Nuclear death traps. [Archive]

HAS59

19th May 2015, 12:11

I read all 18 pages of it. I thought that the style of writing and prose suggested that it had been cobbled together by more than one hand.
He's a dreamer who should have been selected out at the selection process.

It seems that Billy had started off with a conclusion and then looked for evidence to support it, believing he was some sort of Hollywood 'Mole' in a spy film skulking around eavesdropping. All rather pathetic really.

While some of it had a ring of truth to it, I am deeply skeptical of some of his assertions, particularly in respect of his alleged access to classified documents.

That said - I am glad that the RN are going to look at the situation seriously and hopefully some of the allegations of lapsed security will be addressed.

Are the boats safe? Well of course they are, but they are old and all old machines need fettling to keep them going.

He's no Snowden

Union Jack

19th May 2015, 12:11

Union Jack

19th May 2015, 12:13

HAS59 - Snap!:ok:

Jack

dagenham

19th May 2015, 12:35

or he is not bright enough to change the dictionary settings in word?

alfred_the_great

19th May 2015, 13:06

The worrying thing is that the account reads very much as being honestly and accurately written. Carrying snags is nothing new, but the decision to do so should be made by a properly SQEP'd and authorised individual and then appropriately documented. None of that sounds the case here.

And frankly, he is far, far too junior to be even anywhere near that process. In the cases he describes, I'd suggest the lowest level of having SQEP is CPO/WO1 to Lt Cdr.

Some of it does sound cultural malaise, but frankly CASD is boring and vital. The engineering snags carried would have been properly documented before they went to sea - I know, because I am part of a similar chain for my surface ship.

Chris_H81

19th May 2015, 16:54

It does read to me like the words of someone suffering from some form of mental health issue, be it the cause of, or result of, his actions.

Heathrow Harry

19th May 2015, 17:05

badly written but he makes some points

basically if you operate old kit this is the sort of thing you have to put up with and people get bored and shortcut the safety & security

interesting point tho that asking questions re maintenance is not a good way to get a promotion - I'm sure the Nimrod safety guys will recognise a lot of the basic "culture" here

I'd like to think a decent investigation into the issues raised will take place but I suspect he'll be labelled "an idiot troublemaker" and it will all go under the carpet again

bill2b

19th May 2015, 17:06

Carrying snags is nothing new, but the decision to do so should be made by a
properly SQEP'd and authorised individual and then appropriately documented.
None of that sounds the case here.

Are tradesmen on the line allowed to say "It'll do a trip" these days or are we only looking at Ships? :)

alfred_the_great

19th May 2015, 17:27

We've had ships voluntarily put themselves alongside because of cumulative risk; we've stopped tasking to make sure that the people are in the right place and frame of mind.

I'm afraid that I don't put a lot of credence in a v junior account of something, especially when most of it is 3rd hand dits.

Out Of Trim

19th May 2015, 17:42

Mcneilly seems to be a bit of a loner. Perhaps not well suited for this job and should have been denied selection due to this character trait. That and the fact he doesn't seem to believe in the Nuclear Deterrent either.

I'm wondering if someone has talked him into testing security and reporting back certain information! He seems to have spent most of his time testing his fellow crewman on their working knowledge and finding fault wherever he could.

Embarrassing for the RN and seemingly disloyal to his fellow crew.

The point he makes about walking past security without them scrutinising his ID details, may well be explained that security knows who he is by recognition; the best form of identification. I'm sure security see the same ratings and contractors day in, day out and really do know who they are without checking their IDs.

Still, it seems we need about 6 boats, rather than 4...

Courtney Mil

19th May 2015, 17:47

...and no doubt we need new boats, properly funded, manned and equipped.

Biggus

19th May 2015, 18:06

Courtney,

Surely in this day and age that should be "personned", not "manned"... :=

Rosevidney1

19th May 2015, 19:40

Surely we have all had to read up the Acceptable Deferred Defects which we signed before flight? I assume this is the maritime equivalent.

Roadster280

19th May 2015, 19:52

Without wishing to comment on the validity of McNeilly's comments for good reason, I suspect that I am not the only one who detects more than a hint of external assistance in this case, not to mention the use of some American English.

Jack

I picked up on that too, but I put it down to the missiles being American, so the SOPs will have come from the US. I have no doubt that the V boats spend quite a bit of time in King's Bay, too.

Not that I am defending this guy, far from it, but I can understand why some of that document seems to have American influence.

vernon99

19th May 2015, 20:30

Are tradesmen on the line allowed to say "It'll do a trip" these days or are we only looking at Ships?

A quality statement indicating that it is fit for purpose, that being to fly one trip only, thereafter requiring cont ops waiver, TR or AF.:ok:

Not sure if I am comfortable with "It'll do a trip" applying to our nuclear subs that are about to go on patrol for 6 months. I would like to think they at least start 100% serviceable, and there after apply good judgement and not a "pressonitis" approach to getting the job done - at any cost.:eek:

Courtney Mil

19th May 2015, 20:52

Surely in this day and age that should be "personned", not "manned"...

You just undermined my entire position. What was it again?

Oh, well. Next time. :)

alfred_the_great

19th May 2015, 21:57

Bombers do 3 - 4 months, never 6 months.

oldgrubber

19th May 2015, 21:57

A sad little man who obviously reads too much fiction and wants his 15 minutes. Well he's had it and I hope his future unemployability reflects the disservice he's done to the uniform I wore for over 30 years with pride. I won't say "damage" because frankly having read his fairy tales, no one with an ounce of intelligence would give them too much credence. Time to let this pointless thread die the death it deserves.

Whenurhappy

20th May 2015, 06:53

Courtney,

Surely in this day and age that should be "personned", not "manned"...

Shirley, you mean 'crewed'?

anotherthing

20th May 2015, 07:37

A friend pointed out the lads post about this on farcebook.

He has a photo of himself topless and his first line is "I apologise for the topless picture, but I cant show my clothing" he then talks about being imprisoned fot his words, and that now it is in the public domain he feels more assured that he wont be killed by the government.

Talks about covertly working to rid the UK of the dire threat of nuclear weapons etc etc.

I think he is a bit of a Walt, sees himself as some James Bond type. If anything he needs detained under the Mental Health act

Whenurhappy

20th May 2015, 08:03

Yes, the ramblings of his diatribe and that Book of Faces post reported elsewhere perhaps indicates an 'epsiode'; irrespective of any failings that he may have highlighted, the issue of the mental stability of a member of a submarine crew is, perhaps, the bigger problem.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

20th May 2015, 08:19

Indeed, yer man's mental state does raise suspicions. The selection/vetting process is, of course, now open to question. In fairness, though, some blokes don't exhibit their strangeness until they've actually been in an alien and enclosed environment for a protracted period.

It's all down to probability, again.

Biggus

20th May 2015, 09:12

With regard to the mental stability of someone working in submarines (indeed one could argue anywhere in the military) there was that tragic case back in 2011 when a submariner on armed guard duty ran amok and killed one and injured several others of his crew:

Submariner's grudge turned proud day into tragedy - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14975547)

What the RN did as a result of that incident I don't know, but perhaps this latest incident may be another wake up call regarding monitoring the mental state of those serving?

Alloa Akbar

20th May 2015, 09:21

The book of Face post by our friendly neighbourhood walt has been given the reception it deserves.. A right Royal Naval pi$$ taking!!

A womble of the highest order.

Pontius Navigator

20th May 2015, 10:05

There have a number of incidents through the years by people doing what are now known as minimum wage jobs - shooting aircraft they are supposed to be guarding for one.

He said he had deliberately sought a draft to the SSBN to expose these problems. How did he know there were problems?

I imagine the enhanced submarine pay had nothing to do with it.

Whenurhappy

20th May 2015, 10:28

In fairness, though, some blokes don't exhibit their strangeness until they've actually been in an alien and enclosed environment for a protracted period.

Perhaps it's a case that you'd have to be mad to work in a Submarine anyway?

In 1988 I spent a couple of days on a conventional boat to observe CASEXs from the receiving end. Crowded, interesting, smelly and constantly fighting rising claustrophobia. Would I willingly commit myself to 6 months underwater? Not if I remain sane, I wouldn't!

glad rag

20th May 2015, 12:25

If anything he needs detained under the Mental Health act

Have you seen what happens when a boat docks?

You do have to wonder if the Submarine Service needs to start from the ground up again.

Tourist

20th May 2015, 13:17

I think from the water down would be more helpful under the circumstances......

Out Of Trim

20th May 2015, 13:38

Have you seen what happens when a boat docks?

Err No,

Please do tell, is it something like when all is shipshape as it were, that the Commander, dismisses the crew and they depart to see loved ones etc.

teeteringhead

20th May 2015, 14:04

Shirley, you mean 'crewed'? Deffo "crews" not "men" any more. I posted the following in a JB thread last year about the RN becoming PC .....
And Life can imitate Art - or jokes!

The (British) Royal Navy had traditional "Daily Toasts" as follows:

Sunday "Absent Friends"
Monday "Our Ships at Sea"
Tuesday "Our Men"
Wednesday "Ourselves" (as no one else is likely to be concerned for us!)
Thursday "A Bloody War or a Sickly Season" (and a quick promotion!)
Friday "A Willing Foe and Sea-Room"
Saturday "Wives and Sweethearts" (may they never meet)

with the phrases in brackets being "understood" and sometimes actually stated.

In June last year [2013] the Tuesday and Saturday toasts were officially changed by 2SL (Second Sea Lord, the RN's Head of Personnel) to:

"Our Crews" and "Our Families" in recognition of the fact that females now serve at Sea.

:ugh:

Pontius Navigator

20th May 2015, 14:08

OoT, definitely er no I have been told.

Think concrete, unbreakable, and sluiceable while they hang a few on

Kitbag

20th May 2015, 14:40

Well the boys character, spelling, intelligence and loyalty have been trashed over the last 3 pages here, what about the allegations? I get a sense of the emporers new clothes; it sometimes takes a naive person to speak the truth even if seen from low down in the food chain, and any official rebuttal has seemed pretty vague and weak so far.

Out Of Trim

20th May 2015, 15:53

I guess, we are all expecting the RN to be able to run Our Nuclear Deterrent in a secure and safe as possible manner at all times.

Of course the boats will break-down now and then, like everything mechanical. I expect them to carry snags for a while here and there. But I expect them to be seaworthy before they depart on patrol.

I would also expect security to be tight and hope our authorities are constantly monitoring and testing it.

I would like to see a statement from the Royal Navy giving us assurances that all is well. Unless of course things are actually that bad. If they are, what are Senior Officers doing about it.

This budget is by far the most important and if it needs more spending on it then the RN needs to get it's act together.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

20th May 2015, 17:50

Do you really expect the MoD to issue "assurances" every time a Junior Rate drips about something that's poxed him off? Not so jolly Jack has soaked in some gash dits about "hairy moments" and made a point of getting drafted to a billet that makes him a bloody "expert". The lad's clearly deranged.

Many of the previous Posts sum this up very well.

Tourist

20th May 2015, 18:35

Ignoring tw@ts is the best way to deal with them. It deprives them of oxygen to steal.

Kitbag

20th May 2015, 18:50

GBZ as far as I can tell, with the honourable exception of Whenurhappy, no one else posting in a dismissive, derisory manner has ever been on a boat, don't presume that shouting loudly is enough these days to reassure Joe Public that all is well with the deterrent. None of the posts have disputed the young mans claims. That is a concern.

Tourist your comment is noted. You are on my ignore list from now on.

Tourist

20th May 2015, 19:07

:rolleyes:..........

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

20th May 2015, 20:08

Kitbag, I don't know why you should "ignore list" Tourist for re-stating a basic principle. If your assertion is right, though, perhaps the reassurance should be asked by one of our elected representatives in the House. Maybe the lad's own MP could make the gesture. That is, I believe, how we do things. It certainly isn't by ad hoc statements on the strength of some Press tittle-tattle or social network induced hysteria.

Whenurhappy

20th May 2015, 20:09

His 'report' seems to consist of rambling hearsay, incidents reported third hand and accounts of him deliberately flouting security protocols. The so-called fire in the Missile area was, again, hearsay with embellishments.

He appears to be a deluded individual who has gone to great, perhaps obsessive, lengths to prove his hypothesis that Trident weapons system is 'bad' and his bizarre behaviour does question (if not demonstrate) his overall mental stability. That is of greater concern - how the hell did he manage to serve of a bomber, let alone be in the RN?

Perhaps he will use the 'Public Interest' defence; I just hope he has a good solicitor. Perhaps some of you will recall the Flt Lt medic who opposed the occupation of Iraq and conducted his own defence, based on Public Interest. Didn't go too well for him, either...

Kitbag

20th May 2015, 20:38

GBZ I agree totally.

I think Whenurhappy gets to the nub of the matter- how does this get to happen; that the security protocols are bypassed, cos if he can and most posters here think he is an idiot, who else is in the club and bypassing the layers of protection that should be in place, and are they idiots too?

PS Tourist just annoys me.

enginesuck

20th May 2015, 21:35

As someone who has seen poor conditions of equipment and been part of a make do culture, which ultimately ended in tragedy although only as a contributing factor, I applaud this whistleblowers courage.

Many of his points are very minor in nature, however some are truly concerning, I'd expect a complete investigation and assurance that such issues are either not true or have been addressed.

Tourist

21st May 2015, 02:27

And this is what is wrong with this country.

A moron can spout cr@p and people want to spend a fortune conducting an enquiry.

If he had said "the submarine is powered by chained unicorns" would you want an enquiry by the RSPCA, or would you just ignore him?

Pontius Navigator

21st May 2015, 06:21

Chris Kebab

21st May 2015, 06:34

...well this is what happens when you start a thread on submarines in a Military Aviation forum!

Whenurhappy

21st May 2015, 07:06

If he had said "the submarine is powered by chained unicorns" would you want an enquiry by the RSPCA, or would you just ignore him?

Shh! How do you expect BAE systems to make a profit?

enginesuck

21st May 2015, 07:20

Tourist - how do YOU know what he is saying is rubbish ? Most of what he has said seems eminently plausible. I spent 16 years working on various aging Airframes and some of the turns of phrase in his narritive ring very true to my experience.

I now work in an industry where safety is given the highest priority over anything else - any member of the team is empowered to stop the job if nessesary, it works. The problem in any industry is the dinosaurs and the its always been like that culture - this guy appears to have identified hazards, raised his concerns to supervisors and been shut down by the "its always been like that" attitude.
I would be suprised that the RN does not have a safety system in place similar to the DASOR (apologies if i have got that wrong) whereby concerns of anyone regardless of rank can raise flight safety concerns and have them properly looked into, I believe only a couple of years ago a junior rank raised his concerns which swiftly resulted in the temporary grounding of a FJ Sqn and the reshuffle of Sqn engineering management.

Whenurhappy

21st May 2015, 08:08

Kitbag, it is human nature to seek the easy way, to bypass the system. People forget passes, I used to. Passes may not be checked [as the individual may be known to the guard]. I realise there is a risk when a pass has been withdrawn.

I understand that many establishments still use facial recognition systems, ie the Guard remembering the individual! 15 years ago I used the visit Faslane and other sites fairly frequently conducting SQEP audits. After a while, the guards would wave me through to certain areas (not all!) on the basis that I was a rare species - then a Sqn Ldr, in blue uniform,going to engineering support areas. Did I go to the media with my 'revelations' on supposedly lax security? On the contrary, it meant the guards were observing those who went through,remembered them and tallied this with the coloured passes that one had to wear.

Oh, and whilst we are on the discussion of passes, what is the point of vehicle passes? Very recently I spent 15 minutes at a well-known West London airfield getting a vehicle pass for a rental, simply to drop it off!

Tourist

21st May 2015, 09:30

enginessuck

I'm an ex pinger Naval officer. I've been on boats on many occasions and hunted them on far too many more. I personally know many submariners.

They are easily the most professional branch of any military service I have worked with including my own. (Filthy soap dodgers obviously!)

Of course they will carry snags. That's life. Anybody who thinks that any military machine is ever showroom fresh is frankly a moron and not worthy of consideration.

Some chippy AB with mental issues and an inflated sense of his own importance, intelligence and literary ability does not in any way persuade me that they don't take safety seriously.

downsizer

21st May 2015, 10:04

More importantly, isn't this topic a little too recent to be discussed in the Mil History Forum? :};)

rh200

21st May 2015, 11:10

They are easily the most professional branch of any military service

Considring what they do and the consequences, not surpising.:p

oggers

21st May 2015, 14:55

Some chippy AB with mental issues and an inflated sense of his own importance, intelligence and literary ability does not in any way persuade me that they don't take safety seriously.

-----The End-----

Courtney Mil

21st May 2015, 15:05

Totally agree, Tourist. Snags are carried on all sorts of equipment, civilian and military. And not just aircraft, ships or boats. A brand new AB would have little or no idea what snags were known, how they were managed or what the limitations or operational effect of them were.

Still, at least he finishes up with something important. The heads overflowed.

Out Of Trim

21st May 2015, 15:16

So, they really were in the Sh:mad:t :yuk::yuk:

Heathrow Harry

21st May 2015, 16:22

I can't believe how many people want to shoot the messanger on this - sure he's not officer material but I'd thought we'd all learnt that you ignore any evidence of problems at your peril

just go back and reread all the posts about the Nimrod and the way the MoD ignored people

enginesuck is correct - this should be investigated properly

Courtney Mil

21st May 2015, 18:50

The thing is, HH, which bits do you choose to investigate? There are so many disjointed and jumbled claims in there, some of them not even first hand accounts, it's very hard to know.

The guy's choice not to mention names or dates or, well, pretty much anything, doesn't make a great starting point for any investigation. Whom do you question? Which security guards do you check? Which faults exactly do you look into?

Or should they just investigate everything in the SSBN fleet? On the basis of something that looks like it was written by a twelve year old. Maybe with help.

Sure there may be things there that warrant a careful look. But which bits would you look into?

Tom Joad

21st May 2015, 21:42

Courtney Mil

21st May 2015, 21:47

Stuff

21st May 2015, 21:51

Heathrow Harry - I'd thought we'd all learnt that you ignore any evidence of problems at your peril

Which bits are evidence? 99% of it is opinion.

dagenham

21st May 2015, 22:32

The information being investigated are probably those that the investigators are going to extract while he is being politely interviewed at a fine shore establishment somewhere in this country.

While it may all be tosh in the letter if there are some truths they need to be found out rather than the party line being adopted. We have not lost a boat for a long time ( HMS Affray late forties early fifties istr) but never a time to be complacent. The submarine service is full of dedicated people but we should never let dedication be overtaken by foolhardiness when a hand is raised..... Even if it is out of the mouth of those with less experience it should rightly be listened to.

FODPlod

21st May 2015, 22:36

Ah, the 'something must be done' brigade. Okay.More money to attract, recruit, train and retain higher calibre service personnel and more of them.

More money for better qualified and more highly motivated security personnel and 'foolproof' systems.

More money for spares, repairs and newer / more submarines and equipment to help ease the currently crushing load.
Sorted! Now where's that pot of gold?

tubby linton

21st May 2015, 22:49

dagenham the incident with Artemis in 1971 got very close.
Antiques Roadshow object solves 40-year puzzle of how 280ft Royal Navy submarine SANK in 1971 | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2617783/Antiques-Roadshow-object-solves-40-year-puzzle-280ft-Royal-Navy-submarine-SANK-1971.html)

Courtney Mil

21st May 2015, 23:27

Even if it is out of the mouth of those with less experience it should rightly be listened to.

OK, we've all listened now. What are you suggesting happens next?

It's fine saying things like "it must be looked into", but what?

Hangarshuffle

22nd May 2015, 06:08

SNP secures Westminster debate on Trident safety | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/21/snp-trident-debate-debate-on-trident-safety)

Debate starting next week, so some good has come from this. Maybe Tridents days are numbered now? Hope so. Its neither "independent", a deterrent, and possibly neither very safe either to its crew or the people it is supposed to defend. And incredibly expensive. And housed in a land where the people don't appear to wish to have it.
Incredible leverage tool for SNP to gain independence.
Should the UK remain a nuclear military power at all?
Get your thinking caps on, MP's and military leaders.

AB McNeilly now in Naval Police custody. Hope they go easy on him, butterfly, wheel and all that.

I wouldn't trust the Navy on this with one inch. The submarine service has had just in my recent memory a serious grounding, a shooting where a rating went beserk with an assault rifle, an armed Nuclear boat in a collision with a French sub (yea right), and another recent collision with an ice berg - (yea right). Are they still trustworthy?
Are the military in general still trustworthy? The lies and lies we were all fed about weapons of mass destruction, and about the conduct of war in Iraq in general, and then Afghanistan were a game changer, something changed in Britain after that, and with the UK publics relationship with the military. I stopped believing an awful lot of what I was told after actually visiting Iraq and serving there. The military need to understand they no longer have the peoples implicit trust as they once did.Much work to be done by many I think.

[email protected]

22nd May 2015, 06:25

Ahhh hangarshuffle - so you think it was the fault of the military that we went into Iraq then:ugh::ugh::ugh:

The military get forced to do things (especially cutting corners to save money and going to war) by the politicians.

dagenham

22nd May 2015, 06:49

Courtney

I would suggest two things

1. Let the navy process continue. I suspect if nothing is done it will be made public by the lads sponsors . From the document he suggests three issues a. Security in Faslane b. Security on boats c. Operational safety of the boats. All three would seem high priority?

2. If there is something found in the investigation this should be reported to defence committee and there should rightly be an inquiry like haddon cave. This could, I stress could be another nimrod or it might not but at least we know.

I see the danger of immediately dismissing him as a crank means that point 1 becomes light touch, go through the motions and point 2. Only comes at the cost of lives when something truly terrible happens and most likely we will never find out as in most submarine disasters the evidence is far beyond effective investigative reach. The HMS Affray tragedy is a great example of a design fault, an undermanned and inexperienced crew can lead to loss.

Re Artemis, nearly is the point...... We forget how dangerous submarines are when things do go wrong. Thankfully they have been safe in Royal Navy service for a large number of years. However, we are dealing with greatly diminishing budgets and potentially morale. So it is natural to question if this is having an impact on operations, security and safety.

Hempy

22nd May 2015, 07:12

Hangarshuffle,

If you think the 'Military' were responsible for the Iraq debaclè, you are insinuating that the Mil leadership should have told the Government 'no, we're not going'. Insubordination aside, that's about half a step away from a coup, and about 2 inches from 'rebellion'.

All that the Military can do is hope (..it used to be 'expect'..) that the Government sending young men into harms way are doing it for a bloody good reason.

