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 14th Jul 2009, 20:27
  #5301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
Caz:
it was a requirement for the BOI to pronounce on negligence. In this context the BOI consists of the Investigating Board and the Reviewing Officers; who are not bound by the opinions that the Investigating Board put forward.
Wrathmonk:
Finally, whilst I can't remember the exact details, IIRC it was not long after the outcome of this board that the procedures were changed again whereby blame would no longer be attributed. Timing, it seems, is sadly everything.
Olive Oil:
Not everyone believed that was progress, although clearly a section of contributors here would have us believe that it should be applied retrospectively.
Well here we all are again in violent agreement guys. The problem though IMHO is that the clear evidence of OC RWTS BD (suspends flight testing of type, suggests suspension of Service flying), independent testing of FADEC code (suspended due to shear volume of bad code discovered), in service experience of ZD576 (Tech Records), in Service problems of type; HoL testimony of Sqn Ldr Burke and Witness A (SF Chinook pilot) all point to a serious Airworthiness Deficiency of a type that nevertheless received its RTS (restricted). Rather stronger evidence of negligence (and "New" to the BoI, as it chose not to call it at the time) than the "modelling" of the case against the pilots! But perhaps negligence can only be found in JO's as a matter of policy?

Last edited by Chugalug2; 14th Jul 2009 at 21:06.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2009, 21:25
  #5302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bath
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SFFP

Reference your post at 5338.

I can categorically state that I do not post under any other title or nickame.

I find the thread is, like the campaign, going absolutely nowhere. It is now 15 years on, several Prime Ministers, several Secretaries of State, many Chiefs, many Assistant Chiefs and and god knows how many of us civil serpents have written brief after brief for all of them. End result - no change. Complete waste of defence expenditure that could have been spent on equipment etc.

There is no possibility of the MOD, Prime MInisters or Ministers present or future ever changing the findings of the BOI. (Ainsworth took one look at it and accepted the findings of the BOI - BOI's are not complete until the comments of the RO's are made). Cameron will look at the advice he is given (should he get in) and come to the same conclusion. Trust me, serpents know how Ministers (any brand or status) think and will act.

If the campaign group had any thoughts of gaining a change to the findings they would have gone for a judicial review or other legal route. They and their advisors, know it would be a complete waste of time.

Perhaps you all might consider why the MOD are so clear that their position holds irrespective. They get advice too.


AC
Atlantic Cowboy is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2009, 23:41
  #5303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
Wrathmonk:
Without wishing to get flamed, whilst I think the faults in airworthiness etc being highlighted in this (and other accidents) by the likes of Chug, tuc, Brian, nigegilb, DV, TD et al is laudable, my (perhaps selfish) best outcome in this case would be to get the Gross Neg charges removed. NPD would satisfy the majority of posters on this thread I am sure. With that battle won focus could then turn to the wider war of airworthiness etc.
Atlantic Cowboy:
There is no possibility of the MOD, Prime MInisters or Ministers present or future ever changing the findings of the BOI. (Ainsworth took one look at it and accepted the findings of the BOI - BOI's are not complete until the comments of the RO's are made). Cameron will look at the advice he is given (should he get in) and come to the same conclusion.
And there speaks a man who knows Wrathmonk. Nothing of course about honour or justice or duty of care but everything about how the Whitehall machine works and how to succeed in it. I for one bow to such specialist knowledge. The words Hell and Freeze-Over come to mind if you think that the MOD will ever do the decent thing and reinstate Rick's and Jon's reputations alone. They haven't, as he so rightly points out, done that for 15 years and have no intention of doing it in the next 15 years or ever. According to them this was an Airworthy and Serviceable aircraft recklessly and wantonly ploughed into a mist and cloud shrouded hillside. But then, these are the people who assured NoK that the Hercules, the Nimrod and the two Sea Kings in which their loved ones died were all Airworthy, so par for the course. The various BoI's into all those accidents failed to discover that they were all airworthiness related. Thus it was, I believe, with this one. Everything that Atlantic Cowboy writes tells me how urgent it is that UK Military Airworthiness be wrested away from the MOD into a separate and independent MAA, and that Accident Investigation be lead and under the control of an independent MAAIB. This accident has to be properly investigated, possibly by the AAIB until its military equivalent be formed, unless the RAF is prepared to ensure that a fair and thorough re-investigation be done. If that had been done in the first place it is just possible that other avoidable accidents since might have been avoided together with needless deaths. I say that this accident was the worst one of all caused by the Gross Negligence of the UK Military Airworthiness Authority, the MOD. Could it bear the same responsibility that has been hung on the memory of two Junior Officers for 15 years? I doubt it.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2009, 05:08
  #5304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chugalug 2

Re your 5348

Do you also intend to do away with the Military system of Justice; including Courts Martial? It would, after all, seem logical that if the Military cannot investigate and pronounce on Accidents then it should not do so in Disciplinary and Criminal matters either.

Of course you have a problem there in that Civil Police are not allowed, under the Geneva Convention, to take an active part in Miliary Operations - so how would you Police the Military on Active Service?
cazatou is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2009, 08:49
  #5305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chinook

8-15FromOdium.
Your question is not clear: "On this subject JP, do you think the investigation would be complete if an airworthiness audit had not been carried out?" ???
I think you know my view. With all good wishes. John Purdey

Last edited by John Purdey; 15th Jul 2009 at 09:26. Reason: repetition
John Purdey is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2009, 11:36
  #5306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
caz:
Do you also intend to do away with the Military system of Justice; including Courts Martial? It would, after all, seem logical that if the Military cannot investigate and pronounce on Accidents then it should not do so in Disciplinary and Criminal matters either.
Thank you for the offer, caz, but one dragon at a time please. In the case of accidents that have subsequently been found to be airworthiness related alone, the military Accident Investigation has failed to discover that fact in each case. It really is a huge waste of time carrying out such an investigation if you are not going to find out the prime cause of the accident, for whatever reason. I don't have to tell you of all people caz that the main aim of such an investigation is to prevent a recurrence. If you fail to find the cause then the accident repeats itself, somewhere, sometime, and more people die for no good reason.

Olive Oil:
I thought the correct phrase was "negligently", not "recklessly and wantonly", and that the degree of negligence was deemed by the ROs to be gross.
You are quite right to bring me to task, Olive. So important to get the wrong finding quoted correctly, isn't it?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2009, 13:04
  #5307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,140
Received 29 Likes on 12 Posts
Hi Chugalug

It’s best to avoid Cazatou when he introduces yet another irrelevant red-herring to the thread. It only encourages him to muddy the previously clear waters.

I am sure it has not escaped his notice that there exists a parallel universe where people climb onto airborne devices with reasonable confidence that purchasing a ticket will mean delivery to their destination alive. It has been established for many years that an independent accident investigation system designed to determine all the facts and produce any recommendations to prevent future accidents (with allocation of blame not in their remit) is the best system to improve flight safety.

I have not noticed an increase in the number of untried murderers or rapists at large resulting from the application of this principle.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2009, 13:49
  #5308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
Hi Fitter2, well point taken, but whatever muddying he might perform, caz was an "A" cat truckie VIP pilot/trainer and a Group Flight Safety Officer. It is to that professional knowledge and experience that I am trying to appeal. In case he, or for that matter others here, missed it there was a file on 4 programme yesterday about Military Airworthiness:
BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - File on 4, 14/07/2009
I hasten to add that it did not include this accident, having its hands full dealing with the Nimrod, Hercules and Sea King tragedies. However the theme was that there is a systemic failure of the Airworthiness system extending beyond those specific accidents. It is for that reason alone that I raise it on this thread. Listen especially to AVM Hillier thrown completely by a reference to an incident predating the Nimrod crash, and to his CS minder stepping in to shut down that line of questioning. Another resounding success for the team, eh AC?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2009, 14:09
  #5309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fitter 2
Re your #5357

Anno Domini catching up?

I would point out, however, that the Reviewing Officers kept strictly within the rules as laid down by the Air Force Act. The Investigating Board did not decide the ultimate Findings of the BOI; that was not within their remit, although they were invited to give their opinion.

The Findings were the responsibility of the Convening Officer (AOC 1 Gp) and they were agreed by the AOCinC STC. In this particular case the CAS also reviewed the BOI (and the Findings) before publication.
cazatou is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2009, 14:42
  #5310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Caz,
Air Force act now.

Abandoned the claim that they complied to the AP3207 because that has shown to be total b0llocks.

Ready for your next libellous accusation on the dead aircrew?
dalek is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2009, 16:39
  #5311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wilts
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mr Purdey

Thanks for your time, and yes I do know your view, but please be patient while I try to change it ;-)

Now (re #5365), to clarify my question: "do you think the investigation would be complete if an airworthiness audit had not been carried out?". I rephrase as:
Do you think that the BoI needed to consider how the Chinook Mk2 was certified airworthy?
The reason I ask is, I feel it would have been a serious omission by the BoI not to study how the aircraft was released into service and the airworthiness issues associated with the release (such as the issues raised by OC RWTS).

Things do move on a pace on this thread and the individual who may be able to clear up this issue, Atlantic Cowboy, has resurfaced. In his post of 6 Dec 2008 ( #3773 ) he alluded to the fact that an Airworthiness document existed (my highlighting).
My recollection and knowledge of the spreadsheet is that it simply records dates of communication from members of the public, MPs, Lords etc. It has no information in it other than the subject matter of the correspondence and where it is filed. It certainly does not contain the airworthiness audit trail because that was not the purpose for which the speadsheet was designed.
I have asked Atlantic Cowboy on 2 occasions the following question:
can you enlighten us if there was a seperate document drawn up that recorded the airworthiness audit trail as part of the investigation and if such a document exists has it (to your knowledge) been made publicly available
Atlantic Cowboy if you are out there what is the answer?

Last edited by 8-15fromOdium; 15th Jul 2009 at 16:42. Reason: highlighting & formatting
8-15fromOdium is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2009, 19:03
  #5312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DALEK

Abandoned the claim that they complied to the AP3207 because that has shown to be total b0llocks.

Ready for your next libellous accusation on the dead aircrew?
They must be so proud of you for this sort of posting......................
bast0n is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2009, 19:49
  #5313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bast0n
DALEK



They must be so proud of you for this sort of posting......................
Whilst on the face of it, it may seem unpalatable, some of the comments from Caz over the past months show that Dalek does rather have a point
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 06:46
  #5314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No Bast0n,
I do actually feel rather foolish and ashamed of letting my anger and frustration get the better of me.
Cazatou, do you feel the same about your completely unfounded allegations agaist the crew?
Do you think he should apologise Baston?

I have seen you raise not a single word of complaint about these.
Fair and balanced are we?
dalek is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 07:43
  #5315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
dalek

1. The Investigating Board found that "the forecast weather was suitable for the flight -BUT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED FLIGHT IN ACCORDANCE WITH IFR IN THE VICINITY OF THE MULL OF KINTYRE."

2. All the Witnesses on the Mull gave evidence regarding the extensive Fog covering the higher ground at the time of the crash.

3. The much quoted yachtsman reported sighting the Chinook when "2nm south-west of the Lighthouse." He stated the the aircraft was flying "in a straight line and in level flight and was proceeding towards....the cloud localisation covering the Mull." His best estimate of the speed of the aircraft was "somewhat faster than Sea Kings in level flight." Sea Kings normally operate at 100-110 kts. Groundspeed at impact 2nm later was approx 150 kts.

4. No credible evidence of any technical malfunction which could have caused the crash has been found.

5. Even if, after all this time, evidence could be produced that gave credence to a technical fault; it would not alter the finding of negligence in respect of the complete disregard of the rules for VFR flight.
cazatou is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 07:47
  #5316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Caz, please remind me, what was the verdict on the Shackelton crash some 2-3 years earlier? Were they complying with IFR? Why the application of different standards?
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 08:29
  #5317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cgb

I remember that crash and I knew the Captain from Acklington in the 60's. I was not, however, involved in the BOI and I have never read the full BOI; only the Flight Safety precis. I am aware of certain "sensitive" facets in respect of matters pertaining to the Accident and subsequent investigation. I do not think it is correct to air such matters on this forum but (if you wish) PM me and I will reply with what I remember. I suspect, however, that you are already aware of those matters.
cazatou is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 09:14
  #5318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
8-15Fromodium. I regret to say that I cannot see any way of helping you. But if you have uncovered something new, then you might like to pass it on to the Mull Group, who, Brian Dixon told us, is still active. Regards. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 09:54
  #5319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Caz, thank you for your reply. I'll PM later (got to go flying )
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 10:11
  #5320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DALEK

Thanks.

Do you think he should apologise Baston? (CAZ you mean)

I have seen you raise not a single word of complaint about these.
Fair and balanced are we?
Has he been libellous?

Well - no. He believes I think, as I do that this aircraft was flown in cloud into the ground. I have not seen anything to dispute this sad fact. There is a hell of a lot of negative arguement, "the what if" brigade, but no evidence to dissuade me that to fly an apparently - ie: not proven otherwise - serviceable aircraft into the ground in IMC was at the very least careless and probably negligent. I was not on the BOI or privy to the RO,s deliberations so that is far as I can possibly go.

The surrounding airworthiness issues, breakfast et all are very much chaff in my opinion and do not add much to the discussion of the last tragic moments of flight that against all the rules was in cloud..
bast0n 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.