Chinook - Hit Back Here [Archive]

Jackonicko

22nd Jun 2000, 00:44

You blokes slag off the press for getting it wrong and here is a journalist (ex-Aircrew), doing the right thing and trying to get expert help and input. He may or may not have £ucked up in the Gulf War (even if he did it's ten years ago) and he may have quite naturally basked in the media spotlight, but he's doing a good job now, isn't sheltering behind some anonymous username, and is honest and upfront about what he wants.

The only thing he has done wrong is to open another bleedin' thread on the Chinook, when it would be more convenient for all of us if there was just the one.

But if I might chuck in my two-pennorth, I'd like to know the answers to these questions.

1) To what extent is Wratten's case a self-interested one? If the more logical explanation is true, how much $hit sticks to him?

2) Did Boscombe Down not give it an MAR? Why not? Did they give it a Service Deviation (if so why?, and were they pressured to do so?)?

3) Is there any truth in the story that the TPs at Boscombe had refused to fly the HC.Mk 2?

4) What did Odiham's then TP think of it?

5) Why did we buy a Chinook 2 with DECS when the RAF's engineers had suggested that this was unnecessary, insufficiently mature, and likely to be prone to trouble?

YO-YO Are you certain enough (and the BOI's verdict required absolute certainty) that it was negligence. A gut feeling on the basis of the evidence (and/or knowledge of the blokes involved) isn't enough. I'm not being aggressive, but how can you ignore the whole DECS issue as a potential factor, Boscombe's supposed lack of faith, etc.

PS: John Nichol, E-Mail me your contact details and I'll happily give you a bell. Alternatively, Andy G at R4 Today may have some good contacts after his piece.

[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 21 June 2000).]

Mr.Proach

22nd Jun 2000, 00:53

John,
Loads of respect to you for actually trying to do something positive in support of the guys at the sharp end. I see that you've only recently started putting posts on this forum, whether you've read other posts I clearly don't know, but my advice would be to read Strimmer Trimmers post on "The state of the Nation". A very well thought out and clearly stated article which has struck a cord with members of all services. Time permitting you should download this and use it.You are a well known personality with which Joe P can identify. I am fully prepared to give as much help as is required to make military aviation a safe and rewarding career once again. If you feel that there is potential in bringing the abysimal state of our forces into the public domain in an attempt to shock politicians into action, then please do so, for all our sakes.Any info you require don't hesitate to contact me/us here.

Strewth Mate

22nd Jun 2000, 01:11

I'm too youthful in service terms to offer anything of personal value to your background research. Having said that, last year in the F.I's the Defence Select Committee asked specific questions in regards to the views and opinions of the current Chinook crews on this matter.

For background, see articles in a newspaper called 'ComputerWekly' dates: 18May00; 01Jun00; and 15Jun00. I'm not sure if the articles are available on line, but the web site is: www.computerweekly.com. (http://www.computerweekly.com.)

I accept the diretion of the equirery and the proposed retort, but lets not forget that there were four aircrew killed on that helicopter.

Good luck

[This message has been edited by Strewth Mate (edited 21 June 2000).]

massingbird

22nd Jun 2000, 01:31

"As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions."

Let's all be careful and think about what we're saying - and to whom we're saying it.

Ex Truck

22nd Jun 2000, 01:31

First off, I really cannot understand why Bill Wratten has put his head above the parapet. I his position Iwould certainly have kept out of it on the basis that little or no good could come of joining the fray. However, that's history. An area which I think you could usefully include in whatever you write is the Tench report. In the late eighties William Tench, then Chief Inspector of Civil Aircraft Accidents (eg head of AAIB)was appointed by Lord Trefgarne, then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, to review Service Board of Inquiry procedures. This report - allegedly damning - was never published. I have always myself thought that BofIs were inherantly flawed, and there are numerous examples of AOCs and CinCs overruling findings. I strongly suspect that Tench found the same flaws. You could try contacting Ron MacDonald, Richard Hadlow or Ralph Kohn at RAes; they were the joint authors of the unofficial report which so upset BW, and they quoted a paragraph from Tench, so they presumably saw the report. On the basics of the Chinook case, I have yet to be persuaded one way or the other, but there are very many things which I don't know, but I do find flying in those conditions at that height and speed a bit hard to blame on a possible FADEC problem; on the other hand, gross negligence against victims of the crash is very hard to swallow.

Wee Weasley Welshman

22nd Jun 2000, 10:07

GA and MM. By legit I intended to reasure people that this actually is John Nichol and that he really is working for the Sunday Times. I checked. Anonymous forum, people not who they claim to be etc. etc.

MM - little old me whipping up a frenzy of emotion? Overstatement I would say.

My personal interest lies in friends I have who are service pilots (all 3), the great number of rotary crews I have had the privildge to fly with over the years and a keen sense of fair play.

WWW

bearb8er

22nd Jun 2000, 10:17

What will Rolls-Royce think about all this adverse publicity surrounding Wratten?

John Nichol

22nd Jun 2000, 11:57

Thanks so far guys,

Not that I should bother but, in reply to QB, I'm not sure how much I will get paid for the article and re the Ben Fund, I would estimate that I have raised many thousands of pounds by signing prints at airshows and going around with buckets.

Mr P, thanks for the note; I've followed pprune for quite a while now and read all of the posts, especially at Rotorheads, on this subject.

As I said, I know there will be critics but I have worked many, many hours (unpaid QB!) on this alongside the Tapper family because I feel a grave injustice was done.

[This message has been edited by John Nichol (edited 22 June 2000).]

kbf1

22nd Jun 2000, 12:42

People, do you think we could stop dragging up ancient history? John at least you are both willing and able to stand up and be counted where the rest of us are unable!

As I mentioned in a previous post, there was a good documentary on either BBC2 or Ch4 that dug deeper into the findings of the BOI. They examined the motivations of key people in the MOD and OAC's and the influence they exerted on the BOI where their personal reputations were placed at stake on getting FADEC into service. They then examined the technical failures of the kit and the problems the USAF have had with it. Then they looked at the influence the various manufacturers played on the MOD/BOI to come down with a negligence finding against the pilots to get them off the hook. They were worried that a finding against them would hit their foreign sales in a tmie when the "peace dividend" was hitting their profit margins.

I hope this helps. The crews and families deserve better, cinicism here doesn't help

------------------
Remember: all landings are controlled crashes!

John Farley

22nd Jun 2000, 16:19

John Nichol

I am sure you realise that for an article to be effective in refuting Bill Wratton’s, you will have to do more than reiterate the fact that there was no physical evidence for the finding - because the author never said there was.

So you will have to come up with something new, or at the least (IMHO) answer questions like those in my post here (made by chance the day before the article came out)

To make life easier here is a copy of that post, please read it carefully John, because I wanted to give the crew every possible benefit of the doubt:

Copy

It is with great fear and trepidation that I write this in case it will upset several contributors to this and the earlier threads – but I would genuinely like people’s views on the following couple of points.

If the system ordered the chaps to fly the wrong aircraft for all the wrong reasons on the wrong job and left them with no alternative but to do it at low level (and for the record I do NOT find it impossible to believe that it might have) then the first thing I have difficulty with is why the trip was not aborted at some stage after getting airborne and before there was any risk of getting to the high ground on track? (horse to water stuff)

Surely all of us agree that any modern military aeroplane is sufficiently complex that it is not difficult to find fault with it after getting airborne. Even if calling the fault has an element of judgement in it (which will be queried back on the ground) surely any crew that has reached the stage of doing a trip like this is both up to and entitled to such a call?

I guess that makes me feel the chaps were content to carry on.

But say I am totally wrong, and they were very unhappy (but did not think of the above way out) then would we not all slow down a bit or change track when approaching the land?

NB I am NOT saying it was their fault. I am just pointing out what a terrible and genuine puzzle the whole tragedy has become.

Perhaps that is why the topic will not go away - it is simply one of the most uncertain aviation accidents so far. So many things do not add up (including my two points above?).

End of copy

Good luck John, I don’t envy you your task.

John F

Paul Wesson

22nd Jun 2000, 17:09

John N.

E-mail me. Have some possibly useful info.

PW

[This message has been edited by Paul Wesson (edited 22 June 2000).]

BinRoundabit

22nd Jun 2000, 17:15

John.
In my heart o hearts I hope and believe that it was FADEC or avionics loading failure. However, one has to consider a scenario (one of many)that may fit the facts as recorded by the BOI. In the eyes of the revered audience in the back of the cab the crew had, (but really had'nt) "SF/Gulf War" background. They may have felt honour bound to prove their capabilities to perform in such a manner for these not uninfluential pax, as indeed many of us have in the past. The majority of us across all types havepushed weather limits before to get the job done or impress!
As I said, it's another scenario to fit the facts.
Want to talk? Let me know.

Cornish Jack

22nd Jun 2000, 17:42

Don't know what your time-scale is for this article but if time were not the major concern, I would look at a couple of accidents where I see some parallels - ANZ's DC10 into Mt Erebus and (recently mentioned in the famous Dining-in night thread), the Vulcan at LHR.
Not parallels for the same reason, of course but the original Erebus verdict was as suspect(subsequently proved to be so) as the Chinook and those of us who were at the coal-face in the 50's would still view the Vulcan verdict as 'interesting'

John Nichol

22nd Jun 2000, 20:45

John Farley and BinRound,

Your points are well made and legitimate.

BinR - what you say is true, but my point is that there is no evidince to say that it happened. I know that all of us accept that good aviators can make mistakes but in this case we simply don't know what happened and that is enough to avoid the final verdict of gross negligence.

Could it have been a UCFM? Could it have been a lose article? Could it have been a FADEC failure or any other fault that left no trace. I don't know the answer to these questions. More importantly I don't say that it is impossible that the crew were at fault - simply that there is no evidence that they were.

John F - Your comments are valid but they pre-supose that everything was hunky dory in the aircraft. We simply do not know what was going on in the cockpit. You ask, "why did they not change track"? Just suppose they were unable to. In many ways you answer your own questions "it is one of the most uncertain aviation accidents".

This is the crux of the matter, no CVR and ADR mean no solid info. All that remains is speculation as Andy Pulford the BoI president admitted.

Speculation is fine, indeed it is paramount to ensure lessons are learned. Speculation is not evidence enough to trash the reputations of two good pilots.

PS. jackonicko, not sure exactly how I "£ucked up in the War". Let's start a new thread on that, just for fun eh?

cheers all

Hoist-to-Crew

22nd Jun 2000, 20:51

Remember reading in a computer magazine(think it was computer weekly but can't honestly say) last year about Chinook computer problems. It stated that in the states a couple of chinny's had rolled inverted when certain error code appeared on the fadec. One crew managed to get it the right way round again and crawl out of the wreckage. Is it not possible that we may have had a similar problem here or if not then something for the future? Being inverted in a helo at low-level would certainly focus my mind on something else rather than the fog bank rapidly approaching.

smooth approach

22nd Jun 2000, 20:52

Guys, let's get back to basics. The ac hit the ground at pretty close to normal cruising speed. Rick and John didn't avoid until it was too late. Therefore the logical conclusion has to be one of the following:

a. They were sitting "picking their noses".

b. Something was going on within the cockpit.

With a lack of physical evidence to prove either 'a' or 'b' the conclusion must be NPD. Let's not get sidetracked by FADEC. FADEC is only one of the many possible technical problems.

PS How secret was the conference in Scotland? Suppose it was just a jolly to say goodbye to a couple of people leaving the NI Security Forces.

Junglie

22nd Jun 2000, 21:12

John

Well done, this is obviously the place to get the feeling of the current aircrew, without visiting the crewrooms of all the front line Squadrons. Feelings on this one? One word Disgusted. With all the factors involved with this tragic accident and all the links of the chain i.e. Questions about FADEC, the crews reluctance to fly the MK 2 across the board and the huge pressure whether exerted or not from above to get this massively high profile task done. I have not recently re-read the BOI findings but as i understand it the call of negligence did not come from Andy Pulford but higher up. Yeah thanks very much, so if i make a mistake(and i'm not saying the boys did) and take some VVIPS into a hillside and no one knows what really happened is this the trend now? Will i get hung out to dry? Will my family suffer the awful trauma on top of my death of being told i was grossly negligent?? Where is our back up? In fact if no one is going to protect the people they get to carry out these ill advised missions in both peace and war why do we do it? This is a tragic illustration of lack of some dynamic leadership. Why is the CO of their Squadron? The Station Commander and the boss of the Air Force not screaming for justice and stop this ridiculous witch hunt and have this thrown out.

Loyalty works BOTH ways or so i thought!!

Jackonicko

22nd Jun 2000, 22:40

John,

Please forgive any previous mention of £uck-ups.

Edited as per Liam's request. Had thought this was common knowledge. I've even seen it in print. But your reaction makes me withdraw it and apologise unreservedly.

That OK?

[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 22 June 2000).]

ShyTorque

23rd Jun 2000, 00:27

John,

For this to progress, questions need to be asked on the lines of the following:

Did the Chinook MK2 have a full release to service? IF NOT, WHY NOT and who sanctioned it entering squadron service? Is this allowed under RAF regulations and has it been allowed before? Why had test flying been suspended at Boscombe Down? What limitations were placed on the aircraft as a type and on the airframe in question? What deferred defects were in the tech. log? Was there an IFR option for the crew of the aircraft in question? Is it true that the navigation equipment on this aircraft had been prone to unresolved errors prior to the final flight? Is it true that the board of inquiry found evidence that there may have been an intercom problem which may have prevented proper communication between the pilot responsible for navigation and the pilot flying?

Who commanded this crew to fly this sortie on this aircraft? What was the purpose of the flight?
Bearing in mind the "high military value" of the passengers, why were they not flown airport to airport in a fully proven aircraft type (including fixed wing, planned IFR transit)?

If mistakes were made in the way this or any other aircraft type entered into service, who in the hierarchy of the RAF would be held responsible (or perhaps even NEGLIGENT)? If errors were made in the way this flight was ordered and authorised, who would have been responsible?

I am sure we know the answers to most, if not all of these questions.

Good luck with your article, John. Please make it a good one.

[This message has been edited by ShyTorque (edited 25 August 2000).]

ShyTorque

23rd Jun 2000, 00:41

Jackonicko,

It's up to JN to reply if he wishes to take your bait but could that be left for a different forum so as not to divert attention from the main issue on this one?

p.s. John, can you remember anything about the Coningsby PU after the open day in 1993? Er, No, I thought not!

Whoops, Oh bu**er, now I'm doing it, too!

[This message has been edited by ShyTorque (edited 22 June 2000).]

John Nichol

23rd Jun 2000, 17:27

Thanks for everything guys; it's now on the editor's desk so we shall see if it makes the final cut on Sunday. Regarding the comments about simplification; it's important to remember that we are trying to raise the awareness in the minds of the general population - not experienced aircrew.

Jack & Liam. I really am not offended by the comments; I've heard them many times before made by both friend and foe.

I am more than happy to give a detailed account of what went on on the 17th Jan 91 but I don't think this is the thread for my story. If anyone wants to open a fresh one with a question I will be more than happy to answer the points as honestly as I can. Perhaps we all might learn something. No problem either way.

I'm away all weekend now (at Waddington if anyone is going and fancies a beer) but will be back Sunday PM.

Thanks again.

JN

[This message has been edited by John Nichol (edited 23 June 2000).]

twinboom

23rd Jun 2000, 23:38

J. Nichol. Pse. see my post on WWW's similar thread - although I fear it has come too late for your copy date?

(To answer a much earlier question.
Bill Wratten has been retired some time now so, it would seem to me, has no 'side' in this other than that which he declares in his S.Times piece.)

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

Bag Man

24th Jun 2000, 20:17

John

There seems to be a disproportionate amount of time and effort going into the "let's blame A to protect B" theories.

The issue here is one of preventing this loss of life from happening again. The "links in the chain" need to be identified and published for the benefit of all. Pilots being found 'grossly negligent' (whatever the military definition) is of no use in preventing a repeat performance.

Let us know why this aircraft was in cloud, below SALT, and carrying every VIP in NATO?

[This message has been edited by Bag Man (edited 25 June 2000).]

bearb8er

25th Jun 2000, 03:05

For John's 25 Jun 00 Sunday Times article, see http://www.sunday-times.co.uk and look under 'Review' for the item 'The crash looks very different from the cockpit'.

[This message has been edited by bearb8er (edited 24 June 2000).]

Brian Dixon

30th Jun 2000, 00:38

Firstly I fel that I should point out that I am not a pilot and accept that I am somewhat of an intruder to this site. I used to work with Rick and Jon and have been fighting the ludicrous decision of the BOI reviewing officers since the findings were announced.

I have been campaigning to the best of my ability and am not the most popular bloke to be in regular contact with the Defence Minister. My MP is fully supportive and has helped me to get issues raised in the House.

Being a non pilot, I would like permission from those qualified to use this site, to air my views and ask for help on this site. Samples of my work can be found on the following site: www.pm.gov.uk (http://www.pm.gov.uk) - Your Say - Speakers Corner - Defence - Chinook Crash (Several folders).

I am well versed in this incident and work closely with many people including Rick's father, John.

There is a new group which has formed, called the Mull of Kintyre Group and I would ask that you contact your own MP's and ask them to register their support with the office of Lord Chalfont. Also ask them to raise your concerns with Minister Hoon. I'm sure he will be delighted to receive some more correspondence on this issue.

I will await replies to this posting before continuing.

Respectfully
Brian Dixon

Rock & A Hardplace

30th Jun 2000, 00:58

Brian

I am not going to pretend to know anything about this emotive subject. Therefore, will not comment, apart from congratulating John and you for striving to find out the truth.

However, a question on the link to "Speakers Corner", have you received any feed back from your comments on this forum from the government. As I have posted there in the past and received none whatsoever.

Brian Dixon

30th Jun 2000, 18:14

Thanks for your congratulations. I have never had any replies from the Government on the web site either, but they do have a disclaimer stating that they are read (yeh right).
That's why I result to good old fashioned pen and paper and e-mails direct to the MPs themselves. The good thing is, they don't like the e-mails. Shame!
Hoon has a letter from me at the moment asking 13 direct questions such as why has the Tench report not been published, Why have black boxes yet to be fitted to Chinooks, Is AVM Day one of the individuals responsible for authorising into service the Mk 2 as well as being one of the reviewing officers of the BOA as well as being one of those able to recommend the re-opening of the Inquiry? I'll keep you all up to date when (if) I get the replies.

Finally, a question to you all out there. How would you feel if you were made to fly an aircraft which was not issued with current flight reference cards? Think about it and perhaps ask some questions.

Regards to all.
Brian

Tandemrotor

2nd Jul 2000, 01:23

Well said Junglie. Take it from me, thoughts exactly like yours exercised the minds of those that died on 2 Jun 94.

Let's look at the main allegation:

The a/c was too fast, too low in poor weather.

1) Too fast; the AAIB estimate from ground witness marks, the spread of wreckage, and some slightly unclear witness marks on flight instruments that the a/c impacted the Mull at an approx groundspeed of 150 kts. A computer model from Boeing, suggests a requirement for a pre-existing IAS of 150kts 2.9 secs prior to impact. A DRA computer model (not based on a chinook at all) appears to support the the Boeing version.The only other evidence regarding speed comes from a yachtsman, who sees the a/c 2 miles from the Mull, and suggests it was flying no faster than many RN Seakings he has seen in the area, he estimates that speed to be 60-90kts.

No other evidence whatsoever, real or imagined, exists to tell us what speed the a/c was flying at as it approached the Mull.

The suggestion that the a/c was attempting a cruise climb at this speed (5kts short of vne) is 'unrecognisable as a chinook technique'. -Not my words, but the words of the Stn Cdr RAF Odiham, Gp Cpt Crawford, in his remarks as the first reviewing officer to the Board of Inquiry.

2) Too low; the Auth sheets for the trip show a standard NI authorisation regarding altitude. apart (obviously) from the moment of impact, there is no evidence whatsoever that the a/c crew exceeded the auth at any time. Okay the a/c was flying below MSA when it crashed, but that only becomes relevant when the weather precludes flight in accordance with VFR! So the key becomes, how certain can we be of the weather being experienced by the crew as they approached the Mull?

3) It has become received wisdom that the crew pressed on in crap weather, right. Well actually, again, this version of events doesn't quite stack up. The crap weather was present in the form of localised hill fog on the hillside of the Mull, as reported by numerous witnesses that day, but that is of very little relevance to our crew in the a/c. probably of more relevance is the view of a witness in NI, looking towards the cloud shrouded landmass of the Mull as the accident a/c overflys her house. More relevant still, is the evidence of our yachtsman (who as you may recall sees the a/c 2 miles from the accident site). In sworn evidence to the FAI, he states that he can clearly see the coastline of the Mull upto the wall surrounding the Mull lighthouse (300' above sea level), but more than that, he believes the crew of the a/c could see it too!

Many pilots would agree that the widely quoted 'waypoint change' simply reinforces the idea that the crew had sighted their turning point, and had dispensed with the nav data associated with that position. What their plan then was, is of course speculation, but it doesn't seem beyond the bounds of possibility that they intended to continue at low level, over the sea, along the western coastline of the Mull. As for exactly what happened next, I can only say I do not know. But knowing the appalling state of the Mk2 chinook at that time, it seems to me to be quite plausible that any climb or entry into cloud may not have been a deliberate choice, or act on the part of the two pilots.

In any event, it is impossible to recreate the sequence of events leading up to the crash with any degree of certainty. It is absolutely crazy, without the benefit of survivors, eye witnesses, voice or data recorders, radar traces or radio calls, to suggest that there is absolutely no doubt WHATSOEVER that these deceased pilots were negligent.

But don't believe me, get a full copy of the report. I'm sure the MOD would be delighted to provide a copy to anyone and everyone, as they are completely confident that they have got it right, and I am just a wilfully ignorant mischief maker.

