Hi Folks,
The Defence concluded their case today. Tomorrow we move into the summing up for both Prosecution and Defence. After this is complete, the JA will do his summing up which is predicted to last for 2 days. The Board will start deliberating on Monday and that will be the earliest possible end date for the CM.
Chris Foster was an excellent witness for the Defence. He was positive, precise and stood his ground extremely well under some robust cross-examination.
Mike Jones QC put in his normal masterly performance and we are looking forward to his summing up tomorrow.
Dick
SUMMARY FOR TUESDAY 18th FEBRUARY 2003
The Court Martial recommenced with Wg Cdr Chris Foster (ATC expert witness for the Defence) still on the stand and under cross-examination by the Prosecuting Officer. The Prosecutor gave a brief resumé of yesterday’s questions. He then moved on to attack various threads put forward by the Defence. True to form, the Prosecutor then went off at a complete tangent questioning Chris about his aircraft recognition capabilities, his collection of model aircraft and his interest in model aircraft flying. Perhaps all will made completely unclear in the ‘summing up’!
He raised further questions about the phrase Min Vectoring Altitude and the choice of 4000 ft as an initial descent altitude. Chris Foster was adamant that MVA would not have been understood by any RAF controller at the time of the accident and he stuck to his explanation from yesterday as to how 4000 ft could have been a logical choice of interim descent height for maintaining the radar coverage between Leuchars and Lossiemouth at the time of handover. The Prosecutor returned to this subject on several occasions without gaining any discernible advantage. Time and time again Chris pointed out that it was the pilot’s responsibility for terrain clearance under RIS and a controller was quite entitled to select an interim descent altitude for his own purposes (eg radar coverage for handover to another ATC unit).
The Prosecutor then moved on to question a controller’s responsibilities when not sure of the meaning of phrases transmitted to them. Chris said that normally a controller would question something that he didn’t understand – however, in this case he could not be sure whether or not the phrase was actually heard. Furthermore if it had been heard there was a possibility that it had not registered.
The Prosecutor then went on to question as to whether the aircraft ever specifically asked for a descent to low level when the interim descent altitude of 4000 ft was given. It was conceded that hadn’t been a specific request for descent to low level in this transmission but it was clearly understood from previous transmissions that this was their intent.
The Prosecutor moved onto a new line of attack, the relevance of which I could not undertand. He seemed to think that Spot’s reaction to the disappearance of the radar returns was highly significant to the case. Chris made it clear that it not unusual for controllers to express concern whenever there are doubts about aircraft disappearing into low level without informing ATC. He stated that most controllers would have experienced this at various stages of their controlling careers.
At this stage the Prosecutor became more bullish in his questioning and seemed to imply that Chris Foster’s theories had been made late in the day purely to assist the Defence case. Chris denied this. The Prosecutor continued to press his point asking Chris whether he appreciated the importance of his views. Chris replied that he did understand and the Prosecutor then went on to say that, if the Board believed his views, then this might well negate one of the charges. Chris reiterated that he fully understood the importance of his views and that he was standing by them. He was clearly becoming irritated by the Prosecutor’s tone of questioning.
The Prosecutor’s final parting shot was to say “you have stretched your theory to fit the facts”. Chris replied “your words, not mine”. The Prosecutor said “do you accept what I say”? Chris replied “no”. We think it is fair to say that all of the support group feel that this is a case ‘of the pot calling the kettle black’!
Chris was then handed back to Mike Jones QC for further questioning and some highly significant and very important points were elicited:
1. On the R/T tape played in court, the request for descent to Min Vectoring Altitude is reasonably clear. However, Chris was able to point out that such clarity might not have been the case in real-time. This is because the recordings made in ATC are made as separate tracks for R/T, telephones, time-stamps etc. These tracks could be at different volume levels but when a composite tape is made for the purposes of tape transcription everything sounds to be at the same volume.
2. When a controller applies RIS he assumes that the pilot can see suffiently from the cockpit for him to assess and act upon traffic information that may be passed to him on conflicting traffic. Indeed, such information may not always be passed under this service, highlighting the fact that a good look-out must be maintained at all times. If a reasonable look-out cannot be maintained, the more appropriate service is RAS where the controller will offer advisory avoiding action on conflicting traffic.
3. Chris stated that in his experience USAF pilots were normally very quick to ask for RAS when their flight conditions warranted it.
4. Two of the most important questions raised today were:
“IN YOUR VIEW WOULD AN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER OF ORDINARY COMPETENCE NOT SEE AS A LIKELY CONSEQUENCE OR PROBABLY CAUSE THAT THEY (THE AIRCRAFT) WOULD COLLIDE WITH THE TERRAIN”?
and
“EVEN IF THE CONTROLLER HAD HEARD ‘MIN VECTORING ALTITUDE’, WOULD YOUR ANSWER BE THE SAME”?
Chris responded “NO” to both questions.
5. Finally, a question was raised by the Board, and this was – “Could you confirm that had Williams been giving a RAS, then the lowest descent in this case would have been 6,500 ft”? The answer from Chris was “correct”.
This concluded the Defence case, the Court adjourned and summaries from both Prosecution and Defence will be given tomorrow.
More news tomorrow,
Dick and Brian