Chinook - Still Hitting Back 2
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How sad it makes me to see this once dignified thread sink to the level of those such as was started by Admin Guru.
Previous dissenters to the cause stated their case with restraint and retired; the present truculent "percydragon" does not have the wit to see that he will win no friends here and continues to provoke a barbed exchange.
Please would it be too much to ask that every one who joined in the slanging delete their posts since PD said his piece after the HoL result. That would leave PD's posts standing alone to be the objects of derision.
Brian Dixon, my great respects. Still work ahead; Courage! (said with a French accent).
Only 8000? Must have quit early.
Previous dissenters to the cause stated their case with restraint and retired; the present truculent "percydragon" does not have the wit to see that he will win no friends here and continues to provoke a barbed exchange.
Please would it be too much to ask that every one who joined in the slanging delete their posts since PD said his piece after the HoL result. That would leave PD's posts standing alone to be the objects of derision.
Brian Dixon, my great respects. Still work ahead; Courage! (said with a French accent).
Only 8000? Must have quit early.
Just a numbered other
Well,
What a time to pick to be out of the country. I was so very elated to find out the great news on Tuesday, but not surprised to encounter Ingram trotting out the tired old MoD mantra of 'No new evidence'
For the love of God, Ingram and everyone else, will you please get into your thick heads that that is simply not the point. It needs no new evidence to find, as their Lordships have, that the finding of gross negligence, which required proof beyond any doubt whatsoever, was unsafe given the evidence available at the time, and must be overturned Again, for the slow on the uptake, their Lordships said:
"In carrying out our terms of reference, we have considered the justification for the Air Marshals' finding of negligence against the pilots of ZD 576 against the applicable standard of proof, which required "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". In the light of all the evidence before us, and having regard to that standard, we unanimously conclude that the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash."
I am now frustrated and so, so bl**dy angry, I'm up at this hour writing again to the people who have been able so far to fob me off. My MP says it doesn't affect any of his constituents, so it's not his problem. Is he not supposed to be the representative of my views in the HoC? Letters to Bliar and Hoon find their way to the same minion in the MoD without troubling those whose lofty office means they can ignore me. Stand by for more letters. How can these supposedly clever men continue to be so deliberately obtuse? We will be heard.
To Brian, Messrs Tapper and Cook and all the other campaigners, a hearty 'Well Done'. We must not let the b*ggers get away with trying to sweep this under the carpet again.
What a time to pick to be out of the country. I was so very elated to find out the great news on Tuesday, but not surprised to encounter Ingram trotting out the tired old MoD mantra of 'No new evidence'
For the love of God, Ingram and everyone else, will you please get into your thick heads that that is simply not the point. It needs no new evidence to find, as their Lordships have, that the finding of gross negligence, which required proof beyond any doubt whatsoever, was unsafe given the evidence available at the time, and must be overturned Again, for the slow on the uptake, their Lordships said:
"In carrying out our terms of reference, we have considered the justification for the Air Marshals' finding of negligence against the pilots of ZD 576 against the applicable standard of proof, which required "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". In the light of all the evidence before us, and having regard to that standard, we unanimously conclude that the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash."
I am now frustrated and so, so bl**dy angry, I'm up at this hour writing again to the people who have been able so far to fob me off. My MP says it doesn't affect any of his constituents, so it's not his problem. Is he not supposed to be the representative of my views in the HoC? Letters to Bliar and Hoon find their way to the same minion in the MoD without troubling those whose lofty office means they can ignore me. Stand by for more letters. How can these supposedly clever men continue to be so deliberately obtuse? We will be heard.
To Brian, Messrs Tapper and Cook and all the other campaigners, a hearty 'Well Done'. We must not let the b*ggers get away with trying to sweep this under the carpet again.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Computer Weekly.. .<a href="http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner?REQUNIQ=1013147874&REQSESS=n79V992X&REQHOST=site 1&2131REQEVENT=&CFLAV=1&CCAT=-99999&CCHAN=-99999&CARTI=109779" target="_blank">http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner?REQUNIQ=1013147874&REQSESS=n79V992X&REQHOST=site 1&2131REQEVENT=&CFLAV=1&CCAT=-99999&CCHAN=-99999&CARTI=109779</a>. .Prime minister must act as MoD defies the Lords on Chinook . .by Daniel Thomas . .Thursday 7 February 2002 . . . .The Government is facing mounting pressure to overturn the Ministry of Defence's verdict of gross negligence against the pilots of Chinook ZD576, following this week's historic House of Lords report which exonerated the men.
