Chinook - Still Hitting Back 2

[PPRuNe Dispatcher]

This is a continuation of "Chinook - Still Hitting Back" http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=73&t=000045

[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Dispatcher ]

[Brian Dixon]

Thanks for starting the new thread Mik. Sorry that it takes up so much of the server. Hopefully not for much longer!!

As I.3VStall says at the end of the last thread, only 12 more names are needed to reach the magic 300 on the petition. If you have signed up, thank you. If you haven't perhaps you would consider signing and also passing the details to friends and colleagues. Every name is important.

Check out the site: http://www.chinook-justice.org

I'll keep updating as and when there is something to tell.

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

[Chocks Wahay]

More names posted to the site - 293 now :-)

I've also added a couple of links, including one I came across to the BBC transcript of Wratten being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight. If you didn't see it then, read it now. If you did see it then, read it now anyway, and savour the arrogance :-)

[OldBonaMate]

The arrogance beggars belief!

:mad:

[Broken Wings]

No he's a RAF Air Officer!

[FJJP]

The Paxman/Wratten link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1050000/1050467.stm

Jesus!

:mad: :confused:

[InFinRetirement]

Well don't that take the biscuit? Wratten calls himself a commander. As I recall, commanders must lead by example, with all the necessary care and comfort of the men they command taken fully into account.

He merely sweeps those required attributes aside to impress us that he was a good commander.

I wish I could say to him, that a good commander would NOT try to crucify TWO good men until it was manifestly and blatantly clear, beyond ANY doubt, that they were guilty of negligence. Neither he nor Day have been able to do that. Unless, of course, I am complete idiot and have NO conception about what I have read and heard.

So, as that doubt is now abundantly clear, I think that this poor, feeble excuse for a commander enjoyed his power, and used it as Paxman says to protect his precious Chinooks.

What kind of justification is that?

Oh how I wish I knew for sure he reads the Mil Forum on PPRuNe!

[Brian Dixon]

Hi all, here's the latest brief from Parliament:

The Inquiry into the 1994 Chinook Helicopter Crash

The first set of evidence includes the internal MoD Inquiry previously treated as confidential

The House of Lords Select Committee investigating the circumstances surrounding the crash of the Chinook ZD 576 at the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994 has published the first volume of evidence.

The aircraft crashed into the Mull of Kintyre on the 2nd June 1994 in bad weather, all 4 crew members and 25 civilian and military passengers on board were killed, the helicopter was carrying senior Northern Ireland Security personnel. The MoD internal inquiry found that the pilots of the Helicopter were grossly negligent, the House of Lords decided to conduct an Inquiry to consider whether the MoD were right to blame the pilots for the crash.

This volume of Evidence includes the text of the formal MoD Inquiry into the crash and the Official Statement by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch. Both Reports have previously been treated as “Confidential” and therefore had a very restricted circulation. Between them these detailed Reports contain technical assessments of the circumstances of the crash along with diagrams and photographs from the crash site itself and conclusions as to the likely cause.

This publication includes the transcripts of the Committee’s first round of hearings in September, with evidence from members of the RAF board of Inquiry, the AAIB, and the pilots’ Fathers. The Committee’s final Report into the crash is expected in the New Year.

To order please call the Parliamentary Hotline on 08457 023 474 quoting reference BND or click on the following link to order online: https://www.clicktso.com/bookstore.asp?FO=32180&Action=AddItem&ProductID=0104420227.

Price £18.50
ISBN – 0 10 442022 7

For the first time, both the BoI and AAIB are being made available to the public. Order your copy to get the facts.

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

[Reheat On]

As a silent observer here, that link to the Paxman event is outrageous. Good job he [WR]isn't trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans!! What sort of system can create a monster like that? :mad:

[Chocks Wahay]

The magic 300 names has been achieved! Thanks to everyone who has signed up to the petition so far. It's not too late, and every one counts. www.chinook-justice.org (http://www.chinook-justice.org)

[Brian Dixon]

Just to echo Chock's comments. Thank you.

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

[Tigs]

I did not see Paxman but thanks for posting the links guys. I am astonished by the stance which Wratten adopted. He has the nerve to talk about 'Integrity'. Well like InFinR, I too would love to think that Wratten reads this forum, "because your integrity is in question Wratten", are you troubled by that?. Furthermore, the comment that the members of the board were young officers who do not possess the experience that he (WR) does is staggering. Perhaps in future Air Marshal, to save everybody the apparent waste of effort all BOIs should be comprised of and run by officers of air rank only.

[ 24 November 2001: Message edited by: Tigs ]

[ 24 November 2001: Message edited by: Tigs ]

[Brian Dixon]

I think I'm right in saying that the two 'junior' officers on the BoI, who were the pilot specialists, had about 2000 hours each on the Chinook. Mr Wratten was a fixed wing driver.

Call me old fashioned if you will but, between the two, I think I know who had the most experience on rotary.

I do, however, acknowledge the fact that Air Marshal Day was an experienced helicopter pilot.

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

[Chocks Wahay]

There's a bunch of new names going on the petition tonight -plenty of room for more!

[misterploppy]

The Herald reports today that the Lords' Enquiry report is expected to be published in the 1st week of Feb 02 and quotes a 'senior peer' as saying that it is expected that the pilots will be exonerated.

Here's hoping the press have got it right for once!

[Brian Dixon]

Hi everyone,
It would appear that Mr Wratten has been invited to give a briefing to peers in the House of Lords tomorrow (Wed 28th Nov). The briefing was arranged by Lord Craig and has the backing of Lords Graydon and Johns.

Hardly cricket! Is there an invitation to Rick and Jon's fathers? Nope! Why not???

Are you worried about something Mr Wratten? Do you feel the need to pre-empt a group of learned people who may, at some point in the future, be debating over your verdict? Why the need to do this? Has your moral courage deserted you?

Shameful conduct if you ask me.

Regards all
Brian :mad:
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[1.3VStall]

Brian,

This is absolutely outrageous. Another example of unacceptable cronyism. For those that don't recognise the names of the three Lords mentioned in Brian's post, they are all retired Air Marshals.

This seems to me to be little more than a cynical attempt to unfairly influence the outcome of the Inquiry. Is there anything we can do? Has anyone got any bright ideas?

[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: 1.3VStall ]

[Tigs]

1.3v
The only answer is to go public -Today!! The press would have a Ball!

[John Nichol]

Don't worry about it too much. A number of eyebrows are being raised in the HoL about this tactic. It can't influence the findings of the committee - they have heard all the evidence from both sides already.

The problem is that, unchallenged, the Wratten brief is pretty convincing - those of us who know the case can show how his briefing is full of holes but as a "stand alone" piece of spin it is pretty good.

Still, we have put our faith in the committee and we have to wait to see their verdict.

The RAF & MOD have spent a huge amount of time and money trying to stop any debate on this subject. We can only hope that the Lords recognize the Graydon/Wratten ploy as the desperate measure, by desperate men on the run, that it is.

[TL Thou]

For those of you who don't read the Grauniad!

RAF chiefs woo lords in Chinook challenge

Retired officers fight to keep blame on dead aircrew

Stuart Millar
Wednesday November 28, 2001
The Guardian

Some of the RAF's senior former officers have been accused of challenging the authority of parliament by trying to pre-empt the findings of an inquiry into the air force's worst peacetime disaster.
Two months before a special select committee of the House of Lords is due to deliver its findings on the crash of a Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 with the loss of all 29 on board, the group of retired top brass will tonight begin a campaign to sidestep the committee and win over peers to the official RAF version of events that the pilots were to blame.

The Lords inquiry was charged with examining whether the verdict of gross negligence against the pilots of Chinook Zulu Delta 576 - in effect a verdict of manslaughter - was justified when the RAF's own rules at the time stated that only in cases where there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" could deceased aircrew be blamed. Since the loss of ZD576, evidence has emerged that the fleet was experiencing technical problems which, campaigners argue, could have contributed to the crash.

The committee finished hearing evidence last month and is due to produce its findings by January 31 .

But in a move described by one critic as the "RAF establishment getting its retaliation in first", peers have received an invitation to a meeting today at which retired Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten will explain why he and the then Air Vice Marshal Sir John Day found the pilots guilty of gross negligence.

Details of the meeting, organised by Lord Craig, a former Chief of Defence Staff and Marshal of the RAF, were obtained by the Guardian and Computer Weekly, which has played a key role in uncovering evidence of technical failures in the Chinook fleet.

The invitation is accompanied by a letter containing criticism of the Lords committee and its handling of the inquiry from Sir Michael Graydon and Sir Richard Johns, the chiefs of air staff at the time of the crash.

The letter from Sir Michael and Sir Richard opens: "For those unfamiliar with aviation matters and flying in particular, it is not easy to understand... the complexities which are raised in an aircraft accident investigation. Equally, what is clear to a pilot through his/her own experience may be far from obvious to those who have no flying experience."

It continues: "The select committee has spent much of its time examining possible technical failings... These technical hypotheses, as our letter makes clear, are irrelevant."

Lord Chalfont, chairman of the all-party Mull of Kintyre group which led the campaign for a Lords inquiry, said: "This seems to be suggesting that the only people who can handle this thing are senior RAF officers and everybody else should just stay out of it.

"A lot of peers have said to me that this raises a dangerous constitutional point because they seem to be setting themselves up as being above parliament."

The letter is also being taken as criticism of the Commons public accounts committee, which produced a damning report in November last year accusing the the MoD of "unwarrantable arrogance" over the Chinook crash.

David Davis, then chairman of the PAC and now Tory party chairman, described today's meeting as "inappropriate".

The MoD said that it had nothing to do with the meeting.

[1.3VStall]

Can anyone out there post the text of the Graydon/Johns letter? From the excerpts in the Grauniad article it looks like another example of "unwarrantable arrogance" by their Airships.

So only an aviator can understand the complexities of this accident? Hmmm, excuse me Messrs Graydon and Johns, but that is exactly what the President of the BOI was - and an experienced Chinook operator to boot. He didn't arrive at a verdict of "gross neglience" did he? Ah, of course, how stupid of me; you need to be both an aviator and an arrogant airship to be able to dismiss technical hypotheses (by such august bodies as the AAIB et al) as irrelevant.

Just exactly who do these people think they are? Do they think that by drawing Wratten into their cosy circle of establishment cronyism they can protect him from the results of the HoL Inquiry? I hope their little ploy fails.
Unwarrantable arrogance - too bl**dy right - I'm really mad about this.

Rant over!

[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: 1.3VStall ]

[misterploppy]

I find it hard to see what Wrotten hopes to gain from this. Presumably he hopes that Peers who were not part of the Inquiry Committee will vote down its conclusions and recommendations.

I don't know about Ad Hoc inquiry committees, but decisions of the Law Lords are (technically) recommendations to the House and are 'voted' on when judgment is given. The last time a lay-lord intervened in judgment was when Lord Denman intervened at judgment in the case of Bradlaugh v Clarke in 1883, but it is not clear whether his vote was counted and it did not affect the decision. No lay Lord has sought to intervene in the consideration of an appeal since.

For individual peers in the House in general not to accept the recommendations of an inquiry committee chaired by a law lord would be tantamout to acting as Lord
Denman attempted to do.

I fear that even queenie Wratten's delusional nature has really over-extended iself this time. Incidentally, this month's Chartered Inst of Personnel Mgmt (CIPD) mag has an interesting article on 'Working for a Bastard'. It points out that it is psychological insecurity that makes people into bastards. Anyone care to start a list for the RAF's biggest bastard of the last 25 years?

[Tigs]

Well it looks like their Lord Airships have overstepped the mark a little. Perhaps 3 more to join the que for resignations from office. Hasn't Wratten picked up on one of the first rules of life - When you find yourself digging a hole, stop digging.

If and it is only an if the HoL committee found that the initial rulings should stand, the 'Marx Brothers' have thankfully paved the way for the next hearing, brought about by behind the doors coniving and conspiring, or methinks trying to pervert the course of justice?

You can run but you can't hide!

[uncle peter]

dear oh dear oh dear.
this strikes me as the petulance of a condemned man.
i'm afraid Lords Graydon and Johns et al have displayed a naivety only demonstrable by people who have been sheltered from the real world for the majority of their careers. These people have (and in some cases continue to do so) acted as judge, jury and executioner in many cases. The majority of these cases are only capable of being examined at Judicial Review. If DLS (discount laughable serfs) opine the case is questionable they settle, ergo there is no investigation into an invalid decision. Consequently the net result is a mindset which dictates that one is above question, examination and ultimately above the law(unwarrantable arrogance).

Their Lord ex Airships have demonstrated a monumental error in judgement (IMHO). The house of lords is the highest court in the land. The law lords, in order to be appointed, must have displayed an almost unmatched knowledge of the law (unsurprisingly), and be of the utmost integrity and impartiality. if the law lords decide a point of law in a case before them, then their judgement passes into law as precedent...I think you get the picture.

The house of lords are fundamentally aware of the stature and importance of the law lords. The fact that they (airships)consider themselves capable of taking the law lords on, on what is essentially a point of law (discharge of burden of proof) is laughable.
I can only hope that the rest of the house view the event as a serious attempt at circumventing due process, and that it was a blatant attempt to destroy the credibility of the committee before it had the opportunity to publish its findings. :(

Furthermore, in attempting this act of cronyism Graydon and johns et al have demonstrated they are unsuitable to remain as members of the house, as they have no fundamental understanding of what is required of a peer, and how to conduct oneself as such.

I'll get your coats.

[PPRuNe Pop]

It is beyond belief that this super arrogant man Wratten now wishes to extend his arrogance still further by trying to gain the confidence of Lords Graydon and Johns. That THEY let him is absolutely amazing.

In similar circumstances, in a court of law, it is almost tantamount to interfereing with the jury.

However, I agree with JN. I think Wratten finds himself in a corner, a scared rat, looking to get support from other rats. I do think he is running scared because it has come home to him that their Lordships have done their job with due dilligence. I like to think that they would not allow Wratten, who has already had his say, to be allowed to sway them.

However, there is the all important vote on their Lordships findings to come.

Let us hope that it will put Wratten's name where it belongs, with Day's, but sadly, in the annals of RAF infamy.

[uncle peter]

forgot to mention above that the uncorrected evidence of the final day of the committee's hearing has been added to the hansard pages.
would do one of those link thingys but you confuse me with someone who knows anything about compooters.

it now appears that day and wratten have "adapted" their reasons for their findings in light of evidence previously unavailable to them.

i could not make the hearing in person, nor did i catch it on the parliamentary channel, so i am not privy to the tone adopted by wratten, but he appears to display open hostility towards the committee. day was also caught out attempting to lie about previous evidence.

perhaps the most telling evidence was offered by air commodore crawford, in that he had great difficulty in determining what the burden of proof (no doubt whatsoever) actually meant. he claimed the wording he used was clumsy as "he was not legally trained"

this was later reiterated by day, who also pointed out that his knowledge was limited due to no formal legal training.

did someone say bandwagon?

[John Nichol]

I've got the letter Graydon & Johns sent to the Lords - I don't want to publish the full text but the most important part is contained in the Gruniad piece:

"for those unfamiliar with aviation matters...it is not easy to understand the many complexities..."

"The Select Committee has spent much of its time in its hearings examining possible technical failings....when it can be shown that clearly that the Chinook was seviceable, these technical hypotheses, as our letter makes clear, are irrrelevant."

Now that't what I call arrogance!!!!!

So, Herr (or Herren?) Wratten, the fact that almost every person who has heard BOTH sides of the argument accepts that there is doubt simply means that we are stupid?

Just to reiterate Mr Wratten, you don't have one single jot of evidence to support your case that the Chinook was serviceable. Not a jot.

You are going to fail, you deserve to fail and I know of not one person in the RAF who will shed a single tear at your downfall.

[1.3VStall]

I am still seething about this.

That Wratten, Day - and now Craig, Graydon and Johns - are so utterly convinced of their own infallibility simply beggars belief.

(Perhaps the clue lies in that they have all in their time played a significant part in the continuing and irreversible decline in what was once a proud Service? Fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind).

Their unwarrantable arrogance enables them to summarily dismiss any witness who has the temerity to differ from their collective view, no matter what that witness's experience and credibility.

I submit, sirs, that you are a disgrace and an affront to the uniform that I once wore with pride. This affair is not going to go away. I concur with JN; you are going to fail and then the only honourable way out for all of you will be the tradition of the samurai!

[Broadsword***]

In the interests of accuracy, I should like to point out the following:

Neither Michael Graydon nor Richard Johns are members of the House of Lords (yet).

The House of Lords Committee enquiring into this accident is quite separate from the House of Lords sitting in its judicial capacity (ie as the final court of appeal in the UK).

I have no axe to grind in this matter, but let's not bring the sloppy journalistic style of the 'red top' newspapers to this serious debate.

[John Nichol]

An update on yesterday's Wratten roadshow -

Apparently the grand total of 20 members of the HofL turned up for his comedy act - this included a number that support our case who went along out of interest. Wratten looked pretty sad and crestfallen at the dismal turnout.

In the words of one who was there, it was a "non-event".

Glad to see Wratten and his cohorts continue to embarrass themselves in public. What is truly sad is that the RAF is going to come out of this badly - it should never have got this far.

[ 29 November 2001: Message edited by: John Nichol ]

[Brian Dixon]

Broadsword,
firstly, thank you for correcting my error - the assumption that Messrs Graydon and Johns were Lords. There was no intent to mislead. No offence taken either.

20 people eh? Something to tell their grandchildren I suppose. "I was there.... etc"

If you do read this thread Mr Wratten, may I say that I am fully prepared to accept the decision of their Lordships - whatever the outcome. They have conducted their Inquiry with dignity, fairness and impartiality. I, for one, have no doubt about their integrity.
You, on the other hand, obviously do.

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

[PPRuNe Pop]

As I had previously said, and JN has said again, that Wratten and Day, but more recently Wratten because Day cannot be seen to be lobbying while a serving AM, have bought shame upon the Royal Air Force whose cherished name they both had a sworn duty to uphold. Wratten sneeringly gives the impression, probably because that is what I want to think, that it is HIS air force.

Wratten I have news for you. The Royal Air Force is bigger than both of you and God knows it will survive. You, of course, will not.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, I do hope they read these pages!

[1.3VStall]

PPP,

More eloquently put than my own rantings and the sentiment is right on!

[MrBernoulli]

Before our soiree in Oman I hadn't met Day (had met Wratten - covered in the original thread on this accident). Day had the cheek to suggest, in Muscat, that flight safety issues should not be used as blackmail for better living conditions. Charming! But it gives a tiny insight into what passes for the mans brain - "Don't make you're problem mine".

[1.3VStall]

Mr B,

May we then assume that, to show solidarity with his crews, Day slept in a tent at the side of the runway during his ever-so-essential visit to the Gulf?

[MrBernoulli]

No way did he sleep in the camp! I'm not sure he even stayed overnight in the area. Other senior officers WERE downtown in hotels..........and we were instructed to stay away from them. But this is a subject for another forum...not here.

[ShyTorque]

Whatever the outcome of this enquiry, my personal verdict will remain the same as it was seven years ago when my letter pointing out this gross injustice was published in Flight International.

I for one am happy to be no longer serving in the presence of such narrow minded and vindictive men intent in shifting the guilt of others to dead men. :mad:

[Arkroyal]

Shyte

Hear Hear!

The latest ploy by Wrotten simply reinforces my view of the underhand jerk. Their Lordships were obviously not impressed by these two clowns.

They still miss the point entirely by saying that the select committee required specific aviation knowledge.

It was not a new BOI or AAIB investigation, it was an investigation into the decision by Day and Wratten to bring in a finding of Gross Negligence with no evidence to support it.

That committee simply needed common sense and a legal background. It possessed both in abundance.

I guess that Wratten's unwarrantable arrogance still refuses to believe that its his judgement in question here, and not why ZD576 crashed.

[4llA]

Back to the top
and check out parliament
house of lords
select committees
chinook inquiry

[Sven Sixtoo]

A page or so back it was suggested, I think, that ACM Wratten was presenting to the House of Lords under arrangements sponsored by MRAF Craig amongst others. It was also mentioned that MoD considered this a matter outwith their control / interest.

Do not MRAFs, in common with other *****s, remain on the active list for life?

[John Nichol]

Sven, it's an interesting point - that the Lordships may be looking at.

As I understand it, MRAF Craig is still a serving RAF Officer so this does bring up many constitutional issues. The letter to the Lords came from ACMs Graydon and Johns - I'm not sure if they hold the rank of MRAF - anyone help out?

[chippy63]

On JN's question, I understand that the 5 star rank (MRAF, FM, AotF) are not awarded any more- CDS used to get it, but it looked a bit daft when the US Joint Chiefs Chmn was a 4 star.

[FJJP]

MRAF do not retire. They go onto half pay.

Graydon retired as MRAF (I think) but Johns retired as ACM (he got there after they changed the 5 star rules).

5 star is now a war only rank.

Feel free to correct me if I am I am wrong.

[Brian Dixon]

Hi Everyone,
just to let you all know that we're not just sitting waiting until their Lordships publish their findings.
I have yet again contacted the 10 Downing Street site webmaster to ask that they link our petition to their e-petition site. As yet, still no response.
Guess I'll have to carry on being irritating! :D

Regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[OOPS 78]

I think that we all need to calm down a bit. Wratton may be trying to sidestep the Lords enquirey, but we must remember that many of us are approaching this subject from the direction of "Wratton's a t***er." The Lords may well not see it that way.

As to the serviceability of the chinny, Wrotten is trying to argue that regardless of the chinny being s or not the crew f***ed up earlier on. Whilst I don't subscribe to that point of view it is possible that the Lords will.

All I am saying don't count chickens etc. I hope that things will go against the air farce on this one and the records of 2 pilots will be cleared.

I suppose that the biggest problem we have is that one of these di**heads is still working with us and running a large part of the show. I am a helo pilot and I never want that **** on my cab.

While we tend to take the view that this forum 'polices' itself, we do draw the line at hidden foul language. I have deleted one such word so that the nice ladies who read this particular thread should not have to read it.

PPRuNe Pop
Administrator

[ 13 December 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Pop ]

[TL Thou]

I think it is pretty unprecedented for two service personnel to go to Parliament, off their own bat, to plead their case in such a way, beyond the call of a Select Committee. Surely this is "out of order"? Hmmmm. :confused:

[1.3VStall]

TLT,

Of course it is "out of order" for Wratten (aided and abetted by Craig, Graydon and Johns) to pull this stunt. Thankfully not many of their lordships could be bothered to turn up and listen to his arrogant ramblings.

And, Messrs Day and Wratten, as I'm sure the contents of this thread are communicated to you even if you don't read it I just wanted to get it back to the top. We will not go away!

[NorthSouth]

I've been following the Chinook saga from a distance for some time and have just read the RAF BoI report as released by the House of Lords inquiry.
What amazes me is the revelation in that report that "There are no formal procedures within the Support Helicopter Force for conducting an IF abort from low level or for climbing from low level flight under VFR to flight under IFR, and these flight profiles are not taught or generally practised." The BoI report recommends, in addition to fitting CVRs and ADRs to Chinooks, that:
"Formal IF climb procedures are developed for the RAF Support Helicopter Force".

What a contrast with the MoD Accident Summary issued in June 1995, which made no mention of that recommendation, and said "A thorough review of training, flying standards and supervision within the RAF SHF has since been carried out; this has not revealed any deficiencies that might have contributed to this accident."

I'm not suggesting that two pilots as experienced as Tapper and Cook were incapable of a low level abort because they hadn't been specifically trained for it, but what the report highlights is that the lack of a formal procedure meant that deciding how to do a low level abort was basically up to units and/or individuals - so there could be a wide range of techniques, with no force-wide guidance on which were the best techniques in which circumstances.

At best, then, these pilots were poorly equipped to deal with the situation they found themselves in. At worst, the RAF's procedures and training failed them.

So, has the BoI's third recommendation been implemented? Is there now a formal LL abort procedure?

[Pub User]

NorthSouth

Yes, there is.

[1.3VStall]

Just didn't want to see the thread slide down into page 2!

[Brian Dixon]

Thanks to everyone still keeping this to the fore.

The eagle eyed among you may have noticed that the uncorrected evidence page on the Parliament web site appears to be missing questions 783 - 856. These refer to evidence given by Witness A (Question 1054 from Lord Hooson).

I have been assured that these questions will be published in their corrected form early in the New Year.

May I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and also thank you all for your support. I hope that the Tapper and Cook families are given a late Christmas present early in the new year.

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

[1.3VStall]

And season's greetings to you too Brian. Your hard work, tenacity and integrity are an example to all of us who follow this affair.

My Christmas prayers will include one for a long-overdue victory for common sense, and hence justice.

[FJJP]

I must be bored! Leafing idly through the pages of the web, I stumbled across this:

<a href="http://www.mod.uk/news/parlment.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mod.uk/news/parlment.htm</a>

By using the ‘search’ facility and typing ‘Chinook’ it listed a whole bunch of relevant stuff. Probably nothing new, but might be a useful link to those who are interested and haven’t found other parliamentary links.

Merry Christmas to Brian and all those who have dedicated many hours of their precious time in the cause of justice.

[uncle peter]

didnt want this thread relegated to page 2

[solotk]

Just out of idle interest....

Does anyone know who "Johnny" Wratten was going to be employed by on this side of the fence, when he left Airworks?

Call me cynical, but so far, his words, actions and deeds, in trying to make sure the aircrew were crucified, and blame shifted away from the kit,smack of commercial interest

Just a thought.....

Tony

[BEagle]

Until quite recently, Wratten was employed by Rolls Royce at Filton. Other employees were told not to comment on the Chinook accident if they were asked.....

[ 31 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>

[FJJP]

Keeping it at the top...

[HectorusRex]

Still keeping it up!
As an indication of what one thinks of the principal adversary in this saga, simply try typing "Wratten" into the search box in
&lt;www.google.com&gt; and see what comes up.
Highly appropriate when one considers what has transpired as a result of his arrogance! :)

[Brian Dixon]

Hi everyone,
Happy New Year to one and all.

Thanks for the last posting HectorusRex. Quite put me off my stale turkey sandwich.

I have received a reply from the Downing Street web site with regard me linking the campaign petition to their e-petition site. What they require is for me to provide either verifiable addresses or e-mail addresses. I'm not prepared to do this, so I regret that we will not get the link.

I hope people don't think they were duped into signing the petition as that clearly was not the case. I am more than happy that Downing Street is now aware of the campaign web site. I am, however, absolutely overwhelmed at the continued support that has been given. Thank you again.

Just because we are awaiting the findings of their Lordships doesn't mean that I'm not annoying someone, somewhere! :)

Updates as and when I get them
Regards as always
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[HectorusRex]

Thanks Brian
I've lurked for years and finally made the plunge with that post.Previously I had argued/debated the situation with a predecessor of Wratten's, and John Day's, the late Ken Hayr.
Keep up the good work. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

[Brian Dixon]

Hi everyone,

Sqn Ldr Robert Burke, the former RAF Odiham test pilot has been asked to return to the House of Lords to give further evidence. He has been asked to reappear before their Lordships on the Select Committee on 14 January.

It is believed that Sqn Ldr Burke will be asked (amongst other things) how serious were the problems with the in-flight computers at the time of the accident, and how much space it took to turn a Chinook around.

Updates as and when
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Brian Dixon]

Stand down, stand down.
Brian Dixon read a newspaper article and got all excited. Sqn Ldr Burke is not appearing before their Lordships as reported above. I think he has supplied further written reports.

Sincere apologies to all. A genuine mistake on my part. <img src="redface.gif" border="0">

In the meantime, I have found a great quote for the Air Marshals and MoD:
"How often is it still true - that what we need is not fresh evidence, but fuller understanding of what we have already" - J H B Masterman 1959.

Again, sorry for the duff gen.
I'll post again when I know what I'm talking about!!
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[misterploppy]

Jeez Bri,

After all you've done for the cause I think you can ease up on the mea culpas after a minor booboo!

A happy new year to you and all readers.

[slj]

Just making sure Wratten and Day know that this is not going away

[1.3VStall]

Found this on page two - just had to bring it back to the top!

[Brian Dixon]

Not long to go now, before their Lordships conclude their inquiry.

Back to the top of the thread too!

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

[Brian Dixon]

Hi again everyone,
In order to progress a line of enquiry with the campaign, I wonder if anyone would be able to provide any information regarding the following two fatal aircraft accidents:

1. Crash of a Buccaneer S2B, lost in the North Sea, 38nm East of Leuchars on 09/07/92. Two souls lost.

2. Crash of a Wessex HC2, lost at Llyn Padern, Gwynedd on 12/08/93. Three souls lost.

I'm particularly looking for the cause of the accident in each incident.

There is no wish to open old wounds and apologies in advance to any offended by this post. May be better to reply to this using my e-mail address if you feel it appropriate.

Thanks in advance for your help.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Kiting for Boys]

Oh well...

I got all excited that Sqn Ldr Robert Burke would be back, but no.
By complete chance, he was on BBC Parliament on the only day I looked.

B£oody marvelous, what an advert for the RAF.

[Chocks Wahay]

I have moved the chinook campaign website to a new server today. Anyone accesing it through the url <a href="http://www.chinook-justice.org" target="_blank">www.chinook-justice.org</a> shouldn't see any difference, but anyone using the previous address should update their bookmarks.

And of course, anyone who feels the urge to sign the petition is still more than welcome to do so.

[Brian Dixon]

I think the first week in Feb looks favourite for some sort of announcement.

Updates as and when.. .Regards as always. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[TL Thou]

I have the date of the report penned in as 31 January, though I may be wrong on this...but hey this is PPrune! <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[Archimedes]

TL - The Lords website says:. . . .'Committee is to report to the House of Lords by 31st January 2002'

[Brian Dixon]

The original date was the 31 Jan, however it was moved back a few days.. .There is a press conference booked for 5th Feb, so watch this space!

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

[misterploppy]

Scotland on Sunday 27 Jan 2002

Chinook accuser eyed to run RAF

BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR

. .A DEFENCE chief who controversially blamed two dead pilots for the Mull of Kintyre helicopter disaster is being groomed for the top job in the Royal Air Force.

Air Marshal Sir John Day and a senior colleague ruled that pilot error caused the 1994 Chinook disaster. The decision outraged the families of the dead pilots, who accused the RAF of ignoring its own rule that dead air crew cannot be blamed unless there is absolutely no doubt.

Despite the continuing controversy, Day has been revealed by military insiders as favourite to be the next chief of the air staff, second only to the chief of defence staff in the military hierarchy.

But campaigners fighting to clear the names of Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper last night warned that Day’s career could be in ruins if a House of Lords inquiry into the Chinook disaster overturns his findings, and the Ministry of Defence subsequently fails to quash its verdict in the case.

The crash of Zulu Delta 576 claimed 29 lives, including the cream of Northern Ireland’s anti-terrorism community.

The House of Lords committee that has been looking at the case is expected early next month to conclude that Day was wrong to blame the pilots.

The five-strong panel of senior peers, led by Lord Jauncey, spent three months taking evidence from witnesses, including Day.

Day stuck to his original position during questioning, although he told the Lords committee the ruling was "the most difficult decision I have had to make in my whole career".

Despite Day’s evidence, the committee is understood to believe that mechanical failure may have contributed to the crash. Such a finding would undermine Day’s verdict that pilot error caused the crash ‘beyond any doubt’.

Last night, the pilots’ families declined to comment about Day in advance of the committee report.

But Lord Chalfont, chair of the all-party Mull of Kintyre group, which led the campaign for a Lords inquiry, said: "I have heard it suggested that Sir John is the most likely candidate for the top job in the RAF.

"Obviously if this inquiry went against him it might affect his career.

"I don’t believe it should do so - as long as the MoD now accepts that his decision was a mistake."

[Green Bottle]

I'll probably vote with my feet if this occurs. I do not wish to work for an organisation which would employ such an individual, let alone promote him to be its chief.

[John Nichol]

Just received this email from H of L:

The report of the Committee will be published on Tuesday 5 February at 11am. It will be available from bookshops (the publisher is TSO), and on the web (www.parliament.uk). It will include a note that your own correspondence with the Committee will be available for public inspection in the House of Lords Record Office

Looks like there is an end to this affair in sight - here's hoping for the right result

[Brian Dixon]

Too close to let this drop to page 2!!

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

[John Nichol]

Just so everyone knows what will happen on Tuesday:

At 11am the report will be placed in the Printed Paper Office of the HofL. It is given to the media at the same time.

For anyone interested you can also get it from the Parliamentary Bookshop which is just opposite Big Ben in between Bridge Street and Parliament St.

The Mull Of Kintyre Group chaired by Lord Chalfont will meet at the same time to discuss the findings.

There is a press conference at Portcullis House at 3.30pm.

There seems to be no ideas from any side about which way it will go.

Fingers crossed for justice.

[henry crun]

John, your 1506 post on the 28th indicates the report will be available online at the same time as it is released.

Just in case it isn't can you please post a quick outcome for the benefit of those in other parts of the world ?

[Just an other number]

Back to the top.

[John Nichol]

Henry, I'm going to be in London for the publication of the report and then for the press conf. I'm told that the report will go straight onto the parliament website. I also understand that you will find it on most of the news sites - the press is waiting for it as much as we are.

[BEagle]

Wonder whether it'll make RAF News if the findings are as Brian et al. hope......??

[Brian Dixon]

Hi everyone,. .I'm making enquiries as to a way of getting the report result on to PPRuNe as soon as possible after publication.

I too will be in London, but will find a way to let you all know. I can't promise, but I'll do my best!

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

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Brian, here's hoping for a fitting outcome.

[Arkroyal]

Back from holiday, hoping for news today. I'll be abroad on 5th, so any aerly posting on prune would be a bonus.

Re mrploppy's post, is it just me who gets hot under the collar with journos who keep saying that Wratten and Day 'blamed pilot error.' They did not. They found gross negligence. That is what we are fighting. A finding requiring proof beyond 'any doubt whatsoever' having been arrived at with 'no evidence whatsoever'.

Their Lordships are not daft and the burden of proof figured significantly in their questioning. I have a good feeling on this. Brian, whatever the outcome, you will feel justly proud of your campaign.

[misterploppy]

Ark

A happy new year me old china. The way Andrew Neill has been sacking journos at The Scotsman / SoS, there's hardly anyone left there with any experience / credibility. The 'Brian Brady Westminster Editor' is probably a spotty youth who's just passed his 'O' Grade English resit at Telford College and has as much difficulty telling an adverb from an adjective, let alone Pilot Error from Gross Negligence.

[misterploppy]

Scotland on Sunday 3 Feb 02

Lords set to overturn RAF ruling on Chinook

BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR

A HOUSE of Lords inquiry is this week expected to overturn an RAF ruling that the "gross negligence" of Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper caused the Mull of Kintyre Chinook helicopter disaster.

But even if the five-strong Lords committee backs the RAF’s ruling, ministers will still face renewed demands for a full public inquiry into the 1994 disaster, which wiped out the elite of Northern Ireland’s anti-terrorism experts.

The move would end a long fight for justice waged by the pilots’ relatives, who bitterly accused the RAF of ignoring its own rule that dead air crew cannot be blamed unless there is absolutely no doubt that they were at fault.

Shadow defence secretary James Gray warned last night that Conservatives would join campaigners calling for a wide-ranging investigation if the Lords backed the RAF instead.

"Our strong inclination is that it is worthy of future investigation, whatever the findings reported on Tuesday," said Gray. "We need a much wider investigation than was allowed at the time or since, because we are deeply uneasy about the verdict of pilot error. It would be more likely to have been equipment failure."

Support for a review of the circumstances surrounding the crash has built up amid concerns that the two dead airmen had been "scapegoated" for the accident, in which 25 passengers and four crew died as their helicopter flew in heavy fog into the cliffs of the Mull en route from Belfast.

The government partially relented last summer when it agreed to the formation of the Lords inquiry - but only with the authority to decide whether the negligence verdicts were fair.

Lord Chalfont, chair of the all-party group which led the campaign for a Lords inquiry, said the priority for the pilots’ families was overturning the negligence verdicts. "All we are interested in at this time is getting these pilots cleared and making sure that the MoD accepts the ruling," he said.

[misterploppy]

The verdict

For more than seven years, the families of two pilots blamed for an RAF helicopter crash which left 29 dead have fought to clear their sons' names. This week, their battle against the military establishment reaches a climax. By John Arlidge

Sunday February 3, 2002. .The Observer

AT 7.30 on Tuesday morning, a 67-year-old former RAF and Concorde pilot will pour himself a cup of coffee, shower, put on a grey single-breasted suit, white shirt and dark blue tie, and drive the 10 miles from his Hampshire home to Fleet station to catch the 9.08 to Waterloo. . .One hundred and fifty miles away in Kings Lynn, Norfolk, a 66-year-old retired banker will get into his blue Citroen estate and drive with his wife Hazel to London.

Then, towards 11am, John Cook and Mike Tapper will walk together down the claret and gold corridors of the House of Lords past the coats of arms of the chiefs of the defence staff and head for the Office of Printed Paper just outside the debating chamber.

Their journey is the final step in an eight-year search for truth that began on the evening of 2 June 1994 when they received the telephone call from the Ministry of Defence that every serviceman's family dreads. 'I'm very sorry. I have some bad news,' the voice of the end of the line said. 'A Chinook helicopter is down on the Mull of Kintyre in Scotland. I'm afraid your...'

The two fathers knew what would come next. Their sons Rick, 30, and Jonathan, 28, were Chinook pilots. Shortly before midnight MoD officials called at the family homes to confirm the worst. Rick and Jonathan - along with everyone else on board flight Zulu Delta 576 - were dead.

The 1994 Chinook crash remains the RAF's worst peacetime accident. It killed two elite special forces pilots, two experienced crewmen, and 25 of the most senior SAS and MI5 counter-terrorist officers, including the head of Special Branch in Northern Ireland.

The accident has also become the biggest peace-time public relations headache for the Ministry of Defence.

For the past eight years the dead pilots' families, former Cabinet Ministers, MPs from all parties, Gulf war veterans, journalists and film-makers, and members of the House of Lords have accused the MoD of unfairly blaming the pilots for the crash - besmirching the reputation of men who died doing their duty.

At 11am on Tuesday, when the House of Lords Select Committee to review the Chinook crash publishes its report into the tragedy, both sides hope the truth will finally emerge. The Ministry of Defence believes its finding that the pilots were guilty of 'gross negligence' will be confirmed. The families want the Lords to clear their sons' names.

There is more than the reputation of two dead airmen at stake. If the Lords decide the MoD's verdict is wrong, it will provoke an unprecedented constitutional clash between the military and Parliament. MPs and peers will demand that the MoD publicly clears the pilots of blame and apologises to their families - something senior officers have never done before.

A cairn at the summit of the 1,400ft Beinn na Lice - 'Mountain of the stone slab'- on the southern tip of the Mull of Kintyre marks the spot where the two-rotor Chinook hit the ground at 150mph and exploded into a fireball at around 6pm on 2 June 1994.

The scene that confronted police and local doctors from Campbeltown who were first on the scene was the worst many had seen. 'It was misty but you could see burning bodies strapped into their seats. Burning, burning everywhere,' recalls local GP Geoffrey Horton.

When sun lit up the charred slopes the next morning, it was plain that the aircraft, en route from RAF Aldergrove near Belfast to a security conference near Inverness, should either have climbed or turned left away from the Kintyre peninsula into clear airspace. But it never did. Why not?

Cook and Tapper were elite special forces pilots; they were so good that they could fly helicopters backwards at night. Was it possible that the two men had simply flown through low cloud into a hill? With no survivors, no eyewitness, no 'black box' flight data recorder, no cockpit voice recorder, and no radar trace, it was clear from the start that trying to piece together what happened would be as hard as trying to reassemble the helicopter from the wreckage. And so it has proved.

There have been half a dozen separate inquiries and almost the only thing anyone can agree on is that sabotage was not to blame. The House of Lords inquiry is likely to be the final investigation. The families of the dead pilots say they will accept the peers' findings whatever they are. MoD officials say it is 'too early' to comment.

The Lords report will centre on whether the two pilots were to blame. That was the conclusion of two senior RAF officers, Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten and Air Vice Marshal John Day, who overruled the findings of the RAF's own internal inquiry which concluded in 1995 that, while it was impossible 'to determine a definite cause' there were 'no human failings'. Wratten and Day insisted the pilots had made a series of careless, navigational errors and flown too low, too fast.

Their decision to overrule the findings of the RAF's own investigators infuriated the Tappers and the Cooks, who believed the MoD had breached its own rules which stated that dead air crews should be blamed for an accident only 'if there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever'. Their fury and sense of injustice grew when the MoD refused to reopen the case after a Scottish fatal accident inquiry in 1996 publicly cleared the pilots and said the RAF investigation was 'flawed'.

The 1996 verdict prompted the two families to take the unprecedented step of taking on the military establishment. The campaign they launched six years ago and which reaches a climax on Tuesday has been one of the most remarkable in military history.

It has united former and serving military men, sceptical journalists and film-makers, technical experts, former and serving Tory Cabinet Ministers and Labour and Lib Dem peers.

Between 1996 and last year this unlikely band of investigators uncovered so much evidence casting doubt on the safety of the Chinook that they forced no fewer than three parliamentary committees to launch their own inquiries. Few subjects have been so closely examined by so many different parliamen tarians or picked over on television and in the pages of specialist magazines.

The House of Commons Defence Select Committee inquiry first leant weight to the MoD's case, concluding there were no fundamental flaws in the design of the helicopter. But later the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee concluded there was not enough evidence to hang the reputations of the pilots. The MoD was guilty of 'unwarrantable arrogance' and the verdict of gross negligence should be overturned.

On Tuesday the Lords will have the final say. Over the past six months a five-peer committee, led by a senior judge, has gone back over every piece of evidence and interviewed the key players, including Wratten and Day. At the centre of their inquiry was fresh evidence that the computer software controlling the engines on the Chinook Mk II was unsafe.

Peers heard evidence - not presented to previous inquiries - that the engines had a terrifying habit of massively speeding up or slowing down the rotors for no reason and leaving no physical or electronic trace. On one occasion a power surge destroyed a Chinook on the ground. In another unexplained case a Chinook flipped upside down in flight before righting itself again 250ft above the ground.

Could a sudden 'engine runaway' explain why two pilots with exemplary records flew straight into the side of a hill? Were there enough question marks over safety to make a finding of gross negligence unsafe?

In a few weeks the once blackened slopes of Beinn na Lice will be covered with purple heather again. Except for the cairn, which gets a little bigger each June when visiting relatives of the dead add stones, there is no sign of the tragedy. But the marks left on the reputations of Flt Lt Rick Cook and Flt Lt John Tapper have not been erased.

The families hope the Lords report will end their fight to clear their sons' names. As Mike Tapper puts it: 'We have never said it could not be pilot error. Experienced pilots can make mistakes. But we do say there are so many doubts surrounding what happened that it is impossible to be sure. That's all we've ever asked for - all our sons would have expected of us. Is that too much?' On Tuesday they will find out.

[PPRuNe Pop]

When you read the above, it raises many passions. Not least of which is the need to get the monkey off the back of John and Rick's parents. It must be terrible burden.

There are other passions too. Their Lordships deliberations, which if you attended the hearing, showed just how seriously they took the task they were charged with.

Personal passions came through, as this thread reveals if you care to look, or on the other Chinook thread too, where the original passions ran high.

It is truly remarkable that so many people have, in their own way, made their opinions known. Some who no doubt are currently in senior positions in the services. All recognising a "stitch up" when they saw one.

My personal passion, well two really, is that the findings will overturn the MoD's wilful act of negligence in conducting an enquiry in such an arrogant and unprofessional manner. Then, and this is my abiding passion, that both Wratten and Day, who we hope will be shown to have disgraced themselves - not to mention the good name of the Royal Air Force. Will also be shown not worthy to hold the office that they were, and are enstrusted with. They were duty bound to hold and protect that office, and to be seen to conduct themselves fairly and at all times hold safe the glory of the Royal Air Force.

Wratten's outrageous display of arrogance, and Day's willingness to support him, casting aside "reasonable doubt", serves only to show that they are unworthy to hold office. Before Day resigns, for that is what he must do if their findings are overturned, they should then both offer their profound apologies to the families. If the families choose to reject such an offer, can they really expect more.

Finally, perhaps the most important passion shown here is the dedication and commitment, by a handful of good men and women, who have striven hard and long to see justice done. They deserve this hoped for verdict, probably as much as the parents do - certainly as much as John and Rick do.

[Brian Dixon]

Thank you very much to everybody for their kind comments (and for the press articles too Mr P). I just hope that the families get the result they rightfully deserve. Jon and Rick too!

We'll all find out in less that 48 hours. Nervous? Me? N..n..no

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

[misterploppy]

One of the better pieces on the case that I have read from journoland, a 2-page spread c/w photos and graphics in today's Herald. Sorry, I don't have the technology for the graphics and couldn't find the piece in their online edition at <a href="http://www.sundayherald.com" target="_blank">www.sundayherald.com</a> .

Sunday Herald 3 Feb 02 Print Edition. 2 Articles, pp 12 & 13.

Seven years on, will the Chinook pilots finally be cleared?

As the Lords prepare to reveal their findings on 1994's fatal Mull of Kintyre crash, Torcuil Crichton examines a long fight for justice.

Catch up: When an RAF Chinook Helicopter crashed over the Mull of Kintyre in 1994, 29 people died including 25 senior intelligence officers. The latest of a long string of inquiries into the tragedy will report this week. Families of some of those who died hope it will finally clear the two pilots of blame and reveal the true cause of the crash.

The crew logbook of the Royal Navy Sea King scrambled from Prestwick captures, as well as anything, the sequence of events on the Mull of Kintyre on the evening of June 2, 1994.

“What a horrible one. Scrambled at 1810 (local), airborne 1817 with basic details of a helicopter being heard flying over Mull of Kintyre lighthouse followed shortly by a loud bang. Heard on route that it was a Chinook – thought initially 5 or so souls on board [later confirmed at 29] so ensured that other units (including our standby crew) were also scrambled. Arrived on scene approximately 1845 … Closed accident scene from the south of the Mull, found 4 or 5 lines of fire in the heather on the hillside but cloud and smoke prohibited any cliff transit to the crash site. Landed at landing pad near lighthouse to assist with casevac [casualty evacuation] if required (we weren’t!)…”

Twenty-nine people, including 25 of Britain’s top intelligence officers in Northern Ireland, were killed when Chinook ZD576, en route from Northern Ireland to Scotland, crashed into the Mull of Kintyre in the RAF’s worst peacetime accident. But instead of becoming another tragedy remembered only by grieving families and friends on each anniversary, the Mull of Kintyre crash has turned into a cause célèbre, a fight to clear the names of the pilots who were blamed amid claims of a technological scandal and cover-up.

In seven years the case has also acquired a symbolic status. It is seen as a struggle for truth against an intractable British military establishment that cannot admit, in the face of mounting evidence, that two of its senior officers may have gone too far in finding the helicopter’s pilots grossly negligent.

There have been at least six enquiries into the circumstances of the crash – ranging from the Scottish fatal accident enquiry to a Royal Aeronautical Society enquiry – but the truth is that nobody will ever know for sure why Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper, who was 28, and Richard Cook, 30, flew into the hillside in the mist on that Thursday evening.

What their families want to establish is not the exact cause of the but that there was not enough evidence to damn the reputations of their sons The latest and final inquiry, a house of Lords select committee investigation, will reveal its findings this Tuesday. For five months now the committee - led by Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, a former Scottish law lord, and also comprising three QCs and an engineer - has gathered evidence, listened to witnesses and mulled over their opinions.

The last person to see the Chinook in fight on that evening was an amateur yachtsman who was at sea off the Mull of Kintyre. He saw the helicopter flying below cloud in straight, level flight about 200-300 ft above sea level, The top of the Mull was shrouded in cloud, but the crew had not planned to fly over it in any case.

Flight Lieutenant Tapper indicated on the navigation computer that the first waypoint, a lighthouse on the tip of Kintyre, had been reached, and entered a second waypoint, Corran, which was about 90 miles away. That required a turn to the left which would allow the Mk2 Chinook to fly around the Mull. But for whatever reason the manoeuvre was never executed and ZD576 crashed into the hillside, broke up in flames and bounced along the moor in pieces.

A civilian fatal accident inquiry and an RAF board of inquiry followed. Neither concluded by blaming the pilots. The RAF thought human error was “likely" but also that a "major technical malfunction could not be ruled out".. .But the RAF then overturned its own conclusion.

Two senior officers, Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten and Air Marshal Sir John Day, reviewed the board of inquiry and found Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook posthumously guilt of gross negligence - the equivalent of manslaughter. They had flown too low and too fast approaching the foggy Mull of Kintyre. No question, no doubt.

On top of the grief of losing their sons, the accusation was a devastating blow for the pilots' families. They immediately began to campaign to have the ruling overturned. After seven years they and their supporters sense they are about to score a victory against the MoD - but they exercise caution.

Far away from Westminster, far away from the Mull of Kintyre, Mike Tapper has been waiting a long time. The retired bank manager from Norfolk who lost his son in the Chinook crash is sure that the marathon campaign will not be over with Tuesday’s report, whatever verdict it might contain. To sustain him he has only bitter experience.

"We've been through the fatal accident inquiry, we've been through the Channel Four inquiry and then the totally unsatisfactory House of Commons select committee, who just accepted everything the MoD told them," he says. "We've had the public accounts committee and now the Lords inquiry what I’m saying is that we have been here before."

Last week Lord Chalfont circulated a memo to all members of the parliamentary Mull of Kintyre group, which cajoled and campaigned for the Lords inquiry warning them that the outcome may not go in their favour. Lord Chalfont, a former military intelligence officer and minister of state, is the driving force behind the group and has already said he will accept the inquiry's verdict as the final outcome.

"Either we will succeed or the air marshals will be vindicated, but it is such an obvious miscarriage of justice that I think the report will have an enormous impact on the MoD," says Lord Chalfont. "If the Lords find there is too much doubt to condemn the men I can’t see how anyone, even the Prime Minister could refuse to take action,"

The doubts over the verdict centre primarily on safety fears over the Mk 2 Chinook among RAF pilots. It was seriously unreliable in its first months of operational service, and the belief among the men who flew it is that it was rushed into service.

The Mk 2 Chinook's engines were fitted with FADEC (full authority digital electronic control) software, which controls fuel flow to the front and rear engines and therefore also controls the power output. The computer system was plagued with glitches. A year before the crash MoD experts at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire, the RAF's official test site, refused to recommend the Chinooks carrying the new system. But the MoD, down to half-strength in its Chinook fleet, pressed on, and the system was introduced the following year.

The pilots at RAF Boscombe Down had on two occasions - including the day before the crash - refused to fly Chinooks fitted with FADEC. The RAF maintains that these refusals were unconnected to the system itself.

Flight Lieutenants Cook and Tapper both told their parents they were worried about the safety of the Chinooks, Cook asking his father, a former Concorde pilot, on three separate occasions to look after his family.

"'You will look after Sarah and Eleanor?' That was his wife and daughter," recalls Cook senior "On the last occasion I said, 'Come on, Rick, what is it?' He said, 'Dad, the aircraft is not ready and we are not ready. We have had too little time to sort it out.' Three or four days later he was killed."

In Brighton, in a corner of Tony Collins's home office, are three suitcases full of evidence on the Mull of Kintyre crash and FADEC software. Collins, a journalist with the unglamorous trade magazine Computer Weekly, is the Bob Woodward of the Chinook campaign - the hack who was handed a pile of software readouts to analyse and who uncovered a scandal.

In 1997, three years after the crash, Channel Four News approached Computer Weekly with a copy of an independent assessment of the FADEC computer system that the MoD had commissioned. Collins analysed it, expecting to find perhaps five or six inevitable glitches recorded. In the event there were 486 anomalies in the software.. ."I was astonished that it related to a helicopter that was in service. This wasn't a banking system or a newspaper computer, this was safety-critical software," says Collins.

"The first thing I did was seek out the MoD's case and find out why they had found the pilots negligent, I put myself in their shoes because I couldn't get involved in a campaign if there was strong evidence against the pilots. I was surprised by the lack of evidence. There was more and more evidence of problems with the software emerging and scant evidence to back their case.”. .Investigations uncovered that, while the MoD maintained that FADEC did not compromise the safety of ZD576, it was at the same time suing the makers of the system after a near-fatal crash in 1989 - a fact it withheld from the Air Accident Investigation Board. The MoD did not inform the air accident investigators of the case, according to armed forces minister John Reid, because "we sued them for negligence in their testing procedure. We did not sue them because of a failure in FADEC."

In fact, material obtained by Computer Weekly reveals that the MoD's case against the manufacturers, Textron Lycoming, was almost entirely based on the alleged faulty design of Fadec.

Collins's findings and the subsequent publicity garnered by Channel Four re-ignited the Chinook campaign and propelled it into the Commons. The magazine published Rough Justice, a 160-page on-line report into the Chinook crash, and more than 90 MPs signed a motion calling for a new inquiry. The Ministry of Defence issued a rebuttal of the report two hours before it was published.. .That changed things for Collins. “From then on the campaign was really fuelled by the MoD making lots of factually incorrect statements. When we wrote Rough Justice we thought they would see good grounds for a new inquiry, but after that we realised they had a fixed position no matter what new evidence came to light."

It was Collins's first expeflence ot the military's “sanctity of command” - the unwritten principle that does not allow the MoD to overturn the decision of senior officers, regardless of subsequent information For Collins this is now the issue at the heart of the campaign. He has not been the only person to encounter it.. .Computer Weekly's findings and the Channel 4 campaign drew the attention of the House of Commons public accounts committee, which accused the MoD of 'unwarrantable arrogance' in dismissing its voluminous report and year-long investigation.

Another Commons committee, the defence select committee, had gone along with the MoD's findings, though some opposition members, notably Lib Dem Menzies Campbell, accused the government of putting pressure on Labour members to accept the MoD line. By then Malcolm Rifkind - a defence minister at the time of the crash, who had told parliament that the men were grossly negligent - had changed his mind after reading the evidence of FADEC failure. He became an influential supporter of the campaign. A former minister was now accusing the Whitehall mandarins and the military of getting it wrong on the Mull of Kintyre crash.

In Whitehall they are waiting too. In theory the Ministry of Defence could simply ignore the findings of the Lords inquiry. Its outcome will not overturn the findings of the two senior officers but defence officials know it would be obtuse to dismiss it as it did the public accounts committee.

"Their lordships have taken this very seriously and we will be taking cognisance of what they say," said an MoD official who has monitored the evidence and the proceedings of the inquiry. "Legally, technically, we could say that it doesn't matter a jot, but we won't be putting ourselves in that position."

Why the MoD has proved so resistant to pressure has baffled those outside the case. But one encounter with Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten - OBE, CE, AFC (retired) - soon dispels any confusion. In public statements, on television, in the committee room giving evidence to the Lords inquiry, Sir William has never displayed a scintilla of doubt over his decision. He is of a completely unbending military mindset that simply will not contemplate, once a decision has been made, that it could possibly be mistaken, far less overturned.

His colleague, Air Marshal Sir John Day, still serving in the RAF, told the inquiry that finding the pilots guilty had been the most difficult decision of his life. It had, he recalled, required "moral courage” the kind of mettle he displayed when, in front of the pilots' parents, he said that there was no doubt Tapper and Cook had "breached all the safety rules".. .Tapper and Cook were trained to break all the safety rules. They were both special forces pilots, an elite who knew how to fly low, fast and in the dark, They could hide helicopters behind hedgerows and pick out rainfall glinting off an electricity line before they flew into it. Is it possible, with such a precious cargo aboard, that they blew it and simply flew into the hillside?

