Wing Commander Spry
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: humzaland
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS Dinghies
chute packer: Thank you for the gen on the baling pump. I'm glad that it did eventually appear - even if not in the form envisaged 40-odd years ago.
Chugalug2: Thank you too. All I can say is that in my(our?) day cockups used to be sins of omission, and not commission.
Chugalug2: Thank you too. All I can say is that in my(our?) day cockups used to be sins of omission, and not commission.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Stoke-on-Trent
Age: 91
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Errata
Harking back to my days at Bexhill County Grammar School for Boys (good old 'Wispy' Waring i/c Latin), Erratum, being neuter, becomes Errati.
(The spell correction facility wanted me to spell it 'errata' or 'erratic' - just about sums it all up)
(The spell correction facility wanted me to spell it 'errata' or 'erratic' - just about sums it all up)
let it die with dignity.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing Changes
I first sat on an ejection seat in 1965 (Acklington) and last in 1984 (Bedford) throughout there was a fairly common standard of pre flight
You checked the handle was fully down and all pins were in correctly when climbing in because we knew you could get the seat pan pin in with the handle partially withdrawn
We checked the scissor shackle was "floppy" but I never understood why
So we knew what to do courtesy of routine flight checks but not always why we were doing it
As a further example; we did check for loose articles near the seat but I nerver realised that a dropped wander light could set off the drogue gun with "interesting" results. Had I noticed the wander light would not latch in the holder correctly I would probably have flown and reported it later
My rather laboured point is that knowing what should be done works even better if subject person knows why
You checked the handle was fully down and all pins were in correctly when climbing in because we knew you could get the seat pan pin in with the handle partially withdrawn
We checked the scissor shackle was "floppy" but I never understood why
So we knew what to do courtesy of routine flight checks but not always why we were doing it
As a further example; we did check for loose articles near the seat but I nerver realised that a dropped wander light could set off the drogue gun with "interesting" results. Had I noticed the wander light would not latch in the holder correctly I would probably have flown and reported it later
My rather laboured point is that knowing what should be done works even better if subject person knows why
Tinribs - glad to see your post - I recalled checking scissor shackle for free movement - but did not want to display in public what might have proved to be an appalling memory!
I don't want to seem awkward in any way but.......
This thread is a sticky and we've got to assume that "Wg Cdr Spry" has satisfied the moderators he is a bonafide representative of MoD Flight Safety.
We've also got to assume, not unreasonably, that "Wg Cdr Spry" has permission to use a largely anonymous forum to gather opinion and seek assistance. It pretty much follows that you'd expect him to heed good advice and opinion, otherwise what is the point?
The last two posts relate to a well known accident. They, and others, contradict to a greater or lesser extent what has been said in evidence and published by the SI.
So, my question is, has "Wg Cdr Spry" met his obligation and reported these contradictions and conflicts to the SI president(s) and Coroner(s) / Procurator(s) Fiscal? (As the same question could be applied to other similar cases). Most here would agree that pprune is the de facto centre of excellence for flight safety and, demonstrably, the place where MoD's Corporate Knowledge now resides.
Perhaps more seriously, many examples of offences committed by serving and retired MoD staffs have been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. Have the Wg Cdr's leaders reported these to the proper Authority? The example that always sticks in my craw is CAS's letter to Marshall of the RAF Sir John Grandy stating, categorically, that Chinook ZD576 was "off course by some miles". We await Graydon's evidence as to what the true course was; east of the Mull between it and Arran (or even further over in the Clyde approaches), or to the west up the coast of Islay; but the immediate problem is a willingness to deceive his seniors with a clear aim of denigrating the deceased pilots. So many laws have been broken there is is hard to know where to start.
Perhaps the Wg Cdr could offer comment on just how much attention his organisation pays to the facts revealed here on pprune, and to what extent he is encouraged (or otherwise) to meet his legal obligation to report such offences.
This thread is a sticky and we've got to assume that "Wg Cdr Spry" has satisfied the moderators he is a bonafide representative of MoD Flight Safety.
