• Welcome to the E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial RAF Rumour Network.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

serious question

SgtScribbly

Corporal
300
0
16
following on from other discussions about our pay rise etc, i have seen a lot of posts talking about the "daily life or death decisions" that you guys have to make. i have a couple of questions i would like you to to answer:

Do you really have a decision to make - for instance if you are a bit grumpy one day, do the unlucky crew of the day really have to die? (just kidding)


More seriously though, and this is not a fishing thread, above point excepted, if someone did make a wrong/bad decision and really ****ed up, would they ever or never or sometimes be picked up by the crews pre flight? (and then hence disaster avoided)
 

Mad Pierre

Corporal
331
0
0
In defence of the TG1 & 2 guys I've witnessed first hand what happens when one of them magical flying devices doesn't come back.

It's not pretty.

Everyone is immediately under suspicion, initially by themselves, until the cause is established.

It's not a responsibility any of them take lightly.
 

metimmee

Flight Sergeant
Subscriber
1000+ Posts
1,966
13
38
following on from other discussions about our pay rise etc, i have seen a lot of posts talking about the "daily life or death decisions" that you guys have to make. i have a couple of questions i would like you to to answer:

Do you really have a decision to make - for instance if you are a bit grumpy one day, do the unlucky crew of the day really have to die? (just kidding)


More seriously though, and this is not a fishing thread, above point excepted, if someone did make a wrong/bad decision and really ****ed up, would they ever or never or sometimes be picked up by the crews pre flight? (and then hence disaster avoided)

Sometimes critical lapses may be picked up pre-flight if a trace is left for the crew / crew chief / see off team to spot. This isnt always the case.

Even if there is a pre-flight check designed to pick up the critical defect, like a control surface check these arent always completed by the crew for whatever reason. Often accidents are the result of more than one lapse in the chain.

The Hawk incident where the (from memory) control rod wasnt reconnected due to a lack of open entry in the paperwork AND failure of the crew to carry out full control surface checks resulted in a fatal crash.

Minor example of day to day decisions. As an SAC I was seeing off a Chinook doing nightflying. I was just about to be waved off by the loadie and I noticed that I kept getting splashed in the face with something. I looked behind me to see an unidentified fluid on the pan spread about 20 feet from one side aft of the aircraft. I pointed it out to the loadie who was desperate to go and gestured thumbs up/ thumbs down to me. "Should we take this" in other words. "No way" I said and told them to shut down. A rigger came out (I'm a fairy) with a big spanner(that wasnt needed) and replaced the filling cap of the pressurised hyd reservoir that had been left open after a servicing.

I say minor incident because if I'd have waved the aircraft off it probably wouldnt have ended up a smoking hole but if the other system had failed who knows?? The point I am making is that its those type of judgements that technicians are making, of all ranks, every day. Some of them are more critical than others. The important thing is to recognise it and recognise the limits of your own knowledge and experience and pass it to someone who does know. All while crews are desperate to make their range slot, tanker slot or casevac or whatever in a noisy environment when its ****ing down with rain and youre hanging out your arse tired from a long shift.

How do we do this? By getting the right people, training them to a high standard and developing their skills and attitude when they arrive on units.
 
517
0
0
following on from other discussions about our pay rise etc, i have seen a lot of posts talking about the "daily life or death decisions" that you guys have to make. i have a couple of questions i would like you to to answer:

Do you really have a decision to make - for instance if you are a bit grumpy one day, do the unlucky crew of the day really have to die? (just kidding)


More seriously though, and this is not a fishing thread, above point excepted, if someone did make a wrong/bad decision and really ****ed up, would they ever or never or sometimes be picked up by the crews pre flight? (and then hence disaster avoided)

'morning!

It was I who made the (slightly dramatic) 'life and death decisions' comment.

I was making the point that not all 'techies' are TG1 & 2. I'm a proud member of TG15 and classed as a 'techie'. Not a label I enjoy as there is something uncomfortable at being lumped with engineers. Do I regularly make decisions that could result in death? Absolutely. But I have been well trained to make those decisions. How many other trades have a 3 year Phase 2 training course and are scrutinised regularly by a professional regulating body.

The fact that Shineys now get the same wage is testament to the fact that Shineys have sold their case very well. Congratulations for that. I don't see what value I as a tax payer get for that money, but that's a separate issue. Should I and my colleagues get paid more? Probably not, we get a comfortable living wage yet still provide a value service!
 
