RAF could face corporate Manslaughter charge
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE Safety Case
A colleague of mine is to have his SWB Land Rover moved from its current position (Stn car park) to its preferred position (MT at another stn) by low loader because the Safety Case for SWB Land Rover (available at many car sales establishments) has lapsed. Now, I'm not suggesting that having a safety case is a bad thing; however, it can be used as an easy bureaucratic means of saying 'No!' when in the wrong hands.
Duncs
Duncs
PeregrineW
Quite right. Well said.
And that is precisely what the organisation headed by the RAF Chief Engineer did in the early 90s, which partly explains;
This policy was eagerly picked up by parts of MoD(PE), in particular the Director General responsible for Nimrod and Chinook. In 1996 the same direct orders were issued - under no circumstances shall you commit funding to Safety Cases. Not that we'd been given any funding, because the Services had decided not to challenge the CE and DGAS2 so had agreed to do without.
Those at Boscombe who know me will recall I committed fraud, by agreeing to hide such costs in "materiel", after being instructed not to spend a red cent on a raft of related work, which would have rendered my aircraft unsafe. Mind you, I'd also have been committing fraud if I obeyed this illegal order. Other aircraft offices rolled over and complied, which is the background to the Tornado/Patriot shootdown of 2003 and others. My aircraft had the same problem, but I fixed it. Then the boss found out and promptly cancelled the contracts. As you say, he knew better and decreed safety a waste of money.
Quite right. Well said.
It's not something you should ever look to cut from your budget.
and they were often ignored by MoD on the basis of cost or simply because they thought they knew better.
Those at Boscombe who know me will recall I committed fraud, by agreeing to hide such costs in "materiel", after being instructed not to spend a red cent on a raft of related work, which would have rendered my aircraft unsafe. Mind you, I'd also have been committing fraud if I obeyed this illegal order. Other aircraft offices rolled over and complied, which is the background to the Tornado/Patriot shootdown of 2003 and others. My aircraft had the same problem, but I fixed it. Then the boss found out and promptly cancelled the contracts. As you say, he knew better and decreed safety a waste of money.
I am alone in being bewildered by a system that apparently requires a series production, EU homologated, light motor vehicle to be transported from A to B, rather than doing what it is designed and approved to be - "driven". I must be getting old - now where is my Horlicks
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duncs -
Safety engineering, along with health & safety, has been given a bad name over the years by our ignorant media, as well as by workshy jobsworths who hide behind the "regulations" as an excuse to do nothing. If they can make some poor soul's life more unpleasant and difficult at the same time, that's considered a bonus.
Tucumseh -
Had a similar problem with a certain non-yellow helicopter with Royal connections. Was threatened with physical violence by a software engineer employed by said chopper's manufacturer when I dared to suggest that he might like to prove that his software was correct rather than just accepting his word for it. I didn't get the evidence I needed and decided at that point that I didn't want my name on any further project documentation.
Safety engineering, along with health & safety, has been given a bad name over the years by our ignorant media, as well as by workshy jobsworths who hide behind the "regulations" as an excuse to do nothing. If they can make some poor soul's life more unpleasant and difficult at the same time, that's considered a bonus.
Tucumseh -
Had a similar problem with a certain non-yellow helicopter with Royal connections. Was threatened with physical violence by a software engineer employed by said chopper's manufacturer when I dared to suggest that he might like to prove that his software was correct rather than just accepting his word for it. I didn't get the evidence I needed and decided at that point that I didn't want my name on any further project documentation.
PeregrineW
And you did the correct thing. If you'd signed anything, you'd have been committing all sorts of offences. MoD criticised Boscombe over this on Chinook Safety Critical Software, essentially doing what I outlined above. That is, they laid down mandated regulations for Boscombe to follow, and then criticised them for meeting legal obligations. Then MoD spent 16 years denying these regulations existed, until they were submitted to Lord Philip. He wasn't amused.
And you did the correct thing. If you'd signed anything, you'd have been committing all sorts of offences. MoD criticised Boscombe over this on Chinook Safety Critical Software, essentially doing what I outlined above. That is, they laid down mandated regulations for Boscombe to follow, and then criticised them for meeting legal obligations. Then MoD spent 16 years denying these regulations existed, until they were submitted to Lord Philip. He wasn't amused.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember back in the mid nineties, some bright spark in the second ivory tower on the left (the khaki coloured one) decided that everything would have to have a safety case. This was to include vacuum cleaners and suchlike. I'm not sure who would have got the job of sitting the great and the good in the world of domestic cleaning equipment around a table and HAZOPing the hell out of them for a couple of days, but I think it all went away when the "CE" marking scheme scheme was pointed out to the chap in charge...
The new corporate manslaughter laws (2008) don’t necessarily concern individuals; they do not have to find a 'controlling mind'.
“The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act creates an offence where the way in which an organisation's activities are managed or organised causes a person's death and amounts to a "gross breach" of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased. How the activities were managed or organised by senior management must be a substantial element of that gross breach.”
The problem with prosecution under the old provisions was the great evidentiary burden required to identify a 'controlling mind’, the new law was specifically framed to address this. The first prosecution using the new laws took place in 2011.There have now been several successful prosecutions and there are many more in the pipeline.
The law is concerned with organisations AND individuals and the burden of proof has been lowered.
Cutting corners on safety in order to save money is viewed by prosecutors as an "aggravating feature" in the event that an organisation was guilty of an offence.
Looking at it cynically it would be a good thing; it might concentrate duty holder’s minds if a prosecution took place, perhaps it will provide encouragement for a few careerists’s to say NO.
“The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act creates an offence where the way in which an organisation's activities are managed or organised causes a person's death and amounts to a "gross breach" of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased. How the activities were managed or organised by senior management must be a substantial element of that gross breach.”
The problem with prosecution under the old provisions was the great evidentiary burden required to identify a 'controlling mind’, the new law was specifically framed to address this. The first prosecution using the new laws took place in 2011.There have now been several successful prosecutions and there are many more in the pipeline.
The law is concerned with organisations AND individuals and the burden of proof has been lowered.
Cutting corners on safety in order to save money is viewed by prosecutors as an "aggravating feature" in the event that an organisation was guilty of an offence.
Looking at it cynically it would be a good thing; it might concentrate duty holder’s minds if a prosecution took place, perhaps it will provide encouragement for a few careerists’s to say NO.
Last edited by woptb; 18th Mar 2013 at 23:31.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Masters
I recall an event in the 70s when a jag jock faced with an engine rundown at low level noticed a fuel low pressure light on and opened the cross feed. Shortly after that the other engine stopped, all the fuel had leaked.
On the subsequent enquiry our boy was duly found utterly to blame and called before a very senior someone to be told his fate.
Our bright young chappie requests very politely if the v senior person would kindly explain to him what he should have done and hands over the QRH. After some study the senior person hands back the QRH and points out the relevant page. Our man says thank you sir but I ran our of fuel five minutes ago.
Just a story I never flew the jag, chased some at low level though
My mesage is that those instituting systems seem remote from the method of use and then avoid liability for the errors that result
This problem is not confined to the camo jets. Just before I left civi flying a sim ride involved a heavy take off followed by one fuel filter blocked and engine shutdown. During the ensueing approach my excellent FO kept enquiring if we should open the cross feed cock to keep the fuel in balance, I kept saying no. He kept pointing out, correctly, that we were outside fuel imbalance limts, I kept saying I know but I don't want fuel that knackered the engine going into the only one we have left
In the end I had to take a moment to say the fuel imbalance limit is about airleron effectiveness which is about low speed which we aint going to use. He was very disturbed and all I could do was note his input and overule him
He was really worried that he would be to blame for allowing the record to show we landed with the fuel out of limits. The logic didn't worry him
On the subsequent enquiry our boy was duly found utterly to blame and called before a very senior someone to be told his fate.
Our bright young chappie requests very politely if the v senior person would kindly explain to him what he should have done and hands over the QRH. After some study the senior person hands back the QRH and points out the relevant page. Our man says thank you sir but I ran our of fuel five minutes ago.
Just a story I never flew the jag, chased some at low level though
My mesage is that those instituting systems seem remote from the method of use and then avoid liability for the errors that result
This problem is not confined to the camo jets. Just before I left civi flying a sim ride involved a heavy take off followed by one fuel filter blocked and engine shutdown. During the ensueing approach my excellent FO kept enquiring if we should open the cross feed cock to keep the fuel in balance, I kept saying no. He kept pointing out, correctly, that we were outside fuel imbalance limts, I kept saying I know but I don't want fuel that knackered the engine going into the only one we have left
In the end I had to take a moment to say the fuel imbalance limit is about airleron effectiveness which is about low speed which we aint going to use. He was very disturbed and all I could do was note his input and overule him
He was really worried that he would be to blame for allowing the record to show we landed with the fuel out of limits. The logic didn't worry him
Last edited by Tinribs; 20th Mar 2013 at 09:53.
