Separate faults led to death of Flt Lt Sean Cunningham
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is still investigating and will make recommendations after the full inquest has been completed.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Yep, gawd knows what they'd make of Afghanistan, they'd still be there making recommendations long after we had left. The other link about the CPS makes interesting reading too, when you think of the multitude deaths in the past 50 years through aircraft accidents, one wonders if families could reopen cases.
Last edited by NutLoose; 22nd Aug 2013 at 17:43.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wub -you have missed the important 'may' bit out! The text reads '
may have ejected due to a design fault with the firing handle, the hearing was told'. Its a pre inquest hearing and I am sure there will be robust arguements put up from both sides. The type of seat is still in widespread
use and people who work around them have no safety concerns with it.
may have ejected due to a design fault with the firing handle, the hearing was told'. Its a pre inquest hearing and I am sure there will be robust arguements put up from both sides. The type of seat is still in widespread
use and people who work around them have no safety concerns with it.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Health and Safety(as we know it) stops when you climb into an aircraft, it then becomes Flight Safety! The HSE has no or little experience of Flight Safety, that is why we have a Flight Safety Branch!
Separate faults led to death
Once again the rancid cheese holes line up and another tragedy takes its dreadful toll. The prevalent mood of kismet ("s**t happens, what can you do?". "Military flying is dangerous, end of.") simply makes that terrible alignment easier.
An Operator that is its own Regulator and its own Air Accident Investigator simply makes the cheese's job a doddle. There needs to be a head to toe reform of Military Flight Safety, from Airworthiness Provision through to objective Air Accident Investigation. In short, the MAA and MAAIB need to be made independent of the MOD and its dependent Services, and of each other.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This type of seat has been in use for a very long time and I think it has an excellent record. I am sure if any 'design faults' had been found since this accident there would have been swift action to address them . Its easy to jump on the bandwagon and find fault with the manufacturers and military regulators. To find evidence that there is any problem with this seat seems to have eluded many including the myriad of other air forces around the world that successfully use it.
A useful tool to help show that the duty holders are doing something is the arse-covering memo, repeating whole sections of the aircrew manual verbatim and reminding aircrew to comply. Perhaps also some Powerpoint slides with photos for the FSO to stick in the toilets. Expecting many, many of these to appear in the next few weeks. Alternatively they could just say "RTFM" 
Last edited by Easy Street; 22nd Aug 2013 at 23:46.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was an emergengy AD placed out by the CAA for any PtF aircraft with live MB automatic Ejection Seats with the sicssor shackle mechanism, to check routing of some of the attachment lines that coluld interfere with its relese function. A zero speed , zero height ejection is a very rare thing indeed and unfortunately this and the routing issue combined. I heard rumours about the first part, but only a Hawk pilot would be able to confirm if they are true or possible.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riley
Apparently its been a 'known' weakness for a long long time, I say apparently because that's third hand from some one who has been directly briefed from the BOI. The report when published openly, will obviously fill in the gaps.
This type of seat has been in use for a very long time and I think it has an excellent record. I am sure if any 'design faults' had been found since this accident there would have been swift action to address them
What I find interesting here is the apparent openness over the reporting of the Pre-Inquest Hearing.
I gather this is part of the process whereby the witness list and what subjects will be addressed in court is agreed. Far more importantly (to MoD), for Military Inquests it is when it is agreed what WILL NOT be discussed (i.e. relevant evidence) and who WILL NOT be allowed to appear (i.e. people who know).
I just wonder if this means this case is cut and dried with no embarrassment foreseen for MoD.
Also interesting is use of the term "Design Fault". If I were the family's legal person I'd be climbing all over this. It could be poor reporting. Or it could be that MoD still doesn't know the difference between a fault and a defect. The Coroner certainly would as "defect" has a legal connotation. I detect manufacturer nervousness.
I gather this is part of the process whereby the witness list and what subjects will be addressed in court is agreed. Far more importantly (to MoD), for Military Inquests it is when it is agreed what WILL NOT be discussed (i.e. relevant evidence) and who WILL NOT be allowed to appear (i.e. people who know).
I just wonder if this means this case is cut and dried with no embarrassment foreseen for MoD.
Also interesting is use of the term "Design Fault". If I were the family's legal person I'd be climbing all over this. It could be poor reporting. Or it could be that MoD still doesn't know the difference between a fault and a defect. The Coroner certainly would as "defect" has a legal connotation. I detect manufacturer nervousness.
Last edited by tucumseh; 23rd Aug 2013 at 05:28.
The "Health and Safety(as we know it) stops when you climb into an aircraft, it then becomes Flight Safety!..." argument is just as flawed as the "long time in use" and "We're all comfortable with it" arguments.
H&S still has a say in what you do in the air - its just that the particular equipment you use cannot be changed to suit the objective in a "practicable" manner. So the design of the next equipment will change instead.
This is all proven by the Nimrod case in which no member of any organisation would, freely or willingly, state that there was a reasonable (i.e. ALARP) safety case to continue the use of any Nimrod.
H&S still has a say in what you do in the air - its just that the particular equipment you use cannot be changed to suit the objective in a "practicable" manner. So the design of the next equipment will change instead.
This is all proven by the Nimrod case in which no member of any organisation would, freely or willingly, state that there was a reasonable (i.e. ALARP) safety case to continue the use of any Nimrod.
