Police involvement in RAF Air Accidents

[keithl]

I've been out of the air force for 15 years, now, but you never lose your interest in it, do you? (That's not the question I want answered!)

During my time I was, like most pilots, occasionally involved in BoIs into accidents and incidents, both as board member and as witness. We never had any involvement by the civilian police. Now it seems SOP. My question is: Why do they now routinely get involved? What changed and when? It seems a waste of police resources when the RAF BoI is running concurrently with the police investigation. I can't imagine they have sufficient technical knowledge (although if they are to investigate LIBOR fixing, I acknowledge they must have some clever people) and it doubles the burden on the witnesses and can delay the BoI getting their hands on the physical evidence.

I have no agenda, please let's have no rants for or against. I just want to know why a good system was changed.

[sisemen]

It's probably down to the AP .....................Arse Protection :eek:

[mad_jock]

Well from one of these emergency exercises as a civi. Unless you have been on one of these exercises and have had the brief by plod its not routeinly briefed to civi pilots what the process is.

Most pilot unions brief that in the event of an accident keep you mouth well and truely shut until you have legal representation this goes for both company and police questioning.

They reckon all aircraft crashes are the scene of a crime until proven otherwise. Be it external ie terroist or semi external ie negligence by an external agency ie F16 crash cairngorms.

So they have to treat the whole thing as a crime with evidence being documented and processed and also witness statements etc. All have a trail incase of a prosecution. Then when its decided that there is no criminal case they stop. If there are deaths involved they have to continue to have a finger in the pie until the coroner/fiscal resolves any issues.

Its to note though that the process in Scotland is quite a bit different to england and wales.

If you look else where on the board you will see the fall out from the Helios crash.

To add it was not my intention to imply that the cairngorm accident was actually due to negligence more that the police had to inform the fiscal of there investigation which they did, in case of criminal proccedings. I apologise for any offense taken by anyone. I have always maintained that the pilot is always responsable for terrain seperation what ever service you are under and whatever class of airspace you are in.

[Chugalug2]

I just want to know why a good system was changed.
What good system would that be, keith? If you are thinking of that of the BoI, whereby the operator, RAF or whoever, investigates its own accidents after a Board President has been "briefed" by his/her superiors, all of which was under the auspices of the Regulator, ie the MOD, then "good" would be the last adjective I would reach for. I will be swiftly reminded that the Military Investigation system is now under the auspices of the "independent" MAAIB, to which I would respond, "pull the other one, mate".
This forum is littered with threads based on Military Aircraft Accidents, most fatal, which were never thoroughly investigated because their respective BoI's were not free to do so. Unless and until they are free, ie the MAAIB is free and independent of the MOD, this forum will continue to be so littered as accidents are doomed to repetition having been subject of a compromised investigation system.
The Police? No idea, other than they are as disinterested in past suborning of Regulations as is the RAF Provost Marshal. Move along now, nothing happening here, we've all got homes to go to...

[Heathrow Harry]

Just a word of advice - don't trust the civilian police when they are investigating an incident

They are quite capable of holding a press conference and making all sorts of statements before the facts are in and they leak like a sieve to the media.

Essentially no-one has any control over them

[mad_jock]

As one ex policeman pilot I flew with said

"tell them f**k all, they get payed to investigate, you don't get payed to help them do there job"

"they can and will turn you over if it suits them for either personel or political reasons. Your words will be used against you even if its obvious that they were said at a time of high stress when you won't be thinking straight"

[exMudmover]

"I just want to know why a good system was changed."

In my view the old system was “good” , i.e better than the present-day, for two reasons:

Firstly, because there was no corrosive Compensation Culture and its associated lust for vindictive penalties against any individual or any organisation which could possibly have influenced the accident. When you see the sums paid out by MoD for relatively trivial incidents these days, it makes you wonder how there is any money left for actual defence.

Secondly, and most importantly, deaths in service in peacetime training were generally accepted as the norm and would barely make the headlines – a natural consequence of operating high-performance military hardware in Cold War training scenarios. The Wittering village churchyard contains the graves of at least 10 Harrier pilots whom I knew personally. Other Wittering pilots’ graves are located elsewhere.

As another example, 1BR Corps in Germany normally expected at least half a dozen fatalities (and scores of serious injuries) per major summer exercise. Compare that attitude with the hysterical breast-beating that goes on nowadays with the loss of any service person in an accident.

I’m not saying that attitude was good or bad – it’s just a fact.

I accept that the old BoI system was vulnerable to pressure from very senior officers hoping to avoid blame. As to how often that occurred, then I am not so sure. In my experience of old-style BoIs, they came up with the right answers more often than not. We changed procedures/equipment where possible and got on with the job.

In the old system, to avoid pressure of rank on the President, as soon as it was suspected that a relatively senior officer (Wing Commander or Group Captain) was likely to be blamed, then the authorities sent in a new President who outranked the suspected officer.

All of this was done relatively quickly, the Post-Accident 48 hour signal giving a best guess into what had happened (without prejudice to the eventual findings), thus forestalling immediate repeats of the same accident. Nowadays this does not seem to happen. There is an information blackout and aircrews are left waiting for months before there is a hint of what actually happened and who was to blame. Rumour takes over, with predictable effects on morale.

[Chugalug2]

eMM:
In the old system, to avoid pressure of rank on the President, as soon as it was suspected that a relatively senior officer (Wing Commander or Group Captain) was likely to be blamed, then the authorities sent in a new President who outranked the suspected officer.
Well that works up to those relatively junior levels. What has emerged in this Forum however is that the "rot" went much higher, ie VSOs who issued illegal orders to suborn the Airworthiness Regulations were of 2* rank and above. No-one wants to look at that, here or elsewhere, it seems. While we all tut tut and talk of honour the UK Military Accident Investigation system remains compromised and dysfunctional. That means that more lives will be needlessly lost. You may put that down to the price of preparedness, I put it down to the price of corruption.
I am old enough to remember the "old system". It worked because good men (invariably men in those days) did their duty and put it above personal ambition. In retrospect I now see that was the only bulwark that made it work. I do not think we can rely on that happening in future as it has certainly failed to since the 1980s. Banking, Journalism, Medicine, Policing, Aviation, etc; all face a common fact:
Self Regulation Does Not Work, and in Aviation it Kills!

[TheSmiter]

Chuggers and Ex Mudder - both very good summaries which I think accurately represent the current situation. I also remember the 'old days' and believed that the 'good men' were generally doing their best to learn lessons and prevent a recurrence - it never crossed my mind that anyone would act otherwise.

In many ways it would be nice to reset many facets of our 'modern and progressive' society and restore those sort of values. It ain't going to happen while corruption and deception is endemic in public institutions and commercial organisations. The buck stops right at the top - Palace of Westminster.

However, in answer to Keith L, no-one has really addressed what I think he's asking:

a. Who has primacy in law concerning military aviation accidents in the UK?
b. Does the law differ in Scotland?
c. Does it matter whether the accident is over the sea (topical), over common land, or confined to the MoD estate?
d. Has the investigatory primacy issue changed in the last 20 years, if so, when and why?

Sorry Keith if I'm misrepresenting your query, feel free to correct me. I don't pretend to know the accurate answers so I'm not going to BS you.

Also interested in the replies of those experts on here who will have the correct answers from the Post-Crash Management document! I failed to obtain a copy of same when I walked out the gates for the last time. :rolleyes:

TS

[pulse1]

Another factor which has changed the face of accident investigation must be the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). It was this which enabled the families of deceased, for the first time, to see the BOI reports. In most, if not all, of the bad accidents since then, starting with the Chinook MOK accident, it has been the families who have created to pressure for a thorough and fair investigation. In most cases, this has been in the face of lies and smokescreens by senior officers and ministers of the crown which have led to justice for the families being delayed. Usually it has taken immense courage and bloodymindedness from a few family members to get to the truth and, if having an independent input from the Police helps in that process, I am all for it.

[keithl]

Thanks, TS, for pulling the conversation back to my query. You've even broken it down into specific questions, which are indeed what I'm wondering about.

But really, its WHY? Does it go back to mishandled military investigations (perhaps in the army) in the past?

I'll add that in my experience, the old system WAS good, but I won't go into that as I hope everyone will stick to the subject, including me!

[ShyTorque]

I also remember the 'old days' and believed that the 'good men' were generally doing their best to learn lessons and prevent a recurrence - it never crossed my mind that anyone would act otherwise.

I used to feel the same way but for me, that all changed with what I saw as a gross miscarriage of justice over the Mull of Kintyre Chinook accident. As soon as I read the abridged BOI report it was very obvious what had occurred; i.e. "the system" was protecting "the system" at the expense of the deceased. The slurs put on the crew were outrageous in view of the debacle of the Mk2 Chinook's lack of airworthiness when it was forced into service. Thank goodness it was eventually all put right.

Since then I've seen "the system" fail to mention the full training history of the captain of another high profile RAF accident. Having done so might well have attracted criticism of the RAF's ability to properly manage and monitor personnel throughout their flying career. The pilot in question was put in a position where he needed skills that he had previously shown to have had fundamental difficulties with during his basic training. Not only that, but he was allowed to push the envelope of the aircraft too far and another tragic accident occurred.

Just two examples I can recall (I remember them because I was involved in earlier training of pilots in both those accidents). I think it's a very good thing that accident investigation is done independently. After all, we would be horrified if airlines were allowed to do their own accident investigations. For obvious reasons.

[Chugalug2]

Keith, I take your point and feel suitably chastised, but your OP stated that the "old" system was good, and you have repeated that claim above. That is why I challenged it, for it was never "good" as it could be subverted from within and from above and then not be able to resist. It was only ever "good" when it was served by good men. As soon as bad men set out to distort its process it became unreliable and suspect. The Police had nothing to do with it, and as pulse1 says, any independent objective input is to be welcome.
That I'm afraid is the answer to your query, though it may not be the one that you are looking for, as independent objective output is a sine qua non in Aviation Accident Investigation. That means an independent MAAIB, both of the MOD and of the MAA, which must also be independent. The Police may well feel the same, hence their increased interest in UK Military Air Accident Investigations until reform happens.

[fabs]

Sorry if it's been answered already, I think plod are involved in Fatal accident or incidents as they are the Coronors' representative or something like that

[jayteeto]

A crash scene is a crime scene. I am sure that the military cannot go near an aircraft wreckage until the police clear them to do so. That includes a crash on a military airfield. This was drummed into us on some crash scene officers course I did years ago. When the plod turn up at the gate, THEY have juristiction, however we were also told that they usually can't wait to hand it over as it is way to difficult to administer.
At a fatal crash overseas on ops that I was supervisor for, I tried to get to the aircraft to remove very sensitive comms documents. The redcaps would not let any of us near the scene for 3 days.

[foldingwings]

I recently got the answer from a 'senior' within the MAA. It is, as fabs states, all to do with fatal or non-fatal and, I believe secondary, whether the accident/incident happened on or off Crown Property.

Foldie:bored:

[keithl]

Chug2, let's admit your suggestion, for the sake of argument, that the old system was flawed. If it was biased in favour of "their airships", they would be unlikely to invite the plods in. So it must have come from politicians. So what event, or process, gave them the ammunition they needed to get the hierarchy to let in the police. And remember, their participation did not do away with BoIs, it was additional.

Just briefly, hoping not to drift my own thread, in my experience BoIs were good, carried out by those who knew the nut & bolts of what they were investigating. They only got corrupted when complete, signed off, and handed to higher authority. All right, they aren't really complete until they have the CinCs remarks, but when I talk about "The Board", I mean the originators of the report.

[1.3VStall]

leithl,

Another possible reason is that, these days, many of the aircraft operated by the RAF are civilian registered.

[NutLoose]

Out of interest if the civilian police were involved, which in a lot of military items would be well over their heads, what happens when classified items become involved?

[Chugalug2]

Keith, the BoI system was not biased in favour of anybody or anything, other than to discover the reasons why an accident happened and what should be done to avoid a recurrence. It was the Airships of which you speak, or at least a number of them, that ensured bias by directly subverting them when they thought it necessary for whatever reasons.
As to the BoIs themselves they were only as good as the information to hand. Mull is an excellent example of this, as has been pointed out already. Although the BoI did not produce the finding required of it (some moral courage at work there I would surmise) it still did not investigate what is now generally regarded as a major factor in, and possibly cause of the crash of Chinook HC2 ZD576, ie its Gross Unairworthiness. It did not do so, probably because it was ordered not to, and certainly the man best qualified to inform the Board of the UFCMs and FADEC u/c runups, rundowns, and shutdowns, Sqn Ldr Burke (the Odiham TP), was not called and was ordered not to approach the Board when he expressed his wish to give evidence.
The problem about BoIs is that the system can shut down on them, and they become the proverbial mushroom farm. No matter how sincerely they try to do their duty (and I'm sure that they invariably do), if the RAF/MOD wants/ doesn't want a particular outcome then it, and not the BoI, will prevail. That's no way to run Air Accident Investigation, civilian or military, because more people die.

[A2QFI]

I wonder if a civilian police involvement has contributed to the apparent delay in the announcement or release of findings of the two regrettable Red Arrows incidents last year?

[flipster]

See here for JSP 832 - Guide to Service Inquiries

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E46A9152-9CBA-425A-9113-A413E8572BF2/0/jsp832.pdf

See 1.19 and 1.20 c

[keithl]

Now that IS helpful, flipster, thanks very much!

However, while it clarifies the current rules (which answers a large part of my question) it doesn't tell us what prompted the "police primacy" policy. I'm fairly sure that in my day the police would be called in if there was a need, but not as SOP. Did it come from politicians? The police? Surely not the RAF itself. Can anyone help with that? Is there a History-of-Air Force-Legal-Procedures scholar out there?

[Fatjoff]

Any accident scene is a potential crime scene and therefore the police have primacy, even on-base. As far as I know they always have done. They also retain primacy even after the site has been handed over to the military. An earlier poster said that the police are quick to try to hand over a crash site to the military once they are satisfied that it was just an accident. I have experienced that, at one of the 2 crashes for which I have been the MOD Incident Officer, but the police still retained overal control. My experiences are getting a bit dated now, 1994 and 2003, but although the site had been handed over to me, local plod still made regular visits to the site, and I had to touch base with the police when the military vacated the site.

I can't comment on concurrent police investigations as that never figured as part of my job.

[Wander00]

I recall an fatal accident at a Norfolk radar station in about 1985, and the civil police never came near, and Aunty Joan asked me to go to the gate and invite the Health and Safety Exec guy who turned up to take up sex and travel. ISTR a short MOD Plod investigation and a BoI. I often wonder if Cpl M L H's ashes were ever disinterred from Scottow Cemetery (where the padre parked them when he got fed up with the urn on his bookshelf) and scattered where either the former Mrs H, or the to-be Mrs H wanted them. The two ladies could not agree on a final resting place.

[walter kennedy]

The Mull Chinook crash is a good case study around which to discuss these points.
Firstly, “TheSmiter” ‘s question ‘b’ (does the law differ in Scotland?):
In Scotland at the time, any such fatal accident could be subject to a FAI and the Procurator Fiscal (of the time) rigorously pursued this;
However, in England it was such that a purely military flight would not be subject to such “civvy” authority investigation – and all sorts of pressure was applied to the Proc Fisc to stop his inquiry;
Eventually, that there was one civilian passenger on board removed the MOD obstacle – but one has to ponder that if not for this, for the first couple of years at least, all that the public would have had would have been the demonstrably inadequate BOI.

From the Summary in my submission to Lord Philip’s Review last year:
<< Further to the analysis aspect, an important deficiency became apparent in the processes of investigation used by the authorities for a politically sensitive crash – that was that civil authorities were overly dependent upon the RAF for information on the aircraft's systems and pertinent operational procedures such that it was apparently easy for the RAF to obfuscate where it wanted equipment and procedures to remain out of the public domain.>>

So I would further say that not only must an independent authority be involved but they must have at their disposal independent pilots and avionics/nav experts to do the analysis and advise them re pertinent questions in any inquiry.

That the RUC didn’t wade in somehow at the time astounded me.

[jayteeto]

Incident officer course! That was the one. Many military people have tried to 'outrank' the plod and claim a scene. They soon learn.......

[glojo]

I stand to be corrected here but in the UK at least I was always of the opinion that the Civil Authorities had to be called in to investigate:

Murder
Manslaughter
Treason
Treason Felony
Rape

This has always been and no date always will be even if this is a suspicious death at a Top Secret Radar Station...

It is no good waiting a few weeks to decide if an offence may or may not have been committed, The forensic evidence needs to be preserved right from the 'get go!'

A crashed aircraft may or may not fall into that category and until the facts are established then is it not better to err on the side of caution? ...

[keithl]

Any accident scene is a potential crime scene and therefore the police have primacy, even on-base. As far as I know they always have done.

Just to put that one to rest we need to define "Always". Let me provide two data points. One: In April 1983, I was part of a BoI investigating a JP crash at Elvington. We never saw a policeman from beginning to end. Had we suspected a crime, e.g. sabotage, we would have asked for an RAFP investigation. If that sabotage looked like attempted murder, we'd have passed that aspect of it to the civil police. Neither was the case, and there was NO police involvement.

Data Point 2. Last year's Red Arrows ground ejection investigation was, I understand, delayed while the BoI waited for the Civ Police to release the seat to them. What the police would have made of an ejection seat I cannot imagine, but that's when I first learnt about "Police Primacy".

Now, between those two dates something changed. The organisation of the RAF has changed out of all recognition in that time, I know. So I repeat my original question. When and Why did this "Police Primacy" phenomenon occur?

Walter Kennedy's helpful contribution indicates it was subsequent to the MoK Chinook, which sounds right. Was that accident the catalyst for the change, or was there something else?

[glojo]

Nothing has changed and your imagination is being very blinkered regarding any unexplained death.

I can assure you that the RAFP in the UK have NEVER been authorised to investigate fully the above offences. Not in your time nor at any time of the RAF in the UK.....

I am NOT repeat NOT.... going to speculate why the civil police may have been called in for that last example you cited and hopefully nor will anyone else.

At this moment in time I believe a Royal Navy Petty officer is appearing in a British Civil Court charged with offences against the Official Secrets Act. The secrets were no doubt obtained on UK military property but no way will they be dealt with by the military and the same applies for any soldier of RAF personnel... It would have been the same if it had been a suspicious death... Note the word suspicious.. these things have to be investigated.

Going off on a tangent do the RAF have the forensic capability to comply with all the very latest collection and preservation of evidence? I would be VERY surprised if they have but that is me going off on my tangent.

[orgASMic]

Easy answer to the OP is that "It's the law, innit?"

The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2798/regulation/5/made) (Civil ac)

the Chief Inspector by the quickest means of communication available and, in the case of an accident occurring in or over the United Kingdom, shall also notify forthwith a police officer for the area where the accident occurred of the accident and of the place where it occurred.

or

The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Military Air Accidents at Civil Aerodromes) Regulations 2005 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2693/regulation/5/made) (Mil ac)

So, since at least 1996, there has been a requirement in UK law to inform the Police at the earliest opportunity.

[keithl]

glojo, I must respond to your "nothing has changed". The JP crash I referred to was not fatal, perhaps I should have made that clear. Your list of offences it was mandatory for the Civil Authorities to investigate was true in my time, also. That is why I chose my hypothetical crimes as I did. Sabotage is not on your list, murder is.

Your 3rd para "not going to speculate on why the civ police were "called in" is missing the point. They weren't "called in" they were acting in accordance with "police primacy", which is what this discussion is about.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

To narrow the window for the change, I was involved in 3 BoIs as a Station Flight Safety Officer 1992/3. The Police were not involved in the slightest.

[exMudmover]

Pulse1


" Another factor which has changed the face of accident investigation must be the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). It was this which enabled the families of deceased, for the first time, to see the BOI reports. In most, if not all, of the bad accidents since then, starting with the Chinook MOK accident, it has been the families who have created to pressure for a thorough and fair investigation."

I fear that merely passing on the raw details of BoI findings to bereaved families will not always help – unless those families are given access to experts (in the MOK case, non-interested Chinook aircrew and engineers), with a brief to translate the findings into lay person’s terms and answer questions as to how flying operations are carried out in practice.

I have seen how families react to BoI findings and in my view it is too much to expect the lay person to understand the finer points of Airmanship, for example. It would need to be explained that aircrew, like the captains of ships, are always ultimately responsible for the safe navigation of their aircraft – to avoid flying into high ground in cloud for example.

If the aircrew concerned are having to deal with a major emergency at the same time then in my view that does not absolve them from the duty of safe navigation. ( I leave aside the tricky question of being flown into the ground under close Radar Control – it nearly happened to me once.)

Each aircraft type has a different procedure for encountering unsuitable weather at low level, depending on aircraft performance – specifically, the angle of climb which can be achieved and maintained to clear any perceived obstacle ahead. If there is any doubt that a safe flight path cannot be maintained all the way to Safety Altitude then the only option is to turn away from the high ground and climb on a known safe track. In the MOK incident that heading would presumably have been a westerly one.

[glojo]

Hi Keithl,
Are we in violent agreement here as to me I

glojo, I must respond to your "nothing has changed". The JP crash I referred to was not fatal, perhaps I should have made that clear. Your list of offences it was mandatory for the Civil Authorities to investigate was true in my time, also. That is why I chose my hypothetical crimes as I did. Sabotage is not on your list, murder is.Sabotage can be dealt with by the military.. Sabotage in the UK which results in a suspicious death cannot, UNTIL the cause of death is established.

Your 3rd para "not going to speculate on why the civ police were "called in" is missing the point. They weren't "called in" they were acting in accordance with "police primacy", which is what this discussion is about.

Whether they were acting in accordance with "police primacy" might be splitting hairs?? How did the Police find out about any incident? The instant they are informed, the chances are they will be committed to investigate? The only people aware of the incident are the military, they then are the informing authority.

Clearly when we hear about a Board of Investigation being held in the UK without Police involvement, then a decision has been made that no criminal act was involved.. I am certainly NOT suggesting no criminal act was committed but I am suggesting the decision was probably made at 'Flag' level that no criminal act was responsible for the death.

I am in the same room as Chugalug regarding this issue.

[keithl]

Hallo glojo.

Well I wouldn't go as far as that;), but I'm quite willing for you to substitute another hypothetical crime which the Board might ask the RAFP to investigate.

My main aim in discussion with you is to establish that automatic police investigation, as opposed to response has not "always been". Other posters appear to confirm that. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that "police primacy" is a relatively new thing. For example when I did the UFSO course on dealing with air accidents, police involvement was covered, but without mention of investigative "primacy" which would surely have been stressed.

I have a private view on whether or not it is a good thing, but take no position here on that. Indeed, it is to calibrate my private opinion that I am trying to establish what drove the change. For example, "a climate of opinion following the Mull of Kintyre investigation". That would help me understand the current position.

[glojo]

Hi Keith,
Are you suggesting that there have been examples of a suspicious death in a military base in the UK where the civil power has not been informed? Or indeed treason,treason felony, manslaughter or rape.

I am simply saying that as far as I am aware these offences have always been dealt with in exactly the same manner, the civil authority has to be informed which in turn will result in the local constabulary being the investigative authority.

Regards
John

[keithl]

No, John, I'm not saying that at all. Perhaps we even agree and have been at cross-purposes. Everything you say about those major crimes is true. If we can package that up and put it to one side, we can go on to talk about military aircraft crashes.

My 1983 example was intended to illustrate how things used to work. We, the Board, turned up to find a pile of wreckage on MoD property, and two pilots in hospital. The police knew it had happened, but merely logged it. Now, at that moment, it is non-fatal and we go about our investigation. A crash scene is NOT, back then, a crime scene. We find a defective component. Has a crime been committed? We think "No", so we don't inform any police RAF or Civvy. We could, in theory have missed evidence of sabotage.

Now, the crew. In fact the crew recovered, but suppose after a week, one of them had died. We now have a fatal accident, or do we have a crime? The board will come to a conclusion, probably pass it up the line, and the decision re. the police will be made. The evidence has now been removed, so if we want the police to investigate, that may be a problem.

I don't want to drag this out, glojo, but can you see what I'm driving at? The difference is nowadays, the police DO assume the crash scene is the crime scene and so their investigation starts immediately.

Does that clarify things?

Keith

Edited to add: If we go back to the '60s, there were so many Hunters, Meteors, Swifts, etc dropping out of the sky that the police would have been overwhelmed if they'd had to assume a crime every time. That is one reason why the assumption used to be "Accident. Leave it to the RAF."

[Yellow Sun]

I am surprised that no one so far has mentioned two significant factors that may have a bearing on post accident procedures:

A. The loss of Crown Immunity
b. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007

Investigation of any suspected cases under the latter are the responsibility of the police. Therefore it would seem appropriate for the civilian police to keep at least a watching brief on any investigation into a fatal accident or even assume a more active role in seeking to preserve evidence.

YS

[glojo]

:DHi Keith,
We certainly do agree and yes I agree with you.

[keithl]

Thanks, Yellow Sun. Yes, those two must go into the mix.

So the story so far goes: In the beginning, the RAF was able to investigate its own accidents and would make its own decision about whether it was required to initiate an RAFP or a CivPol investigation. The first major change came with loss of Crown Immunity, when it became necessary to have sufficiently robust answers to civilian legal challenges.

As the RAF shrank (and flew more safely) accidents became less frequent but more significant, as they attracted more public attention. That prompted a loosening of the restrictions on publicising BoI reports.

In very recent years (since 2007?) the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter etc...Act, plus dissatisfaction with the Chinook MoK investigation shifted the primacy in investigation to the only alternative investigative body - the police.

That looks OK, but possibly a bit simplistic. I can now use that to ponder what I think about it. Thank you TS, flipster, walter k and YS.

The rest of you can go on adding the embellishments if you wish and I'll just watch.

[Tankertrashnav]

Bit of thread drift , but what gets me is the way every time there is an aircraft accident some Labour MP (or SNP if its in Scotland) will "demand" an inquiry, in the full knowledge that while they are pontificating and drawing attention to themselves, the BOI is in all probability well under way.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

TTN,

Politicians demand an enquiry for nearly everything - when they are not in government! I don't think that aircraft crashes are in any way different from thieving bankers or floods.

Duncs:ok:

[glojo]

If we were to do some research on this forum there are links to where a senior officer on a BOI was instructed as to what the findings should be regarding the specific case this officer was involved with!

Is this what we prefer?

I have read posts on this thread that advise us not to 'talk to plod, as they are paid to investigate!'

I am a great believer in society deserves the Police Service it gets... Far be it for anyone to actually want to discover the truth as opposed to maybe not causing embarrassment to their own service!

[Doctor Cruces]

The civvy coppers are just looking for someone to charge. It's what they do and just about all they're good for. It means they can solve a crime.

They know who the crew were so they already have the perps. It's easier than actually going out and solving crime where they actually have to do something and discover who did it.

I was shocked, one year, when on my Council Tax information justifying the vast amount of loot we give over to the police on an annual basis, they were proud of the fact that they, Norfolk Police, had actually solved 33% of crimes over the previous period.

They may have been proud, I was shocked and disgusted if not surprised as the only time you see a copper round our way is if one misses you in his car, doing warp speed with blue lights, on your side of the road and on a blind bend or hiding in a hedge with a speed gun.

I'm not impressed by the police overall but with some exceptions.

Doc C

[airpolice]

Doc, you ought to have a look at the social work dept budget.

[glojo]

Hi Doc,
I just had to dodge all those chips on your shoulder before replying..

It's a well known fact that I am not the cleverest kid on the block but as far as I am aware the Crown Prosecution Service make the decision on who or what to charge regarding any serious crime, but don't let that spoil a good old fashioned rant...

Instead lets have a Kangaroo Court where the Board is told what verdict to reach and probably what if any punishment to award. That is surely much better than a forensic examination that tries to find out all, or as many of the facts as possible?

Me, I believe that in life there are events are can be classed as accidents but they are extremely rare and usually there will be a cause or reason for every incident; but NOT necessarily a blame worthy cause.

[Doctor Cruces]

Glojo,

When you've had to return home for clean shreddies (not literally but you get my drift) twice in the same month after nearly being killed by some idiot (or worse still, two different idiots) with a severe dose of testosterone poisoning, on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend, blue lights and siren, warp speed (as I said previously), THEN you can accuse me of chippiness, but NOT until then!!


Doc C

[airpolice]

One day it's "The Police are driving too fast" next day it's "The Police took ages to get here, by which time the bad guys were gone, no wonder they only solve 30% of crimes"

Next time you need a cop in a hurry, remember when you call 999 to specify you need urgent assistance but they should only do 30MPH to get to you.

I don't think you have Chip Issue, but you do come across as one of those speeders who suggest that the cops ought to be out catching burglars, or a burglar who wants the cops to focus on muggers as housebreaking in't hurting old ladies or maybe you want the village bobby to stop harassing your offspring for just hanging around the shops when there are so many dangerous speeders out on the A47 needing caught.

I too was on Op Burberry but I don't recall getting a tenner. Perhaps having done my six weeks in Aberdeen was bonus enough in the eyes of their airships.

[Doctor Cruces]

Not a speeder, never had even a parking ticket.

Village bobby, that's a laugh. Like I said, the only time you see a cop in our village is when he's hiding in a hedge with a speed gun. Not that I have any sympathy for speeders either. You speed, you get caught, you pay the fine and get the points.

[itwasme]

I wonder how much interest the Scottish Plod took in the ZG708 "accident" at Glen Ogle. Some serious allegations have been made about the cause of accident, but I've never heard of any civilian investigation into such serious a serious matter.

See here:

Argyll News: 1994 Kintyre Chinook crash pilots cleared – now the real gross negligence must be identified | For Argyll (http://forargyll.com/2011/07/1994-kintyre-chinook-crash-pilots-cleared-now-the-real-gross-negligence-must-be-identified/)

"It is alleged that the cockpit voice recorder clearly showed the pilot saying to the navigator something like: ‘Take this you ******’, before putting the aircraft into what the data recorder showed as a sharp, controlled and accelerating roll and pitch to impact. It is also alleged that it emerged that the navigator had been involved with the pilot’s partner."

[glojo]

Doc,
We are now way, way, way off topic and quite clearly you have a grudge against two individuals and for that you are blaming the whole of the United Kingdom Police Force. I think we have both had our say and please, please feel free to discuss this via pm.

Trying to get back on topic I would want an investigation by an independent authority where NO ONE but no one can influence the inquiry. The investigators gather the evidence, prepare any file if they feel there might be evidence of a criminal act and then and only then is this incident put before an independent authority who reads the file and then makes the decision to either prosecute or not!

Does that sound familiar?

[John Blakeley]

I would not wish to add to the speculation on what caused the Glen Ogle accident, but having seen the BoI there is no evidence of the comment written about by “itwasme” being made by the pilot. However, Glen Ogle does illustrate the potential lack of consistent verdicts, and hence justice, from RAF BOIs in those days, and why the police and/or a totally independent Military AIB should be investigating accidents OUTSIDE the Command chain even today. In the Glen Ogle accident the aircraft was fitted with a CVR and ADR (the Mull of Kintyre Chinook had neither) and there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the pilot had, for whatever reason, made control inputs that flew, from what the ADR evidence showed, a perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground.

The BoI stated: "..... However, since Flt Lt XXXX's control inputs led directly to the loss of the aircraft, the Board concluded that Flt Lt XXXXs actions constituted an ERROR OF JUDGEMENT and therefore the Board recommends that he be absolved from blame."

The Station Commander, on 19 December 1994 stated "....I believe that it would be unwise to draw any conclusions as to human failings because there is too much scope for conjecture. I do not accept, therefore, the Board's conclusion that Flt Lt XXXX made an Error of Judgement: I recommend that there should be no finding regarding human failings".


The AOC , on 3 March 1995 (ie just 17 days before he commented on the Chinook accident), said: ".....Moreover, overwhelming evidence indicates that the aircraft responded both directly and appropriately, to control inputs, either voluntary or otherwise, which were initiated by the pilot and led ultimately to the loss of the aircraft. ......Regardless of the circumstances of this particular accident (my bold), I agree that Flt Lt XXXX should be absolved from blame."

Finally on 18 April 1995 (ie 15 days after his comments on the Chinook accident) the AOCinC commented: “It is therefore because there is no scope for conjecture (and not too much scope, as the Station Commander, believes) that I find any consideration of human failings to be academic and fruitless. Despite the wealth of detailed evidence, we are confounded and under these particular circumstances I consider it is futile to indulge in hypothesis. (my bold).

I do not know enough about any other circumstances known to the BoI that may or may not have existed to argue against this being the correct decision for Glen Ogle, but the "facts" of the accident including the "known" "unknowns" are indisputable, and in my view any other conclusion would indeed have had to have been based on hypothesis and speculation - the former might have a place in trying to reach a conclusion as long as it is based on supporting evidence - the latter, ie hypothesis without supporting evidence, never should. Hypothesis without any evidence, and hence speculation, though formed the basis of the gross negligence verdict for the Chinook crew and it took 17 years to right this wrong!

I have my own views on why this gross inconsistency of findings happened, but it would be wrong to speculate here - many PPRuNe contrubutors will I am sure anyway have their own views.

[airpolice]

itwasme, do you have any basis for this disgusting slur or did you just dream it?

Tell me you didn't get it from wickipedia.

[downsizer]

I think he got it from the article he linked.

[airpolice]

It is alleged that the cockpit voice recorder clearly showed the pilot saying to the navigator something like:

forargyll.com is a free "news" website. Tell me that's not all you have. Did this allegation happen in a pub in Dunoon perhaps?

The official report makes no mention of this comment and yet a free "newspaper" claims it to be true so an anonymous poster thinks it ok to repeat it....jeez.

Anyone got any facts? No, oh well, let's just allege some then.

[itwasme]

Airpolice,

Get one thing right, I have made no slur against anyone.

It was part of a piece written by a journo on a regional news website. The only reason for posting it was because it's entirely relevant to the OP's question regarding involvement of civilian police in service BoIs.

Here is a journalist writing under her own name making a serious allegation.

Relevant? Yes, I think so.

[Chugalug2]

John Blakeley's excellent post brings us back to the core problem here, which is the systemic flaw that has always undermined UK Military Air Accident Investigations; that the operator investigates its own accidents. Even in these days of a supposedly "independent" MAAIB, that still remains the case.
Personally I find the insinuation that civil police input into that process could undermine it as risible. However, the obverse is just as unlikely, for the civil police have long known that illegal orders were made by RAF VSOs to subvert the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations which were suborned at the very highest levels of the High Command, but have shown as much willingness to act on such evidence as the RAF Provost Marshal, ie none.
The story here isn't the supposed primacy of the civil police in Military Air Accidents but the primacy of the High Command in producing the Investigative Findings that it requires. Unless and until UK Military Air Accident Investigation is separate and independent of both the Regulator and the Operator (which in turn must also be separate) then avoidable Military Air Accidents will just go on happening for lack of proper Investigation

[keithl]

As the Original Poster, I do not see how the nasty little bit of gossip given unnecessary publicity by itwasme can possibly be relevant to my OP. As promised, I'm keeping a watching brief while I make up my mind. I'm not certain I agee with John Blakely and Chugalug2, but I like the way they conduct the debate.

For those taking the broad line "BoI can be corrupted, so let in the Plods", I'd ask what they think about Leveson's indications (I stress that word) of police subordination to influential publishers. The AAIB are an example to all, perhaps they should investigate ALL accidents, Mil and Civ?

[John Blakeley]

keithl,

As far as the investigation of the cause of the accident I would have no problem with supporting your solution for an investigation outside the Command Chain, and I said "or" in my original post. If I understand correctly though the BoI can no longer rule on blame, and this decision and any discplinary action still remains within the Command Chain, and hence potentially open to the bias of the opinions of VSOs - wouldn't it be better if this was a decision for an independent entity equivalent to say the Police/CPS? None of this is perfect and I don't have a Utopian vision of the AAIB and CPS getting everything right - but I don't want to see another person found guilty of gross negligence based on speculation either. For all its faults I do not think the CPS would have gone anywhere near that route had they been involved with the Mull of Kintyre - and incidentally I would still like to see the legal opinion given at the time that said the VSOs were right to go down that route. If I remember rightly the SofS stated that the VSOs were honourable men, and it was a junior officer in the RAF's Legal Branch (working alone?) who gave this advice - really, for such a high profile accident! If it was then publish the advice and confirm when and who gave it (not necessarily by name - the appointment will do).

[itwasme]

keithl,

the journalist in the link that I posted is clearly implying that she thinks that a BoI can be corrupted. Would police participation in the investigation have made her more confident in the reporting and conclusion?

[Chugalug2]

keithl:
The AAIB are an example to all, perhaps they should investigate ALL accidents, Mil and Civ?
While I agree wholeheartedly with your statement, I'm not sure that the AAIB would agree with your suggestion. Like the CAA, civilian responsibilities preoccupy the AAIB and if the very particular needs of military aviation require specialist inspectors and investigators, they might as well be vested in an MAA and MAAIB respectively. However, your point is well made and a potential compromise might be the "sistering" of the MAA with the CAA, and of the MAAIB with the AAIB. Thus full use could be made of the experience and expertise of these two independent civilian bodies to bring the military ones up to speed.
None of this is going to be easy, and far better minds than mine are needed to make it work, but work it must. No-one would suggest that the CAA and the AAIB should be one and the same, for the first for example might be found by the second to have allowed a knowingly Grossly Unairworthy aircraft to obtain a a CoA and enter airline service. It could not do that if it were not independent. Nor would it be acceptable if the airlines directly controlled the CAA and AAIB, for they could subvert their work and flagrantly disregard the Regulations, thus endangering their passengers. Yet all this and more has been the case in UK Military Aviation and must be made impossible in future. That can only happen if the MAA and the MAAIB are independent of the MOD and of each other. As to how all this be funded, pass! No matter how though, the cost will be less in blood and treasure that has been paid by the UK Military in the last 30 years.
You say:
I'm not certain I agee with John Blakely and Chugalug2, but I like the way they conduct the debate.
Thank you for the complement, but I am more interested with your inability to agree with JB and myself. Could you say what it is you disagree with? None of this makes for happy reading, and I do not like having to point a finger at the Service that I love, but it has to swallow the bullet and make sure that future HM Coroners do not feel obliged to tell it, "There's something wrong with your bloody aircraft!".

[keithl]

OK Chug2, let's go into this. First thing to be said is that I'm not going to start any campaigns, are you? From my p.o.v. we're just sorting the world out, as we might over a beer, with no expectation of changing anything.

Now, I didn't say I disagreed outright, I said I wasn't certain. Why not? Well, you've helpfully provided a public profile which shows your first-hand knowledge of these matters is even more out of date than my own. I'm sure you've followed accidents and their outcomes as closely as I, or any other pilot, but we don't KNOW. What I know is that while it is undoubtedly true that the Chinook investigation was flawed, the BoI came to its own conclusion, not that of anyone else. The subsequent corruption of its findings by reviewing officers is what the fuss was mainly about.

I also KNOW that in the BoI I gave as an example, higher authority tried to change our findings in respect of negligence. They failed because we resisted. As you said in post #4 "worked because good men did their duty and put it above personal ambition". Of course, it wasn't a headline crash.

There have been several allegations of Board Presidents being told what their findings were to be. I note them, but they are not substantiated. Posters have quoted what journos have written. Leveson has demonstrated how some journos are quite willing to make things up.

So I can only believe what I KNOW. Links, such as flipsters to demonstrate the current rules, are good. Allegations aren't.

I know I am horrified by the idea of non-specialist, prosecution oriented, civilian police investigating what are usually technical failures (including technical errors by the crew). It appears to be a fact, which is why my OP was about "how did we ever get into this situation?" There have been as many flawed police investigations as flawed BoIs. I'd guess more, in fact.

I am not yet persuaded the BoI system is inherently flawed, although posters here have provided some indications that it may be.

Incidentally, JB, a personal profile from you would be helpful, to know who I'm talking to.

[tucumseh]

Broadly, there are 3 components to a BoI; Legal, Airmanship and Technical. The last includes such things as Safety, with Legal also covering the obligation to implement regulations.



May I suggest the Civilian Police would only be valuable in the Legal part, especially after the nonsense of the Philip Review, which in an effort to “clear” Wratten, Day, Graydon etc clearly contradicted all previous statements on the subject of legal advice to the ROs. For example;

Lord Bach -
“The very high standard of proof to support a negligence finding that this regulation required, is fully understood; in the case of the Mull of Kintyre accident, the senior Reviewing Officers were specifically advised of this position”.

Geoff Hoon –
“The Reviewing Officers were also very aware of the high standard of proof required in reaching their decision”.

ACMs Graydon and Johns -
"We also bring to the attention of the committee the advice provided to the AOC (Wratten) at the time given by the RAF Directorate of Legal Services which answers the question of misdirection".

ACM Wratten –
“But a judgement has to be made, and my colleagues and I reached the judgement we did in the light of what we felt to be irrefutable evidence, not opinion, evidence”.


In his desperation to clear Wratten and Day, Lord Philip effectively accused all these people of lying. Of course, the supreme irony (which he blithely ignored) is he was correct in the case of Wratten, who did not have the irrefutable evidence he claimed. What further action is planned? I recall a jockey being stripped of a gong for a far lesser offence. Wratten, Day, Graydon, Johns, Alcock; all Knights of the Realm and all have brought disgrace upon their Service by supporting a gross miscarriage of justice; and lying in the process. I’ve omitted Bagnall as he’s never spoken about why he withheld from aircrew the FACT the aircraft was unsafe. And I omitted Spiers as the Air Staffs turned against him, in an effort to protect Bagnall, when lying to families over the existence of an RTS; and he had the honesty to confirm Bagnall, Graydon and Alcock had withheld the 1992 CHART report from him. (Perhaps the worst act of all, as it affected ALL aircrew of ALL 3 Services).


But it was Philip who ignored the evidence and in the process lent his name to this self serving, illegal support of maladministration and fraud. His judgement, as with Haddon-Cave’s, was not evidence-based. (Quite how Legal people thought they’d get away with that is beyond me). Both ignored the irrefutable evidence in an effort to appease all sides. This does the entire Safety Management process no favours, as it encourages the likes of Graydon and Alcock, and their sycophantic successors, to believe they can still get away with corporate manslaughter with impunity. MoD is still staffed by the same old names who are on record as ruling airworthiness is optional if waiving it can save time or money.

I am not yet persuaded the BoI system is inherently flawed, although posters here have provided some indications that it may be.

The entire Safety Management process, of which the BoI is a small but important part, is fatally flawed. And underpinning this flaw is the ethos of those who self-administer. The basic mistake the MoK BoI made, along with most others, is they completely ignored the Legal and Technical components. The Legal advice to the ROs was the verdict was unsustainable. The Technical advice (and evidence) was the aircraft was not airworthy. The Legal evidence was not mentioned by Philip, but he agreed with it (the basis of his decision). He did mention the airworthiness evidence, stating the advice from Boscombe and CA that the aircraft was not airworthy was "mandated" (upon Bagnall). Like airworthiness, the BoI “system” may be robust, but it is not implemented properly.

[Chugalug2]

First thing to be said is that I'm not going to start any campaigns, are you?
Start no, be part of yes. If you wish to you can read earlier threads that:-
Campaigned to get ESF fitted to Hercules:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/215665-parliamentary-questions-concerning-hercules-safety.html
Campaigned to get Nimrod airworthiness ensured:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/242005-nimrod-crash-afghanistan-tech-info-discussion-not-condolences.html
Campaigned to get an independent MAA and MAAIB established:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/395650-haddon-cave-airworthiness-sea-king-et-al-merged.html
Campaigned to get Mull finding scrapped:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/39182-chinook-still-hitting-back-3-merged.html
I would point out that these threads included many views and many aims, I only quote them as I and others who are like minded posted on them with the intentions noted. There are many other threads, like this one, that have also served to air similar views.
In the airworthiness related fatal accidents featured in this Forum alone 62 people have died, 29 of them on Mull. The airworthiness shortcomings reflect on the UK Military Airworthiness Authority, aka the MOD. The subsequent BoIs were conducted by the RAF and other than in the case of Nimrod scarcely mentioned airworthiness problems, let alone any MOD culpability.
You want facts? Read the Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip Reports. Better still read the posts by tucumseh in the above threads.
Or if you wish you might try sticking your fingers in your ears, and shout "La,La,La! I'm not listening!" It works well for many!

[EAP86]

Chug, there seems to be an impression that the AAIB are not routinely involved in military accident investigations. Based on my knowledge of military accident investigations over the last 12 years or so, I would say that the AAIB have been involved in the vast majority of them. The only reason I can think of where the AAIB might refuse is when the health and safety of the investigators cannot be guaranteed. Even then I have personal knowledge of an AAIB investigator who was helcoptered into an active war zone to undertake a very rapid investigation of the aircraft wreckage.

Regarding the involvement of the civil Police, consideration has to be given to the fact that their primary role is the investigation of crime, not the investigation of the cause of the accident. For fatal accidents, the Police of course have to report their findings to the Coroner but as a general rule, these rely heavily on the Service Inquiry findings (or the HSE when they are involved). I have to say that Police involvement often leads to severe delays in the investigation; reprehensible when other aircrew potentially remain at risk of technical problems.

EAP

[The Old Fat One]

Or if you wish you might try sticking your fingers in your ears, and shout "La,La,La! I'm not listening!" It works well for many!


You write eloquently enough, but you never seem to pass up the opportunity to have a little snipe at somebody or something in your posts, should they disagree with your (clearly heartfelt views). In the words of the time...calm down and carry on.

As a poker player I am used to carrying out mental arithmitic based on probabilities and outcomes. Using the same mathematical logic, I query you attributing the 29 deaths in the Chinook accident solely to airworthiness.

Leaving aside ANY judgement on cause/blame etc. I would note that some other factors would PROBABLY have affected the outcome. Not least that their was no justifiable military reason for all those people to be using this mode of transport in the first place and several vital security reasons why they should not have been on the aircraft together (that from a retired ranking police officer, by the way).

Most aircrew I know, including most on the campaigns you talk about, SUSPECT aircrew error MIGHT have played a part.

If you wish to allocate a probability number of fatality to airworthiness in respect of this accident (which is not only pointless, but also highly disrespectful) you might guess it to be maybe one or two.

Better still you can state that in YOUR OPINION airworthiness might have been a contributory factor in an accident that's cause will never be completely known or understood.

Please excuse the rather childish use of bold and underline but you don't always bother to understand or tolerate other peoples point of view. Maybe this style will help. I won't do it again I promise.

[tucumseh]

EAP86

If I may, what is reprehensible is;

1. AAIB being invited to investigate, but their findings ignored (e.g. Chinook crash, Falklands 1987) or misrepresented (e.g. Chinook MoK 1994). Demonstrably, had their 1987 concerns been addressed, either the Mk2 would have been airworthy or it would not have been flying on 2.6.94. That they were NOT addressed was one of the key reasons why Boscombe and MoD(PE) refused to provide a CA Release for Operational use. So, demonstrably, two key organisations wanted the regs implemented, but they were thwarted by the RAF.

2. The actions of the senior staffs who perpetrate, condone then lie about the above.


Equally criminal is MoD's habit of presenting the facts, usually revealed by others after MoD have hidden them (e.g. Chinook, Nimrod, Hercules, Sea King, Tornado/Patriot), as revelations; with the accompanying claim they will learn lessons.

In all cases the lesson is this. The underlying causes were predictable, predicted and ignored; and all would have been avoided by simple implementation of mandated regulations.

[tucumseh]

TOFO

Better still you can state that in YOUR OPINION airworthiness might have been a contributory factor in an accident that's cause will never be completely known or understood.


Again, if I may, it is a simple fact that if the airworthiness regulations had been implemented, the Mk2 would not have been flying that day. The aircrew would have had a Mk1, which they had requested anyway and were conversant with.

I am not saying the accident was caused by lack of airworthiness. But the fact remains that the aircraft had no clearance whatsoever to use ANY Nav or Comms systems, a fact confirmed by Lord Philip and accepted by MoD. What neither reported was the FACT that this information was withheld from aircrew by ACAS (Bagnall) in the Release to Service he signed in November 1993, which MoD later denied the existence of during the Philip Inquiry. Clearly, had the aircrew had this information, their request for a Mk1 would have carried more weight (at least I hope it would).

[keithl]

TOFO - thanks for that. I wondered why Chug appeared to be trying to persuade me and then immediately alienated me. I thought I was being over-sensitive, but your post reassures me.

[keithl]

OK, back to the question. I accept (because I had dealings with some of those VSOs named by tucumseh) that those major investigations were corrupted.

That doesn't mean the BoI system is flawed. It means flawed individuals corrupted it. We do not throw out democracy because it resulted in Hitler, or Mugabe.

Minor BoIs do not attract this kind of influence, so police involvement should not be automatic, as it is now, interfering with or delaying the technical inquiry. There should be some kind of threshold for police involvement. You clever people might like to suggest what that threshold should be. How about the result of the technical investigation being submitted to a judge or coroner after the first RO, say? I'm sure you'll all have better ideas, let's hear them.

[tucumseh]

Keith l

I accept (because I had dealings with some of those VSOs named by tucumseh) that those major investigations were corrupted.


That doesn't mean the BoI system is flawed. It means flawed individuals corrupted it.
Well said. (Welcome to the club).

I’d say it’s fairly self evident civilian police involvement is required in case of criminal proceedings. For example, if there are indications of Organisational Fault due to a deliberate decision to circumvent the regulations to save money – as was the case on Nimrod XV230 (and all the other accidents mentioned above). That requires their involvement from Day 1. As you say, some accidents are pretty straight forward and very often the police could quickly step back.



However, the practical obstacle justice as a whole faces is the investigative process is not independent of those making the unlawful decisions. Again, see Nimrod. The serious police involvement only came after the publication of the Nimrod Review, when after lots of arguments Thames Valley Police were pushed screaming to the fore, along with the Health and Safety Executive, Crown Prosecution Service and the Provost Marshall.



It should never be forgotten that were it not for Mr and Mrs Graham Knight’s campaign to get to the truth, after being serially lied to by MoD, then XV230 would be a distant memory to most. At no time during the BoI/investigation was there any MoD admission of wrongdoing and police involvement was more or less zero. It was only just prior to the Coroner’s Inquest that those involved were pointed to the airworthiness regulations and MoD’s refusal to comply with them.



MoD and Government like to present XV230 as a one-off, but what it actually signified was the first time the “self healing” MoD had been undone by a robust campaign targeting the key, easily proven fact the aircraft was not airworthy. (Quickly followed by C130 XV179 and Chinook ZD576). Despite MoD’s claim these regs were irrelevant, the case was won and Haddon-Cave appointed.



My point here is the same I always make; although robust, the system did not work properly or on time, because it was not implemented properly, primarily because it is not independent. In every accident we mention, this factor always comes to the fore – MoD are allowed to be judge and jury in their own case. This continues, as no reasonable person, looking at the MoD hierarchical structure, would say the MAA is independent, no matter how often MoD claim it is.



This being so, the civilian police (and HSE) are on a hiding to nothing. On XV230, they didn’t have the resources, will or knowledge to fight off MoD. The decision not to prosecute Baber and Eagles was correct, but for the wrong reason. It was claimed the burden of proof could not be met, but TVP, HSE, CPS and PM all ran away when asked WHO, then, WOULD be prosecuted, given the names of those who DIRECTED that the airworthiness regulations be ignored are well known (and advised to Haddon-Cave, Ministers, TVP and the PM – and later Lord Philip and the Public Accounts Committee). They refused to comment.



I do not think individual provincial police forces should be involved. None can afford the expert resources to be held waiting for an accident to happen. It must be a central function. (As maintaining airworthiness used to be before being cancelled by the RAF Chief Engineer! It being a core, centralised function focuses scarce, specialist resources). The question cannot be answered sensibly without addressing the Independent MAA/MAAIB issue. If there was a truly independent MAA/MAAIB, then I’d say it should include a legal team provided by the Home Office. They certainly wouldn’t be sitting around waiting for an accident, as they’d have plenty to occupy themselves chasing down those in MoD who bear responsibility for numerous cases of Corporate Manslaughter. Just my opinion.

[exMudmover]

To all of you MoK accident experts out there.

Quote from my post 34:

“(In my view)……………aircrew, like the captains of ships, are always ultimately responsible for the safe navigation of their aircraft – to avoid flying into high ground in cloud for example.

If the aircrew concerned are having to deal with a major emergency at the same time then in my view that does not absolve them from the duty of safe navigation.

Each aircraft type has a different procedure for encountering unsuitable weather at low level, depending on aircraft performance – specifically, the angle of climb which can be achieved and maintained to clear any perceived obstacle ahead. If there is any doubt that a safe flight path can be maintained all the way to Safety Altitude, then the only option is to turn away from the high ground and climb on a known safe track. In the MOK incident that heading would presumably have been a westerly one.”

Could one of you remind me of the heading on which the aircraft was climbing when it struck ground.

[glojo]

Gentlemen, is there any chance at all PLEASE of letting this matter rest, we are all aware that friends of those that sadly lost their lives are members of this forum and I ask us all to remember that ...please

John

[tucumseh]

ex-mudmover

A question better asked of the MoD's leading expert on the navigational/positional aspects of the flight, ACM Sir Michael Graydon (CAS).

He is on record as stating in writing, to Marshal of the RAF Sir John Grandy, that the aircraft was off course "BY SOME MILES".

Of course, that would make every other witness a liar. As he wrote this in 1997, that would include the Board of Inquiry members and both ROs. It would also mean he committed a serious offence when (mis)briefing Sir Malcolm Rifkind.

If Graydon is not a liar :E that would mean the intended heading was either to the West, tracking (e.g.) the east coast of Isla and over/round the Paps of Jura, or to the East (e.g.) up Kilbrannan Sound.

