Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Shed
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a memorial cairn close to the Findhorn Bridge on the A96 to the airmen from RAF Forres lost in WW2. At RAF Kinloss there are various memorials (plaques, stones, stained glass windows, and recently a copse planted close by the main entrance) commemorating those lost from the station over the years including XV230.
In an ideal world a public memorial to all the personnel lost from a particular station would be erected in the local town, and I would fully support this. Most British towns already have such a symbol to their fallen - usually called 'The War Memorial'. This doesn't seem to encompass those lost in peacetime, but at least a precedent has been set.
It would be helpful, TD, for those of us who don't 'do' Facebook, what the specific objections of the Moray Council are. Is it location or, more fundamentally, a problem with this particular memorial? I appreciate you didn't originate this Facebook Group, but you brought it to our notice.
As a Moray council tax payer, I would like to know why a memorial, funded by the public, cannot be erected in Forres.
In an ideal world a public memorial to all the personnel lost from a particular station would be erected in the local town, and I would fully support this. Most British towns already have such a symbol to their fallen - usually called 'The War Memorial'. This doesn't seem to encompass those lost in peacetime, but at least a precedent has been set.
It would be helpful, TD, for those of us who don't 'do' Facebook, what the specific objections of the Moray Council are. Is it location or, more fundamentally, a problem with this particular memorial? I appreciate you didn't originate this Facebook Group, but you brought it to our notice.
As a Moray council tax payer, I would like to know why a memorial, funded by the public, cannot be erected in Forres.
This is how the on-line version of the Forres Gazette is reporting the issue:
A MEMORIAL for 14 RAF Kinloss servicemen killed when their Nimrod MR2 aircraft exploded over Afghanistan in 2006 was discussed at the meeting of Forres Community Council last Thursday.
advertising
Moray Council had contacted the community council and asked for its opinion on a site for the memorial proposed by the families of those killed in the crash, who included 12 servicemen based at RAF Kinloss.
The families have requested that the stone cairn memorial be erected beside the current war memorial on St Catherine's Road. The proposal would see it face onto the flower bed adjacent to the monument.
Secretary Colin Lipscomb said that the community council was being asked whether its members believed this site was suitable.
He said he believed it should be "turned 90 degrees" so that it faced onto the street. After the meeting, he told the 'Gazette' that this was so that it would be visible to people passing from St Catherine's Road.
"No-one wants to have to get out of their car to read what it says on a stone," he said.
Community councillor Stephen Ferris, an RAF serviceman who is also a local Scout leader, said he had concerns about the Remembrance Sunday parade, when war veterans and youth groups gather around the war memorial.
"We need to have enough room to march around the back," he said.
Mr Ferris suggested that the community council should consult the Forres branch of the Royal British Legion to address these concerns.
Legion secretary Eric Duguid said that they had been contacted about the proposal and would discuss the matter at their next meeting, due to take place at the end of this month.
Mr Lipscomb said he thought most community council members would support the proposed site.
But community councillor John MacKenzie said that the current war memorial, erected after the First World War, was "in a very special place", and added: "Five thousand men served, and 4,000 were killed, wounded or missing in action.
"Maybe this memorial ought to be somewhere else," he said.
A MEMORIAL for 14 RAF Kinloss servicemen killed when their Nimrod MR2 aircraft exploded over Afghanistan in 2006 was discussed at the meeting of Forres Community Council last Thursday.
advertising
Moray Council had contacted the community council and asked for its opinion on a site for the memorial proposed by the families of those killed in the crash, who included 12 servicemen based at RAF Kinloss.
The families have requested that the stone cairn memorial be erected beside the current war memorial on St Catherine's Road. The proposal would see it face onto the flower bed adjacent to the monument.
Secretary Colin Lipscomb said that the community council was being asked whether its members believed this site was suitable.
He said he believed it should be "turned 90 degrees" so that it faced onto the street. After the meeting, he told the 'Gazette' that this was so that it would be visible to people passing from St Catherine's Road.
"No-one wants to have to get out of their car to read what it says on a stone," he said.
Community councillor Stephen Ferris, an RAF serviceman who is also a local Scout leader, said he had concerns about the Remembrance Sunday parade, when war veterans and youth groups gather around the war memorial.
"We need to have enough room to march around the back," he said.
Mr Ferris suggested that the community council should consult the Forres branch of the Royal British Legion to address these concerns.
Legion secretary Eric Duguid said that they had been contacted about the proposal and would discuss the matter at their next meeting, due to take place at the end of this month.
Mr Lipscomb said he thought most community council members would support the proposed site.
But community councillor John MacKenzie said that the current war memorial, erected after the First World War, was "in a very special place", and added: "Five thousand men served, and 4,000 were killed, wounded or missing in action.
"Maybe this memorial ought to be somewhere else," he said.
Given the passage of time I’d say it is a fair question, although DD is of course correct, no-one serving would reveal anything. Is there a time-limit on such things?
In my opinion, Baber has belatedly realised (a) He was wrong to claim the buck stopped with him and (b) He’s been hung out to dry by the H-C report naming him and not those above and before him who knowingly let airworthiness slip.
Even if he knew how bad the situation was, as IPTL’s generally get 2-3 year postings that wouldn’t be long enough to scratch the surface of the retrospective work needed; largely because he has no control over most of it. And, as I’ve said before, the very fact the IPT let a Safety Case task on BAeS places them well ahead of many IPTs; as ongoing audits are discovering.
If it were me, that would be the thrust of my defence. At least he, or one of his staff, tried – the fact they were incompetent in their execution is not an offence. (Whether or not it should be is another question). I’d be asking what action is being taken against those who knowingly and quite cynically suborned the system to further their careers. And if I were the Provost Marshal, I’d be looking at all those names above me who are responsible and asking “Why me?” And there will be some very senior staffs who hope Baber doesn’t take the stand and start singing. (But, rest assured, the same names are cropping up in the Mull submissions!).
In my opinion, Baber has belatedly realised (a) He was wrong to claim the buck stopped with him and (b) He’s been hung out to dry by the H-C report naming him and not those above and before him who knowingly let airworthiness slip.
Even if he knew how bad the situation was, as IPTL’s generally get 2-3 year postings that wouldn’t be long enough to scratch the surface of the retrospective work needed; largely because he has no control over most of it. And, as I’ve said before, the very fact the IPT let a Safety Case task on BAeS places them well ahead of many IPTs; as ongoing audits are discovering.
If it were me, that would be the thrust of my defence. At least he, or one of his staff, tried – the fact they were incompetent in their execution is not an offence. (Whether or not it should be is another question). I’d be asking what action is being taken against those who knowingly and quite cynically suborned the system to further their careers. And if I were the Provost Marshal, I’d be looking at all those names above me who are responsible and asking “Why me?” And there will be some very senior staffs who hope Baber doesn’t take the stand and start singing. (But, rest assured, the same names are cropping up in the Mull submissions!).
The task that now befalls the Provost Marshal is the same task that befell those charged with ensuring the airworthiness of the Nimrod MR2, and every other military fleet come to that. That task is simply to do his duty. They failed in that regard, will he?
There seems to be a world weary mass shrugging of shoulders these days. "What good would that do?", "What can one person do?", Why should I compromise my career when others do not?", to which the answer is always the same, it's your duty! The commanders of my day were leaders because that is what they did, they didn't follow, they led! As often as not that meant rocking the boat when they saw that as their duty to do so.
Not much point being a copper, Provost Marshal, or whatever if when push comes to shove you renege on your duty, take a nudge and a wink from those above and become part of the furniture. I am not implying that the present Provost Marshal is part of the moral malaise that I describe, I merely make the point that he, like every other member of the Armed Forces, has a duty to comply with Military Law, which prohibits obedience to illegal orders. It is just that all eyes are upon him now to do just that.
There seems to be a world weary mass shrugging of shoulders these days. "What good would that do?", "What can one person do?", Why should I compromise my career when others do not?", to which the answer is always the same, it's your duty! The commanders of my day were leaders because that is what they did, they didn't follow, they led! As often as not that meant rocking the boat when they saw that as their duty to do so.
Not much point being a copper, Provost Marshal, or whatever if when push comes to shove you renege on your duty, take a nudge and a wink from those above and become part of the furniture. I am not implying that the present Provost Marshal is part of the moral malaise that I describe, I merely make the point that he, like every other member of the Armed Forces, has a duty to comply with Military Law, which prohibits obedience to illegal orders. It is just that all eyes are upon him now to do just that.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the duty of all policemen and women to investigate crime. Since the RAFP, HSE and Thames Valley Police are all investigating the circumstances behind the crash (following the HC report) they are all self evidently carrying out their duty. Given three entirely separate organisations are involved it is, again, self evidently going to be a thorough process, with in-built cross checking as it proceeds.
It is the duty of the appropriate prosecution authority (CPS or whoever that will be) to assess the evidence as uncovered and reported by the police, to determine if a prosecution is justifiable or viable.
If it goes the distance it will be the duty of the prosecuting team to win the case, and the duty of the defence team to defeat the prosecution.
The outcome will not depend on whether or not anybody is shirking their duty. The outcome will depend on whether or not a crime has been committed (according to the laws of the land) and, if it appears there has, whether or not the prosecution can prove its case.
It is the duty of the appropriate prosecution authority (CPS or whoever that will be) to assess the evidence as uncovered and reported by the police, to determine if a prosecution is justifiable or viable.
If it goes the distance it will be the duty of the prosecuting team to win the case, and the duty of the defence team to defeat the prosecution.
The outcome will not depend on whether or not anybody is shirking their duty. The outcome will depend on whether or not a crime has been committed (according to the laws of the land) and, if it appears there has, whether or not the prosecution can prove its case.
TOFO:
I sincerely hope that your faith is justified TOFO, I really do. But past precedent does not exactly inspire confidence. Over twenty years of deliberate and enforced suborning of the Airworthiness Regulations and the result is two middle management named in Review! MR2 was merely the latest nail driven into the coffin of military flight safety. It transpires that the process dates back to at least 1987 since when lives have been lost in airworthiness related accidents in Sea Kings (7), Chinook (29), Tornado (2), Hercules (10), and Nimrod (14), a total of 62 deaths, all avoidable. Those are only the ones featured in this Forum. I suspect there are still more.
The Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy purported to have carried out thorough investigations into these accidents but never discovered an endemic systemic failure in the provision of airworthiness. That task fell to amongst others a 700 year old institution, HM's Coroner Service. They at least endeavoured to do their duty, I concede. We have yet to see the RAF do its re the disgraceful scapegoating of two JO's in order to protect those responsible for the RTS of a knowingly Grossly Unairworthy aircraft that crashed with such grievous loss of life.
You may be right, this investigation may well be the turning point in this catalogue of dereliction of duty. If so it will be welcome though very long overdue.
The outcome will not depend on whether or not anybody is shirking their duty.
The Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy purported to have carried out thorough investigations into these accidents but never discovered an endemic systemic failure in the provision of airworthiness. That task fell to amongst others a 700 year old institution, HM's Coroner Service. They at least endeavoured to do their duty, I concede. We have yet to see the RAF do its re the disgraceful scapegoating of two JO's in order to protect those responsible for the RTS of a knowingly Grossly Unairworthy aircraft that crashed with such grievous loss of life.
You may be right, this investigation may well be the turning point in this catalogue of dereliction of duty. If so it will be welcome though very long overdue.
TOFO
I sincerely hope you're right.
But, my money’s on - “HOW MANY senior officers and Ministers were told of this BEFORE XV230 crashed? Sod that, we don’t want to know”.
Remember, Adam Ingram was given what amounted to an executive summary of the Haddon-Cave report in 2005. He did nothing. Can't see the CPS going near him.
I sincerely hope you're right.
But, my money’s on - “HOW MANY senior officers and Ministers were told of this BEFORE XV230 crashed? Sod that, we don’t want to know”.
