|
Post by htbrst on Jan 27, 2013 9:57:37 GMT 12
|
|
junior
Flight Lieutenant
Wibble
Posts: 95
|
Post by junior on Mar 4, 2013 17:15:12 GMT 12
ANZAC Day Iroquois Crash
Officer charged over 2010 Anzac Day crash Last updated 18:05 04/03/2013 A Royal New Zealand Air Force officer has been charged in relation to the Anzac Day Iroquois crash, which killed three men.
Flight Lieutenant Hayden Madsen, 33, Flying Officer Dan Gregory, 28, and Corporal Ben Carson, 25, were killed, when the Iroquois they were in crashed into the side of a hill at dusk on Anzac Day, 2010.
Following an investigation, the New Zealand Defence Force confirmed an air force officer was charged with committing a Service offence under the Armed Forces Discipline Act.
"The formation leader has been charged with negligently failing to perform a duty... The charge does not allege that the accident was directly caused by this omission," the NZDF said.
The charge alleges that the officer, who was in command of the formation that crashed Iroquois was travelling in, "negligently failed" to abort the mission of the formation when weather conditions deteriorated so much so, that visibility was lost.
The Defence Force said a formal investigation would take place on April 4.
The only survivor of the crash, Sergeant Stevin Creeggan, is trying to prosecute the Defence Force.
A military court of inquiry partially blamed sub-standard protocols and a culture of "rule breaking" among 3 Squadron for the crash.
It said their night vision goggles were rendered useless by a lack of moonlight, and they were not properly prepared to fly using only their instruments.
- © Fairfax NZ News
|
|
Woodsy
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 9
|
Post by Woodsy on Mar 4, 2013 17:54:40 GMT 12
So the guy that was put in an untenable position by his commanders with significant pressure to meet the goal is to be hung out as the sacrificial goat? Similarly, was he adequately trained, experienced, supervised and supported by his superiors so that he was able to make educated decisions in a culture that supported saying "no" where reasonable grounds exist to do so? I sincerely hope that deeper investigations are also being conducted into those that set and maintained flight (& ground) safety standards.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Mar 4, 2013 19:47:55 GMT 12
Approximately 7 weeks to go before the statute of limitations runs out (3yrs from the accident) and possibly the lowest guy to be involved is to be charged. The RNZAF leaders take the pay cheques due to the responsibility but now they need to step up and accept some responsibility they duck for cover. Bloody disgraceful. The RNZAF has 7 weeks to change my opinion of quite a few people.
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Mar 4, 2013 21:15:07 GMT 12
Approximately 7 weeks to go before the statute of limitations runs out (3yrs from the accident) and possibly the lowest guy to be involved is to be charged. The RNZAF leaders take the pay cheques due to the responsibility but now they need to step up and accept some responsibility they duck for cover. Bloody disgraceful. The RNZAF has 7 weeks to change my opinion of quite a few people. Like that's ever going to happen. The rot is from the top down and I include CDF in that too.
|
|
junior
Flight Lieutenant
Wibble
Posts: 95
|
Post by junior on Mar 5, 2013 5:56:35 GMT 12
Approximately 7 weeks to go before the statute of limitations runs out (3yrs from the accident) and possibly the lowest guy to be involved is to be charged. The RNZAF leaders take the pay cheques due to the responsibility but now they need to step up and accept some responsibility they duck for cover. Bloody disgraceful. The RNZAF has 7 weeks to change my opinion of quite a few people. Like that's ever going to happen. The rot is from the top down and I include CDF in that too. I could see the apple barrel starting to rot back in 2005. Im surprised my ex-trade in the RNZAF hasnt completely imploded yet! .... and its disgraceful how positions of responsibility and leadership are convieniently sideshifted to make the peons the scapegoats.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Mar 5, 2013 5:58:07 GMT 12
i find the new article a bit unbelievable.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 5, 2013 6:21:37 GMT 12
While the possible sentence here can be as much as two years, that is highly unlikely given the circumstance, and the most likely result will be a loss of seniority which will delay his promotion, a bit, but not stop it.
There are comments here I might add, that show little knowledge of the level of expectation the air force has of its officers, particularly pilots.
I have some experience of this process myself, having once been charged as a Flt Lt for refusing to charge two SNCOS for something I knew they hadn't done and in fact of which they had no knowledge ! So Wg Cdr Dickhead had me charged and I duly appeared in front of an Air Commodore, who knew me well, and who threw the case out! I then redressed Wg Cdr Dickhead, and the wheels were set in motion, until I was approached in the bar one night by CAS himself who quietly agreed I was absolutely right, but would I agree to his dealing with it directly? As he was such a nice man [the late Larry Siegert] I agreed, and Messieur Le Dickhead left the air force not long after!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 5, 2013 7:50:35 GMT 12
Is there any explanation as to why this charge comes three years after the incident, and a year and a third after the Court of Inquiry concluded? Why have they been sitting on it for so long? It seems worse than the civil court system.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 5, 2013 8:07:06 GMT 12
Dave, a good point and one I'm absolutely certain will be raised. It's utterly ridiculous!
