Haddon-Cave, Airworthiness, Sea King et al (merged)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a volunteer.
I can stop at any time.
I take the risks as a choice.
I love doing it and am perfectly willing to risk my life for the enjoyment the job gives me.
I take personal responsibility for my actions.
I will never fly if I do not believe the risks are outweighed by the reward.
To do otherwise paints me as a victim, and that is one thing I never, ever, am.
I can stop at any time.
I take the risks as a choice.
I love doing it and am perfectly willing to risk my life for the enjoyment the job gives me.
I take personal responsibility for my actions.
I will never fly if I do not believe the risks are outweighed by the reward.
To do otherwise paints me as a victim, and that is one thing I never, ever, am.
Well Said
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't make the others die for their country if you can't get competitive aircraft in the air.
Statistic plainly show that the most likely reason for me to die is because I fecked up, not because my aircraft was dodgy.
Let me get airborne in an effective aircraft, not a safe one.
Statistic plainly show that the most likely reason for me to die is because I fecked up, not because my aircraft was dodgy.
Let me get airborne in an effective aircraft, not a safe one.
An effective aircraft like the Chinook HC2 as Released To Service? Prone to UFCMs, jammed controls, and a FADEC that would cause uncommanded engine shutdowns, power downs, and worst of all for a helicopter, power ups?
Or like the Nimrod Mk2, with a fuel gallery fitted with notoriously leaky fuel couplings passing through a dry bay(!) with (contrary to the Regs) a source of ignition?
Or like an AT aircraft with no ballistic fuel tank protection whatsoever, capable of being destroyed by a single small arms round?
Competitive aircraft all right, but for what competition, the Aunt Sally War Games?
You may see yourself as capable of dealing with any or all of those shortcomings but I would rather see you using all of your capacity against Her Majesty's enemies, and have these shortcomings made right before your Service ever gets said aircraft in the first place. How would that make them less effective?
Or like the Nimrod Mk2, with a fuel gallery fitted with notoriously leaky fuel couplings passing through a dry bay(!) with (contrary to the Regs) a source of ignition?
Or like an AT aircraft with no ballistic fuel tank protection whatsoever, capable of being destroyed by a single small arms round?
Competitive aircraft all right, but for what competition, the Aunt Sally War Games?
You may see yourself as capable of dealing with any or all of those shortcomings but I would rather see you using all of your capacity against Her Majesty's enemies, and have these shortcomings made right before your Service ever gets said aircraft in the first place. How would that make them less effective?
Tourist
I think Chug makes a good point. If I were a pilot, I think I'd like to carry out my personal risk assessment from a position of knowledge, and confidence that those who were meant to provide me with safe kit were doing their job: something I appreciate you have to rather assume.
Chinook ZD576 will now always be held up as the classic example. The aircrew were not informed that the entire Nav and Comms systems only had Switch On clearance ("mandated" according to Lord Philip). The pilots instinctively knew there were major issues but couldn't pinpoint the precise problem. When they sought a Mk1, the officer who refused was similarly constrained. What would he have said or done had he known? In fact, who knew this? CA and his staffs in PE (who articulated it rather poorly in the CAR but nevertheless did state it); and ACAS, CAS and err, that's it, in the RAF.
I think Chug makes a good point. If I were a pilot, I think I'd like to carry out my personal risk assessment from a position of knowledge, and confidence that those who were meant to provide me with safe kit were doing their job: something I appreciate you have to rather assume.
Chinook ZD576 will now always be held up as the classic example. The aircrew were not informed that the entire Nav and Comms systems only had Switch On clearance ("mandated" according to Lord Philip). The pilots instinctively knew there were major issues but couldn't pinpoint the precise problem. When they sought a Mk1, the officer who refused was similarly constrained. What would he have said or done had he known? In fact, who knew this? CA and his staffs in PE (who articulated it rather poorly in the CAR but nevertheless did state it); and ACAS, CAS and err, that's it, in the RAF.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nimrod was a very effective aircraft, possibly the best in world at its role/s
There is a happy medium, and nowadays we are nowhere near it and heading further up our own @rses in the search for a perfect safety record.
