Relatives claim government failed to protect victims of RAF Hercules crash

[Tappers Dad]

In Sundays Observer.
RAF Hercules crash families sue MoD in landmark rights case | UK news | The Observer

Chappie was on Sky this morning ,well done. As you can read in the Observer even Bob Ainsworth said ESF should have been fitted after the threat facing aircraft in Iraq changed.

[Blighter Pilot]

While I am pleased that the MOD will be taken to task over XV179 I only hope that this does not open the floodgates for all relatives of military personnel lost in action to claim for 'human rights' issues.

How far back will this landmark action allow relatives to consider action, the Falklands, Op Granby, Sierra Leone, Kosovo etc?

At at time when the MOD is effectively bankrupt could we see further funds expended on various legal cases and payouts?

I am all for justice where justice is required but no amount of money will bring back a loved one.

I would think that the relatives would be appalled if their payouts came from the same, shrinking, MOD pot that is being used to supply front-line troops with better body armour and vehicles.

It might have been a systematic failure of the MOD in the case of XV179 but the real blame lies with Tony Blair and the labour government who lied about the reasons for being in Iraq.

Sue his government not the MOD - and maybe the individuals who didn't pass on the intelligence or who were responsible for evaluating tactics in theatre.

[flipster]

I would think that the ultimate aim of the families is to prevent similar pain and anguish from happening to others.

While some relatives have been left high and dry by the loss of the income from the deceased Servicemen, it seems that legal action is the only thing to which the MoD and the Gov't will react. If only Gov't would just accept their failings and CORRECT THEM - not with platitudes but with a ferocious desire to protect their assets that include ships, aircraft, vehicles Servicemen and women.

However, far too many senior people have trusted to luck in pursuit of New Labour's foreign policy since 2001. If it takes legal moves to get them to realise that it costs a huge amount of money to go to war, then so be it. Next time, perhaps our politicians should think twice before agreeing to be the US lap-dog. Either that or thoroughly equip and protect our troops.

Perhaps the MoD should sue the Gov't Treasury for lack of sufficient funds to wage war?

[nigegilb]

Not really sure what Ainsworth is going on about. It was fairly obvious what brought XV179 down, at least, anyone who heard the evidence at the Inquest would have a very good idea. The threat from the suspected weapon has been around for donkeys years and was a threat to any aircraft being operated at low level without fuel tank protection.

This threat was highlighted at the beginning of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and senior officers did absolutely nothing with the knowledge. Just used the cop out of "military risk" to send the boys to war, but worse still, did not even inform frontline aircrew of the risks they were taking.

We can bail out banks to the tune of £100Billion so I won't lose any sleep if financial compensation now comes due to the families. Actually, as Flip states, the severity of the cost to the `MoD and the severe mauling its reputation has taken over Nimrod and Hercules already, might well change the philosophy of failing to equip our soldiers to an adequate standard. If you like, the opportunity cost now got much greater..

In answer to how far back this might go, well we are talking about the HRA, only signed up to in recent times. Without doubt there is a downside to all the legal action, but faced with the economy of truth, lack of accountability, obfuscation and political interference, I don't blame the families one iota for taking this route.

In fact, I wish them luck.

[The Gorilla]

How far back you ask?

May 97 I reckon.

[Lima Juliet]

TACT - OFF

This makes me grumpy because it's taxpayer's, and read that as my, money that will end paying for this. I lost a good mate on that aircraft, but I fail to see why we should continue to pay out vast sums for the inability to use hindsight - they died, very sad, but no amount of compensation will bring them back. Do we suggest that compensation is due to relatives that lost grandparents in the Great War for not having adequate chemical warfare kit, or dropping personnel 'a bridge to far' in Holland? I agree with Blighter Pilot - where does it all stop?

Isn't that why our partners get widow's pensions, lump sums and also payouts via DINCOM?

The Nimrod business makes me equally grumpy...

TACT ON

Dreadfully sorry for being tactless and ruthlessly blunt but I felt the need to vent my opinion. I am, after all, entitled to the free speech for which so many of our Service People died to protect.

LJ

[blogger]

Let Blair hang in Hell.

Let the top bod's in MOD hang in Hell.

Let the top bod's in the RAF Hang in hell.

At the end of the day everyone of them had a duty to ensure our troops went to battle with the least risk and the best kit.

It was crap kit out of date and as cheap as could be.

They choose to cut corners and save money at the expence of LIVES so they are to blaim full stop.

I left the RAF after 25 years service due to the sickening loss of life in Afgan and Iraq. All I can say is to those who lost love one's take this Shower of a Government and MOD to the highest court and fight for those whom you have lost.

I would love to know what price the Govermant places on each serviceman's head!

Blair rot in HELL Brown follow him.

