Chinook - Still Hitting Back 2
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Attack X 3
Excellent link to fax MP, very user friendly, hope everyone does it. FaxYourMp.com to save anyone having to refer back.
More generally, in the face of no 10 and MoD intransigence, is there a human rights angle to pursue? That is, the families of F/Lts Cook and Tapper should get redress for the suffering caused to them by what has been shown by the HoL to be faulty judgment by senior RAF officers, backed by the political "leadership"?
I may well be wrong, but I recall reading somewhere that immunity from litigation doesn't work in the EU arena.
Just a thought.
Great result anyway, very best wishes to all concerned, and let's not forget Lord Chalfont's role.
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: chippy63 ]</p>
Excellent link to fax MP, very user friendly, hope everyone does it. FaxYourMp.com to save anyone having to refer back.
More generally, in the face of no 10 and MoD intransigence, is there a human rights angle to pursue? That is, the families of F/Lts Cook and Tapper should get redress for the suffering caused to them by what has been shown by the HoL to be faulty judgment by senior RAF officers, backed by the political "leadership"?
I may well be wrong, but I recall reading somewhere that immunity from litigation doesn't work in the EU arena.
Just a thought.
Great result anyway, very best wishes to all concerned, and let's not forget Lord Chalfont's role.
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: chippy63 ]</p>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Attack!
Thanks for putting the link up to fax your MP. It works! I've done it and it was dead simple.
OK guys and girls you can do the same.
I'll even put the link up again <a href="http://www.FaxYourMP.com" target="_blank"> HERE </a>
Do get in touch and get them to add their weight.
Thanks for putting the link up to fax your MP. It works! I've done it and it was dead simple.
OK guys and girls you can do the same.
I'll even put the link up again <a href="http://www.FaxYourMP.com" target="_blank"> HERE </a>
Do get in touch and get them to add their weight.
I'm afraid it came up with the wrong MP for me. But, what the hell, I faxed the wrong one and then sent it to the correct one as well. Two for the price of one. (1 x con, 1 x libdem)
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And ANOTHER thing (am I on a roll today or what?) there is a defence debate in the House of Commons on Thursday 14 February.
Most MPs will be looking to push off for half term rather than debate HM Forces (bless 'em), but if you contact your MP, ask them to speak in the debate and call for the pilots to be cleared.
If they are lazy say you will write the speech for them. It only needs to be a short contribution!
Most MPs will be looking to push off for half term rather than debate HM Forces (bless 'em), but if you contact your MP, ask them to speak in the debate and call for the pilots to be cleared.
If they are lazy say you will write the speech for them. It only needs to be a short contribution!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
misterploppy
Sure, insurnace is one of the many areas that I get involved in. Having accumulated just over 8000 hours flying various machines in exotic parts of the world I thought, (but also 300 odd in N:Ireland, as a matter of interest) around 15 years ago, that the time was ripe for a change (so how many hours do you have sonny?).
jackonicko.
Look, let us view this whole sorry episode from another direction. Just supposing that there had been an accident involving a bus. With 29 passengers. And this bus had been seen to have been speeding along a country road in very poor weather. The driver was known to be a competant and resposible driver. The bus then approaches a sharp corner and, from the tyre makrs is seen to have baked hard, but sadly is unable to negotitate the corner and it comes off the road, explodes and resulst in the death of everyone on board.
Now, it could possibly have been argued that the accelerator pedal had jambed, along with the brakes, just at the moment that the vehicle had approached the corner. But I think that you will agree that the overwhelming evidence would support the view that the driver had neen negligent in approaching the corner (which he knew to be ahead of him) too fast.
Sure, insurnace is one of the many areas that I get involved in. Having accumulated just over 8000 hours flying various machines in exotic parts of the world I thought, (but also 300 odd in N:Ireland, as a matter of interest) around 15 years ago, that the time was ripe for a change (so how many hours do you have sonny?).
jackonicko.
Look, let us view this whole sorry episode from another direction. Just supposing that there had been an accident involving a bus. With 29 passengers. And this bus had been seen to have been speeding along a country road in very poor weather. The driver was known to be a competant and resposible driver. The bus then approaches a sharp corner and, from the tyre makrs is seen to have baked hard, but sadly is unable to negotitate the corner and it comes off the road, explodes and resulst in the death of everyone on board.
Now, it could possibly have been argued that the accelerator pedal had jambed, along with the brakes, just at the moment that the vehicle had approached the corner. But I think that you will agree that the overwhelming evidence would support the view that the driver had neen negligent in approaching the corner (which he knew to be ahead of him) too fast.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PD RTF-report.
so you have a wealth of flying experience. does it make you a legal expert?
the crux of this issue is the satisfaction of the standard of proof required by the RAF of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". there is massive doubt as to the cause of the accident. further evidence adduced before the HofL select committee corroborated this.
if you are truly interested in obtaining sufficient information so that you may formulate a valid opinion, please refer to a Tort textbook to acquaint yourself with the requirements of proving negligence, especially gross negligence.
i won't bore you with the details, but please bear in mind the HofL select committee consisted of the finest legal and technical brains in the country.
your analogy is strikingly similar to that proposed by day during his oral evidence.hmmmmm.
and by the way, although i personally think your opinion lacks credibility, you wouldn't do yourself any harm by checking your spooling every now and then.
so you have a wealth of flying experience. does it make you a legal expert?
the crux of this issue is the satisfaction of the standard of proof required by the RAF of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". there is massive doubt as to the cause of the accident. further evidence adduced before the HofL select committee corroborated this.
if you are truly interested in obtaining sufficient information so that you may formulate a valid opinion, please refer to a Tort textbook to acquaint yourself with the requirements of proving negligence, especially gross negligence.
i won't bore you with the details, but please bear in mind the HofL select committee consisted of the finest legal and technical brains in the country.
your analogy is strikingly similar to that proposed by day during his oral evidence.hmmmmm.
and by the way, although i personally think your opinion lacks credibility, you wouldn't do yourself any harm by checking your spooling every now and then.
pulse1 - Poor old PercyD! Despite his 8000 hours blah, blah, blah, he seems quite unable to get his mind round the simple fact that no-one has ever tried to deny that the accident MAY have been due to negligence. Alas, I expect we will never know. The whole issue is one of "burden of proof". Until there is absolutely no doubt, you cannot attach "Negligence" to the Aircrew involved. So far, five investigations have now suggested that "doubt" exists in bucket-fulls! I, and others far, far more learned and eminent than myself, think the Acid Test has failed. But poor old Percy can't quite figure that one out. And with all those hours under his belt too! Sad really. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: Hot 'n' High ]</p>
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: Hot 'n' High ]</p>
8000+ hours? Well he can't be 'William-of-unmarried-parents' then!
If you were the grieving relative of someone killed in the accident, you could perhaps ask the MoD a couple of questions:
1. Why was civilian Public Transport being carried out in an aircraft which did not (and still does not) comply with the relevant Public Transport requirements when alternative aircraft were available? Was this an operationally essential flight for which this transport helicopter was the only feasible mode of transport able to convey such high value passengers to their destination?
2. If the test team who were attempting to bring the Chinook 2 into service, as well as those who flew it, had any reservations concerning the airworthiness of the accident aircraft whatsoever, as evidence would seem to indicate was quite certainly the case, please produce evidence proving beyond any doubt whatsoever that the aircraft was, in fact, fully airworthy.
If these questions cannot be answered to the entire satisfaction of the legal teams representing the relatives of those killed, then MoD could perhaps stand accused guilty of contributory negligence in permitting this flight to take place. And could ipso facto be sued for very substantial damages. But if MoD could prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the crew were 'grossly negligent' and that the reported concerns about airworthiness were nihil ad rem, then the relatives could only claim against the vastly more modest estate of those held guilty, rather than that of the Crown??
My cynical personal view is that any verdict other than 'gross negligence' might render MoD liable to substantial claims for damages from the relatives of the deceased - and that's the sole reason for the continuing reluctance to correct the Accident Report findings to 'Cause - Not Positively Determined'.
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>
If you were the grieving relative of someone killed in the accident, you could perhaps ask the MoD a couple of questions:
1. Why was civilian Public Transport being carried out in an aircraft which did not (and still does not) comply with the relevant Public Transport requirements when alternative aircraft were available? Was this an operationally essential flight for which this transport helicopter was the only feasible mode of transport able to convey such high value passengers to their destination?
