Glen Ogle Accident 1994
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As it happens, I have listened to the CVR tape in question. I WAS NOT a member of the board, but was given the tape so the specialist HQ that I worked at could try and pick out anything that would help the inquiry.
I can state, that in my opinion, that there is NOTHING, REPEAT NOTHING, on that tape that would suggest that any of the 'rumours' are true. I have no further insight into the workings of the board, or anything that may have contributed to the accident.
Once again, just so everyone is clear, there was NOTHING SUSPICIOUS ON THE CVR TAPE.
O-P
I can state, that in my opinion, that there is NOTHING, REPEAT NOTHING, on that tape that would suggest that any of the 'rumours' are true. I have no further insight into the workings of the board, or anything that may have contributed to the accident.
Once again, just so everyone is clear, there was NOTHING SUSPICIOUS ON THE CVR TAPE.
O-P
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"That would have been the end of the story.." DV. If you seriously believe that this accident could be subject to legal process without the rumours, however untrue, being widely publicised, you are living on another planet!
Good luck, DV but I hope you've thought it through.
Good luck, DV but I hope you've thought it through.
Like many threads, this one has morphed into something completely different and DV is being unfairly maligned. It was not he who raised the issue of rumours. He simply asked whether there had been a FAI into the crash, because the Scottish Crown Office has chosen not to hold one into the July 2012 Tornado mid-air on the grounds that Service personnel are not employed when in Scotland. (You all know this, right? You have a letter from MoD saying you lose all rights when you show your passport at Gretna). When challenged, they came out with a different reason. When this was challenged, they came out with yet another excuse. That lack of consistency, obvious pressure from other parts of Government and complete lack of understanding of the role of MoD SI/BoIs, is what (in my opinion) is concerning DV and (hopefully) the Lord Advocate. Rightly so.
What the thread has served to illustrate (again) is that we can all have honestly held opinions and we can all, in part, be right and wrong. My own thoughts are; if the CVR contains nothing untoward, why redact most of the section marked “S*****e”, justifying it on “personal” grounds? As someone said, just omit it altogether. There have been many cases of MoD redacting, not to protect the deceased or their families, but living/serving senior MoD personnel. Also, many examples of MoD flatly denying the content of evidence (be it reports, tapes or whatever) only to be caught in a lie. To this day, the RAF VSOs deny the existence of 322 pages of the 1992 CHART report they withheld from the ZD576 BoI. I tell you what, those 322 pages are some forgery! The worst examples you could imagine occurred on the Sea King ASaC mid-air. MoD denied the very existence of both a formal investigation and a hearing. Despite the reports and transcript being made available by another part of MoD, they still deny it. Again, some forgery! A 2 hour hearing, with easily recognisable and very distinctive voices, is deemed not to have taken place. Bloody deranged, but that’s MoD for you. Similarly, they flatly deny any MoD staff spoke to the Coroner or his Office before the Inquest. Then the Coroner’s Officer (a retired police Superintendent), presumably fed up with the lies, released the tapes of the Inquest, in which the Coroner states, a number of times, “As agreed with MoD......” Really, you’ve got to listen to the tapes or read the book. It puts anything MoD says about any accident in a completely different light.
Best of luck this week DV. In my limited experience, and albeit from well over 40 years ago, Scottish Law Lords tend to be very pragmatic people. I’m not sure they can backdate any change in the law to order a FAI. They’d have to declare the Crown Office’s ruling unsound due to an error in interpretation of the law.
What the thread has served to illustrate (again) is that we can all have honestly held opinions and we can all, in part, be right and wrong. My own thoughts are; if the CVR contains nothing untoward, why redact most of the section marked “S*****e”, justifying it on “personal” grounds? As someone said, just omit it altogether. There have been many cases of MoD redacting, not to protect the deceased or their families, but living/serving senior MoD personnel. Also, many examples of MoD flatly denying the content of evidence (be it reports, tapes or whatever) only to be caught in a lie. To this day, the RAF VSOs deny the existence of 322 pages of the 1992 CHART report they withheld from the ZD576 BoI. I tell you what, those 322 pages are some forgery! The worst examples you could imagine occurred on the Sea King ASaC mid-air. MoD denied the very existence of both a formal investigation and a hearing. Despite the reports and transcript being made available by another part of MoD, they still deny it. Again, some forgery! A 2 hour hearing, with easily recognisable and very distinctive voices, is deemed not to have taken place. Bloody deranged, but that’s MoD for you. Similarly, they flatly deny any MoD staff spoke to the Coroner or his Office before the Inquest. Then the Coroner’s Officer (a retired police Superintendent), presumably fed up with the lies, released the tapes of the Inquest, in which the Coroner states, a number of times, “As agreed with MoD......” Really, you’ve got to listen to the tapes or read the book. It puts anything MoD says about any accident in a completely different light.
Best of luck this week DV. In my limited experience, and albeit from well over 40 years ago, Scottish Law Lords tend to be very pragmatic people. I’m not sure they can backdate any change in the law to order a FAI. They’d have to declare the Crown Office’s ruling unsound due to an error in interpretation of the law.
I may be about to ask a daft question so forgive me, I remember the accident and I remember the rumours, along with being told, as confirmed on this thread that the CVR proved the rumours untrue. Why then no push for a FAI from the MOD and as mentioned why redact anything? Surely it would be in there interest to prove, and demonstrate with indisputable evidence, that it was not a deliberate act by a member of the crew.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be about to ask a daft question so forgive me, I remember the accident and I remember the rumours, along with being told, as confirmed on this thread that the CVR proved the rumours untrue. Why then no push for a FAI from the MOD and as mentioned why redact anything? Surely it would be in there interest to prove, and demonstrate with indisputable evidence, that it was not a deliberate act by a member of the crew.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The inference is that the redaction of the CVR transcript would suggest that some form of impropriety was present on said tape. After all, if there was and nothing untoward, and no state secrets were involved, why redact it at all? All the redaction has done is add fuel to the rumours.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not read the official report into this accident, is it in the public domain?
