RN Sea King Collision - Inquest Opens
Thread Starter
RN Sea King Collision - Inquest Opens
I see the coroner’s inquest into the collision between two RN Sea Kings in 2003 has opened in Oxford.
I think the standard of reporting in the media is appalling. It seems not one of them has read the Board of Inquiry report. The recommendations in the report are interesting but perhaps most illuminating are the bits that are blanked out. Not that you need to be a genius to fill them in.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/564AA...i_sea_king.pdf
Not much comment here on this subject. Is it taboo for some reason?
I think the standard of reporting in the media is appalling. It seems not one of them has read the Board of Inquiry report. The recommendations in the report are interesting but perhaps most illuminating are the bits that are blanked out. Not that you need to be a genius to fill them in.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/564AA...i_sea_king.pdf
Not much comment here on this subject. Is it taboo for some reason?
Derv
Thank you for the link. That report has been hard to find.
As you say, very illuminating. Good choice of word, given the criticism of the warning lights and protocols. Doesn’t seem very wise to have to switch off an anti collision device in darkness. Perhaps a pilot would comment? Reading between the lines, and noting the Service Deviation that’s mentioned, this smacks of a Service Engineered Modification that hasn’t been trialled properly. And although it doesn’t use these precise words, the report raises the age old issue of unverified read across between different Mks of aircraft. I can’t see a PE project manager or Westland ticking the box on what the report describes or read across. You’ll probably find this strobe light wasn’t in the trials aircraft. Whatever, they seem very nervous about it, as most references to “HISL” are blanked out.
The report makes numerous recommendations. ADRs. Where have we heard that one before? At least the SK had some form of recorder, although not intended to be crashworthy. In fact, reading the recommendations, I’d say most are complete no-brainers and have probably been recommended in the past but rejected or unfunded.
Although unrelated to the accident, I find para 86 interesting. “It can be assumed JTIDS and Mode 4 IFF were functioning: they are “mission critical items” without which the aircraft captain is unlikely to have launched on the sortie”. If by “functioning” the RN mean a serviceable IFF with all its functions fully integrated with other aircraft systems (and they do), then the board members have been very brave taking this lone stance, contradicting both the RAF and senior MoD/DPA staffs who have ruled this unnecessary. The following day a Tornado was shot down by a Patriot battery. That BOI recommended the Mode 4 IFF be integrated properly.
Agree with your comment about the press. Gone quiet for a couple of days.
Thank you for the link. That report has been hard to find.
As you say, very illuminating. Good choice of word, given the criticism of the warning lights and protocols. Doesn’t seem very wise to have to switch off an anti collision device in darkness. Perhaps a pilot would comment? Reading between the lines, and noting the Service Deviation that’s mentioned, this smacks of a Service Engineered Modification that hasn’t been trialled properly. And although it doesn’t use these precise words, the report raises the age old issue of unverified read across between different Mks of aircraft. I can’t see a PE project manager or Westland ticking the box on what the report describes or read across. You’ll probably find this strobe light wasn’t in the trials aircraft. Whatever, they seem very nervous about it, as most references to “HISL” are blanked out.
The report makes numerous recommendations. ADRs. Where have we heard that one before? At least the SK had some form of recorder, although not intended to be crashworthy. In fact, reading the recommendations, I’d say most are complete no-brainers and have probably been recommended in the past but rejected or unfunded.
Although unrelated to the accident, I find para 86 interesting. “It can be assumed JTIDS and Mode 4 IFF were functioning: they are “mission critical items” without which the aircraft captain is unlikely to have launched on the sortie”. If by “functioning” the RN mean a serviceable IFF with all its functions fully integrated with other aircraft systems (and they do), then the board members have been very brave taking this lone stance, contradicting both the RAF and senior MoD/DPA staffs who have ruled this unnecessary. The following day a Tornado was shot down by a Patriot battery. That BOI recommended the Mode 4 IFF be integrated properly.
Agree with your comment about the press. Gone quiet for a couple of days.
Thread Starter
Sorry, long post for me.
I’ve always had an interest in this accident because I knew one of the guys slightly and partly because I know MoD blame the civvy who managed the project.
The report commissioned by a family and their MP has been circulated though not published. It's a shocker.
My summary,
Whoever prepared the RTS and whoever signed it knew SFA about ASaC Mk7.
I hope those who knew all the answers to the questions posed by the BOI but said nothing get what’s coming.
One paragraph is brilliant for its black humour.
One witness is questioned at great length, by both Coroner and QC, about events on HMS Ark Royal. He presents as extremely knowledgeable and competent. Then, a family member asks him to confirm where he was at the time of the events he describes so well. “Actually, I was in bed”. There are simply no words to describe what one feels when listening to this. But the Coroner seems content. Would it not have been better to call a witness who was actually on duty, awake and at his post?
I’ve always had an interest in this accident because I knew one of the guys slightly and partly because I know MoD blame the civvy who managed the project.
The report commissioned by a family and their MP has been circulated though not published. It's a shocker.
My summary,
Whoever prepared the RTS and whoever signed it knew SFA about ASaC Mk7.
I hope those who knew all the answers to the questions posed by the BOI but said nothing get what’s coming.
One paragraph is brilliant for its black humour.
One witness is questioned at great length, by both Coroner and QC, about events on HMS Ark Royal. He presents as extremely knowledgeable and competent. Then, a family member asks him to confirm where he was at the time of the events he describes so well. “Actually, I was in bed”. There are simply no words to describe what one feels when listening to this. But the Coroner seems content. Would it not have been better to call a witness who was actually on duty, awake and at his post?
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember this very bleak morning only too well. I could never understand how the news was leaked so quickly (paragraph 31 in the BOI report) to the UK TV stations and why they chose to report it there and then, knowing the frightening shock it would be to so many families. It disturbed me almost as much as the incident, if only for the worry it would have caused so many people.
I know we need the press, but sometimes I think of them in the same way that we need worms in the dungheap.
Anyway, RIP.
I know we need the press, but sometimes I think of them in the same way that we need worms in the dungheap.
Anyway, RIP.
HS,
Indeed - walked out of my cabin on skid row and the one next to mine had the 'police don't cross' tape over it. I'd landed at 0100 or so the previous night, felt the boat accelerate in my scratcher but didn't find out what had happened till I got to the Wardroom....sad, sad day.....
Indeed - walked out of my cabin on skid row and the one next to mine had the 'police don't cross' tape over it. I'd landed at 0100 or so the previous night, felt the boat accelerate in my scratcher but didn't find out what had happened till I got to the Wardroom....sad, sad day.....
