Voyager Plummets (Merged)
Shocked.
When the sentence for coming clean is just as harsh as one might expect for perjury then all hope is lost.
So in the future it might be better to lie and have a chance of getting away with it, rather than tell the truth and get hung anyway. Sorry, but that punishment does nothing for flight safety.
When the sentence for coming clean is just as harsh as one might expect for perjury then all hope is lost.
So in the future it might be better to lie and have a chance of getting away with it, rather than tell the truth and get hung anyway. Sorry, but that punishment does nothing for flight safety.
I think in any military flight safety investigation the best plan is to refuse to say anything and lawyer-up asap. Failing to cooperate with a unit or service inquiry runs less risk than this.
Presumably this will go to the appeals court so plenty more dirty washing to be aired.
Presumably this will go to the appeals court so plenty more dirty washing to be aired.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just culture looks after people who have made mistakes. AT's actions were negligent, plain and simple so, I don't think it's unfair for the RAF to have removed him from his role.
Owning up to your own negligence does not make it any less serious. Personally, I think it's right that he has gone; he almost killed 200 people through complacency and negligence. I very much doubt that there is an airline out there that would have let him keep his job.
Owning up to your own negligence does not make it any less serious. Personally, I think it's right that he has gone; he almost killed 200 people through complacency and negligence. I very much doubt that there is an airline out there that would have let him keep his job.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably this will go to the appeals court so plenty more dirty washing to be aired.
Townshend pleaded guilty to negligently performing a duty and was also handed a four-month suspended prison sentence.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just culture looks after people who have made mistakes. AT's actions were negligent, plain and simple so, I don't think it's unfair for the RAF to have removed him from his role.
Owning up to your own negligence does not make it any less serious. Personally, I think it's right that he has gone; he almost killed 200 people through complacency and negligence. I very much doubt that there is an airline out there that would have let him keep his job.
Owning up to your own negligence does not make it any less serious. Personally, I think it's right that he has gone; he almost killed 200 people through complacency and negligence. I very much doubt that there is an airline out there that would have let him keep his job.
In another life, I was an RAF SFSO and it's my understanding that the no-blame reporting NEVER meant that if there was a gross breach of trust/competence et al that no action would be taken merely because it was reported honestly.
I believe one or two of you are getting it rather mixed up.
This particular case has attracted huge interest outside the RAF. The aircraft commander admitted his (gross) error of judgement. I'm sad that someone who has done so much good has suffered this, however it began and ended with HIS actions alone.
Only one pilot strapped in, nobody else in control and he was so bored he lost SA to this degree. If the board did not take action THEY not him would be castigated for not bearing their responsibility seriously.
No winners here - we'll see the court cases next . . .
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont think the blame can be appprtioned the the captain alone. For instance, why the co pilot out of the flightdeck so long? He's being hailed as some kind of God in some forums. Yet I believe a little of the blame could rest on him. There's also clearly cultural issues going on here too.
I believe according to the CM rules we can appeal the sentence.
In my opinion the sentence is harsh. Negligence yes. Gross negligence no.
I believe according to the CM rules we can appeal the sentence.
In my opinion the sentence is harsh. Negligence yes. Gross negligence no.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
I can't help but be reminded of Victor Hugo's A Fight With A Cannon, though that had a far more drastic outcome.
In any case, I wish well for all involved in this unfortunate incident.
In any case, I wish well for all involved in this unfortunate incident.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2.25 Variation Proceedings (slip rule) [s 163(3)(h)]
After the Court Martial has passed a sentence, power exists [footnote 12 - Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules 2009 rr 118 to 124] for the court to vary the sentence during the 56 days after sentence. Variation proceedings may take place of the judge’s own motion, or on the application of the prosecution or defence. The court comprises the same judge as at the sentencing proceedings and all the same lay members, or as many of them as can practicably attend in person or by live video link. The purpose of the variation proceedings is to correct legal errors in sentencing (such as a longer period of custody than the maximum for that offence, or a sentence which is not available for a person of that rank). It is not intended to be used so that discretion can be exercised differently, or because opinions have changed. A defendant wishing to seek a variation should write to the Judge Advocate General giving reasons for his application. The JAG will forward the application to the judge who sat in the sentencing proceedings for a decision as to whether to list the case for variation proceedings. There is no appeal against a judge’s decision not to proceed, but the sentence whether varied or not is still subject to appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court.
