Court Martial over F15 crash
Capt. Widebody - given the great deal that was rightly written about the air staff in the chinook accident apportioning blame when they could not be sure, would you mind telling me how you got hold of the tapes in this incident. I assume that you have as you see fit to write - . .. ."I'm sure the guy did make a mistake".. .. .As has been said before - 2 guys died, one more has his carreer hanging in the balance and probably doesn't feel too clever right now. He may be guilty or not but let's wait and see shall we.
SH Monkey,. .. .There must already have been a BOI to determine what happened, its just that they don't apportion blame anymore. It will be interesting to see what the charge is. Rumour control has it that he has good extenuating circumstances.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the circumstances, and wherever the CM decide to aportion respective amounts of blame, this is a clear case of Human Error. My thoughts are with the dead crew, however to Err is Human. Under JAROPs, We have recognised this in flight crews for 17 years and made Human Factors Training Mandatory. We Have even made HF training mandatory for engineers who can release an aircraft to fly with a signature. The ATCO concerned and all other ATCO's, deserve the right to have the benifit of HF training. They are a key part to our safe and effective ops. If the CM press with this one, they do not have a cat in hells chance. There but for the grace of god!!!. . . . <small>[ 24 March 2002, 22:17: Message edited by: Tigs ]</small>
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having met the ATCO concerned some years back AFTER leaving the RAF, I have one question:. .. .He left the regualr RAF to commence civil ATC training which didn't work out.. .. .Did he re-join the mob (or did he ACTUALLY leave?) and if so was he an AVO/RO?. .. .Anyway, our thoughts are with you at this difficult time.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flap62. The point I was and still am making is that we all make mistakes from time to time but CMs are not the way forward. It will never promote open and honest reporting, learning and thus a reduction of HF accidents. If this guy did make a big mistake then hanging him out to dry will not help in the long run. Please do not take one part of my post in isolation; I accept that at first glance it may have looked like I was trying to put across my opinion of what may or may not have happened in this case - this is not my intention. You are quite correct - I cannot be sure whether he did make a mistake or not. But if we are going to go down the semantics route, I know I never go flying and acheive a faultless performance. Do you? But if I flew 100' high downwind in the radar pattern, then crashed off the end of the runway because my brakes failed on the landing run, I wouldn't expect to be court martialled for innacurate height keeping.. .. .Whether the ATCO made a mistake or not is actually not the issue as far as I am concerned, though apparently it is the issue of the CM. In any case, any mistake made by this ATCO (if at all) could not under any circumstances been the sole cause of this accident. To all of you who mention potential negligence on the part of the ATCO, I refer you to again to JSP318A, or the inside cover of Airclues 4/2001.. .. .[edited because I made a mistake]. . . . <small>[ 26 March 2002, 01:24: Message edited by: Capt Widebody ]</small>
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised that anyone was surprised by this, given that it was very widely publicised at the time. . .Additionally, I am surprised and disappointed at the general lack of awareness (not here neccessarily, but in crewrooms etc)regarding a captain's responsibilities for terrain avoidance under RAS and RIS.. .Whilst there will be many facts surrounding this case of which we are not, and never will be, aware, may I offer the following 3 upon which you may rely utterly ?. .1. The 2 F15Cs were in close formation, IMC, under a radar service from Leuchars, whilst attempting to let down to LL. They were under a RAS. ( When they arrive for their tour, it is hammered into the USAF pilots the significance of RAF and UK radar services pertaining to terrain seperation responsibilities). They were informed by the controller as to the height of their sector safe altitude.. .2. The USAF BOI closed having exonorated the RAF conroller. (This potentially could have been a diplomatic move I grant you).. .3. At a recent meeting of all RAF Stations' PROs, the Lakenheath PRO asked for guidance as to how to respond to queries regarding the matter, now that the RAF were going for a CM, given that her parent service's own BOI had found no cause for blame.. .. .It has been obvious for the past year, that RAF controllers are very nervous about the whole issue; hence the increased tendency to over- control and say far to much on the R/T. Adding to their discomfort, I'm sure, is the modern over-use of the phrase "duty of care" as a metophorical accusatory finger. . .. .It's disappointing to see the reactionary words of Radar Muppet on page 1. Too many people are too quick in seeking to apportion blame rather than in claiming responsiblity. . .For myself.. there's only one person in my ac who will ever hold responsibility for terrain avoidance, whether IMC, VMC, IFR, VFR, TFR, day or night or on NVG with or without a radar service, and that's the ac captain. Me. ATC are there to help and provide assistance, and mostly they do it very well, but if my ac hits the ground, regardless of the radar service I'm using, it's my fault, no-one else's.