Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety [Archive] - Page 6

chappie

10th Jun 2007, 13:18

it's true there is no one except the people it shouldn't have to burden that care and can and will or should i say have made a difference....us. last year i stood in the houses of parliament and when i had the oppurtunity to lobby mp's i stood there and in front of these chinless wonders broke down, because the reality of grief and it's ugliness was something they ended up seeing as undignifying as it might have been. i stood there with all of them looking at me and i said evey last crew members name that lost his life on jan 30th. i wanted their names to be said in the walls of the houses of parliament. i told the suits what you guys face every day and asked for support and asked why this was happening and look at where we are. thanks to the efforts of some special guys, nige, flip airsound all of you you know who you are marshalls is full of hercs but sadly not all the fleet. isn't it a travesty that ten men had to die for foam to be fitted. isn't it a travesty all that we have had to do instead of being able to rely on the powers that be to sort the problem...and surely by fitting the foam is tantamount to an admission that foam might of saved them and clearly has a place in the needs of hercules in todays threat environment.

i'm sorry that i have lost it and given into a rant. i guess i feel pretty useless and frustrated at my inability to sort this out or to help in some way. i remember how it felt to see them squirm in their seats so i guess that's something. guilty minds eh?! i guess that i have to sit back and sit and wait for the pre inquest and inquest to get some more answers. like many though i am sick of waiting. how much longer do we have to endure this open book, this lack of answers? no doubt i'll calm down after i've pressed send!

Chugalug2

10th Jun 2007, 15:21

Chappie, never think for one second that you have done anything other than to be a very essential part of the team that has been instrumental in correcting the glaring shortcomings in the RAF AT fleet's basic (and you can't get much more basic than ESF) safety fit. Not the MOD, not the RAF, but you and the bunch of suspicious characters that you mention plus AN others. I say this as an interested late comer to this campaign. You should all be damn proud of what you have achieved. If it is not unprecedented it must be the closest thing to it. When the last K is rolled out bone dry, the last J returned to service, I for one will toast you all, in particular you Chappie and the tenacious courage you have displayed to all, especially the high and mighty, and you Nige, without whose leadership the campaign would surely have foundered. That is your legacy, and a damn sight more creditable than you know whose!

sprucemoose

6th Jul 2007, 11:26

Some of you may have already picked up on this, but there's more movement on enhancing the C-130J's self-protection:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/07/03/215246/uk-studies-c-130j-safety-enhancements.html

The unit costs look a bit more reasonable this time!

nigegilb

6th Jul 2007, 12:03

The vast majority of the J Fleet will end up with foam in the fuel tanks and one of the most modern DAS's in production. A far cry from where we were in January last year, when the J was not even being considered for fuel tank protection, never mind a decent DAS. Even had a phone call from the RAF to confirm that.

Pity the J that was IED'd in Iraq did not have foam. If anyone saw the video posted on the internet you could clearly see the damage to the outer wing.

Just hope the RAF and MOD see sense over Nimrod safety issues.

nigegilb

13th Jul 2007, 11:57

Interesting answer that lays out the quality of the contract work carried out on the C130K program. Note no answer given to the days lost to the front line.

Hercules Aircraft

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 17 May 2007, Official Report, column 845W, on Hercules aircraft, what percentage of Hercules C-130K aircraft has (a) returned to the front line within 44 days and (b) developed fuel leaks following the installation of the foam; and if he will make a statement. [140664]

Mr. Bob Ainsworth: In order to improve overall aircraft availability to the Front Line Command (FLC), the Hercules C-130K Explosion Suppressant Foam (ESF) modification has been combined with scheduled maintenance wherever possible. All of the aircraft that have been fitted with ESF in conjunction

9 July 2007 : Column 1285W

with scheduled maintenance have been returned to the FLC within an agreed timeframe. One aircraft was modified on a standalone programme and the fitment of ESF was completed in 46 days.

Of the C-130Ks that have been modified with ESF, 75 per cent. have subsequently developed fuel leaks. However, all were repaired by the contractor under warranty and returned to flying. RAF Hercules aircraft are designed and certified to strict airworthiness and safety standards. These fuel leaks did not compromise the safety of the aircraft.

Chugalug2

14th Jul 2007, 08:36

Glad as I am, as we all are, that this essential work on the Herc Fleet is well under way, are not the figures that you quote, Nige, an indictment in the way it is being conducted. When you compare them with those posted by Herkman at post #984 there is scarcely any co-relationship! He quoted a max fitting time of 160 hours per frame. I assume this must be man-hours. If 4 men do the work it should be done in one week, two weeks max! 46 days? 75% fuel leaks? Even if there was a learning curve to overcome I feel that there should be a close look at this programme and how and why it was instituted. It smacks of penny wise, pound foolish. My instincts were that the work should have gone to the people who have a proven track record in doing it already, Herkman's people in Australia, or to the States. As ever cost rules everything, along with local employment/election considerations. So the programme crawls along in this inept casual way. Have we been told what it is costing?

mary_hinge

14th Jul 2007, 09:05

I believe that 160 Man-Hours would only get the aircraft into the hangar and the tanks opened up.
A new build aircraft though, requiring no prep work, no fuel purging, old sealant removal etc could be closer to the 160!

nigegilb

14th Jul 2007, 09:24

Chug, the MoD is quoting 2 weeks to convert Js and 4 weeks to convert Ks. I am not sure about the RAAF program, I think it too is a combination of J and K. The reason I arranged for the latest PQ was to put right some of the outrageous crap the Defence Minister was saying with regard to the RAF Foam program. It looks like things are improving. My own contacts assured me that a couple of months ago every single K had developed leaks. More irritating for Lyneham is the fact that the aircraft were delivered with leaks and that it was Lyneham engineers who discovered the leaks. I believe you are right Chug about saving money. The sealant process required a test flight during the sealant process. This was denied by the contractor and the following chaos was easy to predict.

The way this program has been handled, its tardiness and incompetence, highlights the basic fact that vast areas of the MoD empire are continuing as though we are not at war and it does not matter. Summed up by the bumbling dual hatted Minister in charge.

Take another look at these answers in May.

Hercules Aircraft
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 21 March 2007, Official Report, column 925W, on Hercules aircraft, if he will take steps to ensure that Hercules aircraft being fitted with explosive suppressant foam are flown to flex the wings after the sealant is applied but before the foam is put in place. [136695]
Mr. Ingram: The replacement of the fuel tank sealant is only undertaken on the Hercules C-130K aircraft. Flying the aircraft between fuel tank sealant replacement and fitting Explosion Suppressant Foam (ESF) would introduce unacceptable delays to this urgent programme. Therefore, quality assurance processes are used to ensure that it is not necessary to fly the Hercules C-130K aircraft after the fuel tank sealant has been replaced but before ESF is fitted.

17 May 2007 : Column 845W

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 21 March 2007, Official Report, column 925W, on Hercules aircraft, how long it has taken for each Hercules aircraft being fitted with explosive suppressant foam to return to active service; and if he will make a statement. [136696]

Mr. Ingram: The Hercules C-130K Explosion Suppressant Foam (ESF) modification takes approximately 44 days per aircraft to complete. The less complex Hercules C-130J modification takes approximately 16 days. The difference in time scale between the two marks of aircraft is due to the need to replace the fuel tank sealant on the older C-130K. In order to improve overall aircraft availability to the front line command, the ESF modification has been combined with scheduled maintenance wherever possible.

Utter b*****t. One aircraft completed in 44 days. No requirement to fly because of the urgent requirement but 75% returned. Rank incompetence, the only quality on offer here.

kam

16th Jul 2007, 08:56

The Australians are aware of the ESF situation in the UK, from Defence Minister, Cheif of the Defence Forces, to those who worked on the project and the following is a little summary of the Aust experience;

"The decision to install ESF was taken after a review of the RAAF c-130's vunerability to small arms and blast shrapnel. The insallation of ESF in an aircraft enhances survivabilty should an ignition event such as an electrical spark or small arms fire penetration occur in the fuel tank. Small arms risk was identified late 2003.
Time taken was between 2 wks for the J's to install. Cost approx $320,000.
ESF is a proven product used in other aircraft and easily installed".

Some of the herc's were installed here in Canberra, a shut down base and not particularly sophisticated.

I asked Sir Glen Torphy, if he engaged in any conversation about the above and other things during his recent trip to Oz. A nice reply...but failed to answer.

Different courses for different forces!

nigegilb

16th Jul 2007, 09:05

Don't expect much from Torpy, Kam, he is happy with the safety situation on the Nimrod fleet, and happy with the Quality Assurances put in place for RAF Herc fitting program. His only interest appears to be standing in front of fast pointy aircraft for photo shoots. Remember, this is the man who went before the Defence Committee and said he was confident that RAF Hercs had the required defensive equipment for deployment to Afg. No RAF Hercs had foam at this stage.

Interestingly, the RAAF review took place at the same time foam was considered for the RAF fleet. We all know, foam was rejected by the RAF, hopefully we will find out why when the Inquest reconvenes.

Chugalug2

16th Jul 2007, 09:55

Nige, totally agree your comment re the CAS. Why he just doesn't retire and flog Typhoons for BAE instead of merely promoting them while in post I'm not sure, but I suspect the nub is all down to timing. Meanwhile part of the RAF is at war and his interests seem to centre on the part that isn't. We are a long way from the Falklands War, where the MOD, as well as the Armed Forces, mobilised itself and industry onto a war footing. One only has to study the reports you quote of the Laurel and Hardy job done on the Ks to realise how far we have to go. When the Nimrods are done, as done they must be, let us for goodness sake be professional for a change!

nigegilb

16th Jul 2007, 10:01

His sidekick CDS is no better Chug. CDS denies the existence of over-stretch, presumably to keep his political masters happy. The sooner the pair of them go the better. BAe are welcome to them.

wondermum

19th Jul 2007, 19:07

Dear Both,
Sorry to attract your attention this way, I need your help getting some media coverage on another thread (Mike Jenvey sugg you may have some contacts!) -
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=284330

Pls check your pm will send a msg

chappie

22nd Jul 2007, 22:26

have read thread and incandescent with rage. check pm's wonder mum.

nige, we have blip need you advice desperately please check your pm's.

nigegilb

22nd Aug 2007, 07:35

Article concerning Inquest delays, specifically XV179. There is also a link from this page to the 14 outstanding cases.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=TOT0D1Q4AEI4NQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/08/22/ninquest122.xml

..."Mr Masters said he had met Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, to ask for more funding and was waiting to hear from him.

However, he said his only "outstanding main inquest" was the deaths of 10 personnel killed when a Hercules aircraft went down in Iraq in January 2005, which was delayed because it addressed "very sensitive issues in terms of classified information from the MoD".

Dr Fox criticised the Government's response to the situation. "We have had an increase in the number of fatalities and yet the Government has not matched this increase with the same increase in funding," he said.

"As a consequence the backlog has simply not diminished and that's an utterly unacceptable burden for the families to bear."

Lord Moonie, a former Labour defence minister, yesterday called for "additional resources to be spent on the process".

Lyn Kelly, whose son Richard Brown, died in the Hercules, said it was essential that the inquest was "thorough". She said: "It's down to the RAF and other services to get their inquiries moving so we can have these inquests held. I appreciate that there is an awful lot of information to sort through and, if there is to be a delay, I hope it is because the inquest, when it happens, is thorough."

The Coroner's Society said the situation highlighted the under-funding of coroners' courts across the country.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said military inquests were often delayed because the MoD had to hold a thorough internal investigation beforehand.

However, the Tories said the issue betrayed Labour's lack of understanding of the Armed Forces. Gerald Howarth, the shadow defence minister, said: "It is another example of the way Labour ministers simply do not understand the ethos of the Armed Forces."

He accused ministers of presiding over a system that "prolongs the grief" of bereaved Service families...."

Chugalug2

22nd Aug 2007, 12:43

The more one reads the various threads on this forum, the more one realises that rather than separate issues, be they AT force protection, Mull Chinook injustice, Nimrod Airworthiness, British Legion Broken Covenant Campaign, Pay, Quarters, Mail, whatever, there is only really one issue and that is the sheer uncaring, incompetent and mean-spirited attitude of this government, and in particular the MOD, to our Armed Forces. The only time they ever relent is when there is a concentrated outcry against them that has a possible electoral sting in its tail. There are no finer feelings to appeal to, no over arching realisation of the greater national interest, just the parochial need to cling to power. Very well, let us take heart from the success of previous outcries, be they Gurkha VCs, SSAFA homes, Herc ESF, etc, and realise that the relentless pressure of those who care about right and wrong must be concentrated again and again on these robber barons and their minions. That the British Legion of all organisations has felt compelled to go down this path says everything about the need for us all to stand up and be counted. Politicians of all parties, with very few honourable exceptions, have failed the Forces, so people power must be heard and felt by those in power, including the Chiefs of Staff. One or two highly publicized resignations might have been expected, not these days it seems! What a shame we didn't get Lord Garden as CAS for I am sure we would have heard and seen far more effort to enhance our woeful AT and SH provision, rather than the incumbent's enchantment with the "Cavalry of the Skies".

tucumseh

22nd Aug 2007, 15:38

Lord Moonie, a former Labour defence minister, yesterday called for "additional resources to be spent on the process".

Surely not the same Moonie who, in 2003, upheld CDP’s ruling that refusing to knowingly waste money was a disciplinary offence? (And the order to do so was not). How times change when you don the ermine.

chappie

22nd Aug 2007, 16:08

Two years and seven months.....and waiting ....and waiting....and waiting....you get the picture!
Two years and seven months left to wonder what happened, why did it happen, what will be the answers to the questions that are left to play on over and over inside your mind daily for all that time? It's hard enough to lose someone you cherish, despite understanding the risks that they knowingly put themselves into as part of military life, but it is truly unforgivable when that death may have been avoided and was not part of the expected risk that each member of HM Forces puts themselves in. Or one could ask todays serving personnel is it indeed part of the norm that there is,an accepted culture that instead of being provided for and supported by the organisation and country that you fight for, you will almost certainly, be left to get on with it, make the best of what you have got and hope that you won't, as one government minister said two years and seven months ago, simply be unlucky?! Of course it's not all down to luck but they won't admit the inadequacies of the bean counters and the government ministers who continue to stick their heads in the sand are the primary reason behind the catastrophic failings that cost so many lives in so many ways.
With the amount of grieving families now who are speaking out the only message that is coming across loud and clear is that you will be let down should the poo hit the fan and the second you cease to exist then so does your family in the eyes of the MoD. No answers for them, just a case of oh dear terribly sorry, now please go and for god sake don't ask for the truth about what happened. It should not be down to us the grieving families,friends and RAF community to stamp our feet and get attention to action something.
The coroner is doing his best but the poor bloke gets non stop questions and queries about what is happenening because we are just left out in the cold. That's not fair on the coroner or us. Do the idiots in government not compute the idea that if they fund and action the process with the level of prority it deserves then the grieving families who are such a hassle might go away, shut up and stop being the embarrasessment that we have had to become!
Sorry for rant but very frustrated with the whole process. Only last night my 6 yr olddaughter out of the blue started to cry and when i asked her what was wrong she said she missed uncle bob and that dead means dead mummy, it's forever and that makes me sad. why did that happen to him it's not fair i want to see him and i get sad when you cry about him. i was totally not expecting it, so it was distressing enough but it's even more distressing when i know i can't answer her questions. Something as private and as sad as that means nothing to the government if it was harry or wills that had died what's the betting that the process will be quick, efficient and as it should be but sadly not afforded to us the great british public. i want to grieve but can't until i know that i have all the facts about what actually happened to my brother and that this never happpens again for anyone.

nigegilb

22nd Aug 2007, 16:26

You are being heard loud and clear Chappie. The Telegraph gave a leader about it today and it remains firmly on the political agenda. I am even hearing that the RAF at very high levels are being extremely co-operative. I think everyone now wants this inquest to happen just as quickly as possible. The MoD and RAF have taken a caning over the issue of foam.. In many ways it pre-meditated a flow of information concerning all the issues chug refers to. Almost as though the issue opened the floodgates on years of under-funding, mis-management and manpower reductions. Not sure if it consoles you in anyway, but nothing has been the same since the Herc campaign. You are right though, we must not give up harrying the MoD for a second. Every single UOR could well be a reduction in next year's defence budget. The MoD will continually look to save money. Still no sign of fuel tank protection for Nimrod, (cost?), armoured vehicles? Rocket and mortar overhead protection in Basra? All basics, still found wanting.

The biggest shortage of all is probably manpower, and still the Chiefs of Staff are in denial. Keep the faith over the coming months, a very thorough investigation is continuing.

More from Lord King;

The Prime Minister continued:

“For our part, in Government, it will mean increased expenditure on equipment, personnel and the conditions of our Armed Forces; not in the short run but for the long term".

I would have preferred to hear that statement at the start of his term of office and not on his farewell tour.

The current situation is no secret and is known to the House. Obviously, there are challenges for the RAF and the Royal Navy, but I shall concentrate on the Army. We have 39 battalions in the Army, only two of which are at full strength and 37 under strength. Last June, the Minister said in a debate in this House that recruitment was good and retention was satisfactory. I would be very interested to hear the current situation. In welcoming the recent pay settlement for our Armed Forces, I suspect that that sort of settlement does not come out of the Treasury

15 Mar 2007 : Column 834

unless there is a stark realisation that something needs to be done and that the Treasury was presented with some pretty dire figures to persuade it to move in the apparently much more generous approach than it had in the past. In technical terms, it is claimed that planning assumptions have been exceeded in the past seven years, which is hitting the training and regeneration capabilities of our Armed Forces.

I do not know how many of your Lordships were here when we had the Minister repeated a Statement on troop withdrawal from Bosnia. The Minster will recall that he started by expressing his condolences to Rifleman Coffeyof the 2nd Battalion of the Rifles. What hit your Lordships at the time was the realisation that here was a young man who had been a trained soldier for barely a year, who was on his second tour in Afghanistan, already having done a seven-month tour—longer than the intended six months. He sadly lost his life on a second tour that he had been asked to volunteer for because of a shortage of trained troops.

Recently in the other place a Question was asked about the Government’s definition of overstretch. The Answer given by Mr Adam Ingram was that overstretch would be if the Army was unable to fulfil the tasks asked of them. That is a very limited interpretation of overstretch. The Armed Forces are outstandingly good at taking on and meeting the immediate challenge of the moment—that is one of the challenges that they face. The duty of Government and Parliament is to see not just whether they are able to fulfil the tasks asked of them at this moment but whether they are going to be able to fulfil those tasks in two, three or five years’ time. That is my reason for raising this debate.

Obviously the pay settlement is an attempt to help with retention and recruitment problems. There are morale issues; recently there has been much publicity about medical facilities. I do not wish to go over that in detail but other Members may wish to. It was mentioned in the other place yesterday by the Prime Minister. We face the challenge of a much tougher combat environment than was expected, and the number of casualties are rising. The Minister may like to comment on the number of wounded who are now facing the kind of issues found in the Walter Reed Hospital, which led to the sacking of the Army Secretary and the Surgeon-General. It was stated that they were overwhelmed by the number of casualties coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq. I do not know to what extent we are able to cope with the numbers that we are incurring.

Other issues affect morale and retention. I live not far from the Lyneham airbase. A recent issue of the local paper, the Wiltshire Gazette, under the heading “How Many More Men Must Die?” stated:

“Crews are being sent to war in flying bombs”.

This refers to damage due to the lack of fire-suppressant foam in the Hercules aircraft that are used—or are not, I hope, now being used—for airbridge activities. That sort of article can be damaging. It was written by a former Hercules pilot, expressing his concern about the lack of proper equipment. Why are all the planes that the Americans have flying in the war zone properly protected? Why did the Australians take action in 2004 with their Hercules? When the matter was brought up in 2002 each Hercules could be protected for $25,000. That is one small illustration to establish whether we are taking justified care of our Armed Forces.

chappie

22nd Aug 2007, 16:49

yes there is a flood gate situation all because others have drawn strength from what we achieved. in a way a good feeling knowing that the lengths that have been gone to have given confidence to others. what is not a good feeling though is that instead of the governemnt and the MoD taking care of those left behind it is us the grieving that are left to ensure that action is taken and adhered to, in effect doing their jobs for them.
good to hear of the upper rank co-operation within the RAF, but a biter pill to swallow when in some ways too little too late springs to mind.
as for manpower being a problem, no suprise there really. we may be a patriotic lot but plebs we are not and no one is going to put themselves into a situation where their life depends on a a governemnt and their systematic abuse and constant failings of the members of HM Forces on a plethora of isues that frankly should not even be issues.

be sure of this, as military families who are left behind...we will not disappear into the back ground but unite, gain strength and fight for what you all deserve. we do not scare and we will not back down. the lads and lasses of the forces, their families and their welfare is of paramount importance to us.

Chugalug2

23rd Aug 2007, 11:55

be sure of this, as military families who are left behind...we will not disappear into the back ground but unite, gain strength and fight for what you all deserve. we do not scare and we will not back down. the lads and lasses of the forces, their families and their welfare is of paramount importance to us

Well said Chappie, what these jumped up councillors who "govern" us need to know is that they have been rumbled for the uncaring, mean minded and, above all, grossly incompetent inconsequentials that they are. When they have been finally swept from power the rebuilding of the once great institutions of this sad land must commence. What they have perpetrated on the Armed Forces of this nation, the last bastion of excellence, is unforgivable and will long be remembered. In the meantime we must point up each and every failure. An awesome task, but when it concerns the unnecessary suffering of those who have already suffered so much on our behalf, who could say that they cannot be bothered? Go to Tapper's Dad's thread and sign the No 10 petition if you haven't already. The only way to change things under this lot is to shout loud and long. They know no other way. So shout!
As for yourself, Chappie, you remain an inspiration to us all. Despite your grief, despite your busy life, you soldier on to reduce the danger and suffering for others. We all salute you and admire you. Lead on!

flipster

1st Sep 2007, 21:11

Anybody seen/heard of the BOI re Herc lost at Lashgar Gar (XV 206?)

On_The_Top_Bunk

1st Sep 2007, 23:53

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/ReportPublishedOnLossOfRafHerculesXv206InAfghanistan.htm

google is your friend

flipster

2nd Sep 2007, 13:57

Thanks

The BOI report is an interesting read and was thoroughly done, well done chaps. I can't fault the recommendations and hope the issues have been addressed already.

At first sight, there is little in this BOI to help or hinder the ESF 'cause' - as the holes in the 206's wing were very big and ESF couldn't have stopped the fire - it is not meant to anyway.

Nonetheless, it does not take the brains of an archbishop to work out that smaller explosive fragments, entering the wing of an ac containing enough vapour but without ESF, could easily have had a different result.

I pray no-one thinks that, just because the demise XV206 was not prevented by ESF, the fitting of fuel-explosion prevention measures are is optional.

Or am I teaching granny?
Flip

nigegilb

9th Sep 2007, 13:08

Good news for the thread, unofficial, as ever, but Terri Judd of the Independent has been told that the Herc foam program will be complete in a matter of weeks. Credit to Terri, I am sure she won't mind the article being reproduced here in full. Now all we need to do is persuade the luddites in the MoD to fit fuel tank protection as standard to all military aircraft both fixed wing and helo, starting with the Nimrod.

Thanks to all those who did their bit.

Safety journey nears end at last for RAF Hercules

By Terri Judd

Published: 08 September 2007

More than two-and-a-half years after 10 servicemen were killed north of Baghdad when their RAF Hercules C-130 plane was hit by ground-to-air fire, the aircraft which transport troops across the two war zones will now finally be fitted with vital anti-explosive foam.
The move comes after a lengthy campaign by relatives of those who died on 30 January 2005. Flight XV 179 – carrying nine RAF crew from the special forces support 47 Squadron and a Royal Signals soldier – was en route to an American base in Balad that day when a fuel tank was hit by ground fire, exploded and the right wing sheared off. The board of inquiry said a contributory factor was the fact the Hercules' fuel tanks were not fitted with "any fire retarding technology, either foam or inert gas" to prevent an explosive fuel-air mix developing – standard on American planes since Vietnam. It recommended that all C-130s should be fitted urgently.
The Ministry of Defence said that before the crash "it was judged that there was a low risk of a fuel tank explosion" and that priority was given to the threat of missile attacks rather than lighter weapons but promised to fit the device on the aircraft which can carry up to 70 people.
Yet in October last year the families called for "urgent action" after learning the RAF had only upgraded two of its fleet of more than 40 Hercules. Leaked documents showed that RAF pilots had requested the fuel safety device be fitted three years earlier. Sarah Chapman, whose brother Sergeant Bob O’Connor, 38, was killed that day, said the troops were being treated like "expendable assets".
The process which involves fitting 500 different pieces of foam, is a long laborious one and hampered by the need to bring the ageing planes back from operations for the process.
However, The Independent has learned that all Hercules in Iraq or Afghanistan are due to be fitted with the safety device by the beginning of October. It will mean that troops being transported across war zones as well as the RAF crews flying them daily will now have the added protection.
Nigel Gilbert, a former Hercules pilot who flew with 47 Squadron and knew several of the crew killed in 2005, said yesterday: "It is great news but what a nightmare it has been to get there. All the families wanted was that no-one else should got through that again. At least now they know a single bullet won’t bring a plane down."

