Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cost of foam
We have unfortunately seen the cost of not having foam, and the total impact of this oversite.
Now we are seeing costs on retrofitting foam to aircraft, which appear to be somewhat high. Or are the figures being guessed at, and this fact is no more accurate than many other MOD statements.
I would hate to see the program slowed or reduced Because of the alleged costs involved.
I have today confrimed that the hours required to fit foam to a J model is between 120 and 160 hours, I suspect the time span depends on the condition of the fuel tank sealant. As the J and K models tanks are basically the same, and the cost of the foam is around 20,000 pounds sterling, then maybe extra work is being hidden in the costs, or your trades people are very well paid.
Except for training aircraft, I cannot see how any air force can put aircraft into the sky in harms way without this sort of protection.
The cost of inspecting the foam on duty cycles is very low, because the foam has a much higher life than the tank sealant, and provided it is stored in the dark whilst out of the tank, appears to have a very long life.
What I also find strange, that Britain who led the way in WW2 in self sealing tanks, and saw the need for them then, appeared to stop the requirement after 1946.
My father who worked at Fireproof tanks during WW2, had often told me of what they found in tanks that had come out of aircraft, that had been hit during combat.
I am sorry but I cannot understand the thinking of the MOD, in regard to this matter.
Regards
Col Tigwell
Now we are seeing costs on retrofitting foam to aircraft, which appear to be somewhat high. Or are the figures being guessed at, and this fact is no more accurate than many other MOD statements.
I would hate to see the program slowed or reduced Because of the alleged costs involved.
I have today confrimed that the hours required to fit foam to a J model is between 120 and 160 hours, I suspect the time span depends on the condition of the fuel tank sealant. As the J and K models tanks are basically the same, and the cost of the foam is around 20,000 pounds sterling, then maybe extra work is being hidden in the costs, or your trades people are very well paid.
Except for training aircraft, I cannot see how any air force can put aircraft into the sky in harms way without this sort of protection.
The cost of inspecting the foam on duty cycles is very low, because the foam has a much higher life than the tank sealant, and provided it is stored in the dark whilst out of the tank, appears to have a very long life.
What I also find strange, that Britain who led the way in WW2 in self sealing tanks, and saw the need for them then, appeared to stop the requirement after 1946.
My father who worked at Fireproof tanks during WW2, had often told me of what they found in tanks that had come out of aircraft, that had been hit during combat.
I am sorry but I cannot understand the thinking of the MOD, in regard to this matter.
Regards
Col Tigwell
Cost of Foam
Herkman
Agreed.
As far as I can see, the only statement as to cost is Lord Drayson’s (see post #982) “The initial programme will cost £600,000 per aircraft”. A typically misleading and disingenuous statement.
Without going into all the detail, the cost of embodying ANY modification is stated in the Mod Form 715 in terms of non-recurring (one-off) and recurring costs. It will say how many hours to embody and MUST have been verified, typically by a Trial Installation. This is said to be 160. (Is this one man for 4 weeks , or ten men for 2 days?). Even at £100 per hour, plus profit, this doesn’t exceed £18k. The cost of the mod set will be stated also, but this would have to be validated as it will be very dated. And it depends on quantity ordered. This is said to be approx £20k. With the best will in the world the recurring costs cannot be much more than £50k per a/c.
The MoD would probably include the cost of delivery and return to/from Marshalls (or wherever) in the cost. (Make them training flights). Marshalls overheads would be hefty, but these are all agreed in the QMAC and would be reduced significantly if the a/c were embodied by working party at Lyneham.
The slight complication here is that the original mod will have been schemed and trialled by the US in, probably, a different variant of C130. The MoD must pay for Design Incorporation in our variants, which is probably where the bulk of the £600k “initial” figure comes from. But that is a non-recurring cost. This would perhaps include a degree of training for Marshalls staff.
To the most junior staff in any aircraft IPT, all the above is routine. The only minor issue in contractual terms is to negotiate the emergent work conditions. That is, how to deal with “snags” which are discovered during the embodiment that must be rectified, or other work packages which are included to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the level of strip required to fit foam. A contract like this is usually an opportunity to consolidate configuration control and perhaps formalise some SEMs. Even so, every IPT has a standard emergent work clause already agreed with their contractors. Commercial’s job is made simple by the 715 data. Finance is a 5 minute job. Marshalls would be up and running on Day 1 via a simple PDS task. In short, the critical path is the production lead time for the mod sets. What is required is political will. And Nigel’s size 11 boot now and again.
Agreed.
As far as I can see, the only statement as to cost is Lord Drayson’s (see post #982) “The initial programme will cost £600,000 per aircraft”. A typically misleading and disingenuous statement.
Without going into all the detail, the cost of embodying ANY modification is stated in the Mod Form 715 in terms of non-recurring (one-off) and recurring costs. It will say how many hours to embody and MUST have been verified, typically by a Trial Installation. This is said to be 160. (Is this one man for 4 weeks , or ten men for 2 days?). Even at £100 per hour, plus profit, this doesn’t exceed £18k. The cost of the mod set will be stated also, but this would have to be validated as it will be very dated. And it depends on quantity ordered. This is said to be approx £20k. With the best will in the world the recurring costs cannot be much more than £50k per a/c.
The MoD would probably include the cost of delivery and return to/from Marshalls (or wherever) in the cost. (Make them training flights). Marshalls overheads would be hefty, but these are all agreed in the QMAC and would be reduced significantly if the a/c were embodied by working party at Lyneham.
The slight complication here is that the original mod will have been schemed and trialled by the US in, probably, a different variant of C130. The MoD must pay for Design Incorporation in our variants, which is probably where the bulk of the £600k “initial” figure comes from. But that is a non-recurring cost. This would perhaps include a degree of training for Marshalls staff.
To the most junior staff in any aircraft IPT, all the above is routine. The only minor issue in contractual terms is to negotiate the emergent work conditions. That is, how to deal with “snags” which are discovered during the embodiment that must be rectified, or other work packages which are included to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the level of strip required to fit foam. A contract like this is usually an opportunity to consolidate configuration control and perhaps formalise some SEMs. Even so, every IPT has a standard emergent work clause already agreed with their contractors. Commercial’s job is made simple by the 715 data. Finance is a 5 minute job. Marshalls would be up and running on Day 1 via a simple PDS task. In short, the critical path is the production lead time for the mod sets. What is required is political will. And Nigel’s size 11 boot now and again.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc, when Liam Fox wrote to Lockheed earlier in the year he talked about a one-off cost of £275,000 and then £50,000 per ac. Would this £275,000 be the Design Inc?
Have to say I was shocked to hear that XV179 was rewinged in 2002/3. This rewinging would have occurred after 47Sqn pilots requested foam for the Herc. Not a comforting thought.
Have to say I was shocked to hear that XV179 was rewinged in 2002/3. This rewinging would have occurred after 47Sqn pilots requested foam for the Herc. Not a comforting thought.
Nigel
What you say roughly aligns with my brain dump. The £250k sounds like the NRCs I talk of. Perhaps Min(DP) got his words muddled and this means the initial contract is for seven aircraft? 250 + (7x50) = 600.
"Design Incorporation” is always fraught with difficulty, mainly because so many in the MoD regard it as a “waste of money”, so very often it is ignored. There is no doubt it is an expensive business and, as the a/c fleets reduce in size, so it takes up a higher proportion of funding. (As maintaining the build standard is not volume related – it costs the same if you have one a/c or 100. Very few realise this, so blithely accept proportional cuts in support funding when, in fact, it is jeopardising airworthiness and safety in general). The compromise is often that a high cost programme will be asked to consolidate the build standard (or more likely discover they have no choice). The inherent risk is that if something happens in the interim, the airworthiness audit trail is fragmented. It is a vicious circle and the longer you wait, the more corporate memory both industry and MoD lose, and the more it costs to catch up.
The problem is well known, and a good example can be read at http://www.publications.parliament.u.../300/30005.htm Read “conclusions”, from para 22. What MoD told the committee is, in places, absolute rubbish, and we cringed with embarrassment when the report was published. As ever, the committee almost got it right, but didn’t truly understand the issues so MoD was able to fob them off. Equally, some of CDP’s answers put the MoD in a bad light when the truth would have made both he and MoD look good!
What you say roughly aligns with my brain dump. The £250k sounds like the NRCs I talk of. Perhaps Min(DP) got his words muddled and this means the initial contract is for seven aircraft? 250 + (7x50) = 600.
"Design Incorporation” is always fraught with difficulty, mainly because so many in the MoD regard it as a “waste of money”, so very often it is ignored. There is no doubt it is an expensive business and, as the a/c fleets reduce in size, so it takes up a higher proportion of funding. (As maintaining the build standard is not volume related – it costs the same if you have one a/c or 100. Very few realise this, so blithely accept proportional cuts in support funding when, in fact, it is jeopardising airworthiness and safety in general). The compromise is often that a high cost programme will be asked to consolidate the build standard (or more likely discover they have no choice). The inherent risk is that if something happens in the interim, the airworthiness audit trail is fragmented. It is a vicious circle and the longer you wait, the more corporate memory both industry and MoD lose, and the more it costs to catch up.
The problem is well known, and a good example can be read at http://www.publications.parliament.u.../300/30005.htm Read “conclusions”, from para 22. What MoD told the committee is, in places, absolute rubbish, and we cringed with embarrassment when the report was published. As ever, the committee almost got it right, but didn’t truly understand the issues so MoD was able to fob them off. Equally, some of CDP’s answers put the MoD in a bad light when the truth would have made both he and MoD look good!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: hotels
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tucumseh
The slight complication here is that the original mod will have been schemed and trialled by the US in, probably, a different variant of C130.
£600M as an initial fleet-wide fit seems much more reasonable than a per aircraft number...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HrkDrvr
There is, and has only been for quite some time, one Hercules wing design - consequently, whilst it may not have been fit or trialled on a K in the US, it will have been on E, H, & J (and US Navy R & T) models. All of which have used the same wing design since roughly 1975...the same wing fitted to most K (all SF mini-fleet for sure & probably all remaining K - K with older wings were probably sent back as buy-back birds) & all J models.
£600M as an initial fleet-wide fit seems much more reasonable than a per aircraft number...
£600M as an initial fleet-wide fit seems much more reasonable than a per aircraft number...
