F15 Court Martial
Like Self-Loading Freight, for all the same reasons plus my own life experiences, I've been watching the events unfold in this tragic saga on a daily basis.
Courts martial have been around for a long time. I'm not privy to their more recent incidence in the UK. However, during my eight years in the Fleet Air Arm back in the pre Dennis Healey era, I was aware of only one convened against an aviator (for a non-flying charge of insubordination). Certainly, in Australia, they are the exception rather than the rule.
The 'raison d'etre' for courts martial tends to cluster around the 'maintenance of discipline'/'discouragement of others' arguments. For example, the Court Martial of Lieutenant William Calley in 1971 for the premeditated murder of 109 (he was convicted of killing 22) South Vietnamese civilians in March 1968 at My Lai was a belated attempt to punish an inexcusable act. Nevertheless, such an outcome wasn't politically acceptable. Although sentenced to life with hard labour, President Nixon intervened on Calley's behalf. Calley was confined for three years, most of the time under house arrest in his apartment at Fort Benning, with visitation rights for a girlfriend, before parole.
So why court martial an air traffic controller when it is generally accepted (certainly when I took to the air) that terrain clearance is the ultimate responsibility of the pilot. Is this court martial a 'political' response to the tragic deaths of two USAF pilots? Would there have been a court martial in identical circumstances but with British pilots? Why have there been no previous court martials of air traffic controllers (see my earlier post) in similar fact situations?
I suspect the answer lies in part with the reported finding by the Elgin Procurator Fiscal of 'unlawful death'. I understand that there are no coroners in Scotland so such a finding was likely made following an Inquest. Confronted with such a finding, the RAF would, I think, be obliged, in the public interest, to take the matter further.
As I've previously said, I think the legal issues at stake here are slightly broader than the pilot's responsibility for terrain clearance. I personally think they go to the following:
a. whether the air traffic controller owed a duty of care, that is a legal obligation, to avoid harm to the two pilots concerned;
b. was there unreasonable behaviour on his part towards the pilots in the situation where the duty of care existed (i.e. a breach of the duty);
c. was there damage as a result of his alleged breach; and
d. were the harmful consequences reasonably foreseeable.
From my own experiences, I know that aircrew and air traffic controllers are accustomed to immediate resolution of problems and conflicts. Unfortunately, as a lawyer, I also know that the Law doesn't always move - with good reason - at the same pace. Whilst the current proceedings are undoubtedly painful for all concerned, the longer-term benefit will be the clarification of what the air traffic controller’s responsibilities are in such circumstances. The sadness I feel is that it should take such a tragic sequence of events to determine the issue.
Last edited by Argus; 14th Feb 2003 at 07:42.