Their lordships are keeping their opinion close to their chests. The words of one expert witness, Squadron-Leader Robert Burke, an acknowledged authority on the Chinook, started a rumour that the Lords were wavering towards the view that the crash was due to a technical error. Burke himself thinks they wanted to hear more because the MoD had submitted extra information on technical aspects of the aircraft after the deadline for evidence had passed, which in turn indicated that the military were rattled by the inquiry. Or so the Westminster rumour mill went.. .The families are now bracing themselves for a result, as convinced of their cause as the air chief marshal is of his. Their campaign slogan is that justice has no expiry date - but they have waited a long time. "You get used to hunkering down and not using too much energy in times like . .these," says Mike Tapper.

SECOND ARTICLE

This is not the first case in which the official military line has been called into question. Diplomatic Editor Trevor Royle looks back at the MoD’s dishonourable history of smears and deceit.

Like any other large organisation with thousands of employees, the Ministry of Defence is not without its share of inertia, back-stabbing, inefficiency and cover-ups. Vast sums are spent on equipment that sometimes fails to work. Budgets are allowed to rocket and political interference can lead to complications as civil servants and ministers take precedence over service personnel.

As one insider puts it. there is a tendency for the whole organisation to be overcome by "a heavy element of bureaucratic inertia". cock-up is common, he insists - but conspiracy is rare.. .Inter-service rivalry also abounds. It is not uncommon for senior officers to push the claims of their own services, even if efficiency is impaired, and in the army this can extend to unhealthy competitiveness between regiments and corps. In the spring of 1982 the colonels of the Welsh and Scots Guards lobbied hard for their regiments to be included in the task force to retake the Falkands, even though many military critics thought they were not “match fit" for winter warfare. At the same time the claims of the Queen's Own Highlanders, the regiment on standby for service overseas, were ignored.. .But because the work of the MoD concerns national security - the passengers on the RAF Chinook that crashed near the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 were drawn from the intelligence community in Northern Ireland - any suspected breach sends senior officers into overdrive. With a determination which is understandable, steps are taken to correct the problem and limit the damage, but this need to plug gaps can create further difficulties. "Once you get into security matters, common sense gets suspended," says the same source, who is familiar with cases similar to the Chinook inquiry, “People get excited because they’re into a secret and want to keep it to themselves. Conspiracy theories abound and it gets difficult to see the wood for the trees."

The recent case involving Nigel Wylde, a retired lieutenant-colonel, is frequently cited as an example of the MoD getting into all sorts of trouble because it starts something it cannot stop. Wylde was arrested in 1998 on five charges of leaking confidential information about military computer systems to the author Tony Gerrachty. Both men were seized simultaneously early in the morning by MoD police. Their papers and computers were confiscated and, although they were released on bail, their telephones were tapped and they had to endure constant surveillance.

The charges against the two men were absurd - information was freely available I about the Vengeful and Crucible computer surveillance Systems mentioned by Geraghty in his book The Irish War - but even though the MOD police appeared to have little or no evidence with which they could support the charge against the men under the 1989 Official Secrets Act, the case was pursued with relentless ferocity.

Eventually both cases were dropped, first Geraghty's and then - grudgingly - Wylde's, but not before both men had suffered financial loss and numerous indignities.

During the proceedings it became clear that Wylde had made enemies in the intelligence community, and there were suggestions that he was the target of senior officers who bore a grudge. In 1997, the year before he was arrested, he had led a team from a private computer company which investigated the army's computer-based communication and information systems in Northern Ireland - and its findings were damning. The system was labelled "a disgrace”; a finding which was not calculated to make Wylde the most popular retired soldier in the eyes of the top brass.

Inevitably, not all the case's facts are known - the MoD produced public interest immunity certificates to prevent their release. For future investigators, the probable outcome is that they will be airbrushed out of history.

That is what happened when two RAF Lincoln bombers strayed over the East German border in March 1953 and one was shot down by patrolling MIG 15 fighters. All seven crew were killed, four in the crash and three when their parachutes unaccountably failed to open.

The RAF insisted that the Lincolns were unarmed and had simply made a navigational error, but at the time was widely assumed that they had been on a spying mission - a suspicion that was nourished when ammunition was found at the wreck site.

Later, the crashed Lincoln disappeared - in more ways than one. Every RAF aircraft has an official photograph, but not this one. Equally conveniently, the relevant pages from the records regarding the incident have been lost.

In the worst cases, history can be rewritten to put the writers in a better light and denigrate those unable to defend themselves. The most notorious example was the decision taken by senior officers to blacken the name of Major-General Orde Wingate, the commander of the Chindit forces in Burma, when the official history of the second world war was written in the 1950s. Wingate was a brilliant soldier but a difficult man whose rudeness was famous and whose temper was legendary.

While raising his forces, who fought behind Japanese lines in Burma in 1943 and 1944, Wingate had made many enemies among senior officers in India. After he was killed in a plane crash in March 1944 they took their revenge. The official history was supposed to be an accurate and disinterested record of all operations in the second world war, but the leading author of the Burma volume, Major-General S Woodburn Kirby, redrafted the facts to put the Chindits and Wingate in a bad light and belittle their achievements. Kirby had been director of staff duties in Delhi and had clashed with Wingate: it was assumed he was biased, but nothing could be proved.

When Major-General Derek Tulloch, Wingate's second-in-command protested, he was threatened with arrest and imprisonment in the Tower of London. It was some 40 years before the true facts about the biased writing of the Burma volume of the official history were unearthed and published.

Trevor Royle is the author of Orde Wingate: Irregular Soldier (Phoenix, £14.99).

[misterploppy]

Cheers Bri. Agree wholeheartedly with ppruneprop. Let's hope Jauncey has some cahones and doesn't get overawed by the MoD into doing a Widgery.

Bitter experience tells me that the legal system is more than content to turn a very blind eye to senior miscreants in the MoD (presumably for the 'greater good' of 'National Security' and public confidence in 'our chaps').

However, everything's crossed and here's hoping.

[fantom]

ploppy thank you for all that.. .do not forget, you serving types, there are ex-types out here waiting, just waiting..... <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[FJJP]

Now that I’m out, I feel I can comment more freely without the fear of the plods knocking on my door.

Some years ago I was appointed President of a Board of Inquiry into a [non-fatal] accident. We had to work bloody hard to avoid finding the guys negligent [which we considered they weren’t], because of the way the Manual was written. Basically, if they were capable of conducting a safe take-off, which of course they were otherwise they would not be flying, and they crashed, then they had to be found negligent. Only the degree of negligence varied. We managed to find them excusably negligent because of the unusual [almost unique] technical failure.

The SASO didn’t like that, wanting to hang the guilty bastards, so he ordered me to re-convene with a new set of TORs. We flatly refused to change our verdict, and thankfully the Staish [a first rate man] gave us his unqualified backing. Nonetheless, the pilot ended up with a hats on bollocking by the AOC.

However, with the loss of crown immunity, [which happened not long after my Inquiry] the whole Annex of advice on findings was completely re-written, including the bit about not finding the dead negligent.

I have now signed the petition, and knowing just how unique some of these technical failures can be, I conclude that a transient technical failure was the most probable cause. I will never accept that these 2 professionals, knowing where they were geographically, could conceivably have become spatially so unaware in such a short timescale that they allowed the aircraft to fly into rock-filled IMC.

[POSIDRIVE]

I was on the SAR Squadron, although not on duty at the time the Chinook hit the Mull. One thing puzzled me then as it does now. What was the plan to get over the high ground with a cloudbase of 7-800 ft? Misterploppy a very interesting article but in terms of navigation what did these guys have? You say that one waypoint was the lighthouse on the Mull, well it wouldnt have commanded a turn because it never got there. If they were not spacially unaware with a suspected engine prob why didnt they do a 180? why werent they talking to Prestwick, would that have been SOP with the nature of the pax? Why didnt they get the SAR crew to give them a Radar Service?

[Tandemrotor]

POSIDRIVE

The best thing to do is acquaint yourself with the extensive amount of information available (quite a lot on the www)

But briefly:

1) There was no requirement to climb at all. The route could have been flown to Inverness along the Great Glen, 1-200' above sea level. Infact the restricted icing clearance of this 'improved' Mk2, made it unlikely the crew would have contemplated a premeditated IFR climb at all.

2) The crew were almost certainly using RNS252 Supertans as their prime means of navigation. You may recall this has a GPS feed, which according to the manufacturers Racal, and Trimble, was providing remarkably accurate information.

3) This piece of navigation equipment "never designed to record historical data" was used by senior officers as a rudimentary Data Recorder (They even had the cheek to refer to it as a 'black box' in front of the HoL committee! This suggested a change of selected waypoint from Wpt1 (MoK lighthouse) to Wpt2 (Corran). The change occuring less than 2nm from Wpt1. the subsequent displayed nav data commanded a left turn to Corran, at, and presumably - though we can't be certain, upto, the time of powerdown.

4) The Captain (non handling) made an unanswered radio call to Scottish Mil during the sea transit. I am unsure why the nature of the pax would have made a call to Prestwick SOP.

5) As far as getting a radar service from the SAR crew, this was planned as a VFR flight, so how would that have worked?

6) Spatial awareness, engine failures, this is all speculation/supposition. In the very finest traditions of the Royal Air Force, the test that has to be satisfied is that of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" before deceased aircrew can be found negligent. I can only presume that is due to the fact that they are no longer with us to give their version of events. A version which could be quite different to our limited understanding.

7) Here's hoping for a just result tomorrow. The families have said they will accept the result whatever it may be. I find it difficult to believe the MOD could take any further direct hits on this tragic saga without the whole sorry edifice crumbling around their ears. But then again!!

[ 04 February 2002: Message edited by: Tandemrotor ]</p>

[Yozzer]

TandemRotor said:

2) The crew were almost certainly using RNS252 Supertans as their prime means of navigation. You may recall this has a GPS feed, which according to the manufacturers Racal, and Trimble, was providing remarkably accurate information

GPS or not the 252 had a habit of going walkabout at the time, I know, I was a user. Notwithstanding that old cliche of ****e in = ****e out. "Remarkably accurate" maybe, without any error? I do not think so.

Yozzer. .I signed, and pray for the "right" outcome.

[IanSeager]

The determination and tenacity shown by all concerned in this campaign has been truly inspirational.

Good luck for tomorrow, although if there's any justice you wont need it.

[The Mistress]

Everything crossed for today.

Please, if there is a God, make it the RIGHT result.

[Tricky Woo]

Fingers crossed to all concerned today.

Let's hope that justice will out.

TW

[Low and Slow]

SKY NEWS:. .Crew cleared of Gross Negligence.

[newswatcher]

CLEARED!. . . ."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."

. . <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1800000/1800965.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1800000/1800965.stm</a>

See report:. . <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>

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

[IanSeager]

Brilliant! A great result.

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1800000/1800965.stm" target="_blank">BBC news report</a>

Ian

[Man-on-the-fence]

Havent time to post more than a link, but Bloody marvellous news,many congratulations to all involved.

:) :) :) :) :) :)

. .<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1800000/1800965.stm" target="_blank">Good News</a>

[PPRuNe Pop]

Just heard from Brian Dixon at the House of Lords.

Brilliant news! We have won!

Too much going on but the gist is that:

"Their Lordships (God bless 'em) reached the unanimous conclusion that the Air Marshalls were NOT just justified in reaching a conclusion of gross negilgence"

Watch this space for more.

A drink for the Jon and Rick now, and one for the families too. And one for those who fought so hard on their behalf.

GREAT NEWS!!!!!!!!

[henry crun]

Congratulations to all those who worked tirelessly for so long and never gave up.

A marvellous result.

[uncle peter]

best wishes to both families. mixed emotions at moment; elation for the victory but distinct sadness that it should never have come to this.

brian dixon, john nichol et al your spirit and determination in progressing this has been outstanding, well done.

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

[TL Thou]

Well done to all those who have fought and argued tirelessly for justice.

But the battle is not over yet.

TL Thou will be hoping that MoD will have the sense to respond positively to their Lordships' findings.

[Capt H Peacock]

Sincere congratulations to all those who never gave up on Jon Tapper and Richard Cook. This accident has always left a bad taste in the mouth. The way the findings of the board of enquiry were countermanded by that person whom we all know was wrong and is now finally rebutted. That person should be ashamed of himself, and I would hope to see a public apology.

A victory for the values and dignity of the RAF.

[fobotcso]

... and my congratulations too with great respect for those who fought the fight so tirelessly. Well Done!

And just what will MoD do now? So much harm has been done to some who are still serving. And who will be CAS? So many questions...

[Chocks Wahay]

At last! The result we all hoped for. Fantastic news.

A thousand thanks to everyone who supported the petition, rest assured that your support was much appreciated and made a difference.

[The Mistress]

Whoohoo!!!

Absolutely fantastic. A massive pat on the back to EVERYONE who has fought so hard.

It's a pity that anyone had to be put through this in the first place.

My thoughts are with the families. I hope there will be champagne corks popping in abundance.

[Big Green Arrow]

Top result!

Up yours Wrotten!....you arrogant arse

[cheapseat]

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[lightbob]

Excellent news - how long will the MoD be allowed to supress evidence and order people not to become involved. It is another matter to see just how much good grace and humility is shown by the MoD in their reply. I just hope that it is not the usual 'don't care, we were still right even though it is patently obvious that we weren't' effort to protect what is left of the reputations of those at the top.

[misterploppy]

Many congratulations and well done the families, Bri, John, Chocks et.al.

Surely the MoD will not try to brass this out.

[FJJP]

Congratulations to Brian - all your hard work has paid off. At last it is officially acknowledged what so many of us unswervingly believed - negligence could not be proved.

I know CAS - I believe him to be an honourable man. He will now re-open the Board and quash the findings.

Let those who died now rest in peace with honour.

FJJP

[MarkD]

Still battles to be fought, ananova reports Bliar reckons nothing has changed.

<a href="http://www.ananova.com/yournews/story/sm_513438.html" target="_blank">Ananova</a>

[swashplate]

Very pleased to Hear the Magnificent news. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

Wouldn't be suprised to see the MOD 'brass it out' <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> but IMHO they are cleared morally <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

Well done to Mr John Nichol, Mr Brian Dixon and everyone else!!!!!

[uncle peter]

adam ingram on sky news:

"its easy for the layman and politicians to exonerate them. the air marshalls were experts who carried out a thorough investigation which examined things (only they could understand). the HofL enquiry raises no new evidence."

intransigence leading to unaccountability. do you want to work for an organisation that doesnt have to explain anything to anybody?

...easy to dismiss considering the HofL select committee was only made up of the most prominent legal minds in the country. i'd much rather rely on 2 AM's with a vested interest in the outcome who mistook their opinion for fact:

"148. We consider that Sir John's conclusions on this matter 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."

taxi!!

[FlapsOne]

Excellent!!!!!!!

I think Wratten should come out of retirement............and then resign publically.

[ShyTorque]

Excellent news, thank goodness common sense has prevailed. :)

However, don't be surprised that MOD will still rebut the findings. There are big politics involved here, hence the original over-ruling of the board's verdict. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

John Day should now keep to his promise to do the honourable thing. I have a sword he could borrow...

[Per Ardua Ad Asda]

Excellent news!

Congratulations to all involved.

The Sun (big yellow thingy, not the paper...) came out today in acknowledgement.

I shall be raising a glass this evening....

. .---------------------------. .Per Ardua Ad Veritas

[Lew Ton]

Well done to all of you that have worked tirelessly on this campaign. Good news!

[Tricky Woo]

Great stuff.

TW

[TL Thou]

Sadly, despite public statements, it seems that MoD still think they were negligent, HoL Report was rubbish, and that Wratten and Day were right.

Oh dear. I think the Govt will say they have to study carefully today, wait for the fuss to die down, and then in a couple of months or so, probably Easter Weekend, announce that there is no new evidence and nothing will change, the verdict will stand.

Sorry to cast such a dampener. I can only think that intervention from No.10 will get them to think otherwise. <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[deeceethree]

Fantastic news!!!

......and may the perpetuators of this original travesty reap the whirlwind that they sowed.

[millhampost]

Bravo

[Broken Wings]

If the MOD had been responible at the start by installing a FDR & CVR this sorry saga would not have ended this way.

The House Of Lords have gone up in my estimation and irrespective of what the Governement/MOD decide Justice has finally been done of that there is no doubt whatsoever.

[newswatcher]

TL Thou is not wrong, extract from BBC news about 30 minutes ago:

"The Government has said it needs time to consider a report exonerating the pilots of an RAF helicopter which crashed killing 29 people. . .Armed forces minister Adam Ingram said the report from a House of Lords all-party select committee did not appear to offer new evidence.

----------------------------------------------. .Mr Ingram said the Government needed time to consider the report but he did not seem ready to overturn the verdicts.

"It does seem to me on first reading that it is covering the same ground with the same information. There is no new evidence and no new facts," he said.

"There is an onus on us to give weight to the arguments that are advanced. We have to give consideration to them."

The Armed Forces minister said that the report came to a different conclusion than the senior RAF officers.

------------------------------------------------. .The MoD made a limited comment on the findings which were published on Tuesday.

A spokesman said: "It is a complex issue and we will study the report in detail and make a response."

--------------------------------------------. .And the defence secretary at the time of the crash ,Sir Malcolm Rifkind, has urged on the government and the MoD to act on the House of Lords report.

Sir Malcolm, who has welcomed the findings, says the initial ruling accusing the pilots of gross negligence could no longer be sustained."

[BEagle]

Excellent news, Brian! Let's hope that the final conclusion to this sad affair will be equally favourable! Justice has no time limit!!

Shall be listening out for the crack of the mess Webley coming from the Cheltenham direction.......

[Wee Jock]

"The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine."

Top result.

[Busta]

Your number's up Curly Bill.

[slj]

Congratulations to all those who worked so hard and delight for the families.

Don't let Blair and his mates put a damper on the outcome. Paragraph 174 in the conclusion quoted earlier by Newswatcher

"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." is very difficult for even the spin doctors in the government to wriggle out of.

Whatever sour grapes the Ministry of Defence have, the result is a conclusive victory both legal and moral and it whilst it would be nice for them to accept the findings everyone now knows where the truth lies.

[Tir renrie]

I would like to offer my most heart felt congratulations to all those . .involved in getting this travesty over turned, . .BLOODY WELL DONE !!.. .I was having a bad day today untill i heard the news, iv been smiling ever since.. .I shall be raising a glass to you all in the pub tonight.. . :) :) :)

Dear Mr Blair and relevant cronies,. .Go on, for once in your lives pull your heads out of your @rses - . .AND DO THE RIGHT THING.. . <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

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

[fantom]

a good day indeed.. .as far as Wratten is concerned, not only the public apology but, as a starter, how about half pension as well? <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[uncle peter]

wonder if the soon to be ex-CAS elect will have the "moral courage" to formally apologise to the families?

pvr in lieu of apology would suffice.

[OldBonaMate]

Wonderful news! This outcome will be difficult to ignore, but no doubt there are some who will try.

"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." is very difficult for even the spin doctors in the government to wriggle out of.

