Voyager Plummets (Merged)
Don't know about the A330 but other side-stick Airbus aircraft I've flown had a specific note in the FCOM not to leave objects in the vicinity of the side stick. I would suggest that to leave a bulky object there in contravention of manufacturer advice may be more than careless.
TTN
I agree with you. In past incidents it was normally a banishment to Ascot Ops for a
few years.
If the cost of the incident/accident ( as raised by the CM prosecution ) is now be
part of the equation - "Gawd 'elp" anybody who bends an F35.
I agree with you. In past incidents it was normally a banishment to Ascot Ops for a
few years.
If the cost of the incident/accident ( as raised by the CM prosecution ) is now be
part of the equation - "Gawd 'elp" anybody who bends an F35.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And no, "grounding him" wasn't good enough: we're paying £++ to fly, that's the only reason he had a job in the RAF - taking his wage down by 2 increment points and then letting him sit on his arse doing nothing doesn't strike me as reasonable. It sounds like a reward frankly.
Has anyone seen the sentencing notes from the CM yet or are we all still basing our opinions on what was reported in the mainstream media? (Including me)
TTN
It looks like you missed the preceding word "implied". 
iRaven
Quote:
"how very dare you he is multi-engine Captain with 5,000hrs, don't you know?
Would you care to give a link or just a post number where anybody on here has said anything of the sort?
Quote:
"how very dare you he is multi-engine Captain with 5,000hrs, don't you know?
Would you care to give a link or just a post number where anybody on here has said anything of the sort?
Quote:
iRaven
ATG:-
He's a Flt Lt, ergo he is a JO. As to the PAS business, you make it sound as though he might just as well be a contracted-out civvie by your job description. He is primarily an officer (that's the "O" bit in JO!), as are all commissioned aircrew. It sounds to me as though the RAF is cutting its nose to spite its face. Perhaps though it is attempting to save the face of the RAF Star Chamber rather than that of the Royal Air Force. They are two very different things. The job of the Royal Air Force is to exert Air Power on behalf of the United Kingdom. The job of the Star Chamber is to protect past and present VSOs from the consequences of their actions (be they illegal orders or gross incompetence) by;
a). Covering them up for as long as is possible and,
b). Finding scapegoats amongst those of 1* and below (often well below!) and,
c). Diverting attention by creating contentious situations such as in this case. If we are busy arguing about the rights and wrongs of this sentence then we are not wondering about the overall leadership of the RAF (or lack of it!).
But he's not a Junior Officer; as we've been told before, he's got 30+ years of experience as an Officer.
a). Covering them up for as long as is possible and,
b). Finding scapegoats amongst those of 1* and below (often well below!) and,
c). Diverting attention by creating contentious situations such as in this case. If we are busy arguing about the rights and wrongs of this sentence then we are not wondering about the overall leadership of the RAF (or lack of it!).
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I served with a timing serving pilot JO who, having applied to PVR I presume, was grounded and posted to an ops slot on a distant station with a different role. It was not a happy arrangement for all concerned.
Once someone has 'left' the Air Force or the Air Force rejected them, the civilian black bin bag is probably the better outcome for all.
Once someone has 'left' the Air Force or the Air Force rejected them, the civilian black bin bag is probably the better outcome for all.
ATG:-
He's a Flt Lt, ergo he is a JO. As to the PAS business, you make it sound as though he might just as well be a contracted-out civvie by your job description. He is primarily an officer (that's the "O" bit in JO!), as are all commissioned aircrew. It sounds to me as though the RAF is cutting its nose to spite its face. Perhaps though it is attempting to save the face of the RAF Star Chamber rather than that of the Royal Air Force. They are two very different things. The job of the Royal Air Force is to exert Air Power on behalf of the United Kingdom. The job of the Star Chamber is to protect past and present VSOs from the consequences of their actions (be they illegal orders or gross incompetence) by;
a). Covering them up for as long as is possible and,
b). Finding scapegoats amongst those of 1* and below (often well below!) and,
c). Diverting attention by creating contentious situations such as in this case. If we are busy arguing about the rights and wrongs of this sentence then we are not wondering about the overall leadership of the RAF (or lack of it!).
He's a Flt Lt, ergo he is a JO. As to the PAS business, you make it sound as though he might just as well be a contracted-out civvie by your job description. He is primarily an officer (that's the "O" bit in JO!), as are all commissioned aircrew. It sounds to me as though the RAF is cutting its nose to spite its face. Perhaps though it is attempting to save the face of the RAF Star Chamber rather than that of the Royal Air Force. They are two very different things. The job of the Royal Air Force is to exert Air Power on behalf of the United Kingdom. The job of the Star Chamber is to protect past and present VSOs from the consequences of their actions (be they illegal orders or gross incompetence) by;
a). Covering them up for as long as is possible and,
b). Finding scapegoats amongst those of 1* and below (often well below!) and,
c). Diverting attention by creating contentious situations such as in this case. If we are busy arguing about the rights and wrongs of this sentence then we are not wondering about the overall leadership of the RAF (or lack of it!).
I know full well that as a Flt Lt he is a "Junior Officer", drawn from the fact that the RFC followed the Army traditions of Field Officers etc. He is not, however junior; he might or might not be a Officer. I'll be honest, most of the PAS/FTC(A) Aircrew I've met are entirely happy to just fly, and whinge mightly if presented with anything outside of that, cf Fitness Test threads and OOA deployment threads passim on here.
Whilst I admire your continued vendetta against your self-described "Star Chamber", every post you make that doesn't acknowledge what AT did was wrong and deserved to be punished diminishes any kind of argument you may or may not have against the process. With 30+ years of experience in the cockpit, it is not excusable to blame a poorly written or incomplete RTS for the fact he took a camera into his cockpit and then didn't take charge of it during a period he should have been even more aware of his actions. If he'd been an Air Cadet, then perhaps the Just Culture would've provided a different outcome, but he's not.
I've been interacting with both the MAA and Defence Accident Board recently, and neither seem particularly vindictive, if anything, the former is frustratingly risk averse.
As for RAF VSOs, they seem significantly more people focused than my own Service, and I rather envy them. I've worked alongside FJ, RW and ME flightcrew in the last 6 months, and they were all good people, led by solid Officers.
tl;dr - stop making excuses for a man who should've know better and has been punished for his mistake.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Closer than you think...
Age: 65
Posts: 390
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tucumseh
Always a Sapper
The answer is in Alfred the Great's earlier post....
Quote:
In knowingly taken an article not on the RTS into the cockpit
One must be able to reconcile the Statement of Operating Intent and Usage, Aircraft Specification, Safety Case and RTS. In this case, you couldn't. According to previous reporting, it seems this subject came up in court, because he stated that it was known he took photographs, and some were on open display. Perhaps he concluded there was tacit approval; and it would seem nobody challenged him. After all, very few Aircraft Document Sets can be reconciled, and many RTSs are, frankly, nonsense. It works both ways. There is a duty to ensure the ADS is correct. At the risk of repeating myself, we have discussed many here that were not, including Chinook Mk2 and Sea King ASaC (the latter was a lazy copy of the old AEW Mk2, to such an extent it could be characterised as dangerous). There is an organisational fault here, and the pilot is the latest victim. He may have erred, but prior negligence occurred, only for the pilot to be hammered for the final act.
The answer is in Alfred the Great's earlier post....
Quote:
In knowingly taken an article not on the RTS into the cockpit
One must be able to reconcile the Statement of Operating Intent and Usage, Aircraft Specification, Safety Case and RTS. In this case, you couldn't. According to previous reporting, it seems this subject came up in court, because he stated that it was known he took photographs, and some were on open display. Perhaps he concluded there was tacit approval; and it would seem nobody challenged him. After all, very few Aircraft Document Sets can be reconciled, and many RTSs are, frankly, nonsense. It works both ways. There is a duty to ensure the ADS is correct. At the risk of repeating myself, we have discussed many here that were not, including Chinook Mk2 and Sea King ASaC (the latter was a lazy copy of the old AEW Mk2, to such an extent it could be characterised as dangerous). There is an organisational fault here, and the pilot is the latest victim. He may have erred, but prior negligence occurred, only for the pilot to be hammered for the final act.
Thank you for your answer and I can see your reasoning. But my original question wasn't aimed at the Pilot although I struggle to see why he took the camera into the cockpit to take pictures for a manual as stated in the thread above in the first place, surely that was an exercise that could have been achieved with the aircraft on the ground and in a place where he could apply 100% of his attention on getting the right pictures or while the second pilot was flying the aircraft.
At the end of the day the only reason he was there in the first place was to fly the aircraft from point A to point B in a safe manner, while applying 100% of his attention to that task, not playing David Bailey or write a tech manual. And he was also the Captain of the Aircraft to boot so more responsibility and possibly a reason why no one questioned him?
But then what do I know as mere SLF who has in the past on many occasions trusted the flight crew to get me from one place to another in one piece while putting their complete and undivided attention to the task in hand while doing it and no doubt will do so again in the future on the civilian airlines... I, along with every other person on the aircraft trust them to do it and to be perfectly honest the trust in their training, competence and professional ability to do so is generally so great that we actually don't really worry about it (apart from when someone is stood at the end of the cabin waving their arms about and reading the 'actions on' sheet).
It's a historical fact that the whole sorry incident was caused by an object getting jammed between the seat arm and the control, that it was a camera and whether it was appropriate for it to have been in the cockpit in the first place is neither here nor there in so far as my original question.
Question was (and I trust this was considered by the BoI/Manufacturer etc and hope that it's not considered stupid by the learned audience present) why was, what is in hindsight an obvious pinch point between the seat arm and the control stick ever allowed to exist in the first place when it could have so easily been designed out?
Lets be honest here, there's probably more items than a loose camera being brought into a cockpit that have a far more valid reason to be there and could have accidently got jammed in the same place with similar consequences.
Always a Sapper
I confess I know nothing about the aircraft in question. Alfred the great brought up the subject of what the RTS permits, and I was pointing out that, while important, the RTS is one of a number of reference documents that must be reconcilable. At various stages of development, Design Reviews are held and Hazard Logs populated. During this mandated process (which the MAA/MoD is completely ambivalent about, having ruled that such Reviews can be waived, full payment made, and false record made that they were conducted satisfactorily), issues such as “carry on equipment”, their use and their stowage are addressed. Trying to place myself in the designer’s shoes, it may well be that a Review mentioned the potential for a loose article to jam the control. In a way, it is no different to tool control. The design cannot stop, with certainty, a maintainer leaving a tool behind. One develops procedures and training to prevent it.
One would assess the risk, and mitigation may range from complete redesign to putting a line in the RTS saying “No carry on equipment”. MoD would tend toward the latter – and I mentioned the fact that this general subject was raised at the Courts Martial, because the pilot referred to his photographic work being openly publicised.
My question is, therefore, was he actively prohibited from carrying a camera? If he was, then he’s been a silly boy; but there remains an element of supervisory error (which may be the point he was making). If he is not prohibited, say by an error of omission in the RTS or other breakdown earlier in the process, then one must ask what training was given on stowage. I suspect a proper investigation would reveal a few gaps here. MoD is unlikely to have sanctioned such an investigation, and the pilot would not have the wherewithal to have it carried out.
A comparison was made with forks. There is quite a difference, not least if the offending camera is electrically driven. But that “simply” changes the impact score in the risk assessment, and would necessitate testing to assess impact. Again showing my age and ignorance, I wonder at the degree of “read across” granted from the civilian version of this aircraft.
My point, and concern, is that the pilot may indeed have committed a relatively minor offence; but lacking an official record of the proceedings, we cannot know what was entered in evidence, or used as a defence. His solicitor is unlikely to be competent in the above matters. The other cases we discuss here, where infinitely worse gross negligence, perjury, lying and making false record have occurred, teach us one thing. As a junior officer he had little or no chance of a fair trial.
