Shredded 'documents' XV230

[Biggles225]

This from the Times online:

RAF Commander admits to shredding spy plane documents
Michael Smith

An RAF commander destroyed a number of official documents after the loss of a Nimrod spy plane and its 14-man crew over Afghanistan, it emerged last week.
The Nimrod XV230 caught fire and broke up shortly after refuelling in mid-air over Afghanistan in September 2006 killing all 14 on board.
All documents relating to the aircraft were immediately impounded but Sqn Ldr Guy Bazalgette, commander of the Nimrod detachment in the Gulf, managed to retrieve one file.
In a previously unreported admission, Bazalgette told the inquest last May into the deaths of the 14 crew that he retrieved the file because he needed it to run his detachment.
He then decided that some of the documents within the file, known as the “stopped press folder”, should be destroyed and had them shredded.
Asked what the file contained, he said: “Information might come in from the station flight safety officer or other experts at Kinloss. It could have been about various aspects”.
Bazalgette insisted none of the shredded documents were relevant to the loss of XV230 but admitted: “They should not have been shredded and it was my fault that they were.”
James Jones, a former RAF engineering officer, said: "The idea that the commander of the Nimrod detachment would destroy any documents in the wake of the XV230 deaths is incomprehensible.
"No documents should have been shredded until the inquiry team had examined them and decided whether or not they were relevant. It was not his decision to make."
An independent inquiry into the loss of the Nimrod sent out a number of letters to organisations and senior RAF officers last week warning them they were likely to be criticised in its report.
The so-called Salmon letters give those who are likely to be criticised by the inquiry the opportunity to respond to the criticism before the report’s publication.
Organisation’s that might be criticised include manufacturers BAE Systems. The inquest ruled that a “design flaw” built into the aircraft that led to its demise meant it had never been airworthy. BAE Systems declined to comment.
The MoD and the Nimrod inquiry team declined to say which senior RAF officers had received letters.
But the senior officers most directly involved were the officers in charge of the “integrated project team” which oversaw Nimrod operations and was responsible for its continued airworthiness.
The independent inquiry by senior lawyer Charles Haddon-Cave QC was set up in December 2007. It was due to report in mid-2009 but will now report in late October.

[BEagle]

Whilst it is not unreasonable to prune the contents of a 'Stop Press' folder during routine detachments, so that it doesn't fill up with out-of-date cr@p, after a major aircraft accident all detachment files and paperwork should most certainly have been preserved intact.

Such a stupid, basic error - and one which will undoubtedly make people suspect that this was an attempt to destroy incriminating evidence. Whereas it was probably no such thing and was more likely to have been just routine housekeeping. However, as a result of these actions, no-one can now be certain.

[tucumseh]

Whereas it was probably no such thing and was more likely to have been just routine housekeeping.


Beagle, you may be right, but there are other cases where reports to Boards of Inquiry, ultimately intended for Coroners, have been deliberately withheld and/or destroyed.

Such an act, deliberate or otherwise, prevents both from fulfilling their role - to identify causes and prevent reoccurrence.

On the other hand, Ainsworth is recently on record as being quite content with such destruction (aka perverting the course of justice) so I assume the good Sqn Ldr is safe.

[The Old Fat One]

James Jones, a former RAF engineering officer, said: "The idea that the commander of the Nimrod detachment would destroy any documents in the wake of the XV230 deaths is incomprehensible.


Does this bloke enjoy an audience or what? How is a mistake, committed within the pressure cooker of operational enviroment "incomprehensible"? I guess the man JJ never made any mistakes in his service career. As Beags points out - minor housekeeping error, given a larger context by the accident, and now blown out of all proportion by the press.

Most of the (many) ops detachments I went on were run out of a portacabin/tent/broom cupboard. I'm sure there has been many an inadvertant admin cock up over the years.

I am reminded of the clip in "Reach for The Sky", when Bader lobs the files in the bin. Or Wellington's famous letter requesting parliment's priorities.

It's war. No money; no staff; no equipment and too many jobs. A minor cock up, which is unlikely to have had any consequences for any aspect of the XV230 accident, before or after the event.

And well done BG for holding up your hand. That puts you above, bankers, politicians and attention-seeking "former engineering officers" straight away".

[MrBernoulli]

I wonder whether he held up his hand, or he was 'asked' to hold it up, by others up the chain.

[Distant Voice]

According to Guy Bazalgettes evidence he:

(1) Imbounded all files/documentation after the crash. So he knew it was important to do that.

(2) After being told that he should continue running the detachment, he asked for the "stopped press folder" to be released.

(3) He then shredded documents in the folder, some of them being from the station flight safety officer, Sdn Ldr John Nelson.

All this happened, not in weeks, but a couple of days. I believe the BOI team, which included John Nelson, arrived in theatre around 5th Sept. There is no mention of this incident in the body of the BOI report.

Did Guy Bazalgette get promoted in 2008?

DV

[nigegilb]

let's not lose sight of the most important aspect of this article. Namely Haddon-Cave is issuing Salmon letters to high up elements intimately involved in this tragedy. The Salmon letters allow people facing serious accusations to respond. This inquiry was originally intended for release to Parliament before the summer recess. There is little doubt that the inquiry has broadened and deepened. Fingers crossed that Haddon-Cave now has the overview on all that has gone wrong by way of airworthiness implementation in the RAF.

Let's hope that his report will act as a force for the good when it eventually sees the light of day. TD and the other main players should be congratulated for their hard work in bringing various failings to the attention of HC. It would appear they have pierced the MoD insulating tape surrounding the inquiry in the initial stages.
:D:D

Ainsworth and his colleagues have strived to deny systemic failings, quick to stove pipe fatal incidents/accidents, I have always believed that it would take someone of HC's stature to spell out systemic failings at the heart of safety management in MoD/RAF. I don't think Ainsworth will be able to deny it much longer.

[DaveyBoy]

Please bear in mind that Crew 3's signature sheet at the start of the Stop Press folder (which shows which items they had read) survived, as did the folder's index (which contains details of the entries and shows which had been taken out during routine housekeeping). I would not be surprised if every single entry of that 'shredded evidence' could be reconstructed by consulting the index and asking the originators for a copy.

I'm not saying that the original pieces of paper shouldn't have been preserved for completeness of the investigation -- they should have and Wg Cdr Bazalgette has admitted the same and accepted responsibility. I also accept that we will thus never be able to comprehensively prove to conspiracy theorists that what was in the folder was indeed the full text of the signals that were sent, etc. I hope, however, that reasonable people will be able to accept the word of all those involved that there was no foul play involved in this innocent administrative error.

[The Gorilla]

So has guy been promoted then? As in was Sqn Ldr during the Det but now a Wg Cdr yes?

[Just This Once...]

Anybody else find this poor form to name relatively ‘junior’ officers and criticize them in the open press?

There have been some well constructed arguments on pprune regarding the systematic erosion of military airworthiness standards over the last decade or so and no doubt the Hadden-Cave report will express a rather strong view. However, I am uncomfortable that relatively junior personnel are being named and shamed in this manner, as these personnel have little or no influence in the scheme of things. Indeed, they are more likely to be ‘victims’ of the current system rather than the chief protagonists – although they do make convenient scapegoats.

The XV179 inquiry cross-examined personnel down to cpl level, whilst the MoD provided no legal advice or council to them. Such a measure would have been deemed unthinkable only 5 years ago. For those of you who have not been exposed to such scrutiny and take a view (perhaps justifiably) that such matters should be pushed out into the light, it is worth a reminder that UK military personnel are still subject to military law. QRs currently prohibit any action that could be seen as criticizing more senior personnel. The chain-of-command still has primacy and regulations such as QR999 are powerful ‘catch-alls’ designed to protect the chain-of-command and provide a ‘legal’ framework for the unique things the military are asked to do. In a number of areas military law directly contradicts civilian law.

For those still serving ask yourself this – what has primacy, civil or military law? Then ask yourself another question – what happens when you give evidence under oath that may run against military law? Finally ask yourself this - what safeguards are in place to assure protection of any witness that gives evidence against senior personnel in their current, previous or potential chain-of-command?

For most of us the ‘look yourself in the mirror’ law rises above anything on the military or civil statute, but the recent inquests have been rather telling. Indeed, one could be forgiven in thinking that the true divide between junior and senior personnel is the gift of memory. Junior personnel seemingly have the gift of recall, whilst a number in senior positions have little or no recollection of anything.

Military personnel have been groomed for centuries that their actions are ‘covered’ by the chain of command. Even when we write letters or policy documents it is traditional to write on behalf of those in command (eg for AOC 2 Gp), safe in the knowledge that the buck would stop with them. Civilian inquests see no such cover – if you wrote it will be you they investigate. You could try pointing out that you wrote what you did as a result of orders from your chain of command, but of course you have the gift of memory – they may not recall anything.

The military needs to decide where they sit on such matters and change the regulations to match the season of openness. Otherwise I fear that I will be serving in a military paralysed into doing nothing, for fear of being cast to the press or the courts at a latter date. Sadly ‘inaction’ is equally likely to lead to loss of life, but has the benefit of leaving little incriminating evidence.

I choose to work in an area that is constantly under intense scrutiny and where further investigations and inquests are all-too-likely to occur. I am acutely aware that in anything I do the buck stops with me and not my 1 star (although my 1 star is a top bloke). I work with the most highly skilled and dedicated bunch of guys that I have ever come across, but I fear for the longevity of what we do. I am saddened to see a number of military personnel and civil servants avoid involvement in my area because of the potential of a highly invasive investigation.

[nigegilb]

JTO, good post. I am glad if some people are shying away from the responsibility you so clearly lay out. They shouldn't be in the job in the first place. We need people like you, with broad shoulders to take the tough job on. It was obvious by the deeply unimpressive witness performances of some senior ranking officers at the Herc Inquest that they should never have been in those positions of responsibility. The collective memory losses of some witnesses can only be described as plain lying under oath. The most impressive performances and by far the most honest were from FORMER members of the RAF or serving Sqn Ldrs. Watching the chain of command cover up and feign memory loss made me feel sick. The families could see through the wretched attempts at averting responsibility.

No, you have my utmost respect for what you are doing. We need more middle ranking officers of your stature to carry the torch.

Read Tuc's posts, he sets out clearly the protection routinely afforded to the rank of AVM and above. It would appear that in the case of Nimrod and Hercules a decision was taken to limit the damage to Gp Cpt level. Unfair on the individuals concerned. I hope the Salmon letters are hitting the right targets.

However, I did hear of some very senior military and civil types being retired/moved on a few months after the Nimrod Inquest.

[davejb]

This story has done the rounds before.
Unless you are/have been aircrew in the RAF you will be unaware of the Stop Press, and its role in the day to day operational life of the squadron. The 'Stop press' is pretty well what you'd expect it to be, a file that contains information from all sorts of people that people think anyone going for a flight might need to be aware of - most (if not all) routine signals will also have a distribution list, so anything affecting Nimrod would quite likely be copied to the detachment on ops, whilst one would hope there'd be a degree of commonsense applied this does mean that a signal detailing special precautions with the sandwich toaster in sub zero temperatures would probably end up onfile in Afghanistan. (I appreciate this is an extreme example, not intended to be funny - I'm just trying to illustrate how all sorts of stuff irrelevant to the det might well be filed).

The signals will normally have an address list as long as your arm, there is no point destroying a signal to cover your tracks as copies of it will exist at all the addressees as well as the signal originator.

The good Sqn Ldr (as was) quite rightly retrieved the Stop Press, as the info in it was necessary for future ops, aircrew needed the info. He should, sensibly, have stuck what he edited out of it into a box for safe keeping - simply to protect his own back from those who see conspiracy where none exists - for example in this case. However, what was removed will have it's originator, date/time group, and SIC recorded in signal logs, the stop press enclosure record, and so forth, consequently the signals removed can be obtained by going back to the originator, or anyone else on the address list, any of whom can be expected to have a copy on file.

If you want to erase a signal from record you have to remove it from file at the originator and from the filing systems of all the addressees - it is naive to think that anyone would try to erase an important signal by simply shredding it, which would serve to destroy a single copy out of many, whilst highlighting that this might be of interest.

And one has to wonder what people imagine the "stop press" might have held, that somebody would try to 'hush it up' ... please stop looking for conspiracies where they do not exist. Nimrod was an accident waiting to happen, but I don't think anyone was aware of that - the RAF is guilty of incompetence, not malice. It is also guilty of trying to keep it all under the carpet, of course, which our modern internet age will not longer allow, thankfully.

I did quite a lot of AAR, now and again I'd volunteer for min crew slots etc involving AAR as I thought it was more interesting than most of the "flogging in circles while the tac team play a video game" that seemed to define much of my flying time. To be honest I wasn't that impressed by the lash up nature of it in the early days, even less when it all went under the floor but with (apparently) little extra thought involved beyond making it tidier... but I never once thought it was a serious safety problem, and I never heard anyone suggesting it was. We were ALL ignorant of the facts, I don't think anyone had a clue it was especially dangerous. That doesn't, of course, let the RAF off the hook for not bothering to find out.

Jimmy Jones should get back in his box, if he's such a bloody expert why didn't he sort all this out before I even arrived on the kipper fleet? My rear view vision is 20:20 too, but I'm not about to slag anyone off for failing to confront Hitler when he annexed the Sudentland....

(Edited a cupple of bad splellings out, and added some much needed full stops.)

Where'd you find 'Mermaid' in the dictionary?
Under 'C'

[tucumseh]

Davejb

If you want to erase a signal from record you have to remove it from file at the originator and from the filing systems of all the addressees - it is naive to think that anyone would try to erase an important signal by simply shredding it, which would serve to destroy a single copy out of many, whilst highlighting that this might be of interest.
All that you say is very true.

However, take this example.

There exists a document (report) explaining the history behind an accident; an embarrassing report, as it clearly shows the problem was known about years beforehand. Worse, it was mitigated, but the corrective action over-ruled and the aircraft made unsafe again. It is submitted through ones line management, but stopped before it gets to the intended recipient (the BoI chairman). Knowing this would happen, a dozen other people are on the distribution.

The BoI report says “not known” a number of times, because the report which would have informed them has been withheld. Therefore, they cannot make informed recommendations to prevent reoccurrence.

When challenged, the MoD (Minister for the Armed Forces) denies the existence of the report as it is no longer in the files of the IPT, despite hard and soft copies being available in a dozen other IPTs and offices. In short, he ruled that if the original does not exist, then the document doesn’t exist. (Ludicrous I know, but he put this in writing).

On this accident, and others, I have sat before two 2 Stars and offered them copies of such documents. Both had the gall to look me in the eye and say “There is no evidence these documents exist”, while they were still in my hand under their noses. In placing their rulings in writing, I have even seen them Reference a document and deny its existence, in the same letter. It would be laughable, if so many people hadn’t died.

Like I said, perverting the course of justice, and failure of Duty of Care amounting to Gross Negligence. And guess who Minister asked if the document existed. Judge and jury in his own case.

A real example.

[Tappers Dad]

I asked under the FOI for a List of the Documents not the content just the list.This is the reply I had.

Dear Mr Knight,
I am writing in response to your query of 3 April 2009 submitted to the MOD website, in which you asked for a transcript of the voice recordings between Kandahar airfield and Nimrod XV230 on 2 September 2006 and a list of the documents shredded from the stop press folder on 6 September 2006. Your correspondence has been considered to be a request for information in accordance with the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000.
I have enclosed the relevant extract from the transcript between Kandahar military air traffic control and Nimrod XV230, from the point at which the aircraft concluded air-to-air refuelling until the time it crashed.
You also asked for a list of the documents shredded from the stop press folder on 6 September 2006. I can confirm that the MOD does hold the information you have requested.
However, it is considered that some of the information relevant to this part of your request falls within scope of exemption at Section 26 (Defence) of the FOI Act. Section 26 covers information which, if disclosed, would prejudice defence or the capability, effectiveness or security of relevant armed forces. It is a qualified exemption and, as such, requires a public interest test to decide whether, in all circumstances of the case, the public interest factors in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. I estimate that we will be able to provide a substantive response to this part of your request by 4 June 2009.

So I think to myself if these shredded documents were of no importance how come they"would prejudice defence or the capability, effectiveness or security of relevant armed forces".
A bit more than weather forecasts then eh ?

[camelspyyder]

Given that the Nimdet was operating out of 2 primary bases at the time, both under Baz' command and subject to the same orders, why didn't anybody in the investigative chain ask to see the (same) stop press book we we using at the other one???

This is hardly rocket science now is it?

Also I fail to see how this new evidence could have come to light in the last week (original post) when Baz' shredding misdemeanours were made public at the inquest, some time ago.

CS

[StopStart]

So I think to myself if these shredded documents were of no importance how come they"would prejudice defence or the capability, effectiveness or security of relevant armed forces".
A bit more than weather forecasts then eh ?

Yes. Weather forecasts don't go in the stop press folder. :hmm:

I would hazard that the documents were indeed of "no importance" in relation to the BOI and probably contained information regarding equipment and procedures that are classified. I suspect stop press notes concerning the effectiveness of the SuperDuper MegaSpyCam Mk4 efficiency on alternate Thursdays would have very little to do with misaligned fuel couplings and general shoddy airworthiness.

You are barking up the wrong tree with this Stop Press folder rubbish. Perhaps there was some sort of failure in BOI procedure but having been flying in the RAF now for some 20 years I can guarantee you that there was nothing in that folder that had anything directly to do with the tragic loss of 230. I would suggest that if there had been something in there along those lines then one of the 60+ aircrew that had to sign as having read the thing (including the crew of XV230) might have said something.

This is an utter red herring. There are clearly many questions to be answered and, perhaps, heads to roll over the loss of XV230 with all her crew but seriously, don't waste your time over this folder. :(

[Blacksheep]

Never airworthy? Design deficiencies are easily discovered with hindsight.

Viewed in the same light, SFAR88 means that around half of the world's civil airliner fleet have "never been airworthy". Nevertheless, all these thousands of aircraft were type certified as airworthy after prolonged testing and in-depth regulatory oversight. Despite all the perceived shortcomings that are the subject of SFAR88, just one airliner is known to have suffered a fuel tank explosion in mid-air and three more on the ground.

The Nimrod is a military aircraft with operational features that make it more hazardous to operate than a civilian machine. Lets keep a sense of proportion. Whatever was in the shredded documents, the investigation has drawn a valid and proper conclusion and the airworthiness deficiency is being addressed: as is the case with the many hundreds of airworthiness matters that are the subject of Airworthiness Directives as a routine daily process for those of us who work in the airworthiness and reliability field.

While it is a stupid error to destroy any documents relating to an aircraft after an accident or incident, the chap seems to have been correct in his assessent of the value of the destroyed documents and no actual harm has been done.

[Pontius Navigator]

I am not commenting on what happened or didn't happen but what might be best practice in the future.

1. An incident or accident occurs in which all relevant documents are impounded.

2. Some impounded documents are required for current operations (or whatever).

3. The document should be released from impounding, under signature and with a witness present.

4. The impound document should be copied either in whole or in part.

5. The entire impound document should be returned to the impound documents.

6. The copies may be used as required. If amendments or changes to the copies are then necessary, these changes should also be made to the BOI.

[Rigger1]

Even the lowest SAC know that ALL documents are impounded immediately after an incident, and whether they are relative or not will be decided by the BOI, FULL STOP, that’s it, no ifs buts or maybes.

As for a genuine admin error, well lots of people have been disciplined for a lot less, not promoted.
There is no excuse for this, at all.

[Two's in]

You are barking up the wrong tree with this Stop Press folder rubbish. Perhaps there was some sort of failure in BOI procedure

Stopstart - you answered your own point. As others have said, it is the principle of any documents escaping quarantine following a fatal accident that is so troubling here, regardless of their "perceived" relevance to the BOI.

[davejb]

The Stop press was released because it is a folder used for storing information deemed important for aircrew to be aware of prior to flight. That's why it's called the Stop Press. It is not where shock admissions of flight safety problems are filed, nor is the met in there - it is a collection of short term info on a wide variety of subjects that people figure anyone going flying might like to be aware of. So kindly dismount from the high horses, there was a damned good reason to release it - aircrew were still going to be flying and their supervisor sensibly realised they'd need the info that had been impounded.

PN's suggestion has, of course, a lot of merit - a photocopy of the original doc could have been made available to crews, leaving the original impounded. That would, at the very least, have stopped everyone jumping on this latest non-story. A shame that nobody thought of it at the time.

TD - please be aware that some information will quite rightly be held back on security grounds. Whilst I can fully understand your deep suspicion that you are being refused information for other reasons (and no doubt that is true part of the time, inexcusably, as some try to cover their tracks) you cannot assume that's always the case.

As has already been pointed out, a lot of Nimdet people read that Stop Press, so either they're all part of a massive cover up or there was nothing of interest in it.... which is more likely?

Please could we have a modicum of sense here - stop assuming everyone associated with Nimrod is in the wrong, even worse that they are busily covering up...

[StopStart]

you answered your own point.

I'm not sure I did. The underlying issue here isn't BOI procedure but instead the thinking by some of the families of the XV230 crew that there is some sort of underhand conspiracy going on here by the MoD.

As is a generally accepted fact in the media: military+shredding = evil conspiracy.

I still maintain that, notwithstanding this minor failing of BOI procedure, the shredding of random bits of the Stop Press folder is irrelevant when it comes to furthering the cause of certain family members who seek to pursue the MoD on this case. I think their energies would be better directed elsewhere other than this red herring if they seek to have someone's head over this. Or they can pursue some poor bloke who made an error handling what I'll bet what was just "triv".

As for the actual shredding itself, we don't have the full details so stop being so righteously indignant and accept that a fallible human possibly made a poor decision but probably with the best intentions. He wasn't being directed from an evil MoD lair under Whitehall by a bald man on a swivel chair stroking a white cat...:hmm:

PS. If I could be bothered I'd put some of this in big font, bold and underlined for the full on Daily Mail outrage effect :rolleyes:

[nigegilb]

Dave, I agree that this is something of a non-story, but don't blame TD. His FOI request, respected the fact that sensitive info could be contained within the folder, he requested titles not content. As usual MoD has been too secretive and evasive with replies. As you rightly point out, TD has been denied info in the past, most likely because of who he is. If there is any blame here, it should lie with MoD, with the heavy handed approach to answering the FOI request.

Now it looks a whole lot worse than it really is. Something the MoD is particularly good at.

[davejb]

Yes Nige,
I'm not "blaming" TD, it seems to me perfectly understandable that by this stage everything the MOD do will be viewed with deep suspicion by that gentleman, often with good cause. Equally I wouldn't expect him to be familiar with the sort of material in the file concerned, so I can understand his assuming there might be something relevant in it that the shredding was designed to supress. As far as the security issue goes, well, it may well be MOD being bloody minded, but the fact is that unless somebody here can check what was shredded we'll never know.

This is a non-story, but the Daily Mail could hardly run with 'Sqn Ldr shreds what he thought was irrelevant and out of date signals to avoid having a hernia when lifting the Stop Press, then realised that might look a bit dodgy when he stopped and thought about it later'...could it? It's just a bit of human fallibility.

[Winco]

This wasn't a simple mistake by Bazalgettes, but a calculated decision to destroy inclusions in the stop press folder. Having done all the good things such as impounding the books etc, he then made a concious decision to shed parts of of one document. That is not a 'mistake' at all, it is something far more worrying IMHO.

But we have all seen the stop press folder haven't we, and we all know that a great deal of it is frankly Niff-Naff, but the fact that some parts were destroyed and the MOD has now decreed that disclosure of 'those parts' 'would prejudice defence or the capability, effectiveness or security of relevant armed forces' is somewhat worrying I believe.

It is utterly staggering to see that a senior officer can make such a very simple and fundamental 'mistake' by destroying parts of a document, knowing full well that he should not have and....gets promoted after it!
A complete farce. If it had been an SAC or a Cpl, they would have been screwed, but a senior officer?????? And I won't even question the security classification of these papers that related to the 'prejudice defence or the capability, effectiveness or security of relevant armed forces' It must have been classified surely??

Shame on him and those responsible for allowing him to continue.

The Winco

[Wader2]

"Have a courts martial and hang the guilty b*st*rd" seems to be the tenor of the posts here.

[Wrathmonk]

WinCo

:=

IMHO the tone of your statement

This wasn't a simple mistake by Bazalgettes, but a calculated decision to destroy inclusions in the stop press folder

and

he then made a concious decision to shed parts of of one document

is bordering on the libellous - unless of course you were there at the time and can categorically, without any doubt, back that statement up. Funny how when two air ranking officer make such unfounded statements (Chinook/Mull) there is outrage. Difference here is at least the individual concerned is alive and can defend/clear the alledged slur against his name.

[nigegilb]

If they were marked secret what on earth was he doing shredding the documents?

Do you guys still top and tail to get round classification issues?

I have to say, it is a foolish thing to do with accident inquiry guys inbound. I don't agree that MoD could not supply info on headers. Are you suggesting ALL the info in the stop press file was secret of higher? I rather doubt that. But please correct me if I am wrong.

[Winco]

Wrathmonk
You can't 'accidently' retrieve a file that has been impounded post accident, and then selectively shred certain parts of that file can you?

daveyboy
I'm sure you are more up-to-date about the destruction of classified material than I am, so are you suggesting that a sqn ldr can take it upon himself (as was stated in an earlier post that i was responding to) and selectively destroy Secret UK eyes only or similar??? I think not.

[Wader2]

Oh FFS don't try and hang the guilty b*st*rd for improper shredding of secret documents too.

Of course you can shred secret documents. You simply follow the rules, pita certainly but very simple to do. No Nigel, topping and tailing is a quick way to a no-coffee interview. [selective copying to personal aircrew pocket books is something else but let's not go there].

[Secretive_Santa]

Shreds documents then disarms crews flying combat missions - wibble!

[Wrathmonk]

Winco

My point was your tone and that you have presumed 'worst case'. Judge, jury and executioner. And we wonder why people won't stand up and admit their mistakes - open reporting is being stifled by such a Victorian attitude that Wader alludes to. How about you shift from behind your username and send your first paragraph verbatim to the Daily Mail for publication if you are so confident that you are right? More importantly how would you feel if someone said such a thing about you, by name, on such a board without knowing all the FACTS and hid behind a username? But then it wouldn't happen because you've never made a mistake ... or at least never admitted to it :p

[Winco]

wrathmonk

What you are forgetting is that I have mearly responded in light of what has already been posted, and what appears to have been confirmed and borne out by TD and the reply he has received from the MOD. Confirmation indeed, if it was needed.

I am not being judge and jury at all. I am mearly pointing out that you cannot 'accidently' retrieve an impounded document, the stop press folder, and accidently shred parts selectively. It is a concious decision either to shred or not shred, and whatever it was, it would appear that he made the decision to do so. Or do you not see that??

We all know the kind of stuff that is the the stop press folder, but to suggest that the contents were so highly classified as to be not be available under the FOI act suggests that they were indeed of an important nature and makes you wonder why they were shredded at such a crucial time?? All a bit strange, or do you not see that either?

As for your last comment about me never having made a mistake, well you are, yet again, wrong there too. Even I have made mistakes! We all make mistakes, but the secret is to own up to them and learn from them.

[Distant Voice]

At the time that XV230 was lost the aircraft was carrying a number of defects, none of which were entered as ADD's or limitations in the F700. Namely

(1) No.1 tank appeared to be full with a fuel load of 15,000 lbs, 1000 lbs short of max.

