Chinook - Hit Back Here [Archive] - Page 2

misterploppy

28th Nov 2000, 00:36

Flatus Veteranus

Welcome to the debate, excellent moniker by the way! For the comments about Wrotten to be defamatory or 'near-defamatory' to use your phrase, they would have to be demonstrably untrue. I can only presume you have the good fortune not have worked or crossed swords with the man.

Despite having been punted off to sinecural semi-retirement at Rolls-Royce, I presume the man is not unaware of the existence of PPRuNe. However, he doesn't appear keen to rebut any of the comments here. Of course, he 'stormed off the pitch' at the RAeS when he couldn't take the flak there over this issue: Other members had the temerity to question his Holy Writ. He is, of course, at liberty to post his rebuttals here if he wishes.

While ordinarily personalising an argument is unlikely to be productive, in this case the vindictiveness of the principal protagonist is highly germane to the case. Anyone who remembers Wratten will know what a martinet he was. They will also conclude that Day would be very unlikely to contradict the BofI and come to a highly controversial conclusion (contrary to BofI Regs) unless such a course was at least cleared with, or more probably required by, his boss Wrotten.

Such is the manner of 'Staffing' a BofI (or much other MoD paperwork for that matter). Having been involved in one, each stage is not an independent review of the earlier stage's work. In the real world, a reviewing officer has far more of an eye on the next stage's opinion than the junior stage's conclusions! Especially in STC at the relevant time. In the case I was involved in (not an a/c accident but at Aldergrove), we had to expend huge effort (and great monetary expense) demonstrating that there was nothing to investigate! And that the sacrificial scapegoat called for by HQ STC had, in fact, done nothing wrong! In fact, had circumstances been slightly different, he might well have been commended.

Arkroyal

28th Nov 2000, 02:16

Just in case anyone has missed the thread ZD576.... I reproduce The Guvnor's post here for the sake of tidiness.

<As a good friend of mine was killed in this accident, I've taken a rather keen interest in its highly convoluted investigation. The latest twist comes from today's Sunday Times:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MoD accused of Chinook crash
cover-up
Liam Clarke

THE Ministry of Defence will be accused this week by a
powerful Commons committee of misleading the public over the
cause of the 1994 Chinook helicopter crash, which killed 29
people.

Defence chiefs blamed "gross negligence" by the pilots for the
accident, in which army, intelligence and police staff died when
the aircraft crashed into the Mull of Kintyre in west Scotland.

But a report to be published on Thursday points to failures in
the Chinook Mark 2's engine control system as a possible
cause of the crash.

The report by the public accounts committee reveals that the
MoD was suing the American manufacturers of the Chinook's
Full Authority Digital Engine Control (Fadec) system at the
time of the crash, a fact never disclosed to subsequent
inquiries.

The helicopter crashed inexplicably into sheer cliffs in heavy
fog, killing the 25 intelligence experts attending an
anti-terrorism conference in Scotland, and four aircrew. The
dead included some of Northern Ireland's most experienced
anti-terrorist experts, including RUC Special Branch officers,
MI6 and MI5 chiefs in Northern Ireland as well as senior army
officers.

The public accounts committee report notes that in 1994,
before the crash, the MoD was suing Textron Lycoming, the
US manufacturer of the Fadec software. The committee also
heard that the Aeroplane and Armament Research
Establishment, the MoD's assessor of airworthiness, had
grounded other non-operational Chinooks on the day before the
fatal flight. The helicopter did not carry a black box, which
records the flight's passage, and there were no survivors.

In November 1986, 45 men, mainly oil workers, were killed
when a Chinook crashed off Shetland.

Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten and Air Marshal Sir John
Day, who headed the RAF board of inquiry investigation, said
that Rick Cook and Jonathan Tapper, the pilots, were guilty of
gross negligence.

A Scottish fatal accident inquiry found there was no proof that
the pilots were to blame.

Cook's father, Jonathan, said: "The RAF pilots in Northern
Ireland all tried to stop the Mark 2 from going over. One of the
other pilots had told his wife: 'If I get killed in that thing don't
take any notice of what the air force say, just run down the
street and say the aircraft killed him.'" >
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/11/26/stinwenws01035.html

Excellent news, and thanks for the pointer Guv!

Tandemrotor

28th Nov 2000, 03:44

Things seem to be ticking along nicely.

PS. I know I owe some of you guys some info. I am getting it out to you very soon.

Cheers.

Flatiron

28th Nov 2000, 17:43

Arkroyal
Agree your point that there should be NO DOUBT about a negligent finding before it is promulgated. But I would go further than that - no such finding should be made against a dead person without FIRM PROOF.

Flatus
You asked about putting a BOI report into the public domain. In my days the policy was quite clear. The whole aim of a BOI was to stop a similar accident from ever happening again. To that end, we needed witnesses to tell the honest truth. To secure that honesty, we promised everyone that their evidence would never be revealed outside MoD to anyone other than a coroner. If disciplinary action was subsequently to be taken within the RAF, the BOI could not be used in evidence. The disciplinary authority would have to set up a call for a separate summary of evidence. As a simple flight safety man, I liked this robust approach. However, this was blown apart by clever lawyers and now BOI proceedings are released into the public domain. Funny old thing, but now people are far less willing to tell the truth (or far more likely to have amnesia) after an accident.

How would I staff the sorry saga now? Let me see what the 'powerful' Commons committee has to say first, though I suspect that their views will have little long term effect.

Brian Dixon

29th Nov 2000, 00:13

Geoff Hoon appears a little reluctant to provide a statement with regard to his meeting with Lord Chalfont and the Mull of Kintyre Group last week (15th). I have e-mailed him to ask his opinion of the meeting and how he will progress the issue. Reply will be posted here if/when I get it.

Should any of you like to ask him yourself, you can send him an e-mail via the following:
www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/almsek.htm#h (http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/almsek.htm#h)

Then scroll down to his name and click on the envelope next to his name. I'm sure he will appreciate the contact. Go on.......you know it will make you feel good.

Regards
Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Thud_and_Blunder

29th Nov 2000, 04:00

Brian,

Eeeh, you're right, it does make you feel better. Mind you, not being in the habit of joined-up writing it does take a while to pick your words carefully so as to make all the points without being (too) rude. Give me a post to PPRuNe any day - type first, think and worry later. Ah well, back to the Yorkshire School Playground thread on JB to restore my sanity. Thanks for the link - it's straight into the bookmarks.

Arkroyal

29th Nov 2000, 13:55

Cheers Brian. Done.

Flatiron,

Exactly

No Proof = No Blame (except in the mad world of Bill Wratten)

1.3VStall

29th Nov 2000, 14:12

Brian,

Done! I await with interest for his response.

John Nichol

29th Nov 2000, 21:42

Standby for a devastating blow to the MOD from the Public Accounts Committee. The proverbial is about to hit the fan!

Brian Dixon

29th Nov 2000, 21:54

Firstly, thanks to everyone who said Hi to my mate Geoff.

Secondly, I'm amazed I have got a link to work!!

The PAC report is due out soon, although it's not common knowledge when it will be available. Once it is available I'll send it as an attachment to Geoff with everyone's best wishes.

Now I've got the hang of it, I'll put a link to the PAC report on this site tomorrow. Damn! Have I said too much???

Regards
Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

MrBernoulli

30th Nov 2000, 02:09

As I said on the 'ZD576' thread, watch the MOD building closely and see how many people come flying out of the windows in an effort to escape the flying pooh. Those that aren't running will probably be sticking up umbrellas to avoid the fallout.

Tir renrie

30th Nov 2000, 02:23

Anyone see PMQ's today?

misterploppy

30th Nov 2000, 02:44

Yep, TB promised to look again. However, his interest will probably be OBE - overtaken by events. C4 news had a preview of the PAC report. Couldn't comment on content as it is embargoed until tomorrow, but said MOD would find its content difficult to shake off. Gave the impression lots of fullers earth will be needed to soak up the fallout!

I wonder if Day will use his "A big boy made me do it and ran way" excuse again.

Wait, out!

Tir renrie

30th Nov 2000, 03:17

I just thought old TB did his usual "run away" act, "ill send you a private response" rubbish!!
Will C4 show the report tomorrow?

misterploppy

30th Nov 2000, 03:34

Just flashed up at the end of Newsnight Scotland - tomorrow's front pages:

Chinook Pilots vindicated after 6 and a half years of blame.

Pilots failed by MOD arrogance.

Lies, lies and more lies.

I wonder if Wrotten & Day will exercise any right to reply?

[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 29 November 2000).]

propulike

30th Nov 2000, 04:12

Just looking at the headlines - thought this would be of interest. From Sky News.

Thursday November 30, 12:01 AM

Blair To Reinvestigate Chinook Crash

Tony Blair said he was prepared to take a fresh look at the 1994 crash of an
RAFChinook helicopter, on the eve of a report expected to rubbish the original
verdict on the accident.

The two pilots were found guilty of gross negligence after their helicopter crashed into the
Mull of Kintyre in fog, killing them and the 27 MI5, army and RUC personnel aboard. The
Northern Irelandintelligence experts had been en route to a security conference in Scotland.

But the pilots families and MPs from all parties have repeatedly questioned the verdict and
called for a new inquest. They believe some of the newly-installed electronics on the
helicopter may have malfunctioned.

The Government has frequently refused, saying there is no new evidence.

Strong feeling

But Mr Blair on Wednesday pledged to examine the events again, even though they had been "looked at andpored
over a very, very long time".

In response to Liberal Democrat Ray Michies question at Prime Minister's Question Time, he said: "I can't off the
top of my head now offer you any moredetails or information since the last time we had this exchange, but again
Iwill go back and look at it and be in touch with you and tell you what theup-to-date position is I am aware of the
strength of feeling, because I receive representations onit directly myself, quite apart from the things that you say.

An MPs report due out on Thursday is expected to say the negligence finding is impossible to prove. The document
is likely to condemn the MoD for standing by the conclusions despite the lack of evidence, and add to the pressure
for a review.

Families encouraged

The report will give fresh impetus to thelong campaign by the families of Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and
Rick Cook, who believe they were not at fault.

It may also leave the MoD open to charges of conflict of interest, and encourage conspiracy theories.

The Tories and Liberal Democrats have backed calls for a new inquiry, and will be encouraged by the report.

propulike

30th Nov 2000, 04:21

Blimey. No sooner do I post the message and go to log-off, than the headline changes! Rest of the story stays the same, headline now reads....

CHINOOK VERDICT 'UNSUSTAINABLE'

A report into the original verdict following the
Chinook helicopter crash in 1994 which killed has
described the finding as "unsustainable".

MPs on the Commons Public Accounts Committee
said it was "impossible" to prove an RAF board of
inquiry's verdict that "gross negligence", on the part of
the two pilots, had caused the crash that killed all 29
people on board

misterploppy

30th Nov 2000, 11:48

The Scotsman - Front Page 30/11/00

Chinook pilots vindicated after six-and-a-half years of blame

AN INQUIRY into a fatal helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre reveals today that the two pilots blamed by the Ministry of Defence were victims of “a major miscarriage of justice” and calls for them to be cleared of guilt.

The MoD had stuck by its own “very unsatisfactory” and “unsustainable” verdict that Flt Lt Jonathan Tapper and Flt Lt Richard Cook were to blame, despite doubts about the safety of the Chinook MkII helicopter.

The powerful Commons’ public accounts committee found that at the time of the crash the Chinook was experiencing “repeated and unexplained” technical difficulties caused by its computer software.
In a scathing attack on the MoD’s “unwarrantable arrogance”, it declared that the department should have heeded the sheriff court ruling that the cause of the crash could not be determined.

Captain John Cook, Flt Lt Cook’s father said: “We’ve been saying this for six-and-a-half years. We’re absolutely delighted that this important body of people has come to this conclusion. I’m optimistic that the Government may take notice of it.”

Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, insisted that there was nothing in the committee’s report to cast doubt on the integrity of the MoD’s findings.“There is clearly a good deal of material in the report, but none of it constitutes new evidence,” said Mr Hoon.

Tory MP David Davis, the committee’s chairman, called on the MoD to set aside its finding that the crash of the Chinook ZD-576 was caused by pilot error. His report provides the strongest evidence yet of the need for a rethink and will put pressure on the government to accept calls for a review.

It will also embarrass Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, who recently gave his backing to the MoD’s version of events. Speaking in July, he said: “All possible causes were examined, but no evidence of technical malfunctioning was found. The RAF board of inquiry established that the Chinook was flying too fast, too low in bad weather.”

Both pilots and the 27 army and intelligence officers on board died on 2 June, 1994, when the helicopter carrying them to a conference in Inverness, crashed into a hill on Mull.

The MoD has repeatedly said it can see no reason to overturn the ruling by Air Marshalls Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day that the pilots were guilty of “gross negligence”.

In March, the committee launched an inquiry into the Chinook MkII helicopter, which is the product of a £142 million contract undertaken by Boeing Helicopters to upgrade 32 MkI helicopters.

Its main conclusions are: The MoD did not realise there were problems with the helicopter’s computerised fuel system, known as Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC), until it was delivered for flight trials – despite six years of development and three in production. The late discovery of problems with the FADEC software was “unacceptable”.

The RAF’s finding of pilot error does not satisfy the burden of proof required, that there be no doubt whatsoever. The commitee found: “The technical data recovered from the wreckage was incomplete and does not, we believe, conclusively rule out technical malfunction as a potential cause of the crash. Negligence should only be found where it can be positively identified to have been the cause.

“Given the absence of cockpit voice and accident data recorders and the contrary view of the Scottish fatal accident inquiry conducted by Sheriff Sir Stephen Young, it is impossible to prove gross negligence in the case of ZD-576.”

The committee argues that the MoD should have appreciated the “superior standing” of the Scottish court and been guided by it.

It adds: “The department’s [MoD] preference for the results of their own procedures constitutes unwarrantable arrogance.

“The committee simply cannot understand why the department continues to defend the unsustainable finding of gross negligence and recommends it should be set aside.”

The process for convening and conducting RAF boards of inquiry is unsatisfactory and is open to allegations of conflict of interest.

In the case of the Chinook crash, the board was convened by and reported to senior officers who were also responsible for managing the Chinook fleet.

The MoD relied heavily on the expertise of the FADEC manufacturers in its analysis of the Chinook’s software problems. The committee recommends that the MoD also seeks independent technical expertise.

Mr Davis concluded: “In truth, we shall never known what happened on that fateful day at the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 but the evidence provided to the committee points quite clearly to a major miscarriage of justice. Despite the absence of definitive evidence, the department has doggedly stuck by the view that the crash was caused by pilot error.

“The committee’s report shows that this logic is flawed ... now is the time finally to put this matter right.”

Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, insisted that there was nothing in the committee’s report to cast doubt on the integrity of the MoD’s findings. “There is clearly a good deal of material in the report, but none of it constitutes new evidence,” he said.

Captain John Cook, Flt Lt Cook’s father, was delighted by the committee’s findings.

He said: “We’ve been saying this for six-and-a-half years. We’re absolutely delighted.” that this important body of people has taken all this trouble to come to this conclusion. I’m hopefully optimistic that the Government may take notice of it.”

Independent peer Lord Chalfont, who leads a cross-party campaign group on the Chinook affair, said: “The Secretary of State for Defence could set aside the verdict himself. That’s what I would expect him to do.”

Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrats defence spokesman, said Mr Blair must intervene. He said: “The intransigence of the MoD is increasingly irrational. It is high time that the Prime Minister stepped in and put right the injustice done to the two pilots.”

Iain Duncan Smith, the Tories defence spokesman, said a Conservative government would immediately instruct the MoD to reopen its inquiry.

Tanya Thomson
The Scotsman
Thursday, 30th November 2000

http://www.scotsman.com

NoFaultFound

30th Nov 2000, 11:51

Perhaps a certain pair of senior officers should do the honourable thing now and resign?

oldgit47

30th Nov 2000, 12:32

Just watched Buffoon on the TV. He saw no reason to overturn the findings of the RAF Board of Inquiry. Am I missing something here? I have seen the BOI and I do not recollect the words "gross negligence" in its conclusions. The Board was overruled by Wrotten and Day. Either Buffoon is what his name implies or less than honest. Methinks 3 resignations will be in order when the truth eventually comes out not 2.

BEagle

30th Nov 2000, 12:49

BuffHoon being grilled on Sky News as I write. Says that there's nothing new in the report. That the BOI conclusion was 'conscientiously' reached. Would not admit that there is any remaining doubt despite having the facts firmly presented to him. He doesn't think that the PAC report was as thorough as the BOI, scathingly referred to it as being superficial.
A disappointing performance; Sky News had the upper hand throughout whilst Buff sat and sweated.

Wonder whether the Sky News reporters will be off down to Filton today to doorstep Sir William Wratten at Rolls-Royce?

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 30 November 2000).]

The Nr Fairy

30th Nov 2000, 13:40

I heard Hoon's comments reported on the Today programme this morning, then had the misfortune to watch him on BBC's Breakfast News.

All that crap about "no new evidence", "the report was superficial", I was closed to punching the TV !!

Of course there's no new evidence, it was all examined, the BOI found no evidence to back up the gross negligence, but Wratten and Day decided there was so passed the verdict. Why can't Hoon be made to see that ?

Hopefully the momentum will pick up even more now.

As an aside, if the BOI report is in the public domain has anyone got a URL for them ?

------------------
I got bored with "WhoNeedsRunways"

pulse1

30th Nov 2000, 13:48

Having listened to BuffHoon's patronising distortion of the truth on the "Today" programme this morning I cannot remain an interested observer any longer. Sword is drawn, MP will be pestered. BuffHoon must go! He actually said that"a properly constituted BOI"found the pilots guilty of gross negligence. As I have understood all the many contributions to this and other sources, only Wrotten and Day came to this conclusion. Mr Hoon must resign.

------------------
"If you keep doing what you've always done, you will keep getting what you've always got"

1.3VStall

30th Nov 2000, 15:30

It's not very often that I find myself admiring MPs (of any persuasion), but the Public Accounts Committee used two words that I have used on this thread in the past: intransigent and arrogant.

These words neatly encapsulate the Wratten/Day position, which has been consistently maintained by the MOD and has now been adopted by Hoon.

I fervently hope that the PAC report will provide enough fresh momentum to catapult this sorry affair back into the public spotlight. Let's all stir as much as possible and keep the pot boiling.

Arkroyal

30th Nov 2000, 18:40

Listening to the 5am news this morning, I went to work full of hope that this sorry saga of injustice was about to reach a satisfying conclusion.

Just come home and heard the news that that imbicile Hoon has thrown out a considered report by eminent politicians, calling it ‘superficial’. There is no new evidence therefore no reopening of the inquiry.

Nr Fairy says it all. It needs no new evidence to find that the original finding cannot be upheld. There was no evidence of gross negligence WHY CAN’T THESE PEOPLE SEE THAT OBVIOUS FACT.

Honestly, I am seething with anger at the arrogance and intransigence (so apt 1.3v) of supposedly trained minds who cannot get the simple point that you cannot find dead pilots guilty of negligence unless you can prove it beyond ‘all doubt whatsoever’(QRRAF).

Blair promised to look into this personally. He has decided to back Hoon. The man is too busy steamrollering his legalisation of juvenile buggery to worry about the injustice heaped on two men whose service to their country puts his own to shame.

I am also incensed at the use of the words ‘pilot error’ in many of these reports. That is not what we are fighting. These spineless jerks have found Jon and Rick guilty of gross negligence, not error.

I guess I’d better stop and cool down!

Welcome pulse 1. I am sure you won’t be the only new voice added to the clamour.

Time to change up a gear. Everyone write to your own MP and to Hoon and Blair.

We WILL win this.

pulse1

30th Nov 2000, 20:40

Letters to MP, Hoon and BBC Today duly written.

