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 27th Dec 2013, 16:00
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
jtids

For sure, it was fitted to F3's and system testing carried out. I did the armament EMC/EMI testing at Coningsby around Gulf1 times. Not sure re GR1/1a or later gr's.
DeskBoundPhlasher is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2014, 17:52
  #122 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Over two years ago the Ministry of Transport released the detailed AAIB report into the loss of a Super Puma helicopter on 1st April 2009. The Fatal Accident Investigation into the accident started today in Aberdeen, and in the 2 year period since the release of the report to the general public no one in Government or the Crown Office has suggest that the release of the report could be prejudicial to the Procurator Fiscal’s investigation and findings.

Having set that precedence how can the MoD justify withholding the Tornado SI report on “prejudicial” grounds, unless there is something to hide. Besides is not for the PF or Crown Office to decide what is prejudicial and what is not, and not a Government department with a vested interest in trying to prove they have done nothing wrong.

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2014, 19:00
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 649
Received 46 Likes on 23 Posts
Your JTIDS comments reminded me that it was the same MoD Directorate/IPT that implemented the above polices so zealously, their mantra being "It works on the bench in isolation, so there is no need to integrate or test it in the aircraft". Hence, Burridge's recommendations regarding functional safety of the IFF in the ZG710 BoI.

Slightly off topic but definitely true on one job I supported in about 1999. JTIDS was bought from the US but integration was ignored by the department you mentioned and had to be contracted to the UK's JTIDS experts. IIRC they also said the sims needn't be modified and no tech pubs or spares either.
dervish is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2014, 19:31
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: england
Age: 58
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JTIDS is not the answer

While JTIDS is great when it is working, it relies on a classified crypto load to work. It is also not that robust. So, while a significant SA system, it is not appropriate as a collision avoiding system. I await retorts, but unless you possess the experience and knowledge, then, I'm afraid leave it.
theonewhoknows is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2014, 21:10
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Has it been put into the public domain yet, or are we still speculating?
muttywhitedog is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2014, 09:20
  #126 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MWD.

No speculation, what I have posted are the facts. The Super Puma AAIB report was placed in the public domain, some two years before the FAI started; no suggestion of it being withheld because of a fear of it prejudicing the outcome. On the other hand the Tornado SI report is being withheld until after the FAI (if one is held) because of a prejudicial claim. One has to ask, why? It seems that MOD is placing itself above the law in order to protect those responsible for the delay in fitting CWS. I am sure that their hope is that the the PF will decide not to call a FAI so that the SI report can stand, unchallenged.

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2014, 11:13
  #127 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I understand that Fatal Accident Investigations are open to the general public, so MoD's attempt to keep the SI report under wraps until some time after an FAI will not work. So let's see it now.

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2014, 13:15
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,929
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
MOD is placing itself above the law in order to protect those responsible for the delay in fitting CWS.
Really? Is that not prejudicing the outcome of the SI?

Having a CWS, or not, may or may not have played a part in this accident. If 2 aircraft are operating in close formation would the CWS have been inhibited/placed on standby? Afterall, the last thing you want when operating in close is some warning constantly going off. I fly an aircraft fitted with a system that becomes very annoying in the circuit because of the constant warnings of other aircraft. SOPs say I cannot turn it off or place it in a standby mode, but there comes a point when you start to tune it out. Great in the open FIR but not so good in certain stages of flight.
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2014, 15:06
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 649
Received 46 Likes on 23 Posts
Distant Voice is not the one stating a CWS must be fitted, although he agrees it should. It is MoD who has stated it, yet not done it. The question he thinks the Sheriff should ask is why do these MoD requirements never seem to be implemented. Have I got that right? If there is a disagreement about MoD's statement, has anyone here submitted an alternative? Must be a nightmare being in OR. So many people arguing against, but not offering alternatives. It only succeeds in delaying projects. Glad I wasn't clever enough either way.
dervish is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2014, 16:35
  #130 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, Dervish, you are correct. The decision to fit CWS was made by MoD back in the late '90s, and they neglected to follow it throught. We are not sure if facts such as this are brought out in the SI report because MoD refuses to place it in the public domain. A question that I hope gets presented at any FAI is did MoD, in 14 years of inactivity, show a gross breach of a relevant duty of care, not only to the deceased, but to all those who fly in Tornado GR4 aircraft.

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2014, 17:00
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omnipotent
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't think it is a case of the MOD refusing to put the report or the details into the public domain, that will happen when the report is put on the MAA website. Reading the press reports (Angus Robertson) the Procurator Fiscal hasn't decided if a FAI is going to take place yet and until then the report is kept to a small list of addressees until the decision is made. If they have an inquest it will all come out in court, if they don't, it will be published. I thought the whole point of having an independent regulator was for exactly this situation where details which may be uncomfortable for the MOD actually GET published rather than being hidden? I hope so anyway
Growbag is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2014, 11:53
  #132 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Growbag: Yes I understand the report will be placed in the public domain, eventually, but by then it could be too late. The Procurator Fiscal may decide, based on the only evidence presented to him (the SI report) that there is no need for a FAI. I suggest that you re-read posts #42 and #123.

Regards
DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2014, 17:06
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DV -are you stating that the only evidence that the PF will consider is that contained
within the SI Report? That he will not entertain any submissions from both the legal and highly experienced and current technical experts that inhabit forums such as this one? An interesting take on the Scottish justice system!
DeskBoundPhlasher is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2014, 18:58
  #134 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DBP: No I am not saying that. I am sure that the PF will consider anything that is presented to him on this matter. What I am saying is that it would be helpful if we knew what was in the SI report so that those of us who believe their could be "holes" could fill them. If the AAIB did that with Super Puma two years ago why can the MAA (MoD) not do the same for Tornado, as they did for Nimrod. At prestent the PF has a report prepared by the invloved party, and I am sure that the involved party would like to keep it that way.

As yet we do not know the "basics" of the accident eg. (1) Were the a/c flying as a pair, and one simply flew into the other, (2) Where the aircraft flying as a pair, and one flew into the other in order to avoid another a/c that appeared out of the blue, (3) Was the collision head on with one a/c leaving the range and the other joining.

Also, how deep does the report go into the procurement of CWS, and how far back. If it is left to Mr Hammond he only wants to go back to 2008. Have the recommendation listed in the AAIB collisions reports of 1993 and 1997 been followed through?

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2014, 07:29
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
DBP: No I am not saying that. I am sure that the PF will consider anything that is presented to him on this matter. What I am saying is that it would be helpful if we knew what was in the SI report so that those of us who believe their could be "holes" could fill them. If the AAIB did that with Super Puma two years ago why can the MAA (MoD) not do the same for Tornado, as they did for Nimrod. At prestent the PF has a report prepared by the invloved party, and I am sure that the involved party would like to keep it that way.



I could post this here or on the Ft Lt Cunningham thread – same principles. What determines the direction of the Inquest (in England) or FAI (in Scotland) is the Pre Inquest Hearing (in England). This is when the Coroner is briefed and he decides direction and, hence, witnesses. Crucially, the Coroners’ Rules require all interested parties to be invited.

This is where the system falls down, seemingly frequently when MoD is involved. Take for example the 2007 Inquest into the 2003 ASaC mid-air. The tapes of the proceedings (MoD didn’t see that one coming!) clearly reveal there to have been pre-inquest meetings between Coroner and MoD, when it was decided who would appear as witnesses and what they would say. It was also “agreed” at these meetings that, for example, the aircraft were serviceable, when they were not in key areas. It was also “agreed” they were airworthy, and the subject would not be discussed, despite the main criticism of the BoI being they were not, again in key areas. (Both were linked to one individual, but MoD won’t answer questions from families. They were simply told both were serviceable and airworthy, the matter would not be discussed). It was also “agreed”, or the Coroner decided, that there would be no attempt to reconcile ludicrously contradictory evidence; particularly relating to the unauthorised encroachment into the CCZ of another aircraft, which clearly distracted the outbound Sea King. And so on. Perhaps worse, the individual named and blamed for the above failings by the post-BoI investigation was not permitted to give evidence; and MoD now claim this investigation did not take place, despite the records being lodged in personnel files and copied to all and sundry. The combination of all this prompted one bereaved father to shout out in court “What a Fix!” Quite.

To this day, MoD denies there was a PIH, but will not respond to questions about a pre-inquest “meeting”, simply referring families to the Coroner. For its part, the Coroner’s Office will not reply. That, I’m afraid, is collusion, denial of justice and denial of the opportunity to prevent recurrence. I could have chosen any one of a number of cases as an example, but the likes of Nimrod, Chinook and C130 are well known. Keep going Distant Voice. Aircrew will thank you eventually. Maybe.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2014, 08:37
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
Tuc,

There is no doubt that the MoD has pre-inquest sessions with the Coroner and without such cooperation things would grind to a halt. The Coroner needs access to official documents that may be classified, needs access to personnel and may need access to industry partners that operate within the MoD sphere of influence.

Does this offer an opportunity for MoD to influence things - undoubtedly. Have some in the MoD looked to exploit this - recent history records this as a fact. But the Coroner has primacy and is powerful enough to work through any MoD static. You are correct that the MoD did try to deny access to key witnesses in at least 1 inquest, but the Coroner just issued summons/arrest warrants. This did bring an unexpected reality-check to the Treasury Solicitors(!).

My point is that we have to trust the Coroner. If they use the powers they have correctly they will access the evidence they seek. There may be monsters out there, but they are not under every bed.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2014, 16:13
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
JTO:-
the Coroner has primacy and is powerful enough to work through any MoD static.
Well history, as testified to by tuc, would seem to disagree. If an air regulator tells a coroner at a pre inquest hearing into a fatal aircraft accident that the aircraft was both serviceable and airworthy he has little alternative than to accept that as a fact. The problem isn't with the coroner or PF per se, the problem is the MOD, which consistently lies, steals, and cheats. We can be certain that as long as it remains air regulator, investigator, and operator combined (via its 'independent' subsidiaries; the MAA, the MAAIB, the RAF, the FAA, the AAC) it will go on doing so.

Every fatal accident that has been reviewed in this forum is presented by the MOD as unique. In truth they are all connected by this very contradiction, that of self regulation. It doesn't work, and in aviation it kills.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2014, 17:02
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
Didn't the coroner issue warrants for those who the MoD were not keen on being interviewed or testifying for the Hercules Inquiry?

The Coroner has the job of establishing the facts, even if they have to work through or around obstacles set by one of the parties with a vested interest in the outcome. They seem to do a reasonable job and I have yet to meet a gullible one.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2014, 10:55
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
I fully agree with you re the effectiveness in general of HM Coroners. It took an 800 year old institution to tell one that is still now less than 100 years old, "There is something wrong with your bloody aircraft!".
My point is that dedicated as they might be to searching out the truth, if a Department of State is dedicated to obscuring that truth, that it alone holds all the information relating to a fatal accident, and ensures that its version and only its version is what is available to the Court, then the truth is very unlikely to emerge no matter how ungullible the Coroner.
The MOD is the problem, and in the matter of Military Air Safety has to be divested of its strangle hold over Regulation and Investigation. An independent MAA would then have no more reason to mislead a Coroner than the CAA would, for instance. We might then look forward to honest witnesses and proper verdicts.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2014, 21:41
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hove
Age: 72
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I know that the GR4 is fitted with Mode S transponders and that these have hex codes allocated for the transponders ID, that these transponders can be linked to an ACAS system and information exchanged between them.

So is it a case here that this part of the GR4 avonics upgrade was only the transponder and therefore the chance to fit some sort of CWS was missed at the time?

If so I think we missing a safety milestone in doing so.
clicker 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.