Blue on Blue.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Light bed time reading link below. Alternatively go straight to page 24. Funding issues abound. This NAO report came about after the fratricide in GW1. Back then we were using orange panels, we still are. Agree with Tuc, this was a tragedy waiting to happen, a carbon copy of what has gone before. Senior officers, Ministers, and CS high ups you have failed your men again.
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/n...02/0102661.pdf
"The various projects and DECs simply don't speak to each other."
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/n...02/0102661.pdf
"The various projects and DECs simply don't speak to each other."
Last edited by nigegilb; 9th Feb 2007 at 11:56.
Just why would we ever assume there was no video?
Are not all fighter/attack aircraft equipped with recording devices?
Would it be unreasonable to assume after such an event as this, the video would be pulled and retained for use in any inquiry?
As to whether someone "lied"....I would have to be convinced they did so with intent to deceive and did so knowingly. I also consider a willful omission of a fact to be equal to lying.
Are not all fighter/attack aircraft equipped with recording devices?
Would it be unreasonable to assume after such an event as this, the video would be pulled and retained for use in any inquiry?
As to whether someone "lied"....I would have to be convinced they did so with intent to deceive and did so knowingly. I also consider a willful omission of a fact to be equal to lying.
SAS, AFAIK no one has assumed that. Mrs Hull says that she was told that by the MOD. Mr Bliar says, in so many words, that she wasn't. Given his track record, and as others have said, the quiet understated dignity of this lady, I know who I believe. On this side of the pond we have grown used to routine dissembling by him and his gang. That is not rhetoric or exaggeration, but how it is. That is our misfortune, and our responsibility. The problem is that all the formality and procedure of official inquiries designed to determine facts and avoid repetition fail if the authorities simply lie. Tucumseh, who is informed, provides us with the list of lies, many of which are current threads on this forum. Whatever our nationality, service or civilian, as aviators we know we live or die by determining truth rather than lies, wishful thinking or blind faith. Politicians don't, nor it would seem many senior officers. What you do about yours is your business, for our part there is a growing outrage amongst those serving and retired to restore the substance implied by the words "an officer and a gentleman".
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evening Standard
'Appalling cover-up' that kept truth from friendly-fire widow
06.02.07
The Ministry of Defence has been accused of conspiring with the Americans in an 'appalling' cover-up to prevent the widow of a British soldier killed by a U.S. warplane learning the truth about his death......
....As the video sparked an international diplomatic incident, the coroner fighting to get it played at L/Cpl Hull's inquest demanded that the two American pilots testify when the hearing resumes on March 12....
...Susan Hull says the Ministry of Defence 'categorically' denied the existence of the footage, even though it had been used as part of a British Army board of inquiry...
...The tape came to light only last Wednesday, when the coroner was shown it in private by an MoD official. Mrs Hull's solicitor confirmed that the MoD had previously insisted the cockpit recording had been damaged beyond use.
Geraldine McCool said: 'Mrs Hull has had several conversations with the MoD. In one of these, within months of her husband's death, she was told it was unlikely the cockpit recorder had been switched on at the time of the incident.
'Later, in the same conversation, she was told that the tape existed but had been damaged. Several of her husband's colleagues were also told by the MoD that it had been damaged.'
Tory defence spokesman Gerald Howarth said: 'The MoD have completely screwed up. They appear to have been engaged in some kind of subterfuge with the U.S. This is an abysmal failure of the duty of care. The MoD have handled it appallingly.'.....
.....Following the leak, the Pentagon authorised the release of the video. But farcically, even though the footage was shown on every major TV channel in Britain and the U.S., American officials continued to insist that it not be played in open court.
Geoff Webb, the coroner's clerk, revealed that Andrew Walker - the Oxfordshire assistant deputy coroner in charge of the inquiry - does want the two pilots to give evidence.
'Anybody who can help who was a witness to these deaths would be of use as a witness at the inquest. It would be ideal if the American pilots could come along.'
The Ministry of Defence admitted it had not told Mrs Hull about the existence of the tape but claimed there had never been 'any intention to deliberately deceive or mislead the family.'
Maj-Gen Sir Patrick Cordingley, commander of the Desert Rats in the first Gulf War, said: 'I think the Ministry of Defence is very secretive.
Three years ago it could have said to the family of Matty Hull, "We've got this evidence but because of the rules of war we're not able to show it to you but I can tell you it does support the view that he was killed as a result of friendly fire". I think it would have defused the situation.'
The affair has led to a straining of Anglo-American relations.
'Appalling cover-up' that kept truth from friendly-fire widow
06.02.07
The Ministry of Defence has been accused of conspiring with the Americans in an 'appalling' cover-up to prevent the widow of a British soldier killed by a U.S. warplane learning the truth about his death......
....As the video sparked an international diplomatic incident, the coroner fighting to get it played at L/Cpl Hull's inquest demanded that the two American pilots testify when the hearing resumes on March 12....
...Susan Hull says the Ministry of Defence 'categorically' denied the existence of the footage, even though it had been used as part of a British Army board of inquiry...
...The tape came to light only last Wednesday, when the coroner was shown it in private by an MoD official. Mrs Hull's solicitor confirmed that the MoD had previously insisted the cockpit recording had been damaged beyond use.
Geraldine McCool said: 'Mrs Hull has had several conversations with the MoD. In one of these, within months of her husband's death, she was told it was unlikely the cockpit recorder had been switched on at the time of the incident.
'Later, in the same conversation, she was told that the tape existed but had been damaged. Several of her husband's colleagues were also told by the MoD that it had been damaged.'
Tory defence spokesman Gerald Howarth said: 'The MoD have completely screwed up. They appear to have been engaged in some kind of subterfuge with the U.S. This is an abysmal failure of the duty of care. The MoD have handled it appallingly.'.....
.....Following the leak, the Pentagon authorised the release of the video. But farcically, even though the footage was shown on every major TV channel in Britain and the U.S., American officials continued to insist that it not be played in open court.
Geoff Webb, the coroner's clerk, revealed that Andrew Walker - the Oxfordshire assistant deputy coroner in charge of the inquiry - does want the two pilots to give evidence.
'Anybody who can help who was a witness to these deaths would be of use as a witness at the inquest. It would be ideal if the American pilots could come along.'
The Ministry of Defence admitted it had not told Mrs Hull about the existence of the tape but claimed there had never been 'any intention to deliberately deceive or mislead the family.'
Maj-Gen Sir Patrick Cordingley, commander of the Desert Rats in the first Gulf War, said: 'I think the Ministry of Defence is very secretive.
Three years ago it could have said to the family of Matty Hull, "We've got this evidence but because of the rules of war we're not able to show it to you but I can tell you it does support the view that he was killed as a result of friendly fire". I think it would have defused the situation.'
The affair has led to a straining of Anglo-American relations.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nigegilb
it has been widely reported here that the video of the HUD was shown at the BoI 3 years ago. I am sorry but in my mind at least, if Mrs Hull was told , categorically, that no video was in existence, then she was lied to.
Originally Posted by nigegilb
Maj-Gen Sir Patrick Cordingley, commander of the Desert Rats in the first Gulf War, said: 'I think the Ministry of Defence is very secretive.
Three years ago it could have said to the family of Matty Hull, "We've got this evidence but because of the rules of war we're not able to show it to you but I can tell you it does support the view that he was killed as a result of friendly fire". I think it would have defused the situation.'
The affair has led to a straining of Anglo-American relations.
Three years ago it could have said to the family of Matty Hull, "We've got this evidence but because of the rules of war we're not able to show it to you but I can tell you it does support the view that he was killed as a result of friendly fire". I think it would have defused the situation.'
The affair has led to a straining of Anglo-American relations.
Originally Posted by SASless
Would it be unreasonable to assume after such an event as this, the video would be pulled and retained for use in any inquiry?
Earlier, several expressed concern over the apparent disconnect between the BoI & the USAF AIB regarding whether or not the pilots followed procedure/ROE. Two things on this:
A - ALL reports are written with an agenda. Right or wrong, it is human nature to put some sort of spin, emotive or otherwise, into reports - even factual ones. Case in point - one of the AIBs I was involved in had nothing to do with safety & survival equipment, but I went out of my way to ask each of the aircrew very pointed questions about their gear & included it in the report because I'm sick of having ****e survival gear. Didn't impact the outcome of the investigation, didn't have anything to do with cause, but it put it in leadership's sight & the public eye. It was well within the bounds of the investigation as there is a section devoted to safety/survival equipment usage & serviceability.
With that in mind, there are "variations" in the ROE & SPINS as most of us who've been on both sides of a coalition understand. Some are related to kit (or lack thereof), some are related to political constraints. Sometimes, what appear to be black & white statements are even interpreted differently due to culture and other biases. I've seen it first hand.
I would say the BoI has a different agenda than the SIB/AIB. Not right or wrong, better or worse - different. This means that grey areas are interpreted differently (and possibly some not-so-grey areas too). Again, not right or wrong, better or worse - differently.
B - We will never know what the exact ROE in place at the time was. It will remain, rightfully so, classified.
One other thing - we don't know what conversations, coordination, previous CAS handoff, etc. took place prior to the "start" point on the HUD vid. Some of this may have coloured the perspective of pilots, they may have been working with a different GFAC in a different area, etc. Any number of things could have been going on that we simply don't have available to us and may have directly or indirectly affected their judgment or perception of the ground situation.
Someone else mentioned the pilots talking themselves into the "orange rockets" - they may have. The human mind often fills in the gaps when information is missing or not making sense. These gaps will be filled differently by different people based on paradigms & perception - issues that can be influenced by literally millions of things going back to a person's childhood upbringing.
