Martin Baker to be prosecuted over death of Flt Lt. Sean Cunningham
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,048
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
A safety critical system was being taken apart every 50 hours. By itself, that should have raised massive warning fla
Nutloose.
At one point in my EA career, I recall over rotation of Tucano and Harrier (whatever happened to them?) harness Quick Release Boxes (QRB) became a hot topic. Generated by an 'Air incident' signal the problem did not degrade the performance of the box when holding the pilot into the seat ...but, understandably, it was considered a bit disconcerting when a couple of pilots managed to do it whilst strapping in.
Against our specialist advice, the 'dark side' of the office decided to issue a PWI (a UTI in old money?) and follow up SI calling for a check of the QRBs on each BF. IIRC, the check involved the BF crew, probably the plumbers, carrying out several trial operations of the box to see if the QRB could be turned beyond the normal locked position.
From what was initially a couple of arisings, the office was suddenly faced with multiple failures and, of course, many lost sorties. The dark side swiftly handed the problem back to 'rubber and leatherware' where we established that the increase in incidents was directly related to overenthusiastic tradesmen working the box until it broke.
But we digress....
At one point in my EA career, I recall over rotation of Tucano and Harrier (whatever happened to them?) harness Quick Release Boxes (QRB) became a hot topic. Generated by an 'Air incident' signal the problem did not degrade the performance of the box when holding the pilot into the seat ...but, understandably, it was considered a bit disconcerting when a couple of pilots managed to do it whilst strapping in.
Against our specialist advice, the 'dark side' of the office decided to issue a PWI (a UTI in old money?) and follow up SI calling for a check of the QRBs on each BF. IIRC, the check involved the BF crew, probably the plumbers, carrying out several trial operations of the box to see if the QRB could be turned beyond the normal locked position.
From what was initially a couple of arisings, the office was suddenly faced with multiple failures and, of course, many lost sorties. The dark side swiftly handed the problem back to 'rubber and leatherware' where we established that the increase in incidents was directly related to overenthusiastic tradesmen working the box until it broke.
But we digress....
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OMS,
Really good post, and you raise some very good points.
I was trained to be aware of the fact that the best way to really b****r up any system was to start disturbing it. Our servicing reviews in the 80s were always aimed at extending servicing intervals wherever possible. If you DID have to make a regular check on a system, you made sure that the check was as repeatable and non-intrusive as possible. I remember the QRB saga, and can add the RN's own saga with Sea King generator issues, where the damn things were coming out every 5 minutes as the problems mounted up.
One point I'd like to make, and I'm really sorry if my various blatherings have created the wrong impression. There never was a 'golden age', in my view. (I think this phrase first cropped up in the Haddon-Cave report). In my period going through from a callow youth to the giddy heights of a Commander, I saw plenty of errors, and made more than a few myself.
I lost good friends along the way, as well.
Luckily, I usually had bosses and subordinates who were not afraid to tell me I'd cocked up, and put me right. I was also fortunate to be in the Navy, where engineers were treated as an equal part of the team, and accorded respect by aircrew (once they'd earned it, of course).
I do think I was lucky in my timing, as we had the room to make decisions at a fairly junior rank, our concise RN engineering regulations were based on the principle of telling us what we couldn't do, not what we were allowed to do. We also had larger fleets of aircraft and more bases, which gave us all a better chance of getting the requisite experience as we moved through the system. We also had quite excellent technical Civil Servants (and contractors) working with and alongside us, sharing lessons and knowledge.
Last point. Whatever the system they have to work within, 'the youth of today' are absolutely excellent. The young engineers and aircrew I encounter are simply outstanding, and deserve our respect and support as they serve their country.
Best regards as ever to all our service personnel,
Engines
Really good post, and you raise some very good points.
I was trained to be aware of the fact that the best way to really b****r up any system was to start disturbing it. Our servicing reviews in the 80s were always aimed at extending servicing intervals wherever possible. If you DID have to make a regular check on a system, you made sure that the check was as repeatable and non-intrusive as possible. I remember the QRB saga, and can add the RN's own saga with Sea King generator issues, where the damn things were coming out every 5 minutes as the problems mounted up.
One point I'd like to make, and I'm really sorry if my various blatherings have created the wrong impression. There never was a 'golden age', in my view. (I think this phrase first cropped up in the Haddon-Cave report). In my period going through from a callow youth to the giddy heights of a Commander, I saw plenty of errors, and made more than a few myself.
I lost good friends along the way, as well.
Luckily, I usually had bosses and subordinates who were not afraid to tell me I'd cocked up, and put me right. I was also fortunate to be in the Navy, where engineers were treated as an equal part of the team, and accorded respect by aircrew (once they'd earned it, of course).
I do think I was lucky in my timing, as we had the room to make decisions at a fairly junior rank, our concise RN engineering regulations were based on the principle of telling us what we couldn't do, not what we were allowed to do. We also had larger fleets of aircraft and more bases, which gave us all a better chance of getting the requisite experience as we moved through the system. We also had quite excellent technical Civil Servants (and contractors) working with and alongside us, sharing lessons and knowledge.
Last point. Whatever the system they have to work within, 'the youth of today' are absolutely excellent. The young engineers and aircrew I encounter are simply outstanding, and deserve our respect and support as they serve their country.
Best regards as ever to all our service personnel,
Engines
OMS:-
The "Golden Period", refers to the Haddon-Cave Report in which he bizarrely labelled the early 90s thus, when they were in fact the very years that the UK Military Air Safety System was being plundered, sabotaged, and rendered utterly dysfunctional by certain RAF VSOs. He then misleadingly shifted the deterioration of airworthiness provision to later years. Now how might he have got hold of that idea, when he had evidence before him as to the chronological sequence of this scandal? That the MAA uses the Haddon-Cave Report as its foundation says it all. Isn't there a parable about houses and sand?
Engines, I acknowledge the woeful behaviour of the RAF from top to bottom as highlighted by the SI and yourself in this fatal tragedy. Your pride in your own Service is understandable and commendable, but might I gently point out that the crisis in UK Military Airworthiness involves all UK Military Aircraft of whatever Service?
One of the threads on this very forum concerns the loss of seven RN aircrew in a mid-air collision between two Sea King "baggers" in poor visibility. They were fitted improperly with HISLs which had simply replaced the existing ACLs without trial, contrary to regulations. In the very conditions they were flying in the forward HISLs caused pilot glare and it was the practice therefore to switch them off, contrary to regulations. I only instance this as yet another example of when the lower orders are faced with a fait accompli from above then they have to make do as best they might. The scoundrels are those who place them in that position. The scoundrels in this scandal were RAF VSOs. Let us keep our eyes on that particular ball!
was that the "golden era" of which Tuc et al speak?
Engines, I acknowledge the woeful behaviour of the RAF from top to bottom as highlighted by the SI and yourself in this fatal tragedy. Your pride in your own Service is understandable and commendable, but might I gently point out that the crisis in UK Military Airworthiness involves all UK Military Aircraft of whatever Service?
One of the threads on this very forum concerns the loss of seven RN aircrew in a mid-air collision between two Sea King "baggers" in poor visibility. They were fitted improperly with HISLs which had simply replaced the existing ACLs without trial, contrary to regulations. In the very conditions they were flying in the forward HISLs caused pilot glare and it was the practice therefore to switch them off, contrary to regulations. I only instance this as yet another example of when the lower orders are faced with a fait accompli from above then they have to make do as best they might. The scoundrels are those who place them in that position. The scoundrels in this scandal were RAF VSOs. Let us keep our eyes on that particular ball!
Thanks Chug.
From what slow biker was saying, the run down he so graphically describes was roughly the same period (90s).
OMS
From what slow biker was saying, the run down he so graphically describes was roughly the same period (90s).
OMS
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I make an observation, no more:
I am not in any way, subtle or disguised, trying to incite anyone to do anything. I say that, not with a view to avoiding a prosecution, but simply to highlight the open nature of my question.
From my reading of this, and many other posts on similar topics, I feel there might well be a desire, indeed some benefit to be had, from..... us... as a community... as it were... moving away from discussing VSOs and the MoD as faceless entities, and actually naming the people, not the positions they held, when this series of (scandalous / treasonable / careless / reckless) acts were carried out, and indeed, commanded.
I say again, I am not suggesting that we name them on here, I am simply asking, am I the only person who thinks that we should?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"In discussion about independents with a wpns snco he ventured that to 'make sure it's done properly' he disconnects the PEC and reconnects it himself. He would not accept that by doing so he would invalidate the signatures of both the tradesman and the supervisor as well as his own."
Oh yes, there was me thinking that little dit was the property of the (ex) REME supervisor....how do you check the flying control electrical connectors for correct assembly, connection, and auto locking? You take them orf and on again yourself, Sah!!
Oh yes, there was me thinking that little dit was the property of the (ex) REME supervisor....how do you check the flying control electrical connectors for correct assembly, connection, and auto locking? You take them orf and on again yourself, Sah!!
Last edited by glad rag; 6th Mar 2018 at 23:58.
airpolice
I'd say they have been, repeatedly, on the Mull of Kintyre and Nimrod threads. Haddon-Cave praised some of them. They've been named elsewhere in print, and shortly will be again. Had he published the evidence Chug talks of, H-C would have had to name and shame them, instead of those he did.
Glad Rag
See Chinook FADEC connectors! In-flight servicing to check their security, instead of selecting the correct type/locking in the first place. Barking.
Engines. Sea King generators. Only time I've seen 24kVA generators run at 23.96; and that was with a 3rd fitted. And they complained they couldn't get more EW kit. Perhaps a 40W bulb.
...and actually naming the people, not the positions they held, when this series of (scandalous / treasonable / careless / reckless) acts were carried out, and indeed, commanded.
Glad Rag
how do you check the flying control electrical connectors for correct assembly, connection, and auto locking? You take them orf and on again yourself, Sah!!
Engines. Sea King generators. Only time I've seen 24kVA generators run at 23.96; and that was with a 3rd fitted. And they complained they couldn't get more EW kit. Perhaps a 40W bulb.
airpolice:-
It all depends on your imperatives. Mine, as well as others who post here, is the very urgent reform of UK Military Airworthiness and Air Accident Investigation in order to avoid future avoidable accidents and deaths. Even if that is achieved the UK will still be left with the mess that is the MOD, and from which this scandal erupted. That is up to the UK to resolve in its own time. Personally, I won't be holding my breath.
As tuc says, a lot of what you seek is already in (e)print. Here is a link for starters:-
and, as he added, more on its way!
I am not suggesting that we name them on here, I am simply asking, am I the only person who thinks that we should?
As tuc says, a lot of what you seek is already in (e)print. Here is a link for starters:-
and, as he added, more on its way!
airpolice:-
It all depends on your imperatives. Mine, as well as others who post here, is the very urgent reform of UK Military Airworthiness and Air Accident Investigation in order to avoid future avoidable accidents and deaths. Even if that is achieved the UK will still be left with the mess that is the MOD, and from which this scandal erupted. That is up to the UK to resolve in its own time. Personally, I won't be holding my breath.
As tuc says, a lot of what you seek is already in (e)print. Here is a link for starters:-
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Their-Great...=UTF8&qid=&sr=
and, as he added, more on its way!
It all depends on your imperatives. Mine, as well as others who post here, is the very urgent reform of UK Military Airworthiness and Air Accident Investigation in order to avoid future avoidable accidents and deaths. Even if that is achieved the UK will still be left with the mess that is the MOD, and from which this scandal erupted. That is up to the UK to resolve in its own time. Personally, I won't be holding my breath.
As tuc says, a lot of what you seek is already in (e)print. Here is a link for starters:-
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Their-Great...=UTF8&qid=&sr=
and, as he added, more on its way!
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depending on SPM (Supplies Proceeding Men) the Despatchers would ope the pack add a week link between the static line and Apex and recluse the pack without signing anything.
Dragartist made himself unpopular when he found out, insisting that the Despacther signed for the maintenance. Of course they were not Authorised to do this. Years ago they even packed the supply drop parachutes. We had several maldrops where the finger was pointed at the rag packer.
The Army Air dispatchers were just the same. Rag Packers at AFPSU would sign off and stamp up the old 28fts.
Depending on SPM (Supplies Proceeding Men) the Despatchers would ope the pack add a week link between the static line and Apex and recluse the pack without signing anything.
Dragartist made himself unpopular when he found out, insisting that the Despacther signed for the maintenance. Of course they were not Authorised to do this. Years ago they even packed the supply drop parachutes. We had several maldrops where the finger was pointed at the rag packer.
Depending on SPM (Supplies Proceeding Men) the Despatchers would ope the pack add a week link between the static line and Apex and recluse the pack without signing anything.
Dragartist made himself unpopular when he found out, insisting that the Despacther signed for the maintenance. Of course they were not Authorised to do this. Years ago they even packed the supply drop parachutes. We had several maldrops where the finger was pointed at the rag packer.
Luckily, a bright FLM (yes there were plenty of them!..bright ones I mean) prepping the jet for flight next day, queried the shiny wire where red thread should be.....
Caused a bit of a flutter in the dove coot, that one...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,048
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
Imagine if you will, a Jaguar Sqn in Germany at the height of the Cold War, Wing Commander checking out his jet finds the drogue chute disconnected behind the flaps in the headrest.... Queue the bloody SIB questioning everyone, never did get to the bottom of the how, why or sadly, possibly who!
After the accident, M-B issued SIL704, which said 'flush', not one or 1.5 thread pitches. As MoD (specifically the Service Inquiry/MAA according to the evidence) required this, why has RA4266 not been updated? Is this just applicable to Mk10B seats? To the RAF only? To all stiffnut applications?
I know that you know, but just to clarify to some that may not know...The M-B SIL is "Approved Data" and is written by the OEM giving particular information and/or instructions for a specific issue on a specified item. As such, the SIL takes precedence over any general standards and practices laid down in documents like MODs RA's or, for civil aircraft, AMM Standard Practices.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Official Transcript of the Judges remarks when passing sentence are now posted on the Judicial website and found on this link.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...t-23022018.pdf
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...t-23022018.pdf
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Official Transcript of the Judges remarks when passing sentence are now posted on the Judicial website and found on this link.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...t-23022018.pdf
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...t-23022018.pdf
How can this be right?
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The judiciary must consider and decide using all evidence presented by both prosecution and defence. Any information not presented by prosecution or defence is not evidential and must not be considered without exceptional reason.
If people wish information to be considered, it must be given to either the prosecutor or defender (who will share it if relevant).
If people wish information to be considered, it must be given to either the prosecutor or defender (who will share it if relevant).