Glen Ogle Accident 1994
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Langley,
If (and I emphasise, if) a man's life was taken unlawfully, he deserves our unflinching loyalty, not those who covered it up. I hope above anything, it was an accident. But if nothing else, this thread has shown just how impoverished military servicemen and women's rights are, even in death.
If (and I emphasise, if) a man's life was taken unlawfully, he deserves our unflinching loyalty, not those who covered it up. I hope above anything, it was an accident. But if nothing else, this thread has shown just how impoverished military servicemen and women's rights are, even in death.
Df68:-
Thanks for the link; an excellent presentation by Mr Jimmy Jones of the absurd stance of the Crown Office. It seems that according to them, HM Forces who are in Scotland are neither employed nor carrying out an occupation! Only the MOD (for whose purposes other its would it serve?) could conduct such barefaced lies and have gotten away with it for so very long.
As Mr Jones said, if he were serving abroad and had fallen there, it would be better for his loved ones that he be repatriated to England, for to come straight home to Scotland would put him in the same bracket as the crews of Glen Ogle, Glen Kinglass, and others, ie no inquiry other than the partial one conducted by his own employer, who isn't his employer of course...
I am disheartened by the anti-DV stance of certain members posting here. How many times do you need to be told? He didn't know the answer to the question in the OP, that is why he asked it!
You can see the evidence to the Committee that DV mentions, the relevant section starts at approx 1 hour
As Mr Jones said, if he were serving abroad and had fallen there, it would be better for his loved ones that he be repatriated to England, for to come straight home to Scotland would put him in the same bracket as the crews of Glen Ogle, Glen Kinglass, and others, ie no inquiry other than the partial one conducted by his own employer, who isn't his employer of course...
I am disheartened by the anti-DV stance of certain members posting here. How many times do you need to be told? He didn't know the answer to the question in the OP, that is why he asked it!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frankly, chug, ppruners will make up their own minds on that point however many times "they are told" as you patronisingly put it. It took me 90 seconds to find the answer to his original question on the Judiciary for Scotland website. At the end of the day, most of us would prefer that this toothpaste had been left in the tube and I struggle to see what benefit could come from a further inquiry.
mopardave
Quote:
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.
Alternatively, because it IS a Rumour site, you could stop reading the thread if it bothers you . . . ?
Quote:
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.
Alternatively, because it IS a Rumour site, you could stop reading the thread if it bothers you . . . ?
Best
MD
SO:-
Then I defer to your superior search ability as compared to mine for instance, SO, though that's not saying very much I'm afraid.
To be honest I'm not sure what I am searching for, "FAIs that were not held"? If you could give us a link to the appropriate page I'm sure I would not be alone in appreciating it. Thank you.
It took me 90 seconds to find the answer to his original question on the Judiciary for Scotland website.
To be honest I'm not sure what I am searching for, "FAIs that were not held"? If you could give us a link to the appropriate page I'm sure I would not be alone in appreciating it. Thank you.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You want a link to a report that doesn't exist??
That said, I agree with you that we shouldn't turn on DV. Whatever his reasoning, he does appear to be genuinely seeking the truth. Whether that's for the best, who's to say?
That said, I agree with you that we shouldn't turn on DV. Whatever his reasoning, he does appear to be genuinely seeking the truth. Whether that's for the best, who's to say?
I'm merely asking for a link to the page on the Scottish Judiciary site that you say you found in 90 seconds and that answered DV's OP question , which was:-
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It took me 90 seconds to find the answer to his original question on the Judiciary for Scotland website
DV
Come on SO, still waiting for the link. - DV
Here's something from today's Scotsman for you to look at whilst you are waiting
Sister?s plea over FAIs into workplace deaths - The Scotsman
Sadly, looks like you are not the only one looking for answers about FAIs.
Jack
Here's something from today's Scotsman for you to look at whilst you are waiting
Sister?s plea over FAIs into workplace deaths - The Scotsman
Sadly, looks like you are not the only one looking for answers about FAIs.
Jack
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incident involving a police helicopter in Glasgow on 29 November 2013
From the COPFS WebSite:
Food for thought. It's not just the MOD who do their own housekeeping. The point about a factory owner was well made in Holyrood's committee room
This looks like COPFS will decide on further action based on what Police Scotland say that they have found. No incentive for a cover up then, or is there?
Role of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) have responsibility for leading the investigation into any sudden and unexplained deaths in Scotland and deciding whether there is evidence available that means criminal proceedings or a Fatal Accident Inquiry should be held.
Members of COPFS were also at the scene to assist the police .................and also to ensure that all evidence necessary to help identify what caused the tragedy is preserved.
AAIB investigation
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) is responsible for the technical investigation into any incident involving a helicopter or other aircraft. They investigate what happened, and look to make recommendations as to the safety of aircraft. They do not consider criminal proceedings or apportion blame as to what caused the incident.
The purpose of the AAIB investigation is
“To improve aviation safety by determining the causes of air accidents and serious incidents making safety recommendations intended to prevent recurrence. It is not to apportion liability”
On 9th December, the AAIB published a Special Bulletin on the investigation into the incident, including their preliminary findings and which provides initial information, that bulletin is available on the AAIB website.
After a full investigation, which can take a significant length of time, the AAIB will publish a report into the causes of the crash. It is the AAIB investigation which takes precedence over other types of investigation because of the need to make sure that other similar aircraft are safe and that any steps necessary to avoid a similar accident taking place are established and followed across the industry as soon as possible.
Any decision by COPFS as to whether there is sufficient evidence to raise criminal or Fatal Accident Inquiry proceedings is taken after AAIB complete their investigation to ensure that their safety recommendations are issued as quickly as possible. A decision as to the nature of the subsequent inquiry which will follow will be taken by the Crown Office as soon as possible after the conclusion of the AAIB investigation.
Civil Aviation Authority and Police Investigations
After the AAIB have investigated the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) will work with the Police to investigate the incident.
The CAA are the enforcing authority for aviation related offences.
The Police will take statements and gather documents so that there is evidence which can be used in a court if required and report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
COPFS have a dedicated and specialised Procurator Fiscal who leads in investigations in relation to incidents involving aircraft.
Investigative Strategy Group
In order to direct the investigation into the incident involving a police helicopter in Glasgow on 29 November 2013, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service(COPFS) has established an Investigative Strategy Group.
The group will be chaired by COPFS and will have representation from Police Scotland. As part of ongoing review of the inquiry the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC) will be part of the Investigative Strategy Group.
The Lord Advocate has legal responsibility to investigate all sudden or unexplained deaths in Scotland.
Police Scotland will continue to lead the investigation under the direction and superintendence of COPFS. Should allegations of impropriety or criminality on the part of the police come to light, those allegations will be investigated by PIRC. The circumstances will be kept under review.
For more information on PIRC see Police Investigations & Review Commissioner | Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
Or contact [email protected]
Throughout the Investigation
COPFS recognise that the level and detail of investigation required in an incident like this necessarily take time. COPFS will ensure that the nearest relatives of the deceased are kept updated regularly as to progress of the investigation.
Nearest relatives will be asked what their preferred method of communication is. The communication can be via a dedicated electronic mail address, normal post, by phone, or in person.
Decisions
Only once the detailed and thorough investigations have been completed, will COPFS be in a position to make decisions as to whether any criminal proceedings or a Fatal Accident Inquiry may be appropriate in the circumstances. Any decision taken about such proceedings as a result of this incident will be taken by experienced Crown Counsel senior lawyers who act on behalf of the Lord Advocate.
Criminal Proceedings.
Before Criminal proceedings can be commenced there requires to be sufficient admissible evidence that a crime has been committed. If Crown Counsel decide that there are to be criminal proceedings in relation to the incident then these would normally take place before any Fatal Accident Inquiry. If criminal proceedings are being contemplated by COPFS then the nearest relatives of the deceased will be informed first and further information provided around the court process and timing.
Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI)
A Fatal Accident Inquiry is a public hearing held under Scots Law to investigate the circumstances of a death or deaths in Scotland. Unlike a criminal trial or that of a civil case, the purpose of the Inquiry is to determine the cause of death or deaths and to establish if the death could have been prevented and to consider whether any action is needed to protect the public from danger in the future. It is not the purpose of an FAI to apportion blame or to find someone responsible for the death.