Main Argument

Original "properly constituted BOI" (Hoon;s words not mine) found insufficient evidence for any conclusions

No new evidence presented.

RAF Regulations rule against negligence without irrefutable evidence.

New conclusion - no case for negligence.

Hoon is being arrogant and is distorting the truth - he should resign.

I am the last person to entertain conspiracy theories but I cannot help but see a major cover up taking place here. It could be the senior officers protecting their backs, as has already been suggested here but, in the light of the nature of the passengers, is it just possible they are trying to hide something more sinister?

------------------
"If you keep doing what you've always done, you will keep getting what you've always got"

MrBernoulli

30th Nov 2000, 20:51

It makes you want to spit doesn't it? It is a supreme example of the idiots you have to deal with in the government. This quote from Buff Hoon today:

"The reality is that this was a properly constituted board of inquiry that looked very carefully indeed at the facts. The only circumstances in which that judgment should be disturbed is if there is new evidence that challenges the basis of that inquiry."

What the pratt fails to realise is that the board was good enough to to look "VERY carefully indeed at the facts" and they did NOT come to a conclusion of negligence. It must be that Hoon has only read Wrotten's conclusion - no way could he claim to having read the original B of I. Hoon is not telling the truth.

No one wishes to disturb the judgement of the B of I, its the opinion of a single person that is being challenged......and rightly so. You don't need "new evidence" to challenge this.

Brian Dixon

30th Nov 2000, 21:56

Right, here goes....

The link for the PAC Report is as follows:

<A HREF="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmpubacc/975/97502.htm" TARGET="_blank">www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmpubacc/975/97502.htm</A>

Its a lot of paper so warm the printer up. I'll hold off on my comments as I haven't had chance to read and digest yet. However, it would appear that Hoon has read a different report to that which we will.

It doesn't matter how long he stands there with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears, I will still be there when he takes them out!!

More from me when I have got my head around it all. Enjoy the report folks. Perhaps send it to your MP!!!!!!! If anyoone is near Hoon's constituency, you could maybe pop in and say Hi.

Regards all.

Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Arkroyal

30th Nov 2000, 22:27

Pulse 1,

Excellent post and well done with the letters. Got half way through mine to Blair and had to stop because I couldn't keep it polite. Try again later.

Mr Bernoulli,

Spitting so hard I can hardly see my screen. Why is it that we on this forum can see what is so plain, yet these trained legal minds cannot. I too hesitate to yell 'conspiracy, but the miscarriage of justice is so bloody obvious, something must be going on. Reading the 4th report by the defence committee in to the accident, they refused to consider the BOI reprt as seperate from the reviewing officer's remarks. This is why Buff tries to say that the BOI found the gross negligence verdict, and not that the reviewers overturned the BOI, which is what actually happened.

Brian says
"It doesn't matter how long he stands there with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears, I will still be there when he takes them out!!"

What a lovely picture! You may be trampled in the crush.

At least this sorry day (Rick's poor father has just been on TV News how I feel for the families- of all on board)has re-ignited public debate and enrgised this forum.

We WILL win in the end.

John Nichol

30th Nov 2000, 22:32

Ch4 is running a good piece at 7pm 2nite. Newsnight at 10.30pm also has Hoon live - let's hope he gets his facts right this time.

misterploppy

30th Nov 2000, 22:55

Sent tonight

To MP:

... I have never been moved to write to an MP before but you will see from the text of the letter to the SofS for Defence below that I feel very strongly about his and his Department's behaviour on the issue of the unjustified verdict of Gross Negligence against Flt Lts John Tapper and Rick Cook.

The nub of the argument is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Air Marshals Wratten and Day were major players in the hurried introduction of an airframe about which people had safety concerns. They flouted RAF Board of Enquiry (BofI) Regulations requiring "No Doubt Whatsoever" before overturning the original BofI finding which, like Sir Stephen Young's FAI, could not find conclusively the cause of the accident.

The MoD regularly bleats lamely that "lessons have been learned", and "this can't happen again" after it is slated by the PAC and other parliamentary committees. They then go on to make the same mistakes again and again. This case is personal and very different to the routinely wasted millions of pounds: It concerns the reputations of 2 professional pilots, the feelings of their families and the confidence of future Servicemen in their leaders.

I write to ask that you lend your support in ensuring that the MOD do not get away with flouting the authority of a senior committee of the House, and that they are forced to overturn this outrageous injustice.

Yours aye

To the Goon:

Dear Mr Hoon

I have never been moved to write to an MP before, but I was outraged to see you add wilful ignorance (to use Sir Wm Wratten's words) to the arrogance which the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) rightly accused your Department of.

The original RAF Board of Inquiry, Sir Stephen Young's Fatal Accident Enquiry and numerous lay and expert outsiders have failed to find conclusive evidence of what caused the chinook to crash. To justify a finding of gross negligence, Air Marshals Wratten and Day required the highest standard of proof: No doubt whatsoever.

It is surely not up to the PAC or anyone else to provide you with "new" evidence to set aside this grave injustice. The whole point of the argument is that there was insufficient evidence to justify Wratten and Day's arrogant overturning of the original RAF enquiry's findings.

Your performance in interviews this morning showed what little grasp of this issue you have. I am only glad that I am no longer serving. I can not see how those currently serving can have confidence in your stewardship of their interests and suggest you consider your position.

Yours aye

</rant>

Calming down again!

[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 30 November 2000).]

Skycop

30th Nov 2000, 23:40

Well there is absolutely no doubt about Channel 4's stance on this. Well done Channel 4 News!

It was a pleasure to see the defence minister squirm (as well he should).

The point that the RAF BOI did NOT find the pilots blameworthy, but were later over-ruled with senior officers with their careers on the line came over at last.

Support is growing, let's keep at it.

The Mistress

30th Nov 2000, 23:52

That's it - I have HAD it. I've just watched Channel 4 news with that lying little toad from MoD John Spellar. (Heartfelt thanks to the Channel 4 newsman).

I have stayed out of this debate so far because my technical knowledge of the Chinook was not sufficient to comment on mechanical merits or otherwise of that particular aircraft.

However, I have been stationed on 3 bases where Chinooks were part of my everyday life - Odiham, Gutersloh and Aldergrove. I have always been on the periphery of the both the Mull crash and the Falklands crash in '87. I have comforted enough grieving friends to last me a lifetime.

I have had personal dealings with John Spellar on other matters. I know Andy Pulford from Gutersloh, indeed I have babysat for him and visited his family several times. I know who I believe.

If Brian Dixon would like any practical help with preparation of letters, leaflets, delivery, lobbying - anything - please contact: [email protected]

Justice does indeed have no expiry date. Keep up the good work Brian.

misterploppy

30th Nov 2000, 23:56

No fault & Oldgit

3 resignations would be rather difficult. Wrotten 'came out' of the RAF in 1997.

PlasticCabDriver

1st Dec 2000, 00:02

Also just watched Channel 4 tonight. I don't think 'squirm' does justice to how John Spellar was doing. Jon Snow had him by the b@ll@ocks and it was good to watch.

Some good stuff for those new to the thread at: http//www.channel4news.co.uk/sr/sr.pages/sr2.chinook/sr2.menu.htm

Brian Dixon

1st Dec 2000, 00:08

I'm genuinely overwhelmed.

Thank you everybody for your support.

Please do not send anything off in the heat of the moment. Considered and accurate correspondence will always win over knee-jerk ill-informed replies from ill-prepared people.

I have e-mailed Hoon with the link to the report, pointing out that he has been subject to a cruel joke by being supplied with a spoof report. I have hopefully pointed him in the direction of the real one. (Bet he doesn't say thanks)

Strange how the media has not looked for a response from Wratten and Day isn't it. Come on you media guys and gals......get reporting!! They had enought to say at the time didn't they? What do they have to say now?

Let's keep this thing rolling.

Many, many thanks to each and every one of you.

Ark, I insist that I be allowed at the front of the queue with fingers in ears!! I'm not listening la la la la.

Best wishes all
Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 30 November 2000).]

Scatterling

1st Dec 2000, 01:29

Brian Dixon, following on from your:

"It doesn't matter how long he stands there with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears, I will still be there when he takes them out!!"

....and I will be right there with you to break his fingers off and stick them where the sun don't shine! He has about as much presence of an ameoba with halitosis.

Tonkenna

1st Dec 2000, 02:05

Like many I thought there was some good news at last when I heard the news this morning. Having listened to our Minister of Defence I am at a loss for words. Our government is NOT listening. They did not get my vote the first time round and they most definiatly will not get it next time.

I too will be writing to my MP and to Mr Hoon. Brian, please keep going, you have a great deal of support both within the RAF and further afield. Justice will be done.

Tonks

Helmut Visorcover

1st Dec 2000, 02:47

Watching Newsnight as we speak! Pprune even got a mention. Tall bloke even gets his gloves on and spars with the top brass. Crack on! Seems to be moving on a little some what eh?

1-0 to Jezza, Wratten seems to be on the ropes!

[This message has been edited by Helmut Visorcover (edited 30 November 2000).]

NoFaultFound

1st Dec 2000, 02:51

Go for it Paxman. Not usually a fan, but he is giving Wrotten a hard time. What an arrogant man the ACM is. If he really beleives that the Board of Enquiry officers where junior and inexperienced then why where they allowed to run it. His argument was poor and arrogant beyond belief!!!

[This message has been edited by NoFaultFound (edited 30 November 2000).]

The_Fin

1st Dec 2000, 02:52

‘Breathtaking arrogance seems to be the understatement of the year’ – Lord Chalfont
Hear, Hear

PlasticCabDriver

1st Dec 2000, 02:56

If you are not that familiar with the RAF and the British military, and have just watched Wrotten's display on Newsnight, please please please please don't make the mistake of thinking that we are all like that.

Talking Radalt

1st Dec 2000, 03:06

So who saw Newsnight?
Paxman's usual arrogance and indifference towards his interviewees usually leaves me a little cold but on this occasion it was SO good to see Wratten on the recieving end of what he has so professionally displayed himself for so long- Breath taking arrogance.
The difference is Mr Newsnight is only playing a role in the interests of the general public, and not those of himself and his "colleagues".
Jeremy, we salute you!

John Nichol

1st Dec 2000, 03:06

I'm sure Andy Pulford is going to be really happy with being refered to as a "junior officer". It would be interesting to see who is the more experienced Chinook pilot - Pulford or Wratten. I think we all know the answer to that.

It is a long time since I have seen Wratten speak. That sly grin and smug attitude said more about him than he will ever know. I'm sure he thinks he gave a good account of himself, what a sad, deluded and lonely man he is. I wonder how long his high paid consultancy is going to last? Still, I'll always buy a copy of "Big Issue" from him.

Moist Southerly Trough

1st Dec 2000, 03:06

Mr Paxman did very well, something which comes with difficulty out of my mouth. I am a mere recent addition to the ranks of qualified pilots, but the level of stubbornness on this issue astounds me. I haven't seen much of the Air Force yet, but I sincerely hope that every time people make a mistake with a decision, they won't always be so ridiculous arrogant, instead of just admitting their error.

I think an obseqious apology needs to be winging it's way to the families of all the deceased!

Paul Wesson

1st Dec 2000, 03:26

I've just watched Wratten being interviewed by Paxman.

Well done, Johnny Rotten, you've just done more harm to aircrew recruitment than anybody else in the last few years. Paxman described your attitude as arrogant - you should watch the video of your interview. You have probably caused several PVRs tonight - not that it matters with your pension and your spare wodge from Rolls Royce, you don't care!

It is heartbreaking the way you complain that the Scottish enquiry is flawed because they didn't call you to give evidence, but your own inquiry, that lacked the vital evidence from Cook and Tapper is okay. Many people will be surprised to find that the operational RAF is run on a daily basis by 'junior' officers - people like Ed Gilday, Roger Wedge, Andy Pulford - who have thousands of hours of helicopter flying and who know their subject. It seems that to be a Group Captain and to have commanded a front-line helicopter squadron and flying base is not sufficient to make a decision on the merits of a Board of Enquiry. Only a fast jet Air Officer is qualified to comment!

Judicial opinion doesn't count in the eyes of Day and Wratten and Hoon. They keep talking about their idle speculation as 'facts' when everyone who has an O-level (GCSE) in English can spot the difference! The facts cannot support the decision that anybody was grossly negligent of anything.

I've over 1000 rotary hours, 2 degrees in law and no axe to grind about the introduction of the Chinook Mk 2 into service. I've read the report up until the time that the 'senior' officers become involved and I'm afraid that I find the whole of Wratten's arguments to Jeremy Paxman flawed.

What disturbs me is the way that Hoon seems to be able to defend the position of the ACMs against reasoned argument from the PAC. He denies that he is favouring the 2 ACMs over Parliament, but I'm afraid that that is the way that it comes over. It seems that you can be supported by MPs, Judges, Peers, PPrune (as per the TV report) and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, but when Johnny Rotten makes a decision based on idle speculation, than the Secretary of State for Defence of the 4th richest nation on Earth is in awe.

Tomorrow I'll be contacting my MP, I presume everyone else will be contacting theirs!

[This message has been edited by Paul Wesson (edited 30 November 2000).]

misterploppy

1st Dec 2000, 03:27

Watching his airship's performance, I was reminded of:

... "This is achieved in two ways: firstly, as we have seen, by projecting their undesirable characteristics on to others; secondly, by nurturing an impeccable and idealized, if wholly false, image of themselves. Like the prejudiced Southern white who projects his repressed sexual wishes onto Negroes, or the latent homosexual or voyeur who devotes his or her life to advocating harsher punishment for homosexuals or pornographers, the life-style of the authoritarian personality is one of finding and prosecuting in others what he has come to fear in himself. This example of attack, being the surest method of defence, would be incomplete, however, if the individual did not also entertain a highly idealized image of himself. (It is this combination of transparent if unconscious hypocrisy and smug self-satisfaction that makes such people particularly insufferable.)

"These tortuous machinations of the authoritarian mind ramify yet further. Beacause he has to deny his own shortcomings, he dare not look inwards. He is fearful of insight, and strenuously avoids questioning his own motives. By the same token, he cannot allow his extra-punitive defences to be threatened by humane considerations for the objects of his hostility... a price is paid - one which can prove crippling to the human mind. In the place of free-ranging, creative and inventive thought, an authoritarian's thinking is confined to rigid formulae and inflexible attitudes. He is intolerant of unusual ideas and unable to cope with contradictions."

Prof. Norman F. Dixon: On the Psychology of Military Incompetence - Authoritarianism.

[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 30 November 2000).]

Tonkenna

1st Dec 2000, 03:32

I have never seen anything like it! Am I missing something really obvious here because Wrotten an the Sec State seemed completely blind to what was being said. From what I have seen, only two members of the BOI thought the pilots at fault, and they where the two Air Marshalls.

What is the government and the MoD affraid of. Has no one within the senior ranks of the military or government got the balls to say "sorry, we were wrong"

I am so angry at what I have just heard on Newsnight. Arrogance is too small a word for this government. They only deserve our contempt!

Kaitak

1st Dec 2000, 03:32

Good to see Paxman getting stuck in. The old burden of proof reared it's ugly head, along with the phrase '....it has changed since the accident'. Can any one enlighten me as to what has changed and how this affects us still driving HM's ac? The missus was watching, baby in one hand and jaw on the floor, asking 'what if' questions of me and how it could, God forbid, affect her if anything untoward should happen to me.

What have been the effects on the realtives of the front enders, other than bereavement and the fact that the RAF has besmirched their otherwise good names and records? I heard rumours that a finding of gross negligence affected widows pensions etc. Is this the case or an apocryphal (excuse sp) story?

I am shocked thatit has gone this far. What possible cause has the Govt to prove by continuing with this facade? I knew all 4 crew to talk to, and feel strongly for those relatives trying to clear their names.

I too am prepared to put pen to paper over this.

Night_Pilot

1st Dec 2000, 04:47

This is my first contribution to this particular thread although as a current SH pilot, I’ve been following it with interest from the start. While it was nice to see PPRuNe get a mention on Newsnight this evening, it was a pity that Jeremy Paxman wasn’t able to pick up on a few of the ‘inaccuracies’ that both Wrotten and BuffHoon came out with.

As far as I’m aware, neither Wrotten nor Day were actually part of the Board of Inquiry, but merely reviewed the findings on completion. (Apologies if this is wrong, but I’m not RAF) Buff kept referring to the two Airships as having been part of the BoI and intimately involved with its’ findings which, as far as I understand, wasn’t how it happened.

I was outraged by the way that Wrotten dismissed the BoI members as “young and not sufficiently experienced” to make an accurate judgement of the cause of the crash. I don’t know who sat on the BoI, but I know that they would have been experienced SH operators and to have their experience questioned and ignored by a man who wasn’t even a helicopter pilot is ludicrous!

Wrotten appeared to get a bit offended (shame!) when Paxman suggested that he might have had a conflict of interest as both reviewing officer for the BoI and the officer overseeing the introduction of the Mk2 Chinook into service. He then came out with the immortal comment that people shouldn’t make accusations about individuals without conclusive proof!! Why not, you did!!

It was also a great pity that JP didn’t have the facts to hand when Wrotten came out with the excuse that it must have been negligence because the crew didn’t climb above Safety Altitude. I would have enjoyed seeing the expression if JP had pointed out that the aircraft icing limits didn’t actually give the crew that option!

At the end of the day, it was good to see Wrotten wriggling, but I’d like to have seen Buff nailed to the wall a bit more...now there’s an idea...where’s my dartboard!

colinj

1st Dec 2000, 04:49

Just watched NewsNight and read Forum messages.

It seems as if might be some unknown knowledge known by the RAF on this event.
I am sure the RAF know more than is said because why is there not full reports made avail from the RAF, it is not as if any info is of a sensitive nature unless it is ??
Has there been any analysis done of mobile phone calls made by the passengers during the flight. If damages have been paid to a passenger victim then there must have been more than doubt on issue of crash.

I have no details of events above but I have
always thought it was likely that passenger communication on the flight was used and if so there will be cell beacon records which can be used for trig plotting of positions ??

Also did any of the passengers have handheld GPS devices which where investigated ??

Thoughts

[This message has been edited by colinj (edited 01 December 2000).]

BEagle

1st Dec 2000, 11:29

I cannot understand why Spellar, Hoon and Wratten will not answer the very simple questions put to them. Basically, was there overwhelming proof positive that the cause of the accident could be determined beyond all reasonable doubt? Or was there insufficient proof for such a verdict and consequently a lingering element of doubt as would seem to be the learned opinion of a court senior in all respects to the BoI? If there is the slightest remaining doubt, then even by its own standards the BoI verdict cannot be upheld in a democracy.

Blair seems more interested in furthering his tawdry crusade of encouraging unnatural sex with children, Spellar and Hoon are losing their government thousands of votes. Feelings amongst those serving are running very high; this sordid business will hardly act as either a recruiting or retention incentive, but why is it apparently so difficult for the government to accept overwhelming opinion that the Chinook BoI verdict is unsustainable? Nothing to do with the possibility that the MoD could perhaps face huge compensation claims by the relatives of the survivors if the absolute cause of the accident was Not Positively Determined?

misterploppy

1st Dec 2000, 11:53

The Scotsman (Top Story) 1 Dec 00

A decision beyond belief

TONY Blair was last night accused of a cover-up and of betraying the armed forces after he dismissed demands for a fresh inquiry into the Chinook helicopter disaster.

Relatives and campaigners said the government’s attitude was "beyond belief" as ministers insisted there was no new evidence in a Commons report into the crash on the Mull of Kintyre.

The report by the public accounts committee accused the Ministry of Defence of "unwarrantable arrogance" for refusing to overturn its decision to blame the accident on the two dead pilots, Flt Lts Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook. The four air crew and 25 senior Northern Ireland intelligence officers on board were killed when the helicopter crashed into a hill on 2 June, 1994.

Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, infuriated relatives and campaigners when he said he was unable to take the report seriously. Downing Street backed Mr Hoon and said there were no grounds for a review.

Flt Lt Tapper’s father, Mike, said: "It is incredible to think of the language used to attack the public accounts committee; it is beyond belief. To describe their report as superficial is irrational. Mr Hoon and his officials are no longer talking sense."

Susan Phoenix, whose husband Ian, a counter-intelligence expert with the RUC, was killed in the crash, joined the protests over the MoD’s refusal to drop the charge of pilot error against the two pilots. She accused the MoD of "arrogance" in its handling of the affair and its response to the public accounts committee’s report.

Dr Phoenix said: "All we need is someone with a little bit of confidence and bravery in the MoD to say, ‘Look a mistake was made. In the light of this new evidence, we have to consider the finding and we will officially set aside the finding of crude negligence’.

"We must remember on a special forces flight there are four crew members. There were two pilots and two air load masters who were all highly-qualified young men. They were not going to fly that Chinook into the side of a mountain without doing something."

Captain John Cook, Rick’s father, said: "I thought it was game, set and match to us, but since hearing what the secretary of state had to say, I’m angry. That’s a total insult to the public accounts committee and an insult to us and everybody who’s fighting for the boys."

He added: "I’ve had RAF wives coming up to me and saying: ‘Please stay with it. We’re right behind you. It might be us one day.’"

The government’s failure to act was a betrayal of all those in the armed forces who risked their lives for their country, said Capt Cook.

He added: "We have listened to their [the MoD’s] lies and distortions for six years. They are the accusers and they have no evidence and yet they have the nerve to turn around and ask us for evidence. If they had not blamed the pilots don’t you think that you and the House of Commons and everyone else would be asking questions?"

Lord Chalfont, the chairman of the cross-party Mull of Kintyre group and a former Labour defence minister, was also astounded by Mr Hoon’s response and said the government had "lost the plot" if it thought the committee’s report was superficial.

Despite Mr Blair’s comments, he would be writing to him today to demand a meeting with representatives from the group. Lord Chalfont is also pressing for a select committee of peers to be set up to review the MoD’s verdict of pilot error.

Tory MP Robert Key, a former defence minister, said the group was making some progress. He pointed to the publication yesterday of a 1987 on Aircraft Accident Investigation Procedures in the Armed Services which states that "it’s not the purpose (of boards of inquiry) to apportion blame or responsibility".

He said the MoD’s insistance that the dead pilots were to blame had affected morale among service personnel who were concerned that they too could be posthumously blamed for an accident.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Tory defence secretary at the time of the crash, said evidence casting doubt on the verdict had emerged since the inquiry was concluded.

"I think the air marshals involved reached their decision in good faith six years ago," Sir Malcolm said. "But since then, there has been too much new evidence."

However, Mr Hoon immediately ruled out a fresh inquiry, saying the lengthy report contained "no new evidence".

That view was fully endorsed by the Prime Minister, a Downing Street spokesman said.

"Geoff Hoon and the Ministry of Defence have looked through the report very, very carefully. Their view is it does not constitute grounds for a new inquiry," he said.

He said: "He is obviously aware of the PAC report. He would, I am sure, have had words with Geoff Hoon in the margins of the Cabinet today," the Downing Street spokesman said.

However, he ruled out Prime Ministerial intervention, saying: "Geoff Hoon is the Defence Secretary. He accepts his decision."

Jenny Percival
The Scotsman
Friday, 1st December 2000

1.3VStall

1st Dec 2000, 13:22

I'm normally pretty rational, but I nearly strangled my television last night. I am so glad I got out when I did, yet I grieve for those who still serve and are now represented by a Minister of State who clearly had a charisma bypass at birth.

I remember once being told that there is no point in having an argument with people who definition of facts is different to yours. This is precisely what we have here. There is clearly a fundamental disconnect between what we all see as irrefutable facts and what Hoon, Wratten and Day see as irritating distractions.

What I mean is that their views on, for example, what is a "formally constituted BOI" and "absolutely no doubt" are different from ours and we will never change them. It just makes our task more difficult, but then victory will be all the sweeter in the end!

I have not felt so strongly about something for a long time. I think I've calmed down enough now to e-mail Blair, Hoon and my MP, who incidentally is a member of the PAC whose report has been dismissed in such a cavalier manner.

paperchase

1st Dec 2000, 15:21

I too watched C4 news and Newsnight last night and was appalled by the performances of Spellar, Hoon and most of all Wratten.

Mr Hoon,

You are being appallingly ill advised. I urge you to get away from the civil servants and Air Marshalls at MOD and instead spend some time talking to frontline aircrew. This is not going to go away and Tony Blair is going to be very upset with you when this blows up in the Governments face.

Brian, John et al - good luck.

Lucifer

1st Dec 2000, 15:25

.

[This message has been edited by Lucifer (edited 04 March 2001).]

Flatiron

1st Dec 2000, 16:29

Much as I understand the anger floating about, truth needs to be separated from fiction calmly if this matter is to be resolved.

I enjoyed Paxman's performance but his argument was undermined because Paxo (like many others) doesn't understand the RAF BOI system. The harsh fact is that a BOI operates under different rules from a court of law. The rules of evidence are looser and very different for the very good reason that the aim is to find the cause of an accident, not to administer punishment. For that reason, lawyers are deliberately exlcuded and the BOI may listen to 'hearsay' because legal niceties should not be allowed to stand in the way of flight safety. Therefore, Paxman was off beam when he accused BW of finding the crew guilt of 'manslaughter'. BW did nothing of the sort - manslaughter could only bave been determined by a court martial based on a separate summary of evidence. It has to be said that this truth also undermines Lord C's advice from a senior Scottish judge. Of course the BOI evidence would never stand up in a Scottish court of law, but a BOI is NOT a court of law and never should be if we are to stand any chance of getting to be bottom of flying accidents.

The MOD is apparently ignoring the Commons Public Accounts Committee. I know that I am going to get shot down in flames, but what does an Accounts Committee know about flight safety? That doesn't mean that they are wrong in their conclusion, but just because they are MPs doesn't mean they are automatically right about matters flying (or crime or the NHS for that matter). This campaign needs to be refocused to succeed. And one step may be to stop knocking personalities. People may not like me saying this, but the great British public rather likes its Generals, Admirals and Air Marshals to be robust and stand up for what they believe to be right. Paxman et al might not like it, but BW stood his ground and, in an age when senior executives run a mile from taking responsibility, he generated grudging respect. A proposal to put BW in charge of Railtrack might receive overwhelming public endorsement.

I await the flood of counterblasts.

BEagle

1st Dec 2000, 16:33

A proposal to put BW ON a RailTrack undoubtedly would!

John Nichol

1st Dec 2000, 17:26

Flatiron - a reasoned argument. But I think the a lot of folk are so incensed by BW's attitude BECAUSE he is so wrong. Anyone who has read the full BOI and Andy Pulford's conclusions can see that there was a miscariage of justice. It is the arrogance with which he dismisses other's views which is so demeaning to the Service so many people respect and admire.

You remark on the use of the term "manslaughter" but the point being made was that if someone causes death by gross negligence they would be accused of manslaughter in a court of law. Obviously, a BOI is not a court of law but it does take evidence on oath and makes a pronouncement on the case.

The man who took that evidence, a Chinook pilot with many years of experience, did not feel able, on the evidence he had, to come to a positive conclusion. Wratten refuses to explain why he believes Pulford was so wrong and how he, on exactly the same evidence, was able to prove what the pilots were doing and why they were doing it. Indeed his only reply is to condemn this experienced pilot as a "junior officer" who "did not fully understand the events". I'm sure Group Captain Pulford is feeling very happy today.

You say that the PAC could not understand the case but I can assure you that it was advised by many experienced pilots and engineers over the course of the year.

To be frank, you dont need to be an aviation expert. Simply read Andy Pulford's comments on the BOI:

"With no ADR, CVR, survivors or witnesses, the Board based its findings on logical argument based on limited evidence...There were many potential causes of the accident and, despite detailed and in depth analysis, the Board was unable to determine a definite cause....The Board could not avoid a degree of speculation....However, after careful consideration, the board concluded that the most probable cause... was that the crew selected an inappropriate rate of climb...

Pulford is at pains, throughout the BOI, to explain that his theory is just that, a theory amongst many posiblities.

Wratten MUST show how he knows better.

Finally, Wratten in charge of Railtrack? Haven't they had enough problems already?

[This message has been edited by John Nichol (edited 01 December 2000).]

[This message has been edited by John Nichol (edited 01 December 2000).]

Paul Wesson

1st Dec 2000, 17:46

Flatiron

Agree, BOI is not a court of law and the evidential standards are different. That said, when you are the person to have assembled the evidence, sifted through it and formed a conclusion it is right that your findings should be upheld. The problem is that Wratten and Day only reviewed the material in front of them and were not at the 'coalface' as it were.

Despite being described as a 'junior officer', the then Wg Cdr Pulford (now Gp Capt) was a very experienced Chinook operator. The other 2 Board members likewise were very experienced. Between them the Board had the knowledge and experience to formulate a decision that was correct on the facts as they perceived them. The decision was then passed up to Gp Capt Wedge, a similarly very experienced helicopter pilot with substantial experience of flying in bad weather conditions from his SAR days. He seemingly concurred with the Board.

Things only seem to have gone wrong when the paperwork left the front line and got into the command chain. There the initial findings of experienced helicopter operators were overturned by individuals who might have a good grasp of strategic issues, but whose distance from current front line conditions diluted their knowledge. They had not heard nor assembled the evidence, but instead would have relied on summarised material. Neither Day nor Wratten had ever operated Chinook Mk 2 so were now making decisions based on limited knowledge of the aircraft type and personal knowledge only of the different aircraft that they had flown.

Wratten's insistence last night that the crew should have climbed through freezing cloud and potentially severe icing conditions to one of the highest safety altitudes in the UK, with no easy means of getting back to earth to deliver their passengers, suggests a poor analysis of the situation.

Every time I've been near icing conditions in a helicopter we've either gone back, landed or, on more than one occasion, slowed down to taxi speed and gone under wires! Never did we try to climb through cloud or risk IMC. The crew may have believed that the actions they were taking were safe in the conditions. I suspect that all 4 crew both at brief and during the sortie would have discussed the merits or otherwise of continuing, turning back, climbing, descending etc and it is not right for Wratten, who didn't possess all of the information, to say what height and speed they should have been at.

I do not understand why Hoon and Blair will not accept the PACs recommendations. There is clearly something that we are not being told.

Flatiron - PAC is a general comittee that covers diverse matters. It can ask for any evidence it wishes. It is the senior committee of the House of Commons. MPs obviously are not experts in all matters put before them, but I suspect that in investigating this particular matter they determined to be fair to all parties. I am sure that, if they felt that Wratten and Day were right, they would have reached that conclusion.

pulse1

1st Dec 2000, 18:13

Flatiron,
For what it's worth I agree with your assessment of the Paxman interview in that it was weak and not up (or down?) to the usual standard, probably for the reasons you give. I reluctantly thought Wratten was impressive (that's good), arrogant (not necessarily bad in a military officer?) and possibly dishonest in the way he presented the little information that he did(definitely bad). Two examples, he kept referring to the decision made by "him and his colleagues" as if it was a collective decision, and he wrote off the BOI as "junior officers with little experience" and this would appear to misrepresent the truth, judging by the response from people who know some of them.

However, I would argue with you about the Select Committee. First let me say that I have little respect for most MP's and I have no military experience (unless you count three years as an Air Cadet). Like you I am also interested in RAF history and, for what it's worth, have just about enough pilot experience to understand the main techical issues in the case.

What I also have is a passion for individual justice and, in our society, we have several systems for enabling such justice, whether it be through the law, or through parliament.
In both cases, the decisions are usually collectively made by individuals in the form of a jury or, as here, by a group of elected representatives which is arranged to reduce the possibility of vested interest i.e party politics. In neither case, need the decision makers have any relevant technical knowledge

In both cases, there are safety nets. Collective decisions are more likely to be safe, and there are mechanisms for challenging both.

I recognise that, in the military, the justice process may have to be different, although I cannot see how it needs to be in peacetime. But, in a just society, even the military should have recourse to challenge unjust decisions especially when they are not made collectively but, as we seem to have here, by a single individual. (OK two if you push me)

In both cases the deciding body can hear arguments from technical experts, some of whom may have a vested interest. They should therefore listen to more than one.

Our whole political system is based on MP's arguing and voting about things about which they may know very little. This is probably as good as it gets so, until there is a better way of challenging injustice within the military, let us support it.

The only alternative I can think of is used by doctors and lawyers, where the judgement is made, again collectively and openly, by their peers. I can't see that ever happening.

PS MP's secretary has promised me a personal reply from him in next few days. I will adise if it says anything interesting.

------------------
"If you keep doing what you've always done, you will keep getting what you've always got"

The Nr Fairy

1st Dec 2000, 18:23

If it's possible to identify the political reasoning behind Hoon et al's lack of willingness to do and be seen to doing something, then maybe that's another point of leverage.

Any suggestions, anyone ?

Sadsack

1st Dec 2000, 22:05

Suggestions:

1. Get everyone you know to write to the PM calling for Hoon's resignation. Likewise get same people to copy their letters to both local and national newspapers. If possible they should copy same to MoD and to their own MPs. Ensure everyone does it and refers to the Mull of Kintyre incident. Help people by drafting letters and getting them to sign.

2. Those who like to invest wisely put some of their money into 'blue chip' companies. Rolls Royce have for many years now been a very good bet. Add a few hundred RR shares to your portfolio; thousands if you can afford it. Then, as a shareholder, attend the AGM and query quite loudly why Wratten is employed in a consulting role. As a shareholder write and ask the company what he's being paid. Point out the bad publicity RR are getting from this affair - remember thousands of influential people in the aviation world read this site. If there is enough will get together with other shareholders and put Wratten's consultancy on the agenda for the AGM, or, if rules allow, those of you who are already shareholders could force an EGM. Get the b@st**d sacked!

Lest anyone thinks this is harsh, remember Cook and Tapper families have not received compensation from the MoD because of Wratten's decision and he'll still have his pension. If Hoon is sacked as Minister he'll still be paid as an MP.

misterploppy

1st Dec 2000, 23:00

Flatiron

I regret you miss the point. This affair, like some others, results directly from Wrotten's personality. He now has a sinecural role with a military supplier. He is psychologically utterly unsuited to running any public concern outside the military. Only in the military would fawning staff officers have tolerated his psychotic arrogance.

He is essentially a weak character whose career was dogged by a deep, dark secret (or so he perceived it) which could, and perhaps eventually did, bring the house of cards tumbling down in a trice. His blustering arrogance was a defence against this; a trait well documented by psychologists and amply demonstrated on Newsnight last night. Coupled with these traits is an inability to accept information, however convincing, which contradicts a previously-held dogma or belief, and a tendency to rush to punitive judgement.

I have never seen Paxo so flabbergasted by such a transparent performance: Wrotten's nervous, smug grin belied his attempt at self confidence which came across as deluded, arrogant, self-satisfaction.

It seems the only man in the Country (other than Hoon) who supports Wrotten's view on this is his former arslikhan subordinate, Day: A man of such high moral fibre that when MPs objected to one of his pronouncements last month, he immediately grassed up Hoon or Guthrie (See thread: A big boy made me do it and ran away).

Beagle & Arkroyal

On an entirely unrelated matter, I am disappointed that you choose to relate this matter to the Govt's attitude to the equalisation of the homosexual age of consent. My views on equality for homosexuals were well documented in an earlier thread. The promotion of equality would, I contend, suggest that Blair is interested in fairness and justice in principle.

I suspect he has been foxed in this matter by Hoon's spurious 'need to uphold the integrity of the former BoI system and senior officers' and 'lack of new evidence'.

Said senior officers held to their dogma that the sky would fall in if gays were to serve openly, but Blair can plainly see that whatever the problems of the Forces today, gays are not one of them. Perhaps he can be persuaded that this BoI finding is also arrogant bluster.

[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 01 December 2000).]

Brian Dixon

2nd Dec 2000, 00:10

***Calm thoughts***Calm thoughts***Calm thoughts

Blimey, I've never known it so busy!!

Thanks to everyone who has contributed. I think the Newsnight programme has been well covered so I won't go on about it here.

I would, however, like to thank the four who took part in the programme - Mr Paxman, Lord Chalfont, Mr Hoon and Mr Wratten. Everyone has their opinion on how each 'player' performed and there are those who performed well and those who did not. Purely a matter of personal opinion.

The way forward:- Hoon clearly does not have a grasp of the situation. Do not waste your time writing to him any longer (send him e-mails by all means! :)). Instead, write directly to Tony Blair. We especially need letters from serving personnel informing him of how this issue is affecting your morale. Also, we need letters from families of serving personnel asking for reassurance with regard to the safety and reputations of their loved ones should anything terrible happen. Blair need to know how this is affecting morale! Were you thinking of joining the RAF but have, in the light of this 'breathtaking arrogance' decided against it? Let Blair know why. That said, every letter sent to Blair is invaluable so get writing. Get your MP to write too.

The Mull of Kintyre Group is seeking an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister so it is important that he gets those letters soon.

Thanks in advance.

Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Paul Wesson

2nd Dec 2000, 01:35

Brian

Just what I was thinking mate. I have already spoken to my MPs office, he has a letter on the way as does T. Blair. I have gone for the 'sack Hoon' option as postulated above. A mix of letters decrying the state of military morale coupled with the letters, properly argued, for Hoon's resignation could indeed have an effect.

Now is not the time to let up. Pressure must be applied in the right quarters.

colinj

2nd Dec 2000, 02:27

see
<A HREF="http://www.number-10.gov.uk/forum/Forum.asp?M=76624&T=71402&F=95" TARGET="_blank">http://www.number-10.gov.uk/forum/Forum.asp?M=76624&T=71402&F=95</A>

electronic try to get message to N10.

Sadbloke

2nd Dec 2000, 03:35

Brian

Writing to my MP who happens to be the present slightly balding leader of the opposition – (JN – you know where I live!) I shall also write to the PM as you suggest. Whilst an interested occasional scanner of Prune, I have not contributed much in the past, due mostly to apathy. As a serving member, however, I am incensed by the disregard shown for front-line aviators by the Air Marshals involved and the resulting effect on service morale. Why should we stick our necks out operationally when we see our compatriots treated in this manner. Best of luck in your campaign – stick to it until justice is done.

Seething

oldgit47

2nd Dec 2000, 14:30

Properly constituted Board of Inquiry. No findings of negligence.
Scottish Court and former Lord Advocate. Negigence verdict unsound.
PAC negigence verdict unsound.
Three independant bodies, with no axe to grind have all come to the same conclusion.
Hoon chooses to beleive two deluded self -opinionated t@a^s.
Why not write to Mrs Blair instead of the PM. She at least will understand the miscarriage of justice. She has dealt with many of them in the past. eg Gays in the forces

Brian Dixon

2nd Dec 2000, 15:16

Colinj,

Thanks for joining the debate. You have placed a link to this site on the Downing Street web site to direct people to this thread. Good. The more supporters the better.

However, everyone now needs to be vigilant as the Downing Street site is frequently hijacked by idiots and fools intent on ruining such a site. We may get bombarded with messages about Northern Ireland, and the pax of the flight being referred to as "terrorists".

I have contributed to Downing Street for several years so know what may happen. Anything untoward should be reported to the webmaster without delay.

Colin, if you have no objections, may I try to get the link removed from the Downing Street site?

Please don't think I am trying to control or 'police' the site, I'm not. I do know what will happen though.

