Chinook - Still Hitting Back

[Brian Dixon]

Just to continue from John Nichol's original thread.
For those who are new to the subject the original thread can be found on: www.pprune.org/cgbin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=000333 (http://www.pprune.org/cgbin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=000333)

If you don't know me, the link may not work. If you do know me, could you put the correct link on please!! :rolleyes:

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

[BEagle]

Software error, old chap! Bit like a certain FADEC perhaps? Try http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi ?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=000333 (http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=000333) .....I hope!

Keep up the good work!!

[From PPRuNe Dispatcher : the other Chinook threads are now in the Military Archive forum. To see them you'll need to set "show all topics" in the dropdown menu at the top left of the list of topics]

PS - link works satis. now!

[ 12 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Dispatcher ]

[Brian Dixon]

Thanks BEagle,
I'm glad someone knows what is going on!

Brian :o

[John Nichol]

Brian,

good work on the website (fancy a job?)

re the role of the HofL inquiry - I think you might have slightly mis-understood what was said at the Group meeting last week (not difficult with the amount of legalistic phrases being thrown around!!):

There are 2 issues. The first will be for the committee to decide if the RAF acted illegally in making its "gross negligence" judgement. I can't remember the correct term but basically the Air Marshals acted outside their jurisdiction. This is purely a legal argument and could be settled in a short space of time. If that was the case it's endex for the RAF argument & the inquiry - the RAF were wrong, case closed.

The second, and more likely scenario, is that the inquiry hears all of the argumnets from both sides. They will then decide if the Air Marshals were WRONG (as opposed to acted illegally), on the evidence they had, to find the pilots guilty of gross negligence (manslaughter).

As has been explained on a number of occasions, the inquiry will not be questioning the integrity of Wratten & Day. it will decide if they made the right or wrong decision.

I am going to check this - and I stand to be corrected.

[t'aint natural]

Question:
Most of the people who have posted on this topic incline to the opinion that while pilot error was present, the finding of “gross negligence” is insupportable.
If in the final analysis the verdict of gross negligence is overturned, it will not rehabilitate the reputations of Jon Tapper and Rick Cook one iota unless they are found wholly blameless. In the public mind, a finding that the pilots were culpable but not grossly negligent will be seeking to make too fine a distinction. If the cause of the accident was pilot error, the degree of error is perceived to be subsidiary to the consequences.
Newspaper reports reproduced here at the turn of the year spoke of vindication and exoneration. Is it the position that nothing short of complete vindication and exoneration from any blame will do? Or is it the purpose to rehabilitate the reputations of two good men, damned by a verdict of gross negligence, among their peers? What constitutes justice in this case?

[Susan Phoenix]

Hello John, great to see that you are continuing the very necessary public campaign to clear the names of Jonathan Tapper and John Cook. Yes ofcourse their names should be cleared with their reputations, not only for their own families and children - but for all those other aircrew who we hope to encourage in the future RAF!!? At the moment it appears that certain admin sections wonder why they are losing experienced aircrew so soon after training? We only need to read the reports from Wratten and Day to see why - when senior "officers" can condemn fine young men trying to do their jobs with antiquated equipment to safeguard perhaps something they themselves should have rectified previously. As a non pilot, I speak after reading every report ever written and attending ALL enquiries about the Mull of Kintyre accident that killed my husband. So please keep up the campaign to help the Tapper and Cook families they deserve better treatment than that callously dished out by Wratten and Day - I'm not sure if it has been clarified that these 2 actually overuled the enquiries that stated quite clearly that it was not possible to apportion blame to anyone because of lack of evidence?

[FODA]

This is a subject which has been pursued by Computer Weekly magazine for some time. This linkREQUNIQ=995034787&REQSESS=d128P6B1&2011REQEVENT=&CSESS=1247115&CFLAV=1&CC A T=-9 9999&CCHAN=-99999&CARTT=-99999&CARTI=-99999&CPAGEN=Site%20Search&CSEARCH=&CPAGET=-99999&CTOPIC=&BR4_ACTION=http://www.cw 360.com:8080/bin/bladerunner%3FREQUNIQ=99%26REQSESS=0%26REQAUTH=0&BR4_ACTION2=&REQINT1=50&SEARCH_PAGENUMBER=1 highlights the articles they have been running with ref. to fadec. (http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner?)

Edited to try and get the link to work.
Thought I would try too (scratching head)! It worked OK but it NEEDS a user name and password - PPRuNe Pop
[ 13 July 2001: Message edited by: FODA ]

PPRuNe Pop
Administrator
[email protected]

[ 15 July 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Pop ]

[t'aint natural]

The link does not work.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

FODA

When I try the link (modified to change the "=" after the first "URL" into a "]", if you're still with me...) it takes me to a login page that requires a user name and password. Not much use, I'm afraid. The Computer Weekly campaign is well known to many readers of this/these threads, and very informative.

Cheers

[K52]

The composition of the Select Committee appears to be what one would expect from Their Lordships House - cross party representation including members of the English and Scottish Bar.

As you are ALL no doubt aware, a BOI is an administrative proceeding and NOT a Court Martial. Although the evidence is taken on oath that evidence is not admissible in any subsequent legal proceedings: a separate Summary of Evidence has to be taken. The Pilots of ZD576 were NOT found “guilty of Manslaughter” but were deemed to have been “Grossly Negligent” in their conduct of the flight.

The basis of this finding was “ the crew of ZD 576 neither maintained Visual Flight Rules nor made a safe transition to Instrument Flight Rules.”; a statement amply borne out by the deliberations of the BOI:-

para 16e
“The weather was suitable for the flight but would have required flight in accordance with IFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre.”

para 51
“During this phase of the flight, to continue flying visually, the crew would have needed to adjust the aircraft’s height and airspeed to the prevailing cloudbase and visibility. The Board assessed that the possibility of the crew visually acquiring the lighthouse was remote, given the fact that it was in fog at the time. The hillside from lighthouse elevation to summit was also in cloud, although their were irregular areas of improved visibility up to 500m. The general weather close to the Mull was also very poor, with broken cloud at 200ft and 500m visibility below. Furthermore, any visual contact with the Mull or Lighthouse in the prevailing weather conditions should have prompted a reduction in height and speed well below those at impact.”

para 54
“ If the crew did not have visual contact with the Mull, and had decided not to attempt a landfall in the vicinity of the lighthouse, they would in the opinion of the Board, have been faced with 2 options: to turn away from land and attempt to route VFR towards Corran, parallel to their intended track but over the sea to the west of the Mull of Kintyre peninsula, until clear of the poor weather; or to climb to a safe height and fly over the Mull of Kintyre on track, accepting a change of in-flight conditions to IMC if necessary” NB At para 32c the BOI state “ in the forecast conditions, the icing clearance would have allowed an IMC pull-up from low level flight to Safety Altitude over the Mull of Kintyre.”

para 56
“ it would have been possible for the aircraft to have avoided the ground, whilst remaining on track, from any point beyond the position of the WP change until some 4 seconds prior to impact, if the crew had initiated a cyclic climb. After that point, assuming that its track and airspeed had remained constant, it would not have been possible for the aircraft to have avoided striking the terrain. The Board considered why the crew had not been alerted to their proximity to the ground, by either visual sighting or radar altimeter information, at any time from coasting - in until the initiation of the flare prior to impact. The lack of visual warning appears to indicate that the crew had lost all visual references and were in IMC during this phase of the flight. ----- The positioning of the Rad Alt bugs would have limited the crew to either a visual or a visual and audio warning at 69ft, depending on selection of the audio selector switch which could not be determined. This warning would have been too late, in the circumstances, to prevent impact with the ground.” NB. At para 45b the Board concluded
“ that the Rad Alt setting procedures used by the crew were a contributory factor in the accident.”

Finally, much has been made of the comment by Sir William Wratton that “ Without the irrefutable evidence which is provided by an ADR and CVR, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds prior to impact.” I suggest, although I do not know, that he may have been acknowledging the comment of the BOI at para 61 regarding their decision as to the most probable cause of the accident - “ the Board could not avoid a degree of speculation.”

[Arkroyal]

Away for a week's break and all this to plough through.

K52 nice to see you are OK and welcome back

Susan, You are very brave, and I salute your fair minded approach to this matter. My sincere condolences to you.

The Select committee is legally based as the question of whether the BOI and its reviewing officers came to the correct conclusions is entirely a logical and legal one.

K52 seems a little rattled in that he immediately regurgitates his tired defence of Wratten and Day.

It will not bring down the RAF if (rightly IMHO) these two men were found to have made an error of judgement.

[Brian Dixon]

JN,
I'm afraid I can't claim credit for the website (much as I would like to). It is being designed by a chap who made contact with me and offered his services. I'm not sure he wants to be named at the moment, although I do know he reads this thread. So to him, many thanks. To everyone else, I promise I'll let you all know when it is ready. I wish I had the skills to do the site but as you saw from my attempt at the link to your thread, I need a little more practice! Thanks also for clearing up the role of the Select Committee. I really must pay more attention!

t'aint natural,
My campaign has always been to have the unsustainable slur of negligence removed from the names of Jon and Rick.

Mrs Phoenix,
welcome to the thread. I hope the continuing campaign is not causing distress to the families, as that has never been the intention. May I also, many years after the accident, add my condolences. Also, thank you for your words of support.

FODA,
Glad to see it's not just me with regard to links! ;)

Thud,
'fraid you left me behind there in your computer speak. Hope the job search is going well.

K52,
Again, I refer back to the 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' argument. There are areas of doubt, therefore you cannot find the pilots negligent.

Ark,
Welcome back.

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

Edited 'cos I still can't type.

[ 13 July 2001: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]

[John Nichol]

Susan,
What a pleasure to see you here. I'm not sure who pointed you this way but the discussion you are reading has been going on for many years.

I hope you don't mind me pointing this out for the others reading this forum but...

Detective Superintendent Ian Pheonix was the head of the NI Counter-Surveillance unit of the RUC. He was killed on ZD576. If you want to read a truly amazing life story then pick up "Phoenix - Policing The Shadows" published by Hodder & Stoughton.

Susan, I hope you don't mind me saying, but it is interesting that, even the widows of those on board the helicopter, believe that the RAF was wrong.

K52, you regurgitate the same argument you used many months ago. It is a viewpoint, I do not say you are wrong, but you have no EVIDENCE that you are right. Nothing you have posted is wrong. But you selectively quote para after para, you decline to mention the most important findings of the president of the BOI. He admitted everything he said was speculation. He refused to make a finding on the crew's actions.

There were 2 people who made the decision that plunged the RAF into the mire - Wratten & Day. Even those who are quoted in the BOI are now striving to distance themselves from the AM's decision.

Unlike others, I don't know who you are, I don't know why you are involved, but you seem to have an "RAF Selective View" on what was said in the BOI.

I don't say that the crew were not at fault, I point out that you have not one jot of evidence that they were.

[The Mistress]

I too would like to express my sincere condolences to Mrs Phoenix. I am delighted that she has decided to get involved here. I have secretly hoped for some time that members of the families affected would make themselves heard on this forum.

Like John I also wonder what is driving K52 - perhaps he is one of those responsible for bringing that particular mark of aircraft into service? Perhaps he is either Wratten or Day? In any event he has to justify his selective comments - which could be perceived as bias - to Mrs Phoenix and all the other family members who suffered loss of a loved one in the crash. No amount of argument will ever bring them back, but to increase the pain by solidly blaming people who may not be guilty is inhuman.

Edited for incorrect spelling of a name, with apologies.

[ 14 July 2001: Message edited by: The Mistress ]

[Susan Phoenix]

Thankyou John et. al. for your kind words (I have received many in the last 7 years and in spite of the "moving on" it is good to know that people are not letting it go until justice is done). The book about Ian's life also brought many letters of support from all over the world. The point here is that it also encouraged people to voice their diverse concerns about the controversy surrounding the chinook crash and ongoing investigations. I have continued to support the exhausting fight by the Cook and Tapper families whenever possible, I know that my husband would wish that, with a pilot still in the family too, it is important. The frustration is that it is all so unnecessary. Day and Wratten could save face at any time by declaring their decision wrong in the light of more recent evidence. How Wratten can continue to write such defensive self protective articles (Scottish news papers earlier this year), knowing the suffering of those 2 families I cannot understand. The Times declined to publish a letter that I addressed to Bill Wratten shortly after the Public Accounts committee report that accused the M.O.D. of using "unwarranted arrogance" in its refusal to countenance the possibility that the negligent finding is unjust. It is the same indifferent arrogance that was shown to all of the families after the crash - forcing us at that time to launch a campaign for compensation to protect the many young families left behind. It amazes me that the government choses to set up yet more enquiries into the "rights" of Northern Ireland's convicted terrorists and yet refuses to set up one more enquiry into the rights of its fine young special forces pilots who did not want to fly defective chinook equipment in the first place!
No K52 - I note by your profile that you are a "retired" RAF pilot - I would suggest that you may not wish to be associated with the RAF administration and M.O.D. civil servants of today who put economic savings before the lives and reputations of its air crew. (see the cancellation by Hoon of yet more aircraft on the news board).
I do not think it is surprising that families of those killed in the crash wish to support the pilot's families as we all share a common grief and would not have expected "blame" to be so easily and inappropriately apportioned to 2 well trained S.F. pilots. My home in N.I. was often filled by these young men and I know only too well that their training and sense of duty would not have allowed the mistakes their seniors tried to fob off on them. Interestingly, at the initial enquiry I was incensed to hear one of the legal team supposedly representing some of the families(not mine) call S.F. pilots "cowboys" My personal plan to clear their reputations probably began then in the face of such ignorance. Keep up the work please.

[John Nichol]

Your dignity & compassion is an example to us all Susan.

[t'aint natural]

Sorry, I'm still unable to find the Computer Weekly material which apparently covers the question I asked. Can I perhaps direct it to John Nichol and Brian Dixon. Is it your position that pilot error was not a factor in the accident, that a rescinding of the "gross negligence" finding is insufficient, and Jon Tapper and Rick Cook should be wholly exonerated?
Edited for spelling

[ 15 July 2001: Message edited by: t'aint natural ]

[ShyTorque]

Susan,

That you can be so supportive of Rick and Jon is perhaps the best indication of the strength of feeling against this terrible injustice.

Having helped teach one of the pilots to fly helicopters and known them both, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments about the characters involved.

It should be borne in mind that K52, by his own admission, has no helicopter experience but was apparently put in the position of an adviser to Mr Wratton, who as a jet pilot, similarly never qualified to fly helicopters and had little experience of Support Helicopter operations other than that given by his advisers.

Having flown for a number of years as an SH pilot and A2 QHI (and a QFI), including in the NI theatre of operations, I remain convinced that this was almost undoubtedly an accident caused by poor management. In the circumstances Rick and Jon's names could have been substituted by any number of other names, possibly my own included.

[ 14 July 2001: Message edited by: ShyTorque ]

[John Nichol]

'taint,

Although I have been involved in the case for 5 years only the two fathers, Mike Tapper & John Cook, can really answer the question about what verdict from the H of L they would be satisfied with.

From my own point of view though, my belief has always been that there has been nothing approaching the required evidence to support a finding of gross negligence. Much of the evidence now known was withheld from the BOI. The RAF suing the software manufacturers, the problems with US Chinooks and more.

Even without this evidence Wg Cdr Pulford would only say, despite considerable pressure from above, that the scenario of CFIT was only a possible one amongst many.

The reality of this case, as most right minded people agree, is that the cause is unknown. There are possiblities, there are theories. But the actual cause is, and will remain, unkown.

If you examine the many similar accidents and BOIs like this case, you will find that the most often used term is NPD - "not positively determined".

I suspect that, under a different regime to the one many of us worked for at that time, a finding of NPD would have been the outcome of Andy Pulford's honest & thorough BOI.

NPD is a verdict I personally would have no problem with. Of course, what I think, is irrelevant.

[ 15 July 2001: Message edited by: John Nichol ]

[Brian Dixon]

'taint,
I have to agree with the comments made by John. It really is a matter for the families as to what outcome they deem appropriate. My view is that a verdict of NPD is enough to remove the slur of negligence against Jon and Rick. There is no evidence to support such an accusation.

To answer your question: my position is that I don't know what happened. Then again, no one else does.

Hope this answers your question.

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

ps I've just noticed that I'm an Addicted PpruNer - another sign that this has gone on far too long! :(

[ 15 July 2001: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]

[Chocks Wahay]

Brian Dixon - thanks for the kind words about the website. As usual you're being far too modest - you did most of the work, my contribution was just a bit of tidying, make it look nice(ish) and putting it up on the net.

John Nichol - Thanks also for the comments, and yes, a job would be lovely thanks ...

[Flatiron]

Having not contributed to this debate for some 30 pages or so, I beg to raise the question of what sort of remedy people are after. As a pilot, the only opinion that really matters to me is the good/bad opinion of other aviation professionals.

Now, suppose Mr Hoon or some other distinguished civilian(s) in or around Whitehall decide that this is all getting too much. They then come out and say that it is time to move on, the Mull BoI did its best at the time, and a political decision has been taken to amend the BoI findings to ease the pain of the families involved. Will that be good enough? The RAF system carried out the investigation and if 'my' RAF had judged me wrongly, I would only rest in peace if the RAF (not a few 'suits' looking for a quiet life) changed the verdict.

To be frank, politicos and lawyers can change what they will, and wrap it all up in face-saving mumbo-jumbo, but if aircrew in the crewrooms believe it was all a fudge and continue to go around talking about 'no smoke without fire', will that be good enough? Reputations are what matter to aircrew and I fear that the opinion of noble Lords, judges etc will not be sufficient in themselves. If you believe that the RAF took away the Chinook pilots' reputations, you cannot stop until you convince the RAF (and no other body) to re-examine the issue.

[Arkroyal]

Susan Phoenix.... Stunning. I cannot applaud your stance enough. I have a friend who lost a relative in the accident, and she too finds the injustice heaped on Jon and Rick quite bizarre.

I have said before that piling injustice upon grief can be no comfort to yourself and the other families involved, contrary to one of the excuses used by the MOD to avoid any re-opening of this case..

Your need to fight for just compensation is appalling, and points the finger at the finding of gross negligence being partly a financial expedient. Normally the MOD would be automatically liable, except in the case of negligence on the part of the crew.

Thank you so much for joining this debate.

[Brian Dixon]

Hi Everyone.

Taken from the a House of Lords press information release:

COMMITTEE TO REVIEW CHINOOK ZD 576 CRASH
This note sets out how the Committee appointed by the House of Lords to review the crash of an RAF Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 intends to proceed.
REMIT
The Committee’s remit is “to consider the justification for the finding of those reviewing the conclusions of the RAF Board of Inquiry that both pilots of the Chinook helicopter ZD 576 which crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994 were negligent”. The Committee is to report to the House of Lords by 31st January 2002.

MEMBERSHIP
The members of the Committee are:
Lord Bowness (Con.)
Lord Brennan QC (Lab.)
Lord Hooson QC (Lib. Dem.)
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle (Lord of Appeal) (Chairman)
Lord Tombs FEng (Cross Bench)

PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Committee will hold a series of hearings in the autumn. The first hearings will take place on Thursday 27th September, 11am-4.30pm, and Friday 28th September, 10.30am-4.30pm, in Committee Room 8, Palace of Westminster (access via St Stephen’s Entrance, the main public entrance to the Houses of Parliament). At these hearings, the Committee will take evidence from the officer who presided over the initial phase of the RAF Board of Inquiry into the crash, and the senior officers who reviewed the initial findings. The hearings will be open to the public and the press; the Committee reserves the right to go into private session if necessary. The Committee may invite other witnesses to testify at further hearings in October.

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

[John Nichol]

I suspect this is going to be very interesting. Andy Pulford is going to be quizzed by the committee about his findings & opinions so that they can compare them with the deductions made by Day & Wratten.

Anybody coming down to watch?

[Brian Dixon]

Be rude not to.
Count me in.

Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Low and Slow]

I was intending to attend, but the dates co-incide with HELI-TECH.(If I am not mistaken) Any co-incidence?

So, I'll probably have to miss it. :(

I have to say I'm not that optermistic. Their Airships have a pretty slick line, and it's very well practised.

[Susan Phoenix]

Yes indeed, just before the grape harvest starts here in S.W. France!! Hopefully have an excuse to open a good bottle afterwards- need some positive vibes on this matter at last! ( and No, john I am NOT bringing a St Emilion with me!). Incidentally do we know if John Cook or Mike Tapper read this site - I have not asked them yet?

[Brian Dixon]

Hi again, Mrs Phoenix.
Yes John and Mike do read the thread(s), as does Rick's brother Chris.

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

[NOCHALANCE]

FLAT IRON; ASTUTE,SINCERE, CORRECT. ENOUGH SAID.

[Brian Dixon]

Hi all,
web page progressing nicely. Having a meeting early next week so I will update you all soon.

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

[Brian Dixon]

Sorry it's a boring post. Not much to report at the moment. Couple more questions sent to MoD. Web page still progressing nicely. Hopefully more information available soon.

Regards all
Brian http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/soapbox.gif
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[ 09 August 2001: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]

[Brian Dixon]

Sorry this is the same old thing. I hope the web page will be ready to launch within the next two weeks. The link will be posted as soon as we are ready to go live. Honest!!

My thanks to Chocks Wahey for all the hard work behind the scenes.

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

[Brian Dixon]

In case you don't know, the previous Chinook campaign threads have been moved to the Military archive thread.

Thanks to PPRuNe for doing this.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Arkroyal]

Back to the top with a reminder that it is just over three weeks until the House of Lords select committee sit to discuss this matter. :)

[misterploppy]

Scotland on Sunday 9 Sep 01:

Chinook inquiry ‘broke RAF’s own rules’

FRANCIS ELLIOTT WESTMINSTER EDITOR


A senior air force officer has said the decision to blame the Mull of Kintyre Chinook disaster on the aircraft’s pilots shows how military chiefs have "too much power in our democracy".

Retired Air Commodore Derek Hine, who wrote the RAF’s regulations on accident investigation, says his guidelines were ignored by senior officers who blamed the dead pilots for gross negligence.

Hine’s comments - to the House of Lords committee investigating the case - will cause serious embarrassment to the MoD, which has consistently refused to re-examine the 1994 disaster, in which 29 people died, most of them senior intelligence experts.

The families of the pilots, Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper, have waged a seven-year campaign to clear their loved ones’ names. They are furious that verdicts of gross negligence were returned, despite RAF rules requiring absolutely no doubt about the circumstances of an accident.

Now their hopes of having the official verdicts overturned have been given a major boost by Hine’s submission.

Scotland on Sunday has learned that Derek Hine believes the verdict was flawed. He has told the inquiry in a letter: "The decision highlights a worrying regime where two or three high-ranking military officers have too much power in our democracy."

Hine, the chairman of a working party set up in 1982 to examine investigations into military aircraft accidents, believes the regulations he framed were "ignored" by Air Chief Marshals Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day. They overturned the original RAF board of inquiry which cleared the pilots.

Wratten and Day are also due to give evidence to the committee and are expected to insist that they were justified in overturning the verdict.

[Caption] Blamed: Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook, left, and Jonathan Tapper were found posthumously guilty in the 1994 crash of a Chinook military helicopter into the Mull of Kintyre


MoD finally faces truth over Chinook

FRANCIS ELLIOTT, WESTMINSTER EDITOR


The fusty claret carpet and heavy gold wallpaper of the House of Lords committee room corridor produce an almost sepulchral hush. The muffled creak of elderly peers moving from room to room is usually the only sound to trouble this obscure corner of the Palace of Westminster.

But in a little over two weeks, the corridor’s quiet will be shattered as a seven-year saga that began in a ball of flame on a Scottish hillside prepares to reach a dramatic climax.

Controversy over the fatal accident of a Chinook military helicopter with the deaths of all 29 people on board has raged from the moment it smashed into the Mull of Kintyre on June 2, 1994.

That its passengers included a number of senior British intelligence officers ensured that the investigations into the cause of the crash won massive media attention.

But what has turned a tragedy into a cause célèbre was the decision by senior officials in the MoD to blame the two pilots for the crash - overturning an original board of inquiry and ignoring the verdict of a fatal accident inquiry.

Now a fresh investigation by a five-peer committee, led by a Lord of Appeal, is set to reopen the file of flight ZD 576 - with what promises to be devastating consequences for Britain’s military establishment.

For when Air Marshals Sir John Day and his retired colleague Sir William Wratten finally enter the Lords committee room at 11am on September 27, it will be to face what could be the sternest test of their careers.

It was Day and Wratten, as the commanders in overall charge of Chinook flights, who found Fl Lts Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper posthumously guilty of gross negligence.

They did so despite an RAF rule which states that dead aircrew can only be blamed where there is no doubt whatsoever about their culpability.

The contention of Wratten and Day has always been that the pilots were flying too low and too fast for the visibility of that foggy Thursday night. Once they entered the cloud surrounding the Mull of Kintyre the pilots should have stopped until they had enough altitude to clear it, claim the pair. "The pilots could and would have avoided the accident if they had followed a different course of action," wrote Wratten in a newspaper article last year.

However, a multitude of questions have dogged this seemingly straightforward case. Perhaps the most pressing is why Wratten and Day over-ruled the verdict of the board of inquiry they set up to investigate the crash.

The man who set the rules for the RAF’s inquiries is the now retired Air Commodore Derek Hine, who in 1982 chaired a working party on the subject.

"Our terms of reference were wide-ranging but in particular we were required to examine and make recommendations on the findings of blame and negligence against aircrew," Hine has told the Lords committee, in a highly significant submission.

It was Hine who helped to establish the standard of proof where "only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent".

In a document being studied by the peers, the senior airman sets out why he believes Wratten and Day have consistently flouted his rules in the Chinook case.

"The decision highlights a worrying regime where two or three high-ranking military officers have too much power in our democracy," he writes.

The Air Marshals’ version of events faces the prospect of further attack from an RAF officer who did follow Hine’s rule but whose verdict was overturned.

Group Captain Andy Pulford, who chaired the original board of inquiry, has been called as the first witness in the new Lords inquiry. Pulford, a serving officer who has never spoken publicly about the Chinook case, will be cross-examined by the committee, led by Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle.

They will ask why he reached the verdict that while "the most probable cause" was that Tapper and Cook selected the wrong rate of climb to fly over the Mull, there were "many potential causes of the accident" and that he was "unable to determine a definite cause".

Also set to appear before the committee are senior members of the MoD’s air accident investigation branch, whose testimony could prove highly embarrassing to Wratten and Day. Although the AAIB has often been cited as supporting the official line, it is thought that it, too, believes there is a significant element of doubt.

For the families of the pilots, the hearings this month offer their best hope of finding the truth of why the MoD reached the verdict that it did - and, perhaps, of removing what they believe to be a slur on the dead men’s names.

Michael Tapper, Jonathan’s father, said last night that Hine’s submission was "an extremely interesting development". But the retired bank manager from Norfolk would not be drawn further. For now, all sides are keeping their powder dry for what promises to be an explosive confrontation in the hallowed halls of the House of Lords.

What happened?

The unanswered questions:

1 How reliable was the helicopter’s newly-installed software, Full Authority Digital Electronic Control?

2 Why, if as the RAF assert it was safe, did the MoD’s own airworthiness assessment unit ground non-operational Chinooks the day before the crash?

3 What is the truth behind the MOD’s legal action against the software’s US manufacturers Textron Lycoming after an earlier accident which it blamed on the software’s ‘faulty design’?

4 Did the newly-upgraded Chinook ZD 576 have a full set of flight reference cards - the aircraft’s manual - in the cockpit? Then defence minister John Spellar told the Commons last year it had but RAF officers at the original inquiry said the cards were incomplete and potentially misleading.

5 What of the testimony of a yachtsman who could clearly see the Mull of Kintyre moments before the crash, casting doubt on the official version that the pilots were flying in poor visibility?

Scotland on Sunday (http://www.scotlandonsunday.com)

[John Nichol]

It's going to be interesting. Anyone else going to be there; perhaps we could have a "pprune corner"?

[1.3VStall]

We're potentially on the home straight. Derek Hine's input can only help the cause. Fingers crossed for justice at last.

[Arkroyal]

This is indeed good news.

Hine's assertion that W & D ignored his rules can only be good for the cause of justice.

I do hope, however, that that remains the cornerstone of the argument. The finding of gross negligence must be overturned simply because it was wrong. To get involved in all the other questions of the Chinook's failings and shortcomings will only serve to muddy the waters of a clear miscarriage of justice.

Sadly I will not be in pprune corner in the HOL, but will be following the day closely.

Home straight? last furlong!

edited for finger trouble!

[ 11 September 2001: Message edited by: Arkroyal ]

[Brian Dixon]

Hi all.

Just to let you know that the dedicated Chinook campaign website will be launched this Friday here on the PPRuNe bulletin board. The URL will be published here first!

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

[ 14 September 2001: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]

[Brian Dixon]

Right here it is......
http://www.chinook-justice.org/

My thanks to Chocks Wahay for all the hard work.

Please support the petition and pass the URL to all your friends.

Thank you
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[1.3VStall]

Well that's may name on the petition!

[Per Ardua Ad Asda]

....and mine. I wish you (us) every success on 27th. Flt Lt Cook & Flt Lt Tapper deserve better from their superiors and the past & present Governments of this fine country.

[basing]

Brian thanks for the e-mail I have had a look at the web-site and you have excelled yourself this time mate, I have sent mail to the support site lets keep pushing do I need to any more pushing on our friend

[Brian Dixon]

Thank you everyone, for your support of the web site. We hope to update the list of supporters on a regular basis, so your name will appear there sometime. What we will not do is disclose addresses or personal details (ie e-mail addresses) to anyone.

Once the list has grown a little, I will attempt to link it to the e-petition site of the official No 10 Downing Street web site. It will serve as a reminder to those at that site, that we will not go away.

Basing - thanks for the comments mate. I took the liberty of mailing our friend at the same time I bothered you. Hope that was in order.

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

[Susan Phoenix]

The website is superb Brian, well done. Thankyou for adding my name to the list.
I am delighted with Derek Hine's submission to the committee. I have to be there to see the Wratten & Day answers in the flesh - surely the arrogance cannot continue in a state of blatant denial given the evidence that is now publicly available. It was obviously easy for them to attempt to destroy the reputations of dead pilots when it was a relatively anonymous paper exercise- I hope that they can be brave enough to reinstate those same young men's excellent reputations when they are facing professional people who are not overawed by military rank!! What a simple and honourable statement they can make to give 2 families back their peace of mind and pride.
The 5 questions stated from the continuing excellent reporting from the Scotland on Sunday have been regularly discussed by my own family - most especially why the yachtsman was so discredited/ignored in his submission? He was a technically trained man with a sound sense of perspective who asked the MOD for information that was not forthcoming, but he continued to offer his support in spite ot the lack of respect afforded to his witness.I have 2 questions to add :- What will it cost W&D to make the appropriate, honest statements ? What will it benefit them and many others?

