CHINOOK OUTCOME

[Thomas coupling]

The results were unanimous and final. The pilots cannot be blamed for this very high profile crash because nothing can be substantiated.

Excellent news for the families. Excellent news for the troops. Such a shame the RAF have to continue working under the auspices of those two senior RAF investigation ar******s who panicked under pressure to preserve their positions. The sooner they slide into oblivion, the better. :)

[ShyTorque]

TC,

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments but one of the two has already retired.

The second one was earmarked some time ago as going to the highest echelons of the RAF hierarchy. This causes a dilemma for MOD in accepting the verdict of this latest inquiry.

He said a few months back that he would resign if the findings of this enquiry went against him.

Space to be watched.

[chopperman]

Was the accident caused by FADEC, hydraulic problems or bad weather? Sadly we will never know and as no true cause can be found for this accident then the pilots never should have been, and never should be, held responsible for it.

Chopperman.

[Vfrpilotpb]

This is the only verdict that should have been reached by the original BoE,however without some body trying to bite off my head, when these pilots set off on their fateful journey, why did they not travel at a much higher height than the coast they must have know they were to cross? <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[pulse1]

vfrpilotpb,

Trying hard not to bite your head off but I do suggest you read through the archive posts which have been running on this for many months. There has been some excellent debate on this subject by some very experienced pilots and for strictly VFR pilots like me it has been extremely informative.

The simple answer to your question, just in case you are not up to wading through all the posts,is that the Chinook Mk2 was not cleared to fly into icing conditions. The forecast icing level on that day was only about 5 - 600' above the highest ground. To have flown direct it would have had to fly into icing conditions. Another reason, in my view, why this "passenger" flight should never have been authorised under such conditions, and in this aircraft. Again, in my view, this was the responsibility of the senior officers involved and may be another reason why they maintain their stance on gross negligence.

[staticdroop]

Just a thought, and I'm sure it has probably been said before, but, look at the people on board and say that this was not a " you will take them" job.. .The only judgment called into question should have been that of the authorizer.

[t'aint natural]

Effectively the responsibility for allowing so many indispensible intelligence assets to fly together in a single battlefield helicopter, the integrity of which had already been called into serious question, lies with the Air Marshalls.. .The RAF board of inquiry which investigated the accident stated flatly that there were no grounds for attaching blame to the pilots. The Air Marshalls overruled that finding and substituted their own verdict, of gross negligence. This effectively shifted the blame from themselves onto the deaed men.. .The board of inquiry report should have remained secret, as all such previous reports had. Unfortunately for the Air Marshalls, the then Prime Minister, John Major, was on an 'open government' kick and made the inquiry report available to the families of the dead. Imagine their consternation when they discovered that the inquiry had not blamed the pilots, as the air marshalls had led them to believe, but had in fact explicitly exonerated them.. .It should not be forgotten that when they were overruling the inquiry and substituting their own verdict, the Air Marshalls believed they would never be found out.

vfrpilotpb: This aircraft was not cleared to fly in temperatures of less than 2 degrees centigrade. Flying at minimum safe altitude (track took the aircraft close to Ben Nevis) would have taken it into the icing range, which was expressedly forbidden. The RAF Board of Inquiry ruled that the pilots' decision to fly VFR below cloud was 'perfectly proper under the circumstances.' The Air Marshalls claim it was gross negligence.

[Lu Zuckerman]

I might get severely chastised for this but here goes. I read many of the posts on this subject for a long period on another thread on the subject of the Chinook crash in the UK and was somewhat bewildered by the attention that was being paid to the reasons behind it. In the US if there is a military crash (the V-22 and the crashes in Afghanistan not withstanding) the newspapers and the TV may report it but then it goes into the woodwork. An investigation will ensue and the findings published not in the public press but within the participating military service(es). The crash and the investigation are very seldom publicized and the open investigation does not involve the legislative branch of the federal government or the higher ranks of the effected military branch. The lack of publicity is especially true if it is suspected that pilot involvement effected the crash. In the case of the Chinook crash the pilots were convicted and sentenced in absentia even before the investigation was completed. What made this crash so important as to involve those high ranking military and government officials and why did they rush to judgement relative to pilot involvement in the crash and when it was all over the main accusers essentially walked away leaving the surviving families devastated?

I will now don my flack vest and duck for cover.

[Vfrpilotpb]

Thank you, I must admit to giving up on the original thread which was in the mil forum, it seemed a room full of people trying to baffle all with coded mil speak, so in giving up I must have missed the bit about the Ice conditions, however that much I understand. Still a very sad accident

[pulse1]

vfr,

I know what you mean. I suppose that, because I was following the thread as it happened, it was easier to understand although I got a bit lost when they were arguing about a thing called the Supertans. However, as it was planned as a VFR flight the airmanship arguments are fairly straightforward and very interesting.

I started following the thread from the outset with an open mind. As the arguments developed, sometimes due to my own questions, I became determined to do anything I could to help undo the verdict of gross negligence.

I often wonder what contribution pprune has made to this by providing a public forum for debate and lobbying amongst aviation minded folk. I wonder if Wratten and Day might have been a bit more careful if they had known that such a powerful facility would have been available at the time they made their fateful decisions. They might also have been a bit more circumspect if they had known that John Major's government was going to release the BoE report to the parents.

[sling load]

Lu,. .I can see your point. I understand there were a large number of passengers in the Chinook at the time, and as such, its ramifications were far wider than a "routine" military investigation. I know very little about it, so I won't make a comment on the circumstances.

