Voyager Plummets (Merged)
"I presume that every pilot that's lost a loose article in the flightdeck is going to be prosecuted?"
No, - and no one has suggested that, it would be silly. But as previously pointed out, those that let a loose article wedge behind a primary control, causing multiple injuries and the grounding of an entire fleet possibly should be. Or do you think not?
No, - and no one has suggested that, it would be silly. But as previously pointed out, those that let a loose article wedge behind a primary control, causing multiple injuries and the grounding of an entire fleet possibly should be. Or do you think not?
Last edited by Thud105; 2nd Mar 2017 at 13:05. Reason: Clarity
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You make it sound like he purposely placed it there!! This was a tragic incident that he's admitted negligence to and will rightly be punished for. However the punishment need to be just.
He's not the first to take a camara or large object on the flight before and he won't be the last.
He's not the first to take a camara or large object on the flight before and he won't be the last.
A thorough `Handing over/Taking over control` of the aircraft would have prevented this near accident.....
If you read the report the Captain was using his camera whilst the co-pilot was out of the cockpit..as he was bored.
At some point the camera was put on the side,the Captain moved his seat forward,and there was a slight input to the sidestick,but not enough to disconnect the autopilot.A short while later the seat was again motored forward,moving the camera against the sidestick,pushing it forward,triggering an autopilot disconnect .
and the following `plummet`.
When `Taking-over control` from another pilot,even if the `other pilot is not leaving his seat,it is incumbent upon you to ensure you are fully harnessed,seat/armrests/pedals adjusted/headset etc/emergency oxygen mask ready/charts/maps all to hand,before you take control of the aircraft;It is your responsibility...even more so if the other pilot leaves his seat/cockpit...And there you remain,until relieved....not pi%%&*g about taking photos/chewing sandwiches ,moving the seat back/forwards,etc,etc.....
At some point the camera was put on the side,the Captain moved his seat forward,and there was a slight input to the sidestick,but not enough to disconnect the autopilot.A short while later the seat was again motored forward,moving the camera against the sidestick,pushing it forward,triggering an autopilot disconnect .
and the following `plummet`.
When `Taking-over control` from another pilot,even if the `other pilot is not leaving his seat,it is incumbent upon you to ensure you are fully harnessed,seat/armrests/pedals adjusted/headset etc/emergency oxygen mask ready/charts/maps all to hand,before you take control of the aircraft;It is your responsibility...even more so if the other pilot leaves his seat/cockpit...And there you remain,until relieved....not pi%%&*g about taking photos/chewing sandwiches ,moving the seat back/forwards,etc,etc.....
Thank you for that, I agree that this would have prevented this incident. But I wonder how many crews actually operate to this standard these days. That's why I mentioned the Swiss cheese model a few posts back, you've described what amounts to one additional layer in this model but in this case all the other holes (and there were quite a few of them) lined up as well. I guess that on many flightdecks small deviations from this procedure for taking over have been accepted for many years and as we're getting away with it, we're forgetting the reason for doing it like this in the first place.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SI highlights many things that individually would not cause an issue but in this case have all summed together in this incident. The captain needs to take responsibility for some and his admission of negligence goes someway. Although other crew members that day could possibly have prevented it.
There is also the 'cultural' side to it. How many flight crews do the correct hand over process, how many take unnecessary items on the flightdeck, how many spend excessive time away from the flightdeck, how many pilots left in sole charge don't become distracted etc.
In order to apportion blame, find culpability and give a fair punishment you need the full facts and evidence and also ask was his actions rouge and one off or was this a cultural problem across the RAF and the 'norm'
We are still not is possession of the full evidence that the CM has heard/seen.
There is also the 'cultural' side to it. How many flight crews do the correct hand over process, how many take unnecessary items on the flightdeck, how many spend excessive time away from the flightdeck, how many pilots left in sole charge don't become distracted etc.
In order to apportion blame, find culpability and give a fair punishment you need the full facts and evidence and also ask was his actions rouge and one off or was this a cultural problem across the RAF and the 'norm'
We are still not is possession of the full evidence that the CM has heard/seen.
If, during the recovery, the CM2 (first officer/co-pilot) had been given control and had taken it and used the instinctive disconnect button to isolate CM1's sidestick, the event would have ended then and there. Instead both pilots wrestled with the controls, a no-no in an Airbus.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
It's interesting that "startle" has been added to our company annual CRM refresher.
I knew Andy a long time ago, we shared a room on IOT. Even in that short time, I was surprised to hear that he was accused of lying. He was a quiet and professional lad who had no signs of arrogance or 'poor attitude'.
I have been on the wrong end of a fatal board of enquiry that went for my throat. I had to fight the system for months and it took ME to present information to the board with the threat of a brilliant civilian solicitor, before they would look at it. A VSO looked at it personally and backed me up. I had no confidence in the board and expected to be disciplined (career ending)
I knew Andy a long time ago, we shared a room on IOT. Even in that short time, I was surprised to hear that he was accused of lying. He was a quiet and professional lad who had no signs of arrogance or 'poor attitude'.
I have been on the wrong end of a fatal board of enquiry that went for my throat. I had to fight the system for months and it took ME to present information to the board with the threat of a brilliant civilian solicitor, before they would look at it. A VSO looked at it personally and backed me up. I had no confidence in the board and expected to be disciplined (career ending)
jayteeto, indeed. In some of his posts, beardy correctly describes what should have happened and that recovery could have been effected earlier if the correct procedure had been followed once CM2 was back in his seat.
Which is all fine and dandy - except that, as airlines now recognise, 'startle' means that correct abnormal procedures will not always be followed when something entirely unexpected happens. With a sudden bunt towards the Black Sea, the co-pilot off the flight deck having to pull himself off the ceiling into the seat, a plethora of call-outs and warnings, I would reckon that there was considerable 'startle' on this flight deck.
Andy recognises that he was careless with his camera, but whether the training the crew had received was adequate to recognise and recover from the situation in a textbook manner will doubtless be something being 'reviewed'...and should certainly have a significant bearing on the Courts Martial sentence. But will it....
Which is all fine and dandy - except that, as airlines now recognise, 'startle' means that correct abnormal procedures will not always be followed when something entirely unexpected happens. With a sudden bunt towards the Black Sea, the co-pilot off the flight deck having to pull himself off the ceiling into the seat, a plethora of call-outs and warnings, I would reckon that there was considerable 'startle' on this flight deck.
Andy recognises that he was careless with his camera, but whether the training the crew had received was adequate to recognise and recover from the situation in a textbook manner will doubtless be something being 'reviewed'...and should certainly have a significant bearing on the Courts Martial sentence. But will it....
Last edited by BEagle; 3rd Mar 2017 at 09:55.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As already pointed out the one thing no SI, investigation or CM can have work out correctly is the level of stress how people's thoughts processes work in that environment. The actions that day were those of two very frightened pilots trying to recover the aircraft. I dare say the lack of Airbus 330 experience is a major factor in some of their reasoning.
While we can fault their actions from the outside, none of us were in thier shoes at the time.
While we can fault their actions from the outside, none of us were in thier shoes at the time.
Last edited by thegndeng; 3rd Mar 2017 at 10:33.
Birdstrike, Engine failure, Fire warning, UFCM - they'll all 'startle' you to a degree, but I would still expect a logical and swift response from anyone in the seat other than ab initio! It may well not be textbook, but to immediately assume the autopilot is trying to kill you is somewhat of a disappointing reaction.
In an Airbus looking at the FMA should be second nature, it is neither an abnormal nor an emergency procedure. In this case it would have been obvious that the autopilot was not engaged. And yes, I have had an unexpected high altitude upset that tripped the autopilot after 5hrs in the cruise on the return to UK non acclimatised.
BEagle as an ex QFI and Captain you understand the importance of knowing who is handling the aircraft. In this case both pilots were. In my case the FO was, I assisted him.
Was I lucky? More pertinently, was I lucky to follow procedures?
BEagle as an ex QFI and Captain you understand the importance of knowing who is handling the aircraft. In this case both pilots were. In my case the FO was, I assisted him.
Was I lucky? More pertinently, was I lucky to follow procedures?
Voyager OTU
I wonder how many crews actually operate to this standard these days
if both pilots were pulling back on their sticks, wouldn't the captain have realised the problem with the wedged camera?
I'm obviously not aircrew but I do recall startle (or WTF was that and what do we do) being added to the specs for the pilot simulator and mission trainer for a certain helicopter in 1998, after introduction of a mandatory safety mod. But when a later BoI report was issued (7 dead), it became clear the changes had been cancelled, probably to save money.
if both pilots were pulling back on their sticks, wouldn't the captain have realised the problem with the wedged camera?
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I wonder how many crews actually operate to this standard these days.
Why wouldn't you? Have flight decks become THAT complacent that folks don't consider 'could I actually control it (the aircraft) having parroted the 'I have control' words'?
Having trained and flown on analog jets etc, our concern was always that glass cockpits and increasing levels of automation would ultimately de-skill pilots.
If the above attitude is reflected in (in)actions, then it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Very worrying that basic tenets of flight safety may be at risk. I often sat and mentally went through a random emergency drill - don't folks do that either?