Reports on Red Arrows and Flt Lt Cunningham's death
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
CM
Likewise, I was a BoI President who was given grief by my SASO (not the AOC) to come up with HIS finding. I didn't, and the crew were given the benefit of the doubt (as in the Chinook affair). Not a popular Wg Cdr, but I didn't give a toss!
Likewise, I was a BoI President who was given grief by my SASO (not the AOC) to come up with HIS finding. I didn't, and the crew were given the benefit of the doubt (as in the Chinook affair). Not a popular Wg Cdr, but I didn't give a toss!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dervish,
Agreed. I think we're starting to form a picture here. It looks like AOCs trying to influence the BOI is more common that I, for one, had realized. I'm impressed that those involved were able to resist being swayed. Well done.
Agreed. I think we're starting to form a picture here. It looks like AOCs trying to influence the BOI is more common that I, for one, had realized. I'm impressed that those involved were able to resist being swayed. Well done.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,072
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
There was a Jag in Germany where the shackle in the headrest for the drogue was found not to be connected, everyone was interviewed by the SIB, but I do not think the cause was ever found, so even if in that case the drogue deployed the main chute wouldn't.
Gentleman Aviator
I think the last few posts have summarised the Mull of Kintyre case very well!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Info;
Work culture of Red Arrows to be probed at pilot's inquest - Telegraph
Work culture of Red Arrows to be probed at pilot's inquest - Telegraph
7:32PM GMT 22 Nov 2013
The culture of the RAF's Red Arrows is be investigated at an inquest into the death of a pilot who was killed when he was ejected from his cockpit following claims that overwork may have played a part in his death.
A pre-inquest hearing in Lincoln was told pilots and ground crew working for the crack aerobatic team will be among over 40 witnesses called at the hearing into the death of Flt Lt Sean Cunningham, due to be heard in January.
The culture of the RAF's Red Arrows is be investigated at an inquest into the death of a pilot who was killed when he was ejected from his cockpit following claims that overwork may have played a part in his death.
A pre-inquest hearing in Lincoln was told pilots and ground crew working for the crack aerobatic team will be among over 40 witnesses called at the hearing into the death of Flt Lt Sean Cunningham, due to be heard in January.
The hearing this week was told issues with the ejection seat trigger and the working of the parachute will also be examined by the Central Lincolnshire Coroner Stuart Fisher. Mr Fisher said: “What initiated the ejection seat and why didn't the parachute open are primary matters I am going to be looking at. “I am also going to be looking at cultural issues as well. We are going to have a lot of evidence about culture.”
BGG:_
Sorry I'm late. Staff shortages at Clapham Junction!
I would agree with other posters, that too little has been revealed about this tragedy for much meaningful comment yet. As regards the wider matter of RAF BoIs suffering interference from stellar heights, many thanks to those who reveal that they suffered this and resisted. There again those who did, but then didn't, are unlikely to be so forthcoming.
Even so, the job of a BoI is to discover the most likely cause(s) of an accident and recommend how they should be avoided in future.
In that regard the infamous Mull BoI might well have not done the AOC's bidding, but by the same token it failed to discover that the entire HC2 fleet had been Released to Service in a Grossly Unairworthy state. That despite a witness to the fact wishing to give evidence accordingly, but then ordered by his Station Commander to keep quiet unless and until he was called for. He wasn't.
So resisting undue influence just isn't enough. It needs the Investigating Board (the MAAIB) to be entirely independent of the Operator (aka the MOD/RAF/RN/Army), and of the Regulator (the MAA, aka the MOD). We have a long way to go before Military Air Accident Investigation can not only be effective but seen to be effective.
Train will be along any moment, I hear chugging already.
I would agree with other posters, that too little has been revealed about this tragedy for much meaningful comment yet. As regards the wider matter of RAF BoIs suffering interference from stellar heights, many thanks to those who reveal that they suffered this and resisted. There again those who did, but then didn't, are unlikely to be so forthcoming.
Even so, the job of a BoI is to discover the most likely cause(s) of an accident and recommend how they should be avoided in future.