We've also got to assume, not unreasonably, that "Wg Cdr Spry" has permission to use a largely anonymous forum to gather opinion and seek assistance. It pretty much follows that you'd expect him to heed good advice and opinion, otherwise what is the point?
The last two posts relate to a well known accident. They, and others, contradict to a greater or lesser extent what has been said in evidence and published by the SI.
So, my question is, has "Wg Cdr Spry" met his obligation and reported these contradictions and conflicts to the SI president(s) and Coroner(s) / Procurator(s) Fiscal? (As the same question could be applied to other similar cases). Most here would agree that pprune is the de facto centre of excellence for flight safety and, demonstrably, the place where MoD's Corporate Knowledge now resides.
Perhaps more seriously, many examples of offences committed by serving and retired MoD staffs have been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. Have the Wg Cdr's leaders reported these to the proper Authority? The example that always sticks in my craw is CAS's letter to Marshall of the RAF Sir John Grandy stating, categorically, that Chinook ZD576 was "off course by some miles". We await Graydon's evidence as to what the true course was; east of the Mull between it and Arran (or even further over in the Clyde approaches), or to the west up the coast of Islay; but the immediate problem is a willingness to deceive his seniors with a clear aim of denigrating the deceased pilots. So many laws have been broken there is is hard to know where to start.
Perhaps the Wg Cdr could offer comment on just how much attention his organisation pays to the facts revealed here on pprune, and to what extent he is encouraged (or otherwise) to meet his legal obligation to report such offences.
Most here would agree that PPRuNe is the de facto centre of excellence for flight safety and, demonstrably, the place where MoD's Corporate Knowledge now resides.
That has got to be the funniest thing I've read all year!
Ridiculous? Yes. But it is still demonstrably true. Funny? No. Tragic more like.
Just ask who submitted the flight safety related evidence to various Coroners and Inquiries, who unanimously rejected MoD's version. Ask who Lord Philip had to approach to obtain MoD JSPs, Def Stans, reports etc because MoD couldn't find them or denied their existence. AP3207 for example. Ask why MoD couldn't even provide evidence of the Release to Service procedures. When the Chinook Mk2 RTS was provided to him independently, Lord Philip rejected MoD's claims that there was no such thing in 1993/4. When the CHART report was provided independently, it disproved VSOs' claims that it did not refer to Chinook Mk2. When the complete CHART report was provided independently, it contained 348 more pages than MoD claimed existed.
Read the last few pages on this thread. If you get the definition of Functional Safety wrong, the entire system wanders off at a tangent and whole generations are taught the wrong thing.
Well said tuc!
MG, you obviously have a keen sense of humour. Why don't you amuse us all by saying where you place the de facto centre of excellence for UK Military Flight Safety; the RAF, the MOD, the MAA?
You cannot be serious!
MG, you obviously have a keen sense of humour. Why don't you amuse us all by saying where you place the de facto centre of excellence for UK Military Flight Safety; the RAF, the MOD, the MAA?
You cannot be serious!
Ok, fair cop, banged to rights, I dunnit, I dunnit, I dunnit, but that still doesn't answer the $64K question, does it? Never mind excellence, where can be found a viable Flight Safety organisation in present day UK Military Aviation? You know, one that prevents avoidable accidents happening...
Well I guess if I were to be able to answer that, we could roll up this thread, and others like it, right now. I've been out of flying since before the MAA and much has changed. I know friends who still do it and some of whom work damned hard in the areas that you mention. There's a way to go, but to suggest that the MOD doesn't care and to pretend that pprune is akin to the Royal Courts of Justice and that it sits on a moral pedestal is fatuous. And annoying; can you tell?
MG, the really annoying thing is that aviation doesn't give a damn about dedication, hard work, or any other such admirable traits. If it can be given half a chance to kill then it will. Having it regulated by those who don't know how to because they replaced those who did, having its regulations constantly rewritten because the ones that worked before were binned, having the inevitable consequent airworthiness related accidents investigated by an Air Accident Investigation Branch that is actually a part of that Regulatory Authority (which is about to demonstrate yet again the lack of its authority!) so that it does not point the finger at the Authority for Gross Airworthiness shortcomings, gives it far more than half a chance to kill and is really annoying!
