01. Purpose

Declaration

The content of this website has been notified to MoD and the Head of the Civil Service, in particular the 3 main reports it hosts.  Much of it has been provided by MoD.

The only restriction placed upon me was that, before discussing a report submitted to a post-Board of Inquiry investigation into the Sea King ASaC Mk7 collision of 2003, I should request it under Freedom of Information.   This request was submitted; MoD denied its existence.   I therefore feel entitled to discuss a document the Minister for the Armed Forces referred to, but his staff say does not exist. 

It has also been notified to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee. 

If any error has been made, please contact me providing details of the correction required.   The site permits comments to be left.

 

Introduction

The purpose of this endeavour is to present evidence that;

  • MoD's systemic failure to implement mandated airworthiness regulations dates to the mid 1980s, not 1998 as claimed by Mr Haddon-Cave QC in his Nimrod Review (2009).  (A claim he knew to be wrong).
  • Senior MoD staffs and Ministers were regularly advised of these failings in the period 1987 - 2005 (i.e. before Nimrod XV230 crashed) yet;

a.       Denied the problems existed, thus misleading Parliament

b.      Refused to take corrective action

 

  • Ministers and the RAF’s Directorate of Air Staff continued to deny the problems existed, even after the XV230 crash

 

  • By failing to take corrective action, aircrew and passengers' lives were lost to avoidable accidents
  • Ministers and Inquiries were systematically misled by MoD, by omission and commission
  • The failure of senior MoD staffs, Ministers and the Nimrod Review to take action when notified of these facts not only denied the opportunity to prevent recurrence but wrongly, and knowingly, blamed innocent individuals while protecting the guilty. 

The evidence presented herein clearly shows MoD's financial "black hole" and systemic airworthiness failings are directly linked and came as no surprise to anyone in MoD, Ministers or PUS (the Chief Accounting Officer)

To demonstrate this, detailed historical evidence is required.  This is presented in the form of documents submitted to both the Nimrod and Mull of Kintyre Reviews.  Also, a comprehensive report into the loss of two RN Sea Kings, prepared on behalf of the family of a deceased airman who remain concerned at being lied to by MoD. 


Any reader will quickly ask "So why did Haddon-Cave omit this evidence?"  He will not say, but the inescapable fact is that doing so;

  • Allowed him to blame the wrong people without contradicting himself, and,
  • Served to protect senior staffs who, demonstrably, knew of the failings since 1987 and took no corrective action

This failure to report the verifiable facts ultimately misled Ministers and Parliament and led to the avoidable deaths of aircrew.

 

 

Basic Principles

In presenting and commenting upon this evidence, certain basic principles are recognised which are enshrined in, for example, the Civil Service Code, which demands Honesty, Integrity, Impartiality and Objectivity.  The Services have equivalent rules, for example the Air Force Act and Queen's Regulations.  Similarly, Parliament has the Ministerial Code, although there is no mechanism whereby a member of the public may complain about MPs/Ministers misleading Parliament, or Civil Servants lying to Ministers.   

  • A practice is misleading by commission if it gives false information or deceives or is likely to deceive the average person, even though the information may be correct.
  • Actions or practices may be misleading by omission, for instance by leaving out important information, giving unclear or ambiguous information.
  • Regarding the requirement to exercise a Duty of Care, if a person asks a reasonable question and is lied to, the fault lies with the liar, not the Duty Holder.  However, if the Duty Holder could be reasonably expected to know he was being misled or had been lied to, and did not, then he is incompetent and negligent.
  • If the Duty Holder is provided with evidence that he was misled or lied to, and takes no action to reconcile conflicting advice, then he is negligent and liable. 
  • "Professional diligence" means the standard of special skill and care that one may reasonably be expected to exercise toward (in this case) aircrew, passengers and those whom the aircraft overflies. 

The evidence presented here clearly demonstrates a systemic breakdown in the application of Professional Diligence and Duty of Care.

The reader is invited to read the attached short paper “It is always wise to start at the beginning” which outlines a few basic principles that apply in MoD.  They are simple and help one understand the root of the systemic failures described herein.

 

SelectionFile type iconFile nameDescriptionSizeRevisionTimeUser
Ċ
View Download
  88k v. 1 24 Mar 2015, 03:27 NARO 19743992