Ops-Normal.org

Pontius Navigator wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:17 am

Basically, driving on automatic I am not actually taking an active role in the proceedings.

When I drove a daily 20k into central Joburg, one day there was a company announcement event at a hotel in a different part of town.

I sat in the car and it went to the office, as normal!

I was wondering why the office was empty.

Ian, I had to go to a monthly tasking meeting at RAF Upavon HQ 38 Group. Pitched up one month and there were pongs on the gate. Went into the usual meeting room, full of pongs. Made a few inquires apparently 38 Gp had moved to High Wycombe. Army had taken over. That is what happens when you put all your post into the waste paper basket and if it is important enough they send it again or phone you up. Obviously couldn't make the meeting in time so went to the pub and had excellent fish and chips at a famous chip shop on the way home in Lechlade. A very pleasant day out. I used to send my WO after that. Didn't want to drive to High Wycombe but it was a nice drive to Upavon.

Fox, quite, that is what I suspect might be what happened here. Highly experienced pilot in a relatively benign environment simply relaxing in the sunlit warmth, enjoying the flight. In reality he should have been conscious that he was operating at the edge of his experience and been alert to his situation.

That, PN, is negligence of the highest order, not 'CI'.

Ex-Ascot wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:32 pm

Ian, I had to go to a monthly tasking meeting at RAF Upavon HQ 38 Group. Pitched up one month and there were pongs on the gate. Went into the usual meeting room, full of pongs. Made a few inquires apparently 38 Gp had moved to High Wycombe. Army had taken over. That is what happens when you put all your post into the waste paper basket and if it is important enough they send it again or phone you up. Obviously couldn't make the meeting in time so went to the pub and had excellent fish and chips at a famous chip shop on the way home in Lechlade. A very pleasant day out. I used to send my WO after that. Didn't want to drive to High Wycombe but it was a nice drive to Upavon.

I was 'stationed' at Uphavon for about 17 months, of which I spent about 9 days there!

On paper I was stationed there and on detachment while I was in France at Istres and Orange, and after Orange, while I was at Yatesbury on course for 4 months.

On arrival at Yatesbury, admin there thought I had simply travelled from Uphavon, just over the hill! When I put in a claim for a rail journey of over 24 hours they wouldn't pay up! It took me about 2 weeks to persuade someone to phone Uphavon and verify my story.
When I finished the course I was the only Air Radar Fitter (Bomber) in Transport Command and Command Drafting didn't know what to do with me.

Boac wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:45 pm

That, PN, is negligence of the highest order, not 'CI'.

I was suggesting what might have been CI. With his experience he should have recognised his inexperience and been more vigilant.

I have long maintained that if you don't feel 'right' but you are driving a high performance jet near 'people' then you have a distinct duty of care to abandon what you were going to do. and not just carry on in some sort of hazy rose-coloured euphoria. A vital part of a professional pilot's 'duty' is to monitor oneself and watch for 'abnormalities' as, for example, with the duty of a commercial pilot to 'avoid' flying with fatigue.

Invent a 'hydraulic' problem if you need to and scuttle off home, trying not to crash elsewhere.

If the 'argument' is that 'CI' takes away this judgement faculty, then everyone had better stop piloting aircraft, driving trains and ship and cars etc.

Boac wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:09 pm

I have long maintained that if you don't feel 'right' but you are driving a high performance jet near 'people' then you have a distinct duty of care to abandon what you were going to do. and not just carry on in some sort of hazy rose-coloured euphoria. A vital part of a professional pilot's 'duty' is to monitor oneself and watch for 'abnormalities' as, for example, with the duty of a commercial pilot to 'avoid' flying with fatigue.

Invent a 'hydraulic' problem if you need to and scuttle off home, trying not to crash elsewhere.

If the 'argument' is that 'CI' takes away this judgement faculty, then everyone had better stop piloting aircraft, driving trains and ship and cars etc.