Meet the aircraft crew training for service in Afghanistan and Iraq
By Terri Judd
Flight engineer Mark "Skid" Brown's most memorable experience in Afghanistan revolves around a group of men who will never know his name or remember his face, soldiers too terribly injured even to be aware they ever met.
"The moments that really stick in my mind are pulling the wounded out of (Camp) Bastion, actually getting them to medical aid in time to save their lives," said Master Aircrewman Brown a crew member on one of the RAF's Hercules aircraft - the workhorses of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We could be thinking that our day was over, everybody was going to the showers and we would get a call there was a badly wounded person who needed to get to Kabul. Our work can run into 24 hours but it is a rewarding aspect of the job." The Warrant Officer and the crew of the RAF C-130 Hercules never meet their fragile passengers again but they always check reports on their outcome.
On a spectacularly picturesque and remote beach in south Wales this week, the hulk of the C-130K - nicknamed Fat Albert, "the old lady" to Master Aircrewman Brown - descended from the skies almost silently until the sudden roar when pilots threw the propellors into reverse thrust and deftly touched down in a marked box just 90ft by 500ft. Their runway was soft sand only 3,000ft long.
One landing successfully accomplished, they took off in an equally short distance, banking hard as they became airborne, the 40-year-old plane a surprisingly graceful sight despite her rotund frame. They were the RAF Hercules pilots practising for the harsh and hostile landings strips in Iraq and Afghanistan.
These ancient aircraft cross the countries countless times each day, transporting troops, equipment and the injured. Four have been lost in the past three years. One was shot down north of Baghdad in January 2005. In May 2006 hit a mine on landing in Lashkar Gah, Afghanistan, another hit an improvised explosive device on a tactical landing zone in Maysan, southern Iraq, in February this year, while a fourth was destroyed crash landing near Kabul last week.
The C-130s - ageing aircraft due to be replaced over the next few years - and their crews are pushed to their limits but, they insist, not beyond. " I would definitely go on record as saying we"re stretched. We"re busy and it's demanding work but I would not say we are overstretched," said Wing Commander Fraser Spence, officer commanding operations wing at RAF Lyneham.
Their work is rarely recognised until moments like January 2005 when the Hercules was shot down, killing all 10 on board. Flight XV 179 - carrying nine RAF crew from 47 Squadron and a Royal Signals soldier - was en route to an American base in Balad when a fuel tank was hit by ground fire, exploded and the right wing sheared off. The board of inquiry concluded that a lack of explosive suppressant foam was a contributory factor and The Independent learnt this week that all those on operations are now expected to have it fitted by the beginning of next month. "We"ve got to be lucky every single flight. They only have to be lucky once," said Wing Commander Greg Cook, who believes the crews rarely get recognition for the perilous task they perform.
"We don"t get shot at as often as the army but we are getting shot at most days," added the officer commanding 47 Squadron. After 23 years of service, Master Aircrewman Brown, of 70 Squadron, has had to cope with the loss of too many friends.
"Naturally it affects us. We"re all aware of our mortality. It doesn"t impact straight away. It just leaves you dead inside. A few months down the line, that is when it really bites. It impacts when you see the families and the effect on them. You have a hard time getting your head around it but it doesn"t stop you doing the job."

Chugalug2

9th Sep 2007, 22:39

Congratulations Nigel, Chappie and everyone else who dragged this stubborn reluctant nag to the trough and succeeded in making it drink. No doubt true to form the MOD apparatchiks will be erecting their improvised road blocks to hamper the next anticipated assault on their fiefdom. So be it. In the words of WC, let them do their worst and we shall do our best. ESF, or equivalent, is a no brainer, just as parachutes for aircrew were in WW! (not issued) and Armour Plate and Bullet Proof Windscreens were for the Battle of Britain (just in time). What chance that the Nimrod BoI will call for it? What chance that the Chief of the Air Staff will call for it? What chance that "anything that the military need this government will provide"? None I would suggest, so time for us to heed Nigel's clarion call and make our feelings known. Time is of the essence. Our Guys and Girls need this now, not after due consideration, not when the financial situation is more conducive, not until more lives are lost in preventable crashes, NOW!

BEagle

10th Sep 2007, 05:42

"However, The Independent has learned that all Hercules in Iraq or Afghanistan are due to be fitted with the safety device by the beginning of October."

That's hardly a fleet-wide fit, is it.

" I would definitely go on record as saying we"re stretched. We"re busy and it's demanding work but I would not say we are overstretched,"

Quelle surprise - of course you wouldn't, would you....:rolleyes:

nigegilb

10th Sep 2007, 06:35

Nothing new in Commanders denying over-stretch. HCDC commented on this very thing last year.

"The MoD's confidence that the UK Armed Forces are not overstretched contrasts with what we are hearing from Service personnel on the ground. We are concerned that the "can-do" attitude of which our Services are rightly proud may be leading Service commanders to underplay the pressure on Service personnel and their families. The Armed Forces can tolerate short-term pressure but sustained breaches of Harmony Guidelines will damage the Services' operational capability. This is a matter of crucial importance. We intend to take evidence on the MoD's Annual Report and Accounts in the Autumn and will give close attention to the data on Harmony Guidelines."

The actual numbers of Hercs receiving foam protection are around 2/3rds of the Fleet. Respectable compared with the original plan to fit 5 Hercules with this essential protection. We really won the argument here. The luddites really believed that SF were the only people to face a small arms threat and that there was no historical case for Hercs sustaining this threat. All rubbish, of course. Found this on the RAF Careers website.

"1992–96 – Balkan Conflict: The RAF joined other nations to transport urgently needed supplies to Sarajevo, a city under siege and with its civilian population under extreme threat from both war and starvation. It was a very dangerous mission; RAF Hercules squadrons were shot at and often flew in atrocious weather. The mission became the longest airlift of humanitarian supplies in history. "

Ingram's view?

"until recently the majority of large aircraft did not routinely operate in hostile environments"

More from Ingram;

Q79 Chairman: Moving on to Hercules, you have assured us that you are taking appropriate action about the Hercules flight safety concerns and it seemed to be an area of concern to the pilots in theatre, and I wondered whether you were aware that they were concerned about the vulnerability of the Hercules aircraft that they were flying.

Mr Ingram: "I am trying to think if I have spoken to any pilots recently about that. I have not had any personal point of contact, but again, given some of the prominence which has been given to the issue, then it would not surprise me that they would be thinking that they are now flying a piece of kit that should have something fitted to it. That is what we are seeking to do. We are all experienced enough to know that there has to be a balance of risk in all of this. It goes back to the point that, if we were not to use those aircraft, we could not deliver on our mission in Iraq and, therefore, while we build up that new protective measure, we have to again use aircraft in the most effective and judicious way. A lot of those aircraft have very substantial fit on them now in terms of DAS and if the requirement is justified, it will then be procured. It takes time in any procurement stream to go through that process and one big success we have in procurement of course is on the urgent operational requirement process. Everyone who looks at this recognises the success of it, but, because you identify a shortfall or a requirement, it does not mean to say you can deliver it overnight. It is not because of lack of money, but it is then because of availability within industry to upgrade. In terms of what we are trying to do with that particular fit on the Hercules, and we are considering whether we now need that to be fitted to aircraft other than those which operate in the highest threat environment, that then has an impact on the rest of the Hercules maintenance programme, and it is trying to get the balance right because, if we start losing airframes because we are doing that particular fit, then we have another operational problem. That is where the balance of discussion is taking place at the moment as well as trying to ensure that industry can deliver on the schedules that we are giving them."

In the end we gave them a pasting, because they had no arguments that stood up. Of the 4 Hercs lost in Iraq and Afg 2 were crewed by SF and 2 from the Main Sqn. That Ingram sought to differentiate risk in a theatre of war just shows how out of touch the MoD and it's Ministers really are. Anyone out there fighting a cause should take strength from the Hercules campaign.

Otis Spunkmeyer

10th Sep 2007, 17:02

" I would definitely go on record as saying we"re stretched. We"re busy and it's demanding work but I would not say we are overstretched," said Wing Commander Fraser Spence, officer commanding operations wing at RAF Lyneham.
So tell me you didn't launch the Q aircraft to drop the Falcons at the Lydd airshow last weekend. Airborne Q? With no weekend engineering support to turn it around if there was a shout? Hope the Staish doesn't get to find out about that one!
Okay okay, the job got done, so we're stretched but not overstretched.

Chugalug2

21st Nov 2007, 11:15

Swiss Des may have to clear his diary for a visit to Trowbridge if Coroner David Masters decides to call him to give evidence at the Inquest into the deaths of those on board XV179. Presumably that would have to be on one of the two and a half days a week that he is Defence Secretary:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7102714.stm

Somehow one suspects that his input would throw very little light on the tragedy that the families are seeking an explanation of.

nigegilb

21st Nov 2007, 12:40

I attended the 2nd PIR on Monday and it was really special to actually meet some of the people I have been emailing and phoning for so many months. We finally got a date March 31st next year for the commencement of the Inquest proper. I hope an MoD Minister honours the families by explaining the comments made about acceptable levels of risk in Iraq and Afghanistan. Adam Ingram reassured my father that all Hercules aircraft had a DAS back in 2002. Ingram also suggested in the beginning that only those crews facing the most risk would get the protection of foam. I would very much like to meet him in person.

mary_hinge

9th Dec 2007, 08:47

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7134919.stm

Families of nine UK personnel killed in a plane shot down in Iraq will get no legal aid at an inquest but those of an Australian airman will, it has emerged.

All 10 onboard the Wiltshire-based Hercules died when it was shot down in January 2005, in the biggest single UK loss of life in the Iraq conflict. The Australian government will pay for a lawyer for relatives of Flt Lt Paul Pardoel at the inquest in March.

Chugalug2

9th Dec 2007, 12:59

Mary, never any need to apologise for drawing our attention to the parsimonious mean spirited actions (as against honeyed words) that the MOD reserves for those already struck down in grief and despair. But the greatest humiliation to be dealt comes now:

The Legal Services Commission, which runs the legal aid scheme, says the questions which will be asked by the Australian lawyer, combined with the experience of the coroner, should serve the interests of the British relatives
Is not this the most despicable stand of the long string of obtuse positions that has characterised this government's response to this tragedy? The British government will not provide for legal representation of NoK, but the Australian Government will, so they are advised to sponge off them! The input of the NoK in this accident has been vital to the campaign to equip the fleet with proper fuel tank protection. The input in the Nimrod case has been pivotal in unmasking the scandalous deterioration in Airworthiness provision that this accident, that accident, the Tornado/Patriot accident, and others suffered from. Avoidable accidents, needless deaths. The least that this inept ministry should do is enable NoK to properly challenge these evidential failures. Angry email in offing to local MP.

chappie

9th Dec 2007, 14:29

well, this time words fail me when it comes to this governmnet and my quest for the truth. i am not allowed assistance for a solicitor to help me find out the truth and represent me but the MoD are being represented by a senior barrister. i am supposed to sponge off the aussie government yet not be supported by my own. it is a laughable suggestion yet they made it.
:ugh::ugh::ugh:

the thing is, i am not laughing anymore. i am running out of fight and feeling like the walls are closing in around me and the reality of trying to hold my own in court and try and understand what the jargon means and what to do with information is all to close. i lost my dignity and cried when i was interviewed and i am so ashamed. i lost my brother, he's dead ,as are the others and they are not coming back. i know that and i'm not trying to get him back. i would ask this , who's interests are the government serving? not the crew of XV179, not my families, it would seem only to be theirs. next question to ask is...why?

so fellow ppruners i ask for your help. write to your mp's, spread the word. i am being stopped from my right to taking active participation in the inquest of bob's death, is because i'll ask the wrong questions? is the governmnet trying to hide something. they failed the crew of that plane , where was their apology from swiss tony? it is only right and proper that this was done for the nimrod crew and families, but all i need say ESF!

Chugalug2

9th Dec 2007, 14:47

Well there you have it, this tenacious gutsy lady, who has so selflessly dedicated herself to the cause of making the Hercules Fleet more battlefield worthy than it ever was for her beloved brother, is calling on us now to help her and others who were bereaved by this dreadful accident. Can any of us turn away and ignore her plea? Let us start a PPRune campaign now that will ensure that this shameless government is shamed into providing the legal help that they so desperately need. This one sided battle is an insult to those who gave their lives, and the perception that enormous amounts of public money are available to civilians suffering no more than a sprained thumb, but withheld from those who have lost loved ones serving their country and want to know the real reasons why, is an indictment of us all. As Chappie says start now by calling on your MPs to demand that this decision is revoked, and quickly, for much has to be done before the Inquest in March.
Let Right Be Done!
P.S. Chappie, take heart, you have bottomless depths of resolve that have seen you through many dark days, dig into them again now. You are not alone!

Tappers Dad

9th Dec 2007, 14:50

Chappie

I saw you on Tv this morning and you started me crying, your despair was very evident. I have managed to obtain the services of a Barrister for our inquest on a "Pro Bono" basis in other words free. I will pm you the details.

You are not alone, a lot of people will be fighting you corner and praying for an outcome where you to will get an apology.

nigegilb

9th Dec 2007, 15:23

The Legal Aid beaurocrats have made erroneous assumptions about the Australian position.

The MoD is spending millions on its own representation at these Inquests at tax payers expense.

Chappie, I am in the States as I type this, I am on to this as soon as I get back tomorrow.

Kind regards,

Nige

Sempre 206

9th Dec 2007, 17:23

You did not loose your dignity this morning. I too cry when I think of the friends I have lost over Afganistan and elsewhere.
You demonstarted more dignity and love this morning than most of those who live and work in the buildings off Whitehall could ever comprehend.

chappie

9th Dec 2007, 18:19

than you for kind offers and help. much needed boost given, apart from the fact that i'm flagging as on 12 hour shift and neuro itu is not a job i get much chance to rest on but have regularly checked in and been so very touched by your support. being at work has meant that i've not seen the piece but it has been made clear they showed the bit where i cried...basically the panic welled up in me. daft i know!

thanks again. it has been an honour knowing you and serving you and helping keep you safe. i am a very lucky lady!

BEagle

9th Dec 2007, 18:47

" i am a very lucky lady!"

Well, I think that actually you are a very plucky lady!

Justice will be done!

airsound

9th Dec 2007, 19:56

Chappie, to see your piece, go to
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7134919.stm
and click on
VIDEO AND AUDIO NEWS
Reaction to the decision not to grant legal aid
- and don't be ashamed! It was affecting and effective.

airsound

flipster

9th Dec 2007, 20:48

Chappie,

You are an inspiration to us all!

Keep the faith.

Flip

herkman

9th Dec 2007, 21:42

Chappie, it is all about what is right and wrong.

Duty Honour and Country describes the action of those ten men, who went into harms way, and unfortunately got caught.

However it appears to me as an outsider, that more effort and money is being spent on protecting the backsides of those of the MOD, WHO SHOULD be forced to accept responsibility for both the lack of action, and what they did do.

Be assurred that no amount of window dressing, will stop the truth coming out, and justice will prevail.

Also be assurred that on the days of the hearing, there will be lots who will be there, if only in spirit supporting you.

Your brother and the rest of the crew did not die in vain, and many people in the years to come, will have great need to thank those involved, in stopping it happening again.

With every best wish, from all of us down here.

Remember "C130 Hercules aircrew-simply the best".

Col

chappie

9th Dec 2007, 22:15

herkman, i found my remaining stickers the other day!
now on nightshift with baby now and she wants to play, so no sleep for me. i will be using my time effectively and will be writing to swiss tony and broon! it's about time i introduced myself to this "newcomer."

of course my mp will be reminded of me...again.

the telegraph are supposed to be doing a piece tomorrow.

i think i might even put a call into the australian government to see if they are aware that the british government are spending their money for them! what about the poor lawyer, who has enough work to be doing , finding out the government think he can take us others on. at the end of the day, i have every faith in the coroner and his investigator. we are very fortunate and i am pleased to report the issue of foam and all it's surrounding issues will be investigated for the inquest. i also do not want to cause any stress or compromise to the solicitor and his family member. it is right and proper that theyare able to do what they are.

i managed to see the piece..shame i didn't have the skills to complete my sentence! d'oh! :ugh:

kam

10th Dec 2007, 02:23

Dear Chappie, etal,
I've just watched the ABC here in Australia and I'm surprised as everybody else to hear that my legal costs are being payed for by the Australian Government. This was raised after the first preliminary meeting and I thought I was clear about it simply not being true! Im never loud enough, I am an uncomfortable creature in public and deepest apologies to those families who did not get my message. I payed for myself, lawyer and the all expenses required to travel and attend that one. I also continued to pay the expenses for his represenation for this the 2nd preliminary meeting.
That being said it is appalling that families are in this situation and that is the real issue.I thought the comments made by The Legal Services were tokinistic and patronising. They do not know the questions that will asked by my lawyer. We are all entitled to ask question and I fully support that end. In context to the way Military Justice System works in Aust this would simply not be an issue and it is part of the process that families are entitled to legal representation as a matter of principle and fairness and secondly that they are transparent. I wrote to the RBL about my concerns sometime ago now about how families find themselves powerless and pheripheral in all these inquiry procedures, following the death of a loved one. The MOD have a mighty filter and we have to be in there boots and all to push for access and equitable relations in these complex and overwhelming circumstances.

Chugalug2

10th Dec 2007, 08:20

Hi Kam, so good to hear from you again! Having said that I must now crave your forgiveness for taking anything said by the BBC and an agency of this government at face value. It would seem that the Beeb are pumping out the falsehood of a lawyer provided by your Government despite you having corrected that misapprehension already. I apologise for repeating their indolent story. By the same token, I now realise that the Legal Services Commission is not implying that British NoK should sponge off the Australian Government, and I should wish to correct that implication in my post. It would seem on the contrary that their position is that British NoK should sponge off you! This from an agency of this government that purports to represent me. I feel shame and humiliation at the depths that this administration is prepared to take us to in their immoral meanderings, when will we be free of their Orwellian philosophy that we are all equal, but some of us are a good deal more equal than others? Your resolve to pursue this issue, and from so far away, against such an obdurate and mendacious opponent has all our admiration. You and Chappie in particular have been the ones who have reminded us all of the ongoing human tragedy that is the lot of ten bereaved families. I see that you amended your post to remove some emotive words. I know that you and Chappie both feel a need to do that, and to appear cool calm and objective when posting or being interviewed. May I say that, for me at least, you have every right to be emotional, and such moments, as with Chappie's interview, make your case stronger, not weaker, and reach out to us all. Keep posting Kam, and with emotion if that is how you feel!
Chug

airsound

10th Dec 2007, 08:49

Chug

You have an extraordinary knack of putting your finger right on the pulse. I too wanted to reassure Chappie and to welcome Kam back, but you said it all better than I would have done. Thank you.

For me too, both of you, Chappie and Kam, have every right to be emotional. You do ,indeed, make your case stronger, not weaker, by reaching out to all of us. I am sure that such depth of feeling, expressed subtly but forcefully, will help immeasurably in the battle that is not yet over.

airsound

kam

10th Dec 2007, 10:39

Oh Chug, like airsound, love your work!
You could have disagreed, I always enjoy reading what you say.

chappie

10th Dec 2007, 10:42

kam, big huge apologies. i did not mean to upset or offend you. i had a niggle in the deep dark depths of my mind that you were indeed funding it, as i recalled a time where i had been very concerned for you and all that is involved in coming over here.
i can only go by the information i was given. i will check out with the solicitor but to the best of my knowledge he was told the reasons for refusal were as follows. not all families had applied for legal aid and therefore the majority had indicated they were happy to represent self, or even continue with no representation. the second reason was that the coroner is highly experienced and will be conducting a very thorough investigation andwill allow you to ask questions in court. the last reason was that there was an austalian government funded solicitor representing a family member and his asking of pertinent questions would be of benefit to the families in the court representing them selves. so, apart from the fact that the info was wrong re funding there had been no consideration for the solicitor in question and of course yourself. this , along with the other "reasons" has made my blood boil. for some reason today my ability to cope with all this has left me and i am more than a little emotional. i guess that was evident the other day as the panic rose in me as i realised this was a reality.

i am truly sorry kam. please do not be mad at me. this is an emotional and scary time. i have fought and fought against this government and yet i'm still fighting...and it's a struggle to keep going. our intention the other day was to embaress our government. i hope you understand that. none of this ever touches the lives of these ministers. i hope that one day i will get through to them.

sorry for this emotional blog, not able to stop crying this morning as i am so tired and frustrated.

kam

10th Dec 2007, 11:07

No worries chappie, no need to apologise. This is an emotional and scary time for all of us.

Chugalug2

10th Dec 2007, 11:33

kam, airsound, thank you both for your kind words. In truth what I post is simply a reflection of my feelings as generated by the issues raised here, in short it comes from my emotions! Particularly in the aviation profession we make a virtue of being detached, objective and above all, unemotional. All well and good when dealing with aviation, indeed essential for long life and happiness. The issue at stake here however is not about aviation, but of right and wrong, and anger and empathy are appropriate and natural when faced with such dishonourable treatment of the vulnerable and powerless. That, I hasten to add, is not meant to be patronising, for that would be my state as well if placed in the sad situations of chappie, kam or the other NoK. This is another outrageous position taken by an outrageous government. If you agree with that statement then say so, by contacting your MP via this site:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
It will even follow up your post to ensure that you get a reply! Otherwise they can trot out the ever familiar response that they have had very little in the way of protest over the issue. That must not happen!
Chappie, bear up, we are all with you. The light at the end of this dank tunnel is in sight viz a viz the MOD. They are the ones who will end up with egg on their face, for chickens are coming home to roost now, flocks of them! (Presumably on their upper window ledges, if they are going to end up with eggs on their faces! Hat... coat....exit left!)

Mr Point

10th Dec 2007, 13:35

Chappie,

You came across very well in the BBC interview and viewers who have lost loved ones in the past could empathise.

I find it abhorrent that legal aid will not be provided. By stating that,"legal aid will be available for inquests in exceptional circumstances", is the MoD implying that the loss of XV179 was a routine occurrence, i.e. not exceptional? :ugh:

nigegilb

10th Dec 2007, 17:25

Actually AR, you missed the point, this latest argument is about the inequality of legal representation. Why does the MoD not treat the Inquest in the same way as it directs the families to? Non-adversarial. Surely the MoD does not need legal representation? So why is the budget for MoD legal representation now well over £1m? The legal firm representing some of the families were pushing for breaches in HRA. I was there the other week, and I noticed the MoD Legal chap getting quite hot under the collar at this suggestion.

Something to do with compensation per chance?

In terms of exceptional circumstances, this aircraft was brought down, most probably by a single bullet. If the boys had been in an American SF Herc it would have been protected from this kind of attack since 1967. I would say that constitutes exceptional.

Thank you AR/Moderator

herkman

10th Dec 2007, 18:34

Here, Here, very well put

Col

RaPs

10th Dec 2007, 19:09

I have just finished composing a response in letter form to the news of the last couple of days, it will be dropping on someones doormat before the end of the week! I warm to some of the responses that have been posted and thank most of you for there content, some of the others..well.
It amazes me how some of these postings are so crass in content. We are doing all we can to try and bring some resolution to this god-almighty tragedy, so will some of you making these postings just realise just how insensitive and wounding they can be. Don't you think that every day we only have a photograph and memories (happy ones) to keep us going, we just hope and pray that what we're doing is for the benefit of all.

chappie

10th Dec 2007, 19:14

again i echo the fact that i am a lucky lady to have such support.

today was a wobbly one..now i'm sorted and back on patrol, so stand by your beds ....as it were!

this AR1 i am intrigued that the post was pulled...who by? him/her or the lovely mods?

if they can't stand the heat then why on earth come into the kitchen? if he/she wants blubbering family members maybe i ought to treat them to a PM! clearly doessn't know how blubbery i can get!!!! fnar fnar!

heated letter written and to be circulated ampngst the government and all that!

airsound

10th Dec 2007, 19:15

Why thanks Chug, and Mr Hman. I hadn't noticed the offending item had gone awol. So I can reasonably withdraw my bit of yuletide splenetics - and, as you so kindly offer to stand in, I might sneak off down the Mousetrap for a swift pint of old and filthy. Keep yer eyes peeled now.

Toot toot
airsound

chappie

10th Dec 2007, 19:32

'fraid i may have to tootle off now as v. tired thanks to the antics of little people and of course my incessant blubbering!

keep them peeled and be ready for incoming.....crack on!

Brian Dixon

10th Dec 2007, 20:39

Hi Chappie,
I have sent you a PM. There's one line in the PM I will post here, because it applies to all who lost someone that day:

"Above all else, take comfort in the fact that you have the support of a great many, and your loved ones have the respect of a nation."

The support of PPRuNe and PPRuNers should never be underestimated!

With very good wishes,
Brian

nigegilb

10th Dec 2007, 20:46

Indeed Brian, Chappie you desperately need to read your PMs there is a very generous offer in there somewhere.

nigegilb

11th Dec 2007, 12:14

Update on the families claim for legal aid.

Firstly, Kellie has issued a rebuttal on the Australian claims made in several articles and used as part justification for the finding. Expect a clarification on this story shortly.

Secondly, I have contacted HCDC to try and get up to date figures on how much the MoD is spending on these Inquests and the Herc Inquest in particular.

The answers might help an appeal.

Finally,there have been some extremely kind offers of assistance from some very learned friends. These things are never easy to sort out, but once again, there has been a fantastic response.

This is how Sean Rayment first broke this story over a year ago. At that point the MoD had spent £560,000 on legal representation at Inquests. I would hope this will go against their ridiculous arguments that my 7 year old daughter is enjoying knocking down!!!

