Circles
Walter Kennedy,
You could not be further off the mark with your comments at post 1822. There is ample evidence that the Chinook fleet and this aircraft in particular was suffering a wide range of technical malfunctions – the cause of which was both transient in nature and of unknown explanation – see the comments from Stn Cdr Odiham I posted a few days ago if you want an example from an operator rather than an engineer. I also suggest, given your obvious interest and persistence, that you take the time to read my full engineering report from Oct 2003 – it is on the main web site.
Since I wrote that report, which has never been refuted or responded to by MOD, even more evidence is coming to light. Thanks to the FOIA we now have written proof that a “no fault found” engine over-temp incident on ZD 576 only two weeks before the accident was one of the reasons why Boscombe Down suspended the flight trials – indeed they quote 4 in-service incidents as having driven the decision, not anything that was happening on the trials themselves. The Director of Test and Evaluation writing to MOD just after the accident on 6 June, but with a letter whose origins went right back to the Issue 1 CA Release in Nov 1993, said:
"The unquantifiable risks identified at the Interim CA Release (Nov 93) stage may not in themselves have changed but some have become more clearly defined by events (and he lists 4 in-service incidents to back this up) to the extent that we now consider the consequences of the risks and probability of an occurrence to be UNACCEPTABLE. (my bold). This is not a comment relating to just BD test flying it is a general warning which is made absolutely clear in paragraph 5 of the BD letter where the author "strongly recommends" that the addressee (MOD Air) makes BD's concerns known to the RAF.”
Sadly these comments and any action taken by the RAF (if there was any) came too late to save ZD 576. Needless to say none of these issues came out at a BOI which by its own admission was only really looking for an aircrew cause for the accident!
I can only repeat what I said at post 1788, and I am sorry to have to do so:
There are only two indisputable facts:
The aircraft crashed into the Mull
Nobody knows why - and this includes MOD and even the Senior Reviewing Officers who found the pilots Grossly Negligent - something the Senior Reviewing Officer admits is the case.
MOD and the Reviewing Officers rely on conjecture and hypotheses to justify their verdict, but do not acknowledge the issues relating to the airworthiness of the aircraft and its fitness for purpose at all - yet these must have been well known to all involved. If there had been fuller TORs or even a cursory examination of all of the issues raised by the BoI the Reviewing Officers could not have come to a conclusion of pilot error let alone one breaking the rules of AP3207 of Gross Negligence. That it would not suit MOD to open Pandora's Box covering the introduction to service of the Mk2 is now clear - and if you want the next example just look at the Mk3.
Yes the campaign has gone on for 11 years, but every single independent look at the MOD decision has shown that both the unacceptability of their verdict and the serious flaws in the way in which they have used the evidence they are prepared to look at (bearing in mind that there is much that they have ignored). I am quite happy to “prove” the case for a potential technical malfunction, but I have not seen a single contributor to support your theory that they had an additional task – but even this, if true, would not invalidate any of my technical malfunction arguments.
However, despite what you might like to have happen the fight to clear the pilot’s name on the basis that there are other, more factually based, possible explanations for the accident is the only game in town. Given what we now know no form of aircrew error verdict stands up to close examination and Gross Negligence, with the “criminal” connotation that goes with such a verdict, is a verdict that has to be withdrawn by MOD if all of the families involved are to have "closure" – until we have time travel we will never know the truth of what happened on that fateful day so none of us could ever hope to achieve the ultimate aim of a full and true explanation of the cause, of this accident. If we could my money would not be on aircrew error!
PS: Apologies to Cazatou for incorrectly spelling his name last time.