In that regard the infamous Mull BoI might well have not done the AOC's bidding, but by the same token it failed to discover that the entire HC2 fleet had been Released to Service in a Grossly Unairworthy state. That despite a witness to the fact wishing to give evidence accordingly, but then ordered by his Station Commander to keep quiet unless and until he was called for. He wasn't.
So resisting undue influence just isn't enough. It needs the Investigating Board (the MAAIB) to be entirely independent of the Operator (aka the MOD/RAF/RN/Army), and of the Regulator (the MAA, aka the MOD). We have a long way to go before Military Air Accident Investigation can not only be effective but seen to be effective.
Sadly this was not only a problem with RAF BOIs. I was on the RN board into a (crab exchange) practice bomb that achieved a DH on one of HM's carriers some 20 years ago. It became obvious that there was a glitch with the "LOFT" software. On being informed of this, the MOD stated that it was NOT a software snag as this was the FA2 software and couldn't be changed and that "if it's the Crab's fault - then that's OK."
Luckily, we were able to prove without doubt that it WAS a software snag and not a swx pigs. I retired shortly afterwards and later had the immense pleasure to have said Crab exchange pilot as my F/O on a trans Atlantic aluminium overcast. To give the RN their due, no one tried to modify the board's findings.
Luckily, we were able to prove without doubt that it WAS a software snag and not a swx pigs. I retired shortly afterwards and later had the immense pleasure to have said Crab exchange pilot as my F/O on a trans Atlantic aluminium overcast. To give the RN their due, no one tried to modify the board's findings.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,072
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
The CAA have just issued an Emergency AD to check the drogue chute shackles on all MB seats
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20131126MPD2013005E.pdf
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20131126MPD2013005E.pdf
Are all the potential prosecutions, serious service offences and service discipline investigations all off the table or do we still have a bunch of people with the Sword of Damocles hanging over them?
It happened down at at TACEVAL level too.
I was at least twice told "you cannot possibly say that about a fellow NATO Met Office"
Even if it is true.
Answer:
"Bollocks. That is my report. Do with it what you will!"
I was at least twice told "you cannot possibly say that about a fellow NATO Met Office"
Even if it is true.
Answer:
"Bollocks. That is my report. Do with it what you will!"
No, the EAD in itself is nothing other than a timely and correct directive to inspect those components. It offers no opinion about cause or possible blame. It has been accepted by MB because they hace an excellent reputation and have saved hundreds of lives. Your speculation is ill-placed. If the investigators found a possible factor (not stated here) or simply an issue that needs investigation they are following sound procedures to follow up and ensure that there isn't a fleet-wide issue - it doesn't mean it was a cause in this tragic incident. A sensible precaution that has, as far as we know, no stated causal relevence to this case. You need to wait for official findings before drawing conclusions.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In the clouds
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic but just to give my few pence worth re: inquiry's.
Having recently retired after 20+ years service ive many grievances to air but will leave that for another time (probably when hammered at christmas!).
But I would like to say this about inquiries and investigations.
With thousands of hours under my belt as aircrew I made a very minor error on a flight one day (all errors are bad of course) that was actually caused by the guy up front by virtue of the fact that the flight regime changed un-announced to me (by the PIC) while I was performing a task that required straight and level flight. Sounds complicated but i dont want to be too specific.
A report was put in and I was requested to join the chief flight safety officer for a meeting (a bollocking but thats not allowed in these days of CRM of course).
Previous to the meeting I was asked to submit my own account of events.
What the FS Officer wasnt expecting was a full eight page report from me accounting for every minute from brief to de-brief. It became quite apparent that the whole mission was a classical 'Swiss Cheese' model from start to finish with my very minor error being used a scapegoat by the PIC to vent his anger at his own mistakes and embarrasment at what was a failed mission (luckily simulated).
What happened next shook me to the core after completing recurrent CRM courses year after year. I was advised (told) to withdraw my report as it showed the others involved in bad light and they will more than likely find a way to 'pay me back' at a later date!
So to get to my point, CRM b€&@ox, its just a box ticking excercise. The sh1t still rolls downhill. Im just glad to say ive retired with all limbs attached and i hope my mates will be the same.
Sorry if this is too off topic,
Still venting years of gripes,
Cheers,
BW
Having recently retired after 20+ years service ive many grievances to air but will leave that for another time (probably when hammered at christmas!).
But I would like to say this about inquiries and investigations.
With thousands of hours under my belt as aircrew I made a very minor error on a flight one day (all errors are bad of course) that was actually caused by the guy up front by virtue of the fact that the flight regime changed un-announced to me (by the PIC) while I was performing a task that required straight and level flight. Sounds complicated but i dont want to be too specific.
A report was put in and I was requested to join the chief flight safety officer for a meeting (a bollocking but thats not allowed in these days of CRM of course).
Previous to the meeting I was asked to submit my own account of events.
What the FS Officer wasnt expecting was a full eight page report from me accounting for every minute from brief to de-brief. It became quite apparent that the whole mission was a classical 'Swiss Cheese' model from start to finish with my very minor error being used a scapegoat by the PIC to vent his anger at his own mistakes and embarrasment at what was a failed mission (luckily simulated).
What happened next shook me to the core after completing recurrent CRM courses year after year. I was advised (told) to withdraw my report as it showed the others involved in bad light and they will more than likely find a way to 'pay me back' at a later date!
So to get to my point, CRM b€&@ox, its just a box ticking excercise. The sh1t still rolls downhill. Im just glad to say ive retired with all limbs attached and i hope my mates will be the same.
Sorry if this is too off topic,
Still venting years of gripes,
Cheers,
BW
MB ejection seats
I am somewat surprised that the CAA is issuing a directive about military equipment.
Can anyone enlighten me as to why that is?
My guess is that a small number of seats are in cilvilian use but not Mk 10s
surely.
(Ejectee 440)
Can anyone enlighten me as to why that is?
My guess is that a small number of seats are in cilvilian use but not Mk 10s
surely.
(Ejectee 440)
Bubblewindow:-
... and that just about sums up the problem with RAF Flight Safety, where reputations are of more concern than accidents, for fatal air accidents from minor occurrences do grow. There is the raison d'etre for the Mull Finding; pin it on the two dead pilots otherwise we're all in the s**t. In your one bitter experience can be found the real need for a separate and independent MAA and MAAIB, both from the MOD and from each other.
Thank you for your testimony.
I was advised (told) to withdraw my report as it showed the others involved in bad light
Thank you for your testimony.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also thought the CAA covered Civil only (as it says on the tin) and that the MAA covered the RAF
"Part of the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the MAA is an independent and autonomous organization responsible for the regulation, surveillance, inspection and assurance of the Defence Air operating and technical domains. It ensures the safe design and use of military air systems. As the single regulatory authority responsible for regulating all aspects of Air Safety across Defence, the MAA has full oversight of all Defence aviation activity. Through independent audit and continuous surveillance of military aviation, the MAA aims to provide the Secretary of State for Defence (SofS), through the Permanent Under Secretary of State for Defence (PUS), the necessary assurance that appropriate standards of Air Safety are maintained in delivering operational capability."
but the CAA notice includes:-
"In accordance with 22(1) of Air Navigation Order 2009 as amended the following action required by this Mandatory Permit Directive (MPD) is mandatory for applicable aircraft registered in the United Kingdom operating on a UK CAA Permit to Fly"
Looks like the CAA are muscling in..............
"Part of the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the MAA is an independent and autonomous organization responsible for the regulation, surveillance, inspection and assurance of the Defence Air operating and technical domains. It ensures the safe design and use of military air systems. As the single regulatory authority responsible for regulating all aspects of Air Safety across Defence, the MAA has full oversight of all Defence aviation activity. Through independent audit and continuous surveillance of military aviation, the MAA aims to provide the Secretary of State for Defence (SofS), through the Permanent Under Secretary of State for Defence (PUS), the necessary assurance that appropriate standards of Air Safety are maintained in delivering operational capability."
but the CAA notice includes:-
"In accordance with 22(1) of Air Navigation Order 2009 as amended the following action required by this Mandatory Permit Directive (MPD) is mandatory for applicable aircraft registered in the United Kingdom operating on a UK CAA Permit to Fly"
Looks like the CAA are muscling in..............