Both MPs and the parents of RAF flight lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook welcomed the Select Committee report's findings and urged the Government to quash the original MoD verdict.
"The families of those who died have waited a very long time for this report," said Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman. "Now the Select Committee has found that the verdict of the Board of Inquiry is flawed, the Government's duty is clear - it should accept the report, and the finding of negligence should be quashed."
Conservative party chairman David Davis was equally insistent. "The prime minister really has to sort this out, do the honourable thing, reinstate the reputation of these pilots and make their families and everybody else involved feel that justice has been done," he said.
John Cook, father of one of the pilots, said, "We have known right from the start that there was no evidence to support the accusation of gross negligence and we hope the Government will now catch up quickly."
However, a MoD spokeswoman refused to accept the report's conclusions.
"'No doubt whatsoever' is a very high standard of proof. The senior officers who reviewed the case, the air marshals and the MoD are satisfied that that standard was met," she said. "We stand by the conclusions of the inquiry and the review officers, which were based on the evidence available to them.''
Former Tory defence minister Lord Chalfont was horrified at the MoD's reaction. "I am delighted at this verdict but I am horrified to hear that the MoD has suggested that it will ignore the committee's findings,'' he said.
Les Hatton, a safety-critical software expert said, "The worrying thing is the lack of accountability of the MoD, which has behaved appallingly throughout the episode."
Mike Tapper, father of pilot Jonathan, echoed Chalfont's views. "In my more charitable mood I am thinking that the MoD is trying to buy time because it knows its position is unsustainable," he said. . . . .HectorusRex
Both MPs and the parents of RAF flight lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook welcomed the Select Committee report's findings and urged the Government to quash the original MoD verdict.
"The families of those who died have waited a very long time for this report," said Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman. "Now the Select Committee has found that the verdict of the Board of Inquiry is flawed, the Government's duty is clear - it should accept the report, and the finding of negligence should be quashed."
Conservative party chairman David Davis was equally insistent. "The prime minister really has to sort this out, do the honourable thing, reinstate the reputation of these pilots and make their families and everybody else involved feel that justice has been done," he said.
John Cook, father of one of the pilots, said, "We have known right from the start that there was no evidence to support the accusation of gross negligence and we hope the Government will now catch up quickly."
However, a MoD spokeswoman refused to accept the report's conclusions.
"'No doubt whatsoever' is a very high standard of proof. The senior officers who reviewed the case, the air marshals and the MoD are satisfied that that standard was met," she said. "We stand by the conclusions of the inquiry and the review officers, which were based on the evidence available to them.''
Former Tory defence minister Lord Chalfont was horrified at the MoD's reaction. "I am delighted at this verdict but I am horrified to hear that the MoD has suggested that it will ignore the committee's findings,'' he said.
Les Hatton, a safety-critical software expert said, "The worrying thing is the lack of accountability of the MoD, which has behaved appallingly throughout the episode."
Mike Tapper, father of pilot Jonathan, echoed Chalfont's views. "In my more charitable mood I am thinking that the MoD is trying to buy time because it knows its position is unsustainable," he said. . . . .HectorusRex
Guest
Posts: n/a
<a href="http://www.faxyourmp.com" target="_blank">www.faxyourmp.com</a>
DO IT!!
Mine's a Conservative Front Bench Spokesman of Home Affairs - hopefully that'll help.
------------------------------------------------
To: Mr Humfrey Malins. .MP for Woking . .House Of Commons . .London . .SW1A 1AA
Friday 8 February 2002
Dear Mr Malins,
I write following the recent ruling by the House of Lords over the inquiry into the crash of the RAF Chinook on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994.
I am fortunate enough to have a friend who was an officer in the Intelligence Corps for many years, serving the majority of his career in Northern Ireland. On the flight in question he had many friends and colleagues who lost their lives in the accident. He is of the opinion, as am I, that the ruling is entirely correct and just.
I quote from the AP3207 RAF Manual of Flight Safety (Ch.8, Ap.G, Pg.9) 'Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent'. Despite the result of the MoD Board of Inquiry being that there was insufficient evidence to find the pilots negligent, and in the face of mounting evidence that there were inconsistencies with both the navigational equipment and the computerised engine management system on the, at that time, new Chinook HC2 the Reviwing Officers (ACM Sir William Wratten and AM Sir John Day) both decided that there was no doubt whatsoever that both pilots were guilty of negligence. That is where the problem hinges, this is about proportioning blame with absolute certainty - something which, in the face of the evidence available, cannot be done.
May I ask a few things of you please:
a) You write to the Prime Minister to ask that the findings of the Reviewing Officers be overruled.. .b) You raise this matter at Defence Questions on Thursday, 14th February.. .c) Air Marshall, now Air Chief Marshall, Sir John Day, is likely to be appointed as Chief of the Air Staff. I feel, and it is felt keenly in the miliary aviation arena, that such an appointment in the face of this ruling would be most unhelpful and positively damaging to the command structure of the Royal Air Force. I would ask you to consider this view and deal with it as you see fit.
Whilst there will always be doubt as to the exact cause of the accident, it is unfair and unjust to both the pilots, their families and friends to find them negligent when the evidence available suggests that this cannot be made with 100% certainty.
Should you wish to find our the depth of feeling on this issue, two websites offer good information, 'http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=002220&p=' and 'http://www.chinook-justice.org'
Thank you very much for your time,
Best regards,
Daifly.
DO IT!!
Mine's a Conservative Front Bench Spokesman of Home Affairs - hopefully that'll help.
------------------------------------------------
To: Mr Humfrey Malins. .MP for Woking . .House Of Commons . .London . .SW1A 1AA
Friday 8 February 2002
Dear Mr Malins,
I write following the recent ruling by the House of Lords over the inquiry into the crash of the RAF Chinook on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994.
I am fortunate enough to have a friend who was an officer in the Intelligence Corps for many years, serving the majority of his career in Northern Ireland. On the flight in question he had many friends and colleagues who lost their lives in the accident. He is of the opinion, as am I, that the ruling is entirely correct and just.
I quote from the AP3207 RAF Manual of Flight Safety (Ch.8, Ap.G, Pg.9) 'Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent'. Despite the result of the MoD Board of Inquiry being that there was insufficient evidence to find the pilots negligent, and in the face of mounting evidence that there were inconsistencies with both the navigational equipment and the computerised engine management system on the, at that time, new Chinook HC2 the Reviwing Officers (ACM Sir William Wratten and AM Sir John Day) both decided that there was no doubt whatsoever that both pilots were guilty of negligence. That is where the problem hinges, this is about proportioning blame with absolute certainty - something which, in the face of the evidence available, cannot be done.
May I ask a few things of you please:
a) You write to the Prime Minister to ask that the findings of the Reviewing Officers be overruled.. .b) You raise this matter at Defence Questions on Thursday, 14th February.. .c) Air Marshall, now Air Chief Marshall, Sir John Day, is likely to be appointed as Chief of the Air Staff. I feel, and it is felt keenly in the miliary aviation arena, that such an appointment in the face of this ruling would be most unhelpful and positively damaging to the command structure of the Royal Air Force. I would ask you to consider this view and deal with it as you see fit.
Whilst there will always be doubt as to the exact cause of the accident, it is unfair and unjust to both the pilots, their families and friends to find them negligent when the evidence available suggests that this cannot be made with 100% certainty.
Should you wish to find our the depth of feeling on this issue, two websites offer good information, 'http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=002220&p=' and 'http://www.chinook-justice.org'
Thank you very much for your time,
Best regards,
Daifly.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ark Royal - your MP is a chump. Who is it?
He/She should be duty bound to convey your representations to MoD Ministers, even if it is not a 'constituency issue'. They are elected to represent you, that is what they are supposed to be there for. This one obviously needs to be reminded.
Even if he/she writes to the Minister enclosing your letter and just saying "comments please" they will get a nice reply back from the Minister, which will have to respond to the points you make. . . <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
He/She should be duty bound to convey your representations to MoD Ministers, even if it is not a 'constituency issue'. They are elected to represent you, that is what they are supposed to be there for. This one obviously needs to be reminded.
Even if he/she writes to the Minister enclosing your letter and just saying "comments please" they will get a nice reply back from the Minister, which will have to respond to the points you make. . . <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Ark Royal,
TL's right. Who is the waste of space?
You are one of his/her constituents and if you've raised the matter with him/her it effects you - whether the effect be mild interest or utter outrage on your part, said MP is duty-bound to do something.
Suggest that if MP refuses to mend ways you send letter to party leader asking him to investigate, since you regret to tell him that your MP can't be bothered (and you won't be bothered to vote for that MP again, cc'd to the MP.
