Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

[Brian Dixon]

Hi everyone,. .I've been asked to start a new thread as the last one was reaching the maximum limit.

Let's keep the pressure on the Government and MoD. They expect us to go away in a few days and we must not do that.

Ask your MP to write to the Prime Minister and also to sign the Early Day Motion.

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

[Brian Dixon]

Hi again everyone,. .the following is a letter published in the Sunday Herald on 10 Feb 02.

Why the MoD must pardon the Chinook pilots. .By Malcolm Rifkind, Secretary Of State For Defence 1992-1995

. .The defence secretary and the Prime Minister are in danger of making themselves look very foolish. . .Last week a high-powered House of Lords select committee published its report into the 1994 Chinook air disaster that caused the deaths of the cream of British military intelligence. . .The select committee was chaired by the formidable Lord Jauncey, a former Lord of Appeal and a judge whom I know from my own experience to be a person of the highest ability and integrity. He was assisted by four colleagues, two of whom are distinguished QCs. They had no axe to grind and they approached their task with great professionalism.

They concluded, unanim-ously, that it would be wrong for the Ministry of Defence to maintain the finding of gross negligence against the deceased pilots of the Chinook made eight years ago by two senior RAF air-marshals. . .The immediate reaction of the government was made by armed forces minister Adam Ingram within hours of the publication of the report. He could hardly have had time to read it, but he appeared to dismiss it as containing nothing new. The implication was that the government would not budge.

That in itself would not run counter to any of the previous behaviour of the Ministry of Defence. There has already been a fatal accident inquiry, under a Scottish sheriff, which concluded that the finding of gross negligence was unsafe and should not be maintained. The government ignored that.

The Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, its most important select committee, has accused the Ministry of Defence of arrogance and called for the verdict to be put aside. They have been ignored for their pains. There have been various studies of the accident by aeronautics and com puter experts, all of whom have concluded that technical problems may have caused the accident. Their views have been dismissed.

To make matters worse, the RAF has changed its procedures so that never again will air-marshals be asked to allocate blame for air accidents. They will try to identify the technical causes of air accidents but leave questions of blame to the civilian courts. The Chinook case, therefore, re mains a hangover from a discredited procedure, but the Ministry of Defence clings to the air-marshals' decision with all the tenacity of a rottweiler.

I confess I have a personal interest in this case. I was the secretary of state for defence at the time the air- marshals reached their decision. I endorsed it and reported its conclusion to parliament. . .I recall being sad that the pilots were being blamed, but at that time I had no reason to question the conclusion of the RAF that gross negligence was the cause of the accident. These are highly complex and technical matters. A defence secretary has no more specialist knowledge of why an aircraft might have crashed than a health secretary would have on why a heart transplant had gone wrong. One must, to a considerable extent, trust the judgement of one's senior advisers.

Why, then, have I changed my mind and called for the verdict to be set aside? . .The main reason is the substantial volume of evidence that has since emerged concerning the technical faults that the Chinook was experiencing at the time -- the problems with the computer software and other difficulties that had, on occasion, led to the Chinook helicopters being grounded.

The Ministry of Defence has admitted these defects, but has always argued that as these technical problems could not -- in their view -- have contributed to the Mull of Kintyre accident, they did not invalidate the verdict. For the same reason, it had not been felt necessary to draw them to the attention of the relevant ministers. That view has been consistently challenged by aeronautics experts over the past eight years.

The RAF's own rules made it clear that a verdict of gross negligence could be reached only if there were absolutely no doubt. Much doubt has emerged, as Lord Jauncey and his eminent colleagues have concluded. . .The current position of the Ministry of Defence is untenable on two counts. First, they rest on the air-marshals' conclusion that, as no other cause of the accident has been identified, it can only be explained by the gross negligence of the pilots. Such reverse reasoning would be dismissed in any civilian court, where one would be required to provide hard evidence that points to negligence. You cannot merely assume negligence in the absence of any other explanation.

The second failure of ministers is more fundamental. Again and again they say they will reconsider the verdict only if new evidence appears which was not considered by the air- marshals. They know perfectly well that after eight years it is highly unlikely that any new evidence will ever appear. We will probably never have any hard evidence as to what caused the accident on that fateful day. . .But that is irrelevant. The point at issue is not whether there is new evidence, but whether the known facts justified the air-marshals in finding that the pilots had been grossly negligent.

When a Scottish sheriff, the Public Accounts Committee, numerous aeronautics experts and now a House of Lords select committee chaired by a senior judge all advise that a verdict of gross negligence is unsustainable on the known facts, it is the height of stubbornness and obduracy for ministers to refuse to consider using their discretion. . .In one sense the families of the pilots have already won their campaign. The reputation of the two pilots has already been restored, given the huge weight of professional expertise that has rejected the verdict. If the two air-marshals and the government refuse to retract that rejected verdict, that reflects on them and on their judgement.

I have the greatest respect for the RAF and for the Ministry of Defence. Those who work there, including the two air-marshals (who are now retired), are people of great integrity and professionalism. I do not believe there is any cover-up, or any sinister explanation for their refusal to set aside the negligence verdict. . .But there is a culture of resentment at others seeking to second-guess RAF expertise. To acknowledge a mistake would hurt, and might reopen many policy questions. I am sure there are many who wish this whole issue would just go away.

Yet it will not. There are basic issues of natural justice at stake. It is, in any event, no longer for the RAF or for the officials in the Ministry of Defence to decide. This sort of issue is exactly why we have ministers; why ministers are accountable to parliament and to the public for the actions of those under them.

Mr Hoon and the Prime Minister cannot hide any longer behind the air-marshals and the Ministry of Defence. When issues of natural justice are at stake ministers must exercise their own judgment. If Mr Hoon is too blinkered or too overwhelmed by his officials to act, the Prime Minister must do so for him.

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

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

[John Nichol]

Well done Malcom - that sums the whole thing up nicely. Over to you Mr Hoon!

[FJJP]

Phew! Now THAT'S what I call support. Well done Malcolm - at least you are man enough to admit that you could be wrong. Now let's hope that there are some other politicians with similar courage. Keep plugging away.

I got an acknowledgement card today from my MP's office (letter written on 10 Feb); it will be interesting to watch Defence questions on Thurs. Anyone know what time it will be on?

[ShyTorque]

Extremely well done NOW Mr. Rifkind, but how unfortunate that he couldn't have seen this point of view while he was still in office. As MOD and the government continue to point out, all the evidence was available then. If it wasn't, then we all know what happened in the first instance, don't we?

He points out that many (people) are wishing this issue would go away. We are united on that front but it WON'T go away until the matter is resolved finally and satisfactorily. We won't let it.

All those ostriches from Messrs. Wratten and Day upwards to the Prime Minister do the reputations of themselves and of the Royal Air Force greater damage each day this is allowed to continue.

Should we start to demand resignations next? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[Arkroyal]

Ref the previous thread,

Qwin and Susan Phoenix

Superb posts, which quite literally brought a tear to my eye.

Tigs has a point, too. If the Government think we will eventually go away, a highly visible demo might change this misconception, as well as causing some embarrassment.

Keep powder dry until the final word from Blair/Hoon.

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

[TL Thou]

Defence Debate is on Thursday. Defence Questions was yesterday. Former Min DP James Arbuthnot raised Chinook in a question:

Will the Minister acknowledge the important and impressive role that the Chinook fleet, based in Odiham in my constituency, played last year in extraction from Sierra Leone? Does he accept that it is not good for the morale of such a fine fighting force to accuse pilots who die in the service of their country of gross negligence when no evidence exists to support that accusation?

Ingram then gave the most pathetic, miserable and mean answer that I have EVER heard from a Minister in HM Govt:

Mr. Ingram: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has changed his position on that. If my memory serves me correctly, he was a Defence Minister who authorised and approved the earlier examination. Perhaps he was not in office at that precise time, but he would have examined all the material that related to the incident to which he refers. As he knows, the other place has provided a detailed and comprehensive report, which we are currently examining. Of course, the Chinook fleet is carrying out an important and extensive role on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

Instead of slagging off Ingram with a stream of expletives, as he deserves, I will merely put on record that I believe hom to be the worst and most useless, ineffective defence Minister to have graced the Government benches in at least the past 20 years. Even after Peter Tinfoyle and Badger Lamont.

Go on mate, jump before you are pushed.

[Oh I See]

Todays Guardian Unlimited:

"Chinook crash. .The government pledged to seek a quick response to the Lords report on the 1994 Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre. The inquiry, headed by former law lord Lord Jauncey, said the RAF had been wrong to blame negligence by pilots.

Junior defence minister Lord Bach said: "The government has a commitment to respond to select committee reports within six months. However, we will try to produce a response to this report significantly sooner than that.""

Roll on.

[Brian Dixon]

Mr Ingram,. .I recall the Hon. Gentleman had the 'moral courage' to not only admit that he had made an error, he had the courtesy and dignity to formally apologise.

You and your Department could, perhaps, learn one or two things from your peers.

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

[Man-on-the-fence]

I've just spotted the deliberate mistake in Mr Rifkind very impressive letter. A Politico doing the honourable thing, shudder the thought.

[quote]I have the greatest respect for the RAF and for the Ministry of Defence. Those who work there, including the two air-marshals (who are now retired), are people of great integrity and professionalism. <hr></blockquote>

I refer of course to the fact that they are both retired (chance would be a fine thing)and make no reference whatsoever to the accusations of integrity and professionalism.

Letter off to my MP, not that it'll do any good, he retires at the next joust and probably couldnt give a damn.

[misterploppy]

Sent today to the MP - I thought I'd better let the red mist dissipate first! God, we've had some ropey MoD ministers but that Ingram takes the biscuit. Anyway my MP is a junior minister (not MoD) so I don't hold out much hope but we'll see.

. .I am a former RAF officer who was serving at RAF Aldergrove in June 1994. I have never been moved to get in touch with you before ... I write to ask that you support early day motion No 829:

"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."

The question in issue is really now quite simple. Like many previous inquiries, the Lords' committee has asked itself the question: Is the available evidence regarding the circumstances of the crash of ZD576 sufficient to prove "beyond any doubt whatsoever" that the pilots were negligent to a gross degree? And they have concluded that it is not.

I ask that you consider that this issue is now in danger of going far beyond even the highly important matter of the reputations of 2 very fine pilots: To disregard the findings of a Scots Sherriff sitting at an FAI and the findings of the Public Accounts Committee is one thing, but for the MoD to be allowed to disregard the findings of a House of Lords committee of the calibre of Lord Jauncey's committee raises serious questions about the public accountability of the MoD.

If the highest legal authorities in the land conclude, on an essetially legal point, that the MoD is wrong; then surely the MoD must be forced to submit to that authority.

People joining the Armed Forces recognise that they give up a lot of the rights and freedoms of private citizens. However, they do so in the sure knowledge that the military authorities they submit to are themselves governed and overseen by the civil powers and the law of the land.

I fear that if the MoD is not brought to heel by parliament on this issue, and it is allowed to continue to break even its own rules, then the confidence of both current Servicemen and potential recruits that the civil authorities will ensure that miltary powers do not abuse their authority will be seriously undermined.

For this reason, and to put and end to the wholly unnecessary additional suffering caused to the Cook and Tapper families by the inexplicable obduracy of the MoD, I urge that you support the motion and do what you can to see justice prevail.

Yours sincerely,

[Oh I See]

Mr P

A well-reasoned letter, which cannot be ignored.

I have just posted on the Rotor Heads Forum thread about this charade. My post was to the effect that if you hear of rotton or fay having ANY interest in Boeing or its’ subsidiaries then post it here. It’s only now that I realise this whole matter, in the eyes of the above, is probably nothing more than crewroom politics. It won’t effect their family or finance, their pension is greater than I can earn, however all those serving personnel who post here risk all.

If you really do read this how can you stand by what, by the rules in force, is totally wrong. I have served alongside one of you for a long time and cannot recognise the man, for whom I have the greatest respect, who stands by this travesty.

I can even understand (not agree) how you came to your conclusions and found gross negligence. You have described it to me as the hardest thing you have ever had to do. I can genuinely believe that, and, with that knowledge can perhaps now see that any theories of personal financial gain or political advancement are, to you, as unfathomable as your continued stance on this matter is to me.

You are a greater man than this stupid situation. Prove to the people whom you wish to lead that you can both make the hard decisions AND display the humility required of a great leader.

[BEagle]

Hmmm......

Wratten left the RAF and worked for Rolls Royce as a military adviser. Amongst projects being worked on by Rolls Royce's military side was the FSTA. Their originally preferred platform was.....Boeing 767 with RR engines. (Since then the bid from RR has been totally changed - 'Air Tanker' now favour the A330)

When this story blew up with the later Chinook enquiries, a RR insider told me that employees were told not to comment on the case.

I don't think that there's much to be gained from insulting or querying the characters of the Air Officers - indeed that could be seen both as a diverting smear campaign (a level to which we should not sink) and possibly 'contrary to good order and discipline' - anyone serving in the Armed Forces accused of such could find themselves deeply in the poo. But there is much to be gained by taking the very straightforward view that the HoL has released its unanimous findings and the government must go along with them. Clearly the level of proof needed to sustain a verdict of 'gross negligence' has not been achieved; the findings must now be 'Cause: Not Positively Determined'.......

[Brian Dixon]

Excellent letter Mr P. Thank you.

You may all like to know that the front page of the ServicePals web site has a vote survey on the Chinook accident. At present, the 70% of the voters say that the Govenrment should act.

Check the site out and cast your vote.

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

Keep the letters and faxes going!!. .Thank you, and best wishes as always. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Daifly]

Got a reply this morning...

"Dear Daifly,

Thank you for your letter of the 8th of February concerning the Chinook inquiry. I understand and accept the points you make one hundred percent. I am not going to be in the Chamber for Defence Questions on the 14th, but I am raising the queries contained in your letter with the Secretary of State for Defence. I imagine I will be one of many MPs contacted in a similar vein. I will write to you as soon as I get further news.

Humfrey Malins CBE MP"

He's the MP for Woking, I've met him and he's a jolly decent chap.

But read it and digest it, IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE - WRITE!!

[TL Thou]

Good news - this will be raised in the defence debate today...by at least a couple of MPs.

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

[1.3VStall]

I received a letter from the House of Commons this morning. My MP agrees with me that the MoD cannot now choose to ignore th HoL Committe ruling!

He has written to Bliar drawing his attention to my letter, which asks that he personally ensures the MoD reopens the BoI and overturns the findings of the two airships.

let's keep up the pressure chaps!

[PercyDragon]

One should realise that, if the MOD is forced to overturn its verdict on this case, that no armed forces aircrew is ever going to be able to be labled 'negligent' ever again in relation to any future aviation accident.

It's not like that out here in Civi Street. Out here it's every man for himself, and at the slightest hint of negligence there are lawyers hammering on the door and suing you....and if you're dead they sue the estate that you left behind.

[pulse1]

PD,

At least then it would be tested publicly in a court of law and there might even be FDR and CVR data to go on as well. You can even have an appeal - now there's an interesting thought!

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

[attackattackattack]

PD

They will if there's absolutely no doubt or that there is a change to the standard of proof required. (Or if arrogant senior officers overrule properly formed boards of enquiry in pursuit of personal gain.) In the mean time we respond to the situation as is.

[InFinRetirement]

PD

You see the sad fact is that you have been wearing blinkers and have refused - at least publicly - to recognise that the HoL findings were conducted by emminent legal's. They FOUND doubt without too much effort. Why didn't the MoD? Well, to be more correct they couldn't find cause. If that ain't doubt I don't know what is.

[quote]One should realise that, if the MOD is forced to overturn its verdict on this case, that no armed forces aircrew is ever going to be able to be labled 'negligent' ever again in relation to any future aviation accident. <hr></blockquote>

That's very good isn't it? It means that no other unfair decision can be made by two Air Marshals who refused to accept that doubt existed. They, and they alone, were judge, jury and executioner. Something they were not suited for and in the end have found to be seriously lacking.

Personally, I think that negligence is a very serious charge and it HAS to be very carefully considered. Indeed, where negligence is a possible option, I am of the view that a courts martial, or a BoI, must be conducted by a dominance of the judiciary, and, as in this sad case, NEVER NEVER by two senior officers who have no idea of assessing what is blatantly obvious and is beating them around the head. Their pig-headedness in this will live in the RAF for many many years. I am sure that it will be a subject that is raised at Staff College in years to come as a marker for future senior air officers.

[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: InFinRetirement ]</p>

[Rats Naks]

I have also received a reply from my MP, Sir Michael Lord, deputy speaker, today.

He, like many others, doubts that the cause of the crash will ever be established and that the findings of gross negligence cannot be made.

As a deputy speaker he is unable to raise this matter in the House of Commons, but he will send a copy of my letter to the Shadow Defence Secretary, Bernard Jenkin, asking for his comments.

More to follow "wait out"?

[TL Thou]

This is Ingram's comments in the defence debate yesterday - the issue was raised by MPs, but unfortunately not all were on side. James Arbuthnot's speech was excellent.

INGRAM

The debate has been wide ranging and we have touched on a lot of subjects. I cannot take up every one, but let me deal with the Chinook issue. I am doubtful as to whether it touches on defence policy, but I take the point made by the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) that the outcome it could affect morale. I understand the depth of the right hon. Gentleman's feeling, but I am sure that, as an ex-Minister, he knows that it would be inappropriate to respond from the Dispatch Box to a detailed and rigorous report that requires intensive scrutiny by the Department. That is being undertaken. Useful contributions have been made, but I ask all Members to take their consideration beyond the technical aspects of the report and the terrible tragedy that occurred. We also have to examine the airmanship decisions taken by the pilots on the day. They have to be weighed in the balance.

Full debate at:

<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cm020214/debindx/20214-x.htm" target="_blank">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cm020214/debindx/20214-x.htm</a>

[pulse1]

I agree that Mr Arbuthnot’s speech was excellent and shows a good understanding of the main issues.

The strongest negative speech from John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) had some interesting bits I thought:

“First, I hope that an aircraft that has not had clearance from the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down will never be allowed to perform such an important mission again. It was a fundamental mistake, and I am astonished that an aircraft with so many operational limitations was allowed to fly on the mission.” . .and:

“If the eminent officers had to fly to Fort George, it would have been more appropriate and sensible for them to travel to Inverness airport in a Hercules or BAe 146. It is incomprehensible that they all flew in one aircraft, especially one that had so many limitations, in such unsuitable weather. Clearly, the weather was marginal for flight under visual flight rules.”

. .“The senior officers who permitted the sortie to go ahead in the helicopter, in the weather conditions that I outlined, are reprehensible”.

The MoD must love having him on their side.

[OldBonaMate]

Quote:

"We also have to examine the airmanship decisions taken by the pilots on the day. They have to be weighed in the balance."

How does he/the MoD propose to do that?

Maybe they propose to hold a seance.

OBM

[TL Thou]

Yes, shame that came from Wilko, as he knows what he is talking about (ex RAF flying instructor).

But perhaps someone can write to him to tell him he is missing the point.

On a separate matter the EDM now has 55 signatures so far...not bad out of 659 MPs.

[pulse1]

TL, . .With pleasure.. .P1

[misterploppy]

Has anyone heard when the MoD intend to respond to the HoL Inquiry, or are their gyroscopic physicians waiting for the Queen Mum to shuffle off this mortal coil?

[Brian Dixon]

Mr P,. .the MoD has given themselves a six month breathing space but have said that they hope to reply much sooner.

I suppose it depends on how long it will take for Messrs Hoon and Ingram to write their presentations for the Lords Select Committee, because that is who they will have to appear before if the MoD continues with it's farcical stance.

Come on Mr Hoon. The longer you remain silent, the more foolish the MoD appear. This delay can only damage the reputation of a fine Service.

Perhaps readers could e-mail him to ask when a reply will be forthcoming. I know I have!

[email protected]

We must not let this issue drop now. Please keep the pressure on.

Thanks and regards as always.. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Brian Dixon]

Just a subliminal message to remind everyone that the MoD are hoping we will now go away.

We must not do this. Let us ensure that the unlawful verdict is expunged from the record of Rick and Jon.

If you have not already done so, please consider contacting your MP to get them to sign the EDM and to ask them to write to the PM to demand he overturns the finding in their record.

Use Geoffrey Hoon's e-mail address in my posting above if you don't have an MP.

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

[G SXTY]

I've sent off a copy of Malcolm Rifkind’s letter to my MP (as he put it much more eloquently than what I can), and added the following for good measure:

“In a nutshell then, the original RAF Board of Enquiry, the Air Accident Investigation Branch, a Scottish sheriff, the Commons Public Accounts Committee and a Lords Select Committee have studied the available evidence, and all of them decided it was impossible to determine the cause of the crash.

By contrast, two Air Marshalls have decided that gross negligence has been proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, backed up by a Ministry of Defence that has a clear interest in diverting attention away from awkward questions about why the “cream of British military intelligence” was allowed to fly en-masse in a helicopter that had known and serious control system defects - and onto two dead pilots.

Given the above, could you imagine any circumstances whatsoever where the Air Marshalls and the MoD will admit what is staring them in the face - that their verdict was wrong? If not, would you agree that the MoD is displaying arrogance bordering on contempt of parliament, and that if they are not prepared to act of their own volition, they should be forced to do so by the Prime Minister himself?

I would also ask that you lend your support to early day motion no. 829.”

The more people asking awkward questions, the better.

[pulse1]

Wrote to two MP's, mine and the one next door as it were. The one next door, Annette Brookes, has signed the EDM and sent me a press release from Menzies Campbell supporting the motion.

My MP (Con) has not responded at all yet. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

[slj]

Anyone had an answer to e mails sent to Hoon ?

[millhampost]

err... no. .Not even an acknowledgement.. .But I'm not surprised - he's probably snowed under.

[Arkroyal]

Reply from No 10.

Funy old thing, they've passed my letter to MoD, as usual!

Can anyone confirm that Buffhoon's email address is geof, with only one 'f'?

[Brian Dixon]

Yep, only one 'f'. There's ample opportunity to make a comment after that, but I'll resist!

No 10 have said today that they are still looking at the Report. Why is it taking so long to read such a short document?

Let's make sure that we all encourage them to read a little faster!

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

[Archimedes]

One 'f' in 'geof' and no 'f' in leadership...

Old but apposite?

[Arkroyal]

My MP 'doesn't sign EDMs'

I'm beginning to wonder just what he does do!

[TL Thou]

The EDM is up to 61. I fear it has peaked. However, 61 is a respectable total.

Now we need to get an on-side MP to stand up in business questions on Thursday and say to little Red Robin Cook "given the extent of feeling, draw his attention to EDM, 61 signatures yadda yadda yadda, morale RAF etc, we need a debate on this".

This is quite legit...if they refuse they will be seen to be avoiding the question....

Volunteers?? It is worth a crack if only to get it mentioned in the HoC again.

[pulse1]

If it is debated in the Commons not all MP's will argue strongly against the MoD. One in particular we know is John Wilkinson, MP for Ruislip & Northwood, who argued for the MoD in the recent Defence debate.. I have recently received a letter from him in which he states his view:

".. the crew in attempting to continue the sortie VFR in bad weather did not have enough margin to allow for any navigational error, deterioration of weather or technical malfunction, especially as they could not climb above safety altitude to go IFR because the Chinook Mk 2 was not cleared for flight higher than the 4 deg isotherm.

It is my belief that they ought to have aborted the flight or diverted away from high ground. It is for this reason that I support the Air Marshalls' findings. However bad the briefing and however inappropriate the mission....captains of aircraft are in the last analysis responsible for the safety of their aeroplane regardless of the VIP status of their passengers... (unfortunately I cannot read his writing after that bit)"

I have asked him at what point they should have aborted, based on known facts. If anyone cares to take up the battle to change his mind before any further debate it would be a great help to the cause. As he is an experienced ex RAF pilot so is potentially a powerful voice.

Edited by pulse1 because it didn't make sense!

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

[Hot 'n' High]

Pulse1 - What was your MPs' comment on the HoL report? To me, his reply smacks of another person becoming "Judge and Jury" and missing the point of "burden of proof" which we all (sorry, almost all) agree is the real issue here. Also, did he know the AMs? After the skullduggery that we have seen in the House of late one has to ask! <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[pulse1]

H'n'H,

He didn't mention the HoL enquiry. I don't know what his relationship with the AM's is but he did tell me that Bill Wratten led the 50 year BoB Memorial Flight over London and that he was the senior RAF officer in the Gulf war. I knew that because he gets two mentions in Tom Clancy's "Every Man a Tiger" which is mainly about General Chuck Horner who led the USAF contingent.

JW is not my MP. My MP has not yet answered at all. I wrote to JW after his contribution to the Defence debate. It would be good if anyone from Ruislip and Northwood constituency wrote to him. Or anyone else with military aviation credentials.

[K52]

Pulse 1

As you say, John Wilkinson (Wg Cdr Retd) had a distinguished career as an RAF Pilot and has been an MP for approx 30 years.

I agree with his analysis of the facts except that it WAS possible for the crew to climb to SALT (although NOT significantly above) when they encountered the forecast bad weather.

As far as I am aware the Hon Member for Ruislip & Northwood is the only serving MP with an RAF Aircrew background. He, obviously, is not convinced by your arguments.

Incidentally, I notice that no-one answered the question as to how many crews were available in NI at the time of the accident. Three Pilots were named by the BOI; all Captains. Were all the Pilots on the Detatchment Captains or was there a 3rd crew there because of a crew changeover?

[pulse1]

K52,

As a VFR pilot I cannot comment on IFR procedures but, as a scientist, I believe that anyone who thinks it is safe to fly 25 passengers into such a small window (500'?) between SALT and the FORECAST 4 deg isotherm has a highly questionable attitude to flight safety. This seems to apply to you, the AM,s, and most of the SH force. John Wilkinson and Peter Crawford (ex S/C Odiham, among ,many others including possibly the Chinook pilots, say they could not safely climb above SALT. With so many eminent helicopter pilots disagreeing, the least any right minded person could concede is that there must be DOUBT.

I would be interested to know what tolerance one should place on a forecast value. Even if you were in a position to locally measure the isotherm level you would have to state a tolerance based on the equipment used and the number of measurements you made. I would not base my life an a measurement tolerance better than 500' let alone a forecast. As a VFR pilot I only have to think about how many times I am frustrated by cloud base forecasts to know that.

I will leave others more qualified than I to comment on your continuing habit of throwing new angles into this debate, that of the number of captains around.

[Arkroyal]

P1

Absolutely!

The forecast was just that. As an experienced SH pilot frequently in this position, I would base my ability to climb on the well known rule of thumb, surprisingly accurate, of a 2 deg per 1000ft lapse rate.

The surface temperature, from the AAIB report was 9 deg C (not 11 deg C as Wratten purports [that was at Machrihanish]). Any Chinnook 2 Captain willing to climb above 2500ft in these conditions would indeed be negligent. The SALT locally was 2800ft.

Welcome back K52 you rascall. Got your email, and happy your computer tribulations are over. Gloves off, or on? <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

My MP, Andrew Robathan says he is broadly in agreement with me. '...the finding of gross negligence is difficult to sustain given that nobody knows what happened to the aircraft, but I am afraid that I almost invariably do not sign EDMs.'

[Brian Dixon]

Just bringing the topic back to page 1.

Ark - tell you MP that you require him to sign the EDM. He was elected to take your views to the House, not just pay lip service.

Pulse, Mr Wilkinson must surely admit that there are areas of doubt.

Thank you to everyone for keeping this issue current. I think the Government will eventually have to accept the Lords Report. However, they may use the old play-on-words trick and say that they accept the Report for what it is, without removing the verdict from Jon and Rick's records. We must not allow that to happen.

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

(Edited for spooling erers)

[ 02 March 2002: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]</p>

[Tandemrotor]

K52. .. .I thought you were more familiar with this case. Yes, there were three pilots mentioned by the BoI. The two deceased, a naval exchange officer,(all qualified as CH47 captains) but also, a navigator.. .. .So, two crews. What's your point? Or are you counting breakfasts again? . .. .Just how many independent reviews of this gross injustice do we have to have.. .. .THE EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT EXIST!. .. .Every man and his dog now knows it.. .. .Now a question for you K52: Have you read the House of Lords Select Committee report? I really think you should, and tell us where it is inaccurate.

[Samuel]

BD, I have received an e-mailed reply to my letter to Sec.Def; from Air Staff as expected, and complete with two spelling mistakes! . .. .Frankly, it appals me that anyone in Air Staff would send out correspondence with mistakes in it, but I guess it's endemic these days!. .. .It doesn't say anything not already said, the usual platitudes about a "response in due course" etc.

[K52]

Tandemrotor. .. .I was familiar with the BOI, but not with the Crew strengths of the Detatchment as they did not form part of the BOI.. .. .Your explanation is, however, very interesting.. .. .The BOI seem to have been in no doubt that the Flight Planning for the fatal sortie had been done by Flt Lt T. Just one reference, out of several, will suffice:- para 67c “ as Flt Lt T had carried out the flight planning for the sortie, including calculating the Safety Altitude for each leg, he would have been familiar with the intended route.” The BOI came to their conclusion on the basis of the evidence given to them during their investigation.. .. .At the FAI it appears that Lt K gave evidence that HE had carried out the Flight Planning for the sortie. Certainly the photocopy of the chart left behind showed that the writing of the person who prepared it did NOT correspond with the handwriting of eiher Pilot on the fatal flight. Some have suggested that the copy of the chart left behind was only an illustration and not a definitive statement of their Flight Plan. I would say “why leave a photocopy and not the chart”?. .. .The next question is, if as it appears from the evidence given to the FAI, the other crew did the Flight Planning; why did the RN exchange Pilot do it instead of the Navigator? . .. .The final question is how did the BOI, on the basis of the sworn evidence given to it, reach the conclusion that Flt Lt T had planned the sortie the previous evening?

[Tandemrotor]

K52. .. .So you haven't read the House of Lords report then!

[Brian Dixon]

Hi Samuel,. .Hope you are keeping well.. .. .I had a letter from the MoD in response to my e-mail to Mr Hoon. No spelling mistakes. The letter states that the MoD is still giving 'careful consideration' to the Lords Report. When they are ready to comment, they will contact Lord Jauncey, the Chairman of the Select Committee.. .. .I have replied thanking them for their letter, and pointed out that the campaign will continue until they respond to Lord J. Their response will decide whether or not the campaign continues or not.. .. .As always, many thanks for your support (and to everyone else too!).. .. .Please keep this as current as you are able.. .Best wishes as always. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[K52]

Tandemrotor. .. .I note that the HOL did not call Lt K to clarify as to who actually did the Flight Planning. There is, it seems to me, a major discrepancy between the evidence given to the BOI and that given to the FAI as to who did the Flight Planning.. .. .Equally, there is no mention in the BOI of a 2nd person on the Yacht. The President, in his evidence to the HOL, said there was no need to include his statement as it merely confirmed what Mr Holbrook had said. . .. .As the evidence from Mr Holbrook, used by the BOI in its report, is now refuted by him; it would be interesting to know what the opinion of the other crew member is.

[Tandemrotor]

K52. .. .Are you implying you HAVE read the HoL report, or should we still conclude you have not?. .. .Where is it at fault?

[OldBonaMate]

K52 . .. .All you are doing is raising doubts. Isn't that the whole point?. .. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" />

[slj]

OldBonaMate. .. .Well said. . .. .Something for John? Wilkinson, the MP for Ruislip to consider as his views also are of doubts and not fact.. .. .This battle will be won even though we will have to wait and not as the MOD hope, go away.

[ShyTorque]

K52,. .. .All the evidence has been assessed, digested, ruminated, considered by the HOL et al. Many of the highest legal minds in England and Scotland agree that the verdict was not sustainable on the evidence and is therefore unjust.. .. .You appear to have let these recent events wash over your head. Just what is your agenda? Why do you still persist in trying to prove that these two pilots were guilty of manslaughter?. .. .What is important now is that the MOD do not try to put themselves above legal reasoning and persist with the unsustainable verdict. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

[Arkroyal]

Reply today from my old friend at the MoD, a Mrs Bellchambers.. .. .'This was a tragic accident, and the original investigating BoI found thet the circumstances of the crash involveddetailed technical, legal and aimanship issues. The Report of the HoL Select Committee, like all the other reviews since the accident, is complex and quite properly requires the most careful consideration. We are now in the process of studying and fully assessing it, and will provide a response in due course to Lord Jauncy, the Chairman of the Select Committee, and to the HoL. It would be inappropriate to make any substantive comment until then.'. .. .Keep needling them!. .. .Oh, and K52, I guess I was negligent yesterday when I flew from FRA to EDI on a flight plan prepared by someone else.. .. .The doubts you keep raising merely reinforce our claims. The straws of ever decreasing calibre to which you cling simply add to the doubts that must overturn the finding that, with absolutely no doubt whatsoever, the pilots were negligent to a gross degree.

[Daifly]

I had an interesting chat with an ex-RAF Swift pilot last night. He was of the opinion that pilot error was the only logical conclusion you could come to.. .. .I then explained that there were many ideas on what caused the crash, but the argument that everyone had to consider, was "can we say with 100% certainty that they were negligent?" - to which, of course, he said no. That is the situation that everyone finds themselves and I hope that this logic extends to the MoD's report.. .. .On that note, I received a letter from Air Staff on Friday. I have to hand it to them that they have actually read my letter to them, rather than just sending me a standard one. And no spelling mistakes either!. .. .It goes on for to pages, so I won't bother posting it, but it does cover many aspects of the enquiry. I am pleased that it does say "...like all the other reviews since the accident, (the report) is complex and quite properly requires the most careful consideration". I do hope that this is a positive sign.. .. .Keep up the pressure everyone.

[BEagle]

Daifly - that wouldn't be an ex-Swift pilot who flew his Swift FR7 through the trees in Germany and later went on to be top Flight Safety bod would it? Chap with a regal name - and a good guy as well; he also said that he learned about flying from his close encounter with those German trees! So if he could have made an error of judgement rather than being grossly negligent, perhaps so could others?

[vstol1]

It has hit Canada. For those that haven't seen it there is a well written article at: . .<a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?f=/stories/20020309/286215.html" target="_blank">http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?f=/stories/20020309/286215.html</a>. .. .Keep the pressure on.

[InFinRetirement]

Now, that is what I call good journalism. A great peice of writing that!. .. .Thanks for putting that up vstol1. I think many will be happy that they have seen that.

[Tandemrotor]

Mr David Walmsley;. .. .I'm obliged m'lord.. .. .Not for nothing was he young journalist of the year !. .. .By the way, you must be close to qualifying for the Óld journalist of the year, eh?. . . . <small>[ 12 March 2002, 13:32: Message edited by: Tandemrotor ]</small>

[Just an other number]

This must be posted in full here.. .. .Vindication. .When a British military helicopter crashed, killing 29, the pilots were blamed. It took their fathers eight years to clear their names. .. .David Walmsley. .The National Post. . . .Press Association. .. .Flight-Lieutenant Jonathan Tapper, a Special Forces electronic warfare officer with expertise in navigation systems, was in command of the Chinook helicopter that inexplicably crashed on Mull of Kintyre, on Scotland's southwest coast, in 1994. Last month, he and his co-pilot, Richard Cook, were posthumously exonerated by the House of Lords.. .. . . . . .Press Association. .. .Flight Lieutenant Richard Cook was one of the pilots of a Chinook helicopter on a flight from Royal Air Forces base in Aldergrove, Northern Ireland, to Inverness,.... .. . . . . .Chris Bacon, Press Association. .. ....Scotland, which crashed in 1994, on the Mull of Kintyre, Scotland, while flying in thick fog. All 29 people on board were killed.. .. . . . . .Press Association. .. .Lieut. Cook's father, John Cook.... .. . . . . .Press Association. .. ....and Mike Tapper father of the helicopter's second pilot, Lieutenant Jonathan Tapper, urged the British government to take action after two senior Royal Air Force officers concluded the pilots were responsible for the accident. On February 5, 2002, the House of Lords cleared the pilots of blame.. .. . . . . .The dull thud of the Chinook as it glanced against the rock masked the enormity of the crash. In an instant, the giant twin-rotor helicopter was enveloped in a massive fireball as the aviation fuel ignited, turning the heather-covered hillside called Beinn na Lice (Slab of Stone) into a burning mess. The river of fire ran all the way down the mountain, to the Irish Sea 800 feet below.. .. .Driving down the hillside on that June afternoon in 1994 was Hector Lamont, the lightkeeper on this tip of the Mull of Kintyre, on Scotland's southwest coast. He heard the aircraft approaching and he could not understand why it was flying so low. But he could not see it through the mist.. .. .Russell Ellacott, a tourist cycling the area scouring for old Second World War aircraft wrecks, felt the downwash of the giant twin rotors as the Chinook passed overhead. Tearfully reflecting on that day, Mr. Ellacott estimates he was a matter of yards from the aircraft as it flew over him and, moments later, smashed into the rock. "It was like a vision, like you visualize Hell to be," he later told me. He saw small pockets of fire mixed with bodies. The tangled wreckage of the craft was littered across the entire slope. These people, these things, they must be mannequins, he thought. It must be some kind of search and rescue exercise. Of course, it was not.. .. .- - -. .. .It had begun as just another day for the crew of Chinook Zulu Delta 576 stationed at Royal Air Force Aldergrove, a heavily secured Northern Ireland military air base adjacent to the civilian Belfast International Airport. The first historic IRA ceasefire was three months away from being signed and security around the perimeter was tight. The four-man helicopter crew flying the afternoon sortie to Inverness, Scotland, were among the Royal Air Force's elite. Flight-Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper, 28, and Richard Cook, 30, together with Loadmasters Graham Forbes and Kev Hardie, both expert navigators, were the front line in the fight against terrorism. Lieut. Cook was suppposed to join the British Special Air Service (SAS) later in the year. He was co-pilot for the flight that Thursday afternoon, using the controls -- the cyclic, the footpedals -- from his seat on the right-hand side of the cockpit. Lieut. Tapper was the Special Forces electronic warfare officer, an expert with navigation systems. As today's captain, he commanded the flight from the left-hand front seat of the helicopter. Loadmaster Forbes is believed to have been standing at the front end of the aircraft, or possibly sitting in the jump seat between the two pilots. He was probably the best "loadie" the RAF has produced. The main role of a loadmaster on a Special Forces flight is navigation, to ensure safe flight. They act as an extra pair of eyes and must, if they consider it dangerous, demand the flight be halted. The captain will obey any such demand. Trust between loadie and pilot is vital; it becomes second nature.. .. .Look at Kev Hardie's record. Loadmaster Hardie was a Gulf War veteran who had a couple of years earlier helped shout instructions by intercom to the pilots 80 feet in front of him as they weaved a giant Chinook away from a suspected surface-to-air missile attack behind Iraqi lines. That helicopter was transporting the now legendary SAS patrol, Bravo Two Zero, which went on to become the most decorated in British military history. In short, because the four men belonged to the RAF's Special Forces flight, they were the most trusted, the most capable. Twenty minutes after takeoff, they would be dead.. .. .So, too, would 25 of the best anti-terrorism experts ever assembled: detectives, MI5 agents, military intelligence officials. For 24 chaotic hours, the government refused to name the six MI5 agents. At least one widow did not realize her husband was a spy until after he was dead. The secrets and the experience these 24 men and one woman possessed and their experience were lost and could never be replaced. In a single moment, an RAF accident had achieved what a generation of IRA terrorists had failed to do.. .. .An hour later, as I passed the frozen food section in the supermarket of my hometown in Northern Ireland, the tinny music blaring from the speakers was interrupted by a news flash, shortly after 7 p.m. "Reports are coming in..." As everyone in Northern Ireland knows, it's the four words dreaded most. It means another life targeted, another murder, perhaps a big bombing. This, however, was different. "Reports are coming in that a military helicopter has crashed on the Mull of Kintyre." I was 15 minutes into a vacation after having spent the previous months reporting too many killings. Late 1993 had been the bloodiest period in Northern Ireland since the early 1970s. My work as a hard news reporter had left me exhausted.. .. .So, on hearing this news, my initial instinct, I have to confess, was one of relief. This was a job for the Scottish reporters, and maybe a few from London who would be sent to the scene too. I didn't need to worry. But as I walked the 20 minutes home and a cold wind bit my ears, my heart told me my holiday was already over.. .. .I tuned in to the radio for the 8 p.m. bulletin to hear that the downed aircraft was a Chinook with unnamed security personnel on board, flying from near Belfast to a security conference in Inverness, Scotland. Reports suggested no survivors. I phoned my news editor and took the train 60 miles back to Belfast and work. I was the most junior reporter and expected to cover the funerals, at most. To my surprise, my boss, Murray Morse, took a huge leap of faith and sent me to the scene.. .. .It was obvious to us all as we stood on the Mull of Kintyre the morning after the crash that this was a massive story. But what had caused this accident? What had allowed a Special Forces crew to fly into the side of a hill in broad daylight?. .. .Sabotage by terrorists was the first and most obvious suspicion but "the personality of the wreckage" as air accident investigators called it, suggested otherwise. It was relatively confined and there was no telltale residue to suggest an explosion had downed the helicopter.. .. .If not a bomb, then what about a flaw in the aircraft? Again, this was all but ruled out. After all, the Chinook was an old reliable warhorse that had gotten the Americans out of Saigon. The RAF wouldn't let VIPs on board an aircraft if they didn't trust it. You don't play chicken with your finest. So attention turned to the pilots.. .. .According to an RAF rule, deceased pilots could only be found negligent "if there was no doubt whatsoever." Because deceased pilots were by definition not around to defend themselves, this rule was written to protect them, to give them the benefit of any doubt.. .. .After a year-long investigation, in June, 1995, the RAF concluded the cause of the accident was a mystery. No positive fault could be found. The president of the RAF Board of Inquiry, Wing Commander Andy Pulford, said there was insufficient evidence to find either pilot guilty of even, what he termed "human failings." The story of the RAF's worst peacetime accident would end with the clumsy but accurate conclusion that there was no definitive cause.. .. .There was no black box, no eyewitness (only ear witnesses), no radar trace, no final radio call. 20% of the aircraft was simply obliterated in the fireball, the remaining 80% was Category 5 scrap damage. Because of this lack of evidence, the investigation was more complex than Lockerbie, the case of the PanAm flight that was blown out of the sky over Scotland by Libyan terrorists several years before.. .. .But, remarkably, upon reviewing the board's finding, two senior officers, Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day, decided, without providing additional evidence, that it was their opinion that both pilots must have ignored the fundamental tenets of basic airmanship, and flown the aircraft too fast, too low in worsening weather conditions and could not be excused, even in death, from the inevitable charge that they had been grossly negligent. A year after the crash, it was this conclusion alone that was released to the public, to the press and to Parliament in June, 1995, by way of a one-and-a-half page statement. The complete 400-plus page RAF report was a restricted document, and the fact that the president of this same inquiry had spent 12 months going through the evidence, only to clear the pilots, was not released.. .. .The reviewing officers' damning judgment against the pilots was read in the House of Commons by Sir Malcolm Rifkind QC, the then Defence Secretary. The two Special Forces loadmasters could not have affected the proper conduct of the sortie and were absolved of blame. Had they survived, the pilots would have faced manslaughter charges.. .. .Two dead pilots. Their reputations in tatters, their honour taken away. This is where the senior RAF officers expected the matter to end, and, indeed, it nearly did. I managed, however, to obtain a copy of the report and set about trying to understand where the truth lay. Why was it, I wondered, that Parliament and the press were only given the conclusion of the reviewing officers, when the president of the board had so clearly rejected the finding of pilot error against Lieut. Tapper and Lieut. Cook?. .. .- - -. .. .Two years after the accident, I am standing in the living room of John Cook's three-bedroom home in Hampshire, southern England. It's not long after I first tracked the Cook family down, determined to get their side of the story. The television documentary crew I am working with has set up. A camera pans the room, settling first on Sara, Lieut. Richard Cook's widow, who is sitting with their three-year-old daughter, Eleanor. It then moves to Sara's father-in-law, John, sitting to the left. The three are looking straight ahead at a television playing a home video. A handsome young man has hoisted baby Eleanor high above him and makes airplane noises as he "flies" his daughter overhead, hand on her tummy, her little legs kicking as she squeals with delight. Three years on and Eleanor bounds up, pointing to the television. "There's daddy," she says excitedly. She runs back to her mother who hugs her tightly. I look at John. "There's daddy," he says softly, echoing his granddaughter. "There's daddy ..." His hands are clenching the armrests of the chair he is sitting in. He gets up from his chair, sobbing softly, inconsolable, and leaves the room. It is, I discover, the first time he has seen the video.. .. .John Cook's wife, Joy, died the year before the accident. It is the one blessing he can find, that his wife didn't live long enough only to bury her eldest son. John Cook is a retired Concorde pilot who flew for nearly 40 years. He and his son spoke the same language. He talks of "my beautiful son, a beautiful aviator." His voice is barely audible as he recounts now distant afternoons at the pub with Rick. Just before the official report was released, he told Sara and his younger son, Chris, who also served in the RAF, that they had to be prepared for a finding of pilot error. "We admit in our family, there is such a thing as pilot error," he says. "And if the investigators don't have a cause, then they go the traditional route. 'Pilot error' often means we don't see anything wrong with the aircraft and in the absence of a fault, the pilots will be held to blame. We accept that.". .. .But when the report was delivered in June, 1995, he says the language was harsher than he could have imagined. Reading the finding of gross negligence for the first time, sitting at a desk at RAF Odiham, his son's base in Hampshire, in southern England, John Cook lifts his head and addresses his late son's commanding officer, Peter Crawford, a respected officer who also reviewed the RAF inquiry and agreed with the inquiry president that the pilots should not be blamed. "Why?" John Cook asks. "Why, when there is no evidence whatsoever? You go and tell your superiors [Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day] ... this is war.". .. .The initial battle is to take place six months later in January, 1996. Because the helicopter crashed in Scotland, a Fatal Accident Inquiry, an extensive inquest, is to be held in Paisley, near Glasgow. It will the first opportunity both families have to question the government position.. .. .It is also my first chance to meet Mike Tapper. I scan the courtroom, where three rows of chairs have been placed to the left of the Sheriff, Sir Stephen Young, to accommodate the relatives of the 29 passengers and crew. A police officer who identified his colleagues' remains after the crash is also there. In front of the rows set aside for the bereaved, sits Mr. Tapper, with his head bowed. He is reading a sheet of paper on his lap. I decide not to disturb him. He is sitting with his lawyer and beside him sits John Cook with his legal team.. .. .I am there to cover the inquiry, which will last four weeks, for The Belfast Telegraph. At the break on about the third day, Mr. Tapper approaches me, hand outstretched. We speak for a few moments, though strangely, it's about nothing in particular. I tell him I'm looking forward to the evidence in the coming days. He smiles, pained, but his eyes look beyond me.. .. .In the years that follow, I learn more about Mike Tapper, a former banker, a former submariner who remains passionate about naval history. He is just as stubborn as John Cook.. .. .Mr. Tapper began fighting his son's case before he even knew he had to. Within a week of the crash, Mike drove from his home in Norfolk on England's eastern seaboard, to confront his son's commanders at RAF Odiham.. .. ."They were expecting a grieving father. And, yes, while I was grieving I certainly wasn't prepared to just roll over. No, indeed. I said to them, What the hell was going on with this aircraft? My son didn't trust it, he didn't trust the navigation system. I told them that Jonathan had real problems with the introduction of the Mk2. What sort of an air force were they running?". .. .The answer didn't come that day, as he flew across the Irish Sea to Northern Ireland where he prepared to bury his son. His daughter-in-law was seven months pregnant and grieving. Jonathan had, like his father, loved the outdoors and he enjoyed the military life. Friends described him as cerebral, conscientious, extremely cautious.. .. .So a year later, when the RAF verdict of gross negligence was delivered as the official cause, it was salt in the wound. As Mike Tapper recalls: "Signals coming out of the Royal Air Force suggested the boys would be blamed but the violence of the language did surprise us. We were not expecting that.". .. .The poisonous fight should have ended when Sir Stephen Young, the Scottish sheriff, published his detailed finding, based on about 16 days of evidence. The test he faced for finding fault in the accident was less rigorous than the RAF test. Sir Stephen had only to establish the cause based on a balance of probabilities, not on absolute certainties, but he struggled and in the end concluded that the cause of the accident could be something "beyond our imagination." The families presented their own legal defence at significant cost, running to more than $100,000 each, but in an early signal of what they were to face, the Ministry of Defence and the two Air Marshals who had written the gross negligence finding did not back down. Senior officers let it be known they did not believe Sir Stephen had the sufficient expertise to overrule experienced aviators.. .. .- - -. .. .It is where the matter may have ended. But in the years that followed, a new, more private flank in the war to clear the pilots' names opened up. John Cook turned a bedroom in his home into what he termed his War Room. He wrote letters to politicians, he read letters from his son's colleagues. One precious letter from a very senior Special Forces officer concluded with the words: "In short, Rick was not a man to go down lightly.". .. .Mr. Cook bought a computer, installed e-mail and typed messages and updates in his painstakingly slow, single-finger manner. He wrote to everyone he knew and to many he didn't. It was the bitterest of ironies that this pilot, who had taken the lead in negotiations in the 1960s for the installation of black boxes on commercial aircraft, should 30 years later have his son die in an aircraft without a black box.. .. .In 1999, when I visited Mike Tapper and his wife, Hazel, at their home in Norfolk, a couple of hundred miles to the east of the Cooks, I was impressed with what appeared to be a conscious decision to separate their family life from the fight to restore their son's honour. The inside of their home is idyllic, tranquil, organized. Across the driveway lies Mike's other world. Inside a converted shed, just six strides from his front door, lies his battle headquarters. The telephone sits near a fax machine. Paper is everywhere. Thousands of pages of evidence, of research, of perhaps even a clue leading to a possible cause. Sitting there with his hands behind his head, he looks more relaxed as we discuss his strategy. It is the same face I saw first in Scotland in 1996. His smiles, though broad, last only a few seconds. He purses his lips, his eyes, their natural twinkle missing, gaze into the distance. Five years on, and I think to myself, this is a man not yet allowed to grieve.. .. .- - -. .. .One of the hundreds of letters John Cook wrote in the aftermath of the Sheriff's finding was to James Arbuthnot, his local MP and at the time, the Tory Chief Whip in the House of Commons, and therefore more influential than a simple backbench MP. Aware of both the press reports concerning the contradictory nature of the original RAF inquiry and now the favourable words of Sir Stephen, Mr. Arbuthnot asked to visit Mr. Cook at home, to hear what he had to say. Mr. Arbuthnot had been a junior defence minister at the time of the accident and as was his duty he repeated the finding of negligence in the House. But when he visited the Cooks he was in for a surprise. Instead of using emotion to try to win this politician over, John Cook simply showed his MP what had been uncovered.. .. .In the weeks before the accident, Rick Cook had increased his life insurance to an estimated $750 a month on a lowly flight lieutenant's salary. Asked why, he told both his wife, Sara, and father, John, that he didn't trust the Chinook. It was an updated Mk2 model with a new flying control system and he didn't want to fly it. He wasn't ready and the aircraft wasn't ready. In the weeks leading up to the crash it had suffered a series of serious mechanical problems. In addition, the crew were told to fly the Chinook on the assumption that at any moment one of its two engines would fail. On top of this, the pilots were told to ignore cockpit engine failure caption lights for up to 12 seconds because of the number of false illuminations. Only if the light stayed on for longer were the crew to react. Another problem lay in the flying control systems of ZD 576, which jammed inexplicably less than a month before the accident. No cause was found. And then there was the fact the RAF's own test pilots had grounded future flying of the Chinook, as they wrestled to understand the Mk2 aircraft.. .. .More damning still was the concealed fact that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was successfully suing the engine manufacturers at the time of the crash for problems related to the engine testing procedures. The government had ruled this information, which only came to light following a documentary I produced some three years after the accident, to be irrelevant. The government said the lawsuit related only to testing procedures and could not possibly be related to a fatal crash. The MoD's own expert witness, Malcolm Perks, who now lives in Canada, disagrees and considers the problems the MoD and RAF suffered with the engine control units should have been handed over to the original investigators. This, combined with the fact the last recorded conversation with Rick Cook minutes before take-off related to concerns with the engine control units, is compelling. Was Zulu Delta 576 an accident waiting to happen?. .. .Mr. Arbuthnot's initial response to his meeting with Mr. Cook was brief, to the point. "Good God!" This former defence minister hadn't known the MoD was suing the engine manufacturers at the time of the accident. And he now didn't think the elite of Northern Ireland's intelligence community should have been put aboard the craft. What Mr. Arbuthnot heard helped shift the debate.. .. ."This was an injustice, a miscarriage of justice and it has to be set aside. I shall not rest until it is," Mr. Arbuthnot told me outside the west door of the Ministry of Defence HQ in the heart of London in late 1997 from where he'd emerged following another inconclusive meeting with officials. Although a Tory Chief Whip, Mr. Arbuthnot had political influence beyond his own party and soon a non-partisan group of MPs had joined him in asking questions.. .. .In 1997, I sat with a former Special Forces Chinook pilot Andy Fairfield and briefed an early gathering of Tory MPs. They sat, dumbfounded, as we recounted the problems and the concerns with respect to the introduction of the Mk2 Chinook. Most crucially, we reminded the MPs of the RAF's own rules that if doubt exists, dead pilots cannot be found negligent. Mr. Fairfield, who had been best man at Rick Cook's wedding, later went on to become a household name as a finalist in Britain's version of the Survivor game show. He told me he had entered "to win the million pounds, so I could use it to clear my friend's name." He was voted off.. .. .From 1998 onward, the Ministry of Defence again and again told John Cook and Mike Tapper that no new evidence had turned up. Again and again the fathers pointed out what the RAF and civilian investigators had not been told about the aircraft's problems. They pointed to the largely dismissed evidence of Mark Holbrook, a yachtsman sailing around the Mull of Kintyre who was the last to see the aircraft in flight. He said he had no doubt the pilots had seen land, adding weight to the theory the pilots had been prevented for some reason from turning away from certain death.. .. .The argument for pilot error began to fall apart. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who as defence secretary had told the nation in 1995 that Lieut. Tapper and Lieut. Cook were at fault, emerged finally after some private reflection to announce publicly there had to be a new inquiry. He recounted that when the finding of negligence had landed on his desk in the spring of 1995, he asked if there could possibly have been another cause? He was told there was absolutely no doubt, the dead men were to blame. Thus reassured, he said he approved the negligence finding. But, now, five years later, he damningly revealed he had never been told about the history of technical problems associated with the aircraft. He said he was now speaking up because of fears there had been an injustice, and, most importantly, he had been persuaded by people of "massive experience, of unimpeachable integrity." Implicit in this was that he was siding with Mr. Tapper and Mr. Cook.. .. .Finally, in 2000, the Public Accounts Committee, the House of Commons' most influential committee, decided to review the procurement of the aircraft. Essentially, they would look at whether the taxpayer had gotten value for money. But the heart of the committee's proceedings was to review the basis for the Air Marshals' findings. Mindful that some four years earlier Sir Stephen Young had ruled it impossible to conclude the cause of the accident, the committee, chaired by a Tory MP, David Davies, went about its task with some muscle. Mr. Davies was a political street fighter and his language didn't betray him when his committee concluded that the Ministry of Defence had been guilty of "unwarrantable arrogance" in finding the pilots negligent. Three inquiries had sided with the fathers -- the original Board of Inquiry, the Fatal Accident Inquiry in Scotland presided over by Sir Stephen Young and now the Commons most influential committee. Each time, the MoD had refused to exonerate the pilots. This time was no exception.. .. .The honour of Lieut. Tapper and Lieut Cook remained sullied. It was always about honour, and purely so after the families agreed to compensation payments without admitting liability in 1998.. .. .- - -. .. .By now the story had become bigger than a simple fight between the grieving and the government. It had become a battle pitting establishment figures against establishment figures. Two former Chiefs of the Air Staff joined the debate and backed Sir William and Sir John in saying they believed the pilots were definitely to blame. Airspace can be "a seductive mistress," they suggested. On the other side, joining with the fathers and former government ministers, was the retired air force officer who had written the original RAF rules that "only in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever may deceased aircrew be found negligent." He believed Sir William and Sir John had been wrong to find Lieut. Tapper and Lieut. Cook to have been at fault.. .. .With the military trying to stare down the will of the Commons' most influential committee, a number of peers in the House of Lords picked up the torch, including a number of Law Lords. They voted to set up a committee to review the conclusion. For the first time, Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day would be cross-examined, asked to justify their finding in public.. .. .Those hearings began last fall. They were chaired by Lord Jauncey, a former Law Lord. A brilliant man, he was aided by four colleagues. The families knew this was the final court of appeal. They had grown tired and had agreed to accept whatever the Lords' found. Mike Tapper looked more weary while John Cook attended the hearings only with great difficulty. A deep cough had settled in his lungs. He was diagnosed with double pneumonia and spent a short stay in hospital. Those close to him feared what this last inquiry was doing to him.. .. .I returned to England in September last year to hear the two senior officers speak. At times their evidence was eccentric. Sir William counted out loud to 20 as he attempted to demonstrate to the Lords how short (or long) a time the crew had in the final second of flight to turn away from the land, and make a life-saving decision. Sir John used a series of overhead projections to explain how he came to his conclusion. He said he had the necessary "moral courage" to hold Lieut. Tapper and Lieut. Cook responsible.. .. .That afternoon John Cook and Mike Tapper held a press conference. The two fathers had been vindicated after all these years. "This was always about honour. Honour . . . that's all," they said. "Simple honour for the boys. We know and now the Lords have told us that blame cannot be attributed. The public knows. Now we wait for the government to catch us up.". .. .But neither man provided new evidence or any definitive proof as to the cause of the crash. They offered only their opinions. They were subjected to long, arduous cross-examination. The Lords wanted to fully understand how the officers had come to their decision.. .. .Martin O'Neill, a Scottish Labour MP, described the hearing as forensic filleting of a fine order.. .. .Susan Phoenix, who lost her husband, Ian, a police officer, in the accident and has never believed the official cause, flew in from her new home on mainland Europe to hear the arguments. I sat beside her through one day of testimony. "I didn't believe I could get any angrier, that these men [Sir William and Sir John] could hurt me any more," she whispered to me. "But I was wrong.". .. .The Lords reflected over the Christmas period. Then, this year, on Feb. 5, they reported their findings. The fathers knew in their hearts that their sons could not be found guilty. But would the Lords agree with all the other inquiries and find the cause to be simply undetermined? Would they agree with the former government ministers, including Mr. Rifkind, the then defence secretary, that an injustice had been committed?. .. .It was a mild February morning as I walked toward a building across the River Thames from the Houses of Parliament. Before I could ring the doorbell, the front door had swung open. Mr. Tapper, smiling broadly, was there to shake my hand. It was 9:02 a.m. While the report was to be released at 11 a.m., the pilots' fathers were to receive their copies 90 minutes earlier. I had been invited to share this most private moment. A near-eight year journey was coming to an end.. .. .9:20 a.m.: John Cook arrives with his partner, Sue. It's a big week for the Cooks, with Chris, Rick's younger brother, having married the weekend before.. .. .9:23 a.m.: The front door opens again. This time it is Sara, Rick Cook's widow. She has since remarried and although living overseas, has travelled back to England with her husband to celebrate Chris Cook's wedding. "Two birds with one stone," she tells me. We both laugh.. .. .The six of us, Mike, John, Sue, Sara, her husband, Chris, and myself, walk upstairs to wait for the official word.. .. .Mike Tapper is sitting down, then he's standing. He paces the room. His wife, Hazel is celebrating her birthday today with their daughter. It goes unsaid what gift she wants. She is waiting at their daughter's house by the telephone for news.. .. .9:30 a.m. comes and goes, none of us noticing the specific time. John Cook is sitting, breathing deeply, resting on a cane.. .. .9:47 a.m.: Georgie Vestey, a tireless Parliamentary campaigner, walks into the room with her arms full of sky-blue coloured official reports. She is beaming. "Mike, John, it's good news. No, it's great news." Both fathers hug her. I sit smiling, content. The relief is palpable.. .. .So much rested on the words of five men. With the full authority of the Sovereign power invested in her, the committee skewered the officers' arguments. Blunt language was used, reprimanding them in particular for not seeing the difference between hypothesis and provable fact. On five individual counts, Sir John's argument of blame was torn to shreds. Parliament was staring down the might of the U.K.'s military. Would the Ministry of Defence blink?. .. .That afternoon, John Cook and Mike Tapper held a press conference. The two fathers had been vindicated after all these years. "This was always about honour. Honour ... that's all," they said. "Simple honour for the boys. We know, and now the Lords have told us, that blame cannot be attributed. The public knows. Now we wait for the government to catch us up.". .. .With the pilots now cleared, the fathers have demanded Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, formally expunges the finding of negligence from the pilots' records. His decision is expected after Easter.. .. .David Walmsley is the National Post's Political Editor. [email protected] ; He was Associate Producer of a Channel 4 documentary, The Final Flight of Zulu Delta 576, and was named Northern Ireland Young Journalist of the Year partially for his investigation of the crash. His book on the tragedy is scheduled for publication next year.

[polyglory]

Thank you for that Vstol1,there is no way are they getting away with it and that was the best piece of writing i,ve seen in a wee while.

[Brian Dixon]

David,. .as always a superb piece of writing.. .. .I have heard that the MoD are struggling to keep up with the huge amount of letters and communications being sent regarding this topic.. .. .Dare I suggest that if you have not yet written to express your concerns, you do so now. . .If you have written but not recieved a reply, why not write again and ask where your reply is. Ask another question too. . .If you have had a reply, perhaps write again to say thank you, and maybe ask when the decision will be announced. . .I'm sure the MoD will be delighted to get even bigger mailbags!. .. .Go on .... you know you want to. (And you know they don't want you to!). .. .No wonder I'm the Irritating Sod <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . .. .Thank you as always, to everyone for their help and support.. .. .Regards. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook. . . . <small>[ 12 March 2002, 21:17: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]</small>

[K52]

Allowing for Journalistic hyperbole (apologies to Jackonicko - it does not apply to you) - if the Pilots were told to prepare for an engine failure at any time during flight then WHY were they flying directly towards cloud enshrouded high ground? In fact, in view of the forecast, why had they not changed their planned route?

[ShyTorque]

K52,. .. .Perhaps you would be kind enough to answer my question of the 8th?. .. .The pilots were most recently found to be NOT grossly negligent.. .. .You are still trying to prove them guilty. WHY?. .. .What axe are you attempting to grind?

[cheapseat]

K52. .. .I apologise if I am teaching you to suck eggs but seeing as you asked the question:. .. . The introduction of the Mk2 was in such disarray that it was forbidden to fly the aircraft above a set weight that effectively meant that it would always maintain safe single engine performance; therefore once again it must be asked why on earth was it being forced upon the crews. If I need to spell it out any more ask yourself why it would be acceptable to fly an aircraft with one engine (a Gazelle?) but not one with two engines which could fail to one? Surely no one thought both engines might stop!. .. . Before you quote evidence re this particular incident not involving engine failure I am merely confirming that the Mk2 was indeed’ at that time’ severely weight limited. As a really trivial aside (K52 note this is but an observation) this weight limitation would also of affected the detachments planning of the sortie with regard options for fuel uptake.. .. . The weather you speak of was a forecast. Not a week passes (bar leave) without me having to explain that the rotary world uses a forecast to anticipate the weather they may encounter en route. We only fly short distances in the big scheme of modern aviation. If the weather allows a take off, crews do, every day, take off. Armed with the best the met man can offer. For a rotary crew to stack for weather when the start plate is clear you need a major incursion of frogs at least

[FJJP]

I have just received this letter from my MP (poor punctuation et al):. .. . "Thank you very much for your letter, regarding the ruling by the House of Lords, in respect of the inquiry into the crash of the RAF Chinook at the Mull of Kintyre. Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in replying.. .. . I am grateful to you for taking the trouble to brief me on your views of the inquiry, and the manner in which it was conducted. I will, of course, write to the Prime Minister to highlight your concerns, about the inquiry and its conclusions. I will also send a copy of the letter to the appropriate Minister at the Ministry of Defence.. .. . As you can appreciate it may take a little time, but I will write to you again when I receive the replies.. .. . Yours sincerely, etc". .. .I will post his further correspondance when I receive it.

[John Farley]

BEags. .. .On a point of incredible detail it was an FR Mk 5 that our mutual friend used to prune (sorry) those trees all those years ago. According to the then Flt Lt tasked with clearing the FR Mk 7 at A2E2 it never made it to a Squadron.. .. .Regards

[BEagle]

Yes John - you're absolutely right! It was indeed a Swift 5.. .. .Our 'Regal' chum was at Leeming doing a jet refresher course in the late 70s. I was sounding off in the crewroom about an article I'd just read in one of the many Flight Safety publications of those days about 'some clown who flew a Swift through a pine forest in Germany. "Yes - you're absolutely right, young man (well it was a while ago) - that clown was me" said this Gp Capt. He went on to talk about what had happened and why he'd found himself in that situation and added that he then understood why people make errors of judgement. Hence the relevance to this thread - we used to have such splendid people around who understood such things, not merely those looking for someone to blame.. .. .One of my boyhood mentors (who sadly died a few months ago) was a chap who was at Valley when 1 GWDS flew the F7 Swift in the late '50s. He described it as an awful b£oody thing compared to his beloved Hunters!. .. .Back to the top - keep it up!!

[OldBonaMate]

Mention of the Regal officer did cause me to think to myself that he and many others like him would never have allowed themselves to go hard over and dig their heels in over their ‘decision’ wrt to this tragedy. It also caused me to think why would such a flawed aircraft be allowed to be used to fly such an important group of people. And granted that the flight did go ahead and turned to the proverbial bag of worms, who would ultimately carry the can when the BoI was unable to reach a conclusive decision as to the cause? And what is the only alternative which would prevent the buck stopping on 2 senior officers’ desks? . .. .Shameful! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" />

[InFinRetirement]

Not sure if I am missing, or have missed, any comparisons on this subject. But have the US had similar problems with the Mk2 that the RAF have had? In which case they would have gone for Boeing big time wouldn't they?

[TL Thou]

Good news. I *think* there is going to be a debate next Tuesday in the HoC on Chinook. I will post some more details up if I get them.. .. .If I am right, get on the blower to those MPs you lot!

[Brian Dixon]

TL and everyone,. .David Davis MP has persuaded the Shadow Cabinet to devote half of their Opposition Day debate on Tuesday 19th March, to the Chinook crash. This is a huge achievement and congratulations and thanks go to Mr Davis.. .. .The debate will begin at about 7.30pm. I'm not sure if there's a vote at the end of it though.. .. .Hope it's on the Parliament Channel!!. .. .Regards all.. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Reheat On]

I would appear in a perverse way that the 'blame at all cost' viral culture is alive and well and has infected ATC to judge by another thread and the publicly trailed CM of an ATCO. . .. .It would be nice if out of all this came a degree of humanity in the senior management handling of that most human of errors, namely flying your aircraft into, rather than onto, terra firma, be it with assistance or not. I have never known any member of aircrew who has volunteered to go and fly live crash trials. It is a simple fact that self preservation is a strong instinct.. .. .The Air Force will wither on the aeronautical vine if it continues through examples such as the Chinnok case to create a culture in which those very much at the sharp end are made to feel like it ain't worth the trouble.. .. .Responsibility - yes; high airmanship standards - yes; a cycle of audit to identify problems and improves the skills of the players - yes; but simple blame culture because someone is angry that their budget is roasted, or they have to support the humanly erroneous aircrew - No sir!. .. .This campaign has achieved so much more than just address the acute issue of Mull. Well done.

[millhampost]

It's official. Chinook will be debated in the Commons on Tuesday. The time is not clear - may be earlier than 7.30 pm.. .see -. .<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/audiovideo/programmes/bbc_parliament/newsid_1296000/1296150.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/audiovideo/programmes/bbc_parliament/newsid_1296000/1296150.stm</a>

[TL Thou]

There is a good possibility that there could be a vote. It is a Conservative led debate, but the motion should be cross party. There may well be a vote on the motion...

[BEagle]

Watching BBC Parliament yesterday, it was interesting to note how keen Buff Hoon was to offer the 'time put aside for adefence matter' in today's business for a debate on the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. Several times he offered to change the purpose of this 'time for defence debate' to the House....presumably he was talking about the Chinook accident debate and was keen to use any opportunity to delay it yet further?

[uncle peter]

excellent debate tonight on parliamentary channel. support for the campaign is truly cross party. would recommend reading menzies campbell's speech on hansard tomorrow; as objective a view as one could get. disappointed to be told that MoD have commissioned boeing to run another simulation; reckon they're really clutching at straws. good to know that buff has sought the opinion of counsel on the legalities - interesting legal arguments tonight buff accepted that 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' was difficult to define and therefore apply (possible face saving route?). sorry for stream of conciousness but still watching.

[Brian Dixon]

I agree Uncle Peter. An excellent debate.. .. .My congratulations to Mr Davis for securing the debate, and my thanks to everyone who gave up their time and contributed.. .. .Interesting that there will be another Boeing simulation. I trust the findings (and parameters of the request) will be made public and will be considered 'new information'.. .. .I'll post a link to the Hansard once it is available.. .. .I will remind the MoD that all the time you spend in deliberation - I will spend campaigning. Do the right and honourable thing and restore the reputations of Jon Tapper and Rick Cook; and do it now!. .. .Regards to all, as always. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Hot 'n' High]

I did not see the debate myself but, from reading the last few Posts, it sounds a bit more promising. . .. .I'm simply amazed at how many people, nay, a whole Department, appear to have backed themselves into a corner over this one. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . .. .Hopefully, we will see justice prevail and have the original findings of the real BOI reinstated in the very near future. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" />

[TL Thou]

It went very well. I am very pleased indeed. Soon alarm bells will start ringing in No.10, and the pressure on MoD will increase to see sense.

[uncle peter]

link to hansard:. .<a href="http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cm020319/debindx/20319-x.htm" target="_blank">http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cm020319/debindx/20319-x.htm</a>. .. .mr keys comments alarmed me particularly.

[millhampost]

Despite the very good speeches saying that a reversal would not impugn the integrity of Wratten and Day - it would indicate they made an error of judgment - and there's nothing wrong to admit this, I doubt the Government having backed itself into a corner will be willing to do this at such a sensitive time. . .Cynically, therefore, one hopes that Boeing will come up with test results which indicate that there must (or even 'may') have been electro-mechanical malfunction. This will give the administration the lifeline it needs of 'new evidence'. . .I am sure that representations to MPs make a difference. If you consider how little serious post they probably get, they will pay attention to a reasonably well argued letter. My fax on Saturday got a response in 5 minutes!. .I contacted by fax or e-mail my MP, my parents' MP, and the MP for a constituency I lived in 3 years ago.. .Every little helps.. .The pressure is important and I will now e-mail all of them to further push the matter.. .. .(Spell Edit). . . . <small>[ 20 March 2002, 12:53: Message edited by: expressman ]</small>

[TheAerosCo]

I find it hard to fathom why a new simulation is being called for. It is either a delaying tactic or it is hoped it will generate new evidence. If the latter, and such new evidence gives no further clue as to why the aircraft crashed, then it takes the debate no further on. If, however, the simulation produces a possible failure mode, one has then to ask why the MOD and Boeing were unable to discover this years ago - again it doesn't leave them in the best of light. Besides, as a former simulator engineer I know how doubtful it is that one can arrive at any meaningful conclusions from a simulation of this ilk (as I understand it) - it is hard enough ironing out the bugs in the simulation let alone looking at possible unknown failure modes in the electronics. Having said all that, I do not know the full details of the proposal so stand to be corrected if I have jumped to the wrong conclusions about how and why the simulation is to be conducted.

[Big Tudor]

Up until now, Boeing have been exonerated from blame as the BoA laid the blame on the pilots, therefore no further investigations into the aircraft were required. By clearing the pilots of blame for the crash it now raises serious questions as to the airworthiness of the Chinook which Boeing must answer quickly. If there is a fault with the aircraft then solutions must be found before anymore loss of life or injuries are caused.

[Hot 'n' High]

Big Tudor - Good point. . .. .Has there not been previous talk of this whole farce being a "cover-up" for several groups? Maybe Boeing for example? Or the MoD for accepting the aircraft even with the concerns from Boscombe Down? Even for the two AMs? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> . .. .Have Boeing AND the MoD not got highly vested interests in this case? We all know that statistics [read "data"] can tell you anything you want. Yet, they are the ones carrying out this further "investigation". This does not bode well! Sounds like a "Zimbabwean Election" to me!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> . .. .It is not often that I sympathise with Politicians. In this case, they seem to be the Mushrooms - and we all know what they are fed on!. .. .Guess we must watch this space! H 'n' H

[Brian Dixon]

If the Chinook is now (finally) under scrutiny, perhaps the MoD could make public the Boscombe Down Report on its assessment of the Mk2, and the Textron White Paper to the MoD in which Textron answers Boscombe's criticisms of FADEC.. .. .Don't hold your breath though.. .. .I've said it hundreds of times, but thank you to everyone for their continued support. . .. .I can only hope that the MoD respond soon, despite the intimation by the Secretary of State that they would take the full six months. Wasn't it good of him to be there for the start and conclusion of the debate. Wonder where he went during the middle of it <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> . .. .Regards all. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[slj]

Uncle Peter . .. .I also found the comments of Robert Keys disturbing but helpful to the cause. What is interesting is if so much pressure was put on individuals to leave well alone, how much pressure is being put on Hoon and Co?. .. .I missed the live debate but have read the Hansard Report and it does do credit to the MPs concerned. the satndard of debate was high as well as the, often commented upon, cross party support for the pilots.. .. .Those few who have any doubt should read the Hansard report. It makes for good reading

[chippy63]

Uncle Peter. .. .Thanks for posting the Hansard reference, very interesting. I also found Robert Key's comments quite troubling. . .Lewis Moonie's comments, as Parl. Under Sec. of State, seemed to indicate a complete lack of understanding of the burden of proof required for a finding of gross negligence, to quote:. ."the essence of the judgment of gross negligence was that all the available evidence indicated that the pilot flew a serviceable a/c at speed and at a low level into cloud covered high ground" . .Anyone else find this a bit of an own goal on the MoD's part?

[BEagle]

64K$Q:. .. .If the verdict was anything other than 'Gross Negligence', could the relatives of the deceased seek compensation from HMG rather than from the estates of those held to blame?. .. .A cynic might say that the whole reason that Buff and his ilk are reluctant to amend the AMs' findings is that the MoD might then be liable for very substantial damages. Without prejudice, could anyone confirm or deny this?

[Brian Dixon]

Chippy: Moonie is just reading from a very worn piece of paper, long since amended by others.. .. .Beags: I don't think there is a compensation issue as I believe that all payments due were made. However, I'm not 100% sure, and would be happy to be corrected. With regard Jon and Rick, both fathers have said that they would not seek compensation with regard the negligence slur. For them, it is a matter of honour. Yet another honourable action from two honourable men.. .. .The report of a further simulation is still bothering me, and I can't quite put my finger on why.. .The new simulation will take into account the function of FADEC, but will it be programmed with the version of FADEC that was fitted to ZD576 (complete with reported problems), or the latest version currently being used?. .. .Also, the simulation used at the time of the investigation did not have a FADEC imput at all. So even before the Air Marshals relied upon the result of the simulation, it was missing a vital element of the overall equation. Therefore another large part of their evidence is undermined.. .. .Am I missing something here? I genuinely can't get my head around this, but something really is concerning me over this and I don't know what. Please feel free to tell me I'm going mad.. .. .I'll shut up now before someone carts me off.. .Best wishes, as always. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[slj]

Beagle. .. .Spot on. Having re read Hansard and especially the disclosures of Robert Key one gets the feeling that there negligence in this matter but that the pilots were not the guilty party.. .. .If you haven't read Robert Key's speech do so and and ask the question "Does this speech suggest the negligent parties? It certainly seems to explain the cover up and the attempts to persuade people not to pursue the matter.

[Daifly]

Beags - sorry mate, haven't been on this one for a while, so missed your post.. .. .No, this chap isn't he. However, if you find the right people you'll discover that flying down the firebreaks in Germany was a particularly popular thing to do in the Swift fleet!! I think 2 miles was the record! I'll ask him though, he might know of it.. .. .Also, he was recounting the story of a guy who used to fly his Swift at low level through cornfields, just burning the ears of the corn with his jetpipe.. .. .The bad day was when the farmer had "parked" a trailer in the corn.... .. .Reminded me of the Navy Historic Flight chap who found that one tree in the field with the Firefly.. .. .-------------------------------------------------. .. .I've only just had a chance to read Hansard too for the debate, which I seem to have missed at the time. A shame.. .. .It's good to read such structured and, generally, well researched debate in the HoC, which seems to be sadly lacking in the higher echelons of the main parties. It is refreshing to see cross party support for both views too.. .. .The one thing that strikes me the most is that the "anti-HoL" camp are trying to prove the crews guilt, whereas the rest of us are just trying to prove, (as if we need to!), that there is not a balance of probabilities to be argued in this case.. .. .If that were the way then the debate will just go on for ever and ever! The debate is so clear:. .. .Q) Is there 100% hard fact, proof, that the pilots were negligent? I.e. FDRs, CVRs, Eyewitnesses from the Aircraft?. .. .A) No.. .. .It's a pity that this section of the debate, as David Davis tried to get across, seems to get lost in the longer arguments that the "anti-HoL" lobby choose to voice.. .. .---------------------------------------------. .. .Nothing to do this weekend? Then spend 10 minutes writing to your MP and the MoD.. .. .Thanks!

[FJJP]

Brian - try putting your finger on this: you're the MD of a large corporation - your primary job is to run the company to maximise the profits for the shareholders. That way you get to stay in the job and collect your massive annual salary.. .. .Now one of your customers comes along and asks you to do a test that will prove that a fault in a major component on one of your products can produce fatal results. You think about it for a while, consult the company lawyers, and quickly realise that if you prove that it can happen, then your company is very likely to face $multi-billion in lawsuits from the families of those killed. It would be tantamount to commercial suicide. In America silly money is awarded against big companies - it's the 'they can afford it' culture that seems to affect juries when they step into this kind of case (witness American Tobacco, et al).. .. .So what are you going to do?. .. .Would you spend a huge amount of time and effort on the project?. .. .Would you employ a safebreaker as a security guard in a bank?

[BEagle]

Daifly - it was a Sea Fury, not a Firefly!. .. .If the Boeing simulation farce goes ahead, does anyone think that it would really be conducted by disinterested parties? Perhaps Buff and his cronies think that if the simulation shows up a problem, then they can attribute blame Boeing or Textron Lycoming and evade having to pay miliions of pounds in compensation - whereas if no fault emerges they will consider this as supporting evidence to their view of gross negligence...... .. .The longer this goes on, the more poo is revealed publicly such as that reported by Key. Parliamentary pressure to release documents will increase; will Buff's '6 months' push everything beyond the Summer Recess? That doesn't matter - Brian and his campaign will NOT go away until a just result is out.. .. .When this is all over, it'd make a good movie - all the right ingredients are there: a disaster involving intelligence specialists, government cover ups, gross injustices...and a sustained campaign for justice....

[Reheat On]

Don't forget Robert Key is a Salisbury man, has Boscombe in his parliamentary patch, and as a past Conservative defence front bencher IIRC has very much the military in his heart. His sense of smell has been unaffected by a life in politics.

[Arkroyal]

Still ploughing througf the transcript and formulating a reply.. .. .Beags You are quite right, and Lady Hermon alluded to the financial aspect in her speach.. .. .I remember back in about 1992, when the MOD lost its immunity, that a memo was issued at Yeovilton, pointing out that in future, we pilots would carry the can and pay the damages for the consequences of any accidents. Would we like to consider insuring ourselves accordingly. The answer was that they might find it difficult to persuade us to carry pax at all, and they came back with the answer that they had got it wrong, and liability would only result if we were guilty of 'gross negligence'.... so that's alright then, isn't it? Next major accident, and guess what.. .. .As it turned out, I believe the families were compensated by the MOD, but the Air Marshalls wouldn't have known that was going to happen when they were formulating the stitch-up.. .. .Brian, regarding the simulation, I'm with you. A sneaking uneasiness, which I am sure will crystalise soon. Meanwhile FJJP's post is as close as I can get.

[Hot 'n' High]

IMHO, the whole issue of a further "simulation" is a complete waste of time and I believe it is simply an effort by the MoD/Govt to muddy the waters. Basically, we must be aware of the limitations of what they are attempting to do. It is the MoD trying to appear “rigorous” in its’ assessment of the case when it simply does not have the DATA to support such an assessment. In scientific terms, the whole thing is based on “fairy tales”, with so called Data being based on what people thought may be happening at the time; possibly that altitude, possibly that airspeed, possibly that Nr, possibly that AoB, possibly that AUW, possibly that OAT, …... Really, need I go on?. .. .It matters not one iota what software standard the FADEC is, or anything else, for that matter is in the simulation. The simple fact is, that to drive a simulator to accurately reconstruct events, you need algorithms which accurately represent the aircraft characteristics and then the accurate DATA to feed into those algorithms so the simulator can respond accordingly. We must give Boeing/MoD the benefit of the doubt as to the validity of the algorithms used. However, we all know that the aircraft was not fitted with a FDR or a CVR. So where is all this supposed Data coming from? Yep, “Common you Fairies!”, lets dream up some numbers to plug in. Now, just how scientific is that? It will be down to Boeing/MoD doing what they THINK happened on the day. The truth, as we all know, is no-one apart from the deceased (RIP) actually know what happened. Indeed, I believe that, towards the end, even they did not know what was actually happening. If they had, aside from a mega-deathwish theory, they would not have flown into the side of the Mull.. .. .So what can the so-called “simulation” achieve? At best, all they can do is to fly likely profiles under likely conditions and thrown in some possible malfunctions. A tad un-scientific if you ask me! Remember a year or so ago when “Horizon” (I believe) on UK TV went through some civil air crashes? There, actual data from the FDR was fed into the simulator, second by second, in real time, along with the CVR audio. Eerily, Boeing were able to “drive” their simulator using this real-time Data, recorded by the FDR, to drive the aircraft round the virtual sky exactly as the actual aircraft had done on the run-up to the crashes - right up to the moment the FDR stopped recording. I think what the MoD is hoping to do is convince us all that they have recreated the actual flight profile in the same way - but they can’t. Quite simply, they do not have the data to do it. No-one has – unless you believe in Fairies that is.. .. .Now, knowing the MoD and Government, that last point is probably not too far off the mark! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" />

[Arkroyal]

Thanks H&H, that has crystalised the nagging thoughts nicely.. .. .Add to your excellent post that their lordships were examining the finding in light of the evidence that was available at the time, making any new simulation irrelevant.. .. .The only other plausible reason I can come up with is a chance for the MoD to say that the original simulation was flawed, that Wratten and Day, in good faith, placed too much reliance upon it, and accept their lordships' exoneration with no damaging loss of face to their airships. Day will forget his promise to resign and everything in the garden will be lovely! Except that he'll still be in charge of men and women whose boots contain more 'moral courage' than Days entire wardrobe of fine uniformery.

[Man-on-the-fence]

I found this near the bottom of the page!!. .. .Some mistake surely <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="cool.gif" />

[TL Thou]

Indeed! And why not add that the EDM is now up to 80 signatures.

[FJJP]

My MP wrote to me enclosing the reply he received from the Armed Forces Minister:. .. ."MINISTRY OF DEFENCE. .MAIN BUILDING WHITEHALL LONDON SW1A 2HB. .Telephone 020 7218 6666 (Direct Dialling). .020 7218 9000 (Switchboard) . .. .D/Min(AF)/Al 1445/02 & 1 372/021Y. .. .Thank you for your letters of 7 March to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State enclosing one from your constituent about the findings of the recently published House of Lords Select Committee report on the 1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook accident. I am replying as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Minister of State for the Armed Forces.. .. .This was indeed a most tragic accident, and as the original investigating Board of Inquiry (BOl) found, and all the various reviews since have confirmed, the circumstances of the crash were complex. The determination of Gross Negligence by the BOl Reviewing Officers was founded on airmanship and duty of care issues, allied to weather, serviceability and technical factors. The Air Marshals’ professional determination that the high standard of proof required to sustain a Gross Negligence finding, could be and had be met, remains central to this case.. .. .The issues arising from their Lordships’ report quite properly require the most careful and detailed consideration. We are, as the Prime Minister indicated to the House on 6 February 2002 (Official Report, column 856) studying the report and will give a full and proper response in due course. It would be inappropriate to make any further comment until then.. .. .The Rt Hon Adam Ingram JP MP"

[slj]

Back to the top

[mikeran]

Gentlemen,
There has been a great deal of Politics on this board about this Chinook Accident on the West Coast of Scotland. But perhaps those unfortunate People who lost their lives and their families are entitled to some sort of reply, and YES a great deal of Compensation-- from whoever is responsible !!!
Who tasked this Aircraft-- ( even worse Helicopter) to fly so many security experts in the same Helicopter (not even fixed wing)??
It was clearly known by the operator MOD and the assigned crew that some deficiencies existed with on board software systems, related to engine performance and possibly Navigation.- and yet it was tasked--
The crew presumably decided on the flight profile? To fly direct / Off route, almost certainly below the minimum safe level for a critical portion of the flight. Below off route Radar coverage, and possibly out of communication with even a military unit, for some if not most of the en-route phase.
Then why not choose a longer en-route phase via Airways and within Radar and communication cover for this type of flight, also at a LEVEL which ensured irrespective of weather or Terrain a safe profile.
What happened to the Emergency RT calls that all was not well, have we or anyone outside MOD seen chapter and verse on this accident. ?? Did it carry Black box Recorders ?? Will it happen again??
I live near to RAF Odiham and over a number of years have observed the Flying style of Civil Helicopters and their Military counterparts over the area en-route to H3 at Bagshot, Now tell me Military guys why you need to fly at significantly lower levels over Residential and local high ground areas than the minimum levels legally permitted for civil Helicopter flying. You are not at all times on operational sorties but frequently on Comms. flights Joining an enroute Heli Lane (H3). You should perhaps in this accident case accept that your fellow Officers have in reaching their conclusions over this Chinnok accident , not had an easy task- to reach their conclusion Pilot Negligence.
But what is almost certain is that the House of Lords are not Aviation Experts- but have nevertheless in their inimitable style deliberated. They do aviation no favours in this respect.
Let us all see the facts - let us be assured that lessons will be learned for the future-- certainly the Victims families as innocent Passengers are entitled to know much more of the circumstances surrounding this accident. - in my view they are entitled to proper compensation, proper accountability. The rush to overturn the MOD findings appears to have forgotten this aspect.
I submit my views , which are my opinion and which will inevitably be contested in many circles, but no more and no less than the deliberations recently exercised on this board or within the House of Lords recently.

[slj]

Mikeran

I'm not sure of the exact point(s) you are making but you are right about politics.

Those pushing the politics approach want to connfuse the issue with the simple legal matter of gross negligence.

The Lords and others have argued that there was no evidence in law to prove negligence. End of story. Seems simple enough,especially when you read the report of the select committee and the recent debate in the commons.

[Arkroyal]

mikeran

Always nice to see new interest in this matter. May I suggest you go to the archive section and read All that has been said about it before posting again. Most of your questions have been answered.

With respect to why the aircraft did not fly airways, you may be surprised to learn that military helicopter pilots do not hold the required procedural instrument ratings to do this. Furthermore, the icing clearance of the Chinook Mk2 prohibited flight in IMC below +4 degrees C.

The point made above is the crux of the matter. Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found.

[PPRuNe Pop]

ArkRoyal, well said. The quote I have taken from your post is probably the best sentence I have seen on these many pages. It sums up the whole point of this campaign - one that so many have hitherto missed.

Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found.

May I suggest that everyone use it at the bottom of all posts.

[slj]

Mr Arrse

"Gross Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found".

Like Wratten and Day and a few politicians your assumption that the pilots must have flown into the hill is simply that, an assumption, that has not nor will be proved.

In the same way there are assumptions made that the aircraft developed a defect that has not been traced. If you read the Commons debate you will see that a US Army Chinook barrel rolled in 1997 . When stripped down fault a few days later no fault was found. We also were reminded of the FADEC problems as well as the problem of the aircraft suffering in flight jams at or shortly after a change of direction.

I also recall Robert Key in the same debate tell us about the refusal of the Boscombe Downs pilots to fly that type of Chinook.

All of this suggest there might have been mechanical failure. Nobody has been able to prove or disprove that point.

Now if you had put a case for mechanical failure at least the history suggests that it might have been the cause. However, we don't know because nobody was able to find out the cause. We also know the pilots were worried about the aircraft . These are facts but still do not prove cause.

On the other hand there is no, repeat no evidence, that the crew were intent on flying into the hill or negligent in any way. As the Lords Select Committee states the finding of gross negligence, not by the original inquiry but by the two air marshals was based on hypotheses and assumptions but not on fact.

[Arkroyal]

arsse,

If you really have studied all that's been placed on this and the previous forum, you will know that none of us has said that negligence was definitely not the cause of this tragedy.

As soon as you use words such as 'probably' and 'likely' you simply reinforce the case for overturning this verdict.

The criterea of 'no doubt whatsoever' was not thought up by we campaigners to give the MOD a hard time. It was quite rightly enshrined in the RAF's own rules to protect dead men from the slings and arrows that the living could (for whatever reason or agenda) aim their way whilst they had no ability to defend themselves. That is why the burden of proof is, and has to be, so high.

PprunePop, thankyou. But I must admit to paraphrasing the summing up of the report of the Public Accounts Commitee last year.

Now, pop, can I have the fish back in the message icons?

Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found.

[slj]

Mr Arrse

As Ark Royal and countless others have stated the matter is all about proof of cause.

There is no proof that Flt Lts Tapper and Cook were negligent. The balance of evidence suggests that if one had to ascribe blame that mechanical failure is the more likely culprit than pilot error. Read the recent reports again and you will see what I mean.

A finding of pilot error in this case does not require great courage. Rather it suggests the opposite. Its attraction is that it diverts attention from the real issues and if one were fearing heavy claims claims for negligence it puts a handy intervening cause into the equation.

I think the pursing of hypotheses, asumptions and specualtions about what the the two pilots might have done or not have done is a slight to their memory and to the families.

There is no evidence to support such comments.

[FJJP]

e-mail sent on 19 Feb:

"Dear Mr Hoon,

Can you tell me when the MOD are going to re-open the BOI to reverse the findings of the 2 Air Marshalls, in view of the Lords Select Committee findings that there is no case to answer for the finding of gross negligence against the 2 pilots?

Yours sincerely,"

Reply received 03 Apr:

"Thank you for your e-mail of 19 February to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the Chinook accident on the Mull of Kintyre. As is usual in such cicumstances your message has been passed to this branch for attention as we have responsibility for this matter.

No doubt your e-mail was prompted by the publication of the House of Lords Select Committee Report about the accident. We are currently studying and fully assessing the Report and will provide a response to Lord Jauncey, the Chairman of the Select Committee in due course. It would be inappropriate to make substantive comment about the Report before then.
Yours sincerely
Nan Bellchambers"

Oh how slowly does grind the wheels of Whitehall...
:rolleyes:

[TL Thou]

Well - at least Easter has passed by without them trying to slip something out on the sly....:D

[BEagle]

'as is usual in such circumstances'?

You mean that there have been other such cases Bellchambers??

[Brian Dixon]

Hi all,
just thought I'd point out (as if I needed to!) that two months has now passed since their Lordships Report was published. The MoD has repeatedly stated that it is carefully reviewing the Report before replying to Lord Jauncey. Taking into account weekends and Public Holidays, I would estimate that the Report is being read at a pace of one page a day! How long will it take them to read the report from Boeing following the proposed new simulation I wonder?

Only four months left MoD. May I respectfully suggest you read a little quicker. ;)

As for the new posters on this thread - welcome one and all. Just to pick up one one or two of the re-visited issues:
"The crew presumably decided on the flight profile? To fly direct / Off route, almost certainly below the minimum safe level for a critical portion of the flight." - Assumption

"You should perhaps in this accident case accept that your fellow Officers have in reaching their conclusions over this Chinook accident , not had an easy task- to reach their conclusion Pilot Negligence." - I agree. Not an easy task. The conclusion was based on speculation, not fact though.

"Balance and probability" - Without wishing to be rude, I'm not interested in either of those words. I am dealing with the words Gross and Negligence. Both require an absolute in order for them to be used. The requirement was not met and the rule relating to their use was abused.

That is what the past seven years has been about.

Great quote too Ark! I think I'll stick to my quote though, or I'll have John sending me e-mails :p

Thanks, as always, to everyone for their continued support.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Brian Dixon]

I've been re-reading the David Davis debate and have just noticed the following quote from Minister Hoon.

"I am prepared to make evidence available for independent analysis."

I thought that was what their Lordships had just done.

EDS Scion (an independent company) looked at FADEC and reported hundreds of errors in 20% of the software. What has happened aoout their report? Very little. Why should we believe the Government this time?

It is a clear case of there being no evidence to support the verdict. Surely Mr Blair and Mr Hoon, both with a legal background, can see this. Why then are they so scared of the MoD?? Who is in charge - MoD or Ministers?

Perhaps we should all drop Mr Hoon a line to ask him to apply his legal training and make a decision soon. He could also tell us who is in charge.

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

[TL Thou]

In light of the above (!) this looks hopeful...

Chinook Crash

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal advice he has recently requested in relation to his Department's review of the handling of the investigation into the crash of the ZD 576 Chinook helicopter in June 1994; and if he will make a statement.

The Rt. Hon. Adam Ingram: The House of Lords Select Committee expressed the opinion that the applicable standard of proof of absolutely no doubt whatsoever was not met by the Board of Inquiry finding. In the light of these comments, I have asked for further opinion in order to satisfy myself as to whether or not the legal approach adopted at the time was fully justified.

[Low and Slow]

Sorry to have re-hash old ground guys, but there are still aspect of this case that confuse me. I have little doubt that the AM's verdict was harsh and not the one most people would agree with, but there are still aspects of the evidence and it's reading, that leave me a little uneasy, so help me out here.

If all circumstances were the same:

A: Had there been an FDR, (NO CVR) showing the aircraft to be in perfect working order prior to impact; would this have been evidence enough, by RAF BOI criteria in force at the time, to find the pilots grossly negligent?

B: In the absence of an FDR or CVR, is it unjust and/or unsustainable, given similar circumstances, to find any pilot negligent, or grossly negligent, by RAF BOI criteria in force at the time?

C: A ruling of Gross Negligence could only apply to the PROVEN conduct of the pilots, in the circumstances immediately prior to the accident. Not to any aspect of flight planning and/or airmanship decisions en-route?

[Brian Dixon]

Hi L&S,
don't worry. I've had to have several things explained to me several times!!;)

I'll try to answer your questionas as best as I can, however the answers are my own opinion and not that of the MoK Group or the families. Hope that's OK.

a. A FDR would certainly have strengthened the argument of the Air Marshals and the MoD. It may have resulted in a different verdict from the President of the BoI who, if you recall, did not find the pilots negligent. With the greatest of respect, this is purely a hypothetical question.

b. Yes and/or yes!! This is the point of the whole campaign.

c. Again, yes. However, the Air Marshals have moved the point at which they say negligence occurred every time doubt was cast upon their argument. I recall one mention of negligence occurring at the point of departure as that meant the crew would be over crew duty time. Another was at the point of waypoint change (wherever that was), and further one was at a point too close to the Mull for the pilots to take avoiding action. The last one presented as fact a knowledge of where the Chinook was and at what height and speed it was (despite the fact that the final figures are speculated).

I hope this has helped clear some concerns up for you. If not please let me know. As I said, this is my own opinion. If there is anything I have got wrong, someone please let me know and correct where necessary.

Two and a half months now gone, and still nothing from the MoD or Minister Hoon. Are they really that slow at reading? I read the whole thing on the train home!
Anyone know when the new simulation has/will take place?

Thanks again for everyone keeping this in the public domain.
Regards as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Arkroyal]

Back to the top with this.

I note from my, and others' recent replies from the Mod's redoubtable Mrs Bellchambers, that their tone is a lot less frosty. No longer the tired old 'no new evidence' mantra, but an assurance that they are looking carefully at their Lordships' report.

The delay, is, I hope, due to the efforts to withdraw without too much loss of face.

[Brian Dixon]

There is still no word from the MoD, nor from Minister Hoon. Why?? :confused:

Might be time to drop him yet another letter, although now knowing he is not a fast reader, I wonder if that would be wise.

I suppose I could always write it slowly! ;)

Surely a decision has been reached by now. Perhaps the MoD is having difficulty selling the decision to one (or maybe two) people.

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

[pulse1]

The First Precept was never to accept anything as true until I knew it was such without a single doubt. Rene Descarte 1641

It must be getting close to that time when lots more letters are required. This time perhaps we should be getting a little mean. This is in danger of becoming a constitutional issue and will unless the MoD agree that the HoL were correct. This means that the conclusion should be changed until new evidence is produced which proves otherwise i.e. innocent until proven guilty!

[TL Thou]

Lord Chalfont has a question on Chinook coming up to be debated/answered in m'Luds chamber...it is to ask HMG whether they expect a response to the Select Committee Report on the Chinook Accident ZD 576 before the summer recess...he is obviously a PPrune regular!

[FJJP]

Keeping it at the top...

[Brian Dixon]

Hi folks,
sorry things appear quiet. In reality, they're not. The campaign is still irritating people where necessary (in other words - constantly).

Latest rumour is that a response will be given prior to the Summer recess, although exactly when before the recess is not yet known. I promise that I'll let you all know as soon as I do.

Please keep the pressure on.

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

[misterploppy]

Brian

Given past performance, it will probably be contained in an obscure written reply lodged in the House of Commons library at about 15:30 on the day before the recess.

[Brian Dixon]

Hi Mr P.
Trust you are keeping well.

Rest assured - Wherever they decide to publish their finding, I will find a way to link to this thread!

Almost three months have passed since the findings of the Lords Select Committee. Time is rapidly running out.

Yes, dearest MoD, I'm still here and I will continue to irritate the hell out of you.

Your evidence is in tatters and the honour of the RAF is being tarnished with each day that is allowed to pass. Do the correct, honourable and long-overdue thing:- give the reputations of two fine young pilots back to their families.

Thanks to everyone for keeping the pressure on.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[SET 18]

Brian, unfortunately we don't know each other. I just wanted to put on record my admiration for and my thanks to you for your unstinting work on this issue.

EVERYONE knows that this is an injustice but, all the same, it takes someone like yourself to point it out to the masses. It is good to know that there are still people who don't lie down to injustice and, every time I am airborne that fact is of comfort. Without question, your day is fast approaching.

Hats off to you sir.

[ShyTorque]

To preserve the staus quo, they are probably waiting for a good day to "bury the news"......:rolleyes:

[Brian Dixon]

Set 18,
thank you so much for your kind words. I am, though, one of many who fight to clear the names of Jon and Rick. I just choose to shout my mouth off on the internet!

Shy,
Fear not my friend, I have my shovel ready :D

Best wishes to all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[OldBonaMate]

Back to the top. Keep up the good work!

[slj]

Any more news?

[chippy63]

Just out of curiosity, when does the present CAS' tenure end? And how much in advance would his successor be announced?

[TL Thou]

sorry not on CAS, but latest news from Lords is as follows. This was from last week in Lords chamber:

Chinook ZD576

Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they expect to provide a response to the report of the Select Committee on the Chinook ZD576 accident before the Summer Recess.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the Government have said that they intend to respond to the Select Committee's report, which was published on 5th February 2002, before the six months allowed for responses to such reports has elapsed. That remains our intention. Moreover, I hope that it will be possible to publish our reply and debate the issue in your Lordships' House before the Summer Recess.


Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. However, in the light of the fact that correspondents' letters addressed to the Government on this matter are being answered by the Air Staff secretariat, can he give the House an assurance that, before the response arrives in the House, Ministers, and not only officials, will have read the Select Committee's report and that they will not simply be relying on an Air Staff briefing?


Lord Bach: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that all Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have read the Select Committee's report. But that will not preclude us from listening to the advice of our officials before final decisions are taken. I know that the noble Lord will agree that that is the best way to proceed, not least because of the time that he spent as a distinguished Minister in the MoD some years ago.


Lord Vivian: My Lords, does the Minister agree that staff at Boscombe Down reported to the MoD that they could not recommend controller aircraft release

1 May 2002 : Column 682

for the Chinook Mk2 owing to the unquantifiable risk associated with the unverifiable nature of the FADEC software, and does he agree that they recommended that it be rewritten? Can the Minister say now, or in the future response to which he has just referred, whether the software has been rewritten and independently verified and who authorised the return of those aircraft to operational service against the advice of Boscombe Down?

Lord Bach: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, whose questions I always listen to with enormous interest, the answer to his question will be very much a matter for this House when we come to debate the report. I am conscious that today the Question is about the timetable. This Question should not be an excuse for a dress rehearsal for a debate that the House will have.

[they don't call him Willy Bach for nothing!

:D ]

[Brian Dixon]

TL Thou,
many thanks for the update. I hope they will not keep the families hanging on much longer. They must be running out of excuses by now! Should be an interesting debate in the House!

Chippy,
I had the audacity to ask the MoD if they could advise me of the retirement date of the Air Marshal. The detailed reply simply said, "No." I believe that he mentioned resignation should the decision go against him, although this is unconfirmed.

So close ............. keep the pressure on.

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

[ShyTorque]

Brian,

It was a couple of years now since I posted my own wishlist of questions that needed answering. How glad I am to see some of these highly relevant questions finally asked in the house!

Although I believe it was threatened at one stage, I can't really see a resignation in the offing. Any allocation of responsibility will probably drag on until after a retirement.....easy way out, old boy, protocol, upkeep of stiff upper lip, waffle waffle and all that....:mad:

[chippy63]

Brian,

Thanks, I imagine you weren't too surprised at the response. It must be quite tough for some of the serving officers in MoD to witness all performance, especially the ones who can see that they could be victims of the same process...

Anyway, best regards and let's hope for the right result eventually.

[1.3VStall]

Back to the top again, we musn't let Messrs Day and Wratten think we might go away!

[TL Thou]

Indeed. I think there is a Defence Debate in the Lords next week (15th). If any PPruners know any luds this might be an occasion to press them to speak up about Chinook just to give it another Parliamentary airing.

I dare say the "Great and the Good" (ex CDSs et al) will be taking part, but I don't imagine they are particularly predisposed to seeing the pilots cleared. This is a shame as such an intervention would be newsworthy and helpful.

[messybeast]

Article from Scotland on Sunday 12th May, 2002, that may be of interest. Keep up the good work guys.

[QUOTE]

Chinook pilots may be cleared by report

BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR

A CONFIDENTIAL report that could clear two pilots of blame for the Mull of Kintyre helicopter disaster is lying on the desk of defence secretary Geoff Hoon, it emerged last night.

The Ministry of Defence has taken delivery of a technical report on the last seconds of Chinook flight ZD576 before it crashed into a hillside, killing the cream of Northern Ireland’s anti-terrorist intelligence forces, Whitehall sources have confirmed.

Ministers last month ordered Boeing, manufacturers of the doomed aircraft, to review their original analysis of the Chinook’s fatal journey in 1994 - including a flight simulation - after a House of Lords inquiry raised new questions about the cause of the crash.

But the families of RAF Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper may have to wait another four months to see whether the Boeing report backs the Lords’ decision to clear their sons of blame for the catastrophe.

The dossier will be sent to experts within the aviation industry for independent analysis before defence secretary Hoon makes a final decision.

MoD officials said he plans to answer the Lords’ points by September, when the six-month deadline for a response expires.

But it was clear last night that key figures within the department remain dead-set against overturning the original verdict of gross negligence handed down on both airmen.

"The technical questions the [Lords] report raised basically left us with no option but to go back to Boeing,’’ one senior ministerial source told Scotland on Sunday.

"But these are not fundamental issues. I don’t think any technical review can explain why these pilots were flying too low and too fast and into fog and therefore acting negligently before they crashed.

[QUOTE ENDS]

[OldBonaMate]

Yet another one who has completely missed the point! Hope this attitude does not do any harm to the cause.

Back to the top!

[InFinRetirement]

But it was clear last night that key figures within the department remain dead-set against overturning the original verdict of gross negligence handed down on both airmen.

The MOD must be frightened to death that they will be made to look like the stupid prats they are. It is clear that they couldn't reach the conclusions that stare them in the face. What does it take to make them recognise the findings of the Lords inquiry?

[slj]

InFinRetirement

You are right. they are scared. However, that makes them dangerous at they are obviously looking for any way out of the mess they created.

The summer recess is due shortly (sometime in June?) so there appears every chance the outcome will be announced during the recess.

It would be nice for this morally bankrupt administration to do the right thing for once.

[fantom]

waiting, waiting. so, when DO we see Wrotten on the Wrack?

:mad:

[Vertico]

Brian, keep up the good work. The appalling arrogance with which those two very senior officers (who should have known better) changed the BOI findings and persist in trying to claim that it was still gross negligence makes me ashamed to have worn the blue-grey uniform for well over 20 years before it was finally hung up.

All power to your cause - and to your keyboard!

[Brian Dixon]

Thank you for your kind comments Vertico.

I hope something positive happens soon, as even the MoD will soon struggle to justify the long delay. After all, they must have realised by now that I'm in no hurry to go anywhere! :D

There was only a passing mention to the Chinook crash in the Defence Debate in the House of Lords last week. No problem though, the Government were reminded that we are still here, and the problem is still theirs!

As always, thank you to everyone for your support. I'll keep you all updated with anything that comes my way (or maybe the odd thing that gets fired off from my direction!!)

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

[Brian Dixon]

Just to let you all know that the petition has been updated and now contains 372 names. Thank you to everyone. Spread the word and we'll keep adding names!

A little under two weeks the the anniversary of the crash. I wonder if the Government will do something honourable before then?

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

[InFinRetirement]

At a recent meeting I attended, I happened to bump into my MP! I voiced an opinion about the Chinook inquiry to which he agreed was done in all fairness by the Lords Select Committee, and that the MOD must do something positive "and not sit on their hands". He asked me to put my views in writing. That has been done. So still we wait!

[Brian Dixon]

Nothing definite to report, but a little whisper going around is that the MoD will respond sometime towards the end of June / early July. Rumour is that the MoD will continue to refuse to overturn the verdict.

Now, I have no evidence to support these rumours, but now would be a good time to recontact your MP (regardless of what replies you have had before) and make some noise over the campaign. Get them to raise the issue wherever and whenever the opportuinty arises. Also, if you haven't signed the petition please do so. Let's try to get 500 names on there!

The campaign web site is changing servers at the moment, so if you have difficulty in logging on we apologise. However, please keep trying until you are successful.

The MoD need to be told that they are not above Government. If the MoD does not have to comply with Government recommendations / instructions, surely that means they are answerable to no-one! Are you happy with that situation??

Unconstitutional if you ask me!

Time to make some noise!!!

Regards as always, and thank you for your support.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[pulse1]

Brian,

Letter to Robert Walter MP duly sent.

If your rumours are correct and the MoD do reject the Lord's report, I assume that the campaign goes on. Presumably, whatever the outcome there will have to be a debate in the Commons which, the Government is trying to ensure, cannot be before October.

Bombarding our MP's with letters now might conceivably bring pressure for an emergency debate before the Summer recess? If it doesn't get resolved, I suggest we bombard them with letters all through the Summer, using this BB to coordinate ideas.

On this point. we should always request information back from our MP's. This means that they have to reply.

[Brian Dixon]

Thanks Pulse.

There will, indeed, be a debate at some point. Yet another opportunity for the Government to use the phrase "too low, too fast"?? We'll have to wait and see.

Good advice also on what to do when writing to your MP. Always give them something to do and not just ask them for support.

Talking of which, in case anyone wants to write to their MP to ask them to sign the Early Day Motion (No 829) supporting the Lords Report and calling for the Govenrment to quash the verdict, here's a sample letter:

Re: EDM 829 calling for exoneration of pilots killed in Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash

As one of your constituents, I am writing to you to ask if you would sign and lodge the attached Early Day Motion 829, which calls for the deceased pilots’ reputations to be restored.

It is almost eight years since the crash, seven years since the original verdict was brought down by a RAF Board of Inquiry. Two Air Marshals overturned the findings of the other members of that Board, and found the pilots guilty of gross negligence with no doubt whatsoever. Since that time, every couple of years there has been an inquiry into the crash: the Scottish Fatal Accidents Inquiry in 1996, the Commons Defence Committee report produced in 1998, the Commons Public Accounts Committee report in 2000, and the Lords Select Committee report in February of this year. Other than the Defence Committee, which looked at the wider implications of the crash and not its cause, all other investigations have come to the same conclusion: that the deceased pilots should never have been charged as guilty. Both the PAC and the Lords Select Committee reports call for the verdict to be overturned.

I understand that the MoD are due to respond to this latest report soon. As with their responses over the last eight years, I expect a wholly negative review from the Ministry of Defence.

By signing the EDM, you will be adding your name in support of those families who seek only to clear their sons’ names. I do hope you will feel able to do so, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.


The EDM currently has 81 signatories. Check the following link to see if your MP has already signed. If they haven't please drop them a line.

http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=829

As always, I'm grateful for your help.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[FJJP]

Keep at it Brian. Letter with above text gone to my MP today.

Regards

FJJP

[Chocks Wahay]

I've just finished moving the campaign website to a new server, to allow us better facilities. The address remains the same - www.chinook-justice.org.

There are two main differences - firstly, you can now sign the petition online, which means you no longer have to send us an email. I know some people were reluctant to signup as they didn't want to reveal their email addresses, so this should now no longer be an issue. Of course, you can still sign the petition by sending an email to [email protected].

Secondly we have created a mailing list, which will allow us to keep people posted with developments. As before, all email addresses submitted to us are confidential, and will not be revealed to anyone.

If there are any issues with the new site please email me - [email protected]

The petition currently stands at 372 names, so if you haven't signed up yet please do - the fight isn't over yet.

[Brian Dixon]

Thanks Chocks. The site looks great.

8th Anniversary of the accident today. Spare a thought for all 29 who were lost. :(

My promise to the Tapper and Cook families is that I will continue to campaign for this injustice to be rectified for as long as it takes.

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

[FJJP]

Brian, sorry to sound a negative note, but I assume you have tactics in mind if the MOD flatly refuses to budge despite all that has gone before?

Thinking of all those who perished...

Regards,

FJJP

[Brian Dixon]

Hi FJJP,
there are, indeed, plans in place in the likely event of the MoD ignoring everyone else on the planet except two arrogant individuals.

Please don't think me rude if I don't go into detail just yet. Don't want to tip anyone off!!

I can only hope that the MoD will use "moral courage" and finally make the only choice available to them - that of removing the negligence slur.

We shall soon find out.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[FJJP]

Brian, of course I did not expect you to give out the information on the next next phase - I was just triggering the next event!

Ever the optimist, I am hoping that MOD will see sense and make the decision that we are all waiting for. You never know - miracles do sometimes happen.

Regards,

FJJP

[TL Thou]

I also hear these worrying rumours :(

Brian you are doing an excellent job, keep up the good work. The more "irritating sods" we have bothering MPs the better.

The EDM is very important. It is on 81 signatures, it really needs to be whacked up to a ton and a half. If you read this and have not got in touch with your MP, do it now!

TL

[Brian Dixon]

FJJP,
apologies if my reply to you appeared to be an entry in the Granny egg sucking competition. It wasn't meant like that (although you knew that anyway!) :o

Like you, I'm hopeful - but prepared!!

TL Thou,
thank you for your kind words, but I must remind you that I am only one of many involved in the campaign. Wonder what the plural if "Irritating Sod" is? :D

Check out Computer Weekly tomorrow (06/06/02). I understand that there will be another good article by Tony Collins in there. Probably take the MoD four to six weeks to read it though!!

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

[rivetjoint]

New news article on the BBC site this morning

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_2028000/2028078.stm

[XEXPAT]

CHOCKS
It really is easy to sign the petition. I advise everyone to check out the site and sign today. Keep up the good work .

[Chocks Wahay]

Thanks XEXPAT, the names are trickling in nicely.

For those who may not have seen it, the petition states:

"We, the undersigned, believe that there is no evidence to support a verdict of Gross Negligence against Flt Lt Rick Cook and Flt Lt Jon Tapper."

If you wish to add your name to the petition, please go to campaign's website at www.chinook-justice.org and click on the Petition box on the left. Put your name in the box and click "Add Name", and that's all there is to it.

Your support will make the difference.

[Brian Dixon]

Another excellent article from Tony Collins and Computer Weekly . Three stories are available on their web site:

http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner?REQUNIQ=1023386659&REQSESS=5ZGJJ968&REQHOST=site1&2131REQEVENT=&CFLAV=1&CCAT=-99999&CCHAN=-99999&CARTI=113030

http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner?REQUNIQ=1023386659&REQSESS=5ZGJJ968&REQHOST=site1&2131REQEVENT=&CFLAV=1&CCAT=-99999&CCHAN=-99999&CARTI=113027

http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner?REQUNIQ=1023386659&REQSESS=5ZGJJ968&REQHOST=site1&2131REQEVENT=&CFLAV=1&CCAT=-99999&CCHAN=-99999&CARTI=113043

People just keep coming out and speaking about this injustice, don't they. Perhaps they are all trying to tell the Government and MoD something. Perhaps they should start listening.
I wonder how many more people are out there waiting to tell their story?

We will NOT go away.
Cheers Tony and Computer Weekly for yet another great contribution.
Thanks to everyone for their support.

If you haven't signed the petition, please give it serious consideration.
If you haven't contacted your MP please also consider doing so.

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

[solotk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_2028000/2028078.stm

[misterploppy]

Top story in today's Scotsman:

Fiscal accuses MoD of Chinook cover-up

John Staples


THE law officer who investigated the catastrophic Chinook helicopter crash has described the conclusions of the Ministry of Defence inquiry as "ridiculous" - and claims the MoD attempted to block his efforts to set up a fatal accident inquiry (FAI).

Iain Henderson, the then Campbeltown procurator fiscal, said there was no basis for the central finding - that pilots Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper were guilty of "gross negligence" and to blame for the accident on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June, 1994.

He also claimed the release of a technical report into the disaster was held up, preventing the FAI taking place for 18 months. Mr Henderson also called into question the ability of the military to remain impartial in their attempt to find the cause of the RAF’s worst peacetime accident, which killed 29 people, including the cream of Britain’s anti-terrorism intelligence.

Three reports have already dismissed the MoD’s claims of pilot error, but earlier this year, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, refused to back the most recent one, by the House of Lords, which also poured scorn on the official version of events. Relatives of the pilots have dismissed the official findings as a whitewash and believe there were technical defects with the Chinook helicopter.

In his first interview about the crash investigation, published today in Computer Weekly magazine, Mr Henderson said: "The MoD did not want to have a fatal accident inquiry at all."

