Chinook - Still Hitting Back 2
Dir. PPRuNe Line Service
Thread Starter
Chinook - Still Hitting Back 2
This is a continuation of "Chinook - Still Hitting Back" http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimat...&f=73&t=000045
[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Dispatcher ]
[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Dispatcher ]
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
Thanks for starting the new thread Mik. Sorry that it takes up so much of the server. Hopefully not for much longer!!
As I.3VStall says at the end of the last thread, only 12 more names are needed to reach the magic 300 on the petition. If you have signed up, thank you. If you haven't perhaps you would consider signing and also passing the details to friends and colleagues. Every name is important.
Check out the site: http://www.chinook-justice.org
I'll keep updating as and when there is something to tell.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
As I.3VStall says at the end of the last thread, only 12 more names are needed to reach the magic 300 on the petition. If you have signed up, thank you. If you haven't perhaps you would consider signing and also passing the details to friends and colleagues. Every name is important.
Check out the site: http://www.chinook-justice.org
I'll keep updating as and when there is something to tell.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More names posted to the site - 293 now :-)
I've also added a couple of links, including one I came across to the BBC transcript of Wratten being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight. If you didn't see it then, read it now. If you did see it then, read it now anyway, and savour the arrogance :-)
I've also added a couple of links, including one I came across to the BBC transcript of Wratten being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight. If you didn't see it then, read it now. If you did see it then, read it now anyway, and savour the arrogance :-)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well don't that take the biscuit? Wratten calls himself a commander. As I recall, commanders must lead by example, with all the necessary care and comfort of the men they command taken fully into account.
He merely sweeps those required attributes aside to impress us that he was a good commander.
I wish I could say to him, that a good commander would NOT try to crucify TWO good men until it was manifestly and blatantly clear, beyond ANY doubt, that they were guilty of negligence. Neither he nor Day have been able to do that. Unless, of course, I am complete idiot and have NO conception about what I have read and heard.
So, as that doubt is now abundantly clear, I think that this poor, feeble excuse for a commander enjoyed his power, and used it as Paxman says to protect his precious Chinooks.
What kind of justification is that?
Oh how I wish I knew for sure he reads the Mil Forum on PPRuNe!
He merely sweeps those required attributes aside to impress us that he was a good commander.
I wish I could say to him, that a good commander would NOT try to crucify TWO good men until it was manifestly and blatantly clear, beyond ANY doubt, that they were guilty of negligence. Neither he nor Day have been able to do that. Unless, of course, I am complete idiot and have NO conception about what I have read and heard.
So, as that doubt is now abundantly clear, I think that this poor, feeble excuse for a commander enjoyed his power, and used it as Paxman says to protect his precious Chinooks.
What kind of justification is that?
Oh how I wish I knew for sure he reads the Mil Forum on PPRuNe!
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 all, here's the latest brief from Parliament:
The Inquiry into the 1994 Chinook Helicopter Crash
The first set of evidence includes the internal MoD Inquiry previously treated as confidential
The House of Lords Select Committee investigating the circumstances surrounding the crash of the Chinook ZD 576 at the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994 has published the first volume of evidence.
The aircraft crashed into the Mull of Kintyre on the 2nd June 1994 in bad weather, all 4 crew members and 25 civilian and military passengers on board were killed, the helicopter was carrying senior Northern Ireland Security personnel. The MoD internal inquiry found that the pilots of the Helicopter were grossly negligent, the House of Lords decided to conduct an Inquiry to consider whether the MoD were right to blame the pilots for the crash.
This volume of Evidence includes the text of the formal MoD Inquiry into the crash and the Official Statement by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch. Both Reports have previously been treated as “Confidential” and therefore had a very restricted circulation. Between them these detailed Reports contain technical assessments of the circumstances of the crash along with diagrams and photographs from the crash site itself and conclusions as to the likely cause.
This publication includes the transcripts of the Committee’s first round of hearings in September, with evidence from members of the RAF board of Inquiry, the AAIB, and the pilots’ Fathers. The Committee’s final Report into the crash is expected in the New Year.
