ATC Court Martial
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC Court Martial
Many of you may be aware of this already .... but the Court Martial of an RAF ATC Officer in connection with the deaths of 2 USAF F15 pilots continues.
Have a read and add your voice. The outcome of this trial could have far reaching implications to the service all pilots receive from your radar watching brethren on the ground.
The hope of the ATC community is that justice will be done ..... to us it's kind of like the Chinook BOI was to you, our pilot colleagues.
Thanks
F15 Court Martial Thread
Have a read and add your voice. The outcome of this trial could have far reaching implications to the service all pilots receive from your radar watching brethren on the ground.
The hope of the ATC community is that justice will be done ..... to us it's kind of like the Chinook BOI was to you, our pilot colleagues.
Thanks
F15 Court Martial Thread
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daily updates to the Court Martial proceedings can now be found on this thread.
F15 Court Martial Updates
F15 Court Martial Updates
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The evidence has been heard ..... the Prosecution and Defence have made their summing up speeches ... and the world awaits the verdict.
Visit the links above to add your support in these final few moments of the trial, or to hear about the daily ongoings at the CM.
Regards
PR
Visit the links above to add your support in these final few moments of the trial, or to hear about the daily ongoings at the CM.
Regards
PR
Last edited by PPRuNe Radar; 21st Feb 2003 at 17:18.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Deepest Oxfordshire
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not guilty on all charges. BBC News Website link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2797511.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2797511.stm
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Too close to Pompey
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am delighted that justice/common sense has prevailed in this case. The military is getting to quick to hang people out to dry who are doing their jobs, often under very stressful conditions. How could you ever recruit new controllers if the job description says 'By the way, if there is an accident on your watch we will do the utmost to blame you and bring criminal charges just to make us feel better'. The Army started doing it to 18 year olds on the streets of Northern Ireland to whom they had given rifles and then put them in to control riots. I'll drink a quiet toast to all on the defence team - you obviously ran rings around an inept prosecution case
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK/ West of London
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ex T/G 9 of 22 yrs. plus and now out of the mob for 7 yrs I have followed this closely
And I am so happy to read of this outcome,,having worked at SCATCC as an Asst I have also missed calls and both the controller and I have made eye contact to express "what did he say" then only to hear the call "c/s.. going en-route goodbye"
Believe me it’s the same now working on a civil airfield, I at time question what I have heard only to be told at times that I am an old woman for checking and I’m not in the RAF now,,but I will continue as I always have,,,at least I still sleep at night
Good luck to all
Matt Ryan
And I am so happy to read of this outcome,,having worked at SCATCC as an Asst I have also missed calls and both the controller and I have made eye contact to express "what did he say" then only to hear the call "c/s.. going en-route goodbye"
Believe me it’s the same now working on a civil airfield, I at time question what I have heard only to be told at times that I am an old woman for checking and I’m not in the RAF now,,but I will continue as I always have,,,at least I still sleep at night
Good luck to all
Matt Ryan
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The object of criminal proceedings is to establish guilt or innocence. The fact that Flt Lt Williams was acquitted does not mean it was wrong to bring a prosecution against him in the first place. Sometimes, the only way to determine matters of such gravity, to the satisfaction of all those affected, is through the courts.
The last two years must have been very traumatic for Flt Lt Williams and his family. He can, however, draw comfort from the fact that he has, very publicly and emphatically, been absolved of any responsibility for this tragedy.
The last two years must have been very traumatic for Flt Lt Williams and his family. He can, however, draw comfort from the fact that he has, very publicly and emphatically, been absolved of any responsibility for this tragedy.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Satisfaction to whom? I understand that USAAF weren't pressing for a prosecution. How could it 2 months short of 2 years to get to trial? Scandalous ineptitude seems to fit the bill!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Land of the Rising Taxes
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scud
And what about the sum he had to raise to defend himself. I believe it was in six figures.
Add that to the worry factor also. This must have been the most stressful time of his life and if he can manage to get back into the groove without being bitter and twisted then I think he is a better man than many here - including me
And what about the sum he had to raise to defend himself. I believe it was in six figures.
Add that to the worry factor also. This must have been the most stressful time of his life and if he can manage to get back into the groove without being bitter and twisted then I think he is a better man than many here - including me
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest the families of the two dead aircrew might have expected any allegation of negligence on the controller's part to be thoroughly investigated and, where a prima facie case existed, prosecuted.
Pre-trial delays can occur for a number of reasons, not always of the prosecution's or police's making. Jurisdictional, defence and other issues can often cause delays. Did the Judge Advocate make any observation at the end of the Court Martial, regarding the time it had taken for the case to come to trial? A judge advocate will normally criticise the police and prosecution in open court, where he feels they have not acted expeditiously.
Where a defendant is acquitted, his costs are normally met by the court.
As for senior officers 'pushing the case', there could be no prosecution and trial of this case without real evidence. The fact this Court Martial lasted 22 days would tend to suggest there was a case to answer.
I have no axe to grind in this matter, but do not feel that any great injustice has occurred.
Pre-trial delays can occur for a number of reasons, not always of the prosecution's or police's making. Jurisdictional, defence and other issues can often cause delays. Did the Judge Advocate make any observation at the end of the Court Martial, regarding the time it had taken for the case to come to trial? A judge advocate will normally criticise the police and prosecution in open court, where he feels they have not acted expeditiously.
Where a defendant is acquitted, his costs are normally met by the court.
As for senior officers 'pushing the case', there could be no prosecution and trial of this case without real evidence. The fact this Court Martial lasted 22 days would tend to suggest there was a case to answer.
I have no axe to grind in this matter, but do not feel that any great injustice has occurred.
ATC Court Martial
Scud,
You say that:
[As for senior officers 'pushing the case', there could be no prosecution and trial of this case without real evidence. The fact this Court Martial lasted 22 days would tend to suggest there was a case to answer.
I have no axe to grind in this matter, but do not feel that any great injustice has occurred.]
This case essentially hinged on whether the controller descended the ac into the mountain (notwithstanding the type of service being provided or the responsibility for terrain clearance) or whether the pilots got VMC below.
You will note that, Flt Lt Williams broke no ATC rules in his actions; the Procurator Fiscal had decided that there was no case to answer and the USAF BOI found no fault with the controller's actions. However, the RAF BOI chose not to interview any of the eye witnesses who saw the ac flying below cloud and the Sqn Ldr who plotted the last known radar track of the ac moved the line from a position to the west of the mountain (ie their planned route) to a position that intercepted the crash site because 'it made more sense'.
All the facts that acquitted Flt Lt Williams were available 2 years ago - a properly conducted BOI would have revealed these facts. Do you still feel that no injustice took place?
You say that:
[As for senior officers 'pushing the case', there could be no prosecution and trial of this case without real evidence. The fact this Court Martial lasted 22 days would tend to suggest there was a case to answer.
I have no axe to grind in this matter, but do not feel that any great injustice has occurred.]
This case essentially hinged on whether the controller descended the ac into the mountain (notwithstanding the type of service being provided or the responsibility for terrain clearance) or whether the pilots got VMC below.
You will note that, Flt Lt Williams broke no ATC rules in his actions; the Procurator Fiscal had decided that there was no case to answer and the USAF BOI found no fault with the controller's actions. However, the RAF BOI chose not to interview any of the eye witnesses who saw the ac flying below cloud and the Sqn Ldr who plotted the last known radar track of the ac moved the line from a position to the west of the mountain (ie their planned route) to a position that intercepted the crash site because 'it made more sense'.
All the facts that acquitted Flt Lt Williams were available 2 years ago - a properly conducted BOI would have revealed these facts. Do you still feel that no injustice took place?
Scud u Like,
Your argument would make more sense if the prosecution had bothered to talk to the civillian eye witnesses BEFORE the CM. For me that is the most disgraceful part of this whole episode.
As the defence QC pointed out in his summing up, if even one of the witnesses could be believed, it meant acquital.
Surely, in the quest for justice, ALL evidence should be examined before a trial, not just that which supports the prosecution.
Your argument would make more sense if the prosecution had bothered to talk to the civillian eye witnesses BEFORE the CM. For me that is the most disgraceful part of this whole episode.
As the defence QC pointed out in his summing up, if even one of the witnesses could be believed, it meant acquital.
Surely, in the quest for justice, ALL evidence should be examined before a trial, not just that which supports the prosecution.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did the Procurator find there was no case to answer or did he cede jurisdiction of the case to the RAF? There is an important distinction between the two.
Anyone familiar with the 'Chinook hitting back' threads might argue that a board of inquiry is not the most suitable arbiter of guilt or innocence in a fatal aircraft accident case.
Lawyers (especially QCs) are renowned for their 20/20 hindsight. I don't know at what stage and in what circumstances the evidence of the eyewitnesses came to light. Facts being 'available' is one thing. Gathering and presenting them in accordance with the Rules of Evidence is quite another. I was not present at the Court Martial and am not, therefore, in a position to comment on the detailed evidence in the case. Only the RAF Prosecuting Authority know their reasons for pursuing this prosecution, but I am not persuaded their motives were malicious or duplicitous.
