Haddon-Cave, Airworthiness, Sea King et al (merged)
Having people like Tourist around is useful for those of us who wish to study lessons from history. Personally I could never understand that anyone might, for example, think parachutes for military aircrew a bad idea. Tourist's interjections show that someone will always hold a contrary viewpoint and - if senior enough in the hierarchy - could cause untold damage even though themselves unable to see any error in their thinking.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give credit where credit is due
Having read posts #379 and #380, it is clear that the Caledonian Mercury "unearthered damning concerns" of the NART report, which was obtained under FoI, 10 days before the Independent on Sunday claim to have done so. The report only found its way into the Common's Library, because other people forced MoD to release it. Come on IoS, do not try and claim credit for something you didn't do.
DV
DV
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Personally I could never understand that anyone might, for example, think parachutes for military aircrew a bad idea"
This is the problem with some of you who have insufficient intellect to see the bigger picture.
You seem to think that :
Parachutes save lives thus are a good idea therefore all things that that make life safer are worth doing.
I will give you an example.
Formula 1 cars have an amazing role cage that saves lives during spectacular crashes. We could fit the pilot seat with this role cage in every helicopter.
Why stop there?
Lets fit every passenger seat in every aircraft in the world with one of these role cages.
It would save lots of lives would it not?
But it would still be retarded because the aircraft could never take off/cost too much etc
It is a bit like Unionisation.
The early unions were desperately needed to curb the worst excesses of employers.
They appeared, and everything was better, hurrah!
This was good, but then surely ever more power to the unions was even better then?
No, we saw the result in the seventies.
The fifties were the equivalent for flight safety.
Flight safety appeared, and many lives were saved for very little effort, cost and operational effectiveness was increased Hurrah!
It was desparately needed, but I think we are right in the middle of the winter of discontent for flight safety at the moment, ie barely producing any output at vast expense.
Sorry to post the same pic again, but take a good long look at it.
It plainly shows, that all the easy safety gains were made in the early days. The law of diminishing returns has held sway for decades, and every new flight safety regime has only two impacts.
No statistically valid improvement in safety per flying hour (the only valid metric) and vastly increased costs and reduced operational effectiveness.
Despite all the changes in airworthiness, flight safety and quality of equipment, the money spent and the courses taken, nothing has changed whatsoever in terms of deaths per flying hour in 30yrs.
In any other business, a totally ineffective organisation would be binnned rather than have it's powers increased.
The cost of military aviation keeps spiralling upwards, and a large part of this is the ever more stringent requirement to be "safe"
The number of aircrew who die in peacetime is absolutely negligible, however the number who die in war, and more particular the losing side in a war is huge.
I reiterate.
I think that many on here lack the intellect to see the big picture.
The purpose of a military is to win wars. If you are not going to see the big picture when you do the "what saves lives" calculation, ie take into account the lives lost in wartime as well as peacetime then you are too stupid to be allowed near the process.
Every slight edge in operational capability eroded by the requirement for crashworthy/bulletproof seats etc may save a few lives here and there in peacetime, but the wartime reduction in carrying capacity is far more difficult to calculate.
Many of the people who make these decisions are too stupid/uneducated to understand the consequences of their decisions.
For example.
They declare that a new aircraft type must have armoured seats for the pilots. Sounds like a reasonable idea in principle?
However, because of the added weight, the aircraft now has half the endurance, so must now climb/descend through the threat zone twice as often.
Still a good idea?
So we have halved the endurance for no real benefit, but it is "safe" so must be a good idea.
Another example.
A new aircraft is grounded and delayed getting its RTS because for various reasons the i's have not all been dotted.
Seems like a good idea?
What if the aircraft has been flying around the world in similiar guises for 40 yrs and nobody involved in the process has any expectation that any problems will be uncovered and the crew have all been trained an increasing number of months earlier and become more uncurrent losing their perishable new skills every day that it drags on. Eventually they will fly as far less competent pilots during those relatively dangerous early days.
Still a good idea?
I could go on ad infinitum with similar examples showing a total lack of big picture from those involved.
I would fully support a return to the original idea of flight safety.
To INCREASE OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS by reducing silly deaths.
It may be terrible to say it out loud, but if we did not have a few deaths every now and then, then it would be a sign that we are too risk averse and not stretching our operational limits enough.
This is the problem with some of you who have insufficient intellect to see the bigger picture.
You seem to think that :
Parachutes save lives thus are a good idea therefore all things that that make life safer are worth doing.
I will give you an example.