2. If the test team who were attempting to bring the Chinook 2 into service, as well as those who flew it, had any reservations concerning the airworthiness of the accident aircraft whatsoever, as evidence would seem to indicate was quite certainly the case, please produce evidence proving beyond any doubt whatsoever that the aircraft was, in fact, fully airworthy.
If these questions cannot be answered to the entire satisfaction of the legal teams representing the relatives of those killed, then MoD could perhaps stand accused guilty of contributory negligence in permitting this flight to take place. And could ipso facto be sued for very substantial damages. But if MoD could prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the crew were 'grossly negligent' and that the reported concerns about airworthiness were nihil ad rem, then the relatives could only claim against the vastly more modest estate of those held guilty, rather than that of the Crown??
My cynical personal view is that any verdict other than 'gross negligence' might render MoD liable to substantial claims for damages from the relatives of the deceased - and that's the sole reason for the continuing reluctance to correct the Accident Report findings to 'Cause - Not Positively Determined'.
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Percy Dragon,
Deleted to leave PercyDragon in isolation!. .--------------------------------------------------. .HectorusRex
[ 08 February 2002: Message edited by: HectorusRex ]</p>
Deleted to leave PercyDragon in isolation!. .--------------------------------------------------. .HectorusRex
[ 08 February 2002: Message edited by: HectorusRex ]</p>
PercyD,
Your spelling and grammar show that you verge on illiteracy. This, coupled with the facts that you sell insurance and have chosen to join this thread after the fat lady has sung, make your comments and opinions not just worthless, but extremely tiresome.
Be a good chap and bu**er off would you?
Your spelling and grammar show that you verge on illiteracy. This, coupled with the facts that you sell insurance and have chosen to join this thread after the fat lady has sung, make your comments and opinions not just worthless, but extremely tiresome.
Be a good chap and bu**er off would you?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Percy, old chap.
At my age it's always pleasant to be addressed as a mere youth.
However, your propensity for missing the point appears to be unbounded. The point of my post was not to denigrate your current profession nor to enter into a puerile "Who's got the biggest log book? Competition."
I was merely taking a tongue in cheek dig at your location, its proximity to our favourite martinet and the possibility that you may not be an entirely disinterested party. (c.f. Irony - you're not American are you?)
At my age it's always pleasant to be addressed as a mere youth.
However, your propensity for missing the point appears to be unbounded. The point of my post was not to denigrate your current profession nor to enter into a puerile "Who's got the biggest log book? Competition."
I was merely taking a tongue in cheek dig at your location, its proximity to our favourite martinet and the possibility that you may not be an entirely disinterested party. (c.f. Irony - you're not American are you?)
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I am so glad that finally the bull$hit behind the vindictive and spiteful AM's over-ruling of their own Board of Inquiry has come seeping to the surface.
In my opinion, the day that Mr. Wratten really lost it was the day he tried to discredit the president of the BoI (a rotary man through and through, I know, I served with him) by stating that he was a relatively inexperienced officer, etc. If so, why was he appointed to head such a high profile board?
Mr. Wratten, albeit of senior rank, of NIL helicopter experience or qualification, that was...
There are many questions still unanswered. This was, after all, if ever there was one, an accident precipitated by poor management and it still smells of whitewash. The Mk2 appears to have bypassed the normal MOD rules for release to service (for political reasons?) and those responsible for this are surely responsible, at least in part, for this tragic accident and the large loss of life that resulted.
The last person to witness the fated aircraft disagreed that it was flying fast, I understand he thought it may have been involved in a SAR due to its slow speed. I believe he also disputed that the aircraft was flying in IMC and he has complained bitterly that his evidence was not recorded correctly.
As far as FADEC glitches go, I have experienced a number of them on two very different types of aircraft. More often than not FADEC faults do seem to disappear without trace once the battery is switched off and then on. My most recent occurred on the ground, with the engine reacting independently of any pilot input and could not be shut down by the normal method. Quite alarming, even on the ground.
There was EVIDENCE in the wreckage that there may have been an intercom failure at some late stage. This MAY have been critical, bearing in mind that the non-handling pilot was responsible for navigation and there had been previously reported inaccuracies of the TANS nav system on this particular airframe, giving cross-track position errors. Using the evidence gathered it is possible to come up with a number of alternative scenarios, none of them involving negligence on the part of the crew.
Then again, there MAY have been negligence on the part of the crew. Knowing them both and having taught one of them to fly, I doubt it. SF crews did not just get there by default, they were chosen by ability. But then I can say that because I am not looking out to save my own career....
<img src="frown.gif" border="0">
In my opinion, the day that Mr. Wratten really lost it was the day he tried to discredit the president of the BoI (a rotary man through and through, I know, I served with him) by stating that he was a relatively inexperienced officer, etc. If so, why was he appointed to head such a high profile board?
Mr. Wratten, albeit of senior rank, of NIL helicopter experience or qualification, that was...
There are many questions still unanswered. This was, after all, if ever there was one, an accident precipitated by poor management and it still smells of whitewash. The Mk2 appears to have bypassed the normal MOD rules for release to service (for political reasons?) and those responsible for this are surely responsible, at least in part, for this tragic accident and the large loss of life that resulted.
The last person to witness the fated aircraft disagreed that it was flying fast, I understand he thought it may have been involved in a SAR due to its slow speed. I believe he also disputed that the aircraft was flying in IMC and he has complained bitterly that his evidence was not recorded correctly.
As far as FADEC glitches go, I have experienced a number of them on two very different types of aircraft. More often than not FADEC faults do seem to disappear without trace once the battery is switched off and then on. My most recent occurred on the ground, with the engine reacting independently of any pilot input and could not be shut down by the normal method. Quite alarming, even on the ground.
There was EVIDENCE in the wreckage that there may have been an intercom failure at some late stage. This MAY have been critical, bearing in mind that the non-handling pilot was responsible for navigation and there had been previously reported inaccuracies of the TANS nav system on this particular airframe, giving cross-track position errors. Using the evidence gathered it is possible to come up with a number of alternative scenarios, none of them involving negligence on the part of the crew.
Then again, there MAY have been negligence on the part of the crew. Knowing them both and having taught one of them to fly, I doubt it. SF crews did not just get there by default, they were chosen by ability. But then I can say that because I am not looking out to save my own career....
<img src="frown.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking through the transcript of Wratten being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman the following exchange brought a wry smile
PAXMAN; Why did your own investigating officers then not feel that they were sufficiently confident there was no doubt whatsoever? . .SIR WILLIAM WRATTEN:. .These are young officers whose experience does not match that of their senior commanders, which is why there are senior commanders, charged to discharge that particular responsibility. .PAXMAN; There have been now three inquiries into the causes of this crash. Two of them have concluded that there isn't sufficient evidence to say there was no doubt whatsoever the pilots were at fault. There is another one in which, as I say, the initial investigating officers also felt that. It came down to you and your colleagues. . .SIR WILLIAM WRATTEN:. .That was our responsibility to reach a conclusion on these matters. The other two investigations you quote, the PAC's and the Scottish fatal accident inquiry, rejected the option of calling my colleagues and I to give them evidence. And one has to ask why they pursued such a course of action. . .PAXMAN:. .It doesn't make them invalid because they failed to call a particular witness who thought he ought to have been called. . .SIR WILLIAM WRATTEN:. .Well, to my mind, they are entirely invalid for that very reason. I have not had the opportunity to explain to them precisely why I reached the conclusions I did, nor have I had the chance to invite them to explain their analysis of the essential elements of evidence which are in front of them. . .PAXMAN:. .Sir William, I suggest to you that is a position of some arrogance.
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1050000/1050467.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1050000/1050467.stm</a>
If the PAC and Scottish inquiry were invalid because they had the temerity not to invite Wratten to give evidence, the fact that he was invited to the Lords select committee suggests he accepts their findings as valid.
Percy
Do take the time to read the conclusion to the Lords report. I intended to quote from it to you but found that every paragraph had something that showed how flawed the mindset of these two men.
Take particular notice of what the Lords say about the test of negligence. This has been stated in many of the postings but you owe it to yourself to read and think about what is contained in the Lords conclusion.