When you read it, bear in mind that Wg Cdr Pulford did an excellent job in pieceing together, what even the AAIB describe, as their most difficult investigation to date. But he and his team did not find the 2 pilots negligent, indeed, he said they should not be criticised for human failings. Presumably, he appreciated that the limited amount of evidence failed to satisfy the standard of proof required to find negligence, even though he had a duty so to find.

After that other reviewing officers also failed to attribute the crash to pilot negligence, though they too had the same duty so to find.

As we all know, the Fatal Accident Inquiry in Scotland also failed to find persuasive evidence to criticise the pilots.

Sadly the news for messrs Wratten and Day is that they are the ones looking more and more isolated. It is they who are out of step with the evidence, and not the growing number who disagree with them.

Sir Wratten should consider himself fortunate to be able to defend himself in public, and give his version of events. Those at the very heart of this case have never enjoyed that luxury.

[This message has been edited by Tandemrotor (edited 03 July 2000).]

Tandemrotor

2nd Jul 2000, 01:36

keep this running

bytio

2nd Jul 2000, 17:10

Its good to see that there is still a strong feeling about this case, and hope that it continues until the gov't are forced to recognise how unjust the result was.
I have flown with Rick, John, and the not too often mentioned crewmen Graham Forbes and Kevin Hardie.

Anyone who has flown in a multi crew environment must realise the difference that a strong and capable crew can make to the safety and success of a flight. The rear crew on this flight have been virtually considered irrelevant to the safety of that flight as they would be (as AVM Day thought) too busy looking after the passengers.
I know that if Kevin or Graham were unhappy about the weather and the continued safety of the flight there is no way that they would have sat back without saying anything. I feel sure Rick and John would have reacted accordingly.

My point here is that AVM Day treated this flight as if it was two crew and not four thus not having a grasp of the way this crew and others work together as a team. If you were in the back seat of a car about to turn onto the motorway against the flow of traffic I feel sure we would all encourage the driver to change his mind!

Brian Dixon

7th Jul 2000, 22:42

On 13 June Mr Tom Brake MP asked the question: "To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department requires manufacturers to provide complete flight reference cards prior to releasing an aircraft into operational service; if the Chinook Mk2 had a complete set of flight reference cards at the time of the fatal crash of ZD576 in June 1994; and if these included drills covering the possibility of FADEC malfunctions."

Minister Spellar replied: "All manufacturers of new Ministry of Defence aircraft are continually required to provide full aircrew documentation prior to release to operational service. This documentation included both Aircrew Manual and Flight Reference Cards. The Chinook Mk2 had a complete set of Flight Reference Cards in June 1994. This contained all the normal and emergency operating drills in force at that time, including drills for a possible FADEC malfunction."

Having campaigned for the past 5+ years, I was under the impression that some of the flight manuals had pages which stated "To be issued" where flight emergency information should have been. Is there anyone out there who can clarify this matter for me. Has Minister Spellar made a mistake, or have I got it wrong. I thought that someone had testified at the BOI and the Fatal Accident Inquiry that not all emergency information had been issued. All seems a bit fishy to me. Still, the campaign goes on.......

MTP

7th Jul 2000, 23:41

Hoist-to-crew

Ref your comments about the inverted US Chinooks - I am aware of 2 accidents recently involving inverting CH47s. The first one was a standard D model which rolled 360 after the flying controls locked. It came wings level again at about 200 feet and the crew were able to land (and change their shorts!). The other was an E-model which rolled when IMC in a CB. They had lost their instruments (glass) and got disorientated after a lightning strike. While inverted they pulled max power for an abort with obvious consequences.

With regards FADEC in these cases - the US army D model doesn't have FADEC. The current E-models have newer and better engines with excellent FADEC software. I believe, but don't know for certain, that the older Es were also sans FADEC. In any case it is not possible for a FADEC error to invert the aircraft. The FADEC (despite the many serious bugs when it was introduced) has some authority over the engines individually and also the RRPM but cannot affect the flying controls or provide asymetric lift.

Thanks for your work on this one John. I haven't seen the article (is there a link available?) but I hope it appeared in full and will have the desired effect. I hope also that it was able to put the 'safety altitude' point to rest. Many people seem to think that they were trogging along at 150 kts IAS in IMC at low level. I believe 150 kts GS with a 20-30 kt tailwind in VMC (until the last second or two) is more accurate.

BossEyed

8th Jul 2000, 18:50

I see from the "Pilot" magazine website that in the August issue (published 21 July) there is an article entitled "Why those Chinook pilots were negligent" - Sir William Wratten defends his conclusions on this tragedy.

Don't know if this is a new piece, or a reprint of the Sunday Times article.

MTP - I believe all MH-47Es had/have FADEC equipped 714 engines.

------------------
BossEyed 8-)

BossEyed

8th Jul 2000, 18:57

Oh, and the same issue of "Pilot" also has an article on some obscure Internet organisation. Why they let this guff clutter up the print media, I don't know ;-)
http://www.pilotweb.co.uk/conaug00.htm

------------------
BossEyed 8-)

Corona Blue

8th Jul 2000, 23:20

Hoist-to-crew

The US Army chinook that turned inverted unexpectedly (not the IMC one) was thought to have been caused by contaminated hydraulic fluid in the Flt control system. This could have easily led to undemanded control inputs. This is much less likely to occur unexpectedly in RAF chinooks as the hydraulic fluid is regularly sampled and tested to ensure it is not contaminated.

As to the link with a FADEC code there is no thing the FADEC does that could IMHO affect the Flying control inputs.

Hope this dispels any confusion.

Arkroyal

28th Jul 2000, 14:48

John, and all

A bit late I know for this one, but I’ll just put in my two pennorth.

Seems to me that we are all running around in circles trying to find fault with the aircraft (difficult with no FDR), with the Certification of the Mk 2 (fairly obvious), or with the Authorisation of the flight (looks OK)

Whatever the Cause, the crux of the problem I have with the BOI findings is the enormous difference between ERROR and GROSS NEGLIGENCE. Now I’m not saying that the guys screwed up, but if they did, it was an error, with many factors contributing, and NOT negligence, gross or otherwise.

So why would the MOD find Gross Negligence?

MONEY

I remember from my days in the Junglies, when the MOD lost its immunity from being pursued in the courts for damages. It was said at the time that from then on we pilots would now be personally responsible for any accident and any claims from pax.

The squadron response was ‘f*** that then, we ain’t carryin’ them then.’

The reply was that ‘Of course chaps we only mean that in the case of Gross Negligence, and you won’t be doing any of that will you?’

Very next major fatal and guess what.........

A friend’s relative was one of the hapless pax on this trip, and MOD is trying to limit their liability for damages, suggesting the family sue the pilots’ estates.

Apologies as a late scanner of the Military forum if this has been said before.

Remember.................

Only two things fly at night:

Bats and T*ats

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

PurplePilot

28th Jul 2000, 17:02

Another late-comer to the site, having only read about PPrune in Pilot this month. Was on SF until shortly before the crash, and had been an instructor at Shawbury just as Jon was going through the course. Which should identify me to all concerned...

Nothing Chinook-specific to add - better people than me have stood up in court and done their best to correct Day's and Wrotten's dreadful misdeeds. I would like to point out, though, that there is a precedent for a botched intro-to-UK service of a new variant of an existing heli. Anyone remember when the Lynx Mk 7 came into service? Just like the Mk2 Chinook, there were no FRCs, no ODM and little else of use to the front-line pilots. I'd love to see what was made of all this in the Army's BofI/investigation into the Mk7 crash at SPTA around mid-89. Were any lessons drawn from this mishandled intro which could have saved HM Forces further grief at Chinook MLU time?

fobotcso

3rd Aug 2000, 21:59

May I ask a question about this and at the same time bring this topic to the fore again?
I wasn't sure which was the best of the many threads dealing with the subject to use so I chose JN's.

I don't know anything about this accident or the Chinook but I did do a few BOI's in my time and I know the countryside where it happened. And I haven't read Bill Wratten's article 'cos its not on the Web yet. All I know for sure is that I have always felt the same anger and frustration as you all about the injustice of branding the pilots as "grossly negligent" without substantial supporting evidence.

But I don't know what "gross negligence" is in this context. It sounds to me like an emotive description. Is there a way in which a BOI could arrive at that conclusion through the weighing of evidence? Had a pilot survived, would he have faced a Court Martial charge of "gross negligence" as defined in MAFL? If so, how is it defined legally?

In my day (sorry!) I seem to remember that there were two kinds of negligence at which BOIs could arrive.

Excusable negligence; where the person - later the accused - had tried to do something for which he did not have the skill (but didn't realise that he didn't have the skill). This was always a difficult one to wrestle with.

Culpable (blameworthy) negligence where the accused had failed to exercise a skill which he possessed and therefore caused the accident (or whatever event brought about the BOI). MAFL contained a suitable Section which I have long since forgotten.

Assume that gross and culpable negligence are the same. Since we can never know what situation the crew had to deal with, how can be sure that they had the skill to deal with it? We can't. I follows that, since we can't be sure that they had the skill (in spite of their very high status), how can they be found culpably (or grossly) negligent?

Has all this changed? What are the lower categories of negligence than "gross"? And is there a new "flowpath" through which a BOI can "navigate" using the evidence to arrive at conclusions about negligence?

I would be grateful if someone could explain this.

fob

[This message has been edited by fobotcso (edited 03 August 2000).]

Jeep

3rd Aug 2000, 22:30

PP if you were refering to a MK 7 crash at STANTA and not SPTA then please email me.

Jackonicko

6th Aug 2000, 03:20

Any views on the allegation that the RAF's own engineers were hostile to procuring a Mk 2 Chinook with FADEC at all, preferring a CH-47D type solution?

jayteeto

7th Aug 2000, 22:46

John, I was with the boys on the day and walked out to the ac with John Tapper, I'm not happy with the BOI and most of the sqn boys agree, however , just accept it. We all have our opinions, the system will NEVER accept that it was wrong, let them rest in peace knowing that those who matter will never doubt them

Brian Dixon

7th Aug 2000, 22:59

Jayteeto

As far as I can see, you've walked out on Jon Tapper, not with him.
Do you seriously believe that Jon and Rick deliberately flew into the Mull of Kintyre? If not you cannot support the findings of the BoI.
I, and many others, will not give up on Jon or Rick until the their names have been cleared. I'm not scared of the challenge.

Should I wish you luck in any forthcoming promotion?????

ShyTorque

8th Aug 2000, 01:25

Brian and others,

Lets please again clarify one thing. I am certain you are personally aware of this but lets ensure that others reading this are too. The BOI did NOT find reason to blame the crew. This was over-ruled at a higher level. The over-ruling was done by officers with their own careers possibly at stake if further and broader investigation were to take place. In this case the military system of investigating its own accidents is flawed.

The background to the aircraft being in service at all needs further investigation because this was an organisational accident waiting to happen if ever there was one. The fact that it happened to any particular crew does not change that.

Those with a personal axe to grind about the relative flying abilities of groups of individuals should keep their noses out until they at least have read the report of the BOI and have a basic grasp of the factors involved.

Someone is being protected and it smells bad.

Brian Dixon

8th Aug 2000, 01:51

ShyTorque

Yep, point well made. I did know that the findings of the BoI were over-ruled by self serving individuals. I just got carried away as a result of the posting by jayteeto.

I, for one, will not allow this matter to just fade away. I recall Rick used to fight with the Boss if he believed in something. So I don't for one minute think he would have let this go if someone else had been in his seat.

A gentle reminder to get your MPs to register their support for the Mull of Kintyre Group via the office of Lord Chalfont is again slipped in as a subliminal message!

Regards
Brian

jayteeto

8th Aug 2000, 03:29

I'm not getting promoted and I certainly don't like the BOI result - It stinks!! I leave the RAF next year because of things like this. All I'm saying is the b****rds will not admit they are wrong. The important people (us) know the score

WebPilot

8th Aug 2000, 20:20

Was this information known? (apologies if duplication). Found on Reuters. I can post the full article if wanted...

Jane's Defence Weekly

24/07/2000 UK: UK REFUSES TO ACCEPT NEW CHINOOKS.

By PAUL BEAVER JDW Special Correspondent London.
UK defence officials have formally refused to accept delivery of the first of eight special operations configured Boeing Chinook Mk3 helicopters...
The UK Chinooks will be not compatible with the US Army Special Operations Command's MH-47E Chinooks because there have been several changes to the equipment carried, including weather radar, radar warning receivers, communications sets and navigation sensors. This is thought to have caused some of the problems currently being experienced by Boeing.
According to the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) the delay has been caused by software problems. Although they are regarded as "minor problems", the Chinook Mk3 programme is "not on a critical path to achieving its introduction into service".
A Boeing spokesman denied there is a major problem with the programme adding that the helicopters are nearing completion with the first due to be delivered at the end of the year....
"The eight helicopters are currently parked at the factory awaiting US government assurances on their build quality," according to a senior MoD source...Recently, Boeing paid damages to the UK for problems with the late delivery and software of the Mk2 several years ago....
Phone +44 (0) 181 700 3700
Fax + 44 (0) 181 763 1006
e-mail [email protected]
internet http://www.janes.com.

JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY 24/07/2000

Brian Dixon

8th Aug 2000, 22:11

WebPilot

Please either post the full article or give reference as to how it can be accessed.
Thanks.
Brian

WebPilot

9th Aug 2000, 12:14

Brian - Herewith full article as req (can't give access instructions as Reuters is a subscription service).

I also have two other Chinook articles of interest which I will post separately. I search Reuters every day for work purposes & I'm happy to scan for relevant articles and post if other ppruners would be interested.

Jane's Defence Weekly

24/07/2000 UK: UK REFUSES TO ACCEPT NEW CHINOOKS.

By PAUL BEAVER JDW Special Correspondent London.
UK defence officials have formally refused to accept delivery of the first of eight special operations configured Boeing Chinook Mk3 helicopters. Although the first helicopter flew in October 1998 and initial delivery was due last February but senior officers say it will be up to two years before they will enter service.
Manufactured by Boeing Helicopters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania the aircraft were configured for role in Shreveport, Louisiana.
Speaking at a conference in London last week, Air Vice Marshal David Niven, the commander of the UK Joint Helicopter Command (JHC) said that he "expects the Chinooks to be in service in the next 18 months to two years".
The JHC is keen to have the helicopters which have in-flight refuelling, forward looking infrared and extra fuel because they are capable of self-deployment.
The UK Chinooks will be not compatible with the US Army Special Operations Command's MH-47E Chinooks because there have been several changes to the equipment carried, including weather radar, radar warning receivers, communications sets and navigation sensors. This is thought to have caused some of the problems currently being experienced by Boeing.
According to the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) the delay has been caused by software problems. Although they are regarded as "minor problems", the Chinook Mk3 programme is "not on a critical path to achieving its introduction into service".
A Boeing spokesman denied there is a major problem with the programme adding that the helicopters are nearing completion with the first due to be delivered at the end of the year. The Mk3 will then have to undertake military aircraft release by the UK's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency before entering operational service.
British Army commanders are, however, known to be "deeply frustrated" at the late arrival of the helicopter which they regard as one of the most important assets to special forces operations. Currently, modified rather than purpose-built Chinooks are used.
"The eight helicopters are currently parked at the factory awaiting US government assurances on their build quality," according to a senior MoD source. This is not the first time that Chinook build-standards have been questioned by the UK procurement authorities. Recently, Boeing paid damages to the UK for problems with the late delivery and software of the Mk2 several years ago.
When they enter service in 2002, Jane's Defence Weekly understands the Chinook Mk3s will be based at RAF Odiham in southern England, releasing the locally upgraded Chinook HC 2s to return to the support role. This "can't come too soon" according to the JHC which is facing a perceived shortfall in airframes because of the new key tasks created by the formation of 16 Air Assault Brigade, the commissioning of two new amphibious ships and the late running Merlin Mk3 programme.
Photograph: Special forces amphibious operations trials were carried out "several years ago" in the UK to prove the ability to operate small boats from a waterborne Boeing Chinook HC 2 (Source: DERA).
Volume 034/004
(c) Jane's Information Group Limited 2000.
For more information please contact Janes:

Phone +44 (0) 181 700 3700
Fax + 44 (0) 181 763 1006
e-mail [email protected]
internet http://www.janes.com.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY 24/07/2000

WebPilot

9th Aug 2000, 12:19

There's quite a bit here, but it is of interest. The second article regarding the reopening of the enquiry is a few days old, but I do not seem to have seen this elsewhere. Again, sorry if this information is already known about.

Dow Jones Business News

03/08/2000 USA: BOEING TO PAY U.S. GOVERNMENT $54 MILLION IN CHINOOK HELICOPTER SETTLEMENT.

By Jerry Guidera.
WASHINGTON
Dow Jones Newswires
WASHINGTON - (Dow Jones)-Boeing Co. agreed to pay the government $54 million to settle claims that the company installed faulty gear systems in one of the Army's principal troop and equipment transport helicopters, the Justice Department said.
Five servicemen have been killed in three gear-related accidents since the Army began using the Chinook helicopters about 15 years ago. Since January, the Army has grounded for repairs a number of the fleet of 33 CH-47D helicopters because of additional defects found in the gear systems.
Boeing (BA), Seattle, used two subcontractors - Litton Precision Gear of Bedford Park, Ill., and the now-defunct Speco Corp. of Springfield, Ohio - in the manufacture of the transmission gears. Speco paid the government $7.5 million in 1997 to address its role in the manufacture of the gears as part of bankruptcy proceedings.
In the settlement, Boeing admitted no fault or blame in the accidents, but agreed to pay for repairs to the helicopters and the legal fees of the government as well as lawyers for Brett Roby, the whistleblower who brought the case to the attention of federal officials.
"The company entered into the settlement agreement because resolving this protracted litigation is in the best interest of both Boeing and its U.S. Army customer," Boeing said in a statement.
Mr. Roby will receive $10.5 million of the total payments.
The latest settlement follows reports that federal regulators are seeking a $1.2 million fine against Boeing for lax manufacturing controls as well as delays in notifying the government about potential structural problems on jetliners in service, a significantly higher penalty than the government usually seeks in such cases.
(This story was originally published by Dow Jones Newswires).
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOW JONES BUSINESS NEWS 03/08/2000

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

Scotland on Sunday

23/07/2000 UK: MOD PLAN FOR NEW CHINOOK INQUIRY.

By Peter Laing.
THE Ministry of Defence is secretly paving the way for a new inquiry into the Mull of Kintyre Chinook disaster, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
MoD officials, under pressure from Labour ministers, have devised a face-saving formula allowing them to execute a massive U-turn by reopening the inquiry into the crash without embarrassing RAF chiefs, who have blamed the disaster on pilot error.
Campaigners trying to clear the names of the two pilots concerned have received private suggestions that they should re-present their existing case as "new evidence".
This would give the MoD a valid reason to reopen the inquiry without appearing to overrule Air Marshalls Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day, who insist the pilots are blamed for gross negligence.
Wratten and Day overruled the original finding of the RAF board of inquiry, which said that no blame could be apportioned for the June 1994 crash, which claimed the lives of 25 intelligence experts and four crew.
Wratten and Day accused the pilots, Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook, of ignoring aviation rules by flying into bad weather at low altitude before they hit the Mull. Their verdict came despite a sheriff court ruling that the cause of the crash could not be determined, as well as increasing evidence of serious software problems with the Mark II Chinook which had been brought into service by Day.
It also appeared to contradict RAF rules which say that a finding of gross negligence can only be reached if there is absolutely no doubt about the cause of a crash.
While Wratten and Day have consistently refused to change their minds, Labour ministers are now understood to be increasingly concerned about facing heavy pressure over an MoD decision taken under a previous government.
Ten days ago Tony Blair was forced to defend the MoD's position at Prime Minister's Questions, and he is to meet a high-profile cross-party group of campaigners including Martin Bell, the Independent MP for Tatton, and Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat defence spokesman.
Blair and other ministers have said they will consider any new evidence about the crash, but have previously insisted that nothing which has emerged since the crash constitutes new material.
But behind the scenes, MoD officials are looking at ways of allowing the material gathered by campaigners to be classified as new, allowing them to reopen the inquiry.
Officials have also ended years of frosty relations with campaigners and are now actively wooing them. It is understood one family member was recently invited to MoD headquarters at Whitehall, where he spent two hours with a senior civil servant before being taken to lunch.
Campaigners believe the government has been backed into a corner by the Chinook controversy and is desperately looking for a way out.
A source close to the campaign said: "The Ministry of Defence have reached a situation where they would like to reopen it but can't do so without considerable loss of face for the Air Marshalls.
"They are looking for something which would give them a pretext for reopening the inquiry. In order to do that they must have what they would call new evidence. They have asked the campaigners to put together a package of information which can be regarded as new."
It is understood campaigners are preparing a document arguing for reopening the inquiry. It will be accompanied by documentary evidence and is likely be presented to the MoD in early August.
Among the issues raised will be the evidence of yachtsman Mark Holbrook, who was the last person to see the Chinook before it crashed. The Air Marshalls argue the Chinook was flown into bad weather at high speed and low altitude.
But in a recent Scotland on Sunday article, Holbrook said the weather was patchy rather than uniformly bad and there was "no doubt" the pilots could see the Mull.
Lord Chalfont, a leading figure in the campaign to clear the pilots, declined to comment in detail on the progress being made.
He confirmed: "I welcome their offer to look at any new evidence and I am taking steps to respond at once."
Mike Tapper, father of Jonathon, said: "This request for new evidence is certainly very important and something we are taking very seriously."

Thud_and_Blunder

9th Aug 2000, 17:54

Both articles very interesting - thanks for making them available to those of us stuck in info-starved Far Eastern locations. I wonder how, if the government succeeds in finding a way to reopen the enquiry in a face-saving manner, they'll avoid risking exposing Day and Wratten to accusations of gross negligence for failing to carry out their duties correctly. Academic, really - they'll still be alive, unlike the crew whose reputations they've so actively sought to sully.

