|
Post by lesterpk on Mar 5, 2013 23:43:33 GMT 12
From elsewhere and written by a former RNZAF UH1H pilot who knows the CoI and post accident/crash process very well:
IMHO there is no doubt that the Flight Lead should be held accountable at some level. 3 people died. Obviously he flew below not only below regulated limits but also safe limits.
This in no way mitigates the systemic pressure he was under. This in no way mitigates the failure of Leadership further up the Command chain.
Superior Leadership & Integrity are inseparable bed fellows....and to this end I am deeply saddened that the Leadership of the RNZAF do not actually WANT to be held accountable. They should actually be putting their hand up and saying, "Yes, this happened on my watch and I bear responsibility"
If they do not believe they bear any responsibility then, in effect, they are admitting to failing as Commanders, for failing to monitor standards and for failing to implement their own policies. By denying responsibility they are admitting that they failed to effectively lead the RNZAF and subsequently to a failure of Integrity by failing to stand up and be counted.
Are they failed Leaders or did they fail to lead?
I might add that a Courts Martial for this young Officer might be the worst possible thing for the Commanders of the RNZAF/NZDF. The defence lawyer will be able to mitigate this chaps errors by highlighting all aspects of leadership failures (at all levels) - warts and all.
It will be very interesting to see who gets called as witnesses. It almost reminds you of "A Few Good Men"
I'm no longer familiar with the AFDA but if evidence given in the Courts Martial becomes something of interest to the NZ Police then surely there is potential for a civil suit, criminal negligence case.....in which case the statute of limitations no longer applies (I think??)
This could get quite ugly
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Mar 6, 2013 10:24:16 GMT 12
I have been having a little email correspondence happening as several may have been aware of my previous dealings with the Herald. My emphasis is more on the standard of reporting than on the gist of the proceedings with the ANZAC Day accident. I have read the report, but it was some time ago and I have no desire to go back to it at this point. I read it more with my pilot's hat on and probably formed an opinion from that. I am not well informed on the processes and various releases to date, for that I apologise. Given the above statement I find my myself agreeing with what Lester has just submitted above. It seems to be a fair comment to me. I am involved in civil aviation these days, and in many countries at that. I wrote this in one of the recent emails. It may have some relevance here. ********** I have a very strong suspicion that the civil accident investigation and subsequent processes are nowhere near as robust as those in the RNZAF. We should not forget here that the RNZAF is indeed self regulating. They are the operational producer, the safety regulator, the accident investigator, prosecutor and the courts all in one.
Are we saying that in a 'normal' investigation we are not going to have errors or mistakes made by the following ?
a). The operating Company b). Individual staff c). CAA as the regulator d). TAIC and CAA as the investigator e). The Police f). The Courts. g). Coroners Court h). The reporting and media coverage.
I have been in Civil Aviation for many years. In that time I have seen some atrocious handling of the above. ********** I also added... ************* While the RNZAF system may appear to be flawed based on your readings of the ANZAC Day accident it is perhaps nowhere as defective as the civil equivalent. (As a whole).
I am not in any way saying our various civil organisations are bad. It is just the way it is. We are getting 80% followed by 80% of that etc. I am sure every step in the process has errors.... That is a fact of life.
I work in Aussie a lot. The gossip forums there have their organisations approaching dysfunctional. The Norfolk Island ditching has polarised opinion there.
Back to the RNZAF version. When you break it all up into those little areas and review the procedures in each one in turn you will see similarities. At least they have released full and transparent reports.
********** I did also mention the Fox Glacier skydive accident as a comparison.
|
|
|
Post by mowgli on Mar 17, 2013 19:24:35 GMT 12
The trouble with the NZDF system is the absence of transparency. The old boys club have too much influence over the investigation and it's outcomes. Would a tax dodger ever take himself to court and find himself guilty? I think not.
The real travesty in the current charges is the attempt by RNZAF to disassociate them with responsibility for the crash. If it weren't for the crash then these charges would not be laid. Guilty + negligence + crash is what the court of public opinion will remember. The only just approach is to try him for responsibility. Instead they've dumbed the actual charge down so it may be heard by a CO. In a summary trial the RNZAF holds all cards. He hasn't got a hope.
Timing is rotten. The report was written over eight months. They then sat on the completed report for five months before commencing a disciplinary investigation and a further six months before public release. Then 34 months after the accident, 21 months after the disciplinary investigation began and two months before time runs out, they book him for the least charge they could lay. Meanwhile an investigation into command failures has yet to commence.
I used to respect the current and previous CAF without question. Given their behaviour and evident lack of integrity through this tragedy I now consider them cowards.
My comments are from personal experience and observations. They're not based on media reporting. I note some inaccuracies in Herald articles. I also note that the RNZAF seem unwilling to tell their side. Surely if they did, that would be newsworthy? Instead the leadership has closed ranks to protect their own - apparently at any cost.
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Mar 18, 2013 11:51:26 GMT 12
I have to admit Mowgli that I have reached a similar conclusion about most of senior officers in NZDF past and present since the Clark Govt of 1999. There appears to be a lot of arse covering and I once said here that I believed that the senior officers at CDF, CAF, CoA and CN since then have been politically tainted. I was shot down for it and I don't have solid evidence for my belief but it's just a strong suspicion I have. Interestingly though the new CN, Jack Steer, has very good reputation with the lower deck in the RNZN for standing no rubbish, be a very good boss and looking after the crew. I also note that in the Defence Ministers Speech in London last Feb he said that CDF is now appointing Chiefs of Service in consultation with the Minister and that also CDF is taking over operational control of all three services. So it appeasr that finally the SSC is out of that loop.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 18, 2013 13:42:55 GMT 12
You're correct, you don't have any solid evidence, or indeed any evidence at all, just an uninformed opinion, and like arseholes everyone has one of those.
I expect any day now an announcement from the RNZAF to the effect that there will be no more Formal Investigations or Courts of Inquiry, they'll simply appoint a team of volunteer experts gleaned from this site!
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Mar 18, 2013 15:12:07 GMT 12
My opiinion is not necesarily uninformed Phil it's just that there appears to have been a sea change in attitudes over that time period and this attitude change has not necessarilly been for the best. Like I said it is an opinion. I have not claimed to be an expert. I do know who to sheet the blame home to and that is Clark, Burton Mallard and Goff plus the current govt, but what has happened to the RNZAF in particular and NZDF in general since 1999 has made the situation more untenable. At moment I am working my way through the Feb 2001 REVIEW OF THE OPTIONS FOR AN AIR COMBAT CAPABILITY, plus some others on Air power theory including operations theory. The US armed Fortces have to make a lot of their manuals etc., available to the US public freely available so non classified material is found on their websites, such as the US Army where I have obtained a copy of their operations doctrine manual from. The US Army Corps of enginering has a lot of its manuals on its website and it's where I learned how to echo sound from whilst doing my degree.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 18, 2013 15:35:11 GMT 12
To the contrary Paul, I think you are uninformed, because you can't possibly be privy to any fact that would lead you to make such observations as:"There appears to be", and "I believe" [that officers are tainted], and that "I don't have any evidence" which actually contradict your opinions! I would go as far as to consider, IMHO [which is never humble!!!]some of the accusations being levelled at Senior Officers here are bordering on slanderous!
You are right in saying you don't know who to sheet the blame home to, but as far as I'm aware Messrs Clack, Burton, Mallard and Goff were never in the air force!
In my quarter century in uniform I never met a politician I liked because none of them can lie straight in bed. In particular, I left because I refused to serve under the political will of a left-wing protester name of Clark, and yes, I did write and tell her that, [after I'd left of course, I'm not entirely stupid]!
In the modern world any country's defence is a mix of three tasks. New Zealand under Clark dropped the second of these and it's not coming back. So we can't contribute to any sort of relationship with our friends and Allies. There is no doubt that NZ is out of step with every other country in our region, all of whom believe that the risk of serious trouble cannot be ruled out.
None of that is the fault of serving members of the air force, of any rank.
|
|
|
Post by mowgli on Mar 18, 2013 15:52:09 GMT 12
To be slanderous comments must first be untrue. Mine are not.
I find ngatimozart's comments agreeable.
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Mar 18, 2013 21:47:02 GMT 12
Phil I was never an officer and when I served in te RNZAF and RNZNVR I can only think of a very few officers whom I would not serve with plus one I wouldn't go to sea with. I do hold the honour of the services very highly and what I said I did with a heavy heart. I also knew two of the very senior RNZAF officers when they were flying instructors at Wigram and held them in very high regard. I am not slandering anyone intentionally but not all is rosey within the upper echelons of NZDF when people are running for cover and there is very low morale below decks amongst the troops. I do have contacts with some ex and currently serving people, so I do get to hear things that would be cited as "personal comments". I don't say such and such because so and so told me but over time I've picked up an undercurrent of dissatisfaction - a pattern if you may, that is appearing in the conversations. I'm trained in spatial analysis and the scientific method, so looking at or for patterns is common for me. That's all, so that is why I have written as I do.
Late Addition: If my memory serves me correctly, when Clark and Co appointed their first CAS they appointed an officer who was junior in seniority and rank to the then current contenders and he hadn't flown fast jets. I believe it was said at the time that this was to deep six those more senior officers who would've normally made CAS or DCAS, but they had fast jet experience and the govt didn't want them in charge of RNZAF beacsue that is where theyw oould face the greatest opposition from to scrapping the ACF. This is why I feel that the this appointment and subsequent senior officer appointments, in the RNZAF and wider NZDF approved by the then govt, either directly of through the State Services Commission, were politically tainted. They wanted officers who would follow the party line because they owed their quick advancement to Clark & Burtons deep sixing of the fast jet officers. So I would argue that this constitutes a case of direct involvement, interfernce and influence by the Clark cabinet in the career futures of officers, other than those who would have normally been short listed for CAS and DCAS slots. The Cabinet effectively killed the careers of those very senior fast jet officers because they were politically unacceptable. A very large percentage of military officers aren't slow and they would've seen the writing on the wall. In my book that defines political tainting and through no fault of the officers involved. However it does, I think, taint their decision making because of the culture of political interference and domination of a senior officers career that now has been introduced within the senior echelon by the political shennanigans.
Like you Phil I loath pollies and the only useful ones in my book are dead ones.
However methinks you and I will have to agree to disagree on this and leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 19, 2013 4:52:25 GMT 12
Late Addition: If my memory serves me correctly, when Clark and Co appointed their first CAS they appointed an officer who was junior in seniority and rank to the then current contenders and he hadn't flown fast jets. quote] Oh Dear! I know the gentleman concerned, and your summary of events is totally incorrect! Pat Neville was appointed CAS as a Nav: so how would you explain that?
|
|
|
Post by nige on Mar 19, 2013 6:52:07 GMT 12
Perhaps NM meant CDF not CAS?*
Anyway interesting discussion gents and to take one aspect, it does appear to me that since the disbandment of the ACF that CAF & DCAF appoinments have been from the non-ACF areas.
But no doubt there are many other senior and planning positions below CDF which may or may not include former ACF types (and whether this is totally relevent I am not sure).
Phil82 - you are one of the most enlightened people here, I'd be keen to know what are your thoughts and views are? Eg to correct any mis-impressions (including myself, cheers)!
* Re: AM Fergusson, in a certain N.Hagar book that was released recently on the NZDF, Mr Hagar paints (ok he has a certain viewpoint, I know) AM Fergusson as someone who was pro-"ANZUS" (esp behind the scenes) rather than Ms Clark's lapdog!
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 19, 2013 9:26:50 GMT 12
Hagar is full of it, with no credibility whatsover other than to conspiracy theorists everywhere. Bruce Ferguson's rapid promotion came about due to a number of other candidates in line becoming "unsuitable", and anyone around at the time will know precisely what the background was. I'll give you another hint, ask yourself why the vast majority of the Army's AFVs or whatever they are have never been utilised! Suffice to say that the story posted by Paul [NM], is pure fantasy! Now someone here, they being a curious bunch, is bound to ask how a number of senior ARmy guys were passed over, so I'll give you the gist of it! In regard to the purchase of the LAVs a report was commissioned by the Auditor General which noted: "During the same month in which the Auditor-General’s Report was released, a letter (which was to become known as ‘The Gordon Letter’[50]), was tabled in Parliament, a copy having been given to Bradford by Robin Johansen, who had previously been Deputy Secretary for Defence Acquisition in the Ministry of Defence.[51] The letter, which Lieutenant Colonel I.J.M. Gordon indicated was triggered by the Army’s embarrassing experience with its equipment in Bosnia, was described by the Leader of the Opposition, Jenny Shipley, as ‘seditious’.[52] In the letter, Gordon encouraged the Army to open a ‘second front’ in its "war against NZDefence". The New Zealand Herald commented: Over the next few days, the impression left by the Gordon letter was reinforced with leaks about private briefings and a dinner attended by the Army high command and Defence Minister Mark Burton of which the Chief of Defence Forces was unaware. … The leaking of the Gordon letter finally pushed the Government into ordering an investigation.[53] The Auditor-General’s Report commented strongly on the dysfunctional nature of the relationships between the Ministry of Defence, the NZDF and the Army. Less than three weeks after the Report was published, the Minister of Defence announced the following major review and two inquiries: 1. A review of accountabilities and structural arrangements between the Ministry of Defence and the NZDF—the Hunn report; 2. An inquiry into standards of behaviour, the leaking of documents and the inappropriate use of information and position by NZDF personnel—the White and Ansell report; and 3. An inquiry through the office of the Judge Advocate General into the propriety of a letter allegedly generated from within the Army and an e-mail allegedly generated from within the Army" The result was that a number of people became unsuitable for promotion!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 19, 2013 9:41:23 GMT 12
I have always felt very uncomfortable about this thread given its subject matter being highly emotionally charged (for many reasons), but it now seems to be deteriorating into an all out slanging match about senior officers.
Keep the thread on track, and keep it civil or the thread will be locked.
|
|
|
Post by nige on Mar 19, 2013 10:42:09 GMT 12
Thanks Dave, I agree.
There's no point in people pointing fingers at NZDF leadership for perceived wrong-doings. Like any Defence Force, especially those in Western democracies, they are subject to massive political interference and budget restraints, and for NZ, it always has been like this, this is nothing new.
Take a look at the discussions on current Australian defence forums - their Govt has bought RAN a ship the Navy didn't want (it will transfer to Customs within a few years) and now there is Govt talk of additional F/A-18 Growlers (which will affect other project capabilities and force structures). Despite our complaints of NZ pollies, in some respects we're better off!
In my post above, I recall AM Fergusson received a lot of flak from defence commentators in the media (at the time he was appointed CDF). I, like 99.9999% of the population have no idea of the validity of these people's concerns, hence I am neutral, except to say I will always have respect for such people in that they are appointed to do a tough job, with essentially "no8" wire funding, have many demands placed on them (eg politcial accountability, dealing with political whims, demands from within the services and from external sources in terms of assisting with international efforts and missions. And to top it off, trying to ensure all risk is minimised to ensure no casualties. Not an easy job).
I should have worded my comment above better, which was meant to indicate that the AM received alot of flak from media and commentators at the time (for apparently being something he wasn't eg jumped the promotion queue or was Labour's "lapdog" by not publically spatting with Govt re ACF loss) but on the whole and from what I can see from the comfort of my armchair, AM Fergusson was someone who took his role seriously and looked to enhance relationships with our former allies (something that Mr hagar was spitting tacks about!) which is a benefit not only to the NZDF but wider NZ society. IMHO of course!
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Mar 19, 2013 12:14:47 GMT 12
Phil I'm quite happy to admit if I'm wrong and the Ansell White report sounds like a good place for me to start checking my info. I've downloaded a copy of it and its appendices for reading. I also agree with you about Hager. IMHO he is a very biased writer.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Mar 19, 2013 16:08:04 GMT 12
Gents, I was there. I was in the room when many of the discussions were occurring. I was also personally smoked for actions in the Lav purchase (as was another Captain). I was relatively junior at the time so they let it go but there is more to come out yet. No one is blameless in the ACF demise - Army RNZAF NZDF or Pollies- on both sides of the fence. The reports did not go deep enough. Dave, with all due respect. this thread is on track, senior officers are at fault just as junior staff. They are not above criticism and the issues we have here in NZDF, capital acquisition, accidents and current operations come down to issues that cut to the quick. If we keep the criticism on their professional conduct I think that would be welcome and robust debate that needs to occur - where else will this occur amongst professional who care?
|
|
|
Post by mowgli on Mar 19, 2013 16:10:05 GMT 12
I served under AM Fergusson and hold him in high regard. In my experience he is a man of his word with strong empathy for junior ranks.
I remember fondly him visiting us in Suai, East Timor soon after his appointment to CDF. We had an issue regarding pay and conditions affecting some personnel. HQ had all but told us to wind our heads in. AM Fergusson, listened, made a promise and the issue was resolved. I sent him a personal thank you. He responded personally.
IMHO the NZDF would do well to appoint more like AM Fergusson.
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Mar 19, 2013 19:41:19 GMT 12
Thanks Dave, I agree. Take a look at the discussions on current Australian defence forums - their Govt has bought RAN a ship the Navy didn't want (it will transfer to Customs within a few years) and now there is Govt talk of additional F/A-18 Growlers (which will affect other project capabilities and force structures). Despite our complaints of NZ pollies, in some respects we're better off! Not really sure what your point is here. When the Kanimbla and Manoora were decommissioned early due to age related deterioration, the ADF was left with a single sealift ship until the arrival of Choules, Canberra and Adelaide. That single ship, Tobruk, is itself nearing the end of its service life and has all the availability and serviceability issues associated with that. The government of the day saw this as presenting a risk to ADF operations that was higher than acceptable, so brought forward the acquisition of a vessel for the Customs and Border Protection Agency, and made it available to the ADF until those new ships are in service. Following that, it will revert to its intended long term owner. As for Growlers, those aircraft provide the ADF as a whole with a capability that is available to less than a handful of nations world wide. They are a fundamental game changar for the ADF and what it is able to do. I think those who questioned their purchase could legitimately be asked whether their desire to protect their own pet projects, possibly defined in another era or strategic circumstance, is really appropriate in the wider, whole of ADF perspective. If it wasn’t for the Aussie government being willing to adapt the Defence budget to changing circumstances, opportunities and needs, the ADF would have no C-17s, no M1A1s, no C-27Js. All of those are viewed as necessary capabilities today. And the studies currently underway in relation to additional F-18F or new build EA-18Gs? The decision to move to a single type force to replace the F-18A/Bs and F-111s was made ten years ago. Before committing irreversibly to that decision, the government wants to make sure that the approach remains the best option for the RAAF and ADF. Seems like reasonably prudent decision making to me.
|
|
|
Post by nige on Mar 19, 2013 21:00:15 GMT 12
Sheesh Richard, my point is this, the Australian Govt is spending $130M from the Defence budget to purchase Skandi Bergen for approx two years of naval use and then the Govt will pass it onto Customs. SB is non-mil spec and presumably not worth spending much more money to upgrade systems to be fit for task. It will be crewed by civilians. Seems like reasonably prudent decison making to you?
I've no beef with the initial Growler conversions but Govt is now considering additional Growlers. The cost of which will be borne from the existing budgets (remember ADF is having budgets axed by billions over the next few years i.e. certainly no new money allocations) but also this is out of left field i.e. wasn't signalled in previous reviews. This means other long term projects on the short list will be postponed or chopped. Again doesn't seem prudent decision making. Let alone why the heck would the RAAF need so many, what 12+12 or 12+24?
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Mar 19, 2013 21:11:22 GMT 12
The Growlers are a new capability for the ADF and will add to the ADF ISR capability as well. Those Growlers will be the only non US Growlers in the Asia Pacific area and the US has a shortage of them in this area at the moment, so the ADF is going to fill an allied capability gap. What I thinks needs to be realised, and it is something I've just learnt, is that we need to focus on the wider network and computing capabilities rather than individual aircraft. It's the sum of the parts being better than the whole concept. It's about information and data transfer between strike aircraft, AWACS types, C3, ISR C4 and how that information is analysed and acted upon. So for example a couple of red bandits could turn up and there my be three of four blue aircraft around two of those aircraft might fire a missile each but all the targeting data and even the firing ordercoud come from an AWACs or C3 etc., 100 miles away. That is one of the advantages that the F35 will bring, it's sheer computational power and ability to share data from multiple sources quickly. It's operations doctrine and operations processes that have been evolved over the years and set for the 21st century. The Growlers fit into this 21st Century Air Power doctrine until the F35 becomes operational.
With regard to ADF amphibious ships Tobruk aka Toobroken spends most of its time alongside being fixed. I think it's basically rust holding hands now & they won't want to spend a lot of money on it. Choules problems is still being fixed. From what I've herd Kanimbla and Manoora are being prepare for sinking as artifical reefs. Canterbury has filled in as ADF amphib / sealift if required. LHD NuShip Canberra is ontrack for service in 2014. Richard has summed up the situation fairly well.
|
|