Glen Ogle Accident 1994
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: lincoln
Age: 63
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting read and considering I have not heard any of this before now I have to agree with Hempy and Skeleton, and why the calls to lock this thread were made I have no idea but it certainly made the whole incident more worth looking into.
Bill
(Ex rigger 14 yrs Tornado etc. etc. )
Bill
(Ex rigger 14 yrs Tornado etc. etc. )
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next meeting of the Justice Committee to take evidence for the FAI bill will be Tuesday 12th May. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service will be called. Look forward to their answers when approached about members of the Armed Services.
DV
DV
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now understand that Crown Office will not give evidence tomorrow (12th May). Their submission to the Justice Committee is delayed until 26th and will be supported by the Solicitor General.
DV
DV
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash on Bute today 9th August 2014
Have a look at the thread in Private Flying, and the AAIB report.
This flight started and ended in Scotland, resulted in a death.
This flight started and ended in Scotland, resulted in a death.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This flight started and ended in Scotland, resulted in a death.
DV:-
That would indeed be unfortunate, given that there are a number of airworthiness question marks hanging over this fatal air accident. However, as they are independent of each other it will be interesting what the AAIB investigation discovers, and what the CAA has to say about what the AAIB discovers, given that they are independent of each other that is...
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...th-august.html
...then it is not in the mandatory category for FAI.
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...th-august.html
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the lawyers succeed in the above scheme it will, perversely, be a kick in the teeth for all who want open and thorough investigation of air accidents (for all our disagreement, I place the OP in this category). The vast majority of safety incidents are self-reported and this will halt at a stroke if CVR evidence is grabbed for the purpose of criminal prosecution; particularly in cases such as the Super Puma where there is no suggestion by anyone of a crime having been committed.
The redaction of the Glen Ogle transcript provoked discussion. AAIB policy is that such transcripts are NOT published unless it contains evidence that bears on the cause of the accident. May I suggest the Glen Ogle redaction was merely following the same protocol rather than evidence of something to be hidden? Perhaps someone familiar with BOI procedure could confirm.
Footnote: the pilot who led the original pilots' union campaign for introduction of CVR's was the father of one of the MOK Chinook pilots. what a twist of fate that he should see his own son posthumously blamed for an accident with no CVR two decades later!
The redaction of the Glen Ogle transcript provoked discussion. AAIB policy is that such transcripts are NOT published unless it contains evidence that bears on the cause of the accident. May I suggest the Glen Ogle redaction was merely following the same protocol rather than evidence of something to be hidden? Perhaps someone familiar with BOI procedure could confirm.
Footnote: the pilot who led the original pilots' union campaign for introduction of CVR's was the father of one of the MOK Chinook pilots. what a twist of fate that he should see his own son posthumously blamed for an accident with no CVR two decades later!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watch and listen to the Solicitor General of Scotland and COPFS reply to FAI questions on Tuesday 26th May at Parliament TV - News & Media Centre : Scottish Parliament
The show starts at 10 am. Can also be watched later on play-back.
DV
The show starts at 10 am. Can also be watched later on play-back.
DV
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Preston
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not read the official report into this accident, is it in the public domain?
What I have read is that the jet rolled inverted, then full afterburner was selected. Is this correct? Trying to imagine what would cause anyone to do that.
Also, someone asked about elephants in the room- to which the obvious response must be, were they both chasing the same girl or not? Surely their chums would know?
What I have read is that the jet rolled inverted, then full afterburner was selected. Is this correct? Trying to imagine what would cause anyone to do that.
Also, someone asked about elephants in the room- to which the obvious response must be, were they both chasing the same girl or not? Surely their chums would know?
PM's mother accepted the findings of the BOI and I believe that his immediate family (four siblings) would have had no interest in a FAI.
Or any other form of muck raking for that matter. I knew his fiancé well and have no hesitation in stating my opinion that these "rumours" are nothing more than malicious gossip which appears to have originated from one particular cowardly and dishonourable source.
I didn't know RH or his family but can only express my deepest sympathy for them in their own loss.
What kind of person would repeat third hand rumours, about people that he didn't even know, and twenty years after the event, in order to make a cheap point about an entirely unrelated accident?
Last edited by Arthy347; 19th Apr 2016 at 09:21.
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would appear there is a lot of 'dancing around the elephant in the room'.
I heard the pilot and nav had a mutually-exclusive interest in their private lives. The pilot resolved their issue. It may be utter bollocks and I've no idea but that was the rumour I'd heard. As an ex-SFSO with some remaining contacts, it's a truism, where there's smoke there's usually combustion.
Don't expect anything but flak, but I agree the truth usually 'outs'. As for next-of-kin 'may visit' - do you really think they don't know?
Before the 'incoming' commences, I refer you to the title of this whole site - 'RUMOUR NETWORK'.
