Fatal Accident Inquiries and Inquest [Archive]

Davef68

12th Jul 2015, 19:34

CHaps,

Have a look at DV's previous posts. He has a habit of taking one accident at a time. He is genuinely trying to establish if inquiries were held into these service deaths.

He is trying to do a good thing here.

In the case of the Harris Shackleton crash, it's easily confirmedno FAI was held.

HC Deb 20 March 1991 vol 188 cc154-5W 154W (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1991/mar/20/shackleton-crash-south-harris#column_154w) § (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1991/mar/20/shackleton-crash-south-harris#S6CV0188P0_19910320_CWA_188) Miss Lestor (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/people/miss-joan-lestor) To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons it was decided not to hold a fatal accident inquiry into the RAF Shackleton crash on South Harris in 1990.

§ (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1991/mar/20/shackleton-crash-south-harris#S6CV0188P0_19910320_CWA_189) Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/people/lord-james-douglas-hamilton) [holding answer 15 March 1991]: I have been asked to reply.
On behalf of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, who has responsibility for fatal accident inquiries, I advise the hon. Member that the question whether such an inquiry should be held received careful consideration. It is not the practice of the Lord Advocate, however, to divulge his reasons for deciding not to hold an inquiry.

Distant Voice

12th Jul 2015, 19:49

Sadly as well as the Shackleton there were other accidents that took place in Scotland over that time period with further fatalities. Is there any reason for focusing on these particular 3?

Skeleton and Shackman you a right to point out the omissions. There is nothing special about the three accidents that I identified, I simply selected a snap-shot of some accidents during that period in order to try and establish if any public enquiries took place after the BOI's. The loss of Shackleton WR965 should have been followed up in the same as the Hercules crash in May 1993 when the victims were repatriated to England for an Inquest. Did this happen?

I guess I should have broadened my search for information to cover fatalities between 1976 (the introduction of the current FAI act) and the MoK accident in 1994.

DV

Distant Voice

12th Jul 2015, 20:19

He is trying to do a good thing here.

Thanks Davef68. The reason given for not holding an FAI is most strange, as the families should have been informed

DV

jimf671

15th Jul 2015, 20:11

The purpose of an FAI under the 1976 is to establish a defined set of data related to the death. It does appear that when a specialist enquiry has already taken place which establishes the same key data, a FAI is less likely to be held.

Of course all of these crews were at work at the time of the incident so an FAI should be automatic.

ALTAM

15th Jul 2015, 22:58

And what about the 10 crew who died in WR965 on South Harris in 1990? That is also in Scotland the last time I checked.

Or the 819 SQN Navy Sea King crash near Leuchars in Jun 85. 1 killed, 1 badly injured and 2 minor injuries.

Distant Voice

16th Jul 2015, 10:24

It does appear that when a specialist enquiry has already taken place which establishes the same key data, a FAI is less likely to be held.

According to the 1976 Act only information taken during a public criminal investigation is acceptable. Lord Philips made it quite clear during his MoK inquiry that a BoI is an internal process that is not a substitute for a legal inquiry into the circumstances of a death.

Of course all of these crews were at work at the time of the incident so an FAI should be automatic.

This, like a number of other accidents, involved work related deaths; the Act was intended to cover that category. It even uses the word 'occupation', which according to Lord Cambell of Croy (House of Lords 9th Dec 1975) would seem to cover an accident in virtually any kind of employment. However, as I have stated before, the Crown Office of Scotland has latched on to another word use in the Act, that of 'employee'. They claim that under Scottish law members of the armed services are not employees, so no mandatory FAI. A discretionary can be called by the Lord Advocate, in the public interest, but there is no record of that ever happening since the introduction of the 1976 Act.

Or the 819 SQN Navy Sea King crash near Leuchars in Jun 85. 1 killed, 1 badly injured and 2 minor injuries.

Do you know if this, or any other fatal accident, was followed up with an FAI or Coroner's Inquest?

DV

hedgester

16th Jul 2015, 14:31

IIRC 12Sqn were unfortunate in loosing a Buccaneer of Orkney Isles in April 87. Unfortunately both crew were lost. I was on shift on D Flt 202 that night.

ALTAM

17th Jul 2015, 00:40

Do you know if this, or any other fatal accident, was followed up with an FAI or Coroner's Inquest?

DV[/QUOTE]

I very much doubt it as even 30 years ago some of the contributary causes of the accident would not have held The Navy out in a good light.

The Old Fat One

17th Jul 2015, 10:31

I very much doubt it as even 30 years ago some of the contributory causes of the accident would not have held The Navy out in a good light.

I'm completely confused. The Scottish Legal System is renowned globally (think Lockerbie) for doing its own thing. Not the even the President of the US has any clout with the jocks. The chances of the RAF/RN/Army/MOD being able to exert pressure on the Scottish Legal Hierarchy is on the negative side of zero.

So why the implied remarks that the alleged shortcomings of the Scottish FAI procedure have anything whatsoever to do with the military???????? Or am I reading it wrong???

tucumseh

19th Jul 2015, 18:27

TOFO

For a very long time I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. I sat in the High Court of Appeal in 1972 and listened to Lords Stott and Robertson give MoD (and a Sheriff) the most God awful earful. Lord Murray, the Lord Advocate when the FAI rules DV mentions were laid down, would in his heyday have taken the Crown Office and Procurators Fiscal to the cleaners over this current misinterpretation. (And may still do).

But there has recently been a noticeable shift. Lord Philip didn't speak up when both Houses disgracefully misrepresented his Mull of Kintyre report; although Malcolm Bruce came close when acknowledging that all politicians lied! It must be very clear to the CO and PF that the Paisley Sheriff was serially lied to by MoD in 1996 but they said nothing; yet they have a duty to try to prevent recurrence. (Shared by Coroners).

I think you always have to ask who benefits from decisions or rulings; in this case it is MoD. You also have to study what MoD is prepared to lie about. It is ludicrous to claim there is no public interest. JSP553 clearly says there is. It was a lie to claim CWS could not have been in the Moray Firth Tornados. DV uncovered evidence from the early 90s that CWS was good to go, but was delayed for many years. The same lie was told on C130 XV179, when MoD claimed not to have known about ESF until after the crash. The Coroner was not amused when presented with MoD's own ESF specs dated 25 years earlier. I'd say that Wiltshire Coroner was far more robust than the current crop in Edinburgh.

MoD's influence may be subtle. Perhaps just an establishment notion they must always be given the benefit of considerable doubt. MoD is self healing. You'd like to think they'd learn lessons after being caught out committing very serious offences on Nimrod, Chinook, Hercules, Tornado and, especially, Sea King ASaC (which is perhaps the daddy of them all). But they don't. So DV, keep digging.

ALTAM

20th Jul 2015, 05:29

So why the implied remarks that the alleged shortcomings of the Scottish FAI procedure have anything whatsoever to do with the military???????? Or am I reading it wrong???[/QUOTE]

I think that is more the influence that MoD had in those days. The trust us, we will investigate and let you know what happened was alive and well and was trusted by civil authorities.

Also, there wasn't the push from the public providing the impetus for the civil authorities to become involved. Most people just accepted what they were told and the detractors were given little press time and ignored (unless they were really important or cashed up).

Just This Once...

20th Jul 2015, 07:42

The same lie was told on C130 XV179, when MoD claimed not to have known about ESF until after the crash. The Coroner was not amused when presented with MoD's own ESF specs dated 25 years earlier.

It is a distortion to say that the MoD lied over ESF. Whilst it exposed a massive gap in corporate knowledge it would be unfair to compare this to a deliberate lie - those that were asked simply did not know.

I do agree that the MoD and BoI president were inexcusably slow to react once the true facts became known during the inquest. There should have been zero delay in informing the coroner.

Chugalug2

20th Jul 2015, 09:14

JTO:-
It is a distortion to say that the MoD lied over ESF... it would be unfair to compare this to a deliberate lie - those that were asked simply did not know.Seems fair enough to me. If the MOD was offered ESF as part of the ex-factory fit and declined, then further lobbied by the sharp end for that protection in many of the hot spots that the fleet was deployed to and declined, then declares no knowledge of the process whatsoever, that constitutes a lie in my book.

No doubt many of those sent to (mis)represent the MOD at inquests, FAIs etc were selected for the task not for their knowledge but for their lack of it, but that very cynical act is part of the lie also. The MOD is a prolific liar, to the extent that it now believes many of its own lies. That still makes it a liar.

Just This Once...

20th Jul 2015, 10:27

But that is not what happened Chug.

Chugalug2

20th Jul 2015, 10:34

JTO, I'm not sure what part of my post is not what happened. Could you elucidate, please?

Just This Once...

20th Jul 2015, 10:36

It was not lobbied for by the sharp end and ESF was not offered as part of the C130K original build. The MoD did not select who reported to the coroner either; he had a free hand and exercised it.

Chugalug2

20th Jul 2015, 11:34

Well, that's a lot of what didn't happens for sure.

As to wasn't offered that is contrary to my understanding. We purchased the K's via the USAF who were already fitting ESF from new as standard (and no doubt retro fitting their existing fleet). The account that I recall was that it was not only offered but recommended (given USAF experience in Vietnam), but if my impression is wrong then of course I withdraw that claim. Not only did we not get ESF, we didn't even get FSII, a pennies per gallon fuel additive, that led to the first of many Herc related windfalls for Marshalls by replanking the entire fleet. The same desire not to spend more dollars than the $60,000 that the fleet cost us led to MOD raising its own spec for ESF. They didn't spend the £'s that would have cost either, of course.