Have any of you seen the perceptions & paradigm training videos foisted upon the USAF in the early-mid '90s? One of the most interesting parts (OK, the only interesting part), was when they showed a series of playing cards. At first, they showed them slowly & you saw an 8 of diamonds, jack of clubs, 2 of hearts, etc. Next, they showed you different cards very quickly & you were asked what you saw. They kept speeding them up & flashing the cards on the screen for a shorter & shorter intervals - all the while, they were changing the colours of the suits - actually reversing them. All the clubs & spades were red, and all the hearts and diamonds were black. In my class, nobody picked up on this - they told us the percentages were very small - less than 1% of people do. Your brain just fills in what it "expects" to see.
The human factors folks call this "expectation" but I believe that is too simple of a term. Each person's expectations are coloured by his experience and even two people with similar backgrounds and experiences can "fill in the gaps" quite differently.
Again, I'm not condoning what happened, nor am I dismissing it. I'm just hoping that those who read it will better understand how these things can and do happen.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: guernsey
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like The SUN has picked up on what was pointed out here yesterday, with its usual balanced perspective:
THE Pentagon stood accused of an alarming cover-up last night over hero soldier Matty Hull’s “friendly fire” death.
A senior American general in charge of a US probe into what went wrong recommended two airmen face court martial, The Sun can reveal.
But defence chiefs over-ruled his findings into the Iraq war tragedy to clear both A10 tankbuster pilots of any wrongdoing.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060633,00.html
Wonder how they know that 'defence chiefs over-ruled' bit.
And the report certainly did NOT suggest that the airmen face court martial - merely that it should be 'considered'.
As ever with these things, its the cover-up that gets them.
THE Pentagon stood accused of an alarming cover-up last night over hero soldier Matty Hull’s “friendly fire” death.
A senior American general in charge of a US probe into what went wrong recommended two airmen face court martial, The Sun can reveal.
But defence chiefs over-ruled his findings into the Iraq war tragedy to clear both A10 tankbuster pilots of any wrongdoing.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060633,00.html
Wonder how they know that 'defence chiefs over-ruled' bit.
And the report certainly did NOT suggest that the airmen face court martial - merely that it should be 'considered'.
As ever with these things, its the cover-up that gets them.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No matter what one's personal view on the actions of these pilots,we in the UK can only comment with some degree of knowledge on the MOD's behaviour in this sorry tale.
One can only come to one of two conclusions, either,
The MOD entered into a conspiracy to try to prevent the full facts becoming known.
Or
The Mod's protocols for dealing with the bereaved families of our personnel
are at best woefully inadequate or at worst a complete and utter shambles .
Either way they have again let down their most important asset.
They still haven't learnt any lessons from the Mull of Kintyre .
One can only come to one of two conclusions, either,
The MOD entered into a conspiracy to try to prevent the full facts becoming known.
Or
The Mod's protocols for dealing with the bereaved families of our personnel
are at best woefully inadequate or at worst a complete and utter shambles .
Either way they have again let down their most important asset.
They still haven't learnt any lessons from the Mull of Kintyre .
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cover-up indeed.
US Herk you dismissed the article too quickly. SASless wondered why the very existence of the video was in question.
Answer, because the MoD said the HUD film had been damaged.
It was Mrs Hull's legal counsel who confirmed this, also confirming that other families had been told the same thing.
You keep saying that the video adds nothing and is of no importance to Mrs Hull. I am sorry, but I strongly disagree. The video could have shown that the orange panels were not visible to the pilots. In fact it showed the opposite. All four vehicles had panels visible to the pilots. This is crucial evidence. The HUD film shows that the pilots failed to identify the vehicles. This failure needs to be addressed. Was it a failure of briefing, training or a simple human failure on the day? Is it safe for British troops to enter killboxes with the current combat ID capability?
The audio suggests that the pilots pressed on with the attack without final FAC clearance. Do you need final clearance in a kill box? Why should this remain classified to the coroner? They are DV cleared. Was it simply a failure of coordination? Should the Brits share some blame? We have had years to improve Combat ID. Should the US introduce data link to CAS capable aircraft? I hope the coroner is looking at all these points and more. If I was Mrs Hull I would want to know that all these things are being addressed. I would want to know that my husband had not died in vain. And I would want some accountability.
And yes, it is important that everyone knows the at the MoD lied when they said the HUD film did not exist or had been damaged. The very fact that Mrs Hull has now seen this film proves that point.
US Herk you dismissed the article too quickly. SASless wondered why the very existence of the video was in question.
Answer, because the MoD said the HUD film had been damaged.
It was Mrs Hull's legal counsel who confirmed this, also confirming that other families had been told the same thing.
You keep saying that the video adds nothing and is of no importance to Mrs Hull. I am sorry, but I strongly disagree. The video could have shown that the orange panels were not visible to the pilots. In fact it showed the opposite. All four vehicles had panels visible to the pilots. This is crucial evidence. The HUD film shows that the pilots failed to identify the vehicles. This failure needs to be addressed. Was it a failure of briefing, training or a simple human failure on the day? Is it safe for British troops to enter killboxes with the current combat ID capability?
The audio suggests that the pilots pressed on with the attack without final FAC clearance. Do you need final clearance in a kill box? Why should this remain classified to the coroner? They are DV cleared. Was it simply a failure of coordination? Should the Brits share some blame? We have had years to improve Combat ID. Should the US introduce data link to CAS capable aircraft? I hope the coroner is looking at all these points and more. If I was Mrs Hull I would want to know that all these things are being addressed. I would want to know that my husband had not died in vain. And I would want some accountability.
And yes, it is important that everyone knows the at the MoD lied when they said the HUD film did not exist or had been damaged. The very fact that Mrs Hull has now seen this film proves that point.
Last edited by nigegilb; 9th Feb 2007 at 17:14.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a military pilot I do understand that there is the fog of war. During this "fog" unfortunate incidents do happen and will continue to happen as we are all human. However, what seems to be lacking here is a suitable solution by the USAF to better train their pilots to avoid making these errors as much as they do. In Afghanistan the Canadian Armed Forces have lost 44 soldiers. 5 of these soldiers have been killed by the USAF due to blue on blue. ROE's are one thing but in this case better training/awareness is required.
my 2cents
cheers
my 2cents
cheers
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Age: 57
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And of course, it has to happen again....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6346901.stm
However, it being local Iraqi soldiers, I wonder if the cockpit recording will be chased down quite as strenuously?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6346901.stm
However, it being local Iraqi soldiers, I wonder if the cockpit recording will be chased down quite as strenuously?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Various
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the perspective of combat exerience as a grunt, CAS pilot and FAC/TACP Team Leader, a few questions come to mind:
- What FSCMs were in effect?
- What was the location of LCPL Hull's unit/vehicle when it was hit?
- What was the unit's position relative to AI Killboxes, FSCL, CFL, or any other permissive FSCM?
- Who directed the unit's movement to that location?
- Had that movement been coordinated with higher, adjacent, or even within their own unit?
- Why didn't the TACP, located within the ground unit FSCC/CP, know that there were friendlies in that location?
- Why were attack aircraft specifically told by the ground unit that there were no friendlies in that area?
FSCMs and target location relative to them define what coordination procedures are required. Some are more permissive than others. Another potential issue here is that definitions for these FSCMs can vary even amongst NATO Allies (STANAG 2099/QSTAG 531).
If the FSCM is poorly designed and is unidentifiable by either terrain features or electronically by equipment available to all commanders then it is less than worthless, it is dangerous.
If the FSCMs and changes to them are not disseminated to all in an accurate and timely fashion they are again worthless.
If ground units do not know where their elements are then no accurate air/ground coordination is possible. If elements are not where they are supposed to be the same is true.
I'm not implying that any of the above is fact. I'm not trying to deflect the issues regarding aircrew which have been discussed at some length here. I am trying to expand the discussion of potential lessons learned with the intent of prevention.
As in most mishaps, close examination will likely show there was more than one breakdown in discipline, judgement, procedure, and/or communication that day. All of which contributed to the chain of events which led to a tragic and avoidable conclusion.
- What FSCMs were in effect?
- What was the location of LCPL Hull's unit/vehicle when it was hit?
- What was the unit's position relative to AI Killboxes, FSCL, CFL, or any other permissive FSCM?
- Who directed the unit's movement to that location?
- Had that movement been coordinated with higher, adjacent, or even within their own unit?
- Why didn't the TACP, located within the ground unit FSCC/CP, know that there were friendlies in that location?
- Why were attack aircraft specifically told by the ground unit that there were no friendlies in that area?
FSCMs and target location relative to them define what coordination procedures are required. Some are more permissive than others. Another potential issue here is that definitions for these FSCMs can vary even amongst NATO Allies (STANAG 2099/QSTAG 531).
If the FSCM is poorly designed and is unidentifiable by either terrain features or electronically by equipment available to all commanders then it is less than worthless, it is dangerous.
If the FSCMs and changes to them are not disseminated to all in an accurate and timely fashion they are again worthless.
If ground units do not know where their elements are then no accurate air/ground coordination is possible. If elements are not where they are supposed to be the same is true.
I'm not implying that any of the above is fact. I'm not trying to deflect the issues regarding aircrew which have been discussed at some length here. I am trying to expand the discussion of potential lessons learned with the intent of prevention.
As in most mishaps, close examination will likely show there was more than one breakdown in discipline, judgement, procedure, and/or communication that day. All of which contributed to the chain of events which led to a tragic and avoidable conclusion.
Chug,
I am well aware of how the pursuit of the truth can enter perilous paths for those trying to arrive at a statement of facts that are direct, real, ascertainable, and clear to the point there is exactly one interpetation.
At times, the appearance of a cover up can be explained away by sheer incompetence vice evil intent.
The perception of a cover up alone is sufficient to indict those that are party to it even when there was no crime, misconduct, or liability.
It is the cover up that invaribly dooms people when even the event being covered up is of no significance. Let that happen in something as serious as this tragedy and simply put.....there will be Hell to pay. The sad thing is all the fuss winds up being focussed at the "cover up" and the core issue loses significance as a result.
We have keep our sights on the right target (purposely phrased that way) so as to do what can be done to prevent this from happening again. That being the killing and wounding of our own people.
The shrill outcry for more training is a rather hollow demand. Until the accident chain caused by this tragedy is fully documented and investigated to identify its various components, no logical and effective action can be defined.
It might not be something from afield from an issue curable by "training". Nothing like this happens with just a single cause.....there is a chain of things. Breaking the chain at any one point would have prevented this from occurring. Lets lay out the chain and see what needs fixing that will be the most effective and work down from there.
I am well aware of how the pursuit of the truth can enter perilous paths for those trying to arrive at a statement of facts that are direct, real, ascertainable, and clear to the point there is exactly one interpetation.
At times, the appearance of a cover up can be explained away by sheer incompetence vice evil intent.
The perception of a cover up alone is sufficient to indict those that are party to it even when there was no crime, misconduct, or liability.
It is the cover up that invaribly dooms people when even the event being covered up is of no significance. Let that happen in something as serious as this tragedy and simply put.....there will be Hell to pay. The sad thing is all the fuss winds up being focussed at the "cover up" and the core issue loses significance as a result.
We have keep our sights on the right target (purposely phrased that way) so as to do what can be done to prevent this from happening again. That being the killing and wounding of our own people.
The shrill outcry for more training is a rather hollow demand. Until the accident chain caused by this tragedy is fully documented and investigated to identify its various components, no logical and effective action can be defined.
It might not be something from afield from an issue curable by "training". Nothing like this happens with just a single cause.....there is a chain of things. Breaking the chain at any one point would have prevented this from occurring. Lets lay out the chain and see what needs fixing that will be the most effective and work down from there.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nigegilb
You keep saying that the video adds nothing and is of no importance to Mrs Hull. I am sorry, but I strongly disagree. The video could have shown that the orange panels were not visible to the pilots. In fact it showed the opposite. All four vehicles had panels visible to the pilots. This is crucial evidence. The HUD film shows that the pilots failed to identify the vehicles. This failure needs to be addressed. Was it a failure of briefing, training or a simple human failure on the day? Is it safe for British troops to enter killboxes with the current combat ID capability?
I don't believe Mrs. Hull should have been lied to.
This is an extremely emotional subject - understandably. However, we must strive to keep emotion separate from logic when analysing this.
Perhaps I don't appreciate or understand the difference between your BoI & Coroner's Inquest. If the sole purpose of the CI is to point the finger at the pilots, the existence of a tape is still largely immaterial IMO. We know what happened. There is no question.
If we want to delve into culpability, that's another issue entirely. I don't think we'll ever have all the info we need to make an accurate assessment - because ROE are classified.
Every single accident is preventable. All of them. Simply choose not to accept any risk & you won't have accidents. If we never fly, we never crash, we never mis-identify targets, we never commit frat (with air power). We all know that will never happen. Apportioning blame is a dangerous task. During times of conflict, even moreso. There really must be blatantly gross negligence, or willful malicious intent to assess culpability during conflicts. Otherwise, it's a witch-hunt and it erodes our combat capability. In fact, I would argue, it already is - it has made leadership skittish to the point they lead through liability control - decisions are based on how much risk they are exposed to. This erodes combat capability.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't search for the truth in an effort to prevent these tragic mishaps. We should - by any means available.
Originally Posted by nigegilb
Why should this remain classified to the coroner? They are DV cleared.
Originally Posted by nigegilb
And yes, it is important that everyone knows the at the MoD lied when they said the HUD film did not exist or had been damaged.
Nige, I'm not singling you out, just that you have an excellent perspective on this & bring up outstanding issues.
As mentioned, I'm not real clear on the purpose of a Coroner's Inquest - to me & my way of thinking (culture) - a coroner does nothing more than determine the cause of death. Obviously, there is much more to it in the UK, but I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the inquest. If someone would explain it to me, maybe it will help me see where I'm digressing so much from the common view here about the video. Feel free to PM me to keep the thread on track.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the tape, coupled with evidence from the pilots and area controller established they were acting outside the ROE, then perhaps the death would be classed as manslaughter as opposed to an accident?
If the inquest found that our chaps shouldn't have been there as the ROE were to kill everything moving as it was guaranteed enemy in that zone, then the pilots were right and should be cleared.
If it turns out the system was at fault, then perhaps someone further up the food chain should be blamed.
Either way, I do think the tape sheds light on the incident. It certainly gives us all an insight into the minds of the guys in the A10's.
If the inquest found that our chaps shouldn't have been there as the ROE were to kill everything moving as it was guaranteed enemy in that zone, then the pilots were right and should be cleared.
If it turns out the system was at fault, then perhaps someone further up the food chain should be blamed.
