|
Post by ngatimozart on Aug 18, 2012 18:46:06 GMT 12
I see that the surviving crew member is suing CDF and NZDF. It was on 3 News, One News and Stuff.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Aug 18, 2012 19:25:05 GMT 12
Pretty bloody sad Move on is all I can say. It won't bring them back or change his situation. Glass half full and all that...
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 18, 2012 19:32:32 GMT 12
Don't think it will do the rest of his career any good
|
|
|
Post by spongebob206 on Aug 19, 2012 8:11:26 GMT 12
Totally financially driven Sad
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Aug 19, 2012 8:36:17 GMT 12
All servicemen, and women, recognize that they will, from time to time, be asked to do some things which separate them from civilians. The Armed services won't and can't operate if considerations that you might, because you are doing thing essential to those armed services, one day be injured or killed override doing what you're trained to do. All military work, by it's very nature, has an element of risk which can never be eliminated. I've been in harm's way, lots of time, but it would never occur to me to stop doing what I was doing. That is the nature of the Service, and if this guy can't handle that then he should leave, but then I guess the real motive will be exposed. Money!
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Aug 19, 2012 13:08:11 GMT 12
Every employee, civil or military has the right to the safest workplace practical, with higher quality systems, procedures and orders in place this accident may not have happened. Agreed , but couldnt you say exactly the same thing about every single work place accident ? ( workers die every year in workplace accidents ) Doesnt the ACC syatem take away the right to sue an employer/ individual that may be deemed responsible for an accident ? ( but doesnt remove the likelyhood of them being fined for their actions )
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Aug 19, 2012 16:53:44 GMT 12
Yes but when we signed on the dotted line and took the oath we accepted that there were hazards and potentially dangerous situations that we would not come across in civilian life. As we progressed through our careers we recognised the hazards for what they were. Flying is a hazard, military flying more so, but taking CDF to court over this accident and subsequent events is not good. Does this case show a deeper and more fundamental dysfunctionality within NZDF because of it being stripped bare to beyond the bone and stripped of funding by successive governments?
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Aug 19, 2012 19:00:14 GMT 12
No, I think it's more that we have a generation of people who are into "compensation culture".
|
|
|
Post by McFly on Aug 19, 2012 21:46:17 GMT 12
Here's the current 'Air Force Safety Policy' which outlines the CAFs direction etc.
|
|
zolteg
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 82
|
Post by zolteg on Aug 22, 2012 21:45:55 GMT 12
Just to play devils advocate here...
I do accept and agree that when we signed on the dotted line we set ourselves apart from the civilian world, that we would go places and do things in situations that placed us and others in danger.
The corollary to that is that we expect those in positions above us to to place us in those situations only when the needs of the mission outweighed the safety of the participants, where the operating parameters exceed those which would normally be adopted for day-to-day operations. It's a two way trust.
From reading the output from the COI into this crash, it seems to me that a chain of events was permitted to occur that pushed the operational parameters outside what could be considered safe, without the mission calling for those safety parameters to be exceeded; this is not what our modern RNZAF represents IMO - it smacks of a WWI style 'over the top at all costs' mentality to achieve what was definitely an important tasking, but not one where safety boundaries need be crossed.
The COI findings indicate to me a situation where a culture of do more with less, cut corners where you have to, failed to balance the 'could we' with the 'should we', and that Command permitted that to occur, perhaps even tacitly endorsed it.
We all know those who've contributed either directly or indirectly to this tragedy will carry that burden as long as they live; that's the ethos. Nothing financial will change that.
But ultimately, CDF and his subordinates set in train a sequence of events that meant that when the margins ran out for Iroqois Black on 25 April 2010, they had nowhere to go but down. Accountability must be held for that event.
Frankly, I hope the courts find in Cpl Creggans favour. I also hope he doesn't get a cent beyond real and actual costs, and any punitive compensation goes to the families of Hayden Madsen, Dan Gregory and Ben Carson - at least Steve Creggans family still have him around....
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Aug 27, 2012 9:14:04 GMT 12
My opinion. The Air Force shouldn't be held responsible for a decision made by a crew to fly into bad weather, unless that decision was made by a more senior commander for them to do so. I accept that military aviation is by it's nature dangerous and riskier than civil flying, hence the military slant on flight training. But they were going to an ANZAC Day Parade, so those military flight risks should not have been there. There was obviously some perceived pressure to 'get there'. Two other Iroquois did not crash that day. One crew made a fatal decision enroute. The decision not to fly or to take avoiding action should probably have been made earlier, perhaps on the ground in the briefing room. I don't think SGT Creegan should receive compensation.
