Hercules inquest.

[Al R]

<US Air Force Hercules have had ESF since the 1960s. Following the crash, the MoD pledged to fit all RAF Hercules with ESF, and a spokesman said that between 20 and 30 planes now have the foam.>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7324341.stm

I hope a few people have the decency to choke on their port at the 90th bash tonight.




http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...215665&page=70 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=215665&page=70)

[effortless]

Going to be heard "in camera", a disgrace but unsurprising.

[OmegaV6]

I see the BBC star again ... another picture of a "J" against this report.

You would have thought they would have the decency to TRY and be accurate. Just makes you wonder what else they don't check before publishing.

Between the Beeb and the Government I have very little faith that the truth about this tragic incident will actually come out.

Sorry ... my cynicism is showing.

[Alison Conway]

Omega V6,

Your cynicism is healthy, but not your naivity. When was the last time that the truth about an accident/incident was published? The embarassment of senior officers is more important than the rantings of a master. God Bless, Gary Nicholson, you are not forgotten!

[Rheinstorff]

RIP again to those who lost their lives; I still think of their bereaved families and friends.

I may have missed an important part of the news but I thought that it was the enemy that shot the C130 down, not the Air Force Board. Perhaps you might better focus your ire on the murderers of those fine men.

[effortless]

Between the Beeb and the Government I have very little faith that the truth about this tragic incident will actually come out

I have more faith in the BEEB having a crack at publishing the truth than our masters allowing it. They may not know which type is which but frankly their audience just sees a Hercules.

[airsound]

I see the BBC star again ... another picture of a "J" against this report.
I agree they should do better, Omega. However.....

I have been at the inquest for its first two days, and I will be going again. I can tell you that the Beeb has an intelligent and sharp team there who do know what they're talking about. I believe the wrong pic is probably down to someone in their website team who doesn't know better - but you shouldn't tar the whole BBC coverage with that error.

Going to be heard "in camera", a disgrace but unsurprising.
Only parts of the inquest are in camera, effortless. These are bits that deal with the op circumstances surrounding this flight. It sounds reasonable to me to keep those things secret. Having seen HM Coroner, Mr Masters at work, I am happy that he is no government patsy. Sometimes he can be quite cuddly, but he stings like a viper when necessary, and he's not bothered who he upsets when it's necessary. He is, in fact a good example of the excellent and ancient English institution of Coroner - which institution seems to me to be one of the few bodies that is actually protecting us, the public, against the escalating predations of big government.

I recommend the coverage of Thomas Harding, Def Corr of the Torygraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/02/wiraq102.xml

airsound

[Chugalug2]

I thought that it was the enemy that shot the C130 down, not the Air Force Board. Perhaps you might better focus your ire on the murderers of those fine men.

Rheinstorff, the charge against the Air Force Board, and their predecessors, is not that they shot the C130 down, but that they effectively aided and abetted the enemy to do so by ensuring that for some 40 years the C130 fleet was not fit for purpose. Time and time again the need for the fitting of Explosion Suppressant Foam to the fuel tanks was made. Time and time again the call was ignored. What was standard protection for USAF Hercs over all those years was an unaffordable luxury for the RAF it would seem. Such deficiencies in basic airworthiness of its aircraft are not restricted to this fit or this fleet. That is a big enough issue to fix my ire on, thank you. I leave the issue of dealing with the 'murderers', and their ilk, to the brave young men and women of our Armed Forces, confident that they at least will not let us down.

[Strobin Purple]

What's the relevance to Joe Public between marks of C130? It's a Herk. Do Js have suppressant foam?

[effortless]

airsound

Thank you for correcting my false impression. I spent several months of my life at a BoI and I became very jaded. I am glad that our Coronial system is holding up. I understand that HMG is trying to arrange "special" Coroners for "special" cases. I am dubious.

[AdmiralPiett]

Am I looking at a different BBC link?

On my one it shows a picture of a J...

[airsound]

A pleasure. effortless. I do share your apprehension about HMG's intentions in this respect, however - as in many other respects....

airsound

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

Chugalug2
Time and time again the need for the fitting of Explosion Suppressant Foam to the fuel tanks was made. Time and time again the call was ignored.

Playing Devil's Advocate:-

Chug - You make that statement as if there are reams of documentary evidence of requests for ESF. Are there?

I had not heard of ESF until after the loss of XV179.

We are often our own worst enemy, and all three of the issues being studied:-

1. ESF
2. Low Level in daylight
3. Intelligence failure

Would all seem to me to be failures at Herc Fleet/Sqn Exec level

Please don't think I'm standing up for the gov't, mind.

[Kitbag]

Totally irrelevant to the tragedy behind this inquest but the BBC pic is now of an MC130H Combat Talon II. (And it does have ESF)

[Truckkie]

SPHLC:-

First request for ESF post Op CORPORATE 1983
Second request for ESF post Op GRANBY 1992

Low level in daylight - to be discussed by the inquest

Intelligence - always been a problem in fluid situations

I, however, lay the blame on those individuals who elected not to fit ESF as a cost-saving measure:- the IPT, 2Gp, STC/AIR and MOD.
The sqn/fleet exec have always tried to manage risk, balanced against supporting UK ops, to the best of their ability and knowledge.

It would be nice to lay the legacy of XV179 to rest in the knowledge that we have an open, honest answer to the shortfalls in protecting our crews.

[nigegilb]

Trukkie, if you know of any evidence of ESF requests post Granby there is still time to contact the Inquest........

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

Thanks Truckkie

From the Inquest

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7326714.stm

An RAF warrant officer, who was referred to as witness CD, said in a statement read to the court that in the years prior to the Iraq conflict many modifications had been made to RAF Hercules C130 craft.

"But ESF never featured," said CD, who has since died. "There were always far more important requirements," said his statement, by way of explanation.

I'm sure we're all on the same side, but unless there's documentary evidence, it's all hearsay.

(I see Nige has now commented)

[airsound]

You beat me to it, Truckkie.

However, I understand that evidence will be presented that several significantly earlier requests for ESF were made.

On the question of intelligence failure, that was said at the Inquest not to be at squadron or "herc fleet" level, but to be a systemic inter-service (and perhaps international) communication failure. The failure has allegedly been addressed.

airsound

[Chugalug2]

Chug - You make that statement as if there are reams of documentary evidence of requests for ESF. Are there?
I had not heard of ESF until after the loss of XV179.

Well ditto, SPHLC, as I have said before on NigeGilb's Parliamentary Questions thread. If for no other reason, raising this issue once again on this forum might just alert and prompt someone who has such evidence to bring it forward even now. One is rather reminded of the 'Common Cold Research Programme' that regularly called for volunteers via SROs in the 60s/70s. All of us around then can recall that and the bonus leave that was offered as an inducement to volunteer. When the MOD denied such SROs were ever published such memories were deemed unreliable, but who saves SROs? As with my ignorance of ESF I had no idea then what the 'Research' done at Porton Down involved!

[Al R]

Whether or not the kit was asked for is a red herring. Everyone knew it existed, everyone knew its benefits. For god’s sake.. Hurricane tank busters had the equiv in North Africa (does the SH fleet by the way?).

And are we really saying that Townsend Thoresen was justified in not having bow door lamps fitted because nobody thought to 'ask for them', or that it was ok for coppers to allow hundreds of fans into a melee at Hillsborough because no one thought 'to ask'.. or that it was ok for Network Rail to allow chocolate fireguard signals points to be used at Potters Bar because no one thought 'to ask' that someone had been doing his job properly? The RAF higher echelon (as did most appropriate people I imagine) knew about the benefits of ESF and the fact that it wasn’t fitted makes the RAF look (at best) like a parsimonious Third World cake and arse party.

The default setting should have been to have had it, simple. End of story. If the staff default setting wasn’t “I’m all right Jack”, perhaps we might have staff officers being professional and using their brains, and remembering whose lives they exist to protect. 'Ask' my arse. What a lamentable excuse, in order to cover your back. If no one thought to ask, then they should be cashiered, taken out and shot (we're long overdue a good cashiering).

Another argument for removing Crown Immunity. And I agree 100% with Airsound. Andrew Walker might be a little too partisan at times, but the coroners are kicking this damned g'ment's arse and calling it to account.

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

Al,
I disagree, I don't think its a red herring. And you've contradicted yourself in para 3 anyway.

In the battle between the 'Operators' and the 'Beancounters' someone has to stick their neck out. If there is no documentary evidence, then many people will have a share of the blame.

If you believe in something but are doomed to failure, you can at least say 'Can I have that in writing, Sir?'

At Kinloss, I threatened to redress my Sqn Ldr for not signing my mileage claim. Some rubbish about him being the budget holder and I should have got the train. This is no idle boast, OC PSF put his hat on and met me on the steps of SHQ to politely ask me to return to work where my boss was sat waiting to sign my claim. They're still talking about my 15 mins of fame.

[Chugalug2]

I hope that in years to come, when people are still recalling your 15 mins SPHLC, they also recall Sqn Ldr Chris Seal. Standing up for what he believed in cost him his career he said, but he still went ahead and said what he had to. What was that? That the Hercules should be fitted with ESF. When did he demand that? In 2002!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6410247.stm

[rudekid]

Chugalug

Most of the posters on here will know Flip Seal pretty well I'm sure.

I suspect the reporting by the BBC does him few favours, but a one-man-sword-diving-safety-crusader, I suspect not!

I'm sure Flip would probably agree himself.

SPHLC is correct, ESF wasn't pushed very hard by anyone, operator or beancounter. It wasn't pulled hard by anyone up the command chain either. These things are a two way process, nothing gets staffed without a lot of effort from the coalface and the staff chain.

Anyone from Lyneham who tells you they fell on their sword over ESF prior to XV179 is a fantasist.

[Al R]

Sir Peter,

Sure.. anyone can be a wise Crusader after the event.

But are we saying that we need to have a system not where function and effectiveness rules supreme, but where management process has to be seen to be done so that after the event, we can file all the loose ends away nicely and everyone can sleep soundly? Was it a case of people in staff appts not wanting to attach their name to a dead duck cause? Or was nobody switched on enough to question why it had been used by the Americans for 40 years? Did anyone drive it hard enough, did anyone do a proper risk appreciation? Perhaps it was all tied up in EDS management fees? Perhaps thats the real reason..

Whatever, this isn't a particularly edifying sight is it? I wonder if there are any more hand grenades waiting to go off in the dhobie basket.

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

Chug

Now we're getting warmer!

Knowing that Sqn Ldr Seal went to the trouble of writing a sqn order about Samsonites being not very tactical, and not taken to the desert, I am looking forward to seeing his 15 mins of fame.

Did he have a large boxfile under his arm?

(My understanding of the circumstances of his 'constructive dismissal' are about something different, but equally outrageous, and can be found hidden deep in the Ascoteers Multiple Choice (http://w.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=91383&highlight=Ascoteers+Multiple+Choice)

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=91383&highlight=Ascoteers+Multiple+Choice

No doubt he will tell us soon, being a PPRuNer with a poorly disguised username.

Al,

I'm just saying to my workmates - Never give up, but when you know you're right but destined to fail - get some top cover

edited to add:-

I have just noticed that 'Sqn Ldr Chris Seal told the BBC...'

Is he at the Inquest or not?

[airsound]

rudekid, perhaps you should listen to this, from 'Today' on Radio 4 in March 2007. You need to scroll down to time 0755, where it says
We speak to former squadron leader Chris Seal who tried to warn his superiors of the dangers facing Hercules aircraft five years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/listenagain_20070302.shtml
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/listenagain_20070302.shtml)
airsound

[rudekid]

Airsound

Thanks for the link, I think had heard it previously, but had forgotten.

I stand by my comments above, it's interesting that ESF isn't mentioned by Flip in his first 'memo and email' isn't it? Other threats granted, but the first items he lists were fitted by the time 179 was shot down, flight deck armour, NVG compatability and a DAS are the first three he mentions.

Even he admits he hadn't heard of ESF until much (6 months?) later. Suspect some clever BBC editing here...

Anyhow, this isn't about Flip!

As I have previously stated, ESF wasn't being pushed or pulled particularly hard. Other things were much higher up the list of 'wants' at the time.

Please note, I'm not saying that ESF is not important or relevant, just that we need to be realistic how it fits into the argument here.

[Been There...]

Good on you Flip!!

[Chugalug2]

I suspect the reporting by the BBC does him few favours, but a one-man-sword-diving-safety-crusader, I suspect not!....
Please note, I'm not saying that ESF is not important or relevant, just that we need to be realistic how it fits into the argument here.


But he did (or says he did) push his concerns up the CoC, and even outside the CoC. Perhaps that is why he is not celebrated. By being the one person to do anything he automatically steps outside the group. Perhaps he is even seen as disloyal, "letting the side down", "pulling the rug from under the boss" etc. Once the team turns its back on you, you are heading for a fall. As to all this talk of "Pulling" and "Pushing", it is the Air Staff's job to ensure that HM's aircraft are Fit for Purpose, ie Airworthy. Whether or not Sqn Ldr Seal knew or didn't know of ESF before or after a certain date is immaterial. The Air Staff knew of it before the first K was delivered from Marietta, and decided against it, and maintained that policy when ordering the J. If 179 hadn't happened the great bulk of people would still not know about ESF, but the Air Staff always did and despite knowing that experience in using the Hercules in war in Vietnam had led the USAF to fit it as standard thereafter chose not to follow suit. That they continued to do so in the face of urgent and non standard entreaties from at least one man is a comment on them alone. Would that there were more such messengers, but I imagine the casualty rate amongst them would be prohibitive.

[Al R]

.. it is the Air Staff's job to ensure that HM's aircraft are Fit for Purpose, ie Airworthy. Whether or not Sqn Ldr Seal knew or didn't know of ESF before or after a certain date is immaterial. The Air Staff knew of it before the first K was delivered from Marietta, and decided against it, and maintained that policy when ordering the J. If 179 hadn't happened the great bulk of people would still not know about ESF, but the Air Staff always did and despite knowing that experience in using the Hercules in war in Vietnam had led the USAF to fit it as standard thereafter chose not to follow suit.

Agreed.

We get told (and accept) how dangerous the theatre is, so the aircraft are modified. The aircrews wear body armour, the cockpits are hardened.. so why aren't the fuel tanks protected too? Is the RAF really saying that it never knew of ESF? I maintain my earlier point about ignorance being no excuse. I find it utterly inconceivable that the system has the audacity to suggest that it relies on wide eyed juniors (Sqn Ldr Seal) to slide sideways on the polished parquet into the RAF boardroom at the 11th hour, gasping 'Hey.. hold that order for the new Mess curtains and that American computerised personnel administration system! The Americans have been using something called.. bear with me sirs, I have the brochure here somewhere (rustle of papers).. ESF for 40 years.. has anyone else heard of it during their long and distinguished careers in global military aviation, or was I simply lucky enough to come across it by chance?'.

If LAC f#ckknuckle XX Sqn RAF Regiment dissregarded some vital part of SROs about not saluting the flag at breakfast, or not polishing his boots to a deep lustre, he would expect to get hammered. He is taught that ignorance is no excuse. Surely, its not too implausible for the Air Staff to be subject to the same measure of accountability? The retrofit is costing £26 million or so. Thats the bottom line about this - lets stop kidding ourselves. But why did no one say; 'Chaps. It'll add possibly £17 million to tick the options list pre-delivery. The consequences of not fitting it? Well. Forget the loss of life for the moment. How about the fleet downtime, the cost in engineering man hours and the reduced AT availability when we're stretched anyway? How about the tangible cost of losing 1 aeroplane, and the intangible cost to morale, faith in the system, credibility and goodwill?'. But did they say that? And if so, who overruled it? And if not, why not?

Sir Peter,

Accepted.. but isn't that a damning indictment in itself? It goes back to my point about quality of leadership. Someone made a cost benefit analysis and got it wrong. Badly. Simple. End of story. And its that person who needs to be smartly presented to the Inquest, and he needs to explain why he prioritised so, and what was contingent upon him which complelled him to make such a decision. Is it going to happen? Is it fu#k. I hope the Defence Select Committee is sharpening the office pencils in anticipation of a damned public impaling. How many more cock ups are going to happen before someone scratches their chin and muses on the effectiveness of the current system?

(Has anyone else tried the Fairtrade strength 5 ground coffee? Splendid stuff, and currently 1/3 off in Oakham Co-Op)

[chappie]

i may be shot down here for my comments, i may be discounted as a civvie with poor knowledge and a one sided belief in this case.
it is very difficult to see where certain people are coming from with their comments. the one thing i want to make clear is this....ESF is something that I believe in. i do not peddle nor wish to influence the views of anyone or speak on anyones behalf. this has only been my fight because this is what i believe in.
truckkie, please PM me. i really would love to have the chance to discuss the info you disclosed but without an open forum.
i understand the concentration on documentary evidence is paramount but i really do wish to stress that this no way undermines the fact that people have spoken of it and it's merits(ESF). the people who are in court and so far quoted by the meeja are only one of many people within the forces and unless there is an open invitation to anyone who has discussed foam and are happy to be witnesses then as far as i am concerned it will be a one sided presentation. although it has been portrayed that the MoD are being open and they wish to direct the meeja's attention to that fact and as such have addresed them to bring attention to this point. the important point to note is in fact that unless we had not made the application in first place the info would not be out there in the public forum!

[BEagle]

From The Sunday Times

April 6, 2008

Special forces ‘tried to menace’ Hercules death-crash witness

Michael Smith

A SENIOR figure in Britain’s special forces has been accused of trying to intimidate a key witness in the inquest into the shooting down of an RAF special forces aircraft over Iraq in 2005.

The C-130 Hercules aircraft was on its way from Baghdad to a special forces base at Balad, 42 miles north of the Iraqi capital, when it was attacked by insurgents more than three years ago.

It was hit by machinegun fire and what was believed to be a rocket-propelled grenade, setting off an explosion in a fuel tank in a wing that destroyed the aircraft and killed all 10 men on board.

The claim of intimidation has been made by Nigel Gilbert, a former special forces pilot who, since the crash, has led a campaign to force the Ministry of Defence to pay for explosive suppressant foam that could have prevented the disaster.

Gilbert wrote to David Masters, the Wiltshire coroner, on Friday, saying he had been threatened with arrest by officials who claimed to be working for a senior special forces figure. They allegedly said they were going to detain Gilbert and “extract” information about who was briefing him on his campaign.

Gilbert, 43, from Swindon, said his first warning came from a former colleague who is still serving. The colleague was told by someone working for the senior special forces figure to inform Gilbert that his contacts with the media were being watched and that he should be careful what he said.

A second warning came via the coroner’s investigating officer, who told Gilbert he had also been asked to warn Gilbert not to speak to the press. Gilbert, who denies talking to the media about the special forces, was relatively unconcerned at this point.

