Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Police involvement in RAF Air Accidents

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Police involvement in RAF Air Accidents

Old 8th Jul 2012, 16:38
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder if a civilian police involvement has contributed to the apparent delay in the announcement or release of findings of the two regrettable Red Arrows incidents last year?
A2QFI is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2012, 17:12
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
See here for JSP 832 - Guide to Service Inquiries

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E46A9...2/0/jsp832.pdf

See 1.19 and 1.20 c
flipster is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2012, 18:28
  #23 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Age: 77
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Now that IS helpful, flipster, thanks very much!

However, while it clarifies the current rules (which answers a large part of my question) it doesn't tell us what prompted the "police primacy" policy. I'm fairly sure that in my day the police would be called in if there was a need, but not as SOP. Did it come from politicians? The police? Surely not the RAF itself. Can anyone help with that? Is there a History-of-Air Force-Legal-Procedures scholar out there?

Last edited by keithl; 8th Jul 2012 at 20:58.
keithl is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2012, 12:11
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ripon
Age: 64
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Any accident scene is a potential crime scene and therefore the police have primacy, even on-base. As far as I know they always have done. They also retain primacy even after the site has been handed over to the military. An earlier poster said that the police are quick to try to hand over a crash site to the military once they are satisfied that it was just an accident. I have experienced that, at one of the 2 crashes for which I have been the MOD Incident Officer, but the police still retained overal control. My experiences are getting a bit dated now, 1994 and 2003, but although the site had been handed over to me, local plod still made regular visits to the site, and I had to touch base with the police when the military vacated the site.

I can't comment on concurrent police investigations as that never figured as part of my job.
Fatjoff is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2012, 12:22
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 80
Posts: 6,379
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I recall an fatal accident at a Norfolk radar station in about 1985, and the civil police never came near, and Aunty Joan asked me to go to the gate and invite the Health and Safety Exec guy who turned up to take up sex and travel. ISTR a short MOD Plod investigation and a BoI. I often wonder if Cpl M L H's ashes were ever disinterred from Scottow Cemetery (where the padre parked them when he got fed up with the urn on his bookshelf) and scattered where either the former Mrs H, or the to-be Mrs H wanted them. The two ladies could not agree on a final resting place.
Wander00 is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2012, 20:28
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Mull Chinook crash is a good case study around which to discuss these points.
Firstly, “TheSmiter” ‘s question ‘b’ (does the law differ in Scotland?):
In Scotland at the time, any such fatal accident could be subject to a FAI and the Procurator Fiscal (of the time) rigorously pursued this;
However, in England it was such that a purely military flight would not be subject to such “civvy” authority investigation – and all sorts of pressure was applied to the Proc Fisc to stop his inquiry;
Eventually, that there was one civilian passenger on board removed the MOD obstacle – but one has to ponder that if not for this, for the first couple of years at least, all that the public would have had would have been the demonstrably inadequate BOI.

From the Summary in my submission to Lord Philip’s Review last year:
<< Further to the analysis aspect, an important deficiency became apparent in the processes of investigation used by the authorities for a politically sensitive crash – that was that civil authorities were overly dependent upon the RAF for information on the aircraft's systems and pertinent operational procedures such that it was apparently easy for the RAF to obfuscate where it wanted equipment and procedures to remain out of the public domain.>>

So I would further say that not only must an independent authority be involved but they must have at their disposal independent pilots and avionics/nav experts to do the analysis and advise them re pertinent questions in any inquiry.

That the RUC didn’t wade in somehow at the time astounded me.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2012, 20:43
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Incident officer course! That was the one. Many military people have tried to 'outrank' the plod and claim a scene. They soon learn.......
jayteeto is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2012, 20:50
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I stand to be corrected here but in the UK at least I was always of the opinion that the Civil Authorities had to be called in to investigate:

Murder
Manslaughter
Treason
Treason Felony
Rape

This has always been and no date always will be even if this is a suspicious death at a Top Secret Radar Station...

It is no good waiting a few weeks to decide if an offence may or may not have been committed, The forensic evidence needs to be preserved right from the 'get go!'

