Relatives claim government failed to protect victims of RAF Hercules crash
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is so much i want to say but then i read the messages left and at a time of extreme emotional stress am unable to tolerate or bear the incoming that would come my way.read into that what u will as no doubt u have your opinions made already. compensation is one of the factors of this action and shame on you for those who seem only to concentrate on that factor alone. there is no amount of money that can right the wrong that has been done but to so many of you who speculate but weren't at the inquest i think the time for speculation is over. an unacceptable culture and practice had developed, corners were cut and failings were found to have occurred. however, remeber this, while this lies fresh in your mind for a few days maybe weeks, i and many others live with the consequences of the failings that need not have happened every single day, and believe you me they are long, long days and nights. this may have taken some time to get to this point, but it'll never be as long as the lifetime of enduring the pontless loss of someone so cherished, especially a loss that could have been prevented. the ones that are left behind are not the ones to be villified it is the establishment who continue to place little if no value on the lives of it's personnel.
however, i know there is no point saying anything more, i will prepare myself for incoming, and whatever you direct at me will be taken but remember this...u will never understand unless u have walked a day in my/our shoes. so do your worst as it will not compare to the pain of the loss that i/we have been forced to endure.
however, i know there is no point saying anything more, i will prepare myself for incoming, and whatever you direct at me will be taken but remember this...u will never understand unless u have walked a day in my/our shoes. so do your worst as it will not compare to the pain of the loss that i/we have been forced to endure.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oil Can, having witnessed many days of the Inquest I can tell you it was a study in how to avoid responsibility. Trying to get a witness who was in post at the time was on occasion futile. Trying to find anyone to take reponsibility for Fitness for Purpose was a magical mystery tour. Trying to find relevant documents was in many cases impossible. Watching people lie and economise the truth was insightful. If "they" don't want the responsibility, then "they" are clearly in the wrong job or over promoted. We witnessed a culture that simply failed the boys.
If you really don't know who "they" are email me, we can talk about it.
Meanwhile, it is not half as difficult as you make out to change the system. Minimum agreed and enforceable "in theatre" equipment lists would be a start. But commanders might have to stand up to senior officers and say "No". And senior officers might have to turn to their political masters and say "No" we can't do it. Fixing the airworthiness system for legacy aircraft is more difficult, but the expertise is out there to help. A new generation of officers blooded in Iraq and Afg will also help, the dead wood must be clearing now.
The Government in their announcements after XV179 were clear that the crew had no right to life. They were carrying out a mission that involved risk and risk is the nature of the game. This position is about to be challenged. I will have absolutely no say in the resulting verdict. What I can say, is that intelligent folk unconnected with the military were, at times, gobsmacked by what the MoD laid on in Trowbridge. The families I spoke with did not want heads, they wanted an honest acknowledgement of what had gone wrong, and an apology with. To his credit, John Reid was one of a handful of officers who lived up to the title and gave them that apology.
The crew of XV179 died, in my opinion unnecessarily. Read Chappie's post, to see the devastating effect one death can have on just one person. Life is precious, it is time the MoD took that point on board, before embarking on expeditionary warfare with depleted resources.
If you really don't know who "they" are email me, we can talk about it.
Meanwhile, it is not half as difficult as you make out to change the system. Minimum agreed and enforceable "in theatre" equipment lists would be a start. But commanders might have to stand up to senior officers and say "No". And senior officers might have to turn to their political masters and say "No" we can't do it. Fixing the airworthiness system for legacy aircraft is more difficult, but the expertise is out there to help. A new generation of officers blooded in Iraq and Afg will also help, the dead wood must be clearing now.
The Government in their announcements after XV179 were clear that the crew had no right to life. They were carrying out a mission that involved risk and risk is the nature of the game. This position is about to be challenged. I will have absolutely no say in the resulting verdict. What I can say, is that intelligent folk unconnected with the military were, at times, gobsmacked by what the MoD laid on in Trowbridge. The families I spoke with did not want heads, they wanted an honest acknowledgement of what had gone wrong, and an apology with. To his credit, John Reid was one of a handful of officers who lived up to the title and gave them that apology.
The crew of XV179 died, in my opinion unnecessarily. Read Chappie's post, to see the devastating effect one death can have on just one person. Life is precious, it is time the MoD took that point on board, before embarking on expeditionary warfare with depleted resources.
Last edited by nigegilb; 17th Apr 2009 at 23:50.
nigegilb:
Absolutely agree
There I'm afraid we part company. The way UK military airworthiness provision has been deliberately and wilfully been eviscerated over the past twenty years or so by senior RAF officers, amongst others, is proof once again that self regulation does not work. In aviation self regulation not only does not work but ensures that avoidable accidents happen and that needless preventable deaths result. As you so rightly point out, one only has to read chappie's anguished post to gain some scintilla of the never ending cost of such loss. The reform of UK Military Airworthiness Provision WILL be difficult, WILL be costly, WILL take many years. Again as you say many legacy aircraft will continue to lack airworthiness until they are finally withdrawn, thanks to the deliberate policy of destroying audit trails essential for its maintenance. The ultimate threat to this country's security has emerged as not the Soviet Union, sundry warlords and dictators, the Taliban, or Al Qaeda, but its own Ministry of Defence. As regards UK Military Airworthiness the solution must be to wrest it away from the operator, ie the MOD, to a separate and independent MAA. It will have a difficult and awesome challenge, but if it is not met many more needless deaths will be assured.
That is why you need an airworthiness system that delivers fitness for purpose.
Meanwhile, it is not half as difficult as you make out to change the system.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the problems about lawyers is that they are only helping enforce the laws of the land made by the government that WE voted in.
After an accident involving fatalities, some parties want to see retribution and blame (its one of the less endearing facets of human nature) while most want change and prevention of recurrence and here the lawyers are also employed. And if compensation is desired, the lawyers get involved again.
Now, if the affronted parties want to see an improvement in the system, then it is often the case that the organisation involved will resist (they see change as costly). Instead, individuals within the organisation get 'blamed' ie the ones who committed the last 'unsafe act' in the chain leading to the accident. This is the easy route for all concerned - easier to prove and to direct attributed blame - and for those seeking retribution (be they victims, or the punative organisation itself), they can find it more 'psychologically satisfying'. Sadly, as we know the last 'unsafe act' is often more of a symptom of a 'sick organisation' - ie the slices of cheese have big holes and there are not enough of them.
Here is the conundrum - if we rightly then absolve the individual of blame (unless there is absolute proof of negligence) then the 'sick' parts of the system that let the individual down are the ones the lawyers should focus their attention on. However, if these people involved in these supporting 'cheese slices' then can prove they were not negligent, then their bosses come under scrutiny and so on up the chain - but no-one is blamed unless negligence can be proved (perhaps this is why audit trails go cold and files get destroyed too soon?).
In an ideal world, nonetheless, the net result of this is that, the organisation learns its lessons, accepts responsibility ands then gets on to make the system more safe - in an open an honest manner. This is a 'just culture' - slightly different to a 'no-blame' culture but very similar.
NOW, THE BIG PROBLEM with this is that it is slightly utopian becasue organisations (or the people in it) do not have the courage to accept responsibility, as they believe that will open them up to expensive law suits (here come the lawyers again). In reality, what organisations (like the MoD) do is to deny everything and make the lawyers work very hard to prove the organisation was indeed 'sick'.
Bottom line - for the organisation to change for the better, the lawyers have to put the bosses under great pressure for fear of legal obligations, which include compensation and personal liability. Until then, the bosses will bluff and bluster and nothing will change; in fact, the situation probably will get worse because they 'got away with it'. So, we would be much worse off without the lawyers, as we would find it hard to prove that the organisations' layers of cheese were too few and far between and the mice had been feasting!
Therefore, for those arguing against the legal actions against the MoD in this case (and Nimrod and Chinook etc), please get real - do you really think the MoD would have made so many changes for the better since 2001 if it hadn't been for the use of the legal angle and lawyers? Of course not, the MoD would still be claimimg 'military risk' if they'd got away with it in the first instance.
Roland,
I agree that there is a possibility of 'compensation culture' monster lurking somewhere but better that than a truly sick organisation that keeps on abusing the very people that serve it. If the MoD had been more honest and hard-nosed with the Govt and Treasury at any time since 2001, then this might not have happened. I believe that the MoD and Def Min had an option, if not a moral responsibility, to confront Gordon Browne and the Treasury about the percieved costs of war and the MoDs obvious shortfall. Indeed, I believe that GB onced stated that the MoD must ask for more money if it needed it (somewhere in Hansard I recall) - but they didn't. Perhaps this was treasury spin, who knows? But it is the people like Hoon and Reid and 2 prime ministers, along with a number of senior Service chiefs and v sen offs (going back to 1990s) who ultimately caused the MoD to become a such sick organisation and who wouldn't rock the boat.
