Pull the pin…roll it in…
Dear PPRuNe posters,
My name is James Moncur and I’m the tabloid journalist responsible for the “RAF probe ejector seat cock up theory” story that appeared in the Daily Record earlier this month.
Unlike you lot who have wonderful nicknames like: BEagle, The Rocket, Rakshasa and Redline Entry, us yellowbellied reporters have to make do with putting our real names on the top of our copy - you’ll see mine just above my e-mail address. The majority of us are reasonably well known in Scotland. In fact most people who read the paper are even aware of our personal phone numbers – mine, for instance, is 01382 561700…whoops..how did I let that one slip out?
Anyway, I digress….. for those of you objective enough to have got past the “I’m the tabloid journalist” line in the opening par of this post I thought it would be useful to outline the route I took to get the “nonsense spouted by this journo” into the Daily Record.
Background-
On the 16th Oct the Tornado crash just south of Leuchars made the front page of the paper.
I, like everybody else, was delighted that both crew members were safe and the rescue was so quick and efficient.
I fully expected the pilot and nav (both Lts – I presumed) to be named and made available for interview.
(You will recall the last incident at Leuchars involving the Tornado that landed on its belly. The 'heroic' crew were paraded within hours for a full press call. Great story, great
PR and I’m sure RAF recruitment figures spiked for the month.)
After this month’s crash, 111’s squadron commander (I think??) held a conference on the Saturday and described the pilot’s call from the sea but the crew’s identities, their rank and crash details were kept under wraps for no obvious reason…….rearrange this well known phrase…bull to rag a red.
Ignoring that, however, the conference was covered and the paper moved on.
The following week-
I received a call from Leuchars informing me that the guy in the nav’s seat was an engineer who was up on a “jolly” granted him as a retirement present. He, I was reliably told, panicked just minutes into the flight and ejected both himself and the pilot. The incident and the eng’s involvement in it was the talk of the base and a potentially massive story.
I had to confirm a number of details quickly to determine the veracity of the story, namely: was the guy in the back ground-crew, if he was...what was he doing in the plane and, vitally, could he have taken the pilot with him in a premature ejection.
As a Fifer I have a number of good contacts on the base and immediately met one of them who confirmed that the eng was indeed in the back and that the rumour doing the rounds was that he may have been responsible for the crash.
I trust my contact implicitly and as a result the story had become more than just a “random nutter phone-in” job that we sometimes have to deal with.
Armed with the information above I went to the relevant authorities.
I had a conversation with a Leuchars’ spokesman and put everything to him: the engineer, the retirement jolly, the double ejection initiated from the back etc and asked for comment and guidance.
He initially told me that the crew members were a pilot and nav who were both Flight Lts and that my story was dead. I asked him to double check and to get back to me. He called back 10 mins later and admitted the guy in the back was indeed an engineer on the cusp of retirement! (Immediate confirmation of half the sources' info.)
But when pressed about the causes of the crash and back-seat ejection theory he refused to comment saying a BoI had been set up. I asked whether the BoI would investigate the eng’s possible role in the crash..he said everything would be looked into. No denial….no off-the-record guidance…..just a stone wall.
Now the spokesman would have had a pretty good idea what led to the crash, the pilot and eng would definitely have said something to somebody. The first question they would have been asked in the mess/by mobile/e-mail would have been: “What the f**K happened Iceman/Jester/Smudge???”
And I don’t care what any of you say, the pilot would have had some semblance of an idea what led to the crash….whether it was a catastrophic technical malfunction of some kind, human error, bird strike (a lot of migratory avians leaving St Andrews at this time of year) or the eng in the back popping them both out in a panic.
Leuchars would have known this info and some off-the-record guidance could have helped at this stage. The BoI would not have been pre-empted if the spokesman had chosen his words carefully.
No denial thus far, only stone walls and an unusual air of secrecy. Certainly no detailed off-the-record chat.
So can a nav eject the pilot as well? How’s a layman supposed to find that out?
