Police involvement in RAF Air Accidents
Thread Starter
Thanks, Yellow Sun. Yes, those two must go into the mix.
So the story so far goes: In the beginning, the RAF was able to investigate its own accidents and would make its own decision about whether it was required to initiate an RAFP or a CivPol investigation. The first major change came with loss of Crown Immunity, when it became necessary to have sufficiently robust answers to civilian legal challenges.
As the RAF shrank (and flew more safely) accidents became less frequent but more significant, as they attracted more public attention. That prompted a loosening of the restrictions on publicising BoI reports.
In very recent years (since 2007?) the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter etc...Act, plus dissatisfaction with the Chinook MoK investigation shifted the primacy in investigation to the only alternative investigative body - the police.
That looks OK, but possibly a bit simplistic. I can now use that to ponder what I think about it. Thank you TS, flipster, walter k and YS.
The rest of you can go on adding the embellishments if you wish and I'll just watch.
So the story so far goes: In the beginning, the RAF was able to investigate its own accidents and would make its own decision about whether it was required to initiate an RAFP or a CivPol investigation. The first major change came with loss of Crown Immunity, when it became necessary to have sufficiently robust answers to civilian legal challenges.
As the RAF shrank (and flew more safely) accidents became less frequent but more significant, as they attracted more public attention. That prompted a loosening of the restrictions on publicising BoI reports.
In very recent years (since 2007?) the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter etc...Act, plus dissatisfaction with the Chinook MoK investigation shifted the primacy in investigation to the only alternative investigative body - the police.
That looks OK, but possibly a bit simplistic. I can now use that to ponder what I think about it. Thank you TS, flipster, walter k and YS.
The rest of you can go on adding the embellishments if you wish and I'll just watch.
Last edited by keithl; 10th Jul 2012 at 20:22.
Bit of thread drift , but what gets me is the way every time there is an aircraft accident some Labour MP (or SNP if its in Scotland) will "demand" an inquiry, in the full knowledge that while they are pontificating and drawing attention to themselves, the BOI is in all probability well under way.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TTN,
Politicians demand an enquiry for nearly everything - when they are not in government! I don't think that aircraft crashes are in any way different from thieving bankers or floods.
Duncs
Politicians demand an enquiry for nearly everything - when they are not in government! I don't think that aircraft crashes are in any way different from thieving bankers or floods.
Duncs
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we were to do some research on this forum there are links to where a senior officer on a BOI was instructed as to what the findings should be regarding the specific case this officer was involved with!
Is this what we prefer?
I have read posts on this thread that advise us not to 'talk to plod, as they are paid to investigate!'
I am a great believer in society deserves the Police Service it gets... Far be it for anyone to actually want to discover the truth as opposed to maybe not causing embarrassment to their own service!
Is this what we prefer?
I have read posts on this thread that advise us not to 'talk to plod, as they are paid to investigate!'
I am a great believer in society deserves the Police Service it gets... Far be it for anyone to actually want to discover the truth as opposed to maybe not causing embarrassment to their own service!
The civvy coppers are just looking for someone to charge. It's what they do and just about all they're good for. It means they can solve a crime.
They know who the crew were so they already have the perps. It's easier than actually going out and solving crime where they actually have to do something and discover who did it.
I was shocked, one year, when on my Council Tax information justifying the vast amount of loot we give over to the police on an annual basis, they were proud of the fact that they, Norfolk Police, had actually solved 33% of crimes over the previous period.
They may have been proud, I was shocked and disgusted if not surprised as the only time you see a copper round our way is if one misses you in his car, doing warp speed with blue lights, on your side of the road and on a blind bend or hiding in a hedge with a speed gun.
I'm not impressed by the police overall but with some exceptions.
Doc C
They know who the crew were so they already have the perps. It's easier than actually going out and solving crime where they actually have to do something and discover who did it.
I was shocked, one year, when on my Council Tax information justifying the vast amount of loot we give over to the police on an annual basis, they were proud of the fact that they, Norfolk Police, had actually solved 33% of crimes over the previous period.
