Chinook - Still Hitting Back 2
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Fobotcso. Actually, he did.
You, presumably, are referring to the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it''.
Which, indeed, was not written by Voltaire, but appeared in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre.
Hall herself, however, claimed that she had been paraphrasing Voltaire's words in his Essay on Tolerance: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.''
On the basis of what he actually wrote, therefore, K52 is correct. Voltaire was the originator of the concept, Hall just paraphrased it into a more well known saying - which K52 did not use.
[ 10 February 2002: Message edited by: ORAC ]</p>
You, presumably, are referring to the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it''.
Which, indeed, was not written by Voltaire, but appeared in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre.
Hall herself, however, claimed that she had been paraphrasing Voltaire's words in his Essay on Tolerance: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.''
On the basis of what he actually wrote, therefore, K52 is correct. Voltaire was the originator of the concept, Hall just paraphrased it into a more well known saying - which K52 did not use.
[ 10 February 2002: Message edited by: ORAC ]</p>
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Just below BEagle on the sloping chart table
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is like watching a train smash in slow motion.
There will be, inevitably, enormous damage. Not just to the Royal Air Force, already irrevocably disgraced, but to the Ministry of Defence and even to the constitution of the United Kingdom. Why so? Because the MoD and these Air Marshals are openly in defiance of the House of Lords and, consequently, the people of this nation.
And some of us people are getting really very angry about this!. . . .In my opinion, the cases of the two Chinook pilots are settled. They are in the opinions of the original Board of Inquiry, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, most contributors to the PPRuNe Military Aviation Bulletin Board and, most importantly (I believe) their professional colleagues, completely free of blame. On the contrary, they are admired as exceptional aircrew who displayed moral and physical courage of a high order that ordinary humans merely aspire to emulate.
There are still, however, unresolved issues to be addressed. There is great restraint in the reactions of contributors to this BB - possibly deference of serving and retired aviators to men of high rank. However, they are not above the law and they are not above the people. They have shown contempt for both - the time for pussy footing is over - let us 'cry havoc and let loose...'
It is notable that those who seek to defend Wratten and Day's irrational and unintelligent arguments invariably attempt to introduce new 'facts' into the argument. It can be observed that officers and officials who seek to advance themselves beyond their ability frequently complicate matters by introducing more and more issues of diminishing relevance to illustrate their grasp of 'the bigger picture'. In my day in the crew room we called it bull****.
The mark of intelligent and educated people is that they can make simplicity out of complexity and construct taxonomy of relevance. The MoD is notable in its frequent failure to do these things. In my day in the crew room we expressed it as 'a sound grip of the non-essentials'.
Contributors to the forum have mentioned analogies to bus crashes and, most recently, a pathetically weak attempt to focus on crew duty times. Please spare us these feeble minded ruses - it is like arguing with a 9 year old child who is just in a very bad mood.
Wratten and Day’s conduct portrays them as imbeciles and intellectually unfit for the posts they have held and that they aspire to. If Day becomes CAS, hundreds of retired aviator Dads will advise their kids to 'go civvy'. Retention problem?
They could have just 'let it lie' and all would have carried on as before with the ratio of Air Marshals to squadrons growing steadily greater. They would have enjoyed long retirements with remunerative 'consultancies' paying for their elegant homes and 'civilised' lifestyles. This is all part of the corrupt system of deferred reward that so many senior officers enjoy after being helpful to defence contractors.
Instead of preserving the status quo, Wratten has chosen to defame two officers who showed 'Above the Average' skills and exemplary moral and physical courage. What a low down betrayal of two fine young men! How consistent with the thug and bully many of us who served with or under him perceived him to be.
This is symptomatic of the one way loyalty flow that creates a coterie of self seeking, networking, falsely charming senior officers who look over your shoulder at a cocktail party in order not to miss the chance to engage with someone more useful. It is clear to some of us that Johnnie produced the result that Curly Bill would approve of and that that result encouraged the latter to produce a finding that was as illogical as it was spiteful. The continued defence of this act of stupidity compounds the men's perfidy and raises questions about their psychology.
On reading the HoL report, it stands out like a dogs bollocks that this was not a complex tragedy at all. In order to do what Wratten and Day allege, those brave young fellows would have had to be very daft, suicidally determined to flout the rules or out of their heads on mind altering substances - both pilots and one crewman at the same time! If any one of these was the case, the Royal Air Force is very much more seriously deficient of responsible adults than even some of us old geezers think.
Some of us who know Wratten for what he is do not share his high self regard. He is an extremely arrogant ex-fighter pilot who cannot stand to be disagreed with and who was frequently vicious in his treatment of those who crossed him. His most vile contempt and retribution is reserved for those who are proven to be right. He has been unfair and harsh with subordinates in the past and has got away with it - he, no doubt, would cite ‘high standards’. Some of us have seen him perform with not quite such high standards. No man is a paragon and no doubt he is a better airman than I ever was. But he is not as perfect as he seems to believe and he has no excuse for his disloyal treatment of our fallen comrades. He is a disgrace who should surrender his knighthoods and apologise to the Royal Air Force; the Red Arrows will re-equip with pigs before he does, I would wager.
It might even be suggested that his conduct has been prejudicial to the good order of the service; a Summary of Evidence might be made. Which part of Retention Problem might be directly attributable to the widespread distaste for this odious conduct of these martinets? This is the nadir in the history of a service which has grown heroes and inspired admiration in millions. A Royal Air Force that I wanted to join since early childhood, that allowed me to join in ecstasy as a callow boy and that I was so sad to leave that I wept.
The intransigent arrogance of Wratten and Day has also exposed the perfidious nature of the MoD - an organisation that consistently manages to create chaos out of order and makes technical blunders in the great majority of its equipment acquisition programmes. This is not my opinion - it is documented in decades of reports by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office stretching back to the First World War and before. Using the threadbare cloak of 'Official Secrets', it covers up gross mismanagement. It promotes its 'players' into positions to make biased judgements on their own previous stupidities. It re-invents itself in cycles that always end in failure. It wastes millions of pounds of our money and produces little of use other than wryly amusing acronyms. Its officials make decisions on technical matters for which they have no knowledge or training but who are trusted because of their history and classics Firsts from ancient colleges. Scientists and engineers are little more plentiful in Whitehall than is rocking horse **** .
The MoD will continue to obfuscate, dither and hold ‘briefings’ whilst Mr Hoon makes up his mind (i.e. asks Mr Blair) how to spin it. When all that is needed is for honourable adults to stand up, hold up their hands and say ‘We do not know and we are unlikely to ever know’. Just as our noble Lords have found but which findings have been held in contempt by MoD and these two officers.
There are also the issues that they have been attempting to divert attention from. How could the Royal Air Force contrive to such numb skull, amateurish, stupidity as to endanger such important passengers when so many safer alternatives were available? The British Army has a term for the serendipitous events that sometimes hand them advantage over the Irish terrorists - the Paddy Factor. I bet Adams' henchmen have an Air Marshal Factor!
Serious questions should also be asked about the management of the acquisition of a helicopter without proper documentation and serious engineering deficiencies. Answers will be given to such questions on completion of the first Red Arrows porcine display!
In abolishing the rank of Marshal of the Royal Air Force, the service has lost the steadying guidance of old men of great experience and integrity whose prime objective was the good of the service. They would have seen ambitious men striving for office at the expense of good order and quietly advised against such promotions.
In this era of moral shock, is it not time that we weed out the self centred oafs and clowns who infest the 'upper' echelons of our society with their sleight of hand corruption? We, the people, know that conspiracies can be built without recorded words. The whole tawdry machine works by the 'skills' of cunning people who anticipate the wishes of their masters and 'make it so'. Passports are issued to those who might not otherwise receive them not because ministers order it but because they make clear that they would be pleased to see such a thing. For their officials to do otherwise would be 'a career limiting move'. To 'go with the flow' establishes a reputation as 'a safe pair of hands'. Ambition for personal advancement is a cancer that eats our society voraciously but is perceived as a virtue in so many quarters. Our nation should be run by honest and plain people who are competent at their job, work a decent day for a decent pay and knock off in time to deal with the real stuff of life - to enjoy it with the ones we love.