Formula 1 cars have an amazing role cage that saves lives during spectacular crashes. We could fit the pilot seat with this role cage in every helicopter.
Why stop there?
Lets fit every passenger seat in every aircraft in the world with one of these role cages.
It would save lots of lives would it not?
But it would still be retarded because the aircraft could never take off/cost too much etc
It is a bit like Unionisation.
The early unions were desperately needed to curb the worst excesses of employers.
They appeared, and everything was better, hurrah!
This was good, but then surely ever more power to the unions was even better then?
No, we saw the result in the seventies.
The fifties were the equivalent for flight safety.
Flight safety appeared, and many lives were saved for very little effort, cost and operational effectiveness was increased Hurrah!
It was desparately needed, but I think we are right in the middle of the winter of discontent for flight safety at the moment, ie barely producing any output at vast expense.
Sorry to post the same pic again, but take a good long look at it.
It plainly shows, that all the easy safety gains were made in the early days. The law of diminishing returns has held sway for decades, and every new flight safety regime has only two impacts.
No statistically valid improvement in safety per flying hour (the only valid metric) and vastly increased costs and reduced operational effectiveness.
Despite all the changes in airworthiness, flight safety and quality of equipment, the money spent and the courses taken, nothing has changed whatsoever in terms of deaths per flying hour in 30yrs.
In any other business, a totally ineffective organisation would be binnned rather than have it's powers increased.
The cost of military aviation keeps spiralling upwards, and a large part of this is the ever more stringent requirement to be "safe"
The number of aircrew who die in peacetime is absolutely negligible, however the number who die in war, and more particular the losing side in a war is huge.
I reiterate.
I think that many on here lack the intellect to see the big picture.
The purpose of a military is to win wars. If you are not going to see the big picture when you do the "what saves lives" calculation, ie take into account the lives lost in wartime as well as peacetime then you are too stupid to be allowed near the process.
Every slight edge in operational capability eroded by the requirement for crashworthy/bulletproof seats etc may save a few lives here and there in peacetime, but the wartime reduction in carrying capacity is far more difficult to calculate.
Many of the people who make these decisions are too stupid/uneducated to understand the consequences of their decisions.
For example.
They declare that a new aircraft type must have armoured seats for the pilots. Sounds like a reasonable idea in principle?
However, because of the added weight, the aircraft now has half the endurance, so must now climb/descend through the threat zone twice as often.
Still a good idea?
So we have halved the endurance for no real benefit, but it is "safe" so must be a good idea.
Another example.
A new aircraft is grounded and delayed getting its RTS because for various reasons the i's have not all been dotted.
Seems like a good idea?
What if the aircraft has been flying around the world in similiar guises for 40 yrs and nobody involved in the process has any expectation that any problems will be uncovered and the crew have all been trained an increasing number of months earlier and become more uncurrent losing their perishable new skills every day that it drags on. Eventually they will fly as far less competent pilots during those relatively dangerous early days.
Still a good idea?
I could go on ad infinitum with similar examples showing a total lack of big picture from those involved.
I would fully support a return to the original idea of flight safety.
To INCREASE OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS by reducing silly deaths.
It may be terrible to say it out loud, but if we did not have a few deaths every now and then, then it would be a sign that we are too risk averse and not stretching our operational limits enough.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist, while this thread is certainly titled Haddon-Cave, Airworthiness etc, I believe it has evolved into something far more interesting.
At least couple of the regular posters who make you cringe, I know to have done their duty. Recent developments are slowly revealing the spineless high rankers who betrayed us all.
Surely you would be happy with that?
If you could hold those reckless bankers who wrecked the economy to account, you would, wouldn't you?
At least couple of the regular posters who make you cringe, I know to have done their duty. Recent developments are slowly revealing the spineless high rankers who betrayed us all.
Surely you would be happy with that?
If you could hold those reckless bankers who wrecked the economy to account, you would, wouldn't you?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere near the Rhine
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
As you point out, the graph has been almost flat lining for some time. Indeed for many years, the low level of accidents make it very difficult to draw much in the way of conclusions regarding safety. However, it is the rate of incidents that is far more useful and this is where safety and operational effectiveness collide. The more avoidable incidents there are, the less aircraft there will be on the line in the morning. The more money spent fixing such incidents, the less money there is for modifications and capability equipment. Safety, if done properly, informs decision makers to make informed choices, whether that's in a cockpit or the office of a PT. The hard bit is getting past the attitude that 'It's all a load of bollocks this safety stuff." A French friend I know told me a story about a pilot who thought safety was for girls, right until he got knocked over on the flight line because he wouldn't wear a dayglo vest to walk to his aircraft. At the end of the day, it's all about cultural attitudes to safety and I prefer a somewhat more positive one that you appear to advocate.