It was the third warning that led to Gilbert becoming seriously worried. The former colleague contacted him on Friday to say that he had been interviewed officially at RAF Lyneham, Wiltshire by two men who said they were working for the senior special forces figure.

In his letter to the coroner, Gilbert said the former colleague “was told that [the senior figure] was attempting to secure information in order to act against me for unsubstantiated breaches of the Official Secrets Act”.

“They told him that [they] knew I was being fed information from Lyneham and that when they ‘pulled me’ they would extract who was leaking information.” The inquest into the deaths of the 10 men opened at Trow-bridge town hall last Monday and is scheduled to last four weeks. Gilbert is one of the main witnesses, with two days set aside for his evidence.

The special forces involvement has led the MoD to take extensive security measures. It has forced relatives of the dead men to sign gagging orders preventing them from revealing details of evidence released to them.

A board of inquiry revealed that the C-130 Hercules, from 47 Squadron based at RAF Lyneham, was flying at about 150 feet. It is believed to have been scouting for landing strips for special forces operations.

The lawyer for the family of one of the dead men said last week that the RAF’s Air Warfare Centre had told him the Hercules should not be flying “at low altitude in daylight”.

The inquest is expected to hear criticism of the MoD for its failure to fit explosive suppressant foam in the Hercules. As as result of Gilbert’s campaign, most now have the foam fitted.

The MoD denied any intimidation of Gilbert. “There is no truth to the allegation,” a spokeswoman said. “We take alleged breaches of the Official Secrets Act very seriously. Revealing capability or tactics to anyone not serving in the special forces can endanger lives.”

[tucumseh]

This development can be seen as an extension of the MoD’s campaign of deceit and lies in this and other related cases. Such bullying tactics are employed by MoD as a management tool, and are common.

It is an indication that the truth is close and, typically, no sacrificial lamb is available – that there is evidence linking senior staffs to the decision that Duty of Care, safety and airworthiness are optional extras. In addition, that is, to written rulings by a DPA Executive Director, upheld by CDP and Min(AF).

Much of the supporting evidence is actually being revealed in the Nimrod case. It is important to understand that the processes, procedures and regulations that MoD admits were ignored are common to all aircraft, and so management decisions like the above do not relate to one incident, but are pan-MoD.

[Chugalug2]

With inevitable incompetence HMG ensures that what little credibility and gravitas it could still muster is swept away in a scenario that could have been scripted by the Krays. Respect to Nigel for standing up to these goons. Despair for my poor country that such people are in charge of it.
I trust now that anyone who has evidence for this inquest presents themselves, and it, as a matter of honour.

[Tappers Dad]

Nige

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

Martin Luther King Jr

KEEP STANDING NIGE, KEEP STANDING

[mary_hinge]

Nige.
Can you clear your inbox, not got your other contact details to hand. Thanks

Edit to add:
The joys of travel and being behind the news, sorry Nige. Some late thoughts that I'll ensure are passed on....M

[Doppler High]

Well done Nigel, keep up the good work (Mick Smith too).

Can black Omegas get down your road??!! http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/smilies/wink2.gif

[JessTheDog]

Given that the gentleman is to appear as a witness at an inquest, this sounds like Conspiracy To Pervert The Course Of Justice to me.....

They picked the wrong guy as well....

[effortless]

"Pervert" even

[Al R]

My (limited, admittadly) impression of Nige is that he is far too astute and far too decent to spill the beans about anything to do with SF. His argument is not with them. Its with the twonks who didn't fit EFS and this is just another instance of the MoD trying to cover its corporate backside by muddying the water in a cackhanded manner. And it will eat itself one day. The further the MoD goes down this route of diluting service ethos of honour and integrity and putting the men first, and instead trying (badly) to play civvy street at its own game and hiding behind absurd civvy practice, the louder the calls will become for Airmen's Federations and the like. And the irony is, it will have no one to blame but itself.

The RAF f#cked up over EFS, simple. I wonder where those are who allowed this to happen and why the MoD doesn't go after them instead of the likes of Nige, in such an amateurish and embarrassing manner? Oh, of course.. they're probably senior figures within the system, right? :ugh:

Stick with it Nige. All the best.

[effortless]

As a matter of interest, has the cost of EFS been published?

[Al R]

Wasn't the price for retro fitting the fleet something like £26 million? Cheaper doing at time of build obviously.

[tucumseh]

Given that the gentleman is to appear as a witness at an inquest, this sounds like Conspiracy To Pervert The Course Of Justice to me.....


Spoke to friendly plod this morning. It's two offences. Perverting the course of Justice and Intimidating a Witness - both criminal offences (as opposed to Civil). Given the circumstances, he said it likely the offenders employers are equally liable.

All the best Nigel.

[effortless]

My understanding, please correct any error, is that the airframe would not be lost in most cases had ESF been deployed. In ten plus years of defense procurement experience I never lost an order by underestimating the intelligence of the MOD.

[mystic_meg]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7338984.stm

[Doppler High]

From the Times today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3708714.eceE-mail warning of Iraq ambush ‘not opened’

TROWBRIDGE An e-mail that gave all coalition aircraft the position of a dug-in ambush between Baghdad and a US base to the west of the Iraqi capital should have prevented the shooting down of an RAF Hercules.

However, the e-mail was not opened until the day after the transport aircraft came down with the loss of ten lives on January 30, 2005, an inquest heard yesterday. An intelligence officer, referred to simply as “O” during the hearing at Trowbridge in Wiltshire, said that information about an attack on an American Black Hawk helicopter from the same ambush site was also not passed on to the relevant people until the day after the tragedy. The Hercules transport aircraft was hit by a burst of ground fire as it flew at low altitude towards Balad, close to Baghdad. Nine RAF personnel and an SAS signals specialist who were on board were killed. The inquest has already heard that the fuel tanks on the Hercules were not fitted with an explosive-suppressant foam.

The inquest continues.

[Truckkie]

Wonder if the AWC still has a copy of this correspondence......?

I think not

[Jacks Down]

While the inquest is still on, why doesn't everybody have a nice big cup of shut the f*ck up?

[tucumseh]

This report begs more questions than it asks.

When the RAF pilot received no reply he wrote another on his return from West Africa, dispatching a copy to the Air Warfare Centre at RAF Waddington.


Who did he write the first letter to? Is the addressee to be called to the inquest? What are you taught to do in the RAF under these circumstances? Write again, giving a latest date for response? No answer, elevate to your boss and have him write to his boss? One obvious and correct thing to do is submit a Risk Notification to the IPT, forcing them to address it and prepare a risk mitigation plan – even if that is simply elevating it to their Customer/Sponsor (DEC). If it involves safety or airworthiness then it would automatically be notified immediately to the IPT’s 2 Star and his equivalent in the RTSA.

Wing Commander xxx xxxx, officer commanding operational intelligence wing at RAF Waddington, told the court that communications had since been improved.


Improved, but against what baseline? Prior to 1991 the system was funded properly and demonstrably worked. By 2000, the date of the letters, it was in tatters having progressively deteriorated as funding for maintaining safety and airworthiness was slashed after 1991, year on year. So, is the new “improved” performance better than pre-1991, for example? Or is just better than 1999, which isn’t saying much? I note “communication” has apparently improved, but that is little comfort if the answer is still NO.

[tucumseh]

Thanks Just....

My apologies - I should have made it clear I'm not having a pop at the individuals mentioned. It matters little how the constraint is notified - there are many ways - but the one thing that should happen is that anything tagged H&S, Duty of Care, Critical Operational Constraint etc gets to the respective 2 Stars within days, if not hours. I'd like to see the inquest ask THEM what they did.

[Mick Smith]

While the inquest is still on, why doesn't everybody have a nice big cup of shut the f*ck up?

Why dont you Jacks? There's no jury here that would allow the verdict to be prejudiced. Everyone's entitled to their say. It's a discussion forum. If you arent interested dont read it.

[Tappers Dad]

I went along to part of the Inquest yesterday, As I walked through the doors of the Town Hall 4 police officers were there. "Can we help you?" one said ,I am here for the Hercules inquest I replied . What interest do you have in it he said ."I was asked to come" . "Whats you name ?" He asked "Graham Knight" I said. "OK you are expected ".

Now maybe I am being a bit sensitive here but this is a PUBLIC Inquest, to be questioned by Police in Body Armour before I get in the court seems to me that Big Brother has certainly arrived in Trowbridge. Yes sensitive information is being heard In-Camera but the level of security is intimidating even during open sessions.

Still that won't stop me attending next week and this time I will go prepared.

[Softie]

this is a PUBLIC Inquest, to be questioned by Police in Body Armour before I get in the court seems to me that Big Brother has certainly arrived

Considering that all police forces now require their officers to wear stab-proof vests on duty, should you have been surprised. Also with the crash occurring in Iraq and with RAF personnel giving evidence, I would expect security to be increased. I don't think Big Brother has anything to do with it.

[Jacks Down]

Mick,

My point exactly. We should shut up because journalists will use this forum as a source of information about the inquest. I don't believe that feeding this with speculation and rumour is very helpful. Clearly, as a journalist you do.

[Tappers Dad]

Jacks

"We should shut up because journalists will use this forum as a source of information about the inquest"

When I was there yesterday there were at least 5 journalists in court, they don't need Pprune as a source of information about the inquest they can hear it for themselves.

Pehaps you should put your cup of tea down, then wake-up and smell the coffee.