The last noteworthy attempt by the RAF Flight Safety Organisation to get to grips with the scandal that is UK Military Airworthiness was when its Inspector General commissioned the 'Arts' on various fleets that were the subject of Flight Safety concern; Hercules, Nimrod, Chinook, Tornado, and others. All were buried to the point that their very existence was denied by the MOD and the RAF High Command. That more than anything showed how ineffective and submissive this supposedly CoC independent organisation is. That is really annoying!
You are annoyed? Join the club.
The last noteworthy attempt by the RAF Flight Safety Organisation to get to grips with the scandal that is UK Military Airworthiness was when its Inspector General commissioned the 'Arts' on various fleets that were the subject of Flight Safety concern; Hercules, Nimrod, Chinook, Tornado, and others. All were buried to the point that their very existence was denied by the MOD and the RAF High Command. That more than anything showed how ineffective and submissive this supposedly CoC independent organisation is. That is really annoying!
You are annoyed? Join the club.
MG
Did you ask the questions I suggested? Really annoying to discover that MoD claims only one employee satisfied his legal obligation to report systemic failings, isn't it? Pretty disturbing too, that MoD happily admit it and denigrate that one person; even now, post-Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip.
In the Chinook case, one of THE key documents was the AP outlining the "beyond any doubt whatsoever" test. Do you really find it acceptable that MoD could not find it or provide it to an Inquiry set up by the Secy of State? Not even an extract with that relevant section. Lord Philip had to ask members of the public.
Or that MoD had lied to Ministers regarding the definition of Safety Critical Software, but when asked could not provide the policy document stating the definition? Again, it was provided to Lord Philip independently, this time proving MoD lied and the definition they hung their case on was wrong all along. That the software WAS Safety Critical and was NOT permitted in a service aircraft. When asked for the relevant Def Stans, they could not produce them; so Lord Philip was provided with them independently, along with contact details of the original author. Law Lords tend to be deeply unimpressed with such behaviour and incompetence.
THAT is Corporate Knowledge that MoD is required by law to retain, and the kind of factual information a Centre of Excellence is required to have immediately to hand. MoD didn't. pprune contributors did. Fact.
I guess I'm in a position of strength here, because if MoD wish to argue I'm wrong, then they are also admitting committing serious offences; withholding this information from numerous inquiries and inquests, misleading by omission and commission and serially lying. All imprisonable offences. Either way, it doesn't bear thinking about.
Similarly, and back to my original point, what did the RAF Flight Safety organisation know and did they report it? We already know the MAA were fully informed, and said nothing, but I'd like to know what Wg Cdr Spry's organisation knew and did. And when. Because many people have died unnecessarily since I first reported the failings in January 1988 (I can't speak for anyone else), including aircrew I knew well. I know it is a lie that only one person reported it, because my immediate boss supported me, commissioned an independent audit, and the report advised PUS and the Chief Engineer we were right. And they did nothing. That is the kind of evidence someone like Lord Philip tends to find compelling; especially, again, when MoD cannot provide the report, but it is provided independently.
I'm fully prepared to accept that staff in Wg Cdr Spry's organisation were placed under direct orders to keep quiet. We certainly were, and disciplined if we even looked like disobeying. This remains formal MoD policy to this day, at least for civilian staffs. I understand the extreme pressure they may have been under. But, let me repeat this. People died because those with the legal obligation and duty to speak up did not.
Did you ask the questions I suggested? Really annoying to discover that MoD claims only one employee satisfied his legal obligation to report systemic failings, isn't it? Pretty disturbing too, that MoD happily admit it and denigrate that one person; even now, post-Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip.
In the Chinook case, one of THE key documents was the AP outlining the "beyond any doubt whatsoever" test. Do you really find it acceptable that MoD could not find it or provide it to an Inquiry set up by the Secy of State? Not even an extract with that relevant section. Lord Philip had to ask members of the public.
Or that MoD had lied to Ministers regarding the definition of Safety Critical Software, but when asked could not provide the policy document stating the definition? Again, it was provided to Lord Philip independently, this time proving MoD lied and the definition they hung their case on was wrong all along. That the software WAS Safety Critical and was NOT permitted in a service aircraft. When asked for the relevant Def Stans, they could not produce them; so Lord Philip was provided with them independently, along with contact details of the original author. Law Lords tend to be deeply unimpressed with such behaviour and incompetence.
