The debate rages on in the Times today:. ._________________
Difficulties of Chinook crash verdict. .From Lord Jacobs . . . .Sir, A House of Lords committee has unanimously concluded the two RAF officers were wrongly convicted of negligence when the Chinook helicopter crashed on June 2, 1994 (report, February 6). The response by the Ministry of Defence has been that there is no new evidence and no new facts revealed by years of investigation. They are absolutely correct. . .What the MoD is unwilling to take on board is that the evidence in the first place upon which the conviction of the two pilots rests was wholly inadequate to justify the verdict, since it has to be based upon a conclusion that “there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever”. This is a higher standard of proof than that required in an ordinary criminal trial.
The only thing one can say with complete certainty is that it is impossible to conclude exactly the cause of the accident. This had led the investigating officers to decide that if there was no proof of cause it must indeed have been the fault of the pilots. It may have been pilot negligence, but never could one conclude that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it was pilot negligence. The verdict should be quashed.
Yours sincerely,. .ANTHONY JACOBS,. .9 Nottingham Terrace, NW1 4QB.. .February 8.
. .From Mr Stewart Birt
Sir, I was both a military and civilian helicopter pilot and flew the civil version of the Chinook. I became managing director of British International Helicopters. My company held a training contract with the RAF for the flight simulator training of their Chinook pilots, including the training of the two pilots who flew this ill-fated flight. I was also involved in the investigation of aircraft accidents and sat as a civil member of the “Joint Airmiss Working Group”.
Those who have sought to defend the reputations of the pilots involved in the Chinook accident have been most successful in their mission. But I believe the committee’s conclusions are wrong, and have the potential to tarnish the reputation of the RAF officers who were brave enough to conclude that the pilots were negligent.
The known facts of this accident are clear evidence of aircrew negligence and irresponsibility. “Good airmanship”, an approach to flying promoted in both military and civil aviation, would have dictated a series of decisions that should have resulted in the aircraft not being at risk of a collision with the ground at the location of the accident or anywhere else.
No conceivable mechanical failure nor any deficiency in onboard systems or equipment would have reproduced this accident. All arguments for sustaining low-level flight at cruise speed in the proximity of rising ground in the prevailing weather conditions and tactical circumstances can be refuted.
I am moved to write not because I want to see the pilots further criticised, but because I strongly feel that those whose conclusions are being attacked are not necessarily in a position to defend themselves. As a father and as a pilot, I sympathise with both pilots’ fathers, who naturally wish to defend their sons’ reputations.
Yours faithfully, . .STEWART BIRT,. .Beechwood, Woodhead, Fyvie,. .Nr Turriff, Aberdeenshire AB53 8LT.. .February 9.
_________________
Someone should tell Mr Birt that his "facts", like the MOD's "facts" or nothing more than speculation.
Well said, Lord Jacobs - no new evidence, never, was, never has been, it's not needed. No one knows what happened.