rej

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End this farce now!

DICK DOLEMAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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