TL's right. Who is the waste of space?
You are one of his/her constituents and if you've raised the matter with him/her it effects you - whether the effect be mild interest or utter outrage on your part, said MP is duty-bound to do something.
Suggest that if MP refuses to mend ways you send letter to party leader asking him to investigate, since you regret to tell him that your MP can't be bothered (and you won't be bothered to vote for that MP again, cc'd to the MP.
The breathtaking arrogance of their airships in this matter is yet another reason there is an seeming lack of faith in our leaders. Perhaps one way for this matter to come to a head would be for the relatives of the dead pilots to sue those who were so confident of their verdicts.
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
Hi everyone,. .thanks again for keeping this going.
Ark, write to your MP. They will have to reply - even if you get another 'I can't be bothered' reply. Forward your original letter and that of the reply to the party HQ stating that this is the attitude of one of their own. Tell them this attitude is why no one is interested in politics anymore.
Just a thought (yes, I get the occasional one or two). Can the findings of their Lordships be submitted to the MoD as new evidence? I have a letter signed by John Spellar (remember him?), dated 1 September 1999. The last paragraph of his letter, written on MoD headed paper, saying this:
"You asked whether the Department will consider re-opening the Inquiry. This could only happen would be if new evidence emerged which cast doubt on the integrity of the RAF's original findings. We remain ready to look at any new evidence or new arguments. However, nothing has emerged since the Inquiry that would cause us to doubt the conclusions that were reached at that time.". .(The unusual grammar is his, not mine)
Point 1 - Something new has emerged since this letter was written.. .Point 2 - It is the findings of the Lords Select Committee.. .Point 3 - It doubts the integrity of the findings of the RAF's original findings.
MoD - You now have no option. It is here in writing. Do the correct and honourable thing. And do it quickly.
Regards as always. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Ark, write to your MP. They will have to reply - even if you get another 'I can't be bothered' reply. Forward your original letter and that of the reply to the party HQ stating that this is the attitude of one of their own. Tell them this attitude is why no one is interested in politics anymore.
Just a thought (yes, I get the occasional one or two). Can the findings of their Lordships be submitted to the MoD as new evidence? I have a letter signed by John Spellar (remember him?), dated 1 September 1999. The last paragraph of his letter, written on MoD headed paper, saying this:
"You asked whether the Department will consider re-opening the Inquiry. This could only happen would be if new evidence emerged which cast doubt on the integrity of the RAF's original findings. We remain ready to look at any new evidence or new arguments. However, nothing has emerged since the Inquiry that would cause us to doubt the conclusions that were reached at that time.". .(The unusual grammar is his, not mine)
Point 1 - Something new has emerged since this letter was written.. .Point 2 - It is the findings of the Lords Select Committee.. .Point 3 - It doubts the integrity of the findings of the RAF's original findings.
MoD - You now have no option. It is here in writing. Do the correct and honourable thing. And do it quickly.
Regards as always. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
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
Sorry, forgot to add to the above.. .Geof Hoon was out of the country at the time their Lordships published their findings.
Some of you may like to let him know the result. I know I did
Contact him via:. [email protected]
I'm sure he'll be grateful.
Regards. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Some of you may like to let him know the result. I know I did
Contact him via:. [email protected]
I'm sure he'll be grateful.
Regards. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Colchester UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Percy does seem to have got on the wrong side of people - but he does have a valid point of view; even if most contributors disagree with him. Incidentally, what right (bearing in mind that this thread does NOT have a Moderator), does PPruNe Pop have to delete (or threaten to delete) Percy’s posts? Voltaire put it far better than I ever could!!!!
The Captain of the fateful flight (in his capacity as Detachment Commander) decided, on receiving the tasking for the 2nd of June, that one crew would do both the tasks to preserve the “one day on- one day off” rota system. The problem with that decision is that the “Crew Duty Day” was 14 hours of which 7 hours was flying time. The flying time was extendable to 8 hours by the Duty Authorising Officer BUT any further extension would have to be authorised by SRAFONI. An extension to 8 hrs was agreed by the Duty Auth.
As the BOI clearly states, the allocated times for the tasks were 6 ½ hrs for the in-theatre task and 3 hrs for the task to Scotland (total 9 ½ hrs) therefore a request to SRAFONI for an extension would appear to have been (at least) prudent. The BOI decided that a maximum of 1 hr could be shaved off the NI task but, in the event, the task took 5hrs 35mins. At no time had the Aircraft Captain (and Detachment Commander) approached SRAFONI for an extension of Crew Duty Time or even raised the possibility that it may be required.
