Hercules inquest.

[Chugalug2]

Squadron Leader Christopher Seal, a former flight commander with 47 Squadron, said he wrote a "lessons identified" memo - referred to despairingly as "lessons ignored" - after returning from serving in Afghanistan in 2002

Having been effectively ignored by the RAF and MOD since 2002, at last Sqn Ldr Chris Seal has been listened to and his evidence formally recorded and noted. The careless and off hand way his important safety related testimony was dealt with by his then employer is evidence of the cavalier approach that the MOD has to its Duty of Care to those in the Armed Forces and the Civilian Population at large. Just as it has taken an external independent agency, the Coroners Court, to get his views listened to, so it will need an external and independent Military Airworthiness Authority to ensure that military airworthiness regulations are properly enforced. Well done, Sir! I hope that others with evidence that should be laid before this Inquest will follow his lead, taking advantage of the unforeseen deferment until October to do what is right. If you have the answer to tucumseh's question then do what is right. You will never forgive yourself if you do not!

Al R, thank you for that most amusing popular song with which I was not previously familiar. What is 'pulp'? Would the gentlemen of the press please note that question in the reports that they prepare?

[Al R]

Pulp is a modern beat combo of no mean import, which, some 10 years ago was of influence to young people who would attend discotheques and tap their feet in time to the infectious beat.

--

He expressed frustration today at the "convoluted" nature of obtaining crucial safety modifications, which involved long-winded chains of command.

If anything, this incident is going to encourage commanders to speak up and to keep hammering home their message, if for nothing else, for fear of not doing the 'right' thing which might return to haunt them.

[airsound]

A Statement from a highly esteemed colleague

Press Statement by Squadron Leader Christopher T Seal RAF (Rtd)

24 April 2008

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Press,

CORONER’S INQUEST INTO CRASH OF RAF HERCULES XV179


I am sure you will appreciate that, until Coroner’s Inquest into the crash of RAF Hercules XV 179 is complete, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any evidence that has been produced to date. However, I would like to make the following short statement:


Firstly, I commend the Coroner and his Official Investigator for the thoroughness of their investigation. I am convinced that no stone will be left unturned in their quest for the truth.

Secondly, and because I feel that up until now the public have not been able to fully appreciate the predicament of our Service aviators, I would like to pay tribute to ALL our Hercules Crews. For many years, and especially since 2001, they have consistently put themselves in harm’s way - at great personal risk. Their bravery and fortitude is in the highest traditions of the Royal Air Force and it was my great privilege to serve with them. In this, of course, I include the crew XV179 and the crews presently ‘on operations’.

Lastly, and most importantly, I wish to make public my admiration and continued support for the relatives and families of those who perished on XV179. Meeting with these deeply courageous and determined people was a humbling and inspiring experience; their steely resolve, inner strength and stoicism are an example to us all. Wherever I am able, I will endeavour to help them in their efforts to ensure that the tragedy of XV179 is not repeated.


Christopher T Seal

[Mick Smith]

It is good to see someone sticking to their guns like this. There have been a shocking number of people saying "I can't recall" which is frankly fairly transparent.

[OmegaV6]

One thing you CAN be certain of .... that good Sqn Ldr will NOT back down... he never did before, I guess he won't start now !!

Folks might not like his point of view or approach at times .. but they should all remember and appreciate his tenacity

[chappie]

thanks chris, but it is you that deserves the honour. i certainly know that i am not worthy of what you say. thanks anyway.
it is of absolute importance the attention and praise goes onto those brave enough to fight for what they believe in....i.e..ESF.

I am in such in a position. there is so much i want to say. but what i feel confident in expressing is that it is a disgusting travesty that the senior officers of our armed forces simply cannot recall anything. i do not trust nor do i or we believe you sirs. shame on you.

that is all.
i am too upset to say anything more right now.

[The Equivocator]

So apart from the Flip Seal show...

Does anyone know why the journo withdrew his post the other day?

Pressure, or response?

[Chugalug2]

So apart from the Flip Seal show...

The only show that I can see from here, Equivocator, is the show of moral cowardice from those who know but pretend not to. This struggle to get the Hercules Fleet the protection it was denied for 40 years and to properly investigate the airworthiness shortcomings that culminated in the tragic loss of XV179 and her crew is approaching its zenith. When the dust settles it will be the old values that will have counted. Courage, tenacity, faith and the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. Those who would sneer at such values are the ones who are wanting in my view. It is surely as plain as a pikestaff that those values so prevalent in our fighting men and women are conspicuous by their absence in what are euphemistically called the corridors of power. Those corridors, and those who inhabit them, will be seen as unworthy of that power when this case, the Nimrod one and the cruel farrago of the Mull Chinook are finally laid to rest. Nothing short of a complete reform of the MOD is required, and important functions such as Military Airworthiness Authority rested from its deceitful maw. That is the show in town. Watch this space!

[airsound]

So, as everybody probably gathered, the inquest was adjourned "part heard" on Friday, and will reopen on 30 September. Mr Coroner Masters reckons it'll take another three weeks after that.

I would like to echo Flip's words about the families. If I have one lasting impression of this whole extraordinary event taking place in a rather dingy but somehow impressive No 1 Courtroom at Trowbridge, it is of the immense courage and dignity of every one of the families, to say nothing of their occasional humour, and, of course, their inevitable tears.

Latest goings on at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7368807.stm

airsound

[tucumseh]

At #106 I said........

For those interested in how far back MoD's very detailed knowledge of ESF dates, and its purpose, please follow this link....

http://www.dstan.mod.uk/dtd/data/5627.pdf


Ministry of Defence (Procurement Executive)

D.T.D. 5627 Aerospace Material Specification

"Fibrous Polyamide Material for use as an Explosion Suppressant and as a baffle material in Aircraft Fuel Tanks".

Dated April 1982


Any advances on 1982?

Def Stan 00-970 (Design and Airworthiness Requirements for Service Aircraft) references Mil Standard Mil-B-83054B "Baffle and Inerting Material, Aircraft Fuel Tanks" dated 17th May 1978.

Any advance on 1978 for proof of UK MoD knowledge? (Already have the Lockheed patent dated 1969).

[Tappers Dad]

I understand that the adjournment happened as given the time left available they were not going to be able to have all the witnesses they wanted. the lawyers were to be unable to continue after a set point and the families were not prepared to continue without legal representation.

During the course of the inquest 4 extra witnesses were added to the list.. it was suggested to drop witnesses but they were not prepared to do that.

It was very hard for the families to have to do this but they were very mindful that a lifetime is a long time without getting all their questions answered. Military Aviation is a dangerous profession, but that point alone does not mean that this situation of losing 10 men needs to be just accepted, by the bereaved and those left serving.

It is all the more apparent that there is this proverbial time bomb that is ticking away and no-one wants to be the witness who's hands it goes off in. I understand the families were tired of witnesses saying I can't recall, as an answer. neither do they buy it. Although the new date is far off the interested parties agreed the date to help minimise the impact on their families as they now have to endure this process again.
I am sure the families will not stop asking questions. They will not let the systemic failings continue to put the lives of our men and women in the armed forces into unnecessary jeopardy.

[The Equivocator]

Can anyone who's been to the inquest give us a quick precis of what 'couldn't be recalled' by some of the witnesses?

Ta

[airsound]

Can anyone who's been to the inquest give us a quick precis of what 'couldn't be recalled' by some of the witnesses?

That’s a tall order, Equivocator, but here goes. These are all from my own contemporaneous notes.

Witness EA, now a Wg Cdr and OC 99, was, between 2001 and 2003, OC the 47 Sqn Flt whose name we are not allowed by the Coroner to mention. EA had “no recollection” of being given a presentation on ESF in 2002. The Coroner pointed out that a US Exchange Officer had mentioned ESF to him. He had no recollection of that officer or anyone else mentioning it. “Wouldn’t you have such a recollection?” asked the Coroner. “Not necessarily, we had so many factors at the time.....”

Graham Redgrave, a senior structural engineer at Marshall Aerospace didn’t recall having the wing from XV196, which had been damaged by small arms fire, in to Marshall’s as a damage check for XV179, and couldn’t recall when MoD first contacted them about ESF.

Witness DT was OC 47 Sqn from 2000 to 2003. He didn’t recall seeing Chris Seal’s Post Operation Report despite Seal having given evidence that he had seen it being forwarded up the chain over DT’s signature. The Coroner asked if he would have passed on Seal’s recommendations without question, and he said he respected Seal’s judgement. The Coroner found that “very strange”.

Air Cdre Ray Lock was Lyneham Staish Mar 2002 - Dec 2003. The Coroner said that a US exchange officer had been so concerned about the lack of ESF that he had spoken to the then Gp Capt Lock about it, and the Gp Capt had said that for anything to be done about it, someone would have to be shot down and killed. Air Cdre Lock said he did not recall any such meeting at any time. When questioned further by John Cooper, barrister for two of the families, he had “no recollection” of ESF being part of the discussion.

When the 3 Alpha upgrade to the Mk3 Hercules was coming through, he was aked if he recalled having any conversations about Hercules vulnerability, “no, no recollection”.

After Chris Seal’s report went up to 2 Gp and onwards, Air Cdre Lock said he wished he could “tell the court I went back to Seal to tell him what was happening, but I have no recollection of that”.

Those are my recollections of the more significant non-recollections of witnesses. Slightly off the subject, but possibly significant was Chris Seal’s observation to the court that the whole system was skewed because the people who should have the corporate memory are the Integrated Project Team (IPT), and they didn’t appear to have been involved in events following his Post Operation Report. He suggested that this lack of application of corporate memory was a break in the chain.

airsound

[tucumseh]

May I offer some comments on Airsound’s post.

1. Marshall Aerospace don’t deny MoD contacted them, just can’t recall when. I don’t know what their formal appointment is, Aircraft Design Authority or Custodian, but either way it is utterly inconceivable that they didn’t know about ESF from very early in their involvement with C130. Their contract with MoD to maintain the build standard (and I’m assuming MoD have met this basic airworthiness requirement, although I acknowledge it’s been widely deemed optional and a waste of money for many years) should contain a DIRECTED sub-contract on Lockheed to facilitate dialogue about this very subject (aircraft safety design). It is equally inconceivable that they don’t have voluminous records of their efforts to have MoD fit ESF, over a very long period of time.


2. Vulnerability

Extract from Def Stan 00-970 Part 1/5 Section 9 - Vulnerability to Battle Damage (Read in conjunction with my comment on Marshall Aerospace above)……..

“The Chief Designer SHALL (i.e. mandatory) consult with the Integrated Project Team Leader (IPTL) and establish whether, and how, the vulnerability of the aeroplane Defined and Specified Threat Effects (see below) will be assessed and consider how subsequent design changes, if any, will be introduced”.

Table 4: Table of Defined Threat Effects

(Includes)

(a) Inert bullets
(b) Inert fragments
(e) Incendiary bullets

That is, it is a requirement to conduct and maintain a Vulnerability Analysis. The very Threats and Effects which XV179 was subjected to are spelt out in the Def Stan (bullets/fragments), so one cannot claim not to have thought of them. This Analysis will be much like a Risk Register, in that having identified the threat and effect there MUST be a mitigation plan (e.g. fit ESF) and the decision as to whether or not to implement it and the rational underpinning the decision MUST be recorded.


3. Corporate Memory. It is a basic requirement of JSP553 (Airworthiness Regulations) that Corporate Memory be maintained. The Regs do say (correctly) that much of this requirement is met by maintaining various standards, like Def Stans and JSPs. This would seem to have been acceptable in this case, as evidenced by my previous posts which clearly demonstrate these Standards contain numerous and very detailed references to ESF, going back 30 years. It remains, therefore, for those responsible for the aircraft to actually read them, inwardly digest and take action.

[nigegilb]

Slightly different subject, along the lines of Govt meddling in the Inquest System;

"The provisions relating to draft clauses 64 and 65 Counter Terrorism Bill were heard in Committee on 24 April 2008 chaired by John Bercow and Edward O’Hara

An extract at colums 129 – 134 was particularly revealing.

Called to give evidence and advice to the committee from the point of view of an experienced coroner was Mr Andre Rebello, Her Majesty’s Coroner for the City of Liverpool and honorary secretary of the Coroners’ Society.

Mr Rebello , in response to a question put to him by Mr Dominic Grieve MP (Beaconsfield)(Con), stated that his organisation had not been informed or consulted by the government over their plans to legislate in this way and had only learned of the legislative proposals in the last two or three weeks. He stated that these provisions would cause difficulties for openness and transparency since if a coroner was to be appointed by a secretary of state, then the Secretary of State would effectively be a judge in his own cause.

Mrs. Sharon Hodgson (Gateshead, East and Washington, West)(Lab) asked Mr Rebello for his opinion of the proposal that inquests in some circumstances should be held before suitably trained and cleared coroners appointed by the Secretary of State? Mr Rebello responded that in his view, it drives a coach and horses through the separation of powers. If a suitably qualified or specially ticketed coroner needs to be brought in, it certainly cannot be any part of the Executive that appoints the coroner. Well, it could be, but our rule of law would be going out the window. Mrs Hodgson pressed him on this by asking whether his view would be any different if they were suitably trained and cleared and if there are specific circumstances. Mr Rebello responded by stating that in his view:

“you cannot pick your own tribunal. Basically, the case comes before the court and the judge, whoever they are, is the person who tries it. What we would be doing here is throwing out the person who should ordinarily hear that case according to the Coroners Act and replacing them with what the public might perceive to be a Government stool pigeon who would side with the Government. That is probably not the case at all, but if we needed specially trained coroners, there are only 110 coroners, so why should not every coroner be specially trained and security cleared? If that were the case, there could be no accusation that the Executive was interfering with the judiciary.”

He added:

“I am particularly concerned about our responsibility with regard to the Human Rights Act. I heard the Minister on Tuesday say that the Bill was compliant with the Human Rights Act, but that is not my view.”
_________________
Believe nothing you hear until it is officially denied!

It is not a cynical observation - it is an accurate observation of a cynical state of affairs!"

[JessTheDog]

I doubt these provisions will ever reach the statute book. If they did, they would be invoked at ever opportunity to reduce government exposure on uncomfortable issues - from the London bombs to military deaths.

[The Poison Dwarf]

Where it really rests

In all of the discussions on XV179, XV230 et al, one point has been overlooked.

The powers of the military hierarchy and the MoD to do ANYTHING about the well known and well documented shortcomings are strictly limited, EVERYTHING is run by the Treasury, everything is done down to a price not up to a standard, from service accommodation to spares, fuel and airframe hours, and it's much the same for the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines.

That is why training hours have been cut to the bone, why conversion courses have been cut back and back, why there are no airframes available for training even if the allocated hours had not been cut.

That is why the political dogma of giving assets away to industry, much of which is not even British owned any more, while effectively, if not actually, banning in-house bids is so prevalent.

The rationale is chillingly simple, if it costs X to put things right and Y to pay for things going wrong and X>Y, then the lowest priced option (in this case Y) wins and it is considered a cost effective way of doing business, moreover if, in the process, the blame can be laid at someone else's door, then so much the better.

They (the Treasury mandarins) know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

[tucumseh]

Poison Dwarf

While you are correct that the Treasury are overly zealous when blindly slashing MoD budgets, it must also be remembered that the MoD are among the most deliberately wasteful Government departments. I say deliberate, because they know they do it, have been criticised continually by bodies such as the Public Accounts Committee, yet have the gall to formally discipline staff who complain about being instructed to knowingly waste funds. This is a simple, verifiable fact and a policy upheld by successive Mins(AF).

As for ESF, I’m not convinced the fair and reasonable cost is really £600k per aircraft. The costings published by the US say below $600k for retrofit, around half if embodied during production. So, how much for fleet embodiment? £25M? Bear in mind there is little or no development cost or timescale, as ESF is a core fit as far as Lockheed are concerned.

Another formal ruling…… Having to find £25M for any requirement (never mind a safety modification), do all the staff work, initiate and manage delivery is considered a routine task for the lowest technical grade in an IPT (typically C2). This has been MoD’s (PE, DPA etc) consistent position for as long as I can remember and, yes, I’ve done it more than once. In cases like this the IPT should self task – it’s a simple DIY job. There are aspects of this policy I don’t agree with – for example additional manpower is usually refused (certainly for something a small as a £25M no-brainer mod programme); but even that is easily overcome. Yes, you still need an endorsed and approved Business Case, but again this is a simple in-house process, with the word “Safety” featuring prominently. Despite MoD denials, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone close to Hercules had already done all this in the past, but the person refusing to approve is being protected.

As ever, I can only speak from personal experience. To me, what I describe is common practice. But when experience is diluted and corporate memory fades, that is when the Treasury take advantage of MoD as there is no-one to mount a knowledgeable rebuttal. While some of the criticism of MoD is warranted - especially deliberate waste - some of it is ludicrous yet no effort is made to defend us. I’m afraid it is a long time since our management set the proper tone, or made any attempt to lead from the front. I shall be utterly astonished if the outcome in this case is much removed from Nimrod – MoD having to accept liability due to failure to implement procedure, process and regulations.

[JessTheDog]

The rationale is chillingly simple, if it costs X to put things right and Y to pay for things going wrong and X>Y, then the lowest priced option (in this case Y) wins and it is considered a cost effective way of doing business, moreover if, in the process, the blame can be laid at someone else's door, then so much the better.

They (the Treasury mandarins) know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Agreed. However, there is such a thing as a "duty of care" that stretches far beyond the estimates of the bean-counters. It is incumbent on those who wear uniform and have rank to do the best for their subordinates, whether career-limiting or not. The chilling rationale of the Treasury has been blown apart by the Collins ruling which now gives personnel some protection in theatre, although this is subject to appeal by disgracefully mendacious ministers. The Collins ruling makes it more imperative that those in positions of responsibilty speak out and, if rebuffed, keep a paper trail handy.