Chinook - Still Hitting Back 2
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fantastic day for the families and friends of two good aviators who were scapegoated by the weasels at the top. OK - off the fence now and say what I really believe!
Seriously, the news brought tears to my eyes as we are all there but for the grace of god. surely now it is time for some heads to roll.
But on another tack, maybe we can now try to look at what REALLY happened. This accident was an apalling event in which 29 people lost their lives. Their airships took the easy route of balming the pilots when they should really have been looking at:
1)What was wrong with the Chinooks Mk2. .2)How the aircraft came to be below ground level . .3)Why so many important people were on one aircraft. .4)Why a chopper was being used instead of the (normally) safer fixed wing option. .5)What lessons could be learned
It's the same mentality as cops fitting up a murder suspect - OK you get a conviction, but the REAL killer is still out there, waiting to strike again.
My admiriation goes out to all those who fought long and hard to get this result. well done one and all.
RIP at last John and Rick.
Seriously, the news brought tears to my eyes as we are all there but for the grace of god. surely now it is time for some heads to roll.
But on another tack, maybe we can now try to look at what REALLY happened. This accident was an apalling event in which 29 people lost their lives. Their airships took the easy route of balming the pilots when they should really have been looking at:
1)What was wrong with the Chinooks Mk2. .2)How the aircraft came to be below ground level . .3)Why so many important people were on one aircraft. .4)Why a chopper was being used instead of the (normally) safer fixed wing option. .5)What lessons could be learned
It's the same mentality as cops fitting up a murder suspect - OK you get a conviction, but the REAL killer is still out there, waiting to strike again.
My admiriation goes out to all those who fought long and hard to get this result. well done one and all.
RIP at last John and Rick.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and pulse1, as para 70
70. Mr Holbrook explained to us that he had repeatedly but unsuccessfully asked to see photographs of a Chinook at different heights and ranges, in order the better to estimate the height and speed of the aircraft when he saw it. He clearly felt that he would have been in a better position to assist the Board had he been furnished with such information. We do not know why the Board did not accede to his request or afford him the opportunity of seeing a Chinook in flight.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
70. Mr Holbrook explained to us that he had repeatedly but unsuccessfully asked to see photographs of a Chinook at different heights and ranges, in order the better to estimate the height and speed of the aircraft when he saw it. He clearly felt that he would have been in a better position to assist the Board had he been furnished with such information. We do not know why the Board did not accede to his request or afford him the opportunity of seeing a Chinook in flight.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to express my admiration for "witness A", anonymity presumably being granted due to either special forces reasons or more likely that he is still a serving member.
The lords admittedly placed great weight on his testimony.
with the lengths these 2 (1 ex) shameful excuses for the term "officer" will go to, i am truly astounded that he gave evidence. i hope i would be able to do the same in that position.
top marks.
The lords admittedly placed great weight on his testimony.
with the lengths these 2 (1 ex) shameful excuses for the term "officer" will go to, i am truly astounded that he gave evidence. i hope i would be able to do the same in that position.
top marks.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
percy,
you are obviously entitled to your opinion, yet posting such inflammatory remarks on this thread renders you liable for a verbal shoeing.
the cause of the crash cannot be positively determined, therefore there is DOUBT as to what caused it. the RAF required satisfaction of a standard of proof where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
5 enquiries exonerated the pilots from blame. the most recent being composed of the finest legal brains in the country, yet the MoD prefer the "professional" view of 2 halfwits as to whether the legal burden is satisfied.
what is wrong with this picture?
bait elsewhere.
you are obviously entitled to your opinion, yet posting such inflammatory remarks on this thread renders you liable for a verbal shoeing.
the cause of the crash cannot be positively determined, therefore there is DOUBT as to what caused it. the RAF required satisfaction of a standard of proof where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
5 enquiries exonerated the pilots from blame. the most recent being composed of the finest legal brains in the country, yet the MoD prefer the "professional" view of 2 halfwits as to whether the legal burden is satisfied.
what is wrong with this picture?
bait elsewhere.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: A big comfy armchair
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The response of MOD convinces me that we should maintain the pressure.
Those that feel the need to do so might use the excellent facility at <a href="http://www.faxyourmp.com" target="_blank">Fax Your MP.com</a>. This is free and offers a direct connection to your representative in the House of Commons.
At the risk of being too pushy I attach the text of my message to my MP (who is a right wing Tory representing a constiuency with a substantial miltary connection). You may wish to use some or all of it in your fax:
Re: The House of Lord's enquiry into the crash of the Chinook on the Mull of Kintyre.
