Hercules inquest.

[Mick Smith]

Re the alleged media misreporting. I can't make a judgement on how accurate it is because I wasnt there, so I dont know what was said in the inquest, do the critics? Were they there? The media can only report what is said. I would like to hear an assessment from someone who was there. But my experience would tell me that journalists were only reporting what was said in the inquest. They would not be dragging in stuff from elsewhere and the standard of court reporting in the broadsheets is generally high, although saying that mistakes do happen. As for making it sound like a catalogue of disasters, things did go wrong here and inquests inevitably focus on what went wrong, it's their job, so inevitably that is what gets reported and if you can make up your own mind on the timeliness of the reporting so can anyone else.

Re the way in which the court has been turned into some sort of security centre, there are of course issues when SF personnel are giving testimony but a court is a public hearing. You don't have to be a journalist covering it or a witness or a relative of the deceased to get in. Unless a particular session is being held in camera, anybody can go in and the correct answer to a question like "what is your interest?" could quite rightly be "I have a public interest as a member of the public I am entitled to be here." There might of course be issues with space for an inquest that has aroused a large amount of public interest but space must be held open for the public at large. You all as members of the public have the right to see that justice is being done and that the authorities are not covering anything up, which is why it is being reported.

One other disturbing aspect has been reports from those who were there and are respected members of pprune that service security officers have taken to usurping the authority of the court. As the ham-fisted attempt to put the frighteners on Nige shows, all is not well here and you dont have to be a conspiracy theorist to have serious concerns about what is going on.

[RaPs]

Having read the previous threads about the Inquest, why don't you all turn up at Trowbridge Town Hall at 9.30 each day that the court is sitting and you will see exactly what is going on for yourselves. It has been noticable that most of the 'public area' is empty apart from the interest of the media presence. Instead of using your voice on here, if you have anything of interest that is relevant to this case, then contact the Coroners Office, because once this case is finished it's too late to have your say. He will be very interested to hear your 'facts'!

[chappie]

RaPs,



i absolutely agree with your view. of course there are security issues to be concerned about and no one wishes to have the security of personnel breached. we are entitled to hear all that went on , as grieving relatives, and as previously mentioned the nature of the inquest is such that we will get to hear about the failings. this does not mean that we do not have faith in our lads and lasses and the institution of the armed forces, but merely are left trying to find out why all these issues led to the loss of our loved ones.
yes, this is a discussion forum, and for those who really wish not to see the issue discussed i suggest you turn away now and look back when all is done...as they do with the footie results. honestly, what a stupid comment about shutting up (...and the rest)
it's going to be going on for some time yet, so plenty of time to come and lend your support to those you feel need it.

[Georgemorris]

Re cover-ups, inquests in camera etc. Be careful what you wish for. In the case of the Herc and the Nimrod and a number of Army inquests it seems likely that the villains will turn out to be 'the system', the MOD, 'their Airships' and sundry other not very well loved people and distraught relatives demanding to know why their particular son died will be given a lot of air time. We all want to know 'the truth' do we not? Well, there are a number of investigations in the pipeline where the villains may turn out to be the aircrew and the findings may turn out to be something approaching 'gross negligence'. Are we sure that we are prepared to accept that sort of verdict against 'our' people or would we prefer something a bit less pointed? Might it not be better if a degree of privacy were provided for the relatives of those who may be blamed?

Re intelligence failures. When the RAF arrived in Basra the ops setup consisted of a tent, a trestle table, and a telephone. Presumably things had evolved a bit by the time the Herc shootdown occurred but the fact that information exists does not mean it will get to the people involved even at a well set up main base, let alone 'in the field'.

[Tappers Dad]

Georgemorris

"there are a number of investigations in the pipeline where the villains may turn out to be the aircrew"

Which ones ?????

[AR1]

Some comments arriving in the local rag.

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/ne...d_to_stand.php

[Mick Smith]

FormerFlake If you have information relevant to this, you should tell the coroner not us. And I say that not as a journalist, I say that as a citizen. If you have something important to say you must tell the coroner.

[tucumseh]

AR1

Good post. From the link.........

DR said this Hercules commander retired in the months after voicing his concerns, which meant the matter fell off the RAF's "corporate memory" - a common problem in the Armed Forces as personnel move from post to post.

Maintaining Corporate Memory is a specific requirement of the Airworthiness regulations. The breach he speaks of is, as he says, common - and one of many. In fact, it's the norm.

The risk of gaps being created by Service personnel being posted every two years or so was, in the main, mitigated by the concept of project managers being engineers and many being "cradle to grave" men, with loyalty to one aircraft or engineering domain. Until, that is, CDP's decision to rid MoD of the remaining Corporate Memory in 1996.

[Al R]

BBC News has just had an update. It seems that the UK has always lagged behind other Air Forces in the development of fire and explosive suppressive systems. A 'senior officer', sent into bat explained that because no research was being done, he was in the dark about the benefits of ESF. Which presumably mitigates guilt.

The defence then, seems clear - '.. we're not guilty of incompetence guys - we've just never considered it to be as important as we now have with the benefit of hindsight'. And of course, thats far more subjective and easier to bear than being called an out of touch, incompetent g'ment patsie who is only out to lick his way up the greasy pole rather than rock the boat and kick arse for the sake of one's men.

[Top Right]

For tucumseh,

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".

The funding line wasn't even that clever. At the time (and we are talking more than 10 years ago), the embodiment forecasts were based on estimates for Army land vehicles with no concept or allowance for aircraft EMI/EMC matters and the associated costs. Hence there was a deficit of funding and the number of platforms to receive BOWMAN was reduced.

And as for the update of situational awareness, it was for friendly forces only (based on each BOWMAN radio squawking its position) and the common update was only going to be every few minutes (could have been as much as 10 if memory serves). While this was perfect for the LAND domain, the fact that aircraft move a tad faster than tanks/warriors hadn't dawned on everyone who were keen to be able to see the "live" picture.

Thankfully this is more than 10 years ago, and technology has moved on in many more SA areas.

[helgar33]

Just wanting to offer my sympathies and regards to those families affected by this awful loss; please pass them on to those you know. Wishing them all the strength for the inquest and beyond. Hope the result is what they have been hoping for and have waited an incredibe and intolerable amount of time for. I have a great deal of faith in the coroner and hope that this case and ours in May bring about positive financial changes within the Armed Forces; though I won't hold my breath. Kindest regards. XV230 widow.

[FormerFlake]

Recent U.S. military encounters with shoulder-fired missiles in Iraq and
Afghanistan can provide some useful operational insights which could be benefit
government, industry, and civil aviation officials involved in the protection of civil
aviation. In December 2003 an unidentified shoulder-fired SAM struck an engine of
a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III cargo aircraft that had just departed Baghdad
International Airport.

21 The aircraft, which was outfitted with an antimissile
protective safety, made an emergency landing at Baghdad International Airport.22 In
January 2004, a C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft - also having an antimissile system -
was hit by a shoulder-fired SAM and the aircraft was able to and successfully.23 One
senior Air Force official reportedly stated that “for whatever reason, the [defensive]
systems on the airplanes didn’t counter [the attacks]. We don’t have any indications
that it was a system malfunction.”24 The official speculated that sensor placement,
and aircraft altitude and maneuvering played a role in these systems not functioning
as they were intended.

From

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31741.pdf

This information shows several things.

1. The low level SAM threat was well known in Iraq, especially around Baghdad before 179 took off that fateful day.
2. DAS is not perfect so a back ups such as OBIGS (the C5 and C17 have OBIGS) or ESF is needed.
3. The US want better protection for their civil aircraft than the UK want for their military aircraft.

[nigegilb]

Thanks for the kind messages of support.

Latest summary of the Inquest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7354076.stm

[Al R]

Hi Nige.

"Several witnesses, specialists in these sorts of RAF operations, said they had never heard of ESF until after XV179 was shot down."



Even I'd heard of it - a has been slob of an ex Gunner.

[tucumseh]

"Several witnesses, specialists in these sorts of RAF operations, said they had never heard of ESF until after XV179 was shot down."

Strange, given it's specifically mentioned in the Airworthiness Requirements for Service Aircraft. Perhaps they were reading a different version.

[Tappers Dad]

ColinKemp3!
All this inquest has done is cause hurt and has tarnished the name of our squadron and those good friends of ours who died.

The inquest is there to get to the bottom of why 10 men died, every witnesses has to swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If you find that truth does not go along with your own perceptions that is your problem. Facts are facts however unpalatable you may find them.

[Softie]

TD said:

If you find that truth does not go along with your own perceptions that is your problem. Facts are facts however unpalatable you may find them.

Sir, please remember this when you find the facts unpalatable.

[Al R]

Colin,

No one, least of all me, would like to see our dirty washing aired in public. But, come on. Who or what is more important? The lives of our men, or a perception to be maintained and based on falsehood? The bottom line is, that she was lost because of incompetence and whilst I am not averse to people being quietly shunted out sideways if they are found lacking, this goes way beyond that. Time and time again, lives have been lost because of political, administrative or logistical shortcomings. Thats wrong, and worse than that, its unprofessional and everyone I imagine, would have that at the heart of their reasoning.. or at least, they should have.

In many ways, I have sympathy for CAS. He's not a bad or gash person - but he's working with a system that is devoted to wielding the cosh and not a shield - a politicised Civil Service which once would have been with him but now, possibly isn't. That needs to be explored too, as does the nagging doubt that maybe this isn't all a red herring, and that perhaps there isn't a bit of a smokescreen being laid down. Perhaps ESF isn't the real issue here. I do respect your perspective - you're obviously proud to serve, and you've got a great, punchy attitude. But you can still have that and improve things for the troops - at the expense of plasma screens everywhere in Main Building maybe?

[Truckkie]

He said: "My view is that Operational Low Flying (OLF) was not the correct tactic for this flight."
He said this was also the official view of the Air Warfare Centre, which provides advice and guidance to crews operating in hostile conditions.

This doesn't ring true to me - I seem to remember that the AWC advice was changed after the loss of XV179 in regards to OLF.

Perhaps AWC are just trying to cover their arse?

[The Equivocator]

The sacking was for a variety of reasons if I recall correctly.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you can justify any form of low flying on a milk run over that leg.

Day OLF requirements? You gotta be kidding...

This isn't a crew issue though, it goes much higher up the chain than that.