We all know the only way to achieve that.
The current thinking would never allow some of the worlds finest or most needed aircraft to fly.
AAR Hercules
Seaking Mk7!
U2
Space Shuttle
Concorde
Zero
Lynx
Harrier
ME262
ME161
Mosquito
All of these have obvious risks, but were still world beaters.
I object to people who come on Pprune with problems understanding simple causality.
ie
Seaking Mk7 had strobes which did not have every single i dotted in the paperwork.
Seaking Mk7s crash into each other.
Therefore Strobe caused or was implicated in the crash.
Total crap.
Find me one Seaking pilot who thinks it was a factor. We used to turn the old strobes off at low level as well!!!!
I am not sure if you are aware, but when aircraft are in formation, it is usual to dim or turn off the strobes because they are blinding and irritating. Does this mean that the strobes are unfit for purpose?
Should we ban formation until we develop a strobe that neither strobes irritatingly or is bright enough to blind?
Or do we just accept that all things have their limitations.
There is a happy medium, and nowadays we are nowhere near it and heading further up our own @rses in the search for a perfect safety record.
We all know the only way to achieve that.
The current thinking would never allow some of the worlds finest or most needed aircraft to fly.
AAR Hercules
Seaking Mk7!
U2
Space Shuttle
Concorde
Zero
Lynx
Harrier
ME262
ME161
Mosquito
All of these have obvious risks, but were still world beaters.
I object to people who come on Pprune with problems understanding simple causality.
ie
Seaking Mk7 had strobes which did not have every single i dotted in the paperwork.
Seaking Mk7s crash into each other.
Therefore Strobe caused or was implicated in the crash.
Total crap.
Find me one Seaking pilot who thinks it was a factor. We used to turn the old strobes off at low level as well!!!!
I am not sure if you are aware, but when aircraft are in formation, it is usual to dim or turn off the strobes because they are blinding and irritating. Does this mean that the strobes are unfit for purpose?
Should we ban formation until we develop a strobe that neither strobes irritatingly or is bright enough to blind?
Or do we just accept that all things have their limitations.
You forgot the Sopwith Camel! Seriously, I think that we are having two separate discussions here. No one is suggesting that military aircraft should be as "safe" (for want of a better word) as civilian ones. They are designed to be militarily effective, as you so rightly say. That is why the Military Airworthiness Regulations are just that, separate and different from civil ones. All that I ask is that the Military Aviation Authority, or whatever it calls itself this week, abides by them and enforces them. The regulations should ensure, not hinder, that effectiveness. A functional FADEC has no operational disadvantage over a dysfunctional one, quite the reverse. The volume penalty of filling a fuel tank with ESF is, I think, 3%. OK. it's a penalty, but surely worth it to ensure that the enemy will have to put far more than one bullet into it to bring the aircraft down? You may be right that HISLs did not account for the loss of the two Mk7 Sea Kings, as ever we will never really know, but from your own account it would seem that they were a retrograde step in comparison to the ACLs they replaced. So why do it, and if you are going to do it why not do it right?
In truth Tourist, it seems to me that your objection is not for an independent MAA, as I am calling for, but for any MAA at all! With resistance to their purpose, of keeping you and your aircraft around until you both are called upon for war, it seems all the more reason why they should pursue that independent of it from both below and above!
In truth Tourist, it seems to me that your objection is not for an independent MAA, as I am calling for, but for any MAA at all! With resistance to their purpose, of keeping you and your aircraft around until you both are called upon for war, it seems all the more reason why they should pursue that independent of it from both below and above!
Tourist
You have been misled or are misleading. Benefit of the doubt and all that.
I did a 3 year tour from 97-00 in a central services post, providing minor help to many programmes, one of them SK7. The programme was known as good entertainment value because of two events. First, the RN’s Aircraft Support Executive had withdrawn all support for the programme because they wanted brand new SKs. Second, DHSA technical staff were under instruction to answer questions on AEW2 airworthiness with “no comment”.
Strange but true. It meant we were working to the PE programme manager, instead of DHSA, who we’d normally expected to pass our endeavours to PE.
