Glen Ogle Accident 1994 [Archive]

ORAC

1st May 2015, 11:21

HSE Enforcement Guide, Scotland, FAIs.... (http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguidesc/fatal.htm)

General
The provisions of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 apply to any fatal accident occurring in Scotland......

The Procurator Fiscal is required to hold an inquiry if it appears that the death has resulted from an accident occurring in Scotland while the person who has died, being an employee, was in the course of his employment or, being an employer or self-employed person, was engaged in his occupation as such. The Procurator Fiscal who must conduct the mandatory inquiry is the Fiscal whose district appears to be most closely connected with the circumstances of the death......

UK.gov Guidance in the event of an aircraft crash (page 24) (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/375909/Guidance_Pub_version_High_amend.pdf)

Liaison with HM Coroner (In Scotland the Procurator Fiscal)

A Coroner, or in Scotland the Procurator Fiscal, is required to inquire into all the circumstances of a sudden, violent or unnatural death. Consequently, there will be two independent but concurrent investigations into a fatal aircraft accident. In practice, the Coroner’s Officer, the Police and the AAIB Inspectors collaborate in some areas of the investigation. Normally, the Coroner or Procurator Fiscal, will be in touch with the progress of the AAIB investigation and may consult the Investigator-in-Charge when deciding which witnesses should be called........

The Mull of Kintyre Review (http://www.mullofkintyrereview.org.uk/sites/default/files/Mull%20of%20Kintyre%20Review%20Report.pdf)

3.1.2 A Board of Inquiry was an internal process convened for Armed Services reasons to determine how a serious incident happened and why, and to make recommendations to prevent a recurrence. The Board of Inquiry was not a substitute for a legal inquiry into the cause and circumstances of a death. So on completion of the Board the Ministry of Defence discussed with the Lord Advocate (the chief law officer in Scotland) and Solicitor General for Scotland (responsible for the Procurator Fiscal Service who were the public prosecution service and carried out functions broadly equivalent to a coroner) the need to hold a public Fatal Accident Inquiry under Section 1(1)(a)(i) of the Fatal Accident and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976. Shortly before publication of the Board of Inquiry report the Lord Advocate concluded that a Fatal Accident Inquiry was necessary because some of those on board at the time of the crash were engaged in the course of their employment.......

dervish

1st May 2015, 12:50

Distant Voice

1st May 2015, 12:59

Shortly before publication of the Board of Inquiry report the Lord Advocate concluded that a Fatal Accident Inquiry was necessary because some of those on board at the time of the crash were engaged in the course of their employment.......

And there lies the problem. Members of the Armed Forces were, and are still not, regarded as "employees" by the Lord Advocate. This is dispite Lord Neuberger's ruling in the Snatch Land rover case. An FAI took place for the Mull accident simply because civilians were on board the Chinook

DV

Distant Voice

1st May 2015, 13:08

Moving on 20 years we have a ruling from the Lord Advocate that an FAI is not being called for the Moray Firth accident because those killed were not employed, and it is not in the piblic interest to have one. Has to change.

DV

ORAC

1st May 2015, 13:13

The application of the law seems arbitrary. See here for the reason given - nothing to do with employment status and in contravention of the legal requirement...

No fatal accident inquiry into the deaths of four RAF personnel in a mid-air crash between two Tornado jets (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/no-fatal-accident-inquiry-deaths-8830698)

No fatal accident inquiry will be held into a mid-air crash between two RAF Tornados which claimed three lives, the Crown Office has announced.

Flight Lieutenant Hywel Poole, 28, Flight Lieutenant Adam Sanders, 27, and Squadron Leader Samuel Bailey, 36, died in the collision over the Moray Firth on July 3 2012, while a fourth crewman was badly injured. Flt Lt Poole was born on Menai Bridge in Anglesey and later died in hospital after being airlifted from the scene.

The Crown Office said a fatal accident inquiry (FAI) “could not better and would only repeat” the investigation already carried out by the Military Aviation Authority.......

The Crown Office’s Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit began an investigation into the deaths following the tragedy but has decided that no further inquiry is necessary.

David Green, head of the Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit, said: “Crown Counsel carefully weighed up the full circumstances of the case, and concluded that a fatal accident inquiry could not better and would only repeat the highly-detailed investigation into the tragedy already conducted by the Military Aviation Authority. The service inquiry report which they produced also contains conclusions and recommendations which are more wide-ranging than could be expected to be achieved in a fatal accident inquiry. The RAF and MOD have accepted the recommendations of the service inquiry report, and the nearest relatives of those who tragically died in this accident have been advised of Crown Counsel’s decision.”.........

The purpose of an FAI is to establish the cause of death and ensure that lessons are learned for the future. Crown Counsel concluded that an FAI would only duplicate the months of “thorough work” undertaken by the Military Air Accident Investigation Branch and the Military Aviation Authority in preparing the service inquiry.

Angus Robertson MP, SNP defence spokesman and MP for Moray, said: “This is an extremely disappointing decision. I am totally mystified why there won’t be a Fatal Accident Inquiry. There are critical outstanding questions about Tornado safety and the delayed collision warning system. The MoD failed in its duty of care towards the RAF personnel involved in the Tornado collision. I believe they, their families and colleagues deserved better and a proper inquiry.”

David Bell, a specialist lawyer at Irwin Mitchell Scotland, which represents two of the families of victims of the Tornado crash, said: “We are disappointed about the decision not to hold a Fatal Accident Inquiry and that whilst we accept that the Service Inquiry Report does identify the immediate causes of the accident, there are many questions about how and why many of those causes arose, which need to be answered. If a Fatal Accident Inquiry is not to be held, those broader questions should be addressed by a public inquiry. The families of victims of the crash need answers as to how this crash occurred and want reassurances that any wider issues will be identified and resolved to prevent the risk of other similar accidents in future - without the appropriate inquiry, it is difficult to see how lessons will be learned.”

Distant Voice

1st May 2015, 13:37

ORAC will PM you.

DV

dervish

1st May 2015, 13:52

ORAC I think what you posted is the latest in a long line of differing reasons. They used the "not employed" excuse as well. The MAA report didn't reveal all and the crown office is wrong.

Davef68

1st May 2015, 15:16

Inquest have got nothing to do with deaths overseas. Last year an inquest was held into the death of Flt Lt Cunningham (Red Arrows). His death happened in England.

DV

Sorry, wasn't clear - as I'm sure you know, a Coroner in England/Wales can hold an inquest into an overseas death of Military personnel, but not one occuring elsewhere in the UK.

But you are right about the 'employed' status

Old-Duffer

1st May 2015, 16:07

Ladies and Gentlemen,

With respect.

There were said to be potential circumstances involved in this accident (Glen Ogle - not the Thread drift) which were and probably remain, exceptionally sensitive.

May I suggest great circumspection regarding further posts about ZG708.

Old Duffer

Distant Voice

1st May 2015, 16:16

Sorry, wasn't clear - as I'm sure you know, a Coroner in England/Wales can hold an inquest into an overseas death of Military personnel, but not one occuring elsewhere in the UK.

Like Scotland.

I think families should have a choice. It seems rediculous that a crew can take off from a base in England, crash in a Scottish glen, and nothing more than an SI/BOI takes place. Are crews, who are based in England, aware that as soon as they cross the border they loose their rights for a FAI/Inquest?

DV

dervish

1st May 2015, 16:54

There were said to be potential circumstances involved in this accident (Glen Ogle - not the Thread drift) which were and probably remain, exceptionally sensitive.

May I suggest great circumspection regarding further posts about ZG708.

A post guaranteed to stir up interest! Did MoD tell the procurator fiscal of these sensitive details?

jayteeto

1st May 2015, 16:54

Old Duffer, I generally say that full and frank discussion can only help to prevent accidents in the future. However you are spot on, this should be left as it is. What does anyone hope to rake up?
Dervish, if you know, you know. If you don't know, it's not a conspiracy.

Just This Once...

1st May 2015, 17:03

A post guaranteed to stir up interest! Did MoD tell the procurator fiscal of these sensitive details?

I think he is referring to the rumours (that are not true) that surrounded this tragic event. It should not stir-up undue interest.

Distant Voice

1st May 2015, 17:06

What does anyone hope to rake up?

The post was not opened in order to rake up events from the past, but to establish how long the Crown Office of Scotland have avoided FAIs for Service fatalities.

Curently a bill is going through the Scottish Parliament to bring the 1976 Act into the 21st century. It is important that when that happens we do not inherit irregularities from the past.

DV

Distant Voice

1st May 2015, 17:14

I should add, that the Glen Ogle accident was a classic example of when to hold an FAI. The deaths were sudden, suspicious/unexplained, and gave rise to serious public concern.

DV.

dervish

1st May 2015, 17:24

Point taken. I don't know. But to allude to it on a public forum makes my question valid nonetheless. Better to say nothing.

Old-Duffer

1st May 2015, 19:14

Dervish,

I agree with your comments. However, there are occasions on this forum when things are posted which ought best to remain unsaid.

My post was by way of a 'gypsies' warning' in the hope that contributors remained discrete.

'nuff said.

O-D

Chugalug2

1st May 2015, 19:49

OD:-
the hope that contributors remained discrete.So is this nudge-nudge hint-hint yet another example of the "if you don't know then you shouldn't ask" syndrome that litters the pages of every single Fatal Military Accident thread on this Forum? Distant Voice wants to know if there was a FAI held following this accident, and if not why not. If the answer to that question requires great circumspection so that contributors remained discrete then you have merely confirmed my conviction that Military Air Safety is not safe in the hands of the MOD, the RAF, the MAA, and the MAAIB, who are united by their 'discretion' in covering up the real causes of many UK Military Air Accidents.

In the vain hope that your knowledge of this tragedy, which is seemingly superior to the OP's and certainly to mine, would enable you to answer the OP, will you do so?

Piggies

1st May 2015, 21:28

I haven't been on this site for a long time, because quite frankly it bores me, but I was interested to learn any news about the deployment of Chinooks to Nepal, not least because I had a minor involvement this week.

I'll out myself.

Several years ago, yer man 'Beagle' made what I considered to be inflammatory comments about this incident on the Chinook Mull of Kintyre Thread. I sent him a PM explaining my situation and asked him for details on where he got his information. As I recall, he cited Data Protection as a reason not to answer me.

I was programmed to fly with PM on 1 September 1994. On that day, I was asked to go to a meeting with GM at Stn Ops, so asked RH to fly in my place, which he readily accepted. RH did not survive that sortie.

I am well aware of the rumours concerning PM and RH and the inferences that have been made. These have followed me around in the nearly 21 years since. If you knew the personalities, you would know the truth.

My wife was 7 months pregnant on 1 September 1994. I am fully aware that if it had been me, and not RH, in the boot that day, those exact same rumours would have surrounded me and my widow would have had to live with them.

There was nothing going on. It is distasteful to suggest otherwise and it dishonours the memories of two members of the Royal Air Force.

And it really pisses me off.

Roger Smith.

ShotOne

1st May 2015, 22:23

If this is all secret, none of anyone's business, that's fine. But why bring this into the public domain only to say nothing that makes sense?

The published account of the accident raises more questions than it answers, referring to an inexplicable extreme manoeuvre at low level "possibly to avoid a bird strike". Really? If there's nothing to say, say nothing but may I ask, in the nicest possible way, what was the point in starting this thread?

Chugalug2

1st May 2015, 22:46

Seems clear enough to me SO:-
DV:-
The post was not opened in order to rake up events from the past, but to establish how long the Crown Office of Scotland have avoided FAIs for Service fatalities.

Your question answered before it was even asked!

ShotOne

1st May 2015, 23:00

If you're going to to flatly ignore my question, chug that's fine but don't tell me it's been answered when it hasn't.

dervish

2nd May 2015, 05:42

The published account of the accident raises more questions than it answers, referring to an inexplicable extreme manoeuvre at low level "possibly to avoid a bird strike". Really?

I read the BoI report last night. It mentions this possibility but then challenges it.

The report invites speculation due to the almost total redaction of section 9 paragraph 34, yet leaving the final sentence in. There's no hint of how it came to that conclusion. Also paragraph 36.

Spot on about more questions than answers.

Just This Once...

2nd May 2015, 07:36

I am well aware of the rumours concerning PM and RH and the inferences that have been made. These have followed me around in the nearly 21 years since. If you knew the personalities, you would know the truth.

There was nothing going on. It is distasteful to suggest otherwise and it dishonours the memories of two members of the Royal Air Force.

And it really pisses me off.

Well said.

I too was there that day and was a BoI witness and can (and did) testify to the above. It still astonishes me how many people have approached me over the many years since to repeat such terrible and baseless rumours.

Hempy

2nd May 2015, 08:04

I heard the redacted section of the BOI concerned the CVR. Rumour of course, but this is PPRuNe..

Distant Voice

2nd May 2015, 08:08

Piggies (Roger Smith) and Just this Once

As I have said before, this post was started, not to "muck rake", but to gather information about past FAIs ahead of a Scottish Parlimentary review. Clearly you were both involved with the Glen Ogle accident, do you know what reasons were given to the families involved as to why an FAI was not held?

DV

Chugalug2

2nd May 2015, 08:30

JTO:-
If you're going to to flatly ignore my question, chug that's fine but don't tell me it's been answered when it hasn't. I think that you are looking for a conspiracy where none exists. Glen Ogle has much in common with other fatal accident threads on this forum. No satisfactory outcome of the investigation by BoI or RO, probable pressure by VSOs and MOD to ensure that outcome and to stifle further investigation by Coroners or PFs, and the belief by those who were 'there' that it is their tragedy alone and others should stay away. If the CAA, AAIB, BA etc reacted thus and hence stifled Air Safety, I for one would simply stay at home.

Glen Ogle and Mull of Kintyre share much of the above, but at least Mull got an FAI. That the MOD managed to subvert it but were later rumbled may explain why other FAIs have not happened, oh and that the aircrew involved were at the time unemployed of course, flying as they were in Scottish Airspace...

The Old Fat One

2nd May 2015, 08:58

This thread should be locked.

Ops (original question) was asked and 100% answered within the first few posts. It has now grown legs and touched some sensitivities. If anybody wishes to respond to DVs latest question the correct channel would be by PM. If anybody wishes to extend the discussion re the legalities of BOI and FAI they could...

a. Start a thread for that purpose.
b. Use one of the other threads that are already running (there are several).

I'm not a mod, not the originator, so can only ask nicely. We do of course have the ultimate power of choice.

If the thread is not locked, I suggest anybody that finds it offensive never posts in it again...period. It will shortly thereafter die a natural death.

I'm out.

Just This Once...

2nd May 2015, 08:59

I'm not sure why you have addressed me Chug; I've got nothing to add.

Chugalug2

2nd May 2015, 11:00

JTO, apologies, my post should have been directed to SO, who I quoted. Sorry!

ShotOne

2nd May 2015, 13:27

"the post was not opened to rake up events from the past, but to establish how long the Crown Office for Scotland have avoided FAI's for Service fatalities". Really DV? In that case why didn't you ask it in the Scottish Law Gazette rather than a public Military Aviation forum making specific reference to this crash if you were interested only in the legal protocols?

"At least Mull got an FAI" Yes it did, chug but only thanks to considerable financial support from the membership of pilots' union BALPA including myself. If you're placing the Glen Ogle crash in the same basket I suggest that very much undermines the "nothing to discuss" line.

Chugalug2

2nd May 2015, 14:26

SO (got it this time:-)
"At least Mull got an FAI" Yes it did, chug but only thanks to considerable financial support from the membership of pilots' union BALPA including myself. If you're placing the Glen Ogle crash in the same basket I suggest that very much undermines the "nothing to discuss" line. "Nothing to discuss" was never my line, jaw jaw and all that! I'm intrigued though by the notion that Mull got an FAI only thanks to considerable financial support by BALPA. Are FAIs for sale? So how does that work then?

If you mean that counsel for the NoK was part financed by BALPA, then I can only suggest that you got very poor value for your money. Evidence that should have been presented was not, evidence that should have been challenged was not.

Apologies of course to TOFO for posting at all, apologies to others for any supposed thread drift, but the subject of this thread is the Scottish FAI system, whether or not of Glen Ogle, Mull, or Moray Firth.

Perhaps devolution might have the salutary effect of loosening the dead hand of Whitehall on the holding of Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiries involving UK Service people? Talk about unforeseen consequences...

jayteeto

2nd May 2015, 14:45

Piggies, thank you. I only ever knew the rumours and it is refreshing to hear someone who was there tell the truth after all these years. I apologise for any suggestions that I made.

ShotOne

2nd May 2015, 15:06

"The subject of this thread is the Scottish FAI system.." Ah, that explains the title which is, er, "Glen Ogle Accident 1994"

You are entitled to your opinion regarding the value for money of BALPA's legal counsel. I suggest however, that yours is a miserable and ungrateful stance considering neither Chinook pilot was a member and without their considerable legal expertise and funding contributed by airline pilots running well into six figures, the "pilot error" verdict would stand to this day.

Chugalug2

2nd May 2015, 15:36

As you say SO, you are entitled to your opinion and I to mine. I would take issue though that the "pilot error verdict" (Pilot "Gross Negligence" according to the RO's) was reversed thanks to six figure funding by BALPA.

It was reversed by the SoS for Defence thanks to evidence put before Lord Philip that the aircraft was "positively dangerous" and grossly unairworthy. That evidence was provided free, gratis, and for nowt.

As for this thread and what it is about, read the OP.

Distant Voice

2nd May 2015, 16:44

"The subject of this thread is the Scottish FAI system.." Ah, that explains the title which is, er, "Glen Ogle Accident 1994"

The thread was opened in order to gather additional information about how the Crown Office has dealt with military air crashes in the past. I am aware that an FAI has been rejected for the Moray Firth collision, and that one was never held for the Glen Kinglass accident; that just left Glen Ogle. Hence the title.

The Glen Ogle accident is an interesting case, not because of what has been rumoured about it, but because it demonstrates serious flaws in the current FAI/Inquest interface. The crew of Tornado ZG708 took off from RAF Marham (England) and crashed in Glen Ogle (Scotland). Unbeknown to the crew and their families they lost their mandated right for an inquest or FAI as soon as they crossed the the English/Scottish border. Simply, because in Scotland "members of the armed forces on duty are not considered to be within the course of 'employment' and therefore not within scope of the mandated section of the 1976 Act". And, of course, having left English airspace they were outside the jurisdiction of any coroner's court.

This ludicrous interpretation of the FAI Act first came to light following the Mull accident. I repeat my earlier statement, an FAI only took place because "some on board at the time of the crash were engaged in the course of their employment". These were the civilians. It had nothing to do with BALPA, it was mandated for them. At some point in the past some 'Legal' has played with the words "employment" and "employee" and decided that members of the armed forces are not employed and can be excluded. To my knowledge this has never been challenged; however it will come under close examination in the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday.

DV

Al R

3rd May 2015, 07:46

I was told this story 20 years ago by a pretty drunk sqn ldr at the 1995 (?) Oktoberfest in the Officers Mess at Bruggen where I was hosting the indoor rifle range (which, in hindsight, wasn't such a good idea after all). He made quite detailed reference to the CVR. I'm sure that others have far more details than I. I don't know whether the story was true or not but if so, it's horrifying, saddening and tragic. No one wins.

That doesn't mean it should be swept under the carpet. The larger interests are not served and the truth will invariably 'out' and to worse effect. I agree with TOFU; it is offensive, not only to our sensibilities and loyalty, but also on lots of other levels. The events elsewhere recently might not have been avoided but if more people were aware of more (possible) incidents like this, we might prevent more happening in the future.

Could it have been prevented, and should it have been acted upon far more openly and honestly? I comment on this with a fair degree of trepidation and not to be malicious or increase anyone's discomfort.

ShotOne

3rd May 2015, 07:47

The fact that the mandatory trigger in respect of employment didn't apply in this case, DV, doesn't mean there can't be an FAI. The Lord Advocate has the power to order one for deaths which are suspicious, unexplained or where there is a strong public interest. If you feel these apply then write to him. There is no statute of limitations and an Inquiry could be ordered even now if there was good reason.

Distant Voice

3rd May 2015, 09:26

The Lord Advocate has the power to order one for deaths which are suspicious, unexplained or where there is a strong public interest. If you feel these apply then write to him. There is no statute of limitations and an Inquiry could be ordered even now if there was good reason.

I have, and he doesn't reply. Instead I get letters from the Head of the Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit who simply says that an FAI would simply duplicate the SI. He fails to recognise that an SI is an internal inquiry and not a public inquiry, as stipulated in the 1976 Act. In an email, received last year, the procurator Fiscal stated that it wasn't mandated because the crew members were "not considered to be within the course of employment"; similar wards to those used for the Mull accident 20 years earlier. I believe that he was too embarressed to repeat in the official media statement what was stated in the email for fear of ridicule by the general public.

DV

Wrathmonk

3rd May 2015, 09:56

DV

Are the next of kin pushing for a FAI?

BEagle

3rd May 2015, 10:00

Piggies, it wasn't data protection which precluded a response. My information came verbally from someone who, though well-placed, would have been in the clag if people guessed his identity. The information was also confirmed by an independent source.

Very many apologies if my comments had been perceived as inflammatory.

A well-known contributor to the Mull thread gave me an insight into the sensitivity surrounding the accident to which you referred and we agreed that any further public comment should be avoided. Any PMs will also be ignored. And so it remains.

Davef68

3rd May 2015, 10:52

So, DV, you opened the thread by asking a question you already knew the answer to?

Is that not the definition of trolling?

Chugalug2

3rd May 2015, 11:16

DV:-
The thread was opened in order to gather additional information about how the Crown Office has dealt with military air crashes in the past. I am aware that an FAI has been rejected for the Moray Firth collision, and that one was never held for the Glen Kinglass accident; that just left Glen Ogle. Hence the title.

That is why he was asking Df68. Isn't ignoring previous posts and making unsupported accusations the definition of trolling?

Davef68

3rd May 2015, 11:27

DV's initial post said:

Does anyone know if an Inquest or Fatal Accident Inquiry was held into the loss of Tornado GR1A ZG708, which crashed in Glen Ogle on 1st Sept 1994?

DV he then says:

I have, and he doesn't reply. Instead I get letters from the Head of the Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit who simply says that an FAI would simply duplicate the SI. He fails to recognise that an SI is an internal inquiry and not a public inquiry, as stipulated in the 1976 Act. In an email, received last year, the procurator Fiscal stated that it wasn't mandated because the crew members were "not considered to be within the course of employment"; similar wards to those used for the Mull accident 20 years earlier. I believe that he was too embarressed to repeat in the official media statement what was stated in the email for fear of ridicule by the general public.
So he KNEW the answer to the initial question. Now, if the thread had been " in order to gather additional information about how the Crown Office has dealt with military air crashes in the past." why not ask that question, or ask if anyone knew why a FAI hadn't been held for the Glen Ogle crash?

Semantics perhaps, but on a subject which is obviously as emotive as this, something that should be considered.

Now, as it happens, I agree fully with him regarding the ludicrous situation where service personnel are not given the automatic right of being 'in employment' up here. I'd be interested in knowing the derivation of that (Did it come from a decided case or from a piece of legislation?) I'd also be interested in how it lies alongside the ECHR,which is enshrined into law in Scotalnd.

I just think the original question was a little disengenious.

Distant Voice

3rd May 2015, 11:31

So, DV, you opened the thread by asking a question you already knew the answer to?

So, Davef68, what part of the following do you not understand?
The thread was opened in order to gather additional information about how the Crown Office has dealt with military air crashes in the past. I am aware that an FAI has been rejected for the Moray Firth collision, and that one was never held for the Glen Kinglass accident; that just left Glen Ogle. Hence the title.

I had FAI information on two accidents but not Glen Ogle. I am not interested in the contents of the CVR, other than to say that if an FAI had taken place the Sheriff could have listened to it in private and then commented on it in his Determination. That would have been the end of the story.

DV

Brian W May

3rd May 2015, 11:36

dervish

3rd May 2015, 11:39

I think distant voice suspected there was no FAI but was seeking confirmation from a community who would be likely to know. There was a seeming contradiction as was one held on ZD576, but it turns out that was for the pax not the crew. That was kept quiet. Were RAF Legal Services involved? :E

MoD needs to assure the safety of not just the crew but public they overfly. That means there's a "public interest" in all military losses. Our crown office seem to have ignored that.

Can't get over I was unemployed for so long.

Distant Voice

3rd May 2015, 11:40

So he KNEW the answer to the initial question. Now, if the thread had been " in order to gather additional information about how the Crown Office has dealt with military air crashes in the past." why not ask that question, or ask if anyone knew why a FAI hadn't been held for the Glen Ogle crash?

No I didn't. My correspondence with the Lord Advocate relates only to the Moray Firth accident. You will note that I talk about the SI report, not a BOI report. You are trying to read too much into a very simple question.

DV

Just This Once...

3rd May 2015, 11:54

Would appear there is a lot of 'dancing around the elephant in the room'.

I heard the pilot and nav had a mutually-exclusive interest in their private lives. The pilot resolved their issue. It may be utter bollocks and I've no idea but that was the rumour I'd heard. As an ex-SFSO with some remaining contacts, it's a truism, where there's smoke there's usually combustion.

Don't expect anything but flak, but I agree the truth usually 'outs'. As for next-of-kin 'may visit' - do you really think they don't know?

Before the 'incoming' commences, I refer you to the title of this whole site - 'RUMOUR NETWORK'.

The trouble is that you have posted something that is just not true. Two of us have already clarified this, including one poster who felt the need to 'out' himself in the process.

I'm all for rumour networks but it should not lead to baseless assertions.

Chugalug2

3rd May 2015, 11:55

BWM:-
Would appear there is a lot of 'dancing around the elephant in the room'.

More like a herd of elephants to my mind. My particular one is wearing MOD issue pinstripe and using its bulk to obstruct any unwanted inquiry into matters that are its concern alone, in its view (you know, stuff like why Fatal Military Air Accidents happened and what's being done if anything to avoid future ones). That is what connects Mull, Moray, and Glen Ogle.

Davef68

3rd May 2015, 12:35

No I didn't. My correspondence with the Lord Advocate relates only to the Moray Firth accident. You will note that I talk about the SI report, not a BOI report. You are trying to read too much into a very simple question.

DV

Fair enough!

Good luck in you campaign, I hope you achieve success.

Sometimes, Military aircraft accidents can never be adequately explained, but I agree that all paths should be followed, for transparency and future avoidance if nothing else.

Brian W May

3rd May 2015, 12:46

The trouble is that you have posted something that is just not true.

OK, it's not true.

Distant Voice

3rd May 2015, 14:26

Good luck in you campaign, I hope you achieve success.

Many thanks.

DV

O-P

4th May 2015, 00:50

As it happens, I have listened to the CVR tape in question. I WAS NOT a member of the board, but was given the tape so the specialist HQ that I worked at could try and pick out anything that would help the inquiry.

I can state, that in my opinion, that there is NOTHING, REPEAT NOTHING, on that tape that would suggest that any of the 'rumours' are true. I have no further insight into the workings of the board, or anything that may have contributed to the accident.

Once again, just so everyone is clear, there was NOTHING SUSPICIOUS ON THE CVR TAPE.

O-P

ShotOne

4th May 2015, 05:45

"That would have been the end of the story.." DV. If you seriously believe that this accident could be subject to legal process without the rumours, however untrue, being widely publicised, you are living on another planet!

Good luck, DV but I hope you've thought it through.

tucumseh

4th May 2015, 11:14

Like many threads, this one has morphed into something completely different and DV is being unfairly maligned. It was not he who raised the issue of rumours. He simply asked whether there had been a FAI into the crash, because the Scottish Crown Office has chosen not to hold one into the July 2012 Tornado mid-air on the grounds that Service personnel are not employed when in Scotland. (You all know this, right? You have a letter from MoD saying you lose all rights when you show your passport at Gretna). When challenged, they came out with a different reason. When this was challenged, they came out with yet another excuse. That lack of consistency, obvious pressure from other parts of Government and complete lack of understanding of the role of MoD SI/BoIs, is what (in my opinion) is concerning DV and (hopefully) the Lord Advocate. Rightly so.

What the thread has served to illustrate (again) is that we can all have honestly held opinions and we can all, in part, be right and wrong. My own thoughts are; if the CVR contains nothing untoward, why redact most of the section marked “S*****e”, justifying it on “personal” grounds? As someone said, just omit it altogether. There have been many cases of MoD redacting, not to protect the deceased or their families, but living/serving senior MoD personnel. Also, many examples of MoD flatly denying the content of evidence (be it reports, tapes or whatever) only to be caught in a lie. To this day, the RAF VSOs deny the existence of 322 pages of the 1992 CHART report they withheld from the ZD576 BoI. I tell you what, those 322 pages are some forgery! The worst examples you could imagine occurred on the Sea King ASaC mid-air. MoD denied the very existence of both a formal investigation and a hearing. Despite the reports and transcript being made available by another part of MoD, they still deny it. Again, some forgery! A 2 hour hearing, with easily recognisable and very distinctive voices, is deemed not to have taken place. Bloody deranged, but that’s MoD for you. Similarly, they flatly deny any MoD staff spoke to the Coroner or his Office before the Inquest. Then the Coroner’s Officer (a retired police Superintendent), presumably fed up with the lies, released the tapes of the Inquest, in which the Coroner states, a number of times, “As agreed with MoD......” Really, you’ve got to listen to the tapes or read the book. It puts anything MoD says about any accident in a completely different light.

Best of luck this week DV. In my limited experience, and albeit from well over 40 years ago, Scottish Law Lords tend to be very pragmatic people. I’m not sure they can backdate any change in the law to order a FAI. They’d have to declare the Crown Office’s ruling unsound due to an error in interpretation of the law.

Brian W May

4th May 2015, 11:36

Well said Tucumseh.

Skeleton

4th May 2015, 13:27

I may be about to ask a daft question so forgive me, I remember the accident and I remember the rumours, along with being told, as confirmed on this thread that the CVR proved the rumours untrue. Why then no push for a FAI from the MOD and as mentioned why redact anything? Surely it would be in there interest to prove, and demonstrate with indisputable evidence, that it was not a deliberate act by a member of the crew.

Brian W May

4th May 2015, 13:40

ShotOne

4th May 2015, 14:58

How is the lack of CVR proof "indisputable evidence" of anything?

Hempy

4th May 2015, 16:08

The inference is that the redaction of the CVR transcript would suggest that some form of impropriety was present on said tape. After all, if there was and nothing untoward, and no state secrets were involved, why redact it at all? All the redaction has done is add fuel to the rumours.

Al R

4th May 2015, 19:08

Skeleton,

If the CVR did give cause for doubt, bear in mind the role that Tornado still had at the time. We have always resisted a US style PRP (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personnel_Reliability_Program).

BEagle

4th May 2015, 19:11

Al R, your reference is irrelevant in this context.

AtomKraft

5th May 2015, 01:25

Capt Scribble

5th May 2015, 09:09

Rolled inverted and pulled, apparently to avoid a birdstrike. Balance of probabilities? Not high on the list in my view.

langleybaston

5th May 2015, 10:25

I fear that the manner in which this thread has developed is to add a substantial number of rank outsiders [like me, for example] to the nudge nudge wink wink rumour mill.

I know this is a Rumour site, but I find the speculation and hints distasteful. Please drop the matter except in so far as the original post is answered.

mopardave

5th May 2015, 11:09

to the nudge nudge wink wink rumour mill.

I know this is a Rumour site, but I find the speculation and hints distasteful. Please drop the matter except in so far as the original post is answered.

langleybaston is online now Report Post
]

Hear hear LB! I'm an outsider.....I have nothing of value to add, and yes, I'll admit it, I'm intrigued because I'm human. However, if the rumours are baseless and untrue, then it's terrible and cruel for all concerned. Like I said.....I've nothing to contribute so I'm stating the bleeding obvious really. A tragic incident whichever side of the fence you're sat on.
RIP gents.
MD

falcon900

5th May 2015, 11:18

Langley baston has just beaten me to it, but I nevertheless feel the need to express my bewilderment at this thread.
It is quite clear that the person starting the thread knew the answer to the question they posed, and the reason for that answer. We might well all agree that it is inappropriate for the Procurator Fiscal not to treat armed services personnel as employed, but that is the way it has been for some time, and certainly is not a stance they developed exclusively in relation to Glen Ogle.
It would be idle for me to speculate why they nevertheless chose to ask the question, and to head it up in a way to draw attention to an accident rather than the underlying jurisdictional point, but what has followed in the thread was both inevitable and entirely foreseeable. Some might say they wanted all of this aired for some ulterior purpose. I just hope it doesn't involve the fourth estate.
I suspect in common with many forum readers, I knew nothing about Glen Ogle; now I only wish I knew nothing about it.

mopardave

5th May 2015, 11:23

I suspect in common with many forum readers, I knew nothing about Glen Ogle; now I only wish I knew nothing about it.

couldn't have put it better myself f900!
MD

Brian W May

5th May 2015, 15:24

mopardave

I know this is a Rumour site, but I find the speculation and hints distasteful. Please drop the matter except in so far as the original post is answered.

Alternatively, because it IS a Rumour site, you could stop reading the thread if it bothers you . . . ?

Distant Voice

5th May 2015, 15:25

It is quite clear that the person starting the thread knew the answer to the question they posed, and the reason for that answer. We might well all agree that it is inappropriate for the Procurator Fiscal not to treat armed services personnel as employed, but that is the way it has been for some time, and certainly is not a stance they developed exclusively in relation to Glen Ogle.

Clearly, it is hard to get a message across to someone who does not want to hear. Once again, I repeat, I did not know the answer to the question when I started the thread. It has only now become clear that the anomaly was in existance at the time of the Mull accident.

It is more than inappriopriate for the Procurator Fiscal not to treat armed services personnel as employed, it is goes against the "intent" of the 1976 Act and discrimates against them. Today, in the Scottish Parliament, members of the the Justice Committee were made aware of the situation for the very first time, and they were shocked. It is unlikely to happen again.

DV

langleybaston

5th May 2015, 15:30

It's little to do with personal distaste, but to do with unnecessary public domain exposure.

Nice little media story to dig up on a quiet news day. Great quotes available from those in the know [or who say they are in the know].

No winners except the meeja.

