Voyager Plummets (Merged)
BGG
- well spotted double-oh-seven. My bad - a typo (after the pub? shurely not). He was an SAC. And, I would say, probably a bit above the normal age-range for that rank. So I don't know how long he's been raising money. I merely took him at his word. He certainly appeared genuine - and presented his ID to the landlord before starting. So I'm inclined to remain with my view that he represented the best traditions of the service.
Anyway - as I said, this is obviously thread drift, for which I apologise.
airsound
An LAC who has collected > £100K
Anyway - as I said, this is obviously thread drift, for which I apologise.
airsound
ap:-
Can I just remind you and others that he was found not guilty of the three charges relating to perjury and making false record? Now you may well know different, but since when did Military Law become mob law? The discussion since has been about the severity of the sentence passed and to why that should be. Now we find that he has successfully appealed and is no longer dismissed the Service. Let's just accept due process and put the nooses away shall we?
ATG :-
Why do you ask that? I've taken cameras onto flight decks, both civil and military. Nobody made me, and why should I want to lie about it? He was charged with not having admitted that he had jammed the controls with his camera by motoring his seat forward. He was found not guilty of that because he hadn't known that he had. As far as I know he was not charged with having taken the camera with him to the flight deck, because as far as I know that is not an offence. No doubt you are about to tell us different...
The tragedy in all this is that there would appear to have been a design fault in the pinch point between control stick and arm rest in which anything could have jammed. Has this been mitigated, or is it now simply an offence to allow this known hole to align with all the waiting other holes?
Can I just remind you and others that he was found not guilty of the three charges relating to perjury and making false record? Now you may well know different, but since when did Military Law become mob law? The discussion since has been about the severity of the sentence passed and to why that should be. Now we find that he has successfully appealed and is no longer dismissed the Service. Let's just accept due process and put the nooses away shall we?
ATG :-
Why do you ask that? I've taken cameras onto flight decks, both civil and military. Nobody made me, and why should I want to lie about it? He was charged with not having admitted that he had jammed the controls with his camera by motoring his seat forward. He was found not guilty of that because he hadn't known that he had. As far as I know he was not charged with having taken the camera with him to the flight deck, because as far as I know that is not an offence. No doubt you are about to tell us different...
The tragedy in all this is that there would appear to have been a design fault in the pinch point between control stick and arm rest in which anything could have jammed. Has this been mitigated, or is it now simply an offence to allow this known hole to align with all the waiting other holes?
He, in his experience, gave us two questions to debate and answer.
In the case above, could questions have been;
Did the pilot take into the cockpit a camera? Is this permitted to be used during flight?
Did camera cause the aircraft to plummet?
Did the pilot own up to the incident to help the investigators determine the cause saving time, money and helping the victims?
I find in today's world that honour, integrity and taking responsibility for one's actions are being hidden behind get out clauses in the legal world. Just an opinion mind.
I am not going to disagree with your view. I have recently had to take part in jury service. It wasn't a complicated case. The judge, prior to us the jury retiring, gave us a very simple precis of what he expected us to consider.
He, in his experience, gave us two questions to debate and answer.
In the case above, could questions have been;
Did the pilot take into the cockpit a camera? Is this permitted to be used during flight?
Did camera cause the aircraft to plummet?
Did the pilot own up to the incident to help the investigators determine the cause saving time, money and helping the victims?
I find in today's world that honour, integrity and taking responsibility for one's actions are being hidden behind get out clauses in the legal world. Just an opinion mind.
TN, all very reasonable questions to ask oneself, and no doubt were asked by this CM.
My guesses (as I was not there to listen to the evidence) would be:-
1. Yes and yes
2. Yes, in concert with the low setting possible for the pilot arm rest.
3. No, because he was unaware of 2.
If you start questioning honour, integrity, and taking responsibility for one's actions in today's world then fine. In this case the defendant did the latter. He pleaded guilty to negligently carrying out his duty. For that he was punished, severely in my view but that is only my view. He was not punished for lack of honour or integrity, as he was found not guilty of the three charges of perjury and making false record. Personally I would query the integrity of throwing mud at someone who has caused a serious accident by his negligence, gone through the trauma of a, to say the least, questionable SI, faced CM, pleaded guilty to his negligence, was dismissed the Service (reversed on appeal) and given a suspended custodial sentence. In my view he was poorly served by a vindictive system and is now facing mob rule by some.
