Martin Baker Aircraft to be prosecuted
Discussion
It appears a known fault on their ejector seats caused the death of a Red Arrows pilot.
Daily Mail said:
Flt Lt Cunningham died on November 8, 2011, when the ejection seat suddenly engaged while his Hawk T1 aircraft was still on the runway.
The Iraq veteran was hurled up to 300ft into the air before plunging to the ground at the RAF aerobatics team's base at RAF Scampton, near Lincoln.
The main parachute on the Mk 10 Martin Baker seat, which should have saved his life, failed to deploy and he suffered multiple injuries.
His inquest in 2014 heard that to trigger the 1960s ejection seat pilots must pull the firing handle - fitted between their legs - sharply upwards.
But tests since the tragedy revealed that if the handle was 'locked' in a certain position, a slight downward pressure could unexpectedly launch the ejection seat, the inquest was told.
It was claimed that dangers with the ejection seat were known by manufacturers but never passed on to the Ministry of Defence.
How on earth could they be aware yet do nothing about it and how tragic The Iraq veteran was hurled up to 300ft into the air before plunging to the ground at the RAF aerobatics team's base at RAF Scampton, near Lincoln.
The main parachute on the Mk 10 Martin Baker seat, which should have saved his life, failed to deploy and he suffered multiple injuries.
His inquest in 2014 heard that to trigger the 1960s ejection seat pilots must pull the firing handle - fitted between their legs - sharply upwards.
But tests since the tragedy revealed that if the handle was 'locked' in a certain position, a slight downward pressure could unexpectedly launch the ejection seat, the inquest was told.
It was claimed that dangers with the ejection seat were known by manufacturers but never passed on to the Ministry of Defence.
I'm not really sure what prosecuting the company will achieve though? This modern "sue or prosecute" companies thing really is quite sad imo and it isn't any deterrent to employees to work more rigorously in the first place.
MB have admitted they were at fault and they have redesigned the parts involved. 25 years ago, someone made a mistake (failed to inform the RAF as to the risks from overtightening a bolt) that eventually led to the death of a crewman in 2011. I'd put that down to "sh*t happens" personally............
MB have admitted they were at fault and they have redesigned the parts involved. 25 years ago, someone made a mistake (failed to inform the RAF as to the risks from overtightening a bolt) that eventually led to the death of a crewman in 2011. I'd put that down to "sh*t happens" personally............
I suppose (maybe) you need to make an example to ensure other manufacturers redesign parts quickly rather than knowing and doing nothing.
It appears had they acted sooner perhaps he almost certainly wouldn't have lost his life that day.
Not sure personally it's just 's
t happens'. I would suggest we'd all be pretty upset if I knew a manufacturer hadn't bothered to sort out a known and clearly dangerous fault and a relative died as a result!
It appears had they acted sooner perhaps he almost certainly wouldn't have lost his life that day.
Not sure personally it's just 's
t happens'. I would suggest we'd all be pretty upset if I knew a manufacturer hadn't bothered to sort out a known and clearly dangerous fault and a relative died as a result!FourWheelDrift said:
Now that's very interesting.Eric Mc said:
Save 10,000 lives - nobody notices.
Lose 1 and you get sued to kingdom come.
I'm not sure that's quite right. The company was providing a safety critical part to do a job and was presumably 'noticed' and compensated handsomely for their work.Lose 1 and you get sued to kingdom come.
It is quite right for society that companies as well as people are held to account for their actions. If it is found that as a company they neglected to take actions which could have prevented an accident then they should be punished appropriately.
Of course whether they acted negligently is still up for the courts to decide.
Doesn't look like a failure at MB after reading the PPRUNE post and that seat has been in use since the early 70's on everything just about so a fault would have been flagged very early. Perhaps we should be looking at the MOD's drive on costs. I read elsewhere in that thread that the seats used to be checked six monthly then 12 and 24 and now hardly ever. The expertise has been lost and new techs have no training. That's pretty much the "modern" way.
rpguk said:
It is quite right for society that companies as well as people are held to account for their actions.
I agree, but "account for" is a broad church. IMO, unless the negligence was deliberate or malicious, and the company or individual acts in the best manner to subsequently correct there failing, further penalty achieves nothing useful.Max_Torque said:
rpguk said:
It is quite right for society that companies as well as people are held to account for their actions.
I agree, but "account for" is a broad church. IMO, unless the negligence was deliberate or malicious, and the company or individual acts in the best manner to subsequently correct there failing, further penalty achieves nothing useful.rpguk said:
Well if the penalty provides a deterrent for other companies not to be negligent in future then that is a useful achievement. The best thing is to avoid negligence in the first place, not just correct failings once someone has sadly passed.
I can't imagine why a company that makes ejector seats would be 'negligent' in the first place. 'Shall I adjust this bolt? Nah fk it I'll go home for me tea'.rpguk said:
Well if the penalty provides a deterrent for other companies not to be negligent in future then that is a useful achievement. The best thing is to avoid negligence in the first place, not just correct failings once someone has sadly passed.
I would say that the standards applied by MB in their engineering would be second to none. Even if they did make a mistake, it's a real shame that their name gets dragged through the mud , ignoring the 10,000 times they get it right.MB knew of a fault with the seat that could lead to accidental seat activation and did nothing to resolve. MB knew of an issue with over tightening a bolt that could lead to the failure of the parachute to deploy and didn't make its customers aware.
A pilot died as a direct result of those two factors.
But MB shouldn't be prosecuted?
What am I missing here?
A pilot died as a direct result of those two factors.
But MB shouldn't be prosecuted?
What am I missing here?
foxsasha said:
MB knew of a fault with the seat that could lead to accidental seat activation and did nothing to resolve. MB knew of an issue with over tightening a bolt that could lead to the failure of the parachute to deploy and didn't make its customers aware.
A pilot died as a direct result of those two factors.
But MB shouldn't be prosecuted?
What am I missing here?
How many of these particular seats are in service?A pilot died as a direct result of those two factors.
But MB shouldn't be prosecuted?
What am I missing here?
How long have they been in service?
How many operators use these seats?
How many of these operators have had a problem with this particular seat?
I would hazard a guess that your summation of the facts is far too simplistic.
foxsasha said:
MB knew of a fault with the seat that could lead to accidental seat activation and did nothing to resolve. MB knew of an issue with over tightening a bolt that could lead to the failure of the parachute to deploy and didn't make its customers aware.
A pilot died as a direct result of those two factors.
But MB shouldn't be prosecuted?
What am I missing here?
Read that PPrune post linked above, and you'll see what you're missing A pilot died as a direct result of those two factors.
But MB shouldn't be prosecuted?
What am I missing here?
jamieduff1981 said:
foxsasha said:
MB knew of a fault with the seat that could lead to accidental seat activation and did nothing to resolve. MB knew of an issue with over tightening a bolt that could lead to the failure of the parachute to deploy and didn't make its customers aware.
A pilot died as a direct result of those two factors.
But MB shouldn't be prosecuted?
What am I missing here?
Read that PPrune post linked above, and you'll see what you're missing A pilot died as a direct result of those two factors.
But MB shouldn't be prosecuted?
What am I missing here?
Eric Mc said:
How many of these particular seats are in service?
How long have they been in service?
How many operators use these seats?
How many of these operators have had a problem with this particular seat?
I would hazard a guess that your summation of the facts is far too simplistic.
I don't see the relevance, they knew of a fault, they did nothing to resolve the fault, the fault led to the seat firing on the runway. Did they not take a gamble on the fault not leading to the seat firing and the gamble has paid off until now? If it was one seat that malfunctioned then yes, I fully accept the argument that there are X number in service with no problems but if the manufacturer knew of a design issue and chose to let it ride then how is that ok?How long have they been in service?
How many operators use these seats?
How many of these operators have had a problem with this particular seat?
I would hazard a guess that your summation of the facts is far too simplistic.
I (skim) read pprune upto Engines post. My understanding is that the MOD introduced (arguably unnecessary) 6 monthly checks on the seats and that a bolt was routinely over tightening during reassembly because MB didn't tell the RAF about the correct torque which led to the parachute to fail to deploy.
From the posts on here and pprune Im obviously misreading the situation, I just wonder what it is that I'm misunderstanding
Ill reread pprune properly later this evening.On a completely unrelated note I had my first helicopter flying lesson today, it was great fun.
Between the MOD and The RAF they introduced a check that seems to have been not only unnecessary but frankly dangerous. NOT MB's fault. If you check Wikipedia for the Martin Baker MK10 seat you'll see just how many there are out there. Probably the most numerous being the F/A-18.
Edited by telecat on Wednesday 28th September 17:38
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff