On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:44:23 +1000, Vector
wrote:

Make up your own mind Martin but this post from Brash (below) seems a
fair representation of the RAAfs attitude to their operational
screw-ups and inadequacies.

Which operational screw-ups and inadequacies, for instance?

The accident occurred in one of the most hazardous situations known to
military operators at a time when something went wrong. Its something
that anyone who serves in uniform learns is the reality of military
life, particularly military flying. It's happened in the past...it'll
happen in the future. Military planners actually factor an *expected*
attrition rate into the predicted lifespan of a combat aircraft fleet.

From such oafs right up to Air Marshal Errol McCormack, AO Chief of
Air Force who reportedly told Kim at the time of the tragedy she
would get a coronial inquest over his "dead body".

Because he was satisfied that the existing enquiry and accident
investigation process, that has been used countless times in previous
military flying accidents arrived at a satisfactory outcome and that
the additional time and effort of further inquiry would simply not
produce anything that was not already known.


Thoroughly consistent with the BOI whitewash and subsequent treatment
of Kim and her kids.

You mean that the Board of Enquiry outcome wasn't what some people
wanted to hear.


Most wouldn't know Shorty's background or the RAAFs treachery.

He topped the class at the elite US Navy "Top Gun" test pilot school
and four of his classmates are now NASA astronauts.

So what has this got to do with the price of fish? He was top of the
class because he simply had the highest demonstrated proficiency
amongst his course peers. It still doesn't make him infallible or
entitle his family to any more additional privilege than any other
pilot in the processes and outcomes of a death occurring during
military flying.


Last year, his wife Dr Kim Short a RAAF reservist agreed to waive her
right to an inquest. The RAAF agreed, in return, to settle her common
law damages claim.

"Subsequently they pulled the Air Accidents Act out of the hat and
said I hadn't applied for compensation in the two-year period," she
said.

Under the Act, Squadron Leader Short would be regarded as a passenger,
limiting the maximum payout available to his family to $200,000.

Well...the lawyers came at the Government with a legal challenge over
and above the existing established processes of handing a death due to
a military flying accident. The Government is therefore fully entitled
to meet that challenge with its own legal resources.


Pack of *******s!


The reality of military combat flying (including training and
proficiency retention) is that it *is* a hazardous business from the
outset, even in peacetime. The people who do it know it full well, but
are still willing to take on the risk. But they go to inordinate
lengths to minimise the risk.

[Next point] Military superannuation schemes have *always* included a
death benefit element that is intended to provide for the next-of-kin
in the event of a member dying while serving in uniform. Aircrew also
are paid a flying allowance, part of which is intended to cover the
higher cost of life insurance. The 'system' therefore *does*
acknowledge the hazards of military flying.

But the moment that the next-of-kin of a deceased member starts
pulling the Oliver Twist line and gets lawyers to start plucking out
intangible claims on the basis of , say, "loss of potential future
earned income" [my husband pilot had planned to finish his flying
career in the Air Force, then become an airline pilot, earn lots of
money so that we can live in a nice big house and now that's all gone
and I want equivalent compensation]...the 'system' definitely *won't*
roll over and cop it sweet!