Relatives claim government failed to protect victims of RAF Hercules crash
 

In Sundays Observer.
RAF Hercules crash families sue MoD in landmark rights case | UK news | The Observer

Chappie was on Sky this morning ,well done. As you can read in the Observer even Bob Ainsworth said ESF should have been fitted after the threat facing aircraft in Iraq changed.

While I am pleased that the MOD will be taken to task over XV179 I only hope that this does not open the floodgates for all relatives of military personnel lost in action to claim for 'human rights' issues.

How far back will this landmark action allow relatives to consider action, the Falklands, Op Granby, Sierra Leone, Kosovo etc?

At at time when the MOD is effectively bankrupt could we see further funds expended on various legal cases and payouts?

I am all for justice where justice is required but no amount of money will bring back a loved one.

I would think that the relatives would be appalled if their payouts came from the same, shrinking, MOD pot that is being used to supply front-line troops with better body armour and vehicles.

It might have been a systematic failure of the MOD in the case of XV179 but the real blame lies with Tony Blair and the labour government who lied about the reasons for being in Iraq.

Sue his government not the MOD - and maybe the individuals who didn't pass on the intelligence or who were responsible for evaluating tactics in theatre.

I would think that the ultimate aim of the families is to prevent similar pain and anguish from happening to others.

While some relatives have been left high and dry by the loss of the income from the deceased Servicemen, it seems that legal action is the only thing to which the MoD and the Gov't will react. If only Gov't would just accept their failings and CORRECT THEM - not with platitudes but with a ferocious desire to protect their assets that include ships, aircraft, vehicles Servicemen and women.

However, far too many senior people have trusted to luck in pursuit of New Labour's foreign policy since 2001. If it takes legal moves to get them to realise that it costs a huge amount of money to go to war, then so be it. Next time, perhaps our politicians should think twice before agreeing to be the US lap-dog. Either that or thoroughly equip and protect our troops.

Perhaps the MoD should sue the Gov't Treasury for lack of sufficient funds to wage war?

Not really sure what Ainsworth is going on about. It was fairly obvious what brought XV179 down, at least, anyone who heard the evidence at the Inquest would have a very good idea. The threat from the suspected weapon has been around for donkeys years and was a threat to any aircraft being operated at low level without fuel tank protection.

This threat was highlighted at the beginning of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and senior officers did absolutely nothing with the knowledge. Just used the cop out of "military risk" to send the boys to war, but worse still, did not even inform frontline aircrew of the risks they were taking.

We can bail out banks to the tune of £100Billion so I won't lose any sleep if financial compensation now comes due to the families. Actually, as Flip states, the severity of the cost to the `MoD and the severe mauling its reputation has taken over Nimrod and Hercules already, might well change the philosophy of failing to equip our soldiers to an adequate standard. If you like, the opportunity cost now got much greater..

In answer to how far back this might go, well we are talking about the HRA, only signed up to in recent times. Without doubt there is a downside to all the legal action, but faced with the economy of truth, lack of accountability, obfuscation and political interference, I don't blame the families one iota for taking this route.

In fact, I wish them luck.

How far back you ask?

May 97 I reckon.

:ugh:

TACT - OFF

This makes me grumpy because it's taxpayer's, and read that as my, money that will end paying for this. I lost a good mate on that aircraft, but I fail to see why we should continue to pay out vast sums for the inability to use hindsight - they died, very sad, but no amount of compensation will bring them back. Do we suggest that compensation is due to relatives that lost grandparents in the Great War for not having adequate chemical warfare kit, or dropping personnel 'a bridge to far' in Holland? I agree with Blighter Pilot - where does it all stop?

Isn't that why our partners get widow's pensions, lump sums and also payouts via DINCOM?

The Nimrod business makes me equally grumpy...

TACT ON

Dreadfully sorry for being tactless and ruthlessly blunt but I felt the need to vent my opinion. I am, after all, entitled to the free speech for which so many of our Service People died to protect.

LJ

Let Blair hang in Hell.

Let the top bod's in MOD hang in Hell.

Let the top bod's in the RAF Hang in hell.

At the end of the day everyone of them had a duty to ensure our troops went to battle with the least risk and the best kit.

It was crap kit out of date and as cheap as could be.

