Hercules inquest.
Given that the gentleman is to appear as a witness at an inquest, this sounds like Conspiracy To Pervert The Course Of Justice to me.....
Spoke to friendly plod this morning. It's two offences. Perverting the course of Justice and Intimidating a Witness - both criminal offences (as opposed to Civil). Given the circumstances, he said it likely the offenders employers are equally liable.
All the best Nigel.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,028
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding, please correct any error, is that the airframe would not be lost in most cases had ESF been deployed. In ten plus years of defense procurement experience I never lost an order by underestimating the intelligence of the MOD.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ball gazing
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Think cold!
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Times today:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3708714.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3708714.ece
E-mail warning of Iraq ambush ‘not opened’
TROWBRIDGE An e-mail that gave all coalition aircraft the position of a dug-in ambush between Baghdad and a US base to the west of the Iraqi capital should have prevented the shooting down of an RAF Hercules.
However, the e-mail was not opened until the day after the transport aircraft came down with the loss of ten lives on January 30, 2005, an inquest heard yesterday. An intelligence officer, referred to simply as “O” during the hearing at Trowbridge in Wiltshire, said that information about an attack on an American Black Hawk helicopter from the same ambush site was also not passed on to the relevant people until the day after the tragedy. The Hercules transport aircraft was hit by a burst of ground fire as it flew at low altitude towards Balad, close to Baghdad. Nine RAF personnel and an SAS signals specialist who were on board were killed. The inquest has already heard that the fuel tanks on the Hercules were not fitted with an explosive-suppressant foam.
The inquest continues.
TROWBRIDGE An e-mail that gave all coalition aircraft the position of a dug-in ambush between Baghdad and a US base to the west of the Iraqi capital should have prevented the shooting down of an RAF Hercules.
However, the e-mail was not opened until the day after the transport aircraft came down with the loss of ten lives on January 30, 2005, an inquest heard yesterday. An intelligence officer, referred to simply as “O” during the hearing at Trowbridge in Wiltshire, said that information about an attack on an American Black Hawk helicopter from the same ambush site was also not passed on to the relevant people until the day after the tragedy. The Hercules transport aircraft was hit by a burst of ground fire as it flew at low altitude towards Balad, close to Baghdad. Nine RAF personnel and an SAS signals specialist who were on board were killed. The inquest has already heard that the fuel tanks on the Hercules were not fitted with an explosive-suppressant foam.
The inquest continues.
This report begs more questions than it asks.
Who did he write the first letter to? Is the addressee to be called to the inquest? What are you taught to do in the RAF under these circumstances? Write again, giving a latest date for response? No answer, elevate to your boss and have him write to his boss? One obvious and correct thing to do is submit a Risk Notification to the IPT, forcing them to address it and prepare a risk mitigation plan – even if that is simply elevating it to their Customer/Sponsor (DEC). If it involves safety or airworthiness then it would automatically be notified immediately to the IPT’s 2 Star and his equivalent in the RTSA.
Improved, but against what baseline? Prior to 1991 the system was funded properly and demonstrably worked. By 2000, the date of the letters, it was in tatters having progressively deteriorated as funding for maintaining safety and airworthiness was slashed after 1991, year on year. So, is the new “improved” performance better than pre-1991, for example? Or is just better than 1999, which isn’t saying much? I note “communication” has apparently improved, but that is little comfort if the answer is still NO.
When the RAF pilot received no reply he wrote another on his return from West Africa, dispatching a copy to the Air Warfare Centre at RAF Waddington.
Who did he write the first letter to? Is the addressee to be called to the inquest? What are you taught to do in the RAF under these circumstances? Write again, giving a latest date for response? No answer, elevate to your boss and have him write to his boss? One obvious and correct thing to do is submit a Risk Notification to the IPT, forcing them to address it and prepare a risk mitigation plan – even if that is simply elevating it to their Customer/Sponsor (DEC). If it involves safety or airworthiness then it would automatically be notified immediately to the IPT’s 2 Star and his equivalent in the RTSA.
Wing Commander xxx xxxx, officer commanding operational intelligence wing at RAF Waddington, told the court that communications had since been improved.
Improved, but against what baseline? Prior to 1991 the system was funded properly and demonstrably worked. By 2000, the date of the letters, it was in tatters having progressively deteriorated as funding for maintaining safety and airworthiness was slashed after 1991, year on year. So, is the new “improved” performance better than pre-1991, for example? Or is just better than 1999, which isn’t saying much? I note “communication” has apparently improved, but that is little comfort if the answer is still NO.
