RAF Rivet Joint
This forum (Military Aircrew) is like MoD in microcosm.
After spending years becoming a "Suitably Qualified and Experienced Person" (which notably excludes proven competence, but that's MoD for you) you are granted Airworthiness & Technical and Financial Approval Delegation. (Two different, but related things). Your letters of delegation spell out your legal obligation, and point you to the laws that say how long you can be imprisoned for if you fail in that obligation.
At no point does your delegation permit you to waive this obligation just because aircrew don't want you to implement the safety regulations.
Then an Unsuitable, Unqualified and Inexperienced (and incompetent) Person self-delegates and instructs you to ignore your legal obligation, ordering you to make false written declarations, exposing yourself to legal action.
When you meet your legal obligation and refuse, he has a hissy fit and runs to his boss, the very man who has granted you your delegation. The boss delegates the matter downwards and instructs the UN-SQEP to judge his own case. He rules in his own favour.
You escalate, in accordance with the regulations. At each stage you are simply going back up through the airworthiness chain, with the odd diversion into Personnel. At each stage, all the way to PUS, you are knocked back. How dare you try to keep our aircrew safe. You MUST obey the order to commit fraud. The disciplinary action taken against you stands, and will remain in your personnel record for all time.
On the occasions (plural) it happened to me, the airworthiness chain was (dis)graced by, variously, Senior Captain (RN), Commodore (RN), Retired Admiral (RN) - by now the Chief of Defence Procurement, Air Commodore and Air Vice Marshal. To be fair to the Senior Service, they only gave me a formal warning. The Junior Service threatened dismissal. The action they took was immaterial; the point is they took action against those who sought to protect aircrew, and aircrew died. The direct linkage was accepted by Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip, and various Coroners.
But, if that's who you want looking after your skin, then I'd love to be a fly on the wall if you showed your family this post and the fully verifiable evidence.
After spending years becoming a "Suitably Qualified and Experienced Person" (which notably excludes proven competence, but that's MoD for you) you are granted Airworthiness & Technical and Financial Approval Delegation. (Two different, but related things). Your letters of delegation spell out your legal obligation, and point you to the laws that say how long you can be imprisoned for if you fail in that obligation.
At no point does your delegation permit you to waive this obligation just because aircrew don't want you to implement the safety regulations.
Then an Unsuitable, Unqualified and Inexperienced (and incompetent) Person self-delegates and instructs you to ignore your legal obligation, ordering you to make false written declarations, exposing yourself to legal action.
When you meet your legal obligation and refuse, he has a hissy fit and runs to his boss, the very man who has granted you your delegation. The boss delegates the matter downwards and instructs the UN-SQEP to judge his own case. He rules in his own favour.
You escalate, in accordance with the regulations. At each stage you are simply going back up through the airworthiness chain, with the odd diversion into Personnel. At each stage, all the way to PUS, you are knocked back. How dare you try to keep our aircrew safe. You MUST obey the order to commit fraud. The disciplinary action taken against you stands, and will remain in your personnel record for all time.
On the occasions (plural) it happened to me, the airworthiness chain was (dis)graced by, variously, Senior Captain (RN), Commodore (RN), Retired Admiral (RN) - by now the Chief of Defence Procurement, Air Commodore and Air Vice Marshal. To be fair to the Senior Service, they only gave me a formal warning. The Junior Service threatened dismissal. The action they took was immaterial; the point is they took action against those who sought to protect aircrew, and aircrew died. The direct linkage was accepted by Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip, and various Coroners.
But, if that's who you want looking after your skin, then I'd love to be a fly on the wall if you showed your family this post and the fully verifiable evidence.
tuc,
Is it not also an offence to obey an illegal order ? I seem to recall that this was so in English Common Law long before the Nuremburg trials made it explicit.
Is it not also an offence to obey an illegal order ? I seem to recall that this was so in English Common Law long before the Nuremburg trials made it explicit.
I've been reading cpants' book.