When they departed Aldergrove on the fatal flight no member of the Crew had taken a proper meal for (approx.) 10 hours (in the Captain’s case it may have been 22 hours as the BOI “was unable to ascertain” that he had taken breakfast as required by ASI’s; although they were able to tell us that he had taken Dinner at 1910 the previous night); yet they were being committed to a further 4 hrs (approx.) duty time which involved an further extension of crew duty flying time that had not been requested or granted.
Nobody knows to this day whether the intention was to return to Aldergrove or to remain in Scotland overnight. No accommodation had been booked and the Captain had not even taken the F 700 (so how did he intend to record refuelling & servicing?). The only thing one can definitely state is that no permission had been requested from HQNI for the aircraft to night stop out of Theatre. If the intention was to return to Aldergrove then the crew had the further problem of possibly exceeding the overall crew duty hours limitation.
In this context it is interesting that the BOI does not give a time for “Crew in” but only for “Crew Brief”. My experience is that it is difficult to have a brief until one has checked the data i.e. “Crew Brief” takes place sometime after “Crew in”. One then has to ask when the “Crew Duty day” started.
I note that the Yachtsman (Mr Holroyd) vehemently contests the interpretation put on his evidence to the BOI and that the evidence he gave to the FAI (and the HOL) differed markedly from that which he gave to the BOI. I also note that another person was on board the yacht (something that was not mentioned by the BOI). I wonder if his/her opinion of the weather conditions (and the speed of the aircraft) has changed as dramatically as that of Mr Holroyd. Before people leap up and down may I point out that the evidence given to the BOI by Mr Holroyd was taken on oath and that he signed the witness statement as a true record of his evidence.
One must also take into account the evidence given to the FAI by the RN Exchange Officer that HE had planned the Task and it was a copy of the map that HE had prepared that was left in Ops. One wonders how, in the light of this evidence, the BOI was able to definitely state “ as Flt Lt T had carried out the flight planning for this sortie, including calculating the Safety Altitude for each leg, he would have been familiar with the intended route.” Were the BOI told that the chart was prepared by someone else? Moreover, when was the chart handed to the crew doing the task?
Finally, I would say that the requirement (so often repeated here) that there be “ Absolutely no doubt ” is almost impossible to achieve. If that were the criteria then there would never be a single criminal conviction in this country. The criteria for any criminal conviction is “BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”
I have little doubt that this seemingly innocuous, but contentious, phrase was inserted in the Manual without any reference to legal advice.
Percy - You can field the brickbats from this one. I’m going back to France.
PS Given that both Pilots were Captains and that Lt K was the Captain of the other crew - was this normal for the detachmrnt or was it just because a crew changeover was taking place?
The Captain of the fateful flight (in his capacity as Detachment Commander) decided, on receiving the tasking for the 2nd of June, that one crew would do both the tasks to preserve the “one day on- one day off” rota system. The problem with that decision is that the “Crew Duty Day” was 14 hours of which 7 hours was flying time. The flying time was extendable to 8 hours by the Duty Authorising Officer BUT any further extension would have to be authorised by SRAFONI. An extension to 8 hrs was agreed by the Duty Auth.
As the BOI clearly states, the allocated times for the tasks were 6 ½ hrs for the in-theatre task and 3 hrs for the task to Scotland (total 9 ½ hrs) therefore a request to SRAFONI for an extension would appear to have been (at least) prudent. The BOI decided that a maximum of 1 hr could be shaved off the NI task but, in the event, the task took 5hrs 35mins. At no time had the Aircraft Captain (and Detachment Commander) approached SRAFONI for an extension of Crew Duty Time or even raised the possibility that it may be required.
When they departed Aldergrove on the fatal flight no member of the Crew had taken a proper meal for (approx.) 10 hours (in the Captain’s case it may have been 22 hours as the BOI “was unable to ascertain” that he had taken breakfast as required by ASI’s; although they were able to tell us that he had taken Dinner at 1910 the previous night); yet they were being committed to a further 4 hrs (approx.) duty time which involved an further extension of crew duty flying time that had not been requested or granted.