HISL was a Naval Service Mod, meaning PE and Westlands had nothing to do with it. It had been schemed for the AEW2 before my time, probably about 1995, but was not requested for the SK7. It was not in the trials aircraft during the first phase of flight trials. (MoD claim it was, but the photos don’t lie).
Late in the day, about mid 2000 as I only caught the beginning of this, the SK IPT (Mr "no comment”) suddenly asked for it to be in the SK7, and the design should be read across from the AEW2. Not the SK6, as implied by Tourist in an earlier post. The programme manager asked the right questions, Can we have the drawing pack, the trials results, the EMC assessment, the updated safety case including HISL. The IPT couldn’t or wouldn’t provide any of them so read across was refused. The lack of a safety case was the end of the matter. I remember this because as a result of the decision I left the meeting with no action and without my small input the safety case could not be valid.
So, the “i” you think it unnecessary to dot in the paperwork was the safety case itself. Did I mention Haddon-Cave?
Seaking Mk7 had strobes which did not have every single i dotted in the paperwork.
You have been misled or are misleading. Benefit of the doubt and all that.
I did a 3 year tour from 97-00 in a central services post, providing minor help to many programmes, one of them SK7. The programme was known as good entertainment value because of two events. First, the RN’s Aircraft Support Executive had withdrawn all support for the programme because they wanted brand new SKs. Second, DHSA technical staff were under instruction to answer questions on AEW2 airworthiness with “no comment”.
Strange but true. It meant we were working to the PE programme manager, instead of DHSA, who we’d normally expected to pass our endeavours to PE.
HISL was a Naval Service Mod, meaning PE and Westlands had nothing to do with it. It had been schemed for the AEW2 before my time, probably about 1995, but was not requested for the SK7. It was not in the trials aircraft during the first phase of flight trials. (MoD claim it was, but the photos don’t lie).
Late in the day, about mid 2000 as I only caught the beginning of this, the SK IPT (Mr "no comment”) suddenly asked for it to be in the SK7, and the design should be read across from the AEW2. Not the SK6, as implied by Tourist in an earlier post. The programme manager asked the right questions, Can we have the drawing pack, the trials results, the EMC assessment, the updated safety case including HISL. The IPT couldn’t or wouldn’t provide any of them so read across was refused. The lack of a safety case was the end of the matter. I remember this because as a result of the decision I left the meeting with no action and without my small input the safety case could not be valid.
So, the “i” you think it unnecessary to dot in the paperwork was the safety case itself. Did I mention Haddon-Cave?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
. Let me get airborne in an effective aircraft, not a safe one.
So many people have died in aircraft that were not safe. I wonder how many of them and their families would agree with you?
An effective aircraft is useless if it isn't safe! To say otherwise illustrates that you should be in a flying club, not a military service. You need both overall and to ignore the airworthiness of an aircraft is lunacy. I doubt if those friends of yours who died in car accidents did so due to mechanical failure!
What is the requirement for "safety" if it's not "x flights without loss or incident"?
I'm with Tourist, frankly if you don't like the odds, or don't want to accept responsibility for authourising flights, then resign. The system we have is good enough, and I think that should include a truly independent MAA, but the MAA have to accept we'll overrule them on occasion.
Whilst every death in service is a tragic incident for the families and friends involved, generally we don't send people on Op CERTAIN DEATH. Amazingly, I tend to trust those in positions of authority, perhaps that's why I continue to serve.
I'm with Tourist, frankly if you don't like the odds, or don't want to accept responsibility for authourising flights, then resign. The system we have is good enough, and I think that should include a truly independent MAA, but the MAA have to accept we'll overrule them on occasion.
Whilst every death in service is a tragic incident for the families and friends involved, generally we don't send people on Op CERTAIN DEATH. Amazingly, I tend to trust those in positions of authority, perhaps that's why I continue to serve.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Green
"Did the system design contribute to the accident or prevent safe recovery. Did training, procedures or non-operational pressures or other factors have a part to play."
We are military pilots. There is a reason we are overpaid primadonnas.
It's because we are supposed to be able to overcome that crap.
Just lefty cr@p as far as I'm concerned.