What I have read is that the jet rolled inverted, then full afterburner was selected. Is this correct? Trying to imagine what would cause anyone to do that.
Also, someone asked about elephants in the room- to which the obvious response must be, were they both chasing the same girl or not? Surely their chums would know?
What I have read is that the jet rolled inverted, then full afterburner was selected. Is this correct? Trying to imagine what would cause anyone to do that.
Also, someone asked about elephants in the room- to which the obvious response must be, were they both chasing the same girl or not? Surely their chums would know?
I fear that the manner in which this thread has developed is to add a substantial number of rank outsiders [like me, for example] to the nudge nudge wink wink rumour mill.
I know this is a Rumour site, but I find the speculation and hints distasteful. Please drop the matter except in so far as the original post is answered.
I know this is a Rumour site, but I find the speculation and hints distasteful. Please drop the matter except in so far as the original post is answered.
The following users liked this post:
[quote
I fear that the manner in which this thread has developed is to add a substantial number of rank outsiders [like me, for example] to the nudge nudge wink wink rumour mill.
I know this is a Rumour site, but I find the speculation and hints distasteful. Please drop the matter except in so far as the original post is answered.
langleybaston is online now Report Post
][/quote]
Hear hear LB! I'm an outsider.....I have nothing of value to add, and yes, I'll admit it, I'm intrigued because I'm human. However, if the rumours are baseless and untrue, then it's terrible and cruel for all concerned. Like I said.....I've nothing to contribute so I'm stating the bleeding obvious really. A tragic incident whichever side of the fence you're sat on.
RIP gents.
MD
I fear that the manner in which this thread has developed is to add a substantial number of rank outsiders [like me, for example] to the nudge nudge wink wink rumour mill.
I know this is a Rumour site, but I find the speculation and hints distasteful. Please drop the matter except in so far as the original post is answered.
langleybaston is online now Report Post
][/quote]
Hear hear LB! I'm an outsider.....I have nothing of value to add, and yes, I'll admit it, I'm intrigued because I'm human. However, if the rumours are baseless and untrue, then it's terrible and cruel for all concerned. Like I said.....I've nothing to contribute so I'm stating the bleeding obvious really. A tragic incident whichever side of the fence you're sat on.
RIP gents.
MD
Langley baston has just beaten me to it, but I nevertheless feel the need to express my bewilderment at this thread.
It is quite clear that the person starting the thread knew the answer to the question they posed, and the reason for that answer. We might well all agree that it is inappropriate for the Procurator Fiscal not to treat armed services personnel as employed, but that is the way it has been for some time, and certainly is not a stance they developed exclusively in relation to Glen Ogle.
It would be idle for me to speculate why they nevertheless chose to ask the question, and to head it up in a way to draw attention to an accident rather than the underlying jurisdictional point, but what has followed in the thread was both inevitable and entirely foreseeable. Some might say they wanted all of this aired for some ulterior purpose. I just hope it doesn't involve the fourth estate.
I suspect in common with many forum readers, I knew nothing about Glen Ogle; now I only wish I knew nothing about it.
It is quite clear that the person starting the thread knew the answer to the question they posed, and the reason for that answer. We might well all agree that it is inappropriate for the Procurator Fiscal not to treat armed services personnel as employed, but that is the way it has been for some time, and certainly is not a stance they developed exclusively in relation to Glen Ogle.
It would be idle for me to speculate why they nevertheless chose to ask the question, and to head it up in a way to draw attention to an accident rather than the underlying jurisdictional point, but what has followed in the thread was both inevitable and entirely foreseeable. Some might say they wanted all of this aired for some ulterior purpose. I just hope it doesn't involve the fourth estate.
I suspect in common with many forum readers, I knew nothing about Glen Ogle; now I only wish I knew nothing about it.
The following users liked this post:
I suspect in common with many forum readers, I knew nothing about Glen Ogle; now I only wish I knew nothing about it.
MD
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mopardave
Alternatively, because it IS a Rumour site, you could stop reading the thread if it bothers you . . . ?
I know this is a Rumour site, but I find the speculation and hints distasteful. Please drop the matter except in so far as the original post is answered.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is quite clear that the person starting the thread knew the answer to the question they posed, and the reason for that answer. We might well all agree that it is inappropriate for the Procurator Fiscal not to treat armed services personnel as employed, but that is the way it has been for some time, and certainly is not a stance they developed exclusively in relation to Glen Ogle.
It is more than inappriopriate for the Procurator Fiscal not to treat armed services personnel as employed, it is goes against the "intent" of the 1976 Act and discrimates against them. Today, in the Scottish Parliament, members of the the Justice Committee were made aware of the situation for the very first time, and they were shocked. It is unlikely to happen again.
DV
It's little to do with personal distaste, but to do with unnecessary public domain exposure.
Nice little media story to dig up on a quiet news day. Great quotes available from those in the know [or who say they are in the know].
No winners except the meeja.
To go further is only prurient, methinks. This is my last contribution on this thread.
Nice little media story to dig up on a quiet news day. Great quotes available from those in the know [or who say they are in the know].
No winners except the meeja.
To go further is only prurient, methinks. This is my last contribution on this thread.