Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've kept out of this discussion up to now, but there really is a flaw in this process.
Should people be accountable? Most certainly.
But we in the Forces were subjected to institutional neglect, it just took a senior officer to 'override' the normal criteria for safety for it to be adopted and literally we would fly in the face of common sense, logic and airworthiness. Often we, as crew accepted that, because we too had a career, or could be subjected to duress.
The difficulty comes in when one day there is a line drawn in the sand and suddenly they (the managers) really ARE accountable.
Is it fair to prosecute these guys - well thankfully, it's not my decision, but this all feels like a spin on the Emperor's New Clothes.
As (now ex) aircrew, I am glad that managers do not just glibly sign red line entries - however anyone in the military can curtail their career by seeming to be intransigent.
Perhaps it is time again to look at 'professional' managers and remove the age-old idea that you need to move every 3 years to maintain a career path. I used to get fed up with explaining an aircrew viewpoint to JENGOs that constantly changed (not their fault). When they rotated, they took all their experience with them to an (often) unrelated job.
As an ex SFSO (deputy), I am deeply cynical about this latest push. It will inevitably end up with deployment of umbrellas rather than the meaningful change of paradigm that would result in safer aircraft that go in the way of danger.
It would be nice not to be taking the danger with you.
Should people be accountable? Most certainly.
But we in the Forces were subjected to institutional neglect, it just took a senior officer to 'override' the normal criteria for safety for it to be adopted and literally we would fly in the face of common sense, logic and airworthiness. Often we, as crew accepted that, because we too had a career, or could be subjected to duress.
The difficulty comes in when one day there is a line drawn in the sand and suddenly they (the managers) really ARE accountable.
Is it fair to prosecute these guys - well thankfully, it's not my decision, but this all feels like a spin on the Emperor's New Clothes.
As (now ex) aircrew, I am glad that managers do not just glibly sign red line entries - however anyone in the military can curtail their career by seeming to be intransigent.
Perhaps it is time again to look at 'professional' managers and remove the age-old idea that you need to move every 3 years to maintain a career path. I used to get fed up with explaining an aircrew viewpoint to JENGOs that constantly changed (not their fault). When they rotated, they took all their experience with them to an (often) unrelated job.
As an ex SFSO (deputy), I am deeply cynical about this latest push. It will inevitably end up with deployment of umbrellas rather than the meaningful change of paradigm that would result in safer aircraft that go in the way of danger.
It would be nice not to be taking the danger with you.
RD:-
I would rather classify it as depressingly predictable. By stove-piping investigation into Nimrod Airworthiness alone, the RAF Provost Marshal and his subordinates ensure that those who ordered the suborning of UK Military Airworthiness Regulations across not only that but many other fleets as well, stretching back over the past three decades, thus pass under their Radar. Are we surprised?
The one enlightening fact (presumably) to emerge from this piece is that liability to Court Martial expires mere months after such officers leave service. So be it, all the more reason that such grossly illegal acts be subject to investigation by the civil authorities. At least 62 lives have been lost in military airworthiness related accidents involving Transport, Fast Jet and Helicopter, as well as Maritime aircraft. The Royal Air Force has shown a marked reluctance to carry out thorough Air Accident Investigations, let alone pursue those ultimately responsible for that unairworthiness. If the DPP shows half the resolve of HM Coroners to overcome such disgraceful reneging of responsibility we might expect their involvement, now that the military have displayed once again the limits of their interest in these matters.
Can't we?
It's a step forward,
The one enlightening fact (presumably) to emerge from this piece is that liability to Court Martial expires mere months after such officers leave service. So be it, all the more reason that such grossly illegal acts be subject to investigation by the civil authorities. At least 62 lives have been lost in military airworthiness related accidents involving Transport, Fast Jet and Helicopter, as well as Maritime aircraft. The Royal Air Force has shown a marked reluctance to carry out thorough Air Accident Investigations, let alone pursue those ultimately responsible for that unairworthiness. If the DPP shows half the resolve of HM Coroners to overcome such disgraceful reneging of responsibility we might expect their involvement, now that the military have displayed once again the limits of their interest in these matters.
Can't we?
Last edited by Chugalug2; 27th Mar 2011 at 10:30.
No doubt the "system" will take 6 months to decide whether to proceed with a prosecution, by which time the 'window of opportunity' will have shut - thus providing a convenient excuse to avoid a court case which would generate adverse publicity.
Or am I being too cynical...?
Or am I being too cynical...?
JTO:-
If you mean by your first statement that the Regulations should be enforced by separate and independent authorities agreed. But let us be clear, military and civil airworthiness are different beasts, requiring separate regulations and enforcement, due to the differing nature of civil and military operations. As to your second statement I totally agree. Even if military airworthiness regulations are different from civil ones, the ordering and execution of their suborning should be, and I believe is, a Criminal Act and subject to investigation and prosecution by the Civil Authorities.
If a British soldier was believed to have deliberately shot a comrade dead while on Active Service, investigation might well be done initially by the Military Police but the files would be passed on to the DPP soon enough if evidence did indeed point to murder (always supposing the files survived the Ferry crossing of the Channel!). So the issue is not simply of whether or not one is liable to Military or Civil Law but also of the gravity of the offence. Murder is the gravest offence and is invariably tried in a Civil Court whatever the background of the accused. Manslaughter is the next most serious, and should be dealt with in the same way. Gross Negligence leading directly to resultant death falls within that category, and is applicable in this instance. That would presumably have been the offence with which the pilots of the Mull Chinook would have been charged had they survived the deaths of their pax and evidence of their alleged Gross Negligence obtained. They didn't survive, nor has any such evidence emerged of course. In comparison the Senior Air Rank Officers involved in the RTS of the Grossly Unairworthy Chinook HC2 into RAF service have survived unscathed to date, despite evidence of their activity.
They were RAF Air Marshals, JTO, just to make the point, with the exception of the C.A. of course.
The standard of airworthiness should be common across civilian and military aircraft, as should the rule of law should it all go wrong.
If a British soldier was believed to have deliberately shot a comrade dead while on Active Service, investigation might well be done initially by the Military Police but the files would be passed on to the DPP soon enough if evidence did indeed point to murder (always supposing the files survived the Ferry crossing of the Channel!). So the issue is not simply of whether or not one is liable to Military or Civil Law but also of the gravity of the offence. Murder is the gravest offence and is invariably tried in a Civil Court whatever the background of the accused. Manslaughter is the next most serious, and should be dealt with in the same way. Gross Negligence leading directly to resultant death falls within that category, and is applicable in this instance. That would presumably have been the offence with which the pilots of the Mull Chinook would have been charged had they survived the deaths of their pax and evidence of their alleged Gross Negligence obtained. They didn't survive, nor has any such evidence emerged of course. In comparison the Senior Air Rank Officers involved in the RTS of the Grossly Unairworthy Chinook HC2 into RAF service have survived unscathed to date, despite evidence of their activity.
They were RAF Air Marshals, JTO, just to make the point, with the exception of the C.A. of course.
Will they also drag in the people who sliced the budgets that undermined the system?
Quite right. There will be quite a few bricking it over this aspect. Not only those who knowingly wasted money and robbed the airworthiness pot to compensate, but those who issued direct orders to (a) ignore the airworthiness regulations and (b) make false declarations they had been adhered to.
Whatever Baber is accused of, it is a far lesser offence than committed by others. If he or his Council have half a brain cell between them, this won't go any further.
The Sunday Times? Sloppy journalism. Yet again, they miss the real story.
DD said:
”The difficulty comes in when one day there is a line drawn in the sand and suddenly they (the managers) really ARE accountable.”
The Line in the Sand was never "redrawn" it was always there and "they" were always accountable but allegedly ignored the line - whether by choice or direction.
Chug said:
“But let us be clear, military and civil airworthiness are different beasts, requiring separate regulations and enforcement, due to the differing nature of civil and military operations.”
