Voyager Plummets (Merged)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Met a guy that was in the back of "that flight", seemed like a decent genuine guy. They REALLY thought they were going to die, the way he tells it had me very sweaty indeed. I felt sorry for him, honestly thought he was going to be sick....I'm afraid that there seems to be a case to answer, the circumstances behind the "dive" are staggering. A lot people could have perished. I'm sure that things have been put in place to ensure this won't happen in future. Fair play the the crew for avoiding complete catastrophe though.
Met a guy that was in the back of "that flight", seemed like a decent genuine guy. They REALLY thought they were going to die, the way he tells it had me very sweaty indeed. I felt sorry for him, honestly thought he was going to be sick....I'm afraid that there seems to be a case to answer, the circumstances behind the "dive" are staggering. A lot people could have perished. I'm sure that things have been put in place to ensure this won't happen in future. Fair play to the crew for avoiding complete catastrophe though
The credit goes to the aircraft, from what I've read of the incident
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“In July 2011, Baines Simmons completed a Safety Diagnostic Survey at Royal Air Force Brize Norton. Through the use of questionnaires, computer surveys and individual interviews, Baines Simmons compiled a very detailed
and accurate snap-shot of the cultures, attitudes and processes
that were in place at the time.
‘While our gap analysis had identified many of the same issues, the report enabled us to direct our resources more effectively and target those areas that most needed our attention. This process led to an overall increase in effectiveness of our Safety Management System as evidenced by a very positive recent audit by the MAA.” - Group Captain D A Stamp, MA
RAF
http://www.bainessimmons.com/wp-cont...Consulting.pdf
The plummet was 2 years 7 months later. Perhaps they should ask for their money back.
and accurate snap-shot of the cultures, attitudes and processes
that were in place at the time.
‘While our gap analysis had identified many of the same issues, the report enabled us to direct our resources more effectively and target those areas that most needed our attention. This process led to an overall increase in effectiveness of our Safety Management System as evidenced by a very positive recent audit by the MAA.” - Group Captain D A Stamp, MA
RAF
Baines Simmons made 21 recommendations as relative risk levels were assessed and benchmarked by location.
The report findings were summarised under five key themes:
1. Hazard reporting and investigation
2. Policy disconnects
3. Knowledge and awareness issues
4. Risk-taking behaviour
5. Capability inhibitors
The report findings were summarised under five key themes:
1. Hazard reporting and investigation
2. Policy disconnects
3. Knowledge and awareness issues
4. Risk-taking behaviour
5. Capability inhibitors
The plummet was 2 years 7 months later. Perhaps they should ask for their money back.
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As with all Airbus A/C, the two side-sticks are not linked (meaning moving one will not move the other), so the A/C instead uses a system of "side-stick priority" to determine which input to act upon in the event of simultaneous stick inputs.
So, assuming the captain had side-stick priority, then any inputs by the co-pilot would have been ignored, as the jammed camera was making a constant input on the captain's side-stick. If the co-pilot had pushed his own side-stick priority button, then he would have been able to pull the A/C out of the dive, allowing the captain to retract his seat and cease the input on his side-stick.
I know it's easy to say from an armchair, but I'm amazed that neither the captain nor co-pilot apparently thought to do that.
So, assuming the captain had side-stick priority, then any inputs by the co-pilot would have been ignored, as the jammed camera was making a constant input on the captain's side-stick. If the co-pilot had pushed his own side-stick priority button, then he would have been able to pull the A/C out of the dive, allowing the captain to retract his seat and cease the input on his side-stick.
I know it's easy to say from an armchair, but I'm amazed that neither the captain nor co-pilot apparently thought to do that.
As SLF and an ex-Met Man, I am totally convinced that flying an aeroplane is more difficult than driving a car. My two pennorth for what it is worth.
When I was given informal advice on advanced driving and defensive driving by an army professional, he said his mantra as he stepped into a car was "I am going to make this the best drive of my life". I try to remember to do this, and it does help to avoid the "how did I get from home to here?" that can occur after a routine brain-dead uneventful drive.
