RIS is the favoured service of military pilots as it offers greater tactical freedom in class G airspace. Pilots letting down into a low level area will have pre calculated their own minimum safe altitude
below which they will not descend unless in visual contact with the surface or are using terrain following radar. Their own safety minima overrides anything lower that may be passed, possibly in error, by a controller. Terrain separation is the responsibility of the pilot.
Some comments in this forum suggest that the RAF have, susequent to this and the Pristina accident, been tinkering with the provision of LARS and, particularly, RIS - in what way ? I work at a civil unit providing LARS and it makes no sense to have the military providing different information under RIS; this will only confuse the airspace user, particularly foreign nationals and therefore has flight safety implications. I think the vast majority of civil controllers would be against any shift of responsibility for terrain clearnce towards them rather than the pilot while providing RIS.
Can somebody please let me know why this controller was not the subject of Board of Inquiry before being charged ? Internal investigation alone smacks of yet another "wheel the guilty ******* in". When are the RAF going to learn the lesson? I pity anyone working for such an organisation - morale within ATC must be terrible knowing that , as individuals, they will have no support from their own hierarchy in such a tragic and traumatic incident.
Is there a senior serving officer within RAF ATC who is prepared to air public support ? Failing that, perhaps Malcolm Fuller, the prvious AOC would like to comment?