What particularly impressed me is the fact the US "system" acknowledges the concept of civilian staffs being unfairly disciplined for meeting legal obligations, and provides various independent redress routes. In MoD, the system simply cannot cope with such a concept and permits offenders to judge their own case. Yes, you can pursue redress to PUS, the final arbiter (you are expected to resign if you disagree with his decision), but in practice PUS simply sends it back down to the offender to uphold his original ruling. So, PUS is seldom seen to actually issue a decision.
There is one notorious and well known exception. The victim (ex-RAF, then civvy Principal/Grade 7) appealed to the Cabinet Secretary, who over-ruled PUS and awarded an enhanced pension as compensation. However, the Cabinet Secretary is no longer Head of the Home Civil Service; that is now a separate post and the incumbent Sir Robert Kerslake has reverted to type and ruled refusal to commit fraud is an offence. In writing. Got the letter.
Also, early on, cpants hints at making recordings of interviews at which he was bullied and harassed.
I was once told by a V senior RN officer, if someone lies to you, record all subsequent conversations. I have some very interesting ones, including one of the VSOs I mentioned above acknowledging I had been instructed to commit an offence, that the person issuing the order had done no wrong, whereas I was guilty as charged because I'd refused to commit fraud. MoD deny this interview took place. 
Which is another reason for recording it. When I asked for the minutes, the minutes secretary had been mysteriously posted. Much to her relief probably. Who'd want to work for Baker?
What particularly impressed me is the fact the US "system" acknowledges the concept of civilian staffs being unfairly disciplined for meeting legal obligations, and provides various independent redress routes. In MoD, the system simply cannot cope with such a concept and permits offenders to judge their own case. Yes, you can pursue redress to PUS, the final arbiter (you are expected to resign if you disagree with his decision), but in practice PUS simply sends it back down to the offender to uphold his original ruling. So, PUS is seldom seen to actually issue a decision.
There is one notorious and well known exception. The victim (ex-RAF, then civvy Principal/Grade 7) appealed to the Cabinet Secretary, who over-ruled PUS and awarded an enhanced pension as compensation. However, the Cabinet Secretary is no longer Head of the Home Civil Service; that is now a separate post and the incumbent Sir Robert Kerslake has reverted to type and ruled refusal to commit fraud is an offence. In writing. Got the letter.
Also, early on, cpants hints at making recordings of interviews at which he was bullied and harassed.
I was once told by a V senior RN officer, if someone lies to you, record all subsequent conversations. I have some very interesting ones, including one of the VSOs I mentioned above acknowledging I had been instructed to commit an offence, that the person issuing the order had done no wrong, whereas I was guilty as charged because I'd refused to commit fraud. MoD deny this interview took place. Which is another reason for recording it. When I asked for the minutes, the minutes secretary had been mysteriously posted. Much to her relief probably. Who'd want to work for Baker?
ancient
Correct. But in the above cases it has been formally ruled no illegal order has been issued, and God+1 has said so. Due to the process I describe, you go round in circles as the issuer of the order is the one who decides if it is legal. It is probably easier to fight such a case if you are a serviceman?
Correct. But in the above cases it has been formally ruled no illegal order has been issued, and God+1 has said so. Due to the process I describe, you go round in circles as the issuer of the order is the one who decides if it is legal. It is probably easier to fight such a case if you are a serviceman?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug2
Tourist, we've threads here on the Reds 0/0 ejection (1), the Sea Kings' collision (7), the Tornado blue on blue (2), the Hercules in Iraq (10), the Nimrod in Afghanistan (14), and of course the Mull Chinook (29), and that's your conclusion?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
"Is it not also an offence to obey an illegal order ? I seem to recall that this was so in English Common Law long before the Nuremburg trials made it explicit."
Yes, but you may well get the comment in your ACR "...is overly rule-bound" after asking your Boss (politely) to switch off his non-authorised personal laptop during flight! (the more immediate response was to tell me to "f*** O**").
Yes, but you may well get the comment in your ACR "...is overly rule-bound" after asking your Boss (politely) to switch off his non-authorised personal laptop during flight! (the more immediate response was to tell me to "f*** O**").
cgb, you are quite right, we do not know why 29 people died on the Mull, principally because it was investigated by a compromised BoI (ask the CAS!) which in any case was overruled by the operator (thank God the civvies can't do that). The point I was making to Tourist is that the aircraft was Grossly Unairworthy and 29 people died in it. Its unairworthiness was not even considered a possibility as a cause by the BoI, giving us some clue as to the degree of that compromise.