PAXMAN; Why did your own investigating officers then not feel that they were sufficiently confident there was no doubt whatsoever? . .SIR WILLIAM WRATTEN:. .These are young officers whose experience does not match that of their senior commanders, which is why there are senior commanders, charged to discharge that particular responsibility. .PAXMAN; There have been now three inquiries into the causes of this crash. Two of them have concluded that there isn't sufficient evidence to say there was no doubt whatsoever the pilots were at fault. There is another one in which, as I say, the initial investigating officers also felt that. It came down to you and your colleagues. . .SIR WILLIAM WRATTEN:. .That was our responsibility to reach a conclusion on these matters. The other two investigations you quote, the PAC's and the Scottish fatal accident inquiry, rejected the option of calling my colleagues and I to give them evidence. And one has to ask why they pursued such a course of action. . .PAXMAN:. .It doesn't make them invalid because they failed to call a particular witness who thought he ought to have been called. . .SIR WILLIAM WRATTEN:. .Well, to my mind, they are entirely invalid for that very reason. I have not had the opportunity to explain to them precisely why I reached the conclusions I did, nor have I had the chance to invite them to explain their analysis of the essential elements of evidence which are in front of them. . .PAXMAN:. .Sir William, I suggest to you that is a position of some arrogance.
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1050000/1050467.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1050000/1050467.stm</a>
If the PAC and Scottish inquiry were invalid because they had the temerity not to invite Wratten to give evidence, the fact that he was invited to the Lords select committee suggests he accepts their findings as valid.
Percy
Do take the time to read the conclusion to the Lords report. I intended to quote from it to you but found that every paragraph had something that showed how flawed the mindset of these two men.
Take particular notice of what the Lords say about the test of negligence. This has been stated in many of the postings but you owe it to yourself to read and think about what is contained in the Lords conclusion.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Percy Dragon
I don't feel the need to denigrate your contributions on this thread. I also recall, that you are more familiar with this case than has been recently apparent. So don't think that non of us can accept any counter arguments.
Incidentally, I am also reminded of the old chestnut - "it doesn't matter how many hours you have in your logbook, only the next one's important!", but I digress.
The HoL report focused, very precisely, on what has ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, been at the very heart of this issue; That is the standard of proof required to find deceased aircrew negligent. As you are only too well aware, it is not "balance of probability," it isn't even, "beyond reasonable doubt." You know what it is.
This seems to me to be in keeping with the very finest traditions of the Royal Air Force, based on the simple fact that those most affected by such a judgement are, tragically, unable to tell us their version of events, and should, quite rightly, be given the benefit of any lingering doubts.
Talking of doubts, your analogy (as was Wratten's) is of very limited use. However, I am intrigued to hear what you think is the exact equivalent in this case of your tyre marks in the road. Because, as I understand it there is no such equivalent fact (Steady on, I've just used Day's favourite four letter word beginning with 'f'! - someone should show him a dictionary!)
I don't feel the need to denigrate your contributions on this thread. I also recall, that you are more familiar with this case than has been recently apparent. So don't think that non of us can accept any counter arguments.
Incidentally, I am also reminded of the old chestnut - "it doesn't matter how many hours you have in your logbook, only the next one's important!", but I digress.
The HoL report focused, very precisely, on what has ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, been at the very heart of this issue; That is the standard of proof required to find deceased aircrew negligent. As you are only too well aware, it is not "balance of probability," it isn't even, "beyond reasonable doubt." You know what it is.
This seems to me to be in keeping with the very finest traditions of the Royal Air Force, based on the simple fact that those most affected by such a judgement are, tragically, unable to tell us their version of events, and should, quite rightly, be given the benefit of any lingering doubts.
Talking of doubts, your analogy (as was Wratten's) is of very limited use. However, I am intrigued to hear what you think is the exact equivalent in this case of your tyre marks in the road. Because, as I understand it there is no such equivalent fact (Steady on, I've just used Day's favourite four letter word beginning with 'f'! - someone should show him a dictionary!)
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
slj,
You might be wasting your breath on PercyDragon. I just looked back into the Military Archive. His first forum posting on Page 6 of the "Chinook - Hit Back Here" topic makes interesting reading.
He hasn't changed his mind.
Sad that an aviator can denounce his fellows in such a way, though.
Well done Jackonicko for your part in keeping this in the public eye despite PD's insults.
ShyT <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
You might be wasting your breath on PercyDragon. I just looked back into the Military Archive. His first forum posting on Page 6 of the "Chinook - Hit Back Here" topic makes interesting reading.
He hasn't changed his mind.
Sad that an aviator can denounce his fellows in such a way, though.
Well done Jackonicko for your part in keeping this in the public eye despite PD's insults.
ShyT <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
