Flt. Lt. Sean Cunningham inquest
From Lincolnshire Echo
Oh for goodness sake. Not again.
That alone tells you MoD is fully embroiled in covering up. Was the Safety Case updated to reflect the above changes to the baseline?
The initial SI members, in all probability, did a very good job. But why did the MAA/MoD (same thing) withhold the report until after the inquest. Easy. MAA/MoD do not want informed questions. The Coroner should have jumped on them straight away, citing precedent.
AVM Green said concerns over engineering manpower, a dilution of skills and training were never raised in the context that they made it dangerous to fly.
Oh for goodness sake. Not again.
That alone tells you MoD is fully embroiled in covering up. Was the Safety Case updated to reflect the above changes to the baseline?
The initial SI members, in all probability, did a very good job. But why did the MAA/MoD (same thing) withhold the report until after the inquest. Easy. MAA/MoD do not want informed questions. The Coroner should have jumped on them straight away, citing precedent.
I think you will find that the SI report is available to the Coroner. It forms part of the evidence. The witnesses are there to expand on the evidence. It is only publication to the wider public that is withheld until the inquest is complete.
Tuc,
I agree wholeheartedly.
- in AVM Green's own words.
In all my 28 years in the RAF if ever the question of dilution of skills and training in engineering manpower was raised, which it was many times, it was invariably in the context of a potential impact on flight safety.
Still, AVM Green managed to get in some words of management bolleaux to support his case. I'm sure the Reds groundcrew were looking forward to being "uplifted"!
I agree wholeheartedly.
a dilution of skills and training were never raised in the context that they made it dangerous to fly
In all my 28 years in the RAF if ever the question of dilution of skills and training in engineering manpower was raised, which it was many times, it was invariably in the context of a potential impact on flight safety.
Still, AVM Green managed to get in some words of management bolleaux to support his case. I'm sure the Reds groundcrew were looking forward to being "uplifted"!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTF?
Martin Baker Press Release:
RAF RED ARROWS INCIDENT ON 8TH NOVEMBER 2011
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
In the meantime, our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham who lost his life in this accident.
RAF RED ARROWS INCIDENT ON 8TH NOVEMBER 2011
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
In the meantime, our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham who lost his life in this accident.
Slight thread drift but a quick q for the seat experts out there - if it was the lap strap that was routed through the handle, had the sequence subsequently worked normally, would full man-seat separation have occurred? Clearly the deceleration forces of main chute deployment (which aids the man/seat sep if I recall correctly) may cause component failure but would it have been the cable between handle and seat that failed or the harness?
I think you will find that the SI report is available to the Coroner. It forms part of the evidence. The witnesses are there to expand on the evidence. It is only publication to the wider public that is withheld until the inquest is complete.
The witnesses are required to state the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That means they are not to mislead, by omission or commission - which is on a par with perjury. In all the above cases, MoD did. You've got to admire their consistency.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc, you may be right. We can expect a new design to be an evolution rather than a fix.
That way they can say the design has matured into the new style rather than having needed to be fixed.
That way they can say the design has matured into the new style rather than having needed to be fixed.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like a coroner to state that in the interest of obtaining the WHOLE truth, SI reports should be placed in the public domain well in advance of the inquest; in fact well in advance of the pre-inquest hearing. In the case of the Super Puma Fatal Accident Investigation, currently taking place in Aberdeen, the AAIB published their 209 page report over two years ago. If they can do it, so can MoD/MAA.
DV
DV
Any word of a fleet inspection of the offending assembly?
On 10th November 2005, in reply to an MP's question about trend failures (on Chinook) Adam Ingram replied that trend failures only apply to that tail number. If a similar failure is found on another aircraft, that is another, separate case and not considered part of a trend. MoD/MAA has consistently supported this statement. Routine monitoring of trend failures was cancelled by the Chief Engineer in 1991. (That timeframe again).
Assuming an inspection HAS been ordered by someone sensible, I won't hold my breath waiting for an admission Ingram was deliberately misled. But all here should be concerned that this is the level of advice given to Ministers (and courts) and an indication of how MoD will lie. And concerned that "colleagues" in MoD are prepared to lie to Ministers in order to hide "savings at the expense of safety"; and the reasons why the "savings" were thought necessary.
On 10th November 2005, in reply to an MP's question about trend failures (on Chinook) Adam Ingram replied that trend failures only apply to that tail number. If a similar failure is found on another aircraft, that is another, separate case and not considered part of a trend. MoD/MAA has consistently supported this statement. Routine monitoring of trend failures was cancelled by the Chief Engineer in 1991. (That timeframe again).
Assuming an inspection HAS been ordered by someone sensible, I won't hold my breath waiting for an admission Ingram was deliberately misled. But all here should be concerned that this is the level of advice given to Ministers (and courts) and an indication of how MoD will lie. And concerned that "colleagues" in MoD are prepared to lie to Ministers in order to hide "savings at the expense of safety"; and the reasons why the "savings" were thought necessary.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Old Fat One: Many thanks for that information, but the witness only states that the indications were that the bolt was "Vastly over-tightened". We are assuming that that means more than one and a half threads showing. But surely someone must have checked the bolt after the accident. If only one and a half turns are showing, and the bolt vastly over tightened, there is something wrong with the instruction. It has already been stated by one witness that instructions were vague.
Has there been any evidence presented to the court by the person who fitted the nut and bolt? Were approved nuts and bolts used?
DV
Has there been any evidence presented to the court by the person who fitted the nut and bolt? Were approved nuts and bolts used?
DV
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
If you read the previous posts, sometimes a lot of torque was needed to achieve the 1.5 threads showing, not all nuts are equal in size, nor are bolts, have a bolt a fraction to short and a nut a fraction to deep and you struggle... you erm, don't just throw any nut and bolt in there and hope for the best.
I still remember the Westland Split pin holes, that must have been drilled from both sides or offset as they would line up one side, but not the other.
I still remember the Westland Split pin holes, that must have been drilled from both sides or offset as they would line up one side, but not the other.
Wrathmonk,
I think I would want to see exactly which strap was routed where before making a judgement on that. I am struggling to picture it in my mind.
WRT the strength of Harness v Handle Linkage question, the Harness is very strong, designed to take massive loads and it is a mechanical linkage to the Handle. It is fair to say that may well have had a significant effect on man/seat separation.
I think I would want to see exactly which strap was routed where before making a judgement on that. I am struggling to picture it in my mind.
WRT the strength of Harness v Handle Linkage question, the Harness is very strong, designed to take massive loads and it is a mechanical linkage to the Handle. It is fair to say that may well have had a significant effect on man/seat separation.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sometimes a lot of torque was needed to achieve the 1.5 threads showing, not all nuts are equal in size, nor are bolts, have a bolt a fraction to short and a nut a fraction to deep and you struggle
I suppose my questions are simple. From the material evidence after the crash has MB confirmed that (1) the approved nut and bolt type was fitted, and (b) the specified number of threads were shown. If the answer to both questions is "Yes", then the wrong criteria is being used to determine correct fitment.
DV
A zero/zero ejection puts great demands on the 5' drogue to withdraw the main chute from the headbox. There is no momentum (speed) to provide the drag required to work at maximum efficiency. However- they do work and have done many times in zero/zero conditions. But if the scissor shackle was vastly over tightened then that is just one more difficulty for the designed sequence of events to overcome. Without the drogues being released there would be no complete man / seat separation as the main parachute cannot deploy despite the harness being released from the seat anchor points by the barometric time release unit operating.
I find it inconceivable that a pilot of his experience had wrongly routed the harness through the ejection handle.
I'm also not able to see on the Mk10b how the safety pin can be inserted and not lock the handle in its proper place- just doesn't work- if the handle is not in housing properly the pin doesn't fit.
I find it inconceivable that a pilot of his experience had wrongly routed the harness through the ejection handle.
I'm also not able to see on the Mk10b how the safety pin can be inserted and not lock the handle in its proper place- just doesn't work- if the handle is not in housing properly the pin doesn't fit.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Flt Lt Cunningham twice routed a strap thru the handle??
pull the other one,
If this is possible then it is not a design flaw, or defect it is fundamentally unsafe.
Now forgive my lack of type specific knowledge here but how different is the strap arrangement in a hawk to an F3 ? Circa 98 onwards.
Because when I had my backseat there were only two tongues that when into the QRF.
They came down over the shoulders, the crotch straps came up and thru the square ends of the lap straps then the tongues came thru the crotch straps and into the QRF.
You then tightened the laps before the shoulders and your liney adjusted the slack out behind you.
I can see a possible way that a crotch strap could be routed thru the handle but not a lap.
Regards
pull the other one,
If this is possible then it is not a design flaw, or defect it is fundamentally unsafe.
Now forgive my lack of type specific knowledge here but how different is the strap arrangement in a hawk to an F3 ? Circa 98 onwards.
Because when I had my backseat there were only two tongues that when into the QRF.
They came down over the shoulders, the crotch straps came up and thru the square ends of the lap straps then the tongues came thru the crotch straps and into the QRF.
You then tightened the laps before the shoulders and your liney adjusted the slack out behind you.
I can see a possible way that a crotch strap could be routed thru the handle but not a lap.
Regards
Last edited by cornish-stormrider; 24th Jan 2014 at 12:44. Reason: Coz I can't spell liney
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jimgriff
There are a couple of incidents from RAF Valley recently of this happening plus it happened on the Sea Harrier with an exchange officer so there's a few I'm aware of - how many live ejection seats have you strapped into?
There are a couple of incidents from RAF Valley recently of this happening plus it happened on the Sea Harrier with an exchange officer so there's a few I'm aware of - how many live ejection seats have you strapped into?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it inconceivable that a pilot of his experience had wrongly routed the harness through the ejection handle.
I'm also not able to see on the Mk10b how the safety pin can be inserted and not lock the handle in its proper place- just doesn't work- if the handle is not in housing properly the pin doesn't fit.
I'm also not able to see on the Mk10b how the safety pin can be inserted and not lock the handle in its proper place- just doesn't work- if the handle is not in housing properly the pin doesn't fit.