Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Voyager Plummets (Merged)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Voyager Plummets (Merged)

Old 27th Mar 2015, 20:40
  #421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If by "backed up in the report", Dan, you're implying it clears the Captain on this point, that's simply not the case. Findings, Part 2 detail the extensive simulator tests in which they were unable to free the camera without physical manipulation which could only have been applied by the Captain. Also the DFDR trace shows a series of small lateral sidestick inputs the moment before it came free accompanied by the words "ok ok ok, ok" from the Captain.

Clearly you know and have a high regard for this fellow but good guys do sometimes make mistakes.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 07:16
  #422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely, if the Capt. Had any doubt about what had happened, the mighty dent on his camera would have given him a clue?

Poor show all round.
AtomKraft is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 15:17
  #423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
.. thread creep. Wasn't one of the popular theories surrounding the Tu144 crash near Paris, that the strap of the co-pilot's camera snagged on, and accidentally engaged a trim switch resulting in a loss of control?
Al R is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2015, 00:39
  #424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,779
Received 75 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by ShotOne
If by "backed up in the report", Dan, you're implying it clears the Captain on this point, that's simply not the case. Findings, Part 2 detail the extensive simulator tests in which they were unable to free the camera without physical manipulation which could only have been applied by the Captain. Also the DFDR trace shows a series of small lateral sidestick inputs the moment before it came free accompanied by the words "ok ok ok, ok" from the Captain.
I think all that makes a heavy inference that the captain did remove the camera, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he would remember doing so when interviewed later. Just imagine what was going on in his head: he'd been at near-zero mental stimulation for a while, and suddenly his enormous new Airbus is bunting over, the co-pilot is climbing in on the ceiling and his sidestick appears stuck fast. I know we pay and train pilots to stay calm, but such a set of circumstances is so far out of the expected that I would not be surprised if he was in full-blown raging panic. I probably would have been too!

Once intense panic has subsided, it's quite possible for memory of the occurrence to be sketchy or even non-existent (I'm sure some of us have been there in other walks of life) and the brain does a very good job at filling in the gaps with stuff that it thinks would make sense, which may bear little relation to what actually happened. The psychologist on the inquiry panel would inevitably have advised the President of this phenomenon, which might introduce enough doubt to prevent any firm finding of dishonesty.
Easy Street is online now  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 14:36
  #425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think all that makes a heavy inference that the captain did remove the camera, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he would remember doing so when interviewed later. Just imagine what was going on in his head: he'd been at near-zero mental stimulation for a while, and suddenly his enormous new Airbus is bunting over, the co-pilot is climbing in on the ceiling and his sidestick appears stuck fast. I know we pay and train pilots to stay calm, but such a set of circumstances is so far out of the expected that I would not be surprised if he was in full-blown raging panic. I probably would have been too!

Once intense panic has subsided, it's quite possible for memory of the occurrence to be sketchy or even non-existent (I'm sure some of us have been there in other walks of life) and the brain does a very good job at filling in the gaps with stuff that it thinks would make sense, which may bear little relation to what actually happened. The psychologist on the inquiry panel would inevitably have advised the President of this phenomenon, which might introduce enough doubt to prevent any firm finding of dishonesty.
Another example of today's culture of "explaining away" rather than apportioning blame or responsibility of any sort.
I thought the captain's actions were some of the worst examples of airmanship and professionalism I have come across in a long time.
Good to see he is still in the RAF though - I would not want to see him anywhere near the flightdeck of a civil aircraft.
Mushroom_2 is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 21:28
  #426 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,779
Received 75 Likes on 34 Posts
That's not what I was trying to say... the incident is clearly the captain's fault since he put the camera there, although the purpose of the SI is not to apportion blame (that would be done via another means, not released to the public). My post was addressing the question of whether the captain was being wilfully dishonest with the inquiry panel by (apparently) not owning up to what he had done and thereby causing the fleet to be unnecessarily grounded, as was inferred by an earlier post. And my point was that his alleged dishonesty might not have actually been wilful.
Easy Street is online now  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 22:19
  #427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,929
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
Good to see he is still in the RAF though - I would not want to see him anywhere near the flightdeck of a civil aircraft.
Of course there are no civil pilots out there that, take photographs from the cockpit, flying aircraft with side stick controllers are there?

Oh yes, of course there are! As the numerous "view from the cockpit" type albums all over the Internet will attest. Perhaps they are more careful. Perhaps they use their iPads, or have slimline cameras. Or perhaps they've just been lucky!
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2015, 12:05
  #428 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Of course there are no civil pilots out there that, take photographs from the cockpit, flying aircraft with side stick controllers are there?
Yes there are. An Airbus flight deck has been my office for the last 15 years and in that time I have taken numerous photos with different devices from the flight deck. The difference is I haven't been stupid enough (yet) to put my camera down behind the s/stick when there are plenty of other places to put it. Like behind the steering yoke, the bin beside you or your nav bag.

