F15 Court Martial (Merged thread) [Archive]

Numpo-Nigit

30th Jul 2002, 16:24

For those who are still a little unclear as to the story, I shall attempt a précis.

RAF controller working at Scottish ACC providing radar information service, in accordance with unit rules, to a pair of USAF F-15s over the Scottish Highlands (NB. under a RIS the pilot is responsible for his own terrain clearance). The F-15s then fly into the ground with fatal results, despite having been seen in visual contact with the ground over a period by several witnesses. Scottish legal system conducts a hearing and decides there is potentially a case to answer for unlawful killing, but hands jurisdiction over to the RAF. RAF then convenes Court Martial in Northern Ireland, having changed the rules applicable to the provision of a RIS several times in the interim.

My very best wishes to the controller involved for a swift and just outcome.

I have the same wish for another RAF controller with a pending Court Martial following a fatal crash. This one is quite convoluted - RAF controller on NATO detachment in Yugoslavia working United Nations aircraft flown by French Air Force crew. I gather that this hearing could implicate a significant number of members of the RAF hierarchy as to the handling of the deployment.

I sincerely hope that justice is done, and without delay, but the apparent culture within the MoD of "don't confuse me with facts when I've made up my mind" that characterised the Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash investigation does not bode well.

Whipping Boy's SATCO

30th Jul 2002, 16:47

NN, may I just say that some of your 'facts' are somewhat misleading. Whilst I fully accept that this forum is one for opinion and suppostion, please let us be careful when discussing the details of both these incidents. Finally, my thoughts go out to the controller involved; he must have had a torrid time over the past months and I sure we all wish a speedy resolution.

Mickydrip

30th Jul 2002, 18:13

My understanding of the situation is that NN got most of the info absolutely SPOT on (that's a prophetic acronym!).
Apart from suggesting that the accused was working at Scottish ACC rather than Leuchars (mentioned in earlier comment), the rest seems pretty accurate. The handle "whipping boys satco" makes me shiver.

BDiONU

30th Jul 2002, 18:31

With all due respect to those involved in the Mull of Kintyre incident, and I know there has been a LOT of comment on the flying sites, I think the comment "the apparent culture within the MoD of "don't confuse me with facts when I've made up my mind" that characterised the Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash investigation does not bode well."
I was an ATCO at Scottish Centre and my next door neighbour was the last guy to get a call from this chopper. IMHO and that of everyone I worked with during that period there could be no other explanation for the CFIT, given the Met conditions, than that found by the RAF Board of Enquiry.
As to the F15 CM that does seem very curious, although I do wonder whether they were given descent below the En-Route safety altitude without being informed of same? Although that said they were indeed responsible for their own terrain clearance.

short&shapeless

30th Jul 2002, 22:32

T5C3

than that found by the RAF Board of Enquiry

I think you will find the the original BoI found that there was too much uncertainty to make a recommendation of Gross Negligence against the crew. 2 Senior officers took a decision to overrule the BoI and they alone declared that the pilots were Grossly Negligent - a decision since, at best "queried" and at worst ridiculed, by a Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry and a House of Lords Select Committee.

Off thread I know but I could not let that pass.

short&shapeless

30th Jul 2002, 22:37

My God, how glad am I that I am an Ex-Mil ATCO!! The individual concerned was an ARTS instructor of mine some years back (Course 141 - what a drink-ex that was!!). I wish him all the best and I hope he is coping well.

WBS whilst it might be true the N-N may not be strictly correct in all that was posted, my understanding is that the flight was under a RIS at the time of the accident. If that was the case, then Terrain Clearance ultimately remained the pilot’s responsibility.

Mickydrip, now that the date has been published do you know what charges are actually being levelled. I have been unable to get any info on that and I am at a loss to know what the RAF hierarchy and the MoD legal people think that they can get away with. Whatever it is they are pushing on regardless and I think this raises a huge question for other controllers – both mil and civil. That is, if it happens to you how the hell do you pay for it? I know many RAF controllers joined GATCO for the simple reason that Legal costs were provided as part of their membership and all could see the direction in which the MoDs view of corporate liability and the support (or total lack of it) of the troops was going.

On an earlier thread in this forum there was a discussion as to how much Legal support was available from GATCO (a question raised in response to this issue I believe). The informed opinion at the time went for £50K (as it turns out, an all too accurate figure) and it is frightening to think that before the case has even made it into a courtroom this sum has been used up completely. What are controllers supposed to do at that point – roll over and say to the MoD, “yeah O.K, I know you haven’t got a case but as I haven’t got any money, so you win”. I should bl**dy well hope not! It may be that civil controllers could also use their Union to augment the GATCO money (can someone offer a yea/nay on this please) but that option is not open to the boys and girls in Blue (light or dark). It seems to me that individual (or group) professional liability insurance is fast becoming a must – but how much will that all cost, will you get help towards paying it, etc?

On the Mil Aircrew forum (under the thread about HMS Nottingham) somebody expressed the opinion that Courts Martial could, potentially, also be used to provide formal, conclusive proof of the innocence of an accused. So is this all a big ploy to appease the Americans, whilst at the same time making it patently obvious that the controller has done nothing wrong – looking at recent history (Chinook, Mull of Kintyre), I think not!! If it is, it is a damned expensive way to go about it and it is despicably cruel on the poor guy at the centre of it all – surely there is somebody with b*lls big enough to have stopped this in it’s tracks.

This is the first step onto what could become a very slippery slope, in the words of my sex education teacher - don't go out without protection!!

Trick

31st Jul 2002, 10:32

This whole case is very strange.

The USAF conducted their own Board of Inquiry into this accident. The findings have not been passed to the RAF controller concerned. Surely an RAF Court Martial can not be held until his defence team have this information?

The RAF have not conducted a Board of Inquiry but have passed straight on to Court Martial - why ?

The choosing of Aldergrove as place for Court Martial seems very unfair to the accused controller. It will only add to his defence costs - already over budget - and makes close support from family and friends very difficult. I suggest he appeals to his MP if the RAF are not prepared to be more reasonable.

Hopefully we will be able to post the specific charges soon

KPax

31st Jul 2002, 22:36

'Short & Shapeless' hello if you are who I think you are. How is the pointy finger?. You are correct in everything that you say. Was it a requirement at the time of the incident to advise the aircrew of the 'Sector Safe Altitude? We should all stand behind this guy and support him. On the other case, there could and should be some wooried 'Senior ' people out ther who should be thinking did I do right.
At least the RAF believe in IIP, Ha.

Pie Man

1st Aug 2002, 04:44

IIP = Investing in Paper :)

Alan Turner

1st Aug 2002, 12:20

Although I don't know the specific issues involved, I have known the ATCO both professionally and personally for many years. There is no doubt that a lot of arse-covering is going on which, unless justice and common sense prevail, will be to the detriment of all ATCOs whether military or civilian. As for "Whipping Boy's SATCO" what can I say? That individual shows utter contempt for the ATCO concerned by selecting such a pseudonym - clearly this SATCO has no courage. Or perhaps I mean no balls!

BDiONU

1st Aug 2002, 15:32

Interesting that a new Miltary Form 8000 has just been introduced which is for your LEO reports etc. etc. to follow you around from unit to unit. So rather than just having your 'sheet' at the ATCEB and starting afresh at a new unit there's now a record of any misdeeds following you around.
Rather begs the question why?!!

Whipping Boy's SATCO

1st Aug 2002, 16:31

Al, I am sorry that you feel I have contempt for the controller concerned. I can honestly say that you could not be further from the truth; I have had the pseudonym "Whipping Boy's SATCO" for quite a while and it was certainly not my intention to belittle or undermine any individual. Indeed, in the past I have worked with the controller concerned and for yourself when you were OC CATCS. I was proud to work within that organisation and, in my eyes, you both continue to have the upmost respect.

Turning to my original message, I apologise if this appeared to come from the other side of the house. I am personally aware of a number of other factors that must be considered when examining this case, a large number of these will undoubtedly work for the controller and against the system. However, as we all know, sub judice means exactly that. All I was trying to say was that, whether we like it or not, we should be extremely careful with disclosure of information. I obviously failed in putting that message across.

Again, you have my sincerest apologies if I have offended.

GreyWalker

1st Aug 2002, 19:39

I find the whole process, the CM bit not the comment here, an extraordinarily sad reflection on the RAF and the Branch as a whole. Glad I left now - I note that another v. senior ATC person left recently - any connection??

SPOT - thoughts are with you mate and the other poor ******s now in a quandary, are any aircrew persons getting any atc service now? I recall once as the staff person for LATCC Mil being asked - will the RAF back us if there's a problem? "Follow the rules lad and you'll be OK". Hmmmm!

Is there a fighting fund? I'd be glad to contribute some of the pension!

Mickydrip

1st Aug 2002, 22:09

Thanks Grey Walker for your comments. There's no fighting fund yet, although Al is planning to put money that way. It might be worth starting something formally, to try to help Spot and his family. Would you be interetsed in contributing, I certainly would? I could promise you it would be all obove board.
There are lots of us who wish Spot all the luck in the world, frankly he needs it at the moment.

BEagle

2nd Aug 2002, 08:39

Since this accident, which I CANNOT believe was any fault of the ATCO in question, I've noticed many ATCOs providing a LARS to ac saying "Confirm you are aware that you are responsible for you own terrain clearance?" on initial contact. I don't know whether this is mandatory - if it isn't then I certainly don't blame any ATCO for the extra RT!

One used to hear words such as "Further descent will be at your discretion" passed by ATCOs to pilots asking for further descent below Safety Altitude; that could possibly be seen as ambiguous. A colleague once explained outrage to me that he'd been told 'further descent at your discretion' - and had nearly hit Didcot power station. I told him that was totally his fault, whereupon we found out that he had no idea of the limitations of the ATSU he was working at the time.... Perhaps his extensive time under positive radar control in the airlines had insulated him from the realities and captain's responsibilities of operating in IMC in Class G airspace.

But ALL pilots are taught from the start of flying training that they MUST NOT fly below Safety Altitude in IMC without radar cover WITHIN THE LIMITS of the ATSU (except for those with specific TFR etc release to service). At least, all RAF pilots are.....

Best wishes to the poor chap being put through all this pain.

Trick

2nd Aug 2002, 10:16

RIS is the favoured service of military pilots as it offers greater tactical freedom in class G airspace. Pilots letting down into a low level area will have pre calculated their own minimum safe altitude
below which they will not descend unless in visual contact with the surface or are using terrain following radar. Their own safety minima overrides anything lower that may be passed, possibly in error, by a controller. Terrain separation is the responsibility of the pilot.

Some comments in this forum suggest that the RAF have, susequent to this and the Pristina accident, been tinkering with the provision of LARS and, particularly, RIS - in what way ? I work at a civil unit providing LARS and it makes no sense to have the military providing different information under RIS; this will only confuse the airspace user, particularly foreign nationals and therefore has flight safety implications. I think the vast majority of civil controllers would be against any shift of responsibility for terrain clearnce towards them rather than the pilot while providing RIS.

Can somebody please let me know why this controller was not the subject of Board of Inquiry before being charged ? Internal investigation alone smacks of yet another "wheel the guilty ******* in". When are the RAF going to learn the lesson? I pity anyone working for such an organisation - morale within ATC must be terrible knowing that , as individuals, they will have no support from their own hierarchy in such a tragic and traumatic incident.

Is there a senior serving officer within RAF ATC who is prepared to air public support ? Failing that, perhaps Malcolm Fuller, the prvious AOC would like to comment?

KPax

2nd Aug 2002, 16:38

Not being a 'legal eagle', does Scottish law not differ in certain ways in some areas. If so should the CM not take place in Scotland, or does a CM not follow the law of the country?

Roger Dodge

2nd Aug 2002, 18:14

This is all very sad, and certainly in the 'there but for the grace....' category. I wish SPOT all the best in this most trying of times. I have heard, however that the CM has been cancelled and the matter will be 'fought' in the civil courts. Anybody able to shed more light on this rumour?????

canberra

2nd Aug 2002, 18:26

as i said when i put my oar in to this post i was on duty at leuchars when it happened. there was a board of enquiry, but there doesnt have to be before someone is subject to court martial. scottish law has nothing to do with this incident. remember court martials come under military law not civil law. but i am still at a loss as to why spot is being subject to court martial. i have my suspicions but obviously i am not going to voice them here.

Mickydrip

2nd Aug 2002, 21:48

Concerning the query from "Short & Shapeless" regarding the charges for the CM, it's imposssible for me to comment at the moment. If the usual format for CM's is folowed, there will be one or two BIG charges accompanied by a smaller charge; the feeling being that if we don't get the ****** on the big one(s), we'll have him on the little one. If found guilty on any of them, who do you think pays the costs?
As an honourable man I hope Malcolm Fuller is able to comment.

Trick

3rd Aug 2002, 13:20

Sorry Canberra you are wrong.

A Board of Inquiry was convened and then suspended.

The controller concerned never appeared before this Board.

A Board of Inquiry would have allowed the controller to defend himself and raised all the issues pertinent to the accident.

As it stands - the RAF has chosen to bypass this option and levelled charges to be heard at Court Martial. A consequence of this action is that the controller's defence costs will rise significantly. My personal view is that this is a deliberate measure to put pressure on the controller concerned to back down - the choice of Aldergrove as the venue for CM only adds to my suspicions; is anyone seriously suggesting that the RAF can only hold high profile CMs in Northern Ireland? I think not !!!!!!

Alan Turner

4th Aug 2002, 16:06

I believe the date for the CM is 26 Sep not the 16th.

The ATCO facing the CM (shall we call him CATCOM?) will have to find £65k if the case goes against him; this is in addition to the very generous grant made by GATCO. Even a "reprimand", let alone a term of imprisonment, means that that money has to be found. Micky Drip has a good idead but, rather than money changing hands at present, why not think about pledges. Bunjy Jumps/walking from Lands End to John O'Groats with a ferret on a lead etc may be the way forward to secure some cash IF it is needed. CATCOM stands to lose his home and contents to pay the bill!!

Whipping Boy's SATCO's point about matters being sub judice is well made. We can't afford to compromise the CM, and any such comment on this site would be seen as just that by "their Airships". By the way, there's no need to apologise - I was just a bit more than miffed of the choice of pseudonym and know that
I wasn't alone.

Let's just pull together to help CATCOM and his family as much as we possibly can. "There but for the Grace of God..." please think about it folks - it could be you next.

DICK DOLEMAN

4th Aug 2002, 16:30

Something wrong with my system so may be repeating information. Have just heard that Court Martial will not be held in Northern Ireland -- good news --- book your tickets now !!!!

goatgruff

4th Aug 2002, 20:07

As much as I loath some the methods deployed by the tabloid press, the gentleman in question needs to secure the services of a publicity agent such as Max Clifford.

Before you shoot me, this has been successfully utilised on previous occassions.

Person accussed secures the services of said like person, said like publicity agent evaluates the case, and in return for a complete expose after legal action is completed, said publicity agent secures the services of a top notch barrister.

I fully expect that faced with a legal team who actually know what's what, I expect that the arrogant and faceless pen pushers who run the UK defence forces would withdraw any action immediately.:mad: :mad:

Good luck to the gentleman involved.

canberra

5th Aug 2002, 18:09

no no no under no circumstances should anyone think of getting max clifford involved. remember the gary glitter case? the judge had a lot to say about the fact that the girl who accused glitter had done a deal with max clifford and she got lots of money from the news of the screws if he was convicted. so i say again nay nay and thrice nay.

Alan Turner

5th Aug 2002, 18:50

Whatho Team!

Yesterday I posted an idea to raise funds for CATCOM should the CM go against him. The reaction has been staggering, mainly through e-mails and phone calls, and I can't thank you enough for such a positive approach.

Whilst it is evident that support is very strong, it's also clear that it must be co-ordinated if we are not to go off at half cock. More importantly, I've been made aware that there is already something in place which, if necessary, will kick-in if the CM goes against CATCOM. I do not intend to jeopardise this intitiative and ask you to do the same. We should do nothing until the final outcome at which point things should be clearer. It's difficult I know, but the due process of law must be allowed to take its course. If things go tits-up, that's the time we may come in. In the meantime get your thinking caps on just in case we have to do something.

I discovered a couple of months ago that the law of libel applies equally to e-mails/Forums etc, so I urge caution on what you post - we don't want to screw anything as that might put us on the spot!

Brian Young

5th Aug 2002, 19:06

I am not normally religious, but having read some of the comments on this forum I am beginning to wonder if, in fact, there is a God. I find great irony in the fact that most of the comments come from current or ex blue-mob. I wonder if their-Airships might regret having trained us so well that we are not likely walk away from a problem that is worth fighting. Spot is doing as well as could be expected in the circumstances. I saw him yesterday. On a serious note - anarchic as the internet might have the potential to be, we must be very careful not to prejudice the legal process, and we must be very careful not to go off like lose cannons just because we feel for Spot. It will not help him. This forum is important, because it illuminates the feelings and support that people have for Spot. However, it has to be controlled. There are ways of doing things and we have to work on trust. Spot will not be left alone, but we MUST leave the legal process to take it's course. If that fails then we can act. All I can say at this stage is that things will kick in at the APPROPRIATE TIME - and in the appropriate manner.

Cuddles

5th Aug 2002, 19:33

The whole thing seems very odd to me.

This bloke seems to be being stitched up like a kipper. Shouldn't someone point out to the RAF that if they 5hit on one of their controllers, then they can expect a significant proportion (Possibly so many that the system fails to operate) to leave the service.

I'm not a Mil ATCO, but if I was, I would happily leave any pension benefits behind me to have an employer who would back me up in times of trouble.

Whether that employer is NATS remains to be seen however....

Whoever you are, Good Luck.

HugMonster

6th Aug 2002, 17:30

If CATCOM still has no legal representation or adviser, he is perfectly at liberty to contact Flying Lawyer for assistance. Since this is an interesting case, I am sure he would be fascinated to help!

I won't put his email address here. If CATCOM doesn't know it, email me and I will send it by return.

2 sheds

7th Aug 2002, 22:13

Cuddles

Do you actually think there is any ATC employer who would back you if the chips were really down?

Take 3

On the subject of the Chinook accident, I seem to recall that it was reported in a BBC programme about it that the transponder was set to 7770 (I think). Do you know if there has ever been an explanation for this, apart from the crew trying to select, in a hurry, 7700 ?

BDiONU

8th Aug 2002, 06:42

2 Sheds:

I have no idea what, if any, transponder code was squawked. I personally videotaped the radar replay of the mull of kintyre for the relevant period and there was no primary nor secondary return. In that area radar coverage is poor from ScOACC as it can only be covered by the Lowther or the Tiree, hence we would hand our low level descents in that area to Machrahanish before it closed.
The single call we got appeared to be just the usual initial call, no hint of panic or stress.

zkdli

8th Aug 2002, 08:10

did the chinook hit the high ground, that has a very obscured spot height marked on the map, just south of the mac vor?(if its still there have a look on the map behind the sups desk at scatcc)
reason I ask is one night shift about ten years ago a sar seaking would have flown into it on a job. The crew were unfamiliar with the area and thought that as mac was flat so was the land to the south of mac, the high ground was in cloud and until i said something they were just going to track the vor to their search area, in the end they navigated around the coast.