With the best will in the world, drivers and aircrew will make mistakes: **** happens.
But to add to the risk-load by mucking about with a camera in either mode of transport is grossly unprofessional, and to attempt to shed some responsibility is grossly dishonest in my opinion.
When I was given informal advice on advanced driving and defensive driving by an army professional, he said his mantra as he stepped into a car was "I am going to make this the best drive of my life". I try to remember to do this, and it does help to avoid the "how did I get from home to here?" that can occur after a routine brain-dead uneventful drive.
With the best will in the world, drivers and aircrew will make mistakes: **** happens.
But to add to the risk-load by mucking about with a camera in either mode of transport is grossly unprofessional, and to attempt to shed some responsibility is grossly dishonest in my opinion.
Regarding the side-stick priority issue, it should be remembered that the overall experience level of the RAF's Voyager aircrew was quite low at the time.
I presume that the (unlikely) case of a jammed side-stick was covered during training?
Given the amount of kit that the aircrew were obliged to take with them at the time, which was FAR more than that required by an airline crew, one wonders what guidance (or SOP) was in place concerning the placing of unrestrained objects in the vicinity of the side-stick...
As for 'mucking about' with a camera, dear weather-guesser, that's rather an unpleasant slur to cast...
I presume that the (unlikely) case of a jammed side-stick was covered during training?
Given the amount of kit that the aircrew were obliged to take with them at the time, which was FAR more than that required by an airline crew, one wonders what guidance (or SOP) was in place concerning the placing of unrestrained objects in the vicinity of the side-stick...
As for 'mucking about' with a camera, dear weather-guesser, that's rather an unpleasant slur to cast...
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for 'mucking about' with a camera, dear weather-guesser, that's rather an unpleasant slur to cast...
Mine used to sit in my NavBag and as an FE, I had a nice desk.
As with all Airbus A/C, the two side-sticks are not linked (meaning moving one will not move the other), so the A/C instead uses a system of "side-stick priority" to determine which input to act upon in the event of simultaneous stick inputs.
So, assuming the captain had side-stick priority, then any inputs by the co-pilot would have been ignored, as the jammed camera was making a constant input on the captain's side-stick. If the co-pilot had pushed his own side-stick priority button, then he would have been able to pull the A/C out of the dive, allowing the captain to retract his seat and cease the input on his side-stick.
I know it's easy to say from an armchair, but I'm amazed that neither the captain nor co-pilot apparently thought to do that.
So, assuming the captain had side-stick priority, then any inputs by the co-pilot would have been ignored, as the jammed camera was making a constant input on the captain's side-stick. If the co-pilot had pushed his own side-stick priority button, then he would have been able to pull the A/C out of the dive, allowing the captain to retract his seat and cease the input on his side-stick.
I know it's easy to say from an armchair, but I'm amazed that neither the captain nor co-pilot apparently thought to do that.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Oz
Age: 62
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
While your loyalty is admirable, I feel that you do your friend an injustice.
Having been in aviation long enough to realize that this, and most other incidents, have an element of "there by the grace of God" his lack of OQs and apparent gross misconduct in the subsequent enquiry is inexcusable.
While your loyalty is admirable, I feel that you do your friend an injustice.
Having been in aviation long enough to realize that this, and most other incidents, have an element of "there by the grace of God" his lack of OQs and apparent gross misconduct in the subsequent enquiry is inexcusable.
Last edited by yoyonow; 17th Aug 2016 at 18:25.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the sidesticks aren't connected, that's not quite the whole picture since in normal operation the system sums the inputs; full up on one stick and full down on the other produces level flight (and also a "dual input" callout and a letter from the flight safety dept!) HP90's right to say that if the FO had pressed his takeover button it would have given him full control. But if the Capt subsequently pressed his, his sidestick regains authority.
Whoever resuscitated this thread from last year said the Capt "faces a court martial and perjury charges". Is this the case?
