Voyager Plummets (Merged)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is far too easy for all to start throwing 'I told you so' rocks. The point I'd make is that the standard of proof at a CM is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. As in the criminal courts, the Service Prosecuting Authority must have felt it had sufficient evidence to bring the case but the CM did not agree the case was proved.
Specifically (having no specific knowledge of the case) the SPA felt there was sufficient evidence that Flt Lt Townshend was not truthful after the incident - the CM did not agree. Many clearly agree with that verdict (supported by their view of the individual), but to now suggest this exonerates him from any culpability as A/c Captain is an extraordinary position (and I know people who were on that plane).
Ultimately, for innumerable Flight Safety courses for years to come, I suspect this will remain a fascinating example straddling the thin line between 'just culture' and the appropriate attribution of blame...
Specifically (having no specific knowledge of the case) the SPA felt there was sufficient evidence that Flt Lt Townshend was not truthful after the incident - the CM did not agree. Many clearly agree with that verdict (supported by their view of the individual), but to now suggest this exonerates him from any culpability as A/c Captain is an extraordinary position (and I know people who were on that plane).
Ultimately, for innumerable Flight Safety courses for years to come, I suspect this will remain a fascinating example straddling the thin line between 'just culture' and the appropriate attribution of blame...
Last edited by Politely_amused; 1st Mar 2017 at 22:27.
Lots of posters seem to have missed the fact that he pleaded guilty to the charge involving camera / seat / side stick and pitch down and will, in due course, be sentenced for that. It was the allegation that he tried to cover up his actions of which he had now been acquitted.
Mi 26man are you real?
What if the CM did find him guilty? They didn't! Had they the barrack room lawyers who should be ashamed of themselves would have been right - as it happens the CM didn't; so they should be bloody ashamed of themselves.
What if the CM did find him guilty? They didn't! Had they the barrack room lawyers who should be ashamed of themselves would have been right - as it happens the CM didn't; so they should be bloody ashamed of themselves.
Despite the verdict I'm not sure AT will be sleeping much better than he was. Will he really want to get himself back into any seat of a modern fbw cockpit?
As previously stated, there was clearly a strong vibe to some personnel within the SI that he was not being truthful. However, cover up or not, it is perhaps a sign of the times that this aircraft captain lacked the knowledge to even partly understand why his aircraft was doing as commanded and so make a much better job or recovering it to S&L flight. I can just about understand the gotcha of the camera, but I just can't comprehend how he didn't immediately use his side-stick to attempt to counter the initial pitch-down and hence discover his camera/seat had wedged it forwards.
As previously stated, there was clearly a strong vibe to some personnel within the SI that he was not being truthful. However, cover up or not, it is perhaps a sign of the times that this aircraft captain lacked the knowledge to even partly understand why his aircraft was doing as commanded and so make a much better job or recovering it to S&L flight. I can just about understand the gotcha of the camera, but I just can't comprehend how he didn't immediately use his side-stick to attempt to counter the initial pitch-down and hence discover his camera/seat had wedged it forwards.
Mi 26man are you real?
What if the CM did find him guilty? They didn't! Had they the barrack room lawyers who should be ashamed of themselves would have been right - as it happens the CM didn't; so they should be bloody ashamed of themselves.
What if the CM did find him guilty? They didn't! Had they the barrack room lawyers who should be ashamed of themselves would have been right - as it happens the CM didn't; so they should be bloody ashamed of themselves.
Someone else bought up the case of OJ Simpson on here earlier. Based on the evidence that was disclosed, did you think he was guilty of the crime at the time? Did you "feel ashamed"when he was found not guilty? Why should anyone feel ashamed here?
If your mention of 'sign of the times' was relating to this aspect where, by increasing the reliance on computers, we are making it more and more difficult for flight crew to stay in the loop, then I agree.
Mil26 I'll ask you again are you for real? Do you have some sort impediment that requires you to rebroadcast everything I say to you to justify you don't like the verdict? WTF has OJ Simpson got to do with the price of fish? The judiciary of the land have passed their verdict. It's really that simple, just because you obviously don't like it you drag up OJ Simpson whoever he/she is! What is this fluffy world becoming. The bloke made a mistake, something we all do regularly, I don't know this pilot from Adam but if you are telling me valuable lessons have not been learn from this at no cost to life then you are very wrong. OJ Simpson FFS.
Nothing to say about the CM but absolutely in agreement with Jhieminga's post. It may be hard to comprehend if you've not flown modern FBW but it's not just a case of replacing old style rods and bell cranks, it has allowed the designers to incorporate subtleties such as envelope protection, and heaven knows what else and also a whole host of autoflight modes and sub modes that might at best get a passing nod in the "flying manual ". Just about anyone who has flown modern FBW for any length of time will have been "surprised" by some subtle feature of the FBW that they have been unprepared for or never been told about.
