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

BOI into the 2012 Tornado Collision over the Moray Firth

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.

BOI into the 2012 Tornado Collision over the Moray Firth

Old 5th Apr 2014, 14:05
  #161 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 814
I note that over the past couple of months Angus Robertson has made several attempts to obtain a copy of the SI report into the Tornado collision over the Moray Firth; they are listed below along with the repy from MoD. Each reply gets more and more unbelievable with the latest being a flat refusal to comply with their own JSP. What are they afraid of? If this had been a collision between a Tornado and a civil aircraft the AAIB/Ministry of Transport would have published their report as soon as it was completed; well in advance of an Inquest or FAI. It seems that MoD are so unsure of their own investigation that they are only prepared to offer their SI reports for public scrutiny after the case has been closed.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2013-12-03c.179565.h&s=date%3A20131203+column%3A639+section%3Awrans

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-03-19a.191597.h&s=%28section%3Awrans%29+speaker%3A11189#g191597 .

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-04-03a.194550.h&s=%28section%3Awrans%29+speaker%3A11189#g194550 .q0

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2014, 16:42
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,835
Anna Soubry - 19th March 2014

"The publication of Service Inquiry reports is considered on a case by case basis."



Philip Dunne - 17th March 2014

"It has for several years been Departmental policy to publish Service Inquiry reports into fatal accidents at the conclusion of the Coroner's Inquest."



Not entirely contradictory, but disingenious. The determining factor would seem to be whether or not a death has occurred. If it has, the report is not allowed to be scrutinised by independent parties. That is, MoD determines what evidence is heard by the Coroner. The clear aim is to prevent the truth being told in court, because the Coroner isn't involved in other non-fatal cases.

This is exactly what happened with the Red Arrows inquest and, in a particularly obvious case, the ASaC collision inquest of January 2007 when MoD refused to answer questions relating to inconsistencies and outright lies in witness evidence.

The stated aim is to prevent recurrence. The actual aim is to conceal the truth.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2014, 23:02
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 77
Posts: 4,097
tuc:-
The stated aim is to prevent recurrence. The actual aim is to conceal the truth.
...and there in a nutshell is why Air Safety is unsafe in the hands of the MOD, or any of its agency or Service subsidiaries. It lies, steals, and cheats to conceal incompetent and illegal activity. That is something that may be expected and understood, if not condoned, in politics and in the corridors of power. It is not understood nor accommodated by aviation. Because of it people die, 63 in fatal accidents considered in this forum alone, possibly becoming 65 with the subject accident of this thread.

Covering up by pinning the blame on subordinate JOs, SOs, or even 1* VSOs, has been the disreputable policy of the Star Chamber to date, in order to mask the culpability of its own members. In doing so it has severely undermined the security of this country and sullied in particular the honour of the Royal Air Force. It has to stop. The MAA and MAAIB have to be made free of the dead hand of the MOD and of the High Command, and separated from each other in order to do their respective and very different jobs.

Self Regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation It Kills!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2014, 10:10
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: sussex
Posts: 1,589
How would the new Duty Holder Concept be applied in cases like this ?. Would the trail of causation reach back through the civil service to the politicians ? Realist that I am I do not believe so. Yet commanders in the field can only work with the resources they are given by those in authority to carry out the designated task.
It strikes me that the commanders will be but a human shield for those who will not be accountable under this new scheme. It is as if it were dreamed up by the ambulance chaser's union. It can only emasculate an already diluted Armed Force and make us the laughing stock of the world.
And yet Cameron is proclaiming 'his finest hour' is the billions of our taxes squandered on overseas 'aid', effectively trashing the defence budget to do so.
ancientaviator62 is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2014, 11:53
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,835
How would the new Duty Holder Concept be applied in cases like this ?
Well, there was nothing wrong with the OLD Duty Holder concept, except that VSOs and senior Civil Servants ruled it should NOT be implemented. Reverse that decision (which the MAA steadfastly choose to ignore) and you revert to a perfectly good system. It remains an offence in the MoD to refuse to obey an order to make a false declaration about airworthiness. The elephant in this particular room.