Nobody knows to this day whether the intention was to return to Aldergrove or to remain in Scotland overnight. No accommodation had been booked and the Captain had not even taken the F 700 (so how did he intend to record refuelling & servicing?). The only thing one can definitely state is that no permission had been requested from HQNI for the aircraft to night stop out of Theatre. If the intention was to return to Aldergrove then the crew had the further problem of possibly exceeding the overall crew duty hours limitation.
In this context it is interesting that the BOI does not give a time for “Crew in” but only for “Crew Brief”. My experience is that it is difficult to have a brief until one has checked the data i.e. “Crew Brief” takes place sometime after “Crew in”. One then has to ask when the “Crew Duty day” started.
I note that the Yachtsman (Mr Holroyd) vehemently contests the interpretation put on his evidence to the BOI and that the evidence he gave to the FAI (and the HOL) differed markedly from that which he gave to the BOI. I also note that another person was on board the yacht (something that was not mentioned by the BOI). I wonder if his/her opinion of the weather conditions (and the speed of the aircraft) has changed as dramatically as that of Mr Holroyd. Before people leap up and down may I point out that the evidence given to the BOI by Mr Holroyd was taken on oath and that he signed the witness statement as a true record of his evidence.
One must also take into account the evidence given to the FAI by the RN Exchange Officer that HE had planned the Task and it was a copy of the map that HE had prepared that was left in Ops. One wonders how, in the light of this evidence, the BOI was able to definitely state “ as Flt Lt T had carried out the flight planning for this sortie, including calculating the Safety Altitude for each leg, he would have been familiar with the intended route.” Were the BOI told that the chart was prepared by someone else? Moreover, when was the chart handed to the crew doing the task?
Finally, I would say that the requirement (so often repeated here) that there be “ Absolutely no doubt ” is almost impossible to achieve. If that were the criteria then there would never be a single criminal conviction in this country. The criteria for any criminal conviction is “BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”
I have little doubt that this seemingly innocuous, but contentious, phrase was inserted in the Manual without any reference to legal advice.
Percy - You can field the brickbats from this one. I’m going back to France.
PS Given that both Pilots were Captains and that Lt K was the Captain of the other crew - was this normal for the detachmrnt or was it just because a crew changeover was taking place?
Guest
Posts: n/a
K52 - I'm not going to get into the argument on who has what rights to do what on this BB. Although the forum is not moderated, surely it is logical that moderators from other forums can remove offensive language, or statements. If you're that concerned with free speech, become a moderator - then you can be in charge of what's on the board or not.
You set out your arguments regarding the flight clearly and concisely, but you rather remove your argument in nearly the last paragraph:
"Finally, I would say that the requirement (so often repeated here) that there be “ Absolutely no doubt ” is almost impossible to achieve. If that were the criteria then there would never be a single criminal conviction in this country. The criteria for any criminal conviction is “BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”
No, there probably wasn't any legal consultation over what went into the manual, but it is there and at the time this was the level that the Air Marshalls had to agree upon. Throughout your post you make mention of "suggestion", such as meals and accommodation - any judge would stop you in your tracks over that one, hard fact is what we need to deal with and in this case there is none that supports the verdict of negligence.
Nobody, either for or against the Air Ranks views, could sit back and say that they know with 100% certainty that the cause was not pilot error, however what it under scrutiny is the fact that the Air Ranks felt they could make such a judgement based upon evidence which brought into question the reliability of the aircraft in question.
Two statements:
"Innocent until PROVEN guilty" and. ."There but for the grace of God"
It will never be known what happened in that aircraft in the final few moments of flight and Wrattan and Day fall into the same bracket as the rest of us humans, they do not know either. Read the report of the HoL, there must be something in it that would make even you stop and think "well no, maybe that's not beyond doubt".
(Edited for bad spellink)
[ 09 February 2002: Message edited by: Daifly ]</p>
You set out your arguments regarding the flight clearly and concisely, but you rather remove your argument in nearly the last paragraph:
"Finally, I would say that the requirement (so often repeated here) that there be “ Absolutely no doubt ” is almost impossible to achieve. If that were the criteria then there would never be a single criminal conviction in this country. The criteria for any criminal conviction is “BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”
No, there probably wasn't any legal consultation over what went into the manual, but it is there and at the time this was the level that the Air Marshalls had to agree upon. Throughout your post you make mention of "suggestion", such as meals and accommodation - any judge would stop you in your tracks over that one, hard fact is what we need to deal with and in this case there is none that supports the verdict of negligence.