Pour yourself a large glass of man-the-****-up and take responsibility for the aircraft, don't blame it on non-operational pressures.
Dervish
You still don't get my point.
I honestly don't care if the HISL was invented by the senior pilots daughter in crayon, then glued on with PVA glue by a drunk stoker who attached the wiring with black maskers and chewing gum.
It still did not in any way cause the crash
ghostnav
"An effective aircraft is useless if it isn't safe!"
Have a think about all the famously effective military aircraft deathtraps throughout history before you post such a vacuous statement again.
Chugalug
"In truth Tourist, it seems to me that your objection is not for an independent MAA, as I am calling for, but for any MAA at all!"
Finally you are getting my point.
"Did the system design contribute to the accident or prevent safe recovery. Did training, procedures or non-operational pressures or other factors have a part to play."
We are military pilots. There is a reason we are overpaid primadonnas.
It's because we are supposed to be able to overcome that crap.
Just lefty cr@p as far as I'm concerned.
Pour yourself a large glass of man-the-****-up and take responsibility for the aircraft, don't blame it on non-operational pressures.
Dervish
You still don't get my point.
I honestly don't care if the HISL was invented by the senior pilots daughter in crayon, then glued on with PVA glue by a drunk stoker who attached the wiring with black maskers and chewing gum.
It still did not in any way cause the crash
ghostnav
"An effective aircraft is useless if it isn't safe!"
Have a think about all the famously effective military aircraft deathtraps throughout history before you post such a vacuous statement again.
Chugalug
"In truth Tourist, it seems to me that your objection is not for an independent MAA, as I am calling for, but for any MAA at all!"
Finally you are getting my point.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRM - wanky word for teamwork, not convinced that any of the courses out there change how people do it. Some are good at it, some are not. Mostly seems to stay that way.
Ergonomic design- critically important in operational effectivness and efficiency. No effect on safety whatsoever unless it gets to catastrophically bad levels. Not the case in anything we currently fly. The pilot decides how safe the aircraft is by how he operates it. If the aircraft is the equivalent of the iphone, ie just about the perfect ergonomic design, them he can put nearly his entire capacity into fighting the aircraft, as safety requires negligible workload. If it is a dog then it might only leave him 5% of his capacity to fight, and the rest commited to just staying safe. In both cases safety is, or should be, the same, but one is the vastly more effective weapon.
Of course there are limitations to human factors, but trying to squirm and say that pilot error is attributable to all these other pressures is just a manifestation of the modern fad for failing to take personal responsibility.
If you are the pilot, and you crash a servicable aircraft, then it is almost always your fault, end of.
Ergonomic design- critically important in operational effectivness and efficiency. No effect on safety whatsoever unless it gets to catastrophically bad levels. Not the case in anything we currently fly. The pilot decides how safe the aircraft is by how he operates it. If the aircraft is the equivalent of the iphone, ie just about the perfect ergonomic design, them he can put nearly his entire capacity into fighting the aircraft, as safety requires negligible workload. If it is a dog then it might only leave him 5% of his capacity to fight, and the rest commited to just staying safe. In both cases safety is, or should be, the same, but one is the vastly more effective weapon.
Of course there are limitations to human factors, but trying to squirm and say that pilot error is attributable to all these other pressures is just a manifestation of the modern fad for failing to take personal responsibility.
If you are the pilot, and you crash a servicable aircraft, then it is almost always your fault, end of.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere near the Rhine
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
As you say, CRM/ Teamwork/ HF it's all the same stuff and sadly not always put into practice so people do need reminding. As for ergonomic design, there are lots of examples of getting it wrong and some are still in service.
In terms of safety it really isn't all about the guys at the pointy end of jet. Lots of other people influence what they do when they get there. Sky god or not, if the organisation isn't working for you, you'll have to work that little bit to impress the girls.
As you say, CRM/ Teamwork/ HF it's all the same stuff and sadly not always put into practice so people do need reminding. As for ergonomic design, there are lots of examples of getting it wrong and some are still in service.
In terms of safety it really isn't all about the guys at the pointy end of jet. Lots of other people influence what they do when they get there. Sky god or not, if the organisation isn't working for you, you'll have to work that little bit to impress the girls.
Tourist:
Well possibly, but that's not what we're discussing now is it?
If, for the sake of argument, the Mull Chinook had indeed had an airworthiness event; a FADEC power up/down, Uncommanded Flight Control Movement, jamming of Flight Controls in 1,2 or all 3 axis, take your pick as they were all known airworthiness problems at the time, but control was regained and the aircraft safely force-landed, the odds are that it could then have been "Ground Tested and Found Serviceable". So would the pilots, who failed to complete the task but saved the aircraft, end up with a black eye or a feather in their caps, or both?
As to your comment re the MAA, I can only wish them luck as it looks like they'll need it!
If you are the pilot, and you crash a servicable aircraft, then it is almost always your fault, end of.
If, for the sake of argument, the Mull Chinook had indeed had an airworthiness event; a FADEC power up/down, Uncommanded Flight Control Movement, jamming of Flight Controls in 1,2 or all 3 axis, take your pick as they were all known airworthiness problems at the time, but control was regained and the aircraft safely force-landed, the odds are that it could then have been "Ground Tested and Found Serviceable". So would the pilots, who failed to complete the task but saved the aircraft, end up with a black eye or a feather in their caps, or both?
As to your comment re the MAA, I can only wish them luck as it looks like they'll need it!
Tourist:
"I take the risks as a choice."
Unfortunately, with your head so far up in your cloud, I think you have missed what happened in the last century.
What you call "your" choice is no longer valid - even for military aircraft. It is not up to crew to decide if an aircraft is fit to fly. It is sheer testosterone that uses rank to go on a mission. More balls than brains?
The whole idea of the "safety" of an aircraft (this century) is no longer for crew debate. The serviceability of systems during flight may be a different concern as crews may need to react to indications and occurrences as needs arise - like any technician would - and use a manual for assistance.
Clearly and simply - even for military crew - as a driver, safety is not your "choice" anymore.
However, in combat conditions, I fully agree the military prerogative of ordering pilots to fly in whatever wrecks are left. (if thats what you mean?)
"I take the risks as a choice."
Unfortunately, with your head so far up in your cloud, I think you have missed what happened in the last century.
What you call "your" choice is no longer valid - even for military aircraft. It is not up to crew to decide if an aircraft is fit to fly. It is sheer testosterone that uses rank to go on a mission. More balls than brains?
The whole idea of the "safety" of an aircraft (this century) is no longer for crew debate. The serviceability of systems during flight may be a different concern as crews may need to react to indications and occurrences as needs arise - like any technician would - and use a manual for assistance.
Clearly and simply - even for military crew - as a driver, safety is not your "choice" anymore.
However, in combat conditions, I fully agree the military prerogative of ordering pilots to fly in whatever wrecks are left. (if thats what you mean?)
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist.....
You are so in the past! If the military had been led by you then we would not have had any reason for any system or organizations that were and still are solely there to improve flight safety, aircraft airworthiness or even military capability.
One presumes that airline pilots would not share your view given the job they do!
Finally, please be more tolerant. My comments were certainly not vacuous - perhaps you do not know what that word means. But my position is based on application of experience and not just the desire to fly anything just so i can fly!
You are so in the past! If the military had been led by you then we would not have had any reason for any system or organizations that were and still are solely there to improve flight safety, aircraft airworthiness or even military capability.
One presumes that airline pilots would not share your view given the job they do!
Finally, please be more tolerant. My comments were certainly not vacuous - perhaps you do not know what that word means. But my position is based on application of experience and not just the desire to fly anything just so i can fly!
Last edited by ghostnav; 19th Aug 2011 at 05:28.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The military Flight Safety Organisation was set up for a very good reason. At the time, the number of losses were astronomical and impacting operational effectiveness.
For example
RAF Losses 1952
18 Ansons
1 Athena
22 Austers
1 Balliol
1 Beaufighter
9 Brigands
1 Buckmaster
9 Canberras
15 Chipmunks
1 Dakota
1 Dragonfly
37 Harvards
3 hastings
10 Hornets
6 Lancasters
6 Lincolns
1 Martinet
150 Meteors
32 Mosquitos
21 Oxfords
9 Prentices
5 Proctors
1 Sabre
2 Shackletons
7Spitfires
1 Sunderlan
1 Sycamore
5 Tempests
20 Tiger Moths
11 Valettas
82 Vampires
2 Varsities
1 Venom
1 Washington
15 Wellingtons
You can see that this was totally unsustainable.
Flight Safety organisations were invented.
Enormous leaps forward in terms of safety were possible with very little effort and compromise in terms of extra weight etc on aircraft.
However, as the years passed, and things got safer, the law of diminishing returns inevitably reared its head.
The Graph of Accidents over time is now pretty much flat at a spectacularly low level, and it takes huge efforts and airframe comromises to improve anything at all. It is also almost impossible to do statistical analysis on such a small data set, thus we don't really know whether our latest plan has any effect.
We are well past ALARP in terms of the inital aim of Military flight safety
ie. To improve operational effectiveness by reducing the number of accidental losses of personnel and aircraft.
We have migrated into the belief that there should be zero accidents, and as such we are becoming woefully unable to produce a decent aircraft at a price we can afford.
The original reason for Flight Safety was good. But the people involved refused to stop once the objective was reached. They just kept moving the goal posts.
The US have the same problem.
A classic, if non military, example is the US space programme.
50yrs ago, the US put a man in space.
Now, they cannot.
Why?
Because they have lost the technology to make a rocket motor?
No.
Because modern computers cannot handle the calculations?
No
Because modern materials technology is not as good?
No
It is pure and simply because cretins have decreed that nobody is allowed to die anymore, and making things like rockets safe as this century defines safe is impossible within a reasonable budget.
The US have lost space, and we are going to be catastrophically embarassed in the next proper war in my opinion.
This is not the fault of the pilots, as I believe that we would have no shortage of guys willing to fly at 1952 RAF risk levels, any more than the US would have a shortage of volunteers to fly a Saturn 5 rocket tomorrow.
It is the fault of H and S chimps.
Ghostnav
"One presumes that airline pilots would not share your view given the job they do!"
I am talking about Military. Civvy is different. If anything, I would tighten up their regulations in various areas including pilot minimum standards/currency of training.
Rigga
"What you call "your" choice is no longer valid - even for military aircraft. It is not up to crew to decide if an aircraft is fit to fly. It is sheer testosterone that uses rank to go on a mission. More balls than brains? "
You misunderstand.
I may not have the choice to fly anything I want, but that was not what I was refering to.
I was refering to the fact that I have the choice not to fly anything I dont want to.
As such, I have the deciding vote on safety.
For example
RAF Losses 1952
18 Ansons
1 Athena
22 Austers
1 Balliol
1 Beaufighter
9 Brigands
1 Buckmaster
9 Canberras
15 Chipmunks
1 Dakota
1 Dragonfly
37 Harvards
3 hastings
10 Hornets
6 Lancasters
6 Lincolns
1 Martinet
150 Meteors
32 Mosquitos
21 Oxfords
9 Prentices
5 Proctors
1 Sabre
2 Shackletons
7Spitfires
1 Sunderlan
1 Sycamore
5 Tempests
20 Tiger Moths
11 Valettas
82 Vampires
2 Varsities
1 Venom
1 Washington
15 Wellingtons
You can see that this was totally unsustainable.
Flight Safety organisations were invented.
Enormous leaps forward in terms of safety were possible with very little effort and compromise in terms of extra weight etc on aircraft.
However, as the years passed, and things got safer, the law of diminishing returns inevitably reared its head.
The Graph of Accidents over time is now pretty much flat at a spectacularly low level, and it takes huge efforts and airframe comromises to improve anything at all. It is also almost impossible to do statistical analysis on such a small data set, thus we don't really know whether our latest plan has any effect.
We are well past ALARP in terms of the inital aim of Military flight safety
ie. To improve operational effectiveness by reducing the number of accidental losses of personnel and aircraft.
We have migrated into the belief that there should be zero accidents, and as such we are becoming woefully unable to produce a decent aircraft at a price we can afford.
The original reason for Flight Safety was good. But the people involved refused to stop once the objective was reached. They just kept moving the goal posts.
