|
Post by corsair67 on Sept 12, 2012 23:29:57 GMT 12
Sadly, this is not a good look for the RNZAF.
By the sounds of things, it might be time for a large broom to be applied to a few senior positions in Defence HQ?
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Sept 13, 2012 0:10:31 GMT 12
It wasnt a good look when Muzz crashed. Plenty of senior people then saying we must learn from this and make sure it doesnt happen again etc. First Nick Cree and then the Iroquois, insufficient training, assumptions, doing more with less, conflicting orders, indifference from command, etc etc etc.
I do find it interesting that no one really senior has been charged (yet). As a mere Sgt my signature meant I could clear maintenance, certify and aircraft or component as safe for flight and so on. If I or the guys under me got it wrong then I could be hung based on that signature.
Now you have senior people issuing orders that are conflicting, they knew the Iroquios pilot had issues but had yet to put a plan in place to fix them, they had a lack of supervision and currency, senior officers signatures will be on these documents. Yet have they been held accountable?
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Sept 13, 2012 8:29:40 GMT 12
Well put Les. There was no accountability after Muz's accident - the senior officers who should have been held accountable got promoted instead... and guess who was running the RNZAF when this series of accidents and incidents happened...
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Sept 13, 2012 12:58:42 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Sept 13, 2012 21:13:52 GMT 12
This is what annoys me about documents like the Air Force Safety Policy featured earlier in this thread - they say all the right things and make all the right sounding commitments - but when the crunch comes, they are just so many meaningless words on paper if no one is prepared to take responsibility for implementing measures to try and ensure that accidents like the loss of Murray Neilsen, Hayden Madsen, Daniel Gregory, Ben Carson and Nick Cree are not repeated.
It seems to me that too many organisations are spending large sums of money making sure they have the right public documents prepared to meet whatever legal and safety commitments they are bound to comply with - without actually putting the thought and/or resources into making sure that everyone in the organisation is actually aware of, and following, the rules and regulations laid down before them.
More real, well directed & effective action, and less arse-covering, would be a good start!
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Sept 13, 2012 21:31:08 GMT 12
This is what annoys me about documents like the Air Force Safety Policy featured earlier in this thread - they say all the right things and make all the right sounding commitments - but when the crunch comes, they are just so many meaningless words on paper if no one is prepared to take responsibility for implementing measures to try and ensure that accidents like the loss of Murray Neilsen, Hayden Madsen, Daniel Gregory, Ben Carson and Nick Cree are not repeated. It seems to me that too many organisations are spending large sums of money making sure they have the right public documents prepared to meet whatever legal and safety commitments they are bound to comply with - without actually putting the thought and/or resources into making sure that everyone in the organisation is actually aware of, and following, the rules and regulations laid down before them. More real, well directed & effective action, and less arse-covering, would be a good start! Well said, I totally agree and said so some posts back.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Sept 13, 2012 21:39:51 GMT 12
On another issue,[ from the Herald report] had any flat-footed elephant tracker arrived at my door to summons me and tell me I wasn't entitled to legal representation he would have been given very explicit sexual directions as to where he should go and how to get there. He was, as a subsequent judicial review said, talking utter bollocks. I personally find it a complete disgrace that a CAF should mention that charge but not that it had been summarily dismissed by a Judge. Whatever happened to personal integrity?
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Sept 13, 2012 21:58:16 GMT 12
Yeah, was giving that some thought and the only thing I could come up with was that Mardon told him that on purpose knowing that it would be a point for appeal and acquittal.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Sept 14, 2012 5:37:10 GMT 12
On another issue,[ from the Herald report] had any flat-footed elephant tracker arrived at my door to summons me and tell me I wasn't entitled to legal representation he would have been given very explicit sexual directions as to where he should go and how to get there. He was, as a subsequent judicial review said, talking utter bollocks. I personally find it a complete disgrace that a CAF should mention that charge but not that it had been summarily dismissed by a Judge. Whatever happened to personal integrity? One point I think we should clarify here, the "Provost Marshall" mentioned is actually a senior RNZAF Engineering Officer who is a very nice guy. He must have the Provost Marshall job as a secondary appointment? Who knows, but I think he has probably been done a disservice by some of the comments here. He is definitely no Elephant Tracker! I suspect he has been given a role in all this for which he is very unqualified and inexperienced. Which is very sad given the seriousness of this accident and aftermath. Dear I say it, more symptoms of a dysfunctional and incompetent command structure?
