Police involvement in RAF Air Accidents

[itwasme]

keithl,

the journalist in the link that I posted is clearly implying that she thinks that a BoI can be corrupted. Would police participation in the investigation have made her more confident in the reporting and conclusion?

[Chugalug2]

keithl:

The AAIB are an example to all, perhaps they should investigate ALL accidents, Mil and Civ?

While I agree wholeheartedly with your statement, I'm not sure that the AAIB would agree with your suggestion. Like the CAA, civilian responsibilities preoccupy the AAIB and if the very particular needs of military aviation require specialist inspectors and investigators, they might as well be vested in an MAA and MAAIB respectively. However, your point is well made and a potential compromise might be the "sistering" of the MAA with the CAA, and of the MAAIB with the AAIB. Thus full use could be made of the experience and expertise of these two independent civilian bodies to bring the military ones up to speed.
None of this is going to be easy, and far better minds than mine are needed to make it work, but work it must. No-one would suggest that the CAA and the AAIB should be one and the same, for the first for example might be found by the second to have allowed a knowingly Grossly Unairworthy aircraft to obtain a a CoA and enter airline service. It could not do that if it were not independent. Nor would it be acceptable if the airlines directly controlled the CAA and AAIB, for they could subvert their work and flagrantly disregard the Regulations, thus endangering their passengers. Yet all this and more has been the case in UK Military Aviation and must be made impossible in future. That can only happen if the MAA and the MAAIB are independent of the MOD and of each other. As to how all this be funded, pass! No matter how though, the cost will be less in blood and treasure that has been paid by the UK Military in the last 30 years.
You say:

I'm not certain I agee with John Blakely and Chugalug2, but I like the way they conduct the debate.

Thank you for the complement, but I am more interested with your inability to agree with JB and myself. Could you say what it is you disagree with? None of this makes for happy reading, and I do not like having to point a finger at the Service that I love, but it has to swallow the bullet and make sure that future HM Coroners do not feel obliged to tell it, "There's something wrong with your bloody aircraft!".

[keithl]

OK Chug2, let's go into this. First thing to be said is that I'm not going to start any campaigns, are you? From my p.o.v. we're just sorting the world out, as we might over a beer, with no expectation of changing anything.

Now, I didn't say I disagreed outright, I said I wasn't certain. Why not? Well, you've helpfully provided a public profile which shows your first-hand knowledge of these matters is even more out of date than my own. I'm sure you've followed accidents and their outcomes as closely as I, or any other pilot, but we don't KNOW. What I know is that while it is undoubtedly true that the Chinook investigation was flawed, the BoI came to its own conclusion, not that of anyone else. The subsequent corruption of its findings by reviewing officers is what the fuss was mainly about.

I also KNOW that in the BoI I gave as an example, higher authority tried to change our findings in respect of negligence. They failed because we resisted. As you said in post #4 "worked because good men did their duty and put it above personal ambition". Of course, it wasn't a headline crash.

There have been several allegations of Board Presidents being told what their findings were to be. I note them, but they are not substantiated. Posters have quoted what journos have written. Leveson has demonstrated how some journos are quite willing to make things up.

So I can only believe what I KNOW. Links, such as flipsters to demonstrate the current rules, are good. Allegations aren't.

I know I am horrified by the idea of non-specialist, prosecution oriented, civilian police investigating what are usually technical failures (including technical errors by the crew). It appears to be a fact, which is why my OP was about "how did we ever get into this situation?" There have been as many flawed police investigations as flawed BoIs. I'd guess more, in fact.

I am not yet persuaded the BoI system is inherently flawed, although posters here have provided some indications that it may be.

Incidentally, JB, a personal profile from you would be helpful, to know who I'm talking to.

[tucumseh]

Broadly, there are 3 components to a BoI; Legal, Airmanship and Technical. The last includes such things as Safety, with Legal also covering the obligation to implement regulations.