The relevant MAA Regulatory Instruction opens up by telling the reader it is going to set out the DH concept for airworthiness, then proceeds to discuss Fitness for Purpose. You will recall the C130 IPTL said at the XV179 inquest he didn’t know how to do this. Perhaps this RI is an attempt to teach these basics. However, having actually spoken to a senior MAA officer, I can assure you he did NOT understand the difference between airworthiness and Fitness for Purpose. He did not appreciate that one first attains airworthiness, and before even considering Fitness for Purpose must have a process in place to maintain airworthiness. MoD has always been pretty good at the first, mainly because much of the work is done by Industry, who have a vested interest in selling us an airworthy aircraft or equipment. MoD simply don’t do the other two very well, although both are relatively simple if properly funded and you follow the regs. (The old ones, not the MAA ones).

The RI explains the DH’s legal obligations but not how he goes about meeting his obligation. (This was laid down in a mandated Def Stan, which was cancelled without replacement a few years ago. The MAA’s attempt to describe this process fails miserably – to be fair, by no means the first time our so called regulatory experts have got this completely wrong). One reason why it was cancelled was because the Chief Engineer had decreed in 1992 that it should no longer be updated, ridding MoD of the department that wrote and issued it. The last amendment was May 1991. MoD no longer has a complete copy. It is the Bible and if you don’t know it by heart, you have little or no chance of avoiding the failures that we discuss here.

Another interesting concept is introduced by the MAA (or perhaps imposed upon them). They say “The DH has no right of veto over the MoD planning and programming decisions”. Why this change? The terms of reference of the engineering posts that are now called Requirements Managers used to say they could use “Engineering Judgement” to over-rule Long Term Costing Assumptions (old money). When I was one, I exercised it daily for two years, almost always in the interests of airworthiness, reliability, maintainability and availability. It of course followed that a non-engineer RqM could not fulfil all his ToRs, which has been a weakness of the system for many years now. See Engines’ post in another thread about properly setting Requirements (and, importantly, interpreting them for Industry). That is not to say non-engineer RqMs have no place, but it is self evident they must be a minority in certain domains, complemented by engineering colleagues. But I’ve worked in IPTs which had none and the RqMs, unwittingly, only did a small percentage of what we (programme managers) expected of them.

Summary: DHs will read the RI and scratch their heads asking, “How can we be legally accountable if we have no control whatsoever over the process which delivers and maintains airworthiness?”

Last edited by tucumseh; 7th Apr 2014 at 17:07. Reason: brain dead
tucumseh is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2014, 12:34
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
Answer: You can't, but it's the same in many professions now. The root cause is the corporate manslaughter laws. In essence, the Directors (or equivalent) want a 'fall guy'. Careerists accept it and hope disaster doesn't happen on their watch; anyone with principles leaves. Worse still is that the Government/Civil Service doesn't care either. They just needs somebody's head on the chopping block when disaster strikes, to keep the media happy and therefore keep their own jobs. It doesn't matter to them that the person 'responsible' cannot logically be held so.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2014, 14:11
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 77
Posts: 4,097
When the conduct or policy of Directors comes under close scrutiny, then it is they who carry the can as often as not. Witness the Co-operative Bank saga so recently in the news. The difference with Military VSOs, and in particular RAF VSOs, is that they never carry the can for the consequences of their actions or policy because they control the evidence to hand and can direct the outcome of investigations into the outcomes of their actions.

Being a DH in these circumstances is akin to being a tethered goat, staked out for sacrifice as and when it becomes deemed to be appropriate. This is, in relative terms, a fairly recent phenomena, and in the case of Airworthiness Provision (or more accurately its lack of provision) can be dated precisely from 1987. If RAF VSOs will not take responsibility for their own actions then the future of the RAF itself is at stake. That is a matter for the RAF. In the meantime its business of providing for UK Air Power is already very seriously compromised, and it may not have the luxury of presiding over its own demise should a potential enemy have other ideas...
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2014, 17:25
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,835
Fox3


Agreed.


Worse still is that the Government/Civil Service doesn't care either.

To be fair, many do care, but are hamstrung by those at the top listening to the perpetrators, who are allowed to judge themselves. Those at the bottom who may seem not to care are hamstrung by no longer being trained. Many in DE&S now skip the 5 or 6 grades at which you learn how to do this work, and are simply told that it is a waste of money.

The last 5 or 6 Ministers for the Armed Forces have placed in writing their support for those VSOs who issued orders that the regulations should be ignored and false declarations made that they had been implemented. Likewise, the Head of the Civil Service only last year when ruling it is NOT an offence to issue an order to make a false declaration, but is an offence to refuse to obey.

The MAA is fully aware of this. They were present when the last but one Min(AF) was briefed about these ongoing offences and rulings during the Mull of Kintyre Review, but did nothing. DE&S policy branch is wholly content providing the Ministerial briefings under FoI, which often cite MAA officers by name. That DE&S Policy speak for the MAA on this matter clearly demonstrates collusion, making a mockery of the MAA's supposed independence. That they happily flaunt their briefings shows that they are confident of top cover.

The main question is; Would this new Duty Holder construct have prevented ZD576, XV230, XV179, ZG710, XX177, XV704, XV657? No. What would have prevented them, or at least not stripped them of defences in depth? Implementing mandated regulations of the day. The solution? It's a no brainer. You've got to ask why MoD/MAA flatly refuse to address this simple fact.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2014, 19:54
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere near the Rhine
Posts: 94
Latest Article About Safety

I'm amazed that no one has mentioned this latest article in the Telegraph. Good to see the MAA sticking it's neck out with acting like a Regulator. Although, it is one thing to tell people you have a risk register but another thing entirely to actually do something about it.

My favourite part was the MOD spokesman who said air safety was "at the core of all MOD aviation activity". He said: "We take very seriously our obligations to ensure that our activities are as safe as reasonably practicable, nevertheless, we accept that there is further work to be done and are committed to addressing the identified residual issues as soon as possible.

Defence cuts and staff shortages 'increasing risk of military air accidents' - Telegraph
thefodfather is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2014, 21:45
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 77
Posts: 4,097
More smoke, more mirrors, I'd say tff. By blaming Defence cuts, the blame moves towards the despised politicians and away from the High Command. It is there, as well as with the MAA itself, that the long term threat to Military Air Safety exists. The MAA is based on a lie, the Haddon Cave Nimrod Report. No Regulator that refuses to face that reality can be taken seriously, neither can an Air Accident Investigator that is subservient to that Regulator. Above all else, an Air Regulator and an Air Accident Investigator must be independent of the operator and of each other.

The more the 'I' word is trumpeted, the more you know that it is bogus. More smoke, more mirrors...
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2014, 23:28
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Wherever I'm paid
Posts: 2
RI??

Whats an RI relating to Watchkeeper got to do with this thread? Its the only extant one on both of the MAA websites. If you are going to quote something as "fact", at least try to get the references correct!
DeskBoundPhixer is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2014, 07:04
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,835
"Shortage of qualified personnel are of more concern than previously understood"
Just to be clear, that should read "understood by the MAA", as it was clearly understood by everyone else involved in airworthiness and, for example, emphasised in a report dated January 2000 and patently obvious in many reports by the RAF's Inspector of Flight Safety from the 1990s.

So, having demonstrated they can read old reports and PPRuNe, what are the MAA doing about it?
tucumseh is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2014, 09:55
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omnipotent
Posts: 44
Why is it that the focus of this seems to be all about blame? Surely the focus should be on air safety? Senior Officers (DHs) don't get up in the morning and think, "How can we be negligent today and cover things up so we can carry on allowing flying to be dangerous..." The Moray accident will no doubt show that there have been some questionable actions within MOD throughout time, but it will also, more than likely, show a large degree of bad luck (as all MACs seem to depend upon).