Either way, I do think the tape sheds light on the incident. It certainly gives us all an insight into the minds of the guys in the A10's.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The power of the Inquest and Mr Walker, a man who does not mince his words.
19 Dec 2006 : 3 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con):
...I want to draw the House’s attention to yesterday’s inquest into the death of Sergeant Steve Roberts at which the coroner, Andrew Walker, said:
“To send soldiers into a combat zone without the appropriate basic equipment is, in my view, unforgivable and inexcusable and represents a breach of trust that the soldiers have in those in Government”.
You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that back in March 2003, Sergeant Steve Roberts died because he did not have lifesaving body armour, which had been denied him by the then Secretary of State for Defence. Mr. Walker went on to say:
“Sergeant Roberts’ death was as a result of delay and serious failures in the acquisition and support chain that resulted in a significant shortage within his fighting unit of enhanced combat body armour, none being available for him to wear.”
The coroner had requested that the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), come to give evidence at the inquest. That did not happen. Instead, the Ministry of Defence sent David Williams, who is its director of capability, resources and scrutiny. Mr. Williams said that buying large numbers of body armour sets would have
“obviously indicated the department was pressing ahead with preparations for war when negotiations were still firmly at the diplomatic stage”.
What an unbelievably cynical and outrageous remark to make. Does that mean that if we ever order more bullets and guns, we are telling our enemies that we might be about to engage in conflict? That was a totally inadequate response.
I found it amazing that the current Secretary of State for Defence did not come to the Dispatch Box today to make a statement in light of the coroner’s remarks. It was quite unacceptable that the right hon. Member for Ashfield delayed for eight weeks before agreeing to the request that the body armour be made available. The right hon. Gentleman should be seriously considering his position. Frankly, having spent 25 years in this House, I do not see how he can remain as a Minister—you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman still serves in a non-Cabinet capacity as Minister for Europe.
The other place is considering the Government’s Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill. I would suggest that if this was the real world and the private sector, the right hon. Gentleman could well be up on a charge of corporate manslaughter. Part of the Bill, which will soon return to this House, says clearly that a person who has left their job and moved to another position has no excuse—that person can still be prosecuted.
And here an interesting article about US pilot training and lack of IR capability in today's Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../10/nirq10.xml
19 Dec 2006 : 3 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con):
...I want to draw the House’s attention to yesterday’s inquest into the death of Sergeant Steve Roberts at which the coroner, Andrew Walker, said:
“To send soldiers into a combat zone without the appropriate basic equipment is, in my view, unforgivable and inexcusable and represents a breach of trust that the soldiers have in those in Government”.
You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that back in March 2003, Sergeant Steve Roberts died because he did not have lifesaving body armour, which had been denied him by the then Secretary of State for Defence. Mr. Walker went on to say:
“Sergeant Roberts’ death was as a result of delay and serious failures in the acquisition and support chain that resulted in a significant shortage within his fighting unit of enhanced combat body armour, none being available for him to wear.”
The coroner had requested that the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), come to give evidence at the inquest. That did not happen. Instead, the Ministry of Defence sent David Williams, who is its director of capability, resources and scrutiny. Mr. Williams said that buying large numbers of body armour sets would have
“obviously indicated the department was pressing ahead with preparations for war when negotiations were still firmly at the diplomatic stage”.
What an unbelievably cynical and outrageous remark to make. Does that mean that if we ever order more bullets and guns, we are telling our enemies that we might be about to engage in conflict? That was a totally inadequate response.
I found it amazing that the current Secretary of State for Defence did not come to the Dispatch Box today to make a statement in light of the coroner’s remarks. It was quite unacceptable that the right hon. Member for Ashfield delayed for eight weeks before agreeing to the request that the body armour be made available. The right hon. Gentleman should be seriously considering his position. Frankly, having spent 25 years in this House, I do not see how he can remain as a Minister—you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman still serves in a non-Cabinet capacity as Minister for Europe.
The other place is considering the Government’s Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill. I would suggest that if this was the real world and the private sector, the right hon. Gentleman could well be up on a charge of corporate manslaughter. Part of the Bill, which will soon return to this House, says clearly that a person who has left their job and moved to another position has no excuse—that person can still be prosecuted.
And here an interesting article about US pilot training and lack of IR capability in today's Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../10/nirq10.xml
SASless wrote at #194:-
"We have (to) keep our sights on the right target (purposely phrased that way) so as to do what can be done to prevent this from happening again. That being the killing and wounding of our own people.