As to wasn't called for from the sharp end, that I do dispute. Some posters on nigegilb's "Parliamentary Questions" thread testified to exactly that, notably including flipster. The thread is long buried but can be exhumed here:-

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/215665-parliamentary-questions-concerning-hercules-safety.html

there is more likely evidence towards the end of the thread I suspect.

As to MOD witnesses, a coroner may call for them, but that doesn't mean that anything of consequence will result. Famously at this inquest, the officer responsible then for RAF C-130 airworthiness claimed that fitness for purpose was not his concern. It is of course a major component of military airworthiness and XV179 was both not fit for purpose but also unairworthy as a result.

Just This Once...

20th Jul 2015, 17:03

I don't think flipster claimed that and we have had many a conversation on the subject.

By the time the Vietnam lessons were being learned the C130Ks had been delivered. If you wind back the clock to the late '60s it was the UK leading on ESF and had fitted it to the first trial installation aircraft at Lyneham.

Anyway, we digress and probably goes to show the importance of well-documented inquests and enquiries to avoid the facts being clouded.

Jackonicko

20th Jul 2015, 19:00

"At 14:50 hours on 27 June 1990, the crew of Canberra WH972 from RAF Wyton took off from RAF Kinloss to participate in a maritime training exercise.

"The operational aspects of the sortie was completed uneventfully, and the crew commenced recovery for an Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach to runway 26 of RAF Kinloss.

"At around 600 feet above ground level (AGL) the navigator noticed that the aircraft was diverging from the ILS localiser course and advised the pilot accordingly.

"At first, the pilot attempted corrective measures, but then decided to overshoot the runway. He applied power to both engines. However, the port engine appeared to surge, resulting in a loss of power. The pilot attempted to throttle back and re-apply power, but this failed to clear the engine surge and consequent loss of power. At this point, the aircraft-- which was still in cloud - yawed and rolled rapidly to the left before striking the ground, almost inverted and nose down. The aircraft caught fire on impact with the ground.

"Very soon after the aircraft started rolling rapidly, the navigator ejected. Although he survived, he suffered major injuries.

"The pilot ejected shortly after the navigator; but by this time the aircraft was too close to the ground. Tragically, the pilot died on impact with the ground.

"The accident occurred in a field about 1nm mile E of RAF Kinloss."

It's now near enough 25 years since we lost my old friend from ULAS days, Flt Lt Cameron Maxwell Locke. I still remember him with great fondness, but I don't know anything about FAIs, etc.

tucumseh

20th Jul 2015, 20:38

JTO

It is a distortion to say that the MoD lied over ESF. Whilst it exposed a massive gap in corporate knowledge it would be unfair to compare this to a deliberate lie - those that were asked simply did not know. JTO, we have corresponded privately many times and I respect your position.

My perspective is from having spoken at length to the QC representing a widow, who called me from the Coroner's Court after MoD claimed not to know about ESF. I e-mailed him the ESF specifications I mentioned by return, and he submitted them to the Court. I did not, for example, breach the OSA, as they were freely available on-line; which made the MoD denial all the worse.

You probably know why I could not attend in person, but a respected contributor and aviation journalist made sure I had notes of, especially, the evidence of the IPTL. I would not say he lied over Fitness for Purpose, but his errors were gross and misled the Court. But very many in MoD, including anyone with airworthiness delegation, would/should have known he misled, and it was incumbent upon MoD to tell the Court this as soon as possible. They did not.

These errors, and his apparent total lack of understanding of what FFP is, how to achieve it and his role in this was utterly appalling. Appointing people to critical posts who are totally unsuited and untrained is an organisational failing in MoD. Again, any technical staff in his IPT should have known the team's precise role in FFP, yet none stepped forward.

On the subject of Vulnerability Assessment, he claimed the IPT and DPA/DE&S in general had nothing whatsoever to do with it. That it was correct the IPT was not even invited to meetings. If he'd read the regulations, he'd have known he and the Design Authority are actually the lead. I simply pointed the Court to the mandated regulations which, again, he and his staffs were required to know backwards.....

“The Chief Designer SHALL (i.e. mandatory) consult with the Integrated Project Team Leader (IPTL) and establish whether, and how, the vulnerability of the aeroplane Defined and Specified Threat Effects will be assessed and consider how subsequent design changes, if any, will be introduced.”

Key to this is "defined and specified threats". The regulations actually list a series of threats; #1 is inert projectiles, #2 is incendiary, and so on. That is, the DA and MoD don't have to think of the threat that brought the aircraft down, they are required to consider it and, if it is deemed a threat, implement the regulations (which call up ESF). And, if they don’t consider it a threat, record their reasoning why. And, by definition, if the threat is subsequently present, the mitigation is well known and can be implemented immediately.

As for when ESF was offered to MoD, our mandated regulations, if implemented, would require it to be notified by Lockheed to (a) the MoD Technical Agency (named individual responsible for the build standard), and (b) the Design Custodian (Marshall). (They were later appointed Design Authority for the UK standard in 1988). It is utterly deranged for anyone to suggest MoD did not know of ESF. It was in Lockheed's base build standard and their contract with MoD would, buried in the detail, include the cost of deviating from that standard by not having ESF fitted; even if the only action was a call-up in the GA drawing. Nor is it remotely conceivable that Marshall, upon realising there was an opportunity to modify C130 up to the base US standard, would not submit a costed proposal. There are just so many ways of MoD knowing of this. I still have my submission to the Court listing six.

When interviewed on 22.10.08 (BBC Radio 5, 1730 hrs), Bob Ainsworth MP admitted MoD knew of ESF in the 60s, but the "RAF didn't consider this the top priority". Referring to threats/vulnerabilities he said "We should have had the procedures in place to deal with this failure". He deliberately missed the point, as he'd been told beforehand the procedures were in place, they just weren't implemented. He also said the Coroner exposed the failures. Well, it was actually a series of very critical internal audits and ART reports between 1988 and 1998.

This is a litany of incompetence and deceit. Given the sheer number of people who knew the truth and let the IPTL's evidence stand, it is conscious misleading, by omission and commission. That is in many ways worse than simple lying, because it almost always requires collusion.

Just This Once...

20th Jul 2015, 21:30

Tuc,

I don't disagree with any of your points. But I still content that the failures in corporate memory and the lack of value we place in experience, qualifications and good old fashioned filing left future generations at MoD poorly equipped to do their jobs. Add in the continual lack of cash to fund research meant that were very few opportunities to plug the gap. But there were opportunities and these were squandered with little or no accountability.

The unfortunate sqn ldr who spent over a year stitching together six decades of fuel tank research from archives all over the UK did it as an untasked, unfunded personal effort to put the 8000 pages of evidence over what we knew and when into the coroners hands. The house of cards that was the MoD's position simply collapsed. Very painful times for the sqn ldr, but the truth had to come out. I've no idea why the BoI president sat on this evidence for so long.

You are correct that a number of senior officers appeared to lie on oath. I also believe that these officers had a very poor appreciation of the facts and lied more to cover their inadequacy and poor performance in their previous roles rather than any directed conspiracy. Quite simply some of them did not give a sh*t and openly expressed their lack of concern for the crews ahead of the shoot down. The 'cannot remember anything' excuse became commonplace when the special investigator started his interviews.

Still, some very good men told the truth and that is what mattered in the end.

tucumseh

21st Jul 2015, 06:30

JTO

Thank you. Fully concur, although I still say there was a conspiracy of silence. It is subtle but everyone in MoD knows the consequences of speaking the truth.

At least everyone admits there was an investigation! On Sea King ASaC, MoD now denies one of the three investigations took place. Which is why you keep records. And why I say that one is the worst of all. The other cases were won by knowing what questions to ask and what info to ask for. You eventually find someone who, often inadvertently, tells the truth. But on ASaC the lies have been consistent on this one aspect, from all sides of MoD, which implies collusion. The investigation of January/February 2004 did not take place, despite the written submissions and e-mails being presented to MoD and the BoI President. You always ask why and who benefits! It is why pprune is so valuable.

Chugalug2

21st Jul 2015, 07:15

Thank you tuc and JTO for dotting and crossing the i's and t's for us. I would merely add that an Airworthiness Authority that suffers from "a loss of corporate memory" is an Air Safety hazard in itself. That is why Coroners' Inquests and FAI's are so vital to the UK Military Air Safety process, and will be into the foreseeable future. That is why DV's probing into why that doesn't happen is an important Air Safety contribution and should be seen as such by those who want UK Military Aviation avoidable accidents to be avoided in future.

[MOAN ON]Whether those who called for ESF protection to the Hercules fleet over the decades were lobbying, pleading, or merely moaning, a system that had investigated, specified, and even trialled such protection could not only ignore those calls but then forget the very protection system itself speaks volumes about the dysfunctional state of UK Military Air Safety.[/MOAN OFF]

Distant Voice

21st Jul 2015, 08:40

Jackonicko

It's now near enough 25 years since we lost my old friend from ULAS days, Flt Lt Cameron Maxwell Locke. I still remember him with great fondness, but I don't know anything about FAIs, etc.

This is the sort of information we are looking for, relating to a military fatality in Scotland after the introduction of the 1976 Act. It is pointless asking the Crown Office as they claim their records do not go back that far; they had problems recovering data for the 2009 Glen Kinglass accident for the Justice Committee. The only hope is contact friends and families in oreder to find out what happened.

DV

Distant Voice

21st Jul 2015, 08:49

ALTAM

I think that is more the influence that MoD had in those days. The trust us, we will investigate and let you know what happened was alive and well and was trusted by civil authorities.

I believe you are correct. Now the Crown Office has to go along with the errors of the past for fear of having to admit that their judgement was flawed. Following the release of the SI report into the Moray Firth accident, several meetings took place between the Crown Office and the MAA, but nothing between the Crown Office and families.

DV

The Old Fat One

22nd Jul 2015, 05:41

thanks for the input Tuc and others.

It still seems crystal clear to me however, that it is the Scottish Legal System in the dock (pun intended). If there was hegemonic influence from third parties, frankly that makes it even worse.

Having seen a number of threads by DV on this subject, it seems to me that if he (or she, idk) wishes to get useful information, it would be best that the threads are kept firmly on track and not drift off into MOD/RAF bashing or rumour/innuendo about specific accidents - neither of which are pertinent to DV's specific task. Which, unless I am mistaken, is to database all military aircraft fatalities, in Scotland, in recent history and find out which, if any, had a Scottish FAI.

Dougie M

22nd Jul 2015, 06:30

TOFO
I concur

Distant Voice

23rd Jul 2015, 10:10

Which, unless I am mistaken, is to database all military aircraft fatalities, in Scotland, in recent history and find out which, if any, had a Scottish FAI.

TOFO, you are spot on. I would only add, "or UK Coroner's Inquest". Its important to see how consistant the Crown Offiice has been over the years with their interpretation of the 1976 ACT.

DV

baffman

23rd Jul 2015, 11:16

TOFO, you are spot on. I would only add, "or UK Coroner's Inquest". Its important to see how consistant the Crown Offiice has been over the years with their interpretation of the 1976 ACT.DV, I know you really meant "or Coroner's Inquest in England and Wales or Northern Ireland"! More importantly, strength to your arm. I was astonished to hear that the Crown Office don't have records further back than a few years, or say they don't.

Distant Voice

25th Jul 2015, 11:16

I note that the Lord Advocate (Mr Ronald King Murray) stated in the House of Commons on 30th March 1976, prior to the introduction on the 1976 FAI Act, that "it is in the public interest to ascertain what is wrong with the system irrespective of the status of the of the person killed".

As stated earlier, the spirit/intent of the 1976 Act has been ignored. Who gains?

DV

Dougie M

25th Jul 2015, 14:01

The question DV, is why wait near on 40 years to rail against vagaries in Scottish Law in a Rumour Website when you should be organising petitions and rallies to argue your case in Holyrood.

dervish

25th Jul 2015, 14:22

The question DV, is why wait near on 40 years to rail against vagaries in Scottish Law in a Rumour Website when you should be organising petitions and rallies to argue your case in Holyrood.

On the other hand some might ask why MoD isn't doing anything given its duty of care. You should read the threads here to learn what DV has achieved. Shame on those who do nothing but criticise.

Chugalug2

25th Jul 2015, 14:43

dervish
I concur

baffman

27th Jul 2015, 12:03

DV have you made representations regarding the draft Scottish Parliament legislation?

Davef68

27th Jul 2015, 13:24

If you have a look at some of DV's previous threads, you will see details of the representations that were made to the Justice Committee. I don't know if DV is the person who actually made the representations, or one of his support team, but they did the job admirably.

Why now? There is a new Act in preparation and the time is right to ensure any 'loopholes' or mis-interpretations are closed.

baffman

27th Jul 2015, 21:07

Thanks Davef68. I have now read the relevant written submissions by a campaigner to the Justice Committee concerning the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Bill (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/88085.aspx). The same campaigner also gave oral evidence to the Justice Committee on 5 May.

The Old Fat One

28th Jul 2015, 05:16

Dougie M

28th Jul 2015, 08:53

Thank you Baffman for the link

Distant Voice

30th Jul 2015, 09:30

I think any serviceman/women past or present, who read the pompous (and factually BS) reply to the "campaigners" email by some chiseling bureaucrat about our employment status in Scotland would be immediately angry and on DV's side.

I assume you meant this one;
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/Inquiries/20150526_COPFS_to_CG.pdf (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/Inquiries/20150526_COPFS_to_CG.pdf)

The "campaigner's" reply is worth reading, as it highlights serious flaws in the Crown Office's arguement. I understand that the Crown Office was asked over two months ago to idendify the cases on which the "case law" was based. To date nothing has been presented.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/Inquiries/FA2b._James_Jones.pdf (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/Inquiries/FA2b._James_Jones.pdf)

The Crown Office was also asked to idendify the number of discretionary military FAI carried out since the 1976 Act came into force, the following is their reply. It also answers those posters who ask the question, "why do you [me] not ask the Crown Office for information", the simply answer is that they claim not to know.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/Inquiries/FA21a._COPFS.pdf (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/Inquiries/FA21a._COPFS.pdf)

I believe that once the current bill become an act, the military will be granted the same rights as their civilian counterparts. Without the campaigner's input to the Justice Committee this would never have happened, even thought the Crown Office of Scotland and the MoD had been aware of the anomoly for decades.

DV

baffman

30th Jul 2015, 20:06

DV, thank you. The "lone campaigner" is to be congratulated, as it is clear that the issue of FAIs into the deaths of service personnel in Scotland had not been considered by Lord Cullen's inquiry, and would not have been addressed at all in the new legislation but for the campaigner's intervention.

I regret not picking this up myself during the consultation period, as I might have been able to assist in a small way, although the "campaigner" has clearly managed pretty well on his own! Certainly, no-one had raised it with any organisation I am connected with.

The Scottish Minister's letter of 4 June 2015 appears to concede that, as a result of the campaigner's representations, explicit provision will be included in the law for discretionary FAIs into the deaths of service personnel in Scotland.

The Minister also wrote that:
The latest position is that the Scottish Government is seeking the view of the Ministry of Defence on having mandatory FAIs into service employment deaths in Scotland. I will update the Committee on the response from the UK Government, when a response is received.

DV are you in a position to say how that is going?

Distant Voice

31st Jul 2015, 11:37

DV are you in a position to say how that is going?

Nothing heard, as yet. Little concerned that MoD are involved.

DV

baffman

31st Jul 2015, 14:40

DV thank you very much. I appreciate that you have been all over this already and have posted many times on the subject, so apologies for the late questions. I'm clear that in practice inquests into fatal flying accidents seem more likely to be held in England and Wales compared to FAI's in Scotland. I can see that there is a strong argument for this to be in practical terms the same on both sides of the border.

The definition of "service deaths" in section 17(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 might be helpful as far as it goes (it's not perfect in relation to flying duties) but the section only relates to monitoring and training by the Chief Coroner, not the decision to hold an inquest.

Have your researches shown that, unlike in Scotland, inquests have invariably been held into recent fatal service flying accidents in England and Wales?

Welcome to take to PM if you prefer.

Distant Voice

2nd Aug 2015, 10:41

I'm clear that in practice inquests into fatal flying accidents seem more likely to be held in England and Wales compared to FAI's in Scotland. I can see that there is a strong argument for this to be in practical terms the same on both sides of the border.

Based on historical evidence, FAIs have been held in Scotland for flying accidents involving civilians, such as North Sea Super Puma, but not military accidents. On the other hand, in England and Wales Inquest have been held for both civilian and militaty. The most recent Inquest, as far as I am aware, involved the death of Flt Lt Cunniningham and the Red Arrows ejection seat accident.

In a supplementary submission on 4th June 2015 by the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, Paul Wheelhouse, he said, "Having reflected on the evidence at Stage 1 [Justice Committee Report], the Government believe that it is inconsistent to have discretionary FAIs into military deaths abroad (but only if the death is notified to the Lord Advocate) and coroners’ inquests into such deaths in England and Wales, but not when the death occurs in Scotland."

The MoD and the Crown Office of Scotland have been aware of this inconsistancy for decades, but chose to ingnore it.

DV

baffman

2nd Aug 2015, 20:47

Thank you again, DV. I had read that quote from the Scottish Government Minister but am not sure that I fully follow it:
"Having reflected on the evidence at Stage 1 [Justice Committee Report], the Government believe that it is inconsistent to have discretionary FAIs into military deaths abroad (but only if the death is notified to the Lord Advocate) and coroners’ inquests into such deaths in England and Wales, but not when the death occurs in Scotland." That rather makes it sound as if the power to hold a discretionary FAI into a service death in Scotland does not exist at all, whereas as you know the power does already exist where the Crown Office considers it "expedient in the public interest", which is the essence of a "discretionary inquest".

The employment status of the deceased is immaterial to the exercise of that power under section 1(1)(b) of the 1976 Act.

Good luck and keep going.

Davef68

2nd Aug 2015, 21:37

They have the power to hold an FAI into any death in the workplace, or where there is a belief of suspicion regarding the circumstances of death, including service deaths.

I don't beleive, based on the Crown Office interpretation of employment, that discrecionary power extends to service deaths where there is no suspicion, where as a 'normal' workplace death would invoke an FAI.

I'm interested to see if COPFS manage to cite the cases they mention, there is sometimes a tendency to rely on Stair et al without double checking.

baffman

2nd Aug 2015, 21:53

That's basically it, Davef68. It's the difference between sections 1(a)(i) and 1(b) in the current legislation, i.e. the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/14), my bold:

1 Investigation of death and application for public inquiry.

(1)Subject to the provisions of any enactment specified in Schedule 1 to this Act and subsection (2) below, where—

(a)in the case of a death to which this paragraph applies—

(i)it appears that the death has resulted from an accident occurring in Scotland while the person who has died, being an employee, was in the course of his employment or, being an employer or self-employed person, was engaged in his occupation as such; or

(ii)the person who has died was, at the time of his death, in legal custody; or

(b)it appears to the Lord Advocate to be expedient in the public interest in the case of a death to which this paragraph applies that an inquiry under this Act should be held into the circumstances of the death on the ground that it was sudden, suspicious or unexplained, or has occurred in circumstances such as to give rise to serious public concern,

the procurator fiscal for the district with which the circumstances of the death appear to be most closely connected shall investigate those circumstances and apply to the sheriff for the holding of an inquiry under this Act into those circumstances.

Distant Voice

3rd Aug 2015, 12:36

That rather makes it sound as if the power to hold a discretionary FAI into a service death in Scotland does not exist at all, whereas as you know the power does already exist where the Crown Office considers it "expedient in the public interest", which is the essence of a "discretionary inquest".

This whole issue became clouded by the Crown Office’s letter to the Justice Committee, dated 21st May, after the ‘campaigner’ had presented his evidence. I quote;

“The committee may also wish to note in this regard that section 1A of the 1976 Act (added by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, section 50(2)), which gives powers of the court in Scotland to have a Fatal Accident Inquiry into the death of service personnel abroad, provides that such an inquiry can take place where the Lord Advocate decides that is appropriate in the public interest to hold one. That is to say it makes such an inquiry a discretionary rather than a mandatory one.

The terms of section 1A support the view that had the United Kingdom Parliament considered that a Fatal Accident Inquiry into the death of military personnel be mandatory, they would not have made the Lord Advocate’s power in this regard a discretionary one”.

In an attempt to justify their interpretation of the 1976 Act, they mix discretionary FAIs, as stated in para 1 (1) (b) with Deaths Abroad referrals from the UK Chief Coroner or the Secretary of State who think “that it may be appropriate for the circumstances of the death to be investigated under the Fatal Accident and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976.” The spirit in which this was drawn up, according to the Minister of Community Safety and Legal Affairs, was to afford Scottish families of the deceased the opportunity to have an Inquest in England/Wales, or an FAI in Scotland. The Lord Advocate is given the power to accept the referral or not, and if not then the inquiry will take the form of a coroner’s inquest (Coroners and Justice Act 2009,section 13). This is different from a discretionary FAI outlined in para 1 (1)(b). It's either a guaranteed inquest in England/Wales, or a guaranteed FAI in Scotland. I believe the Crown Office’s statement confused not only the Minister but also the Convenor of the Committee.

DV

Distant Voice

3rd Aug 2015, 13:44

I believe that the spirit/intent of the Fatal Accident and Sudden Deaths Inqiry Act 1976 is best summed up by the words of Lord Campbell of Croy in the House of Lords on 9th Dec 1975

"The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was explaining to us a few minutes ago the changes suggested in this Bill. First, it is suggested that in future a fatal accident inquiry should be mandatory for an accident occurring during any employment and not restricted to industrial employment. I notice that the words "or occupation" are included in the Bill, so it seems that an accident in virtually any kind of employment will now fall within the scope of this Bill".

The Convener of the Jusice Committee said on 5th May;

It is not just "employment"; it is "employment or occupation". Therefore, even if there is an argument—which I do not necessarily agree with—that a person is not employed by the services because of the system under which people join the armed forces, it is still their "occupation".

Everyone sees it, except the Crown Office.

DV

baffman

3rd Aug 2015, 21:28

Thank you DV for another two very informative replies.

Ref your post #54, the quote from Lord Campbell of Croy (a former Secretary of State for Scotland, and holder of the Military Cross) is very interesting, and I have now read his full speech, which is very critical of the then Labour-controlled Scottish Office's failure to consult adequately over the Bill.

I haven't checked what the state of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Bill was at the time Lord Campbell made those remarks, but the reference to "occupation" in the Act as passed only applies to a deceased who was either an employer or a self-employed person, and therefore unfortunately does not apply to service personnel.

Distant Voice

4th Aug 2015, 15:19

but the reference to "occupation" in the Act as passed only applies to a deceased who was either an employer or a self-employed person, and therefore unfortunately does not apply to service personnel.

Well that is a possible take on it and one that I had considered, however I believe that the intent was to cover all work related deaths of people in the course of their employment or occupation. Lord Cullen, in his 2009 review, recommends that "it should continue to be mandatory that an FAI should be held into the work-related deaths". Furthermore, the notes which accompany the new bill state the following;

"Section 2 sets out the circumstances in which an FAI is mandatory. Under subsection (3) an FAI is mandatory if the person died in Scotland as a result of an accident in Scotland, in the course of the person’s employment or occupation. This replicates the effect of section 1(1)(a)(i) of the 1976 Act."

The new bill confirms my believe in the intent behind the existing 1976 Act by stating that a mandatory FAI will be called "while the person was acting in the course of the person's employment or occupation"

The Crown Office are reluctant to use the phrase " work-related death"

DV

baffman

4th Aug 2015, 18:16

Thank you again, DV.

The Lord Cullen Inquiry does seem to have been a missed opportunity, not least by the Inquiry itself. The notice of the inquiry was very insistent that the investigation of the deaths of servicemen and women overseas was a subject of discussion between the UK and Scottish governments, and not a matter for the Inquiry.

It does seem very odd that the deaths of servicemen and women in Scotland were not specifically mentioned at all.

But I note the references to "occupation" in general.

I expect you are already aware of (indeed you may have mentioned it yourself) a case in which the MoD rather hypocritically tried to argue, because it suited them, that servicemen and women were "employees" after all:

Armed Forces Personnel 'Not Employees, Court Rules' (http://natemplaw.co.uk/portfolio/armed-forces-personnel-not-employees-court-rules/)

Distant Voice

5th Aug 2015, 09:14

I think any serviceman/women past or present, who read the pompous (and factually BS) reply to the "campaigners" email by some chiseling bureaucrat about our employment status in Scotland would be immediately angry and on DV's side.

Of course it could be more than just service people. If para 2-07 of the 3rd Edition of Carmichael is all that it is claimed to be by the Crown Office's in their letter to the Justice Committee, dated 21st May 2015, then it applies to "police officers on duty and deaths of members of the forces, regular or part-time and including visiting forces, while on duty".

DV

Distant Voice

14th Aug 2015, 09:56

Watched an excellent programme on BBC last night which covered the Quintinshill rail disaster of 1915, in which some 200+ Scottish soldiers were killed when trains collided. According to the programme evidence for the inquiry came from people in the pay of the rail company and government, none of it was subjected to independent cross examination. This could never happen today, the BBC report concludes.

Let's 'fast forward' 100 years and review another collision, this time between two Tornado aircraft in the air. All the evidence supplied to the Crown Office comes from people in the pay of MoD, none of which has been subjected to independent cross examination. Nothing has changed.

DV

Distant Voice

24th Oct 2015, 13:02

I believe that the latest Crown Office statement on the Clutha helicopter accident, and their decision to call an FAI because, “An FAI will allow a full public airing of all the evidence at which families and other interested parties will be represented. It is right that the evidence can be vigorously tested in a public setting and be the subject of judicial determination”, is a testament of the double standards applied to civil and military accidents in Scotland, as it is only appled to civilian cases. Surely, this justification should have applied to the Tornado accident, for example.

DV

tucumseh

24th Oct 2015, 13:14

Well said DV

Tourist

24th Oct 2015, 14:20

I so wish that everybody who wants to make the military work environment into the same as a civil one would just stop.

I for one do not agree with FAI for military deaths.

Military life should be more dangerous than civil life.

Bring back crown immunity and all the other old differences and let our military just get on with it.

Crusades just bog us down and make us die of grinding risk aversion.

Just Stop it.

Dougie M

24th Oct 2015, 14:20

Not even double standards.
Viz. Glasgow dump truck driver.

tucumseh

24th Oct 2015, 16:09

Tourist, you've said all that before but never answered the question - What mandated regulations should no longer be mandated? May I suggest you read them and let the MAA know which ones to ditch. I'd be very interested in their response.

What we know for certain from many threads here is that if the regulations were simply implemented properly, long before you ever saw the aircraft, then many deaths would be avoided. All you're doing is shooting the messenger and supporting those who won't do the job properly.

Chugalug2

24th Oct 2015, 17:03

Tourist:-
let our military just get on with it.Couldn't agree more Tourist. Their job is indeed more dangerous than civilian life, but made even more so by VSO's who order that Airworthiness Regulations, eg that ensure that your cab can actually get to close with the enemy without spontaneously exploding on the way there, should not be implemented but signed off as having been so.

The only risk averse that I am aware of are those same people who ensure that they compromise and hence silence their subordinates and unjustly finger others so that they carry the can. Now you may count that as all part of the deal, and no doubt have your own reasons for saying so, but I don't. The cost in blood and treasure over the years has been both great and pointless. It can only be arrested by having independent inguiries, such as FAI's and Coroners', into military aviation deaths, at least until the MAA and the MilAAIB are themselves independent of the MOD and each other.

salad-dodger

24th Oct 2015, 17:19

I wouldn't bother rising to Tourist's drivel. Do any of you think Tourist himself actually believes what he writes?

S-D

Tourist

25th Oct 2015, 09:56

What we know for certain from many threads here is that if the regulations were simply implemented properly, long before you ever saw the aircraft, then many deaths would be avoided. All you're doing is shooting the messenger and supporting those who won't do the job properly.

Avoiding deaths in peacetime is not the job or even an aim of a viable military.

The job of the military is to win a war.

Losing wars loses millions of lives.

The negligible number that dies in peacetime maintaining an unencumbered and capable military force with flexibility and a willingness to take risks without constant worrying about consequences from civil lawsuits is a reasonable price to pay.

Flight safety was not invented to save lives.

I will say that again.

Flight safety was not invented to save lives.

It was invented to "increase operational capability by......."

Somewhere along the way it was infected by health and safety until it became a process where the safest option was always the best.

Safe does not win wars, and losing wars is the most dangerous thing ever.

We now use innovation not to increase capability, but to make doing the same thing we always did safer.

New bigger, more powerful helicopters carry less troops more safely.

Any sane leader in the military knows that inviolable rules are unsuitable for the military environment.

The trick is knowing when to break them and by how much. That goes for pilots and senior officers running aviation programs alike.

We even applaud and revere rule breakers like Nelson.

Nothing has changed since his day.

We are drowning in lawsuits and FOI and their outcomes and the costs are crippling our military.

The Old Fat One

25th Oct 2015, 10:29

Flight safety was not invented to save lives.

I will say that again.

Flight safety was not invented to save lives.

It was invented to "increase operational capability by......."

Tourist you are 100 percent correct.

But don't be a cherry picker...throwing away lives, aircraft and money, through dangerous, complacent and sometimes blatantly stupid working practice, does not do much for operational effectiveness does it?

The MPA saga features elements of all of the above and now we don't have one. Which, as a maritime expert, I would suggest has diminished our maritime security and war-fighting abilities a tad - would you not agree?

so, as usual, it's a question of balance - which means the discussion has merit.

We are drowning in lawsuits and FOI and their outcomes and the costs are crippling our military.

Such costs pale into absolute insignificance when compared to the costs of gloriously **** ed procurement projects.

Tourist

25th Oct 2015, 10:50

Tourist you are 100 percent correct.

But don't be a cherry picker...throwing away lives, aircraft and money, through dangerous, complacent and sometimes blatantly stupid working practice, does not do much for operational effectiveness does it?

No, of course not, hence the invention of flight safety.
It has a valid place in the pantheon of military management.

This is what the invention of Flight safety did:

http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp121/Tourist_photos/Accidentrate.jpg (http://s404.photobucket.com/user/Tourist_photos/media/Accidentrate.jpg.html)

It made a fantastic difference in losses and thus improved operational effectiveness.
You might argue that everything done up to 1980 was worth the effort, though late 60s would be a better cost benefit point.

This, of course means that all the efforts since then have been utterly ineffective in saving lives.

It all just costs more and cuts capability for no benefit.

So lets go back to the rules and freedoms of the 60's and have fun!

If not, why not?

re the Nimrod, I wouldn't have grounded it.

Troops on the ground had a very high risk level at all times in Afghanistan.
The presence of Nimrod measurably lowered that risk.
I don't judge the lives of troops to be worth less than the lives of aviators, so why ground an aircraft to reduce an already low risk to aviators?

Yes, it could be said to be bad for operational effectiveness to lose a big aircraft like nimrod, but if you ground it you have lost it totally!

Chugalug2

25th Oct 2015, 11:36

Tourist:-
We even applaud and revere rule breakers like Nelson.
Nothing has changed since his day.

Interesting example. Was he a staff officer? Did he suborn the Royal Navy Seaworthiness Regulations? Was Victory not seaworthy before Trafalgar? Given the context of this thread and our discussion it would appear that is your point.

I always thought that his rule breaking was in battle, in order to win and win as soon as possible, hence saving life rather than squandering it. The complete antithesis in other words of the VSO's that I denounce.

Tourist

25th Oct 2015, 12:19

Tourist:-

I always thought that his rule breaking was in battle, in order to win and win as soon as possible, hence saving life rather than squandering it. The complete antithesis in other words of the VSO's that I denounce.

Chug

Honest question, leaving aside our differences of opinion.

Do you actually believe that the VSO's in question broke rules to deliberately reduce our capability to wage war and to deliberately kill our servicemen?

Do you honestly think, outcome aside, that that was their intention?

I'm seriously interested to know whether you are using hyperbole or deluded.

When people make decisions, those decisions have consequences. In military terms, that often means lives.

When a man takes a gamble based upon probabilities, even 100/1 chances sometimes happen.

A mission that has only 100/1 chance of going wrong will tend to go wrong on average once in a 100 times.

That means that even though the mission is a good idea, sometimes it will go wrong.
That doesn't mean you should stop the mission. The risk benefit balance may be worth the risk.

Just because something goes wrong, doesn't mean it was a bad idea to do it.

Everything, and I do mean everything has a risk attached.

VSO's need to be able to make such calls without being stalked forever by the likes of yourself quarterbacking after the game or the whole system becomes unworkable.

Go look at the Falklands war.
A huge number of big risk calls made there. Most, but not all paid off. Should we hound those decision makers too?

Chugalug2

25th Oct 2015, 12:52

Oranges and Apples, Tourist, as I suspect you well know. Can we not conflate tactical (or even strategic) decisions taken in war, that as you say gang aft a-gley, with decisions to save money at the cost of safety?

The latter was the intention of the VSOs that inflicted their policy upon Air Safety in the late 80's (funny how that matches your suggestion as to the pointlessness of Flight Safety from thereabouts). What did they think the result would be if not to increase Airworthiness related losses in equipment and personnel? The reason of course for them feeling compelled to take such drastic and irreversible action was the calamitous effects of new procedures introduced by AMSO. The result of such procedures was spelled out, the results of the subsequent attack on Air Safety was spelled out. The warnings were ignored, the messengers persecuted. The effects are still with us today and will remain so until we have an MAA and MilAAIB independent of the MOD and of each other.

Your graph of course looks very convincing, but the huge starting rate was caused mainly by pilot/aircrew error. That was whittled away by cultural change and training improvements which thankfully still apply. Hidden in the graph are airworthiness related accidents. They too will show some improvement thanks to technical strides in equipment performance. The point is that the improvement would have been even greater if military airworthiness had not been deliberately attacked in the meantime.

There is no point in saying that the rate is low enough so let's have fun. Every loss is someone's life and more loss of military capacity. That is the really annoying thing about this saga; in covering self induced losses (and each other!) these VSO's ensured a long term drain of life and military potential that continues to this day. I doubt that Nelson would have been very impressed!

Tourist

25th Oct 2015, 18:37

Oranges and Apples, Tourist, as I suspect you well know. Can we not conflate tactical (or even strategic) decisions taken in war, that as you say gang aft a-gley, with decisions to save money at the cost of safety?

Wrong.

The military is given a budget.
That is a fixed amount of money.

VSO's decide what to spend it on.

Money spent on one thing cannot be spent on another.
Rightly or wrongly, VSO's decided to spend it on something else.
They didn't pocket it. They made no profit from it.
They made a decision to spend it in the area they thought it would do the most good for our forces.
Who knows, maybe the thing the spent it on saved lives or increased capability?

The fact that people died does not necessarily make it the wrong decision.

It is unacceptable for civil company to have deaths in an effort to increase profit.

The same does not apply to the military where the equivalent of profit is operational capability.

The Old Fat One

25th Oct 2015, 21:50

On a more simplistic note...

Having watched, just a few hours ago, a senior and credible Scottish authority point out (and I quote exactly)...

It is mandatory in Scotland to hold a FAI when an employee dies at work

...and having read with my own eyes, the statement of one of Scotland's most senior legal ****s

military personal in Scotland are not employed and don't have a job

I ask you Tourist...does it not p1ss you off just a little bit to find out that if you venture north of the border, you are unemployed and insignificant in the eyes of the law?

Tourist

26th Oct 2015, 09:07

I ask you Tourist...does it not p1ss you off just a little bit to find out that if you venture north of the border, you are unemployed and insignificant in the eyes of the law?

Nope, legal opinion of me matters to me not one jot.

In fact, upon consideration, I'm not really that fussed what anybody thinks!

Distant Voice

26th Oct 2015, 11:16

I ask you Tourist...does it not p1ss you off just a little bit to find out that if you venture north of the border, you are unemployed and insignificant in the eyes of the law

According to UK law (including Scotland), a citizen does not, by enlisting in or entering the Armed Forces, thereby cease to be a citizen. He is not deprived of his rights, nor is he exempt from his liabilities under the ordinary law of the land.

Crown Office of Scotland and MoD please note.

DV

Chugalug2

26th Oct 2015, 13:09

Tourist, wrong!

The bizarre decision by AMSO to discard spares stock-holdings and thence trigger an immediate cost saving was followed inevitably by a severe lack of spare parts, all of which had to then be ordered up individually, and if available were often the same parts that had been sold for a song and then re-bought for a King's Ransom. As you so rightly say:-
The military is given a budget.so the only solution was to raid yet another budget, which had hitherto been ring-fenced, ie that of Air Safety and in particular that of Airworthiness Provision. Annoyingly that in turn was protected by mandated regulations, so it was necessary to order those with delegated airworthiness responsibility to disregard the mandated regulations but sign them off as complied with. Annoyingly that requires the issuing of an illegal order. Annoyingly that is an offence under Military Law, which annoyingly VSO's are also subject to.

You may be content that they feel free to disregard the duty of compliance that subordinates are bound in law by, but I am not.

When you say that:-

VSO's decide what to spend it on.You are wrong, insomuch as they have to spend it in accordance with mandated regulations, unless and until they be changed. They were not, they were simply disregarded and forgotten. Many today do not know that they exist because they are not told, not even by the MAA who also seem to be blissfully unaware. That doesn't mean that they don't exist and all are bound by them. Annoying, isn't it?

Tourist

26th Oct 2015, 15:08

Ok, lets say that what you say is true in its entirety.

VSO's needed some money and raided another department against regulations.

So what?

The money had to come from somewhere. Either that or lose a capability or operational effectiveness.

If you need to break rules then break rules.

In the aftermath, they have been backed from above.

Rules are not inviolable.

They did what officers are paid to do.
They took a risk based upon their judgement.
In this case it didn't pay off.

This has happened throughout history in all endeavours.
Some you win, some you lose, and in the military sphere losing means death to some poor buggers.

Officers have always sent men to their deaths based upon risk assessments.
The Falklands war involved huge judgement calls. We were always one Exocet away from a disaster and national embarrassment.

Because we won, the VSO's are heros. If we hadn't I bet there would be many like yourself whinging.

The C130 AAR aircraft were a total bodge that paid off. They were very high risk though..

That is military life.

None of us are pressed men. We can all leave at any point. If I die in a UK military aircraft, or indeed in any aircraft it is my responsibility. I make choices and I own the consequences.

This generation needs to take responsibility for our own lives.

The Old Fat One

26th Oct 2015, 19:03

hey did what officers are paid to do.
They took a risk based upon their judgement.
In this case it didn't pay off.

This has happened throughout history in all endeavours.
Some you win, some you lose, and in the military sphere losing means death to some poor buggers.

Officers have always sent men to their deaths based upon risk assessments.

Tourist, I commend to you the very famous book by Norman Dixon "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence".

It may balance things a little...or maybe not. Anyway, it's a good book.

I'm out.

Chugalug2

27th Oct 2015, 07:58

Tourist no-one is challenging the right of VSO's to take risky decisions in time of war, as I have repeatedly said. This risky decision (to subvert Air Safety) was simply to cover the predictable and predicted effects of AMSO's incompetence.

While we are composing a reading list, may I add this to TOFO's:-

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

Tourist

27th Oct 2015, 08:29

Tourist no-one is challenging the right of VSO's to take risky decisions in time of war, as I have repeatedly said. This risky decision (to subvert Air Safety) was simply to cover the predictable and predicted effects of AMSO's incompetence.

So what?

There were effects that needed covering, predictable and predicted or not.

I am not defending any individual decisions made anywhere, merely that VSOs have to make decisions based on risk assessments.

The simple nature of statistics mean that even very low risks happen occasionally and then bad things happen.

Second guessing with hindsight later is just idiocy.

Chug.

I think you have bigger picture issues.

Nimrod was saving lives and doing good work.
Getting it to meet airworthiness regs cost money we didn't have or was judged to be better spent elsewhere, so we flew it hoping we would get by with the bodge as we have many times with many aircraft over the years.

There was no golden option where we had the aircraft airborne and airworthy.

It was have the bodge or lose the capability.

Personally I would not have grounded them after the event, let alone before.

So what if we lost one occasionally?

We lost ground troops daily yet we kept them there.
That is the job.

By flying Nimrod we reduced their very high risk a little by accepting some.

I personally believe that it is ok to trade a little extra risk upward from ground troops to flyers.

There is no "soldierworthiness" dept looking after the guys on the ground and this has skewed things in modern militaries. For some reason aircrew are protected at the expense of soldiers and sailors.

How many aircrew died in Iraq and Afghanistan?
It has come to be accepted that any loss of life airborne is a symptom of a mistake.

This is madness.

Lives are lost even in brilliant victories.

The negligible loss rate of aircrew compared to the ground troops suggests that contrary to your complaints we were unwilling to shoulder our fair burden of risk.

Those who mention the high unit cost of Nimrod thus the need to protect it are missing the point. If it can't get airborne and do the job then it is worthless.

Chug, I accept that you and Tuc worship at the feet of the god Airworthiness, and that's great. We need people like you to fight it's corner. The debate is good.
We also need VSO's that will put you back in your box when required.

When I fly an aircraft, occasionally I might have to break a rule. When I come back, that will be dissected by my superiors and I will be judged on the result and the intention.

The VSO's have been through a very similar system, and they seem to have had their actions blessed.

Let it go, and in particular let go the accusations about deliberately sabotaging our capability. That just makes you look mental.

TOFO

I'll read it if I can find it.

Chugalug2

27th Oct 2015, 18:40

Tourist:-
The VSO's have been through a very similar system, and they seem to have had their actions blessed.Well, only by other VSO's who in the main tried to place the blame for the effects of these illegal decisions and orders on subordinates, even deceased JO's!

The reason why the Nimrod fleet was permanently grounded is of course never fully spelled out. If you say it was because it was condemned as unairworthy by the MAA, then blame the VSO's who gave it an RTS knowing it to be so. The reason why the Mull Chinook crashed has never been spelled out, except notoriously by Wratten and Day. It was, however, granted an RTS in a knowingly Grossly Unairworthy condition. The Hercules was put to Wartime Tactical use when knowingly Unfit for Purpose. These were all policy decisions taken at the highest level. Issuing an RTS to an aircraft known to be unairworthy is not only contrary to regulation, it is also illegal.

Where does the buck stop in your world, Tourist? If they start withholding your pay and allowances because, "there is no money left", would you nod sagely and dismiss others' protests with a "So What"? I suspect you would!

I don't worship at any altar, save that of maximising our defence effort for the lowest possible cost. Contrary to what you propose, a fully airworthy military airfleet will beat an unairworthy one in that regard everytime.

Distant Voice

5th Mar 2016, 11:52

I note that the new FAI bill (2016) states that mandatory FAIs will be carried out for a death in Scotland "while the person was acting in the course of the person’s employment or occupation".

Whilst the Crown Office has, in the past, insisted that service people are not employed I fail to see how anyone can now argue that they do not have an occupation.

DV

dervish

6th Mar 2016, 08:16

DV

Well done. You have pursued this doggedly and this is a good result. Will MoD now claim servicemen aren't occupied?

Pontius Navigator

6th Mar 2016, 19:24

Unless they reside in FSA?

Family Services Accommodation, bad joke.

Distant Voice

7th Mar 2016, 08:35

Sorry, I am a bit slow this morning, what is FAS?

DV

Distant Voice

15th Mar 2016, 16:15

Training Criticised In Helicopter Crash Inquest (http://news.sky.com/story/1660142/training-criticised-in-helicopter-crash-inquest)

This story shows how the findings of an inquest can differ from an internal MOD Service Inquiry, and that is why it was, and still is, essential to have an FAI into the Tornado collision incident of 2012. I understand that criminal investigations are now being carried out, probably involving the actions of senior officers. Senior officers should have been named and investigated for Tornado. The Crown Office's failure to recognise that the word of MOD/MAA is not the complete story let them off the hook. MoD/MAA do not name and condemn their own.

DV

Distant Voice

30th Apr 2018, 17:27

Tomorrow, 1st May, new evidence will be discussed with the Scottish Crown Office in attempt to convince the Lord Advocate that an independent civil Fatal Accident Inquiry should take place into the 2012 Tornado collision. The submission of new evidence is permitted under the new 2016 FAI act.

DV

MrBernoulli

1st May 2018, 03:23

Interesting news!

Treble one

1st May 2018, 11:55

tucumseh

1st May 2018, 16:09

DV, your efforts have been commendable. I hope he listens.

Easy Street

8th May 2018, 21:24

Quite by chance while searching FOI responses on a work task I came across this one (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/death_of_flt_lt_cunningham_red_a) inviting the HSE to link the Moray Firth midair with the Sean Cunningham accident. The point made by Mr Jones about the lack of a FAI interested me in the context of this thread. An extract from his request to the HSE follows:

Two Tornado crew members died when their Martin Baker Mk10 seats and associate survival equipment failed to operate within the design envelope of ground level to 50,000 ft, and at speeds from zero to 630 knots. The Tornado collision took place at around 1000 ft and at a speed of 448 knots, technically well within the design parameters.

The height and speed of the collision is totally irrelevant, as I’m sure the writer well knows. The height, speed, attitude and rate of change of those parameters at *ejection* are what matters. Even taking the position that SI reports are not to be trusted, it takes a special kind of obtuseness to infer that the crews *might* have ejected from their disintegrating aircraft at the impact parameters. The request seems to me in bad faith, designed to gain the attention of a non-specialist organisation by misleading them. And here was me thinking this was a campaign with integrity at its heart!

tucumseh

9th May 2018, 06:04

Easy Street

I've read your link. It seems to me the main point being made is that of inconsistency by, in this case, the HSE (but one could also say the CPS in England and Wales and the Procurators Fiscal in Scotland). They went after Martin-Baker in the Cunningham case, after MoD admitted guilt and liability. Yet take no action in far worse cases.

I agree with you - the HSE is non-specialist. In the Cunningham case, the judge ignored specialist evidence, as did the HSE, who were permitted to make false accusations and mislead the court.

Another point raised by the correspondent is the status of servicemen under Scots Law. That Fatal Accident Inquiries in Scotland did not take place for servicemen is not well known. People here may immediately think 'Mull of Kintyre FAI in 1996'. But that was for the RUC and MI5 officers who died. Not the RAF aircrew or Army officers. Sheriff Young made that clear in his remarks but was missed by most. The difference between Young and the Cunningham judge was that he did his job properly, and knew that he must explore MoD's actions (offences) in order to satisfy his public interest remit. The disgrace was that the Scottish Crown Office didn't follow through against MoD. Therefore, I think it unfair to say DV's campaign lacks integrity. It is MoD, HSE and parts of the judiciary who do.

The technical point you make is correct.

Distant Voice

20th Aug 2018, 09:07

It is wonderful news that a date has been set for an FAI into the Clutha helicopter accident. However, what is interesting is that a mandatory FAI is being called for the police who died, "while they were acting in the course of their employment", and it is being carried out iaw the 2016 act even though the accident took place in Nov 2013.

