Court Martial over F15 crash [Archive]

Capt Widebody

14th Mar 2002, 17:30

I just saw this story on the TV.. .. .Irrespective of the current legality of the Courts Martial, this particular development has the potential to drive yet another nail into the coffin of open and honest reporting in flight safety incidents and accidents.. .. .I had been hoping that the old system of apportioning blame in military aviation accidents really was a thing of the past. The Chinook enquiry ruling was a particularly encouraging development which seemed to send out a message which supports the military's current stance: that is, in short, to find out the causes and learn as much about technical and human failings from incidents without directly apportioning blame, so as to avoid a recurrence of the incident.. .. .Some of the old-school will argue that there will always be cases where individuals do act maliciously or neglect their duty to a gross degree. But I firmly maintain that finding out the reasons behind the failings without going on witch-hunts is the only way forward. How many HFORs will be recieved from ATCOs following this, I wonder?. .. .This fatal accident, like any other fatal accident is most distressing. But I have no doubt there will be many other professional pilots out there who are wondering why someone is trying to hang the ATCO involved. He or she was not flying the aircraft, and I don't need to spell out what the various radar service "contracts" do and do not include.. .. .There are those of you who may think that we hug too many trees in this PC era we now work in. In many apsects of our modern working society, I agree. But the only way we can now improve flight safety further and reduce these terrible accident statistics is by learning and analysing where we are making human errors.. .. .Unless we stop trying to make scapegoats out of those who visibly make mistakes (and I speak in general terms here), then we will never foster an open and honest attitude to flight safety reporting within the military; the mistakes which aviators make which we actually get to hear about will remain the tip of the iceberg.

Dan Winterland

15th Mar 2002, 03:51

This is also the MOD admitting one of their employees acted negligently and will leave them liable to massive damages in favour of the deceased pilots families.

BEagle

15th Mar 2002, 12:04

Hmmm - odd how after this accident, everyone was reminded of the rules concerning responsibility for safe terrain avoidance in IMC whether under RAS or RIS....... .. .There are some pilots who seem to think that RAS will cocoon them from any responsibility for safe separation from other ac and/or the ground. A colleague of mine was once flying in IMC and asked for a cloudbreak; ATC advised that they could only see him down to the safe sector altitude, any further descent would be 'at his own discretion'. So he continued his descent and found himself facing Didcot power station at very close range. Afterwards he told me that he considered this to be ATC's fault....... .. .Perhaps the in-built caution many pilots in the UK have when deciding to descend below safety altitude in IMC without knowing precisely where they are, what Safety Altitude in the area actually is and what mandatory on-board aids must be serviceable would have prevented this accident? I have certainly descended to the minimum permitted altitude in IMC in the past - but that was in a Vulcan with a fully serviceable crew, radar, radio altimeter, TFR....and even then it was very hard work to continue the flight for any length of time in safety. To descend in IMC below SA in a single seat jet in unfamiliar territory whilst under RAS to me seems fraught with danger.....

cyclic

15th Mar 2002, 14:05

BEagle. .. .I think you have hit the nail on the head. Under RAS terrain clearance remains the responsibility of the pilot. If ATC descend you below sector safe altitude it's still your responsibility.

Chilli Monster

15th Mar 2002, 15:16

Civil units thankfully decree a level below which RAS will simply not be given - and this normally equates to the highest of your SSA's (if the sectors are different) within 25 miles.. .. .Even though the pilot is responsible for terrain separation under a LARS service I would still take the attitude that if the pilot wanted a descent I would give him down to SSA and no further unless he was VMC and visual with the ground. From that point it's pilot's decision what height he flies, not mine. Duty of care means you do your best for him, but from then onwards it's his decision.. .. .Hopefully it will be the system that will be found wanting and not the ATCO involved - we don't need another Gradimir Tasic (BEA/JAT Midair Yugoslavia 1976 - another scapegoat when the system was at fault).. .. .CM. . . . [ 15 March 2002, 13:47: Message edited by: Chilli Monster ]

phd

15th Mar 2002, 16:04

Capt. Widebody. .Spot-on. This CM will do nobody any good whatsoever and will throw no light on how we can prevent mid-air collisions during low-level training sorties in the future. It will also take us back several years in trying to engender the open and honest human factor reporting processes that the CAA is promoting as the only way to improve aviation safety in the long term. Like the Chinook Pilots in the Mull of Kintyre debacle the ATCO in this case may become an easy scape-goat for an incident that nobody should be blamed for but everybody involved in the 'aviation system' is responsible for. It is the 'system' that should be examined for root causes and possible remedies. However once again those in positions of power would rather externalise the fault by pointng the finger rather than admitting the system fallibilities and perhaps their own roles in that system failure.. .-----------------------------------------------. .Pobody's nerfect - and that includes you and me.

Scud-U-Like

15th Mar 2002, 20:41

If a civilian ATCO were alleged to have performed his duty negligently, thereby contributing to the cause of a fatal accident, he would doubtless face some sort of internal disciplinary hearing. That is all that is happening to the RAF ATCO.. .. .He is being accused not of negligently causing the pilots' deaths (ie manslaughter), but of negligently performing his professional duty.

Whipping Boy's SATCO

15th Mar 2002, 21:45

BEagle has an interesting point. What did the pilots think they were getting and what did the controller think he was giving? The bottom line is, if you don't know the terms of your 'contract' you may well find yourself in trouble. . .. .CM, the military also have rules about RAS and Safety Altitude/Radar Vector Chart. These were in force way before this incident.. .. .Scud U. Can you confirm which part of the AFA the controller is being charged under?. . . . [ 15 March 2002, 17:47: Message edited by: Whipping Boy's SATCO ]

Proletarian

15th Mar 2002, 23:18

Any military ATCO who reads this might be interested to know that I understand the ATCO involved was a member of the Guild of Air Traffic Controllers. However, when he approached them for legal help in this case, they told him they were not interested - not much of a return on the £60 per year subscription. Apparently, the same thing also happened to the ATCO involved in the Pristina incident. I wonder if they would have acted the same way if the ATCO's involved were civil rather than military?

Radar Muppet

16th Mar 2002, 00:12

We are all being very judgemental about the system's handling of this unfortunate ATCO. Before anyone else blathers-on about the requirement for openness and (by logical progression) no punishments in air operations, let us remember that two fighter pilots f*cking DIED because aforementoned ATCO presumeably made a mistake(s). Sorry to be un-PC, but we don't know the real details of who did what, where and when except that without doubt, 2 families are mourning because somebody or bodies screwed it. So less of the self-righteous hugging please and let the system, albeit flawed, take its course, then publish the actual story before we pass judgement. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

higthepig

16th Mar 2002, 00:25

If you look at all the paperwork and changes sent out post this accident it implies that the system was not watertight. If the defence has any sense they will produce all the paperwork to prove that there were loopholes. We could have all been in this situation and I would not wish this on my worst enemy. It is awful that others have died but it takes ages to learn from mistakes unfortunatley.

Sven Sixtoo

16th Mar 2002, 01:09

I feel that, regardless of whether a piece of tape with the words "cleared to (any altitude below safety altitude)", or similar evidence is available, this prosecution is a bad idea. (It also may have considerable problems on a number of legal grounds, but that's a different issue). .. .It took BA years to recover from sacking the pilots who admitted to lining up on the road next to Heathrow.. .. .The aircrew attitude to Flight Safety is only just starting to embrace open and honest reporting as a reasonable concept. Trust is there, but fragile. . .. .The engineers have some way to go. Fear of the career-wrecking effects of even minor retribution that may be visited on one admitting to error is still both widespread and sufficient to modify behaviour.. .. .If ATCOs, normally amongst the most upfront in FS discussion, are to be placed in fear of their careers, or even their liberty, it will be necessary to interpret all of their instructions as having a defensive stance. I can't quite envisage the consequences of that straight off, but I am sure they won't be good.. .. .Picture a possibility. Met got it wrong, latest actual 8/150, screwed up fuel calcs, 100 lbs below minimums, 1 mile final, still well IMC. When, having porked the other options, my response to "Passing decision height, terminating service" is "KEEP TALKING!" will I get a reply?. .. .Sven

phd

16th Mar 2002, 01:17

Here here, Sven Sixtoo!

MOA

16th Mar 2002, 01:55

Just to add my two pence worth. Being rather new to this game, I understand that the only time an ATCO is responsible for terrain clearance is RCS. I personally carry a radar SSA with me and get my Nav to back me up on all height clearances. . .. .Being that we all don't know the service being provided at the time it's a bit quick to judge/defend at this time (if we do, I am unaware).. .. .Dont get me wrong, it's a tragedy which ever way you look at it. However, I hope the RAF isn't looking for an easy way out (again) and that the truth will be forthcoming.. .. .Here's to safe flying and a constructive outcome.

Legalapproach

16th Mar 2002, 02:12

I read the article in the newspapers with some interest but find it very hard to understand why an atco can be responsible for a low level accident unless things have changed markedly from my day.. .. .Although it was a long time ago my recollection was once descended into the low level area I was responsible for what went on and I don't really recall even bothering ATC.. .. .If nothing else, radio coverage must have increased astonishingly.

Capt Widebody

16th Mar 2002, 04:35

Gentlemen. I was attempting to avoid stating my opinion of whose fault this was likely to be, for hopefully obvious reasons. That said, I think CM and BEagle have elaborated enough on this. Neither do I think we have lost sight of the fact that two pilots died in this tragic accident. My point was not meant to evoke discussion on the wrongs and rights of the accident itself. I may be proved wrong, but I do not think that rocket science will be required to establish the cause group.. .. .What I am saying is whilst I can see how ATC can always have a contribution towards or against the safety of flight, especially in IMC regimes, IMHO the part played by ATC will only ever be a contribution for good or for bad. Like I said before, the ATCO was not in the aircraft. Radar Muppet, yes, I'm sure the guy did make a mistake. . - I understand your concern, but check the relevant wording(s) in your 318 and A, and have another think.. .. .Fishbed - you talk about the current ATC system needing to be looked at. I have to say that do not see any problem in it as it stands. Maybe some extra publicity of the "contracts" could have helped prevent this, maybe not.. .. .We are all in a business with inherent dangers; small mistakes can either go unnoticed, or can cause tragedy. The bottom line in this case was tragic. But also tragic, IMHO are the implications here for future open reporting.. .. .The message sent out to ATCOs (and all others in the FS chain) by this action has two sides: first, "don't screw up, or you'll pay for it". That's all well and good and may "encourage" extra vigilance and attention to detail, but underlying this is the other side of the message "if you do screw up, don't own up". We are all human, we all make mistakes. It's when we start trying to cover them up that we stop learning.. .. .PS: MOA, how's the camping holiday? You fly safe and be careful out there... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="cool.gif" />

KDL

21st Mar 2002, 04:48

Irrespective of our differing views on this issue, surly as professional individuals both privacy and speed are now required. I fully understand how the compexities of both RAF ATC incidents have cause difficulties in terms of resolution... but on my part, the resulting soap opera, part of which is displayed here, can surely only be damaging to both the pilot and ATC disciplines. . .. .My thoughts are with those who have died, but are also with those who are awaiting outcomes of investigations, whilst having the world talk around them. These people went to work with the clear intention of doing a professional job... lets give them the support the need that will allow a more open learning forum, rather than the defensive environment that is presently seeping through ATC.. .. .BTW is GATCO more than a front for Touchdown Holidays?

Flap62

22nd Mar 2002, 13:32

Capt. Widebody - given the great deal that was rightly written about the air staff in the chinook accident apportioning blame when they could not be sure, would you mind telling me how you got hold of the tapes in this incident. I assume that you have as you see fit to write - . .. ."I'm sure the guy did make a mistake".. .. .As has been said before - 2 guys died, one more has his carreer hanging in the balance and probably doesn't feel too clever right now. He may be guilty or not but let's wait and see shall we.

RubiC Cube

22nd Mar 2002, 18:27

SH Monkey,. .. .There must already have been a BOI to determine what happened, its just that they don't apportion blame anymore. It will be interesting to see what the charge is. Rumour control has it that he has good extenuating circumstances.

Tigs

25th Mar 2002, 02:14

Whatever the circumstances, and wherever the CM decide to aportion respective amounts of blame, this is a clear case of Human Error. My thoughts are with the dead crew, however to Err is Human. Under JAROPs, We have recognised this in flight crews for 17 years and made Human Factors Training Mandatory. We Have even made HF training mandatory for engineers who can release an aircraft to fly with a signature. The ATCO concerned and all other ATCO's, deserve the right to have the benifit of HF training. They are a key part to our safe and effective ops. If the CM press with this one, they do not have a cat in hells chance. There but for the grace of god!!!. . . . [ 24 March 2002, 22:17: Message edited by: Tigs ]

Bright-Ling

26th Mar 2002, 01:22

Having met the ATCO concerned some years back AFTER leaving the RAF, I have one question:. .. .He left the regualr RAF to commence civil ATC training which didn't work out.. .. .Did he re-join the mob (or did he ACTUALLY leave?) and if so was he an AVO/RO?. .. .Anyway, our thoughts are with you at this difficult time.

Capt Widebody

26th Mar 2002, 05:21

Flap62. The point I was and still am making is that we all make mistakes from time to time but CMs are not the way forward. It will never promote open and honest reporting, learning and thus a reduction of HF accidents. If this guy did make a big mistake then hanging him out to dry will not help in the long run. Please do not take one part of my post in isolation; I accept that at first glance it may have looked like I was trying to put across my opinion of what may or may not have happened in this case - this is not my intention. You are quite correct - I cannot be sure whether he did make a mistake or not. But if we are going to go down the semantics route, I know I never go flying and acheive a faultless performance. Do you? But if I flew 100' high downwind in the radar pattern, then crashed off the end of the runway because my brakes failed on the landing run, I wouldn't expect to be court martialled for innacurate height keeping.. .. .Whether the ATCO made a mistake or not is actually not the issue as far as I am concerned, though apparently it is the issue of the CM. In any case, any mistake made by this ATCO (if at all) could not under any circumstances been the sole cause of this accident. To all of you who mention potential negligence on the part of the ATCO, I refer you to again to JSP318A, or the inside cover of Airclues 4/2001.. .. .[edited because I made a mistake]. . . . [ 26 March 2002, 01:24: Message edited by: Capt Widebody ]

RAF QWI

28th Mar 2002, 22:08

I'm surprised that anyone was surprised by this, given that it was very widely publicised at the time. . .Additionally, I am surprised and disappointed at the general lack of awareness (not here neccessarily, but in crewrooms etc)regarding a captain's responsibilities for terrain avoidance under RAS and RIS.. .Whilst there will be many facts surrounding this case of which we are not, and never will be, aware, may I offer the following 3 upon which you may rely utterly ?. .1. The 2 F15Cs were in close formation, IMC, under a radar service from Leuchars, whilst attempting to let down to LL. They were under a RAS. ( When they arrive for their tour, it is hammered into the USAF pilots the significance of RAF and UK radar services pertaining to terrain seperation responsibilities). They were informed by the controller as to the height of their sector safe altitude.. .2. The USAF BOI closed having exonorated the RAF conroller. (This potentially could have been a diplomatic move I grant you).. .3. At a recent meeting of all RAF Stations' PROs, the Lakenheath PRO asked for guidance as to how to respond to queries regarding the matter, now that the RAF were going for a CM, given that her parent service's own BOI had found no cause for blame.. .. .It has been obvious for the past year, that RAF controllers are very nervous about the whole issue; hence the increased tendency to over- control and say far to much on the R/T. Adding to their discomfort, I'm sure, is the modern over-use of the phrase "duty of care" as a metophorical accusatory finger. . .. .It's disappointing to see the reactionary words of Radar Muppet on page 1. Too many people are too quick in seeking to apportion blame rather than in claiming responsiblity. . .For myself.. there's only one person in my ac who will ever hold responsibility for terrain avoidance, whether IMC, VMC, IFR, VFR, TFR, day or night or on NVG with or without a radar service, and that's the ac captain. Me. ATC are there to help and provide assistance, and mostly they do it very well, but if my ac hits the ground, regardless of the radar service I'm using, it's my fault, no-one else's.

Flatus Veteranus

28th Mar 2002, 22:32

(Unless its the Mull of Kintyre?) Good post. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" />

Capt Widebody

28th Mar 2002, 23:05

QWI. .. .I had been avoiding going into the detail you did and as directly as you did for two reasons: 1. Sub-judice; 2. Fatalities.. .. .My original point was more on the impact of such actions on HFOR and other open reporting within the ATC world (already a bit of a blackspot).. .. .Nonetheless, thank you for spelling out what I had been trying desperately to hint at without creating bad feelings amongst our USAF brethren. I was aware of much of the case, but was not aware that the USAF BOI findings had been published, hence my reticence to post. I am not at all surprised at their findings, and hope the CM swiftly and justly finds the same.

Madam ATCO

1st Apr 2002, 17:07

The current situation regarding the CM is indeed a step too far. The RAF already has an understaffed ATC branch with poor promotion prospects, and the fact that we now know we will not be supported should anything go wrong, leads to an ever increasing sense of demoralisation. The outcome of the CM is almost inconsequential, it is the fact that it is happening at all, especially as the general feeling is that the CM is occurring to make an example of someone so that we can 'all learn from it'. What people will learn is not to join the RAF and not to stay in the organisation if you are treated with such contempt. Whilst I could talk about this specific issue for ever, there are actually a few issues already mentioned that need clarifying.
Firstly; the BOI is not complete, it just has to cease if there is the possibility of any civil issues being raised and it will reconvene when the CM is finished. Secondly; to RAF QWI - I'm not sure where your 'facts' came from but you are 100% wrong on two out of three of your points mentioned. Please, if we are going on hearsay, can we ensure we state it as such and not purport it to be the truth? Thirdly; on the wider issue of ATC over-controlling and saying too much on the RT, we do it because we have to and because we don't trust aircrew to do as they say they will. We don't sit there and make up long-winded phrases because we have nothing better to do, it is ALWAYS in response to aircrew not adhering to the rules and/or not realising their own obligations. E.g. in the Area world we now have to confirm that formations are 'within 1nm and at the same level' before entering CAS because aircrew in the past have not done as they were supposed to, and thus we all pay the price of having to double-check. This still didn't stop a Tornado crew formating on an unsuspecting Harrier just before the Lichfield corridor and not telling anybody! Thank God Manchester didn't decide to erode separtion on that one or else there would be another BOI to discuss. Also, if I had a pound for every aircrew who didn't understand why I couldn't give them a RAS below my MSFL or who didn't understand why I wouldn't descend them any further under a RAS, I would be a rich woman. Whilst ATC should always be willing to learn from it's mistakes and enhance it's performance, so should every other element in the FS chain. People seem to be assuming that the recent F15 incident is purely an ATC issue and yet life, as we should know, is never as simple as that!

RAF QWI

1st Apr 2002, 18:16

Thank you, Madam ATCO, for a most illuminating, indeed edifying post. Not at all conforming to stereotype. Fish with those chips ?

Madam ATCO

1st Apr 2002, 18:48

Thank you RAF QWI for exactly the response I had money on receiving.....I haven't mentioned you inadvertently in my post have I? By the way, I have no need to feel sorry for myself, I just steal my husband's flying pay (enhanced don't you know!). :D

cheapseat

1st Apr 2002, 19:04

Ms ATCO

can't get your' own flying pay then?:p

Madam ATCO

1st Apr 2002, 19:11

Why have a dog and bark yourself?:D

ORAC

29th Jan 2003, 14:23

The Times - 29 Jan:

A MILITARY air traffic controller appeared distraught and talked about the recent death of his father on the day that two American fighter pilots crashed on a Scottish mountain, a court martial heard yesterday.

Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Williams, 47, of RAF Leuchars in Fife, was “jumping from subject to subject” during his shift in which the pilots of the two F15C jets flew over the Cairngorms in a blizzard.

Flight Lieutenant Williams had returned to work at RAF Leuchars on March 26, 2001, after two weeks of compassionate leave following his father’s death.

He appeared before a military court in Helensburgh charged with causing the deaths of the two pilots and an alternative charge of negligently performing his duties. He pleaded not guilty.

It is alleged that he caused the accident by telling the two pilots to descend to 4,000ft when the minimum safety altitude in the area was 6,500ft.

Flying Officer Sophie Green, who was on duty on the day of the crash, told the court martial that Flight Lieutenant Williams had been feeling very upset. She said he had tapped her on the arm to follow him on to the balcony. “He was very worried and told me he thought that two aircraft may have crashed. He was worried that the two contacts with the aircraft had been quite strong, and they disappeared.

“He was feeling very upset. He was jumping about from subject to subject. He was worried about the aircraft, then he jumped to talking about his father and how close he was.” Flying Officer Green said they then went back inside and Flight Lieutenant Williams jotted down something on a piece of paper while she made him a cup of tea.

Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Hyvonen, 40, and Captain Kirk Jones, 27, had been training over Scotland when they were killed in the crash.

Flight Lieutenant Stewart Grady described Flight Lieutenant Williams as being very despondent when he returned to his desk after talking to Flying Officer Green. Flight Lieutenant Grady said: “We had a conversation in which he said in the times he had been controlling aircraft, this was the first time that he had a bad feeling about the aircraft he had been controlling.”

The court martial continues.

DuckDogers

29th Jan 2003, 17:10

Surely the tapes should form a substantial part of the evidence i would have thought? Or, as with many things, have they mysteriously vanished too..............

Whipping Boy's SATCO

29th Jan 2003, 17:30

gents, just to keep you up to speed, try this link to the ATC bit of PPRuNe.

F15 Crash (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61388&perpage=15&pagenumber=1)

Edited 'cos the link went wrong!

short&shapeless

29th Jan 2003, 19:12

Hopefully some of you will have read the thread referring to this in ATC issues. Just a few points following the various comments here.

GATCO have spent the maximum £50000 legal expenses that their rules allow - the bill was apparently at £65k 4 months before the start of the CM (with the defendant having to find approx £75k of his own money before qualifying for any legal support).

My understanding from the posts in the other thread (from people much closer to this than myself) is that the pilots were under a RIS - which puts a different perspective on some of the earlier comments where RAS was presumed.

Finally, it would appear from others that an RAF BOI was never held, or if it was, the controller involved was never required to give evidence - so it cannot have been satisfactorily concluded.

As a former mil controller I await the conclusion of this with great interest (having worked with SPOT in the past) but not, I think, with as much interest of those ex-colleagues of mine still serving.

KPax

29th Jan 2003, 21:49

From a serving Mil ATCO, well said Short & Shapeless. If those of you out there who wish to know more then go to ATC issues. Have a look at what people are saying. Get your facts correct.

NigelOnDraft

30th Jan 2003, 08:19

I have read the French Report into the Kosovo ATR42 accident - the report seems to (without allocating 'blame') state that poor organisation / supervision of the airline, and poor appreciation of terrain, service being provided and the airlines's manuals by the crew led to the accident. Although the RAF ATCO's actions were detailed, no adverse comment was made (that I saw).

From this thread, and/or the one in ATC issues, am I to understand this accident also led to a CM?? If so, could someone provide a link, or brief summary of who was CM'd, what they were charged with, and the outcome?

As an ex RAF FJ pilot and QFI, and I left in 1994, I am still absolutely 100% clear what RIS and RAS mean (we very occasionally use them in the civvy world e.g. Newcastle), and that Terrain Clearance is 100% pilots' responsibility. I think maybe using these 2 accidents to educate pilots as to their responsibilities would be far better than muddying the waters by CM the ATCOs? And thats leaving aside the distress to the individual ATCOs caused by the CM...

Madam ATCO - its a real shame that ATCOs have been forced to go legal and state all the conditions, and get acknowledgment of, the service. If one's grown up enough to fly an aircraft, one really should have had the training and nouse to know what's being offered!

short&shapeless

1st Feb 2003, 20:23

Just to bring this back to the top.....

The thread on the ATC Issues forum has updates of the proceedings for the first week.

I think the reported discussion on the altimetry question is pertinent and I wonder if Radar Muppet would like to read this and then re-consider his post on this subject earlier.

As an ex-mil controller I find it difficult to understand how this is still going on - a feeling shared by a great number of those still charged with providing you guys and gals the best service there is out there.

In jest, and usually with a full banter caption on, it has always been us and them out there - all part of the job and one of things that made it great work (well for me for over 18 years anyway). I just wonder what the atmosphere will be like for all concerned if the Board see fit to find against the controller.

kilo52

1st Feb 2003, 21:20

Madam ATCO

There is nothing sinister in the BOI not being complete.

If, during the investigation of an aircraft accident which resulted in fatalities, it is deemed possible by the BOI that the actions (or inactions) of a person involved in the events ( and who was not amongst the fatalities) were a primary cause of the accident the BOI would automatically be suspended and a Summary of Evidence would be instituted.

The Summary of Evidence would be submitted to the AOC in C who, if he considered the evidence warrented it, would submit the findings to DLS.

If DLS ruled that there was a case to be answered then a Court Martial would follow. The BOI would not be completed until the Legal Proceedings had reached their conclusion.

Any Lawyer should be able to tie DLS in knots.

M134

1st Feb 2003, 21:33

Kilo52

Just as well John and Rick died on the Mull then eh?:mad:

short&shapeless

1st Feb 2003, 22:14

Kilo 52 you state that any lawyer should be able to tie DLS up in knots - from the daily reports of the F15 CM, it looks as though the defence team may well be getting the better of DLS. But how many of you out there could afford the fight?

As I stated earlier, the defence costs were approx £65k, a full four months before the start date (in fact it turned out to be 5-5.5 months following further DLS delays). The controller involved has had approx £50K from the Guild of Air Traffic Controllers but he will have to spend up to £75k of his own money before he qualifies for any additional help with fees.

Bearing in mind the technical nature of aviation (both from the aircrew and ATC persprectives) and the resultant increase in costs of providing suitably qualified expert witnesses to support/rebut any arguments, how many would have to throw the towel in, irrespective of the merits of their case, before achieving a conclusion to the proceedings.

Would you happy to have to leave your fate to a service provided defence team because of a lack of funds. After all, they will be defending you in front of a Board with a vested interest in the decision (after all they do work for, and were appointed by, the very people bringing the prosecution in the first place)? But that I suppose is a whole new argument on the very nature, relevance and legality of Courts Martial in the modern age!

It has gone too far when getting a fair hearing depends on your ability to pay.