They may have been proud, I was shocked and disgusted if not surprised as the only time you see a copper round our way is if one misses you in his car, doing warp speed with blue lights, on your side of the road and on a blind bend or hiding in a hedge with a speed gun.
I'm not impressed by the police overall but with some exceptions.
Doc C
Last edited by Doctor Cruces; 12th Jul 2012 at 21:20.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Doc,
I just had to dodge all those chips on your shoulder before replying..
It's a well known fact that I am not the cleverest kid on the block but as far as I am aware the Crown Prosecution Service make the decision on who or what to charge regarding any serious crime, but don't let that spoil a good old fashioned rant...
Instead lets have a Kangaroo Court where the Board is told what verdict to reach and probably what if any punishment to award. That is surely much better than a forensic examination that tries to find out all, or as many of the facts as possible?
Me, I believe that in life there are events are can be classed as accidents but they are extremely rare and usually there will be a cause or reason for every incident; but NOT necessarily a blame worthy cause.
I just had to dodge all those chips on your shoulder before replying..
It's a well known fact that I am not the cleverest kid on the block but as far as I am aware the Crown Prosecution Service make the decision on who or what to charge regarding any serious crime, but don't let that spoil a good old fashioned rant...
Instead lets have a Kangaroo Court where the Board is told what verdict to reach and probably what if any punishment to award. That is surely much better than a forensic examination that tries to find out all, or as many of the facts as possible?
Me, I believe that in life there are events are can be classed as accidents but they are extremely rare and usually there will be a cause or reason for every incident; but NOT necessarily a blame worthy cause.
Glojo,
When you've had to return home for clean shreddies (not literally but you get my drift) twice in the same month after nearly being killed by some idiot (or worse still, two different idiots) with a severe dose of testosterone poisoning, on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend, blue lights and siren, warp speed (as I said previously), THEN you can accuse me of chippiness, but NOT until then!!
Doc C
When you've had to return home for clean shreddies (not literally but you get my drift) twice in the same month after nearly being killed by some idiot (or worse still, two different idiots) with a severe dose of testosterone poisoning, on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend, blue lights and siren, warp speed (as I said previously), THEN you can accuse me of chippiness, but NOT until then!!
Doc C
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One day it's "The Police are driving too fast" next day it's "The Police took ages to get here, by which time the bad guys were gone, no wonder they only solve 30% of crimes"
Next time you need a cop in a hurry, remember when you call 999 to specify you need urgent assistance but they should only do 30MPH to get to you.
I don't think you have Chip Issue, but you do come across as one of those speeders who suggest that the cops ought to be out catching burglars, or a burglar who wants the cops to focus on muggers as housebreaking in't hurting old ladies or maybe you want the village bobby to stop harassing your offspring for just hanging around the shops when there are so many dangerous speeders out on the A47 needing caught.
I too was on Op Burberry but I don't recall getting a tenner. Perhaps having done my six weeks in Aberdeen was bonus enough in the eyes of their airships.
Next time you need a cop in a hurry, remember when you call 999 to specify you need urgent assistance but they should only do 30MPH to get to you.
I don't think you have Chip Issue, but you do come across as one of those speeders who suggest that the cops ought to be out catching burglars, or a burglar who wants the cops to focus on muggers as housebreaking in't hurting old ladies or maybe you want the village bobby to stop harassing your offspring for just hanging around the shops when there are so many dangerous speeders out on the A47 needing caught.
I too was on Op Burberry but I don't recall getting a tenner. Perhaps having done my six weeks in Aberdeen was bonus enough in the eyes of their airships.
Not a speeder, never had even a parking ticket.
Village bobby, that's a laugh. Like I said, the only time you see a cop in our village is when he's hiding in a hedge with a speed gun. Not that I have any sympathy for speeders either. You speed, you get caught, you pay the fine and get the points.
Village bobby, that's a laugh. Like I said, the only time you see a cop in our village is when he's hiding in a hedge with a speed gun. Not that I have any sympathy for speeders either. You speed, you get caught, you pay the fine and get the points.
Last edited by Doctor Cruces; 12th Jul 2012 at 22:20.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In the clouds
Age: 69
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how much interest the Scottish Plod took in the ZG708 "accident" at Glen Ogle. Some serious allegations have been made about the cause of accident, but I've never heard of any civilian investigation into such serious a serious matter.
See here:
Argyll News: 1994 Kintyre Chinook crash pilots cleared – now the real gross negligence must be identified | For Argyll
"It is alleged that the cockpit voice recorder clearly showed the pilot saying to the navigator something like: ‘Take this you ******’, before putting the aircraft into what the data recorder showed as a sharp, controlled and accelerating roll and pitch to impact. It is also alleged that it emerged that the navigator had been involved with the pilot’s partner."
See here:
Argyll News: 1994 Kintyre Chinook crash pilots cleared – now the real gross negligence must be identified | For Argyll
"It is alleged that the cockpit voice recorder clearly showed the pilot saying to the navigator something like: ‘Take this you ******’, before putting the aircraft into what the data recorder showed as a sharp, controlled and accelerating roll and pitch to impact. It is also alleged that it emerged that the navigator had been involved with the pilot’s partner."
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doc,
We are now way, way, way off topic and quite clearly you have a grudge against two individuals and for that you are blaming the whole of the United Kingdom Police Force. I think we have both had our say and please, please feel free to discuss this via pm.
Trying to get back on topic I would want an investigation by an independent authority where NO ONE but no one can influence the inquiry. The investigators gather the evidence, prepare any file if they feel there might be evidence of a criminal act and then and only then is this incident put before an independent authority who reads the file and then makes the decision to either prosecute or not!
Does that sound familiar?
We are now way, way, way off topic and quite clearly you have a grudge against two individuals and for that you are blaming the whole of the United Kingdom Police Force. I think we have both had our say and please, please feel free to discuss this via pm.
Trying to get back on topic I would want an investigation by an independent authority where NO ONE but no one can influence the inquiry. The investigators gather the evidence, prepare any file if they feel there might be evidence of a criminal act and then and only then is this incident put before an independent authority who reads the file and then makes the decision to either prosecute or not!
Does that sound familiar?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook and Glen Ogle
I would not wish to add to the speculation on what caused the Glen Ogle accident, but having seen the BoI there is no evidence of the comment written about by “itwasme” being made by the pilot. However, Glen Ogle does illustrate the potential lack of consistent verdicts, and hence justice, from RAF BOIs in those days, and why the police and/or a totally independent Military AIB should be investigating accidents OUTSIDE the Command chain even today. In the Glen Ogle accident the aircraft was fitted with a CVR and ADR (the Mull of Kintyre Chinook had neither) and there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the pilot had, for whatever reason, made control inputs that flew, from what the ADR evidence showed, a perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground.
The BoI stated: "..... However, since Flt Lt XXXX's control inputs led directly to the loss of the aircraft, the Board concluded that Flt Lt XXXXs actions constituted an ERROR OF JUDGEMENT and therefore the Board recommends that he be absolved from blame."
The Station Commander, on 19 December 1994 stated "....I believe that it would be unwise to draw any conclusions as to human failings because there is too much scope for conjecture. I do not accept, therefore, the Board's conclusion that Flt Lt XXXX made an Error of Judgement: I recommend that there should be no finding regarding human failings".
The AOC , on 3 March 1995 (ie just 17 days before he commented on the Chinook accident), said: ".....Moreover, overwhelming evidence indicates that the aircraft responded both directly and appropriately, to control inputs, either voluntary or otherwise, which were initiated by the pilot and led ultimately to the loss of the aircraft. ......Regardless of the circumstances of this particular accident (my bold), I agree that Flt Lt XXXX should be absolved from blame."
Finally on 18 April 1995 (ie 15 days after his comments on the Chinook accident) the AOCinC commented: “It is therefore because there is no scope for conjecture (and not too much scope, as the Station Commander, believes) that I find any consideration of human failings to be academic and fruitless. Despite the wealth of detailed evidence, we are confounded and under these particular circumstances I consider it is futile to indulge in hypothesis. (my bold).
