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.
BEagle, it may well be libel or such like; at the very least it is dishonest. I am astonished that she has linked these 2 disparate events together - on one hand she is defending those who cannot defend themselves and then attacks 2 others without cause or reason.
Quote:
Perhaps an independent review of the CVR tape is needed properly to put this one to bed?
Beyond the 2 different legal systems that came together for this inquiry, the coroner, the RAF Board itself, civilian AIB, civilian police & Tornado SMEs I am not sure how much more independent we can get. I also regard my own eyes and ears as independent, but I guess that is for others to judge.
As she is making the allegations perhaps she can offer the evidence; suggest she starts with her first allegation in that the pilot was married!
The point Barbies Boyfriend is trying to make is to add some objectivity to the debate.
It is that very absence of material evidence that indicates the apparently unthinkable conclusion that he identified in option 2 and, to quote a phrase that's been bandied about recently, it is clearly "beyond any reasonable doubt" that this accident was CFIT. There is not a shred, not the tiniest shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. It is the only credible explanation.
ab, did you take legal advice from the same source as the AM's? The requirement was that the pilots were Grossly Negligent beyond all doubt, not that there was to be the tiniest shred of evidence, "beyond any reasonable doubt" that this was not CFIT. Even if it were, there is proof, not a tiny shred of evidence, but proof that the HC2 fleet then, including this one, was Grossly Unairworthy at the time, because it was Released To Service into the RAF in that condition.
A person is objective if they are swayed by facts, and not personal feelings or opinions.
Neither you nor BB can therefor be described as 'objective'.
The 'facts' of this case speak for themselves. No determination of cause is possible. So say numerous independent reviews of the available evidence, and of course now, so also says the Ministry of Defence.
Long after we are all dust, the record will show where the available evidence led.
There is total agreement.
All you gum bumpers can have whatever 'opinion' you wish. As we all now agree, they simply cannot be supported by the available facts, and so are of little value .
The point Barbies Boyfriend is trying to make is to add some objectivity to the debate.
It is that very absence of material evidence that indicates the apparently unthinkable conclusion that he identified in option 2 and, to quote a phrase that's been bandied about recently, it is clearly "beyond any reasonable doubt" that this accident was CFIT. There is not a shred, not the tiniest shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. It is the only credible explanation.
Well put. I suspect there are many here that would agree. Everyone I have spoken to on this subject in the MoD & RAF holds this view. Many feel the GN was uncalled for (something I would agree with - if only for the simple reason that they are deceased), but this not the same as saying - "now we have no idea what happened". This is changing history and the original BOI findings - which still seem to ring true to me.
Most refrain from posting along these lines, I suspect, on the grounds of decency and sympathy for those who have been most affected by this tragedy.
However, some of the opinion and conjuncture here & elsewhere is just getting out of hand. The Tornado slander is potentially outrageous.
I note that some posters have resorted to insulting and derogatory remarks about the posters who hold opinions that differ from their own - not usually a good sign.
I think one needs to understand that their is a colossal difference between Gross Negligence which is culpable and Pilot/Crew Error which is simply human nature. It's also why there was such a burden of proof required for one that was not required for the other.
I don't believe anyone with an actual vested interest in the finding would balk at the possibility of Aircrew Error in this case. However, the length of this very thread attests to the general feeling that Gross Negligence was utterly uncalled for and, demonstrably, in contravention of the regulations at the time.
I don't believe it is worth arguing over the interpretation of some second rate hack journalist's interpretation of the Philip Report and what it actually said. I don't believe that it said anywhere that the crew were blameless in the accident - but I did skim some portions. Had it said that I'd be inclined to feel as you do but since it's the interpretation of one whose ilk can publish a picture of a Chinook and caption it an "Army Helicopter" I ignore their ignorance and move on.
Location: UK (and now rarely behind enemy lines but still enjoying foreign climes.)
Posts: 1,266
Quote:
Indeed, Chugalug2 - that's quite some article!
Sure is, BEagle! Some 'in your face' allegations being made there - I wonder if the CVR tape will actually surface? Certainly, it's existence has been talked about in quiet corners for a long time. For anyone interested, see both of these - they are startling:
Do read the second article in Mr B's post by Lynda Hamilton. When the gutter press finally get distracted from Murdoch, it should lead to some very interesting articles and law suits.
What good would it do anyone to reopen the Tornado case?
The Inquiry decided it was a momentary error of judgement, probably while avoiding a bird strike, that did not amount to negligence and cleared the deceased crew of blame. The journo doesn't agree with that. She doesn't understand bird strikes.
What does she want? The Inquiry reopened and the pilot blamed? All journo's care about is a story and they don't care who gets hurt in the process.
Many feel the GN was uncalled for (something I would agree with - if only for the simple reason that they are deceased),
Well, under the well publicised and bizarrely misworded burden of proof the GN charge is clearly unreasonable. But without wishing to be contraversial it is pretty clear also that had the definition been properly worded (ie, beyond reasonable...) then that GN charge would still have been made and would stick to this day unchallenged. In my world it is hard to see what else one calls CFIT. Harsh maybe, but realistic. The fact that the protagonists are deceased should have no bearing on the verdict being called for or uncalled for. There should be no place for sentimentality in delivering verdicts in accidents. That is clearly inappropriate.
That said, I am very happy that the GN charge has been removed in this case, it was inappropriate under the circumstances pertaining and any other verdict under other circumstances is purely hypothetical.
Equally inappropriate and inaccurate are the media reports that say the crew were "exonerated of responsibility" or words to that effect.
Fer fuggsake pal, do you not know about aviaton accident reports? Results are generally accepted under the burden of "beyond reasonable doubt".
No report ever claims to know for certain - indeed this whole business revolves around the impossibility of guaranteed proof. Why do some people require 100% proof to exonerate the pilots from GN yet demand the same to disprove the obvious in the other direction? How about a little (100%) continuity in logic too?
What do you suggest happened? Alien intervention? Meteorites? Ouija board? Got 100% proof then?
Heavens above! Get real. Sadly people sometimes fly into cumulo granitus. It happens. Best to recognise it though and not do the ostrich thing, that helps no one.
And lets keep asking the RAF establishment "why" to ensure daft operational taskings like this never happen again.
