Chinook Justice

[Desk Driver]

Two RAF pilots blamed for the 1994 Chinook helicopter crash that left 29 people dead have effectively been cleared of causing the disaster.

A House of Lords inquiry concluded there was no justification for finding fault with the men, who died along with their 25 passengers and two other crew.

Many of those on board were among Britain's most senior counter-terrorist officers working in Northern Ireland.

Full story: <a href="http://www.ananova.com/yournews/story/sm_513291.html" target="_blank">http://www.ananova.com/yournews/story/sm_513291.html</a>

[interested]

Hurrah! About time too! It was the only honourable conclusion to be drawn. May they now rest in peace. God bless their families.

[Standard Noise]

I agree, about timme too!. .Those guys were doing a difficult but worthy job at the time. Thank goodness their families had the tenacity to see this through. Let's just hope they get some comfort from the end result.. .The RAF should issue a public apology for it's disgraceful behaviour.

Rick Cook and John Tapper - Rest in peace

[Neo]

So, answer me these questions:

Why did the aircraft crash in IMC below safety altitude?

How much part did a FADEC failure play in the accident?

There are as many questions left unanswered by today's Lords ruling as there were by the original RAF Board of Inquiry. Until these questions are answered fully, the cause of the accident remains in doubt, and today's ruling does nothing to clear it up.

[interested]

Neo, while I am happy to accept that you are not in agreement with the House of Lords finding (each of us is entitled to hold our own view), I would pose the following questions to you:<ul type="square">1. What evidence do you have that the crew was, in fact, flying on instruments in IMC while below the LSA? Were you on the flightdeck at the time?

2. What part do you say a FADEC failure played in the accident?

3. What is it about the HoL ruling that makes you so unhappy?[/list]You would do well to remember that many people have worked hard to right a perceived wrong here, and your comments would certainly cause offence to them, not to mention to me. <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: interested ]</p>

[newswatcher]

Neo,

Q1. Unfortunately, no-one knows, or will ever know. Several suggestions in the report(s) why it might have happened, but no facts!. .Q2. No evidence that FADEC problems played a part, some evidence that they didn't. Read the report and make your own conclusions.

Report published at:. . <a href="http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldchin/25/2501.htm" target="_blank">http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldchin/25/2501.htm</a>

The HofL decision says that the evidence presented cannot sustain the suggestion(by AVMs) that there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" that they were grossly negligent. However, whilst it doesn't seek to clear the pilots of any involvement, IMHO it does indicate that there is not enough actual evidence available to make an unrefutable case against them.

Other comments/views contained within the military forum at:. . <a href="http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=002220" target="_blank">http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=002220</a>

[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: newswatcher ]</p>

[Tarek Nor]

This news is long overdue.

As others have said the RAF and AVM's should. .appologise now.

[Big Tudor]

It was pointed out that the FADEC was known to produce unwarranted increases and decreases in rotor speed and that there was no trace of it ever doing so. If this is the case then there was no way the men should have been found negligent. How can you be negligent in an aircraft which, apparently, does as it pleases and leaves no trace of it's actions??

[fantom]

a lot of people waiting for the public apology from the Air Chief Marshal now....... <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[stickshake]

I may be wrong but I seem to recall that the experts on the Board Of Inquiry actually declined to label the Chinook pilots as grossly negligent because there wasn't enough evidence to form a clear picture of events leading to the accident.

It was only when the report went up the chain to higher authority that the Board's (expert) opinion was overturned; even though to do so went against the clear guidance in the manuals.

Justice has been done; those that couldn't defend themselves have had their names cleared once and for all.

. .Rgds

Shakey

[t'aint natural]

May I suggest that anyone who still has questions about the crash obtain a copy of JM Ramsden's booklet "Chinook Doubts - A Pain Person's Guide," which marshalls all the facts surrounding the accident in an easily digestible form. It costs £10 and is available from Ramsden himself at 20, Townsend Drive, St Albans, Herts AL3 5RQ. Ramsden is an eminently qualified authority with no vested interest in absolving the dead, and he has exhaustively researched as many aspects of this accident as are possible.

[Airbanda]

Judging by the reaction from the junior defence spokesman (Adam somebody? broad spoken Scot) on BBC R5 this evening don't expect a rapid reverse by the establishment. The most nauseating bit was the implication that Rifkind, not a politician one might would normally respect but who has honourably said that he has changed his view since losing office was politically motivated in doing so.

[uncle peter]

Neo,

as a current mil pilot who has followed this enquiry from the outset - indeed a friends father was killed in the accident, i hope you do not mind my responding. you raise some pertinent points.

first and foremeost the purpose of the Lords enquiry was not to positively determine the cause of the accident. the remit of the enquiry was to examine whether there was sufficient proof to show "with no doubt whatsoever" that the pilots were "grossly negligent" ie guilty of manslaughter.

the lords enquiry shows no more than there was sufficient doubt behind the grossly negligent verdict reached by wrotten and day. therefore the reputations of 2 outstanding aviators, husbands and sons has been restored.

as the raf refused to fit adr or cvr to the fleet we will never be able to positively determine the cause of the accident. despite an alarming lack of proof 2 air marshalls with a vested interest in the result returned a grossly negligent verdict.

the campaign has only been concerned with clearing the names of the pilots.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

