PCM as done by Virgin Trains - an example for the military?

[Greenielynxpilot]

After many years of viewing these boards, and having noted a consistent theme amongst the regular posters about how 'things should be done' in the aftermath of an incident involving the loss of an aircraft or the death or serious injury of one of our number, I was wondering how you all feel about the manner in which Sir Richard Branson is handling the aftermath of yesterday's Virgin Train crash in Cumbria?
In contrast to the near-hysterical paranoid secrecy of our chain of command whenever a military aircraft is involved in a crash, Sir Richard Branson is on the scene, acting as the PCMIO, and the manner in which he is fielding the questions from the press is nothing short of exemplary. Key actors have been named less than 12 hours after the fact, and the whole mood of the coverage on Sky News right now is supportive, sympathetic and informative.
And before anyone claims that military and commercial accidents occur in different spheres and cannot be compared - I would argue that the general public is, if anything, far more concerned and more critical of the rail operators in this country than they would be of the military.
And yet the manner in which we, as a corporate entity, handle the release of bad news, our old-fashioned attitudes towards the primacy of informing the next-of-kin before all others (which, though well-intentined, is utterly impractical these days), and finally the blind faith the system places in the idea the truth can only be discovered by a board of inquiry which invariably only publishes years after the incident, are all very negative aspects of our PCM doctrine which actually causes the military to appear in an unfavourable light, and actually exacerbates the suffering and anguish that follows any incident within our community.
Without wishing to re-open any wounds (and I have some of my own), I wonder whether you agree?

[Strictly Jungly]

Whilst I admire Mr Branson's response and having done the PCMIO course it is as you say refreshing to see the speed at which the facts are emerging. However, I do think the emphasis is entirely different i.e. Virgin Trains V MOD.
The cynic in me would imagine that there is more of a requirement for a company such as Virgin to get the facts out quickly. Their well being is dependent upon public support to a greater degree than the MOD.

I am still convinced that the MOD also do an excellent job within the PCMIO duties.

[Jackonicko]

PCMIO?
WIHII?

Should we be thinking of P-for-Professional Crisis Management, or should the P actually be for Positive?

And surely the well being of the MOD is even MORE dependent upon public support than that of Virgin.

The vast bulk of rail travellers still have no real option other than to travel by train, meaning that the rail companies have a stable, if not guaranteed revenue stream.

By contrast, Defence is already a lower priority than lower taxes for most taxpayers, yet is dependent upon the whim of a democratically elected Government. The MoD may not realise that it's in a public popularity contest - although just like Virgin, it is.

And moreover, while the public understands what train companies do, and understand what drives a commercial organisation, and thus have some sympathy with what they do and some understanding of the culture, most people don't have a clue what the forces do, or how they do it, nor do they understand the culture.

Anything that enhances the public reputation of the MoD must be grasped with alacrity!

[FormerFlake]

Virgin probably uses a specialist company to do this for them That makes a big difference, and costs a lot of money.

[Memetic]

As a PR professional from my view Virgin are handling this magnificently, they communicated early, openly and honestly. Initialy through local managment and the press team, then via senior managment and now Sir Richard.

Sir Richard returned from holiday, went to see the injured (sans TV), and has delivered an outstanding briefing - sympathetic, honest and not overly commercial. Yet he still managing to deliver at least three repetitions of the message that the pendelino trains are safe for example, "built like a tank" "we spent more than required by law on safety" and adding factual support with comments like "most of the carriages are intact, the glass stayed in and the lights stayed on". He also avoided questions on legal action saying that the emphasis needed to be on prevention.

I expect Virgin have implemented a crisis comms plan, as well as just reacting as their organisational culture would lead them to - a train company not planning an outline response to a serious incident like this would be unusual today.

Contrast Virgins response to that of Bernard Matthews and his eponymous turkey empire - I did not see him interviewed at all in spite of the potential seriousness of the situation.

I do think the military can learn from commerical crisis management, but aside from the obvious operational security concerns the constraint of having spokes people who do not have ultimate responsibility as Sir Richard does is a significant barrier to delivering this sort of open and believeable communication.

I can't see the Defence Secretary open mike at the scene of an accident and saying that he will do what is necessary to prevent this happening again irrespective of what the treasury says. And even if he did, we would not believe him, his brand is not at stake, his pension is secure and history is not on his side.

