Flt. Lt. Sean Cunningham inquest
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any ejection seat could be described as "entirely useless" if it hasn't been maintained or assembled correctly, to ensure that all aspects of its operation would be efficient and safe. This particular seat was, with hindsight, useless.
I'd be interested to know how many other Type 10 series seats were examined in the days after this accident and found to have the same fault with the Scissor Shackle unit.
I'd be interested to know how many other Type 10 series seats were examined in the days after this accident and found to have the same fault with the Scissor Shackle unit.
I've got this 'orrible feeling I'm taking the attitude of the Mull of Kintyre Airships here.
I don't think he branded the entire escape system was 'utterly useless', just the 'safety pin mechanism' - which has been shown (sometimes) not to render the system safe, even when fitted (albeit incorrectly).
However, the pin usefulness is a slight red herring as the pin would have been removed and stowed by that stage - as mentioned previously.
The significance of 'likely to mislead' is that anyone seeing the pin fitted (albeit incorrectly) would assume that the handle was fully in and therefore fairly safe. It has been shown that it can in fact be partially dislodged and in a fairly precarious condition.
However, the pin usefulness is a slight red herring as the pin would have been removed and stowed by that stage - as mentioned previously.
The significance of 'likely to mislead' is that anyone seeing the pin fitted (albeit incorrectly) would assume that the handle was fully in and therefore fairly safe. It has been shown that it can in fact be partially dislodged and in a fairly precarious condition.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: ---------->
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, I believe the seat would've worked in an in-flight ejection due to the stresses on the chute overcoming the pinching effect of the restraint that was over-tightened, so the escape mechanism wasn't entirely useless, only in this unfortunate situation of zero-zero
Did anyone state what the reason was for the seat firing? i.e. what triggered it?
Did anyone state what the reason was for the seat firing? i.e. what triggered it?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,966
Received 2,863 Likes
on
1,228 Posts
Wrathmonk
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,054
5F6B
Doesn't matter where the seat pin is or isn't if the scissor shackle has been over tightened.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,054
5F6B
Doesn't matter where the seat pin is or isn't if the scissor shackle has been over tightened.
That would depend entirely on altitude, if it ejected at height, wouldn't he still have manual separation to fall back on?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: ---------->
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To try and answer my own question, is this suggesting that the pilots straps had been passed through the firing handle, which could be the trigger for the seat to fire?
Sean Cunningham inquest: A catalogue of errors led to pilot's death, coroner concludes | Lincolnshire Echo
Sean Cunningham inquest: A catalogue of errors led to pilot's death, coroner concludes | Lincolnshire Echo
The court heard that Martin-Baker has been looking at some sort of shroud to prevent straps from being fed through the seat firing handle.
Read more: Sean Cunningham inquest: A catalogue of errors led to pilot's death, coroner concludes | Lincolnshire Echo
Read more: Sean Cunningham inquest: A catalogue of errors led to pilot's death, coroner concludes | Lincolnshire Echo
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,966
Received 2,863 Likes
on
1,228 Posts
I may well have missed it despite careful perusal of all the posts, but what DID initiate the seat firing ? I have not yet seen the SI report.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,966
Received 2,863 Likes
on
1,228 Posts
So tell me this, do you think the Coroner and the RAF were aware that the Civil Aviation Authority issued an Emergency AD on this very problem for privately operated aircraft with Ejector Seats way back in
NOVEMBER 2011
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/2011111...Superseded.pdf
NOVEMBER 2011
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/2011111...Superseded.pdf
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,966
Received 2,863 Likes
on
1,228 Posts
No the 2013 one was an amendment, the 17 of November 2011 one I linked to shows they issued an AD to check the shackle has movement.
As I recall, post this tragic incident, Martin Baker declared categorically that their seat was not to blame; which is obviously not the case in this incident. Notwithstanding the lives that have been saved using the various MB seats, this was a very bold statement, and having worked alongside some of their personnel, it is typical of the very arrogant stance they have taken with a number of projects!!
