L/Cpl of Horse Matty Hulls death unlawful

#1
Dunno if it's been posted yet (sorry if it has), but the coroners decision is in and it was 'entirely avoidable'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6449227.stm

Where does this leave anglo-american relations? And I wonder what the chances of Lt Col Kohntopp ever facing a prosecution are?

Edited beacuse I'm a mong.
 
#2
It puts Anglo American relations back to around 1776 I'd say.

It shouldn't just be the Pilots who are held accountable, those bean counters in the MOD also have a lot to answer for regarding their failure to procure simple IFF technology.

RIP Matty.
 
#4
I am listening to the press conference, and as usual, his widow is being dignified under the barrage of stupid questions.

How different this could have been with some honesty from MOD and USAF.
 
#6
RABC said:
I am listening to the press conference, and as usual, his widow is being dignified under the barrage of stupid questions.

How different this could have been with some honesty from MOD and USAF.
Agreed - astonishing dignity shown by Lcpl Hull's widow.

She has behaved impeccably throughout - a great credit to her husband's memory
 
#7
The_Cad said:
It puts Anglo American relations back to around 1776 I'd say.

It shouldn't just be the Pilots who are held accountable, those bean counters in the MOD also have a lot to answer for regarding their failure to procure simple IFF technology.

RIP Matty.
I'm sorry, but comments like that are bullshit!
You can not say that the IFF would have worked. They had an identification system and it was disregarded. You also obvioulsy don't understand how "simple" it really is!

OS
 
#8
Oneshot said:
The_Cad said:
It puts Anglo American relations back to around 1776 I'd say.

It shouldn't just be the Pilots who are held accountable, those bean counters in the MOD also have a lot to answer for regarding their failure to procure simple IFF technology.

RIP Matty.
I'm sorry, but comments like that are bullshit!
You can not say that the IFF would have worked. They had an identification system and it was disregarded. You also obvioulsy don't understand how "simple" it really is!

OS
The term “IFF” is often misused. It can be a generic term, encompassing Combat ID; or specific equipment, for example, aircraft IFF. The MoD dismissed “IFF” as the solution for land troops some years ago.

I think what is meant here is “Combat ID”. And then, in simple terms, split that into Mounted CID and Dismounted CID.

Many suppose BOWMAN will deliver both. Indeed, recent (2002 – 06) Committee of Public Accounts and National Audit Office reports clearly infer this. One of them says Combat ID will be in-service in 2006 (last year). Is it?

The common denominator between DCID and MCID is that the object, be it an individual soldier, his section leader or the platform must transmit his position by data. Firstly, BOWMAN doesn’t do this for the individual, as the MoD decided not to buy data-enabled PRR, so in turn there is no requirement to integrate fully with his section leader, except by voice. “PRR Mk2” re-inserts data (if the funding survives), but when? BOWMAN does permit the section leader and the platforms to transmit their position over, primarily, PRC354 and platform equivalents, VMOL/VMOP. This requires bandwidth, which is pretty limited. But we also know that PRC 354 is “unfit for purpose”. Neither is it widely in-service yet, and where it is it’s not the radio of choice. Many have its predecessor, some have a BOWMAN upgrade. And to complicate matters, it was reported 16 months ago that PRC 354 and PRR were to be replaced under another programme – whose remit doesn’t include Combat ID. So, BOWMAN is pretty limited and requires complementary programmes and capability (heard that before).

Assuming a higher echelon actually receives the necessary data (big assumption), can it be seamlessly transmitted to friendly forces? This degree of interoperability may be desired, but as it’s unfunded it remains an aspiration. Listen to the cockpit audio on the A10/Scimitar tape and its clear the “UK” voice warns of friendlies after the event. Too many voice links in the chain.

So, contrary to the MoD’s claims (in their responses to above reports) it would seem not a lot has happened since 1992, when the committees recommended the MoD “redouble” their efforts on Combat ID. But then, the double of nothing is – nothing. I’m being slightly unfair here – work is going on, but I doubt if it was tasked in 1992 and I suspect it’s largely re-inventing the wheel. I’d feel more comfortable if the programme charged with replacing PRR and PRC 354 had DCID in its remit, and the MoD announced interoperability with allies was now funded policy. Perhaps I’m out of date?
 
#9
The other thing here is the A10 does not have data-link. An unusual oversight for the USAF. Sadly USAF has not seen the need to make any changes after this incident. I like the phrase "the double of nothing is nothing." Don't suppose the people who were looking into combat ID were ever in danger of themselves having to enter a kill box with some orange tarpaulin draped on top of their vehicle; up against an enemy and the ANG.
 
#10
IFF can be established by means of a simple and inexpensive transponder. What is good for air frames should be good for ground vehicles.

Whilst the Bowman Situational Awareness Module has potential, it does indeed have flaws outside the mere bandwith issues.

Whilst units can transmit position reports down to section or even vehicle level, a conslidate report has then to be made and transmitted up the chain to the relevant parties.

One can only assume that air assets will be made made aware of all friendly call signs on the ground as a result of this information.

The problem being, the information is only as good as the last consolodated report.

There is still wide scope for human error.

In the case of Matty, had the pilots followed proper procedure, I doubt we would be having this exchange.

That is why we need better technology, to prevent the cowboy factor.
 
#11
2404Motorman said:
RABC said:
I am listening to the press conference, and as usual, his widow is being dignified under the barrage of stupid questions.

How different this could have been with some honesty from MOD and USAF.
Agreed - astonishing dignity shown by Lcpl Hull's widow.

She has behaved impeccably throughout - a great credit to her husband's memory
Agreed.

This item led the BBC R5Live News at midday, including live interview with a British Armed Forces Federation (BAFF) spokesman. Amongst other things he pointed out the essential part played in the inquest by Mrs Hull's legal team. BAFF was therefore calling for legal aid to be available to bereaved service families in such circumstances, as recommended by the Deepcut Review but so far rejected by the Government.
 
#12
Well done Hackle, keep up the pressure, I would not want to be a relative going into these Inquests without legal representation.

If I can help you in any way you have my support.
 
#13
Let's not forget in the finger-pointing and the USAF-bashing (entirely justifiable I'm afraid to say) that we're talking about an inquest into the unlawful death of L/Cpl Hull.

RIP, L/Cpl Hull.
 
#14
As an aside, is it not the case that there has been a decision not to renew this particular Coroner's contract?

If so, it's another example of messenger homicide, and so typicial of the vindictiveness surrounding those who wish to expose the truth.

Wait (not too long, I'd guess) for more MoD dissimulation.
 
#15
As always i'm struggling with phrases used by the media to explain what happened. They observed, aquired, engaged & destroyed vehicles on the ground in much the same manner as someone might bag a brace of grouse on 12 August. No mention of 'accident' was mentioned until a sewage cart hit a windmill

(ie lots of sh*t & a very big FAN!!)
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
In a statement the US defence department extended its "deepest sympathies" to the Hull family.

It said the US had shared all information from its own investigation with the MoD, except those parts that had to be withheld for "security, privacy or other reasons". (c) BBC News

Nice to see that the spams used a great catch-all to withold evidence to the inquest (witheld for "security, privacy or other reasons"). Must try that next time I'm asked for some information - "sorry won't tell you that because I don't want to".
 
#17
Unsworth said:
As an aside, is it not the case that there has been a decision not to renew this particular Coroner's contract?

If so, it's another example of messenger homicide, and so typicial of the vindictiveness surrounding those who wish to expose the truth.

Wait (not too long, I'd guess) for more MoD dissimulation.
Funny you should say that 'Unsworth'...
The DailyTelegraph
Ministry of Defence statement after verdict
Last Updated: 1:12pm GMT 16/03/2007

Friendly fire death 'unlawful and criminal'

"This has been a distressing process for L/Cpl Hull's family and friends. The MoD has tried very hard to keep the Hull family fully informed at all times.

"We are very sorry for confusion and upset caused over the handling of the cockpit footage. We are carefully considering the Coroner's comments and their full implications.

"Susan Hull said today that she hopes that lessons will be learned as a result of this inquest - we will do all that we can to ensure that this is the case.

"We hope that the inquest has helped them gain a fuller understanding of the circumstances surrounding L/Cpl Hull's death.

"We have worked very closely with the coroner during the inquest and note that he has placed on record his appreciation for our help.

"This inquest has highlighted the need for a more coherent approach to the management of documentation and evidence.

"A dedicated team has therefore been set up to support coroners and bereaved Army families to ensure that relevant documentation is made available quickly and that issues concerning disclosure are resolved at an early stage.

"The team will also liaise with coroners to facilitate the attendance of Service witnesses. The new team will work with the other two Services to foster an effective joint approach."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/16/ninquest216.xml
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
The intricasies of the rank structure of the HCR can be a mystery to the rest of the army. The MOD has no chance.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
TheBigUn RAC 4
E Aviation 7
R Aviation 7

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top