Police involvement in RAF Air Accidents

[keithl]

I've been out of the air force for 15 years, now, but you never lose your interest in it, do you? (That's not the question I want answered!)

During my time I was, like most pilots, occasionally involved in BoIs into accidents and incidents, both as board member and as witness. We never had any involvement by the civilian police. Now it seems SOP. My question is: Why do they now routinely get involved? What changed and when? It seems a waste of police resources when the RAF BoI is running concurrently with the police investigation. I can't imagine they have sufficient technical knowledge (although if they are to investigate LIBOR fixing, I acknowledge they must have some clever people) and it doubles the burden on the witnesses and can delay the BoI getting their hands on the physical evidence.

I have no agenda, please let's have no rants for or against. I just want to know why a good system was changed.

[sisemen]

It's probably down to the AP .....................Arse Protection

[mad_jock]

Well from one of these emergency exercises as a civi. Unless you have been on one of these exercises and have had the brief by plod its not routeinly briefed to civi pilots what the process is.

Most pilot unions brief that in the event of an accident keep you mouth well and truely shut until you have legal representation this goes for both company and police questioning.

They reckon all aircraft crashes are the scene of a crime until proven otherwise. Be it external ie terroist or semi external ie negligence by an external agency ie F16 crash cairngorms.

So they have to treat the whole thing as a crime with evidence being documented and processed and also witness statements etc. All have a trail incase of a prosecution. Then when its decided that there is no criminal case they stop. If there are deaths involved they have to continue to have a finger in the pie until the coroner/fiscal resolves any issues.

Its to note though that the process in Scotland is quite a bit different to england and wales.

If you look else where on the board you will see the fall out from the Helios crash.

To add it was not my intention to imply that the cairngorm accident was actually due to negligence more that the police had to inform the fiscal of there investigation which they did, in case of criminal proccedings. I apologise for any offense taken by anyone. I have always maintained that the pilot is always responsable for terrain seperation what ever service you are under and whatever class of airspace you are in.

[Chugalug2]

I just want to know why a good system was changed.

What good system would that be, keith? If you are thinking of that of the BoI, whereby the operator, RAF or whoever, investigates its own accidents after a Board President has been "briefed" by his/her superiors, all of which was under the auspices of the Regulator, ie the MOD, then "good" would be the last adjective I would reach for. I will be swiftly reminded that the Military Investigation system is now under the auspices of the "independent" MAAIB, to which I would respond, "pull the other one, mate".
This forum is littered with threads based on Military Aircraft Accidents, most fatal, which were never thoroughly investigated because their respective BoI's were not free to do so. Unless and until they are free, ie the MAAIB is free and independent of the MOD, this forum will continue to be so littered as accidents are doomed to repetition having been subject of a compromised investigation system.
The Police? No idea, other than they are as disinterested in past suborning of Regulations as is the RAF Provost Marshal. Move along now, nothing happening here, we've all got homes to go to...

[Heathrow Harry]

Just a word of advice - don't trust the civilian police when they are investigating an incident

They are quite capable of holding a press conference and making all sorts of statements before the facts are in and they leak like a sieve to the media.

Essentially no-one has any control over them

[mad_jock]

As one ex policeman pilot I flew with said

"tell them f**k all, they get payed to investigate, you don't get payed to help them do there job"

"they can and will turn you over if it suits them for either personel or political reasons. Your words will be used against you even if its obvious that they were said at a time of high stress when you won't be thinking straight"

[exMudmover]

"I just want to know why a good system was changed."

In my view the old system was “good” , i.e better than the present-day, for two reasons:

Firstly, because there was no corrosive Compensation Culture and its associated lust for vindictive penalties against any individual or any organisation which could possibly have influenced the accident. When you see the sums paid out by MoD for relatively trivial incidents these days, it makes you wonder how there is any money left for actual defence.

Secondly, and most importantly, deaths in service in peacetime training were generally accepted as the norm and would barely make the headlines – a natural consequence of operating high-performance military hardware in Cold War training scenarios. The Wittering village churchyard contains the graves of at least 10 Harrier pilots whom I knew personally. Other Wittering pilots’ graves are located elsewhere.

As another example, 1BR Corps in Germany normally expected at least half a dozen fatalities (and scores of serious injuries) per major summer exercise. Compare that attitude with the hysterical breast-beating that goes on nowadays with the loss of any service person in an accident.

I’m not saying that attitude was good or bad – it’s just a fact.