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Mar 5, 2013 9:10:42 GMT 12
To be seen to be doing something to try and take the heat off...
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Mar 5, 2013 12:40:02 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 5, 2013 13:58:30 GMT 12
The author, of both of these articles is himself the subject of the editorial in the February edition of "Pacific Wings".
Quote:"The media's preference for confirmation bias ahead of objective fact-finding is at its most prevalent when it comes to anything to do with aviation.It is no wonder that aviation companies and military organisations distrust journalists when facts that get in the way of a good story are blatantly ignored in order to present an angle that matches a journalist's personal views", and......."the articles are about as balanced as a see-saw with the hinge at one end".
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Mar 5, 2013 15:07:58 GMT 12
I have mentioned this character here before. He has little credibility in my eyes and I have an email contact for any complaints you may have. The Chief Reporter at the Herald would be interested.
The Fisher guy imagines things and goes to print with them. He is very dangerous..
|
|
atgv
Flight Sergeant
Posts: 29
|
Post by atgv on Mar 5, 2013 16:04:58 GMT 12
Certainly, its mind boggling why he is the go to defence guy for the Herald. Has he ever written an article about the NZDF that wasn't negative?
I know there are some articles he has written within the last year that have 'facts' which are straight up wrong.. whether his 'sources' are wrong or he thinks 1+1 = 3.. who knows.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 5, 2013 16:22:55 GMT 12
Rob Neil [Pacific Wings Editor], goes further: [good on you Rob!!]:
"The Air Forces' own internal accident investigation,and the Independent McLelland Report have purportedly formed the basis for several inflammatory-headlined articles slating the Air Force. Either there were two versions of each document published or the article writer selected material from them to "verbally assassinate the RNZAF". "Only the negative aspects of the McLelland Report, of which there are few, were seized upon, with none of the positive comments been given any weight"
That's Aunty Herald for you!
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Mar 5, 2013 16:57:28 GMT 12
People at an airfield screamed in terror as a plane with 10 passengers aboard plunged through a safety rail and off the end of the runway towards them.
Eyewitnesses said a group at a skate bowl at the end of the Pauanui Airstrip stood transfixed yesterday as the plane's engines roared in reverse to slow its progress.
The Great Barrier Airlines plane wound up nose-down in a garden at the end of the airstrip about 6pm. Passengers and two pilots got off the plane unharmed even as emergency staff raced to help. This is his article that I complained about. The Herald later said they had received no complaints about it. I know I was not the only person who wrote in. I think another earlier version of his story had the skateboarders fleeing in panic. I could not be too sure about that now but I can't recall the 'standing transfixed' story. These are just terms plucked from the imagination, the same as the 'emergency staff'. I doubt very much he spent much time with research or interviews. He would have gone to press with a few statements and a lot of imagination. Not one person would have mentioned the roar of the engines, all three were hard back on the idle stops and probably with mixture pulled at that. To then sit on the complaints and not offer an apology or retraction says much also. The readers really deserve something approaching the truth, not be fed a fabrication. I would not believe any article with his name against it. I can't see how we could take him seriously. Harsh but I can see others are having issues with him also. Something needs to change.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Mar 5, 2013 17:12:36 GMT 12
So the journalist has some credibility issueswith previous article, but are people here saying that the articles are wrong because of who wrote them? Maybe time to start a new thread on him rather than addressing this in the ANZAC crash one. Having read the CoI report its quite clear failings exist all the way up the chain, and the formation leader on the day could have prevented the accident for sure, just as many above him could have preveted by providing adequate resources, guidance and training.
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Mar 5, 2013 18:22:08 GMT 12
That is what I am saying Lester. If we cannot believe the reporting then what is this thread based on ?
I have been involved in a Court hearing at Ohakea in the past. I also know the particular senior Officers in the Air Force very well. Well those currently holding Air Rank anyway.
We all know the Air Force blokes can't defend themselves here so we will end up having a lop-sided discussion on a topic when we are going by comments from some journalist. This chap we know does a poor job and is economical with the truth.
Surely that is of major significance when we view some of the comments here.
How anyone can say the Air Force has inadequate training is beyond me..... what else did we ever do ?
This may as well be a rumour thread....
|
|
Woodsy
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 9
|
Post by Woodsy on Mar 5, 2013 19:13:45 GMT 12
You might want to have a (re)read of the COI findings, currency and training were significant areas found to be lacking.
The bit I struggle with is that 10 years ago when I was in the mob you just didn't break AFFOs, where has that safety culture gone? As with all safety incidents, there are many controls that have to have holes in them to result in an accident (Google the James Reason accident causation model - if memory serves I think this model was one used by the COI).
So knowing that, how is that one guy ends up in the gun?
We could also have an interesting discussion on quantity vs. quality of training.
|
|