In Australia, May or June 1996, two Blackhwaks of the Australian Army collided in Townsville on a NVG training sortie unfortunately killing a large number of Aircrew and SAS. The same type of situation appeared, where aircrew were copping the brunt of the blame, however over the course of the Inquiry held by the Army, other mitigating factors such as aircrew attrition rates and training hours etc were highlighted.

The families obviously were in the same situation as the RAF families. What did come out of the Inquiry was the incredible bravery of the aircrew and the SAS personnel.

Perhaps some of our Army colleagues would be able to expand on that and any similarities with the Chinook outcome.

[Robbo Jock]

Lu, Slingload,

It's not just the number of people involved in the crash, though nigh on thirty people losing their lives is a shocking tragedy in and of itself. What caught the attention initially was the fact that the passengers on the flight were the top people involved in our war against terrorists. This made the crash very high profile indeed, with one possible cause of it being terrorist action. This got the papers digging, who started raising more questions, which started raising suspicions and so on. When the BoI findings of Pilot Error were found to be a little suspect (original findings over-ruled by senior officers, against the RAF's own regulations) the instinctive British reaction against miscarriages of justice was kicked into action and suddenly anything to do with the crash became of interest. It gained a momentum of its own. A number of inquiries have found for various reasons that the Pilot Error finding could not and should not be upheld, but the MoD has rejected each and every one. The MoD has painted itself into a corner and, having been beaten over the head with the various findings, has staunchly defended its position. Hopefuly, the Lords have come along with a big enough stick to beat some sense into them. (IMHO)

Colin

[sling load]

Robbo Jock,. .Thanks, out of interest, did the MOD release publicly all the names of the deceased, or was this kept confidential?

[Shawn Coyle]

What should have been addressed, but as far as I know has never been discussed is the shockingly long time that Boscombe Down took to get the icing clearance for the machine.. .Evidently the tests had been done successfully some time before (at least a year), but the report wasn't completed, so the operational people were not allowed to use the capability to fly in icing.. .No-one seems to have commented on this aspect of this very unfortunate crash.

[ShyTorque]

Shawn,

The aircraft did not have a normal full release to service and in the normal scheme of things it should not have been in operational service at all.

It was there because the RAF was becoming embarrassed by the poor serviceability of the remaining MK1 airframes.

I think Boscombe Down were making a point by grounding their test airframe. Someone else tried to make another point about the ability of the aircraft and the rest is history.

In my opinion the negligence lies elsewhere than in the graves of the crew.

[Arkroyal]

Shyte, concur

And for all, the icing 'clearance!' of the Mk2 was +4 deg C. The surface temp was +9 giving a ceiling to the flight (by rule of thumb) 2500'. SALT was 2800'. Next leg SALT 5900' (Ben Nevis)

Interesting that Day in the HoL presentation tried to imply a surface temp of +11 (which it was at Machrihanish)

I would point questioners to the Mil Archives for the past arguments.

[Oh I See]

It would be nice to know if rotton or fay ever won consultancies for Boeing or any subsidiaries.

[misterploppy]

Wrotten 'retired', reputedly not entirely of his own volition, from the RAF in '97 to a sinecure as military adviser to Rolls Royce.

I hear he's now left or been given the heave-ho from there.

[Multp]

Re the Icing Clearance issue.. .Historically, AAEE has conducted several 'successful' helicopter icing trials, resulting in potential icing clearances that generally depend on a number of modifications classified as Essential, Highly Desirable or Desirable.. .Problem comes when the end-user's bean counters look at cost-benefit. Hoary old example is: 'no need to fit all this expensive kit, since the weather statistics conclude that, in the low level forward battle area support role on the North German plain, the kit will never be needed.'(OK, I know this dates me!) Of course this ignores the peacetime need to get fom A to B as general aviation traffic expeditiously for comms, exercise or training.. .So even the 'Essential' modifications don't get done.. .It is of course, equally frustrating for the test pilots, scientists and the guys on frontline squadrons. Occasionally, they all get lucky and discover that a clearance can be given without further modification.. .The HC2 saga postdates my time in the system and I don't know what would have been particularly required for that aircraft type. . .There has always been a tendency to blame the flight test personnel for lack of clearances, but in my experience trials were generally reported and clearances recommended pretty speedily on completion of the flying, but the progress to funding the modifications, or else negotiating a Service Deviation, much slower. . .Arguably the 'system' failed, in that the promise of an icing clearance was one that was unlikely to be honoured if it looked like costing real money.. .To change the subject a little, the system continued to fail the unfortunate vitims of this distressing accident. The two reviewing officers erred in law in imposing a childlike logic to determine their viewpoint and to overturn the finding of the BoI.. .They should now have the moral courage to admit their mistake, without having to subject the families not only of the crew, but also their passengers, to the unpleasantness of further protracted legal arguments.

[Brian Dixon]

Hi Everyone,. .not very often I venture out of the Mil Pilots thread so I'll keep it short.

To answer the question posed by Pulse 1 on 7 Feb, with regard how valuable has PPRuNe been to the campaign, I can answer with one word - Invaluable.

Having the facility of PPRuNe has allowed the campaign to get the truth to many people who otherwise would not have heard what was happening. Those at PPRuNe Towers have been extremely helpful and supportive, and to then may I express my personal thanks.

To everyone else, thank you all for your support. Let's go the last mile and get the verdict removed from Jon and Rick's record. Contact your MP. Get them to sign the EDM and also to write to the PM to demand that he instruct the MoD to do the correct and decent thing.

Regards to all.. .Brian . ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook