Post Herc downing - MOD on notice for corporate manslaughter

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by batus_survivor, May 3, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Following up something I heard on Today yesterday (huh?). In the light of the Herc being downed not being fitted with explosion suppresent foam, someone was suggesting that the MOD should now regard itself on notice that it may be had for coroporate manslaughter should more servicemen die and it could be shown that reasonable protective measures could have been taken. Now, I'm not a fan of everything ending up in courts, but it would make a change for the political wing of the MOD to be up in court and not the servicemen. But that's a whole other thread.

    What I wanted to ask was if anyone could think of actions/inactions by MOD which are questionable. At the risk of airing dirty lauindry maybe someone would take notice?

    Wishful thinking I know, but there's been one thing bugging me for ages. Back in about 95 I think, a member of the safety staff in BATUS was killed when a redtop landie was run over by a Warrior. The board of inquiry afterwards found that visibility for a closed down WR driver was very poor, and recommended that BATUS WRs be fitted with the Desert WR drivers hatch, which has 3 vision ports not just 1. At least, that's my recollection - can anyone shed more light on this one. What I do remember is that in 97 the only WR fitted with the 3 port hatch were the red tops for 4 group. All the BG WRs still had the old 1 port hatches. Anyone been over recently and can confirm this is still the case?

    Also - I presume recommendations of a board of inquiry are just that, recommendations and therefore not binding. But in light of my point at the beginning, is it wise to ignore such findings?
  2. What about that sergeant who got killed (i think) early on in iraq after there was not enough body armour to go around?
  3. I'm sorry but I feel that because of the levels of spin in the political wing, some poor sod with rank will be expected to fall on their sword and not some slimmy polotician.

  4. U.S. Hercs had been fitted with the fire suppressant since Nam, the kit is operationally proven to increase survivability and the MOD once more put bean counting before the lives of the troops as it always does. Ultimately the Defence Secretary is responsible for ensuring we have the proper kit, if the treasury over rules him and makes an issue of it over cost then The Chancellor should be held accountable for lost lives. I think that a court case with punitive damages against the MOD if lives were lost would be a good thing. The strouble is the bean counting, inept and corrupt B'stards want fully comprehensive insurance but they're only willing to pay 3rd Part fire and theft. Come the revolution they will all be held to account!
  5. The only winners if this case goes to Court will be the money grabbing defense lawyers.
  6. Unfortunatly I don't think it will work. Looking at it then the MOD did not kill these people, the ones firing the weapons at the herc did! To protect all the service people all the MOD has to do is not deploy anyone!
  7. A fair point oneshot but in law the MOD has a duty of care to provide us with the correct safety equipment for the task in hand. If the task in hand happens to involve being shot at, then there is both a legal and moral obligation to provide us with the correct equipment. Not only that being improperly equipped hardly ties in with the maintenance of moral one of the basic principles of war. Another case in point is the 6 RMP guys, they were murdered by scum but that doesn't absolve those who failed to ensure they were correctly equipped.
  8. Good post, Oneshot. The MoD cannot cover every eventuality.

    The Hercs are already well above the factory standard - in terms of defensive aid suites, cockpit armour etc. Who can ever tell if the explosion suppresent foam would have saved the crew's lives? The wing could have been too badly damaged to sustain flight.

    If I ever die on operations, I hope people behave like Lt Richard Palmer's family - with dignity.
  9. The results of the investigation indicate the Herc may well have survived if fitted with the relatively inexpensive foam. Ask yourself this.... would you rather deploy with it fitted or in a standard Herc? While there is indeed a limit to what can be achieved this foam is a simple and practical solution proven operationally. Why do our allies have it and we don't? Cos the MOD is run bu Civil servants and not men of honour!
  10. [devils advocate]

    How do you deem safety equipment for this type of job? If you say that its the best technical equipment avaliable then your against the limited pot of money that is avaliable for procurement, also theis is constantly moving and can not be mandated!

    Again, just because pilots say its desirable, it doesn't mean it is so. I do a lot of design work in collaboration with pilots and others and they have little concept of the money involved!

    Also, if your bullet proof vest is safety equipment for being shot at, then where is the rest of the full body suit etc etc.

    How many people have died because of the lack of nitrogen ingectors in Herc fuel tanks. I suggest 1 herc crews worth! Not demeaing their lives, but considering the mod budgets how high up the list should this be?

    [/devils advocate]
  11. This is unfortunatley not just a one off. I should imagine that all of us know where things have been cut or ommited to save money whilst still retaining the operational tempo! Perhaps it is time for the politicians to be held to account for some of the things that go wrong. During the Falklands war Mrs Thatcher personaly wrote the notes of condolences to the families of the men that died, can anybody imagine our current Lords and masters doing so or even caring. A little accountability for the things that go wrong would be a good idea (maybe it could be applied to the home office, department of education and the health service as well!).
  12. Obviously your going to take the foam one. However, even though it may seem relativly sime idea, any change to an aircraft like this is an expensive task in terms retrofitting, testing, training and deployment, taking aircraft out of the line to fit etc etc.

    And the Herc (according to a RAF person on the radio) MAY have survived if the pilot could have found an area to land, but that wasn't certain!

  13. Accountability

    While agreeing with you I take the pessimistic/realist view that the beancounters are never going to be made accountable.

    Also agreed with Interceptors point
    But if the MOD/Govt do not sort it out we will have more casualties, they will not sort it out if everyone sits back. This is in no way a dig at relatives of any casualties. I would like to think they would appreciate efforts to prevent another family going through what they have suffered.

    What really gets me is the spending on cosmetic niff naff trivia like Posh chairs interior designers and paintings, put that in the defence budget.
  14. In an attempt to swing this back to my original intent, sya we steer away from the duty of care in an operational theatre. The complication there is there are bad guys actively trying to find the weak points in the MOD's procurement policy.

    What about away from operations? I'm sure my example of the driver's hatch on BATUS Warriors can't be the only example? In this case, a man was killed, and a wise precaution against it happening again would be the cost what? 30 or so hatches?