Voyager Plummets (Merged)

[Shell Management]

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.

So, in such a case, we must ask what was there to fear? Was there an actual Just Culture? if not, what was the responsibility of station management and what of the expensive hired hands (those external consultants and trainers)?

[Bollotom]

Perhaps the idea of having flat and level surfaces on the flight deck should be visited and such surfaces inclined to preclude any attempts at stowing things that shouldn't be.

[Tourist]

Or, since this appears to be the only instance of this ever happening in a squillion Airbus hours, and since everybody has heard about it, don't bother?

[safetypee]

So much for a safe culture, a just culture.
The issue is not about the incident, cause, contribution, or outcome, but the underlying attitude and management process leading to a CM.
If the Capt's statements were as described, perhaps consideration of why this was so would help the management get to grips with any latent problems. Is it necessary to punish the lack of 'officer and gentleman' qualities as an example to others, or just in order to maintain or improve standards. If the situation is that poor then beware the decline in both safety and behaviour.
But there again it's much easier to blame the sharp end then reconsider the higher level policies which could have influenced behaviour.

Having suffered a double engine bird strike, where thanks to RR they continued to work until landing, the investigation found that due to the cost of replacement the incident was a major accident. Thus this officers record should be marked as having such an event.
The 'boss' said that he would not be doing that, and wrote a stiff letter to those who thought otherwise.
Do we still have this type of leadership or have the current senior positions been achieved via adapted 'officer and gentleman' behaviour, by either not saying anything or not being found out.

[downsizer]

Just to be clear, I do not know the PF, nor the circumstances surrounding the alledged CM.

However, if the PF fessed up straight away about the camera then we wouldn't be at CM stage would we, Isn't the CM to do with the fact that he didn't tell the truth straight away, as opposed to the incident itself? If he lied about what happened then IMHO it is entirely correct for him to face disciplinary action.

[Tankertrashnav]

What on earth has "officer and gentleman" behaviour got to to do with telling the truth. If (and I know nothing of the circs so I repeat if) this officer lied he should certainly be up before a court martial. But then so should an SAC who had omitted some essential bit of servicing and caused a major incident then lied about it. Integrity has nothing to do with being an "officer and a gentleman" (or indeed a lady as we now have female aircrew). It is required from all ranks

[langleybaston]

This SLF has been wondering about the " camera in the cockpit" aspect and conclude that it may have something to do with "autopilot" [whatever that is] being engaged.

When driving my car, I dont have "autopilot". I need at least one hand on the wheel, one foot on a pedal, and a continuous hazard watch. If I am caught by the police swigging a drink, eating a bun, or using a hand-held mobile I am liable, rightly, to be punished.

In my seventies I am well aware that my general driving skills have probably deteriorated. On approaching any recognisable hazard the radio [even Test Match Special] is invariably turned off. My driving is limited to about 2 hours at a time [fortunately my wife is a highly skilled driver and nav. so we do turn and turn about except she "does dark" better than I do].

So I come back to "mucking about with a camera". What has it to do with the very responsible task of captaining and flying?

"Buggerall, my Lord!" as the joke goes.

[Gary Lager]

My driving is limited to about 2 hours at a time

...and therein lies the problem.

[Shackman]

I just wonder.........

Could the fact that legal proceedings have been initiated against MoD for this incident have any bearing on the 'need' to find the captain culpably negligent or similar. Was it not the case that the crew/captain of the Mull of Kintyre Chinook being 'declared' culpably negligent by the VSOs that got MoD off the hook as far as claims by the families involved and pushed them towards the estates of said crew?
I'm not condoning the actions of the captain in this case in any way (although I do not know anything about Voyager operations or SOPs), and I may not even be right about the legal side, but ...........

[EAP86]

The legal principle is that the employer (MOD) is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees in the performance of their duties. Those involved may be named as part of an action but that is usually just a device to reinforce the linkage of the involved parties to the accident. If there is a rule in these matters, it's sue those with the deepest pockets which isn't likely to be the aircrew.

EAP

[Shell Management]

Does that liability extend to the employers of the consultants who lectured the crew on how they would be culpable for such a violation for personal gain and so encouraged a cover-up?

Of course not!

But the defence may want to call them!

[mickjoebill]

In GA accidents, one wonders if this is a reasonable explaination for any instances where cause is unknown so pilot error is given.

Numerous aerial filming accidents where a fouled control input could have been the cause, yet accident investigators don't mention it as an option.

Mickjoebill

[ShotOne]

.? But the cause isn't unknown (see previous 24 pages!)

[Al R]

Solicitors doing one final trawl - unedifying.

http://www.boltburdonkemp.co.uk/news-blogs/military-claims-blog/raf-voyager-zz333-incident-deadline-civil-claims-looms-9-february-2017-criminal-proceedings-due-start/?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=claire_withey&utm_medium=so cial&utm_term=Jan_17&utm_content=raf_voyager_zz333_incident_ deadline_civil_claims_looms_9_february_2017_criminal_proceed ings_due_start

[air pig]

The court martial has started today, report from the Telegraph.

'Bored' RAF pilot sent 187 passengers into a nosedive 'while playing with his camera'

[JFZ90]

Does this raise some wider questions about culture?

I would hope that the 99.9%/vast majority of aircrew today would fess up immediately - or is there an issue with the overarching need to be honest in these situations?

PS edited as on reflection I'm unsure specifics should be discussed

[pr00ne]

Surely it raises the question of the integrity of one specific individual?

[Nige321]

From the link above...

In an incident with disturbing links to the German Wings crash

Really?
And people wonder why layers are held in the same esteem as double glazing salesmen...

[MOSTAFA]

The Courts Martial is there to decide whether there is any guilt or not. I would certainly not comment either way until then. But what I find slightly perplexing is that the daily papers allow readers to comment! I have never seen this happen to any civilian case going through the courts because I think it is illegal, as reading said comments can supposedly sway a jury or in this case a panel.

How comes this being a Courts Martial the press are allowed to show comments - where I representing this Officer in anyway I would certainly be asking the question. Any lawyers around?

[MAD Boom]

No different to them reading the comments on here. Surely the opinions expressed here are just as likely to sway a jury, in fact you may say more so seeing as this is a 'professional' forum....