Red Devil

Mate, you need to take a look at this:

UKDS 2010 - Chapter 2 - Personnel

Principally, the line "The Department self insures against loss" answers the question for you.

LJ

In the example given, the OA would have determined the risk of losing that asset to combat related risks, which would have hopefully informed the tasking and missions around that risk.

In the case of Nimrod XV230, the risk that went unidentified was that senior officers, civil servants and the OEM would wilfully and knowingly fail to execute their duties in establishing and maintaining the airworthiness of the aircraft in a flawed and fatal (for the crew) attempt to penny pinch. Not my opinion, but that of Charles Haddon-Cave QC. This was the result of many years of neglect and wilful ignorance surrounding airworthiness, and was not the result of operational action.

Most people on this forum accept that when you signed the dotted line, if you found yourself at the sharp end then you might encounter more day to day risks than somebody on the bacon counter at Tescos. What we didn't accept was that the risk would ever be a function of whether those charged with a Duty of Care felt like doing their job properly or not. In this case not.

By all means mention OA and its value, but please not in the context of such disgraceful and wanton dereliction of duty.

If the MOD had a Shell style SMS everyone would know what they were accountable for and they would be held accountable by that system in a just way. Its a opity that the controversey over the Mull of Kintyre accident has lead to the RAF having a no-blame culture since.

Why do you think the Haddon Cave enquiry was set up by the MOD? It was obvious from the BOI report that there were other organisations at fault as well as the MOD. The H-C enquiry, as an independent commentator, was set up by Des Browne to prove that fact. The families could not sue the other organisations. They could only sue the MOD as the employer of their breadwinners (sorry to use that word) MOD can now sue the others for their failings and seek an apportionment of the compensation paid out.

Someone asked about Des Browne's statement after the BOI report that compensation will be paid immediately. Although he didn't say it, he was referring to the standard Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, which is a pittance in the case of death (and other causes). If a widow wishes to claim that the RAF was culpable and should pay out more, she has to make that claim through the courts. The standard compensation payment is then witheld by the MOD until the claim is settled and then the standard amount is deducted from the court (or out of court) settlement.

If this news is true, I am comforted by the fact that my good friends' bereaved families are now able to resume, in financial terms only, the quality of life they quite reasonably expected before the crash. Money will not replace the love and companionship of the men, but children need schooling, homes need maintaining, and cars need fixing etc.

There's never any good news in this sad story, but this development is the news we've been waiting for.

Regards
Ed Sett

Ed:-

I find this quite alarming! Do you have a reference for that, Ed? Were interim awards made?

SPHLC

Standard practice when people choose to sue, surely.

Clearly, I didn't like to pry into this sensitive area, but a Visiting Officer told me about it. It didn't seeem right but, unless he didn't have all the facts or I misheard him, it appears that this is the policy. Although unpalatable, I guess it is legal.

One widow mentioned to me a few weeks ago that she was still "waiting for the money to be sorted out", so I think she didn't receive much, if anything, for 4 years.

Ed

Ed Sett, this is something I am working on at the moment. As I understand it, Defence Sec has powers of discretion over compensation. In this case (culpable negligence) there is the possibility that he will order that compensation can be made in addition to any previous settlement. The actual position is not clear WRT Nimrod.

Family of Nimrod Marine awarded £150,000
Family of Nimrod Marine awarded £150,000 | Edinburgh and East | STV News

A civil jury decided that the Ministry of Defence should pay £90,000 to Joe Windall's mother and a further £60,000 to the dead serviceman's sister after formally holding it responsible for the fatal accident which also claimed another 13 lives.

Good. I hope their legal costs don't eat into the award.


But one is left wondering how much the jury would have awarded had they been told Adam Ingram was specifically advised the previous year (2005) of the systemic failings, and did nothing. Not a general or vague warning, but exactly the same words used by ACM Loader over 2 years later, which led to the H-C Review. Those in a position to prevent the accident continue to get off the hook.

The new MAA appear to have been passing the message that senior officers who 'manage' risks just by having them on a risk register, will end up in court if airworthiness issues are not addressed and cause accidents. Not having the money doesn't appear to be an excuse when the concept of ALARP is involved.

Unfortunately, that is precisely the practice advocated/condoned by, for example, the Chief of Defence Procurement and Director General Air Systems 2 (Chinook, Nimrod etc) in the late 90s/early 00s. Detailed evidence and official References were submitted to Haddon-Cave.

Both these officers also ruled that a 2nd and 3rd Risk Register could be created whose sole purpose was to eliminate any record of embarrassing risks that had not been mitigated. Such as, the above rulings. (Mitigation - press "print" and tuck away for future inquiries so you can justify your actions).

As such, entire generations of PE/DPA/DLO/DE&S staffs have grown up with this practice and now form much of the DE&S hierarchy. And not just Air systems.

Good on the MAA. Shame it took so many deaths.

One question. Why only "Senior Officers". When the Crown Proceedings Act, Section 6, was repealed (early 90s), this threat of legal action applied to everyone.

Thats why any good RR should include a record of decisions; including all "risk" that was deemed unworthy of the register.

Vin

Spot on. MoD regs require all RRs to record all decisions, and retain all notified risks, even if they are subsequently eliminated as risks - in case the decision is subsequently proven wrong.

For example, all aircraft and aircraft equipment RRs should contain a risk saying DGAS2 and CDP were notified the airworthiness regs were not being implemented properly - the risk being that they ruled this was acceptable, thus compromising the safety case. The recommendation was that this should become a standing risk in all programmes, to be mitigated before Initial Gate. I entered it in two RRs at the time of notification - they were subsequently removed from the 2nd and 3rd versions. Originals retained.

Perhaps MAA should do what Shell do

http://www.ihst.org/portals/54/2010i...ny%20Cramp.pdf (from a recent conference sponsored by Shell)

In addition Shell is very hot on competency and accountability.

Whilst not wanting to dismiss the good work compiled by the venerable TC (Hope your well Tony)... Shells definition of a Hazard is a cross wind or inadvertant entry into cloud. There is no mention of being engaged by small arms fire, not a word on the penetration of SA threat bands...?

The MAA should not do what Shell do because Shell do not send their Aircrew into harms way. Shells aircrew would not lay down their lives for the sake of others....


As I'm sure Tony would understand....Different ships.....Different cap tallies

You clearly have no concept of the hazards operating in the Niger Delta and how they are managed!