WOrkER
It is indeed gratifying to see someone so intimately familiar with the case as yourself, to be taking such an interest in this particular part of cyberspace
As well as studying every written word on this affair, I imagine you also sifted through the wreckage of ZD576 on more than one occasion, sat through the Fatal Accident Inquiry, operated with the deceased crew members on SF chinook sorties, and flew various profiles towards the Mull of Kintyre, by helicopter
As did I!
Welcome.
Please forgive us if few are impressed by your arrogant and over bearing tone, it is just that, over the years, we have frequently been required to demonstrate our resilience in the face of just such attitudes from the MOD!
No doubt, at some stage you will wish to discuss specifics, quoting something or other as a 'fact', and my role will be to highlight the quality of such 'facts'. (Remember what the PAC said about them?)
For the future perhaps.
For the moment:
I was struck by your criticism, of some of the groups who had reviewed this case. You implied they had no expertise in the field of Air Accident Investigation, and therefore, their comments could be excluded from serious consideration.
Notwithstanding the fact that, to my recollection, NO independent review of this case (I believe there may have been as many as half a dozen) has felt able to draw the same conclusions as the Air Marshalls!
A number of issues follow from this:
A) What formal training did senior officers in the RAF receive in accident investigation, and how could the 'opinions' of more senior management figures be so different to those of the president of the BOI?
B) Aren't the ONLY professionals in this case, the AAIB? You remember, they are the ones who reported that they were unable to positively determine the pre-impact serviceability of ZD576, that much of the wreckage was destroyed by post-impact fire, that the possibility of control jam could not be excluded, that the possibility of a malfunction that left no physical evidence, could not be excluded etc.
Oh, and incidentally, I can't remember a single occasion when they have found a pilot 'negligent!'
I personally would categorise this as 'ENLIGHTENED' air accident investigation, rather than the military version, which uses 'blame' as a management tool for discouraging further accidents!
C) If I wished to design an air accident investigation policy, to accurately identify the true cause of accidents, I don't believe I would allow those at the head of the organisation being investigated, to decide (with no mechanism for appeal!) who was 'to blame!' Call me old fashioned, but it seems a little unreliable! Ever heard of Mount Erebus?
D) The truth is this. The 2 Air Marshalls played no role whatever in the 'investigation' of this accident. They are very busy people, who appointed a highly competent team to do that for them. However, when their team reported a finding that was unsatisfactory to them, they were forced to re-evaluate the SAME evidence in their own way, to divine 'their' JUDGEMENT.
If you seriously suggest that Sheriff Sir Steven Young (at the FAI) was somehow, not as competent, as our 2 senior military officers, at weighing evidence and reaching a judgement, I fear you "stretch credibility too far!"
Because you see, this case actually hinges, not on the PRESENCE of any particularly difficult technical facts, but rather, it is characterised by the ABSENCE of any persuasive evidence whatsoever.
Which is effectively what the PAC said, and why no extensive aviation knowledge is required to see that, a miscarriage of natural justice occured when the 2 Air Marshalls ignored the direction that the President of the BOI wrestled with. That is:
"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, should deceased aircrew be found negligent"
A standard that I, and many others, find absolutely in keeping with the very highest traditions of the Royal Air Force.
As far as the briefing of minister is concerned, may I ask, who briefs them on the 'counter' case, to enable them to reach a 'balanced' view?
After all, once away from office, both the Prime Minister of the time, as well as the Secretary of State for Defence of 1994, and numerous other ministers, now feel it is time for the 'verdict' to be overturned.
I am unsurprised that the 2 Air Marshalls are fighting tooth and nail to maintain that they did nothing wrong. After all, it is now THEIR reputations at stake.
It is a shame that Flt Lts Cook, and Tapper are denied that luxury. WE are the ones who feel obliged to make THEIR voices heard!
Sooner or later, WOrkER, your life will move on, but there are many of us who, as long as we have breath in our bodies, will not rest until justice is served to these 2 young men.
You see, justice is too important for that.
Does that give YOU a "flavour of the challenge?"
Now, please could you explain "handrailing?"
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 10th Aug 2004 at 08:38.