In a letter to the Justice Committee, dated 21st May 2015, from Mr Steven McGowan (Procurator Fiscal Major Crime and Investigation Fatalities), it was pointed out that an FAI was not convened for the Tornado accident because the 3rd Edition of Carmichael on Sudden Deaths and Fatal Accident Inquiries states at paragraph 2-07 that deaths of members of Armed Forces whilst on duty are not deaths in the course of employment. What he failed to point out was that the paragraph also covers police officers.

However, Mr McGowan's oversight (intentional or otherwise) did not go unnoticed by Christine Grahame when Stage 1 of the 2016 Bill was debated in the Scottish Parliament on 25th Sept 2015. She made it clear that as things stood "mandatory FAIs are currently held when a death occurs in Scotland either as a result of a work-related accident or when the deceased was in legal custody at the time of death. The former does not apply to the armed forces or indeed to police officers on duty."

So where does all this leave the call for an FAI into the 2012 Moray Firth Tornado accident? If the Crown Office has given the go ahead for a mandatory FAI under the new 2016 Act for an accident that took place in 2013, and for people who were technically not covered under the old Act, and still not covered, then they have to demonstrate that there is a level playing field for all in Scotland. Based on this recent interpretation of the 2016 Act, and the additional documentation presented to the Crown Office on 1st May, I fail to see how the Lord Advocate can reject a call for a mandatory FAI for the Moray Firth collision under section 2(1) and 2(3) of the Inquires into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016.

The argument that the Military Aviation Authority produced a comprehensive report for the Tornado accident, thus negating the need for an FAI, can not be justified. The AAIB, a truly independent body, carried out a investigation into the Clutha accident, which lasted two years and resulted in a 176 page technical report.

DV

airpolice

20th Aug 2018, 09:33

Distant Voice

20th Aug 2018, 09:51

Sometimes you need to know the subject matter in order to evaluate the official response. Much like a newspaper report the next day, of an incident that one has witnessed, can read like a different event, the AAIB reports seem fine unless you know the truth. Then the small cracks appear, and you have to wonder what else they got wrong.

I agree, and that is why there needs to be an open and independent inquiry into the Clutha accident AND the Moray Firth accident. The point that I tried to make is that you have to apply the same criteria to both cases.

DV

Timelord

20th Aug 2018, 13:29

airpolice

20th Aug 2018, 14:44

I have been following this thread and others like it for some time without joining in, but now I will stick my head above the parapet. Firstly, I have no knowledge or experience of the higher functioning of the airworthiness or legal systems. I was just a crew dog for nearly thirty years and had some vicarious connections with the Moray Firth mid air.

I am afraid that I just do not see the point of never ending demands for more and more enquiries. We know what happened, we know that better radar coverage and a Collision avoidance system would have helped and we know that the CAS had been delayed several times by senior officers trying to save a few pennies at the behest of their political masters. TCAS was quickly fitted to the GR4 fleet in the aftermath.

What more can be achieved? Identifying this or that long posted or retired VSO who signed something incriminating?

Finally, let us not forget that there was a survivor of this accident. Has anyone asked him if he wants to go through it all again?

TL

Perhaps a less... selfish, for want of a better word, attitude might be a little more widespread than you think.

Who knows what secrets a thorough and independent enquiry might turn up?

Given the history of the RAF & MoD for covering up errors and poor judgement in relation to specifications, and indeed, gash admin at squadron level, an inquiry might save a life in the future. Yes we all think we know the overt cause of the Moray Firth crash, but what else was going on?

Anyone who has any doubts about the effectiveness of such an enquiry need only look at a few previous reports. The truly dangerous element is the repetitive nature of failings. When the report makes recommendations which were already policy at the time of the incident, that's when you can see that the system is failing.

Why is it that we seem to need a fatal accident to get people and processes put under the microscope?

orca

20th Aug 2018, 16:39

If ones contention is that aircrew are being sent about their duties, in peace or war, in (or on, beside or using) equipment that is either not fit for purpose or is unsafe then there may be mileage in some form of inquiry - however if it is, or has been, the case then it is, or has been, the case for every second that the equipment has been used and not just in the cases that have resulted in injury or fatality. (Unless of course mitigations in place have varied over time).

If you want to find out ‘what else was going on’? You’re not going to find it out in an inquiry into an isolated event (unless the convening authority set a wide boundary to the scope which is unlikely in my view).

An inquiry into the airworthiness and safe operation (safe to operate/ operated safely) of the Tornado aircraft over its time in service might be what you’re after if that is the case.

My personal (experience based) view is that SIs are thorough.

I feel that in some cases people call for fresh inquiries in the hope of hearing the same thing again from a source viewed as more impartial or more authoritative - as opposed to hearing something new.

orca

20th Aug 2018, 19:15

BGG,

Thank you for replying. I’m definitely not trying to be obtuse but my eloquence may have failed me.

The point I was trying to make in my first three paras was this. Perhaps rather than try to illustrate or investigate fundamental, institutional or even personal failings one should do that using an isolated (tragic) accident as evidence within a wider context - the vehicle for which I am unsure of - as opposed to looking at the accident specifically in order to show the wider failings.

Yours,

Orca.

Chugalug2

21st Aug 2018, 08:17

BGG:-
DV has looked long and hard at this and he clearly thinks there is merit in pursuing this line. In my own humble opinion, he should be supported. There are some pretty glaring gaps in both the justice system and the way such accidents are investigated.

Hear, hear! The battle for investigation and regulation reform has been waged on many threads on this forum and in many and various ways beyond, but we still have a system of self regulation and accident investigation that is mainly unchanged other than the freshly painted signs outside offices. There is no single answer to getting this rogue super tanker to change course, but every effort to do so is well worth it. These threads are not posted as mere information or even entertainment sources, they are a call to arms for all concerned aviation professionals.

I'm not sure how any self proclaimed professionals could claim not to be concerned, but there are invariably new readers to this forum who may be unaware of the many airworthiness related UK Fatal Military Air Accident threads herein. Rather than condemn them to dedicating the next two or three years to reading through them all, I would point them instead to the latest book by David Hill, "Breaking the Military Covenant - Who speaks for the dead?". Details can be obtained via pm to tucumseh but it covers, inter alia, the loss of two Sea-Kings mid-air, Tornado/Patriot shootdown, Nimrod XV230, Hercules XV179, and the Reds' Hawk inadvertent ground ejection. These and others account for over 100 needless and avoidable deaths. With this one book you can appreciate the woods rather than be preoccupied with the far too many trees, and thus avoid the MOD's default trap of stove-piping accidents as all one-offs. They are not, they are all connected by a dysfunctional and broken system, as David Hill reveals.

Crack on Distant Voice! All it needs is for good men to do something instead of nothing.

Distant Voice

28th Nov 2018, 10:05

Tornado (MAA, in-house inquiry lasting 15 months carried out by serving officers not trained in accident investigation).
In a statement, the Crown Office said: "After thorough consideration of the circumstances of the case, Crown Counsel have concluded that all the relevant issues have been comprehensively examined in the course of the Military Aviation Authority report and could not have been better considered in any FAI."

Clutha (AAIB, independent inquiry lasting two years carried out by internationally recognised specialist in accident investigation)
In a statement, the Crown Office said, “this [FAI] will be held as soon as is possible. An FAI will allow a full public airing of all the evidence at which families and other interested parties will be represented. It is right that the evidence can be vigorously tested in a public setting and be the subject of judicial determination”.

Can everyone spot the difference?

DV

Just This Once...

28th Nov 2018, 13:03

Well the serving officers do train as accident investigators and complete the very same course as their AAIB colleagues. They also share the same building, facilities, tea bar and occasionally the milk. The AAIB routinely support their military colleagues and the reciprocal is also true.

I think you are mistaking them with the board members who are deliberately taken from areas of relevant expertise and, typically, the board president is drawn from a different service too. They are also the fresh set of eyes but they do not try their hand at kicking over metal at an accident site and having their best guess - that is left to the professionally trained and experienced individuals drawn from the military and civilian side of the AAIB.

Please note that the Clutha accident suffered significant third-partly casualties and took place in a built-up area, so the legal public interest test is different.

tucumseh

28th Nov 2018, 14:59

DV. Spot on.

MAA and AAIB investigators/panel members have very different roles. Even if trained in the same way, the MAA people do not have to apply that training in the same way.

The 2011 Red Arrows case showed up once and for all how lacking MoD investigations are. In a way their errors and mistakes were excusable, as none would have been trained in the necessary disciplines. But they didn't ask those who were. Otherwise, how could they miss that the ejection seat was not permitted in the aircraft? A first year apprentice would be crucified if he couldn't see that.

MoD and HSE then lied. The only question is whether the latter lied under oath.

Chugalug2

28th Nov 2018, 16:57

DV:-
Can everyone spot the difference?
The difference that I see is that one may have confidence in the civil process, whereas that conducted by the MAA is dysfunctional because the UK Military Airworthiness process is dysfunctional and will remain so until UK Military Air Regulation and Investigation is entirely separated from the MOD and each other.

How many UK Military Fatal Air accident threads have to be posted here for that to be recognised and acted upon? How many lives must be needlessly lost and money wasted until that be recognised and acted upon? How many RAF VSO reputations must be protected before that is recognised and acted upon?

This scandal worsens with every death, with every lost air fleet, with every JO, SO, and Company reputation rubbished to protect these men. It is corrupting the Armed Forces and our ability to defend ourselves from those who would do us harm. Enough already!

Just This Once...

28th Nov 2018, 17:12

Of course they have to apply that training in the same way, otherwise it would be impossible for the civilian and military investigators to work together. If there was any nefarious actions on the military side you would have an in-place panel of experts on the civilian side that would be star witnesses in any court.