I have already raised my concern and bewilderment that those fighting the Wratten and Day infamous finding discounted airworthiness also. Are the Armed Services now given a lecture following attestation about the evils of airworthy aircraft? Some of the hostility raised by those challenging airworthiness beggars belief. It is cheaper simply to retain fully qualified airworthiness engineers and have them implement the Regulations than have the present system whereby they have been got rid of and their places taken by the unqualified, inexperienced, obedient, and pliant. Simply finding fault in the crew in the inevitable subsequent fatal accidents fools fewer and fewer. Of course you have a right to your beliefs, but the RAF has a right to airworthy aircraft. If it went to war now in a hostile air environment it would be 1939 all over again IMHO.
I have already raised my concern and bewilderment that those fighting the Wratten and Day infamous finding discounted airworthiness also. Are the Armed Services now given a lecture following attestation about the evils of airworthy aircraft? Some of the hostility raised by those challenging airworthiness beggars belief. It is cheaper simply to retain fully qualified airworthiness engineers and have them implement the Regulations than have the present system whereby they have been got rid of and their places taken by the unqualified, inexperienced, obedient, and pliant. Simply finding fault in the crew in the inevitable subsequent fatal accidents fools fewer and fewer. Of course you have a right to your beliefs, but the RAF has a right to airworthy aircraft. If it went to war now in a hostile air environment it would be 1939 all over again IMHO.
If it went to war now in a hostile air environment it would be 1939 all over again
Cows Getting Bigger - Re post 575 – and also referring back to your post 528.
Would it be too disingenuous to suggest that if the 'airworthiness system' had worked 'properly' as some here would wish, the Chinook RTS might possibly have been withheld pro tem (ie - it would not have been released to squadron service) while certain issues were examined ? If so, is it then a step too far to suggest that that specific flight would not have taken place on that specific day and therefore that specific accident would not have occurred – might never have occurred - at least not in the circumstances and terms we know about ?
LFH
Would it be too disingenuous to suggest that if the 'airworthiness system' had worked 'properly' as some here would wish, the Chinook RTS might possibly have been withheld pro tem (ie - it would not have been released to squadron service) while certain issues were examined ? If so, is it then a step too far to suggest that that specific flight would not have taken place on that specific day and therefore that specific accident would not have occurred – might never have occurred - at least not in the circumstances and terms we know about ?
LFH
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chug, I think we are both barking up the same tree albeit from opposite sides. It is my view that there has to be some 'wriggle room' within the airworthiness system. Taking my previous example of not being allowed to stick a red cross on the side of an SH asset, it is clear that the tail was wagging the dog. There was not safety or capability related issue in that scenario but the Hels staff in the UK were clearly process driven and would not issue an authorisation until the defined process was followed; we were task driven and took the 'risk' in ignoring the UK directive.
OK, that relatively small issue does not even compare to Nimrods in Afghanistan or Chinooks which should have been locked-up in hangars rather than playing in the mist with a load of important people on board. However, it does make one wonder whether the processes are fit for purpose.
Lordflash, how far do we take that argument? Should I not pop down to the shops at risk of being knocked down? My point about the Mk2 and the Mull is that it may have been a Mk1 instead - we just don't know. The only truly safe answer was to never task any asset in the first place.
OK, that relatively small issue does not even compare to Nimrods in Afghanistan or Chinooks which should have been locked-up in hangars rather than playing in the mist with a load of important people on board. However, it does make one wonder whether the processes are fit for purpose.
Lordflash, how far do we take that argument? Should I not pop down to the shops at risk of being knocked down? My point about the Mk2 and the Mull is that it may have been a Mk1 instead - we just don't know. The only truly safe answer was to never task any asset in the first place.
Chug, that is slightly disingenuous. Just as there isn't enough evidence to say that the Mull crash was gross negligence on behalf of the pilots, there is also a lack of evidence that (un)airworthiness caused the crash. Please don't use the Mull as an example of how people have died due to a failure of the airworthiness system; we simply cannot make that assumption.
