PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
View Single Post
Old 4th Jan 2009, 23:56
  #3902 (permalink)  
walter kennedy
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To put things into perspective, it is not just for the loss of an aircraft that you are campaigning to clear the pilots from blame – the loss of those passengers effectively brought to an end a long war on terror representing a significant defeat for the United Kingdom for which it is hard to find a comparison this side of the American War of Independence.
Apart from the social consequences to the people of both Ulster and the Irish Republic of a peace process pressed upon them that may have had very different characteristics had the team still been around (which are rather too complex to simply quantify here) there are the losses directly due to fighting terrorism there of 700+ British Armed Forces personnel and 300+ RUC officers (since 1969) – who have died for nothing.
That is the scale of the catastrophe that these pilots have been held responsible for.
Even if you as the Campaign Group are successful in clearing their names on a legal nicety, is this enough? You would surely want them to be totally cleared, with no doubt whatsoever.
What is worse is the weakness of your strategy of casting doubt on the aircraft's airworthiness – beyond the basic picture of a CFIT that many accept, I refer you to the Boeing document (Ref 02-8-1130-0916; Subject: Chinook ZD576 … - Evidence before the House of Lords Select Committee: Request for Boeing Review and Re-simulation.) in which so many points are answered in minute detail in a fully reasoned and rational way that leads one to conclude that not only is there no evidence of aircraft problems contributing to the crash but indeed there is evidence of normal operation throughout the critical phase of the flight.
If you take your blinkers off, you should have collectively enough experience to recognise that their most obvious intention was a fast approach to a known landing area on the Mull, for whatever reason – why not give that some consideration? What have you got to lose? If you form a concencus (as an expert group including interested parties) that an extra activity was placed upon them that has not been declared, then surely the whole case needs to be reviewed formally. Further, any third party involved in the execution of any such exercise could be found liable and so a measure of real justice could be achieved.
walter kennedy is offline