As has already been noted it is interesting that the MOD/RAF has already paid out, why hasn't MB been held accountable?
Just found the link, however, the connection has been removed! But it stated:
http://www.martin-baker.com/getdoc/6...-Releases.aspx
RAF Red Arrows Incident on 8th November 2011
On 8th November, there was a fatal accident involving the Red Arrows Hawk aircraft XX177 following the ejection of a Mk10B seat.
We have had the opportunity to examine the seat and, while not wishing to pre-empt the outcome of the investigation currently underway, are satisfied that neither a mechanical nor a design fault were to blame for the fatality.
We welcome the opportunity to assist the Lincolnshire Police and the Military Air Accident Investigation Board in identifying the causes of this tragic accident
As has already been noted it is interesting that the MOD/RAF has already paid out, why hasn't MB been held accountable?
Just found the link, however, the connection has been removed! But it stated:
http://www.martin-baker.com/getdoc/6...-Releases.aspx
RAF Red Arrows Incident on 8th November 2011
On 8th November, there was a fatal accident involving the Red Arrows Hawk aircraft XX177 following the ejection of a Mk10B seat.
We have had the opportunity to examine the seat and, while not wishing to pre-empt the outcome of the investigation currently underway, are satisfied that neither a mechanical nor a design fault were to blame for the fatality.
We welcome the opportunity to assist the Lincolnshire Police and the Military Air Accident Investigation Board in identifying the causes of this tragic accident
Last edited by Could be the last?; 30th Jan 2014 at 17:48.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,966
Received 2,863 Likes
on
1,228 Posts
Thanks background, sorry, I thought it was last year, thanks for clarifying the manual release also.
Could be last, denying liability is normal civilian wise as they can be held liable, a bit like when you have a car crash, you are not supposed to admit liability.
Could be last, denying liability is normal civilian wise as they can be held liable, a bit like when you have a car crash, you are not supposed to admit liability.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreeing to settle?
By the time you've paid people to argue amongst the parties involved, it might just be cheaper and easier to settle. That way the settlement money goes to those who need it rather than those doing the arguing.
In this case, the operator surely had some involvement in the events that lead to the manufacturer's item not working as designed, so it would just be a very expensive and time-consuming argument to split the inevitable costs.
In the case of a car crash, the insurer doesn't want the insured to admit fault, so that they can run that discussion themselves.
In this case, the operator surely had some involvement in the events that lead to the manufacturer's item not working as designed, so it would just be a very expensive and time-consuming argument to split the inevitable costs.
In the case of a car crash, the insurer doesn't want the insured to admit fault, so that they can run that discussion themselves.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chug
A new MOD tactic to settle before both inquest and SI publication? Now why would they do that I wonder?
I think you have that 100% arse about face. If the MoD have already admitted 100% liability, then the only direction this could have gone would have been against the family, that is, if the Coroner or SI mentions some degree of contributory negligence by Flt Lt Cunningham himself. It would be the family's lawyer who would advise them to accept.
5F6B
I agree with you entirely
Wrathmonk
Doesn't matter where the seat pin is or isn't if the scissor shackle has been over tightened.
If a member of the groundcrew had been the victim, he wouldn't have been strapped in and the scissor shackle would be irrelevant. And Flt Lt Cunningham might have been up for a Court Martial
A new MOD tactic to settle before both inquest and SI publication? Now why would they do that I wonder?
I think you have that 100% arse about face. If the MoD have already admitted 100% liability, then the only direction this could have gone would have been against the family, that is, if the Coroner or SI mentions some degree of contributory negligence by Flt Lt Cunningham himself. It would be the family's lawyer who would advise them to accept.
5F6B
I agree with you entirely
Wrathmonk
Doesn't matter where the seat pin is or isn't if the scissor shackle has been over tightened.
If a member of the groundcrew had been the victim, he wouldn't have been strapped in and the scissor shackle would be irrelevant. And Flt Lt Cunningham might have been up for a Court Martial