Remember, Adam Ingram was given what amounted to an executive summary of the Haddon-Cave report in 2005. He did nothing. Can't see the CPS going near him.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not a question of having faith, nor is it a case of turning a blind eye because things might get difficult for somebody up high. If the civvy police and the HSE are involved (as reported) then the cat is already out of the bag. Thus my point regarding the irrelevance of "anybody's duty" as this is now a matter of legal process.
Whosoever makes the decision of whether or not to mount a prosecution (as opposed to an investigation) must give due regard to the objective consideration of the probability of success (assuming any law has been potentially broken). It is very difficult to bring criminal charges to employment related incidents. Witness the case of the poor electrician who was shot in head (six or seven times) on the tube by the police, whilst he was going about his lawful business. No prosecutions of anybody, either at the operator level or the management level, despite a number of HSE violations and demonstrable operational incompetence.
My point therefore is simply this. If there is no prosecution it will be because either the law has not been broken, or there is no realistic prospect of success. It will not be because of a cover up and it will not be because of a lack of resolve or duty.
I'm not naive; I just have a reasonable knowledge of the law.
Whosoever makes the decision of whether or not to mount a prosecution (as opposed to an investigation) must give due regard to the objective consideration of the probability of success (assuming any law has been potentially broken). It is very difficult to bring criminal charges to employment related incidents. Witness the case of the poor electrician who was shot in head (six or seven times) on the tube by the police, whilst he was going about his lawful business. No prosecutions of anybody, either at the operator level or the management level, despite a number of HSE violations and demonstrable operational incompetence.
My point therefore is simply this. If there is no prosecution it will be because either the law has not been broken, or there is no realistic prospect of success. It will not be because of a cover up and it will not be because of a lack of resolve or duty.
I'm not naive; I just have a reasonable knowledge of the law.
TOFO
Agree with everything except, with respect, this;
There already has been a cover up and, after the accident, Ingram still refused to acknowledge anyone had done anything wrong. Similarly, after Haddon-Cave reported, D/Air Staffs were in denial.
Since January 1988 (that I can prove), a long list of senior staffs and Ministers have been formally notified of the failings reiterated by Haddon-Cave. I quoted but one example when Ingram was notified a year before XV230 crashed. I submit, therefore, that their failure to act shows both a lack of resolve and breach of Duty of Care. I'm not convinced much will change.
Agree with everything except, with respect, this;
It will not be because of a cover up and it will not be because of a lack of resolve or duty.
There already has been a cover up and, after the accident, Ingram still refused to acknowledge anyone had done anything wrong. Similarly, after Haddon-Cave reported, D/Air Staffs were in denial.
Since January 1988 (that I can prove), a long list of senior staffs and Ministers have been formally notified of the failings reiterated by Haddon-Cave. I quoted but one example when Ingram was notified a year before XV230 crashed. I submit, therefore, that their failure to act shows both a lack of resolve and breach of Duty of Care. I'm not convinced much will change.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To clarify...
I'm not referring to anything before HC, or anything to do with past military airworthiness (Nimrod or any other aircraft).
I am only referring to the ongoing Nimrod police investigation (post HC) and the possible outcome of that investigation.
Frankly, I know squat about the military airworthiness regime, past or present, other than when it directly affected me as an operator of the aircraft. And my philosophy of risk in relation to military service doesn't sit well with some members here present, so no need to get into that again.
I'm not referring to anything before HC, or anything to do with past military airworthiness (Nimrod or any other aircraft).
I am only referring to the ongoing Nimrod police investigation (post HC) and the possible outcome of that investigation.
Frankly, I know squat about the military airworthiness regime, past or present, other than when it directly affected me as an operator of the aircraft. And my philosophy of risk in relation to military service doesn't sit well with some members here present, so no need to get into that again.
I can appreciate your position TOFO as a Nimrod operator. Many, well very many, years ago I was a Hastings co-pilot (not sure if that put me into the "operator" slot) when there was a terrible crash that killed all on board (both crew and trainee paras). Within days the entire world wide 80+ fleet was grounded and remained so for many months while remedial work to the elevator hinges and the general tail plane area was carried out. That impressed me (particularly as I had to spend a great deal of that time in Sydney where we just happened to be). I didn't associate that with some larger picture of RAF Accident Investigation and Airworthiness provision, though I do now.
Fast forward through the 80's/90's to the present day and we see that professional implementation of the Regulations fall from excellent to execrable. In time that meant fatal accidents resulted and many needless deaths happened. The Regulations did not effectively change but the attitude of those at the very highest levels charged with enforcing them did. It is in their interests to have all these accidents seen as one off and separate whereas they are all linked with that common bond of deliberate and enforced suborning of the Airworthiness Regulations. That is a serious offence under Military Law and it is the will of the RAF Higher Command to have a full and comprehensive investigation into that which is in question. Undoubtedly it is their duty to do so, but will they?
By stove piping it to merely look at one fleet the investigation is immediately restricted in time and space. Haddon-Cave tried to open out his Review but didn't go far enough back. The Provost Marshal needs to do just that. If the civil police were investigating the ram raid of a certain bank branch they would not turn a blind eye to the same MO at other branches of other banks stretching back over the years. Same suspects, same crime!
Unless and until those responsible both for these crimes and for the cover up (as tucumseh points out, not for lack of being told!) are brought to book then the Airworthiness of UK Military Aircraft will remain uncertain, because the same people are still able to compromise it. The only solution I feel is to remove Military Airworthiness provision and Military Air Accident Investigation to an MAA and MAAIB respectively, both independent and separate of each other and of the MOD. That will not happen until the full extent of this scandal is laid bare. That will not happen unless a thorough criminal investigation occurs. I have yet to be convinced that is even likely.
Fast forward through the 80's/90's to the present day and we see that professional implementation of the Regulations fall from excellent to execrable. In time that meant fatal accidents resulted and many needless deaths happened. The Regulations did not effectively change but the attitude of those at the very highest levels charged with enforcing them did. It is in their interests to have all these accidents seen as one off and separate whereas they are all linked with that common bond of deliberate and enforced suborning of the Airworthiness Regulations. That is a serious offence under Military Law and it is the will of the RAF Higher Command to have a full and comprehensive investigation into that which is in question. Undoubtedly it is their duty to do so, but will they?
By stove piping it to merely look at one fleet the investigation is immediately restricted in time and space. Haddon-Cave tried to open out his Review but didn't go far enough back. The Provost Marshal needs to do just that. If the civil police were investigating the ram raid of a certain bank branch they would not turn a blind eye to the same MO at other branches of other banks stretching back over the years. Same suspects, same crime!
Unless and until those responsible both for these crimes and for the cover up (as tucumseh points out, not for lack of being told!) are brought to book then the Airworthiness of UK Military Aircraft will remain uncertain, because the same people are still able to compromise it. The only solution I feel is to remove Military Airworthiness provision and Military Air Accident Investigation to an MAA and MAAIB respectively, both independent and separate of each other and of the MOD. That will not happen until the full extent of this scandal is laid bare. That will not happen unless a thorough criminal investigation occurs. I have yet to be convinced that is even likely.
TOFO
I understand what you say but I don't think you can separate the two (past/present airworthiness and current investigation) unless one can guarantee and demonstrate true independence of the latter (and the MAA).
I don't think we can, not least because Ministers, past and present, have declared they are quite content for those who failed before to still hold positions of responsibility. That is, I think there are still too many who will be asked to sit in judgment of themselves. I hope I'm wrong.
I understand what you say but I don't think you can separate the two (past/present airworthiness and current investigation) unless one can guarantee and demonstrate true independence of the latter (and the MAA).
I don't think we can, not least because Ministers, past and present, have declared they are quite content for those who failed before to still hold positions of responsibility. That is, I think there are still too many who will be asked to sit in judgment of themselves. I hope I'm wrong.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My final offering on the subject...until perhaps the outcome is known.