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QWI. .. .I had been avoiding going into the detail you did and as directly as you did for two reasons: 1. Sub-judice; 2. Fatalities.. .. .My original point was more on the impact of such actions on HFOR and other open reporting within the ATC world (already a bit of a blackspot).. .. .Nonetheless, thank you for spelling out what I had been trying desperately to hint at without creating bad feelings amongst our USAF brethren. I was aware of much of the case, but was not aware that the USAF BOI findings had been published, hence my reticence to post. I am not at all surprised at their findings, and hope the CM swiftly and justly finds the same.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current situation regarding the CM is indeed a step too far. The RAF already has an understaffed ATC branch with poor promotion prospects, and the fact that we now know we will not be supported should anything go wrong, leads to an ever increasing sense of demoralisation. The outcome of the CM is almost inconsequential, it is the fact that it is happening at all, especially as the general feeling is that the CM is occurring to make an example of someone so that we can 'all learn from it'. What people will learn is not to join the RAF and not to stay in the organisation if you are treated with such contempt. Whilst I could talk about this specific issue for ever, there are actually a few issues already mentioned that need clarifying.
Firstly; the BOI is not complete, it just has to cease if there is the possibility of any civil issues being raised and it will reconvene when the CM is finished. Secondly; to RAF QWI - I'm not sure where your 'facts' came from but you are 100% wrong on two out of three of your points mentioned. Please, if we are going on hearsay, can we ensure we state it as such and not purport it to be the truth? Thirdly; on the wider issue of ATC over-controlling and saying too much on the RT, we do it because we have to and because we don't trust aircrew to do as they say they will. We don't sit there and make up long-winded phrases because we have nothing better to do, it is ALWAYS in response to aircrew not adhering to the rules and/or not realising their own obligations. E.g. in the Area world we now have to confirm that formations are 'within 1nm and at the same level' before entering CAS because aircrew in the past have not done as they were supposed to, and thus we all pay the price of having to double-check. This still didn't stop a Tornado crew formating on an unsuspecting Harrier just before the Lichfield corridor and not telling anybody! Thank God Manchester didn't decide to erode separtion on that one or else there would be another BOI to discuss. Also, if I had a pound for every aircrew who didn't understand why I couldn't give them a RAS below my MSFL or who didn't understand why I wouldn't descend them any further under a RAS, I would be a rich woman. Whilst ATC should always be willing to learn from it's mistakes and enhance it's performance, so should every other element in the FS chain. People seem to be assuming that the recent F15 incident is purely an ATC issue and yet life, as we should know, is never as simple as that!
Firstly; the BOI is not complete, it just has to cease if there is the possibility of any civil issues being raised and it will reconvene when the CM is finished. Secondly; to RAF QWI - I'm not sure where your 'facts' came from but you are 100% wrong on two out of three of your points mentioned. Please, if we are going on hearsay, can we ensure we state it as such and not purport it to be the truth? Thirdly; on the wider issue of ATC over-controlling and saying too much on the RT, we do it because we have to and because we don't trust aircrew to do as they say they will. We don't sit there and make up long-winded phrases because we have nothing better to do, it is ALWAYS in response to aircrew not adhering to the rules and/or not realising their own obligations. E.g. in the Area world we now have to confirm that formations are 'within 1nm and at the same level' before entering CAS because aircrew in the past have not done as they were supposed to, and thus we all pay the price of having to double-check. This still didn't stop a Tornado crew formating on an unsuspecting Harrier just before the Lichfield corridor and not telling anybody! Thank God Manchester didn't decide to erode separtion on that one or else there would be another BOI to discuss. Also, if I had a pound for every aircrew who didn't understand why I couldn't give them a RAS below my MSFL or who didn't understand why I wouldn't descend them any further under a RAS, I would be a rich woman. Whilst ATC should always be willing to learn from it's mistakes and enhance it's performance, so should every other element in the FS chain. People seem to be assuming that the recent F15 incident is purely an ATC issue and yet life, as we should know, is never as simple as that!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you RAF QWI for exactly the response I had money on receiving.....I haven't mentioned you inadvertently in my post have I? By the way, I have no need to feel sorry for myself, I just steal my husband's flying pay (enhanced don't you know!). 
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The Times - 29 Jan:
A MILITARY air traffic controller appeared distraught and talked about the recent death of his father on the day that two American fighter pilots crashed on a Scottish mountain, a court martial heard yesterday.
Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Williams, 47, of RAF Leuchars in Fife, was “jumping from subject to subject” during his shift in which the pilots of the two F15C jets flew over the Cairngorms in a blizzard.
Flight Lieutenant Williams had returned to work at RAF Leuchars on March 26, 2001, after two weeks of compassionate leave following his father’s death.
He appeared before a military court in Helensburgh charged with causing the deaths of the two pilots and an alternative charge of negligently performing his duties. He pleaded not guilty.
It is alleged that he caused the accident by telling the two pilots to descend to 4,000ft when the minimum safety altitude in the area was 6,500ft.
Flying Officer Sophie Green, who was on duty on the day of the crash, told the court martial that Flight Lieutenant Williams had been feeling very upset. She said he had tapped her on the arm to follow him on to the balcony. “He was very worried and told me he thought that two aircraft may have crashed. He was worried that the two contacts with the aircraft had been quite strong, and they disappeared.
“He was feeling very upset. He was jumping about from subject to subject. He was worried about the aircraft, then he jumped to talking about his father and how close he was.” Flying Officer Green said they then went back inside and Flight Lieutenant Williams jotted down something on a piece of paper while she made him a cup of tea.
Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Hyvonen, 40, and Captain Kirk Jones, 27, had been training over Scotland when they were killed in the crash.
Flight Lieutenant Stewart Grady described Flight Lieutenant Williams as being very despondent when he returned to his desk after talking to Flying Officer Green. Flight Lieutenant Grady said: “We had a conversation in which he said in the times he had been controlling aircraft, this was the first time that he had a bad feeling about the aircraft he had been controlling.”
The court martial continues.
A MILITARY air traffic controller appeared distraught and talked about the recent death of his father on the day that two American fighter pilots crashed on a Scottish mountain, a court martial heard yesterday.
Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Williams, 47, of RAF Leuchars in Fife, was “jumping from subject to subject” during his shift in which the pilots of the two F15C jets flew over the Cairngorms in a blizzard.
Flight Lieutenant Williams had returned to work at RAF Leuchars on March 26, 2001, after two weeks of compassionate leave following his father’s death.
He appeared before a military court in Helensburgh charged with causing the deaths of the two pilots and an alternative charge of negligently performing his duties. He pleaded not guilty.
It is alleged that he caused the accident by telling the two pilots to descend to 4,000ft when the minimum safety altitude in the area was 6,500ft.
Flying Officer Sophie Green, who was on duty on the day of the crash, told the court martial that Flight Lieutenant Williams had been feeling very upset. She said he had tapped her on the arm to follow him on to the balcony. “He was very worried and told me he thought that two aircraft may have crashed. He was worried that the two contacts with the aircraft had been quite strong, and they disappeared.
“He was feeling very upset. He was jumping about from subject to subject. He was worried about the aircraft, then he jumped to talking about his father and how close he was.” Flying Officer Green said they then went back inside and Flight Lieutenant Williams jotted down something on a piece of paper while she made him a cup of tea.
Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Hyvonen, 40, and Captain Kirk Jones, 27, had been training over Scotland when they were killed in the crash.
Flight Lieutenant Stewart Grady described Flight Lieutenant Williams as being very despondent when he returned to his desk after talking to Flying Officer Green. Flight Lieutenant Grady said: “We had a conversation in which he said in the times he had been controlling aircraft, this was the first time that he had a bad feeling about the aircraft he had been controlling.”
The court martial continues.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gents, just to keep you up to speed, try this link to the ATC bit of PPRuNe.
F15 Crash
Edited 'cos the link went wrong!
F15 Crash
Edited 'cos the link went wrong!
Last edited by Whipping Boy's SATCO; 29th Jan 2003 at 20:14.
Hopefully some of you will have read the thread referring to this in ATC issues. Just a few points following the various comments here.
GATCO have spent the maximum £50000 legal expenses that their rules allow - the bill was apparently at £65k 4 months before the start of the CM (with the defendant having to find approx £75k of his own money before qualifying for any legal support).
