Tornado crash verdict

[J0hn]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-h ... s-28089628

Why does it always seem to add up to the same things?

[SkippyBing]

Because there are no new accidents.

[Dev One]

This looks like the usual cost cut backs following underestimation of the software development cost.........
Keith

[J0hn]

What I meant - it's always the same reasons, so why isn't someone doing something about it?

Every time we hear phrases like "lessons have been learned" and "the findings of the commission have been taken on board" and yet the next crash or incident has the same basic causes.

[TSR2]

What did we do before "anti collision systems" I don't know what it constitutes in a tornado, but it sounds to me like it was, for the most part, a tragic accident, aside from the crew member who was uncomfortable flying at "medium altitude"

[SkippyBing]

What did we do before "anti collision systems"

Look out the window, unfortunately this isn't particularly effective.

I would recommend getting hold of the actual report from the MAA's website rather than relying on the BBC's synopsis. Certainly the range procedures in use seem to have been as big a contributory factor as an absence of CWS as they should have prevented the situation happening in the first place.

[TSR2]

Hi Skip,

Yep, I'll have a proper read when I'm away later in the week. That's the point I was making (re procedures etc). They've been flying fast jets since the 50's without CWS. I'm not anti safety systems, but my take on much of this type of thing is that people become dependant on the systems and forget what to do without them, whether it be folk driving in fog with no lights (because they have the car lights set to auto) or something like this. I think there is such a dependency on "systems" in this day and age, the basics go out the window. Just my personal opinion, but I will have a read of the report.

[SkippyBing]

They've been flying fast jets since the 50's without CWS

And alas hitting each other and or other aircraft more often than you'd like.

I was a bit dubious about CWS, i.e. I thought you'd spend more time looking in at the display rather than out the window, but having had a go in a Squirrel fitted with one I found it was quite the opposite. The system cues you where to look which makes your lookout more effective, although gliders are still an issue as they tend not to have a transponder fitted.

I think the other issue is that civilian aircraft have had a CWS for decades which makes it impossible to defend their absence in the military's, certainly every helicopter that's got more than 4 years left in service is going to be fitted with one in the next few years.

[Airspeed]

Aside from the penny pinching, it ruffled my feathers to read that they couldn't resist attributing part of the cause to aircrew error.
The "uncomfortable" crewman was WSO, not the pilot.
Humans are just that, we're not built to process complex data whilst travelling at hundreds of KMH. As they say: "They wouldn't have known what hit them."
That's my 2 bob's worth.

[SkippyBing]

Aside from the penny pinching, it ruffled my feathers to read that they couldn't resist attributing part of the cause to aircrew error.

Unfortunately human error is the cause of something like 80% of aviation accidents, if humans didn't make mistakes things wouldn't go wrong. The task is to find out why the errors are made and find ways of reducing the liklihood or putting measures in place to stop the errors leading to a unwanted outcome.