Flt. Lt. Sean Cunningham inquest
mb have made this statement on their site
News and Events
they are distancing themselves from blame here, which is a bit off, but on the other hand the use of the words "entirely useless" by the coroner were "entirely inappropriate" and designed to grab headlines.
i would be interested to know what the pubs say (and have historically said) about the shackle - it seems some on here are clearly aware that overtightening was a risk, but from the inquest the pubs seem unclear on this which seems rather surprising given the consequences.
News and Events
they are distancing themselves from blame here, which is a bit off, but on the other hand the use of the words "entirely useless" by the coroner were "entirely inappropriate" and designed to grab headlines.
i would be interested to know what the pubs say (and have historically said) about the shackle - it seems some on here are clearly aware that overtightening was a risk, but from the inquest the pubs seem unclear on this which seems rather surprising given the consequences.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worth a cut & paste for the record
MB Website 30th Jan '14
RED ARROWS INCIDENT ON 8TH NOVEMBER 2011
On 8 November 2011, Flt Lt Sean Cunningham died when he inadvertently ejected from an RAF Hawk T1, the seat pan firing handle having been mistakenly left in an unsafe position.
We would like to extend our sincere condolences to Flt Lt Cunningham’s family and friends. Martin-Baker is a family owned company producing vital equipment for people doing a dangerous and important job. We take our responsibilities to these individuals very seriously and we are all deeply saddened by this terrible accident.
The ejection seat is qualified to save a life on a ground level ejection (zero-zero). On this occasion, uniquely in the entire history of Martin-Baker ejection seats using this particular feature, it failed due to a shackle bolt being too tight. This prevented the main parachute from deploying.
We supplied the seat to Hawker Siddeley (now part of BAE Systems) in 1976. Since then, for the last 35 years, the seat has been used and operated by the RAF.
In light of this incident, lessons have been learned and we have taken steps to alert all our customers worldwide who still use this type of seat, of the risk of over tightening the shackle. Furthermore, our designers, working closely with military experts have developed a new type of shackle bolt and firing handle housing, which both Martin-Baker and the military authorities consider will prevent the reoccurrence of the circumstances that led to this tragic accident.
Martin-Baker is proud to be able to say that, since 1946, it has led the world in the design development and manufacture of ejection seats. As of today's date these seats have saved 7436 lives, seven in this month alone.
MB Website 30th Jan '14
RED ARROWS INCIDENT ON 8TH NOVEMBER 2011
On 8 November 2011, Flt Lt Sean Cunningham died when he inadvertently ejected from an RAF Hawk T1, the seat pan firing handle having been mistakenly left in an unsafe position.
We would like to extend our sincere condolences to Flt Lt Cunningham’s family and friends. Martin-Baker is a family owned company producing vital equipment for people doing a dangerous and important job. We take our responsibilities to these individuals very seriously and we are all deeply saddened by this terrible accident.
The ejection seat is qualified to save a life on a ground level ejection (zero-zero). On this occasion, uniquely in the entire history of Martin-Baker ejection seats using this particular feature, it failed due to a shackle bolt being too tight. This prevented the main parachute from deploying.
We supplied the seat to Hawker Siddeley (now part of BAE Systems) in 1976. Since then, for the last 35 years, the seat has been used and operated by the RAF.
In light of this incident, lessons have been learned and we have taken steps to alert all our customers worldwide who still use this type of seat, of the risk of over tightening the shackle. Furthermore, our designers, working closely with military experts have developed a new type of shackle bolt and firing handle housing, which both Martin-Baker and the military authorities consider will prevent the reoccurrence of the circumstances that led to this tragic accident.
Martin-Baker is proud to be able to say that, since 1946, it has led the world in the design development and manufacture of ejection seats. As of today's date these seats have saved 7436 lives, seven in this month alone.
Probably worth doing the same for their first 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.
Originally Posted by Martin Baker
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.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On another matter, I am absolutely mystified about how the jump was made to state that the seat pan safety pin had been fitted incorrectly after the penultimate flight on Friday 4th November.
I have a better explanation but I will have to wait for the SI report
I have a better explanation but I will have to wait for the SI report
SPHLC:-
So they settled out of consideration for the family? That would be a first! The MOD is less concerned about liability (after all the pay-out is our money, not theirs). Their worry is that evidence should not emerge of any MOD negligence or incompetence. That is less likely to happen if the sequence is as in this case; settle, allow late sight of SI report to family only, ensure that their version of events is about all that is available to the Coroner, finally release SI report after Inquest. MBA taking the hit makes for a satisfactory outcome all round.
I think you have that 100% arse about face.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chug:-
So they settled out of consideration for the family?
No - The MoD made an offer, the family settled.
Please be aware that it was your campaign (and tuc, Nige Gilb, Flip etc) that gave me the courage to sue the MoD and win, spectacularly.
Most civil suits are No Win No Fee, or Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA). In the latter CFA you are insured against costs on the grounds that when your lawyer says "That's as good an offer as we can expect" you have to accept, or be liable for costs of both sides.
So they settled out of consideration for the family?
No - The MoD made an offer, the family settled.
Please be aware that it was your campaign (and tuc, Nige Gilb, Flip etc) that gave me the courage to sue the MoD and win, spectacularly.
Most civil suits are No Win No Fee, or Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA). In the latter CFA you are insured against costs on the grounds that when your lawyer says "That's as good an offer as we can expect" you have to accept, or be liable for costs of both sides.
SPHLC, I take your point re accepting the offer when advised to do so by your lawyer. It is the timing of the offer before Inquest and SI publication that is new AFAIK. I find that significant.
On behalf of the tightly knit group of politically motivated old men, thank you for your kind words. I'm glad that we encouraged you to take on the MOD. Would that others would too re military airworthiness reform.
On behalf of the tightly knit group of politically motivated old men, thank you for your kind words. I'm glad that we encouraged you to take on the MOD. Would that others would too re military airworthiness reform.
Slight thread drift but what happens to an airframe following zero/zero ejection, are they recoverable ?
rgds LR
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am eagerly awaiting the debate over the effectiveness of the "Just Culture". no doubt the SI will be redacted to protect those named. Sorry but it has to go back to those in 76 who put ink to drafting film, those formations named in the post above from ARSE who evaluated the design and made the CA Release recommendations. (A squared E squared, IAM etc) the person who signed of the first CA release and every one who declared themselves to be a Subject Matter Expert and SQEP who reviewed publications and the safety Case (read Hazard log) and declared each entry ALARP. Will the Cassandra file be an annex to the SI?
listened to an Ex RAF guy on the local BBC radio this evening at around 19.10 by name of Brookes. I just could not believe how he was defending the RAF stating how open they are in comparison with the NHS when things go wrong. Not in my experience I am afraid.
listened to an Ex RAF guy on the local BBC radio this evening at around 19.10 by name of Brookes. I just could not believe how he was defending the RAF stating how open they are in comparison with the NHS when things go wrong. Not in my experience I am afraid.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Between Chippenham and Wooton Bassett
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoting Longer Ron:
Why was the engine identified for replacement in this case, was it resultant from the ejection ?
In this particular and highly unusual case - yes the airframe suffered no significant damage and therefore could be made airworthy by carrying out a 'penalty' servicing,replacing the damaged components and replacing the engine !
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Between Chippenham and Wooton Bassett
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, that was my thinking... And if the engine was running, the pins would have already been removed, at least that was the case when I was Tornado F3 Groundcrew...
I am currently on a course with someone from the 'Flight Safety Investigation' branch of the RAF, and have been privy to some info that should be in the Service Inquiry, so I will not detail it here, in case it is not suitable for 'public release'.
Suffice to say (as always) there are lessons that can be learnt.
I am currently on a course with someone from the 'Flight Safety Investigation' branch of the RAF, and have been privy to some info that should be in the Service Inquiry, so I will not detail it here, in case it is not suitable for 'public release'.
Suffice to say (as always) there are lessons that can be learnt.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,753
Received 2,733 Likes
on
1,165 Posts
Yes, plus the rocket gasses and associated junk from that, didn't one if the groundcrew say he shut it down? I seem to remember reading that on the tweets.
Inadvertant firing
I concur with RetiredBA/BY ( I have 19 years experience flying the T1). The initiation of the seat firing still seems to me to be the most peculiar thing about the accident. The pull needs to be substantial and it seemed very odd that the handle could have been inadvertently operated sufficiently to then make its subsequent accidental operation rather easy. Pins have been wrongly inserted before leaving the seat unsafe, but the initiation still seemed improbable and very peculiar. There was an incident many years ago of a Harrier pilot stepping onto a seat handle which was unsafe and being ejected but that took his weight to apply considerable leverage to bend the handle over a fulcrum point and initiate the sequence. I hope that Sean's sad death will at least lead to a redesign of the handle stowage to minimize any possible repeat of these circumstances. (Anyone remember the Gnat safety handle that dug into the back of your neck if you didn't move it through 90 degs to make the seat live? and the inflight pic of a Red Arrow leaning forward in his seat with the handle still forward in the 'safe' position?)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by longer ron
Originally Posted by The Oberon
Slight thread drift but what happens to an airframe following zero/zero ejection, are they recoverable ?
dragartist
Excellent. And unfortunately we've been there before too often.
MoD always look to the final act, but these defences in depth have been systematically weakened over many years. Yet they are money in the bank to both the designer and MoD.
To your list I'd add the Design Reviews (especially the Critical Design Review) and Installation Design Conference (the 555), when as many knowledgeable people you can spare from the squadrons are allowed to crawl all over every aspect of the design and installation.
In the 1990s building these defences became optional, and in the case of CDRs non-technical staff are now permitted to waive them, yet sign a declaration to the effect they have been held, successfully. That, of course, is a serious fraud; DE&S has expressed itself content, and Min(AF) and the Head of the Civil Service have accepted this advice and upheld the policy.
Given the MAA is part of this cowboy outfit, it is little wonder we're repeating ourselves yet again.
I am eagerly awaiting the debate over the effectiveness of the "Just Culture". no doubt the SI will be redacted to protect those named. Sorry but it has to go back to those in 76 who put ink to drafting film, those formations named in the post above from ARSE who evaluated the design and made the CA Release recommendations. (A squared E squared, IAM etc) the person who signed of the first CA release and every one who declared themselves to be a Subject Matter Expert and SQEP who reviewed publications and the safety Case (read Hazard log) and declared each entry ALARP. Will the Cassandra file be an annex to the SI?
Excellent. And unfortunately we've been there before too often.
MoD always look to the final act, but these defences in depth have been systematically weakened over many years. Yet they are money in the bank to both the designer and MoD.
To your list I'd add the Design Reviews (especially the Critical Design Review) and Installation Design Conference (the 555), when as many knowledgeable people you can spare from the squadrons are allowed to crawl all over every aspect of the design and installation.
In the 1990s building these defences became optional, and in the case of CDRs non-technical staff are now permitted to waive them, yet sign a declaration to the effect they have been held, successfully. That, of course, is a serious fraud; DE&S has expressed itself content, and Min(AF) and the Head of the Civil Service have accepted this advice and upheld the policy.
Given the MAA is part of this cowboy outfit, it is little wonder we're repeating ourselves yet again.