My gratitude to all who've kept this one running, despite the opposition both from the chain of command and other sources.

Mighty Hunter

9th Aug 2000, 20:54

This forum has thrown up a great number of valid arguments one way or the other. I am afraid, however, the public interest (by that I mean the press) is just not there. Many of us would like to see a far reaching enquiry (independant, a mix of informed military and civilian experts) - but don't hold your breath.

Also, the politicians have not a lot to gain for themselves by opening an enquiry, unlike Hillsborough, where the press frenzy (particularly the gutter press) went on unabated for years - and good publicity is there to be had.

Unhappily for the families of the crew, I don't hold out much hope for their efforts. Having been involved in the aftermath of several fatal accidents in my time; I know how important it is for them to come out of the tragedy knowing their loved ones are effectively blameless. If this is proved to be the case, they are much comforted by BOI findings, which are invariably convey unofficially to them.

I wish them luck for the future.

[This message has been edited by Mighty Hunter (edited 21 August 2000).]

Brian Dixon

9th Aug 2000, 21:46

WebPilot
Consider yourself promoted to top banana. Thank you very much for the articles. Please keep them coming. This all helps in building the jigsaw.

Thud and Blunder.
Why should the Government protect Wratten and Day? If they made a mistake let them answer for it. At least they're alive to do so. I recognise that the work Rick, Jon, Kev and Graham did (plus the pax) was risky. Was the risk worth taking though? Surely a re-examination of the BoI (in particular the review process) is in order.

Mighty Hunter
Your Supremeness. Gutter press assisted or not, we will not go away and will continue to harry the Government and MoD at every given opportunity. Award winning journalists such as Tony Collins of Computer Weekly will continue to research and publish valuable evidence.

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Mighty Hunter

10th Aug 2000, 23:28

Brian Dixon

My fellow supremeness, I apologise without reservation if my remarks appeared to advocate throwing in the towel. Far from it. I was expressing the view that from experience, the policy appears to be 'don't reply and it will go away'. How many times have you read articles/letters in the press just begging for an answer. How many times have we all sat there thinking 'That's not right' or 'the silly pratt (author) doesn't know what he's talking about'. And what do we get? Nothing. Not a squeak.

I have a hell of a lot of time for guys like John Nichol - he's turning out to be a thorn in the side. He's saying what many of us want to say, but can't.

More power to his elbow and the elbows of those like him (including you).

[This message has been edited by Mighty Hunter (edited 10 August 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Mighty Hunter (edited 21 August 2000).]

Brian Dixon

11th Aug 2000, 00:08

Mighty Hunter

No problemo. No need to apologise. I wasn't suggesting you were advocating anything of the sort, just reinforcing (for those in lofty positions) that we will not go away.

I consider myself small fry in the campaign, working mainly in support of those in the front line. I do, however, enjoy the occasional foray into Secretary of State, MoD and MP held territory!

Brian Dixon

11th Aug 2000, 22:30

Wrote to Tony Blair when he stated at Prime Ministers Question Time that he would take a personal interest. Asked him the same 13 questions posed to Minister Hoon in the hope that one of them might be able to come up with some answers.

Guess what. I have received a reply from someone at No 10 advising me that the PM has passed my concerns to the Secretary of State for Defence as it is his area of responsibility!!!! So much for the personal interest. Hey Ho onward with the battle.

Please do not post replies advising me of my stupidity and naiivity. I had to give it a try didn't I.

Mighty Hunter

12th Aug 2000, 01:58

I'm afraid I rest my case. Nice try Brian. Anything that smacks of a climb down or at least a suggestion of justice just won't do. There is no political capital to be gained. Pity the next election doesn't rest on this case.

Don't let up, though, Brian, keep badgering your MP to get a definative answer.

[This message has been edited by Mighty Hunter (edited 21 August 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Mighty Hunter (edited 21 August 2000).]

Brian Dixon

12th Aug 2000, 16:38

"Told you so" duly noted, Mighty Hunter.

Have to say, my MP is a great bloke. Very supportive and will forward information he deems relevant or helpful. He has also signed up with Lord Chalfont.

The campaign continues.
"Justice has no expiry date." - John Cook

[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 22 August 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 22 August 2000).]

Tandemrotor

14th Aug 2000, 03:32

Anybody out there that could give us a clue when his Airshipness John Day is up for the Knackers Yard? ie. retirement.

Maybe then we'll find out how much those around him feel like supporting his judgement!

''Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt WHATSOEVER shall deceased aircrew be found negligent''

Mighty Hunter

14th Aug 2000, 22:24

[This message has been edited by Mighty Hunter (edited 21 August 2000).]

Arkroyal

15th Aug 2000, 10:23

Mighty H

'Nobody gained from finding the guys negligent'

Au contraire. The MOD has benefitted hugely, as, had the verdict been any other, including pilot error, then it would be liable for a very substantial damages claim.

This way the PBI's estates are liable, and I believe this is the ONLY reason for the finding.

Sad as it is to have to say it, I think the red herrings concerning the Mk 2's shortcomings will only ever be found as contributing to an accident which was mainly caused by pilot error. Is there any military helo pilot who has not said 'there but for the grace of God' over this one?

Error carries no shame, but negligence does.

That the MOD has chosen to save a few quid at the expense of two men's reputations is shameful.

:mad:

ShyTorque

16th Aug 2000, 00:05

Arkroyal,

So you know better than the RAF's own BOI regarding the cause of the accident?

Please enlighten us.

Brian Dixon

16th Aug 2000, 00:12

So what will happen if, as per the entry by webpilot suggests, the government decides to re-open the inquiry with 'new' evidence.
What outcomes would they have available to them without incurring any financial penalties?
They have been painted into a corner by individuals who failed to display the leadership qualities commensurate of their rank. I hope that at the end of this sorry saga, they will be held accountable for their actions. However, I doubt it very much.

Personally, I have no interest in any financial outcomes. The restoration of Rick and Jon's reputations, and a vote of confidence in all serving aircrew by senior officers is long overdue.

"Justice has no expiry date."

Bag Man

16th Aug 2000, 01:45

"Commensurate with rank"?

If you are born with less moral fibre than a lemon, then you will always have less moral fibre than a lemon, no matter how many stripes you carry.

Arkroyal

16th Aug 2000, 01:46

ShyTorque

No, I cannot enlighten you, sadly.

I am merely voicing my opinion as to why the pilots were found to be negligent, and I stand by my theory that it is all about placing the onus for any future claims on the pilots rather than the MOD.

I know that you have pointed out in an earlier post that the BOI found no blame should be attached to the pilots and that they were overruled by higher authority.I agree that this smells to heaven.

Whatever the reason for the accident, I think the thrust of the argument to clear the crew's reputations should be to remove the stigma of negligence, and that this requires no new evidence concerning the airworthiness of the Mk2, but simply a rational look at the actual results of the BOI before the interference from above.

Once that hurdle is jumped, THEN go for the less easy to prove questions regarding the aircraft.

Really, I think we're both on the same side here.

ShyTorque

17th Aug 2000, 03:41

Arkroyal,

The crux of this matter is that the BOI did NOT find compelling evidence of pilot error, let alone gross negligence. There were other factors and so many unknowns in the build up to this accident that any verdict other than CNK must be regarded with great suspicion and remain open to scrutiny, especially as the RAF's own guidelines on allocation of blame were well and truly breached.

In view of the lack of a definitive evidential cause, a verdict of "cause not known" would have sufficed and have been acceptable by the great majority of people, both inside and outside the services. The fact that this verdict was not acceptable to two or more senior officers, who saw fit to over-rule the President of the BOI, remains wide open to criticism, especially as they might well themselves be implicated in the cause of the accident in view of some unprecedentedly irresponsible management decisions regarding the airworthiness of the Mk2 aircraft at that time.

Two damned good pilots (and two good crewmen, by implication, as an ex-crewman has previously pointed out) were blamed for the loss of a great number of lives when they may well be innocent.

IF you are a military pilot or indeed any pilot ("FO", as in your profile could mean Flying Officer, First Officer, Flag Officer or Foreign Office) then you should understand the problem with that.

Let's put this in today's perspective. Concorde has just lost it's Certificate of Airworthiness and has been withdrawn from service for reasons now well covered by the media.

Imagine how it would be if BA were able to conceal this fact and continued to operate the aircraft. If an accident were to occur with no compelling evidence for the cause, do you believe they would "front up"?

The Mk2 apparently never gained the military equivalent of a Certificate of Airworthiness for technical /engineering reasons, until well after this accident because the RAF test pilots refused to continue with the test flying. This was due to unresolved anomalies with the FADEC.

That is the reason for the discontent.

(Edited twice due to incorrect grammar - and then realising I had missed something out)

[This message has been edited by ShyTorque (edited 16 August 2000).]

TimC

17th Aug 2000, 05:32

Don't know if any of you have read it, but David McMullon (an ex chinook loadie) discusses this crash in his book; Chinook!

Cheers

Tim

Talking Role Equipment

17th Aug 2000, 18:35

Chinook, what a good book! Dave did the loadie branch no favours here, the obvious use of the big print was just to create something that had more than 50 pages in it. Save yourself some money borrow it from the library if you really must read it.

[This message has been edited by Talking Role Equipment (edited 17 August 2000).]

Brian Dixon

17th Aug 2000, 23:34

Doesn't matter what you think of Dave McMullens book 'Chinook'. What matters is that he had the guts to stand up for the reputations of his former colleagues.

Shy Torque - I can assure you (not that I think I really need to), that the crewmen Kev Hardie and Graham Forbes were of the same calibre as Rick and Jon. Exceptional.

Another point well made. The Mk2 did not have the equivalent of a Certificate of Airworthiness. Test pilots are allowed to refuse to fly uncertified aircraft, yet operational pilots are not. Is this still the case?

"Justice has no expiry date."

Jackonicko

18th Aug 2000, 02:21

So the Mk 2 had no MAR? When did it get one?

So was it operating under a deviation to the Mk 1 release? Or an OEC? Some-one must know this, and it's vital!

If it didn't have some kind of paperwork, then the negligence lies with the authorising people. If it did, then some degree of negligence could be attributed to whoever signed the SD or OEC.

Brian Dixon

18th Aug 2000, 16:42

Jacko,
have you had a look at the full report on the Computer Weekly web site? Loads of info in there. www.computerweekly.com/chinook (http://www.computerweekly.com/chinook)

Tony Collins is an excellent journo. He was awarded Business and Professional Writer of the Year and his report on the Chinook crash was a major factor in his well deserved accolade.

"Justice has no expiry date."

Arkroyal

18th Aug 2000, 21:53

Shytorque

I absolutely agree that the correct verdict, based on the evidence should have been CNK. But it wasn’t, and for whatever dastardly reason, (and I suspect it is financial) the incomprehensible verdict of gross negligence was arrived at.

Now we all agree that a gross injustice has been perpetrated, and I am simply trying to look at ways to clear the crew’s reputations.

Something caused the aircraft to fly into the mull. It was either a mechanical failure or an error by the flight crew.

It would seem from any evidence that I have seen, that the Chinook was in level flight apparently under control, when, in poor visibility, it hit the steeply rising ground in its path.

It is fairly plain that had the aircraft been properly developed, and released to service with a meaningful icing clearance, then the accident would not have happened, as the flight would have been conducted under IFR above MSA. The cause, if mechanical, will not be found; and trying to prove otherwise simply allows the MOD to refuse to reopen the case.

So put aside the aircraft’s shortcomings, except for the lack of icing clearance, which forced it onto a low level grovel, which was bound to be hazardous, and you have an accident in the true meaning of the word. I have been so close to the same outcome flying a different, but equally inadequate helo. However unpalatable it may be to you, it is possible that this is what occurred. (Please note that with no evidence I am open minded, just stating a possibility).

IMHO you will never get the verdict overturned by trying to prove that the aircraft was at fault, even if it was. The best way to remove the shameful slur of negligence is to simply demand that the original evidence be re-examined. No inquiry could possibly find gross negligence (hell, the original BOI didn’t).

We really are singing from the same songbook here, and I too am horrified that these pilots have been wrongly blamed. I am just trying to be realistic and admit that they may have made a mistake whilst flying a mission that was more hazardous than it would have been had the Mk2 been better developed.

FO in my case is Civvy jet airliner First Officer, after 16 years Jungly flying with the RN.

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

ShyTorque

19th Aug 2000, 02:07

First Officer Arkroyal,

Thanks for your credentials :) . Sorry if my reply to your posting was rather terse, but I often feel that people are too easily prepared to point fingers without taking into account some poorly publicised but very relevant factors.

I have been banging on about this injustice ever since the verdict of the BOI was over-ruled, here and elsewhere (for nearly four years on PPRuNe, albeit with my own username now changed due to a change in job spec; early on I was the only one on PPRuNe with an interest back in the days of Danny emailing us all each night! Sadly a lot of early stuff was lost in a major site dump 2 or 3 years ago). I have repeated myself many times and will probably continue to do so for a long time yet.

If you read my previous posts you will see that I have stated that I do not actually believe a FADEC event caused this accident. I have been flying in the helicopter low-level ops environment for over twenty years and I have operated two different FADEC equipped types and still earn my keep operating one, so I do know a bit about them.

However, it is possible that a FADEC failed. They had done so in the past on this type of aircraft, hence no C of A Release to Service or icing / IFR clearance. It is also possible that the intercom failed at a critical moment. The BOI found evidence of this. This is highly significant as it may have caused a misunderstanding between the two pilots in marginal weather resulting in loss of terrain clearance. The pilots may not have been at their best due to the way that undue pressure was put on them to fly this aircraft against their own wishes. There may or may not have been another mechanical failure. No-one knows due to the severity of the impact.

The problem many of us have with this is that blame should only be apportioned when there is no doubt and the RAF guidelines state just that. In this case there is plenty of doubt.

It is scandalous that the officers over-ruling the BOI were able to protect themselves from blame by apportioning it further down the chain. One of them has since seen fit to spout off in a national newspaper in an attempt to exonerate himself. I only wish that the crew were still around to defend themselves. What their families have been put through beggars belief.

I am certain that very serious management errors, disregarded by MOD for financial reasons or for military expediency, played a major part in this accident.

Let's keep it in the public eye.

Jackonicko

19th Aug 2000, 02:42

Brian,

Tried and tried to download their full report and couldn't. If you have it, please either post it for all of us to enjoy, or E-mail it to me.

Thanxeverso

Tandemrotor

19th Aug 2000, 02:45

Arkroyal

I am sure you are right, in as much as, we all have pretty similar ideas about the accident, the subsequent Board of Inquiry, and the difficulty of proving technical malfunctions.

All I would say is please don't fall for the hearsay that suggests that we KNOW the aircraft was flown at the Mull, under control at high speed, low level, and in poor weather.

We (in fact no-one) KNOWS any such thing. But that is precisely the point.

There was no flight data recorder, no cockpit voice recorder, no eye witnesses, tragically, no survivors, no radar traces, and no radio calls. (Incidentally, anyone who tries to imply that absence of a mayday call PROVES normality in the cockpit, hasn't looked at many a/c accidents!)

Everything is assumption.

All that was left was a smouldering heap of wreckage on a deserted Scottish hillside. (20% of the a/c was completely destroyed by the post impact fire.) The AAIB said it was impossible to verify the pre-impact serviceability of the aircraft.

No information retrieved from the wreckage proves anything.

Would you like your reputation to be trashed in such circumstances?

Would you like people repeating inaccurate hearsay about the circumstances of the accident?

Would you like those you left behind to be wrestling with this situation?

I,m guessing the answer is no.

In that case, and on behalf of our colleagues who died on 2nd June 1994, I ask you to do what Brian Dixon has frequently requested. That is, contact your MP, to support Lord Chalfont and his campaign group.

I promise you, we can make a difference.

I hope you and your family never need someone in your life to do the same for you.

To everyone reading this posting, Jon Tapper, and Rick Cook need our help.

They deserved better.

Arkroyal

19th Aug 2000, 15:52

Captains Shytorque and Tandemrotor

I am fairly new to the military threads, and only came here because ofmy feelings that justice had not been served over the Chinook crash.

We really are on the same side, and I am sorry if my postings have given the inpression that I have made up my mind about the cause. I haven't, and as we all agree, nobody ever can, due to the lack of evidence.

The spineless b'stards who condemned your colleagues are below contempt, and I will take up your suggestions and write to my MP, who I know is ex Royal Marine and air minded, having had a night's aquaint at a police ASU at which I was a pilot.

My only thrust was that when the innocent man stands accused of murder, he may go for a plea of manslaughter if he sees that as the only alternative to being found guilty of murder.Not perfect, not justice, but maybe practical

If total exoneration cannot be achieved, then the very least we should accept is removal of the slur of negligence. This is not the same as admitting to error either.

I'm with you tandem, we can make a difference.

Tandemrotor

19th Aug 2000, 16:53

Thanks

I spent seven years flying police.

It's definitely the most fun you can have with your pants on.

Now let's have everyone on PPruNe pulling together to REALLY achieve something positive for 'absent friends'.

We CAN do it.

Watch this space.

Brian Dixon

19th Aug 2000, 18:00

Jackonicko,
Hope you got the E-Mail with attachment. It is probably too long to put on the site but if you can enter a decent link to help others I'd be grateful. I'm OK at campaigning, but pants at computing!

Tandemrotor,
Don't forget only one engine survived enough to be examined. I recall that it was deemed to be in working order but with a 'E5' fault code in the surviving DECU. There was an asumption that if one engine was working correctly (how could they say that with an E5 error code?) then the other engine must have been. Speculation!!!
(E5 Code - A difference in the signals from the two sensors that measure engine turbine speed)

Arkroyal
I don't think anyone doubts that you are in agreement with the rest of us, but it took a while for you to get your point across. Thank you for contacting your MP regarding the Mull of Kintyre Group (Lord Chalfont - Chair). All support is greatfully received.
I must, however, point out that there will be no plea bargaining. Rick and Jon should never have been accused, let alone found guilty, of negligence. There will be no compromise.

"Justice has no expiry date."

Arkroyal

19th Aug 2000, 18:56

Feel a lot better now, just off to the post box with the promised letter to my MP.

S'pose he'll find it in a few weeks time after the hols, but lets hope for some action on this.

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

ShyTorque

19th Aug 2000, 22:23

Just a thought with regard to the news that two Fairey Battle WWII aircrews' remains are to be recovered from Iceland. They crashed into the top of a hill, as did many other unfortunate aircrew from that era.

How many of them were accused of gross negligence? None. They will probably be buried with honours.

Brian Dixon

21st Aug 2000, 00:07

Full honours were (rightly) accorded to all who died on ZD576.
Only the reputations of Rick and Jon were forgotten in the process.

Such a disgusting trade off - two reputations for two consciences.

Justice will prevail.

skua

21st Aug 2000, 11:32

Excellent letter in the September edition of Pilot, which succinctly demolishes Wrotten's stance.

Brian Dixon

21st Aug 2000, 23:01

Skua,
any chance youcould post the article in full?

Thanks
Brian

PercyDragon

23rd Aug 2000, 23:13

Look, John, I know that you have to earn a living like the rest of us but you know you really are flogging a dead horse with this story. Wratten was absolutely right. There is no way that this accident was caused by anything other than crew negligence.

You would be far better adviser to write a balanced and reasoned article analysing the human factors behind the accident (ie: what it was that caused a well trained crew to fly a perfectly servicable aicraft smack into a mountain.)

Incidentally, why is it that evryone seems to be feeling sorry for the pilots? I personally have a lot more sympathy for the widows and children of the dead passengers.

Jackonicko

23rd Aug 2000, 23:34

I went back to edit this,, because your insensitivity and unwillingness to see that there is plenty of contradicting evidence drove me to extreme intemperance.

I began by saying "I was going to say that there was only one word for people like you, Dragon. Scum.

But then I came up with financial adviser, tw@t, @rsehole, £uckwit, and many many more. Open your mind, you pygmy!"

And I apologise for all that. I'm sure you're a smashing chap, and that if we met in a pub we'd enjoy a pint and a chat/line-shoot. But I am genuinely astonished that an ex military aviator and professional chap could be so black and white about this, and so insensitive. I'm also getting a little bit sick about the constant jibes at journos and the press. If you want a better press, help us make it better. Anyway, back on-thread....

Yes, it could have been negligence (but gross negligence is a bit strong) - but bear in mind that even Bill Wratten didn't try to excuse the fact that the aircraft's clearances precluded flight in IMC, and that's why they were trying to maintain VMC. We're talking about reasonable doubt here. And if this was negligent, then what about the SAOEU Harrier? The suicide Tornado? The bent Jag at Incirlik? The two Johns and their Tornado? Where is the negligent line drawn?

It's like pilot error. It is always attributable to pilot error, cos if nothing else, he made the mistake of getting up that morning.

Let's all get a grip - and I guess that includes me!

[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 23 August 2000).]

high spirits

23rd Aug 2000, 23:49

percydragon,
Lets face it. Wrotten would not have submitted that piece of misleading filth if he was'nt running scared from the fact that his opinion will eventually be found to be nothing other than complete hoop. The man quite clearly knows nothing about rotary ops or the aircraft in question. If he did he would not have tried to mislead everyone by banging on about the navigation computer. It's amazing how you can cast such aspertions on a professional helicopter crew and disregard the fact that their families have to live with a Wrotten opinion.

PercyDragon

24th Aug 2000, 01:02

Ah Jackoniko. Hit a tender spot there didn't I? You being a Journo and all. I did mean that in all seriousness though. You guys have to come up with sensational stuff to keep your editors happy, and there's nothing better than the old 'top brass conspiracy cover up theory' to keep the readers interested.