As you point out, the graph has been almost flat lining for some time. Indeed for many years, the low level of accidents make it very difficult to draw much in the way of conclusions regarding safety. However, it is the rate of incidents that is far more useful and this is where safety and operational effectiveness collide. The more avoidable incidents there are, the less aircraft there will be on the line in the morning. The more money spent fixing such incidents, the less money there is for modifications and capability equipment. Safety, if done properly, informs decision makers to make informed choices, whether that's in a cockpit or the office of a PT. The hard bit is getting past the attitude that 'It's all a load of bollocks this safety stuff." A French friend I know told me a story about a pilot who thought safety was for girls, right until he got knocked over on the flight line because he wouldn't wear a dayglo vest to walk to his aircraft. At the end of the day, it's all about cultural attitudes to safety and I prefer a somewhat more positive one that you appear to advocate.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Next door
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
Your pomposity astounds me, and I'm just glad I never had the displeasure of flying with you.
'Survive to fight' seems like a good axiom to use here, in that by your logic the little problem that nearly had you killed one day, would just be a statistical 'one off', and therefore not worthy of investigation. Whether it is a lack of knowledge on your part, or a minor engineering issue brought on by lack of trained personnel, due to a higher than normal attrition rate amongst senior engineers. No it is all too expensive to fix, whether it is the organisation, the design, the processes and procedures, the tooling, or the documentation.
The same documentation you read, from which of course you assess the risk, when signing for the aircraft. But hey it's not going to happen to you, because your graph tells you, it won't be you (or your crew) this time, and you'll go off and win the war with all the other poor sods in unsafe aircraft.
The one thing of course is that a military is not just for winning wars, it is also to maintain the peace and prevent attack, which of course you won't be able to do if aircraft keep falling out of the sky, and crews are suddenly reluctant to fly them. But of course clever people like you know all of this!!!
Your pomposity astounds me, and I'm just glad I never had the displeasure of flying with you.
'Survive to fight' seems like a good axiom to use here, in that by your logic the little problem that nearly had you killed one day, would just be a statistical 'one off', and therefore not worthy of investigation. Whether it is a lack of knowledge on your part, or a minor engineering issue brought on by lack of trained personnel, due to a higher than normal attrition rate amongst senior engineers. No it is all too expensive to fix, whether it is the organisation, the design, the processes and procedures, the tooling, or the documentation.
The same documentation you read, from which of course you assess the risk, when signing for the aircraft. But hey it's not going to happen to you, because your graph tells you, it won't be you (or your crew) this time, and you'll go off and win the war with all the other poor sods in unsafe aircraft.
The one thing of course is that a military is not just for winning wars, it is also to maintain the peace and prevent attack, which of course you won't be able to do if aircraft keep falling out of the sky, and crews are suddenly reluctant to fly them. But of course clever people like you know all of this!!!
Tourist,
Having glanced through your last post I think I now understand your future requirements - not needing armour or safety devices unless its really, really necessary.
I am about to suggest that BAE start making some new FE2b's (or would you prefer a DH1A?)
Having glanced through your last post I think I now understand your future requirements - not needing armour or safety devices unless its really, really necessary.
I am about to suggest that BAE start making some new FE2b's (or would you prefer a DH1A?)
think although there was a great reduction in accidents as shown by the graph there was a huge difference in the size of the fleet of aircraft between 1946 to 1970 when the graph flattens , and up to the present. Also a huge learning curve with new technology i.e fast jets and helicopters which had some bad loss rates in their infancy. Not trying to shoot the argument down but just put it in context.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Top part of Hampshire
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The slide below is taken from presentations I give at both to both service and civilian organisations on aviation safety management. It shows the accident rate since records have begun. There have been significant improvements in civil aviation safety since in 1977 (Teneriffe air disaster), and as a function of passenger miles and deaths per annum, civil air safety continues to improve.
I have my own opinions on the direction Defence should take, and i believe that some of our recent regulatory decisons, post H-C, have not been fully thought through- but look good on paper...
I have my own opinions on the direction Defence should take, and i believe that some of our recent regulatory decisons, post H-C, have not been fully thought through- but look good on paper...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the spike in WW2, that graph says it all. Start with very few ac in 1918, have very few accidents. End in 2XXX with no aircraft.....cos we are broke
TBH, I can see both sides having flown ac with uber safe systems that add weight/time/pilot capacity to operate. That's where I can see the clash, and where military cannot equal civvy in terms of safety.
