Voyager Plummets (Merged)
Obituary
Spry; Wing Commander RAF, ..SO, ..FC*, etc. Laid to rest following a short and painful public illness.
The champion of RAF flight safety, a stalwart and foundation of operational improvement, efficiency, fairness and trust for nearly 100 years; undone in an instant.
Condolences from Pilot Officer P. Prune, T. Emm, 'Griff' the Gremlin, 'Murphy', and the Society of Just Culture.
A wake will be held at Prune Pava, home to many illustrious participants of 'wizard prangs'; no doubt there will many recollections of having 'been there' and 'done that'.
The lament should recall past successes, but through cloudy beer, the future of effective operation may be less assured.
Reporting of future events with regard to Spry will be withheld, but references to the necessary activity can be found in the publications of Reason, Dekker, Holnagel, Woods, Amalberti, which should be available at the highest levels of management (but if not, they are available on request).
The champion of RAF flight safety, a stalwart and foundation of operational improvement, efficiency, fairness and trust for nearly 100 years; undone in an instant.
Condolences from Pilot Officer P. Prune, T. Emm, 'Griff' the Gremlin, 'Murphy', and the Society of Just Culture.
A wake will be held at Prune Pava, home to many illustrious participants of 'wizard prangs'; no doubt there will many recollections of having 'been there' and 'done that'.
The lament should recall past successes, but through cloudy beer, the future of effective operation may be less assured.
Reporting of future events with regard to Spry will be withheld, but references to the necessary activity can be found in the publications of Reason, Dekker, Holnagel, Woods, Amalberti, which should be available at the highest levels of management (but if not, they are available on request).
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
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.
Beagle said
They do since this happened. Can't recall it pre incident.
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?
safety typee:-
Good post, st. The process that you describe is the absolute fundamental of Service life, and few would question it or seek to alter it. Unfortunately it is also the process of UK Military Air Safety, wherein the Operator (the MOD and its subsidiary Services), the Regulator, and the Air Accident Investigator, are also under the same umbrella. The direct result of this is that the Operator has effectively compromised and rendered toothless the other two components. BoIs and SIs have been prone to improper pressure from above, and the Regulator has been made dysfunctional for some three decades thanks to VSOs issuing illegal orders, the dismissal of experienced engineers who would not obey them and their unqualified replacements who would, and the wholescale scrapping of Regulations that had been disregarded anyway, together with the ongoing cover up and denial of all of that.
Whether or not this sentence was the result of VSO pressure I do not know. If it was, then I suspect it will eventually emerge. It always does. One thing is certain however, Aviation is not swayed by such pressures and will go on killing given half a chance. We combat that by a system of Air Safety, which is however broken in UK Military Aviation. That in turn means that our Air Power is badly compromised. All that could change if the RAF confronted the lie in Haddon Cave, and admitted that the so called "Golden Period" was anything but. Only then can the need for an independent Regulator and Investigator, both of the MOD and of each other, be officially recognised and acted upon. Only then can the slow return of airworthiness happen to UK Military Aviation.
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.
Whether or not this sentence was the result of VSO pressure I do not know. If it was, then I suspect it will eventually emerge. It always does. One thing is certain however, Aviation is not swayed by such pressures and will go on killing given half a chance. We combat that by a system of Air Safety, which is however broken in UK Military Aviation. That in turn means that our Air Power is badly compromised. All that could change if the RAF confronted the lie in Haddon Cave, and admitted that the so called "Golden Period" was anything but. Only then can the need for an independent Regulator and Investigator, both of the MOD and of each other, be officially recognised and acted upon. Only then can the slow return of airworthiness happen to UK Military Aviation.
Given 3 years of false accusation concerning his personal integrity, the alleged threatening behaviour of a senior officer at the Inquiry towards him and taking into consideration his unblemished career as a professional military aviator, for his moment of regrettable carelessness I would have expected him to have received a severe reprimand and 2 years loss of seniority.
Right now military justice is clearly an oxymoron.
Right now military justice is clearly an oxymoron.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a tough call - he could have killed a lot of people by doing something a bit stupid but he didn't
I can't see letting him off totally - or allowing him to fly in the RAF again TBH but I really fail to see what a suspended prison sentence is supposed to achieve. Do they think he'll do it again??
