UK AAIB
 

BBC South Today are this week including a magazine item on the work of AAIB in their 1330 and 1830 programmes

Clearly there must be a cat up a tree somewhere, because it did not appear at lunchtime - a bit disappointing

Wander ... It was on the 18:30 slot ... A bit of a disappointing piece really :(

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-36421816

Here you go all on Youtube

Thanks OP, and to ATC for the YouTube links. Inevitably brief given the time restraints of the Regional News slot, but I am always impressed by the professional dedication of the AAIB Inspectors in doing their job; to discover why accidents happen, in order to stop them happening again. A seemingly obvious ambition but one that has been repeatedly frustrated in military aviation by the conflicting effects of "guidance" from above, inexperience, and the denial of evidence to their military equivalents.

The reason that the AAIB is able to carry out its vital task unencumbered by such effects is independence; from the Air Regulator, and from the Air Operators. The MilAAIB was never independent, and is already history. Its replacement, the Defence Accident Investigation Branch (DAIB) comes under the Defence Safety Authority (DSA - part of the MOD), as does the MAA, and thus is still not independent of either Regulator or Operator. So things will just carry on as before...

https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...uthority/about

Chug

Sorry old bean, but that statement on 'independence' does not sound correct. Both the AAIB and CAA are both run/funded by the Department for Transport - therefore they are not truly independent just like the MOD, DSA, MAA and DAIB are interlinked.

The AAIB are an independent unit within the Department for Transport.

The CAA are a public corporation of the Department for Transport.

The Department for Transport (DfT) is a Government ministerial department just like the MoD. There are 19 bodies within the DfT of which the CAA and AAIB are two of them.

So just like the MoD departments they are not truly independent and have to bow to Government department and financial pressures. It's been asked before, please define how you would achieve your Utopian 'independence', remembering that even independent bodies can be corrupt (just look at FIFA!). I don't see any advantages of the DfT, CAA and AAIB arrangement over the MoD, DSA, MAA and DAIB arrangement?

If we wanted both ministries to be 'independent' of each other then surely the AAIB should look at MoD accidents and the DAIB look at DfT accidents? Or run it jointly, as they are almost doing now, like the UK Airprox Board.

LJ

Leon, if the DoT was the operator of the Civil Airfleet your point would indeed me made, but it isn't, so it isn't (if you follow me ;-). The MOD is Operator, Investigator, and Regulator of the Military Airfleet. Doesn't work, as it has so sadly and tragically proved.

Self regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation It Kills!

My interpretation of Chug's post is simply that the AAIB, when conducting its business on military accidents, remains independent of the MoD. That it has a different role when doing MoD work is another matter. The real question on a military forum is why the MoD don't do this important work that they prohibit the AAIB from doing.

On numerous occasions the AAIB has demonstrated the worth of this independence, preferring to tell the truth in both their reports and in court. Being the subject of financial pressures does not prevent them telling the truth or being independent. However, lack of independence and being permitted to act as judge and jury in its own cases does permit MoD to lie, regardless of financial pressures.

When you ask how to achieve independence, I'd first ask what you disagree with in the oft-stated proposals made here over the years. Sorry, I presume to speak for Chug but he's already said he agrees with what I said, with one or two minor reservations.

Agree about FIFA, although their corrupt practices don't generally kill!

tuc, thank you for your input. The minor reservations of which you speak must be very minor, for I cannot recall them right now ;-).

Perhaps I should just add that the main problem within the MOD has not been direct political interference, but interference from the principal Air Operator, aka the RAF! Often the first casualty of truth has been the SoS, at least one of which has since placed on record that he was serially misled over Regulatory and Investigation matters from within his own Department of State. Certain RAF VSOs have subverted the work of BoIs and Airworthiness provision, in the latter case to the point of causing a dysfunctional and broken system.

Leon, you ask for my proposals for a different system to the one that now exists, where one VSO, the DG DSA, is responsible within the MOD for, inter alia, both Military Airworthiness Regulation and Air Accident Investigation. Above my paygrade, mate! I merely enter on stage right crying, "Beware the Ides of March", and exit stage left. The reason that I promote the Civil Aviation system is that it clearly works. The Military system doesn't emulate that system for the reasons I gave previously, and clearly doesn't work, so let's fix it!

The problem is in particular with the RAF! It pains me to say that, but avoiding the issue in aviation is fatal, literally! The independence of which I speak is therefore principally from the air operators, ie the Service subsidiaries of the MOD. That is why it must lie outwith the MOD. That is also why the reformed MAA and MilAAIB (or whatever titles they then adopt) must be led by civilian DGs, though staffed with mixed civilian/service personnel. The latter I would suggest should be in a professionally dedicated branch (Air Safety?) to mirror civilian practice.

