Voyager Plummets (Merged)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Treble one,
I don't consider a Tornado GR1/4 as a "pointy" thing, its just a mud mover.
Any way, he could not be CAS as be has too much flying experience! Even be much of it gained while taking photographs, and not seated correctly as PIC of an aircraft.
I was so pleased to hear that RAF pilots are able to persuit their hobbies whilst earning the "Queens Shilling".
I don't consider a Tornado GR1/4 as a "pointy" thing, its just a mud mover.
Any way, he could not be CAS as be has too much flying experience! Even be much of it gained while taking photographs, and not seated correctly as PIC of an aircraft.
I was so pleased to hear that RAF pilots are able to persuit their hobbies whilst earning the "Queens Shilling".
What if it had been a cup that jammed the controls, from his recently consumed cup of tea? Or even a ‘Silver Chock’ publication? And the Captain had no idea?
Would this trial have finished any differently?
Would this trial have finished any differently?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“I don’t think I said this accident was down to a design fault..”. Er, you did actually, Chug. And your suggested fix hasn’t been deemed necessary by the regulatory authorities of the thousands of Airbuses that have clocked up squillions of flight hours over the last thirty-odd years.
“I don’t think I said this accident was down to a design fault..”. Er, you did actually, Chug. And your suggested fix hasn’t been deemed necessary by the regulatory authorities of the thousands of Airbuses that have clocked up squillions of flight hours over the last thirty-odd years.
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.
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?
It was you who stated that there is an identical pinch point on other airbus aircraft. If that is the case then common sense would suggest that some form of mitigation be introduced on all such common types. My suggestion of a touch sensitive pad on the end of the armrest was only one of any number of possible common sense solutions. Restricting the depth to which the arm rest can be lowered is another. I remain convinced that this issue has been considered and mitigation sought, if not by the RAF then by others. I said previously that I would be greatly surprised if that were not case, only to have a response from itsnotthatbloodyhard:-
Prepare to be greatly surprised.
Maybe more awareness is needed! Why place your camera (if really required!!) in this position! Surely we must know our aircraft and any "limitations" (for want of a better word) that apply to them? Maybe I am being old-fashioned but, in my opinion (and only mine!), this incident should never have occured!
Bill
Bill
Bill, absolutely agree that it should never have happened, but it did, and it was an accident rather than an incident. Of course the camera shouldn't have been there but in a safe stowage, which I presume to be the pilot's nav bag. Loose articles, like FOD, are as old as aviation itself and it is a constant battle to contain both. Part of that battle is to protect the more vulnerable areas that they can effect. We could have lost this aircraft and all who were onboard. As it is some were injured, a few very seriously. We owe it to them to ensure that it never happens again. If the DS solution is simply harsh treatment then memories of that soon fade and the gremlins are ready to strike again. So something more permanent is required, or history will repeat itself, or God forbid even worse!
We were both around when Flight Safety was once a central pillar of the Royal Air Force. Its purpose was to avoid avoidable accidents, just like this one, principally by trying to avoid them in the first place, or failing that by making sure that everything be done to try to avoid a repeat. By reducing the number of accidents you preserve both aircraft and aircrew, and hence Air Power. Both men and machines were far more plentiful in our time, though it was just as wasteful to lose either of them unnecessarily. It seems that simple common sense attitude has changed somewhat and not for the best. If that is old fashioned then that makes two of us!
We were both around when Flight Safety was once a central pillar of the Royal Air Force. Its purpose was to avoid avoidable accidents, just like this one, principally by trying to avoid them in the first place, or failing that by making sure that everything be done to try to avoid a repeat. By reducing the number of accidents you preserve both aircraft and aircrew, and hence Air Power. Both men and machines were far more plentiful in our time, though it was just as wasteful to lose either of them unnecessarily. It seems that simple common sense attitude has changed somewhat and not for the best. If that is old fashioned then that makes two of us!
You previously claimed to “know nothing about different airbus flight decks, let alone the armrest, shelf, control stick interface”, and this is evident in suggestions like ‘restricting the depth to which the armrest can be lowered.’ (FWIW, with the armrest assembly in my preferred position, there’s about 10mm clearance between it and the horizontal surface below. Any significant depth restriction would render the entire arrangement unusable.) The fact is that the ‘shelf’ extends for probably less than 10 cm behind the stick, and I suspect it would never occur to most people to even try to place anything like a camera on it. While a touchpad-activated cutout might be nice, I think the practical solution here is going to involve education (and common sense).
I think the practical solution here is going to involve education (and common sense).
intbh:-
Well it occurred to one person that we know of and, given the squillions of flight hours the design has been exposed to claimed by ShotOne, it's a pound to a penny that it's occurred to others as well. With the 10cm pinch point that you claim is practically unchangeable then education is an obvious starting point, I agree.
I would also back that up by a visual reminder that the sidestick shelf is a no-no area to place absolutely anything on. The international conventionally recognised way of indicating that is by black and yellow hachured markings. Whether Airbus would be prepared to issue such a recommendation to all A330 and A320 family operators and thus draw attention to this Achilles heel in its design is a matter of conjecture, but the UK regulators (ie CAA and MAA) should certainly consider it, don't you agree?
Ah, just been pipped at the post by Beagle, with whom I find I am in violent agreement.
The fact is that the ‘shelf’ extends for probably less than 10 cm behind the stick, and I suspect it would never occur to most people to even try to place anything like a camera on it.
I would also back that up by a visual reminder that the sidestick shelf is a no-no area to place absolutely anything on. The international conventionally recognised way of indicating that is by black and yellow hachured markings. Whether Airbus would be prepared to issue such a recommendation to all A330 and A320 family operators and thus draw attention to this Achilles heel in its design is a matter of conjecture, but the UK regulators (ie CAA and MAA) should certainly consider it, don't you agree?
Ah, just been pipped at the post by Beagle, with whom I find I am in violent agreement.
You have consistently and correctly lambasted air safety in the RAF and those responsible.
I would also back that up by a visual reminder that the sidestick shelf is a no-no area to place absolutely anything on. The international conventionally recognised way of indicating that is by black and yellow hachured markings. Whether Airbus would be prepared to issue such a recommendation to all A330 and A320 family operators and thus draw attention to this Achilles heel in its design is a matter of conjecture, but the UK regulators (ie CAA and MAA) should certainly consider it, don't you agree?
Ah, just been pipped at the post by Beagle, with whom I find I am in violent agreement.
Ah, just been pipped at the post by Beagle, with whom I find I am in violent agreement.
INTBH, your PPRuNe ID is very appropriate for the harmony that Beagle, yourself, and I seem to have reached. It wasn't so bloody hard after all, was it? 
That was all I was seeking in my previous posts, a workable mitigation that would serve to help avoid a repetition of this avoidable accident.
Yes, TN, it was an accident and not an incident, you are right. I certainly hold those who are responsible for UK Military Air Safety as responsible for the lack of it, who else?
The very basis of your post, that the accident could not happen, either then or in the future, were it not for one particular individual is flawed. It would seem to be the basis for the CM sentence too, ie remove that man from the Service and the accident by definition cannot recur. That theory is flawed too. That is why we need to look beyond this man and his negligence. That is why some form of preventative action is needed, such as the suggestion in the preceding posts. Classic Flight Safety!
That was all I was seeking in my previous posts, a workable mitigation that would serve to help avoid a repetition of this avoidable accident.
Yes, TN, it was an accident and not an incident, you are right. I certainly hold those who are responsible for UK Military Air Safety as responsible for the lack of it, who else?
The very basis of your post, that the accident could not happen, either then or in the future, were it not for one particular individual is flawed. It would seem to be the basis for the CM sentence too, ie remove that man from the Service and the accident by definition cannot recur. That theory is flawed too. That is why we need to look beyond this man and his negligence. That is why some form of preventative action is needed, such as the suggestion in the preceding posts. Classic Flight Safety!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 10th Dec 2018 at 10:35. Reason: Words, dear boy, words
The report describes how a visit to the flightdeck by a purser prompted the 'storage' of the camera. That to me indicates a distraction, and in such cases people's minds often revert to ingrained behaviour. If you've spent many hours on flightdecks where the controls are positioned front and centre, the area next to your seat has for many years been a safe area to quickly store whatever needs storing. The action of putting down the camera may well have been one of those automatic actions that your mind may not fully remember afterwards. Yes, as flight crew we should all be very aware of all the things that happen on our flight decks, but still, I'm sure all of us have examples like this in our experience where at least part of the decision was made by our built-in autopilot. It is very sad that it turned out the way it did, but I'm just saying that at the time, the action of that one person was not something that occurred to him as a good idea, but something that, for the automatic part of his brain, appeared as a logical and sensible thing to do. And the rational part of his brain that should have screamed was distracted by something else.
I agree too by the way: designating that area as a 'sterile area' with some sort of visual reminder would be a good idea. For many it may not appear to be necessary, but if we can prevent just one more accident like this, the lesson will have been useful.
