DV and Tappers Dad, in your support, I want to lend the following post from the Royal British Legion website
Comment Posted By: Next of Kin (name supplied) Posted: 08/08/2007
I have only just read about the government ‘family friendly’ approach. Officiating basic entitlements, formalising the permission to ask questions and have information about the BOI process is, I believe, tokenistic in the absence of any real, tangible inclusion of families. BOI’s are in house processes and reinforce a closed shop mentality. No matter how soft you make the borders they are not permeable. I think this can be problematic and can cause tension in family - military relations. Family needs and the role of families during the process can be misunderstood, as it is ambiguously defined. This extends to the greater military community and exacerbates rumour and speculation throughout the investigative phase. Despite being encouraged to ask questions, I was also open to judgment and accusation: my liaison officer’s supervisor made hurtful accusations about me, insulting to not only me but also my deceased husband. When widows and bereaved family members ask too many questions they maybe perceived as problematic or adversarial, there is an implicit and subtle pressure to be compliant. This is not a criticism of those who work tirelessly on complicated and demanding inquiries but a criticism of the process itself. Issues of ownership and secrecy of facts because information is limited to a select few, at times for up to a year, enhances anxiety and uncertainty for families. The findings into my husband’s death were presented, respectfully and sensitively however it was a heavily confusing, redacted and complex document. It was impossible to make sense of it and develop insightful questions in the time frame of a day, despite the sincere efforts of the board. To establish equitable relations between family and MOD solicitors in the Corners Court, families may seek assistance from lawyers. From my understanding good legal assistance is difficult to find as defence law is highly specialised and complicated. Families may rely on advice not formally sanctioned, from ‘friendly’ ex or serving military personnel, who may flag, agitate, or expand on issues not covered or identified in BOI’s findings. Although helpful to families they maybe thought of as a hindrance by the military and subject to rebuff from that community. Fundamentally military processes need to be more open and transparent. Families should be included during the investigative, information-gathering phase. I believe that credence and scrutiny can be given to ‘classified’ information, while at the same time information sought could be readily given. This occurs in other nation forces and I believe is achievable in the UK. At times ‘classified’ information/ closed processes maybe used by government to limit inquiry into and prevent critique about their failings. I think the government should expand consultation with all families and make their policies not just friendly but validating.

Fuel vapour int he tanks, in this case no 7 tank, is not as much of a problem as most people think in flight. The tanks are constantly vented using ram air taken in at the leading edge, then vented overboard at the trailing edge. Although there are several different ways this happens for the various tanks, the 7 Tank in question is vented by this simple method. This allows for the gas volume to increase when fuel is being emptied from the tank, and also to help get rid of any vapours.

Obviously on the ground this doesn't work...

AC Ov
1. Tanking pilot are we?
2. Off to netjets are we?
3. Self opinionated person i wouldn't like to fly with
I know 3, not sure bout the 1 or 2
The crew are safe having walked away from a fuel leak. The fact that we can now discuss with the Captain and crew means, in my opinion, that they did the right thing.
Capt, WELL DONE

Kam, a very sincere and warm welcome to this thread. Your testimony is from one who has experience of the BOI process and its severe limitations to answer the need for information and explanation concerning the tragic deaths of loved ones. Discussion on this thread, indeed on this forum, tends to be technical and full of jargon, ie scarcely inviting to those not in the know. So also it must be for the BOIs, where NoK have no choice, they must grapple with these unfamiliar processes and language. All the more reason why we all, Air Staff, BOIs, CoC, etc, should do all that is possible to accommodate them. In the incestuous system that is the MOD, I fear that is an unreasonable hope. Secrecy is a way of life, in excess of the need of national security, and quite frequently acting against it. Just as the need of a detached objective independent Airworthiness Authority is becoming ever more obvious, so such an authority is likely to produce detached objective findings following investigations into military aircraft accidents. You have shown that there are other important factors at stake here other than the vital ones of "what happened, and what must be done to stop it happening again?” Thank you Kam, for your brave second PPRune post. May I offer my condolences for your tragic loss and our thanks for your contribution? Please don't make it your last post, for the tragic truth is that there will be more tragedies, more stricken families and more NoK trying to grapple with this strange and forbidding world. They will surely find comfort and support from those like yourself who have travelled this road and are willing to help others do likewise.

There is a distinct lack of input at the moment from some of the so-called 'specialists' and 'current' Nimrod air and groundcrew. Where have you all gone?

gone flyin'...:p

Did my post not count.....?


Granted, no-one actually replied to it, but still.....

As current nimrod groundcrew I think it might be unwise to post anything technical on here as many of us have done previously because this is now very high profile and it doesnt take colombo to work out who we are. Not entirely clear on what we are allowed to say anyway. Not that I have anything major to say :ok:

enginesuck, well said!:D
wrt the recent e-mail leaks, restricted material being published etc, i think it would be very wise for a lot of people to think before they post on this link.

You can always PM

DV

DV and Mike

Just so I can square this away in my own mind are you seriously encouraging serving members of the Armed Forces to whistleblow and/or break the Official Secrets Act? May not have secret stamped on the top but even if it is restricted it is not for 'public' consumption.

PM are, if I remember correctly, not private! You may not reveal your sources but that still won't stop the witch hunt to find the "leakers" when the information appears in the public domain (say, if you were to publish it). As is happening over the recent leaks to the printed media on defence savings etc.

I think there is a slight difference between people offering up their opinions on JPA against providing technical detail on a current aircraft.

Don't flame me - my view and I'm entitled to it!

Wrathmonk: My views are the same as Mike J's. PM's were only suggested as a means of keeping the thread going. Nothing that has appeared in the press recently came from pprune postings. It came out of genuine FOI requests and documents supplied by serving members who are deeply concerned about the way the Nimrod fleet is being opertated. These sources will continue.

DV

Mike, DV

Thank you for your comments and I don't want to thread drift too far. The FoI requests - I have, obviously, no problems. My concern is the "documents supplied by serving members". For example, in days of old, a non-entitled person encouraging a serving member of HM Forces to provide documents that would probably not routinely be permitted in the public domain could be, in extreme, to be considered espionage and the person supplying it held fully responsible. Now I'm not saying that is what you are suggesting nor what is happening (I'm not that melodramatic!) but individuals need to be aware of the potential risk to them should the Black Omegas pitch up outside their house!

Now, whether serving personnel giving clear direction to those outside as to what to ask for under the FoI is considered the same is another matter .... particularly after the BoI is released and the available facts and conclusions become known (btw I have faith that the Board will provide an honest report, to the best of their ability, with the information they have been given/able to find out etc - my own opinion and one which I know differs from many contributors to this forum - please take it as that).

I think Wrathmonk is being entirely sensible. Emotions were running high for a few days. Sadly, there is no legislation for anyone in the military with life threatening information, to be allowed to come forward. That said, the cat is most definitely out of the bag. A cooling off period is probably a good idea. The thread doesn't have to sit high, if it disappears for a while it won't be a bad thing.

My only concern is the timing of the BoI report. I am hearing it will be next month, but the MoD have of late, tried to bury these reports on or close to the last day of the Parliamentary session. Des Browne, not the greatest Parliamentary performer has a tendency to disappear when big news is breaking. I am writing to HCDC with my concerns. When the report comes, it most definitely must not be buried with mince pies and custard.

Accountability? Yes it is a dirty word in the MoD. Keep your eyes open gentlemen.

Airworthiness
 

Chugalug2

You and others are quite right to point to money as the root cause of the airworthiness cycle being broken - even the spokesman "nominated" by MOD for last weeks news items, Andrew Brooks, said: "Can it (the MR2) become unsafe because it's too old for the job - certainly, and if you've got miles and miles of piping there isn't the capability to take the aeroplane away and completely re-pipe it because dare I say it the MOD is not allowed to spend the money it should be spending (my bold)." Well we know it isn't just piping but there is plenty of public domain evidence that the last part of the statement is correct. As different parts of his interview went out at different times I am not sure whether this portion of the interview was ever seen.

One part of his interview which I believe was used was: "I think the Ministry has no option. The Nimrod is crucial in Afghanistan and Iraq to identifying intelligence, to help the troops on the ground. If you pull it out the troops on the ground are going to be blind. It's that sort of decision. I don't think they have any choice unless it really was falling out of the sky (my bold). The pressure to keep it there is intense." I am sure the irony of this statement will not be lost to anyone.

JB

Aah, that would be Andrew Brookes who was wheeled out to say a few words about Hercules foam last year?

Whether such a modification to the Hercules could have saved those lives is not clear, says defence analyst Andrew Brookes of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.


"Would those 10 men still be alive? I don't know. No-one is saying 'Had this been fitted, these lives would have been saved,'" he said, pointing to other recommendations in the inquiry report such as better intelligence.

The problem is wider than just one piece of equipment, he said, because the MoD is not spending enough on many things, including ships and tanks.

"We can spend money on armouring these planes but is it the best way to use resources?

"We've been flying Hercules in Iraq since 2003 and lost one, which is tragic. But when you crash a car, do you stop everyone driving?"

Every extra modification adds weight to the plane and restricts its mobility, he said.

And the installation of foam would mean taking each aircraft out of service, at a time when they are needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well Andrew, I was saying that crew would probably have been saved by foam, as for your comments about restriciting the mobility of the aircraft, well they were laughable.

I would take anything this "expert" says with a pinch of salt.

Please interpret as you see fit........

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT, 1989

SECTION 5
Information resulting from unauthorised disclosures or entrusted in confidence

(1) Subsection (2) below applies where—
(a) any information, document or other article protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act has come into a person’s possession as a result of having been—
(i) disclosed (whether to him or another) by a Crown servant or government contractor without lawful authority; or
(ii) entrusted to him by a Crown servant or government contractor on terms requiring it to be held in confidence or in circumstances in which the Crown servant or government contractor could reasonably expect that it would be so held; or
(iii) disclosed (whether to him or another) without lawful authority by a person to whom it was entrusted as mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) above; and
(b) the disclosure without lawful authority of the information, document or article by the person into whose possession it has come is not an offence under any of those provisions.

(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, the person into whose possession the information, document or article has come is guilty of an offence if he discloses it without lawful authority knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it is protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act and that it has come into his possession as mentioned in subsection (1) above.

(3) In the case of information or a document or article protected against disclosure by sections 1 to 3 above, a person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) above unless—
(a) the disclosure by him is damaging; and
(b) he makes it knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it would be damaging;
and the question whether a disclosure is damaging shall be determined for the purposes of this subsection as it would be in relation to a disclosure of that information, document or article by a Crown servant in contravention of section 1(3), 2(1) or 3(1) above.

(4) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) above in respect of information or a document or other article which has come into his possession as a result of having been disclosed—
(a) as mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(i) above by a government contractor; or
(b) as mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(iii) above,
unless that disclosure was by a British citizen or took place in the United Kingdom, in any of the Channel Islands or in the Isle of Man or a colony.

(5) For the purposes of this section information or a document or article is protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act if—
(a) it relates to security or intelligence, defence or international relations within the meaning of section 1, 2 or 3 above or is such as is mentioned in section 3(1)(b) above; or
(b) it is information or a document or article to which section 4 above applies;
and information or a document or article is protected against disclosure by sections 1 to 3 above if it falls within paragraph (a) above.
(6) A person is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information, document or other article which he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, to have come into his possession as a result of a contravention of section 1 of the [1911 c. 28.] Official Secrets Act 1911.



What do you believe is 'damaging' and what would an English court see as 'damaging'? Disclosure to those, outside of the MoD, of difficulties with the UK's MPA fleet?

You decide.

Welcome to the thread, Mike Rotch. Clearly you are a man in the know. Perhaps you can come up with some real useful information and tell the families, who lost loved ones on XV230, when the BoI report will be issued.

DV

“What do you believe is 'damaging' and what would an English court see as 'damaging'?”


I’ll tell you what IS damaging – to the well-being of our Servicemen and their equipment…… That very senior staff, in fact the most senior, in MoD(PE), DPA, DLO and the MoD in general have, over a period of many years, condoned;

• Mandated airworthiness regulations being willfully ignored

• The willful waste of public funds

I have signed the OSA and am well aware of my responsibilities. However, having pointed the above out to the correct authorities in the correct manner, I have received very polite correspondence from, among others, Ministers of State for the Armed Forces, saying that neither constitutes “wrongdoing”. As has my MP. I’ve even replied making it very clear what they’ve been advised to sign, inviting a change of mind; merely to be told they have “nothing further to add”.

I do not believe my discussing this is ”damaging”. Quite the opposite, it is damaging to both the MoD and the Defence budget, NOT to talk about it. I do not know for sure if what I discuss is widespread, or I just happen to have stumbled across isolated cases (with monotonous regularity over a 20+ year period). I DO know, however, that I have been very publicly instructed to knowingly ignore airworthiness issues and waste of public funds by senior staffs who clearly did not fear censure and were ALWAYS supported by their bosses. My own view is that, if it were isolated, the likes of CDP would have simply said “Thanks for this, but investigation shows it’s a one-off, and won’t happen again”. But they couldn’t, not with the damning evidence of various audits and the Defence Select Committee which is available; not through being obtained or leaked unofficially, but through Hansard, Freedom of Information, the www and their own correspondence to me.

Put it this way. I agree with the Prime Minister that the MoD is wasteful. And with official reports, like the QQ one discussed here, that airworthiness issues are being ignored. My point is – this is not the first time this has been aired. Having been told what they are doing wrong the MoD, despite having a Duty of Care and a responsibility to Parliament for the proper spend of public funds, continues to avoid these obligations. Not only that, they commit resources to protecting those who commit this fraud. Over to you Mr Brown.