No Government cash for families' lawyers at Hercules crash inquest
Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:21am BST 09/10/2006

The families of 10 servicemen killed in an RAF Hercules crash have been told that they will not receive any government money for legal fees during an inquest into the disaster.

Wives and relatives of the servicemen, who died in January 2005 when their C-130 transport aircraft was hit by an insurgent's missile in Iraq, want specialist lawyers to represent them. They believe the disaster could have been avoided if the aircraft had been properly equipped to fly into combat zones.

advertisement

But it can be revealed that they have been refused any financial help from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) towards legal representation at the inquest, despite the fact that over the past two years the MoD has paid lawyers almost £560,000 to represent the Government at 17 inquests into the deaths of servicemen between June 2004 and July 2006.

The MoD paid a team of lawyers £152,343 at the inquest into Pte James Collinson, the last recruit to die at Deepcut Army Barracks. MoD figures also show it paid another team of lawyers £72,815 during the inquest into the deaths of six members of the Royal Military Police, who were murdered by terrorists in Iraq in June 2003.

The MoD claims that because an inquest is a "non-adversarial fact-finding process of limited scope" there is no need for the families to have lawyers present – even though the ministry insists it will send a legal team to the inquest into the C-130 crash.

The revelations come after the MoD was forced to admit that almost two thirds of the 119 servicemen and women who have died in Iraq have not had inquests.

News that the MoD had refused to pay the families' inquest legal expenses was greeted with dismay and fury by MPs and relatives of the dead.

Gerald Howath, the Tory shadow defence secretary, described the MoD's ruling as "monstrous" and added: "It is unbelievable that the MoD is paying City lawyers vast amounts of money to represent its own interests but not giving the same access to families of dead servicemen."

The families of the servicemen want to know why the aircraft was not fitted with a "foam inertion system", which helps to extinguish engine fires, even though senior RAF officers had previously recommended that all aircraft flying into combat zones should be fitted with the device.

It is understood that the families intend to sue the MoD if they can prove the RAF failed in its duty of care to the nine RAF crew and one soldier on board the aircraft when it crashed.

Simon McKay, of McKay Law, who is representing eight of the 10 families, said: "This is a clear case of double standards by the MoD. They claim that families do not need legal representation at an inquest of this complexity yet they are happy to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax payers' money on lawyers representing the Government's interests. I think the families of the dead servicemen have already paid a high enough price."

Pauline Stead, the mother of Flight Lt David Stead, the pilot of the Hercules, said that she thought the decision was outrageous.

Mrs Stead, of Burley-in-Wharfedale, West Yorkshire, said: "Our sons sacrificed their lives for Tony Blair's war and we, as parents, have already paid a very heavy price. Now it looks as if we are going to pay even more to find out why my son's plane crashed.

"I know David would be very disappointed in the way we are being treated by the MoD. I don't know what sort of questions to ask. This is a very complex subject, that is why we need proper legal representation.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "This is not a complicated case. The C-130 was struck by a missile and it crashed. Legal representation is not necessary and it is quite appropriate for those deemed interested persons by the coroner to ask questions of witnesses at an inquest without legal assistance."

South Bound

11th Dec 2007, 13:59

Is it just me, or would anyone else like a few quiet moments with the MoD spokesman to explain the error of his ways. Come to think of it, with any senior officer that feels the same way. Sorry, this is a complicated case and the families do need some help in framing and asking the difficult questions. Once again MoD, I am fairly ashamed...

RaPs

11th Dec 2007, 14:25

I have no qualms about HM Coroner conducting a thorough and searching inquest, my worry is people like the MoD spokesman and maybe even more crass comments as I referred to in an earlier posting.

chappie

11th Dec 2007, 17:41

nige,
i tried PMing you but there seems to be a gremlin in the system and i got ousted out and not allowed to get back in.

it was laughable that the legal aid was refused, but i got to thinking about this. i am not sure but it would seem it was par for the course to have a refusal for the initial claim. i was speaking with rose gentle and i know that she got legal aid eventually but there were refusals issued at first.
as for the MoD representative, it is true what nige observed the MoD solicitor got a little hot under the collar about the idea that the inquest can be an article two inquest and was contesting this notion. i do have every faith in the coroner and i hope he allows this arguement as the last thing that the MoD need is for this to be seen as a breach of HRA, as it's fair to say there have been a fair few high profile ones of those. i guess this is why there is a need for the representation with barristers on the MoD'S behalf. so if it's good enough for them then it's good enough for me and everyone else.

nigegilb

11th Dec 2007, 17:56

chapster this has just been posted on arrse. Haven't checked it out, but rather interesting don't you think?

But funding can be made available on the following grounds:

Legal aid is not available to cover representation at an inquest under the mainstream legal aid scheme, although 'Legal Help' is available to those who who qualify financially, to provide legal advice and assistance before the inquest. However, in very rare circumstances, DCA Ministers may authorise legal aid for full representation at an inquest by way of an individual grant of 'exceptional funding'. This would normally be when Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights ('the right to life') is engaged so that a death is fully investigated. The most common category for this type of death is prison suicide, but could also include State killings, or severe failings by the State to protect life.
_________________

herkman

11th Dec 2007, 23:00

So according to the MOD, this is not a complicated case.

Then pray why has the inquest been so long in coming.

Why was an aircraft, sent into battle, without even the minimum of survival material.

Me thinks that maybe the MOD will not fair well in this inquirey, and members of the MOD are hoping that not too much flack will fall on them.

Bah Humbug, they did a poor job, in an excessive amount of time, and I hope they wrap the duty of care around them all.

We will be thinking of all those relatives on that special day.

Every best wish

Col

chappie

12th Dec 2007, 18:04

the information regards the legal aid system is correct that nige has supplied.
normally we would not get legal aid for an inquest and if you look through the contents table on legal aid literature the inquest is not covered. our case is of course an exceptional one therefore and we are doing our best for getting the coroner to agree that the inquest come under article two. in this case the legal aid is granted if the case is of public interest, death in custody or breach of duty of care.

mmmm...which one to plump for ????? there is a great public interest nad of course they need to know what fantastic cock ups the MoD have excelled in dare i say again. there was a failing in the duty of care by not supplying the basics, let alone the adequate standard,need i go on.

the good news is the appeal process is under way and hope to hear soon and was informed today that there is a queue of barristers waiting to do pro bono care.

everyone has been so generous.

letters dispatched off to the appropiate ministers to be ignored...if they dare!

Chugalug2

13th Dec 2007, 23:58

chappie wrote:

there was a failing in the duty of care by not supplying the basics, let alone the adequate standard

When the issue of the MOD's duty of care to the crew of XV179 is raised, I hope that its failure in the stewardship of the airworthiness of not only that aircraft but every other military aircraft will be cited. I also hope that the review into the accident to Nimrod XV230 will lead to a full Public Inquiry charged to investigate the system of Military Airworthiness in general. From what has emerged in both this thread and the Nimrod one, together with aspects of other accidents involving Tornado/Patriot, Chinook/Mull and Sea King mid-air collision, there is a chronic lack of fitness for purpose across the military air fleets. It has cost far too many lives, and threatens to cost far more unless and until this problem is fully resolved. Some, me included, feel that the only solution is to establish a fully independent Military Airworthiness Authority (MAA), to whose regulations the MOD would be fully bound by law. Up to now it appears that it saw that task as discretionary, so that funding could be redirected elsewhere. The cost of such a policy could be seen in the sad and poignant ceremonies at Brize Norton and Lyneham. Those who gave their lives are lost not only to their own grieving families but to the military family as a whole, and it is fitting that the thoughts and contributions of both are found in this thread. I pay tribute to the courage of those next of kin who have posted here, it is not easy I am sure, but we must all feel a burning desire that avoidable accidents should in future be avoided! The battlefield defence of the Hercules fleet has, as a consequence, been greatly enhanced, but that same protection needs to be visited onto other fleets. Airworthiness of all fleets needs to be urgently reviewed and improved. It will cost the government far more than it is now spending, but it must dig deep and pay up. If these accidents had been suffered by a civilian airline it would have no option than to fulfil all the necessary remedial airworthiness requirements. Why should it be any different for the MOD?

nigegilb

17th Dec 2007, 09:10

This should help keep the pressure up, with the forthcoming appeal.

868

Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, who informed the press that the Australian government would be paying the legal expenses of Kellie Merritt at the forthcoming inquest into deaths of service personnel on the Hercules aircraft shot down in Iraq.
[Transferred] (175285)

869

Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make it his policy to provide legal aid and assistance to the British families at the forthcoming inquest into the deaths of personnel on the Hercules aircraft shot down in Iraq.

Should also give Jack Straw a chance to show his leadership credentials??

kam

20th Dec 2007, 10:02

Cultural traits and organizational practices detrimental to safety were allowed to develop, including: reliance on past success (such as tactics) as a substitute for sound engineering (or dynamic threat and risk analysis) practices (such as testing to understand why systems were not performing in accordance with requirements); organizational barriers that prevented effective communication of critical safety ( equipment , intelligence) information and stifled professional differences of opinion; lack of integrated management across program elements; and the evolution of an informal chain of command and decision-making processes that operated outside the organization’s rules (non compliance to XXXXX and proper risk management from higher command)

I have cut and pasted this quote from the Nimrod page, apologies for stealing.

I feel so strongly about the lack of Risk Management and its relevance to the loss of XV179 that I can no longer remain compliant or conform to the processes of justice that exclude this as an issue. As it stands, the public consensus that Aviation Risk Management and/or Mission Risk Profile are not relevant or specific to this crash is simply unacceptable to me.

The BoI in so many ways did a laudable job, under the most challenging and emotional circumstances. It is excruciatingly difficult for me to be critical but this is about the process and not the people. The three identified contributory factors identified (perhaps there should have been more) are broad ranging and yet they were largely discussed in isolation, perceived as unforeseeable and summarised the crash as a one off. I argue it was an incident waiting to happen and I find it difficult that these factors were not considered from a systemic perspective. I strongly believe that the crew were let down by the absence of firm direction from higher command, HQ 2 Group, HQ Strike Command, Air Component Command Al – Udeid (to name a few) and that inappropriate /inadequate risk analysis was undertaken to justify operations. Unfortunately valuable debate was stifled when there was opportunity. It is now incredibly complicated and near impossible for me to get this on the table, let alone in the venue where the ‘issues’ will be discussed and hopefully lessons learnt identified. I am disappointed that the consensus, thus far is simply that, a consensus “things are/were fine” and I just wish someone had the balls to think and speak outside the box! Perhaps somewhere behind closed doors, a critical rethink has taken place and improvements have been made? If so were some of these issues mentioned? is there a blurring of how OP Telic and OP Crition missions are undertaken? What is the definition of operation imperative and is it open to misuse, to get a job done? Is the role, skills and resources of ‘The Flight’ mismanaged by higher command? Just to name a few.

The only subtle opening into debate was lent by the AVM, who in his summary commented, that there seems to be a cultural skewering of tactics towards low-level daylight flying. Is he suggesting that just because you get good at something you don’t need to apply it all the time? This suggests one interpretation and may I add caution and disagree with those who interpret this as a judgment of the crew, it simply is not! May I be so bold to add, to self- authorise or not self-authorise, that is a contentious question. As it stands one of the flaws of self-authorising is that higher command can cop out of responsibility to crews who operate in high demand enviroments, perhaps higher command concentrate\prioritise getting their jobs done rather than have responsibilty and focus on how the job gets done?

Infact, one can argue, the lack of ESF is indeed inclusive and manifested from poor judgment, proper risk analysis and management. I suspect that the MoD in closing will argue that had it been installed they cannot say it would have saved the crew. I would argue differently however what they can’t disagree with is that this crew deserved the fighting chance ESF would have given.

Thank you to all those, RAAF, USAF and RAF who have put up with my terrier like qualities when it comes to making sense of Paul’s crash. To those simplistic, morons who say it’s about monetary gain and apportioning blame, you have no idea. It’s about honoring Paul’s loss from a personal and professional context.

Paul’s death certificate may read killed in action and I can’t bring him back but it’s the lack of action that can be learnt from and changed, to prevent future devastation.

There I've said it and feel totally sick for doing so. After almost three years of writing letters and submissions to not be addressed in an equitable forum, I feel disappointed and disillusioned.

Anyway, I quote, with a tear and smile "Kell, I'm not here for a haircut."

I wish you all a safe and peaceful Christmas!

airsound

20th Dec 2007, 10:53

Kam
I’m delighted you “stole” my quote from the Nimrod page - in fact I’m a bit ashamed I didn’t think to post it here as well, because it is equally applicable to both - as you quickly understood.

For people who didn’t see the original, it’s actually from the Executive Summary of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board into the Shuttle Columbia’s calamitous break-up on re-entry in 2003. Two interesting things about this report: as far as I can see, it was sponsored by NASA (it was certainly published by them), and yet the CAIB was sufficiently independent to be able to be strongly critical of NASA itself; and it was published a mere 6 months after the event (Feb-Aug 2003). I believe the whole document is worth looking at, in the hope that we might learn something from the way America handled this disaster.
http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html

As for the rest of your post, Kam, I believe you have hit, and are continuing to hit, so many nails smack on the head. Your considerations will continue to inspire many of us, I know.

To misquote you, if I may - “Kell, we know you’re not here for a haircut.” I’m sure that the true nature of your purpose will become clear to the uncaring monolith that is the MoD, if it isn’t already abundantly clear.

All the very best, for Christmas, and onwards.

airsound

nigegilb

20th Dec 2007, 11:50

Kellie, I got one answer back from the MoD. That is regarding external costs spent so far on commercial lawyers involved in the Hercules Inquest.

The true costs should include those incurred by the MoDs lawyers but they do not seem able to supply those figures.

Iraq: Peacekeeping Operations

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the Government have spent on its own legal (a) advice and (b) representation on the inquest into the service personnel killed in the Hercules crash in Iraq; what future costs have been projected; and if he will make a statement. [175284]

Des Browne: The total costs that have been charged to MOD for external legal advice and representation in respect of the inquest into fatalities arising from the Hercules crash in Iraq on 30 January 2005 is £25,414.94. This covers bills up to the end of October. No estimate can be provided for the future costs, as it is not possible to predict with any certainty what further work will be required.

The MOD’s own in-house legal advisers have also provided assistance in matters relating to preparation for the Hercules inquest.

The costs will ramp up massively for the Inquest itself. Hope this helps with the families claim for legal assistance.

Regards and happy christmas,
Nige

nigegilb

20th Dec 2007, 11:53

It is quite extraordinary when they have their own bank of lawyers but feel the need to seek external legal advice in this case.

Remember their advice? This is a straightforward case of an aircraft shot down, it is a non adversarial procedure and there is no need for the families to be represented in court.

I'll remember that for a long time, for all the wrong reasons.

Chugalug2

20th Dec 2007, 13:12

It is excruciatingly difficult for me to be critical but this is about the process and not the people.

Hi Kam, first well done for posting this. We cannot know how hard and painful it was to do so, but it is important that you did, not only for your sake and that of your family, not only for Paul’s memory which is so central to what drives you, but for the sake of all RAF crews and their families. Your quote from airsound’s post on the Nimrod thread is most appropriate here as well, as he says, for the history of the USA space programme's safety record and that of the RAF bear an uncanny similarity, as I tried to point out in my post on that thread. Indeed the situation may be reversed, for the following quote could just as well apply to the Columbia disaster:

it was an incident waiting to happen and I find it difficult that these factors were not considered from a systemic perspective
I strongly believe that the crew were let down by the absence of firm direction from higher command, and that inappropriate /inadequate risk analysis was undertaken to justify operations
.

It is of course from your last post referring to XV179. Both accidents were indeed systemic failures. The difference of course is that NASA owned up to theirs, the MOD didn’t. That is why so much now hangs on the possibility of an inquiry into the Nimrod accident being broadened out into a full public inquiry into not only that accident but the state of UK military airworthiness enforcement in general. Would that address your wish to press for a review of the tactics and decisions that led to your husband’s death? No, I have to admit it would not, but it would have a lasting and telling effect on the fitness for purpose of UK military aircraft in the future. Whatever else went wrong on that fateful day one thing is certain, Hercules XV179 was not fit for purpose, nor was Nimrod XV230, nor was the Tornado downed by a Patriot missile, nor the Sea King in a mid-air collision. Why were they not? Because a self regulating airworthiness authority, the MOD, had failed in its duty to make them so. If that systemic failure can be addressed, by placing responsibility for UK military airworthiness regulation and enforcement away from the MOD and into an MAA, some good at least will have come from this tragedy and the too many others. Then, perhaps, fewer families will have to endure the anguish that you and so many others have had to bear. That is my hope and that of so many others on this forum, we can only keep trying to ensure that it happens.

Regards and, hopefully, a Happy Christmas,
Chug

nigegilb

9th Jan 2008, 08:10

Legal Aid: Hercules Aircraft

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) who informed the press that the Australian Government would be paying the legal expenses of Kellie Merritt at the forthcoming inquest into deaths of service personnel on the Hercules aircraft shot down in Iraq; [175285]

(2) if he will make it his policy to provide legal aid and assistance to the British families at the forthcoming inquest into the deaths of personnel on the Hercules aircraft shot down in Iraq. [175286]
7 Jan 2008 : Column 154W

Maria Eagle: Representation at inquests is outside of the usual scope of the legal aid scheme as set out in the Access to Justice Act 1999 and other documents laid before Parliament. However, it can be made available in exceptional circumstances. There are published criteria that help determine whether a case is exceptional. Applications for exceptional funding must first be made to the Legal Services Commission (LSC). The Ministry understands that applications, in relation to the inquests into the deaths of personnel on the Hercules XV179 shot down in Iraq in January 2005, are currently being considered by the LSC. Only where the LSC considers that the exceptional criteria are met will the applications be passed to the Ministry of Justice for final determination. The Government have not advised the press about any representation of other parties at those inquests.

This is how it was reported by the Beeb

"The Legal Services Commission, which runs the legal aid scheme, says the questions which will be asked by the Australian lawyer, combined with the experience of the coroner, should serve the interests of the British relatives."

herkman

9th Jan 2008, 09:12

Bravery does not just occur on the battlefield. I often think of the impact that this event had on the ladies involved.

Ladies I salute you, and I am sure there is a lot who stand behind me on this.

Let us all hope that their deaths were not in vain, and that it will never occur again.

Every best wish for the future.

Regards

Col

airsound

9th Jan 2008, 09:59

You make a very good point, Col, about the courage of relatives and partners who are bereaved.

I have personal experience that attests to that. My father was Missing in Action in a Beaufighter in 1942. For the remaining 56 years of her life, my mother expected him to walk through the door. He never did, and she never remarried. I never heard her complain about her appalling situation.

I was so struck by her fortitude that I felt able to say, in her death notice in the Telegraph, paraphrasing John Magee, "At last they are together again, there to dance the sky on laughter-silvered wings."

Courage indeed. And courage that clearly continues amongst the bereaved today.

airsound

airsound

19th Jan 2008, 15:38

After years of official obfuscation, and aeons of personal pain and frustration, we’ve finally arrived at the run up to the Inquest. It’s to be held by HM Coroner for Wiltshire & Swindon, David Masters, in Trowbridge. It starts on the 31st March - three years and two months after XV179 was shot down and all ten on board died.

As we approach the third anniversary of the tragedy on the 30th January, I thought this might be an appropriate moment to remind ourselves of a memorial tribute to those ten people. This is a real-time recording of the memorial flypast at the Royal International Air Tattoo on Sunday 17th July 2005, complete with the words and music. It takes 2mins 41secs.

airsound

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SK3YV5E1ZQ

kokpit

19th Jan 2008, 15:46

Airsound,

It appears the link is to a 'private video' and that we need the 'sender's friend request' in order to be able to view it.

airsound

19th Jan 2008, 15:50

My apologies. It was 'private', and I thought I had changed it to 'public', but apparently I didn't save the change properly. It should work now.

airsound

kokpit

19th Jan 2008, 20:32

Thanks for that Airsound.

I never had the opportunity to pay my respects in person, even though most of my career was Herc based.

Watching that, it would appear to have become incredibly smokey all of a sudden.

My heart and thoughts go out to all of you, that have lost so much, god bless.

flipster

21st Jan 2008, 11:53

Airsound

Great vid! Very emotional.

flipster

chappie

31st Jan 2008, 08:56

some more good news..ish

the LSC has decided to give the families represented by the solicitor that i went on news 24 with the legal aid. thanks to that process there are a number of families who will now have representation in the court room.

thank you for those who have helped, the kind offers of assistance.

now chaps...time to man the stations and get ready for the next step in the quest for the truth. :}

keep the faith

Chugalug2

1st Feb 2008, 22:46

Good news indeed, chappie. Let us hope that it is part of a general realisation by 'those in power' that they have more to lose by treating people in a cavalier and contemptuous manner than by according them the respect that they deserve. The news that the Porton Down 'Common Cold' veterans are to receive due recognition is hopefully another step in that direction, in any event if that is so then there is still a gulf of neglect to make up for.

CXD

4th Feb 2008, 22:39

Hi Nige

Do you know the number of flying hours per month the Herc's fly in Afghan? They are still a vital part of all operations

Mactlsm1

5th Feb 2008, 01:56

CXD, Fishing are we?

walshn

5th Feb 2008, 11:00

Nick Paton Walsh from Channel 4 News here. Working on the delayed out of service date for the C130K. Hoping to talk to former, or even serving pilots... Or even just interested parties. I can be rung n 07824 32 72 42 at any time.

SirPeterHardingsLovechild

5th Feb 2008, 12:24

Hello Nick, good luck

If you find anything out, could you tell us.

Cheers

walshn

5th Feb 2008, 12:39

It's had its out of service date shoved back to 2012 from 2010.
Cos the A400M will not make it until March 2012.
Wanted someone real - who knows these machines - to talk to me about it

BEagle

23rd Mar 2008, 08:05

From today's Sunday Times:

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been accused of operating “secret justice” after issuing a court gagging order to conceal how Whitehall cost-cutting might have caused the deaths of 10 servicemen in Iraq.

The MoD has demanded that key parts of the inquest next week into the crash of an RAF Hercules in Iraq in 2005 be held in secret on grounds of “national security”.

Nine British servicemen and one Australian airman died in the tragedy. It was the largest single loss of life of British forces in Iraq.

Their lawyers said they might challenge the gagging order in the coroner’s court this week because its real purpose appeared to protect the government from political embarrassment.

The secret MoD papers are understood to cover its decision not to spend an extra £50,000 buying a fire suppressant foam system for each Hercules plane in Iraq.

nigegilb

23rd Mar 2008, 16:05

I think this is one story we can disregard Beags. The way evidence is going to be heard means that some kind of guarantee is received from interested parties.

I have to say that I have been impressed by the willingness of the MoD to open up the evidence. The BoI report has undergone a new redaction process which has taken an awful lot of time and has resulted in much more info being made available to the families.

Credit where it is due, a lot of time and effort has been put in to make this as open as possible.

Chugalug2

1st Oct 2008, 12:54

Once again the facts are emerging via the Coroner. Latest story is at:
BBC NEWS | UK | Hercules risk 'was widely known' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7644241.stm)
Well done everyone who will not rest until we know for sure why this accident occurred and must not be allowed to recur, something the RAF Flight Safety system notably failed to do on its own!

nigegilb

16th Oct 2008, 18:55

Latest from the last day of hearing evidence at the Hercules Inquest. A day in which there was huge reluctance to discuss the results of a trial which underlined the lack of protection for Slick MK3 Crews in Afghanistan and huge reluctance to discuss the MoDs over-arching Duty of Care when using "military risk" as an excuse to ignore "fitness for purpose."

Coroner will announce his verdict on Wednesday next, I hope there are a few senior officers out there examining their consciences after evidence disclosing their abject failure to deal with the grave weakness to ground fire in Hercules wing tanks. A problem known and understood in 2002. A high recommend to fit foam in a report released THREE times in 2002, 2003.

For the record and with reference to the culture of ignoring risk, the OEU parked up on the pan in front of Lyneham Ops and promptly phoned 2 Gp to say that it was NOT safe to send the slick to Afg. Their pleas fell on deaf ears and the weaknesses highlighted in the "secret trial" were ignored.

In an Inquest lasting 6 weeks the MoD and RAF have failed to explain why the TAT report, backed by a subject matter expert from DSTL was not handed to the procurement office for immediate staffing.

The MoD and RAF have failed to explain why they did not inform the crews on the front line as to the susceptibilty of Hercules wing fuel tanks to explode when penetrated by a single round.

An utter disgrace.

Lyneham inquest: Safety snub was a 'military risk'

By Gazette Reporter (PA)

RAF commanders' decisions to ignore safety recommendations for frontline aircraft were explained away as "military risk", it was claimed today.

An inquest at Trowbridge town hall into the deaths of ten servicemen when a Hercules C130k from RAF Lyneham was shot down in Iraq heard that three years before the tragedy "a culture of ignoring vulnerability" existed at decision-making level.

John Cooper, barrister for the families of two of the dead men, said this was why a recommendation in 2002 for a crucial safety modification on Hercules was not acted on by Air Command's HQ 2 Group, whose responsibilities include ensuring protection for frontline aircraft.

Hercules XV179 went down during a low-level daylight flight between Baghdad and Balad on January 30 2005 when small arms fire hit one of its wing-located fuel tanks, causing the ullage, highly-flammable fuel vapour/air mix created as fuel is used, to explode and blow off the right wing.

Had blocks of ullage-preventing ESF (explosion-suppressant foam) been fitted inside the wing tanks, the 10 men on board may well be alive today, the inquest at Trowbridge town hall in Wiltshire has been told.

Air Commodore Peter Ollis was in post in 2002 when 2 Group received a military research document which stated Hercules' wing tanks were the most vulnerable part of the craft and recommended fitting ESF to combat this threat.

Mr Cooper put it to Mr Ollis, appearing as a witness today: "There was a culture of ignoring vulnerabilities and treating it as a military risk.

And this culture existed almost precisely at the time of the TAT in January 2002."

Mr Ollis replied: "No there was not. One of the most important areas we consider is the protection of the crews."

Mr Cooper asked: "If 2 Group chose not to follow a recommendation then they could call it military risk couldn't they? 'We are putting this aircraft into theatre on a military risk basis'?"

"Yes", came the reply.

Mr Cooper added: "The inquest has heard that recommendation upon recommendation from 1980 stated that there was a fuel tank vulnerability and that ESF would have mitigate against that.

"It was self-evident for years and years and years, so why wasn't anything done about it?"

Mr Ollis said: "In this case, it was decided that this was not a priority."

He said he did not recall seeing the 2002 TAT report but did remember having a conversation in 2002 about ESF. He said he did not know whether the recommendation to fit Hercules with foam was passed on to the DEC (Director of Equipment Capability) or the IPT (Integrated Project Team for Hercules) in 2002.

Mr Cooper concluded: "Here is a screaming plea for help, which was ignored."

Mr Ollis shook his head.

America Hercules have had ESF since the 1960s.

The victims based at RAF Lyneham were: RAF 47 Squadron's Flt Lt David Stead, the pilot, 35; Flt Lt Andrew Smith, 25, the co-pilot; Master Engineer Gary Nicholson, 42; Flt Sgt Mark Gibson, 34, Australian airman Flt Lt Paul Pardoel, 35 a navigator; and from Lyneham's Engineering Wing, Chief Technician Richard Brown, 40, an avionics specialist; Sergeant Robert O'Connor, 38, an engineering technician; and Corporal David Williams, 37, a survival equipment fitter, a passenger. Acting L/Cpl Steven Jones, 25, of Fareham, Hampshire, a Royal Signals soldier, was also part of the crew.

Sqn Ldr Patrick Marshall, 39, from Strike Command Headquarters, RAF High Wycombe, was another passenger on the Hercules.

tucumseh

17th Oct 2008, 06:35

He said he did not know whether the recommendation to fit Hercules with foam was passed on to the DEC (Director of Equipment Capability) or the IPT (Integrated Project Team for Hercules) in 2002.

I could be deeply cynical about much of what has been reported from the inquest, but this one takes the biscuit. While no doubt MoD has changed the terminology at regular intervals, the fact is that what TAT did was notify a Operational Constraint. (And in doing so, the “system” was seen to be working up to a certain level). While files, e-mails etc are routinely destroyed (not archived) after a few years these days, Constraints remain in the Constraints Document until cleared; and even then they should remain in case it crops up again. The CD is, to all intents and purposes, the DEC’s Risk Register and Hazard Log rolled into one. Different name, similar purpose. It contains a list of problems to be solved, or worked round, and the agreed mitigation. This one (vulnerability to defined threats listed in Def Stan 00-970) isn’t cleared as ESF embodiment isn’t complete. Therefore, there should be an audit trail, even if it is just the CD noting the originator, date and classification (Critical, Major, Minor, Safety, Limitation).

The above is how you, at front line (or anywhere in the Forces), influence what is procured. DEC is duty bound to address Constraints, even if the outcome is “Sorry guys, we tried but the BCs knocked us back”. There is an audit trail of decision making. Sorry if I’m teaching you to suck eggs, but this is really basic stuff in safety, airworthiness and fitness for purpose land. One would expect almost any MoD “witness” (DEC, IPT, 2 Gp) to know this system backwards. Of course, what I describe may no longer be carried out, in which case that is a major breach of the Safety Management System and complete abrogation of Duty of Care.

Edit: Sorry, should have added that the above gives lie to any claim by the IPT that they only get involved in airworthiness, not fitness for purpose. They are a core member of the Constraints Working Group (or whatever it’s called) because they have to report progress on those constraints which are in the process of being cleared (e.g. ESF procurement and embodiment, which they manage).

Nigel, Chappie et al; hat off. Supreme effort.

nigegilb

17th Oct 2008, 07:52

All I can say is that Ollis was a most appropriate witness to call at this Inquest. Shame he couldn't recall seeing the TAT report; The DEC would have fitted foam if he had seen the report. And recommending foam was not within the remit of the IPTL, according to his evidence. Ollis described how the TAT report would have gone down the chain of command after hitting the Group Captain's desk.

I am surprised nobody repeated the claim made by Sec State John Reid, that 47 Sqn pilots were to blame for not arranging for fual tank protection.

RAF 'ignored' Hercules safety plea

Steven Morris (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/stevenmorris)
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian),
Friday October 17 2008
Article history (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/17/military#history-byline) A culture of ignoring "vulnerabilities" existed in the RAF shortly before a Hercules plane was shot down over Iraq with the loss of 10 servicemen, it was claimed at an inquest yesterday.
Fitting a safety device that might have saved the men was not treated as a high priority and the danger this placed the plane in was treated as a "military risk", the inquest was told.
The 10 men were killed in January 2005 when fire from insurgents in Iraq pierced the fuel tanks of a Hercules C130 that was being used by special forces, causing a deadly fire.
For years the RAF had been warned that the Hercules was vulnerable to attack from small arms fire, the inquest heard. In 2002 a body called the UK tactical analysis team, which meets to discuss air tactics, recommended that all C130s be fitted with foam designed to prevent their fuel tanks from exploding when hit.
John Cooper, a barrister representing families of two of the men who were killed, claimed there had been "recommendation after recommendation" since 1980 that foam should be fitted. He called the 2002 advice a "screaming plea for help which was ignored".
The inquest in Trowbridge, Wiltshire, has been told that the warning from the tactical analysis team was sent to a number of RAF bodies including the service's Strike Command, now Air Command, and HQ 2 Group, which is responsible for making sure the RAF's aircraft are fit for purpose.
Peter Ollis, a retired air commodore, who was based at 2 Group at the time, told yesterday's hearing that he remembered the debate surrounding the foam. He said: "It was considered, but was not deemed to be a priority and thus was not progressed."
Ollis also told the inquest that at the time 2 Group was busy making sure that the UK's radar defences were up to scratch in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "It was very busy," he said. He told the inquest he had not actually seen the 2002 recommendation.
"I have no recollection of seeing it before." But he added: "I do recall the subject being mentioned."
Ollis said he would have expected group captains - a rank lower than that which he held - to have discussed the recommendation with Hercules experts, but not necessarily passed it up to him. He said he would have remembered more clearly if the question of foam had been a "hot topic", adding: "There were a number. That wasn't one of them."
Richard Stead, father of the plane's pilot, Flt Lt David Stead, asked Ollis: "What is the point of gathering expertise and doing nothing with it?"
Ollis replied: "The decision was that ESF [the foam system] was not a priority at the time." Shaking, Stead said: "It might be not a priority to you, but look around this courtroom..."
The inquest is expected to end next week.

BEagle

17th Oct 2008, 08:53

Ollis said he would have expected group captains - a rank lower than that which he held - to have discussed the recommendation with Hercules experts, but not necessarily passed it up to him. He said he would have remembered more clearly if the question of foam had been a "hot topic", adding: "There were a number. That wasn't one of them."

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg
I'm very surprised that he, in particular, wouldn't have known what his subordinates were doing......:hmm:

Having served under him when he was a Sqn Cdr and Stn Cdr, his style was always to know about absolutely everything going on amongst his subordinates. So if he didn't know the strength of feeling about this issue, he would have to have been astonishingly poorly briefed by those dealing with the topic. Was there any "Hmm, my 1 star wouldn't want to hear this" going on at the time?

And he reads PPRuNe...

So:- "Hello -and how is Stevenage Borough Council these days? I liked the old photos in your presentation!"

nigegilb

17th Oct 2008, 09:24

The mere fact that 2Gp took the decision not to proceed with the fitting of foam, a critical operational constraint, without consulting either the DEC or IPTL, is a display of unbelievable arrogance and stupidity.

The fact that this constraint and the refusal to act on the recommendation was not recorded for audit and scrutiny, a complete breakdown of the safety management system.

One family member had to leave the Court whilst the witness was giving evidence yesterday, she felt physically sick.

Western Daily Press;

Air Commodore admits ESF was not a priority on Hercules plane Friday, October 17, 2008, 08:00
Be the first to comment (http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/Air-Commodore-admits-ESF-priority-Hercules-plane/article-406438-detail/article.html#StartComments)

The father of the pilot of a Hercules plane shot down in Iraq grilled an RAF chief yesterday over why safety equipment that might have saved his son was not deemed 'a priority'.
On the final day of evidence at the inquest into the deaths of all 10 on board the plane, Richard Stead, the father of flight XV179 pilot David Stead, asked Air Commodore Peter Ollis why the RAF had undertaken a major piece of research and a study into what Hercules planes needed in war zones, only to ignore the findings.
The report had recommended the planes be fitted with explosion suppressant foam, or ESF, which would help stop fuel tanks exploding if hit by gunfire from the ground.
But ESF was not fitted, and a Hercules from RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire exploded after being hit over Iraq in January 2005.
Amid dramatic scenes, the Air Commodore robustly defended the decision not to fit ESF, but was left speechless at the end of an exchange with Mr Stead.
http://iad.anm.co.uk/house/1x1.gif (http://ads.anm.co.uk/ADCLICK/CID=0000b139292a070f00000000/AAMSZ=452x118/SITE=THISISBRIS/AREA=WDP/SUBAREA=WDP%20NEWS/ARTICLE=406438/acc_random=9632936851/pageid=/RS=10322.10246.10235.10187.10248.10245.10204.10177.10183.101 91.10202.10208.10213.10215.10217.10229.10232.10244.10257.102 80.)

"What is the point of gathering expertise and doing nothing with it?" asked the grieving father.
Mr Ollis replied: "The decision was that ESF was not a priority at the time."
Shaking with emotion as he looked around the court at the crew's grieving family members, Mr Stead said: "It might not be a priority to you, but look around this courtroom…"
Earlier, the barrister for two of the XV179 families, questioned Mr Ollis about why RAF Hercules didn't have the potentially life-saving ESF, when American and Australian planes did.
A tactical report, named the TAT, undertaken three years before the tragedy, recommended ESF be fitted after finding that the most vulnerable part of a Hercules plane was the fuel tanks, but with a cost of more than half a million pounds per plane, the recommendation was dropped.
"There was a culture of ignoring vulnerabilities. And this culture existed almost precisely at the time of the TAT in January 2002," the barrister said.
"No there was not," replied Mr Ollis. "One of the most important areas we consider is the protection of the crews."
Mr Ollis agreed that the decision to send Hercules planes into combat zones without ESF could be described as a 'military risk'.

Edited to add, the safety of J crews was so important that a modern anti-missile system earmarked for the fleet was actually cancelled.........to pay for enhancements to the MK3.

Chugalug2

17th Oct 2008, 19:48

How those senior officers compelled to give evidence at such an inquest must dread it. The complacent, incompetent and incestuous attitudes in the higher command are displayed for all to see. They have done their best to tear down the airworthiness protection that used to exist but, as tucumseh tells us, there are still residual procedural safeguards that would have to be deliberately circumvented to enable the budgetary savings that are the sole raison d'etre of the MOD these days. None of them could expect to be brought to book years after the dirty deeds were done, and by something as arcane as Her Majesty's Coroners Service. Thank God for that, for the families, for tucumseh, and above all for you Nigel. The incoming CAS needs to read himself into the state of UK Military Airworthiness right now. It needs very major surgery, Sir, and in a sterile environment a long long way from the Ministry of Defence. Time is of the very essence.

The Equivocator

18th Oct 2008, 01:03

'or tucumseh, and above all for you Nigel. I look forward to your imminent beatification!

We're all getting a bit Daily Mail here aren't we?

One family member had to leave the Court whilst the witness was giving evidence yesterday, she felt physically sick.

This is an emotive topic, but does this add anything significant? We all have a (albeit limited unless you are family) understanding of the distress involved here...

The mere fact that 2Gp took the decision not to proceed with the fitting of foam, a critical operational constraint, without consulting either the DEC or IPTL, is a display of unbelievable arrogance and stupidity.

Nige, please tell me you don't believe this statement?

Here's another, containing equally contentious opinion:

XV179 at 150'; shot down. XV179 at 3000'; not engaged.

nigegilb

18th Oct 2008, 07:32

Equiv, it wasn't 2Gp's decision to make. Their duty was to hand that report to DEC. DEC has responsibility for operational capability. DEC would have called a meeting with the 3 core stakeholders, DEC,IPT and the User. DEC gave evidence at the Inquest and made it absolutely clear that with the backing of DSTL and the high rec given to foam protection his only choice would have been, how do we pay for this, EP or UOR. DEC had never seen the report before coming to the Inquest and it had been issued with the same rec three times. He was very very disappointed and he broke down at the end of his evidence.

Furthermore, 2 Gp should have warned its own front line crews that a single bullet could easily bring down a Hercules aircraft. Armed with that knowledge there is no way XV179 would have been down at 150' in the day time, they would have been out of range of bullets.

I believe every word I wrote, stupidity and arrogance, because 2 Gp simply ignored the report.

I will try and find an account of John Reid's evidence yesterday, he is saying almost exactly the same as me. He is very angry about the failure of senior officers to look after their own men, he acknowledged yesterday that armed with the information contained within the TAT report (I have read the redacted version) the boys would not have been down and low in the day time.

This whole thing stinks, reflected in a day of very high emotions in Court yesterday. It is not often that Barristers and hardened reporters weep along with the families. I think it is fair to comment on the emotional side, so many people died unnecessarily.

I wasn't there for Ollis's evidence, I hear he was very robust.

nigegilb

18th Oct 2008, 07:49

Yesterday's Court account.

An RAF officer who led the investigation into a Hercules aircraft shot down in Iraq expressed anger today at senior commanders' failure to pass on vital information that could have saved 10 men's lives.

Wing Commander John Reid, president of the military Board of Inquiry (BoI) into the crash, blamed the tragedy on "a failure of intelligence".

He criticised the failure to tell crews of a known vulnerability affecting the plane in question - detailed explicitly in a military research document three years beforehand.

In evidence at the men's inquest in Trowbridge, Wiltshire, Mr Reid apologised to the dead men's families, many of whom wept openly, for this lack of knowledge on the topic.

Hercules XV179 went down during a low-level daylight flight between Baghdad and Balad on January 30 2005 when a medium-calibre anti-aircraft round hit one of its wing-located fuel tanks, causing the ullage, highly-flammable fuel vapour/air mix created as fuel is used, to explode and blow off the right wing.

The inquest heard previously how two US helicopter crews were shot at by the enemy between Baghdad and Balad shortly before the stricken C130k flew through the air space at low level.

Due to a communication failure, an incident report never made it through to intelligence officers until it was too late.

This, according to Mr Reid, was of greater significance than the Hercules craft's well-publicised lack of ESF (explosion-suppressant foam), which stops fuel tanks in the wing exploding if hit by enemy fire. US Hercules have had ESF since the 1960s.

"Of greater significance with XV179 is the failure of intelligence," he said.

"This was a known ambush site and tragically XV179 flew into the same ambush."

A 2002 Tactical Analysis Team (TAT) report sent to senior RAF figures said Hercules wing tanks were the most vulnerable part of the planes, liable to explode if hit by small arms fire, and that ESF would offer protection.

No action was taken. And the message about the wing tanks' vulnerability was not passed on to crews either.

Mr Reid said ESF would probably have saved the crew's lives but, regardless of whether it had been fitted, a still greater failure was that crews were not even told of the crafts' vulnerability - that a Hercules could potentially be felled by a singly enemy round. Had they been told, they could have changed their tactics accordingly.

"I'm not so disappointed that the aircraft did not have ESF," Mr Reid told the inquest.

"I'm more cross that the vulnerability was not known. Had the vulnerability been known then the crew would not have flown that profile (low level; about 150ft). Had the aircraft been hit at a higher level, it could have given the crew more time to sort something out."

Mr Reid said to the families they must think it "weird" that even after the publication of his 2005 BoI report, he still had limited knowledge of ESF - despite evidence of British military knowledge on this subject dating back to 1980.

"I apologise - I cannot explain it," he said.

Wiltshire coroner David Masters has repeatedly expressed frustration at the RAF and MoD's lack of record-keeping. The crucial 2002 TAT report was only unearthed while the inquest was adjourned for six months over the summer.

ESF only began being fitted in UK Hercules after the BoI in 2005 firstly found the wing tank vulnerability of its own accord and recommended ESF as a solution. The coroner thanked Mr Reid for his investigation, adding that he was "the catalyst for the introduction of ESF" in British Hercules.

On a separate issue, John Cooper, barrister for two of the families, read an answer given by Quinton Davis, Under-secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on Tuesday this week regarding UK Hercules having ESF.

Mr Davis said 74% are fitted, adding: "All serving C130s that are routinely deployed on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are now fitted with ESF."

Mr Cooper said: "I want to ask you about the word 'routinely'."

Mr Reid replied: "It is not a very good use of words. That's not accurate." Clarifying, he added: "No aircraft are now sent without ESF."

Mr Cooper said: "If members of the Government representing the MoD are inadvertently misleading the public that is of concern. Ministers still do not get it."

tucumseh

18th Oct 2008, 08:46

Mr Reid said ESF would probably have saved the crew's lives but, regardless of whether it had been fitted, a still greater failure was that crews were not even told of the crafts' vulnerability - that a Hercules could potentially be felled by a singly enemy round. Had they been told, they could have changed their tactics accordingly.

"I'm not so disappointed that the aircraft did not have ESF," Mr Reid told the inquest.

"I'm more cross that the vulnerability was not known. Had the vulnerability been known then the crew would not have flown that profile (low level; about 150ft). Had the aircraft been hit at a higher level, it could have given the crew more time to sort something out."

While acknowledging different viewpoints and perspective, surely these issues (vulnerability analysis, ESF and intelligence) are inextricably linked?

The VA was carried out but apparently not disseminated beyond 2Gp. Failure to do so meant the people who could do something about it (e.g. procure and fit ESF, and manage the resultant constraint in the interim) apparently did not know. Had the vulnerability been known in-theatre, both it and the threat analysis would have informed tactical decisions.

And, going back to my mention of the Constraints Working (or Assessment) Groups the core membership, and hence distribution of minutes and Constraints Document (which includes the decision audit trail), should include senior pilots, observers (where applicable) and engineers from an appropriate air station. You cannot separate out ESF and vulnerability – they should be mentioned in the same paragraph in the CD.

This is a major systemic failure, not entirely unrelated to the dumbing down of the MoD and creation of stovepiped IPTs in 1999 (as opposed to non-stovepiped IPTs of 89-91). The IPTL’s evidence is a classic example of an IPT squeezing its boundaries of responsibility to save money and avoid obligations, while failing to ensure the resultant gap is closed. Until the late 90s, everyone I knew in the Air world knew exactly how the system I describe worked. When I became part of an IPT, I got nothing but blank looks. I still have the letter I wrote to IPTL asking “Who is now responsible for clearing Operational Constraints?”, prompted by the person whose job it was ignoring clear breaches of airworthiness regs forced by failure to manage uncleared constraints. Not because he was abrogating responsibility, but because he simply didn’t know it was his job and had not been trained. As I said, dumbing down.

nigegilb

18th Oct 2008, 09:18

Tuc, I am still concerned that the MoD is not clear on areas of responsibility. There was a lot of backsliding going on in this Inquest. However, if the witnesses were accurately describing the current state of affairs then I would be very worried if I was the new CAS. I was staggered by the IPTL's responses, fitness for purpose (operational capability) was not something he needed to get actively involved in. He just arranged the contracts once modification approvals where in place. I just don't understand that mentality. Reactive instead of proactive? No thanks. FFP nothing to do with IPTL?

He stated that the hazard log was not the place to record the vulnerability to fuel tank explosion from specified threat effects, but did not add where it should have been recorded. No mention of CWGs constraints documents, processes.

Issues concerning Duty of Care, Military Risk and Operational Constraints were stifled in Court.

I disagree with Reid on foam, he appears to have missed the point that fuel tank vulnerability and foam protection was known about in the RAF back in 1982. He fails to touch on the fact that Hercules J was procured without foam in the mid 1990s in the light of a DERA document spelling out the iminent loss of an aircraft to fuel tank explosion. Of course the ITT document has been destroyed/lost.

All these are failures to procure and modify aircraft that are fit for purpose.

I hope the Coroner deals with the wider issues and malaise that we tried to highlight in Court. In particular the way they are inter-related.

chappie

18th Oct 2008, 09:55

there are no words that can be expressed to even begin to explain what it felt like to hear the words spoken by john reid. sadly, i couldn't keep my dignity enough to stay and had to leave, we all had been destroyed by the words and the admission and even the coroner came out during the adjournmnet to apologise for our distress.
now, we are at the end. at 1445 yesterday afternoon i closed my book and stopped note writing and await the verdict from the coroner.
i should be happy to hear the words that verified what we already knew but instead am left devastated.
as one family member put it, how could they have sent our boys into that situation, they had no chance.
there is nothing i can or am able to say as i am left too bereft, except thank you for all of your help and support, i know bob would have appreciated it.
now, till weds......

The Equivocator

18th Oct 2008, 10:11

Nige

Thank you for putting some context on the emotional side of the inquest. This is a difficult topic for many, I have no wish to peer into the pool of private grief of the relatives; your comment yesterday I believed to be gratuitous. In context, it is clearly not.

Thank you for posting JR's input to the inquest, which I must profess to find slightly confusing; I hope for the Coroner and the relatives he was more logical in court. Unusually, I agree with Tucumseh here. These things are inextricably linked.

There are some elements of this process quietly smiling at how they appear to have escaped from criticism; I think the laudable ESF campaign has unwittingly contributed to this.

DEC gave evidence at the Inquest and made it absolutely clear that with the backing of DSTL and the high rec given to foam protection his only choice would have been, how do we pay for this, EP or UOR. DEC had never seen the report before coming to the Inquest and it had been issued with the same rec three times. He was very very disappointed and he broke down at the end of his evidence.

It is of interest to me what element of the DEC this was and at what rank? 1*, SO1,2? DEC ELS or DEC TA? These very people who you suggest faced 'no choice' some time ago in the fitting of ESF, have given you a cursory nod , fitted a limited ESF capability to AT ac and yet are STILL happy to let AT ac operate in theatre airspace without ESF.

I have (you may be surprised to hear!) a lot of respect for your continued quest for better self protection of our AT fleets. I suspect you will disagree, but a downside of your work here is that the debate has been skewed firmly in the direction of ESF, it's benefits and the negligence in the decision not to purchase it a while ago.

As a friend of many on the crew, you have been (absolutely rightly) very careful to avoid any potential criticism of the crew. The relatives, obviously, have done likewise. This is why I believe we have let some of the real 'criminals' almost off the hook.

Let me make a clear statement at this point: I am not criticising any of my friends on XV179. They are clearly not culpable at any point.

Nonetheless, debate around has continued to avoid major dissection of tactics, decision processes and orders from the cmd chain. Discussion of the tactics at some point falls at the decision of the crew to fly day OLF. This, in some quarters, might be seen as tacit criticism of the captain. The BoI addressed this point, but failed to elevate it to (IMHO) the correct level of importance. The BoI was very close to the coalface in this incident; I am sure they did their best, but I can't help thinking greater detachment might have provided a different set of recs.

This ac had a limitation; no ESF.

This limitation was understood by elements of the cmd chain, if not in its entirety.

The ac was not specifically forbidden to operate at OLF heights.

Tactical advice comes from the AWC. They have platform protection specialists.

Tactical advice should be mandatory.

Ac at 3000' with or without ESF is still flying.

Steady presented with all the facts? Ac at 3000'. No story...

Let me add some of my emotion here; I think about my friends on XV179 on a daily basis. It makes me absolutely livid that an major element of this debate has been aimed at the EC area; there are any others who should be dragged before the coroner. These others, in the same cmd chains, are laughing behind their hands.

chappie

18th Oct 2008, 10:29

believe you me there were many more i wanted called and there were many who despite being in the witness box and faced by a full of court room really got off scott free. i am, as are others of us left behind, perfectly aware of when the lies are being told and the truth is still out there.

now, time for boys to rest in peace and time for the heavy weight of a conscience to weigh heavily on those who know........long may it be a heavy burden for you.

nigegilb

18th Oct 2008, 10:55

Thanks for coming on Chappie, you earned the respect of people here a long time ago, I am sure everyone hopes you get the closure you deserve next week and a long overdue apology from the MoD.

I agree with what Equiv is saying, I believe he would be even more angry if he was party to off the record MoD briefing. I am holding my fire on that info, waiting to see the MoD response to the Coroner's verdict next week. But if they are reading this, be sure to understand that I know.

Equiv, it has been a frustrating experience, I want to explain to you in public but I ask that you respect my decision not to deal with the thrust of your comment.

Suffice to say the following;

Low level was a legitimate tactic at the time. Special Forces crews are particularly highly trained in low flying such that they are cleared to OLF heights. Every single detachment I carried out in my time involved low flying.
Before the tragedy there was no order from High Command to cease daylight low level. Senior Commanders in Permanent Joint Head Quarters, Strike Command and 2Gp were aware of the vulnerability of Hercules aircraft to fuel tank explosion. They chose neither to provide fuel tank protection nor to order the cessation of daylight low level until AFTER the shooting down of XV179.