Thanks Just....
My apologies - I should have made it clear I'm not having a pop at the individuals mentioned. It matters little how the constraint is notified - there are many ways - but the one thing that should happen is that anything tagged H&S, Duty of Care, Critical Operational Constraint etc gets to the respective 2 Stars within days, if not hours. I'd like to see the inquest ask THEM what they did.
My apologies - I should have made it clear I'm not having a pop at the individuals mentioned. It matters little how the constraint is notified - there are many ways - but the one thing that should happen is that anything tagged H&S, Duty of Care, Critical Operational Constraint etc gets to the respective 2 Stars within days, if not hours. I'd like to see the inquest ask THEM what they did.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the inquest is still on, why doesn't everybody have a nice big cup of shut the f*ck up?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went along to part of the Inquest yesterday, As I walked through the doors of the Town Hall 4 police officers were there. "Can we help you?" one said ,I am here for the Hercules inquest I replied . What interest do you have in it he said ."I was asked to come" . "Whats you name ?" He asked "Graham Knight" I said. "OK you are expected ".
Now maybe I am being a bit sensitive here but this is a PUBLIC Inquest, to be questioned by Police in Body Armour before I get in the court seems to me that Big Brother has certainly arrived in Trowbridge. Yes sensitive information is being heard In-Camera but the level of security is intimidating even during open sessions.
Still that won't stop me attending next week and this time I will go prepared.
Now maybe I am being a bit sensitive here but this is a PUBLIC Inquest, to be questioned by Police in Body Armour before I get in the court seems to me that Big Brother has certainly arrived in Trowbridge. Yes sensitive information is being heard In-Camera but the level of security is intimidating even during open sessions.
Still that won't stop me attending next week and this time I will go prepared.
Appropriate Security
this is a PUBLIC Inquest, to be questioned by Police in Body Armour before I get in the court seems to me that Big Brother has certainly arrived
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mick,
My point exactly. We should shut up because journalists will use this forum as a source of information about the inquest. I don't believe that feeding this with speculation and rumour is very helpful. Clearly, as a journalist you do.
My point exactly. We should shut up because journalists will use this forum as a source of information about the inquest. I don't believe that feeding this with speculation and rumour is very helpful. Clearly, as a journalist you do.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacks
"We should shut up because journalists will use this forum as a source of information about the inquest"
When I was there yesterday there were at least 5 journalists in court, they don't need Pprune as a source of information about the inquest they can hear it for themselves.
Pehaps you should put your cup of tea down, then wake-up and smell the coffee.
"We should shut up because journalists will use this forum as a source of information about the inquest"
When I was there yesterday there were at least 5 journalists in court, they don't need Pprune as a source of information about the inquest they can hear it for themselves.
Pehaps you should put your cup of tea down, then wake-up and smell the coffee.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GONE BY 2012
Age: 52
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More publicity the better as far as I'm concerned. The media pressure and the work of individuals outside the service led to the retro-fitting of ESF to C-130's, not MOD action! This should have been done when the airframes were originally purchased.
With the media interest we may just actually get to know the truth.
With the media interest we may just actually get to know the truth.
I have resisted the urge to say anything so far, but quite frankly, the standard of media reporting this week has been nothing short of appalling. And from the broadsheet sections of the press who you might normally expect to present a well balanced argument. However, what I have seen is little short of the press spinning what was said to generate headlines and sales and seems to bear little relationship to what was said on the day - god only knows what relationship it bears to the actual events at the time.
As Justthisonce flagged up, the comment on improved comms procedures by the Wg Cdr was to an entirely different topic to the one it was linked to in the preceding paragraphs.
And as for the Times article linked earlier stating that the relevant email was supposedly not opened until the day after the event ..... well lets have a look at what else is out there. Funnily enough, in the Telegraph - whose article I thought was one of the offending articles - there is a link to another article concerning the original reporting of the ambush against US forces which (if you believe all the other articles) would have saved the ac and crew http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...2/wiraq102.xml
According to this article from last week, the original reporting of the ambush
If the reporting didn't arrive until that late in the flight, then they may as well not have reported it at all - as far as this flight was concerned, that reporting was irrelevant and in all likelihood there is little chance that the crew would have been able to receive it at that point. So my question is - if this reporting is accurate - if the email informing UK forces of the US ambush didn't make it to the HQ until the ac was almost over the ambush area, then surely the focus should be on why US forces didn't pass that information sooner rather than why a UK HQ element screwed up? And why are the press not also reporting this angle in the same depth as they are the "email left unopened for hours" angle?
As it stands, it just looks to me like the press are taking lots of individual one liners to create a dramatic story of failure with the likely end result being that someone will be hung out to dry for the sake of MOD / senior officers rather than us actually getting to the bottom of what happened and making sure it doesn't happen again. And quite frankly, I find that rather distasteful, does not do anybody any good and is an insult to the crew in whose name this is being conducted.
As Justthisonce flagged up, the comment on improved comms procedures by the Wg Cdr was to an entirely different topic to the one it was linked to in the preceding paragraphs.
And as for the Times article linked earlier stating that the relevant email was supposedly not opened until the day after the event ..... well lets have a look at what else is out there. Funnily enough, in the Telegraph - whose article I thought was one of the offending articles - there is a link to another article concerning the original reporting of the ambush against US forces which (if you believe all the other articles) would have saved the ac and crew http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...2/wiraq102.xml
According to this article from last week, the original reporting of the ambush
did not arrive at British headquarters in the Gulf until 18 minutes before the aircraft exploded in mid-air after being hit by hostile fire ....Intelligence suggesting that there could be an ambush was never passed on to the aircrew who were flying at low level.
As it stands, it just looks to me like the press are taking lots of individual one liners to create a dramatic story of failure with the likely end result being that someone will be hung out to dry for the sake of MOD / senior officers rather than us actually getting to the bottom of what happened and making sure it doesn't happen again. And quite frankly, I find that rather distasteful, does not do anybody any good and is an insult to the crew in whose name this is being conducted.
Last edited by Melchett01; 10th Apr 2008 at 17:17. Reason: To make sense after a long day!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the tactical shortcomings of the comms systems in place on the ground and however badly the media is reporting this, I would like to comment on the hamfisted nature of the inquest itself in particular and the g'ment's approach towards the 'uncooperative' coroners at the moment, in general. Perhaps someone might like to remind 'the system' that one of the principles of freedom that those men died fighting for, was the right to be heard. Wouldn't it be ironic if while we were justifying deaths out there in pursuit of a higher goal, we were allowing them to be eroded under our noses?
Well said A1R.
In simple terms, was this not what BOWMAN was meant to do, to continually update situational awareness and so forth? Then it was cancelled in most of the candidate aircraft because they (D/BOWMAN, as was) had based the funding on "one installation fits all RW & FW aircraft" and then "It can be handheld, just hang the antenna out the door".
However, I know for a fact that the issue of how to get up to date intelligence (and other classified data) to crews down route was raised directly to AOC 2 Gp before this sad events of 179 and the AOC did nothing.
The failure of Int personnel to supply up-to-date information to crews flying to operational theatres has been known about since the days of the Falklands War.
When we staged through ASI, the 'Int' people did not even have the up-to-date Ramrod code for us to use with MPA.
During GW1, when staging through AKR, the 'Int' people had nothing concerning threats in theatre.
After the shooting had started in 1991, we had a good Int Cell at KKIA (for those crews who bothered to use it). But there were a number of exasperates ASMAgrams flashing about from the Tornado guys - they hadn't even been getting BDA feedback from the Spies......
At the end of my first tour on the VC10K, I was SIntO (amongst other things). All 38 Gp (I think we were still 38 then) SIntOs were summoned to a conference at RAF Upavon - and the AOC told us that it was our job to ensure that timely and accurate intelligence was passed on to our crews.
A few out of date signals stuffed into the 'Captains' Folder' was all that I recall from my last few overseas trips in 2002 - I sincerely hope that, with the many deployments crews now face, there is a far better system in place for up to date theatre intelligence briefs.
When we staged through ASI, the 'Int' people did not even have the up-to-date Ramrod code for us to use with MPA.
During GW1, when staging through AKR, the 'Int' people had nothing concerning threats in theatre.
After the shooting had started in 1991, we had a good Int Cell at KKIA (for those crews who bothered to use it). But there were a number of exasperates ASMAgrams flashing about from the Tornado guys - they hadn't even been getting BDA feedback from the Spies......
At the end of my first tour on the VC10K, I was SIntO (amongst other things). All 38 Gp (I think we were still 38 then) SIntOs were summoned to a conference at RAF Upavon - and the AOC told us that it was our job to ensure that timely and accurate intelligence was passed on to our crews.
A few out of date signals stuffed into the 'Captains' Folder' was all that I recall from my last few overseas trips in 2002 - I sincerely hope that, with the many deployments crews now face, there is a far better system in place for up to date theatre intelligence briefs.