They choose to cut corners and save money at the expence of LIVES so they are to blaim full stop.

I left the RAF after 25 years service due to the sickening loss of life in Afgan and Iraq. All I can say is to those who lost love one's take this Shower of a Government and MOD to the highest court and fight for those whom you have lost.

I would love to know what price the Govermant places on each serviceman's head!

Blair rot in HELL Brown follow him.

Perhaps it will take a few more claims like this before our political masters will wake up and smell the coffee. I don't believe any family is milking the situation, they have been put through hell and are simply trying to prevent the rest of our families going through the same.
There is no other way to get through these days, hit them in the pocket and eventually they will get the message. I will gladly pay my taxes to achieve a better deal for all the guys and gals who daily risk life and limb.
Just because we serve in the military does not mean we have to accept sub standard services, we take the risks hoping that the system is right behind us, when it runs away at the first sign of trouble we have to fight back.
What would you do if it were your husband/wife/son/daugher??

RIP fellas

Mad Eng

I hear your sentiment and in a perfect world everyone would get a pay-out. But if the goons in power and Andrew "clucking anchor" Wlaker (see what I did there?) keep on paying out then the system will go bust when everyone wants a piece of the pay-out action. The more it becomes the norm, then the more gets paid out, then the more middle England leaves the country for better places as they are taxed to the hilt and it spirals into more unaffordability. God knows when we are going to pay for Labour's "scorched earth" policy of spending everything before the next lot of clowns get in.

I have been watching this forum closely tonight and there have been over 200 views of my rant and I have not been deluged with "Leon you are the clucking anchor, goodbye!" by 200 Pruners - is this a case of the silent majority not wanting to speak out in these increasingly "I'm afraid to speak my mind" times?

Or maybe, my patience has snapped and I'm getting ready to join the great Antipodean Exodus to normality...?

Back to the Boddingtons for me then...

LJ

Yes.

...........

Yes. :(


......

On behalf of the silenced majority
 

"Leon you are the clucking anchor, goodbye!"




I'd like to have left it there but that would unfair on Leon (even if it was predictable and just a little amusing!).

Mad Eng is right and olive is probably an MoD 'spoofmeister'.

However, we are all entitled to our opinion.

The sad truth remains that this Gov't and their lackeys have asked too much from our mediocre defence budget and our military's 'never-say-die' attitude. Regrettably, people have died - but not for a lack of courage and determination. What has been at fault is the Govt/MoDs ability to support those on the front line. I believe that our Servicemen are the 21st Century's 'Lions led by Donkeys' but this Labour Gov't cannot accept that and they rebuff every attempt to correct the imbalance - seemingly because of a pig-headedness to look facts in the face and the ability to say sorry.

It also sickens me that some serving people would attack the families that have lost so much - their loved ones died in the defence of all of our freedoms. Those of you who criticise the families should hang your heads in shame. Please do not think that the families take their actions to court purely for monetary reasons.

flipster

ps Top bunker - while I have some sympathy with the 'daylight LL is not a good idea' (been there done that), like wise 'daylight med-level for a short distance' is equally unappealing. You might be correct to highlight a culture difference in the 'special ones' but you can't avoid the 'table of manadated threats' for ever - you have to land sometime! ESF was a defined method of mitigation that our superiors declined to fit for over 40 years. We now know it cost peanuts and was relatively easy to to fit but for some reason, it never was.....I am mightily grumpy that the system that was designed to protect us and the ac in which we flew, let us down so badly.

Flip, thanks for the apposite reply.
You are right.
Sorry PPRUNE readers can't read my post any more, but I realised that I might upset relatives and friends.

P.S. That whole Freedom of Information Act shredding thing that was ORDERED from a high level needs a lot of further scrutiny!

Olive Oil
 

Olive Oil, you are wrong about day low level, but it is an easy mistake to make and is the line put out by MoD media briefers at the time of the inquest.

The specific threat of the fuel tanks exploding from a single round was not shared with frontline crews. Read my post again, the weapon system that brought down XV179 was not sophisticated and not new. But the threat to the fuel tanks was not widely known. It was highlighted when the J was procured and on several occasions before. The specific threat was made clear at Group level before the Iraq invasion, but again, it was sat on. You ignore the "cop out" of military risk. This is the crucial catch all, which commanders believed, absolved them from responsibility of the lives of the crews being sent into theatre.

