Chinook Crash 2 June 1994

[Brian Dixon]

Those of you following this disgrace may be interested to hear that Lord Chalfont, former Labour Foreign Office minister is now publicly stating that the MoD is resorting to 'misinformation' in their replies to questions. The Mod continue to insist that the Chinook Mk2, at the time of the crash was introduced into service with a full set of flight reference cards.

However, onder oath at the BOI, witnesses testified "The aircraft manual and in-flight reference cards we used were not complete." and "It was not a fully complete, issued document as you would expect."

Yet the Government STILL insists that a full set of flight reference cards were issued.

There is to be a metting of the Mull of Kintyre Group next week and I will update all of the relevant points of that meeting. In the meantime, keep pressuring your MPs to register their support at the office of Lord Chalfont and to support this campaign.

Minister Hoon has yet to reply to my questions, so I may resort to printing them here in the hope that someone else may be able to supply the answers.

Update soon....

Brian

[Brian Dixon]

Tony Blair now steps up to the plate, following a question by Martin Bell during PMQs. He will give the matter his personal attention will he? Hope he chooses better advisors that those who have been briefing Minister Hoon.

Here's two questions Mr Hoon has yet to answer:
1. Following the near destruction of a Chinook in 1989 and the subsequent legal action against Textron Lycoming, why do the MoD continue to insist the case was about testing procedures, despite the fact that the Department was accusing Textron and it's sub-contractors of having badly designed FADEC and it not meeting international standards?

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

Anyone care to give Mr Hoon a helping hand??

Remember, "Injustice has no expiry date".
Brian

[Jackonicko]

More power to your elbow!

This is undeniably important and interesting.

BUT: Do we really need multiple duplicate Chinook strands? One would be so much more useful, and would make it so much easier to keep up to speed.

But in any case, it was UFOs that made it crash, I read it on the net!

[ul]
By: Andrew Thomas

Posted: 10/07/2000 at 13:49 GMT

When an RAF Chinook helicopter carrying almost all the senior intelligence officers working in Northern Ireland crashed into the Mull of Kintyre six years ago, pilot error was given as the official explanation of the disaster. Since then, a number of people and especially UK IT mag Computer Weakly have continued to maintain that it was software in the on-board systems which led to the crash rather than human error. But a third explanation for the crash has now come to light: that a top secret hypersonic US plane, codenamed Aurora and which is reportedly capable of flying at up to 20 times the speed of sound, created a massive jet wake into which the helicopter flew, causing the crew to lose control. RAF Machrihanish lies just ten miles from the Chinook crash site and at the time of the crash was operated by the US Air Force. Machrihanish boasts the longest runway in Europe

Subject: Re: Top Secret US plane 'caused Chinook crash'

Hi folks

On the very day of this crash I happened to be on board a yacht moored up in Tarbert, in sight of said "underground base", close to Machrihanish and not far from the Chinook crash site. I can assure you that there were no sonic booms in the area on this day and I did not sight any unusual aircraft in the area either.

Still, it's a nice story for the UFO brigade.


Incidentally, on the subject of Machrihanish, if anyone out there has the Satellite map CD of the UK that the Sunday Times gave away a month or so back just have a look at Machrihanish. There's a nice big fluffy white cloud masking the entire airfield! Convenient eh??

Cheers

Tony


Gary Parsons wrote:

>Hmmmm....Note spelling of Computer Weekly. Form your own opinions!

This particular story originated on The Register, supposedly a site for IT news (one which has gone rapidly downhill recently). When I pointed out a few minor things called facts to the author of the piece he replied saying it was merely a joke and his way of taking the mick out of Computer Weekly's series of stories on the software aspects of this Chinook crash. He thinks CW would be better off covering IT news. Needless to say I think The Register would be better off following his own advice.

So that explains it all, then.....

[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 14 July 2000).]

[Arkroyal]

Brian Dixon

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.’