(2) SCP trips off during AAR

(3) Erratic fuel gauge for No. 5 tank

(4) No. 3 tank port would not go above 7800 lbs

(5) No. 1 tank blow offs

Of the latter, Air Marshal Thornton stated in the BOI report "Whilst the overflow phenomenon had been noticed during some sorties shortly before the accident, it is unfortunate that no aircraft incident reports were raised as a result of these events"

The questions to be asked are, (1) did the Stop Press folder contain any information relating to these defects, and (2) were the defects known about by the station flight safety oficer?

DV

[Pontius Navigator]

did the Stop Press folder contain any information relating to these defects,

What seems to be suggested here is that the aircraft was carying Det snags, snags that would have been fixed at homebase but which the closer experience of Det Ops (a few crews using a small number of aircraft) would be carried.

Certainly it can be common to carry snags on away flights 'knowing' that they will not affect the planned mission. At homebase, when you do not know what the next mission may require then faults are reported correctly.

What you then imply is that such snags would be put in the 'stop press' or 'hot gen' folder as a means of passing on information without the formality of a F700 entry.

May be this was what happened. I also know that another system is the Flt Eng mafia. Each flt eng would brief the other flt eng on relevant snags - this happens at main base too not withstanding the F700.

[nigegilb]

Aircrew would have to briefed on previous tank blow offs etc. Also, fuel tank indication issues could affect AAR sorties. There must be plenty of Nimrod crew who read this thread and have also read the Stop Press folder. This info ought to be in the aircraft F700 in the first instance.

Any takers?

The other suggestion for TD is to instruct/ask HC to have access to the Stop Press info. He will be security cleared and will also have the right to demand the information.

TD? Any thoughts? Have you tried the F700?

I have to say, I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe that info shredded was not relevant.

[davejb]

this is passing from 'bizarre' to 'ridiculous, I am surprised at you, Nigel, as I would have expected you to appreciate what the Stop Press would typically contain, yet you seem to be feeding a 'who shot JFK' frenzy amongst those who haven't a clue.

If there was a limitation on the aircraft it would be in the 700 - when I snagged a piece of kit I filled the relevant 720B* in and attended the tech debrief to explain the various snags found by my team to the techies. That snag MIGHT have made it's way to the Stop Press I suppose, but I can't really see why - that wasn't where aircraft snags were meant to go.

Pruning the stop press was a regular occurrence. It is meant to hold information relevant to aircrew about to sortie, it is not a historical document and anything of longer term relevance would also be filed on the relevant file - so IF you had a problem with the Nimrod that you filed on the Stop Press (for some obscure reason that, frankly escapes me) it should also be held on file in Eng records...

Classified info might well be in the stop press, the title of enclosure 50 might well read 'UAVs operating FL200-300 through May 09' for example, giving away in the subject line some short term tactical information that the MOD quite rightly believes should not be released into the public domain. Hence the list of signal subjects might well be pruned before responding to a FOI request. As ex aircrew Nigel I am surprised that you don't appreciate that some signal subject lines still give information away that isn't for general distribution.To assume, which is what many here are doing, that this automatically indicates some sort of cover up is understandable amongst those who are not and have never been part of the RAF aircrew world, it is unforgivable amongst those who should know better.

I lost friends and ex crewmates (several) on this aircraft, and I want to see their families well catered for and compensated (and I am not a cheapskate - enough cash to buy a small bungalow in forres is not my idea of fair recompense). What annoys me about this thread, and some of the rubbish on others, is that people like Mr Knights quite rightly aren't fully au fait with 'the system', and can therefore, sometimes, make a big deal out of trivia - every time this happens it makes them look a bit silly and it undermines the very worthy effort they are putting in to ensure this shameful state of affairs is recognised and prevented from ever happening again. It clearly behoves all of us who posess that extra bit of knowledge to try to make sure that these howlers are avoided, that the campaign stays on target and cannot be dismissed as the ravings of the uneducated.

This thread is a howler, and the more emphasis that is placed on it, the less credible the opposition to the MOD - for goodness sake get back on target.... call me paranoid, but I'm beginning to wonder if some of the outraged Daily Mail types on this thread aren't a deliberate wind up from MOD looking to cloud the important stuff.

By all means try to get HC to read the original signals from the Stop Press, but please don't go off half cocked in this manner by assuming it had anything relevant to the accident until you've got rather more proof than a gut feeling.

* My apologies if I get the odd form number wrong by the way, following my career change I have a lot of other numbers to remember these days....

[Itoooooooooons]

All that is missing on this thread is Joseph McCarthy shouting "The Russians are coming and they are going to eat all your children!"

Why do DV, TD et al insist on a conspiracy? They seems to be clutching at straws now. Yes, they have done a good job in all of this but come on guys, enough is enough.

[davejb]

..and for what it is worth, Nimrod crews routinely shred Secret information (lots of it), including Secret caveated material, after flight, signing a (witnessed) destruction certificate on conclusion. ANYONE with any genuine experience on Nimrods will have shredded so much of the stuff that it's a complete non-event, in fact sometimes problems occur (thankfully not too often) when people get so blase about it that they don't actually pay too much attention as they shove another hundredweight into the shredder. (That, thankfully, is usually sorted out by those NCO crewmembers who have been recycled via Int/MAAU etc where NCO aircrew actually learn the proper way to handle classified material).

It is becoming increasing clear on here who is making a lot of noise without actually having any knowledge of the subject. I specifically exclude from that comment TD and those other family members still fighting the MOD, as I genuinely believe you are being let down by those on here who could help you to a better understanding, but seem to be determined to generate another conspiracy theory instead. As others have said on this thread, there are better things to go for - this story is a red herring.

[Tappers Dad]

nigegilb

The F700 is carried on the aircraft therefiore it was lost with XV230 and the 14 souls onboard.

davejb
I am not saying there is a conspiracy or a cover up all I am saying is I find it ,lets say unusual that with in days of the crash the Det officer having had the stop press folder taken off him then gets it back and begins shredding .

He admitted he was wrong I accept that so why will the MOD not tell me what it was he shredded. I don't want chapter and verse just a list and lets face it they could write anything on the list I would not know if it was correct or not.

[nigegilb]

djb, I am merely stating that I find the actions of the DetCo inexplicable. I am fully aware of the sort of stuff in the Stop Press folder, would you like to give us a plausible theory as to why someone would want to retrieve a file and start shredding with an accident board inbound?

I can't think of a good reason myself.

No need to go half cocked at me, I have already pointed out that the most important aspect of the story is the implication of the Salmon letters.

I am well versed in MoD tactics, I don't willingly give benefit of the doubt nowadays.

[davejb]

Yes TD I can understand and sympathise with your stand here, I can also understand why you'd suspect foul play at work too. I genuinely don't have an issue with your viewpoint here at all, what I am peeved about is the number of ill informed posters who are blowing this up. Some of these posters should know better, and could help steer your efforts down more productive paths. It bothers me that they are likely to lead to all Nimrod threads being dismissed as a loony tunes day out, which will tend to diminish the effect of your rather better targetted efforts.

I really believe this is a Red Herring, and there is a real danger of creating ill will amongst Sqn crews by taking pot shots at a guy who is seen as a victim of an ill informed witch hunt. I should perhaps add that as far as I am aware I don't know the chap in question, but I have known an awful lot of people who did far worse than prune a working document.

Dave

[Chugalug2]

TD:
nigegilb

The F700 is carried on the aircraft therefiore it was lost with XV230 and the 14 souls onboard.


Only posting this because Nige seems to have missed the above. The whole point about a Tech Log is that everything in it should be backed up in Tech Records. Unless the RAF has abandoned that very basic Flight Safety procedure (and I've read enough on PPRuNe to consider even that a possibility) then you should be able to see all the ADD's etc etc that were in the F700. Whether that would be prejudicial to the Nation's security is as ever for the MOD to pronounce on....

[davejb]

Fully cocked.
I think you are seeing ill intent as a matter of course, and whilst I am quite prepared to cheer you on with regard to the overall caning of the RAF flight safety setup I believe that the officer involved in this case is getting a bum deal in this thread. Anybody who thought that pruning the Stop Press would magic away all the other copies of the signals in it would have to be very stupid indeed... the 'motive' just doesn't hold water.

There appears to be a default operating here of 'guilty until you prove you are innocent', which I for one find offensive. I will cheerfully subscribe to the rope fund should actual proof of evil intent be proved - the Stop press signals will have been filed in lots of other places, find them and THEN hound the chap.

Editing this now to add: I am now going to step away from this thread - having weighed in several times it's apparent that there are two camps here that aren't going to agree anytime soon. TD - I hope you obtain, one day, the satisfaction and closure that you deserve, none of my growling is/has been directed at you, you still have my very best wishes for the future.

[nigegilb]

Perhaps the sentiments expressed in your last post are reason enough for MoD to have another think and release more intelligent info to TD.

I fully agree that we don't need another conspiracy, but the MoD should realise that TD isn't going away any time soon.

And the further bad news for MoD is that Haddon Cave is pursuing new lines of inquiry, another reason for the delayed report. HCs report is threatening to be the real deal.

Perhaps the protection given to VSOs is going to be tested after all.

The Nimrod Review

PRESS NOTICE

No 3


29th MAY 2009


PUBLICATION OF FINAL REPORT


• Charles Haddon-Cave QC has confirmed his intention to publish his Report in
the week commencing 26th October 2009.

• This is later than originally envisaged since the inquiry has broadened and
deepened over recent months, and new lines of inquiry have opened up which
require further investigation.

• Mr Haddon-Cave will hold a press conference to launch his report, and copies
of his report will be made available on the Review’s website on publication.

• Arrangements and timings for publication, and the press conference, will be
issued nearer the time.

For the benefit of DJB, I say again, that the most important aspect of ST story is the issuing of Salmon letters way up the CoC.

[tucumseh]

My parting shot: if someone were to submit an FoI request asking: 'Were any of the entries that were taken out of the Stop Press after 2 Sep 06 entered into the Stop Press after XV230 arrived in theatre' and the MoD answered 'no' would it at least convince people that there was no conspiracy related to information about that particular aircraft?


DaveyBoy

Hear what you say, but a particularly daft feature of the Act is that any information provided does not have to be accurate or truthful. As ruled, in writing, by the Information Commissioner's Office. MoD routinely exploit this loophole by lying though their back teeth. Which, I suspect, is part of what drives TD.

[The Gorilla]

Dave

I fully agree Stop Press stuff was never riveting and in my previous sandy place was usually full of the Tactical Admin Wing empire building stuff. Things like don't leave your Air con in the bunks on when flying cos if you do we is gonna shoot you innit! Are TD and others being paranoid and blowing this sub thread out of proportion? Yes I think so, but he, Nige and Flipster all have damn good reasons to mistrust the MOD.

That said there is no reason on earth why the MOD can't let TD have the Stop Press stuff the Det Cdr shredded. Except the MOD believes it is above the law and the rest of us don't count.

And am I the only one to be gobsmacked that this Det Cdr broke the cardinal rules and was still promoted? That in itself tells me he was doing his masters bidding. :=

My own view is these refusals are done on purpose to create a smoke screen and provoke conspiracy theories. The bottom line ala the 1955 AFA is that all of you who serve are the property of the MOD and its senior clowns in uniform. If they choose to sacrifice you on the altar of un-airworthy jets then that is their right to do so and if they can they always will.

We can make them hide under stones and squirm with embarrassment but the bottom line is we all delude ourselves if we think we can actually stop them. That does not mean however that we should ever stop trying!!
:ugh:

TG

[Chugalug2]

TG:

If they choose to sacrifice you on the altar of un-airworthy jets then that is their right to do so and if they can they always will.


With due respect TG that is dangerous rubbish. It may well be a bit of Artistic Licence but remember there are some young and impressionable people reading this! If you are an ardent reader of tucumseh you will know that it was the direct order of a 2* in the 90's that started the slide into unairworthiness around him. I make the latter point because by creative and lateral thinking he defied that order and maintained the airworthiness for which he was responsible. For that "crime" he has been castigated by all and sundry including Ministers. That 2* order was illegal because it required his subordinates to ignore the MOD's own regulations and then to certify that they had been complied with! Under Air Force Law in my day you were required to defy such an illegal order and to report it to higher authority. OK, AFL has now been subsumed into Military Law (I think) but I'd be greatly disappointed if it doesn't say much the same thing. Everyone in the RAF from AC2 to ACM is required to abide by that. If they had then the aircraft would still be airworthy and the RAF higher command purged of some reactionary deadwood. Instead the aircraft are unairworthy and the higher command is infested with rot. It is a matter of doing one's duty, not supinely and rhetorically asking; "Yeah? Well what can you do?". Oh, and don't tell me it does no good to at least try. Evil happens when good men and women do nothing.

[nigegilb]

Historically, I agree with TG, but in the future, the CoC will have to be a lot more careful. Hutton is running scared of the recent HRA judgement. MoD still hasn't decided whether to appeal.. Mainly because the judgement was overwhelmingly against the Govt. Hutton has hinted that labour might try and change the law, spouting b****x about battlefield commanders. We all know, that the crew of XV230 were killed because of decisions taken in peacetime. The Govt is only worried about liability. I don't see how they can change the law either, as it is based on EU legislation signed up to by Labour.

One wonders if the Tories will be tempted to pull out of HRA when they come to power, so putting this problem to bed. They are also running scared because they expect to come to power in the next 12 months.

I certainly wouldn't trust Labour or Conservative on this issue.

[camelspyyder]

Having regularly used the document in question, even that very dark week in Sep 06, I can tell you all that it only related to operational information. It was not an unofficial Detachment Tech Log (as opposed to the F700). Such logs were stamped out at Kinloss some years before the accident.

CS

[TheSmiter]

Nige dear chap,

As an ex aircrew mate (you may even have have flown me to some really dire locations), and one whose opinions I have previously been in concurrence with ......... am slightly concerned at your latest assessment:

I certainly wouldn't trust Labour or Conservative on this issue.

Are you implying there are some politicians you might trust ?

Do have a word with yourself.

Regards

TS

[nigegilb]

As a constituent of James Gray, you know the one who tried to claim for poppies and cut his wife adrift when she was receiving cancer treatment, I am afraid to say, things won't get much better when the Govt changes some time in the next few months. There is no money and I hear nothing from Fox or Cameron to suggest that UKAF will be given a higher priority when they come to power.

That said, I have received some support from some individual MPs.

I am just looking forward to seeing the back of the socialist gits in power. Loving the Ainsworth stuff today. Working class lads having oak beams put into the living room. You can't beat champagne socialists.

Good luck to you Mr Smiter!

Linky;
BBC - BBC Parliament Programmes - House of Commons, Live Defence Questions (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kttpc)

Worth watching the first 5 minutes

[Distant Voice]

Camelspyyder, you said
Such logs were stamped out at Kinloss some years ago

And replaced by what? I have just re-read Flt Sgts Young's inquest statement regarding the five defects mentioned in post #35, and it would appear that "crew room" chat was the norm for passing defects on, which can be very dangerous. A No.1 tank blow-off was regarded as acceptable, even though no one had ever seen one in flight; as was the shutting down of the SCP even though it was "The ony time in all my AAR that the SCP tripped off".

One of the problems with detachments is that they become very much task driven and defects are carried, because to log them officially will most likely ground the aircaft for investiagtion. According to Sdn Ldr Bazelgette XV230 was the only aircraft he had available, it had to fly on 2nd Sept in order to support the new offensive against the Taliban.

I wonder if any of these problems were discussed with the station flight safety officer? Isn't that what he is there for?

DV

[Charlie Luncher]

I know this may seem a strange request but I would like to know if any of you could pass me an exact position of the crash site. I have the position from the released BOI details. I pass the area regularly and would like to pay my respects to my fallen pals of the Drunken Ducks. Please PM with the details.
Respectfully
Charlie sends

[tucumseh]

It appears paper-shredder-in-chief Ainsworth has been promoted.

So, withholding and destroying evidence is now official policy.

[Dengue_Dude]

So, if the papers weren't important - why shred them?

Shredding is good for promotion.

Do you actually believe ANYBODY 'in authority', all of them have 'careers' and they are still under the impression that it's a noun rather than a verb.

Personally, I feel the crew and NoK have been very shabbily served - hey that's news isn't it - not.

I am SO glad I've left. Serving peeps, you truly have my sympathy. If you can, stay safe.

When you look at the 'leaders' of this country fiddling their expenses, why do we expect our illustrious leaders in the latest cam-gear to act differently? We're talking potential knighthoods and serious stuff like that here.

What's a few dead crew and distraught Nok set against that eh? Not as bad as the career progression of WW 1 generals though (lose a few thousand before breakfast), perhaps things are improving after all.

[anita gofradump]

Am I being cynical . . . ?

Yes, you are, and un-informed where this specific matter is concerned.

So, if the papers weren't important - why shred them?

This has been answered earlier in the thread, if you'd bothered to read it all.

Serving peeps, you truly have my sympathy. If you can, stay safe.

Thanks.

[nigegilb]

Anita, have you seen the list of documents that were destroyed?






It's just that I have the list of headers of the contents that were destroyed.

They are extensive and rather surprising.

[anita gofradump]

No, I haven't Nige. Generally speaking, that folder can be used for all manner of messages that the crews need to see, as mentioned earlier. I was assuming that Dengue_Dude was making a few speculative and uninformed comments about what had gone on.

I am still of the belief that more is being made of the whole subject, than is actually there.

[Dengue_Dude]

I was operational aircrew.

I was a flight safety officer.

I was a station intelligence officer on a 'sensitive' base.

I think that's pedigree enough.

Yes, I am cynical and sadly unsurprised too. . .

Uninformed? On this issue, probably - fact is, who do you believe?

Call that post a 'safety valve' statement, but I don't take a word back.

[nigegilb]

There are 38 different file entries that have been shredded. Some of them, Nim specific orders, AL27 RTS notes, fuel and jettison checks, raise the question of what remained current in the Stop Press folder, ie were they superceded. Most of it looks operational, but before finally putting this to bed, I'd rather see the list of what remained, if I was TD. Anyone know how many entries there were on the SP file? This seems like a very "heavy" thinning out of the list.

When I get the time I will type them out and list them on the thread. BTW only a few words here and there had to be redacted. MoD did see sense in the end. Seems the security of the state was never really threatened.

