Reports on Red Arrows and Flt Lt Cunningham's death

[pr00ne]

Rigga,


"The reason why this apparently officious Coroner is allowed to look at RAFAT Culture is because... -"

...is because he's a coroner, he doesn't need any other reason, the fact that it involves the military is neither here nor there.

[Rigga]

Proone - You are, of course, wrong.

For a Coroner to require access he needs to be on duty - and the inquest is his reason.

[longer ron]

Things have changed over the years !
Because there was a fatality in this case - the Aircraft/Evidence etc was under the control of the civvy cops and the investigation team and BOI members would have had to work with the civvy cops and ask for access etc.
With a fatality - it is no longer a purely military matter !

[just another jocky]

l ron...it doesn't require there to be a fatality for the police to have primacy.

[lj101]

House of Commons - Armed Forces - First Report

INVESTIGATIONS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

63. We have acknowledged the difficulties faced by the Service police in investigating incidents in operational theatres. There has also been criticism of investigations in the United Kingdom. The Defence Committee's 2005 Duty of Care report noted: "A consistent criticism from the families of recruits who died during their initial training is that the deaths of their children were not properly investigated".[108] The investigation of unexplained deaths of this sort are subject to a protocol between the Service police forces and the Association of Chief Police Officers that sets out the circumstances in which the civilian or Service police forces take the lead in an investigation.[109] In written evidence, JUSTICE expresses concern about "how issues of jurisdiction will be resolved when both civil and Service authorities have jurisdiction in any given case".[110] Within the United Kingdom the civilian police, and therefore the civilian jurisdiction, has primacy for investigations. As Brigadier Findlay explained, "There is absolutely no doubt in the minds of the Service police over the complete primacy of the civil authority to investigate all issues within the United Kingdom".[111] Mr Rooks described the normal arrangements with the civilian police, saying that:

The Home Department civil police have primacy on everything, but there is a protocol which is formalised with the Home Office which sets out what will happen in normal circumstances and […] that a list of serious crimes, which include murder and rape, will automatically be reported by the Commanding Officer or the Service police, if they are the first responder […] to the Home Department police force and they then decide how to deal with the investigation. For a serious crime of that sort they will almost certainly decide to lead that investigation themselves. They may well use the expertise of either the Service police or the MDP, but they will definitely be in the lead.[112]

[NigelOnDraft]

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

The first MPD (shortly after the accident) was, as stated earlier, to ensure the scissor shackle had a degree of freedom of movement.

As hinted in the MPD, the new MPD is not much different, but adds a technical measurement e.g. a defined minimum gap, between certain components.

Clearly the MPD(s) may be entirely coincidental to the tragic events under discussion, but I somewhat suspect not

Heathrow Harry:

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..............

I do not see the CAA muscling in at all. PtoF aircraft are regulated by the CAA, and if MB have seen fit to issue leaflets affecting Flight Safety, then the CAA certainly should pass on that info to the appropriate operators ASAP. As a MPD does.

NoD

[lj101]

http://www.maa.mod.uk/linkedfiles/re...1/chapter1.pdf

Air Navigation Order
Air navigation in the UK is regulated by the Air Navigation Order (ANO), which is a statutory instrument made pursuant to the Civil Aviation Act (1982). However, the majority of the provisions of the ANO do not apply to Military Aircraft, with the notable exception of the Rules of the Air.

The MOD direct the military (via JSP550) to comply with the Rules of the Air as prescribed in the ANO except where operational/training needs dictate. In other words, military aviators are required to comply with the Rules of the Air unless a flight is specifically authorised not to comply (low flying being the best example).

Not sure of the relevance of the above but I found it interesting enough to quote.

[Bubblewindow]

I must appologise if I upset anybody whining about my flight safety issues and yes Im not Ex-RAF nor British Forces. Its good to talk though.

Cheers and safe flying,

BW

[dervish]

Hey bubble, no problem. Keep it up I say. You only have to look at the Wg Cdr Spry stickie thread to see very few in MoD are interested or able to answer valid questions.

[Chugalug2]

dervish:- "You only have to look at the Wg Cdr Spry stickie thread to see very few in MoD are interested or able to answer valid questions."


Indeed. It is as though some think that they can learn a foreign language by merely studying a dictionary in that language. When they find that they can't they then change the meanings of the new words they have learnt to suit their purposes. In other words, pure gobbledygook. It would be amusing and entertaining, as Air Clues clearly tries hard to be, if it were not for the deadly seriousness of mangling the process of Air Safety thus.


Bubblewindow, worry not for it was not you at fault but I. At least you are interested in promoting Flight Safety, a rare trait hereabouts.

[Rigga]

Chug,
If this was Facebook I'd "Like" that comment and write LOL after it.

[Chugalug2]

Thank you Rigga, but let us be thankful that PPRuNe has no such facility, for I suspect that I would be in serious deficit of such 'Likes' I'm afraid. That perhaps is the whole point.
This isn't a popularity contest nor even a game. It is about the ultimate goal of Air Safety, ie the saving of lives and equipment so that they are available for their true purpose and not wasted in avoidable accidents. Which brings us neatly back to the thread OP...

[thefodfather]

I have met many people seeking to publicise Flight Safety on this forum and urge them them to work hard hard in their endeavours. The situation has changed beyond belief in the past 10 years and I hope that others are buoyed by this improvement stead of being dissuaded by the negative,

[Rigga]

Chug,
I don't speak the same language as you clever guys, I don’t read Grown-Up newspapers and I don’t drink G&T’s. I only have vocational qualifications (none of those degree things) and some 38 years of experience.

But I do understand what goes on around me and I am where I am by putting the intent (not the letter) of regulations into practice. Some may call that 'doing the right thing'. I have some strong influence in some air & ground ops, maintenance, design and production organisations.

Whilst working in a relatively senior position for a large contractor I saw how bad the latter day RAF had become and decided to wait for H-C to come up with some sort of alternative path in his recommendations. If he had said he was happy with the RAF way of doing airplane stuff - I'd have resigned immediately and then looked for new work.

However good or bad you see his report, the way H-C described the way forward was (to me) a logical step on the path to MOD's redemption and I supported it (and I still do, however wrong the details of the report are/were).

Since then I've seen the MAA try to mould new regulations around their old practices and I've also seen how it can't and doesn't work. I saw what they wrote and heard what they told their Shop floor - and then I saw what they really wanted to happen and how they can't operate without (their term) 'work-arounds'.

I gave up after a few years of driving myself mad with frustration. Even now, some regulations are ignored if not recently removed because they meant actually changing a 'traditional' policy.

In my opinion the MAA is now changing the rules to revert back to where they were pre-H-C. I believe the MAA will soon become just another Dept. of MOD, more worried about its budget than doing anything right, effective or productive.

I now work with people who live for and with airworthiness and continued airworthiness, and not doing their utmost to get around 'difficult' regulations (ironically, it's my job to see what Directors want to work around - and I almost always reject it). I work where doing the right thing is normal, the easiest path and is cost effective - because that's the way it is and we budget/work to that cost.

Oh!....and you couldn't have this standard of conversation on Facebook. That’s one reason I’m on here.

Fodfather,
To which improvement are you referring? What part of MOD aviation are you working in to see that improvement?

[tucumseh]

Rigga, what an excellent post.

In my opinion the MAA is now changing the rules to revert back to where they were pre-H-C. I believe the MAA will soon become just another Dept. of MOD, more worried about its budget than doing anything right, effective or productive.

My own experience, while from a slightly different viewpoint, is exactly the same. MoD no longer waltzes round this issue in replies to Ministers. They quite openly confirm the old “pre-Haddon-Cave” practices (not regulations) remain acceptable. That is, inter alia, correct implementation is optional and instructions to render aircraft unsafe must be obeyed. The DE&S secretariat responsible for drafting and issuing these replies routinely quotes and upholds past rulings by 2 and 4 Stars to this effect; and, in fact, did so as recently as last week when citing a 1999 ruling by Sir Robert Walmsley, Chief of Defence Procurement. (I like to think this is where Haddon-Cave was aiming when he made his scathing remark about submariners managing airworthiness). Walmsley, lest it be forgotten, was rabidly anti-engineer, anti-airworthiness. I accept he had other distractions during his tenure (!), so equal blame lies with his 2 Stars and Director of Personnel, Resources and Development, who egged him on in his rulings. All were sufficiently stupid, or arrogant, to place these in writing. DE&S confirms the MAA support these historical rulings. The MAA were formally notified of them by two Ministers, but did nothing.


I think one point is always worth repeating. It was not the regulations that were lacking, but the implementation.



Finally, the MAA are and always have been just another MOD department. They have made no attempt to do the right thing, choosing to ignore the root cause of the problem.

[Dengue_Dude]

Rigga - Respect.

[Chugalug2]

Rigga, I can do little more than echo tuc's comments. Your post was from the heart and all the more worthy for that. If all who posted re Airworthiness and Air or Flight Safety did likewise this dialogue would be all the more valuable and effective.
I know that we disagree about the Haddon Cave Report and suspect that will not change. So be it. My problem with him is that he was given clear evidence of the deliberate destruction of the UK Military Airworthiness system and chose not only to ignore it but to characterise that time as a 'Golden Period'. That really had the imprimatur of the MOD 'advisors' that 'assisted' him in the preparation of his Report. Thus were the perpetrators of the destruction protected, thus was the solution to their subversion prevented. Despite the urgent need for a separate MAA and MAAIB (both of the MOD and of each other), by protecting those VSO's he obscured that need and recommended instead inclusion within the MOD fold. Hence history can now be repeated ad infinitum.
That is my problem with Haddon Cave, that it is his Report that is responsible for the clay man that is the MAA, and for that matter the MAAIB. So no tff, I cannot share your enthusiasm for them and what they are, but rather urge others to demand that they become what they should be, what any Air Regulator and Air Accident Investigator should be, independent of the Operator and of each other.

[Rigga]

Gents,
Our differences on the why's and wherefore's don't detract from our unity in getting some justice done and getting some independence where it's needed.
It's all Grist to the same Millwheel.

[thefodfather]

The debate is always interesting and while there are still many things that still need to be improved and made to work better in the world of military aviation safety, I stand by the comment that a lot has changed for the better. Most of that is cultural and hard to quantify. However, by way of example, I remember organising a safety related conference in 2003 where as an SO3, I was the highest rank in the room. I couldn't even find an SO2 to do the welcome speech. A similar event 8 years later saw 2 Gp Capts fighting over the opening speech. When I first started working in safety it certainly wasn't seen by my peers as a good career move. Now 12 years later a job in safety is becoming more of a prerequisite for promotion.

A real example of improvement is to compare the old signal Flight Safety report process with what we have with ASIMS. Whilst there are some issues that the MAA might not have dealt with from the past, to suggest that they have made no attempt to do the right thing is very unfair indeed.

[obnoxio f*ckwit]

When I first started working in safety it certainly wasn't seen by my peers as a good career move. Now 12 years later a job in safety is becoming more of a prerequisite for promotion.

Which means that instead of being staffed by those who were actually interested in safety and/or had no career to worry about and therefore were perhaps inclined to do the right thing, it is now staffed by thrusters who view rocking the boat or making the wrong noises as potential career stoppers, and thus are more likely to toe the party line and make no decision in case it turns out to be a wrong one. And consequently little actually changes.

Or is that a bit harsh?