Nuclear death traps.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its been a very serious matter, although I started the thread rather tongue in cheek I do admit. If even 50% is true then the RN and the UK has some serious answers to make.
Personally I think something has gone on. Year on year budget cuts, relatively low moral, declining esteem of and within the military, increasing demands for Trident to be relocated or scrapped all together....over familiarity among defence workers with security services and their procedures? Maybe it really leaps out at you when you see it for the first time?
Who was the young chap who was supplying Winston Churchill with secret information about the rise and expansion of the Nazi Luftwaffe? Well known by the Baldwin Govt. at the time but dismissed and constantly undermined.
We dismiss well meaning whistle blowers on defence matters at our nations very peril.
Personally I think something has gone on. Year on year budget cuts, relatively low moral, declining esteem of and within the military, increasing demands for Trident to be relocated or scrapped all together....over familiarity among defence workers with security services and their procedures? Maybe it really leaps out at you when you see it for the first time?
Who was the young chap who was supplying Winston Churchill with secret information about the rise and expansion of the Nazi Luftwaffe? Well known by the Baldwin Govt. at the time but dismissed and constantly undermined.
We dismiss well meaning whistle blowers on defence matters at our nations very peril.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,094
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We dismiss well meaning whistle blowers on defence matters at our nations very peril.
SNLR was not a good discharge in the Army and in the discharge book it would also give overall conduct, rating from Exemplary down to Unsatisfactory, not a good reference so he will probably get a job with the Guardian as a messenger
Hangarshuffle
Well said. Many years ago when aviation safety failures were notified they were covered up. In those days we didn't have internet or social media sites to spread the word. It took the Nimrod Review and, especially, the Philip Review to finally accept this. The vast majority of pretty well informed people here on pprune thought the notion of cover up mad. A mere handful of a 60 million population were interested. But that shouldn't detract from the proven fact that MoD and Governments of every persuasion lied and deceived for over 2 decades.
The failures in aviation were (are) systemic. We have a Military Aviation Authority now, not a Nimrod authority. Their corporate knowledge is very poor, for the reasons you list. On pprune, we have a sticky thread which amply demonstrates this. The last thing we heard from a specialist MoD safety department was a link to an article confirming they don't know the difference between functional and physical safety. That's frightening.
The failures alleged by Mr McNeilly are simply regulated by different pages of the same book. Air (and Land) Systems in MoD have been shown to be appallingly lax in their implementation. This will cost more to correct than it would have to implement properly in the first place. So why would Sea Systems be immune?
My guess is McNeilly remembered his recent and (probably) excellent training, and when putting it into practice noticed failures. Any concerns would have been dismissed out of hand. There is a case here for listening to the "inexperienced" man above the experienced, because he's gone through his training more recently and hasn't had time for poor practices to be ingrained. His detailed interpretation may be slightly flawed, but we all recognise the generic failures he alleges. Instead, MoD reverts to default mode - the lone voice is always wrong. That's what happened when Adam Ingram was informed of the systemic failings the year before XV230. The Nimrod Review's recommendations can be summed up as "implement your mandated regulations". That should be a warning. Instead, MoD shoots the messenger and carries on regardless.
The term "whistleblower" has negative connotations. But if you're had any form of safety related delegated authority, you'll know it is actually an obligation. You MUST report, and you MUST escalate if ignored. But the system assumes everyone does their job properly, so there is no clear guidance on what to do if they don't. I can't condemn McNeilly for going public. I don't know enough to form a judgement on his character. But I know enough about MoD and their policy of disciplining staff who meet legal obligations.
Its been a very serious matter, although I started the thread rather tongue in cheek I do admit. If even 50% is true then the RN and the UK has some serious answers to make.
Personally I think something has gone on. Year on year budget cuts, relatively low moral, declining esteem of and within the military, increasing demands for Trident to be relocated or scrapped all together....over familiarity among defence workers with security services and their procedures? Maybe it really leaps out at you when you see it for the first time?
Who was the young chap who was supplying Winston Churchill with secret information about the rise and expansion of the Nazi Luftwaffe? Well known by the Baldwin Govt. at the time but dismissed and constantly undermined.
We dismiss well meaning whistle blowers on defence matters at our nations very peril.
Personally I think something has gone on. Year on year budget cuts, relatively low moral, declining esteem of and within the military, increasing demands for Trident to be relocated or scrapped all together....over familiarity among defence workers with security services and their procedures? Maybe it really leaps out at you when you see it for the first time?
Who was the young chap who was supplying Winston Churchill with secret information about the rise and expansion of the Nazi Luftwaffe? Well known by the Baldwin Govt. at the time but dismissed and constantly undermined.
We dismiss well meaning whistle blowers on defence matters at our nations very peril.
The failures in aviation were (are) systemic. We have a Military Aviation Authority now, not a Nimrod authority. Their corporate knowledge is very poor, for the reasons you list. On pprune, we have a sticky thread which amply demonstrates this. The last thing we heard from a specialist MoD safety department was a link to an article confirming they don't know the difference between functional and physical safety. That's frightening.
