Will Other Controversial BOI's Be Reviewed?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will Other Controversial BOI's Be Reviewed?
After the success of the mission for justice in connection with the MoK Chinook incident will there be requests for reviews of the findings of other contentious BOIs?
I am thinking of a Valiant crash many years ago which was attributed to aircrew error but could have been a structural failure and I am sure there are other suspect findings.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...aliant+spanhoe
I am thinking of a Valiant crash many years ago which was attributed to aircrew error but could have been a structural failure and I am sure there are other suspect findings.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...aliant+spanhoe
A2QFI
I spend a good deal of time researching and writing accounts of aircraft accidents and losses. I have often been asked about reopening enquiries because, with greater awareness and more reluctance to accept the initial findings, people want to look again at the verdicts.
As a general rule, the longer ago the accident, less information remains from the initial investigations. There is no certainty that the BofI papers have survived and the background documentation and suchlike is very likely to have been destroyed. Given that the Valiant accident to which you refer is now more then fifty years ago and the aircraft went out of service five years later, it is probable that little original information remains, although of course some has been posted in your offering above.
The rules under which an accident was investigated in - say - 1960, are very different to the current process.
May I suggest that many who contributed to the original enquiry will be dead or quite elderly and their testimony unreliable.
To whom would you address a request to reopen a BoI? What would be the basis of your request? What is the new and compelling evidence that would convince a hard pressed MOD to reconsider the earlier findings? How and who would convene the review and who would actually agree to pay for it? Can the mores of 1960 really be translated into 2011? Whilst intending no disrespect, we have had politicians in the recent past apologising for events which happened a century ago, something which is meaningless in my view.
I have also tried, when asked, to differentiate between phrases such as 'negligence' and 'errors of judgement'. The meanings of these words have changed with time.
Finally, I try to steer people away from getting too deeply involved in trying to clear (perhaps for example) their father's name. It can be and has proved for some, to be an exceptionally distressing experience, I know of no single case where a military verdict has been overturned (ignore ZD576 for the moment). The Vulcan at Heathrow in Oct 56 is an example where after many years it became apparent that the aircraft had possibly been 'talked into the ground' but I don't recall that 'Podge' Howard was ever formally exonerated. On the civil side, the Munich aircrash went on for many years as to whether it was slush on the runway or ice on the wings which was the cause and by time the result was changed, the aircraft's captain was a broken man who had lost his flying career, became a chicken farmer and died young.
Finally, there is the size of the problem. Since VE-Day, the RAF has lost about 9400 aircraft and had over 6000 fatal casualties. Stoically, it was accepted as de riguer that if another definite cause could not be found, it must be the pilot's fault. Where would one start?
Sorry if this seems unhelpful and pessimistic but I actually think it's a realistic assessment.
Old Duffer
I spend a good deal of time researching and writing accounts of aircraft accidents and losses. I have often been asked about reopening enquiries because, with greater awareness and more reluctance to accept the initial findings, people want to look again at the verdicts.
As a general rule, the longer ago the accident, less information remains from the initial investigations. There is no certainty that the BofI papers have survived and the background documentation and suchlike is very likely to have been destroyed. Given that the Valiant accident to which you refer is now more then fifty years ago and the aircraft went out of service five years later, it is probable that little original information remains, although of course some has been posted in your offering above.
The rules under which an accident was investigated in - say - 1960, are very different to the current process.
May I suggest that many who contributed to the original enquiry will be dead or quite elderly and their testimony unreliable.
To whom would you address a request to reopen a BoI? What would be the basis of your request? What is the new and compelling evidence that would convince a hard pressed MOD to reconsider the earlier findings? How and who would convene the review and who would actually agree to pay for it? Can the mores of 1960 really be translated into 2011? Whilst intending no disrespect, we have had politicians in the recent past apologising for events which happened a century ago, something which is meaningless in my view.
I have also tried, when asked, to differentiate between phrases such as 'negligence' and 'errors of judgement'. The meanings of these words have changed with time.
Finally, I try to steer people away from getting too deeply involved in trying to clear (perhaps for example) their father's name. It can be and has proved for some, to be an exceptionally distressing experience, I know of no single case where a military verdict has been overturned (ignore ZD576 for the moment). The Vulcan at Heathrow in Oct 56 is an example where after many years it became apparent that the aircraft had possibly been 'talked into the ground' but I don't recall that 'Podge' Howard was ever formally exonerated. On the civil side, the Munich aircrash went on for many years as to whether it was slush on the runway or ice on the wings which was the cause and by time the result was changed, the aircraft's captain was a broken man who had lost his flying career, became a chicken farmer and died young.
Finally, there is the size of the problem. Since VE-Day, the RAF has lost about 9400 aircraft and had over 6000 fatal casualties. Stoically, it was accepted as de riguer that if another definite cause could not be found, it must be the pilot's fault. Where would one start?
Sorry if this seems unhelpful and pessimistic but I actually think it's a realistic assessment.
Old Duffer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Henley
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blaming the pilots
Old Duffer, while I've no doubt the thrust of your argument is correct, and you clearly know far too much about this for me to even think of gainsaying you, you say that in the past:
I thought one of the main arguments being made by the campaigners in the Chinook campaign was that when it was impossible to know what caused the crash, it was the practice not to blame dead pilots who were unable to defend themselves. Was this an incorrect claim or did it change at some point?
Stoically, it was accepted as de riguer that if another definite cause could not be found, it must be the pilot's fault.
OD
I'm intrigued by the figure you quote of 9400 aircraft lost! Are you able to break it down by major losses?
For example (and I'm just making these up); 500 Meteors,500 Canberras etc.
On the subject of the Vulcan surely the crew were operating to a set Break-Off Height and if it was say 200' then if they were not visual with the lights/runway then they should have initiated an overshoot. LHR wx on the day was given as w/v calm,1100yds vis,scattered down to 300' and 7 oktas at 700' (from 50yrs of Heathrow ATC).
I have no axe to grind either way, being equally proud of my 8years service as a Herc' nav and my time as a civilian ATCO, 14 of which were at LHR.
I have also held a PAR rating, a requirement at Boscombe where the ATC was provided by CAA until 1992. You can not talk an aircraft into the ground, unless his BOH/DH is 0'!!
In my experience it was not unusual for the MOD to try to put blame on civilian ATCOs - a good mate was blamed for an airmiss involving a Royal and a BA747, when quite clearly the Andover had bust its level due to inadequate monitoring by the 'professionals' and it was only the good words by the BA skipper that made 'the powers that be' see sense.
I've always believed that the Vulcan crash was caused by press-on itis by Broadhurst. Why men of Air Rank are allowed anywhere near the controls of an aircraft has always mystified me.
For example (and I'm just making these up); 500 Meteors,500 Canberras etc.
On the subject of the Vulcan surely the crew were operating to a set Break-Off Height and if it was say 200' then if they were not visual with the lights/runway then they should have initiated an overshoot. LHR wx on the day was given as w/v calm,1100yds vis,scattered down to 300' and 7 oktas at 700' (from 50yrs of Heathrow ATC).
I have no axe to grind either way, being equally proud of my 8years service as a Herc' nav and my time as a civilian ATCO, 14 of which were at LHR.
I have also held a PAR rating, a requirement at Boscombe where the ATC was provided by CAA until 1992. You can not talk an aircraft into the ground, unless his BOH/DH is 0'!!
In my experience it was not unusual for the MOD to try to put blame on civilian ATCOs - a good mate was blamed for an airmiss involving a Royal and a BA747, when quite clearly the Andover had bust its level due to inadequate monitoring by the 'professionals' and it was only the good words by the BA skipper that made 'the powers that be' see sense.
I've always believed that the Vulcan crash was caused by press-on itis by Broadhurst. Why men of Air Rank are allowed anywhere near the controls of an aircraft has always mystified me.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Western Australia
Age: 65
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Valiant crash of 1960
I am the daughter of one of the crew killed in the 1960's valiant crash. The paper work has survived, all 130 odd pages or so. It is the children who carry the pain of findings blaming their father(s) and although I am not in that situation as my father was the AEO I do think it is important to review the past, in cases where there may be some doubt. Having said that I accept that offical reviews may not be possible and indeed may be very stressful, but threads such as this allow for discussion that, when positively presented, can be of great comfort to those children. It is through the PPRuNE site that the children of the valiant crash have made contact which in itself has been a very positive experience. We lost our fathers and have been able to share the despair that caused. I didn't know my father and am now able to acknowledge him, honour his memory and understand that he gave his life for his country. I believe discussions on this thread are important in helping us accept and understand what may or did happen. I therefore thank those who contribute in a positive manner.
Last edited by Carol Johnson; 19th Jul 2011 at 05:53.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post war aircraft losses
I started a thread years ago as I was staggered by the losses, just after the WW2.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...tatistics.html
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...tatistics.html
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saville Enquiry
If there is the will to investigate and correct errors the money can be found!
The Saville report's numbers are their own indictment – 434 days in session, 12 years from inception to publication, a £191m budget, tens of millions of words and finally a retail price of £572. It is not surprising that many observers and even some of those involved wonder whether, whatever its findings, the Bloody Sunday inquiry could really have been worth it. This is the wrong conclusion. The power to hold the state to account is precious beyond price.
This was to investigate 14 deaths - about the numbers of one Shackleton crew!
The Saville report's numbers are their own indictment – 434 days in session, 12 years from inception to publication, a £191m budget, tens of millions of words and finally a retail price of £572. It is not surprising that many observers and even some of those involved wonder whether, whatever its findings, the Bloody Sunday inquiry could really have been worth it. This is the wrong conclusion. The power to hold the state to account is precious beyond price.
This was to investigate 14 deaths - about the numbers of one Shackleton crew!
Last edited by A2QFI; 18th Jul 2011 at 10:27.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I shall try to respond in a single post to the comments which followed my Post No: 2 above.
First, ‘pilot error’ as a finding was frequently used where no other cause could be found but the concept of ‘error’ was not generally taken to imply negligence but could suggest a lack of skill or whatever. It’s use may not have been officially condoned but the mores of the ‘50s required a rather ‘tidy’ finish to these things, although we would probably use ‘not positively determined’ now.
Second, the losses of aircraft by number and the casualties involved can be easily found on the RAF Museum website, the ‘RAF History’, Historical Society Journals’ and finally ‘Journal 37 – Flight Safety’. The book ‘Broken Wings’ published by Air Britain is also a valuable source. I have details of most of these accidents but to analyse them by type etc would take a bit of time.
Three, I referred to the Vulcan crash at Heathrow, as an illustration that only occasionally are accident investigations reopened. This one wasn’t so much reopened as it had a researchers’ devilling into the findings and offering a reasoned possibility that the original findings were wrong.
As to reopening a specific accident investigation, I remain convinced that there is a need to produce new and compelling evidence, before an enquiry would be reconvened. I also believe that there is an inertia in MOD which would defeat all but the most persistent campaigners. Reference to the Saville Enquiry is, if I may be so bold, a red herring. Saville was part of the ‘peace process’ and was politically motivated at the highest level. Money and time were no object and the reaction of republicans to its publication makes one wonder why anybody bothered. Had all the squaddies involved simply said: ‘Sorry, my Lord, it’s too long ago and my memory is so vague, I can’t even remember which riot this was’, the whole thing would have been stopped dead in its tracks.
However, I digress.
In conclusion, whilst one might wish to find out as much as possible about how and why an accident happened, there can be unintended consequences, such as a feeling of bitterness by (say) the families of some crew against the kith and kin of the pilot or resentment between the families of a dead crew member against a survivor. There is also often a good deal of raw emotion generated and everybody reacts differently and sometimes unpredictably.
Old Duffer
I shall try to respond in a single post to the comments which followed my Post No: 2 above.
First, ‘pilot error’ as a finding was frequently used where no other cause could be found but the concept of ‘error’ was not generally taken to imply negligence but could suggest a lack of skill or whatever. It’s use may not have been officially condoned but the mores of the ‘50s required a rather ‘tidy’ finish to these things, although we would probably use ‘not positively determined’ now.
Second, the losses of aircraft by number and the casualties involved can be easily found on the RAF Museum website, the ‘RAF History’, Historical Society Journals’ and finally ‘Journal 37 – Flight Safety’. The book ‘Broken Wings’ published by Air Britain is also a valuable source. I have details of most of these accidents but to analyse them by type etc would take a bit of time.
Three, I referred to the Vulcan crash at Heathrow, as an illustration that only occasionally are accident investigations reopened. This one wasn’t so much reopened as it had a researchers’ devilling into the findings and offering a reasoned possibility that the original findings were wrong.
As to reopening a specific accident investigation, I remain convinced that there is a need to produce new and compelling evidence, before an enquiry would be reconvened. I also believe that there is an inertia in MOD which would defeat all but the most persistent campaigners. Reference to the Saville Enquiry is, if I may be so bold, a red herring. Saville was part of the ‘peace process’ and was politically motivated at the highest level. Money and time were no object and the reaction of republicans to its publication makes one wonder why anybody bothered. Had all the squaddies involved simply said: ‘Sorry, my Lord, it’s too long ago and my memory is so vague, I can’t even remember which riot this was’, the whole thing would have been stopped dead in its tracks.
However, I digress.
In conclusion, whilst one might wish to find out as much as possible about how and why an accident happened, there can be unintended consequences, such as a feeling of bitterness by (say) the families of some crew against the kith and kin of the pilot or resentment between the families of a dead crew member against a survivor. There is also often a good deal of raw emotion generated and everybody reacts differently and sometimes unpredictably.
