Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Who Speaks for the Dead ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Who Speaks for the Dead ?

Old 1st May 2019, 15:35
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,937
Orca

I do wonder (if I’ve got this right) whether a 22 year old ruling is relevant to the everyday activities within the UK Air Forces?
It is, if it has been enforced and upheld regularly, has led directly to avoidable deaths, and the regulatory authority still briefs against those who insisted on doing the right thing (i.e. met legal obligations instead of obeying orders not to). I’ve said before, the day MoD/MAA admits this ruling is wrong, is the day I’ll happily walk away. It refuses, and you’ve got to ask why. Who benefits?
Is the MAA really that bad? Does the system actually lead to more fatals than any other?
Chug mentioned the Red Arrows’ Cunningham case. The Service Inquiry report, issued by the MAA, sets out the MAA’s direct involvement in a root cause. That was a bit of a shock because hitherto I’d have said theirs was an oversight failure. Had warnings been heeded and regulations followed, neither the inadvertent ejection nor the release mechanism jamming would have occurred. The MAA provided the Prosecution’s ‘star witness’ (Prosecution’s words) in the certain knowledge the allegation against Martin-Baker was false, and MoD was sitting on the information it claimed never to have had, but had instructed staff not to use it. That’s not an allegation. The video is there for all to see, in addition to written and verbal evidence. And precisely the same maintenance error killed Flt Lt Simon Burgess in a Hawk in 1996. (Funny how no-one mentions that). Additionally (and luckily no fatalities) the same Type Airworthiness Authority was responsible for Air Cadet Gliders.
Can you point at one risk today (prob of x impact of) that is greater because of ‘the system’ or any system...just to help me out and contextualise the point?
I know what you mean, but I’m not sure MoD uses such a ‘risk score’ anymore? The same Red Arrows case illustrated that it populated the risk register with known standing risks only after the accident. So, the standing risk (certainty) of MoD managing airworthiness poorly remains; and one would be justified in thinking it worse in certain areas given the Hawk teams didn’t have valid safety cases, even after ‘rigorous’ MAA audit. However, admittedly, one project team involved sought to correct this in 2014 by issuing a tender to provide 62 (sixty-two) safety cases and certifications for safety equipment alone – including the Tornado main parachute. I should emphasise that I do not wish to denigrate MAA staff here – it is a very few senior staff whose default position is to deny and deflect. Why do otherwise sane men act this way? I see them as almost political posts, divorced from the reality of day-to-day safety management. Certainly, they pay no heed to the Military Covenant.
Are the accusations (backed by facts or otherwise) about RAF officers analogous to similar situations in the RN and AAC?
The legal reviews (and Government acceptance of them) speak for themselves. Unfortunately, the few are allowed to judge their own case. To them, I’d add certain senior civilians who were given prior warnings (same as those given to Ministers, above). Their names are well-known. I cannot speak for the AAC.

The RN? Different beast to the RAF (from my viewpoint). Same excellent engineering training, but far less of an admin bias. (I’ve never known the RN to issue an edict that all administrative grades are senior to any engineer. Quickly jumped on and rescinded, but it was the same senior officers who were gleefully shutting down airworthiness management at the same time, and this was an attempt to shut down the engineers who were complaining). The ‘savings at the expense of safety’ policy of June 1987 arguably still persists. One need only point to what would have negated 95% of BoI/SI recommendations. RAF engineers railed against the policy, as did the Director of Flight Safety and, for example, FONAC. But the Senior Service doesn’t escape altogether. When IPTs were reformed in 1999, the very first question put to the Sea King IPTL, a senior RN Captain, was whether a mandated airworthiness policy, whose sole aim was to resolve safety critical problems ASAP, would be implemented. He immediately said NO. No hesitation. (He didn’t understand the question but wouldn’t admit it). He was ignored and contracts let, but some were cancelled by a non-engineer deputy to save money. Their primary output? A maintained Build Standard and safety case, without which one cannot sign the Master Airworthiness Reference.