Unforgivably, they did not inform the crews on the frontline of the extreme danger they were in.

Is that clear enough Equiv?

WRT large aircraft protection. The current minimum equipment list has been explained to me but if you have any specifics with which I might be able to assist, simply PM me.

If you have any doubts about how effective this foam campaign has been and Graham Knight's epic Nimrod battle, then the recent Strike Command engineering hit squad should bring some comfort. They are touring flying squadrons tightening up engineering paperwork in the wake of Nimrod BoI recs concerning the state of airworthiness and its implementation in the military. A lot more will be revealed about the MR2 in the coming weeks.

I would like to deal with one point of criticism from John Reid. He criticised the foam campaign because it highlighted the Hercules vulnerability to fuel tank explosion. I thought I had dealt with this issue when the BoI was published.

The Boi was published on the internet for any bad guy sitting around the world to down load and see for himself how a giant transport aircraft was shot down. I still do not understand to this day why that report was released with enough detail to expose fuel tank vulnerability to anyone interested and without a single Hercules aircraft having the protection on board. Regardless of MoD spin, there was no initial decision to fit foam to MK3A or J Fleet. That decision was taken after the foam campaign started, so no apologies from me.

I would have thought that 26 years of knowledge of vulnerability and protection was enough.

I agree with Chappie. The boys would have probably hated all this publicity. When next week is over I hope the families can go home in the knowledge that this appalling event will never be repeated.

As for consciences, I still cannot understand the mentality of the people who did nothing. They bring shame to their uniform.

Chugalug2

18th Oct 2008, 12:03

Me:

for tucumseh, and above all for you Nigel.

The Equivocator:

We're all getting a bit Daily Mail here aren't we?

Nigegilb:

As for consciences, I still cannot understand the mentality of the people who did nothing. They bring shame to their uniform.

The reason I draw attention to those who have been instrumental in drawing out the extent of the MOD's deliberate and illegal flouting of UK Military Airworthiness Regulations enforcement over the past two decades is not to ensure their "imminent beatification", indeed I'm quite sure they'd much prefer I give it a rest, but to concentrate the minds of those whom Nige speaks of in his quote above. If they were listed here it might well be said to be a "bit Daily Mail", but I will leave that aspect to the Coroners, from the one state institution it would seem prepared to unveil this shocking conspiracy. Time, perhaps, for those who now fill such posts to take stock of their own actions and to know for sure the extent of their own responsibilities and what they must do if prevailed upon to subvert them. Rhetoric will no longer cut the mustard, any more than it does if trapped in a minefield with injured men and defective equipment.

nigegilb

18th Oct 2008, 12:59

Bit of common sense from the North;

armed forces let down

Troops betrayed by military masters

Published: 18/10/2008
THERE was a time, in the not-too-distant past, when the term “military precision” was used to describe an exercise which had been carried out to perfection. It was, self-evidently, an acknowledgment that when it came to planning and execution, nobody did it better than the armed forces. How times have changed, if the evidence from two separate inquests yesterday portray accurately the current state of affairs. Both involved the death of British servicemen on active service, and both demonstrated how the men and women on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan are being betrayed by their military masters.
In the case of Scots Corporal Mark Wright, who died shielding a badly-injured colleague after members of his battalion had strayed into a minefield, an inquest in Oxford heard evidence of penny-pinching, inefficiency and poor communication, all of which contributed towards his needless death.
Simultaneously, less than 70 miles away, another inquest, this time into the death of 10 servicemen killed when a Hercules transport plane was brought down by small-arms fire, was hearing that it had been established three years earlier that gunfire could cause the plane’s wing-located fuel tanks to explode, but that information had not been passed on to the crews who were flying them. Neither had the aircraft been fitted with an explosion-suppressant foam which could have averted the disaster.
Britain’s armed forces are, quite rightly, lauded as the best in the world, the ultimate professionals who lay down their lives daily for their country. Sadly, the professionalism of the men and women in theatre appears not to be matched by the desk jockeys in Whitehall who, in the words of one coroner, should hang their heads in shame.

RaPs

19th Oct 2008, 14:52

FF
If that's a fact then nothing will surprise the families any more after what's already come to light, thanks to the summer recess!

flipster

20th Oct 2008, 10:25

FF

Thank you for removing your post re herc TAT. I'm sure you didn't mean to but it could have been construed as criticising the crew of XV179.

FYI - as a main sqn exec, we never recieved TATs via RAFCCIS - in fact, they were very rare animals indeed - I think I only ever read one (a paper copy) in the 3.5 years I was a flt cdr and, sadly, it was not the one in question.

I believe these reports were given a very small circulation because of their classification and relevance to 'they who must not be named'. This, with hindsight, is a great, great shame but, nonetheless, I find it very hard to believe that anyone who had read the report in question would have then continued to operate in daylight at LL. As a result, I don't believe that report ever got to the sqn.

I am just glad that we did our damnedest to ensure that our 'slick frames' (even less protected than XV179) only operated well away from highest-risk 'flight profiles'. Had we not done so then we could have lost many more ac. This was common-sense to us but, even then, was not a view shared by as many as you might have expected - certainly at higher levels!

Also, I can assure you that there were a number of sqn crews who, had they seen that TAT report, would 'not have been backward in coming forward' to highlight it to the boss and the execs. (These crews were not limited to those who had operated ac fitted with ESF ...IYKWIM!). Eventually, some people did come forward and, as a result, we included ESF in the main sqn's LI report, which if you recall, apparently disappeared into the 'ether' after leaving the sqn!

Even then, ESF was not at the very top of the wish list. As I have stated in the past, I believe that the whole of the Herc and AT fleet had been lulled into a false sense of security beacuse of Albert's long record of success in dealing with small arms fire and also because of the perception it would never be approved because of cost and ac down-time. I wish we hadn't been so assuming - this haunts me still.

The sad fact remains however, that there were people in high places (some very high) who knew well the risks we were facing and chose neither to tell us, nor to change our tactics accordingly and nor to provide us with sufficient ac protection. It is debatable whether this was because of malice aforethought, political reasons, career protection, incompetence, lack of awareness or because it just slipped through an over-worked, over-stretched and under-resourced Service. Whatever the reason, some of these people will be distraught with themselves for not doing more and rightly so. In the future, I hope they remember the lessons they have learnt and are better people and leaders as a result.

Regrettably, there will be others who will always deny their own failings in this tragedy. Unable to see any other point of view than their own, they always believe themselves 'in the right' and remain bullish and supremely over-confident to the point of arrogance. They are few but they are the worst type of commander. Even then, I hope that they can eventually see the error of their ways. If not, then they should rot!

All we can hope for is that our present commanders are more accutely aware of their responsibilities to those on the front line, our aircraft are better protected and also that the present command, control and intelligence communication system is far more robust than in 2005. I believe that is the case and, whatever the outcome, the inquest and the ESF campaign have acheived this much. I hope for all our sakes and especially those of the families, it is possible to imagine therefore, that the loss of life on XV179 has not been entirely in vain and, as a result, perhaps the chances of this happening again are far more remote?

Unfortunately, what will probably remain unresolved for some time is the airworthiness and fitness for purpose process for 'legacy' aircraft. I agree with the many who are convinced that the present system is incapable of implementing the extant airworthiness regulations because of years of neglect and budget cuts. IMHO this makes the probability of another tragedy like XV179 more likely.

The MoD has two options - either:

a. Chug's totally new independent airworthiness system that will ensure compliance or

b. to provide the present system with the right resources in terms of funding and expert people who are 'named' and empowered to ensure the regulations are followed to the letter.

Either way, we must ensure our servicemen and women are properly protected when they risk their lives on our behalf - they are entitled to expect that much.

flipster:ok::ok:

I wish more people would realise that because we have so few assets, Flight Safety, Airworthiness and Fitness-for-Purpose is even more important in wartime than it is in peacetime!

nigegilb

20th Oct 2008, 10:39

Agree with your sentiment Flip, sadly, I have to say with just 2 days to go to the verdict I am hearing that exactly the same procurement mistake is about to happen with A400M as befell Herc J Model. I have lodged the information with the inquest investigator in the hope that at the eleventh hour clarification can be sought from the MoD and that hopefully, my fears will be proved wrong.

If not, I am afraid it is the case that the MoD never learns.

Nuff said for the moment.

For the record I have been told that electronic information aka TAT report is routinely destroyed after 5 years! 5 years, that is the same as a Major is it not?
I suggested that to assist the information trawl the classified documents register should be checked. The only hard copy was with AWC, there was absolutely no trace of the document at PJHQ, Air, (Strike) and 2 Gp. Strange, when a trawl was carried out in 2006, well inside the 5 year time frame for all THREE reports. But as Flip says, there is absolutely no evidence that the TAT ever made it to the Squadrons. As Flip indicates, there were plenty of strong personalities around to ensure the vulnerability and associated mitigation would have been given legs.

All 2Gp needed to have done was pass it to the DEC he has already testified that he wouldn't have foreseen too many problems getting funding, if only he had seen it.

MoD will announce some kind of computer tracking system to ensure this never happens again. Pity the MoD didn't think of that when the Computer system was brought in 9 years ago........

flipster

20th Oct 2008, 11:08

Nige,

That is worrying news indeed and highlights, even more clearly, the need for a better system of procurement.

If we can't get MoD/DEC ELS to cough up for ESF/OBIGGS for the A400 then what chance will it have against against all the other threats out there!?

What about all the other current ac that are vulnerable?

In the light of the Herc and Nimrod Inquests, I sincerely hope all IPTs are reviewing their vulnerability assessments, hazard logs and safety cases to ensure FFP and AW, both now and in the future, against current defined threats (and maybe even those that our enemies are dreaming up for future use)?

I also hope that all the DECs and HM Treasury are digging deep to fund this?

If not, our procurement system runs the the risk of doing the enemy's job for him!

Considering the amount of billions of £££s the gov't has just lavished upon our greedy, immoral and reckless finnancial institutions, it would seem fair for the generally frugal MoD to ask for a bit of the same treatment?

nigegilb

20th Oct 2008, 11:11

Flip, FTP (in this case FTI), is funded, for the moment, but other crucial systems are not. Meaning that potentially less than half of the A400M Fleet will be FFP. The Inquest is plugged into the MoD at very high levels. This issue must be sorted in the next 48 hours.

BTW hazard log has nothing to do with FFP, according to IPTL at Herc Inquest.
FFP was for someone else to worry about, ie. DEC and User.

flipster

20th Oct 2008, 11:22

As I say, we could be making the enemy's job easier rather than more difficult!
It makes me want to scream!!!

:ugh::{:ugh::{:ugh::{:ugh::{:\:\:\

airsound

20th Oct 2008, 12:19

Nige and Flip
FYI

Brigadier Hamish McNish (Dir Eqpt Capability in Logs and Support Apr 2005 to Apr 2008) said in evidence about the A-400M at the Inquest:
1. They didn't have funding to fit the OBIGGS gas generators, so they funded the pipework with the intention of going for the Pro-Fit system, which takes hours (rather than days or weeks) to fit to an individual aircraft.
2. He was not aware of any plan to use the A-400M only in benign environments.

He also said that all 25 A-400s, all 24 C-130Js and all 6 C-17s have or will have fuel tank protection.

airsound

philrigger

20th Oct 2008, 12:56

;)
Nigegilb

For the record I have been told that electronic information aka TAT report is routinely destroyed after 5 years! 5 years, that is the same as a Major is it not?

For what it is worth, I think you will now find that a major:

J - 12 years or 11,250 hrs

k - 4000 hours or 6 years

nigegilb

20th Oct 2008, 13:11

Cheers Phil, never had the pleasure of flying the "J". 12 years, puts the electronic destruction policy into perspective, thanks for that.

Airsound, I now understand that FTI is funded but I referred to another crucial system that is a partial fit. Just as the MK3 was used in Afg, so could we see, the situation happening again. Because unlike the Australian Govt, there is no such guarantee from either the RAF or British Govt that crews won't once more be sent to war without protection if there was an operational requirement.

Edited to add, I understand it was the intention to have full fleet protection on the A400M but this was revised on grounds of cost. Given the importance placed on this Inquest, I hope this matter is dealt with urgently.

"Role Mods (Partial Fit) are a legitimate device. The up-side is, MoD save money on capital procurement costs. However, it is not always as simple a calculation as it seems. Immediately, two configurations are created - with and without. The IPT must MAINTAIN the two build standards. Again, this is what gives lie to the IPTL claim that fitness for purpose is nothing to do with him.

The source documents are;

Use Study - How, when, where, why it will be used (both the a/c and DAS).

The Fit Policy - How many at each standard and flying rate. (Full Fit, Partial Fit, IUR, IR6, Training etc).
Vulnerability Analysis

All mapped to the User Requirement and System Requirement Documents - both DEC's responsibility. That is, if the Use Study says "In theatre" and the VA says "Need DAS", then it is an apparent contradiction for the Fit Policy to only have Partial. This is what requirement scrutiny is meant to tease out, to ensure sufficient provision has been made. If they want Partial Fit,(*ac) there MUST be complementary entries in the Use Study to say that "a max of * will be used in a situation requiring DAS" and the Through Life Management Plan will articulate the arrangement for transferring the Role MoD (DAS) between a/c. And, remember, the UK based training a/c MUST reflect the In use build standard. In very simple terms, if 25 A400M are sufficient if all have DAS, you may find that you actually need, say, 27 if you have a partial fit. This calculation is meant to be done by DEC.
If the uses are so varied that a "lesser" standard in terms of self protection is acceptable for some a/c, then a firm line must be drawn between the two standards. So much so, that a strict interpretation of the regs says two Mks must be created (A400M and, say, A400MDAS). This is especially true if the DAS is a DA Mod (in the build standard at delivery) and not a Service Mod. Given the purpose - self protection - one must come down on the side of new Mk. The main reason is because it forces the User to always consider and recognise the fact that he can't just send a non-DAS a/c into a theatre where the Threat Analysis show he needs DAS. The attitude "A C130J is a C130J" is not valid if one is protected and the other not. (The regs don't cater for such an application of common sense and pragamatism, but are a bit more black and white - they lean toward creating a different Mk. That is, failsafe).
All this is routine stuff, and applies to equipment as well as the whole a/c. The general principles are laid down on 00-57, 05-123 and 05-125/2."

Chugalug2

20th Oct 2008, 14:20

Flipster, may I just say how impressed I am at your objective account of, when a Sqn Exec, being betrayed effectively twice by your seniors? Betrayed once because the very people above all who needed to be made aware of the TAT report, the Squadron Aircrew, were denied it. Betrayed twice because, unaware of that risk but rightly aware of the wing tank vulnerability of the Hercules, their request for ESF protection was ignored, not considered and rejected, simply ignored. I assume the same CoC was responsible for both betrayals and that many of those who were party to them are still around. Whether they be arrogant, in denial, or guilt ridden they did (or rather didn't) what they felt was expected of them from above, which I suspect means that given the same scenario, the same outcome would result. Just as with a Squadron, where it was my experience that a good boss meant a good Squadron and vice versa, irrespective of the Execs (sorry!), the same goes for the Military Staffs. I am not excusing those who have reneged on their responsibilities here, they will have to live with the consequences of their actions just as others have had to die for them. I am saying that Airworthiness is just too crucial to be left to the whim of Senior Officers with the power to compromise it for their own short term purposes. That is why I call for a separate and independent MAA, because the MOD should not be judge and jury as well as chief suspect. Self regulation is a delusion, as the Banks have recently demonstrated to our considerable cost and the same applies to Military Staffs in respect of the enforcement of UK Military Airworthiness Regulations.

nigegilb

20th Oct 2008, 15:19

That was self-evident at the Inquest, when the man responsible for the airworthiness of the Hercules, pointedly distanced himself from any requirement to be actively concerned with enhancing the build standard to achieve fitness for purpose.

The inter-relation between FFP and airworthiness appears not to be understood by the wider military audience. Hence at the eleventh hour, it would appear that the vast majority of the A400M Fleet will be good for jollies to the States but completely unfit for front-line duties. Might as well have bought a dreamliner. But hey, it will be airworthy in the strictest sense of the word, so job done. And when the next crisis appears on a Friday afternoon, what will RAF heads be tempted to say? It's OK the military will bear the risk. Back to square one, again.

You are right Chug, these people can't be trusted to do the right thing.

Chugalug2

20th Oct 2008, 16:37

I think we need to concentrate on the system, Nige, rather than the people. They come and they go, but the system remains. Given a new CAS, CinC, AOC etc etc, we may well be told that; "Its all going to be all right now chaps, just relax!" But eventually the system would just slip back into its same old bad ways again as now. That is why we have a CAA, to protect Airlines and Aircrews from themselves, so that "just" and "only" are not part of the lexicon of civil aviation, and that is why we must have an MAA. As Flipster so rightly says, a military airfleet that is so much reduced in size needs more not less Flight Safety protection, of which Airworthiness is simply a part. The snide remarks aimed at 'elf 'n safety' show a culture within the present RAF which is neither professional nor realistic. RAF Flight Safety always had a Raison d'Etre of maintaining Operational Effectiveness rather than Safety for its own sake. Better to lose Aircraft and even Crew in mortal combat than never get there at all because of an avoidable accident. That may sound harsh and unfeeling, but it counts in the cold audits of Military Effectiveness, and has been repeated as often by those who have been bereaved by such accidents.

Edited to add : Better still,of course, to survive the combat scenario because of proper protection!

flipster

20th Oct 2008, 17:52

Chug,

I don't really know enough detail to say for sure that a MAA is the definite way ahead. We'd have to ask someone who knows the system - Tuc? Safety Helmut? Safeware? etc

However, I agree that the procurement system is definitely 'broken beyond economic repair' and neither do I trust those 'at the' top to fix it!
As a result, my instinct also says that a fully independent MAA should be the answer.

Good luck to all over the next 24 hours, especially the families - you will be in my thoughts.

flipster

Chugalug2

20th Oct 2008, 18:44

flip, I quite agree that we need as much informed input on the enforcement of Military Airworthiness Regulation as possible. This is surely the next logical MOD failure to confront and to cure, so that the tragedies that are the subject of this thread and others can be said to have some meaning rather than simply shear waste. As you say, our thoughts are with the bereaved of this accident right now, but it would hopefully be of some solace for them to know that it at least finally led to change, fundamental and permanent change rather than mere smoke and mirrors, so making the odds of such grief for other families being much less in future. I am sure that there are many problems associated with establishing a separate and independent MAA, but we are now all very much more aware of the gamble we would be taking to leave things in the direct control of the MOD. There has to be a total reform of the MOD anyway, IMHO, but Airworthiness should not be part of that, for to repeat myself, Self Regulation is a delusion and in aviation it is a fatal one.

Safeware

20th Oct 2008, 19:37

Nige, He stated that the hazard log was not the place to record the vulnerability to fuel tank explosion from specified threat effects, but did not add where it should have been recorded.

Actually, it is the prime place to record such info - 00-56 iss 4 Pt 1:

10 RISK MANAGEMENT
10.1 Risk management is the process of ensuring that hazards and potential accidents
are identified and managed, and is a process managed within the Safety Management
System. The outputs from the risk management process are a key part of the Safety Case.
The Contractor shall identify all hazards and potential accidents, so far as is reasonably
practicable, and manage their associated risks as appropriate. All safety risks shall be
reduced to levels that are ALARP. The Contractor shall also seek to ensure that all risks
are broadly acceptable. Where this is not possible, risks shall be reduced to levels that are
both tolerable and ALARP.

10.2 The Contractor shall implement a safety risk management process that operates
through the life of the contract and addresses the full life of the system.

10.3 The Contractor shall implement a Hazard Log and manage it as part of the Safety
Management System. The Hazard Log shall be the primary mechanism for providing
traceability of the safety risk management process and assurance of the effective
management of hazards and accidents. The Hazard Log shall be updated through the life of
the contract to ensure that it accurately reflects risk management activities.

10.4 Hazard Identification and Hazard Analysis

10.4.1 The Contractor shall carry out Hazard Identification and Hazard Analysis to
identify credible hazards and potential accidents associated with the system and to
determine the related accident sequences.

10.4.2 The Contractor shall demonstrate the adequacy of the Hazard Identification and
Hazard Analysis process and the suitability of the techniques employed.

10.4.3 The Hazard Identification and Hazard Analysis shall be reviewed, and revised with
the agreement of the Duty Holder, through the life of the contract, as the system changes
or as relevant information becomes available that has a bearing on safety.

10.4.4 Where a hazard is identified that is outside the scope of the Contractor’s control,
this shall be recorded in the Hazard Log and notified to the Duty Holder. Any such hazard
shall only be closed when the Duty Holder, or the owner of the hazard, confirms that the
risk has been reduced to a level that is ALARP and broadly acceptable or tolerable.
Similarly, if another party notifies the Contractor of a relevant, credible hazard, this shall be
incorporated into the Hazard Log. The notifying party shall be kept informed of the status
of the hazard as appropriate.

and from Pt2, so you know who should be watching over it:7.4.1.2 The safety committee should comprise all safety stakeholders. It typically should include the following representatives,
as appropriate, given the nature of the System and the project phase, e.g. procurement or in-service:
• Contractor’s safety manager.
• Duty Holder’s safety manager.
• Contractor’s safety specialists.
• MOD safety specialists.
• Contractor’s design team.
• MOD Customers 1 & 2 (including maintenance authorities).
• Sub-contractors.
• System users.
• Safety managers from interfacing systems.
• The Independent Safety Auditor.
• Other regulatory/certification bodies.
.
.
7.4.1.4 The function of the safety committee is to ensure that all safety aspects of the project are being effectively managed
by overseeing, reviewing and endorsing the safety work that is carried out. In particular, the safety committee should, as a minimum:
• Review and agree Tolerability Criteria.
• Monitor the Hazard Log.
• Review safety progress.
• Monitor and endorse all decisions that may have a significant impact on safety.
• Be the forum for confirming that the safety requirements have been defined and met.
• Review and agree ALARP justifications.
.
.
7.4.1.7 When safety committee discussions or decisions support risk management activities,
or other safety issues, the minutes of the meeting should be referenced in both the relevant
entry in the Hazard Log and any relevant reports. This will facilitate auditing of the decision
making process should it be necessary.
.
.
10.4.3.1 Inevitably, new hazards will be derived, or the understanding of the causes
and consequences of hazards refined, as the system evolves. This highlights the importance
of the Hazard Log in tracking the management of hazard-related activities and why the
Hazard Log should be created at project inception.

10.4.4 Additional hazards or potential accident sequences may also be introduced when
systems are integrated. Failures within parts of the integrated systems, in conjunction with
other events, may lead to further, previously unidentified hazards or accidents. The system
integrator is responsible for ensuring that such events are covered within the hazard
management process. One difficulty is the possibility of a hazardous situation ‘falling
between the cracks’ i.e. not a direct responsibility, or under the ‘ownership’ of, a particular
party. The Contractor should be mindful of this possibility and advise the Duty Holder of
any reasonably foreseeable problems.

10.4.4.1 Hazards sometimes need to be managed by other parties outside the
Contractor’s control. The important principle is that once a hazard has been identified by
the Contractor, even if they are not the owner, the hazard should be recorded in the Hazard
Log. In this way, the ownership of the hazard can be determined in discussion with the
Duty Holder, and appropriate action taken to manage the hazard. The hazard should only be
closed (i.e. recorded as having been appropriately managed such that it has no further effect on safety)
following confirmation from the Duty Holder.

sw

nigegilb

20th Oct 2008, 20:00

SW, thanks, I was given the heads up on the contents of 00-56 esp the paras 10.4.1 and handed them across to Barrister and family and was subsequently entered as evidence. To be frank I simply couldn't believe what I was hearing. I do believe 00-56 also mentions duty of care, but the MoD soon put a stop to that line of questioning. Cooper managed to squeeze out an affirmative to the routine use of military risk when things get a bit sticky.

We came to the view that there must at least be a constraints document where hercules vulnerability to fuel tank explosion should have been recorded. It wasn't recorded, hence no record was kept for scrutiny and audit.

It still amazes me that an Air Force that has been at war since 2001 should have an IPT that isn't actively interested in FFP and vulnerability issues.

Squidlord

20th Oct 2008, 20:01

Flipster wrote:

In the light of the Herc and Nimrod Inquests, I sincerely hope all IPTs are reviewing their vulnerability assessments, hazard logs and safety cases to ensure FFP and AW, both now and in the future, against current defined threats (and maybe even those that our enemies are dreaming up for future use)?

As much as MoD aviation safety in general is in a mess, I think the situation is worse for wartime safety, as opposed to peacetime safety. At least most air IPTs understand that it is their responsibility to assess and manage safety for peacetime flying (even if some may do it badly). For wartime safety, e.g. ESF, the impression I get is that nobody quite knows who should be assessing and managing safety. On the one hand, IPTs often say it should be the operator (and/or RTSA?) because only the operator can possibly understand all the factors that go into wartime risk assessment (their input is needed for peacetime safety assessment but perhaps less so and perhaps less exclusively). But, typically, the operators (2 Gp for Hercules) do not have the expertise or the resource to do the sort of detailed safety assessment that is normal practice for IPTs in the context of peacetime safety. As cash-strapped as IPTs are for safety management, I get the impression it is worse for the operators.

It doesn't help that vulnerability, defensive aids, etc. are obviously amongst the most security-sensitive issues, making informed, consensual safety management harder than for, say, engines, navigation, etc. But that just reinforces my opinion that there is a desperate need for clear policy and guidance from the "centre" to delineate wartime safety responsibilities. And then there's a need for proper resourcing to back up the policy.

Squidlord

20th Oct 2008, 20:22

Safeware wrote:

Nige,
Quote:
He stated that the hazard log was not the place to record the vulnerability to fuel tank explosion from specified threat effects, but did not add where it should have been recorded.
Actually, it is the prime place to record such info - 00-56 iss 4 Pt 1:

Is it possible that the IPTL was either:

1. Observing that such vulnerability information is much too sensitive to go in the Hazard Log without raising its security classification to such a level as to make it difficult to use in the open, collective way that it should be used?

2. Or just reflecting the uncertainty and confusion I mentioned in my last post, i.e. that he thought such vulnerability issues were for some other part of the MoD to deal with?

Of course, even if one or both of these options apply, they don't in any way excuse the MoD collectively from its responsibility to manage vulnerability or wartime safety in general.

Oh, and stepping on my soapbox again, just to be clear, 00-56 is NOT the relevant document here. The Hercules IPT is not mandated to follow 00-56; indeed it would be inappropriate for them to do so (it is a document that mandates safety management practices for contractors to the MoD - this is not well understood either within or without the MoD). The document that does tell IPTs what to do in respect of safety management is POSMS (Project-Oriented Safety Management System), available here:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/DefenceEstateandEnvironmentPublications/ASEG/ProjectorientedSafetyManagementSystemposmsManual.htm

Having said that, POSMS will say much the same as 00-56 regarding the Hazard Log.

nigegilb

20th Oct 2008, 20:25

Squidlord, you and I share the same view of the situation. There is blurring at the heart of all this and Fitness For Purpose, if you get it wrong, is where people get killed.

The three core stakeholders, DEC, IPT and User have a shared interest but each tackle different priorities. At the now infamous AWC meeting there was no IPT rep, no DEC rep and relatively junior user group representation.

When the IPTL was asked if he should have been represented he answered negative. Not his responsibility.

Un surprisingly we are getting to the core of what went wrong over XV179. The IPTL faces outwards to Industry, ideally he should be an experienced engineer. If the TAT report had gone to him all He had to do was pick up the phone to Marshalls and ask about foam. He could also have pinged the report across to DEC who takes executive operational responsibility. Neither of these two, IPTL: or DEC were on the address list and yet they are both core stakeholders.

A shambles. 2Gp did its own thing and ignored the report, but its conclusions were not recorded anywhere.

I believe you have nailed the problem in one post.

SquidLord on a housekeeping point, only a few months ago the Nimrod IPT stated up front at a flight safety meeting that they regarded 00-56 as mandatory and it took priority over other source documents. Please state here if there are any great changes in the doc to which you refer. One thing that has been very obvious to me over the last few weeks is the perpetual state of change in the MoD and RAF.

flipster

20th Oct 2008, 21:24

Chug we are agreed! Thanks also to SW and squid - pertinent observations both. But are you really saying that no-one can define exactly whom should be running this show? Certainly, no-one has fessed up in court!

Is it too much to ask that, after the Herc and Nimrod Inquests, the MoD (in its broadest sense) agree as to whom the responsibility falls to make our ac safe for operations in war?

It certainly seems that they still cannot do so and as a result, perhaps it is now time to take the 'toys away from the children' and impose an independent and over-seeing MAA.

Personally, I'd like to nominate Tucumseh as the CEO of the new UK MAA. :D:D Also, it would be fanastic to see the face of his previous boss - who sounds like 'a right one' who can't even spell the words 'safety'...... nor 'integrity'!

flipster

Safeware

20th Oct 2008, 22:34

Squidlord,

As regards POSMS / 00-56, you are correct, the words were just easier to find from 00-56 because it is bit more concise (IMHO), without the need to trawl through all the SMPs. For the linkage between the 2, I think that POSMS sums it up best itself:2.4 POSMS Alignment
2.4.1 The POSMS is intended to be consistent with the terminology and approach of
Def Stan 00-56 Issue 4. but 00-56 is not a one-sided document:Safety Management Requirements for Defence Systems
Part 1 : Requirements
a. This Part of the Defence Standard provides requirements for the management of
safety. It can be applied to any MOD project and can be applied in any phase of a project’s
life. This Standard shall be used by Defence Contractors as required by contract. The
effective application of this Standard requires close cooperation between all parties, as the
responsibility for the achievement of safety is shared.
.
.
f. This Standard has been devised solely for the use of the Ministry of Defence (MOD)
and its contractors in the execution of contracts for the MOD.
Now, one can also get in arguments over applicable contractual standards etc, but I think the key issue is not what version of POSMS / 00-56 do we take the words from, but what principles do we follow? As is often the case it should be "common sense, written down"

sw

edit - ps, I don't take classification of the hazard log as an excuse not to address something. There are ways and means, even if it means that the content of one hazard entry is segregated.

flipster

21st Oct 2008, 07:37

SW

Totally concur about 'common-sense written down'.

The sad fact of the matter is that 'common-sense' in the MoD doesn't seem to be very common!

Also, it no excuse to hide behind the security issue - this can be overcome, as you rightly say.

flipster

nigegilb

22nd Oct 2008, 07:08

Lyneham inquest: Verdict due today

7:46am Wednesday 22nd October 2008
Comments (0) Have your say »

By Gazette Reporter »

A coroner will record his verdicts today on the deaths of ten servicemen killed when their RAF Hercules was shot down in Iraq.

Wiltshire coroner David Masters is expected to make a series of recommendations at today's hearing at Trowbridge Town hall.

He has already pledged to write to Defence Secretary John Hutton.

The two-month inquest has heard how the men's C130k aircraft, 47 Squadron Special Forces flight XV179, was flying at low-level (about 150ft) in daylight from Baghdad to Balad to receive further tasking orders when it was felled by insurgents.

A medium-calibre anti-aircraft round hit a fuel tank in the right wing causing the ullage, a highly-flammable fuel vapour/air mix created as the tank empties, to explode and blow off the wing. All ten men on board - nine RAF serviceman and a soldier - died on January 30, 2005.

Had the craft's wing tanks been fitted with explosion suppressant foam (ESF), which stops ullage explosions, the men would be alive today, former Hercules pilot Nigel Gilbert told the inquest.

American Hercules have had ESF since the 1960s and evidence heard at the inquest indicated concerns about in-flight ullage explosion had been troubling military commanders since the Second World War.

RAF commanders were warned in 2002 in a research report about this exact vulnerability on Hercules and were advised to fit ESF - but nothing was done, the inquest heard.

Neither did they order ESF to be fitted, or even tell Hercules crews of the danger they were in, which would at least have enabled them to alter their flying tactics.

Wing Commander John Reid, president of the military Board of Inquiry which investigated the tragedy, said this failure to tell the crews made him even more "cross" than the decision not to fit ESF.

But Mr Reid said an even more important blunder in lead-up to the tragedy was that of the "failure of intelligence."

XV179 went down within hours of two US Blackhawk helicopter crews coming under fire from an insurgent ambush site on the ground in exactly the same area.

The inquest heard that an emailed incident report containing details which could have saved the ten men's lives was left unopened by a British intelligence officer.

He said he did not open it because he had no idea XV179 was even in that area at the time.

This is because 47 Squadron fly Special Forces missions, often without the knowledge of the rest of their military colleagues.

The intelligence officer agreed that the "left hand had not known what the right hand was doing."

Wing Commander Reid said: "This was a known ambush site and tragically XV179 flew into (it)."

The coroner has said he will record narrative verdicts.

The inquest at Trowbridge town hall began in April before breaking over the summer and resuming at the end of September.

Families, witnesses, even lawyers and journalists - all were moved to tears during the final day's evidence at the inquest.

The cause of such emotion in the usually-staid confines of Wiltshire Coroner's Court was the evidence of the RAF officer who led the investigation into the tragedy.

Wing Commander John Reid, president of the military Board of Inquiry (BoI) into the crash, criticised senior RAF commanders' failure to tell crews of a known vulnerability affecting the plane in question - detailed explicitly in a military research document three years beforehand.

He then apologised to the dead men's families, many of whom wept openly.

Bernard Collaery, lawyer for mother-of-three Kellie Merritt, widow of Australian airman Flight Lieutenant Paul Pardoel, thanked Mr Reid for his "thorough" investigation.

His voice cracked as he said: "My client's children will read it (the BoI) and you will become part of their history."

Mr Collaery - who later said this was the first time in his career he had cried in court - added: "Mr Reid, you have been a breath of fresh air as far as this matter has been concerned."

XV179 Master Engineer Gary Nicholson's mother Margaret, who attended throughout the two-month hearing, then stood to offer her thanks.

"Your son was my best friend," Mr Reid replied with tears in his eyes.

At this Mrs Nicholson broke down, causing a ripple of emotion to sweep the courtroom, visibly affecting lawyers and at least three journalists.

Hercules XV179 went down during a low-level daylight flight between Baghdad and Balad on January 30 2005 when a medium-calibre anti-aircraft round hit one of its wing-located fuel tanks, causing the ullage, highly-flammable fuel vapour/air mix created as fuel is used, to explode and blow off the right wing.

http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/headlines/3780162.Lyneham_inquest__Verdict_due_today/

flipster

22nd Oct 2008, 10:45

Wg Cdr Reid,

I applaud your sincerity and honour. It must have been unbearably difficult for all of the BOI team when you knew the crew of XV179 so well.

Looking back, many of us wish we had done more, or done it better and we are profoundly sorry for that but it is great shame that so many of your superiors did not show the same emotional strength, integrity and humility when they had the chance to apologise themselves.

Flip

Im sure I speak for many when I say our thoughts are with the families today - I am distraught that I cannot be there. I hope that after today, you can see some light at the end of the tunnel and that it comes somewhere near to ending this desparately sad and difficult chapter, allowing you to complete the grieving process with a little more peace of mind. God bless you all and keep safe.

nigegilb

22nd Oct 2008, 10:54

Well said Flip, I cannot attend either, but the families have been well represented and John Reid's evidence will have helped enormously.

First comment from the Coroner concerns the lack of audit trail and the failure to record rationale behind safety decisions.

Audit trail, allowing the recording of rationale and scrutiny of decision making are;

KEY PLANKS OF AN EFFECTIVE SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

In this case BLATANTLY IGNORED

http://stats.bbc.co.uk/o.gif?%7ERS%7Es%7ERS%7ENews%7ERS%7Et%7ERS%7EHighWeb_Story%7E RS%7Ei%7ERS%7E7683909%7ERS%7Ep%7ERS%7E38251%7ERS%7Ea%7ERS%7E Domestic%7ERS%7Eu%7ERS%7E/1/hi/uk/7683909.stm%7ERS%7Er%7ERS%7Ehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/%7ERS%7Eq%7ERS%7E%7ERS%7Ez%7ERS%7E22%7ERS%7E

Page last updated at 10:38 GMT, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 11:38 UK
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/email.gif E-mail this to a friend (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/email/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7683909.stm) http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/print.gif Printable version (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7683909.stm)
Hercules inquest data criticised

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44536000/jpg/_44536440_226_herc_c130k_ati.jpg The plane was flying at low level, through a known ambush zone

A coroner at the inquest into the deaths of 10 servicemen in a Hercules air crash says the hearing was "plagued by an inability to retrieve documents".
Wiltshire coroner David Masters said the two-month hearing was affected by access to data recording key RAF decisions before the incident in Iraq.
Nine RAF personnel and one soldier died when the RAF Hercules aircraft was shot down by enemy fire in 2005.
It was the largest RAF loss of life in a hostile act since World War II.
Summing up at Trowbridge town hall, Mr Masters said: "I believe that the ability to retrieve and view documents that record key decisions as not just important, but essential - equally important is the rationale behind them."
This criticism referred particularly to an apparently unrecorded decision taken by RAF commanders not to fit a key safety feature on Hercules aircraft after they were advised to do so in a military research document in 2002.
The inquest heard if explosion suppressant foam, or ESF, had been fitted to the Hercules, the crew may still be alive.
The 2002 document only came to light after a document trawl while the inquest was adjourned over the summer, the coroner said.
He also said a military policy of "shredding" documents was "difficult to come to terms with".

Chugalug2

22nd Oct 2008, 11:50

As flip says this is a day for our thoughts to be with the families who bear the unbearable, with the hope that it will bring some peace of mind at last. This is also a day to give thanks. Thanks to those who have persevered to unpeel and lay bare the intrigue and subversion that has sought to obscure the true story of why XV179 was lost. Many of them post here, whether under a nom de plume or in the clear. Others are known to us from reports of the inquest, The Coroner, Mr Masters, of course and certain witnesses, including the BoI president Mr Reid. Principally though the loved ones themselves, for whom this particular aspect is mercifully drawing to a close. Your steadfastness and courage throughout has been moving. To all of you I say well done, for there has been a greater service done here than the formality of an inquest into a terrible tragedy. It is now incumbent on us all to make certain that things change from now on so that such a known deficiency as was allowed, to render an entire fleet of military transport aircraft unfit to go to war, can never be allowed again.

nigegilb

22nd Oct 2008, 12:44

Taken from page 3 of this thread on 16 March 2006;

"Flight International can, meanwhile, reveal that the UK is the only launch nation involved in the Airbus Military A400M programme not to have funded the installation of the safety equipment as part of its production order. “The [A400M] common standard aircraft does not come fitted with a fuel tank inerting system,” says the MoD. “Fuel tank inerting was not selected by the UK prior to, or after, contract signature.”
Airbus Military sources confirm that all other programme launch customers – Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and Turkey – have selected the equipment for their 155 aircraft. The UK also previously removed defensive countermeasures equipment from all but nine of its 25 A400Ms, reducing procurement costs by around £240 million ($417 million)."

Keep an eye on that figure of NINE gentlemen. Reduced from 25 to 9 for one reason and one reason alone and that is COST.

I am not disputing the fact that 24 A400M now have the plumbing for PROBIGGS, but I am disputing if the plug-in kit is funded and that the DAS procurement figure could well be the same as stated in this "Flight" article.

Chug alludes to the fact that an entire Fleet should never again be sent to war unfit for purpose. Well, I am afraid I and very concerned about Hercules replacement A400M.

Are the MoD really that stupid?

Chugalug2

22nd Oct 2008, 14:50

Nigegilb:

Are the MoD really that stupid?

Bad or Mad, it really makes little difference as they have to be made to change their ways. You are right to identify A400 as the next mad MOD decision to be put right, but these tactical threads, Hercules, Nimrod, Chinook and now A400, though in the end successful (to date), take that most precious commodity of all, time. Time is of the essence, as the lawyers would remind us, especially with Flight Safety as it is not only money at stake but, far more importantly, lives. The reform of your new ministry is pressing, Secretary of State, and the most pressing reform of all is the enforcement of Military Airworthiness, including fitness for purpose as Nigegilb reminds us. Your officials will tell you that it is already in hand and that you have no need to worry. You have every need to worry I'd say, and the solution is to remove such authority from the MOD entirely to a separate MAA. There the MOD's arrangements for the likes of A400's fitness for purpose, over and above basic airworthiness, will be found wanting. That entire fleet needs the full implementation of protection now restricted to a few, for that fleet's purpose is war and it must be made fit for that purpose.
Good TV interviews today, Nigel and Chappie, you both speak out so well on behalf of us all. Well done to both of you! :ok:

Truckkie

22nd Oct 2008, 16:22

If the A400M does not have a fuel-tank inerting system and a credible DAS I will refuse to fly it anywhere near an operational theatre. I will also recommend to my peers, senior multi-engine operators, that they do the same. I will not, repeat, not put any crew at risk in an unfit for purpose military aircraft.

My thoughts to the families of XV179 - may the truth be finally uncovered and some closure finally found.

Brian Dixon

22nd Oct 2008, 16:45

My thoughts are with all involved in the tragic case of XV179. You have conducted your campaign with absolute resolution and the utmost dignity, through some incredibly difficult times. The pride you have for your loved ones, and those who continue to serve, is there for all to see. There are many who are proud of you all too – and I am one of those. Your campaign has highlighted, once again, the failings of those who should be protecting our service men and women and the lengths they will go to to protect themselves when those failings are exposed. Shredding documents, failing audit trails – I’ve heard, and seen, it all before.

Airworthiness and Flight Safety need to be priorities once again, and not the current penny pinching and ‘make-do’ attitudes. I hope that your determination will ensure that not only will you be watching the MoD, but many others will be too.

Your actions and determination will, undoubtedly, be responsible for saving the lives of people in the future and for that, I am sure that your loved ones will be just as proud of you, as you are of them.

With great respect to you all.
Brian

nigegilb

22nd Oct 2008, 17:39

Brian I would like to publically thank you for the support you have provided in the background, particularly when the MoD decided to get "heavy".

I have spoken with Chappie this afternoon and she made it clear that it doesn't stop here.

First stop is A400M and the issues over the lack of DASS on procurement. We will be seeking to resolve that issue over the next 56 days.

In respone to Trukkie, I understand that new Theatre Entry Standards (TES) have been established, I also understand that their robustness is already being questioned, an area that needs clarification.

Also, I have received a couple of particularly worrying PMs RE the current front line. I would urge all Users to use the system to flag up particular areas of concern with regard to fitness for purpose.

If necessary go to the Design Authority direct and miss out the IPT if it is a toothless one. Once contacted the design authority must act, Marshall's in the case of the Hercules.

I still have contacts on the Defence Committee and can raise points at Parliamentary level. But, a big BUT, we learned at the Inquest that the most important thing is to get your requests in writing. And you must keep a copy.

This is a very big day, it will have many repercussions. Coroner is even writing to other Air Forces who rejected foam he is asking that they think again.

Regarding the failure of the RAF and MoD to fit foam. The system is bust. The Herc IPTL wanted nothing to do with FFP and 2 Group failed in their duty to pass on the TAT report to DEC. I hope the new CAS realises that the system for sending crews to war is broken.

This must never happen again.

Total repsect to the Coroner, a stunning verdict.

I also would like to publically pass on my very best regards to the families.
Anyone who experienced the emotion of that Court will never forget it.

The boys would have hated the publicity but they would have been bloody proud of their loved ones.

BYALPHAINDIA

22nd Oct 2008, 18:23

Just watched John Snow 'grilling' someone on his program.

They said that it was not a priority at the time - To fit the foam.

What was the priority then:hmm::mad:??

Give the Air marshall a pay inc:hmm:??

The crew of 10 should have REFUSED to fly that Hercules.

A FIRM = NO

HectorusRex

22nd Oct 2008, 21:14

Hercules inquest: MoD guilty of 'serious failure' over deaths of 10 servicemen
A coroner has accused the military of "serious systemic failure" which led to the deaths of 10 British servicemen killed when their RAF Hercules was shot down in Iraq.

by Stephen Adams
Last Updated: 9:50PM BST 22 Oct 2008
Ruling that the 10 men were unlawfully killed, Wiltshire coroner David Masters criticized the decision not to fit protective foam around the plane's fuel tanks that could have saved their lives.
In an unprecedented summing-up lasting almost four hours, Mr Masters made a string of technical recommendations to improve safety on RAF operations.
The Hercules C130k plane, 47 Squadron Special Forces flight XV179, was shot down by small arms fire as it flew at about 150ft between Baghdad and nearby Balad on 30 January 2005.
The rounds ruptured the fuel tank in its right wing, causing the tank to explode and blowing off the wing in the process.
Nine RAF servicemen and one soldier died.
During the two-month inquest it emerged that a military research document had recommended in 2002 that Hercules aircraft be fitted with 'explosive suppressant foam' (ESF), which could have saved the plane.
Concluding the inquest, Mr Masters said: "The failure to fit ESF was on the facts found a serious systemic failure and a contributory factor in the loss of the aircraft. There was a loss of opportunity for the survival of the crew by that failure."
He told the inquest at Trowbridge town hall he found it "difficult to find logic" in the decision not to fit the Hercules planes with the foam, and said it was "unbelievable" there was no record of that decision. He also criticized the military for a policy of "shredding" documents.
Insurgents had attacked two US Blackhawk helicopters in the same area earlier the same day, the inquest had heard.
But intelligence officers failed to pass the information on to air crews. Mr Masters said such a situation should "never be allowed to happen again" and recommended a review of coalition intelligence systems.
US military authorities refused to allow their servicemen who had witnessed the crash to give evidence. Mr Master said such a stance was "difficult to comprehend".
Using a 'narrative verdict', in which a coroner reads out the circumstances that lead to death, Mr Masters recorded verdicts of "unlawful killing by terrorist insurgents".
He then made a series of recommendations.
Under Rule 43 of the Coroners Rules he recommended that all RAF combat aircraft be fitted with 'fuel tank inerting systems', which do a similar job to ESF.
He recommended a review of weapon classification training, said all combat aircraft must have 'black box' flight data recorders, and said all suspected battle damage should be examined and reported.
Mr Masters also promised to press the Government for legal aid for family members of servicemen killed on operations so they could be represented at inquests, after the 10 Hercules families were originally denied it.
Family members gave short but emotional statements after the inquest.
Sarah Chapman, sister of Sergeant Robert O'Connor, one of the servicemen killed, said: "These failings have cost the lives of 10 fine men and as a result of that, lessons have been learned."
She warned the MoD: "I will put this out to you: the world is watching."
Pauline Stead, the mother of Hercules captain Flight Lieutenant David Stead, said: "We are truly disappointed that the RAF failed to protect our boys.
Research about the Hercules' vulnerability "went unheeded by many people over many years," she said.
She said the families were "very pleased" that all Hercules in theatre had been retro-fitted with ESF but added: "It is very sad that it took this tragedy to happen before anything was done."
Air Vice Marshal Stephen Hillier, commanding officer of Number 2 Group, said: "We were not able to provide the crew of the aircraft with all the up to date intelligence and tactical advice concerning potential vulnerabilities. MoD did not take all available information into account in developing equipment to protect against likely threats. For these shortcomings, I would like to apologize, on behalf of the RAF and the MoD."
Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey said: "Ministers must ensure that the views of experts and frontline personnel are never ignored again."
Bob Ainsworth, the armed forces minister, said ESF foam should have been fitted after the nature of the threat facing aircraft in Iraq changed.
"To that extent, we failed these people. There is no doubt about that whatsoever," he told BBC Radio 4.
But he denied the coroner's finding of "systemic failure", saying: "I don't accept that. The people in the MoD are doing a tremendously challenging job."
The dead:
Eight of the victims were based at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire:
RAF 47 Squadron's Flt Lt David Stead, the pilot, 35;
Flt Lt Andrew Smith, 25, the co-pilot;
Master Engineer Gary Nicholson, 42;
Flt Sgt Mark Gibson, 34;
Australian airman Flt Lt Paul Pardoel, 35 a navigator;
Chief Technician Richard Brown, 40, an avionics specialist;
Sergeant Robert O'Connor, 38, an engineering technician;
Corporal David Williams, 37, a survival equipment fitter, a passenger.
Acting L/Cpl Steven Jones, 25, of Fareham, Hampshire, a Royal Signals soldier, was also part of the crew.
Sqn Ldr Patrick Marshall, 39, from Strike Command Headquarters, RAF High Wycombe, was another passenger on the Hercules.

Hercules inquest: MoD guilty of 'serious failure' over deaths of 10 servicemen - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/3242623/Hercules-inquest-MoD-guilty-of-serious-failure-over-deaths-of-10-servicemen.html)

nigegilb

22nd Oct 2008, 21:37

So, Bob Ainsworth rejects the finding that this was a "systemic failure".

The next 56 days should prove to be quite interesting, because from what I saw of the Wiltshire Coroner he is absolutely furious.

I wonder if Bob Ainsworth is basing his view on the evidence presented at the Inquest, because there was hardly any documentary evodence at all. The MoD had destroyed it all. Flip's UOR was found on.....well let's not go there, suffice to say that the MoDs copies had been detsroyed, along with all the requests for foam going back to the early 1980's.

The MoD fielded very few witnesses in post at the time. The only copy of the TAT report yielded nothing but a black hole. Several witnesses suffered corporate amnesia at key moments. It was all pretty obvious and I think many people saw through it.

I am unsighted of C4 Interview with Ainsworth, rather than reject the Coroner's verdict Ainsworth should accept it gracefully and start by ensuring that every one of the aircraft due to replace Hercules "K" is fitted with Flight Deck Armour, Fuel Tank Inerting and the very latest Defensive Aids Suite.

Anything less and we can all conclude that the MoD has learnt absolutely nothing.

If the Australian Government can guarantee this minimum equipment list for its aircrew, why can't the British Government?

nigegilb

22nd Oct 2008, 21:49

Thanks to Air Sound for following list, not word for word but hopefully Ainsworth will get the MoD approved account before it is destroyed.