Old Duffer
May I suggest that a far more useful campaign, to avoid future discussions about individual events which have not yet occured, is one to restore the integrity of the RAF airworthiness system, and to have an independant accident investigation process.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that every enquiry need be reopened but I would heartily back a campaign to have all fatal accident/BoI reports prior to 1997 amended to 'cause not positively determined'. Obviously, this would only apply in cases where the pilot or crew could not plead their case (eg the aformentioned Valiant). I am sure that the MoK sets a precedent that could back such a camapign'
The application the burden of proof of ' with absolutely no doubt whatsoever' would in most cases, allow the 'exoneration' of crews that paid the ulimate sacrifice for their country - whatever the definition of 'pilot error', 'error of judgement' and apportionment of blame etc.
BTW -I also wholeheartedly agree with Fitter!
The application the burden of proof of ' with absolutely no doubt whatsoever' would in most cases, allow the 'exoneration' of crews that paid the ulimate sacrifice for their country - whatever the definition of 'pilot error', 'error of judgement' and apportionment of blame etc.
BTW -I also wholeheartedly agree with Fitter!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Western Australia
Age: 65
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flipster
What you suggest sounds like an excellent solution, given the immense difficulties involved in reviewing something that happened so long ago and the use of terminology that has changed over the years. If there is any doubt as to the cause of an accident, that happened years ago, then it seems fit to look at changing the wording to that which is used today rather than to say pilot error for example, although with the valiant more than error was assigned. How would one request such a change?
Last edited by Carol Johnson; 11th Jul 2012 at 17:02.
Carol Johnson,
I realise your interest and focus on the Valiant crash but my comments above are valid.
You will need to be able to offer new and compelling evidence, as to why the original BoI finding was inaccurate or otherwise flawed.
I then suggest you write to the Secretary of State for Defence and summarise why this enquiry needs to be reopened. As you are in Australia, I suggest that you need a 'champion' in UK who can muster an interest from (perhaps) the local MP for Spanhoe. If you have any close relatives of your father or mother living in UK and who are prepared to lobby for a review of this accident, that might also help.
I am sure other ppruners will jump into this Thread and offer their advice and I am sorry if what leaves my computer as what I believe is realistic, arrives at your computer and seems negative.
Old Duffer
I realise your interest and focus on the Valiant crash but my comments above are valid.
You will need to be able to offer new and compelling evidence, as to why the original BoI finding was inaccurate or otherwise flawed.
I then suggest you write to the Secretary of State for Defence and summarise why this enquiry needs to be reopened. As you are in Australia, I suggest that you need a 'champion' in UK who can muster an interest from (perhaps) the local MP for Spanhoe. If you have any close relatives of your father or mother living in UK and who are prepared to lobby for a review of this accident, that might also help.
I am sure other ppruners will jump into this Thread and offer their advice and I am sorry if what leaves my computer as what I believe is realistic, arrives at your computer and seems negative.
Old Duffer
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I pointed out in the Chinook thread, I think it is imperative for everyone to understand that "Pilot/Aircrew Error" should not be seen as pejorative. Every single pilot or Aircrew has made multiple errors in their flying career. Each error had consequences and some generated BOI's when no injuries resulted from the incident. In some cases the error caused fatalities but they remain just that, errors. There should be no "blame" or feelings of shame regardless of the consequences of the error.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sheffield
Age: 66
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Post War Reality
Most of the post war crashes were in my view down to the change to new materials like DTD683 and the design strategy used by UK/US A/c designers, that of 'safe-life'. These shortcomings were finally nailed down in 1956 with a paper in the Journal of the Institute of Metals by a group of Birmingham metallurgists and in a talk given to the RAeS by a Lockheed engineer http://www.flightglobal.com/, the former condemning the materials and the latter condemning the design strategy and the materials. A double whammy.
The Meteor crashes and the infamous dive of death can be attributable to an error in the design of the tail structure where failure due to fatigue in the rivet holes holding the skin to the airframe would mean a dramatic reduction in the structural strength of the tail, leading to failure of the tail and uncontrollable dives.
There is a book "Arms Economics and British Strategy" by Emeritus Professor of History George Pedden at Sterling University that has a quote on Chp 6 page 284 from a memo sent by Chancellor Macmillan in 1955-56 to PM Eden
That's quite a thing to say in a private memo, I think it is time for the "story of the aeroplanes" to come out, the crews that lost their lives in these incidents deserve the truth being told. They lost their lives largely because of the failure of the A/c industry to build safe A/c due to the huge political pressures being placed upon them, in a similar way to the causes of the 1957 Winscale fire .
The loss of life in RAF crews during the early post war period is staggering with losses reaching a high of over 300 killed in 1954. Post 1956 when the problems with both the materials and design strategy were acknowledged the numbers begin to drop. While it's difficult to say exactly why the numbers begin to fall clearly the revelations of 1956 played a role, all safe-life designs were either rebuilt or scrapped starting in 1956, The Valiant being the single exception to this scrap or rebuild strategy.
Thanks to John Blakeley for the data from "Broken Wings" (I think) There is a graph with a similar profile taken from Flight Magazine in the 1970's when there was a campaign to get the MOD/RAF to just release the figures. You can see the effects of the post war demob and then a steady climb to '54-'55. There was a reduction in flying hours in an effort to stem the tide, but it was the change to safer materials and a new 'fail-safe' design philosophy that really made the difference.
So while I agree with Duffer that it would be unlikely for there to be a review of XD864 (the AIB are still passing the buck even 50 years down the line and won't even comment on the BoI's findings), the "story of the aeroplanes" should be told warts and all. The truth is that up to 1956 all UK and US A/c designs were inherently unsafe if they used the new alloys (like DTD683) and were designed to the so called 'safe life' strategy.
The Meteor crashes and the infamous dive of death can be attributable to an error in the design of the tail structure where failure due to fatigue in the rivet holes holding the skin to the airframe would mean a dramatic reduction in the structural strength of the tail, leading to failure of the tail and uncontrollable dives.
There is a book "Arms Economics and British Strategy" by Emeritus Professor of History George Pedden at Sterling University that has a quote on Chp 6 page 284 from a memo sent by Chancellor Macmillan in 1955-56 to PM Eden
"... When the story of the aeroplanes finally comes out, it will be the greatest tragedy, if not scandal in our history"
That's quite a thing to say in a private memo, I think it is time for the "story of the aeroplanes" to come out, the crews that lost their lives in these incidents deserve the truth being told. They lost their lives largely because of the failure of the A/c industry to build safe A/c due to the huge political pressures being placed upon them, in a similar way to the causes of the 1957 Winscale fire .
The loss of life in RAF crews during the early post war period is staggering with losses reaching a high of over 300 killed in 1954. Post 1956 when the problems with both the materials and design strategy were acknowledged the numbers begin to drop. While it's difficult to say exactly why the numbers begin to fall clearly the revelations of 1956 played a role, all safe-life designs were either rebuilt or scrapped starting in 1956, The Valiant being the single exception to this scrap or rebuild strategy.
Thanks to John Blakeley for the data from "Broken Wings" (I think) There is a graph with a similar profile taken from Flight Magazine in the 1970's when there was a campaign to get the MOD/RAF to just release the figures. You can see the effects of the post war demob and then a steady climb to '54-'55. There was a reduction in flying hours in an effort to stem the tide, but it was the change to safer materials and a new 'fail-safe' design philosophy that really made the difference.
So while I agree with Duffer that it would be unlikely for there to be a review of XD864 (the AIB are still passing the buck even 50 years down the line and won't even comment on the BoI's findings), the "story of the aeroplanes" should be told warts and all. The truth is that up to 1956 all UK and US A/c designs were inherently unsafe if they used the new alloys (like DTD683) and were designed to the so called 'safe life' strategy.
Last edited by RIHoward; 19th Jul 2011 at 15:46.
Gentleman Aviator
But the graph would say more if adjusted for flying hours. The RAF used to record accident rates per x flying hours, and then classify the result because it was relatively easy to solve for x.
Does anyone (Old Duffer?) have adjusted figures; if so, does the graph show a different shape? My feeling is that the "rate adjusted" figure would be higher for longer, certainly well into the 1960s - as an example, IIRC we lost a higher proportion of Lightnings than the Germans did F-104s.
[as ever, I stand to be corrected]
Does anyone (Old Duffer?) have adjusted figures; if so, does the graph show a different shape? My feeling is that the "rate adjusted" figure would be higher for longer, certainly well into the 1960s - as an example, IIRC we lost a higher proportion of Lightnings than the Germans did F-104s.
[as ever, I stand to be corrected]
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sheffield
Age: 66
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Magazine's "Rate Adjusted" graph
Here's the rate adjusted graph from Flight Magazine, I'm sorry I didn't post it with the other one I've only just managed to find it in my "filing system". And sorry for not having the publication date, but I think it was the late '70's.
Your conjecture about its shape is correct, I think.
