I’m not keen on turning this into a police-bashing thread as the police just put these rules into practice. It is the higher chain of command to decide what regulations and laws need to come into force and not to ignore them completely in the false hope that no service police officer will ever try and use them. Over time the service police appetite to use these powers will increase until checked by judicial review. My key message is that these new laws do affect military aircrew and the chain of command.
Made up example:
Tornado GR4 crew authorised for OLF. During an otherwise uneventful OLF trip the weather closes in a bit and they deviate off track for a few miles and they exit the lateral limits of the OLF area. Weather is still a bit rubbish and rather than weather-abort into the package of ac somewhere above they end push-on at under 200’ for a minute or so in the normal low flying area before re-entering the OLF area where the weather is now better. During the subsequent debrief of HUD tapes the entire formation discuses the decision of the crew to push-on vs low-level abort. Several learning points come out or are reinforced before the crews disperse and think little more of it. Meanwhile a completely separate flying complaint comes in from a different part of the route and the RAF Police start a routine investigation.
Follow-up, Pre-31 Oct 2009
A couple of weeks later the RAF Police pop into the sqn and chat to the nav (pilot is now in Theatre). Nav explains the sortie profile – medium level, AAR, air-to-air photo-shoot in new sqn markings, low level transit to range, OLF and then medium level home. Police take simple statement from nav & formation leader and takes copy of tapes and routing. Evidence shows that the flying complaint has no basis but notes the MSD bust 30 mins later and sends note through to sqn boss who happened to be the formation leader and auth. Sqn boss rolls his eyes at the RAF Police note and files it in B One N. Civilian complainant informed of investigation and that the crew were at 1000’ agl descending, cleared to 250’ MSD, and not at 30’ as the complainant had alleged. The End.
Follow-up, Post-31 Oct 2009
A couple of weeks later the RAF Police pop into the sqn and interview the nav (pilot is now in Theatre). Nav explains the sortie profile – medium level, AAR, air-to-air photo-shoot in new sqn markings, low level transit to range, OLF and then medium level home. Police take statement from nav & formation leader and takes copy of tapes and routing. Evidence shows that the flying complaint has no basis but notes the MSD bust 30 mins later. Civilian complainant informed of investigation and that the crew were at 1000’ agl descending, cleared to 250’ MSD, and not at 20’ as the complainant had alleged.
RAF Police believe that they have sufficient grounds to believe that the crew have flown at a ‘height less than the minimum height prescribed by regulations’; this is a serious offence and carries a prison sentence ‘not to exceed 2 years’ [Armed Forces Act 2006, Section 34, enacted 31 Oct 2009]. Pilot is arrested by service police when crewing out of an ac in Theatre and is held in custody prior to questioning. Pilot is searched, as is his room in Theatre, fingerprinted and DNA taken; sqn boss is left dumb-founded. Meanwhile back in the UK the RAF Police have arrived to conduct a search of pilot’s home in pursuit of a camera he may have had with him on the sortie as well as any other electronic evidence. His wife (an accomplished NHS surgeon), 5 kids and disabled mother are all rather distraught having come home to find a load of RAF corporals searching their civilian house.
Perhaps an extreme example but we are currently relying on ‘judgement’ of very junior personnel to ensure that the above does not happen; but the RAF Police are convinced that they have such powers.
Fly Safe & Fly Legal.