I just don't want to go see another report on Sky News like I did when 230 crashed. That's where your self styled intellect and the 'big picture' that you talk about goes out of the window for me Tourist....Don't get me wrong, the MAA don't float my boat either, but 14 needless deaths with little or no accountability deserves something to happen.
Doesn't it?
TBH, I can see both sides having flown ac with uber safe systems that add weight/time/pilot capacity to operate. That's where I can see the clash, and where military cannot equal civvy in terms of safety.
I just don't want to go see another report on Sky News like I did when 230 crashed. That's where your self styled intellect and the 'big picture' that you talk about goes out of the window for me Tourist....Don't get me wrong, the MAA don't float my boat either, but 14 needless deaths with little or no accountability deserves something to happen.
Doesn't it?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bvcu
Read the graph, it takes that into account by being a rate per flying hour.
Rigga
"not needing armour or safety devices unless its really, really necessary"
Erm, yes.
I honestly believe that nothing is needed unless it is neccessary.
Pretty much the definition of the word "neccessary"
I am not against safety measures, but I want them to be considered in a wider sense.
ie, is the reduction in operational capability that this safety measure will entail worth it.
Are the few lives we save in peacetime likely to be outweighed by the massive losses that go along with losing a war.
If the cost/benefit equation seems right then fine, but wars are won and lost on tiny events, and go look at history at the cost of losing a war in terms lives. WW2 was no fun for the UK, but look at Japan and Germany.
Many things in this life are dangerous, but still worth doing.
I taught my kids to swim,sail,surf,cycle,ski, and even took them flying.
All of these things undeniably exposed them to greater short term risk than if I had not, but I consider them worth the risk even in the short term without even taking into account the secondary benefits of such activities over a childs life.
Does exposing them to such risk make me a bad parent?
I think not.
Risk is not always bad.
Danger is never a reason to do something, but should never be the only reason not to do something
SPHLC
The bankers worked within the rules they were given.
It ain't them I'm annoyed with......
Read the graph, it takes that into account by being a rate per flying hour.
Rigga
"not needing armour or safety devices unless its really, really necessary"
Erm, yes.
I honestly believe that nothing is needed unless it is neccessary.
Pretty much the definition of the word "neccessary"
I am not against safety measures, but I want them to be considered in a wider sense.
ie, is the reduction in operational capability that this safety measure will entail worth it.
Are the few lives we save in peacetime likely to be outweighed by the massive losses that go along with losing a war.
If the cost/benefit equation seems right then fine, but wars are won and lost on tiny events, and go look at history at the cost of losing a war in terms lives. WW2 was no fun for the UK, but look at Japan and Germany.
Many things in this life are dangerous, but still worth doing.
I taught my kids to swim,sail,surf,cycle,ski, and even took them flying.
All of these things undeniably exposed them to greater short term risk than if I had not, but I consider them worth the risk even in the short term without even taking into account the secondary benefits of such activities over a childs life.
Does exposing them to such risk make me a bad parent?
I think not.
Risk is not always bad.
Danger is never a reason to do something, but should never be the only reason not to do something
SPHLC
The bankers worked within the rules they were given.
It ain't them I'm annoyed with......
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Spirits
I will be the first to admit that I have no personal knowledge of the Nimrod facts beyond what is read on here, but I do know about the Seaking crash, and the same people who are spouting on here about both are utterly clueless as to causes and constant harking on about HISLs as if they caused a crash in the Seakings, which doesnt give me any confidence in their conclusions.
I will be the first to admit that I have no personal knowledge of the Nimrod facts beyond what is read on here, but I do know about the Seaking crash, and the same people who are spouting on here about both are utterly clueless as to causes and constant harking on about HISLs as if they caused a crash in the Seakings, which doesnt give me any confidence in their conclusions.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
Yep. Agreed that a lot of hoop has been spoken about the SK accident. I was around at the time, although not on the Ship. I simply can't reconcile the Nimrod in my tiny brain. Reasons? Comments such as 'low-level crewroom emotive gossip' or whatever it was from our higher ups. They were warned, they did nothing, we lost 14 Aircrew.
Not sure the MAA is the solution, but if you consider the big picture and operational effectiveness, then consider also how many Nimrods we had to play with at the time, how many crew(and sadly I hate to say it, the financial cost of replacing their experience). And the waste....