I do not know enough about any other circumstances known to the BoI that may or may not have existed to argue against this being the correct decision for Glen Ogle, but the "facts" of the accident including the "known" "unknowns" are indisputable, and in my view any other conclusion would indeed have had to have been based on hypothesis and speculation - the former might have a place in trying to reach a conclusion as long as it is based on supporting evidence - the latter, ie hypothesis without supporting evidence, never should. Hypothesis without any evidence, and hence speculation, though formed the basis of the gross negligence verdict for the Chinook crew and it took 17 years to right this wrong!
I have my own views on why this gross inconsistency of findings happened, but it would be wrong to speculate here - many PPRuNe contrubutors will I am sure anyway have their own views.
The BoI stated: "..... However, since Flt Lt XXXX's control inputs led directly to the loss of the aircraft, the Board concluded that Flt Lt XXXXs actions constituted an ERROR OF JUDGEMENT and therefore the Board recommends that he be absolved from blame."
The Station Commander, on 19 December 1994 stated "....I believe that it would be unwise to draw any conclusions as to human failings because there is too much scope for conjecture. I do not accept, therefore, the Board's conclusion that Flt Lt XXXX made an Error of Judgement: I recommend that there should be no finding regarding human failings".
The AOC , on 3 March 1995 (ie just 17 days before he commented on the Chinook accident), said: ".....Moreover, overwhelming evidence indicates that the aircraft responded both directly and appropriately, to control inputs, either voluntary or otherwise, which were initiated by the pilot and led ultimately to the loss of the aircraft. ......Regardless of the circumstances of this particular accident (my bold), I agree that Flt Lt XXXX should be absolved from blame."
Finally on 18 April 1995 (ie 15 days after his comments on the Chinook accident) the AOCinC commented: “It is therefore because there is no scope for conjecture (and not too much scope, as the Station Commander, believes) that I find any consideration of human failings to be academic and fruitless. Despite the wealth of detailed evidence, we are confounded and under these particular circumstances I consider it is futile to indulge in hypothesis. (my bold).
I do not know enough about any other circumstances known to the BoI that may or may not have existed to argue against this being the correct decision for Glen Ogle, but the "facts" of the accident including the "known" "unknowns" are indisputable, and in my view any other conclusion would indeed have had to have been based on hypothesis and speculation - the former might have a place in trying to reach a conclusion as long as it is based on supporting evidence - the latter, ie hypothesis without supporting evidence, never should. Hypothesis without any evidence, and hence speculation, though formed the basis of the gross negligence verdict for the Chinook crew and it took 17 years to right this wrong!
I have my own views on why this gross inconsistency of findings happened, but it would be wrong to speculate here - many PPRuNe contrubutors will I am sure anyway have their own views.
Last edited by John Blakeley; 13th Jul 2012 at 08:36.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is alleged that the cockpit voice recorder clearly showed the pilot saying to the navigator something like:
The official report makes no mention of this comment and yet a free "newspaper" claims it to be true so an anonymous poster thinks it ok to repeat it....jeez.
Anyone got any facts? No, oh well, let's just allege some then.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In the clouds
Age: 69
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airpolice,
Get one thing right, I have made no slur against anyone.
It was part of a piece written by a journo on a regional news website. The only reason for posting it was because it's entirely relevant to the OP's question regarding involvement of civilian police in service BoIs.
Here is a journalist writing under her own name making a serious allegation.
Relevant? Yes, I think so.
Get one thing right, I have made no slur against anyone.
It was part of a piece written by a journo on a regional news website. The only reason for posting it was because it's entirely relevant to the OP's question regarding involvement of civilian police in service BoIs.
Here is a journalist writing under her own name making a serious allegation.
Relevant? Yes, I think so.
John Blakeley's excellent post brings us back to the core problem here, which is the systemic flaw that has always undermined UK Military Air Accident Investigations; that the operator investigates its own accidents. Even in these days of a supposedly "independent" MAAIB, that still remains the case.
Personally I find the insinuation that civil police input into that process could undermine it as risible. However, the obverse is just as unlikely, for the civil police have long known that illegal orders were made by RAF VSOs to subvert the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations which were suborned at the very highest levels of the High Command, but have shown as much willingness to act on such evidence as the RAF Provost Marshal, ie none.
The story here isn't the supposed primacy of the civil police in Military Air Accidents but the primacy of the High Command in producing the Investigative Findings that it requires. Unless and until UK Military Air Accident Investigation is separate and independent of both the Regulator and the Operator (which in turn must also be separate) then avoidable Military Air Accidents will just go on happening for lack of proper Investigation
Personally I find the insinuation that civil police input into that process could undermine it as risible. However, the obverse is just as unlikely, for the civil police have long known that illegal orders were made by RAF VSOs to subvert the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations which were suborned at the very highest levels of the High Command, but have shown as much willingness to act on such evidence as the RAF Provost Marshal, ie none.
The story here isn't the supposed primacy of the civil police in Military Air Accidents but the primacy of the High Command in producing the Investigative Findings that it requires. Unless and until UK Military Air Accident Investigation is separate and independent of both the Regulator and the Operator (which in turn must also be separate) then avoidable Military Air Accidents will just go on happening for lack of proper Investigation
Thread Starter
As the Original Poster, I do not see how the nasty little bit of gossip given unnecessary publicity by itwasme can possibly be relevant to my OP. As promised, I'm keeping a watching brief while I make up my mind. I'm not certain I agee with John Blakely and Chugalug2, but I like the way they conduct the debate.
For those taking the broad line "BoI can be corrupted, so let in the Plods", I'd ask what they think about Leveson's indications (I stress that word) of police subordination to influential publishers. The AAIB are an example to all, perhaps they should investigate ALL accidents, Mil and Civ?
For those taking the broad line "BoI can be corrupted, so let in the Plods", I'd ask what they think about Leveson's indications (I stress that word) of police subordination to influential publishers. The AAIB are an example to all, perhaps they should investigate ALL accidents, Mil and Civ?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB in Military Accidents
keithl,
As far as the investigation of the cause of the accident I would have no problem with supporting your solution for an investigation outside the Command Chain, and I said "or" in my original post. If I understand correctly though the BoI can no longer rule on blame, and this decision and any discplinary action still remains within the Command Chain, and hence potentially open to the bias of the opinions of VSOs - wouldn't it be better if this was a decision for an independent entity equivalent to say the Police/CPS? None of this is perfect and I don't have a Utopian vision of the AAIB and CPS getting everything right - but I don't want to see another person found guilty of gross negligence based on speculation either. For all its faults I do not think the CPS would have gone anywhere near that route had they been involved with the Mull of Kintyre - and incidentally I would still like to see the legal opinion given at the time that said the VSOs were right to go down that route. If I remember rightly the SofS stated that the VSOs were honourable men, and it was a junior officer in the RAF's Legal Branch (working alone?) who gave this advice - really, for such a high profile accident! If it was then publish the advice and confirm when and who gave it (not necessarily by name - the appointment will do).
As far as the investigation of the cause of the accident I would have no problem with supporting your solution for an investigation outside the Command Chain, and I said "or" in my original post. If I understand correctly though the BoI can no longer rule on blame, and this decision and any discplinary action still remains within the Command Chain, and hence potentially open to the bias of the opinions of VSOs - wouldn't it be better if this was a decision for an independent entity equivalent to say the Police/CPS? None of this is perfect and I don't have a Utopian vision of the AAIB and CPS getting everything right - but I don't want to see another person found guilty of gross negligence based on speculation either. For all its faults I do not think the CPS would have gone anywhere near that route had they been involved with the Mull of Kintyre - and incidentally I would still like to see the legal opinion given at the time that said the VSOs were right to go down that route. If I remember rightly the SofS stated that the VSOs were honourable men, and it was a junior officer in the RAF's Legal Branch (working alone?) who gave this advice - really, for such a high profile accident! If it was then publish the advice and confirm when and who gave it (not necessarily by name - the appointment will do).