Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
canberra
There's plenty of codes in the 77** series
7701-7717 Superdomestic - UK to USA
7720-7727 ORCAM Transit Munich
7730-7757 Superdomestic Shannon Eastbound landing UK
7760-7775 Superdomestic UK to Channel Isles
7776-7777 SSR Monitors
plus pilots are not unknown to get digits mixed up or wrong either ... do it myself when I'm flying as well sometimes.
The conspicuity code of 7000 is only one digit away from that other one.
There's plenty of codes in the 77** series
7701-7717 Superdomestic - UK to USA
7720-7727 ORCAM Transit Munich
7730-7757 Superdomestic Shannon Eastbound landing UK
7760-7775 Superdomestic UK to Channel Isles
7776-7777 SSR Monitors
plus pilots are not unknown to get digits mixed up or wrong either ... do it myself when I'm flying as well sometimes.
The conspicuity code of 7000 is only one digit away from that other one.
The constitutional point is that almost everything in the forces answers to the MoD, through that to the defence sec, through him to Cabinet, through that to the PM, through him (in irrelevant theory) to the Queen. The only parliamentary oversight is that both the defence secretary and the PM are (like all ministers) responsible to parliament. But - it's obviously tough to shift a whole defence secretary, as long as the PM backs him and they have a majority. (Especially as in this case he can always plead that it didn't happen on his watch)
So - what? The only way is to keep making a fuss until the parliamentary and media pressure overrides the bureaucrats' advice to ministers to shut up. Once the conflict with the press and the MPs gets bigger than that with the 'crats, something's gotta give. Good luck!
So - what? The only way is to keep making a fuss until the parliamentary and media pressure overrides the bureaucrats' advice to ministers to shut up. Once the conflict with the press and the MPs gets bigger than that with the 'crats, something's gotta give. Good luck!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
PPrune Radar,
7000 isn't a squawk normally used by UK military aircraft. Although it is some time since I retired from the rotary service in question, I recall that 4321 or 4322 would have been more appropriate for such a flight.
Something else that has not been paid too much attention to is the co-pilot's intercom box being found selected to the "Emergency" position in the wreckage.
But all this speculation is really irrelevant. We all know that the verdict shouldn't have been brought and the HOL and Scottish inquiries support that view.
This will probably not be resolved by MOD until a certain VSO retires, in order not to upset the status quo applecart within.
7000 isn't a squawk normally used by UK military aircraft. Although it is some time since I retired from the rotary service in question, I recall that 4321 or 4322 would have been more appropriate for such a flight.
Something else that has not been paid too much attention to is the co-pilot's intercom box being found selected to the "Emergency" position in the wreckage.
But all this speculation is really irrelevant. We all know that the verdict shouldn't have been brought and the HOL and Scottish inquiries support that view.
This will probably not be resolved by MOD until a certain VSO retires, in order not to upset the status quo applecart within.
ShyTorque,
7000 is the routine squawk for Mil Rotary operating at low level without a radar service, as the aircraft was, so routine that that is what I would expect them to have had on in that situation.
7000 is the routine squawk for Mil Rotary operating at low level without a radar service, as the aircraft was, so routine that that is what I would expect them to have had on in that situation.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the recent server upgrade to the campaign's website (www.chinook-justice.org), the number of hits on the site and names added to the petition has gone up - thanks to everyone.
Sadly, one individual has been abusing the new automated system for signing the petition by adding fake names. Accordingly, I have had to start moderating signatures again - you can still sign the petition online, but it won't appear until we have approved it. It just means a bit more inconvenience for me, but it won't affect the campaign, so no harm done. A number of names added to the petition in the last 10 days have been removed. If you have signed the petition please check the page and email [email protected] if we have removed your name in error.
To the idiot who thinks it's clever to put things like "Mr A Tosser" into the petition - well done mate, you've achieved nothing, but I'm sure the widows, children & families of the 29 people killed in the crash are impressed all the same.
Sadly, one individual has been abusing the new automated system for signing the petition by adding fake names. Accordingly, I have had to start moderating signatures again - you can still sign the petition online, but it won't appear until we have approved it. It just means a bit more inconvenience for me, but it won't affect the campaign, so no harm done. A number of names added to the petition in the last 10 days have been removed. If you have signed the petition please check the page and email [email protected] if we have removed your name in error.
