Loss of Hercules XC193 on 27th May 1993

[Distant Voice]

Hercules XV193 was en route from RAF Lyneham to RAF Kinloss when it crashed in Glen Loch in the Scottish Highlands on 27th May 1993. All nine on board the aircraft lost their life. They were;

Sqn Ldr Graeme Paul Young (54) AFC RAF
Sqn Ldr Stanley Duncan Muir (49) RAF
Flt Lt Graham Robert John Southard (33) RAF
Flt Lt Stephen Paul McNally (27) RAF
Fg Off Jonathan Huw Owen (23) RAF
M Acr Terence John William Gilmore (39) RAF
Sgt Craig Thomas Hilliard (23) RAF
Sgt Alan Keith King (32) RAF
Lance Cpl Gary Reginald Manning (23) Army (RLC)

I understand that the Board of Inquiry's findings were inconclusive. Does anyone know if a Coroner's Inquest or Fatal Accident Inquiry was carried out?

DV

[sycamore]

Small,important correction DV; it was XV193.....

[Distant Voice]

Thanks Sycamore.

DV

[Dougie M]

http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag76/dougiemarsh/837b2005-a538-481a-b18e-0507303fe1bc_zpsg4cfmfyb.jpg

[Distant Voice]

Dougie M: Fishing? Not in the sense that you probably mean, just trying to gather information in order to put right what could be wrong. If an FAI or Inquest was not carried out then the families of the lost crew were wronged.

DV

[isaneng]

More information about your intent may help to gain a more amicable response from those who have grown weary and suspicious of such enquiries. I mean no disrespect to you, I am sure you will understand such caution.

[Distant Voice]

More information about your intent may help to gain a more amicable response from those who have grown weary and suspicious of such enquiries. I mean no disrespect to you, I am sure you will understand such caution.

My intent is to highlight the anomolies between the Engish Inquest system and the Scottish Fatal Accident (FAI) system. I suspect that in this case, seeing as the aircraft crashed in Scotland, an FAI was not held because the aircrew were not considered to be "employees in the course of their employment". And because they had left English airspace they would not be covered by a Coroner's inquest, which would have been a mandatory public inquiry. Also, if other accidents are anything to go by, the Lord Advocate would not have considered it to be in the public interest to hold an FAI. Crazy but true.

Currently a bill is going through the Scottish Parliament to bring the FAI Act of 1976 into the 21st century. Understanding what has happened in the past is important so that any changes introduced by the bill can eliminate this crazy state of affairs in the future. Also, it may demontrate that the Crown Office of Scotland have, for they past thirty years, and with the approval of MoD, acted purely in accordance with the "letter of the law (act)", rather than the "spirit" in which it was drawn up.

By the way no disrespect taken, I fully understand your concerns

DV

[Dougie M]

DV you have a PM

[Davef68]

DV, have you tried an FOI Request to the Crown Office regarding the issue of whether FAIs were held?

This Herald article says there will be no FAI held, but that an inquest was held in England

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/ministry-pays-out-in-raf-crash-case-1.686037

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/aircrew-s-widows-consider-suing-mod-1.474140

Seems to be the same coroner as investigated the Iraq crash

I was suspicious of DV's intent on the previous Tornado thread, but they appear to be entirely honourable

[dervish]

Distant Voice

I admire your persistence. You have highlighted a real hit and miss system for dealing with a very serious matter.

[MightyGem]

Small,important correction DV
Another, small correction; L(ance)/Cpl rather than Lt(Lieutenant) Cpl. :ok:

[Top West 50]

The findings were not "inconclusive" and the Procurator Fiscal was involved.

[Distant Voice]

Davef68:Many thanks for that very useful information, its the kind of thing that I was looking for on the Glen Ogle thread, but some people thought I was trying to dig up dirt.

What is clear is that an inquest was held following the repatriation to England of most crew members. That is why it would be helpful to know what happened in the Glen Ogle case. It also begs the question as to why an FAI was held for the MoK accident and not an Inquest. Looks like an inconsistency in the legal system. If people have a right to be repatriated to their homeland for final examination then the Moray Firth accident should command an Inquest.

I have submitted a number of FOIs to the Crown Office, but they advise me that their database has limitations and the information that I have requested could be costly to retrieve.

DV

[Distant Voice]

The findings were not "inconclusive" and the Procurator Fiscal was involved.

Not sure what you meanby that statement.

DV

[Top West 50]

Take it from me, the findings were as clear as could be - there was no significant doubt as to what happened. The Scottish authorities interviewd the Board at an early stage and there was no doubt as to who was responsible for what. Why don't you read the proceedings before sounding off?