The problem with this one is that its going to prove to be a dead story. Incidentally, I also really did mean the bit about the human resources problem. Strange thinsg can happen between crews in the cockpit. I have very nearly committed the same sort of blunder a couple of times while polling an S61 around on the North Sea. Very nerely ploughed into a big lump of rock near Sumburgh with 24 oilies on board. If I had hit it and crashed and burnt, incidentally, the reaction from the media would have been very different. Me being a Civilian at the time. Think about it.

ShyTorque

24th Aug 2000, 02:20

PercyDragon,

Not all contributors to this forum are journalists.

I don't remember you as a support helicopter pilot. You don't appear to have read the BOI report either.

Tandemrotor

24th Aug 2000, 03:38

Percy Drag

Welcome to the debate. People wishing to be associated with those seeking to blame the two dead pilots, are indeed (and IMHO, thankfully) very few and far between. I congratulate you on raising your head above the parapet.

Because of the anonymous nature of these forums, we can only make assumptions about your relative (and relevant) experience in these matters. Whilst that may not be crucial in assessing the weight we should give to your comments, it may help us to identify where you are coming from. Care to help us?

Again, making assumptions, I can only imagine that anyone making comments such as yours, has either not read the full Board of Inquiry report, or that you didn't really understand it. I do for example wonder how you seem to know better than the Wg Cdr who actually conducted the investigation.

You say: "There is no way that this accident was caused by anything other than crew negligence."

He says:
1) "There were many potential causes of the accident and despite detailed and in depth analysis, the Board was unable to determine a definite cause." BOI para 61.

2) "It would be incorrect to criticise him (the captain) for human failings based on the available evidence." Because the Board were unable to positively determine the sequence of events leading up to the accident. BOI para 67c.

3) "The Board concluded there were no human failings with respect to (the co-pilot)." BOI para 68.

You advise (not quite sure who) to write a " balanced and reasoned article analysing the human factors behind the accident."

How about if I give you a quote from a report commissioned by our very own Board of Inquiry, entitled "Accident to Chinook ZD576 on 2nd June 1994" written by J W Chappelow, Principle Psychologist at the Institute of Aviation Medicine.

He says: "The lack of a CVR on the Chinook has two major consequences: The competence and skill of the crew are unavoidably but invidiously called into question in a speculative manner. And, if they did fail, the lessons that could have been learned from their tragic error are denied to their colleagues."

In your second posting you say you have very nearly committed the same 'blunder' yourself a couple of times, whilst 'poling' an S61 around the North Sea. Now, without wishing to pass comment on your professional ability, you are still around to tell us of any extenuating, or unusual circumstances surrounding these incidents (which of course you reported, so lessons could be learned.) However our two pilots can no longer give us their version of events - whatever they were!

You say,"why is it that evryone (sic) seems to be feeling sorry for the pilots? I personally have a lot more sympathy for the widows and children of the dead passengers."

My question is only this; do the "widows and children" of the two dead pilots deserve any less sympathy? What precisely did they do wrong?

Incidentally, you may like to know that a large number of those passenger's "widows and children" do not believe the official version of pilot negligence.

Finally, you use the terms "flogging a dead horse", and "dead story".

Well my friend, this "dead story" has been running for six (that's SIX) years now, and I think this particular "dead horse" will run and run!

I genuinely hope you have the bo****ks to post a reply, explaining how you seem to know more than those who investigated this accident, but in case you don't, should we just assume you have wound your neck in?

Remember, watch this space.

PercyDragon

24th Aug 2000, 09:19

ShyTorque
Army pilot. Two years exchange posting flying Wessex in Odiham and N.Ireland 1970 to 72. then Civil North Sea/Africa/Far East.

Tandemrotor

24th Aug 2000, 12:05

Come on Percy Drag, answer ShyTorque's other question:

Have you read the BOI report?

If you have, how come you know so much more than those who investigated the accident?

John Nichol

24th Aug 2000, 20:55

Tandemrotor, I presume Percy D is advising me to stop flogging the deceased horse. (Good to see you up on the site - hope all is well).

Percy D, I think that it is important that you read all of Tandemrotor's posts on this subject and then tell us where they are wrong. It is all too easy to simply say "It's the pilots wot did it" but you must explain the grounds on which you dismiss the contary evidence.

No-one is saying that the crew could not have been to blame, we are simply saying that there is not one shred of evidence to show that they were. In those circumstances surely we should give them the benefit of the doubt?

As Lord Meeston said in a debate on the subject in the House Of Lords:

"One cannot help feeling that what has been applied here is the Sherlock Holmes approach. When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. That simply will not do outside detective fiction."

AVM (retired on full pension)Billy Wrotten is entitled to his opinion on the Chinook crash. But what he, and others, must accept is that with no evidence from CVR, ADR, Radar, Radio or Witness, and with a large proportion of the aircraft destroyed by fire, all they are offering is a personal hypothesis of what may have happened in a possible scenario.

Good enough for a discussion but not nearly enough to find two men guilty of manslaughter.

Interestingly, I held a similar view to yourself a few years ago. Until I sat down and read the full BoI. Try it; you might be surprised.

Tandemrotor

24th Aug 2000, 21:17

John

This is supposed to be an anonymous forum.

How,dya guess?

I'm sure lot's of people want to hear Percy Drag's argument. I do hope he doesn't let us off lightly!

By the way, thanks for your article, and thanks for starting the most talked about thread on this forum.

Watch this space.

[This message has been edited by Tandemrotor (edited 24 August 2000).]

Brian Dixon

24th Aug 2000, 22:25

I have finally had a reply to my questions from the MoD. I'll post the questions first followed by the answers as a seperate posting.
Apologies if some of the questions appear simplistic to you aviators, but please remember I am not of the master race. Merely someone fortunate enough to have worked with these people.

Questions:

1. Following the near total destruction if a Chinook in 1989 and the subsequent legal action against Textron Lycoming, why do the MoD continue to insist that the case was about testing procedures, despite the fact that the Department was accusing Textron and its sub-contractors of having badly designed FADEC and it not meeting international standards?

2. Ministers have stated that Boscombe Down were using an ‘inappropriate’ method of validation to test the software (static code analysis), yet static code analysis was designed by DERA specifically to verify safety-critical software. It has also been used to validate software in aircraft such as the Tornado and Eurofighter. Are you saying that the validation tests on the other aircraft are incorrect and invalid?

3. Could you please confirm the existence of a memo from Boscombe Down criticising the FADEC software, after numerous errors were found. Did this, or any other memo from Boscombe Down, conclude with a recommendation that rewriting the [FADEC] software was essential?

4. Why has the Government chosen to ignore the findings of the Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry, in particular, the ruling by Sir Stephen Young that both pilots should not be blamed?

5. Who made the decision as to what information would and would not be disclosed to the Air Accident Investigation team (this includes information such as the 1989 incident and the problems experienced by ZD576 in the days prior to the accident).

6. What experience did that individual (or department) have in knowing what would and would not be relevant to investigators?

7. Would it not have been prudent to place all the information before the Air Accident Investigation team, and let them decide what relevance the information was?

8. Can you confirm that, prior being seen by AVM Day and ACM Wratten, the RAF Board of Inquiry stated “….distraction by a technical malfunction could have been a contributory factor in this accident.”

9. Could you please advise me of the names of those involved in giving the authority for releasing into operational service (albeit with limitations) the Mk2 Chinook, after the second suspension of flight trials by Boscombe Down on 01 June 1994.

10. If AVM Day or ACM Wratten were involved in the authority for release into service, would it not have been prudent to have different reviewing officers for the RAF Board of Inquiry? I am, however, not alleging any impropriety by anyone. Merely pointing out what could be interpreted as a conflict of interest.

11. Why is the Tench report still unpublished?

12. Why is the Chinook fleet still without flight recorder equipment?

13. Would you please provide me with the names of those who sit on the Air Force Board of the Defence Council.

Mighty Hunter

25th Aug 2000, 00:30

John,

Please keep at it. I know from experience that those in high places (in and out of uniform) will keep quiet and hope that it all goes away. So many BOIs have been overturned or negated by those above who do not have the best interests of the people involved in mind - rather they sometimes place the 'best interests of the Service', or the 'best interests of the politicians' in mind (for whatever motive - draw your own conclusions).

That the crew may be at fault is the subject of much debate and informed and uninformed speculation, but the principle that an individual is innocent until found guilty is totally irrefutable. My suspicion is that the is a lot of rear end covering going on here, and it needs to be exposed.

Please, John, keep at it and find out the truth; we are accountable for everything we do, therefore so must they.

MH

Brian Dixon

25th Aug 2000, 00:38

Sorry for the delay. Here's the answers provided by the MoD to my questions:

CHINOOK CRASH – MULL OF KINTYRE

Further to your letter dated 11 June and our acknowledgement dated 19 June, your recent letter on the same subject to the Prime Minister has also been passed to me for reply. I am now in a position to reply to the questions in your latest letter. I am pleased to see from your letter that you believe all available information should be considered and I am sure therefore that you will wish to take full account of the department’s view.

Question 1

Can I suggest that there are two questions: did the Wilmington case indicate that there were faults in the FADEC at that time; and did the MoD initiate a claim for damages because of those faults?
The answer to the first is yes and to the second no.

The testing of a RAF Chinook on the ground at Wilmington as part of the development programme revealed a software fault. The identification of faults so that they can be corrected during development, before the equipment is delivered for service, is of course why testing is carried out. However, in this instance, the contractors did not have adequate procedures in place to accommodate faults that might arise and consequently the RAF Chinook that was being used as the test-bed was damaged. The MoD therefore took action against the manufacturers for the cost of the damage caused by the inadequate test procedures. Had there been no damage, the MoD would not have pursued arbitration action.

The Wilmington case offers no insights into the Mull of Kintyre crash. The fault that caused the problem at Wilmington was quickly identified and the software design was changed. The whole FADEC system was then re-qualified before the aircraft was brought into service. Although some nuisance faults were experienced by crews in the early months of service, these were mainly spurious captions illuminating in the cockpit of no safety significance and were well understood. However, the RAF Board of Inquiry (BoI) into the crash was familiar with FADEC’s development history – including Wilmington – and these teething troubles, and therefore paid particular attention to the FADEC. The BoI found nothing to suggest that FADEC was a factor.

Questions 2 & 3

Much has been made of the fact that Boscombe Down’s preferred method of verifying the FADEC software was to use Static Code Analysis. This tool proved to be unamenable for the software structure and subsequently, to this form of analysis, led Boscombe Down to conclude that as the software was unverifiable, there was an unquantifiable risk associated with the FADEC software, and that re-writing the software was essential. However, that Boscombe Down was unable to verify the software using their preferred method of analysis does not mean that the software was unsafe.

Question 4

The purpose of a Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry is to determine the cause of death. The Sheriff’s overall conclusion was that he was unable to determine positively the cause of the accident. The fact that the Sheriff, sitting alone, felt unable to say what caused the accident should not detract from the findings of the BoI which, following a very thorough investigation and consideration of the case by experts used to flying Chinooks, concluded that the pilots were responsible for the accident.

Question 5, 6 & 7

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) was not restricted in any way with regard to personnel and information they chose to consult, during their technical investigation following the Mull accident.

Question 8

Yes. However, because the evidence showed that the Chinook’s engines were working up to the point of impact, the Board set aside FADEC as a possible cause of the accident. It therefore follows that any software difficulties could not have been a factor. Although the Board acknowledged that other distractions were a possibility, the Station Commander, RAF Odiham, observed that, “there is no indication of a major technical malfunction.” Air Vice Marshal Day, one of the two senior reviewing officers, added, “In my judgement, none of the possible factors or scenarios [such as a distraction by a technical malfunction] are so strong that they would have been likely to prevent such an experienced crew from maintaining safe flight…I reluctantly conclude that the actions of the crew were the direct cause of this crash.”

Question 9 & 10

The Controller Aircraft (CA) who granted an Initial CA Release for the Chinook Mk2 was Sir Donald Spiers. Moreover, the AOCinC (Strike Command) at the time was Air Chief Marshal Sir John Thomson, and the ACAS was Air Vice Marshal A J C Bagnall. None of these three were subsequently involved in the BoI process.

Air Vice Marshal Day and Air Chief Marshal Wratten were not involved with authorising the release of the Chinook Mk2 to operational service.

Question 11

Although the Tench Report was not published at the time, the Under-Secretary of State confirmed in the House of Commons in June that officials are considering whether the report can be released now.

Question 12

Cockpit Voice recorders (CVRs) and Accident Data Recorders (ADRs) are being fitted to the entire Chinook fleet as part of the Health and Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) programme. Operational commitment and technical difficulties have meant the HUMS system should be fitted to the fleet by August 2001.

In conclusion, can I assure you that the MoD has examined in depth all the arguments and theories put forward to explain this tragic accident. Ministers and officials have gone to unprecedented lengths to explain the rationale behind the findings of the RAF Board of Inquiry. Furthermore, the Defence Secretary has made abundantly clear his readiness to consider, very carefully, anything presented that claims to be new evidence. I can assure you that there would be no reluctance on the part of the Ministry of Defence to consider new evidence. However, to date, nothing has emerged which casts doubt on the finding of the original Inquiry.

You might, however, like to know that the father of one of the deceased pilots, Mr Michael Tapper, met Ministry of Defence officials last month to discuss the RAF Board of Inquiry’s findings. It was suggested to Mr Tapper that if there are serious doubts still remaining he should discuss with Lord Chalfont – head of the newly formed “Mull of Kintyre Group” – whether the evidence should be collected together as one body of evidence and present it to the MoD. It would then be analysed thoroughly and a full response provided, as the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister himself have constantly pledged would happen.

In sum, the findings of gross negligence required there to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever over the cause of the crash. At the earlier stages of the RAF Board of Inquiry, a range of scenarios, or possible or probable causes, was considered. The conclusion arrived at was there was no doubt that the actions of the two pilots were the direct cause of this crash. The judgement of the two reviewing officers, drawing upon their own experience, was sadly that this amounted to gross negligence.

You can all draw your own conclusions to the answers.
The campaign continues.

"Justice has no expiry date." - John Cook

misterploppy

25th Aug 2000, 01:16

The trick with dealing with Civil Serpents is to seek out their weak point which is usually where they are at their most glib in an answer. The non-answer to Qs 5,6, and 7 is the key bit here. It is almost a straight lift from the preamble to a discussion between Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey Appleby:

HA: All information you asked for was made available to you.

JH: But how do I know what to ask for if I don't know what information is available or relevant?

Essentially, how can the AAIB ask for it if they don't know it exists?

The replying flunkey is at his most glib here (and misinformative). I would home in on this and keep asking narrower and narrower questions that don't allow for a glib, general reply. Remember: The party line may change so a bureaucrat is unlikely to lie outright. He will, however, do all he can to avoid telling a (whole) embarrassing truth.

Well done Brian!

[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 24 August 2000).]

SH Monkey

25th Aug 2000, 01:21

An aside....

Those of us in the business are surely becoming aware of the growing interest that PPrune is generated amongts our Lords & Masters. Many, I have no doubt, would love to put a stop to this; a few, hopefully, will take something away from these forums and maybe even act upon them.

This is a worthwhile and emotive thread, and there is a large amount to be said. However, this has been instigated by a journalist for his own ends. I suspect that this is exactly the sort of fire feeding we, as a group, should try to avoid if we have any hope of bring more of the Wheels over to the cause.

John Nichol

25th Aug 2000, 12:22

SH Monkey,

Could you explain what you mean by:

"This has been instigated by a journalist for his own ends"?

Jackonicko

25th Aug 2000, 12:56

SH Monkey,

WE ARE NOT THE ENEMY

WE DO NOT HAVE SOME ULTERIOR MOTIVE/HIDDEN AGENDA

HELPING US WILL HELP THE ROYAL AIR FORCE, IF NOT ITS POLITICAL MASTERS

How many more times do we have to defend ourselves from sly innuendo and criticism?

PercyDragon

25th Aug 2000, 13:09

Frankly, guys, I am amazed at how the basics behind this accident have neen confused by endless technical debate about glitches in the computer system, etc. etc.

Look, all of us who drive fling-wings know that the helicopter is an imperfect machine. Always will be. I can't remember a single type of helicopter that I have flown that didn't have a few built in gremlins. You should have been around the Super Puma when it first came onto the North Sea, or the S76! But that's all part of the deal. Coping with the machine is what we get paid for (or 'got' in my case, as I saw the light and gave up commercial rotary flying some years ago).

The fact is, that this accident, as far as we can reasonably assume, was down to a lack of basic airmanship. From all the published accounts on the subject the they were flying low level in IMC conditions at cruise speed towards high ground. If they were flying above the safety hieght then I am certain this accident would not have happened.

Any of us who have been round the block a few times have taken the same sort of risk from time to time, for all the usual reasons.
But the trick is, to be aware when you are doing it and keep yourself extra alert. And in this case this is the one thing that they obviously failed to do.

The problem is that there are some powerful driving forces keeping this story alive.

Firstly, ther are the parents of the dead pilots. I can absolutely understand the way they feel. In the same situation I would behave in the same way. They have a deep and very understandable, (and completely natural) desire to 'clear their sons names'.

Secondly, there are the various media interests involved. Frankly, the few people I know in the media (press, TV,) would sell their own Grandmothers for a hot exclusive story, and they don't come any better than 'death crash top brass consiracy cover up plot'.

Thirdly, the odd politician has been getting in there and stirring the pot. This is because they sense that there is a vote catching angle there somewhere. The fundamental truth with survival as a politician is that you find out what the majority ar believing and then say that you believe it too. Forgive me. at the age of 55 I'm a cynic!

Forthly. I'n the armed forces flying fraternity there is a very strong 'group binding' spirit. This also happens in the medical profession and the legal profession. An attack on one member brings the group out in his defence, especaily when the senior officers are making the attack in the first place. This is an admirable tendency (and,
incidentally, you don't tend to get that out here in civilian aviation. Out here it's every man for himself!).

So, Yes, I agree, even though this story is a dead one it's still going to run and run.....

John Nichol

25th Aug 2000, 17:42

Percy,

I despair. (Indeed I wonder who you are).

You say: (I paraphrase)

"This accident was down to a basic lack of airmanship. The crew were flying at high speed in IMC, below SALT towards high ground".

1. This statement is an exact reproduction of the 100s of MOD statements made over the last few years. Any comment?

2. MOST IMPORTANT THIS ONE. Can you please read Tandemrotor's posts. Most of his points are taken directly from Wg Cdr Pulford and the BOI. Could you then explain (rather than simply state) your analysis and tell us how you know more than he does about the circumstances of the crash?

I think we should be told

old-timer

25th Aug 2000, 22:29

As an independant observer (reader)
these are my observations;
Johns intentions are clearly honourable & to determine the truth; top man.
I personlly do not believe that
RAF aircrew would make basic 'lack' of airmanship errors, period.

Let John do his research without clouding the issue with re-hashes of the already
biased report.

Finally, sincerest respects to the
memory of the aircrew & all on board.

PER ARDUA AD ASTRA

Jackonicko

25th Aug 2000, 22:50

Percy,

I'll type this slowly, so you have time to read it.

What option did they have other than to fly VMC when the aircraft they were told to go and fly (which the TPs had judged unfit for service and were refusing to fly) had no iceing clearance.

How can you be so convinced that a FADEC prone to problems (one had already beaten a Chinook 2 to death on the ground) did not fail and contribute to the accident?

Where can I get a portion of the arrogant, self confident, self righteousness that you display, 'cos frankly having doubts about things does sometimes complicate my life?

Savvy?

Brian Dixon

25th Aug 2000, 23:07

Percy,
I will not inflate your ego by allowing myself to fall into the name calling trap. However, I'm a simpleton, so please could you offer the following:
1. What are your credentials?

2. How come you know so much about things no-one else does?

3. You wouldn't happen to be an airship would you?

4. I'm not a journalist. Nor was I aircrew. Yet I am still very proud to be an active part of this campaign. What's in it for me?

5. Do you have an opinion of your own or are you just a reproduction service for others?

6. If you are that good, will you please give me six numbers between 1 & 49 before Saturday. Thanks

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Edited 'cos I really am a simpleton!!

[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 25 August 2000).]

Arkroyal

26th Aug 2000, 01:21

Percy.....Words almost fail me.

You say that you have been there yourself, and so have the rest of us who have flown military helicopters. We have to fly low in marginal conditions and the chances of a screw-up are there.If there is no option to climb, then options can run out very quickly. That is not negligence, gross or otherwise.

I am not saying here that the guys screwed up!

I am puzzled by Wrottens defence of the negligence verdict in the Sunday times June 18. http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/06/18/stirenws02007.html where he admits that the only reason that negligence was decided upon is that the pilots failed to climb to MSA, and carried on instead in poor viz.

Surely if Tandem and Shy are correct, and the Mk2 had no Icing clearance, then there was no option to climb, and ergo no negligence.

ORAC

26th Aug 2000, 01:40

This is, perhaps, unrelated.

When Accident reports were introduced they were "non addmissable". (Not admissable in a court martial etc) This has now been overturned by the courts. (The judge deciding what is admissable).

Further, pilots/crew members are now (extremely) reluctant to say anything without legal advise.

The whole original idea was a system to identify ac faults/procedural problems/cock-ups etc as quickly as possible to save lives in the next days/weeks/months etc.

This has now fallen apart.

The question is, do we need to put it back? If so how? Under whose authority and what legal jurisdiction? Remember, the aim is to get full honestly without fear of legal repercussions.

Otherwise the accident reports will just drag out to 2...3....4 years and do no one any good.

[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 26 August 2000).]

ShyTorque

26th Aug 2000, 02:13

It has been calculated that in WW2, 75% of all aircrew losses were due to factors other than enemy action. Some of these accidents were due to aircrew error. Some of them were due to aircraft, unable to climb to MSA, for a variety of reasons, flying into cumulo-granite. The hills of UK and many other places around the world are littered with such remains.

How many other crews, including the one just buried in Iceland of the Fairey Battle that flew into a hilltop on an operational mission, were branded as "grossly negligent'?

PercyDragon

26th Aug 2000, 14:20

I think that I'm going to extract myself from this dicussion. I came into it in the first place in an attempt to introduce some commensense and reason into the debate, but I know realise that its a bit like trying to talk a howling mob out of storming the Winter Palace. There's too much emotion and venom flying around for my liking.

So, in the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny
"that's all folks!"

.... now, what was that rumour about Lord Lucan landing a spaceship at GCHQ.......

Thud_and_Blunder

26th Aug 2000, 18:00

Percy,

Missing you already. Damn, must get these sights zeroed properly....

Brian Dixon

26th Aug 2000, 22:46

Come on Percy, don't take it so personally.
If you have a valid point then let's hear it. I'm happy to listen if you can evidence your claims. If you can convince me I will happily concede the point. Likewise I would expect you to do the same.

However, you have to accept that there are always at least two sides to every situation, this being one of those situations. I believe as strongly in my opinion as you do in yours. However, that should not stop us airing those views.

I don't accept that I am part of a howling mob though. If I have come across as venomous, I apologise. I have tried to campaign with the dignity this subject merits, putting across my concerns in as an intelligent way as I can. I have nothing to gain by my actions. I just feel that this is the right thing to do.

It's a free country Percy. Let's hear what you have to say.

Regards
Brian

Corona Blue

27th Aug 2000, 02:12

Brian I am curious about your comment that FADEC problems had "caused a chinook 2 to beat itself to death on the ground." I am not aware of such an incident caused by the FADEC - indeed I can't quite see how FADEC could cause such a problem. I do know of an incident where a chinook had beaten itself to death but this was nothing to do with FADEC.

Arkroyal

27th Aug 2000, 15:18

Percy please come back.

Your opinion is as valid as any other. It is a pity that like Wrotten and Day, you seem unable to distinguish error from negligence.

And whilst on that subject, the press consistently say that the campaign is to overturn a finding of 'pilot error' we should jump on them when they do that as it shows that they have missed the point entirely.

Please note, I am still open minded, and am NOT saying that the guys screwed up!

Have prelim response from MP's secretary to my letter of last week, of course I must await return of the great man himself to get an opinion.

[This message has been edited by Arkroyal (edited 27 August 2000).]

Tandemrotor

27th Aug 2000, 15:58

Percy Drag

I am genuinely sorry you feel unable to sustain your case. Not surprised, but sorry.

I note that you have never claimed to have read the Board of Inquiry report, and I guess this is where your difficulties began.

You talked, rather grandly, about introducing "some commonsense and reason into the debate." Presumably to educate us ("the howling mob".) That's always going to be a tricky position when we are in possession of the facts, and you patently are not.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't pretend you know what you are talking about.

The information is available if you want it.

[This message has been edited by Tandemrotor (edited 27 August 2000).]

PFL

27th Aug 2000, 18:38

old-timer, I'm afraid that the truth would shock you. I've witnessed many a case of lack of basic airmanship errors, by all the services. Accidnt Reports, I,m afraid to say, are full of them.

Brian Dixon

27th Aug 2000, 20:47

Corona Blue,
Sorry, I have never made the claim that FADEC had caused a Chinook to beat itself to death. I think you have me confused with the posting by Jackonicko. I assume the incident you are referring to is the one that occurred in Wilmington USA and is answered by the MoD in my posting further up this page (Question 1).

Hope this helps.

Brian

high spirits

27th Aug 2000, 23:31

Just as an aside to the main debate, the flunkey from MOD talked about the new HUMS and CVR for the mk2a. Heard rumours that boscombe won't clear it as the company wwho make it will not release details of the software. (Anyone for deja-vu?) It seems a tragic shame that there are fatal chinook accident reports from the mid 80's that recommend an adr/cvr fit asap. Doesn't time fly when your having fun. Good luck with the campaign john. Good work fella.

skua

31st Aug 2000, 11:11

BD,
sorry for the delay, here is the letter to which I referred:

“In his article (Pilot, August), Sir William Wratten, the Air Chief Marshal responsible for the Chinook negligence verdict, reiterates his controversial 1995 findings but fails to answer the doubts.

He dismisses criticisms of his verdict – most of them from professional airmen and aerospace engineers- as “wilful ignorance”. Sir William is also careless with the facts. He is not breaking a “long-held silence”. He wrote 2 letters to the Royal Aeronautical Society’s publication Aerospace in 1998. When the ensuing professional correspondence went against him, he resigned from the society..

Again, nobody has ever suggested that a possible technical fault must have cleared itself. Al that has been suggested, as he knows, is that computer faults often leave no trace. Nor is it true that his BoI found a “total absence” of any technical fault. The President, Wing Commander AC Pulford, specifically reported such a possibility (report, 46c).

And why does Sir William describe the lighthouse as “fogbound”? He knows very well that the yachtsman, the witness closest to ZD576 before impact, and therefore in the best position to judge, believed that the pilots could see the lighthouse.

The RAF BoI spent 7 months examining witnesses. In its report, under “Navigation”, it found that the “chosen route was logical and sound for a low level VFR flight” (43a) and that “navigation technique was not a factor in the accident” (43c).

On what evidence does Sir William know better? The BOI found that the low-level (300-400’ ;) visual flight plan was professional and correct. The icing level that day precluded an overflight of the Mull. The Chinook had a 4 degree C icing limitation, and the crew was well aware of it. Indeed, they filed a visual flight plan because of the forecast icing conditions over the Mull.

The crew’s first visual waypoint was the Mull lighthouse. The pilots must have seen it because they had selected the next waypoint, Corran, when they were about one nm from the lighthouse. This is definite from evidence found in the Racal SuperTans navigation computer.

The President and members of the BoI said that “it would be incorrecto criticise [the pilots] for human failings based on the available evidence” (67c) and (68). They concluded that they did not know the cause of the accident.

Enter the Air Marshals, Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day, as reviewing officers. They had taken no part in the investigation and had not heard the witnesses. They were the same Air Marshals who had been responsible for accepting the aircraft which, in the opinion of their airworthiness advisers at Boscombe, was not ready for squadron service. They were the same Air Marshals who had been responsible for authorising – indeed specifically tasking – the sub-airworthy aircraft for the carriage of VVIP’s.

Dissatisfied with the inconclusive findings of the BoI, they took it upon themselves – with no evidence and no proof – to blame the two dead pilots for gross negligence.

At the Fatal Accident Inquiry the Scottish Sheriff, Sir Stephen Young, a judge experienced in the rules of evidence, could not agree with negligence after hearing 16 days of expert RAF and MoD evidence. Among the witnesses was the yachtsman, Mark Holbrook, who said that the Chinook was in sunshine – he remembered “the sun glinting off its windows” - and he believed the crew could see the Mull lighthouse.

On what evidence does Sir William believe that an experienced professional two man crew, having filed a visual flight plan, and having selected its next waypoint, jointly agree to switch suddenly to instrument flight rules and fly suicidally straight on and up into cloud-covered high ground and icing which they knew to be there?

Sir William says that “the responsibilities of command cannot be shirked”. He is right, and one accepts that these responsibilities could not conceivably include the approving the carriage of VVIP’s in aircraft of dubious airworthiness. But command responsibilities do not include blaming dead pilots for the subsequent disaster, without evidence or proof.

JM Ramsden
20 Towsend Drive
St Albans
AL3 5RQ “

Brian Dixon

31st Aug 2000, 22:47

Skua,
thank you very much for the article. I will be in touch with Mr Ramsden by mail forthwith.

Yet again, the question of authorisation of the aircraft raises it's head. Why has there never been a need to justify the introduction of the Mk2 into service in the same manner of the misguided justification to apportion blame?
Likewise the comment on responsibilities

Regards, as always
Brian

[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 31 August 2000).]

Corona Blue

1st Sep 2000, 00:24

Thanks Brian your reply makes things clearer. I'll get my eyes checked out as obviously gone cross-eyed.

oldgit47

1st Sep 2000, 12:14

Percy, Your name is not Wrattem by any chance? Your assumption that the crew were knowingly flying below SA is just that, an assumption. In our aircraft we have kit that is good on most occasions to 7 yds but in a single week produced errors in 6 aircraft of up to 60 nms. Our SALT "bubble" is 15 nms. Had one of our aircraft been at low altitude in poor visibility it could well have been lost, and the crew blamed.

Just an example of what might have happened. The crew may well have been rubber d****d by equipment that now lies in a million pieces.

Aircrew error is a likely cause of this accident, but it can never be proved "beyond reasonable doubt". So the finding of Gross Negligence must contravene British, European, Klingon and anybody elses law you care to mention.

misterploppy

1st Sep 2000, 21:25

Good point, Old Git. Wrotten appears to be keen enough to "protest too much" in The Times, Scotland on Sunday, the RAeS and Pilot etc but seems less keen to raise his head above the parapet in a forum where his outrageous assumptions can be picked over and exposed. One presumes that His Airship is aware of PPRuNe, or perhaps he has learned his lesson and realises that the wind has changed. It seems the Reverend Tony is less ready to accept that assumption and opinion counts as Holy Writ just because it was written by an Air Chief Marshal.

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

Arkroyal

5th Sep 2000, 21:57

Reply received from my M.P.

Not particularly encouraging, but a few quotes follow.

It is interesting that he has found it hard to distinguish error from negligence; and I have written back to make the difference plain.

'....I deprecated the attitude of RAF discipline, which always seemed to want to find somebody to blame.'

'I recently attended a meeting with three senior former pilots, who were putting the case that the outcome of the Chinook crash enquiry was a “miscarriage of justice”. I have to say that I found their arguments unconvincing.'

'It seems to me that all the evidence points to pilot error - an accident, with tragic consequences - and it is because of the tragic consequences that I understand the finding of gross negligence came about.'

So the outcome can affect the cause, can it?

:mad:

smooth approach

5th Sep 2000, 22:15

Obviously an expert on all matters aviation.

Brian Dixon

6th Sep 2000, 01:56

Arkroyal,

Thank you for your writing to your MP. Would you be willing to name and shame them? I appreciate this would narrow down your location and understand if you do not wish to.

I am pleased that you are pointing out to the knowledgeable individual that there is a difference between Pilot error and Gross Negligence. Could you also try to find out who the senior former pilots were.

If I knew how to attach smilies mine would have steam coming from the ears!!

regards and thanks.
Brian

Jackonicko

6th Sep 2000, 17:53

At Brian's request, I have posted Chapter 1 of the multi-chapter, 50k word Computer Weekly report on a new thread, with a hot link back to this one.

It is at:
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum46/HTML/000600.html

Brian Dixon

6th Sep 2000, 22:27

Thanks Jacko. Sorry I'm not a computer whizz.

All credit for the report is due to Tony Collins of Computer Weekly, a true giant in the campaign for justice.

Regards
Brian

Tandemrotor

10th Sep 2000, 00:20

Arkroyal

Come on, let's have the name (or the constituency) of your MP. Maybe we could change his perception on the matter.

The MOD briefing machine can have a veneer of plausibility.

Arkroyal

11th Sep 2000, 12:53

Brian

In my next exchange with my M.P. I will ask about the ‘Senior pilots’ in question.

I don’t think it would be fair to name the man openly here, and expose him to the rottweilers, but I would gladly pass his name to you via e-mail. Whilst I have no objection to my own identity being known on this thread, there are others, of a more current commercial relevance to my own employment that require my anonymity.

I’ll now check out the Computer Weekly article.

Is the complete accident report available to we mere civvies?

For smilies http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/smilies.html http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

Brian Dixon

11th Sep 2000, 21:31

Thanks Arkroyal.

I understand you reluctance about not naming your MP. However, he is a public servant and should be tough enough to deal with the likes of me. That aside, I will respect your wishes. I have e-mailed the webmaster and asked for my e-mail address to be passed to you. Grateful if you would copy the entire letter.

I am currently trying to find somewhere to have a public e-mail address so that individuals can send items they consider maybe useful in the overall campaign. Personal comments should be kept to this forum.

Unfortunately, the complete accident report is not available to we mortals.

Hopefully you will get my address. Looking forward to your reply.

Regards
Brian

Thanks for the smilies tip.

Tandemrotor

12th Sep 2000, 01:25

Arkroyal

I have a copy of the Board of Inquiry report. I wish I could place it on a public forum.

If you would like a copy, I'm pretty sure the families would have no objection to me sending it to you.

Please e-mail me if you still want it.

Arkroyal

12th Sep 2000, 10:45

Tandem, thanks e-mail en route

Brian, hope to get your message and will give you the letter in full.

Don't forget everyone else, you have M.P.s too, so get writing.

:)

Brian Dixon

12th Sep 2000, 23:42

Arkroyal.

The system works!!!

Thank you for the information and the advice on the smilies.

As a thank you....... :)

Brian

Brian Dixon

13th Sep 2000, 14:15

I have been reliably informed that Pilot magazine have accepted a fuller article from Mike Ramsden, following his letter to them the other month (Written in response to Wratten's article).

They plan to publish it in the November issue.

Brian

"Justice has no expiry date." - John Cook

Brian Dixon

16th Sep 2000, 18:48

Congratulations to Arkroyal.

After contacting his MP, following the initial reply posted earlier, the MP is reviewing his position and may be willing to meet Arkroyal to discuss the matter further.

I agree we should not now name the MP as I don't want to alienate them at the moment.

Congrats again Arkroyal. If anyone has not yet contacted their own MP, give it a go. You know it makes sense.

Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Arkroyal

16th Sep 2000, 18:59

Thanks Brian, you obviously recieved my e-mail this morning.

Thanks too to Tandemrotor in anticipation of the BOI report to follow.

What I really need before meeting the said M.P. is hard facts (not rumour or speculation) from anyone who wants them aired.

He seems to be giving cautious support now that he realises that the BOI found no conclusive evidence and that Wrotten and Day may have a vested interest in the truth not coming to the surface. :)

Mister B

16th Sep 2000, 19:27

John

You are certainly doing the right thing. Natural justice has to apply in this case, for with the great uncetainty and lack of evidence of what actually happened in the final moments of this tragic flight, no firm conclusions can be drawn. Anything other than an "open" verdict should not be possible; the crew, sadly, cannot defend themselves and the rest seems to be no more than supposition.

HTB

Brian Dixon

19th Sep 2000, 22:29

Just to let everyone know that the Mull of Kintyre Group recently submitted a detailed report to No 10, and a reply is expected soon regarding a meeting of the prominent members with those in office.

Once I have news I will let you all know.

Brian Dixon

23rd Sep 2000, 15:27

Just to let everyone know, I have recently started to post the questions and replies I sent to (and received from) the MoD, on the official No 10 Downing Street web page.
I know that they are already posted on this site, but others may like to make their feelings known on that site. No 10 will not reply, but they say all posts are read.

Don't know if the link will work but it is: www.number-10.gov.uk/your (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/your) say/speakers corner/military
You should then see the folder regarding the Chinook incident. If the link doesn't work, apologies. Use the number-10 bit and do the rest manually.

I will master a computer one day!!!

misterploppy

23rd Sep 2000, 17:12

Brian, the link is http://www.number-10.gov.uk/forum/Forum.asp?F=47

did you have a browse around the Defence forum? It seems to have been taken over by a succession of fruitcakes who are doing the internet equivalent of howling at the moon!

Brian Dixon

24th Sep 2000, 14:48

Mr P.
Thanks for putting in the appropriate link.

I have e-mailed the No 10 webmaster to complain, as I think some of the fools who use the site are detracting from legitimate topics.

Still, I will continue.

Brian

"Justice has no expiry date." - John Cook

Arkroyal

28th Sep 2000, 22:42

Recently heard from a mate who lost a relative in the crash, and it seems that the MoD has settled damages (at least in this case) at a fair amount.

That rather shoots down my theory that money-saving was a good reason to find Gross negligence rather than error, or the correct verdict of no cause determined.

Now, I'm still intent on a meeting with my M.P., and I would really like to know if there was any involvement by the reviewing officers (Wratten and Day)in the acceptance of the Chinook mk2 in to service before it was ready.

Brian Dixon

1st Oct 2000, 18:42

Heard today that Tony Blair has refused to see the delegation from the Mull of Kintyre Group. He claims he is 'too busy'.
After promising to give the matter his personal attention, he has just washed his hands of the matter and passed it back to the MoD.

Who is in charge Mr Blair??

We will not go away until this matter is reviewed by impartial individuals. (Sir Stephen Young springs to mind, but you just chose to ingnore him didn't you).

:mad: :mad: :mad:

"Justice has no expiry date." - John Cook

misterploppy

1st Oct 2000, 20:14

Brian

I think you got the vowels the wrong way round in Tony B liar.

John Nichol

2nd Oct 2000, 14:53

There are some very good letters in the October issue of Pilot. The one from Lord Chalfont (Chairman of Mull Of Kintyre Action Group) is most thought provoking:

"...ACM Wratten accuses his critics of 'wilful ignorance'. As the Mull Of Kintyre Group is making a...formal aproach to the PM, I will make no further comment at this stage, except to say...the group has taken great care not in any way to impugn the integrity or competence of anyone involved in this matter. However, if the Queensbury Rules are to be dispensed with, Sir William Wratten may have to answer some questions which have not yet been asked".

Now that's what I call a warning letter - Let 'em have it M'Lord.

Arkroyal

3rd Oct 2000, 10:10

Quelle surprise!!!!!

So Tony's too busy to even consider this travesty....... :mad:

Come on everyone, get writing to your M.P.s.

He will have to listen in the end when the clamour is loud enough.

Brian Dixon

3rd Oct 2000, 14:44

Arkroyal,
sorry for the delay in getting this to you.
Here is the information you asked for regarding the involvment of certain senior officers:

Initially, the MoD stated that neither Day or Wratten had any involvement at all. After further questions were put to them they stated that Day was not responsible (as Air Officer Commanding No. 1 - which covers the Chinook) for certifying the Chinook. That job was the responsibility of the Secretary of State, delegated to the RAF and MoD (who took advice from Boscombe Down but rejected its recommendation to rewrite the software).

AVM Day was, however, the man who as AOC No. 1 took responsibility for the decision to deploy the Chinook in operations, and who was responsible for keeping the Chinook in operational service despite the continued concerns of Boscombe Down and criticisms from flight crews during the early flights. Criticisms such as the unreliability of the FADEC and the engine warning lights, high temperature warnings and warnings regarding torque mismatches (a matching of torque between the two Chinook engines is crucial in terms of stability and helping to ensure no rotor runaways. FADEC is supposed to help match the torque but in the Mull of Kintyre crash, the torquemeters were not checked - AAIB said they did not have the test facilities.

Therefore AVM Day and the boss of all the operational divisions, ACM Wratten, were responsible for keeping the Chinook Mk 2 in operational service at a time when Boscombe Down said it would not recommend the helicopter for operational service unless the FADEC software was rewritten. Had the software been found to have been a cause of the crash, any criticism could have been directed at AVM Day as the officer responsible for keeping the Chinook in service (even after grounding - twice - by Boscombe Down) and at his boss, ACM Wratten, as well as possibly criticism of the MoD and RAF for certifying the aircraft despite Boscombe Down's recommendation.

Enjoy your meeting with your MP!!

Brian

psyclic

3rd Oct 2000, 17:49

they even kept the mk2's flying in '94 after simple torquemeter gauge failures were shown to cause engine rundowns. Not really relevant to the Mull case but indicitive of pressure, at that time, to keep the damn things flying and thus pressure on the aircrews to fly in unproven machines.

Arkroyal

4th Oct 2000, 10:55

Brian

Ta for the post and the Email.

Composing further letter to Westminster, and hope for meeting soon.

Arkroyal

10th Oct 2000, 23:11

Really to keep this subject in the front page.

Letter to MP sent pointing out the conflict of interest of Wratten and Day who were responsible for maintaining the Mk 2 in service (when Boscombe had theirs grounded), being the same officers who convened the BOI and then overturned its findings.

I would love to see the BOI so as to be fully briefed for the forthcoming meeting with the said MP.

Agree with John Nichol, the letters in Pilot are well written and worth a look. Interesting that the only obligatory view for the result was written by a FCO civil servant.

Brian Dixon

12th Oct 2000, 00:23

You probably know that test pilots are allowed to refuse to fly aircraft whereas operational pilots are not.

Look out for the next issue of Pilot. I understand that an article by Mike Ramsden is to be published.

Brian Dixon

12th Oct 2000, 22:16

You just have to laugh!!

I wrote to my MP to express my disgust at the short attention span of Tony Blair regarding his promise to give the Chinook crash his personal attention. My MP is, and has been, very supportive and also wrote to number 10. This is the reply he recieved:

"I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister to thank you for your letter of 5 October with which you enclosed correspondence from Mr Brian Dixon.

The Prime Minister has asked me to arrange for a Minister in the Ministry of Defence to reply to you direct."

'Nuff said I think. :rolleyes:

WhoNeedsRunways

16th Oct 2000, 12:32

There's a three page article in this month's issue of Pilot, written by JM Ramsden, about this issue.

Just in case anyone's interested.

Brian Dixon

18th Oct 2000, 21:11

The article in Pilot Magazine is very well written and well worth a read.

