Loss of Hercules XC193 on 27th May 1993
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
falcon900 you say,
In order to change the law, in this case the Fatal Accident and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976, we have to show where and how it is failing. The current Bill to change the Act started back in 2009 with a review by Lord Cullen. Between then and early May 2015, neither Lord Cullen, nor any member of the Justice Committee or Government was aware of the Crown Office's interpretation of "employee", and how it affected members of the Armed Services. That is the fact of the case. The "spirit" in which the Act was drawn up, back in 1976, was to cover all work related deaths. However, because the words "employed" and "self employed" were used in the final document the Crown Office at some point in time decided to apply the "letter" of the law. Lord Cullen in his review refers to them as work related deaths.
The Justice Committee will produce their findings and make recommendations by the end of this month. By highlighting a few cases it has been possible to demomstrate how distorted the interpretation of "employed" has become when applied to members of the Armed Services. It is totally illogical, and fails the "reasonable person" test. By "dredging up histrorical aircraft losses", through this Forum, it has been possible to should how rediculous and inconsitant the current situation is.
DV
The point I am trying to make is that there seems little to be achieved by dredging up historic aircraft losses to evidence a position which is already 100% established as fact.
The Justice Committee will produce their findings and make recommendations by the end of this month. By highlighting a few cases it has been possible to demomstrate how distorted the interpretation of "employed" has become when applied to members of the Armed Services. It is totally illogical, and fails the "reasonable person" test. By "dredging up histrorical aircraft losses", through this Forum, it has been possible to should how rediculous and inconsitant the current situation is.
DV
Last edited by Distant Voice; 20th Jun 2015 at 12:49.
DV,
It would seem that we are having a storm of agreement here regarding the substantive aspects of the issue, but I would again suggest that there is a far more straightforward way to have occasioned the debate which you apparently sought on this forum.
The facts of the matter are not complicated, and are clearly easily understood by readers of the forum. Why start threads purporting to relate to particular aircraft lost in Scotland enquiring whether a FAI was held when you know perfectly well that it wasn't, and the reason why not? Your own posts demonstrate that you know the answer to the question, as well as all of the aircraft losses affected. Would it not have been more straightforward to have outlined the issue at the outset, citing the list of aircraft losses which have been affected? I suspect you would have been pleased with the extent of the support, and would not have had any of the negative comments.
In any event, it seems that we are unlikely to agree, and in truth it matters little compared to the importance of the core issue. Heres hoping the Justice committee decide to act.
It would seem that we are having a storm of agreement here regarding the substantive aspects of the issue, but I would again suggest that there is a far more straightforward way to have occasioned the debate which you apparently sought on this forum.
The facts of the matter are not complicated, and are clearly easily understood by readers of the forum. Why start threads purporting to relate to particular aircraft lost in Scotland enquiring whether a FAI was held when you know perfectly well that it wasn't, and the reason why not? Your own posts demonstrate that you know the answer to the question, as well as all of the aircraft losses affected. Would it not have been more straightforward to have outlined the issue at the outset, citing the list of aircraft losses which have been affected? I suspect you would have been pleased with the extent of the support, and would not have had any of the negative comments.
In any event, it seems that we are unlikely to agree, and in truth it matters little compared to the importance of the core issue. Heres hoping the Justice committee decide to act.
f900:-
I can only speak for myself, and that is to say that the reason that I am in the habit of
is to highlight the shortcomings in their original investigation by the aircraft operator, aka the MOD and its subsidiaries. Hundreds of bereaved families have been fed half truths and downright lies over the years, mainly in a constant attempt by the MOD to cover up an extensive and co-ordinated attack on UK Military Air Safety. Not, as one might imagine, in the misguided attempt to save money that it started out as, but rather to cover up the gross incompetence and malevolence of the VSOs (mostly RAF) that orchestrated the attack in the first place.
Given that the MOD is judge, jury, and executioner of its own case, the possibilities to expose this cover up, and its continuing debilitating effects on UK Military Air Safety are very limited (because until the attack on Air Safety provision is admitted it cannot begin to be reformed). That is why inquests and FAIs are so important in bringing about that necessary reform. That is why they are avoided at all costs by the MOD if it is in its powers to do so. That is why DV's efforts to get FAIs held into UK Military Fatal Accidents in Scotland are so important.
If you agree, might I suggest a little less counting of pin head fairies and rather more support for him?
there seems little to be achieved by dredging up historic aircraft losses to evidence a position which is already 100% established as fact.
dredging up historic aircraft losses
Given that the MOD is judge, jury, and executioner of its own case, the possibilities to expose this cover up, and its continuing debilitating effects on UK Military Air Safety are very limited (because until the attack on Air Safety provision is admitted it cannot begin to be reformed). That is why inquests and FAIs are so important in bringing about that necessary reform. That is why they are avoided at all costs by the MOD if it is in its powers to do so. That is why DV's efforts to get FAIs held into UK Military Fatal Accidents in Scotland are so important.
If you agree, might I suggest a little less counting of pin head fairies and rather more support for him?
Given that the MOD is judge, jury, and executioner of its own case, the possibilities to expose this cover up, and its continuing debilitating effects on UK Military Air Safety are very limited
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
falcon900
When I opened the Hercules thread a few days ago I had no Idea what had happened regarding an FAI or an Inquest, but now I have the answer. Likewise with Glen Ogle, but unfortunately in this case I still do not know if an FAI or Inquest was carried out. All I can say is that in the Glen Ogle case, based on the precedent set by the Hercules, there should have been an inquest. If not, why not? Both Hercules and Tornado crews came from England and were repatriated.
The Crown Office are now getting their knickers in a twist by trying to defend something that no one on the Justice Committee, or in Government can understand. Paul Wheelhouse (Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affiars) told the committee on 26th May 2015, "I must confess that I, too, was surprised to hear that service personnel are not considered to be employees ...............It is therefore a new issue that we have had to consider in the light of the representations that have been made to the committee."
The Glen Ogle and Hercules threads were not opened for debate, but for information.
DV
When I opened the Hercules thread a few days ago I had no Idea what had happened regarding an FAI or an Inquest, but now I have the answer. Likewise with Glen Ogle, but unfortunately in this case I still do not know if an FAI or Inquest was carried out. All I can say is that in the Glen Ogle case, based on the precedent set by the Hercules, there should have been an inquest. If not, why not? Both Hercules and Tornado crews came from England and were repatriated.
The Crown Office are now getting their knickers in a twist by trying to defend something that no one on the Justice Committee, or in Government can understand. Paul Wheelhouse (Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affiars) told the committee on 26th May 2015, "I must confess that I, too, was surprised to hear that service personnel are not considered to be employees ...............It is therefore a new issue that we have had to consider in the light of the representations that have been made to the committee."
The Glen Ogle and Hercules threads were not opened for debate, but for information.
DV
I would have thought you could just ask for them. I do not recall any difference of opinion between the Board and the Convening Authority. It was a very harrowing chapter in my life but I am proud that I found the truth.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought you could just ask for them. I do not recall any difference of opinion between the Board and the Convening Authority. It was a very harrowing chapter in my life but I am proud that I found the truth.
DV
My knowledge of the proceedings only encompasses the BOI. I am reluctant to comment from memory particularly as the BOI proceedings should be a matter of public record. However, what happened is pretty well beyond dispute. It happened because the chain of events leading to the stall, from which the aircraft did not recover, was, tragically, not interrupted.