As an ex-RAF officer who has actually served on a Board of Enquiry I would like to add something here. Because of the absence of FDRs/CVRs, we will never truly know the cause of the Chinook accident with absolute certainty, and I think we all accept that. This brings me to the crux of the issue. Up until this accident, it was one of the 'sacred cows' of military Boards of Enquiry that in the event of a fatal accident you were simply not permitted to find the crew 'grossly neglegent' unless there was overwhelming and compulsive evidence to support that view. By way of example, the Lightning accident off Scarborough Pier some years ago where the pilot went off his briefed route and gave an impromptu display to some air cadets he had come across before losing control and crashing in the sea was such an example. In virtually no other fatal accident cases that I can think of, including many where there was a very strong suggestion of 'gross negligence' but a tiny doubt remained, was anyone actually found formally to be 'grossly negligent'. The logic was that those who needed to learn from the accident (ie the crews who flew the same types of aircraft)were amply able to do so without a formal label on it. Families of the deceased were thereby protected from the anguish and pain that inevitably follows proclamations of 'gross negligence', but the appropriate lessons could be learned. The system worked very well.

The Chinook accident was the first one to vary from the traditional way of categorising fatal accidents. The main reason for this was the 'heads on poles' mentality that existed among Air Rank officers because of the large loss of life among such key security personnel. As could have been predicted, the families of those blamed have been devastated and no real gain has been made in terms of lessons learnt. What value has been accrued by the public crucifixion of the 2 dead pilots? Has anything been added to flight safety? The answer in both cases is a big 'NO' because the atmosphere has been so poisoned that the real lessons could not be learnt by the people who needed them - the other Chinook pilots.

The system as was, where no gross negligence was attributed to dead crew (except in the most exceptional circumstances), was exactly the right way to handle things. We all know that lessons could be learned from this accident, but none that justify the agony poured on the families of the dead. As I said at the beginning, no one will ever know with total certainty what happened on that tragic day, and as long as doubt exists to even the smallest degree, a verdict of 'gross negligence' was entirely inappropriate.

[Seriph]

Folks. . .This aircraft was on a VMC navex. It was observed, shortly before impact,in controlled high speed flight, below cloud, heading towards a hill that was in fog. The TANS nav system recorded the last 30 secs of flight, the aircraft was spot on track. It hit the rock in a tail down attitude with full power applied. It was quite simply put in a position in space and time from which a recovery without any technical failure would have been impossible. The normal procedure in conditions such as these is to slow down even, if necessary, to the hover, not charge on flat out towards a cliff. These facts are known. One of the senior officers involved here commanded a helicopter squadron in N Ireland, he knows, and so do a few others of us, that the question of technical failure is irrelevant. 29 people were killed.

[HugMonster]

Seriph, I think you need to go away and check the facts again.

The HoL did, and came to the conclusion that there was NO EVIDENCE that would justify a conclusion of gorss negligence against the crew. Or perhaps you know better?

[Captain Numpty]

Good news today.........long over due as well I hasten to add.

By coincidence, I recorded a docmentary about this crash some years ago now and I happen to be watching it again only last weekend.

Something that sticks with me is that the F/O had discussed various safety issues regarding the MK2 with his Father (who was a former Concorde Pilot) Suffice to say, given his personal reservations about the MK2, he increased the value of his Life Policies left right and centre.....I wonder why??? Regrettably we will never know now.

However, something I would like to know is.....Why in the hell was the Cream of the British Intelligence Service "together" on a flight back to the UK Mainland???? Interesting that now one has seemingly investigated that???? At the very least I would have expected them to have been split up, purely on a risk basis.

Just thought I would ask

RIP now to all those involved.

C.N.

[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: Captain Numpty ]</p>

[dde0apb]

Seriph may be right, but to find these Pilots grossly negligent requires "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" that they had so abrogated their duty that neither questioned the other about their headlong plunge into IMC below MSA.

The gross negligence verdict suggests that either they colluded together in committing suicide and murder, or that one didn't really know where he was or where he was going, and that the other, at no time questioned him, nor did he have any significant situational awareness himself.

Further, to suggest that two RAF trained helicopter pilots would behave like this at all, let alone with passengers on board seems extraordinary. What a failing of the RAF training and command structure that two apparently "dangerous" pilots could be let lose with such a precious cargo. If that is the case (and surely it is not) then it reflects rather badly on those in command, namely the very AVMs who found these two grossly negligent.

And we know that reasonable doubt does exist; the FADEC issue is one cause of doubt, another is that there is no rational explanation as to why two rational people jointly flew their aeroplane into a cliff.

(The minister on the TV tonight suggested that FADEC was not a safety critical system by the way.)

Let us simply hope that those who persist in supporting this extraordinary verdict are shown to be on completely untenable ground.

Ultimately it may or may not be that the pilots could have avoided the tragic accident, but we can never know that since there is simply not enough evidence, and since there is not, the Gross Negligence verdict is a nonsense.

[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: dde0apb ]</p>

[albert]

Will "Jonny Wrotten" ever bring himself to apologise? I doubt it! However, for all that I was ever taught about on FLAC/FSC, then this should always have been the honourable decision for the HofL to make.

I do not know a lot about the Chinook HCMk2, but when I was on 1312flt at MPA and then 78Sqn got a new HCMk2, they wouldn't unload it or even put it back to together and replace the HCmk1 as Boeing/RAF had sent no supporting paperwork - and I mean none(ACM/F700etc nada!!).

[sirwa69]

Don't flame me I admit I know nothing about flying helicopters but a question comes to mind.. .If you are flying in cloud or fog over Scotland then why not fly at 4,500 feet, until you reach your destination, that way you are absolutely sure of not hitting the terrain. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[slj]

Seriph

Your surname doesn't happen to begin with D or W does it?

[BEagle]

Perhaps you elect not to climb to Safety Altitude because the aircraft you're flying has been rushed into service without clearance to fly in icing conditions - conditions which you will undoubtedly encounter by climbing?

If your navigation system is unbounded (has no GPS or DME auto-correction) and has drifted without you having been alerted to the fact, if you think that you're exactly where the navigation system tells you that you are - and you see what looks like a small fog bank ahead, do you risk a short time in fog knowing that you'll be turning away from high ground shortly - or do you pull up into dangerous icing conditions?

And if your company has decided that it can't afford to fit ADRs or CVRs to your aircraft, let alone an accurate navigation system or a fully-tested full-authority digital engine control system, how will anyone know beyond any reasonable doubt whatever that any subsequent accident was caused by an error of judgement in accepting a brief entry into IMC which you've probably done many times before, or whether your navigation system has wandered, or whether your FADEC has glitched......or what on earth ever really happened? Simple - they cannot possibly ever know and all they can conclude is that the cause was not positively determined. All that can be concluded is that the aircraft flew into terrain - it can't be certain whether that was a CFIT accident or due to FADEC fault causing what was effectively a UCM.

I echo the comment regarding the decision to fly so many senior intelligence people in the same aircraft at the same time....WHY?

[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>

[Hengist Pod]

Sirwa . .They were adhering to Draconian icing limits that the new Mark II was under at the time (+4 Deg C)

Seriph. .It all centres around a waypoint change about 30 secs before impact. The fact that they made the change on the nav computer suggests that they were working VFR and were planning on continuing to do so. If they were aborting they would have done so at c.3000'/min and c.80kts,no question about it. They didn't. Their climb was an inexplicable 1000'/min at 150kts, something even the Chinook doesn't have the power in reserve to do. The suggestions are a UFCM or an NR overspeed necessitating a climb to droop it back to 100% ot thereabouts. Neither are unheard of in the Chinook and at the time the new Mark II was particularly strange in the problems it was throwing at crews; you need to read the report mate.

Edited for dodgy typing. .[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: Hengist Pod ]

[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: Hengist Pod ]</p>

[moggie]

great news - and maybe we will now get another investigation into "Why" as we are no longer putting all the blame on the pilots. Don't hold your breath.

I trained with John Tapper on BFT and am delighted for his family, and that of Rick Cook that this shameful stitch up job has been exposed at last.

I was also in the Falklands when the first HC2s arrived and remember hundreds of pages of maintenance manuals being faxed down because the RAF didn't have the paperwork. The aircraft was sent south before the books arrived in the UK from Boeing and I never saw one airborne in the 4 months I was there.

As for why all those people were on one aeroplane, the answer must be stupidity. We make sure that the royal family are split up amongst a number of aeroplanes when they travel en-mass.

But another question is, why use a helicopter in the first place? Surely (and no disrespect to the chopper boys) a fixed wing transport or two would make more sense in terms of safety.

[PercyDragon]

I quite agree with Seriph and Neo. The pilots were flying IMC in sea fog at high speed towards what they knew to be rising ground. Have done it myself now and then, for various reasons (one of which, incidentally, was when asked by . .some 'pongos' in the back to 'do a bit of low flying to give them a thrill').

I feel that the MOD would be right in sticking to their guns, however, Blair, being a politician, and politicians being spineless vote chasers, will inevitably overturn the MOD ruling in the end.

There are certain obligations on armed forces senior officers. And one of those is that you have to make hard decisions and then stand by them, however unpopular they may be. Its all part of leadership, and the 'loneliness of high command'.

[Splot1]

What a load of toss!! I've flown Navy single and multi crew helicopters. I've "given the pongos a thrill" by low flying as well, I've even come close to a nasty once or twice when alone. The risks I might have accepted once on my own in a single crew helo were several levels lower than those I might have contemplated suggesting with another pilot next to me.. .I flatly do not believe that two military pilots together would blithely fly into fog at low level in that neck of the woods. The last poster should bear in mind that the last time they were seen, they were NOT flying low in fog, they were VMC. Following that, hands up everyone here who can honestly say they have had a computer runaway up or down when flying helicopters. (No FADEC in my day) I have, in both directions, and that was in far more technologically simple a/c than the HC2. There is no time to get the checklist out, with a runaway up, your prime consideration is preventing the whole rotor head going aviating on its own. Runaway down simpler - you generally have no choice but land!

These guys were set up to take the rap for the mistake of assembling so many experts in one aircraft which then crashed. Nothing to do with the crash per se, just the appalling administrative procedure. Bill Wratten was always regarded as a political animal, and look where it's got him now. Now maybe if the pilots had been ethnic minorities, spoilt junior quasi royalty, children of politicians, asylum seekers....... then Tony's lip would already be quivering as he churned out the sympathy, the angst, the Royal Pardon.

Apology.......look at that pig reaching V2.

(and then blamed it all on the previous Government!!)

[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: Splot1 ]</p>

[Tandemrotor]

Seriph, Neo, and Percy.

I guess yesterday was a pretty bad one for you, and the disgraced theories you insist on clinging to. Look on the bright side, it was probably a much worse day for Wratten and Day. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for them knowing the truth is now 'out there'.

Yesterday, the reputations of these two pilots was unambiguously restored. The only reputations now at stake, are those of the Air Marshalls, and with them that of the Royal Air Force, and the Ministry of Defence.

Percy said, "will inevitably overturn the MOD ruling in the end." Here, here. Very well said.

[CR2]

From today's Daily Telegraph

<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$1TW2V0IAABB4LQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2002/02/06/nchin06.xml&sSheet=/portal/2002/02/06/por_right.html" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$1TW2V0IAABB4LQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2002/02/06/nchin06.xml&sSheet=/portal/2002/02/06/por_right.html</a>

Lords inquiry clears Chinook crash pilots. .By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent and David Millward. .(Filed: 06/02/2002)

. .TWO pilots found guilty of "gross negligence" by the Ministry of Defence after the 1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook helicopter crash were cleared yesterday by a specially constituted House of Lords committee.

The Mk 2 helicopter was carrying 25 senior intelligence and security officers from Northern Ireland to a conference at Fort Campbell in north-east Scotland. Twenty-nine people died.

An RAF board of inquiry, an air accident investigation board inquiry and a Scottish fatal accident inquiry all ruled that they could not determine what had led to the crash.

But two RAF air marshals, reviewing the RAF board of inquiry, rejected its failure to accord blame and amended it to find the captain, Flt-Lt Jonathan Tapper and his co-pilot Flt-Lt Richard Cook, experienced members of the RAF's special forces flight, guilty of "negligence in the gross degree".

The House of Lords committee, chaired by a retired law lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, and including two QCs, Lord Brennan and Lord Hooson, dismissed the air marshals' conclusions.

Air Chief Marshal Sir John Day, C-in-C Strike Command, who was then Air Officer Commanding No 1 Group, which is responsible for helicopter operations, was the first of the air marshals to review the board of inquiry.

As such it was he who initiated the allegation of "gross negligence". He was supported in that judgment by Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten, the then C-in-C Strike Command.

The committee said Sir John's conclusions "must be weakened by his reliance on matters which he treated as facts but which have been demonstrated to our satisfaction to be not facts but merely hypotheses or assumptions".

It pointed out that the RAF's rules on boards of inquiry at the time stated that only in cases in which there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" should deceased air crew be found negligent.

It concluded unanimously that the air marshals were "not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash".

The crash has been shrouded in controversy, in part because of the nature of the passengers but more recently after the "gross negligence" verdict and problems with the Chinook Mk 2, in particular its FADEC computerised fuel control system.

The Lords committee heard that the Mk 2 had been introduced into operational service in November 1993 despite the fact that the MoD's aeroplane and armament experimental establishment at Boscombe Down refused to recommend its release because of the FADEC problems.

An independent contractor called in to review the FADEC software had stopped after finding 486 anomalies. The MoD in its evidence admitted that there had been five occasions when the equipment had malfunctioned during flight in the run-up to the crash.

Allegations that some pilots had refused to fly the Mk2 were "an over simplification", the MoD told the committee. But witness A, a member of the same special forces flight as the pilots, described problems he and his colleagues had experienced with the aircraft.

The committee also heard from the AAIB investigator that the evidence as to what had happened was "extremely thin" and it was impossible to rule out that the controls had jammed.

Both witness A and Sqn Ldr Robert Burke, who at the time of the crash was the maintenance test pilot for the special forces flight, gave evidence suggesting control jam was a possibility.

The truth was that no one would ever know why the helicopter had crashed, the committee concluded.

Relatives of the pilots welcomed the report which, they said, effectively cleared them and called on the MoD to reverse its verdict.

[Tandemrotor]

Incidentally, it never ceases to amaze me just how far from the established facts (few though they are) those seeking to justify the charge of negligence, allow themselves to stray.

Do try to appraise yourselves of the details of the case before revealing your ignorance. (perhaps that is why you find the current state of play so difficult to accept!

[Sir Kitt Braker]

So what is the concensus of opinion here then?

"Not Proven" or "Not Guilty" ?

[Standard Noise]

Not guilty. . .And in future, the culture of "it's not the machine which is at fault, it's the man" which appears to exist within the higher echelons of our armed forces needs to be rectified.

[PercyDragon]

I think that the politicians will overrule the MOD in the end, incorrectly in my view, but on the grounds that there could have been some remote possibility of a technical failure which prevented the pilots from extracting themselves from a dangerous situation that they had placed themselves in in the first place. The likelyhood of that really having being the case, in my view, would be in the region of about a .01% probability. However, as his Tonyness is a master fo 'spin' I think that he will probably use that line of reasoning to pacify what he believes is the 'public view'in the case.

My own feeling is that the MOD should stick with their decision.

[InFinRetirement]

In that case PD I suggest you read the transcripts. .here <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldchin.htm" target="_blank">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldchin.htm</a>

You are in for a rude awakening. There is doubt everywhere in those - therefore NO gross negligence. While you are at it read the posts over on the Military Forum.