May I suggest the Civilian Police would only be valuable in the Legal part, especially after the nonsense of the Philip Review, which in an effort to “clear” Wratten, Day, Graydon etc clearly contradicted all previous statements on the subject of legal advice to the ROs. For example;

Lord Bach -
“The very high standard of proof to support a negligence finding that this regulation required, is fully understood; in the case of the Mull of Kintyre accident, the senior Reviewing Officers were specifically advised of this position”.

Geoff Hoon –
“The Reviewing Officers were also very aware of the high standard of proof required in reaching their decision”.

ACMs Graydon and Johns -
"We also bring to the attention of the committee the advice provided to the AOC (Wratten) at the time given by the RAF Directorate of Legal Services which answers the question of misdirection".

ACM Wratten –
“But a judgement has to be made, and my colleagues and I reached the judgement we did in the light of what we felt to be irrefutable evidence, not opinion, evidence”.


In his desperation to clear Wratten and Day, Lord Philip effectively accused all these people of lying. Of course, the supreme irony (which he blithely ignored) is he was correct in the case of Wratten, who did not have the irrefutable evidence he claimed. What further action is planned? I recall a jockey being stripped of a gong for a far lesser offence. Wratten, Day, Graydon, Johns, Alcock; all Knights of the Realm and all have brought disgrace upon their Service by supporting a gross miscarriage of justice; and lying in the process. I’ve omitted Bagnall as he’s never spoken about why he withheld from aircrew the FACT the aircraft was unsafe. And I omitted Spiers as the Air Staffs turned against him, in an effort to protect Bagnall, when lying to families over the existence of an RTS; and he had the honesty to confirm Bagnall, Graydon and Alcock had withheld the 1992 CHART report from him. (Perhaps the worst act of all, as it affected ALL aircrew of ALL 3 Services).


But it was Philip who ignored the evidence and in the process lent his name to this self serving, illegal support of maladministration and fraud. His judgement, as with Haddon-Cave’s, was not evidence-based. (Quite how Legal people thought they’d get away with that is beyond me). Both ignored the irrefutable evidence in an effort to appease all sides. This does the entire Safety Management process no favours, as it encourages the likes of Graydon and Alcock, and their sycophantic successors, to believe they can still get away with corporate manslaughter with impunity. MoD is still staffed by the same old names who are on record as ruling airworthiness is optional if waiving it can save time or money.

I am not yet persuaded the BoI system is inherently flawed, although posters here have provided some indications that it may be.

The entire Safety Management process, of which the BoI is a small but important part, is fatally flawed. And underpinning this flaw is the ethos of those who self-administer. The basic mistake the MoK BoI made, along with most others, is they completely ignored the Legal and Technical components. The Legal advice to the ROs was the verdict was unsustainable. The Technical advice (and evidence) was the aircraft was not airworthy. The Legal evidence was not mentioned by Philip, but he agreed with it (the basis of his decision). He did mention the airworthiness evidence, stating the advice from Boscombe and CA that the aircraft was not airworthy was "mandated" (upon Bagnall). Like airworthiness, the BoI “system” may be robust, but it is not implemented properly.

[Chugalug2]

First thing to be said is that I'm not going to start any campaigns, are you?

Start no, be part of yes. If you wish to you can read earlier threads that:-
Campaigned to get ESF fitted to Hercules:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...es-safety.html
Campaigned to get Nimrod airworthiness ensured:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ndolences.html
Campaigned to get an independent MAA and MAAIB established:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...al-merged.html
Campaigned to get Mull finding scrapped:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...-3-merged.html
I would point out that these threads included many views and many aims, I only quote them as I and others who are like minded posted on them with the intentions noted. There are many other threads, like this one, that have also served to air similar views.
In the airworthiness related fatal accidents featured in this Forum alone 62 people have died, 29 of them on Mull. The airworthiness shortcomings reflect on the UK Military Airworthiness Authority, aka the MOD. The subsequent BoIs were conducted by the RAF and other than in the case of Nimrod scarcely mentioned airworthiness problems, let alone any MOD culpability.
You want facts? Read the Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip Reports. Better still read the posts by tucumseh in the above threads.
Or if you wish you might try sticking your fingers in your ears, and shout "La,La,La! I'm not listening!" It works well for many!

