Sea King crash - MoD response
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sea King crash - MoD response
Independent 1 Feb 04
MPs 'misled' over cause of Sea King collision
By Severin Carrell
01 February 2004
Defence ministers have been accused of misleading MPs about the cause of a collision between two Sea King helicopters that killed seven aircrew during the Gulf War in March last year.
Last week, the armed forces minister Adam Ingram implied in a written statement to the Commons that the aircrew were to blame for the crash - provoking an angry response from opposition MPs Paul Tyler and Andrew George.
Mr Ingram told MPs that the board of inquiry report into the crash had concluded: "Both aircraft had lost visual contact with each other, but apparently lost situational awareness and collided. The aircraft were responsible for their own safety at the time of the collision."
The Liberal Democrat MPs will tomorrow demand an urgent meeting with Mr Ingram. They argue that the board of inquiry actually concluded that the cause of the crash, about four miles off HMS Ark Royal early on 22 March last year, was "indeterminable".
The MPs have taken up the case after The Independent on Sunday revealed last month that the report had highlighted a series of critical problems with the equipment and radar back-up given to the two Sea Kings.
It revealed that neither aircraft was equipped with night vision goggles, that the Sea Kings' main warning light was turned off as it was "unfit for purpose", that flying conditions were poor, and suggests that the Navy's flying rules and radar procedures were not safe enough.
The report stated that under the wartime rules in force, both pilots were technically responsible for their safety but that these problems made it far more difficult for the aircrew to fly safely. It concluded that since "no absolute evidence" exists to explain why they collided "the cause of the accident is therefore indeterminable".
It also revealed that aircrew had warned Royal Navy commanders they found had "significant difficulty" in recognising their own ships at night without night vision goggles.
Mr Tyler, the MP for North Cornwall, said he was angry that Mr Ingram's answer suggested the inquiry report was finished in November last year, and that the victims' families were told about the "outcome" of the inquiry.
Three of the families insist that this is not true. They say they had been given the inquiry report last year, but have not yet been told which of its recommendations had been accepted.
"Mr Ingram's parliamentary answer implies there is a high degree of certainty about the cause of the crash, but that is a totally inaccurate summary of the inquiry report," he said. "It is what he excluded from his answer that I find suspicious. It is unworthy of a minister who is reporting to Parliament."
Hmm... sound familiar??
MPs 'misled' over cause of Sea King collision
By Severin Carrell
01 February 2004
Defence ministers have been accused of misleading MPs about the cause of a collision between two Sea King helicopters that killed seven aircrew during the Gulf War in March last year.
Last week, the armed forces minister Adam Ingram implied in a written statement to the Commons that the aircrew were to blame for the crash - provoking an angry response from opposition MPs Paul Tyler and Andrew George.
Mr Ingram told MPs that the board of inquiry report into the crash had concluded: "Both aircraft had lost visual contact with each other, but apparently lost situational awareness and collided. The aircraft were responsible for their own safety at the time of the collision."
The Liberal Democrat MPs will tomorrow demand an urgent meeting with Mr Ingram. They argue that the board of inquiry actually concluded that the cause of the crash, about four miles off HMS Ark Royal early on 22 March last year, was "indeterminable".
The MPs have taken up the case after The Independent on Sunday revealed last month that the report had highlighted a series of critical problems with the equipment and radar back-up given to the two Sea Kings.
It revealed that neither aircraft was equipped with night vision goggles, that the Sea Kings' main warning light was turned off as it was "unfit for purpose", that flying conditions were poor, and suggests that the Navy's flying rules and radar procedures were not safe enough.
The report stated that under the wartime rules in force, both pilots were technically responsible for their safety but that these problems made it far more difficult for the aircrew to fly safely. It concluded that since "no absolute evidence" exists to explain why they collided "the cause of the accident is therefore indeterminable".
It also revealed that aircrew had warned Royal Navy commanders they found had "significant difficulty" in recognising their own ships at night without night vision goggles.
Mr Tyler, the MP for North Cornwall, said he was angry that Mr Ingram's answer suggested the inquiry report was finished in November last year, and that the victims' families were told about the "outcome" of the inquiry.
Three of the families insist that this is not true. They say they had been given the inquiry report last year, but have not yet been told which of its recommendations had been accepted.
"Mr Ingram's parliamentary answer implies there is a high degree of certainty about the cause of the crash, but that is a totally inaccurate summary of the inquiry report," he said. "It is what he excluded from his answer that I find suspicious. It is unworthy of a minister who is reporting to Parliament."
Hmm... sound familiar??
A really irritating PPRuNer
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly does sound familiar!
A Board of Inquiry no longer apportions 'blame', so where does Ingram get his info from? (Maybe looking at an older file). The Board looks at known facts, and makes recommendations on flight safety issues only these days.
Helicopter accident, tragic loss of many lives, suspect equipment?? Have they learnt nothing? Obviously not!
As before, my condolences to the families of those lost.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
A Board of Inquiry no longer apportions 'blame', so where does Ingram get his info from? (Maybe looking at an older file). The Board looks at known facts, and makes recommendations on flight safety issues only these days.
Helicopter accident, tragic loss of many lives, suspect equipment?? Have they learnt nothing? Obviously not!
As before, my condolences to the families of those lost.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew some of the crew, and had friends on the squadron at the time of the accident. I have heard from them an entirely different account of the accident, none of which I wish to repeat.
Condolences to the families, but not wise to cast opinions either way. All the finger pointing in the world won't bring anybody back. and I dare say, as with most accidents, a combination of events rather than one single thing was to blame.
I agree we should learn from any mistakes, but in this instance, I forsee a lot of speculation, claims and counter claims, but not much in the way of hard eveidence.
Sleeping dogs????
Condolences to the families, but not wise to cast opinions either way. All the finger pointing in the world won't bring anybody back. and I dare say, as with most accidents, a combination of events rather than one single thing was to blame.
I agree we should learn from any mistakes, but in this instance, I forsee a lot of speculation, claims and counter claims, but not much in the way of hard eveidence.
Sleeping dogs????
Bolleaux!
Ingram should be forced to make a full public retraction.
Roll on the next election. Surely anyone would be better than Trust-me Tone and his smarmy gang.
Anyone else see 'Bremner, Bird and Fortune' on Ch4 last night? Excellent political satire!
Ingram should be forced to make a full public retraction.
Roll on the next election. Surely anyone would be better than Trust-me Tone and his smarmy gang.
Anyone else see 'Bremner, Bird and Fortune' on Ch4 last night? Excellent political satire!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
statements reported, about this incident are riddled with things that do not make sense to those with operational experience. I would suggest though that the only people who really know what happened were the crews (Possibly) and certain personnel onboard the Ark. 4 miles from the ship, and a whole load of copout statements about situational awareness, and responsibility for safety....?????
Only the MoD could settle this once and for all.. but as in the case of the Chinook crash, they don't exactly have form for providing an impartial and technically correct / factually sound accident report.
This is another case of fine British servicemen losing their lives, and provoking a lot of public feeling and opinion. Grieving families want to know why these things happen, and rightly so.
But would the MoD admit the truth, warts and all, and learn from it? Make changes based on it? Or would they have an investigation, come up with THEIR version of what probably happened, find a scapegoat and dish out some pointless punishment which will mean
all to the families??
Sorry mate, but much as I sympathise with the families, I don't believe they will ever get the answers they are looking for. And no that doesn't mean I condone the government, Ingrams statements were out of order, his finger pointing is making a bad situation worse.
statements reported, about this incident are riddled with things that do not make sense to those with operational experience. I would suggest though that the only people who really know what happened were the crews (Possibly) and certain personnel onboard the Ark. 4 miles from the ship, and a whole load of copout statements about situational awareness, and responsibility for safety....?????
Only the MoD could settle this once and for all.. but as in the case of the Chinook crash, they don't exactly have form for providing an impartial and technically correct / factually sound accident report.
This is another case of fine British servicemen losing their lives, and provoking a lot of public feeling and opinion. Grieving families want to know why these things happen, and rightly so.
But would the MoD admit the truth, warts and all, and learn from it? Make changes based on it? Or would they have an investigation, come up with THEIR version of what probably happened, find a scapegoat and dish out some pointless punishment which will mean
all to the families??Sorry mate, but much as I sympathise with the families, I don't believe they will ever get the answers they are looking for. And no that doesn't mean I condone the government, Ingrams statements were out of order, his finger pointing is making a bad situation worse.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flytest
I think I understand from your posts that you have heard rumours from people various,who were in a better position to make personal and probably more informed assesments than the inane utterences of Ingram, and quite correctly do not wish to speculate on causes as you were not there. Furthermore I sense that you do not wish to prolong the anguish and grieving suffered by the friends and families of those lost.
My sincere condolences go to them.
However, the brief but to the point, rebuttal by Beags is likely to be echoed by many including myself.
We came from an age where we, predominantly, had faith in our senior military leaders, and a respect for their integrity and professional judgement (there were of course some exceptions and healthy cynisism was much alive ).Today, however, the balance seems to have slipt so far that cynisism appears to have virtually replaced faith and respect and this is decidedly unhealthy for the future of our outstanding armed forces.
The balance needs to be restored and IMHO the uninformed, and harmful comments by Political "organs" should be challenged at every oportunity; likewise the ineffective, "establishment" Officers who have unbelievably been promoted to too many of the senior appointments, should also be challenged by those now outside their slimy control.(Those within as well if they have the balls and finance to do so)
It is always regrettable that fatal accidents leave a sad trail behind them and many of us have been to that particular coal face too many times, but we should not close the door solely for the understandable sensitivities of the families left behind.
As one very good friend and sudden widow once said to me "I hope he didn't cock-up but I do need to know"
I think I understand from your posts that you have heard rumours from people various,who were in a better position to make personal and probably more informed assesments than the inane utterences of Ingram, and quite correctly do not wish to speculate on causes as you were not there. Furthermore I sense that you do not wish to prolong the anguish and grieving suffered by the friends and families of those lost.
My sincere condolences go to them.
However, the brief but to the point, rebuttal by Beags is likely to be echoed by many including myself.
We came from an age where we, predominantly, had faith in our senior military leaders, and a respect for their integrity and professional judgement (there were of course some exceptions and healthy cynisism was much alive ).Today, however, the balance seems to have slipt so far that cynisism appears to have virtually replaced faith and respect and this is decidedly unhealthy for the future of our outstanding armed forces.
The balance needs to be restored and IMHO the uninformed, and harmful comments by Political "organs" should be challenged at every oportunity; likewise the ineffective, "establishment" Officers who have unbelievably been promoted to too many of the senior appointments, should also be challenged by those now outside their slimy control.(Those within as well if they have the balls and finance to do so)
It is always regrettable that fatal accidents leave a sad trail behind them and many of us have been to that particular coal face too many times, but we should not close the door solely for the understandable sensitivities of the families left behind.
As one very good friend and sudden widow once said to me "I hope he didn't cock-up but I do need to know"
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roghead,
I agree with your post, I just question the possibility of actually finding out what happened. Wartime ops are difficult enough, but to actually investigate, and report findings / conclusions on an already sketchy incident is extremely difficult.
The Chinook affair as we are all aware is a tangled messy situation, but its one in which I agree with the families, the glib "Pilot Error" verdict was one which indeed deserved to be challenged. In this case, the AIB seem to feel the cause was undeterminable, and yes whilst I agree this casts shadows over the incident, I also think it suggests there were a series of contributing factors. I feel all of the possible factors ought to be made public, so that lessons may be learned, but as to whether it would give the families the answers they seek?? I'm not sure.
The main point here though is Ingrams comments are insensitive, and ill-founded, and he ought to retract them.. but then he's a politician in the Blair regime.....
I agree with your post, I just question the possibility of actually finding out what happened. Wartime ops are difficult enough, but to actually investigate, and report findings / conclusions on an already sketchy incident is extremely difficult.
The Chinook affair as we are all aware is a tangled messy situation, but its one in which I agree with the families, the glib "Pilot Error" verdict was one which indeed deserved to be challenged. In this case, the AIB seem to feel the cause was undeterminable, and yes whilst I agree this casts shadows over the incident, I also think it suggests there were a series of contributing factors. I feel all of the possible factors ought to be made public, so that lessons may be learned, but as to whether it would give the families the answers they seek?? I'm not sure.
The main point here though is Ingrams comments are insensitive, and ill-founded, and he ought to retract them.. but then he's a politician in the Blair regime.....
