Chinook and Glen Ogle
I would not wish to add to the speculation on what caused the Glen Ogle accident, but having seen the BoI there is no evidence of the comment written about by “itwasme” being made by the pilot. However, Glen Ogle does illustrate the potential lack of consistent verdicts, and hence justice, from RAF BOIs in those days, and why the police and/or a totally independent Military AIB should be investigating accidents OUTSIDE the Command chain even today. In the Glen Ogle accident the aircraft was fitted with a CVR and ADR (the Mull of Kintyre Chinook had neither) and there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the pilot had, for whatever reason, made control inputs that flew, from what the ADR evidence showed, a perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground.
The BoI stated: "..... However, since Flt Lt XXXX's control inputs led directly to the loss of the aircraft, the Board concluded that Flt Lt XXXXs actions constituted an ERROR OF JUDGEMENT and therefore the Board recommends that he be absolved from blame."
The Station Commander, on 19 December 1994 stated "....I believe that it would be unwise to draw any conclusions as to human failings because there is too much scope for conjecture. I do not accept, therefore, the Board's conclusion that Flt Lt XXXX made an Error of Judgement: I recommend that there should be no finding regarding human failings".
The AOC , on 3 March 1995 (ie just 17 days before he commented on the Chinook accident), said: ".....Moreover, overwhelming evidence indicates that the aircraft responded both directly and appropriately, to control inputs, either voluntary or otherwise, which were initiated by the pilot and led ultimately to the loss of the aircraft. ......Regardless of the circumstances of this particular accident (my bold), I agree that Flt Lt XXXX should be absolved from blame."
Finally on 18 April 1995 (ie 15 days after his comments on the Chinook accident) the AOCinC commented: “It is therefore because there is no scope for conjecture (and not too much scope, as the Station Commander, believes) 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. (my bold).
I do not know enough about any other circumstances known to the BoI that may or may not have existed to argue against this being the correct decision for Glen Ogle, but the "facts" of the accident including the "known" "unknowns" are indisputable, and in my view any other conclusion would indeed have had to have been based on hypothesis and speculation - the former might have a place in trying to reach a conclusion as long as it is based on supporting evidence - the latter, ie hypothesis without supporting evidence, never should. Hypothesis without any evidence, and hence speculation, though formed the basis of the gross negligence verdict for the Chinook crew and it took 17 years to right this wrong!
I have my own views on why this gross inconsistency of findings happened, but it would be wrong to speculate here - many PPRuNe contrubutors will I am sure anyway have their own views.
Last edited by John Blakeley; 13th Jul 2012 at 08:36.