Trick

8th Aug 2002, 12:22

Could we please restrict comment in this forum to the issue of the F15 Court martial.

BDiONU

8th Aug 2002, 16:20

The Chinook story has its very own thread in the Military Aircrew Forum. Most posts are very Pro the pilots, so I'd be cautious about putting in your post ZKDLI.
My personal view is that they were flying VFR but hit high ground in IMC.

Over & out from me on this one.

DICK DOLEMAN

14th Aug 2002, 19:16

Couple of things to clear up here.

The Court Martial is provisionally set for the 16th September 2002 (not the 26th)but there are issues to be resolved for the defence team before a concrete date can be posted.

The Court Martial may be held at RN Faslane near Helensburgh or possibly in Helesburgh itself . Look north of Glasgow and west of Loch Lomond.

'Whipping Boy's SATCO' is not the controller's SATCO.

The controller's SATCO (not in post at time of incident) has been very helpful and supportive.

Hope to keep you posted as more information is made available.

Whipping Boy's SATCO

14th Aug 2002, 20:06

DD, thanks for clarifying that, I never implied I was.The term of endearment "WBS" has been kicking around PPrune since May 2001. It is purely unfortunate that my 'handle' has been mis-interpreted.

canberra

17th Aug 2002, 12:26

all i'll add is this. members of the armed forces have the right to elect trial by courts martial. thats all i'll say.

Mickydrip

17th Aug 2002, 16:31

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make Canberra.

Are you suggesting that the accused has chosen to stand trial by Court Martial? The truth of the matter is that he was not even afforded the opportunity to attend and address a Board of Enquiry, as it was suspended before completion, (see earlier comment). The decision to go to Court Martial has been taken by the Service and there's the rub. No right thinking individual can see what the RAF is out to achieve by this action, apart from an apparent vindictive need to make someone in blue pay for the tragedy. (Just remind me again about the rules for RIS?)

Speaking as I do on a regular basis to RAF controllers, I am very aware that many are watching this whole sorry saga with interest and horror; there but for the grace of God... etc. I doubt there'll be a mass exodus from the Air Traffic Control Branch but I can't see this unhappy event adding much to the morale of the military atco's. See you in September.

Trick

18th Aug 2002, 13:59

Thanks to Mickydrip - you pre-empted my response to Canberra whom I think has totally lost the plot and seems to be a mine of misinformation.

Please lets not cloud the issue - this controller has suffered enough and needs real support.

Alan Turner

19th Aug 2002, 11:38

Dead right Mickydrip!

Someone "out there" posted a private message to me last week which, for some reason, I am unable to access; this in spite of attempting to get help from pprune/admin. PLEASE TRY AGAIN. You will understand my reticence at not posting my e-mail etc.

My sincere apologies if I mislead anyone about the date of the CM - it is the 16th of next month but even that date is tentative.

See you at the CM.

canberra

19th Aug 2002, 17:32

right just to clear a few things up. i was on duty in the ops room at leuchars when the events happened. my point about all members of the services having the right to elect trial by courts martial was to draw non service personnel to that fact. i dont know whether spot choose that option. but if i had been in his position thats what i would have done.

Trick

5th Sep 2002, 10:54

Latest news on Court Martial.

Date now provisionally set for Monday 28th October at Faslane Naval Base near Helensburg, Scotland. The expectation is that the CM could last 5 days.

The defence are still looking for further disclosure of evidence.

If 28th October proves to be 'no go', we believe the whole thing may slip into 2003.

Whipping Boy's SATCO

5th Sep 2002, 19:33

Trick, sorry to be a pain but, your message has confused me. Are you saying that the CM is delayed whilst the defence argues for further disclosure? If not, what is the reason?

Trick

5th Sep 2002, 22:18

Whipping Whatsits

I think that is what I mean't.

victorinox

7th Sep 2002, 12:15

Mildrewv, as far as i am aware, since the withdrawal of crown immunity, the individual members of HMF are responsible for their actions and hence, any claims for damages will be aimed at the individual and not MOD. IMHO i think that this was one of the factors driving the Mull of Kintyre BOI and possibly this one.

As has been said, the crews were under RIS and therefore responsible for their own terrain seperation irrespective of controller instructions/advice. Good luck Spot. Regardless of the outcome of the CM, i'm sure it cannot be any worse than the hell that i suspect you are going through. :(

BARNWOOD

8th Sep 2002, 15:23

The bypassing of Board of Inquiry in this case seems very odd indeed, particularly, as someone has already stated, one was convened and then suspended – why? I thought that the direct route to Court Martial was normally only used in more cut and dried cases where criminal acts were involved. I assume this not to be the case here. For aircraft accidents, particularly those involving fatalities, a Board of Inquiry would normally be convened and, having heard all evidence, may, or may not, have concluded that charges needed to be laid.

It appears from earlier statements that the Court Martial is now delayed awaiting disclosure of evidence. Pardon? This man has been charged without a Board of Inquiry and all the evidence has not been made available??? One would assume that it isn’t the RAF withholding evidence - that would be big trouble. Are they waiting for the USAF to disclose evidence? This could be a long wait, as I don’t think they are obliged to do so. Incidentally, did the USAF hold a Board of Inquiry in which the RAF participated or was this a closed shop? Whatever way you look at it, it seems that the cart is being put before the horse.

As has recently been demonstrated, very senior officers have the ability to dictate or interfere with the judicial process within service law. My cynical view is that this is precisely what has happened in this case. We come back to the ‘blame culture’ and is this just an act of appeasement to the USAF by the RAF hierarchy, using this controller as the sacrificial lamb?

Unfortunately, as a result of this course of action, a man’s career, livelihood and freedom are now on the line and, to defend himself, his employer has forced him into a very expensive process – this may not have been necessary had a Board of Inquiry been held. So, even if the charge(s) are not proven, this man , or his Guild, will have to pick up the tab. Hardly seems fair does it? Perhaps some Ministerial answers should be sought. I would have thought that the last thing the Minister would want is yet another high profile case that might, once again, question the actions and decision making of his RAF hierarchy.

In the meantime, this gentleman and his family must have been under a lot of stress for a very long period of time ( accident March 2001 ? ). How long are the RAF prepared to continue this torture if evidence is not forthcoming ? Does ‘duty of care’ enter the equation ?

The very best of luck to you – I hope common sense and justice prevails !

Willie

9th Sep 2002, 21:46

I believe that Barnwood has hit the nail on the head with use of the term "blame culture". I have reason to believe that the RAF DLS - or whatever their official title is these days - have taken the decision to prosecute as that is "what the public would want".
The decision to prosecute would seem to be theirs alone and I can well understand the consternation it has produced within the branch. It certainly won't help to retain the RAF ATC Branch as a flexible "can do" organisation. Sad days. Good luck, Spot.

KPax

11th Sep 2002, 16:13

I believe that there was at least one RAF Sqn Ldr from the ATC branch working with the Americnas on the BoI.

Number2

11th Sep 2002, 22:20

Can't believe this is dragging on so long. Defence Legal Services probably clutching at straws again. Makes me wonder why we still do the job when it appears we could be hung out to dry without any (clear) support from the more senior officers in Military ATC. The whole thing is a farce and a complete waste of time and money. Good luck Spot, I am sure the whole branch is behind you and wishes you well.

DICK DOLEMAN

28th Sep 2002, 08:11

It seems very likely that the Court Martial will be delayed until 2003 - latest suggestion not before Jan 27th.

goatgruff

28th Sep 2002, 21:29

My sincere best wishes to the gentleman involved.
As a non forces type, it never ceases to amaze me at the vigour the any of the armed forces will put behind making themselves look complete asses when undertaking a mjor investigation of any kind.

Assuming there is a god, and the incumbant is exonerated, what would his future in the RAF be? (assuming that he wants one).
Will he be allowed to carry on in his previous role at his base, or will he be moved sideways to a posting that will be so unacceptable it causes him to seek employment with a more humane employer?:rolleyes:

Alan Turner

26th Oct 2002, 17:45

Whatho you lot out there!

It's been a while since I contributed but I've been stalking - of the deer variety.

Yet again this bloody saga is stretching away into the future with no apparent signs of drawing to a conclusion of any kind. Spot and his family are facing another Christams with the CM hanging over their heads, and I know that it is having a serious affect on their collective morale.

Why doesn't everyone reading this site send a Christmas card expressing best wishes and support? You don't have had to have met them but, trust me, the four of them are very good people who could do with a tangible expression of support and understanding at, what MUST be, an extremely difficult time for them. Send your cards (not the ones I've drawn - which I hope you will buy anyway - as that would be boring) to Spot c/o Officers Mess RAF Leuchars. You can get the BFPO number easily enough.

Let's show Spot and his family that there is more to life than us sounding off against the system - let's DO something for them this Christmas.

Regards to you all

Al

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

28th Oct 2002, 10:55

What a bloody good idea.

Mickydrip

31st Oct 2002, 08:09

I agree, an excellent idea Al; readers, please spread the word.

canberra

1st Nov 2002, 17:14

leuchars doesnt have a bfpo number, they're only for overseas units. it raf leuchars st andrews fife ky16 ojx.

Alan Turner

3rd Nov 2002, 08:47

Canberra's quite right - I've been out too long. AAAAAARGH!

DICK DOLEMAN

4th Nov 2002, 08:32

Date of Court Martial now confirmed as Monday 27th January 2003. It is anticipated that it will take 5 days to complete. The venue is to be the Royal Navy base at Faslane near Helesburgh, Scotland.

PPRuNe Radar

4th Nov 2002, 17:18

The Xmas Card idea is a good one and fully supported by the ATC Forum admin guys here.

Please take a few minutes if you can to show your support for a colleague when he and his family need it most.

Many thanks.

DICK DOLEMAN

8th Nov 2002, 13:36

The Court Martial will be held on MOD property in Helensburgh town - the venue is not in a secure area so access for the public will not be a problem.

Access for the public is likely to be restricted by a seating capacity of approximately 30. This will be on a 'first come first served' basis.

To have some idea of how many Ppruners (or associates of) are likely to attend it might be helpful if those interested could E-mail me at :

[email protected]

Date of Court Martial remains 27th Jan 2003.

I will post details of how many have shown interest in attending and will give specific directions to the venue when I have them.

Mickydrip

10th Jan 2003, 16:46

Just a reminder - Spot's Court Martial starts on 27th Jan.

There's a great deal of interest from the media and, to his great credit, Spot has shunned the exposure. Expect to see this featured on the TV, radio and in the newspapers. The charges being brought by the RAF carry a 4 year jail sentence; I guess he'd be the first british atco to go to jail for providing RIS. Give it some thought before you plug-in!

I've heard the term "duty of care" being bandied about. I must ask, where was the Airforces' "duty of care" in encouraging/allowing/insisting that one of their controllers plug-in having buried his father a matter of 3 days earlier? It stinks!
:mad: :mad:

Numpo-Nigit

11th Jan 2003, 10:04

Mickydrip

Thanks for the update; I was about to enquire anyway.

Please keep the news flowing to keep this topic at or near the top. This has implications for all of us in ATC, whether military or civil, so everybody should be interested.

Best wishes to Spot and his family. Keep believing that justice will prevail, as I'm sure it will.

Regards, NN

Mickydrip

11th Jan 2003, 13:36

Thanks for the kind words, NN.
Spot and his family are struggling to stay sane and will draw comfort from your comments. Although he's been discouraged from commenting on PPRUNE, I know he reads all the items on this sad subject. Please try to keep your colleagues focussed on this travesty of justice.
Best wishes. and watch your 6.
Mickydrip

PPRuNe Radar

11th Jan 2003, 14:15

As the date approaches, we should all keep Spot in our thoughts. There but for the grace of God .......

This topic will be stickied to the top till we see justice prevail.

Spot, please take courage and hope from the support of all your comrades and fellow ATC staff here on PPRuNe. We are all rooting for you and if there's anything you need to help you through, please, please, just ask.

Best regards and all the luck in the world.

PPRuNe Radar

Warped Factor

11th Jan 2003, 14:24

Would just like to add my best wishes to Spot and echo the thoughts of PPRuNe Radar.

Anything I can do on a personal level, don't hesitate to use the e-mail link in my profile above.

WF.

Alan Turner

12th Jan 2003, 10:08

Micky Drip and I have discussed "duty of care" on a number of occasions, and he's right to air it here since it is a fundamental point in this whole sad saga.

I've re-read my commission parchment. To the uninitiated, it is a document, signed by HM The Queen, in which "We, reposing especial Trust and Confidence in your Loyalty, Courage, and good Conduct......." appoints an individual officer in the armed forces. It is the whole basis of what is expected of an officer, therefore a manager, during their Service. From that document come Queen's Regulations and the myriad orders and instructions to all ranks which define closely what is required of them.

I am astounded that the Court of Inquiry (presumably one was held) did not question the action's of Spot's superiors all the way up the line. It has never been sufficient to discover what happened and apportion blame, in any accident, without divining the reasons why it happened. Whatever the outcome of the CM I hope, most sincerely, that further investigations will be demanded to find out why Spot was ever allowed to sit on console so soon after his father's death. I hope there is someone out there prepared to run this one down.

Best of luck Spot, and I'm sure things will pan out. See you on the 27th.

ghost-rider

12th Jan 2003, 11:28

Best of luck Spot.

Give the ba$tards hell !

From an ex-RAF FC.

Mickydrip

12th Jan 2003, 12:31

Thanks to you, PPRuNe Radar, for putting this sad topic at the top of the tree; I'm very grateful for the kindness and I know that Spot and all his friends will be too.

This fiasco is important to us all, civil and military. Spot and his family are up against it, big-time, but it could so easily have been you, me or anyone else reading this forum. Like you, I've been around long enough to recognise and acknowledge that everyone, without exception, makes mistakes; there's even a civil ATSIN (16 OR 17?) on the subject. Yet this man is being crucified and ostracised by an employer that's looking for a scapegoat, yet doesn't have the courage to admit that Spot has been let down by his managers. Not surprisingly, there are many side-issues in this case and I doubt that any will see the light of day; were they to be aired, RAF ATC would be seen for what it is, a bunch of extremely dedicated and professional controllers being let down by some of its own management.

It still stinks and I am still extremely angry that the RAF should prosecute one individual, when it is clear that there was a great deal wrong with the system within which he was working. Yes, things have changed as a direct result of this accident; doesn't that in itself speak volumes? But I do have to ask, why is it Spot that's in the dock, facing a prison sentence, and not his managers ?

Alan Turner

12th Jan 2003, 17:35

There is a tremendous amount of disgust about what's going on with this prosecution but, whilst no one can change anything, yet, it's worthwhile pointing out some of the anomolies which surround USAF flights in UK airspace.

Firstly, I well remember a USAF F4 calling me (Southern Radar which gives you a clue when it happened) to say that "My buddy's on fire. Request diversion to the nearest suitable airfield". When asked if he wanted to "declare an emergency?" the response was "Huh? No thanks!". Too much paperwork? In those days USAF crews were briefed by youngsters like me (I was, relatively speaking, in 1970) on UK military ATC procedures which took an hour or so. I never believed that that was sufficient because the aircrew found it immensely difficult to accept that we had such autonomy. After all, they were (are still?) used to procedural control - radar was something they didn't understand at home as it didn't exist in the transit phase of a flight. Perhaps it does today - I don't know - but I remain convinced that USAF crews are ignorant of what we can provide and what we expect in return.

Whatever the outcome of the CM, someone needs to ensure that USAF crews are made FULLY conversant with UK ATC procedures as it is vitally important that ATCO's, no matter their persuasion, have confidence that visitors are aware of what we do in the UK and what we expect of them in return.

Closer to home, Judge Advocates are clued-up people, and I'd be very surprised if the issue of managerial control - or the lack of it - wasn't questioned. It happened a couple of years ago. Let's hope it happens again in this case for the benefit of all.

DICK DOLEMAN

13th Jan 2003, 17:14

The CM will commence at 2pm on Monday 27th Jan.

The venue is the Drumfork Community Centre, Churchill Square, Helensburgh, Scotland G849HL. This is a community centre on a naval married quarters site on the NE side of town.

For a better clue, use www.multimap.com and do a search on the postcode.

Warning! Seating for the public is extremely limited.

The President of the Guild of Air Traffic Controllers and 2 other senior executives will attend for the duration of the CM. The Guild have been very supportive throughout and are in contact with the defence team.

I know all ATCOs will be wishing that justice prevails for Spot and that the charges are dismissed in very short order.

BARNWOOD

13th Jan 2003, 17:25

Bearing in mind the remoteness of the Court Martial site and the limited public access that Dick referred to, would it be possible for someone to post a resume of events after each day? Hopefully we will get only one !!

Best of luck Spot.

DICK DOLEMAN

13th Jan 2003, 17:35

Good idea 'Barnwood' - will see what we can do.

KPax

14th Jan 2003, 17:29

From a serving ATCO, all the best. I have no idea what you must be going through, but we are all with you, I believe that includes most of the 'Flying Community'. As a side issue also spare a thought for the poor soul who they tried to crucify over the incident in Kosovo. His case did not generate as much fuss, but, I believe he has gone through his own personal set of agonies supported only by a close few, and was himself betrayed by our 'Duty of Care' system. This incident must bring back nightmares.

VectorLine

14th Jan 2003, 17:35

I was on your course at CATC bournemouth when you were thinking about going civil.

I think what the Royal Air Farce (intended spelling) is putting you through is absolute s h i t e !

Best wishes
course108

mainecoon

14th Jan 2003, 22:37

spot

just to re-iterate the feelings of the others posting

us pennine people understand to a certain extent what you are going thru but obviously not totally

has to impact on your family which makes it worse for all concerned

i hope the back up from both civil and mil air traffic helps you at this time but the main thing is that you were in the right in the service provision and it will have to be thrown out at opening submission

all the best anyway

mc

Mickydrip

15th Jan 2003, 18:07

Nice to see that Spot has not been forgotten!

Picking up 'Barnwood's' point about updating PPRuNe on the developments at the Court Martial, Dick Doleman and I have been chatting and I've agreed to take a laptop along to feed you with daily updates; wouldn't it be nice if it folded on day 1?

I spoke to Spot at length just a couple of days ago and he asked me to say thanks to everyone for their kind thoughts. Keep the encouraging comments coming because he reads every one and he's getting a great deal of strength from the support you're all giving him.

Don't forget, God forbid, but it could have been you!

Mickydrip

Bern Oulli

16th Jan 2003, 17:01

Spot, From CATC, Pedro and the other guys and gals who remember you are following these events with all the interest, concern and sympathy you can imagine. Thinking of you and your family - I won't wish you luck - if there is any justice in the world you won't need it. You need a sensible Judge Advocate, and a court that doesn't have another agenda. I wish you those.

Regards

Einsteins Lovechild!

16th Jan 2003, 20:50

Comments from the bottom....

As a new guy in the forum my feelings go out to Spot and his family as the day approaches, having been subject to the rigmarole of court-martial proceedings I know the feelings of despair and betrayal he must be feeling.

With regard to the actions of the BOYS in blue, the powers that be have this great motto "Justice must be done and be seen to be done", which means hanging the nearest schmuck by the proverbials. Court martials are great proceedings - for the first world war- and as such stand as a monument to the fairest judicial system of all, being tried by ones superiors, who when all said and done will not wish to show the service or their superiors brought into question. Judge Advocate Generals truly are wise and learned and more in touch with the real world than the tabloids will have you believe. However, he is only there in an advisory capacity and as such can, if the members of the board are behaving in a proper legal manner i.e. not having had a decision passed down from on high before the day, can b politely disregarded.

Hopefully Justice will prevail, SPOT will be cleared and the men who hide behind others to keep their b***s off the line are made to drop 'em and cough long and hard.

I speak from the bitter experience of not only being subject to RAF court martial proceedings but also escorting friends and acquaintances. I was also the assistant to the allocator at Scottish military the day of the incident and saw the finger of blame erroneously waved that day.

Thank you for reading.

P.S. The Royal Air Force is rumoured to be changing its uniform colour from wedgwood blue to CYAN ( Cover Your A**e Now). Possibly because their is no good accronym for the former.

Wuperdinger

16th Jan 2003, 21:27

Sad times indeed.

No doubt any one of us could so easily have been in the same position - I guess we're just a little more lucky (or have been so far).

The thoughts of all at the home of ATC go to all of the victims of this debacle, not least the families who have borne a heavy load for an unforgivably extended period.

Trick

17th Jan 2003, 09:10

Air traffic Information notice (ATSIN) No.17 issued by SRG is interesting and pertinent to this case. It defines Lapses and Mistakes etc. This is a civil notice and would not be issued to the RAF. This ATSIN was the result of work carried out by the Human Factors Dept of the Safety Regulation Group, Civil Aviation Authority.

From my interpretation, if a civil controller erroneously gave a wrong level for descent due to a lapse of memory or because of distraction - this would be viewed as LAPSE.

It seems that a similar occurrence involving an RAF controller is viewed as negligence(or worse) resulting in charges being laid that could lead to a prison sentence. Bearing in mind that the type of service being given to the subject aircraft (RIS under LARS) is applied by both military and civil units, this difference seems highly unjust. The treatment being meted out here seems to fall under the civil definition of VIOLATION :

'In a violation, the individual concerned, for whatever reason, deliberately contravenes a rule or procedure, even when he/she knows the required course of action'

From what I can gather from this forum DELIBERATE CONTRAVENTION does not apply in this case.

Best of luck Spot.

Mickydrip

17th Jan 2003, 19:31

Trick's correct, this smacks of another case of double standards.

Having read it a number of times since the Airforce decided to look for a scapegoat, I believe that it should be brought to the attention of all civil atco's. They should take heart from ATSIN 17; RAF atco's should ask why they're not subject to a similar instruction.

Watch your 6, guys.

Mickydrip

Avalon

20th Jan 2003, 08:47

Just a note to offer the support and thoughts to Spot from loads of ATCOs south of "Hadrians Wall" - it is absolutely disgraceful that this case has been brought this far - I understand from a senior Navy Legal officer that the other Services legal departments are also suprised this is being pursued......... apparently/ allegedly at the whim of the RAF Group Captain concerned ............... anyone know his name?? Hope he is able to sleep at night. NOT.

BARNWOOD

21st Jan 2003, 07:18

I am told that the original decision to proceed with Court Martial was made at Air Rank level outside the ATC specialisation, this officer has susequently retired.

Quite what his motives were, I can only guess but he certainly made his decision without having the findings of a Board of Inquiry at hand as one was never held.

Even though the case is now in the hands of the Director ol Legal Services RAF it must still be under direction from higher level.

Someone,somewhere is still pressing hard for a scapegoat or this whole shambles would have been called off some time ago .

Gisajob

21st Jan 2003, 08:52

With over 11,000 hits to this topic, even tho’ many are revisits, you can be assured that the whole of the ATC world is watching and silently (for now) supporting you. If you are not acquitted then the floodgates will surely open.

With Dick Doleman, Alan Turner and their colleagues on your team you’re in good hands. They didn’t take any c**p when they were in the RAF and won’t now.

My thoughts are with you because as most ATCOs know –‘there but for the grace of god…’

Good Luck SPOT

Gisajob

stopbar

21st Jan 2003, 16:21

Good luck Spot, remember it wasn't always like this. Thinking of you in these hard times. Hope you stuff it to them.

An old ERD mate.

Proletarian

21st Jan 2003, 20:36

I would caution everyone against speculating who actually made the final decision to try and make a scapegoat of Spot - the trial starts Monday and all the facts will eventually emerge, one way or another.

I understand Spot has an outstanding legal team to represent him and they will certainly ensure that all the details of why this sad, and totally unecessary prosecution was considered necessary, finally emerge.

Either way, everyone involved will end up losing. The RAF's image and reputation is going to take a very severe battering, for no return whatsoever. Spot has already suffered more than any of us can possibly imagine and, whatever the outcome, will go on suffering for the remainder of his life.

Spot, draw strength from the support of the entire Ops Spt (ATC) branch. Nobody I know believes any good whatsoever can come of this mis-guided prosecution and we will all watch how events unfold, and the reactions of the 'airships', with great interest. Their reaction to the outcome will certainly influence how RAF controllers approach their duties in the years to come.

call-it-5

23rd Jan 2003, 22:42

I have never met Spot, but as a serving Mil ATCO I would just like to add my best wishes to the many that have been given on this forum. It must be hell, I know the guy who went through all this crap over the Kosovo incident and I can only sympathise with what Spot and his family must be going through. I hope you give the RAF the arse-kicking it richly deserves, and heres to the case getting thrown out on the first day.

All the best.

Mickydrip

24th Jan 2003, 07:15

Just a note to say keep watching closely for events as they develop; I will be posting daily updates from Helensburgh - hopefully just the one!

Is there any truth in the rumour that the senior wheel who decided to go to Court Martial without a Board of Enquiry is now being paid to run the RAF Benevolent Fund? As an ex-RAF ATC officer I can only say God help us all.

DICK DOLEMAN

24th Jan 2003, 10:44

This will probably be my last 'posting' prior to the CM starting on Monday in Helensburgh.

Spot and Sue have asked me to pass on their thanks for all the support that has been expressed on Pprune. Spot will respond personally once the proceedings are complete.

Spot has an excellent defence team and is also getting terrific support from the Guild at the highest level, an awesome combination , and one which we hope will deliver the correct result for him.

Mike Tasker will keep you all informed on a daily basis, please continue to monitor this Forum.

Let justice prevail for Spot.

DD

BARNWOOD

24th Jan 2003, 11:39

I expect the CinC gets a daily brief on this forum so maintain your dignity Spotty - they can't take that away from you. The whole of ATC is watching and right behind you mate. Sock it to'em.

Dances with Boffins

24th Jan 2003, 13:31

Not just ATC either. Us ex-blue suits from the other branches are just as gutted at the brass' treatment of someone at the sharp-end. Keep the faith Spot, you have the support of more people than you could ever imagine.

DWB Flt Lt [rtd]

Trick

24th Jan 2003, 13:35

The following is an article by the Scottish Sunday Mail dated 19 Jan.

COURT DATE FOR JET DEATHS CONTROLLER EXCLUSIVE

Steve Mckenzie

AN RAF air traffic controller blamed for a double jet crash is to learn his fate this month.

American fighter pilots Kenneth Hyvonen and Kirk Jones died when their F- 15C jets slammed into the Cairngorms.

The Sunday Mail can reveal that Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Williams, of RAF Leuchars, Fife, is to face a court martial a week tomorrow in connection with the tragedy.

The hearing will be held at a Royal Naval centre in Helensburgh.

The rare move is the armed forces' most serious disciplinary hearing and can result in jail.

It is understood that the charges relate to conduct amounting to professional negligence.

Military and civilian air traffic controllers have rallied behind Flt Lt Williams while the Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers (GATCO) and droves of supporters have sent him messages of goodwill.

Sympathisers are outraged at the RAF's handling of the case. Top brass did not hold a board of inquiry, denying the officer an opportunity to give his side of the incident.

Flt Lt Williams is believed to be the first military controller in the UK to be court martialled in connection with a fatal air crash.

He was providing radar information as the US pilots trained over Scotland in March 2001. Lt-Col Hyvonen, 40, and Captain Jones, 27, died when their jets smashed into Ben Macdhui in a snow storm. But sources close to the case claim the pilots themselves, based at RAF Lakenheath, in Suffolk, were responsible for where and how low they flew.

More than 100 rescuers battled over the mountainous terrain in sub- zero temperatures and blizzards to find the missing men.

Eventually the smell of aviation fuel near the summit of the 4,284ft mountain led them to the wreckage. The bodies of Lt- Col Hyvonen and Capt Jones were found nearby.

Debris from the two jets took months to clear and more than 250 tonnes of snow had to be removed to avoid contamination of the environment by aviation fuel.

Umtali

25th Jan 2003, 08:17

SPOT, you helped me out 14 years ago when I was wondering what direction to take in life. After 13 years in Air Traffic I still enjoy going to work - Thankyou. You have total support form all at the unit I work at and you are also in the thoughts and prays of all of your friends in Crowle, Worcs.

Mickydrip

25th Jan 2003, 09:08

Thanks Barnwood - so the C in C gets a daily brief on this subject..... have a nice day takes on a whole new meaning! (sorry, Airforce joke)

Intrepid

25th Jan 2003, 20:58

Good luck on Monday Spot and hopefully you can take comfort in the knowledge that you have support from ATC operatives as far away as Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
As one who has experienced the malicious and vindictive intent of those in the upper echelons of one of Her Majesty's defence forces who seek to cover their own arses by persecuting junior officers, I can empathise with your position. These people are beneath contempt to leave a junior officer hanging out to dry as a scapegoat while their own misdeeds never see the light of day.
All ATCO's, particularly those that wear the uniform are, firmly behind you in your fight and are hoping the RAF hierarchy take a sound thrashing from this CM and a well deserved bath in the media.
Thanks to Dick and Mike for keeping us all updated and if you would be so kind as to provide links to any continuing media coverage of the CM we would all appreciate it.

getrucked

26th Jan 2003, 14:22

Spot

As discussed mate, here is the signal.

Originator: HQSTC
DTG: 290741ZMAR01
SIC: KBE/KBA
UNCLAS
HQPTC FOR D TRG GPS FOR AOCS, UNITS FOR STN CDRS. SUBJECT: UK ATC PROCEDURES AND OPERATING PRACTICES. THIS SIGNAL IS ADDRESSED TO ALL MAJOR FLYING UNITS AND FOLLOWS DISCUSSION WITH GP AND HQPTC STAFFS. THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT THERE ARE VARYING LEVELS OF UNDERSTANDING SURROUNDING THE PROVISION OF AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES IN THE UK. FOR EXAMPLE, NOTWITHSTANDING JSP318A, DO AIRCREW AND CONTROLLERS COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER RAS/RIS AND THE LIMITATIONS/SCOPE OF THE SERVICE BEING PROVIDED QUERY.IF THERE ARE WEAKNESSES, HOW MIGHT WE WE BEST ADDRESS THEM QUERY. ARE ANY MILITARY ATC REGULATIONS AMBIGUOUS QUERY. ARE DAY TO DAY ATC PRACTICES SOUNDLY BASED ON EXTANT REGULATIONS QUERY. YOUR VIEWS ON THESE ISSUES WOULD BE APPRECIATED THROUGH GP AND PTC COMMAND CHAINS WITH COPY TO AIR CDRE OPS SPT, BY COP 6 APR 01. THE DEBATE WILL BE FURTHER INFORMED BY THE OUTPUT OF A SEMINAR TO BE HELD AT HQSTC ON 10 APR 01 TO WHICH ALL SATCOS WILL BE INVITED. AIRCREW INPUT WILL BE PROVIDED BY GP REPS AT SO2 LEVEL.

Seems like an admission by the responsible authority that the ATC services on offer at the time were not readily understood, were flawed and needed revision. I know that the response from at least 2 units echoed such concerns. In addition, you might want to see if there is any crossover from the outcome/comments of the Kosovo inquiry and your situation. You have my number if you want to take that further. I can hard-copy you the above signal if you need it.

Take care mate and remember what I said today - right and justice will prevail.

KPax

26th Jan 2003, 22:12

Just echoing what many have said before. All the best in your 'trail'. You have right on your side and the brass know it. Maybe when they have been laughed out of court you could revisit the school and give a lecture to the JATCC on what has gone. Perhaps the powers that be will say no. All the best we are all behind you.

G & V

27th Jan 2003, 16:08

;)All the best mate we are thinking of you, G&V ;)

ajamieson

27th Jan 2003, 17:12

From the Press Association a few minutes ago...

1 COURT Jet Substitute 17:43GMT
An RAF air traffic controller today appeared before a court martial charged with causing the death of two pilots in a double jet crash.
Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Williams, 47, was on duty at RAF Leuchars, Fife, on the day two F15C jets crashed into a Scottish mountain.
Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Hyvonen, 40, and Captain Kirk Jones 27, of the United States Air Force, died in the incident at Ben Macdui in the Cairngorms during a snowstorm on March 26, 2001.
Flt Lt Williams, who had been providing radar information and was in contact with Lt Col Hyvonen, is alleged to have told the pilot to descend to 4,000ft when the minimum safe altitude in that area was 6,500ft.
The descent is said to have caused the deaths of the two pilots.
Williams faces an alternative charge of negligently performing in his duties as an air traffic controller.
He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
...
The court martial, which is expected to last several days, opened today before seven senior RAF officers assisted by a judge advocate.
RAF Group Captain Alistair McGrigor, prosecuting, said Flt Lt Williams had “created a false environment and lulled the air crew into a false sense of security”.
He said the air traffic controller had responded “inappropriately” by telling Lt Col Hyvonen, the lead pilot of the formation, to descend to 4,000ft.
However, he said Williams was not solely responsible for the accident and conceded that the pilots were responsible for the avoidance of any other air traffic and the terrain.
The court martial heard that Lt Col Hyvonen had used an American phrase “minimum vectoring altitude” which Flt Lt Williams had not queried.
Lt Col Hyvonen had then asked Flt Lt Williams to confirm the descent to 4,000ft, which the air traffic controller did.
...
The court martial, before Judge Advocate Edmwnd Hoelwyn-Hughes, was to continue tomorrow at the Royal Navy base in Helensburgh, Argyll and Bute, Scotland.
ends

I've heavily edited this because the background has already been posted here.

ajsh

27th Jan 2003, 18:48

If I have missed something in an earlier post or am barking up the wrong tree then I apologise in advance to all however….

While I am neither an ATCO nor a member of the RAF, I do have some considerable knowledge of Courts Martial proceeding – or more importantly the route to Courts Martial.

It has been mentioned that the decision to take this matter before a Courts Martial was made at Air Rank. Well – theoretically at least – a case can only be remanded for CM if one of the following two conditions are met.

1. The alleged offence is contrary to the equivalent civil charge covered by the RAF Act.

2. The offence carries a higher penalty than the Unit Commander or Next High Authority is allowed (under the powers of subordinate commander) to award.

The point of this is that the evidence should have been tested at subordinate command level before being remanded. As a very lowly PPL(A) I am fully aware of my responsibilities as far as terrain avoidance is concerned when receiving a RIS –in whatever language or variation of language I requested it in - therefore there should have been no case to answer and that fact should have been established at the initial hearing.

Having remanded the accused for CM, all the papers are sent to the next higher command where the evidence is tested again not only by that Commands staff but by the relevant arms Legal Services.

(I have deliberately missed bits out but only for brevity – the jist is all there)

The correct procedure was followed, I am sure, but some spineless wonder at some point in the chain of command failed to put a stop to the proceedings.

The problem here – as I see it then – is political expediency or the old boy network working in the wrong direction for whatever reason. It is shameful and smacks of the standard service maxim of “March in the Guilty B****rd”. I had though this mentality, that so prevalent whilst I was a serving member of another of HM Forces in the 70’s and 80’s, had dissipated after a number of high profile cases were lost for very much the same reasons as this case should be lost by the RAF.

The unfortunate issue here will become not the first charge but the second (where although I am sure the Officer is Not Guilty) will be proven by virtue of the wording and subsequent twisting of facts to fit the charge.

I have great sympathy with this Officer – the system very often gets it wrong for all the wrong reasons. I have never regretted my decision NOT to convert my SSC to Regular C – at least I do not have to put up with the s**t.

Mickydrip

27th Jan 2003, 23:20

Not much to report but before I give you a brief update of todays proceedings, I must applaud the comments of ajsh;his comments are accurate in the extreme and are to be applauded.

Todays events:

The Defence objected to one of the members of the Board, a fighter controller, who was subsequently replaced.

The charges presented were:

1. A charge of "Doing an act in relation to aircraft causing loss of life to a person contrary to Section 49". This refers to the deaths of one pilot.
2. As an alternative to the first charge- Negligently performing a duty contrary to section 29 of the Air Force Act.
3. A second charge of " Doing an act in relation to aircraft causing loss of life to a person contrary to Section 49" This refers to the death of the second pilot.

Interestingly, the Crown prosecutor conceded that terrain clearance was the responsibility of the pilot.

There are 2 major areas of conflict: the Prosecution state that Spot is negligent, the defence say NO his actions were not negligent. The prosection says there is a direct link between what Spot said to the aircraft formation and the subsequent crash; the defence believe that the link had been broken when the aircraft descended low level to the East, eventually crashing into high ground.

More tomorrow.
Watch your 6.

zkdli

28th Jan 2003, 06:23

At a courtmartial I attended several years ago, the defendant was charged with two offences relating to the same action. The lesser charge was dismissed because the defense argued that you cannot be tried twice for the same offence. Surely this is relevent here. Spot is charged with three very serious offences, The lesser charge relates to the same act and so he is in effect being tried twice for the same offence and the lesser charge should be dropped.

IF ajsh is correct and the second charge is the one they will try to hang spot with, then if there is no second charge you can't get him.

Spot no one should have to go through what you are going through, But I hope you have gained strength from the knowledge that all these people are supporting you.

Wrote8

28th Jan 2003, 07:28

Not much to say really as I'm off to work in a few minutes. We were hoping that the case would be thrown out at the first hurdle - i.e. when the defence admitted that Terrain Clearance is the pilot's responsibility. That has to be a key issue, as does the responsibility of the aircrew and Spot's chain of command. ajsh's post does give some hope that Spot will walk away from this. Give our best to Spot Tommy. xxx Stu B

Mickydrip

28th Jan 2003, 07:29

Thanks to zkdli for that info, I'll ensure your views are put to Spot's defence team this morning.

I forgot to mention yesterday that Spot got through the day with dignity. He was nervous all morning, not surprisingly, and breakfast didn't stay down long!! On arrival he found plenty of press and a TV satellite truck; the case featured on TV Scotland at 6.30 pm, although there wasn't much to report.

The afternoon was relatively short, 2 pm to 4.15 pm and Spot spoke clearly throughout. We all felt that on marching in he looked ill - hardly surprising under the circumstances.

Spot and Sue were glad that the first day was over and felt a bit a bit more positive about the procedings.

More later.

Watch your 6.

EXATCO

28th Jan 2003, 09:26

All the very best SPOT.

Very many thanks for your postings on events Mickydrip - excellent. The CM was mentioned on BBC Look East last night - there was a fleeting glimpse of 'himself' but it mainly concentrated on Lakenheath!

Middleagedman

28th Jan 2003, 13:06

Spot,

Although we haven't met, I would like to add my voice to the many others on this list offering our total support and sympathy. My early years in ATC were as an Approach controller providing RIS/RAS/FIS, often to low-level military including LN jets, where terrain was significant, so I think I understand your situation.

What is happening to you is so very wrong, that I am sure just one ounce of common sense should stop this case.

Spot, I am sure that over the years in the service you have done much to prevent loss of life, maybe without realising it. You can hold your head high. Keep faith my friend.

M

Whipping Boy's SATCO

28th Jan 2003, 16:18

Spot, you are an honourable man. Chin-up and remeber we're all thinking of you.

Bigears

28th Jan 2003, 16:43

Spot, maybe we've met, maybe not, but we're all there with you- in spirit, if not in person. Good Luck.

Mickydrip

28th Jan 2003, 17:00

Another busy day for the Prosecution, with the Gp Capt calling 2 atco witnesses, one a current staff member at RAF Leuchars, the other a former training officer at the base. Incidentally, there are numerous witnesses to be called, the original list numbered 76; this has been reduced to 16, with the agreement of both sides. It’s probable that this trial will run into next week, possibly finishing on Wednesday.

Questions from the Prosecution and the Defence produced lengthy and detailed discussion on the intricacies of Flight Level/Altitude and Heights, also the vagaries of VFR, VMC, IFR and IMC. The Board members, who are all ground trade officers, looked somewhat puzzled – it’s a lot to try to grasp in a relatively short period of time. It was warming to watch the Defence QC carefully draw out from the witnesses, precise information, which was readily assimilated by all in the room; he’s certainly a talented man. A very interesting period saw him listing the various types of ATC service, carefully highlighting the shared responsibilities of both the atco and the pilot. Two other important points covered were that the Radar Vectoring Map was not displayed anywhere in the approach room, although it was available as a selectable map (containing barely readable figures for safety heights); also that the controllers were not required to commit this map to memory. Surely if that’s the case, it strikes me that a display must be considered absolutely essential. I’m told that the RV map now features heavily in the approach room.

Finally, it seems that the Judge Advocate, who has a very Dickensian look about him, has a sense of humour. When the subject of the electronic tote was raised, he questioned whether this had some gambling conotation, and smiled!

Spot is reading this every day and thanks to you all for the strong support.

More tomorrow

Watch your 6

Fire 'n' Forget

28th Jan 2003, 17:21

Was there any reason given why the Fighter Controller was dismissed from the board by the defence?

It was mentioned above that the board is now made up entirely of 'ground types' surely a Fighter Controller would have understood all the details of the radar services etc.....and so would be of benefit to Spot.

I only mention this as this CM has lots of implications in the Fighter Control world, we routinely let our a/c work surface and above overland. We have only to remind them that they are responsible for TA and set the appropriate FIS level that we deem our radar coverage degrades. As a lot of you out there know we sometimes have a lot of aircraft operating in a generally small area in and out of radar and radio coverage, and BELOW the minimum area safety altitudes. The responsibility is completely on the aircrew.

The FC world is watching and wishes him good luck.

SP1

28th Jan 2003, 17:31

Glad to hear that Spot is able to know that we are all behind him - Good Luck to you Spot (+Sue) - it was great to spend some time with you at RAF Leuchars Air Show in the Squadron Prints Stall

higthepig

28th Jan 2003, 18:16

Spot. Don't let them grind you down mate. All in the leafy lanes of Shropshire (just past Grinshill going west) wish you well. How are you doing for pickled onions, do you need any sending up?

Wrote8

28th Jan 2003, 20:13

For Spot: Spot, you have a lot of mates, acquaintances, colleagues and people who have bounced into and glanced off you over the years who are all rooting for you - I got phoned at work in Brum today from Germany with several old mates asking after you. For what its worth, despite his scouse roots, Tommy T is about the best example of the above I can think of - just don't buy a car stereo off him!

For Tommy: Good on you for what you're doing mate, the Rottie was sad you weren't at work today! Who's the Judge Advocate out of interest?

Manly hugs and firm handshakes to you both.

XXXX

Stu B

getrucked

28th Jan 2003, 21:06

MickeyDrip

Great updates. Spot has my mobile number. Could you call me and let me know if he still needs hard copies of the signals, one of which I posted the other day - the number he gave me doesn't seem to work.
I was at a meeting of a number of civilian and ex mil types today - they all asked me to pass on support to Spot. He is totally in our thoughts and we will only be satisfied when this vindictive farce is over and he is free of the whole disgraceful nightmare!

toppledgyro

28th Jan 2003, 21:07

Spot,

It feels that the last time we met, in the arrivals hall at Brize, was eons ago. I'm appalled that you have been kept waiting for so long for this trumped up trial to take place. I would like to confirm that everyone at the unit where I'm presently serving is behind you all the way. We wish you and your Defence good fortune in proving your innocence and look forward the passing of the only sensible verdict.

My regards also to Sue, who will probably only remember me as one of a group of oafs who trashed her kitchen whilst making garlic sandwiches very late one night many moons ago!

Brian Dixon

28th Jan 2003, 21:10

Spot (+family),
we've never met, and this is my first visit to the ATC Thread as I normally live on the Chinook one.

My thoughts are with you at this time. It would appear that the RAF has not changed on iota. The finger pointing and sloping of responsibilities still goes on. I'm amazed that there is anyone still serving below the rank of chief of the greasy pole!

I have just read the thread from start to finish and I hope you take great comfort from the support and belief in you by many people.

I have a fair knowledge of the mindset of the RAF in situations such as this. If there is anything I can offer, it is yours for the asking.

To quote the father of Rick Cook, one of the Chinook pilots - "Justice has no expiry date".

I wish you and yours, Sir, every wish in the world for a correct and just outcome.

Best Wishes
Brian

Tapster

28th Jan 2003, 21:39

Spot

Best wishes and I have every confidence that you will be vindicated.

Taps (retired civvie ATCO)

Wuperdinger

28th Jan 2003, 22:58

:confused: As the potential for more OOA jobs looms large - what lessons have been learnt? Spot MIGHT gain a small crumb of comfort if he knew that publicity of this, and similar cases, had been used for other's benefit...

It sounds like a glib comment, but it is heartfelt - keep your pecker up mate; the just outcome must prevail.

ghost-rider

29th Jan 2003, 08:07

Fire 'n' Forget has already asked, but I'm curious as well ... why the objection to the FC ? :confused:

Best of luck Spot. We're all behind you and pray for your victory.

remedial boy

29th Jan 2003, 17:45

GR
I believe from a legal perspective the Prosecution would object to an FC on the grounds of lack of impartiality. As a controller the FC has a vested interest in the outcome of the case. Furthermore, as a specialist in the field, the FC would have massive influence during jury deliberations (the others would naturally ask the resident expert for their view). Such an expert is undesirable for the prosecution, when they are certainly going to see this case for the absolute travesty which it so clearly is.

RB

Whipping Boy's SATCO

29th Jan 2003, 18:19

RB, not wishing to blow your argument out of the water but MD indicated that it was the defence who objected to the FC.

Anyone seen news from today's proceedings yet?

remedial boy

29th Jan 2003, 18:31

I'll get back in my box.
:)

Beats me then.

ghost-rider

29th Jan 2003, 20:25

Hmm, as stated, the implication was that the defence had objected.

I could understand the prosecution objecting for the very reasons stated by remedial, but not for the defence to object.

maybe it was a typo ? :confused:

SirToppamHat

29th Jan 2003, 22:04

Following on from Fire 'n' Forget and Ghostrider, I too am a bit bemused about the FC being objected to by the Defence ... perhaps he/she was a Surveillance specialist? Otherwise I would think any FC weaponeer (ie controller) worth their salt would be useful to Spot and, indeed, the rest of the Board.

I do hope that this is not a reflection of the traditional rivalry between our branches. Spot and his family can be sure that our thoughts are with them at this difficult time.

FCs are now being instructed to assess the SALT in the area we are operating and offer only a FIS below the nearest level 1000'+ above the SALT. In other words, any captain electing to fly at a level below the SALT will automatically be in receipt of, at best, a FIS. Even so, we are also being told to instruct the crews that terrain clearance is their responsibility throughout, and we have to get an acknowledgement.

My very best wishes to you and yours Spot.

Wrote8

29th Jan 2003, 23:18

Hoping for some good news? Hopefully, all went well today. Hang in there Spot. All our thoughts are with you.

Mickydrip

30th Jan 2003, 07:34

Day 3, Wednesday 29th Jan 03.

Firstly thanks to everyone from Spot and Sue for all the good wishes and support; don’t be shy, keep it coming because they’re both surprised and delighted that so many of you care, but isn’t that the sort of people they are?

To answer a couple of points that have arisen in recent correspondence:

1. The name of the Judge Advocate is Edmwnd Hoelwyn-Hughes (spelling taken from the Daily Mail so I hope it’s OK).

2. There are a couple of queries from our Fighter Control colleagues concerning the removal of the FC specialist; I made a careful note of the reasoning on Day 1 and copy it for your information. An objection to any member of the Board can be made, under S29 (1) of the Airforce Act, on any reasonable grounds. The Defence team objected to Sqn Ldr Maguire, (not sure of the spelling), a Fighter Controller currently stationed at RAF Innsworth. It was argued that Sqn Ldr Maguire’s expertise could include matters which are special to the world of air traffic control. Experts views differ and the Defence team were apprehensive that the FC member may have an expert view, that the lay members did not, thereby prejudicing justice.

Finally, before I give a brief summary of todays events, you may be interested to know that membership of Gatco has increased dramatically as a result of recent events – a very wise move!

Ted Tilley of the Guild departed last evening, to be replaced by the President of Gatco, Richard Dawson. Three witnesses for the Prosecution were called today; the lead pilot of a Tornado formation operating in the area on the day of the accident plus 1 serving member of ATC at RAF Leuchars, and one ex member of the ATC Sqn. There were lots of questions regarding safety altitudes and the associated responsibilities of the pilot and the controller. More RIS and RAS was discussed. Spot was acknowledged as being “a very experienced, capable and competent controller” whose brother had been very seriously ill followed in quick succession by his Father, also being taken very seriously ill.

The Defence team explored the JSP 318A on the subject of safety altitudes, and the various pressure settings in use by transit aircraft. The subject of multiple inputs was discussed at length; there may be more on this subject tomorrow when the R/T tapes are expected to be played. At one point, the Board was asked to leave the court in order that a point of law, submitted by the Defence team, could be examined by the Judge Advocate. After a short adjournment, the Judge Advocate found in favour of the Defence team and the case continued.

The lead pilot of the Tornado formation was quizzed on the weather conditions in the area just 1 hour before the accident. He said that the snow showers were passing through rapidly and in some areas it was possible to fly comfortably beneath the cloud in the valleys, although the deteriorating visibility and lowering cloud base created “white-out” conditions. He was quizzed by the Defence team regarding the visible differences between the Tornado GR4 and the F15c, large fin, longer nose, different intakes etc; this may be leading somewhere......

In summary, yesterday was another day when things seemed togo to plan. Our rising hopes are tempered by the knowledge that the stakes are still high and that the Prosecution has 1 big batter to call tomorrow. Also in our minds is the fact that the widow of Lt Col Hyvonen, the flight leader, sits just 15 feet away; she is clearly upset by procedings.

On a lighter note, the Spot Support Group, received 2 rollickings today. The first from the landlady for making too much noise after the pubs kicked out – we’ve told Doleman to be quiet in future! The second was from the admin Sqn Ldr running the court who politely asked us to stop shaking our heads and making other such gestures during the giving of evidence by the Prosecution witnesses. We’ve asked Turner to stop muttering bo**ocks under his breath. Suitably chastised we left for the pub. More tomorrow.

Meanwhile, keep watching your 6.

EXATCO

30th Jan 2003, 08:45

Thanks for the posting above Mickydrip.

Spot & Sue should never be surprised at the support that they are receiving! Apart from the professional side of things - which all agree is a b****y disgrace - they are thoroughly nice people who many are proud to call 'friends'.

Interesting to know that Ted Tilley was in attendance - knew him at Hurn as a 'good ratter'! similarly Roger Dawson!

Keep it up Spot - we're all with you mate.

P.S. I can just imagine the picture of AT and his comments - if only Renrut was there to take his likeness!!!!

Jazzer

30th Jan 2003, 09:25

Spot

We worked together at ERD, I was a civil ATCO. You have my absolute support. I've read all the contributions and don't understand why you are in your present predicament. The rules are clear, you are guilty of nothing.
Well done to those who are providing practical help, if there is anything I can do they need only ask.
Good luck, keep your spirits up. You represent all of us, past and present.

Wrote8

30th Jan 2003, 09:44

Tasker, Doleman and Turner - no wonder the Landlady is getting mithered. I don't suppose a few drams would have anything to do with it!:} Must be a great comfort to Spot to have the 3 Musgetbeers up there!

Keep up the good work Tommy T - excellent reporting. Be interesting to see who the "big batter" you mentioned turns out to be? Seems the case revolves on 2 main issues: the pilot's responsibilities and actions, and the reason for Spot's behaviour at the time. So far things sound like they're lining up well given the acknowledgement that its the crew's responsibility for terrain clearance, and they may well have been VMC below. Also, is it at all reasonable that Spot was working that day - especially as it seems no-one was monitoring his actions - Supervision???

All our best Spot, there but for the grace of God could be anyone of us.

ghost-rider

30th Jan 2003, 10:31

Thanks for the update Mickeydrip, and the FC explanation.

The updates you provide are very much appreciated. :cool:

Spot - keep your spirits up pal.

Once the RAF has been put in it's box - you can happily and deservedly look forward to never having to buy a drink again !

And the After-Dinner speeches you'll be paid a fortune for ( Clinton got £100k per speech I believe :eek: ... the world will be your oyster. :D

Good luck once again, everyone is routeing for you here at easyJet as well. :)

Grotty

30th Jan 2003, 12:04

This is the first time I've read about this on PPruNe after Spot pointed me here - don't know why I didn't think to look earlier. I am pleased that so many people share my sense of dismay at the way this tragedy is being played out. Spot did me the honour of being my best man at my wedding 10 years ago and I had the privilege of sharing 2 and a half tours with him. I know him to be a capable and responsible controller as well as a solid family man and a b****y good mate.

Whatever the results of this court, those of you who are still controlling should take time to reflect on your own positions. I know that I got into many hairy situations which, thankfully, worked out alright in the end. Indeed, one trait of military ATC, and I'm sure this applies to our civil colleagues too, is a great desire to be flexible and help aircrew more than the strict letter of the law demands of us. This apparent 'blame culture' threatens that as it become more important for a controller to 'check six' before taking that extra step.

I was shocked to read that the RAF may be adding riders to the terms of a RIS (I don't have any verification of this, though. Perhaps someone on the inside can comment), without looking at civil application of the same service. Surely this can only confuse matters since aircrew receive RIS and RAS from mil and civ ATCOs alike?

What happened to Spot that day could happen to any controller, and their actions will then be subjected to critical analysis. Which of us can say that our daily controlling practices would *always* stand up to such critical analysis as we sort multiple inputs, dodgy technology, indifferent management and personal distractions? I couldn't. But prison..?

Whatever the verdict, the RAF will come out of this covered in shame. I can honestly say now that I am immensely pleased I took my option to leave nearly 3 years ago. That upsets me because I enjoyed the RAF life and still believe in what it stands for.

I hope they're as proud of themselves as I am of you lot who are supporting Spot so well. I know it means a lot to him.

ghost-rider

30th Jan 2003, 12:29

Just as an aside to the RIS debate ... when I was in the RAF on dets to FI, at all radar sites, the assistants ( TG12 not TG9 ) would often give RIS to the helos and occasionally fixed-wing a/c transitting VFR. They would always add phrases such as 'info only' and 'pilot's discretion' etc etc.

Whilst the airspace is obviously in no way comparable to UK, what's the legality of that now bearing in mind TG12 ( ASOp ) have no ticket for 'controlling' ? :confused:

For clarity and for readers unfamiliar with the FI ATC environment -it's a one-off and the situation would NEVER happen here !

There are only 2 or 3 controllers at each radar site, and controller positions are only manned during active sorties or QRA.

Low level transits or helo traffic was VFR normally. If an a/c requested active control, a 'qualified' controller was always on-call and at the console within minutes.

Grummaniser

30th Jan 2003, 13:57

MickyDrip wrote:
don’t be shy, keep it coming because they’re both surprised and delighted that so many of you care,

As a lowly PPL(A) of 6'ish years I am still close enough to my Air Law exams to remember who is responsible for terrain clearance under RIS.

I can't add anything of substance to the debate but, having followed this thread from its beginning, I find it utterly depressing that the Brass seem so intent on pursuing what ought to be a total no-brainer. What is wrong with these people?

Spot doesn't know me nor I, him but I do wish him a speedy, just outcome to this ordeal.

Grotty

30th Jan 2003, 14:18

Ghost-rider,

You asked:

Whilst the airspace is obviously in no way comparable to UK, what's the legality of that now bearing in mind TG12 ( ASOp ) have no ticket for 'controlling' ?

Was the procedure officially endorsed in local docs and its conditions clearly explained?

If not, ask yourself this: if a helo were unfortunate enough to hit the mountainside, how much support would your TG12 get if it was announced that s/he had no licence to 'control' the aircraft?

fatjockslim

30th Jan 2003, 14:39

Dear Spot, you were on of my Arts Instructors (when Byron had that encounter with a tin of Paint :eek: ) Those were fun days.

Just to let you know that the boys in Germany are fully behind you.

Best wishes

ghost-rider

30th Jan 2003, 15:08

Grotty,

Was the procedure officially endorsed in local docs and its conditions clearly explained?
er, no I don't think so. The guys and gals provided it as a 'courtesy' service, more 'traffic advisory' than anything else.
If not, ask yourself this: if a helo were unfortunate enough to hit the mountainside, how much support would your TG12 get if it was announced that s/he had no licence to 'control' the aircraft?

Hmm. Based on Spot's experience, and the fact that TG12 were JNCO or airmen rank - I dread to think what the RAF would have done had such a tragedy happened. :( :mad:

skeet surfer

30th Jan 2003, 15:09

I am ex-TG3 (9 yrs) and a 125hr PPL and even I know the difference between a RIS and a RAS.

Why did this get as far as a CM? I left the RAF because of those attitudes.

It is nice, however, to see the warmth and breadth of support from the RAF family and the flying fraternity that have posted here. This is the reason I sometimes regret leaving....

I have never met spot but he and his family have my best wishes and hopes for a correct outcome.

cheers, skeet

NigelOnDraft

30th Jan 2003, 17:47

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 Military Aircrew, 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!

[Also posted in Military Aircrew Thread - but no reply yet, so added here]

ghost-rider

30th Jan 2003, 17:59

Nigel,

For the real gen, read ALL of this thread.

For a quick sensationalist BBC spin, see :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1871863.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2696335.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2702867.stm

Mickydrip

30th Jan 2003, 18:07

Day 4, Thursday 30th January 03

I’ve just remembered who the Judge Advocate resembles – Wilfred Hyde White (who I hear you say!?); it’s true to say that we’ve all warmed to him, although after what the landlady said, I’m not sure he’d want to be part of this particular group!

Not a dynamic day today – the Prosecutions’ big hitter was expected to make an appearance but was not called; the strong rumour is that he’ll be first on stage tomorrow, I’ll let you know tomorrow. Incidentally, tomorrows posting might be a bit behind the curve as we’re all shipping out and heading home but, be patient, it’ll get there.

Prosecution called 5 witnesses: 1 on the current strength @ Leuchars, also the Supervisor on the day of the incident, the President of the Board of Enquiry (Wg Cdr Navigator) plus 2 controllers from Lossiemouth who were on the landline to receive Spots handover of Bite 21, the 2 F15’s.

Lots of old ground was covered once again, RIS/RAS and Radar Vector Chart featuring very heavily throughout. 2 questions from the Defence team elicited correct answers, the importance of which were not lost on the Board (I hope). The subject was ‘descent to low level’, having accepted that the Radar Vectoring Chart refers to QFE and is only designed for the recovery of inbound aircraft “Can an aircraft quite properly be cleared to descend to 4000ft ?” – Answer “Yes”. “Am I right in thinking that the height an aircraft descends to is a matter of the pilots choosing?” – Answer, “Yes”. Why are we still here I hear you ask!

The Prosecution placed great credence on the map produced for the Board of Enquiry by the President of same (as stated, a Navigator). This map had been produced from information provided by Scottish Military and the RCC,h was converted from range and bearing information into Lat & Long for plotting purposes. All looked good until the Defence QC asked for the accuracy of the plotting data and was told it was about a quarter of a mile on that scale of map. When asked how accurate was the radar data provided by Scottish, the witness did not know. Additionally he was unable to confirm that the software used by RCC to convert the data was calibrated, and to what scale. The map showed the crash site as being on the summit, in fact the aircraft hit about 500metres to the East of the peak. The last straw was when questioned about the drawn track between the last position report and what was purported to be the crash site (it appears as a straight line), the witness confirmed that he’d drawn the straight line himself; the fighters could, of course have done a couple of 360’s for weather between those 2 points. The Wg Cdr also mentioned to the Board of Inquiry that he’d been selected to be President of the BOI. They had collected a great deal of information but were suspended as a Board by the convening authority, an AVM, and turned their findings over to the police. Nobody has offered an explanation as to why the Board was not reconvened after the police investigation.

On return from lunch, (they serve a nice pint of 70/- in the local) a bombshell was dropped, wisely by the Defence QC. He stated for the Judge Advocate’s ruling, that a newspaper report indicated that the Procurator Fiscal in Elgin had stated that there was certainly a case to answer for unlawful killing; the court went very quiet; it was an uncomfortable moment. Much to everyones surprise, the Judge Advocate thanked the QC and asked “What’s it got to do with him? (i.e. the Procurator Fiscal); disregard it and completely put it out of your minds, let’s get on”.

That’s really it for today; more tomorrow.

Watch your 6

radar707

30th Jan 2003, 18:33

I've just started reading through all of this and I have to say it's a complete farce, why are we wasting time and money with a CM when there is clearly no case to answer.

Spot, I was on 108 at CATC with you when you thought about going civvy, my thoughts and wishes are with you and your family.

NigelOnDraft

30th Jan 2003, 18:55

Ghost-Rider

Sorry - you've missed my point. I've been following this thread, and read it all.

Its details on the Kosovo incident, and more the references here to a CM over that, is what I am after...

Thanks anyway...

NoD

fatjockslim

30th Jan 2003, 19:18

Re Kosovo incident: knew the guy personally, and the way he was treated was nothing short of a disgrace. Do not believe it went to CM, but recall him being arrested at one point in order for the RAF police to question him. He has NEVER controlled since. Brian, if your reading this, hope everything is well.

An old Cranwell mate!

NigelOnDraft

30th Jan 2003, 19:31

Many thanks for that...

Sounds all too familiar. Any amplification on "and the way he was treated was nothing short of a disgrace" would be interesting, and may set a pattern in the way the current farce seems to be being held.

NoD

short&shapeless

30th Jan 2003, 20:09

FJS "He has NEVER controlled since." God knows how he must be feeling - we met briefly during my time at Strawberry and I wish him the very best!!

But it is good to know that some things never change - didn't I hear that the 3 officers above in the command chain have all been promoted since. I knew there was a good reason for leaving.....and one day I knew it would come to me.

SPOT From one of the drinkers who, as one of your ARTS studes, enjoyed breaking you and Byron on numerous occasions between Sep and Nov 01 - all the very best mate.

Take heart from all these messages of support, keep your dignity and don't let the b******s grind you down.

204 Red

30th Jan 2003, 20:21

Spot,
We've never met but as an ex-Mil ATCO and now a yellow book holder at a Mil unit I've followed this thread with great interest from the start. This fact makes me so ashamed I've waited so long to offer my total support and best wishes to you and your family. I am so disgusted with the RAF for letting this unjust farce continue.

Cheers, 204 Red

terrain safe

30th Jan 2003, 21:01

Been following this topic with interest and can see that there is no reason to have started this farce let alone continue with it. Good luck SPOT.

As a side point, can't we as taxpayers complain about the waste of time and our money, get questions asked in parliament, get the tw*t who authorised this named and shamed under parliamentary priviledge? Come on, some chinless wonder has to held to account for trying to ruin a mans career and life, and not get away with it.

I've worked with (and against) RAF ATCOs and they are all, almost without exception, good guys and gals. We have to be united.

edited because I can't read

Chilli Monster

30th Jan 2003, 22:30

Spot

You were an inspiration to a TG9 SAC in Germany who went on to go all the way in the civil world. You still are to this day - keep the faith and hopefully this travesty you're being subjected to will end soon.

CM

Pierre Argh

30th Jan 2003, 22:49

Who in ATC isn't interested in these developments?

Reading the postings I am glad that to see some highly relevant points have come out. Obviously under RIS (and RAS for that matter) the pilot is undoubtedly responsible for terrain clearance.

Secondly RVCs were designed to allow controllers to deal with aircraft inbound to airfields... not for transit aircraft (have we forgotten safety altitudes?)

Whatever happened to phrases such as "at your discretion" or "VFR descent approved" etc... surely unambiguous phraseology.

Until we remove/correct the differences between ATSORA in the UK and the rest of the world there is always a possibility of foreign pilots misunderstanding the regulations and their responsibilities.

I don't know Spot, and now little of the facts about this case, but in common with many ATCO's I join in wishing him well.

fredator

31st Jan 2003, 06:45

Hi Spot, we don't know each other, but I am Mil ATCO in the south of England following these proceedings with great interest. Please know that you have 100% support from me and my colleagues and we hope it won't be long before you and your family are freed from this totally unecessary and traumatic experience. All the best Spot.

2lo4zero

31st Jan 2003, 09:29

I was a D&D controller at ScATCC for 6 years until 31st July 1998 and we used the aforementioned plotter software. It is certainly not calibrated nor 'official' as it was written by DP wing at West Drayton on the back of a fag packet, basically.
Used it a lot for demonstration to U/T's and I used it twice for real crashes. It is not very accurate, only to within a mile or so (and obviously very much depends on the quality of the radar return). You use it by requesting a print out from system control of the track and radar head you want it from. Then you run up the plotter programme on a PC, input the head and the figures (essentially the range & bearing from the radar head). It then converts it to lat & long plots with a 1:50,000 map grid overlay onto an acetate sheet. You can then overlay it on to the appropriate OS map.
Apart from that inaccuracy there's the matter of radar coverage. They must surely have used the Aberdeen radar as Lowther hill is far away and GDF even further! Just look at the terrain between Aberdeen and Ben Machdui, how do they think radar works? Very unlikely to get a decent return of anything much low level, or even medium level.
Glad you guys appeared to have had the full SP on this piece of software before the prosecution talked it up in court.

Good luck but it does rather appear that the prosecution are grasping at straws and being rather ahem economical on the veracity of the kit they seem so dependent on.
End this farce now! :mad:

RubiC Cube

31st Jan 2003, 11:55

I come to this thread very late and am absolutely gobsmacked that the CM could have got this far. In 30 years of military flying I have always accepted that I am ultimately responsible for my own safety. Indeed, I have received bollockings from flight commanders for refusing to disobey GASOs and descend below safety height in inappropriate circumstances. In turn I have saved JO pilots from trying to fly me into the ground. I have also watched ATC directions very carefully and been sin-binned in the USA for querying directions.

Moreover, soon after the accident I was told that Spot had a very pertinent conversation with his SATCO prior to the accident. If this was true, then Spot should not be there today because of the RAF's "duty of care". Can anyone confirm that conversation took place?

Good luck Spot, fight it all the way and take them for every penny they've got for lack of care.

rej

31st Jan 2003, 17:28

The issue of "duty of care" raised by RubiC Cube is very much on everyone's mind in this occupation. I am yet to hear an official definition of Duty of Care, but I am pretty sure that all ATCOs are waiting for one. I certainly agree that we are owed some, by customers and leaders alike.

Good luck Spot - our thoughts down South are with you.

Rej

RubiC Cube

31st Jan 2003, 17:59

I have some notes on duty of care, but can't access them until the end of next week. Will look them up and post as and when.

Just to clarify some points on BOI and CM: since the Mull accident, BOIs are now administrative procedures to determine the facts and cause of an incident, without allocating blame, in order to avoid a repetition of said incident; CMs are disciplinary procedures that follow on from a police investigation. Evidence from a BOI should not be used in a CM unless the defendant has perjured himself.

Wrote8

31st Jan 2003, 18:05

Let me see if I can help you with "Duty of Care"?

We are all in this together, those who strap themselves to jets and those of us who are the voice in their ears telling them to go; where, when and how; to arrive, to start, to stop; and above all to look out. Sometimes we make a difference "Avoiding action, traffic was......." or "on centreline, on glidepath, passing decision height.. I'll keep talking till you tell me to stop", .. or "Mayday acknowledged.....". Mostly we're just there to help. Sometimes we're too busy, we get distracted, we mishear, we f..k up. I don't know anyone, after 22 years of mil and civil service who stops caring, who does it for the money or who doesn't hate the screw ups and get joy from the happy endings and timely banter. Underwriting the whole deal is the bond between us - we respect each other, but we know that we can all get it wrong (readbacks, level busts, fatigue, workload, stress, distractions......). If one of us says the wrong thing, the other party should know "right from wrong"; if the guy next to me drops a bo££ock and I know, I tell him. We have a duty to care for ourselves, and above all, each other. We have a duty of care to know, what is correct and what is patently false. We have a duty of care to know where we must take the over-riding decisions.

Who was caring for the guy who had so much going wrong with his life that he said a dumb thing? Why was he there at all? Why is he left to stand up and be counted when so many others are shying away from their "duty of care"?

Mickydrip

1st Feb 2003, 09:39

Dick has just forwarded the following, communicated to him by The Scotsman newspaper:

US jets crashed into mountain at 400mph

TWO US military jets had been descending at up to 5,000ft a minute only seconds before they crashed into a mountain, a court martial heard yesterday.

Full article: http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=126292003.

More in about 1 hour

Oldjet Jockey

1st Feb 2003, 10:44

As an ex military pilot and civil ATCO (long since retired, but worked with Al Turner in the Southern Radar days), I have just got onto this thread. I'm glad to see that the responsiblity for ground avoidance has been accepted as being 100% the pilot's. I have yet to see any questions on the preflight briefing of the pilots for their mission. Was it a formal briefing or in view of the seniority of one of the pilots was it a self briefing?
Did the pilots have adequate map/chart information showing the high ground on their proposed track? Was this very important safety issue fully briefed before departure? Who gave the briefing? What briefing was given ( when and by who) to the formation leader on RIS/RAS?.
I get the distinct impression that this C.M. has been laid on for political reasons to satisfy the American Authorities that the loss of their aircrew is being thoroughly investigated and not just swept under the carpet. I certainly hope that Spot's defence dig deep into the briefing actions and responsibilities of the USAF.
I don't know spot but the best of luck!!!

Roger Dodge

1st Feb 2003, 10:57

Micky

As an ex-Mil ATCO (I did my AD OJT at Brum) I just wanted to know one thing. I believe the USAF have conducted and concluded their investigation. Have the results of their labours been made public??

Rumour has it that they lay the blame entirely with the aircrew. If this is the case then surely this is pivotal in Spots' trial??

Keep the updates coming, the whole of ATC waits with ever increasing interest..

Mickydrip

1st Feb 2003, 11:02

Oldjet Jockey makes very valid points.

The USAF carried out their own enquiry some considerable time ago and, I believe, concluded that it was a tragic accident. They have since refused to release any information to anyone, including the wife of Lt Col Hyvonen, the flight leader. She has been in attendance to try to find any information about her husbands death.

There is a USAF Major in attendance at the Court Martial who will, no doubt, be quizzed next week on some of the details that Oldjet Jockey refers to; his responses will certainly appear on pprune.

I think that the above probably clears up your queries, Roger Dodge.

Sorry for the late report but, as warned, we all departed for home at the end of proceedings, around 1600 yesterday; 350 miles of snowy motorway later and (almost) all I needed was a dram and some kip.

Before I start I would like to point out that great care is taken to ensure that these reports are de-personalised and only contain information given in open court, i.e. in the public domain. Nothing heard either behind the scenes or in confidence has or will ever be included.

Yesterday was a long and frustrating day; at one point the court was adjourned for an hour and a quarter to enable the Prosecutor to photocopy documents that he had failed to provide for the Board. Later in the day the court was closed by the JA and we were all asked to leave. To a man, we all thought that he was considering the shambolick Prosecution case and that it might all end there. Our disappointment was obvious when court re-opened and the case for the Prosecution continued; the closure had been to allow the Board to try to understand the complexities of altimetry.

It is interesting to note, however, that everybody in the public area feels that the case appears more and more like a house of cards; 1 more big hit by the Defence QC, who is doing a magnificent job, will bring the whole case crashing down. We have been warned, however, that there is a possibility that it may drag on into a 3rd week! My view is that the Defence QC is so focused that once the weak and disorganised Prosecution case has been completed, proceedings will move at a much faster pace. There may not even be a case to answer if the Prosecutor has failed to prove the charges. The Defence team has an impressive number of big hitters waiting in the wings including a whole raft of eye witnesses, some of whom are aircraft enthusiasts, a senior RAF officer,(the ATC specialist) and a Brit F15 pilot from BAe.

The Prosecution only managed to call 2 witnesses yesterday, neither being the only big-hitter they have left. The first was a member of the RCC staff, to comment on the conversion of radar data provided by Scatcc Mil into lat./long to aid the production a radar plot. Included in the creation of the plot was time, distance, azimuth count pulse, flight level, altitude, ground speed and descent rate. The second witness was an aircrew member and advisor to the Board of Inquiry who drew the plot from the data converted by the RCC. It had been evident to the defence team that serious of errors and assumptions had been made in creating the plot; this was confirmed in open court by questions to the aircrew member. Having already documented his altimeter conversion error, he was asked to demonstrate his mathematics for the benefit of the court and he made the same mistake. Apart from the error of incorrectly converting flight level and QNH data, the pilot stated that in creating the radar plot he had projected the track of the aircraft forward, in a straight line, from the final radar contact position, which was normal procedure. However, as this put the crash site some 800 metres WEST of the summit, on his own volition, he moved the plot to the right, to arrive at the then-known crash site, which was approximately 500 metres EAST of the summit. In my opinion this is outrageous; he has clearly altered the evidence to fit the scenario. [A quote from Dick follows…] "Spot would have been stitched up like a kipper on evidence based mainly on - dare I say it - assumption ! Like the kipper, it stinks" !

Do bear in mind that it has been agreed that when the aircraft disappeared from radar, it was because they had faded below cover and not because they had already hit the mountain, although that happened shortly afterwards. The given descent rate of 5000 feet per minute at the last radar return, strongly suggests to me that the pilots were clear of cloud and in ground contact, hence the disappearance from radar. I know of no pilot who, in mountainous terrain, would descend at such a steep angle when in cloud, it just doesn’t make sense.

That’s it for now, it’s a long report but contains a great deal of vital information for your consumption. As Dick says, only now is the work of Spot’s support group over the last 2 years coming to fruition, (altimetry etc.). We haven't been able to post our work, as this would have been prejudicial to his case. As we are now approaching the time when we hear the defence witnesses, more of the work that has been done will come to light.

Sadly I’ll not be at the CM next week but Dick has kindly agreed to write a summary of proceedings and fax the report to me; I’ll post it on prune.

Watch your 6 everybody

short&shapeless

1st Feb 2003, 11:37

Thanks for keeping us up to date Micky - I can almost sense from here the feeling of disappointment felt by all when the case resumed after the long break.

We should not have started this at all, let alone be in this position now however, looking at this positively it may be better in the long term to run for another couple of days (or whatever) and either find no case to prove or find in favour of SPOT.

That will put this thing well and truly to bed, rather than have it collapse due to typical Defence Legal Services incompetance and leave some to cling to the 'no smoke without fire' argument whilst blaming the system for failing to produce a decision in their favour.

Not much comfort to SPOT and family now, I know, but his defence team seems to have its eye, well and truly, on the ball.

Good luck SPOT, it can't be much longer now - can it? Common sense and decent justice have to intervene at some point.

Thinking of you mate,
GT

beads

1st Feb 2003, 13:13

Spot,

You were one of my instructors on the first ARTS of '90. Mike T was Boss and Renrut there for some reason or other - so I know you've got good support. Logged on to PPrune for the first time today, just to pledge my support. I recall some late nights, pickled onions and a 'with sympathy' card hastily altered for Sue's birthday.

You perhaps do not remember me as one of the many young sprogs whose career was influenced by a few weeks with Spot but, as this forum demonstrates, we are thinking of you and your family during this ordeal.

Mickydrip

1st Feb 2003, 14:30

Dick has suggested that clarification of the altimetry question would be helpful, and has provided such, so here goes:

The crash site was at 4050 feet above mean sea level. The aircraft were flying on the Regional pressure setting of 1003mb. The QNH (Met Office) of the crash site was given as 1014 mb.

There are now 2 ways of viewing the happenings. If the F15s were level at a cockpit-indicated altitude of 4000 feet they would in reality be at 4300 feet above mean sea level and could not have hit the ground at the crash site.

Another way of looking at it, which supports our supposition that the aircraft were already flying low level in visual contact with the surface, is that, to impact the ground at 4050 feet AMSL, the cockpit indications of the altimeters would give a reading of 3700 feet. Not forgetting that both aircraft impacted in level flight.

lippiatt

1st Feb 2003, 15:02

The maths speak for themselves!!

How could this have got to a CM??? Its not a complicated altimetry question, the board ask trickier ones every week!!

Has this basic altimetry been discussed in open court?

Best wishes Spot, heres hoping your free to speak by this time next week!

fatjockslim

1st Feb 2003, 15:11

Remember, DLS only have 10 fingers and a few coloured crayons to count with!

End this farce now!

DICK DOLEMAN

1st Feb 2003, 16:53

I am having a problem with my home computer compatibility with pprune site, so I have now decamped to friend's computer because I feel this matter is crucial for all to understand.

The altimetry and altitude question relating to this accident has been well known to us for a considerable time. Reference the reply to Mickydrip's last posting concerning discussion on this issue at the Court Martial, this was the very item that the Sqn. Ldr. aircrew witness got so wrong. His initial findings were to be presented to the Board of Inquiry and were subsequently presented to the Court Martial as an exhibit.

He also got it wrong when initially asked to demonstrate his findings to the Board of the Court Martial. However, following further questioning by the defence QC he, the witness, subsequently came to the same result as us; the cockpit indication on the altimeter would have been 3700 ft (with the Regional Pressure Setting, which was agreed to have been set).

The leader of a Tornado formation had previously reported to the Court Martial that, not long before the crash, the white-out conditions localised around the Ben McDhui area were the worst that he had ever encountered and turned away. The Court Martial had already been presented with evidence of a high rate of descent not long before impact and that the aircraft impacted in level flight.

This leads to my supposition that these aircraft were visual with the surface but had very little time to adjust to the white-out conditions after their rapid descent and subsequently impacted with snow covered terrain.

singlestranger

1st Feb 2003, 16:54

I'm just one of a number of FCs who have been following this all the way thru. It's amazing but the more I hear the case just gets flimsier and more ridiculous, it should be stopped before it does some real damage.

It has already affected us with this having to get acknowledgement that pilots are responsible for terrain clearance. Where does it end? Do we need to read the whole JSP definition just to cover our own a***s.

Unfortunately the USAF seem to be frequently unaware of our procedures, we frequently get 15s pitching up in OTA C and doing their own thing, right in the middle of an 8-ship of F3s. Not having a go at them totally, maybe we could be more pro-active and make sure they know. The thing is they are a pleasure to control - in sterile airspace!

Spot, to you best of luck, i sincerely hope you get the result you clearly deserve.

NigelOnDraft

1st Feb 2003, 17:28

When possible, to assist those of us following this, can someone try and provide a "neutral" and brief summary of what Spot is accused of. I am aware of the "legal charges", but the practicalities would help in light of the very useful postings during the CM.

i.e. roughly what the transcripts say, once they have been played to the CM (if they are)... and which of these conversations the prosecution seem to be basing their case on.

As I said, it would help us follow the detailed posts you are making i.e. the why the altimetry question is important?

I am obviously asking for nothing not in the public domain, or outside the guidelines mentioned by those giving us updates.

Thanks in advance...

NoD

Gisajob

1st Feb 2003, 17:52

THIS CASE AFFECTS ALL ATCOs

Reading the thread of comments and (dare I say) evidence coming out of the postings on this topic, it really is proving to be a scandal which the press will surely soon pick up. Can I caution all ATCOs to be aware that forum comments could be used later.

One has only got to read “Oldjet Jockey’s” comments and Dick’s altimetry issues to realise what a travesty this is, however, powerful and influential people can and will do anything to save their necks and reputations (Chinook ?).

The priority is to stop this awful charade and release SPOT and all ATCOs in the future from this nightmare. After that we can hold the post mortem.

SPOT, you must be heartened by all the support, just imagine what will happen if the JA makes the wrong decision !! Keep your chin up. The entire ATC profession and significantly all the aircrew forum posters are with you.

Gisajob

crabmeister

1st Feb 2003, 18:08

Firstly, Mickey thanks for keeping us all informed of the goings-on at the CM - top job!

Spot - there are thousands out here, controllers and not, who are keen to see this thing ended ASAP. This should never have got this far, now that it has, we are sure that you will be completely vindicated. Keep your sense of humour matey!

Mickydrip

1st Feb 2003, 19:04

NoD asks for a resume of the charges; I did summarise them a little while ago and it's difficult to expand on what has gone before without going over old ground.

Perhaps if I write exactly what appears in the charge sheet then make a comment or two. The charge sheet has been made available to members of the press and public.

Charge 1 & 3 (One for each pilot, Lt Col Hyvonen and Capt Jones):

Doing an act in relation to aircraft causing the loss of life to a person contrary to Section 49 of the Airforce Act 1955, in that he, at Royal Air Force Leuchars on the 26th day of March 2001 when on duty as an air traffic controller providing a radar information service and in radio communication with Lt Col Hyvonen USAF, the lead pilot of a formation of two F15C aircraft, having been requested to provide a descent to RAF Leuchars' minimum vectoring altitude, it being his duty, as the aircraft were outside RAF Leuchars' radar vector chart, not to descend the piolt below 6500 ft, said to the Lt Col to descend to 4000ft, which act caused the loss of life of the said Lt Col.

Also a 2nd charge of: Negligently performing a duty contrary to Section 29 A (b) of the Airforce Act 1955 in that he .....etc .

Appreciating that summarising can over-simplify matters, you may be wise to go back to some of the previous and carefully drafted comments for a full explanation. However, in essence, the Prosecution believe there is a direct link between what Spot said and the death of the 2 aircrew; the Defence believe not, as that direct link was broken when they went visual and proceeded low-level. Despite being in the charge sheet, there is also the question of the "minimum vectoring altitude" which is not a Royal Air Force term but is used by USAF crews. Finally, reference is made in the charge sheet to the "radar vector chart"; as you are well aware, this is designed for arriving aircraft to, in this case, RAF Leuchars - it is therefore based on QFE; it is not designed for use by departures or transit aircraft.

It's a pity that before they decided to go low level, the pilots hadn't said as much to Spot; this may tie in with their speedy disappearance from radar, in that they rapidly went out of radio coverage due to terrain as they descended (at 5000 ft per minute).

Concerning the transcripts, only brief and selective mention has been made to small portions of the tape transcript, the odd phrase here and there. To mention what has been commented on so far would appear disjointed and meaningless; the tape transcripts are not yet in the public domain and the R/T recording has yet to be played, although that is expected next week.

The middle charge of negligence is, despite being a lesser charge, much more difficult to defend. If you don't mind, I'll not say any more on the subject as I've no wish to give the other side any clues, suffice to say that there are one or two ideas being carefully considered.

Hope that helps.

timzsta

1st Feb 2003, 19:29

Spot - we have never met, you have my support and sympathy. I remember the incident occuring whilst I was still an FC in the Navy.

When this is all through and justice is done, let us hope that heads are made to roll for this shambolic situation. When this is all done I will perhaps post my "piece of mind" on all this.

NigelOnDraft

1st Feb 2003, 19:29

MD...

Many thanks for that - exactly what I was after.

I have read, indeed "followed", the entire thread. However, I believe that you had described the charges before (e.g. the first line or so of what you have listed above), but not the ensuing detail.

I totally agree in your not repeating snippets of transcripts. I had understood that they may be produced in entirety during the CM, and only at that stage hope to see them, either here or elsewhere. From what you have said the timings as well as what was said will be improtant.

The 2nd charge looks to be presented as a "cop out" option for the board. Hopefully someone will disallow this, as suggested earlier...

Thank you for what you have posted. It clarifies much of what you have earlier posted. Meanwhile, please do keep your strategies to yourself - I'm sure the "other" side are reading this!

In that you have mentioned it, the 5000fpm must be significant. It is an outrageous rate of descent in IMC near SA, particularly in close formation (as would be required in IMC). As you state, it must therefore imply visual with the ground and more likely a "relaxed" formation. How far apart were the crash sites? Unless of course they had some form of radar formation? (as a mere ex-GR7 mud mover, I have no knowledge of aircraft radar SOPs other than looking at clouds in my airliner)

I am sure the F15 SOPs for Descent in IMC / Formation / UK have been the subject of much study by your team....

NoD

Brian Dixon

1st Feb 2003, 20:29

Mickeydrip,
as has been said, many thanks for the updates.

You mention in your last post about charge 2 (Negligence) being difficult to defend. Please contact me via e-mail as we may be able to discuss matters. May be helpful, may be not. Better for you to decide as opposed to me wondering.

Regards,
Brian

DICK DOLEMAN

2nd Feb 2003, 10:29

Just to let you all know that the Guild (GATCO) has maintained a presence at the CM throughout. Ted Tilley and Richard Dawson (President) were with us last week. Richard has important Guild business for Monday and we will have Chris 'Sticky' Stock ( past President) taking his place.

When the personal staff officer to the CinC does his Monday morning brief, I hope he has time to mention that we have now passed 20,000 hits on this forum.

As Mickydrip would say, "Have a nice day sir"

I shall be travelling back up to Helensburgh today and will try to ensure that you continue to receive the daily summary of events.

It took 3 days before Spot managed to hold his breakfast down but despite the immense strain he is under both he and Sue are in relatively good spirits. He has the support of family and friends every day. His RAF 'mates' have been particularly supportive.

Wrote8

2nd Feb 2003, 14:37

First a few courtesies, then a couple of questions ref Courts Martial.

The Courtesies:

Spot: If you could bottle the good will that abounds for you round the ATCO bazaars right now, you'd be looking at more bottles than Tommy T has siphoned his homebrew into over the last 88yrs since his Mum sent him out to look for work.

Micky Drip - Bluddy good stuff (and I don't mean the homebrew!).

Dick D: sorry we never met, but I'd like to shake your hand for what you're doing.

Questions:

1. What is the legal position of Courts Martial these days in terms of "civil law" (i.e. does CM findings mean that a case cannot then be tried again in a civil court? Rights of Appeal to higher authority etc.).

2. Can a CM determine costs (i.e. who pays for Spot's legal bill when he gets cleared)?

Good Luck this week Spot

Stu B

Just another ATCO

2nd Feb 2003, 15:02

Many thanks to MD and Dick - Only been following this for 4 days, but it clears up a lot of questions.

Spot - I'm another random ATCO you've never met, however, full support from myself and those I've been on shift with in Brandy sour territory :cool:

Mickydrip

2nd Feb 2003, 15:11

Hi Stu,
Not absolutely sure about the correct answer to either of your questions but from conversations last week, the feeling is that Spot has chosen to be represented - ie his own decision to employ a solicitor and barrister (and who wouldn't with the possibility of a lifetime in jail on the horizon - that would have been the max term for the original charges of wilful negligence; the RAF have since scaled the charges down, the jail term would only be 4 years !!). Because it's his choice, the feeling is that he will be liable for his own costs, win or lose.

As you know, he's been a member of the Guild of air traffic controller officers (GATCO) for many years and they continue to be enormously supportive of Spot and his case; it has far reaching consequences if he loses. The Guild have agreed to fund up to 50K; beyond that is still being studied, but legal aid doesn't kick in until the costs reach 130K; now does that seem fair to you?
Spot's costs reached 6 figures at Christmas.
Also, can you imagine what would have happened if he had not been a GATCO member? As Dick says, the RAF would have tried to stitch him up like a kipper.

Concerning the CM status in civvy street, you'd have to see if a Senior Officer in the know posts a response; I fully expect Spot's team to appeal if the decision goes against him (that's only my feeling though)

Oh, and thanks for the curtsy!

Brian Young

2nd Feb 2003, 17:58

Spot,

Sorry I can't be with you this week. Not sure if my ticker could stand a second week! Be assured that I will still be there in spirit.

"La verité est en marche; rien ne peut plus l’arrêter"!
(Emile Zola on the Dreyfus case)

"Truth is on the march; nothing can stop it now."

Brian

Wrote8

2nd Feb 2003, 18:19

Costs.....

Now call me a bit thick, but if you are called to face charges, whether it be in a Court Martial, or before the local Magistrate, surely you are entitled to the full protection of the law (innocent till proven guilty) and the right to a Lawyer? Given that you will almost certainly need legal representation to defend yourself, the cost of doing so must be a liability against the prosecution if they fail? You would not be exposed to any costs if there was no "prosecution". It has to be a breach of your human rights if "the Military" (whose costs are borne by the Crown, and the fact that they have full time hired hands whose sole job it is to do their legal washing), expect to be able to "price you out" of your own defence by excusing themselves from paying if they get their case wrong??!! As my old Gran would say, "if its dangly and hairy and hanging under a kilt, its bollocks!".

Who is Spot's local MP? I feel a campaign coming on!

stopbar

2nd Feb 2003, 19:34

Spot & Sue

Good luck for the second week. the more I hear and read the more I can't believe how crass the authorities are for letting this go this far, somebody obviously doesn't want to lose face, god knows why. As for incorrect altimetery and guesstimated tracks and positions, I was left speechless at the presentation of both as fact, thank goodness for your team and friends being on the ball. Any way good luck to you and heres to an early result this week.

Mark B

Redeyerambo

2nd Feb 2003, 20:17

I feel like an interloper here. Been following this for some time now, can't really believe what's going on. I have no ATC knowledge, apart from Dolly, Zig Zag and Spot plus a few others, but the whole thing just doesn't hold up. Unfortunately, no one on this forum is on the Board, let's hope they see things clearly.
Spot all I can say is "I'm looking forward to seeing you on the first Tee in May ready to "****" the little Bastard". I'm looking at your "BAST'AD" trophy right now being the current holder.
From your Redeye mates here in Newark, keep smiling, it's almost over, see you soon.
Rambo

Mickydrip

3rd Feb 2003, 05:14

In response to Wrote8: everything you say sounds good, apart from "certainly need legal protection to defend yourself". The view of the supporters up North at the moment is as stated, Spot engaged the team and Spot pays, as unfair as that may seem. He was not obliged to engage either solicitor nor his barrister and could have opted, we think, for DLS representation; judging by the shambles that presents itself as the Prosecution team, he was right to go his own route. Speculation about future costs is OK but the feeling really is one day at a time and we'll face the costs when that time comes. Nobody wants to build Spot's hopes up by suggesting that his costs will be met by the Crown if he wins, they may well be, we just don't know yet; the winning bit is the first hurdle, and although it's going well so far, it's a big hurdle with dire consequences if he loses.

One other interesting point that I neglected to mention in a previous brief about the plotting of the map by the advisor to the B of I : Defence asked him if he plotted the map (and moved the plot to fit the known crash site) in isolation, or was he aware that eye witness statements were available. To the man's shame, he admitted knowing of the eye witness reports and discounting them; he actually made no attempt to read them or take them into his calculations. It's outrageous.
More later from Dick, let's hope this tragedy finishes today.

Watch your 6, guys

geoffwoodward

3rd Feb 2003, 09:51

I have no military experience whatsoever but have been following proceedings through this forum with keen interest as Spot is a pal of mine who I met through the Redeye Golf Society( led by D Dolman, say no more).

Being on the outside looking in I feel one word describes this farce, SCAPEGOAT.

Many thanks to Mickeydrip for the excellent bulletins each day.

To Spot and Sue
You have been in our thoughts for a long time with this hanging over you and even more so over the last week but itis nearly over now and you can start to put your lives back together again.

Spot I am looking forward to seeing you in May and partaking of a drambughie shandy or two with you.

Keep yer chin up youth.

Woody

McDuff

3rd Feb 2003, 13:07

Good luck Spot (and Sue)!

Sorry to be so late to the support group by proxy. I was asked by Spot's current (?) SATCO to be a professional witness (I'm a fj pilot) a good while ago, but it was not until the (civvy) SATCO at Wyton told me that I have checked this forum.

Luv & Kisses

Matoman

3rd Feb 2003, 17:46

Keep your spirts up Spot, I've been in the specialisation nearly 30 years and everyone I've spoken to, from the top to the bottom, believes this CM is a total farce and should never have been instigated. Justice will prevail and all the charges should be dismissed by the end of this week with any luck.

On the subject of costs, I would happily donate £5 or even more towards Spot's costs and suggest that all ATCO's reach into their pockets and do the same. We've all made genuine mistake and got away with them - we've been lucky, sadly Spot's luck just ran out

DICK DOLEMAN

3rd Feb 2003, 18:22

For reasons that connot be explained right now, my posting will be restricted to the basics of the day. Please be patient and all will be made clear at the end of the CM; this will be in the best interest of the defence.

The whole day was taken up with the playing of the R/T tapes and the reading of Spot's 165 page statement made to the RAF Police. This was a very difficult and stressful day for Spot, Sue and his sister Barbara and was as bad as can be imagined; they were all close to tears, having to go through, yet again, a very harrowing part of their lives. They all showed commendable dignity throughout.

More tomorrow.

Brian Dixon

3rd Feb 2003, 20:27

Hi everyone.

Here's a little tip from the Chinook campaign that has worked extremely well in the past.

Spot's MP is a chap called Iain Luke. You may like to drop him an e-mail to let him know of Spot's plight and the injustice of it all. Drop him a line on I think I'll E-Mail Spot's MP ([email protected])

Alternatively, drop a line to Mr Hoon - I'll tell Mr Hoon too! ([email protected]) Don't expect a reply from him though! :*

Alternatively, send a fax to any MP you want. Use this excellent facility - Fax an MP (http://faxyourmp.com)

Hope these are useful.
Regards
Brian

short&shapeless

3rd Feb 2003, 20:45

Carry on like this Brian and the MOD are going to try and change your name to a 'really, really, really irritating ppruner';)

Looking forward to the outline plan of action in the next installment on the Chinook Thread

milatco

3rd Feb 2003, 22:44

Fully agree with the sentiments of MATOMAN. I am in my 25th year as a mil ATCO although now very much desk-bound. By taking this to CM the DLS is putting a decent honest individual through the mill unnecessarily. How many ATCOs out there can honestly say they have never made a mistake?? - none!

This CM is hardly improving the morale of controllers throughout the RAF who try their hardest to provide a safe and flexible air traffic service to civil and military jets in Class G - a difficult and thankless task at the best of times. If I was still controlling I would certainly never even contemplate bending the rules now - it is not worth it.

Spot - apologies for not getting on PPrune earlier - I'm only 50% computer literate! My thoughts are with you as are those of my colleagues, many of whom have had the pleasure of working with you over the years. Thanks for making the ARTS Course relatively bearable back in late 89 - you had much better instructional technique than the instructor in a skirt!

Mickydrip - thanks for the sitreps

Regards

milatco

Mickydrip

4th Feb 2003, 08:19

As ever, Brian Dixon provides sound information, having had previous experience of injustice with the Chinook saga.

As things are so delicately balanced at this stage, and still in the judicial process, can I urge great caution in Brian's suggestion about contacting your MP? The case is still deeply in the judicial process and I don't think any MP would touch it for fear of an accusation being levelled of attempting to pervert the course of justice - a VERY serious matter, which would do untold damage to Spot case. Should things go disasterously wrong for Spot, and I doubt that they will, it may well be worth considering and, if need be, we'll talk again on the subject.

Best wishes to all.

fatjockslim

4th Feb 2003, 10:15

As a recent case in Holland demonstrates, ATC assistants can also be held liable. As a Mil controller for 17 years, I always accepted responsibility for my assistants actions, and rightly so!
I am sure that all controllers will acknowledge that you cannot always monitor 100% all of the time and a certain degree of trust has to be employed. It now seems that they too will find themselves in court alongside the controller, having to accept responsibility for their own actions. What degree of insurance will they have to find?

When will this madness end?

Thoughts are with you and the family Spot.

Brian Young

4th Feb 2003, 19:02

I have been contacted by "Mickydrip" (who is no longer in Helensburgh, but agreed to post a Daily Summary received from Dick Doleman, who is still there). He has been unable to log on to this site using either his or Dick's details so has asked me to post Dick's summary which is as follows:

"Day7 Tuesday 4th Feb 03. A particularly turgid and boring day, with the Prosecutor going over old ground (again), plus the arrival of Gp Capt Jim Stenson. The CM saw a replay of the Aberdeen, Lowther Hill and Alan's Hill radar pictures. The Prosecutor has not yet finished with his latest witness, so no appearance of the defence today, hence no report. We have hopes for a more interesting day tomorrow. From a personal point of view, I can see what "track" the Prosecution is on, so I'm sure it will be blindingly obvious to the Defence team!
Despite tales to the contrary, Al Turner does not shave his legs but reacts badly to hot curry. Sad to report that the ex-RAF contingent have done a grand job of wrecking his lovely vintage Volvo.
More tomorrow, unless we're still barred from pprune!."

End of message.

Brian Young

Brian Dixon

4th Feb 2003, 19:11

OOps!! :O

Thanks Mickeydrip. Obviously no sabotage intended. Sound advice from you too.

As always, my best to Spot, his family and to his fantastic support network.

Regards,
Brian (occasionally shoots from the hip) Dixon :)

Mickydrip

4th Feb 2003, 20:29

Just a comms check - haven't been able to log onto prune all day, and neither has Dick. Obviously a hiccup at the server.
Thanks to Brian for keeping the show on the road
More tomorrow::confused: :confused:

call-it-5

4th Feb 2003, 22:10

Spot, just to let you know there are a lot of people in ATC RAF Lincolnshire who are right behind you and hoping for the outcome we all know is right.

Even though it must be hellishly difficult, keep your chin up and don't let the bastards grind you down.

After this is all over, hopefully all the details can become public and the people who should have stood up to be counted will get what they deserve.

Keep fighting, all the best.

Terminal Man

5th Feb 2003, 07:30

We in Mil ATC in Hampshire echo the sentiments of so many others on this forum and you have both our sympathy and support.

Once this show trial has reached a successful conclusion, which it surely must, I hope that we can maintain the momentum by supporting our other colleague who has been treated equally shamefully following the Pristina incident.

There is a palpable sense of outrage at these injustices which should not surprise those who have perpetrated them.

Keep going Spot (and Brian) - right is on your side.

Mickydrip

5th Feb 2003, 17:15

Day 8 - Wednesday 5th Feb 03

Summary from Dick @ Helensburgh:

The first session of the morning was spent with the Prosecutor finishing off his examination of his ATC witness Gp. Capt. Jim Stenson. Thereafter, Spot’s QC started his cross-examination, which was completed just before adjourning for the day.

Spot’s QC established the following:

1. Under RIS, the pilot is wholly responsible for terrain clearance
2. Spot broke no regulation in descending the aircraft to 4000 ft
3. Spot is both an experienced and professional ATCO who attempted to assist the aircraft to achieve their task through his own honest endeavour. The QC then used a number of examples from the tape transcript to support this.
4. The RAF authorities did not interview civilian witnesses, for whatever reason.

It was an exciting day with plenty of points of order, and one question of law necessitating the Board leaving the room while the Judge Advocate considered both sides of the argument. He subsequently ruled in favour of the Defence.

More tomorrow.

Whipping Boy's SATCO

5th Feb 2003, 17:43

MD, TVM. It would appear that 'Big Bad Jim' has been a useful defence witness!

tiggur

5th Feb 2003, 18:12

I am sure that I am not alone in finally pulling my finger out and finally joining GATCO after seeing the assistance being provided to Spot. Assuming a mini influx of new membership, and even a modest increase in the subscription, could a higher level of financial support be provided to him, or am I speaking out of turn? If there is a way of individual donations being forwarded to the cause, could someone post appropriate details. I don't believe that I have ever met Spot, but having followed this thread since it began, I can't help wondering how I would cope in his position, be it mentally and financially.
I hope the light is at the end of the tunnel, so keep your chin up Spot.

Nick B.

Vick11

5th Feb 2003, 18:44

As a current military SATCO I have been following this thread carefully and recently I have been printing out some of the very informative reports that have been posted from those able to attend the CM in order to pass on the information to my controllers. Needless to say it is heartening to all that the Defence appear to be making some very valid points that will hopefully bring this to a successful end in the near future.

On the down side, I must also say that as a branch we are our own worst enemies sometimes. Why send the ATCEB to Leuchars at such a sensitive time for the personnel still there. Is it any surprise that the minds of controllers lay elsewhere last week and this week. Come on people, lets start giving ourselves a chance!

Watch Man

5th Feb 2003, 22:17

I'm in a similar position to Vick (only not quite so many different ac types) and log on during the day to let my controllers know how things are going.
Thanks to all for your daily reports, it really does make a difference.

There are a lot of people down here, both flyers and controllers, willing you to win Spot.

vertigo

6th Feb 2003, 00:32

Is there any way we could set up a fund for Spot's legal expenses ? Surely ever little helps and there must be a lot of people on this forum.
Would anyone else like to donate ?

Good luck Spot.

Mickydrip

6th Feb 2003, 05:38

It's very encouraging to see that SATCO's are briefing their staff on the progress of this Court Martial; it's obviously of immense importance to every controller,whether civil or military. As has been stated earlier in this forum, we all make mistakes; those that won't admit it are only fooling themselves. Like the majority of other controllers, I've stretched the rules on occasion, just to get the job done and help the aircrew achieve their goal. It's always been with the thought at the back of my mind that I would be supported should things go wrong. Spot's been let down very badly by his managers and now finds himself alone in the dock; it's a damned disgrace and heads, other than Spot's, should roll.

On a lighter note, and picking up recent comments, it won't surprise any of you to hear that plans are being seriously considered to bridge the gap between the Guilds' 50K and the start of legal aid @ 130K. It would not be wise of me to speculate but watch these pages for more information on this important subject. GATCO and its' managers deserve the greatest of praise; they were quick to recognise the problem of finance and promised funds immediately. They were also quick to recognise the impact that this trial could have on service provision by civil and military controllers; at a stroke, RIS and RAS could have become history.

On behalf of Spot and Sue, thank you all for your very vocal support; the number of hits on this subject has soared. Spot, Sue and all the supporters at Hellensburgh read your comments over breakfast every morning (Spot is actually managing to keep it in his stomach these days,so that's a big improvement).

More later.

golfops

6th Feb 2003, 08:14

Spot and Sue: Keeping up to date via the web and just letting you know that even broken down old golf pro's are thinking of you. Hang in there. Just work on your follow through Spot. Cheers

Dem

6th Feb 2003, 09:08

I think all ATCO's would be proud to donate something to a funds for Spots expenses. This whole case is a disgrace and should never have been brought to trial. The RAF should support its staff and not persecute them in this way. It is obvious to everyone who reads this forum that Spot did absolutely nothing wrong and is only being made a scapegoat because the aircrew involved were not British.

This case and the Pristina one have damaged the image of the RAF and disallusioned alot of people so I think it is time to say adios(sp) to it all.

Good luck Spot, surely you can only get the right outcome from this farce. All the best.

Soddit

6th Feb 2003, 09:52

I am a professional pilot. I am not ex military nor do I know Spot. However, I do want to see justice done. Show trials have no place in a democratic society.I shall therefore be happy to contribute to his defence costs when information how to do so is posted here. After all, UK taxpayers are already paying the prosecution costs whether they want to or not.Good luck and hang in there!

Argosy

6th Feb 2003, 10:06

You have the support of many ex-colleagues in Brussels who have been following this CM for several months now. It is indeed disgracefull that Spot was even charged - he has done nothing wrong. The RAF senior brass should have stood up for him.
I pledge at least £100 towards your legal costs Spot (we worked together in the 70s).

fatjockslim

6th Feb 2003, 10:39

I'll gladly pledge £100 too! Least I could do.

Brian Young

6th Feb 2003, 12:58

...............to talk about money. It is encouraging to know that people will be willing to put their hands into their pockets but there is a plan which cannot be mentioned at this stage. I have spoken to the support team (Dick et al) and the message is - only discuss the court martial now. Later, when and if necessary, information will come out about finances.

Brian Young

PPRuNe Radar

6th Feb 2003, 13:18

Thanks Brian Young,

Once things are settled and if things need to be done regarding money from individual readers, then PPRuNe will help facilitate whatever is required. Just let me know.

Good luck Spot, hopefully the farce will soon be over and you can get back to a normal life again.

Regards

PR

DICK DOLEMAN

6th Feb 2003, 18:33

Just a few short comments before starting today’s summary.

I would like to request that this forum isn’t the place for castigation of a “personal” nature of anyone participating in this CM. All the support group recognised that Gp Capt Jim Stenson had a ‘job’ to do for the Prosecution as an expert witness for the Crown. This can’t have been pleasant for him and he would almost certainly not have been there of his own volition. He acted in an entirely honourable fashion throughout and the ‘support group’ has no ‘issue’ with him.

Secondly, could we please leave the finance issue aside for the moment. Rest assured, we have a contingency plan.

Summary for Thursday 6th Feb 03:

The first part of the morning was taken up with Gp Capt Jim Stenson, for the Crown, being questioned by his Prosecutor. Spot’s QC, Mike Jones, then did his 2nd cross-examination. From this it was established that when flying IMC, IFR’s were mandatory. Much to his surprise, Gp Capt Stenson was asked to give a graphic demonstration of the Quadrantal Rule for the benefit of the members of the CM. Jim Stenson was then released as a witness.

The Crown’s last witness, Major Scott Chamberlain USAF, then took the stand. At the time of the accident he was Chief of Staneval, HQ USAFE. Major Chamberlain is a very experienced F15 pilot (2,200 hrs), instructor pilot and a qualified USAF aircraft accident investigator. Some of the issues examined will probably be better dealt with after the Defence has cross examined.

In his experience as a qualified Aircraft Accident Investigator he gave a thorough and detailed briefing of his opinion as to how the aircraft came to impact the ground. In brief summary, some of his comments were:

1. This was a low angle, high speed (300 kts +) impact with snow covered terrain.
2. The aircraft crashed in close formation with no evidence of collision prior to impact.
3. The aircraft were wings-level and instruments recovered from the scene suggested that they were throttled back (72%) at 13 degrees angle of attack at the time of impact with the surface at 4058 ft amsl.

The court adjourned, with the Prosecutor still to finish with his witness and the Defence yet to cross examine. It should be noted that all the above may be of great interest but has really nothing to do with the material charges.

More tomorrow

Bennyclub

6th Feb 2003, 19:54

I am another SATCO reading these treads and passing on the salient points to the front line. Thank you DD, MD et al for the factual stuff.

It has emerged that Spot is where he is because, like the rest of us, he was trying to do his best for his aircew - I have met no one in 25 years in this specialization who would not do the same.

Spot, ATC is a big boy's game which takes a special kind of bravery to play. Everyone down here is thinking of you and supporting your corner. Please draw comfort from the times in the past, that you will never know about, when a bit of advice here, or a bar room chat there, has been the difference in countless other potential incidents with all your students and UTs over the years. We can't imagine your feelings, but rest assured you and Sue are in our prayers

120.4

6th Feb 2003, 21:18

Firstly may I add my voice to all those supporting Spot at this most difficult time. By now it must be clear to you that all in ATC are with you.

Bennyclub makes a most relevant point. Which of us doesn't do their best for the aircrews we serve?

I am a civil ATCO of 20 years experience, currently at a major UK centre. My concern is that in these days of corporate manslaughter, management will not take responsibility for the consequences of the environment/culture which they have created but will seek instead to pass responsibility for error to the individuals who are being asked to do a most difficult task without the appropriate infrastructure. By that I mean that the ATC system is being heavily loaded but has not been given the redundant capacity to handle it that our safety culture rightly demands. Add to that the nature of ATCOs to bend over backwards to service our customers and we too then face the very real danger that is before Spot.

Spot's plight should serve as a warning to all of us. Do all you can to protect yourselves which may mean saying no to management. Those of us who take on more than is prudent in an effort to please are setting yourselves up and nobody will thank you when you are standing before a judge.

God bless you Spot.

Point 4:(

G&J

6th Feb 2003, 23:13

To Spot and Sue

We have only just found out about this web site. I am so angry and appalled and horrified and angry and mad as fire about what is happening. I am also ashamed at my naivety in thinking all this must surely be long since over by now. It's been so long since I left the RAF ('96) that I had forgotten about the 'whenever anything goes wrong you're on your own' syndrome. How could I have forgotten so easily? In my innocence I assumed that if the pilot was under a RIS terrain clearance was his responsibility. It is, after all, very clear in the books that all pilots and air traffickers have a duty to read and understand. Isn't superfluous RT such as 'at your discretion' frowned upon? The whole point of saying 'Radar Information Service' is that both parties understand the full implications of the contract between them without unnecessary words clogging up the frequency.

Any support that Guy and I can give is yours, whenever you need it. When justice is finally done, and you are released from this nightmare, please come down to West Wales and have a break from it all. Come and play with the puppies we hope Spook's niece will produce in the spring.

Much love, Jane and Guy

Wrote8

6th Feb 2003, 23:17

Nothing new to add, but after a couple of days reflecting on things, just a few thoughts.

First of all, I think we are all now getting the message that there are moves afoot to help Spot with the finances, once the bills are in and proceedings are done. Like everyone else, I am hugely relieved for Spot. It serves to demonstrate 3 things:

a. How much we all feel for what Spot has been put through.

b. What a brilliantly organised and well motivated team has come together to support Spot and his family - keep up the good work fellas!

c. What a huge kick up the ailse the "system" needs for allowing this to have taken place at all - there must be a coordinated effort after the dust has settled, to ensure that our misgivings and concerns are represented to both the Military and Civil authorities.

Secondly, let us remember there are no winners in this; 2 pilot's have lost their lives and Spot has been put through a living hell for nearly 2 years. Whatever the outcome, we must channel our thoughts towards helping Spot and his family find a way forward, and hoping that they and the families of the 2 pilots can reconcile themselves to the days ahead.

Finally, following on from an earlier thread, let us try not to personalise this issue into any form of witch hunt. Whatever the failings of various individuals, authorities etc., what we need is to determine a course that will protect us all from anything like this ever happening again. First Pristina, now this - that has to be the last time. We have among us some great organisers and communicators who possess the knowledge and experience to bring this issue to the fore. Let the legacy of this tragic event be a determination of what our "duty of care" actually is and how it binds all of us in this business together. No-one going about doing his job should want for the "care" to ensure he/she is put in such a dire situation ever again.

God Bless you Spot and may he bring all this to a speedy and rightful end.

EXATCO

7th Feb 2003, 09:10

Thanks for your posting Wrote8 - very well put and I thoroughly endorse it.

Just one thing to add. I think we should be heartened by the fact that, despite the 'jobsworths', there is still a backbone in the RAF of like minded individuals who will support their colleagues to ensure that justice will prevail. The controller from Pristina had, I believe, the support of his S/L Ops (now a brewery owner!) and a pro-active CO. Spot has the support of a formidable team of professional and sound friends.

Spot & Sue take heart, we are all willing you along and constantly thinking of you.

All the very best of wishes to you both.

Argus

7th Feb 2003, 10:33

As an aging antipodean solicitor dispensing justice in an unequal world, I've read the posts on this topic with some interest.

Back in the halcyon days of the mid 1960s, I was a mere unreconstructed hewer of wood and drawer of water in the vineyard of the Fleet Air Arm, at the then RNAS Lossiemouth.

In those days, RAF Canberras based in Germany flew direct to Tain Range (home of that excellent malt, Glen Morangie), descended either VMC or under limited radar control or advisory service provided by both ‘Highland Radar’ (the GCI radar at RAF Buchan) and ‘Moray Radar’ at Lossiemouth, dropped the ordinance, enjoyed lunch at Lossie and returned to base in the afternoon.

Also, USAF F111’s and F4’s based in southern England would let down under the stewardship of ‘Moray Radar’ to enter the two low flying areas in North East and North West Scotland.

In early January 1966, a 2TAF Canberra crashed into mountains west of Inverness whilst on a radar controlled descent into Tain during a ‘white out’ blizzard. Both the pilot and navigator were killed. Because of the weather, the wreckage wasn’t found for three days – and only then by a ground party. Aerial searches were impossible.

I recall that there was always a problem with visiting aircraft descending directly into Tain Range or the then Low Flying Areas 14 and 15 because of the adjoining high terrain. The RN had installed 1960s Marconi S264 state of the art radar at Lossie to provide Master Diversion Airfield ATC services for Lightnings, F104s, F105s, and other NATO aircraft flying intercepts against Russian intruders. My recollection is that the radar was as good as it got at that time.

On the day of the accident, the Canberra was descending in IMC towards high ground under 'limited radar control' from Moray Radar. The decent clearance was, I think to an altitude below the minimum safe in a perceived expectation that the pilot would report VMC below and proceed VFR to the range. But on the day in question, there were snow blizzards and low cloud. In the prevailing 'white out' conditions (that were known to ATC), VMC below eluded the crew with fatal consequences.

A Board of Inquiry was convened. The cause of the accident was determined as 'pilot error'.

Sounds familiar?

As far as I can recall, for reasons that were never made public, the RN air traffic controller concerned wasn't court martialled. Neither was any other RN officer. However, several Germany based RAF squadron executives were court martialled over alleged maintenance and general training/supervision shortcomings. Some promising careers were nipped in the bud as a consequence.

Also, after the accident the let down procedure for 2TAF aircraft into Tain was changed to a radar controlled decent for a GCA pickup to Lossie, preferably to runway 23 so that aircraft could let down over the North Sea, overshoot and then proceed VMC across the Moray Firth to the Range.

Some previous correspondents have asked about ‘duty of care’. May I offer the following in response.

Some years later, post Messrs Wilson and Healey’s decimation of the Fleet Air Arm, in another life as a law student, I became familiar with the seminal House of Lords negligence case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. In brief, a Scots lady became ill after inadvertently drinking the remains of a snail from a lemonade bottle in a Glasgow teashop. She sued the soft drink manufacturer for negligence for allowing a snail to enter the bottle in the factory. The manufacturer denied liability and claimed the lady was too remote from the manufacturing process for the manufacturer to have a duty of care to her. Eventually, the House of Lords disagreed and she received damages.

The principle propounded back in 1932 in Donoghue v Stevenson by Lord Atkin was that 'you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour'. Lord Atkin went on to define neighbours as "... persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question".

The law of negligence has evolved since 1932, but the general principles laid down in Donoghue v Stevenson still have some relevance today. So it comes as something of a surprise to an old and bold like me that, notwithstanding both Lord Atkin’s judgement 71 years ago, the Lossie accident 37 years ago and some more recent events, it’s still not really settled as to what duty of care military air traffic controllers owe, if any, to aircrew ‘neighbours’ availing themselves of their services. Also, do factors like the lack of familiarity with the local terrain, the presence of high ground, adverse weather conditions or the existence of any properly promulgated procedures have any bearing on the nature of the duty of care of controller to aircrew?

If military air traffic controllers do owe a duty of care to aircrew, then perhaps it's time for the Ministry of Defence, as the employer of those concerned, to acknowledge the situation at Law – and to pay the insurance premiums for suitable professional indemnity policies on behalf of those concerned.

Those unfortunate enough to find themselves facing legal proceedings for negligence would then have access to fully funded defence legal teams as part of their professional indemnity cover.

Brian Young

7th Feb 2003, 14:15

Argus - what you have to say is very interesting. However, methinks that the references to Duty of Care are to do with the Service's lack of Duty of Care to Spot. Read the entries from the beginning and you will see what I mean.

DICK DOLEMAN

7th Feb 2003, 21:18

Hi Folks,

Herewith the summary for Friday 7th. Very exciting and a masterly performance by Spot’s QC, Mike Jones. Sorry this is a little late but have just driven across country to Broughty Ferry.

The day began with completing the examination in Chief of Major Scott Chamberlain USAF. The Defence led the witness through various USAF documents to demonstrate that the pilots involved should have beeen fully aware of their sole responsibilities for terrain clearance. He then led him through mission planning and established that the pilots were aware of the weather, high ground and route abort calculations required during this mission. The ‘out brief’ also included lowlevel nav requirements and the possible use of Dead Reckoning in the event of INS failure. Furthermore, weather and high ground avoidance procedures were defined. This particular sortie was to include low level nav training and low level intercepts. The mission was subject to a risk assessment by the lead pilot and it was given a low rating.

The met forecast signed-for at the ‘out brief’ indicated the possibility of cloud on the hills at 2500 feet so the weather and high ground avoidance procedures were particularly significant.

It was elicited from the witness that the descent profile prior to impact indicated the likelihood of a descent in VMC. This was supported by the Defence requesting the witness to draw a graphic representation on a flip chart of 3 oktas of Cumulous cloud at 3000 feet . The aircraft were depicted at around 8000 feet on the chart. At top of descent it was conceded that the pilots would have been able to see some 100 miles in all directions and see the ground through significant breaks in the cloud. However, to reach their low level objective, they would probably, for at least a short time, have to enter cloud, therefore, they selected “ intake anti – icing on”. The general wx in the area given by the Aviemore Wx centre (only approx 20 mins before the accident) gave the vis as up to 60kms outside snow showers. It was known from a Tornado pilot witness, who flew through the local area no more than 1 hour before the accident, that the ‘white out’ conditions on Ben McDhui in particular, were the worst he had encountered in 7 years of fast jet flying in Scotland. The witness agreed with the defence that:

1. The pilots had briefed.
2. They would have taken account of significant high ground on their intended mission.
3. They knew where they were by reference to their Inertial Navigation System (INS).
4. They were carrying maps for the area which were marked appropriately for their mission.
5. They should have been able to see the ground through significant gaps in the cloud from 8000 feet before start of descent.
6. They knew where Ben McDhui was, yet they flew into it.

The witness concurred that the pilots may have become disorientated by the previously described ‘white out’ conditions around Ben McDhui.

The witness also agreed that there may have been another explanation as suggested by the Defence and seemingly supported by eye witnesses yet to be introduced. The aircraft may have encountered localised bad wx and circled around Ben McDhui to regain their track and subsequently met the same ‘white out’ conditions previously mentioned. Defence QC was able to have the witness agree that the cockpit instruments recovered could be consistent with both a shallow descent profile and the 2 pilots also attempting a ‘join up’ at low level. The distance the aircraft were apart at impact was double the norm, indicating that they had possibly widened out in a turn and were yet to close up again. They then crashed in the same manner in ‘white out’ conditions as previously described.

The Defence established, through a prosecution witness, that there are 2 accepted alternatives compared with the the charges as laid.

After a short re-examination by the Prosecutor, the Judge Advocate released Major Chamberlain and thanked him most warmly for his voluntary support to the RAF’s invitation to contribute to the proceedings. Spot’s QC, Mike Jones, had been very robust in cross examination of Major Chamberlain. Major Chamberlain responded that his duty had been an honour to have helped but he was, tomorrow, “going to war, and after this it will be a relief !! “ This elicited much laughter and spontaneous applause from the entire court including the Judge Advocate, the Board, and both Counsels. There was genuine warmth for Major Chamberlain with most present shaking his hand and wishing him a safe return from the Gulf.

It was revealed that the USAF accident inquiry has not yet been completed some 2 years after the accident. I find this rather extraordinary. What are they missing in evidence ? Please post your conclusions - I know mine!

We have been told that, on Monday morning 10am , a submission will be made by the Defence and that the Board members will not be required til 2pm. Watch this space !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry if this seems a bit hurried but that is how it has been today !!

Dick and Al Turner

SirToppamHat

7th Feb 2003, 22:06

From one Dick to another, and I'm sure I speak for many controllers out there, TVM for the update - don't mind the wait, and it speaks volumes for your dedication that you have taken the time to post after a long day and a long trip.

If you are reading this Spot, keep your pecker up and be assured there are many of us wishing you and yours a peaceful and 'optimistic' weekend!

Argus

8th Feb 2003, 01:22

Thank you, Brian Young for your helpful comment.

You and your colleagues believe, correctly I think, that the RAF, as an employer, has a duty of care to all of its employees, including air traffic controllers. However, you have not defined the nature and scope of that duty. You do, however, infer that the RAF "should do the right thing" by its air traffic controllers, whatever that is. But is this to be at the expense of other members of the Service, allied services, dependents, next of kin, the Law or against the public interest generally?

With respect, the nature and scope of the RAF's duty to air traffic controllers and whether it has been breached is not the subject of the charges that your colleague faces. However, it may be relevent to his defence - I note there is reference in earlier posts to his personal situation before the incident.

Generally speaking, employers are vicariously liable for acts and omissions of their employees whilst carrying out their employment, or acting incidentally to their employment, that cause damage unintentionally but carelessly. In Australia at least, it is generally no defence to a claim against a negligent employer that that the employee was not complying with instructions, if another person was injured as a result. This is helpful to persons seeking seeking damages for negligent acts.

It seems to me (looking at your posts and the BBC web site from the other side of the world) that the civil allegations against your colleague go to the following:

a. whether he owed a duty of care, that is a legal obligation, to avoid harm to the two pilots concerned;

b. was there unreasonable behaviour on his part towards the pilots in the situation where the duty of care existed (ie a breach of the duty);

c. was there damage as a result of his alleged breach; and

d. were the harmful consequences reasonably foreseeable.

The point that I was trying to make is that, notwithstanding long settled law and experiences from previous fatal accidents in similar fact/terrain/weather situations, it is apparently still not clear what is expected of the British military air traffic controller in such circumstances.

"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose"!

Redeyerambo

8th Feb 2003, 10:11

Looks like Dolly's with you for the w/e Spot. We're all still rooting for you down here in Newark. Thanks for all the Briefs Dick, and Mike before you, also from all us non ATCers, thanks for the occasional note of what the letters mean!
Spot and Sue, looks like it's virtually over, should never have got this far.
I'll not voice my conclusion for the incomplete USAF Inquiy, but looks fairly obvious.
Spot, see you in Gifford , Sue, we'll try to keep him sober !!!
Rambo

DICK DOLEMAN

8th Feb 2003, 16:03

As we have a break in the proceedings, I thought it might be a good time to give you some background on the daily happenings in Helensburgh.

We start our day at the farmhouse with a chat over breakfast, reviewing the newspapers and the last ‘posts’ on Pprune which Mike Tasker faxes up to us each morning. Spot and Sue very much appreciate all the messages of support that you have been sending. These give Spot a great lift and it is just the right stuff to start the day with. Keep them coming. The strike rate on the forum is massive and yet another indicator to Spot of the interest and support out there. He has been taking this on the chin for himself and all ATCOs for 2 years now, so, he needs your encouragement. Thanks also to all those good people running Pprune, I don’t know what we would have done without you.

The CM commences at 10am each morning and is held in a very large room in a community centre. The acoustics leave a little to be desired. For those not familiar with military matters, it might be useful to give you some idea of how a CM is conducted.

Running along one side of the room is a very long table. The Judge Advocate (a civilian barrister) acts as the legal advisor to the Board and sorts out any points of order or legal matters that might arise from, or between, the defence and Prosecution. The JA sits in the middle. To his left sits the President of the Board, in this case, a Group Captain. To his right sits the senior member, in this case, a lady Wing Commander. The senior member swears in the witnesses. There are a further 5 members of the board, 2 Squadron Leaders and 3 Flight Lieutenants.

Facing the Board and well separated are the Prosecution and Defence teams. The Prosecutor, a Group Captain from the RAF legal services branch sits alongside his assistant. Behind them sit his expert witnesses. In this case, Group Captain Jim Stenson (ATC) and Major Scott Chamberlain USAF (now departed for the Gulf) an experienced F15c pilot and qualified aircraft accident investigator. The expert witnesses, unlike normal witnesses, are allowed to remain in court throughout and can be consulted at any time.

The Defence side is slightly more complicated. Mike Jones, Spot’s QC sits alongside his assistant. Behind them sit Spot with his escorts and these are friends of his chosing. Spot has Wing Commander Al Quinn and Flight Lieutenant Dave Mc Pherson. Alongside them sit the experts for the Defence. They are Wing Commander Chris Foster (ATC) and Craig Penrice (Test Pilot) currently flying Eurofighter/Typhoon and experienced on the F15c. What a team !!!

Behind the Defence and Prosecutor teams is the public gallery. CMs are open to the public. However, this gallery has been mainly used by friends, family, the press and Al Turner who, on at least 4 occasions, has forgotten to zip up his flies. A new spin on open to the public perhaps?

The witness chair is just in front of the Board and to their extreme right, closest to the Prosecutor.

There has been no marching in and out of the accused but the court is conducted in a formal but relaxed manner with plenty of saluting, bowing and rising for the court and JA.

Very occasionally, individual members of the Board may require clarification from a witness. In this event, the question is written and passed to the JA. With his sanction, the President may then ask the question. You will have already gathered that witnesses are handled by both the Prosecutor and Defence in the normal way. Everything introduced into court becomes an exhibit and some of this has to be read into court, this can be very laborious at times. So far, we have close to 60 exhibits including an airfix model of a tornado introduced by the Prosecutor.

You are not allowed to eat in Court, as I was politely told by the Court Orderly. He also assists in shuffling paper and exhibits between all concerned and operating such things as tape and video recorders. The court goes into recess for about an hour over lunch and adjourns for the day at approx 4pm. We have a couple of short breaks in the day to give the stenographer a rest.

After adjournment for the day, the support team returns to the farmhouse where a full debrief takes place in ‘Al’s Bar’. The daily summary is formulated – my thanks to Paul Beat and Daryl ‘Disco’ Hazelgreaves for their help in this – written up and then faxed down to Mike Tasker for posting on Pprune. Then it is time to tuck Al up in bed and have an early night -----not!!!!

Hope for good news on Monday. Keep it coming.

Dick

stopbar

8th Feb 2003, 18:02

Spot & Sue, Still here and hopeful. Thinking of you both and hoping this week will see the end with justice being done.

Mark Burch

Downwind.Maddl-Land

8th Feb 2003, 18:37

Spot, I don't know you, but as an ex-Mil ATCO you are - by definition - my brother. I can only say that every ATCO's thoughts and very best wishes will be with you and that must be a comfort. What is happening to you and your family is an absolute disgrace; I want to write more but suspect that discretion is the better part of valour at the moment! When this appalling situation is resolved in your favour, I suspect that some spleen will be vented.

Well done GATCO and the support team. I remember when Crown Immunity was withdrawn and the Mil membership of GATCO shot up; we all knew what would probably be in store for us if this sort of situation arose. I also remember being told that "MoD would be right behind you" (!) and not one of us didn't whisper under our breath "we would rather MoD was in front - but suspect it won't be". Seems we cynics were right again!

Good luck - not that you need it.

Warty

9th Feb 2003, 07:50

Just back from 2 weeks ski instructing in Garmisch. I hope that reference to this will bring a smile to Spot's face and take his mind off the nightmare he is living for just a brief moment. Take care mate - we will get together when all of this bo**ocks is over.

tazmania

9th Feb 2003, 12:03

Only just found out that this forum exists, but have been following CM progress as best I can from over 'ere. I remember the incident very well, spot knows why. Can't believe its' actually gone this far. Also can't believe that so far, little credence has been given to eye witness statements. I vividly remember watching a TV news report which would certainly indicate the flight conditions of the crews at, or immediately prior to, the crash!

Spot, I would never have been able to face something like this with the composure, grace and strength you have shown.

Goan yersel big man!

alan.poole

9th Feb 2003, 13:09

Yet another body who has found this site and wish to voice my support for Spot.
Spot, you have a really good team of strong supporters around you and a lot of cyber-friends out here. We are all rooting for you, even those who are not logged on but are reading the daily reports.
It is a very emotive subject and my thoughts are with you and Sue. My best to Mr T and Dick. Good luck for the remainder of this terrible episode in your life.
Al

Grotty

9th Feb 2003, 17:47

Good luck for Monday, mate. Let's hope it's the big day we all hope it will be.

You and Sue are very much in our thoughts, right now. In fact, not much else is.

To your team - thanks very much. Wonderful effort.

Not long now...

Distinctly

9th Feb 2003, 19:34

Like many other correspondents, I too have only just discovered this site but also like many in the job, I have been following events in this case from a distance for some time. Since reading all the posts here my incredulity that this has ever gone to CM has risen and my faith in the system has taken quite a knock. I'm sure that there are many facts that are not yet known to the general public but it seems to me that at the end of the day, under RIS, pilots are responsible for terrain separation. As an old Warrant Officer friend of mine would have said, 'It's in the book!'
Whatever the outcome of the CM (and I join with all the others here Spot in hoping for a successful result for you) it is to be hoped that the powers that be will soon grasp the nettle and sort out this RIS/RVC debacle before anyone else is put through similar procedings or worse.
Spot, we were stationed together at the home of Fat Albert a few years ago and we were even born in the same maternity home, remember? My thoughts are with you and I wish you all the best for the next few days. Keep yer chin up!

and so is my wife

9th Feb 2003, 19:53

Hi all, I am the other controller that some of you may have heard of/ know (Pristina accident 12 Nov 1999). Just to keep you in the picture, I was never CM because the Attorney General decided that there was not a case to answer. However the subsequent BOI’s here (just finished) and in Italy (still on going) have taken their toll.

Spot if you are reading this my thoughts are with you at this time because I know exactly what you are going through. There were times in the last three years when I have been really down and nearly out but my family and my service advisor (ATCO Brewer/Rugby nut) pointed me in the right direction. I am now coming out fighting. Watch this space!

pmouat

9th Feb 2003, 22:15

Spot and Sue:
We are following this site with interest and you are in our thoughts every day. Wish we could be with you at this time - but unfortunately we can't. How wonderful to read all the messages of support, you deserve them! Love Pam, Willie
Mel.

Jay Foe

9th Feb 2003, 22:33

Yet another young whipper snapper that unfortunately has never had the honour of meeting you. However I've heard many stories about you from the grown ups at this outpost of the Air Force.

All the Best mate

PS I hope you're making plans to come to the 5's this year where If you get to buy a drink it will be a travesty
:ok:

mspaddler

9th Feb 2003, 22:35

Spot & Sue

It must sbe gratifying, in these dire times, to see the outpouring of support from your old friends and those new friends you may never meet. Let us hope this farce is over in the next day or so.....

Brian Smith

Umtali

10th Feb 2003, 04:51

Spot & Sue,

Best wishes as you start this week, hope it is the last with the result we all want. As you can see you have thousands on your side, thinking of you each day. Love to Barbara, John and the rest of your support team and thank you to those who are keeping us on the web updated.

Caroline, Angela & the rest in Crowle, Worcs.

Argosy

10th Feb 2003, 07:27

Dear Spot,
As what we hope will be the last week of this disgraceful CM starts, we send you our very best wishes for a quick and just outcome.
From over the water we can see from this forum that you have a great family, you are blessed with great friends; a great support & legal team has formed to defend you. Many anonymous supporters around the world have written to you with encouragement.
We hope and believe that with this loyal team justice will triumph and you can return to a normal life with your family and friends.
You will be very much in our thoughts all this week.

DICK DOLEMAN

10th Feb 2003, 17:24

Hi Folks,

Spot feels a little down after today as we thought it might have been Endex. The Rollercoaster continues.

SUMMARY FOR 10th February 2003:

The Judge Advocate considered both the submission of ‘no case to answer’ put forward by the Defence and the response by the Prosecutor.

The submission by Mike Jones QC was very elegantly and expertly put and was a test of the legal points of negligence and causation. The JA decided that the CM should continue and the Board was called back in.

The Defence then called their first witness, this is a gentleman who was hill walking with a friend in the general area at the time. He was looking north and saw two twin finned aircraft which were tracking east to west before he saw them bank to the right towards Ben McDhui. They were above him (he was in a valley bottom) but were flying beneath cloud. He saw them for about five seconds. He initially identified them as F14s but afterwards realised that they were F15s.

The witness is now under cross examination.

More tomorrow.

Dick Doleman

Skippy P

10th Feb 2003, 18:44

Spot and Sue

Not sure where our last message got to but we want to let you know that these proceedings are being watched world-wide. ( Yours truly is now retired in France- Thank goodness!)

Carol and I cannot believe what we have been reading. We can only say that at times like this friends really count, and as we know, you cannot have a better friend than Dick. I'm sure that with his help (plus Mike and Brian etc) you have not only right, but might on your side.

Keep your chin up and hopefully this debarcle will soon be over.

Skip

styas

10th Feb 2003, 18:46

Dear Spot,

I do not know if you remember me from Shetland Radar all those years ago, but I want you to know that all at ScATCC Civil and Military are with you in this fight with the Service. How this has been allowed to get this far - god alone knows!
I hope you have been heartened by the fantastic support that you are receiving through this site, and the knowledge that all your Controller colleagues within the Service, NATS, and worldwide are with you in this troubling time for you.
We all hope that for once a CM will see true justice done, and you found not guilty!

Simon

Cliff Walker

10th Feb 2003, 22:21

Spot & Sue
Our thoughts are with you both and we are certain that common sense will prevail. I am sorely disappointed that your beloved mentors have actually let this go so far.
When you shortly get the dismissal that you so obviously deserve, please come and have some fresh air and some Adnams on the house.

Keep the faith and God speed

Cliff & Sheila Walker

Tim Hewlett

11th Feb 2003, 09:15

Dear Spot and Sue,

Just to reiterate my support for you both and add my thanks to Dick for keeping us all updated. I really look forward to seeing you both again; to laughing, drinking beer and playing dreadful golf when this is a distant albeit painful memory. Just let me know when the celebration thrash is planned...

Tim H

RubiC Cube

11th Feb 2003, 10:33

I quote from RAF course notes on stress management:

"1. An officer has a huge responsibility when commanding people and the commissioning scroll states that you must,

“use your best endeavours to keep them in good order.”

2. This quote sums up the moral issue – it is about the basic human concern for the well-being of the individual. Exercise careful judgement to ensure that you perform all the duties of a commander properly – attending to task, team and individual needs appropriately – it’s not easy."

Did Spot's superiors use their best endeavours to keep him in good order and have concern for his well being?

A quote from People Management, 10 July 1997

‘John Walker, a Northumberland County Council social worker who suffered 2 nervous breakdowns, received a £175 000 settlement last year. This case has made it plain that workplace stress is a HASW issue. The judge ruled that there was no difference in principle between physical health and psychological well-being. Employers who do nothing about the problem are therefore failing in their duties under the HASW Act 1974.’

I'm not suggesting that Spot had a nervous breakdown, but he was clearly suffering from stress so soon after his father's death. Did his superiors do anything about Spot's problem?