[Chocks Wahay]

We've been inundated with responses to the petition - keep them coming, your support makes a difference.

I've uploaded the first batch of names tonight, I'll try and keep on top of it, but it might take a day or two to get up to date.

Just to reiterate - the site is www.chinook-justice.org, (http://www.chinook-justice.org,) or simply email your name to [email protected] and we'll do the rest.

[oldpinger]

Well done with the website and the whole campaign, I'll be passing the address around over here to expat non ppruners

[Per Ardua Ad Asda]

..and today (19th Sept) there is a link to the site on "Flyer" magazine's homepage (www.flyer.co.uk)

[Chocks Wahay]

Aha - that'll be why the [email protected] mailbox is full again :-)

Good stuff, keep 'em coming, the more the merrier.

[Brian Dixon]

Thank you to everyone who has already signed up the petition on www.chinook-justice.org (http://www.chinook-justice.org)

If we can get over 300 signatures on the petition (sorry Chocks!), I will submit the site to the official 10 Downing Street web site and ask them to link it to their e-petition page. That way we can be a constant reminder Mr Blair and his Ministers.

Updates after the public meeting next week.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Arkroyal]

Excellent site, Brian.

Two more names added.

[Low and Slow]

Brian,

1. I cannot link to your site. Any ideas?
2. How about posting some times and places for the inquiry.

[Brian Dixon]

Hi Ark,
thanks for the names and the comments on the site. Much credit to Chocks Wahay too!

Low & Slow,
Sorry, can't think why you are unable to link to the campaign site. I have just tried the link on my last posting and it worked OK on my machine. Can you get to the site if you type direct in your address title bar? Are you including the http:// bit (I always used to forget that). If you're still having problems, please get back to me.

The House of Lords dates are as follows:
Thursday 27th Sep - 11.00am to 16.30pm.
Friday 28th Sep - 10.30am to 16.30pm.

Entrance on both days is via St Stephens Gate, and the meetings are scheduled to be heard in Committee Room 8. (I'll have to ask directions when I get inside too!).

Hope this answers your questions. If not, please let me know.

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

[John Nichol]

Low & Slow,
try adding a back slash / after the address -it works then. Not sure why this is actually, perhaps someone can help us. I had the same problem.

[Chocks Wahay]

Not sure why you can't get the site - I did take it down for about 30 minutes on Sunday evening, but it should have been ok since then.

If you're using Netscape it may require a / at the end - I have 4.75 and I notice it sticks a / in there automatically, perhaps earlier versions don't do this? Internet Explorer doesn't seem to require the /.

John Nichol / Low & Slow - can you confirm what software you're using to access the site?

If anyone else has problems with the site please contact me: [email protected]

Another bunch of names going on the petition tonight - keep 'em coming :-)

[Chocks Wahay]

Me again, just wanted to say thank you to the people who have supported the petition - tonight I've just added the hundredth name to the website - an amazing response in the ten days since the site was launched.

Plenty room for more!

[email protected]

[Low and Slow]

I can get to the site. It just wont open up when I get there(story of my life)
I'm using IE5, and it's the same with both my ISP. No big think though. I'll see you all at the Enquiry :D

[PA-28]

Some useful comments from Lord Chalfont on BBC R4 this morning.

Keep it up

PA-28

[TL Thou]

for info guys...today's proceedings

CHINOOK INQUIRY OFFICER STANDS BY FINDINGS<
By PA News<
The officer who presided over the initial inquiry into the RAF's worst
peacetime disaster today said he stood by his finding that pilot error was to
blame for the tragedy.<
Group Captain Andrew Pulford told a House of Lords committee that he had not
been convinced by any other arguments since Chinook Mark 2 helicopter ZD576
crashed on the Mull of Kintyre in June 1994.<
The pilots and 27 senior police and intelligence officers were killed in the
crash.<
Group Capt Pulford told the House of Lords inquiry: "I have seen and heard
nothing, and believe me there are evenings when I wish I knew, why it occurred
the way it did.<
"I have not been convinced by any other arguments, and I have heard quite a
lot over the years.''<
Asked if he still stood by his position, seven years after the crash, he
replied: "I would go with what we got, I would stand by what we did.''<
Group Capt Pulford said a simulation of the accident indicated that the pilots
were flying at the unusually high speed of 150 knots when, given the conditions
and location, they should have been flying "low and slow''.<
He also said there had been "compound errors'' in the plotting of the route.<
"They thought they were further away from the Mull, these are metres rather
than miles, but with these errors ... they might have thought in their minds
they were further away than they were.'' <
Group Capt Pulford presided over the initial phase of the RAF Board of Inquiry
which found the pilots, Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper,
guilty of gross negligence.<
But a campaign by their families to clear their names won widespread support,
leading to a vote by peers in April for an all-party inquiry.<
The controversy came to a head after a fatal accident inquiry in Scotland
decided the pilots could not be held responsible.<
In that inquiry, a sheriff concluded that he could not be satisfied with the
RAF's finding that the accident was caused by the crew selecting the wrong rate
of climb when overflying the Mull of Kintyre.<
The House of Lords committee was appointed to investigate the justification
for the finding of negligence.<
Asked about the board's "cavalier'' dismissal of technical failures as the
cause of the accident, Group Capt Pulford admitted that it was impossible to
rule out the possibility of "minor technical malfunction,'' such as a
flickering gauge.<
But he argued it could have been a "cause of possible distraction to the
crew'' rather than "the cause of the accident itself''.<
Group Capt Pulford, an experienced Chinook pilot, said the board had been told
of technical problems with the Mark 2 Chinook such as "spurious captions'' on
the control panel.<
"We had evidence from several witnesses that the Chinook Mark 2 was
experiencing unexpected and unforeseen malfunctions,'' he told the inquiry.<
The officer said the board had ruled out the interference of mobile phones or
personal computers as a likely cause of the crash.<
But he accepted that a voice recorder on board would have removed "a lot of
the ambiguities'' surrounding the case.<
The five-member committee of peers chaired by Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, a
former Scottish Law Lord, will prepare a report for the House of Lords by the
end of January 2002.<
Hearings today and tomorrow will also take evidence from Air Chief Marshal Sir
John Day and retired Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten, who reviewed the
initial findings.<
The committee is expected to continue taking evidence through the autumn in
hearings which will be open to the public and press.<
end<

[Brian Dixon]

I left the House of Lords today astonished at what I had seen and heard. Now I see why the phrase ‘breathtaking arrogance’ was used! The SuperTANS and the GPS were referred to constantly as the ‘black boxes’ and it was commented that the President of the RAF Board of Inquiry may not have been the right man for the job!! :eek: (Personally, I believe that the President acted with the utmost integrity). Also, and thankfully, their Lordships are well versed in the facts of this injustice and appear to be able to differentiate between fact and speculation, unlike some others. The full transcript of the proceedings will be published on the Parliament web site on Wed 3 October so I will place the link on both the PPRuNe thread and the official campaign web site. As this is only the first day of two, I don’t feel it appropriate to make further comment until both days have been completed. Hope you all understand. However, judging by today’s experience, tomorrow will be interesting.

I also met a number of people that I have had contact with via PPRuNe and e-mail. It was a great pleasure to meet you all and thank you for your support. I was delighted to say thank you in person to IFR for all the help PPRuNe has given.
I was given a copy of an excellent booklet entitled “Chinook Doubts – A Plain Person’s Guide. Written by Mr J M Ramsden. Contents include: Circumstances, The Supreme Doubt, Other Doubts, The RAF Board of Inquiry, FADEC, RAF Accident Procedures, The Air Marshals, The Campaign for Justice, The MoD Cover-up, Conclusion. This is a very good read and is available from Mr Ramsden direct. Write to Mr J.M. Ramsden, 20 Townsend Drive, St Albans, AL3 5RQ, Hertfordshire, UK. Cost is £10.00 (inc p&p), with all profit going to the RAF Benevolent Fund. Please enclose an addressed sticker.

I’ll keep you updated!
Regards all
Brian
“Justice has no expiry date” – John Cook

[BillTheCoach]

For those unable to attend the hearings but who are interested BBC Parliament channel carried yesterday's proceedings last night around 9.00-10.00.

The coverage was fascinating and I am sure they will show today's this evening

Susan, good luck with your campaign - you are a credit to their memories - may you get what you hav so long sought !

[TL Thou]

here is the agency report on today's proceedings fyi folks...

CHINOOK PILOTS `HAD DOUBTS ABOUT HELICOPTER'S SAFETY'<

The father of one of the pilots blamed for the RAF's worst peacetime disaster
today spoke of his son's grave concerns over the reliability of the helicopter
which crashed into the Mull of Kintyre.<
Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper were found guilty of gross
negligence by an RAF Board of Inquiry after their Chinook Mark 2 helicopter
crashed on its sortie from Northern Ireland to Scotland in June 1994.<
Today John Cook, father of Flight Lt Cook, said that when his son was told he
was being sent to Northern Ireland to fly the Mark 2 he asked him to look after
his wife and daughter.<
"He came and said he was going to Northern Ireland and they were going to
send a Mark 2. He asked us to look after Sara and Eleanor.<
"He said `Dad, the aircraft isn't ready and we are not ready'.''<
Mr Cook told the inquiry that his son had regularly expressed concern over the
Chinook Mark 2.<
An experienced airman himself, Mr Cook said his son had told him that the
flight manual was not up to date and there had been problems with spurious
warnings on the control panel.<
Flight Lt Cook had been forced to make a precautionary landing in the Mark 2
before the fatal accident, he said.<
"It's important to understand just how suspicious the crews were of the new
Mark 2,'' he added.<
Mike Tapper, father of Flight Lt Jonathan Tapper, told the inquiry that his
son also had grave concerns over the Mark 2.<
"The Mark 2 was an aircraft that truly frightened the pilots,'' he said.<
The families of the pilots set up a campaign to clear their names after the
RAF Board of Inquiry published its findings.<

[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: TL Thou ]

[Brian Dixon]

Did I hear correctly? The Board of Inquiry was returned to the President to 'look again' at his conclusion as it did not fit in with the thoughts of others.
Someone please tell me that I have got that wrong.