[Two's in]

The fundamental difference is that if Joe Public thinks there may be a safety issue with getting on a train, he won't, and Virgin lose money, shareholders get all upset. When one of HM's airframes becomes the first to arrive at the scene of the accident, other than a prompt determination that there is not an overriding safety issue with the fleet, it is business as usual without the commercial concerns that Branson has to deal with. Service personal don't have the luxury of a reassuring message from some senior nebby that all is well.
Also, despite all the best PR spin in the world, Virgin do not know exactly what happened yet, they have made an educated assessment and understand the key facts behind the accident, but it will be some time before they know exactly why it happened. Just following basic accident investigation procedures is a time consuming and intensive task and it always will be regardless of the public's "right" to know what happened immediately.
As impressive at it may be, don't forget that this openess is simply driven by profit - not concern, and that's the difference between this and Military accidents.

[airsound]

I think Two’s in is being unduly cynical. Branson is just doing what he does best, being a charismatic people-person. One of the reasons his companies are so successful is that he combines that charm and sympathy with outstanding entrepreneurship. I’m in no doubt that the company is reacting to a well-designed plan - but I’m also sure that the plan reflects Sir Richard’s own predilections.

It reminds me of another sad occasion, when one of Sir Michael Bishop’s British Midland 737s crashed on the M1 - with multiple deaths. Bishop was there almost instantly, dispensing help, sympathy, and whatever information he could give. And he kept it up, supporting survivors and relatives of the dead well after the accident.
Yes, you can say that’s just good commercial practice. But not all companies react to disaster with anything like that attitude. When they do, I believe they should be commended. And I also believe that the military could learn much about how to handle disaster from these events - even though there are, of course, significant differences between a company and the MoD.

airsound


edited to remove all mention of rugby score

[HAL9000]

Before you all get too carried away berating the military's incompetence with PCM, the RAF played a major role in the response to this crash. Apparently 4 RAF SAR cabs attended (Two from Valley and one each from Leconfield and Boulmer), along with a military mountain rescue team, and airlifted many of the casualties to hospital. Well done to those concerned, I wish you military types wouldn't beat yourselves up so much, particularly in public.

[airsound]

I don’t think anyone’s complaining about how the RAF performs operationally, HAL - as ever, it’s admirable. But surely, what’s being discussed here is how the military handle their relations with their paymasters, the public.

airsound


edited to remove all mention of rugby score

[tablet_eraser]

Before you all get too carried away berating the military's incompetence with PCM, the RAF played a major role in the response to this crash. Apparently 4 RAF SAR cabs attended (Two from Valley and one each from Leconfield and Boulmer), along with a military mountain rescue team, and airlifted many of the casualties to hospital. Well done to those concerned, I wish you military types wouldn't beat yourselves up so much, particularly in public.

A good point when confined to this incident - and Sir Richard did mention the RAF's contribution when he congratulated the emergency services during his initial press briefing.

I think that there is a good point to be made about PCM, though. Virgin has been completely frank and honest about the details concerning the crash, and although the police will be invesitgating the causes Sir Richard has not been shy of saying that the police's prevailing suspicion is that there has been a points failure.

Whether this turns out to be the case or not, what it has done is prevent the media from speculating wildly about the causes and ramifications of the crash. Contrast that with everything the MOD has done in recent years. The media like to be kept informed, and Virgin has done a sterling job so far. Maybe Des Browne could swallow his (and the MOD's corporate) pride and reconsider the PCM media strategy?

[Lucy Lastic]

I find it incredible to see how how easily people are taken in by the 'Beardy weirdy'

The guy knows next to nothing about the railways, and has sold off most of his stake in all of the Virgin enterprises. He rakes in his shekels through the licencing of the Virgin name.

Branson is a brilliant front-man, and entrapreneur, but he is made in the same mould as TB - knows what to say, but has learned the way to use sincerity to his advantage.

Some of my friends have had close aquaintance of the Virgin-style, and I would never use any of their products

[Nat O'Thee]

Think he did very well in taking charge, and putting on a very professional face to the immediate actions required after the sad accident.

Yes the SAR boys clearly did very well as well, glad it was recognised by Mr B.

Sad thing from the ARCC Spokesmans interview on the radio last night was the individual in the background laughing and joking! Happened twice and didnt show the RAF in a very good light, especially as details were not known on the status of the injured at the time.

Perhaps a point of note for the future for anybody from ARCC, do the phone interviews from a seperate office.

[scroggs]

Virgin probably uses a specialist company to do this for them That makes a big difference, and costs a lot of money.

Virgin doesn't use 'expensive PR companies' in any of its ventures; its own PR offices deal with this stuff.