After the Court Martial has passed a sentence, power exists [footnote 12 - Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules 2009 rr 118 to 124] for the court to vary the sentence during the 56 days after sentence. Variation proceedings may take place of the judge’s own motion, or on the application of the prosecution or defence. The court comprises the same judge as at the sentencing proceedings and all the same lay members, or as many of them as can practicably attend in person or by live video link. The purpose of the variation proceedings is to correct legal errors in sentencing (such as a longer period of custody than the maximum for that offence, or a sentence which is not available for a person of that rank). It is not intended to be used so that discretion can be exercised differently, or because opinions have changed. A defendant wishing to seek a variation should write to the Judge Advocate General giving reasons for his application. The JAG will forward the application to the judge who sat in the sentencing proceedings for a decision as to whether to list the case for variation proceedings. There is no appeal against a judge’s decision not to proceed, but the sentence whether varied or not is still subject to appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court.
So, does the dismissal mean that he will get an 'immediate pension' plus the lump sum?
3.3.2 The Armed Forces Pension Scheme 75 (AFPS75)
Pension benefits start to build up at age 18 for other ranks/ratings and age 21 for officers.
An immediate pension is payable to other ranks/ratings after completion of 22 years service (i.e. at age 40, or later for those joining the Service after the age of 18), and to officers after completion of 16 years service (i.e. at age 37, or 38 for RAF officers, or later for those joining the Service after the age of 21).
Those who leave the service after qualifying for immediate pension also receive a tax-free lump sum worth three times the annual pension.
Pension benefits start to build up at age 18 for other ranks/ratings and age 21 for officers.
An immediate pension is payable to other ranks/ratings after completion of 22 years service (i.e. at age 40, or later for those joining the Service after the age of 18), and to officers after completion of 16 years service (i.e. at age 37, or 38 for RAF officers, or later for those joining the Service after the age of 21).
Those who leave the service after qualifying for immediate pension also receive a tax-free lump sum worth three times the annual pension.
From Blazing Saddles (1974):
[Bart returns unexpectedly after being sentenced to death]
Charlie: They said you was hung.
Bart: And they was right.
Charlie: They said you was hung.
Bart: And they was right.
There are ways to tell that she's a witch...burn her anyway.
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/HG-witchscene.php
Reporting Culture - Lost.
Just Culture - Non existent. (Back to the 1990s).
Not sure where we go from here?
Is Air Safety a priority or not? Most Safety "Risks to Life" are related to medical issues and operating vehicles (Land Traffic Accidents).
All that work trying to build elements of a safety culture lost overnight.
We will never have a proactive safety culture (mostly pathological, reactive at best).
"If" he'd been found guilty of lying, then I get it. Otherwise, this sends out the wrong message (but clearly not for everyone).
It's a "Crimson Tide" moment. I see and understand the arguments from both sides; however, this isn't really about cameras on a flight deck any more, it's about application of the FAiR Model. I still don't see how that was applied correctly, but what do I know....🙄 (Only those that are trained are allowed to use it anyway, don't believe me, read the regulations).
Would any of you admit to making a mistake again and report it because you trust the system?
It's going to be a difficult few weeks I expect.
😐
PS. He's just human, not a criminal. I know it was an awful experience for everyone down the back and they will feel that "justice" has been served. A Just Culture? Lost forever I expect.
"IT'S A FAIR COP" (Witch).
Reporting Culture - Lost.
Just Culture - Non existent. (Back to the 1990s).
Not sure where we go from here?
Is Air Safety a priority or not? Most Safety "Risks to Life" are related to medical issues and operating vehicles (Land Traffic Accidents).
All that work trying to build elements of a safety culture lost overnight.
We will never have a proactive safety culture (mostly pathological, reactive at best).
"If" he'd been found guilty of lying, then I get it. Otherwise, this sends out the wrong message (but clearly not for everyone).
It's a "Crimson Tide" moment. I see and understand the arguments from both sides; however, this isn't really about cameras on a flight deck any more, it's about application of the FAiR Model. I still don't see how that was applied correctly, but what do I know....🙄 (Only those that are trained are allowed to use it anyway, don't believe me, read the regulations).
Would any of you admit to making a mistake again and report it because you trust the system?
It's going to be a difficult few weeks I expect.
😐
PS. He's just human, not a criminal. I know it was an awful experience for everyone down the back and they will feel that "justice" has been served. A Just Culture? Lost forever I expect.
"IT'S A FAIR COP" (Witch).
M1key et al.
