Originally Posted by agoodgrouping

Why is that self-regulating organisations only learn things are wrong AFTER the event, where were their control checks BEFORE the crash ?

I wonder if they would have been so gung-ho if a senior officer and not a young Inf Pte had been a passenger ? Probably not.

A couple of points. If you include 'humans' in a system, then you introduce uncertainty. You can mitigate and reduce, but you can't eliminate if you have humans in a system.

Also - there were more than just one passenger on board. It doesn't detract from the sad loss of life, but if you are being so anal about other aspects of this incident......

Originally Posted by The-Lord-Flasheart

Originally Posted by Bubbles_Barker

So what's to stop the aircrew just gettting it wrong? Without all the 'excuses' beforehand?. Surely there are 'events' where the pilot/crew' have simply been knobs? Nothing personal but I know lots of RAF and AAC pilots and they all admit to being knobs occasionally - but they survived. Actually, if I was to stop flying on the basis if the pilots being knobs then .......Christ! - no flying

Yep true but the whole system is designed to reduce the risk of the pilot getting it wrong. Training, currency, supervision, correct authorisation, correct crew composition etc etc. We have fewer accidents when all those pieces are applied correctly. We've learnt from experience of sifting through lots of smoking holes in the ground. This is why our (the UK MoDs) accident rate is one of the lowest in the world.

We've all been knobs but for the grace of god its just been a pant filler as opposed to a kit form helicopter spread over several grid squares. After action review tends to help one learn why one was a knob and hopefully prevents it from becoming a habit.

Don't disagree Flashie, but individual responsibilty cannot and should not be disregarded

Odo

Originally Posted by Mr_C_Hinecap

A couple of points. If you include 'humans' in a system, then you introduce uncertainty. You can mitigate and reduce, but you can't eliminate if you have humans in a system.

Also - there were more than just one passenger on board. It doesn't detract from the sad loss of life, but if you are being so anal about other aspects of this incident......

A couple of points. If you include 'humans' in a system, then you introduce uncertainty. You can mitigate and reduce, but you can't eliminate if you have humans in a system.

Fascinating insight into how to avoid the responsibility of corporate governance – no doubt the MPs use the same excuse. If you have more than one ‘human’ you would expect that should one act irresponsibly then the other ‘humans’ would give them D&G. These were two officers after all and they Serve to Lead ?


Also - there were more than just one passenger on board. It doesn't detract from the sad loss of life, but if you are being so anal about other aspects of this incident......

Being anal – no, I don’t see how. Many individuals are observing on the Coroner’s statement on the failings of the RAF. The Coroner is the impartial, external authority who is holding the RAF feet to the fire when their own internal processes have been shown to be woefully inadequate.


Do you really think that posting half a dozen tired quotes here every time you post makes you appear more intelligent? It doesn't.

Tired quotes – no, they are current and accurate. I am sure that both you and the RAF find them uncomfortable but the truth hurts.

Anyway, I am not wasting any more time on this thread, you are obviously too close to this issue, blinkered and opinionated. I thought you were supposed to be the Moderator – are you sure you shouldn’t be in the NAAFI bar with your mates ?

Originally Posted by Whet

They were training for war.

Are you sure?

Recording a narrative verdict Mr Fell said the crew were "inexperienced" and were undertaking their first trip without an instructor watching them.

Originally Posted by flipflop

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by agoodgrouping

...a young infantryman died here - who in the RAF will carry the can ?

Probably no-one (again)

The RAF way is to put 100% of the blame on the dead pilots, it's always been thus.

No it doesn't. The C130 shot down out of Balad? The Nimrod over AFG? I take it you are referring to the CH47/MoK incident and then making a sweeping generalisation. The MoK BoI could have been handled better, but I am also reassured that recruits at Halton don't routinely shoot themselves in the back of the head, that Iraqis don't beat themselves to death whilst in RAF custody whilst the CO walks away with a DSO and that RAF units don't hold impromptu swimming galas for miscreant youths it detains.

Ah good old Nimrod.... is it still acepted service to fill them with fuel until they just start to leak and thats when the crew know she's as full as she's going to be - then take off?

Now children - lets not descend into inter service mud slinging. Play nicely or not at all.

I'm sorry to say that at some point in time even the most professional tradesman will do something silly. That could be the RLC driver on getting his Tax Free XRGTi Mach 3 Turbo machine and taking his mates for a rally style spin or in other words "showing off"

The repercussions are rarely considered until it is way too late, or you were lucky enough just to get away with a fast heart rate and adrenalin injection, the latter being the case makes you think twice next time.

Occasionally there isn't a next time.

As Flashy has quite rightly pointed out. There but for the grace of (insert deity here) go I, and just about every other military helicopter pilot.

Originally Posted by Pocoyo

As Flashy has quite rightly pointed out. There but for the grace of (insert deity here) go I, and just about every other military helicopter pilot.

Indeed. There can't be many QSP who haven't learned from a close call. I know I did.

How many years did the Rotary boys carry out autorotation practice as an emergency drill.... only to realise decades(?) later that they actually lost more pilots practising than they did during real emergencies...

I believe it was described at the time as only 'modestly' dangerous (or words to that effect!

Originally Posted by Mr_Bridger

How many years did the Rotary boys carry out autorotation practice as an emergency drill.... only to realise decades(?) later that they actually lost more pilots practising than they did during real emergencies...

I believe it was described at the time as only 'modestly' dangerous (or words to that effect!

Incorrect, I'm afraid. 'Autos' was and is a vital skill that needs to be practiced regularly. Pilots are seldom lost but damage to the airframe may occur as a result of uncontrolled excursions across wet airfield surfaces, and/or stuffing the frange into the turf.

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by scuba_frog

tactical manoeuvres were "excessive in number and irregularity".


I'm a civvy but surely the whole point of tactical maneuvres is that they are irreguarly unpredictable.....I may be wrong, who am I to crticise?

It's one thing to fly into the danger zone when people are shooting at you and doing their best to kill you, to do it on a routine training flight is totally uneccesary and gets people killed needlessly.

And I suppose, if we were discussing an inquest into the aftermath of some crow mong's range ND, you'd be advocating that the infantry don't fire live rounds until they're in a contact, yes?