I have sent a further 13 questions to the Secretary of State for Defence and will do the same as last time when I get the reply.

misterploppy

25th Oct 2000, 00:38

Frank Field & Gerald Howarth have been busy - Questions tabled for written answers on 23 Oct 00 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmordbk2/01023w01.htm

Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his Answer of 25th July, Official Report, column 550W, on the Chinook crash, whether the emergency power warning lights were switched on at the time of the impact at the Wilmington crash.(133755)

10N Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his Answer of 25th July, Official Report, column 550W, on the Chinook crash, if he will list the faulty test procedures that his Department was seeking redress for in their litigation claim against Textron Lycoming.(133757)

11N Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his Answer of 25th July, Official Report, column 550W, on the Chinook crash, if he will give details of the outcome of his Department's claim against Textron Lycoming.(133759)

12N Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his Answer of 25th July, Official Report, column 550W, on the Chinook crash, if (a) the Air Accident Investigation Board and (b) his Department have concluded that FADEC was not a factor in the Wilmington crash.(133773)

13N Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his Answer of 25th July, Official Report, column 550W, on the Chinook crash, (a) who made the examination of the FADEC system as quoted in the Air Accident Investigation Board's report to the RAF Board of Inquiry and (b) if that examination found no possible link between the FADEC system and the accident.(133756)

14N Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his Answer of 25th July, Official Report, column 550W, on the Chinook crash, whether Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day knew of his Department's legal claim against the FADEC manufacturer, Textron Lycoming at the time of their investigation into the fatal crash of Chinook ZD576.

38 Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what is the function of the Institute of Flight Safety; and what role it performed in the Inquiry into the crash of RAF Chinnook ZD576.(133994)

39 Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will list each occasion in the last 10 years in which the Air Accidents Investigation Branch has been involved in the investigation of military accidents.(133995)

40 Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will place a copy of the Report of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch investigation of the RAF Chinnook ZD576 in the Library.(133996)

41 Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will place in the Library a copy of the statement given by Mr R. Parkinson, Senior Inspector of Air Accidents, to the Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry into the crash of RAF Chinnock ZD576.

Wokka wokka

25th Oct 2000, 17:47

My website was has been mentioned as part of an MP's inquiry into the Mull of Kintyre incident and I have had alot of people e-mailing me with comments on the subject, some of them make for an interesting read.
If you would like to make contact with me please go to the website listed: www.wokka.co.uk (http://www.wokka.co.uk)
It has been constructed to inform people of exercises and general info that the Chinook helicopter is involved with. The RAF station have not got round to producing a website yet.

Brian Dixon

27th Oct 2000, 22:47

I'm in the very early stages of trying to negotiate facilities for an e-mail petition (similar to that run by Computer Weekly a while ago). If negotiations are successful I will arrange for it to be posted on the official number 10 Downing Street web page.

I take it that I can rely on contributors to this thread for support.

If all works out OK, I'll let everyone know where to register their support.

Regards
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

John Nichol

28th Oct 2000, 14:26

Another good article in this week's Computer Weekly pointing out all the flaws in the MOD's position.

Arkroyal

28th Oct 2000, 15:33

In reply to my latest letter to my MP, he has sent me a copy of the Defence Committee’s report on ‘Lessons of the Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre’, together with Hansard covering the debate in the House of Commons on the crash, which took place on 27 June this year.

I am ploughing through the documents before replying, but it is certainly heartening to find that there is a lot of support in the house for the call to remove the verdict of gross negligence.

The dis-heartening aspect is the obstinacy of the MoD in refusing to reconsider.

To help me, I would like to know the exact Icing clearance issued to the Mk 2 Chinook in 1994, the freezing level in the vicinity of the Mull at the time of the crash, and the Visual Flight Rules for helicopters at the time.

In my day it was ‘Clear of cloud, in sight of land or water’. There is a suggestion in the Defence Committee report that the pilots required a visibility of at least 5 Km in order to fly visually.

The MoD’s case is now that the ‘gross negligence’ occurred at a stage so early in the flight that any failure or distraction close to the Mull would be irrelevant. Their case would be overturned if the aircraft were being flown within the rules right up until the moment that ‘a reasonable person’ would have done the same.

Any help gratefully received.

We will win this one; it’s just a matter of time!

Hydraulic Palm Tree

28th Oct 2000, 21:45

Can answer a few points:

Icing clearance was basically no flight in rain/precip/cloud below +4 degrees.

VFR limits in the Air Staff Orders was 1km/100 ft for ops based in NI. However as you know for helo flights below 3000ft and less than 140kts COCISS also applied.

Will try and find out the 0 degree level

HPT

Arkroyal

29th Oct 2000, 12:05

Thanks Hydraulic, just what I'm after.

It's interesting that the most limiting case is 1Km when the defence committeee are working on a figure of 5Km. I have the IAS prior to impact somewhere, seem to remember 160Kts, which would put it outside the COCISOLOW regime.

It would seem likely that with a Safety Altitude of 5900ft (Ben Nevis + 1500') that a climb to fly IFR was not an option.

Surely that alone shoots down Wratten's argument in 'The Times' and elsewhere that they were negligent for not doing it.

Thanks again.

We WILL win this one

Hydraulic Palm Tree

29th Oct 2000, 12:48

Arkroyal

If greater than 140 kts, then the criteria are indeed 5km vis, 1.5km horizontally clear of cloud and 1000ft vertically clear of cloud. However to contradict this, the ASOs stated a minima of 250ft cloudbase and 1km vis for ops inside the UKLFS.

HPT

Brian Dixon

29th Oct 2000, 15:21

Don't forget that in his own article, Wratten stated:

"I wrote that, without the irrefutable evidence of an accident data recorder and a cockpit voice recorder, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise details of the events prior to impact".

Wratten himself admits that he based his conclusion of absolutely no doubt whatsoever on speculation!! This in itself is enough to negate the findings of the BoI review.

This question is one of the latest thirteen I have sent to Minister Hoon. Replies here as soon as I get them.

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

misterploppy

29th Oct 2000, 16:55

Cross-Posted from "Lions Armed by Donkeys"
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/10/29/stinwenws02005.html

British troops 'were within hours' of invading Kosovo

BRITAIN was within just hours of launching a ground invasion of Kosovo when Slobodan Milosevic surrendered last year, a senior commander has revealed. "It was three to four hours, tops," Air Marshal Sir John Day said last week. "That's how close we were."

<snip>

Last week the Commons defence select committee criticised Blair and Clinton for "ruling out" a land attack to remove Serbian forces from Kosovo. The committee had been told by General Sir Mike Jackson, the field commander, that no order to invade was given.

Although this was an accurate statement, the order was only hours away from being delivered, said Day. Blair had believed from an early stage that a ground offensive in some form would have been needed. He had worked hard to win support from the other 18 members of the international alliance, although divisions remained.

<snip>

Day also points to what he sees as failings in the committee's report, which criticised the RAF for a poor "hit rate" on targets and, he says, ignored the bravery of the airmen.

"I feel sorry for the crews, the support teams and the families after this report," said Day. "A lot of people went in under very heavy fire after four hours in the air, then chose not to drop their weapons because they could not be sure of not hitting civilians. None of that courage is recognised in this report."

- The committee were not criticising the crews but the incompetent RAF management and procurement policies. Perhaps if His Airship had played his part in ensuring the procurement of less dodgy kit, the aircrew would have been able to drop their weapons with confidence of hitting the correct target. I seem to recall he was less complimentary to the aircrew of the Chinook he ordered into service in an unproven state when it suited his career. The 'ultimate politician' is now crawling up the Rev. Blair's jacksie.

Bets on the next CDS, chaps?

Skycop

30th Oct 2000, 03:36

No surprises at all. Exactly what has been suspected ever since the BOI was over-ruled, when they failed to come up with a politically acceptable conclusion.

Someone appears to have been protecting their own career at the expense of dead aircrew's reputations.

Those involved do the RAF a great dis-service.

Please keep at it Brian. This is one terrible injustice that will not lie down or go away until the truth finally comes out.

WebPilot

31st Oct 2000, 13:46

It seems that the RAAF have two Chinooks with engine problems that they are refusing to accept from the manufacturer.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/state/qld/archive/metqld-31oct2000-3.htm

Arkroyal

31st Oct 2000, 15:20

Hydraulic Palm Tree and Brian

Thanks a lot for all the info by various means.

I guess most people on this thread are familiar with Wratten’s Article in the Sunday Times 18/6/2000 (if not it’s at www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/06/18/stirevnws02007.html (http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/06/18/stirevnws02007.html) ), in which he ‘stands by every word we wrote in reaching the judgement we did.’

Brian quotes from the article above "I wrote that, without the irrefutable evidence of an accident data recorder and a cockpit voice recorder, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise details of the events prior to impact". Which alone implies that his verdict, (which requires, from QRRAF, that ‘Only in cases where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent’, is based on speculation. This is surely enough to have that verdict overturned.

Lets look further in to the muddled mind of ACM Wratten.

In the article he 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.

Still happy you have absolutely no doubt, Sir William?

The Chinook on a track of roughly north impacted the Mull at 151 Kts. groundspeed. Given the local wind quoted as 170 degrees at ‘about’ 30 Knots, an airspeed of about 130 Knots would seem about right. Under VFR the crew were quite entitled to fly ‘Clear of cloud in sight of the surface’ up to a speed of 140 Kts IAS. There is no minimum visibility specified. Wratten maintains that ‘they should have turned away or turned back’. The control positions in the wreckage support the likelihood that they were doing just that. Too late obviously, but as anyone who has flown over a misty sea, judgement of visibility is nigh on impossible until something solid appears. And what if this new and unreliable (accepted fault rate of one every 2.7 hours) machine had thrown up some other distraction at the moment critique?

Still happy you have absolutely no doubt, Sir William?

I could speculate further as to what might have occurred, but there is no point. The only point is that on similar pointless speculation, Sir William Wratten has chosen to destroy the reputations of two of his colleagues. Why he should have done this is open to further debate, and I think uncomfortable questions are about to be asked of him (John Nichol above 02 October).

[This message has been edited by Arkroyal (edited 31 October 2000).]

EESDL

31st Oct 2000, 20:08

Good article in 'Pilot'.

Dear Geoff the Hoon
Are you aware that your predecessor was involved in a major cover-up concerning the Chinook incident? He was intentionally advised incorrectly. The cover-up was not for security/operational reasons but simply to cover some politically minded/egotistically driven commander of loyal and skilled aviators, who had lost the plot. Suggest you ask Sir Wratten and the like to answer a few questions behind the nearest bike shed.
Yours faithfully(if you agree to back me up when employed by your good self)

Brian Dixon

31st Oct 2000, 23:40

Skycop,
thanks for the kind words. You are absolutely right. I (and many others) will NOT lie down. I will NOT go away until this injustice is rectified.

WebPilot,
thanks for the info on the RAAF. I'm making further enquiries.

Arkroyal,
you are more than welcome. I also appreciate the support you give me. I think you should be commended for attempting to explore the mind of ACM Wratten. Not a journey to make alone!!

EESDL,
My mate Geoff Hoon has been asked the very questions and I will post both questions and replies as and when he manages the answers.

Everyone,
many, many thanks for your support and comments. I assure you all that I will do whatever I can for Rick and Jon, regardless of timescale.

Regards
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

smooth approach

1st Nov 2000, 00:01

Gross Negligence = "flagrant lack of proper care and attention". (Combined Oxford Dictionary definition). Maybe smiling Bill came to this conclusion to save his own bacon. Who exercised "proper care and attention" when releasing the ac to operational service with so many limitations/restricitions/doubts?

Keep fighting.

Smoothie

FJJP

1st Nov 2000, 00:21

Re the articles in Pilot. Is it on the web? If so, anybody got the hyperlink?

WhoNeedsRunways

1st Nov 2000, 13:30

FJJP :

Not on the web, but in current issue of Pilot. If all else fails, drop me a line at the email in the profile and I can sort something out.

Brian Dixon

1st Nov 2000, 22:14

Smoothie,
see my posting dated 3 October (Page 7)regarding the decision to deploy the Chinook into operational service.

It is also question 1 of the latest batch to Minister Hoon. Replies here as and when they drop through the door.

Hope this helps.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

WebPilot

2nd Nov 2000, 14:05

Brian - you might want to look at the post on Rumours & News (if you havn;t found it already) entitled 'FAA finds problems in Boeing audit' - http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/010799.html

The post refers to manufacturing issues at Boeing. Whilst not specifically related to the Chinook, if there are systemic problems at Boeing, it could be germane.

Snippet from the post: http://www.airsafetyonline.com/news/2000/10/31/1.shtml
The Federal Aviation Administration found "systemic'' problems with design and production processes at seven Boeing Co. aircraft engineering and manufacturing facilities but concluded that passenger safety was not compromised......."

DESPERADO

3rd Nov 2000, 02:59

As someone who is currently serving aircrew in the RAF I would like to offer my (somewhat anonymous) support to all that is being said here. My own feelings on why the crash happened are, like every one else's (except Wratten, Day), pure conjecture. It is not possible to find those guys negligent because of a basic lack of evidence. We are becoming more and more governed in the military buy things that we have traditionally vetoed (Euro Convention on Human rights springs to mind), the judgement made by senior officers over their colleagues, professional military aircrew, just would not stand up in any court of law!

I feel as strongly about this as you do and I commend everyone for their efforts.

Leadership begins with loyalty to your subordinates above all others.

[This message has been edited by DESPERADO (edited 02 November 2000).]

Trimma

3rd Nov 2000, 15:09

As a newcomer to this site, and somebody who knew John in his early years in the RAF I am delighted that this spectacular injustice is being pursued. It seems unbelieveable that the weight of evidence against the verdict can be ignored. It may be small comfort, but another spectacular injustice that had the 'smell of Wratten' on it, the burning of the navigator at Chivenor in 1989, has been overturned. Nobody could believe the charge of GBH levelled at the 3 innocent men. Unfortunately they had their lives/careers wrecked before justice could be done.

GBH - acting with wilfull intent fully knowing the consequences of their actions.

Hardly, they were drunk and had all (victim included) been throwing brandy onto each other and proving capabilities of Nomex flying suit by setting fire to each other. Unforunately they ran out of brandy and resorted to white spirit. Allegedly, OC 11 Gp at the time (BW) wished to make an example of these men and directed the Court Martial to return a GBH conviction. Sent to Parkhurst for a party trick that went wrong!! The biggest injustice is that somebody like Wratten can thrive in the services. Lets not get onto the B-word.

Sorry if I have strayed outside the subject of this topic but I get so inflamed and disappointed by the tolerance/complicity of senior officers in matters like these. They are supposed to represent us not sell us out for curtains or career!!!

'People are our most important asset' - Prove it. Air Officers, the whole military aviation community expects you to have the courage to see justice done!

Arkroyal

3rd Nov 2000, 23:12

Trimma

Welcome, and no, you are not off subject at all. The mind of Wratten is extremely pertinent, and his zeal for 'making an example' may be the 'bit of previous' that will eventually trip him up.

He would appear to be a very vindictive as well as cowardly individual. :mad:

Brian Dixon

4th Nov 2000, 00:43

The Mull of Kintyre Group is to have a meeting with Minister Hoon on 15 November.

Arkroyal - thanks for the mail. Brilliant work me old chum.

Desperado - Welcome to the campaign. Contact your MP to express your disgust. Get them to write to the office of Lord Chalfont to offer their support to the campaign. (Sorry to those who are bored of me repeating this message!)

Trimma - Likewise, welcome. Slight point though. It would appear that careers are the most important asset, not people. You'll never get promoted with an attitude like that young man!

I understand that a very comprehensive and well written letter has been sent to Pilot magazine, in response to Mr Ramsden's article. I know it will be worth the read.

Regards one and all.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

misterploppy

4th Nov 2000, 07:16

Ark

As to the mind of Wrotten:

You're right. It was and it did. That is why he's now a civvy.

Arkroyal

4th Nov 2000, 15:44

Mr Ploppy

Ta for that. One might thing that even vindictive cowards have at least a shred of decency lurking deep within them, and would eventually pull their heads out of the sand and face the fact that they have made a gross error.

Hell, if politicians such as Malmolm Rifkind and James Arbuthnott have shown the courage to admit as much in the house, then why not Wratten. Day of course is still on his way up the slippery pole, and any sign of weakness might threaten his tenuous grip on it.

Trimma welcome again. I guess you have no intention of climbing it unless it cabn be done with integrity and decency. Good on ya.

Brian, thanks on all counts.

We WILL win this

Justice has no expiry date, but cowardice and ignorance have.

Thud_and_Blunder

4th Nov 2000, 20:06

The mind of Wratten...

There's a subject for speliologists and other visitors to the Dark Side. For what it's worth, my one encounter with him showed him to be happy to be economical with the actualite. He was on a visit to Bosnia, and as the only QHI in sight it fell to me to take him tasking prior to dropping him at Banja Luka. Standard IT is to only ask questions you know the answer to - knowing full well that an oppo had flown him not too long previously, I asked if he'd ever piloted a Chinook before. "No.."

Ark - I admit I've been mightily impressed with your capacity to listen and adapt as this thread has progressed. If only half the readers of this board did as much as you to keep the question of this injustice alive and kicking, Jon and Rick's reputations would have been exonerated months ago. BZ, I think you lot used to say...

MrBernoulli

4th Nov 2000, 20:45

Wratten first slipped hugely in my estimation at a briefing in the Gulf in Jan 1990. Yes, the war had just begun and I was standing at the back of a small, tightly packed room largely populated by tired and frustrated Tornado bomber crews. Wratten was very pointedly telling them that they must bomb POL storage but that they MUSN'T bomb the refining capability (something about stopping Iraqs capability to WAGE war but not stopping their capability to RECOVER economically once the war was over - ha ha, what a joke that has proved to be).

A couple of those present asked for absolute clarification as they thought that collateral damage was certain given the proximity of storage and refining targets. After all, a full POL storage facility makes a very big bang when bombed and then spreads burning POL for some distance. Refining capability is sure to affected. Wratten cut the fellas off by saying something to the effect that that was not the way ahead. One chap then topped the frosty atmosphere by hinting that 'if you're up to arse in alligators' ie AAA, missiles etc then as long as any or all of the target area goes bang, the job has been achieved. Wratten just gave the room a cold stare and it was obvious they all wanted to lynch him.

He certainly didn't seem to appreciate their point of view.

Trimma

4th Nov 2000, 20:53

Arkroyal & Brian,

Thanks for your words of welcome. You have guessed correctly, there is still a lot of the 'ladder' above me. Not quite what I had in mind 17-ish years ago but the more one sees of incidents like this, the less one wishes to become a part of it - very disappointing. Will I be staying past my 38 yr point - I wonder, hmmmm.........!!!

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

Arkroyal

5th Nov 2000, 03:35

Thud,

Thanks for those kind words. I like to think that my position hasn't really changed.I always felt that an injustice had been perpetrated in this case, but thought hell, it's not my problem. I came in to this thread to chew the fat over it and was quite rightly shot down by shytorque and tandemrotor, who had been hurting with this travesty for six years. I was very impressed by Brians quiet tenacity, and when Tandem suggested a letter to my M.P. I realised that this was more than a bit of banter. Rick and Jon could so easily have been myself and another hapless colleague, and who would fight for us rather than just talk about it.

I'm now fully committed, as, if we, their former oppos and peers don't fight for them then who will.

Trimma,

I banged my head against the same wall for 16 years. Its great when you stop.Welcome aboard me hearty, join in and get that letter off to your M.P.

Mr B

Thanks for more insight in to the muddied mind of BW. The more I hear the less I like, but lets have more. He will soon be asked some pretty difficult questions, and a knowledge of his character (or lack of one) will be most enlightening.

We Will Win This

Skycop

5th Nov 2000, 04:54

Ark,

Well said. ShyTorque is glad to be of help. Unfortunately he is unable to contribute these days as the gremlins got at him and will not allow his username access at the moment. Perhaps he will be back soon.

Rick Cook was actually one of my students on the Gazelle during his basic course. I remember him as a very good pilot with more than a little natural talent. Later we served on the same station and nothing ever changed my professional opinion of him. His squadron commander thought the same (or he would not have trusted to this VIP task, would he?). He was also a very pleasant and professionally-minded young man who could no doubt have gone on to senior management himself had he survived. He was as careful as anyone with a young wife (and first child imminent?) would be. He was the last sort of person deserving this unjust stigma laid on his grave by these two vindictive and self-opinionated and self-protecting superior officers. Especially as the more senior and more vociferous of the two concerned was not even a qualified helicopter pilot. Has that last point been reported?

Boy, does this continue to make me angry. As soon as I read the BOI report I knew there had been a management cover up, especially bearing in mind the debacle of the MK2. I wrote (my one and only ever letter) to Flight International criticising the over-ruling of the BOI verdict as soon as I realised what had taken place. They did publish it (in watered down form) but no-one else answered as far as I remember. I was rather surprised that it took so long for others to join me in my indignation.

I am resolute in saying that this was an accident that could quite possibly have claimed any of us in similar circumstances, whatever they were.

However, it does now appear that the criticism is hurting where it should. Let's hope one day they are MAN ENOUGH TO SHOULDER THEIR PART OF THE RESPONSIBILITY.

As it cannot be shirked, can it Mr. Wratten?

Arkroyal

5th Nov 2000, 15:55

Shyskycoptorque.

So that's where you went.

That poiny about Wratten not being a helicopter pilot had sort of lurked in my mind for some time without surfacing.

It is very relevent, as, with a fixed wing background he would always have the option denied Jon and Rick to pull up and climb to MSA.

He is obviously narrow minded, in that he refuses to accept that they did not have that option; vindictive, in that he chose to 'make an example' without evidence; and intransigent, in that his mind is closed to any criticism of his actions.

His only course to redemption lies in retracting all he has said and to join the campaign to remove this disgusting slur on the reputations of two better men than he.

Boar & Sow formation, line up, you are number one for departure! :mad:

Brian Dixon

5th Nov 2000, 16:13

Skycop,

If Rick was one of your students then you must have been a bloody good instructor!

Your comments on him are very gracious. I have directed his family to your comment on this site. It is, in my humble opinion, an accurate picture of Rick.

He already had a young child at the time of the crash. Jon had one child with another due one month after the crash. Your comments on Rick could easily apply also to Jon. For me, it was an honour and pleasure to have known and worked with them both. (Just one of the reasons that I have campaigned for the past 6 years).

One minor point though. The officers to whom you refer were, and are, in no way superior. They merely had a higher rank, and due to thier loftiness, suffered hypoxia!

Regards and thanks
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Brian Dixon

5th Nov 2000, 16:50

Right,
everyone knows I'm rubbish with computers but here goes......

These are links to similar threads on the site over the past year. I've done this for information and not to ge the other threads re-opened. Use them for info, but keep this thread as the main one.
www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum46/HTML/000600.html (http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum46/HTML/000600.html)
www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum46/HTML/000518.html (http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum46/HTML/000518.html)
www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum46/HTML/000406.html (http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum46/HTML/000406.html)
www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum46/HTML/000408.html (http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum46/HTML/000408.html)
www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum46/HTML/000347.html (http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum46/HTML/000347.html)
www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum46/HTML/000309.html (http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum46/HTML/000309.html)
www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum46/HTML/000211.html (http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum46/HTML/000211.html)
www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum46/HTML/000111.html (http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum46/HTML/000111.html)

Hope they all work.

Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 05 November 2000).]

Skycop

5th Nov 2000, 18:21

All Mr. Wratten would have to do is to admit he made a mistake but I don't know if that is in his character. He must by now have at least one small doubt, in which case he will know in his own mind that his damning verdict is unjust.

After all, he is NOT an expert in helicopter ops. His knowledge has come second hand and not by sitting in the cockpit.

I hope it was as simple as that, i.e. his logic was flawed.

Brian, I wondered if someone would be unable to resist the military label "superior officers".

Brian Dixon

5th Nov 2000, 19:52

Damn!
I hate being predictable.

misterploppy

5th Nov 2000, 20:24

Ark & Brian

Drop me an e-mail if you wish further dx on the above:

"You're right. It was and it did. That is why he's now a civvy."

1.3VStall

6th Nov 2000, 15:46

Skycop, Wratten have a small doubt? Not the remotest chance!

Wratten is so arrogant and so totally convinced of his own infallibility that he resigned from the Royal Aeronautical Society because a member had the temerity to write and question his judgement.

Adds a new dimension to intransigence doesn't it?

360vision

7th Nov 2000, 01:43

I was on duty 2nd june, two days later we had to take the families out there. It wasn't nice chaps. Does it really matter who was to blame? It was a sad loss!!!!

Fly safe chaps!!!!!

360vision

7th Nov 2000, 01:47

Me again, for the benefit of the journo's i would like to add the point that sometimes the crew of her majesties aircraft are sometimes put upon to get the job done. I am not saying that the crew of this particular flight were unprofessional. I am saying that the state of the military as a whole (even then) was at a point of stretch. Add to that the nature of the flight in question and make your own deductions. We are all grown ups but it is easy to blame the dead isn't it!!

R O Tiree

7th Nov 2000, 02:49

360Vision -

I think the point Brian Dixon et al are trying to make is, there is no conclusive evidence that says that the crew were negligent. Therefore, they cannot be found to be negligent. That is set in stone. The original BOI did not find them to be negligent, neither did the Court in Scotland. There were enough questions about the ac such that the crash could have been caused by some technical malfunction. Equally, it could have been caused by pilot error. The point is, there is no evidence either way. You cannot find someone to be grossly negligent on no evidence. Johhny Wrotten can hypothesise all he likes, but it is not evidence, therefore his verdict is totally unjustified.

To answer your question "Does it really matter who is to blame" no-one will ever be able to prove conclusively who was to blame. And that means that Johnny Wrotten can not be allowed to continue to play fast and lose with the rules or the crew's reputations. This verdict must be overturned.

Arkroyal

7th Nov 2000, 12:03

Thanks R O

Well put.

360vision, I wonder how your family would be feeling now had you been involved in this or any other accident, with YOU being found posthumously grossly negligent without a shred of evidence?

No, it doesn't matter who's to blame, and future Service BOIs will no longer apportion blame. The point is someone WAS blamed in this instance and any 'grown up' with more than a few degrees of vision, let alone 360, will want justice to prevail.

Skycop

7th Nov 2000, 16:06

360,

Yes, it damn well does matter who was to blame! Blaming the pilots was the easy way out for others up the chain of authorisation who undoubtedly contributed to this accident. Have you never heard of the flight safety chain?

If the military were so stretched and the weather so poor, why was this flight in an untried (actually it was tried and REJECTED by the test pilots) and partly unservicable aircraft with at least one major flight limitation not cancelled or postponed?

The passengers could easily have travelled by military or civil fixed wing, which would have been a far less risky option, even bearing in mind any potential for terrorist action against a high value target. Why were all the eggs put in one basket?

There are so many unanswered questions and stones unturned. Turn any one of them and you will see this was a management induced accident, whatever the final catalyst for the tragedy.

Blaming the crew conveniently put aside the requirement to look any further into the underlying errors.

Brian Dixon

7th Nov 2000, 21:22

360,

Oh dear! Not a good start to your debate was it? I'm not going to resort to arguing as I respect that you're entitled to your opinion. However, I don't think you have sold yourself very well.

Why do you say 'it doesn't matter'? Are you not concerned that individuals were given no choice but to fly an unsuitable aircraft?
(It matters to me, and to many others by the way)

Are you not concerned that a VVIP cargo was placed on such an aircraft?

Does it not concern you that it may have been you and some of your other colleagues? (Not that I would wish this on anyone!) Who would campaign on your behalf?

Are you not concerned by the lack of support from senior officers?

Why do you not question the fact that despite reviewing all evidence available at the time, the BoI found no evidence to attribute blame to the pilots, yet two Air Marshals chose to ignore the findings of the Board?

For my part, as has been mentioned (Thank you R O Tree), I don't know what happened in the final moments. However, I firmly believe that the verdict of Gross Negligence is flawed. There is no evidence to support it. That is my campaign.

Question - Do you believe that Rick and Jon deliberately flew into the Mull? If not what is your point? If you do, where is your evidence?

As I say, you are entitled to your opinion. I have no problem with that, but I think a shrug of the shoulders has no place on this forum.

Regards
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Retired and Senile

8th Nov 2000, 01:09

Has anyone spotted the fact the shortly after the Mull crash the contents of an IRT was changed. IRE's were required to check a pilots' ability fly a low level IF abort.

It would appear that the air staff at gp were concerned that this aspect of pilot training had been overlooked. Those of us who have inadvertantly flown into IMC at lowlevel know that it is a very uncomfortable experience, especially when near rising ground. It is one thing to be nicely lined up on a runway and in your own time fly an IF departure it is a complete nightmare when you have to do it unexpectedly.

Over the sea, when visibility is poor it is difficult to be certain how far you can see. Are you able to see a mile or perhaps only half that distance, or even less? There is nothing to look at to help you gauge distance. There is every likelihood that the weather at the Mull was much worse than John and Rick realized.

About 30 secs before the crash a routine nav input was made. Almost certainly all was well at that stage. They then entered cloud, probably inadvertantly, and failed to complete a safe climb. It is possible that neither pilot had been in this situation before. There was no requirement to practise the manoeuvre during routine training. This skill gap has now been filled by the amended IRT.

The pilots could not have been found grossly negligent if they found themselves inadvertantly in a situation that was beyond their experience and training. I believe the staff at 1 Gp recognized the possibility that inadequate training was a major factor in the accident.

bussy

8th Nov 2000, 02:49

Has anyone asked "What the hell were top profile blokes (and I knew one of the Pongos) being transported in a Chinnok anyway?" Surely if the government had not pruned the comms squadrons so much they could have been transported in more suitable style. Cannot believe they put so many important people in such a vunerable aircraft.

psyclic

8th Nov 2000, 03:21

Skycop; the eggs were in one basket because this was another regular 'out of area' r+r break for those vvips.

NoFaultFound

8th Nov 2000, 03:55

Brian,

I am fairly new to this particular debate, however, I feel utter disgust at the way the two pilots were treated by our lords and masters. I wish you all the best with your campaign and will now keep a close eye on this thread. I read that the Mull of Kintyre Group is to have a meeting with Hoon on the 15th of this month, I think we will all be interested in the results of that.

You mentioned earlier the possibility of an email potition, but I did not see any more on that, have you had any joy setting this up?

Thankyou for your persistance in this matter

NFF

Brian Dixon

8th Nov 2000, 17:18

Retired and Senile,
Thanks for the posting. Are you arguing the fact that the senior officers should be held accountable as a result of vicarious liability? Also, be careful that you don't fall into the speculation as fact argument. We don't know if they entered cloud and failed to complete a safe climb. There may have been other issues involved.

bussy.
Again, thanks for the posting. The question has been asked on many occasions, and by people far better than I. As yet, no satisfactory answer has been offered.

NoFaultFound
Welcome also and thank you for your comments of support. As soon as I know the result of the meeting on the 15th, I will post it here. The e-petition is still in the early negotiating stages. I have to rely on help for that, as if you read back through the pages, you will see how useless I am with computers!!

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

DESPERADO

8th Nov 2000, 18:40

Brian & John
Just been listening to the news, interesting story about the bulk carrier The Derbyshire that went down 20 years ago with all hands. The first enquiry found the crew negligent a few years back, the families refused to accept this verdict and forced a new enquiry and today their loved ones were exonerated. A few interesting similarities in that they (the crew) were found guilty in their absence without irrefutable evidence. Their families have cleared their names by showing the type of tenacity a plain common sense that you are showing. The message is clear, don't give up.

Linked to this point is the fact that the families (of the Derbyshire)went through the courts. When you consider the findings of the BOI and the Fatal Accident Enquiry, both of which found no evidence to support a finding of Grossly Negigent against the crew of the Chinook I find it astounding that the govt can actually support the findings of the 2 Air Marshalls. Is it possible for you to approach the courts, in a civil action of some sort, to force the govt to take away the slur placed upon the crews names.

For those of you out there that believe this should be let lie, I believe that most of you (I know I would), would want your families and friends and colleagues to fight for you if there was any doubt about your guilt in any 'crime or misdemeanour'

Don't give up, many of us who still serve (and are proud to do so), are backing you.

Justice has to be fought for otherwise why do we do our jobs in the first place?

John Nichol

8th Nov 2000, 19:10

Retired and Senile

A great deal has been made of this waypoint change some 20 secs before impact. Indeed Wratten has now changed his original argument to state "the act of negligence occured before the waypoint change".

But what WAS the significance of the waypoint change? Some say it is evidence that all was well, some say it shows that the crew had the Mull visable and were proceeding to the next way point. But this supposes that we accept that the crew meant to select the next waypoint.

Stick with me on this. Just suppose there was some problem in the cockpit (IFF was almost in emergency mode). Perhaps someone was trying to select a diversion airfield on the TANS (they were programmed in to the system as waypoints) and hit the wrong button. Any fliers ever mis-podged a button in the heat of the moment before? Obviously this is mere speculation but -

The point is that we don't even know if the crew meant to select the next waypoint. Hence trying to determine the significance of an action we don't even know was intended is somewhat difficult.

This is the crux of this issue. All the theories and reconstructions are mere guesswork. And a guess is really not grounds enough to condemn two men of manslaughter.

Skycop

9th Nov 2000, 03:27

Psyclic,

Thanks, I was aware of that but many aren't. One reason for my question "why could they not have gone fixed wing or even civvy"

The presence of R & R material in the wreckage has been held against the crew i.e. to "back up" the supposition that they had a casual attitude to the flight.

This goes against the pilots' actual recorded pre-flight concerns.

Arkroyal

9th Nov 2000, 11:35

Nice to see renewed interest and some new posters on this subject.

John, it is interesting that Wratten moves the goal posts to suit his arguement. As you point out, the Way point change could mean any number of things, which are only clear in Wratten's crystal ball. Has it ever been discussed/proven which mode the TANS was in? (I haven't seen the BOI report). From my Sea King days I think that in the 'route' mode waypoint change was automatic within about a mile of the waypoint being steered to (to account for corner cutting). Maybe the crew didn't even do it. (any RNS232 users out there?)

Of course the main point of this is that we speculate. With no evidence that's all we can do. More crucially, that's all Wratten and Day could do. Hardly a case proven 'with no doubt whatsoever'.

Meanwhile in the Commons debate on Defence and the Armed Forces, 1 November 2000 the MOD sticks by its 'hypothesis as fact' stance. I quote an unknown minister (page photocopied by my MP doesn't include speakers name) - 'We believe that flying too fast, too low and into fog is negligence. Frankly, various other details that are put forward do not change that fundamental point.' Head firmly in sand there then.

The argument that the pax should have been transferred by a more suitable means is, of course, an obvious one. The accident could have happened to an aircraft with no pax on board. If the resulting verdict depends on the importance of the cargo, the that is indeed bizarre, as the cause cannot be affected by the outcome, can it?

We Will Win This

Brian Dixon

9th Nov 2000, 23:12

Desperado,
an interesting point, thank you.
I have a feeling that too much time has passed for the majority of court appeals. Cost is also prohibitive.

At the moment (amongst other things) I'm looking at Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1988. This is the article governing the right to a fair trial.

However, I'll wait to see the outcome of the meeting between the Mull of Kintyre Group and Minister Hoon before making the next move.

Thanks for your support.
Regards
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Lu Zuckerman

10th Nov 2000, 02:09

This would be an extremely interesting thread except for two reasons:

1) There is no explanation of the problem and only those individuals that are familiar with the incident and the cast of chatacters have some level of understanding. Since this is a helicopter related problem is a description of the incident and the report from the Board Of Investigation either buried in the Rotorheads forum or, is it available on the internet.

2) The terminology is pure British and it limits the understanding of somone living on the Western end of the big pond.

Can someone summarize the incident and the findings or at least point me in the right direction.

Thank you very much. Hopefully nobody is offended by my words.

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

Retired and Senile

10th Nov 2000, 02:28

Brian Dixon, John Nichol & Ark Royal

I accept wholeheartedly that no-one knows the definite cause of the accident. My belief is that, with a high probability, the accident was caused by Human Factors, a PC way of saying pilot error. That is not to say that the pilots were negligent. All aircrew have at some time in their careers been guilty of pilot error, except me of course! (j for joke) but few have been guilty of negligence. The window of opportunity for a technical malfunction to have caused the crash is extremely narrow, less than 30 secs. There was no post crash evidence of a malfunction. Anything transitory, apart from a control problem, should not have caused the accident. I think the aircraft was serviceable when it crashed.

John, the IFF almost selected to emergency is a bit of a red herring. If the crew had wanted to squawk emergency they would have pushed the IFF control knob and rotated it fully clockwise to the EMERG selection rather than attempt to fiddle with the most ergonomically inadequate selectors in the aircraft.

"Johnny Rotten" wrote an article in the RAeS house mag in which he used the analogy of a car driver driving at an excessive speed in fog and driving into an obstuction to illustrate the reason why he felt the Chinook pilots were negligent. That analogy is flawed. I believe that it was perfectly possible for the crew not to have realized how bad the weather was until they either inadvertantly or unavoidably entered cloud. Over the sea you don't have the visual cues to enable you to make an accurate assessment of the visibility. Also, it is perfectly legal for a helicopter to fly VFR below 3000 ft, at 140 kts IAS whilst remaining clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the crew were not complying with those requirements. If that were the case how on earth can they be found to be negligent up to the point they entered cloud, which they surely did?

Having entered cloud they did not climb steeply enough to miss the high terain ahead. The reason for this we will never know. IF aborts from low level at high speed were manoeuvres talked about but rarely practised. Until the new simulator opened at Benson it was impossible to practise an inadvertant entry into cloud at low level. I have done it for real 3 or 4 times in a long career and found myself working hard in the initial stages until my scan settled down. It is very possible that neither John nor Rick had been in such a situation before. Maybe they just did not raise the nose enough to cope with the high groundspeed and the rising ground ahead. If that were the case they were not negligent they just made a mistake which unfortunately had disasterous consequences. I believe this possibility was recognized by 1 Group and they introduced the change to the IRT to fill the skill gap as best they could.

Unfortunately John and Rick are victims of a miscarriage of justice brought about by the ethos of blame and the pig-headedness of senior officers.

John Nichol

10th Nov 2000, 15:21

R&S, You make some valid and thoughtful points. I accept that the normal action would be to select emegency on the IFF rotary knob but it is somewhat strange that the rotary digits were 2 clicks from emergency.

Your theory of climb into cloud is as valid as any other theory put forward but at least, unlike Wratten & Co, you have the decency to admit that it is only a theory.

Finally, I concur with your observation that there was a miscariage of justice!

smooth approach

10th Nov 2000, 16:21

Psyclic - good point. R&R or just a jolly to say goodbye to a retiring member.

360 - If it 'doesn't matter', don't expect any support if it happens to you.

Retired & Senile. I agree with you; It probably was aircrew error. HOWEVER, Wratten never proved that beyond reasonable doubt and this is the whole argument as far as John Cook is concerned.

Gross Negligence - the only negligence is on behalf of Wratten.

Smoothie

[This message has been edited by smooth approach (edited 10 November 2000).]

R O Tiree

10th Nov 2000, 20:46

If you do a low level abort into IMC, one of the actions in the drill is to squawk 7700 and bugle up on Guard to, in this case, Scottish Mil. Says so here in the back of the BINA En-Route Supp.

Retired and Senile

11th Nov 2000, 03:16

RO Tiree

I don't have access to a BINA but from memory the requirement to squawk EMERG only applies when you will be forced into Controlled Airspace during an IF abort. Even if that is not the case the first priority during any abort is to fly the aircraft. Once that has been achieved then less urgent actions can be completed. Unfortunately the first priority in the case of the Chinook was never achieved and I guess the boys did not have time to sort out the radio etc before the crash.

Essentially, I believe there are too many uncertainties, too many unanswered questions for there to be incontrovertable evidence that the pilots were negligent. As deceased aircrew the Flight Safety manual required that they should not be found to have been negligent. Until AM's Wratten and Day can produce that incontrovertable evidence they should withdraw the slur on the characters of 2 highly conscientious pilots who are unable to defend themselves.

Brian Dixon

11th Nov 2000, 16:00

Couple of points on the above (although please note, I am NOT an expert!). If it needs correcting please let me know.

The emergency code was 7700. The IFF transponder was found set at 7760 as opposed to the normal setting of 7000. It may be that the pilots were attempting to fly an out of control aircraft, with the crewman Graham Forbes attempting to dial in the emergency code. A further clue is that Rick Cook's intercom was found in the emergency position.

The point is, no one knows.

Retired and Senile - Hope you have contacted your MP by now!!

Regards
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

BillK

12th Nov 2000, 02:21

R and S seems to have raised several points fairly neatly.

It is possible that the guys saw part of the Mull, turned early to start on the next leg and then entered cloud. Thinking they had seen all of the high ground and were clear of it, they may have made a slower climb than needed.

Lots of "mays" and "possibles", but this would be error rather than negligence and without proof, it should never have been labelled negligence.

The main part of the BOI made most of this clear, it was only the senior officers that disagreed.

ShyTorque

13th Nov 2000, 05:47

The possibility of an intercom problem and the previous "No fault found" TANS errors may be very significant and the key to the final cause.

The NHP would have held the chart and been operating the TANS. The HP may not have fully realised the immediate imminence of the rising ground ahead, especially if the intercom failed as they were coasting in. In the marginal (but within limits for SH) weather conditions the top of the hill may have been obscured from the aircraft. It only takes a small amount of cloud to do this; the witness on the yacht may well have been able to see much more from sea level looking up. It is quite possible that another TANS error occurred - as it had been known to have done on this particular airframe in the days before the accident (were the crew aware of this? I don't know the answer to that one). It could well have been that no-one on board realised they were actually off track and so close to the rapidly rising ground due to poor external cues. The supposed "button push" waypoint change could be a red herring because a (default setting) automatic waypoint change just prior to the (erroneous?) turning point may have occurred instead. I don't recall this having been fully investigated.

Now, pointing straight at the Mull, the top of which may have been hidden, an intercom problem may have prevented cross-cockpit communication in the last vital seconds. It would certainly have been a distraction causing a "heads in" situation.

I therefore think it very likely that a CFIT occurred. Whatever, the crew should never have been held negligent. They were put in a situation that many pilots would not have recovered from. A crew unhappy to be making the flight notleast because of the known potential for sudden and disastrous engine control problems of this new, very different and unproven mark of aircraft. An airframe with no IFR option, suspect nav kit, and a faulty intercom in weather close to the limits. Whiteout. CFIT.

Nothing changes my opinion that they were probably "nibbled to death by ducks". Much of the nibbling was done by those further up the chain. They were then villified out of anger, spite and a concern that an organisational shambles was possibly about to be uncovered. Those involved in this whitewash should have taken into account the concerns of the crew in the first place.

The crew should NOT have been ordered to take the flight in the circumstances.

MrBernoulli

14th Nov 2000, 03:12

ShyTorque, your first post on Prune or your first under this name? Whatever, it is a well reasoned post!

ShyTorque

14th Nov 2000, 03:53

Mr B,

Well, neither actually, but thanks.

First post was actually around 1996 as member no. 70 something, before a megaglitch lost all our details - I think I put the first rotary post on the forum.

Recent technical problems called for a re-registering of the name and hence the counter re-set.

Arkroyal

14th Nov 2000, 22:55

Shytorque, welcome back! Gremlins now sorted then.

I too wonder like you, if any major thought was given to the possibility that the TANS waypoint changed automatically. Six years since I used the RNS 232, but I am sure that in the route steer mode waypoint change was automatic as each was approached. Originally, Wratten used the pilots’ routine waypoint change as some kind of proof that things were proceeding normally at that time. Obviously irrelevant if the change was automatic. Now of course he has moved the goalposts, claiming that the ‘negligence’ had already taken place prior to this change.

I’d like to hear from a current user of the system as to the possibility of an automatic waypoint change.

BillK, Retired and Senile, smooth approach

Some good points made, and all speculation as valid as any other theory. Since speculation and theory are all there will ever be in this case, and all Wratten and Day had to hand when stitching up John and Rick, it is still totally incomprehensible that where the burden of proof is ‘absolutely no doubt’ (note that smooth approach not reasonable doubt) this verdict is allowed to stand.

