Police involvement in RAF Air Accidents
John, if I may, thank you for the kind words, and may I say how sorry I am to hear of your prolonged lack of sleep, and that relief come soon for you.
It seems that I have missed your point, that you feel I am guilty of thread drift rather than lack of concern for the bereaved. If that is so I willingly plead guilty to the lesser charge, M'Lud.
I know that the OP has already said much the same, in so many words, and I take the point. It seems to me though that Police Primacy, or whatever the buzz words are, is as a direct result of the mess that UK Military Air Accident Investigation has got itself into.
I take keithl's premise that such primacy is the case, for I have no knowledge to the contrary, but if so it seems likely that it was self imposed by a system that feels it has no authority or self confidence. It has no authority because it is in thrall to the MOD, it has no self confidence because it realises that. Give it independence and access to the AAIB investigators that EAP66 rightly endorses and it will gain the authority and self confidence that will no doubt assure the civil police that UK Military Air Accident Investigation is in safe hands and thus feel able to loosen their remit.
It seems that I have missed your point, that you feel I am guilty of thread drift rather than lack of concern for the bereaved. If that is so I willingly plead guilty to the lesser charge, M'Lud.
I know that the OP has already said much the same, in so many words, and I take the point. It seems to me though that Police Primacy, or whatever the buzz words are, is as a direct result of the mess that UK Military Air Accident Investigation has got itself into.
I take keithl's premise that such primacy is the case, for I have no knowledge to the contrary, but if so it seems likely that it was self imposed by a system that feels it has no authority or self confidence. It has no authority because it is in thrall to the MOD, it has no self confidence because it realises that. Give it independence and access to the AAIB investigators that EAP66 rightly endorses and it will gain the authority and self confidence that will no doubt assure the civil police that UK Military Air Accident Investigation is in safe hands and thus feel able to loosen their remit.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that you feel I am guilty of thread drift
Thank you andNO......
I definitely do NOT accuse you of thread drift as we all accept and enjoy a little drifting both to port or starboard
I will not expand on who I think responsible and I just ask we avoid opening up the personal side of any previous incident, I was just concerned that anyone would think I am asking for this very interesting thread to be closed (it is not my place to even think such a thought)
Best wishes to one and all
John
Thread Starter
The Keithl Commission
OK, Chug, friends!
Chug & tuc clearly believe strongly that these threads can influence things in the real world. I'm not so sure (you'll have noticed by now I'm slow to make up my mind - I regard it as a virtue. Well, now I no longer fly, it is!). I'm afraid you are just throwing words at the air. Nevertheless, I convened a Commission of Inquiry this afternoon in my garden and the Recommendations have just been published. Here they are:
1. The investigation of military air accidents in UK is currently carried out by police and a Service Board of Inquiry frequently assisted by the AAIB. Where conflicts of interest occur, such as access to physical evidence, the police are considered to have primacy over the BoI. This has not always been the case. Police primacy also applies in Scotland where police may have to provide evidence to the Procurator Fiscal.
2. There are disadvantages to this, consisting of delay to technical investgators, extra burden on witnesses (having to provide separate evidence to each group) and different approaches, the police trained to detect and prosecute crime, the Board seeking to ascertain causes.
3. The situation is different in civil aviation. The AAIB has precedence over police and a Memorandum of Understanding resolves difficulties over such matters as preservation of evidence, destructive testing and so on. (I have a link to this but it didn't work when I copied it across. Perhaps you are familiar with the document anyway)
4. The disadvantages referred to would be removed or ameliorated if military air accident investigation were brought more into line with civilian practice. However, due to the particular nature of military hierarchy, rules and procedures, and the riskier nature of military flying, a Service Board needs to make the particular military recommendations resulting from the inquiry.
5. It is proposed that investigative primacy be returned to the BoI. As technical experts they need first access to physical evidence and witnesses. Usually a crime has NOT been committed, so police involvement should not be required in the initial stages of an investigation.