I heard the pilot and nav had a mutually-exclusive interest in their private lives. The pilot resolved their issue. It may be utter bollocks and I've no idea but that was the rumour I'd heard. As an ex-SFSO with some remaining contacts, it's a truism, where there's smoke there's usually combustion.
Don't expect anything but flak, but I agree the truth usually 'outs'. As for next-of-kin 'may visit' - do you really think they don't know?
Before the 'incoming' commences, I refer you to the title of this whole site - 'RUMOUR NETWORK'.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join pprune to resurrect an old thread in which most serving pilots had already registered their distate, in order to complain about content on said thread.
Talk about an exercise in foot shooting.
Do us all a favour folks and don't post below me...let it die again.
Talk about an exercise in foot shooting.
Do us all a favour folks and don't post below me...let it die again.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOFO, I don't think it is accurate to say that most pilots have expressed their distaste, in relation to the thread. Some folk find some of the suggestions a bit awkward, and some are probably disgusted at the allegations of improper conduct by the pilot.
However, the thread is about the failure of various branches of Government to examine, in a suitable forum (Public Inquiry or FAI or Inquest) the circumstances of how military aviators have lost their lives.
What are we about, if not freedom of speech? People should be allowed to ask. The fact that some are offended by the question is not relevant. Are we to protect civil servants who signed off defective aircraft, because looking into the results might open a different can of worms?
To let this thread die, would be IMHO a mistake. Perhaps a new thread could be opened, with a less contentious title, but shortly thereafter we will be back here, because the Glen Ogle crash, whatever the cause, should have been investigated.
However, the thread is about the failure of various branches of Government to examine, in a suitable forum (Public Inquiry or FAI or Inquest) the circumstances of how military aviators have lost their lives.
What are we about, if not freedom of speech? People should be allowed to ask. The fact that some are offended by the question is not relevant. Are we to protect civil servants who signed off defective aircraft, because looking into the results might open a different can of worms?
To let this thread die, would be IMHO a mistake. Perhaps a new thread could be opened, with a less contentious title, but shortly thereafter we will be back here, because the Glen Ogle crash, whatever the cause, should have been investigated.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PM's mother accepted the findings of the BOI and I believe that his immediate family (four siblings) would have had no interest in a FAI.
DV
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PM's mother accepted the findings of the BOI and I believe that his immediate family (four siblings) would have had no interest in a FAI.
This is not about one family any more than it is about one crash. The great unwashed would want this changed, if only we could get them to care, enough to understand what is being done so badly.
The rumours and fears are just part of it. The lack of a proper enquiry has also encouraged a false sense of safety in military aviation.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Writing as a retired barrister, whom during my career was involved in all sorts of 'sensitive' enquiries and born the son of a Royal Air Force pilot who flew military a/c until the age of 64 and the step son of former WRAF S/L, I disagree.
I most certainly do NOT think it is (or in this case -was some twenty years ago) in the public interest to hold any form of public enquiry into the circumstances of this tragic accident.
Even assuming there had been such an enquiry, the speculation posted on this thread most certainly should NOT have been given the oxygen of a public hearing and should have either been heard in camera or not at all.
Many decisions, for example in respect as to whether or not there should be criminal proceedings in any given case have to be measured against the public interest test/
I cannot see any circumstances where the speculation discussed here could pass that test.
What the public believe they are entitled to know and what the MoD decide they are entitled to know do not always coincide especially when they pertain to the defence of the realm and military operations overseas. The purpose of the Official Secrets Act is to ensure that state of affairs.
The Chinook crash was entirely different. The question there was whether the accident inevitably led to a finding of 'gross negligence' by those flying the helicopter.
Lord Philips, a brilliant and very highly regarded former Senior Lord of Appeal concluded that the Senior Royal Air Force Officers applied the wrong test and that they could not have excluded the possibility of a systems failure. That question does not arise here.
I most certainly do NOT think it is (or in this case -was some twenty years ago) in the public interest to hold any form of public enquiry into the circumstances of this tragic accident.
Even assuming there had been such an enquiry, the speculation posted on this thread most certainly should NOT have been given the oxygen of a public hearing and should have either been heard in camera or not at all.
Many decisions, for example in respect as to whether or not there should be criminal proceedings in any given case have to be measured against the public interest test/
I cannot see any circumstances where the speculation discussed here could pass that test.
What the public believe they are entitled to know and what the MoD decide they are entitled to know do not always coincide especially when they pertain to the defence of the realm and military operations overseas. The purpose of the Official Secrets Act is to ensure that state of affairs.
The Chinook crash was entirely different. The question there was whether the accident inevitably led to a finding of 'gross negligence' by those flying the helicopter.
Lord Philips, a brilliant and very highly regarded former Senior Lord of Appeal concluded that the Senior Royal Air Force Officers applied the wrong test and that they could not have excluded the possibility of a systems failure. That question does not arise here.
Roving
I'm not sure the call is for a public inquiry, but a Fatal Accident Inquiry (the broad equivalent of a Coroner's Inquest) to hear the evidence. As Distant Voice has said, the Lord Advocate's office in Edinburgh has abrogated its responsibility to deceased servicemen for too long.
