Glen Ogle Accident 1994
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The subject of this thread is the Scottish FAI system.." Ah, that explains the title which is, er, "Glen Ogle Accident 1994"
You are entitled to your opinion regarding the value for money of BALPA's legal counsel. I suggest however, that yours is a miserable and ungrateful stance considering neither Chinook pilot was a member and without their considerable legal expertise and funding contributed by airline pilots running well into six figures, the "pilot error" verdict would stand to this day.
You are entitled to your opinion regarding the value for money of BALPA's legal counsel. I suggest however, that yours is a miserable and ungrateful stance considering neither Chinook pilot was a member and without their considerable legal expertise and funding contributed by airline pilots running well into six figures, the "pilot error" verdict would stand to this day.
As you say SO, you are entitled to your opinion and I to mine. I would take issue though that the "pilot error verdict" (Pilot "Gross Negligence" according to the RO's) was reversed thanks to six figure funding by BALPA.
It was reversed by the SoS for Defence thanks to evidence put before Lord Philip that the aircraft was "positively dangerous" and grossly unairworthy. That evidence was provided free, gratis, and for nowt.
As for this thread and what it is about, read the OP.
It was reversed by the SoS for Defence thanks to evidence put before Lord Philip that the aircraft was "positively dangerous" and grossly unairworthy. That evidence was provided free, gratis, and for nowt.
As for this thread and what it is about, read the OP.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The subject of this thread is the Scottish FAI system.." Ah, that explains the title which is, er, "Glen Ogle Accident 1994"
The Glen Ogle accident is an interesting case, not because of what has been rumoured about it, but because it demonstrates serious flaws in the current FAI/Inquest interface. The crew of Tornado ZG708 took off from RAF Marham (England) and crashed in Glen Ogle (Scotland). Unbeknown to the crew and their families they lost their mandated right for an inquest or FAI as soon as they crossed the the English/Scottish border. Simply, because in Scotland "members of the armed forces on duty are not considered to be within the course of 'employment' and therefore not within scope of the mandated section of the 1976 Act". And, of course, having left English airspace they were outside the jurisdiction of any coroner's court.
This ludicrous interpretation of the FAI Act first came to light following the Mull accident. I repeat my earlier statement, an FAI only took place because "some on board at the time of the crash were engaged in the course of their employment". These were the civilians. It had nothing to do with BALPA, it was mandated for them. At some point in the past some 'Legal' has played with the words "employment" and "employee" and decided that members of the armed forces are not employed and can be excluded. To my knowledge this has never been challenged; however it will come under close examination in the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday.
DV
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was told this story 20 years ago by a pretty drunk sqn ldr at the 1995 (?) Oktoberfest in the Officers Mess at Bruggen where I was hosting the indoor rifle range (which, in hindsight, wasn't such a good idea after all). He made quite detailed reference to the CVR. I'm sure that others have far more details than I. I don't know whether the story was true or not but if so, it's horrifying, saddening and tragic. No one wins.
That doesn't mean it should be swept under the carpet. The larger interests are not served and the truth will invariably 'out' and to worse effect. I agree with TOFU; it is offensive, not only to our sensibilities and loyalty, but also on lots of other levels. The events elsewhere recently might not have been avoided but if more people were aware of more (possible) incidents like this, we might prevent more happening in the future.
Could it have been prevented, and should it have been acted upon far more openly and honestly? I comment on this with a fair degree of trepidation and not to be malicious or increase anyone's discomfort.
That doesn't mean it should be swept under the carpet. The larger interests are not served and the truth will invariably 'out' and to worse effect. I agree with TOFU; it is offensive, not only to our sensibilities and loyalty, but also on lots of other levels. The events elsewhere recently might not have been avoided but if more people were aware of more (possible) incidents like this, we might prevent more happening in the future.
Could it have been prevented, and should it have been acted upon far more openly and honestly? I comment on this with a fair degree of trepidation and not to be malicious or increase anyone's discomfort.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that the mandatory trigger in respect of employment didn't apply in this case, DV, doesn't mean there can't be an FAI. The Lord Advocate has the power to order one for deaths which are suspicious, unexplained or where there is a strong public interest. If you feel these apply then write to him. There is no statute of limitations and an Inquiry could be ordered even now if there was good reason.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Lord Advocate has the power to order one for deaths which are suspicious, unexplained or where there is a strong public interest. If you feel these apply then write to him. There is no statute of limitations and an Inquiry could be ordered even now if there was good reason.
DV
Piggies, it wasn't data protection which precluded a response. My information came verbally from someone who, though well-placed, would have been in the clag if people guessed his identity. The information was also confirmed by an independent source.
Very many apologies if my comments had been perceived as inflammatory.
A well-known contributor to the Mull thread gave me an insight into the sensitivity surrounding the accident to which you referred and we agreed that any further public comment should be avoided. Any PMs will also be ignored. And so it remains.
Very many apologies if my comments had been perceived as inflammatory.
A well-known contributor to the Mull thread gave me an insight into the sensitivity surrounding the accident to which you referred and we agreed that any further public comment should be avoided. Any PMs will also be ignored. And so it remains.
DV:-
That is why he was asking Df68. Isn't ignoring previous posts and making unsupported accusations the definition of trolling?
The thread was opened in order to gather additional information about how the Crown Office has dealt with military air crashes in the past. I am aware that an FAI has been rejected for the Moray Firth collision, and that one was never held for the Glen Kinglass accident; that just left Glen Ogle. Hence the title.
DV's initial post said:
he then says:
So he KNEW the answer to the initial question. Now, if the thread had been " in order to gather additional information about how the Crown Office has dealt with military air crashes in the past." why not ask that question, or ask if anyone knew why a FAI hadn't been held for the Glen Ogle crash?