It is not up to us to determine whether or not a crime has been committed - we may have an opinion on the subject, but we don't represent the judiciary on this issue (or if we do we are in contempt of court for discussing it here!!). It is the responsibility of those tasked to investigate to determine any breach of the law and the evidence as it stands.
Given the circumstances (HC and all the media coverage, plus three investigative bodies) I am entirely happy this investigation will be carried out properly and effectively. It does not follow that there will be a prosecution and the prosecuting authority certainly will not be considering the wider aspects and history of military airworthiness, they will considering the prospects for a successful prosecution against one or more individuals if, and only if, they have clearly broken one or more laws.
We should also all remember the fundamental principle of law in the UK...innocent until found guilty by 12 good men (or women).
That's the legal system in our green and pleasant land, and I for one, would not want it any other way.
It is not up to us to determine whether or not a crime has been committed - we may have an opinion on the subject, but we don't represent the judiciary on this issue (or if we do we are in contempt of court for discussing it here!!). It is the responsibility of those tasked to investigate to determine any breach of the law and the evidence as it stands.
Given the circumstances (HC and all the media coverage, plus three investigative bodies) I am entirely happy this investigation will be carried out properly and effectively. It does not follow that there will be a prosecution and the prosecuting authority certainly will not be considering the wider aspects and history of military airworthiness, they will considering the prospects for a successful prosecution against one or more individuals if, and only if, they have clearly broken one or more laws.
We should also all remember the fundamental principle of law in the UK...innocent until found guilty by 12 good men (or women).
That's the legal system in our green and pleasant land, and I for one, would not want it any other way.
TOFO:
Agreed absolutely
Well quite, but I'm not calling for the consideration of "the wider aspects and history of military airworthiness", I'm calling for an investigation into alleged suborning of the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations stretching back over many years.
This affair involves many very senior officers, not just the relative juniors that have been named by H-C. If investigation is limited to them alone or perhaps others at or below their level that will tell us more about the attitude of the "Prosecuting Authority" than of anything else.
As to a fair trial and proper process, who is gainsaying that? Certainly not I. Of course those charged are innocent until proved guilty, a process not shared by the pilots of ZD576. Oh, that was merely an administrative process? So that would be all right then!
It is the responsibility of those tasked to investigate to determine any breach of the law and the evidence...
...the prosecuting authority certainly will not be considering the wider aspects and history of military airworthiness, they will considering the prospects for a successful prosecution against one or more individuals if, and only if, they have clearly broken one or more laws.
This affair involves many very senior officers, not just the relative juniors that have been named by H-C. If investigation is limited to them alone or perhaps others at or below their level that will tell us more about the attitude of the "Prosecuting Authority" than of anything else.
As to a fair trial and proper process, who is gainsaying that? Certainly not I. Of course those charged are innocent until proved guilty, a process not shared by the pilots of ZD576. Oh, that was merely an administrative process? So that would be all right then!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Distant Voice
Does anyone know how far the RAFP have got with their investigations covering Air Comdr Baber and Wg Cmdr Eagles?
Nimrod deaths: officer faces trial
"A senior RAF officer who has been blamed over the death of 14 servicemen when a Nimrod spy plane burst into flames over Afghanistan is facing a court martial.
Air Commodore George Baber, responsible for the safety of the RAF Nimrod, which crashed on September 2, 2006, now faces the threat of a two-year jail sentence as military investigators concluded there is sufficient evidence to charge him.
They are set to refer the case to prosecutors, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has learned.
Baber, a group captain before the crash and who was responsible for fleet safety along with Wing Commander Michael Eagles, was later promoted.
Baber and Eagles have been under investigation by the Royal Air Force’s Special Investigations Branch (SPA) at RAF Henlow in Bedfordshire since December 2009. Both men were named in a report by Charles Haddon-Cave QC in October 2009. It said the crash occurred because of a “systemic breach” of the military covenant, the nation’s duty of care to the armed forces.
Baber will face a court martial if the SPA decides to press charges. Eagles is still under investigation.
Baber retired from the RAF in January but he could still face a court martial if the military prosecutors decide to press charges within six months. "
It's a step forward, but by no means a conclusion.