This is where Chug and I seem to disagree.
I believe that only the parameters of military airworthiness differ from civil airworthiness by their higher role envelope. The regulation and enforcement of these different parameters should be to the same standard.
Operational readiness and the basic airworthiness of the aircraft should not be confused.
Airworthiness is the damage tolerance of the aircraft structure, the multiple redundancy of control systems and how it maintains those levels of redundancy to complete its flight sector within certain safety margins. I believe these margins already reflect in 'military' standards.
"Operational readiness" is the ability of that airworthy aircraft to accomplish its designed mission and includes the dedicated role equipment for that mission. Those role equipment bits that affect the airflow and/or handling of the aircraft should also be subject to airworthiness regulations. The rest is just role equipment used by an operator to deliver some form of service or product to the end receiver.
”The difficulty comes in when one day there is a line drawn in the sand and suddenly they (the managers) really ARE accountable.”
The Line in the Sand was never "redrawn" it was always there and "they" were always accountable but allegedly ignored the line - whether by choice or direction.
Chug said:
“But let us be clear, military and civil airworthiness are different beasts, requiring separate regulations and enforcement, due to the differing nature of civil and military operations.”
This is where Chug and I seem to disagree.
I believe that only the parameters of military airworthiness differ from civil airworthiness by their higher role envelope. The regulation and enforcement of these different parameters should be to the same standard.
Operational readiness and the basic airworthiness of the aircraft should not be confused.
Airworthiness is the damage tolerance of the aircraft structure, the multiple redundancy of control systems and how it maintains those levels of redundancy to complete its flight sector within certain safety margins. I believe these margins already reflect in 'military' standards.
"Operational readiness" is the ability of that airworthy aircraft to accomplish its designed mission and includes the dedicated role equipment for that mission. Those role equipment bits that affect the airflow and/or handling of the aircraft should also be subject to airworthiness regulations. The rest is just role equipment used by an operator to deliver some form of service or product to the end receiver.
Rigga, I suspect that it was my poor choice of words that sets us apart rather than fundamental disagreement, but let us see.
What I meant was that the Military and Civil Air Regulations are different and thus have to be enforced separately by different regulatory authorities. The reason that they differ is because civil aviation has one overriding aim, that is the safe transportation of passengers and or freight between airports, whereas the preoccupation of military aviation is to achieve and fully exploit air superiority against enemy forces with air power.
Civil aircraft thus have many layers of redundancy, the weight and performance penalty of which is an acceptable cost. Military aircraft require maximum payload, and maximum performance to deliver air power. The weight penalty of complying with civil regulations would be self defeating, making the aircraft inferior to its opponents in its ability to deliver air power and hence more vulnerable. In addition tactical commanders must have the discretion to operate outside of the regulations if the military situation demands, but of course would have to report and justify such action to the authority as soon as possible.
So the Military Regulations acknowledge this difference, but they should be as rigidly enforced as the civil ones. Different Regulations, different enforcement but to the same standards as civil enforcement. Are we on common ground now, Rigga? I do hope so ;-)
What I meant was that the Military and Civil Air Regulations are different and thus have to be enforced separately by different regulatory authorities. The reason that they differ is because civil aviation has one overriding aim, that is the safe transportation of passengers and or freight between airports, whereas the preoccupation of military aviation is to achieve and fully exploit air superiority against enemy forces with air power.
Civil aircraft thus have many layers of redundancy, the weight and performance penalty of which is an acceptable cost. Military aircraft require maximum payload, and maximum performance to deliver air power. The weight penalty of complying with civil regulations would be self defeating, making the aircraft inferior to its opponents in its ability to deliver air power and hence more vulnerable. In addition tactical commanders must have the discretion to operate outside of the regulations if the military situation demands, but of course would have to report and justify such action to the authority as soon as possible.
So the Military Regulations acknowledge this difference, but they should be as rigidly enforced as the civil ones. Different Regulations, different enforcement but to the same standards as civil enforcement. Are we on common ground now, Rigga? I do hope so ;-)
Pretty much... We are on the same wave but not quite on the same board.
Whether you add 100 tons of pax or 100 tons of bombs to an airframe the only real difference is the delivery method.
As you say, the airworthiness of the frame within its designed role parameters is a standard practice and should be adhered to.
Whether you add 100 tons of pax or 100 tons of bombs to an airframe the only real difference is the delivery method.
As you say, the airworthiness of the frame within its designed role parameters is a standard practice and should be adhered to.
Whether you add 100 tons of pax or 100 tons of bombs to an airframe the only real difference is the delivery method.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel Couplings
I know some of you are going to jump down my throat over this one, but I am prepared to take that chance.
I note from the BOI report on XV230 that the aircraft suffered a just ONE fuel coupling leak in 2006; it is my understanding that the leak was in the same area as that on XV235. What I have not been able to establish is when in 2006, although everything points to the EQ1. Can anyone shed any light on this one?
DV
I note from the BOI report on XV230 that the aircraft suffered a just ONE fuel coupling leak in 2006; it is my understanding that the leak was in the same area as that on XV235. What I have not been able to establish is when in 2006, although everything points to the EQ1. Can anyone shed any light on this one?
DV
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt the "system" will take 6 months to decide whether to proceed with a prosecution, by which time the 'window of opportunity' will have shut - thus providing a convenient excuse to avoid a court case which would generate adverse publicity.
Or am I being too cynical...?
Or am I being too cynical...?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But if the military decide to drop the case I'm sure the family's of the deceased could pursue a private prosecution? Surely they would have access to any evidence collected under the freedom of information act?
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmmmm, from wiki
Modern vicarious liability
The general rule in the criminal law is that there is no vicarious liability. This reflects the general principle that a crime is composed of both an actus reus (the Latin tag for "guilty act") and a mens rea (the Latin tag for "guilty mind") and that a person should only be convicted if he, she or it is directly responsible for causing both elements to occur at the same time (see concurrence). Thus, the practice of holding one person liable for the actions of another is the exception and not the rule in criminal law.
Vicarious liability in English law
The primary exception arises through statutory interpretation where the verb used to define the action in the actus reus is both the physical action of the employee and the legal action of the employer. For example, the activity of "driving" is purely a physical activity performed by the person behind the wheel. But when a cashier takes money as payment for goods, this is only the physical activity of selling. For goods to be sold, the owner of the goods must pass legal title to those goods. In default, the customer would commit the actus reus of theft. So the owner sells the goods at the same time that the employee takes the money. Similarly, only the holder of rights can grant a licence to another or permit another to do something that would otherwise have been unlawful. The verbs "possess", "control" and use may also have dual relevance depending on the context. Many of these are strict liability or regulatory offences, but the principle has been used to impose liability on a wide range of activities undertaken in a business or commercial environment.
Modern vicarious liability
The general rule in the criminal law is that there is no vicarious liability. This reflects the general principle that a crime is composed of both an actus reus (the Latin tag for "guilty act") and a mens rea (the Latin tag for "guilty mind") and that a person should only be convicted if he, she or it is directly responsible for causing both elements to occur at the same time (see concurrence). Thus, the practice of holding one person liable for the actions of another is the exception and not the rule in criminal law.
Vicarious liability in English law
The primary exception arises through statutory interpretation where the verb used to define the action in the actus reus is both the physical action of the employee and the legal action of the employer. For example, the activity of "driving" is purely a physical activity performed by the person behind the wheel. But when a cashier takes money as payment for goods, this is only the physical activity of selling. For goods to be sold, the owner of the goods must pass legal title to those goods. In default, the customer would commit the actus reus of theft. So the owner sells the goods at the same time that the employee takes the money. Similarly, only the holder of rights can grant a licence to another or permit another to do something that would otherwise have been unlawful. The verbs "possess", "control" and use may also have dual relevance depending on the context. Many of these are strict liability or regulatory offences, but the principle has been used to impose liability on a wide range of activities undertaken in a business or commercial environment.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or in plain English as explained to me by the MOD when I was a serving officer...