Whoever resuscitated this thread from last year said the Capt "faces a court martial and perjury charges". Is this the case?
QUOTE:
Given the amount of kit that the aircrew were obliged to take with them at the time, which was FAR more than that required by an airline crew, one wonders what guidance (or SOP) was in place concerning the placing of unrestrained objects in the vicinity of the side-stick...
They need guidance? Sheesh!
Given the amount of kit that the aircrew were obliged to take with them at the time, which was FAR more than that required by an airline crew, one wonders what guidance (or SOP) was in place concerning the placing of unrestrained objects in the vicinity of the side-stick...
They need guidance? Sheesh!
ShotOne asked
Actually, that allegation came from the Völkischer Beobachter, aka the Daily Mail...
And yes, weather-guesser, although some pilots of large aeroplanes have a somewhat cavalier attitude to loose articles (e.g. the 'shiny Ten' pilots who used to leave pens on the centre console which could easily have obstructed the throttles or speedbrake lever...), if there's a location significantly at risk, it should perhaps be marked as such and placarded 'No objects to be placed in the marked area' or similar.
As that sadly fatal US C-130J accident showed, flight deck flying controls must never be compromised by arse looticles.
Isn't that still taught these days?
Whoever resuscitated this thread from last year said the Capt "faces a court martial and perjury charges". Is this the case?
And yes, weather-guesser, although some pilots of large aeroplanes have a somewhat cavalier attitude to loose articles (e.g. the 'shiny Ten' pilots who used to leave pens on the centre console which could easily have obstructed the throttles or speedbrake lever...), if there's a location significantly at risk, it should perhaps be marked as such and placarded 'No objects to be placed in the marked area' or similar.
As that sadly fatal US C-130J accident showed, flight deck flying controls must never be compromised by arse looticles.
Isn't that still taught these days?
As for 'mucking about' with a camera, dear weather-guesser, that's rather an unpleasant slur to cast...
Trying to defend the indefensible...
It will be for others to determine whether there were SOPs in place to cover 'pilot off the flight deck' procedures and whether those were obeyed. There certainly were in VC10K days - but there wasn't anything like the level of automation reliability in our old coal-fired 4-jets that there is in the Voyager.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, assuming the captain had side-stick priority, then any inputs by the co-pilot would have been ignored, as the jammed camera was making a constant input on the captain's side-stick. If the co-pilot had pushed his own side-stick priority button, then he would have been able to pull the A/C out of the dive, allowing the captain to retract his seat and cease the input on his side-stick.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Turks and Cacos
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The captain lied and tried to cover up his mistake and for that he should be punished. Can't really see a reason to debate. It's not the mistake that's punishable it's the attempt at cover up that sucks.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I understand, if the copilot was in his seat it would have been a simple, almost non-event. pull back would sum the inputs to level (one full down the other full up), computer shouting at you for dual inputs. Then press button, take control , work out what went wrong
As it was the co-pilot wasn't there to take control, he was out of the cockpit and had to crawl back in on the ceiling due to negative G and by the time he managed to get near his controls the airbus had decided by itself that this was a "bad thing" and brought nose up / power down meaning some kind of return to normality.
there seemed to be a determined attempt to remove slices of the swiss cheese here though:
That is stupid and maybe unprofessional but a lesson that can be learned from. if indeed he then tried to cover all this up, that's a crime in my eyes.
As it was the co-pilot wasn't there to take control, he was out of the cockpit and had to crawl back in on the ceiling due to negative G and by the time he managed to get near his controls the airbus had decided by itself that this was a "bad thing" and brought nose up / power down meaning some kind of return to normality.
there seemed to be a determined attempt to remove slices of the swiss cheese here though:
- so pilot alone in cockpit for extended period
- alone pilot bored
- alone pilot decides to relieve boredom by getting out camera and taking pictures
- pilot possibly interrupted taking pictures by the purser and puts camera down in inappropriate position
That is stupid and maybe unprofessional but a lesson that can be learned from. if indeed he then tried to cover all this up, that's a crime in my eyes.