Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vale of York
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Size is important
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dalek
NOT the simulation -
Mull of Kintyre -Analysis of Available Data
8-7D20-DS S-03 06, Enclosure 4
Dated: June 18,2002
James Mitchell Technical Fellow
The Boeing Company
And I have taken this approach a lot further – without needing cockpit recorders of any kind - read the thread.
NOT the simulation -
Mull of Kintyre -Analysis of Available Data
8-7D20-DS S-03 06, Enclosure 4
Dated: June 18,2002
James Mitchell Technical Fellow
The Boeing Company
And I have taken this approach a lot further – without needing cockpit recorders of any kind - read the thread.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
walter kennedy.
I confess I have not read it. Is there a link?
However would I be correct in thinking that this 'analysis' by the aircraft manufacturer, probably shows the manufacturer's product behaving precisely as advertised?
(Just a hunch you understand!)
I confess I have not read it. Is there a link?
However would I be correct in thinking that this 'analysis' by the aircraft manufacturer, probably shows the manufacturer's product behaving precisely as advertised?
(Just a hunch you understand!)
Last edited by 4468; 11th Jun 2010 at 14:12.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: High Wycombe UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dalek and 4468
link here for the report from Mr.J. Mitchell ..........excellent as it is , he also fails to take into account the whole flight ........
...the first half of the leg was through mountainous countyside on the way to the Irish coast , so very unlikely that they would have flown in a straight line and/or at top speed until reaching the sea.......
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6A278...k_boeing1d.pdf
...another point I have never seen discussed.....I thought any significant change in speed would be accompanied by a change in attitude.....ie. slowing gives nose up and some ballooning , speeding up gives nose down ....
I remain convinced that they planned a quick dash across open water to reach land before anything broke or came loose......link..
rgds Robin........
link here for the report from Mr.J. Mitchell ..........excellent as it is , he also fails to take into account the whole flight ........
...the first half of the leg was through mountainous countyside on the way to the Irish coast , so very unlikely that they would have flown in a straight line and/or at top speed until reaching the sea.......
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6A278...k_boeing1d.pdf
...another point I have never seen discussed.....I thought any significant change in speed would be accompanied by a change in attitude.....ie. slowing gives nose up and some ballooning , speeding up gives nose down ....
I remain convinced that they planned a quick dash across open water to reach land before anything broke or came loose......link..
rgds Robin........
Last edited by Robin Clark; 13th Jun 2010 at 21:22. Reason: link added
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RC
Thank you.
I'm afraid when I read the following, my appreciation of this effort diminished somewhat!
So:
To be clear. The crew made a radio call saying they were at the 'zone boundary' and were going 'QSY'. This gentleman assumes they were accurate to within a quarter of a mile.
Wow!
If I had made the same call to within 2 or 3 miles, I'd be pretty happy!
It's all based on assumption, and information retrieved from a device that was never designed to provide historical data!
It's a simulation of a possible scenario, produced by the manufacturer of the vehicle that crashed! No more, no less.
Don't think we need to take any of it as 'factual'!
Thank you.
I'm afraid when I read the following, my appreciation of this effort diminished somewhat!
However, the position for the ATC fix is not stated with the same
accuracy, therefore it must be evaluated over a range of possible values to develop a
clearer picture. The range of values analyzed is listed below:
1. Range: nominal = 7nm; range 6.75nm to 7.25nm
accuracy, therefore it must be evaluated over a range of possible values to develop a
clearer picture. The range of values analyzed is listed below:
1. Range: nominal = 7nm; range 6.75nm to 7.25nm
To be clear. The crew made a radio call saying they were at the 'zone boundary' and were going 'QSY'. This gentleman assumes they were accurate to within a quarter of a mile.
Wow!
If I had made the same call to within 2 or 3 miles, I'd be pretty happy!
It's all based on assumption, and information retrieved from a device that was never designed to provide historical data!
