Flt. Lt. Sean Cunningham inquest
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At post 369, I said, about the SI report,
It hasn't appeared there yet, but it is at https://www.gov.uk/government/public...awk-tmk1-xx177
It apparently had to await a ministerial statement http://www.parliament.uk/documents/c...xHawkXX177.pdf
although for the life of me I can't imagine why this work of two years plus had to await the totally anodyne remarks of a defence minister before being released to the rest of us.
airsound
It should appear on Military Aviation Authority | Home
It apparently had to await a ministerial statement http://www.parliament.uk/documents/c...xHawkXX177.pdf
although for the life of me I can't imagine why this work of two years plus had to await the totally anodyne remarks of a defence minister before being released to the rest of us.
airsound
I hope everyone here reads this report and never again has the brass neck to criticise anyone who stands up for aviation safety. It is far worse than Haddon-Cave's pussy footing attempt. By all means read the Nimrod Review but come to pprune for the real truth. 
I find it quite unpardonable that officers selected to maintain the standards described in 1.4.5.2 should resort to the blatant lying and cheating described in 1.4.5.10 and 1.4.5.11.....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,966
Received 2,863 Likes
on
1,228 Posts
I am surprised they took the seat all the way to a civilian police station with the possibility of it being disturbed, one would have thought they could have quarantined it on site, is that the norm now?
Still reading the rest.
Still reading the rest.
One wonders, under (perhaps) other circumstances, what the penalty for falsifying legal documents is.
Precedent.... Chinook HC Mk2 RTS, signed by Beagle's favourite officer.
According to the Air Force Act such falsification carried (up to) a 2 year prison sentence. (DE&S & Ministers say it is an offence to REFUSE to make a false declaration).
The CPS say there is no evidence. Don't tell me they never got to see the SI report?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst not in any way condoning the falsification, one can only imagine the pressure 'from on high' to keep RAFAT, and indeed other operational etc., flying going under ever increasing budget strictures.
A can-do attitude has its place, no doubt, but are we merely seeing the tip of the iceberg? Sadly I don't for one nano second think that the dodgy practices uncovered as a result of this tragic accident are limited solely to the way the Red Arrows conducted their daily procedures.
I hope a few of the RAF's leaders at line level now feel empowered to turn around and say "NO" without fear of repercussion. It's the only positive that may be gained from this sorry episode.
A can-do attitude has its place, no doubt, but are we merely seeing the tip of the iceberg? Sadly I don't for one nano second think that the dodgy practices uncovered as a result of this tragic accident are limited solely to the way the Red Arrows conducted their daily procedures.
I hope a few of the RAF's leaders at line level now feel empowered to turn around and say "NO" without fear of repercussion. It's the only positive that may be gained from this sorry episode.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bath
Age: 71
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read through the SI, I'm sort of gobsmacked about the simple nuts & bolts etc shown in the photos. It seems to me, to be simple 'Ground level' stuff, which the top end of the hierarchy cannot be expected to understand.
I stand my ground when I say that 'Robotic thinking' is not a good idea, when following instructions.
I still think that the top of the hierarchy can plan as much as they want, but it still comes down the person carrying out the instructions to use a good dose of common sense.
I'm going to have to re-read the whole lot, because it just seems so strange.
I stand my ground when I say that 'Robotic thinking' is not a good idea, when following instructions.
I still think that the top of the hierarchy can plan as much as they want, but it still comes down the person carrying out the instructions to use a good dose of common sense.
I'm going to have to re-read the whole lot, because it just seems so strange.
Last edited by Flight_Idle; 6th Feb 2014 at 19:36.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read the rest of the report, Tucumesh, it paints the whole of the RAFAT procedure and training structures for both aircrew and ground crew in a terrible light with fingers that need to be pointed at people higher up the chain (to I assume you refer to as the people who disappeared under the rocks). Can of worms opened again.
My present employer would lose its AOC with such transgressions.
My present employer would lose its AOC with such transgressions.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Previously on this thread, I was struggling with the jump that had the seat unsafe for 4 days (and brought in all the missed chances), and as I suspected the investigators have gone from
1.4.2.18. ...most likely moved to an unsafe condition...
to
1.4.2.14. ...it was concluded...
But I can see that the boffins have done a thorough job before they 'concluded'. Not proven, but pretty compelling.
So if the boffins are to be believed without question:-
1.4.2.8. 60 Newtons? To fire the seat by pushing the handle forward. Is that broadly similar to a force of 60kg? 75% of his bodyweight? (I know about force and mass etc, but broadly speaking for the man in the street)
Lastly from me for the moment. If the seat was unsafe for 4 days, (unless I have missed it) the investigators have failed to document every event that happened between then and the accident. It seems to me that ejection seat pin checks up to this accident may have been a cursory glance, but I would therefore make a distinction of (an engineer) leaning into the cockpit to check something, or to actually sit in the seat.
1.4.2.18. ...most likely moved to an unsafe condition...
to
1.4.2.14. ...it was concluded...
But I can see that the boffins have done a thorough job before they 'concluded'. Not proven, but pretty compelling.