This "military risk" catch all is now being challenged in court and not before time. Take a look at how the US procure aircraft. They don't have a lowest common denominator called "military risk" and use it as a basis for procuring military aircraft not equipped to go to war. We are still doing it, look at MR2,

There are still aircraft with woeful defensive equipment being used,

The culture on "The Flight" was dependent to a degree on who was in charge. However, what lives in the memory is the shredding of evidence and the failure of the culture in higher levels of command to take responsibility for the lives of aircrew being sent to war.

Things have improved since, in the full glare of publicity and media scrutiny. However, when given the opportunity to state that RAF Hercules would never be sent into theatre again without ESF, RAF Commanders refused, stating that military need might override safety requirements in the future. A statement I find, nonsensical.

It is not fair simply to blame the Govt. The RAF, if it had effective commanders in place could have dealt with the threat to fuel tanks. But the culture pre-existing, made that impossible. Maybe these two court cases will change the culture forever, political leadership could ensure that the procurement process underlines specific responsibilities for fitness for purpose.

I hope so, it was difficult to find anyone to take responsibility for fitness for purpose at the inquest. And for sure, no-one wanted to talk about "military risk".

If Steady and the boys had been briefed that the biggest single weakness to the aircraft was the lack of fuel tank protection and the biggest threat to the aircraft at low level was a highly mobile weapon, restricted largely to daylight operation, then you would have a point Olive Oil. This info existed at AWC and Group, but was not disseminated to the frontline. The boys received no such briefing. If they had been, tactics could have been changed, just as they were in the days after XV179 was shot down.

You must know as well as anyone that the “blame” began in MoD(PE) (as was), the MoD (Centre) bean shufflers, the Treasury and the Government that set the tone of the day. We bought kit, as ever, optimised for peacetime training, peacekeeping and disaster relief. We gained lift weight and range and sacrificed survivability should deployment to a live shooting match happen: it did. The FLCs are on a hiding to bugger all and if they spat the dummy every time they were told to grip what they’ve been given, we would have a very interesting Military.

For what it’s worth, Leon Jabachjabicz makes some valid points. Unfortunately they are no longer politically correct in our brave new pink fluffy world.

Leon,

I'd lay off the Boddies for a while, if I were you. Never drink and type! Nonetheless, your forthrightness is your perogative. Such a stance would have been more useful coming from some people in 'procurement' that GBZ talks about - they are the ones who won't say 'boo to a goose' for fear of losing their career. Perhaps if certain people had 'thrown their dummies' then maybe we wouldn't keep getting so many corteges through Wootton Bassett. GBZ - It might have been an 'interesting' military but perhaps one more efficient and better protected?

Thanks Topbunker,

Nige - correct! With a less 'political' and more 'vigourous' leaders, then the RAF may have been better supported going to battle but then again....? However, even the best leaders would be hard pressed to fathom out the dark world of procurement and where it has gone so badly wrong .

I agree: the shredding of evidence, even with higher-level permission or even complicity, is lamentable. What is point of having files if people destroy them just when they become useful? I believe that the coroner was scathing about this aspect as well? Whenever I was asked to sign off operations/training files for destruction, I tried to read the through files and I asked myself the question

"Could these be useful to my successors?"

If the answer was 'yes' or even 'maybe', then they didn't get binned. The admin files on the other hand.....!

GBZ, I don't know, I never attended any of these meetings. What I can tell you, is that if the threat to fuel tanks had been disseminated to frontline crews tactics could have immediately changed to night/high level sorties, especially for this kind of mission.

A COST FREE MEASURE.

Senior officers and commanders in the RAF, not only failed to press the case for an inexpensive modification, they singularly failed to highlight the danger the crews were in. This is absolutely nothing to do with bean counters at centre. When the USAF pilot tried to present the case for foam, the cost of the foam was $20,000 per aircraft. This is peanuts. XV179 had one of the best (and expensive), missile defensive systems in the world, (teething issues were touched upon at the inquest), but its fuel tanks had no protection at all. You cannot blame the politicians for that.

Next time you bump into a "special" herc crew ask him how much daylight low level he is doing. The boys now understand the threat.