[Rigger1]

I have never been operational aircrew.

I have never been a flight safety officer.

I have never been a station intelligence officer on a 'sensitive' base.

However, even the lowliest SAC (No offence to SACs, been there done that) knows that after an incident / accident all paperwork that has any relevance what so ever to the aircraft or flight is secured immediately for use by the board.

It is up to the board, and only the board, to decide what is relevant. FULL STOP, No Excuses, End Of.

[tucumseh]

Rigger 1

Agreed. Spot on.

The new Secretary of State for Defence does not agree, and is on record as saying so; having condoned vital information being withheld from Boards of Inquiry and subsequently destroyed.

He stated this when Min(AF), in doing so wholly contradicting the regulations issued by his boss (and now predecessor). This disagreement now presents him with an interesting dilemma. Can he possibly be so duplicitous as to issue a directive to his replacement that the regulations must now be obeyed?

In a way I'm glad he's got the top job. he's going to feel the full force of Mr Haddon-Cave's Review report. (Assuming Labour are still in power in October).

[Winco]

Rigger1

100% correct, well said.

It is for this very reason that people are sceptical and synical of what was in the SP file and more importantly, why this Numpty shredded parts of it.

And I say Numpty purely and simply because as a Sqn Ldr, and a DetCo, he should have know better, and he did know better. So why???????????

Winco

[nigegilb]

Maybe he was told to shred 38 entries in the SP folder?

[Distant Voice]

Maybe he was told to shred 38 entries in the SP folder

My thoughts exactly. Sdn Ldr Bazalgette only arrived in theatre on 20th Aug, and yet by 6th Sept he had decided that 38 documents were no longer relevant and needed to be shredded.

Would be interesing to know what was covered by ASP Repair Work for Aug 06 (Entry date 01 Aug 06).

DV

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Sorry folks, but too much is being made of this incident. It is masking more relevant concerns regarding XV230. Baz made an error of judgement by destroying entries from the 'Stop Press' folder that I have no doubt had been superseded and formally incorporated in other official documents and/or were time lapsed. I suspect that his admin - with regards to the contents of the SP - was just better than his predecessor. My arrival at ISK found the stn SP folder still incorporating information that was well out-of-date;the SP needs regular thinning out. As for the ASP repair work, DV; I suspect that it was work on the ASP on or around 1 Aug 06 that was completed - and hence irrevalent - by 2 Sep 06.

This is a red herring.

Duncs:ok:

[Rigger1]

Baz made an error of judgement

Oh come on, and I don't want to turn this into an other ranks Vs Officers thread but an error of judgement!

If it had been a Cpl or Sgt had decided that these aren't relevant let’s shred them they would have been in Colchester by now.

Because there had been an incident he did not have the authority to get rid of any paperwork that related in any way to the flight or operation of that aircraft. He was not the Board of Inquiry and he most defiantly was not the design organisation and as such was in no position to decide what should stay and what should go.

He broke a very clear order and there is NO excuse.

[nigegilb]

The list of entries shredded after the file was impounded;

Entry Date Subject

29 Nov 05 Op CHOB overt procedures
02 Dec 05 Illumination XXXXXX AS Units
16 Dec 05 Generic threats to Mobile Telephony
05 Jan 06 Redcrown Frequency Confirmation
13 Jan 06 Flares and Jettison checks
23 Jan 06 XXXX Meeting Minutes
15 Feb 06 Use of AIS in Gulf Maritime Ops
02 Feb 06 Unidentified Anti-Aircraft Weapons
02 Mar 06 Engine Power on Basrah Departures
03 Apr 06 EO AC Data Collection Req's
04 Apr 06 Re Read Enc 2 Stop Press
04 Apr 06 2Gp ASO's & Nim Specific Orders
06 Apr 06 Flight Overland Pakistan/Afghanistan
07 Apr 06 UAV Flights in SOH
14 Apr 06 XXXXX Pakistan Border
14 Apr 06 2 GP ASO's & Nim Specific Orders
19 Apr 06 Basrah's XO's Bits
19 Apr 06 Tacnote 43D AL3
22 Apr 06 CTS Aircrew briefs
02 May 06 AP101B-0503-15C
03 May 06 Moving Map Imagery
02 May 06 CAG/SAG Sorties
04 may 06 Thunderstorms & Weather
04 May 06 OpCHOB E-Mail
06 May 06 XX Post Lightning Strike Req's
07 May 06 Charles De Gaulle
24 May 06 Piracy Incident
Threat Basrah
Various Files to read
09 Jun 06 AL 27 to RtoS
09 Jun 06 AL 2 to FOB
09 Jun 06 Signal on 55mm Flares
14 Jun 06 Maritime ISR Conference
15 Jun 06 Manpad Threats
16 Jun 06 Servodyne Chest Valves
Chest Valves - Impact
21 Jul 06 Op Veritas - Medals
01 Aug 06 ASP Repair Work Aug 06

Four redactions, concerning info MoD initially denied any knowledge of.

[Rigger1]

Some people do not get it it doesn't matter what the files were, no one but the relevant authority should have removed them.

There is no counter argument.

[nigegilb]

I just do not understand what would possess someone to take an impounded document and do that amount of shredding.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

At first glance this appears to be items that would no longer be required in the SP - information regarding amendment states of Nimrod Orders, HQ 2Gp Orders, RTS, Aircrew Manual and FRCs. Information from Nov 05 should not be in the SP in Sep 06! It should have been shredded by the cpl or sgt months previously. And information regarding the fact that their sorties would qualify them for the VERITAS medal.

Red herring.

Duncs:ok:

[camelspyyder]

Whilst that is true rigger1, I see nothing destroyed re AAR, Aircraft Serviceability, or indeed anything relevant to XV230's fate.

Most of the docs thinned out were weeks, months or years out of date.

And nige, regardless of FOI. I find it kind of annoying from a security perspective that you would even publish the titles of documents contained in a classified folder, previously only viewed in a secure Ops room.

rant over

CS

[Distant Voice]

The list has already been published under FOI.

DV

[nigegilb]

Camel Sp, get over it, FOI is just what it says on the can, freedom of information. MoD stated serious concerns about this list, but then thought again and published the slightly redacted version. Unnecessary secrecy, handy for those in power with something to hide. In this case, MoD has had free rein to redact where necessary and it was hardly necessary.

TD has doggedly taken on the authorities over the past months and years. If this eventually dispels the myth of conspiracy then it can only be a good thing, can it not?

And just to correct your post, 3 documents were dated from the previous year, 35 were from the current year. Hardly years out of date is it?

[camelspyyder]

Be that as it may, as an operator of the aircraft, it concerns me greatly to know that some of those documents, which concern my personal safety and security, are now in the public domain.

[nigegilb]

They are not in the public domain, the titles of the documents are.

I don't understand your concerns, the deaths of the entire crew of XV230 had nothing to do with the enemy. It had everything to do with poor safety standards at home.

TD is merely examining every aspect of this case. If MoD security experts deemed it safe to release this information, then one has to assume it is safe.

Why don't you complain to the MoD?

I bet the officer who shredded these documents didn't expect his work to be released to the public.
Perhaps next time, he will follow the correct procedure?

[davejb]

Nige,
thanks for publishing the list (genuinely).
I suspect I'll only be here briefly - but could any of those who have been suggesting the Stop Press shredding was part of a cover up identify anything in that list that might have a genuine bearing on the loss of the aircraft?

I would still agree that the shredding was unfortunate - given that copying the file would probably involve a lot of extra work for some poor soul I can understand why that wasn't necessarily done (although copying it, returning to original to safe custody, and working from the copy would probably look like a good move in hindsight...simply removing the outdated stuff and shoving it into a boxfile for safe keeping would also have worked) - but I don't see anything there myself that would need to be shredded to cover anything up.

Dave

[EdSett100]

It is up to the board, and only the board, to decide what is relevant. FULL STOP, No Excuses, End Of.

Thanks, Rigger1, for clarifying the rules for us, not that we need reminding, thank you.

Perhaps you are not aware that the Stop Press is a binder/folder, held in Stn Ops with as much official sponsorship as the hot gen booklet in your denims. Its usefulness to the readership does not, per sec, make it an official document.

The SP is an UNOFFICIAL BINDER with nothing more than a collection of standalone documents that would otherwise be stacked in an in-tray or hung on a notice board. Every one of those documents (be it an Order, a letter from the Stn Cdr or news about repairs to the Aircraft Starting Platform (ASP) is originated elsewhere and will also be filed and available elsewhere. It exists to bring to the attention of the crews about to fly, the latest copies of new documents that are at that time also dispersed across a range of other Pubs, Orders and files. If I went into any Base Ops anywhere in the RAF and desroyed the Stop Press, I should not be denying any aircrew any info they need to fly. I would, however, have made their flight planning extremely tedious because they would have to check for amendments and entries in every AP, Order Book and Ops file. So, just so you know, destroying entries in the SP does not destroy the info.

The local commander has the daily responsibility to decide what should and should not be in the SP. There is nothing original in it. It needs to be short and sharp. Having just arrived in theatre, Sqn Ldr Bazalgette was aware that the info that he was about to destroy would remain available to the BOI, at their original or other addressed locations. The fact that Nigegilb has the list of docs in that particular SP is clear evidence that Sqn Ldr Bazalgette ensured that the list of enclosures remained available to the BOI and other interested parties. Thanks Nigegilb, a most useful submission in this discussion. Having read Nige's list I can assure the readers that a copy of every single one of those listed documents still exists somewhere (and relevant copies are probably stored in the BOI's archives).

Sqn Ldr Bazalgette was doing his job in very trying circumstances. He thought only of the crews under him and he dutifully weeded the crap out of a binder to ensure that his crews remained focussed before flying into danger. His was a well deserved promotion to Wg Cdr, which is far better than a pompous self-awarded label of "winco" on an internet chat board.

I have no criticism of any non-service person who wishes to know more about the SP, but I am very disappointed when an ex officer (winco), who should know how the SP works, uses words like, "numpty" to describe a Sqn Ldr, and also when a tradesman (Rigger1) believes that he knows better how to manage an aircrew binder than an experienced aircrew senior officer.

Rgds
Ed Sett

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

:D

Duncs:ok:

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

....destroying entries in the SP does not destroy the info.

Well, yes and no.

Destroying parts of this folder would not, as you say, eliminate the information contained within the destroyed docs, as copies exist.

It does, however destroy the chain of evidence as to what was available to the crew in question. That in itself can be part of the evidence required.

To take an example from recent news, if it became known that the dispatcher in Rio had shredded the weather briefings made available to AF447, would it be acceptable to state that the briefings info isn't the original source info? Sometimes its not just the content of a document that needs to be presevred, but the evidence that it was in the possession of certain people (and not, perhaps, of others)

(I(ntended as a comment on the general prinicpal of maintaining evidence, not this specific case, which I agree seems unlikely to be evidence of conspiracy)

[nigegilb]

EdSett;
"I have no criticism of any non-service person who wishes to know more about the SP, but I am very disappointed when an ex officer (winco), who should know how the SP works, uses words like, "numpty" to describe a Sqn Ldr, and also when a tradesman (Rigger1) believes that he knows better how to manage an aircrew binder than an experienced aircrew senior officer."

Rigger 1 correctly recognised that documents impounded for the attention of the BoI should remain undoctored. Crews read the SP file on every occasion before going flying. Because the entries are placed in chronological order it is very easy to get up to speed with new notices. Leaving the original 38 entries in the file did not mean all 38 needed to be read every time. For example, nuclear installations in Pakistan tend to remain in the same place.

Rigger1 cannot understand why the file was tampered with - seems fair enough to me. On this occasion, I believe he did know better than the good Sqn Ldr, a lot better.

It may not be an official publication but it is required reading before going flying.

[StopStart]

Well, this argument will just go round and round ad infinitum. TD got his list, there's nothing of interest on it, a few high-horses got a day out, end of.

The only interesting thing I note out of all of this is that the division of opinion seems lie quite firmly between those of us still serving and those who have either left or never served. Make of that what you will....

[Rigger1]

as much official sponsorship as the hot gen booklet in your denims
Thank you for that one, and believe me I have spent enough time in the Ops room and flying to know what is in the ‘Hot Poop’ folder. As for your above comment well, I have had the unfortunate experience of having said hot gen booklet, the unofficial one in my denims, seized by a board of enquiry as evidence.

(Rigger1) believes that he knows better

Where did it say I knew better, I couldn’t do Mr Bazalgette’s job, however right from the word go when dealing with incidents I was always taught everything with any relevance, is in impounded, surely any information the aircrew read prior to departure is relevant.

PS, I was once a Rigger but now work worldwide in military and civilian aviation safety, including incident investigation.

[davejb]

So are we agreed that, based on the list of shredded documents, that the then Sqn Ldr was not in fact aiding and abetting a cover up in a bid to further his own career? You see, I formed the distinct impression that this is what has been suggested on this thread....

Actually Ed :ok:, I always thought the standard abbreviation was Wingco when trying to talk like Biggles, Winco is a supermarket chain.... <g>

[Distant Voice]

XV230 was flying with a restricted fuel load of 15 K in No.1 tank. Who authorised that?

DV

[Winco]

EdSett,

I wondered how long it would be before you came charging in to save the day! I'm sorry that I have offended you by calling Sqn Ldr Bazalgette a Numpty. Perhaps it was a little 'unfortunate' however, it is far less offensive that some are calling him. I would also suggest that your comments to Rigger1 were neither fair or warranted. At the end of the day, Rigger1 is correct in what he says, irrespective of what you think of mine.

But, at what stage in this sad story of a lost Nimrod, will you ever put your hands up and acknowledge that someone, anyone infact, from Kinloss has done something wrong?

And why, as an ex Officer, retired Wg Cdr (but still flying for a living) should I not have the right to criticise someone over something he should not have done? Do you think that Officers (even ex ones) shouldn't comment badly on our fellow officers?

Do you not agree that Sqn Ldr Bazalgette was totally wrong in retrieving a document that had been impounded as part of the post crash procedure, and then decide to shred certain parts of that document?? What if it had contained something from the SFSO? (as was suggested earlier)

And don't give us all that rubbish about what's in the SP file. Most of us know what goes into it. The problem with this particular incident that has led to such disquiet and speculation is the MODs responce to TD when he asked for its contents under the FoI act, only to be told that is contained sensitive material. (Note I didn't use classified, as has been rumoured here in previous posts)

That documewnt should NOT have been removed and the entries in it should certainly NOT have been removed and destroyed. You know it, I know it, and as has been pointed out even the most junior of SACs would know it.

Now, if you think that the actions of Bazalgette are OK and no big deal, then fine. But you and I both know that it was wrong, and I would reiterate that as a) as a Sqn Ldr and b) as a DetCo he should have known much better.

davejb
I am not for a second suggesting that this was a cover up to further his career. But his actions are inexcusable. To make such a basic and stupid mistake is bordering on bizarre. Now, add that to the comment from the MOD to TDs request, and you can understand why some people are smelling a rat, can't you?

And finally, the abbreviation when I was in was WINCO!

[davejb]

1)
But, at what stage in this sad story of a lost Nimrod, will you ever put your hands up and acknowledge that someone, anyone infact, from Kinloss has done something wrong?


- Who at Kinloss was in the wrong? Running through this whole, awful tale has been the fact that nobody knew the jet had problems - nobody at Kinloss ever knew the problem was waiting to bite. The accident was waiting to happen because those much higher up the food chain not only failed to maintain the safety standards aircrew (ultimately) relied on, but actively undermined those who tried to maintain standards. You are yet again shooting at the innocent. Wg Cdr Bazalgette is pretty well unknown to me frankly, but judging by his photos he was probably an air cadet when the loss of 230 began it's path to disaster. Other problems on the fleet, such as the spate of Bahamas Mama style control restrictions, I would agree people at Kinloss were aware of, and could be criticised for their handling of these events - but who at Kinloss do you actually think responsible for 230, 'cos I can't see an obvious villain.

2) I can understand some people smelling a rat when MOD refuse to reply sensibly to an FOI request. I can understand when those people shoot back at the MOD, what I cannot understand is how a number of posters on here have castigated the luckless Wg Cdr as if he was enacting a secret cover up on the MOD's behalf. I have myself said that he wasn't being very clever in shredding the material, his failure was simply in not covering his back by taking copies etc before cleaning the folder out, because once the MOD started getting cagey they put the poor devil right into the firing line. The point is that by concentrating at the low level of Sqn Ldr/Wg Cdr the real perpetrators are avoiding criticism... and, incidentally, by attacking the wrong targets it undermines the whole campaign against the very real mismanagement that has occurred over decades, because it begins to look like anyone whose head pokes over the parapet is fair game for a quick libel.

Perish the thought, sir, that you were one of the senior officers involved in any of the cock ups I witnessed during my time in - such as the Wg Cdr I stopped one memorable night shift when he was about to send caveated secret to STCICS via a restricted fax....Wg Cdr Bazalgette made a mistake - a relatively minor one, no matter how much you want to foam at the mouth about it, but there was no ulterior motive, and that is a long way from what has been suggested on this forum.

[30mRad]

DV

Any restrictions on fuel tank contents would be a lim in the F700, and signed off by an EngO or equiv. Not unusual for lims like that to be in a F700, and generally signed off until the next major servicing due to spares limitations or time to work the snag due to op commitments etc.

I think you're wasting your time over the shredded documents fiasco. Having looked at the list that Nige provided, I can see nothing that was relevant to the accident. As a Det Co, you have a responsibility to ensure that info is up-to-date and relevant to the operations. Happens just the same at home on trg. If he arrived in theatre on 20 Aug, and reviewed the Stop Press and decided that some stuff was no longer relevant then he is perfectly within his rights as a Det Co to remove it from the Stop Press. Whether it should have gone into a longer term read file is open for discussion, but regularly this type of stuff gets incorporated into routine docs anyway.

If he recoverd the docs and shredded items post accident, pre-board releasing the docs, then that is simply an error of judgement. He still had a det to run under very stressful conditions - the accident and the operational tempo and you can't do that without using docs that might have been impounded. I was in theatre at the time, and know the pressure he was under. I have been a President and witnessed what goes on with docs and often it is simple operational requirements.

I know you lost your brother but don't keep persecuting everyone you can find hoping to pin the blame on them. Your energy could be better focussed elsewhere.

[nigegilb]

Good post. Not worth tearing each other apart over what was probably an error of judgement. I would like to see what remained on file, but I do agree, this is a side issue. Definitely think we should be looking at much higher levels than Sqn Ldr.

I am pleased MoD relented over the list.

[TheSmiter]

Definitely think we should be looking at much higher levels than Sqn Ldr.



Hear hear Nige. This shouldn't be an argument between those who've lost family and those who still have to maintain and operate this venerable yet incredibly effective and relevant aircraft.

The level I'm looking at is busy fighting other battles at the moment and may or may not drag it out til next May. You know who I mean. :mad:

DaveJB

The Bahama Mama is flying better than ever after her Nassau jaunt. And no, I've never seen the ghostly Officer lurking round the lox pots, or indeed, the galley! No surprises there.

Regards

TS

PS Can we draw the proverbial line in the sand under this thread now, or does anyone else have anything meaningful to say?

[Biggles225]

I started this thread for 2 reasons.

Firstly I couldn't believe that a senior officer would behave so stupidly as to destroy impounded documentation, whether he thought it relevant or not, as Rigger1 says, even the lowliest airman knows you dont do it.

Secondly I wondered whether anyone could throw any other light on why he did, other than a well intentioned mistake.

I was never considering a conspiracy theory, merely the realisation of a monumental cockup -as the last page went through the shredder. :uhoh:
Thank you all for contributing to the cock up theory!

If the mods want to close the thread, please feel free.

[TheInquisitor]

Firstly I couldn't believe that a senior officer would behave so stupidly as to destroy impounded documentation
Am I missing a trick here? The Board obviously saw fit to release that document back to the Det Co - ergo, it was, by the very laws of physics, no longer an 'impounded document'.

Perhaps blame would therefore be better pointed in the Board's direction, since they released it - if, that is, there is any 'blame' here at all?

Does it not make more sense to conclude that the Board's release of the SP folder meant that they had determined that it was of no relevance to the investigation?

[Distant Voice]

TheInquestor, you have got the wrong sequence of events. Bazalgette impounded the folder immediately after the crash on 2nd Sept, because he knew that was the correct thing to do. He then asked "someone" if it could be released so that he could continue managing the detachment. He then released the folder to himself, and shredded 38 documents on 6th. According to his statement, when Wg Cmdr Sharpe stepped of the a/c on 7th Bazalgette said " I am sorry Sir, but I have shredded some documents".

DV

[Wrathmonk]

Passing by Downham today and dropped in on the RAF VC Memorial. I wonder if they are related ....

Click (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Willoughby_Bazalgette)

[davejb]

For Mad Scientist
Hi,
just to set your mind at rest on a point from this thread, you commented -

It does, however destroy the chain of evidence as to what was available to the crew in question. That in itself can be part of the evidence required.


- Actually it doesn't, as the enclosure list will have identified each signal on the file and its enclosure number, therefore it's actually just a matter of retrieving the signals from their 'proper' files and sticking them back together in the order the enclosure file lists them. The signals themselves would all be on file and retrievable - and the enclosure list tells you the order they were inserted in.

Oh, and the signal's SIC would tell you were to start looking...
Dave
(just in case you wanted to know <g>)

[tucumseh]

davejb


therefore it's actually just a matter of retrieving the signals from their 'proper' files and sticking them back together in the order the enclosure file lists them.

You, me and all sensible people would say this is correct.

The new SoS doesn't think so, having ruled very recently that if a document is not where it is meant to be, then it is deemed not to exist and no other copies will do - even the original.

Which rather contradicts the requirement of JSP553 (Airworthiness Regs) that safety related documents are to be retained for "at least" five years after the out of service date. How ironic that these regs are seen to be issued by the SoS, and he disagrees with himself.

Ruling made with respect to evidence withheld from a Board of Inquiry and Inquest.

[davejb]

Yes Tuc,
that's a somewhat bizarre understanding of reality that 'they' have, isn't it?

For what it's worth I encounter some surprisingly similar oddities in my current life post RAF, so at least it isn't unusual...tail wags dog appears to be the way the world works, and it doesn't surprise me a teensy bit that officialdom and Lewis Carrol grow ever more alike.

However, in the case of this Stop Press the file is, I would think (being out I cannot know for sure) reconstructable in its entirety, and my earlier point about so many people reading the file as to make a cover up highly improbable still holds true. Nige's contents list confirms how innocuous it really was -

Through this whole thread my stance has been:
1) The shredding was a mistake, not a crime (a Sqn Ldr being task oriented to the point that he doesn't stop to think properly is not unknown in the history of the RAF - adjutants, thankfully, protect most of them from themselves). Perish the thought that anyone pontificating on here ever made an error - I can only presume nonbody on here was ever at Kinloss, as I'm pretty sure a lot of the people I worked for made some stupendously stupid decisions at times. (Including me).

2) The Stop Press had nothing in that needed covering up (proved, I think, by Nige's listing).

3) I thought (and continue to think) that those who were suggesting the Sqn Ldr was part of a cover up should now consider whether that was a good call. Stupid, probably*, but part of a criminal conspiracy -
no, and in fact nobody had the info to make that call either. (That MoD's motives might be suspect is another matter - look how easily the focus was shifted to a complete nobody...sorry if that offends any Wg Cdrs on here...if it does - don't go to MoD, they'll make you push the tea trolley!)

4) The campaigns - first for the MoD to admit liability, second for the MoD to admit that systemic failure in flight safety and a need to completely overhaul the system, remain in my view as extremely worthy of praise. This thread completely took the pressure off those topics quite successfully, was that a good thing, do you think?

By all means hang the guilty b*****ds, but do be careful not to start lynching the innocent, as only a tiny bit of that sort of thing can completely undermine an otherwise laudable effort.

Dave

* sorry to offend those who have a memo from the Saxe-Coburgs, but very few people in the aircrew world actually learn how to handle signals and classified material as well as the rest of the RAF would wish...then again, a lot of people who know the ins and outs of an F102 couldn't get a B cat either.

[Distant Voice]

30mRad, you said,
Any restrictions on fuel tank contents would be a lim in the F700, and signed off by an EngO or equiv

I am well aware of that, trouble is, it wasn't.

DV

[30mRad]

Well, it certainly wasn't on the Stop Press either was it?!

[davejb]

XV230 was flying with a restricted fuel load of 15 K in No.1 tank. Who authorised that?

A geunuine question here DV, not a wind up - but when you ask 'who authorised that' what do you mean exactly, and what do you believe was the problem...ie why not post what you think, as I can't see what you are driving at...

[Distant Voice]

davejb.

What I mean is this; if there was a restriction, and it wasn't in the lim log, who gave it "the nod"? Were there any dscussions with the folks at Kinloss, in signal form? The Flight Eng said that he could not fill beyond 15K during AAR. Having checked the refill figures, the guys on the ground only went to 15.2K. Not being able to get near a full tank of 16k, plus the suspected "blow-offs", suggests a problem. A "blow-off" is not normal for a tank that is not full.

DV

[drustsonoferp]

Fuel expansion could be a much larger problem in the Gulf than elsewhere. Is it possible the 1 tank was underfilled to prevent spillage all over the pan, particularly if it's filled fairly late in the day?

[drustsonoferp]

Would be interesing to know what was covered by ASP Repair Work for Aug 06 (Entry date 01 Aug 06).

I very much doubt there would be much of interest in that. Have you seen the concrete out there, how prone to spalling it is and the running repairs required to keep it in a useable condition?

[Vim_Fuego]

It was/is a quirk of the Nimrod that you rarely got into the tanks what they advertised to hold. The warmer the place you were attempting it in the less that went in. 15.2k on the ground sounds fairly realistic for no.1 tank. The attitude of the aircraft on the dispersal also was a player. Unless it was dead level it would reduce your chances of the required load if you were going up to max.

[davejb]

Thanks DV,
I've been away a couple of days, hence the slow response. I was puzzled by it being referred to as a limitation, my own thought was perhaps it was ambient temp related and I was wondering if you had something to hand that actually referred to this as a limitation - on the a/c lim log you'd find info telling you of limitations on bits of the kit, and I wondered if your use of 'limitation' meant that there'd been something recorded on the a/c's lim log or if you were using it in a more general manner.

I suspect some of the more recent posts on this contain the truth of the matter, but perhaps one of the current or ex eng's could confirm or deny it.

Dave

[Distant Voice]

davejb.

In his evidence Sgt Young stated that from early August 2006 he could not get no more that 15K into No.1 tank during AAR. I then note that during refills on the ground the max amount is then restricted 15.2k. Sgt Young was the most experience Flt Eng in theatre at the time and from the way that he reports the anomaly it would appear that this was peculiar to XV230. This limitation is not recorded in the a/c "lim log". My question is, was this discussed with the folks back at Kinloss?

With regards to the affect of temperature on fuel states, I note that after a refill on 29th Aug, at 0530hrs that MFLI reading for No.1 tank was 15.2K. A fuel state check at 1500hrs on 31st shows that the MFLI reading is still 15.2K

DV

[dodgysootie]

Thats because the MFLI on 1 tank only reads up to 15.2K. (1900 gallons).

DS

[Distant Voice]

Just to put the record straight, I did not loose a brother in the XV230 accident.

DV