Below are his Rule 43 recommendations. (Notes taken verbatim - may not be 100%)

1. ‘Disconnect’ issue. Joined up comms and discussion cd well have prevented the risk of these deaths, and similar cd be prevented in future.
2. Never again shd a scientifically justified recommendation on safety not be acted on.
3. LIMS sytemm shd be enhanced so that all such future recommendations fm whatever source shd be included. (from BoIs, DSTL, TAT PORs PXRs etc.)
4. All wgs of RAF shd actively engage with that system
5. All TAT mtgs to be clearly minuted and shd show those present.
6. Effective audit trial to be introduced so record is made of all recommendations for safety enhancement, and their rationale.
7. Current storage retrieval and file destruction to be reviewed and documented.
8. Fuel tank inerting or other comparable system to be fitted to all combat ac in theatre.
9. Reassurance be given that all A-400M be fitted with fuel tank protection prior to op use in theatre, and preferrably before trg starts.
10. All op ac in theatre shd be vis at all times to ACHQ or such a crew shd inform ACHQ of the route before t/o, or in flt if it changes.
11. Staffing of int posts to be monitored. and 24 hr cover maintained.
12. OLF - can no longer be done without formal auth.... But AWC guidance shd be reviewed, so there is clear definition of class of wpns and guidance appropriate to those wpns.
13. Tac Memos shd be issued to clearly set out that guidance.
14. All combat ac, operating in and and tasked to theatre to have black box or ADI and or CVR. That cd have provided info about what happened in what order, and perhaps prevent future such events
15. SURVIAC MOU shd be pursued without delay.
16. ALll suspected battle damage to be assessed and rptd upon so as to warn others. Not just repaired with sticky tape.
17. My views on involvement of US personnel are that - lives cd be saved, so it might be a rule 43 matter. I want to see this pursued.

flipster

23rd Oct 2008, 08:56

Nige
Spot on!

I've just been on Beeb Wiltshire but sadly, I hadn't seen Ainsworth's bit. Mind you I might have laid into him and said something I later regretted! It is no wonder the Coroner is a bit miffed!

I welcome Ainsworh's admission of guilt over ESF and the whole inquest has underlined the importance of your and Chappie's campaign to pressurize the MoD into fleet-wide embodiment. You have acheived so much, well done.

However, I am spitting feathers at Ainsworths comments over the systemic failures - does he think that we are stupid? Firstly, his comments are crass and insensitive but there is nothing new in that - he did the same after the Nimrod verdict. Secondly, how can he explain away the obvious failings of communication, direction and decision-making between DEC, the IPT, the designers, DSTL and the user! The system that is meant to ensure airworthness and fitness-for-purpose is broken - no-one knows who's responsibility it is let alone which regulations to implement! This cannot go on, otherwise we will have to go through this whole thing again, as the MoD minister has apparently learnt nothing.

This is the time that we need top-level political impetus - Mr Hutton, as a new Def Sec has inherited a bag of nails, caused by years of neglect and a death by a thousand cuts, presided over by people like Ainsworth. Mr Hutton now has the opportunity to grasp the nettle and get to the root cause of tragedies like the Herc and the Nimrod and in so doing, accomplish all the Coroner's recommendations.

I would argue he should start, in the first, by ensuring the A400M comes into service properly protected as outlined above.

As importantly, however, Mr Hutton should also seek to reform the defence procurement and airworthiness/FFP process. This system was once the best in the world but is now a shadow of its former self. As a result, our servicemen go to war with equipment more suited to Salisbury Plain than Helmand Province! This is unacceptable and cannot continue. There needs to be a full and independent review of this system......NOW!

Our servicemen and women go to war on our behalf and under the orders of our politicians. The very least we can expect is that those people who risk their lives willingly for us are given protection that makes their task easier and are not given equipmentnt that, effectively, does the enemy's job for him!!!!

As Chappie said - we are watching, the world is watching for a mature response from the MoD. Unfortunately, Mr Aisworth fell short.

Flip

On a point of note, I am sure that what the Coroner was intimating by using the term 'Combat Aircraft' was:

all aircraft that are (or could be) flown in an operational theatre, which would include all transport, maritime, C3 and rotary assets and not just FJ!
or words to that effect.

If the MoD think that they can use terminology to hide behind, then they should think again.

Chugalug2

23rd Oct 2008, 10:06

flipster:
If the MoD think that they can use terminology to hide behind, then they should think again.
I think that bitter experience must lead us to expect just that. This is a leopard with very permanent spots. The problem for them is not implementing Mr Masters findings, but how to go about not doing so. Should they just front it out, a la their infamous Mull findings, or go through the motions of paying lip service but doing, and spending, as little as possible? This beast needs putting down, it has betrayed our Armed Forces and the Nation. A complete reorganisation is required and as everyone will know ad nauseum my solution, for the problems that are the preoccupation of this thread, is to reorganise them well away from the MOD and its baleful influences. In this business time is lives rather than money. Too many of the former have already been wasted. We need an independent MAA asap.

airsound

23rd Oct 2008, 10:50

Nige, you’re a bad boy! The Coroner’s Rule 43 recommendations were not intended for publication in that form - they were for your personal use! My account of them was dashed off at the end of a very long and stressful day, and they were not in tidy enough shape for general publication.

However, now that they’re out there, they may as well stay..... But I would ask that PPRuNErs take note of the caveat
Notes taken verbatim - may not be 100%

Indeed, there are a couple of things about them that may need clarifying.

Rule 43 (for those of us non-legal-eagles)
The Coroner explained it thus: (it’s a new (well, amended) rule this summer) ’Where a coroner has evidence that suggests a risk of future death, and believes that action should be taken to prevent a recurrence or to reduce the risk, the coroner may make a report to an appropriate person who may take action. That could include the Lord Chancellor.’ Mr Coroner Masters went on to say he will send his Rule 43 recommendations in a letter to the Minister for the Armed Forces. I gather that won’t happen for a week or so.

Flip - on the question of ‘combat aircraft’, I think you’re right when you say that the coroner probably meant something along the lines of your suggestion.

I have passed on to the coroner’s investigating officer, Jerry Luckett, a reminder that when the RAF uses the phrase ‘combat aircraft’, that specifically excludes transport aircraft and the like. He has promised to clarify that for the coroner.

Incidentally, Jerry is out of a job, as of yesterday, but he leaves with words of high praise from the coroner ringing in his ears. He tells me that he believes the appointment of a Coroner’s Investigator was a first. I suspect it won’t be the last. Jerry is a retired police superintendent, btw.

If anyone needs any clarification of my version of the coroner’s Rule 43 recommendations,let me know.

airsound

PS Lovely pic of Chappie and Wootton Lynestoke Staish in some of the papers today. Stars, both. eg:
Failed by the Forces: Ten heroes killed RAF Hercules could have been saved by fuel 'safety feature', says coroner | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1079711/Failed-Forces-Ten-heroes-killed-Iraq-RAF-Hercules-saved-fuel-safety-feature-says-coroner.html)

JessTheDog

23rd Oct 2008, 12:07

The coroner's conclusions regarding the ESF and int issues are clear enough and welcome, but I am unclear as to why so many documents vanished. I served at High Wycombe from 2000 to 2003 and cannot recall any new documentation system that required a mass shredding. In fact, highest on the agenda was the construction of the new building on the ops site (when the CinC wasn't pondering the weighty issue of Mess dress:}). As I recall, files were classified and, when full, they were PA'd as normal. I bet any documents relating to details of capability or operational requirements would be at least Confidential. Who signed off the destruction certificates? Call me paranoid, but I sense a file cull to save embarrassment. 2 Gp staff officers and AWC officers from the period should be hauled in front of someone and made to explain. Perhaps the registry clerks know what was going on. I think the lesson is in future - if you raise such an issue - keep your own paper trail.

As for Ainsworth - he simply needs a Boot, Combat Assault (or whatever they are called now) applied to the back of the neck until he stops breathing. Then he may stop wriggling and lying.

nigegilb

23rd Oct 2008, 14:34

Sorry Airsound, your notes of the rule 43 were placed on the thread for all to see as part of a homespun "counter-spin" operation against Ainsworth. I was present at the Nimrod Inquest when word came that he had immediately discounted the verdict of Coroner Walker. I saw the reaction of the families there was no way that that man was going to dismiss 3 years of work and 10 deaths in his usual hopeless and offensive way. I didn't see the intervies, I shouldn't have worried it has been described as, Ainsworth came across as an even bigger fool, if that is possible. Jon Snow had him for toilet paper.

What happened with XV179 is clear for anyone with a brain to see. A total breakdown of air worthiness regulations in the same ilk as the Nimrod tragedy. The RAF just doesn't understand the procedures for ensuring an aircraft is fit to go to war.

JTD mentions shredding. Why would anyone want to have destroyed those TAT documents? I have absolutely no idea. The MoD nearly got away with it, but for the recess this Inquest could have stalled at Station Level. Instead we have a formal apology from RAF/MoD something I called for at the very beginning in 2006.

One comment I would like to add on the general destruction of documents crucial to the maintenance of the airworthiness procedure. An engineer was telling me the other day that when he was moved from London to Abbey Wood he was told he would have only have 1 filing cabinet instead of the 8 (EIGHT) he had in his current office. It was a matter of lack of space. So he had to get rid of the vasy majority of paperwork. He was smart with how he went about this process. Careful to maintain corporate memory. However some of the engineers stayed in London, their jobs taken by others. These "others" were then presented with something of a blank canvas, one filing cabinet and a black hole of information.

Many files were archived but the personnel involved in archiving became overwhelmed with work. Archive Reviews had traditionally been held every 10 years but shortly after the Abbey Wood move this time period was reduced to 10 (Ten) months. And so the destruction of airworthiness materiel began in earnest. All those requests for foam dated back to the Falklands went into the shredder. Commanders' ability to learn the lessons of those gone before, vanished.

And then, in the case of Hercules we learned an old lesson, that fuel tanks explode.

Worrying still further, the policy on electronic recommendations, destroyed after just 5 years, inside the time frame of Major Servicing for Herc "K".

I think there is a better way of doing this. Rather than post here on pprune and campaign in public on very sensitive matters, it has been suggested that we should extend an olive branch.

I am going to consider with my main advisers and fellow campaigners what the best way forward is. I know the MoD monitors this site, whole pages of pprune were run off for briefing the MoD team at the Inquest.

Enough to say we remain open minded about another way of doing this.

Tappers Dad

23rd Oct 2008, 15:22

Nige without your tireless efforts and those of Sarah Chapman (chappie) I am sure the coroner would not have known about a lot of what went on re ESF. I was there when you gave evidence and the coroner thanked you for all the help you had been. You should both be proud of what you have done for all those that fly and travel in Hercules.:D

flipster

23rd Oct 2008, 16:54

Hear Hear!

The inquest has totally underlined the importance of Nige and Chappie's foam campaign - without which, we may well have have lost more aircraft.
:ok::ok:
Flip

tucumseh

23rd Oct 2008, 18:09

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Defence Policy and Business | RAF "determined to learn the lessons" of Hercules XV179 (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/RafdeterminedToLearnTheLessonsOfHerculesXv179.htm)

Typically, MoD are trying to contain the damage. Ainsworth, that blundering fool of a jobsworth, is trying desperately to give the impression this is an isolated case, whereas a 2 year old can see that it is entirely linked to Nimrod, Mull, Tornado and others. As I said, just different paragraphs of the same chapters in the Regs that haven't been implemented properly.

The above statements on the MoD site compound this by inferring the problem is confined to the RAF, and dates back only to 2002 (the "1st" TAT report). Arrant nonsense. It completely ignores the MoD's 1982 specification on foam (which MUST have been preceded by something similar to the TAT reports to underpin the requirement to prepare a spec) and the fact that, if the 2002 report was the first one on the subject, by definition the system hasn't been working for decades.

If you look at the recommendations (even in Airsound's shorthand form) the "RAF" cannot implement them without the buy-in of DE&S, DEC and a gaggle of mandarins. But these are precisely the people who, in the past few weeks, have stepped back into the shadows and hung 2Gp out to dry. Do you really think they'll step forward again and openly sign up to a Customer Supplier Agreement that says "OK, we promise to meet our existing Terms of Reference, and in doing so satisfy the Coroner's recommendations". Dream on.

In practice, there will need to be a cull. The names of the main protagonists from the past are well known, and most are retired. Their coat tail huggers, teaboys and bagmen are still in post. Some are easily identified – they form the audit trail of the letters and statements issued by the likes of Ingram, Moonie and Ainsworth over the last few years. Some are harmless fools who have never knowingly had an original thought. Others are dangerous and cynical. Like the ####### who, in an attempt to hide his abrogation of duty of care, engaged a consultant to create a 2nd risk register omitting embarrassing MoD risks which adversely affected airworthiness and safety. And then had a 3rd one created to further blur the audit trail. Why, you ask, can I say this? Because Mins(AF) have quite happily (but probably inadvertently) placed in writing, to my MP, that they see nothing wrong in this. But this is precisely the blurring and destruction of the audit trail that the Coroner has lambasted the MoD for this week.

Again, sorry to repeat myself but, like ACM Loader’s statements in the Nimrod BoI, what Mr Masters said is not a revelation, but a reiteration of common knowledge and previous rulings.

chappie

23rd Oct 2008, 22:43

thank you each and everyone of you.

i'll not lie, i'm ashamed to say i lost my dignity and cried. there are no words to follow....

i'll do my best by each and every one of you and yours. i will do my best not to fail you. i will not take the words spoken from a TV studio or the comfort of 2 Grp as an apology. you failed our boys and us. you couldn't look me or others in the eyes and apologise. your words are meaningless, empty and late. more importantly your heartless attempts fail each and every person in, or wanting in, to the armed forces, one of our finest institutions.

there are no words to describe my pain.
worst of all though you live the reality and fear as i once did. i know that worry.

i hope i haven't nor will i fail you.

keep the faith.

chappie

23rd Oct 2008, 22:52

by the way MoD and AVM Hillier you will be hearing from me and for the recoed if you EVER have the short sightedness to think you can brush me off then think again. LET THIS BE THE ONLY WARNING YOU EVER GET..... When i write to you thst letter will be sent to every press and media contact i have and more. don't ever think you can brush me off. you don't do the cowardless act you did and think that's it. i know you watch these pages, so prepare yourself. i always said i would never forgive or let anyone get away with hurting my family....you hurt my family and my military family so you will have to answer.

YOU FAILED THOSE MEN AND YOUR SERVICE.

THEY ARE THE MEN AND WOMEN THAT DESERVE THE PRAISE. THEY ARE THE HEROES.

I WILL BE INDEBTED TO YOU ALL FOREVER.............

Brian Dixon

23rd Oct 2008, 23:04

... And by your actions, those you will save, and their families, will be indebted to you forever too, Chappie!

Brian

chappie

23rd Oct 2008, 23:23

please, i do nothing and i know i am nothing.

you all mean the world to me. i will give you and the future generation life and security to those left behind. my god, i am so indebted to you all.

just let me heal.

but BOB AINSWORTH YOU ARE MINE............I WILL HAVE YOU.......

the real hero's are nige and flip.

dunc0936

24th Oct 2008, 08:23

speaking for myself chappie I'm here to support you in any way I can, (check your emails) I'm sure also that goes for a large percentage of people on here

Duncan

Chugalug2

24th Oct 2008, 09:52

Chappie, for all the denial, truculence and shear arrogance displayed by those who connived to suppress the wanton destruction of airworthiness of our military aircraft your raw courage and determination, in seeking out the truth of the machinations that lay behind the loss of XV179 and its occupants including your beloved brother, has confounded them. If I was at the receiving end of your outrage I would feel very bad. There have been a number of posts on here from a high level noting with regret the level of emotion displayed from time to time. A pity there wasn't more injected to thwart the irresponsible plotting from the word go! This whole saga can be summed up in the age old maxim that evil will flourish when good men do nothing. Thankfully there were enough good men, and especially women, to expose this evil. It must never be allowed to happen again. All good men and women take note!

flipster

24th Oct 2008, 11:13

Chappie,
That is high praise indeed coming from someone as awe-inspiringly determined and courageous as your good self; I don't even come close!

I won't deny however, that I thought what I saw going on in the MoD was wrong and I knew that if I didn't say something, then I would not be able to look myself in the eye in the mirror of a morning. I wish I said and done more. But if my actions have helped, in some small way, draw attention to the evil that lurks out there, then I am glad to have helped.

Sadly, in the light of Ainsworth's comments after both recent inquests, this tragedy is destined to be repeated somewhere in the near future, unless urgent action is taken. As far as the top of the MoD is concerned, all is rosy but anyone with a modicum of common-sense and decency can appreciate that is not true.

Therefore, I encourage all other 'good' men and women out there (there are so many of you) to speak up and take action so as not to let the evil of complacency and selfishness take root. To allow repetition of XV179 would be criminal and not to have learnt a damn thing, other than how to bury one's head in the sand.

Please don't let the 'LESSONS IDENTIFIED' become 'LESSONS IGNORED' ....again - it might be your family that lives to regret your inaction.

chappie

24th Oct 2008, 11:35

thanks guys,

a quick update. i am going to be spreading the word and utilising my contacts and starting to get this sorted. i need a few days just to settle and lick my wounds, but i will not retreat nor desert you. i'm not to proud to admit that i'm scared. i'm scared of facing the pain that i've been left with as a result of what the MoD did to my big bruv. it's just me now, i'm alone and miss having him, i miss having a big brother, i miss having someone to look out for me. i will, however, not let it cloud my judgement nor my aim.

now, enough of that tosh.

has anyone got the contact details or advice about the UKNDA, or is it UKDNA or something like that? the defence bods that are trying to bring about change and help you all. it's right and proper that i do this correctly and don't go off on one. they'd love to portray me as the "angry relative" with no real ability. i am open to any advice.

oh, and before i go, will someone please tell mike neville he's got a little something on his shoulder he needs to get rid of! poor bloke :}

Chugalug2

24th Oct 2008, 12:05

Chappie, Google is your friend! :ok::
CONTACT US - UKNDA - The UK National Defence Association (http://www.uknda.org/contact_us/c-10.html)
I'm not sure about their aims, and hopefully someone from there could update us on just that. Suffice to say someone of that ilk (UKNDA RAF liaison officer or some such) did just that on this forum some time ago and did not impress!
I suspect their solution is to pump more and more wodge into the existing setup. Nice work if you can get it, but will you get it if you try?
My take is pouring more money into the incompetent heap that is the MOD will merely create yet more waste. It has to be torn apart and rebuilt, with anomalies like having airworthiness authority over its own operation, ie self regulation, done away with. Reform is the key rather than reflation IMHO.

chappie

24th Oct 2008, 12:11

i'd be interested to find out if it's better then that i don't contact them. thanks for your advice. i just thought that they could be a resource or asisstance. i do agree that throwing money at a problem is not the answer.

Chugalug2

24th Oct 2008, 12:23

No harm in sounding them out if you so wish, Chappie. As Flipster said in an earlier post, it is perhaps time to take stock and decide where we all go from here, especially in the light of Ainsworth's knee jerk response to the Coroner! A quick search on this site comes up with this thread (not the one I was alluding to above):
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/299489-uk-national-defence-association.html

chappie

24th Oct 2008, 19:07

rant on....
does anyone know of a tim collins? he's solider who is giving out rubbish about compensating seeking relatives, as the men die in war! i have been harangued by a journo about this.
i believe that when you sign up you risk the fact that you die in war. yes the plane was shot down, but it's and the crews ability to stand a chance was taken away as a result of the failings of the MoD.
please, please do not think that i am interested in money. there are families however who had their lives blown apart prematurely as a result of these failings. aged parents who no longer have their sons.
please understand that i may have fallen at the hands of a blood hound journo ....
rant off ....

i have since googled this man, and i am even more disappointed in him. iguess that maybe it is the journo's fault in this trying to put 2+2 together to make 5. he's picked someone so raw and newly plunged into yet another pool of grief. i have since the original post been rung again, this journo is trying to push me. i am so sorry if anything is printed that makes the wrong impression. i don't know what to do.
__________________

nigegilb

24th Oct 2008, 20:47

Don't worry about Tim Collins Chappie, he blew his credibility with the military community a while ago.

To counter his argument I would take him on over the subject of money.

Most widows are living on a 1/3rd of the family income before they lost their loved one. Talk to Graham Knight he will give you a flavour of the degrading and humiliating questions the widows of the Kinloss tragedy have had to answer to qualify for supposed automatic compensation from the Government. Take Collins on and rub his nose in the mess he is trying to make from other people's grief.

I hope you take the MoD to the cleaners anyway. Most people understand that the MoD act like an actuary, the more expensive you make it for unnecessary loss of life the more chance they are likely to be proactive.

See if you can't get brave Mr Collins on a head to head, we'll see how brave he is then.

flipster

24th Oct 2008, 21:19

Can anyone find a recording of Ainsorth's weasly statement on 5 live? I've failed to find it, which is quite puzzling, as I can find numerous refs to Steve Hillier's and Nevs' interviews but not TCA's!

ps

Nige

Give us a ping or clear yr PM inbox a bit (if poss).

TVM

Flip

tucumseh

25th Oct 2008, 08:12

airsound

25th Oct 2008, 08:16

Flip, here are Ainsworth's words according to BBC Online. Don't know if that's the same as his FiveLive appearance.

BOB AINSWORTH, ARMED FORCES MINISTER

There were problems with our procedures, our ability to track the threat - to marshal all of the evidence of the threat - and that's something we are absolutely determined to address.

That has been exposed in the coroner's court - some of these issues brought out by our own Board of Inquiry.

We try to learn all of the lessons of every single accident and every single incident which occurs in theatre.

BBC NEWS | UK | Reaction to Hercules verdict (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7685031.stm)

airsound

tucumseh

25th Oct 2008, 08:42

Click on link.....

Download links - Sharebee.com, the one and only online file hosting distribution service. (http://sharebee.com/c2c689b2)

Filename: ainsworth 221008 1730.mp3 Size: 1.74 MB

Click on one of 4 host server options ("Rapidshare" etc). Follow download instructions and open file in your media player. It is about 6 mins and just the Ainsworth interview.

"We accept the Coroner's verdict".

"Our own systems exposed the failures". Does that mean pprune is now part of the MoD?

nigegilb

25th Oct 2008, 09:26

Is he talking about the MOD's failure to destroy ALL the evidence.

dunc0936

25th Oct 2008, 09:57

nige, is there or will there be a copy of the inquiry? Is it time for the likes of you, sarah, graham to set up a safety campaign group?

Duncan

flipster

25th Oct 2008, 10:42

Thanks for the link Tuc.

Hasn't it occurred to Mr Answorth that if the MoD's processes, structures and systems had done their job correctly, then there wouldn't have been an explosion, a BOI, nor an Inquest, in the first place!?

The airworthiness system is broken and Mull, Nimrod and Herc are but a few examples of a system in freefall. The frontline deserve better support than the present system is currently capable of providing.

However, I suspect that while there may be a few rotten apples, the vast majority of DE&S are hard-working and committed individuals who, like many others in the MoD, feel under-funded, over-stretched and unloved.

Let the good men and women therein stand up and be counted. I would ask them to remember that the people on the front-line are only as good as the equipment they use.

I plead with AF Min to wake up and smell the coffee.

nigegilb

25th Oct 2008, 13:10

Dunc, one thing that has been suggested after the verdict is that all three campaign groups come together. The Chinook campaign has extremely good high level links into the Lords, both the Nimrod and Herc campaigns have been stunningly successful. It is an interesting idea.

To be fair we have contact anyway but it is informal. Graham is taking the Nimrod families into new legal ground. The likes of Barrister John Cooper have been fantastic in offering a level of Court Room expertize. We all have extensive media contacts, mainly because the media almost immediately saw the story for what it was. The Chinook campaign is still very optimistic about progress.

Extraordinarily at the Hercules Inquest there was a team of MoD and DSF personnel watching and monitoring everything. You can decide for yourself what the media made of the verdict and whether they made the tiniest difference.

I guess the big decision to make just now, is do we try and work inside the tent, if the MoD is willing to discuss the idea, or do we stay outside the tent.

I am opened minded.

Edited to add that one of the frustrating things about the coronial process is that none of it is on line and the transcripts are extremely expensive. If you want to know what happened you simply have to be there. Everyone makes notes in the Court Room. The cost of the Nimrod transcript was over 20K! I managed to pull in a favour to get the Hickman transcript.

I am not sure about the findings though. Again at the Nimrod Inquest the findings ran to over 50 pages and bizarrely Coroner Walker had to read them into court. So he spent an hour speed reading aloud, as part of the ancient process.

Hey I am not knocking it, one of the last great institutions that actually works fairly independently of Govt, but haven't they heard of t'internet??

dunc0936

25th Oct 2008, 13:24

nige i think i would be open minded as well, trying to work privately with the mod would be the first port of call and then if you dont get any where or are not happy then work from the outside through the media

There is an election on the horizon so the old politicians might start to listen.

Either way if there is anything i can do to help i would be happy to get involved

Duncan

nigegilb

25th Oct 2008, 13:35

To be honest I doubt they would let me in the building but we have a new man in charge (Hutton) and he really is in a desperate position politically, (just about the last Labour MP in the South), he is also a good bloke and you never know he might bring more of an open mind to the position the MoD find themselves in.

I will keep you advised and thanks.

Would love to meet Bob Ainsorth in the flesh..........

nigegilb

25th Oct 2008, 13:49

Chappie this might be of use, it is a clause in the contract that the widows had to sign in the aftermath of the crash;

I was given a summary of the Armed Forces Family Pensions (AFPS). In paragraph 6 it reads

REDUCTION IN ATTRIBUTABLE FORCES FAMILY PENSION ENTITLEMENT

If you have been awarded an Attributable Family Pension, this may be subject to a reduction if at any time you receive compensation from a third party as a consequence of the death of your spouse. If you have received, or receive at a future date such compensation, you should report the full details to the pension authority.

The legality of getting a grieving widow to sign a document without any legal advice is highly doubtful. But this is the sort of trick that the MoD plays in the teeth of human tragedy. Ask Tim Collins if he condones this kind of thing or whether it happened when he was a CO.