It's a simulation of a possible scenario, produced by the manufacturer of the vehicle that crashed! No more, no less.
Don't think we need to take any of it as 'factual'!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4468
I have been recommending for years (on this thread) that this document is a useful framework to use for your own dist/time calculations.
You should bear in mind that on a flight earlier in the day, ZD576 was reported to have flown smoothly in excess of 140 kts TAS – more than an HC1 but as expected for an HC2.
However, without exceeding the optimum top end cruising speed, this was insufficient to have allowed anything other than sticking closely to the declared track of 027 mag from NI to the position of waypoint change – which helps in understanding (or rather reducing) the possibilities, and we are left with the simple conclusion that they had maintained a straight track of 027 at a constant airspeed for the whole of that long first leg (taking into account the wind) – there simply was not time for them to have slowed down and then speeded up at any point without significantly exceeding recommended max speed.
From waypoint change to the crash site, allowing for the significantly higher wind speed near and on the slopes of the Mull, they actually had dropped in TAS and this is consistent with the matched intermediate power level that was determined from crash investigations.
I have it that their turn was greater than Mitchel's estimate (I will expand on the analysis which gave this soon when I have time) – I had it that they had turned to 035 mag at or very near waypoint change which was as per the HP's HoSI course selector (suggesting an intended heading) and, as I recall, did not Racal's report state that at last steering command calculation (over land and very near to crash site) the STANS thought it was on a track of 035 mag?
I say that 035 mag was the optimum approach to a known LZ at waypoint A – why?: well from familiarisation with the site and talking to locals (incl a light house keeper) I found out that helicopters approaching that site lined up on a big rock in the sea just off the shoreline - a line of 035 mag (at the time) which was also the long axis of the spacious LZ. That LZ was at a height similar to the lighthouse and one of the baro altimeters was set as per QFE at that elevation, as I have explained in detail on this thread a long time ago.
Just on the above points alone, common sense has it that one obvious option (worthy of consideration at least) for their actions is that they had reached a point close in to the Mull (waypoint change) where they abandoned STANS navigation and turned in towards the land thinking they were lined up with that LZ (that they had visited on previous occasions) using some local reference and that they had eased up to coast in thinking they had further to go than they actually had.
With the conditions ahead on the landmass (oro cloud obscuring the higher topographical features and mist running up the slopes obscuring ground detail) they could only have attempted this by referring to something that they could trust – they only candidate for this would have been the CPLS and all that was required for them to have been misled as to their alignment and distance to go would have been for the PRC112 handset (associated with the CPLS) that should have been at the LZ to have been ½ mile or so up the slope from that LZ.
One of the primary uses of the CPLS is all weather approaches to LZs.
Despite this obvious possibility, this system was never mentioned at any of the inquiries to date yet we now know that it was fitted.
This alone is grounds for a new inquiry.
I have been recommending for years (on this thread) that this document is a useful framework to use for your own dist/time calculations.
You should bear in mind that on a flight earlier in the day, ZD576 was reported to have flown smoothly in excess of 140 kts TAS – more than an HC1 but as expected for an HC2.
However, without exceeding the optimum top end cruising speed, this was insufficient to have allowed anything other than sticking closely to the declared track of 027 mag from NI to the position of waypoint change – which helps in understanding (or rather reducing) the possibilities, and we are left with the simple conclusion that they had maintained a straight track of 027 at a constant airspeed for the whole of that long first leg (taking into account the wind) – there simply was not time for them to have slowed down and then speeded up at any point without significantly exceeding recommended max speed.
From waypoint change to the crash site, allowing for the significantly higher wind speed near and on the slopes of the Mull, they actually had dropped in TAS and this is consistent with the matched intermediate power level that was determined from crash investigations.
I have it that their turn was greater than Mitchel's estimate (I will expand on the analysis which gave this soon when I have time) – I had it that they had turned to 035 mag at or very near waypoint change which was as per the HP's HoSI course selector (suggesting an intended heading) and, as I recall, did not Racal's report state that at last steering command calculation (over land and very near to crash site) the STANS thought it was on a track of 035 mag?
I say that 035 mag was the optimum approach to a known LZ at waypoint A – why?: well from familiarisation with the site and talking to locals (incl a light house keeper) I found out that helicopters approaching that site lined up on a big rock in the sea just off the shoreline - a line of 035 mag (at the time) which was also the long axis of the spacious LZ. That LZ was at a height similar to the lighthouse and one of the baro altimeters was set as per QFE at that elevation, as I have explained in detail on this thread a long time ago.
Just on the above points alone, common sense has it that one obvious option (worthy of consideration at least) for their actions is that they had reached a point close in to the Mull (waypoint change) where they abandoned STANS navigation and turned in towards the land thinking they were lined up with that LZ (that they had visited on previous occasions) using some local reference and that they had eased up to coast in thinking they had further to go than they actually had.
With the conditions ahead on the landmass (oro cloud obscuring the higher topographical features and mist running up the slopes obscuring ground detail) they could only have attempted this by referring to something that they could trust – they only candidate for this would have been the CPLS and all that was required for them to have been misled as to their alignment and distance to go would have been for the PRC112 handset (associated with the CPLS) that should have been at the LZ to have been ½ mile or so up the slope from that LZ.
One of the primary uses of the CPLS is all weather approaches to LZs.
Despite this obvious possibility, this system was never mentioned at any of the inquiries to date yet we now know that it was fitted.
This alone is grounds for a new inquiry.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just sent a pm to a fellow contributor. As it took me a little while to collate the info, I hope he won't mind me sharing it with you. It may be of interest?
Mrs Sinead Swift is the controller who provided evidence to the BOI (not known if this was under oath?) and subsequently at the FAI. To the BOI she made a statement including the following:
(For information, the zone boundary is actually 9 nm.)
At the subsequent FAI, and giving extensive evidence under oath, no mention whatsoever was made of any radar contact. Points that were covered however included:
!) Mrs Swift had to ask 'F40' to repeat the zone boundary call, as she "might have been on a telephone call to someone else and missed" (the first call).
2) Belfast Aldergrove had no SSR
3) F40 was cleared to fly VFR below 500'. (I leave it to you to decide whether this was likely to be closer to 100' over NI in 1994?)
Another witness: Anne Tylor from Carnlough, approximately 3/4 mile from the coast, describes ZD576 as "skimming the chimney tops and rooftops", and flying along a glen with the trees above. Following the contours of the ground.
Is it likely this a/c was visible on radar? Even if it were, how accurate was Mrs Swift's recollection? She was handling more than one helicopter.
I have no idea whether any radar traces for this period are still available, nor whether it is possible to match these chronologically with any voice communications.
That's all there really is on this 'RADAR FIX' I think?
Mrs Sinead Swift is the controller who provided evidence to the BOI (not known if this was under oath?) and subsequently at the FAI. To the BOI she made a statement including the following:
The helicopter was observed on radar to track outbound on the 027 degree radial from the Belfast VOR, as it had requested. At 1747 hrs, the aircraft reported at the Zone Boundary, and advised changing to an en-route frequency. The helicopter was observed on radar to be approximately 7 nm out on the 027 degree radial from the Belfast VOR.
At the subsequent FAI, and giving extensive evidence under oath, no mention whatsoever was made of any radar contact. Points that were covered however included:
!) Mrs Swift had to ask 'F40' to repeat the zone boundary call, as she "might have been on a telephone call to someone else and missed" (the first call).
2) Belfast Aldergrove had no SSR
3) F40 was cleared to fly VFR below 500'. (I leave it to you to decide whether this was likely to be closer to 100' over NI in 1994?)