I confess I know nothing about the aircraft in question. Alfred the great brought up the subject of what the RTS permits, and I was pointing out that, while important, the RTS is one of a number of reference documents that must be reconcilable. At various stages of development, Design Reviews are held and Hazard Logs populated. During this mandated process (which the MAA/MoD is completely ambivalent about, having ruled that such Reviews can be waived, full payment made, and false record made that they were conducted satisfactorily), issues such as “carry on equipment”, their use and their stowage are addressed. Trying to place myself in the designer’s shoes, it may well be that a Review mentioned the potential for a loose article to jam the control. In a way, it is no different to tool control. The design cannot stop, with certainty, a maintainer leaving a tool behind. One develops procedures and training to prevent it.
One would assess the risk, and mitigation may range from complete redesign to putting a line in the RTS saying “No carry on equipment”. MoD would tend toward the latter – and I mentioned the fact that this general subject was raised at the Courts Martial, because the pilot referred to his photographic work being openly publicised.
My question is, therefore, was he actively prohibited from carrying a camera? If he was, then he’s been a silly boy; but there remains an element of supervisory error (which may be the point he was making). If he is not prohibited, say by an error of omission in the RTS or other breakdown earlier in the process, then one must ask what training was given on stowage. I suspect a proper investigation would reveal a few gaps here. MoD is unlikely to have sanctioned such an investigation, and the pilot would not have the wherewithal to have it carried out.
A comparison was made with forks. There is quite a difference, not least if the offending camera is electrically driven. But that “simply” changes the impact score in the risk assessment, and would necessitate testing to assess impact. Again showing my age and ignorance, I wonder at the degree of “read across” granted from the civilian version of this aircraft.
My point, and concern, is that the pilot may indeed have committed a relatively minor offence; but lacking an official record of the proceedings, we cannot know what was entered in evidence, or used as a defence. His solicitor is unlikely to be competent in the above matters. The other cases we discuss here, where infinitely worse gross negligence, perjury, lying and making false record have occurred, teach us one thing. As a junior officer he had little or no chance of a fair trial.
Last edited by tucumseh; 5th Mar 2017 at 11:50.
Alfred the Great. A perfect summation of forty odd pages!
As an aside, a lot seems to have been made of the captain's 30 years of service and his 5000 hours of experience. He must have had a lot of ground tours
.
As an aside, a lot seems to have been made of the captain's 30 years of service and his 5000 hours of experience. He must have had a lot of ground tours
.
then what do I know as mere SLF who has in the past on many occasions trusted the flight crew to get me from one place to another in one piece while putting their complete and undivided attention to the task in hand while doing it and no doubt will do so again in the future on the civilian airlines...
If you think both pilots on your holiday flight are somehow different to RAF ones and always sit bolt upright, manfully/womanfully giving the operation their complete and undivided attention throughout the sector you might be dissapointed!!!
I'll leave the issue of punishment out of this but IMHO the PIC wasn't doing anything that thousands of commercial (and possibly) military pilots have done over the years...the problem was for him on that flight the holes in the cheese lined up.
ATG:-
Glasshouses and stones, old boy, glasshouses and stones! qv:-
He pleaded guilty himself to the charge for which he was sentenced. In doing so he accepts that he should be punished. If he didn't then he should have pleaded Not Guilty as he did for the other two charges, otherwise he has been very silly (to quote tuc). I am neither against the process (by which I assume that you mean of Military Justice) nor against punishment, I'm just against this punishment.
It seems that everything that happened was accidental, no criminal forethought present whatsoever. It seems he was not contravening any direct orders about cameras and Flight Decks either, other than generic ones about loose articles (although I bet the FOB is bursting with them now!).
I'm glad to hear that your impression of our VSO's people skills is so favourable. As to your comments of those of your own Service, you may well say that, but I couldn't possibly comment! 