There was talk of 'moral courage' in reaching the negligent decision. I'm sorry but I disagree. The only courage I saw over the past two days was that of the President of the BoI. It must have taken nerves of steel to take his findings to the reviewing officers, who appear to regard all officers who disagree with their opinion, as being disposable.
As always, I'm happy to admit that I am wrong.

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

[slj]

Mr Dixon

You did hear correctly.

I thought the two fathers did extremely well and were well received by the Inquiry

[Brian Dixon]

slj,
thank you for your confirmation. It begs the question, why convene a BoI if you already believe you know what happened? Hardly a decision reached after hearing all available evidence. It simply defies belief.

I agree that both Mike Tapper and John Cook were excellent. How they retained their composure and dignity after having listened to what had been said before, I do not know. They are, without question, true gentlemen of the highest integrity.

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

[uncle peter]

here here. i watched the proceedings on the parliamentary channel yesterday evening, and have to say that messrs day and wratten, although consistent with their opinions, did not respond at all well to even minor scrutiny. whilst both sir john and sir bill's evidence was compelling, they did not produce enough cogent evidence to secure the case even on the balance of probabilities, let alone no doubt whatsoever (imho of course). it was evident that there were obvious doubts as to the events of the tragedy.

i must echo the comments from brian in that capt cook and mr tapper displayed extraordinary restraint, dignity and integrity in their conduct. following the self-serving evidence from 2 people with a great deal to lose, i am not sure i would have been able to do the same.

[Susan Phoenix]

Yes, Brian, right on all counts- I did not think that I would ever feel such emotion or indeed anger over this accident that claimed my soul mate's life again - but - After witnessing the time wasting and patronising presentation about what "actually" happened by Day and his account of what "should" have happened I know, by the observed body language and general mutterings that my feelings were reflected by the majority present in the honourable Lords' room.
I can only echo everyone else's admiration for the courage and dignified restraint of Mike Tapper and John Cook in their very relevant and calm presentations. I am only sorry that I am not as dignified when I witness such a performance.
Grp Capt Pulford too is to be congratulated on his dignity in the face of arrogance personified. (Even though he did mistake me for a member of the press!)It was obvious that scapegoating was still the name of the game from many quarters! It is important to remember that his board of inquiry (quite correctly) did not allocate blame to the pilots given the lack of sufficient evidence - but, in typical self justification mode, the "senior" officers chose to describe this as a result "not correctly interpreted by the board" - Hence, we now have the perfect illustration of lack of support for not only two fine young dead pilots but also for a fine young senior officer who also did his duty as head of a Board of Inquiry in the most horrific peace time accident in the RAF history. I can only reiterate an earlier statement - that we need look no further if we wish to see why fully trained pilots leave early instead of staying to support a service that seems to have lost all concept of "loyalty and fairness" from above.
We heard about Day's self acknowledged "moral courage" needed to condemn the reputations of the two pilots - this for me was the statement that really crowned the illustrations by Wratten and Day of just how disposable they regard aircrew. I hope that they can both sleep well knowing that 2 families continue to suffer 7 years on.
I can only recommend interested parties to read Mike Ramsden's booklet which perfectly sums the whole sitiuation.

[slj]

Brian

Like you I was amazed with the evidence that the original finding was sent back to the then Wing Commander Pulford who was described by the last witness as a young and inexperienced President.

I was even more amazed at the apparent reasoning behind it - that the young and inexperienced President, presiding over one of the major post war tragedies, was felt to be in need of guidance from above. Unfortunately, I can't recall the exact words used but I made a pencilled note at the time to the effect that is this guy really saying we were going to send this back until he (Pulford) accepts our view of events.

I gather that the two air marshall's seem to think they have shown moral courage by sticking to their guns. Wouldn't it be morale courage if they had not tried to persuade the President to change but had taken the full responsibility on their own shoulders to change the findings rather than to pressurise what they have described as a young and inexperienced President.

At least, the now Group Captain Pulford has come out of this sad, painful process with dignity.

[ShyTorque]

Andy Pulford was obviously NOT considered too young or inexperienced to be appointed (by his AOC!) to the Presidency of the BOI, otherwise he would not have been there.

Not until he did his job as ordered, the board's findings were over-ruled and the public controversy began to take hold criticising those in higher office.

The same officers who appointed him President of the BOI, in their efforts to villify their own spiteful verdict, then tried to include him in the whitewash.

:rolleyes: :(

ShyT

[TURNBULL]

Shy Torque,
Don't you guys (want to) listen! Wratten and Day didn't appoint Pulford, they weren't in post at the time.

[InFinRetirement]

Group Captain Pulford's demeanour, honesty and bearing were a real credit to him. The RAF will, I hope, realise his true value in due course.

The value of Day (I refuse to recognise his title or rank) will, I hope, show his true value to the RAF, and if found 'guilty' will do the proper thing and resign.

[slj]

ShyTorque

I stress the words "Young and inexperienced officer" as these were the words spoken by Day (or Wratten) at the time he was explaining to the present Inquiry, why they referred the original findings back to the original inquiry, chaired by Wing Commander Pulford.

For good measure the witness also stressed it was Wing Commander Pulford's first time presiding over an inquiry.

Time has proved that Wing Commander Pulford was a competent President with a great deal of personal integrity.

This stressing of inexperience got me thinking. Why?

[ 01 October 2001: Message edited by: slj ]

[John Nichol]

John Day actually said something along the lines of "in retrospect, I'm not sure he (Pulford) was the man for the job". To be fair he did back track when he realised what he'd said but the damage was done. I was watching Group Captain Pulford closely as both Day and Wratten attacked him and his demeanour barely changed apart from a wry smile and raising of his eyebrows. Day talked of the "moral courage" he himself had displayed but to attack his officer in this way was sad to watch.

One wonders how far they will go to protect themselves?

[BEagle]

Out of interest, if it was known that a certain ex-F4 Stn Cdr was wont to handing out what could be considered to be 'unreasonable' punishment when in power at a certain aerodrome south of the Humber, would it colour anyone's judgement?

[InFinRetirement]

Well the waiting is over! At least as far as the transcripts of the enquiry are concerned.

I have read what Day has said, and the question their Lordships asked, well read for yourself, you will certainly find it interesting!

Here is the URL:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldchinook.htm

[BEagle]

To go direct to the site, click on http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldchinook.htm .

Incidentally, BBill, your 'expertise' in aviation appears not to exend to knowing that a helicopter is NOT an 'aeroplane' - something even a PPL student should know. There are, of course, different requirements for 'aircraft' such as 'helicopters' which are not 'aeroplanes' - and it pays to be equally specific when under oath, I would consider.

[misterploppy]

From the transcript it would appear that our favourite martinet conducted himself much in the manner he did with Paxo on Newsnight. Was this the case viva-voce, Brian? One can't help but question his grip on his own self-image and, indeed, reality!

If so, I can't imagine he endeared their Lordships to his position.

Messrs Cook & Tapper Snr. appear to have conducted themselves with saintly restraint.

[ 03 October 2001: Message edited by: misterploppy ]

[Per Ardua Ad Asda]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldchinook/279/uc279202.htm

Line 57/58 of the answer to [146]. Can someone please explain how Machrihanish is 44 ft above ground level ? :eek:

Or is this due to "fat-fingers" syndrome on the part of the stenographer?

(If anyone feels that this is too flippant to post on this thread, I shall happily transfer it to another...).

Regards,
PAAA.

[Brian Dixon]

I set the alarm to get up early so that I could post the link to the Lords Report only to find that I had been beaten to it, not only once but twice!! :eek:
I really must apologise for my shoddy performance.
Home from work to find that it is now there three times!
Seriously, thanks to everyone for their support.

Mr P. Hope you are well. Yes, indeed, our friend did endear himself to their Lordships. I got the impression that they were completely underwhelmed by the whole persentation.
John Cook / Mike Tapper - all said before but a very dignified presentation.

Per A Ad A. Surely in your own little world, you can put Machrihanish wherever you want?

At present there are 188 names on the campaign web site. Keep 'em coming!

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

[1.3VStall]

Only 188 names so far? Come on people - out of the closet, get your name on the list and let's get Brian up to the 300 names he needs to get the petition into Mr Blair's face

[millhampost]

Up to the top of the forum again please.
Well done all those who have fought to get this to the House of Lords.

[Low and Slow]

Guys,
Been reading all day. Please help me get my head around this.

1. What in ACM Day's evidence is either a.) Not true b.) Wrong or inaccurate? - because unless some of it is, I have to say, I feel I am not so sure of what I thought I once knew.
2. If TANS- RNS 252 was untrustworthy,(and was known to be. Errors of up to two miles - according to Capt. Cook) what would account for the action of plotting (or maintaining) a waypoint, within 1km of the Mull, bearing in mind the weather conditions that were apparent. - Is this the grounds for the gross negligence decision?

I feel I am missing a vital piece of the jigsaw. All help gratefully accepted.

[swashplate]

Brian Dixon:

I was happy to sign the petition, but would it not be easier just to have an on-line form to do that rather than an e-mail. Poor swashy was a bit confused at first until the light dawned.... :D

Just a suggestion, mate. If easier, might get more signatures.....?

Anyway, keep up the good work. Not a very impressive pair, are they......

[CR2]

Added my name to the petition. I've followed this & the previous thread for a long long time now. Never felt qualified to comment, being neither a helicopter pilot not a member of the RAF. I've always felt that something was rotten about the whole affair, so decided to add my support.

[Chocks Wahay]

Low and Slow - Have a look on the website for the report by Tony Collins of Computer Weekly. It explains the whole thing far better than I could. Follow the link to Reports. You'll need Acrobat Reader, but you can download it via the site if necessary.

Swashplate - a form would be easier, but the server it's on is a free one, and doesn't do clever stuff. If anyone knows of a free (we haven't got a budget for this) server which supports Front Page Extensions please mail me - [email protected] - with the details. It would be nice if I didn't have to manually add the names as well. The pages to do this are actually written, I just need to find somewhere to host them. Been too busy keeping the petition up to date recently!

The other thing about emails is that some people may be worried about divulging their email addresses - if that's a problem, mail us via Hotmail or put a dummy reply address in or something. However, as it says on the site - under no circumstances will email addresses or other information be divulged to anyone.

