How can this happen - controller partly blamed (merged)

[BEagle]

I was using the original term!

There are still inconsistencies, e.g. 'Overshoot' and 'Go around' as well as weak RT standards - mainly on the part of the aircrew.

Most of the differences are not in the en-route part of a flight, but in the terminal and visual circuit environment.

There is a DAP ATSOCA workshop coming up soon - which will be most interesting, I think.

And by the way, the 'Yellow Book' FIH has a very clear, unambiguous section on UK Air Traffic Services.....

[US Herk]

As a spam flying over here - always trying to comply with the UK rules & instructing our younger crews on some of the differences between US & UK ATC - where might I find a copy of the ATSOCA??

We carry RAF FLIP products, maintain UK AIP, & part of our indoctrination is specifically going over RAS/RIS/FIS and other equally challenging things for us Yanks, but more source documentation & less word of mouth is always helpful!

In fact, I'm scheduled to give a brief to our flying squadron in the next few weeks covering exactly these topics + UKLFS - whilst I feel I have an above average (for a Yank) insight into said topics having been fortunate enough to be on exchange with the RAF previously, I do not consider myself an expert. We have, in the past, coordinated for ATCOs to brief us & will continue to do so getting the expert info to the crews - I'm just a poor fill-in this time around!

[BARNWOOD]

Help Please

I seek advice from only those that have an in depth knowledge of UK Board Of Inquiry procedures and any related legal matters. The following extracts are taken from the recent BOI report on the F15 accident in the Cairngorms on 26th March 2001. The subject aircraft were under Radar Information Service (RIS)

Station Commander on Cause :

I did not find the arguments over "instructions" wholly germane to the question. I accept that the the "instruction" from air traffic to the formation was not an order but it was reasonable to assume that the crews would comply with the "advice" given and doing so placed the aircraft and crews in an unsafe situation. I am therefore content that the Board's determination of the cause of the accident is soundly based. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that the word "potentially" should be deleted from the Cause, as the "instruction" given was clearly unsafe

Comments by the Air Officer Commanding:

A BOI does not apportion blame and I note that none has been apportioned in this case

and later,

I support the Board's analysis of causes and factors other than finding myself in agreement with the Stn Cdr that the cause of the accident was that the formation accepted an unsafe ATC instruction rather than one that was potentially unsafe.

Comments by Commander in Chief

I am therefore in no doubt that the Air Traffic descent information " BITE 21 descend initially 4000ft on the Portree 29.62" was unsafe, and I agree with my Stn Cdr and AOC 3Gp that the word "potentially" be removed from the Board's Cause for the accident

All the above suggest that they are 'blaming' the controller concerned and that appears to be outside the remit of the BOI procedure and I assume these gentleman would be considered part of that whole procedure. If my assumption is correct, then they may have negligently exceeded their authority and opened up a possible claim under 'vicarious liability'.

Any help (from any source) would be appreciated, as I am tabling some questions for my MP on this BOI report.
BARNWOOD is online now Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote
BARNWOOD
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BARNWOOD
Add BARNWOOD to Your Buddy List
Reply

[DICK DOLEMAN]

F15 Board of Inquiry - Support Group Response

The Support Group response to the BoI report can be found on this Forum under the title above. Many thanks

[FCWhippingBoy]

Not wishing to be embroilled in any arguments, and only because, as a Fighter Controllers' Assistant, I'm curious as to procedures used outside of the Fighter Control world, do normal (for want of a better phrase!) Air Traffic Controllers limit their service depending on radar coverage?

Certainly, when controlling a/c, and particularly overland, the controllers I work with apply a FIS height depending on radar coverage/operating area ...

"You are identified Radar Information Service, limited below Xft, Flight Information Service below Xft. You are responsible for terrain avoidance. Acknowledge" (or words to that effect!)

I realise the aircraft in this incident may have been within the coverage of the radar in use, as mention has been made of "last radar plots", but I'm just curious, purely for my own knowledge.

Regards,
FCWB

[ExGrunt]

Argus said:

I'm curious as to why the first BOI was aborted, and a GCM convened.

The rules in the UK are different. This change was brought in by the Armed Forces Act 2001:

38 In section 135 of the Air Force Act 1955 (c. 19) (boards of inquiry), for subsection (5) there is substituted-
"(5) Evidence given before a board of inquiry convened-
(a) under this section,
(b) under section 135 of the Army Act 1955, or
(c) under the Queen's Regulations for the Royal Navy,
shall not be admissible against any person in proceedings before a court-martial, commanding officer or appropriate superior authority, other than proceedings for an offence against section 70 of this Act where the corresponding civil offence is perjury."

If the RAF had waited for the BoI most of the prosecution evidence used in the GCM would have been inadmissable.

[Argus]

ExGrunt

No, the Antipodean rules are the same. In Oz, any statement or disclosure made in the course of giving evidence to a BOI is not admissible against that witness in any civil or criminal proceedings in any Federal, State or Territory court or before a Service Tribunal except in proceedings by way of a prosecution for giving false testimony at the BOI.

Problem here is that administrative action (eg show cause why one should not be discharged) isn't subject to this provision.

[Tigs2]

There are so many Human Factors issues in this case and it appears they(The System) have not even tried to address them. Keep your chin up Spot, there are many people rooting for you!
Tigs