crashsite

Chaps, you do make me laugh. People who have skimmed through a document and are expert in very little except writing complete twaddle on a whingers website, giving their 'expert opinion' to each other. Anyhow, if it keeps you happy keep on going. It is the most profound and entertaining case of chinese whispers....

DICK DOLEMAN

Thanks Ginseng, nicely explained.

DD

Ginseng

You are, of course, entitlrd to your opinion, but if you think this is a whingers website full of complete twaddle, why have you been a registered member for over 2 years?

Regards

Ginseng

DICK DOLEMAN

Before it gets buried in the thread, I urge those just joining to read the recent post by the above gentleman, one of the eyewitnesses at the Court martial.

He doesn't mention that, apart from his companion, the next witness was a solo skier in the valley beneath him (2km to the west) who was overflown only a matter of seconds later (approx 15 seconds on speed calculations).

I can fully understand the eyewitness feeling aggrieved at how his testimony has been dismissed by the BOI.

Brian Young

.............to this sad affair. It looks like people are really realists after all. No matter that people every so often spout off (out of an inbuilt prejudice) at the bottom of it all they truly are human beings. One person, and one person only that has contributed to this site has witnessed what actually happened. After what he had to say, people have, thankfully, respected the obvious truth. What a glorious silence. Well done everyone. Well done the eyewitness.

Lima Juliet

Eyewitnesses can be mistaken (ask any Human Factors expert or psychologist - eyes are about 70% efficient let alone considering any mental processing errors) but the radar evidence looks pretty good to me - the last plot a couple of seconds before impact, in the same axis of direction and the wreckage consistent with 2 jets in close formation (as they would be during a bad weather letdown). Furthermore, from this radar evidence it would be very unlikely that could have achieved the Lairig Ghru without pulling a significant amount of G which would be very dangerous and inconsistent with the bad weather letdown that they were attempting.
From that point of view I am afraid I agree with the Board's "Most likely series of events" that they have come up with and would tend to weight my views on the radar evidence as the Board have. By the way, the radar evidence presented at the GCM had apparenty been misplotted - rather fortunate for the poor old controller (whom IMHO should never have been taken to GCM anyway).
It's just a shame that the ARTF recovery team didn't find a watch or clock of some sort - that would have sorted both sides of the story once and for all. As the radar tapes could have been corrolated with the time of crash.
So after all that I am saying that the eyewitness does not convince me, the radar evidence does.
Soz
LJ

short&shapeless

Leon, from what I remember reading during and after the CM I didn't think there was a radar plot to within seconds of impact. I thought that this was an issue in that a straight line descent had been assumed and drawn in because there was no radar track available.

If that is the case then surely the eyewitness becomes more credible than an arbritary line on a display, particularly as there were corrobarating eyewitness accounts.

DICK DOLEMAN

There was indeed a radar plot presented to the GCM. The most accurate was the Allanshill radar information which pointed a little to the west of Ben Macdui and not directly at the crash site. A supernumerary member of the BOI had also drawn a line on the map which aligned with the crash site. It was only under questioning by Mike Jones QC that it was admitted that this was not radar derived information but had been drawn because the particular member considered that in, his considerable aircrew experience, it wasn't possible for the F15s to have manoeuvred from their last seen position on radar to the impact point. This was one of the points that the QC referred to as 'fudging' of evidence to fit the case.

Leon refers to a recalculation of the radar data. I see no mention of this in the body text of the BOI report; he must have inside information or it lies in the annexes which we still await and he has access to. Even if new data suggests that the track is now aligned directly with the crash site, it is not proof of how the aircraft crashed. Leon is correct in stating that there was no definitive time of crash; it has always surprised me that no aircrew watches were recovered, that the aircraft had no ADRs or timepieces and that we couldn't get seismology information. Any one of these might have given a vital clue.

Without that clue, we must consider the very convincing eyewitness statements and their positions relative to one another. Furthermore, from top of descent the aircraft never reported that they were IMC and their rate of descent was indicative of a VMC descent (conceded by the USAF witness at the CM). The forecast weather supported a VMC descent (also conceded). As they approached the 'advised' altitude of 4000ft they were still descending at a rate of 2000fpm or greater; yet a further clue that they were visual with the ground and pressing on in to low level. Incidentally, when the aircraft were in their initial descent towards the Leuchars overhead, they flew in trail. It was only when they got VMC beneath that they joined to 'close' formation. They remained in 'close' formation in the subsequent climb and descent; they were still in 'close' formation when seen by all the eyewitnesses and were still in that formation when they crashed. The BOI report makes no mention of the differing formations flown by the F15s (close) and the Tornados (loose trail); is this an oversight or something else hidden in the annexes? The difference in formations is crucial in understanding that the eyewitnesses didn't see Tornados.

I expect we will remain in our two camps of 'probable cause' but, without hard facts, I can't agree with the comments and conclusions of the air ranking officers who have shifted the emphasis from 'probable cause' to 'cause'. I also don't agree with the BOI presenting hypothesis as fact in some parts of their report.

drunkenwasp

Eyewitnesses can be mistaken (ask any Human Factors expert or psychologist - eyes are about 70% efficient let alone considering any mental processing errors)

What an arrogant and unsupportable statement that is! If the evidence doesn’t fit what you want then ignore it or change it eh! Or bring out wild generalisations to support a nebulous statement.

Unfortunately, such unacceptable ideals and actions seem to be the norm for BOIs - they were only too obvious in the BOI that I mentioned earlier in which I was involved. Fortunately, as the Controllers 'friend' or adviser or whatever the term was, I was present for most of the evidence gathering and witness statements. At times , I was utterly staggered at the whole proceedings. Evidence was ignored or forced to fit the facts, witnesses were allowed to alter statements etc etc. Thus, when the 1st BOI report was published, it was little more than a fabrication that pointed unequivocally towards the conclusion that best suited the RAF, not the conclusion that was true. Only after our concerted and detailed response, which included the very real threat of further (including legal) action, was the BOI re-convened. Even then, it was a constant battle to get evidence properly reviewed. Ultimately, we were successful but even at the death, the RAF would not fully accept its responsibilities or liabilities.

Dick – was Spot present when the BOI interviewed witnesses or gathered evidence? If needsbe, we can talk 'off-board' so to speak.

DICK DOLEMAN

A little harsh on Leon but I understand your frustrations.

Leon has emphasised the unreliability of eyewitnesses generally and his opinions would have more validity if we were judging the statement of one eyewitness alone. In this case, we are not; all the eyewitneses saw twin tailed aircraft flying in close formation and the correlation of their positions supports very credible evidence.

It seems the BOI used a psychologist to cast doubt on the reliability of eyewitnesses in such situations. Did the same psychologist have a view on the BOI using a different member of Axis formation (Tornados) to give a different account of their route to that presented by the original witness at the CM? I would like to hear his opinion as to who would give the more reliable witness statement; the one who gave his statement shortly after the accident or the one who gave his statement some 2 years after the event. It would be cynical of me to suggest that the BOI favoured the latter as it was a means to try and discredit the eyewitness statements.

I assume that this new witness from Axis formation hasn't also changed the account that they were flying in 'loose trail'. My notes from the CM mentions 2nm but this is not from transcript of evidence. Even if we bring this down to 1nm, I reckon they would be trailing in excess of 7 seconds. Could all of the eyewitnesses have been that wrong in confusing this with close formation?

Sven Sixtoo

Try counting 7 seconds and think, if you were observing from the ground, would you describe two aircraft passing with that separation as being "in formation"?

Sven

ExRAFRadar

Intresting point Sven..

I recall seeing many formations on radar and on radar they looked like a formation. Similar heading, airspeed, altitude. Albeit seperated by lateral distance.

I saw individual a/c in what I knew to be in formation with other a/c but saw no sign of the others except as black dots flitting through some distant valley.

Looking back in all those cases, unless I was aware of miltary procedures and formations I would not have thought the a/c part of the same formation.

keepin it in trim

I hesitate to get involved in this but for what it is worth, the conditions in the area during the initial search were such that it was possible to be vmc south of the crash site, running northbound and be unable to tell where the ground started and the sky stopped, and we knew this area very well from the air. The wind at around 4000' was also about 60 kts. The snow in the area, which was quite deep, was completely undisturbed, as it was foot and mouth time and very few people were on the hills. The summit of Ben Macdui was solidly in cloud for 4 days.

Also, interestingly and highly unusually, sar assets were launched by the rcc very rapidly, with the comment that the aircraft had been lost off radar descending to low level, not that ple had been passed with no contact. When asked why a sar launch was considered necessary for aircraft descending into low level, the comment was that leuchars had lost radar with the aircraft passing 4400', northbound, just south of Ben Macdui.

The state and position of the wreckage suggested the aircraft were level or descending at very slow rate at the time of impact, and were in fairly close formation. The wreckage was also unusual in being in large pieces and recognisable from some distance as F15s.

For what it's worth I feel it was wrong to court martial the controller concerned.

But from what I saw those aircraft probably crashed at the end of a straight line descent in close formation and I think the eye witnesses on the ground may have mis-identified the aircraft they saw. There were no people visible during the initial search within several miles of the crash site.

The whole incident was very sad and i think that like many other aircraft accidents it is unlikely that the full facts will ever be known. The above is merely my view based on what I experienced at the time.

DICK DOLEMAN

Thanks for your observations. The weather conditions on the day were very changeable and whiteout conditions were prevalent in the area. From the log of events:

1318. Ac last seen on radar
1339. RCC informed
1410 Rescue 137 scrambled from Lossiemouth

From the above and assuming a 20 minute transit for the helicopter, the first time on scene would have been approximately 70 mins after the ac were last seen by radar; remarkably quick but the weather conditions may have been totally different 1 hour before. This is supported by the fact that Axis formation reported transiting up the Lairig Ghru some 2 km west of the crash site without needing to weather abort.

There is nothing new in your comments that alters my views on the credibility of the eyewitness reports. My opinion is that the F15s may have turned up Glen Quoich by mistake; the next valley to the west, Glen Lui, would have been a more obvious choice. For the eyewitnesses to have seen the Tornados would have meant the same route being followed; with twin crew and the equipment advantage of the Tornado, I think this route and scenario most unlikely.

AGEDMIL

To those who support the BOI findings - how can you go against the evidence that was tested in court? The decision to prosecute at CM is taken in the knowledge that the prosecution evidence would be challenged fully by the defence, and likewise any evidence submitted by the defence being examined and challenged by the prosecution. The same independent examination of the evidence can not be leveled at the BOI. Why? 1. They are all aircrew for one - why no current controller as a BOI member? 2. The BOI know that the Service have a very particular slant on the whole issue of the accident - and knowing that Stn Cdr, AOC, AOC - in - C were going to make their comment....unbiased and independent - NO.
The RAF Board of Inquiry system has now twice been called into direpute - the Chinook crash, and now the F15 crash. The Secretary of State must now thoroughly review the whole BOI process - independently of the RAF. It is patently obvious that the BOI system is required to be independent and unbiased - and in this case it patently has not been.

DICK DOLEMAN

The BOI was not all aircrew; it was comprised as follows:

President: Wg Cdr GD/P
Members: Sqn Ldr (ATC). Flt Lt (ATC)
In Attendance: Sqn Ldr GD/P; Sqn Ldr GD/N; Lt Col USAF Pilot; Psychologist.

Lima Juliet

Why is everybody so hung up with the GCM evidence and the BOI evidence? The BOI, which was convened twice, the first had to stop when the Grampian Police started and then when the RAF Prosecuting Authority started bungling along, utilised new evidence and older material - hence they came to different conclusion to the GCM and the part-finished initial BOI.


I would like you all to think of the BOIs (the final finished one and the unfinished initial one) and the GCM as 3 seperate events. Now wouldn't that be unbiased?


On my understanding the final BOI (the finished one) did some pretty good RADAR interpretation work using a civil outsourced, and totally unbiased, company. The results of which I believe point to a very high possibility of the plots being the final few seconds of the US Airmen's lives; the RADAR data in the GCM, as I understood it from my source that it was in error by a mile or so (a misplotted RADAR head - I believe). Secondly, some altimetry calculations that were also in error in the GCM.


All of these facts are, I believe, in the main text of the Board's final report. Maybe, Mr Doleman you should ask for details on these from the FOI team - if they don't appear in the copy that you have.


I personally still remain unconvinced as to the Larig Ghru routing. To get into low level and fly a circuitous route and then crash at the height, in the formation, at the same point, on the same vector as the final radar picture - seems a little too unlikely. But hey, I'm just as in the dark as anyone else as to what happened and stand to be corrected.


LJ

PS I still can't understand why there is no ADR and RADALT on the F15C, even after this tragic event!!!

Barndweller

A slightly stupid question perhaps, from one who has read this thread with care and interest - and no particular initial opinion... Why would it be in the interest of the BOI to lay the blame at the door of an RAF controller rather than the USAF crews. I agree that there does seem to be some odd conclusions drawn, i'm just not sure why that might be the BOI intent? Am i missing something here?
As an aside - i've dodged about in those mountains in bad weather - it was not fun and i could hover. Can't imagine what it's like if the slowest you can go is a few hundred knots.

green granite

As a non pilot, non forces person (who has also read this thread & the C.M.
summaries with great interest) perhaps I might be allowed to put this theory
forward in reply to barndwellers question:

No reason other than an atempt to justify the bringing of the Courts Marshall
in the first place.

Barndweller

Intersting thought an scarily plausible sadly.