[Truckkie]

More publicity the better as far as I'm concerned. The media pressure and the work of individuals outside the service led to the retro-fitting of ESF to C-130's, not MOD action! This should have been done when the airframes were originally purchased.

With the media interest we may just actually get to know the truth.:D

[Melchett01]

I have resisted the urge to say anything so far, but quite frankly, the standard of media reporting this week has been nothing short of appalling. And from the broadsheet sections of the press who you might normally expect to present a well balanced argument. However, what I have seen is little short of the press spinning what was said to generate headlines and sales and seems to bear little relationship to what was said on the day - god only knows what relationship it bears to the actual events at the time.

As Justthisonce flagged up, the comment on improved comms procedures by the Wg Cdr was to an entirely different topic to the one it was linked to in the preceding paragraphs.

And as for the Times article linked earlier stating that the relevant email was supposedly not opened until the day after the event ..... well lets have a look at what else is out there. Funnily enough, in the Telegraph - whose article I thought was one of the offending articles - there is a link to another article concerning the original reporting of the ambush against US forces which (if you believe all the other articles) would have saved the ac and crew http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/02/wiraq102.xml

According to this article from last week, the original reporting of the ambush did not arrive at British headquarters in the Gulf until 18 minutes before the aircraft exploded in mid-air after being hit by hostile fire ....Intelligence suggesting that there could be an ambush was never passed on to the aircrew who were flying at low level.

If the reporting didn't arrive until that late in the flight, then they may as well not have reported it at all - as far as this flight was concerned, that reporting was irrelevant and in all likelihood there is little chance that the crew would have been able to receive it at that point. So my question is - if this reporting is accurate - if the email informing UK forces of the US ambush didn't make it to the HQ until the ac was almost over the ambush area, then surely the focus should be on why US forces didn't pass that information sooner rather than why a UK HQ element screwed up? And why are the press not also reporting this angle in the same depth as they are the "email left unopened for hours" angle?

As it stands, it just looks to me like the press are taking lots of individual one liners to create a dramatic story of failure with the likely end result being that someone will be hung out to dry for the sake of MOD / senior officers rather than us actually getting to the bottom of what happened and making sure it doesn't happen again. And quite frankly, I find that rather distasteful, does not do anybody any good and is an insult to the crew in whose name this is being conducted.

[Al R]

Whatever the tactical shortcomings of the comms systems in place on the ground and however badly the media is reporting this, I would like to comment on the hamfisted nature of the inquest itself in particular and the g'ment's approach towards the 'uncooperative' coroners at the moment, in general. Perhaps someone might like to remind 'the system' that one of the principles of freedom that those men died fighting for, was the right to be heard. Wouldn't it be ironic if while we were justifying deaths out there in pursuit of a higher goal, we were allowing them to be eroded under our noses?

[tucumseh]

Well said A1R.




However, I know for a fact that the issue of how to get up to date intelligence (and other classified data) to crews down route was raised directly to AOC 2 Gp before this sad events of 179 and the AOC did nothing.

In simple terms, was this not what BOWMAN was meant to do, to continually update situational awareness and so forth? Then it was cancelled in most of the candidate aircraft because they (D/BOWMAN, as was) had based the funding on "one installation fits all RW & FW aircraft" and then "It can be handheld, just hang the antenna out the door".

[BEagle]

The failure of Int personnel to supply up-to-date information to crews flying to operational theatres has been known about since the days of the Falklands War.

When we staged through ASI, the 'Int' people did not even have the up-to-date Ramrod code for us to use with MPA.

During GW1, when staging through AKR, the 'Int' people had nothing concerning threats in theatre.

After the shooting had started in 1991, we had a good Int Cell at KKIA (for those crews who bothered to use it). But there were a number of exasperates ASMAgrams flashing about from the Tornado guys - they hadn't even been getting BDA feedback from the Spies......

At the end of my first tour on the VC10K, I was SIntO (amongst other things). All 38 Gp (I think we were still 38 then) SIntOs were summoned to a conference at RAF Upavon - and the AOC told us that it was our job to ensure that timely and accurate intelligence was passed on to our crews.

A few out of date signals stuffed into the 'Captains' Folder' was all that I recall from my last few overseas trips in 2002 - I sincerely hope that, with the many deployments crews now face, there is a far better system in place for up to date theatre intelligence briefs.

[Mick Smith]

Re the alleged media misreporting. I can't make a judgement on how accurate it is because I wasnt there, so I dont know what was said in the inquest, do the critics? Were they there? The media can only report what is said. I would like to hear an assessment from someone who was there. But my experience would tell me that journalists were only reporting what was said in the inquest. They would not be dragging in stuff from elsewhere and the standard of court reporting in the broadsheets is generally high, although saying that mistakes do happen. As for making it sound like a catalogue of disasters, things did go wrong here and inquests inevitably focus on what went wrong, it's their job, so inevitably that is what gets reported and if you can make up your own mind on the timeliness of the reporting so can anyone else.

Re the way in which the court has been turned into some sort of security centre, there are of course issues when SF personnel are giving testimony but a court is a public hearing. You don't have to be a journalist covering it or a witness or a relative of the deceased to get in. Unless a particular session is being held in camera, anybody can go in and the correct answer to a question like "what is your interest?" could quite rightly be "I have a public interest as a member of the public I am entitled to be here." There might of course be issues with space for an inquest that has aroused a large amount of public interest but space must be held open for the public at large. You all as members of the public have the right to see that justice is being done and that the authorities are not covering anything up, which is why it is being reported.

One other disturbing aspect has been reports from those who were there and are respected members of pprune that service security officers have taken to usurping the authority of the court. As the ham-fisted attempt to put the frighteners on Nige shows, all is not well here and you dont have to be a conspiracy theorist to have serious concerns about what is going on.

[RaPs]

Having read the previous threads about the Inquest, why don't you all turn up at Trowbridge Town Hall at 9.30 each day that the court is sitting and you will see exactly what is going on for yourselves. It has been noticable that most of the 'public area' is empty apart from the interest of the media presence. Instead of using your voice on here, if you have anything of interest that is relevant to this case, then contact the Coroners Office, because once this case is finished it's too late to have your say. He will be very interested to hear your 'facts'!

[chappie]

RaPs,

:D:D:D:D

i absolutely agree with your view. of course there are security issues to be concerned about and no one wishes to have the security of personnel breached. we are entitled to hear all that went on , as grieving relatives, and as previously mentioned the nature of the inquest is such that we will get to hear about the failings. this does not mean that we do not have faith in our lads and lasses and the institution of the armed forces, but merely are left trying to find out why all these issues led to the loss of our loved ones.
yes, this is a discussion forum, and for those who really wish not to see the issue discussed i suggest you turn away now and look back when all is done...as they do with the footie results. honestly, what a stupid comment about shutting up (...and the rest)
it's going to be going on for some time yet, so plenty of time to come and lend your support to those you feel need it.

[Georgemorris]

Re cover-ups, inquests in camera etc. Be careful what you wish for. In the case of the Herc and the Nimrod and a number of Army inquests it seems likely that the villains will turn out to be 'the system', the MOD, 'their Airships' and sundry other not very well loved people and distraught relatives demanding to know why their particular son died will be given a lot of air time. We all want to know 'the truth' do we not? Well, there are a number of investigations in the pipeline where the villains may turn out to be the aircrew and the findings may turn out to be something approaching 'gross negligence'. Are we sure that we are prepared to accept that sort of verdict against 'our' people or would we prefer something a bit less pointed? Might it not be better if a degree of privacy were provided for the relatives of those who may be blamed?

Re intelligence failures. When the RAF arrived in Basra the ops setup consisted of a tent, a trestle table, and a telephone. Presumably things had evolved a bit by the time the Herc shootdown occurred but the fact that information exists does not mean it will get to the people involved even at a well set up main base, let alone 'in the field'.

[Tappers Dad]

Georgemorris

"there are a number of investigations in the pipeline where the villains may turn out to be the aircrew"

Which ones ?????

[AR1]

Some comments arriving in the local rag.

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/headlines/display.var.2188238.0.lyneham_inquest_defence_minister_calle d_to_stand.php

[Mick Smith]

FormerFlake If you have information relevant to this, you should tell the coroner not us. And I say that not as a journalist, I say that as a citizen. If you have something important to say you must tell the coroner.

[tucumseh]

AR1

Good post. From the link.........


DR said this Hercules commander retired in the months after voicing his concerns, which meant the matter fell off the RAF's "corporate memory" - a common problem in the Armed Forces as personnel move from post to post.


Maintaining Corporate Memory is a specific requirement of the Airworthiness regulations. The breach he speaks of is, as he says, common - and one of many. In fact, it's the norm.

The risk of gaps being created by Service personnel being posted every two years or so was, in the main, mitigated by the concept of project managers being engineers and many being "cradle to grave" men, with loyalty to one aircraft or engineering domain. Until, that is, CDP's decision to rid MoD of the remaining Corporate Memory in 1996.

[Al R]

BBC News has just had an update. It seems that the UK has always lagged behind other Air Forces in the development of fire and explosive suppressive systems. A 'senior officer', sent into bat explained that because no research was being done, he was in the dark about the benefits of ESF. Which presumably mitigates guilt.

The defence then, seems clear - '.. we're not guilty of incompetence guys - we've just never considered it to be as important as we now have with the benefit of hindsight'. And of course, thats far more subjective and easier to bear than being called an out of touch, incompetent g'ment patsie who is only out to lick his way up the greasy pole rather than rock the boat and kick arse for the sake of one's men.