Yep. Agreed that a lot of hoop has been spoken about the SK accident. I was around at the time, although not on the Ship. I simply can't reconcile the Nimrod in my tiny brain. Reasons? Comments such as 'low-level crewroom emotive gossip' or whatever it was from our higher ups. They were warned, they did nothing, we lost 14 Aircrew.
Not sure the MAA is the solution, but if you consider the big picture and operational effectiveness, then consider also how many Nimrods we had to play with at the time, how many crew(and sadly I hate to say it, the financial cost of replacing their experience). And the waste....
Last edited by high spirits; 13th Sep 2011 at 21:11.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way this thread has turned out is all a little silly nurtured by the Nu-Human, fluffy ideal that no-on should ever be hurt or killed doing anything any more
I'm all for sending our flyers and their passengers up in an airframe that is serviceable and airworthy, (ie: we don't have a distinct feeling that one particular part or system is failing regularly and killing people) as is possible. But I'm also all for letting those crews fly the aircraft and have it perform as well as it possibly can to preserve their life in conflict. That will expose them to risk. A high level of risk. But isn't that what they are training to do - or actually doing. It's called war and it's a pretty risky business.
It is impossible to remove risk, especially in war. But let's not train crews or send them into combat at an automatic disadvantage by not allowing them to fly to the limits of the airframe or make that airframe such a "pig" that the limits are not realistically going to help to protect them.
I'm all for sending our flyers and their passengers up in an airframe that is serviceable and airworthy, (ie: we don't have a distinct feeling that one particular part or system is failing regularly and killing people) as is possible. But I'm also all for letting those crews fly the aircraft and have it perform as well as it possibly can to preserve their life in conflict. That will expose them to risk. A high level of risk. But isn't that what they are training to do - or actually doing. It's called war and it's a pretty risky business.
It is impossible to remove risk, especially in war. But let's not train crews or send them into combat at an automatic disadvantage by not allowing them to fly to the limits of the airframe or make that airframe such a "pig" that the limits are not realistically going to help to protect them.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me:
Tourist:
That would be the Financial Services Authority then? Bank of England Governor? Gordon Brown?
My attempted analogy reads across even better now that you have helped me out
If you could hold those reckless bankers who wrecked the economy to account, you would, wouldn't you?
SPHLC
The bankers worked within the rules they were given.
It ain't them I'm annoyed with......
The bankers worked within the rules they were given.
It ain't them I'm annoyed with......
My attempted analogy reads across even better now that you have helped me out
Sea King
Tourist
I'm sure you know far more about the aircraft and the way it is operated than I do, but it is you who are harking on about HISL while declining to discuss the broader failings listed in the BoI report (except to call the author an imbecile).
I've read the report and it also mentions NVG not being fitted and ship operating procedures, which were based on the older AEW Mk2 which had a radar on all the time. Whereas, the Mk7 was not "radar equipped" because it had to be switched off close to the ship. There are a host of other issues raised.
Someone made the point before that this combination rendered the pilots "blind". HISL was the last line of defence and it was switched off.
I know little else except what was discussed in MoD at the time but it is fairly well known that a contract was let to assess the interoperability problems caused by the differences between Mk2 and Mk7, but was canceled. Someone would have to confirm that one but I know for a fact DOR(Sea) were offered an NVG'd Mk7 at minimal cost (a much larger concurrent programme the SK7 could have piggy backed) but turned it down.
You are probably correct if you mean HISL alone did not cause the crash, but the Board said it was a factor. Would you offer an opinion (or if you are allowed to say, facts) on what the cause was.
What if I asked the question the other way round. If the aircraft had HISLs on, or NVG fitted, would the probability of collision have been reduced? What if the ship had revised deconfliction procedures (right term?) to allow for the aircraft not having radar?
Thank you.
but I do know about the Seaking crash, and the same people who are spouting on here about both are utterly clueless as to causes and constant harking on about HISLs as if they caused a crash in the Seakings, which doesnt give me any confidence in their conclusions.
I'm sure you know far more about the aircraft and the way it is operated than I do, but it is you who are harking on about HISL while declining to discuss the broader failings listed in the BoI report (except to call the author an imbecile).
I've read the report and it also mentions NVG not being fitted and ship operating procedures, which were based on the older AEW Mk2 which had a radar on all the time. Whereas, the Mk7 was not "radar equipped" because it had to be switched off close to the ship. There are a host of other issues raised.
Someone made the point before that this combination rendered the pilots "blind". HISL was the last line of defence and it was switched off.
