Relatives claim government failed to protect victims of RAF Hercules crash
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think arrogance, indifference and humility exist to differing degrees, at least judging by the witness evidence and how it was given at the Inquest. Some of those in the CoC who could have done something have being promoted and promoted again. Who knows if they learned lessons. This thing has received so much publicity over the last few years, I hope any crew member is up for challenging and questioning tactics that he/she thinks are unnecessarily risky.
The comment about shooting up the flight deck was a cheap shot, pardon the pun. Hercs had already been hit by rounds in the previous few months and were considered, wrongly, to be even more robust. Of course, XV179 was brought down by a single round in an unprotected fuel tank. You have the right to your view on the importance or otherwise of ESF. Having sat through a majority of the Inquest, I will be amazed if the MoD can mount an adequate defence to the legal writ, especially on this point. (For one thing they have destroyed most of their own audit trail, if it ever existed in the first place, which I rather doubt). I cannot see the legal system agreeing with you. The Coroner was adament that the evidence presented to the court made a clear case for ESF. No reasoning was provided from the MoD as to why the two recommends were not actioned, or why frontline crews were not informed about the risks. In the absence of an audit trail, the MoD are screwed. You still misunderstand the importance of ESF. One round blew off 23 feet of the wing. That is the reality of the absence of this protection, ESF, or lack of, was THE most important factor at the Inquest.
Operating in daylight is something the J continued to do for logistical reasons in Iraq in the aftermath of the tragedy.
Daylight low level SF ops since XV179 was shot down? Almost non-existent. The roots of the routine use of daylight low level ops are to be found in Afghanistan. The one pilot who challenged these tactics, in the early days of the war, was removed from SF shortly afterwards. The person who removed him, hopefully has had time to reflect on the message he was trying to get across.
At least I hope so.
The comment about shooting up the flight deck was a cheap shot, pardon the pun. Hercs had already been hit by rounds in the previous few months and were considered, wrongly, to be even more robust. Of course, XV179 was brought down by a single round in an unprotected fuel tank. You have the right to your view on the importance or otherwise of ESF. Having sat through a majority of the Inquest, I will be amazed if the MoD can mount an adequate defence to the legal writ, especially on this point. (For one thing they have destroyed most of their own audit trail, if it ever existed in the first place, which I rather doubt). I cannot see the legal system agreeing with you. The Coroner was adament that the evidence presented to the court made a clear case for ESF. No reasoning was provided from the MoD as to why the two recommends were not actioned, or why frontline crews were not informed about the risks. In the absence of an audit trail, the MoD are screwed. You still misunderstand the importance of ESF. One round blew off 23 feet of the wing. That is the reality of the absence of this protection, ESF, or lack of, was THE most important factor at the Inquest.
Operating in daylight is something the J continued to do for logistical reasons in Iraq in the aftermath of the tragedy.
Daylight low level SF ops since XV179 was shot down? Almost non-existent. The roots of the routine use of daylight low level ops are to be found in Afghanistan. The one pilot who challenged these tactics, in the early days of the war, was removed from SF shortly afterwards. The person who removed him, hopefully has had time to reflect on the message he was trying to get across.
At least I hope so.
Last edited by nigegilb; 6th May 2009 at 15:46.
and 
.Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Olive and SPHLC
SPHLC you said it quite clearly yourself, as did the BOI and the coroner- there were 3 major factors involved in the loss of XV179:
1. Daylight Low-level - at the time, believed to be a valid tactic by the 'special' crews, who were unaware of the concerns expressed by some.
2. Lack of real-time intelligence - crew semi-autonymous with little int/CoC oversight.
3. ESF - lack of mandated threat mitigation for fuel tanks - known about and requested for years and fitted to the aircraft of our major allies.
If any of those issues had been properly addressed, Steady et al would still be here today - I think we can agree on that?
As a result of the loss of 179,
-Daylight low-level has been reassessed and it is now much, much rarer.
-Tactical Int is better and quicker.
-ESF is fitted to all Hercs.
But to expand -
Yes, I agree there was a 'low-level' culture.
Yes, there was poor leadership and avoidance of risk.
Yes, daylight LL was a poor option in the terrain.
But....
There, but for the Grace of God, go so many people.
1. You cannot do ALL ops in the dark at Med-Level (tho' I did try) - only those tasks with real op importance should be done in daylight (I doubt whether 179's task line would merit this assessment). Although largely discredited, LL is still possibly a valid regime, as it is quite hard to hit a fast moving target at LL with any type of weapon - due reaction times and time to accquire, even if in the engagement zone. Though I broadly accept that it is better, if not easy, to avoid the engagement zones. Perhaps the special crews were slightly complacently bilnded by their success in AFG, where this approach was more appropriate and by the fact that Albert had taken hits and seemed quite robust.
2. Intel is not the be-all and end-all - if we believed all the int we get, then we'd rarely do anything. Broad-brush, I know, but you get my drift. The difficulty is filtering out the less important bits, which I hear, is much improved these days.
3. Ultimately, ESF would have prevented the explosion in the wing (I am assured you would do well to disregard red herrings of Leon) and in my opinion, ESF would have saved 179 - or at least given Steady a fighting chance of flying away. It is for this reason I believe that the lack of ESF was the big one. The fact is, ac still get hit by small arms, even in the dark and with the best int in the world - because there are so many bullets out there! It is widely acknowledged that ESF/FTI greatly minimises the risk of losing a part of your wing and thence, control of your ac - at whatever altitude.
Therefore, all these known risks are now mitigated as well as they can be - admittedly, a little late and with a large dose of outside pressure.
What worries me, however, (and it should worry you) is that the investiagtions by the Coroner showed that there was a complete lack of an intelligent and integrated process to provide you with equipment that is both airworthy and fit-for-purpose - highlighted by the issues above (especially ESF). These issues, along with aircraft losses such as Nimrod XV230, highlight the worrying fact that this lack of process still exists and has not yet been adequately addressed. Furthermore, there are 'known unknowns' out there that need to be considered, mitigated and funded but because the higher-level chain of command's lack of courage in dealing with the ESF funding issue alone, I am fearful of reccurence of ac losses with similar airworthiness/fitness-for-purpose undertones, especially given the lack of funds available to everyone at present. I pray that I am wrong and I know there are good people doing fantastic jobs out there but I am not convinced that 'their Airships' have learnt a damned thing. That is why you must be on your collective toes to guard against complacency at all levels.
In the meantime, however, it seems that the only thing of which the MoD will take note is legal action - which where we started. Over to the lawyers.
Flip
SPHLC you said it quite clearly yourself, as did the BOI and the coroner- there were 3 major factors involved in the loss of XV179:
1. Daylight Low-level - at the time, believed to be a valid tactic by the 'special' crews, who were unaware of the concerns expressed by some.
2. Lack of real-time intelligence - crew semi-autonymous with little int/CoC oversight.
3. ESF - lack of mandated threat mitigation for fuel tanks - known about and requested for years and fitted to the aircraft of our major allies.
If any of those issues had been properly addressed, Steady et al would still be here today - I think we can agree on that?
As a result of the loss of 179,
-Daylight low-level has been reassessed and it is now much, much rarer.
-Tactical Int is better and quicker.
-ESF is fitted to all Hercs.
But to expand -
Yes, I agree there was a 'low-level' culture.
Yes, there was poor leadership and avoidance of risk.
Yes, daylight LL was a poor option in the terrain.
But....
There, but for the Grace of God, go so many people.
1. You cannot do ALL ops in the dark at Med-Level (tho' I did try) - only those tasks with real op importance should be done in daylight (I doubt whether 179's task line would merit this assessment). Although largely discredited, LL is still possibly a valid regime, as it is quite hard to hit a fast moving target at LL with any type of weapon - due reaction times and time to accquire, even if in the engagement zone. Though I broadly accept that it is better, if not easy, to avoid the engagement zones. Perhaps the special crews were slightly complacently bilnded by their success in AFG, where this approach was more appropriate and by the fact that Albert had taken hits and seemed quite robust.
2. Intel is not the be-all and end-all - if we believed all the int we get, then we'd rarely do anything. Broad-brush, I know, but you get my drift. The difficulty is filtering out the less important bits, which I hear, is much improved these days.
3. Ultimately, ESF would have prevented the explosion in the wing (I am assured you would do well to disregard red herrings of Leon) and in my opinion, ESF would have saved 179 - or at least given Steady a fighting chance of flying away. It is for this reason I believe that the lack of ESF was the big one. The fact is, ac still get hit by small arms, even in the dark and with the best int in the world - because there are so many bullets out there! It is widely acknowledged that ESF/FTI greatly minimises the risk of losing a part of your wing and thence, control of your ac - at whatever altitude.
Therefore, all these known risks are now mitigated as well as they can be - admittedly, a little late and with a large dose of outside pressure.
What worries me, however, (and it should worry you) is that the investiagtions by the Coroner showed that there was a complete lack of an intelligent and integrated process to provide you with equipment that is both airworthy and fit-for-purpose - highlighted by the issues above (especially ESF). These issues, along with aircraft losses such as Nimrod XV230, highlight the worrying fact that this lack of process still exists and has not yet been adequately addressed. Furthermore, there are 'known unknowns' out there that need to be considered, mitigated and funded but because the higher-level chain of command's lack of courage in dealing with the ESF funding issue alone, I am fearful of reccurence of ac losses with similar airworthiness/fitness-for-purpose undertones, especially given the lack of funds available to everyone at present. I pray that I am wrong and I know there are good people doing fantastic jobs out there but I am not convinced that 'their Airships' have learnt a damned thing. That is why you must be on your collective toes to guard against complacency at all levels.
In the meantime, however, it seems that the only thing of which the MoD will take note is legal action - which where we started. Over to the lawyers.
Flip
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wilts
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Daylight low level SF ops since XV179 was shot down? Almost non-existent. The roots of the routine use of daylight low level ops are to be found in Afghanistan. The one pilot who challenged these tactics, in the early days of the war, was removed from SF shortly afterwards. The person who removed him, hopefully has had time to reflect on the message he was trying to get across. '
Nige
I've tried not to comment on this for a while now, but as you've brought it up......
Steady and the boys knew exactly what they were doing and it was their choice to operate as they did. Just as we were going to do when said 'SF pilot' refused to do that mission in Afghanistan. If you remember our crew were given the option of flying it instead. We knew what the risks were and did we have any sympathy for him for refusing to do it. No, we jumped at the chance of a live drop and took the piss out of him behind his back. The fact the mission was cancelled the next day is irrelevant, we would have happily done it.
I'm sorry Nige. I thought your cause was noble to start with, not any more. You should have stepped back out of this with your head held high when you achieved your initial aims. Speak to the guys at the coal face, they've had enough of all this. As you said the lessons were learnt the hard way and day OLF is no more in these theatres. Enough is enough, please let the boys rest in peace!
Al
Nige
I've tried not to comment on this for a while now, but as you've brought it up......
Steady and the boys knew exactly what they were doing and it was their choice to operate as they did. Just as we were going to do when said 'SF pilot' refused to do that mission in Afghanistan. If you remember our crew were given the option of flying it instead. We knew what the risks were and did we have any sympathy for him for refusing to do it. No, we jumped at the chance of a live drop and took the piss out of him behind his back. The fact the mission was cancelled the next day is irrelevant, we would have happily done it.
I'm sorry Nige. I thought your cause was noble to start with, not any more. You should have stepped back out of this with your head held high when you achieved your initial aims. Speak to the guys at the coal face, they've had enough of all this. As you said the lessons were learnt the hard way and day OLF is no more in these theatres. Enough is enough, please let the boys rest in peace!
Al
Last edited by calpat; 7th May 2009 at 16:27.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cal,
The mission was not cancelled it was operated by an SF crew.
I said before, I am happy to let this drop, but I don't like the way the crew seem to be getting the blame at this late stage.
Two inquiries have not found blame with the crew. Perhaps you are right to call a ceasefire at this juncture. We might be getting ahead of ourselves.
The mission was not cancelled it was operated by an SF crew.
I said before, I am happy to let this drop, but I don't like the way the crew seem to be getting the blame at this late stage.
Two inquiries have not found blame with the crew. Perhaps you are right to call a ceasefire at this juncture. We might be getting ahead of ourselves.
Last edited by nigegilb; 7th May 2009 at 15:06.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wilts
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige, it was cancelled, but not before we got as far as Bagram. I don't know if another crew subsequently did it or not, that's not relevant. My point is you (and me) both wanted to operate on a mission a fellow C130 capt refused. When we discussed it as a crew we knew what the risks were and were happy to accept them. It was going to involve at least a portion of daylight LL and the ac had no DAS, not even an armoured flight deck. Those are the facts.
Most of what has been said on PPrune since 179 has been said with 20/20 hindsight. It's not a perfect world out there and all eventualities cannot be covered. At no stage was not having ESF before 179 considered significant by the crews. Given the choice they obviously would have wanted it, but they (us) understood what we were being asked to do. The crying shame of all this is that it took us to lose an ac before tactics changed. This will be my last post as I don't believe this thread is in anybody's interest. Let the boys rest in peace.
Most of what has been said on PPrune since 179 has been said with 20/20 hindsight. It's not a perfect world out there and all eventualities cannot be covered. At no stage was not having ESF before 179 considered significant by the crews. Given the choice they obviously would have wanted it, but they (us) understood what we were being asked to do. The crying shame of all this is that it took us to lose an ac before tactics changed. This will be my last post as I don't believe this thread is in anybody's interest. Let the boys rest in peace.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAL, I did four dets in Afg, all of them without DAS and FDA. I took the risk, I was expected to, but I always made sure my crew was with me in accepting that risk. And it didn't stop me seeing my Flt Cdr/Sqn Cdr after our Det and working through a significant kit enhancement request which was subsequently fired up to CinC Strike (and turned down). But there is a better way of going to war and that is what this argument is all about. Hardly anyone on the frontline knew about ESF back then, we were more concerned about missiles.
Should we have been blamed for following our orders if something had gone wrong? For being reckless? Because that is what seems to be happening here, with Steady's crew.
They were just doing their job, the same as you and I. And now I will leave it to the lawyers.
Should we have been blamed for following our orders if something had gone wrong? For being reckless? Because that is what seems to be happening here, with Steady's crew.
They were just doing their job, the same as you and I. And now I will leave it to the lawyers.
Last edited by nigegilb; 7th May 2009 at 17:40.
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have received the same request from two seperate family members, each asking that as there is nothing that can be added to this thread, that has not already been said several times previously, it should be closed.
We are going to respect those wishes and close it.
Thanks to everyone who have made their inputs.
We are going to respect those wishes and close it.
Thanks to everyone who have made their inputs.