Virgin is a commercial carrier, the MoD is not. The MoD may have very good reasons for not publicising the full details of an accident, including the names of people inviolved. Such conditions are rarely relevent in a commercial operation. The MoD will not suffer significant financial loss (other than compensatory loss) if it's perceived to be responsible for loss of life or injury. Virgin (Trains, Planes or Underwear!) could go out of business within days if it is perceived to be an unsafe carrier.

Gives something of an incentive to be good at this stuff!

[AC Ovee]

C'mon folks, think about it: Branson is told that one of his trains has come off the rails. "Is there any chance it could be our fault?" "No, Mr Branson, the points failed." "OK, lets get out there and get the PR machine rolling". Its so different to a military accident.

[nigegilb]

OK, so the Nimrod was blown out of the sky after a fire probably caused by a pressurised fuel leak in pipes designed for a conflict 25 years earlier. After a weekend of checks in which further holes and fractures were found in other AAR Nimrods, the crews were told to get on with their essential AAR tasks including training courses.

This Virgin train was packed with safety features. Take a look at the Branson empire, he always invests in the latest safety features. The Nimrod had no fuel tank protection.

Very different, indeed

[circle kay]

nigegilb,

With such well informed insight I’m surprised your not president of the BOI, CAS or Richard Branson’s right hand man.

This train accident ‘appears’ to be a much more ‘open and shut’ case. The 24-hour news channels are saying that the initial findings will be announced tomorrow and Network Rail are making ‘precautionary’ checks of points across the network.

The events of late last week and the weekend with the MR2 show quite the reverse of what you suggest. Making pertinent and detailed checks and clearing the aircraft to fly when the experts are happy shows a very positive attitude to safety at ISK and out East.

I suggest you take your half-baked insight to where it belongs on a Sunday afternoon, down the pub. :mad:

[nigegilb]

OK, from a Nimrod crewman.

"The worst part has been the release of info. We've not heard a dicky bird then suddenly the ACC in the Gulf wants us airborne and tanker capable again. By the way, that ******* hasn't even sent a letter of condolence to the ******* squadron or station over the loss of the crew!! One of the SDs says that if operationally essential and if no other alternatives exist then the aircraft can tank, albeit with AOC 2 Gp permission. So, we had a jet AARing over Kandahar 4 days after the accident!! Unbelievable. I can't see how that could ever possibly be considered to be good risk management."

[circle kay]

nigegilb,

Now I’m confused, are you referring to this week or last September?

[nigegilb]

I was referring to the original decision to resume AAR sorties 4 days after the Nimrod tragedy. Included in the decision was the resumption of AAR training. Nothing was communicated to the Sqns about the source of ignition but flying was resumed due to the imperative of tasking.

From a Nimrod crewman in September.

"LETS WAIT FOR THE FACTS TO EMERGE AND ACT IN A SENSIBLE MANNER WHEN WE HAVE AS MUCH OF THE INFORMATION AS WE CAN GET."

Would you care to remind us how many Air engineers and Pilots have either left or PVR'd from ISK since September?

[forget]

It reminds me of another sad occasion, when one of Sir Michael Bishop’s British Midland 737s crashed on the M1 - with multiple deaths. Bishop was there almost instantly, dispensing help, sympathy, and whatever information he could give. And he kept it up, supporting survivors and relatives of the dead well after the accident.

I well remember Bishop's post crash TV interviews; very impressed with his candour. I also recall the CAA guy being TV interviewed on site only hours after the accident. 'Looks to me like an engine failure - and they've shut down the wrong one' :eek:

Whatever happened to him. :uhoh:

[circle kay]

Right…

now we get to the Nub of the problem. Mr B has a pretty clear-cut cause and effect. That coupled to a very good PR machine, shows him as the man with his finger on the pulse.

The MOD press team have a far more complex problem in an active war zone, for a whole host of reasons; on going operations, perceived security problems, distance, communications etc.

All of the MOD PR/CM people I’ve met strike me as good people doing a very hard job trying to bridge the gap between two camps that understand little of the others needs or motivation. Could we do it better? Of course we could, can we in the short term with limited resources?:bored:

As to the events of last September, we will have to wait till the BOI’s findings are published. But I'm sure that EVERYONE did the best with the information to hand.

[nigegilb]

How "easy" a PR job would Mr B have had if 100 people had died in this crash? Ignoring PR skills for a moment, the fact that miraculously only one person died in this crash has been something of a relief, (still a tragedy nevertheless). The thing that really triumphed here is the safety capability of a very modern train. Give your people the best. Far too many Inquests in recent weeks have involved people being killed unnecessarily and families even being lied to by MoD personnel. Confidence in the MoD as a moral arbiter or an organisation that truly cares about its people has probably never been lower. It will take a lot more than good PR skills to improve the image of this organisation.

[The Gorilla]

Perhaps you should view how people from my side of the train tracks view his remarks and deeds!

http://www.railchat.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=9093

:)

[AC Ovee]

I maybe straying off topic here, but the Senior Bobby on scene on Sat am said in a prepared statement, on Sky News, that the train departed Euston at 5.15 and came off the rails at 7.30. I reversed the video to check what he said and he definitely said 7.30pm. Is he right? I've checked the timetable and the train was due into Glasgow at 9.54. Either the train was going exceedingly fast or the Bobby got his times wrong.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I read in a 'snooze' paper that the crash was at 2016, about 40 minutes after the train left Preston. This would seem more likely than 1930, and would tie in with the SARBoys being scrambled at around 2045.

[Sospan]

Do you think CAS would be helpfull at a aircraft crash site ?

[Wader2]

We seem to be suggesting that the MOD spokesman in the PCM/PR situation should be someone very senior.

In certain circumstances it may well be appropriate for an Air Officer to front the media. OTOH the best person is often the station commander of the relevant unit. The station commander will know the background and therefore not need a background brief. They will be able to face the cameras and field fast balls questions more easily than an imported PR person.

After a Harrier crash, about 10 years ago, the Wittering Station Commander gave an early press brief that was an exemplar of its kind.

Where the MOD often seems spectacularly inept is when the PR person is one of the professional PR heads. Excellent PRO may be, but often too generalist and therefore not as credible as the man at the front.

Examples of good, on the ground, PROs are the ones at Kinloss or in East Anglia although the latter is off somewhere hot, sandy and hilly very soon.

[Green Flash]

There seemed to be quite a few media interviews with Micheal Mulford (ARRC) at the beginning. Don't know the bloke, but it must take a bit of nerve to get an incident from left field and then to react (or not) to the advancing microphones.

[Wader2]

Green Flash,

Michael was one of the 2 I cited above. He is on the ground. He works well with the ARRC, he works well with the media and he knows exactly how much to say and as importantly how not to say something.

[Greenielynxpilot]

Obviously some people have a better media persona than others, and one would hope that any organisation, including the MOD, would give some thought to this when selecting people for appointments that may involve media contact.
I don't think anyone has any real gripes with the motivation and intent of any of our personnel - it is the policy that is flawed.
For example, what Branson recognised was that the stakeholders in the aftermath of this incident extended well beyond those immediately involved, and included all potential passengers, not just on his services but on any operator's trains. He may have had commercial interests in recognising this, but I believe it is a model of what ought to be done, rather than what presently is done in our line of work.
In a modern, network-enabled military (where we all read PPrune, for starters), the stakeholders in the aftermath of an incident would include, amongst others, all operators of the particular aircraft type, operators of other types in the same theatre, the families and friends of anyone who might have been flying (or a passenger) in that aircraft - I mean, just look at the number of hits any thread on this topic gets on PPrune. The point is, it is not just the nominated next of kin of the people who were first on the scene who need to be 'looked after' by the chain of command. These interested parties are accustomed to being informed of the background to the issues that interest them within minutes, not days, weeks or even months. And the comparison with other organisations makes us look secretive, inefficient and erodes confidence - all bad things.
Open, honest reporting of accidents demands that information is accessible in a timely manner, to all who are interested in it, including the media, and not just the President of the BOI. Our present system uses the cloak of OPSEC to mask a systemic inefficiency in this area that is frankly, inexcusable.

[Jackonicko]

"All of the MOD PR/CM people I’ve met strike me as good people doing a very hard job trying to bridge the gap between two camps that understand little of the others needs or motivation. Could we do it better?"

You're having a laugh, surely?

All of the MOD PR people I’ve met are, as you suggest, undoubtedly good people (Do the forces have anything else?). However, PR is, or is often seen as, a bit of a career dead end - so they're not always the very best people especially in the most senior positions. And the job is, admittedly, not always an easy one. But it could be done very much better, very much more easily, as so many aircrew who do not have a formal PR remit demonstrate so effortlessly. When allowed to do so, most squadron and station commanders, to say nothing of the one stars and above, prove to be excellent positive communicators, and the PR folk inevitable serve only to get in the way and to hinder mutual understanding.

What the media need is not that hard to understand, and with the most cursory training, it ought to be possible for the dimmest PR officer to get their head around it! Nor is it that hard for a journo to understand the needs and motivation of our servicemen.

So why is service PR so badly broken?

The culture of MoD PR is wrong, for a start.

The purpose of the organisation should be to promote positive coverage and to enhance understanding of the military, and not to function as another arm of the political (New Labour now, but it was almost as bad before) spin machine.

It would be easy to blame the shift from uniformed leadership of the PR empire to Civil Servant, but with a few notable exceptions, the service DPRs/DCCs weren't much better.

No-one has any real problem with information being witheld in order to safeguard military security, but too often, the driver is the avoidance of political embarrassment, and in a democracy, that's not on.

When asked a question, the reaction should be to ask oneself "How can I help this person? How can I give him the most comprehensive and helpful answer to his question, as quickly as possible." and not: "How can I avoid answering this question? How can I avoid, evade and obstruct, and how long do I need to do that to make the question go away."

When asked a question, perhaps the sensible PRO would assess whether the questioner is broadly sympathetic (and thus more likely to be sympathetic, or even helpful) or hostile. The MoD has always seemed to prefer a couple of worthless column inches in a red top to a couple of paragraphs in (say) Flight. It has never seemed able to grasp who are its friends in the media, and who are its enemies.

Treating all media enquiries in an adversarial fashion only guarantees that relationships will become more adversarial.

As a result, most journos would agree that approaching DCC (RAF) or PR STC for help is the very last option, because it's so unlikely to yield a helpful result (or indeed any result at all in a meaningful timescale), and that circumventing the proper procedure (or even filing an FoI request) is far more effective.

"Could we do it better?"

It's hard to imagine how you could do it much worse. Certainly in my more than 20 years as a 'customer', it has never been worse than it is now.

[SeeArSee]

As this seems to be a Richard Branson love-in, how about Branson for Sec of Def? :}

[Jackonicko]

Getting back on thread, it strikes me that Branson's core message was EXACTLY the same as what a military response to a serious accident would have been - that it was tragic and regrettable, that they would be doing everything in their power, and that it would be wrong to pre-empt the findings of any official enquiry.

What was different was the way in which he came forward and delivered the message pro-actively, and delivered a series of messages that promoted the idea that his organisation was committed to safety, and took all possible measures to enhance it.

Stepping up willingly and quickly to deliver difficult, bad news with apparent regret and apparent honesty immediately results in a bit of sympathy from the viewing public. He didn't look as though he was doing it under duress, as though he really didn't want to be there, and was giving as little information as he could get away withm and doing so grudgingly.

[Green Flash]

W2

Agreed. I thought you might be refering to the RAF Kinloss media persons (again, don't know them but I'm sure they are on the ball; sadly, they have had alot of experience of the media recently) compared to MM at the ARRC. Hell of a job in the present circumstances, best wishes to them all.

[MarkD]

As pointed out by others, comparison between mil and civ incidents of this nature are facile. Civair and rail disasters are usually investigated by independent authorities with the power to impose their solutions on the situation, largely (fully?) irrespective of the commercial implications whereas mil incidents are obfuscated by security considerations and a lack of independence in the post-incident chain where "get the job done" is holy writ.

We can only hope (wouldn't wish such a disaster on someone once let alone twice) that we don't have an opportunity to compare SRB's modus operandi in a situation where his operations were at fault, such as if the A346 fuel incident had not ended up without damage to either persons or property. Instead I choose to assume that SRB would have been as forthcoming on that occasion.

SRB is also fortunate to have beem operating comparatively new railcars - not all current railstock in the UK might have survived this incident so well. Safety standards do evolve but normally for new vehicles, or sometimes for older vehicles given a mid-life update/rebuild, but unrefurbished older vehicles are usually grandfathered. One would hope that Nimrod MR4 for instance is being built to modern safety standards rather than those that prevailed for their predecessors.

[Strictly Jungly]

Jacko,
I must ask, are you so critical of the MOD PR machine because they are reticent to "reveal" all to yourself and your colleagues?

I do wonder as the Armed Forces, generally, are very often not treated fairly by the Press. The promotion of positive coverage and the enhancement of an understanding of the military, I agree, should be paramount. However, far too often, the Press home in on the most sensational aspects of a non-story and in effect undermine the mlitary. Conversely, there are may occasions when this is not the case.

I re-iterate the PCM organisation that exists within the MOD is sound. As I stated originally and others have commented upon, Virgin cannot be compared directly to the MOD in this instance.
Regards,
SJ