Keith l
I accept (because I had dealings with some of those VSOs named by tucumseh) that those major investigations were corrupted.
That doesn't mean the BoI system is flawed. It means flawed individuals corrupted it.
Well said. (Welcome to the club).
I’d say it’s fairly self evident civilian police involvement is required in case of criminal proceedings. For example, if there are indications of Organisational Fault due to a deliberate decision to circumvent the regulations to save money – as was the case on Nimrod XV230 (and all the other accidents mentioned above). That requires their involvement from Day 1. As you say, some accidents are pretty straight forward and very often the police could quickly step back.
However, the practical obstacle justice as a whole faces is the investigative process is not independent of those making the unlawful decisions. Again, see Nimrod. The serious police involvement only came after the publication of the Nimrod Review, when after lots of arguments Thames Valley Police were pushed screaming to the fore, along with the Health and Safety Executive, Crown Prosecution Service and the Provost Marshall.
It should never be forgotten that were it not for Mr and Mrs Graham Knight’s campaign to get to the truth, after being serially lied to by MoD, then XV230 would be a distant memory to most. At no time during the BoI/investigation was there any MoD admission of wrongdoing and police involvement was more or less zero. It was only just prior to the Coroner’s Inquest that those involved were pointed to the airworthiness regulations and MoD’s refusal to comply with them.
MoD and Government like to present XV230 as a one-off, but what it actually signified was the first time the “self healing” MoD had been undone by a robust campaign targeting the key, easily proven fact the aircraft was not airworthy. (Quickly followed by C130 XV179 and Chinook ZD576). Despite MoD’s claim these regs were irrelevant, the case was won and Haddon-Cave appointed.
My point here is the same I always make; although robust, the system did not work properly or on time, because it was not implemented properly, primarily because it is not independent. In every accident we mention, this factor always comes to the fore – MoD are allowed to be judge and jury in their own case. This continues, as no reasonable person, looking at the MoD hierarchical structure, would say the MAA is independent, no matter how often MoD claim it is.
This being so, the civilian police (and HSE) are on a hiding to nothing. On XV230, they didn’t have the resources, will or knowledge to fight off MoD. The decision not to prosecute Baber and Eagles was correct, but for the wrong reason. It was claimed the burden of proof could not be met, but TVP, HSE, CPS and PM all ran away when asked WHO, then, WOULD be prosecuted, given the names of those who DIRECTED that the airworthiness regulations be ignored are well known (and advised to Haddon-Cave, Ministers, TVP and the PM – and later Lord Philip and the Public Accounts Committee). They refused to comment.
I do not think individual provincial police forces should be involved. None can afford the expert resources to be held waiting for an accident to happen. It must be a central function. (As maintaining airworthiness used to be before being cancelled by the RAF Chief Engineer! It being a core, centralised function focuses scarce, specialist resources). The question cannot be answered sensibly without addressing the Independent MAA/MAAIB issue. If there was a truly independent MAA/MAAIB, then I’d say it should include a legal team provided by the Home Office. They certainly wouldn’t be sitting around waiting for an accident, as they’d have plenty to occupy themselves chasing down those in MoD who bear responsibility for numerous cases of Corporate Manslaughter. Just my opinion.