Regarding the AAIU being neutral ,I think when incidents involving AC are involved , having a former AC officer on the lead of an investigation is somewhat open to suggestion.
I'm not for one minute suggesting that Jurgen Whyte is not impartial, but I wouldn't want Jimmy Saville as my kids doctor!
One of the big critiscism here is that with military aviation people almost expect accidents, look at the pages of Air Forces monthly and the world is full of them, You tube same thing , 90% of the population other than those directly affected are immune to them, but lets put them in perspective.
Because loss of life is usually limited to those on board, its treated no waorse than a road accident, lets say for example if an Aer Lingus aircraft is lost and all 350 people on board are killed and the AAIU dig into operations procedure and come up with the type of management failures that have been endemic of military aviation in this country in the past number of years, heads would role.
Back to my point, its seems to be almost acceptable to have losses in military aviation,because of the perception of military aviators as portrayed in the media.
The public doesn't understand the potential consequences of a PC 9 hitting a school...
If there is an eventuality that may occur , then there should be a check put in place to know that all pilots operating the aircraft can deal with it. It is unacceptable to find that 'X' has never been taught as it never happened before.
Gttc highlights it from an engineering side based on personal experience, he also offers an opinion on management structures, I tend to agree.
There are still organisations within the entire DF that are run on a nod and a wink basis. While it may go un noticed in most day today operations ,aircraft are fa less forgiving and can't be operated on a nod and wink basis.
There are some who are blameless and do their job to the best of their ability , but if a structure allows people to progress with all the training they need to operate in their roles without the potential for the type of incident that are becoming far to frequent something is inherintly awry.
Given 75% of the role involving PC 9s specifically is training, how hard can it be to get it right.,
Laziness amounting to criminal negligence comes to mind. It would appear even after the 248 crash despite the 'shake up' nothing has changed, and it has cost at least three more lives to date.
I'm not for one minute suggesting that Jurgen Whyte is not impartial, but I wouldn't want Jimmy Saville as my kids doctor!
One of the big critiscism here is that with military aviation people almost expect accidents, look at the pages of Air Forces monthly and the world is full of them, You tube same thing , 90% of the population other than those directly affected are immune to them, but lets put them in perspective.
Because loss of life is usually limited to those on board, its treated no waorse than a road accident, lets say for example if an Aer Lingus aircraft is lost and all 350 people on board are killed and the AAIU dig into operations procedure and come up with the type of management failures that have been endemic of military aviation in this country in the past number of years, heads would role.
Back to my point, its seems to be almost acceptable to have losses in military aviation,because of the perception of military aviators as portrayed in the media.
The public doesn't understand the potential consequences of a PC 9 hitting a school...
If there is an eventuality that may occur , then there should be a check put in place to know that all pilots operating the aircraft can deal with it. It is unacceptable to find that 'X' has never been taught as it never happened before.
Gttc highlights it from an engineering side based on personal experience, he also offers an opinion on management structures, I tend to agree.
There are still organisations within the entire DF that are run on a nod and a wink basis. While it may go un noticed in most day today operations ,aircraft are fa less forgiving and can't be operated on a nod and wink basis.
There are some who are blameless and do their job to the best of their ability , but if a structure allows people to progress with all the training they need to operate in their roles without the potential for the type of incident that are becoming far to frequent something is inherintly awry.
Given 75% of the role involving PC 9s specifically is training, how hard can it be to get it right.,
Laziness amounting to criminal negligence comes to mind. It would appear even after the 248 crash despite the 'shake up' nothing has changed, and it has cost at least three more lives to date.
Comment