BTW

I don't think apportionment of 'blame' is helpful and neither do think that is what you meant - just to clear that up. However, I just wish the RAF higher echelons and MoD procurement/DECs would accept their responsibility and now ensure that the obvious 'systemic failures' in procurement and airworthiness that led directly to the loss of XV230, XV179 and a host of other ac is not allowed to happen again. That is, to prevent recurrence.

Unfortunately, all we seem to get from people like Ainswoth is platitudes and sound-bites without substance.

flipster

The irony of the C130K procurement for the RAF in the late 60's is rather than being pared to the bone, the add-ons made the blinging up of new cars look restrained. Why stop at pairs of new radios, when triples can be had? Let's have radio nav aids that only function in Northern Europe, the Gulf and Newfoundland, and even there need to be told where it is so that it can then tell you! Auto Pilots that can't as they are incompatible with the aircraft wiring. Lets fit tactical improvements that aren't like downward looking periscopes and cupolas that cannot be safely pressurised in a pressurised aircraft, and so on and so on. Why all this extraneous and often not fit for purpose kit? So that the PM (one Harold Wilson) could pronounce proudly that half the cost of these aircraft would be in Pounds Sterling. Unfortunately the add on that was necessary to make the aircraft itself fit for purpose was in US Dollars only, ie ESF, and thus not fitted.
Nigegilb is right. This was then and subsequently a failure of RAF Commanders. They were told what was essential fit for when this aircraft went to war (surely the reason for it and the RAF?). They chose to reject those calls despite understanding clearly the hazard that would put the aircraft and occupants in. They failed the RAF, their crews and the nation. Shame on them, and shame on us that though they pay no price for their failure the bereaved suffer it for ever.

flipster

We also heard at our Inquest that documents had been shredded.

Transcript from the Inquest.

XV230 had exploded 4 days earlier and here was a senior officer shredding documents from Kinloss,it beggers belief.:ugh:

Sorry if this a bit off thread but I think it is relavant.

TD

It does not beggar belief. Shredding is a standard way of combatting espionage and compromise of classified material - you can't keep everything, and the more you do then more chance of a security breach! Out of interest, if they had kept every paper copy of classified material since 2003 then they would have needed 5 portacabins to store it all! Some US units have a 100% shredding policy...

Please stop trying to find tenuous links to blame individuals who, with hindsight, may have been slightly mistaken in their actions (which they have also freely admitted) - this is not negligence! :ugh:

LJ

Leon

Much of what you say is, of course, correct.

However, I believe TD is talking about deliberate withholding and shredding of evidence a Board of Inquiry or Coroner would regard as vital to their task (helping prevent further occurrences).

That is not routine admin to thin out unnecessary files, but an obstruction of justice and attempt to hide the truth - thus placing their colleagues at risk should it happen again. The line is pretty clearly drawn, in that JSP553 requires an airworthiness audit trail. It is this failure that is being alluded to by Coroners.

The fact that it happens routinely, and continues to have the support of, for example, Ainsworth, is the real disgrace.


Furthermore, when MoD is asked to produce this evidence, they are often disingenuous. The IPT (which may not have existed at the time) will be asked "Do you have this document?". They say "No" and MoD simply say it doesn't exist and take the hit.

But, as everyone knows, airworthiness documentation is routinely copied to the User, Sponsor, Boscombe and other MoD departments, plus of course the Design Authorities responsible for the Safety Cases. The latter would be mad to shred such evidence.

Also, the MoD person with authority for that equipment or aircraft is always encouraged to keep copies of his own decisions. This would be an interesting test of the OSA. If MoD denied the existence of a document while pointing the finger at the airworthiness chap, who then produced his own copy refuting MoD. But MoD don't want to go there, do they?

Tucumseh

LJ is right

If it was removed from a detachment "stopped [SIC] press book", there would be copies at the issuing unit, so alternative sources of evidence would be available. No conspiracy theory here at all! Even in TD's quote the officer in question says So what is the problem!:=

LJ

As one of the real silent majority "Well done"

Olive Oil,

The theory of an RPG strike was put forward by the civilian crash investigator. It was a theory only, with no evidence, of explosive material found on the wing. The BoI rejected the possibility because of lack of evidence. Two rounds (of lead), hit the aircraft, one round did the damage, causing an explosive event in the fuel tank. The calibre of the round was not given. However, various bits of evidence were presented at the Inquest, with a little knowledge, you could work out what weapon was used, you just had to piece together the info. I won't say here, because some people are sensitive about the info being "out there". Suffice to say, it would probably shock you, that something so small could bring a Hercules down.