To the idiot who thinks it's clever to put things like "Mr A Tosser" into the petition - well done mate, you've achieved nothing, but I'm sure the widows, children & families of the 29 people killed in the crash are impressed all the same.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Do please rest assured................
that should Brian, Chocks or A.N.Other bring a name to me who is guilty of the kind of behaviour Chocks has indicated above, I will GUARANTEE a ban without question, fear or favour. This will also include a ban on the individual's ISP's.
It is an incredibly stupid and juvenile thing to do. Especially to such a serious thread as this. It beggars belief!
PPRuNe Pop
Administrator
[email protected]
It is an incredibly stupid and juvenile thing to do. Especially to such a serious thread as this. It beggars belief!
PPRuNe Pop
Administrator
[email protected]
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
PlasticCabDriver,
Thanks, I'll have to bow to your recent knowledge of the squawk code. It used to be 4321 for not requiring a radar service and 4322 when climbing out of the LFA and requesting one. The 7000 has obviously now been accepted in accordance with civvy ops.
Thanks, I'll have to bow to your recent knowledge of the squawk code. It used to be 4321 for not requiring a radar service and 4322 when climbing out of the LFA and requesting one. The 7000 has obviously now been accepted in accordance with civvy ops.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian/Chocks
Letter sent.
Brian
I am probably one of the few on this forum who knows you personally and I cannot thank you enough for getting this travesty the coverage it deserves. Many have said that this is picking over old sores. Many who were directly involved have said this out of a desire to try and put this whole travesty behind them. How can a new type come into service when personnel think ”If this can happen then what of our widows ?”.
One day I'll grow up and use my real name on this forum.
Susan
Edited to save to confusion!
Letter sent.
Brian
I am probably one of the few on this forum who knows you personally and I cannot thank you enough for getting this travesty the coverage it deserves. Many have said that this is picking over old sores. Many who were directly involved have said this out of a desire to try and put this whole travesty behind them. How can a new type come into service when personnel think ”If this can happen then what of our widows ?”.
One day I'll grow up and use my real name on this forum.
Susan
Edited to save to confusion!
Last edited by Oh I See; 18th Jun 2002 at 07:23.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Email received.
Letter to MP sent today!
Letter to MP sent today!
Oh I See
Given the fact that computers control everything nowadays, many of the autonomously, this disgraceful saga has implications that go far beyond the world of (military) aviation.
BTW.....whoever submitted false names to the petition should be named and shamed.
Given the fact that computers control everything nowadays, many of the autonomously, this disgraceful saga has implications that go far beyond the world of (military) aviation.
BTW.....whoever submitted false names to the petition should be named and shamed.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've had a staggering response to last weekend's mailshot - by my count around 40 MP's should have received letters, emails or faxes asking them to support the Early Day Motion in the last few days.
To answer a couple of questions which came up repeatedly:
1. There is no need to send the MP a copy of the EDM as they have access to the full text.
2. The list of MP's who have signed the EDM can be found on http://edm.ais.co.uk/ and searching for EDM no 829
The campaign website will be updated this weekend to reflect the push on the EDM, incorporating a couple of suggestions made via email.
If anyone who didn't receive the mailshot wishes to contact their MP, Brian Dixon posted a suggested text on page 11 in this thread, or email [email protected] and I will send you the details.
On behalf of Brian, myself and the rest of the campaign team, thank you for supporting this initiative.
To answer a couple of questions which came up repeatedly:
1. There is no need to send the MP a copy of the EDM as they have access to the full text.
2. The list of MP's who have signed the EDM can be found on http://edm.ais.co.uk/ and searching for EDM no 829
The campaign website will be updated this weekend to reflect the push on the EDM, incorporating a couple of suggestions made via email.
If anyone who didn't receive the mailshot wishes to contact their MP, Brian Dixon posted a suggested text on page 11 in this thread, or email [email protected] and I will send you the details.
On behalf of Brian, myself and the rest of the campaign team, thank you for supporting this initiative.