I suspect this is viewed very differently by most outside the multi-engined world (are you an ME guy?). I am a FJ guy with no experience of ME flying. I have also never flown on a Voyager but have been a passenger on many other ME types.
You and several others speak of a just culture gone forever. Maybe that is the general consensus within the ME world but I don't know of anyone in my world that feels that way. I don't know the pilot concerned and I'm sure he's a great guy but I think others have summed it up well. His negligence cannot go unpunished.
Some have tried to compare his actions to FJ incidents (the Cranwell Hawk for instance). Maybe I'm being precious or you may think I'm acting superior but when guys make mistakes in the FJ world they tend to be under very different pressures and operating in a very different way. I don't think it is possible to make direct comparisons with punishments (or lack of) handed down to a FJ pilot and the punishment in this case. They also do not have passengers.
I can empathise with the boredom experienced by ME pilots on a long flight but as a mere passenger I would expect there is always someone who is fully engaged with flying/monitoring the aircraft.
Despite the rules against carriage of cameras (in their current guise they only came in relatively recently - coincidence?!). I wouldn't have a problem with someone taking photos whilst someone else is with him (I have seen many cockpit photos on FB from airline pilots) but doing it whilst alone on the flight deck seems (to my FJ brain) a little silly.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts and despite how others feel this incident would not affect my decision to openly and honestly report an error. As we are always told a just culture is not a punishment free culture. That concept doesn't alter the way I do my job any more now than it did before the verdict was delivered.
BV
I suspect this is viewed very differently by most outside the multi-engined world (are you an ME guy?). I am a FJ guy with no experience of ME flying. I have also never flown on a Voyager but have been a passenger on many other ME types.
You and several others speak of a just culture gone forever. Maybe that is the general consensus within the ME world but I don't know of anyone in my world that feels that way. I don't know the pilot concerned and I'm sure he's a great guy but I think others have summed it up well. His negligence cannot go unpunished.
Some have tried to compare his actions to FJ incidents (the Cranwell Hawk for instance). Maybe I'm being precious or you may think I'm acting superior but when guys make mistakes in the FJ world they tend to be under very different pressures and operating in a very different way. I don't think it is possible to make direct comparisons with punishments (or lack of) handed down to a FJ pilot and the punishment in this case. They also do not have passengers.
I can empathise with the boredom experienced by ME pilots on a long flight but as a mere passenger I would expect there is always someone who is fully engaged with flying/monitoring the aircraft.
Despite the rules against carriage of cameras (in their current guise they only came in relatively recently - coincidence?!). I wouldn't have a problem with someone taking photos whilst someone else is with him (I have seen many cockpit photos on FB from airline pilots) but doing it whilst alone on the flight deck seems (to my FJ brain) a little silly.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts and despite how others feel this incident would not affect my decision to openly and honestly report an error. As we are always told a just culture is not a punishment free culture. That concept doesn't alter the way I do my job any more now than it did before the verdict was delivered.
BV
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BV, I agree. In my world (civilian AOC) we have clear protocols to follow when a pilot is left alone in the cockpit. In the simplest terms this encourages the pilot to concentrate on operating the aircraft, not taking photos.
Should he have been kicked-out? I don't know, but I am sure that my company would have given me a P45 if I had done the same.
Should he have been kicked-out? I don't know, but I am sure that my company would have given me a P45 if I had done the same.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just Culture
Those on here who believe that just culture will die as a result of this CM verdict don't understand, imho, the process. If the SI is ever proven to be, as suggested on here, less than 100 % subjective, we would have to look at this again but, as it stands, I think the JC system worked. It's a two way process... Punish mistakes and people won't report. Fail to punish negligence... a small minority will start cutting corners. On the fleet I'm on, the reporting culture is strong and I don't see how this CM will change that. We use the system as an invaluable method of highlighting issues. It's all down to the guys having confidence of their OC and of those above him/her. If that trust is in place, the system runs on rails.
If somebody is able to accurately place AT's actions into the 'error' or 'system induced violation' brackets, I'll stand corrected. Sadly, as I read it, its blatant negligence and had to be dealt with as such. As previously stated, his own actions brought him to this sad conclusion.
Somebody mentioned the Vulcan barrel roll going unpunished. Was that event ever proven? I only saw some random photographs. Perhaps there was insufficient proof.
If somebody is able to accurately place AT's actions into the 'error' or 'system induced violation' brackets, I'll stand corrected. Sadly, as I read it, its blatant negligence and had to be dealt with as such. As previously stated, his own actions brought him to this sad conclusion.