I accept that the old BoI system was vulnerable to pressure from very senior officers hoping to avoid blame. As to how often that occurred, then I am not so sure. In my experience of old-style BoIs, they came up with the right answers more often than not. We changed procedures/equipment where possible and got on with the job.

In the old system, to avoid pressure of rank on the President, as soon as it was suspected that a relatively senior officer (Wing Commander or Group Captain) was likely to be blamed, then the authorities sent in a new President who outranked the suspected officer.

All of this was done relatively quickly, the Post-Accident 48 hour signal giving a best guess into what had happened (without prejudice to the eventual findings), thus forestalling immediate repeats of the same accident. Nowadays this does not seem to happen. There is an information blackout and aircrews are left waiting for months before there is a hint of what actually happened and who was to blame. Rumour takes over, with predictable effects on morale.

[Chugalug2]

eMM:

In the old system, to avoid pressure of rank on the President, as soon as it was suspected that a relatively senior officer (Wing Commander or Group Captain) was likely to be blamed, then the authorities sent in a new President who outranked the suspected officer.

Well that works up to those relatively junior levels. What has emerged in this Forum however is that the "rot" went much higher, ie VSOs who issued illegal orders to suborn the Airworthiness Regulations were of 2* rank and above. No-one wants to look at that, here or elsewhere, it seems. While we all tut tut and talk of honour the UK Military Accident Investigation system remains compromised and dysfunctional. That means that more lives will be needlessly lost. You may put that down to the price of preparedness, I put it down to the price of corruption.
I am old enough to remember the "old system". It worked because good men (invariably men in those days) did their duty and put it above personal ambition. In retrospect I now see that was the only bulwark that made it work. I do not think we can rely on that happening in future as it has certainly failed to since the 1980s. Banking, Journalism, Medicine, Policing, Aviation, etc; all face a common fact:
Self Regulation Does Not Work, and in Aviation it Kills!

[TheSmiter]

Chuggers and Ex Mudder - both very good summaries which I think accurately represent the current situation. I also remember the 'old days' and believed that the 'good men' were generally doing their best to learn lessons and prevent a recurrence - it never crossed my mind that anyone would act otherwise.

In many ways it would be nice to reset many facets of our 'modern and progressive' society and restore those sort of values. It ain't going to happen while corruption and deception is endemic in public institutions and commercial organisations. The buck stops right at the top - Palace of Westminster.

However, in answer to Keith L, no-one has really addressed what I think he's asking:

a. Who has primacy in law concerning military aviation accidents in the UK?
b. Does the law differ in Scotland?
c. Does it matter whether the accident is over the sea (topical), over common land, or confined to the MoD estate?
d. Has the investigatory primacy issue changed in the last 20 years, if so, when and why?

Sorry Keith if I'm misrepresenting your query, feel free to correct me. I don't pretend to know the accurate answers so I'm not going to BS you.

Also interested in the replies of those experts on here who will have the correct answers from the Post-Crash Management document! I failed to obtain a copy of same when I walked out the gates for the last time.

TS

[pulse1]

Another factor which has changed the face of accident investigation must be the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). It was this which enabled the families of deceased, for the first time, to see the BOI reports. In most, if not all, of the bad accidents since then, starting with the Chinook MOK accident, it has been the families who have created to pressure for a thorough and fair investigation. In most cases, this has been in the face of lies and smokescreens by senior officers and ministers of the crown which have led to justice for the families being delayed. Usually it has taken immense courage and bloodymindedness from a few family members to get to the truth and, if having an independent input from the Police helps in that process, I am all for it.

[keithl]

Thanks, TS, for pulling the conversation back to my query. You've even broken it down into specific questions, which are indeed what I'm wondering about.

But really, its WHY? Does it go back to mishandled military investigations (perhaps in the army) in the past?

I'll add that in my experience, the old system WAS good, but I won't go into that as I hope everyone will stick to the subject, including me!

[ShyTorque]

I also remember the 'old days' and believed that the 'good men' were generally doing their best to learn lessons and prevent a recurrence - it never crossed my mind that anyone would act otherwise.

I used to feel the same way but for me, that all changed with what I saw as a gross miscarriage of justice over the Mull of Kintyre Chinook accident. As soon as I read the abridged BOI report it was very obvious what had occurred; i.e. "the system" was protecting "the system" at the expense of the deceased. The slurs put on the crew were outrageous in view of the debacle of the Mk2 Chinook's lack of airworthiness when it was forced into service. Thank goodness it was eventually all put right.