If you are questioning honour, integrity, and taking responsibility for one's actions then I suggest that you start with the RAF High Command, past and present. By subverting the regulations pertaining to Air Safety, by persecuting those who would not suborn them when so ordered, by knowingly falsifying records in issuing illegal RTS's, and by putting the blame on their juniors for the resultant fatal accidents those in the past tick all your boxes. By maintaining the cover up of these illegal acts those in the present tick all mine. This SI and CM reeks of hypocrisy and bullying in my view and brings the Service into disrepute in its centenary year.
Just an opinion mind.
My guesses (as I was not there to listen to the evidence) would be:-
1. Yes and yes
2. Yes, in concert with the low setting possible for the pilot arm rest.
3. No, because he was unaware of 2.
If you start questioning honour, integrity, and taking responsibility for one's actions in today's world then fine. In this case the defendant did the latter. He pleaded guilty to negligently carrying out his duty. For that he was punished, severely in my view but that is only my view. He was not punished for lack of honour or integrity, as he was found not guilty of the three charges of perjury and making false record. Personally I would query the integrity of throwing mud at someone who has caused a serious accident by his negligence, gone through the trauma of a, to say the least, questionable SI, faced CM, pleaded guilty to his negligence, was dismissed the Service (reversed on appeal) and given a suspended custodial sentence. In my view he was poorly served by a vindictive system and is now facing mob rule by some.
If you are questioning honour, integrity, and taking responsibility for one's actions then I suggest that you start with the RAF High Command, past and present. By subverting the regulations pertaining to Air Safety, by persecuting those who would not suborn them when so ordered, by knowingly falsifying records in issuing illegal RTS's, and by putting the blame on their juniors for the resultant fatal accidents those in the past tick all your boxes. By maintaining the cover up of these illegal acts those in the present tick all mine. This SI and CM reeks of hypocrisy and bullying in my view and brings the Service into disrepute in its centenary year.
Just an opinion mind.
[QUOTE=Chugalug2;10326134]
If you start questioning honour, integrity, and taking responsibility for one's actions in today's world then fine. In this case the defendant did the latter. He pleaded guilty to negligently carrying out his duty. For that he was punished, severely in my view but that is only my view. He was not punished for lack of honour or integrity, as he was found not guilty of the three charges of perjury and making false record. Personally I would query the integrity of throwing mud at someone who has caused a serious accident by his negligence, gone through the trauma of a, to say the least, questionable SI, faced CM, pleaded guilty to his negligence, was dismissed the Service (reversed on appeal) and given a suspended custodial sentence. In my view he was poorly served by a vindictive system and is now facing mob rule by some.[QUOTE]
I am not throwing mud. Everytime either my wife or I have been on military flights we have always understood that the person flying is doing their job to the highest of standards. They are top notch pilots. Best training and well respected.
They expect us, all the support trades, to do our jobs to the highest standards as well.
I have read your posts (various threads) regarding your points in this last paragraph. I have always agreed with your stance in regards to this.
If you start questioning honour, integrity, and taking responsibility for one's actions in today's world then fine. In this case the defendant did the latter. He pleaded guilty to negligently carrying out his duty. For that he was punished, severely in my view but that is only my view. He was not punished for lack of honour or integrity, as he was found not guilty of the three charges of perjury and making false record. Personally I would query the integrity of throwing mud at someone who has caused a serious accident by his negligence, gone through the trauma of a, to say the least, questionable SI, faced CM, pleaded guilty to his negligence, was dismissed the Service (reversed on appeal) and given a suspended custodial sentence. In my view he was poorly served by a vindictive system and is now facing mob rule by some.[QUOTE]
I am not throwing mud. Everytime either my wife or I have been on military flights we have always understood that the person flying is doing their job to the highest of standards. They are top notch pilots. Best training and well respected.
They expect us, all the support trades, to do our jobs to the highest standards as well.
If you are questioning honour, integrity, and taking responsibility for one's actions then I suggest that you start with the RAF High Command, past and present. By subverting the regulations pertaining to Air Safety, by persecuting those who would not suborn them when so ordered, by knowingly falsifying records in issuing illegal RTS's, and by putting the blame on their juniors for the resultant fatal accidents those in the past tick all your boxes. By maintaining the cover up of these illegal acts those in the present tick all mine. This SI and CM reeks of hypocrisy and bullying in my view and brings the Service into disrepute in its centenary year.
Just an opinion mind.
Just an opinion mind.
This place does seem to be the last vestige of the "no blame" flight safety culture, where there's always someone else or some process to blame.