This simple statement says its all. What a shame that it has taken almost 8 years and numerous additional inquires culminating in this HoL inquiry to reach what amounts to the same conclusion reached by the original BoI before their airships had their twopennorth!

Thank goodness for the House of Lords, how does Bliar and his cronies think that we can do without it. Be assured, without the HoL we wouldn’t be any further forward today than we were at any time in the last 8 years.

I too will raise a glass or two to the families, and to those who campaigned so tirelessly to achieve today’s outcome.

:) :) :)

[TL Thou]

On a note of amusement, fellow PPruners will have noticed that, with impeccable timing, dear old Buff Hoon is in Kabul today.

I dare say he was eager to get as far away as possible, given the roasting he was given when the PAC Report came out :)

Meanwhile the hapless Adam Ingot is taking the flak, fulfilling the role vacated by John "Medical Services" Spellar.

Cynical, moi? <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[Thomas coupling]

From the civil fraternity. Congratulations on pursuing the struggle to the bitter end.. .Congrats to the families most of all.. .Congrats to the remaining aircrew in the RAF who have had to live under this shadow for so long.

It's a shame you all still have to function under the auspices of two a*******s. May they slide ignominiously into early retirement soonest <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

Party all round methinks.

[Archimedes]

Forgive me for being slow in understanding this, but:. .'Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram said the Lords inquiry had covered the same ground as previous inquiries with the same information.

He said: "There is no new evidence and no new facts. What I would say is this: the report comes to a different conclusion than those senior RAF officers who had the onerous duty of examining the circumstances when they first arose." '

So - no new evidence, yet the Lords reached a different conclusion. Thus, evidence gives room for doubt. Lords, who may not have the practical experience of air or technical matters, but who have immense knowledge of the law (and thus meaning of regulations) decided that this doubt was sufficient (or more than sufficient, I suspect), under the wording of the regulations to mean that gross negligence could not be attributed.

Am I right so far?

If so,'twould appear that the MoD, if it is intent on upholding the original verdict, is asking us to believe that:

a) There is no room for doubt, even though there was no new evidence and a different conclusion was reached (which suggests that the matter was not as open and shut as they wish us to believe)

b) Their Lordships, who have a considerable amount of legal knowledge behind them are less well-qualified to interpret the wording than the two senior officers who, presumably, have not spent a lifetime engaged in legal practice.

c) That the average person on the Clapham omnibus (with military knowledge limited to the fact that the MoD buys rifles that don't work) is going to believe that, despite three (or is it four now?) rather learned bodies telling the MoD that it's wrong, the MoD is right? I think not...

Time to demand the Crichel Down precedent, I think: the minister must resign, since although he had no knowledge of the mishandling of the situation, the buck most definitely stops with him. Wonder if that would get Mr Hoon thinking about over-ruling his minions?

[Flatus Veteranus]

Warmest congratulations to Brian, John and all others who have campaigned with such resolution.

Funny thing, but immediately the BOI findings were published my wife shouted "Gross injustice!" I said "Oh come on, when a pilot flies an aircraft into a stuffed fog-bank, there has to be a strong presumption that his finger was in". That was before I discovered that the standard of proof in the case of a dead pilot had been raised from balance-of-probability, in my day, to absolute certainty. Without a surviving witness to events on the flight deck, or CVR/ADR, the current standard cannot be achieved. So negligence cannot be found.. .The way ahead raises interesting constitutional questions. CAS, or the AFB, or indeed Buff Hoon cannot "instruct" C-in-C Strike to do anything specific; they only issue broad directives. The C-in-C is responsible to HM the Queen (remember the chain of command for redresses?). Our dear Tone, with his famously sensitive antenna for the public mood, has only to write to the Palace suggesting to Queenie that she ought to convey her uneasiness over the BOI findings to AOC-in-C Strike and instruct him to delete the comments of the Reviewing Officers from the Proceedings. And then she might write letters of sympathy and regret to the next-of-kin of the pilots. Endex! Would this be too sensible an outcome with faces saved all round?

[1.3VStall]

To Brian, John and everyone else who has worked so tirelessly and selflessly for so long, congratulations and a heartfelt thank you for what you have achieved.

To the families, may you sleep peacefully tonight for the first time in many years.

To Day and Wratten, you now have one final opportunity to do something honourable - seize it!

[BEagle]

I regret to state that I consider the discovery of porcine aviation to be more likely than the chance of MoD rolling over on this! But clear and unequivocable statements have been made by learned Lords; a minister in The Other Place has no qualification to challenge their Lordships conclusions.

Is there any precedent for stripping knighthoods..........

[John Nichol]

Well, what a day!

I'm not ashamed to say that I came over all emotional when I stood in the HofL and read the Lord's conclusions. I know that Mike Tapper and John Cook are more than grateful for all of the support that they have received over the last 7 3/4 (yup, that long!) years.

I managed to get into the MOD's unofficial (and very "off the record") briefing this afternoon and I can tell you that their position remains unchanged. They gave the same brief to the journos as they gave at the HofL saying that the "facts" proved that the pilots were to blame.

When I asked for clarification on a number of these "facts" it all got a bit tense and the MOD press briefing was called to an ignominious end - they simply were not prepared to be challenged on the facts.

Worst of all, I'm sad to report that the RAF is being shown in a very bad light with some MOD "sources" now casting aspertions on the character and skills of both pilots.

Though we have finally won the battle, I suspect the war is far from over. Never underestimate the arrogance of Senior Officers.

[Jackonicko]

I'm profoundly suspicious about all this. Where are Blair's famous political instincts? Why is the Government sticking to the 'No new evidence therefore no need to change our minds' line? Surely this can't just be the usual New Labour arrogance and refusal to accept criticism or dissent?

Why doesn't he sell Day and Wratten down the river? What has he to gain by this kind of response?

How can Ingram seriously go on camera to defend the expertise of the 'Air Marshals' and their conclusion above the conclusions reached by every other inquest or inquiry so far?

Is this HofL finding really such a victory? Will it make any difference to what the MoD eventually concludes?

Could it be that they will say "We're looking at it again" and then formally announce that 'everything stands' on a day when some major NHS story ensures that this will be buried and will attract no press attention?

[Brian Dixon]

Blimey, a few of us swan off to London for the day and the thread goes mad!!

Seriously, thank you to everyone for their comments and support. I'm going to raise a glass or two tonight and get back on the campaign tomorrow. Hope nobody minds!

The only comment I really want to say today is this:. ."Rest in peace my friends".

See you all tomorrow!. .Best wishes and many, many thanks.. .Regards. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[FJJP]

Flatus, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The C-in-C is not answerable to HM but to the CAS. The CAS can (and I hope, will) call for a review into the findings. He can dismiss the findings of the 2 AMs - there is nothing in the regs that says the C-in-C has the final word. Although unprecedented, the CAS (or,indeed the AFB) can put the Board to rest. However, I suspect that there is more to this affair than meets the eye - a number of very senior Civil Servants and Military men must be getting a tadge worried right now about the possibility of deep questions being asked about the introduction of this aircraft into service...

[cheapseat]

First-rate!

Whilst pleased at the outcome I’m not at all surprised by the apparent arrogance being displayed by the MOD.

The simple fact that two Air Ranks have sold the whole of the senior staff of the MOD and, more importantly, successive ministers a kipper of large proportions is the umbrella these two Gentlemen always knew they could stand under. There is just one ray of hope on this and that is if the whole affair is now seen for what it is; two politicians in uniform thinking they are so senior that they are above all in the UK. Maybe that will be the final outcome of today, some form of REAL accountability for our senior officers. Maybe as much effort will be put into checking their performance and failings as is put, rightly, into ours.

Oh I nearly forgot. Just to underline the size of the fish caught on this hook:

From CW:

"Handwritten notes by the prime minister, Tony Blair, denying that there is new evidence about the 1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash, are in direct conflict with the House of Lords select committee report.

Blair's note to the relative of one of those who died in the crash rejects the need for a new inquiry into the accident and says, "I have looked into this personally. I know my conclusion will disappoint you but I wanted to set out the reasons in detail.""

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

[misterploppy]

The official response from he who would not recognise a principle if it bit him on the @rse:

"We're waiting to see if the **** hits the fan. If the media forget about this in a couple of days we'll just ignore the Jauncey Committee report."

Or, to be fair to the man, the official version from the No 10 Lobby Brief <a href="http://www.number10.gov.uk" target="_blank">http://www.number10.gov.uk</a> , see if you think it's any different from the succinct precis above!

. .LOBBY BRIEFING: 11AM TUESDAY 5 FEBRUARY 2002

CHINOOK REPORT

Asked if the Government would issue an official response to the House of Lords Committee report on the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre, the PMOS said that the MoD had only received the report within the last hour or so. They would make a more substantial response later this afternoon. We recognised that this was an issue which had attracted a huge amount of scrutiny and a significant number of inquiries in the past.

However, we were not aware that today's report provided any new evidence as to what might have happened. The Committee had reach their conclusions based on the evidence in front of them. Everyone understood that the detailed, technical, legal airmanship issues were very complex.

Obviously we would want to study the report in detail and give a full response to it. He drew journalists' attention to the MoD's original conclusions regarding the accident. The 'no doubt whatsoever', which was the standard of proof that the reviewing officers - namely Air Chief Marshal Sir John Day and Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratton - had reached, was obviously of a very high standard. In their professional judgement, that standard had been met.

The Board of Inquiry rules at the time had required, in the case of an accident attributed to negligence, a decision to be reached as to whether it had been the result of minor negligence, gross negligence or recklessness. An assessment had been made that this case was the result of gross negligence. It had been their duty to reach an honest verdict based on the evidence, which they had done. The Lords Committee report had been published today and we would look carefully at its conclusions.

Put to him that our agreement to look at this new report sounded as though it was just a formality and that we had already made up our minds about it, the PMOS disagreed. We had said we would study the report in detail and give a full response. Equally, it was important to set out exactly how the MoD had reached their own conclusions and on what basis, citing the high standard of proof reached by the two Air Chief Marshals.

Questioned about the 'no doubt whatsoever' conclusion that had been reached in the MoD's report, the PMOS said we accepted that the Lords report was a detailed piece of work which required scrutiny. We would consider the conclusions very carefully. However, he was simply making the point that in reaching the conclusions which the two reviewing officers had reached, they would obviously have had to make an assessment in their professional judgement as to whether the necessary standard of proof existed. In order to make that decision they would have had to be pretty confident that the proof was there.

Questioned as to whether we were taking the position we were taking because one of the Air Chief Marshals was now the head of Strike Command and that having his judgement questioned would obviously be very embarrassing for him, the PMOS said no. In reaching the decision the two had reached, it was clear they had made judgements according to their professional expertise, which was considerable. However, the fact that one of the Air Chief Marshals was head of Strike Command did not materially alter the judgement that had been reached. Asked whether more compensation would be payable to the families of the victims as a result of the report, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware."

[MrBernoulli]

The persistence of some very dedicated people has paid off! Hats off and 3 cheers!

I can't help feeling that the position of certain 'others' is now untenable. Will they resign? They bloody well should!

[HectorusRex]

A truly memorable victory for the underdog, and for truth over arrogance, duplicity and obfuscation.. .There really must now be some serious re-thinking about the fitness for command of some of those who were originally responsible for the tasking and operation of the Chinook Mk2, and a total condemnation of the two accusing "Air Blimps". .Well done Brian and his team.. ."Never before in the field...........". .HectorusRex

[grundog]

Congratuations to one and all, finally the day we have been waiting for has arrived.

As JN mentioned, the important battle has been won. I just pray the war will not take another 8 years to end.

I also hope the RAF has learnt a valuable lesson on the introduction of frontline aircraft and will never have to re-invent this particular wheel. One can but hope...

RTFI

[fantom]

did I write 'half pension'?. .AL1: how about no pension....... <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[Gen. Bombdabastards]

Congratulations to all who faught so hard to see justice prevail. John Cook is right! Best wishes to the families, amy the boys rest in peace.

[Tigs]

Heartfelt thanks to Brian, John and all those who have been so resolute in ensuring that Justice was done.

It may not all be over, time will tell. Day, you should seriously consider gardening for a career now, you may still be offered the job of CAS, but just think of all of your 52000 men , and women, Smiling at you when you talk to them, and calling you a t****r the minute you have turned your back! Leadership needs credibility, and you will never have any of that as long as you wear a blue uniform.

[basing]

well done Brian

[newswatcher]

For anyone who might wonder why Bill Wratten is the subject of such negative comment, you may like to see this statement which was published in June 2000. I had not read it before yesterday. The word "blinkered" springs to mind. See what you think.

<a href="http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/chinookreport.html" target="_blank">http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/chinookreport.html</A> . . <img src="redface.gif" border="0"> <img src="redface.gif" border="0"> <img src="redface.gif" border="0">

[pulse1]

Listening to the Air Force Minister last night I had this awful feeling of déja vu as he said there was "no new evidence". I was particularly astonished to hear him comparing the "quality of judgement" of the MoD compared to that of the 5 enquiries so far.

To look at quality judgement applied to one piece of new evidence - that of the speed of the Chinook before it entered IMC.

It seems to me that the crux of Wratten's argument is based on the "fact" that it was going too fast for the conditions. How do we compare the quality of that judgement to that of Mr Holbrook who, in new evidence, stated that he thought it was going slower than normal as if it was engaged in SAR. I'm sure Mr Holbrook would not claim to be an expert in assessing aircraft speed but at least he actually saw it. Wratten's "high quality" judgement seems to be based only on the Boeing simulation and there is now new evidence which puts this into question.

In the face of such arrogance it seems to me that those of us who have actively campaigned for justice may still have a lot of work to do - letters to MP's again etc. If we need to add names and addresses to the petition in order to get it recognised at No 10, I for one would be happy to do so.

Congratulations to those who have worked so hard to achieve so much in the face of such difficulties. In particular I would like to pay tribute to Brian whose calm, positive and helpful approach has been an inspiration.

[PPRuNe Pop]

Yet another example of Wratten's extreme arrogance.

He may look back at those words and wonder why he uttered them. What he should now do is look at the comments of the inquiry, and that goes for that idiot who made the comments on behalf of the MoD and the Minister of Defence yesterday, and then digest them very very carefully. It's NOT about NEW evidence, though there was some that was previously rejected. It is about DOUBT.

[quote]It is not our role to determine the likely cause of this accident, and indeed on the evidence which we have heard and read it would be impossible to do so. We are nevertheless satisfied, on the evidence before us and against the standard of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", that the Air Marshals were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots of ZD 576 caused the crash.<hr></blockquote>

That comment from their Lordships, all legal eagles in their own right, have stated what was blatantly obvious at the time Wratten made his outrageous decision.

"A Commander never shirks his responsibilities" is, in my view, indicative of a man trying to prove why he made his crass decision. Not of a man who should have seen the doubt that existed then, as it does now.

The outstanding feature of Wratten's lack of confidence is the "crawling" he did to those who might back him up before the report was published.

Finally, "the man he doth protest too much" seems to fit him rather well.

And, Day. Take note. You should do the decent thing and resign NOW!! Does that sound like am angry? You betcha!

[moggie]

Fantastic day for the families and friends of two good aviators who were scapegoated by the weasels at the top. OK - off the fence now and say what I really believe!

Seriously, the news brought tears to my eyes as we are all there but for the grace of god. surely now it is time for some heads to roll.

But on another tack, maybe we can now try to look at what REALLY happened. This accident was an apalling event in which 29 people lost their lives. Their airships took the easy route of balming the pilots when they should really have been looking at:

1)What was wrong with the Chinooks Mk2. .2)How the aircraft came to be below ground level . .3)Why so many important people were on one aircraft. .4)Why a chopper was being used instead of the (normally) safer fixed wing option. .5)What lessons could be learned

It's the same mentality as cops fitting up a murder suspect - OK you get a conviction, but the REAL killer is still out there, waiting to strike again.

My admiriation goes out to all those who fought long and hard to get this result. well done one and all.

RIP at last John and Rick.

[newswatcher]

...and pulse1, as para 70

70. Mr Holbrook explained to us that he had repeatedly but unsuccessfully asked to see photographs of a Chinook at different heights and ranges, in order the better to estimate the height and speed of the aircraft when he saw it. He clearly felt that he would have been in a better position to assist the Board had he been furnished with such information. We do not know why the Board did not accede to his request or afford him the opportunity of seeing a Chinook in flight.



<img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[uncle peter]

I would like to express my admiration for "witness A", anonymity presumably being granted due to either special forces reasons or more likely that he is still a serving member.

The lords admittedly placed great weight on his testimony.

with the lengths these 2 (1 ex) shameful excuses for the term "officer" will go to, i am truly astounded that he gave evidence. i hope i would be able to do the same in that position.

top marks.

[uncle peter]

percy,

you are obviously entitled to your opinion, yet posting such inflammatory remarks on this thread renders you liable for a verbal shoeing.

the cause of the crash cannot be positively determined, therefore there is DOUBT as to what caused it. the RAF required satisfaction of a standard of proof where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

5 enquiries exonerated the pilots from blame. the most recent being composed of the finest legal brains in the country, yet the MoD prefer the "professional" view of 2 halfwits as to whether the legal burden is satisfied.

what is wrong with this picture?

bait elsewhere.

[attackattackattack]

The response of MOD convinces me that we should maintain the pressure.

Those that feel the need to do so might use the excellent facility at <a href="http://www.faxyourmp.com" target="_blank">Fax Your MP.com</a>. This is free and offers a direct connection to your representative in the House of Commons.

At the risk of being too pushy I attach the text of my message to my MP (who is a right wing Tory representing a constiuency with a substantial miltary connection). You may wish to use some or all of it in your fax:

Re: The House of Lord's enquiry into the crash of the Chinook on the Mull of Kintyre.

The recent report from the HoL enquiry into the crash of Chinook ZD576 exonerates the pilots from the accusation of gross negligence. I’m sure that you’ll agree that this accords with any sense of natural justice and is entirely in keeping with the facts (or lack thereof) of the case.

To date responses the from MOD have been wholly unrepentant in tone. There would appear to be a continuing desire to support the entirely unjustified views of messieurs Day and Wratton that there is no doubt about the original cause of the accident. These views being held despite the original findings of the service Board of Enquiry into the accident which stated that he cause of the accident cannot be categorically decided.

May I request that you, as the member for a constituency with a proud and substantial military connection, raise the matter of MOD’s unwillingness to respond appropriately to both the evidence, and the findings of a number of highly qualified enquiries. In addition may I request that you do your utmost to fight the suggestions that AVM Day be promoted to head the Royal Air Force.

There are a number of deeper issues related to this whole matter that should also be discussed in open forum. The introduction of the Chinook Mk II to service was laden with decisions of political expediency rather than operational safety. Both Day and Wratton had influential roles in the introduction of an aircraft that neither the operating crews in Northern Ireland nor the test pilots at Boscombe Down trusted.