Anyone familiar with the 'Chinook hitting back' threads might argue that a board of inquiry is not the most suitable arbiter of guilt or innocence in a fatal aircraft accident case.
Lawyers (especially QCs) are renowned for their 20/20 hindsight. I don't know at what stage and in what circumstances the evidence of the eyewitnesses came to light. Facts being 'available' is one thing. Gathering and presenting them in accordance with the Rules of Evidence is quite another. I was not present at the Court Martial and am not, therefore, in a position to comment on the detailed evidence in the case. Only the RAF Prosecuting Authority know their reasons for pursuing this prosecution, but I am not persuaded their motives were malicious or duplicitous.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scud-U-Like
I'm an ex-mil (25 years) ATCO who has descended a/c over Scotland to low level hundreds of times.
In this case the a/c were flying under RIS, a legal contract with the ATCO where the a/c accepted that they were responsible for terrain clearance. It has now reached the stage where ATC must remind a/c of that fact, but no other in the legal obligations required of the pilot under RIS (i.e no changes to height/level or altitude).
It was established at the outset of the trial that the a/c were on a RIS, the legal definition of RIS was accepted at the outset of the trial as well.
It would therefore be logical to assume that the ONLY reason for continuing to proceed was that someone very senior somewhere had an axe to grind OR they needed to have examined every aspect (relevant or not) of this case.
If you read the ATC forum thread on this you'll see that it has left a very bad taste in every (mil & civil) ATCO's mouth.
In this case the a/c were flying under RIS, a legal contract with the ATCO where the a/c accepted that they were responsible for terrain clearance. It has now reached the stage where ATC must remind a/c of that fact, but no other in the legal obligations required of the pilot under RIS (i.e no changes to height/level or altitude).
It was established at the outset of the trial that the a/c were on a RIS, the legal definition of RIS was accepted at the outset of the trial as well.
It would therefore be logical to assume that the ONLY reason for continuing to proceed was that someone very senior somewhere had an axe to grind OR they needed to have examined every aspect (relevant or not) of this case.
If you read the ATC forum thread on this you'll see that it has left a very bad taste in every (mil & civil) ATCO's mouth.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scud
When it gets so bad that the presumably (but not, on this evidence, demonstrably) learned Gp Capt Alistair McGrigor has to come out with a line that will doubtless be quoted in lawyers' line books for years to come:
"If you take away the eye-witnesses, there is no evidence that the ac were seen to the east of Ben McDui. Isn’t that true?"
It is probably time to accept that not all is well and either something very fishy has gone on (conspiracy theory) or the (more likely) rank incompetence of the prosecuting authorities is demonstrated (cock-up).
When it gets so bad that the presumably (but not, on this evidence, demonstrably) learned Gp Capt Alistair McGrigor has to come out with a line that will doubtless be quoted in lawyers' line books for years to come:
"If you take away the eye-witnesses, there is no evidence that the ac were seen to the east of Ben McDui. Isn’t that true?"
It is probably time to accept that not all is well and either something very fishy has gone on (conspiracy theory) or the (more likely) rank incompetence of the prosecuting authorities is demonstrated (cock-up).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following presentation of the case for the Prosecution, the Judge Advocate (acknowledged by all as fair and impartial) ruled that there was a case to answer. The object of the Court Martial was to decide whether or not Flt Lt Williams had acted in a criminally negligent manner. It did exactly that.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scud-U-Like
I think we're rather at cross purposes here.
Once it got to court the JA had not the specialised knowledge of aviation law to make a judgement, hence he had to continue with it. The lawyers were there to present him with the law.
Those 'in the know', those that pressed the case, were experienced senior RAF officers who knew the law involved and should never have taken it to court martial. Thats my (and ever other ATCO I knows) contention. Why did it go to CM?
I am pleased to be informed by my father (in Aberdeen) that there is a big hoo haa in the Scottish Press as to who brought this to court and why. Costs must now exceed one million pounds of the tax payers money.
Once it got to court the JA had not the specialised knowledge of aviation law to make a judgement, hence he had to continue with it. The lawyers were there to present him with the law.
Those 'in the know', those that pressed the case, were experienced senior RAF officers who knew the law involved and should never have taken it to court martial. Thats my (and ever other ATCO I knows) contention. Why did it go to CM?
I am pleased to be informed by my father (in Aberdeen) that there is a big hoo haa in the Scottish Press as to who brought this to court and why. Costs must now exceed one million pounds of the tax payers money.
Last edited by BDiONU; 27th Feb 2003 at 19:17.