I know little else except what was discussed in MoD at the time but it is fairly well known that a contract was let to assess the interoperability problems caused by the differences between Mk2 and Mk7, but was canceled. Someone would have to confirm that one but I know for a fact DOR(Sea) were offered an NVG'd Mk7 at minimal cost (a much larger concurrent programme the SK7 could have piggy backed) but turned it down.
You are probably correct if you mean HISL alone did not cause the crash, but the Board said it was a factor. Would you offer an opinion (or if you are allowed to say, facts) on what the cause was.
What if I asked the question the other way round. If the aircraft had HISLs on, or NVG fitted, would the probability of collision have been reduced? What if the ship had revised deconfliction procedures (right term?) to allow for the aircraft not having radar?
Thank you.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sell by date for rules ?
Looking at the RAF flight safety system from the outside I see a clear lack of risk management in the day to day flying environment, the answer to a problem seems to be to "do something" the fact that people point out that the something that has been done has greater risks than the problem it was intended to solve seems to carry little weight as long as "something" is done.
The result is a lot of well intentioned rules that conflict with each other and complicate the flight safety environment. An example of this would be from an airline that I worked for, it was SOP to check the aircraft position continually using nearby VOR stations, this was the way the airline had worked when it was flying an aircraft fitted with one INS that had 10 waypoints. The airline had moved on and we were now flying an aircraft fitted with a dual FMS that was fed position information from two GPS units, five DME units, two VOR units and had two IRS systems. It took a new and far sighted DFO to trawl the SOP's and remove the things we were doing just because we did it on the last aircraft type.
Having had the pleasure if reading one or two RAF flying order books I see them populated with out of date regulations and rules that conflict and far worse rules that are totally inappropriate for the operating environment.
It is by opinion that all the flying orders should have a sell by date, and a requirement to review rules to see if they are still appropriate and don't conflict with other rules. The thinning of order books and simplification of the system would not only have the benefit of clarity but it is likely that it would save money when people are not operating an aircraft to avoid breaking a rule that was intended to address a problem with the Argosy or Hastings.
The result is a lot of well intentioned rules that conflict with each other and complicate the flight safety environment. An example of this would be from an airline that I worked for, it was SOP to check the aircraft position continually using nearby VOR stations, this was the way the airline had worked when it was flying an aircraft fitted with one INS that had 10 waypoints. The airline had moved on and we were now flying an aircraft fitted with a dual FMS that was fed position information from two GPS units, five DME units, two VOR units and had two IRS systems. It took a new and far sighted DFO to trawl the SOP's and remove the things we were doing just because we did it on the last aircraft type.
Having had the pleasure if reading one or two RAF flying order books I see them populated with out of date regulations and rules that conflict and far worse rules that are totally inappropriate for the operating environment.
It is by opinion that all the flying orders should have a sell by date, and a requirement to review rules to see if they are still appropriate and don't conflict with other rules. The thinning of order books and simplification of the system would not only have the benefit of clarity but it is likely that it would save money when people are not operating an aircraft to avoid breaking a rule that was intended to address a problem with the Argosy or Hastings.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dervish
The NVG question I think shows a lack of experience by the report writers.
People not familiar with NVGs seem to think that they are some kind of panacea.
The Mk7 is single pilot.
Single pilot low level NVG over the sea is not a good place to be, especially as they did not have DNVG at that time.
The Mk7 now has limited NVG capabilities required for it's current role, and it was an enormous amount of work to get them NVG'd. I am not talking about the relatively simple act of painting the cockpit black, I am talking about the effort required to get everyone to some degree of NVG proficiency. The effort required to keep them NVG is going to be huge, and despite all this, I suspect and would reccomend that their SOP will be to not use NVG for low level over the sea at night.
NVGs are very useful, but come with their own set of dangers.
Yes NVGs might have helped the pilot spot the other aircraft, but how many aircraft would you lose if they tried to fly NVG low level over the sea single pilot as SOP?
We can all imagine things which might save lives in a particular situation, but that does not mean that the overall effect might be greater danger.
For example.
Theoretical situation.
2 helicopters fighting a land war in asia fly into each other at night. An enquiry might, quite correctly, state that permanent neon floodlights al la Las Vegas fitted to them would have reduced the risk and perhaps stopped the accident.
This would be true, but of course they would be shot at far more often and you would lose many more to ground fire.
I am amazed that nobody has ever mentioned the one obvious solution.
ie.
2 pilots?
I know the reason why they don't of course.