Finally, I am moved to a comment from a television programme of such vulgarity that I am rarely able to endure it. However, it just seems the perfect phrase - moral courage, my arse!
There will be, inevitably, enormous damage. Not just to the Royal Air Force, already irrevocably disgraced, but to the Ministry of Defence and even to the constitution of the United Kingdom. Why so? Because the MoD and these Air Marshals are openly in defiance of the House of Lords and, consequently, the people of this nation.
And some of us people are getting really very angry about this!. . . .In my opinion, the cases of the two Chinook pilots are settled. They are in the opinions of the original Board of Inquiry, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, most contributors to the PPRuNe Military Aviation Bulletin Board and, most importantly (I believe) their professional colleagues, completely free of blame. On the contrary, they are admired as exceptional aircrew who displayed moral and physical courage of a high order that ordinary humans merely aspire to emulate.
There are still, however, unresolved issues to be addressed. There is great restraint in the reactions of contributors to this BB - possibly deference of serving and retired aviators to men of high rank. However, they are not above the law and they are not above the people. They have shown contempt for both - the time for pussy footing is over - let us 'cry havoc and let loose...'
It is notable that those who seek to defend Wratten and Day's irrational and unintelligent arguments invariably attempt to introduce new 'facts' into the argument. It can be observed that officers and officials who seek to advance themselves beyond their ability frequently complicate matters by introducing more and more issues of diminishing relevance to illustrate their grasp of 'the bigger picture'. In my day in the crew room we called it bull****.
The mark of intelligent and educated people is that they can make simplicity out of complexity and construct taxonomy of relevance. The MoD is notable in its frequent failure to do these things. In my day in the crew room we expressed it as 'a sound grip of the non-essentials'.
Contributors to the forum have mentioned analogies to bus crashes and, most recently, a pathetically weak attempt to focus on crew duty times. Please spare us these feeble minded ruses - it is like arguing with a 9 year old child who is just in a very bad mood.
Wratten and Day’s conduct portrays them as imbeciles and intellectually unfit for the posts they have held and that they aspire to. If Day becomes CAS, hundreds of retired aviator Dads will advise their kids to 'go civvy'. Retention problem?
They could have just 'let it lie' and all would have carried on as before with the ratio of Air Marshals to squadrons growing steadily greater. They would have enjoyed long retirements with remunerative 'consultancies' paying for their elegant homes and 'civilised' lifestyles. This is all part of the corrupt system of deferred reward that so many senior officers enjoy after being helpful to defence contractors.
Instead of preserving the status quo, Wratten has chosen to defame two officers who showed 'Above the Average' skills and exemplary moral and physical courage. What a low down betrayal of two fine young men! How consistent with the thug and bully many of us who served with or under him perceived him to be.
This is symptomatic of the one way loyalty flow that creates a coterie of self seeking, networking, falsely charming senior officers who look over your shoulder at a cocktail party in order not to miss the chance to engage with someone more useful. It is clear to some of us that Johnnie produced the result that Curly Bill would approve of and that that result encouraged the latter to produce a finding that was as illogical as it was spiteful. The continued defence of this act of stupidity compounds the men's perfidy and raises questions about their psychology.
On reading the HoL report, it stands out like a dogs bollocks that this was not a complex tragedy at all. In order to do what Wratten and Day allege, those brave young fellows would have had to be very daft, suicidally determined to flout the rules or out of their heads on mind altering substances - both pilots and one crewman at the same time! If any one of these was the case, the Royal Air Force is very much more seriously deficient of responsible adults than even some of us old geezers think.
Some of us who know Wratten for what he is do not share his high self regard. He is an extremely arrogant ex-fighter pilot who cannot stand to be disagreed with and who was frequently vicious in his treatment of those who crossed him. His most vile contempt and retribution is reserved for those who are proven to be right. He has been unfair and harsh with subordinates in the past and has got away with it - he, no doubt, would cite ‘high standards’. Some of us have seen him perform with not quite such high standards. No man is a paragon and no doubt he is a better airman than I ever was. But he is not as perfect as he seems to believe and he has no excuse for his disloyal treatment of our fallen comrades. He is a disgrace who should surrender his knighthoods and apologise to the Royal Air Force; the Red Arrows will re-equip with pigs before he does, I would wager.
It might even be suggested that his conduct has been prejudicial to the good order of the service; a Summary of Evidence might be made. Which part of Retention Problem might be directly attributable to the widespread distaste for this odious conduct of these martinets? This is the nadir in the history of a service which has grown heroes and inspired admiration in millions. A Royal Air Force that I wanted to join since early childhood, that allowed me to join in ecstasy as a callow boy and that I was so sad to leave that I wept.
The intransigent arrogance of Wratten and Day has also exposed the perfidious nature of the MoD - an organisation that consistently manages to create chaos out of order and makes technical blunders in the great majority of its equipment acquisition programmes. This is not my opinion - it is documented in decades of reports by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office stretching back to the First World War and before. Using the threadbare cloak of 'Official Secrets', it covers up gross mismanagement. It promotes its 'players' into positions to make biased judgements on their own previous stupidities. It re-invents itself in cycles that always end in failure. It wastes millions of pounds of our money and produces little of use other than wryly amusing acronyms. Its officials make decisions on technical matters for which they have no knowledge or training but who are trusted because of their history and classics Firsts from ancient colleges. Scientists and engineers are little more plentiful in Whitehall than is rocking horse **** .
The MoD will continue to obfuscate, dither and hold ‘briefings’ whilst Mr Hoon makes up his mind (i.e. asks Mr Blair) how to spin it. When all that is needed is for honourable adults to stand up, hold up their hands and say ‘We do not know and we are unlikely to ever know’. Just as our noble Lords have found but which findings have been held in contempt by MoD and these two officers.
There are also the issues that they have been attempting to divert attention from. How could the Royal Air Force contrive to such numb skull, amateurish, stupidity as to endanger such important passengers when so many safer alternatives were available? The British Army has a term for the serendipitous events that sometimes hand them advantage over the Irish terrorists - the Paddy Factor. I bet Adams' henchmen have an Air Marshal Factor!
Serious questions should also be asked about the management of the acquisition of a helicopter without proper documentation and serious engineering deficiencies. Answers will be given to such questions on completion of the first Red Arrows porcine display!
In abolishing the rank of Marshal of the Royal Air Force, the service has lost the steadying guidance of old men of great experience and integrity whose prime objective was the good of the service. They would have seen ambitious men striving for office at the expense of good order and quietly advised against such promotions.
In this era of moral shock, is it not time that we weed out the self centred oafs and clowns who infest the 'upper' echelons of our society with their sleight of hand corruption? We, the people, know that conspiracies can be built without recorded words. The whole tawdry machine works by the 'skills' of cunning people who anticipate the wishes of their masters and 'make it so'. Passports are issued to those who might not otherwise receive them not because ministers order it but because they make clear that they would be pleased to see such a thing. For their officials to do otherwise would be 'a career limiting move'. To 'go with the flow' establishes a reputation as 'a safe pair of hands'. Ambition for personal advancement is a cancer that eats our society voraciously but is perceived as a virtue in so many quarters. Our nation should be run by honest and plain people who are competent at their job, work a decent day for a decent pay and knock off in time to deal with the real stuff of life - to enjoy it with the ones we love.