And, of course, the ASaC Board of Inquiry you mention set out in great detail a raft of airworthiness failings. (Again, the likes of Chug and I are not alleging anything; merely quoting MoD itself, adding what has been omitted and pointing out linkages and recurrences). But it did not say they had been identified in 1994-6, contracts let to mitigate them, and cancelled by the same non-engineer. Not replaced with an alternative risk mitigation strategy. Just cancelled, as he said they weren’t risks in the first place so couldn’t materialise. They did, on 22 March 2003. The Board’s 3 main contributory factors wholly coincided with these known risks. When the President was advised by a family member, he claimed a ‘lack of involvement’; begging the question who was involved, if not the President. I know how you feel Orca – I knew 3 of them myself, and found it difficult explaining all this to the mother and father of a 4th. It’s 46 years since I first had to notify a family (I didn’t know) of a death in person, but explaining it for hours in fine detail is infinitely more difficult. Others may disagree, but either way it’s a crap task. I was asked to do this by their MP, as he (Sir Roger Gale) instinctively knew they’d been lied to. Again, by just a few, but that’s all it takes.The book being discussed here explains direct links to the Tornado ZG710 shootdown the following day. Same people, same decisions. MoD continues to support these actions.

Hope this helps.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 1st May 2019, 16:12
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 454
Tuc, Re Simon Burgess 1996. As I recall it an aileron was disconnected post maintenance. Are you saying that he would have survived but for the same overtightened nut that killed Sean Cunningham?

Last edited by Timelord; 1st May 2019 at 16:53.
Timelord is offline  
Old 2nd May 2019, 09:57
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,937
Timelord. No, I'm referring the the failure to conduct Disturbed Systems Testing on both the disconnected ailerons and the disconnected parachute release mechanism. In the former, someone didn't work backwards through their actions, reconnect and check functionality. In the latter the shackles were reconnected, but incorrectly, and were not (could not be) checked for functionality. The former was an error of omission (I believe). The latter was directed.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 2nd May 2019, 10:02
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 454
Ah, OK. I understand, thanks.
Timelord is offline  
Old 10th May 2019, 17:06
  #25 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 798
..........
"Breaking the Military Covenant"
is now out. Choice of various outlets - got mine already.

Every MP should read it. I will be sending mine a copy.
It provides all you need to know to question the integrity of the current processes.

LFH
........
Lordflasheart is offline  
Old 10th May 2019, 18:26
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: No longer welcome status
Posts: 122
Who speaks for the dead ?

The families and loved ones whom they left behind. Nobody else has the right, not the people who sent them there, they people who were with them, just the people in whose hearts they live forever.
racedo is offline  
Old 10th May 2019, 18:55
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 79
Posts: 4,436
racedo, the greatest support for the reform of UK Military Airworthiness has come time and time again from the bereaved. Without their insistence that they wanted the cover up of the dysfunctional UK Military Air Safety system to be revealed and ended we would have lacked the essential moral authority they gave us. It is they who want us to speak out on behalf of their loved ones, so that others might be spared the anguish they have suffered. Are you saying we shouldn't?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 10th May 2019, 19:27
  #28 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 798
....
Racedo,

I would respectfully suggest that if the ‘unnecessarily deceased’ and the ones who were left behind to grieve, had no idea that lies, concealment and denial would be freely used by the State to cover up the causes and covertly abuse the subsequent proceedings, it might be beneficial for this to be exposed, if only for further similar loss of life and sorrow to be avoided.

Can I send you a copy of the book as a gift ? No charge, no obligation to read it. If you are happy to provide me with an address by pm or email, I promise only to use it for this single purpose and to keep no record.

Kind regards, LFH

................

Last edited by Lordflasheart; 10th May 2019 at 20:02.
Lordflasheart is offline  
Old 10th May 2019, 20:07
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 1,131
Originally Posted by racedo View Post
Who speaks for the dead ?

The families and loved ones whom they left behind. Nobody else has the right, not the people who sent them there, they people who were with them, just the people in whose hearts they live forever.
You are so wrong on so many levels. We all have a responsibility to ensure that mistakes from the past never happen again.
On the most fundamental level of your rather crass comment: genocide should not be repeated, despite there being no families and loved ones left to grieve.
beardy is online now  
Old 10th May 2019, 20:41
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,516
Thanks for the lecture Tuc, but I don't need it, because I recognise you are educated, informed and passionate about your subject, of which you know immeasurably more than I do. I therefore I defer to your view, which I always have.

It is your muppet acolyte that I ignore because of his incessant abuse of any one that disagrees with him, and his random attacks on many RAF people who will served their country well and to the best of their ability, to his crystal ball wizardry that allows him to determine the exact cause of so many accidents, when accident boards (and hundreds of informed military aviators) cannot determine even the probable cause, and most of all his annoying *****ing habit of signing off his posts with his ****ing catchphrase.

Who the **** does he think he is...Cato the ****ing Elder?

Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 10th May 2019, 21:37
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: No longer welcome status
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by Chugalug2 View Post
racedo, the greatest support for the reform of UK Military Airworthiness has come time and time again from the bereaved. Without their insistence that they wanted the cover up of the dysfunctional UK Military Air Safety system to be revealed and ended we would have lacked the essential moral authority they gave us. It is they who want us to speak out on behalf of their loved ones, so that others might be spared the anguish they have suffered. Are you saying we shouldn't?
Who speaks for the dead ?

The families and loved ones whom they left behind.


Not sure how that can be misinterpreted but it seems to have been.

I don't want some F***tard Political or Military figure claiming they speak for the dead. Giving speeches of "worthy sacrifice" when to them it is just cannon fodder and in many cases financial benefit to those higher up the food chain because they refused to provide equipment fit for purpose.

Any attempt at questioning how money supposedly spent on equipment has "disappeared" never gets highlighted with a compliant media and any parent demanding answers gets patronised as "suffering from grief" etc while those made wealthy just count their wealth.

Hell we just look at how nuch money was made on military housing yet it is still in many cases not fit for purpose.

I am happy with a robust Defence but question what part of Defense is it to be involved in dismembering countries to assist resource grabs by big business. Basically UK forces are someone elses Mercaneries, supposedly to protect UK is the line constantly spun but gave up believing that decades ago.

Watching and seeing body bags come home and mass migration because of these policies you wonder what kind of evil exists in the corridors of power.
racedo is offline  
Old 10th May 2019, 21:45
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: No longer welcome status
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by beardy View Post
You are so wrong on so many levels. We all have a responsibility to ensure that mistakes from the past never happen again.
On the most fundamental level of your rather crass comment: genocide should not be repeated, despite there being no families and loved ones left to grieve.
Correct

But you read something into my post that I didn't write.

The perpetrators of genocide including the financial backers should just be shot, however many of them in last and this century just launder their cash through the financial centres of the world and never worry.

The world policemen crap spouted in the west by a number of countrys rings hollow when 1/2 million people have died in Yemen and west supplies killers with arms / training and puts its own people in to assist in the carnage.

racedo is offline  
Old 10th May 2019, 22:07
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 79
Posts: 4,436
TOFO:-
Thanks for the lecture Tuc, but I don't need it, because I recognise you are educated, informed and passionate about your subject, of which you know immeasurably more than I do. I therefore I defer to your view, which I always have.

It is your muppet acolyte that I ignore because of his incessant abuse of any one that disagrees with him, and his random attacks on many RAF people who will served their country well and to the best of their ability, to his crystal ball wizardry that allows him to determine the exact cause of so many accidents, when accident boards (and hundreds of informed military aviators) cannot determine even the probable cause, and most of all his annoying *****ing habit of signing off his posts with his ****ing catchphrase.

Who the **** does he think he is...Cato the ****ing Elder?

Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

OK I get the gist, you don't like me and you don't like my posts. I guess you can't please all of the people some of the time (or is it the other way around?). We'll just have to live with that won't we? The thing is, this isn't about me or you, it's about peoples' lives and UK military airworthiness.

You say you defer to Tuc and believe what he says. Great! That's the important thing. I'm sure you believe in the importance of Air Power and the next 100 years of the Royal Air Force as much as I do. In which case ignore everything I say, put me on an ignore list if PPRuNe provides such a thing, if not simply stop reading my posts as they seem to be having a very detrimental effect on you. Instead take to heart what tuc says and fight for what he wants, an independent MAA and MilAAIB, both of each other and the MOD. That will suit me fine and I promise to support you in that to my utmost (although that might just put you off, so scratch that bit).

Oh, just for you TOFO,

Self Regulation Doesn't Work, and in Aviation It Kills!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 10th May 2019, 22:45
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 1,131
Originally Posted by racedo View Post
Correct

But you read something into my post that I didn't write.