Since then I've seen "the system" fail to mention the full training history of the captain of another high profile RAF accident. Having done so might well have attracted criticism of the RAF's ability to properly manage and monitor personnel throughout their flying career. The pilot in question was put in a position where he needed skills that he had previously shown to have had fundamental difficulties with during his basic training. Not only that, but he was allowed to push the envelope of the aircraft too far and another tragic accident occurred.

Just two examples I can recall (I remember them because I was involved in earlier training of pilots in both those accidents). I think it's a very good thing that accident investigation is done independently. After all, we would be horrified if airlines were allowed to do their own accident investigations. For obvious reasons.

[Chugalug2]

Keith, I take your point and feel suitably chastised, but your OP stated that the "old" system was good, and you have repeated that claim above. That is why I challenged it, for it was never "good" as it could be subverted from within and from above and then not be able to resist. It was only ever "good" when it was served by good men. As soon as bad men set out to distort its process it became unreliable and suspect. The Police had nothing to do with it, and as pulse1 says, any independent objective input is to be welcome.
That I'm afraid is the answer to your query, though it may not be the one that you are looking for, as independent objective output is a sine qua non in Aviation Accident Investigation. That means an independent MAAIB, both of the MOD and of the MAA, which must also be independent. The Police may well feel the same, hence their increased interest in UK Military Air Accident Investigations until reform happens.

[fabs]

Sorry if it's been answered already, I think plod are involved in Fatal accident or incidents as they are the Coronors' representative or something like that

[jayteeto]

A crash scene is a crime scene. I am sure that the military cannot go near an aircraft wreckage until the police clear them to do so. That includes a crash on a military airfield. This was drummed into us on some crash scene officers course I did years ago. When the plod turn up at the gate, THEY have juristiction, however we were also told that they usually can't wait to hand it over as it is way to difficult to administer.
At a fatal crash overseas on ops that I was supervisor for, I tried to get to the aircraft to remove very sensitive comms documents. The redcaps would not let any of us near the scene for 3 days.

[foldingwings]

I recently got the answer from a 'senior' within the MAA. It is, as fabs states, all to do with fatal or non-fatal and, I believe secondary, whether the accident/incident happened on or off Crown Property.

Foldie

[keithl]

Chug2, let's admit your suggestion, for the sake of argument, that the old system was flawed. If it was biased in favour of "their airships", they would be unlikely to invite the plods in. So it must have come from politicians. So what event, or process, gave them the ammunition they needed to get the hierarchy to let in the police. And remember, their participation did not do away with BoIs, it was additional.

Just briefly, hoping not to drift my own thread, in my experience BoIs were good, carried out by those who knew the nut & bolts of what they were investigating. They only got corrupted when complete, signed off, and handed to higher authority. All right, they aren't really complete until they have the CinCs remarks, but when I talk about "The Board", I mean the originators of the report.

[1.3VStall]

leithl,

Another possible reason is that, these days, many of the aircraft operated by the RAF are civilian registered.

[NutLoose]

Out of interest if the civilian police were involved, which in a lot of military items would be well over their heads, what happens when classified items become involved?

[Chugalug2]

Keith, the BoI system was not biased in favour of anybody or anything, other than to discover the reasons why an accident happened and what should be done to avoid a recurrence. It was the Airships of which you speak, or at least a number of them, that ensured bias by directly subverting them when they thought it necessary for whatever reasons.
As to the BoIs themselves they were only as good as the information to hand. Mull is an excellent example of this, as has been pointed out already. Although the BoI did not produce the finding required of it (some moral courage at work there I would surmise) it still did not investigate what is now generally regarded as a major factor in, and possibly cause of the crash of Chinook HC2 ZD576, ie its Gross Unairworthiness. It did not do so, probably because it was ordered not to, and certainly the man best qualified to inform the Board of the UFCMs and FADEC u/c runups, rundowns, and shutdowns, Sqn Ldr Burke (the Odiham TP), was not called and was ordered not to approach the Board when he expressed his wish to give evidence.
The problem about BoIs is that the system can shut down on them, and they become the proverbial mushroom farm. No matter how sincerely they try to do their duty (and I'm sure that they invariably do), if the RAF/MOD wants/ doesn't want a particular outcome then it, and not the BoI, will prevail. That's no way to run Air Accident Investigation, civilian or military, because more people die.