Thanks OMS, as you say interesting, or perhaps just irritating while we go through the long drawn out saga of MBA staying in situ and any chance of development there being quietly killed off? This orchestrated charade no doubt worked well enough in the days of paper and ink, but in these digital days of everyone knowing what everybody knows it simply places the various players in uniform and complete contempt. As for MBA, cheap at half the price?

I can confirm this from experience. The most surreal part of my Martin-Baker ride (0 ft / about 65 kts) was looking up (in my frame of reference) to watch RAF Valley receding rapidly in the overhead, then looking down to see my boots pointing at the sky.

This case drags on. The Health and Safety Executive's legal department have found it necessary to forward exculpatory evidence to Martin-Baker's solicitors, proving MoD knew of the risks from Day 1 (introduction of Scissor/Drogue Shackle release mechanism). This was denied in court, and the HSE's charge was based on MoD's claim NEVER to have known the Drogue Nut should not be over-tightened.

Also, and despite reminders after the accident NOT to torque load the nut (also reflected by the CAA in Emergency Mandatory Permit Directives), the MoD chose to ignore this and still insists on it being torqued to 50 lbf in.

If MoD is permitted to ignore such directives, and destroy its corporate knowledge, at what point does providing warnings or advice to MoD become utterly futile? It was HSE's case that, had Martin-Baker provided (reiterated) a warning in February 1990, then MoD would have heeded it and Sean Cunningham's parachute would have opened. At any time, but especially given this fresh evidence, that is one hell of a jump.

Does this new evidence mean that there might be a re-trial?

It will be interesting to see if anything transpires. It certainly represents a shift in attitude from the HSE. If this latest evidence had been presented in court, who knows what the judge would have done, regardless of plea. But it does make HSE's claim to have conducted a 'thorough investigation' look risible. The significant point now is that, having dismissed previous evidence of innocence as 'irrelevant', the 'new' evidence is deemed relevant enough to warrant notifying the defence, and witnesses, that this action has been taken. I guess much depends on whether Martin-Baker want to do anything.

Hopefully M-B will take the escape offered and tickets for the retrial sold through the usual agencies

it would be interesting, dare one say it, if this is true, if this amounted to something beginning with P?

Treble one

A picture speaks a thousand words. A video screams.

TO:-
Any sympathy felt for MB must be reconciled with the effect that their pleading guilty had on efforts to reform the mess that is UK Military Air Safety. If they had not taken the hit but instead fought the charge then perhaps more lives might have been saved in the long run, in addition to those saved by their excellent products.

I now feel little sympathy as a result of that supine act. As to the 'P' word, as it said in the Nationwide ad, I think we'll find that it doesn't work like that.

Not a chance.

tucumseh, I was being cautious in case any legal eagles are watching.....


Chugalug....I suspect you may be right.

Treble one

Thanks. The move by HSE's legal department is, in my opinion, the first sign of any legal entity doing their job properly. Too late I suspect.

Perjury? Not relating to the video. More a case of loss of corporate memory. But an indictment of the so-called investigation, especially as the Service Inquiry admitted MoD had stopped training groundcrew correctly. But elsewhere? How fine is the line between perjury and lying by omission? 'I promise to tell the whole truth....'

Well said Chug.

Nail hit fairly and squarely there.
Back in the day, newly recruited Constables were taught about their primary duty: That of detection and apprehension of offenders. They were taught that it was their duty to present ALL the evidence before the Court and enable the Court to make an informed judgement. It was impressed on the newbies that Presenting ALL the evidence was fundamental to the justice process. Evidence was defined as "anything material that tends to prove or disprove the case and it is the duty of the Police to bring ALL the evidence before the Court".
Sadly, it seems that truth (the whole truth) is sacrificed all too often and without it, there is no justice.
To deliberately withhold evidence material to the case and thus influence the outcome is a clear contempt and may also fit the definition of perjury, with potential overlap, depending on the individual case.

Very interesting OMS....
Last week the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Commissioner directed the Chief Constable to investigate possible failure to disclose evidence. The Health and Safety Executive states it has not seen this evidence; slightly embarrassing given it wrote to the judge before sentencing telling her it was 'irrelevant'. She proceeded on that basis.
HSE has also complained to a potential witness (had the case been heard in court) that he did not submit other, related evidence. Embarrassingly, the witness has produced the HSE's acknowledgement of receipt.
What a tangled web...

OMS, your link takes us further down the road hinted at by your previous one at #618, and MBL appears likely to remain at Chalgrove. The withholding of evidence has resulted lately in the release of many from prison who were thus improperly convicted. Some can fess up to systemic failure it seems, but not so UK Military Air Safety unfortunately.

This thread is about the avoidable and tragic death of Sean Cunningham. The system that should have prevented his death instead ensured it and cries out for total reform. Instead we have the farrago outlined by tuc above.

MBL will remain at Chalgrove, the MAA will continue to deny the truth, and the VSOs responsible for the broken state of UK Military Air Safety will continue to be protected. Or at least that appears to be the de facto policy of the RAF High Command...

Chug, are we not yet at a point where we can evidence that an offence has been committed, and therefore should be reported to the Police?

airpolice, it depends which offence you mean. Certainly the illegal order given by an RAF VSO to suborn the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations was reported to the Thames Valley Police. Their Deputy Chief Constable said that it had nothing to do with them, or words to that effect. The RAF Provost Marshal didn't even bother to reply...

In the Thames Valley Police case referred to by Chug (Nimrod XV230), the DCC claimed they could not proceed as there was 'little chance of witnesses coming forward'. She was sitting on witness statements, and replying to the letter that had submitted them. Not unlike what I describe above, but this time it is the HSE's principal investigator.

Airpolice, a complaint has been made, in May 2017. That is part of what the P&CC has instructed the CC to address. From other threads you will glean there is far more to this. Formal complaints have been made in a number of cases. Most police forces have not replied. Some just pass the buck. For example, Police Scotland (and Strathclyde Police before) acknowledge offences were committed by MoD/RAF on Chinook ZD576, but say it is for the Metropolitan Police to investigate as they were committed in London. The Met simply don't reply. Too busy tax collecting.

Update.

The Health and safety Executive has claimed to both police and judge that the Mk10B parachute release mechanism (scissor/drogue shackle arrangement) is unique to the Mk10B seat in Hawk, therefore witness evidence that both aircrew and groundcrew/maintainers where taught from 1952 how it works, and how to maintain it so that the assembly can disengage, is 'irrelevant'. The fact there is a 107 minute RAF training video, and umpteen servicing schedules from various users, disproving this HSE claim was also deemed 'irrelevant'. Lincs Police Chief Constable has accepted HSE's claim without checking facts. Those on pprune who have actually seen a seat may have a view on this....

Quite why Martin-Baker continue to put up with this is anyone's guess, but oldmansquipper may very well be right. However, the company has now reacted and called forward witness evidence that the HSE claimed to the judge was irrelevant (that word again), despite never having actually spoken to the witnesses or taken evidence. That the HSE has misled the judiciary and police is now the subject of a formal complaint, so that is perhaps a good place to stop....

Someone should write a book.