He said the MoD’s repeated "stalling" over the release of the technical report made him believe the ministry had an "ulterior motive" for the delay.

He added: "It was obvious that they were concerned that they could not control the outcome of our inquiry."

Following these findings, doubts were raised about the reliability of a new computer software system - FADEC - used to fly the aircraft. Asked what he thought of the MoD’s verdict, Mr Henderson told the magazine: "Ridiculous."

The Chinook helicopter smashed into the 1,404ft Beinn na Lice in atrocious weather conditions during a flight from RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland to Fort George, near Inverness. As well as Flight Lieutenants Cook, 30, and Tapper, 28, two experienced crewmen and 25 of the most senior SAS and MI5 counter-terrorist officers were killed, including the head of the Special Branch in Northern Ireland.

Mr Henderson, who is now retired, said he believes a technical report by Tony Cable, chief investigator of the crash at the Air Accidents Investigations Branch, was ready in late 1994, a few months after the accident.

He added: "I could not have an FAI without the technical report. There would have been a huge hole in the middle of my investigation"

Although the technical investigation report was dated 5 January 1995, the MoD did not make it available to Mr Henderson until June of that year.

He said he was then told that it could not be used as evidence for an FAI without the MoD’s clearance.

"Eventually I got a grudging letter from the MoD saying I could lodge the report [in September 1995]. That was after I had asked the Crown Office to take the matter up at a ministerial level," Mr Henderson said.

He insisted that the delay made it almost impossible for the families to prepare a case for a judicial review within the stipulated three-month time period of the judgment by the RAF Board of Inquiry in April 1995.

Although Mr Cable’s report found no evidence of any technical cause of the crash, it revealed many uncertainties over the state of equipment damaged by impact. In particular, it said one of the Chinook MK2’s FADEC control systems had been destroyed in a fire .

The FAI eventually concluded that there was no evidence to support the RAF’s findings against the pilots.

But Mr Henderson said the resistance he met in holding an FAI "does not inspire much confidence in the impartiality of the MoD".

In response to allegations of hindering the FAI, the MoD said in a statement: "The MoD believes it co-operated fully with Sheriff Sir Stephen Young's FAI. Indeed, the Lord Advocate has since stated there is no evidence to justify re-opening that inquiry".


This article:

http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=609222002

More Chinook inquiry:

http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=213

[HectorusRex]

A few questions regarding the current impasse over the Chinook Campaign.

Q1 Why is it that PM Blair, Secretary of State for Defence Geoff Hoon, and two senior Air Officers consider that they alone are the only parade members marching in step?

Q2 What does one consider may be in the can of worms that these four and MoD are sitting so resolutely on, and trying desperately to prevent being opened?

Q3 What is the constitutional situation whereby this particular group can defy the findings of so many other legally constituted inquiries, all of which have been unable to find a cause of the subject accident, “beyond reasonable doubt”?

Like all others I am saddened by the King Chanute attitude displayed by the gang of four.

HectorusRex
:confused:

[misterploppy]

The Scotsman again:

Blair urged to sort out Chinook fiasco

Hamish Macdonell Scottish Political Editor


TONY Blair was facing demands last night that he intervene personally to end the confusion over the Chinook helicopter crash.

David Davis, the Conservative Party chairman, called on the Prime Minister to get involved after the law officer who investigated the 1994 crash claimed the Ministry of Defence had blocked his efforts to set up a fatal accident inquiry.

Iain Henderson, the then Campbeltown procurator fiscal, said this week that the military stalled a technical report into the crash in which 29 people, including top British intelligence officers, were killed on the Mull of Kintyre.

And he claimed that there was no basis for the MoD’s central finding, that the pilots, Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper, were guilty of "gross negligence", lambasting the ministry’s inquiry as ridiculous.

Relatives of the pilots have claimed there were technical defects with the helicopter.

Mr Henderson’s intervention represents the latest in a series of developments since the 1994 crash, almost all of which have cast doubt on the findings of the MoD defence inquiry.

Mr Davis said yesterday that the only way the affair could be cleared up now, particularly following the claims that the MoD had tried to block an initial inquiry, was with the intervention of the Prime Minister.

Mr Davis said: "These are very serious allegations, and I expect the government to give full and prompt answers to explain why the MoD seemed to impede the inquiry into the crash.

"What is worrying is that this is yet another indication of the MoD’s less than impartial attitude to this case.

"This shows that nothing less than the personal intervention of the Prime Minister is needed to ensure that justice is done.

"We can never be convinced of a fair and just outcome if the final decision is simply left to the Ministry of Defence."

Mr Henderson sparked the latest controversy over the eight-year-old crash in an interview with Computer Weekly magazine.

He said: "The MoD did not want to have a fatal accident inquiry at all."

The military’s repeated "stalling" over the release of the technical report made him believe the ministry had an "ulterior motive" for the delay, he said.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence insisted yesterday that the military had co-operated fully with the FAI.


This article:

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=618962002

More Chinook inquiry:

http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=213

[Brian Dixon]

Hectorus,
Just my opinion but here's an attempt to answer your questions:

Question 1.
When you have your fingers in your ears, you can't hear the band or the commands.
Besides, we're all serfs. They know best. :rolleyes:

Question 2.
a. Who took the decision to keep the Mk 2 in service.
b. Who took the decision to fly the pax on a dodgy aircraft.
c. Who took the decision to select which information was to be given to investigators.
d. Who took the decision to withold certain information from investigators.
e. What information is held that has not been classed as 'evidence' and therefore not disclosed.

There are plenty more of those little worms too!

Question 3.
I'm not sure it is constitutional. We may be putting it to the test sometime soon!

You may recall that King Canute lost his particular battle :D

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

[HectorusRex]

Hi Brian,
I think the answer to all is a big "YES":D

[opso]

The pessimistic part of me suggests that little will change until the matter starts popping up more regularly on the TV news, thereby pushing it more in to the eye-level of the voting public. Newspaper and magazine coverage is great, but considering the literacy rates in this country and the pervasive nature of television, the way to get the public interested is for it to keep cropping up on the boob-tube. Interested public ask questions, which the media then want to cover/answer in order to gain more viewers/readers and so it would become a self-feeding loop for a while (until the public get bored again, or a new pop star is discovered or Kylie gets married). It was this 'frenzy' that created enough pressure to ditch Byers, so it should be enough to pressure BLiar in to pushing for a resolution here as well. Trouble is, how do you get the TV news to push it in to the public eye further?

[Reheat On]

The Daily Mail are usually pretty proactive on injustice campaigns, and not afraid to have a crack at the Government of the day. they must be worth a phone call. I am aslo surprised the DT have not taken it further.

What is needed is some dodgy advisory e-mail - not being flippant here, and anyway the incident was pre MoD e mail, but you know what I mean. In view of the Paddington news this week, you can bet this campaign has been vetted for political motive, and the lead individuals probably deeply vetted.

However there is a down side to raising the PR stakes - because ulitmately if you are playing poker with 2 pairs [4 Aces :)] it don't matter how much you can flatten the other side, if they have a huge warchest they can see you off the park. You have the winnning hand but still lose - unless you can find a benefactor. Someone with huge public clout who could lead. Question - who?

There are of course the familes to consider - any attempt at the very public route would have to be with their consent.

I have more faith in the Scots justice systrem and the Scots Parliament than I do in London, where El Presidente knows no limits to his arrogance and disregard for protocol, as the Jubilee proved in a different way.

Brian's questions listed above seem to allude to a significant engineer somewhere in the loop, and one wonders if it is the engineering branch that are holding the parcel at the moment, and a little fearful of the music stopping.

The can of worms may be in that argument somewhere, unless it is the simple issue of the peace process at all costs.

Maybe there is a fear that a decision on this case would raise concerns that a/c maintenance would be vunerble to wholesale contractorisation, which of course may be a hidden agenda at MoD anyway. I have been convinced that the treasury are locked in a deth battle with MoD for some years, and the contractorisation process slots in nicely to a weakening of their direct sphere of influence.

We could do a lot worse than have a concerted letter campaign to our MPs for starters, as many of you have. Good letters to the DT and The Times are always worth a try as well, and if they have a high profile series of names on them, they can be effective.

As Brian says, it costs little to keep trying. Think of it as a bit like eating an elephant.

[slj]

Text of Letter being sent to Rt Hon Tony Blair MP

Dear Prime Minister

RAF Chinook Mark 2 helicopter, ZD 576, that crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994

As a lawyer you will be aware that in order to prove negligence there are three obstacles that have to be overcome.

1 That a duty of care was owed

In the case of Flt Lts Cook and Tapper the pilots of an RAF Chinook Mark 2 helicopter, ZD 576 that crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994 it is accepted that they owed a duty of care to the occupants of that aircraft.

2 That the duty of care was breached

The House of Lords Select Committee on Chinook ZD 576 published on 31 January 2002 concluded in para 174 that “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”.

RAF rules in force at the time provided that deceased aircrew could be found negligent only where there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

3 That damages flowed from that breach

As there was no finding of breach of duty this does not apply.

I would be grateful if you could explain to me why your Government has not acted to correct the wrong caused to the deceased officers and their families in what is basically a simple matter of law and why they are not being afforded the natural justice to which they are entitled.

I look for forward to your reply

slj

[HectorusRex]

Keeping it on top!mg]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/bttt.gif[/img]
HectorusRex

[millhampost]

I urge all of you to go to Computer Weekly -
http://www.cw360.com
put Chinook in their search box, top left, - they have really done a job on reporting this.
I've just written to thank the editor Karl.

[TL Thou]

The Computer Weekly story and the cover up allegation was in my view a big story, but the media as a whole were not interested. It received disappointing coverage, but what coverage there was was good. Full credit to the Scottish press.

My understanding is that the media will only become interested in it again when the "final result" is known. Given that we seem to be drifting to an unfavourable result, this is not good at all.

I think it would be helpful if some SERVING pilots made their concerns publicly known about this again. That would make them sit up and take notice. Easier said than done, I appreciate though.

TL.:(

[PPRuNe Pop]

B.T.T.T.


To save putting the thread back to the top. I have put it up there 'permanently'!

[canberra]

as an ex serving member of the raf(non aircrew) the one thing that has always stuck in my mind about the chinook crash is the fact that the first two numbers on the chinook transponder were 77, this was not mentioned in the accident report but was reported in the fatal accident inquiry. incidentally the channel four documentary made a great fuss about the fai saying how there wouldnt have been one if the accident had happened in england. this is true, but in england it would have been the subject of an inquest by the coroner, coroners dont exist in scotland. i'll finish on a slightly cynical note, i cant help wondering if there would have been all this publicity if it had not been carrying all those int personnel(and just why were they all travelling together, it would have been a lot cheaper for them to go by civvy air) and if the father of one of the pilots hadnt been an ex airline captain, and if it had been nco pilots i dont think air marshal wratten would have found them negligent. dont forget wratten had sent out a letter to all station commanders about officers bahaviour, and not before time!

[antennae]

Canberra
The points you make do nothing to further either debate or the campaign. There is no evidence explaining precisely the motive of the senior air officers. If you have the evidence, rather than cynical general points of view, place them on this thread.
Many ask the question why these men and one woman were put on a mil. craft - it was SOP. The request for them to fly together came from one of the pax who subsequently died. The pax had no idea Tapper had asked to use a Mk1 for the transit because he didn't trust ZD576. Odiham did know about the request and turned him down. That probably brings us closer to the truth over Air Marshal motive than anything else I have read.
What do others think?

[canberra]

i think the point about the first two digits on the transponder being 77 are great big points!! do u know of any transponder code that starts with 77 cos i sure dont!!!! on subject of air marshals just why did they say it was negligence when ap said you couldnt say that without evidence. and as for putting all your int people in one aircraft well they say military intelligence is an oxymoron.

[PPRuNe Radar]

canberra

There's plenty of codes in the 77** series

7701-7717 Superdomestic - UK to USA
7720-7727 ORCAM Transit Munich
7730-7757 Superdomestic Shannon Eastbound landing UK
7760-7775 Superdomestic UK to Channel Isles
7776-7777 SSR Monitors

plus pilots are not unknown to get digits mixed up or wrong either ... do it myself when I'm flying as well sometimes.

The conspicuity code of 7000 is only one digit away from that other one.

[steamchicken]

The constitutional point is that almost everything in the forces answers to the MoD, through that to the defence sec, through him to Cabinet, through that to the PM, through him (in irrelevant theory) to the Queen. The only parliamentary oversight is that both the defence secretary and the PM are (like all ministers) responsible to parliament. But - it's obviously tough to shift a whole defence secretary, as long as the PM backs him and they have a majority. (Especially as in this case he can always plead that it didn't happen on his watch)

So - what? The only way is to keep making a fuss until the parliamentary and media pressure overrides the bureaucrats' advice to ministers to shut up. Once the conflict with the press and the MPs gets bigger than that with the 'crats, something's gotta give. Good luck!

[ShyTorque]

PPrune Radar,

7000 isn't a squawk normally used by UK military aircraft. Although it is some time since I retired from the rotary service in question, I recall that 4321 or 4322 would have been more appropriate for such a flight.

Something else that has not been paid too much attention to is the co-pilot's intercom box being found selected to the "Emergency" position in the wreckage.

But all this speculation is really irrelevant. We all know that the verdict shouldn't have been brought and the HOL and Scottish inquiries support that view.

This will probably not be resolved by MOD until a certain VSO retires, in order not to upset the status quo applecart within.

[PlasticCabDriver]

ShyTorque,

7000 is the routine squawk for Mil Rotary operating at low level without a radar service, as the aircraft was, so routine that that is what I would expect them to have had on in that situation.

[Chocks Wahay]

Since the recent server upgrade to the campaign's website (www.chinook-justice.org), the number of hits on the site and names added to the petition has gone up - thanks to everyone.

Sadly, one individual has been abusing the new automated system for signing the petition by adding fake names. Accordingly, I have had to start moderating signatures again - you can still sign the petition online, but it won't appear until we have approved it. It just means a bit more inconvenience for me, but it won't affect the campaign, so no harm done. A number of names added to the petition in the last 10 days have been removed. If you have signed the petition please check the page and email [email protected] if we have removed your name in error.

To the idiot who thinks it's clever to put things like "Mr A Tosser" into the petition - well done mate, you've achieved nothing, but I'm sure the widows, children & families of the 29 people killed in the crash are impressed all the same.

[PPRuNe Pop]

that should Brian, Chocks or A.N.Other bring a name to me who is guilty of the kind of behaviour Chocks has indicated above, I will GUARANTEE a ban without question, fear or favour. This will also include a ban on the individual's ISP's.

It is an incredibly stupid and juvenile thing to do. Especially to such a serious thread as this. It beggars belief!

PPRuNe Pop
Administrator
[email protected]

[ShyTorque]

PlasticCabDriver,

Thanks, I'll have to bow to your recent knowledge of the squawk code. It used to be 4321 for not requiring a radar service and 4322 when climbing out of the LFA and requesting one. The 7000 has obviously now been accepted in accordance with civvy ops.

[slj]

Chocks

Certainly it was an apt name for that sort of person - Tosser.

Good for you Pop. It was most irresponsible act.

[Oh I See]

Brian/Chocks

Letter sent.

Brian

I am probably one of the few on this forum who knows you personally and I cannot thank you enough for getting this travesty the coverage it deserves. Many have said that this is picking over old sores. Many who were directly involved have said this out of a desire to try and put this whole travesty behind them. How can a new type come into service when personnel think ”If this can happen then what of our widows ?”.

One day I'll grow up and use my real name on this forum.

Susan
:D

Edited to save to confusion!

[ShyTorque]

Email received.

Letter to MP sent today!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Oh I See

Given the fact that computers control everything nowadays, many of the autonomously, this disgraceful saga has implications that go far beyond the world of (military) aviation.

BTW.....whoever submitted false names to the petition should be named and shamed.

[Chocks Wahay]

We've had a staggering response to last weekend's mailshot - by my count around 40 MP's should have received letters, emails or faxes asking them to support the Early Day Motion in the last few days.

To answer a couple of questions which came up repeatedly:
1. There is no need to send the MP a copy of the EDM as they have access to the full text.
2. The list of MP's who have signed the EDM can be found on http://edm.ais.co.uk/ and searching for EDM no 829

The campaign website will be updated this weekend to reflect the push on the EDM, incorporating a couple of suggestions made via email.

If anyone who didn't receive the mailshot wishes to contact their MP, Brian Dixon posted a suggested text on page 11 in this thread, or email [email protected] and I will send you the details.

On behalf of Brian, myself and the rest of the campaign team, thank you for supporting this initiative.

[TL Thou]

Well done Chocks, excellent stuff on the EDM. Hopefully it will start climbing up in numbers.

Now get a friendly MP to table an amendment to the EDM (which adds to it), castigating the Government for taking so long to consider the Report, calls for the personal intervention of the Prime Minister, and warns the Government against slipping out a negative verdict on the quiet last sitting Friday before the summer recess.

Not that I am trying to add to your work load or anything!

[Brian Dixon]

Hi all,
I know I've said it a thousand times, but Thank you for your continued support. The response from the e-mail has been fantastic.

PPRuNe Pop - Thank you for your support. Hopefully the idiot has now gone back to their village!

Oh I See - Hope you are well. Please promise me that you'll never grow up. I've heard that it's not all it's cracked up to be!!

Chocks - What can I say? Thanks. (There I go again!).

Hopefully the Government will announce something soon, although I fear that they will play the 'big boy in the playground' card so as to let us mortals know who is in charge. The MoD will always back their top people too!

Too bad. The awkward questions will start and constitutional questions will be asked. More people will speak out at this injustice and we will not go away.

I hope the PM has the 'moral courage' to finally do something positive, although I won't be holding my breath.

Please keep up the pressure.
My very best wishes, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[TL Thou]

This is the latest from Alan "That's Lord to You, Boy" Chalfont:

SCOTSMAN
Lords threat to RAF
THE House of Lords may today invoke an obscure order that could ground the RAF in a bid to force Tony Blair to act on a report into the Chinook helicopter disaster. They could withhold approval of a routine armed forces order in response to the Prime Minister's refusal to act on a House of Lords committee report which said the negligence verdict against the Chinook helicopter crash pilots was "unjustifiable".

Lord Chalfont, head of the Parliamentary campaign to clear the pilots, yesterday tabled an amendment to the Armed Forces Discipline Act (Continuation) Order - normally nodded through by the Lords - which, if taken to a vote, could ground the RAF.

[Brian Dixon]

A timely reminder to the MoD of the constitutional need for Government departments to act in accordance with the rule of law.

Perhaps this will focus their attention on this injustice.
Well done M'lud.

For information, EDM 829 currently stands at 98 signatures.

Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[ShyTorque]

Having emailed my MP, he signed yesterday.

Thank you Mr. John Mann! :cool:

[InFinRetirement]

Email sent to my MP, Paul Burstow, who has stated that he will sign the EDM.

We pray.

[TL Thou]

EDM up to 99 today with a flurry of new signatures. Good work folks.

This was also debated quite extensively in the Lords yesterday, following on from Lord Chalfont's amendment to a routine continuation order. Good work LC.

Link to the full debate:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds02/text/20619-23.htm#20619-23_dl0

[Chocks Wahay]

Thanks for the link TL Thou. It's worth reading the whole thing, but there were a couple of interesting points. The debate was over the continuation of the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts, which jointly constitute a large part of the authority of the armed forces in the UK. The Acts are renewed every few years by Parliament. Lord Chalfont proposed an amendment that the Acts should not be renewed until the Govt responds to the Chinook Select Committee.

For the Govt, Lord Bach said "The committee's report is a detailed assessment of a set of complex, technical, legal and, we believe, airmanship issues". My first thought was how can there be "airmanship issues" when there are no facts to testify as to the airmanship, or lack of it?

On the subject of the simulation being carried out by Boeing, Lord Bach went on: "Boeing has also been asked to re-examine to what extent the minimum speed at the way-point can be established". It looks as if they are hoping to use the simulation as "evidence" to prove their "airmanship issues" - ie blame the pilots.

Interestingly, they made this commitment "We intend to make the evidence produced through Boeing's work, in the light of the re-modelling process, available ", albeit with the predictable caveat "although there may be some matters of commercial sensitivity which preclude publication of some elements."

On the subject of the timescale, Lord Bach said "We will report within the six months that we are allowed." However, as became apparent, the actual expiry of the 6 months is somewhat unclear (to some at least):

Lord Bach: "The Select Committee's report was published on 5th February, not 3lst January, of this year."

Lord Chalfont: "There is not much argument about it because it is printed on the report—ordered to be printed on 31st January. As far as I am concerned that is when the report was issued. However, we will not argue about five days when we have already waited this length of time for the Ministry of Defence response. "

The date of the summer recess is not yet known, but as a guide the Commons recess in 2001 was 20th July, and the Lords on 24th July. In previous years recesses have generally been in the last week of July, or early in August. That 5 days may yet prove to be important.

Lord Bach conceded in the debate that the announcement would be late in the session, and would not give time for a debate before the recess. That means that the earliest opportunity for a debate will be in October. We'll be waiting .......

[Brian Dixon]

Well, there's suprise. It would appear that the response will now come close to the Summer Recess, thereby giving little time for reply or due debate.

Not only that, but yet more delay for the families of those lost in the accident. How much longer are these fine people expected to suffer?

To the leaders of our magnificent men and women of the Armed Services, you should hang your head in shame.
You are all gutless :mad:

My thanks to everyone who has helped increase the EDM total. Fantastic stuff folks.

We will do the right thing for Jon and Rick, and we will not go away!!

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

[TL Thou]

Chocks, HoC goes into recess on Wednesday 24 July, comes back October 15. The Lords will probably follow suit.

[Chocks Wahay]

Thanks for the info TL Thou. Lord Bach wasn't clear in the debate as to whether he was referring to the Lords recess or the Commons (Lords presumeably), however it sounds like we can expect a response in 4-5 weeks time.

In the meantime, keep up the pressure on the EDM - 101 names on it now. Most recent signatories were: Mark Fisher (Stoke On Trent, Lab); Andrew Mackay (Bracknell, Con) and Jeff Ennis (Barnsley East and Mexborough, Lab).

Party wise, the numbers are:

Conservative Party 21
Democratic Unionist Party 5
Labour Party 46
Liberal Democrats 18
Plaid Cymru 4
Scottish National Party 3
Ulster Unionist Party 4

Pretty good cross-party support - that's got to tell the MoD something!

[Thud_and_Blunder]

What a handy lesson in UK democracy this has been - I've discovered more about how our lives are run through this site and its links that at any time before. Having left the unit the crew belonged to 3 weeks before the crash, and having flown with all 4 of them at various times over the preceding 4 years, I have a particular interest in seeing justice done.

It's a pity the Lib Dems here in W Devon haven't quite caught up with the 21st century yet. The local MP lists neither email nor website on the Parliamentary pages, and his own party's site gives an email address which is invalid. Shame he hasn't signed up yet - unlike his 18 fellow party-member MPs - particularly as he's ex-military, but I'll just have to keep on pestering.

[Arkroyal]

Although my MP 'almost invariably does not sign EDMs', I've faxed him again to ask for his support.

You are right Brian......we will not go away

[chippy63]

Mark Oaten, L-dem MP for Winchester, e-mailed me to say that he has signed the EDM. Thanks to Chocks Wahay's useful link, I checked but didn't actually see his name down, so I will check again on Monday.

[BEagle]

David Cameron MP, Tory Boy member for the constituency which includes the Secret Oxfordshire Airbase, was e-mailed asking him to sign this EDM.

So far he has neither signed nor replied to the e-mail. But I note that he'll be attending the Annual Reception at said aerodrome fairly soon..........

Who will we vote for next time........

[FJJP]

Oh Beags, you wouldn't - would you? Nah! I just can't picture you at the ann recep button-holing your MP - much!

Give him hell! My own MP has yet to reply to my e-mail asking him to sign the EDM. I'll give him another week then go for the jugular.

I remember an ann recep where I was in a group hosting our local mayor (so far left wing, he made Michael Foot look like Ghengis Khan!). When asked if he would like another drink, he replied 'Yes, since the taxpayer was paying, he might as well'. The Wg Cdr leading the group, in a very loud voice and in no uncertain terms, pointed out to the civil dignatory that the entire evening was financed personally by all the officers of the base - said Lord M went bright red and left shortly afterwards. He was never seen in the mess again.

Brian, do you have a brief available of the essential facts? The sort of thing a busy MP could skim through in a few minutes and would give him the info to convince him of our cause? I have it in mind to interview him at a constituancy surgery, but I want him to have a skeleton brief first so that he will have a clue as to what we're on about. I can then appraise him in detail of negligence, airmanship and BOI procedures (I've been president of several board and unit inquiries in my time, so I think I can convince him).

And then, as you say Beags, there's the spectre of the next election...

[tengah chum]

I have also E mailed Mr Cameron and failed to get a reply .

[Brian Dixon]

EDM now up to 103 with more MPs promising to sign - great stuff!!

FJJP - I've sent something via e-mail. Let me know what you think. If it's any good, I'll put it on the thread for all to use if they want to. I only highlighted a few things, as there are so many areas of doubt it would have ended up the size of a book!!

If you direct your MPs to the campaign web site, they can not only read all that is on there, but use the links to get more information.

Also remind them of the constitutional issue of the MoD ignoring Parliament. Ask them if they obey the MoD, or does the MoD obey the elected members. That won't sit too well.

Keep up the good work everyone. It is making a difference.

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

[BEagle]

FJJP - no, I don't think that chest-poking the local MP at the Annual Reception would be particularly helpful to this campaign.

Perhaps a list of MPs who have been e-mailed but who have yet to reply would make an interesting addition to the campaign website.........

[InFinRetirement]

Mine hasn't replied either - Paul Burstow, Sutton and Cheam - will fire off an email today as a reminder.

[pulse1]

After two weeks, my MP, Robert Walter (Con) has only sent me a card acknowledging receipt of my letter.

Due to an error on the H of C website I also wrote to my neignbouring MP, Annette Brooks (Lib) who has signed the EDM.

After the last election I told Walter that I was one of the million voters they had to win back if they wanted to win next time. He's not doing too well so far.

[TL Thou]

If they don't reply, or take ages, simply ring up the House of Commons 020 7219 3000 and ask to speak to them directly. That will make sure your letter gets to the top of the pile even if you speak only to the secretary.

In the case of Robert Walter, remind him that his Party Chairman is playing a leading part in the campaign, and that he would be very happy for him to sign it.

TL.

[IanSeager]

My MP, Michael Ancram, wrote to me saying that as a member of the shadow cabinet he wasn't allowed to sign EDMs that haven't been officially tabled by the oposition...

Seems like a silly rule to me...

Ian

[ColDurb]

We could ask the Party leader for an explanation of this rule?

https://www.conservatives.com/feedback.cfm

I have used feedback form this before, and have recieved replies...

[ColDurb]

EDM 829 now stands at 105! 2 more since this morning!!

MP's e mailed for others to send another to:

As regards the suggestion of a list of MP' contacted...

David Wright, Telford.
George Stevenson, Stoke-on-Trent South

1st and Deputy ministers of the Northern Ireland assembly, (David Trimble and Mark Durkin), asking for themselves and to ask thier party members to condider this motion...

(Does anyone know who Ann Wintergreens, South Cheshire)replacement is)?

[Archimedes]

ColDurb - do you mean Ann Winterton (Congleton)? According to the parliament web page, there's no MP named 'Wintergreen', nor a constituency of South Cheshire...

If you do mean Winterton (sacked for racist joke telling), she's still the MP. She was replaced as shadow minister for rural affairs by David Lidington.

[ColDurb]

Winterton! Ahh, thanks...Yes, Congleton. Just a hop and a skip from my home on the border.

What Im doing, because my MP has allready signed the motion, is wrting to niegbouring MP's...(I'm pretty new to politics, but there ave been so many names to remember, thus the mistake regarding her surname..). So, if she is still an MP, and NOT shadow cabinet minister, then she is, (according to Conservitive policy), able to sign 829:

(Which is now at 107...)

Thanks Archimedes. (Now where did I get Wintergreen from?)...

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Email sent to my local MP Chris Ruane today.

[Brian Dixon]

Latest whispers still aren't good.

Rumour is that the MoD will say that they heard nothing new from Their Lordships. Therefore, no change.

If this rumour is true the MoD has missed the point completely. Their Lordships state (along with most of the rest of the planet) that the evidence the MoD has, already falls significantly short of the burden of proof required. The Air Marshals were wrong

Don't forget, it's the MoD that decides what is, and what isn't of evidential value, and what is released to the public domain. Perhaps they could agree to make every single piece of information available for inspection.

This pressure must be kept up. Not only for Jon and Rick, but for every single current and future service aviator, who could also be so easily sacrificed.

Keep up the good work.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[BEagle]

I note that David Cameron MP (Con) has still not signed the EDM. Neither has he replied to my e-mail - so I've e-mailed him again and have asked for an acknowledgement.

I wonder which party I'll be voting for in the next election?

[Nil nos tremefacit]

I've just e-mailed David Cameron as well. You would hope that with so many of us with homes in his constituency he would react.

If you can't get your MP contact his/her agent.

David Cameron's agent is Barry Norton 01993 881777 (home) or 770313 (work - West Oxfordshire Conservative Association).:cool:

[PPRuNe Pop]

Just heard from my MP, Paul Bustow of Sutton and Cheam, that he now signed the EDM. Thank goodness for that I had heard that emails were not getting to him.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Just had a reply from my MP’s office that he has been given the email and they will get back to me.

Not bad considering I only sent it yesterday.

He seems to have signed 178 EDMs since 1997 so fingers crossed.

[ColDurb]

The number keeps growing..:)

...found out why Shadow MP's and Frontbenchers cannot sign EDMs..

Simple question asked to Ian Duncan-Smith...Why cant Shadow Cabinet MP's sign EDM's....(Regarding Micheal Ancrams reply above):
--------------------------------
....carefully noted your comments. Early Day Motions exist to allow
backbench MPs to express their opinions on issues of the day, free from the
influence of their party leadership. As such neither Government ministers
nor Opposition frontbench spokesmen sign EDMs.

In regard of the Chinook helicopter crash, in March we used an opposition
day debate to raise this subject with the Government. The debate can be read
online

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cm020
319/debtext/20319-24.htm#20319-24_head0

and I hope you will find it of
interest.

Thank you again for taking the trouble to write.

==================================
That link to the debate is very interesting. especially an inferrence in Dr Lewis's point below...and Sec of Def's reply of:

"Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): Has MOD policy changed in either of two respects? First, in future, would the MOD ever approve the concentration of such a large number of key intelligence personnel in a single aircraft? If not, that suggests a vested interest in blaming the pilots. Secondly, is it true that a decision has been made that, in future, in circumstances even of this sort, there would be no question of the MOD blaming deceased pilots? If the rules have been changed because of the case of these two pilots, is it not monstrously unjust that the two pilots themselves, who have led to the change in the rules, should nevertheless continue to carry the blame in perpetuity?


Mr. Hoon: Clearly it was not sensible for so many highly specialised people to be carried on a single aircraft, but I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's implication that there is a deliberate conspiracy to cover up the details simply to protect those who were responsible for the decision in the first place. I am sure that if he thinks about that for a second, he will realise that that is not a proper imputation to make at this stage.


Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Will my right hon. Friend give way?


Mr. Hoon: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to respond to the hon. Gentleman's second point. The hon. Gentleman quite rightly mentioned the present rules, which certainly have changed. They have not necessarily changed as a result of this specific unfortunate incident, but they have changed"
====================================
So, the rules have changed...why?

I wonder if the MoD has released publically the results of

"It has also emerged that, at the time of the crash, the MOD was suing both Boeing and Textron Lycoming—the manufacturers of the Chinook and its engines, respectively—because of faulty test procedures and a design fault in the aircraft's FADEC software."


(sorry for the long post)...

[TL Thou]

Col, whoever sent you the reply from the Tory Party is a dipstick and is talking s*ite.

Reply back to them and say if that is the case why has each and every member of the Shadow Cabinet (including Michael Ancram!!) signed EDMs in this session?

They are however correct in saying Ministers do not sign EDMs.

[ColDurb]

Thanks TL Thou...

So...?
We'll see what we can see...

[Arkroyal]

I continue in my state of utter frustration at my MP's refusal to sign at the second request. Doesn't think EDMs are ever worth signing.

Although he 'broadly agrees with me' over the accident, he won't be helping the campaign.:mad:

[BEagle]

EDM 829 total of signatures now 109.

Still nothing - not even an acknowledgement - from the local Toryboy.

[ColDurb]

Great News...EDM 829 now a 113.

Ive asked Ian Philips, Corrispondance Sectrestary at Ian Duncan Smiths office, why Front benchers have signed yersterdays session, and well, lied direclty to some of you, including me...ON THE SAME DAY!!. Follow ups would be benificial:

https://www.conservatives.com/feedback.cfm

Write to Ian Duncan Smiths Office.

Could we have a fresh list of MP's contacted, that eiter a) have no replied, or b) have relpied with a non commited or reluctent reposnce...These can always be followed up.

[rhajaramjet]

I've tried to absorb all of this long saga so forgive me if this has been answered before. I used to work with William Wratten, does anybody have his address - I wonder if he has been approached to reconsider his decision?

[Brian Dixon]

There have been numerous opportunities, yet he remains adamant that he, above everyone else, knows best.

Must be his years of rotory experience. Oh, wait. Hang on .......?

I don't have his address, but hope that someone will mail it to you privately. If you do make contact, please try to point out the obvious to him. There will be many who would be eternally grateful to you!!

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

[BEagle]

Brian - if you go back through your archives, you'll find that this Knight of the Realm used his personal address in Cheltenham in his letter to the media..............

[Nil nos tremefacit]

David Cameron, Witney (BZN), is away until 3rd July.

I am assured that he will read my e-mail at that time. Presumably he will read those of others on the same subject so BZN people should go to Parliament website, e-mail him and ask politely that he sign the EDM.

[Brian Dixon]

Hi Beags,
I remember his letter to The Times where he published his home address. I can't find the cutting and I think I lost the address in computer crash number two! Not to worry, I have no great desire to write to him!

That said, despite of everything, I personally wouldn't feel happy in posting his full address without consent anyway. Hopefully someone will be able to help rhajaramjet with their request.

Colin,
I've also asked David Davis to look into the EDM requests. Not only is he Tory Chair, he's an extremely active supporter.

Ark,
funny how your guy seems to have penned his name to 17 EDMs this year!!

Nil Nos,
Great stuff, thank you.

And thanks to everyone who is keeping this issue to the fore. Don't be suprised at the possible 'hit and run' tactic just prior to the Summer Recess. Quite staggering that the Department for Defence has no stomach for a fight.

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

[madasacow]

If anyone needs to post a note to 'Sir John' send it to me, I'll print it out and pop it in his fount door!!
Queen's Gap is just round the corner!

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Just recieved an email to tell me Chris Ruane MP has signed.

[Chalkstripe]

Just received this from my MP...

Thank you for your recent letter correspondence regarding EDM 829.
You may be aware that I am a Whip and therefore part of the Her Majesty's
Government. As such, parliamentary protocol prevents me from signing Early
Day Motions because if I did it might appear that the EDM had Governmental
support.
However, I will monitor the progress of this EDM with interest.
Thank you for taking the trouble to write to me about this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Jim Fitzpatrick MP


I'm too ignorant to know whether he is making excuses or if he is being straight with me :confused:

[Archimedes]

Chalkstripe,

he is being straight with you. The Parliamentary guide says:

Ministers and Whips do not normally sign EDMs. Under the Ministerial Code Parliamentary Private secretaries “must not associate themselves with particular groups advocating special
policies”, and they do not normally sign controversial
EDMs. Neither the Speaker nor Deputy Speakers will sign
EDMs. The internal Standing Orders of the Parliamentary
Labour Party require Labour Members to consult the Chief
Whip before tabling an EDM, and to delay the tabling of an
EDM for one sitting day at the Chief Whip’s request.

Since there appear to have been some queries about EDMs, for those seeking more info, can I suggest:

http://edm.ais.co.uk/

While the factsheet itself is at:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/fs30.pdf

[Chalkstripe]

Archimedes

thanks for that - I will try and hunt down some other MP and bother him instead

CS

[Nil nos tremefacit]

Just received e-mail from David Cameron. He will be signing the EDM and is replying to all e-mails on subject. He has only just returned to work and is wading through a massive amount of material, but is keen to support this matter.:)

[BEagle]

Excellent!!

I haven't received an e-mail personally; however, this is the result I'd hoped for!!

[Arkroyal]

Brian,

Thanks for that. Followed it up and find his tally is now 25, including 'Bear farms in China', and other world shattering causes concerning the constituents of Blaby.

I'll compose a suitably caustic response to his letter:mad:

[pulse1]

I just returned from holiday to find still no response from Robert Walter MP. (following 1 x e mail and 2 x letters). He obviously doesn't care about winning back disaffected Tory voters.

I have now complained to IDS.

[BEagle]

I have now received a courteous and comprehensive reply from David Cameron MP, together with a copy of Hansard dated 19 Mar 2002 giving the full transcript of the Opposition Day Debate.

He has reminded me that the Rt Hon David Davis, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, said that : the only honourable course for the Government now is to reinstate the reputations of the two brave young pilots who lost their lives. The Lords Select Committee report confirms the conclusion of two previous inquiries that there was a miscarriage of justice."

Mr Cameron went on to say "You have asked me to sign EDM829 but I have to say that, in my opinion, these EDMs have very limited impact. I think it ismuch more effective to make sure your concerns are brought directly to the Secretary of State for Defence and this I have done. I will contact you again when I have his response"

However, he concludes "On this occasion I have signed, because in a very specific case like this, the weight of numbers may help to force the Government's hand."

Thank you very much indeed, David Cameron MP, I'm sure that your efforts will be much appreciated by Brian and the campaigners.

[fantom]

cummon....waiting patiently....need a result for Wrotten.......

:mad:

[tengah chum]

I have also recieved 2 e- mails, a copy of Hansard and a covering letter from David Cameron.
Excellent service

[TL Thou]

Cowabunga! The EDM is now on 125, signed by Robert Walter (!), David Cameron, true to his word, and also Tory Chief Whip David Maclean. And Boris Johnson.

Someone once told me that when an EDM reaches 100 it is drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister, so if yer reading Tony, take note!

[pulse1]

Following my earlier remarks about Robert Walter, I got home tonight to find a letter from him promising to sign the EDM. I now have to undo my complaint to IDS and think more highly of him. Doh!:rolleyes: