Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Afghan crash Nimrod should never have flown, RAF chief admit

The MOD has blood on it's hands, simple. Bad enough the dangers of IED's and snipers etc without some bean MOD counter making a calculation and deciding that our lives aren't worth the cost of maintenence.

Don't expect a public inquiry though, they are reserved only for the deaths of those we are fighting.
 
The_Cad said:
The MOD has blood on it's hands, simple. Bad enough the dangers of IED's and snipers etc without some bean MOD counter making a calculation and deciding that our lives aren't worth the cost of maintenence.

Don't expect a public inquiry though, they are reserved only for the deaths of those we are fighting.

Don't make the mistake of thinking bean counters are all civvies - the Chinook verdict, and (unless I'm wildly mistaken) the key decisions around the Nimrod (could be renamed Ronson, in my view) have been taken by uniformed officers, with the sanction of Chief of the Air Staff.

If - like me - you thought Crab Air might have cleaned up its act, after the Crab CDS was compelled to resign, when his Spanish fuck-buddy put their sex-life on the front page of NOTW (to the very public delight of the then Comd 1 (BR) Corps), back in the 90s, then - like me - you are no doubt doubly disillusioned by this latest betrayal.
 
This extract from Prune...

"The MoD’s attitude towards people with such delegated authority was bizarre. I recall our Director ranting at a Directorate meeting (my only experience of an entire Directorate being gathered together) and shouting at us that we were the “rump end of MoD(PE)” and good riddance, we were being transferred to the RAF. Then the new boss, an Air Cdre, visited us and made it clear he would not tolerate our insubordination and henceforth all technical grades would be subservient to admin grades. That would sort us out. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (as Pete would say). But we weren’t fooled again and when we didn’t comply, he bitched to the AVM who promptly threatened the “worst” offenders with the sack. Note – “Worst” in the sense that these were the people prepared to fight for airworthiness and safety. "

...would indicate to me that the people doing the penny-pinching in this case are clearly members of the uniform-wearing component of MOD, I don't recall "AVM" being a civil service grade. Indeed, it would seem that the civvies were the ones who were raising a stink about the unairworthiness issue... 8O
 
MOD bean counters can indeed wear uniform, when I mention blood on their hands, I include all those career servicemen who put their own selfish ambition before the lives of their subordinates, at all levels.

Yes men, get people killed.

These people are politicians in uniform and have no place in a professional organisation.
 
The_Cad said:
These people are politicians in uniform and have no place in a professional organisation.

Exactly so. However, the all pervasive culture of political responses to practical matters (of life and death) will not be eradicated by this Coroner's Court and its findings. MoD will seek to dissimulate and, as is its wont, will do very little except issue a few more cosmetic 'guidances'.

It is high time that the armed services regained what was once a justifiable pride in the quality and standards of their work. Deliberately placing others' lives at risk by one's own actions is morally repugnant. I am simply appalled by the amoral 'management' approach of so many senior ranks.

It's also time for the bean-counters and 'decision-makers' to be held directly and personally liable for their failures to support the fighting man. Sacking a dozen or so at senior level might focus the attention of those remaining. At the very least their names and their decisions should be published.
 
Cad and Unsworth, when I was flying in Afg, it was called "risk management", and it was indeed managed by people in uniform a million miles away from the action.
 
nigegilb said:
Cad and Unsworth, when I was flying in Afg, it was called "risk management", and it was indeed managed by people in uniform a million miles away from the action.

. . the risk being most carefully managed, was no doubt that to each REMF's promotion prospects, were he/she to present unpalatable news or advice to the boss . . . 8)
W've seen thisa in different ways in Khaki (many think Lord Vader Prince of Darkness has a lot answer for) - I'm not sure the Senior Service show up in such a bad light, though.

If my impression is correct, why would that be, I wonder?
 
nigegilb said:
Cad and Unsworth, when I was flying in Afg, it was called "risk management", and it was indeed managed by people in uniform a million miles away from the action.

I'm aware of your personal involvement and experience - and would certainly bow to your infinitely greater knowledge of this. But this 'risk management' is in fact entirely supported - possibly dictated - by political others, I suspect. I think it unlikely that those making assessments which in this case led to awful consequences would do so entirely independently, but you may well know otherwise.

I have always felt that if one sends people into situations of hazard then one must take personal responsibility to ensure that all risks are minimised and, further, where those risks cannot be eliminated the people involved are made fully aware of the potentials. That should be part of every training procedure, anyway.

From what I have seen so far it seems that those making the decisions were not doing so. That constitutes deliberate and wilful negligence. I'd hazard that in civilian law it would amount to grounds for prosecution for Corporate Manslaughter.
 
The Gross Negligence Manslaughter charge brought against Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP has now transferred to Thames Valley Police, which covers the coronial area of the death concerned.

With regard to the Nimrod crash, we all await the narrative verdict from Coroner Andrew Walker, which will be made on Friday on completion of the Inquest.
 
The problem is, our attitude is just to crack on, irrespective of dodgy kit, and dodgy management. The day to day bravery and courage of our servicemen should not be taken as carte blanche to cut corners and risk lives UNNECESSARILY.

Lets face it, its far cheaper for the government to apologise for lost lives rather than carry out their moral and financial obligations to the military.
 
The_Cad said:
The problem is, our attitude is just to crack on, irrespective of dodgy kit, and dodgy management. The day to day bravery and courage of our servicemen should not be taken as carte blanche to cut corners and risk lives UNNECESSARILY.

Lets face it, its far cheaper for the government to apologise for lost lives rather than carry out their moral and financial obligations to the military.

It's the 'cracking on' that worries me. I feel that a sense of duty is sometimes a distinct hindrance - the dedication of some leading to dangers for others. I really do feel it is in the interests of all that these matters should be aired publicly and vociferously. No doubt why Browne is seeking actively to muzzle the Coroners etc.
 
nigegilb said:
The Gross Negligence Manslaughter charge brought against Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP has now transferred to Thames Valley Police, which covers the coronial area of the death concerned.

With regard to the Nimrod crash, we all await the narrative verdict from Coroner Andrew Walker, which will be made on Friday on completion of the Inquest.

Well he's now made his views very clear. Such a pity that the Crewe and Nantwich result has overshadowed his trenchant remarks. That said, there's now the probability that this thing will have legs - let's hope so. No doubt Ainsworth is hoping that this will all be forgotten over the Bank Holiday - let's see what the Sundays manage to publish...

I'd like to see a civil action being drawn up on behalf of those families whose kith and kin were killed by this negligence. Of course the difficulty is identifying the most likely target for any litigation.

The (former) SoS is probably personally well insulated and I'd guess that most, if not all, of the CoC is, too. Maybe this goes back as far as the manufacturers and designers themselves. Then again, it might be possible to sue the MoD as the corporate entity.
 
The coroner's verdict is astonishing! After many months and years of shrugging off accusations of cutbacks, under-funding and inadequate kit, the tail has been firmly pinned on the donkey. Witness the wriggling efforts by Ainsworth on Channel 4 news to claim that he doesn't have the technical knowledge to ground the aircraft and is told it is servicable - whatever that means. This should also be linked to the Mr Justice Collins ruling regarding human rights and suitable/adequate equipment. Every time a Nimrod takes off, the politicians and senior officers will be twitching...and rightly so, why should it just be crews and families that have to worry about the risks. I also wonder how this will be viewed by the CAA - doesn't the aircraft require a certificate of airworthiness?
 

New posts

Top