It would be very sad if the reputations of two excellent pilots and the feelings of their families continued to be sacrificed for the benefit of two extremely arrogant men.

Yours faithfully

[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">

[misterploppy]

Uncle Pete & H&H

I wouldn't get overly concerned about Percy. I see he's an insurance salesman from Cheltenham.

I wonder if he has a serpentine, bald customer in College Road?

Presumably queenie Wratten isn't arrogant enough not to require insurance sevices. But then...

[Jackonicko]

PercyDragon: Astonished at your reaction. Are you not aware that Day and Wratten overturned the verdict of the properly constituted MoD enquiry? Shouldn't we refer to the existing verdict (being supported by Blair and Labour) as being that of Wratten and Day, rather than masking it with the bogus respectability of being the MoD's verdict (or worse still, inferring that it's the RAF's verdict?)

How do you justify your position on this, I'm genuinely curious?

[PPRuNe Pop]

PercyDragon Post.

I deleted his post here, because he had already posted it on the Chinook thread on R&N. Putting the same post on other threads is normally frowned upon. I am sure if he wishes to answer here I am sure he will do so.

He hasn't on the other thread yet though!

. .PPRuNe Pop. .Administrator. .[EMAIL}[email protected][/EMAIL]

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

[Brian Dixon]

Hi everyone,. .I think I'm now in a position to think a little more clearly (Yes, I know there's a first for everything!).

You all seem to have grasped this anyway, but I would invite everyone to write / fax their MPs to specifically ask them to contact Blair to demand that he overturn the verdict. Why write to him (especially as overseas mail is more expensive)? Downing Street will have to acknowledge the post and will probably pass the enquiry down to the MoD. So you bother two departments for the price of one!!

The MoD are prepared to take some stick for the next few days and then hope that we will all shut up and go away. We must not do that.

We have done our bit for the families. Let us all now do the last bit for Rick and Jon.

To the MoD - You say there is no new evidence. Yep! You're absolutely right. We have said that all along too. However, the 'factual' evidence you have based the condemnation on is ... er ...not actually fact is it? This rather blows a large hole in your argument. Their Lordships summed up your argument in just two words 'Not so'. There seems little else to add.

By the way, I looked both 'dignity' and 'integrity' up in the dictionary last night. In both cases it said - 'See Messrs John Cook and Mike Tapper'. I suggest you look and learn.

I further suggest you do the honourable and correct thing. And do it soon. Rest assured, if you take another 8 years I will still be here!

Percy - thanks for your views. I happen to disagree with you.

I'm sure I have said thank you to everyone, but I'll say it again. Your support has kept everyone going and we are all extremely grateful.

Please keep the pressure on and write to your MP.

Very best wishes to you all. .Regards. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Brian, you get my vote.

To those who are still sceptical, remember that the burden is now on the MOD to prove 'guilt', not the families to prove innocence.

[BOAC]

Would just like to say,(having experience of boards of enquiry) a heartfelt 'well done' to all those who have worked so tirelessly to arrive at this momentous finding. There remains now the task of changing the MOD position and I am certain that the effort will not diminish.

[snafu]

Brian, John and everyone involved in the campaign....F***ING WELL DONE! :) (I know it's cheesy, but I can't put it any other way.)

I do just have one minor question though....am I just being cynical or did the government announce plans for a really controversial issue at about the same time that the HoL inquiry was announced? It certainly pushed the Chinook findings down the running order on the news and, funny old thing, there's almost nothing in the news about the ID card scheme 24 hours later!! Still, it was nice to see Newsnight leading with the Chinook inquiry; the only disappointment was not seeing Jeremy Paxman having another go at William Wratten. Now that would have made good TV!!!!

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

[Chocks Wahay]

BOAC You're absolutely right - we have undoubtedly won a huge victory here, but we're not there yet. We're tremendously encouraged by the House of Lords report, and by the support we have received here and elsewhere.

The petition on the website will carry on until the RAF accept that Jon and Rick are innocent of Gross Negligence - if there's anyone who hasn't signed yet please do. All we need is an email to [email protected] stating your name. Under no account will any email addresses be divulged. For those current and former military personnel you may include details of rank if you wish, but it is entirely your decision to do so. Non military personnel are equally welcome to sign the petition.

As Brian says above, we need to make as much noise as possible to make sure that this issue does not go away. We are all committed to seeing this through until the end.

Messrs Wratten & Day - we are not going to go away!

[bussy]

Well done to everyone who took part in the campaign makes a change to see the minows overturn such a crass finding in the first place

[HectorusRex]

The"luddite" views of Percy Dragon, Seriph, and Neo, along with the intrangience of Wrotten/Day are paralleled by the actions of the well known General Haig who oversaw the slaughter of untold thousands of troops entrusted to his care in World War One. It is apparent that history does not teach people lessons, unless they are willing to learn.. .It was a very simple decision given by the eminent legal counsel constituting the House of Lords Committee, so why do this group find it so hard to understand that they got it wrong?. .The onerous responsibility of "higher command" surely must include the facility to realise a mistake was made, and to have the strength of character to admit such a mistake, and to correct the wrongdoing that resulted. . .HectorusRex

[1.3VStall]

Atackattackattack,

Thanks for that link, it worked well.

I have faxed my MP asking him to urge Bliar to personally ensure that the MoD formally and publicy reopens the BoI and overturns the Day/Wratten verdict. We shall win!

Brian et al, well done again

[TL Thou]

Brian Dixon et al.

I think you need to go beyond MP letter writing....hoping I am not teaching granny to suck eggs here, but you guys need to get together a delegation of cross party *senior* MPs/Lords to go and see Buff/Blair and go reason with them face to face...you need to make sure said meeting is highly publicised - remember how this Govt. works! May be you guys have done this before, but even if you have, do it again!

As Brian says, the pressure needs to be kept up, or there is a danger they will just slip out on a quiet Friday their backing of Wratten and Day and that will be the end of it.

Apologies to all if the above is thought to be STFO. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

[uncle peter]

its not going to go away...

Mr. Martin O'Neill (Ochil): When my right hon. Friend is preparing his in-flight reading for the next couple of days, would he care to take with him the report on the Chinook crash? I hope that he will look, in particular, at paragraph 174, in which Lord Jauncey and his colleagues unanimously come to the conclusion that . ."the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash."

I realise that the primary response to that will be from the Ministry of Defence, but will the Prime Minister accept that many of us, who have sympathy with the Department in a variety of ways, feel that the Gordian knot of self-interest that surrounds the Department on this issue must be cut through? We look to my right hon. Friend for a better, clearer and fairer understanding of a complex issue that has been dealt with by some of the most distinguished jurists in the other place. They have come up with a conclusion that drives a coach and horses through the views of the—

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is obviously right to say that this is a complex issue, although I hope that he would also acknowledge that those who conducted the original inquiry are wise and celebrated people as well, and experts in that particular area. Obviously, we have to study the report, and we shall do that. We shall study its complex technical detail and give a proper response in due course.

"I hope that he would also acknowledge that those who conducted the original inquiry are wise and celebrated people as well, and experts in that particular area"

in deciding what is effectively a point of law -more-so than a law lord, several QC's and a member of the RAes?

comparing the credibility and qualifications of Wrotten and Day with those of the HofL Select Committee is almost laughable.

[Megaton]

Letter in today's Telegraph (Debt of honour):

<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/Content/displayPopup.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/02/07/dt0705.xml&site=15" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/Content/displayPopup.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/02/07/dt0705.xml&site=15</a>

Well said, Sir.

[chippy63]

Attack X 3

Excellent link to fax MP, very user friendly, hope everyone does it. FaxYourMp.com to save anyone having to refer back.

More generally, in the face of no 10 and MoD intransigence, is there a human rights angle to pursue? That is, the families of F/Lts Cook and Tapper should get redress for the suffering caused to them by what has been shown by the HoL to be faulty judgment by senior RAF officers, backed by the political "leadership"?

I may well be wrong, but I recall reading somewhere that immunity from litigation doesn't work in the EU arena.

Just a thought.

Great result anyway, very best wishes to all concerned, and let's not forget Lord Chalfont's role.

[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: chippy63 ]</p>

[PPRuNe Pop]

Attack!

Thanks for putting the link up to fax your MP. It works! I've done it and it was dead simple.

OK guys and girls you can do the same.

I'll even put the link up again <a href="http://www.FaxYourMP.com" target="_blank"> HERE </a>

Do get in touch and get them to add their weight.

[pulse1]

I'm afraid it came up with the wrong MP for me. But, what the hell, I faxed the wrong one and then sent it to the correct one as well. Two for the price of one. (1 x con, 1 x libdem)

[Kiting for Boys]

Well done to all.

The Martin O'Neill asking the question is my MP, so not a complete waste of space then.

He's just got a fax too. Excellent Link - FaxYourMP.com.

[TL Thou]

And ANOTHER thing (am I on a roll today or what?) there is a defence debate in the House of Commons on Thursday 14 February.

Most MPs will be looking to push off for half term rather than debate HM Forces (bless 'em), but if you contact your MP, ask them to speak in the debate and call for the pilots to be cleared.

If they are lazy say you will write the speech for them. It only needs to be a short contribution! :)

[PercyDragon]

misterploppy

Sure, insurnace is one of the many areas that I get involved in. Having accumulated just over 8000 hours flying various machines in exotic parts of the world I thought, (but also 300 odd in N:Ireland, as a matter of interest) around 15 years ago, that the time was ripe for a change (so how many hours do you have sonny?).

jackonicko.

Look, let us view this whole sorry episode from another direction. Just supposing that there had been an accident involving a bus. With 29 passengers. And this bus had been seen to have been speeding along a country road in very poor weather. The driver was known to be a competant and resposible driver. The bus then approaches a sharp corner and, from the tyre makrs is seen to have baked hard, but sadly is unable to negotitate the corner and it comes off the road, explodes and resulst in the death of everyone on board.

Now, it could possibly have been argued that the accelerator pedal had jambed, along with the brakes, just at the moment that the vehicle had approached the corner. But I think that you will agree that the overwhelming evidence would support the view that the driver had neen negligent in approaching the corner (which he knew to be ahead of him) too fast.

[pulse1]

PD,

Here we go again. Please give your solid evidence that the Chinook was going too fast.

[uncle peter]

PD RTF-report.

so you have a wealth of flying experience. does it make you a legal expert?

the crux of this issue is the satisfaction of the standard of proof required by the RAF of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". there is massive doubt as to the cause of the accident. further evidence adduced before the HofL select committee corroborated this.

if you are truly interested in obtaining sufficient information so that you may formulate a valid opinion, please refer to a Tort textbook to acquaint yourself with the requirements of proving negligence, especially gross negligence.

i won't bore you with the details, but please bear in mind the HofL select committee consisted of the finest legal and technical brains in the country.

your analogy is strikingly similar to that proposed by day during his oral evidence.hmmmmm.

and by the way, although i personally think your opinion lacks credibility, you wouldn't do yourself any harm by checking your spooling every now and then.

[Hot 'n' High]

pulse1 - Poor old PercyD! Despite his 8000 hours blah, blah, blah, he seems quite unable to get his mind round the simple fact that no-one has ever tried to deny that the accident MAY have been due to negligence. Alas, I expect we will never know. The whole issue is one of "burden of proof". Until there is absolutely no doubt, you cannot attach "Negligence" to the Aircrew involved. So far, five investigations have now suggested that "doubt" exists in bucket-fulls! I, and others far, far more learned and eminent than myself, think the Acid Test has failed. But poor old Percy can't quite figure that one out. And with all those hours under his belt too! Sad really. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: Hot 'n' High ]</p>

[pulse1]

[ 08 February 2002: Message edited by: pulse1 ]</p>

[BEagle]

8000+ hours? Well he can't be 'William-of-unmarried-parents' then!

If you were the grieving relative of someone killed in the accident, you could perhaps ask the MoD a couple of questions:

1. Why was civilian Public Transport being carried out in an aircraft which did not (and still does not) comply with the relevant Public Transport requirements when alternative aircraft were available? Was this an operationally essential flight for which this transport helicopter was the only feasible mode of transport able to convey such high value passengers to their destination?

2. If the test team who were attempting to bring the Chinook 2 into service, as well as those who flew it, had any reservations concerning the airworthiness of the accident aircraft whatsoever, as evidence would seem to indicate was quite certainly the case, please produce evidence proving beyond any doubt whatsoever that the aircraft was, in fact, fully airworthy.

If these questions cannot be answered to the entire satisfaction of the legal teams representing the relatives of those killed, then MoD could perhaps stand accused guilty of contributory negligence in permitting this flight to take place. And could ipso facto be sued for very substantial damages. But if MoD could prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the crew were 'grossly negligent' and that the reported concerns about airworthiness were nihil ad rem, then the relatives could only claim against the vastly more modest estate of those held guilty, rather than that of the Crown??

My cynical personal view is that any verdict other than 'gross negligence' might render MoD liable to substantial claims for damages from the relatives of the deceased - and that's the sole reason for the continuing reluctance to correct the Accident Report findings to 'Cause - Not Positively Determined'.

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

[HectorusRex]

Percy Dragon,

Deleted to leave PercyDragon in isolation!. .--------------------------------------------------. .HectorusRex

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

[1.3VStall]

PercyD,

Your spelling and grammar show that you verge on illiteracy. This, coupled with the facts that you sell insurance and have chosen to join this thread after the fat lady has sung, make your comments and opinions not just worthless, but extremely tiresome.

Be a good chap and bu**er off would you?

[misterploppy]

Percy, old chap.

At my age it's always pleasant to be addressed as a mere youth.

However, your propensity for missing the point appears to be unbounded. The point of my post was not to denigrate your current profession nor to enter into a puerile "Who's got the biggest log book? Competition."

I was merely taking a tongue in cheek dig at your location, its proximity to our favourite martinet and the possibility that you may not be an entirely disinterested party. (c.f. Irony - you're not American are you?)

[ShyTorque]

I am so glad that finally the bull$hit behind the vindictive and spiteful AM's over-ruling of their own Board of Inquiry has come seeping to the surface.

In my opinion, the day that Mr. Wratten really lost it was the day he tried to discredit the president of the BoI (a rotary man through and through, I know, I served with him) by stating that he was a relatively inexperienced officer, etc. If so, why was he appointed to head such a high profile board?

Mr. Wratten, albeit of senior rank, of NIL helicopter experience or qualification, that was...

There are many questions still unanswered. This was, after all, if ever there was one, an accident precipitated by poor management and it still smells of whitewash. The Mk2 appears to have bypassed the normal MOD rules for release to service (for political reasons?) and those responsible for this are surely responsible, at least in part, for this tragic accident and the large loss of life that resulted.

The last person to witness the fated aircraft disagreed that it was flying fast, I understand he thought it may have been involved in a SAR due to its slow speed. I believe he also disputed that the aircraft was flying in IMC and he has complained bitterly that his evidence was not recorded correctly.

As far as FADEC glitches go, I have experienced a number of them on two very different types of aircraft. More often than not FADEC faults do seem to disappear without trace once the battery is switched off and then on. My most recent occurred on the ground, with the engine reacting independently of any pilot input and could not be shut down by the normal method. Quite alarming, even on the ground.

There was EVIDENCE in the wreckage that there may have been an intercom failure at some late stage. This MAY have been critical, bearing in mind that the non-handling pilot was responsible for navigation and there had been previously reported inaccuracies of the TANS nav system on this particular airframe, giving cross-track position errors. Using the evidence gathered it is possible to come up with a number of alternative scenarios, none of them involving negligence on the part of the crew.

Then again, there MAY have been negligence on the part of the crew. Knowing them both and having taught one of them to fly, I doubt it. SF crews did not just get there by default, they were chosen by ability. But then I can say that because I am not looking out to save my own career....

<img src="frown.gif" border="0">

[slj]

Looking through the transcript of Wratten being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman the following exchange brought a wry smile

PAXMAN; Why did your own investigating officers then not feel that they were sufficiently confident there was no doubt whatsoever? . .SIR WILLIAM WRATTEN:. .These are young officers whose experience does not match that of their senior commanders, which is why there are senior commanders, charged to discharge that particular responsibility. .PAXMAN; There have been now three inquiries into the causes of this crash. Two of them have concluded that there isn't sufficient evidence to say there was no doubt whatsoever the pilots were at fault. There is another one in which, as I say, the initial investigating officers also felt that. It came down to you and your colleagues. . .SIR WILLIAM WRATTEN:. .That was our responsibility to reach a conclusion on these matters. The other two investigations you quote, the PAC's and the Scottish fatal accident inquiry, rejected the option of calling my colleagues and I to give them evidence. And one has to ask why they pursued such a course of action. . .PAXMAN:. .It doesn't make them invalid because they failed to call a particular witness who thought he ought to have been called. . .SIR WILLIAM WRATTEN:. .Well, to my mind, they are entirely invalid for that very reason. I have not had the opportunity to explain to them precisely why I reached the conclusions I did, nor have I had the chance to invite them to explain their analysis of the essential elements of evidence which are in front of them. . .PAXMAN:. .Sir William, I suggest to you that is a position of some arrogance.

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1050000/1050467.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1050000/1050467.stm</a>

If the PAC and Scottish inquiry were invalid because they had the temerity not to invite Wratten to give evidence, the fact that he was invited to the Lords select committee suggests he accepts their findings as valid.

Percy

Do take the time to read the conclusion to the Lords report. I intended to quote from it to you but found that every paragraph had something that showed how flawed the mindset of these two men.

Take particular notice of what the Lords say about the test of negligence. This has been stated in many of the postings but you owe it to yourself to read and think about what is contained in the Lords conclusion.

[Tandemrotor]

Percy Dragon

I don't feel the need to denigrate your contributions on this thread. I also recall, that you are more familiar with this case than has been recently apparent. So don't think that non of us can accept any counter arguments.

Incidentally, I am also reminded of the old chestnut - "it doesn't matter how many hours you have in your logbook, only the next one's important!", but I digress.

The HoL report focused, very precisely, on what has ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, been at the very heart of this issue; That is the standard of proof required to find deceased aircrew negligent. As you are only too well aware, it is not "balance of probability," it isn't even, "beyond reasonable doubt." You know what it is.

This seems to me to be in keeping with the very finest traditions of the Royal Air Force, based on the simple fact that those most affected by such a judgement are, tragically, unable to tell us their version of events, and should, quite rightly, be given the benefit of any lingering doubts.

Talking of doubts, your analogy (as was Wratten's) is of very limited use. However, I am intrigued to hear what you think is the exact equivalent in this case of your tyre marks in the road. Because, as I understand it there is no such equivalent fact (Steady on, I've just used Day's favourite four letter word beginning with 'f'! - someone should show him a dictionary!)

[ShyTorque]

slj,

You might be wasting your breath on PercyDragon. I just looked back into the Military Archive. His first forum posting on Page 6 of the "Chinook - Hit Back Here" topic makes interesting reading.