[dervish]

Polite enough reply.....

Take it from me, the findings were as clear as could be - there was no significant doubt as to what happened. The Scottish authorities interviewd the Board at an early stage and there was no doubt as to who was responsible for what.


Spoiled by.....

Why don't you read the proceedings before sounding off?


Suggest you read DV's posts and previous questions.

[Distant Voice]

Thanks Dervish, I was about to say the same.

He missed the point completely. My question does not relate to the cause of the crash, but the inquiries the took place after the event.

What proceedings I am supposed to read?

So far, thanks to this forum, I have established, that for five air accidents in Scotland we have,

(1) Hercules, 9 dead, inquest held in England. No FAI.
(2) Chinook (MoK) FAI held in Scotland, because civilians on board were "in the course of carrying out their employment". No Inquest.
(3) Tornado, Glen Ogle, 2 dead. Apparently no FAI or Inquest.
(4) Tornado, Glen Kinglass, 2 dead, Apparently no FAI or Inquest.
(5) Tornado, Moray Firth, 3 dead. No FAI because the crews were not "in the course of their employment". No Inquest.

Is someone playing with the law?

DV

[falcon900]

DV,
You may recollect that I was one of those who questioned your motives on the Glen Ogle thread, and whilst I stand by what I wrote at the time, I have come round to the view that you are indeed trying to bring about a change to a situation which most everyone (maybe even everyone, but it is unusual for there to be unanimity of view on this forum!) agrees is ridiculous and most unsatisfactory.
I have to say though that it still strikes me as rather disingenuous to open threads headlined by reference to an aircraft loss in Scotland, asking whether there had been a FAI.
You know there hasn't been a FAI, and you know the reason why.
Would your cause not be better served by starting a thread along the lines of "Ridiculous and outdated legislation in Scotland prevents investigation of military deaths" and citing the evidence there. I doubt there would be any shortage of support, and without the subterfuge there would be far less suspicion. Just a thought.

[Chugalug2]

f900:-
it still strikes me as rather disingenuous... What strikes me as disingenuous is to constantly snipe at someone who is clearly trying to encourage the investigation of UK Military Fatal Air Accidents by anyone other than the operator's own subordinated investigator, yet admit that what he reveals is;
ridiculous and most unsatisfactory.There seems to be a default position by many that post here as, "it may well be a corrupt and dysfunctional system, but it is our corrupt and dysfunctional system". I find such truculence to be both delusional and unprofessional. The MOD has wasted many lives and much treasure in subverting UK Military Air Safety, from which its iron grip should now be wrested.

In England it has taken an 800 year old institution to tell one that is not yet 100, "There is something wrong with your bloody aircraft!". Time that its Scottish counterpart started saying the same thing.

[falcon900]

Chugalug2,
For the avoidance of doubt, I too would like to see the law changed. The point I am trying to make is that there seems little to be achieved by dredging up historic aircraft losses to evidence a position which is already 100% established as fact.
As things stand in Scotland, Serving personnel are not considered to be in the course of their employment, and consequently there is not a FAI in the event of their death. Fact.
Nobody is "playing" with the law, nobody is trying to pretend there is any other reason for not holding FAIs in these circumstances. Like you, I believe it is in everyones interests that the situation is addressed and the law changed, and I hope that this is the conclusion which the Justice committee will reach.
I am not criticising DV for championing this issue, simply questioning his modus operandi on this forum.

[Distant Voice]

falcon900 you say,

The point I am trying to make is that there seems little to be achieved by dredging up historic aircraft losses to evidence a position which is already 100% established as fact.

In order to change the law, in this case the Fatal Accident and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976, we have to show where and how it is failing. The current Bill to change the Act started back in 2009 with a review by Lord Cullen. Between then and early May 2015, neither Lord Cullen, nor any member of the Justice Committee or Government was aware of the Crown Office's interpretation of "employee", and how it affected members of the Armed Services. That is the fact of the case. The "spirit" in which the Act was drawn up, back in 1976, was to cover all work related deaths. However, because the words "employed" and "self employed" were used in the final document the Crown Office at some point in time decided to apply the "letter" of the law. Lord Cullen in his review refers to them as work related deaths.

The Justice Committee will produce their findings and make recommendations by the end of this month. By highlighting a few cases it has been possible to demomstrate how distorted the interpretation of "employed" has become when applied to members of the Armed Services. It is totally illogical, and fails the "reasonable person" test. By "dredging up histrorical aircraft losses", through this Forum, it has been possible to should how rediculous and inconsitant the current situation is.