Cargorat2 - thanks for the support, keep 'em coming.

There's some new stuff on the site today, notably a report on the Select Committee hearing last week, and links to the transcripts.

No more updates to the site till next Wednesday, I'm off on holiday for a few days.

[John Nichol]

Low & Slow, Re. Day & Wratten evidence - there are a couple of serious flaws in their argument but I'm not going to post that info at the moment - the info has been sent on to the HL committee who will hear it in public during the next hearings.

My point throughout this exercise is that the AM's evidence IS compelling if it is accepted at face value - but if one questions the very basis of the "facts" it throws their whole case into disarray.

I spoke to 2 former Armed Forces Ministers last week and they both were still convinced by the MOD's so-called evidence. It's not until you point out the flaws in the MOD case that you can see the raised eyebrows at how they have been decieved.

We shall see what the Lords think.

[swashplate]

Ahhh...thats OK Chocks - didn't know that your server wouldn't do that.

Sorry, don't know of any other servers that will.

BTW, anyone who wants to sign petetion and (like me) grey matter down for maintenance - when your e-mail thing comes up, just put your name and say you wish to sign petition. Worked for me!! :D

[Brian Dixon]

Thanks to everyone for their support.
Thanks to JN for sorting the question from Low & Slow.
Tons of thanks to Chocks for everything he is doing on the web site.

Here's the information for the next public session at the House of Lords:
Monday 15 & Tuesday 16 October 4.30 - 7.00pm
Evidence will be taken from Sqn Ldr David Morgan RAF & Mr Mark Holbrook who gave evidence to the original Board of Inquiry, Sqn Ldr Robert Burke RAF (ret'd)-former unit test pilot RAF Odiham, Capt R Macdonald FRAeS and Capt Kohn FRAeS, and possibly others.
Hearing will be held in Committee Room 3, Palace of Westminster (access via St Stephen's Entrance).

I also believe that the AAIB Report and the RAF Board of Inquiry will be published on the Parliament web site sometime later this month. Once they are, I will publish the links on PPRuNe and the official web site.

Thanks everyone for your support.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Arkroyal]

Just downloaded and printed the HOL stuff, and about to digest all over a pint.

Quick scan of Wratten's answers and the word 'hypothesis' leaps out over and over.

That's the whole crux of the matter. In the absence of evidence his hypothesising has convinced him he knows the answers.

When tested to the requirement that he knows with 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' what caused the accident, it all looks a bit thin.

What he is saying, low & slow, May be all true. (Idon't think it is). The point is that to find our heros guilty of Gross Negligence he must be able to prove it.

When are the next hearings?

I'll be applying for the time off this time!

[Arkroyal]

Err....

OK Brian, I must read your posts more carefully.

Disregard question at end of my last post. And no, I hadn't had the pint already :D

[Arkroyal]

After a first reading of the HOL examinations a few important points come out.

In ACM Day’s evidence, He refers to the weather pertaining at Machrihanish (note: not the Mull). He says

‘The temperature at plus 11 is also perhaps significant.’

It is indeed very significant, as he goes on to use it to calculate the limiting 4deg C isotherm at 3500ft (using the standard 2deg C per 1000ft lapse rate. This neatly allows him to use the fact that the aircraft was not climbed to its safety altitude of 2800ft as a pointer to their negligence.

He must be asked why he chose to ignore the AAIB report which gives the surface temperature at the Mull at the time of the accident as 9 degrees C. This would give a 4 deg C level of 2500ft i.e. below SALT of 2800ft

Could it just be that this would mean that a climb to SALT was not possible, therefore destroying part of his rickety case for negligence?

More relevant than the actual conditions, what was the forecast to which Tapper and Cook were planning? I think Andy Pulford's feeling that an IFR climb had been discounted by the crew is telling. I wouldn't have fancied a climb into icing conditions either.

[Chocks Wahay]

The petition is now past 200 names - 211 tonight to be exact. Keep 'em coming.

Just had an email from someone saying they'd read about the website in the Basingstoke Gazette Extra - fame at last!

[Brian Dixon]

Just to let you all know that the next round of public sessions with the House of Lords Select Committee starts tomorrow (Mon 15 Oct).

I'll post an overview of the meeting as soon as I am able, both here and on the web site.

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

[Brian Dixon]

An interesting two days. I am in the process of decyphering my scribbly handwriting. As soon as I am able. I'll post an overview of the days.

Everyone who gave evidence over the past two days should be congratulated upon their professionalism and dignity.

I'll also include the Hansard link once it is known - unless, of course, I am beaten to it again ;)

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

[XM147]

Ananova has two good summaries:

15th Oct: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_424529.html

16th Oct: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_425495.html

[John Nichol]

I think I can probably do a bit of it without notes:

Sqn Ldr Dave Morgan gave an almost identical take on events as the MOD - it was honest but revealed nothing new. Indeed a couple of his comments gave credence to the families version of events.

The 3 Captains of the RAeS gave their critique of the MOD version of events which repeated most of the arguments we have heard before but did put them on record. Ron McDonald's views on the difficulty of accident simulation were revealing and the committee was given a good counter to the RAF's reconstruction.

Mark Holbrook - the yachtsman and the last eyewitness - was brilliant. He drove a coach and horses through Wratten's account of the weather and how the crew were guilty some time before the crash. Wratten sneered.

Sqn Ldr Bob Burke gave a great account of why so much of the MOD's argument was opinion rather than fact. The Lords were most interested in his evidence & questioned him at length.

Throughout the whole process Wratten and Day smirked to each other at every contradiction of their statements as if to say "Why are we here, why can't these stupid people see what we can see?"

Although the MOD got a severe kicking over the last few days be in no doubt that they will come back fighting. The next hearing is on 7th November when Gp Capt Crawford appears and Tony Cable (AAIB) and Day are re-called.

More to come.

[Brian Dixon]

Thanks John,
a couple of quotes I wrote during the two days-

Sqn Ldr Morgan (When asked about the Flight Reference Cards) - " A number were not quite user friendly."

Mr Mark Holbrook (Appeared to be controlling his anger very well) - "I was suprised and distressed by the findngs of Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten." and "I feel my evidence was not collected with due dilligence."

Sqn Ldr Burke (When commenting about his removal from assisting an AAIB inspector) - "You are not to discuss this with anyone. This is a direct order".
(Of Master Air Loadmaster Forbes) - "Mr Forbes was the best crewman I ever flew with."

The hearing on 7th November is expected to be the last, so book early to avoid disappointment!

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

Typos again!

[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]

[Susan Phoenix]

Thanks Brian, and John et al. for the reports - I am so sorry that I missed this week. I always knew ( from the Paisley inquiry) that Mark Holbrook's original evidence was being discredited for some unknown ( or should I say some suspicious reason?!!
The weather at the Mull is always enigmatic ( yes that's the word!) I received a card only this week from someone who had been looking at it across the irish sea and it was clear and visible but the top had it's usual "orographic" cloud cover. I just know that John and Rick could see where they were - they just could not do anything about it!! And THAT statement is as objective as anything that Wratten and Day produced !!!know null

[Brian Dixon]

Whilst we're on the subject of the weather, here's some of the comments made to the Scottish FAI by the Met Officer:

"I am told that Mr Murchie, one of the lighthouse keepers, came out of his house and looked out to sea as the Chinook approached. I understand that in doing so all that he could see was a wall of fog. It is quite conceivable that on approach to the lighthouse the Chinook could actually see the lighthouse being the first way point and I do not consider Mr Murchie's evidence as to the prevailing weather conditions to be particularly relevant as it is taken from a different perspective from that of the approaching helicopter."

And

"Just because the weather station at Macrihanish was reporting one type of weather does not mean that the conditions on the Mull of Kintyre were the same and it is quite possible that they were completely different."

Whatever the weather, there will always be a ray of light on the Mull.

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

[Kiting for Boys]

Just watched Sqn Ldr Robert Burke on TV - BBC Parliament. Excellent. Calmly undermining official line, refusing to speculate about who above Wing Commander had authorised the order to keep out of the enquiry and much more besides.

[henry crun]

Does anyone have a link to Hansard for the last two days of hearings ?

[Arkroyal]

How annoying, been flicking over to Beeb Parliament on and off looking for this..

And missed it.

[Brian Dixon]

Due to reasons that I am unable to go into, I can say that the delay in publishing the latest Hansard from their Lordships Committee is due to it having to be checked prior to publication.

As soon as it is available, I (or someone else) will post the link here.

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

[Brian Dixon]

Hi all.

The Lords Hansard has been updated with the latest evidence. It can be found at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldchinook.htm

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

[Brian Dixon]

I have been advised that there is an excellent article regarding opinions over the accident in the November issue of Pilot magazine. I haven't seen it myself yet, but will get my copy tomorrow. If there's a link, I'll copy something down for someone to correct later :rolleyes:

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

[BEagle]

Brian - there is a 2 column review on page 79 of November's Pilot by Pat Malone of 'Chinook Doubts - a plain person's guide' by J M Ramsden (a 24 page booklet available from the author at a cost of £10).

The final paragraph of the review states "This booklet is an essential reference for anyone with an interest in flight safety. In particular I would recommend it to Fleet Street journalists who may find themselves coverng the report of the House of Lords Select Committeewhich is reviewing this accident. The booklet is succinct enough for the most ignorant to follow and includes contact information for Ramsden"

If Capt PPRuNe doesn't object to me reproducing this from Pilot, the booklet is available from: J M Ramsden, at 20 Townsend Drive, St Albans, Herts AL3 5RQ

[ 23 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Brian Dixon]

Thanks Beags,
I have a copy of Mr Ramsden's booklet and can confirm that it is excellent. If there is anyone out there who still has doubts, this plain speaking booklet will without doubt help you reach a conclusion.

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

[Kiting for Boys]

Sqn Ldr Burke's excellent testimony http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldchinook/110/u1610202.htm

Look at 658-660 and 755ff

Including:
760. You told us that somebody, Wing Commander Cooke, had ordered you not to take any further part in the investigation. Are you able to say, I am not a military man, at what level of such seniority such an order would have to emanate for a crash of this sort?
A. I have no idea, my Lord.
761. Somebody above Wing Commander?
A. I would imagine so, but that is speculation.

[misterploppy]

See also Lord Brennan to Sqn Ldr Burke at:

"772. I am going to ask you to think about that further, if the Lord Chairman will allow me, we had a reconstruction put to us, I would like you to mark in which ever way you think appropriate, that which you would not have put to the Board of Inquiry if asked before February 1995?

A. I would have put to them exactly what I put to you.

773. In that event the exercise does not need to be done. In that event, if you had been asked the Air Marshals would have had ...

A. They would have had some feasible technical explanations as to what might have gone wrong, I would not put it any stronger than that.

774. Which they did not have when they came to the Inquiry's conclusion, self-evidently."

Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I see a kite being flown for a formula to change the conclusion and exonerate Day and Wratten - "the came to their erroneous conclusions while not in posession of all the facts due to an incomplete inquiry."

It'll be interesting to see is their Lordships pursue the question "Who told Cooke to shut Burke up?"

[Arkroyal]

Just downloaded the latest HoL stuff.

mrploppy said:

'Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I see a kite being flown for a formula to change the conclusion and exonerate Day and Wratten - "the came to their erroneous conclusions while not in posession of all the facts due to an incomplete inquiry."'

I suspect that this may well be the direction things are moving in. Arrogant people like those we are dealing with will never admit their mistake, no matter what their lordships find.

Rather let them off the hook than let the finding stand.

Oh, and by the way.... you are a bluff old traditionalist. You'd have to be to use a term like that :D

[ShyTorque]

The "facts" or available evidence have been available for years, for anyone in a frame of mind to take note of them.

No-one in a position of rank should be able to say that they were not in possession of that evidence.

:mad:

[Broken Wings]

I just hope that the House of Lords Committee call Wing Commander Cooke and ask him the question we all want asking?

We will then find out how deep they are prepared to go to get at the truth. I just hope for the sake of the deceased pilots, their families and justice that they do so.

Whether I've read too many books or simply become more cynical with age I am not filled with much hope.

I hope their Lordships prove me wrong and if they do they will go along way to proving their worth as an independent body able to hold people in power to account.

[uncle peter]

looking objectively at the evidence and, more interestingly, the questions asked by their lordships, there always has been only one conclusion to this case.
it is the responsibility of any court, tribunal or hearing to ensure that justice is seen to be done, therefore this case was never going to result in the overtly public castigation of the 2 AM's.

the only relevant result is that the reputation of 2 outstanding young men, indeed the whole crew, is restored; and the verdict of the enquiry, comparable to manslaughter, is quashed.

it is my opinion that the committee has possibly hit upon a formulae which delivers the verdict which should have been reached years previously, and makes allowance for the negligence and subjectivity of the 2 AM's. the fact that they will be allowed to wriggle free of substantial blame is irrelevant - the result will have been acheived. Wratten and Day will never live these events down, as all credibility, respect and trust has been eroded. they know this.

perhaps jumping the gun a tad, but imho it must be realised what effect this "moral courage!!" of 2 v senior officers will have on the Servicemen of the RAF. a great deal of damage has been done.

[Arkroyal]

Uncle peter,

Top post. concur entirely

[misterploppy]

Uncle Peter: Ditto to Ark's comment.

BW: I'd like to think it would happen. However, it is amazing the latitude Courts in this country (and the USA) give to Military authorities. If you ever get involved in an interface between the legal (including Judicial) and military professions you'll understand all too clearly how the likes of Wratten psychotically come to view their own opinions as Holy Writ.

I suspect Wg Cdr Cooke will be a can their Lordships will happily leave closed lest all sorts of worms slither out in these troubled times.

[bad livin']

Is the Wg Cdr Cooke mentioned here the senior ALM Wg Cdr Cooke?

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Bad L,

Yes.

[Broken Wings]

Uncle Pete and Misterploppy

I hear your points and understand them fully but the question to Wg Cdr Cooke about who ordered Sqn Ldr Burke to stop helping the BoI is still wholly releveant. I sat on a BoI as the air member in 1990 into a Hawk crash and as we could not prove 100% the cause we concluded "Cause not positively determined, most likely cause...." I am pretty sure with the evidence we had that our most likely cause was correct BUT that was not the point.

As in the Chinook crash with no ADR/CVR or survivors the only conclusion the BoI should have come to was "Cause not positively determined", which I understand was Wg Cdr Pulfords conclusion. I am sure Sqn Ldr Burkes experience and assistance to the BoI would have reinforced that conclusion which is why he was probably ordered to keep away.

Blame is not the key, be it the crew or the Airships, the key is preventing such an occurrenece again and as we don't know the cause that aspect failed and no doubt that was not acceptable to the MOD because of the tragic loss of life. If the MOD had acted responsibly by installing an ADR/CVR in the first place they wouldn't be in the mess they are in now.

I agree there should be only one outcome now but that still doesn't stop a suitable use of words being used to show that the Higher Authority were simply wrong.

In my current Claim against the MOD a District Judge stated "I am highly critical of the Ministry of Defence in the way in which they have handled this claim up to now". The right words could be used they just take a bit of courage.

[TL Thou]

A little birdie tells me Newsnight are planning to do a feature next week on the Chinook Inquiry, but perhaps people know this already. :cool:

[John Nichol]

TL is correct - they plan on running it Tuesday.

[FJJP]

It would be good if the Inquiry called John Cooke and asked him the specific question -

'Exactly who ordered you to order Sqn Lr Burke to stop assisting the BOI and why?' I know JC and will never believe he would issue this order off his own bat - he has far too much integrity for that.

Then call that individual and so on up the line until we find out exactly who it was who originated the order and for what reason. Their Lordships on the Inquiry are in a prime position to probe this line and clear up the muddied waters.

This is a very significant point in this whole sorry affair.

[Brian Dixon]

(Collective groan - Brians back!)

Air Marshal Day has been recalled to appear before their Lordships this Wednesday. Perhaps they could ask him if he knows where the order started from. He may know, but then again, he may not.

Nice little article about the campaign web site in the Nov issue of Flyer mag - Thanks. Nearly up to 300 names. Please keep 'em coming.

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

[InFinRetirement]

Brian is back! What would we do without you Brian!

I think it is most interesting that Day has been summoned before their Lordships once again. Does it perhaps, send a signal that they are unhappy with his 'evidence'? Such as it was - especially since there has been other evidence that appeared not to have been noted, or taken notice of, but was very important indeed? It just makes Andy Pulford right all along in my humble opinion.

If they damn Day, and I hope they do, I would just love to see him forced to retire for dereliction of duty.

[Arkroyal]

I too welcome you back, Brian. Hope the hols were good.

Infine. I'd love to see that too. I'll be in the chamber tomorrow to see the man squirm...But I really don't care what happens to him, only that Jon and Rick are vindicated.

Day and Wratten will know that they were wrong to blame others for their shortcomings...and so will we. :)

[Brian Dixon]

Blimey! Thanks for the welcome back Infin & Ark. Hols were great and I am now in possession of fully recharged batteries ready for (what may be) the final push.

I have heard that Mr Wratten may also be recalled on Wed 7th Nov, although this is unconfirmed at the moment.

I wonder if there will be another slide show!! I could bring my holiday ones along. :D

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

[John Nichol]

Well, it was the final day of the Lords' inquiry yesterday and a good turn out by ppruners!

Air Cdr Crawford repeated exactly what he said in his comments on the BOI but did admit that some of it was conjecture.

The AAIB was asked a series of technical questions which culminated in a couple of very interesting quotes -

Tony Cable admitted that it was a very difficult case and that "evidence was very thin on the ground".

Ken Smart, head of the AAIB, interupted the questioning at one point to rightly point out that it is not an exact science - he also said that those parties that used the AAIB report to dismiss any technical failure out of hand were wrong.

Bob Burke returned to the stand to explain further problems with the reconstruction of the final seconds of flight. He was also challenged by a letter from Wg Cdr Cooke - the OC Ops Bob had said told him not to help the AAIB. The letter was from Wg Cdr Cooke to the MOD saying that the conversation didn't take place. An interesting one that.

Finally Wratten & Day (resplendent in his tight fitting No 1s) had the last word. They started by churning out their first statements again which just had everyone dying of boredom. Even the committee began to chat amongst themselves on a couple of occasions and Day was spouting to himself. Interestingly their argument is now that the act of negligence occured before the waypoint change and clear of cloud. So, although no rules or regulations were broken in any way, the 2 pilots were gulity of gross negligence because, in the AM's opinion, the aircraft was under control before the WP change and hence should have been steered away from the Mull before it became a factor in any subsequent emergency.

Hmmm, I fear the are getting desperate!

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

[Chocks Wahay]

One thing I'm still curious about - the transponder code which was found to be set at 7760. What code would you expect the Chinook to be using - 7000? A specifically assigned code?

Fascinating show yesterday, well worth the numb arse from four hours on a wooden bench!

[misterploppy]

I had almost forgotten quite how reptilian Wratten was until his camp, sibillant tones slithered across the airwaves last night on 'Today in Parliament'.

To those wishing to see their Lordships rub their Airships' faces in it: I fear you will hope in vain. As commented previously, there will probably be some formulaic get-out: "The reviewing officers understandably based their conclusions upon evidence which has subsequently been found to have been incomplete and gathered subjectively. In the light of this, their original conclusion cannot be sustained." In any event, the aim is to clear Jon & Rick, not to scupper Day and Wrotten, however much they deserve it.

If JN's assessment of the last day is right, and if their Lordships do decide to do the decent thing: It will be interesting to see if Day will carry out his threat to resign. For resettlement, in days of yore, the brick-laying course was exceedingly popular among senior officers. Perhaps he should get his name down pronto.

We could also collect, via pprune, a list of volunteers willing to assist His Airship to pack!

[John Nichol]

I have to agree with Mr Ploppy, this case is far from won. Day is a very powerful figure and in the past he has always had the backing of the Defence Minister. It will be interesting to see the final outcome of the inquiry.

The most important thing is to see the 2 pilot's names cleared. Though I have to admit, it was nice to see him squirm when the flaws in his argument and his conclusions to the BOI were pointed out!

[Brian Dixon]

I've just had a holiday so my packing qualification is current. I'd be happy to volunteer! :D

Much has already been said about the last public session so here's one or two points that I picked up on.

Air Cdr Crawford commented that the crews were dealing on an almost daily basis with the problems of FADEC and FRCs.

Sqn Ldr Burke again gave a strong account of himself.

The AAIB were put under some pressure by their Lordships but maintained their stance that pre impact unserviceability could not be discounted.

The two Air Marshals - The negligence now moves to just prior to the waypoint change "because we know that there were no problems". Sorry, were you there then?
Air Chief Marshal Day stated that he flew the route a few days before this final meeting and that the weather was "remarkably similar" to that of the 2 June.
Sorry, were you there then?

Air Marshal Day commented again that the lighthouse keeper had not heard a change in engine noise. He was then asked why the lighthouse keeper did not hear a change in noise when the aircraft flared. Long pause, no answer forthcoming.

Air Marshal Day then made a comparison of a motorist driving at speed down a foggy motorway and rapidly approaching the rear of an articulated lorry. As he braked, the brakes failed and the driver crashed into the lorry. He said the driver would have been negligent for his actions by going too fast in limited visibility.
Two points.
First, the chance of a lorry being in your path is random - approaching land mass isn't. If you know something is there would you knowingly hurtle towards it?
Second, I think that in such circumstances if the brakes failed, you would have a good chance of suing the manufacturer for a faulty product. But then again, the Government knows about suing manufacturers already. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Mister P. I agree with your comments regarding a formulaic get-out. I personally believe that it was offered to the Air Marshals yesterday but they either could not recognise the offer or were too arrogant to accept.

Again, their Lordships were extremely fair. I can do no more than wait with the rest of everyone interested in this injustice for their decision.

Thanks also to everyone who was able to attend and show their support for Rick and Jon and their families.

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

Edited for layout and podgy finger syndrome.

[ 09 November 2001: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]

[Arkroyal]

Brian, Chocks, John

You've said it all really. My favourite memories of yesterday must be, from sitting close behind Day during his repeated Mantra (If you repeat it enough, you may even convince yourself), was noticing a slight hesitation in his delivery. On looking up, Their Lordships were sharing a private joke, and ignoring him completely :D

And more telling, Lord Brennan (Star performer) to Day (and I paraphrase) 'To continue your logic, that the negligence was committed before waypoint change, then even if disaster had been averted, the pilots would still have been guilty of negligence?' Day: 'Yes'

'And, if subsequent to waypoint change, some mechanical failure had occurred, then the negligence would still have been committed?'

Silence

'Bit Harsh?'

Mumble
edit for digit trouble

[ 08 November 2001: Message edited by: Arkroyal ]

[henry crun]

Does anyone know if their Lordships are required to produce their verdict by a particular date, or if there is any indication of when they will ?

[fobotcso]

January was mentioned in the Newsnight feature.

[InFinRetirement]

Funny! Something keeps reminding me of the film "A Few Good Men" - perhaps it's the title which seems very apt in regard to Jon, Rick and all the others.

What springs to mind is when Tom Cruise asks Jack Nicholson for the "truth!" Jack Nicholson replied, "the truth? You can't handle the truth!".

I see it as not one, but two AM's in that position, who have been interrogated and have not been able to give the truth as to their findings, making up one reason after another without the grounds to do so, and perhaps, telling others to keep their mouths shut.

A further line followed from TC which said "you are going to jail, you son of a bitch!" I hope that means that Day must resign and join his mate who escaped having to do so.

Bit dramatic perhaps, but you gotta admit it does have a nice ring to it.

[meadowbank]

Regarding timescale, Lord Chalfont suggested (immediately following the latest hearing) that the report of the Select Committee is liable to be delivered to the House of Lords "in about a month".

Tony Cable and Ken Smart (both AAIB) said several things to indicate to their lordships (beyond any doubt whatsoever(!)), that the AAIB's conclusions cannot be considered gospel:
"it is not an exact science" TC
"without a Flight Data Recorder ..... you cannot be sure" KS
"[the wreckage] presents evidence in a scrambled form" KS

TC also stated that analysis of the wreckage was complicated by the fact that there were 3 or 4 separate impacts "over a few seconds" and that "the evidence was remarkably thin".

Perhaps most vitally, he went on to say, "it's not possible to prove serviceability".

When the AM's stood by their finding of negligence, I particularly liked Lord Brennan's question: "If the negligence was so obvious, why did the other [Board of Inquiry] investigators miss it".

I suppose it's not surprising that the 2 old RAF men stuck to their guns. What would they have said otherwise ..."Do you know my Lord, you may have a point there, perhaps they weren't negligent after all"?

I strongly believe that the negligence ticket will be dropped. Let's hope that their lordships find a suitable put-down for their airships. I think that Day only went for negligence because he was aware of Wratten's views and wanted to score points with his boss. For the record, Wratten's letter to his senior commanders includes the following words:

".... I will not tolerate shortcomings of concentration or personal discipline in aircrew. It follows that I wish to put this policy into practical effect by ensuring that formal disciplinary action is taken whenever....clear evidence emerges of unmitigated indiscipline or negligence. The increasing evidence of such cases suggests that past practice, which has been to shun the disciplinary approach ... is no longer appropriate....Formal disciplinary action has always been an option open to us and we should not steer away from it"

These words were written in February 1995 (ie following the crash, but before Day & Wratten added their comments to the BoI).

These two AM's are a disgrace and should be disgraced. Let's hope that the Lords can find a good way to do this. :mad:

[Arkroyal]

Meadowbank.

".... I will not tolerate shortcomings of concentration or personal discipline in aircrew. It follows that I wish to put this policy into practical effect by ensuring that formal disciplinary action is taken whenever....clear evidence emerges of unmitigated indiscipline or negligence. The increasing evidence of such cases suggests that past practice, which has been to shun the disciplinary approach ... is no longer appropriate....Formal disciplinary action has always been an option open to us and we should not steer away from it"

This extract crystalises in a few lines why we find ouselves at this juncture. The 'wheel in the guilty b@stard' approach to military discipline was alive and well in the Wratten/Day era. That coupled to their Airships feeling that a robust finding would be required due to the scale of the disaster, the importance of the deceased pax; and the need to cover their own shortcomings in management and leadership.

Were their Lordships in possession of this document?

[Brian Dixon]

Ark,
great to finally meet in person the other day.
To answer your question about that particular document, I seem to recall that it was brought to their Lordships attention during Mr Wratten's first hearing.

I also recall that there Lordships were somewhat interested in it's content. The question was asked of Wratten, "Was that the frame of mind in which you looked at the facts of the Chinook inquiry: sternly, to see whether you could establish failures by the aircrew? There then followed a long vague answer, which is of course available from the Hansard.

Infin - I'm not sure about A Few Good Men - perhaps the two old guys in the balcony off the Muppet Show?

The jury, as they say, is out.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Tigs]

Day and Wratten

You must read this forum given the circumstances, if you don't then you really are oxygen thieves. It's a fair cop, times up! ministers have resigned for less. We don't want you, you have no credibility. The remaining one of you should collect your pension and go. As for both of you, I hope you sleep at night, knowing how much suffering you have caused the respective families, simply for your political & career aspirations!! You were wrong!! We know- admit it and be done.

[cheapseat]

By all that’s now in the public domain I cannot imagine anything other than the removal of gross negligence from Jon and Rick’s otherwise impeccable reputations. This will be a wholly righteous conclusion to this dreadful situation; a situation brought about by two men; Day and Wratton.
There are an increasing amount of posts portraying these two as rogue guns, bent on a crusade to feather their own nest through the death of 29 people.
I feel a bit of a turncoat, as I can’t let this pass without comment.
Sadly both Wratton and Day are nothing more than products of the RAF system, a system that will pick ten to twenty young officers, say 25 years old, and put them on the greasy pole. Those who make the next gate kiss of any future involving a practical, hands on knowledge of flying (and fighting) and start to get groomed to be the movers and shakers of the RAF ie; politics and admin! By the time these guys are 40 they’re already five years behind their old sqn oppos. From there on in it can only get worst. Hit air rank and your decisions go unquestioned, bar a polite “but sir” which, I assume, is easily ignored. These guys must really start to think that they really do have all the answers.
This injustice will forever be a stain on the history of the Royal Air Force, however to lay the blame solely at the feet of these two men will only lead to similar crass management in the future.

[meadowbank]

Arkroyal,

Yes, the document was passed to their lordships and they did question Wratten about it, a document that had been hard to obtain because, apparently, someone had been trying to keep it away from prying eyes.

Other points about senior RAF officers are, sadly, true. There are, of course, some notable exceptions, but people like this promote similar hard-nosed individuals and, believe me, there are others who will replace them in the near future, already well-up in the HQ Strike Command hierarchy. They are universally arrogant and abuse their status (I know of one Air Marshal who, as a Station Commander, ordered a teenaged female steward to don wellingtons and clean out his fish-pond! She subsequently volunteered for 6 months in the Falklands to escape this kind of mistreatment). Perhaps a TV producer would like to research some similar stories, then name & shame? These people are no better than Honecker or Pinochet. :mad:

[ShyTorque]

I hope more than ever that this can be put to rights, although I think that the two perpetrators will probably not be chastised because of their positions. However, their continued insistence that they cannot possibly be wrong says so much about their characters and worth as men, let alone as senior officers.

The level of support on this and other sites shows the depth of feeling of many others, whatever the outcome of the inquiry. I for one am very glad to be no longer under their command and if my persistence has in any way helped, I am very glad.

[BEagle]

Is it true that a certain Very Senior Officer was heard to say in recent Days to a pilot flying war sorties from the desert "There's a thin line between Flight Safety and blackmail"......

[ 11 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[chinny]

Cheapseat.....Hear hear!!

[Ghost Dancer]

Osama bill Wratten, another fine example of authority, which is given; without respect, which must be earned.

There have been many commanders who have not been loved for their unpopular decisions but have at least been respected for their integrity.

Are tunnel vision and the provision of service isue blinkers still part of the annual eye test for VSOs?

Who needs morale when you've got discipline.

[Brian Dixon]

Hi all.

You may like to know that the corrected version of evidence from the Lords Select Committee hearings are now being posted on the Parliament web site. The latest version includes copies of the slides used by the Air Marshals during their presentations. The link (I hope) is: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldchin.htm

Alternatively, check the link out via the official campaign web site: http://www.chinook-justice.org

You could always sign our petition whilst you are there! ;)

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

[1.3VStall]

Back to the top.

Brian, only 12 more names to reach the magic 300.

[PPRuNe Dispatcher]

I'm going to have to close this thread as it's getting too long for our overloaded server to handle.

I'll start another thread entitled "Chinook - Still Hitting Back 2" with a link to this thread.

--Mik