I can't see letting him off totally - or allowing him to fly in the RAF again TBH but I really fail to see what a suspended prison sentence is supposed to achieve. Do they think he'll do it again??
As an outsider I appreciate that emotions are running high with those who know the pilot involved, but as an observation on the justice of it all I'd say that in any role if you come within a hair's breadth of killing nearly 200 people through your own negligence then losing your job is probably the least you can (and should) expect.
I can only comment on what is written here, but in my many years as JP (no, not junior pilot) if a person is found Not Guilty of a charge then he should not the punished. It appears to me that all this pilot did was leave his camera in a dangerous place. Well, we have all taken photos from the flight deck and placed our cameras somewhere close. Obviously this pilot had no idea that what he did would result in a problem. So the error was not deliberate, but he was Culpable and caused Harm by his mistake. So he should be punished, but there is plenty of mitigation. Moreover, a person's previous record should be taken into account. Now I did not follow this case in Court and am not privy to all the facts. Additionally, in Courts Marshal there are two type of evidence: 'Beyond reasonable doubt' (which a criminal court must bide by, as in this case) and 'On the balance of probabilities', which is only used in civil proceedings. However, and here is the rub, sometimes, if the evidence lies between the two types of evidence, the judiciary will increase the sentence to the maximum they can award. Personally, given all the pilot did was make a mistake, but not forgetting the Harm element, I am surprised at the sentence. I wonder if MAFL has a list of Sentencing Guidelines as the civilian Judiciary have and if so, what it would be for a minor mistake that cause major Harm?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Back from the sandpit
Age: 63
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the time between the initial not guilty verdict on the two counts of perjury and one count of falsifying a document, although I respected the the Courts verdict, I personally found it to be incredulous and still do, even though at that stage we knew the Captain had pleaded guilty to negligently performing a duty (which I opine was the lesser charge of the four) . I was suspicious that some horse trading had occurred between prosecution and defence.
I would have wholeheartedly agreed with the sentence IF and it's a big IF the Captain had been found guilty of the first three counts, it would have been proportionate to the alleged offence(s). But the fact is that he wasn't found guilty.
We all know that it wasn't a premeditated act, it was a mistake. A mistake that led to a situation with consequences that no aircrew would ever knowingly put themselves in. I regarded the negligence charge as the minor charge in the bigger scheme of things. I have tried to get the JC tables in post #763 to reflect a guilty outcome on the Captain and cannot, whichever way I cut it.
This all leads me to conclude that the sentence passed is wholly disproportionate in a Just Culture environment and was more of a revenge sentence for the Captain being found not guilty on the integrity charges. Something stinks and the unintended consequence of this is loss of the Just Culture environment ( if, of course, it ever existed in the first place )
In this case there will always be those that sit firmly on one side of the fence or the other and the repercussions of this poorly handled incident ( from the time the Co-pilot left his seat to the time the sentence was passed yesterday ) will be felt for many years to come.
I would have wholeheartedly agreed with the sentence IF and it's a big IF the Captain had been found guilty of the first three counts, it would have been proportionate to the alleged offence(s). But the fact is that he wasn't found guilty.
We all know that it wasn't a premeditated act, it was a mistake. A mistake that led to a situation with consequences that no aircrew would ever knowingly put themselves in. I regarded the negligence charge as the minor charge in the bigger scheme of things. I have tried to get the JC tables in post #763 to reflect a guilty outcome on the Captain and cannot, whichever way I cut it.
This all leads me to conclude that the sentence passed is wholly disproportionate in a Just Culture environment and was more of a revenge sentence for the Captain being found not guilty on the integrity charges. Something stinks and the unintended consequence of this is loss of the Just Culture environment ( if, of course, it ever existed in the first place )
In this case there will always be those that sit firmly on one side of the fence or the other and the repercussions of this poorly handled incident ( from the time the Co-pilot left his seat to the time the sentence was passed yesterday ) will be felt for many years to come.