Finally, I am moved to a comment from a television programme of such vulgarity that I am rarely able to endure it. However, it just seems the perfect phrase - moral courage, my arse!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: France
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am staggered by just how much activity there has been here whilst I was driving slowly home from the H.o.l. press day. So glad that I did not pass K52 (he's not my neighbour I hope?)on an autoroute!!It may have caused an international incident - sadly I still do not have the dignity of Mike Tapper and John Cook, so rightly reported by you Brian.(Thanks for all your hard work by the way, including rescuing lost people at the Hol)). .So - Percy D had a "valid point of view! eh K52 ? Only if he were a dray horse (maybe he is) and you postulate that the pilots were tired and hungry so they all flew into a hill in spite of the assistance of their highly qualified air load masters too? Perhaps when you are next having a cosy chat with P.D.you could remind him that buses or even luxury coaches do not have 4 specially trained crew members and if they happen to crash at speed, killing a lot of passengers(even less precious ones than my husband) they have enquiries with all the facts displayed. We have had 5 separate enquiries/committees now and "facts" have only slowly evolved as various very brave people became free to share their knowledge safe from MOD gags.. .But before I go off to write and fax Hoon, Blair and anyone else I can think of to recommend the acceptance of this wonderfully clear report- I must record from my notes at the 1996 Sheriff's FAI in Paisley for K52's benefit - Sq Ldr Stangroom the O.C. of 230 sqdn at the time was duty flight commander on June 2ns '94 and he reported to the Sheriff that John Tapper had discussed with him his options if he needed to extend his flying time but he felt that he would complete the task without needing to contact SRAFONI.That is one conversation we do know about in which John was showing his usual careful pre-planning.We also know that he was familiar with the Mull of Kintyre because he had landed actually on the H there shortly before the crash - this was reported to me by the lighthouse keepers when I visited the crash site 3 days after the accident.. .And Mark Holbrook (the yachtsman - not Holroyd!)was a VERY credible witness who did not "drastically" change his statement after struggling with the Crown services to be allowed to give evidence - he was not only a yachtsman but a technically trained man who wanted help to be as accurate as possible in his observations - this help he was denied by the MOD. sound familiar?. .Finally ( sorry to go on- but it is probably my last posting )I can't remember who raised the compensation issue, but I think that I stated in an earlier posting that all of the passengers families did indeed sue for 3 long years for compensation for the death of our loved ones, only because we were about to be treated like second class citizens and fobbed off by the Crown services.I still have an intercepted memo between **** saying that we were a pretty submissive bunch in N.I. and would probably accept the statutory blanket compensation (ceiling Ł100.000)offered as a routine to all civilian air passengers on civilian flights in the event of a fatal crash - seemingly it is written on the civy ticket - story went that the RUC had "hired" the RAf to transport those specialists to their conference. Again some bright civil servant had obviously thought that this was a great way to save the government cash (and maybe earn themselves an MBE)which is ofcourse why all of those "high value passengers" Beagle, were being transported on the wretched substandard piece of kit in the first place.. .Please keep up the pressure as you have done so well in the past, so that those 2 families who can hardly have begun to grieve can get on with their lives. They are fine people who deserve their son's names cleared once and for all.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Just below BEagle on the sloping chart table
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Susan
As I have suggested earlier - most of us know. .the pilots to be innocent.
There are probably no more than a handful of people in the world who think otherwise.
They are not wise to continue to defend their foolishness. Indeed they do damage to themselves, to the Royal Air Force and our nation.
With great respect. .Qwin
As I have suggested earlier - most of us know. .the pilots to be innocent.
There are probably no more than a handful of people in the world who think otherwise.
They are not wise to continue to defend their foolishness. Indeed they do damage to themselves, to the Royal Air Force and our nation.
With great respect. .Qwin
Guest
Posts: n/a
Qwin T Senshall,
Can I just say that was a most memorable and first class post.
So much of what you say can apply to all civilian companies I have worked for and dealt with since I left the RAF some 14 years ago.
I would have been proud to call you 'Boss'
ScopeDope
[ 10 February 2002: Message edited by: ScopeDope ]</p>
Can I just say that was a most memorable and first class post.
So much of what you say can apply to all civilian companies I have worked for and dealt with since I left the RAF some 14 years ago.
I would have been proud to call you 'Boss'
ScopeDope
[ 10 February 2002: Message edited by: ScopeDope ]</p>
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The United Kingdom of Great Britain
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qwin T Senshall
Quote:
“Most of us know the pilots to be innocent”
End Quote
. .Unfortunately, like so many other posts on this forum, it is as biased and blinkered a view as Day and Wratten finding the pilots Grossly Negligent. (Opposite ends of the spectrum)!
Unless you are omnipotent and know something we don’t the cause of this accident will “NEVER” be positively determined.
The House of Lords have reached the correct judgement and the sooner this is accepted the better.
However, despite wishing the opposite, doubt will always remain over the cause of this tragic accident, which resulted in the death of so many good people.
Now is the time for the Government to do the honourable thing and accept the House of Lords Judgement and bring this matter to it’s long overdue conclusion.
Quote:
“Most of us know the pilots to be innocent”
End Quote
. .Unfortunately, like so many other posts on this forum, it is as biased and blinkered a view as Day and Wratten finding the pilots Grossly Negligent. (Opposite ends of the spectrum)!
Unless you are omnipotent and know something we don’t the cause of this accident will “NEVER” be positively determined.
The House of Lords have reached the correct judgement and the sooner this is accepted the better.
However, despite wishing the opposite, doubt will always remain over the cause of this tragic accident, which resulted in the death of so many good people.
Now is the time for the Government to do the honourable thing and accept the House of Lords Judgement and bring this matter to it’s long overdue conclusion.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Just below BEagle on the sloping chart table
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACM Biggles
Is it not the case that they are innocent. .unless or until they are proven otherwise?
And the burden of proof issue does not need repetition.
With respect sir
Qwin
Is it not the case that they are innocent. .unless or until they are proven otherwise?
And the burden of proof issue does not need repetition.
With respect sir
Qwin
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The United Kingdom of Great Britain
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qwin T Senshall
If it were a court case you would be correct.
“Innocent until proven guilty” - a worthy and noble sentiment.
As with the majority of people who knew the pilots involved I would like to believe that 2 professional and experienced aviators would never be the victims of a CFIT accident.
However, we will never know for sure. As an ex-military aviator you know as well as the rest of us that things can go from Sunshine to s-h-i-t in a blink of an eye. I’m glad you survived yours - <a href="http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=002491&p=1" target="_blank">http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=002491&p=1</a>
I am not a Lawyer (thank God), and I am not trying to argue from a legal standpoint. In fact, regardless of all the arguments whether they are legal, technical or human factors related. I am basically stating the hard fact of life.
Cause Group: NPD
Sadly we will never know for sure!!!
If it were a court case you would be correct.
“Innocent until proven guilty” - a worthy and noble sentiment.
As with the majority of people who knew the pilots involved I would like to believe that 2 professional and experienced aviators would never be the victims of a CFIT accident.
However, we will never know for sure. As an ex-military aviator you know as well as the rest of us that things can go from Sunshine to s-h-i-t in a blink of an eye. I’m glad you survived yours - <a href="http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=002491&p=1" target="_blank">http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=002491&p=1</a>
I am not a Lawyer (thank God), and I am not trying to argue from a legal standpoint. In fact, regardless of all the arguments whether they are legal, technical or human factors related. I am basically stating the hard fact of life.
Cause Group: NPD
Sadly we will never know for sure!!!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC, thank you for your well researched treatise. We all know what K52 thought he was referring to and he was wrong (as he was/is on the subject of the thread). But this is not the place to debate the question in depth.
[ 10 February 2002: Message edited by: fobotcso ]</p>
[ 10 February 2002: Message edited by: fobotcso ]</p>
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Just below BEagle on the sloping chart table
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACM Biggles
Thank you for your courteous reply. Yes - on all points raised, I agree.
The occasion you referred to with URL was one of several - including a UCM at very low level in a fixed wing ac which was never diagnosed.
Also, we all know of more than one occasion when ac and colleagues have been lost without explanation.
It can happen in less than a heartbeat - which as. .another aviator said elsewhere is a very short time when one is that scared.
This is why the burden of proof was raised and why. .I am still so involved. We have all lost many good friends over the years and we must respect their memories. I am sure that is a sentiment. .which binds as all despite the spectrum of views. .shared on this BB.
Best regards
Qwin
Thank you for your courteous reply. Yes - on all points raised, I agree.
The occasion you referred to with URL was one of several - including a UCM at very low level in a fixed wing ac which was never diagnosed.
Also, we all know of more than one occasion when ac and colleagues have been lost without explanation.
It can happen in less than a heartbeat - which as. .another aviator said elsewhere is a very short time when one is that scared.
This is why the burden of proof was raised and why. .I am still so involved. We have all lost many good friends over the years and we must respect their memories. I am sure that is a sentiment. .which binds as all despite the spectrum of views. .shared on this BB.
Best regards
Qwin
The debate rages on in the Times today:. ._________________
Difficulties of Chinook crash verdict. .From Lord Jacobs . . . .Sir, A House of Lords committee has unanimously concluded the two RAF officers were wrongly convicted of negligence when the Chinook helicopter crashed on June 2, 1994 (report, February 6). The response by the Ministry of Defence has been that there is no new evidence and no new facts revealed by years of investigation. They are absolutely correct. . .What the MoD is unwilling to take on board is that the evidence in the first place upon which the conviction of the two pilots rests was wholly inadequate to justify the verdict, since it has to be based upon a conclusion that “there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever”. This is a higher standard of proof than that required in an ordinary criminal trial.
The only thing one can say with complete certainty is that it is impossible to conclude exactly the cause of the accident. This had led the investigating officers to decide that if there was no proof of cause it must indeed have been the fault of the pilots. It may have been pilot negligence, but never could one conclude that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it was pilot negligence. The verdict should be quashed.
Yours sincerely,. .ANTHONY JACOBS,. .9 Nottingham Terrace, NW1 4QB.. .February 8.
. .From Mr Stewart Birt
Sir, I was both a military and civilian helicopter pilot and flew the civil version of the Chinook. I became managing director of British International Helicopters. My company held a training contract with the RAF for the flight simulator training of their Chinook pilots, including the training of the two pilots who flew this ill-fated flight. I was also involved in the investigation of aircraft accidents and sat as a civil member of the “Joint Airmiss Working Group”.
Those who have sought to defend the reputations of the pilots involved in the Chinook accident have been most successful in their mission. But I believe the committee’s conclusions are wrong, and have the potential to tarnish the reputation of the RAF officers who were brave enough to conclude that the pilots were negligent.
The known facts of this accident are clear evidence of aircrew negligence and irresponsibility. “Good airmanship”, an approach to flying promoted in both military and civil aviation, would have dictated a series of decisions that should have resulted in the aircraft not being at risk of a collision with the ground at the location of the accident or anywhere else.
No conceivable mechanical failure nor any deficiency in onboard systems or equipment would have reproduced this accident. All arguments for sustaining low-level flight at cruise speed in the proximity of rising ground in the prevailing weather conditions and tactical circumstances can be refuted.
I am moved to write not because I want to see the pilots further criticised, but because I strongly feel that those whose conclusions are being attacked are not necessarily in a position to defend themselves. As a father and as a pilot, I sympathise with both pilots’ fathers, who naturally wish to defend their sons’ reputations.
Yours faithfully, . .STEWART BIRT,. .Beechwood, Woodhead, Fyvie,. .Nr Turriff, Aberdeenshire AB53 8LT.. .February 9.
_________________
Someone should tell Mr Birt that his "facts", like the MOD's "facts" or nothing more than speculation.
Well said, Lord Jacobs - no new evidence, never, was, never has been, it's not needed. No one knows what happened.
Difficulties of Chinook crash verdict. .From Lord Jacobs . . . .Sir, A House of Lords committee has unanimously concluded the two RAF officers were wrongly convicted of negligence when the Chinook helicopter crashed on June 2, 1994 (report, February 6). The response by the Ministry of Defence has been that there is no new evidence and no new facts revealed by years of investigation. They are absolutely correct. . .What the MoD is unwilling to take on board is that the evidence in the first place upon which the conviction of the two pilots rests was wholly inadequate to justify the verdict, since it has to be based upon a conclusion that “there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever”. This is a higher standard of proof than that required in an ordinary criminal trial.
The only thing one can say with complete certainty is that it is impossible to conclude exactly the cause of the accident. This had led the investigating officers to decide that if there was no proof of cause it must indeed have been the fault of the pilots. It may have been pilot negligence, but never could one conclude that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it was pilot negligence. The verdict should be quashed.
Yours sincerely,. .ANTHONY JACOBS,. .9 Nottingham Terrace, NW1 4QB.. .February 8.
. .From Mr Stewart Birt
Sir, I was both a military and civilian helicopter pilot and flew the civil version of the Chinook. I became managing director of British International Helicopters. My company held a training contract with the RAF for the flight simulator training of their Chinook pilots, including the training of the two pilots who flew this ill-fated flight. I was also involved in the investigation of aircraft accidents and sat as a civil member of the “Joint Airmiss Working Group”.
Those who have sought to defend the reputations of the pilots involved in the Chinook accident have been most successful in their mission. But I believe the committee’s conclusions are wrong, and have the potential to tarnish the reputation of the RAF officers who were brave enough to conclude that the pilots were negligent.
The known facts of this accident are clear evidence of aircrew negligence and irresponsibility. “Good airmanship”, an approach to flying promoted in both military and civil aviation, would have dictated a series of decisions that should have resulted in the aircraft not being at risk of a collision with the ground at the location of the accident or anywhere else.
No conceivable mechanical failure nor any deficiency in onboard systems or equipment would have reproduced this accident. All arguments for sustaining low-level flight at cruise speed in the proximity of rising ground in the prevailing weather conditions and tactical circumstances can be refuted.
I am moved to write not because I want to see the pilots further criticised, but because I strongly feel that those whose conclusions are being attacked are not necessarily in a position to defend themselves. As a father and as a pilot, I sympathise with both pilots’ fathers, who naturally wish to defend their sons’ reputations.
Yours faithfully, . .STEWART BIRT,. .Beechwood, Woodhead, Fyvie,. .Nr Turriff, Aberdeenshire AB53 8LT.. .February 9.
_________________
Someone should tell Mr Birt that his "facts", like the MOD's "facts" or nothing more than speculation.
Well said, Lord Jacobs - no new evidence, never, was, never has been, it's not needed. No one knows what happened.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a Commons Early Day Motion down on ZD576 (EDM No.829). This looks like all Party so get your MP to also sign this as well as writing to Buff/Blair, speaking in debate etc.
If it gets a a large number of signatures (sayyy 200+) the Government are obliged to hold a debate.
Also Lords debate on way, I understand.
You ain't seen me, roight?
If it gets a a large number of signatures (sayyy 200+) the Government are obliged to hold a debate.
Also Lords debate on way, I understand.
You ain't seen me, roight?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Durrr here is the text...
CHINOOK ZD 576 07.02.02
Robertson/Angus
That this House notes the House of Lords Select Committee Report on Chinook ZD 576, which concludes that: 'the Air Marshals were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots of ZD 576 caused the crash' in the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994; and calls on the Government to quash the finding of the Air Marshals who reviewed the conclusions of the RAF Board of Inquiry, which unjustly and on the basis of insufficient evidence ascribed negligence to the deceased pilots, flight lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook.
Robertson/Angus* . .Reid/Alan* . .Duncan/Peter* . .O'Neill/Martin* . .Davis/David* . .Beggs/Roy* . .Lewis/Julian . .Barnes/Harry . .Pound/Stephen
* sponsors of motion.
CHINOOK ZD 576 07.02.02
Robertson/Angus
That this House notes the House of Lords Select Committee Report on Chinook ZD 576, which concludes that: 'the Air Marshals were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots of ZD 576 caused the crash' in the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994; and calls on the Government to quash the finding of the Air Marshals who reviewed the conclusions of the RAF Board of Inquiry, which unjustly and on the basis of insufficient evidence ascribed negligence to the deceased pilots, flight lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook.
Robertson/Angus* . .Reid/Alan* . .Duncan/Peter* . .O'Neill/Martin* . .Davis/David* . .Beggs/Roy* . .Lewis/Julian . .Barnes/Harry . .Pound/Stephen
* sponsors of motion.