|
Post by corsair67 on Mar 19, 2013 21:15:51 GMT 12
Money's no problem - just dig another hole up in WA, QLD or NT! ;D
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Mar 19, 2013 21:23:57 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? Defence in all likelihood will get its money back when the ship is transferred to Customs and Border Security. Even without that, $130m is loose change for the ADF. And why would the RAN interrupt training for HMAS Choules, Canberra and Adelaide simply to crew an interim vessel for 2 or three years? As for whats the best number of Growlers for the ADF, I'm happy to let the professional capability planners sort that out. Don't forget that the EA-18Gs are just as useful in support of land or maritime operations as they for air to air or air to ground.
|
|
|
Post by nige on Mar 19, 2013 21:38:10 GMT 12
Richard - I hope it all works out well for RAN in the end (and with $5.5B worth of Defence savings over 4 years I would have thought $130M would be rather important to retain, rather than to be spent purchasing a vessel which in essence will have a short life before being transferred to another agency)!
I'm not here to bag ADF but my original point was that of political interference and the Aussie examples were to provide some contrast (eg the criticism I read over the Skandi Bergen is that with the mil-spec LPA's stuffed, AuGov has gone for a less than ideal option but one which for the public & MSM at large it appears that something is being done). For all its faults I couldn't see a NZ Govt doing something similar (but then again that's only because being fiscal scrooges I'd doubt they would even get around to even entertaining such a idea)! I'll leave it at that as this is way off topic now!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 19, 2013 23:15:23 GMT 12
What the hell? I asked you lot to keep the thread on track and you're all crapping on about Aussie ships? Time this thread closed I think.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Mar 20, 2013 16:30:20 GMT 12
I agree Dave, but please don't shut this thread down - rather can the offending posters please use the correct threads or start a new one in the appropriate place.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 20, 2013 20:41:46 GMT 12
Can we trust people to actually adhere to the moderation team's wishes Don?
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 20, 2013 22:33:51 GMT 12
Dave, I've been around sites such as this for more years than I care to remember; a founder member of one or two, still am, and a Moderator on more than one.While moderation has to be done with thought and consideration, it's usually acceptable if done firmly and tactfully. It is far better, in my opinion, and as I say I've been there and done that, than direct censorship which is in effect what closing a thread is! It's a bloody big hammer to crack a small nut!
Six posters here lost their way and the topic strayed, so why can't those six posts be placed elsewhere as an alternative to closing a thread on one of the most significant events in post-war RNZAF History. Isn't that what the site is about?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 21, 2013 0:18:54 GMT 12
It's not just the straying from topic that is a worry as that happens often on the forum - it is also the very topic of this thread which makes me exceedingly uncomfortable. It is about an accident in which people were killed, and its nature has changed from the reporting of news and facts about the crash and investigation into a load of people adding their penny'sworth of speculation and blame based on their varying informed and uninformed opinions.
Moderation also benefits from consistency, and as it is a well known and long standing forum rule that speculation is simply not allowed when it comes to aircraft crashes, I think the thread should be locked.
I did lock last night - as I have every right to do, and after reading Don's post I decided to unlock it in the hope people might show some respect and stop posting rubbish. Now I see that the next post that comes along is challenging the very moderation that keeps this forum civil and hopefully free of legal action. You may call it censorship but I call it common sense.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 21, 2013 4:54:32 GMT 12
See ya!
|
|
|
Post by nige on Mar 21, 2013 14:01:34 GMT 12
Hi folks, my apologies for contributing to the topic being sidetracked (and allowing myself to be sidetracked)!
I have an appreciation of what Dave is saying/asking of us and I fully understand his position. There are a number of issues here which perhaps on their own may seem inconsequential to readers of a discussion forum but if we look at them together they include:
*A very sensitive topic about an accident in which personnel died, and is the subject of initial and on-going investigations.
*Sidetracking to blame NZDF leadership for all sorts of things nothing to do with this topic. Plus there is no right of reply.
*Sidetracking to other topics a bit more than the usual (guilty, m'lord)!
*Dave has been warning us time and time again!
*This forum is read by the likes of defence personnel and the media etc. (Let alone the families of the deceased perhaps).
Put all together it's a perfect storm and I can see where Dave is coming from and thus I support his stance.
For better or worse, the media (fed the fuel by Opposition politicians) are trying to paint a picture of defence ineptitude and painting the Government as being responsible for everything "going wrong" due to cut-backs.
I don't want to be, and us to be (accidentally) aiding and abetting these media and opposition politican scumbags who are taking great delight at these Defence misfortunes to ramp up their credibility in the circles that they echo-sound off.
EG I'm astounded that Labour have tried to use the issue of lack of accomodation the night before the ANZAC day crash as being a major contributing factor. The report is clear it wasn't but the public perception being generated by some in the media and some politicians is having a damaging effect.
I took a look at OnTheRoger@proboards where our trans-tasman cuzzies hang out and there is a thread there where they have taken the media/polly spin to heart (about the lack of pre-flight accomodation) and are blaming the NZDF/kiwis hook-line-and-sinker as being inept. Although annoyed I suppose I don't blame them if this is what they read and then have the media read us here as re-enforcing blaming the Govt for being responsible for eveything that goes wrong.
I realise there is a difference between closing threads (censorship as some put it) and Phil's idea of gentle but firm moderation. I would rather support the latter than the former too. But I think we are lucky here in that Dave and the other moderators are, on the whole, very tolerant compared to other forums and do let alot slide by that other forums probably wouldn't. Perhaps we need a bit more gentle but persuasive moderation, to keep topics on track and to stop issues escalating as they have, but on the other hand I appreciate the general relaxedness of this forum.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 21, 2013 18:08:59 GMT 12
Thank you Nige. You may have noticed the thread is not actually closed....
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Mar 21, 2013 20:14:20 GMT 12
Dave if you'll tolerate a couple or so sentences of politics for a moment please. Nige you shouldn't be astounded by the Labour spin, especially as Phil Goff and Trevor Mallard still have a lot of say within the caucus and Goff is now Foreign Affairs and Defence spokesperson. Between them Clark and Burton, they contributed a lot to the sorry state of affairs within the RNZAF and NZDF. Unfortunately for NZDF, Labour are still following the same path and if they win the next election ,we will have another jerk back towards the emasculation and disarming of NZDF. The second major debilitaing problem is the stinginess of the current government, that has also significantly contributed to present problems in NZDF. As much as the pollies deny it, a significant denial of funding has a significant impact upon all facets of NZDF. It is cause and effect and unintended effects. This is what I surmise was a contributing factor to the crash. Not one that can be directly attributed, but one that was in the background because of diminished resources being made available over time. This means less people, less training, less peer supervision and more work and pressure placed upon those who are serving. It can be quantifiablel but I would doubt that it has been done in this case. I still believe that those higher in the command structure should be taking more responsiblity for this tragedy and I think this lack of responsibility is a reflection of modern times and management doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 11, 2013 8:15:24 GMT 12
3 News's Firstline just reported that a hearing is to take place today to decide whether or not the pilot in charge of the flight should be Court Martialled.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Apr 11, 2013 13:07:41 GMT 12
Now on Noon news TV1, and essentially what I said some time ago, that rumours of a Court Martial were premature given that the charge hadn't been heard at a preliminary hearing by a CO. According to the news, it is that preliminary hearing which is taking place today.
In the latest Aviation News, there is a good article on the Vulcan incident at Wellington, and subsequent landing at Ohakea. The AOC [RAF]offered no recriminations whatsoever and in fact ordered the crew to fly a display at Ohakea the next day. Compare that judgement to the threat of a court martial against a pilot who was in sole command and made a decision not to abort the flight. A decision incidentally which had absolutely nothiong to do with the crash. None of the pricks with all the 20/20 hindsight were in the cockpit with him, and if we Court martialed every pilot who ever made a mistake there would be precious few left.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 11, 2013 19:09:20 GMT 12
Anzac Day crash officer calls orders a 'shambles'Published: 1:18PM Thursday April 11, 2013 Source: ONE News The Royal New Zealand Air Force officer charged over the Anzac Day helicopter crash three years ago has described the orders given before the fatal flight as a "shambles". Flight Lieutenant Dan Pezaro, who was the formation leader on the flight, has pleaded not guilty to a charge of negligently failing to perform a duty, by not aborting the mission when conditions deteriorated. A hearing is underway at Ohakea Airbase today to determine whether he should face a court martial. Flight Lieutenant Hayden Madsen, 33, Flying Officer Dan Gregory, 28, and Corporal Ben Carson, 25, died after the helicopter they were travelling in went down in cloudy conditions near Pukerua Bay en route to a dawn service fly-past in Wellington in 2010. This morning a DVD interview with Pezaro has been shown where the Flight Lieutenant outlined his experience for leading the flight, in which he called the orders given ahead of the flight as a "shambles". The NZDF said in a statement that Pezaro had been charged with negligence but did not allege he directly caused the accident. ONE News reporter Rebecca Edwards said today's hearing was similar to a deposition hearing, presided over by a Wing Commander who will ultimately decide whether the case will go to a court martial. A family member of one of the crash victims is at the hearing along with the sole survivor Stevin Creegan and his parents. tvnz.co.nz/national-news/anzac-day-crash-officer-calls-orders-shambles-5402661
|
|
|
Post by sqwark2k on Apr 12, 2013 19:11:34 GMT 12
One News had "breaking news" during tonight's bulletin, that FLTLT Pezaro has been judged to have a case to answer and may elect to have the case heard by the current presiding Officer or by full court martial.
I'm a bit confused, the current hearing held over the last couple of days has mentioned "defence lawyer" SQNLDR Ron Thacker and "Prosecuting Officer" SQNLDR Anthony Budd. To my knowledge, both these officers are longstanding General Duties Pilots. SQNLDR Thacker a former Wing Commander and CO 3Sqn, who returned to the RNZAF to work in the Helicopter Transistion Unit. SQNLDR Anthony Budd was a subject in the TV3 documentary "Wings" following a wings course and recently CO Pilot Training Sqn. Have both these guys a law background or is it typical in a hearing like this to appoint fellow officers and then bring in the legal officers for the court-martial if it gets that far?
Why isn't NZDF Legal Officers involved from the get go?
Personally, while its a shame this appears to be a token gesture at finger pointing, when your authorization was for cloud no lower than 600ft, and then you fly at 200-250ft to avoid cloud, and then someone is killed due to said conditions, then you have to expect some repercussion.
|
|
awol
Flight Sergeant
Posts: 21
|
Post by awol on Apr 12, 2013 21:18:40 GMT 12
The military justice system has changed. The format now has a presenting officer (prosecution), a defending officer, the accused, and a disciplinary officer (judge). The officers called to conduct the trial are not lawyers, they are NZDF officers who have been trained in the military justice process, and their job is to act in the interests of the party they represent (the accused or the NZDF).
Representatives from the NZDF legal branch may be consulted during a summary trial, however the trial is conducted by the nominated officers.
The media has not accurately communicated this system to the public, hence your confusion.
|
|
|
Post by sqwark2k on Apr 12, 2013 21:38:18 GMT 12
Thanks, I was highly suspicious of the media reporting it that way. Just this evening the same journo for the herald, reported the decision this evening that Pezaro has a case to answer by calling him a co-pilot, even though a day or so earlier he was the formation leader. Surely most people would associate a co-pilot having a Captain, and that a Captain is usually in charge so why would a co-pilot be a formation leader and be soley responsible for the incident in question.
Will Military lawyers/legal officers be used in a court-martial or would a similar system be used then as well?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 12, 2013 22:14:07 GMT 12
Radio New Zealand National report here:
Officer to defend amended charge over Anzac crash
An Air Force officer charged over a fatal helicopter crash on Anzac Day has chosen to defend an amended charge.
Flight Lieutenant Dan Pezaro was leading a formation of three helicopters flying from the Ohakea air base to Wellington on 25 April 2010 when the crash occurred.
Flight-Lieutenant Hayden Madsen, Flying Officer Daniel Gregory and Corporal Ben Carson died when their helicopter crashed at Pukerua Bay en route for a flypast at a dawn ceremony in the capital. Sergeant Stevin Creeggan was seriously injured.
Flight Lieutenant Pezaro had been charged with negligence for not aborting the mission when weather deteriorated. He is not alleged to have directly caused the accident.
However on Friday evening, the Disciplinary Officer amended the charge to one of failing to abort the transit flight to Wellington when the weather fell below minimum permitted flying conditions.
Wing Commander Shaun Sexton has found there is a case for Flight Lieutenant Pezaro to answer.
Flight Lieutenant Pezzaro has chosen to be tried summarily by him, rather than face a court martial and defence evidence will begin at the Ohakea air base on Monday.
Flying rules interpreted liberally, inquiry told A retired squadron leader who authorised the Anzac Day 2010 mission, told the hearing on Friday that he was a lone voice raising concerns on how 3 Squadron interpreted rules.
Rob Stockley presented a series of emails between himself and executives of 3 Squadron, raising his concern that they were interpreting the regulations in a more liberal fashion than permitted.
Mr Stockley said a couple of people strongly disagreed with him, and said things had always been done that way and he was wrong.
The former squadron leader said he was told at a seminar at Ohakea that orders were for the advice of wise men and the blind adherence of fools.
Mr Stockley told the hearing on Thursday that he did not consider Flight Lieutenant Pezaro's actions were negligent.
Culture of infringing rules, says co-pilot Flight Lieutenant's Pezaro's co-pilot told the military tribunal on Friday that some executives on 3 Squadron supported a culture of infringing rules relating to weather and flying heights.
Flight Lieutenant Stuart Anderson said he was a licensed civilian pilot before he transferred to the Air Force and questioned some procedures, but the executive of 3 Squadron supported pilots using their discretion when it came to some of the rules and their subordinates followed their example.
He told the hearing he was comfortable with conditions on Anzac Day 2010, right up until the decision was made to abort the mission.
Flight Lieutenant Stuart Anderson said that, generally, the orders for 3 Squadron were a shambles, with several different ones in operation at once.
On the day of the crash, the helicopters were flying below the minimum allowable altitude, but he said he would have been comfortable flying even lower than that.
Flight Lieutenant Anderson said he had no doubt that any other flight crews faced with the situation that occured on that day would have done exactly the same as his crew did.
Flight Lieutenant Mike Garrett also gave evidence on Friday, and told the hearing 3 Squadron's culture meant it was accepted that there was a degree of latitude in following orders on minimum weather conditions and the like.
He said he had learnt that from squadron executives when he was a new pilot, and none of Flight Lieutenant Pezaro's actions on the day of the crash were inconsistent with that custom.
Copyright © 2013, Radio New Zealand
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Apr 13, 2013 9:18:36 GMT 12
The military justice system has changed. The format now has a presenting officer (prosecution), a defending officer, the accused, and a disciplinary officer (judge). The officers called to conduct the trial are not lawyers, they are NZDF officers who have been trained in the military justice process, and their job is to act in the interests of the party they represent (the accused or the NZDF). Representatives from the NZDF legal branch may be consulted during a summary trial, however the trial is conducted by the nominated officers. The media has not accurately communicated this system to the public, hence your confusion. I find this intriguing. It must be hard to have a beer in the mess, or even go to work with, a guy who tried to prosecute you legally. If the accused is found not to be guilty and stays in the service, this must surely affect the relationships and camaraderie between officers? Professionalism would dictate that everyone gets on with their job, but it would always be at the back of their minds.
|
|