I don't want to blame and sue them - I just want them to admit it and fix it!
If takes the pressure of a compensation monster, so be it.
After an accident involving fatalities, some parties want to see retribution and blame (its one of the less endearing facets of human nature) while most want change and prevention of recurrence and here the lawyers are also employed. And if compensation is desired, the lawyers get involved again.
Now, if the affronted parties want to see an improvement in the system, then it is often the case that the organisation involved will resist (they see change as costly). Instead, individuals within the organisation get 'blamed' ie the ones who committed the last 'unsafe act' in the chain leading to the accident. This is the easy route for all concerned - easier to prove and to direct attributed blame - and for those seeking retribution (be they victims, or the punative organisation itself), they can find it more 'psychologically satisfying'. Sadly, as we know the last 'unsafe act' is often more of a symptom of a 'sick organisation' - ie the slices of cheese have big holes and there are not enough of them.
Here is the conundrum - if we rightly then absolve the individual of blame (unless there is absolute proof of negligence) then the 'sick' parts of the system that let the individual down are the ones the lawyers should focus their attention on. However, if these people involved in these supporting 'cheese slices' then can prove they were not negligent, then their bosses come under scrutiny and so on up the chain - but no-one is blamed unless negligence can be proved (perhaps this is why audit trails go cold and files get destroyed too soon?).
In an ideal world, nonetheless, the net result of this is that, the organisation learns its lessons, accepts responsibility ands then gets on to make the system more safe - in an open an honest manner. This is a 'just culture' - slightly different to a 'no-blame' culture but very similar.
NOW, THE BIG PROBLEM with this is that it is slightly utopian becasue organisations (or the people in it) do not have the courage to accept responsibility, as they believe that will open them up to expensive law suits (here come the lawyers again). In reality, what organisations (like the MoD) do is to deny everything and make the lawyers work very hard to prove the organisation was indeed 'sick'.
Bottom line - for the organisation to change for the better, the lawyers have to put the bosses under great pressure for fear of legal obligations, which include compensation and personal liability. Until then, the bosses will bluff and bluster and nothing will change; in fact, the situation probably will get worse because they 'got away with it'. So, we would be much worse off without the lawyers, as we would find it hard to prove that the organisations' layers of cheese were too few and far between and the mice had been feasting!
Therefore, for those arguing against the legal actions against the MoD in this case (and Nimrod and Chinook etc), please get real - do you really think the MoD would have made so many changes for the better since 2001 if it hadn't been for the use of the legal angle and lawyers? Of course not, the MoD would still be claimimg 'military risk' if they'd got away with it in the first instance.
Roland,
I agree that there is a possibility of 'compensation culture' monster lurking somewhere but better that than a truly sick organisation that keeps on abusing the very people that serve it. If the MoD had been more honest and hard-nosed with the Govt and Treasury at any time since 2001, then this might not have happened. I believe that the MoD and Def Min had an option, if not a moral responsibility, to confront Gordon Browne and the Treasury about the percieved costs of war and the MoDs obvious shortfall. Indeed, I believe that GB onced stated that the MoD must ask for more money if it needed it (somewhere in Hansard I recall) - but they didn't. Perhaps this was treasury spin, who knows? But it is the people like Hoon and Reid and 2 prime ministers, along with a number of senior Service chiefs and v sen offs (going back to 1990s) who ultimately caused the MoD to become a such sick organisation and who wouldn't rock the boat.
I don't want to blame and sue them - I just want them to admit it and fix it!
If takes the pressure of a compensation monster, so be it.
Chappie, your dignified media appearances of recent days must have been very, very difficult for you and I congratulate you for the restraint you exhibited.
Roly, old chum, please reflect on your comments. You simply cannot fully comprehend the pain felt by Chappie and others in her tragic situation. It might be inconvenient to your budget if MoD has to pay punitive settlements - frankly that's just tough $hit. Kick arse, don't lick arse. Then things might change.
The MoD clearly does have a significant case to answer regarding its woeful performance regarding large aeroplane safety. Be that accurate threat assessment for those in theatre or basic airworthiness standards. Legal folk are now ensuring that the chickens are returning to roost; about b£oody tiime too!
