Firstly, my apologies to you all for the prolonged absence. It was brought about by a complete computer meltdown which is now sorted. I am grateful for those who have kept the momentum of the thread going over the past few weeks.
As you already know from the Telegraph article, the Campaign has not been idle. There is still yet more to come.
Reading back over the thread since my last post, I have been intrigued by the different locations where it is claimed the negligence took place. From the planning of the sortie, to breakfast, to prior to the waypoint change (wherever that was actually made), to just after the waypoint change, to well… it doesn’t really matter where – they were just negligent.
Quite a discussion about breakfast, but, in actual fact, all the Board could say was that they were unable to ascertain whether breakfast had been taken by Jonathan Tapper. At no point was it stated that he had not eaten. Another assumption put to bed, I hope.
Olive Oil, welcome to the thread. You stated that had it been a fast jet without passengers and crew then “cause unknown” might be appropriate. Are you suggesting that the Chinook verdict is based purely upon the fact that it was carrying passengers? I think you could actually be onto something there. After all, when reviewing two Boards of Inquiry some fifteen days apart and, despite overwhelming evidence to the cause of the accident of the fast jet (due to ADR and CVR being fitted) the Reviewing Officers made comments such as, “Regardless of the circumstances of this particular accident, I agree that [removed] should be absolved from blame.”, “It is therefore because there is no scope for conjecture… that I find any consideration of human failings to be academic and fruitless. Despite the wealth of detailed evidence, we are confounded and under these particular circumstances I consider it is futile to indulge in hypothesis.” and “Why they therefore elected to ignore the safe options open to them and pursue the one imposing the ultimate danger, we shall never know.”
However, in a Chinook (not fitted with ADR and CVR), the Reviewing Officers, just fifteen days earlier, had commented, “Without the irrefutable evidence which is provided by an ADR and a CVR, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact.” and “In my judgement, none of the possible factors and scenarios are so strong that they would have been likely to prevent such an experienced crew from maintaining safe flight.”
Speculation and judgement have no place in a finding which requires absolutely no doubt whatsoever, and the differences in the application of standards in these two accidents confuse me. I asked the MoD for clarification of these issues several years ago but Mr Ingram MP stated he was not prepared to answer my comparative analysis on a point-by-point basis. He did, however, make comment that it might be considered that the Chinook crew owed a “duty of care” to the passengers, and that the need to exercise that care could lead, perhaps, to a greater need to consider whether negligence had occurred.
The Campaign has, and will, continue to press the MoD and the Secretary of State for Defence to face up to the shortcomings of their case against Jon Tapper and Rick Cook and to do the honourable thing and remove the unfounded allegation of negligence that has been laid against these men for the past fourteen years and ten months.
It's good to be back!
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook