Mull Chinook crash - a question
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mull Chinook crash - a question
hi, i've just read the MODs response document and can someone explain to me (basically) what the counter argument is to the MODs verdict of 'pilot error'? [i really cant be bothered reading over 700 posts.]
is it that the engine management software failed and caused the aircraft to fly at high speed into terrain? presumably the arguement is that the engine management system is faulty and the MOD wish to cover it up? can someone enlighten me about the main arguments?
regards
dave
ps - i'm not a military flyer. just a civilan PPL(H) holder
is it that the engine management software failed and caused the aircraft to fly at high speed into terrain? presumably the arguement is that the engine management system is faulty and the MOD wish to cover it up? can someone enlighten me about the main arguments?
regards
dave
ps - i'm not a military flyer. just a civilan PPL(H) holder
The RAF Board of Enquiry found that there was not enough evidence to explain why the Chinook flew into the Mull.
In the face of this, the RAF reviewing officers decided that the accident was due to gross negligence of the two pilots.
The RAF rules in force at the time said that deceased aircrew should not be found negligent unless there was “absolutely no doubt whatsoever”
Since then the Sheriff’s Coroners Court (as the accident happened in Scotland) and an extensive enquiry by a select committee from the House of Lords have challenged the conclusion of the reviewing officers.
If you are a helicopter pilot I would urge you to read the Chinook thread for three reasons (you will have to skip through a lot of rubbish):
1.Reading many of the arguments for and against might teach you something about airmanship,
2.Like VageRot (please read the last page at least), who did take the trouble to wade through it, you may come to agree that everything should be done to correct the kind of injustice when anyone can be condemned without the due diligence of the proper legal process. In this case one might argue that they have been condemned in the face of the proper legal process.
3.You will “meet” some very impressive people who are closely involved in the campaign. They include friends of the family, a widow of a deceased passenger and some very experienced helicopter pilots.
Like you, I am not a military flyer and have a fixed wing PPL. I do have a son who is in the early stages of becoming a military pilot and I never want to find myself in the position of the Cook and Tapper families. Having read ALL the posts (easy as I read them as they happened) I am determined to do whatever I can to make sure that I never do.
If you want to join in the debate I suggest that you do it on the main thread and perhaps close this one.
In the face of this, the RAF reviewing officers decided that the accident was due to gross negligence of the two pilots.
The RAF rules in force at the time said that deceased aircrew should not be found negligent unless there was “absolutely no doubt whatsoever”
Since then the Sheriff’s Coroners Court (as the accident happened in Scotland) and an extensive enquiry by a select committee from the House of Lords have challenged the conclusion of the reviewing officers.
If you are a helicopter pilot I would urge you to read the Chinook thread for three reasons (you will have to skip through a lot of rubbish):
1.Reading many of the arguments for and against might teach you something about airmanship,
2.Like VageRot (please read the last page at least), who did take the trouble to wade through it, you may come to agree that everything should be done to correct the kind of injustice when anyone can be condemned without the due diligence of the proper legal process. In this case one might argue that they have been condemned in the face of the proper legal process.
3.You will “meet” some very impressive people who are closely involved in the campaign. They include friends of the family, a widow of a deceased passenger and some very experienced helicopter pilots.
Like you, I am not a military flyer and have a fixed wing PPL. I do have a son who is in the early stages of becoming a military pilot and I never want to find myself in the position of the Cook and Tapper families. Having read ALL the posts (easy as I read them as they happened) I am determined to do whatever I can to make sure that I never do.
If you want to join in the debate I suggest that you do it on the main thread and perhaps close this one.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had an interesting conversation with a guy in a local pub who believe's that the crash was sabotage in order to get rid of the security and intelligence personnel in order to bring the PIRA into the talks process. This is starting to become some of the mythology of the Northern Ireland Troubles. The only point I couldn't argue was why were so many top people on 1 aircraft?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no just one of the usual conspiracy merchants which as Northern Ireland is so paranoid at present is finding it easy to peddle the notion that the chinook crash was more sinister. Odds on there'll be a book out soon.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
welcome to the world of the Chinook crash.
Pulse1 has really hit the nail on the head. The fact of the matter is that no-one knows why the Chinook hit the Mull.
It may well have been negligence (pilot error is a different conclusion in military terms), but due to the fact that the burden of proof at the time of the crash was 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever' the current verdict is unsustainable.
That is the whole point of the campaign. Again, as Pulse1 says, I would encourage you to read as much as you can of the current information (or visit the website).
With regards conspiracy theories, I've heard them all, including this one.
Like the Reviewing Officer's findings, none are sustainable against known evidence.
Might even write a book meself!!
Perhaps the main thread would be better to continue this discussion.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
welcome to the world of the Chinook crash.
Pulse1 has really hit the nail on the head. The fact of the matter is that no-one knows why the Chinook hit the Mull.
It may well have been negligence (pilot error is a different conclusion in military terms), but due to the fact that the burden of proof at the time of the crash was 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever' the current verdict is unsustainable.
That is the whole point of the campaign. Again, as Pulse1 says, I would encourage you to read as much as you can of the current information (or visit the website).
With regards conspiracy theories, I've heard them all, including this one.
Like the Reviewing Officer's findings, none are sustainable against known evidence.Might even write a book meself!!
Perhaps the main thread would be better to continue this discussion.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
NURSE... Please don't even go there. This is beyond a 'lets light the blue touchpaper and see what happens'. I walked out to the ac with an excellent bunch of aviators that day and they didn't come home. I feel offended by you raising rubbishing speculation and hope you end it there. If anyone 'can't be bothered to read what has been written' then I can't be bothered to tell them.... The system has done enough talking bo**ocks already.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jayteeto I'm sorry you feel offended. Since i never met the aircrew I cannot comment but from what i have read from various sources they were excellent aviators. I agree to they have been treated apallingly by the various boards of enquiry. And I am also well aware of what has been ruled out by enquiries. I spent nearly half an hour listening to the idiot going on about the conspiricy and by the end of it the only question I couldn't give an answer for was why so many important people were on one aircraft apart from the obvious normal service one to save money.
Unfortunatley because the media attention has faded away people will draw their own conclusions. All I know is that a chinook hit the Mull carrying alot of very important people. The crew have been blamed wrongly for the accident. My personal belief is there was a fault with the aircraft probably in the engine control software.
Unfortunatley because the media attention has faded away people will draw their own conclusions. All I know is that a chinook hit the Mull carrying alot of very important people. The crew have been blamed wrongly for the accident. My personal belief is there was a fault with the aircraft probably in the engine control software.
Just a numbered other
1. We really don't need another parallel thread. Please, moderators, merge these.
2. Dave, Can't be bothered won't do. Either you care to find out, or you don't. Your use of the term 'pilot error' is illuminating, and is a common error made by the media. As Brian says pilot error is one thing and Gross Negligence quite another. In order to find the pilots guilty of Gross Negligence the BoI had to be able to prove it BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER. They couldn't and didn't. Wratten and Day, for reasons known only to themselves 'sexed up' (to use the modern vernacular) the report to find gross negligence where none could be found to the degree of proof required.
3. As Brian says, we don't discount error or negligence as possible causes. We simply require that a finding requiring such exacting standards of proof should either meet that requirement or be reversed. There is no 'counter argument' to postulate. We will never know what happened.
4. Just a thought. That comedian Bliar used the term 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever' recently regarding Iraqi WMD. No wonder his henchmen like BuffHoon can't grasp the concept either.
2. Dave, Can't be bothered won't do. Either you care to find out, or you don't. Your use of the term 'pilot error' is illuminating, and is a common error made by the media. As Brian says pilot error is one thing and Gross Negligence quite another. In order to find the pilots guilty of Gross Negligence the BoI had to be able to prove it BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER. They couldn't and didn't. Wratten and Day, for reasons known only to themselves 'sexed up' (to use the modern vernacular) the report to find gross negligence where none could be found to the degree of proof required.
3. As Brian says, we don't discount error or negligence as possible causes. We simply require that a finding requiring such exacting standards of proof should either meet that requirement or be reversed. There is no 'counter argument' to postulate. We will never know what happened.
4. Just a thought. That comedian Bliar used the term 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever' recently regarding Iraqi WMD. No wonder his henchmen like BuffHoon can't grasp the concept either.
Dave, some info for you to ponder:
Fact no 1: The Digital Engine Control Units (DECUs) had (and still do have) a history of malfunctioning to the extent that they have either shut the engines down (undemanded), or refuse to allow a demanded shutdown - as I have personally experienced on the HC2.
Fact no 2: The MoD was in the process of taking legal action against Boeing Helicopters at the time of the Mull crash.
Fact no 3: One of the Reviewing Officers, ACM Sir John Day was promoted to CinC Strike Command, awarded me my wings and recently retired from the RAF to join the board of British Aerospace.
------------------
The first 2 paragraphs make me suspect something was and still is, definitely wrong with the HC2.
The 3rd para? Well I think it just goes to show that as long as you pin it all on the aircrew and absolve the equipment of any fault - it's better for your career prospects in corporate life after the RAF!
Fact no 1: The Digital Engine Control Units (DECUs) had (and still do have) a history of malfunctioning to the extent that they have either shut the engines down (undemanded), or refuse to allow a demanded shutdown - as I have personally experienced on the HC2.
Fact no 2: The MoD was in the process of taking legal action against Boeing Helicopters at the time of the Mull crash.
Fact no 3: One of the Reviewing Officers, ACM Sir John Day was promoted to CinC Strike Command, awarded me my wings and recently retired from the RAF to join the board of British Aerospace.
------------------
The first 2 paragraphs make me suspect something was and still is, definitely wrong with the HC2.
The 3rd para? Well I think it just goes to show that as long as you pin it all on the aircrew and absolve the equipment of any fault - it's better for your career prospects in corporate life after the RAF!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave
Just scan the Chinook posts for an hour or two and you'll get the flavour. Many of our finest died on the Mull that day and the injustice afforded the two pilots is heartbreaking.
Nurse,
The conspiracy theory you allude to is probably based on as much actual fact as the "gross negligence" charge against the crew.
Hysterical media reporting and Hollywood style distortion of the facts is usually to blame for ever wilder theories on everything from the moon landings to Diana's "murder" at the hands of shady spooks from MI6. Don't let this incident be tarnished by yet more urban myth. The lads deserve much more honesty from the Country.
It's a great pity that the truth is being manipulated here for what could be construed as either arse covering or commercial concerns at the expense of all the families still grieving, without the comfort of the Country's true recognition of their sacrifice.
Just scan the Chinook posts for an hour or two and you'll get the flavour. Many of our finest died on the Mull that day and the injustice afforded the two pilots is heartbreaking.
Nurse,
The conspiracy theory you allude to is probably based on as much actual fact as the "gross negligence" charge against the crew.
Hysterical media reporting and Hollywood style distortion of the facts is usually to blame for ever wilder theories on everything from the moon landings to Diana's "murder" at the hands of shady spooks from MI6. Don't let this incident be tarnished by yet more urban myth. The lads deserve much more honesty from the Country.
It's a great pity that the truth is being manipulated here for what could be construed as either arse covering or commercial concerns at the expense of all the families still grieving, without the comfort of the Country's true recognition of their sacrifice.