. It isn't their people skills that concerns me, it is the concerted cover up of past VSO actions that stands in the way of Air Safety reform. Unless and until the RAF comes clean about the attack on UK Military Air Safety by its own VSOs during H-C's so called "Golden Period", then the need to place the Air Regulator (MAA) and Air Accident Investigator (MilAAIB or whatever it's called this week) outwith the MOD and independent of each other is obscured.
Now, let's all try to keep it nice and polite, boys and girls, shall we?
oh what bollocks, frankly.
every post you make that doesn't acknowledge what AT did was wrong and deserved to be punished diminishes any kind of argument you may or may not have against the process.
It seems that everything that happened was accidental, no criminal forethought present whatsoever. It seems he was not contravening any direct orders about cameras and Flight Decks either, other than generic ones about loose articles (although I bet the FOB is bursting with them now!).
As for RAF VSOs, they seem significantly more people focused than my own Service, and I rather envy them.
. It isn't their people skills that concerns me, it is the concerted cover up of past VSO actions that stands in the way of Air Safety reform. Unless and until the RAF comes clean about the attack on UK Military Air Safety by its own VSOs during H-C's so called "Golden Period", then the need to place the Air Regulator (MAA) and Air Accident Investigator (MilAAIB or whatever it's called this week) outwith the MOD and independent of each other is obscured.Now, let's all try to keep it nice and polite, boys and girls, shall we?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,810
Received 136 Likes
on
64 Posts
Both pilots had their feet propped up on the instrument panel. An RT call from Italian ATC told them to re-route via "Point Bravo" [of which there must be thousands!]. An Upper Airways chart was produced, which didn't actually have too many labels on various intersections of the Upper Air Routes. The Captain and FO looked at the map, and the Captain said "It's probably that intersection there", and adjusted the autopilot to point us at "Point Bravo" [possibly].
I decided that flying Air Malta in the future was not on my personal agenda.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
MPN, similarly a Britannia captain and check captain landed at Luqa. Their destination, Fontarosa had diverted them to Pantelleria but they didn't know where it was.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,810
Received 136 Likes
on
64 Posts
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Many civil pilots carry cameras, but they are usually in the flight bag (or used to be, when I was carrying one), and are put back there at the end of use.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought...
I haven't read every single post so this may have been covered.
The pilot in question has been discharged from the Service... However, and I am merely playing devils advocate here, this may have been a win/win for the RAF and him. If I was in his shoes I doubt I would wish to remain in the RAF; the RAF want to ensure justice has been served. So, if he wishes to leave ASAP to ensure everything is behind him then he has a quick way out. Straight away the entire sorry saga disappears without the shame of going back to his unit and always being 'that guy'. He can get on with his life without being put on a horrendous ground tour doing something like (ironically) writing aircrew manuals or SFSO somewhere random like
Syerston.
From the RAF point of view I think after an appeal his sentence will probably be changed and he will be allowed to remain in the Service. Regardless of the final outcome, people in the wider military will only remember the initial verdict and its implications for their integrity; objective achieved from the RAF point of view. It sounds awfully like there is something that we are all missing.
Just my tuppence worth...
The pilot in question has been discharged from the Service... However, and I am merely playing devils advocate here, this may have been a win/win for the RAF and him. If I was in his shoes I doubt I would wish to remain in the RAF; the RAF want to ensure justice has been served. So, if he wishes to leave ASAP to ensure everything is behind him then he has a quick way out. Straight away the entire sorry saga disappears without the shame of going back to his unit and always being 'that guy'. He can get on with his life without being put on a horrendous ground tour doing something like (ironically) writing aircrew manuals or SFSO somewhere random like
Syerston.
From the RAF point of view I think after an appeal his sentence will probably be changed and he will be allowed to remain in the Service. Regardless of the final outcome, people in the wider military will only remember the initial verdict and its implications for their integrity; objective achieved from the RAF point of view. It sounds awfully like there is something that we are all missing.
Just my tuppence worth...