Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Chugalug You are long on verbiage, but lacking in focus and logic. As to serious allegations, it was you who made them, and you will not dare to go public with them, will you. JP
Whatever allegations I have made here JP are by definition "public" just as I made allegations that the Hercules and the Nimrod had been deprived of airworthiness by the UK Military Airworthiness Authority on their respective threads. My miserable contributions together with others that are similarly outraged about such scandal were but grains of sand in those campaigns yet both fleets have been or are being attended to. Thus it is with the Chinook Mk2 fleet, which I believe was unairworthy at the time of this accident. I have no illusions about my unimportance in all this, yet I feel compelled to go on fighting until proper Airworthiness Provision and proper Accident Investigation is once again provided for in UK Military Aviation. It is my firm belief that will not happen until both are wrested from the MOD and RAF respectively into what I choose to call a separate and independent MAA and MAAIB. There you are, JP, yet more verbiage for you to chew on!
To conspire - "to combine secretly for an unlawful or wrongful act".
In a way, John Purdey is right, but not in the way he thinks.
Remove the word “secretly” and you have the perfect description of the actions of many involved in maintaining the airworthiness of the Mk1, and attaining the airworthiness of the Mk2.
Bottom line – they avoided an obligation to the Secretary of State for Defence by knowingly compromising airworthiness in the years before and after Mull. And, John, to address one of your questions, the current SofS is aware of this, and content.
In their supreme arrogance, MoD does not deny this, but flaunts it. (And, as I said, CDP said as much to the HCDC when asked specifically about Chinook). But, case by case, they are being exposed and losing in the courts. Nimrod. C130. Next…………?
nor is it necessary to know in great detail exactly what happened as the aircraft flew towards the Mull (for example, what did the two pilots say to each other? does it matter?
Well, it may do. It may not. But we shall never know, shall we, because data/voice recorders were never fitted, although they had been recommended years before.
But in your world, (and that of cazatou K52) where the rules in place at the time; of satisfying the standard of 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever', were just an inconvenience, which could simply be 'down graded'...
Where 'models' can be read as fact. Where 'absence of evidence' may be taken as 'evidence of absence'. Where lack of relevant disclosure is endemic. Where only a small proportion of the aircraft remains. Where there are no survivors testimonies. No 'eye' witnesses. No recordings of any kind.
An ignore list is the BBS equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting loudly "I can't hear you"... All it lacks is the drama of the foot stamping.
what did the two pilots say to each other? does it matter?
I'd suggest that it could have mattered a lot. Since no-one will ever know the conversation could, just as easily, have been:-
Pilot 1: I can't move the controls, can you?
Pilot 2: Err.. No...
Pilot 1: Oh Pooh...
In fact the only conversations that would have been worrisome would have been one where no-one was talking or no-one was talking about the conduct of the flight or the state of the aircraft in the last ten seconds leading up to the crash. So, yes. What the two pilots said to each other would have been very important to have known.
Meanwhile, Chugalug you said on 16th April: "There is in this sorry saga a big secret yet to come out. It could be airworthiness, it could be state sponsored murder, it could be neither, but it will be something big".
Like several colleagues out here in the sticks, I cannot hold my breath any longer. Can you yet share your secret with us or at least give us a clue?
JP, you are the only one going around in circles because you know full well that you have asked this question of me before, at post 5063, and received a series of answers thereafter (for as ever you were not content with just one). For everyone else; he is referring to a post I wrote to Walter in which I acknowledged one of the possibilities that he had posted. His theory is that a clandestine landing was being attempted on the Mull LZ. He feels that the aircraft could have been misdirected deliberately in order that it crashed and if that were so there was then advantage both to terrorists and the state. I am on record as stating that I don’t think that such a landing was being attempted anyway let alone being misdirected purposely or otherwise!
Pardon my frustration I expressed recently at the Group but I really think there is something very specific you can follow up here.
I had pointed to a transcript which surely you would have access to (the BOI).
I had pointed out a specific piece of blacking-out that may help us all understand possible actions in this flight.
I had (previously to your prompt) asked specific questions under FOI and am …. waiting for the MOD to respond.
I have thought of a way that the answer on that classified equipment may be obtained without their having to disclose what the equipment was to the public domain in the case that it was not relevent: could the Mull Group not, as an interested party, ask someone they trust who had eyeballed the un-abridged transcript to comment on whether it was the CPLS system or not? If there is no one available who could remember, could a deal not be done whereby a trusted 3rd party, say a senior judge or the like, who the state could also trust to be discrete could eyeball the un-abridged transcript and answer only in the scope of whether the blacked out text (describing the classified equipment) was “Covert Personnel Locator System” or not?
You may not like the path I am following but it at least gives you (the Group) two angles to try to get a review of the case (if they can be established to some reasonable extent):
!. If there was a piece of kit fitted that could have been used for local navigation in any way yet has not been disclosed, then the original BOI would have been inadequate;
2. If there had been an extra task put on them that has not been disclosed then again the original BOI would have been inadequate.
Thanks for your 5310. 1. I have not seen the letter to which you refer, but the quote you give is along the lines you suggest. 2. The para seems less than clear to me.
We have, of course been here before, but just to repeat one last time; if the Chinooks were not airworthy, exacly what rectification was undertaken? If no rectification was undertaken, then presumably the Chinooks are still not airworthy.