The documentation that was eventually recovered and proved that Group new all about Hercules weakness to fuel tank penetration was the original secret paper document. The electronic versions had all been deleted.

Tuc is right to say, the audit trail had not been maintained and actioned IAW the specific airworthiness requirements.

Needless to say, the Coroner was furious that the RAF and MoD could be so inept.

Just wanted to add, that in my own research surrounding this tragic case, it became clear that it is extremely unlikely that an RPG could bring down a relatively fast moving target. It is difficult to achieve the required accuracy.

Just a thought, playing Devils Advocate.

If the relatives are not interested in the money, but are doing this for our benefit...

If the MOD offered to settle out of court, the claimants would have to turn it down. Ditto for the Nimrod.

I really don't think you should refer to the relatives as one body. They all have different perspectives and different motivations. The Nimrod and Hercules cases are different in the sense that there was no enemy involvement in the Nimrod tragedy, hence no enemy to blame, only failure to comply with airworthiness requirements. With the Hercules case there is a question of combat immunity to consider, because the aircraft was shot down.

You are of course right, the MoD would dearly love to settle this out of court. The legal precedent will cause fundamental change, which will inevitably bring higher degrees of safety and security for those of you still on operations.

My perspective? The higher and more punitive compensation the better.

Olive Oil, just a bit more. XV179 was shot down on polling day in Iraq. The invasion/combat phase was over. A legally important distinction regarding combat immunity. During the Inquest it was hinted, in open court, that, due to the new defensive equipment on board the aircraft there had been a doubt about its efficacy in certain conditions. One of the reasons for staying low. AWC gave different evidence but it was accepted that AWC provided advisory information. It was well understood at the highest levels that the "Flight" was operating at low level in theatre. There was no suggestion that anyone in Command had a problem with that. In fact OLF was an accepted tactic, endorsed at all levels-until the aircraft was shot down.

I would also add that during my time on the flight, every single training detachment involved low level flying. Whenever possible at OLF heights. It was considered routine and we were all well practised. Previous to Iraq the guys had been flying extensively at OLF heights in Afg. If you want to have a pop, don't have a pop at the crew. I think you need to aim much higher.

You are quite wrong about ESF being irrelevant to the case. After the first couple of days at the Inquest it was obvious that the lack of ESF was the most significant aspect. I have said it many times before, but I will say it again. The crew would most likely have survived if ESF had been fitted. Don't be overly focussed on the CREW'S decision to opt for low level - key members of the RAF including senior officers knew about the weakness to fuel tank explosion, but the crews were NOT briefed. There was plenty of opportunity for anyone in the chain of command to step in and withdraw the OLF tactic if there was a perceived problem. Nobody did. That said, I would like to see the role of AWC beefed up, as a result of the tragedy. Not that they advised the crews about the fuel tank weakness in this particular case.

Hope this makes things clearer.

Roland
It may have had nothing to to with the accident but in his words :
Relevant communications in my mind are communications that have relevance, if the were irelevant documents then I can understand that. And it was not his place to know if they had nothing to do with the crash that was up to the BOI to decide.

Apologies and admissions of negligence have been forthcoming, in the knowledge that this would lead to compensation claims. So maybe its just a question of how much compensation.

Nothing wrong with that, but I don't see us going through all this again in court.

Considering my current situation I fully embrace the compensation culture.

Hard Facts - The Pounds Shillings and pence
 

I apreciate the forementioned arguements. I have only the open press knowledge of the incident i quiestion. However, having sat only 18 inces from a mate when he paid the "ultiomate price" I can say that a highly paid expert from without the chain explained that, although she had put forward proposed enhancements to the ac at a miserly cost, this was refused because the total fleet costs would be too great. Further, the resulting payouts to any berieved would be less than the safety enhancement outlay. Ergo your berieved's compensation is worth less than your life.

