Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it is established that they were tasked with something extraordinary that left them vulnerable to some third party’s actions then surely this could lead to their being cleared.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Is it that time of year again already?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fitness for Purpose and Duty of Care
This thread has been quiet for a few days, and I guess many people like myself have been following the Hercules saga and the outstanding efforts by Nigel and chappie to both improve safety for the future and see justice done. Indeed it was in comparing what is happening on the Hercules and our continuing fight on the Chinook that it struck me that there may be another way to make MOD and indeed the RAF (in this case) management chain face up to its responsibilities.
Nobody can pretend that military operations will ever be safe, or indeed that there will not be accidents, but with the Crown no longer able to take advantage of Crown exemption it seems to me that the words “fitness for purpose” and “duty of care” are just as applicable to military operations and training (in peace and war) as they are to any other part of society.
If we take “fitness for purpose” it seems to me this must include giving the serviceman the most effective equipment to do the job – whether this is an assault rifle that works, a radio that works, an airworthy Chinook, or a Hercules with proper defensive aids and fuel tank inerting. How do you judge “effective” – well the obvious way is to compare what we have with the equipment standards of our allies and indeed enemies – sadly we too often fail on both counts.
If we send a serviceman or woman to fight with equipment that has obvious deficiencies and we then use tactics or make them “fight” in a way which makes those deficiencies more dangerous eg by authorising or insisting on low-level daylight operations where the threat regime highlights the deficiencies, then it seems to me that the commanders who took this decision may have now failed in their “duty of care”. The level at which this failure may have occurred could be quite low eg the officer of SNCO who allows military policemen to go on patrol with less than the required levels of ammunition or a radio that works. It could also be quite high – for example I am sure that Reid was correct when he said that it was a RAF decision not to fit tank inerting systems to the Hercules (they obviously saw JPA as more important!). The final link in the duty of care consideration must be that at command level you do not accept a task for which you do not have the right equipment – that might make the politicians more supportive! Given that the responsibilities would also feed back to the procurement of equipment the DPA might find a need to improve in a few areas as well.
Nonsense – totally incompatible with military operations – possibly – it would certainly make life much more difficult. We will always have casualties in military operations and training, but the fact remains that as far as I am aware the law applies equally to the Armed Services as to other walks of life, and one could argue that because military operations are so inherently dangerous they should only be undertaken when the command chain has made certain that they have met the most exacting “fitness for purpose” and “duty of care” considerations – and that would not, for example, have included selecting a Chinook Mk2 with ZD 576’s airworthiness history for a passenger flight against the captain’s recommendation and request.
Like war crimes this general issue comes down to being not just a command issue but also to an individual’s responsibility as, for example, a few MT officers found out in somewhat more benign circumstances, when some MOD MT operations did not meet the laws of the UK. It will be interesting to see what happens when the first family goes to the police to complain that MOD, or an individual, has failed in its/his “duty of care” responsibility and asks for a criminal investigation – it could never happen? We shall see – the words “Corporate Manslaughter” have appeared several times on the Hercules thread.
I look forward to hearing other people’s views.
JB
Nobody can pretend that military operations will ever be safe, or indeed that there will not be accidents, but with the Crown no longer able to take advantage of Crown exemption it seems to me that the words “fitness for purpose” and “duty of care” are just as applicable to military operations and training (in peace and war) as they are to any other part of society.
If we take “fitness for purpose” it seems to me this must include giving the serviceman the most effective equipment to do the job – whether this is an assault rifle that works, a radio that works, an airworthy Chinook, or a Hercules with proper defensive aids and fuel tank inerting. How do you judge “effective” – well the obvious way is to compare what we have with the equipment standards of our allies and indeed enemies – sadly we too often fail on both counts.
