Fatal Accident Inquiries and Inquest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatal Accident Inquiries and Inquest
Between June 1985 and July 1992 there were three aircraft accidents in Scotland in which four crew members lost their lives. They were;
(a) 14th June 1985, Buccaneer XV341, Lossiemouth.
(b) 27th June 1990, Canberra WH972, Kinloss.
(c) 9th July 1992, Buccaneer XN976, Leuchars.
Information regarding whether or not an FAI or Inquest was held for any of these accidents would be greatly appreciated in order to clearify some aspects of the FAI bill currently making its way through the Scottish Parliament.
DV
(a) 14th June 1985, Buccaneer XV341, Lossiemouth.
(b) 27th June 1990, Canberra WH972, Kinloss.
(c) 9th July 1992, Buccaneer XN976, Leuchars.
Information regarding whether or not an FAI or Inquest was held for any of these accidents would be greatly appreciated in order to clearify some aspects of the FAI bill currently making its way through the Scottish Parliament.
DV
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wilts
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Between June 1985 and July 1992 there were three aircraft accidents in Scotland in which four crew members lost their lives. They were;
(a) 14th June 1985, Buccaneer XV341, Lossiemouth.
(b) 27th June 1990, Canberra WH972, Kinloss.
(c) 9th July 1992, Buccaneer XN976, Leuchars.
Information regarding whether or not an FAI or Inquest was held for any of these accidents would be greatly appreciated in order to clearify some aspects of the FAI bill currently making its way through the Scottish Parliament.
DV
(a) 14th June 1985, Buccaneer XV341, Lossiemouth.
(b) 27th June 1990, Canberra WH972, Kinloss.
(c) 9th July 1992, Buccaneer XN976, Leuchars.
Information regarding whether or not an FAI or Inquest was held for any of these accidents would be greatly appreciated in order to clearify some aspects of the FAI bill currently making its way through the Scottish Parliament.
DV
An inquest may have been held outwith Scotland if the deceased was repatriated to NI, Wales or England.
Sorry DV, can't help, but keep up the fight.
Bear with it. It definitely is.
Sorry DV, can't help, but keep up the fight.
Not really a question for a military aviation forum
KG86:-
Classic! The sounds of thudding stable doors reverberating throughout Whitehall. As dervish says, I fear that you are greatly mistaken KG.
Keep up the good work, DV. The truth will out, always!
Not really a question for a military aviation forum, more for the Scottish Parliament/Office. FAIs are a civil matter.
Keep up the good work, DV. The truth will out, always!
Sadly as well as the Shackleton there were other accidents that took place in Scotland over that time period with further fatalities. Is there any reason for focusing on these particular 3?
CHaps,
Have a look at DV's previous posts. He has a habit of taking one accident at a time. He is genuinely trying to establish if inquiries were held into these service deaths.
He is trying to do a good thing here.
In the case of the Harris Shackleton crash, it's easily confirmedno FAI was held.
Have a look at DV's previous posts. He has a habit of taking one accident at a time. He is genuinely trying to establish if inquiries were held into these service deaths.
He is trying to do a good thing here.
In the case of the Harris Shackleton crash, it's easily confirmedno FAI was held.
HC Deb 20 March 1991 vol 188 cc154-5W 154W
§ Miss Lestor To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons it was decided not to hold a fatal accident inquiry into the RAF Shackleton crash on South Harris in 1990.
§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton [holding answer 15 March 1991]: I have been asked to reply.
On behalf of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, who has responsibility for fatal accident inquiries, I advise the hon. Member that the question whether such an inquiry should be held received careful consideration. It is not the practice of the Lord Advocate, however, to divulge his reasons for deciding not to hold an inquiry.
On behalf of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, who has responsibility for fatal accident inquiries, I advise the hon. Member that the question whether such an inquiry should be held received careful consideration. It is not the practice of the Lord Advocate, however, to divulge his reasons for deciding not to hold an inquiry.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly as well as the Shackleton there were other accidents that took place in Scotland over that time period with further fatalities. Is there any reason for focusing on these particular 3?
I guess I should have broadened my search for information to cover fatalities between 1976 (the introduction of the current FAI act) and the MoK accident in 1994.
DV
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He is trying to do a good thing here.
DV
The purpose of an FAI under the 1976 is to establish a defined set of data related to the death. It does appear that when a specialist enquiry has already taken place which establishes the same key data, a FAI is less likely to be held.
Of course all of these crews were at work at the time of the incident so an FAI should be automatic.
Of course all of these crews were at work at the time of the incident so an FAI should be automatic.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does appear that when a specialist enquiry has already taken place which establishes the same key data, a FAI is less likely to be held.
Of course all of these crews were at work at the time of the incident so an FAI should be automatic.
Or the 819 SQN Navy Sea King crash near Leuchars in Jun 85. 1 killed, 1 badly injured and 2 minor injuries.
DV
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sea King crash
Do you know if this, or any other fatal accident, was followed up with an FAI or Coroner's Inquest?
DV[/QUOTE]
I very much doubt it as even 30 years ago some of the contributary causes of the accident would not have held The Navy out in a good light.
DV[/QUOTE]
I very much doubt it as even 30 years ago some of the contributary causes of the accident would not have held The Navy out in a good light.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I very much doubt it as even 30 years ago some of the contributory causes of the accident would not have held The Navy out in a good light.
So why the implied remarks that the alleged shortcomings of the Scottish FAI procedure have anything whatsoever to do with the military???????? Or am I reading it wrong???
TOFO
For a very long time I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. I sat in the High Court of Appeal in 1972 and listened to Lords Stott and Robertson give MoD (and a Sheriff) the most God awful earful. Lord Murray, the Lord Advocate when the FAI rules DV mentions were laid down, would in his heyday have taken the Crown Office and Procurators Fiscal to the cleaners over this current misinterpretation. (And may still do).
But there has recently been a noticeable shift. Lord Philip didn't speak up when both Houses disgracefully misrepresented his Mull of Kintyre report; although Malcolm Bruce came close when acknowledging that all politicians lied! It must be very clear to the CO and PF that the Paisley Sheriff was serially lied to by MoD in 1996 but they said nothing; yet they have a duty to try to prevent recurrence. (Shared by Coroners).
I think you always have to ask who benefits from decisions or rulings; in this case it is MoD. You also have to study what MoD is prepared to lie about. It is ludicrous to claim there is no public interest. JSP553 clearly says there is. It was a lie to claim CWS could not have been in the Moray Firth Tornados. DV uncovered evidence from the early 90s that CWS was good to go, but was delayed for many years. The same lie was told on C130 XV179, when MoD claimed not to have known about ESF until after the crash. The Coroner was not amused when presented with MoD's own ESF specs dated 25 years earlier. I'd say that Wiltshire Coroner was far more robust than the current crop in Edinburgh.
MoD's influence may be subtle. Perhaps just an establishment notion they must always be given the benefit of considerable doubt. MoD is self healing. You'd like to think they'd learn lessons after being caught out committing very serious offences on Nimrod, Chinook, Hercules, Tornado and, especially, Sea King ASaC (which is perhaps the daddy of them all). But they don't. So DV, keep digging.
For a very long time I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. I sat in the High Court of Appeal in 1972 and listened to Lords Stott and Robertson give MoD (and a Sheriff) the most God awful earful. Lord Murray, the Lord Advocate when the FAI rules DV mentions were laid down, would in his heyday have taken the Crown Office and Procurators Fiscal to the cleaners over this current misinterpretation. (And may still do).
But there has recently been a noticeable shift. Lord Philip didn't speak up when both Houses disgracefully misrepresented his Mull of Kintyre report; although Malcolm Bruce came close when acknowledging that all politicians lied! It must be very clear to the CO and PF that the Paisley Sheriff was serially lied to by MoD in 1996 but they said nothing; yet they have a duty to try to prevent recurrence. (Shared by Coroners).
I think you always have to ask who benefits from decisions or rulings; in this case it is MoD. You also have to study what MoD is prepared to lie about. It is ludicrous to claim there is no public interest. JSP553 clearly says there is. It was a lie to claim CWS could not have been in the Moray Firth Tornados. DV uncovered evidence from the early 90s that CWS was good to go, but was delayed for many years. The same lie was told on C130 XV179, when MoD claimed not to have known about ESF until after the crash. The Coroner was not amused when presented with MoD's own ESF specs dated 25 years earlier. I'd say that Wiltshire Coroner was far more robust than the current crop in Edinburgh.
MoD's influence may be subtle. Perhaps just an establishment notion they must always be given the benefit of considerable doubt. MoD is self healing. You'd like to think they'd learn lessons after being caught out committing very serious offences on Nimrod, Chinook, Hercules, Tornado and, especially, Sea King ASaC (which is perhaps the daddy of them all). But they don't. So DV, keep digging.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why the implied remarks that the alleged shortcomings of the Scottish FAI procedure have anything whatsoever to do with the military???????? Or am I reading it wrong???[/QUOTE]
I think that is more the influence that MoD had in those days. The trust us, we will investigate and let you know what happened was alive and well and was trusted by civil authorities.
Also, there wasn't the push from the public providing the impetus for the civil authorities to become involved. Most people just accepted what they were told and the detractors were given little press time and ignored (unless they were really important or cashed up).
I think that is more the influence that MoD had in those days. The trust us, we will investigate and let you know what happened was alive and well and was trusted by civil authorities.
Also, there wasn't the push from the public providing the impetus for the civil authorities to become involved. Most people just accepted what they were told and the detractors were given little press time and ignored (unless they were really important or cashed up).
Last edited by ALTAM; 20th Jul 2015 at 05:34. Reason: Error correction
I do agree that the MoD and BoI president were inexcusably slow to react once the true facts became known during the inquest. There should have been zero delay in informing the coroner.
JTO:-
Seems fair enough to me. If the MOD was offered ESF as part of the ex-factory fit and declined, then further lobbied by the sharp end for that protection in many of the hot spots that the fleet was deployed to and declined, then declares no knowledge of the process whatsoever, that constitutes a lie in my book.
No doubt many of those sent to (mis)represent the MOD at inquests, FAIs etc were selected for the task not for their knowledge but for their lack of it, but that very cynical act is part of the lie also. The MOD is a prolific liar, to the extent that it now believes many of its own lies. That still makes it a liar.
It is a distortion to say that the MoD lied over ESF... it would be unfair to compare this to a deliberate lie - those that were asked simply did not know.
No doubt many of those sent to (mis)represent the MOD at inquests, FAIs etc were selected for the task not for their knowledge but for their lack of it, but that very cynical act is part of the lie also. The MOD is a prolific liar, to the extent that it now believes many of its own lies. That still makes it a liar.