PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
View Single Post
Old 29th Nov 2010, 16:37
  #7070 (permalink)  
tucumseh
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,881
Olive

At #7113 you said;

Instrument Flight Rules are there for a reason and are not negotiable by individuals, no matter how clever/experienced/respected they might be.
What was non-negotiable, long before the final flight of ZD576 was even considered, was full compliance with mandatory regulations designed to ensure an airworthy aircraft was provided for the task. So says the Secretary of State for Defence. I merely agree.

It was not clever to ignore these regulations and withhold vital safety related information from aircrews. No experienced person would do that without realising the risk and possible consequences. By taking that risk, ACAS and his cohorts lost any respect they may have had.

By virtue of the above negligence, this can in no way be described as a routine passenger flight. If the tasking organisation knew of this negligence, it was a quite deliberate gamble with 29 lives. If they did not know, that is further evidence of higher negligence because the regulations require dissemination of such information; otherwise no-one can make an informed decision on the aircrafts suitability for that purpose. Is there anyone here who truly believes an aircraft with absolutely no clearance whatsoever to use any navigation or communications equipment was remotely suitable?
tucumseh is online now