[Top Right]

For tucumseh,

In simple terms, was this not what BOWMAN was meant to do, to continually update situational awareness and so forth? Then it was cancelled in most of the candidate aircraft because they (D/BOWMAN, as was) had based the funding on "one installation fits all RW & FW aircraft" and then "It can be handheld, just hang the antenna out the door".

The funding line wasn't even that clever. At the time (and we are talking more than 10 years ago), the embodiment forecasts were based on estimates for Army land vehicles with no concept or allowance for aircraft EMI/EMC matters and the associated costs. Hence there was a deficit of funding and the number of platforms to receive BOWMAN was reduced.

And as for the update of situational awareness, it was for friendly forces only (based on each BOWMAN radio squawking its position) and the common update was only going to be every few minutes (could have been as much as 10 if memory serves). While this was perfect for the LAND domain, the fact that aircraft move a tad faster than tanks/warriors hadn't dawned on everyone who were keen to be able to see the "live" picture.

Thankfully this is more than 10 years ago, and technology has moved on in many more SA areas.

[helgar33]

Just wanting to offer my sympathies and regards to those families affected by this awful loss; please pass them on to those you know. Wishing them all the strength for the inquest and beyond. Hope the result is what they have been hoping for and have waited an incredibe and intolerable amount of time for. I have a great deal of faith in the coroner and hope that this case and ours in May bring about positive financial changes within the Armed Forces; though I won't hold my breath. Kindest regards. XV230 widow.

[FormerFlake]

Recent U.S. military encounters with shoulder-fired missiles in Iraq and
Afghanistan can provide some useful operational insights which could be benefit
government, industry, and civil aviation officials involved in the protection of civil
aviation. In December 2003 an unidentified shoulder-fired SAM struck an engine of
a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III cargo aircraft that had just departed Baghdad
International Airport.21 The aircraft, which was outfitted with an antimissile
protective safety, made an emergency landing at Baghdad International Airport.22 In
January 2004, a C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft - also having an antimissile system -
was hit by a shoulder-fired SAM and the aircraft was able to and successfully.23 One
senior Air Force official reportedly stated that “for whatever reason, the [defensive]
systems on the airplanes didn’t counter [the attacks]. We don’t have any indications
that it was a system malfunction.”24 The official speculated that sensor placement,
and aircraft altitude and maneuvering played a role in these systems not functioning
as they were intended.


From

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31741.pdf

This information shows several things.

1. The low level SAM threat was well known in Iraq, especially around Baghdad before 179 took off that fateful day.
2. DAS is not perfect so a back ups such as OBIGS (the C5 and C17 have OBIGS) or ESF is needed.
3. The US want better protection for their civil aircraft than the UK want for their military aircraft.

[nigegilb]

Thanks for the kind messages of support.

Latest summary of the Inquest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7354076.stm

[Al R]

Hi Nige.

"Several witnesses, specialists in these sorts of RAF operations, said they had never heard of ESF until after XV179 was shot down."

:mad:

Even I'd heard of it - a has been slob of an ex Gunner.

[tucumseh]

"Several witnesses, specialists in these sorts of RAF operations, said they had never heard of ESF until after XV179 was shot down."


Strange, given it's specifically mentioned in the Airworthiness Requirements for Service Aircraft. Perhaps they were reading a different version.

[Tappers Dad]

ColinKemp3!
All this inquest has done is cause hurt and has tarnished the name of our squadron and those good friends of ours who died.

The inquest is there to get to the bottom of why 10 men died, every witnesses has to swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If you find that truth does not go along with your own perceptions that is your problem. Facts are facts however unpalatable you may find them.

[Softie]

TD said:
If you find that truth does not go along with your own perceptions that is your problem. Facts are facts however unpalatable you may find them.Sir, please remember this when you find the facts unpalatable.

[Al R]

Colin,

No one, least of all me, would like to see our dirty washing aired in public. But, come on. Who or what is more important? The lives of our men, or a perception to be maintained and based on falsehood? The bottom line is, that she was lost because of incompetence and whilst I am not averse to people being quietly shunted out sideways if they are found lacking, this goes way beyond that. Time and time again, lives have been lost because of political, administrative or logistical shortcomings. Thats wrong, and worse than that, its unprofessional and everyone I imagine, would have that at the heart of their reasoning.. or at least, they should have.

In many ways, I have sympathy for CAS. He's not a bad or gash person - but he's working with a system that is devoted to wielding the cosh and not a shield - a politicised Civil Service which once would have been with him but now, possibly isn't. That needs to be explored too, as does the nagging doubt that maybe this isn't all a red herring, and that perhaps there isn't a bit of a smokescreen being laid down. Perhaps ESF isn't the real issue here. I do respect your perspective - you're obviously proud to serve, and you've got a great, punchy attitude. But you can still have that and improve things for the troops - at the expense of plasma screens everywhere in Main Building maybe?

[Truckkie]

He said: "My view is that Operational Low Flying (OLF) was not the correct tactic for this flight."
He said this was also the official view of the Air Warfare Centre, which provides advice and guidance to crews operating in hostile conditions.

This doesn't ring true to me - I seem to remember that the AWC advice was changed after the loss of XV179 in regards to OLF.

Perhaps AWC are just trying to cover their arse?:confused:

[The Equivocator]

The sacking was for a variety of reasons if I recall correctly.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you can justify any form of low flying on a milk run over that leg.

Day OLF requirements? You gotta be kidding...

This isn't a crew issue though, it goes much higher up the chain than that.

[Truckkie]

Hear Hear Colin:D

We are all volunteers in the service of the Military, hazadous flying in hostile enviroments is all part of the risk. The nature of ops is dangerous as is the essential support that C-130 crews give to the user units.

ESF and tactics discussions could go on for ever - perhaps we could just accept that the crew of XV179 were unlucky on that day in Iraq. Given the number of sorties flown in support of ops since Sarajevo, the loss of one aircraft and crew should have been expected.

Lets just let XV179 rest and concentrate on providing support to our crews currently deployed around the world.

Military flying is dangerous - fact.

[ColinKemp3!]

The reporting of events in Iraq was not entirely a US to UK problem it was more a inter-unit problem and is something the MOD would have found it difficult to deal with. The following link shows an accident which happened after 179 to a US aircraft in Iraq when a NOTAM was not passed from one US unit to another. The article says that it wasn't issued, it was, it was just never passed to the unit that lost the ac as they worked for 'different people'.

http://kg.typepad.com/banter/2005/04/mc130_crash_pic.html

This is what we and 179 had to contend against. Therefore it would have been very difficult for little old us to have had any affect, the changes in the passing of information to ALL units was more as a result of the findings of this american crash rather than XV179.

This won't come up in the inquest either will it...

[John Blakeley]

Trukkie,

As an ex-engineer who spent virtually all of his career on the FJ side - first line and projects, I have to agree with most of your last posting - military flying was, is and always will be dangerous at times. The operational imperatives will always have to come first almost regardless of risk, and it is obvious from all of the current public domain information just what risks are being run by the crews of the AT fleet and in RW operations such as Merlins and Chinooks on casevac missions. Where I totally disagree with you is your statement that because it is dangerous XV 179's (and other military) lessons should not be learnt and put right. Even the BOI agreed that they were not just unlucky!

I am not qualified to join the tactics debate, but I suggest that there is nothing remotely operational about losing an aircraft (or soldier) because MOD has, in the past, failed to provide equipment to the highest standards to meet their duty of care obligations, including ensuring that aircraft are airworthy and fit for purpose. Yes, things may be getting a lot better now, but it has taken the recognition and actioning of a whole pile of lessons, and money - a lot of it, to recover the situation, and it is still not clear whether everything that could and should have been done has been actioned.

The fact remains that MOD has spent (some might argue wasted) billions on new HQ, moving units, failed projects, etc etc, whilst having, it would appear, insufficient funds (not always caused by MOD of course) fully to meet their obligations to the front line - this is why the lessons from XV179 and later this year XV 230 cannot and should not be ignored - they need to be investigated, learnt and acted upon. As you rightly say military flying is often dangerous especially in operational theatres - that danger should not be exacerbated by the (in)actions of your own side, eg a failure to ensure that the airworthiness chain is intact (not my comment alone but the conclusion of AOC in C Air Command re the loss of XV 230) or, certainly in the past, a government failure to fund the necessary equipment to ensure fitness for purpose!

JB

[airsound]

Couple of late updates to the BBC News piece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7354076.stm

Near the end of the piece , in the section 'Hercules Vulnerability', an important extra last sentence about the document:
A document, dating from 1993, was presented to the inquest, in which the Defence Evaluation and Research Establishment at Farnborough drew attention to the vulnerability of Hercules aircraft to SAFire damage to fuel tanks. The document warned that the UK was seriously lagging behind the USA in explosion-protection matters.
And, at the end, the fact that the inquest resumes on Tuesday.

airsound

[BEagle]

The vulnerability of unprotected aircraft to fuel tank explosions was graphically illustrated by the DHL A300 at Baghdad.

Were MoD blind, stupid or both not to have at least reviewed the protection of RAF transport aircraft immediately afterwards?

It was some 2 years before the loss of XV179, after all.....

[Al R]

Truckie said: We are all volunteers in the service of the Military, hazadous flying in hostile enviroments is all part of the risk. The nature of ops is dangerous as is the essential support that C-130 crews give to the user units.