[mad eng]

Perhaps it will take a few more claims like this before our political masters will wake up and smell the coffee. I don't believe any family is milking the situation, they have been put through hell and are simply trying to prevent the rest of our families going through the same.
There is no other way to get through these days, hit them in the pocket and eventually they will get the message. I will gladly pay my taxes to achieve a better deal for all the guys and gals who daily risk life and limb.
Just because we serve in the military does not mean we have to accept sub standard services, we take the risks hoping that the system is right behind us, when it runs away at the first sign of trouble we have to fight back.
What would you do if it were your husband/wife/son/daugher??

RIP fellas

[Lima Juliet]

Mad Eng

I hear your sentiment and in a perfect world everyone would get a pay-out. But if the goons in power and Andrew "clucking anchor" Wlaker (see what I did there?) keep on paying out then the system will go bust when everyone wants a piece of the pay-out action. The more it becomes the norm, then the more gets paid out, then the more middle England leaves the country for better places as they are taxed to the hilt and it spirals into more unaffordability. God knows when we are going to pay for Labour's "scorched earth" policy of spending everything before the next lot of clowns get in.

I have been watching this forum closely tonight and there have been over 200 views of my rant and I have not been deluged with "Leon you are the clucking anchor, goodbye!" by 200 Pruners - is this a case of the silent majority not wanting to speak out in these increasingly "I'm afraid to speak my mind" times?

Or maybe, my patience has snapped and I'm getting ready to join the great Antipodean Exodus to normality...?

Back to the Boddingtons for me then...

LJ

[JFZ90]

is this a case of the silent majority not wanting to speak out in these increasingly "I'm afraid to speak my mind" times?

Yes.

...........

[OilCan]

Yes.


......

[TOPBUNKER]

Olive Oil has spotted the elephant in the room.

[flipster]

On behalf of the silenced majority

"Leon you are the clucking anchor, goodbye!"




I'd like to have left it there but that would unfair on Leon (even if it was predictable and just a little amusing!).

Mad Eng is right and olive is probably an MoD 'spoofmeister'.

However, we are all entitled to our opinion.

The sad truth remains that this Gov't and their lackeys have asked too much from our mediocre defence budget and our military's 'never-say-die' attitude. Regrettably, people have died - but not for a lack of courage and determination. What has been at fault is the Govt/MoDs ability to support those on the front line. I believe that our Servicemen are the 21st Century's 'Lions led by Donkeys' but this Labour Gov't cannot accept that and they rebuff every attempt to correct the imbalance - seemingly because of a pig-headedness to look facts in the face and the ability to say sorry.

It also sickens me that some serving people would attack the families that have lost so much - their loved ones died in the defence of all of our freedoms. Those of you who criticise the families should hang your heads in shame. Please do not think that the families take their actions to court purely for monetary reasons.

flipster

ps Top bunker - while I have some sympathy with the 'daylight LL is not a good idea' (been there done that), like wise 'daylight med-level for a short distance' is equally unappealing. You might be correct to highlight a culture difference in the 'special ones' but you can't avoid the 'table of manadated threats' for ever - you have to land sometime! ESF was a defined method of mitigation that our superiors declined to fit for over 40 years. We now know it cost peanuts and was relatively easy to to fit but for some reason, it never was.....I am mightily grumpy that the system that was designed to protect us and the ac in which we flew, let us down so badly.

[TOPBUNKER]

Flip, thanks for the apposite reply.
You are right.
Sorry PPRUNE readers can't read my post any more, but I realised that I might upset relatives and friends.

P.S. That whole Freedom of Information Act shredding thing that was ORDERED from a high level needs a lot of further scrutiny!

[nigegilb]

Olive Oil

Olive Oil, you are wrong about day low level, but it is an easy mistake to make and is the line put out by MoD media briefers at the time of the inquest.

The specific threat of the fuel tanks exploding from a single round was not shared with frontline crews. Read my post again, the weapon system that brought down XV179 was not sophisticated and not new. But the threat to the fuel tanks was not widely known. It was highlighted when the J was procured and on several occasions before. The specific threat was made clear at Group level before the Iraq invasion, but again, it was sat on. You ignore the "cop out" of military risk. This is the crucial catch all, which commanders believed, absolved them from responsibility of the lives of the crews being sent into theatre.

This "military risk" catch all is now being challenged in court and not before time. Take a look at how the US procure aircraft. They don't have a lowest common denominator called "military risk" and use it as a basis for procuring military aircraft not equipped to go to war. We are still doing it, look at MR2,

There are still aircraft with woeful defensive equipment being used,

The culture on "The Flight" was dependent to a degree on who was in charge. However, what lives in the memory is the shredding of evidence and the failure of the culture in higher levels of command to take responsibility for the lives of aircrew being sent to war.

Things have improved since, in the full glare of publicity and media scrutiny. However, when given the opportunity to state that RAF Hercules would never be sent into theatre again without ESF, RAF Commanders refused, stating that military need might override safety requirements in the future. A statement I find, nonsensical.

It is not fair simply to blame the Govt. The RAF, if it had effective commanders in place could have dealt with the threat to fuel tanks. But the culture pre-existing, made that impossible. Maybe these two court cases will change the culture forever, political leadership could ensure that the procurement process underlines specific responsibilities for fitness for purpose.

I hope so, it was difficult to find anyone to take responsibility for fitness for purpose at the inquest. And for sure, no-one wanted to talk about "military risk".

If Steady and the boys had been briefed that the biggest single weakness to the aircraft was the lack of fuel tank protection and the biggest threat to the aircraft at low level was a highly mobile weapon, restricted largely to daylight operation, then you would have a point Olive Oil. This info existed at AWC and Group, but was not disseminated to the frontline. The boys received no such briefing. If they had been, tactics could have been changed, just as they were in the days after XV179 was shot down.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Originally Posted by nigegilb

It is not fair simply to blame the Govt. The RAF, if it had effective commanders in place could have dealt with the threat to fuel tanks.

You must know as well as anyone that the “blame” began in MoD(PE) (as was), the MoD (Centre) bean shufflers, the Treasury and the Government that set the tone of the day. We bought kit, as ever, optimised for peacetime training, peacekeeping and disaster relief. We gained lift weight and range and sacrificed survivability should deployment to a live shooting match happen: it did. The FLCs are on a hiding to bugger all and if they spat the dummy every time they were told to grip what they’ve been given, we would have a very interesting Military.

For what it’s worth, Leon Jabachjabicz makes some valid points. Unfortunately they are no longer politically correct in our brave new pink fluffy world.

[flipster]

Leon,

I'd lay off the Boddies for a while, if I were you. Never drink and type! Nonetheless, your forthrightness is your perogative. Such a stance would have been more useful coming from some people in 'procurement' that GBZ talks about - they are the ones who won't say 'boo to a goose' for fear of losing their career. Perhaps if certain people had 'thrown their dummies' then maybe we wouldn't keep getting so many corteges through Wootton Bassett. GBZ - It might have been an 'interesting' military but perhaps one more efficient and better protected?

Thanks Topbunker,

Nige - correct! With a less 'political' and more 'vigourous' leaders, then the RAF may have been better supported going to battle but then again....? However, even the best leaders would be hard pressed to fathom out the dark world of procurement and where it has gone so badly wrong .

I agree: the shredding of evidence, even with higher-level permission or even complicity, is lamentable. What is point of having files if people destroy them just when they become useful? I believe that the coroner was scathing about this aspect as well? Whenever I was asked to sign off operations/training files for destruction, I tried to read the through files and I asked myself the question

"Could these be useful to my successors?"

If the answer was 'yes' or even 'maybe', then they didn't get binned. The admin files on the other hand.....!

[nigegilb]

GBZ, I don't know, I never attended any of these meetings. What I can tell you, is that if the threat to fuel tanks had been disseminated to frontline crews tactics could have immediately changed to night/high level sorties, especially for this kind of mission.

A COST FREE MEASURE.

Senior officers and commanders in the RAF, not only failed to press the case for an inexpensive modification, they singularly failed to highlight the danger the crews were in. This is absolutely nothing to do with bean counters at centre. When the USAF pilot tried to present the case for foam, the cost of the foam was $20,000 per aircraft. This is peanuts. XV179 had one of the best (and expensive), missile defensive systems in the world, (teething issues were touched upon at the inquest), but its fuel tanks had no protection at all. You cannot blame the politicians for that.

Next time you bump into a "special" herc crew ask him how much daylight low level he is doing. The boys now understand the threat.

[flipster]

BTW

I don't think apportionment of 'blame' is helpful and neither do think that is what you meant - just to clear that up. However, I just wish the RAF higher echelons and MoD procurement/DECs would accept their responsibility and now ensure that the obvious 'systemic failures' in procurement and airworthiness that led directly to the loss of XV230, XV179 and a host of other ac is not allowed to happen again. That is, to prevent recurrence.

Unfortunately, all we seem to get from people like Ainswoth is platitudes and sound-bites without substance.

flipster

[Chugalug2]

The irony of the C130K procurement for the RAF in the late 60's is rather than being pared to the bone, the add-ons made the blinging up of new cars look restrained. Why stop at pairs of new radios, when triples can be had? Let's have radio nav aids that only function in Northern Europe, the Gulf and Newfoundland, and even there need to be told where it is so that it can then tell you! Auto Pilots that can't as they are incompatible with the aircraft wiring. Lets fit tactical improvements that aren't like downward looking periscopes and cupolas that cannot be safely pressurised in a pressurised aircraft, and so on and so on. Why all this extraneous and often not fit for purpose kit? So that the PM (one Harold Wilson) could pronounce proudly that half the cost of these aircraft would be in Pounds Sterling. Unfortunately the add on that was necessary to make the aircraft itself fit for purpose was in US Dollars only, ie ESF, and thus not fitted.
Nigegilb is right. This was then and subsequently a failure of RAF Commanders. They were told what was essential fit for when this aircraft went to war (surely the reason for it and the RAF?). They chose to reject those calls despite understanding clearly the hazard that would put the aircraft and occupants in. They failed the RAF, their crews and the nation. Shame on them, and shame on us that though they pay no price for their failure the bereaved suffer it for ever.