If we send a serviceman or woman to fight with equipment that has obvious deficiencies and we then use tactics or make them “fight” in a way which makes those deficiencies more dangerous eg by authorising or insisting on low-level daylight operations where the threat regime highlights the deficiencies, then it seems to me that the commanders who took this decision may have now failed in their “duty of care”. The level at which this failure may have occurred could be quite low eg the officer of SNCO who allows military policemen to go on patrol with less than the required levels of ammunition or a radio that works. It could also be quite high – for example I am sure that Reid was correct when he said that it was a RAF decision not to fit tank inerting systems to the Hercules (they obviously saw JPA as more important!). The final link in the duty of care consideration must be that at command level you do not accept a task for which you do not have the right equipment – that might make the politicians more supportive! Given that the responsibilities would also feed back to the procurement of equipment the DPA might find a need to improve in a few areas as well.
Nonsense – totally incompatible with military operations – possibly – it would certainly make life much more difficult. We will always have casualties in military operations and training, but the fact remains that as far as I am aware the law applies equally to the Armed Services as to other walks of life, and one could argue that because military operations are so inherently dangerous they should only be undertaken when the command chain has made certain that they have met the most exacting “fitness for purpose” and “duty of care” considerations – and that would not, for example, have included selecting a Chinook Mk2 with ZD 576’s airworthiness history for a passenger flight against the captain’s recommendation and request.
Like war crimes this general issue comes down to being not just a command issue but also to an individual’s responsibility as, for example, a few MT officers found out in somewhat more benign circumstances, when some MOD MT operations did not meet the laws of the UK. It will be interesting to see what happens when the first family goes to the police to complain that MOD, or an individual, has failed in its/his “duty of care” responsibility and asks for a criminal investigation – it could never happen? We shall see – the words “Corporate Manslaughter” have appeared several times on the Hercules thread.
I look forward to hearing other people’s views.
JB
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Blakeley
I too would like to see a “criminal investigation” but from a different perspective to yours!
Whatever the “cause” of the crash, I believe that the “reason” for the crash was who was on board.
I too would like to see a “criminal investigation” but from a different perspective to yours!
Whatever the “cause” of the crash, I believe that the “reason” for the crash was who was on board.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John, now there's a thought. Another term, 'private prosecution' has been used with increasing frequency these days, especially where the CPS refuses to act but is subsequently forced to take over a case 'in the public interest'.
It could even lead to a judicial review; the publicity alone could be a trigger for either or both events to be re-visited. In principle, the parallels are striking...
FJJP
It could even lead to a judicial review; the publicity alone could be a trigger for either or both events to be re-visited. In principle, the parallels are striking...
FJJP
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone is looking into the coporate negligence angle, I draw their attention to the rail "accident" at Tebay, Cumbria in Feb 2004. It should provide useful background info.
After several months of waiting, I have finally received a reply via the Camer-chameleon from the uninspiring Reid. The predictable brush-off:
Dear (DC)
Thank you of your letter of 20 February enclosing further correspondence from your constituent (BEagle) about the Chinook helicopter ZD576 crash on the Mull of Kintyre in June 1994. I apologise for the delayed response.
Early Day Motion 1111 was lodged by Douglas Hogg on 24 November 2005. The motion calls on the Government to appoint a Judge of the High Court or similar individual to review of all the evidence gathered in the hearings and enquiries that have been held into the crash of ZD576 and, having regard to the appropriate burden and standard of proof, to advise whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conclusion that the pilots were guilty of gross negligence.
As I said in my last letter, the crash of ZD576 is the most extensively examined accident in the history of UK military aviation. The Labour Government and Ministerial team reviewed this case when we came into office in 1997, and again when Geoff Hoon became Defence Secretary. I also reconsidered the case on my appointment. We remain satisfied that the finding was appropriate and should not be disturbed. I therefore remain unable to agree with the proposal that a further review should be conducted.
The Government retains every confidence in the judgement of the Reviewing Officers but remains prepared to review its position should any compelling new evidence be brought forward.
Regards,
John Reid
Well, with Bliar's slimy gang in terminal meltdown, I shall use the opportunity of the local election results to congratulate DC on his party's result - and to ask him what he will do about the Chinook accident injustice when he comes into power following the nations' boot being applied to the abysmal Noo Labor:
Dear David,
Firstly, many congratulations to you and your party for the excellent results in last night's elections. Hopefully we will soon see the back of the current government.
Thank you for your letter of 26 Apr 06, enclosing the reply from John Reid. The predictable brush-off, but still with no real explanation for his refusal to allow the case to be considered impartially.
As it is fairly clear that you will be the PM in a couple of years' time, may I ask what you will intend to do about the Chinook accident verdict when you come to power?
Regards,
(BEagle)
I remain convinced that had the 'gross negligence' verdict not been found, then the MoD would have been vulnerable to charges of corporate manslaughter and the compensation claims would have been vastly higher. As a result, the pilots were easy scapegoats for Wratten and Day to blame in order let MoD wriggle off the hook of their corporate guilt.
Keep going, Brian!
Dear (DC)
Thank you of your letter of 20 February enclosing further correspondence from your constituent (BEagle) about the Chinook helicopter ZD576 crash on the Mull of Kintyre in June 1994. I apologise for the delayed response.
Early Day Motion 1111 was lodged by Douglas Hogg on 24 November 2005. The motion calls on the Government to appoint a Judge of the High Court or similar individual to review of all the evidence gathered in the hearings and enquiries that have been held into the crash of ZD576 and, having regard to the appropriate burden and standard of proof, to advise whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conclusion that the pilots were guilty of gross negligence.
As I said in my last letter, the crash of ZD576 is the most extensively examined accident in the history of UK military aviation. The Labour Government and Ministerial team reviewed this case when we came into office in 1997, and again when Geoff Hoon became Defence Secretary. I also reconsidered the case on my appointment. We remain satisfied that the finding was appropriate and should not be disturbed. I therefore remain unable to agree with the proposal that a further review should be conducted.
The Government retains every confidence in the judgement of the Reviewing Officers but remains prepared to review its position should any compelling new evidence be brought forward.
Regards,
John Reid
Well, with Bliar's slimy gang in terminal meltdown, I shall use the opportunity of the local election results to congratulate DC on his party's result - and to ask him what he will do about the Chinook accident injustice when he comes into power following the nations' boot being applied to the abysmal Noo Labor:
Dear David,
Firstly, many congratulations to you and your party for the excellent results in last night's elections. Hopefully we will soon see the back of the current government.
Thank you for your letter of 26 Apr 06, enclosing the reply from John Reid. The predictable brush-off, but still with no real explanation for his refusal to allow the case to be considered impartially.
As it is fairly clear that you will be the PM in a couple of years' time, may I ask what you will intend to do about the Chinook accident verdict when you come to power?
Regards,
(BEagle)
I remain convinced that had the 'gross negligence' verdict not been found, then the MoD would have been vulnerable to charges of corporate manslaughter and the compensation claims would have been vastly higher. As a result, the pilots were easy scapegoats for Wratten and Day to blame in order let MoD wriggle off the hook of their corporate guilt.
Keep going, Brian!
Last edited by BEagle; 5th May 2006 at 09:11.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
BEagle.
You say that the pilots were easy scapegoats for Wratten and Day to blame in order let MoD wriggle off the hook of their corporate guilt.
So are you saying that MOD put them up to it. in other words it was an MOD inspired conspiricy? JP
You say that the pilots were easy scapegoats for Wratten and Day to blame in order let MoD wriggle off the hook of their corporate guilt.
So are you saying that MOD put them up to it. in other words it was an MOD inspired conspiricy? JP
How would I know?
The fact is that it would obviously be very convenient for MoD to apportion the entire blame on the deceased crew.
The fact is that it would obviously be very convenient for MoD to apportion the entire blame on the deceased crew.
BEagle
Interesting you should say your reply from the erstwhile Def Sec took months - you may recall my MP had written to Adam Ingram (who is still in post as far as I know) asking what was the further evidence, presented to him in 1997 and since, that changed his opinion from one of an injustice to that of negligence with absolutely no doubt whatsoever. That was on 13 March, and when I recently prodded my MP over the absence of a reply, he wrote back to say it normally takes 8 weeks, and that his secretary will chase the minister after that time. (I don't know why he wrote to Ingram and not Reid)
Anyway, 8 weeks is just about up, so I'm now standing by for the next brush-off - though this question may give them some cause for thought.
airsound
Anyway, 8 weeks is just about up, so I'm now standing by for the next brush-off - though this question may give them some cause for thought.
airsound
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP
Let's not call it a conspiracy. Let's suggest instead that, given the unwillingness of the MoD to follow what amounts to the compelling advice of the House of Lords Select Committee (which was effectively an independent judicial review), there is something politically sensitive lying under the surface, which renders a possible quashing of the negligence verdicts distasteful to the MoD/Government.
Whatever this sensitivity is, its publication has probably been deemed 'not in the public interest' and that is why we find ourselves where we are today. I hope that we don't have to wait until the 30-Year Rule applies in order to find out what this sensitivity has been.
Let's not call it a conspiracy. Let's suggest instead that, given the unwillingness of the MoD to follow what amounts to the compelling advice of the House of Lords Select Committee (which was effectively an independent judicial review), there is something politically sensitive lying under the surface, which renders a possible quashing of the negligence verdicts distasteful to the MoD/Government.
Whatever this sensitivity is, its publication has probably been deemed 'not in the public interest' and that is why we find ourselves where we are today. I hope that we don't have to wait until the 30-Year Rule applies in order to find out what this sensitivity has been.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey
I think that Meadowbank has summarized the situation rather well.
You do not have to have anything particular in mind when analyzing this event to get that impression of the situation.
I think that Meadowbank has summarized the situation rather well.
You do not have to have anything particular in mind when analyzing this event to get that impression of the situation.
John P
“So you too think that the government/MOD have something to hide”.
One example;
Airworthiness
The DECU. My opinion, as an aircraft engineer and latterly MoD project manager having airworthiness delegation, is that only a complete fool would accept an aircraft in which the crew were under pressure to frequently check such an important component. I never dealt with Boeing directly, but I am absolutely certain of one thing. Westland would NEVER knowingly present such a design to the 555 (Installation Design) Conference. Regardless of when such a problem was discovered, both myself and Westland would (and frequently did) take the hit in time and cost terms, to protect the safety element of performance. No arguments. The aircraft would not even be presented for MAR trials. No fix, no MAR, no pay. The DECU and/or its installation design were patently NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE. To subsequently “pass” it is the clearest evidence imaginable of a breakdown in the airworthiness process. What were the verification and acceptance criteria? MoD won’t discuss the matter. Why? I’d like to say I’ve never seen the like before, but I have, and it’s condoned at the highest level in order to protect the time and cost elements.
This issue alone raises what I would call reasonable doubt, which far exceeds the criteria required to clear the pilots. If MoD cannot be honest about this, then they have something to hide. I suspect they are fearful of systematic failures of process being exposed, which would diminish their case.
Best Wishes
“So you too think that the government/MOD have something to hide”.
One example;
Airworthiness
The DECU. My opinion, as an aircraft engineer and latterly MoD project manager having airworthiness delegation, is that only a complete fool would accept an aircraft in which the crew were under pressure to frequently check such an important component. I never dealt with Boeing directly, but I am absolutely certain of one thing. Westland would NEVER knowingly present such a design to the 555 (Installation Design) Conference. Regardless of when such a problem was discovered, both myself and Westland would (and frequently did) take the hit in time and cost terms, to protect the safety element of performance. No arguments. The aircraft would not even be presented for MAR trials. No fix, no MAR, no pay. The DECU and/or its installation design were patently NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE. To subsequently “pass” it is the clearest evidence imaginable of a breakdown in the airworthiness process. What were the verification and acceptance criteria? MoD won’t discuss the matter. Why? I’d like to say I’ve never seen the like before, but I have, and it’s condoned at the highest level in order to protect the time and cost elements.
This issue alone raises what I would call reasonable doubt, which far exceeds the criteria required to clear the pilots. If MoD cannot be honest about this, then they have something to hide. I suspect they are fearful of systematic failures of process being exposed, which would diminish their case.
Best Wishes