PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
View Single Post
Old 23rd May 2009, 11:42
  #4478 (permalink)  
Airborne Aircrew
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You kids really need to learn to focus. You are 226 pages into speculating about what happened when the issue really boils down to the simple question "was the finding of gross negligence warranted or fair?". You can prattle on all you like and make unprofessional barbs at each other but the reality is that the government doesn't give a rats arse about why you think the aircraft crashed nor do they care to quash the existing findings because then they would have to acknowledge the possibility that the Mk. 2 Chinook should not have been used at all, let alone on this flight, a fact which carries it's own negative implications.

The simple fact is item eight, (below), demonstrates that the Reviewing Officers have chosen to ignore AP3207 in that the finding is an opinion based on speculation. Confine you energy to this one, simple point and your chances of reaching the result you desire will multiply exponentially. Continuing to bash on about breakfast and met briefs is exactly what they want you to do.

1. 29 people lost their life and 29 families lost loved ones.
2. 2 highly skilled pilots were subsequently blamed for the accident.
3. AP3207 – RAF Manual of Flight Safety, Chapter 8, Appendix G, page 9 states "ONLY IN CASES IN WHICH THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER SHOULD DECEASED AIRCREW BE FOUND NEGLIGENT"
4. Accident investigation evidence states it cannot confirm the pre-impact serviceability of the aircraft.
5. There was no accident data recorder or cockpit voice recorder and nobody alive knows what was going on in that aircraft during the final few moments.
6. The Mk2 Chinook, at that time, had a very problematic introduction to service, so much so that...
7. It was flying operationally with a limited release to service and the test pilots had refused to fly it until their concerns were addressed.
8. The Board of Inquiry did not attribute any human failings towards the pilots and the verdict of gross negligence was introduced upon review by the Reviewing Officers who have admitted to using speculation whilst reaching their opinions.
Airborne Aircrew is offline