Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety

[RaPs]

We are totally disgusted and appalled after reading the comments made by Tim Collins in the wake of the Inquest, after the recommendations made by H M Coroner Mr David Masters. He may have been good in uniform but it seems he must be putting things together to write a book. If he had been around before or whilst the Inquest was in progress, as the relatives were, he would NEVER have heard the mention of compensation being brought up by anyone. All the families ever sought was the truth to come out into the circumstances of the crash of XV179, and after hearing the summing up of HMC we believe that he certainly hit the nail on the head about so many things that were wrong in the RAF and the MoD regarding this incident. Let us all hope, and especially those still serving,. that all these recommendations are carried out in entirety, especially following the quote made by the new Defence Secretary John Huttons in this same article. We will wait and see. Finally, all the families know that no amount of money will EVER compensate for losing our boys, but perhaps if this is the only way to make the MoD sit up and listen, then so be it.

[chappie]

airsound, you know me. always up for it. i will fight for what is right.

[airsound]

Chappie, I certainly do. Your always-up-for-it-ness is a source of constant admiration for me, and, I suspect, a lot of others inside and outside of the hallowed halls of PPRuNe.

But I’m not sure that taking on the sad Collins is necessarily the best thing to do right now. I’ve done a trawl (I hope better than the MoD’s trawls) of the coverage of his ill judged outburst, and I can’t find it mentioned anywhere other than in the Scotland on Sunday paper where it started.

I even gee’d up the Today programme with the story (they didn’t seem to know about it), with the the provsiso that if they were going to do anything on it, they would include a reasoned response from someone who knew what they were talking about. They elected not to cover it.

All of which may suggest that Collins’ rants are no longer news. If that’s the case, any response will only serve to draw wider attention to his intemperate and out of date views. I guess that the reach of Scotland on Sunday is not huge South of the border, and the story will clearly not have reached the majority of people in Britain.

So I think a masterful (should that be mistressful) silence will serve best for the time being - without, of course, prejudice to firing up a justified raspberry should Col (rtd) Collins offend again any time soon.

airsound

[chappie]

okay, whatever you guide. at the end of the day he's gone from hero to zero in many peoples eyes and to be fair the heroes that still serve are more worthy of any time i can give. i believe in you whole heartedly. have been in trouble over last few days with the coverage but have taken punishment on the chin like a girl!


letter done to those who think that offering an apology through a tv interview (or should i be fair? a radio interview) is enough to begin to heal the wound that has been opened up by the hole left by the loss of such fine men.
call it emotional response, call it pointless but it's something i have to do for me, no one else.
there are no words to replace bob and the guys, there is nothing, but that doesn;t mean that i have to live with being just another statistic.
this statistic is standing up and fighting for what is right.
i would never, never turn my back on anyone left behind. it is not in my natuire to let the generation left behind to care for itself. i will do all i can to make it as safe as i can.
i know this post is pointless and adds nothing but indulge me guys and just let me post it. in fact, i know that there is nothing that i can offer which is of any help, but i will do what i can. i just hope i am not a millstone round the campaign's neck.

[pulse1]

chappie,

As the father of a military pilot I have had nothing but admiration for you and the others who have bravely fought to expose the incredibly poor attitude of the MoD and higher ranks of the military to the safety of our servicemen.

Ever since the Chinook campaign started over 10 years ago I have asked myself how I would react if my son was killed under such circumstances. As the appalling picture has unfolded over successive tragedies involving Hercules, Nimrods and Tornadoes, I am aware that it has only become public knowledge through the actions of brave people like you and irritating sods like Brian Dixon. Hopefully, it is your actions which will make it less likely that families like mine will have to fight the same fight.

So, instead of talking about "millstones" I think that it might be more appropriate, one day, that the families of all service men erect a stone statue with your names on it. You are fighting so that others will not have to. Keep up the good work and, if the only way we can help is to read your emotional outbursts, please go ahead.

[Truckkie]

Or perhaps we could just let it all finally rest....?

[chappie]

or perhaps you could not bother looking at the thread if it is boring you!

this goes beyond the inquest, that is done, but, there are other issues to be addressed and let's not forget what the findings of the inquest highlighted. The apparent inability to take the safety of aircraft and crew seriously and uphold it at the level that it should be. That is why there is a need to continue to go forward. That is why the coroner made a large number of recommendations.

the choice, they say, is yours....

[airsound]

The Politics Show (Eastern edition) on BBC 1 has just had Chappie on again. As ever, she does an excellent job. Scroll about 34mins into the show if you want to jump straight to the piece.

BBC iPlayer - The Politics Show East: 09/11/2008

airsound

[Chugalug2]

Great piece by BBC East, the whole section should have gone out on the National network. As to you Chappie, as moving and as outspoken as ever. Don't ever change, please! It was on this thread and very much thanks to you that the whole scandal of RAF Airworthiness shortcomings was exposed, first here, then on the Nimrod thread, and now on the Mull one. The first priority was for ESF to be retro-fitted to the Hercules fleet. Uphill work but now, thank God, done. The next job is to ensure that the Military Airworthiness Regulations, that should have ensured that anyway, are revised to include fitness for purpose in all military aircraft. That's the easy part, the greater challenge is to ensure that Airworthiness cannot in future be deliberately compromised for (very) short term financial gain, resulting in the certainty of an avoidable accident becoming unavoidable in the future. There are those who know how and why this happened last time around. Now is the time to contribute to this discussion, instead of leaving it to a committed few. This must never be allowed to happen again, so the system has to change to make sure of that. How should it change? My preference is for an external MAA, but it may well be that it can be done "in house" in far less time and with much less upheaval. This forum has contributed greatly already to exposing this scandal, now it should go on to point the way to preventing a recurrence.

[chappie]

i'd like to add a response to the piece if anyone saw it. Bob Ainsworth can not say he has apologised to the families when we have not been visited by him in court or even received a letter from him, unless you class watching the TV or listen to the radio then there has been no apology received. he has not addressed us, and i refute that claim. he has been written to about this and other issues, as has AVM Hillier.
The report also mentioned about improved benefits for those injured (which is right and proper) and they mentioned about the offering of compensation to those left behind when a solider is lost. Considering the failings, admissions and ahem, apologies, there has been no offer, so again they lie to try and represent themselves to be trying to put things right. Let's look at what has to happen each time in order for something to be corrected. pointless loss of life and constant questioning and campaigning for measures that still have to be coaxed into place each time. It seems that the only time the MoD will do anything is when they are backed into a corner, even then if they can wriggle out they will. It's time to stop being reactive and start to be proactive. I have asked for questions in parliament to be asked and i am pursuing all avenues, but the time is an issue when working full time and with small children, but i am still working on it. the issue of the hercules runs deeper than ESF and is one that cannot be walked away from. MoD this lady is not for turning!

rant off!

[Squidlord]

nigegilb:

SquidLord on a housekeeping point, only a few months ago the Nimrod IPT stated up front at a flight safety meeting that they regarded 00-56 as mandatory and it took priority over other source documents. Please state here if there are any great changes in the doc to which you refer. One thing that has been very obvious to me over the last few weeks is the perpetual state of change in the MoD and RAF.

If the Nimrod IPT were stating that it was mandatory for them, i.e. the IPT, to follow 00-56, then they do not understand MoD safety management (no surprises?) If they were stating that it is mandatory for, say, BAE to follow it then that makes sense (if it's called up contractually).

POSMS is the mandatory document for all MoD IPTs to follow in their safety management. It is much bigger than 00-56, containing much more detail, but follows the same principles broadly. Indeed, it inherits many of them, e.g. by using definitions filched from 00-56. This is actually arse-backwards. The MoD, or any organisation, should sort out its own Safety Management System (SMS) and then write documents concerned with the SMSs of contractors (00-56) accordingly, i.e. 00-56 should inherit the concepts of POSMS. But in the case of MoD, it's a historical accident - 00-56 has been around a lot longer than POSMS (the latter for just a few years).

Insofar as POSMS & 00-56 talk about the same concepts of safety management, there are technical differences but I think they are generally in the weeds and may even be unintentional. But POSMS contains much more detail and I would be concerned that any IPT that claimed that they were following 00-56, or that 00-56 takes priority might be missing important aspects of POSMS.

[nigegilb]

Compensation

On page two of this very long thread I posted my agreement with the following two aims;

1. The relatives should now receive compensation.
2. All Hercules crews going operational should be protected by foam.


Well, finally, it looks like they have both been achieved. All Hercules crews have been protected by foam for some time. But on the day that an article has appeared suggesting that Nimrod families have settled on compensation I have also heard that the compensation claim has been agreed with Hercules XV179. I stress both are yet to be confirmed, but on the face of it, looks like good news......

[Shell Management]

Squiblord - by what power do you think is POSMS made mandatory (and/or is more important that a Defence Standard)?

It is lucky they have all settled before Lord Young stamps out the compensation culture.

[nigegilb]

I am more interested in the fact that Mark Hobbs, IPTL at the Herc Inquest stated that fitness for purpose was not an an area of his concern. He was only interested in airworthiness and wiped his hands of any aircraft needing foam.

A rough note of Hobbs at the Inquest, (not word for word).

"The difference between airworthiness and fitness for purpose is that I make sure its airworthy, that no intrinsic fault or failure could bring it down. My job to ensure, for example, it gets to USA safely. In fitness for purpose, you have to consider uses. A car without ABS is not necessarily unsafe, but it may be unsafe if you want to go much faster. It becomes not fit for the purpose you want to use it for."

"Fitness for purpose resides with operators, not us."

Edited to add, not lucky at all, the MoD and RAF were culpably negligent..

[Shell Management]

nigegilb

Many thanks - that is very interesting. Is a transcript publically available on the internet?

Is he perhaps trying to make a point that an aircraft can be airworthy but still vulnerable to enemy action?

[nigegilb]

What came across at the Inquest was that nobody took responsibility for fitness for purpose. Obviously there was an awful lot of back sliding going on and failure to recall, but having personally sat through days and days of evidence I came away thinking the RAF and MoD didn't understand what they were trying to achieve or how they were supposed to achieve it. But 2 Gp seemed to get the lions blame for failing to make the request for foam to DEC/IPTL. I certainly believe some of the individuals involved were basically not qualified/competent to make the decisions they were making.

WRT transcript/notes, not my property I will ask if I am allowed to reproduce in full..

[Clockwork Mouse]

If fitness for purpose is the point, should the relatives of all the soldiers killed in snatch landrovers be compensated? You could argue that any soldier using a vehicle, aerial, waterborne or on land, which is vulnerable to enemy action is liable to compensation. Where do you draw the line?

[JFZ90]

If fitness for purpose is the point, should the relatives of all the soldiers killed in snatch landrovers be compensated? You could argue that any soldier using a vehicle, aerial, waterborne or on land, which is vulnerable to enemy action is liable to compensation. Where do you draw the line?

It is always a difficult line to draw, and often involves compromise.

What happens when you loose an ac because your DAS system fails to counter a SAM system - be it either a new SAM system, or a new mode in an existing one, or perhaps an old one you didn't expect to encounter in your pre flight programming?

Is someone culpable for not spying hard/well enough against an adversary who is trying pretty hard to not to let you know the ins and outs of their AD system?

[nigegilb]

WRT XV179. The risk to the fuel tanks was known at Group level but not passed down to Sqn level. If the Sqns had been informed in the correct manner tactics, in this case day low level, could have been changed to mitigate the threat. We did this in the slick frames in Afg 2001/2. We flew at night with NVGs,( but that was because we had no defences at all). Group could then have worked on getting foam fitted to the highest priority airframes first and when the threat had been mitigated with equipment, tactics could have been relaxed again. As it was, group neither informed the sqns nor requested foam through DEC/ITPL. Interestingly since the crash, day low level ceased immediately.

Sometimes it is not possible to mitigate a threat, could be the defensive system is simply not practical. In which case it should be entered on the hazard log and often times technology advances and new systems are developed. I am thinking now of OBIGGS, which is now being used in civilian airliners.

Regarding Snatch Landrovers, there is already an ongoing legal case.

Edited to add vulnerability analysis was carried out for both Iraq and Afghanistan and resilted in a High Rec for foam, but 2 Gp parked the rec and the threat info.

[tucumseh]

-re Snatch.

It was known in the 90s it was not fit for purpose in NI, and a replacement programme announced with a firm ISD. Hence, at one level, that demonstrates the vulnerability was known against threats in that theatre. So far, so good(ish).

When it was deployed to sandy places, that vulnerability analysis would have been revalidated for changes in threats. As successive Defence Secretaries insisted it WAS fit for purpose, one assumes they can back this up with the VA.

Or not.

If not, and the threats were even greater (and I think most would say they were) then I'd want to know who chopped that programme and why we had to wait for many deaths to force a series of minor UORs.

Please don't mention FRES. The above replacement was a concurrent programme, both endorsed at the same time for different requirements/uses, but with similar ISDs. (Around 2005/6).


That bit about VA was what wasn't done properly on C130. Don't get caught up in airworthiness - that is just the manifestation of proper safety management in an aircraft. Haddon-Cave, although he didn't spell it out, was referring to Air, Land and Sea.