If there is no evidence that e-cigarettes were used how can there be evidence that they didn't compromise the vessel

Airpolice, I think that e-cigarettes fulfill the same role as the civilian gate guardians. Both serve as a sop to occupy the mob (ie us), in order to distract from the more obvious worries about the security of the UK's nuclear deterrent.

Am I alone in finding it ironic that on the same day as the President of FIFA vows to leave no stone unturned in his declared zeal to reform his organisation, the MOD vows that all is well, with no cause for concern?

Leopards and Spots?

'More obvious worries' - please, tell us more. What are they, specifically?

atg:-
Specifically that the operator, the regulator, and the investigator are one and the same. If the MOD's statement had been issued by an expert independent investigator (the ONR?) I would have been spared some of those worries, unless of course they had issued a different statement, a more worrying one..

If FIFA were judge and jury of its own case would you be happy, atg? Well, would you?

Before this thread turns into MoK 3, lets just deal with the e-tabs shall we?

Submarine atmospheres are very controlled environments. Literally all materials that go aboard the vessel are characterised for any chemical emissions they give off to ensure they don't cause a long-term health hazard or other issue.

As I'm not party to the current investigation, I'm only speculating, but it might go something along the lines of E-tabs not having been officially cleared for use aboard the boats yet. However, the research by INM may well be in its reporting stages and having been checked as a result of this ABs public dripping, has shown no hazards/issues will arise. It's just that the official clearance hasn't come out yet.

Sorry Chug et al, but this is the equivalent of a trainee liney with less than 2 years in and only in his first squadron tour suggesting that based on his experience the entire airworthiness chain in the RAF is worthless. Does your average newbie liney understand design authority, mod state config control etc? Or is he mainly reading the maintenance pubs and checking his tools off the aircraft?

There is a difference between alleged systematic abrogation / avoidance of the rules instigated by VSO and a walt on a boat. Sorry, but there it is.

Ah, the ever popular game called stovepiping! The MOD is the common denominator in all of the fatal air accident threads and of this one. I've no idea if this guy is talking cobblers or not. Given the extreme sensitivity of the nature of his story I would really like it to be properly investigated. The bland instassure of the MOD statement comes nowhere near that, nor do the posts here.

Mull started off in a similar way, VSOs are honourable men who would have moved heaven and earth to avoid sticking it on the pilots, but their duty was clear...and ended up with the SoS's statement to the Commons pretty well rubbishing that notion (given that the aircraft was knowingly released to service in a grossly unairworthy condition).

So the boats are safe, the missiles are safe, the warheads are safe, the crews are safe. You know that, now I know that, but I wonder if they know that? How many times must the MOD be caught out lying before something is done? Perhaps we should turn to the FBI? They at least seem willing to tread where all others fear to follow!

No Chug. Mull did not start off in a similar way.

It started off with a large number of fatalities and a cab scattered all over the Mull. That is incontrovertible evidence that something may have gone badly wrong and required investigation.

This has started off with a very junior seaman with very limited experience publishing a "report" of wild and substantially inaccurate allegations, which may or may not have been instigated by someone with a political agenda.

It is unfortunate (but entirely understandable) that you cannot bring yourself to believe anything coming out of MoD unless there has been a completely independent investigation. The rest of us will just have to apply our own judgement and come to our own conclusions.

Mate, comparing the two is not worthy of you. You have a good cause, but don't lessen your position by making such cheap points, cheap shots if you prefer.

Your points on airworthiness and regulation are well made and worthy. But the excellent evidence you have presented on the other issues does not automatically translate to this one.

Some may be tempted to think that you are saying that the MoD was demonstrably wrong on one issue, they must be wrong again. Don't do that, it detracts from your real case.

Yes, I know you will come back and say that it's all to do with the ethics of an organisation regulating and investigating itself. That does not necessarily negate the report from this investigation. And it certainly has nothing to do with FIFA.

And I know you will demonstrate that you're just drawing a comparison. Sorry, Dude. Not arguing with your, generally, well-informed points.

The AB is and will be subject to the Official Secrets Act and 'spilling his guts' could get him a prison sentence, additionally he won't be allowed to profit from his crime, if offences are proven.

A likely scenario is a complete debrief by the RN, charged with being AWOL, charged with contacting the press without permission, charged with any breaches of the OSA that may have already occurred. If found guilty he could be discharged in disgrace or he could be discharged as 'Services no longer required', possibly a short period of detention too.

Nab:-
It actually started with a Switch on Only CAR as part of an RTS that placed the aircraft in squadron service, a sequence that was completely contrary to the Regulations and resulted in a knowingly unairworthy aircraft being operated by the RAF. That in turn led to:-
The many UK Military Air Accident threads on this forum have all begun with similar tragic scenes, all under the MOD as Regulator, and all investigated under its auspices.

