Coroners critisism

#1
Yet another inquest...and yet another verdict of the unlawful killing of a soldier in Afghanistan.

But yet again a Coroner has seen fit to criticise the British Army and its logistics. This time apparently, a bomb disabling device (ECM) was in theatre but lying in someones stores when it should have been fitted to a vehicle out on Ops.

Gordon Gentle of RHF was killed by an IED which according to the Coroner, would have been disabled by the jamming device. A `breakdown` in communications between Logistics was to blame.

Scant consolation to Pte Gentle`s folks methinks.
 
#2
Without breaking OPSEC, it's obvious that to anyone who has been out recently the problem starts at the door of the CQMS. Not loggies and certainly p1ss all to do with the RLC. This one belongs to the REME, the Sigs Sgt and the Patrol Commander.
 
#3
I wholeheartedly agree with you mate, but shouldn`t there be some sort of system whereby certain pieces of kit are `flagged` so when they hit the stores, they can be requestioned by those who need them? Or am I in La-La land with this?
 
#4
rockape623 said:
Yet another inquest...and yet another verdict of the unlawful killing of a soldier in Afghanistan.

But yet again a Coroner has seen fit to criticise the British Army and its logistics. This time apparently, a bomb disabling device (ECM) was in theatre but lying in someones stores when it should have been fitted to a vehicle out on Ops.

Gordon Gentle of RHF was killed by an IED which according to the Coroner, would have been disabled by the jamming device. A `breakdown` in communications between Logistics was to blame.

Scant consolation to Pte Gentle`s folks methinks.
It was actually Iraq. Another thread here.
 
#5
I dont understand how You come to that conclusion Cable Ties. The inquest reported communications failure, could it not just as much have been some Loggy clerk not informing the unit that the kit was ready to be picked up?
 
#6
Sorry Dryroasted, you are correct and I hang my head in shame.

Must remember to check facts before ranting!!!
 
#7
Cable_Ties said:
Without breaking OPSEC, it's obvious that to anyone who has been out recently the problem starts at the door of the CQMS. Not loggies and certainly p1ss all to do with the RLC. This one belongs to the REME, the Sigs Sgt and the Patrol Commander.
How do the REME get tarnished with this?
 
#8
Sven said:
I dont understand how You come to that conclusion Cable Ties. The inquest reported communications failure, could it not just as much have been some Loggy clerk not informing the unit that the kit was ready to be picked up?
It's not the Logistics that deal with THAT type of kit, REME and Sigs are the boys(well they were when we were over the water). It may have been the people responsible for recalibration etc hadn't informed the REME Tech guys that it was ready but that isn't a Logistics role


Oh and Loggies don't have clerks( certainly not in the last 25 years anyway) /pedantmode off
 
#9
EX_REME said:
Cable_Ties said:
Without breaking OPSEC, it's obvious that to anyone who has been out recently the problem starts at the door of the CQMS. Not loggies and certainly p1ss all to do with the RLC. This one belongs to the REME, the Sigs Sgt and the Patrol Commander.
How do the REME get tarnished with this?
Not tarnishing as such but at a Regimental level the REME are responsible for the collection of certain kits that need constant recalibration including sigs kit. It would depend whose remit ECM falls under but even in a Sigs unit they surely have a Workshop/LAD controlling their tech stuff or perhaps even a Force Workshop :?
 
#10
"REME" -part of the wider "logistic" chain perhaps?

Without commenting on specific case - if a spare part gets to a unit but doesn't get fitted, it is hardly the RLC's fault but may still be a logistic failing.

You can't blame "Loggy clerk" (whatever one of them is) for not telling chain of command. If it is vital, life-saving kit the CoC should be asking for it.
 
#11
Good to see the RLCs fine upstanding position of trying to shoulder slope the blame after a tragedy.

If any of you chods (and I'm not hoping for much with the Restricted Learning Capabilty of the trogs) actually read the report rather than believing journo nonsense, you'd see that the kit wasn't even delivered to be installed until the 28th. To have it in vehicles that evening is a bloody good show from the REME. Hardly a good call to try and shift the blame that way.
 
#12
Herrumph said:
"REME" -part of the wider "logistic" chain perhaps?

Without commenting on specific case - if a spare part gets to a unit but doesn't get fitted, it is hardly the RLC's fault but may still be a logistic failing.

You can't blame "Loggy clerk" (whatever one of them is) for not telling chain of command. If it is vital, life-saving kit the CoC should be asking for it.
But apparently the kit was lying in a store some 1 km away from the base. Depending on how long the kit was there, the fault feasably lies with
a) A clerk attached to the Logistics Unit at the store 1 km away who didn't send the paperwork to say the kit was ready for pickup
b) The G1098 guy at the other end who got the paperwork and didn't act on it.

Of course, if the kit had only arrived in stores that morning then it was no-ones fault and the coroner is talking bollox
 
#13
Oh shut the feck up on the cap badge slagging, please?

Numerous parties were involved of numerous cap badges - combat, combat support and combat service support. Whilst the exact failure points in a specific direction, different actions by a number of other parties could have made a difference in theory. That is part of the randomness of such events.
 
#14
Dilfor said:
Oh shut the feck up on the cap badge slagging, please?

Numerous parties were involved of numerous cap badges - combat, combat support and combat service support. Whilst the exact failure points in a specific direction, different actions by a number of other parties could have made a difference in theory. That is part of the randomness of such events.
I'm not interested in it Dilfor, only in exploring the actuality. That is why I wrote the bit at the bottom.
 
#15
I'm not slagging off any cap badge. I'm a REME Tech myself so have a vested interest in making sure this sort of thing doesn't happen.

There has clearly been a failure in SOP's. The patrol commander shouldn't have gone out without the kit. Full stop. Whether the kit is unavailable due to the REME or the Sigs Rep is another issue. There is enough spare in the system without needing the last one in theatre to be serviceable, equally, the Sigs Rep needed to track and ensure his availability was up to scratch.
 
#16
Cable_Ties said:
I'm not slagging off any cap badge. I'm a REME Tech myself so have a vested interest in making sure this sort of thing doesn't happen.

There has clearly been a failure in SOP's. The patrol commander shouldn't have gone out without the kit. Full stop. Whether the kit is unavailable due to the REME or the Sigs Rep is another issue. There is enough spare in the system without needing the last one in theatre to be serviceable, equally, the Sigs Rep needed to track and ensure his availability was up to scratch.
New bit of kit in theatre - maybe it wasn't SOP by then? Maybe he didn't know it was there? Lets stop trying to blame someone, learn the lesson and make sure it does't happen again.
 
#17
That's my point. Not to play the blame game but find out what went wrong and make sure it never happens again. Lack of knowledge about life saving kit is a constant cry but if the kit was introduced into service correctly this sort of horrendous tragedy could maybe have been avoided.
 
#18
Most of these comments are,understandably, rather wide of the mark.

In the absence of a transcript of the Inquest, the BOI report sets out in significant detail what actually happened and is available on-line on the MoD site. I would suggest that, notwithstanding various posters views on the BOI process, they make a good starting point for at least the background into such incidents. Reading them prior to engaging in debate will inform that debate.
 
#19
If you think how difficult it is to get vehicles in for MEI on time and apply that mind-set to the amount of electronic kit that needs to be calibrated/spec tested etc. then the CQMS generally does get overwhelmed without Optronics to nudge, advise and guide.

I agree with EX_REME (well I would, all Reems together and all that), discussing why the system broke down and continues to break down intermittently keeps it fresh in the toms minds and hopefully ensures that they know about the kit they need to carry out their job.
 
#20
Sorry I deleted my post after I saw dilfors last. Ineed more info before I post any more here.
 

Latest Threads

Top