G

gemarriott

Guest
I recall a Jag crashing for want of a split pin sometime in major servicing and several flights after said pin should have been fitted so te answer is no mistakes aren't always visible to those who follow nor are they always apparent immediately.

Having fitted seats which have saved lives I can tell you that it is aresposibilitywhich weighs very heavy indeed, especially in the period between hearing of the kite going in and the safety of the crew.
 

John Lloyd

Warrant Officer
4,436
0
0
I recall a Jag crashing for want of a split pin sometime in major servicing and several flights after said pin should have been fitted so te answer is no mistakes aren't always visible to those who follow nor are they always apparent immediately.

Having fitted seats which have saved lives I can tell you that it is aresposibilitywhich weighs very heavy indeed, especially in the period between hearing of the kite going in and the safety of the crew.

And particularly when the crew don't get out (through no fault of the system), that is a long cold waiting period for the BOI to come to a finding, you are a suspect until cleared. Not a nice experience!
 

Pikeman

Cider one of the five
1000+ Posts
1,003
1
38
Last year before Christmas. Tornado took off from Marham with two crew. Came home with one. Rear seat problem. Family with out one member.

We make a mistake people die.
 

muttywhitedog

Retired Rock Star 5.5.14
1000+ Posts
4,602
644
113
And was the engineer responsible charged with manslaughter?

Has any TG1/2 personnel who has been found at fault in an aircraft crash been charged and/or convicted of manslaughter?
 

rest have risen above me

Warrant Officer
1000+ Posts
3,475
15
38
And was the engineer responsible charged with manslaughter?

Has any TG1/2 personnel who has been found at fault in an aircraft crash been charged and/or convicted of manslaughter?

I hear that this may be the case in this instance but I can't confirm this anywhere. The poor blokes involved must be going through hell. And RIP the poor lad at the end of the chain.
 

Pikeman

Cider one of the five
1000+ Posts
1,003
1
38
And was the engineer responsible charged with manslaughter?

Has any TG1/2 personnel who has been found at fault in an aircraft crash been charged and/or convicted of manslaughter?

Under investigation. Whatever the results it unfortunately wont change the situation.
 

Pikeman

Cider one of the five
1000+ Posts
1,003
1
38
By the way, not trying to be awkward or wind anyone up. Just not sure what can be said or what would be right to say about the incident.
 
W

wgaf

Guest
By the way, not trying to be awkward or wind anyone up. Just not sure what can be said or what would be right to say about the incident.
If the invest is still ongoing then anything that is said on these boards that may bring the goat into disrepute will be removed. Probably best to say nowt.
 

chiefy

Corporal
406
0
0
Has any TG1/2 personnel who has been found at fault in an aircraft crash been charged and/or convicted of manslaughter?

Answer: Yes, several times. The one that springs immediately to mind is this one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/02/13/nraf13.html

The BOI was never made public (which is a fairly common occurrence) and no summary of findings was ever released (which is very uncommon) despite questions being directly asked in the House of Commons. I have no idea why...

In addition to these thankfully rare events you shouldn't forget that techies are also subject to Technical Charges; where an accident or incident is the result of negligence, lethargy, disregard or inattention. Quite a serious event a technical charge with potentially serious consequences.
 
Last edited:

metimmee

Flight Sergeant
Subscriber
1000+ Posts
1,966
13
38
Answer: Yes, several times. The one that springs immediately to mind is this one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/02/13/nraf13.html

The BOI was never made public (which is a fairly common occurrence) and no summary of findings was ever released (which is very uncommon) despite questions being directly asked in the House of Commons. I have no idea why...

In addition to these thankfully rare events you shouldn't forget that techies are also subject to Technical Charges; where an accident or incident is the result of negligence, lethargy, disregard or inattention. Quite a serious event a technical charge with potentially serious consequences.

Well wgaf posted this article stating that this is an urban myth.
 

chiefy

Corporal
406
0
0
Well wgaf posted this article stating that this is an urban myth.

Urban myth? I think not, as I understand it both were charged with suspicion of manslaughter on the grounds of gross negligence, I also believe there was a third involved (the question asked if anyone had been charged or found guilty of). I have no idea how far the charges went but they were dropped at some point due to lack of evidence and the case was eventually found to be a genuine accident (there is more to it than that but nobody was assessed as being at fault with regard to negligence and the rod), the chain of events leading to the accident are, I believe, the reason the BOI summary results were never released. The myth bit regards the guy who supposedly commited suicide.