Courtney Mil

22nd May 2015, 07:46

Crab and Hempy, I don't wish to defend hangarshuffle's massive anti-nuclear rant, but to be fair, I don't think he criticised the military going to Iraq, I think he referred to their conduct there.

and about the conduct of war in Iraq in general

Courtney Mil

22nd May 2015, 08:08

Dagenham,

Yes, indeed. I wonder if the Navy investigation now is investigating Mr McN or his claims. The latter could very easily be avoided by a senior officer declaring it all a load of hoop and moving on. What may be more likely is that a bunch of boat captains might be asked to confirm that these things don't happen under their commands and a stiffly worded note reminding them to make sure no such things happen in future.

Whilst I do take the point that it's dangerous to ignore a whistle-blower, the whole tone of his memo paints a picture that everyone on board was just being totally gash in every conceivable way. It certainly doesn't chime with the outstanding conduct and professionalism I've seen whenever I've been on board any RN ship.

Of course, this whole thing does come at an amazingly convenient time for the SNP. Naaa, couldn't be anything to do with them. Looking at their policies, the memo is way too well crafted. :E

Hempy

22nd May 2015, 08:36

CM, fair enough, it was just a slur on their planning and actions.

dagenham

22nd May 2015, 09:05

Courtney

Completely agree we are in perfect alignment. The professionalism of the submarine fleet is without question and is amply demonstrated by their safety record, I too suspect the hands of others but also respect that some of the lobbying that has driven major safety changes in many aspects of maritime and aviation safety may have come from those with a strong emotional response and not been a pointedly or even correctly written, but should not diminish it's impact.

Tourist

22nd May 2015, 10:34

Hangarshuffle

You are spectacularly out of order.

Your list that leads you to distrust the RN should lead you to the opposite.

No hull losses since the forties is a spectacular achievement. How many aircraft have we lost?

The grounding was over a decade ago, and if you had any idea what goes on on the Perisher course you would have a lot of respect for how rarely they touch the ground.

The French and British boats colliding is the inevitable result of excellence on both Navies part. If you cannot understand why then you are hard of thinking. Imagine if both the French and the British had B2 Stealth Bombers circling in IMC over Europe for 50 years. Do you think that they might eventually hit? The whole point is that they are invisible and nobody except the captain and the Nav know where they are. You can't deconflict without defeating the whole point of the exercise.

Incidentally, the French Captain got in the sh1t and the Brit did not. There is a reason for that.

re the man who went mad. What exactly would you suggest is done to stop such nutters? German wings?

Wander00

22nd May 2015, 11:35

Since I guess that, for good reason, most MPs know tiddly squit about how the Trident fleets is manage (and I for one think they do a damn fine job, the subs' crews, not the MPs) then it will be a pretty pointless debate - which sums up the relevance of the SNP to Westminster. Good job it is the weekend tomorrow - I might relax!

BossEyed

22nd May 2015, 11:54

The grounding was over a decade ago...

Point of Order: Less than half that - under 5 years. (22 October 2010 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/27118/astute_grounding_si_report.pdf))

Hempy

22nd May 2015, 12:16

....sustained

Tourist

22nd May 2015, 13:32

Fair enough, I thought he was referring to a real grounding like HMS Trafalgar, not just a rudder tip.

Astute was the equivalent of a crap landing, whereas Trafalgar was gear up

Not_a_boffin

22nd May 2015, 13:48

As was Super B.

One might make the point that two, possibly three (Traf's was a little different) submarines in the last decade or so have argued at varying speeds with what are essentially undetectable features and survived with no casualties. Indicating that the engineering and procedures are essentially safe.

Heathrow Harry

23rd May 2015, 12:14

Given that we are all about to be asked to shell out a fortune on Successor (which I think is probably the right decision) going around saying "everything is OK, honest - now move along.." isn't going to get much traction

If the RN don't investigate then the newspapers and the anti-nuke brigade will have an open goal

alfred_the_great

23rd May 2015, 20:18

I'm not sure what they're supposed to be investigating?

Courtney Mil

23rd May 2015, 23:30

Alfred,

Thank you. I've been saying that for days.

So, which bits of the memo warrants investigation?

As Dagenham rightly reminded us, the Navy already have him so they will be doing some investigation.

We may hear more later, but this is likely to take a while.

dat581

24th May 2015, 06:29

How long is this bloke likely to spend in gaol? The days of putting people in the tower and throwing away the key are long gone. You can bet the first thing he will do when he gets out will be to spill his guts to the media outlet that offers him the most money. Perhaps the RN investigation can focus on who are pulling his strings and why and have the information ready to go to embarrass those responsible.

Tourist

24th May 2015, 06:56

Erm......he has already "spilled his guts"

He's been in the mob about 5 minutes. He knows nothing to spill. Those who think that every time somebody is unhappy there should be a Haddon Cave are insane.

Imagine if you found some bloke in the RAF who said "All the pilots are drunk all the time"

Should this be investigated by a royal commission? Or perhaps should the nutter be ignored......

Sometimes investigations are warranted. Sometimes it is obvious to anybody with a passing knowledge that the problem is the bloke rather than the system.

tucumseh

24th May 2015, 11:13

Those who think that every time somebody is unhappy there should be a Haddon Cave are insane.

Quite right.

First, there should be an MoD inquiry. Only if they lie, deceive or deny, like they did on Nimrod, should the public once again push for a "Haddon-Cave" type inquiry.

It is too quickly forgotten how the Nimrod Review was conceived. It was not instigated by MoD. The public gave evidence to the Coroner, who accepted that evidence over MoD's. This forced Des Browne to order the Review.

It could also be said no-one wants another Haddon-Cave anyway. Better an inquiry that identifies the guilty, rather than name and blame the innocent.

dat581

24th May 2015, 12:14

I'll clarify.

I'm referring to investigating whether he acted alone or was put up to his actions and by who. Not an investigation into what he is claiming.

Chugalug2

24th May 2015, 13:12

dat581:-
Not an investigation into what he is claiming. heaven forfend! All that time and all that money simply to be told that there is nothing to see here, move along please, we've all got homes to go to...

As tuc says another "Haddon-Cave" would merely reinforce the ties that bind the chums together, with the added irony that the falsehoods created will then be quoted as so much holy script. It would take quite a few good men to break such a conspiracy, men such as the onetime Oxford Coroner. They are very few and very far between.

In the meantime we have nothing to fear except fear itself, so just get on with your work, confident indeed in the judgement of our High Command as to which corners should be cut and how.

Tourist

24th May 2015, 19:20

Ah, the hobby horse riders of the apocalypse have arrived.........

Chugalug2

24th May 2015, 20:03

Tourist:-
Or perhaps should the nutter be ignored......Worked well enough in the NHS, didn't it Tourist? No doubt whistle-blowing (or would it be a Bosun's Pipe in this case?) in the MOD is dealt with in a similar manner. You know; blanking, sending to Coventry, career stopping personal report, prosecution under the OSA, or just simple daily persecution.

If only he'd simply tripped and fallen down a ladder (or is it a companion way?) while on board. He could have sued for a 4 or 5 figure sum and we'd all be a bit peed off but not very much. As it is he hasn't made a bean (AFAIK) and is about to experience the wrath of his Service.

Nice phrase by the way, "Hobby Horse Riders of the Apocalypse". Ever thought of a Sub Editor's job at the Sun?

alfred_the_great

24th May 2015, 20:11

So, I'll ask again, now that usual suspects have turned up - what should be investigated?

DeafOldFart

24th May 2015, 20:29

I worked in the Radio Centre at Chatham Dockyard after leaving college in the 1960's, Valiant and Warspite were the two nuclear sumarines undergoing refits while I was there.
Amazingly, there are certain hazards to sailing under the surface.
Some key components of the power system used to carry very hot fluids around were susceptible to corrosion.... surprising, that, I mean it's only salty water outside....
End result was a series of 'bodges' to keep outside water at high pressure in the place where it belonged... outside.
High tech gaffer tape was used, Captain was told it would be okay to about 50 feet or thereabouts....
I'm not kidding!!!!
HMS Diamond (destroyer) was sold to a foreign power (African?) and had a bit of a spruce up before departing.... it never arrived as far as I know!
One technician dropped a spanner on deck, and was aghast at its disappearance through a brown biscuit like material covered in grey paint....
There's an aviation link here too, the early radar controlled turrets were a little temperamental, and while tracking an obliging Hunter they resembled a pensioner sans white stick and guide dog. Sort of indecisive and doddery!
1940's technology continued into the 70's and 80's, the four ships we sold to Argentina were not capable of joined up warfare due to a lack of spares... ditto some of the British ships, identical in specification!
Hi fi enthusiasts will know about old fashioned glass cased radio components... made by ancient craftsmen... imagine two rooms of these doing the same job as a mobile phone app.... warm was good sometimes!

dagenham

25th May 2015, 08:51

Insane.... Ok, let me think....

1. We have had a fair few reports of issues in the fleet for the past number of years........ What does that remind you of?
2. Anything to do with buckets o' sunshine must be super professional..... Oh wasn't there an incident with a b52 and unsafe clearance of weapons for transit....didn't the head of nuclear capability in the usaf get sacked?
3. If we cop a blind un ---- what's the risk.....we loose a lot of professional colleagues and at least 25 per cent of our operating capability.

Yes he might be the idiot of their parish, but like all incident reports, listen, investigate, analyse and recommend... Hard on the facts.....light on the emotion.

Biggus

25th May 2015, 09:09

Perhaps what should be investigated is how someone with his apparent beliefs, and lack of commitment to the role, ending up serving on an SSBN.

In the same way that, if (and that's always a big if!!) the news is to be believed, the mental state of the crewman involved in this incident

Submariner's grudge turned proud day into tragedy - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14975547)

was fairly readily apparent to all.

[email protected]

25th May 2015, 09:23

But you have to be a bit odd to want to be a submariner in the first place;)

Hangarshuffle

25th May 2015, 18:34

He's not a nutter, and he shouldn't be slung in the tower. He's probably pretty disconcerted by what he has recently witnessed. Spilled the beans. Of course whistle blowers always, always are treat as traitors or weasels. But they rarely are. I mean look how the Nazis treat people who spoke out.

In the UK same period, what was the guys name who spoke out about the performance of in particular British tanks in Normandy 1944, against German Panther or Tiger? Stokes? Look how he was treat. He was desperately trying to defend the tank crews.
No something is not right at all about all of this. I've said for several years on these forums that within our tiny yet incredibly active military we should have independent sworn civilian observers. Make it so and the sooner the better.

alfred_the_great

25th May 2015, 19:36

And what they going to say? Submarines break, people fix them, sometimes **** happens.

Biggus

25th May 2015, 19:36

Hangar,

I never said he was a "nutter", I questioned whether his apparent beliefs (earlier in this thread somebody said "He states at one point that the time for nuclear deterrence is past and that nuclear weapons should be dismantled" , which I took at face value) were compatible with working on SSBNs.

I referred to the mental state of a seaman in a totally separate incident. However, if you believe the contents of this "bean spillers" report are worth investigating, then you will have read that one of the things he wrote was:

" There have been suicides onboard, and on an A-boat we had a shooter kill his own work colleagues. There were some people that I served with on that patrol, who showed clear psychopathic tendencies".

So it would appear that your whistle blower is in total agreement with my comment of 2 posts back! :=:=:=

A bit less emotion and a bit more accuracy would no doubt help your arguement.

Courtney Mil

25th May 2015, 21:07

Biggus. Point well made. :ok:

Chugalug2

25th May 2015, 21:43

Biggus:-
A bit less emotion and a bit more accuracy

There at least I am in full agreement. Wouldn't it be a good idea for an independent interrogation of this man to occur so that he can make his case, in order that it can be assessed whether or not there be action required to ensure that the UK Nuclear Deterrent remains viable?

It may well be that no action at all is required as he has fabricated everything, or perhaps some security issues need addressing but otherwise all is well, or perhaps both by land and sea the whole thing is a complete dog's doodah and Very Senior heads must roll.

There, that should do it, don't you think? All we need now is to have an independent investigation and, oh...wait, I think I might have just spotted a slight flaw in my cunning plan.

Tom Joad

25th May 2015, 22:32

Tom Joad,

Again I ask, "what, exactly, should be investigated?" As I'm sure you know, investigations are costly and intrusive (in many ways). So which bits would you want to examine? Which people? Which supposed issues?

Ok it's a fair point Courtney and of course I accept the cost implication of any investigation. I have some experience of working at Faslane/Coulport albeit some time ago now, things may well have changed, I accept that. However, from my own experience of back then the claims made regarding general base security rang true. Now, I'm in no way passing judgement on security of weapon storage/movement and handling, but I always saw complaceny in general base security. If my memory serves correctly there have been one or two embarrassing breaches. Sure, mistakes will always be made but what harm could it do to at least review this basic area. Nor do I believe the young man made the allegations with ease - just remember how in the RAF we got handling of such so wrong in the past and how those "whistleblowers" were treated. Not every whistleblower holds a grudge many act with very sincere and brave motives. Time will no doubt tell what we have here.

Tom

alfred_the_great

26th May 2015, 08:08

So, what are we investigating - security at Faslane? Fine, lets go for it. The rest is a simple demonstration that this inexperienced and poorly informed young sailor has no idea what he is talking about. If this revelation had come from a CPO SWS or Lt Cdr ME it would have significantly more creditability.

Tom Joad

26th May 2015, 16:34

Why? What does rank imbue in a person? Ok don't answer that I'm just being argumentative.:E

The sad thing is you are probably right. That should be a worry.

Heathrow Harry

26th May 2015, 16:39

"First, there should be an MoD inquiry. Only if they lie, deceive or deny, like they did on Nimrod, should the public once again push for a "Haddon-Cave" type inquiry."

how will we know if they lie, deceive or deny...

oh yes...when there is a large BANG somewhere in the N Atlantic ............

Lonewolf_50

26th May 2015, 17:19

Why? What does rank imbue in a person? Ok don't answer that I'm just being argumentative.:E In defense of my various colleagues and compadres in the RN, I think Alfred is arguing
experience and professional knowledge as a source of credibility.

As to the unhappy sailor, I've dealt with a few in my time.
This to me is a big, red, BS flag: " There were some people that I served with on that patrol, who showed clear psychopathic tendencies". The speaker is not qualified to make such assessments. Hell, I've been around for some decades and probably am not qualified to make that kind of assessment either.
*back to lurk mode*

Turbine D

26th May 2015, 20:23

My, what an interesting thread full of interesting statements and judgements without facts.

But from afar, the entire thread is about one word, CULTURE. Some have concluded that the RN culture governing nuclear submarine operations, upkeep, command and control and the alike, clearly defined on paper has never changed, it is A#1, just as it was the day it was instituted and ingrained in all that were trained. Some experienced the early culture and are 100% sure it is what it was when they served (historical basis). But, culture like everything else in this world changes over a period of time. What was, isn't today. So now a person, thought to be a psychopath by some, having a grudge against the submarine service or RN by others, has come forward with some information that doesn't quite fit the early defined culture. Now this information, to begin with, is judged to be off the wall, the writing is poor by King's English standards and so therefore, the entire message is an outlier not worthy of investigating, err, like investigate what?

To begin with, why would a person write this? That is the first point to be investigated. And believe it or not, that can lead up the trail to places you never thought it could lead to. Case in point, the United States has possession of more nuclear warheads than any other free world country. We manage and guard them with all the sophistication possible and with exlemperary command and control, correct? Lets look at our USAF CULTURE for a moment, that hadn't changed since it was originally developed and implemented with command and control of land based ICBM, wink, wink:

The entire nuclear program underwent a massive organizational change as a result of a complainer. A former retired top Nuclear Commander was called in to investigate the modern culture and how it was performing. His conclusion was it was performing terribly.
- At one point six nuclear missiles went missing for 36 hours.
- Key nuclear warhead components were shipped to Taiwan by mistake.
- Key equipment being used was and is outdated.
- One wrench was available to attach or remove nuclear warheads on 450 ICBMs located a three different locations, so it was FedEx'd from one location to another location when needed, e.g., it made the rounds.
- The entire leadership was found to be weak, all the way to the top.
- 98 missileers were implicated in a cheating scandal involving proficiency testing and nine mid-level commanders were fired as a result.
- Complaints in a leaked email from one base asserted there was "rot" in the missile force.
- Many in leadership roles were more interested in protecting their own reputations than what was required to maintain and guard the safety of nuclear weapons.
- There was abysmal morale among the men and women responsible for maintaining and launching the most deadly and destructive weapons on the planet. Many wanted out.
These "investigative" findings caused the removal of the top nuclear commander, the firing of multiple high level commanders under the top commander and discipline of a multitude of mid-level officers for leadership lapses and maltreatment of subordinates that included threatening and or retaliations against those who might openly complain.
When the new leadership came into place, more deficiencies were discovered.
- Blast doors to the control rooms were left open, meaning unauthorized persons could walk in a perhaps remove the secret launch codes as a result of the unsecured doors which wouldn't close properly and were never fixed.
- The silo doors didn't always open upon command or shut tight when closed.

What can be more boring than baby-sitting ICBMs and nuclear warheads in a silo or onboard a submarine, knowing they will probably be never used?

I will tell you the USN passed its nuclear command and control investigations without any major findings due to their unique leadership structure involving both nuclear propulsion and ICBMs. The Navy structure is such that it is kept free from the Washington Capitol Hill bureaucrats and ding-a-lings, where the USAF structure was not organized the same way.

Bottom-line: Bring a former, highly respected nuclear command and control person to investigate the current RN nuclear CULTURE. Followup on the complaints made, see where they lead. Hopefully all will be well and the original CULTURE is still intact. But, then….

alfred_the_great

26th May 2015, 21:02

I'd be more impressed by his screed if he'd mentioned UMMS, OPDEF, NAVYSAFE, NLIMs, FOST, Sea Training, Navy Security Improvement programme, the MAA Log or S285Ks: either he has missed every single one of those, or he omits them in the name of "whistleblowing". All of those are part of the culture I'm living as a CODH, one that is pan-Navy, one that I've personally briefed my team on more than once. Perhaps that might be why every single serving member of the RN I've met, AB to Capt RN, Skimmer, WAFU or Submariner, have poured utter scorn onto him. Neither have I heard anyone else, serving or recently retired, pile in to back him up - which also says something. And given that all the culture stuff that percolated about regarding USAF Nuclear Safety, and RAF Airworthiness, and people willing to whistleblow, that might be another combat indicator that he has little idea what he's talking about.

MGPS culture at Faslane - go for it, investigate it as much as you like. The rest of the bollocks, is exactly that, bollocks.

Chugalug2

26th May 2015, 21:37

So, having repeatedly asked what should be investigated, it is you that has answered the question ATG, ie security at Faslane. Everything else being bollocks and, by implication, not to be investigated. Might I suggest if anything should be investigated it is what this "whistleblower" has to say? By pouring scorn on that from the start you say more about your attitude (and possibly the MOD's?) than you do about him.

Turbine D's powerful post shows how seriously matters pertaining to nuclear weapons and their delivery systems should be taken, ie bloody seriously. As a fermenter of that other odious culture, UK Military Airworthiness (not just RAF!), I have grown used to the patronising attitudes of our betters who, unlike we mere untermenschen, know all that there is to know. Time and time again they have been shown to be mere mortals themselves, with skeletons to hide and lies to tell.

At the very suggestion that the malevolence and ineptitude that destroyed our world leading standard of UK Military Air Safety has been visited upon our nuclear deterrent we should all be demanding the sort of in depth investigation that Turbine D describes. The worry though is who, in our entire nation, should we entrust with it? Who indeed could we trust with it?

Courtney Mil

26th May 2015, 21:56

Chug, I think the first step may be to establish if there is a question to answer and whether or not the young man is making any kind of reasonable claims.

AB McN clearly has an axe to grind after a very short time in service. Someone needs to determine whether that is the result of a genuine sense of honour, the misunderstanding of a young, possibly pricipaled, possibly naive man or someone that just didn't like what he saw when he joined up - for not very long.

You have to agree, Chug, the claims here could be interpreted in more than one way - maybe depending on the tint of today's spectacles. The UK cannot immediately open a costly investigation into everything.

Some credibility has to be established first. Everything we see with a shadow on it isn't necessarily a conspiracy.

Edit: it was me that mainly kept asking what should be investigated. And, yes, security at the Faslane Main Gate may be worth a look.

Chugalug2

27th May 2015, 07:59

CM, my problem isn't particularly with this man, but more (you will be stunned to hear) with the MOD. It has shown itself to be ready to lie and to bully in order to obscure the truth, witness the many military fatal air accident threads on this very forum, witness this site that says it all in its title:-

https://sites.google.com/site/militaryairworthiness/

Whatever is done to investigate these allegations, it should not be done by the MOD. Given the results of Judicial Inquiries into the Nimrod and Chinook tragedies, that cost 14 and 29 lives respectively, I would suggest that is not the way either, never mind the financial costs that you mention.

As far as I know the Office for Nuclear Regulation's reputation is not so sullied:-

Office for Nuclear Regulation - Health and safety in the nuclear industry (http://www.onr.org.uk/)

Lots of reasons why it should not carry out an inquiry I'm sure, but if it can at least be trusted to work in the public interest rather than its own then that would be a big plus for me. As to cost, can we afford not to ensure the safety of our deterrent?

Whenurhappy

27th May 2015, 09:46

There are others who might correct me, but based on my experience at Faslane 15 years ago, the Office for Nuclear Regulation only applies to RN reactors, from the moment (and only at the moment) the vessel goes alongside.

Chugalug2

27th May 2015, 09:55

Wuh:-
the Office for Nuclear Regulation only applies to RN reactors, from the moment (and only at the moment) the vessel goes alongsideIt is a compromise I admit that the ONR has any responsibilities here at all, but they do have the experience, and technical knowledge, that is required to make any meaningful analysis of evidence put before them. That was what was lacking to a great extent in the Judicial Inquiries mentioned previously.

Of course those whose turf would be stepped upon will have much to protest about. They must blame those who have brought the MOD into such disrepute.

airpolice

27th May 2015, 10:02

Alfred & Courtney seem happy to accept that the civvy staff who man the gate, with weapons, are fair game for an audit.

I can tell you, as a frequent civilian visitor to more than one RAF Station in recent years, the gates are not secure, not by a long way.

To suggest that this is an MPGS failing is missing the point.

Senior RAF staff must see the lapses every day and yet it continues unchallenged.

Either what the AB says is all bollocks, I doubt that, or there is at least some truth there.

You certainly should not think it's OK to blame MPGS as the security has been outsourced. Everyone has a duty to protect the station.

I recall seeing the infra red thumbprint scanner working at a large base a few years ago. this senses the ID of the motorcyclist, (I know it's infra red as it reads the thumb print through the biker's gloves) as he approaches the gate giving a thumbs up. This results in the barrier being raised and a smile and a wave from the MPGS guy as the bike barely slows to drive through.

It must be that system, otherwise the MPGS guy just lets people in because they confidently approach the gate. Another lapse is where you can drive up to the gate, let the MPGS guy tell you that you need a pass, park outside the Guardroom, go in, ask some stupid questions to pass two minutes, and then emerge clutching a piece of green paper and he thinks you have just been cleared in, so he lifts the barrier.

It's the routine lapses that will be exploited. that's the kind of schit that Taceval teams would exploit, in the old air force.

Whenurhappy

27th May 2015, 12:11

The problem with this AB is/was his agenda. He is trying to make a point from the outset of his career and his report is a loose collection of third-hand anecdotes, wilful breaking of trust and the rules, and uninformed observations; added to that his behaviour (going on the run, topless photos, allusions to his impending assassination) implies some sort of psychiatric episode.

I recall, when I was a Recruit Flight Commander many years ago, a young armourer faking his own disappearance and persuading an equally gullible young airman to cover for him, with tails of secret mercenary armies, submarines waiting to pick him up, and so on. When his room was searched, apart from finding MDC and some dets, the police also found detailed records of police shift rosters, movements of base execs etc. When asked to account for these, he said he wanted to expose 'lax' security. These days Special Branch would be on to him and he'd be detained under Anti-Terrorism legislation; in this occasion he was detained under the Mental Health Act.

A little knowledge + Internet + paranoia = calls for 'immediate enquiry' + 'heads must roll'

Tourist

27th May 2015, 12:22

The problem is that these days, because of various incredibly uncommon but real scandals in the past, people want to believe every tw@t

Jimlad1

27th May 2015, 12:22

"It must be that system, otherwise the MPGS guy just lets people in because they confidently approach the gate. Another lapse is where you can drive up to the gate, let the MPGS guy tell you that you need a pass, park outside the Guardroom, go in, ask some stupid questions to pass two minutes, and then emerge clutching a piece of green paper and he thinks you have just been cleared in, so he lifts the barrier."

Genuine question - have you ever been to Faslane and tried to get onto the SSBN jetty? Its a little bit different, despite what our wannabe Snowden has suggested.

ATG is bang on the money - usually at times like this if there is some credibilityin the allegations, others will pipe up and go 'yes there is something there'. Everyone I have spoken to, and this includes a lot of people who are a) very very credible in this area and b) would have the moral courage to say something if they thought there was an issue, has been unanimous that this was a young man with highly limited experience who did not understand what was going on.

We've been running SSBNs for nigh on 50 years without a break in coverage and this is the first time any of the tens of thousands of ex bomber queens has broken ranks. Surely that should in it self suggest something?

Courtney Mil

27th May 2015, 13:00

Maybe, Jimlad, that's because all the others were shot and buried in the foundations of a bridge over the M1 before they could get their stories out.

Whenurhappy

27th May 2015, 13:18

More likely buried in the foundations of the Ship Lift at Faslane or the Explosives Handling Jetty at, err, Coulport.

Echoing Jim's comments, you can't just stroll into that part of HMNB Clyde; there are many physical and other barriers in place to do so; at least there were 14 years ago when I used to visit there on a monthly basis.

That's not to say that there haven't been site security issues. A few years back a SAGA bus tour got waved in through the Southern Gate and had an impromptu tour of the non-nuclear site. But remember, every day there are any people trying to enter the site illegally, principally (but not elxclusively) from the Ploughshare movement; without a doubt there are FISs who'd love to get on site to learn both of our deterrent and the technology associated with our submarine fleet. The MDP have the place well stocked up in terms of stopping intruders and there's the RM Force Protection Group there as well...

deptrai

28th May 2015, 07:11

Im in no position to comment on that guys allegations, but on a general basis, it would be naive to assume mistakes dont happen in the military :E

according to the news, a US DoD lab just sent live anthrax samples around the world

US military accidentally shipped live anthrax to labs - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32910020)

downsizer

28th May 2015, 13:39

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-vote-office/May%202015/28%20May/1-Defence-Clyde.pdf :ok:

Courtney Mil

28th May 2015, 14:55

Good. That's all OK, then.

Pontius Navigator

28th May 2015, 16:16

If there is no evidence that e-cigarettes were used how can there be evidence that they didn't compromise the vessel

Chugalug2

28th May 2015, 16:46

Airpolice, I think that e-cigarettes fulfill the same role as the civilian gate guardians. Both serve as a sop to occupy the mob (ie us), in order to distract from the more obvious worries about the security of the UK's nuclear deterrent.

Am I alone in finding it ironic that on the same day as the President of FIFA vows to leave no stone unturned in his declared zeal to reform his organisation, the MOD vows that all is well, with no cause for concern?

Leopards and Spots?

alfred_the_great

28th May 2015, 17:12

'More obvious worries' - please, tell us more. What are they, specifically?

Chugalug2

28th May 2015, 17:56

atg:-
'More obvious worries' - please, tell us more. What are they, specifically?
Specifically that the operator, the regulator, and the investigator are one and the same. If the MOD's statement had been issued by an expert independent investigator (the ONR?) I would have been spared some of those worries, unless of course they had issued a different statement, a more worrying one..

If FIFA were judge and jury of its own case would you be happy, atg? Well, would you?

Not_a_boffin

28th May 2015, 19:24

Before this thread turns into MoK 3, lets just deal with the e-tabs shall we?

Submarine atmospheres are very controlled environments. Literally all materials that go aboard the vessel are characterised for any chemical emissions they give off to ensure they don't cause a long-term health hazard or other issue.

As I'm not party to the current investigation, I'm only speculating, but it might go something along the lines of E-tabs not having been officially cleared for use aboard the boats yet. However, the research by INM may well be in its reporting stages and having been checked as a result of this ABs public dripping, has shown no hazards/issues will arise. It's just that the official clearance hasn't come out yet.

Sorry Chug et al, but this is the equivalent of a trainee liney with less than 2 years in and only in his first squadron tour suggesting that based on his experience the entire airworthiness chain in the RAF is worthless. Does your average newbie liney understand design authority, mod state config control etc? Or is he mainly reading the maintenance pubs and checking his tools off the aircraft?

There is a difference between alleged systematic abrogation / avoidance of the rules instigated by VSO and a walt on a boat. Sorry, but there it is.

Chugalug2

28th May 2015, 20:13

Ah, the ever popular game called stovepiping! The MOD is the common denominator in all of the fatal air accident threads and of this one. I've no idea if this guy is talking cobblers or not. Given the extreme sensitivity of the nature of his story I would really like it to be properly investigated. The bland instassure of the MOD statement comes nowhere near that, nor do the posts here.

Mull started off in a similar way, VSOs are honourable men who would have moved heaven and earth to avoid sticking it on the pilots, but their duty was clear...and ended up with the SoS's statement to the Commons pretty well rubbishing that notion (given that the aircraft was knowingly released to service in a grossly unairworthy condition).

So the boats are safe, the missiles are safe, the warheads are safe, the crews are safe. You know that, now I know that, but I wonder if they know that? How many times must the MOD be caught out lying before something is done? Perhaps we should turn to the FBI? They at least seem willing to tread where all others fear to follow!

Not_a_boffin

28th May 2015, 23:07

No Chug. Mull did not start off in a similar way.

It started off with a large number of fatalities and a cab scattered all over the Mull. That is incontrovertible evidence that something may have gone badly wrong and required investigation.

This has started off with a very junior seaman with very limited experience publishing a "report" of wild and substantially inaccurate allegations, which may or may not have been instigated by someone with a political agenda.

It is unfortunate (but entirely understandable) that you cannot bring yourself to believe anything coming out of MoD unless there has been a completely independent investigation. The rest of us will just have to apply our own judgement and come to our own conclusions.

Courtney Mil

28th May 2015, 23:50

Am I alone in finding it ironic that on the same day as the President of FIFA vows to leave no stone unturned in his declared zeal to reform his organisation, the MOD vows that all is well, with no cause for concern?

Mate, comparing the two is not worthy of you. You have a good cause, but don't lessen your position by making such cheap points, cheap shots if you prefer.

Your points on airworthiness and regulation are well made and worthy. But the excellent evidence you have presented on the other issues does not automatically translate to this one.

Some may be tempted to think that you are saying that the MoD was demonstrably wrong on one issue, they must be wrong again. Don't do that, it detracts from your real case.

Yes, I know you will come back and say that it's all to do with the ethics of an organisation regulating and investigating itself. That does not necessarily negate the report from this investigation. And it certainly has nothing to do with FIFA.

And I know you will demonstrate that you're just drawing a comparison. Sorry, Dude. Not arguing with your, generally, well-informed points.

parabellum

29th May 2015, 01:59

first thing he will do when he gets out will be to spill his guts to the media outlet that offers him the most money.

The AB is and will be subject to the Official Secrets Act and 'spilling his guts' could get him a prison sentence, additionally he won't be allowed to profit from his crime, if offences are proven.

A likely scenario is a complete debrief by the RN, charged with being AWOL, charged with contacting the press without permission, charged with any breaches of the OSA that may have already occurred. If found guilty he could be discharged in disgrace or he could be discharged as 'Services no longer required', possibly a short period of detention too.

Chugalug2

29th May 2015, 07:12

Nab:-
It started off with a large number of fatalities and a cab scattered all over the Mull.It actually started with a Switch on Only CAR as part of an RTS that placed the aircraft in squadron service, a sequence that was completely contrary to the Regulations and resulted in a knowingly unairworthy aircraft being operated by the RAF. That in turn led to:-
a large number of fatalities and a cab scattered all over the Mull. The many UK Military Air Accident threads on this forum have all begun with similar tragic scenes, all under the MOD as Regulator, and all investigated under its auspices.

God forbid that we should be faced with such a start to a Nuclear Weapons accident thread, prevention being far the preferable path. Prevention begins with rigorous regimes of Regulation and Investigation. Both should be independent of the Operator (the MOD) and both should be independent of each other. That is what has been called for regarding the MAA and the MAAIB. The same goes for military nuclear weapons Regulation and Investigation.

If this AB has achieved anything, it should be not to focus on the need for a UK Nuclear Deterrent (possibly his agenda?) but rather on the need for a complete reform of its safety oversight.

CM, your patronising matey post is merely par for the course of many I have received over the years advising me not to pursue the case further. The problem here is the MOD. It is judge and jury of its own case regarding military accidents. If you agree with the campaign to make the MAA and the MAAIB independent of the MOD and of each other (though despite your flattery of me, I'm not sure that you do), then surely it is even more vital that nuclear weapons and systems are afforded similar protection?

Tourist

29th May 2015, 08:24

Chug and tuc.

Honest question.

If there was a full independent enquiry that found that no errors were made, would you accept the result?

If not, then why on earth should anybody bother?

Some people only want the answer they have decided is correct, not the right answer.

This tw@t AB has now had his complaints investigated and found to be false and you are still not happy.

Tourist

29th May 2015, 08:26

Incidentally, I have come to believe (without a shred of evidence) that Courtney is a bank robber.

Do you think we should have an official enquiry?

Courtney Mil

29th May 2015, 08:56

Why do you think I'm holed-up somewhere in the South of France?

Tourist

29th May 2015, 09:00

Ah, the Southern French.....

They are all secretly russian spies..... Trust me on this.....

FODPlod

29th May 2015, 10:06

Incidentally, I have come to believe (without a shred of evidence) that Courtney is a bank robber.

Do you think we should have an official enquiry?

I heard that too (although it might have been here). There's no smoke without fire, as some dullards persist in saying.

Drop everything else and put all our resources on the case. There is obviously growing demand for an official enquiry, NOW! They should investigate... er, er, well, everything!

Tourist

29th May 2015, 10:21

Hmmm.....

I've heard rumours about some of those investigators...

In fact, I've just made a rumour!

This is crying out for an investigation.

Courtney Mil

29th May 2015, 11:07

I was getting concerned about your accusations being taken seriously - remember that the CIA get most of their intel from PPRuNe - so I tasked Mrs C to conduct an internal investigation into my ALLEDGED robberies and I'm pleased to say I've been cleared. Apart from one or two minor, totally unrelated issues, I'm squeaky clean.

Mrs C has now gone to Toulouse to do some serious shopping with the money she, um, earned from Lloyds.

Move along now, nothing to see here.

alfred_the_great

29th May 2015, 12:36

I have a report that definitively says you are a bank robber, but a VSO has suppressed it. How do I get it in the public domain?

Also, outside of the military, who is SQEP to fulfil the oversight role of nuclear weapons? It ain't ONR. Amazingly, process isnt king (or queen).

Chugalug2

29th May 2015, 20:10

Tourist:-
If there was a full independent enquiry that found that no errors were made, would you accept the result?Insert the word "qualified" before independent and yes, I for one would accept the result. I'm afraid that inquiries that are not qualified, ie they need informing of the technicalities by "expert" witnesses in order to apply that to the evidence of the case, are time and again led by the nose by "the men from the ministry". That has been the case for some Coroners and QC's alike.

That is why I propose the ONR to conduct an investigation. The real worry is that of nuclear safety, and that is what they do as a day job. I admit there may be a conflict of interest, but they are probably as near as can be got to "qualified and independent" as is possible.

If others know different please let us know. This is not just "my case", spoiled or no, it belongs us all. Nor is it simply "my case" whether it be wise to have a nuclear operator, regulator, and investigator that is one and the same. Do you think it wise?

I know I have declared my hand here already regarding airworthiness, that the MAA and the MAAIB should be independent of each other and of the MOD. I base that on what I have learned from the various fatal air accident threads on this forum. If the MOD could countenance illegal RTS's, illegal orders to subvert mandatory regulations (which it upholds to this day, declaring that the disobeying of those orders to be the offence), witholding vital evidence from BoI's, Coroners Courts, and even an HOC Select Committee, is it a safe pair of hands to Regulate and Investigate Nuclear Safety?

That is why, whatever action is taken to investigate this man's allegations, they should at least be the catalyst to reform UK Military Nuclear Safety Regulation and Investigation, along the same lines already proposed for the MAA and MAAIB. Whatever holds good for a privately owned nuclear power station should at the very least approximate to that for UK Military Nuclear Weapons and Plant.

Of course all that is not easy, of course there are many difficulties, not the least of which is security, and if it ever happens we will probably never know if it ever avoided a single nuclear accident or not. My answer would be that the present system is seriously compromised, and is an accident waiting to happen.

A slice or two of Swiss Cheese anyone?

Courtney Mil

29th May 2015, 21:12

Chug, "QUALIFIED, independent inquiries." Could not agree more. Not only because they MAY be vulnerable to being misled, but more because of the possibility that they MAY not understand enough about the subject matter from a few expert witnesses over a relatively short period to make a properly informed (in your words, "qualified") decision.

alfred_the_great

29th May 2015, 21:48

Well, perhaps you should pay a bit more attention to what bollocks he was coming out with. He was not talking about back aft, he was a SWS tech. He was talking about nuclear weapons, not nuclear reactors. Quite what the civil reactor regulator knows about weapons I have no idea, and how they'd develop the SQEP I also have no idea.

And the moment anyone investigated nuclear weapons, it would immediately become hugely classified. Any investigation would never be made public.

alfred_the_great

29th May 2015, 21:53

And before anyone gets excited about the USAF incidents, and subsequent reports, they were 'brief, unclassified synopses' of the actual reports. The report writers in each of those cases were USAF or DoD employees, vetted by the DoD, directed by the DoD.

I am simply afraid that for nuclear weapons, self regulation is the only way.

Courtney Mil

29th May 2015, 21:57

ATG, was that aimed at me?

Well, perhaps you should pay a bit more attention to what bollocks he was coming out with.

I wish people would say who the "you" in their quote is.

DEEPDEZ

29th May 2015, 22:41

"The MoD is also held to wider account by Parliament. Able Seaman McNeilly published his comments following his first submarine deployment. He was under training, and his access and exposure to activities and material on board were appropriate to his security clearance.
"We have found no evidence that he raised any concerns with colleagues on board or with the chain of command: had he done so, the more senior and experienced submariners would have been able to explain how the boat operated and why McNeilly’s concerns were unfounded. A number of the issues he raised did not occur during his patrol.
"Most of McNeilly’s concerns proved to be either factually incorrect or the result of mis or partial understanding; some drew on historic, previously known, events none of which had compromised our deterrent capability and, where appropriate, from which lessons had been learned to develop our procedures as part of a continuous improvement programme.
"Only one of the allegations remains to be fully examined – the allegation that e-cigarettes were being used within the submarine. No independent corroboration of this has been found but even if it were true, there is clear evidence that their use did not put the safety of the boat at risk.
"Able Seaman McNeilly was arrested having not reported for duty after a period of leave. He was released the next day, but confined to a specified location in Portsmouth while interviews were conducted.
"He is being afforded the duty of care that we give all our personnel, is in contact with his family, and is still in the employ of the Royal Navy."

downsizer

30th May 2015, 06:41

Courtney, I think he meant the McNeilly.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

30th May 2015, 07:13

Really? I'd read it as Chugalug2 being the aiming point.

Anyway, now yer man McNeilly's fed that well known patriot Salmond an excuse to stir the pot, his objective may have been achieved. Salmond: Response to Trident whistleblower claims insults intelligence of the British public | Politics | The National (http://www.thenational.scot/politics/salmond-response-to-trident-whistleblower-claims-insults-intelligence-of-the-british-public.3501)

For what it's worth, the only sense I'm reading at the moment is predominantly from Not_a_boffin, alfred_the_great and, when he's got his serious head on, Courtney Mil.

Chugalug2

30th May 2015, 07:17

atg:-
I am simply afraid that for nuclear weapons, self regulation is the only way. I can see your point, and doing otherwise would indeed be difficult, but not impossible. To a lesser extent much the same has been said of UK Military Aviation Regulation. For myself I would say that where there is a will there is a way. Mercifully I am not alone in my call for independent regulation. The Nuclear Information Service has called for it also at this site (simply copy, then "paste and go"):-

nuclearinfo.org/sites/default/files/NIS%20JSP%20538%20summary.pdf

The regulation of nuclear weapons safety should be the responsibility of an independent external regulator outside the Ministry of Defence.Rather like our erstwhile Able Seaman, they may well have an agenda of their own but that does not make them devoid of informed opinion. They may indeed be set upon a goal of nuclear disarmament, but that could therefore be the key to compromise on the issue of nuclear safety. Therein lies a very British solution, we keep the deterrent but ensure that it is demonstrably as safe as is reasonably possible (it might be a way also of countering SNP propaganda).

http://www.nuclearinfo.org/

Whenurhappy

30th May 2015, 07:51

"The MoD is also held to wider account by Parliament. Able Seaman McNeilly published his comments following his first submarine deployment. He was under training, and his access and exposure to activities and material on board were appropriate to his security clearance.
"We have found no evidence that he raised any concerns with colleagues on board or with the chain of command: had he done so, the more senior and experienced submariners would have been able to explain how the boat operated and why McNeilly’s concerns were unfounded. A number of the issues he raised did not occur during his patrol.
"Most of McNeilly’s concerns proved to be either factually incorrect or the result of mis or partial understanding; some drew on historic, previously known, events none of which had compromised our deterrent capability and, where appropriate, from which lessons had been learned to develop our procedures as part of a continuous improvement programme.
"Only one of the allegations remains to be fully examined – the allegation that e-cigarettes were being used within the submarine. No independent corroboration of this has been found but even if it were true, there is clear evidence that their use did not put the safety of the boat at risk."

This confirms what a lot of us have said. There are allegations and there is parroting of third-hand 'tall stories'; I sure there is the equivalent on a boat of pull up a sand bag. Perhaps along the lines of:

'Pull up a bollard, you land-lubber and hear-ye stories that will quiver the tar from your pig-tail. I swears it was true the day the Chief threw himself over the missile hatch to stop a Trident heading for Holyrood. I tell ye! You want to know why? One of them e-cigarettes did it. Bring back baccy and Rum I says, you young, naive and rather attractive able-seaman.'

parabellum

17th Jun 2015, 06:22

Able Seaman William McNeilly will not face court martial or further action after publishing his disclosures and going on the run, but has been discharged “services no longer required” a defence source said. (The Daily Telegraph).

Chugalug2

17th Jun 2015, 10:09

ap:-
So, perhaps it was mostly bollocks and he was just working his ticket?
Well perhaps, but then why isn't he instead making bedpacks in Colchester following a CM? This smacks of a deal, he gets his "PVR" they get his further silence having scared him with the threat of the OSA. This is deja vu all over again and both depressing and worrying...

Not_a_boffin

17th Jun 2015, 10:37

ap:-

Well perhaps, but then why isn't he instead making bedpacks in Colchester following a CM? This smacks of a deal, he gets his "PVR" they get his further silence having scared him with the threat of the OSA. This is deja vu all over again and both depressing and worrying...

Or perhaps because if they had banged him up, the conspiracy theorists would have been cheerleading a campaign describing him as a safety martyr?

Courtney Mil

17th Jun 2015, 10:50

You may be right, Chug. Just one thing,

This is deja vu all over again

Can you have that? Déjà déjà vu perhaps? :ok:

Chugalug2

17th Jun 2015, 11:24

CM:-
Can you have that?
Again and again, it seems:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deja_Vu_All_Over_Again

WE Branch Fanatic

17th Jun 2015, 13:38

Surely Official Secrets Acts offences come under the DPP and CPS and not the Service Prosecuting Authority?

FantomZorbin

17th Jun 2015, 14:59

According to Forces TV he was given "a dishonourable discharge" ... so not quite scot-free!

[assuming ForcesTV (BBC) has got it right!]

Whenurhappy

17th Jun 2015, 15:05

a dishonourable discharge

Have they been watching too much US TV? There's no such thing in the UK Forces...

Courtney Mil

17th Jun 2015, 16:39

Chug. You just Googled that! But I do take your point.

Regarding the young man, I think the phrase I saw was something about being discharged, services no longer required. He may well have phrased it differently, but his accuracy hasn't exactly been 100% to date, has it.

Anyway, it's a reasonable result for everyone, so why worry?

...or is there more to it? :E

alfred_the_great

17th Jun 2015, 16:52

SNLR is a 'not honourable discharge' in the RN.

Lonewolf_50

17th Jun 2015, 19:21

SNLR is a 'not honourable discharge' in the RN.
I think that equates to the US 'other than honorable' discharge which is an admin board can recommend, and does carry loss of some benefits but not others.

kaitakbowler

18th Jun 2015, 07:17

A t G. ISTR being told, in Boy Entrant's, that to have SNLR on yr discharge docs was a big deal, or as Cpl Harris would have said "Your a waste of f****** oxygen". OWTTE.

PM

Hangarshuffle

18th Jun 2015, 11:51

Its been a very serious matter, although I started the thread rather tongue in cheek I do admit. If even 50% is true then the RN and the UK has some serious answers to make.
Personally I think something has gone on. Year on year budget cuts, relatively low moral, declining esteem of and within the military, increasing demands for Trident to be relocated or scrapped all together....over familiarity among defence workers with security services and their procedures? Maybe it really leaps out at you when you see it for the first time?
Who was the young chap who was supplying Winston Churchill with secret information about the rise and expansion of the Nazi Luftwaffe? Well known by the Baldwin Govt. at the time but dismissed and constantly undermined.
We dismiss well meaning whistle blowers on defence matters at our nations very peril.

parabellum

21st Jun 2015, 03:34

We dismiss well meaning whistle blowers on defence matters at our nations very peril.

Don't think McNeilly had been in long enough to be considered either reliably informed or a danger, had he?

SNLR was not a good discharge in the Army and in the discharge book it would also give overall conduct, rating from Exemplary down to Unsatisfactory, not a good reference so he will probably get a job with the Guardian as a messenger ;)

tucumseh

21st Jun 2015, 04:38

Hangarshuffle

Its been a very serious matter, although I started the thread rather tongue in cheek I do admit. If even 50% is true then the RN and the UK has some serious answers to make.
Personally I think something has gone on. Year on year budget cuts, relatively low moral, declining esteem of and within the military, increasing demands for Trident to be relocated or scrapped all together....over familiarity among defence workers with security services and their procedures? Maybe it really leaps out at you when you see it for the first time?
Who was the young chap who was supplying Winston Churchill with secret information about the rise and expansion of the Nazi Luftwaffe? Well known by the Baldwin Govt. at the time but dismissed and constantly undermined.
We dismiss well meaning whistle blowers on defence matters at our nations very peril. Well said. Many years ago when aviation safety failures were notified they were covered up. In those days we didn't have internet or social media sites to spread the word. It took the Nimrod Review and, especially, the Philip Review to finally accept this. The vast majority of pretty well informed people here on pprune thought the notion of cover up mad. A mere handful of a 60 million population were interested. But that shouldn't detract from the proven fact that MoD and Governments of every persuasion lied and deceived for over 2 decades.

The failures in aviation were (are) systemic. We have a Military Aviation Authority now, not a Nimrod authority. Their corporate knowledge is very poor, for the reasons you list. On pprune, we have a sticky thread which amply demonstrates this. The last thing we heard from a specialist MoD safety department was a link to an article confirming they don't know the difference between functional and physical safety. That's frightening.

The failures alleged by Mr McNeilly are simply regulated by different pages of the same book. Air (and Land) Systems in MoD have been shown to be appallingly lax in their implementation. This will cost more to correct than it would have to implement properly in the first place. So why would Sea Systems be immune?

My guess is McNeilly remembered his recent and (probably) excellent training, and when putting it into practice noticed failures. Any concerns would have been dismissed out of hand. There is a case here for listening to the "inexperienced" man above the experienced, because he's gone through his training more recently and hasn't had time for poor practices to be ingrained. His detailed interpretation may be slightly flawed, but we all recognise the generic failures he alleges. Instead, MoD reverts to default mode - the lone voice is always wrong. That's what happened when Adam Ingram was informed of the systemic failings the year before XV230. The Nimrod Review's recommendations can be summed up as "implement your mandated regulations". That should be a warning. Instead, MoD shoots the messenger and carries on regardless.

The term "whistleblower" has negative connotations. But if you're had any form of safety related delegated authority, you'll know it is actually an obligation. You MUST report, and you MUST escalate if ignored. But the system assumes everyone does their job properly, so there is no clear guidance on what to do if they don't. I can't condemn McNeilly for going public. I don't know enough to form a judgement on his character. But I know enough about MoD and their policy of disciplining staff who meet legal obligations.

Pontius Navigator

21st Jun 2015, 07:22

To answer the question in the quote above,

Who was the young chap who was supplying Winston Churchill with secret information about the rise and expansion of the Nazi Luftwaffe? Well known by the Baldwin Govt. at the time but dismissed and constantly undermined.

I believe young is a relatively term, especially given 20year old Spitfire pilots ( or even 23 year old nuclear bomber pilots 50 years ago). In Churchill' s case he had several informants, civil service and military. In the OP case I think it was a wg cdr.

alfred_the_great

21st Jun 2015, 11:40

I'll say it again for the benefit of those who are 20 years out of date, and have never been to sea. There are procedures in place for all of this stuff. Unfortunate the clustermuppet didn't know how to access them, didn't know that lots of other people were documenting and investigating them, and frankly, as a Part 3, was a danger to himself and his shipmates until he passed his SMQ.

tucumseh

21st Jun 2015, 12:34

There are procedures in place for all of this stuff.

Indeed there are. So too for aviation safety. Perfectly good they are too (although the key aviation ones that were scrapped still haven't been replaced). What is lacking is the will to ensure implementation is robust. THAT was the failing noted by the Nimrod and Philip Reviews. And that is what was alleged by Mr McNeilly.

Wander00

21st Jun 2015, 12:37

but then did this guy really know what he was talking about - general drift suggests he did not.

Chugalug2

21st Jun 2015, 13:15

atg:-
There are procedures in place for all of this stuff. I don't doubt that the procedures are in place. I suspect that even AB(ex) McNeilly believes them to be in place. I also suspect that his message is that though in place they are not fully implemented.

He may or not be correct. It would be nice though if there were something more positive than a:-
W00:-
general driftthat he is not.

Courtney Mil

21st Jun 2015, 13:23

Well, it looks like the whole issue has been put to bed. The RN seem to feel they've neutered both the lad and his report and can move on. With an issue like that, I doubt we'll see much more of it in the public domain regardless of any further action they may or may not take. I recall the issue (probably meaning the individual) was being investigated, but whatever findings there were (or may yet be) will be for the Navy Board to see, not us.

The credibility of the UK's nuclear deterrent isn't really a subject for public scrutiny, so any findings and follow-up actions will be quiet and in-house.

alfred_the_great

21st Jun 2015, 14:07

Airpolice - in not going to go into the fine detail of the process, but it's extensive and in place.

And given that we all go to sea in the same tub, the Command have a highly vested interest in getting it right - we're going to die right alongside the 'noble whistleblower'...

airpolice

21st Jun 2015, 16:54

Alf, I don't suppose that the boats are all doomed and ready to sink/explode at any moment.

But...... I don't suppose he made it all up.

Maybe they don't need to change working practices, just the rules, in order to achieve compliance. I thought that most of his rant was about people not complying with rules.

Chugalug2

21st Jun 2015, 19:12

ap:-
Maybe they don't need to change working practices, just the rules, in order to achieve compliance.
Classic! The MAA are crying out for people with that sort of positive outlook!

alfred_the_great

21st Jun 2015, 19:46

atg:-
I don't doubt that the procedures are in place. I suspect that even AB(ex) McNeilly believes them to be in place. I also suspect that his message is that though in place they are not fully implemented.

He may or not be correct. It would be nice though if there were something more positive than a:-
W00:-
that he is not.

How about the fact that not a single matelot has come out of the woodwork to support him? SWS techs are one of the biggest gapped sub-branches in the RN, with people leaving hand over fist. Quite a few of them are rightly threaders with the RN over their TACOS.

Not.
A.
Single.
One.
Of.
Them.
Have.
Backed.
Him.
Up.

Not one. These are people who have no requirement to be 'loyal', who have multiple, easy, routes to 'blow' a whistle, who are not in the hunt for promotion or futher pay. Yet no-one has said it's true, that's what's happening; all I've seen is mild annoyance and utter p*ss taking aimed at him.

Perhaps it says something?

Chugalug2

21st Jun 2015, 22:32

atg:-
Quite a few of them are rightly threaders with the RN over their TACOS.Sorry, old chap, didn't quite get yer banter there, what?

As to Mr McNeilly's lack of endorsement, that I'm afraid is the lot of any whistleblower, Mr Snowden et al. Of course he is despised, of course he has betrayed his colleagues and his Service, of course he deserves the ostracism that will now come his way, but...
These
are
nuclear
warheads
and
nuclear
reactors
that
he
declares
are
not
being
operated
in
accordance
with
the
regulations,
and at the very least that should be looked into by official inquiry, because if there be a grain of truth in what he says then that is one grain too much. Of course Courtney is quite right that if such inquiry is made we will certainly not hear of it. For myself I would rather hope for that than seek reassurance in any of your rhetorical outbursts. They seem to imply that no such inquiry is required simply because everyone else is keeping shtum!

Cabbage crates coming over the briney, don't yer know.

Courtney Mil

21st Jun 2015, 23:18

I suggest this is not the place to discuss this further in such a manner. Understand that what you post here will change nothing about this issue, but it may not be wholly constructive. Leave it, not the place for this.

Chugalug2

22nd Jun 2015, 07:31

Well that rather depends upon what you mean by "this issue", CM. The issue for me is, as in UK Military Air Safety, that the Regulator, Investigator, and Operator, are one and the same (ie the MOD and its subsidiaries). The only redeeming factor in this case is that the reactors' regulation reverts to another regulator when tied up to the land (I think that's the correct technical term).

Military Airworthiness has been made dysfunctional and unworkable as a result of that same incestuous arrangement. The implications of anything like that happening to Military Nuclear Operation are unthinkable, but putting our heads into brown paper bags isn't the answer.

Understand in turn that this issue will not go away, and the days of avuncular assurances that lessons will be learned and it will all be taken care of are long past. Of course the resolution will be done behind closed doors, but I for one will expect some form of announcement at its completion of a regulatory reform. If I hear nothing, or even that all is well and no change is called for, I will be getting out the worry beads.

Not the place to discuss these matters? It never is for some. I'll leave that to the mods to decide though. Will you?

Tourist

22nd Jun 2015, 10:26

Ok

I have more time in the RAF than he has in the RN, and I hereby declare that I think the RAF is secretly faking all the flights. They don't actually have any aircraft left.

Can I have an official enquiry?
Just because nobody is backing me up doesn't make it untrue, surely?

Junglydaz

22nd Jun 2015, 11:06

This
new
way
of
posting
will
never
catch
on.

Oh bugger.......

FODPlod

22nd Jun 2015, 12:44

The guy was a fruit loop who only just made the bottom link of the food chain before bailing out. If there is any enquiry, it should examine how he managed to get even that far.

No sensible person would give him or his irrational ramblings the thinnest veneer of credibility. By the same token, the Greens and SNP have obviously taken him to their heart.

Chugalug2

22nd Jun 2015, 15:08

Tourist:-
I have more time in the RAF than he has in the RN, and I hereby declare that I think the RAF is secretly faking all the flights.I hereby declare that the RAF put an aircraft type into Squadron service with an illegal RTS.

There was an Official Inquiry into a subsequent accident when all 29 occupants were killed. The illegal RTS never came up. It was issued by the operator/regulator/investigator.

Good luck with your Inquiry, though I am rather more intrigued by your previous RAF career. Did you enjoy it?

dervish

22nd Jun 2015, 16:25

I hereby declare that the RAF put an aircraft type into Squadron service with an illegal RTS.

There was an Official Inquiry into a subsequent accident when all 29 occupants were killed. The illegal RTS never came up. It was issued by the operator/regulator/investigator.

IIRC only one person put forward this fact and was ignored. Then Lord Phillip confirmed it. Who'd have thought it? Truth is often stranger than fiction.

Chugalug2

22nd Jun 2015, 17:36

dervish:-
IIRC only one person put forward this fact and was ignored.
You make my point precisely, thank you. Which brings us back to Mr McNeilly...

Courtney Mil

22nd Jun 2015, 18:44

Chug, I do so agree that flaws have been found in the MoD's airworthiness record and, potentially, in the current set up. But please don't suggest that everything is wrong in every corner of the Forces.

This one has run its public course and until any of us has any evidence of malfeasance, we can't just go telling the world that because the MAA isn't independent enough (for which I have seen your evidence) that the Trident force is equally rotten. A young lad does not constitute that evidence.

By all means make public charges if you have something better to base them than this. Your excellent inside information on airworthiness does not necessarily translate to this. Please don't compromise your airworthiness crusade by making it look like (I stress,"look like") your good work is all a conspiracy theory.

None of us here know the first thing about this lad's case, but it hasn't stopped us all guessing. Any speculation here is exactly that, speculation. If you have any insight into the RN's nuclear safety procedures and how they are managed, keep them to yourself in public. If you do not, then consider what message your posts may be sending.

Some things are bigger than your main issue.

Wander00

22nd Jun 2015, 18:53

CM - IMHO, "well said"
W

Chugalug2

22nd Jun 2015, 19:47

CM:-
we can't just go telling the world that......the Trident force is equally rotten.If that is what you think I have been saying Courtney, then I have obviously not been clear in making my case, and for that I apologise. When we started out on the campaign to reform UK Military Airworthiness Provision we cited Chinook, Hercules, Nimrod and Tornado Fatal Air Accidents. We were immediately accused of criticising the ground crews who serviced and maintained these aircraft. It took a long time to get an acceptance of the difference between serviceability and airworthiness. Our target was not the operators but the regulating and investigating authority (aka the MOD). I think that something similar is going on here.

The reason I link Airworthiness Provision and Nuclear Safety Provision is that they both share the same flawed arrangements, ie that Operator, Regulator, and Investigator are one and the same (with the partial exception of the Reactors). The problems that Airworthiness threw up became apparent at the work face but the link back to MOD policy changes was too obscure for those not professionally informed or experienced. That is why those who are so informed and experienced should be studying the statements of Mr McNeilly to see if there are similar regulatory shortfalls. Being neither informed or experienced, I do not know what those should be, but his claims of lax security would seem to be a glaring example to start with.

I am convinced that such an Inquiry would flag up many problems, just as the ARTs (that were buried out of sight by VSOs) did for Air Safety, if only because of the contradictions of self regulation and investigation. Has the MOD mended its ways since the ARTs? I am not convinced I'm afraid.

Unairworthy aircraft are a danger to those who fly in them and greatly reduce Military Air Capability. Unsafe nuclear systems are potentially many orders more dangerous and cannot be tolerated. The only way to ensure airworthy military aircraft is for an independent MAA and MAAIB, both of the MOD and of each other. It would seem logical for the same independence of Regulator and Investigator to pertain for military nuclear systems.

JointShiteFighter

22nd Jun 2015, 19:49

Personally I think something has gone on. Year on year budget cuts, relatively low moral, declining esteem of and within the military, increasing demands for Trident to be relocated or scrapped all together....over familiarity among defence workers with security services and their procedures? Maybe it really leaps out at you when you see it for the first time?

That's still not an excuse to leave these very dangerous weapon platforms and systems in the position where they are likely to take out 50% of the population.
It's in the public interest to investigate the allegations made fully, and I hope that's exactly what the MOD is doing. Criminal prosecutions against the whistle-blower should be the last thing in mind when the safety of 60 million people is reported to be at risk.

Courtney Mil

22nd Jun 2015, 20:37

That's still not an excuse to leave these very dangerous weapon platforms and systems in the position where they are likely to take out 50% of the population.

That is their purpose. However, with reference to this case, where do you get the evidence to support the fact that they are likely to take out 50% of the population.

If your statement is purely speculation based on an unsubstantiated claim, then fine. You're entitled to your opinion. If you think you are posting facts, please provide evidence to support them.

WE Branch Fanatic

22nd Jun 2015, 20:43

The well known investigative tool known as Google suggests that almost all of these claims can be discounted using public domain information - including anti Trident sites!

A bit of common sense, critical thinking, and knowing some basic Physics also helps.

Mach Two

22nd Jun 2015, 23:30

That's still not an excuse to leave these very dangerous weapon platforms and systems in the position where they are likely to take out 50% of the population.

They were designed to be "very dangerous". Their purpose is to be terrifying. If they only take out 50% of any population then they haven't done their job.

If you feel that there is some kind of safety issue here, what do you think it is? I'd love to know about the safety procedures involved in keeping the deterent safe. Purely out of curiosity. do, pray tell us what specific procedures are at fault here.

Maybe it's just another MOD failing? Prove it. Plenty here to attack the Centre.

JointShiteFighter

23rd Jun 2015, 00:10

Gentlemen, I think I left my post wide open for banter. My mistake. It was an opportunity that was too good to miss, so well done. :D

That is their purpose. However, with reference to this case, where do you get the evidence to support the fact that they are likely to take out 50% of the population.

If your statement is purely speculation based on an unsubstantiated claim, then fine. You're entitled to your opinion. If you think you are posting facts, please provide evidence to support them.

All right, I should have been a lot more clear - what I meant was, they have been reported to be potentially dangerous to the British public, something these particular weapons are not owned by the MOD to do. If it ever gets to the point where one of these missiles needs to be fired in anger by a British submarine, I doubt I'll care as I'll either be dead so won't know any better or too ill from the fallout of the attack on our soil.

You are correct though that I am merely speculating. Although if somebody who is a part of our nuclear deterrence, regardless of rank, says that it's not safe, then I want it looked at and I want it done thoroughly and as soon as possible. I am sure every single member of the British public has the same opinion as me.

If the person in question was wrong and just wanted to stir the sh*t pot, then he should be made to lick the spoon by the criminal justice system where appropriate. Safety first.

parabellum

23rd Jun 2015, 00:29

they have been reported to be potentially dangerous to the British publicTherein lies a large part of the problem, by people who have served many years in the Trident force it has been categorically stated that McNeilly simply didn't know enough to judge, he hadn't been there long enough, wasn't high enough up the tree to have the knowledge to make a judgment call. I'm sure the RN and particularly the Trident force operate on a need - to - know basis and an individual will only know what he is required to know, sufficient to enable him to do his job.

JointShiteFighter

23rd Jun 2015, 02:37

Absolutely, and it is quite understandable why senior officers allegedly didn't take him seriously on the initial complaints I believe he was supposed to have made. That hierarchy is the same in any other job in any profession - young faces find themselves struggling to convince the older, more experienced colleagues to take them seriously. My point, however, is based on the public's perception. The majority of the general public are behind the Armed Forces in everything they do and they will support them all the way because the Armed Forces has earned that respect. The Trident force may quickly lose that respect if they don't make themselves seen to be investigating safety claims made by a serving member, doubly so when our nuclear deterrence has been brought to the political arena over the last few months.
If the public doesn't support it, then it's history.

I don't think anybody is expecting a public enquiry in to the safety of our nuclear deterrence in port, and there won't be (& quite rightly), but a very vague announcement of an investigation would be nice, and a very vague announcement of a conclusion with a yes or no to any (unnamed) changes possibly made to ensure the safety of the British public would be even better.

tucumseh

23rd Jun 2015, 08:42

“Need to know” can be self-defeating. The implication is that someone at the top knows everything. Safety Management isn’t like that. There are too many levels and MoD’s Service and Civilian structure ensures that it is impossible to have knowledgeable oversight. The default position becomes seniority knows best, and Service trumps Civilian.

This system was discredited once and for all when Haddon-Cave and, especially, Lord Philip issued their reports. In both cases, the very senior staffs who were meant to exercise management oversight and display leadership serially ignored dire warnings from juniors (up to and including Air Cdre rank). That does not bode well because…..

The basic problem was implementation of the safety regulations, of which airworthiness is just one strand. These regs, procedures and processes are largely common across all disciplines and domains. They simply diverge when it comes to (in simple terms) air, land, sea.

Who was in charge of oversight in MoD(PE) for example? The Chief of Defence Procurement. A 4 Star and pretty senior. He happened to be a submariner and Haddon-Cave criticised the notion of a submariner being in charge of aviation safety. But this is a little unfair, as long as the regulations are followed. Regardless of CDP’s trade, he would (or should) understand the basic safety process, if not the fine detail of day to day management. But what Haddon-Cave didn’t report is that this man had actually issued a policy statement that safety could be traded out if it meant meeting time and cost targets.

Please think about that. This “safety is tradable” ethos was ingrained in a Vice Admiral who, 20 years ago, was Controller of the Navy, including nuclear vessels. He was chair of the Naval Nuclear Technical Safety Panel. That is truly frightening. That ethos extended into his defence procurement reign and he only retired 12 years ago. Many of today’s “leaders” in MoD learned at his feet (or other parts of his anatomy). Do I trust them to have a different ethos? No.

Courtney Mil

23rd Jun 2015, 10:42

As I recently mentioned to Chug, Mrs C and I just watched K19 (available from the big South American River - other sources are availalbe). Nuclear safety regulation? :sad:

parabellum

24th Jun 2015, 00:32

tucumsh - I would expect the rate above McNeilly, in McNeilly's branch, to know his own job and Mcneilly's and so on up the tree, to the senior CPO/Fleet Chief in that branch.

Some of the senior rates and most of the officers will be PVd, I would have thought, and there is probably some overlapping, so I do not see there being too many blank spaces in the system of 'need to know'.

Can't talk about senior officers with an agenda, like 'safety is tradable' (of course it isn't), don't know anything about it, but also don't think that cuts across the rule of 'need to know'.

tucumseh

24th Jun 2015, 06:16

Parabellum

I agree regarding your expectation of rates' knowledge at that working level. But I'd also have thought such a "defence in depth" would be weakened in recent years by continuous manpower reductions and being forced to make compromises? When I repaired aircraft or worked on the bench I was in the happy position of my seniors being able to teach and guide me, but when fancy new technologies (like transistors) came along, it was strictly DIY!

Many years later in MoD(PE)/DPA, etc it became very rare to have a boss who knew very much, if anything, about the technology being procured, but many would know about procurement and how to avoid the traps set for the new guy by beancounters and contractors. But gradually this corporate knowledge eroded. Servicemen on 2-3 year tours, but mainly through direct entrant civilians who are not required to be Suitably Qualified or Experienced, or gain even a modicum of understanding about the 5-6 grades they skipped. At first the latter were few, but now they are many. I suspect the problem is far worse nowadays, and I thought it beyond critical when I retired. The last aircraft programme I managed my 2 immediate bosses were not remotely technical, yet held engineering posts. The more senior recognised this and delegated all his technical responsibilities 2 grades down to me; the correct decision. My immediate boss could not accept this and self-delegated airworthiness/safety/design/overrule authority. Aforementioned CDP permitted this. This was not mentioned at the Coroner's Inquest, otherwise the Coroner would have had a fit.

Safety is not tradable. Top level Government policy says you are right. MoD practice says otherwise. When challenged on this, MoD always replies "We have a robust regulatory framework....". True, but it is not implemented properly. (See H-C and Philip).

Take this another step. When ordered to breach the safety regulations (and commit the offence of fraud by misrepresentation), try citing Government policy as an excuse for disobeying that order. You will lose. With every change of Minister I get my MP to ask if this will change, and such an order be declared illegal. The last 7 (!) have said no, it will not. I await a reply from the new one. Whether he was right or wrong, that is what McNeilly was up against.