Regards
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

swashplate

2nd Dec 2000, 15:20

John Nicol:

Did you see my letter in 'Pilot' mag a few months ago? It was printed after yours'.

I can understand that everyone is outraged at this bloody Gov't (esp Bill 'please punch me out' Wratten), but you all seem to assume that there WAS no negligence - the same knee-jerk reaction at Hoon etc assuming there was negligence. No side of this debate has any solid evidence.

My point is that without a DFDR, CVR & radar trace there is NO EVIDENCE of anything, pilot error or FADEC failure. No-one seems to see this as a scandal!

As a civvy (ex TA) who might have flown on one of these machines I would be outraged that there would be no evidence for the Investigators if it crashed. **** , they might have blamed me!!

Maybe we should be putting pressure on the Gov't to spend the comparativley tiny sums to equip all service aircraft with orange coloured 'black boxes'?

PS If Wratten thought that junior officers were so inept, why did he appoint them?

[This message has been edited by swashplate (edited 02 December 2000).]

Hybrid

2nd Dec 2000, 15:30

Nice to see that by blaming the pilots Mr Day hasn't damaged his career. The AMP is now AOC in C STC desig and has lost interest in personnel issues (recent visit to RAF base to find out about personnel changed at his request so that he can get back up to speed with ops). Has he visited Odiham recently?

[This message has been edited by Hybrid (edited 02 December 2000).]

Brian Dixon

2nd Dec 2000, 15:33

Sadbloke,

Welcome. If baldy man is your MP then why not pop along to one of his surgeries? Look him squarely in the eye and discuss the issue. Then, just before you leave, hand him your letter and the letter written by your family. That way, he will have to reply in writing to any of your concerns.

Swashplate.

Likewise, welcome.
I don't see how we differ. Our argument has always been that there is no evidence to support the verdict. With regard to flight recording instruments, have a look at my postings further in the site. That should give you the answers you seek.

Regards
Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

swashplate

2nd Dec 2000, 15:42

Brian:

OF COURSE I agree that the verdict of negligence should be set aside - that goes without saying! Any one with any amount of grey matter can see that.

My point is that everyone is rightly outraged at the unfair and illogical verdict of 'Negligence to a gross degree' (is that worse than ordrinary negligence?), but no-one seems outraged at the fact that the aircraft had no black boxes!

As a civvy, I belive that this would affect me more that the pilots being blamed, however unjust that is.

Maybe I should have made this clearer, but I will state here for the record that I support the campaign to clear Cook/Tapper's names 100%.
However, I can appreciate that there are wider flight safety issues as well!

Arkroyal

2nd Dec 2000, 20:16

I echo Brian's welcome to all those new posters who, almost to a man, find the inability of our supposed leaders to see the obvious, beyond belief.

The finding of gross negligence required proof 'beyond any doubt whatsoever'. It was arrived at with no proof whatsoever and is so obviously flawed that the PAC, the Sherrif's court and anyone with an ounce of common sense are outyraged at Hoon's decision to let it stand.

This simple point must be the crux of your letters to PM and MPs. Keep them short and to the point so that they will be read. (I am hoping they will have a lot of them to read!)

Swashplate,

If you go back over this thread you will find that negligence has been accepted as a possible cause by those of us in the campaign. It is one of many possible causes, any of which required the same degree of proof.

Mrploppy,

I apologise unreservedly for my outburst. I was in a pretty hot temper at the time, and merely wanted to highlight the prioritising of the PMs tasks,; not to comment on the validity of them.You make some excellent points regarding Wratten's fall from grace. The resons will 'come out' I'm sure as the fight gets dirtier.

Brian, I agree re the No10 site. We could do without the kind of hothead that attracts on Pprune.

Now to get that letter to President Bliar finished.

Sir Algernon Scruggs

2nd Dec 2000, 21:55

Apparently Blair and Alistair Campbell will be conducting a review of their efforts re the PAC on Monday am. If there's no furore in the Sunday papers, they will just declare next business and move on from Chinook. So two things.

1) PPRuNe people should bombard the newsrooms of strategic Sunday papers that Blair listens to: namely the Mail on Sunday, the Sunday Times, the Observer and the Telegraph. The more personal you can make it the better - even though it’s off the record, these guys take notice if more than one person actually starts ringing them. If there's any way of doing this without making it look organised, that would be better.

2) Email and write to Blair - not your MP. Its Blair or nothing now. RING your MP.

fobotcso

2nd Dec 2000, 21:58

For those either unaware of Times coverage recently or too mean to go out and buy the papers: :)

The Times Second Leader (Editorial) of Friday 1 Dec 00 that supports the opinion of the majority of people here:

<A HREF="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,44658,00.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,44658,00.html</A>

Two letters to The Times today (Sat 2 Dec 00) about yesterday's Second Leader and opposing it:

<A HREF="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,45149,00.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,45149,00.html</A>

These URLs will change once the items are archived so after a few weeks you may have to search.

colinj, your point about mobiles did not go unnoticed and it gave me a jolt when I reflected on the dubious compatibility of mobile 'phones and avionics. However, the technology was fairly rudimentary in those days and that part of the UK was sparsely served. Nevertheless, I'm sure the BOI considered the possibility of spurious interference with the ac's avionics.

BD, I believe you will be overstepping the mark if you attempt to remove a link from No 10's Site that you did not put there yourself. This Forum has been here a long time and is well known to good guys and bad guys alike. Those here can look after themselves; a fact that is regularly demonstrated.

Brian Dixon

2nd Dec 2000, 22:44

Fobotcso,

Having read the thread again, I would agree with you. I have no wish (nor any intention)to elect myself as the authority of the site and I offer unreserved apologies to all who contribute here. I will continue to campaign to the best of my ability, the same as everyone else.

Right, now where was I?? Oh yes, Dear Mr Blair............

Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

pilgarlick

3rd Dec 2000, 00:16

I'm a newcomer to this forum, although I have been following the issue for some time, having read the accident report and the various comments over the years in the trade press.

I'm not sure that the intemperate and often violent language in these pages is of any great benefit to the argument. All senior officers are criticised in crewrooms by those who eventually realise with maturity and promotion that command is not as easy as it looks; the language used here, though, whilst commonplace in those crewrooms, has no place on a public site. I believe that the relentless and often slanderous sniping from behind the parapet of anonymity serves little purpose except driving the participants into ever more entrenched and polarised positions and thus removing the necessary objectivity from the argument. The one useful purpose of a senior officer's review, is, after all, to view with an impartial eye the findings of a possibly partisan board of enquiry.

I should like those of you who are so CERTAIN that you are right to test your objectivity. Imagine that, in this accident, that the two highly experienced, highly respected and clearly much loved pilots were not at the controls but positioning with the others as passengers. Imagine also that the aircraft was being flown by two strangers, or even by the two very senior officers for whom you have so little respect. Would you be so quick to be so adamant that the crew made no serious error?

Honest answers, please, chaps.

misterploppy

3rd Dec 2000, 00:57

Pilgarlick

Nool pwah for your entry in the Eurotroll competition. If you have followed this matter then you should know that WHOEVER was at the controls, an RAF Board of Enquiry may only make a finding of gross negligence if there is *no doubt whatsoever* that negligence was the cause.

Messrs Wratten & Day chose to flout that inconvenient regulation in a case where:

a. The highly experienced investigating members of the BofI (including AAIB people),
b. Sir Stephen Young's FAI,
c. Channel 4 News' and Computer Weekly's investigation teams,
d. Sufficient members of the RAeS to cause Wratten to storm off in a huff,
e. A considerable number of RAF Service people

all failed to find what caused the accident, let alone speculate on a cause "with no doubt whatsoever". The pilots may well have been in error, that is not the point. To find them negligent required "no doubt whatsoever", not idle speculation by a man who deserves all the comments written about him on this site (and more).

bussy

3rd Dec 2000, 01:12

Anyone thought of getting legal advice from Michael Mansfield QC, he's abit of a tennacious Barrister? Or for that matter MPs such as Tony Benn or Tam Dayell to go into bat, they always take on wortwhile cases or am I being naive?

Mr.Proach

3rd Dec 2000, 01:44

Pilgarlick,

"I believe that the relentless and often slanderous sniping from behind the parapet of anonymity serves little purpose"

I take then that you had a rather unusual christening party, as your parents clearly had a sharp sense of humour to give you such an unusual name.
I also take it that you have no conception of the intracies of this case, or the ramifications to aircrew. I for one have walked, in the past I have received no support whatsoever from the system, and this case highlights the contempt that senior officers seem to hold the rank and file in.
This was a particularly tragic accident that has affected Military aircrew deeply, regardless of service, or type flown. It is a shame that you cannot relate to this, because if you could, you may be a little more sympathetic towards the feelings of hurt and betrayal felt by most.
I have buried several friends due to helicopter crashes ( Lynx AH7 )and want to see a stop to them. This is, of course, unrealistic, but what is realistic is to have them dealt with in a professional manner, not career saving/making decisions which do nothing but offend and engender feelings of bitterness towards those ranking officers.

BEagle

3rd Dec 2000, 03:43

Pillgarlick of Bristol......hmmm, for those who don't know, a 'pillgarlick' is a bald person. (OK - take the p*ss). But a bald-headed person who lives in Bristol and supports the contrary view of a brace of senior officers...?? You don't, perchance, happen to be employed as a Rolls-Royce flesh-presser, do you??

Paul Wesson

3rd Dec 2000, 04:14

BEags

Interesting postulation! I do so love a whodunnit. Other strange clues in the e-mail address. Surely you don't think that Pillgarlick, being bald, being a retired pilot and being based in Bristol (at RR) is in fact ACM Wratten?

Odd that an anonymous person should have a go at those who have to be anonymous! I can use my real name - as can Brian Dixon and John Nichol. It doesn't necessarily mean that our views are more or less important. Surely, however, P'garlic understands that many of the contributors in this forum work in a command chain that tops out at ACM Day and Geoff Hoon and might fear the harm that could be done to their careers should either gentleman take umbrage. Indeed, Mr Garlic himself doesn't want his current employers to know what he thinks - perhaps you, BEags, are close to the mark.

It is interesting also that many 'new' contibutors are joining in, but I get the feeling that those who are quick to condemn haven't read all of the posts, many of the articles or the reports etc. Certainly the letters in the Times were not written by individuals who have followed every twist and turn of this case.

The fact remains that there is not enough evidence to make a proper judgement one way or the other.

PG - Although I knew one of the crewmen very well the pilots were strangers to me, but I can still feel a sense of injustice having read the report and having a working knowledge of SH operations. I'd be equally concerned if ACM Wratten was dead and unable to defend himself from unsustainable allegations.

BEagle

3rd Dec 2000, 04:59

PW - like you I would regret the demise of anyone, no matter who they might be and what their views might be, in any aircraft accident. Whether Pillgarlick is, in fact, the knight of the realm in question does not concern me unduly; however, a distinguished fighter pilot and leader should know how to disengage with honour.

Preciousboy

3rd Dec 2000, 07:00

Pilgarlic

I care not a fig for who you are, but a post of such arrogance deserves a reply.

You are clearly an individual with a limited intellect and a poor grasp of the situation. If you would care to read all of the posts again you may care to find that MOST of them are reasoned and well thought out.
For many, if not all, this is not a case of blame or absolution, but a matter of principal.
The tone of your post suggests that you have been, or are a senior officer. I would care to suggest Sir, that you are the one carping behind a wall of anonimity and not the other way around.
And by the way, when we, as junior officers, eventually realise that command is not as easy as it looks, we'll let you know.

YOU ARROGANT PRICK! Tell your story walking...

[This message has been edited by Preciousboy (edited 03 December 2000).]

misterploppy

3rd Dec 2000, 11:26

Beags

A bald person in the Bristol area, retired pilot, yes.. it all fits. Until you get to the Sue bit where your theory falls down.

Unless, of course, we are dealing with an alter ego here....

I think we should be told.

Scatterling

3rd Dec 2000, 13:09

BW, wanting to be 'Sue' at weekends, what a lovely thought!

Would be nice to have unmasked the little ****e here but I don't think we've been that fortunate.

Paul Wesson

3rd Dec 2000, 14:06

Sue could be a mate, secretary, wife or lover!

It's sue@shsims.. shsims sounds like the abbreviation for Support Helicopter Simulators. Not an unreasonable place for a retired senior officer to have a contact. How many bald Sues do you know? :)

smooth approach

3rd Dec 2000, 14:36

PG, ask yourself this question: How objective were Wratten & Day? The largest single RAF generated loss of life in decades; such a high profile passenger list; the political requirement for scapegoats. If your talking about 'objective', think of things from both ends.

Furthermore, there are many SH operators out there who think that Rick and John probably/may have got it wrong. However, the whole point is that there is a degree of doubt and there are other factors that may have contributed.

oldgit47

3rd Dec 2000, 14:45

Mail on Sunday, today, page 9...Anyone know if the story is fact or fiction?

Brian Dixon

3rd Dec 2000, 14:52

Pilgarlick,
welcome to the debate. My involvement, as I have frequently stated, is that I used to serve with the crew who were tragically lost on 2 June 1994. That is why I campaign so vigorously. If I am honest (as you request), I would have to say that if I had not known and respected the crew, I probably would not be such a big thorn in the side of Messrs Hoon and Blair. However, I would still have grave concerns regarding the leadership of the RAF with regard to impartial judgements following an investigation. Nor would it have mattered who was at the controls.

As you have asked for honesty, may I return the compliment and ask for honest answers to the following:

1. Why do you suggest that the Board of Inquiry may be partisan? Surely it was the responsibility of those senior officers to appoint a Board that would be thorough, experienced and inpartial? Anything less would surely be derreliction of duty. Might I add that I believe the Board acted with the utmost integrity.

2. You criticise those who are anonymous, yet you yourself are anonymous. Who are you? You have such strong views. Do not be ashamed to stand up and be counted.

I have said it before and I will repeat it here to you. I do not know what went on in the last few moments of the flight. If you can offer and support hard evidence which proves that Jon or Rick were negligent, I will publically conceed the point. If you can't, we will have to agree to differ.

You may be correct in your comment that intemperate and often violent language is not of any great benefit to the argument. It is, however, a good barometer to the feelings of those who believe a serious injustice has been made.

Should you, indeed, be the individual others speculate you to be, I would still welcome you to the site as I think that you should have the opportunity to answer the many questions that most of us still have regarding the matter. If you are not that individual, I look forward to a meaningful debate anyway.

Regards
Brian Dixon
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 03 December 2000).]

scroggs

3rd Dec 2000, 15:37

I've been watching this thread with considerable interest and sympathy, as my own little corner of the RAF had a problem which received an OTT reaction from Mr Wratten some years ago.
I have a question which some of you may be qualified to answer. In view of Wratten's claim that the BoI was staffed by 'inexperienced officers', can we establish the facts of this? How long had the President served, what was his flying experience and hours, and how does this compare to Sir William's experience of flying? I suspect the answers may be of interest...!

Arkroyal

3rd Dec 2000, 15:48

Mrploppy and Brian, you beat me to it this time.

Pilgarlic, Boy named Sue(whoever you are matters not a jot), you said

'Imagine also that the aircraft was being flown by two strangers, or even by the two very senior officers for whom you have so little respect. Would you be so quick to be so adamant that the crew made no serious error?'

By this statement I infer that you accuse us of sticking up for our buddies in the face of opposition from the families of the dead pax.

1. the pilots were not my buddies. Never met either one. I simply abhor injustice.

2. A friend, whose brother was lost in ZD576, is as keen for justice to be done as any other fair minded person. You insult the intelligence of those families by suggesting that they would like injustice heaped upon uncertainty and grief.

3. If you actually read the whole thread, you will find that we are not not at all 'adamant that the crew made no serious error'. It is as possible as any other cause of the accident. But it has not been proven to the burden required.

4. You quite rightly accuse us of showing a lack of respect for the senior officers involved. Although I hate cliche, respect is earned, it is not conferred as of right with the issue of gold rings. Any one who expects respect as a leader would have realised by now that his case is untenable, and should gracefully concede that he made an error of judgement in this case. Arrogance and intransigence do not earn respect.

Worth reiterating here, for any new readers: Wratten again trotted out his theory on Newsnight that Jon and Rick should have climbed to safety altitude . A letter to the Times from a PPL with no knowledge of helicopters also suggested that option. THIS WAS NOT POSSIBLE. From an earlier post:

<In the article he [Wratten] maintains that the crew were negligent because they ‘should have climbed above safety altitude well before they reached the Mull’. He calculates this as 2800’, although the correct figure (accepted by the Defence Committee) is 5900’.

Examination of the weather conditions at the time show that the Sea level temperature was +9 degrees C, which allowing for a normal lapse rate of 2deg per 1000’, gives a +4 deg C level at 2500’.

As the icing clearance of the Mk 2 Chinook was +4, it is quite obvious that the pilots had no such option to climb to a safe altitude, not even Wratten’s incorrect figure.>

As to the hypocritical broadside on anonymity, I will say that on this subject I am quite happy to stick my head over the parapet and square up to the enemy. My name will be forwarded to anyone who has not already worked it out, who I can verify is not in management at my present employer; and who emails me.

Arkroyal

3rd Dec 2000, 16:01

Scroggs, we crossed in the ether.

Andy Pulford was a highly experienced Support Helicopter operator who I had the pleasure of working with during his exchange tour woth the RN in 1980.

His presidency of the BOI was praised thus:

His Station Commander, Group Captain R Wedge wrote ‘I am impressed with the meticulous and detailed examination of events which the Board has provided.
However, I believe that the exact train of events can never
be determined with absolute certainty.’

To judge Wratten's grasp of Support Helicopter operations see my thread above.

Scroggs, was 'your own little corner' anything to do with a bit of a drunken game being construed as GBH? Come on, you can tell us!

yodason45

3rd Dec 2000, 16:13

Been following the thread from Knotteetingham and was always taught that justice had to be done and be seen to be done, and quickly. Just seen the question from Oldgit47 and got the article faxed. Not so sure about a memo but if there had been some doubt in the guys minds it should have been in the 700. My sympathies to all the families. This whole sorry mess is a travesty and on next leave I shall try to get to Mr F Field to seek his support. Bliar may also get a quick note explaining that no new evidence is required. The complete lack of evidence as to the contrary means that no finding of negligence should ever have been entertained! What a sad state of affairs when the findings of a properly constituded BoI can be so overridden by(effectively) one person but supported by another.

Brian Dixon

3rd Dec 2000, 16:46

Yodason,
welcome. Thanks for you comment on contacting Frank Field. He is very supportive and has tabled many questions relating to this injustice. You might also like to write to Tony Blair with your concerns. Has it affected your morale? Do you have confidence in the system?

I'll leave you with a quote from your father, Yoda. "There is no try. Either do, or do not!" :)

Regards
Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Arkroyal

3rd Dec 2000, 17:08

Yodason,

Read the Mail on Sunday article, can't find a website to link to.

Yes about the 700. How many times have you written war and peace in it to have written opposite 'fault could not be reproduced, assessed servicable'? Take point though that the old 700 pages should be available.

misterploppy

3rd Dec 2000, 21:32

From today's Scotland on Sunday

RAF officers face grilling over Chinook verdict

By Francis Elliott Westminster Editor

THE senior RAF officers blamed for a "major miscarriage of justice" over the inquiry into the fatal Mull of Kintyre helicopter crash face a parliamentary grilling over their role in the affair.

Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day, who found the pilots guilty of "gross negligence", could be among the first witnesses called to a specially-convened House of Lords select committee.

Lord Chalfont, the peer who is leading the campaign to have the verdicts quashed, said he expected the air marshalls to be called to answer why they over-ruled a previous inquiry that found pilot error on the part of Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Rick Cook could not be proved.

The prospect of a fresh inquiry dedicated specifically to the Mull of Kintyre crash appals senior Ministry of Defence officials, who fear it will lead to months of embarrassing disclosures.

It will also add to the pressure on Tony Blair and Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon to perform an about-turn after they attempted to tough out the damning conclusions of a report by the Commons Public Accounts Committee last week.

The report, first revealed in Scotland on Sunday nine months ago, amounts to a damning indictment of the MoD’s arrogance in its handling of the inquiry into the crash of Chinook ZD576 in June 1994 in which all 29 crew and passengers were killed. Despite being backed by a National Audit Office report into software problems with the helicopter, Hoon rubbished the PAC’s report as "superficial". The committee was also criticised for failing to summon Day and Wratten.

Campaigners are now preparing to rectify that situation as the mechanics of setting up a specially-dedicated Lords select committee proceed. The necessary debate to constitute the body is due to be held next week.

Lord Chalfont, head of the Mull of Kintyre Action Group, who says he will not seek to serve on the committee, said: "I expect it would be under the chairmanship of a senior judge who can come to this with an entirely fresh mind. It would also be composed of members of all sides of the House and would have the power to call for persons and papers.

"I would expect [Wratten and Day] to be among the first to be called and to be asked very simply what additional evidence they had to set aside the findings of the earlier inquiry."

David Davis MP, chairman of the PAC, welcomed the prospect of a fresh parliamentary investigation. "This will help flesh out what, in my judgement, is already a clear cut case and provide the extra evidence to persuade the MoD of what is already abundantly clear to everyone else."

Meanwhile, Tony Blair signalled a softening of his stance yesterday as a spokesman promised to receive a delegation led by Lord Chalfont sympathetically.

The issue is set to return to the Commons on December 14 when the PAC’s report will be the subject of a special debate. Committee member Nigel Griffiths MP said: " This is not going to go away until Parliament is satisfied that justice has been served."

From William Hare's Diary Page:

-IT IS unusual for one select committee chairman to have a go at another committee’s findings. Not quite cricket down at the Westminster old boys’ club, don’t you know. But this didn’t stop Bruce George, chairman of the defence committee, accusing his colleagues on the public accounts committee of not knowing what they were talking about when they criticised the Ministry of Defence’s decision to blame the pilots in the Mull of Kintyre Chinook helicopter crash. Could Bruce’s outburst be in any way connected to his recent appointment as a Privy Councillor, the highest honour a government can bestow on a mere MP? Surely not?

<A HREF="http://www.scotlandonsunday.com" TARGET="_blank">www.scotlandonsunday.com</A>

Any chance of anyone posting up a summary of this Mail on Sunday article that's being talked about?

[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 03 December 2000).]

Lu Zuckerman

3rd Dec 2000, 22:41

I haven't read the complete BOI report and I havent read all of the posts on this thread however I would like to make the following comment and hopefully not ruffle too many feathers.

Is it possible that the BOI criticized the pilots so harshly because they didn't want to blame the helicopter. After all, the UK MOD has a lot invested in the CH-47s and they find it difficult to say it may have been some sort of systems failure that caused the accident or, a systems failure that would not allow the pilots to take corrective action. The CH-47 doesn't have a good reliability record and right behind it, is the Apache. Just wait until the first Apache prangs and the pilots don't survive. Guess who will get blamed in order to protect that program.

------------------
The Cat

Arkroyal

3rd Dec 2000, 23:10

Mrploppy, yer 'tis

Pilots ‘feared Chinook was unfit to fly' By Christopher Leake

THE Government was urged last night to investigate claims that the
two RAF pilots blamed for the Mull of Kintyre crash sent a memo warnmg that their helicopter was not fit to fly the mission.

Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook, who died in the crash with two other crew and 25 intelligence officers, are understood to have given their warning in a handwritten note to senior ranks hours
before they took off from Aldergrove in Belfast on June 2,1994. After returning from an early morning sortie over Northern Ireland in the Chinook Mk II, the pilots asked engineers to check the controls and the FADEC engine control system.

The memo, signed by both pilots, said serious UFCMs (Uncommanded Flying Control Movements) were experienced during the sortie. The note talked of FADEC malfunctions during the flight.

It concluded: ‘It is our considered the opinion that, in the light of these and previous UFCMs, this aircraft should not be used for this special flight.’

Senior RAF sources said engineers tried to reproduce the problems complained of by the pilots. The were But they failed to repeat them, and passed the Chinook fit to fly its mission to Scotland.

Defence insiders say the note, the existence of which has never been revealed ‘during six years of official inquiries by the RAF, Parliament and in Scotland, is in files kept at RAF Innsworth, Gloucestershire, headquarters of the RAE’s Personnel and training Command.

David Davis, chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, which last week declared that the RAF inquiry into the fatal crash was flawed and should be overturned, last night asked the National Audit Office — the Government’s spending watchdog — to find the memo.

Mr Davis said: ‘It would demonstrate only too clearly that the possibility of a technical malfunction was much higher than has been claimed by the Ministry of Defence in all their evidence to Parliament.’

Mike Tapper, father of Flt Lt Tapper, said: ‘We need to see that memorandum fast and we need an explanation from the MoD and the Royal Air Force as to why it has not been produced before.’

The MoD said in a statement last night: ‘The pilots had an overriding duty to ensure the safety of their aircraft and their passengers, and possessed the necessary experience to do so. Had they had any doubts, it would have been open to them not to accept the aircraft for flight.’

Asked if the memo existed, an MoD spokesman replied: ‘Nobody is aware of the existence of any memo that you described. There is a lot of information that has been flying back and forth. We would have no reason to hide a memo like that. We have been as open as we can be.’

Yeah, right. Military personell 'refuse to fly servicable aircraft'. In your dreams!

scroggs

4th Dec 2000, 03:44

Ark,
thanks for your answer, although not totally what I was looking for. My point was that, in all probability, Wratten's flying experience is inferior to that of the BoI due to his lifetime concentration on the greasy pole. It's a side issue, and of marginal importance, but it does grip my sh*t when a senior officer with limited poling time critices the judgement of professional and current aviators.
Don't recognise your description of 'the problem in my corner of the RAF'(but sounds interesting....). Although I wasn't involved in said problem, Wratten's reaction to it severely upset all of us on that particular fleet.

misterploppy

4th Dec 2000, 05:11

Scatterling

BW, wanting to be 'Sue' at weekends, what a lovely thought!

- Highly unlikely! The great majority of male transvestites are heterosexual.

1.3VStall

4th Dec 2000, 18:18

Brian,

My letter to the PM went into the baox this lunchtime.

Chocks Wahay

4th Dec 2000, 20:12

Brian Dixon

I need to get in touch with you regarding the campaign - can you drop me a note of your email address please to [email protected]

Cheers

Grndplt

4th Dec 2000, 22:08

Has anyone else read Ian Bruce's recent article in The Herald? He is their geopolitical editor (whatever that is) but was their defence correspondent for many years and appears to have some very interesting contacts ...
The gist of the article suggests that the flight plan to Inverness was a deliberate spoof and the real destination was Macrahanish. They were flying low to avoid detection .. This is not impossible and, if you think about the local topography and lack of approach facilities does explain quite a lot, or am I being too naive in believing any press report?

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

Brian Dixon

4th Dec 2000, 22:18

Chocks,

You can e-mail me on:

[email protected]

Come to think of it, so can anyone else!

Regards all
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Arkroyal

4th Dec 2000, 22:33

Grndplt

Doubt very much if there's any truth in this, but it wouldn't make any difference anyway.

They were flying low because there was no option. See my post above with the icing level calculation in it.

spacey663

5th Dec 2000, 00:51

I’m sorry if this sounds out of place, but I am looking for the William Wratton report so that I can criticise it for an English argumentative essay I am doing.

I would appreciate any help, as I do this because like most of you I know their has been an grave injustice carried out here.

Brian Dixon

5th Dec 2000, 01:26

Spacey,
the link you need is:

<A HREF="http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/06/18/stirevnws02007.html" TARGET="_blank">www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/06/18/stirevnws02007.html</A>

Don't forget John Nichol's reply:

<A HREF="http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/06/25/stirevnws01008.html" TARGET="_blank">www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/06/25/stirevnws01008.html</A>

Good luck with the homework. At least you can tell your teacher that you have done more than Minster Hoon!!

Regards
Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Bag Man

5th Dec 2000, 11:59

Three more letters in the Times today.

John Farley

5th Dec 2000, 13:28

Keep at it chaps I have started to think you are going to win this one.

JF

Titan Locked

5th Dec 2000, 14:30

Bag Man et al

Try this link :
<A HREF="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/section/0,,59,00.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/section/0,,59,00.html</A>

First attempt at posting a link so apologies if it doesn't work !!

John Nichol

5th Dec 2000, 14:50

Re: Mail On Sunday (see Arkroyal's post on 3 Dec).

Has anyone (hopefully, serving around that time) heard about the existence of this "memo" talking about Jon and Rick's fears over UFCMs? I've been involved in this case for 5 years now and have never even heard a rumour about it. Even knowing the MOD and the two senior officers involved, I am having difficulty in comming to terms with the fact that someone has supressed a memo from two dead pilots talking about their fears for their safety. If it's true it will be earth shattering.

Anyone help out?

Paul Wesson

5th Dec 2000, 15:04

I wouldn't be surprised.

I had a little dispute with the Service myself and it was only at ministerial stage that I had my 1369s disclosed. Strangely they didn't match the summary previously disclosed by Innsworth and included documents that I was unaware of. Numbered documents were filed out of order and there were reports that I had never been told about . Another guy I know was preparing a redress and an anonymous letter arrived containing a critical memo that Innsworth were concealing. I could go on since I have helped several people with redresses over the years. Innsworth, and indeed
MoD, policy is to deny the presence of all sorts of things until you can actually prove that they exist.

To the shredder and beyond!!!!!! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

Jackonicko

5th Dec 2000, 15:14

Mr Ploppy:
"Of course, he 'stormed off the pitch' at the RAeS when he couldn't take the flak there over this issue:"

Please explain.

Everyone, this speculation that Pilgarlick is Wratten, and that dear Johnny Wrotten himself is a transvestite, or that he can't be cos transvestites tend to be straight, or references to 'deep dark secrets' and to his singularly 'appropriate' 'screaming' E-address may be in danger of getting libellous. Most amusing, but.....

It's a shame that this is the case, because even today, any revelation as to his sexuality would tend to undermine his credibility.

Arkroyal

5th Dec 2000, 15:39

Titan locked

Yup it worked fine and saved me a walk and cost of the rag!

John (Farley) Thanks for your support. Yes, I think we cautiously scent victory. Your voice will speak louder than most of ours, so may I respectfully ask you to join us and use it in the right places?

John (Nichol) Agree with that. Bombshell indeed. I do remember from one of the Channel 4 progs one of the Pilots' fathers mentioning that they had put in writing their concerns. Did you note from the article:

"Asked if the memo existed, an MoD spokesman replied: ‘Nobody is aware of the existence of any memo that you described. There is a lot of information that has been flying back and forth. We would have no reason to hide a memo like that. We have been as open as we can be.’"

Standard woolly MOD denial that can be gone back on if necessary.

John Nichol

5th Dec 2000, 16:11

Jacko,

Good comments about Wratten. Please be aware everyone, the last thing the campaign needs is to be accused of libel.

Re the RAeS. Three senior members (fellows I think) came up with a v. critical report on the Day/Wratten conclusions. Wratten threatened to resign if the RAeS continued to allow criticism of his actions to be aired. A pretty mature stance to take, I think we would all agree!. They did, so he walked. And a sad loss it was to the world of aviation.

Titan Locked

5th Dec 2000, 16:26

Brian, JN etc

If you haven't seen it already there is a live "Ask The Prime Minister" show on ITV on 12 Dec (1900hrs) [I'm assuming something like this must be national, not just the southern region]. Questions can be logged in advance by calling 0870 242 5666 (charged at national rate) or by e-mail at [email protected].

Some of the questions will be put to the PM live, including by members of the studio audience.

In your own time, carry on . . .

1.3VStall

5th Dec 2000, 16:29

Jackonicko and John Nichol,

Re the RAeS, Wratten did indeed resign his Fellowship. It was certainly over direct criticism of his finding. However, if my memory serves me correctly his petulant little gesture was over some correspondence in the in-house magazine "Aerospace", or it may have been an article.

Either way, researching back copies of the mag will reveal what made Wratten leave that august body. As you say, some loss eh?

Paul Wesson

5th Dec 2000, 16:36

For a 'Definition of Libel' - see Aircrew Notices:

<A HREF="http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum41/HTML/001258-2.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum41/HTML/001258-2.html</A>

Incidentally, had Rick or John survived and ACM Wratten come to the same conclusion without any real evidence, it is probable that they could have sued for libel. You can't, however, libel the dead.

Thus far I doubt whether anyone has transgressed.

You should, however, be careful.

If you were to say 'W****** is gay', without any proof, then that could be construed as libel.

If you were to say, 'In my opinion W****** behaves as if he were gay', then that is less likely to be taken as libel unless you were malicious. You must still have a reasonable basis for your opinion.

The fact that many individuals are challenging Wratten's performance as a senior officer could be libellous, if it were not for the fact that you could use the defence of fair comment, with the Public Accounts Committee as your witnesses.

If you quote from the PAC you commit no libel if all you are doing is reporting the proceedings of Parliament, which are, as we all know, absolutely privileged!

If you want to say nasty things about anybody, become an MP and indulge yourself until the Speaker throws you out for a couple of days.

[This message has been edited by Paul Wesson (edited 05 December 2000).]

Grndplt

5th Dec 2000, 17:08

Arkroyal

You need to think about this possible routeing a little more carefully. The implications make the icing restriction irrelevant.

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

psyclic

5th Dec 2000, 17:39

Am I missing something?

Pilots found guilty of gross negligence without any proof!

Surely this is slander and defamation? Why can't Wratten and Day be taken to a civil court over their unfound statements?

Is there nothing that the families of the deceased pilots can sue for?

Paul Wesson

5th Dec 2000, 22:08

Sadly, no.

Libel/slander etc are personal to the victims. Nobody else can sue on another person's reputation. Dead men can't sue for libel (there are occasions where the estate of the dead can sue, but I don't recall them all - I think it's for debts, various land rights etc).

The importance of clearing the names of the 2 pilots is really for their families' sake. It's also good for the future morale of the remnants of the armed forces.

[This message has been edited by Paul Wesson (edited 05 December 2000).]

Arkroyal

5th Dec 2000, 23:43

Grndplt

Not quite with you old chap. Surely it is very relevant that the icing clearance did not allow an IFR transit, and committed the pilots to a low level grovel.

Had the destination been Machrihanish, I agree that the climb would have been unnecessary. It wasn't (as far as any of us know) and Wratten used the fact that they did not climb beyond the aircraft's limitations as evidence of gross negligence.

That makes the icing question very relevant.

On another suject, you can only commit libel if what you say is untrue. If those people saying horrible things about Wratten or the Boy named Sue are sure of their facts, then carry on. But as JN and Paul say, tread very carefully.

Titan, tried askthepm.co.uk but just getthe domain name seller?

[This message has been edited by Arkroyal (edited 05 December 2000).]

Brian Dixon

5th Dec 2000, 23:54

Titan,

Promoted instantly to the rank of absolute hero!! Thanks for the info. Will be used to the full!!

Everyone else,

I agree with John Nichol. Let's get back the the structured campaign of writing to MP's and the PM, and let personal issues remain personal, whether assumed or other. We need to stay focussed now. To go this far and shoot ouselves in the leg would be to let Jon and Rick down at the last hurdle.

Libel and slander have been looked at in great depth and, at this moment in time, are not options. The priority is to get the verdict overturned as it is unsustainable.

Focus, focus focus - write, write, write. And above all else - keep your head!!

Regards all
Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Jackonicko

5th Dec 2000, 23:55

Ark, you say: "you can only commit libel if what you say is untrue."

Believe that the law works in such a way that "you commit libel unless you can prove that what you say is true."

misterploppy

6th Dec 2000, 00:24

Jackonicko - Wrotten storming out of the RAeS:

See:

<A HREF="http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0COW/2000_May_18/62827483/print.jhtml" TARGET="_blank">http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0COW/2000_May_18/62827483/print.jhtml</A>

Computer Weekly 18 May 2000 MoD in Chinook report cover-up by Tony Collins.

...Now three senior Fellows of one of the world's most eminent professional aviation body, the Royal Aeronautical Society, have disclosed one paragraph from the Tench report. They quote Tench as saying that the "involvement of some Station Commanders, Air Officer Commanding's Staff Officers and even the Commander In Chief, is an unwelcome intrusion upon what should be the complete independence of the Board of Inquiry".
...Now the three Fellows of the Royal Aeronautical Society have revealed that Sir John Day, as Air Officer Commanding No 1 Group,was involved in controlling the introduction into service of the Chinook Mk2, and reported to Sir William Wratten who in turn reported to Sir Michael Graydon.

See also:

<A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,334249,00.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,334249,00.html</A>

...Earlier this year a report by fellows of the Royal Aeronautical Society concluded that the verdict of pilot negligence was not sustainable in the light of evidence pointing to other problems which could have caused the crash on the Mull. Wratten and Day were so infuriated by the report that they resigned from the society...

Richard Norton Taylor 20 Jun 2000

Jackonicko & JN - Speculation about Wrotten & Libel:

Jacko - You've fairly turned around, some of your other posts have, shall we say, tended towards the homophobic. In any event, as a gay man myself (sacked by Wrotten) the last thing I would describe him as is gay and I certainly can't imagine him as a weekend transvestite!

Suffice it to say, Seneca probably summed up the cause of monumental insensitivity and arrogance of the sort displayed by Wrotten when he said "All cruelty springs from weakness"

Edited to remove smiley things and excessive verbosity!

[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 06 December 2000).]

Scatterling

6th Dec 2000, 00:36

As Brian Dixon has said above:

"Focus, focus focus - write, write, write. And above all else - keep your head!!"

One easy way is to e-mail your MP.

1. If you know who your MP is then here is an alphabetical list of MPs from the House of commons web site. A large proportion of them have a link for an e-mail address and some even have links to their own websites:

<A HREF="http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/almsad.htm" TARGET="_blank">http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/almsad.htm</A>

2. If you DON'T know who your MP is then go here and search through the constituencies alphabetically to find your MP. Then proceed as per paragraph 1:

<A HREF="http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/alcm.htm" TARGET="_blank">http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/alcm.htm</A>

3. If you're not sure of your constituency (oh dear) then go here and search through the county listings - you might come across one you recognise! Then proceed to paragraph 2 and then to paragraph 1:

<A HREF="http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/clomps.htm" TARGET="_blank">http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/clomps.htm</A>

I've already written to my MP. Good luck!

[This message has been edited by Scatterling (edited 05 December 2000).]

misterploppy

6th Dec 2000, 00:54

Getting back on target, Brian!

A tactical suggestion. It is sad but true that some MPs will not be overly concerned with the intricacies of the RAF's internal BofI system. In letters, particularly to non-NuLabour MPs it may well be worth adding the point that in dismissing the Public Accounts Cttee report as 'superficial', the MOD are showing contempt for a senior Cttee of the House. Opposition MPs (and some Labour ones) are currently very concerned about the House's ability to hold the executive to account.

Arkroyal

6th Dec 2000, 02:02

Brian and scatterling

Absolutely. Focus

Has anyone managed to email the askthepm.co.uk site?

No luck here yet, but we must get at least one question in if we swamp it.

Brian Dixon

6th Dec 2000, 02:19

The web site is in the registration phase. It should be available soon. Keep logging in to see when it becomes live. First one to find out, let everyone else know. The phone number works though!!

Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

misterploppy

6th Dec 2000, 02:28

Ark

The lack of a website does not negate the posession of an e-mail account. Have e-mailed [email protected] and the e-mail hasn't winged its way back to me yet!

colinj

6th Dec 2000, 02:58

John, Arkroyal

There must have been written docs by the crew regarding satnav computer system reliability see
<A HREF="http://www.computerweekly.co.uk/cwarchive/chinook/cwcontainer.asp?name=CHIN0503.htm&SubSection=2" TARGET="_blank">http://www.computerweekly.co.uk/cwarchive/chinook/cwcontainer.asp?name=CHIN0503.htm&SubSection=2</A>

Also there are US Army docs on Satellite overhead changes needed to be carried out in the time period of the crash.

This is why I mentioned previously about Mobile Phone issues, as it is well documented electrical equipment on board passenger planes does have issues for flight navigation systems.

emails seems to be getting through to the relevent people concerned to make sure more information is forthcoming.
AskPM email response for question came through ok.

Colin

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

The Mistress

6th Dec 2000, 03:55

Brian & Ark

Have written to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, a Cabinet Minister and my local MP. All letters were along the sack Hoon/clear the pilots'names/compensate the families theme. Will let you have sight of any replies.

Arkroyal

6th Dec 2000, 12:57

Misterp and colinj, thanks. You are dealing with a Luddite here! Q on way to his eminence.

The Mistress, thanks for your support.

P.S.

Colinj ta for the link, interesting reading. Don't remember there being any 'frequencies' to change on SuperTans, but there is certainly more evidence of niggling problems and distractions.

Out of loop for a few days now due to work.

[This message has been edited by Arkroyal (edited 06 December 2000).]

Wee Weasley Welshman

6th Dec 2000, 14:09

***************************

Woah! Some of the posts on this thread are coming very close to the legal line. Please please show restraint in your posts chaps.

After all the LAST thing we want is the lawyers slapping PPRuNe with legal notices now.

This campaign is too important to jeopardise.

*******************************

WWW

1.3VStall

6th Dec 2000, 17:31

Brian & Ark,

Have e-mailed my question successfully to [email protected]. Disappointed that the Daily Telegraph didn't publish the letter I e-mailed to them yesterday.

Keep on trying.

John Nichol

6th Dec 2000, 18:30

Ark, Your point about icing lims is a good one and has been looked at before. The simple fact is that had the crew climbed to SALT they would have exceeded the limitations. Indeed, they had questioned this very point in the days before the flight and had been told, in no uncertain terms, that they would be held personally responsible for any incident that arose from breaking the lims.

Wratten has tried to get around this by stating that SALT was 2800ft. Needless to say he got it wrong. The actual SALT is 5900ft - hence the crew could not achieve that with the imposed limitations.

There is, of course, on overriding factor here. Would one rather fly on in the crud or simply break the limitations? As Grndplt points out, it is a v important consideration. However, the most important thing to bang home is that we are still only speculating about what may or may not have occured. It's a question we can't answer.

Re Mobile phones. The BOI did examine this (para 37) but found no evidence that it was a factor.

Brian Dixon

6th Dec 2000, 21:02

This is my 100th posting. Anyone mind if I indulge myself and dedicate it to the following:

1. My Friends - Jon Tapper, Rick Cook, Graham Forbes, Kev Hardie.

2. The Passengers.

3. The families of those who were lost.

4. All who are campaigning to have this injustice put right.

Thank you
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

MrBernoulli

6th Dec 2000, 23:49

Anybody wishing to press their MPs, particularly labour MPs, about this matter may want to quote the Labour Manifesto of the 1997 election. These words were all publicly spoken by Tony Blair himself:

"I want to renew faith in politics through a government that will govern in the interest of the many, the broad majority of people who work hard, play by the rules, pay their dues and feel let down by a political system that gives the breaks to the few, to an elite at the top increasingly out of touch with the rest of us."

Those last few words are particularly apt. The last few words of the following may also be useful and are from exactly the same source:

"Over-centralisation of government and lack of accountability was a problem in governments of both left and right. Labour is committed to the democratic renewal of our country through decentralisation and the elimination of excessive government secrecy."

scroggs

7th Dec 2000, 00:54

John Nichol -
the safety altitude question is worth pursuing, but you need to be sure of the Chinook fleet's SOPs at the time. Certainly, on the C130 fleet, we used to use (may still use, for all I know) a low level navigation track leg safety alt based on 1000ft above the ground only 3 miles either side of track whilst maintaining the planned route. Any deviation from the route meant going to the sector MSA (5900ft here), but it is quite possible that the SOPs allowed the crew to use a lower figure.

ShyTorque

7th Dec 2000, 03:14

Scroggs,

I don't think you will find anything in the SOPs on that topic (things may have changed very recently). SH have traditionally worked to different rules, allied to the ability to land if the weather goes below limits. Climbing into cloud is not often an option, especially in view of the limited icing tolerance of helicopters without special equipment such as heated blades etc.

JIMMACKENZIE

7th Dec 2000, 11:08

John Nichol

Re your comment: Mobile phones. The BOI did examine this (para 37) but found no evidence that it was a factor.

I doubt any of the BOI were communication specialists, neither would they have the knowledge that is around nowadays on the danger of mobiles etc.

I recall the early to mid 1990's were still early days in respect to mobiles. I was with a military touring circus in 1990-92 (my euphemism) and we travelled the length and breadth of the UK, as well as Germany, most of mainland Europe, and into Eastern Europe. I usually landed the job of bagman for the mobile phone. In those days it was a large cellnet contraption which was about double the size of a respirator pack. It worked off battery but preferred mains if available. I was only a middle ranker, but of course the OC and other seniors used it at every opportunity to pass sitreps (even when flying). Now our outfit were no way as important or secretive as the pax on the Chinook, and I just can't believe the security team from NI travelled anywhere without doing an ET whenever possible. Did the BOI reveal details of mobile phones found amongst the wreckage?

A few brief excerpts from recent publications on mobile phones:
"Last month, an aircraft carrying German foreign minister Joschka Fischer was forced
to make an emergency landing after key cockpit equipment cut out. Authorities believe that a mobile phone was to blame for the fault which forced the minister's plane to abort its landing attempt and make a steep climb, after which the pilot made an
emergency landing without key cockpit instruments." Aviation Mag Oct 2000.

"AIRLINE INDUSTRY INFORMATION

The Safety Regulation Group (SRG) in England has reportedly found evidence that supports a ban of mobile phones onboard aircraft.

New studies show that mobile phones do indeed affect aircraft instruments, according
to Computerworld. The studies, which were carried out on Boeing 737 and 747
aircraft earlier this year, apparently show that mobile phones with an output of 1-2W
can cause deviations in the instruments that are beyond the allowed limits."

I think the cellnet we used with our travelling military "circus" was about 2.5W output.

Additionally, as a former Machrihanish guy (1992-93) I am aware that the US Navy Seals -Special Warfare Unit 2 were based there. They had inflatable seacraft and a MC130E "Combat Talon" aircraft. The Seal's training ground was on those cliffs around the Mull and in the waters off the point. Do we know of any activity in the area by the US Seals during the time-scale of the crash? I hate to think of the wattage of some of the kit they carried! As a comms engineer I can visualise the portable satcom dishes, microwave links etc they would use, and the power in some of the beams produced.

People used to think that Asbestos was safe, look at the view now. The same with mobiles, what may have been seen to be unimportant then, mostly through ignorance, is now strictly taboo. Is there any way we could find out about mobiles etc found amongst the wreckage? I doubt we would ever find out about Seal activity in the area. I could tell an amusing story about an audit I carried out on communications facilities at Machrihanish and the reply I got from OC Seals, but I'd probably end up in the clink!

My interest in the case? one of my pals on our travelling roadshow was later posted to NI and was a pax on the Chinook. Another one of the pax was a colleague from a previous tour we both did in Cyprus.

By the way, I also believe Machrihanish was the true destination of the Chinook and have written to my MP, to David Davis, and to Lord Chalfont on this matter.

------------------
RUCON

BEagle

7th Dec 2000, 11:35

Whilst I personally wouldn't rule out anything, RF interference affecting aircraft electronics, rotor streaming from the Mull, over-eager jarheads defending the Aurora hypersonic aircraft which conspiracists believe operated from Machrihanish, little green men from Mars or whatever, there is but one thrust to this whole tragic affair:

Was there overwhelming proof positive for the conclusion reached by the reviewing officers to be beyond any possible doubt whatsoever - or does sufficient doubt remain for the cause to be Not Positively Determined?

stiknruda

7th Dec 2000, 13:14

Have followed this thread v closely since its inception in June. Letters off this morning (snail mail) to Hoon, Blair and McGregor (cons South Norfolk).

BW's arrogance and attitude last Thursday on the Paxman show and the passion shown by Brian D and others finally persuaded me to write.

What I really want is McGregor's e-address so that I can badger him relentlessly about this and other topics in his last few months in office! Couldn't find it in the links posted above.

Keep it up.

sNr

fobotcso

7th Dec 2000, 13:46

BEagle, precisely.

X-QUORK

7th Dec 2000, 16:54

I've been following this thread with great interest and whole heartedly support the campaign to have Jon Tapper and Rick Cook's names cleared.

I was on duty in the AAC ops room in Aldergrove and remember watching their aircraft leave that afternoon, it caught my attention because it departed to the East close to our barracks - we had a suspicion that some RAF aircrews might've been having a laugh at the "Pongo's" expense. Of course, it later became apparent that they'd taken that route on their way to Scotland.

JIMMACKENZIE

I've posted a question on the Question Forum relating to the effects of mobile phones on aircraft instruments/systems, it might be better to continue the subject there ? This thread should be left to the good folks trying to get some justice for Jon and Rick.

My thoughts and sympathies to all those that lost relatives or friends.

Brian Dixon

8th Dec 2000, 00:11

Stik,
your MP has no public e-mail address so the best thing to do is to find out when his surgery is and pop along to say Hi. Take loads of paperwork as they love it!!

Five questions from me to the ask PM site. I'm really looking forward to the programme.

Lets keep the pressure on.

Regards all
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Grey Area

8th Dec 2000, 01:50

Point 1. I am afraid I've been out of Mil aviation for a short while and can't remember the chapter and verse but the comments about Safalt made me think.
As I remember JSP318 sets out many bits and pieces but somewhere in the preamble it states that all regulations contained therein are minima but may be affected by MORE STRINGENT regulations issued by lesser authorities ie GASO etc. I note also that the RN include any relaxations of regulations within JSP whereas the RAF use GASOs or local orders, which would seem to contravine the clear statement in JSP 318. If it is the case that JSP318 is "the bible" then would that make the issuing authority for the less stringent regulations culpable - ie is Wrattons 2800' not only wrong but in breach of JSP318? (And did he issue any such local orders?)

Point 2. (Probably a repeat) Who the £$"% authorised the sortie in those met conditions with a known icing limitation?

Point 3. Brian, I'm 100% behind the cause, keep it up, the truth is not negotiable.

GA

Grey Area

8th Dec 2000, 02:33

Sent:

Sir,

I write to request your support in Parliament in the case the unsupportable verdict of Gross Negligence against Flight Lieutenants John Tapper and Rick Cook as a result of their fatal air accident in Mull of Kintyre. As a serving military pilot I accept the dangers of my profession, but I also expect that my country’s government will not posthumously belittle my reputation and effectively punish my family. It was not until my wife asked me to explain how such a verdict would affect the families of the aircrew and to assure her that I could not leave her in such a situation, that I realised how important an issue this was for me. I have grave concerns over the current actions of the Secretary of State for Defense in ignoring the obvious lack of POSITIVE evidence for the verdict of Gross Negligence.

The nub of the argument is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. At the time of the crash the Chinook Mk 2 was subject to a number of safety concerns. These problems, primarily with the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC), but significantly in this case the poor performance in icing conditions, were of such a magnitude that the Rotary Wing Test Squadron at Boscombe Down had ceased flying the airframe, effectively halting the full Military Aircraft Release process. Even so, Air Marshal Wratton had allowed the same aircraft type to be deployed operationally in Northern Ireland. Air Marshals Wratten and Day were major players in the hurried introduction of the Chinook Mk 2 airframe. Yet in their reviewing roles they flouted RAF Board of Inquiry (BofI) Regulations requiring "No Doubt Whatsoever" before overturning the original BofI finding which, like Sir Stephen Young's FAI, could not find conclusively the cause of the accident.

The MoD has simply ignored the criticisms of the PAS claiming that "lessons have been learned", and "this can't happen again" yet still the lives of the families of these aircrew are blighted by a blatant disregard for justice and the rules of evidence. This case is personal; it concerns the reputations of 2 professional pilots, the feelings of their families and the confidence of future Servicemen and their families in their leaders and the integrity of “the system”.

I would ask that you pursue this matter as best you can in the interests of justice and the reputations of two servicemen who died doing their duty.

Yours aye

yodason45

8th Dec 2000, 02:46

Please people,

Forget the technical arguements ref SA, mobile phones,etc.. When we all heard about the crash the first thing we all thought, surely, was how could they have been below it in that area. The Board has done it's job and determined that there was insufficient evidence to determine the exact cause of the tragedy. In that respect, how can the reviewing Officers go against the findings of a properly constituted Board. We must keep the pressure on for justice, according to the findings, and not through conjecture.

I really am getting annoyed with the arrogance shown by so many, in positions of power, who think they can flout the law of common justice.

I only hope if I suffered an accident, under similar circumstances, ppruners would invest as much time and effort on my case. We are all in the same boat so stick to the main thrust of all of this. There is no incontrovertible evidence to bring a verdict of negligence. There are doubts as to the actual cause/s of the accident. That is all we have to focus on. Remember!

Justice has no expiry date!

Bag Man

8th Dec 2000, 12:04

Wratten throws down the gauntlet - Times letters today.

Titan Locked

8th Dec 2000, 12:43

Bag Man and others

Follow the link to get to the letter

<A HREF="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,48179,00.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,48179,00.html</A>

And I can't believe he's given his full home address !!

TL

[This message has been edited by Titan Locked (edited 08 December 2000).]

joyride

8th Dec 2000, 13:49

Re last para Stuart Eastwood letter to Times:
The integrity of the well tested system designed to discover the truth in aid of accident prevention seems to me to be only under threat from the intervention of Senior Officers.

The Mistress

8th Dec 2000, 14:00

I love the bit "those who prefer the safety of selective quotations". The RAF hierarchy and the MoD are bloody experts at it!

[This message has been edited by The Mistress (edited 08 December 2000).]

John Nichol

8th Dec 2000, 14:13

Re The Times Letters - The arrogant tone of Wratten knows no bounds. I wonder if he understands how much damage he does to himself?

As he has included his home address, I for one, will be writing to him to exprees my concerns.

pulse1

8th Dec 2000, 16:19

AVM Wratten's offer to face scrutiny seems to me to be a bit of tactical bluster.

From his Times article he bases his whole argument on his view that the Chinook was flying "too low and too fast" under the prevailing conditions. If that is so, why should he insist that the only people he will face almost certainly know little about airmanship. For example, I was very disappointed when, during the Paxman interview, Chalfont seemed to agree that they were too low and too fast as he did not challenge that assumption in one of Paxman's questions. According to the only witness, we know that, immediately prior to the accident, they were legally VFR. Does Wratten think that they were being grossly negligent at that point. All other issues about FADEC etc are not relevant to HIS argument

He should face up to scrutiny from experienced civil and military helicopter pilots and the argument should only be based on KNOWN facts, i.e. the actual weather,the eyewitness account and whatever rules and regulations they were operating under. If it is agreed that they were being negligent before they entered cloud, the Wratten conclusion should stand. If it is not agreed, there is no evidence which explains why they entered cloud and Wratten and Day should publish a profound apology to the families of those affected. In my view this should also include the families of serving pilots who may have suffered some anxiety over this issue. As I have said earlier I have never been in the RAF and have no personal axe to grind here.

If that cannot be arranged, would he agree to Lord Chalfont at al being represented by the now famous Tudor Owen? That might be interesting. Judging by his performance at the RAeS I cannot see either happening but it might be worth making a counter challenge based on the above.

------------------
"If you keep doing what you've always done, you will keep getting what you've always got"

1.3VStall

8th Dec 2000, 18:34

Points:

1. Who the f**k is Stuart Eastwood? Isn't it just ever so slightly amazing that his letter just happened to be available for publishing at the same time as Wratten's? Is he one of Wratten's former bag carriers?

2. Wratten's arrogance and intransigence (those words again!) are staggering. Fellows of the RAeS, experienced Chinook pilots, other professional aviators, aerospace professionals, Lords, MPs, journalists and members of the public are all totally convinced that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. Faced with such an overwhelming weight of informed opinion why oh why cannot Wratten see that the only two people that are out of step are himself and Day?

Chocks Wahay

8th Dec 2000, 20:17

Chaps

Just been reading through this discussion again, and I have a couple of questions:

Several people mentioned Rick's intercom being in the "Emergency" position - as a humble civvy spam-can pilot, can someone explain the significance of this?

What is the normal cruising speed of a loaded Chinook? Would you cruise at the same speed at low level?

How close to fully loaded was it?

Arkroyal asked if the waypoint change was manual or automatic - this point doesn't seem to have been answered - does anyone know?

Let me just add that I am fully behind the campaign, I just want to clarify these few points for my own interest.

misterploppy

8th Dec 2000, 23:03

John Nichol

So, Billy Wrotten will deign to explain yet again to those who are too wilfully ignorant to understand that his Holy Writ is the only possible explanation for events.

Any chance of any of your Meeja contacts arranging for this 'interrogation' (his word - beat me, beat me big boy!) to be on television rather than in print?

If His Airship were to come across only half as monumentally insensitive and delusionally arrogant as he did on Newsnight, I think even the Goon would be setting the verdict aside before the programme finished transmitting!

Brian Dixon

8th Dec 2000, 23:06

Just to let you all know that the individual by the name of Pilgarlick was not the person some thought it to be. Someone totally unconnected who had been following the thread and took a chance on posting. Probably won't se them again.

Grey Area.
Excellent letter. It is important that Blair is made aware of the damage to morale and confidence. Copy it to your own MP too.

Chocks
I'll research the answers and post them here when available. Unless of course, anyone beats me to it.

Right, 'scuse me. "Dear Mr Wratten.......

Regards all.
Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

swashplate

8th Dec 2000, 23:08

Just learned to read, chaps!!

Yes, indeed, you do accept that they MAY have been 'negligent' to whatever degree, but with no EVIDENCE they cannot be convicted.

One day, I'll learn how to use this site properly!

However, no one picked up on the do 'black boxes' bit - shouldn't the helo's have them? I understand several RAF crash inquiries said this?

misterploppy

8th Dec 2000, 23:11

Letter published in today's Scotsman:

Buck-Passing

If the RAF top brass are to be believed regarding the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre, what they are really telling us is that 2 of the best trained pilots, flying a state-of-the-art helicopter carrying important VIPs, were so badly disciplined and irresponsible that they flew too fast and too low right into a hill.

If that is the case, what does it say about the selection and training of pilots? No wonder planes seem to be falling out of the sky every month.

No, those of us who have been in the forces know the buck is always passed down the ranks to those who cannot defend themselves!

J Simpson
Inverness

Brian Dixon

8th Dec 2000, 23:27

Swashplate,
Yep. Funny old word that 'evidence' isn't it??

With regard to the 'black boxes' have a look at my posts on page 10 dated 24 Nov. From memory I think there has been at least three BoIs that have recommended they be fitted.

Mr Wratten.
I am no expert. However I would very much like to discuss your interpretation of the evidence presented. What is it that has convinced you to reach a different opinion to everyone else who has read the same documentation? My e-mail is on this post. I look forward to hearing from you. No tricks. Straight, but honest dialogue.

Regards
Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Scatterling

9th Dec 2000, 12:08

Brian - I can understand you wanting to find out what goes on in the mind of Wratten by asking him to converse by e-mail. When the overwhelming opinion is so against his views then human nature and curiosity make us want to know what makes Wratten tick.

However, a very BIG however, you want a "Straight, but honest dialogue." I and many others don't believe he can be straight OR honest.

[This message has been edited by Scatterling (edited 09 December 2000).]

BEagle

9th Dec 2000, 13:22

I don't think that the worthy cause of re-examining the Chinook tragedy to establish the sustainability of the verdict will be served by pesonal abuse directed at Air Chief Marshal (Retd) Sir William Wratten. Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion, pointless insults will be of no help in this matter. Libel and misinformation will be a distinct hindrance to Brian Dixon's well-intentioned campaign for truth, not a help.
Personally I wish to see the burden of proof 'beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever' being laid at the feet of the reviewing officers; should there be ANY lingering doubt as to the single absolute cause, then, ipso facto, there is surely INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE for the verdict which the reviewing officers reached to be supportable.

John Nichol

9th Dec 2000, 14:10

MrPloppy, this went to The Times yesterday:

***************
Sir, Sir William Wratten has at last agreed to have his decision to find the Chinook pilots guilty of gross negligence opened to scrutiny (letters December 8). This is a somewhat surprising yet extremely welcome development.

Sir William says that his interrogator (having been interrogated by professionals, I find this an interesting choice of phrase) must be in possession of all of the details. One hopes that this includes the former serving RAF Officers and Special Forces pilots, the fellows of the Royal Aeronautical Society, computer specialists, aerospace engineers and other aviation professionals he describes as “wilfully ignorant” (The Sunday Times June 18) because their views differ to his.

When his views are put to the test as a civilian rather than simply being stated as a senior officer I’m sure he will see what most people involved in the case have known for over six years. Without the evidence of “black boxes” Sir Williams hypothesis is just that, an unproven idea of what may have happened; I do not say that Sir William’s theory is wrong, I simply point out that there is not a shred of evidence that he is right.
***************

Don't know if they will use it but we can always hope.

Lord Chalfont has also sent something on similar lines. He has also tabled a motion in the Lords calling for the setting up of a Select Committee to investigate the matter. If it gets through expect to see Sir Bill basking in the media spotlight.

Nil nos tremefacit

9th Dec 2000, 16:09

Presumably Sir Bill's sudden conversion to debate with his opponents is something to do with the fact that he might just find himself trying to explain his former reticence in front of a Lords Select Committee. Hope they televise the whole lot. I guess it'll be standing room only in the public section.

misterploppy

9th Dec 2000, 16:22

Good one, John. The choice of the word "interrogator" by the Wratten mindset would seem to indicate that he holds some piece of information that he knows he must not divulge, strange ....

A small typo in your post - I would expect to see Wratten basting (not basking) in the spotlight if Lord Chalfont gets his way!

Capt Tercrue

9th Dec 2000, 17:37

Chocks

In answer to your questions
Question: Several people mentioned Rick's intercom being in the "Emergency" position - as a humble civvy spam-can pilot, can someone
explain the significance of this?
Answer: This may have indicated a fault with the intercom box on Rick's side of the cockpit. The switch allows the i/c box on the other side of the cockpit to provide an alternative means of i/c. On the other hand it may have just been an inadvertent switch selection. I doubt it is significant unless John's box also failed.

Question: What is the normal cruising speed of a loaded Chinook? Would you cruise at the same speed at low level?
Answer: Normally 140 kts. No reason why not in VMC conditions where there are no obstructions.
Question: How close to fully loaded was it?
Answer: Not even close.

Question: Arkroyal asked if the waypoint change was manual or automatic - this point doesn't seem to have been answered - does anyone know?
Answer: In route steer mode the RNS-252 changes automatically to the next WP on the route when within a short (unspecified) distance of the WP, to permit corner cutting. If required this may be disabled by a number of key presses.

Keep up the good work Brian, you're doing a wonderful job.

Brian Dixon

9th Dec 2000, 21:58

Thank you for your comments Capt. T

Thanks also for supplying the answers to the questions.

Regards
Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Brian Dixon

10th Dec 2000, 01:45

Here's a few more selective quotations for you Mr Wratten:

'There....................'
'......is.................'
'...no....................'
'...............evidence..'
'........to...............'
'...............support...'
'..a......................'
'......verdict............'
'................of.......'
'..............negligence.'

'spose the man has a point really!! :)

Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Tandemrotor

10th Dec 2000, 03:15

Hope I haven't been neglecting you all recently, but I thought I may be able to help on a couple of points;

1) The right hand seat pilot (Co-pilots) Intercom station box, Norm/fail selector, was indeed found in the FAIL position. However, as with all cockpit indications, the AAIB Technical report awards this a score relating to how reliable this evidence is thought to be. In this specific case, the score was 4, In other words, the switch position was " likely to be readily affected by accident effects, and no reliable evidence of position at impact was available."

2) As far as the nav computer, RNS252 SuperTANS, was concerned,the manufacturer, Racal Avionics Ltd, produced a report which states a Tactical steer page was being displayed at impact, in the form;

^Tac:B
' <<25*M
'Dis:86.7Nm
'vTTG:32.0

The implication being that in Tactical steer mode the SuperTANS requires the operator to manually select the waypoint, rather than the automatic transfer associated with Route steer.

Hope this helps.

I for one would love the opportunity of an open and frank discussion with Sir Wratten.

Watch this space.

Arkroyal

10th Dec 2000, 03:55

Phew, a couple of days away and two new pages to read.

John Nichol, excellent letter to the Times. I came across Wratten’s letter at 35000 ft over the North Sea and damn nearly crashed the airplane. The arrogance of the man knows no bounds. I couldn’t wait to get home to pen a response, but no need now, and it wouldn’t have been as good as yours anyway. I’ll use the address given with the letter instead! Yes the safety altitude question is very relevant as Wratten uses the fact that they did not climb as a factor in his findings. Scroggs demonstrated the usual fixed wing misapprehensions about helicopters in his post. In a plank you always have the option to climb, but Jon and Rick did not. It’s interesting that Wratten made his calculation of SALT based on the Mull itself and came up with a figure 2800ft which was still above the calculated aircraft limit of 2500ft. The actual SALT was 5900ft, a figure accepted by the defence committee.

Chocks, thanks for reminding me about the Waypoint change, and thanks to Capt Tercrue for the answer. Again Wratten has used the fact that the waypoint had been changed as ‘evidence’ that all must have been well. I quote once again from his article:

‘When it was less than one nautical mile from what was to be the point of impact, a waypoint change was made. This selection on the navigation equipment caused it then to display heading and distance to the next point on the route. Specifically, the pilots changed waypoint to one 87 nautical miles beyond the fogbound lighthouse that was their next planned turning point’. [Ark’s words: Corran, in the mouth of Loch Ness, which would have been reached without needing to climb, as an over water route was available. Wratten’s emphasis that it lay ‘beyond’ the mull is misleading. It lay around the Mull]
‘Activity in the cockpit of this nature proved that the pilots were in control of their aircraft at that moment. It also showed that, rather than ensure they were at safety altitude well before landfall, they had flown into the bad weather at low level and at speed, in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre where the board of inquiry itself had concluded that the prevailing conditions "would have required flight in accordance with Instrument Flight Rules".’

In Wratten’s version of evidence ‘beyond any doubt whatsoever’ of negligence, the waypoint change shows that all was well. He goes on to postulate that this waypoint change demonstrates a decision to negligently enter bad weather rather than climb. Had this waypoint change been automatic (and it quite possibly, was); then no such assumption that all was well is safe.

Yodason, good point re the focus of this campaign. The more fanciful and technical arguments take second place to the simple fact that the findings of Sirs John Day and William Wratten are flawed in law, common sense and material fact.

Good letter Grey area. Now I’m off to write one to 14 College Road, Cheltenham, GL53 7HX, which, in case anyone missed the Times letter, is Wrattens drum.

rivets

10th Dec 2000, 12:20

I fully support the case to have the verdict on this accident changed. The legal and non defamatory route appears to be the best.

One thing that may be worthy of investigation is the fact the Wratten is now employed by Boeing who have some big money tied up with current procurement projects.

Is there Government collusion with Wratten and Boeing? If the verdict is changed Wratten would have a rather large amount of egg on his face, this would also reflect on Boeing and the Government, hence my suspicion of collusion.

BEagle

10th Dec 2000, 12:21

You are very probably right, GICASI. I can't remember the exact wording in the AP however, 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' requires an even higher level of evidence than 'beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever'.
In either case there appears to be considerable doubt as to whether the verdict reached by the reviewing officers was sustained by sufficient proof positive; however, the onus should surely be upon Sir William Wratten to produce sufficient proof showing that there was 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever', if his verdict is not to be quashed and the investigation re-opened.

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 10 December 2000).]

FJJP

10th Dec 2000, 13:36

There is an interesting parallel-ish case that might go some way to illustrating the need for caution when a finding of negligence is considered.

In 1999 an Army Lynx crashed. 3 of the 4 crew/passengers were killed and 1 survived with critical injuries. I have not had sight of the BOI, but I understand there was a massive hydraulic leak, mist or fire in the cockpit that induced the pilot to attempt a rapid forced landing. Unfortunately, conditions in the cockpit were so bad that he was unable to carry out successful landing.

The point is, had there not been a survivor who was able to describe the conditions in which they found themselves, the BOI would have perhaps been in an identical position to Andy Pulford, with no evidence to indicate the cause of the crash. Or at least if evidence of the hydraulic problem came to light, conditions in the cockpit would have been speculative at best.

And so it could have been in the cockpit of the Chinook; something so catastrophic could have occurred with the airframe, ac or engine systems or cockpit conditions sufficient enough to distracted the crew to the extent that they were unable to control the ac to avoid impacting the ground. Hence the reason why the BOI was entirely correct in its findings and the 2 senior officers were wrong.

Furthermore:

1. To be authorised to carry such a VIP load one must assume that the crew were highly qualified and experienced. I find it impossible to accept that in this day and age where CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) and SA (Safety Altitude) feature so regularly in this flight safety conscious world, that this crew would not have avoided the Mull if they could. For heaven's sake, even if they inadvertently found themselves IMC, they must have been aware that all they had to do was turn 90 left to remain over the sea.

2. The waypoint switch question also contains a bit of a red herring. The original track switch was to be, I am told, only a few degrees. They could have been reprogramming a new waypoint that would have taken them up the West Side of the Mull; is there any evidence to show that this might be the case?

3. Finally, it may come as a surprise to many that the reaction time to major emergencies can be startlingly long. For example, dealing with a major emergency will elicit first action response within about 3 seconds. However, an insidious failure, or a set of circumstances not covered by the FRCs or practised in the simulator could lead to significantly longer reaction times. First the crew would have to recognise that something was wrong. Then they would have to diagnose the problem and finally work out what to do about it. And if the failure was giving them massive problems, then they may have been seriously distracted enough to be drawn away from rule no 1 - first fly the ac. In these circumstances, a BOI could reasonably argue that a finding of negligence would be inappropriate.

(Edited to clarify abbreviations)

[This message has been edited by FJJP (edited 10 December 2000).]

rivets

10th Dec 2000, 23:04

Something else I remember from my training (Years ago), in any emergency, you fly the aircraft, you deal with the emergency and then you think about telling someone about it.

When it comes to authorisation, I always though one picked your best and most reliable pilots for a VIP flight, which also must say something about the caliber of the pilots concerned. When you consider the manifest, surely this was no ordinary VIP flight either.

Wratten surely has lost the bubble.

Ben Leice

10th Dec 2000, 23:51

There are a number of aspects of the official story that don't seem to add up.
1. A flightpath from Aldergrove via Carnlough to the crashsite near the South Point lighthouse is a bit east of north and approximately 50 miles. The take-off time is given as 5.42 pm and the power-down as 5.59 pm. This gives an average speed of about 150 knots; the upper cruising speed of a Chinook is 135 knots. Lord Rathcavan (House of Lords - 1 December 1999) made the following observation about the Chinook seen near Carnlough: 'From all accounts it might have been on an unlikely sightseeing trip. It did not appear to have any regular or determined flight path during those several minutes. Evidence suggests that it took a number of low turns. Some witnesses thought that it might have been trying to slow down and land before heading out to sea.' Was this Chinook trying to draw attention to itself'?
2. It is reported that the pilots inserted a 14 degree shift to port as they approached the lighthouse, from a southerly direction. This would have taken the Chinook to the west of the lighthouse; the actual flightpath was about half-a-mile to the east of the lighthouse. If the Chinook was heading to Corran then it would have needed a change of waypoint to port of less that 5 degrees. Also, the Chinook crashed to the east of the lighthouse whereas a change to port would have taken it past on the west side.
3. Mark Holbrook, the yachtsman, gave his location as about 2 miles south-west of the lighthouse where he was able to see it and the Chinook. He is reported in Jack Holland's book 'Phoenix - Policing the Shadows' as seeing the starboard side of the Chinook. If the Chinook came from Carnlough to the south, he should have seen the port side.
4. No mention is made of the other Chinook which was sighted about 5.30 pm four miles east of Coleraine and about 35 miles from the crash site. It was also flying very low in a northerly direction. Perhaps it was the one that crashed.
5. The 1993 meeting was held at RAF Machrihanish from June 24 - 26. Why would they have been going to Fort George?

Ben Leice

10th Dec 2000, 23:57

Perhaps the investigation was too tightly focussed on the crash. Perhaps a wider focus - including the second Chinook and the orders issued to the pilots - would give a better perspective. It certainly would be fairer to the pilots though possibly embarrassing to the authorities.

We had an engineer in the house a few months ago who lives in Glenshesk on the east side of Knocklayd in north-east Co. Antrim and roughly due west of the crash site. He saw something that I hadn't seen reports of and he had discussed it with a friend who lives in Wales, has worked with Chinooks and served in the Falklands.

He said that after the crash there was a flight of three military attack helicopters flying up and down the glens of North Antrim, line astern. The interpretation put on this activity was that these helicopters were deployed in the hope that they would come under missile attack and if this happened troops would flood the area. The implication was that the Chinook may have brought down by a ground-to-air missile - or some other means - and the purpose of the exercise was to flush out those who fired it by tempting them with a follow-up target. It seems that the authorities suspected some form of sabotage.

Ben Leice

11th Dec 2000, 02:54

Arkroyal,

Mark Holbrook could clearly see individual structures on the Chinook from his yacht. He was also able to clearly see the lighthouse and its white perimeter wall and he said that the cloud localisation on the Mull was behind and above the lighthouse.

This would suggest that the pilots had a clear view of the lighthouse and so something must have prevented them from making a small change to port to take them up the west side of the Mull and on to Corran (or Machrihanish). Why would they have wanted to climb?

John Nichol

11th Dec 2000, 14:36

Lord Chalfont's letter is featured in the Times today:

<A HREF="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,49221,00.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,49221,00.html</A>

Ben Leice

11th Dec 2000, 14:49

"To be authorised to carry such a VIP load one must assume that the crew were highly qualified and experienced." ... FJJP, Dec 10.

The crew was highly qualified and they had flown in the Mull area previously.

Does it not seem strange that so many top security personnel connected with the problems of Northern Ireland should have been put together on board a Chinook which had had numerous parts replaced in the previous few months and when the IRA and other paramilitary groups were still active.

The IRA declared a cessation of military operations a few weeks after the crash and this was followed some time later by the others.

Is it normal military practice to carry VIPs in this way? I doubt if many companies would take such a risk with key personnel.

Arkroyal

11th Dec 2000, 16:17

Ben Leice

I quite agree that the crew had no reason to climb. I simply point out that such a climb was not possible in order to undermine Wratten's assertion that their failure to do so amounted to negligence.

The destination is interesting but whether it was Macrihanish of Fort George the initial route would have been the same. The investigation was quite rightly focussed only on the crash. Other conspiricy theories only deflect the focus of this campaign.

Speculation as to what occurred in the last minutes of the flight is only that. We will never know what happened any more than Wratten. He CANNOT have 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' that these men were negligent; and that is all we need to target at this stage.

Ben Leice

11th Dec 2000, 22:13

"The destination is interesting but whether it was Macrihanish of Fort George the initial route would have been the same." ... Arkroyal, December 11.

We can't be sure of the initial route because we don't which of the two Chinooks crashed. You may argue that the initial route is also irrelevant but a Chinook approaching the lighthouse from a westerly direction would have been heading towards the high ground whereas the one approaching from a southerly direction should have been more or less heading parallel to the coastline.

"The Chinook gained height a little as it followed the coast beyond Carnlough harbour towards the cliff-top Catholic college of Garron Tower where priests at a conference ran out to see it fly just below them and turn out to sea, aiming slightly to the left, as they thought, of the Mull, only five or 10 minutes before it crashed into those cliffs." ... Lord Rathcavan, House of Lords, 1 Nov. 1999.

Ben Leice

11th Dec 2000, 22:36

"He CANNOT have 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' that these men were negligent; and that is all we need to target at this stage." ... Arkroyal, Dec 11, 2000.

I agree. However, Lord Chalfont made exactly this point in May 1997 in the House of Lords; he repeated it in Nov 1999 in the House [plus some data on FADEC] and he repeated it again in the Times today. Government spokesmen maintain the same defence - the pilots shouldn't have been where they were. Of course, the Government cannot demonstrate that the pilots were in control.

smooth approach

11th Dec 2000, 22:41

Ben Leice, sorry to put a dampener on your theories but I don't think they are entirely relevant or productive in this forum. Most other contributions have been realistic and based on sound logic.

Please come back down to Earth.

Brian Dixon

11th Dec 2000, 23:36

Ben,
welcome to the debate. All points are valid. However, I am confused by some of your theories. This whole issue is about the fact that the Government cannot, and should not support a verdict that is not supported by the evidence on which it is based. Nothing else. This is the basis of the entire campaign. Theorising will do nothing but dilute this campaign.

I am trying to stick to what I believe to be fact (unsupported verdict). To offer a theory is to do exactly what the reviewing officers and the Government(s) have done in reaching this unsafe verdict and, with respect, has little merit in the overall issue.

As I say, your views are entirely valid, but only as your views. However, if you feel a miscarriage of justice has taken place, please contact your MP and the PM direct.

Everyone else
Please note that I'm having problems with my (e-mail) hotmail account. If I have not replied to any recent postings I apologise. (Why have you made computers hate me Lord??)
I will hopefully sort the problem soon and get back to living up to the name of Irritating Sod.

Regards all
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

jayteeto

12th Dec 2000, 02:32

Ben, a little earlier you mentioned 3 helicopters flying around the Antrim Glens, I was flying one of them. Low level formation training I'm afraid. Nothing sinister other than the s**tty weather.

John Nichol

12th Dec 2000, 13:51

David Davis, the chairman of the PAC, contacted me this weekend. He's been reading pprune with interest and wanted to clear up a couple of factual points regarding criticism of the PAC report.
********
He Said:

1. Some reports have suggested that the PAC was not equipped to understand the intricacies of the case. The PAC listened to submissions by various experts, about 1000 hours of work was completed by National Audit Office (NAO) satff experienced in dealing with the MoD's introduction of equipment into service.

2. If the MOD had deemed it beneficial, Sir William Wratten could have been seen by the PAC. However, Mr Kevin Tebbit, the Permanent Secretary at the MOD, chose not to bring him to give evidence. Mr Tebbit himself gave most of the argument from the MOD side of things.

3. The PAC is charged with making factual comment. On the evidence presented, it was a FACT, that the verdict of gross negligence had been wrong - there was no data to support it or to eliminate other causes.

4. The Govt can obviously ignore the findings of any PAC report but the findings of 95% of its studies are normally implemented.
***************

I think that the most interesting point is that the MoD chose not to bring Wratten to give his point of view. Now why would that be? Hmmm.