I also recall a perhaps more serious accident some years ago where a Hercules Pilot (ex mate of mine) flew very low over a truck at South Cerney airfield, hit a soldier standing on the truck and killed him. I don't think he was awarded custody and I doubt if he was as he continued to serve afterwards.
I also recall a perhaps more serious accident some years ago where a Hercules Pilot (ex mate of mine) flew very low over a truck at South Cerney airfield, hit a soldier standing on the truck and killed him. I don't think he was awarded custody and I doubt if he was as he continued to serve afterwards.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perceptions of what constitutes a really serious "beyond our control" situation are very different between the front office drivers, frequent flyers and the "SLF" sitting down the back in the cheap seats.
I have sat through prolonged turbulence knowing that we were simply bouncing along in the efflux of another jet that was a few miles ahead of us on the airway. Passengers without that knowledge tend to believe that they are on the edge of disaster and are preparing to meet their maker.
On a trans-oceanic flight we were once denied entry around 56/10 due to a defective INS and were forced to return to Heathrow. Many pax did not understand that this is a situation where nothing serious had occurred and were scrutinising every part of the interior and exterior of the aircraft to see if the pilot was in fact lying, and we were all "doomed".
When the fuel dump started from the wing tips the shouts went up "We're on fire", I was reassuring a number of pax in my area by explaining that the aircraft was simply dumping fuel to get down to landing weight. I ended up holding an old ladies hand for almost 2 hours until the wheels were back on the ground.
In the situation described in previous posts, even seasoned flyers would have been considering their options. Consequently, I am inclined to see the judgement as being appropriate to the level of fear and anguish among the passengers and crew, not just the front office, and not just the act of endangering the aircraft. I'm sad that it occurred with the pilot, who will, I am fairly sure, get over the fear a lot faster than his pax.
Finally to say that many members of the RAF and other services are as uncomfortable and fearful of flying as any who "bus" it down to Ibiza every year.
Imagegear
I have sat through prolonged turbulence knowing that we were simply bouncing along in the efflux of another jet that was a few miles ahead of us on the airway. Passengers without that knowledge tend to believe that they are on the edge of disaster and are preparing to meet their maker.
On a trans-oceanic flight we were once denied entry around 56/10 due to a defective INS and were forced to return to Heathrow. Many pax did not understand that this is a situation where nothing serious had occurred and were scrutinising every part of the interior and exterior of the aircraft to see if the pilot was in fact lying, and we were all "doomed".
When the fuel dump started from the wing tips the shouts went up "We're on fire", I was reassuring a number of pax in my area by explaining that the aircraft was simply dumping fuel to get down to landing weight. I ended up holding an old ladies hand for almost 2 hours until the wheels were back on the ground.
In the situation described in previous posts, even seasoned flyers would have been considering their options. Consequently, I am inclined to see the judgement as being appropriate to the level of fear and anguish among the passengers and crew, not just the front office, and not just the act of endangering the aircraft. I'm sad that it occurred with the pilot, who will, I am fairly sure, get over the fear a lot faster than his pax.
Finally to say that many members of the RAF and other services are as uncomfortable and fearful of flying as any who "bus" it down to Ibiza every year.
Imagegear
Oh dear, people have been using the wrong FAIR model. You need to use the Defence Aviation one in the Manual of Air Safety. See page 44:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...AS_Issue_5.pdf
Was there a conscious, substantial and unjustifiable disregard for risk?
No, but only just!
Were the rules broken intentionally?
Yes, he took a personal item of equipment onto the flight deck.
Given the condition at the time could the task been done in accordance with the rules?
Yes, he didn't need the camera.
Was the action to the benefit of the individual?
Yes, he would get some nice pictures for his personal collection.
That means under DA-FAIR it crosses the 'red line' as "Selfish Rule Breaking / Violation". If I were really hard nosed about it and answer "yes" to the first question then it would be "Recklessness".
Now the fact that he has caused permanent injury to his crew and passengers - all of which trusted their lives to his impeccable behaviour - he has to be punished. Is it too harsh? Ask those with injuries they will have to suffer from for the rest of their lives.
