Voyager Plummets (Merged)
tuc:-
Not only avoided VSOs actions, but by moving the timeline of the start of airworthiness problems he implied that they were responsible for his "Golden Period" rather than the subverting and suborning of the Air Safety system and hence the breaking of it. H-C thus became part of the cover up, as is the MAA (which quotes H-C as its corner stone).
If this were just about the disgruntled "muttering" of a few old men about other old men and their actions some three decades ago, then the apologists cry of "time to move on and leave all this behind us" would be valid. The problem is that the system was broken and remains broken with no apparent possibility of reform.
The whole point of an Air Force is to gain air superiority and then to exploit it in order to defeat an enemy. At some point this nation will be faced by an enemy Air Force which will be trying to do just that. We saw at the start of WWII what happens if you have aircraft not fit for purpose ranged against those that are. It was our good fortune that we soon had the aircraft and systems (such as monoplane fighters, 4-engined bombers, radar, etc) to overcome that initial reverse and hence assure our defence and contribute to our ultimate victory. In other words the deficiencies were not systemic. Now they are, and unless and until we are honest with ourselves about what happened, why it happened, and what we must do to reverse it, UK Military Airworthiness will remain broken and our future security compromised.
The apologists will claim that the exigencies of the Service require that the past actions of VSOs not be questioned. I would respond that the exigencies of this nation require that they are! The MAA and the MAAIB must be made independent of the MOD and of each other. That requires that the cover up ends now!
Self Regulation Does Not Work and in Aviation It Kills!
H-C avoided the issue of senior officers lying and making false record, whereas LP didn't.
If this were just about the disgruntled "muttering" of a few old men about other old men and their actions some three decades ago, then the apologists cry of "time to move on and leave all this behind us" would be valid. The problem is that the system was broken and remains broken with no apparent possibility of reform.
The whole point of an Air Force is to gain air superiority and then to exploit it in order to defeat an enemy. At some point this nation will be faced by an enemy Air Force which will be trying to do just that. We saw at the start of WWII what happens if you have aircraft not fit for purpose ranged against those that are. It was our good fortune that we soon had the aircraft and systems (such as monoplane fighters, 4-engined bombers, radar, etc) to overcome that initial reverse and hence assure our defence and contribute to our ultimate victory. In other words the deficiencies were not systemic. Now they are, and unless and until we are honest with ourselves about what happened, why it happened, and what we must do to reverse it, UK Military Airworthiness will remain broken and our future security compromised.
The apologists will claim that the exigencies of the Service require that the past actions of VSOs not be questioned. I would respond that the exigencies of this nation require that they are! The MAA and the MAAIB must be made independent of the MOD and of each other. That requires that the cover up ends now!
Self Regulation Does Not Work and in Aviation It Kills!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 12th Feb 2017 at 10:58.
It's not immediately apparent from the Service Inquiry extract what effect the co-pilot had in the recovery of stable flight. What is of interest, however, is the fact that he would probably have had extreme difficulty in re-entering the flight deck if the door had been locked as would have been the case with most airlines.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that the difference between 'minor' and 'major' injuries as far as the MilAAIB is concerned is the length of time the injured party is unable to work, with the boundary between the two being fairly arbitrary at 10 days. The fracture in question may have been quite limited so 'minor' was deemed appropriate. I'm not an expert so this might be cobblers.
EAP
EAP
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is of interest, however, is the fact that he would probably have had extreme difficulty in re-entering the flight deck if the door had been locked as would have been the case with most airlines.
tucumseh - yep, something really stinks about this whole affair.
Deafening silence from our prolific poster on this topic . . .
Actually, as I understand the SI the aircraft began the recovery on its own, so the arrival of the co pilot is neither here nor there. Not, by the way, to decry his efforts in any way since he didn't know that at the time.
As [co-pilot] FLt Jones was preparing to give evidence [to the SI] told the court martial that Squadron Leader Nathan Giles - one of those investigating the incident - switched off the tape, grabbed him by the collar of his flying suit and said: “If you tell anyone about this I will break your ******* legs.
In my case it was 7 vs 1 with only 2 of the 7 actually asking questions and the remainder sat in the background for 'checks and balances' - hangers-on as the aircrew might call them! The whole thing was scrupulously fair and the emphasis was on not only being fair but being seen to be fair.
Surely an unexplained break in the tape recording would be quite obvious?
Stuff
In my own limited experience, twice it has been one on one, the other two on one. At no time was I permitted representation, or even a "Mackenzie friend". It would appear, and this has been confirmed by (e.g.) the Cabinet Secretary, that this "right" does not extend to (in my case) civilians interviewed by a Service Inquiry, or equivalent. I think this wrong, but am in no position to prove otherwise. In any case, each time, as you say, the conduct of the interviewers was proper, but there is no way you could say it was an "interview" in the legal sense and I was not given my statements to sign. But it must be said that when I tried to follow up the most recent one (February 2004), the investigator told me he had been shut down because my evidence cleared the prime target (I won't say suspect, because he was known to be innocent), and they would not dare go after the 2 Star who had actually committed wrongdoing. At the Inquest, MoD changed target, to a junior officer; then afterwards re-acquired the original target. When the family of one of the deceased asked for the investigator's report, MoD denied all knowledge of the investigation, It was only 2 years ago that it let slip that it retained the reports. The rules, such as they are, are not applied equally!
I understand that not all SI are conducted the same way but I find it impossible to believe that this interview was conducted without the presence of at least the legal representative and it's improbable the President wasn't also there for primary evidence gathering.
Actually, as I understand the SI the aircraft began the recovery on its own, so the arrival of the co pilot is neither here nor there.
I haven't' read the SI myself I confess, so does it say the aircraft subsequently recovered to level flight or the aircraft was subsequently recovered to level flight? The former would suggest that it was the aircraft's doing, while the latter that it was the pilot's.
As already noted I think you may be confusing the protection systems that attempt to avert a flightpath/speed limit exceedence. When these activate they only attempt to influence the flightpath/speed to an extent that would keep the aircraft within the prescribed limits - in this case the aircraft would still be going down like a brick, with the throttles neatly parked at flight idle.
JTO and Beardy, Quite right - I make no pretence of understanding Airbus fundamentals and I defer to your greater knowledge - but what if the camera had been freed by then - would the aircraft THEN recover itself?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...y-find-410491/
“The initial recovery from the dive was the result of the aircraft’s own protection measures, and not the product of pilot inputs.”
“The initial recovery from the dive was the result of the aircraft’s own protection measures, and not the product of pilot inputs.”
Probably more accurate to say the initial recovery inputs during the dive were the result of the aircraft's own protection measures. The pilot's subsequent inputs actually recovered the aircraft from the dive.
Thanks beardy, I think the confusion might be coming from the term 'recover', which suggests the aircraft came out of the dive, whereas from what you at JTO say it was still in the dive but that the aircraft put itself within the parameters for that dive.