BEagle

25th Oct 2008, 14:15

....you should report....
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

'Should' is only a recommendation. It may therefore be ignored.

Had this read 'you shall report', it would have been a mandatory requirement.

nigegilb

25th Oct 2008, 15:35

The only case I am aware of similar to Nimrod was another high profile loss of a soldier in GW2. On that occasion MoD settled out of Court and SoS Defence waived the right to reduce the existing pension award. Whether it is should or shall, we are talking about the same organisation settling that already pays the pension so it matters not.

If there is a settlement to HRA Right to life case I fully expect SoS Def to do the same, that is waive the right to reduce the award. Last time there was an associated gagging order (I think), be interesting to see what the MoD do next.

I assume Collins must have a book in the pipeline?

whisky-sour

25th Oct 2008, 16:53

Well done!
Good on you!
W-S

nigegilb

26th Oct 2008, 08:00

So here is a guy who clearly can't be bothered to read the BoI before giving us his insight into why XV170 was shot down. "Weird stuff,"
"took out the heart". Wow how did he get to Colonel with this analytical prowess. His understanding of threat effects is impressive, "massive rocket or something". Then he blames the compensation culture that led to the Inquest being held. Has he never heard of English law?

This is the same guy who wants to disband the RAF, me thinks he should switch to selling life insurance. Don't worry about this guy Chappie, you could make toilet paper out of him.

Iraq hero hits out at Hercules inquest

Published Date: 26 October 2008
By Tom Peterkin

THE army officer whose rousing speech famously inspired soldiers before they went into battle in Iraq has criticised the "compensation culture" that led to an inquest being held into the deaths of 10 British servicemen killed when their RAF Hercules was shot down.

Col Tim Collins said "nothing on earth" would have saved the men and added that those serving their country should be aware that "weird stuff" happens at war.

His remarks drew a furious response from families of the men who perished when their aircraft went down in Iraq.

They came as new defence secretary John Hutton said forces were well equipped but "past failures" must not be repeated.

Last week, the coroner for Wiltshire found that the men's lives could have been saved if protective foam around the aircraft's fuel tanks had been fitted when it was shot down flying between Baghdad and Balad in January 2005.

Collins said: "My understanding is that the Hercules was hit by a rocket which took it out right in the heart and nothing on this earth would have saved them."

The former Royal Irish Regiment officer also accused New Labour of fostering a compensation culture and when asked whether an inquest could provide comfort for victims' families, he replied: "What answers are you looking for? They were in a war zone and you're in an aircraft that's been hit by a massive rocket. That's the answer. If you do join up – weird stuff happens in war."

Iraq hero hits out at Hercules inquest - Scotland on Sunday (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk/Iraq-hero-hits-out-at.4630330.jp)

chappie

26th Oct 2008, 08:36

me thinks it's time that i added this Collins chap to my list of to do's to sort out. where on earth does this man get off jumping onto the bandwagon to have a go days after the inquest closed? it has to be said it was a hard night trying to settle my girls into having me back home and give them time to have to endure the stream of calls. those girls needed their mum to be mum not get so wrapped up in the after math of the inquest.

thank god officers like collins no longer hold position in the force, as how will lessons ever be carried forward? let's hope this man does'nt have political aspirations, the government are in enough of a mess.:}

chappie

26th Oct 2008, 08:54

so how's ab0out it?

i think we seriously need to consider coming together as groups for the safety of those that serve. PM me.

Tappers Dad

26th Oct 2008, 09:25

RE; Tim Collins
The former Royal Irish Regiment officer also accused New Labour of fostering a compensation culture and when asked whether an inquest could provide comfort for victims' families, he replied: "What answers are you looking for? They were in a war zone and you're in an aircraft that's been hit by a massive rocket. That's the answer. If you do join up – weird stuff happens in war."

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Collins was promoted to full colonel after the Iraq war, and was accused by US Army reservist Major Re Biastre of the mistreatment of Iraqi civilians and prisoners of war. Following an investigation by the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police he was cleared of any wrongdoing. He later won substantial undisclosed libel damages from both the Sunday Express and the Sunday Mirror newspapers.[3]

In January 2004, Collins announced his resignation from the army, citing bureaucracy, chronic underfunding, and the MoD's lack of support over the mistreatment allegations.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

No need for a PM Chappie count me in :ok:

airsound

26th Oct 2008, 11:20

Chappie - you were worried on 24 Oct that the journo chasing the Collins story (I assume Tom Peterkin, Political Editor, Scotland On Sunday) was going to misquote you and give Collins too much credibility.

Well, having looked at the article, I think you gave an excellent, punchy answer
Sarah Chapman, the sister of Robert O'Connor, a technician on board the aircraft, said she was "very disappointed and saddened" by Collins' remarks. "Tim Collins is obviously very old school," she said. "Yes, they were in a war zone, but let's just remember that all of their chances to cope with their attacks were removed, not by insurgents, but by those who were supposed to protect their safety and apply their duty of care.

"To come out with a tired old phrase like compensation culture and to use it in relation to the families is insulting."

So, as ever, well done! Especially under the homecoming family stresses that you mention.

I'm thinking that we might pursue this further through journalistic channels and see if we can't get a proper right of reply - but perhaps if it doesn't get picked up elsewhere it might be best to let sleeping dogs lie. What does anyone think?

airsound

RaPs

26th Oct 2008, 11:54

We are totally disgusted and appalled after reading the comments made by Tim Collins in the wake of the Inquest, after the recommendations made by H M Coroner Mr David Masters. He may have been good in uniform but it seems he must be putting things together to write a book. If he had been around before or whilst the Inquest was in progress, as the relatives were, he would NEVER have heard the mention of compensation being brought up by anyone. All the families ever sought was the truth to come out into the circumstances of the crash of XV179, and after hearing the summing up of HMC we believe that he certainly hit the nail on the head about so many things that were wrong in the RAF and the MoD regarding this incident. Let us all hope, and especially those still serving,. that all these recommendations are carried out in entirety, especially following the quote made by the new Defence Secretary John Huttons in this same article. We will wait and see. Finally, all the families know that no amount of money will EVER compensate for losing our boys, but perhaps if this is the only way to make the MoD sit up and listen, then so be it.

chappie

26th Oct 2008, 20:44

airsound, you know me. always up for it. i will fight for what is right.

airsound

27th Oct 2008, 19:36

Chappie, I certainly do. Your always-up-for-it-ness is a source of constant admiration for me, and, I suspect, a lot of others inside and outside of the hallowed halls of PPRuNe.

But I’m not sure that taking on the sad Collins is necessarily the best thing to do right now. I’ve done a trawl (I hope better than the MoD’s trawls) of the coverage of his ill judged outburst, and I can’t find it mentioned anywhere other than in the Scotland on Sunday paper where it started.

I even gee’d up the Today programme with the story (they didn’t seem to know about it), with the the provsiso that if they were going to do anything on it, they would include a reasoned response from someone who knew what they were talking about. They elected not to cover it.

All of which may suggest that Collins’ rants are no longer news. If that’s the case, any response will only serve to draw wider attention to his intemperate and out of date views. I guess that the reach of Scotland on Sunday is not huge South of the border, and the story will clearly not have reached the majority of people in Britain.

So I think a masterful (should that be mistressful) silence will serve best for the time being - without, of course, prejudice to firing up a justified raspberry should Col (rtd) Collins offend again any time soon.

airsound

chappie

27th Oct 2008, 19:43

okay, whatever you guide. at the end of the day he's gone from hero to zero in many peoples eyes and to be fair the heroes that still serve are more worthy of any time i can give. i believe in you whole heartedly. have been in trouble over last few days with the coverage but have taken punishment on the chin like a girl!

letter done to those who think that offering an apology through a tv interview (or should i be fair? a radio interview) is enough to begin to heal the wound that has been opened up by the hole left by the loss of such fine men.
call it emotional response, call it pointless but it's something i have to do for me, no one else.
there are no words to replace bob and the guys, there is nothing, but that doesn;t mean that i have to live with being just another statistic.
this statistic is standing up and fighting for what is right.
i would never, never turn my back on anyone left behind. it is not in my natuire to let the generation left behind to care for itself. i will do all i can to make it as safe as i can.
i know this post is pointless and adds nothing but indulge me guys and just let me post it. in fact, i know that there is nothing that i can offer which is of any help, but i will do what i can. i just hope i am not a millstone round the campaign's neck.

pulse1

27th Oct 2008, 21:33

chappie,

As the father of a military pilot I have had nothing but admiration for you and the others who have bravely fought to expose the incredibly poor attitude of the MoD and higher ranks of the military to the safety of our servicemen.

Ever since the Chinook campaign started over 10 years ago I have asked myself how I would react if my son was killed under such circumstances. As the appalling picture has unfolded over successive tragedies involving Hercules, Nimrods and Tornadoes, I am aware that it has only become public knowledge through the actions of brave people like you and irritating sods like Brian Dixon. Hopefully, it is your actions which will make it less likely that families like mine will have to fight the same fight.

So, instead of talking about "millstones" I think that it might be more appropriate, one day, that the families of all service men erect a stone statue with your names on it. You are fighting so that others will not have to. Keep up the good work and, if the only way we can help is to read your emotional outbursts, please go ahead.

Truckkie

28th Oct 2008, 18:49

Or perhaps we could just let it all finally rest....?

chappie

28th Oct 2008, 19:53

or perhaps you could not bother looking at the thread if it is boring you!

this goes beyond the inquest, that is done, but, there are other issues to be addressed and let's not forget what the findings of the inquest highlighted. The apparent inability to take the safety of aircraft and crew seriously and uphold it at the level that it should be. That is why there is a need to continue to go forward. That is why the coroner made a large number of recommendations.

the choice, they say, is yours....

airsound

9th Nov 2008, 15:13

The Politics Show (Eastern edition) on BBC 1 has just had Chappie on again. As ever, she does an excellent job. Scroll about 34mins into the show if you want to jump straight to the piece.

BBC iPlayer - The Politics Show East: 09/11/2008 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fj1vl/The_Politics_Show_East_09112008/)

airsound

Chugalug2

9th Nov 2008, 20:07

Great piece by BBC East, the whole section should have gone out on the National network. As to you Chappie, as moving and as outspoken as ever. Don't ever change, please! It was on this thread and very much thanks to you that the whole scandal of RAF Airworthiness shortcomings was exposed, first here, then on the Nimrod thread, and now on the Mull one. The first priority was for ESF to be retro-fitted to the Hercules fleet. Uphill work but now, thank God, done. The next job is to ensure that the Military Airworthiness Regulations, that should have ensured that anyway, are revised to include fitness for purpose in all military aircraft. That's the easy part, the greater challenge is to ensure that Airworthiness cannot in future be deliberately compromised for (very) short term financial gain, resulting in the certainty of an avoidable accident becoming unavoidable in the future. There are those who know how and why this happened last time around. Now is the time to contribute to this discussion, instead of leaving it to a committed few. This must never be allowed to happen again, so the system has to change to make sure of that. How should it change? My preference is for an external MAA, but it may well be that it can be done "in house" in far less time and with much less upheaval. This forum has contributed greatly already to exposing this scandal, now it should go on to point the way to preventing a recurrence.

chappie

9th Nov 2008, 22:36

i'd like to add a response to the piece if anyone saw it. Bob Ainsworth can not say he has apologised to the families when we have not been visited by him in court or even received a letter from him, unless you class watching the TV or listen to the radio then there has been no apology received. he has not addressed us, and i refute that claim. he has been written to about this and other issues, as has AVM Hillier.
The report also mentioned about improved benefits for those injured (which is right and proper) and they mentioned about the offering of compensation to those left behind when a solider is lost. Considering the failings, admissions and ahem, apologies, there has been no offer, so again they lie to try and represent themselves to be trying to put things right. Let's look at what has to happen each time in order for something to be corrected. pointless loss of life and constant questioning and campaigning for measures that still have to be coaxed into place each time. It seems that the only time the MoD will do anything is when they are backed into a corner, even then if they can wriggle out they will. It's time to stop being reactive and start to be proactive. I have asked for questions in parliament to be asked and i am pursuing all avenues, but the time is an issue when working full time and with small children, but i am still working on it. the issue of the hercules runs deeper than ESF and is one that cannot be walked away from. MoD this lady is not for turning!

rant off!

Squidlord

10th Nov 2008, 16:31

nigegilb:

SquidLord on a housekeeping point, only a few months ago the Nimrod IPT stated up front at a flight safety meeting that they regarded 00-56 as mandatory and it took priority over other source documents. Please state here if there are any great changes in the doc to which you refer. One thing that has been very obvious to me over the last few weeks is the perpetual state of change in the MoD and RAF.

If the Nimrod IPT were stating that it was mandatory for them, i.e. the IPT, to follow 00-56, then they do not understand MoD safety management (no surprises?) If they were stating that it is mandatory for, say, BAE to follow it then that makes sense (if it's called up contractually).

POSMS is the mandatory document for all MoD IPTs to follow in their safety management. It is much bigger than 00-56, containing much more detail, but follows the same principles broadly. Indeed, it inherits many of them, e.g. by using definitions filched from 00-56. This is actually arse-backwards. The MoD, or any organisation, should sort out its own Safety Management System (SMS) and then write documents concerned with the SMSs of contractors (00-56) accordingly, i.e. 00-56 should inherit the concepts of POSMS. But in the case of MoD, it's a historical accident - 00-56 has been around a lot longer than POSMS (the latter for just a few years).

Insofar as POSMS & 00-56 talk about the same concepts of safety management, there are technical differences but I think they are generally in the weeds and may even be unintentional. But POSMS contains much more detail and I would be concerned that any IPT that claimed that they were following 00-56, or that 00-56 takes priority might be missing important aspects of POSMS.

nigegilb

3rd Oct 2010, 12:25

On page two of this very long thread I posted my agreement with the following two aims;

1. The relatives should now receive compensation.
2. All Hercules crews going operational should be protected by foam.

Well, finally, it looks like they have both been achieved. All Hercules crews have been protected by foam for some time. But on the day that an article has appeared suggesting that Nimrod families have settled on compensation I have also heard that the compensation claim has been agreed with Hercules XV179. I stress both are yet to be confirmed, but on the face of it, looks like good news......

Shell Management

3rd Oct 2010, 13:32

Squiblord - by what power do you think is POSMS made mandatory (and/or is more important that a Defence Standard)?

It is lucky they have all settled before Lord Young stamps out the compensation culture.

nigegilb

3rd Oct 2010, 13:40

I am more interested in the fact that Mark Hobbs, IPTL at the Herc Inquest stated that fitness for purpose was not an an area of his concern. He was only interested in airworthiness and wiped his hands of any aircraft needing foam.

A rough note of Hobbs at the Inquest, (not word for word).

"The difference between airworthiness and fitness for purpose is that I make sure its airworthy, that no intrinsic fault or failure could bring it down. My job to ensure, for example, it gets to USA safely. In fitness for purpose, you have to consider uses. A car without ABS is not necessarily unsafe, but it may be unsafe if you want to go much faster. It becomes not fit for the purpose you want to use it for."

"Fitness for purpose resides with operators, not us."

Edited to add, not lucky at all, the MoD and RAF were culpably negligent..

Shell Management

3rd Oct 2010, 13:52

nigegilb

Many thanks - that is very interesting. Is a transcript publically available on the internet?

Is he perhaps trying to make a point that an aircraft can be airworthy but still vulnerable to enemy action?

nigegilb

3rd Oct 2010, 14:07

What came across at the Inquest was that nobody took responsibility for fitness for purpose. Obviously there was an awful lot of back sliding going on and failure to recall, but having personally sat through days and days of evidence I came away thinking the RAF and MoD didn't understand what they were trying to achieve or how they were supposed to achieve it. But 2 Gp seemed to get the lions blame for failing to make the request for foam to DEC/IPTL. I certainly believe some of the individuals involved were basically not qualified/competent to make the decisions they were making.

WRT transcript/notes, not my property I will ask if I am allowed to reproduce in full..

Clockwork Mouse

3rd Oct 2010, 18:01

JFZ90

3rd Oct 2010, 18:29

If fitness for purpose is the point, should the relatives of all the soldiers killed in snatch landrovers be compensated? You could argue that any soldier using a vehicle, aerial, waterborne or on land, which is vulnerable to enemy action is liable to compensation. Where do you draw the line?

It is always a difficult line to draw, and often involves compromise.

What happens when you loose an ac because your DAS system fails to counter a SAM system - be it either a new SAM system, or a new mode in an existing one, or perhaps an old one you didn't expect to encounter in your pre flight programming?

Is someone culpable for not spying hard/well enough against an adversary who is trying pretty hard to not to let you know the ins and outs of their AD system?

nigegilb

3rd Oct 2010, 18:47

WRT XV179. The risk to the fuel tanks was known at Group level but not passed down to Sqn level. If the Sqns had been informed in the correct manner tactics, in this case day low level, could have been changed to mitigate the threat. We did this in the slick frames in Afg 2001/2. We flew at night with NVGs,( but that was because we had no defences at all). Group could then have worked on getting foam fitted to the highest priority airframes first and when the threat had been mitigated with equipment, tactics could have been relaxed again. As it was, group neither informed the sqns nor requested foam through DEC/ITPL. Interestingly since the crash, day low level ceased immediately.

Sometimes it is not possible to mitigate a threat, could be the defensive system is simply not practical. In which case it should be entered on the hazard log and often times technology advances and new systems are developed. I am thinking now of OBIGGS, which is now being used in civilian airliners.

Regarding Snatch Landrovers, there is already an ongoing legal case.

Edited to add vulnerability analysis was carried out for both Iraq and Afghanistan and resilted in a High Rec for foam, but 2 Gp parked the rec and the threat info.

tucumseh

3rd Oct 2010, 19:17

-re Snatch.

It was known in the 90s it was not fit for purpose in NI, and a replacement programme announced with a firm ISD. Hence, at one level, that demonstrates the vulnerability was known against threats in that theatre. So far, so good(ish).

When it was deployed to sandy places, that vulnerability analysis would have been revalidated for changes in threats. As successive Defence Secretaries insisted it WAS fit for purpose, one assumes they can back this up with the VA.

Or not.

If not, and the threats were even greater (and I think most would say they were) then I'd want to know who chopped that programme and why we had to wait for many deaths to force a series of minor UORs.

Please don't mention FRES. The above replacement was a concurrent programme, both endorsed at the same time for different requirements/uses, but with similar ISDs. (Around 2005/6).

That bit about VA was what wasn't done properly on C130. Don't get caught up in airworthiness - that is just the manifestation of proper safety management in an aircraft. Haddon-Cave, although he didn't spell it out, was referring to Air, Land and Sea.

Shell Management

3rd Oct 2010, 20:10

I thought that Haddon-Crave was clearly very focussed on air failings and in particular with the RAF (almost as if he hadn't realised the RN & AAC flew aircraft).

tucumseh

3rd Oct 2010, 21:02

Shell

You are right. Very often he said "RAF" when it should have been "MoD". The same applies daily in the press and here on pprune. The RAF fly, RN sail and Army march. But his meaning was clear as witnessed by the MAA being pan-MoD, not just RAF or Nimrod.

However, the evidence presented to him did show that the systemic problems (as opposed to isolated cases) commenced in anger with RAF decisions, mainly by suppliers, when they took over the world in the late 80s. That makes his 1998 baseline all the more bizarre and, lacking any other evidence, I have always thought this a "deal" whereby MoD knew they had to take a hit, and agreeing to 1998 protected many retired officers. His reasoning was so ludicrously flawed it took about 30 seconds to find the written evidence that proved him wrong (which had been submitted to him anyway).

As I've said elsewhere, his naming of General Sam Cowan (Ret'd) was particularly unwarranted as senior RAF officers before him (1987 - 1994 in particular) had deliberately wasted vast amounts which knowingly targetted airworthiness; whereas the "cuts" Cowan was accused of making were miniscule by comparison (5% per year for four years, against almost 30% a year for 3) and had little effect. And, having met the man, I know he was particularly concerned about these fundamental Duty of Care issues. H-C was a force for good, but a lot of very senior people breathed a sigh of relief when they read his report.

Hydraulic Palm Tree

3rd Oct 2010, 21:06

Nige

WRT XV179. The risk to the fuel tanks was known at Group level but not passed down to Sqn level. If the Sqns had been informed in the correct manner tactics, in this case day low level, could have been changed to mitigate the threat.

The request for foam originated from the Sqn, so the Sqn was well aware of the increased risk, so how can you justify your comment above?

HPT

nigegilb

3rd Oct 2010, 21:47

HPT the request did not originate from the Sqn. There was no trace of any paperwork ever having left Lyneham. Foam was mentioned in a post op report but amongst other things, the Stn Cdr had no recall of ever having done anything with it. Mind you he also failed to recall the conversation I had with him about being targetted by a MANPAD in Afg!

Similarly an American pilot on "the flight" gave a fully funded presentation pack-up, including a manufacturers rep for foam for the MK1 fleet, to his Flight Commander. But when giving evidence at the Inquest, the Flight Commander who was given the pack up in his in tray could not recall ever having seen the report and promptly said it wouldn't have made any difference anyway, he wouldn't have pressed for it. This was a rough account at the Inquest, I stress not word for word;

His documents included the Crest stuff (not produced by FC) - Cooper would you have read it?
EA No.
Cooper So you wouldn’t have taken any notice of it?
EA No
Cooper Without reading it?
EA Correct.
Cooper But wd you have stopped the task if you’d read it?
EA No - same answer re......
Coooper He had put your nose out of joint.
EA no sir.
Cooper Anything he had given you, you would have ignored.
EA probably.
Cooper Then what did you do with the doc?
EA Don’t know.
Cooper For anyone interested in ESF, they cd have read about it.
EA Yes. But I had a job to do and was busy. I had decided that other methods were higher priority.

I know this is old ground for many people, but during the recess the Inquest investigator discovered that there had been TAT meetings held in the run up to both Afg and Iraq that identified the Herc fuel tanks as an extremely weak area to small arms attack and subsequently highlighted the pressing need for wing tank foam for operations in both theatres. The conclusion reached at these meetings (which included int staff and DEFRA experts) was passed on directly to 2 Gp. The TS request for foam never originated from Lyneham, but sadly, never reached the ears of DEC or IPTL. It all stopped at 2 Gp, hence my comments..And it goes without saying that the Sqns were not informed of the threat either. Sadly the two grass roots attempts failed at the first hurdle. BTW I read a redacted version of the TAT reports, it was sickening, God only knows why they were ignored twice. The video that has been widely shown of a round exploding a fuel tank was included in the pack-up presented by the US pilot.

Hydraulic Palm Tree

4th Oct 2010, 05:47

PORs are written by the Sqn usually; so who wrote the POR that mentioned foam?

I recall somewhere in th thread it was stated (possibly by you) that the request was sent from the Sqn to Gp, but nothing came of it.

HPT

nigegilb

4th Oct 2010, 07:15

Flip was responsible for the POR, but despite a concerted attempt to see what happened to the paper trail nothing was ever found. It was a big deal at the time,if you remember Defence Ministers were even trying to blame 47 Sqn. However when the existence of the TAT meeting was discovered the trail went all the way to the MoD and the game was over.

In reality very few people were aware of the vulnerability of herc fuel tanks or even the existence of foam to mitigate the threat.

The Stn Cdr was most unhelpful at this time. And as you can see from the exchange with the Flt Cdr I posted, the momentum to continue day low level was all powerful. The laudable attempt by the exchange officer to highlight the weakness was simply doomed to fail in this atmosphere.

What was desperately needed was clear leadership and guidance from Group. It never materialized.

Hydraulic Palm Tree

4th Oct 2010, 08:53

Mate, the crew knew of the vulnerability but chose to stay at low-level because of the short distance they had to fly.

HPT

500days2do

4th Oct 2010, 10:32

HPT,

Oh that's alright then....they knew about the risk...really, sometimes I find this last line of defence a bit hard to fathom.....

5d2d

Squidlord

4th Oct 2010, 10:59

Two years (!) after my post on the subject, Shell Management asked:

by what power do you think is POSMS made mandatory

I forget the exact details but some very very senior MoD person (head of old DPA?) signed the letter saying it was mandatory for all MoD (Integrated) Project Teams.

and/or is more important that a Defence Standard

I didn't say POSMS was more important than Def Stan 00-56. Do you want to rephrase your question?

About Hobbs testimony, Shell Management wrote:

Is he perhaps trying to make a point that an aircraft can be airworthy but still vulnerable to enemy action?

(It's certainly true that an aircraft can be airworthy but vulnerable to enemy action.) Hobbs seems to show, just as the Nimrod TL did at his inquest, a poor understanding of his responsibilities (though, to be fair, there may be some context missing from the testimony nigegilb quotes).

1. Hobbs was responsible for the safety of the aircraft, not just its airworthiness. However, responsibility for certain aspects of that safety, it is true, may be vested elsewhere.
2. Hobbs is responsible for many aspects of "fitness for purpose". Perhaps the context of his claim regarding "fitness for purpose" was hostile enemy action.
3. I believe what Hobbs was trying to express is that he was not responsible for aspects of safety directly associated with hostile enemy action. In this, I have some sympathy for Hobbs as an individual but only frustration and anger for the MoD as a whole because this subject seems to fall between the cracks between different MoD organisations for just about every aircraft I've ever been involved with. And I don't particularly see it getting better post XV179, Haddon-Cave, etc.