Even so, if you are stupid enough to place it where he did, you motor the seat forward, the aircraft starts a dive, the autopilot drops out (not that he noticed!) and no thought to glance at the base of the s/stick.
Give me a break.
Mushroom_2 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2015, 16:45
  #429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK, sometimes
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Having seen the article in Flight, I have just had a quick scan through the full report. All I can say is the whole event seems quite amazing, let alone the camera issue.
A few that spring to mind are:
  • Flight authorised 2 days before the trip! And then the authoriser could not be contacted when there was an issue (1 less cabin crew)
  • Lack of knowledge of en-route diversions - I know you aren't able to know everywhere you can land, but a military aircraft flying over many countries, you might think it is something that would have been thought about. 500nm is quite a way to go.
  • If the Captain was alone in the cockpit, why wasn't his seat in the correct position to be able to control the aircraft?
Anyway, thankfully the aircraft helped them in this case...
Hyds Out is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2016, 21:49
  #430 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Soldiers sue Ministry of Defence after aircraft plunged 4,400ft | Daily Mail Online

Soldiers are suing the Ministry of Defence after their military aircraft plummeted 4,400ft when the pilot’s camera got stuck.A civil servant and nine soldiers claim they suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder after the incident as they flew to Afghanistan from the UK in February 2014.
They were amongst 200 passengers on the Voyager, which was flying at 33,000ft over the Black Sea when the captain’s camera became wedged against the jet’s controls.

Blah blah blah....

It is understood that the captain, who has not been named, will appear before a court martial in February on perjury and negligence charges.
SirPeterHardingsLovechild is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2016, 09:12
  #431 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm just SLF but have an interest in aviation human/machine interaction so read a lot of reports to try and get insight into why people do certain things - and one thing here terrifies me from the report.

1.4.51 e - "the captain initially considered switching off the ADIRUs to put the craft into direct law"

My understanding of that would have disabled the airbus protections that effectively saved the aircraft - so would have resulted in a full and sustained nose down because of the jammed forward side stick. I don't know at what point aircraft start to break up, but I can't see a happy ending if he did that. Wasn't there a recent event where similar happened, captain pulled out the breakers to "reset a system", ended up in direct law and also impacting with the ocean as a result?

But the thought process behind that fascinates me. Do pilots have such little trust in the automatics that disabling it as a first troubleshooting factor is instinctive? Is this lack of training, lack of competence, all of the above - or is it just that human's don't react as expected in high stress situations - and stuff like this is hard to train to make instinctive.
Snyggapa is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2016, 10:00
  #432 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Snyggapa

If the captain (incorrectly) believed that the problem was that the aircraft was doing things without his input, then turning off the automatics and giving him unfiltered control would/might be a sensible option.

The fact that with hindsight this might have been disastrous is beside the point. If the problem presents itself as being an automation problem, then considering losing automation is not stupid.


The rest of his actions.......
Tourist is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2016, 10:12
  #433 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: near an airplane
Posts: 2,764
Received 46 Likes on 37 Posts
The amount of trust a pilot has in automatics depends a lot on his/her experience. Years of flying Airbuses will most likely breed more trust in the computers than you will get from years of flying 60s/70s types with sometimes unreliable automation. Also people have a tendency to revert back to what they were taught first, which for any pilot will be a simple control system without any computers.
Jhieminga is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2016, 12:13
  #434 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,231
Received 49 Likes on 18 Posts
PTSD? From soldiers who probably spent a lot more time being shot at?

Why are the words 'ambulance' and 'chaser' circulating in my mind atthe moment?
Martin the Martian is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2016, 13:15
  #435 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 44
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
I don't think its ambulance chasing at all -being in the back of a plane doing something unexpected can be terrifying. I've had two incidents in my life - first was in Basra, in the back of a Merlin where clearly something unpleasant was going on outside, involving a lot of diving around the sky at night and flares going off (and I flew often enough to understand difference between routine flares and normal jogging and sense that something wasn't right). This left me shaken, not due to the crew, but the circumstances and not knowing what was going on.

Second one was last year on a Virgin aircraft flying NYC - LHR, where without warning mid atlantic, during a meal service we descended so severely for about 30 seconds that we had to hold on to the cabin crew to stop them flying down the aisles. No explanation offered after we levelled out, nor seatbelt signs on. It was genuinely frightening as the crew themselves began to look and sound worried.

In the latter circumstance, for several months after, and to a degree even now, I found myself feeling very uncomfortable when it felt as if the plane was doing 'something it shouldnt'.

So, yes, I can easily sympathise with those who by all accounts had a deeply unpleasant experience. Whether they should sue or not is a different issue.
Jimlad1 is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2016, 13:53
  #436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 607
Received 10 Likes on 7 Posts
Surely in any aeroplane, if it starts an abrupt uncommanded change of attitude you'd instinctively place your hands on or very near to the flying controls. If the aircraft initiates an aggressive pitch-down you'd have a quick glance at your IAS and, provided you're well away from the stall, you'd apply a suitable nose-up pitch command. If that didn't work (and assuming the stick actually moved) then perhaps you might now start to fault diagnose. If the stick didn't move, then that would hopefully initiate an alternative plan!
H Peacock is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2016, 19:25
  #437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'll take my chances with small arms, RPG, IED etc etc. I have a vague degree of control over what I do and what happens. What I don't like is the circumstances and facts behind this incident. So yes, I can see why people are taking legal action.
rock34 is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2016, 00:52
  #438 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,874
Received 60 Likes on 18 Posts
If you allow negligence or plain stupidity to occur and it's proven as such, damn right you're going to get hit by "ambulance chasers". It will be interesting to see (if the stated CM takes place) whether this will be viewed as a personal versus an organizational liability.
Two's in is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2016, 02:12
  #439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Indeed. The whole affair also makes the RAF look like a bunch of c**ks. (Said as an ex-RAF man).
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2016, 08:45
  #440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What he said. Grossly unprofessional. (Also ex-RAF man)
Brian W May is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.