The recent report from the HoL enquiry into the crash of Chinook ZD576 exonerates the pilots from the accusation of gross negligence. I’m sure that you’ll agree that this accords with any sense of natural justice and is entirely in keeping with the facts (or lack thereof) of the case.
To date responses the from MOD have been wholly unrepentant in tone. There would appear to be a continuing desire to support the entirely unjustified views of messieurs Day and Wratton that there is no doubt about the original cause of the accident. These views being held despite the original findings of the service Board of Enquiry into the accident which stated that he cause of the accident cannot be categorically decided.
May I request that you, as the member for a constituency with a proud and substantial military connection, raise the matter of MOD’s unwillingness to respond appropriately to both the evidence, and the findings of a number of highly qualified enquiries. In addition may I request that you do your utmost to fight the suggestions that AVM Day be promoted to head the Royal Air Force.
There are a number of deeper issues related to this whole matter that should also be discussed in open forum. The introduction of the Chinook Mk II to service was laden with decisions of political expediency rather than operational safety. Both Day and Wratton had influential roles in the introduction of an aircraft that neither the operating crews in Northern Ireland nor the test pilots at Boscombe Down trusted.
It would be very sad if the reputations of two excellent pilots and the feelings of their families continued to be sacrificed for the benefit of two extremely arrogant men.
Yours faithfully
Those that feel the need to do so might use the excellent facility at <a href="http://www.faxyourmp.com" target="_blank">Fax Your MP.com</a>. This is free and offers a direct connection to your representative in the House of Commons.
At the risk of being too pushy I attach the text of my message to my MP (who is a right wing Tory representing a constiuency with a substantial miltary connection). You may wish to use some or all of it in your fax:
Re: The House of Lord's enquiry into the crash of the Chinook on the Mull of Kintyre.
The recent report from the HoL enquiry into the crash of Chinook ZD576 exonerates the pilots from the accusation of gross negligence. I’m sure that you’ll agree that this accords with any sense of natural justice and is entirely in keeping with the facts (or lack thereof) of the case.
To date responses the from MOD have been wholly unrepentant in tone. There would appear to be a continuing desire to support the entirely unjustified views of messieurs Day and Wratton that there is no doubt about the original cause of the accident. These views being held despite the original findings of the service Board of Enquiry into the accident which stated that he cause of the accident cannot be categorically decided.
May I request that you, as the member for a constituency with a proud and substantial military connection, raise the matter of MOD’s unwillingness to respond appropriately to both the evidence, and the findings of a number of highly qualified enquiries. In addition may I request that you do your utmost to fight the suggestions that AVM Day be promoted to head the Royal Air Force.
There are a number of deeper issues related to this whole matter that should also be discussed in open forum. The introduction of the Chinook Mk II to service was laden with decisions of political expediency rather than operational safety. Both Day and Wratton had influential roles in the introduction of an aircraft that neither the operating crews in Northern Ireland nor the test pilots at Boscombe Down trusted.
It would be very sad if the reputations of two excellent pilots and the feelings of their families continued to be sacrificed for the benefit of two extremely arrogant men.
Yours faithfully
Percy,
From one of your Posts - "There are certain obligations on armed forces senior officers. And one of those is that you have to make hard decisions and then stand by them, however unpopular they may be. Its all part of leadership, and the 'loneliness of high command'."
I quite agree with you that the AMs have certain obligations.. . . .Firstly, they are obliged to set an example to their subordinates by following their own rules, in this case regarding "burden of proof". The BoI did this but the AMs chose to overturn the decision for whatever reason(s) they had. No-one has managed to unearth any evidence which irrefutably points to negligence. Even you grudgingly admit there is a "0.01%" chance that it was something else. That is why the AMs were in error attributing blame as they did.
Secondly, Leadership is all about weighing evidence and having the courage to admit that you may have got it wrong. IMHO, the AMs have another hard decision to make in the light of the numerous Investigations/Reports. It is time they demonstrated real courage and honour and agreed that they 'may' have made a mistake and that there will always be some doubt as to what actually happened on that fateful day.
Leadership requires Credibility. Dictatorship does not! At present, the Government, the MoD and the two individuals concerned (1 retired) are a bit short in the Credibility stakes. But keep digging guys. Anyone with any common sense now knows the two Pilots have effectively been cleared of the charge of Negligence - their honour restored. The only question left for the AMs, MoD and Government, 'Can you restore your credibility in the aftermath of these shambles?'. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
From one of your Posts - "There are certain obligations on armed forces senior officers. And one of those is that you have to make hard decisions and then stand by them, however unpopular they may be. Its all part of leadership, and the 'loneliness of high command'."
I quite agree with you that the AMs have certain obligations.. . . .Firstly, they are obliged to set an example to their subordinates by following their own rules, in this case regarding "burden of proof". The BoI did this but the AMs chose to overturn the decision for whatever reason(s) they had. No-one has managed to unearth any evidence which irrefutably points to negligence. Even you grudgingly admit there is a "0.01%" chance that it was something else. That is why the AMs were in error attributing blame as they did.
Secondly, Leadership is all about weighing evidence and having the courage to admit that you may have got it wrong. IMHO, the AMs have another hard decision to make in the light of the numerous Investigations/Reports. It is time they demonstrated real courage and honour and agreed that they 'may' have made a mistake and that there will always be some doubt as to what actually happened on that fateful day.
Leadership requires Credibility. Dictatorship does not! At present, the Government, the MoD and the two individuals concerned (1 retired) are a bit short in the Credibility stakes. But keep digging guys. Anyone with any common sense now knows the two Pilots have effectively been cleared of the charge of Negligence - their honour restored. The only question left for the AMs, MoD and Government, 'Can you restore your credibility in the aftermath of these shambles?'. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncle Pete & H&H
I wouldn't get overly concerned about Percy. I see he's an insurance salesman from Cheltenham.
I wonder if he has a serpentine, bald customer in College Road?
Presumably queenie Wratten isn't arrogant enough not to require insurance sevices. But then...
I wouldn't get overly concerned about Percy. I see he's an insurance salesman from Cheltenham.
I wonder if he has a serpentine, bald customer in College Road?
Presumably queenie Wratten isn't arrogant enough not to require insurance sevices. But then...
PercyDragon: Astonished at your reaction. Are you not aware that Day and Wratten overturned the verdict of the properly constituted MoD enquiry? Shouldn't we refer to the existing verdict (being supported by Blair and Labour) as being that of Wratten and Day, rather than masking it with the bogus respectability of being the MoD's verdict (or worse still, inferring that it's the RAF's verdict?)
How do you justify your position on this, I'm genuinely curious?
How do you justify your position on this, I'm genuinely curious?
Guest
Posts: n/a
PercyDragon Post.
I deleted his post here, because he had already posted it on the Chinook thread on R&N. Putting the same post on other threads is normally frowned upon. I am sure if he wishes to answer here I am sure he will do so.
He hasn't on the other thread yet though!
. .PPRuNe Pop. .Administrator. .[EMAIL}[email protected][/EMAIL]
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: PPRuNe Pop ]</p>
I deleted his post here, because he had already posted it on the Chinook thread on R&N. Putting the same post on other threads is normally frowned upon. I am sure if he wishes to answer here I am sure he will do so.
He hasn't on the other thread yet though!
. .PPRuNe Pop. .Administrator. .[EMAIL}[email protected][/EMAIL]
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: PPRuNe Pop ]</p>
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,. .I think I'm now in a position to think a little more clearly (Yes, I know there's a first for everything!).
You all seem to have grasped this anyway, but I would invite everyone to write / fax their MPs to specifically ask them to contact Blair to demand that he overturn the verdict. Why write to him (especially as overseas mail is more expensive)? Downing Street will have to acknowledge the post and will probably pass the enquiry down to the MoD. So you bother two departments for the price of one!!
The MoD are prepared to take some stick for the next few days and then hope that we will all shut up and go away. We must not do that.
We have done our bit for the families. Let us all now do the last bit for Rick and Jon.
To the MoD - You say there is no new evidence. Yep! You're absolutely right. We have said that all along too. However, the 'factual' evidence you have based the condemnation on is ... er ...not actually fact is it? This rather blows a large hole in your argument. Their Lordships summed up your argument in just two words 'Not so'. There seems little else to add.
By the way, I looked both 'dignity' and 'integrity' up in the dictionary last night. In both cases it said - 'See Messrs John Cook and Mike Tapper'. I suggest you look and learn.
I further suggest you do the honourable and correct thing. And do it soon. Rest assured, if you take another 8 years I will still be here!
Percy - thanks for your views. I happen to disagree with you.
I'm sure I have said thank you to everyone, but I'll say it again. Your support has kept everyone going and we are all extremely grateful.
Please keep the pressure on and write to your MP.
Very best wishes to you all. .Regards. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
You all seem to have grasped this anyway, but I would invite everyone to write / fax their MPs to specifically ask them to contact Blair to demand that he overturn the verdict. Why write to him (especially as overseas mail is more expensive)? Downing Street will have to acknowledge the post and will probably pass the enquiry down to the MoD. So you bother two departments for the price of one!!
The MoD are prepared to take some stick for the next few days and then hope that we will all shut up and go away. We must not do that.
We have done our bit for the families. Let us all now do the last bit for Rick and Jon.
To the MoD - You say there is no new evidence. Yep! You're absolutely right. We have said that all along too. However, the 'factual' evidence you have based the condemnation on is ... er ...not actually fact is it? This rather blows a large hole in your argument. Their Lordships summed up your argument in just two words 'Not so'. There seems little else to add.
By the way, I looked both 'dignity' and 'integrity' up in the dictionary last night. In both cases it said - 'See Messrs John Cook and Mike Tapper'. I suggest you look and learn.
I further suggest you do the honourable and correct thing. And do it soon. Rest assured, if you take another 8 years I will still be here!
Percy - thanks for your views. I happen to disagree with you.
I'm sure I have said thank you to everyone, but I'll say it again. Your support has kept everyone going and we are all extremely grateful.
Please keep the pressure on and write to your MP.
Very best wishes to you all. .Regards. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would just like to say,(having experience of boards of enquiry) a heartfelt 'well done' to all those who have worked so tirelessly to arrive at this momentous finding. There remains now the task of changing the MOD position and I am certain that the effort will not diminish.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC You're absolutely right - we have undoubtedly won a huge victory here, but we're not there yet. We're tremendously encouraged by the House of Lords report, and by the support we have received here and elsewhere.
The petition on the website will carry on until the RAF accept that Jon and Rick are innocent of Gross Negligence - if there's anyone who hasn't signed yet please do. All we need is an email to [email protected] stating your name. Under no account will any email addresses be divulged. For those current and former military personnel you may include details of rank if you wish, but it is entirely your decision to do so. Non military personnel are equally welcome to sign the petition.
As Brian says above, we need to make as much noise as possible to make sure that this issue does not go away. We are all committed to seeing this through until the end.
Messrs Wratten & Day - we are not going to go away!
The petition on the website will carry on until the RAF accept that Jon and Rick are innocent of Gross Negligence - if there's anyone who hasn't signed yet please do. All we need is an email to [email protected] stating your name. Under no account will any email addresses be divulged. For those current and former military personnel you may include details of rank if you wish, but it is entirely your decision to do so. Non military personnel are equally welcome to sign the petition.
As Brian says above, we need to make as much noise as possible to make sure that this issue does not go away. We are all committed to seeing this through until the end.
Messrs Wratten & Day - we are not going to go away!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian, John and everyone involved in the campaign....F***ING WELL DONE! 
(I know it's cheesy, but I can't put it any other way.)
I do just have one minor question though....am I just being cynical or did the government announce plans for a really controversial issue at about the same time that the HoL inquiry was announced? It certainly pushed the Chinook findings down the running order on the news and, funny old thing, there's almost nothing in the news about the ID card scheme 24 hours later!! Still, it was nice to see Newsnight leading with the Chinook inquiry; the only disappointment was not seeing Jeremy Paxman having another go at William Wratten. Now that would have made good TV!!!!
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: snafu ]</p>
(I know it's cheesy, but I can't put it any other way.)I do just have one minor question though....am I just being cynical or did the government announce plans for a really controversial issue at about the same time that the HoL inquiry was announced? It certainly pushed the Chinook findings down the running order on the news and, funny old thing, there's almost nothing in the news about the ID card scheme 24 hours later!! Still, it was nice to see Newsnight leading with the Chinook inquiry; the only disappointment was not seeing Jeremy Paxman having another go at William Wratten. Now that would have made good TV!!!!
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: snafu ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The"luddite" views of Percy Dragon, Seriph, and Neo, along with the intrangience of Wrotten/Day are paralleled by the actions of the well known General Haig who oversaw the slaughter of untold thousands of troops entrusted to his care in World War One. It is apparent that history does not teach people lessons, unless they are willing to learn.. .It was a very simple decision given by the eminent legal counsel constituting the House of Lords Committee, so why do this group find it so hard to understand that they got it wrong?. .The onerous responsibility of "higher command" surely must include the facility to realise a mistake was made, and to have the strength of character to admit such a mistake, and to correct the wrongdoing that resulted. . .HectorusRex
Atackattackattack,
Thanks for that link, it worked well.
I have faxed my MP asking him to urge Bliar to personally ensure that the MoD formally and publicy reopens the BoI and overturns the Day/Wratten verdict. We shall win!
Brian et al, well done again
Thanks for that link, it worked well.
I have faxed my MP asking him to urge Bliar to personally ensure that the MoD formally and publicy reopens the BoI and overturns the Day/Wratten verdict. We shall win!
Brian et al, well done again
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian Dixon et al.
I think you need to go beyond MP letter writing....hoping I am not teaching granny to suck eggs here, but you guys need to get together a delegation of cross party *senior* MPs/Lords to go and see Buff/Blair and go reason with them face to face...you need to make sure said meeting is highly publicised - remember how this Govt. works! May be you guys have done this before, but even if you have, do it again!
As Brian says, the pressure needs to be kept up, or there is a danger they will just slip out on a quiet Friday their backing of Wratten and Day and that will be the end of it.
Apologies to all if the above is thought to be STFO. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
I think you need to go beyond MP letter writing....hoping I am not teaching granny to suck eggs here, but you guys need to get together a delegation of cross party *senior* MPs/Lords to go and see Buff/Blair and go reason with them face to face...you need to make sure said meeting is highly publicised - remember how this Govt. works! May be you guys have done this before, but even if you have, do it again!
As Brian says, the pressure needs to be kept up, or there is a danger they will just slip out on a quiet Friday their backing of Wratten and Day and that will be the end of it.
Apologies to all if the above is thought to be STFO. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its not going to go away...
Mr. Martin O'Neill (Ochil): When my right hon. Friend is preparing his in-flight reading for the next couple of days, would he care to take with him the report on the Chinook crash? I hope that he will look, in particular, at paragraph 174, in which Lord Jauncey and his colleagues unanimously come to the conclusion that . ."the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash."
I realise that the primary response to that will be from the Ministry of Defence, but will the Prime Minister accept that many of us, who have sympathy with the Department in a variety of ways, feel that the Gordian knot of self-interest that surrounds the Department on this issue must be cut through? We look to my right hon. Friend for a better, clearer and fairer understanding of a complex issue that has been dealt with by some of the most distinguished jurists in the other place. They have come up with a conclusion that drives a coach and horses through the views of the—
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is obviously right to say that this is a complex issue, although I hope that he would also acknowledge that those who conducted the original inquiry are wise and celebrated people as well, and experts in that particular area. Obviously, we have to study the report, and we shall do that. We shall study its complex technical detail and give a proper response in due course.
"I hope that he would also acknowledge that those who conducted the original inquiry are wise and celebrated people as well, and experts in that particular area"
in deciding what is effectively a point of law -more-so than a law lord, several QC's and a member of the RAes?
comparing the credibility and qualifications of Wrotten and Day with those of the HofL Select Committee is almost laughable.
Mr. Martin O'Neill (Ochil): When my right hon. Friend is preparing his in-flight reading for the next couple of days, would he care to take with him the report on the Chinook crash? I hope that he will look, in particular, at paragraph 174, in which Lord Jauncey and his colleagues unanimously come to the conclusion that . ."the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash."
I realise that the primary response to that will be from the Ministry of Defence, but will the Prime Minister accept that many of us, who have sympathy with the Department in a variety of ways, feel that the Gordian knot of self-interest that surrounds the Department on this issue must be cut through? We look to my right hon. Friend for a better, clearer and fairer understanding of a complex issue that has been dealt with by some of the most distinguished jurists in the other place. They have come up with a conclusion that drives a coach and horses through the views of the—
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is obviously right to say that this is a complex issue, although I hope that he would also acknowledge that those who conducted the original inquiry are wise and celebrated people as well, and experts in that particular area. Obviously, we have to study the report, and we shall do that. We shall study its complex technical detail and give a proper response in due course.
"I hope that he would also acknowledge that those who conducted the original inquiry are wise and celebrated people as well, and experts in that particular area"
in deciding what is effectively a point of law -more-so than a law lord, several QC's and a member of the RAes?
comparing the credibility and qualifications of Wrotten and Day with those of the HofL Select Committee is almost laughable.
Letter in today's Telegraph (Debt of honour):
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/Content/displayPopup.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/02/07/dt0705.xml&site=15" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/Content/displayPopup.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/02/07/dt0705.xml&site=15</a>
Well said, Sir.
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/Content/displayPopup.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/02/07/dt0705.xml&site=15" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/Content/displayPopup.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/02/07/dt0705.xml&site=15</a>
Well said, Sir.