In the event of an accident the SI team is bounded by the TOR set by the convening authority, an FAI/Inquest can operate outside this constraint. It is easy to think that an SI will address all the problems, but experience tells me otherwise. The coroner at the Nimrod inquest uncovered several important facts, overlooked by the Board of Inquiry (now SI), which resulted in him ruling that the Nimrod Mk2 fleet was not airworthy and should be grounded until risks were made ALARP. In the Red Arrow ejection seat case, it became clear during the course of the inquest the the Mk10 ejection seat does not have a safety case.
I agree. We already know the MAA does not meet MoD’s own criteria for “independence”. The undue influence brought to bear on SIs is reason for components of the inquiry to be overseen by an independent body. MoD has been caught lying far too often and this militates against one of the main aims, to prevent recurrence.
A FAI (or Coroner’s Inquest) offers a better chance of the truth being uncovered. Not because MoD will tell the truth - it never will - but because knowledgeable witnesses can be called. MoD actively prevents this on BoIs/SIs and, with slightly less success, on Inquests.
However, there are still obstacles to overcome. The first, is the cost of engaging decent legal representation. In many countries, the families of deceased servicemen are afforded state funding. A good example is the Sea King ASaC inquest. The QC representing the family of one pilot was pretty good, but MoD witnesses still misled by omission and commission and he never got beyond first base with questions. The Coroner encouraged this by actively supporting MoD and refusing to allow key questions. In fact, the father the QC represented was far more knowledgeable, but the Coroner told him to shut up, in clear breach of the rules permitting family members to question witnesses. In short, the MoD is permitted to treat Inquests like an extension of the BoI. Secretive, obstructive and not interested in the truth if it involves senior officers and officials.
This obvious collusion between MoD and Coroner is common. DV talks of Mr Andrew Walker, the Nimrod Coroner. It looks like he was a rare exception. When he wouldn’t buckle, the Government tried to change the Coroners rules, they gagged supportive MPs (e.g. Sir Roger Gale, who had been making a nuisance of himself on ASaC by asking relevant questions the BoI had avoided) and Mr Walker’s treatment by Haddon-Cave showed the latter in his true light.
I’m afraid it is no coincidence that all the cases we discuss here have been “won” through retirees speaking up. That is a good lesson, and the start should be key posts being one’s final post.