Ginseng

Good god, we finally agree on something. I am just off outside to shoot myself!

Regards

Ginseng

CBrough

I utterly agree with you southside , but another key fact to me is the BOIs ignorance when dealing with eye witnesses' accounts. I can understand some scepticism when noise complaints contain aw my gawd, that plane was just above my chimney that was....etc ; however, I believe that most sane-minded individuals can count (1 or 2 tails), or see if the Eagles were in a echelon or arrow formation instead of GR-4 lead trail. Why do the BOI choose to discount such evidence, even though it was accepted by previous procedings???
Is it not about time that this issue was put to bed and some belated common sense prevailed ? Those individuals involved could be getting on with their lives if it wasn't for those with a scapegoat-hunting license. I am stunned when I consider what goes through the tiny minds of those so intent on punishing the ATCO, and lets NOT forget any family.

Say Again

You agree with Southside and I agree with you (this is getting far too agreeable!) especially your last comment about family. Of course the families who have lost most have been the families of the pilots but let's not forget the two teenagers of Spots who have had almost their entire teenage years messed up by the incompetence of the Blue Mafia!

Brian Young

THIS IS A COPY OF THE THREAD THAT I POSTED ON THE ATC SITE BUT I REALISE THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE UPDATING THEMSELVES ON THIS THREAD SO HAVE COPIED IT HERE

With reference to the continuing saga of the two USAF F15s that crashed into Ben Macdhui on 26 Mar 01, and the subsequent exoneration of Flt Lt 'Spot' Williams of all charges laid against him at his Court Martial in Feb 03, some of you probably know that the RAF has only recently published its findings.

It is the contention of the support group to Flt Lt Williams that the recently published findings of the RAF Board of Inquiry are severely flawed in that they attribute cause of the accident to the actions of Flt Lt Williams. For information on this go to www.pprune.org and look for Dick Doleman's statement on Other Aircrew Forums / Military Aircrew. The thread is titled: F15 Board of Inquiry Report - Support Group Response.

Members of the support group have contacted, or are about to contact, their MPs about this. Dick Doleman the support group organiser has asked me to co-ordinate this for him. Should any other member of the profession wish to help in this way, by contacting their MP, would they please contact me so that I can inform them of the issues and the best way of going about it. This is also being done so that the MPs involved know of other MPs being contacted. In the first instance send me a short personal message on the pprune site, if possible with a contact number so that I can phone you.

Brian Young

endplay

I'll say from the start that I'm not aircrew but I'm a bit confused over something here. The much maligned Southside seemed to spark a veritable flurry of agreement when he said

"If you are flying in cloud and you hit a piece of Scotland then you and only you are responsible"

This seems to be saying that it was the pilot's fault and no one has disagreed with this sentiment, yet had he posted this on the Chinook thread??

As I say I'm not aircrew, I am RAF and I'm not trolling. Just curious as to what appear to be double standards and happy to be educated.

Brian Dixon

Endplay,
I had hoped to stay out of this thread.

With regards the Chinook issue, the BoI had to obey the RAF's own rule that "Only in cases where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligence. There are many issues surrounding the Chinook accident that raise doubt, (no ADR or CVR for starters!), and therefore negate the apportionment of blame against the pilots. (However, in this instance, the negligence verdict was apportioned by the Reviewing Officers and not the BoI members).

With regards the BoI involving Flt Lt Williams, the RAF's rule in place at the time was (and still is) that no BoI will apportion blame to an individual. Sadly, it would appear that the RAF have, again, chosen to ignore their own rules governing the conduct of a Board of Inquiry.

That, in my book is where the double standards lay.

I wish the campaign to support Flt Lt Williams every success.
Kind regards,
Brian

Ginseng

You have asked a valid question, and it deserves a reply.

In the Chinook case, my own opinion is that it is possible that the pilots were "to blame", at least in some measure, but that the evidence available does not prove that that is so, even beyond a reasonable doubt. Much of it is mere speculation, or at least "informaed" speculation based on modelling, after the event, of parameters that cannot be established as factually accurate. Since the pilots are not here to give their version of events, and none was recorded at the time, we should not hold them to have been negligent. They were responsible for their own terrain separation, but why they did not maintain it we are simply not able to say.

In the F-15 case, we likewise do not know for sure why the aircraft crashed. We do not know for sure whether they were in cloud when the en-route clearance was requested, or if they intended to convey this to the controller. The RAF Board and the USAF Board use different interpretations of the voice recording. Even if they were, we do not know for sure whether the pilots achieved VMC before impact or not. Once again, they were responsible for their own terrain clearance, and failed to maintain it for whatever reason. They should not be held negligent, but on the same evidence neither is there any case for the controller to answer.

Regards

Ginseng

endplay

Ginseng, Brian Dixon.
Thanks for the replies. The nuances appear subtle but the essence is, as far as I can see, that if you can't prove it don't say it. In the Chinook case that covers it completely. It couldn't be proved so the "judgement" was flawed. It seems that the same rules should aply to the F15's in that we can say with certainty what happened but not with certainty why. Therefore we can't blame the aircrew.

It seems to me that the BoI didn't want such an open verdict so only heard what they wanted to hear. I have a 5 year old grandaughter who applies the same logic. It can be quite cute in her case.

UKRIO

I'm fuming. I'm very close to a member of the BOI and I know just how long they took to complete the inquiry. They left no stone unturned and were 100% professional in their deliberations, including keeping an open mind and certainly not setting out to find blame. A BOI does not apportion blame; full stop!
Sadly, the facts were as stated in the BOI. This is nothing like the Chinook BOI and any one who tries to link to 2 is kidding themselves. Yes the Court Martial, coming when it did was a mistake but the BOI is out now and the man still has his life and his job, something that 2 poor F15 pilots do not have. Let's move on and hope that the mistakes are never repeated.

Ginseng

No one here suggested that the Chinook and F15 BoIs were "linked", other than by the obvious fact that they both inquired into (different) circumstances in which aircraft had flown into the ground and the aircrew involved had not survived. There was a valid point made, that some of us might be seen as applying a double-standard between the people involved in each case. That point could not be answered without referring to both cases. I don't doubt for a moment that the F15 BoI members did their very best and kept an open mind, as did those involved in the Chinook BoI. Sadly, the remaining similarity between these two inquiries is that the some of later reviewing officers changed the original Boards' interpretation of what could be established as fact. I am sorry that you are fuming, but I don't think that you really have any cause to.

Regards

Ginseng

DICK DOLEMAN

I am genuinely sorry that you are so upset but I would ask you to read the following extracts from the BOI process concerning the issue of blame.

The first extracts are from comments made by the Station Commander:

I am somewhat confused by the mixing of 'advice' and 'instruction' but, in the next paragraph, the controller is named before the following comments are made:


It seems to me that there is no doubt that the Station Commander refers to a cause of accident (not a probable cause) in determining that the aircraft followed a straight line descent in IMC into the ground . Moreover, he links a "clearly unsafe instruction" to the aforementioned cause and goes on to name the controller concerned. It seems like 'apportioning blame' to me.

The next reporting officer is the AOC and he notes that "A BOI does not apportion blame and I note that none has been apportioned in this case". I concur with him in as much that the BOI itself did dot apportion blame. However, he then goes on to say in para 7:

The final reporting officer is the CinC Strike Command who states:

Please note again that 'cause' is used and not 'probable cause'. Between three air ranking officers the words 'advice', instruction' and 'information' are used to describe the actions of the controller. However, in my book, they all apportion blame to the controller concerned and I do consider them to be part of the BOI procedure and not divorced from it.

I attended the entire Court Martial and unlike this BOI, I was very struck by the eyewitness statements. I have yet to receive further documentation from this BOI which will give me the detailed information on how the eyewitnesses could have been so confused as to what they saw and when they saw it. Please don't forget that the original BOI never bothered to interview a single eyewitness; it is hardly surprising that one can become slightly sceptical.

There are two sides to every story.

UKRIO

The original BOI didn't have time to interview the eyewitnesses as the Court Martial proceedings halted the inquiry. Once the BOI was reconvened, the original board members were used, with the exception of the President due to Op Telic.
As a result of all of the publicity, they were keenly aware of the sensitivities and did all they could to find doubt in a fellow air trafficker's actions, whilst remaining utterly professional and impartial to the best of their ability. The written report is the result of a lot of soul searching, hard work and anguish. It should not be written off as a white wash and an agenda to lay blame at one person's door.

Lima Juliet

UKRIO

I concur with you 100%.

LJ

Brian Young

I don't really understand what point you are trying to make. I am no expert on BoI procedure but no matter what processes exist between the BoI and the prosecuting authority for the transfer of the investigation between the two, the net result is that eyewitnesses were not interviewed prior to the Court Martial (they were called by the defence counsel) and the evidence that they supplied at the Court Martial has been discounted by the second BoI. Five individual witnesses from more than one location south east of the crash site gave evidence which consistently supported the defence case, yet the second BoI chose to discredit or ignore the evidence of all five.
As a matter of interest, the USAF also concluded their Accident Investigation Board Report without interviewing any of the known eyewitnesses: a strange parallel.

Ginseng

Sorry, but you can hardly expect me to be placated by your use of the words
"didn't have time to interview the eyewitnesses". An inquiry is thorough, or it is not. If the CM intervened, then completion of the inquiry after the CM would surely have included independent interviews with the eye-witnesses, even if the CM had previously thrown doubt on the reliability of their testimony. Yes of course the reliability of eyewitness evidence can be problematic, but it should be considered and judged on its merits. I put it to you that the inquiry could not be complete without hearing the evidence, and discussing whether it reliably shed any light on events.

Regards

Ginseng

Ginseng

D**n, you beat me to it by seconds!

Ginseng

DICK DOLEMAN

You have me baffled with this comment. You obviously have inside knowledge as to how this BOI was conducted and you infer that the original BOI had the intent of interviewing the eyewitnesses. I think the following comments are worthy of consideration; please correct me if I am wrong.

The BOI was in progress but at some stage the process was handed over to the prosecuting authority which led to the decision to hold a Court Martial. I identify that point as sometime shortly after the RAF Police warned the controller that charges might be brought against him. I listened to the entire transcript of the RAF police interview of the controller being read out at the Court Martial; I, amongst many other observers, could not identify a reason for the interview terminating with the controller being warned that they (the RAF Police) had sufficient evidence for charges to be brought against him. It seemed very pre-determined. I assume that the RAF Police, not being expert aviators or air traffic controllers, were not acting independently of the BOI and would have been briefed by the President of the Board prior to the interview taking place. One must assume that the RAF Police would have reported back to the President before a decision was made by him to place the proceedings in the hands of the prosecuting authority who then decided to formulate the serious charges and hold a Court Martial. If my theory is correct, it was not the Court Martial that prevented the interviewing of eyewitnesses, it was the BOI decision to hand over the proceedings to the prosecuting authority before important due process was complete. After all, the eyewitnesses may have determined that no charges should be brought to bear and the importance of this is not just a trifling matter in what should be a fair judicial process. I just can’t imagine a civil case of equivalent magnitude being handed from the police to the CPS without known eyewitnesses being interviewed and I wouldn’t expect the CPS to let such an oversight pass without question; obviously, the RAF prosecuting authority didn’t chose to question the BOI ,or, were not made aware that there were any eyewitnesses. There seemed to be an unseemly haste to bring very serious charges and convene a Court Martial and there has to be an identifiable chain of responsibility in this process somewhere. I note that your first post on this matter included the statement “yes the Court Martial coming when it did was a mistake”. Can you expand upon this ‘mistake’?

UKRIO

The BOI did interview the witnesses, once the CM had completed which was well over a year since the accident by this stage. The BOI were as surprised by the CM investigation as anyone and there was little or no interaction between the BOI and the police.
Once the BOI had been reconvened, they had the CM evidence but chose to interview the witnesses themselves in order to gain first-hand accounts.
As for my 'inside knowledge', if refer you to my original post.
As for 'mistake', it is my opinion that the decision to go to CM so early was a mistake. We are still living with that decision and it is hurting a controller as well as the RAF as a whole in a time when we need the support of the public more than ever.

Johnwil

Quote: Posted by UKRIO at 12.16 March 4th
" Sadly, the facts were as stated in the BOI."
No, not all the facts are as stated in the BoI report.
On the 26th March 2001 I saw two twin-tailed jets, in close formation, flying towards where I was standing on Carn Allt na Beinne ( 077963). I viewed them in profile as they were only slightly below me. They banked to their left in front of me providing me with a very close view of the under side of the large F-15 wings. They flew away from my position in a westerly direction across the southern shoulder of Beinn Bhreac. The jets were less than 200 feet above the ground. As they disappeared they were flying over snow covered ground just below the cloud. The light conditions were such that it was impossible to be certain where the ground stopped and the cloud started - classic white out conditions.
If the only F-15s in the area at that time ( after 1 pm ) were the ones that crashed then those are the ones that I and my companion saw.
I made a statemant to the police in Braemar on the night of the crash. At this stage the jets were missing but the crash site had not been found. What I have written above is consistent with what I told the police at that time. It is clearly consistent with the site of the crash and with the proximity of the aircraft at the moment of impact. There were three sets of eye witnesses. We were the most easterly pair, we were separated from the others by at least a mile. The three sets of eye witness testimony dovetailed together satisfactorily at the GCM.
The initial hypothesis that the F-15s descended directly from 7,300 feet to impact Ben MacDui near the summit should have been discarded at the latest by the time the eye witness testimony had been rigorously tested at the GCM.
I would like to have seen the psycologist that the Station Commander finds so credible cross examined at the GCM by Michael Jones QC - the defence barrister. I suspect he might not have appeared so convincing after half an hour of Michael Jones's forensic questioning.

Ginseng

Your theory is, I hope, wide of the mark as regards the process. The BoI president works on behalf of the convening authority, and would not communicate directly with the Service police or the prosecuting authority. If a decision was taken to proceed to formal proceedings, the inquiry would have to be suspended pending the outcome of those proceedings; the president would have been instructed accordingly. Statements given to the BoI are not themselves directly admissible at CM, so the disciplinary investigation process would start from scratch.

Like you, I think it would have been better to await the completed deliberations of the BoI, and then make any decision on further proceedings in the light of the completed inquiry. A good deal of time and heartache, not to mention money, might have been saved.

Regards

Ginseng