Loss of Hercules XC193 on 27th May 1993

[Distant Voice]

Loss of Hercules XV193 on 27th May 1993

Hercules XV193 was en route from RAF Lyneham to RAF Kinloss when it crashed in Glen Loch in the Scottish Highlands on 27th May 1993. All nine on board the aircraft lost their life. They were;

Sqn Ldr Graeme Paul Young (54) AFC RAF
Sqn Ldr Stanley Duncan Muir (49) RAF
Flt Lt Graham Robert John Southard (33) RAF
Flt Lt Stephen Paul McNally (27) RAF
Fg Off Jonathan Huw Owen (23) RAF
M Acr Terence John William Gilmore (39) RAF
Sgt Craig Thomas Hilliard (23) RAF
Sgt Alan Keith King (32) RAF
Lance Cpl Gary Reginald Manning (23) Army (RLC)

I understand that the Board of Inquiry's findings were inconclusive. Does anyone know if a Coroner's Inquest or Fatal Accident Inquiry was carried out?

DV

[sycamore]

Small,important correction DV; it was XV193.....

[Distant Voice]

Thanks Sycamore.

DV

[Dougie M]

[Distant Voice]

Dougie M: Fishing? Not in the sense that you probably mean, just trying to gather information in order to put right what could be wrong. If an FAI or Inquest was not carried out then the families of the lost crew were wronged.

DV

[isaneng]

More information about your intent may help to gain a more amicable response from those who have grown weary and suspicious of such enquiries. I mean no disrespect to you, I am sure you will understand such caution.

[Distant Voice]

More information about your intent may help to gain a more amicable response from those who have grown weary and suspicious of such enquiries. I mean no disrespect to you, I am sure you will understand such caution.

My intent is to highlight the anomolies between the Engish Inquest system and the Scottish Fatal Accident (FAI) system. I suspect that in this case, seeing as the aircraft crashed in Scotland, an FAI was not held because the aircrew were not considered to be "employees in the course of their employment". And because they had left English airspace they would not be covered by a Coroner's inquest, which would have been a mandatory public inquiry. Also, if other accidents are anything to go by, the Lord Advocate would not have considered it to be in the public interest to hold an FAI. Crazy but true.

Currently a bill is going through the Scottish Parliament to bring the FAI Act of 1976 into the 21st century. Understanding what has happened in the past is important so that any changes introduced by the bill can eliminate this crazy state of affairs in the future. Also, it may demontrate that the Crown Office of Scotland have, for they past thirty years, and with the approval of MoD, acted purely in accordance with the "letter of the law (act)", rather than the "spirit" in which it was drawn up.

By the way no disrespect taken, I fully understand your concerns

DV

[Dougie M]

XV 193

DV you have a PM

[Davef68]

DV, have you tried an FOI Request to the Crown Office regarding the issue of whether FAIs were held?

This Herald article says there will be no FAI held, but that an inquest was held in England

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...-case-1.686037

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...g-mod-1.474140

Seems to be the same coroner as investigated the Iraq crash

I was suspicious of DV's intent on the previous Tornado thread, but they appear to be entirely honourable

[dervish]

Distant Voice

I admire your persistence. You have highlighted a real hit and miss system for dealing with a very serious matter.

[MightyGem]

Small,important correction DV

Another, small correction; L(ance)/Cpl rather than Lt(Lieutenant) Cpl.

[Top West 50]

The findings were not "inconclusive" and the Procurator Fiscal was involved.

[Distant Voice]

Davef68:Many thanks for that very useful information, its the kind of thing that I was looking for on the Glen Ogle thread, but some people thought I was trying to dig up dirt.

What is clear is that an inquest was held following the repatriation to England of most crew members. That is why it would be helpful to know what happened in the Glen Ogle case. It also begs the question as to why an FAI was held for the MoK accident and not an Inquest. Looks like an inconsistency in the legal system. If people have a right to be repatriated to their homeland for final examination then the Moray Firth accident should command an Inquest.

I have submitted a number of FOIs to the Crown Office, but they advise me that their database has limitations and the information that I have requested could be costly to retrieve.

DV

[Distant Voice]

The findings were not "inconclusive" and the Procurator Fiscal was involved.

Not sure what you meanby that statement.

DV

[Top West 50]

Take it from me, the findings were as clear as could be - there was no significant doubt as to what happened. The Scottish authorities interviewd the Board at an early stage and there was no doubt as to who was responsible for what. Why don't you read the proceedings before sounding off?

[dervish]

Polite enough reply.....

Take it from me, the findings were as clear as could be - there was no significant doubt as to what happened. The Scottish authorities interviewd the Board at an early stage and there was no doubt as to who was responsible for what.

Spoiled by.....

Why don't you read the proceedings before sounding off?

Suggest you read DV's posts and previous questions.

[Distant Voice]

Thanks Dervish, I was about to say the same.

He missed the point completely. My question does not relate to the cause of the crash, but the inquiries the took place after the event.

What proceedings I am supposed to read?

So far, thanks to this forum, I have established, that for five air accidents in Scotland we have,

(1) Hercules, 9 dead, inquest held in England. No FAI.
(2) Chinook (MoK) FAI held in Scotland, because civilians on board were "in the course of carrying out their employment". No Inquest.
(3) Tornado, Glen Ogle, 2 dead. Apparently no FAI or Inquest.
(4) Tornado, Glen Kinglass, 2 dead, Apparently no FAI or Inquest.
(5) Tornado, Moray Firth, 3 dead. No FAI because the crews were not "in the course of their employment". No Inquest.

Is someone playing with the law?

DV

[falcon900]

DV,
You may recollect that I was one of those who questioned your motives on the Glen Ogle thread, and whilst I stand by what I wrote at the time, I have come round to the view that you are indeed trying to bring about a change to a situation which most everyone (maybe even everyone, but it is unusual for there to be unanimity of view on this forum!) agrees is ridiculous and most unsatisfactory.
I have to say though that it still strikes me as rather disingenuous to open threads headlined by reference to an aircraft loss in Scotland, asking whether there had been a FAI.
You know there hasn't been a FAI, and you know the reason why.
Would your cause not be better served by starting a thread along the lines of "Ridiculous and outdated legislation in Scotland prevents investigation of military deaths" and citing the evidence there. I doubt there would be any shortage of support, and without the subterfuge there would be far less suspicion. Just a thought.

[Chugalug2]

f900:-

it still strikes me as rather disingenuous...

What strikes me as disingenuous is to constantly snipe at someone who is clearly trying to encourage the investigation of UK Military Fatal Air Accidents by anyone other than the operator's own subordinated investigator, yet admit that what he reveals is;

ridiculous and most unsatisfactory.

There seems to be a default position by many that post here as, "it may well be a corrupt and dysfunctional system, but it is our corrupt and dysfunctional system". I find such truculence to be both delusional and unprofessional. The MOD has wasted many lives and much treasure in subverting UK Military Air Safety, from which its iron grip should now be wrested.

In England it has taken an 800 year old institution to tell one that is not yet 100, "There is something wrong with your bloody aircraft!". Time that its Scottish counterpart started saying the same thing.

[falcon900]

Chugalug2,
For the avoidance of doubt, I too would like to see the law changed. The point I am trying to make is that there seems little to be achieved by dredging up historic aircraft losses to evidence a position which is already 100% established as fact.
As things stand in Scotland, Serving personnel are not considered to be in the course of their employment, and consequently there is not a FAI in the event of their death. Fact.
Nobody is "playing" with the law, nobody is trying to pretend there is any other reason for not holding FAIs in these circumstances. Like you, I believe it is in everyones interests that the situation is addressed and the law changed, and I hope that this is the conclusion which the Justice committee will reach.
I am not criticising DV for championing this issue, simply questioning his modus operandi on this forum.