ESF and tactics discussions could go on for ever - perhaps we could just accept that the crew of XV179 were unlucky on that day in Iraq. Given the number of sorties flown in support of ops since Sarajevo, the loss of one aircraft and crew should have been expected.

Lets just let XV179 rest and concentrate on providing support to our crews currently deployed around the world.

Military flying is dangerous - fact.

Well said. Your post got me thinking. Just think how much money we could have saved by not offering our troops the finest NBC kit when the Russians were coming. And rather than fund researching improvements into providing better body armour, the money could go instead on potted plants and refurbing as many meeting rooms as possible.

[chappie]

colin,
i have only the quotes utilised in peoples responses to see what your thought is on this process. i also hope that you chose to delete your post out of respect rather than an inability to facing up to the heat such comments initiate.

this inquest is a necessary process and one none of us wish to fond ourselves in. the point of the inquest is to find out what happened. yes, people die in military ops, please do not for a second think any of us are too short sighted not to realise that, but they should not die due to an inability to put right shortcomings. i do not think that the squadron is getting a bad name and the fact that you feel that is something that saddens me.i cannot tell you that your feeling is wrong, as it is the way that you feel, but i'd find it very hard to see that anyone could think that the sqaudron were at fault.

why on earth would the inquest cause hurt and tarnish the names of those who died????? i really am at pains to understand this. those men are spoken of extremely highly and no one thinks anything bad of them. if they do i can't see how. the inquest hurts , as we have to listen and examine about the last moments of those men. we have to sit there, away from our families,and try and find some comfort in the process that is an absolute must. try seeing it from a grieving relatives perspective, sir. these men deserve an inquest, as do we, the families left behind.

[Hammerwest]

Im not to sure if this has been mentioned before , but the makers of ESF ( and im not to sure who that is and what they are called ) Surely they would of approached the RAF or MOD with this product .You wouldnt invent a product and then not try to sell it on ...??? ....Just a thought

[Chugalug2]

Hammerwest; information is available these days at:
http://www.crestfoam.com/intro.html
but in the late 60's the MOD would have been aware of this technology being fitted as standard by the USAF to its own Hercules as that was the very agency that all dealings with Lockheed had to pass through. It is literally incredible to suggest that the RAF Air Staff were ignorant of ESF, on the contrary they would have been only too well aware of its cost which was in US$'s a very big problem in those days of exchange control and trade deficit.
NigeGilb, Chappie et al, your stalwart determination to not relent in ensuring that this long awaited inquest is able to properly discharge its duty to reveal the truth behind this tragic accident does you credit as always. The various official and unofficial efforts to subvert that process would be normally more at home in Moscow than Trowbridge, but we live in interesting times..... Suffice it to say that I have just been privileged to spend the last two days in the company of the splendid young men and women currently bearing the torch for a Squadron going 'Flat Out' at a top secret Wiltshire airbase. I suggest that having something more effective than coils of chain as a Defence Suite allows them to do their hazardous duty more effectively and safely. Those who gainsay what Nigel and co. have done and seek to do say more about themselves than anyone else in my view.

[tucumseh]

Use Stuffit Expander to unzip .rar file on Mac. (Apparently).

Empty inbox.

T

[Dan D'air]

Just announced on BBC News that the inquest will have to be adjourned until October to allow time for all of the necessary witnesses to testify. Why on earth did someone not realise what the families have been through already and allocate sufficient time for the hearing? This is truly dreadful news.

[Tappers Dad]

Re: Hercules Adjornment

As it is Shakespeare's birthday today heres a quote fom Hamlet.

Horatio:
Have after. To what issue will this come?

Marcellus:
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Horatio:
Heaven will direct it.

http://www.bartleby.com/59/6/somethingisr.html

A wee bit criptic but you get my drift

[Al R]

BBC News has had 10 minutes about this - no mention of the adjournment though, just Chris Seale's evidence. On the surface of it, and without getting involved with the personality aspects, his chain of correspondence does make for pretty damning testimony.

[OmegaV6]

Only info I can find at the moment ..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7362654.stm

[Chugalug2]

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.


I'm afraid that this country under this government has long since surpassed Denmark's past in rottenness, TD. The crocodile tears for the feelings of the next of kin and for the morale of existing Hercules crews are as bogus as worries for OSA breaches and increasing the security threat to RAF operations. The only things under threat here are the reputations of senior personnel within the MOD. That alone seems to justify any means to disrupt the process of the Coroners Courts, a process that goes back 800 years and will outlast these little people and their totally self centred concerns and ambitions.

[Al R]

Agreed Buggalugs.

BBC thingy said: The coroner told the inquest the adjournment was "a source of regret to us all" but said the decision had unanimous approval from counsel and interested parties.

I can't see how the extra time would help the MoD, other than allow it time to muster political muscle. But thats being a little fanciful. Isn't it? :ooh:

[Chugalug2]

I'd echo Chugger's sentiments but possibly in not such an old crachety way (he's waiting for his new zimmer you know and the cabin fever has set in... :ok:).



Agreed Buggalugs.

Your endorsements of my posts are of course most welcome Al, but they seem to be increasingly versed in what can only be described as extreme informality, to say the least. Now I am the last one to stand on ceremony, or expect others to do likewise, but might I suggest that it would perhaps be more fitting if the normal social niceties are exercised? Oh, wait, I see from past posts that your previous occupation was somewhat earthbound, so I would not wish to "Rock the Boat" or even suggest that you are "off of your Rocker" (light repartee based on the colloquialism for said occupation M'lud). So Rock On!
I have the honour to be Sir,
Your Obediant Servant etc.,
Chug
(My Seconds will be attending upon you in due course.)

[Al R]

Oh. I see. Its like that now is it? And don't you start. I'm getting flak from ruddy Stewards here now too (.. some of us serve more literally than others, ho ho). Funnily enough, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPQGeJYaAes) was on the radiogram earlier, and I thought.. I wonder if Chuggers got his winter fuel allowance?

[nigegilb]

LYNEHAM INQUEST: Aviator silenced
By Gazette Reporter
Comment
An RAF aviator was silenced for speaking out about safety fears on Hercules planes three years before ten men died when one crashed in Iraq, he told an inquest today.

Squadron Leader Christopher Seal, a former flight commander with 47 Squadron, said he wrote a "lessons identified" memo - referred to despairingly as "lessons ignored" - after returning from serving in Afghanistan in 2002.

Among his concerns was that ESF (explosion-suppressant foam) should be fitted to the Hercules wing--located fuel tanks.

advertisement

On January 30, 2005, an RAF Hercules was hit in a tank by small arms fire near Baghdad. The tank exploded, blowing off a wing, killing the 10 men on board.

It was only after this that ESF began to be fitted on RAF Hercules aircraft.

Mr Seal was presented today with documents from the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) dating back to 1993 about UK research into ESF, which US Hercules planes have had since the Vietnam War.

One DERA document, from 1994, said the UK was "lagging behind the US" on the issue.

Mr Seal said he never knew about this research.

"I'm gob-smacked, astonished," he told the inquest into the death of the ten men in Trowbridge, Wilts, on seeing the document.

He said he only found out about ESF after a US pilot told him his aircraft had it.

Mr Seal sent his 'lessons identified' document on November 12, 2002, with a letter described today as "sadly prophetic".

In it he wrote: "I appreciate that a number of points are politically sensitive or already being worked but it does no harm to have lessons identified written down that may be of use for higher-level staff work or, ultimately, a ready-made history lesson for those who follow in our footsteps."

Mr Seal said, however, that by the time he sent this, he had already "got into trouble" for voicing his concerns about other Hercules safety issues, among them infra-red counter measures and night flying tactics.

While in Afghanistan earlier in 2002, he emailed safety concerns to his superiors in theatre and in Britain.

Although well-received in theatre, he said he felt those higher up the chain of command were ignoring the matters.

On his return to the UK he emailed all his superiors right up to the head of Strike Command - a measure he described as "a cry for help in the dark".

He was subsequently reprimanded for going above his station and "censored" thereafter, he said.

He expressed frustration today at the "convoluted" nature of obtaining crucial safety modifications, which involved long-winded chains of command.

"There is a difference between lessons identified and lessons learned - these were known throughout my tenure as lessons ignored," he told the court.

Mr Seal said that because RAF Hercules had for so many years been so reliable, many having been shot in the fuel tanks without exploding, RAF crews had developed a "false sense of security."

He said he believed the time the aircraft would need to be out of action and money were the main factors why ESF was not fitted to Hercules.

He later found out that the cost of fitting ESF was just £600,000 per aircraft and that each would be sidelined for just four or five weeks.

Bernard Collaery, for Kellie Merritt, the widow of Flt Lt Paul Pardoel, said his client wished to "commend" Mr Seal and "hoped others would be as assertive about the needs of their men."

Mr Seal replied: "All I can say is it does not do your career any good."

The victims based at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire 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 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.

mfl Page 2 Mr Seal, following his retirement from the RAF in 2005, wrote to the Parliamentary Defence Select Committee in May 2006 to express concerns that, even at that stage, ESF and other safety modifications were not being acted on quick enough.

Since that time steps have been taken to implement some of the high-lighted improvements, he said, explaining that word had reached him via "the jungle drums".

Mr Seal agreed with Richard Stead, father of the stricken craft's pilot, that the RAF's Hercules fleet was, prior to recent improvements, "not fit for purpose".

Mr Stead said he wished to echo Mr Collaery's comments about him, adding: "I'm sure you will be able to sleep well at night."

