PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - F15 Court Martial Updates
View Single Post
Old 17th Feb 2003, 18:42
  #7 (permalink)  
DICK DOLEMAN
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Preston,lancashire
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi Folks,

Another good day for the Defence. Sorry if this is rather detailed but, once again, it is important you pick up on the detail . Wording is the key today. Shock,horror – we were told at close of play today that things will not conclude until next week !!! I was banking on this Wednesday!

Craig Penrice and Chris Foster have done excellent jobs for the defence. Chris had rather a severe haircut over the weekend and was doing a very passable impression of Vinny Jones on the witness stand !!

Please excuse any grammatical / spelling mistakes today. Our priority is to get this to you all soonest.

Dick Doleman



SUMMARY FOR MON 17 FEB 03

The CM resumed with Craig Penrice (widely reported to be one of the world’s leading test pilots in the Scottish press) still on the witness stand under cross-examination by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor gave a brief summary of the finishing statements from Friday. He then attempted to discredit Craig Penrice as a witness, mainly referring to one of Craig’s original documents compiled prior to him having seen:

1. The USAF Safety Investigation Board report.
2. The National Air Traffic Services report on accuracies of radars.

Further to that, he was not aware at the time of his original report that a map introduced by a member of the Board of Inquiry contained a plotted line that had been adjusted from the radar plot analysis to make the Board of Inquiry theory plausible.

Quite why he continued to attack Craig on his initial findings was not clear as Craig repeatedly pointed out that his views changed as new evidence materialised.

He robustly tried to discredit Craig’s theory of the aircraft routing around Ben McDui to regain their original low-level start point. He considered that Craig’s conclusion was illogical. Craig countered that his theory would have given thinking time to the leader of Bite 21 formation in trying to rejoin his planned track. He would also have had an option to pull up out of low-level, which he may have been considering. The Prosecutor stated that if the pilots had seen high ground they would not have flown towards it. Craig countered that they could indeed have flown towards it with the intention of missing it! Quite frankly, the level of questioning often seemed both bizarre and inane.

At one stage the Prosecutor asked Craig to draw on a flip-chart his original theory of how the aircraft came to be seen by the witnesses. As Craig yet again stated this was his original theory based upon the material available at the time. It was only reasonable that he was able to reassess his theory as new evidence became available. He was accused by the Prosecutor of stretching his theory to fit the facts. Craig responded “your words not mine!”. The Prosecutor then said that Craig’s theory was illogical and implausible. Craig’s response was “I don’t accept that”.

Essentially this was the end of Craig as an expert witness. The support team think that he did a truly excellent job and had obviously spent much time and effort in coming to his conclusions. We must thank Craig for drawing together and collating the pertinent witness statements, something which the RAF Board of Inquiry were seriously remiss in choosing to ignore! Would we be here today if they HAD competently investigated the matter in the first place? Craig was released as an expert witness (he is now a free man – he started his evidence last Tuesday!).

Next on the stand was an eyewitness for the defence who had not been able to attend court earlier. He was a cross-country skier of 15 years experience in the
Cairngorms and was an experienced map reader. He had just skied down a hill into a valley and was facing west when two aircraft in close formation flew low over the top of him in an east to west direction. Very significantly, he was only two and a half kilometres west of where two previous witnesses saw the aircraft bank steeply overhead them by an estimated 40 yards and head off to the west. Drawing a line through these two points and keeping other eyewitness reports in consideration gives Craig’s theory of how the aircraft came to the crash site high credence. The time of sighting could not be precise but tied in with other witness statements. He was unable to give positive identification on aircraft type as he had little interest or knowledge of the subject. The Prosecutor was unable to significally challenge this witness.

The final Defence witness appeared as an expert witness. He was Wg Cdr Chris Foster, currently Commanding Officer Swanwick Military. His experience as an air traffic controller is extensive and comprehesive. He had been both a controller and SATCO at fast-jet stations. He had also served on the Air Traffic Examining Board and been an instuctor at the RAF School of ATC. His experience also included tours in Area Radar.

