ensured that the curtains were shut, & the throng turned their backs as they performed their ridiculous stunt, and the 2 i/c got to be in charge of the Officers Mess garden as a punishment.
Wrong thread, sorry.
TM, I fully get what you are saying, but the thread had gone down the road of debating who had or had not broken the rules as aircrew, with some justifying one type of indiscretion but not another, then there were those who seem to say it is ok to push the limits as long as there is not an accident.
All I asked was, given the scenarios I gave, 'what did the panel think' but it seems to have been turned around on Rigga & I, as if it is our failing, apologies if I have mis-understood you comments.
I think you will find we do have respect for the flying rules, but that is for the rules as we are informed by the aircrew/management as being correct, what hope do we have against that and I await the usual: I should of tried harder at school so I could have been one of the select few, or I must have a chip on my shoulder because I failed the entry exam, but I can live with that
Additionally you are probably correct in that we have lost faith in the various means off feedback, because they have never been seen to happen and attitudes did not change, despite your assurance off what went on behind closed doors, post a complaint.
All I asked was, given the scenarios I gave, 'what did the panel think' but it seems to have been turned around on Rigga & I, as if it is our failing, apologies if I have mis-understood you comments.
I think you will find we do have respect for the flying rules, but that is for the rules as we are informed by the aircrew/management as being correct, what hope do we have against that and I await the usual: I should of tried harder at school so I could have been one of the select few, or I must have a chip on my shoulder because I failed the entry exam, but I can live with that
Additionally you are probably correct in that we have lost faith in the various means off feedback, because they have never been seen to happen and attitudes did not change, despite your assurance off what went on behind closed doors, post a complaint.
I await the usual: I should of tried harder at school so I could have been one of the select few, or I must have a chip on my shoulder because I failed the entry exam
We're all human. Some just believe their own hype.
The good ones in all branches admit it, learn from it and move on.
TM said
"Service Complaints Commisioner - Independent arbitration by a civilian.
Condors, Murphys and Open Reporting ARE taken very seriously. In my experience open reporting more so, simply because the reporting individual is prepared to stand up and be counted."
The SCC are the recipients of complaints. I am sure they are taken very seriously, but they only receive those that are allowed through the various layers of "filters".
You state that you have seen the results of complaints being dealt with locally, by quiet interviews and internal measures - and I don't doubt that.
In CRM (do the forces do CRM?) and HF terms, the split punitary systems you describe actually contribute to bad liaison, and distrust, with your own groundcrews and, by being seen to be a seperate breed who don't really get punished, crews will reduce conversation and information exchanges with those individuals when signing for aircraft. This also breeds contempt on both sides.
In a Just Culture, all complaints would be put through to the independant commission without "filtering". And all punitive actions would be visible for all to see. Pablo Mason's sacking being a good example, and the engineers on Trial for the Cyprus 737 or the Concorde crash being other examples.
MGD,
This isn't about inadvertantly screwing up - its about the deliberate abuse of flying expensive kit in an unsafe way for the local conditions.
"Service Complaints Commisioner - Independent arbitration by a civilian.
Condors, Murphys and Open Reporting ARE taken very seriously. In my experience open reporting more so, simply because the reporting individual is prepared to stand up and be counted."
The SCC are the recipients of complaints. I am sure they are taken very seriously, but they only receive those that are allowed through the various layers of "filters".
You state that you have seen the results of complaints being dealt with locally, by quiet interviews and internal measures - and I don't doubt that.
In CRM (do the forces do CRM?) and HF terms, the split punitary systems you describe actually contribute to bad liaison, and distrust, with your own groundcrews and, by being seen to be a seperate breed who don't really get punished, crews will reduce conversation and information exchanges with those individuals when signing for aircraft. This also breeds contempt on both sides.
In a Just Culture, all complaints would be put through to the independant commission without "filtering". And all punitive actions would be visible for all to see. Pablo Mason's sacking being a good example, and the engineers on Trial for the Cyprus 737 or the Concorde crash being other examples.
MGD,
This isn't about inadvertantly screwing up - its about the deliberate abuse of flying expensive kit in an unsafe way for the local conditions.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SCC are the recipients of complaints. I am sure they are taken very seriously, but they only receive those that are allowed through the various layers of "filters".
Timing is everything
"The men and women who serve with our Armed Forces are trained to act with professionalism, integrity and respect for others and ultimately to lay down their lives for our country. They deserve to be treated well and, where they feel they are not, to have their complaints handled properly.
Ministers, the Armed Forces and the MOD have signalled their commitment to having a rigorous, independent and transparent scrutiny of the complaints system. I shall hold them to their word."
Dr Susan Atkins,
No responses yet to Ex-Riggers comments on 'qualified' pilots who behave irresponsibly on maintenance flights?
No-one should ever be allowed to conduct any form of post-maintenance flight test without specific approval from the Sqn Cdr. And anyone 'doing their own thing' in such an air test should never get a second opportunity.
I'm in total agreement with vecvechootattack's comments.
TM,
I am not aware of the these changes of occurence reporting brought about due to the Deepcut enquiry since I left the service prior to that episode. However, that is a great improvement on what was before and I do hope the good Doctor does as she says. It's a pity she is described as a shark without teeth - she needs to paid the attention she deserves. (I wonder if she worked at SIDD at some time)
"...and few people seem to know of its existance." I hope too that many more get to know of this apparently NEW development. Perhaps it should be more widely promoted?
In the circumstances described by ex-Rigger - it is not a redress that would've been needed - it needed a full reprimand and potential formal warning for unsafe practices endangering all on board, and possibly Flight Auth reclassification and additional training.
BEagle,
"And anyone 'doing their own thing' in such an air test should never get a second opportunity."
Mine and Ex-Riggers' point entirely.
I am not aware of the these changes of occurence reporting brought about due to the Deepcut enquiry since I left the service prior to that episode. However, that is a great improvement on what was before and I do hope the good Doctor does as she says. It's a pity she is described as a shark without teeth - she needs to paid the attention she deserves. (I wonder if she worked at SIDD at some time)
"...and few people seem to know of its existance." I hope too that many more get to know of this apparently NEW development. Perhaps it should be more widely promoted?
In the circumstances described by ex-Rigger - it is not a redress that would've been needed - it needed a full reprimand and potential formal warning for unsafe practices endangering all on board, and possibly Flight Auth reclassification and additional training.
BEagle,
"And anyone 'doing their own thing' in such an air test should never get a second opportunity."
Mine and Ex-Riggers' point entirely.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: England
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it very disappointing that this thread seems to have been hijacked into a very public slanging match between characters known/unknown to each other, about how slack the modern air force is and how they people have/have not willfully breached all rules of the air.
The talk about Puma airworthiness was mildly interesting with some accuracy but mostly conjecture before facts came out, but the utterly stupid conversation about the present station commander and his lack of head gear (therfore lack of standards) is beyond approach. I say that from someone who does not know the man but I am guessing he would not have gotten promoted if his personal standards were not pretty good!
Is it not about time this thread addressed the subject and certain (but not any) alleyways that get thrown up, or just stop! People who do not no any different would look at this and be wandering how we are doing our jobs in the circumstances we are doing them.
Certain things have been brought up that will be very interesting in the near future. The BoI for one. How can it come up with anything other than the verdict that the coroner has already sumised? Was the Puma force the only one to be in that state? I seem to remember many grumblings from other types about operational pressure. etc etc
Still, I can get off my soap box now and relax with crap tv.
The talk about Puma airworthiness was mildly interesting with some accuracy but mostly conjecture before facts came out, but the utterly stupid conversation about the present station commander and his lack of head gear (therfore lack of standards) is beyond approach. I say that from someone who does not know the man but I am guessing he would not have gotten promoted if his personal standards were not pretty good!
Is it not about time this thread addressed the subject and certain (but not any) alleyways that get thrown up, or just stop! People who do not no any different would look at this and be wandering how we are doing our jobs in the circumstances we are doing them.
Certain things have been brought up that will be very interesting in the near future. The BoI for one. How can it come up with anything other than the verdict that the coroner has already sumised? Was the Puma force the only one to be in that state? I seem to remember many grumblings from other types about operational pressure. etc etc
Still, I can get off my soap box now and relax with crap tv.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you'llneverguesswhat
It may or may not, but it would be a mistake to assume that a specialist inquiry would necessarily come to the same conclusion(s) as a local coroner.
Certain things have been brought up that will be very interesting in the near future. The BoI for one. How can it come up with anything other than the verdict that the coroner has already sumised?
For example, an extract from the Nimrod Review:
The Coroner’s Inquest produced little factual evidence of value to the Review. The Coroner’s finding as to the likely source of fuel did not accord with the realistic probabilities, or the evidence before him, and his Rule 43 recommendation (that the Nimrod fleet should be grounded pending certain repairs) was based on his misunderstanding of the meaning of As Low as Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). The Coroner’s widely-publicised remark that the MOD had a “cavalier approach to safety” was unjustified.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps it should be borne in mind, by those who "push the limits", that a finding of "Negligence" can have a significant effect on the compensation paid to Next of Kin in respect of those Crewmembers deemed "Negligent" who have perished in aircraft "Accidents". It could also affect payments to those deemed "Negligent" who survive, if they are deemed to be unfit for further Service.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Negligence" is itself a minefield as there are so many variations of it and drawing the dividing line is down to individual perception. ie Where does carelessness end and negligence begin. Furthermore where is the division between negligence and culpable or indeed criminal negligence in law.
Recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death or failing to do something with the same consequences.
or
Failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances.
Both of these statements are open to interpretation and are notable by the absence of a specific event (such as death) that would enable a right and fair decision. There are elements of this thread that leave "reasonable person" open to inconclusive debate. Glad I'm not a lawyer.
Recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death or failing to do something with the same consequences.
or
Failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances.
Both of these statements are open to interpretation and are notable by the absence of a specific event (such as death) that would enable a right and fair decision. There are elements of this thread that leave "reasonable person" open to inconclusive debate. Glad I'm not a lawyer.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BoIs/SIs, Unit Inquiries, Ships investigations etc. are all "no-blame" inquiries, as are the RNFSAIC, AIEFSO & AAIB investigations. They are there to find out whay happened, why and how to prevent it from happening again.
Therefore, neglgence can only be apportioned following an investigation from another source, such as Service or Civilian Police etc.
Therefore, neglgence can only be apportioned following an investigation from another source, such as Service or Civilian Police etc.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Written evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on Chinook ZD 576:
"Full and final settlement of the claims for compensation of the 2 deceased Pilots was reached on the basis of 50 per cent contributing negligence and with both parties acknowledging ( although not necessarily agreeing ) the basis on which the settlement was reached."
Your Car Insurance Company could reduce payment on a claim following a crash if it deemed conditions laid down by them had not been observed - even if no Police action was taken.
"Full and final settlement of the claims for compensation of the 2 deceased Pilots was reached on the basis of 50 per cent contributing negligence and with both parties acknowledging ( although not necessarily agreeing ) the basis on which the settlement was reached."
Your Car Insurance Company could reduce payment on a claim following a crash if it deemed conditions laid down by them had not been observed - even if no Police action was taken.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Swindon
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The media keep referring to RAF 'Experts' having conducted an inquiry with the North Yorkshire Police. As I understand it, the Service Enquiry hasnt stood up yet. Did the RAF provide SME advice to the Police or did they have their own guys?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
I am in absolutely NO way condoning what happened, but has anyone out there with medical type training considered this line?
The services are looking to recruit a different type of pilot to the civil world. "OK Bloggs, you (and your crew for those types) go fly over Baghdad/Helmand and drop that BF bomb". "But Sir, the enemy are firing missiles/RPGs/Rifles at us!!" "Of course, don't bother, you might have to show lots of aggression and fly on the limits".
Of the soldier, saturday night in Aldershot. Sunday papers..... "Lunatic squaddies in mass brawl, witnesses say they should be locked up forever".
The British military activally recruit in the stable extrovert category and push them to the limits during training. History is littered with pilots who went out and pushed too hard in peacetime, pilots of ALL services not just RAF. How close is that fine line to the normal 'target' aircrew member?? The senior officers are criticised for not stepping in often enough, how can you do that if you don't see it as a problem? Do we need to recruit further across the scale, towards introvert?
The services are looking to recruit a different type of pilot to the civil world. "OK Bloggs, you (and your crew for those types) go fly over Baghdad/Helmand and drop that BF bomb". "But Sir, the enemy are firing missiles/RPGs/Rifles at us!!" "Of course, don't bother, you might have to show lots of aggression and fly on the limits".
Of the soldier, saturday night in Aldershot. Sunday papers..... "Lunatic squaddies in mass brawl, witnesses say they should be locked up forever".
The British military activally recruit in the stable extrovert category and push them to the limits during training. History is littered with pilots who went out and pushed too hard in peacetime, pilots of ALL services not just RAF. How close is that fine line to the normal 'target' aircrew member?? The senior officers are criticised for not stepping in often enough, how can you do that if you don't see it as a problem? Do we need to recruit further across the scale, towards introvert?