The shrill outcry for more training is a rather hollow demand. Until the accident chain caused by this tragedy is fully documented and investigated to identify its various components, no logical and effective action can be defined"
SAS thank you for your thoughtful reply. It seems we are in violent agreement! For this country, at least, all violent or unusual death of our subjects (sorry, citizens!) are the subject of investigation by coroners who have, as we see in the person of Mr Andrew Walker, peculiar and extensive powers to determine the truth of the circumstances of the death. He wishes to have the pilots give evidence as to what happened. If they did so it would no doubt be painful and embarrassing for them, but that would not be the purpose, rather it would be to discover that truth. Your inquiry seems not to have done that to our satisfaction, nor our inquiry come to that. Of course no genuine op sec should be breached, nor would it be. I suspect that all the worry about HUD videos, etc, is so much froth to hide behind. It could well be that the people most anxious to hide and to obscure the truth are Brits, as mentioned in previous posts. Whatever, the truth will emerge anyway. This is a variant of the Flight Safety model that has served our aviators, military or civilian of whatever nationality, well over the years. All the relevant facts must be known to arrive at the cause(s) and the recommendations to avoid a repetition. If there is truly a special relationship it must be capable of such a process or it is a sham. The money at the moment in the UK is on the latter, I have to say.
"We have (to) keep our sights on the right target (purposely phrased that way) so as to do what can be done to prevent this from happening again. That being the killing and wounding of our own people.
The shrill outcry for more training is a rather hollow demand. Until the accident chain caused by this tragedy is fully documented and investigated to identify its various components, no logical and effective action can be defined"
SAS thank you for your thoughtful reply. It seems we are in violent agreement! For this country, at least, all violent or unusual death of our subjects (sorry, citizens!) are the subject of investigation by coroners who have, as we see in the person of Mr Andrew Walker, peculiar and extensive powers to determine the truth of the circumstances of the death. He wishes to have the pilots give evidence as to what happened. If they did so it would no doubt be painful and embarrassing for them, but that would not be the purpose, rather it would be to discover that truth. Your inquiry seems not to have done that to our satisfaction, nor our inquiry come to that. Of course no genuine op sec should be breached, nor would it be. I suspect that all the worry about HUD videos, etc, is so much froth to hide behind. It could well be that the people most anxious to hide and to obscure the truth are Brits, as mentioned in previous posts. Whatever, the truth will emerge anyway. This is a variant of the Flight Safety model that has served our aviators, military or civilian of whatever nationality, well over the years. All the relevant facts must be known to arrive at the cause(s) and the recommendations to avoid a repetition. If there is truly a special relationship it must be capable of such a process or it is a sham. The money at the moment in the UK is on the latter, I have to say.
Chug,
I need to correct part of what I wrote. It is the sequence of events that create the "chain" and not the event that creates the chain. You are entirely correct when you reference the source of that concept....having been both trainee and trainer at FSI, I am firmly convinced that is a valid concept for arriving at a listing of contributing factors for any accident or incident.
The key to its proper use however demands an open mind willing to objectively identify and assess the causes and then seek a determination of the effect each "link" in the chain had with a view to putting a priority to corrective actions to be undertaken as a preventive measure for future events.
I need to correct part of what I wrote. It is the sequence of events that create the "chain" and not the event that creates the chain. You are entirely correct when you reference the source of that concept....having been both trainee and trainer at FSI, I am firmly convinced that is a valid concept for arriving at a listing of contributing factors for any accident or incident.
The key to its proper use however demands an open mind willing to objectively identify and assess the causes and then seek a determination of the effect each "link" in the chain had with a view to putting a priority to corrective actions to be undertaken as a preventive measure for future events.
"The key to its proper use however demands an open mind willing to objectively identify and assess the causes and then seek a determination of the effect each "link" in the chain had with a view to putting a priority to corrective actions to be undertaken as a preventive measure for future events"
Aye, and there's the rub, SAS! Look at the list in tucumseh's post, and ask how many of those inquiries have resulted in findings based on the criteria that you propose. Maybe a similar US list would pose the same concern? Note that I talk of the findings. The inquiries themselves were, I'm sure conducted in a thorough, diligent and professional way. It is the subsequent input from the "worried" Minister, the "concerned" Senior Civil Servant, or the "frankly perplexed" Air Marshal, etc, that warps the final outcome. In the case of the Mull accident of course, the findings were simply thrown out on review, and the infamous Gross Negligence verdict substituted.
I'm afraid that at this stage your chain will have burst its links asunder, SAS, and the whole point of the exercise, to determine causes and recommendations to avoid repetitions, lost. As a BOF, steeped in the Flight Safety culture of the RAF of the 60s/70s I am simply appalled. I don't care if that makes me a reactionary cold war warrior, our system worked (well usually), and the present situation is more akin to the infamous one in the USSR, where ashes were returned to NOK, with a reminder that further discussion would constitute a betrayal of State secrets!
If it takes an English Coroner's Inquest to do the job that the MOD should have done but failed to, so be it. Let us give thanks that an archaic institution still exists to protect the interests of ordinary people, and that hasn't yet been swept aside as redundant in the modern world!
US Herc, in case no one has PM'd you, details on Coroners, both UK and US types, can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroner I see ours go back to the 11th Century, not sure about yours though!