6. There wouild be two "Thresholds", crossing which would cause civilian judicial involvement at different levels.
7. First Threshold. When the Board becomes aware that a crime may have been committed, the police would be informed and allowed to start their investigation. (If such a crime is purely a military one, such as disobedience to military orders, etc. Service authorities can deal with it at the appropriate stage - following the recommendations of the Board, or concurrent with the Board's investigation if necessary).
8. Second Threshold. To avoid biassed, flawed, or inappropriately influenced investigations or conclusions, every BoI investigation into a fatal air accident should be submitted to an appropriate civilian judge, coroner, Procurator, etc for review. Witnesses who felt they had been denied a hearing could apply to this court to be heard. The court could order a police investigation if in their opinion indications of a crime had been missed, or suppressed, by the BoI.
9. The submission at Threshold 2 should be after completion of the Board's report. To avoid timewasting when a report is rejected as incompetent, it should have been accepted and signed by the first RO.
10. The reviewing judge (&etc) should append relevant legal notes to guide higher ROs and clarify the limits of their powers.
Chug & tuc clearly believe strongly that these threads can influence things in the real world. I'm not so sure (you'll have noticed by now I'm slow to make up my mind - I regard it as a virtue. Well, now I no longer fly, it is!). I'm afraid you are just throwing words at the air. Nevertheless, I convened a Commission of Inquiry this afternoon in my garden and the Recommendations have just been published. Here they are:
1. The investigation of military air accidents in UK is currently carried out by police and a Service Board of Inquiry frequently assisted by the AAIB. Where conflicts of interest occur, such as access to physical evidence, the police are considered to have primacy over the BoI. This has not always been the case. Police primacy also applies in Scotland where police may have to provide evidence to the Procurator Fiscal.
2. There are disadvantages to this, consisting of delay to technical investgators, extra burden on witnesses (having to provide separate evidence to each group) and different approaches, the police trained to detect and prosecute crime, the Board seeking to ascertain causes.
3. The situation is different in civil aviation. The AAIB has precedence over police and a Memorandum of Understanding resolves difficulties over such matters as preservation of evidence, destructive testing and so on. (I have a link to this but it didn't work when I copied it across. Perhaps you are familiar with the document anyway)
4. The disadvantages referred to would be removed or ameliorated if military air accident investigation were brought more into line with civilian practice. However, due to the particular nature of military hierarchy, rules and procedures, and the riskier nature of military flying, a Service Board needs to make the particular military recommendations resulting from the inquiry.
5. It is proposed that investigative primacy be returned to the BoI. As technical experts they need first access to physical evidence and witnesses. Usually a crime has NOT been committed, so police involvement should not be required in the initial stages of an investigation.
6. There wouild be two "Thresholds", crossing which would cause civilian judicial involvement at different levels.
7. First Threshold. When the Board becomes aware that a crime may have been committed, the police would be informed and allowed to start their investigation. (If such a crime is purely a military one, such as disobedience to military orders, etc. Service authorities can deal with it at the appropriate stage - following the recommendations of the Board, or concurrent with the Board's investigation if necessary).
8. Second Threshold. To avoid biassed, flawed, or inappropriately influenced investigations or conclusions, every BoI investigation into a fatal air accident should be submitted to an appropriate civilian judge, coroner, Procurator, etc for review. Witnesses who felt they had been denied a hearing could apply to this court to be heard. The court could order a police investigation if in their opinion indications of a crime had been missed, or suppressed, by the BoI.
9. The submission at Threshold 2 should be after completion of the Board's report. To avoid timewasting when a report is rejected as incompetent, it should have been accepted and signed by the first RO.
10. The reviewing judge (&etc) should append relevant legal notes to guide higher ROs and clarify the limits of their powers.
Last edited by keithl; 15th Jul 2012 at 21:36.
Thank you for the fraternal greetings, keithl, which I return in kind.
Your Commission report is obviously the result of much careful thought and study and I commend its members' thoroughness.
The thought that occurs is that:
..the obvious question is why? For if the MAAIB had the same agreement and understanding then; bingo, your campaign against police primacy is answered!
The most glaring difference is the very thing that I bang on about, independence! The AAIB has it, the MAAIB does not. Give it that independence and what you seek will surely follow.
A number of posters have pointed out that the big change has been the loss of Crown Immunity, and all that follows from that, so the proposed set of procedures as outlined by you is surely doomed to failure if the one great anomaly remains, ie that the Investigator, Authority and Operator are one and the same.
You may say that is surmountable, but I would have to disagree, with respect. Independence is the crux of the matter. With it all else follows, without it nothing does.
The review of SBIs by judges does not strike me as a sound way of doing things. Getting the initial investigation right in the first place is surely better, ie with an independent MAAIB utilising AAIB inspectors, not as advisers but as members of the Board. That way the authority is vested into the investigation from the start.
I hope all that isn't seen as too dismissive but rather as an attempt at finding a solution that would work, or are we no longer friends...?
Your Commission report is obviously the result of much careful thought and study and I commend its members' thoroughness.
The thought that occurs is that:
3. The situation is different in civil aviation. The AAIB has precedence over police and a Memorandum of Understanding resolves difficulties over such matters as preservation of evidence, destructive testing and so on.
The most glaring difference is the very thing that I bang on about, independence! The AAIB has it, the MAAIB does not. Give it that independence and what you seek will surely follow.
A number of posters have pointed out that the big change has been the loss of Crown Immunity, and all that follows from that, so the proposed set of procedures as outlined by you is surely doomed to failure if the one great anomaly remains, ie that the Investigator, Authority and Operator are one and the same.
You may say that is surmountable, but I would have to disagree, with respect. Independence is the crux of the matter. With it all else follows, without it nothing does.
The review of SBIs by judges does not strike me as a sound way of doing things. Getting the initial investigation right in the first place is surely better, ie with an independent MAAIB utilising AAIB inspectors, not as advisers but as members of the Board. That way the authority is vested into the investigation from the start.
I hope all that isn't seen as too dismissive but rather as an attempt at finding a solution that would work, or are we no longer friends...?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My two penarth (old currency)
I am only in a position to ask polite questions and Keithl's post is certainly thought provoking.
If we allow air investigators carte blanche at the early stages of all investigations then does that create problems later on?
For fatal or serious injuries which might lead to fatalities
My concern would be the preservation or indeed the contamination of evidence.
Evidence is a major requirement that is always needed by the CPS when considering any allegations regarding offences that may or may not have been committed to obtain a prosecution. Without it justice might never be done or seen to be done, so will this straight away expose a conflict of interest between the various departments.
Seeking to ascertain the causation of an incident MUST have a significant priority but how high is that priority? I totally accept there will be times when 'Needs Must' but those times will be extremely rare and why should the police delay the air investigators, but let us all be aware that once air investigators start handling equipment then its evidential value rapidly deteriorates to a point where it might become valueless.
Are we all possibly guilty of being perhaps slightly naïve and maybe not thinking enough about sabotage, not by this fashionable Al Qaeda but sadly more likely by someone seeking revenge, payback or possibly someone with psychological issues that just want to create an incident.
If Mr Nutter (no relation to Nutloose) interferes with an ejection seat then they leave behind forensic evidence and this evidence would be critical if there were going to be a prosecution. If air investigators take this seat to pieces prior to a forensic team carrying out their own examination then that evidence is gone.. It is no good calling in a forensic team after the fact. They need to be bought into the investigation as soon as is practical and my thoughts are that any incident that involves fatalities or serious injuries that might become fatal should be treated as a crime scene.
The police forensic team can and should WORK hand in glove with air investigators to ensure a speedy BUT thorough investigation without any departmental rivalry. Work together and NOT against each other. Why not?
I am NOT suggesting for one milli –second one department or the other should have a priority but I am suggesting they should work TOGETHER, not sitting in on interviews or wasting each others time.
No instead why not sit down, discuss what the Air Investigators need to do and in what priority, then listen to a forensic team say what they need to do to obtain evidence? Work TOGETHER and NOT against each other, it can be done and surely it would be quicker to work together as opposed to bicker, argue and fight against each other.. The LAST thing either team would want is OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.. Nudge nudge wink wink we know who I mean.
Regarding Point 7
I would much prefer the military to keep minor crimes in house and not even involve the police, let the military police investigate and let them decide if the civil police need to be informed. I am asking myself why they should be told about minor transgressions.
Hopefully my witterings make an okum of sense and the spelling miss steaks have all been salted and peppered (I actually accidentally typed slated which I thought funny)
Best wishes to one and all
John
I am only in a position to ask polite questions and Keithl's post is certainly thought provoking.
If we allow air investigators carte blanche at the early stages of all investigations then does that create problems later on?
For fatal or serious injuries which might lead to fatalities
My concern would be the preservation or indeed the contamination of evidence.
Evidence is a major requirement that is always needed by the CPS when considering any allegations regarding offences that may or may not have been committed to obtain a prosecution. Without it justice might never be done or seen to be done, so will this straight away expose a conflict of interest between the various departments.
Seeking to ascertain the causation of an incident MUST have a significant priority but how high is that priority? I totally accept there will be times when 'Needs Must' but those times will be extremely rare and why should the police delay the air investigators, but let us all be aware that once air investigators start handling equipment then its evidential value rapidly deteriorates to a point where it might become valueless.
Are we all possibly guilty of being perhaps slightly naïve and maybe not thinking enough about sabotage, not by this fashionable Al Qaeda but sadly more likely by someone seeking revenge, payback or possibly someone with psychological issues that just want to create an incident.
If Mr Nutter (no relation to Nutloose) interferes with an ejection seat then they leave behind forensic evidence and this evidence would be critical if there were going to be a prosecution. If air investigators take this seat to pieces prior to a forensic team carrying out their own examination then that evidence is gone.. It is no good calling in a forensic team after the fact. They need to be bought into the investigation as soon as is practical and my thoughts are that any incident that involves fatalities or serious injuries that might become fatal should be treated as a crime scene.
The police forensic team can and should WORK hand in glove with air investigators to ensure a speedy BUT thorough investigation without any departmental rivalry. Work together and NOT against each other. Why not?
I am NOT suggesting for one milli –second one department or the other should have a priority but I am suggesting they should work TOGETHER, not sitting in on interviews or wasting each others time.
No instead why not sit down, discuss what the Air Investigators need to do and in what priority, then listen to a forensic team say what they need to do to obtain evidence? Work TOGETHER and NOT against each other, it can be done and surely it would be quicker to work together as opposed to bicker, argue and fight against each other.. The LAST thing either team would want is OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE..
Nudge nudge wink wink we know who I mean. Regarding Point 7
I would much prefer the military to keep minor crimes in house and not even involve the police, let the military police investigate and let them decide if the civil police need to be informed. I am asking myself why they should be told about minor transgressions.
Hopefully my witterings make an okum of sense and the spelling miss steaks have all been salted and peppered (I actually accidentally typed slated which I thought funny)
Best wishes to one and all
John
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AAIB does not have presidence over the police in the civi world.
From memory in the event of a crash.
1. Preservation of life
2. Secure aircraft and limit further damage.
3. Police
4. AAIB
5. Airfield restoration.
To the point that pax/crew will be arrested if they attempt to leave the scene.
From memory in the event of a crash.
1. Preservation of life
2. Secure aircraft and limit further damage.
3. Police
4. AAIB
5. Airfield restoration.
To the point that pax/crew will be arrested if they attempt to leave the scene.
Last edited by mad_jock; 15th Jul 2012 at 17:44.
Thread Starter
That's OK Chug, how's the head?