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

[Brian Dixon]

If you want to complain direct to Mr Hoon try using the site www.parliament.uk/commons (http://www.parliament.uk/commons) Then working through to find Mr Hoon under list of MPs

Click on the envelope next to his name and you will be able to send him an E-Mail. I'm not sure how much he will be involved now as Tony Blair has expressed an interest, however don't let that stop you from contacting Mr Hoon with your concerns.

I hope to have an E-Petition running on the official No 10 Downing Street web page in the near future and will inform all if/when I get it up and running. Depends if I can get my head around all the technical stuff.

Anyway, the fight goes on.

"Injustice has no expiry date." - John Cook

[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 28 July 2000).]

[Rude C'man]

Any chance you boys could let this rest , were all sick of hearing about the chinook crash its happened, let it rest in peace! Gone forever never forgotten.

[Tandemrotor]

So Rude semen

I'm guessing you've never lost a mate in circumstances like the two pilot's families have had to endure. (Hey maybe you haven't got any mates - if you don't understand where we are all coming from, you probably deserve to be 'Billy No Mates'.)

The deal is this; firstly there are people still flying in the RAF, who just might be thinking 'Who's going to stick up for me and my family if anything unpleasant happens to me?' From the tone of your posting I guess they won't be looking in your direction! But let's hope there are still some people left in the service that actually understand the concept of the posh words that are used in training to describe loyalty. Incidentally, that bond does not end when the doctor pronounces 'life extinct!'

The second reason why this issue ain't going away, is because there are relations of these two guys who wrestle with this disgraceful injustice from the moment they wake up, every single day of there lives, and not, like you, only when you tap into cyberspace!

If you think this has gone on long enough, how do you think they feel?

This story will not end until someone with a conscience (and not a vested interest) re-examines this mess. No great intellect is required to read through the FULL Board of Inquiry report, to realise that a completely illogical step was taken, when matters of opinion were somehow transformed into matters of fact.

Please appreciate that the reason the standard of proof required was so high, was because these guys are not around to defend themselves, not even by means of cockpit voice or flight data recorders. They weren't even allowed to be REPRESENTED at the BoI!

If you want to discuss the relative merits of the case, then by all means go ahead, but to suggest this is somehow quietly swept out of sight, because it is six years old, is naive in the extreme.



[This message has been edited by Tandemrotor (edited 28 July 2000).]

[Pinger]

Tho this is clearly the subject of high emotion it is equally clearly a discussion of the semantics of how much a crew was to blame for a CFIT accident, for there is no evidence whatever to suggest it was anything else. It saddens me greatly that the stigma of Gross Negligence was awarded posthumously but nonetheless I find it very hard to see who else was to blame...allegedly missing FRC pages and faulty FADECs had no place here unless we resort to crystal balls and chicken entrails.

I cannot think of this accident without comparing it to the tragic loss of the RN SeaKing which was swiped out of the Falklands skies by a Hercules (1985?)killing the entire crew, a Herc that by all accounts was on a "routine Patrol" whose route and timimg had been refused to the Navy on the grounds of "security", though time has dimmed my recollection on that detail. This seems to me a far better subject for a claim of Gross Professional Negligence than an apparently clearcut operational CFIT incident, though the results are just as tragic.

Where then is the hue and cry into the loss of those men? Or did the services once accept the loss of personnel in accidents as an operational hazard to be regretted and investigated, but not litigated as seems to be the current self-destructive pattern?

[ORAC]

Most assuredly your memory has faded.

At the time there was no requirement to notify anyone of the C130 movements. So there was no "refusal for security". There was no detailed route as the mission was maritime surveillance throughout the area.

The C130 went down to investigate a surface contact, broke off correctly at minimums and climbed away astern in accordance with SOPs.

The SK was, in accordance with their SOPs, climbing away also astern when they met in cloud.

I might say that the pilot of the C130, with a load of RN types in the back for air experience, did a superb job of recovering the aircraft to MPA with the entire wing outboard of the engines missing and both engines on the same side shut down.

It was as a result of this the area was divided into zones with frequencies, calls, etc.

No security, no paranoia, just bad luck that the only 2 aircraft airborne within 1000nm+ of each other reached the same point at the same time. It could just as easily have happened in the North Sea.

[PurplePilot]

Hey, Pinger...

Are you on fast track for promotion? You appear to be amply qualified - finding it 'hard to see...' and the inability to comprehend something that doesn't fit your narrowly-opened 'doors of perception', as claimed in the first para of your posting - would suggest that you're just the sort of person their Airships would like to see join them. Operational hazards I can accept, but don't just allow yourself to be saddened - try checking the definition of gross negligence (if it doesn't involve you sullying yourself with semantics) and ask yourself if it can truly be proven (as required by the rules enforced within the RAF) in this case. Yes, it may have been a simple case of CFIT, but then again it may not and the pilots are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The more you immerse yourself in the mysteries of Wokka tech, and the Chinook's history of UFCMs around the world, the less certain you will find yourself becoming.

Best we avoid a motes/planks exchange re 'Blue on Blues' over the decades - there's ample ammunition for both 'sides', but expending it without doing something positive to minimise future risks is futile (and puerile).

[piston broke]

OOPs

[This message has been edited by piston broke (edited 29 July 2000).]

[Pinger]

Orac, the buzz at the time was that the Navy had been concerned about this and had asked for deconfliction info and been told no. That was what we understood anyway. Agreee the driver did a fine job getting back safely.

PP, I guess the heat is not agreeing with you, i do sympathyse. I you had read my post before shooting from the mouth in such an intemperate manner you would see that I am in agreement with the unjust verdict, and that I can only view the facts as we know them, and discount speculation and blind emotion which I am sure with reflection you will agree with. I cast no motes, merely pointed out that others have suffered from bureaucratic ineptitude too.

I shall endeavour to defer to your superior knowledge of "wokkas" (we call them helicopters around here) I dont think it is you should be calling me puerile, son.

[PurplePitot]

Just like to disassociate myself from PurplePilot – guess I have been hijacked!!!

[Hydraulic Palm Tree]

Pinger, stop being such a ****. From this and other posts, I assume (rightly) that you did not know the people concerned, the aircraft that they flew or the type of tasking which which they undertook. PP is quite right when he says that this may have been a simple case of CFIT, but I doubt that it was.

You weren't on one of the Chinook Sqns, the day we were ordered to keep flying after Boscombe had refused to, were you?

[Rude C'man]

Tandam
Didn't mean to upset.
Yes I,ve lost freinds and collegues, v good ones and yes there has been a discraceful injustice . Surely you have seen from history that the Service will rarely stick up for its boys unless the whole case is water tight. There are so many unknowns and so many maybe's and your'e right, how can anyone translate the unknown to fact?

[This message has been edited by Rude C'man (edited 29 July 2000).]

[Pinger]

HPT I can only assume the heat has got to you too. I find your reply offensive, to be frank, and I dont understand it.

Whats any verdict got to do with MY knowledge of people concerned, the aircraft or the role fer chrissake???? The facts are clear as far as they are published, and what the hell else can one decide from? - but WHY DO YOU HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM ACCEPTING THAT I AGREE WITH MOST OF WHAT YOU SAY WHEN IVE JUST SAID SO MYSELF???? Please read my post!!!

Does ones location when Boscombe Down said something prevent one from having an opinion, or are you no longer defending a democracy?

Please, lighten up, and dont be so ready to call people offensive names.

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

[PurplePilot]

Pinger,

As directed, I've just re-read your original post to see where I went wrong. No, I didn't - perhaps you didn't manage to say what you meant. If you agree with most of what's been said, then how do you still leap laterally to a similar conclusion to their Airships? Oh, and I used the word Wokka to avoid saying "Chinook" twice in the same sentence - my Eng Lang teacher taught me that when I was at school in the mid-60s. That might also give you a pointer as to whether you'd like to persist in using the "son" sobriquet.

Oh, and re your "reply" to HPT. Don't shout, it's so rude. And how you construe that he's attempting to imply that you can't have an opinion (still with me?) takes some working out. Take your own advice - sit back, lighten up and re-read what you've previously drafted to see if you can iron out the ambiguities. Especially the bit about, quote "I am in agreement with the unjust verdict" unquote - do you see now how that implies you choose to be unreasonable?

PurplePitot:

A thousand million apologies for appearing to hijack your esteemed title. I'm brand new to the site, hadn't read your contributions and merely chose the name of my first ever 4-wheeled transport (a hideous metallic-purple Ford Escort) as nom-de-keyboard. If it would help, I shall gladly re-enter the forum under a new designation - just say the word.

[Brian Dixon]

Sorry to have started this particular thread and disappeared for a few days. A reply to some of you.
Jackonicko - The more strands the better. Let's keep this injustice alive. I'm not too sure about the UFO theory although (as in Men in Black) perhaps it was the airships going home??

Arkroyal - Again, I agree. Money and reputations.

Fizzog - Hope you have E-Mailed dear old Geoffers to express your disgust.

Rude C'man - Yeh, thanks for that. All opinions are valid, but are you suggesting that this should go away just because you are bored of hearing about it? Are you an airship or MP by any chance?

Tandemrotor - Agree entirely.

Pinger - I agree. Accidents happen. No one involved in the Mull of Kintyre Group has ever said it wasn't an accident. No one will ever know. Our campaign is that the findings of the BoI are unsafe. To that end both Rick and Jon should have their names cleared.

ORAC - Sorry I don't know enough about that accident. However, all accidents are tragic as they involve real people.

Purple Pilot - Er....were you angry when you wrote your reply?

Hydraulic Palm Tree - Support duly noted.

There. Think I'm back up to date.
For the record, I flew regularly on Chinooks and knew all four of the crew who were on ZD576, although I wasn't aircrew. I have always believed that the review of the BoI was suss and have actively campaigned since the finding was made public.

I'm trying to sort out an electronic petition to submit to the official No 10 Downing Street web page and will inform all if and when I manage to do this. Don't forget to drop in to the site and leave a message - www.pm.gov.uk (http://www.pm.gov.uk) - Your Say - Speakers Corner - Defence (You'll then see the folder). Have you all contacted your MP to get them to give their support to the Mull of Kintyre Group? Get them to contact Lord Chalfont. Come on, they haven't got anything else to do during the summer.

Finally, instead of misinterpreting each other's messages, what about using the thumbs up for supporters of re-opening the Inquiry and a thumbs down for those who are just plain fed up of the story?

Sorry, gone on a bit.

"Injustice has no expiry date." - John Cook

(Edited 'cos I can't spell!)

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

[WhoNeedsRunways]

Sorry to butt in, but for the delectation ( word used advisedly ) of those with an interest who don't already know, pages 20 - 22 of the August 2000 Pilot have an article entitled "Why those Chinook pilots were negligent". No surprise to most to see the author is one William Wratten.

BTW, although I'm neither military nor knew the guys involved, from my following of this crash I'm sure there's something smelly here.

[Brian Dixon]

This article is based on speculation reported as fact. Is it Billy Boy's attempt to gain absolution for his decision??
Stange how no-one has printed the article by John Nichol, written in reply to Wratten's piece.
Wratten's article also appears on the official RAF site but, again strangely enough, John Nichol's does not. I have E-Mailed the RAF site and the official No 10 Downing Street site to ask why that is so. They should either print both or neither.

This is just another one sided presentation by those whose reputations have been saved by the sacrifice of the reputations of Rick and Jon. I am proud to say that I knew and worked with both men. Both more honourable than those who sit in judgement.

[Tir renrie]

This is perhaps a conversation that I haven't the right to be involved in, being an ex long range sniper.
I would just like to add my support to the re-opening of the investigation. Having left the army, I now find my self, employed with a UK based (recently French acquired) electronics company, as a senior quality consultant. Within the "civilian" word it is well known that if you manage to get software packages to be 95% bug free you have done bloody well (not even NASA can do that, no matter what they say). I find it bizarre (fu**ing mad) that the inquiry can blame the pilots and ignore (point blankly refuse) the fact that some aspect of the on board systems (software) could have failed during the flight. Even if the systems were 95% bug free, what little "problem" sits in the 5% that isn't?.



------------------
Tir Tenrie

[Hydraulic Palm Tree]

Perhaps it would be possible to sue Wrotten for defamation and the MOD for failing to contribute articles from both side of the argument. There must be some obscure Scottish law?

[Brian Dixon]

Tir renrie

Thanks for the vote of support. Here's a few figures that might make you miss your next long range shot: The FADEC software was examined by the independent firm EDS Scion. In less than 20% of the software the following anomalies were found.
Category 1 - 56
Category 2 - 193
Category 3 - 132
Category 4 - 104

Despite these, Minister John Spellar stated that none were considered safety critical.
Really???

I know very little about computing and even less about code, but I know that a total of 485 anomalies in less than 20% of code is going to be a problem.
Call me old fashioned or what!!

[smooth approach]

Tandemrotor, spot-on! The reason we have to keep this going is so that we can have faith that if, god forbid, the same happens again our families will get the protection and support that they deserve. Rick and John had relatives who were so proud of their sons' achievements. For them to live with the subjective opinion of one hard-faced senior officer must be so difficult. As I've said before, John and Rick may have screwed-up. But Bill Wratten's decision without having evidence beyond reasonable doubt has, and will continue to, cause so much hurt. Fight-on, for the sake of all airmen who may, in the future, pay the ultimate price.

[misterploppy]

HPT

I regret Wrotten is probably as untouchable under Scots law as he is in England. One possible line would be a suit for professional negligence in that he utterly failed in his (clearly documented) professional duty to take account of the "No Doubt Whatsoever" requirement before making a posthumous finding of gross negligence. I think any advocate worth his salt should be able to demonstrate that Wrotten's failure was not an error but negligence to a gross degree.

[blind pue]

I am posting this reply whist reading a totally unconected report involving an accident in the early 90's. The BOI found the Aircraft Captain (AC) "unable in any way to prevent the accident and therefore could not attribute any blame to him." They then decided that it was Handling pilot error 'not negligent'. Observations of the board then reccomended that Cockpit voice Recorders (CVR) would have greatly assisted the board.
The report then continues with the 'chain of events' that led to the accident and holds the 'AC' ultimately to blame due to lack of Judgement. During the report the BOI (plus the rest) advogate the use of restraining harnesses by passengers, ignoring the fact that the uninjured passengers were able to vacate the aircraft quickly as they were unrestrained, had they been strapped in there may have been more injuries or fatalies. BOI's do a very good job but occaisionaly I feel there may be another agenda influencing the report in this case the use of harnesses, in the Chinook crash draw your own conclusions.

[aluminium persuader]

I was working in Scotland at the time of the accident, and certainly agree that there are people other than the pilots with a hand in it. However one thing that has always spiked my curiosity, and perhaps one of you could explain to a dullard, is why was the a/c low level in poor vis, or was it low level because of poor vis?
Whatever the answer, though, there are soo many unanswered questions that I don't understand how the BOI laid the blame at the feet of the crew, particularly when they could not fight back.

------------------
Once more unto the breach, Dear Friends...

[PurplePilot]

A Persuader,

Memory dims, but I do recall that the Release to Service at the time imposed a limit of plus 4 degrees Celsius, and even in early June around that part of the world the 4 degree isotherm was below Safety Altitude. As crews had been told that they would be considered personally responsible for anything that went wrong with an aircraft flown outside the release-to-service, it was a compelling reason for planning on staying VFR Low Level.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I hope someone is going to write to Pilot magazine to refute/balance their August edition wherein Wratten perpetuated his views.

WWW

[Brian Dixon]

WWW

Consider it done!!

Brian

[Brian Dixon]

Still no reply from Minister Hoon in response to my 13 questions (sent 11/06/00).

Here's a couple more in the hope that someone may be able to help him formulate his replies.

1. Could you please confirm the existence of a memo from Boscombe Down critisising 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?

2. 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?

Perhaps anyone with information that will help Mr Hoon could contact him with the replies. How to get in touch with him is listed earlier in this thread.

"Injustice has no expiry date." - John Cook