According to Holden, in a review before Air Marshal Kenneth Porter, he was asked whether he agreed that "With the limited flying experience I had, the test would have been better left to an experienced and current Lightning test pilot", which he answered in the affirmative, following which Porter related some of his own unfortunate flying incidents.
I feel like there’s something between these lines that I don’t understand. Like is this some form of lawyer hacking without lawyers? Like a, “let’s have you admit to something that isn’t really wrongdoing just so we have a thing for the report.”
I have no specific context here, but in case it's not obvious, I think you have to read the exchange in the context of British, and I guess RAF, indirectness and understatement.
I'm guessing the air marshal means "what the hell were you thinking"; Holden is agreeing, indicating that he has learned his lesson and acknowledges the error; and the air marshal is then graciously moving on.
My read is that the Air Marshal was confirming a gap in the orders, which were amended after this flight. Less of a "what the hell were you thinking" and more of a "what the hell were we thinking allowing this in the first place?"
A five-minute "toolbox talk" with an experienced Lightning pilot would probably have been sufficient to warn him of the afterburner detent, and "Let's maybe not do that, eh?"
I think you're reading too much into the quote. RAF simply acknowledged that the whole episode was an accident that happened during routine work and they wouldn't punish their man for an accident, especially since there was not much harm done (except the repairable damage on the plane).
If he had taken the plane for a joyflight then he would have gotten a right bollocking (to put it mildly) but if it was an accident what exactly could they hold against him?
If there's something peculiarly British about it, it's that their airmen are well-trained professionals and they do not mete out unnecessary punishments just to show who's boss.
I appreciate the fact they were able to acknowledge the mistake and get over it.
It was a ballsy move, done with the best of intentions, could have been fine, but near-catastrophically wasn't. Lesson was obviously learned, and both the shortcomings in judgement and in the regs were addressed. I'm glad they let the guy go back to work. It's not like he exhibited a pattern of recklessness. I feel like these days, it's less likely a person of authority would exercise the kind of discretion that leads to a sensible outcome. Not because they don't want to, but because liability and PR have become such institutional boogeymen. ('Course maybe I'm wrong!)
I feel like these days, it's less likely a person of authority would exercise the kind of discretion that leads to a sensible outcome. Not because they don't want to, but because liability and PR have become such institutional boogeymen. ('Course maybe I'm wrong!)
Who knows, maybe one day we'll find tales of heroism and bravery extend to cover personal integrity against bureaucratic process? It would be a good thing to happen now, in fact, to motivate the current and next generation of people to do the right thing in the world they live in.
EDIT: I suppose the very thing we're discussing is one of such stories.
The "ballsy move" is completely separate from the mistake.
I don't think there was anything particularly ballsy, or perhaps even reckless, about agreeing to test the taxiing behaviour. It never crossed his mind that this could lead to a situation that got out of his control. Starting the airplane was a complete accident.
Getting the airplane airborne once it was running out of runway - and then landing it again - did take balls, but is not really the part of the incident that the review board was there to scrutinise.
I think the joke is that Air Marshal Kenneth Porter was chief of the RAF’s maintenance command, and also not a pilot. [0]
Edit: fergal_reid’s reply below is correct. Porter did serve several years at the start of his career as a pilot, in the early 1930s, before spending the bulk of it as a signals officer. Holden also had his wings, but never served as a pilot. I read Porter’s comment as a joke between two RAF officers who were not “really” pilots, but now I’m not sure how to read it.
1. People who don't admit fault are refusing to learn any lesson and that's dangerous. It's the strategy that populist politicians use because someone percentage of people judge you on the confidence of your denial more than on the facts.
2. It's especially convenient if he admits fault because then the blame for people higher up is greatly reduced and the overall fallout from the incident is less. The event could have made the RAF look bad.
I (as someone British and from an Army family) read that as - "You know you screwed up right? Please reassure me you know that and won't do anything like it again". Followed by an admission that we all screw up sometimes (implied by the stories).
Oh, I took this as a bowdlerized version of the actual conversation, which I might be willing to pay to have a copy of if I am right?
"Commander Holden, for posterity, with your limited air time, am I right in suspecting the testing of this experimental aircraft would have been better left to a more experienced pilot?"
"Sir, fookin' 'ell yes sir. And tell 'im what does to pack a second set o' britches."
(Apologies, my knowledge of the British language is limited entirely to Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins)
Comments
I feel like there’s something between these lines that I don’t understand. Like is this some form of lawyer hacking without lawyers? Like a, “let’s have you admit to something that isn’t really wrongdoing just so we have a thing for the report.”
I have no specific context here, but in case it's not obvious, I think you have to read the exchange in the context of British, and I guess RAF, indirectness and understatement.
I'm guessing the air marshal means "what the hell were you thinking"; Holden is agreeing, indicating that he has learned his lesson and acknowledges the error; and the air marshal is then graciously moving on.
My read is that the Air Marshal was confirming a gap in the orders, which were amended after this flight. Less of a "what the hell were you thinking" and more of a "what the hell were we thinking allowing this in the first place?"
That's typical RAF. Same kind of thinking as the exploding marshmallow incident in a nuclear bomber (https://www.atlasobscura.com/foods/exploding-teacakes).
A five-minute "toolbox talk" with an experienced Lightning pilot would probably have been sufficient to warn him of the afterburner detent, and "Let's maybe not do that, eh?"
You can't actually write down "No-one did anything really wrong but let's not do that again, okay?" but you can write down something that says that.
It's English Understatement all the way.
Absolutely, and beautifully so.
I think you're reading too much into the quote. RAF simply acknowledged that the whole episode was an accident that happened during routine work and they wouldn't punish their man for an accident, especially since there was not much harm done (except the repairable damage on the plane).
If he had taken the plane for a joyflight then he would have gotten a right bollocking (to put it mildly) but if it was an accident what exactly could they hold against him?
If there's something peculiarly British about it, it's that their airmen are well-trained professionals and they do not mete out unnecessary punishments just to show who's boss.
I appreciate the fact they were able to acknowledge the mistake and get over it.
It was a ballsy move, done with the best of intentions, could have been fine, but near-catastrophically wasn't. Lesson was obviously learned, and both the shortcomings in judgement and in the regs were addressed. I'm glad they let the guy go back to work. It's not like he exhibited a pattern of recklessness. I feel like these days, it's less likely a person of authority would exercise the kind of discretion that leads to a sensible outcome. Not because they don't want to, but because liability and PR have become such institutional boogeymen. ('Course maybe I'm wrong!)
Who knows, maybe one day we'll find tales of heroism and bravery extend to cover personal integrity against bureaucratic process? It would be a good thing to happen now, in fact, to motivate the current and next generation of people to do the right thing in the world they live in.
EDIT: I suppose the very thing we're discussing is one of such stories.
The "ballsy move" is completely separate from the mistake.
I don't think there was anything particularly ballsy, or perhaps even reckless, about agreeing to test the taxiing behaviour. It never crossed his mind that this could lead to a situation that got out of his control. Starting the airplane was a complete accident.
Getting the airplane airborne once it was running out of runway - and then landing it again - did take balls, but is not really the part of the incident that the review board was there to scrutinise.
I think the joke is that Air Marshal Kenneth Porter was chief of the RAF’s maintenance command, and also not a pilot. [0]
Edit: fergal_reid’s reply below is correct. Porter did serve several years at the start of his career as a pilot, in the early 1930s, before spending the bulk of it as a signals officer. Holden also had his wings, but never served as a pilot. I read Porter’s comment as a joke between two RAF officers who were not “really” pilots, but now I’m not sure how to read it.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Porter_(RAF_officer)
He is establishing the acceptance of blame.
1. People who don't admit fault are refusing to learn any lesson and that's dangerous. It's the strategy that populist politicians use because someone percentage of people judge you on the confidence of your denial more than on the facts.
2. It's especially convenient if he admits fault because then the blame for people higher up is greatly reduced and the overall fallout from the incident is less. The event could have made the RAF look bad.
I (as someone British and from an Army family) read that as - "You know you screwed up right? Please reassure me you know that and won't do anything like it again". Followed by an admission that we all screw up sometimes (implied by the stories).
Oh, I took this as a bowdlerized version of the actual conversation, which I might be willing to pay to have a copy of if I am right?
"Commander Holden, for posterity, with your limited air time, am I right in suspecting the testing of this experimental aircraft would have been better left to a more experienced pilot?"
"Sir, fookin' 'ell yes sir. And tell 'im what does to pack a second set o' britches."
(Apologies, my knowledge of the British language is limited entirely to Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins)
Tongue in cheek dry humour, nothing more. "That wasn't a very good idea was it old chap?"
Flyboys will be flyboys.