Semantics perhaps, but on a subject which is obviously as emotive as this, something that should be considered.
Now, as it happens, I agree fully with him regarding the ludicrous situation where service personnel are not given the automatic right of being 'in employment' up here. I'd be interested in knowing the derivation of that (Did it come from a decided case or from a piece of legislation?) I'd also be interested in how it lies alongside the ECHR,which is enshrined into law in Scotalnd.
I just think the original question was a little disengenious.
Does anyone know if an Inquest or Fatal Accident Inquiry was held into the loss of Tornado GR1A ZG708, which crashed in Glen Ogle on 1st Sept 1994?
DV
DV
I have, and he doesn't reply. Instead I get letters from the Head of the Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit who simply says that an FAI would simply duplicate the SI. He fails to recognise that an SI is an internal inquiry and not a public inquiry, as stipulated in the 1976 Act. In an email, received last year, the procurator Fiscal stated that it wasn't mandated because the crew members were "not considered to be within the course of employment"; similar wards to those used for the Mull accident 20 years earlier. I believe that he was too embarressed to repeat in the official media statement what was stated in the email for fear of ridicule by the general public.
Semantics perhaps, but on a subject which is obviously as emotive as this, something that should be considered.
Now, as it happens, I agree fully with him regarding the ludicrous situation where service personnel are not given the automatic right of being 'in employment' up here. I'd be interested in knowing the derivation of that (Did it come from a decided case or from a piece of legislation?) I'd also be interested in how it lies alongside the ECHR,which is enshrined into law in Scotalnd.
I just think the original question was a little disengenious.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, DV, you opened the thread by asking a question you already knew the answer to?
The thread was opened in order to gather additional information about how the Crown Office has dealt with military air crashes in the past. I am aware that an FAI has been rejected for the Moray Firth collision, and that one was never held for the Glen Kinglass accident; that just left Glen Ogle. Hence the title.
DV
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would appear there is a lot of 'dancing around the elephant in the room'.
I heard the pilot and nav had a mutually-exclusive interest in their private lives. The pilot resolved their issue. It may be utter bollocks and I've no idea but that was the rumour I'd heard. As an ex-SFSO with some remaining contacts, it's a truism, where there's smoke there's usually combustion.
Don't expect anything but flak, but I agree the truth usually 'outs'. As for next-of-kin 'may visit' - do you really think they don't know?
Before the 'incoming' commences, I refer you to the title of this whole site - 'RUMOUR NETWORK'.
I heard the pilot and nav had a mutually-exclusive interest in their private lives. The pilot resolved their issue. It may be utter bollocks and I've no idea but that was the rumour I'd heard. As an ex-SFSO with some remaining contacts, it's a truism, where there's smoke there's usually combustion.
Don't expect anything but flak, but I agree the truth usually 'outs'. As for next-of-kin 'may visit' - do you really think they don't know?
Before the 'incoming' commences, I refer you to the title of this whole site - 'RUMOUR NETWORK'.
I think distant voice suspected there was no FAI but was seeking confirmation from a community who would be likely to know. There was a seeming contradiction as was one held on ZD576, but it turns out that was for the pax not the crew. That was kept quiet. Were RAF Legal Services involved? 
MoD needs to assure the safety of not just the crew but public they overfly. That means there's a "public interest" in all military losses. Our crown office seem to have ignored that.
Can't get over I was unemployed for so long.
MoD needs to assure the safety of not just the crew but public they overfly. That means there's a "public interest" in all military losses. Our crown office seem to have ignored that.
Can't get over I was unemployed for so long.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So he KNEW the answer to the initial question. Now, if the thread had been " in order to gather additional information about how the Crown Office has dealt with military air crashes in the past." why not ask that question, or ask if anyone knew why a FAI hadn't been held for the Glen Ogle crash?
DV
Would appear there is a lot of 'dancing around the elephant in the room'.
I heard the pilot and nav had a mutually-exclusive interest in their private lives. The pilot resolved their issue. It may be utter bollocks and I've no idea but that was the rumour I'd heard. As an ex-SFSO with some remaining contacts, it's a truism, where there's smoke there's usually combustion.
Don't expect anything but flak, but I agree the truth usually 'outs'. As for next-of-kin 'may visit' - do you really think they don't know?
Before the 'incoming' commences, I refer you to the title of this whole site - 'RUMOUR NETWORK'.
I heard the pilot and nav had a mutually-exclusive interest in their private lives. The pilot resolved their issue. It may be utter bollocks and I've no idea but that was the rumour I'd heard. As an ex-SFSO with some remaining contacts, it's a truism, where there's smoke there's usually combustion.
Don't expect anything but flak, but I agree the truth usually 'outs'. As for next-of-kin 'may visit' - do you really think they don't know?
Before the 'incoming' commences, I refer you to the title of this whole site - 'RUMOUR NETWORK'.
I'm all for rumour networks but it should not lead to baseless assertions.
BWM:-
More like a herd of elephants to my mind. My particular one is wearing MOD issue pinstripe and using its bulk to obstruct any unwanted inquiry into matters that are its concern alone, in its view (you know, stuff like why Fatal Military Air Accidents happened and what's being done if anything to avoid future ones). That is what connects Mull, Moray, and Glen Ogle.
Would appear there is a lot of 'dancing around the elephant in the room'.
Fair enough!
Good luck in you campaign, I hope you achieve success.
Sometimes, Military aircraft accidents can never be adequately explained, but I agree that all paths should be followed, for transparency and future avoidance if nothing else.