Roly, old chum, please reflect on your comments. You simply cannot fully comprehend the pain felt by Chappie and others in her tragic situation. It might be inconvenient to your budget if MoD has to pay punitive settlements - frankly that's just tough $hit. Kick arse, don't lick arse. Then things might change.
The MoD clearly does have a significant case to answer regarding its woeful performance regarding large aeroplane safety. Be that accurate threat assessment for those in theatre or basic airworthiness standards. Legal folk are now ensuring that the chickens are returning to roost; about b£oody tiime too!
I'm also sick of the "compensation culture" and "there must be someone I can blame culture". The crusades of the families and ill-informed legal teams have left us with 4 legacies:
1. Nimrods grounded 4 years after the event because senior officers are sh!t scared that something will go wrong leaving their ambitions in tatters. I'd still fly in one before they were grounded and I like my life.
2. ESF being fitted at great expense that has not been "used in anger" since fitment.
3. A big hole in an overstretched defence budget (possibly getting bigger after more compensatory payouts) - the knock effect of this is that the right equipment that is equipment wanted by experts in defence, not lawyers and families, cannot be paid for. Thanks a bunch guys!
4. A gathering of senior officers that are so scared that they won't take risks anymore - often enemy forces get away because of the fear of litigation from seniors on Targeting Boards, and these enemies are going on to kill our own people hours later
Not a way to win wars...
So please, families, don't use bettering our (the fighting Services) cause in your arguments - you are doing more damage than you could ever imagine.
Finally, it was more than a DShK type anti-aircraft gun that hit the plane and that is all I am prepared to say. If you read the redacted version of the released Secret Board of Inquiry report there are large gaps where they have blanked out what hit the aircraft - I've tried telling you guys this before but you're stuck on transmit!
I hope you can see that there is a silent majority on PPrune, and also whenever I chat to the guys that I work with, that want you to let it rest now - in other words "not in our name" thank you.
LJ
PS Beagle - get a spine!
1. Nimrods grounded 4 years after the event because senior officers are sh!t scared that something will go wrong leaving their ambitions in tatters. I'd still fly in one before they were grounded and I like my life.
2. ESF being fitted at great expense that has not been "used in anger" since fitment.
3. A big hole in an overstretched defence budget (possibly getting bigger after more compensatory payouts) - the knock effect of this is that the right equipment that is equipment wanted by experts in defence, not lawyers and families, cannot be paid for. Thanks a bunch guys!
4. A gathering of senior officers that are so scared that they won't take risks anymore - often enemy forces get away because of the fear of litigation from seniors on Targeting Boards, and these enemies are going on to kill our own people hours later
Not a way to win wars...So please, families, don't use bettering our (the fighting Services) cause in your arguments - you are doing more damage than you could ever imagine.
Finally, it was more than a DShK type anti-aircraft gun that hit the plane and that is all I am prepared to say. If you read the redacted version of the released Secret Board of Inquiry report there are large gaps where they have blanked out what hit the aircraft - I've tried telling you guys this before but you're stuck on transmit!
I hope you can see that there is a silent majority on PPrune, and also whenever I chat to the guys that I work with, that want you to let it rest now - in other words "not in our name" thank you.
LJ
PS Beagle - get a spine!
LJ, I fail to see the reason for your insulting prose.
If ancient, non-airworthy aircraft are grounded because they fail to meet normal standards of airworthiness, then so be it. People still fail to understand the difference between airworthiness and serviceability - and costs to the defence budget caused by the resut of legal actions would have been unnecessary had corrective action been taken earlier.
"Don't confuse me with inconvenient facts" - the mantra of the hope-it-won't-happen spineless leaders of the recent past.
It seems you have issues about the MoD joining the 21st Century. Fortunately, other nations have far greater respect for the safety of their service personnel....
If ancient, non-airworthy aircraft are grounded because they fail to meet normal standards of airworthiness, then so be it. People still fail to understand the difference between airworthiness and serviceability - and costs to the defence budget caused by the resut of legal actions would have been unnecessary had corrective action been taken earlier.
"Don't confuse me with inconvenient facts" - the mantra of the hope-it-won't-happen spineless leaders of the recent past.
It seems you have issues about the MoD joining the 21st Century. Fortunately, other nations have far greater respect for the safety of their service personnel....