Aye, and there's the rub, SAS! Look at the list in tucumseh's post, and ask how many of those inquiries have resulted in findings based on the criteria that you propose. Maybe a similar US list would pose the same concern? Note that I talk of the findings. The inquiries themselves were, I'm sure conducted in a thorough, diligent and professional way. It is the subsequent input from the "worried" Minister, the "concerned" Senior Civil Servant, or the "frankly perplexed" Air Marshal, etc, that warps the final outcome. In the case of the Mull accident of course, the findings were simply thrown out on review, and the infamous Gross Negligence verdict substituted.
I'm afraid that at this stage your chain will have burst its links asunder, SAS, and the whole point of the exercise, to determine causes and recommendations to avoid repetitions, lost. As a BOF, steeped in the Flight Safety culture of the RAF of the 60s/70s I am simply appalled. I don't care if that makes me a reactionary cold war warrior, our system worked (well usually), and the present situation is more akin to the infamous one in the USSR, where ashes were returned to NOK, with a reminder that further discussion would constitute a betrayal of State secrets!
If it takes an English Coroner's Inquest to do the job that the MOD should have done but failed to, so be it. Let us give thanks that an archaic institution still exists to protect the interests of ordinary people, and that hasn't yet been swept aside as redundant in the modern world!
US Herc, in case no one has PM'd you, details on Coroners, both UK and US types, can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroner I see ours go back to the 11th Century, not sure about yours though!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 10th Feb 2007 at 16:07.
Chug,
I am intimately aware of how the course of justice gets perverted by the Mandarins up the chain.
With no effort at all I can list several very notable incidents that has happened.
Some of the examples would be the Pat Tillman Friendly Fire death, the USS Iowa Main Turret explosion, The Moscow Embassy Marine Guard investigation, and the Rickover investigation.
On the other hand I know of investigations that took on a life of its own despite repeated confirmations nothing worth investigation occurred.
Government bureaucracy everywhere do not like sunshine being shined on their mistakes thus it should come as no surprise to any of us that these events occur.
I am intimately aware of how the course of justice gets perverted by the Mandarins up the chain.
With no effort at all I can list several very notable incidents that has happened.
Some of the examples would be the Pat Tillman Friendly Fire death, the USS Iowa Main Turret explosion, The Moscow Embassy Marine Guard investigation, and the Rickover investigation.
On the other hand I know of investigations that took on a life of its own despite repeated confirmations nothing worth investigation occurred.
Government bureaucracy everywhere do not like sunshine being shined on their mistakes thus it should come as no surprise to any of us that these events occur.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chugalug2
US Herc, in case no one has PM'd you, details on Coroners, both UK and US types, can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroner I see ours go back to the 11th Century, not sure about yours though!
As you can probably tell by the very rambling & unspecific US entry there, it varies by state, county, & municipality in the US. I guess I grew up watching Quincy and always thought of coroners in the M.E. light.I now see both sides of this. I don't think I care much for your system having a single individual with seemingly unfettered power to subpoena & whose decision is all but final, but I do see the checks & balances it can provide against the bigger gov't machine.
With this new-found insight, however, I can see why the video is important - but to the coroner for the inquest, not for Mrs. Hull. I still stand by the fact she wasn't lied to about what happened & the tape doesn't change anything. For the Coroner's Inquest, however, there would seem to be a great deal of importance in having the tape and whether there was MoD/DoD obstruction in obtaining said tape.
Now that we can agree on why the coroner would want the tape, we can argue if he should or shouldn't be given access to it.
As I still have much ignorance about how the CI is conducted, I can only guess based on my limited gleaning of info here & elsewhere, that it is very much public. If so, I still have heartburn with the tape being used as documented evidence for public scrutiny (realising that with the Sun having it on their website, we're talking principle now)
Even in our publicly accountable AIB investigations, we do not document certain things & there is often a small, classified addendum. For example, we usually do not name General Officers - where they are referenced, it will be by some sort of code - GO1, GO2, etc. The classified addendum will have their name, actual rank, & post. It's not to protect them from prosecution (if they're found culpable, they will be prosecuted), rather, to protect them (and the military) from media circus antics like we're seeing with these A10 pilots. We will also do this (code) in order to declassify something where it adds substance if we can (and we can't always).
Realise that our investigations happen very quickly. The SIB portion has 30 days from the date of the incident to publish their report!!
They may seek an extension from the board convening authority, but that is the exception rather than the rule. They also have near unlimited resources at their disposal to find the cause. The second public AIB operates on an equally quick schedule with 30 days to conduct their investigation starting when the SIB turns over the factual data (usually in the second to third week of their investigation). The AIB operates from a substantially less-funded perspective and has limited resources available to them requiring approval from the board convening authority for major expenditures.Because they're concluded w/in 60 days of an incident, things such as callsigns, R/T, tactics, etc. are very fresh, so we do classify that much in order to retain as much OPSEC as we can.
I offer the last few paragraphs merely as more insight into our processes. For insomnia, you can download the manuals governing both investigations, at least as it pertains to the USAF, online: search for: SIB is AFI 91-204 & AIB is AFI 51-503