I'll simply note that on the TV piece that accompanied the closure of Headley Court, there was a piece to camera by someone e who'd broken his back in this incident. He is now permanently disabled, and all because of this pilot's actions. And that disabled individual could be living a pain-free life if the pilot had decided that taking a camera into the cockpit, and subsequently stowing it in an unauthorised stowage was a jolly good wheeze.
There is nothing 1950s about this; it's about expecting individuals to take professional responsibility, especially when placed in positions of considerable influence.
I'll simply note that on the TV piece that accompanied the closure of Headley Court, there was a piece to camera by someone e who'd broken his back in this incident. He is now permanently disabled, and all because of this pilot's actions. And that disabled individual could be living a pain-free life if the pilot had decided that taking a camera into the cockpit, and subsequently stowing it in an unauthorised stowage was a jolly good wheeze.
There is nothing 1950s about this; it's about expecting individuals to take professional responsibility, especially when placed in positions of considerable influence.
Just to keep the facts in perspective but in no way to argue the case in either direction, this flightdeck was awash with unstowed equipment that had no designated storage. Regrettably this was the case across all RAF ME aircraft and reported on numerous flight safety and accident reports on other aircraft types. This included heavy items such as weapons, ammunition, route bags, NBC equipment, body armour, helmets etc.
Whilst the recommendations to retrofit flightdecks with suitable storage were numerous, compelling and included a number of serious injuries to aircrew, the money did not follow. It should also be noted that crews were also routinely issued with cameras similar to the one used on this flight. They too had no stowage provision or warnings as to where they could or could not be placed. RAF ME crews were just supposed to get on with it but as ever, risks held higher up only ever flow down with gravity.
Again, this is just to add clarity to the debate. I am not an apologist for anyone.
The Nip, sorry to be so long replying. I have a "Not secure" warning preceding the https:// address on this page and have sought advice before posting again. One other member also has it, but it is only showing on my Edge browser with everything being normal on Chrome. It's been reported and I understand it might be an insecure link on the page somewhere. If anyone else has the same experience it would be nice to know.
I was not meaning to cast doubt on your integrity, and apologise if that was not clear. Rather I meant to criticise those who have persisted in casting doubt on that of the defendant in this case when his conviction was for negligence and for which he pleaded guilty, having been found not guilty of perjury and making false record. It is a well tried technique of the apologists, to persist with a theme despite evidence that it is wrong. They did the same with Kintyre, "They should have climbed to Safety Altitude" despite that entailing flying in Icing Conditions contrary to the (illegal) RTS.
ATG, who is calling for no blame here? The defendant himself admitted the negligence that led to this accident and for which he was convicted at CM. What more do you want? Your tale of cause and effect is clear and no-one would not sympathise with those who have suffered as a direct result of the defendant's negligence, hence the accident, hence the conviction. What more do you want? Flight Safety used to be about learning what led to an incident/accident and how to prevent a recurrence. Not any more it seems, given the shocking state of UK Military ME Flight Decks as described by JTO above. But let's not concern ourselves with all that tosh, eh? Just march the guilty bastard in!
Oh, and where in the Voyager RTS does it prohibit cameras on the Flight Deck? Only you have mentioned that, so we still await confirmation...
I was not meaning to cast doubt on your integrity, and apologise if that was not clear. Rather I meant to criticise those who have persisted in casting doubt on that of the defendant in this case when his conviction was for negligence and for which he pleaded guilty, having been found not guilty of perjury and making false record. It is a well tried technique of the apologists, to persist with a theme despite evidence that it is wrong. They did the same with Kintyre, "They should have climbed to Safety Altitude" despite that entailing flying in Icing Conditions contrary to the (illegal) RTS.
ATG, who is calling for no blame here? The defendant himself admitted the negligence that led to this accident and for which he was convicted at CM. What more do you want? Your tale of cause and effect is clear and no-one would not sympathise with those who have suffered as a direct result of the defendant's negligence, hence the accident, hence the conviction. What more do you want? Flight Safety used to be about learning what led to an incident/accident and how to prevent a recurrence. Not any more it seems, given the shocking state of UK Military ME Flight Decks as described by JTO above. But let's not concern ourselves with all that tosh, eh? Just march the guilty bastard in!
Oh, and where in the Voyager RTS does it prohibit cameras on the Flight Deck? Only you have mentioned that, so we still await confirmation...
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
The Nip, sorry to be so long replying. I have a "Not secure" warning preceding the https:// address on this page and have sought advice before posting again. One other member also has it, but it is only showing on my Edge browser with everything being normal on Chrome. It's been reported and I understand it might be an insecure link on the page somewhere. If anyone else has the same experience it would be nice to know.