Beagle - part banter, part insult, I'm afraid. Paying for things out of the defence budget that I can't get funding for my equipment requirements is "punative" to completely the wrong people. The far right of arc of the consequences is that someone gets killed because there isn't enough money in the pot to buy the equipment that would have saved them.
Part of the insult was my perception that you think we should uber-cautious; maybe that is why you never liked folding wings on F4s
In any case, as an ex Vickers Funbus pilot you must have plenty of experience of "ancient, non-airworthy aircraft" then
Insult retracted because, overall, I think you're a good egg.
I apologise.
Out of interest, I have had a PM from one of the Herc relatives (name protected) who actually agrees with some of my rants on this subect.
LJ
Part of the insult was my perception that you think we should uber-cautious; maybe that is why you never liked folding wings on F4s
In any case, as an ex Vickers Funbus pilot you must have plenty of experience of "ancient, non-airworthy aircraft" then
Insult retracted because, overall, I think you're a good egg.
I apologise.
Out of interest, I have had a PM from one of the Herc relatives (name protected) who actually agrees with some of my rants on this subect.
LJ
Leon
Your primary concern seems to be lack of funding caused, in part, by compensation payouts you feel are inappropriate.
I agree you, as (presumably) a DEC SO, should be able to fund "your" requirements properly.
I do not agree with a long list of Mins(AF) and Stars who have stated that refusing to deliberately waste money on requirements that do not pass scrutiny is a disciplinary offence; at least in the CS. And that issuing an order to waste that money is not an offence. Nevertheless, they have had the decency (or gall) to place their rulings in writing, going back to December 1992.
In my opinion, a little change in that direction would generate more funding than any compensation payouts. This requires little thought, as the Internal Audit report which confirmed it made 19 recommendations in June 1996; few, if any, have been implemented. PM me if you want the full Reference.
The families are easy targets. The real culprits are, admittedly, not so easy; but they are well known.
Your primary concern seems to be lack of funding caused, in part, by compensation payouts you feel are inappropriate.
I agree you, as (presumably) a DEC SO, should be able to fund "your" requirements properly.
I do not agree with a long list of Mins(AF) and Stars who have stated that refusing to deliberately waste money on requirements that do not pass scrutiny is a disciplinary offence; at least in the CS. And that issuing an order to waste that money is not an offence. Nevertheless, they have had the decency (or gall) to place their rulings in writing, going back to December 1992.
In my opinion, a little change in that direction would generate more funding than any compensation payouts. This requires little thought, as the Internal Audit report which confirmed it made 19 recommendations in June 1996; few, if any, have been implemented. PM me if you want the full Reference.
The families are easy targets. The real culprits are, admittedly, not so easy; but they are well known.
LJ, sorry, the banter caption day/night screen was set to night...
Oh - and the F4s I flew had manual wing fold. The Buccaneers had full operable wing fold which we used as required.
Whilst I would agree that absurdly over-the-top levels of compensation claim are daft, these are often the opening gambit in lawyers' souk-haggling which finally results in reasonable settlement for the bereaved. But also fattens the wallets of the self-seeking, ambulance-chasing legal weasels.
I don't recall any airworthiness issues with the ancient FunBus - it benefitted from later era civil airworthiness requirements than the 1949-era Comet and its derivatives. However, in it latter days, structural 'damage tolerance' and 'fail-safe' issues did hurt operation of the old VC10K2, such that at MAUW we were initially restricted to FL170 - some 20000 ft less than BOAC had used.
Why? Because RAF engineers and BWoS had realised that the dear old clunkers were utterly shagged out - and we used their twilight hours appropriately as a result.
Although I did rather wonder whether it wasn't actually just a convenient ruse to force the hand of the FSTA programme......
Oh - and the F4s I flew had manual wing fold. The Buccaneers had full operable wing fold which we used as required.
Whilst I would agree that absurdly over-the-top levels of compensation claim are daft, these are often the opening gambit in lawyers' souk-haggling which finally results in reasonable settlement for the bereaved. But also fattens the wallets of the self-seeking, ambulance-chasing legal weasels.
I don't recall any airworthiness issues with the ancient FunBus - it benefitted from later era civil airworthiness requirements than the 1949-era Comet and its derivatives. However, in it latter days, structural 'damage tolerance' and 'fail-safe' issues did hurt operation of the old VC10K2, such that at MAUW we were initially restricted to FL170 - some 20000 ft less than BOAC had used.