All the K fleet apart from 2 aircraft have the older E model wings. 2 SF aircraft have the later H model wings , as have all the J's.
Internal plumbing on the H wings have quite a few differences to the E wings, which will complicate the fitting of ESF.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: hotels
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the K fleet apart from 2 aircraft have the older E model wings. 2 SF aircraft have the later H model wings , as have all the J's.
Internal plumbing on the H wings have quite a few differences to the E wings, which will complicate the fitting of ESF.
Internal plumbing on the H wings have quite a few differences to the E wings, which will complicate the fitting of ESF.
However, much of this information is second-hand (re: timing of K re-winging), so I'm happy to be corrected.
The SF mini-fleet is on their second set of H wings AFAIK...
Most of this info came to light immediately following the loss of 179 & the rampant speculation RE: fatigue & the subsequent highly coincidental grounding/restricting of US Hercules w/in a matter of weeks...
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the speculation about J/K (E/H) wing design is frankly irrelevant chaps - all we want is ESF for everyone and we want it now!!!
The only problem I can see is that with all these rumours of re-winging certain airframes it may well come too late.........
ESF fitted to airframes 2006 - wings replaced 2007?? Will the foam be transferred or will we have to pay again for the same mod on new(re-furbished) wings??
Hopefully the politicians/MOD/Marshalls have though about this and planned the ESF installation to tie-in with possible wing restoration/replacement.
No, I thought not.
The only problem I can see is that with all these rumours of re-winging certain airframes it may well come too late.........
ESF fitted to airframes 2006 - wings replaced 2007?? Will the foam be transferred or will we have to pay again for the same mod on new(re-furbished) wings??
Hopefully the politicians/MOD/Marshalls have though about this and planned the ESF installation to tie-in with possible wing restoration/replacement.
No, I thought not.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the information that we now know about ESF, following the BOI for XV179 (and while awaiting that of XV206), it would, in my view, be criminally negligent for the MoD to permit any further delays to the fitting of ESF to all of our current Herc fleet (J and K).
The same could be said for any future re-winged older frames and/or their replacements.
Flipster
ps Nige any chance you could empty yr PM inbox?
The same could be said for any future re-winged older frames and/or their replacements.
Flipster
ps Nige any chance you could empty yr PM inbox?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HrkDrvr
I doubt this - they may have an early H wing, but the E wings haven't been produced by Lockheed since 1972 & I'm fairly confident (although could be misinformed) that the Ks all were re-winged in the late-70s, early-80s.
However, much of this information is second-hand (re: timing of K re-winging), so I'm happy to be corrected.
The SF mini-fleet is on their second set of H wings AFAIK...
Most of this info came to light immediately following the loss of 179 & the rampant speculation RE: fatigue & the subsequent highly coincidental grounding/restricting of US Hercules w/in a matter of weeks...
However, much of this information is second-hand (re: timing of K re-winging), so I'm happy to be corrected.
The SF mini-fleet is on their second set of H wings AFAIK...
Most of this info came to light immediately following the loss of 179 & the rampant speculation RE: fatigue & the subsequent highly coincidental grounding/restricting of US Hercules w/in a matter of weeks...
having worked on all the wings in question, i assure i'm correct (hope i don't sound to pompous!).
when the fleet were re-winged, only the planks were changed, and the wings re-fitted.
there are only 2 K's flying with H model wings (easily identifyable by the extenal drain pipes between nacelle and wing plank.), these wings are the same as the J wings, and have a different fuel pick up system inside.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: hotels
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Blodwyn Pig
having worked on all the wings in question, i assure i'm correct (hope i don't sound to pompous!).
when the fleet were re-winged, only the planks were changed, and the wings re-fitted.
there are only 2 K's flying with H model wings (easily identifyable by the extenal drain pipes between nacelle and wing plank.), these wings are the same as the J wings, and have a different fuel pick up system inside.
when the fleet were re-winged, only the planks were changed, and the wings re-fitted.
there are only 2 K's flying with H model wings (easily identifyable by the extenal drain pipes between nacelle and wing plank.), these wings are the same as the J wings, and have a different fuel pick up system inside.
- you've first hand info & mine is only second hand - clouded by memory & wishful thinking! 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well a few days away has made interesting reading. this may be too late or not even of any use. i am afraid that i cannot contribute usefully to the discussion and leave only my thoughts instead of facts but i hope this helps possibly answer queries. in my hand i have a letter recieved in may this year which states
"since the cost of £600,000 per aircraft (this is the total cost of the work,not just the cost of procuring the ESF) is significant, and much more than the figure that has been widely reported, the funding has had to come from an urgent operational requirementprocess that only supports modifying aircraft that we use in specific operational theatres.procuring the ESF and letting the contract for fitting it has been completed, and the first modified aircraft will be ready for operational deployment in july."
i know from sources that the trial fit was due to start not long after march, but then that could compute into the july date which then became august now we're looking at september to see the first plane. it would appear the goal posts keep moving for reasons i don't understand. i don't understand the reason behind the secrecy as to how many planes are going to be fitted with ESF?
the one thing i totally do not understand is this LACK OF AWARENESS, MIS COMMUNICATION, RECKLESS COMPLANCENCY ARE TERMS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE DIATRIBE FROM UP ON HIGH WHICH WE ARE EXPECTED TO TOLERATE YET YOU WOULD NOT ACCEPT THIS FROM ANY AIRMAN/WOMAN AS AN EXCUSE IN RELATION TO ANY ACTIONS DONE BY THEM. SURELY THE TERM DO UNTO OTHERS THAT YOU WISH TO BE DONE TO YOU IS APPROPRIATE.
to hear that the wings were replaced in 02/03 after requests for ESF had been made yet not initiated surely amounts to an act of incomprehensible ignorance bordering on negligence. i hope that it is not found out out that any of the men who died on XV179 requested foam. as has been pointed out the excuses that are trotted out as reasons as to why foam was not fitted change according to each fact that has been revealed. this does not appease those of us left behind. to me it states a very worried organisation.
"since the cost of £600,000 per aircraft (this is the total cost of the work,not just the cost of procuring the ESF) is significant, and much more than the figure that has been widely reported, the funding has had to come from an urgent operational requirementprocess that only supports modifying aircraft that we use in specific operational theatres.procuring the ESF and letting the contract for fitting it has been completed, and the first modified aircraft will be ready for operational deployment in july."
i know from sources that the trial fit was due to start not long after march, but then that could compute into the july date which then became august now we're looking at september to see the first plane. it would appear the goal posts keep moving for reasons i don't understand. i don't understand the reason behind the secrecy as to how many planes are going to be fitted with ESF?
the one thing i totally do not understand is this LACK OF AWARENESS, MIS COMMUNICATION, RECKLESS COMPLANCENCY ARE TERMS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE DIATRIBE FROM UP ON HIGH WHICH WE ARE EXPECTED TO TOLERATE YET YOU WOULD NOT ACCEPT THIS FROM ANY AIRMAN/WOMAN AS AN EXCUSE IN RELATION TO ANY ACTIONS DONE BY THEM. SURELY THE TERM DO UNTO OTHERS THAT YOU WISH TO BE DONE TO YOU IS APPROPRIATE.
to hear that the wings were replaced in 02/03 after requests for ESF had been made yet not initiated surely amounts to an act of incomprehensible ignorance bordering on negligence. i hope that it is not found out out that any of the men who died on XV179 requested foam. as has been pointed out the excuses that are trotted out as reasons as to why foam was not fitted change according to each fact that has been revealed. this does not appease those of us left behind. to me it states a very worried organisation.
"the one thing I totally do not understand is this LACK OF AWARENESS, MIS COMMUNICATION, RECKLESS COMPLANCENCY ARE TERMS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE DIATRIBE FROM UP ON HIGH WHICH WE ARE EXPECTED TO TOLERATE YET YOU WOULD NOT ACCEPT THIS FROM ANY AIRMAN/WOMAN AS AN EXCUSE IN RELATION TO ANY ACTIONS DONE BY THEM. SURELY THE TERM DO UNTO OTHERS THAT YOU WISH TO BE DONE TO YOU IS APPROPRIATE.
to hear that the wings were replaced in 02/03 after requests for ESF had been made yet not initiated surely amounts to an act of incomprehensible ignorance bordering on negligence. i hope that it is not found out out that any of the men who died on XV179 requested foam. as has been pointed out the excuses that are trotted out as reasons as to why foam was not fitted change according to each fact that has been revealed. this does not appease those of us left behind. to me it states a very worried organisation."
Chappie, welcome back! Re “Reckless complacency”, that didn’t come from up on high but stems from something I said a few messages ago and rephrased by NG. If it was upsetting I apologise, there are strong feelings being aired here but an important sequence is beginning to emerge which if laid bare might just help not only to get ESF fitted to the Hercules fleet, as we all want, but to point up the errors made by a “worried organisation” as you so aptly call it, to prevent it happening again. That is the very essence of Flight Safety, to learn from an accident and to prevent it happening again.
Far from being from up on high, I am an ex Herc driver, who left the fleet, and the RAF, in 1973. I have already stated that I (and my colleagues) was unaware of ESF in 1973. From what NG tells us this makes sense, as the USAF was only retro-fitting Hercs on special duties, probably in a classified programme. Shortly after that, the USAF Hercs were fitted with ESF when built, and COINCIDENTALLY the RAF wing replanking (replacing the bottom of the wings) got under way. I suspect that Senior (Headquarters) Staff would have known that ESF was now standard on USAF Hercs and called for it to be fitted on ours at this time. It wasn’t and the opportunity was lost. How far it went up the line, why it was stopped, and by whom, I have no idea, maybe others with staff experience may know, or have their suspicions. Why specific requests from the sharp end were subsequently ignored, why brand new J models still did not get fitted at build I don’t know. But someone does, and we must find out TO PREVENT IT HAPPENING AGAIN!
There is a parallel thread to this concerning another fatal accident, ie the Chinook in 1994 on the Mull of Kintyre. Like this one it involved serious equipment shortcomings, and like this one many believe those shortcomings at the very least contributed to the tragic results. The “worried organisation” that produced these flawed decisions and compromised aircraft can and must be reformed TO PREVENT IT HAPPENING AGAIN! Flight Safety isn’t some HSE thing to wet-nurse milksops (?) it is about Force Maintenance, and should be top of the bill for the Air Staff.
Be strong Chappie, this is so important, for you, for the other families, for the BOFs like me, for the present crews (now muzzled and that we must speak up for), for the future crews, for the future passengers and for the civilian population who have still to wake up to this scandal.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chappie,
After every operation there is a report drawn up. It used to be called lessons learnt and now it is called lessons identified. Think about that for a second, lessons learnt vs lessons identified..........The document concerning Main Sqn in Afg, stated a requirement to continue to actively pursue fire suppressants in the Hercules fuel tanks and was drawn up by 47 Sqn following the operation in Afghanistan in 2001/02. I was not aware of the rewinging of XV179 until it was posted on this thread. I have not double checked the accuracy of the statement but it does appear to be another missed opportunity to fit foam conveniently and cheaply. What has not yet been established is whether this document, or any attached covering letter went further up the chain. Govt Ministers have denied that the MoD ever said no to foam and are therefore denying having seen the request. We really need to find out what happened to this document. The other odd thing is that foam was definitely requested and denied for the Falkland's war, and yet there does not appear to be any paperwork around to support this. Has it been destroyed? Ingram also refers to a request for self sealing tanks in 2000 from 47 SF. Nobody has explained why this request was also denied. It is clear that Hercules aircrew have been concerned about a potentially fatal weakness in the fuel tanks of the aircraft for many years. I think we need to find out why the answer was always no and why the requests may not have fallen on the right desks or even reached the MoD.
I am working on another avenue to unearth information about protective equipment requested for the Hercules pre/post Falkland's conflict.
After every operation there is a report drawn up. It used to be called lessons learnt and now it is called lessons identified. Think about that for a second, lessons learnt vs lessons identified..........The document concerning Main Sqn in Afg, stated a requirement to continue to actively pursue fire suppressants in the Hercules fuel tanks and was drawn up by 47 Sqn following the operation in Afghanistan in 2001/02. I was not aware of the rewinging of XV179 until it was posted on this thread. I have not double checked the accuracy of the statement but it does appear to be another missed opportunity to fit foam conveniently and cheaply. What has not yet been established is whether this document, or any attached covering letter went further up the chain. Govt Ministers have denied that the MoD ever said no to foam and are therefore denying having seen the request. We really need to find out what happened to this document. The other odd thing is that foam was definitely requested and denied for the Falkland's war, and yet there does not appear to be any paperwork around to support this. Has it been destroyed? Ingram also refers to a request for self sealing tanks in 2000 from 47 SF. Nobody has explained why this request was also denied. It is clear that Hercules aircrew have been concerned about a potentially fatal weakness in the fuel tanks of the aircraft for many years. I think we need to find out why the answer was always no and why the requests may not have fallen on the right desks or even reached the MoD.
I am working on another avenue to unearth information about protective equipment requested for the Hercules pre/post Falkland's conflict.
Last edited by nigegilb; 25th Aug 2006 at 14:33.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am shocked to hear that HQ 2 Gp and HQSTC cannot find their records. Apparently, this stems from a morbid fear of the Freedom of Information Act - and all 'out of use' files are destroyed as quickly as possible.
(Surely, keeping files and records allows present 'staff' officers to be guided and helped by work done previously and prevents them having to do the work all over again? But now we seem run the military from a legal perspective .....what a shambles!)
However, I am certain that the 47 Sqn LI went unadulterated to the Stn Cdr and almost certainly on to HQ 2 Group - because both OC 47 and the Stn Cdr were known to just change signature blocks of documents, after only minor tweaking! Such is the power of Microsoft Word!!!
HQ 2 Gp is where I would look next!
Now guess who is in charge of destroying/keeping operational files?... the old Stn Cdr! Perhaps he could help - maybe ask the AOC next time you talk!
(I would be surprised if any assistance was offered, mind you!).
Predictably, the MOD manadarins are trying to shift the blame lower down the chain (a great example of responsible leadership..not).
However, MoD (DEC), CinC STC and AWC were more than aware of the situation - of that I can assure you. How else did they approve the upgrade to CMk3a in 2003? I bet they have kept those files!
Therefore, I believe that the buck must stop with the MoD itself and the SoS Def - not the Sqns, not 2 Group nor even HQ Strike.
Perhaps the united stance by the Service would persuade the MoD to come clean? Is there someone senior 'man enough' to scale the moral high ground?
Of course, all this would be solved if the MoD agreed to fit ESF to all Hercs asap!
Flipster
(Surely, keeping files and records allows present 'staff' officers to be guided and helped by work done previously and prevents them having to do the work all over again? But now we seem run the military from a legal perspective .....what a shambles!)
However, I am certain that the 47 Sqn LI went unadulterated to the Stn Cdr and almost certainly on to HQ 2 Group - because both OC 47 and the Stn Cdr were known to just change signature blocks of documents, after only minor tweaking! Such is the power of Microsoft Word!!!
HQ 2 Gp is where I would look next!
Now guess who is in charge of destroying/keeping operational files?... the old Stn Cdr! Perhaps he could help - maybe ask the AOC next time you talk!
(I would be surprised if any assistance was offered, mind you!).
Predictably, the MOD manadarins are trying to shift the blame lower down the chain (a great example of responsible leadership..not).
However, MoD (DEC), CinC STC and AWC were more than aware of the situation - of that I can assure you. How else did they approve the upgrade to CMk3a in 2003? I bet they have kept those files!
Therefore, I believe that the buck must stop with the MoD itself and the SoS Def - not the Sqns, not 2 Group nor even HQ Strike.
Perhaps the united stance by the Service would persuade the MoD to come clean? Is there someone senior 'man enough' to scale the moral high ground?
Of course, all this would be solved if the MoD agreed to fit ESF to all Hercs asap!
Flipster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well you can trust me to ask the questions.... i am not so sure that the answers would be readily available. i am going to investigate into how far the freedom of information act can help me...unless any ppruner is aware and can help me! i need to find out if i can demand to see files or does it have to be a legal requisition. if that is what is needed, then that is what i will do. i am aware the RAF are working very hard to rectify the situation of the lack of ESF, and i am worried that there is a very high risk that some gutless wonder in the MoD or government will try and make the RaF the fall guy for the lack of foam. remember, the more obstructive they are in my quest for the truth and protection for ALL troops, the more suspicious it looks! i am not looking at the world through rose tinted spectacles...i know how ugly life can be, sadly, but i did expect more from the MoD. 
the one thing i have learnt is that nothing is going to be done unless it absolutely has to and there is no way of covering up the moving of goal posts.
chugalug2 please do not for a second think that you upset me. i am aware of the source of the comment and i agree wholeheartedly.
i read something today. i don't know how true this is but there are 61 air forces that have hercules in service. i would love to know how many of those take the protection of their troops seriously. the point that you made between lessons learnt and those identified gave me food for thought. is it not the case that lessons identified can be shaped according to wether there is any intention to rectify the problems. i am not done yet. when parliament resumes i will to. the spirit and dedication in me has not diminished. if i hit a brick wall then i will not give up. let's put it this way, there is more than one way to skin a cat!
last question, if, as stated that the funds for the ESF was procured under UOR conditions, does that mean that the funds are released on a short term basis which as a result there is no way that the funds will cover the whole fleet being protected?
the one thing i have learnt is that nothing is going to be done unless it absolutely has to and there is no way of covering up the moving of goal posts. chugalug2 please do not for a second think that you upset me. i am aware of the source of the comment and i agree wholeheartedly.
i read something today. i don't know how true this is but there are 61 air forces that have hercules in service. i would love to know how many of those take the protection of their troops seriously. the point that you made between lessons learnt and those identified gave me food for thought. is it not the case that lessons identified can be shaped according to wether there is any intention to rectify the problems. i am not done yet. when parliament resumes i will to. the spirit and dedication in me has not diminished. if i hit a brick wall then i will not give up. let's put it this way, there is more than one way to skin a cat!
last question, if, as stated that the funds for the ESF was procured under UOR conditions, does that mean that the funds are released on a short term basis which as a result there is no way that the funds will cover the whole fleet being protected?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JB and Flip, apologies space now available. We have been summarising events to date so I thought it appropriate to post the following article in full, concerning one familiy's journey since the crash.
Grieving family in search of the truth
As more service families face up to the loss this week of loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, Legal Correspondent Olwen Dudgeon meets the parents of one Yorkshire airman battling to find out the truth about his death while also hoping to improve safety in future for his colleagues.
Flight Lieutenant David Stead.
EVERY time another British serviceman or woman is killed in conflict, the hearts of Pauline and Richard Stead go out to their family.
They know only too well the pain that engulfs you when the news so dreaded is confirmed.
On January 30, 2005 their elder son, David, was killed when his Hercules C130K was brought down by a missile north-west of Baghdad.
Flight Lieutenant Stead, 35, brought up in Burley-in-Wharfedale, was the captain that day, and the nine others on board, including Master Engineer Gary Nicholson, from Hull, Flight Lieutenant Andrew Smith, born in Doncaster, and York-born Flight Sergeant Mark Gibson, also lost their lives.
In his parents' case, the first awful indication something was wrong was a brief news item on Teletext that Sunday afternoon about a Hercules crash in the area where their son was flying "and we just knew it was his before it was confirmed later that evening".
But the catastrophic event was only the start of what has turned for his parents, and other relatives, into a search for the truth about whether the deaths could have been prevented if suppressant foam devices had been fitted to the fuel tanks of the Hercules and, importantly, a campaign to have them fitted to improve the safety of airmen in the future.
That is why they are currently fighting the Ministry of Defence's refusal to pay for their legal representation at the forthcoming inquest in Wiltshire into the biggest single loss of British forces in Iraq since the invasion began. "There are important questions we want asked, such as whether saving costs was viewed as more important than putting our air crews at extra risk," said Mr Stead, 59, who spent more than 20 years with West Yorkshire ambulance service. Son David always wanted to fly from being a small boy. He joined the air cadets when he was 13 – "It was all he wanted to do," said his mother.
"He knew he would have to work hard to get the grades he needed and that's what he did."
After leaving junior school in Burley like his brother Andrew, David attended Ilkley Grammar School and after a short time as a trainee surveyor was able to fulfil his ambition and join the RAF.
"It was everything he hoped for and he just loved it in the RAF." After college at Cranwell he was posted to various stations including serving in Hong Kong, and RAF Finningley, before going to Lyneham where he started to fly Hercules. He was still stationed there when he met his wife Michelle at the wedding of a colleague and they went on to have two daughters, Amelia and Holly, the youngest only a few months old at the time of his death.
It was his young wife, staying at the time with her family in the York area, who as official next of kin received confirmation of his death. "As his parents we do not have to be contacted but we went over to be with her and were there when our worst fears were confirmed."
The family then waited for the repatriation of David's body several days later and an even longer wait for him to be released for burial, with the funeral finally being held in April. In the months that followed there was a memorial service and his widow received a posthumous Air Force Cross from the Queen on David's behalf awarded for a flight in Afghanistan evacuating casualties including many children in terrible weather conditions.
"There was a lot of speculation about what had happened and eventually it was confirmed that it had been hit by a ground to air missile."
"We were allowed to attend the Board of Inquiry last December and ask questions which we believe is the first time that has happened. And we thought that we were being given all the information and documents we could be where security was not an issue."
"Two things came out, one to do with the communication system, which they said had since been sorted, and the other about the suppressant foam. It was stated that although American, Australian and some European planes had this system fitted, it had not been identified as a priority problem by British air crews," said Mr Stead.
"It was only after the Board had spoken to us that we began to hear different. We started to read in newspapers that it had been raised that air crew, including foreign servicemen on detachment to the RAF, had raised it but that the system had not been fitted for cost reasons.
"We started to think what else is going to come out. Nothing can bring our son and the other boys on board back but every day these planes are flying not just in areas of high insurgency, like Iraq and Afghanistan, but in Britain. If this is something that would make the Hercules safer, then it should be fitted in every one not just those operating in the highest threat environment, as they are promising."
The all-party Defence Committee today agreed, demanding the MoD fit explosive suppressant foam to all Hercules transport planes in a hard-hitting report expressing concerns about under-equipment and overstretching of British forces.
"David loved photography, music, books and most of all his family; he was made up when his daughters arrived. He also enjoyed being in the RAF and had even flown Tony Blair in Iraq. People will no doubt say he joined the RAF, he knew the dangers, but that does not mean the RAF does not owe a duty of care to all their air crews. Those serving are often not in a position to speak out in public and so the families are having to."
It was because they and other relatives want to raise such questions at the full inquest, the date for which is yet to be fixed, that several of them contacted human rights lawyer Simon McKay of McKay Law in Leeds.
His subsequent request for the Ministry of Defence to pay the reasonable costs of the families' representation at the hearing was rejected last month but he has now asked Defence Secretary Des Browne to reconsider the decision.
"There are important questions the families are entitled to ask during the inquest about the fitness of the aircraft for battle," he said. "In a serious and complex case, the costs could be prohibitive and it is difficult to see why those who have lost loved ones should have to pay for legal representation in the circumstances."
Pauline and Richard Stead agree. "We just want to know the truth. Why were the planes not fitted with this safety system a long time ago? Who took the decision not to do it? For the sake of the others still flying, that is why we have to push this."
They also find it ironic that the widow of an Australian serviceman, Flight Lieutenant Paul Pardoel, one of those on board killed with their son, has automatically been given legal representation by the Australian Air Force.
"We cannot get on with our lives as long as we have these questions unanswered and it will be very difficult to get to the truth without proper representation."
• The other five killed in the crash were Squadron Leader Patrick Marshall, Chief Technician Richard Brown, Sergeant Robert O'Connor, Corporal David Williams and soldier Acting Lance Corporal Steven Jones.
Grieving family in search of the truth
As more service families face up to the loss this week of loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, Legal Correspondent Olwen Dudgeon meets the parents of one Yorkshire airman battling to find out the truth about his death while also hoping to improve safety in future for his colleagues.
Flight Lieutenant David Stead.
EVERY time another British serviceman or woman is killed in conflict, the hearts of Pauline and Richard Stead go out to their family.
They know only too well the pain that engulfs you when the news so dreaded is confirmed.
On January 30, 2005 their elder son, David, was killed when his Hercules C130K was brought down by a missile north-west of Baghdad.
Flight Lieutenant Stead, 35, brought up in Burley-in-Wharfedale, was the captain that day, and the nine others on board, including Master Engineer Gary Nicholson, from Hull, Flight Lieutenant Andrew Smith, born in Doncaster, and York-born Flight Sergeant Mark Gibson, also lost their lives.
In his parents' case, the first awful indication something was wrong was a brief news item on Teletext that Sunday afternoon about a Hercules crash in the area where their son was flying "and we just knew it was his before it was confirmed later that evening".
But the catastrophic event was only the start of what has turned for his parents, and other relatives, into a search for the truth about whether the deaths could have been prevented if suppressant foam devices had been fitted to the fuel tanks of the Hercules and, importantly, a campaign to have them fitted to improve the safety of airmen in the future.
That is why they are currently fighting the Ministry of Defence's refusal to pay for their legal representation at the forthcoming inquest in Wiltshire into the biggest single loss of British forces in Iraq since the invasion began. "There are important questions we want asked, such as whether saving costs was viewed as more important than putting our air crews at extra risk," said Mr Stead, 59, who spent more than 20 years with West Yorkshire ambulance service. Son David always wanted to fly from being a small boy. He joined the air cadets when he was 13 – "It was all he wanted to do," said his mother.
"He knew he would have to work hard to get the grades he needed and that's what he did."
After leaving junior school in Burley like his brother Andrew, David attended Ilkley Grammar School and after a short time as a trainee surveyor was able to fulfil his ambition and join the RAF.
"It was everything he hoped for and he just loved it in the RAF." After college at Cranwell he was posted to various stations including serving in Hong Kong, and RAF Finningley, before going to Lyneham where he started to fly Hercules. He was still stationed there when he met his wife Michelle at the wedding of a colleague and they went on to have two daughters, Amelia and Holly, the youngest only a few months old at the time of his death.
It was his young wife, staying at the time with her family in the York area, who as official next of kin received confirmation of his death. "As his parents we do not have to be contacted but we went over to be with her and were there when our worst fears were confirmed."
The family then waited for the repatriation of David's body several days later and an even longer wait for him to be released for burial, with the funeral finally being held in April. In the months that followed there was a memorial service and his widow received a posthumous Air Force Cross from the Queen on David's behalf awarded for a flight in Afghanistan evacuating casualties including many children in terrible weather conditions.
"There was a lot of speculation about what had happened and eventually it was confirmed that it had been hit by a ground to air missile."
"We were allowed to attend the Board of Inquiry last December and ask questions which we believe is the first time that has happened. And we thought that we were being given all the information and documents we could be where security was not an issue."
"Two things came out, one to do with the communication system, which they said had since been sorted, and the other about the suppressant foam. It was stated that although American, Australian and some European planes had this system fitted, it had not been identified as a priority problem by British air crews," said Mr Stead.
"It was only after the Board had spoken to us that we began to hear different. We started to read in newspapers that it had been raised that air crew, including foreign servicemen on detachment to the RAF, had raised it but that the system had not been fitted for cost reasons.
"We started to think what else is going to come out. Nothing can bring our son and the other boys on board back but every day these planes are flying not just in areas of high insurgency, like Iraq and Afghanistan, but in Britain. If this is something that would make the Hercules safer, then it should be fitted in every one not just those operating in the highest threat environment, as they are promising."
The all-party Defence Committee today agreed, demanding the MoD fit explosive suppressant foam to all Hercules transport planes in a hard-hitting report expressing concerns about under-equipment and overstretching of British forces.
"David loved photography, music, books and most of all his family; he was made up when his daughters arrived. He also enjoyed being in the RAF and had even flown Tony Blair in Iraq. People will no doubt say he joined the RAF, he knew the dangers, but that does not mean the RAF does not owe a duty of care to all their air crews. Those serving are often not in a position to speak out in public and so the families are having to."
It was because they and other relatives want to raise such questions at the full inquest, the date for which is yet to be fixed, that several of them contacted human rights lawyer Simon McKay of McKay Law in Leeds.
His subsequent request for the Ministry of Defence to pay the reasonable costs of the families' representation at the hearing was rejected last month but he has now asked Defence Secretary Des Browne to reconsider the decision.
"There are important questions the families are entitled to ask during the inquest about the fitness of the aircraft for battle," he said. "In a serious and complex case, the costs could be prohibitive and it is difficult to see why those who have lost loved ones should have to pay for legal representation in the circumstances."
Pauline and Richard Stead agree. "We just want to know the truth. Why were the planes not fitted with this safety system a long time ago? Who took the decision not to do it? For the sake of the others still flying, that is why we have to push this."
They also find it ironic that the widow of an Australian serviceman, Flight Lieutenant Paul Pardoel, one of those on board killed with their son, has automatically been given legal representation by the Australian Air Force.
"We cannot get on with our lives as long as we have these questions unanswered and it will be very difficult to get to the truth without proper representation."
• The other five killed in the crash were Squadron Leader Patrick Marshall, Chief Technician Richard Brown, Sergeant Robert O'Connor, Corporal David Williams and soldier Acting Lance Corporal Steven Jones.
Guest
Posts: n/a
[quote=kam;2803814][quote=kam;2803718]
Some really good points raised in article about how inclusive the BoI process are with families of deceased. However, I have not been given, nor ever asked for, representation from the RAAF. What I have said is that, Australian Boards of Inquiry are run differently to UK. Families are entitled to legal representation during the ADF BoI process, an Inquest is a separate and another process altogether.
I would hope that a precedent has been made with XV179 BoI and thank those involved who pushed to have it personally presented to us. However, it would seem that the general BoI process is in need of a bit of a shake up!
If anyone is interested, just off the top of my head, you can read more if you google, something like this; Australian senate review into the military justice system.
The cynic or social worker in me argues; the paternalistic 'deserving poor' concept should be long gone!
Some really good points raised in article about how inclusive the BoI process are with families of deceased. However, I have not been given, nor ever asked for, representation from the RAAF. What I have said is that, Australian Boards of Inquiry are run differently to UK. Families are entitled to legal representation during the ADF BoI process, an Inquest is a separate and another process altogether.
I would hope that a precedent has been made with XV179 BoI and thank those involved who pushed to have it personally presented to us. However, it would seem that the general BoI process is in need of a bit of a shake up!
If anyone is interested, just off the top of my head, you can read more if you google, something like this; Australian senate review into the military justice system.
The cynic or social worker in me argues; the paternalistic 'deserving poor' concept should be long gone!