The reasons for the flight and the importance of the passengers should, of course, be irrelevant, as they do not have any bearing on the cause of this tragedy. I imagine that a similar accident involving just the crew and a few pongos would have escaped Wratten’s wrath. He and Day felt they had to come to a robust conclusion in order to avoid looking woolly and indecisive, which would be career damaging in such a high profile case. They sacrificed the crew on the altar of their own careers.

Wratten’s career ended in mysterious circumstances in 1997 (reasons which may ‘come out’ in the light of Lord Chalfont’s promise to ditch the Queensbury rules in this fight). He surely has little to lose and much to gain in terms of honour to admit he was wrong.

bombedup

16th Nov 2000, 22:49

I still can't help thinking this whole thing has less to do with Fadecs, waypoints and the like, and everything to do with presentation.

For decades the RAF has found pilots guilty of gross negligence as a crude way of teaching their colleagues that if they get it just a little bit wrong they'll be crucified. How many times in the past have senior officers put their arms around widows at funerals, told them hubby was a hero, and then told all the rest of the guys on the squadron he was guilty of gross negligence? They knew, but the family and the rest of the world was spared the knowledge that he brought it on himself. All in-house.

Then, if I'm right, the RAF changed its policy on crash findings and made them public, without properly thinking things through. The Chinook crash, I believe, was the first one -or about the first one - since that policy change. And, again if I'm right, the fuss over that finding forced another change, so that now two findings are issued. One is blander and goes to the public ("we will never know what really happened on that dark and stormy night....) the other stays internal and says 'gross negligence'

If all this is right it seems a shame somebody like Mr Day or Mr Squire doesn't come out and say so, even if it means they do admit making a mistake.

Brian Dixon

16th Nov 2000, 23:24

Bombedup,
welcome to the debate.

The point about this injustice is that in order to find deceased pilots grossly negligent, there had to be 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever.'

The Air Marshal himself stated recently that he reached his verdict by taking into account a 'degree of speculation'. This simply isn't good enough to support the verdict. This is the whole purpose of my campaign. I, nor anyone else knows what took place in the last few minutes of the fateful flight. Therefore, the verdict is unsafe and unlawful, and should be withdrawn immediately.

Flatus Veteranus

17th Nov 2000, 00:12

Bombedup

Methinks you have got it about right. I have been appalled at all this media talk of the "RAF having found the pilots guilty of gross negligence". Unless MAFL has changed since I did officer training, BOIs cannot find anyone guilty of anything. They are not Courts Martial- the rules of evidence are entirely different - they are meant to elicit the most likely cause of the accident to help prevent a recurrence. No more. The proceedings were privileged and classified at least CONFIDENTIAL. At my first station (Middleton St George, now Teeseside Airport, then a Meteor AFS) the stus were tent-pegging at such a rate that Co Durham took on the aspect of the surface of the moon. Churchill roused himself from his stupor enough to write the Air Minister a rude Minute asking what the hell was going on. The Staish (current jargon?) was summoned by the Darlington Coroner. The Staish was a Kiwi, built like an All Black, with two tours on Lancs, a DSO and at least one DFC. When the coroner demanded the relevant BOI proceedings, threatening Contempt charges, our man said that the Air Force Act prevented him from complying - or Kiwi words to that effect! It was sorted at Air Ministry/ Lord Chancellor level. In the Chinook case presumably the MOD was so scared of upsetting the Jock Fatal Accident Inquiry and the ScotNats, that they caved in.

As for reviewing officers, they have always tried to show their virility by beefing up BOI findings (Not verdicts!). I had to preside on a BOI into a fatal on a UAS. A number of civilian eye-witnesses testified that our lad had been indulging in a bit of unauthorised low-flying and then tried his hand at a slow roll under a fairly low cloudbase and went in. We found a rudder cable jammed between a sheave and its bracket and had the boffins up from Farnborough to take a look. They took as much trouble over that Chippie as if it had been a Lightning, and had to conclude that the cable probably jammed on impact. But it gave us enough latitude to find that the most probableycause of the accident was error on the part of a pilot who was insufficiently experienced to perform the intended manoeuvre. Of course the reviewing officer went to town and dire threats of de-bollocking were issued to all squadron and flight commanders. But all that was protected by privilege and the OSA. Time does not necessarily lead to progress!

------------------
molto digitate

Arkroyal

17th Nov 2000, 02:01

Flatus,

I refer you to the post by my colleague Brian above. Make no mistake, this was a verdict, and one brought in unlawfully by a vindictive man with a hidden agenda.

Your Chipmunk story has echos of a certain Bulldog (Bristol) in the 30s. F/O Bader was lucky that Wratten wasn't his AOC wasn't he.

Welcome to Pprune and this debate.

I had the great pleasure (?) of staying in the Officer's Mess (St Georges Hotel)at Middleton St George a couple of weeks ago. It is said to be haunted by one of your 'tent peggers' who managed to park his meteor in his cabin. (sorry, room)

Flatus Veteranus

17th Nov 2000, 12:56

Thank you, Ark

This particular stu, having been taught that
Vcrit on the meteor was about 130kts, thought that he was strong enough to defeat the laws of aerodynamics and tried a roller landing on one! I arrived at the station the next day and the smoking wreckage in the Mess seemed to confirm Middleton's reputation as Boot Hill.

------------------
molto digitate

Brian Dixon

20th Nov 2000, 00:06

Good Lord!

Logged onto the site to find this on page 2!! Sorry for my slakking everyone. Unfortunately, work has interfered with serious campaigning of late. However, I'm now back. I'll get the latest regarding the meeting of the Mull of Kintyre and Mr Hoon and post it soonest.

Regards one and all.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

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

Brian Dixon

21st Nov 2000, 00:56

Mull of Kintyre Group - Mr Hoon Meeting Update.

Mr Hoon is currently evaluating a document submission from the Group. He will reply to Lord Chalfont when he has read the document.

Lord Chalfont will be arranging a Select Committee to review the Mull of Kintyre crash incident. It is hoped that the process will begin in the New Year.

The Mull of Kintyre Group would like everyone to know that they are still very committed to taking this incident to Mr Blair.

To that end, I would encourage anyone to write to Mr Blair to express their concern regarding this incident (Oh here goes Brian again about writing to Ministers!). I'm sure he will be only too delighted to pass them on to Minister Hoon. Let's keep the pressure on!!

Finally, watch out for a forthcoming report from the Public Accounts Committee. I think it is due soon, and may make reference to the Chinook crash. Once I know more you will all read it here.

Regards
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Lafyar Cokov

21st Nov 2000, 01:03

I once...maybe rather unwisely....while slightly drunk after a dinner at Aldergrove, asked Mr Day how he found the CH pilots negligent in his report.

His answer was.." Two Fully qualified pilots flew a perfectly servicable ac into the ground...it could only possibly be gross negligence"

Anyone care to comment???

MrBernoulli

21st Nov 2000, 13:44

Only comment could be:

"Day is a £$%)(*&!"

1.3VStall

22nd Nov 2000, 15:48

Every time I return to this thread the complete and utter arrogance of Messrs Day and Wratten hits me squarely between the eyes. Just how can a "system" allow such selfish, self-seeking people to be promoted into positions of high authority?

WebPilot

22nd Nov 2000, 16:17

1.3vstall - how can such selfish, self-seeking people be promoted?

I think you answered your own question...

misterploppy

22nd Nov 2000, 22:39

I agree with Webpilot, 1.3vstall. Wrotten in particular climbed the greasy pole using a fair few daggers in backs as foot and hand holds. Very few (if any) people mourned when he was punted off to his sinecure at Rolls-Royce in late '97, they were welcome to him!

Arkroyal

22nd Nov 2000, 23:03

Lafyar Cokov, my comment would have been:

AVM Day, if only everything was as black and white as the Guinness you've obviously had too much of, you might have a point. It isn't, and you haven't.

Arrogant chap then? But that's the only sure way up that greasy pole, so I suppose we should be happy to be led by the infallible. Which in turn is a nice link to president Bliar. Do as Brian asks and swamp number 10 with your thoughts!

MrBernoulli

23rd Nov 2000, 00:45

Remember chaps, the problem for the climbers of greasy poles is that there is a good chance the idiots will come sliding DOWN them at a pretty spectacular rate. Serve them right, too!

Flatiron

23rd Nov 2000, 18:39

Apologies for entering this debate unannounced, but I don't think it helps to get too vitriolic about individual air marshals.

To set out my stall, some years ago I was in the RAF Inspectorate of Flight Safety (IFS), with responsibility for the heavy aircraft, training aircraft and rotary wing flight safety desks. On top of that, I was responsible for staffing MOD Board of Inquiry (BOI) Policy and crafting the relevant chapters in the RAF Manual of Flight Safety. Whenever a BOI found that a pilot had erred, he (forgive the gender specific, I can't keep saying he or she)was either aid to have committed 'an error of judgement' or of being 'negligent'. What was the difference? In simple terms, if a pilot is faced with an unusual situation with several courses of action open to him, and with hindsight he chooses the wrong one in good faith, that is an error of judgement. If however he does something that he has been trained at considerable expense NOT to do, and there were no distracting extentuations, he was negligent. A classic example is failure to put the wheels down before landing on a gin clear day. The pilot has been trained to put the u/c down, the checks are mandatory, an expensive system of green lights has been installed to alert him, and he is paid a goodly sum not to get bored in the circuit and scrape one of HM aircraft.

In rotary wing terms, whenever I gave my regular briefings to the Flying Supervisers Course, I would highlight the Puma that crashed in Portugal when it ran out of fuel. There were no extentuating weather or technical circumstances, it was obvious for ages that fuel was running low, the crewman was standing over the pilot pointing out the sagging guages, yet the captain took no remedial action to stop the inevitable impact with the ground. Negligent means not taking care when any reasonable person would have expected care to be taken.

The Manual of Flight Safety is quite specific in that no dead pilot should be found negligent without firm proof. So, for instance, had the Puma buffoon died when the aircraft came down, and the crewman lived to recount the sorry tale, he stood a good chance of still being found negligent. As there is reasonable doubt about the Mull of Kintyre accident, and it appears that the pilots were not trained in low level IFR recovery (why not, for God's sake - we did tons of that in the strike force?) - in the spirit of how the Manual was written (I spent a lot of time debating this with the lawyers), the pilots should not have been found negligent.

That said, in defence of those at the top who are paid to make difficult decsions, we must not forget that around the time of the Mull of Kintyre accident, several mates had crashed RAF aircraft in what can only be described as indisciplined circumstances. Perhaps the system was trying to set an example 'pour encourager les autres'. Don't deride this sentiment out of hand. Air marshals are not just responsible to HMG for safeguarding expensive aircraft - they are also responsible for protecting serving pilots from killing themselves in a fit of misplaced bravado. We will never know if Messrs Wratten and Day a mate alive by making him think twice about the consequences of his actions. Whatever you think of senior management thought processes that put labels on dead men to send a lesson to the living, they are not unworthy.

I must sign off now. Hope I have not offended too many people. I have my own former MOD staff officer's view on how any Mull of Kinrye appeal should now progress. Suffice to say I do not believe that throwing mud at personalities, no matter how emotionally satisfying, is the best way forward.

Arkroyal

23rd Nov 2000, 22:30

Flatiron

You make some good points, and welcome to the debate.

The difference between Error and Negligence is plain.

You say "If however he does something that he has been trained at considerable expense NOT to do, and there were no distracting extentuations, he was negligent".

Agreed, but in order to find negligence in this case you would have to be absolutely certain that there were no distracting extenuations; which even Wratten admits he is not. I quote from his Sunday Times article:

"I wrote that, without the irrefutable evidence of an accident data recorder and a cockpit voice recorder, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise details of the events prior to impact".

To take up your point about low level aborts. You, unfortunately, fall in to the same trap as Wratten did. Your collective wealth of 'strike force' experience does not qualify either one of you to climb a helicopter with a lamentable clearance of +4degC in to certain icing conditions. Nor did Jon and Rick's vast SH experience. It WAS NOT an option.

You will note if you read all of this thread that most of the campaigners for justice concede that the crew MAY have been in error, or even negligent. However the criteria for a finding of negligence requires proof with 'NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER'. That does not include 'pour encourager les autres, and it most certainly does not allow speculation.

It is the utter pig headedness of the senior officers you defend in not conceding that their case is simply not proven to the degree required that invokes our wrath.

This verdict was not arrived at in order to save future 'mates' from themselves. It was simply a tool to avert blame from those higher up the chain of command.In my view a cowardly act.

Now, you say "I have my own former MOD staff officer's view on how any Mull of Kintyre appeal should now progress". Pray, would you kindly enlighten us.

Brian Dixon

23rd Nov 2000, 22:53

Arkroyal,
I'm devastated. You've beaten me to it!!!
Hope you are well.

Flatiron.
A warm welcome to the debate. As mentioned by my sparring partner, Arkroyal, you make some very interesting and valid points. I too would be grateful if you could provide some further information, especially on how you would proceed. All information is gratefully received.
Please continue to contribute to this thread. I am interested in what you have to say.

Best wishes
Brian

Arkroyal

23rd Nov 2000, 23:32

Hello Brian, how are things?

Thought I'd save your typing fingers.

Any news of the Hoon meeting? I'll email soon .

Brian Dixon

24th Nov 2000, 21:18

As promised, I have now receive the replies to my latest batch of questions posed to the Secretary of State, Minister Hoon.
Same as last time, questions first then answers second.

1. As Air Officer Commanding Number 1 Group, was Air Marshal Day the officer responsible for the decision to deploy the Chinook Mk2 into operational service, despite the concerns of Boscombe Down? If not, who made that decision? [Note: I am not referring to the granting of the initial CA Release].

2. Is the programme to fit Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVRs) running to schedule? Will every Chinook have CVR fitted by August 2001? Will CVR be fitted as standard to the Mk3 Chinook?

3. How many Chinook Mk2s currently have CVR fitted?

4. Are the written replies provided to the Public Account Committee by Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Kevin Tebbit, now available in the public domain? If so, would you please provide me with a copy of those answers. If they are not available, is it possible to say when they will be available?

5. At the time of the crash, the Air Accident Investigation Branch was unable to check the aircraft torquemeters, claiming that they did not have the test facilities. Has this check now been carried out? If not, why not, and how can you claim that there has been a full and thorough investigation. [Note: a matching of torque between the two Chinook engines is crucial in terms of stability and helping to ensure no rotor runaways.]

6. Can you confirm that no files or documentation, held by public bodies, referring to the FADEC litigation case and the Chinook crash have been destroyed or disposed of? If any have, could you please advise me of the subject matter and who authorized the disposal.

7. Can you also assure me that there are no plans to destroy or dispose of any of these documents in the future.

8. Can you confirm that on 10 May 1994, a control pallet on ZD576 detached as a result of the failure of the bonding of surfaces?

9. Is it true that the AAIB inspector found that all three control pallets were found detached, and that he could not conclude whether this had occurred prior to or after the impact? If this were the case, surely this is an element of doubt that negates the reviewing officer’s findings.

10. Is it also true that the AAIB inspector stated that the possibility of a control system jam could not be positively discounted?

11. Are you able to advise me of a retirement date for Air Marshal Day?

12. Could you please advise me why the RAF Odiham Chinook test pilot, Squadron Leader Robert Burke was officially ordered not to disclose his experiences of uncommanded rotor runaways to the Board of Inquiry.

13. In an article written by Sir William Wratten himself, he states that without ‘irrefutable evidence’ there will inevitably be a degree of speculation. This statement in itself is enough to negate the finding of gross negligence. How can he say this yet reach his conclusion with ‘absolutely no doubt whatsoever’? Surely he has highlighted the very doubt that I, and many others have, on his own findings.

Brian Dixon

24th Nov 2000, 21:23

And here are the answers.......

1. The decision to deploy the Chinook Mk2 into operational service was taken by the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff. You may recall from my colleague Mr Price’s letter of 17 August that at this time ACAS was Air Vice Marshal Bagnall.

2. The programme to fit Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVRs) to the Chinook Mk2 fleet has suffered a setback. You will recall that CVRs are being fitted to the entire Chinook fleet as part of the helicopter Health and Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) programme. An urgent operational requirement has arisen involving work that temporarily needs facilities that had been earmarked for the installation of HUMS. Unfortunately this means the completion of the programme of work is now likely to be delayed until early 2002. CVRs will be fitted to the Chinook Mk3 before the aircraft is brought into service.

3. By the end of this month, the seventh Chinook should be fitted with the HUMS system.

4. You will recall that under the rules and conventions of Parliamentary Privilege information passed to a Select Committee becomes the property of that Committee. The Public Accounts Committee has yet to publish its report, so I regret that I cannot provide the requested copies of Mr Tebbit’s replies. The timing of the eventual publication of the report is a matter for the Committee.

5. With regard to the torquemeters, the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) report said, “Testing of the torquemeters and triple tachometers could not be attempted because of lack of facilities but their functionality was dubious and testing was not considered critical.” The physical settings found on the hydro-mechanical assemblies for both engines showed that at the time of the crash the two engines were operating in similar states. This would not have been the case had there been torque associated problems. Hence the AAIB report stated that testing of the torque system was not considered critical, and there has been no reason to attempt to test the torque system since. The AAIB report shows that their investigation was meticulous in its detail, thorough and professionally carried out. They would not have neglected to carry out the test if it was regarded as critical.

6 and 7. We are unaware of the destruction of official papers or documents relating to the
crash, and there is no intention to destroy such documents. Furthermore, it is
MoD policy to retain all airworthiness related documentation whilst it is of
relevance. With regard to the future retention of these papers, the official Board
of Inquiry papers, written evidence and papers (including those referring to the
FADEC litigation case) held by the branch with lead responsibility for the
matters concerning the crash are eventually archived, they will be assigned a
review date of 25 years, with a recommendation for permanent retention. At
the25 year point they will be examined for their suitability for transfer to the
Public Record Office in accordance with the provision of the Public Records
Act 1958 and 1967.

8. It is not true that a control pallet on ZD576 detached in May 1994; there has never been such a case. However, the inserts (these are for attaching the brackets for the springs) in one of the pallets did become detached around that time. Boeing advised then, that to cause a jam, a force in excess of 2000psi would need to be applied in the control runs, and such a force would result in witness marks. No such marks were found on the control runs of ZD576 after the Mull of Kintyre accident.

9. It is not true that the AAIB Inspector “ found that all three control pallets were detached.” There are only two pallets and these were not detached, rather it was the inserts for attaching the springs to the pallet that were found detached. However, as mentioned above no witness marks were found on flying control runs. These would have been present if inserts had detached and caused a control restriction before impact. In his summary, the AAIB Inspector says, “The aircraft’s completeness could not be positively verified but no evidence was found to suggest pre-impact separation of any part.”

10. The full quote from the AAIB Inspector was that, “Almost all parts of the mechanical system for each of the four channels were identified with no evidence of pre-impact failure or malfunction, although the possibility of a control system jam could not be dismissed.” This latter possibility could not be excluded given that the AAIB found “Almost all parts.”

11. No.

12. Sqn Ldr Burke has alleged that he was “ordered not to give evidence”. We cannot be entirely sure to what he is referring, but the Station Commander at RAF Odiham at the time remembers telling his Station Executives to discourage speculation and rumour about the cause of the accident. It is therefore possible that Sqn Ldr Burke was asked not to put forward unsubstantiated opinions. However, the Department has subsequently considered Sqn Ldr Burke’s opinions. They were forwarded to the Department in 1998 by Robert Key MP and were found to offer no new insights into the accident.

13. In the article that I believe you are referring to, Sir William Wratten quoted from his remarks at Part 5 of the RAF Board of Inquiry report. He said, “Without the irrefutable evidence which is provided by an ADR or CVR, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact”. This does not detract from the conclusion of the Board of Inquiry that the pilots made the error of committing the aircraft to flight in cloud, below the safety altitude, in contravention of basic rules of airmanship. There is no doubt that this is what they did, when instead they should have turned away or climbed to a safe altitude.

I hope this is helpful.

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

Brian Dixon

24th Nov 2000, 21:28

Ark,
the answer to your Hoon meeting enquiry is further up the page. Posted by yours truly on 20 November.

If anyone has any information they feel able to share please let me know on the following:

[email protected] :)

Regards
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Flatus Veteranus

24th Nov 2000, 23:56

Flatiron

Most who have followed this saga seem to agree that the most likely cause of the Chinook crash was pilot error. There is disagreement over the strength of the evidence needed to support a finding of negligence. You, as a former DFS staffer, quote the Manual of Flight Safety as requiring "firm proof". Arkroyal believes there should be "absolutely no doubt", which is even more demanding than the "beyond reasonable doubt" required to sustain a criminal conviction. All this sounds legalistic quibbling but has been the stuff of many debates by Boards of Inquiry. Without having read the Proceedings, and based on press reports and this thread, I tend to think that the reviewing officers were not justified in finding gross negligence. But I do not think they deserve some of the near-defamatory remarks that have been made on this site.

Flatiron, can you tell us about the process by which the BOI findings were released to the public domain? I remember doing the (excellent) senior officers flight safety course in '69 at DFS, where we were offered access (in a privileged environment) to any accident file we wished to see. A number of us asked for the Vulcan accident at Heathrow in the early '60s, when the aircraft touched down well short of the runway off a GCA. It bounced, shedding bits of itself, and the two pilots ejected successfully. The rear crew, poor sods, went in. DFS slammed the door on that one damned fast - no doubt because the captain was a three star. We were all serving Wg Cdrs and Sqn Ldrs, and we could not take a peek at the file. How come, then, that the Chinook pilots were thrown to the media pack? There seems to have been a major breach of faith by MOD to the RAF.

------------------
presto digitate