Will Other Controversial BOI's Be Reviewed?
Thanks for posting the graphs and the comments thereto.
Of course to be even more accurately portrayed, one then needs to split the graphs into the aircraft role and analyse the stage of flight in which the accident took place.
In earlier times, many aircraft were declared write-offs because the type was approaching the end of its service life and there were stocks of aircraft which could easily be pressed into use. For an extreme example, I found a Tempest which was struck off charge following an engine failure because it wasn't even worth while doing an engine change. Although a slight red herring, at the other extreme, many will remember the pile of charred metal which was Hurricane LF363 - look at her now!
Although big aircraft did not crash often, when they did they had the opportunity to kill a large number of people (Hastings at Abingdon, Herc off Pisa, and two Shacks in a - possible - mid air). Fighters, GA types and trainers have always contributed large numbers of aircraft to the accident stats and this for fairly obvious reasons.
I have always had a concern about the retention of currency amongst aircrew as flying hours are cut and restrictions on what can be practised and where. Simulators are fine for procedural work but I ask the question; 'do they provide the sort of extraneous pressures one encounters during a real live practice and hence are they a totally realistic substitute'? Presumably, somebody is keeping a close eye on - for example - young pilots who are obliged to be away from their 'desks' because of other commitments
Apologies as this Thread has drifted rather more than the originators would have wished.
Finally, the accident stats broken down by aircraft lost and casualties sustained can be found in the RAF Historical Society section of the RAF Museum website and then look for the flight safety seminar.
Old Duffer (late walking the dogs this morning 'cause of posting this)
Of course to be even more accurately portrayed, one then needs to split the graphs into the aircraft role and analyse the stage of flight in which the accident took place.
In earlier times, many aircraft were declared write-offs because the type was approaching the end of its service life and there were stocks of aircraft which could easily be pressed into use. For an extreme example, I found a Tempest which was struck off charge following an engine failure because it wasn't even worth while doing an engine change. Although a slight red herring, at the other extreme, many will remember the pile of charred metal which was Hurricane LF363 - look at her now!
Although big aircraft did not crash often, when they did they had the opportunity to kill a large number of people (Hastings at Abingdon, Herc off Pisa, and two Shacks in a - possible - mid air). Fighters, GA types and trainers have always contributed large numbers of aircraft to the accident stats and this for fairly obvious reasons.
I have always had a concern about the retention of currency amongst aircrew as flying hours are cut and restrictions on what can be practised and where. Simulators are fine for procedural work but I ask the question; 'do they provide the sort of extraneous pressures one encounters during a real live practice and hence are they a totally realistic substitute'? Presumably, somebody is keeping a close eye on - for example - young pilots who are obliged to be away from their 'desks' because of other commitments
Apologies as this Thread has drifted rather more than the originators would have wished.
Finally, the accident stats broken down by aircraft lost and casualties sustained can be found in the RAF Historical Society section of the RAF Museum website and then look for the flight safety seminar.
Old Duffer (late walking the dogs this morning 'cause of posting this)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was airborne in the same stream when the C130 was lost off Pisa.
It was still dark and flying at 500ft over the sea we unexpectedly encountered two to three eighths of stratus. Before we considered abort, and after only a couple of seconds the cloud cleared.
It is believed the C130 crew just pushed and flew straight in.
As far as I remember though, they were never blamed? No ADR / CVR so who knows what really happened?
It was still dark and flying at 500ft over the sea we unexpectedly encountered two to three eighths of stratus. Before we considered abort, and after only a couple of seconds the cloud cleared.
It is believed the C130 crew just pushed and flew straight in.
As far as I remember though, they were never blamed? No ADR / CVR so who knows what really happened?
Pisa '71
Dalek, I was the nav in the 5th aircraft in the stream of 6, the last 3 as you may recall did not get airborne due to late arrival of their Italian paras.
I do not recall any cloud at all, but I think there was a hint of sea fog drifting in at that ungodly hour.
We took off on RW04(?) and made a right turn onto the initial track of about 240, not left as that would have taken us over city. As soon as we were established on track and with the first turning point, an island,rock solid on my CCWR, I stood up to lean on the back of the co's seat when there was this big red flash in our 11o'clock. Geoff, my skipper screamed someone has flown into a hill, negative I said there's the nearest rock 20 miles ahead on the radar.
No 4 saw it too and made a report to the streamleader, and subsequent radio check revealed No 3 missing.
I'm still in touch with the nav from No4 and the skipper from No6, and saw my skipper in France in 2006.
Memory does play tricks (in fact I witnessed a road accident last week and only 6 days later I'm thinking which was first the bang or the sight of the collision between the 2 cars),another frequent poster on pprune has said that the Andover weather ship said wx was unsuitable. There was no Andover involvement on that detachment to Pisa in Nov '71.
We the crews involved had our theory as to what had happened, and the idiotic idea to have the most difficult sortie, ie night 9 ship formation, as the first of the detachment, instead of a gentle build up starting with day singletons leading in to day 3 ships,must have had quite a role in what happened!
Waffle over, back as OD said to the original thread intention.
BW
I do not recall any cloud at all, but I think there was a hint of sea fog drifting in at that ungodly hour.
We took off on RW04(?) and made a right turn onto the initial track of about 240, not left as that would have taken us over city. As soon as we were established on track and with the first turning point, an island,rock solid on my CCWR, I stood up to lean on the back of the co's seat when there was this big red flash in our 11o'clock. Geoff, my skipper screamed someone has flown into a hill, negative I said there's the nearest rock 20 miles ahead on the radar.
No 4 saw it too and made a report to the streamleader, and subsequent radio check revealed No 3 missing.
I'm still in touch with the nav from No4 and the skipper from No6, and saw my skipper in France in 2006.
Memory does play tricks (in fact I witnessed a road accident last week and only 6 days later I'm thinking which was first the bang or the sight of the collision between the 2 cars),another frequent poster on pprune has said that the Andover weather ship said wx was unsuitable. There was no Andover involvement on that detachment to Pisa in Nov '71.
We the crews involved had our theory as to what had happened, and the idiotic idea to have the most difficult sortie, ie night 9 ship formation, as the first of the detachment, instead of a gentle build up starting with day singletons leading in to day 3 ships,must have had quite a role in what happened!
Waffle over, back as OD said to the original thread intention.
BW
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where there is no clear, unambiguos evidence of negligence or blame, all Boards of Inquiry that instead found the pilots/crew blameworthy, should also be set aside. I would support such a campaign.
However, AA is right, in more-recent years (1980-97) - when blame could still be attached via negligence there is, however, no blame though 'error of judgment'/'no lack of zeal' etc. So maybe not all 'pilot error' accidents would be absolved.
More clarification on definition of negligence/human factors (aircrew), human failings etc is required before 1980ish.
However, AA is right, in more-recent years (1980-97) - when blame could still be attached via negligence there is, however, no blame though 'error of judgment'/'no lack of zeal' etc. So maybe not all 'pilot error' accidents would be absolved.
More clarification on definition of negligence/human factors (aircrew), human failings etc is required before 1980ish.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sheffield
Age: 66
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tench Report
The Tench Report gives details of procedures for BoIs, published in 1987 the regulations at that time were the 1956 regs Tench gives a summary in his report. Before '56 I guess QRs etc will be available at Kew or AHB
The Tench Report.
This damning report should add weight to any campaign I think.
The Tench Report.
This damning report should add weight to any campaign I think.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suspect BoIs
The loss of Tornado F3 ZH558 near Akrotiri on 1 Jul 1994 should , in my view, certainly be looked at again - the time frame of the investigation and RO's comments closely parallel those of the Mull. The main BoI and AOC 11 Gp all decided that there should be no findings of negligence - quoting the rules of AP 3207 - quoting the same rule, and without apparently needing any legal advice from DLS the AOCinC decided that he had "no doubt whatsoever" that the crew were negligent. So one man's opinion (for that is all it can be) overules everybody else - is that how the BoI process was meant to work?
Given the Mull ruling on burden of proof I would imagine the families concerned would be in a good position to require MOD to clear the crew's names should they wish to pursue this.
JB
Given the Mull ruling on burden of proof I would imagine the families concerned would be in a good position to require MOD to clear the crew's names should they wish to pursue this.
JB
Presumably there must be ADR traces and CVR transcripts, which would have informed both the BoI and the CinCs deliberations. One assumes the CinC made the reasons for his decision clear in his findings and, if so, what were they?
For one of the crew, this was their second major accident. Might this, coupled with the previous BoI, have influenced the CinCs findings?
Is there compelling evidence to suggest that the CinCs findings were unreasonable? Presumably he concluded that there was no doubt else why would he have ruled as such?
It would be interesting to see the timelines for the progress of the two BoIs through the system.
Old Duffer
For one of the crew, this was their second major accident. Might this, coupled with the previous BoI, have influenced the CinCs findings?
Is there compelling evidence to suggest that the CinCs findings were unreasonable? Presumably he concluded that there was no doubt else why would he have ruled as such?
It would be interesting to see the timelines for the progress of the two BoIs through the system.
Old Duffer
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AP 3207 Rules
OD,
The point is surely not whether the CinC thought his findings to be reasonable - you have to assume he did, as he presumably also did for the Mull. The point is whether he could meet the burden of proof requirements of 3207 - the BoI and AOC did not think so - so should deceased aircrew be found guilty of negligence by one man's opinion - for that is all it can be unless there is clear evidnece of legal advice being taken (and even that apparently wasn't too reliable in the case of the Mull) - even if he is sitting at the top of tree! For the Mull a learned judge (and indeed learned judges before him) found that the burden of proof had not been met (nothing to do with whether they knew anything about the operation of RAF aircraft, but everything to do with the law and justice) - is the Akrotiri finding any different?
JB
The point is surely not whether the CinC thought his findings to be reasonable - you have to assume he did, as he presumably also did for the Mull. The point is whether he could meet the burden of proof requirements of 3207 - the BoI and AOC did not think so - so should deceased aircrew be found guilty of negligence by one man's opinion - for that is all it can be unless there is clear evidnece of legal advice being taken (and even that apparently wasn't too reliable in the case of the Mull) - even if he is sitting at the top of tree! For the Mull a learned judge (and indeed learned judges before him) found that the burden of proof had not been met (nothing to do with whether they knew anything about the operation of RAF aircraft, but everything to do with the law and justice) - is the Akrotiri finding any different?
JB
JB,
Then one needs to look at what the CinC wrote and determine whether the evidence on which he based his findings meets the test.
If he states the basis of his findings and these do not satisfy the test then his findings were wrong but if they do, he was within his rights.
The issue is also one of case law. The law may be written and on the (MOD equivalent) of the Statute Book but it is only by the outcome of trials and a judge's ruling that the legal precedent is established. If this BoI went to the CinC after the Mull BoI, perhaps he believed that he was in a position to make a finding which met the requirements and his decision did not require further legal interpretation/advice.
Perhaps things would have been less confused if, having made a change to the burden of proof, a JAG should have been appointed to advise BoIs or the deceased personnel should have been represented legally and in absentium. After all, it was because deceased personnel could not have any means of defence that the rules were changed in the first place but the changes were not complete by failing to cover the legal representation of dead people.
It would be interesting to know what direction was given to BoI advisers, what guidance was given to Defence Aviation Safety staff and how were the changes to the law represented to those officers responsible for convening and reviewing boards of inquiry.
It is also interesting that, despite various enquiries into the Mull accident, none of the legal bodies involved compelled the MOD to accept their judgements. It seems rather sloppy that, for example, a Scottish Fatal Accident Enquiry proves to be toothless.
Given that Cameron stated in a letter that he would exonerate the Mull crew when he came to power and I told him, Dr Fox and Gerald Howarth that they could not do so on a whim and that without a fresh review such a gesture would be pointless, we now have an accident which has no finding substituted for the one which was overturned. An equally messy situation.
OD
Then one needs to look at what the CinC wrote and determine whether the evidence on which he based his findings meets the test.
If he states the basis of his findings and these do not satisfy the test then his findings were wrong but if they do, he was within his rights.
The issue is also one of case law. The law may be written and on the (MOD equivalent) of the Statute Book but it is only by the outcome of trials and a judge's ruling that the legal precedent is established. If this BoI went to the CinC after the Mull BoI, perhaps he believed that he was in a position to make a finding which met the requirements and his decision did not require further legal interpretation/advice.
Perhaps things would have been less confused if, having made a change to the burden of proof, a JAG should have been appointed to advise BoIs or the deceased personnel should have been represented legally and in absentium. After all, it was because deceased personnel could not have any means of defence that the rules were changed in the first place but the changes were not complete by failing to cover the legal representation of dead people.
It would be interesting to know what direction was given to BoI advisers, what guidance was given to Defence Aviation Safety staff and how were the changes to the law represented to those officers responsible for convening and reviewing boards of inquiry.
It is also interesting that, despite various enquiries into the Mull accident, none of the legal bodies involved compelled the MOD to accept their judgements. It seems rather sloppy that, for example, a Scottish Fatal Accident Enquiry proves to be toothless.
Given that Cameron stated in a letter that he would exonerate the Mull crew when he came to power and I told him, Dr Fox and Gerald Howarth that they could not do so on a whim and that without a fresh review such a gesture would be pointless, we now have an accident which has no finding substituted for the one which was overturned. An equally messy situation.
OD
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the real point is whether further public money and time should be consumed on BOIs of incidents long ago. BoIs were conducted and reviewed in good faith. Where blame was determined, it was effectively a matter of opinion, albeit based on evidence available - unless a court martial made a guilty finding based on evidence placed before the court. Clearly where those who would have been at risk of a CM were deceased, no court martial occurred. Under the presumption of innocence we have in UK law, it follows that those deceased were innocent. I really can see no benefit in going over old ground.