He hasn't changed his mind.

Sad that an aviator can denounce his fellows in such a way, though.

Well done Jackonicko for your part in keeping this in the public eye despite PD's insults.

ShyT <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[Rats Naks]

Dear all, and Percy!!

Firstly, the Fax your MP site works very well - spread the word and keep up the pressure.

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

[Rats Naks]

Sven,

Thank you, possibly, and I will try - promise.

[fobotcso]

How sad it makes me to see this once dignified thread sink to the level of those such as was started by Admin Guru.

Previous dissenters to the cause stated their case with restraint and retired; the present truculent "percydragon" does not have the wit to see that he will win no friends here and continues to provoke a barbed exchange.

Please would it be too much to ask that every one who joined in the slanging delete their posts since PD said his piece after the HoL result. That would leave PD's posts standing alone to be the objects of derision.

Brian Dixon, my great respects. Still work ahead; Courage! (said with a French accent).

Only 8000? Must have quit early.

[OldBonaMate]

Done!

[Rats Naks]

Fobotcso,

Done, deleted. You are right and I am wrong, sorry.

[Arkroyal]

Well,

What a time to pick to be out of the country. I was so very elated to find out the great news on Tuesday, but not surprised to encounter Ingram trotting out the tired old MoD mantra of 'No new evidence'

For the love of God, Ingram and everyone else, 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 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."

I am now frustrated and so, so bl**dy angry, I'm up at this hour writing again to the people who have been able so far to fob me off. My MP says it doesn't affect any of his constituents, so it's not his problem. Is he not supposed to be the representative of my views in the HoC? Letters to Bliar and Hoon find their way to the same minion in the MoD without troubling those whose lofty office means they can ignore me. Stand by for more letters. How can these supposedly clever men continue to be so deliberately obtuse? We will be heard.

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.

[HectorusRex]

From Computer Weekly.. .<a href="http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner?REQUNIQ=1013147874&REQSESS=n79V992X&REQHOST=site1&2131REQEVENT=&CFLAV=1&CCAT=-99999&CCHAN=-99999&CARTI=109779" target="_blank">http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner?REQUNIQ=1013147874&REQSESS=n79V992X&REQHOST=site1&2131REQEVENT=&CFLAV=1&CCAT=-99999&CCHAN=-99999&CARTI=109779</a>. .Prime minister must act as MoD defies the Lords on Chinook . .by Daniel Thomas . .Thursday 7 February 2002 . . . .The Government is facing mounting pressure to overturn the Ministry of Defence's verdict of gross negligence against the pilots of Chinook ZD576, following this week's historic House of Lords report which exonerated the men.

Both MPs and the parents of RAF flight lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook welcomed the Select Committee report's findings and urged the Government to quash the original MoD verdict.

"The families of those who died have waited a very long time for this report," said Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman. "Now the Select Committee has found that the verdict of the Board of Inquiry is flawed, the Government's duty is clear - it should accept the report, and the finding of negligence should be quashed."

Conservative party chairman David Davis was equally insistent. "The prime minister really has to sort this out, do the honourable thing, reinstate the reputation of these pilots and make their families and everybody else involved feel that justice has been done," he said.

John Cook, father of one of the pilots, said, "We have known right from the start that there was no evidence to support the accusation of gross negligence and we hope the Government will now catch up quickly."

However, a MoD spokeswoman refused to accept the report's conclusions.

"'No doubt whatsoever' is a very high standard of proof. The senior officers who reviewed the case, the air marshals and the MoD are satisfied that that standard was met," she said. "We stand by the conclusions of the inquiry and the review officers, which were based on the evidence available to them.''

Former Tory defence minister Lord Chalfont was horrified at the MoD's reaction. "I am delighted at this verdict but I am horrified to hear that the MoD has suggested that it will ignore the committee's findings,'' he said.

Les Hatton, a safety-critical software expert said, "The worrying thing is the lack of accountability of the MoD, which has behaved appallingly throughout the episode."

Mike Tapper, father of pilot Jonathan, echoed Chalfont's views. "In my more charitable mood I am thinking that the MoD is trying to buy time because it knows its position is unsustainable," he said. . . . .HectorusRex

[Daifly]

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

DO IT!!

Mine's a Conservative Front Bench Spokesman of Home Affairs - hopefully that'll help.

------------------------------------------------

To: Mr Humfrey Malins. .MP for Woking . .House Of Commons . .London . .SW1A 1AA

Friday 8 February 2002

Dear Mr Malins,

I write following the recent ruling by the House of Lords over the inquiry into the crash of the RAF Chinook on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994.

I am fortunate enough to have a friend who was an officer in the Intelligence Corps for many years, serving the majority of his career in Northern Ireland. On the flight in question he had many friends and colleagues who lost their lives in the accident. He is of the opinion, as am I, that the ruling is entirely correct and just.

I quote from the AP3207 RAF Manual of Flight Safety (Ch.8, Ap.G, Pg.9) 'Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent'. Despite the result of the MoD Board of Inquiry being that there was insufficient evidence to find the pilots negligent, and in the face of mounting evidence that there were inconsistencies with both the navigational equipment and the computerised engine management system on the, at that time, new Chinook HC2 the Reviwing Officers (ACM Sir William Wratten and AM Sir John Day) both decided that there was no doubt whatsoever that both pilots were guilty of negligence. That is where the problem hinges, this is about proportioning blame with absolute certainty - something which, in the face of the evidence available, cannot be done.

May I ask a few things of you please:

a) You write to the Prime Minister to ask that the findings of the Reviewing Officers be overruled.. .b) You raise this matter at Defence Questions on Thursday, 14th February.. .c) Air Marshall, now Air Chief Marshall, Sir John Day, is likely to be appointed as Chief of the Air Staff. I feel, and it is felt keenly in the miliary aviation arena, that such an appointment in the face of this ruling would be most unhelpful and positively damaging to the command structure of the Royal Air Force. I would ask you to consider this view and deal with it as you see fit.

Whilst there will always be doubt as to the exact cause of the accident, it is unfair and unjust to both the pilots, their families and friends to find them negligent when the evidence available suggests that this cannot be made with 100% certainty.

Should you wish to find our the depth of feeling on this issue, two websites offer good information, 'http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=002220&p=' and 'http://www.chinook-justice.org'

Thank you very much for your time,

Best regards,

Daifly.

[TL Thou]

Ark Royal - your MP is a chump. Who is it?

He/She should be duty bound to convey your representations to MoD Ministers, even if it is not a 'constituency issue'. They are elected to represent you, that is what they are supposed to be there for. This one obviously needs to be reminded.

Even if he/she writes to the Minister enclosing your letter and just saying "comments please" they will get a nice reply back from the Minister, which will have to respond to the points you make. . . <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[Archimedes]

Ark Royal,

TL's right. Who is the waste of space?

You are one of his/her constituents and if you've raised the matter with him/her it effects you - whether the effect be mild interest or utter outrage on your part, said MP is duty-bound to do something.

Suggest that if MP refuses to mend ways you send letter to party leader asking him to investigate, since you regret to tell him that your MP can't be bothered (and you won't be bothered to vote for that MP again, cc'd to the MP.

[vascodegama]

The breathtaking arrogance of their airships in this matter is yet another reason there is an seeming lack of faith in our leaders. Perhaps one way for this matter to come to a head would be for the relatives of the dead pilots to sue those who were so confident of their verdicts.

[Brian Dixon]

Hi everyone,. .thanks again for keeping this going.

Ark, write to your MP. They will have to reply - even if you get another 'I can't be bothered' reply. Forward your original letter and that of the reply to the party HQ stating that this is the attitude of one of their own. Tell them this attitude is why no one is interested in politics anymore.

Just a thought (yes, I get the occasional one or two). Can the findings of their Lordships be submitted to the MoD as new evidence? I have a letter signed by John Spellar (remember him?), dated 1 September 1999. The last paragraph of his letter, written on MoD headed paper, saying this:

"You asked whether the Department will consider re-opening the Inquiry. This could only happen would be if new evidence emerged which cast doubt on the integrity of the RAF's original findings. We remain ready to look at any new evidence or new arguments. However, nothing has emerged since the Inquiry that would cause us to doubt the conclusions that were reached at that time.". .(The unusual grammar is his, not mine)

Point 1 - Something new has emerged since this letter was written.. .Point 2 - It is the findings of the Lords Select Committee.. .Point 3 - It doubts the integrity of the findings of the RAF's original findings.

MoD - You now have no option. It is here in writing. Do the correct and honourable thing. And do it quickly.

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

[Brian Dixon]

Sorry, forgot to add to the above.. .Geof Hoon was out of the country at the time their Lordships published their findings.

Some of you may like to let him know the result. I know I did :)

Contact him via:. [email protected]

I'm sure he'll be grateful.

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

[K52]

Percy does seem to have got on the wrong side of people - but he does have a valid point of view; even if most contributors disagree with him. Incidentally, what right (bearing in mind that this thread does NOT have a Moderator), does PPruNe Pop have to delete (or threaten to delete) Percy’s posts? Voltaire put it far better than I ever could!!!!

The Captain of the fateful flight (in his capacity as Detachment Commander) decided, on receiving the tasking for the 2nd of June, that one crew would do both the tasks to preserve the “one day on- one day off” rota system. The problem with that decision is that the “Crew Duty Day” was 14 hours of which 7 hours was flying time. The flying time was extendable to 8 hours by the Duty Authorising Officer BUT any further extension would have to be authorised by SRAFONI. An extension to 8 hrs was agreed by the Duty Auth.

As the BOI clearly states, the allocated times for the tasks were 6 ½ hrs for the in-theatre task and 3 hrs for the task to Scotland (total 9 ½ hrs) therefore a request to SRAFONI for an extension would appear to have been (at least) prudent. The BOI decided that a maximum of 1 hr could be shaved off the NI task but, in the event, the task took 5hrs 35mins. At no time had the Aircraft Captain (and Detachment Commander) approached SRAFONI for an extension of Crew Duty Time or even raised the possibility that it may be required.

When they departed Aldergrove on the fatal flight no member of the Crew had taken a proper meal for (approx.) 10 hours (in the Captain’s case it may have been 22 hours as the BOI “was unable to ascertain” that he had taken breakfast as required by ASI’s; although they were able to tell us that he had taken Dinner at 1910 the previous night); yet they were being committed to a further 4 hrs (approx.) duty time which involved an further extension of crew duty flying time that had not been requested or granted.

Nobody knows to this day whether the intention was to return to Aldergrove or to remain in Scotland overnight. No accommodation had been booked and the Captain had not even taken the F 700 (so how did he intend to record refuelling & servicing?). The only thing one can definitely state is that no permission had been requested from HQNI for the aircraft to night stop out of Theatre. If the intention was to return to Aldergrove then the crew had the further problem of possibly exceeding the overall crew duty hours limitation.

In this context it is interesting that the BOI does not give a time for “Crew in” but only for “Crew Brief”. My experience is that it is difficult to have a brief until one has checked the data i.e. “Crew Brief” takes place sometime after “Crew in”. One then has to ask when the “Crew Duty day” started.

I note that the Yachtsman (Mr Holroyd) vehemently contests the interpretation put on his evidence to the BOI and that the evidence he gave to the FAI (and the HOL) differed markedly from that which he gave to the BOI. I also note that another person was on board the yacht (something that was not mentioned by the BOI). I wonder if his/her opinion of the weather conditions (and the speed of the aircraft) has changed as dramatically as that of Mr Holroyd. Before people leap up and down may I point out that the evidence given to the BOI by Mr Holroyd was taken on oath and that he signed the witness statement as a true record of his evidence.

One must also take into account the evidence given to the FAI by the RN Exchange Officer that HE had planned the Task and it was a copy of the map that HE had prepared that was left in Ops. One wonders how, in the light of this evidence, the BOI was able to definitely state “ as Flt Lt T had carried out the flight planning for this sortie, including calculating the Safety Altitude for each leg, he would have been familiar with the intended route.” Were the BOI told that the chart was prepared by someone else? Moreover, when was the chart handed to the crew doing the task?

Finally, I would say that the requirement (so often repeated here) that there be “ Absolutely no doubt ” is almost impossible to achieve. If that were the criteria then there would never be a single criminal conviction in this country. The criteria for any criminal conviction is “BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”

I have little doubt that this seemingly innocuous, but contentious, phrase was inserted in the Manual without any reference to legal advice.

Percy - You can field the brickbats from this one. I’m going back to France.

PS Given that both Pilots were Captains and that Lt K was the Captain of the other crew - was this normal for the detachmrnt or was it just because a crew changeover was taking place?

[Daifly]

K52 - I'm not going to get into the argument on who has what rights to do what on this BB. Although the forum is not moderated, surely it is logical that moderators from other forums can remove offensive language, or statements. If you're that concerned with free speech, become a moderator - then you can be in charge of what's on the board or not.

You set out your arguments regarding the flight clearly and concisely, but you rather remove your argument in nearly the last paragraph:

"Finally, I would say that the requirement (so often repeated here) that there be “ Absolutely no doubt ” is almost impossible to achieve. If that were the criteria then there would never be a single criminal conviction in this country. The criteria for any criminal conviction is “BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”

No, there probably wasn't any legal consultation over what went into the manual, but it is there and at the time this was the level that the Air Marshalls had to agree upon. Throughout your post you make mention of "suggestion", such as meals and accommodation - any judge would stop you in your tracks over that one, hard fact is what we need to deal with and in this case there is none that supports the verdict of negligence.

Nobody, either for or against the Air Ranks views, could sit back and say that they know with 100% certainty that the cause was not pilot error, however what it under scrutiny is the fact that the Air Ranks felt they could make such a judgement based upon evidence which brought into question the reliability of the aircraft in question.

Two statements:

"Innocent until PROVEN guilty" and. ."There but for the grace of God"

It will never be known what happened in that aircraft in the final few moments of flight and Wrattan and Day fall into the same bracket as the rest of us humans, they do not know either. Read the report of the HoL, there must be something in it that would make even you stop and think "well no, maybe that's not beyond doubt".

(Edited for bad spellink)

[ 09 February 2002: Message edited by: Daifly ]</p>

[PPRuNe Pop]

K52.

Your comments are noted. However, just to put straight your mis-conception, I have a function to remove offensive posts, blatant swearing, duplicate posts, in fact anything under the policy that Danny has laid down. All of which you and everyone agrees to when you register.

PercyDragon duplicated his post here after first putting it on the new Chinook thread in R&N. I removed it here and retained it on R&N. I also noted that he would, no doubt, answer - and he did.

The 'generally' accepted view that the Mil Forum goes unhindered remains. So long as it is accepted that it is not above being moderated when certain lines have been crossed.

Hope that clears things up for you. Just enjoy.

PPRuNe Pop. .Administrator. . [email protected]

[Brian Dixon]

Hi K52. Welcome back to the thread. I tried e-mailing you earlier in the year to wish you Happy New Year, but had the message returned. So please accept this as your late good wishes!

As usual, you present a well reasoned argument. However, I would respectfully remind you that a criminal court uses 'Beyond all reasonable doubt'. The Air Marshals were not presiding over a criminal court. The military rules in place at the time of the accident were for 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever'. I'm sorry if you feel that this rule is unachievable, but that was what was in place at the time. The Air Marshals failed to achieve this level of proof so the verdict must not stand. Simplistic, I know, but that is the whole basis of this campaign.

I am, of course, happy that we can agree to disagree. Please drop me a line if you wish.

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

[Arkroyal]

K52

Welcome back to the fray. For new joiners who may be tempted to beleive K52 ramblings, pleas go to the original thread in archives, where each one of his theories was dismantled until he retired across the channel.

Brian has it right. If the RAF had wanted to judge people to a burdon of 'beyond reasonable doubt' then that's what they would have done. Usually this would have included giving the defendant a chance to put his side of the story.

It's just because there will be no-one to defend dead pilots that the higher criteria of 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' quite rightly applied to deceased aircrew.

The HoL's overturning of the finding must be made to stick. Where would we be if the original judge in a criminal trial was able to disregard the court of appeal and the ultimate court, the House of Lords?

MP again picturised along with Bliar and Buff.

[HectorusRex]

I note with interest that K52 has returned to the fray.. .It seemed curious that he had been absent for so long that I searched the archives and found what appears to be his first post on this topic appeared on 8/1/01. .<a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=000333&p=37" target="_blank">http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=000333&p=37</a>. .He appeared then, as now, to be particulary obtuse in failing to grasp the entire thrust of why the Air Blimps got it wrong.. .I'm sure he, Ark Royal and Brian can provide some more jousting to come!. .HectorusRex

[opso]

Brian,

I see what you say about the MoD having to do the right thing based on the idiot Spellar's comments, but I think that from that particular passage they still have an 'out' and are left in the state that they should do the right thing, rather than having to.

[quote] "You asked whether the Department will consider re-opening the Inquiry. This could only happen would be if new evidence emerged which cast doubt on the integrity of the RAF's original findings. We remain ready to look at any new evidence or new arguments. However, nothing has emerged since the Inquiry that would cause us to doubt the conclusions that were reached at that time.". . <hr></blockquote>

The HoL findings, along with the other non-RAF enquiries, have found against the BOI result based on the criteria required to reach the currently standing result. However, the Spellar quote only claims that the MoD will re-examine the case for new evidence or new arguments. To the best of my knowledge (and I stand to be corrected if wrong) the findings of other enquiries, even the HoL one, are neither new evidence nor new arguments since Spellar's time. In fact, the argument against the BOI findings has been consistant for many years now.

Whilst I believe that the MoD should re-examine the case (and finally make the correct judgement) I also believe that for the sake of CAS-elect (spit) they will point out that they are maintaining Spellar's line if it gets raised in public again. It is also with a heavy heart that I suspect that the case will not be re-opened for 5+ years until CAS-elect is the ex-CAS. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[Tigs]

It seems that in the short term there is nothing else for it. Lets pick a day, down tools and all go to number 10, everyone else does it! Most of us who believe in this would need kahoenas (sp?)the size of Jupiter, but it would make the press, and may force a more positive response from MOD in line with the HOL findings. Its the only chance to stop Day becoming the main man! Just an Idea!!

[ 10 February 2002: Message edited by: Tigs ]</p>

[FJJP]

Just my luck! There is no link to my MP via faxyourmp.com. Never mind - I've written to him anyway with 'URGENT' plastered all over the envelope.

Daifly - like your letter. Hope you don't mind, but I plagerised chunks of it for my submission.

I reiterate what I said on a previous post. CAS can overturn the findings of the 2 AMs, but I suspect he won't be allowed to. The can of worms that would be opened regarding the introduction of the ac into service would be an enormous embarassment to central gov.

Well done Brian. Let's keep up the pressure to remove this stain from an otherwise fine Force.

[fobotcso]

K52, it wasn't Voltaire. Check it out.

[Gen. Bombdabastards]

Typical, My MP does not want his fax number publically known, so I'm sending my letter by snail mail.

[ORAC]

Fobotcso. Actually, he did.

You, presumably, are referring to the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it''.

Which, indeed, was not written by Voltaire, but appeared in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre.

Hall herself, however, claimed that she had been paraphrasing Voltaire's words in his Essay on Tolerance: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.''

On the basis of what he actually wrote, therefore, K52 is correct. Voltaire was the originator of the concept, Hall just paraphrased it into a more well known saying - which K52 did not use.

[ 10 February 2002: Message edited by: ORAC ]</p>

[Daifly]

FJJP - thanks, plagiarise away! If it means that the flawed judgement of the Air Rankers (that's Rankers) is reviewed then I'd gladly write an individual letter for everyone on this Board.

[Qwin T Senshall]

This is like watching a train smash in slow motion.

There will be, inevitably, enormous damage. Not just to the Royal Air Force, already irrevocably disgraced, but to the Ministry of Defence and even to the constitution of the United Kingdom. Why so? Because the MoD and these Air Marshals are openly in defiance of the House of Lords and, consequently, the people of this nation.

And some of us people are getting really very angry about this!. . . .In my opinion, the cases of the two Chinook pilots are settled. They are in the opinions of the original Board of Inquiry, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, most contributors to the PPRuNe Military Aviation Bulletin Board and, most importantly (I believe) their professional colleagues, completely free of blame. On the contrary, they are admired as exceptional aircrew who displayed moral and physical courage of a high order that ordinary humans merely aspire to emulate.

There are still, however, unresolved issues to be addressed. There is great restraint in the reactions of contributors to this BB - possibly deference of serving and retired aviators to men of high rank. However, they are not above the law and they are not above the people. They have shown contempt for both - the time for pussy footing is over - let us 'cry havoc and let loose...'

It is notable that those who seek to defend Wratten and Day's irrational and unintelligent arguments invariably attempt to introduce new 'facts' into the argument. It can be observed that officers and officials who seek to advance themselves beyond their ability frequently complicate matters by introducing more and more issues of diminishing relevance to illustrate their grasp of 'the bigger picture'. In my day in the crew room we called it bull****.

The mark of intelligent and educated people is that they can make simplicity out of complexity and construct taxonomy of relevance. The MoD is notable in its frequent failure to do these things. In my day in the crew room we expressed it as 'a sound grip of the non-essentials'.

Contributors to the forum have mentioned analogies to bus crashes and, most recently, a pathetically weak attempt to focus on crew duty times. Please spare us these feeble minded ruses - it is like arguing with a 9 year old child who is just in a very bad mood.

Wratten and Day’s conduct portrays them as imbeciles and intellectually unfit for the posts they have held and that they aspire to. If Day becomes CAS, hundreds of retired aviator Dads will advise their kids to 'go civvy'. Retention problem?

They could have just 'let it lie' and all would have carried on as before with the ratio of Air Marshals to squadrons growing steadily greater. They would have enjoyed long retirements with remunerative 'consultancies' paying for their elegant homes and 'civilised' lifestyles. This is all part of the corrupt system of deferred reward that so many senior officers enjoy after being helpful to defence contractors.

Instead of preserving the status quo, Wratten has chosen to defame two officers who showed 'Above the Average' skills and exemplary moral and physical courage. What a low down betrayal of two fine young men! How consistent with the thug and bully many of us who served with or under him perceived him to be.

This is symptomatic of the one way loyalty flow that creates a coterie of self seeking, networking, falsely charming senior officers who look over your shoulder at a cocktail party in order not to miss the chance to engage with someone more useful. It is clear to some of us that Johnnie produced the result that Curly Bill would approve of and that that result encouraged the latter to produce a finding that was as illogical as it was spiteful. The continued defence of this act of stupidity compounds the men's perfidy and raises questions about their psychology.

On reading the HoL report, it stands out like a dogs bollocks that this was not a complex tragedy at all. In order to do what Wratten and Day allege, those brave young fellows would have had to be very daft, suicidally determined to flout the rules or out of their heads on mind altering substances - both pilots and one crewman at the same time! If any one of these was the case, the Royal Air Force is very much more seriously deficient of responsible adults than even some of us old geezers think.

Some of us who know Wratten for what he is do not share his high self regard. He is an extremely arrogant ex-fighter pilot who cannot stand to be disagreed with and who was frequently vicious in his treatment of those who crossed him. His most vile contempt and retribution is reserved for those who are proven to be right. He has been unfair and harsh with subordinates in the past and has got away with it - he, no doubt, would cite ‘high standards’. Some of us have seen him perform with not quite such high standards. No man is a paragon and no doubt he is a better airman than I ever was. But he is not as perfect as he seems to believe and he has no excuse for his disloyal treatment of our fallen comrades. He is a disgrace who should surrender his knighthoods and apologise to the Royal Air Force; the Red Arrows will re-equip with pigs before he does, I would wager.

It might even be suggested that his conduct has been prejudicial to the good order of the service; a Summary of Evidence might be made. Which part of Retention Problem might be directly attributable to the widespread distaste for this odious conduct of these martinets? This is the nadir in the history of a service which has grown heroes and inspired admiration in millions. A Royal Air Force that I wanted to join since early childhood, that allowed me to join in ecstasy as a callow boy and that I was so sad to leave that I wept.

The intransigent arrogance of Wratten and Day has also exposed the perfidious nature of the MoD - an organisation that consistently manages to create chaos out of order and makes technical blunders in the great majority of its equipment acquisition programmes. This is not my opinion - it is documented in decades of reports by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office stretching back to the First World War and before. Using the threadbare cloak of 'Official Secrets', it covers up gross mismanagement. It promotes its 'players' into positions to make biased judgements on their own previous stupidities. It re-invents itself in cycles that always end in failure. It wastes millions of pounds of our money and produces little of use other than wryly amusing acronyms. Its officials make decisions on technical matters for which they have no knowledge or training but who are trusted because of their history and classics Firsts from ancient colleges. Scientists and engineers are little more plentiful in Whitehall than is rocking horse **** .

The MoD will continue to obfuscate, dither and hold ‘briefings’ whilst Mr Hoon makes up his mind (i.e. asks Mr Blair) how to spin it. When all that is needed is for honourable adults to stand up, hold up their hands and say ‘We do not know and we are unlikely to ever know’. Just as our noble Lords have found but which findings have been held in contempt by MoD and these two officers.

There are also the issues that they have been attempting to divert attention from. How could the Royal Air Force contrive to such numb skull, amateurish, stupidity as to endanger such important passengers when so many safer alternatives were available? The British Army has a term for the serendipitous events that sometimes hand them advantage over the Irish terrorists - the Paddy Factor. I bet Adams' henchmen have an Air Marshal Factor!

Serious questions should also be asked about the management of the acquisition of a helicopter without proper documentation and serious engineering deficiencies. Answers will be given to such questions on completion of the first Red Arrows porcine display!

In abolishing the rank of Marshal of the Royal Air Force, the service has lost the steadying guidance of old men of great experience and integrity whose prime objective was the good of the service. They would have seen ambitious men striving for office at the expense of good order and quietly advised against such promotions.

In this era of moral shock, is it not time that we weed out the self centred oafs and clowns who infest the 'upper' echelons of our society with their sleight of hand corruption? We, the people, know that conspiracies can be built without recorded words. The whole tawdry machine works by the 'skills' of cunning people who anticipate the wishes of their masters and 'make it so'. Passports are issued to those who might not otherwise receive them not because ministers order it but because they make clear that they would be pleased to see such a thing. For their officials to do otherwise would be 'a career limiting move'. To 'go with the flow' establishes a reputation as 'a safe pair of hands'. Ambition for personal advancement is a cancer that eats our society voraciously but is perceived as a virtue in so many quarters. Our nation should be run by honest and plain people who are competent at their job, work a decent day for a decent pay and knock off in time to deal with the real stuff of life - to enjoy it with the ones we love.

Finally, I am moved to a comment from a television programme of such vulgarity that I am rarely able to endure it. However, it just seems the perfect phrase - moral courage, my arse!

[uncle peter]

here here. excellent post.

[Susan Phoenix]

I am staggered by just how much activity there has been here whilst I was driving slowly home from the H.o.l. press day. So glad that I did not pass K52 (he's not my neighbour I hope?)on an autoroute!!It may have caused an international incident - sadly I still do not have the dignity of Mike Tapper and John Cook, so rightly reported by you Brian.(Thanks for all your hard work by the way, including rescuing lost people at the Hol)). .So - Percy D had a "valid point of view! eh K52 ? Only if he were a dray horse (maybe he is) and you postulate that the pilots were tired and hungry so they all flew into a hill in spite of the assistance of their highly qualified air load masters too? Perhaps when you are next having a cosy chat with P.D.you could remind him that buses or even luxury coaches do not have 4 specially trained crew members and if they happen to crash at speed, killing a lot of passengers(even less precious ones than my husband) they have enquiries with all the facts displayed. We have had 5 separate enquiries/committees now and "facts" have only slowly evolved as various very brave people became free to share their knowledge safe from MOD gags.. .But before I go off to write and fax Hoon, Blair and anyone else I can think of to recommend the acceptance of this wonderfully clear report- I must record from my notes at the 1996 Sheriff's FAI in Paisley for K52's benefit - Sq Ldr Stangroom the O.C. of 230 sqdn at the time was duty flight commander on June 2ns '94 and he reported to the Sheriff that John Tapper had discussed with him his options if he needed to extend his flying time but he felt that he would complete the task without needing to contact SRAFONI.That is one conversation we do know about in which John was showing his usual careful pre-planning.We also know that he was familiar with the Mull of Kintyre because he had landed actually on the H there shortly before the crash - this was reported to me by the lighthouse keepers when I visited the crash site 3 days after the accident.. .And Mark Holbrook (the yachtsman - not Holroyd!)was a VERY credible witness who did not "drastically" change his statement after struggling with the Crown services to be allowed to give evidence - he was not only a yachtsman but a technically trained man who wanted help to be as accurate as possible in his observations - this help he was denied by the MOD. sound familiar?. .Finally ( sorry to go on- but it is probably my last posting )I can't remember who raised the compensation issue, but I think that I stated in an earlier posting that all of the passengers families did indeed sue for 3 long years for compensation for the death of our loved ones, only because we were about to be treated like second class citizens and fobbed off by the Crown services.I still have an intercepted memo between **** saying that we were a pretty submissive bunch in N.I. and would probably accept the statutory blanket compensation (ceiling £100.000)offered as a routine to all civilian air passengers on civilian flights in the event of a fatal crash - seemingly it is written on the civy ticket - story went that the RUC had "hired" the RAf to transport those specialists to their conference. Again some bright civil servant had obviously thought that this was a great way to save the government cash (and maybe earn themselves an MBE)which is ofcourse why all of those "high value passengers" Beagle, were being transported on the wretched substandard piece of kit in the first place.. .Please keep up the pressure as you have done so well in the past, so that those 2 families who can hardly have begun to grieve can get on with their lives. They are fine people who deserve their son's names cleared once and for all.

[Qwin T Senshall]

Susan

As I have suggested earlier - most of us know. .the pilots to be innocent.

There are probably no more than a handful of people in the world who think otherwise.

They are not wise to continue to defend their foolishness. Indeed they do damage to themselves, to the Royal Air Force and our nation.

With great respect. .Qwin

[ScopeDope]

Qwin T Senshall,

Can I just say that was a most memorable and first class post.

So much of what you say can apply to all civilian companies I have worked for and dealt with since I left the RAF some 14 years ago.

I would have been proud to call you 'Boss'

ScopeDope

[ 10 February 2002: Message edited by: ScopeDope ]</p>

[Qwin T Senshall]

ScopeDope

Thanks mate - nice to get some support.

Cheers

Qwin

[Susan Phoenix]

Sorry Qwin,did not see your superbly erudite posting before I added my simple comments aimed at the petty minds. Excellent stuff - no more to be said.Thankyou.

[ACM Biggles]

Qwin T Senshall

Quote:

“Most of us know the pilots to be innocent”

End Quote

. .Unfortunately, like so many other posts on this forum, it is as biased and blinkered a view as Day and Wratten finding the pilots Grossly Negligent. (Opposite ends of the spectrum)!

Unless you are omnipotent and know something we don’t the cause of this accident will “NEVER” be positively determined.

The House of Lords have reached the correct judgement and the sooner this is accepted the better.

However, despite wishing the opposite, doubt will always remain over the cause of this tragic accident, which resulted in the death of so many good people.

Now is the time for the Government to do the honourable thing and accept the House of Lords Judgement and bring this matter to it’s long overdue conclusion.

[Qwin T Senshall]

ACM Biggles

Is it not the case that they are innocent. .unless or until they are proven otherwise?

And the burden of proof issue does not need repetition.

With respect sir

Qwin

[ACM Biggles]

Qwin T Senshall

If it were a court case you would be correct.

“Innocent until proven guilty” - a worthy and noble sentiment.

As with the majority of people who knew the pilots involved I would like to believe that 2 professional and experienced aviators would never be the victims of a CFIT accident.

However, we will never know for sure. As an ex-military aviator you know as well as the rest of us that things can go from Sunshine to s-h-i-t in a blink of an eye. I’m glad you survived yours - <a href="http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=002491&p=1" target="_blank">http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=002491&p=1</a>

I am not a Lawyer (thank God), and I am not trying to argue from a legal standpoint. In fact, regardless of all the arguments whether they are legal, technical or human factors related. I am basically stating the hard fact of life.

Cause Group: NPD

Sadly we will never know for sure!!!

[fobotcso]

ORAC, thank you for your well researched treatise. We all know what K52 thought he was referring to and he was wrong (as he was/is on the subject of the thread). But this is not the place to debate the question in depth.

[ 10 February 2002: Message edited by: fobotcso ]</p>

[Qwin T Senshall]

ACM Biggles

Thank you for your courteous reply. Yes - on all points raised, I agree.

The occasion you referred to with URL was one of several - including a UCM at very low level in a fixed wing ac which was never diagnosed.

Also, we all know of more than one occasion when ac and colleagues have been lost without explanation.

It can happen in less than a heartbeat - which as. .another aviator said elsewhere is a very short time when one is that scared.

This is why the burden of proof was raised and why. .I am still so involved. We have all lost many good friends over the years and we must respect their memories. I am sure that is a sentiment. .which binds as all despite the spectrum of views. .shared on this BB.

Best regards

Qwin

[Tigs]

Qwin and Susan

Inspirational posts, thanks! Wish I could write like that.

PS anybody up for my sugestion on page 15??

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

[John Nichol]

The debate rages on in the Times today:. ._________________

Difficulties of Chinook crash verdict. .From Lord Jacobs . . . .Sir, A House of Lords committee has unanimously concluded the two RAF officers were wrongly convicted of negligence when the Chinook helicopter crashed on June 2, 1994 (report, February 6). The response by the Ministry of Defence has been that there is no new evidence and no new facts revealed by years of investigation. They are absolutely correct. . .What the MoD is unwilling to take on board is that the evidence in the first place upon which the conviction of the two pilots rests was wholly inadequate to justify the verdict, since it has to be based upon a conclusion that “there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever”. This is a higher standard of proof than that required in an ordinary criminal trial.

The only thing one can say with complete certainty is that it is impossible to conclude exactly the cause of the accident. This had led the investigating officers to decide that if there was no proof of cause it must indeed have been the fault of the pilots. It may have been pilot negligence, but never could one conclude that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it was pilot negligence. The verdict should be quashed.

Yours sincerely,. .ANTHONY JACOBS,. .9 Nottingham Terrace, NW1 4QB.. .February 8.

. .From Mr Stewart Birt

Sir, I was both a military and civilian helicopter pilot and flew the civil version of the Chinook. I became managing director of British International Helicopters. My company held a training contract with the RAF for the flight simulator training of their Chinook pilots, including the training of the two pilots who flew this ill-fated flight. I was also involved in the investigation of aircraft accidents and sat as a civil member of the “Joint Airmiss Working Group”.

Those who have sought to defend the reputations of the pilots involved in the Chinook accident have been most successful in their mission. But I believe the committee’s conclusions are wrong, and have the potential to tarnish the reputation of the RAF officers who were brave enough to conclude that the pilots were negligent.

The known facts of this accident are clear evidence of aircrew negligence and irresponsibility. “Good airmanship”, an approach to flying promoted in both military and civil aviation, would have dictated a series of decisions that should have resulted in the aircraft not being at risk of a collision with the ground at the location of the accident or anywhere else.

No conceivable mechanical failure nor any deficiency in onboard systems or equipment would have reproduced this accident. All arguments for sustaining low-level flight at cruise speed in the proximity of rising ground in the prevailing weather conditions and tactical circumstances can be refuted.

I am moved to write not because I want to see the pilots further criticised, but because I strongly feel that those whose conclusions are being attacked are not necessarily in a position to defend themselves. As a father and as a pilot, I sympathise with both pilots’ fathers, who naturally wish to defend their sons’ reputations.

Yours faithfully, . .STEWART BIRT,. .Beechwood, Woodhead, Fyvie,. .Nr Turriff, Aberdeenshire AB53 8LT.. .February 9.

_________________

Someone should tell Mr Birt that his "facts", like the MOD's "facts" or nothing more than speculation.

Well said, Lord Jacobs - no new evidence, never, was, never has been, it's not needed. No one knows what happened.

[TL Thou]

There is a Commons Early Day Motion down on ZD576 (EDM No.829). This looks like all Party so get your MP to also sign this as well as writing to Buff/Blair, speaking in debate etc.

If it gets a a large number of signatures (sayyy 200+) the Government are obliged to hold a debate.

Also Lords debate on way, I understand.

You ain't seen me, roight?

[TL Thou]

Durrr here is the text...

CHINOOK ZD 576 07.02.02

Robertson/Angus

That this House notes the House of Lords Select Committee Report on Chinook ZD 576, which concludes that: 'the Air Marshals were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots of ZD 576 caused the crash' in the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994; and calls on the Government to quash the finding of the Air Marshals who reviewed the conclusions of the RAF Board of Inquiry, which unjustly and on the basis of insufficient evidence ascribed negligence to the deceased pilots, flight lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook.

Robertson/Angus* . .Reid/Alan* . .Duncan/Peter* . .O'Neill/Martin* . .Davis/David* . .Beggs/Roy* . .Lewis/Julian . .Barnes/Harry . .Pound/Stephen

* sponsors of motion.

[Stan Bydike]

For those interested Angus Robertson is the MP whose constituency includes Ice Stations Kilo and Lima

[FJJP]

Qwin,

Excellent post on 10 Feb. Well said, and a fair reflection of how many of us feel. Hope CAS takes all of this on board.

Regards,

FJJP

[Brian Dixon]

Thanks everyone.

This thread is to be closed. Please continue on Chinook - Hitting Back 3.

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