A crashed aircraft may or may not fall into that category and until the facts are established then is it not better to err on the side of caution? ...
glojo is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2012, 09:20
  #29 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Age: 77
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Any accident scene is a potential crime scene and therefore the police have primacy, even on-base. As far as I know they always have done.
Just to put that one to rest we need to define "Always". Let me provide two data points. One: In April 1983, I was part of a BoI investigating a JP crash at Elvington. We never saw a policeman from beginning to end. Had we suspected a crime, e.g. sabotage, we would have asked for an RAFP investigation. If that sabotage looked like attempted murder, we'd have passed that aspect of it to the civil police. Neither was the case, and there was NO police involvement.

Data Point 2. Last year's Red Arrows ground ejection investigation was, I understand, delayed while the BoI waited for the Civ Police to release the seat to them. What the police would have made of an ejection seat I cannot imagine, but that's when I first learnt about "Police Primacy".

Now, between those two dates something changed. The organisation of the RAF has changed out of all recognition in that time, I know. So I repeat my original question. When and Why did this "Police Primacy" phenomenon occur?

Walter Kennedy's helpful contribution indicates it was subsequent to the MoK Chinook, which sounds right. Was that accident the catalyst for the change, or was there something else?

Last edited by keithl; 10th Jul 2012 at 09:52.
keithl is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2012, 09:43
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nothing has changed and your imagination is being very blinkered regarding any unexplained death.

I can assure you that the RAFP in the UK have NEVER been authorised to investigate fully the above offences. Not in your time nor at any time of the RAF in the UK.....

I am NOT repeat NOT.... going to speculate why the civil police may have been called in for that last example you cited and hopefully nor will anyone else.

At this moment in time I believe a Royal Navy Petty officer is appearing in a British Civil Court charged with offences against the Official Secrets Act. The secrets were no doubt obtained on UK military property but no way will they be dealt with by the military and the same applies for any soldier of RAF personnel... It would have been the same if it had been a suspicious death... Note the word suspicious.. these things have to be investigated.

Going off on a tangent do the RAF have the forensic capability to comply with all the very latest collection and preservation of evidence? I would be VERY surprised if they have but that is me going off on my tangent.
glojo is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2012, 09:49
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Easy answer to the OP is that "It's the law, innit?"

The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996 (Civil ac)

the Chief Inspector by the quickest means of communication available and, in the case of an accident occurring in or over the United Kingdom, shall also notify forthwith a police officer for the area where the accident occurred of the accident and of the place where it occurred.
or

The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Military Air Accidents at Civil Aerodromes) Regulations 2005 (Mil ac)

So, since at least 1996, there has been a requirement in UK law to inform the Police at the earliest opportunity.
orgASMic is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2012, 10:04
  #32 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Age: 77
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
glojo, I must respond to your "nothing has changed". The JP crash I referred to was not fatal, perhaps I should have made that clear. Your list of offences it was mandatory for the Civil Authorities to investigate was true in my time, also. That is why I chose my hypothetical crimes as I did. Sabotage is not on your list, murder is.

Your 3rd para "not going to speculate on why the civ police were "called in" is missing the point. They weren't "called in" they were acting in accordance with "police primacy", which is what this discussion is about.
keithl is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2012, 10:18
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
To narrow the window for the change, I was involved in 3 BoIs as a Station Flight Safety Officer 1992/3. The Police were not involved in the slightest.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2012, 10:47
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: lincolnshire
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 2 Posts
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."

I fear that merely passing on the raw details of BoI findings to bereaved families will not always help – unless those families are given access to experts (in the MOK case, non-interested Chinook aircrew and engineers), with a brief to translate the findings into lay person’s terms and answer questions as to how flying operations are carried out in practice.

I have seen how families react to BoI findings and in my view it is too much to expect the lay person to understand the finer points of Airmanship, for example. It would need to be explained that 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. ( I leave aside the tricky question of being flown into the ground under close Radar Control – it nearly happened to me once.)

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 cannot 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.
exMudmover is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2012, 11:35
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi Keithl,
Are we in violent agreement here as to me I

Originally Posted by Keithl
glojo, I must respond to your "nothing has changed". The JP crash I referred to was not fatal, perhaps I should have made that clear. Your list of offences it was mandatory for the Civil Authorities to investigate was true in my time, also. That is why I chose my hypothetical crimes as I did. Sabotage is not on your list, murder is.
Sabotage can be dealt with by the military.. Sabotage in the UK which results in a suspicious death cannot, UNTIL the cause of death is established.

Originally Posted by Keithl
Your 3rd para "not going to speculate on why the civ police were "called in" is missing the point. They weren't "called in" they were acting in accordance with "police primacy", which is what this discussion is about.
Whether they were acting in accordance with "police primacy" might be splitting hairs?? How did the Police find out about any incident? The instant they are informed, the chances are they will be committed to investigate? The only people aware of the incident are the military, they then are the informing authority.

Clearly when we hear about a Board of Investigation being held in the UK without Police involvement, then a decision has been made that no criminal act was involved.. I am certainly NOT suggesting no criminal act was committed but I am suggesting the decision was probably made at 'Flag' level that no criminal act was responsible for the death.

I am in the same room as Chugalug regarding this issue.
glojo is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2012, 12:29
  #36 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Age: 77
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Hallo glojo.

Well I wouldn't go as far as that, but I'm quite willing for you to substitute another hypothetical crime which the Board might ask the RAFP to investigate.

My main aim in discussion with you is to establish that automatic police investigation, as opposed to response has not "always been". Other posters appear to confirm that. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that "police primacy" is a relatively new thing. For example when I did the UFSO course on dealing with air accidents, police involvement was covered, but without mention of investigative "primacy" which would surely have been stressed.

I have a private view on whether or not it is a good thing, but take no position here on that. Indeed, it is to calibrate my private opinion that I am trying to establish what drove the change. For example, "a climate of opinion following the Mull of Kintyre investigation". That would help me understand the current position.

Last edited by keithl; 10th Jul 2012 at 12:40.
keithl is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2012, 13:48
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi Keith,
Are you suggesting that there have been examples of a suspicious death in a military base in the UK where the civil power has not been informed? Or indeed treason,treason felony, manslaughter or rape.

I am simply saying that as far as I am aware these offences have always been dealt with in exactly the same manner, the civil authority has to be informed which in turn will result in the local constabulary being the investigative authority.

Regards
John
glojo is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2012, 14:30
  #38 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Age: 77
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
No, John, I'm not saying that at all. Perhaps we even agree and have been at cross-purposes. Everything you say about those major crimes is true. If we can package that up and put it to one side, we can go on to talk about military aircraft crashes.

My 1983 example was intended to illustrate how things used to work. We, the Board, turned up to find a pile of wreckage on MoD property, and two pilots in hospital. The police knew it had happened, but merely logged it. Now, at that moment, it is non-fatal and we go about our investigation. A crash scene is NOT, back then, a crime scene. We find a defective component. Has a crime been committed? We think "No", so we don't inform any police RAF or Civvy. We could, in theory have missed evidence of sabotage.

Now, the crew. In fact the crew recovered, but suppose after a week, one of them had died. We now have a fatal accident, or do we have a crime? The board will come to a conclusion, probably pass it up the line, and the decision re. the police will be made. The evidence has now been removed, so if we want the police to investigate, that may be a problem.

I don't want to drag this out, glojo, but can you see what I'm driving at? The difference is nowadays, the police DO assume the crash scene is the crime scene and so their investigation starts immediately.

Does that clarify things?

Keith

Edited to add: If we go back to the '60s, there were so many Hunters, Meteors, Swifts, etc dropping out of the sky that the police would have been overwhelmed if they'd had to assume a crime every time. That is one reason why the assumption used to be "Accident. Leave it to the RAF."

Last edited by keithl; 10th Jul 2012 at 16:03.
keithl is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2012, 16:06
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,194
Received 9 Likes on 6 Posts
I am surprised that no one so far has mentioned two significant factors that may have a bearing on post accident procedures:

A. The loss of Crown Immunity
b. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007

Investigation of any suspected cases under the latter are the responsibility of the police. Therefore it would seem appropriate for the civilian police to keep at least a watching brief on any investigation into a fatal accident or even assume a more active role in seeking to preserve evidence.

YS
Yellow Sun is online now  
Old 10th Jul 2012, 16:20
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi Keith,
We certainly do agree and yes I agree with you.
glojo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.