To go further is only prurient, methinks. This is my last contribution on this thread.

Davef68

5th May 2015, 18:17

You can see the evidence to the Committee that DV mentions, the relevant section starts at approx 1 hour

Video - Parliamentary Business : *Scottish Parliament (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/80470.aspx)

Al R

5th May 2015, 18:19

Langley,

If (and I emphasise, if) a man's life was taken unlawfully, he deserves our unflinching loyalty, not those who covered it up. I hope above anything, it was an accident. But if nothing else, this thread has shown just how impoverished military servicemen and women's rights are, even in death.

alwayslookingup

5th May 2015, 19:19

Langley, regarding your Post #79, it's hardly a quiet news day!

Chugalug2

5th May 2015, 20:04

Df68:-
You can see the evidence to the Committee that DV mentions, the relevant section starts at approx 1 hourThanks for the link; an excellent presentation by Mr Jimmy Jones of the absurd stance of the Crown Office. It seems that according to them, HM Forces who are in Scotland are neither employed nor carrying out an occupation! Only the MOD (for whose purposes other its would it serve?) could conduct such barefaced lies and have gotten away with it for so very long.

As Mr Jones said, if he were serving abroad and had fallen there, it would be better for his loved ones that he be repatriated to England, for to come straight home to Scotland would put him in the same bracket as the crews of Glen Ogle, Glen Kinglass, and others, ie no inquiry other than the partial one conducted by his own employer, who isn't his employer of course...

I am disheartened by the anti-DV stance of certain members posting here. How many times do you need to be told? He didn't know the answer to the question in the OP, that is why he asked it!

ShotOne

5th May 2015, 21:52

Frankly, chug, ppruners will make up their own minds on that point however many times "they are told" as you patronisingly put it. It took me 90 seconds to find the answer to his original question on the Judiciary for Scotland website. At the end of the day, most of us would prefer that this toothpaste had been left in the tube and I struggle to see what benefit could come from a further inquiry.

mopardave

5th May 2015, 22:11

mopardave

Quote:

I know this is a Rumour site, but I find the speculation and hints distasteful. Please drop the matter except in so far as the original post is answered.
Alternatively, because it IS a Rumour site, you could stop reading the thread if it bothers you . . . ?

B W M.......you are absolutely right. Like I said, I'm human, therefore I'm intrigued. However, the whole scenario just saddens me.....irrespective of the rumours. I'm not judging anyone here and I'm not trying to claim the moral high ground. Again, you are quite right in what you say.
Best
MD

Chugalug2

5th May 2015, 22:32

SO:-
It took me 90 seconds to find the answer to his original question on the Judiciary for Scotland website.

Then I defer to your superior search ability as compared to mine for instance, SO, though that's not saying very much I'm afraid.

To be honest I'm not sure what I am searching for, "FAIs that were not held"? If you could give us a link to the appropriate page I'm sure I would not be alone in appreciating it. Thank you.

ShotOne

6th May 2015, 07:17

You want a link to a report that doesn't exist??

That said, I agree with you that we shouldn't turn on DV. Whatever his reasoning, he does appear to be genuinely seeking the truth. Whether that's for the best, who's to say?

Chugalug2

6th May 2015, 08:30

I'm merely asking for a link to the page on the Scottish Judiciary site that you say you found in 90 seconds and that answered DV's OP question , which was:-

Does anyone know if an Inquest or Fatal Accident Inquiry was held into the loss of Tornado GR1A ZG708, which crashed in Glen Ogle on 1st Sept 1994?

DV

Distant Voice

6th May 2015, 14:38

It took me 90 seconds to find the answer to his original question on the Judiciary for Scotland website

Come on SO, still waitng for the link.

DV

Union Jack

6th May 2015, 15:08

Come on SO, still waiting for the link. - DV

Here's something from today's Scotsman for you to look at whilst you are waiting
Sister?s plea over FAIs into workplace deaths - The Scotsman (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/sister-s-plea-over-fais-into-workplace-deaths-1-3763396)

Sadly, looks like you are not the only one looking for answers about FAIs.

Jack

airpolice

6th May 2015, 19:49

From the COPFS WebSite:

Role of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) have responsibility for leading the investigation into any sudden and unexplained deaths in Scotland and deciding whether there is evidence available that means criminal proceedings or a Fatal Accident Inquiry should be held.

Members of COPFS were also at the scene to assist the police .................and also to ensure that all evidence necessary to help identify what caused the tragedy is preserved.

AAIB investigation

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) is responsible for the technical investigation into any incident involving a helicopter or other aircraft. They investigate what happened, and look to make recommendations as to the safety of aircraft. They do not consider criminal proceedings or apportion blame as to what caused the incident.

The purpose of the AAIB investigation is

“To improve aviation safety by determining the causes of air accidents and serious incidents making safety recommendations intended to prevent recurrence. It is not to apportion liability”

On 9th December, the AAIB published a Special Bulletin on the investigation into the incident, including their preliminary findings and which provides initial information, that bulletin is available on the AAIB website.

After a full investigation, which can take a significant length of time, the AAIB will publish a report into the causes of the crash. It is the AAIB investigation which takes precedence over other types of investigation because of the need to make sure that other similar aircraft are safe and that any steps necessary to avoid a similar accident taking place are established and followed across the industry as soon as possible.

Any decision by COPFS as to whether there is sufficient evidence to raise criminal or Fatal Accident Inquiry proceedings is taken after AAIB complete their investigation to ensure that their safety recommendations are issued as quickly as possible. A decision as to the nature of the subsequent inquiry which will follow will be taken by the Crown Office as soon as possible after the conclusion of the AAIB investigation.

Civil Aviation Authority and Police Investigations

After the AAIB have investigated the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) will work with the Police to investigate the incident.

The CAA are the enforcing authority for aviation related offences.

The Police will take statements and gather documents so that there is evidence which can be used in a court if required and report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

COPFS have a dedicated and specialised Procurator Fiscal who leads in investigations in relation to incidents involving aircraft.

Investigative Strategy Group

In order to direct the investigation into the incident involving a police helicopter in Glasgow on 29 November 2013, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service(COPFS) has established an Investigative Strategy Group.

The group will be chaired by COPFS and will have representation from Police Scotland. As part of ongoing review of the inquiry the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC) will be part of the Investigative Strategy Group.

The Lord Advocate has legal responsibility to investigate all sudden or unexplained deaths in Scotland.

Police Scotland will continue to lead the investigation under the direction and superintendence of COPFS. Should allegations of impropriety or criminality on the part of the police come to light, those allegations will be investigated by PIRC. The circumstances will be kept under review.

For more information on PIRC see Police Investigations & Review Commissioner | Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (http://pirc.scotland.gov.uk/)
Or contact [email protected]

Throughout the Investigation

COPFS recognise that the level and detail of investigation required in an incident like this necessarily take time. COPFS will ensure that the nearest relatives of the deceased are kept updated regularly as to progress of the investigation.

Nearest relatives will be asked what their preferred method of communication is. The communication can be via a dedicated electronic mail address, normal post, by phone, or in person.

Decisions

Only once the detailed and thorough investigations have been completed, will COPFS be in a position to make decisions as to whether any criminal proceedings or a Fatal Accident Inquiry may be appropriate in the circumstances. Any decision taken about such proceedings as a result of this incident will be taken by experienced Crown Counsel senior lawyers who act on behalf of the Lord Advocate.

Criminal Proceedings.

Before Criminal proceedings can be commenced there requires to be sufficient admissible evidence that a crime has been committed. If Crown Counsel decide that there are to be criminal proceedings in relation to the incident then these would normally take place before any Fatal Accident Inquiry. If criminal proceedings are being contemplated by COPFS then the nearest relatives of the deceased will be informed first and further information provided around the court process and timing.

Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI)

A Fatal Accident Inquiry is a public hearing held under Scots Law to investigate the circumstances of a death or deaths in Scotland. Unlike a criminal trial or that of a civil case, the purpose of the Inquiry is to determine the cause of death or deaths and to establish if the death could have been prevented and to consider whether any action is needed to protect the public from danger in the future. It is not the purpose of an FAI to apportion blame or to find someone responsible for the death.

If a Fatal Accident Inquiries are being contemplated by COPFS then the nearest relatives of the deceased will be informed first and further information provided around the court process and timing. The nearest relative’s views will be taken into account in making the decision as to a whether a fatal accident inquiry will be held.

COPFS are responsible for preparing for an FAI and will present evidence at the inquiry. The Inquiry is normally held in a court room. COPFS will carry out these duties in the public interest and independently of any government department.

Food for thought. It's not just the MOD who do their own housekeeping. The point about a factory owner was well made in Holyrood's committee room

This looks like COPFS will decide on further action based on what Police Scotland say that they have found. No incentive for a cover up then, or is there?

Chugalug2

6th May 2015, 20:02

AP:_
The point about a factory owner was well made in Holyrood's committee roomAgreed absolutely. That is exactly the point that has been made in every single Fatal Military Air Accident thread on this Forum. The MOD is Judge, Jury, and Executioner of all UK Military Aviation Regulation and Air Accident Investigation, and does not tolerate any interference or inquiry into its fiefdom if it can possibly help it.

Self Regulation Does Not Work and in Aviation it Kills!

ShotOne

6th May 2015, 23:02

"Still waiting for the link.." It'll be a long wait since as you well know, how could there possibly be a link to a non-existent report. Since you ask, recent FAI reports are listed on the Judiciary for Scotland website. Older ones on that of National Records of Scotland (nrscotland) under Sheriff's records. There is a different procedure for reports befor 1895. But you probably know this already since your other posts display sound knowledge of the rules surrounding FAI's. But even if you didn't, you've admitted to being in correspondence with the Lord Advocate. Couldn't you have found your answer from your dialogue with him?

Even then, there have been many fatal accidents involving service personnel in Scotland. Few of them were subject to an FAI. I agree with your point that this is unsatisfactory in this day. Any one of them would have served to illustrate your legal point. It just happened to be this one? Surely a general question about FAI's would have served your case better...but you chose to ask, indeed entitle your thread, about this particular crash and no other? The way the thread has progressed since then was entirely predictable from the outset.

Chugalug2

7th May 2015, 07:42

SO:-It took me 90 seconds to find the answer to his original question on the Judiciary for Scotland websiteSo when you posted the above you really meant that the Judiciary for Scotland Site did not answer the OP? Or are you now saying that it answered it only in the negative, that because Glen Ogle was not listed, therefore no FAI had been held? (Giving you a bit of a lifeline there if you want to grasp it).

The above quote was in reply to my post in which I said:-
He didn't know the answer to the question in the OP, that is why he asked it! Do you now accept that, or are you intent on having your cake and eat it too?

I find it ironic that a straight forward question by DV should be attacked with such vigour by some, while at the same time we are told that there's nothing new to be learned here. More cake?

I repeat :-
my conviction that Military Air Safety is not safe in the hands of the MOD, the RAF, the MAA, and the MAAIB, who are united by their 'discretion' in covering up the real causes of many UK Military Air Accidents.

dervish

7th May 2015, 08:57

I am disheartened by the anti-DV stance of certain members posting here. How many times do you need to be told?

Well said.

I struggle to see what benefit could come from a further inquiry.

The truth? Or at least the correct questions would be asked and the public would hear MoD's reply. As it stands the crown office have stated the MoD inquiry asked every question and answered it truthfully. We know it didn't.

May I have ago at answering why Glen Ogle was used as an example here? Because it is inextricably linked to Mull of Kintyre by the reviewing officers completely contradicting themselves in the space of a few weeks. If they'd used the argument they put forward on Glen Ogle, the Chinook pilots would not have been blamed. That's why this always been high profile here and most posters understand that. Think I've got that right.

falcon900

7th May 2015, 09:24

There may be a danger that we throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
I dont detect anyone in this thread who believes that the Lord Advocates current position is appropriate / acceptable / sustainable. Had DV simply stated the position, and opened a petition, he would have a great many signatures, not to mention supporters for what seems like the campaign he is conducting.
What I, and some others before me, took issue with is the rather disingenuous and distasteful use of the Glen Ogle accident as part of the debate.
The facts speak for themselves:
At 8.50am on Friday 1 May, DV posed the seemingly innocuous question concerning Glen Ogle as post 1 on this thread. By post number 4, less than an hour later, he was able to confirm that only a BOI had been held, and that "that is what I have heard from other sources"
By 13.08 on the same day, at post 11 (DV having provided 5 of the 11) we have the statement "moving on 20 years we have a ruling from the Lord Advocate that an FAI is not being called for the Moray Firth accident because those killed were not employed, and it is not in the public interest to have one. Has to change."
Indeed it does have to change, but there can be no doubt that DV was fully aware of the situation before he posted. Moreover, knowing the Lord Advocates position alone was enough to answer the initial question. Why would there have been a FAI when it was policy not to have one?
In my previous post on this thread, I remarked that it was idle to speculate as to the motive for asking a question when you already know the answer, and linking it to such a sensitive case. It remains my view that such speculation is essentially idle, but it did strike me as quite a coincidence that the matter was to be discussed at the Justice committee the following week.... And Fridays are good days for catching the media cycle... And don't the media just love something juicy to get their teeth into rather than some dry legal point...
As I said at the outset, lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. DV makes a valid and important point, and things do need to change. For my part, I would rather Glen Ogle was left out of the debate, not least as there are, sadly, more than enough high profile examples to work with.

Distant Voice

7th May 2015, 11:40

In my previous post on this thread, I remarked that it was idle to speculate as to the motive for asking a question when you already know the answer, and linking it to such a sensitive case. It remains my view that such speculation is essentially idle, but it did strike me as quite a coincidence that the matter was to be discussed at the Justice committee the following week.... And Fridays are good days for catching the media cycle... And don't the media just love something juicy to get their teeth into rather than some dry legal point...

You know, I am getting a little tired of of certian posters implying that I am liar; that goes beyond "rumour".

Yes there was a meeting of the Justice Committee, and Glen Ogle was mentioned, but not for "juicy" reasons but in order to make "some dry legal point". MoK was mentioned and so was the Moray Firth accident.

Picked up the following on Twitter http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=9935&mode=pdf

DV

Hempy

7th May 2015, 12:41

DV, don't take it personally. There seems to be a clique of the Old Boys Club here that would rather certain things just die quietly. I'd suggest the agenda at play is theirs, not yours.

Chugalug2

7th May 2015, 13:38

f900:-
I would rather Glen Ogle was left out of the debate, not least as there are, sadly, more than enough high profile examples to work with. and you will find in every other example, high profile or no, the same thoughts expressed as yours. Every fatal accident thread on this forum has attracted posts suggesting that things be left as they were, stating:

That VSOs are honourable, and the very suggestion that they should issue any unlawful commands or be party to a cover up is unacceptable.

That the families would face fresh anguish at further debate of the circumstances of the deaths of their loved ones (many in fact were at the forefront of demands for the facts to be revealed).

That the F700 showed that the aircraft was fully serviceable and therefore must have been airworthy. (Yeah, right)

That the crew were at fault by allegedly skipping breakfast (RAF aircrew?) and therefore responsible for the subsequent tragedy.

That the crew were responsible for the tragedy by flying too low, rendering them vulnerable to small arms fire when their aircraft was knowingly unfit for purpose by the regulator for use in an operational environment.

That the crew were responsible for the tragedy by switching off their forward HISLs despite the fact that they blinded them, having been illegally fitted in the first place.

...etc, etc. Believe me when I say that when you have been close to an accident, have lost friends and colleagues, have raged at the crass intervention of the media who can't even get the facts that they are briefed on correct, the natural and understandable reaction is to keep that grief to oneselves and to shut others out.

I say that because I have been there myself, but at least I then had confidence in the system manning up to the issues and making sure that, whatever it took, action would be taken to avoid future occurrences. No such confidence can be felt these days because the system is not just compromised but utterly broken, and has to be rebuilt.

That is the agenda that I suspect I share with DV and for that matter anyone that calls themselves a professional aviator. Those who set out to subvert that process should ask themselves what that makes them.

Skeleton

7th May 2015, 14:01

That the crew were at fault by allegedly skipping breakfast (RAF aircrew?) and therefore responsible for the subsequent tragedy.

As I recall one of many of Walter Kennedy's fantasy island reasons for the Mull Crash, based on from memory no-one had seen them in the Mess and it was not mentioned in the Accident Report.

DV, no need to repeat you did not know the answer to your question, sadly there are those that want full and frank accident investigation, but draw a line in the sand if there close to the people involved in an accident, then that rule goes out the window.

All accidents should be fully and frankly investigated where ever they happen, if that means a FAI for every accident then so be it. The culture of "we know but you do not need to" "keep the toothpaste in the tube" kills people and continues to. I am speaking in general and not about Glen Ogle before anyone leaps on me BTW.

bill2b

7th May 2015, 16:17

Interesting read and considering I have not heard any of this before now I have to agree with Hempy and Skeleton, and why the calls to lock this thread were made I have no idea but it certainly made the whole incident more worth looking into.
Bill
(Ex rigger 14 yrs Tornado etc. etc. )

Distant Voice

7th May 2015, 18:42

Next meeting of the Justice Committee to take evidence for the FAI bill will be Tuesday 12th May. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service will be called. Look forward to their answers when approached about members of the Armed Services.

DV

Distant Voice

11th May 2015, 16:02

Now understand that Crown Office will not give evidence tomorrow (12th May). Their submission to the Justice Committee is delayed until 26th and will be supported by the Solicitor General.

DV

airpolice

14th May 2015, 20:32

Have a look at the thread in Private Flying, and the AAIB report.

This flight started and ended in Scotland, resulted in a death.

Distant Voice

15th May 2015, 07:58

This flight started and ended in Scotland, resulted in a death.

Yes, but was it in the course of his employment? If not, then it is not in the mandatory category for FAI.

Chugalug2

15th May 2015, 17:17

DV:-
...then it is not in the mandatory category for FAI. That would indeed be unfortunate, given that there are a number of airworthiness question marks hanging over this fatal air accident. However, as they are independent of each other it will be interesting what the AAIB investigation discovers, and what the CAA has to say about what the AAIB discovers, given that they are independent of each other that is...

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/545285-crash-bute-today-9th-august.html

Al R

19th May 2015, 07:43

Legal wrangle over Super Puma voice recorder - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-32781230)

ShotOne

21st May 2015, 09:30

If the lawyers succeed in the above scheme it will, perversely, be a kick in the teeth for all who want open and thorough investigation of air accidents (for all our disagreement, I place the OP in this category). The vast majority of safety incidents are self-reported and this will halt at a stroke if CVR evidence is grabbed for the purpose of criminal prosecution; particularly in cases such as the Super Puma where there is no suggestion by anyone of a crime having been committed.

The redaction of the Glen Ogle transcript provoked discussion. AAIB policy is that such transcripts are NOT published unless it contains evidence that bears on the cause of the accident. May I suggest the Glen Ogle redaction was merely following the same protocol rather than evidence of something to be hidden? Perhaps someone familiar with BOI procedure could confirm.

Footnote: the pilot who led the original pilots' union campaign for introduction of CVR's was the father of one of the MOK Chinook pilots. what a twist of fate that he should see his own son posthumously blamed for an accident with no CVR two decades later!

Distant Voice

23rd May 2015, 09:40

Watch and listen to the Solicitor General of Scotland and COPFS reply to FAI questions on Tuesday 26th May at Parliament TV - News & Media Centre : Scottish Parliament (http://www.scottishparliament.tv/?vid=live-committee-room-4)

The show starts at 10 am. Can also be watched later on play-back.

DV

Arthy347

19th Apr 2016, 08:15

Not read the official report into this accident, is it in the public domain?

What I have read is that the jet rolled inverted, then full afterburner was selected. Is this correct? Trying to imagine what would cause anyone to do that.

Also, someone asked about elephants in the room- to which the obvious response must be, were they both chasing the same girl or not? Surely their chums would know?

I am PM's cousin. Why don't you come round and ask me in person.

PM's mother accepted the findings of the BOI and I believe that his immediate family (four siblings) would have had no interest in a FAI.

Or any other form of muck raking for that matter. I knew his fiancé well and have no hesitation in stating my opinion that these "rumours" are nothing more than malicious gossip which appears to have originated from one particular cowardly and dishonourable source.

I didn't know RH or his family but can only express my deepest sympathy for them in their own loss.

What kind of person would repeat third hand rumours, about people that he didn't even know, and twenty years after the event, in order to make a cheap point about an entirely unrelated accident?

MikeG3

10th Oct 2017, 16:56

Would appear there is a lot of 'dancing around the elephant in the room'.

I heard the pilot and nav had a mutually-exclusive interest in their private lives. The pilot resolved their issue. It may be utter bollocks and I've no idea but that was the rumour I'd heard. As an ex-SFSO with some remaining contacts, it's a truism, where there's smoke there's usually combustion.

Don't expect anything but flak, but I agree the truth usually 'outs'. As for next-of-kin 'may visit' - do you really think they don't know?

Before the 'incoming' commences, I refer you to the title of this whole site - 'RUMOUR NETWORK'.

The pilot was my cousin and there was no "mutual interest". You have no idea how much hurt has been caused by your spreading of this poisonous gossip. IMO you're not fit to inhabit a uniform of any kind. If you have a problem with any of this then please feel free to contact me direct via PM.

The Old Fat One

11th Oct 2017, 08:56

Join pprune to resurrect an old thread in which most serving pilots had already registered their distate, in order to complain about content on said thread.

Talk about an exercise in foot shooting. :ugh::ugh:

Do us all a favour folks and don't post below me...let it die again.

airpolice

11th Oct 2017, 09:44

TOFO, I don't think it is accurate to say that most pilots have expressed their distaste, in relation to the thread. Some folk find some of the suggestions a bit awkward, and some are probably disgusted at the allegations of improper conduct by the pilot.

However, the thread is about the failure of various branches of Government to examine, in a suitable forum (Public Inquiry or FAI or Inquest) the circumstances of how military aviators have lost their lives.

What are we about, if not freedom of speech? People should be allowed to ask. The fact that some are offended by the question is not relevant. Are we to protect civil servants who signed off defective aircraft, because looking into the results might open a different can of worms?

To let this thread die, would be IMHO a mistake. Perhaps a new thread could be opened, with a less contentious title, but shortly thereafter we will be back here, because the Glen Ogle crash, whatever the cause, should have been investigated.

Distant Voice

11th Oct 2017, 13:31

PM's mother accepted the findings of the BOI and I believe that his immediate family (four siblings) would have had no interest in a FAI.

FAIs are held in the public interest. If this accident happened today an FAI would be mandatory, thanks to along overdue change in the law. The lack of an independent inquiry has encouraged rumors.

DV

airpolice

11th Oct 2017, 15:18

PM's mother accepted the findings of the BOI and I believe that his immediate family (four siblings) would have had no interest in a FAI.

I'm not sure in what capacity she "accepted" the findings.

This is not about one family any more than it is about one crash. The great unwashed would want this changed, if only we could get them to care, enough to understand what is being done so badly.

The rumours and fears are just part of it. The lack of a proper enquiry has also encouraged a false sense of safety in military aviation.

roving

11th Oct 2017, 18:40

Writing as a retired barrister, whom during my career was involved in all sorts of 'sensitive' enquiries and born the son of a Royal Air Force pilot who flew military a/c until the age of 64 and the step son of former WRAF S/L, I disagree.

I most certainly do NOT think it is (or in this case -was some twenty years ago) in the public interest to hold any form of public enquiry into the circumstances of this tragic accident.

Even assuming there had been such an enquiry, the speculation posted on this thread most certainly should NOT have been given the oxygen of a public hearing and should have either been heard in camera or not at all.

Many decisions, for example in respect as to whether or not there should be criminal proceedings in any given case have to be measured against the public interest test/

I cannot see any circumstances where the speculation discussed here could pass that test.
What the public believe they are entitled to know and what the MoD decide they are entitled to know do not always coincide especially when they pertain to the defence of the realm and military operations overseas. The purpose of the Official Secrets Act is to ensure that state of affairs.

The Chinook crash was entirely different. The question there was whether the accident inevitably led to a finding of 'gross negligence' by those flying the helicopter.

Lord Philips, a brilliant and very highly regarded former Senior Lord of Appeal concluded that the Senior Royal Air Force Officers applied the wrong test and that they could not have excluded the possibility of a systems failure. That question does not arise here.

tucumseh

12th Oct 2017, 06:39

Roving

I'm not sure the call is for a public inquiry, but a Fatal Accident Inquiry (the broad equivalent of a Coroner's Inquest) to hear the evidence. As Distant Voice has said, the Lord Advocate's office in Edinburgh has abrogated its responsibility to deceased servicemen for too long.

I agree about the speculation. One solution would be for MoD to release the tapes. I'm afraid MoD has a long history of releasing selected excerpts which distort events. This would probably upset families, but I can't speak for them. And nor does MoD.

Regarding Lord Philip, while he mentioned that the Air Marshals applied the wrong test, his central point was that the aircraft was not airworthy, and Air Vice Marshal Bagnall was not permitted to sign the Release to Service. MoD later conceded this, admitting that the aircraft only had a ground training and familiarisation clearance.

The link here to the Chinook case is the accident dates. It was claimed by Lord Philip and Government that the Marshals did not truly understand the legal test, while ignoring that the Senior Reviewing Officer (Wratten) was at the same time considering the Glen Ogle case, in which he clearly demonstrated he did understand the test. That is, he sought to apply his own test to Chinook, in an effort to justify his findings against the deceased pilots. As a barrister, you will know better than I how courts would view such actions, if carried out by civilians judges.

It is not widely known that these claims by MoD and Government were wholly refuted by the author of the test (Air Cdre D Hine) in written evidence to Lord Philip, when he reported that senior officers complained to him that the "no doubt" test was reducing their power. That Lord Philip omitted this evidence, and allowed Government to repeat the lies, was one of the least savoury aspects of his report.

