Reports on Red Arrows and Flt Lt Cunningham's death
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,072
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
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..............
"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..............
HH
Well, the Secretary of State requires them to do it, so one wonders why they are permitted to only "aim". Perhaps it is applied realism, given they are part of the MoD and at the mercy of masters who can, and do, tell them what to do and where to go. Now, if they were independent.......
Well, the Secretary of State requires them to do it, so one wonders why they are permitted to only "aim". Perhaps it is applied realism, given they are part of the MoD and at the mercy of masters who can, and do, tell them what to do and where to go. Now, if they were independent.......
Reports on Red Arrows and Flt Lt Cunningham's death
I've had a crap nights sleep so maybe I'm being overly grumpy but here's my thoughts this morning. This thread is about the report into the death of a young guy many of us knew. There has been no hint of any witch hunt or wrongdoing during the process. Therefore, would it be at all possible for people to take their whinging and stories of crooked flight safety empires somewhere else please?
Feel free to ignore me but it's just my two penn'th.
BV
Feel free to ignore me but it's just my two penn'th.
BV
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug with reference to Bubbles;
Apart from the fact that Bubble has never been in the RAF or indeed the British Military (according to himself on a previous thread).
I was advised (told) to withdraw my report as it showed the others involved in bad light
... 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.
Thank you for your testimony.
Apart from the fact that Bubble has never been in the RAF or indeed the British Military (according to himself on a previous thread).
IMHO, BV has suggested the appropriate line - I too agree (although I did not know the guy concerned, a long time ago I had close involvement with RAFAT as a RA Trustee) that this is not the place for going on about MAAB, MAA, etc - there is another thread is/has been running for that.
RIP Sean Cunningham
RIP Sean Cunningham
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reports on Red Arrows and Flt Lt Cunningham's death
The latest MPD is applicable to Martin Baker ejection seat equipped aircraft operating on the civilian register. I'm fairly sure that all mb seats share a similar scissor shackle mechanism so the potential problem is common to all.
It replaces an earlier MPD that was issued shortly after the Red Arrows hawk accident. Most of us surmised at the time that a fault such as this could have been the cause of the main chute failure to deploy. (although not why it fired in the first place).
The new MPD requires operators to comply with a procedure outlined in Martin Baker Information Leaflet 704a. I have not yet had sight of it so I don't know how it varies from the original one issued after the accident
I am sure that military operators will issue their equivalent of an MPD requiring the same compliance with MB Leaflet 704a
It replaces an earlier MPD that was issued shortly after the Red Arrows hawk accident. Most of us surmised at the time that a fault such as this could have been the cause of the main chute failure to deploy. (although not why it fired in the first place).
The new MPD requires operators to comply with a procedure outlined in Martin Baker Information Leaflet 704a. I have not yet had sight of it so I don't know how it varies from the original one issued after the accident
I am sure that military operators will issue their equivalent of an MPD requiring the same compliance with MB Leaflet 704a
National ADs (and MPDs) are free on the CAA website
Mandatory Permit Directives | Continuing Airworthiness & Maintenance | Operations and Safety
and
CAP 661: Mandatory Permit Directives | Publications | About the CAA
Mandatory Permit Directives | Continuing Airworthiness & Maintenance | Operations and Safety
and
CAP 661: Mandatory Permit Directives | Publications | About the CAA
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,072
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
BV
I personally wasn't being judgmental nor subjective and hopefully not disrespectful, I was simply trying to be informative in letting people know that the CAA are being proactive with regards to Ejector Seats.
I personally wasn't being judgmental nor subjective and hopefully not disrespectful, I was simply trying to be informative in letting people know that the CAA are being proactive with regards to Ejector Seats.
Nutloose
You can rest assured that your posts did not make me grumpy.
The classic Pprune tangents are fine on most threads but on a thread disussing something like this I would just rather they were kept a little more relevant.
Just my opinion of course. Others may differ.
