Martin Baker to be prosecuted over death of Flt Lt. Sean Cunningham
From what I understand the prosecution of MB is appropriate and follows quite a few issues at that company. Somehow a halo-effect took hold around MB, its designs and its ability to honestly investigate, learn and communicate issues with the seats. Worryingly they seem to have addressed design issues with some customers whilst leaving others in the dark.
I wonder if anyone stumped up to attend the lecture about XX177 by MoD's Hawk Type Airworthiness Authority (at the time of the accident) last month at the University of Chester? He was a witness at the Inquest. Did he mention why there was no safety case report to be found? Or the impact this had on the validity of the aircraft safety case?
As an aside - and I'm no legal person - why are Martin-Baker prohibited from speaking to potential witnesses under contempt of court rules, while MoD employees are allowed to give public lectures when the case is sub judice? Even if permitted, a strange thing to do given it admitted serious offences.
As an aside - and I'm no legal person - why are Martin-Baker prohibited from speaking to potential witnesses under contempt of court rules, while MoD employees are allowed to give public lectures when the case is sub judice? Even if permitted, a strange thing to do given it admitted serious offences.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an aside - and I'm no legal person - why are Martin-Baker prohibited from speaking to potential witnesses under contempt of court rules, while MoD employees are allowed to give public lectures when the case is sub judice? Even if permitted, a strange thing to do given it admitted serious offences.
11 Although the Crown is bound by the general duties of the Act it cannot be prosecuted nor can it be served with improvement or prohibition notices (HSW Act s.48). (Though administrative sanctions, including Crown censure and Crown notices are available.) This immunity from formal enforcement applies to central government departments, and Crown bodies such as HM Prison Service, as well as to other organisations in specific circumstances, e.g. the Environment Agency when it is undertaking specific duties for the Minister. If you have any doubt about the status of an apparently 'crown' body then contact the Public Services Sector (Defence, Fire and Police Unit) for advice.
Prosecuting individuals - OC 130/08
No lawyers here who can answer my question? Is a witness at the inquest, who will be a potential witness at the court case (as Type Airworthiness Authority, presumably he had some say in the decision not to have a valid ejection seat or Hawk safety case) permitted to give lectures on the subject? Is this a form of contempt?
Last I heard, May 2017 Sky News - https://news.sky.com/story/ejector-s...death-10881378
- was that the case would open at Lincoln Crown Court on 22nd Jan 2018 - now less than two months away.
Perhaps he was practicing his speech in case he is called ? Unless they've changed their plea ??
LFH
.....................
- was that the case would open at Lincoln Crown Court on 22nd Jan 2018 - now less than two months away.
Judge John Pini QC said the trial, which is likely to last four to five weeks, will begin on 22 January at the same court.
LFH
.....................
LFH:-
If he is called it won't be to give a speech but to give evidence and face cross examination, while on oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Perhaps he was practicing his speech in case he is called ?
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Europe
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And hasn't the then SEngO been doing promotional presentations on the accident on behalf of a certain training company who it is said were actually working with the Reds on "compliance" issues BEFORE the ejection??
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc, looking at this fellas credentials I wonder how he was considered by his superiors as SQEP?
I have no doubt that they are having difficulty filling positions.
Another point: he would have had to get his presentation cleared prior to delivery to the RAeS. When I gave a presentation I had to have a synopsis approved prior to completion. Then all my slides had to be approved. They needed a great deal of notice and only just made it, having had to chase them a few times. All the rules were set out in a DIN.
Still the rules keep changing. I have been gone six years. I guess these days folks are allowed to log on to xhamster at ABW without fear of dismissal.
I have no doubt that they are having difficulty filling positions.
Another point: he would have had to get his presentation cleared prior to delivery to the RAeS. When I gave a presentation I had to have a synopsis approved prior to completion. Then all my slides had to be approved. They needed a great deal of notice and only just made it, having had to chase them a few times. All the rules were set out in a DIN.
Still the rules keep changing. I have been gone six years. I guess these days folks are allowed to log on to xhamster at ABW without fear of dismissal.
Dragartist
I'm not sure there even is a definition for SQEP. I know there is for 'inexperience'; at least in my field. One has to have (successfully) managed (not just worked on) at least 125 projects to be even considered for promotion to PPTO/UG7/B2. I know this because my MP once raised this during the Nimrod case (as Haddon-Cave noted the safety manager was not SQEP). MoD declined to say how many staff satisfied this criteria. I have an opinion. And it is not very high.
