Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Old 12th Dec 2008, 09:42
  #3801 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bourton-on-the-Water
Posts: 1,017
Received 16 Likes on 7 Posts
Sad person that I am, I've transcribed the interview of John Hutton by Jon Snow. If anyone would like a copy of the transcript, PM me.

airsound
airsound is online now  
Old 12th Dec 2008, 10:05
  #3802 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,771
Received 17 Likes on 9 Posts
The Defence Sec said that they had posted the detailed response to the Campaign Group on "their website". I'm not very good at these things but I can only find their response to the HoL Committee. Perhaps it is too soon.
pulse1 is online now  
Old 12th Dec 2008, 10:12
  #3803 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here:

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Defence Policy and Business | MOD publishes response to Mull of Kintyre report

Then open up the document.
Lurking123 is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2008, 22:38
  #3804 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Brian

Surprise, surprise! Former law lecturer from tuppenny-ha'penny former Poly slopes-shoulders on major decision (in rather quick time given the length of time this has taken so far) counter to the considered opinions of some of the finest legal brains in the country.

This was always a question of justice rather than one of military or aviation experience. It seems we go beyond the aphorism that those than can, do and those that can't teach to those that can't do or teach become political nonentities.

I know you don't need me to suggest you keep on trucking. You know you, the families and the Mull of Kintyre Group will get there in the end.

Perhaps more than lawyers you need a philosopher to get round the Kafkaesque conundrum of apparently requiring 'new' evidence to overturn a verdict that was only reachable through a lamentable lack of evidence in the first place.
An Teallach is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2008, 15:30
  #3805 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You all need to focus on that position of waypoint change (let's call it WPCHX hereon for brevity).
The MOD is adamant that they were under control at that point and that it was already so close in at their speed (I've argued that for a while).
What they do not volunteer is the right turn made at that point – indeed on their maps/diagrams they actually move WPCHX over to the right (further east) so as to give the impression that they flew straight in.
I will give the reasoning for the tracks and turn below but to keep it clear just now I will just say that they were on 027 right up WPCHX.
To get to the crash site from there they would have to have turned right by several degrees.
If you allow a bit for their slewing/veering left in the last few seconds, then that right turn would have had to have been a couple of degrees more.
035 mag from WPCHX passes to the right of the initial impact point by only 150 metres – 4 secs of evasive manouevre to the left – sort of makes sense, doesn't it?
You see 035 was on the handling pilot's HSI.
A deliberate turn – initiated when, as the MOD insists, they were in control - why was this not addressed? - indeed, why have they hidden it in their misleading maps/diagrams?
.
Reasoning
They had declared to ATC that they would be departing Aldergrove on the 027 radial.
The nav data retrieved showed that the GPS/Doppler nav system (SuperTANS) had been quite accurate in the last moments of the flight despite the long sea crossing (can upset the [dominant] Doppler component) – and so it can be reasonably assumed that WPCHX that was preserved in the SuperTANS was an accurate position.
If you extend that 027 radial from the VOR at Aldergrove, it goes right through WPCHX.
This reinforces the conclusion that the SuperTANS was accurate at that point (as for most of the journey they would have been using the GPS/Doppler nav system to maintain their track).
Boeing's analysis gave that they must have held this track closely until WPCHX.
Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the a/c track immediately before and up to WPCHX was 027.
I reckon they had to have turned right at that point - Boeing's analysis gives a turn to the right at that point.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2008, 17:04
  #3806 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wilts
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With all due respect to the many people who have contributed so far, this thread troubles me.

If I have read all 3830 posts correctly, the main thrust is about clearing the pilots of the charge of gross negligence. This hinges upon the rules for findings of negligence, in the RAF, at that time. I say 'in the RAF' deliberately, for this ruling did not apply to all the Services. Indeed, in the Puma/Gazelle mid-air accident in NI, not long before the Mull accident, the Army member of this joint Board of Inquiry wanted to level the charge of negligence against a deceased aircrew, as was the norm in his Service, but the RAF president over-ruled him. I understand that the Army member would not sign off the joint findings because of that. I mention this because I believe that the RAF was unusual in having this restriction in apportioning negligence.

It may be that this had come about as the mainstay of the RAF, its core business, was single seat fighters. This ethos permeated the heirarchy in the RAF for many years. Perhaps, in their eyes, if a pilot had killed himself, why drag his name through the mire unless it was blindingly obvious. After all, no one else was affected.

But, gentlemen, in this case, 27 other individuals were affected. They lost their lives in circumstances totally beyond their control. And that is what troubles me.

As I have said in a previous post, I am intimately familiar with the BOI evidence. In my mind, I believe that this was in all probability a CFIT accident. Even if there had been a FADEC problem (and there is no evidence of this) and even if they might have been distracted by an unknown other technical issue, it was the pilots' responsibility to keep the aircraft, its pax and themselves, safe.

My views above may prove unpopular, but they are honestly held. This is a public forum and, as has been argued many times already, we should not stifle debate. So this thread has to continue. But, should it be a stickie? It is almost always the first thread in the Miltary Aircrew forum and, in my humble opinion, I am not sure that the stickie status is appropriate.
KG86 is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2008, 17:34
  #3807 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I disagree entirely.

Firstly, the RAF have been flying multi-crew aircraft for a very long time. Secondly, I'm not entirely sure why the numbers of people aboard should be significant.

Since you mentioned them, I imagine the families of the "other 27 individuals" might read the following:
6. RWTS has carefully monitored the progress of this trial and has put tremendous effort into ensuring that it progresses safely to provide timely CA release recommendations. These recommendations with respect to FADEC have, to date, been ignored. Until RWTS is provided with a clear, unequivocal and realistic explanation of the faults described at references B through H, with corrective action, further Chinook HC2 flying shall not be authorised. A statement of 'No Fault Found' will no longer satisfy this requirement.

7. As a trials organisation, A&AEE has always been keenly aware of the risks associated with operating the Chinook HC2 and has tailored sortie profiles accordingly. Crews of the RAF have no such luxury and are likely at higher risk than the A&AEE crews. As such, RWTS deem it imperative that, in the strongest possible terms, the RAF should be provided with a recommendation to cease Chinook HC2 operations until the conditions established in paragraph 6 are satisfied
...and ask themselves why their loved ones were flying in this aircraft at all! It is an utter disgrace!

'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever' was the standard of proof the RAF required.

I find this standard ENTIRELY appropriate in cases where there are (tragically) NO survivors, NO eyewitnesses, NO data recorder, NO voice recorder, NO radio calls, and NO radar traces!

The 'case for the prosecution' was based, not on any RECORD of the moments leading up to the accident, but by combining snippets of unrelated information retrieved from equipment not designed to provide historical data, and 'dodgy' computer MODELING!

All that we have is wreckage on a hillside. The AAIB are good, but they aren't psychic. Even they couldn't verify the pre-impact serviceability of ZD576, and as we all now know, at that time, this helicopter was not fit for purpose!

The required standard of proof was not met.

Let right be done!

PS: Perhaps it may ease your 'trouble' to bear in mind, the Fatal Accident Inquiry examining this incident required a much lower standard of proof. I believe it was 'balance of probability'. Even so, they could identify no grounds for criticising the pilots!

BTW. It's quite likely we know each other.

Last edited by Tandemrotor; 13th Dec 2008 at 17:58.
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2008, 18:02
  #3808 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
it was the pilots' responsibility to keep the aircraft, its pax and themselves, safe.


It was the MoD’s duty to keep the aircraft airworthy.

They failed.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2008, 19:29
  #3809 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
KG86 You state
In my mind, I believe that this was in all probability a CFIT accident
A quick Google search shows:
Idiom:
in all probability

Most probably; very likely.
and
in all probability - with considerable certainty; without much doubt; "He is probably out of the country"; "in all likelihood we are headed for war"
Some / most of us might even agree with you that there is a good chance that negligence was involved... however, we cannot be certain, and by the above definitions, seemingly nor can you?

'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever' was the standard of proof the RAF required.
seems somewhat incompatible with your post above?

I do not believe the campaigners are trying to show the Pilots as provably innocent? That would be as hard a standard as the effectively provably guilty the current findings are. All they are trying to show is that there is room for doubt, and some good evidence to back up that doubt.... or worse, now, reasons for the "cover up"

NoD
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2008, 22:44
  #3810 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I do not believe the campaigners are trying to show the Pilots as probably innocent?
Absolutely spot on NoD. We have even said that, as one possibility, the pilots may have been negligent.

However, the rules in place at the time requires the MoD to prove negligence with absolutely no doubt whatsoever. It is patently clear that they can't, and the evidence they have falls woefully short of the requirement.

That is why we do what we do, and will continue to do so until this injustice is put right.

My best, as always,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2008, 23:29
  #3811 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If there is a tacit acceptance that negligence was possible however; the argument is that it should not have been documented as such under the rules of the day; then is it not the case that a large part of what this campaign manages to achieve is to contiinue to highlight the probability that the crew were negligent and is this not counter productive?

Fair enough, you might sometime in the future get the finding changed but is it really worth continuing to drag this along and continue to highlight the fact that they were probably; but not definately; negligent?

The aim might be well meaning but it would seem to the uninitiated a tad counter-productive.
HEDP is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2008, 23:34
  #3812 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fair enough, you might sometime in the future get the finding changed but is it really worth continuing to drag this along
Yes

and continue to highlight the fact that they were probably; but not definately; negligent?
or rather, continue to highlight the failings of a system designed to safeguard those not in a position to defend themselves.

My best,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2008, 09:06
  #3813 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
and continue to highlight the fact that they were probably; but not definately; negligent?
Thank you for clarifying that Brian, I thought he was talking about the MOD. In that case of course, the answer is YES!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2008, 15:51
  #3814 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
KG86

You say:

even if they might have been distracted by an unknown other technical issue, it was the pilots' responsibility to keep the aircraft, its pax and themselves, safe.
Yes, you're quite right, but it is one thing to be distracted and quite another for the "unknown other technical issue" to remove the pilots' ability to control the aircraft, whether temporarily or permanently. Assumptions have been made that the aircraft was under control at impact, but there isn't any positive evidence for this and, although no evidence of technical failure was found in the wreckage (the aircraft was in rather a lot of twisted/burnt bits after the impact), the AAIB could not rule this out. Accordingly there is doubt and the pilots should not be found negligent "beyond any doubt whatsoever" - the standard of proof required at the time. Indeed, given the lack of ADR/CVR, it would be hard (in a normal court of law) to even prove that they were negligent "beyond reasonable doubt".
As for different rules pertaining to other services at the time, this is an irrelevance as both Taper and Cook were serving members of the RAF and therefore subject to Air Force Law, not Army, Navy or any other law.

I would welcome your reasoned riposte.
meadowbank is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2008, 18:08
  #3815 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wilts
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
meadowbank

No riposte from me. I cannot fault your logic on the rules in existence at that time.

Yes, it is theoretically possible that there was some sort of malfunction affecting "the pilots' ability to control the aircraft, whether temporarily or permanently". But, in all my Chinook experience, I have never heard of another such event. I would say the chances of such an event occurring in this accident as very small but, I have to concede, possible.

The aim of my post, which I guess I didn't make clear, was to challenge the 'stickie' status. In my opinion, this thread should be allowed to stand or fall on its own merit, like other equally worthy threads such as the Nimrod Afghanistan accident.
KG86 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2008, 18:51
  #3816 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Guildford
Age: 89
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vulcanite 2

I missed the Jon Snow interview and would be grateful for the transcript; is it too big to put on the site?
Vulcanite2 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2008, 19:43
  #3817 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi Vulcanite,
I hope this finds you well. Good to hear from you.

Here's the initial Channel 4 news article:
Channel 4 - News - Doubt cast over Chinook verdict

And here's the link that will take you to the interview:
Channel 4 - News - Hutton: 'No Chinook cover-up'

Season's greetings to you, and yours.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2008, 20:22
  #3818 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
KG86:
In my opinion, this thread should be allowed to stand or fall on its own merit, like other equally worthy threads such as the Nimrod Afghanistan accident.
Both were indeed terrible accidents, that is agreed, but it strikes me and I suspect others (not the least of whom is PPRuNe Pop!) that there is one fundamental difference. The crew of the latter, though deeply mourned, do not have the stigma of having been found Grossly Negligent by their AOC and CinC, contrary to the conventions of their Service. This is seen as unjust and unfair by those who campaign on their behalf. There is still a strong sense of what is right and what is wrong within the British, despite all the trials that may have befallen their benighted land, and this is wrong. Endex.
Oh, one more thing, as I understand these processes they were not found guilty under Air Force Law as was intimated earlier. The BoI Reviewing Officers came to a finding an administrative procedure though a very serious one, or that is my belief and as ever I stand to be corrected, swiftly no doubt!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2008, 20:31
  #3819 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WSM
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A question

From the MoD response at Annexe E para 1:


The waypoint change proves that the aircraft was under control of the pilots and at this time they were in breach of both VFR and IFR. For that reason, the pilots were considered by the ROs to have been grossly negligent at or some short time before the waypoint change. If there had been a control jam before this point, the pilots would have to have taken emergency action to avoid flying on towards the Mull.

Is a breach of VFR and IFR gross negligence and had the crash not happened would such a finding against 2 living pilots have been disputed?
endplay is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2008, 21:38
  #3820 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the AVMs were responding to a political directive then you are not going to get a change arguing over just legal technicalities without understanding the nature of any such directive – particularly, who originated it.
I'd bet there would be very little chance of getting that – they can't even identify (the particular individual) who made the decision to use the Chinook.
However, if it could be determined that the flight had some other activity that had not thusfar been declared then the verdict would surely be untenable.
There are just too many anomalies on this flight for it to have been merely a ferry flight – why don't you (collectively) who have exercised in that area put your heads together (in private if necessary) to consider this possibility?
walter kennedy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.