Sorry, but consequences always have a bearing on the level of punishment. He has been punished for what he has done - intentionally or unintentionally.
iRaven
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...AS_Issue_5.pdf
Was there a conscious, substantial and unjustifiable disregard for risk?
No, but only just!
Were the rules broken intentionally?
Yes, he took a personal item of equipment onto the flight deck.
Given the condition at the time could the task been done in accordance with the rules?
Yes, he didn't need the camera.
Was the action to the benefit of the individual?
Yes, he would get some nice pictures for his personal collection.
That means under DA-FAIR it crosses the 'red line' as "Selfish Rule Breaking / Violation". If I were really hard nosed about it and answer "yes" to the first question then it would be "Recklessness".
Now the fact that he has caused permanent injury to his crew and passengers - all of which trusted their lives to his impeccable behaviour - he has to be punished. Is it too harsh? Ask those with injuries they will have to suffer from for the rest of their lives.
Sorry, but consequences always have a bearing on the level of punishment. He has been punished for what he has done - intentionally or unintentionally.
iRaven
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpend View Post
I also recall a perhaps more serious accident some years ago where a Hercules Pilot (ex mate of mine) flew very low over a truck at South Cerney airfield, hit a soldier standing on the truck and killed him. I don't think he was awarded custody and I doubt if he was as he continued to serve afterwards.
Maybe the injustice was in that case rather than this one? Just saying.
Originally Posted by sharpend View Post
I also recall a perhaps more serious accident some years ago where a Hercules Pilot (ex mate of mine) flew very low over a truck at South Cerney airfield, hit a soldier standing on the truck and killed him. I don't think he was awarded custody and I doubt if he was as he continued to serve afterwards.
Maybe the injustice was in that case rather than this one? Just saying.
Spry; Wing Commander RAF, ..SO, ..FC*, etc. Laid to rest following a short and painful public illness.
The champion of RAF flight safety, a stalwart and foundation of operational improvement, efficiency, fairness and trust for nearly 100 years; undone in an instant.
Condolences from Pilot Officer P. Prune, T. Emm, 'Griff' the Gremlin, 'Murphy', and the Society of Just Culture.
A wake will be held at Prune Pava, home to many illustrious participants of 'wizard prangs'; no doubt there will many recollections of having 'been there' and 'done that'.
The lament should recall past successes, but through cloudy beer, the future of effective operation may be less assured.
Reporting of future events with regard to Spry will be withheld, but references to the necessary activity can be found in the publications of Reason, Dekker, Holnagel, Woods, Amalberti, which should be available at the highest levels of management (but if not, they are available on request).
The champion of RAF flight safety, a stalwart and foundation of operational improvement, efficiency, fairness and trust for nearly 100 years; undone in an instant.
Condolences from Pilot Officer P. Prune, T. Emm, 'Griff' the Gremlin, 'Murphy', and the Society of Just Culture.
A wake will be held at Prune Pava, home to many illustrious participants of 'wizard prangs'; no doubt there will many recollections of having 'been there' and 'done that'.
The lament should recall past successes, but through cloudy beer, the future of effective operation may be less assured.
Reporting of future events with regard to Spry will be withheld, but references to the necessary activity can be found in the publications of Reason, Dekker, Holnagel, Woods, Amalberti, which should be available at the highest levels of management (but if not, they are available on request).
iRaven, those last 3 posts of yours really are utter rubbish.
There was no rule about taking items of personal equipment onto the flight deck; if you read further, you might note that he was intending to use the images to illustrate a technical manual he was putting together for the benefit of others.
How you can say that Hercules pilot who decapitated the soldier through ill-disciplined and unnecessary low flying 'got away with' anything is beyond me.
There was no rule about taking items of personal equipment onto the flight deck; if you read further, you might note that he was intending to use the images to illustrate a technical manual he was putting together for the benefit of others.
How you can say that Hercules pilot who decapitated the soldier through ill-disciplined and unnecessary low flying 'got away with' anything is beyond me.
How you can say that Hercules pilot who decapitated the soldier through ill-disciplined and unnecessary low flying 'got away with' anything is beyond me.
I would have expected him to have received a severe reprimand and 2 years loss of seniority.
Incidentally how does the sentence affect his pension rights?