If you break the law you're on your own.
If you cock up, but it's merely an error/mistake/slip up/whatever you're not accountable...we are.
Thus in this instance, if the RAF take successful action against the aforementioned, I guess they can be subsequently cast to the wolves. If they don't take action (and neither does the Thames Valley Police or Health And Safety Executive) I would have thought it logical that the MOD has to take it on the chin if the families take any action???
Would an employment lawyer like to comment?
If you break the law you're on your own.
If you cock up, but it's merely an error/mistake/slip up/whatever you're not accountable...we are.
Thus in this instance, if the RAF take successful action against the aforementioned, I guess they can be subsequently cast to the wolves. If they don't take action (and neither does the Thames Valley Police or Health And Safety Executive) I would have thought it logical that the MOD has to take it on the chin if the families take any action???
Would an employment lawyer like to comment?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Old Fat One:-
Nimrod explosion families win £15million payout | Mail Online
Thus in this instance, if the RAF take successful action against the aforementioned, I guess they can be subsequently cast to the wolves. If they don't take action (and neither does the Thames Valley Police or Health And Safety Executive) I would have thought it logical that the MOD has to take it on the chin if the families take any action???
Would an employment lawyer like to comment?
Would an employment lawyer like to comment?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One crew member I knew for 20 years as a friend,
not a very close friend, just a guy I flew with for a fairly short while, somebody I ran into work now and then who returned the favour when my own wheels weren't available - and let''s face it, even taxis are hard to come by at 3 am on Boxing Day when some bloody Russian is trying to prove Christmas is a decadent fallacy...we just happened to be on 'friendly chat' terms for 20 years or so.
He left somebody I've just seen described as a 'partner' - they didn't mention kids for some reason - I don't think 800k excessive, I find it sobering that this is considered a 'record payout' for a highly trained SNCO with over 20 years flying under his belt.
After all, it's only 486.3 times the claim Sir Peter Viggers made for keeping his duck house in order, and I'm fairly sure that my pal was contributing rather more than 486.3 ducks did to the future of this country. To those who consider it a huge sum, look at the bonuses paid to white collar workers - not just bankers, but they're probably the most obvious targets here.
That this is a 'record' payout is, in my opinion, an indictment of our own priorities.
Apart from that, have a happy Easter and remember "if it's shaped like an egg, it isn't fattening".
Dave
not a very close friend, just a guy I flew with for a fairly short while, somebody I ran into work now and then who returned the favour when my own wheels weren't available - and let''s face it, even taxis are hard to come by at 3 am on Boxing Day when some bloody Russian is trying to prove Christmas is a decadent fallacy...we just happened to be on 'friendly chat' terms for 20 years or so.
He left somebody I've just seen described as a 'partner' - they didn't mention kids for some reason - I don't think 800k excessive, I find it sobering that this is considered a 'record payout' for a highly trained SNCO with over 20 years flying under his belt.
After all, it's only 486.3 times the claim Sir Peter Viggers made for keeping his duck house in order, and I'm fairly sure that my pal was contributing rather more than 486.3 ducks did to the future of this country. To those who consider it a huge sum, look at the bonuses paid to white collar workers - not just bankers, but they're probably the most obvious targets here.
That this is a 'record' payout is, in my opinion, an indictment of our own priorities.
Apart from that, have a happy Easter and remember "if it's shaped like an egg, it isn't fattening".
Dave
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it an appropriate amount? It is the figure that lawyers representing the families have accepted.
How much do you value your own life?
A few here will say they have large life cover, but the majority value their life as their outstanding mortgage - £150K ?
Negligence & Liability has got these guys' relatives an extra £800k on top of the normal death-in-service benefits.
How much do you value your own life?
A few here will say they have large life cover, but the majority value their life as their outstanding mortgage - £150K ?
Negligence & Liability has got these guys' relatives an extra £800k on top of the normal death-in-service benefits.