Hi everyone,
apologies for the apparent silence - although I can assure you that the campaign remains busy. Parliamentary Questions are going in on an almost daily basis, further requests under the FOIA are being drafted as I type.
You may recall my original request for certain documents under the FOIA, in particular a fatal accident a few months after the Chinook crash. The Reviewing Officers, I believe, were the same for both accidents. Having read the Station Commander's comments, and those of the Reviewing Officers for this particular Board, I have to say that I have serious concerns regarding the differences between the conclusions reached, based upon the evidence available.
I'll try to explain what I'm on about...
Both crashes are 3 months apart. The chinook has no cockpit voice recorder (CVR) or accident data recorder (ADR). The other aircraft has both.
There is a lack of hard evidence as to what caused the Chinook crash, but in the case of the other crash, the Board lists exactly the final manoeuvre of the aircraft and comments that the control input from the pilot led ultimately to the loss of the aircraft.
The AOC discounted medical incapacitation for the pilots of the Chinook, yet could not discount it for the second crash (although acknowledges that it was statistically unlikely). Surely a problem such as this would have been captured on the second aircraft's CVR? The AOC also notes the limited flying hours (on type) of the pilot of the second crash. He had over 100 hours. Rick Cook had 15hrs 40 minutes on the Mk2, whilst Jon Tapper had 5hrs 15 mins. What worries me more than anything else in the AOC's comments on the second accident is this statement: Regardless of the circumstances of this particular accident, I agree that [XXXXXXX] should be absolved from blame.
Moving onto the AOCinC. In the BoI for the second accident he states ... I find the hypothetical reconstruction offered by the Board of limited usefulness. What about the information from the ADR and CVR then?? That luxury was not available to the Chinook crew, but the reconstruction in that accident appears to have been acceptable. He goes on to say ... that I find any consideration of human failings to be academic and fruitless. Why? Human failings featured rather prominently in the Chinook accident.
I could go on, but I shall refrain. Interestingly, the Reviewing Officers' remarks on each accident were written two to three weeks apart (Chinook first then the second accident). About two months prior to writing the Chinook review, the AOCinC had issued a directive instructing that a consistant approach is taken when dealing with aircraft accidents.
I have written a five page letter to the Secretary of State for Defence detailing my concerns over the apparent different approach applied to both accidents. I'll keep you all updated as to what response I get.
So why have I done this? Well, let me make it perfectly clear that I have no interest in the second accident other than the different approach in conclusions and findings. Nor am I saying that anyone involved in the BoI process has acted improperly. I am merely puzzled that so much appears to be known as 'fact' on a helicopter with no ADR or CVR, and yet, on an aircraft with such equipment fitted, the same 'facts' can be discounted with apparent ease. That is where my interest lies.
I would respectfully remind individuals that the second accident was, tragically, also a fatal accident, and there is no desire to drag other families into the Chinook debate. Please do not speculate or comment on which accident you know/think it was as it will serve no purpose and possibly cause distress to others.
If anyone feels that this post, itself, may cause problems, please let me know and I will remove it without delay.
As always, my best to you all.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook