Yak 52 down Nr Boscombe 8/7/2016
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
I don't wish to get into a tit-for-tat. It would be inappropriate on a thread of this nature. Exemptions are granted, subject to certain criteria being met. For example, it is possible to pay for training in a Spitfire in the UK. All civilian Spitfires are PtF.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Bradford
Age: 54
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was in the fortunate position to have a jolly in a Spitfire for £3000 I would expect someone of Cliff Spinks reputation to be sat in the front seat and John Romain saying the aircraft is serviceable.
A world away from this mess.
A world away from this mess.
Besides the airworthiness and serviceability aspects... As someone who experienced the protracted nonsense of simple Boscombe Down tasking moving to "soft-charging", "hard-charging" and then full QinetiQ ownership, what this report emphasises is the associated fragmentation and compartmentalisation this process caused. Frankly, Boscombe staff didn't know if they were full-bored or countersunk; and the report reeks of it. The only beneficiaries were those who suddenly found themselves multi-millionaires by virtue of the position they held in DERA at the time.
This has resulted in an over-complexity of what was already a bit of a minefield. Not unlike what the MAA have created in the regulatory domain - 7 years after creation they have yet to address Haddon-Cave's central point. Failure (in fact, flat refusal) to implement perfectly good regulations. Here, the problem is failing to implement what are now labyrinthine regulations (some forced by the above sell off), with numerous examples cited of people thinking others were responsible for critical activities. We've been there before, one recent example being no one knowing who was responsible for the Hawk safety cases (Red Arrows XX177).
This has resulted in an over-complexity of what was already a bit of a minefield. Not unlike what the MAA have created in the regulatory domain - 7 years after creation they have yet to address Haddon-Cave's central point. Failure (in fact, flat refusal) to implement perfectly good regulations. Here, the problem is failing to implement what are now labyrinthine regulations (some forced by the above sell off), with numerous examples cited of people thinking others were responsible for critical activities. We've been there before, one recent example being no one knowing who was responsible for the Hawk safety cases (Red Arrows XX177).
A minor point but just read the original RAF announcement -implication throughout that this was a "civil" not Service aviation accident - brilliant bit of PR, but quite a way from the real story
The regulatory arrangements for ensuring that this aircraft was both airworthy and serviceable rests with the Civlian regulator, whether devolved or no. The regulatory arrangements for ensuring the military regulations are implemented and complied with by ETPS (or any other unit) rests with the MAA.
When Regulation is done on the cheap people die. When regulation is compromised by protecting VSO reputations people die. At least the AAIB can and will produce an objectively neutral report when published. Does this SI do likewise?
Self Regulation Does Not Work, and in Aviation It Kills!
When Regulation is done on the cheap people die. When regulation is compromised by protecting VSO reputations people die. At least the AAIB can and will produce an objectively neutral report when published. Does this SI do likewise?
Self Regulation Does Not Work, and in Aviation It Kills!
One of the report recommendations 1.4.39 b) says:
"Put in place robust measures to ensure that all ETPS personnel understand reporting requirements, when operating both ETPS fleet and third party aircraft, in order to ensure that all relevant occurrences are reported ."
Am I the only one around here who finds it highly disturbing that, of 2 ETPS tutors and several Students who flew in it, not one reported any of the obvious faults with this aircraft. What does this tell us about the airmanship of modern RAF pilots? Do they really have to be told this kind of stuff?
Having run a PtF aircraft for 10 years in a group with 2 ex RAF fast jet pilots I am afraid that it doesn't totally surprise me.
"Put in place robust measures to ensure that all ETPS personnel understand reporting requirements, when operating both ETPS fleet and third party aircraft, in order to ensure that all relevant occurrences are reported ."
Am I the only one around here who finds it highly disturbing that, of 2 ETPS tutors and several Students who flew in it, not one reported any of the obvious faults with this aircraft. What does this tell us about the airmanship of modern RAF pilots? Do they really have to be told this kind of stuff?
Having run a PtF aircraft for 10 years in a group with 2 ex RAF fast jet pilots I am afraid that it doesn't totally surprise me.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The risk assessment -ATRM has no reference to airworthiness - and that is so completely symptomatic of the paper cave that military airworthiness seems to have driven itself into.
Safety case where the data bears no relevance to the actual situation, safety case where the operational staff have no input. Pilots who routinely breach limits and do not report and an institutional approach which is about trying to absolve the regulating authority from responsibility?
Difficult to imagine things being anymore screwed up!
Or are all RAF missions undertaken in aircraft riddled with faults, where the brief is routinely ignored and there is a pile of irrelevant paper?
Safety case where the data bears no relevance to the actual situation, safety case where the operational staff have no input. Pilots who routinely breach limits and do not report and an institutional approach which is about trying to absolve the regulating authority from responsibility?
Difficult to imagine things being anymore screwed up!
Or are all RAF missions undertaken in aircraft riddled with faults, where the brief is routinely ignored and there is a pile of irrelevant paper?
Pulse1.
I guess life would be so much simpler and safer if we were all as awesome as you. I don't know you from Adam but from your one post I have just read I'm not sure we would get along very well.
BV
I guess life would be so much simpler and safer if we were all as awesome as you. I don't know you from Adam but from your one post I have just read I'm not sure we would get along very well.
BV
Join Date: May 2010
Location: the earth
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pulse 1
What a totally unnecessary and unwarranted comment. Did you actually read the report? It's quite clear what happened at ETPS, and whilst it's deeply disturbing I would venture two points.
1. The normalisation of deviance can happen in ANY organisation
2. If you bothered to read the comments before your post you'll see that every military pilot (indeed every pilot) has raised an eyebrow to this.
What a totally unnecessary and unwarranted comment. Did you actually read the report? It's quite clear what happened at ETPS, and whilst it's deeply disturbing I would venture two points.
1. The normalisation of deviance can happen in ANY organisation
2. If you bothered to read the comments before your post you'll see that every military pilot (indeed every pilot) has raised an eyebrow to this.
Last edited by AutoBit; 18th Jun 2017 at 23:51.
Pulse 1 raises an important point. Of course there are shortcomings at a local level, there were local shortcomings also in the Red Arrows tragedy that killed Flt Lt Cunningham, and in the many other airworthiness related fatal accidents featured in this forum. That is the point, when you deal a fatal blow to an Air Safety System the damage is done from top to bottom of the organisation, whether it be the issue of illegal RTS's or the lack of proper practice as here.
That fatal blow was delivered some thirty years ago, and UK Military Air Safety is still dysfunctional because of it; despite BoI's and SI's reporting on airworthiness related fatal air accidents one after the other, despite Judicial Reviews, despite the formation of the "independent" MAA, and despite VSO findings being overturned. Why? Because even now the reputations of certain old men are deemed more important than young servicemen's and women's lives. There can be no reform of UK Military Air Regulation or Air Accident Investigation until the real reasons for the systemic dysfunction of UK Military Air Safety is admitted to. Doing that requires a stop to the cover up and naming those VSO's who were responsible, and time is of the essence.
Until that happens airworthiness related fatal air accident threads will be a continuing and tragic feature of this forum.
Self Regulation Does Not Work and in Aviation it Kills!
That fatal blow was delivered some thirty years ago, and UK Military Air Safety is still dysfunctional because of it; despite BoI's and SI's reporting on airworthiness related fatal air accidents one after the other, despite Judicial Reviews, despite the formation of the "independent" MAA, and despite VSO findings being overturned. Why? Because even now the reputations of certain old men are deemed more important than young servicemen's and women's lives. There can be no reform of UK Military Air Regulation or Air Accident Investigation until the real reasons for the systemic dysfunction of UK Military Air Safety is admitted to. Doing that requires a stop to the cover up and naming those VSO's who were responsible, and time is of the essence.
Until that happens airworthiness related fatal air accident threads will be a continuing and tragic feature of this forum.
Self Regulation Does Not Work and in Aviation it Kills!
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only one around here who finds it highly disturbing that, of 2 ETPS tutors and several Students who flew in it, not one reported any of the obvious faults with this aircraft. What does this tell us about the airmanship of modern RAF pilots? Do they really have to be told this kind of stuff?
It's a bit of an assumption to relate this to what you perceive to be a lack of airmanship of RAF pilots.
Unlike a few recent posters I hope the DSA realises that the report is merely an adjunct to others stretching back many years. As Basil says, the holes were already lined up, which means previous reports had been taken in isolation.
With so many unserviceabilities, let alone anything else, surely whoever runs ETPS these days should have told the aircraft owner to "Get this lousy piece of Commie crap off my airfield NOW - and don't come back until it's fixed"?
Beagle
I agree, but as it was sub-sub-sub-contracted, it's unlikely anyone at ETPS knew who the owner was. The more obvious clue was non-English pubs, which the report implies is all they had for about 7 years. I recall many decades ago an Admiral (FOSNI) quietly asking why I was in the close vicinity of, never mind attempting to repair, a Gazelle clutch when the drawings were in French. Even though the drawings he was looking at were for a Lynx TRGB, his point was made.
I agree, but as it was sub-sub-sub-contracted, it's unlikely anyone at ETPS knew who the owner was. The more obvious clue was non-English pubs, which the report implies is all they had for about 7 years. I recall many decades ago an Admiral (FOSNI) quietly asking why I was in the close vicinity of, never mind attempting to repair, a Gazelle clutch when the drawings were in French. Even though the drawings he was looking at were for a Lynx TRGB, his point was made.
Beags & Tuc
The SI says (para 1.3.7)
According to the CAA's GINFO, that owner is Martin Jeffery Gadsby, and his address is given.
PS Ever thought of the Diplomatic Service as a career, Beags?
The SI says (para 1.3.7)
QinetiQ contracted the service through a Framework Agreement with a third party, Command Pilot Training (CPT) Ltd.... CPT Ltd further sub-contracted the service to the PIC, who sourced G-YAKB from its private owner.
PS Ever thought of the Diplomatic Service as a career, Beags?
Surely someone at ETPS knows how to establish who owns a civil registered aircraft? Or haven't they even heard of G-INFO?
Any how, whichever military person runs ETPS these days (assuming there is someone) should have told KwintyKwoo that the lousy piece of Commie crap was unfit for purpose, get rid of it and pursue the sub-sub-sub-sub contractors for frustration of contract whilst finding another more suitable aircraft.
Diplomatic Service? That would have meant dealing with cocktail party civil serpents and their brown envelope contacts, so no thanks!
Any how, whichever military person runs ETPS these days (assuming there is someone) should have told KwintyKwoo that the lousy piece of Commie crap was unfit for purpose, get rid of it and pursue the sub-sub-sub-sub contractors for frustration of contract whilst finding another more suitable aircraft.
Diplomatic Service? That would have meant dealing with cocktail party civil serpents and their brown envelope contacts, so no thanks!