Ergo the need for punitive compensation payout and a recognition of the right to life, even for soldiers.

Sorry for your loss.

Agreed, the officer whose responsibility it would have been to approve the fitting of ESF to SF Hercs, said at the Inquest, if he had received the request, having seen the supporting documentation, he could easily have found the money.

Of course, the Hercules fleet at the time was stretched, but if a foam program had been put in place, when these reports first went into Group in 2003, the entire mini-fleet would have been fitted out at the time XV179 flew that final mission. It has also been accepted by the RAF that there was too much of a focus on the missile threat at the time. Please believe me, the evidence amassed by the RAF and MoD support groups was both frightening and compelling, at the same time. The case for foam was overwhelming and yet the very people tasked with raising issues concerned with fitness for purpose, ignored it. An action that is totally inexplicable.

The worst aspect, in my view, is that the decision to change tactics would have been made much earlier if the system had worked, the chain of command had been effective and the knowledge of fuel tank weakness and the requirement for ESF had filtered down to the front line.

Post XV179, there are still areas of concern in theatre, not necessarily affecting the Hercules fleet. Enough said on this point.

Of course, lawyers get rewarded for their work, but the Hercules and Nimrod legal cases could well break new legal ground. Having been sent into theatre myself in a defenceless aircraft, I am watching the legal developments closely.

Like it or not, "military risk" is used as a lever to absolve responsibility for the safety of crews and soldiers. It is easier to invoke than fighting for better kit. Would soldiers still have been driving round in thin-skinned landrovers years after the invasion if the MoD was required to assume more responsibility for the lives of soldiers?

I doubt it. A solution would have been found much quicker.

Olive Oil - Nail on the head. Why were they at low level within small arms range when they didn't have to be?

Can we expect 'Hercules - Still Hitting Back 3' to be still running in 2024?:rolleyes:

Because the perceived threat from shoulder launched missiles on a short leg was considered to be greater. And because, unlike the rest of the AT crews in theatre they were trained to fly OLF, enabling them to avoid completely the missile engagement zone.

In hindsight, the actual risk at low level was greater.

Did they have all the relevant info to make that decision-NO. Were they aware of the huge weakness in the fuel tanks-NO.

And the RAF and MoD were unable to explain why ESF was not fitted at an Inquest lasting 6 weeks.

So lay off the crew. Neither the BoI nor the Inquest placed any blame with the crew. Unless you are completely stupid, the crew of the chinook were blamed in entirety for the Mull crash.

Didn't they have an IR Jammer? Seemed to work alright in Fermanagh back in the nineties. And if it hadn't, would those SH crews' families have looked for compensation? Probably not - it was a different world back then.

(Yes, I know, different aircraft, different theatre. It's the principle.)

TD

Yes of course there would have been relevant information; relevant to flying the aircraft, often type specific, so there would have been communicated information between home base and detachment. The Stop Press book on any flying unit is designed to give crews information on all manner of things. It may be a locally agreed avoid that is temporary in nature. It might be the notification of a change of frequency ahead of a formal amendment to publications. It might be a change in a local departure or arrival procedure ahead of a formal change to documentation. All irrelevant to airworthiness, but contained within a Stop Press folder.

And actually yes it was his decision. Stop Press books need to be regularly thinned out or else they become irrelevant and do not meet the requirement of a last reminder of something new to flying operations. The information contained within becomes irrelevant, gets formally amended or goes out of date. As a detachment commander and flying supervisor he should be exactly the right person to decide what needs to be in the book. Anyway it is semantics and a bit of red herring, as anything relevant to an aircraft type deemed important to be in the stop press will have been communicated from elsewhere, so copies will be available.

And for all those advocating , just remember it all comes out of the Defence budget. The higher the compensation now, the less there is to spend on new equipment also required now, ergo reduced frontline capability. If anyone thinks HMG and HMT are going to fill the shortfall, well clouds and cuckoos spring to mind. SPHL - Spot on!!:D

RP, if there is no compensation then life becomes cheap enough to risk on future ops. The requirement to have the best equipment becomes unnecessary. A legal victory and punitive payout will hamper operational capability in the near term, but will pay for itself in the long term. XV179 cost 50 million to replace, but for a modification that would have cost a fraction of the price. Only the families involved know the true cost of the lives lost.