Of course, like all those VSOs involved, Graydon has never been questioned about this lie or its purpose. One is tempted to opine the only reason was to cast aspersions on deceased pilots. A cowardly act.

[keithl]

Well, I was going to do my garden and come back to the fray this evening, but it's raining again...

I think I will still save it until this evening, but can I echo glojo's appeal? Some people are getting too focussed on the MoK accident and its investigation. It is the most important example of what we are talking about, but it is not the point of what we are talking about.

The point is, I dislike the idea of "Police Primacy". I want to get to a better arrangement, though without much hope of making such a thing happen. I'll develop my Threshold idea this evening.

[tucumseh]

It is the most important example of what we are talking about, but it is not the point of what we are talking about.

To get a point across, especially one so important but also so willfully ignored, it is good to use examples that aircrew and maintainers can relate to.

Regardless of which example you choose, be it MoK, Nimrod, C130, Tornado or whatever, you always get back to the same basic facts. The regulations designed to prevent the accidents were willfully ignored, despite pointed warnings from MoD staffs to those same few responsible. If they had been implemented, the accidents would have been avoided.

The truth, when revealed (and not by any of the above BoIs), came as no surprise whatsoever as it merely reflected prior warnings. That is perhaps THE key point here, which very few either here or in MoD understand. The system did not work as the root cause was not identified by the BoI. It was revealed by those had given the prior warnings, as a direct reaction to BoI reports which avoided the awkward truth.

That is the root problem and it must be eliminated. However, no-one, including MoD, Government, Police, HSE and CPS has shown the will to do so. The aim is always to prevent recurrence. MoD failed in that aim and no amount of police involvement was able to prevent that.

To try and fail is one thing, but to have that aim deliberately and knowingly sabotaged by the very officers charged with achieving it is criminal. The sooner MoD and Government acknowledge this, the better. Then they can look at the MAA/MAAIB/Police structure sensibly.

[Chugalug2]

Keithl:
Chug appeared to be trying to persuade me and then immediately alienated me.
Certainly not what I intended, it was aimed at others who have shown that they will never be persuaded no matter how compelling the facts. I see now that it was open to other interpretation and unreservedly apologise for any slight taken by you. These matters come with much baggage and I seemed to have spilled some of it. Mea Culpa!
Apologies also for my not responding earlier. I have just returned from an RAF reunion, and my head is doing penance as a result, so I'll cut it short if I may. Fortunately I see that tuc has stepped into the breach with his customary effectiveness and hopefully answered any outstanding issues.

Glojo, you beg us to leave the Mull tragedy in peace, and the families with it. I take the point to heart, believe me. Every fatal accident reviewed on PPRuNe leaves bereaved loved ones and saddened colleagues in its wake. Every call like yours to shut down a thread, or at least many aspects of it, on behalf of the families is a real dilemma, for it is only by posting here to challenge the issues raised by, for example; the Mull BoI, the Reviewing Officers' Finding, the 17 year long campaign to clear the pilots, the issues of unairworthiness, the improper RTS that came to light as a result of that campaign, and the problems raised by the MAA and MAAIB as presently constituted, that they can be examined openly in debate.
The problem would have been insurmountable if it were not for the brave and resolute involvement of the families in all these debates and campaigns. The Hercules, Nimrod, and Chinook accidents have all produced inputs with the highest moral authority of all, ie from the bereaved. They are not driven by vengeful desires for retribution, nor of greed for compensation (as has been alleged in these pages) but the simple desire to avoid the pain that they have suffered being visited on others by future avoidable air accidents. I have repeatedly been in awe at both their determination that this be so and of their grappling with technical minutiae that often confound supposed professionals.
You mention Mull, so let me illustrate what I mean by recommending that you read this book (it can be read on a PC if you do not have a Kindle) by Susan Phoenix, widow of one of the passengers who died. The book is a tribute to the man she loves, but she has added an extra chapter at the end which is very appropriate in illustrating my point about determination and technical minutiae:
Phoenix, Policing the Shadows with 2012 Bonus Chapter eBook: Jack Holland, Susan Phoenix: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store
No doubt I shall be accused of drumming up trade for her. It is only £3.43, and entirely up to people to buy and download or not as they wish. I only profer it in rebuttal of your plea that discussion, with a view to accident prevention, is not wanted by the families.

[glojo]

Him Chug,
As you are aware I have the highest of regard for you and most folks on this forum and NO WAY am I asking for, or suggesting that this thread be closed.... NO WAY

I am simply trying to suggest some posts are perhaps opening up issues that are possibly lacking in tact and is there anything to gain by doing that. All I was hoping for was that this very interesting thread remain roughly on topic.

I am DEFINITELY NOT asking for it to be closed... Apologies if I am wittering but it is now 40hours without sleep and as other know... my lack of sleep gets me into wittering mode :O:O

[Lima Juliet]

I believe that this also had something to do with Civil Police involvement: The Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987

Basically, the MoD could no longer be exempt from being found negligent and this Act denied them exemption under Section 10 of the 1947 Crown Proceedings Act that all other employers had to abide by.

So quite simply, the Police have to attend to ensure that no crime has been committed (whether the accident is fatl or non-fatal).

LJ

[Chugalug2]

John, if I may, thank you for the kind words, and may I say how sorry I am to hear of your prolonged lack of sleep, and that relief come soon for you.
It seems that I have missed your point, that you feel I am guilty of thread drift rather than lack of concern for the bereaved. If that is so I willingly plead guilty to the lesser charge, M'Lud.
I know that the OP has already said much the same, in so many words, and I take the point. It seems to me though that Police Primacy, or whatever the buzz words are, is as a direct result of the mess that UK Military Air Accident Investigation has got itself into.
I take keithl's premise that such primacy is the case, for I have no knowledge to the contrary, but if so it seems likely that it was self imposed by a system that feels it has no authority or self confidence. It has no authority because it is in thrall to the MOD, it has no self confidence because it realises that. Give it independence and access to the AAIB investigators that EAP66 rightly endorses and it will gain the authority and self confidence that will no doubt assure the civil police that UK Military Air Accident Investigation is in safe hands and thus feel able to loosen their remit.

[glojo]

that you feel I am guilty of thread drift Hi Chug,
Thank you andNO......

I definitely do NOT accuse you of thread drift as we all accept and enjoy a little drifting both to port or starboard ;)

I will not expand on who I think responsible and I just ask we avoid opening up the personal side of any previous incident, I was just concerned that anyone would think I am asking for this very interesting thread to be closed (it is not my place to even think such a thought)


Best wishes to one and all
John

[keithl]

OK, Chug, friends!

Chug & tuc clearly believe strongly that these threads can influence things in the real world. I'm not so sure (you'll have noticed by now I'm slow to make up my mind - I regard it as a virtue. Well, now I no longer fly, it is!). I'm afraid you are just throwing words at the air. Nevertheless, I convened a Commission of Inquiry this afternoon in my garden and the Recommendations have just been published. Here they are:

1. The investigation of military air accidents in UK is currently carried out by police and a Service Board of Inquiry frequently assisted by the AAIB. Where conflicts of interest occur, such as access to physical evidence, the police are considered to have primacy over the BoI. This has not always been the case. Police primacy also applies in Scotland where police may have to provide evidence to the Procurator Fiscal.

2. There are disadvantages to this, consisting of delay to technical investgators, extra burden on witnesses (having to provide separate evidence to each group) and different approaches, the police trained to detect and prosecute crime, the Board seeking to ascertain causes.

3. The situation is different in civil aviation. The AAIB has precedence over police and a Memorandum of Understanding resolves difficulties over such matters as preservation of evidence, destructive testing and so on. (I have a link to this but it didn't work when I copied it across. Perhaps you are familiar with the document anyway)

4. The disadvantages referred to would be removed or ameliorated if military air accident investigation were brought more into line with civilian practice. However, due to the particular nature of military hierarchy, rules and procedures, and the riskier nature of military flying, a Service Board needs to make the particular military recommendations resulting from the inquiry.

5. It is proposed that investigative primacy be returned to the BoI. As technical experts they need first access to physical evidence and witnesses. Usually a crime has NOT been committed, so police involvement should not be required in the initial stages of an investigation.

6. There wouild be two "Thresholds", crossing which would cause civilian judicial involvement at different levels.

7. First Threshold. When the Board becomes aware that a crime may have been committed, the police would be informed and allowed to start their investigation. (If such a crime is purely a military one, such as disobedience to military orders, etc. Service authorities can deal with it at the appropriate stage - following the recommendations of the Board, or concurrent with the Board's investigation if necessary).

8. Second Threshold. To avoid biassed, flawed, or inappropriately influenced investigations or conclusions, every BoI investigation into a fatal air accident should be submitted to an appropriate civilian judge, coroner, Procurator, etc for review. Witnesses who felt they had been denied a hearing could apply to this court to be heard. The court could order a police investigation if in their opinion indications of a crime had been missed, or suppressed, by the BoI.

9. The submission at Threshold 2 should be after completion of the Board's report. To avoid timewasting when a report is rejected as incompetent, it should have been accepted and signed by the first RO.

10. The reviewing judge (&etc) should append relevant legal notes to guide higher ROs and clarify the limits of their powers.