It's because the added weight reduces endurance to the point where it impinges greatly on operational effectiveness.
Good decision, I agree, but it is certainly less safe than if you did have twin pilot.
Correctly, the cost/benefit analysis says single pilot
As for the Mk7 being blind, I think you are confused about their radar issue.
ps, the Mk 5/6 has/had a radar that could look in every direction but forward, yet we generally coped. No doubt we would be grounded nowadays.
Yes the ship should/could have had deconfliction in my opinion.
I do not know the details of the Nimrod disaster, and the fact that complaints from aircrew level were made about the aircraft before the crash suggest real problems, but the attempt to group in other accidents like the Baggers to make it look like they are also caused by airworthiness issues are just wrong in my opinion.
As far as I can see people are just trying to make political capital from the deaths of some of my friends to further their belief that things need changing because all the accidents are linked.
One disaster such as Nimrod does not mean everything is wrong. We will always have accidents, terrible though it sounds, and we always should.
To use a valid if slightly strained analogy, war is like international professional sport.
There is a trade off between being close to the edge, and sometimes being over the edge.
The best Tennis players sometimes hit the net.
Why?
Surely they could easily miss it if they were willing to sacrifice the best serves?
Just look at their second serves, far more reliable?
Because they would lose.
It is worth a few nets and a few double faults to win the match.
It is very sad but totally unavoidable that a "net" is a damaged aircraft, and a "double fault" in our business means that people die.
We spend billions of pounds on defence.
Incredibly rarely is it actually needed.
The most crass thing imaginable would be to spend all that treasure to end up with a military which looks pretty in peactime, has very few accidental deaths because we go nowhere near the ragged edge where accidents and excellence happen, but then loses when we actually are called upon to fight.
It would be far more sensible to save the money and just surrender. Countries that surrender without a fight are nearly always far better off than ones which fight then lose.
I am considered by many to be a consumate loafer, but if I decide (or am cornered)to do something (rare, I'll admit), I make an enormous effort to try to do it well, not just adequately. Otherwise, why bother?
SPHLC
Ah, I see where you are going with this, however no, my annoyance lies with the worlds idiots who took out loans they could not afford, and then whinged and moaned that it was the banks fault rather than taking personal responsibility for their inability to do basic maths. Yes I would have prefered if there was some way we could have shielded this country from the losses from other countries, but realistically, we were the worlds biggest beneficiary of the world financial markets when all went well therefore we got hit very hard on the downside. I suspect if you do the maths this country has profited on the deal over a 20yr period and despite it all given our time again we would still dive into the trough with the others.
Not sure who is who in your analogy then?
The NVG question I think shows a lack of experience by the report writers.
People not familiar with NVGs seem to think that they are some kind of panacea.
The Mk7 is single pilot.
Single pilot low level NVG over the sea is not a good place to be, especially as they did not have DNVG at that time.
The Mk7 now has limited NVG capabilities required for it's current role, and it was an enormous amount of work to get them NVG'd. I am not talking about the relatively simple act of painting the cockpit black, I am talking about the effort required to get everyone to some degree of NVG proficiency. The effort required to keep them NVG is going to be huge, and despite all this, I suspect and would reccomend that their SOP will be to not use NVG for low level over the sea at night.
NVGs are very useful, but come with their own set of dangers.
Yes NVGs might have helped the pilot spot the other aircraft, but how many aircraft would you lose if they tried to fly NVG low level over the sea single pilot as SOP?
We can all imagine things which might save lives in a particular situation, but that does not mean that the overall effect might be greater danger.
For example.
Theoretical situation.
2 helicopters fighting a land war in asia fly into each other at night. An enquiry might, quite correctly, state that permanent neon floodlights al la Las Vegas fitted to them would have reduced the risk and perhaps stopped the accident.
This would be true, but of course they would be shot at far more often and you would lose many more to ground fire.
I am amazed that nobody has ever mentioned the one obvious solution.
ie.
2 pilots?
I know the reason why they don't of course.
It's because the added weight reduces endurance to the point where it impinges greatly on operational effectiveness.
Good decision, I agree, but it is certainly less safe than if you did have twin pilot.
Correctly, the cost/benefit analysis says single pilot
As for the Mk7 being blind, I think you are confused about their radar issue.
ps, the Mk 5/6 has/had a radar that could look in every direction but forward, yet we generally coped. No doubt we would be grounded nowadays.
Yes the ship should/could have had deconfliction in my opinion.
