Indeed, and don't confuse either of those with "the truth". As anybody who has seen the internal processes of a British Court of Law (military or civil) will swiftly agree.

WHBM

(eg the Min of Justice appointing/promoting judges, and another Ministry being part of the story)

Very true. The recent chair of the Defence Select Committee was appointed as a Justice Minister last month. In both capacities he was fully aware of the evidence that could have cleared M-B.

I understand that in the Tornado case (collision over the Moray Firth on 3dr July 2012) the root cause was avoided. The SI panel were advised by the MilAAIB to make the cause as bland and generic as possible, which in turn led to DG MAA (Air Marshal Garwood) attributing a fair amount of bad luck to the accident.

It is probably worth pointing out that the Tornado SI was taking place at the same time as the Hawk SI; same MilAAIB "specialist" advise/direcrtive.

DV

Being pedantic, I think the military air accident agency has been rebranded as

Which defines its role as

https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...fety-authority

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

DSA? Missed that. What is the average staff tour length these days so I can be prepared for the next change. 😉

roving:-

I admire your sardonic sense of humour, roving. Apart from the fact that it confirms that Regulator and Investigator are one and the same (very convenient for the Regulator of course), it is part of the MOD. So independent of who exactly, the tea lady?

I think we may have to wait a long time for it to blame itself

Well exactly, roving. Unfortunately for its scapegoats, a law unto itself.

roving and Chug

Being a tad more pedantic, it seems to be even more complicated than you might think. The MAA (Military Aviation Authority) has been subsumed (Yes, Minister) into the new-ish DSA (Defence Safety Authority). But what used to be the MilAAIB (Military Air Accidents Investigations Branch), which was part of MAA, is now a separate team called Defence AIB (Defence Accident Investigation Branch). It's colocated with the (civil) AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Branch), but I seem to remember that it has a "figurehead director", or some such bollox, in the DG DSA. I can't find the reference to that now....

Hope that's clear. Questions? (My head hurts.)

airsound

Hot off the press as ever Airsound! I hope that the MOD sign-writer is well ahead of Google, which ascribes DAIB to something Chemical in German (not a very encouraging combination). Nonetheless, ASEMS Online (no, I don't know either) ascribes DAiB (very important the use of case in acronyms, of course) to the DSA, implying that it stands for Defence Safety Authority Accident Investigation Branch (but not explicitly of course).

No matter where it lives, no matter who it is collated with, if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck! The "figurehead" director is in the DSA, the DSA is in the MOD, thus the DAiB is part of the MOD. The goalposts must be getting pretty worn by now, don't you think?

https://www.asems.mod.uk/acronyms/daib

Back to Martin-Baker
 

Back to Martin-Baker ? Quote ……. "Unfortunately for its scapegoats …."

The Martin-Baker annual report (signed by the Company Secretary) dated Nov 7th 2017 and date-stamped 7th December stated –

So what happened between filing the company report in November and mid January, to cause John Martin to change the plea to guilty ? I presume he didn’t just decide on a whim at breakfast on the 22nd Jan.

There would have been board meetings, meetings with Clyde & Co and Defence Counsel, who had told the board in October/November “… that it is probable ….. that the Company will be successful at trial.” Were there disagreements or were the ‘new facts’ sufficient to convince them all, against all the ‘old facts’ that have been well rehearsed on PPRune and elsewhere.

The Company Secretary was replaced a week before the trial, on January 15th 2018 but that might have been co-incidental because he’s still Secretary of the controlling parent company Killinchy Aerospace (formerly M-B Engineering).

However, Killinchy own all the shares of M-B Aircraft, including all voting rights and power to appoint and dismiss directors. Ten directors – the five of M-B, plus five others, own most of the shares in Killinchy. So was this a decision made (or nudged) by the controlling company ? Or was there improper pressure from elsewhere ? Or even a ‘guarantee’ of tenure at Chalgrove perhaps ?

What about the other four M-B Directors ? M-B Senior management ? What about the eight hundred or so M-B staff ? I wonder how they feel ?

Will there be scapegoats within the Company or is this to be recorded for posterity as a guiltless corporate crime with only the Company’s good name (and no other organisation or individuals) to bear the blame – and pay the price ?

Anyone have any ideas ?

LFH

..............

We have been round this buoy before. By your logic, the CAA and the AAIB both work for DfT so the AAIB can't be independent of the regulator and must be corrupt (and all without a VSO in sight). Head DAiB has a direct line of accountability to SofS MOD, as does the Chief Inspector of Air Accidents to his SofS. It has to come to a point somewhere, so even if you put the DAiB in the Treasury, the PM is still in charge.

Fortissimo

The CAA and AAIB haven't lied in official reports, to bereaved families, Coroners or other legal authorities. MoD/MAA has, to protect itself. It has lied to Ministers, who (for the most part inadvertently) repeated them and misled parliament. The MAA doesn't even know why it was formed (MAA Technical Director, 13 July 2014). Or if it does, he lied. A common denominator emerges. With plenty of VSOs in sight.

Fortissimo, tuc has replied on my behalf and better than I could. I would only add to his point re MOD's "previous". When I was serving, much was made within the RAF of the "independence" of the RAF Flight Safety System of the CoC. The Inspector of Flight Safety himself later discovered the hollowness of that claim when his various "Arts" were disappeared by certain RAF VSOs. The MOD, and in particular certain RAF VSOs, has form in subverting UK Military Air Safety. Only by making Military Air Regulation and Investigation truly independent of the MOD and of each other can the weary journey of retrieving UK Military Airworthiness be started out upon.

How? Would you be happy for entirely non-mil pilots and engineers to be investigating the military?

That's a rather sweeping statement, don't you think? There are documented cases of aviation authorities in other parts of the planet "fudging" (for want of a better word) accident reports...I say old fellow, are we immune to this behaviour simply because we are British???

Come to think of it, don't us Brits and Germans still legally disagree over the cause of a certain well-known aviation accident at Munich??

Apart from the fact there is no way on Earth you can know whether or not your sweeping statement is true, Fortissmo raised an objective point of logic, and you answered it with a (highly disputable) subjective empirical statement. Frankly, that's academically woeful.

Blimey, you must hold yourself to extremely low standards of debate.

TOFO

OK. 'To my knowledge, in UK military deaths'. Satisfied? In fact, it is the AAIB who have consistently told the truth.

MoD lied. Fact. Named and published, and passed MoD scrutiny and clearance. Still waiting for a complaint or challenge.

Raise your standards and publish yourself.

The former Station C.O. of RAF Kuala Lumpur in the late 1960's when chairing a UK/US Military Symposium on the role of the Royal Air Force in the Malaysian Emergency, said in terms, that it was always assumed that the not infrequent crashes of Valettas over the jungle killing all on board were as a result of pilot error until three air loaders survived a crash and described how the pilot had told them to strap themselves into their seats and brace. Subsequent detailed examination of one of the engines revealed it had oversped.

Makes one wonder what proportion of the very many fatal crashes of Royal Air Force aircraft in the 1950's and 1960's were wrongly blamed on pilot error.

ATG:-
No, I wouldn't. Nobody has suggested that an independent Investigator (or Regulator come to that) should be entirely non-military). It was not JOs or SOs that perpetrated this mess, it was RAF VSOs who subverted the Air Safety System, and RAF VSOs who have covered it up since. Of course military and civilian personnel would be involved in both functions, but they would be led by civilians outwith the MOD.

Now I'm sure that there are many holes to pick in that and the final form needs crafting by somebody knowledgeable and respected enough to be accepted by all. He'll have an impossible job, but it won't be because of the likes of me or others who fight for military airworthiness reform, but because of the hubris of a leadership that brings shame on a Service that should be instead solely concerned with celebrating its centenary.

TOFO, the ball boy! Play the bloody ball! Your diatribe is an example of the standard of debate that you call for?

In every airworthiness related fatal accident thread on this forum, when the language got personal we knew we were getting somewhere. So what is about to be unearthed now I wonder?