THAT is Corporate Knowledge that MoD is required by law to retain, and the kind of factual information a Centre of Excellence is required to have immediately to hand. MoD didn't. pprune contributors did. Fact.
I guess I'm in a position of strength here, because if MoD wish to argue I'm wrong, then they are also admitting committing serious offences; withholding this information from numerous inquiries and inquests, misleading by omission and commission and serially lying. All imprisonable offences. Either way, it doesn't bear thinking about.
Similarly, and back to my original point, what did the RAF Flight Safety organisation know and did they report it? We already know the MAA were fully informed, and said nothing, but I'd like to know what Wg Cdr Spry's organisation knew and did. And when. Because many people have died unnecessarily since I first reported the failings in January 1988 (I can't speak for anyone else), including aircrew I knew well. I know it is a lie that only one person reported it, because my immediate boss supported me, commissioned an independent audit, and the report advised PUS and the Chief Engineer we were right. And they did nothing. That is the kind of evidence someone like Lord Philip tends to find compelling; especially, again, when MoD cannot provide the report, but it is provided independently.
I'm fully prepared to accept that staff in Wg Cdr Spry's organisation were placed under direct orders to keep quiet. We certainly were, and disciplined if we even looked like disobeying. This remains formal MoD policy to this day, at least for civilian staffs. I understand the extreme pressure they may have been under. But, let me repeat this. People died because those with the legal obligation and duty to speak up did not.
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for an answer from the right person to that one Tuc.
But a letter to the Times/Telegraph might bring on a very painful reoccurrence of those pesky haemorrhoids for someone.
Don't answer the door to anybody in a hire car!
But a letter to the Times/Telegraph might bring on a very painful reoccurrence of those pesky haemorrhoids for someone.
Don't answer the door to anybody in a hire car!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Clues?
Dear Wing Commander Spry
I, and no doubt countless others in the RAF and on PPRuNe, are wondering if Air Clues is ever to appear again.
Personally speaking I found it to be an excellent medium for communicating the Flight Safety message to all, both aircrew and non-aircrew alike. It would be a shame if it were to be scrapped as the message is even more significant today as whilst a single loss is the same as it ever was, as a percentage of what we have left today it is of even greater importance......prevention is always better than cure!
I appreciate manpower is tight but it's not as though you are having to produce a monthly publication; that was sacrificed a long time ago.
I am sure that there is still plenty of material to fill all your column inches and a bi-annual/quarterly publication cycle should be achievable even with diminished resources in your office. Being cynical however (not normally in my nature
) I might be tempted to say that the MoD/MAAS/MAAIB are afraid to revealing themselves in print or to invite (from the readership) comments which might expose fleet airworthiness/management short-comings.
Maybe Tuc and others on PPRuNe could be asked to offer articles/comment for publication?
I look forward to seeing a Christmas bumper issue!
Yours sincerely
MB
I, and no doubt countless others in the RAF and on PPRuNe, are wondering if Air Clues is ever to appear again.
Personally speaking I found it to be an excellent medium for communicating the Flight Safety message to all, both aircrew and non-aircrew alike. It would be a shame if it were to be scrapped as the message is even more significant today as whilst a single loss is the same as it ever was, as a percentage of what we have left today it is of even greater importance......prevention is always better than cure!
I appreciate manpower is tight but it's not as though you are having to produce a monthly publication; that was sacrificed a long time ago.
I am sure that there is still plenty of material to fill all your column inches and a bi-annual/quarterly publication cycle should be achievable even with diminished resources in your office. Being cynical however (not normally in my nature
) I might be tempted to say that the MoD/MAAS/MAAIB are afraid to revealing themselves in print or to invite (from the readership) comments which might expose fleet airworthiness/management short-comings.Maybe Tuc and others on PPRuNe could be asked to offer articles/comment for publication?
I look forward to seeing a Christmas bumper issue!
Yours sincerely
MB