[EAP86]

Chug, there seems to be an impression that the AAIB are not routinely involved in military accident investigations. Based on my knowledge of military accident investigations over the last 12 years or so, I would say that the AAIB have been involved in the vast majority of them. The only reason I can think of where the AAIB might refuse is when the health and safety of the investigators cannot be guaranteed. Even then I have personal knowledge of an AAIB investigator who was helcoptered into an active war zone to undertake a very rapid investigation of the aircraft wreckage.

Regarding the involvement of the civil Police, consideration has to be given to the fact that their primary role is the investigation of crime, not the investigation of the cause of the accident. For fatal accidents, the Police of course have to report their findings to the Coroner but as a general rule, these rely heavily on the Service Inquiry findings (or the HSE when they are involved). I have to say that Police involvement often leads to severe delays in the investigation; reprehensible when other aircrew potentially remain at risk of technical problems.

EAP

[The Old Fat One]

Or if you wish you might try sticking your fingers in your ears, and shout "La,La,La! I'm not listening!" It works well for many!

You write eloquently enough, but you never seem to pass up the opportunity to have a little snipe at somebody or something in your posts, should they disagree with your (clearly heartfelt views). In the words of the time...calm down and carry on.

As a poker player I am used to carrying out mental arithmitic based on probabilities and outcomes. Using the same mathematical logic, I query you attributing the 29 deaths in the Chinook accident solely to airworthiness.

Leaving aside ANY judgement on cause/blame etc. I would note that some other factors would PROBABLY have affected the outcome. Not least that their was no justifiable military reason for all those people to be using this mode of transport in the first place and several vital security reasons why they should not have been on the aircraft together (that from a retired ranking police officer, by the way).

Most aircrew I know, including most on the campaigns you talk about, SUSPECT aircrew error MIGHT have played a part.

If you wish to allocate a probability number of fatality to airworthiness in respect of this accident (which is not only pointless, but also highly disrespectful) you might guess it to be maybe one or two.

Better still you can state that in YOUR OPINION airworthiness might have been a contributory factor in an accident that's cause will never be completely known or understood.

Please excuse the rather childish use of bold and underline but you don't always bother to understand or tolerate other peoples point of view. Maybe this style will help. I won't do it again I promise.

[tucumseh]

EAP86

If I may, what is reprehensible is;

1. AAIB being invited to investigate, but their findings ignored (e.g. Chinook crash, Falklands 1987) or misrepresented (e.g. Chinook MoK 1994). Demonstrably, had their 1987 concerns been addressed, either the Mk2 would have been airworthy or it would not have been flying on 2.6.94. That they were NOT addressed was one of the key reasons why Boscombe and MoD(PE) refused to provide a CA Release for Operational use. So, demonstrably, two key organisations wanted the regs implemented, but they were thwarted by the RAF.

2. The actions of the senior staffs who perpetrate, condone then lie about the above.


Equally criminal is MoD's habit of presenting the facts, usually revealed by others after MoD have hidden them (e.g. Chinook, Nimrod, Hercules, Sea King, Tornado/Patriot), as revelations; with the accompanying claim they will learn lessons.

In all cases the lesson is this. The underlying causes were predictable, predicted and ignored; and all would have been avoided by simple implementation of mandated regulations.

[tucumseh]

TOFO

Better still you can state that in YOUR OPINION airworthiness might have been a contributory factor in an accident that's cause will never be completely known or understood.