[Chugalug2]

Thank you for the fraternal greetings, keithl, which I return in kind.
Your Commission report is obviously the result of much careful thought and study and I commend its members' thoroughness.
The thought that occurs is that:
3. The situation is different in civil aviation. The AAIB has precedence over police and a Memorandum of Understanding resolves difficulties over such matters as preservation of evidence, destructive testing and so on.
..the obvious question is why? For if the MAAIB had the same agreement and understanding then; bingo, your campaign against police primacy is answered!
The most glaring difference is the very thing that I bang on about, independence! The AAIB has it, the MAAIB does not. Give it that independence and what you seek will surely follow.
A number of posters have pointed out that the big change has been the loss of Crown Immunity, and all that follows from that, so the proposed set of procedures as outlined by you is surely doomed to failure if the one great anomaly remains, ie that the Investigator, Authority and Operator are one and the same.
You may say that is surmountable, but I would have to disagree, with respect. Independence is the crux of the matter. With it all else follows, without it nothing does.
The review of SBIs by judges does not strike me as a sound way of doing things. Getting the initial investigation right in the first place is surely better, ie with an independent MAAIB utilising AAIB inspectors, not as advisers but as members of the Board. That way the authority is vested into the investigation from the start.
I hope all that isn't seen as too dismissive but rather as an attempt at finding a solution that would work, or are we no longer friends...? :(

[glojo]

My two penarth (old currency)

I am only in a position to ask polite questions and Keithl's post is certainly thought provoking.


If we allow air investigators carte blanche at the early stages of all investigations then does that create problems later on?



For fatal or serious injuries which might lead to fatalities


My concern would be the preservation or indeed the contamination of evidence.


Evidence is a major requirement that is always needed by the CPS when considering any allegations regarding offences that may or may not have been committed to obtain a prosecution. Without it justice might never be done or seen to be done, so will this straight away expose a conflict of interest between the various departments.

Seeking to ascertain the causation of an incident MUST have a significant priority but how high is that priority? I totally accept there will be times when 'Needs Must' but those times will be extremely rare and why should the police delay the air investigators, but let us all be aware that once air investigators start handling equipment then its evidential value rapidly deteriorates to a point where it might become valueless.

Are we all possibly guilty of being perhaps slightly naïve and maybe not thinking enough about sabotage, not by this fashionable Al Qaeda but sadly more likely by someone seeking revenge, payback or possibly someone with psychological issues that just want to create an incident.

If Mr Nutter (no relation to Nutloose) interferes with an ejection seat then they leave behind forensic evidence and this evidence would be critical if there were going to be a prosecution. If air investigators take this seat to pieces prior to a forensic team carrying out their own examination then that evidence is gone.. It is no good calling in a forensic team after the fact. They need to be bought into the investigation as soon as is practical and my thoughts are that any incident that involves fatalities or serious injuries that might become fatal should be treated as a crime scene.


The police forensic team can and should WORK hand in glove with air investigators to ensure a speedy BUT thorough investigation without any departmental rivalry. Work together and NOT against each other. Why not?


I am NOT suggesting for one milli –second one department or the other should have a priority but I am suggesting they should work TOGETHER, not sitting in on interviews or wasting each others time.



No instead why not sit down, discuss what the Air Investigators need to do and in what priority, then listen to a forensic team say what they need to do to obtain evidence? Work TOGETHER and NOT against each other, it can be done and surely it would be quicker to work together as opposed to bicker, argue and fight against each other.. The LAST thing either team would want is OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.. ;);) Nudge nudge wink wink we know who I mean.


Regarding Point 7

I would much prefer the military to keep minor crimes in house and not even involve the police, let the military police investigate and let them decide if the civil police need to be informed. I am asking myself why they should be told about minor transgressions.

Hopefully my witterings make an okum of sense and the spelling miss steaks have all been salted and peppered (I actually accidentally typed slated which I thought funny)



Best wishes to one and all
John

[mad_jock]

The AAIB does not have presidence over the police in the civi world.

From memory in the event of a crash.

1. Preservation of life
2. Secure aircraft and limit further damage.
3. Police
4. AAIB
5. Airfield restoration.

To the point that pax/crew will be arrested if they attempt to leave the scene.

[keithl]

That's OK Chug, how's the head?

Glojo, hope you've got some sleep. I don't think some folk here sleep at all, the responses are so quick! As the link didn't work, I'll cut-and-paste two passages from the AIB/CPS MoU. Note particularly the provisions against contamination of evidence.

First:
The public interest requires that safety considerations are of paramount
importance, the consequence of which may mean that the interests of an AIB
investigation have to take precedence over the criminal investigation.


Second:
3. Therefore, if notified of the CPS’s interest, the AIBs will make every effort to take into
account the needs of the CPS before undertaking any destructive testing of evidence.
This will include:
� giving notice before commencing any destructive testing;
� considering any reasonable representations the CPS may make as to the impact
such testing may have on their own investigation;
� permitting the police (or other investigating authority, as appropriate) to be
present during such testing and to take any reasonable records, photographs or
video recordings that they require (or alternatively, on receipt of a
request detailing the requirements, for the AIBs to make the records, photographs
or video on the investigating authority’s behalf); and
� making available to the CPS all factual records, and reports and analysis
provided on the tests by independent technical experts

There is more, it's not just about destructive testing. My point is that a workable framework exists. How can it be implemented in line with my Commission's recommendations?

Hope this clarifies.

Edited to add: The AIB/CPS MoU is dated October 2008. It doesn't include the MAAIB - when was that created?

Standing by...

[mad_jock]

Is it mostly to do with evidence which the AIBB has control over for public interest and safety? Which I can understand to be honest.

Or also the crash site?

I can only repeat what we were told on the post exercise debrief. Which could be police wishful thinking.

[tucumseh]

MJ

public interest and safety

BoIs/SIs are required to address public safety, as it is included in the definition of airworthiness. But they don't always.


Leon - Correct about Crown Proceedings Act. When Sect 10 was repealed, everyone in MoD with airworthiness delegation had their delegation amended and a personal briefing on what it meant. I had mine at a refresher course run by ADRP, but with speakers from Cranfield. Ironically, the course notes were prime evidence to Lord Philip, as they proved MoD had lied over the Chinook Mk2 Release to Service. Unfortunately, this initial burst of enthusiasm by ADRP was not sustained, mainly because AMSO (RAF Chief Engineer) slashed funding (1992-94) and declared airworthiness optional (1992), and then not to be bothered with at all (1992-3). This meant future generations (and a generation is a 2-3 tour length) were not taught properly.


keithl - Well presented arguments.

[TheSmiter]

The MOU between the CPS and 3 AIBs in Oct 2008 that Keith makes reference to, is here (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/MOU%20AIB-CPS.pdf).

[Chugalug2]

keithl:
It doesn't include the MAAIB - when was that created?
1 April 2011. I make no other comment, other than to post the link!
Ministry of Defence | About Defence | What we do | Air Safety and Aviation | Military Aviation Authority | Military Aviation Authority (MAA) (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/AirSafetyandAviation/maa/)

You also say, ref the agreed procedures re CPS evidence:
My point is that a workable framework exists. How can it be implemented in line with my Commission's recommendations?
I did attempt to answer that very point in my last post, and indeed believe it to be the only answer. Perhaps it's not the right one though?

Thank you for your concern and I'm sure that a good night's rest will work wonders, well I bloody well hope so!

[keithl]

OK, "my work here is done", as they say. Glojo, if this were the real world I'd be happy to tweak para7 to meet your concerns, but there's no point, is there?

I have met my objectives, have a better (though still incomplete) idea of how the RAF got into this position, and what "this position" actually is. I deplore (don't often get to use that word!) the notion of Police Primacy, and I don't imagine the police especially relish it, but it is up to those who still have their hands on the controls to change it. Perhaps this discussion will give them some ideas.

Thanks to all the serious contributors who shed light on aspects which had been dark to me. I don't post often here any more - it all gets a bit intense, so I expect to go "deep and silent" for a while, but who knows what might provoke me!!

Cheers
Keith

[Chugalug2]

keithl:
...but there's no point, is there?
Well yes, there is with all due respect. Why not stay around and contribute to your own thread? If you have learnt anything new then perhaps you can reciprocate by adding to the general fund of knowledge. I don't know what or who you have in mind as to "getting a bit intense" but all that is asked here is to listen to other viewpoints, challenge them if you feel so inclined, and then express your own.
It's all a bit like CRM really, everyone has a say and ends up knowing what everybody else knows. Result, everyone being better informed.
PPRuNe isn't just a chat site, it has been involved in many successful campaigns that have potentially saved lives and righted injustices. Our work here is not done, nor never will be. Please stick around and help us do it.
Chug

[glojo]

:ok: Back firing on all three cylinders and enjoying reading these posts :)

if this were the real world I'd be happy to tweak para7 to meet your concerns, but there's no point, is there?I agree although perhaps in the real World could this already be the case? ;)

[thefodfather]

Just a quick one hopefully to answer the original question about what changed and from what I recall the answer is "Deepcut", that was the primary driver for the move from BoIs to SIs and a greater Police involvement from the outset.