Grummaniser

MickyDrip wrote:
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

Ghost-rider,

You asked:

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

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

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

Best wishes

ghost-rider

Grotty,

er, no I don't think so. The guys and gals provided it as a 'courtesy' service, more 'traffic advisory' than anything else.
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.

skeet surfer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

RubiC Cube

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.