The failures alleged by Mr McNeilly are simply regulated by different pages of the same book. Air (and Land) Systems in MoD have been shown to be appallingly lax in their implementation. This will cost more to correct than it would have to implement properly in the first place. So why would Sea Systems be immune?
My guess is McNeilly remembered his recent and (probably) excellent training, and when putting it into practice noticed failures. Any concerns would have been dismissed out of hand. There is a case here for listening to the "inexperienced" man above the experienced, because he's gone through his training more recently and hasn't had time for poor practices to be ingrained. His detailed interpretation may be slightly flawed, but we all recognise the generic failures he alleges. Instead, MoD reverts to default mode - the lone voice is always wrong. That's what happened when Adam Ingram was informed of the systemic failings the year before XV230. The Nimrod Review's recommendations can be summed up as "implement your mandated regulations". That should be a warning. Instead, MoD shoots the messenger and carries on regardless.
The term "whistleblower" has negative connotations. But if you're had any form of safety related delegated authority, you'll know it is actually an obligation. You MUST report, and you MUST escalate if ignored. But the system assumes everyone does their job properly, so there is no clear guidance on what to do if they don't. I can't condemn McNeilly for going public. I don't know enough to form a judgement on his character. But I know enough about MoD and their policy of disciplining staff who meet legal obligations.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
To answer the question in the quote above,
I believe young is a relatively term, especially given 20year old Spitfire pilots ( or even 23 year old nuclear bomber pilots 50 years ago). In Churchill' s case he had several informants, civil service and military. In the OP case I think it was a wg cdr.
Who was the young chap who was supplying Winston Churchill with secret information about the rise and expansion of the Nazi Luftwaffe? Well known by the Baldwin Govt. at the time but dismissed and constantly undermined.
I'll say it again for the benefit of those who are 20 years out of date, and have never been to sea. There are procedures in place for all of this stuff. Unfortunate the clustermuppet didn't know how to access them, didn't know that lots of other people were documenting and investigating them, and frankly, as a Part 3, was a danger to himself and his shipmates until he passed his SMQ.
There are procedures in place for all of this stuff.
atg:-
I don't doubt that the procedures are in place. I suspect that even AB(ex) McNeilly believes them to be in place. I also suspect that his message is that though in place they are not fully implemented.
He may or not be correct. It would be nice though if there were something more positive than a:-
W00:-
that he is not.
There are procedures in place for all of this stuff.
He may or not be correct. It would be nice though if there were something more positive than a:-
W00:-
general drift
Well, it looks like the whole issue has been put to bed. The RN seem to feel they've neutered both the lad and his report and can move on. With an issue like that, I doubt we'll see much more of it in the public domain regardless of any further action they may or may not take. I recall the issue (probably meaning the individual) was being investigated, but whatever findings there were (or may yet be) will be for the Navy Board to see, not us.
The credibility of the UK's nuclear deterrent isn't really a subject for public scrutiny, so any findings and follow-up actions will be quiet and in-house.
The credibility of the UK's nuclear deterrent isn't really a subject for public scrutiny, so any findings and follow-up actions will be quiet and in-house.
Airpolice - in not going to go into the fine detail of the process, but it's extensive and in place.
And given that we all go to sea in the same tub, the Command have a highly vested interest in getting it right - we're going to die right alongside the 'noble whistleblower'...
And given that we all go to sea in the same tub, the Command have a highly vested interest in getting it right - we're going to die right alongside the 'noble whistleblower'...
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alf, I don't suppose that the boats are all doomed and ready to sink/explode at any moment.
But...... I don't suppose he made it all up.
Maybe they don't need to change working practices, just the rules, in order to achieve compliance. I thought that most of his rant was about people not complying with rules.
But...... I don't suppose he made it all up.
Maybe they don't need to change working practices, just the rules, in order to achieve compliance. I thought that most of his rant was about people not complying with rules.
ap:-
Classic! The MAA are crying out for people with that sort of positive outlook!
Maybe they don't need to change working practices, just the rules, in order to achieve compliance.
atg:-
I don't doubt that the procedures are in place. I suspect that even AB(ex) McNeilly believes them to be in place. I also suspect that his message is that though in place they are not fully implemented.
He may or not be correct. It would be nice though if there were something more positive than a:-
W00:-
that he is not.
I don't doubt that the procedures are in place. I suspect that even AB(ex) McNeilly believes them to be in place. I also suspect that his message is that though in place they are not fully implemented.
He may or not be correct. It would be nice though if there were something more positive than a:-
W00:-
that he is not.
Not.
A.
Single.
One.
Of.
Them.
Have.
Backed.
Him.
Up.
Not one. These are people who have no requirement to be 'loyal', who have multiple, easy, routes to 'blow' a whistle, who are not in the hunt for promotion or futher pay. Yet no-one has said it's true, that's what's happening; all I've seen is mild annoyance and utter p*ss taking aimed at him.
Perhaps it says something?
atg:-
Sorry, old chap, didn't quite get yer banter there, what?