Why? Because RAF engineers and BWoS had realised that the dear old clunkers were utterly shagged out - and we used their twilight hours appropriately as a result.
Although I did rather wonder whether it wasn't actually just a convenient ruse to force the hand of the FSTA programme......
Beagle
Sadly, you have, Sir, hit the nail on the head 
Tucumseh
Not in DEC, but at the "sharper" end staffing and writing USURs to try and save young blokes lives with things that the RAF can provide - constantly I am told "no money". Sadly some of these guys are young enough to be my sons
Having seen some of the ridicuously painful savings being made under Planning Round 2009 (PR09) and the shadow of even more next year, even 6 figure compensation payouts will bite hard. Furthermore, high "Press Coverage" profile driven modifications will divert the cash away from the more pressing needs of equipment that will be saving lives at the sharp end. The sad thing is, this fact will be lost in the noise and hub-bub of another "big-bad MoD scandal" in the Press.
fattens the wallets of the self-seeking, ambulance-chasing legal weasels
Tucumseh
Not in DEC, but at the "sharper" end staffing and writing USURs to try and save young blokes lives with things that the RAF can provide - constantly I am told "no money". Sadly some of these guys are young enough to be my sons
Having seen some of the ridicuously painful savings being made under Planning Round 2009 (PR09) and the shadow of even more next year, even 6 figure compensation payouts will bite hard. Furthermore, high "Press Coverage" profile driven modifications will divert the cash away from the more pressing needs of equipment that will be saving lives at the sharp end. The sad thing is, this fact will be lost in the noise and hub-bub of another "big-bad MoD scandal" in the Press.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a distinct smell of a 'divide and conquer' plan by MoD here. They would willingly let us believe that compensation claims will come from the same Mod budget as essential op equipment. I am led to believe that this is not the case.
However, in dividing our attention, they could fragment our argument for better support for the people on the front line; we should not let that happen. But I would prefer to see us fighting towards the same aim and put away our differences.
I agree that over the top comp claims for broken toenails etc is not palatable but neither are they going to go away and neither are the legal moves to make the MoD accept their responsibility for poor funding, management and leadership. Anyway, these amounts are drops in the ocean compared to the billions spent on our failed banking system. That system was meant to be self-policing and self-regulating - like the Services. So, just who can we trust anymore when so many 'initiatives' are copied from civilian street into the modern military? I do not share your trust in todays mil leadership to put their head above the parapet and press for more funds from Gov't but isnt that what we expect them to to?
Leon, if you haven't been on the Boddies too much tonight, I suggest that you dig around in Hansard for minutes of a Def Comm meeting regarding the MoD budget for ops in AFG/IRQ - about 2 years ago, I think. Somewhere you will find reference to the Treasury stating that , if more funds are needed for essential equipment, the the MoD must ask. In your position, you could at least draw that to the attention of the DECs when they next refuse you funding. I am searching for it and will post it if i find it.
flipster
However, in dividing our attention, they could fragment our argument for better support for the people on the front line; we should not let that happen. But I would prefer to see us fighting towards the same aim and put away our differences.
I agree that over the top comp claims for broken toenails etc is not palatable but neither are they going to go away and neither are the legal moves to make the MoD accept their responsibility for poor funding, management and leadership. Anyway, these amounts are drops in the ocean compared to the billions spent on our failed banking system. That system was meant to be self-policing and self-regulating - like the Services. So, just who can we trust anymore when so many 'initiatives' are copied from civilian street into the modern military? I do not share your trust in todays mil leadership to put their head above the parapet and press for more funds from Gov't but isnt that what we expect them to to?
Leon, if you haven't been on the Boddies too much tonight, I suggest that you dig around in Hansard for minutes of a Def Comm meeting regarding the MoD budget for ops in AFG/IRQ - about 2 years ago, I think. Somewhere you will find reference to the Treasury stating that , if more funds are needed for essential equipment, the the MoD must ask. In your position, you could at least draw that to the attention of the DECs when they next refuse you funding. I am searching for it and will post it if i find it.
flipster
Flipster
Thanks for the offer but don't bother, mate. I already ave the answer. The HM Treasury are broke having bailed out banks galore. Usually USURs come out of continguency funding but for "big" buys (7-8figure) that avenue is off limits (so I understand) - let's face it UK PLC is broke for the time being!
By the way compensation claims come out of the Defence Budget - last year (2007/8) their were some 7358 claims and 6419 paid out (amounts are not revealed in DASA stats). Even if every one averaged £1000 that would be a wopping £6.5M!!! It's like BEagle said, it's not just the compensation payout itself but also all of the costs and why we often settle out of court (amongst other reasons).
Anyway, it still doesn't get us away from the fact that if we make a hulla-ballo in the Press about things like ESF and lack of airworthiness on certain aircraft types then it diverts the attention away from what we really need (and I'm not talking Tranche 3 Typhoons!). The pot is only finite in size and if we look at compensation as a punitive measure, then it is punishing the wrong people - us!
By the way, they changed their names from DECs recently - Heads of something or other now...
LJ
PS Greene King IPA tonight...
Thanks for the offer but don't bother, mate. I already ave the answer. The HM Treasury are broke having bailed out banks galore. Usually USURs come out of continguency funding but for "big" buys (7-8figure) that avenue is off limits (so I understand) - let's face it UK PLC is broke for the time being!
By the way compensation claims come out of the Defence Budget - last year (2007/8) their were some 7358 claims and 6419 paid out (amounts are not revealed in DASA stats). Even if every one averaged £1000 that would be a wopping £6.5M!!! It's like BEagle said, it's not just the compensation payout itself but also all of the costs and why we often settle out of court (amongst other reasons).
Anyway, it still doesn't get us away from the fact that if we make a hulla-ballo in the Press about things like ESF and lack of airworthiness on certain aircraft types then it diverts the attention away from what we really need (and I'm not talking Tranche 3 Typhoons!). The pot is only finite in size and if we look at compensation as a punitive measure, then it is punishing the wrong people - us!
By the way, they changed their names from DECs recently - Heads of something or other now...
LJ
PS Greene King IPA tonight...
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 18th Apr 2009 at 23:48.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Total aside: BEagle, did you get the "Doc" to clear the MPA Funbus to fly U/C down when it had a persistently U/S nose wheel steering motor? You can imagine my next question.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North of Hadrians Wall
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon
seconded..
I have witnessed with my own eyes the shocking waste of time, effort and expense, not to mention the loss of operational capability, in satisfying political directives which are not based on sound technical advice.
Furthermore, high "Press Coverage" profile driven modifications will divert the cash away from the more pressing needs
I have witnessed with my own eyes the shocking waste of time, effort and expense, not to mention the loss of operational capability, in satisfying political directives which are not based on sound technical advice.
GBZ - most definitely NOT!
We did, however, develop a 'war goer' plan for a VC10K which had an hydraulic leak - but it was strictly for war, not for Tic-Toc silly buggers.
We did, however, develop a 'war goer' plan for a VC10K which had an hydraulic leak - but it was strictly for war, not for Tic-Toc silly buggers.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon;
"Finally, it was more than a DShK type anti-aircraft gun that hit the plane and that is all I am prepared to say. If you read the redacted version of the released Secret Board of Inquiry report there are large gaps where they have blanked out what hit the aircraft - I've tried telling you guys this before but you're stuck on transmit!"
This must be some kind of WAH. Either that or you have posted it for disinformation reasons. We were shown photos of the holes made by the rounds that struck the aircraft, you are quite wrong.
You really are a luddite if you maintain that ESF is a waste of money.
But you just crack on with the boddies big lad, I hope you don't mind if I don't take your word for it.....
"Finally, it was more than a DShK type anti-aircraft gun that hit the plane and that is all I am prepared to say. If you read the redacted version of the released Secret Board of Inquiry report there are large gaps where they have blanked out what hit the aircraft - I've tried telling you guys this before but you're stuck on transmit!"
This must be some kind of WAH. Either that or you have posted it for disinformation reasons. We were shown photos of the holes made by the rounds that struck the aircraft, you are quite wrong.
You really are a luddite if you maintain that ESF is a waste of money.
But you just crack on with the boddies big lad, I hope you don't mind if I don't take your word for it.....
Last edited by nigegilb; 19th Apr 2009 at 17:48.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on Leon, we are all ears. Did you know that the wilts coroner was cleared to Top Secret for the inquest? Hey, he even read the gaps, you know the redacted bit in the "secret BoI report". Did you also know that civilian accident investigator was placed under a lot of pressure during his evidence on his theory that an RPG might have hit the aircraft? There was no explosive residue found on the wing and we were told earlier by president BoI that the theory had been discounted because of lack of evidence. It was agreed that it existed as a theory only, the only evidence presented was of two small holes in the aircraft where rounds of undisclosed size hit the aircraft. Certainly nothing the size that you were suggesting.
We all know you speak for the silent majority, because, well, you told us so. And one time you posted 200 people read the thread and nobody disagreed with you. If that is the case, then as a public spirited citizen I urge you to contact the coroner and set him right on what he thinks actually happened. You clearly know more than Mr Masters.
Alternatively, if you have no proof, just a theory, perhaps you should not treat this thread as a game, because I know that more relatives/close family read this than actually post here. I am pleading to your more sensitive side. We all have one, don't we?
We all know you speak for the silent majority, because, well, you told us so. And one time you posted 200 people read the thread and nobody disagreed with you. If that is the case, then as a public spirited citizen I urge you to contact the coroner and set him right on what he thinks actually happened. You clearly know more than Mr Masters.
Alternatively, if you have no proof, just a theory, perhaps you should not treat this thread as a game, because I know that more relatives/close family read this than actually post here. I am pleading to your more sensitive side. We all have one, don't we?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
morning! i was just catching up with the daily diatribe by LJ and have had to have a little chuckle at his attempt to try and get us to question what we know and put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Firstly, I want to say thank you chaps for coming forward with your support and for those of you who have given me food for thought and a different perspective.
Rant on.... I fully appreciate that this is a very difficult action to undertake and wish to stress at no point has this action been undertaken lightly, nor in a dismissive manner. However, we look at it ( and Leon I wish you to take the time to read this carefully....there is a body of evidence that says these men were failed on a number of levels) I/we cannot just walk away and live with the consequences of those failings and allow them to go unanswered. These men and the families are worth more than just becoming a forgotten statistic on an ever growing list of personnel uneceesarily failed by the MoD.
i do not wish to become drawn into a personal battle with people who disagree on the choices made by the families pursuing legal action, but I will say this. Leon, I really think that you should think before you type. By wriring what you have has only furthered my belief that the MoD are a bunch of thoughtless, irressponsible, lying and coniving bunch of gutless wonders when you resort to such tatics as your last post about what brought the aircraft down. Not only does it smack of desperation to infer what you have it has only suggested that the evidence that was brought before the body of the inquest was made up of lies and therefore further investigation by the law is needed! Well done!
Funny really as you HAD given the impression of being such an intelligent man.
One thing you will or should have learnt about me I don't do what i am told and I TAKE CARE OF MY OWN. A few harsh words will not deter us from the task that lies ahead. they are just words and the momentary hurt they cause does not compare to the hurt that we endure having been left with the aftermath of living without the ones we love.
Rant off.
Firstly, I want to say thank you chaps for coming forward with your support and for those of you who have given me food for thought and a different perspective.
Rant on.... I fully appreciate that this is a very difficult action to undertake and wish to stress at no point has this action been undertaken lightly, nor in a dismissive manner. However, we look at it ( and Leon I wish you to take the time to read this carefully....there is a body of evidence that says these men were failed on a number of levels) I/we cannot just walk away and live with the consequences of those failings and allow them to go unanswered. These men and the families are worth more than just becoming a forgotten statistic on an ever growing list of personnel uneceesarily failed by the MoD.
i do not wish to become drawn into a personal battle with people who disagree on the choices made by the families pursuing legal action, but I will say this. Leon, I really think that you should think before you type. By wriring what you have has only furthered my belief that the MoD are a bunch of thoughtless, irressponsible, lying and coniving bunch of gutless wonders when you resort to such tatics as your last post about what brought the aircraft down. Not only does it smack of desperation to infer what you have it has only suggested that the evidence that was brought before the body of the inquest was made up of lies and therefore further investigation by the law is needed! Well done!
Funny really as you HAD given the impression of being such an intelligent man.
One thing you will or should have learnt about me I don't do what i am told and I TAKE CARE OF MY OWN. A few harsh words will not deter us from the task that lies ahead. they are just words and the momentary hurt they cause does not compare to the hurt that we endure having been left with the aftermath of living without the ones we love.
Rant off.