Undoubtedly this was a very serious incident and the officer in question was clearly negligent in his actions (as per the findings of the CM) which did cause considerable damage to, the aircraft, and many injuries on board.


However, I was extremely surprised to see things like costs introduced to the summing up by the prosecution in a bid to 'bolster their argument'.


I recall a very famous incident of a wheels up landing in a hawk which not only caused considerable damage the aircraft, but did considerable damage to many cars and a control tower......


I don't think the officer was dismissed from the service (nor went to a CM), and indeed I recall a very honest self appraisal of the accident in a well known safety publication.


I think there would have been quite a sum of money involved there too?


Presumably the main thrust of the CM was based on a judgement of whether the officer in question was being dishonest about the accident? Now he's been proven not guilty on these counts, it seems that dismissing him from the service, because 'he cost us a lot of money' is cutting ones nose off to spite ones face?


We have, after all, invested a considerable amount of time and money, in this officer over many years?

It would be interesting to see where people would place the pilot IAW the Just Culture and James Reason's FAIR flow chart (first one), in use within civil and military environments:

http://www.raes-hfg.com/reports/21ma...y09-baines.pdf

Didn't see that coming!

Any news on Sqn Ldr Nathan Giles? It was alleged by pilots that Giles threatened them during interviews for the SI (having switched the tapes off). Is he really on the Voyager OCU? Is there any investigation into his alleged behaviour?

Totally shocked at that outcome

Sad, but it's probably justice had to be seen to be done . . .

Inevitable in my book. He was the captain, he was on his own, he undoubtedly caused the incident. What else could the CM say?

I have not finished reading the rest of the threads, pages 38/39, but there are loose articles and lost articles and unreported articles.

Earlier it was said that as ground crew he would expect a CM for a loose article. An unreported one, yes. Practically everything taken into a cockpit is a loose article until properly stowed.

I pointed out earlier the self-evident fact that a BA pilot had used a camera on the flight deck and that while the CM was in progress.

I think, if you check out the FAIR model a few posts up, that is supposed to encourage honesty in return for a just outcome, cost does not feature in the decision making model. I believe he was wrong, as does he by his guilty plea, but this sentence can only lead in future to outright denial of events and the closing of ranks. I think Flight Safety just took a massive step backwards.

I'm a little shocked here tbh.
If you take away the charges of perjury etc, for which he was found not guilty, then you must assume the captains version of events are true.
In his case, the negligence of duty charge is a case of an honest man who made a mistake and reported what he saw to the letter.

How does this support a just culture and encourage open reporting when someone who made a mistake and reported what he saw and did is not only thrown out of the service but given a jail sentence and a criminal record.

This frankly stinks. Had there been no accusation of perjury the consequences could well have been so different. There are plenty of incidents where mistakes have written off multi million pound aircraft and resulted in nothing more than remedial training. How is this result either fair or just.

The article or the sentence?

HQ, quite correct had the just culture the RAF promotes was followed, the FAIR model should have been included as part of the SI, and I could not get him across the red line into major disciplinary box.

That said I investigated an incident quite a while back and I was amazed at the numerous attempts by the management to try various convoluted discussions to get the person over the red line to fit the 'punishment' they had pre-determined they needed to set an example to others, not what the Just Culture ethos is about really. They did it get it right in the end.

Not really sure the IiP, (Investors in Plaques) gig is appropriate for this thread, I think this is serious sh!t, not an education officer's tick in the box.

Apologies HQ, was not trying to water down or intimate that it is not a serious matter.

I think the report says that the co-pilot did indeed do that, but as the captain believed that the autopilot had commenced the dive he was also pushing the autopilot disconnect button. As with all Airbus aircraft, once the autopilot is disconnected the same button becomes a "control override" button. So copilotpressed to overide captain, captain pressed to disconnect autopilot but actually overrode copilot, and so it went on. This stems from the captains lack of SA that the control column on his side was deflected fully forward and the autopilot disconnected.

Anyhow, this whole incident, including the SI and court martial has presented the RAF in a very bad light, and has denigrated the reputation of RAF pilots generally. I do not believe the man lied but his negligence, as he admits, caused the manoeuvre, and thus he is punished. Personally I think a bit harsh but there we go. Pour encourager les autres...

So the going rate for an inadvertent action is a prison sentence and dismissal from the Service.

Brutal.

Quite a change from the days (i.e. every day before today) where you could crash a jet, or depart it from controlled flight or land one gear up or drop a live 1000lb bomb in your mates face, or accidentally strafe a UK range with HE, or bomb the wrong island, or shut down the remaining serviceable engine, or running out of fuel, or loft your external tanks or countless other mistakes with more drastic repercussions that would go without a criminal sanction.

Bye bye military aviation.

I am going to ask again because nobody has answered it, where were this crew trained on the Voyager?Manufacturer, in-house or third party? Having read these pages and the reports it seems to me that whoever trained them gave very poor service.

Were the actions as intended?

No

Knowingly violating safe operating procedures?

Yes

Were procedures available, workable, intelligible and correct?

Yes

Routine or normative or common practice to ignore procedure?

Yes

= System induced violation

Anybody else get to the same point in the FAIR flow chart?

I completely agree with Just This Once's post (775). The punishment is not in keeping with precedent and this will make military aircrew seriously question their position and question the future of open and honest reporting and the so-called Just Culture. In my humble opinion both are now in tatters.

I know Andy having been through an OCU and served on the same Sqn on a previous type quite some years ago; I feel for him this evening.

People who were down the back end may feel justice has been done.

If it had ended up in a smoking hole we may never have known the root cause. Thankfully we do know what happened and nobody died, although some passengers/crew will will have to live with the consequences.

I have no sympathy for the Captain- he messed up and he has to now take his punishment. Sorry if that doesn't chime with you but he had a responsibility to his crew and passengers which he did not meet.

A very sorry tale and hopefully some lessons have been learnt and will be incorporated. We shall see..........

I think you are wrong about the justice bit.

Shocked.
When the sentence for coming clean is just as harsh as one might expect for perjury then all hope is lost.

So in the future it might be better to lie and have a chance of getting away with it, rather than tell the truth and get hung anyway. Sorry, but that punishment does nothing for flight safety.