RP
I'm sure that much the same was thought by the heroic crews of the Battles and Blenheims pre '39. As I said, it is only my honest opinion and I pray that I be proved wrong were that day ever to come. My fear though is that the RAF would be then revealed to be what I now suspect, thoroughly riddled with unairworthiness. Who would have thought that an Emergency Escape System of all things could turn out to be unairworthy!
My list of Fatal Airworthiness Related Accidents in which 63 died had enemy presence in only one instance. Talk about doing their work for them! I'm afraid that the flat earthers will only be proved wrong after the event. At least in the last big bit unpleasantness we had time to introduce self sealing tanks, armoured windscreens, armour plating behind pilots, etc, in the light of bitter experience. Next time it will be decided 'as is' I suspect. The MAA do not even know what the 'as is' is though. Time to get UK Military Airworthiness sorted, not forever sabotaged!
I'm not quite sure why any of the aircraft that have operated successfully in those relatively benign environments would be any less successful in a more hostile operation??
My list of Fatal Airworthiness Related Accidents in which 63 died had enemy presence in only one instance. Talk about doing their work for them! I'm afraid that the flat earthers will only be proved wrong after the event. At least in the last big bit unpleasantness we had time to introduce self sealing tanks, armoured windscreens, armour plating behind pilots, etc, in the light of bitter experience. Next time it will be decided 'as is' I suspect. The MAA do not even know what the 'as is' is though. Time to get UK Military Airworthiness sorted, not forever sabotaged!
cgb:-
Just how much wriggle room do you want? tuc has already confirmed that it is official MOD policy, confirmed up to SoS level, that it is correct to issue an order to suborn UK Military Airworthiness, ie to disregard the Regulations but sign that they have been complied with, and that it is a disciplinary offence to disobey such an order. Surely that is sufficient for any coach and horse combination that the MOD has in mind?
The MAA? I suspect that they are about to realise just how peripheral they are in such matters...
It is my view that there has to be some 'wriggle room' within the airworthiness system.
The MAA? I suspect that they are about to realise just how peripheral they are in such matters...
I'm sure that much the same was thought by the heroic crews of the Battles and Blenheims pre '39
I think you are confusing operational capability with airworthiness - 2 very different things. Those Blenheims and Battles were probably very airworthy, but they were just outclassed by the opposition's capabilities.
Well, I wasn't RP, merely pointing out that both then and in my future scenario the RAF could be flying aircraft unfit for purpose, for whatever reasons. Your aircraft can only be destroyed once whether it be because it is too slow, unable to defend itself, or self destructs with the entry of a small calibre round into its vitals, or entirely on its own unaided.
I take your point that you make, mine is that it would be entirely theoretical if the day is lost anyway.
I take your point that you make, mine is that it would be entirely theoretical if the day is lost anyway.
Didn't the Argosy (of all aircraft) actually have self-sealing tanks, in contrast to the Herc?
If so, why the difference, all those years ago?
If so, why the difference, all those years ago?
The Hercules wing was a clean sheet design from the late 1940's early 1950's.
VX275,
Ah, yes , many thanks, I do remember the early Shacks' bag tanks.
My question came from a remark I heard at Cottesmore in the early 70's when an Argosy man stated that he would rather not be in a Herc. in a combat zone as it did not have self-sealing tanks, unlike his steed.
Unfortunately it seems to have been a prescient remark.
Ah, yes , many thanks, I do remember the early Shacks' bag tanks.
My question came from a remark I heard at Cottesmore in the early 70's when an Argosy man stated that he would rather not be in a Herc. in a combat zone as it did not have self-sealing tanks, unlike his steed.
Unfortunately it seems to have been a prescient remark.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
If you wanted dodgy fuel tanks then you couldn't beat the Fairey Fawn from 1926. The over-wing tanks would leak all over the pilot and with sparks coming from the exhausts..... No wonder that the regular RAF decided to keep its DH9As and handed the Fawns over to the Reseve Squadrons in the UK. (This one from 503 Special Reserve Sqn at Waddington).
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...rather not be in a Herc. in a combat zone as it did not have self-sealing tanks, unlike his steed.