F15 Court Martial Updates
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Number 10
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot and Sue,
many congratulations to you and your team. All of the Military ATCOs at Hampshire's ATC Centre are thrilled with with the outcome. May your long awaited and much deserved hangover be a long one!!
:D
many congratulations to you and your team. All of the Military ATCOs at Hampshire's ATC Centre are thrilled with with the outcome. May your long awaited and much deserved hangover be a long one!!
:D
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sleaford
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent result!!!!! Let's all spare a moment to give a thought to all the endless months of anguish SPOT has been through, and try to work out how to stop it happening again.
Yet again, well done SPOT!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: England
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRILLIANT
SPOT & SUEWHAT GREAT NEWS, FULLY EXPECTED BUT FINALLY HERE.
SPOT I KNOW ALL US RAF ATCOS AND AATCS LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING YOUR VOICE ON THE RT AS NO DOUBT DO MANY OF OUR AIRCREW FRIENDS.
GREAT GREAT NEWS
SENIORSUP
Congratulations !!!!!!!!!
However, I am left to wonder just WHY such a Court Martial took place to being with !! All it has done is cause heartache and grief to all concerned.
To whoever was responsible for bringing the prosecution......are you proud of what you have achieved ??????
However, I am left to wonder just WHY such a Court Martial took place to being with !! All it has done is cause heartache and grief to all concerned.
To whoever was responsible for bringing the prosecution......are you proud of what you have achieved ??????
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers
Many thanks indeed to GATCO for all the support they have provided to Sue and I throughout the Court Martial and the two year run up. Top tip if you're a military controller and not a Guild member then join today, it's the nearest we can get to the protection of a union. A senior rep from Strike Command plans to visit us in Broughty Ferry next week as he wants to hear Susans views. He's a far braver man than Me!!!
Regards SPOT
Regards SPOT
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: CHRISTCHURCH
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOARD OF INQUIRY
Dick Doleman, who doesn't have access to a PC terminal, asked me to post that he has just heard that the Board of Inquiry is to be reconvened fairly shortly.
Brian Young
Brian Young
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've only just seen this case and my congratulations go out to Mike Jones; I knew him in his FJ days before he had to stop flying on medical grounds. Worth keeping his phone number, I should think, for the next time the RAF treads on its schwantz.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EDI, LHR, NQY
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DEATH CRASH PILOTS ‘SHOULD NOT HAVE HANDED OVER CONTROL’
1 US Pilots 14:26GMT 11JUN03 PAGENFAX-SCOTSMAN
Two US fighter pilots mistakenly handed responsibility for terrain avoidance to RAF air traffic control before their jets crashed into a Highland mountain, the US Air Force announced today.
The news came almost four months after air traffic controller Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Williams was cleared of causing their deaths following the longest court martial in RAF history.
Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Hyvonen, 40, and Captain Kirk Jones, 27, were killed when their F-15s crashed into Ben Macdui in the Cairngorms on March 26, 2001.
The US Air Force Accident Investigation Board found the crash was caused by a “breakdown in terrain avoidance responsibilities between the pilot(s) and air traffic controllers on the ground”.
Lieutenant Colonel Scott Vadnais, who is based at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, said he did not wish to attribute blame for the tragedy and stressed many factors were involved in the accident
But on the issue of avoiding collision, he said: “In the UK the pilot has responsibility for terrain avoidance but the pilot relinquished that responsibility to air traffic control.
“The pilot made the first error as he should not have relinquished that responsibility unless he could see the ground.”
In the US the air traffic controller has responsibility for terrain avoidance but in the UK it lies with the pilot.
But Lt Col Vadnais said he could not speculate on whether confusion over UK air rules caused the crash.
mfl
1 US Pilots 14:26GMT 11JUN03 PAGENFAX-SCOTSMAN
Two US fighter pilots mistakenly handed responsibility for terrain avoidance to RAF air traffic control before their jets crashed into a Highland mountain, the US Air Force announced today.
The news came almost four months after air traffic controller Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Williams was cleared of causing their deaths following the longest court martial in RAF history.
Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Hyvonen, 40, and Captain Kirk Jones, 27, were killed when their F-15s crashed into Ben Macdui in the Cairngorms on March 26, 2001.
The US Air Force Accident Investigation Board found the crash was caused by a “breakdown in terrain avoidance responsibilities between the pilot(s) and air traffic controllers on the ground”.
Lieutenant Colonel Scott Vadnais, who is based at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, said he did not wish to attribute blame for the tragedy and stressed many factors were involved in the accident
But on the issue of avoiding collision, he said: “In the UK the pilot has responsibility for terrain avoidance but the pilot relinquished that responsibility to air traffic control.
“The pilot made the first error as he should not have relinquished that responsibility unless he could see the ground.”
In the US the air traffic controller has responsibility for terrain avoidance but in the UK it lies with the pilot.
But Lt Col Vadnais said he could not speculate on whether confusion over UK air rules caused the crash.
mfl
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Preston,lancashire
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that the RAF BoI is likely to conclude in the near future.
If the reports of the USAF inquiry are true - quote :
"The US Air Force Accident Investigation Board found the crash was caused by a “breakdown in terrain avoidance responsibilities between the pilot(s) and air traffic controllers on the ground”.
then they also seem to disbelieve the very credible eyewitness reports that saw the aircraft already engaged in low flying 9km east of the crash site and on a westerly heading.
This does not support a straight line descent in IMC direct into terrain on a northerly heading
Will the new RAF BoI findings also disregard the eyewitness accounts( the first BoI didn't even bother to interview them)?
It should be appreciated that eyewitnesses saw 2 twin tailed aircraft flying in very close formation. They were adamant that they were not Tornados. The closest sighting was 40yds !!!
The only other aircraft in that low level are that day were 2 Tornados which were flying in loose trail and which landed some 50 minutes prior to the last radar sighting of the F15s.
If the reports of the USAF inquiry are true - quote :
"The US Air Force Accident Investigation Board found the crash was caused by a “breakdown in terrain avoidance responsibilities between the pilot(s) and air traffic controllers on the ground”.
then they also seem to disbelieve the very credible eyewitness reports that saw the aircraft already engaged in low flying 9km east of the crash site and on a westerly heading.
This does not support a straight line descent in IMC direct into terrain on a northerly heading
Will the new RAF BoI findings also disregard the eyewitness accounts( the first BoI didn't even bother to interview them)?
It should be appreciated that eyewitnesses saw 2 twin tailed aircraft flying in very close formation. They were adamant that they were not Tornados. The closest sighting was 40yds !!!
The only other aircraft in that low level are that day were 2 Tornados which were flying in loose trail and which landed some 50 minutes prior to the last radar sighting of the F15s.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I SIMPLY DON'T BELIEVE IT!
The central character in this whole episode has been told that he should not talk about the case. Yet a senior member of the Blue Mafia (mistakenly thought to be a gentleman) has been doing a roadshow, giving presentations on the subject (e.g. Boscombe Down - where a lot of rubbish was talked in the bar afterwards). Is honour now a defunct word? Do people have no shame? I was there for most of the Court Martial and, having an intimate understanding of ALL the evidence, can find no justification for the continuing misunderstandings about the case. There simply never was a case. The only people to come out of this with any dignity (apart from Spot and the CM Board) are the civilian witnesses who refused to be cowed by the ridiculous questioning by the prosecution. However, what they had to say didn't fit in with the establishment's preconceived ideas.
What a sorry mess!
Brian Young
What a sorry mess!
Brian Young
Last edited by Say Again; 18th Jun 2003 at 08:25.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OOPS
When I referred to "the only people to come out of this with any dignity" I should, of course have mentioned Craig Penrice (who unfortunately is in hospital with a broken back, having ejected from a Hunter a couple of weeks ago), Mike Jones (QC and bar!), Chris Foster, OC Swanwick Mil. (another success story), Alasdair Gillies (have you had the sense to invite the delicious Sophie out to dinner yet?), Dick Doleman (handicap of 12 and steadily getting worse) and various other people that I forgot to mention.
I stand corrected.
Brian Yopung
I stand corrected.
Brian Yopung
Last edited by Say Again; 19th Jun 2003 at 04:56.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I referred to "the only people to come out of this with any dignity" I should, of course have mentioned
Regardless ... all played an important part in this sorry tale and deserve all our gratitude.
PS .. please tell me more about the delicious Sophie
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Gloucs
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is interesting that the USAF spokesman did not wish to "attribute blame" for the accident. This seems totally contrary to the RAF approach where there seemed to be an indecent haste to lay very serious criminal charges against Flt Lt Williams.
It is also interesting to note that the USAF were asked by the RAF to suspend their investigation pending the outcome of the Court Martial - now why would that be? Perhaps the RAF were hoping to offer a scapegoat to the USAF without the embarrassing possibility of the USAF arriving at a different conclusion thereby scuppering the RAF case.
This whole saga has had a rotten smell from the outset; this is not aided by the chief RAF specialist witness giving a roadshow on the Court Martial prior to BoI publishing it's results. If the new BoI attempts another 'fudge' to get back at Flt Lt Williams, it will be nothing short of an absolute disgrace....I am not holding my breath.
It is also interesting to note that the USAF were asked by the RAF to suspend their investigation pending the outcome of the Court Martial - now why would that be? Perhaps the RAF were hoping to offer a scapegoat to the USAF without the embarrassing possibility of the USAF arriving at a different conclusion thereby scuppering the RAF case.
This whole saga has had a rotten smell from the outset; this is not aided by the chief RAF specialist witness giving a roadshow on the Court Martial prior to BoI publishing it's results. If the new BoI attempts another 'fudge' to get back at Flt Lt Williams, it will be nothing short of an absolute disgrace....I am not holding my breath.
To 'Say Again': Craig Penrice didn't exactly give his evidence altruistically - he was paid handsomely for his time spent in the witness box.
To 'Barnwood': Not sure where you got your information from but the RAF did not ask the USAF to suspend their investigation. Indeed, I'm led to believe that the report to which you are referring was still in the USAF staffing chains and was never ready to be released during the CM timescale. I do agree, however, that the CM was hasty and should have at least waited until the BoI had reported its findings.
To anyone who cares to listen: The reason that a briefing was felt necessary was because of all the biased reporting on PPrune and the request for proper information from controllers. It is perfectly legal to discuss evidence which has been considered by a CM, and, even if it only gives food for thought to other controllers, then surely it can't be a bad thing? I think the intention was to arm people with the information lest they ever find themselves in a similar situation (lets hope no-one ever does).
To 'Barnwood': Not sure where you got your information from but the RAF did not ask the USAF to suspend their investigation. Indeed, I'm led to believe that the report to which you are referring was still in the USAF staffing chains and was never ready to be released during the CM timescale. I do agree, however, that the CM was hasty and should have at least waited until the BoI had reported its findings.
To anyone who cares to listen: The reason that a briefing was felt necessary was because of all the biased reporting on PPrune and the request for proper information from controllers. It is perfectly legal to discuss evidence which has been considered by a CM, and, even if it only gives food for thought to other controllers, then surely it can't be a bad thing? I think the intention was to arm people with the information lest they ever find themselves in a similar situation (lets hope no-one ever does).
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Karup, Denmark
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations, Spot, on the happy outcome.
Quite a lot of "Kafka" here and there in the long ordeal.
Disturbing to read the quote from "The Scotsman":
"DEATH CRASH PILOTS ‘SHOULD NOT HAVE HANDED OVER CONTROL’ " (This journalist didn't get the point, to put it mildly)
"Lieutenant Colonel Scott Vadnais, who is based at Ramstein Air Base" was not exactly clear in his statements either(a PR-Officer type?).
Will the USAF report be made public?
Best Regards
("It could have been me", is the thoughts of many of us)
Quite a lot of "Kafka" here and there in the long ordeal.
Disturbing to read the quote from "The Scotsman":
"DEATH CRASH PILOTS ‘SHOULD NOT HAVE HANDED OVER CONTROL’ " (This journalist didn't get the point, to put it mildly)
"Lieutenant Colonel Scott Vadnais, who is based at Ramstein Air Base" was not exactly clear in his statements either(a PR-Officer type?).
Will the USAF report be made public?
Best Regards
("It could have been me", is the thoughts of many of us)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Gloucs
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reply to comments made by MG.
I did not question the legality of the briefing held at RAF Boscombe Down but it hardly represents a level playing field if, as reported earlier, Flt Lt Williams was told (ordered?)not to discuss the matter pending completion of the BoI.
The following is a quote from the 'Stars and Stripes' European edition 23/03/2003:
"The Air Force Accident Investigation Board concluded its report a few months after the crash, but it has been withheld from release until after the trial so as not to prejudice any potential juror."
If this report is true then your timescale argument is incorrect - 2 years does seem a long time for the USAF to conclude. On that basis, you could also be wrong about the RAF not making the request.
There will always be an element of bias in forums such as this but I would be interested to hear if you think the article in the most recent GATCO magazine TRANSMIT is similarly biased ?
I did not question the legality of the briefing held at RAF Boscombe Down but it hardly represents a level playing field if, as reported earlier, Flt Lt Williams was told (ordered?)not to discuss the matter pending completion of the BoI.
The following is a quote from the 'Stars and Stripes' European edition 23/03/2003:
"The Air Force Accident Investigation Board concluded its report a few months after the crash, but it has been withheld from release until after the trial so as not to prejudice any potential juror."
If this report is true then your timescale argument is incorrect - 2 years does seem a long time for the USAF to conclude. On that basis, you could also be wrong about the RAF not making the request.
There will always be an element of bias in forums such as this but I would be interested to hear if you think the article in the most recent GATCO magazine TRANSMIT is similarly biased ?