I'm not sure there even is a definition for SQEP. I know there is for 'inexperience'; at least in my field. One has to have (successfully) managed (not just worked on) at least 125 projects to be even considered for promotion to PPTO/UG7/B2. I know this because my MP once raised this during the Nimrod case (as Haddon-Cave noted the safety manager was not SQEP). MoD declined to say how many staff satisfied this criteria. I have an opinion. And it is not very high.
As for project management within defence procurement being SQEP - please don't make me laugh any more!
One could take this further and ask what the background was of those who notified and were ignored. One would find they are what most here would look for in a SQEP. This applies to both projects and the deaths Chug refers to. While I disagree with the above 125 successful projects criteria, someone must have considered it reasonable and attainable.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most of us would agree pba, I think it a little unfair to throw people in to the deep end. I was led into things gently with small projects with suitable mentors. Although I hated it at the time, being moved out of aircraft Office into the equipment office, I realised afterwards that it was part of the grooming process to come back to head the aircraft office. Don’t believe I could list 125 projects to my name but I did receive recognition for a good number.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Faversham
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Never Fretter....the point you make is? A spot of training solves what is likely to be ingrained issues that go back many years? Most of these issues are not training problems...most drivers are trained yet choose to use their mobiles!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ready to Depart
Age: 45
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was at the Chester lecture. Alan O'Connor was at pains to report only on publicly available information, rather than give opinion or new information. It was an excellent presentation, humble particularly due to his own role within the system, and cemented for me my decision not to return to flying (or indeed anything else) with the RAF Air Cadets.
Whilst MB have their part to play in the death of SC, they will end up taking the public flack for an event (or series of events) that lead up to the shackle not releasing that had very little to do with them. It'll be a useful smokescreen for hiding why he ended up at 100' AGL in the first place.
Whilst MB have their part to play in the death of SC, they will end up taking the public flack for an event (or series of events) that lead up to the shackle not releasing that had very little to do with them. It'll be a useful smokescreen for hiding why he ended up at 100' AGL in the first place.
Thank you Dusty B. I think the point is that the 'publicly available' information (i.e. MoD's version) is full of holes. Did he mention the serious offences admitted in the SI report? Primarily, a series of false declarations about and within the Aircraft Document Set which the Type Airworthiness Authority would be party to, or certainly be expected to spot at a casual glance.
We all know that at a certain level people just sign papers thrust under their noses. But if asked to put my name to a legally binding document saying I have personally assured myself there is a valid safety case, I'd expect said safety case report to be attached. Indeed, a certified copy in the filing cabinet closest to hand. One's 2 Star has to assess the top ten risks every month. Here, 'can't find safety case report for ejection seat' would be #1, so what on earth was said at these reviews? That 2 Star has a lot to answer for.
I'd be interested to know what part M-B is thought to have played. There was a suggestion that, in 1990, they didn't disseminate a technical bulletin; but whoever wrote that hadn't bothered to read MoD's own regulations. Assuming the company don't roll over to preserve relations, I suspect MoD will be asked some pretty embarrassing questions.
Pity the court case was delayed. It wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes had Judge Haddon-Cave sat, as originally planned. No safety case? Directed verdict and early lunch. Anything else and he'd have looked foolish.
We all know that at a certain level people just sign papers thrust under their noses. But if asked to put my name to a legally binding document saying I have personally assured myself there is a valid safety case, I'd expect said safety case report to be attached. Indeed, a certified copy in the filing cabinet closest to hand. One's 2 Star has to assess the top ten risks every month. Here, 'can't find safety case report for ejection seat' would be #1, so what on earth was said at these reviews? That 2 Star has a lot to answer for.
I'd be interested to know what part M-B is thought to have played. There was a suggestion that, in 1990, they didn't disseminate a technical bulletin; but whoever wrote that hadn't bothered to read MoD's own regulations. Assuming the company don't roll over to preserve relations, I suspect MoD will be asked some pretty embarrassing questions.
Pity the court case was delayed. It wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes had Judge Haddon-Cave sat, as originally planned. No safety case? Directed verdict and early lunch. Anything else and he'd have looked foolish.
...court case...wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes had Judge Haddon-Cave sat, as originally planned
I'm sure you're not suggesting another conspiracy theory, whereby the learned judge's absence from the trial had anything to do with the fiendishly cunning MoD....?
Or are you? (oooer missus)
airsound