Ben Leice

12th Dec 2000, 14:02

Smooth Approach

The MOD talks about the need for new evidence as the basis for a new inquiry.

Surely, it is both realistic and logical to examine some of the evidence already given, as well as the eye-witness accounts.That has been the main thrust of my contributions.

For example, would it have been possible for a Chinook to get from Aldergrove to the crashsite on the Mull in 17 minutes, a distance I estimated at 48 miles as well as fitting in with the observations of Lord Rathcavan?

In the House of Lords, on 1 Nov 1999, he said, "Higher up the glens it had hedgehopped over farmlands, terrifying animals. Horses at Glenravel belonging to a dentist, Hugh McCann, panicked and had to be taken in.

From all accounts it might have been on an unlikely sightseeing trip. It did not appear to have any regular or determined flight path during those several minutes. Evidence suggests that it took a number of low turns."

Arkroyal

12th Dec 2000, 14:48

Ben,

As Brian says, your views are as valid as any other.

You have said that the MOD requires new evidence, and I understand that you are trying to provide it.

The cornerstone of this campaign is that it needs no new evidence to show that the finding of negligence was wrong. (see John Nichol's post above re the PAC report). Just because they have rejected the arguement so far does not mean that we have to launch into the fanciful, which, as Brian points out, will simply dilute and obscure the facts.

Given the local wind quoted as 170 degrees at ‘about’ 30 Knots, a groundspeed of 150 knots is easily achievable by the Chinook, so where is the great conspiricy in that?

Jayteeto has given you the reason for the three 'attack' helicopters, yet you choose to ignore his post. The last thing this campaign needs is someone as selective with the evidence (or lack of it) as Wratten was for the other side.

I am glad that Mr. Davis has taken an interest in this site. He must be absolutely fuming to have all that detailed and hard work described by Hoon as 'superficial'. My guess as to why Wratten was not involved, is that the MOD know how unconvincing he is.

(edited for typos)

[This message has been edited by Arkroyal (edited 12 December 2000).]

Ben Leice

12th Dec 2000, 16:45

jayteeto,

Thanks very much for the info about the three helicopters. Can you - or anyone else - shed some light, please, on the second Chinook which was seen on the North Antrim coast about 5:30 pm that same evening? It was flying very low from a southerly direction.

jayteeto

12th Dec 2000, 19:47

Yep, no problems. There was NO second Chinook, if it had been serviceable it would have done the trip (ie a Mk 1) The reason they would have probably detoured was because of very poor weather on the East Antrim coast. Those people who do the job will appreciate how we get around bad weather, we LOOK for a better way through. Sometimes you have to turn back and try again. There was also a strong wind, 150 kt groundspeed is perfectly reasonable for the conditions.

ShyTorque

12th Dec 2000, 23:20

I agree that there is no need to look for new evidence, only for another look at the way the OFFICIAL inquiry was over-ruled by those with a strongly vested interest in the outcome of it.

Messrs Wratten and Day would have been responsible for appointing the members of the BOI, either directly or indirectly. By publically denouncing them on television and in the papers, Wratten has now showed them the same level of support given to the unfortunate crew - Absolutely NIL.

I don't see that there is any point in involving Mr. Wratten in any further discussions. He is not man enough to admit he has made a mistake. He has strongly re-iterated his opinions on a number of occasions and it would appear he has no intention of changing them. By offering discussion he possibly seeks only to attempt to more widely ratify his view-point.

Brian Dixon

13th Dec 2000, 00:43

The irritating sod is back!!

Just to let everyone know that my Hotmail account is back up and running.

Any time you are ready, Mr Wratten!!

Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Ben Leice

13th Dec 2000, 01:27

Jayteeto

Chinook #1 was reported leaving Aldergrove at 5:42 pm and was seen meandering down a glen to Carnlough on the east Antrim coast, past Garron Point and on towards the western side of the Mull.

Chinook #2 was seen about 5:30 pm flying low, in a northerly direction, across the road from Coleraine to Bushmills on the north Antrim coast and skimming over the high ground to the west side of Dunmull. Its camouflage was a fairly sharp patchwork-quilt effect. It may not have taken off from Aldergrove.

rivets

13th Dec 2000, 11:14

Chinook News in todays Electronic Telegraph UK News Section. I'm reserving my judgement.
<A HREF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/" TARGET="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/</A>

[This message has been edited by rivets (edited 13 December 2000).]

Nil nos tremefacit

13th Dec 2000, 16:24

rivets - interesting link.

What if Dr Gadian's theory were correct (and it would be difficult to establish the exact details after all this time), would Bill Wratten admit there was now sufficient doubt to quash his decision?

I'm sure I did lessons on wind-shear, albeit in relation to the jetstream and CBs, in 1982. I seem to recall that a Japanese airliner had it's wings sheared off after it was homed to the middle of a CB that the crew thought was a NDB. Wind-shear is a very dangerous thing that makes life awfully bumpy and occasionally terminal. As Neil Tweedie's article says, a helicopter in such conditions would be in a very poor state.

I still don't think that there's sufficient evidence for Wratten's decision anyway, and Brian is right to urge us to be focussed, but additional information that would allow the airships another get out is always useful.

BEagle

13th Dec 2000, 23:35

Having recently met the good Dr in question purely by circumstance, I can state without fear of contradiction that his multi-dimensional wind shear analysis and rotor streaming work is world leading, extremely analytical and involves some very complex computer work. If he says that the windflow effects near the Mull could be significant, then there is probably no-one sufficiently qualified to challenge his opinion anywhere in the UK. This is a hugely important development and one which Brian should investigate with some urgency.

Brian Dixon

14th Dec 2000, 01:34

Thanks Rivets,
I'm making attempts to make contact with the good doctor. Should anyone have chance to meet him, please pass my e-mail address to him and ask that he contacts me.

I trust the Air Marshals and Ministers will also be taking an interest!!

Regards all
Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Ben Leice

14th Dec 2000, 02:13

You could try [email protected]

If you would like to read about the crash of a microlight due to turbulence on the north coast of County Antrim in June 1999 look at

<A HREF="http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/mar00htm/gbvna.htm" TARGET="_blank">http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/mar00htm/gbvna.htm</A>

[This message has been edited by Ben Leice (edited 13 December 2000).]

Brian Dixon

15th Dec 2000, 23:51

Ben,
thanks for the e-mail address. I'll let you know how I get on, and whether I get a reply.

Regards
Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

pulse1

16th Dec 2000, 13:40

My MP(con) has replied to the effect that it "is imperative that the MoD immediately reopen the inquiry". He also tells me that they are committed to do so when they return to power - sadly not much hope there then.
I will keep up the pressure.

------------------
"If you keep doing what you've always done, you will keep getting what you've always got"

The Mistress

16th Dec 2000, 14:59

Have received replies from the Prime Minister's office, the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence and a Cabinet Minister who is an old mate. The most positive letter in terms of this campaign is that from Iain Duncan Smith:

"Our party's position is that there should be an independent enquiry - I do not prejudge the outcome, we believe it is in the Ministry of Defence's interests to clear the air so that future enquiries are not hamstrung by constant reference to this enquiry.

As an ex-serviceman, I think that the announcement of a new enquiry would only enhance the reputation of the Ministry of Defence rather than damage it. As it stands at the moment this constant attack on the RAF weakens morale and makes servicemen feel that they will not get a fair hearing from a military court, and that is a wrong assumption.

Way to go Iain! You know who to write to guys.

swashplate

16th Dec 2000, 17:56

Everyone here may wish to look in this months 'Pilot' mag, wherin there is a letter about all this along the lines of 'bury your dead and move on'.

See my seperate topic in 'Romours and News'

misterploppy

17th Dec 2000, 15:36

Sunday Telegraph 17 Dec 2000:

Lost note could absolve pilots of Chinook
By Rajeev Syal

A SEARCH has been launched for a letter that could prove the innocence of two RAF Chinook helicopter pilots blamed for causing the deaths of 20 intelligence officers in a crash on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994.
The crew's handwritten and signed note outlining their safety concerns for the aircraft was sent just hours before the disaster, according to Lord Chalfont, the chairman of the House of Lord's defence committee.

The National Audit Office has been asked to conduct the search for the document in RAF archives so that the Ministry of Defence can forestall allegations of a Government cover-up.

The MoD blames Flt Lts Jonathan Trapper and Rick Cook for the disaster. The helicopter crashed while carrying Britain's most senior intelligence officers from Northern Ireland to a meeting in Scotland.

It emerged yesterday that Lord Chalfont was told of the note's existence two weeks ago by a serving senior officer in the RAF who contacted him anonymously. Lord Chalfont said that the Government should reopen its inquiry into the crash.

"I am convinced that this man is telling the truth but, because of the friction over the last inquiry, he does not want to speak on the record and risk his career. The Government must take this seriously. Any new discovery would be of enormous comfort to the pilots' loved ones."

The new witness was told of the note's existence - and was read its contents - just hours before the fatal crash. According to Lord Chalfont, the military record of the witness, who was serving at RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland at the time, is "impeccable". It is understood that the note, sent to senior officers, questioned the safety of computer software that controls fuel flow.

Both pilots were believed to be worried by the new technology in the helicopter's Fadec - full authority digital engine control - system. Hours after the note was sent the helicopter crashed.

The anonymous officer contacted Lord Chalfont two weeks ago after reading reports that Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, had rejected calls from a powerful House of Commons committee for a new inquiry. The public accounts select committee had said that the MoD's ruling is unsustainable because pilot error could not be proved beyond doubt.

Its members had examined the findings of an RAF board of inquiry led by two air marshals. David Davis MP, the chairman of the committee, said that it pointed to "a major miscarriage of justice". Concerns have persisted about the safety of the Chinook since the crash. John Cook, the father of Flt Lt Cook, said: "My boy is a scapegoat for the Government. I hope that they find the note. One wonders what else is hidden away."

Mr Cook, a former training captain on Concorde, added that his son had voiced his concerns about the helicopter's safety record. He said: "He took me for a walk in his garden and told me he was worried about the aircraft and asked me to look after his wife and daughter if anything should happen."

An MoD spokesman urged the anonymous RAF officer to come forward. "This person should be reassured that his career will not be in danger. We want to know the truth."

Skycop

17th Dec 2000, 21:12

Are we are moving forward?

MOD want to know the truth?

Really?

Brian Dixon

17th Dec 2000, 23:13

Dear MoD spokesperson,

If you don't know the truth already, how can you uphold the verdict of negligence???

Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

misterploppy

17th Dec 2000, 23:34

If MoD are that keen, it shouldn't be hard to work out. Wedgie's retired so the possibilities can't range far beyond Mr Blobby, Supermario, OC 230 and SLOps. Hardly a case for Mulder & Scully I would think.

The truth is out there ...

[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 17 December 2000).]

Nil nos tremefacit

18th Dec 2000, 00:38

Given that one of the above 4 is a self-seeking career man (if my Xmas mail is anything to go by), that limits it to 3 at best!

colinj

18th Dec 2000, 01:13

ok, so the Government has now decided that a investigate of matters before the accident. Good, well not only the PTIT(FADEC part fault) needs to be investigated but more importantly the RNS Navi computer fault. In all probablity it was the RNS at fault since if the engines had issues with control etc then it would have been obvious in the flight profile.

The PTIT and RNS faults where all reported to
Eng in NI before the flight.

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

1.3VStall

18th Dec 2000, 15:38

I have just received a reply from 10 Downing Street to my letter sent some time ago. It is from a minion, who points out that BLiar gets many letters and that because of the subject matter my letter has been passed on to the Ministry of Defence to answer.

This, of course conveniently misses the whole point of me writing to the PM - that he is the only person who can over-rule Buff and his cronies. Doh!

pulse1

18th Dec 2000, 16:19

1.3VStall

An MP once told me never to underestimate the value of writing letters to MP's. They feel obliged to reply and it all takes resources which they would rather not have to do. So don't be discouraged and keep writing.

Having said that I have not received any reply from Mr Hoon after three weeks! What does that say about him?

Another action you might like to take is to vote for the "Villian of the Year" through BBC Radio 4 Today. Politicians are exempt but I am sure that you could think of someone else.

------------------
"If you keep doing what you've always done, you will keep getting what you've always got"

attackattackattack

18th Dec 2000, 18:05

Reference the Radio 4 Heroes and villians:

<A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/heroes_and_villains/heroes_and_villains.shtml" TARGET="_blank">http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/heroes_and_villains/heroes_and_villains.shtml</A>

My vote is in!

stiknruda

18th Dec 2000, 18:12

MacGregor my MP has replied to my letter:

"Dear Mr Stik,

Thank you for your letter of 7 December.

I was very interested to see your comments. You will know that we in oppostion have been pursuing this matter and you may have seen that Sir Malcolm Rifkin the former Conservative Secretary of State for Defence, now believes that the matter should now be subjected to a new Inquiry.

I am quite sure that my good friend and colleague, David Davies, who is the Chairman of the Public Inquiries Committee, will be continuing to pursue this. I have in fact already talked to him about it and will do so again.

Yours sincerely,

JM

I await responses from both Hoon and Blair and will write to them again on 7 Jan asking them to explain the lack of response if they have not reverted before.

sNr

Nil nos tremefacit

18th Dec 2000, 19:50

Attack x 3,

I voted. No politicians so I went for a retired Air Chief Marshal (as a villain). Hope I did the right thing. :)

Arkroyal

18th Dec 2000, 20:31

It would appear that Bliar's minions have been busy.

My letter, suggesting that Hoon be sacked, has been forwarded (obviously unread) to Hoon. Will he do the decent thing?

Nice to see we are at least keeping the subject in the politico's eyes.

Brian Dixon

19th Dec 2000, 00:31

My vote's in too. At least he has doubled his vote tally!!

Did you all know that Boards of Inquiry are convened under statutory authority. The rules of procedure provide that the power to convene, or re-open a RAF BoI may be exercised by any two members of the Air Force Board of the Defence Council.

Here's the list of members:

Rt Hon Geoffrey Hoon MP
Secretary of State for Defence

Mr John Spellar MP
Minister of State for the Armed Forces

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
Minister of State for Defence Procurement

Dr Lewis Moonie MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence

Air Chief Marshal Sir Peter Squire
Chief of the Air Staff

Mr R T Jackling
Second Permanent Under Secretary

Air Chief Marshal Sir Anthony Bagnall
Commander-in-Chief Strike Command

Air Marshal Sir John Day
Air Member for Personnel
Commander-in Chief Personnel and Training Command

Air Marshal Sir Peter Norris
Controller Aircraft

Air Vice Marshal G E Stirrup
Assistant Chief of the Air Staff

Air Vice Marshall P W Henderson
Director General of Equipment Support (Air)

Just thought you may like to know.

Well done to all those who have had replies to their letters. Keep up the pressure!! Don't forget to send them stacks of questions as they love to find the answers for you.

Regards
Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

dde0apb

19th Dec 2000, 04:30

I voted too; anything to raise the profile.

I am just an ordinary PPL, but the ramifications of this case are awful. If sensible accident reporting, and learning from the accidents can not happen in the RAF then where can it happen?

And it makes me angry that two innocent men have been villified in this way. What <u>are</> the RAF or the MoD trying to hide. Bad decision making in accepting the Chinook's FADEC etc? Something more "secret" and affecting our National Security? I thought this government was one that believed in Freedom of Information :-(

1.3VStall

19th Dec 2000, 13:49

I just voted for someone called Wratten as the villian of the year. Come on everyone, if he gets enough votes we might just get him an "interrogation" on Radio 4!

John Nichol

19th Dec 2000, 18:44

Voted on R4 as well - keep it up.

Can I sound a note of caution about re-opening BOI? This may not be the best option to pursue - a BOI would be under the control of the RAF and may not be the best thing to clear the guys' names. When you are writing to MPs etc keep the points general - there has been an obvious miscariage of justice on the existing evidence alone; no new evidence is needed.

Get your MP or whoever to support the Mull Of Kintyre Group; Lord Chalfont is pressing for a select committee to re-examine the case. This is by far the best means to bring Wratten & Day to account.

Seasons greetings to all.

Gainesy

19th Dec 2000, 19:18

Voted. Met Mr Wratten once.

The Invisible Man

19th Dec 2000, 19:49

Hope you guys dont mind a civvy commenting here. ( Ex RAF ) Having listened to Hoon and his arrogant comments, I just had to vote for him as villian of the year. If ever there was a miscarriage of justice, this is it.

The Invisible Man

19th Dec 2000, 19:56

Correction to above. Wratten 1 vote

smooth approach

19th Dec 2000, 21:42

Two votes please..

Wratten and, er, Wratten.

Flypro

19th Dec 2000, 22:06

How about posting the phone number for us to vote here??

misterploppy

19th Dec 2000, 22:20

3 guesses as to who got my vote! The URL has changed to the one below:

<A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/heroes_and_villains/hv_home.shtml" TARGET="_blank">http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/heroes_and_villains/hv_home.shtml</A>

Flypro

19th Dec 2000, 22:32

Misterploppy.
Done the deed. Thanks

Special VFR

19th Dec 2000, 22:38

Me too.

FJJP

20th Dec 2000, 00:04

MrP - tvm for h-link. Just what we needed. I, too, done the deed!

:)

FJJP

20th Dec 2000, 00:21

Brian Dixon - just a thort. It BW wins the villain award, or the number of votes triggers R4 to ask some questions anyway, might it not be a good idea to offer a list of questions for John Humpreys to put to the Learned Officer (LO)? Things like, before he can dismiss the Pres of the BOI as a young inexperienced officer, it must mean that LO has a vastly superior knowledge of helio ops, and must have many more rotary quals, etc etc - get the drift?

If we formulate the queries, JH and his team could well supplement the push for an independent inquiry, at the same time possibly widening the forum audience and bringing more into the fold.

I think you would get general agreement from forum contributers that you would be the one to co-ord and push this one through, if you have a mind to....

prestbury boy

20th Dec 2000, 00:34

Another vote for Wrotten. Lets hope 2001 brings him squirming in to the public eye and justice gets done.

Brian Dixon

20th Dec 2000, 00:39

FJJP,

yep, though of that. I've mailed Radio 4 to say that if Billy Boy wins the prize, they might like to contact me to find out why he is so popular.

If anyone has a question that they would like me to put forward please let me have them. However, please note - the why is he such a *$&@!. is not really a good question http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

Seasons greetings to all, and thanks for your support.

Regards all
Brian
[email protected]

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Why oh why can't I spell!!!!!!!!!

[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 19 December 2000).]

Capt Homesick

20th Dec 2000, 06:44

As a civilian pilot, I was a bit hesitant about posting here. However, here goes:
If Machrihanish was the destination, and the flight was to be conducted under radar, the verdict of "gross negligence" is not only not proven, but becomes the least likely possibility. Instead of a safe route offshore, the crew have to negotiate a path into an airfield with extensive nearby high ground, both to the north and south.
I spent some time at Mac, on UAS camps and later flying in on scheduled airline services. Even in summer, when the whole UK seemed to be cavok, Machrihanish seemed to have a dedicated cloud on the morning TV forecast.
The reliability of satnav systems is fantastic- until the day they fail. Last year I was on an RNAV route over the Alps, on a section with no terrestrial backup. As usual, we were using GPS. Radar called us to confirm our track- although both pilots checked the route in the RNAV, we were 40 miles off track! We continued using vectors until we could start using VORs at Kloten- on landing at ZRH the RNAV gave us a position 70 miles to the east! All, of course, with no indication of failure. Our avionics engineers THOUGHT that condensation inside the aerial might have been the cause- of course, by the time they looked, any such condensation had evaporated. Add the previously reported UFCMs, and you have all the required factors to suddenly overload the crew, even if the aircraft remained theoretically controllable.
None of this, however, contradicts the whole basis of this topic- without positive evidence, the BOI's verdict should have been allowed to stand by their Airships.
BTW, voted!