Red Arrows Ejection Death - Coroners Report

[MPS16]

He died because the seat fired. If that had not happened the parachute fault would have been irrelevant in this instance.

I am not trying to be funny but

Would not the 5 whys of root cause analysis point to the fatality being caused by the parachute fault.

[Posbear]

I wish I could type faster, posts are being made whilst I am typing a reply

[Gill]

In this case, no, it was a bolt overtightened not allowing a component to pivot freely.

@astral

The Hawk jet is fitted with a zero-zero seat and that is what I am talking about..

Seat sensors have nothing to do with over tightened bolts. To me, this report is totally inconclusive. My opinion remember.

[Posbear]

Seat sensors have nothing to do with over tightened bolts. To me, this report is totally inconclusive. My opinion remember.

Extract of what the coroner's report said..

"Flt Lt Cunningham's parachute should have saved his life, but the main chute failed to deploy because a nut and bolt had been fastened too tightly, the inquest heard."

So as far as I am aware, the sensors worked OK.

No matter what, it's a life lost unnecessarily.

[astral276]

In this case, no, it was a bolt overtightened not allowing a component to pivot freely.

@astral

The Hawk jet is fitted with a zero-zero seat and that is what I am talking about..

I'm well aware of what is fitted to the Hawk - I've worked on them.

The reason the parachute fault is irrelevant in this case is that if the seat had not fired the chute would not have been needed.

I don't dispute that both faults existed. I do dispute that the groundcrew are culpable but that the pilot himself is not. He was responsible for checking the seat before he got in. If he could not see the handle was unsafe then why should others? He would have fitted that safety pin, incorrectly, at the end of the last flight (unless there was a seat change in the interim - which is not indicated). From the images I have seen illustrating the issue you would have to virtually stand on your head in the cockpit to see it.

[offdoc2]

I'm well aware of what is fitted to the Hawk - I've worked on them.

The reason the parachute fault is irrelevant in this case is that if the seat had not fired the chute would not have been needed.

I don't dispute that both faults existed. I do dispute that the groundcrew are culpable but that the pilot himself is not. He was responsible for checking the seat before he got in. If he could not see the handle was unsafe then why should others? He would have fitted that safety pin, incorrectly, at the end of the last flight (unless there was a seat change in the interim - which is not indicated). From the images I have seen illustrating the issue you would have to virtually stand on your head in the cockpit to see it.

As an ex armourer myself I find it all a bit fishy. The aircraft was taxying so the pin should not have been fitted anyway, they are removed on engine start. I can't believe that every single member of ground crew that entered that cockpit including the armourer who did the flight servicing did not A: notice the fault or B: didn't touch the handle and eject themselves. Fighter cockpits are very confined spaces and it would be virtually impossible to climb in and out without knocking it in some way.
I would have thought that an overtightened bolt would have been very obvious to any competent technician who actually knows how the thing is supposed to work. Martin Baker seats are VERY simple mechanisms They are designed that way so that there is less to go wrong in an emergency situation.
As I said I'm not convinced they called this at all right.

[Gill]

Thank you all for a great discussion. It made a change to voice an opinion without being bombarded with the usual insults - for want of a better word.