Last edited by Chocks Wahay; 18th Jun 2002 at 12:27.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done Chocks, excellent stuff on the EDM. Hopefully it will start climbing up in numbers.
Now get a friendly MP to table an amendment to the EDM (which adds to it), castigating the Government for taking so long to consider the Report, calls for the personal intervention of the Prime Minister, and warns the Government against slipping out a negative verdict on the quiet last sitting Friday before the summer recess.
Not that I am trying to add to your work load or anything!
Now get a friendly MP to table an amendment to the EDM (which adds to it), castigating the Government for taking so long to consider the Report, calls for the personal intervention of the Prime Minister, and warns the Government against slipping out a negative verdict on the quiet last sitting Friday before the summer recess.
Not that I am trying to add to your work load or anything!
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
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,
I know I've said it a thousand times, but Thank you for your continued support. The response from the e-mail has been fantastic.
PPRuNe Pop - Thank you for your support. Hopefully the idiot has now gone back to their village!
Oh I See - Hope you are well. Please promise me that you'll never grow up. I've heard that it's not all it's cracked up to be!!
Chocks - What can I say? Thanks. (There I go again!).
Hopefully the Government will announce something soon, although I fear that they will play the 'big boy in the playground' card so as to let us mortals know who is in charge. The MoD will always back their top people too!
Too bad. The awkward questions will start and constitutional questions will be asked. More people will speak out at this injustice and we will not go away.
I hope the PM has the 'moral courage' to finally do something positive, although I won't be holding my breath.
Please keep up the pressure.
My very best wishes, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I know I've said it a thousand times, but Thank you for your continued support. The response from the e-mail has been fantastic.
PPRuNe Pop - Thank you for your support. Hopefully the idiot has now gone back to their village!
Oh I See - Hope you are well. Please promise me that you'll never grow up. I've heard that it's not all it's cracked up to be!!
Chocks - What can I say? Thanks. (There I go again!).
Hopefully the Government will announce something soon, although I fear that they will play the 'big boy in the playground' card so as to let us mortals know who is in charge. The MoD will always back their top people too!
Too bad. The awkward questions will start and constitutional questions will be asked. More people will speak out at this injustice and we will not go away.
I hope the PM has the 'moral courage' to finally do something positive, although I won't be holding my breath.
Please keep up the pressure.
My very best wishes, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Last edited by Brian Dixon; 19th Jun 2002 at 17:15.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the latest from Alan "That's Lord to You, Boy" Chalfont:
SCOTSMAN
Lords threat to RAF
THE House of Lords may today invoke an obscure order that could ground the RAF in a bid to force Tony Blair to act on a report into the Chinook helicopter disaster. They could withhold approval of a routine armed forces order in response to the Prime Minister's refusal to act on a House of Lords committee report which said the negligence verdict against the Chinook helicopter crash pilots was "unjustifiable".
Lord Chalfont, head of the Parliamentary campaign to clear the pilots, yesterday tabled an amendment to the Armed Forces Discipline Act (Continuation) Order - normally nodded through by the Lords - which, if taken to a vote, could ground the RAF.
SCOTSMAN
Lords threat to RAF
THE House of Lords may today invoke an obscure order that could ground the RAF in a bid to force Tony Blair to act on a report into the Chinook helicopter disaster. They could withhold approval of a routine armed forces order in response to the Prime Minister's refusal to act on a House of Lords committee report which said the negligence verdict against the Chinook helicopter crash pilots was "unjustifiable".
Lord Chalfont, head of the Parliamentary campaign to clear the pilots, yesterday tabled an amendment to the Armed Forces Discipline Act (Continuation) Order - normally nodded through by the Lords - which, if taken to a vote, could ground the RAF.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A timely reminder to the MoD of the constitutional need for Government departments to act in accordance with the rule of law.
Perhaps this will focus their attention on this injustice.
Well done M'lud.
For information, EDM 829 currently stands at 98 signatures.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Perhaps this will focus their attention on this injustice.
Well done M'lud.
For information, EDM 829 currently stands at 98 signatures.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Last edited by Brian Dixon; 19th Jun 2002 at 17:32.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Having emailed my MP, he signed yesterday.
Thank you Mr. John Mann!
Thank you Mr. John Mann!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EDM up to 99 today with a flurry of new signatures. Good work folks.
This was also debated quite extensively in the Lords yesterday, following on from Lord Chalfont's amendment to a routine continuation order. Good work LC.
Link to the full debate:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...m#20619-23_dl0
This was also debated quite extensively in the Lords yesterday, following on from Lord Chalfont's amendment to a routine continuation order. Good work LC.
Link to the full debate:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...m#20619-23_dl0
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the link TL Thou. It's worth reading the whole thing, but there were a couple of interesting points. The debate was over the continuation of the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts, which jointly constitute a large part of the authority of the armed forces in the UK. The Acts are renewed every few years by Parliament. Lord Chalfont proposed an amendment that the Acts should not be renewed until the Govt responds to the Chinook Select Committee.
For the Govt, Lord Bach said "The committee's report is a detailed assessment of a set of complex, technical, legal and, we believe, airmanship issues". My first thought was how can there be "airmanship issues" when there are no facts to testify as to the airmanship, or lack of it?
On the subject of the simulation being carried out by Boeing, Lord Bach went on: "Boeing has also been asked to re-examine to what extent the minimum speed at the way-point can be established". It looks as if they are hoping to use the simulation as "evidence" to prove their "airmanship issues" - ie blame the pilots.
Interestingly, they made this commitment "We intend to make the evidence produced through Boeing's work, in the light of the re-modelling process, available ", albeit with the predictable caveat "although there may be some matters of commercial sensitivity which preclude publication of some elements."
On the subject of the timescale, Lord Bach said "We will report within the six months that we are allowed." However, as became apparent, the actual expiry of the 6 months is somewhat unclear (to some at least):
Lord Bach: "The Select Committee's report was published on 5th February, not 3lst January, of this year."
Lord Chalfont: "There is not much argument about it because it is printed on the report—ordered to be printed on 31st January. As far as I am concerned that is when the report was issued. However, we will not argue about five days when we have already waited this length of time for the Ministry of Defence response. "
The date of the summer recess is not yet known, but as a guide the Commons recess in 2001 was 20th July, and the Lords on 24th July. In previous years recesses have generally been in the last week of July, or early in August. That 5 days may yet prove to be important.
Lord Bach conceded in the debate that the announcement would be late in the session, and would not give time for a debate before the recess. That means that the earliest opportunity for a debate will be in October. We'll be waiting .......
For the Govt, Lord Bach said "The committee's report is a detailed assessment of a set of complex, technical, legal and, we believe, airmanship issues". My first thought was how can there be "airmanship issues" when there are no facts to testify as to the airmanship, or lack of it?
On the subject of the simulation being carried out by Boeing, Lord Bach went on: "Boeing has also been asked to re-examine to what extent the minimum speed at the way-point can be established". It looks as if they are hoping to use the simulation as "evidence" to prove their "airmanship issues" - ie blame the pilots.
Interestingly, they made this commitment "We intend to make the evidence produced through Boeing's work, in the light of the re-modelling process, available ", albeit with the predictable caveat "although there may be some matters of commercial sensitivity which preclude publication of some elements."
On the subject of the timescale, Lord Bach said "We will report within the six months that we are allowed." However, as became apparent, the actual expiry of the 6 months is somewhat unclear (to some at least):
Lord Bach: "The Select Committee's report was published on 5th February, not 3lst January, of this year."
Lord Chalfont: "There is not much argument about it because it is printed on the report—ordered to be printed on 31st January. As far as I am concerned that is when the report was issued. However, we will not argue about five days when we have already waited this length of time for the Ministry of Defence response. "
The date of the summer recess is not yet known, but as a guide the Commons recess in 2001 was 20th July, and the Lords on 24th July. In previous years recesses have generally been in the last week of July, or early in August. That 5 days may yet prove to be important.
Lord Bach conceded in the debate that the announcement would be late in the session, and would not give time for a debate before the recess. That means that the earliest opportunity for a debate will be in October. We'll be waiting .......