I do not know the details of the Nimrod disaster, and the fact that complaints from aircrew level were made about the aircraft before the crash suggest real problems, but the attempt to group in other accidents like the Baggers to make it look like they are also caused by airworthiness issues are just wrong in my opinion.
As far as I can see people are just trying to make political capital from the deaths of some of my friends to further their belief that things need changing because all the accidents are linked.
One disaster such as Nimrod does not mean everything is wrong. We will always have accidents, terrible though it sounds, and we always should.
To use a valid if slightly strained analogy, war is like international professional sport.
There is a trade off between being close to the edge, and sometimes being over the edge.
The best Tennis players sometimes hit the net.
Why?
Surely they could easily miss it if they were willing to sacrifice the best serves?
Just look at their second serves, far more reliable?
Because they would lose.
It is worth a few nets and a few double faults to win the match.
It is very sad but totally unavoidable that a "net" is a damaged aircraft, and a "double fault" in our business means that people die.
We spend billions of pounds on defence.
Incredibly rarely is it actually needed.
The most crass thing imaginable would be to spend all that treasure to end up with a military which looks pretty in peactime, has very few accidental deaths because we go nowhere near the ragged edge where accidents and excellence happen, but then loses when we actually are called upon to fight.
It would be far more sensible to save the money and just surrender. Countries that surrender without a fight are nearly always far better off than ones which fight then lose.
I am considered by many to be a consumate loafer, but if I decide (or am cornered)to do something (rare, I'll admit), I make an enormous effort to try to do it well, not just adequately. Otherwise, why bother?
SPHLC
Ah, I see where you are going with this, however no, my annoyance lies with the worlds idiots who took out loans they could not afford, and then whinged and moaned that it was the banks fault rather than taking personal responsibility for their inability to do basic maths. Yes I would have prefered if there was some way we could have shielded this country from the losses from other countries, but realistically, we were the worlds biggest beneficiary of the world financial markets when all went well therefore we got hit very hard on the downside. I suspect if you do the maths this country has profited on the deal over a 20yr period and despite it all given our time again we would still dive into the trough with the others.
Not sure who is who in your analogy then?
Sea King
Tourist
Thank you for replying. Could you clarify a couple of points?
NVG - How does the “limited” capability the SK7 now has compare with what the SKAEW2 had? As DOR(sea) were offered a properly designed fit, but declined, the implication is that the Mk7 was not expected to be as capable as the Mk2 in that respect, but that is just my interpretation. If I’ve got it right, then there must have been a change of mind, probably as a result of the accident.
Radar – You are probably right that I am confused but I was only quoting the Board of Inquiry report, which says the Mk7 cannot be deemed “radar equipped” because the radar must be turned off within a certain distance from the ship. So, neither had a working radar. The report implies this switching off was unnecessary in the Mk2 and the ship’s procedures still reflected the Mk2 use, not the Mk7. If the ship people had known of this change, am I right in thinking an obvious outcome would be new deconfliction procedures? If it were confirmed that this risk had been spotted, a contract let to assess and mitigate, only to be cancelled, then I think the Board should have mentioned it. The same could be said for the refusal to fit NVG.
Although unfamiliar with the details I can see the large gaps in the BOI report. They make certain criticisms (HISL, NVG, Interoperability) but there isn’t any hint of answers being sought. Is a BOI expected to seek answers to their own questions? If they don’t then who is?
Thank you for replying. Could you clarify a couple of points?
NVG - How does the “limited” capability the SK7 now has compare with what the SKAEW2 had? As DOR(sea) were offered a properly designed fit, but declined, the implication is that the Mk7 was not expected to be as capable as the Mk2 in that respect, but that is just my interpretation. If I’ve got it right, then there must have been a change of mind, probably as a result of the accident.
Radar – You are probably right that I am confused but I was only quoting the Board of Inquiry report, which says the Mk7 cannot be deemed “radar equipped” because the radar must be turned off within a certain distance from the ship. So, neither had a working radar. The report implies this switching off was unnecessary in the Mk2 and the ship’s procedures still reflected the Mk2 use, not the Mk7. If the ship people had known of this change, am I right in thinking an obvious outcome would be new deconfliction procedures? If it were confirmed that this risk had been spotted, a contract let to assess and mitigate, only to be cancelled, then I think the Board should have mentioned it. The same could be said for the refusal to fit NVG.
Although unfamiliar with the details I can see the large gaps in the BOI report. They make certain criticisms (HISL, NVG, Interoperability) but there isn’t any hint of answers being sought. Is a BOI expected to seek answers to their own questions? If they don’t then who is?