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.
Injuries are reclassified all the time, especially with spinal injuries, such as the one experienced by the co-pilot. Some of the head and neck injuries were also significant and mental health issues usually take a while to manifest themselves.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Back in Blighty
Age: 73
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really did not wish to join in this debate, but...
I have taken all sorts of stuff into a cockpit, and thankfully never jammed anything. The sterile area painting is an obvious good idea.
I do not know the pilot. I have not followed the CM proceedings, or the verdicts. I am 'old school'. It was a cock-up!
As Captain, or indeed as Co, if I was in control I was never in a position where I needed to move the seat to safely fly the aircraft manually.
Loss of pension etc & dismissed the service is harsh, but that is what I would have expected.
Ray
I have taken all sorts of stuff into a cockpit, and thankfully never jammed anything. The sterile area painting is an obvious good idea.
I do not know the pilot. I have not followed the CM proceedings, or the verdicts. I am 'old school'. It was a cock-up!
As Captain, or indeed as Co, if I was in control I was never in a position where I needed to move the seat to safely fly the aircraft manually.
Loss of pension etc & dismissed the service is harsh, but that is what I would have expected.
Ray
Last edited by 50+Ray; 11th Dec 2018 at 15:12. Reason: I did not write dog-up, but you get the gist
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s astonishing to still be reading of “Achilles heels and design flaws” at this stage. Far from flawed, the area around the sidestick is a model of safe design. Bizarrely, Chugalug bets us a pound to a penny this has happened many times before. Seriously? ..and the passengers and crew all chose to keep quiet about their roller-coaster rides?
Only half a speed-brake
What happened exactly as if the sole occupant would slide the seat back, take pictures, then let his massive DLSR hang down from neck in front of the lower belly and moved forward, back into the proper position.
FD, I'll take it that you make your point seriously and it's not a sardonic attempt at humour. The defendant was convicted of negligence for which he had pleaded guilty, rightly in my view and I suspect most here would agree, though the CM Sentence is perhaps another matter. His camera was a loose article and it should have been stowed when not being used, presumably in his Flight Bag for which I again presume there is a stowage space in the Voyager, given its A330 equivalent. It was his negligence in not having safely stowed it that hazarded his aircraft and all aboard. In the scenario that you describe the camera would also be unstowed and also a potential loose article.
On 29.11.95 The Director of Flight Safety notified the Chief Engineer and ACAS of problems relating to camera stowage, and how to manage this hazard. It would seem his recommendations were ignored, forgotten, or not read across to all aircraft. So can it be said that the Regulatory Authority had a grip on matters?
Oh it wasn't serious? Well it bloody well should have been! We could easily be looking at the worst UK Military Fatal Air Accident thread yet!
ShotOne, your habit of misquoting me has one slight flaw, people can go back to the post you ostensibly quote only to find you have (again!) misquoted. To save them the trouble I quote you and myself (again!) :-
You,
Me,
In which by occurred I mean using the side stick shelf as a...well, shelf! I didn't say that it has led to the same result as in this case, now did I? I merely suggest that it could have done, that this is a swiss cheese hole that needs plugging, and that marking the shelf in such a way as to positively discourage putting anything on it might well accomplish that..
I don't know what your problem is. Mine is that the hue and cry for this defendant rather obscures the eternal lesson of all aircraft accidents, that it can happen again unless mitigating action is taken to render that less likely.
On 29.11.95 The Director of Flight Safety notified the Chief Engineer and ACAS of problems relating to camera stowage, and how to manage this hazard. It would seem his recommendations were ignored, forgotten, or not read across to all aircraft. So can it be said that the Regulatory Authority had a grip on matters?
Oh it wasn't serious? Well it bloody well should have been! We could easily be looking at the worst UK Military Fatal Air Accident thread yet!
ShotOne, your habit of misquoting me has one slight flaw, people can go back to the post you ostensibly quote only to find you have (again!) misquoted. To save them the trouble I quote you and myself (again!) :-
You,
Bizarrely, Chugalug bets us a pound to a penny this has happened many times before. Seriously? ..and the passengers and crew all chose to keep quiet about their roller-coaster rides?
Well it occurred to one person that we know of and, given the squillions of flight hours the design has been exposed to claimed by ShotOne, it's a pound to a penny that it's occurred to others as well.
I don't know what your problem is. Mine is that the hue and cry for this defendant rather obscures the eternal lesson of all aircraft accidents, that it can happen again unless mitigating action is taken to render that less likely.