Bottom line. Neither case is closed, because MoD and the state have not met legal obligations.

Just This Once...

12th Oct 2017, 07:31

So aside from claims that the CVR contained nothing contentious why not release the transcript to prove it? Maybe even be open and honest and state why it was redacted in the first place?

They don't become 'claims' just because of a baseless and cruel rumour wrapped-up in a conspiracy theory.

They are, more correctly, called facts:

- I did listen to the CVR.
- I did know the rumours were not true in any way.
- I did know and fly alongside the pilot in question.
- I did salute him at his graveside.

Public Interest is not the same as 'interesting to the public'.

roving

12th Oct 2017, 07:45

How many fast jet pilots who were flying in 1994, are still flying fast jets?

I do not subscribe to the view that the "people" and especially the snowflake generation, have a right to 'know'.

Why stop with just these two incidents, why not re-open the Vulcan crash at Heathrow after all it was only 61 years ago? Surely the snowflakes are entitled to know who actually was in control when it crashed.

For that matter why not re-investigate the decision to bomb Nuremberg in March 1944, after all 95 planes were lost and 545 aircrew were killed.

airpolice

12th Oct 2017, 07:53

Roving, if the cause is not properly investigated, it might well happen again, to pilots who have yet to join the RAF.

We, the great unwashed, do not have a right to know, but we do have a right to someone knowing. Someone with noting to gain by lying or hiding. Someone of substance and integrity.

If the stories are true, that will go along way to reinforcing the idea that the aircraft is/was safe. If untrue then what did cause it to spear into the ground, and who would benefit most from starting the stories?

roving

12th Oct 2017, 08:39

JTO we can not verify it.

Who are the "we" in this context?

tucumseh

12th Oct 2017, 09:15

Roving

Why stop with just these two incidents, why not re-open the Vulcan crash at Heathrow after all it was only 61 years ago?

I think the point, certainly from my perspective, is that the calls for proper inquiries relate to accidents where maladministration and misconduct by senior officers and officials has been demonstrated. MoD glories in this misconduct, taunting families with the ruling that only serving MoD staff may lodge a complaint.

Going back to my previous point, what would happen if a judge was found to be making up his own laws, applying them and finding people guilty of manslaughter? I suspect the verdict would be set aside and he'd be disbarred. On Chinook, we have the setting aside, but nothing else.

roving

12th Oct 2017, 09:44

As it happens, in the UK much of the law is 'developed-on a case by case basis by the Judges. If you had studied law you would have known that.

If you can prove that you are a British citizen and not for example a Russian blogger, there is an easy to raise the issue.

Create an online petition:

If the petition receives 10,000 signatures the Government will respond.

If the petition gets 100,000 signatures it will be considered for debate in parliament.

You will of course have to disclose your identity and address.

Meanwhile filling space here will not help.

tucumseh

12th Oct 2017, 16:46

Roving

I am talking about judges (VSOs) who are allowed to judge their own case. You are talking about judges who sit facing the jury and those in the dock.

I have published what I have said, and more, under my own name. MoD is always welcome debate with me in public, but has so far refused. Ask BBC Newsnight, BBC Radio and Radio Talk Europe. And MoD knows where I live, as it has sent people here.

As airpolice says, pprune has been very helpful. If you care to read its archives, you'll realise that both the Nimrod and Mull of Kintyre Review arose from posts and threads here.

tucumseh

12th Oct 2017, 17:02

Roving

I should perhaps add details of the one letter of criticism I received after publishing. The widows of two of the deceased (Chinook ZD576), and legal representative, wrote to the Lord Advocate's office in Edinburgh asking what action would now be taken, given the serious offences revealed in evidence to Lord Philip (and accepted by him as true). His 2i/c, a QC, replied saying none, but criticising me at length for uncovering and revealing lies told by MoD; to families, court, Ministers and committees of both Houses. Rather ironic, I thought, coming from a man who has spent his career trying to reveal lies by the accused in courts. But apparently it's ok if you're above a certain rank.

Chugalug2

12th Oct 2017, 21:46

roving:-
Writing as a retired barrister, whom during my career was involved in all sorts of 'sensitive' enquiries and born the son of a Royal Air Force pilot who flew military a/c until the age of 64 and the step son of former WRAF S/L, I disagree.

I most certainly do NOT think it is (or in this case -was some twenty years ago) in the public interest to hold any form of public enquiry into the circumstances of this tragic accident.

Your learned opinion is noted and I have no doubt that the points of law you make are correct. The trouble is that, as tuc has pointed out, we have been around this buoy many times before. Like you, others have posted on each fatal air accident thread in this forum that this case is different, that the BoI has said everything that there is to say, and that further discussion on a public forum would only cause needless distress to loved ones and ex colleagues. Yet those very threads resulted in the setting aside of the infamous Mull ROs' findings, the fitting of ESF to RAF Hercules, the grounding of the Nimrod 2's, and the scrapping of their successor. Other threads have yet to reach a conclusion, viz the death of Red Arrows pilot Flt Lt Cunningham. All these threads (and others) have one thing in common, severe shortcomings by the Military Air Regulator (aka the MOD and its "independent" subsidiary the MAA). All the Inquiries into these accidents have one thing in common, they were all investigated by Service BoIs (or the MOD's "independent" subsidiary the MilAAIB, or whatever it is called this week).

As tuc and air police have suggested, unless and until all military air accidents are investigated by a truly independent air accident investigator, then the whole point of such investigation ( to discover the true causes in order to avoid future repeats) is lost. Similarly the actions or lack of them by the military air regulator must come under close and independent scrutiny in order that only airworthy aircraft are released into service and thereafter kept airworthy. Airworthiness related fatal air accident threads on this forum alone have accounted for some 74 deaths.

It is because of that track record that a truly independent inquiry is called for here, pending the creation of an independent MAA and MilAAIB, both of the MOD and of each other. Until that happens avoidable accidents will continue and needless deaths result. As tuc suggests, perhaps you should read in to some of the threads mentioned. You will find the usual suspects posting pro and con in each, but the MOD apologists that railed against the sullying of certain Air Marshals' reputations are heard rather less these days...

Distant Voice

13th Oct 2017, 12:06

Had this accident happened in England, or Wales, then there would have been an inquest, which would have gone a long way in addressing some of the issues raised on this thread. Unfortunately, the accident took place in Scotland where the legal system has refused to investigate military accidents/deaths since the introduction of the 1976 FAI Act. However, a change in the law now makes is mandatory for a Fatal Accident Inquiry to be held for all military deaths, AND for the Lord Advocate to reopen a case where there is new evidence. Do we have any new evidence?

DV

airpolice

13th Oct 2017, 19:29

tucumseh

14th Oct 2017, 03:42

Could you not argue that since there has not been a civil investigation, then all evidence is new?

I assume DV is dealing with the same people the Chinook families did a couple of years ago. They went through this "new evidence" nonsense for many years with MoD. When a senior QC is prepared to place in writing criticism that families and campaigners have uncovered serious offences, you know someone enjoys serious top cover.

Davef68

15th Oct 2017, 00:57

Roving, if either accidnet had taken place in England we would have had an inquest. The concern is not that something untoward happened, but there was no judicial determination of the cause of a workplace death.

dervish

15th Oct 2017, 05:54

He's gone a-roving mate. Legal training not enough to grasp your point.

Noosh80

2nd Jul 2018, 22:06

Hi Roger, I’ve read some of these threads and they’re pretty distressing to say the least.Did you know my uncle? If you could email me at [email protected] or via Twitter. I would very much appreciate it many thanks nick Leaman [QUOTE=Piggies;8962368]I haven't been on this site for a long time, because quite frankly it bores me, but I was interested to learn any news about the deployment of Chinooks to Nepal, not least because I had a minor involvement this week.

I'll out myself.

Several years ago, yer man 'Beagle' made what I considered to be inflammatory comments about this incident on the Chinook Mull of Kintyre Thread. I sent him a PM explaining my situation and asked him for details on where he got his information. As I recall, he cited Data Protection as a reason not to answer me.

I was programmed to fly with PM on 1 September 1994. On that day, I was asked to go to a meeting with GM at Stn Ops, so asked RH to fly in my place, which he readily accepted. RH did not survive that sortie.

I am well aware of the rumours concerning PM and RH and the inferences that have been made. These have followed me around in the nearly 21 years since. If you knew the personalities, you would know the truth.

My wife was 7 months pregnant on 1 September 1994. I am fully aware that if it had been me, and not RH, in the boot that day, those exact same rumours would have surrounded me and my widow would have had to live with them.

There was nothing going on. It is distasteful to suggest otherwise and it dishonours the memories of two members of the Royal Air Force.

And it really pisses me off.

Roger Smith