As for sharing the report, this has been done internally (to affect change at the coal-face in the quickest time) and is not released until the Coroner (or PF in this case) allows it. I don't see how that is witholding information or debate? The publication of the report when a decision has been made to carry out a FAI or not will allow public scrutiny - which along with any media attention will demand answers to any questions not posed in the SI. There are PQs via MPs, FOI requests and many other routes to interrogate the MOD if the current Regulator seems to have been less than thorough.

Maybe wait until the report has come out before comparing it to previous ones?

Just a thought.
Growbag is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2014, 12:43
  #174 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 814
RAIDS

I read in an AAIB report that RAIDS had/has a basic CWS capabilty. Does anyone know if this is true, or not?

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2014, 14:00
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omnipotent
Posts: 44
RAIDS - Airborne Collision

Yes it does. This was offered as part of the original purchase, but not taken.

MBDA information on RAIDS states:

Advanced software concept
Readily adaptable weapon simulation software
Real Time Kill assessment and Removal (RTKR)
Safety warnings for:
- air collision
- ground collision
Growbag is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2014, 15:23
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 1,528
And explicitly...

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 07 Apr 2014 (pt 0004)


Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the fitting of the Rangeless Autonomous Information Debriefing System equipment to Tornado aircraft was regarded as mitigation for the collision warning risk over the last decade; [194548]

7 Apr 2014 : Column 96W

(2) what collision warning capability the Rangeless Autonomous Information Debriefing System had. [194549]

Mr Dunne: The Rangeless Airborne Instrumented Debriefing System (RAIDS) as fitted to RAF aircraft has no collision warning capability.

It logs and stores GPS positional data during flight. Data can only be downloaded post-flight to allow replay during sortie debriefing of the positional data for all aircraft fitted with RAIDS. Therefore, it provides no situational awareness to the crew in flight.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2014, 16:17
  #177 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 814
Growbag, what sort of time frame are we talking about. When was the original offer made? When and why was it removed? Clearly, from the answer that Angus Robertson got it has never been in.

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2014, 16:19
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 176
I had heard that it had been decided that there would be no FAI. Anyone confirm or deny this? If this is the case, any info on when the SI will be released?
30mRad is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2014, 16:59
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,835
I don't see how that is witholding information or debate? The publication of the report when a decision has been made to carry out a FAI or not will allow public scrutiny - which along with any media attention will demand answers to any questions not posed in the SI.
The point is that MoD no longer releases the report for independent scrutiny until after the Inquest or FAI is complete. Families are required to sign a confidentiality agreement saying they will not reveal contents until then.

That means MoD dictates what is revealed in Court, what evidence is heard and what direction the Inquest/FAI takes. The reason for this change of policy is clear. MoD are upset over being caught lying in the past so don't want those who know the truth, or who can do a better job of uncovering the truth, having their say. This militates against the mutual aim of the SI and Inquest/FAI - to prevent recurrence.

The Red Arrows case is a prime example. MoD's claim that they were not told of the servicing instructions in the early 90s has never been put to the test. The family was in no position to challenge because they had no access to specialists who would know the questions to ask. No challenge is taken as acceptance of the truth, which is not the case.

Once the verdict is reported, the media is not interested. MoD, at most, take a minor hit and the issue is compartmentalised instead of being seen for what it is - part of the wider systemic failings MoD seeks to conceal.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2014, 19:34
  #180 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 814
I had heard that it had been decided that there would be no FAI. Anyone confirm or deny this? If this is the case, any info on when the SI will be released?
If this is true then there will be an outcry. I sincerely hope the families do not enter into any settlement until the report has been released and scrutinised.

This is what Tuc is on about. The decision to hold an FAI, or not, will be decided by the PF and Crown Office based on the evidence before them. And the only evidence they have has been presented by the MoD/MAA.

"Did you deliberately shoot your girlfriend, Mr Pistorius?" ------ "No, My Lady" -------"OK, case dismissed"

DV

Last edited by Distant Voice; 8th Apr 2014 at 19:48. Reason: Addition
Distant Voice is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.