As to funding, it will come from you and I, the poor British taxpayer! Perfect? No! What is though? The important thing though is to avoid avoidable accidents, thus saving life and maintaining UK Air Power.

Chug and Tuc

Thanks for your thoughts but I can't see what difference a civilian DG would make. They would be payrolled by the taxpayer via the Treasury - another Government department. If I look at the two comparisons:

Top Level: UK Government

Finance: UK Treasury

Ministerial Level: SoS for Transport (DfT) SoS for Defence (MoD)

Accident Investigation: AAIB (DfT funded) DAIB (MoD funded)

Safety Regulation: CAA (Dft and Operator funded) DSA/MAA (MoD funded)

Operators: Commercial/Private (they pay their regulator!) RN/Army/RAF (a Service so they do not pay their regulator)

So I would opine that actually the civil system could be open to more issues as it's all about MONEY (and never biting the hand that feeds you). Also, the Govt/Treasury wants Commercial Air Transport to succeed as this brings in revenue in tax receipts and commerce. So I really do not believe that the civilian system is as indpendent as you would seem to indicate.

Indeed I really can't fathom out how it could ever be independent as no one will ever do it for free!

LJ

Leon, it isn't about money, it is about people, RAF VSOs to be exact.

The RAF, as the principal military air operator, has a vested interest in the outcome of Military Air Accident Investigations. Because it carried out its own investigations into its own air accidents, it ensured that the outcome of those investigations suited its purposes. Mull comes to mind...

The RAF, as the principal military air operator, resented the ring fencing of Air Safety Budgets, particularly those concerning Airworthiness. When other budgets became overspent, because of the incompetence of certain RAF VSOs, other RAF VSOs set out to quickly subvert the UK Military Airworthiness system, in order to divert the monies. As a result illegal RTS's were issued and knowingly unairworthy fleets were put into squadron service. Inevitably what followed were airworthiness related fatal air accidents. Mull comes to mind...

The attack on military airworthiness was particularly devastating because in order to reduce safety costs and time, the regs were scrapped and the engineers sacked (unless they were prepared to compromise their responsibilities). The continuous paper trail required to confirm and maintain airworthiness was soon lost, and to all intents and purposes the system was destroyed. The grounding of the ACO gliders being the latest manifestation.

Moves to reform the system have foundered because;

a). No-one now remembers how the system used to work,
b). The old regs were so enthusiastically scrapped that new ones are being continuously written in an attempt to re-invent the wheel,
c). The reason that the old system was broken cannot be admitted, either by the MOD, the RAF, or even by Haddon-Cave, so,
d). The MAA, the DS solution born of the Nimrod Report, is based on a lie; that the period of the wilful attack on UK Military Airworthiness was an alleged "Golden Period"!
e). Similarly Air Accident Investigation was placed under the MilAAIB, itself under the MAA. So the regulator, responsible for the airworthiness of UK Military Aircraft, controlled the investigation of military air accidents, including airworthiness related ones. So,
f). The DSA was formed, headed by an RAF VSO DG responsible for both Regulation (via the MAA) and for Investigation (via the DAIB). People, you see?

If BA investigated its own accidents, or could subvert civil airworthiness, would you fly with them? Unsafe military aircraft are a waste, of both life and treasure. They also compromise the very point of military aviation, to close with the enemy and destroy him. If they never get there to do that, or fall foul of the enemy because they are compromised, then that is an own goal. Ours have been rendered compromised because of the actions of certain RAF VSOs; two fleets to date, and 63 deaths avoidable deaths counted in this forum alone. People, you see!

Chugalug, you crawl,out of the woodwork every so often to bump your gums on this subject. The problem is that anyone who has read this forum for a while knows that pretty much everything you know and write on this subject comes from reading pprune, and most of that is from tucumseh's posts. I think we all know that tuc has been there, seen it and done it, and I for one respect his experience. But you have none of this chug. Your cause is a noble one, but as I said, and as we all know, your experience in this area is close to zero.

S-D

Chug

Have a look at this: Revealed: air deaths cover-up | UK news | The Guardian

For ~30 years the operators allegedly knew that DVT was an issue, the CAA medical department and others allegedly knew there was an issue and nothing was done. So if they were so very independent then why was this allowed to continue unchecked? If I follow your rationale then it is deliberate and malicious act (I think that unlikely, and it is more likely just incompetence or grave error).

There have been 'independent' investigations into all manner of things in the past - Hillsborough, Herald of Free Enterprise, Piper Alpha, etc...etc... If you don't believe that money, reputation and human factors didn't skew the outcome then I humbly suggest you rethink. Just look at the change of the recent Hillsborough outcome, and I bet you if it was looked at again then a different set of outcomes would be found or debunked. As long as humans investigate there will be errors, as long as humans manage things, there will be errors. Also, I do not believe that VSOs deliberately kill their own people, they might make errors of judgement or get caught up in a culture that is wrong - but just like any accident it is rarely a deliberate or reckless act, just a stupid set of errors that cost people their lives. Does that make them Saints? No, but it proves they are human!

LJ

Salad dodger, I am content that you feel the cause to be noble. Can we then expect your active support in campaigning for the urgent reform of UK Military Air Safety? Your opinion of me is irrelevant, as I am come to that..

Leon, I am not claiming the civil system to be perfect. I am not claiming that a reformed military system will be perfect. What I do say though is that the very essence of Air Safety is to prevent repetition. That goes for safety systems just as it does for air accidents.

If a system has been fatally compromised by the operator, then it must be placed beyond the reach of that operator. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty, or isn't that seen as an issue these days? The actions of those VSOs goes beyond dereliction, they shame the honour of the Service. Or isn't that seen as an issue these days?

Chugalug2
 

The CAA is funded my me ( and all the other users of its services ).

The AAIB is funded by the DFT.

I would suggest that this independence from the regulator is why the AAIB respected world wide.

May be it is time to have military airworthiness functions split up in the same sort of way.

Indeed A and C, and thank you for reminding us of the source of CAA funding. I too have paid Dane-Geld into its coffers, and grumbled mightily while doing so! I always felt that the grandiosity of the Belgrano should have been replaced by an ex-army Nissen hutted camp somewhere in the Midlands. But that is all by the bye...

I agree about the respect and renown of the AAIB, and look forward to the day when its UK military equivalent is similarly applauded. That won't happen while the operator can moderate its investigations. Similarly with Military Regulation and, as you say, it is just as important that Regulator and Investigator are completely independent of each other as well. The obvious solution to my mind is for the MAA to be sistered to the CAA, and the MilAAIB to the AAIB. Funding for the military "sisters" would be different, but the ethos of the civil components could then be absorbed by the military equivalents and their professional staffs. It can be done, and needs to happen sooner rather than later. The RAF cannot afford to go on grounding any more of its fleets, yet their airworthiness must be assured.

I believe that at the time of the MAA's creation the question of separation of AW responsibilities was considered. The military and civil aviation environments are different obviously and I heard that this was the key problem. How do you regulate AW in an operational context? You have to consider deployed operations a huge distance from the MAA, you have to consider operational decisions where war fighting and AW are in conflict -- these decisions can't necessarily be delayed by reference back to ABW or HQ.

Any comparisons with the civil approach have to answer the question how the Services operational imperatives are going to be met without interfering with war fighting. I'm sure the MAA would like to hear from anyone who has a feasible solution to offer.

EAP

EAP86, I quite agree that civil and military airworthiness cultures are different. The first prioritises safety above all else, the second uses it to ensure the preservation of the force while not at war, and its survivability when at war. As to the pressures of the battle-field, it is surely possible to arrange the regs so that tactical commanders can counter the regs as required during hostilities (for instance in countenancing troops clinging to the outside of an Apache during a rescue operation!) but be answerable to the MAA after the event. Similarly mods that are in conflict with the regs could be approved by the MAA in time of war (eg retro fitting AAR capability that conflicts with the regs) but would have to be removed again or re-fitted in compliance with the regs afterwards. All this is do-able. What isn't do-able is scrapping the regs when they become an inconvenience and thinking that you can pick up again where you left off decades later. You can't.

AAIB - One case tells you how it has been - MOK.
22 years on and indepemdent analysis has arrived at what should have been the starting point of the investigation.
Directives from the top and a culture of "Omerta" (whatever) within the RAF - what chance any form of AAIB?

The AAIB did not perform the Air Accident Investigation into the Mull of Kintyre tragedy, an RAF BoI did. The AAIB only carried out those tasks required of it by the RAF, and were not allowed to carry out any others.

If your point is that the investigation was botched, then we are in violent agreement, Walter. As to what chance the AAIB, they don't need chance, their performance speaks for itself and is the envy of the world, much as UK Military Air Safety was once...