Nobody, either for or against the Air Ranks views, could sit back and say that they know with 100% certainty that the cause was not pilot error, however what it under scrutiny is the fact that the Air Ranks felt they could make such a judgement based upon evidence which brought into question the reliability of the aircraft in question.
Two statements:
"Innocent until PROVEN guilty" and. ."There but for the grace of God"
It will never be known what happened in that aircraft in the final few moments of flight and Wrattan and Day fall into the same bracket as the rest of us humans, they do not know either. Read the report of the HoL, there must be something in it that would make even you stop and think "well no, maybe that's not beyond doubt".
(Edited for bad spellink)
[ 09 February 2002: Message edited by: Daifly ]</p>
Guest
Posts: n/a
K52.
Your comments are noted. However, just to put straight your mis-conception, I have a function to remove offensive posts, blatant swearing, duplicate posts, in fact anything under the policy that Danny has laid down. All of which you and everyone agrees to when you register.
PercyDragon duplicated his post here after first putting it on the new Chinook thread in R&N. I removed it here and retained it on R&N. I also noted that he would, no doubt, answer - and he did.
The 'generally' accepted view that the Mil Forum goes unhindered remains. So long as it is accepted that it is not above being moderated when certain lines have been crossed.
Hope that clears things up for you. Just enjoy.
PPRuNe Pop. .Administrator. . [email protected]
Your comments are noted. However, just to put straight your mis-conception, I have a function to remove offensive posts, blatant swearing, duplicate posts, in fact anything under the policy that Danny has laid down. All of which you and everyone agrees to when you register.
PercyDragon duplicated his post here after first putting it on the new Chinook thread in R&N. I removed it here and retained it on R&N. I also noted that he would, no doubt, answer - and he did.
The 'generally' accepted view that the Mil Forum goes unhindered remains. So long as it is accepted that it is not above being moderated when certain lines have been crossed.
Hope that clears things up for you. Just enjoy.
PPRuNe Pop. .Administrator. . [email protected]
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
Hi K52. Welcome back to the thread. I tried e-mailing you earlier in the year to wish you Happy New Year, but had the message returned. So please accept this as your late good wishes!
As usual, you present a well reasoned argument. However, I would respectfully remind you that a criminal court uses 'Beyond all reasonable doubt'. The Air Marshals were not presiding over a criminal court. The military rules in place at the time of the accident were for 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever'. I'm sorry if you feel that this rule is unachievable, but that was what was in place at the time. The Air Marshals failed to achieve this level of proof so the verdict must not stand. Simplistic, I know, but that is the whole basis of this campaign.
I am, of course, happy that we can agree to disagree. Please drop me a line if you wish.
Regards. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
As usual, you present a well reasoned argument. However, I would respectfully remind you that a criminal court uses 'Beyond all reasonable doubt'. The Air Marshals were not presiding over a criminal court. The military rules in place at the time of the accident were for 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever'. I'm sorry if you feel that this rule is unachievable, but that was what was in place at the time. The Air Marshals failed to achieve this level of proof so the verdict must not stand. Simplistic, I know, but that is the whole basis of this campaign.
I am, of course, happy that we can agree to disagree. Please drop me a line if you wish.
Regards. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Just a numbered other
K52
Welcome back to the fray. For new joiners who may be tempted to beleive K52 ramblings, pleas go to the original thread in archives, where each one of his theories was dismantled until he retired across the channel.
Brian has it right. If the RAF had wanted to judge people to a burdon of 'beyond reasonable doubt' then that's what they would have done. Usually this would have included giving the defendant a chance to put his side of the story.
It's just because there will be no-one to defend dead pilots that the higher criteria of 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' quite rightly applied to deceased aircrew.
The HoL's overturning of the finding must be made to stick. Where would we be if the original judge in a criminal trial was able to disregard the court of appeal and the ultimate court, the House of Lords?
MP again picturised along with Bliar and Buff.
Welcome back to the fray. For new joiners who may be tempted to beleive K52 ramblings, pleas go to the original thread in archives, where each one of his theories was dismantled until he retired across the channel.
Brian has it right. If the RAF had wanted to judge people to a burdon of 'beyond reasonable doubt' then that's what they would have done. Usually this would have included giving the defendant a chance to put his side of the story.
It's just because there will be no-one to defend dead pilots that the higher criteria of 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' quite rightly applied to deceased aircrew.
The HoL's overturning of the finding must be made to stick. Where would we be if the original judge in a criminal trial was able to disregard the court of appeal and the ultimate court, the House of Lords?