Right now the brush I am holding paints a pretty picture of you as an AM!! Very tacky!

[Taxi Dancer]

NOT GUILTY - and never were!. . <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[slj]

Sir Kit Braker

The answer to your question is not guilty.

The conclusion in the report (link above) will show you how fragile the case was against the two pilots and how it was supported by supposition that do not stand up to scrutiny.

[slj]

Sir Kit Braker

If you can only read the conclusion of the Lords report you will see how fragile the case was against the two pilots and how the assumptions (not facts you will note) that led the two AMs to their conclusion were so effectively demolished.

Percy

I hope the calculations you make in your day job (see your profile) are more realistc than your calculation in your last posting.

However, I accept you may not have read the report.

[newswatcher]

slj,

I guess PD would probably recommend Equitable Life to his clients, on the basis that the senior management had to make hard decisions and then stand by them, however unpopular they may be!

:) :)

[Hot 'n' High]

Percy,

From one of your Posts - "There are certain obligations on armed forces senior officers. And one of those is that you have to make hard decisions and then stand by them, however unpopular they may be. Its all part of leadership, and the 'loneliness of high command'."

I quite agree with you that the AMs have certain obligations.

Firstly, they are obliged to set an example to their subordinates by following their own rules, in this case regarding "burden of proof". The BoI did this but the AMs chose to overturn the decision for whatever reason(s) they had. No-one has managed to unearth any evidence which irrefutably points to negligence. Even you grudgingly admit there is a "0.01%" chance that it was something else. That is why the AMs were in error attributing blame as they did.

Secondly, Leadership is all about weighing evidence and having the courage to admit that you may have got it wrong. IMHO, the AMs have another hard decision to make in the light of the numerous Investigations/Reports. It is time they demonstrated real courage and honour and agreed that they 'may' have made a mistake and that there will always be some doubt as to what actually happened on that fateful day.

Leadership requires Credibility. Dictatorship does not! At present, the Government, the MoD and the two individuals concerned (1 retired) are a bit short in the Credibility stakes. But keep digging guys. Anyone with any common sense now knows the two Pilots have effectively been cleared of the charge of Negligence - their honour restored. The only question left for the AMs, MoD and Government, 'Can you restore your credibility in the aftermath of these shambles?'. . . <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[CaptainBaldrick]

I'd hope that any pension considerations are also sorted out for the dependants of the deceased pilots now that their Lordships have decided that Wratten and Day got it hopelessly wrong.

And I'd just like to rub it in a little more -

Wratten and Day, you were completely out of line. You tried to blame two other officers to cover up for all the other ballsups made over the Chinook, over this trip, etc. etc.

Now is the time to come clean and admit you were wrong, that the original findings of the BoI were right, and that you had no business imposing your own verdict over that of a properly-constituted enquiry.

[Flap 5]

So why did the Air Marshalls find the pilots grossly negligent when the evidence was clearly not overwhelming?

Was it anything to do with the fact that the pilots were unhappy about flying the Mk2 Chinook with the test pilots at Boscombe Down refusing to fly it till the software problems were sorted out and yet senior officers ordered them to fly it with valuable passengers on board? Now that would be serious for certain senior officers and would explain the gross negligence finding.

[Chocks Wahay]

NEO et al - The Lords Select Committee does not seek to explain why the aircraft crashed - it's remit was this: "to consider the justification for the finding of those reviewing the conclusions of the RAF Board of Inquiry that both pilots of the Chinook helicopter ZD 576 which crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994 were negligent"

Neither the AAIB nor the BoI could reach a satisfactory conclusion one way or the other, and that is the whole point. The Gross Negligence accusation by Messrs Day & Wratten is based upon the assumption that the waypoint change 30 secs prior to impact proves that the flight crew were in control up until point of impact. I was there when it was said. I was also in the House of Lords when Tony Cable of the AAIB said categorically that it could not be established that the aircraft was serviceable at the point of impact.

The RAF Board of Inquiry says the following:. ."the possibility of the crew being distracted by a technical fault which had left no trace could not be dismissed". ." the Board could find no evidence that Flt Lt Tapper had not approached and prepared for the sortie in anything other than a thorough and professional manner.". ."The Board concluded that there were no human failings with respect to Flt Lt Cook.". ."The Board was unable to positively determine the sequence of events leading up to the accident"

The only possible conviction for Gross Negligence would be if it could be proven that the pilots had recklessly disregarded the safety of themselves and their passengers. The pilots (and many others) had expressed doubts about the safety of the Mk2, and had requested to use a Mk1 for the fatal flight. Surely this points to a culture of safety, not recklessness.

In the RAF' a Gross Negligence decision MUST be based on facts and evidence, not mere assumptions. This was not the case here, and this is why so many people have campaigned for so long to get the pilots' names cleared.

I should declare a slight vested interest here - I am one of the people who is campaigning for this, and we will continue to campaign until the MoD accepts that the pilots were not to blame.

Don't take my word for it - the evidence is all on the House of Lords website, and on the campaign's website (www.chinook-justice.org). There is also a petition on the site which calls for the verdict to be overturned, which anyone - military or civl, pilot or not - is welcome to sign if they wish.