Glojo, hope you've got some sleep. I don't think some folk here sleep at all, the responses are so quick! As the link didn't work, I'll cut-and-paste two passages from the AIB/CPS MoU. Note particularly the provisions against contamination of evidence.
First:
The public interest requires that safety considerations are of paramount
importance, the consequence of which may mean that the interests of an AIB
investigation have to take precedence over the criminal investigation.
Second:
3. Therefore, if notified of the CPS’s interest, the AIBs will make every effort to take into
account the needs of the CPS before undertaking any destructive testing of evidence.
This will include:
giving notice before commencing any destructive testing;
considering any reasonable representations the CPS may make as to the impact
such testing may have on their own investigation;
permitting the police (or other investigating authority, as appropriate) to be
present during such testing and to take any reasonable records, photographs or
video recordings that they require (or alternatively, on receipt of a
request detailing the requirements, for the AIBs to make the records, photographs
or video on the investigating authority’s behalf); and
making available to the CPS all factual records, and reports and analysis
provided on the tests by independent technical experts
There is more, it's not just about destructive testing. My point is that a workable framework exists. How can it be implemented in line with my Commission's recommendations?
Hope this clarifies.
Edited to add: The AIB/CPS MoU is dated October 2008. It doesn't include the MAAIB - when was that created?
Standing by...
Glojo, hope you've got some sleep. I don't think some folk here sleep at all, the responses are so quick! As the link didn't work, I'll cut-and-paste two passages from the AIB/CPS MoU. Note particularly the provisions against contamination of evidence.
First:
The public interest requires that safety considerations are of paramount
importance, the consequence of which may mean that the interests of an AIB
investigation have to take precedence over the criminal investigation.
Second:
3. Therefore, if notified of the CPS’s interest, the AIBs will make every effort to take into
account the needs of the CPS before undertaking any destructive testing of evidence.
This will include:
giving notice before commencing any destructive testing;
considering any reasonable representations the CPS may make as to the impact
such testing may have on their own investigation;
permitting the police (or other investigating authority, as appropriate) to be
present during such testing and to take any reasonable records, photographs or
video recordings that they require (or alternatively, on receipt of a
request detailing the requirements, for the AIBs to make the records, photographs
or video on the investigating authority’s behalf); and
making available to the CPS all factual records, and reports and analysis
provided on the tests by independent technical experts
There is more, it's not just about destructive testing. My point is that a workable framework exists. How can it be implemented in line with my Commission's recommendations?
Hope this clarifies.
Edited to add: The AIB/CPS MoU is dated October 2008. It doesn't include the MAAIB - when was that created?
Standing by...
Last edited by keithl; 15th Jul 2012 at 18:28.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it mostly to do with evidence which the AIBB has control over for public interest and safety? Which I can understand to be honest.
Or also the crash site?
I can only repeat what we were told on the post exercise debrief. Which could be police wishful thinking.
Or also the crash site?
I can only repeat what we were told on the post exercise debrief. Which could be police wishful thinking.
MJ
BoIs/SIs are required to address public safety, as it is included in the definition of airworthiness. But they don't always.
Leon - Correct about Crown Proceedings Act. When Sect 10 was repealed, everyone in MoD with airworthiness delegation had their delegation amended and a personal briefing on what it meant. I had mine at a refresher course run by ADRP, but with speakers from Cranfield. Ironically, the course notes were prime evidence to Lord Philip, as they proved MoD had lied over the Chinook Mk2 Release to Service. Unfortunately, this initial burst of enthusiasm by ADRP was not sustained, mainly because AMSO (RAF Chief Engineer) slashed funding (1992-94) and declared airworthiness optional (1992), and then not to be bothered with at all (1992-3). This meant future generations (and a generation is a 2-3 tour length) were not taught properly.
keithl - Well presented arguments.
public interest and safety
Leon - Correct about Crown Proceedings Act. When Sect 10 was repealed, everyone in MoD with airworthiness delegation had their delegation amended and a personal briefing on what it meant. I had mine at a refresher course run by ADRP, but with speakers from Cranfield. Ironically, the course notes were prime evidence to Lord Philip, as they proved MoD had lied over the Chinook Mk2 Release to Service. Unfortunately, this initial burst of enthusiasm by ADRP was not sustained, mainly because AMSO (RAF Chief Engineer) slashed funding (1992-94) and declared airworthiness optional (1992), and then not to be bothered with at all (1992-3). This meant future generations (and a generation is a 2-3 tour length) were not taught properly.
keithl - Well presented arguments.
keithl:
1 April 2011. I make no other comment, other than to post the link!
Ministry of Defence | About Defence | What we do | Air Safety and Aviation | Military Aviation Authority | Military Aviation Authority (MAA)
You also say, ref the agreed procedures re CPS evidence:
I did attempt to answer that very point in my last post, and indeed believe it to be the only answer. Perhaps it's not the right one though?
Thank you for your concern and I'm sure that a good night's rest will work wonders, well I bloody well hope so!
It doesn't include the MAAIB - when was that created?
Ministry of Defence | About Defence | What we do | Air Safety and Aviation | Military Aviation Authority | Military Aviation Authority (MAA)
You also say, ref the agreed procedures re CPS evidence:
My point is that a workable framework exists. How can it be implemented in line with my Commission's recommendations?
Thank you for your concern and I'm sure that a good night's rest will work wonders, well I bloody well hope so!
Thread Starter
Complete
OK, "my work here is done", as they say. Glojo, if this were the real world I'd be happy to tweak para7 to meet your concerns, but there's no point, is there?
I have met my objectives, have a better (though still incomplete) idea of how the RAF got into this position, and what "this position" actually is. I deplore (don't often get to use that word!) the notion of Police Primacy, and I don't imagine the police especially relish it, but it is up to those who still have their hands on the controls to change it. Perhaps this discussion will give them some ideas.
Thanks to all the serious contributors who shed light on aspects which had been dark to me. I don't post often here any more - it all gets a bit intense, so I expect to go "deep and silent" for a while, but who knows what might provoke me!!
Cheers
Keith
I have met my objectives, have a better (though still incomplete) idea of how the RAF got into this position, and what "this position" actually is. I deplore (don't often get to use that word!) the notion of Police Primacy, and I don't imagine the police especially relish it, but it is up to those who still have their hands on the controls to change it. Perhaps this discussion will give them some ideas.
Thanks to all the serious contributors who shed light on aspects which had been dark to me. I don't post often here any more - it all gets a bit intense, so I expect to go "deep and silent" for a while, but who knows what might provoke me!!
Cheers
Keith
keithl:
Well yes, there is with all due respect. Why not stay around and contribute to your own thread? If you have learnt anything new then perhaps you can reciprocate by adding to the general fund of knowledge. I don't know what or who you have in mind as to "getting a bit intense" but all that is asked here is to listen to other viewpoints, challenge them if you feel so inclined, and then express your own.
It's all a bit like CRM really, everyone has a say and ends up knowing what everybody else knows. Result, everyone being better informed.
PPRuNe isn't just a chat site, it has been involved in many successful campaigns that have potentially saved lives and righted injustices. Our work here is not done, nor never will be. Please stick around and help us do it.
Chug
...but there's no point, is there?
It's all a bit like CRM really, everyone has a say and ends up knowing what everybody else knows. Result, everyone being better informed.
PPRuNe isn't just a chat site, it has been involved in many successful campaigns that have potentially saved lives and righted injustices. Our work here is not done, nor never will be. Please stick around and help us do it.
Chug
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back firing on all three cylinders and enjoying reading these posts 
Originally Posted by keithl
if this were the real world I'd be happy to tweak para7 to meet your concerns, but there's no point, is there?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere near the Rhine
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick one hopefully to answer the original question about what changed and from what I recall the answer is "Deepcut", that was the primary driver for the move from BoIs to SIs and a greater Police involvement from the outset.