God forbid that we should be faced with such a start to a Nuclear Weapons accident thread, prevention being far the preferable path. Prevention begins with rigorous regimes of Regulation and Investigation. Both should be independent of the Operator (the MOD) and both should be independent of each other. That is what has been called for regarding the MAA and the MAAIB. The same goes for military nuclear weapons Regulation and Investigation.

If this AB has achieved anything, it should be not to focus on the need for a UK Nuclear Deterrent (possibly his agenda?) but rather on the need for a complete reform of its safety oversight.

CM, your patronising matey post is merely par for the course of many I have received over the years advising me not to pursue the case further. The problem here is the MOD. It is judge and jury of its own case regarding military accidents. If you agree with the campaign to make the MAA and the MAAIB independent of the MOD and of each other (though despite your flattery of me, I'm not sure that you do), then surely it is even more vital that nuclear weapons and systems are afforded similar protection?

Chug and tuc.

Honest question.

If there was a full independent enquiry that found that no errors were made, would you accept the result?



If not, then why on earth should anybody bother?

Some people only want the answer they have decided is correct, not the right answer.

This tw@t AB has now had his complaints investigated and found to be false and you are still not happy.

Incidentally, I have come to believe (without a shred of evidence) that Courtney is a bank robber.

Do you think we should have an official enquiry?

Why do you think I'm holed-up somewhere in the South of France?

Ah, the Southern French.....

They are all secretly russian spies..... Trust me on this.....

I heard that too (although it might have been here). There's no smoke without fire, as some dullards persist in saying.

Drop everything else and put all our resources on the case. There is obviously growing demand for an official enquiry, NOW! They should investigate... er, er, well, everything!

Hmmm.....

I've heard rumours about some of those investigators...

In fact, I've just made a rumour!

This is crying out for an investigation.

I was getting concerned about your accusations being taken seriously - remember that the CIA get most of their intel from PPRuNe - so I tasked Mrs C to conduct an internal investigation into my ALLEDGED robberies and I'm pleased to say I've been cleared. Apart from one or two minor, totally unrelated issues, I'm squeaky clean.

Mrs C has now gone to Toulouse to do some serious shopping with the money she, um, earned from Lloyds.

Move along now, nothing to see here.

I have a report that definitively says you are a bank robber, but a VSO has suppressed it. How do I get it in the public domain?

Also, outside of the military, who is SQEP to fulfil the oversight role of nuclear weapons? It ain't ONR. Amazingly, process isnt king (or queen).

Tourist:-
Insert the word "qualified" before independent and yes, I for one would accept the result. I'm afraid that inquiries that are not qualified, ie they need informing of the technicalities by "expert" witnesses in order to apply that to the evidence of the case, are time and again led by the nose by "the men from the ministry". That has been the case for some Coroners and QC's alike.

That is why I propose the ONR to conduct an investigation. The real worry is that of nuclear safety, and that is what they do as a day job. I admit there may be a conflict of interest, but they are probably as near as can be got to "qualified and independent" as is possible.

If others know different please let us know. This is not just "my case", spoiled or no, it belongs us all. Nor is it simply "my case" whether it be wise to have a nuclear operator, regulator, and investigator that is one and the same. Do you think it wise?

I know I have declared my hand here already regarding airworthiness, that the MAA and the MAAIB should be independent of each other and of the MOD. I base that on what I have learned from the various fatal air accident threads on this forum. If the MOD could countenance illegal RTS's, illegal orders to subvert mandatory regulations (which it upholds to this day, declaring that the disobeying of those orders to be the offence), witholding vital evidence from BoI's, Coroners Courts, and even an HOC Select Committee, is it a safe pair of hands to Regulate and Investigate Nuclear Safety?

That is why, whatever action is taken to investigate this man's allegations, they should at least be the catalyst to reform UK Military Nuclear Safety Regulation and Investigation, along the same lines already proposed for the MAA and MAAIB. Whatever holds good for a privately owned nuclear power station should at the very least approximate to that for UK Military Nuclear Weapons and Plant.

Of course all that is not easy, of course there are many difficulties, not the least of which is security, and if it ever happens we will probably never know if it ever avoided a single nuclear accident or not. My answer would be that the present system is seriously compromised, and is an accident waiting to happen.

A slice or two of Swiss Cheese anyone?

Chug, "QUALIFIED, independent inquiries." Could not agree more. Not only because they MAY be vulnerable to being misled, but more because of the possibility that they MAY not understand enough about the subject matter from a few expert witnesses over a relatively short period to make a properly informed (in your words, "qualified") decision.