From a dispassionate observer's perspective on the other side of the world (I've never served in the RAF), I think that that some of the calls for blood posted above are not really all that helpful. The tenor of recent comments leaves me in no doubt that morale in the RAF's Air Traffic Control Branch is alarmingly low. With a potential conflict looming in the Middle East, the RAF's 'brass' should move quickly to restore faith in its ability to properly manage the affairs of the Service and the Branch. But whilst it does so, as doubtless it will, those junior in the food chain might render more productive service for the 'Queen's Shilling' by rallying behind those who are doubtless trying to deal with a difficult situation. Carping anonymously from the sidelines does little to assist.
Curiously, judging from some of the posts on this site, there appears to be a view in some sections of the military and civil ATC world that courts martials or other legal proceedings aren't legitimate for air traffic controllers, irrespective of the factual circumstances. With great respect, I beg to differ. In civil life, people appear before the Courts every day charged with offences ranging from the serious to the quaintly trivial. Some are convicted, others acquitted. Professionals, including lawyers and medicos, are sued for negligence as a matter of course. For almost all concerned, the process is stressful. Once litigation has commenced, the outcome is not guaranteed. Cross-examination elicits admissions. Reputations are lost, bank balances depleted and costs awarded to winners against losers. The English Legal System (and the Common Law world generally) has yet to devise an alternative to a justice system that has generally worked well for some 800 years, and is the envy of many people in less salubrious parts of the world. And if it ain't broke, don't tamper with it!
In this case, two men died, two valuable aircraft were lost and, seemingly, a Coroner's Inquest raised more questions than answers as to potential liability. Viewed from this perspective, I think that the RAF's decision to convene a court martial is easier to comprehend. May I suggest that the strength of the court martial process and the rule of law is shown by the fact that the person charged was able to have his day in court; and was acquitted by his peers of the charges brought against him, after a public hearing during which he was able to put his version of events via a representative of his choice.
Last edited by Argus; 5th Mar 2003 at 09:41.