Agree totally with the above. I frequently flew fatigued when with the airline. My solution was to chuck it in. Don't think EK would ever get off the ground if the pilots pulled the fatigue card.

ian16th wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:27 pm

I was 'stationed' at Uphavon for about 17 months, of which I spent about 9 days there!
On paper I was stationed there and on detachment while I was in France at Istres and Orange, and after Orange, while I was at Yatesbury on course for 4 months.
On arrival at Yatesbury, admin there thought I had simply travelled from Uphavon, just over the hill! When I put in a claim for a rail journey of over 24 hours they wouldn't pay up! It took me about 2 weeks to persuade someone to phone Uphavon and verify my story.
When I finished the course I was the only Air Radar Fitter (Bomber) in Transport Command and Command Drafting didn't know what to do with me.

I had a similar problem back in 1968. I was posted to 38 Gp Support Unit at Tangmere and almost immediately wangled a two year detachment to 24 (Air Portable) Brigade in Plymouth. When the two years were up and I was posted to Mountbatten I discovered that 38 Gp had moved to Benson (or was it Odiham?) which made clearing rather tricky. Nobody had heard of me and the medics were very upset to hear that I'd spent a couple of months as an in-patient at HMS Drake!

Shoreham Air disaster probe will not be reopened

2 August 2019 • 10:49am

Accident investigators will not reopen their inquiry into the Shoreham air disaster following a request to review their findings after the acquittal of pilot Andrew Hill. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) was presented with further material in June regarding the potential effects of G-forces on Mr Hill. A spokesman for the AAIB said it has decided not to reopen its investigation after considering the material "very carefully".

The AAIB added that it also commissioned an independent review of analysis of human factors from its original inquiry, and the results confirmed the findings of its final report published in March 2017 "remain valid".

In the wake of the AAIB's announcement, the West Sussex Coroner said the next pre-inquest hearing over the crash will take place on January 29 in Crawley. At that hearing a date is expected to be set for the full inquest into the 11 men killed in the crash.

On 25/7

I wrote:Mr Hill has decided to ask for the AAIB to 'reinvestigate' on the basis of his supposed 'cognative impairment' which will now delay the inquest findings further for the bereaved and injured.

Now the media are saying that the AAIB was

presented with further material in June regarding the potential effects of G-forces on Mr Hill.

Colour me confused. I thought g-forces had been judged to be non-relevant in terms of causing the accident - I don't think there has been any suggestion that he had been rendered 'incapable' by g. What, then, is the relevance of this 'further material' in relation to CI?

Perhaps someone a lot brighter than I can answer these questions.

As Mr Hill was found 'not guilty' at his trial, where do matters stand if the full inquest concludes that the 11 men were unlawfully killed? Who then sits in the dock? Alternatively, because of the 'not guilty' verdict, does this mean that 'unlawfully killed' has been ruled out as a possible verdict?

Get back to eating good food and drinking good wine.What do you want to worry about things like this when you have no influence about the outcome.For most of us the clock is ticking.

This may help 4ma
https://www.saunders.co.uk/news/what-ve ... eturn.html

I think the BALPA lawyers will be seeking to protect Hill from private prosecutions.

I have just been notified of this latest AAIB report - essentially about the 'likelihood' of CI. A load of verbiage but could prove interesting in any civil case. It basically blows 'g' out of the equation. Inquest still to come, pre-inquest review hearing on Monday 29/1.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _02-20.pdf

Boac let the man go... Was he your CO?

Stalling Exercise # 1. “ OK Bloggs, note the high nose attitude, the low decreasing airspeed, the lack of slipstream noise and the sloppy controls? Waddiya mean you’ve blacked out due to “G” loading, ya bag jessy?”

Where does C I come into it? Can’t imagine the AAIB are operating on the same knowledge base as the jury in the trial!!

Someone somewhere has influence.

Out of interest does anyone know if this pilot is still flying, either commercially or privately? the AAIB report couldn't be much clearer, we know that their job is to establish the facts and not apportion blame, they have done that quite unambiguously.
I would imagine the next of kin of those who died in this accident will be interested in what happens next.

TGG wrote:Was he your CO?

- good Lord no, Sir - junior trash.

om - I doubt it.