Somebody mentioned the Vulcan barrel roll going unpunished. Was that event ever proven? I only saw some random photographs. Perhaps there was insufficient proof.
Those on here who believe that just culture will die as a result of this CM verdict don't understand, imho, the process. If the SI is ever proven to be, as suggested on here, less than 100 % subjective, we would have to look at this again but, as it stands, I think the JC system worked. It's a two way process... Punish mistakes and people won't report. Fail to punish negligence... a small minority will start cutting corners. On the fleet I'm on, the reporting culture is strong and I don't see how this CM will change that. We use the system as an invaluable method of highlighting issues. It's all down to the guys having confidence of their OC and of those above him/her. If that trust is in place, the system runs on rails.
If somebody is able to accurately place AT's actions into the 'error' or 'system induced violation' brackets, I'll stand corrected. Sadly, as I read it, its blatant negligence and had to be dealt with as such. As previously stated, his own actions brought him to this sad conclusion.
Somebody mentioned the Vulcan barrel roll going unpunished. Was that event ever proven? I only saw some random photographs. Perhaps there was insufficient proof.
If somebody is able to accurately place AT's actions into the 'error' or 'system induced violation' brackets, I'll stand corrected. Sadly, as I read it, its blatant negligence and had to be dealt with as such. As previously stated, his own actions brought him to this sad conclusion.
Somebody mentioned the Vulcan barrel roll going unpunished. Was that event ever proven? I only saw some random photographs. Perhaps there was insufficient proof.
The disproportionate severity of this iniquitous sentence is truly shocking. I sincerely hope that the case will go to appeal.
Thank you for the kind comments of those who've contacted me - I will try to pass them on to Andy.
tubby linton asked who had provided the initial TR training. I am told it was Thomas Cook Airlines. However, when that was and what levels of refresher theoretical knowledge training and simulator sessions were given since then, I do not know. The MoD spokeswoman stated that training had been reviewed - as the lawyers acting for the injured will no doubt wish to know, specifically what training and why did it need to be reviewed.
- What SOP was in place concerning one pilot off the flight deck? Was it followed?
- Why did the co-pilot spend so long making a cup of tea and "chatting with an old mate"?
- What guidance existed regarding the placing of objects on the sill panels?
From British Forces News:
As Lushington knows very well, AirTanker costs the taxpayer at least £1M per day, whether their rented aircraft fly or not. This is a consequence of the absurd PFI contract. Thus the true figure is probably the cost of damage to the aeroplane and for the civilian charters.
As others have stated, the severity of this sentence will simply ensure that no-one ever cooperates with a service inquiry without the presence of a solicitor. Errors and mistakes will go unreported, putting back Flight Safety (or is that now 'Air' Safety') several decades.
After his Bf109G accident, ACM Sir John Allison told us that he recognised that "People do make mistakes - I did", but that flagrant disregard for rules wouldn't be tolerated. Quite right too. But on this occasion, there was no flagrant disregard of rules and no intent to cause danger and distress. Andy was cleared of any accusation concerning his integrity, so when he said that he didn't know what caused the event, he was speaking the truth.
As someone said to me last night, "This is MoD being vindictive - we couldn't get him on perjury, so we'll give him the sentence he would have received if we'd won our case over the other charges".
It might have cost MoD around £1M plus the costs of this case, but when the lawyers acting for the injured lay into them, it'll undoubtedly cost them a whole lot more.
Every time I fly on an airliner these days, the safety brief mentions that turbulence can occur at any time, so whenever you are seated, you should keep your seatbelt loosely fastened. Does the RAF brief the same?
Thank you for the kind comments of those who've contacted me - I will try to pass them on to Andy.
tubby linton asked who had provided the initial TR training. I am told it was Thomas Cook Airlines. However, when that was and what levels of refresher theoretical knowledge training and simulator sessions were given since then, I do not know. The MoD spokeswoman stated that training had been reviewed - as the lawyers acting for the injured will no doubt wish to know, specifically what training and why did it need to be reviewed.
- What SOP was in place concerning one pilot off the flight deck? Was it followed?
- Why did the co-pilot spend so long making a cup of tea and "chatting with an old mate"?
- What guidance existed regarding the placing of objects on the sill panels?
From British Forces News:
Prior to sentencing, prosecutor Mr Nigel Lickley QC told the court of the consequences of Flt Lt Townshend's actions.