Again, if I may, it is a simple fact that if the airworthiness regulations had been implemented, the Mk2 would not have been flying that day. The aircrew would have had a Mk1, which they had requested anyway and were conversant with.

I am not saying the accident was caused by lack of airworthiness. But the fact remains that the aircraft had no clearance whatsoever to use ANY Nav or Comms systems, a fact confirmed by Lord Philip and accepted by MoD. What neither reported was the FACT that this information was withheld from aircrew by ACAS (Bagnall) in the Release to Service he signed in November 1993, which MoD later denied the existence of during the Philip Inquiry. Clearly, had the aircrew had this information, their request for a Mk1 would have carried more weight (at least I hope it would).

[keithl]

TOFO - thanks for that. I wondered why Chug appeared to be trying to persuade me and then immediately alienated me. I thought I was being over-sensitive, but your post reassures me.

[keithl]

OK, back to the question. I accept (because I had dealings with some of those VSOs named by tucumseh) that those major investigations were corrupted.

That doesn't mean the BoI system is flawed. It means flawed individuals corrupted it. We do not throw out democracy because it resulted in Hitler, or Mugabe.

Minor BoIs do not attract this kind of influence, so police involvement should not be automatic, as it is now, interfering with or delaying the technical inquiry. There should be some kind of threshold for police involvement. You clever people might like to suggest what that threshold should be. How about the result of the technical investigation being submitted to a judge or coroner after the first RO, say? I'm sure you'll all have better ideas, let's hear them.

[tucumseh]

Keith l

I accept (because I had dealings with some of those VSOs named by tucumseh) that those major investigations were corrupted.


That doesn't mean the BoI system is flawed. It means flawed individuals corrupted it.

Well said. (Welcome to the club).

I’d say it’s fairly self evident civilian police involvement is required in case of criminal proceedings. For example, if there are indications of Organisational Fault due to a deliberate decision to circumvent the regulations to save money – as was the case on Nimrod XV230 (and all the other accidents mentioned above). That requires their involvement from Day 1. As you say, some accidents are pretty straight forward and very often the police could quickly step back.



However, the practical obstacle justice as a whole faces is the investigative process is not independent of those making the unlawful decisions. Again, see Nimrod. The serious police involvement only came after the publication of the Nimrod Review, when after lots of arguments Thames Valley Police were pushed screaming to the fore, along with the Health and Safety Executive, Crown Prosecution Service and the Provost Marshall.



It should never be forgotten that were it not for Mr and Mrs Graham Knight’s campaign to get to the truth, after being serially lied to by MoD, then XV230 would be a distant memory to most. At no time during the BoI/investigation was there any MoD admission of wrongdoing and police involvement was more or less zero. It was only just prior to the Coroner’s Inquest that those involved were pointed to the airworthiness regulations and MoD’s refusal to comply with them.



MoD and Government like to present XV230 as a one-off, but what it actually signified was the first time the “self healing” MoD had been undone by a robust campaign targeting the key, easily proven fact the aircraft was not airworthy. (Quickly followed by C130 XV179 and Chinook ZD576). Despite MoD’s claim these regs were irrelevant, the case was won and Haddon-Cave appointed.



My point here is the same I always make; although robust, the system did not work properly or on time, because it was not implemented properly, primarily because it is not independent. In every accident we mention, this factor always comes to the fore – MoD are allowed to be judge and jury in their own case. This continues, as no reasonable person, looking at the MoD hierarchical structure, would say the MAA is independent, no matter how often MoD claim it is.



This being so, the civilian police (and HSE) are on a hiding to nothing. On XV230, they didn’t have the resources, will or knowledge to fight off MoD. The decision not to prosecute Baber and Eagles was correct, but for the wrong reason. It was claimed the burden of proof could not be met, but TVP, HSE, CPS and PM all ran away when asked WHO, then, WOULD be prosecuted, given the names of those who DIRECTED that the airworthiness regulations be ignored are well known (and advised to Haddon-Cave, Ministers, TVP and the PM – and later Lord Philip and the Public Accounts Committee). They refused to comment.



I do not think individual provincial police forces should be involved. None can afford the expert resources to be held waiting for an accident to happen. It must be a central function. (As maintaining airworthiness used to be before being cancelled by the RAF Chief Engineer! It being a core, centralised function focuses scarce, specialist resources). The question cannot be answered sensibly without addressing the Independent MAA/MAAIB issue. If there was a truly independent MAA/MAAIB, then I’d say it should include a legal team provided by the Home Office. They certainly wouldn’t be sitting around waiting for an accident, as they’d have plenty to occupy themselves chasing down those in MoD who bear responsibility for numerous cases of Corporate Manslaughter. Just my opinion.

[exMudmover]

To all of you MoK accident experts out there.

Quote from my post 34:

“(In my view)……………aircrew, like the captains of ships, are always ultimately responsible for the safe navigation of their aircraft – to avoid flying into high ground in cloud for example.

If the aircrew concerned are having to deal with a major emergency at the same time then in my view that does not absolve them from the duty of safe navigation.

Each aircraft type has a different procedure for encountering unsuitable weather at low level, depending on aircraft performance – specifically, the angle of climb which can be achieved and maintained to clear any perceived obstacle ahead. If there is any doubt that a safe flight path can be maintained all the way to Safety Altitude, then the only option is to turn away from the high ground and climb on a known safe track. In the MOK incident that heading would presumably have been a westerly one.”

Could one of you remind me of the heading on which the aircraft was climbing when it struck ground.

[glojo]

Gentlemen, is there any chance at all PLEASE of letting this matter rest, we are all aware that friends of those that sadly lost their lives are members of this forum and I ask us all to remember that ...please

John

[tucumseh]

ex-mudmover

A question better asked of the MoD's leading expert on the navigational/positional aspects of the flight, ACM Sir Michael Graydon (CAS).

He is on record as stating in writing, to Marshal of the RAF Sir John Grandy, that the aircraft was off course "BY SOME MILES".

Of course, that would make every other witness a liar. As he wrote this in 1997, that would include the Board of Inquiry members and both ROs. It would also mean he committed a serious offence when (mis)briefing Sir Malcolm Rifkind.

If Graydon is not a liar that would mean the intended heading was either to the West, tracking (e.g.) the east coast of Isla and over/round the Paps of Jura, or to the East (e.g.) up Kilbrannan Sound.

Of course, like all those VSOs involved, Graydon has never been questioned about this lie or its purpose. One is tempted to opine the only reason was to cast aspersions on deceased pilots. A cowardly act.

[keithl]

Well, I was going to do my garden and come back to the fray this evening, but it's raining again...

I think I will still save it until this evening, but can I echo glojo's appeal? Some people are getting too focussed on the MoK accident and its investigation. It is the most important example of what we are talking about, but it is not the point of what we are talking about.

The point is, I dislike the idea of "Police Primacy". I want to get to a better arrangement, though without much hope of making such a thing happen. I'll develop my Threshold idea this evening.

[tucumseh]

It is the most important example of what we are talking about, but it is not the point of what we are talking about.

To get a point across, especially one so important but also so willfully ignored, it is good to use examples that aircrew and maintainers can relate to.

Regardless of which example you choose, be it MoK, Nimrod, C130, Tornado or whatever, you always get back to the same basic facts. The regulations designed to prevent the accidents were willfully ignored, despite pointed warnings from MoD staffs to those same few responsible. If they had been implemented, the accidents would have been avoided.

The truth, when revealed (and not by any of the above BoIs), came as no surprise whatsoever as it merely reflected prior warnings. That is perhaps THE key point here, which very few either here or in MoD understand. The system did not work as the root cause was not identified by the BoI. It was revealed by those had given the prior warnings, as a direct reaction to BoI reports which avoided the awkward truth.

That is the root problem and it must be eliminated. However, no-one, including MoD, Government, Police, HSE and CPS has shown the will to do so. The aim is always to prevent recurrence. MoD failed in that aim and no amount of police involvement was able to prevent that.

To try and fail is one thing, but to have that aim deliberately and knowingly sabotaged by the very officers charged with achieving it is criminal. The sooner MoD and Government acknowledge this, the better. Then they can look at the MAA/MAAIB/Police structure sensibly.

[Chugalug2]

Keithl:

Chug appeared to be trying to persuade me and then immediately alienated me.

Certainly not what I intended, it was aimed at others who have shown that they will never be persuaded no matter how compelling the facts. I see now that it was open to other interpretation and unreservedly apologise for any slight taken by you. These matters come with much baggage and I seemed to have spilled some of it. Mea Culpa!
Apologies also for my not responding earlier. I have just returned from an RAF reunion, and my head is doing penance as a result, so I'll cut it short if I may. Fortunately I see that tuc has stepped into the breach with his customary effectiveness and hopefully answered any outstanding issues.

Glojo, you beg us to leave the Mull tragedy in peace, and the families with it. I take the point to heart, believe me. Every fatal accident reviewed on PPRuNe leaves bereaved loved ones and saddened colleagues in its wake. Every call like yours to shut down a thread, or at least many aspects of it, on behalf of the families is a real dilemma, for it is only by posting here to challenge the issues raised by, for example; the Mull BoI, the Reviewing Officers' Finding, the 17 year long campaign to clear the pilots, the issues of unairworthiness, the improper RTS that came to light as a result of that campaign, and the problems raised by the MAA and MAAIB as presently constituted, that they can be examined openly in debate.
The problem would have been insurmountable if it were not for the brave and resolute involvement of the families in all these debates and campaigns. The Hercules, Nimrod, and Chinook accidents have all produced inputs with the highest moral authority of all, ie from the bereaved. They are not driven by vengeful desires for retribution, nor of greed for compensation (as has been alleged in these pages) but the simple desire to avoid the pain that they have suffered being visited on others by future avoidable air accidents. I have repeatedly been in awe at both their determination that this be so and of their grappling with technical minutiae that often confound supposed professionals.
You mention Mull, so let me illustrate what I mean by recommending that you read this book (it can be read on a PC if you do not have a Kindle) by Susan Phoenix, widow of one of the passengers who died. The book is a tribute to the man she loves, but she has added an extra chapter at the end which is very appropriate in illustrating my point about determination and technical minutiae:

Phoenix, Policing the Shadows with 2012 Bonus Chapter eBook: Jack Holland, Susan Phoenix: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store

Phoenix, Policing the Shadows with 2012 Bonus Chapter eBook: Jack Holland, Susan Phoenix: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store

No doubt I shall be accused of drumming up trade for her. It is only £3.43, and entirely up to people to buy and download or not as they wish. I only profer it in rebuttal of your plea that discussion, with a view to accident prevention, is not wanted by the families.

[glojo]

Him Chug,
As you are aware I have the highest of regard for you and most folks on this forum and NO WAY am I asking for, or suggesting that this thread be closed.... NO WAY

I am simply trying to suggest some posts are perhaps opening up issues that are possibly lacking in tact and is there anything to gain by doing that. All I was hoping for was that this very interesting thread remain roughly on topic.

I am DEFINITELY NOT asking for it to be closed... Apologies if I am wittering but it is now 40hours without sleep and as other know... my lack of sleep gets me into wittering mode

[Lima Juliet]

I believe that this also had something to do with Civil Police involvement: The Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987

Basically, the MoD could no longer be exempt from being found negligent and this Act denied them exemption under Section 10 of the 1947 Crown Proceedings Act that all other employers had to abide by.

So quite simply, the Police have to attend to ensure that no crime has been committed (whether the accident is fatl or non-fatal).

LJ