Another witness: Anne Tylor from Carnlough, approximately 3/4 mile from the coast, describes ZD576 as "skimming the chimney tops and rooftops", and flying along a glen with the trees above. Following the contours of the ground.
Is it likely this a/c was visible on radar? Even if it were, how accurate was Mrs Swift's recollection? She was handling more than one helicopter.
I have no idea whether any radar traces for this period are still available, nor whether it is possible to match these chronologically with any voice communications.
That's all there really is on this 'RADAR FIX' I think?
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 12th Jun 2010 at 16:38.
Boeing Simulation / Mitchell Analysis
Isn’t it odd how Boeing and MoD place such unerring faith in a system (RNS252 / GPS) when, just a few months earlier, both were content that the Release to Service warned aircrew that it should not be trusted. Not to use it as the sole NavAid. To ignore Error messages as “meaningless”. That GPS hadn’t been granted Initial Operating Capability and its performance couldn’t be guaranteed. Its rubbish, just rely on the other NavAids – but we’ll let you know in due course if we decide to clear them for use.
May I suggest it may have helped matters to simply follow the regulations, establish an installed performance and give the aircrew some meaningful assistance through an unambiguous clearance or limitation, instead of just saying the system produces “meaningless” messages. If that was a TV you wouldn’t buy it in the first place. This was an aircraft for God’s sake. But no, MoD blithely ignored their own regulations and told the aircrew to suck it and see.
And, while it appears the system was being used as Waypoint A was approached, the AAIB’s opinion was that at impact the RNS252 was switched off. Not by impact, but at impact. What happened in between these events regarding a system the aircrew did not trust?
Speaking of the AAIB, Boeing’s report clearly assumes that organisation is an agent of the MoD and privy to all relevant information – information that Boeing state was not available to themselves as the Aircraft Design Authority. But, as we know, the AAIB was kept even more in the dark by MoD. I’ve read hundreds of such ADA reports – this one is so full of caveats and get-outs as to be completely meaningless. Just like RNS252 messages. Without first addressing the above issues the true context can never be understood. Which is why MoD don’t want to go there.
May I suggest it may have helped matters to simply follow the regulations, establish an installed performance and give the aircrew some meaningful assistance through an unambiguous clearance or limitation, instead of just saying the system produces “meaningless” messages. If that was a TV you wouldn’t buy it in the first place. This was an aircraft for God’s sake. But no, MoD blithely ignored their own regulations and told the aircrew to suck it and see.
And, while it appears the system was being used as Waypoint A was approached, the AAIB’s opinion was that at impact the RNS252 was switched off. Not by impact, but at impact. What happened in between these events regarding a system the aircrew did not trust?
Speaking of the AAIB, Boeing’s report clearly assumes that organisation is an agent of the MoD and privy to all relevant information – information that Boeing state was not available to themselves as the Aircraft Design Authority. But, as we know, the AAIB was kept even more in the dark by MoD. I’ve read hundreds of such ADA reports – this one is so full of caveats and get-outs as to be completely meaningless. Just like RNS252 messages. Without first addressing the above issues the true context can never be understood. Which is why MoD don’t want to go there.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the aircraft departed over Co. Antrim at less than 500ft (AGL or AMSL) there is no way it could have maintained a constant track. Therefore, not only are the accuracy of timings given by ATC questionable, speculation using V=D/T calculations must be questionable. Then again, all the wind values that have been previously used must have been best guesses.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cows
<<If the aircraft departed over Co. Antrim at less than 500ft (AGL or AMSL) there is no way it could have maintained a constant track.>>
It was certainly possible to have maintained a constant track on 027 (from V813 to waypoint A) over the Antrim hills as the cloudbase was sufficiently high in the region - what on earth are you saying here?.
The highest ground that they would have had to cross was about 1000ft in the vicinity of Sleamish (1400 ish), and the track was along the edge of the coastal hills allowing them to have been very low around Carnlough without having deviated from that track.
The ATC fix was 500 metres east of that track (close enough for their purposes) but it should be noted that the 027 was from the radar site - not the Belfast VOR site - so that fix should be taken as 7 nmiles from the radar on 027 mag from that radar.
Anything but the obvious.
<<If the aircraft departed over Co. Antrim at less than 500ft (AGL or AMSL) there is no way it could have maintained a constant track.>>
It was certainly possible to have maintained a constant track on 027 (from V813 to waypoint A) over the Antrim hills as the cloudbase was sufficiently high in the region - what on earth are you saying here?.
The highest ground that they would have had to cross was about 1000ft in the vicinity of Sleamish (1400 ish), and the track was along the edge of the coastal hills allowing them to have been very low around Carnlough without having deviated from that track.
The ATC fix was 500 metres east of that track (close enough for their purposes) but it should be noted that the 027 was from the radar site - not the Belfast VOR site - so that fix should be taken as 7 nmiles from the radar on 027 mag from that radar.
Anything but the obvious.
Last edited by walter kennedy; 13th Jun 2010 at 00:00. Reason: addition
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: High Wycombe UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter....
The Route........
...well yes physically they could have flown direct if the weather allowed , (although there is a speed , time , and fuel penalty involved in climbing to overfly an obstruction which you could otherwise easily detour around)....
.........but in this case their clearance was to fly VFR below 500 feet ......
..if they had wanted to fly higher they could have filed an IFR flightplan , been assigned a squawk , and been under radar control in order to avoid conflict with other traffic until they cleared controlled airspace ......
...also the area is not a wilderness , whilst flying low they would have been weaving around to avoid communities , churches , schools , herds of livestock etc......as well as the mountains....
...hence my statement that they could NOT have maintained their high average speed over this part of the journey......
.....also they may have been observed departing Aldergrove on 027 , and also observed at 7NM , but not at one and the same time...
..this distance and heading takes one up a mountainside above the 500' point ....
.......they probably headed for the M2 motorway interchange to avoid Antrim town and hospital , then turned left to skirt around the mountain . Heading north then towards Ballymena would take them out of the zone (Belfast CTR).......and they would be free to climb then as needed . The A42 from Ballymena to Carnlough follows a valley which goes up to nearly 700 feet....their most direct option ........
The "turn".....
...if you post the co-ordinates which you used to plot their "turn"........or PM them to me , I will try to determine why your interpretion is so different from my own.......link
regards Robin....
The Route........
...well yes physically they could have flown direct if the weather allowed , (although there is a speed , time , and fuel penalty involved in climbing to overfly an obstruction which you could otherwise easily detour around)....
.........but in this case their clearance was to fly VFR below 500 feet ......
..if they had wanted to fly higher they could have filed an IFR flightplan , been assigned a squawk , and been under radar control in order to avoid conflict with other traffic until they cleared controlled airspace ......
...also the area is not a wilderness , whilst flying low they would have been weaving around to avoid communities , churches , schools , herds of livestock etc......as well as the mountains....
...hence my statement that they could NOT have maintained their high average speed over this part of the journey......
.....also they may have been observed departing Aldergrove on 027 , and also observed at 7NM , but not at one and the same time...
..this distance and heading takes one up a mountainside above the 500' point ....
.......they probably headed for the M2 motorway interchange to avoid Antrim town and hospital , then turned left to skirt around the mountain . Heading north then towards Ballymena would take them out of the zone (Belfast CTR).......and they would be free to climb then as needed . The A42 from Ballymena to Carnlough follows a valley which goes up to nearly 700 feet....their most direct option ........
The "turn".....
...if you post the co-ordinates which you used to plot their "turn"........or PM them to me , I will try to determine why your interpretion is so different from my own.......link
regards Robin....
it is merely to locate a subject in possession of a PRC112 or similar
From CPLS documentation..........
"It also provides the capability to home to any continuous wave signal in its frequency range".
Of course that doesn't mean Chinook crews used it that way.
What is more interesting about this post is that there have been constant denials of the existance of this kit (Wacky radios etc), yet now that it has been proven to have been fitted to the HC Mk2 we have moved from "It doesn't exist" to "It does exist, but that's not how it was used". Given the raft of EMC problems MoD noted in the CPLS "release documentation" (such as it was, being totally non-compliant with the regs) one wonders if this is the "Classified" equipment fitted to ZD576 referred to by a BoI witness. (I've asked this before, but it was at a time when CPLS apparently didn't exist). The BoI didn't explore this further. If they did, they would have been forced to consider, very seriously, the possibility of EMI.
As it was, they merely ordered some EMC testing at Boscombe related to, for example, use of mobile phones. The very fact they had to order this after the event indicates it wasn't done beforehand, as required by the Regs. Yet more evidence that the build standard and understanding of the aircraft was too immature to be released to service. And it also indicates a readiness to accept that passengers, who were not permitted under any circumstances to use such mobile devices, could have used them. (And what is the big no-no in EMC terms on any aircraft - interfering with the fuel computers. Such temporary interference would, in all probability, leave no trace). It is seemingly innocuous issues like this which reveal just where the BoI thought there may be problems; equally it is suspicious why they were not investigated further. I'd love to see the unedited BoI report and the members' notes.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmnice
Apart from the obvious utility it would have in that role, it is specifically mentioned in the manufacturers' glossy brochures - why would you state something like what you did?
More importantly, why is the system never discussed by anyone who has used it on this forum - just for academic interest, even.
Real taboo, this one, isn't it?
Get some nutz.
Apart from the obvious utility it would have in that role, it is specifically mentioned in the manufacturers' glossy brochures - why would you state something like what you did?
More importantly, why is the system never discussed by anyone who has used it on this forum - just for academic interest, even.
Real taboo, this one, isn't it?
Get some nutz.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MP's Response to Question of Reviewing BOI.
In May I wrote to my newly elected MP, asking about the Government's views on reviewing the findings of the MULL BOI and got a quick acknowledgement. Today I got another letter, attaching one he had received from Nick Harvey MP (Minister of State for the Armed Forces) stating that Liam Fox had confirmed in the Commons on 26th May that there will be an independent review of the evidence and there will be an announcement as to the way forward, shortly.
Mods please delete if already covered and/or posted in the wrong thread!
Mods please delete if already covered and/or posted in the wrong thread!
Last edited by A2QFI; 30th Jun 2010 at 11:38.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The words 'independent' and 'judicial' are becoming increasingly rare from govt sources. My MP's letter did not include them - despite me asking for precise calrification of these points. I am concerned that the MoD are getting out tins of white-wash again!
Also, even if any Inquiry is eventually calssified by the govt as 'independent' then that should be cause enough for concern. After all, the new MAA is meant to be independent but it is hardly that.
Also, even if any Inquiry is eventually calssified by the govt as 'independent' then that should be cause enough for concern. After all, the new MAA is meant to be independent but it is hardly that.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Flipster. You say.... even if any Inquiry is eventually calssified by the govt as 'independent' then that should be cause enough for concern"
Would you prefer it to say that it will be a biased inquiry?
It is interesting that some folk here seem anxious to condemn the inquiry before iit has even been announced!!!
John Purdey
Would you prefer it to say that it will be a biased inquiry?
It is interesting that some folk here seem anxious to condemn the inquiry before iit has even been announced!!!
John Purdey
Last edited by John Purdey; 2nd Jul 2010 at 08:49. Reason: Spelling
John
Nothing wrong with a little healthy cynicism, especially when MoD is concerned.
As opposed to the ROs who were anxious to condemn the pilots while key evidence was being withheld.