Thanks for reporting it.
SD
Thanks for that SD. It certainly sets my mind at rest, and a few others perhaps. Thanks for the swift follow up.
all it is is airsound's avatar being http rather than https
It was a complete surprise to me, especially since the avatar, for which I had to pay, has been there for years. Anyway, I think it's being fixed. I hope so.
Sorry again
airsound
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point well made regarding the perjury acquittal Chugalug but not your final-paragraph conclusion that it’s all down to a design fault. No. Every aircraft ever built has a pinch-point between something and its controls. Decades of safe operation by over 1,300 other A330s plus nearly 6,000 A320 family jets with an identical “design fault” suggests this is undue loyalty on your part to the defendant.
1. Early Voyagers were known to have wiring 'issues', so an unexpected event not encountered on normal A330 family aircraft was a possibility - later shown not to be the case.
2. I do not know how much training had been given in the 'jammed sidestick' procedure, nor by whom such training was delivered nor their qualifications.
3. I do not know what SOPs were in place regarding 'one pilot off the flight deck' time or procedures. However, common sense would suggest that if there's only one pilot on the flight deck, he/she should be required to be correctly strapped-in and seated at the controls with his/her seat correctly adjusted. Quite why the co-pilot was off the flight deck for such an extended period of time is open to conjecture.
4. I do not know what SOPs existed regarding protection of the side stick from poorly placed loose articles. But again, common sense would suggest that nothing should ever be placed in such a position that it could interfere with the controls - as a US C-130 crew discovered when an NVG box jammed the control column.
5. I do not know whether guidance was given to the passengers to remain seated with their belts loosely fastened, as is normal on most airlines.
Although I would criticise the pilot for having seat in the position it was and taking photos when he was the sole flight deck occupant, I know him to be as honest as the day is long and he is most certainly not a liar. When he told me that he had no idea what caused the event and that he thought that the damage to his camera was occasioned by it being bounced around the flight deck, I certainly believed him. When he later found that it had jammed the sidestick, he was utterly distraught.
I took many a photo from the VC10 flight deck, but never when I was PF. It also went back in its bag behind my seat as soon as the photos had been taken.
The first court made its finding and I considered the sentence to be disproportionately harsh. It was rightly overturned on appeal.
Time to accept the court of appeal's finding and put this whole matter to bed, I venture to suggest.
2. I do not know how much training had been given in the 'jammed sidestick' procedure, nor by whom such training was delivered nor their qualifications.
3. I do not know what SOPs were in place regarding 'one pilot off the flight deck' time or procedures. However, common sense would suggest that if there's only one pilot on the flight deck, he/she should be required to be correctly strapped-in and seated at the controls with his/her seat correctly adjusted. Quite why the co-pilot was off the flight deck for such an extended period of time is open to conjecture.
4. I do not know what SOPs existed regarding protection of the side stick from poorly placed loose articles. But again, common sense would suggest that nothing should ever be placed in such a position that it could interfere with the controls - as a US C-130 crew discovered when an NVG box jammed the control column.
5. I do not know whether guidance was given to the passengers to remain seated with their belts loosely fastened, as is normal on most airlines.
Although I would criticise the pilot for having seat in the position it was and taking photos when he was the sole flight deck occupant, I know him to be as honest as the day is long and he is most certainly not a liar. When he told me that he had no idea what caused the event and that he thought that the damage to his camera was occasioned by it being bounced around the flight deck, I certainly believed him. When he later found that it had jammed the sidestick, he was utterly distraught.
I took many a photo from the VC10 flight deck, but never when I was PF. It also went back in its bag behind my seat as soon as the photos had been taken.
The first court made its finding and I considered the sentence to be disproportionately harsh. It was rightly overturned on appeal.
Time to accept the court of appeal's finding and put this whole matter to bed, I venture to suggest.
BEagle your loyalty does you proud as does your humility in admitting how much you don't know. However, you cannot assert that somebody is not a liar, only that he has never lied to you; you can only express a belief that he has not lied at any other time.
Fair enough, beardy, I see your point.
esscee , as I commented, were the passengers advised to follow normal airline guidance regarding seat belts? Whether the cabin staff were asked to give evidence, I do not know. Of course I feel sympathy for those who were injured either physically and/or mentally - but had they been given any guidance which would have reduced any potential risk of unexpected events?