So if the boffins are to be believed without question:-
1.4.2.8. 60 Newtons? To fire the seat by pushing the handle forward. Is that broadly similar to a force of 60kg? 75% of his bodyweight? (I know about force and mass etc, but broadly speaking for the man in the street)
Lastly from me for the moment. If the seat was unsafe for 4 days, (unless I have missed it) the investigators have failed to document every event that happened between then and the accident. It seems to me that ejection seat pin checks up to this accident may have been a cursory glance, but I would therefore make a distinction of (an engineer) leaning into the cockpit to check something, or to actually sit in the seat.
which the top end of the hierarchy cannot be expected to understand.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.4.2.8. 60 Newtons? To fire the seat by pushing the handle forward. Is that broadly similar to a force of 60kg? 75% of his bodyweight? (I know about force and mass etc, but broadly speaking for the man in the street)
(Newtons (N) = Mass (kg) x force, or acceleration if you will (G, or m/s2))
G being equal to ~9.8 m/s2 on Earth
Lastly from me for the moment. If the seat was unsafe for 4 days, (unless I have missed it) the investigators have failed to document every event that happened between then and the accident. It seems to me that ejection seat pin checks up to this accident may have been a cursory glance, but I would therefore make a distinction of (an engineer) leaning into the cockpit to check something, or to actually sit in the seat.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 6th Feb 2014 at 19:25.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Between Chippenham and Wooton Bassett
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoting SPHLC:
No... Approximately 10 Newtons per Kg. Kg is a downwards (weight) force, influenced by gravity. Newtons are a measure of force, in any direction. 60 Newtons would be about 6 Kg of force.
1.4.2.8. 60 Newtons? To fire the seat by pushing the handle forward. Is that broadly similar to a force of 60kg? 75% of his bodyweight? (I know about force and mass etc, but broadly speaking for the man in the street)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
ejection seat pin checks up to this accident may have been a cursory glance,
Familiarity does breed contempt.
The SI is very sober reading.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
I have just read the SI Report into this accident. Although some of the Findings do not directly contribute to the accident they are a reflection of the appalling way in which the Reds Squadron was run at that time. The lack of discipline that was displayed in so many areas is an indictment of how the Squadron was run. The lack of Supervision from Boss, Wg Cdr, and Commandant shows a total lack of awareness and interest in the day to day running of the Sqn.
I was on a “small unit” for 12 years of the 40 that I served and know of the temptations to short cut the system.Particularly when in a privileged position such as the Reds it is possible to become arrogant and become “above the law”. I thought that after the investigation into “small units” in the early 1990s that these lessons had been learnt. The Reds do a great job in the air but there is more to aviation than pulling 6G or being 4 feet away from 8 other aircraft in close formation.
The present day service, in my opinion, does not teach discipline. Discipline is not something learnt on a parade square or moving pine poles. It is that ability todo the correct thing on all occasions, despite any outside pressures. That translates into strapping in correctly,always doing safety checks correctly, switching OFF you’re your mobile at the Out-brief,completing CT as laid down and completing the records truthfully. I could go on,but the lesson is there.
The Service needs to have a long hard look at itself. This unfortunate accident has been waiting to happen. Despite all of the great things that the Service has achieved in the past 15 years, that is when the rot set in. In the brave new world of the RAF some of the basics have been lost. The most important of those is discipline!
I was on a “small unit” for 12 years of the 40 that I served and know of the temptations to short cut the system.Particularly when in a privileged position such as the Reds it is possible to become arrogant and become “above the law”. I thought that after the investigation into “small units” in the early 1990s that these lessons had been learnt. The Reds do a great job in the air but there is more to aviation than pulling 6G or being 4 feet away from 8 other aircraft in close formation.
The present day service, in my opinion, does not teach discipline. Discipline is not something learnt on a parade square or moving pine poles. It is that ability todo the correct thing on all occasions, despite any outside pressures. That translates into strapping in correctly,always doing safety checks correctly, switching OFF you’re your mobile at the Out-brief,completing CT as laid down and completing the records truthfully. I could go on,but the lesson is there.
The Service needs to have a long hard look at itself. This unfortunate accident has been waiting to happen. Despite all of the great things that the Service has achieved in the past 15 years, that is when the rot set in. In the brave new world of the RAF some of the basics have been lost. The most important of those is discipline!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,966
Received 2,863 Likes
on
1,228 Posts
Well that washes their laundry in public so to speak... It makes grim reading, you can bring all the rules and regulations out in the world, but if you ignore them, they are just so much toilet paper.
Surprised the Babcocks course is deemed unsuitable for the RAF engineers bearing in mind I bet most of the civilian engineers will be ex Airforce anyway, and one would have thought a course that doesn't quite hit the mark is better than no course at all.
Cannot believe they were illegally massaging their flying currency requirements etc either...
Surprised the Babcocks course is deemed unsuitable for the RAF engineers bearing in mind I bet most of the civilian engineers will be ex Airforce anyway, and one would have thought a course that doesn't quite hit the mark is better than no course at all.
Cannot believe they were illegally massaging their flying currency requirements etc either...