Timelord wrote:
A good summary. Sentencing is expected on Friday.
Linedog, there was no question of being 'caught out' as you put it. The Captain did not know what caused the event at the time. When it eventually emerged that his camera must have become jammed between the arm rest and the base of the side stick, he was was utterly devastated.
Voyager training will now no doubt include a warning that nothing must be placed on the sill panels, due to the risk of potential side stick fouling.
wiggy wrote:
Or perhaps only told about briefly in a cost-driven TR course? I would hope that the extent and depth of Voyager training is reviewed in the light of this event.
Lots of posters seem to have missed the fact that he pleaded guilty to the charge involving camera / seat / side stick and pitch down and will, in due course, be sentenced for that. It was the allegation that he tried to cover up his actions of which he had now been acquitted.
Linedog, there was no question of being 'caught out' as you put it. The Captain did not know what caused the event at the time. When it eventually emerged that his camera must have become jammed between the arm rest and the base of the side stick, he was was utterly devastated.
Voyager training will now no doubt include a warning that nothing must be placed on the sill panels, due to the risk of potential side stick fouling.
wiggy wrote:
Just about anyone who has flown modern FBW for any length of time will have been "surprised" by some subtle feature of the FBW that they have been unprepared for or never been told about.
It seems to me that the root cause of this accident (I would say it was more than an incident, as several people got hurt) has to be the placement of a loose object near a primary control.
Was the inadvisability of doing this not covered in basic flight training?
Was the inadvisability of doing this not covered in basic flight training?
Last edited by Thud105; 2nd Mar 2017 at 08:00. Reason: Simplification.
My post was trying to point out that although the root cause is not in doubt, the subsequent confusion and delay in taking action was severely hampered by the disconnection between crew awareness (of what the aircraft was doing) and system logic, and in my view this is an inherent problem in modern FBW flightdecks. I think that this is a very important learning point from this accident but it is being overshadowed by other opinions about this saga.
I don't know how your draw that inference, beardy; no-one appears to be 'blaming' the aeroplane in recent posts.
The HF issues associated with 'automation surprise' and 'startle effect' cannot be ascribed simply to the aeroplane, but should be largely mitigated by improved training and particularly by more rigorous simulator sessions.
As I learned at a recent EASA meeting, following the AF447 accident involving an A330, some airlines are now beginning to grasp this nettle rather more firmly than perhaps was the case hitherto.
The HF issues associated with 'automation surprise' and 'startle effect' cannot be ascribed simply to the aeroplane, but should be largely mitigated by improved training and particularly by more rigorous simulator sessions.
As I learned at a recent EASA meeting, following the AF447 accident involving an A330, some airlines are now beginning to grasp this nettle rather more firmly than perhaps was the case hitherto.
The FBW characteristics of Airbus have been raised. Apart from preventing a disaster they have no bearing on the incident. The pilot did not read the FMA, this is a fundamental part of flying Airbus and is covered in depth in Airbus training . He did not make clear who was flying the aircraft, this is a fundamental part of captaincy. So far he has only admitted negligence in having a loose article. I posit that he handed the incident badly despite his training not because of it.
Well at least he will know quickly. Presumably everyone else who has taken a camera or other portable electronic device into a cockpit or flightdeck will be sentenced at a much later date?
The military courts are going to be busy for the next 20 years or so, especially as they can proceed against former serving personnel too.
Or will they expect this chap to 'take one for the team' without further action against anyone else?
The military courts are going to be busy for the next 20 years or so, especially as they can proceed against former serving personnel too.
Or will they expect this chap to 'take one for the team' without further action against anyone else?
"Presumably everyone else who has taken a camera or other portable electronic device into a cockpit or flightdeck will be sentenced at a much later date"
Only if they allowed said device to wedge itself behind a primary control, causing multiple injuries and the grounding of an entire fleet....
Only if they allowed said device to wedge itself behind a primary control, causing multiple injuries and the grounding of an entire fleet....
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only if they allowed said device to wedge itself behind a primary control, causing multiple injuries and the grounding of an entire fleet....
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I presume that every pilot that's lost a loose article in the flightdeck is going to be prosecuted?
This was a bad incident but the pilot did not do it willfully.
Maybe also people are going to wait for the full CM transcripts to be made available before second guessing the CM reasoning behind finding him not guilty of lying?
This was a bad incident but the pilot did not do it willfully.
Maybe also people are going to wait for the full CM transcripts to be made available before second guessing the CM reasoning behind finding him not guilty of lying?
Or rather, missing an important point. Unless of course you subscribe to MoD's policy of not mitigating risk until after it manifests itself. That policy has killed too many.