|
|
|
Post by paddy on Aug 27, 2012 15:17:15 GMT 12
My opinion. The Air Force shouldn't be held responsible for a decision made by a crew to fly into bad weather, unless that decision was made by a more senior commander for them to do so. I accept that military aviation is by it's nature dangerous and riskier than civil flying, hence the military slant on flight training. But they were going to an ANZAC Day Parade, so those military flight risks should not have been there. There was obviously some perceived pressure to 'get there'. Two other Iroquois did not crash that day. One crew made a fatal decision enroute. The decision not to fly or to take avoiding action should probably have been made earlier, perhaps on the ground in the briefing room. I don't think SGT Creegan should receive compensation. He was a Crewman and, basically along for the ride. He had no input to those in the pointy end. A quote from Len Deighton's book " Bomber" "They might give the VC to pilots that press on in burning bombers but they definitely don't to bombadiers" I DO think SGT Creegan should receive compensation!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Aug 27, 2012 18:40:56 GMT 12
Just to play devils advocate here... I do accept and agree that when we signed on the dotted line we set ourselves apart from the civilian world, that we would go places and do things in situations that placed us and others in danger. The corollary to that is that we expect those in positions above us to to place us in those situations only when the needs of the mission outweighed the safety of the participants, where the operating parameters exceed those which would normally be adopted for day-to-day operations. It's a two way trust. From reading the output from the COI into this crash, it seems to me that a chain of events was permitted to occur that pushed the operational parameters outside what could be considered safe, without the mission calling for those safety parameters to be exceeded; this is not what our modern RNZAF represents IMO - it smacks of a WWI style 'over the top at all costs' mentality to achieve what was definitely an important tasking, but not one where safety boundaries need be crossed. The COI findings indicate to me a situation where a culture of do more with less, cut corners where you have to, failed to balance the 'could we' with the 'should we', and that Command permitted that to occur, perhaps even tacitly endorsed it. We all know those who've contributed either directly or indirectly to this tragedy will carry that burden as long as they live; that's the ethos. Nothing financial will change that. But ultimately, CDF and his subordinates set in train a sequence of events that meant that when the margins ran out for Iroqois Black on 25 April 2010, they had nowhere to go but down. Accountability must be held for that event. Frankly, I hope the courts find in Cpl Creggans favour. I also hope he doesn't get a cent beyond real and actual costs, and any punitive compensation goes to the families of Hayden Madsen, Dan Gregory and Ben Carson - at least Steve Creggans family still have him around.... Nice post and well put. I still think the policy as displayed was written by some MBA-waving direct entry with little knowledge of what the military is really about.
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Aug 27, 2012 21:08:36 GMT 12
My opinion. The Air Force shouldn't be held responsible for a decision made by a crew to fly into bad weather, unless that decision was made by a more senior commander for them to do so. I accept that military aviation is by it's nature dangerous and riskier than civil flying, hence the military slant on flight training. But they were going to an ANZAC Day Parade, so those military flight risks should not have been there. There was obviously some perceived pressure to 'get there'. Two other Iroquois did not crash that day. One crew made a fatal decision enroute. The decision not to fly or to take avoiding action should probably have been made earlier, perhaps on the ground in the briefing room. I don't think SGT Creegan should receive compensation. Obviously there are two sides to every story , but I pretty much agree with this view . Basicly this is no different to the many thousands of work place accidents that occour every year ( including some deaths ) . With the benifit of hindsight there is always a reason behind EVERY accident ( and therefor someone responsible ), but ACC pay medical expenses , wages , rehabilitation etc so that we dont have an American " sue everybody "system . Okay , so its never enough , but its there to help people get on with their lives after suffering some very unfortunate event . I dont think I see why this case should be any different just because its military . Most jobs have some risk
|
|
|
Post by McFly on Aug 27, 2012 21:42:48 GMT 12
I still think the policy as displayed was written by some MBA-waving direct entry with little knowledge of what the military is really about. Actually the Air Force 'Safety Policy' was developed by the serving military men and woman of the RNZAFs 'Directorate of Air Force Safety and Health' (DASH) in consultation with the the Chief of Air Force (CAF) to ensure that his commitment as CEO was fully articulated and understood by everyone as to his responsibilities and of those below him etc. The Safety Policy also meets the NZ Govt legislative requirements and sets out clear objectives to be met. In addition, part two of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 also defines the following: Duties relating to health and safety in employment General duties of employers 6 Employers to ensure safety of employees Every employer shall take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of employees while at work; and in particular shall take all practicable steps to—
(a) provide and maintain for employees a safe working environment; and
(b) provide and maintain for employees while they are at work facilities for their safety and health; and
(c) ensure that plant used by any employee at work is so arranged, designed, made, and maintained that it is safe for the employee to use; and
(d) ensure that while at work employees are not exposed to hazards arising out of the arrangement, disposal, manipulation, organisation, processing, storage, transport, working, or use of things—
(i) in their place of work; or
(ii) near their place of work and under the employer's control; and
(e) develop procedures for dealing with emergencies that may arise while employees are at work.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Sept 11, 2012 13:45:03 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Sept 11, 2012 14:26:51 GMT 12
Journalism is all about checking fact and shining light on claims to establish their authenticity, and reporting the results.
I've read the Herald report, and if it's as stated it's an appalling state of affairs. I'm ashamed at the lack of accountability displayed by some senior officers, and utterly dismayed at the incompetence of a so-called Provost telling a senior officer he was to be charged with very serious offence but wasn't allowed a lawyer! Excuse me? No wonder a judge threw it out because it clearly broke every rule in the book.
I met a former CAF and CDS the other day, and we go back a long way, and in discussing some of those times he happened to mention "our air force no longer exists". It certainly doesn't when you get senior officers ducking for cover.
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Sept 11, 2012 15:00:40 GMT 12
Journalism is all about checking fact and shining light on claims to establish their authenticity, and reporting the results. I've read the Herald report, and if it's as stated it's an appalling state of affairs. I am worried about the reporting. This is the same David Fisher that just a year ago reported that the Trislander engines at Pauanui were screaming in reverse during an aborted takeoff. I have been corresponding with the Herald about the accuracy of their aviation reporting. In June this year a Mr Bryce Johns said that Mr Fisher no longer worked for the Herald. At that point the reporting had improved somewhat. Given that this is the same Mr Fisher reporting here I have to have little faith in his version of events. While I don't see any sensationalism as such in these articles, I have to have doubt about his standards. The Pauanui reporting had to have been a large percentage of fiction.
|
|
|
Post by scrooge on Sept 11, 2012 16:41:21 GMT 12
It's all in the words baron, if he is 'freelance' or 'contracting' he does not work for the paper, but does get paid for writing articles they use. Weasel words.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Sept 12, 2012 12:45:59 GMT 12
|
|