I came back on a flight the other day from Europe and we were thrown about by turbulence from an A380 ahead. I stayed in my seat, whereas the woman in the aisle seat didn't - I was strapped in i.a.w. Lufthansa guidance, whereas she wasn't.
esscee , as I commented, were the passengers advised to follow normal airline guidance regarding seat belts? Whether the cabin staff were asked to give evidence, I do not know. Of course I feel sympathy for those who were injured either physically and/or mentally - but had they been given any guidance which would have reduced any potential risk of unexpected events?
I came back on a flight the other day from Europe and we were thrown about by turbulence from an A380 ahead. I stayed in my seat, whereas the woman in the aisle seat didn't - I was strapped in i.a.w. Lufthansa guidance, whereas she wasn't.
airsound, my PC seems to greatly approve of your improved and amended avatar, thank you. I'm sorry if I have been the cause of any public embarrassment in having pulled the PPRuNe communication chord. If I had known it was only your avatar that had caused my computer to flag up continuous warnings to me I would happily have ignored them with the contempt they deserved. As it was imagination ran riot, was I being personally targeted by the PLA or FSB? Paranoid, moi?
SO, I don't think that I said that this accident was all down to a design fault, did I? I may have suggested that a motorised seat with an arm rest that could be driven forward to create a pinch point that anything, even an en-route supplement , could be engaged by and with the same sorry result as here is yet another accident waiting to happen. If I didn't then I do now. If the RAF has seen fit to do anything about that I know not, but if airbus hasn't, if numerous worldwide Regulators haven't, then I would be greatly surprised. The MOD default is, we know, there's a problem, let's wait to see if anything happens. The default of any professional aviator should be to act instead.
I know nothing about different airbus flight decks, let alone the armrest, shelf, control stick interface. You tell me they are all identical in that regard. Fine, there will be a common fix then, if it's only to arrest forward seat movement if the armrest touches anything. Should be a doddle with all the computer thingies on board.
Not only do I know nothing about airbus flight decks, I do not know the defendant in this case either, so rather than having
I owe him no loyalty, nor he to me. There is however an old fashioned concept of right and wrong. In my mind slagging off the defendant online as a liar is wrong. Every one of us has lied at one time or another. If you know him to have lied about the events leading up to this accident then it was/is your duty to have offered yourself as a prosecution witness, or in the vernacular, put up or shut up! By "you" I mean anyone who has suggested that he lied about what happened, I do not mean anyone who hasn't suggested that. I hope that's clear enough.
SO, I don't think that I said that this accident was all down to a design fault, did I? I may have suggested that a motorised seat with an arm rest that could be driven forward to create a pinch point that anything, even an en-route supplement , could be engaged by and with the same sorry result as here is yet another accident waiting to happen. If I didn't then I do now. If the RAF has seen fit to do anything about that I know not, but if airbus hasn't, if numerous worldwide Regulators haven't, then I would be greatly surprised. The MOD default is, we know, there's a problem, let's wait to see if anything happens. The default of any professional aviator should be to act instead.
I know nothing about different airbus flight decks, let alone the armrest, shelf, control stick interface. You tell me they are all identical in that regard. Fine, there will be a common fix then, if it's only to arrest forward seat movement if the armrest touches anything. Should be a doddle with all the computer thingies on board.
Not only do I know nothing about airbus flight decks, I do not know the defendant in this case either, so rather than having
undue loyalty on your part to the defendant
Last edited by Chugalug2; 4th Dec 2018 at 20:12.
CREW RELEASED PA SOP ".............................. Ministry of defense policy is that you keep your seat belt loosely fastened whenever you are seated"..............................
If the RAF has seen fit to do anything about that I know not, but if airbus hasn't, if numerous worldwide Regulators haven't, then I would be greatly surprised.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a matter of interest, and without going into the specifics regarding this individual, what does the RAF do in a case like this, with a pilot who has made a pretty serious mistake/error of judgement, but is not dismissed from the service?
A period of retraining? Sim/CFS/QFI checkrides, and then back in the cockpit?
Posted on a ground tour?
Flying rubber dogs doo out of Hong Kong?
After all, there's been a lot of public money spent getting an individual to a squadron. Someone (many people), somewhere obviously thought that such an individual has what it takes to operate on the front line.
A period of retraining? Sim/CFS/QFI checkrides, and then back in the cockpit?
Posted on a ground tour?
Flying rubber dogs doo out of Hong Kong?
After all, there's been a lot of public money spent getting an individual to a squadron. Someone (many people), somewhere obviously thought that such an individual has what it takes to operate on the front line.
Especially if he's done the Common Purpose course.