He summarised Spot as an experienced controller who, in this instance, was doing his best to assist the aircrew in achieving their objectives. He felt that the protracted handover to RAF Lossiemouth had been made difficult for Spot by some non-standard responses from the Lossiemouth controllers. He felt that this may have proven to be a distraction at a time when the workload had increased.

Mike Jones QC asked “would you expect a controller of ordinary competence to understand Min Vector Altitude in March 2001”? Chris Foster replied “no”.

Mike Jones then asked “what was is your view on Flt Lt Williams not querying the Min Vectoring Altitude request”? Chris Foster replied that “the most likely explanation was that he didn’t hear it at all or, because of two conversations going on simultaneously, the words may just not have registered with him”.

He stated that he had had similar personal experiences in his career and knew that this had also happened to other controllers. He stated that when plugged in behind (other controllers) “I have heard things that have been said which patently the student or controller being checked had not heard”. He also stated that the same situation occurs frequently with pilots not hearing transmissions, necessitating a further transmission.
It is common for controllers and pilots on hearing a linked phrase (eg climb and turn) to only pick up on one part of the phrase.

He was asked whether he could provide a logical reason why a descent to 4000 ft was given. He replied:

“Williams had already inititated a handoever to Lossiemouth while the aircraft were at FL 80. The pilot of Bite 21 had previously asked how far north they could be seen by radar to maintain their RIS. He initiated the handover to Lossiemouth and the aircraft requested a descent. At the same time the aircraft were rapidly approaching the edge of Leuchars radar range. The physical distance between Leuchars and Lossiemouth was in the order of 80 miles. An initial descent to 4000 ft would be sufficent to keep the aircraft more or less in radar contact with both Leuchars and Lossiemouth. You would certainly keep them in secondary radar, primary a little less certain for both units”.

Chris Foster was asked whether any other controller of reasonably competence, exercising reasonable care, would have done the same as Spot. He replied “I can envisage another controller doing exactly the same thing”.

Several questions were then asked about RIS and RAS with predictable answers. Chris affirmed that a controller need not take into account terrain clearance when advising descent. Controllers providing RIS can provide a service below levels on the the RVC. Aircraft in receipt of RIS can be flying IMC or VMC and be flying IFR or VFR. The controller will not know these circumstances unless told by the pilot. Under RAS, RAF regulations say that if a pilot requests a RAS it is assumed that he is flying in accordance with IFR.

The next question from Mike Jones QC and the answer from Chris Foster may prove to be pivotal in this court martial. The question was:

“Assuming that Flt Lt Williams did something that was the cause of the accident - in your view, ought an air traffic controller of ordinary competence, exercising reasonable care be able to reasonably foresee that, by saying – ‘descend to 4000 ft on the Portree 29.62 ins’ - that it was a likely consequence that they would impact with the ground?” Chris Foster answered “no”.

Mike Jones QC went on to the wording of the charges and asked whether Spot had a duty ‘not to descend the aircraft below 6500 ft’? Chris replied “under RIS – no”. When asked to explain he said “Under RIS, a Min Vectoring Altitude - if it was understood - is an IFR procedure. The pilots had not declared themselves IFR, therefore IFR Min Vectoring Altitudes did not come into play”.

Mike Jones, having completed with his witness passed over to the Prosecutor for cross examination. There followed a series of confusing and, what appeared to be, irrelevant questions of little substance. There was no questioning of any regulation or determination of pilots’ responsibilities while under RIS. Chris Foster held his ground firmly against what sometimes appeared as hostile questioning. Chris was still on the witness stand when matters concluded for the day.

We were then told the court martial might not conclude until Wednesday of next week!! More tomorrow.

Dick and Brian

Last edited by DICK DOLEMAN; 18th Feb 2003 at 16:23.
DICK DOLEMAN is offline