British families suing MoD over Nimrod fire

[Uncle Fester]

This is interesting. The families of two aircrew killed in Afghanistan are suing the Ministry of Defence over, essentially, safety policy.

An RAF Nimrod (SIGINT plane roughly analogous to the EP-3) caught fire and exploded in Sept '06, whole crew lost. I remember this happened right before we inchopped on IKE.

I don't know what, if any, impact this will have on the US - can't use precedent from foreign courts - but at the very least it'll be an interesting case to watch.

 

[Sky-Pig]

I remember a couple of USAF or Air Guard wives (can't remember exactly which) doing the exact same thing a few years back. They sued both the government and GD after their husbands were killed in F-16 training accidents. I never heard if their suits went anywhere, though.

 

[HackerF15E]

Remember that the UK legal system is quite different than in the US. This lawsuit is based on the findings of a coroner, who is a little like a combination of the GAO and a lawyer in the US.

 

[A4sForever]

....I don't know what, if any, impact this will have on the US - can't use precedent from foreign courts - but at the very least it'll be an interesting case to watch.

The precedents are already out there -- an Amigo of mine went in @ Boardman Target -- I was the CACO and was intimately familiar w/ all the details. Grumman had improperly field-repaired the bird in DaNang when it was w/ the Marines and should have gone to Depot for repair ... then hours and fatigue and too many "G's" eventually took it's toll and the wing came off in a practice dive bombing run .... the widow sued Grumman & got several million when million was still a "big" number.

Another squadron mate died in the shuttle Challenger -- and as far as legal liability, we all know where that investigation went ...

 

[Deepsea 31]

There is precedent for this type of action in the US Navy. My Aunt sued the Navy and LTV after my Uncle had a fatal mishap in an RF-8G during the Vietnam Conflict. Turns out the Navy was flying the RF-8’s with known deficiencies with the MLG which had been corrected in the F-8 Fighters but not the Photo Birds. Her lawyers proved it and she walked away with a nice settlement, as well she should. But that didn’t bring back her husband, and the father to a son he never knew. And it didn’t bring back my Uncle. Safety of the aircrew can never be compromised…..ever.

Deepsea Three One out.

 

[Swanee]

I remember a couple of USAF or Air Guard wives (can't remember exactly which) doing the exact same thing a few years back. They sued both the government and GD after their husbands were killed in F-16 training accidents. I never heard if their suits went anywhere, though.

It happened in the 80s in the ROK. A made-for-TV-movie was made after it happened. Had something to do with a wire harness chafing and making some cockpit instruments go haywire. A guy flew into a mountain in bad weather as a result. I think he was from the Illinois ANG. Lots of questionables on all sides regarding what happened.

 

[Flash]

An RAF Nimrod (SIGINT plane roughly analogous to the EP-3) caught fire and exploded in Sept '06, whole crew lost.

Actually there are two version of the Nimrod in service right now; the MR2 maritime patrol version that is the equivalent of a regular P-3 and the R1 which is the equivalent of the EP-3 and has a much larger crew. An MR2 was the type lost in the accident.

 

[RockySLP]

I'd say that this is a very complicated topic in the United States.

The federal government can claim sovereign immunity, even if its systems and processes are apparently negligent. With regard to the military, the Supreme Court has held that the government isn't liable even if a death or injury is the direct result of personal negligence.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/340/135/case.html

One recent example of this concept was a case against the Army Corps of Engineers following Katrina. The court (U.S. district) ruled in the government's favor, saying the agency couldn't be held liable due to sovereign immunity.

The concept of sovereign immunity is, like many things, a common law concept from the British. It is very peculiar indeed.


A4's and Deepsea --
The examples mentioned include contractors. That may make the cases subject to something called the Tucker Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Act
If I may ask, do you know if the rulings were against the government or against the contractors? Do you know who made the payments?

 

[Uncle Fester]

Actually there are two version of the Nimrod in service right now; the MR2 maritime patrol version that is the equivalent of a regular P-3 and the R1 which is the equivalent of the EP-3 and has a much larger crew. An MR2 was the type lost in the accident.

It was an MR2? We were briefed it was a SIGINT bird, and that was why the Brits were being kinda tight-lipped about the thing.

Fog of war, I guess.

 

[Deepsea 31]

I'd say that this is a very complicated topic in the United States.

A4's and Deepsea --
The examples mentioned include contractors. That may make the cases subject to something called the Tucker Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Act
If I may ask, do you know if the rulings were against the government or against the contractors? Do you know who made the payments?

No I don't know the details. As part of the settlement, my Aunt could not discuss it...........

 

[A4sForever]

....A4's ....

1. ....do you know if the rulings were against the government or against the contractors?
2. ....do you know who made the payments?

1. Yes, I do know.

2. Yes, I do know.

Thanks for asking.

Out

 

[bluesig1]

I'd say that this is a very complicated topic in the United States.

The federal government can claim sovereign immunity, even if its systems and processes are apparently negligent. With regard to the military, the Supreme Court has held that the government isn't liable even if a death or injury is the direct result of personal negligence.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/340/135/case.html

I feel like I heard a story, that because of that supreme court ruling when a plane went down, the family tried to sue boeing instead. Anyone know what I am talking about?

 

[Flash]

It was an MR2? We were briefed it was a SIGINT bird, and that was why the Brits were being kinda tight-lipped about the thing.

Fog of war, I guess.

It was an MR2, fitted with an EO turret. They only have 4 R1's and the crew is much larger, more than 20 I think.

http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw060905_1_n.shtml

 

[busdriver]

The MR2 is only roughly analogous to the P3. What systems they actually have on board I don't know, but in this case we recovered enough classified documents to fill a large trash bag and several "boxes" to boot.