UK’s biggest warship suffers propeller shaft damage off south coast after setting sail for US

Thistle

Well-known member
Joined
2 Oct 2004
Messages
3,936
Location
Here
Visit site
Presumably so he could face a court martial along with the deck crew and be dismissed the service.

I guess all those involved are most unlikely to make the same, or a similar, mistake again. Dumping them would, in some ways, be a waste of their expensive training. Keeping them and applying some other punishment might be better. (And I've little doubt that the combined wisdom of this forum could suggest what that punishment might be!)
 

Bouba

Well-known member
Joined
6 Sep 2016
Messages
41,419
Location
SoF
Visit site
I guess all those involved are most unlikely to make the same, or a similar, mistake again. Dumping them would, in some ways, be a waste of their expensive training. Keeping them and applying some other punishment might be better. (And I've little doubt that the combined wisdom of this forum could suggest what that punishment might be!)
If someone forgot to write ‘removing turbofan raincover is the job of....’ then it’s nobodies fault on the flightdeck...and replacing them with people who might repeat the mistake is foolhardy....deducting a pound a week until it’s paid off is probably against their human rights
 

Kukri

Well-known member
Joined
23 Jul 2008
Messages
15,568
Location
East coast UK. Mostly. Sometimes the Philippines
Visit site
It was the port intake blank:

Post 391:

“Prior to sinking, the left-hand intake blank was observed to float clear of ZM152's wreckage and was subsequently impounded. A salvage operation was mounted, and the aircraft was located and successfully recovered to the UK.”

In defence of the crabs concerned, the intake blanks on an F-35 are not as obvious as they were on the Harrier:

A691396E-99E2-4764-A1AE-EF4EBA85D1C9.jpegB3743A6B-1C46-4F61-88D9-F870D3B8F34C.jpeg

They are basically foam cushions jammed inside the intakes.
 
Last edited:

jamie N

Well-known member
Joined
20 Dec 2012
Messages
6,273
Location
Fortrose
Visit site
With ROV's, we also had a number of items that were to be removed before a dive. I insisted that they were all connected together on a single line to eliminate the possibility of leaving one in place. We'd also another way of avoiding a fault, which was to tape any 'bleed valve' that had been removed from a pressure vessel to the pilot's screen so that it wouldn't be overlooked.
 

Fr J Hackett

Well-known member
Joined
26 Dec 2001
Messages
66,103
Location
Saou
Visit site
It was the port intake blank:

Post 391:

“Prior to sinking, the left-hand intake blank was observed to float clear of ZM152's wreckage and was subsequently impounded. A salvage operation was mounted, and the aircraft was located and successfully recovered to the UK.”

In defence of the crabs concerned, the intake blanks on an F-35 are not as obvious as they were on the Harrier:

View attachment 142688View attachment 142689

They are basically foam cushions jammed inside the intakes.


Apart from the big dangly red tapes.
 

Bouba

Well-known member
Joined
6 Sep 2016
Messages
41,419
Location
SoF
Visit site
As far as I know it was the cover for the vertical lift fan that was left on? It might not be so obvious from deck level
 

Uricanejack

Well-known member
Joined
22 Oct 2012
Messages
3,750
Visit site
I guess all those involved are most unlikely to make the same, or a similar, mistake again. Dumping them would, in some ways, be a waste of their expensive training. Keeping them and applying some other punishment might be better. (And I've little doubt that the combined wisdom of this forum could suggest what that punishment might be!)
All humans make errors. Punishment has never been a very successful method of prevention of errors.
 

Hermit

Well-known member
Joined
29 Sep 2004
Messages
699
Visit site
But better a human error than a techncial problem with the plane which caused all of the other planes to be gounded until a solution was in place.
 

Fr J Hackett

Well-known member
Joined
26 Dec 2001
Messages
66,103
Location
Saou
Visit site
But better a human error than a techncial problem with the plane which caused all of the other planes to be gounded until a solution was in place.

It was a technical error in the sense that all the systems and safeguards to ensure potentially fatal occurrences do not occur failed.
 

SaltIre

Well-known member
Joined
13 Mar 2017
Messages
21,087
Location
None of your nosey business
Visit site
It was a technical error in the sense that all the systems and safeguards to ensure potentially fatal occurrences do not occur failed.
They'll have added another layer when, in fact, making all the holes smaller would be better...:)
swiss-cheese-1296x728-header.jpg

Swiss cheese model - Wikipedia
 

Fr J Hackett

Well-known member
Joined
26 Dec 2001
Messages
66,103
Location
Saou
Visit site
They'll have added another layer when, in fact, making all the holes smaller would be better...:)
swiss-cheese-1296x728-header.jpg

Swiss cheese model - Wikipedia

And that is the problem. Systems are only as good as their management and the respect for both. All too often they fail when those who should follow them do so out of habit and when they do so the answer becomes another box to tick.
 

SaltIre

Well-known member
Joined
13 Mar 2017
Messages
21,087
Location
None of your nosey business
Visit site
I doubt the Swiss Navy have had any of their fighter jets crash.;)

Edit: To save you the trouble....
The air force has suffered a few crashes over the past decade, including a F/A-18 that went down in the French Jura in 2015 (for which the pilot was last year acquitted of negligence) and a collision between two Swiss F-5s in the Netherlands in 2016, caused by pilot error.
Fighter jet crashes in central Switzerland, without injuries
 
Last edited:
Top