Earlier today, Wiltshire Coroner David Masters announced that he would be adjourning the inquest after this Friday until September 30.

The hearing, which started on March 30, was scheduled to end this week but it has not been possible to get through all the witnesses. Three weeks have been set aside in October to complete the inquest.

[tucumseh]

For those interested in how far back MoD's very detailed knowledge of ESF dates, and its purpose, please follow this link....

http://www.dstan.mod.uk/dtd/data/5627.pdf


Ministry of Defence (Procurement Executive)

D.T.D. 5627 Aerospace Material Specification

"Fibrous Polyamide Material for use as an Explosion Suppressant and as a baffle material in Aircraft Fuel Tanks".

Dated April 1982


Any advances on 1982?

[Chugalug2]

Squadron Leader Christopher Seal, a former flight commander with 47 Squadron, said he wrote a "lessons identified" memo - referred to despairingly as "lessons ignored" - after returning from serving in Afghanistan in 2002

Having been effectively ignored by the RAF and MOD since 2002, at last Sqn Ldr Chris Seal has been listened to and his evidence formally recorded and noted. The careless and off hand way his important safety related testimony was dealt with by his then employer is evidence of the cavalier approach that the MOD has to its Duty of Care to those in the Armed Forces and the Civilian Population at large. Just as it has taken an external independent agency, the Coroners Court, to get his views listened to, so it will need an external and independent Military Airworthiness Authority to ensure that military airworthiness regulations are properly enforced. Well done, Sir! I hope that others with evidence that should be laid before this Inquest will follow his lead, taking advantage of the unforeseen deferment until October to do what is right. If you have the answer to tucumseh's question then do what is right. You will never forgive yourself if you do not!

Al R, thank you for that most amusing popular song with which I was not previously familiar. What is 'pulp'? Would the gentlemen of the press please note that question in the reports that they prepare?

[Al R]

Pulp is a modern beat combo of no mean import, which, some 10 years ago was of influence to young people who would attend discotheques and tap their feet in time to the infectious beat.

--

He expressed frustration today at the "convoluted" nature of obtaining crucial safety modifications, which involved long-winded chains of command.

If anything, this incident is going to encourage commanders to speak up and to keep hammering home their message, if for nothing else, for fear of not doing the 'right' thing which might return to haunt them.

[airsound]

Press Statement by Squadron Leader Christopher T Seal RAF (Rtd)

24 April 2008

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Press,

CORONER’S INQUEST INTO CRASH OF RAF HERCULES XV179


I am sure you will appreciate that, until Coroner’s Inquest into the crash of RAF Hercules XV 179 is complete, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any evidence that has been produced to date. However, I would like to make the following short statement:


Firstly, I commend the Coroner and his Official Investigator for the thoroughness of their investigation. I am convinced that no stone will be left unturned in their quest for the truth.

Secondly, and because I feel that up until now the public have not been able to fully appreciate the predicament of our Service aviators, I would like to pay tribute to ALL our Hercules Crews. For many years, and especially since 2001, they have consistently put themselves in harm’s way - at great personal risk. Their bravery and fortitude is in the highest traditions of the Royal Air Force and it was my great privilege to serve with them. In this, of course, I include the crew XV179 and the crews presently ‘on operations’.

Lastly, and most importantly, I wish to make public my admiration and continued support for the relatives and families of those who perished on XV179. Meeting with these deeply courageous and determined people was a humbling and inspiring experience; their steely resolve, inner strength and stoicism are an example to us all. Wherever I am able, I will endeavour to help them in their efforts to ensure that the tragedy of XV179 is not repeated.


Christopher T Seal

[Mick Smith]

It is good to see someone sticking to their guns like this. There have been a shocking number of people saying "I can't recall" which is frankly fairly transparent.

[OmegaV6]

One thing you CAN be certain of .... that good Sqn Ldr will NOT back down... he never did before, I guess he won't start now !!

Folks might not like his point of view or approach at times .. but they should all remember and appreciate his tenacity

[chappie]

thanks chris, but it is you that deserves the honour. i certainly know that i am not worthy of what you say. thanks anyway.
it is of absolute importance the attention and praise goes onto those brave enough to fight for what they believe in....i.e..ESF.

I am in such in a position. there is so much i want to say. but what i feel confident in expressing is that it is a disgusting travesty that the senior officers of our armed forces simply cannot recall anything. i do not trust nor do i or we believe you sirs. shame on you.

that is all.
i am too upset to say anything more right now.

[The Equivocator]

So apart from the Flip Seal show...

Does anyone know why the journo withdrew his post the other day?

Pressure, or response?

[Chugalug2]

So apart from the Flip Seal show...

The only show that I can see from here, Equivocator, is the show of moral cowardice from those who know but pretend not to. This struggle to get the Hercules Fleet the protection it was denied for 40 years and to properly investigate the airworthiness shortcomings that culminated in the tragic loss of XV179 and her crew is approaching its zenith. When the dust settles it will be the old values that will have counted. Courage, tenacity, faith and the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. Those who would sneer at such values are the ones who are wanting in my view. It is surely as plain as a pikestaff that those values so prevalent in our fighting men and women are conspicuous by their absence in what are euphemistically called the corridors of power. Those corridors, and those who inhabit them, will be seen as unworthy of that power when this case, the Nimrod one and the cruel farrago of the Mull Chinook are finally laid to rest. Nothing short of a complete reform of the MOD is required, and important functions such as Military Airworthiness Authority rested from its deceitful maw. That is the show in town. Watch this space!

[airsound]

So, as everybody probably gathered, the inquest was adjourned "part heard" on Friday, and will reopen on 30 September. Mr Coroner Masters reckons it'll take another three weeks after that.

I would like to echo Flip's words about the families. If I have one lasting impression of this whole extraordinary event taking place in a rather dingy but somehow impressive No 1 Courtroom at Trowbridge, it is of the immense courage and dignity of every one of the families, to say nothing of their occasional humour, and, of course, their inevitable tears.

Latest goings on at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7368807.stm

airsound

[tucumseh]

At #106 I said........

For those interested in how far back MoD's very detailed knowledge of ESF dates, and its purpose, please follow this link....

http://www.dstan.mod.uk/dtd/data/5627.pdf


Ministry of Defence (Procurement Executive)

D.T.D. 5627 Aerospace Material Specification

"Fibrous Polyamide Material for use as an Explosion Suppressant and as a baffle material in Aircraft Fuel Tanks".

Dated April 1982


Any advances on 1982?


Def Stan 00-970 (Design and Airworthiness Requirements for Service Aircraft) references Mil Standard Mil-B-83054B "Baffle and Inerting Material, Aircraft Fuel Tanks" dated 17th May 1978.

Any advance on 1978 for proof of UK MoD knowledge? (Already have the Lockheed patent dated 1969).

[Tappers Dad]

I understand that the adjournment happened as given the time left available they were not going to be able to have all the witnesses they wanted. the lawyers were to be unable to continue after a set point and the families were not prepared to continue without legal representation.

During the course of the inquest 4 extra witnesses were added to the list.. it was suggested to drop witnesses but they were not prepared to do that.

It was very hard for the families to have to do this but they were very mindful that a lifetime is a long time without getting all their questions answered. Military Aviation is a dangerous profession, but that point alone does not mean that this situation of losing 10 men needs to be just accepted, by the bereaved and those left serving.

It is all the more apparent that there is this proverbial time bomb that is ticking away and no-one wants to be the witness who's hands it goes off in. I understand the families were tired of witnesses saying I can't recall, as an answer. neither do they buy it. Although the new date is far off the interested parties agreed the date to help minimise the impact on their families as they now have to endure this process again.
I am sure the families will not stop asking questions. They will not let the systemic failings continue to put the lives of our men and women in the armed forces into unnecessary jeopardy.

[The Equivocator]

Can anyone who's been to the inquest give us a quick precis of what 'couldn't be recalled' by some of the witnesses?

Ta

[airsound]

Can anyone who's been to the inquest give us a quick precis of what 'couldn't be recalled' by some of the witnesses?
That’s a tall order, Equivocator, but here goes. These are all from my own contemporaneous notes.

Witness EA, now a Wg Cdr and OC 99, was, between 2001 and 2003, OC the 47 Sqn Flt whose name we are not allowed by the Coroner to mention. EA had “no recollection” of being given a presentation on ESF in 2002. The Coroner pointed out that a US Exchange Officer had mentioned ESF to him. He had no recollection of that officer or anyone else mentioning it. “Wouldn’t you have such a recollection?” asked the Coroner. “Not necessarily, we had so many factors at the time.....”

Graham Redgrave, a senior structural engineer at Marshall Aerospace didn’t recall having the wing from XV196, which had been damaged by small arms fire, in to Marshall’s as a damage check for XV179, and couldn’t recall when MoD first contacted them about ESF.

Witness DT was OC 47 Sqn from 2000 to 2003. He didn’t recall seeing Chris Seal’s Post Operation Report despite Seal having given evidence that he had seen it being forwarded up the chain over DT’s signature. The Coroner asked if he would have passed on Seal’s recommendations without question, and he said he respected Seal’s judgement. The Coroner found that “very strange”.

Air Cdre Ray Lock was Lyneham Staish Mar 2002 - Dec 2003. The Coroner said that a US exchange officer had been so concerned about the lack of ESF that he had spoken to the then Gp Capt Lock about it, and the Gp Capt had said that for anything to be done about it, someone would have to be shot down and killed. Air Cdre Lock said he did not recall any such meeting at any time. When questioned further by John Cooper, barrister for two of the families, he had “no recollection” of ESF being part of the discussion.