The 14 men on board XV230 were killed because of negligence on behalf of the RAF and MoD. The 10 men on board XV179 were also killed, as much because of negligence as the attack itself, which should have been survivable. This negligence occurred because the very system designed to provide safe aircraft in times of peace and war broke down.

Thankfully, now we have much more effective communications we were able to raise issues regarding airworthiness and fitness for purpose at the highest levels. Incompetence at higher levels within the MoD and RAF has been exposed. This really is a different world to the 1990s. Better get used to the idea of accountability, it ain't going away.

If you think the Defence Budget will be maintained at its current inadequate level, in the event that there is no change in responsibility for soldiers lives, you are sadly mistaken. The budget would be repeatedly trimmed because the cost of life would be proportionately cheaper. The first question the Defence Minister asks, is, "do you really need that equipment, it is very expensive?". In your world, without accountability the answer would be no, and the money lost. There is little chance of real increases in Defence Budget in coming years, only defence cuts. When A400M enters service in 2014 it will be fully ready for operations, full DAS, FTP, FDA, the works. A first. Pressure must be maintained on the Ministry, or it will lapse into old habits. A legal precedent would leave the Ministry with nowhere to hide.

Ah the great Compensation Culture, one of the worst and most damaging aspects of modern British life; what a great system that is. :ugh:

Here's an example. In WWII the RAF fitted a tail warning radar to the Lancaster. It was thought that it would provide protection from night fighters; best information available at the time. Unfortunately the Germans used the radar transmissions to home onto the unfortunate bombers. Does that mean all bomber crews shot down after the fitting of tail radar are due compensation? After all, someone must have been negligent in not having the remarkable foresight to see the dangers.

At no point have I criticised "accountability", but there is a huge naivety amongst some that the MOD can afford everything we want. We are not funded to that level. Never have been, never will be. And every time compensation is paid out it further reduces what the MOD can afford. So what that something might cost £X million (in your example ESF) but might end up saving £XXX million. If you do not have the £XM, or you decide that the £XM is better spent fitting something else more important to your aircraft, or they decide the money is better spent on a more important naval or army programme. If you haven't got the cash you cannot fit it.

And who is responsible? The sqn ldr/maj/lt desk officer for not fighting hard enough? His boss? The 1* DEC? The 2*s that ultimately decide on the priorities? The 3* DCDS EC? The 4* DMB who make the final decisions on where the money is spent? Or the Chancellor of the day who didn't allocate enough money to the Defence budget.

People make decisions on the best information available to them at the time. You get what you can get through the system and there will be priorities. At that time threats might be different; perceived dangers might be different; priorities will be different. Decisions have to be taken, and are taken on the best information available at the time. HINDSIGHT is a such a marvellous thing; you will be a multi billionaire when you can bottle that.

That is why you need an airworthiness system that delivers fitness for purpose. In my example, ESF, there was a requirement for decisions taken in the procurement process of the J, to be recorded. For future reference, in the event that protection that is too expensive now, might become affordable in the future. In the event that a change of role increases the possibility of being shot down and triggers the priority change for funding. To set out why the offer of factory fitting foam was turned down from the outset, for an aircraft that is required to fly at low level in badlands.

NOTHING was written down and retained in the case of XV179 or the J. Nothing. An airworthiness system that was worthless and not understood by anyone. Why didn't Group fulfil its role as a user and pass the crucial report on to the relevant authority? No idea. No paper trail. The man in charge didn't know.

Where was the safety case? What happened after the requirement for foam was sent to Group? Who knows? There is no record.

Is that your idea of a system delivering, or people doing the best they can?
Contrary to the gist of your argument, we were assured that the money would have been made available, if the need for the safety measure had been made known.

Do you think they might try a bit harder with a huge legal stick hovering above them?

Sadly, I think you're right Nige, they will try harder....to avoid any association with meaningful decision making which might be held against them, which is pretty much what 'they' already appear to stand accused of!

Sometimes we need to be careful what we wish for; Oliver Cromwell achieved his utopia only to discover he had created a greater monster than the one he fought to depose.

So you're in good company, or maybe not, as the case may be. :uhoh:

BTW - Q- Who are "they"?