I know a man who was asked to put a Flight Safety presentation together (including a movie) illustrating chain of events and consequence, this is the particular accident he wanted to pursue because (like me) he was there changing the engine of a SHAR from RNAS Yeovilton post bird strike in the hangar and all too aware of the manpower problems suffered by the unit involved, we were also very aware of the investigation going on around us. He was told that this was not an event suitable for such a presentation because much of the information would never be formally available. The movie was made however, it refers in small part to this accident although it is actually a collection of different events made to represent a single event and is available from DASC.
 
W

wgaf

Guest
Chiefy has just about got the gist of it. The incident happened and 2 people were brought before a BOI. Charges were bought, I can't remember for sure but I'm pretty sure manslaughter wasn't one of them. I think they were both charged with negligence. One was dimissed the service and the other had a warning about his future and was taken off 1st line work.
 

propersplitbrainme

Warrant Officer
4,196
0
0
In defence of the TG1 & 2 guys I've witnessed first hand what happens when one of them magical flying devices doesn't come back.

It's not pretty.

Everyone is immediately under suspicion, initially by themselves, until the cause is established.

It's not a responsibility any of them take lightly.

THAT is actually the crux of it IMHO. Its not necessarily about whether anyone was actually charged or jailed for their error, it is as much to do with the nagging feeling that gnaws away at the pit of your stomach that it might have been you who mad the screw-up. It is the sickening feeling of guilt and loss of self-worth when you realise you have made an error (and I'll admit I have) that could have had potentially disastrous consequences had another check/balance in the system not picked it up first.
When I was teaching on the Harrier Maint School at Wittering one of the chiefs on a course was called away for a day for a BOI. Essentially, one of his lads had made a minor arithmetical error when rebuilding an Adour engine turbine, put in the wrong spacer and as a result the engine blew up on the first take-off. The chief was a complete wreck for the rest of the course because the implication for him was that he hadn't taken adequate precaution to ensure the relevant stage checks were conducted correctly. I've known of individuals end up on anti-depressant medication because they almost cannot live with the idea that they may have caused a crash.
No offence to scribblies, but I'm pretty sure an arithmetical error leading to (say) late payment of a claim or something similar doesn't result in the same self-recrimination that occurs when a techy screws up. And that IMHO is why techies get a little miffed when their rate of pay is made comparable with others whose daily routine does not have such potential to expose themselves to such scrutiny in the blink of an eye.
 

MontyPlumbs

Squadron Cock
Subscriber
1000+ Posts
4,519
4
38
THAT is actually the crux of it IMHO. Its not necessarily about whether anyone was actually charged or jailed for their error, it is as much to do with the nagging feeling that gnaws away at the pit of your stomach that it might have been you who mad the screw-up. It is the sickening feeling of guilt and loss of self-worth when you realise you have made an error (and I'll admit I have) that could have had potentially disastrous consequences had another check/balance in the system not picked it up first.
When I was teaching on the Harrier Maint School at Wittering one of the chiefs on a course was called away for a day for a BOI. Essentially, one of his lads had made a minor arithmetical error when rebuilding an Adour engine turbine, put in the wrong spacer and as a result the engine blew up on the first take-off. The chief was a complete wreck for the rest of the course because the implication for him was that he hadn't taken adequate precaution to ensure the relevant stage checks were conducted correctly. I've known of individuals end up on anti-depressant medication because they almost cannot live with the idea that they may have caused a crash.
No offence to scribblies, but I'm pretty sure an arithmetical error leading to (say) late payment of a claim or something similar doesn't result in the same self-recrimination that occurs when a techy screws up. And that IMHO is why techies get a little miffed when their rate of pay is made comparable with others whose daily routine does not have such potential to expose themselves to such scrutiny in the blink of an eye.

Agreed, nothing sh1ts you up more than when a kite goes in, you aren't sure whether it's one of your squadrons and more importantly, whether or not the jockey got out. Had a brown moment with the latest heap crash, seeing as our frames were up at Cott at the time too.
 
A

Albert Park

Guest
I accept the important job that all TG1 & 2 do with regard to aircraft, however, all their work is oversigned. An SAC stacker working in F&L undertakes quality control on fuel, the servicibility of this fuel is not checked by his/her supervisor or oversigned but is still a vital part of flight safety.
Stop. Go no further. Rethink what you have said.
 
Top