MP again picturised along with Bliar and Buff.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note with interest that K52 has returned to the fray.. .It seemed curious that he had been absent for so long that I searched the archives and found what appears to be his first post on this topic appeared on 8/1/01. .<a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=000333&p=37" target="_blank">http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=000333&p=37</a>. .He appeared then, as now, to be particulary obtuse in failing to grasp the entire thrust of why the Air Blimps got it wrong.. .I'm sure he, Ark Royal and Brian can provide some more jousting to come!. .HectorusRex
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian,
I see what you say about the MoD having to do the right thing based on the idiot Spellar's comments, but I think that from that particular passage they still have an 'out' and are left in the state that they should do the right thing, rather than having to.
[quote] "You asked whether the Department will consider re-opening the Inquiry. This could only happen would be if new evidence emerged which cast doubt on the integrity of the RAF's original findings. We remain ready to look at any new evidence or new arguments. However, nothing has emerged since the Inquiry that would cause us to doubt the conclusions that were reached at that time.". . <hr></blockquote>
The HoL findings, along with the other non-RAF enquiries, have found against the BOI result based on the criteria required to reach the currently standing result. However, the Spellar quote only claims that the MoD will re-examine the case for new evidence or new arguments. To the best of my knowledge (and I stand to be corrected if wrong) the findings of other enquiries, even the HoL one, are neither new evidence nor new arguments since Spellar's time. In fact, the argument against the BOI findings has been consistant for many years now.
Whilst I believe that the MoD should re-examine the case (and finally make the correct judgement) I also believe that for the sake of CAS-elect (spit) they will point out that they are maintaining Spellar's line if it gets raised in public again. It is also with a heavy heart that I suspect that the case will not be re-opened for 5+ years until CAS-elect is the ex-CAS. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
I see what you say about the MoD having to do the right thing based on the idiot Spellar's comments, but I think that from that particular passage they still have an 'out' and are left in the state that they should do the right thing, rather than having to.
[quote] "You asked whether the Department will consider re-opening the Inquiry. This could only happen would be if new evidence emerged which cast doubt on the integrity of the RAF's original findings. We remain ready to look at any new evidence or new arguments. However, nothing has emerged since the Inquiry that would cause us to doubt the conclusions that were reached at that time.". . <hr></blockquote>
The HoL findings, along with the other non-RAF enquiries, have found against the BOI result based on the criteria required to reach the currently standing result. However, the Spellar quote only claims that the MoD will re-examine the case for new evidence or new arguments. To the best of my knowledge (and I stand to be corrected if wrong) the findings of other enquiries, even the HoL one, are neither new evidence nor new arguments since Spellar's time. In fact, the argument against the BOI findings has been consistant for many years now.
Whilst I believe that the MoD should re-examine the case (and finally make the correct judgement) I also believe that for the sake of CAS-elect (spit) they will point out that they are maintaining Spellar's line if it gets raised in public again. It is also with a heavy heart that I suspect that the case will not be re-opened for 5+ years until CAS-elect is the ex-CAS. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that in the short term there is nothing else for it. Lets pick a day, down tools and all go to number 10, everyone else does it! Most of us who believe in this would need kahoenas (sp?)the size of Jupiter, but it would make the press, and may force a more positive response from MOD in line with the HOL findings. Its the only chance to stop Day becoming the main man! Just an Idea!!
[ 10 February 2002: Message edited by: Tigs ]</p>
[ 10 February 2002: Message edited by: Tigs ]</p>
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my luck! There is no link to my MP via faxyourmp.com. Never mind - I've written to him anyway with 'URGENT' plastered all over the envelope.
Daifly - like your letter. Hope you don't mind, but I plagerised chunks of it for my submission.
I reiterate what I said on a previous post. CAS can overturn the findings of the 2 AMs, but I suspect he won't be allowed to. The can of worms that would be opened regarding the introduction of the ac into service would be an enormous embarassment to central gov.
Well done Brian. Let's keep up the pressure to remove this stain from an otherwise fine Force.
Daifly - like your letter. Hope you don't mind, but I plagerised chunks of it for my submission.
I reiterate what I said on a previous post. CAS can overturn the findings of the 2 AMs, but I suspect he won't be allowed to. The can of worms that would be opened regarding the introduction of the ac into service would be an enormous embarassment to central gov.
Well done Brian. Let's keep up the pressure to remove this stain from an otherwise fine Force.