Mr Lickley QC raised the costs of the Voyager fleet being grounded for 13 days after the incident from the 9th to the 21st of February.
He told the court, according to information from Air Commodore Lushington, that several million pounds were paid to Airtanker for Service Defence, despite the fleet being grounded.
The repairs to the affected aircraft cost £207,000 including a new side and new ceiling panels.
In order to backfill the scheduled Voyager flights, £827,000 was paid for civilian aircraft to replace services.
Mr Lickley QC raised the costs of the Voyager fleet being grounded for 13 days after the incident from the 9th to the 21st of February.
He told the court, according to information from Air Commodore Lushington, that several million pounds were paid to Airtanker for Service Defence, despite the fleet being grounded.
The repairs to the affected aircraft cost £207,000 including a new side and new ceiling panels.
In order to backfill the scheduled Voyager flights, £827,000 was paid for civilian aircraft to replace services.
As others have stated, the severity of this sentence will simply ensure that no-one ever cooperates with a service inquiry without the presence of a solicitor. Errors and mistakes will go unreported, putting back Flight Safety (or is that now 'Air' Safety') several decades.
After his Bf109G accident, ACM Sir John Allison told us that he recognised that "People do make mistakes - I did", but that flagrant disregard for rules wouldn't be tolerated. Quite right too. But on this occasion, there was no flagrant disregard of rules and no intent to cause danger and distress. Andy was cleared of any accusation concerning his integrity, so when he said that he didn't know what caused the event, he was speaking the truth.
As someone said to me last night, "This is MoD being vindictive - we couldn't get him on perjury, so we'll give him the sentence he would have received if we'd won our case over the other charges".
It might have cost MoD around £1M plus the costs of this case, but when the lawyers acting for the injured lay into them, it'll undoubtedly cost them a whole lot more.
Every time I fly on an airliner these days, the safety brief mentions that turbulence can occur at any time, so whenever you are seated, you should keep your seatbelt loosely fastened. Does the RAF brief the same?
Pure Pursuit, you make an interesting point at #797.
Just Culture involves the reporting of events or activity which could identify safety improvement, and assumes that the individual(s) involved knew of the contributing factors, and thus consciously understood what occurred at the time.
In this incident the 'cause' appears to have been deduced with hindsight, and thus an individual's contribution has been constructed - most probable cause.
From an individual viewpoint there was no 'error' to report, only the event, best described and investigated in technical terms, thus does not involve the process of Just Culture. Even so the close association with Just Culture will be very damaging.
The admission of 'error' was after the choice of legal activity.
In civilian terms this would be a separate process involving the law of the land, but in military terms, the investigation, choice of action, and legal process are all under the same umbrella. This is what 'we' sign-up for in the Military, but in return there is an exchange of trust involving fairness and proportionality.
This incident has challenged that trust, the loss of which may be far more damaging than apparently not promoting a Just Culture.
Just Culture involves the reporting of events or activity which could identify safety improvement, and assumes that the individual(s) involved knew of the contributing factors, and thus consciously understood what occurred at the time.
In this incident the 'cause' appears to have been deduced with hindsight, and thus an individual's contribution has been constructed - most probable cause.
From an individual viewpoint there was no 'error' to report, only the event, best described and investigated in technical terms, thus does not involve the process of Just Culture. Even so the close association with Just Culture will be very damaging.
The admission of 'error' was after the choice of legal activity.
In civilian terms this would be a separate process involving the law of the land, but in military terms, the investigation, choice of action, and legal process are all under the same umbrella. This is what 'we' sign-up for in the Military, but in return there is an exchange of trust involving fairness and proportionality.
This incident has challenged that trust, the loss of which may be far more damaging than apparently not promoting a Just Culture.
Beagle I know you have a personal connection with the pilot in this case. I have to agree however as an outsider looking in, it seems that someone had decided that whatever happened at the CM this man was going to get 'nailed'. The whole point of the CM was surely to try the chap regarding his integrity. No one disputed the fact that he had been negligent in leaving the camera where he did.
BV thanks for your insight into the difference between the workload of the FJ pilot and the ME one. My contention in my comment was meant to highlight what I found strange in that the cost of this incident was almost used as a stick to beat this chap with in the CM.
BV thanks for your insight into the difference between the workload of the FJ pilot and the ME one. My contention in my comment was meant to highlight what I found strange in that the cost of this incident was almost used as a stick to beat this chap with in the CM.