Well….no use asking any of you lot for some basic technical guidance…... I can imagine the latter stages of the conversation on the doorstep of your Biggin Hill mansions: “F**k off tabloid scum….no point speaking to you….you’ll only get the story wrong.”
Cue, therefore, a phone-call to Paul Jackson, editor of Jane’s World Aircraft, the most senior and respected expert I know. I gave Paul every detail of the story and asked him if it was possible. He confirmed on the record that the rear seater in a Tornado can eject the pilot if the command eject system is set up accordingly.
Paul even recalled a number of incidents where a pilot was ejected from a perfectly serviceable plane by the back seater.
Interesting...let's raise the bar..
Phone call to MoD in London…spoke to young civvy press officer on the RAF desk and gave him every detail I had. Told him about Leuchars contacts, Leuchars spokesman’s chat, eng’ ejection theory, Paul Jackson and outlined the story I intended to write.
He confirmed a BoI would be set up and wouldn’t speculate on the crash. He added on the record that “everything from a possible technical malfunction to human error would be investigated.” I again asked him for some off the record guidance but he refused to help me.
I’ve now got more than enough to go on. An unusual level of secrecy about the incident. A number of independent sources at the base saying the same thing, no denial whatsoever from two official RAF spokesmen (not even off-the-record) and even a confirmation that, among other things, possible human error will be investigated. Combine these facts with one of the most senior aviation writers in the UK confirming the theory was possible and that he’s seen it happen before and the story is a shoe-in.
I stand by my original piece 100%. I have heard or seen nothing since the crash that shows otherwise.
If it helps, and I am speaking purely hypothetically here, if some of the core details I was given were inaccurate, this is how a conversation could have gone with an experienced PRO:
Spawn of Satan (SoS)- I'm preparing a possible story about the Tornado crash (give PRO every detail.) Can you comment on it and give us a bit of guidance as to what may have happened.
PRO- Give me half an hour, I’ll phone Leuchars and get back to you.
25 mins later-
PRO- “Here’s the comment I want to read if the piece runs: ‘This was a very serious incident and we are delighted that both crew members survived. A Board of Inquiry has been established to discover what caused the crash and until that is complete it would be inappropriate to speculate on the incident any further.’ Now put your pen down young man.”
SoS- “It’s down…I’m all ears.”
PRO- “Your sources are correct, there was an eng in the back but this is not uncommon. It is routine to give flights to ground crew, in fact there’s an official ballot at Leuchars most weeks. The BoI will look at everything and both crew members have been debriefed fully. I don't want to pre-empt the BoI but as a result of the interviews the most likely cause of this incident was probably a catastrophic technical malfunction of some kind…it happens sometimes. The BoI should pinpoint the problem if the salvage team manage to recover the plane relatively intact.
For your info the pilot did very well getting them both out so quickly and if you’re really interested, we’re pretty sure that the plane involved was not configured to allow the guy in the back to eject both him and the pilot at the time of the crash.”
SoS- “Cheers for that mate, that’s cleared a few things up. I’ll buy you a pint next time I’m in London. I doubt the initial story will run now. If we do a piece it will probably be along the lines of ‘Hero pilot’s lightning reactions saved pensioner passenger.’ Any chance we can get pics of them both?”
PRO- “The eng wasn’t a pensioner but the rest sounds great. I’ll see what I can do about the pics. Can you send me the cutting when it’s printed?”
And so begins a great relationship…..
Seriously though, this story highlights some very important issues. I gave the RAF every opportunity to help out and clarify the situation. But PROs in the MoD, like most large organisations, don't do off-the-record anymore which can cause problems at both ends.
If any of you have any say in how press officers are trained then feel free to phone me for a chat. I would never tell you how to do your job but I may be able to give you a few pointers. And I promise I won't even ask you for your real names.
Kind regards,
Spawn of Satan / Bile of Beelzebub / Dribble of Detritus*
*delete where necessary.