DV

[falcon900]

DV,
It would seem that we are having a storm of agreement here regarding the substantive aspects of the issue, but I would again suggest that there is a far more straightforward way to have occasioned the debate which you apparently sought on this forum.
The facts of the matter are not complicated, and are clearly easily understood by readers of the forum. Why start threads purporting to relate to particular aircraft lost in Scotland enquiring whether a FAI was held when you know perfectly well that it wasn't, and the reason why not? Your own posts demonstrate that you know the answer to the question, as well as all of the aircraft losses affected. Would it not have been more straightforward to have outlined the issue at the outset, citing the list of aircraft losses which have been affected? I suspect you would have been pleased with the extent of the support, and would not have had any of the negative comments.
In any event, it seems that we are unlikely to agree, and in truth it matters little compared to the importance of the core issue. Heres hoping the Justice committee decide to act.

[Chugalug2]

f900:-
there seems little to be achieved by dredging up historic aircraft losses to evidence a position which is already 100% established as fact. I can only speak for myself, and that is to say that the reason that I am in the habit of
dredging up historic aircraft lossesis to highlight the shortcomings in their original investigation by the aircraft operator, aka the MOD and its subsidiaries. Hundreds of bereaved families have been fed half truths and downright lies over the years, mainly in a constant attempt by the MOD to cover up an extensive and co-ordinated attack on UK Military Air Safety. Not, as one might imagine, in the misguided attempt to save money that it started out as, but rather to cover up the gross incompetence and malevolence of the VSOs (mostly RAF) that orchestrated the attack in the first place.

Given that the MOD is judge, jury, and executioner of its own case, the possibilities to expose this cover up, and its continuing debilitating effects on UK Military Air Safety are very limited (because until the attack on Air Safety provision is admitted it cannot begin to be reformed). That is why inquests and FAIs are so important in bringing about that necessary reform. That is why they are avoided at all costs by the MOD if it is in its powers to do so. That is why DV's efforts to get FAIs held into UK Military Fatal Accidents in Scotland are so important.

If you agree, might I suggest a little less counting of pin head fairies and rather more support for him?

[tucumseh]

Given that the MOD is judge, jury, and executioner of its own case, the possibilities to expose this cover up, and its continuing debilitating effects on UK Military Air Safety are very limited

Well said, and it should be remembered that it was not MoD who exposed any of the cases we discuss here, but members of the public. MoD cannot be trusted and have quietly exploited the legal aberration exposed by DV, when they really should have been pointing out the effect it had on their ability to meet the duty of care obligation. By not holding a FAI, any attempt to avoid recurrence is compromised.

[Distant Voice]

falcon900

When I opened the Hercules thread a few days ago I had no Idea what had happened regarding an FAI or an Inquest, but now I have the answer. Likewise with Glen Ogle, but unfortunately in this case I still do not know if an FAI or Inquest was carried out. All I can say is that in the Glen Ogle case, based on the precedent set by the Hercules, there should have been an inquest. If not, why not? Both Hercules and Tornado crews came from England and were repatriated.

The Crown Office are now getting their knickers in a twist by trying to defend something that no one on the Justice Committee, or in Government can understand. Paul Wheelhouse (Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affiars) told the committee on 26th May 2015, "I must confess that I, too, was surprised to hear that service personnel are not considered to be employees ...............It is therefore a new issue that we have had to consider in the light of the representations that have been made to the committee."

The Glen Ogle and Hercules threads were not opened for debate, but for information.

DV

[A340Yumyum]

DV

Sqn Ldr GRAEME Young

...another correction to your list.

[Distant Voice]

Why don't you read the proceedings before sounding off?

Would like to be directed to the proceedings.

DV

[Top West 50]

Would like to be directed to the proceedings.

DV

I would have thought you could just ask for them. I do not recall any difference of opinion between the Board and the Convening Authority. It was a very harrowing chapter in my life but I am proud that I found the truth.

[Distant Voice]

I would have thought you could just ask for them. I do not recall any difference of opinion between the Board and the Convening Authority. It was a very harrowing chapter in my life but I am proud that I found the truth.

Then share the truth. Are you talking about the proceedings of the BOI, the Inquest, or the FAI?

DV

[fergineer]

I too would like to hear the truth

[Top West 50]

My knowledge of the proceedings only encompasses the BOI. I am reluctant to comment from memory particularly as the BOI proceedings should be a matter of public record. However, what happened is pretty well beyond dispute. It happened because the chain of events leading to the stall, from which the aircraft did not recover, was, tragically, not interrupted.