[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: Chocks Wahay ]</p>

[1.3VStall]

To all those numpties who have come into this debate at the end of a long campaign and are now throwing in red herrings (You know who you are!) and trying to support the MoD argument, you are way off line.

The simple fact is that there are only two men alive on this planet who know "with absolutely no doubt whatsoever" what happened in the final moments of that tragic flight: Day and Wratten. Every other person whether pilot, navigator, engineer, software expert, AAIB inspector, sheriff, QC or retired law lord, having examined all the available evidence, have reached the conclusion that no-one except the deceased crew would ever know what happened. The cause of the accident could not be positively determined. Ergo, with even the tiniest smidgeon of doubt surrounding the circumstnces, the Chinook pilots could not be found to be grossly negligent. Two airships with their inbuilt "I know better than everyone else" attitude ride roughshod over the sound conclusion reached by this collective intelligence.

That is what the whole campaign has been about, not about trying to find the cause of the accident - we shall never know that.

Wratten and Day have been exposed as the arrogant ar*es they really are. They should both now do the honourable thing. A once proud Service would be well rid of the tarnish which they have brought to its reputation.

[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: 1.3VStall ]</p>

[liam lord]

At last. Someone with the perception to see what is staring us all in the face. Well said Flap5.

What made me feel really ill was the sound on Malcolm Rifkin on the radio doing a U turn an oil tanker would have been proud of while covering his own back (must be a contortionist).

Surely W & D now in an untenable position.

RESIGN NOW. (Weren't you thinking about early retirement anyway?)

[Brian Dixon]

Not Guilty.

So this is where all the non believers gravitated to. Where have you all been for the past 7+ years? Feel the need to speak up now the dirty and difficult work has now been done? Prove to me 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' or shut up.

Enough has already been said in relpy, by those who can read. Thank you folks, for your support.

Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[HectorusRex]

It would appear more than certain that the Air Blimps and MoD have well and truly "bent" the ear of PM Blair.. .Quote from The Guardian. . .<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4351201,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4351201,00.html</a>

Blair resisted new Chinook inquiry . .Richard Norton-Taylor. .Guardian

Thursday February 7, 2002

. .Tony Blair became involved in the controversy surrounding the crash of an RAF Chinook helicopter in the force's worst peacetime accident, supporting a ruling by two air marshals blaming the pilots, the Guardian has learned.

A House of Lords committee on Tuesday concluded that the air marshals were wrong to blame the pilots for the accident on June 2 1994, which killed all 29 people on board, including the elite of Northern Ireland's security and intelligence establishment.

The committee, chaired by a former law lord, based its judgment partly on new evidence not considered by the two RAF officers.

In letters written between 1999 and 2001 to a relative of one of the victims and the former MP Martin Bell the prime minister upheld the verdict blaming the pilots.

The letters were written after new evidence seen by the Lords committee - notably about the weather conditions and mechanical problems which had been affecting Chinooks - was publicly available.

However, Mr Blair insisted no new evidence had emerged to justify reopening the inquiry. "I have looked personally into the case," he told a relative who does not want to be named. He assured her that any new evidence would be examined "thoroughly and sympathetically".

He told Mr Bell: "We do need fresh evidence to justify re-opening this issue".

The letters, obtained by Computer Weekly magazine, contradict the findings of the Lords committee. They appear to be based on briefings Mr Blair received from the Ministry of Defence, which yesterday continued to insist no new relevant evidence had emerged since the air marshals in 1995 overruled the RAF's board of inquiry which found insufficient evidence to blame the pilots.

The prime minister's official spokesman said yesterday that the Lords report would be studied in detail before a "full response".

The Lords committee, which included three QCs and a fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society, unanimously concluded that the air marshals' finding of negligence against the pilots was "not justified". . .It looks like a long campaign ahead!

[slj]

Hectorus

I think the spin doctors are spinning a web that Blair is going to regret.

Don't forget Blair and his good lady are both lawyers. Even Blair knows how the law decides cases on negligence. You don't assume guilt and wait for whoever you accused to be prove they were not negligent. Day and Wratten chose the pilots.

If one pursues their warped thinking why did they not chose Boeing or the equipment maker or the person who decided to pack the 29 in one helicopter?

Blair knows that you have to prove that someone was negligent.

The lack of new evidence approach is a knee jerk reaction that the spin doctors and some of the defence ministers came out with.

We know, because we have read the report that there was new evidence. We also know that the question the select committee considered was whether the finding of gross negigence was justified.

I was going to quote from the conclusions in the Lords report to Percy. I gave up as every paragraph in the conclusion tears the findings of two men totally apart. It would have meant quoting all the conclusion.

Concentrate on directing Blair to the simple question considered by the Lords. If he persits then ask him to explain how his approach to negligence is so different to that of everyone else.

[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: slj ]</p>

[HectorusRex]

slj,. .Yes I suspect that he may have been too quick on the draw for once.

Q1 Why has nobody been made to own up to the decision to introduce the Mk2 before it was ready?

Q2 Who was responsible for tasking such an operation, and putting literally all their eggs in one fragile basket?

Q3 Why has nobody had a valid answer to the basic query of "Why would 2 highly qualified SF pilots wilfully put themselves and their passengers in grave danger, when so very shortly before the impact they had been flying VFR in VMC conditions"

If any of the "luddites" can provide a simple answer to Q3 please direct the answer to the 4 investigations which DID NOT FIND THEM GUILTY OF WILFUL NEGLIGENCE.