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Sept 14, 2012 10:45:00 GMT 12
On another issue,[ from the Herald report] had any flat-footed elephant tracker arrived at my door to summons me and tell me I wasn't entitled to legal representation he would have been given very explicit sexual directions as to where he should go and how to get there. He was, as a subsequent judicial review said, talking utter bollocks. I personally find it a complete disgrace that a CAF should mention that charge but not that it had been summarily dismissed by a Judge. Whatever happened to personal integrity? One point I think we should clarify here, the "Provost Marshall" mentioned is actually a senior RNZAF Engineering Officer who is a very nice guy. He must have the Provost Marshall job as a secondary appointment? Who knows, but I think he has probably been done a disservice by some of the comments here. He is definitely no Elephant Tracker! I suspect he has been given a role in all this for which he is very unqualified and inexperienced. Which is very sad given the seriousness of this accident and aftermath. Dear I say it, more symptoms of a dysfunctional and incompetent command structure? Thanks for sharing that inside knowledge Don, which of course bears no resemblance whatsoever to what the Herald reported! Having had some pretty odd "Supernumary" appointments myself, including doing a Summary of Evidence on a JENGO] I guess a Provost Martial could be appointed at anytime one was necessary!
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Sept 14, 2012 12:25:41 GMT 12
Many here will have done time in the mob. We know it is a small organisation and everyone generally knows each other very well.
I know many of the senior officers mentioned, their backgrounds and personalities.
What really gets me is bad reporting. A court case is bad enough but we have the tainted views of the Police, a Judge who you have to think really does believe himself. Then of course, we get the reporter's version of events.
Those that have been intimately involved with any court case will know just how accurate the events portrayed compare with reality...
What I didn't know when I signed up was that almost from day one I was going to be at war.
I don't know if it was ever mentioned but this particular battle is never ending and the cause of so much emotional turmoil and stress. I have been in several war zones but generally on the 'other' side. It is not so stressful over there.
The military forces are fighting the politicians every step of the way, the servicemen are just the pawns, toy soldiers and houses on the monopoly board.
For the Senior Officers to hold it together for over 20 years must take some doing. I had enough of it during the Lange period and banged out. Many here would have done the same with Helen.
Those in the higher levels deserve a medal for their fortitude. Most of the nonsense comes from the part-timers.. the Politicians and the 'contract' reporters. These guys have zero requirement for any background or knowledge.
It is an unfair game and the ones with so little knowledge get to be the referee while they play. They are ones on the ego trip and want the fame... Let them be accountable !
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Sept 14, 2012 12:43:15 GMT 12
Perhaps the newly announced inquiry will put everything in its place.
You're also correct: I never had much time for politicians, and Helen Clark's actions as PM were the last straw for me and I opted not to serve a nasty, vindictive politician if ever there was!
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 26, 2012 18:18:33 GMT 12
Campbell Live (TV3) are doing a item on it tonight at 7pm
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 27, 2012 20:58:31 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Nov 1, 2012 23:19:45 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Nov 2, 2012 1:24:13 GMT 12
Holy crap, just spent 2 hrs reading through the lot. Now I'm angry. Jaw dropped and head started shaking around 4 pages in. So many broken rules and orders, a very bad culture of rule breaking and cover ups, and also the realisation how close they came to losing 2 aircraft that day. Download it, have a read, its eye opening stuff.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Nov 2, 2012 18:55:56 GMT 12
bloody hell, thats mind bogling
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Nov 4, 2012 21:50:49 GMT 12
Just goes to show that you can cover lots of little things up - up until the point where someone finally very pubically spears into the ground.
There was no need at all for that accident to occur, and the fact that it happened for such silly reasons is all the much sadder.
Time for a clean out of the senior ranks in the RNZAF, me thinks.
|
|
|
Post by mowgli on Nov 26, 2012 12:53:55 GMT 12
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. Well said. The Safety Policy presented by McFly is nothing new. It simply spells out the obligations that Command have under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. If anything, it's a smoking gun, as if such clear direction was absent before. Regarding ACC. You're only covered under ACC for injuries notified to ACC at the time. During Service, the NZDF simply makes you well and regardless of the completeness of your medical file. The line between ACC and Service expense is blurred. After release is a different story. If your injuries from Service are not recorded properly, or even diagnosed, then ACC will not be interested in funding their treatment. SGT Creggin suffered massive trauma. I don't think it's unreasonable for him to seek acknowledgement of the extents of his injuries in order to properly assign costs for future medical expenses. If this acknowledgement is not forthcoming and the NZDF won't underwrite the medical cost of the accident then suing may be his only option. Noting the spiralling costs of medical treatments I hope he wins big. Whatever he gets it's unlikely to be enough.
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Nov 28, 2012 11:39:53 GMT 12
|
|