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.
Hi Pulse1,
much as I hate defending Mr Bliar, he can only go by what he it told in a briefing. In a letter to me from John Reid, dated 17 April 2006, Dr Reid stated:
"Prior to the Labour Government forming in May 1997, I and colleagues believed that there were sufficient grounds to question the finding of the Board of Inquiry. This may well have been because we were not at that stage in possession of the full facts of the case, which were then not so widely known as they are now."
and
"However, after seeing written summaries, and receiving oral briefings, including from the Reviewing Officers, it became clear to us that, given the circumstances, they were correct in their eventual finding."
I wrote back asking Dr Reid what additional information he had been supplied with that made him change his mind. I also asked for copies of any such information and minutes of meetings.
Guess what? I'm still waiting for a reply.
In addition, I still have a request in for 13 further documents requested under the FoIA. I'm currently out of favour with the MoD, having been told in their last letter to me, dated, 18 Oct 2006, "I believe that you will now be aware of the direction that the Secretary of State gave in a written response to Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan that the standard cost compliance test should be made to any future FOI requests that you make."
Seems like I have outstayed my welcome Something to hide, chaps??
With regards my outstanding requests, the MoD have cleverly stated, "We have not been able to trace a copy of this document. If it is subsequently found it will be provided to you." Technically not a refusal, but I doubt the documents will be located sometime soon. Not to worry, we have enough to be getting on with.
The bottom line is, Pulse1, that those elected to office can only go by the briefings given to them by the MoD. One has to ask, therefore, why the MoD refuse to acknowledge information that came to light after the Reviewing Officers interpreted the scant evidence as they did?
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 15,974
Given the recent collusion and cover-up attempted by the MoD over the fatal A-10 strafe attack on British military vehicles during the early days of Bliar's GW2 Iraq adventurism, is it hardly surprising that they twist and turn to avoid clear replies and hide behind such rhetoric as "....the standard cost compliance test should be made to any future FOI requests that you make."?
It makes people all the more convinced that the buggers are concealing the something.....perhaps because, if it all came out, they would probably find themselves having to pay out mi££ions in corporate manslaughter claims?
Maybe we'll have to wait until Green Dave fulfils his promise?
Just a reminder (as if it is needed), that the terrible accident took place 13 years ago today.
May all who were lost on that day, never be forgotten.
Flt Lt Jonathan Tapper
Flt Lt Richard Cook
MALM Graham Forbes
Sgt Kevin Hardie
Asst Chief Constable Brian Fitzsimons
Det Chief Superintendant Desmond Conroy
Det Chief Superintendant Maurice Reilly
Det Superintendant Philip Davidson
Det Superintendant Robert Foster
Det Superintendant Billy Gwilliam
Det Superintendant Ian Phoenix
Det Chief Inspector Denis Bunting
Det Inspector Stephen Davidson
Det Inspector Kevin Magee
John Deverill
Colonel Chrostopher Biles OBE
Lt. Colonel Richard Gregory-Smith
Lt. Colonel John Tobias
Lt. Colonel George Williams
Major Christopher Docherty
Major Anthony Hornby
Major Gary Sparks
Major Richard Allen
Major Roy Pugh
Anne James
Martin Dalton
John Haynes
Michael Maltby
Stephen Rickard
I come fresh from the amazing news about Mr Pun VC and his imminent arrival in Britain - which event perhaps tells us that governments are not immune to people power.
All the best, and my salaams for your enduring irritatingness
A timely reminder indeed. A terrible accident, as you say Brian, and a terrible waste of life compounded by a terrible injustice. The waste is only to be mourned, but the injustice can and will be righted. As Airsound says the people who stand in the way of that will be overwhelmed by the same people power that erupted on the hapless Mr Byrne!
Hi everyone,
over the past month or so, I have been contacted by those wondering why there has not been much information being posted about the Campaign. As I have said, we have been collating information, and documentation, with a view to presenting a final product to those in a position to bring about a change to the disgraceful verdict. I have also said that, with regret, we will not be in a position to place this current information in the public domain at this time. The reason behind this is not because of any 'power' thing, but because we do not want those we aim to speak to, to get a hint as to what we have uncovered until we give them the completed final document. It currently runs to several pages.
I can only apologise to those who are waiting to hear what we have been up to. I promise that as soon as I can 'go public' I will.
As an aside, you may also remember that, on the personal instructions of the then Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Reid), I am no longer allowed to apply for information using the Freedom of Information Act. At the time of my 'ban' I still had thirteen separate requests outstanding. So, applying the rules of my letter, I replied to the MoD on 17 May 07 stating that I was not making a new request, but would like sight of those documents I currently have outstanding. I was assured that the documents I seek could not be found, but would be provided if they were ever located Thought they'd give me a little more credit than that.
The outstanding documents are:
1. The letter written to Boscombe Down by the AoC, following Boscombe's decision to stop the Chinook HC2 flight trials.
2. The report by EDS Scicon following their tasking to verify the FADEC software.
3. A copy of the report from Boscombe Down to EDS Scicon.
4. A list of discounts made against further contracts with Textron Lycoming and Boeing.
5. Documentation relating to the fist suspension of flight trials by Boscombe Down.
6. A copy of ACM Wratten's document, Disciplinary Proceedings in Aircraft Accidents (Hint: There's a copy in the House of Lords Library)
7. A copy of a memo written, in 1995, by a member of Hels 2
8. A copy of the MoD (PE) unit report for the Wilmington Chinook incident.
9. 3rd & 4th Line engineering reports on the engine changes to Chinook HC2 ZD576 in early May 1994.
10. 3rd & 4th Line engineering reports on the GPS changes to Chinook HC2 ZD576 in early May 1994.
11. There was a mention in the House of Lords' Select Committee hearings that Air Marshal Day made his own analysis of the accident. Was that analysis included in any BoI paperwork?
12. A copy of the engineering report SI/CHINOOK/60, dated 23 June 1994, relating to flying control pallet threaded insert de-bonding.
13. Copies of all briefings given to AoC 1Gp during the course of the Chinook BoI (including copies of any minutes of said meeting).
Provision of these documents will certainly be useful, so I hope that the MoD are still looking. Once I hear from them, I shall let you all know the outcome. I do, however, feel a letter to the Information Ombudsman may be looming!
Can I thank you all for your continued support and patience. We are still extremely busy behind the scenes, and I will provide updates as and when able. PPRuNe Towers has kindly allowed the thread to remain a 'sticky' desipte the public inactivity. Once our document lands on it's intended desk, I will expect the thread to become busy once again. Please bear with us.
on the personal instructions of the then Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Reid), I am no longer allowed to apply for information using the Freedom of Information Act
With the advent of the unelected Gordon Brown as PM (and his Minister for Defence Mr Browne), why not re-submit your request?
I heard Mr Brown on the BBC World Service, after his return from the Windsor town house, promising all manner of change. Here's a golden opportunity to put him to the test.
Is there any prospect for action in the fact that the current PM may have more respect for the findings of a Scottish FAI than either of his two predecessors? I say two because, for all her faults, Baroness Thatcher had rather more respect for the Armed Forces...
Good luck with getting the current requests through. As you are subject to a personal ban, I suspect there would be no shortage of volunteers to act as sockpuppet Thrushes to make future requests on your behalf. I'd be happy to volunteer.
Regarding the list of documents Brian seeks, I applaud his persistence.
By definition, we are talking about a period from, approximately, 1991 to 1997; give or take. The MoD has a nasty habit, and it is quite deliberate, of answering in the present tense. Typically, “The Chinook IPT has no record……” or similar.
But the Chinook IPT did not exist until the late 90s. I’d hazard a guess that they seldom reply “The MoD has no record…” I’d also guess they make no attempt whatsoever to track down either the people or files from the previous departments. (They probably don’t even know them). Here’s a few to start with:
Directorate Helicopter Projects (aircraft and HQ Mods Committee)
Directorate Air Radio and various iterations before being subsumed into AMSO (avionics/simulators and HQ Mods Committee)
Directorate Military Aircraft Projects (equipment HQ Mods Committee Secretariat records)
Directorate Military Communications Projects
ALS/PD (central authority for maintaining safety airworthiness of equipment – no stovepiping in those days)
DD/Avionics (RAF) – (who took over responsibility for avionic safety and airworthiness, but declared it a waste of money and didn’t fund it).
Defence Helicopter Support Authority
DHP and DHSA, especially, would have held almost all what Brian seeks. It is inconceivable that Boscombe threw out their records. The relevant Design Authorities/Custodians would have their copies. If they don’t, it’s a breach of contract. If they don’t have a contract, how is the build standard, safety, and configuration control etc maintained? If a contract existed, and was cancelled (see DD/Avionics above), what happened to the records? Most companies would submit a bill for storage. Not just the aircraft DA, but the DAs for all the equipment. There should be multiple copies of most of this. On more than one occasion, the supposed “Authority” has denied the existence of records, only for me to ask a DA for access to his archives and find the info in minutes. One such system is, I believe, fitted to Chinook.
Also, the numerous reorganisations over the last 20 years have provided a God sent opportunity to destroy embarrassing records on the pretense of creating space. The move to Abbey Wood and transfer to DHSA were classic examples. Those with previous experience hid their files until they could get them scanned.
Any admission, or claim, that some of this doesn’t exist or can’t be found, is prima facie evidence of the lack of an airworthiness audit trail. (The SI in particular. Odiham, Fleetlands, St Athan, Llangennech, ATP, anyone?). This, of course, has never been in doubt.
While few comment on my posts, it won't have escaped you that if the MoD can continue to have the gall to deny the existence of these critical documents, refuse to release them or pretend they have looked for them, one can only wonder what they failed to make available to BOIs and Coroners' Inquests. What, you don't think that happens? Like I say, verifiable facts.
Few comment Tuc, but many read! Your detailed knowledge and experience of the mandarins and their ways is, I suspect, unique as far as the rest of PPRuNe is concerned. What you are able to tell us is invariably pertinent and revealing. Dare I say it is also usually difficult to grasp, or at least I find it so. Not your fault, but because of the deliberately labyrinthine nature of the beast. I subscribe to Computer Active magazine, proud holders of the "Plain English" award, in which all abbreviations, initials and "techno babble" are explained in clear in the margin. Too much I suspect to hope that could happen here, but please keep posting and we'll keep trying to follow. So much of the Chinook, Nimrod and Herc sagas come down in the end not to the aircraft, their engineers or aircrews but to anonymous people in offices identified only by cryptic initials which are frequently altered. That is where the search must be concentrated, and you are the one to suggest where that is. Please continue to do so.
Thanks, as always, to everyone for their posts. Some very useful guidance there!
In order to present a balanced argument with regards my correspondence with the MoD, I received the following letter this morning:
Dear Mr Dixon,
Thank you for your letter of 17 May 2007.
I note that you are disappointed that the Secretary of State has considered that the standard cost compliance test should be made to any future FOI requests that you make. This test is a standard applied across Government departments and ensures that all requests are considered equally in respect of cost of providing the information sought. Information requested under the FOI arrangements will, of course, be made available to you providing it can be provided within the standard cost. There is absolutely no intention to withhold information lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information. The Secretary of State has previously advised you on several occasions that the Government retains every confidence in the judgement of the Reviewing Officers but remains prepared to review its position should any compelling new factual evidence be brought forward.
I have not yet completed a review of all the files held by Boscombe Down. I expect to complete this next week and I will then let you have a full response on the points you have raised.
Yours sincerely......
I'm happy to go on record to express my thanks to the chap at the MoD for his letter, and for his clarification of whether or not I may continue to be an Irritating Sod. I'm happy to report that I intend to remain so, for as long as is necessary.
What would be useful, would be a copy of the 800+ page spreadsheet that the MoD has, listing all documentation held in relation to the crash. Sadly, that fails the compliance test. I even tried the 'request by instalments' method, but failed there too!
As always, I am grateful for your continued support. Updates as and when.
Brian, you really are becoming very exceedingly irritating! Well done, I suspect that there are those on the "other side" that are silently cheering you on, while we on this side may do so openly. This can of worms will rival the "Dreyfus" case when the full scandal is finally revealed. If then the necessary reforms in the RAF and MOD are instituted, much good will have been salvaged from this travesty of "service justice". The shame however will remain.
Something to hide, chaps??
Thought they'd give me a little more credit than that.
Linear Mode