When the 3 Alpha upgrade to the Mk3 Hercules was coming through, he was aked if he recalled having any conversations about Hercules vulnerability, “no, no recollection”.

After Chris Seal’s report went up to 2 Gp and onwards, Air Cdre Lock said he wished he could “tell the court I went back to Seal to tell him what was happening, but I have no recollection of that”.

Those are my recollections of the more significant non-recollections of witnesses. Slightly off the subject, but possibly significant was Chris Seal’s observation to the court that the whole system was skewed because the people who should have the corporate memory are the Integrated Project Team (IPT), and they didn’t appear to have been involved in events following his Post Operation Report. He suggested that this lack of application of corporate memory was a break in the chain.

airsound

[tucumseh]

May I offer some comments on Airsound’s post.

1. Marshall Aerospace don’t deny MoD contacted them, just can’t recall when. I don’t know what their formal appointment is, Aircraft Design Authority or Custodian, but either way it is utterly inconceivable that they didn’t know about ESF from very early in their involvement with C130. Their contract with MoD to maintain the build standard (and I’m assuming MoD have met this basic airworthiness requirement, although I acknowledge it’s been widely deemed optional and a waste of money for many years) should contain a DIRECTED sub-contract on Lockheed to facilitate dialogue about this very subject (aircraft safety design). It is equally inconceivable that they don’t have voluminous records of their efforts to have MoD fit ESF, over a very long period of time.


2. Vulnerability

Extract from Def Stan 00-970 Part 1/5 Section 9 - Vulnerability to Battle Damage (Read in conjunction with my comment on Marshall Aerospace above)……..

“The Chief Designer SHALL (i.e. mandatory) consult with the Integrated Project Team Leader (IPTL) and establish whether, and how, the vulnerability of the aeroplane Defined and Specified Threat Effects (see below) will be assessed and consider how subsequent design changes, if any, will be introduced”.

Table 4: Table of Defined Threat Effects

(Includes)

(a) Inert bullets
(b) Inert fragments
(e) Incendiary bullets

That is, it is a requirement to conduct and maintain a Vulnerability Analysis. The very Threats and Effects which XV179 was subjected to are spelt out in the Def Stan (bullets/fragments), so one cannot claim not to have thought of them. This Analysis will be much like a Risk Register, in that having identified the threat and effect there MUST be a mitigation plan (e.g. fit ESF) and the decision as to whether or not to implement it and the rational underpinning the decision MUST be recorded.


3. Corporate Memory. It is a basic requirement of JSP553 (Airworthiness Regulations) that Corporate Memory be maintained. The Regs do say (correctly) that much of this requirement is met by maintaining various standards, like Def Stans and JSPs. This would seem to have been acceptable in this case, as evidenced by my previous posts which clearly demonstrate these Standards contain numerous and very detailed references to ESF, going back 30 years. It remains, therefore, for those responsible for the aircraft to actually read them, inwardly digest and take action.

[nigegilb]

Slightly different subject, along the lines of Govt meddling in the Inquest System;

"The provisions relating to draft clauses 64 and 65 Counter Terrorism Bill (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmbills/063/2008063.pdf) were heard in Committee on 24 April 2008 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmpublic/counter/080424/pm/80424s01.htm) chaired by John Bercow (http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&personID=5048) and Edward O’Hara (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/edward_o'hara/knowsley_south)

An extract at colums 129 – 134 was particularly revealing.

Called to give evidence and advice to the committee from the point of view of an experienced coroner was Mr Andre Rebello, Her Majesty’s Coroner for the City of Liverpool and honorary secretary of the Coroners’ Society.

Mr Rebello , in response to a question put to him by Mr Dominic Grieve MP (Beaconsfield)(Con) (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/dominic_grieve/beaconsfield), stated that his organisation had not been informed or consulted by the government over their plans to legislate in this way and had only learned of the legislative proposals in the last two or three weeks. He stated that these provisions would cause difficulties for openness and transparency since if a coroner was to be appointed by a secretary of state, then the Secretary of State would effectively be a judge in his own cause.

Mrs. Sharon Hodgson (Gateshead, East and Washington, West)(Lab) (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/sharon_hodgson/gateshead_east_and_washington_west) asked Mr Rebello for his opinion of the proposal that inquests in some circumstances should be held before suitably trained and cleared coroners appointed by the Secretary of State? Mr Rebello responded that in his view, it drives a coach and horses through the separation of powers. If a suitably qualified or specially ticketed coroner needs to be brought in, it certainly cannot be any part of the Executive that appoints the coroner. Well, it could be, but our rule of law would be going out the window. Mrs Hodgson pressed him on this by asking whether his view would be any different if they were suitably trained and cleared and if there are specific circumstances. Mr Rebello responded by stating that in his view:

“you cannot pick your own tribunal. Basically, the case comes before the court and the judge, whoever they are, is the person who tries it. What we would be doing here is throwing out the person who should ordinarily hear that case according to the Coroners Act and replacing them with what the public might perceive to be a Government stool pigeon who would side with the Government. That is probably not the case at all, but if we needed specially trained coroners, there are only 110 coroners, so why should not every coroner be specially trained and security cleared? If that were the case, there could be no accusation that the Executive was interfering with the judiciary.”

He added:

“I am particularly concerned about our responsibility with regard to the Human Rights Act. I heard the Minister on Tuesday say that the Bill was compliant with the Human Rights Act, but that is not my view.”
_________________
Believe nothing you hear until it is officially denied!

It is not a cynical observation - it is an accurate observation of a cynical state of affairs!"

[JessTheDog]

I doubt these provisions will ever reach the statute book. If they did, they would be invoked at ever opportunity to reduce government exposure on uncomfortable issues - from the London bombs to military deaths.

[The Poison Dwarf]

In all of the discussions on XV179, XV230 et al, one point has been overlooked.

The powers of the military hierarchy and the MoD to do ANYTHING about the well known and well documented shortcomings are strictly limited, EVERYTHING is run by the Treasury, everything is done down to a price not up to a standard, from service accommodation to spares, fuel and airframe hours, and it's much the same for the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines.

That is why training hours have been cut to the bone, why conversion courses have been cut back and back, why there are no airframes available for training even if the allocated hours had not been cut.

That is why the political dogma of giving assets away to industry, much of which is not even British owned any more, while effectively, if not actually, banning in-house bids is so prevalent.

The rationale is chillingly simple, if it costs X to put things right and Y to pay for things going wrong and X>Y, then the lowest priced option (in this case Y) wins and it is considered a cost effective way of doing business, moreover if, in the process, the blame can be laid at someone else's door, then so much the better.

They (the Treasury mandarins) know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
:yuk:

[tucumseh]

Poison Dwarf

While you are correct that the Treasury are overly zealous when blindly slashing MoD budgets, it must also be remembered that the MoD are among the most deliberately wasteful Government departments. I say deliberate, because they know they do it, have been criticised continually by bodies such as the Public Accounts Committee, yet have the gall to formally discipline staff who complain about being instructed to knowingly waste funds. This is a simple, verifiable fact and a policy upheld by successive Mins(AF).

As for ESF, I’m not convinced the fair and reasonable cost is really £600k per aircraft. The costings published by the US say below $600k for retrofit, around half if embodied during production. So, how much for fleet embodiment? £25M? Bear in mind there is little or no development cost or timescale, as ESF is a core fit as far as Lockheed are concerned.

Another formal ruling…… Having to find £25M for any requirement (never mind a safety modification), do all the staff work, initiate and manage delivery is considered a routine task for the lowest technical grade in an IPT (typically C2). This has been MoD’s (PE, DPA etc) consistent position for as long as I can remember and, yes, I’ve done it more than once. In cases like this the IPT should self task – it’s a simple DIY job. There are aspects of this policy I don’t agree with – for example additional manpower is usually refused (certainly for something a small as a £25M no-brainer mod programme); but even that is easily overcome. Yes, you still need an endorsed and approved Business Case, but again this is a simple in-house process, with the word “Safety” featuring prominently. Despite MoD denials, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone close to Hercules had already done all this in the past, but the person refusing to approve is being protected.

As ever, I can only speak from personal experience. To me, what I describe is common practice. But when experience is diluted and corporate memory fades, that is when the Treasury take advantage of MoD as there is no-one to mount a knowledgeable rebuttal. While some of the criticism of MoD is warranted - especially deliberate waste - some of it is ludicrous yet no effort is made to defend us. I’m afraid it is a long time since our management set the proper tone, or made any attempt to lead from the front. I shall be utterly astonished if the outcome in this case is much removed from Nimrod – MoD having to accept liability due to failure to implement procedure, process and regulations.

[JessTheDog]

The rationale is chillingly simple, if it costs X to put things right and Y to pay for things going wrong and X>Y, then the lowest priced option (in this case Y) wins and it is considered a cost effective way of doing business, moreover if, in the process, the blame can be laid at someone else's door, then so much the better.

They (the Treasury mandarins) know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.


Agreed. However, there is such a thing as a "duty of care" that stretches far beyond the estimates of the bean-counters. It is incumbent on those who wear uniform and have rank to do the best for their subordinates, whether career-limiting or not. The chilling rationale of the Treasury has been blown apart by the Collins ruling which now gives personnel some protection in theatre, although this is subject to appeal by disgracefully mendacious ministers. The Collins ruling makes it more imperative that those in positions of responsibilty speak out and, if rebuffed, keep a paper trail handy.