The RN Board President and the MAA went through the Red Arrows with a rake and exposed many issues and apparent wrongdoings within the team over the years. A few officers sat around for quite some time awaiting prosecution decisions. I don't think any of them thought they were subject to a soft process. The DE&S response was far less robust - this is the thread you need to pull on.

tucumseh

29th Nov 2018, 04:06

JTO

I was hoping someone would say the Panel and MilAAIB identified the serial violations, but they were withheld from the final report. Is that what you're saying? Parts of the report are indeed thorough and excellent, but my first year apprentice would have pointed out what's missing, which is always the bit to look for. Repair/maintenance/servicing is not complete until verified. The death of Sean Cunningham in one line, taught in your first week. The remainder of the report should have developed that, exposing the root causes.

It did not mention that the MAA was seriously conflicted, as it was directly involved in this root cause. The regulation requiring the Panel to go straight to PUS was not followed. It is unclear if the Panel recognised the violation, in which case it wouldn't have understood the implications and conflict. But, as I said, they didn't ask. And nothing in their individual background or training would prepare them for it. (Not a criticism, just a simple fact). They did criticise aspects of the violation (development of the RTI) but missed both that it was prohibited and the work it required bypassed the laid down servicing instructions, rendering the seat unsafe and unserviceable. They also missed the rather important fact that the information Martin-Baker were later accused of not providing had been provided, but an instruction issued to groundcrew not to use it. Reiterated two years after the accident. Given this conflict, was it proper for the MAA to provide the prosecution's 'star witness'? (HSE's words, to the BBC).

I agree there were failings in DE&S. Particularly, not having a valid Safety Case, and no Safety Case Report, for the seat and major components of it. (Not just the Hawk variant - Tornado also). But if I were DE&S, I'd point to the greater offence of being instructed in the past not to bother with them, and funding and manpower being pulled to make sure. And false declarations being made by the Air Staff they did exist. (Again, untrained, and poorly advised). The Service Inquiry just stopped at there being no Safety Case Report. Good spot, but how did the projects teams pass MAA audit? Another conflict. Also, the aforesaid star witness declared lack of Safety Cases was irrelevant to airworthiness. DE&S staff must be thoroughly confused, as were the courts.

Which of course doesn't get away from the fact M-B pleaded guilty to not providing information; information which the Judge quoted in her remarks, even naming the MoD official who signed the report. (Did the SI try to track him down? They didn't speak to other witnesses. Or Google and download the information it said couldn't be found).

These issues, and that described by Distant Voice, may seem separate cases. In fact, they share the same root causes and are recurring. One need only read the Nimrod and MoK Reviews.

Distant Voice

29th Nov 2018, 11:19

Armed Forces: Death:Written question - 194225Question
Asked by Martin Docherty-Hughes (https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/martin-docherty-hughes/4374)
(West Dunbartonshire)
Asked on: 21 November 2018
Ministry of Defence
Armed Forces: Death
194225
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what procedures were in place prior to the 2016 Fatal Accident Act coming into force to brief military personnel and their families on the lack of a mandatory requirement for a Fatal Accident Inquiry in Scotland for military deaths.

Answer
Answered by: Mr Tobias Ellwood (https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/mr-tobias-ellwood/1487)
Answered on: 28 November 2018 It has not been possible to establish what, if anything, military personnel and their families may have been told regarding the differences between the English and Scottish legal systems in the event of a death prior to the introduction of the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016. We can advise that such information is not included in briefing for military personnel and their families should they have been deployed to Scotland post 2016.

Distant Voice

17th Dec 2018, 14:03

In the skies over Coldstream Scotland, on 25th April 2018, a scenario developed that was reminiscent of that which led to the collision of two Tornado aircraft over the Moray Firth in 2012. On this occasion it involved two Hawk T1s and two Typhoons, and the outcome could have been catastrophic, involving deaths in the air and on the ground. The associated AIRPROX report states,
"During the investigation, the board noted that neither aircraft was fitted with a CWS. However, the Typhoon is to be fitted with Enhanced Collision Awareness System (ECAS) and Hawk funding has been approved for a yet to be determined CWS; date for introduction/completion of CWS systems into respective fleets was not available."

So Duty Holders are still playing the very dangerous ALARP (Temporal) game - it's ok to drive your car at night without headlights as long as you plan to fit them at some time in the future. This flawed understanding of safety regulations is the real killer and formed part of a case presented to the Lord Advocate to revisit the need for an Fatal Accident Inquiry into the Tornado. Unfortunately, so far, he has failed to grasp the fact that fitting some Tornado aircraft with TCAS does not deal with the overarching procedural problem. Furthermore, he asserts that this is not a public interest issue - tell the people of Coldstream that.

DV

airsound

17th Dec 2018, 14:31

Well done, DV - again. Keep up the very good work - more power to your elbow...

airsound

Distant Voice

17th Dec 2018, 16:36

more power to your elbow...

Thank you, In fact I need more money to bring a Judicial Review case against the Lord Advocate

DV

airsound

17th Dec 2018, 16:53

Are you crowd-funding?

airsound

ASRAAMTOO

17th Dec 2018, 18:09

So picture the scene in a Tornado crewroom a number of years ago or indeed in a Typhoon crewroom next week. Station Commander breaks the following to the crews:

"OK chaps, we have enough money to run 4 Squadrons of Typhoons if you are happy to look out of the window and hope for the best or we can fit collision warners to 3 squadrons of Typhoons. What shall we do?"

Wonder what the crews would say?

tucumseh

17th Dec 2018, 18:36

"OK chaps, we have enough money to run 4 Squadrons of Typhoons if you are happy to look out of the window and hope for the best or we can fit collision warners to 3 squadrons of Typhoons. What shall we do?"

Question doesn't arise. Affordability is not a legitimate consideration. And it is already known the cost is well within what MoD is permitted to consider. DV's point, I think, is that most would like to see the ALARP (Temporal) argument tested in court. To my knowledge, it is at least 33 years since MoD started looking at a CWS for Tornado. As that was a specific technology, I'm fairly certain that requirement would have been arrived at by previous work. That's a hell of a time to carry a known risk while claiming it is ALARP because it is under consideration. Co-incidentally, I've just received a letter today saying that one cannot make a complaint about such things if (in DV's example) one doesn't live in Coldstream. Which is a lovely place by the way.

Distant Voice

17th Dec 2018, 19:51

Are you crowd-funding?

Yes, but it is slow to take off. https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/james-jones-155

As tucumseh says, it is the only way that it can be tested in court. Having said that, I have it in writing from the MAA that ALARP (Temporal) does not exist.

DV

Timelord

17th Dec 2018, 20:11

I would like to hear the opinion of an air defender as to whether a CAS would actually make their lives safer. The system eventually fitted to GR4 was an off the shelf civil system designed for straight and level, single aircraft. Fitted to a fast jet manoeuvring hard and deliberately flying close to other aircraft in the formation it alarmed a lot. And as we know, learning to ignore such warnings is a bad thing. At least, however, the GR4 did not often deliberately fly intercept courses as AD aircraft do. Could it be that one more voice bitching in your ear might actually reduce safety?

orca

17th Dec 2018, 20:36

Hi Timelord - I never felt the need for one - but that doesn’t mean much. I’d certainly not want another voice in the cockpit. Perhaps a system you could disable Fencing In and enable Fencing Out?

FWIW I do believe that affordability is an issue. Money spent on a system - mandatory or discretionary, is money that can’t be spent elsewhere. Not saying it shouldn’t be spent on CWS, merely that if you want CWS something has to give.

ASRAAMTOO

18th Dec 2018, 14:30

Question doesn't arise. Affordability is not a legitimate consideration. And it is already known the cost is well within what MoD is permitted to consider. DV's point,.

Whilst laudable, this view really does not represent the real world. If money was spent on a CWS system then it would be money NOT spent elswhere. This would either reduce operational capability or perhaps have a knock on safety effect in another area that could in turn increase risk levels.

I am now somewhat out of touch but am reasonably confident that a CWS system that was effective and could protect aircraft engaging in Air Combat or LL affil WITHOUT producing unacceptable levels of false warnings was still out of reach, despite some considerable sums being spent on the problem.

tucumseh

18th Dec 2018, 15:23

ASRAMTOO

I don't disagree, although it does represent the real legal world. Those who have to deal with this daily in MoD have a difficult task. They look to very senior officers to engage with politicians to resolve these matters. I'd like to hear their side, and what was said the last time they sat with Minister. If they told him the truth (and I know one was told in 2011, but by a member of the public, with the regulatory authority present) then it is he who should be answering in court. That never happens, so might I suggest the entire air safety system is built on weak foundations if it cannot be implemented - or the regulatory authority supinely accepts that it is not implemented.

ASRAAMTOO

18th Dec 2018, 16:39

tucumseh

I would certainly agree with you that the military safety system has historically let us down. I think one of the areas where it has struggled ( as do many of us on Pprune) is in determining a senible balance between war and peace, especially when that war is undeclared.
Perhaps one of the reasons for this is simply an absence of balls. I think it would be entirely appropriate for a VSO to say:

"That aircraft is not as safe to fly as it should be and no short term fix is available, unfortunately the crew are taking a higher risk than I would normally accept. However in doing so they are saving many lives on the ground so it will continue to operate."

Conversly if the only reason an aircraft does not have an appropriate level of IFF and a box is available that could fix the problem fairly quickly but we are saving cash then the VSO should perhaps say " Cash up or the boys are off to the bar"

It seems that all too often VSOs are less than upfront because they fear the public consequences of command decisions.

So reviewing the various accidents over the past few years to try and determine the occassions where money invested, or decisions not taken might have saved lives is a good thing. Attempting to reduce risk to the levels of an airline would be a bad thing.