I agree about the speculation. One solution would be for MoD to release the tapes. I'm afraid MoD has a long history of releasing selected excerpts which distort events. This would probably upset families, but I can't speak for them. And nor does MoD.
Regarding Lord Philip, while he mentioned that the Air Marshals applied the wrong test, his central point was that the aircraft was not airworthy, and Air Vice Marshal Bagnall was not permitted to sign the Release to Service. MoD later conceded this, admitting that the aircraft only had a ground training and familiarisation clearance.
The link here to the Chinook case is the accident dates. It was claimed by Lord Philip and Government that the Marshals did not truly understand the legal test, while ignoring that the Senior Reviewing Officer (Wratten) was at the same time considering the Glen Ogle case, in which he clearly demonstrated he did understand the test. That is, he sought to apply his own test to Chinook, in an effort to justify his findings against the deceased pilots. As a barrister, you will know better than I how courts would view such actions, if carried out by civilians judges.
It is not widely known that these claims by MoD and Government were wholly refuted by the author of the test (Air Cdre D Hine) in written evidence to Lord Philip, when he reported that senior officers complained to him that the "no doubt" test was reducing their power. That Lord Philip omitted this evidence, and allowed Government to repeat the lies, was one of the least savoury aspects of his report.
Bottom line. Neither case is closed, because MoD and the state have not met legal obligations.
I'm not sure the call is for a public inquiry, but a Fatal Accident Inquiry (the broad equivalent of a Coroner's Inquest) to hear the evidence. As Distant Voice has said, the Lord Advocate's office in Edinburgh has abrogated its responsibility to deceased servicemen for too long.
I agree about the speculation. One solution would be for MoD to release the tapes. I'm afraid MoD has a long history of releasing selected excerpts which distort events. This would probably upset families, but I can't speak for them. And nor does MoD.
Regarding Lord Philip, while he mentioned that the Air Marshals applied the wrong test, his central point was that the aircraft was not airworthy, and Air Vice Marshal Bagnall was not permitted to sign the Release to Service. MoD later conceded this, admitting that the aircraft only had a ground training and familiarisation clearance.
The link here to the Chinook case is the accident dates. It was claimed by Lord Philip and Government that the Marshals did not truly understand the legal test, while ignoring that the Senior Reviewing Officer (Wratten) was at the same time considering the Glen Ogle case, in which he clearly demonstrated he did understand the test. That is, he sought to apply his own test to Chinook, in an effort to justify his findings against the deceased pilots. As a barrister, you will know better than I how courts would view such actions, if carried out by civilians judges.
It is not widely known that these claims by MoD and Government were wholly refuted by the author of the test (Air Cdre D Hine) in written evidence to Lord Philip, when he reported that senior officers complained to him that the "no doubt" test was reducing their power. That Lord Philip omitted this evidence, and allowed Government to repeat the lies, was one of the least savoury aspects of his report.
Bottom line. Neither case is closed, because MoD and the state have not met legal obligations.
They are, more correctly, called facts:
- I did listen to the CVR.
- I did know the rumours were not true in any way.
- I did know and fly alongside the pilot in question.
- I did salute him at his graveside.
Public Interest is not the same as 'interesting to the public'.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many fast jet pilots who were flying in 1994, are still flying fast jets?
I do not subscribe to the view that the "people" and especially the snowflake generation, have a right to 'know'.
Why stop with just these two incidents, why not re-open the Vulcan crash at Heathrow after all it was only 61 years ago? Surely the snowflakes are entitled to know who actually was in control when it crashed.
For that matter why not re-investigate the decision to bomb Nuremberg in March 1944, after all 95 planes were lost and 545 aircrew were killed.
I do not subscribe to the view that the "people" and especially the snowflake generation, have a right to 'know'.
Why stop with just these two incidents, why not re-open the Vulcan crash at Heathrow after all it was only 61 years ago? Surely the snowflakes are entitled to know who actually was in control when it crashed.
For that matter why not re-investigate the decision to bomb Nuremberg in March 1944, after all 95 planes were lost and 545 aircrew were killed.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roving, if the cause is not properly investigated, it might well happen again, to pilots who have yet to join the RAF.
We, the great unwashed, do not have a right to know, but we do have a right to someone knowing. Someone with noting to gain by lying or hiding. Someone of substance and integrity.
If the stories are true, that will go along way to reinforcing the idea that the aircraft is/was safe. If untrue then what did cause it to spear into the ground, and who would benefit most from starting the stories?
We, the great unwashed, do not have a right to know, but we do have a right to someone knowing. Someone with noting to gain by lying or hiding. Someone of substance and integrity.
If the stories are true, that will go along way to reinforcing the idea that the aircraft is/was safe. If untrue then what did cause it to spear into the ground, and who would benefit most from starting the stories?