Whipping Boy's SATCO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.


Good luck to the gentleman involved.

canberra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.