Interestingly, now that some of this key evidence has been released by MoD, or at least one part of MoD, as another continues to deny its existence (a legal person like Haddon-Cave will have a field day with that one), the RAF Star Chamber lobbying seems to be in full flow, trying to divert attention away from ACAS and his cronies, to CA. Let us hope all these officers are interviewed for the first time. I also hope CA offers his opinion on being named by the RAF. I detect a breaking of ranks.
Nothing wrong with a little healthy cynicism, especially when MoD is concerned.
It is interesting that some folk here seem anxious to condemn the inquiry before iit has even been announced!!!
Interestingly, now that some of this key evidence has been released by MoD, or at least one part of MoD, as another continues to deny its existence (a legal person like Haddon-Cave will have a field day with that one), the RAF Star Chamber lobbying seems to be in full flow, trying to divert attention away from ACAS and his cronies, to CA. Let us hope all these officers are interviewed for the first time. I also hope CA offers his opinion on being named by the RAF. I detect a breaking of ranks.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey,
Governments always initiate honest, open and totally accurate tribunals.
Look at Lord Widgery for example. Shows what can be done once the State interfers with due process.
Governments always initiate honest, open and totally accurate tribunals.
Look at Lord Widgery for example. Shows what can be done once the State interfers with due process.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Mr Purdey,
As you correctly intimate, I am somewhat sceptical but history dictates I am right to do so, as others have pointed out.
On the other hand, I am also convinced that the new defence ministers are determined to do so very much better in this case than did their predecessors. After all, the new govt spent a lot of time in opposition and are far better briefed than ever before - I know that Dr Liam Fox and Nick Harvey come into that category, not to mention David Cameron himself. I just hope they have the sheer bloody-mindedness and courage to ignore the insidious machinations and the self-serving, back-stabbing lobbying of the so-called RAF 'Star Chamber' - which is anything but 'star'. You're not one of them are you, Mr Purdey?
I trust that there are a number of these retired VSOs and 'cold-war warriors' who are not sleeping well at the moment - well, it is all they deserve after denying so many families relief and closure for so long.
However, I am also hopeful that there are relative newcomers to the 'Star Chamber' who do have morals, who wish right to be done and to 'put this one to bed'. Certainly, it is very interesting to watch the 'old guard' of the chamber desparately trying to implicate the senior Civil Servant who was Contoller Aircraft at the time of the Mull Travesty; I don't think that will wash as I think the Civil Service are fed up of such underhand MoD Service tactics. Don't forget, it is the Servicemen who brief the civil service and it is the civil service who brief the politicians - I suspect that the civil service are tired of being lied to.
I will watch with interest.
As you correctly intimate, I am somewhat sceptical but history dictates I am right to do so, as others have pointed out.
On the other hand, I am also convinced that the new defence ministers are determined to do so very much better in this case than did their predecessors. After all, the new govt spent a lot of time in opposition and are far better briefed than ever before - I know that Dr Liam Fox and Nick Harvey come into that category, not to mention David Cameron himself. I just hope they have the sheer bloody-mindedness and courage to ignore the insidious machinations and the self-serving, back-stabbing lobbying of the so-called RAF 'Star Chamber' - which is anything but 'star'. You're not one of them are you, Mr Purdey?
I trust that there are a number of these retired VSOs and 'cold-war warriors' who are not sleeping well at the moment - well, it is all they deserve after denying so many families relief and closure for so long.
However, I am also hopeful that there are relative newcomers to the 'Star Chamber' who do have morals, who wish right to be done and to 'put this one to bed'. Certainly, it is very interesting to watch the 'old guard' of the chamber desparately trying to implicate the senior Civil Servant who was Contoller Aircraft at the time of the Mull Travesty; I don't think that will wash as I think the Civil Service are fed up of such underhand MoD Service tactics. Don't forget, it is the Servicemen who brief the civil service and it is the civil service who brief the politicians - I suspect that the civil service are tired of being lied to.
I will watch with interest.