The US have the same problem.
A classic, if non military, example is the US space programme.
50yrs ago, the US put a man in space.
Now, they cannot.
Why?
Because they have lost the technology to make a rocket motor?
No.
Because modern computers cannot handle the calculations?
No
Because modern materials technology is not as good?
No
It is pure and simply because cretins have decreed that nobody is allowed to die anymore, and making things like rockets safe as this century defines safe is impossible within a reasonable budget.
The US have lost space, and we are going to be catastrophically embarassed in the next proper war in my opinion.
This is not the fault of the pilots, as I believe that we would have no shortage of guys willing to fly at 1952 RAF risk levels, any more than the US would have a shortage of volunteers to fly a Saturn 5 rocket tomorrow.
It is the fault of H and S chimps.
Ghostnav
"One presumes that airline pilots would not share your view given the job they do!"
I am talking about Military. Civvy is different. If anything, I would tighten up their regulations in various areas including pilot minimum standards/currency of training.
Rigga
"What you call "your" choice is no longer valid - even for military aircraft. It is not up to crew to decide if an aircraft is fit to fly. It is sheer testosterone that uses rank to go on a mission. More balls than brains? "
You misunderstand.
I may not have the choice to fly anything I want, but that was not what I was refering to.
I was refering to the fact that I have the choice not to fly anything I dont want to.
As such, I have the deciding vote on safety.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
I have no doubt you are good at your job, courageous, confident and made of the right stuff. The sort of stuff that wins wars, hopefully not with that postumous medal that is coming your way.
I have never met you so I make a general point :-
I am weary of the arrogant gung-ho attitude that causes so much unecessary danger. From the young army officer announcing from Afghanistan that he is 'here to do a job' all the way to the matters discussed on this thread. That is - a person can't make a call on the risk if he doesn't know what that risk is. That was the case with Hercules XV179
I have seen and called a SAM miss my aircraft by 100 yards, and our cargo for Kabul was plastic cutlery & toilet roll. Worth risking your life for?
But most times, it was my own side trying to kill me.
Two Hercs flying head on, no lights, same height, and the E3 saying 'we are unable to deconflict, sir'
Almost failing to get off a lake bed 'cos the strip was too soft.
Pitot heads freezing up, loss of ASI indication in the Kabul bowl, at night, in freezing rain...in a dive.
And many more...
Even the guy in the IPT who knowingly introduced an aircraft ladder into service with disregard to the H & S and WAH regs. And that's what got me in the end! The MoD's failure will eventually get me compo over and above my medical pension, but I wish I didn't have these injuries.
There are different perceptions of 'heroes'. I believe that the guys that are willing to make a stand for what is right are fairly brave, and they are posting on this thread.
That's all from me
SPHLC
I have no doubt you are good at your job, courageous, confident and made of the right stuff. The sort of stuff that wins wars, hopefully not with that postumous medal that is coming your way.
I have never met you so I make a general point :-
I am weary of the arrogant gung-ho attitude that causes so much unecessary danger. From the young army officer announcing from Afghanistan that he is 'here to do a job' all the way to the matters discussed on this thread. That is - a person can't make a call on the risk if he doesn't know what that risk is. That was the case with Hercules XV179
I have seen and called a SAM miss my aircraft by 100 yards, and our cargo for Kabul was plastic cutlery & toilet roll. Worth risking your life for?
But most times, it was my own side trying to kill me.
Two Hercs flying head on, no lights, same height, and the E3 saying 'we are unable to deconflict, sir'
Almost failing to get off a lake bed 'cos the strip was too soft.
Pitot heads freezing up, loss of ASI indication in the Kabul bowl, at night, in freezing rain...in a dive.
And many more...
Even the guy in the IPT who knowingly introduced an aircraft ladder into service with disregard to the H & S and WAH regs. And that's what got me in the end! The MoD's failure will eventually get me compo over and above my medical pension, but I wish I didn't have these injuries.
There are different perceptions of 'heroes'. I believe that the guys that are willing to make a stand for what is right are fairly brave, and they are posting on this thread.
That's all from me
SPHLC