The perpetrators of genocide including the financial backers should just be shot, however many of them in last and this century just launder their cash through the financial centres of the world and never worry.

The world policemen crap spouted in the west by a number of countrys rings hollow when 1/2 million people have died in Yemen and west supplies killers with arms / training and puts its own people in to assist in the carnage.
Oh, but you did. We can all remember and change.
beardy is online now  
Old 10th May 2019, 23:10
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: No longer welcome status
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by beardy View Post
Oh, but you did. We can all remember and change.
Afraid not I have not changed a single word. If I had it would have time stamped the change, it didn't because I didn't make one.

You quoted me. Look at the quote and what I posted. It has not changed.

Last edited by racedo; 10th May 2019 at 23:17. Reason: showing beardy date stamped changes
racedo is offline  
Old 11th May 2019, 05:50
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,123
Chug,

Apologies, I know that you’ll have stated this clearly somewhere; why do you feel that the MAA and MilAiB do not function independently?

I ask as my previous experience of (actual participation in) service inquiries leaves me with the opinion that they are quite distinct and function independently (save for a rather trivial secretariat role) wrt inquiries.

I am aware of the governance structure hence asking about functional independence as opposed to ‘can or can’t be connected on a wiring diagram’.
orca is offline  
Old 11th May 2019, 06:45
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 79
Posts: 4,436
Orca, how a regulator or accident investigator appears to be independent of each other or the operator is not the point. They are or they are not. How would it appear if a regulator had for instance allowed its functions to be carried out by say an aircraft manufacturer? If that manufacturer produced an aircraft that lacked airworthiness and then incorporated a badly compromised system in an attempt to ameliorate the symptoms of that lack of airworthiness, I would suggest that regulator lacked independence.

If there followed airworthiness related fatal accidents which were investigated by an air accident investigator that shared a 'rather trivial secretariat role' with the regulator, how objective would those investigations be, given that strong censure of the regulator would then seem to be appropriate?

I apologise for the heavy handed scenario I have painted above. It merely attempts to show that regulator and investigator must be free to point the finger at anyone, including each other. In the case of UK Military Air Safety, given previous interference in that process, such independence is vital. To have been compromised once is a misfortune, to then have it happen again...
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 11th May 2019, 07:00
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 1,131
Racedo

"The families and loved ones whom they left behind. Nobody else has the right"

You are wrong. We all have not just a right but a duty to speak for the dead and against the injustice that killed them, even for those who leave no families nor loved ones.
beardy is online now  
Old 11th May 2019, 11:13
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: No longer welcome status
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by beardy View Post
Racedo

"The families and loved ones whom they left behind. Nobody else has the right"

You are wrong. We all have not just a right but a duty to speak for the dead and against the injustice that killed them, even for those who leave no families nor loved ones.
There are few who leave no family or loved ones behind.

People can speak out if they wish.

But in many cases from politicians it is done to make them look good in front of the electorate. They are happy to have dead "heroes" who they will talk of valuing their service and commitment but in reality don't give a toss about them. It is just another angle to get some power and personal prestige. Always too many vested interests in using deaths to make a name or feather their own nest.

The thread title is "Who speaks for the dead", to me it is those who they left behind because they understand the loss and when the door is closed and people move onto something else the person will still be alive in their hearts, prayers and memories.
racedo is offline  
Old 11th May 2019, 11:54
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 79
Posts: 4,436
racedo, the thread title is the sub-title (found on the rear cover) of David Hill's new book "Breaking the Military Covenant". I hope I am not misrepresenting Lordflasheart's OP in saying that the thread is about that book and, inter-alia, UK Military Airworthiness (or the lack thereof). It is not, with respect, about more general shortcomings in the modern world, its governments, its arms salesmen, and those who die as a result of their joint incompetence and malevolent designs.

Let us unite to slay this one dragon at least. Your many dragons are acknowledged but they in turn can only be slain one at a time. A thousand mile march begins with one step (quite catchy that, I wonder if anyone else has ever said it?).

BTW, David Hill's book is available now as Lordflasheart states. It can be obtained from various outlets, often for less than the usual South American one. Google is your friend!
Chugalug2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.