As to Mr McNeilly's lack of endorsement, that I'm afraid is the lot of any whistleblower, Mr Snowden et al. Of course he is despised, of course he has betrayed his colleagues and his Service, of course he deserves the ostracism that will now come his way, but...
These
are
nuclear
warheads
and
nuclear
reactors
that
he
declares
are
not
being
operated
in
accordance
with
the
regulations,
and at the very least that should be looked into by official inquiry, because if there be a grain of truth in what he says then that is one grain too much. Of course Courtney is quite right that if such inquiry is made we will certainly not hear of it. For myself I would rather hope for that than seek reassurance in any of your rhetorical outbursts. They seem to imply that no such inquiry is required simply because everyone else is keeping shtum!
Cabbage crates coming over the briney, don't yer know.
Quite a few of them are rightly threaders with the RN over their TACOS.
As to Mr McNeilly's lack of endorsement, that I'm afraid is the lot of any whistleblower, Mr Snowden et al. Of course he is despised, of course he has betrayed his colleagues and his Service, of course he deserves the ostracism that will now come his way, but...
These
are
nuclear
warheads
and
nuclear
reactors
that
he
declares
are
not
being
operated
in
accordance
with
the
regulations,
and at the very least that should be looked into by official inquiry, because if there be a grain of truth in what he says then that is one grain too much. Of course Courtney is quite right that if such inquiry is made we will certainly not hear of it. For myself I would rather hope for that than seek reassurance in any of your rhetorical outbursts. They seem to imply that no such inquiry is required simply because everyone else is keeping shtum!
Cabbage crates coming over the briney, don't yer know.
I suggest this is not the place to discuss this further in such a manner. Understand that what you post here will change nothing about this issue, but it may not be wholly constructive. Leave it, not the place for this.
Well that rather depends upon what you mean by "this issue", CM. The issue for me is, as in UK Military Air Safety, that the Regulator, Investigator, and Operator, are one and the same (ie the MOD and its subsidiaries). The only redeeming factor in this case is that the reactors' regulation reverts to another regulator when tied up to the land (I think that's the correct technical term).
Military Airworthiness has been made dysfunctional and unworkable as a result of that same incestuous arrangement. The implications of anything like that happening to Military Nuclear Operation are unthinkable, but putting our heads into brown paper bags isn't the answer.
Understand in turn that this issue will not go away, and the days of avuncular assurances that lessons will be learned and it will all be taken care of are long past. Of course the resolution will be done behind closed doors, but I for one will expect some form of announcement at its completion of a regulatory reform. If I hear nothing, or even that all is well and no change is called for, I will be getting out the worry beads.
Not the place to discuss these matters? It never is for some. I'll leave that to the mods to decide though. Will you?
Military Airworthiness has been made dysfunctional and unworkable as a result of that same incestuous arrangement. The implications of anything like that happening to Military Nuclear Operation are unthinkable, but putting our heads into brown paper bags isn't the answer.
Understand in turn that this issue will not go away, and the days of avuncular assurances that lessons will be learned and it will all be taken care of are long past. Of course the resolution will be done behind closed doors, but I for one will expect some form of announcement at its completion of a regulatory reform. If I hear nothing, or even that all is well and no change is called for, I will be getting out the worry beads.
Not the place to discuss these matters? It never is for some. I'll leave that to the mods to decide though. Will you?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok
I have more time in the RAF than he has in the RN, and I hereby declare that I think the RAF is secretly faking all the flights. They don't actually have any aircraft left.
Can I have an official enquiry?
Just because nobody is backing me up doesn't make it untrue, surely?
I have more time in the RAF than he has in the RN, and I hereby declare that I think the RAF is secretly faking all the flights. They don't actually have any aircraft left.
Can I have an official enquiry?
Just because nobody is backing me up doesn't make it untrue, surely?
The guy was a fruit loop who only just made the bottom link of the food chain before bailing out. If there is any enquiry, it should examine how he managed to get even that far.
No sensible person would give him or his irrational ramblings the thinnest veneer of credibility. By the same token, the Greens and SNP have obviously taken him to their heart.
No sensible person would give him or his irrational ramblings the thinnest veneer of credibility. By the same token, the Greens and SNP have obviously taken him to their heart.
Last edited by FODPlod; 22nd Jun 2015 at 23:12.
Tourist:-
I hereby declare that the RAF put an aircraft type into Squadron service with an illegal RTS.
There was an Official Inquiry into a subsequent accident when all 29 occupants were killed. The illegal RTS never came up. It was issued by the operator/regulator/investigator.
Good luck with your Inquiry, though I am rather more intrigued by your previous RAF career. Did you enjoy it?
I have more time in the RAF than he has in the RN, and I hereby declare that I think the RAF is secretly faking all the flights.
There was an Official Inquiry into a subsequent accident when all 29 occupants were killed. The illegal RTS never came up. It was issued by the operator/regulator/investigator.
Good luck with your Inquiry, though I am rather more intrigued by your previous RAF career. Did you enjoy it?