BV
The classic Pprune tangents are fine on most threads but on a thread disussing something like this I would just rather they were kept a little more relevant.
Just my opinion of course. Others may differ.
BV
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I re-energised this Thread, on the strength of the Telegraph news item, one of my selected quotes from the Coroner was “I am also going to be looking at cultural issues as well. We are going to have a lot of evidence about culture.” I thought that statement would initiate some debate. I was wrong, though, as it didn't.
Maybe I'm uniquely paranoid about the implications of influential professional civilians delving into military life. I think that goes a bit wider than airworthiness and BoI policy/habits/traditions.
Maybe I'm uniquely paranoid about the implications of influential professional civilians delving into military life. I think that goes a bit wider than airworthiness and BoI policy/habits/traditions.
“I am also going to be looking at cultural issues as well. We are going to have a lot of evidence about culture.”
The potential problem with "civilian" enquiries into "Service" matters, is precisely the issue - "cultural" - perhaps in sad circumstances such as this, a Coroner might consider appointing a "service" assessor or advisor
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reports on Red Arrows and Flt Lt Cunningham's death
Rigga,
MPDs are indeed free to access. In fact the CAA are kind enough to email them to me.
Unfortunately this one provides no engineering detail at all other then requiring compliance with Martin Baker Special information Leaflet No 704a.
Now if you happen to have a link to that leaflet it would be most helpful.
MPDs are indeed free to access. In fact the CAA are kind enough to email them to me.
Unfortunately this one provides no engineering detail at all other then requiring compliance with Martin Baker Special information Leaflet No 704a.
Now if you happen to have a link to that leaflet it would be most helpful.
lj101:-
Thanks for that, which no doubt BW will wish to confirm. The obvious lesson for me to learn is "Don't assume, check"!
In mitigation I would proffer the nature of his post (rear seat non pilot aircrew incident) on a Military thread about a very Military accident, though on the other hand he did preface it by saying that it was slightly off topic. So apologies for getting him wrong and using him as a stick with which to beat RAF Flight Safety with. Anyone wish to offer another instead?
As to this thread not being an appropriate one for comment about the limitations of Military Air Accident Investigation, it joins many others that were also the tragic subjects of Fatal Military Air Accidents. The Naval Baggers mid-air, the Blue on Blue loss of a Tornado, the bringing down of a Hercules fitted with unprotected Fuel Tanks, the loss of a Nimrod fitted with an unairworthy Fuel System, and of course the Mull Chinook.
62 lives lost, yet each of those 5 threads declared an inappropriate place to air the idea that they were all related, because they were investigated by the operator that suffered the accident. In many of those accidents NoK were lied to, and were most energetic subsequently in their search for the truth. That should have been the point of the various BoI's in the first place, shouldn't it? Or doesn't it quite work like that?
Apart from the fact that Bubble has never been in the RAF or indeed the British Military (according to himself on a previous thread).
In mitigation I would proffer the nature of his post (rear seat non pilot aircrew incident) on a Military thread about a very Military accident, though on the other hand he did preface it by saying that it was slightly off topic. So apologies for getting him wrong and using him as a stick with which to beat RAF Flight Safety with. Anyone wish to offer another instead?
As to this thread not being an appropriate one for comment about the limitations of Military Air Accident Investigation, it joins many others that were also the tragic subjects of Fatal Military Air Accidents. The Naval Baggers mid-air, the Blue on Blue loss of a Tornado, the bringing down of a Hercules fitted with unprotected Fuel Tanks, the loss of a Nimrod fitted with an unairworthy Fuel System, and of course the Mull Chinook.
62 lives lost, yet each of those 5 threads declared an inappropriate place to air the idea that they were all related, because they were investigated by the operator that suffered the accident. In many of those accidents NoK were lied to, and were most energetic subsequently in their search for the truth. That should have been the point of the various BoI's in the first place, shouldn't it? Or doesn't it quite work like that?
I think one of the cultural problems is paranoid secrecy, usually to protect senior staffs.
I recently asked for a document relating to a fatal crash. Given the Coroner agreed, and is on record, there had been a Pre-Inquest Hearing (PIH) to determine who would be witnesses and what would be discussed, I asked why a certain report had been withheld (having established it wasn’t even submitted to the Coroner).
MoD replied that there had NOT been a PIH and the subject report (and the investigation that produced the report) did not exist/had not taken place. I replied, quoting the report and naming the four immediate recipients plus the Investigating Officer, only for MoD to deny its existence again. They repeated this to families, who also have the report; which merely alienates and reinvigorates them.
Lacking this report, the Inquest immediately went off at a tangent (a direction determined by MoD, with no family input) and little of substance or relevance was discussed in 4 days. Thus, the Court was grossly misled and the underlying failures that led to the BoI’s contributory factors remain uncorrected, with the MAA studiously ignoring them. Probably because the above report demonstrates, beyond any doubt, that all contributory factors were identified up to 8 years in advance, and staffs instructed not to correct them, to save money. So, the Coroner DID have “Service” advisors, but they toed the MoD party line and colluded in misleading him (because none told the "whole truth"). This is common practice. I’d prefer Coroners to have independent advisors; perhaps reputable retired staffs with proven experience. So, no MAA, on both counts!
I recently asked for a document relating to a fatal crash. Given the Coroner agreed, and is on record, there had been a Pre-Inquest Hearing (PIH) to determine who would be witnesses and what would be discussed, I asked why a certain report had been withheld (having established it wasn’t even submitted to the Coroner).
MoD replied that there had NOT been a PIH and the subject report (and the investigation that produced the report) did not exist/had not taken place. I replied, quoting the report and naming the four immediate recipients plus the Investigating Officer, only for MoD to deny its existence again. They repeated this to families, who also have the report; which merely alienates and reinvigorates them.
Lacking this report, the Inquest immediately went off at a tangent (a direction determined by MoD, with no family input) and little of substance or relevance was discussed in 4 days. Thus, the Court was grossly misled and the underlying failures that led to the BoI’s contributory factors remain uncorrected, with the MAA studiously ignoring them. Probably because the above report demonstrates, beyond any doubt, that all contributory factors were identified up to 8 years in advance, and staffs instructed not to correct them, to save money. So, the Coroner DID have “Service” advisors, but they toed the MoD party line and colluded in misleading him (because none told the "whole truth"). This is common practice. I’d prefer Coroners to have independent advisors; perhaps reputable retired staffs with proven experience. So, no MAA, on both counts!
ASRAAM,
My access to Martin Baker is only for Crashworthy seats not ejectors - sorry.
CULTURE:
The reason why this apparently officious Coroner is allowed to look at RAFAT Culture is because - unlike the rest of the RAF - they regularly fly and do quite dangerous stuff directly over the public's heads.
Don't forget, it is the CAA who allow RAFAT to fly at Air Shows - not the RAF or MAA or even MOD. If the Coroner provides enough evidence of the "wrong stuff" to the CAA the RAFAT will be banned from UK shows. Simple.
My access to Martin Baker is only for Crashworthy seats not ejectors - sorry.
CULTURE:
The reason why this apparently officious Coroner is allowed to look at RAFAT Culture is because - unlike the rest of the RAF - they regularly fly and do quite dangerous stuff directly over the public's heads.
Don't forget, it is the CAA who allow RAFAT to fly at Air Shows - not the RAF or MAA or even MOD. If the Coroner provides enough evidence of the "wrong stuff" to the CAA the RAFAT will be banned from UK shows. Simple.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All will be apparent in January, along with what's been done about it.
An immense amount of work has been going on by many different agencies. Suffice to say this incident in particular, has been treated with the utmost seriousness and urgency.
An immense amount of work has been going on by many different agencies. Suffice to say this incident in particular, has been treated with the utmost seriousness and urgency.