The Keithl Commission
OK, Chug, friends!
Chug & tuc clearly believe strongly that these threads can influence things in the real world. I'm not so sure (you'll have noticed by now I'm slow to make up my mind - I regard it as a virtue. Well, now I no longer fly, it is!). I'm afraid you are just throwing words at the air. Nevertheless, I convened a Commission of Inquiry this afternoon in my garden and the Recommendations have just been published. Here they are:
1. The investigation of military air accidents in UK is currently carried out by police and a Service Board of Inquiry frequently assisted by the AAIB. Where conflicts of interest occur, such as access to physical evidence, the police are considered to have primacy over the BoI. This has not always been the case. Police primacy also applies in Scotland where police may have to provide evidence to the Procurator Fiscal.
2. There are disadvantages to this, consisting of delay to technical investgators, extra burden on witnesses (having to provide separate evidence to each group) and different approaches, the police trained to detect and prosecute crime, the Board seeking to ascertain causes.
3. The situation is different in civil aviation. The AAIB has precedence over police and a Memorandum of Understanding resolves difficulties over such matters as preservation of evidence, destructive testing and so on. (I have a link to this but it didn't work when I copied it across. Perhaps you are familiar with the document anyway)
4. The disadvantages referred to would be removed or ameliorated if military air accident investigation were brought more into line with civilian practice. However, due to the particular nature of military hierarchy, rules and procedures, and the riskier nature of military flying, a Service Board needs to make the particular military recommendations resulting from the inquiry.
5. It is proposed that investigative primacy be returned to the BoI. As technical experts they need first access to physical evidence and witnesses. Usually a crime has NOT been committed, so police involvement should not be required in the initial stages of an investigation.
6. There wouild be two "Thresholds", crossing which would cause civilian judicial involvement at different levels.
7. First Threshold. When the Board becomes aware that a crime may have been committed, the police would be informed and allowed to start their investigation. (If such a crime is purely a military one, such as disobedience to military orders, etc. Service authorities can deal with it at the appropriate stage - following the recommendations of the Board, or concurrent with the Board's investigation if necessary).
8. Second Threshold. To avoid biassed, flawed, or inappropriately influenced investigations or conclusions, every BoI investigation into a fatal air accident should be submitted to an appropriate civilian judge, coroner, Procurator, etc for review. Witnesses who felt they had been denied a hearing could apply to this court to be heard. The court could order a police investigation if in their opinion indications of a crime had been missed, or suppressed, by the BoI.
9. The submission at Threshold 2 should be after completion of the Board's report. To avoid timewasting when a report is rejected as incompetent, it should have been accepted and signed by the first RO.
10. The reviewing judge (&etc) should append relevant legal notes to guide higher ROs and clarify the limits of their powers.
Last edited by keithl; 15th Jul 2012 at 21:36.