Surely, the MOD is stretched enough as it is trying to run our Forces without adding a string of old BOIs to re-investigate.
Surely, the MOD is stretched enough as it is trying to run our Forces without adding a string of old BOIs to re-investigate.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: 39 scrub lane SS7 2JA
Age: 90
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me that the destructive impact on the reputation of aircrew, who have lost their lives in the service of their country, by the attribution of blame and/or negligence can be fully appreciated only by their close relatives. And to suggest that a review of those BOI's which have resulted in such verdicts should be decided on the costs involved is at best disrespectful.
Iago got it right ( Othello,act 3 ,scene 3)
Regarding the Valiant crash in August 1960 there was a clear malfunction with the aircraft which nobody disputed regarding the nosewheel which failed to retract and the AIB found no explanation for this .
The political atmosphere at that time was quite tense due to the U2/Gary Powers incident a few months earlier and this atmosphere is well ilustrated by reference to the UN clash between MacMillan and Kruschev in September 1960 and the shoe banging exhibition by Kruschev at the UN in October 1960.Both of these incidences can be seen on the internet.
Iago got it right ( Othello,act 3 ,scene 3)
Regarding the Valiant crash in August 1960 there was a clear malfunction with the aircraft which nobody disputed regarding the nosewheel which failed to retract and the AIB found no explanation for this .
The political atmosphere at that time was quite tense due to the U2/Gary Powers incident a few months earlier and this atmosphere is well ilustrated by reference to the UN clash between MacMillan and Kruschev in September 1960 and the shoe banging exhibition by Kruschev at the UN in October 1960.Both of these incidences can be seen on the internet.
Originally Posted by John Blakeley
The loss of Tornado F3 ZH558 near Akrotiri on 1 Jul 1994 should , in my view, certainly be looked at again - the time frame of the investigation and RO's comments closely parallel those of the Mull.
ZH558 Crash
More generally, I could not agree more about certain AOC's over-ruling/ignoring BoIs' findings. My last job in the RAF was as President on one. Fortunately, I won that one, although I don't think that man concerned ever knew at what cost.
Harrier BOI
I'm sure many here will be very familiar with both. But how much do we all really know?
Courtney
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 28th Dec 2011 at 20:49.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: 39 scrub lane SS7 2JA
Age: 90
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O-D / CJ
The reasons given for the revisions to the regulations ,incuding upgrading the standard of proof, for BOI's for accidents in which the crew died are also valid reasons for reviewing other relevant accidents when negligence/blame was attributed ; summarised in the Philip report as to meet '' generally accepted standards of justice and fairness''.
Regarding the Valiant crash in August 1960 surely the evidence of the widespread cracks in the wingspars ,which was exposed by the comprehensive inspections of the Valiant fleet in 1964,(leading to the withdrawal from service of the entire fleet in Jan.1965,) together with the writings of Morgan,Jones and Brookes is compelling?
Regarding the Valiant crash in August 1960 surely the evidence of the widespread cracks in the wingspars ,which was exposed by the comprehensive inspections of the Valiant fleet in 1964,(leading to the withdrawal from service of the entire fleet in Jan.1965,) together with the writings of Morgan,Jones and Brookes is compelling?
I'm very interested in this one, John, and thank you for raising it. I was the crew's flight commander at the time and had the horror of identifying their bodies. The background is very complicated and steeped in politics. It is an incident that haunts me today. I'm sure you will understand that there is much that cannot be divulged here. I would be interrested in your thoughts. Especially as to why. I made only a very brief reference to it in my journal at the time (edited before I put it in the public domain).
ZH558 Crash
ZH558 Crash
EDIT - just found this..... http://www.ukserials.com/pdflosses/m...0708_zh558.pdf
Reading your website (which I think is rather good) one is left jumping to certain conclusions as to what may have happened - late night party / early sortie? Is this the intent? I will edit if this is inappropriate, but it is the impression given I think.
From Courtney's Journal:
This, along with other references in this topic to similar occurrences, beggars belief. How can they do this. All credit to CM for refusing to be lead, but how many others have heeded the "advice" given?
CM, I've booked marked your journal for further reading. Looks very interesting.
We reported our progress to the AOC, who shouted and ranted at us. I especially 'enjoyed' a 45 minute, one-way telephone conversation that I had with my AOC one afternoon. Not only was he kind enough to tell me what findings we were supposed to come up with
CM, I've booked marked your journal for further reading. Looks very interesting.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Sad fact is as I see it a BOI is set up for one reason and one reason only, to find the truth as to what happened to help prevent it happening again and possibly save some poor soul losing their lives........ When politics get into it and higher ranked officers attempt to alter the findings for what ever reasoning that lesson is lost, the pressure to come to a set finding, even if the incorrect one simply buries the truth and leaves the possibility of it happening again, that is why the Civil AIB works so well, it is independent from the airlines or manufacturers etc and works to find the truth.
Additionally they and I don't mean this badly a service board are simply not someone placed in a position that they are not 100% qualified to judge on, such as proffessional accident investigators.... You wouldn't if getting court marshalled take the court appointment officer to defend you (if you had any sense) you would use a proffessional lawyer.... The same should cover BOI's it needs an independent and qualified inspector.
Additionally they and I don't mean this badly a service board are simply not someone placed in a position that they are not 100% qualified to judge on, such as proffessional accident investigators.... You wouldn't if getting court marshalled take the court appointment officer to defend you (if you had any sense) you would use a proffessional lawyer.... The same should cover BOI's it needs an independent and qualified inspector.
Courtney
Thank you for your posts. These “chats” with AOCs are your equivalent of the ones I had with my 2 Stars, when instructed to commit fraud by making false declarations about airworthiness and financial probity. They are closely related because, as Nut Loose says, their intent was to conceal the truth thereby placing aircrew at risk. I suspect if we drew up lists of names there would be much commonality!
Well done indeed.
Thank you for your posts. These “chats” with AOCs are your equivalent of the ones I had with my 2 Stars, when instructed to commit fraud by making false declarations about airworthiness and financial probity. They are closely related because, as Nut Loose says, their intent was to conceal the truth thereby placing aircrew at risk. I suspect if we drew up lists of names there would be much commonality!
Well done indeed.
With the availability of Internet to disseminate information very rapidly, 'they' were paranoid about truth leaking out onto sites such as PPRuNe....
However, there are a few 'mates in confidence' rumours about the probable cause of at least 2 'unexplained' CFIT fatal accidents. One concerned a Hunter T7 near Shawbury in the early 1970s and the other a Tornado GR1A in Scotland in 1994....
However, there are a few 'mates in confidence' rumours about the probable cause of at least 2 'unexplained' CFIT fatal accidents. One concerned a Hunter T7 near Shawbury in the early 1970s and the other a Tornado GR1A in Scotland in 1994....
"The INTRODUCER"
Very late to this thread, but the link to the Flight International article (written by the recently lamented Gainesy) cited earlier is here (over two pages which have to be selected separately).
More to the point, for those not familiar, the entire pre-internet contents of Flight, back to 1909, are available in searchable .pdf at Aviation History - Browse the History of Flight from 1909
When I was at Flight we commissioned the creation of this archive by scanning every issue of the magazine - many of which exist only as a single hard copy - with optical character recognition. The search functionality works astonishingly well and it is very easy to have a couple of hours sucked out of your day once you start playing around with it. Uncle Roger from the glory days of the 70s and 80s is particularly seductive.
More to the point, for those not familiar, the entire pre-internet contents of Flight, back to 1909, are available in searchable .pdf at Aviation History - Browse the History of Flight from 1909
When I was at Flight we commissioned the creation of this archive by scanning every issue of the magazine - many of which exist only as a single hard copy - with optical character recognition. The search functionality works astonishingly well and it is very easy to have a couple of hours sucked out of your day once you start playing around with it. Uncle Roger from the glory days of the 70s and 80s is particularly seductive.
NutLoose:
Hammer, nail, head! Going over old suspect BoI's may save tarnished reputations it is true, but the essential dynamic is to ensure that future Military Air Accident Investigations are not thus suspect. As NutLoose so correctly points out that cannot be unless they are carried out by a body that is completely separate and independent of the operator (the MOD) and of the Authority (the MAA, ie....the MOD!). That is the real message of Mull and, no matter how many "independent" inquiries and "independent" bodies within the MOD are established, that remains the message. Unless and until we have an independent MAA and MAAIB, separate and independent of the MOD and of each other, avoidable military air accidents will go on killing with monotonous and depressing frequency.
Self Regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation it Kills!
Sad fact is as I see it a BOI is set up for one reason and one reason only, to find the truth as to what happened to help prevent it happening again and possibly save some poor soul losing their lives........ When politics get into it and higher ranked officers attempt to alter the findings for what ever reasoning that lesson is lost, the pressure to come to a set finding, even if the incorrect one simply buries the truth and leaves the possibility of it happening again, that is why the Civil AIB works so well, it is independent from the airlines or manufacturers etc and works to find the truth.
Self Regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation it Kills!