My understanding from the posts in the other thread (from people much closer to this than myself) is that the pilots were under a RIS - which puts a different perspective on some of the earlier comments where RAS was presumed.
Finally, it would appear from others that an RAF BOI was never held, or if it was, the controller involved was never required to give evidence - so it cannot have been satisfactorily concluded.
As a former mil controller I await the conclusion of this with great interest (having worked with SPOT in the past) but not, I think, with as much interest of those ex-colleagues of mine still serving.
GATCO have spent the maximum £50000 legal expenses that their rules allow - the bill was apparently at £65k 4 months before the start of the CM (with the defendant having to find approx £75k of his own money before qualifying for any legal support).
My understanding from the posts in the other thread (from people much closer to this than myself) is that the pilots were under a RIS - which puts a different perspective on some of the earlier comments where RAS was presumed.
Finally, it would appear from others that an RAF BOI was never held, or if it was, the controller involved was never required to give evidence - so it cannot have been satisfactorily concluded.
As a former mil controller I await the conclusion of this with great interest (having worked with SPOT in the past) but not, I think, with as much interest of those ex-colleagues of mine still serving.
From a serving Mil ATCO, well said Short & Shapeless. If those of you out there who wish to know more then go to ATC issues. Have a look at what people are saying. Get your facts correct.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read the French Report into the Kosovo ATR42 accident - the report seems to (without allocating 'blame') state that poor organisation / supervision of the airline, and poor appreciation of terrain, service being provided and the airlines's manuals by the crew led to the accident. Although the RAF ATCO's actions were detailed, no adverse comment was made (that I saw).
From this thread, and/or the one in ATC issues, am I to understand this accident also led to a CM?? If so, could someone provide a link, or brief summary of who was CM'd, what they were charged with, and the outcome?
As an ex RAF FJ pilot and QFI, and I left in 1994, I am still absolutely 100% clear what RIS and RAS mean (we very occasionally use them in the civvy world e.g. Newcastle), and that Terrain Clearance is 100% pilots' responsibility. I think maybe using these 2 accidents to educate pilots as to their responsibilities would be far better than muddying the waters by CM the ATCOs? And thats leaving aside the distress to the individual ATCOs caused by the CM...
Madam ATCO - its a real shame that ATCOs have been forced to go legal and state all the conditions, and get acknowledgment of, the service. If one's grown up enough to fly an aircraft, one really should have had the training and nouse to know what's being offered!
From this thread, and/or the one in ATC issues, am I to understand this accident also led to a CM?? If so, could someone provide a link, or brief summary of who was CM'd, what they were charged with, and the outcome?
As an ex RAF FJ pilot and QFI, and I left in 1994, I am still absolutely 100% clear what RIS and RAS mean (we very occasionally use them in the civvy world e.g. Newcastle), and that Terrain Clearance is 100% pilots' responsibility. I think maybe using these 2 accidents to educate pilots as to their responsibilities would be far better than muddying the waters by CM the ATCOs? And thats leaving aside the distress to the individual ATCOs caused by the CM...
Madam ATCO - its a real shame that ATCOs have been forced to go legal and state all the conditions, and get acknowledgment of, the service. If one's grown up enough to fly an aircraft, one really should have had the training and nouse to know what's being offered!
Just to bring this back to the top.....
The thread on the ATC Issues forum has updates of the proceedings for the first week.
I think the reported discussion on the altimetry question is pertinent and I wonder if Radar Muppet would like to read this and then re-consider his post on this subject earlier.
As an ex-mil controller I find it difficult to understand how this is still going on - a feeling shared by a great number of those still charged with providing you guys and gals the best service there is out there.
In jest, and usually with a full banter caption on, it has always been us and them out there - all part of the job and one of things that made it great work (well for me for over 18 years anyway). I just wonder what the atmosphere will be like for all concerned if the Board see fit to find against the controller.
The thread on the ATC Issues forum has updates of the proceedings for the first week.
I think the reported discussion on the altimetry question is pertinent and I wonder if Radar Muppet would like to read this and then re-consider his post on this subject earlier.
As an ex-mil controller I find it difficult to understand how this is still going on - a feeling shared by a great number of those still charged with providing you guys and gals the best service there is out there.
In jest, and usually with a full banter caption on, it has always been us and them out there - all part of the job and one of things that made it great work (well for me for over 18 years anyway). I just wonder what the atmosphere will be like for all concerned if the Board see fit to find against the controller.