To order please call the Parliamentary Hotline on 08457 023 474 quoting reference BND or click on the following link to order online: https://www.clicktso.com/bookstore.asp?FO=32180&Action=AddItem&ProductID=0104420227.
Price £18.50
ISBN – 0 10 442022 7
For the first time, both the BoI and AAIB are being made available to the public. Order your copy to get the facts.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
The Inquiry into the 1994 Chinook Helicopter Crash
The first set of evidence includes the internal MoD Inquiry previously treated as confidential
The House of Lords Select Committee investigating the circumstances surrounding the crash of the Chinook ZD 576 at the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994 has published the first volume of evidence.
The aircraft crashed into the Mull of Kintyre on the 2nd June 1994 in bad weather, all 4 crew members and 25 civilian and military passengers on board were killed, the helicopter was carrying senior Northern Ireland Security personnel. The MoD internal inquiry found that the pilots of the Helicopter were grossly negligent, the House of Lords decided to conduct an Inquiry to consider whether the MoD were right to blame the pilots for the crash.
This volume of Evidence includes the text of the formal MoD Inquiry into the crash and the Official Statement by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch. Both Reports have previously been treated as “Confidential” and therefore had a very restricted circulation. Between them these detailed Reports contain technical assessments of the circumstances of the crash along with diagrams and photographs from the crash site itself and conclusions as to the likely cause.
This publication includes the transcripts of the Committee’s first round of hearings in September, with evidence from members of the RAF board of Inquiry, the AAIB, and the pilots’ Fathers. The Committee’s final Report into the crash is expected in the New Year.
To order please call the Parliamentary Hotline on 08457 023 474 quoting reference BND or click on the following link to order online: https://www.clicktso.com/bookstore.asp?FO=32180&Action=AddItem&ProductID=0104420227.
Price £18.50
ISBN – 0 10 442022 7
For the first time, both the BoI and AAIB are being made available to the public. Order your copy to get the facts.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Class D airspace
Age: 67
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a silent observer here, that link to the Paxman event is outrageous. Good job he [WR]isn't trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans!! What sort of system can create a monster like that? 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The magic 300 names has been achieved! Thanks to everyone who has signed up to the petition so far. It's not too late, and every one counts. www.chinook-justice.org
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did not see Paxman but thanks for posting the links guys. I am astonished by the stance which Wratten adopted. He has the nerve to talk about 'Integrity'. Well like InFinR, I too would love to think that Wratten reads this forum, "because your integrity is in question Wratten", are you troubled by that?. Furthermore, the comment that the members of the board were young officers who do not possess the experience that he (WR) does is staggering. Perhaps in future Air Marshal, to save everybody the apparent waste of effort all BOIs should be comprised of and run by officers of air rank only.
[ 24 November 2001: Message edited by: Tigs ]
[ 24 November 2001: Message edited by: Tigs ]
[ 24 November 2001: Message edited by: Tigs ]
[ 24 November 2001: Message edited by: Tigs ]
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
I think I'm right in saying that the two 'junior' officers on the BoI, who were the pilot specialists, had about 2000 hours each on the Chinook. Mr Wratten was a fixed wing driver.
Call me old fashioned if you will but, between the two, I think I know who had the most experience on rotary.
I do, however, acknowledge the fact that Air Marshal Day was an experienced helicopter pilot.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Call me old fashioned if you will but, between the two, I think I know who had the most experience on rotary.
I do, however, acknowledge the fact that Air Marshal Day was an experienced helicopter pilot.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Herald reports today that the Lords' Enquiry report is expected to be published in the 1st week of Feb 02 and quotes a 'senior peer' as saying that it is expected that the pilots will be exonerated.
Here's hoping the press have got it right for once!
Here's hoping the press have got it right for once!
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,
It would appear that Mr Wratten has been invited to give a briefing to peers in the House of Lords tomorrow (Wed 28th Nov). The briefing was arranged by Lord Craig and has the backing of Lords Graydon and Johns.
Hardly cricket! Is there an invitation to Rick and Jon's fathers? Nope! Why not???
Are you worried about something Mr Wratten? Do you feel the need to pre-empt a group of learned people who may, at some point in the future, be debating over your verdict? Why the need to do this? Has your moral courage deserted you?
Shameful conduct if you ask me.
Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
It would appear that Mr Wratten has been invited to give a briefing to peers in the House of Lords tomorrow (Wed 28th Nov). The briefing was arranged by Lord Craig and has the backing of Lords Graydon and Johns.
Hardly cricket! Is there an invitation to Rick and Jon's fathers? Nope! Why not???
Are you worried about something Mr Wratten? Do you feel the need to pre-empt a group of learned people who may, at some point in the future, be debating over your verdict? Why the need to do this? Has your moral courage deserted you?
Shameful conduct if you ask me.
Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian,
This is absolutely outrageous. Another example of unacceptable cronyism. For those that don't recognise the names of the three Lords mentioned in Brian's post, they are all retired Air Marshals.
This seems to me to be little more than a cynical attempt to unfairly influence the outcome of the Inquiry. Is there anything we can do? Has anyone got any bright ideas?
[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: 1.3VStall ]
This is absolutely outrageous. Another example of unacceptable cronyism. For those that don't recognise the names of the three Lords mentioned in Brian's post, they are all retired Air Marshals.
This seems to me to be little more than a cynical attempt to unfairly influence the outcome of the Inquiry. Is there anything we can do? Has anyone got any bright ideas?
[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: 1.3VStall ]
Don't worry about it too much. A number of eyebrows are being raised in the HoL about this tactic. It can't influence the findings of the committee - they have heard all the evidence from both sides already.
The problem is that, unchallenged, the Wratten brief is pretty convincing - those of us who know the case can show how his briefing is full of holes but as a "stand alone" piece of spin it is pretty good.
Still, we have put our faith in the committee and we have to wait to see their verdict.
The RAF & MOD have spent a huge amount of time and money trying to stop any debate on this subject. We can only hope that the Lords recognize the Graydon/Wratten ploy as the desperate measure, by desperate men on the run, that it is.
The problem is that, unchallenged, the Wratten brief is pretty convincing - those of us who know the case can show how his briefing is full of holes but as a "stand alone" piece of spin it is pretty good.
Still, we have put our faith in the committee and we have to wait to see their verdict.
The RAF & MOD have spent a huge amount of time and money trying to stop any debate on this subject. We can only hope that the Lords recognize the Graydon/Wratten ploy as the desperate measure, by desperate men on the run, that it is.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those of you who don't read the Grauniad!
RAF chiefs woo lords in Chinook challenge
Retired officers fight to keep blame on dead aircrew
Stuart Millar
Wednesday November 28, 2001
The Guardian
Some of the RAF's senior former officers have been accused of challenging the authority of parliament by trying to pre-empt the findings of an inquiry into the air force's worst peacetime disaster.
Two months before a special select committee of the House of Lords is due to deliver its findings on the crash of a Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 with the loss of all 29 on board, the group of retired top brass will tonight begin a campaign to sidestep the committee and win over peers to the official RAF version of events that the pilots were to blame.
The Lords inquiry was charged with examining whether the verdict of gross negligence against the pilots of Chinook Zulu Delta 576 - in effect a verdict of manslaughter - was justified when the RAF's own rules at the time stated that only in cases where there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" could deceased aircrew be blamed. Since the loss of ZD576, evidence has emerged that the fleet was experiencing technical problems which, campaigners argue, could have contributed to the crash.
The committee finished hearing evidence last month and is due to produce its findings by January 31 .
But in a move described by one critic as the "RAF establishment getting its retaliation in first", peers have received an invitation to a meeting today at which retired Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten will explain why he and the then Air Vice Marshal Sir John Day found the pilots guilty of gross negligence.
Details of the meeting, organised by Lord Craig, a former Chief of Defence Staff and Marshal of the RAF, were obtained by the Guardian and Computer Weekly, which has played a key role in uncovering evidence of technical failures in the Chinook fleet.
The invitation is accompanied by a letter containing criticism of the Lords committee and its handling of the inquiry from Sir Michael Graydon and Sir Richard Johns, the chiefs of air staff at the time of the crash.
The letter from Sir Michael and Sir Richard opens: "For those unfamiliar with aviation matters and flying in particular, it is not easy to understand... the complexities which are raised in an aircraft accident investigation. Equally, what is clear to a pilot through his/her own experience may be far from obvious to those who have no flying experience."
It continues: "The select committee has spent much of its time examining possible technical failings... These technical hypotheses, as our letter makes clear, are irrelevant."
Lord Chalfont, chairman of the all-party Mull of Kintyre group which led the campaign for a Lords inquiry, said: "This seems to be suggesting that the only people who can handle this thing are senior RAF officers and everybody else should just stay out of it.
"A lot of peers have said to me that this raises a dangerous constitutional point because they seem to be setting themselves up as being above parliament."
The letter is also being taken as criticism of the Commons public accounts committee, which produced a damning report in November last year accusing the the MoD of "unwarrantable arrogance" over the Chinook crash.
David Davis, then chairman of the PAC and now Tory party chairman, described today's meeting as "inappropriate".
The MoD said that it had nothing to do with the meeting.
RAF chiefs woo lords in Chinook challenge
Retired officers fight to keep blame on dead aircrew
Stuart Millar
Wednesday November 28, 2001
The Guardian
Some of the RAF's senior former officers have been accused of challenging the authority of parliament by trying to pre-empt the findings of an inquiry into the air force's worst peacetime disaster.
Two months before a special select committee of the House of Lords is due to deliver its findings on the crash of a Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 with the loss of all 29 on board, the group of retired top brass will tonight begin a campaign to sidestep the committee and win over peers to the official RAF version of events that the pilots were to blame.
The Lords inquiry was charged with examining whether the verdict of gross negligence against the pilots of Chinook Zulu Delta 576 - in effect a verdict of manslaughter - was justified when the RAF's own rules at the time stated that only in cases where there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" could deceased aircrew be blamed. Since the loss of ZD576, evidence has emerged that the fleet was experiencing technical problems which, campaigners argue, could have contributed to the crash.
The committee finished hearing evidence last month and is due to produce its findings by January 31 .
But in a move described by one critic as the "RAF establishment getting its retaliation in first", peers have received an invitation to a meeting today at which retired Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten will explain why he and the then Air Vice Marshal Sir John Day found the pilots guilty of gross negligence.
Details of the meeting, organised by Lord Craig, a former Chief of Defence Staff and Marshal of the RAF, were obtained by the Guardian and Computer Weekly, which has played a key role in uncovering evidence of technical failures in the Chinook fleet.
The invitation is accompanied by a letter containing criticism of the Lords committee and its handling of the inquiry from Sir Michael Graydon and Sir Richard Johns, the chiefs of air staff at the time of the crash.
The letter from Sir Michael and Sir Richard opens: "For those unfamiliar with aviation matters and flying in particular, it is not easy to understand... the complexities which are raised in an aircraft accident investigation. Equally, what is clear to a pilot through his/her own experience may be far from obvious to those who have no flying experience."
It continues: "The select committee has spent much of its time examining possible technical failings... These technical hypotheses, as our letter makes clear, are irrelevant."
Lord Chalfont, chairman of the all-party Mull of Kintyre group which led the campaign for a Lords inquiry, said: "This seems to be suggesting that the only people who can handle this thing are senior RAF officers and everybody else should just stay out of it.
"A lot of peers have said to me that this raises a dangerous constitutional point because they seem to be setting themselves up as being above parliament."
The letter is also being taken as criticism of the Commons public accounts committee, which produced a damning report in November last year accusing the the MoD of "unwarrantable arrogance" over the Chinook crash.
David Davis, then chairman of the PAC and now Tory party chairman, described today's meeting as "inappropriate".
The MoD said that it had nothing to do with the meeting.