If a Fatal Accident Inquiries are being contemplated by COPFS then the nearest relatives of the deceased will be informed first and further information provided around the court process and timing. The nearest relative’s views will be taken into account in making the decision as to a whether a fatal accident inquiry will be held.
COPFS are responsible for preparing for an FAI and will present evidence at the inquiry. The Inquiry is normally held in a court room. COPFS will carry out these duties in the public interest and independently of any government department.
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) have responsibility for leading the investigation into any sudden and unexplained deaths in Scotland and deciding whether there is evidence available that means criminal proceedings or a Fatal Accident Inquiry should be held.
Members of COPFS were also at the scene to assist the police .................and also to ensure that all evidence necessary to help identify what caused the tragedy is preserved.
AAIB investigation
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) is responsible for the technical investigation into any incident involving a helicopter or other aircraft. They investigate what happened, and look to make recommendations as to the safety of aircraft. They do not consider criminal proceedings or apportion blame as to what caused the incident.
The purpose of the AAIB investigation is
“To improve aviation safety by determining the causes of air accidents and serious incidents making safety recommendations intended to prevent recurrence. It is not to apportion liability”
On 9th December, the AAIB published a Special Bulletin on the investigation into the incident, including their preliminary findings and which provides initial information, that bulletin is available on the AAIB website.
After a full investigation, which can take a significant length of time, the AAIB will publish a report into the causes of the crash. It is the AAIB investigation which takes precedence over other types of investigation because of the need to make sure that other similar aircraft are safe and that any steps necessary to avoid a similar accident taking place are established and followed across the industry as soon as possible.
Any decision by COPFS as to whether there is sufficient evidence to raise criminal or Fatal Accident Inquiry proceedings is taken after AAIB complete their investigation to ensure that their safety recommendations are issued as quickly as possible. A decision as to the nature of the subsequent inquiry which will follow will be taken by the Crown Office as soon as possible after the conclusion of the AAIB investigation.
Civil Aviation Authority and Police Investigations
After the AAIB have investigated the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) will work with the Police to investigate the incident.
The CAA are the enforcing authority for aviation related offences.
The Police will take statements and gather documents so that there is evidence which can be used in a court if required and report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
COPFS have a dedicated and specialised Procurator Fiscal who leads in investigations in relation to incidents involving aircraft.
Investigative Strategy Group
In order to direct the investigation into the incident involving a police helicopter in Glasgow on 29 November 2013, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service(COPFS) has established an Investigative Strategy Group.
The group will be chaired by COPFS and will have representation from Police Scotland. As part of ongoing review of the inquiry the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC) will be part of the Investigative Strategy Group.
The Lord Advocate has legal responsibility to investigate all sudden or unexplained deaths in Scotland.
Police Scotland will continue to lead the investigation under the direction and superintendence of COPFS. Should allegations of impropriety or criminality on the part of the police come to light, those allegations will be investigated by PIRC. The circumstances will be kept under review.
For more information on PIRC see Police Investigations & Review Commissioner | Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
Or contact [email protected]
Throughout the Investigation
COPFS recognise that the level and detail of investigation required in an incident like this necessarily take time. COPFS will ensure that the nearest relatives of the deceased are kept updated regularly as to progress of the investigation.
Nearest relatives will be asked what their preferred method of communication is. The communication can be via a dedicated electronic mail address, normal post, by phone, or in person.
Decisions
Only once the detailed and thorough investigations have been completed, will COPFS be in a position to make decisions as to whether any criminal proceedings or a Fatal Accident Inquiry may be appropriate in the circumstances. Any decision taken about such proceedings as a result of this incident will be taken by experienced Crown Counsel senior lawyers who act on behalf of the Lord Advocate.
Criminal Proceedings.
Before Criminal proceedings can be commenced there requires to be sufficient admissible evidence that a crime has been committed. If Crown Counsel decide that there are to be criminal proceedings in relation to the incident then these would normally take place before any Fatal Accident Inquiry. If criminal proceedings are being contemplated by COPFS then the nearest relatives of the deceased will be informed first and further information provided around the court process and timing.
Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI)
A Fatal Accident Inquiry is a public hearing held under Scots Law to investigate the circumstances of a death or deaths in Scotland. Unlike a criminal trial or that of a civil case, the purpose of the Inquiry is to determine the cause of death or deaths and to establish if the death could have been prevented and to consider whether any action is needed to protect the public from danger in the future. It is not the purpose of an FAI to apportion blame or to find someone responsible for the death.
If a Fatal Accident Inquiries are being contemplated by COPFS then the nearest relatives of the deceased will be informed first and further information provided around the court process and timing. The nearest relative’s views will be taken into account in making the decision as to a whether a fatal accident inquiry will be held.
COPFS are responsible for preparing for an FAI and will present evidence at the inquiry. The Inquiry is normally held in a court room. COPFS will carry out these duties in the public interest and independently of any government department.
This looks like COPFS will decide on further action based on what Police Scotland say that they have found. No incentive for a cover up then, or is there?
AP:_
Agreed absolutely. That is exactly the point that has been made in every single Fatal Military Air Accident thread on this Forum. The MOD is Judge, Jury, and Executioner of all UK Military Aviation Regulation and Air Accident Investigation, and does not tolerate any interference or inquiry into its fiefdom if it can possibly help it.
Self Regulation Does Not Work and in Aviation it Kills!
The point about a factory owner was well made in Holyrood's committee room
Self Regulation Does Not Work and in Aviation it Kills!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Still waiting for the link.." It'll be a long wait since as you well know, how could there possibly be a link to a non-existent report. Since you ask, recent FAI reports are listed on the Judiciary for Scotland website. Older ones on that of National Records of Scotland (nrscotland) under Sheriff's records. There is a different procedure for reports befor 1895. But you probably know this already since your other posts display sound knowledge of the rules surrounding FAI's. But even if you didn't, you've admitted to being in correspondence with the Lord Advocate. Couldn't you have found your answer from your dialogue with him?
Even then, there have been many fatal accidents involving service personnel in Scotland. Few of them were subject to an FAI. I agree with your point that this is unsatisfactory in this day. Any one of them would have served to illustrate your legal point. It just happened to be this one? Surely a general question about FAI's would have served your case better...but you chose to ask, indeed entitle your thread, about this particular crash and no other? The way the thread has progressed since then was entirely predictable from the outset.
Even then, there have been many fatal accidents involving service personnel in Scotland. Few of them were subject to an FAI. I agree with your point that this is unsatisfactory in this day. Any one of them would have served to illustrate your legal point. It just happened to be this one? Surely a general question about FAI's would have served your case better...but you chose to ask, indeed entitle your thread, about this particular crash and no other? The way the thread has progressed since then was entirely predictable from the outset.
SO:-
So when you posted the above you really meant that the Judiciary for Scotland Site did not answer the OP? Or are you now saying that it answered it only in the negative, that because Glen Ogle was not listed, therefore no FAI had been held? (Giving you a bit of a lifeline there if you want to grasp it).
The above quote was in reply to my post in which I said:-
Do you now accept that, or are you intent on having your cake and eat it too?
I find it ironic that a straight forward question by DV should be attacked with such vigour by some, while at the same time we are told that there's nothing new to be learned here. More cake?
I repeat :-
It took me 90 seconds to find the answer to his original question on the Judiciary for Scotland website
The above quote was in reply to my post in which I said:-
He didn't know the answer to the question in the OP, that is why he asked it!
I find it ironic that a straight forward question by DV should be attacked with such vigour by some, while at the same time we are told that there's nothing new to be learned here. More cake?
I repeat :-
my conviction that Military Air Safety is not safe in the hands of the MOD, the RAF, the MAA, and the MAAIB, who are united by their 'discretion' in covering up the real causes of many UK Military Air Accidents.
I am disheartened by the anti-DV stance of certain members posting here. How many times do you need to be told?
I struggle to see what benefit could come from a further inquiry.
May I have ago at answering why Glen Ogle was used as an example here? Because it is inextricably linked to Mull of Kintyre by the reviewing officers completely contradicting themselves in the space of a few weeks. If they'd used the argument they put forward on Glen Ogle, the Chinook pilots would not have been blamed. That's why this always been high profile here and most posters understand that. Think I've got that right.
There may be a danger that we throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
I dont detect anyone in this thread who believes that the Lord Advocates current position is appropriate / acceptable / sustainable. Had DV simply stated the position, and opened a petition, he would have a great many signatures, not to mention supporters for what seems like the campaign he is conducting.
What I, and some others before me, took issue with is the rather disingenuous and distasteful use of the Glen Ogle accident as part of the debate.
The facts speak for themselves:
At 8.50am on Friday 1 May, DV posed the seemingly innocuous question concerning Glen Ogle as post 1 on this thread. By post number 4, less than an hour later, he was able to confirm that only a BOI had been held, and that "that is what I have heard from other sources"
By 13.08 on the same day, at post 11 (DV having provided 5 of the 11) we have the statement "moving on 20 years we have a ruling from the Lord Advocate that an FAI is not being called for the Moray Firth accident because those killed were not employed, and it is not in the public interest to have one. Has to change."
Indeed it does have to change, but there can be no doubt that DV was fully aware of the situation before he posted. Moreover, knowing the Lord Advocates position alone was enough to answer the initial question. Why would there have been a FAI when it was policy not to have one?
In my previous post on this thread, I remarked that it was idle to speculate as to the motive for asking a question when you already know the answer, and linking it to such a sensitive case. It remains my view that such speculation is essentially idle, but it did strike me as quite a coincidence that the matter was to be discussed at the Justice committee the following week.... And Fridays are good days for catching the media cycle... And don't the media just love something juicy to get their teeth into rather than some dry legal point...
As I said at the outset, lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. DV makes a valid and important point, and things do need to change. For my part, I would rather Glen Ogle was left out of the debate, not least as there are, sadly, more than enough high profile examples to work with.
I dont detect anyone in this thread who believes that the Lord Advocates current position is appropriate / acceptable / sustainable. Had DV simply stated the position, and opened a petition, he would have a great many signatures, not to mention supporters for what seems like the campaign he is conducting.
What I, and some others before me, took issue with is the rather disingenuous and distasteful use of the Glen Ogle accident as part of the debate.
The facts speak for themselves:
At 8.50am on Friday 1 May, DV posed the seemingly innocuous question concerning Glen Ogle as post 1 on this thread. By post number 4, less than an hour later, he was able to confirm that only a BOI had been held, and that "that is what I have heard from other sources"
By 13.08 on the same day, at post 11 (DV having provided 5 of the 11) we have the statement "moving on 20 years we have a ruling from the Lord Advocate that an FAI is not being called for the Moray Firth accident because those killed were not employed, and it is not in the public interest to have one. Has to change."
Indeed it does have to change, but there can be no doubt that DV was fully aware of the situation before he posted. Moreover, knowing the Lord Advocates position alone was enough to answer the initial question. Why would there have been a FAI when it was policy not to have one?
In my previous post on this thread, I remarked that it was idle to speculate as to the motive for asking a question when you already know the answer, and linking it to such a sensitive case. It remains my view that such speculation is essentially idle, but it did strike me as quite a coincidence that the matter was to be discussed at the Justice committee the following week.... And Fridays are good days for catching the media cycle... And don't the media just love something juicy to get their teeth into rather than some dry legal point...
As I said at the outset, lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. DV makes a valid and important point, and things do need to change. For my part, I would rather Glen Ogle was left out of the debate, not least as there are, sadly, more than enough high profile examples to work with.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my previous post on this thread, I remarked that it was idle to speculate as to the motive for asking a question when you already know the answer, and linking it to such a sensitive case. It remains my view that such speculation is essentially idle, but it did strike me as quite a coincidence that the matter was to be discussed at the Justice committee the following week.... And Fridays are good days for catching the media cycle... And don't the media just love something juicy to get their teeth into rather than some dry legal point...
Yes there was a meeting of the Justice Committee, and Glen Ogle was mentioned, but not for "juicy" reasons but in order to make "some dry legal point". MoK was mentioned and so was the Moray Firth accident.
Picked up the following on Twitter http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/pa...=9935&mode=pdf
DV
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV, don't take it personally. There seems to be a clique of the Old Boys Club here that would rather certain things just die quietly. I'd suggest the agenda at play is theirs, not yours.
f900:-
and you will find in every other example, high profile or no, the same thoughts expressed as yours. Every fatal accident thread on this forum has attracted posts suggesting that things be left as they were, stating:
That VSOs are honourable, and the very suggestion that they should issue any unlawful commands or be party to a cover up is unacceptable.
That the families would face fresh anguish at further debate of the circumstances of the deaths of their loved ones (many in fact were at the forefront of demands for the facts to be revealed).
That the F700 showed that the aircraft was fully serviceable and therefore must have been airworthy. (Yeah, right)
That the crew were at fault by allegedly skipping breakfast (RAF aircrew?) and therefore responsible for the subsequent tragedy.
That the crew were responsible for the tragedy by flying too low, rendering them vulnerable to small arms fire when their aircraft was knowingly unfit for purpose by the regulator for use in an operational environment.
That the crew were responsible for the tragedy by switching off their forward HISLs despite the fact that they blinded them, having been illegally fitted in the first place.
...etc, etc. Believe me when I say that when you have been close to an accident, have lost friends and colleagues, have raged at the crass intervention of the media who can't even get the facts that they are briefed on correct, the natural and understandable reaction is to keep that grief to oneselves and to shut others out.
I say that because I have been there myself, but at least I then had confidence in the system manning up to the issues and making sure that, whatever it took, action would be taken to avoid future occurrences. No such confidence can be felt these days because the system is not just compromised but utterly broken, and has to be rebuilt.
That is the agenda that I suspect I share with DV and for that matter anyone that calls themselves a professional aviator. Those who set out to subvert that process should ask themselves what that makes them.
I would rather Glen Ogle was left out of the debate, not least as there are, sadly, more than enough high profile examples to work with.
That VSOs are honourable, and the very suggestion that they should issue any unlawful commands or be party to a cover up is unacceptable.
That the families would face fresh anguish at further debate of the circumstances of the deaths of their loved ones (many in fact were at the forefront of demands for the facts to be revealed).
That the F700 showed that the aircraft was fully serviceable and therefore must have been airworthy. (Yeah, right)
That the crew were at fault by allegedly skipping breakfast (RAF aircrew?) and therefore responsible for the subsequent tragedy.
That the crew were responsible for the tragedy by flying too low, rendering them vulnerable to small arms fire when their aircraft was knowingly unfit for purpose by the regulator for use in an operational environment.
That the crew were responsible for the tragedy by switching off their forward HISLs despite the fact that they blinded them, having been illegally fitted in the first place.
...etc, etc. Believe me when I say that when you have been close to an accident, have lost friends and colleagues, have raged at the crass intervention of the media who can't even get the facts that they are briefed on correct, the natural and understandable reaction is to keep that grief to oneselves and to shut others out.
I say that because I have been there myself, but at least I then had confidence in the system manning up to the issues and making sure that, whatever it took, action would be taken to avoid future occurrences. No such confidence can be felt these days because the system is not just compromised but utterly broken, and has to be rebuilt.
That is the agenda that I suspect I share with DV and for that matter anyone that calls themselves a professional aviator. Those who set out to subvert that process should ask themselves what that makes them.
That the crew were at fault by allegedly skipping breakfast (RAF aircrew?) and therefore responsible for the subsequent tragedy.
DV, no need to repeat you did not know the answer to your question, sadly there are those that want full and frank accident investigation, but draw a line in the sand if there close to the people involved in an accident, then that rule goes out the window.
All accidents should be fully and frankly investigated where ever they happen, if that means a FAI for every accident then so be it. The culture of "we know but you do not need to" "keep the toothpaste in the tube" kills people and continues to. I am speaking in general and not about Glen Ogle before anyone leaps on me BTW.