HectorusRex

[A and C]

Sir kitt braker asks "not proven or not guilty ?"

It is my personal feeling and opinion that it should be not guilty however due to the lack of evidence i think that if i was sitting in a court of law I would have to go with not proven despite my reservations.

[Arkroyal]

The thread running on the military forum has more. At risk of incurring the Captain's wrath, this is a bit of what I've said there.

For the love of God, Ingram and everyone else seeking new evidence, will you please get into your thick heads that that is simply not the point. It needs no new evidence to find, as their Lordships have, that the finding of gross negligence, which required proof beyond any doubt whatsoever, was unsafe given the evidence available at the time,(and since) and must be overturned. Again, for the slow on the uptake, their Lordships said:

"In carrying out our terms of reference, we have considered the justification for the Air Marshals' finding of negligence against the pilots of ZD 576 against the applicable standard of proof, which required "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". In the light of all the evidence before us, and having regard to that standard, we unanimously conclude that the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash."

To the few who think the MOD is right, I would ask them to read the whole of the two threads in the military forum before going off half cock

Blair will of course have a skewed view, as only the powerful MoD lobby have his ear. Write to him, as I and many others have done, and your letter will not pass before the great man's eyes. It will be shuffled off to some minion in the depths of the MoD for a standard reply.

Sir Kitt, No one in the campaign has said that negligence was not a possible cause. We simply hold that it has not been and cannot be proven to the degree required. No one will ever know with 'no doubt whatsoever' what befell ZD576 in 1994. That is the whole point. I feel that Jon and Rick are 'Not Guilty'. With no proof either way I'd accept 'Not Proven.

To Brian, Messrs Tapper and Cook and all the other campaigners, a hearty 'Well Done'. We must not let the b*ggers get away with trying to sweep this under the carpet again.

[BBK]

Firstly, my thoughts go to the families of all those killed in this tragic accident and in particular to those of the pilots (because of the claims of gross negligence). What must concern many of us is how the military can convene a board of inquiry, which having reported its verdict, is then overturned by senior officers. My understanding is that in the absence of FDR or CVR data that is not possible where the pilots are deceased.

I believe the perception of the general public is that the MOD are blaming deceased airmen who cannot defend themselves. The real question now is why cannot the MOD simply accept that the precise cause cannot be determined and overturn their verdict?. As one journalist said it should be easy for a Labour minister to pass the buck onto the previous administration. Until this happens the MOD will quite rightly be seen as abusing its authority in a way that would be unacceptable in a civilian investigation. Should it decide not to then we will have to assume that they have an agenda unconnected with flight safety.

[A and C]

The reason that the MOD will not budge one inch on this issue is that top officers in the air force and top civil servants do not change with goverment and they have some thing to hide.

I can only speculate that if they can keep the lid on this for long enough then they will be safely drawing fat pensions befor the full truth about the introduction to service of this mark of chinook comes to light.

[HectorusRex]

The Military brass may well be independent of the politicians, but they are not above the law. Their continued refusal to accept the judgements of numerous courts may well eventually place them in contempt in the legal sense, as well as currently in the moral sense!. .HectorusRex

[ 08 February 2002: Message edited by: HectorusRex ]</p>

[Lou Scannon]

Would some kind person, still in the Service, let me know what flying experience the two Air Marshals claim in their logbooks?

I can remember in my days at least one Air rank officer pontificating on flight operations with only 1500 hours experience on obsolete equipment.

Please accept a very humble "well done" to all of those serving aircrew who fought to have this verdict overturned. It makes me proud to have been one of you.

[Brian Dixon]

I can't quote flying hours, sorry.. .Air MArshal Day was an experienced helicopter pilot.. .Air Marshal Wratten wasn't.

Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Hot 'n' High]

Flying Hours aren't an important issue here - what's lacking is simple Common Sense if you ask me. :)

[keepin it in trim]

I do tire of reading that the RAF BOI concluded "gross negligence", it did not, it found that the cause could not be positively determined given the EVIDENCE available. This finding was changed by the Air Officers using that "special" insight that only they possess.

The Lords have considered the EVIDENCE and the BOI rules in force at the time and have quite correctly stated that the finding of "Gross Negligence" was wrong. The reputations of 2 fine aviators should now be officially restored by MoD.

The only people who really know what happened on that day are sadly no longer with us, may they rest in peace.

[Qwin T Senshall]

I concur with Mr H N High.

Unfortunately, the 2 officers concerned are in a. .time warp and believe that their rank makes them. .righter than their subordinates. Even if those. .subordinates have much greater knowledge and. .skills in such things as software engineering, as. .just one example.

Their position is just untenable and, due to the. .openness afforded by the Internet and this BB,. .visibly makes the MoD ridiculous.

Both of them, in my opinion, are causing huge. .damage to the country and to the Royal Air Force.. .How many retired aviators will encourage their. .kids to join the services now?

And how many disillusioned aircrew are taking. .their options to leave because of this crass. .disloyalty to subordinates?

They are heaping infamy on themselves and on. .the service. It also affecting the other. .arms - I have heard it being discussed by Army. .personnel in a pub - they were not happy!

Justice must be served and we, the ordinary people. .of this nation, must see it being served.

Moral courage? How about the courage to do what is. .best for the service at the expense of ones own. .ambitions?

Judgement? They have both greatly misjudged their. .own powers of logic and they have both greatly. .misjudged the willingness of their 'lessers' to. .roll over and take this kind of thing.

Qwin

[Desk Driver]

[quote]Sir kitt braker asks "not proven or not guilty ? <hr></blockquote>

If Not Proven then absolutely Not Guilty!.

[PercyDragon]

First class letter in the Times today by Stewart Birt (Ex MD of International Helicopters, who had the contract to train the RAF Chinook crews on the Aberdeen simulator). Read it if you can. It backs up the MOD decision. Quite rightly, in my view.

[DeepC]

<a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,59-204811,00.html" target="_blank">Chinook Letters in the Times</a>

Above is a link to the letter by Mr Birt referred to in the above post. Seems to be an intermittent processing error on the webpage clicking refresh a few times seems to overcome it.

In my opinion Mr Birts letter offers precious little proof for the 'absolutely no doubt' burden of proof.

[TomPierce]

Percy. Can you not have an opinion without making yourself look a prat?

Have a look at the HoL report. Of the witnesses, of the hearing - everything. These learned Lords have made a decision that effectively overturns the the "gross negligence" label placed upon the two pilots by DAY and WRATTEN - THAT is the point of this.

Do us all a favour and get your facts right before you post. Who cares what Stewart Birt thinks or comes up with. It's done! The pilots were unjustly treated and it has to be put right.

If you cannot see that, or won't see it, then you are deliberately wearing blinkers. Or maybe you work for the MOD!

[ 11 February 2002: Message edited by: UncleTomCobbly ]</p>

[HugMonster]

Does one begin to suspect that Percy and Bill W are one and the same? Both have the appearance of wearing blinkers, neither is capable of seeing what is in front of them, both are determined beyond anything else to blacken the names of two pilots just to save the face of Their Airships.

[shortfinals]

I'm delighted with the Lord's ruling.

The inquiry didn't find that the pilots were negligent. It couldn't, because there was no definite evidence for that. It was their Airships who appended that appalling judgement.

Yes, we can all ask why the pilots were flying so low in such conditions, but since we don't know the answer and never will, there's no justification for sticking "gross negligence" on the report. The FADEC has been a red herring throughout the argument, but if that's what it takes to right a wrong.................!

This judgement was the "peacetime" RAF at its worst. Arsecovering is the motive. I'm delighted to see Their Airships' arses kicked, and would like to believe that their successors will think twice in future before they stick damning labels on people who cannot answer back.

SF

[Chocks Wahay]

Stewart Birt says in The Times "No conceivable mechanical failure nor any deficiency in onboard systems or equipment would have reproduced this accident". Perhaps he should have a word with Sqn Ldr Robert Burke, who gave evidence to the House of Lords, having had personal experience of a number of technical problems including control jams and DASH runaways, both of which could have been responsible for such an accident.

At least he has the decency to declare an interest, claiming to have been at least partially responsible for training Jon Tapper and Rick Cook, not to mention running a company with lucrative military contracts. Brown-nosing or @rse-covering? Or both? Who cares.

Nothing that he says detracts from the point that there is no evidence of negligence. Next please.

[Brian Dixon]

Hi all,. .here's a link to an article written by Malcolm Rifkind, Secretary of State for Defence 1992 - 1995.

<a href="http://www.sundayherald.com/22195" target="_blank">http://www.sundayherald.com/22195</a>

Interesting read.. .Regards as always. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Arkroyal]

If only Bliar and Hoon had a tenth of Mr Rifkind's integrity.

To admit he was wrong took courage, and his letter will help the cause no end.

He says, however 'I have the greatest respect for the RAF and for the Ministry of Defence. Those who work there, including the two air-marshals (who are now retired),'

Does he know something about the possible future CAS that we don't? <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

And Percy, your blinkers provide such limited vision that you missed the letter printed immediately before Mr Birt's. Lord Jacobs's letter deserves a look too

<a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-44-204811,00.html" target="_blank">Lord Jacob's letter</a>

'There are none so blind as those who will not see.'

edited for incorrect URL

[ 12 February 2002: Message edited by: Arkroyal ]</p>

[av8er]

I feel I have to enter the debate. I have been very close to quite a few RAF Boards of Inquiry and it seems that to some the procedure is not clear. The Inquiry is NOT a court of law and does not concern itself with punishment or guilt, simply finding the cause of an accident (as many of you will know, not always so simple!).

The rules and procedures for the conduct of such an inquiry are laid down in AP3207 (The Manual of Flight Safety) Chapter 8. I have quoted from it below (at least the version that was extant in 1994), so that there is no doubt whatsoever what it says:

"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent."

Now, if just ONE person has any doubt it seems to me that there is doubt; when experts like the AAIB investigators have a doubt then it seems pretty straight forward, not to mention a whole BOI had some doubt (up to the point where the AMs got involved)!

How and why these two pilots were found negligent under those rules has always escaped me.

I hope the MOD see sense and listen to the Lords. (By the way, unless someone can tell me otherwise, I am fairly certain that the finding of the BOI will not affect the pensions afforded to the deceased pilots relatives.)